Unusual Salt-Water Reaction?

  • Thread starter Aschere
  • Start date

russ_watters

Mentor
18,747
4,948
Sure, I'd very much enjoy setting up a lab to test crackpots' claims. I will, however, require a $10,000 retainer and $150/hr.
 
782
1
Sure, I'd very much enjoy setting up a lab to test crackpots' claims. I will, however, require a $10,000 retainer and $150/hr.
hey--that sounds good (and cheap)


If fact, I just sent your requirements off to Exxon to see if they'd go for it!!!:wink:
 
Yep, no such thing as free energy. He may have gotten interesting results suggesting something that we don't fully understand [or maybe not] but a careful accounting of the energy input will certainly show a net loss. I suspect that if the basic story is true, the effect is what interests engineers and not the idea of free energy.
When I saw this I was extremely critical so with the back ground of my life I was able to duplicate the procedure only I added a few things.
I did have to work on the frequency a bit to make the gas from salt water.
The one thing I noticed was his small tube of water,the idea behind any energy production is to get the most out of your process as possible.
I made a flat glass container the size of my frequency emitter and found that the depth all so played an important part.I had to change the depth four times before I reached a great gas emitting thresh hold.
To my surprise I developed much more energy than I put in.
I am now going to put every ounce of my time in to this for it will surely change our energy needs.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
173
When I saw this I was extremely critical so with the back ground of my life I was able to duplicate the procedure only I added a few things.
I did have to work on the frequency a bit to make the gas from salt water.
The one thing I noticed was his small tube of water,the idea behind any energy production is to get the most out of your process as possible.
I made a flat glass container the size of my frequency emitter and found that the depth all so played an important part.I had to change the depth four times before I reached a great gas emitting thresh hold.
To my surprise I developed much more energy than I put in.
I am now going to put every ounce of my time in to this for it will surely change our energy needs.
What is your background? How are you measuring the energy input and output?
 
I am 49 years old and for 29 years I have been an electrician,machinist and make my own solar panels that heat homes,garrages or what ever you want to heat when the sun is out.A freind of mine who is an engineer for a local buisness that developes frequency
generators for the military and buisnesess through out our country helped me with the
generator for my project.Of course after I told him why,he was all for helping me and wanted it for his home to if it worked.As for the input he had all the gauges to monitor the power going in.
The output reading was a lot more difficult.I had to buy a small piston steam engine and make the parts on my lathe so I could run a small generator.With the help of some freinds that work at a machine shop I was able to get all of my components rather fast.
They did say I owe them big if this all works.
I was easily able to monitor the power output from my generator.
I am not sure how this works with the idea that he probably ownes the patient but I do know when I am done I will have free electricity for my home.
I can see homes all over this country self suficient with this new energy.
 
607
0
What were your numbers? Any pictures of the setup?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
173
I am 49 years old and for 29 years I have been an electrician,machinist and make my own solar panels that heat homes,garrages or what ever you want to heat when the sun is out.A freind of mine who is an engineer for a local buisness that developes frequency
generators for the military and buisnesess through out our country helped me with the
generator for my project.Of course after I told him why,he was all for helping me and wanted it for his home to if it worked.As for the input he had all the gauges to monitor the power going in.
The output reading was a lot more difficult.I had to buy a small piston steam engine and make the parts on my lathe so I could run a small generator.With the help of some freinds that work at a machine shop I was able to get all of my components rather fast.
They did say I owe them big if this all works.
I was easily able to monitor the power output from my generator.
I am not sure how this works with the idea that he probably ownes the patient but I do know when I am done I will have free electricity for my home.
I can see homes all over this country self suficient with this new energy.
I suggest that you hook up the power output to the power input, and I'm sure that any idea of free power will go up in smoke.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
173
No matter how quickly you switch from line to generated power, the system will lose power until the reaction stops.

I know these things; I'm psychic. :biggrin:
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,747
4,948
To my surprise I developed much more energy than I put in.
Just to make sure we're clear here, it doesn't just need to put out "much more energy than I put in", it needs to put out at least five times as much energy as you put in to actually break even. With some very generous assumptions:

Microwave generator efficiency: 65%
Microwave capture: 100% (doubtful, but I'd need to see the setup...)
Microwave electrolysis efficiency: 100% (I have no idea, but regular electrolysis is nowhere near 100% efficient)
Hydrogen boiler efficiency: 90%
Steam engine efficiency: 35%
Electric generator efficiency: 90%

Overall efficiency: .65*.90*.35*.9= 18%

So in order to break even, you'll need to be able to produce at least five times as much hydrogen as is theoretically possible.

Your posts seem rather flip and non-descriptive to me and that makes me very skeptical. As suggested, it would be a simple matter to post a picture of your setup or spend a few more minutes to describe what you have done.

Extrordinary claims...
 
Last edited:
4
0
Interesting.

The sea didn't catch fire!)

Garth
Right, but the frequency must be 13.56MHz. wich is, probably, some resonance frequency wich "builts" the salt-water desintegration.
 
1,040
3
If you follow the stories about this burning seawater (or the cancer cure variant) demo, note the reporter's name.
 
Still no one has debunked this in the laboratory??
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,747
4,948
Yeah, the guy who originally did the experiment debunked it himself. :rolleyes:
 
1,040
3
Dr. Roy, the materials scientist from Penn State, has stated that, despite appearances, the water is not burning. Philip Ball of Nature puts it a little more plainly, "Water is not a fuel."

You can always check the tailpipe of your car and note that water comes out as a product of burning. Or visit any power plant and note the clouds (water vapor) formed by burning.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,553
1,677
Dr. Roy, the materials scientist from Penn State, has stated that, despite appearances, the water is not burning. Philip Ball of Nature puts it a little more plainly, "Water is not a fuel."

You can always check the tailpipe of your car and note that water comes out as a product of burning. Or visit any power plant and note the clouds (water vapor) formed by burning.
Or in many cases, evaporative cooling from cooling towers.
 
1,040
3
Or in many cases, evaporative cooling from cooling towers.
Yes, you do see clouds over the coolers, but I was referring to the flue gases.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,553
1,677
Yes, you do see clouds over the coolers, but I was referring to the flue gases.
You and I know that, and most PFers would understand, but I was thinking of the public at large. It's not just any power plant, but one's the burn fossil fuel. Some nuclear plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot of water vapor. Some fossil plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot more water vapor than the flue gas. Some local power plants put out brown flue gas, and I've seen brown clouds drifting east from horizon to horizon.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,747
4,948
It all depends on the plant. Coal plants produce very little water vapor - gas turbine plants produce twice as much water as carbon dioxide.
 
1,040
3
You and I know that, and most PFers would understand, but I was thinking of the public at large. It's not just any power plant, but one's the burn fossil fuel. Some nuclear plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot of water vapor. Some fossil plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot more water vapor than the flue gas. Some local power plants put out brown flue gas, and I've seen brown clouds drifting east from horizon to horizon.
Good point. I wasn't even thinking of nuclear. Duh!
 
1,040
3
It all depends on the plant. Coal plants produce very little water vapor - gas turbine plants produce twice as much water as carbon dioxide.
Quite so. Most of the water vapor in coal fired flue gas is due to secondary water injection.
 
1
0
Nmr?

I'm new to the "saltwater" discussion. 'Tis a puzzlement. Can't disagree with the generalities submitted so far, but a couplke of thoughts to stir the pot:
1. If the supposed new process is a method of extracting fuel rather than conversion of energy, then the process could conceptually have excess output.
2, The reported use (without numerical data or details) of a specific frequency brings to mind the setup for nuclear magnetic resonance NMR (used in MRI). I recall that HF range was used.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
173
If the supposed new process is a method of extracting fuel rather than conversion of energy, then the process could conceptually have excess output.
That supposes that there is some mystery chemical in water that we don't know about. There is hydrogen and oxygen, and the energy required to release the hydrogen is well known: The energy that we get from burning hydrogen is the same amount of energy that it takes to get the hydrogen out because they are inverse chemical reactions.

It doesn't matter if we release the hydrogen through electrolysis, or through excitation due to microwaves, the energy requirement to break the molecular bonds is the same.

I would imagine that we know more about the water molecule than we do any other molecule, less H2.
 
Last edited:
137
0
i agree with ivan seeking.
 
23
0
Unless he publishes more details all is speculation. Just because someone can make hydrogen and ignites it doesn't a scientific wonder happen. Perhaps he should take chemistry class if he thinks that's amazing. I would however be interested in what vibrates at what e/m frequency, including radio waves.
 
23
0
LOL I found out if you put metal in a microwave it can start a fire. Can someone interview me?
 

Related Threads for: Unusual Salt-Water Reaction?

  • Posted
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
26K
  • Posted
Replies
20
Views
13K
  • Posted
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
73
Views
11K
  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
13
Views
21K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top