Salt Water as Fuel

Thanks for sending this one thru. I have heard of recent reports of burning water (perhaps they were relating to this development).

Anyway, the overall effect is interesting but as a potential source of energy it falls flat on its face due to the enormous amounts of electrical energy required to produce the radio waves compared to the minimal amount of heat energy or hydrogen produced. As for other uses, well I am sure people could come up with them.

It is certainly more impressive than an electrolyser thou.

Woe, deja vu. Haven't I already covered this previously. Damn, I had it. something about a guest responding to my post by saying that the invention could have other uses and that as an engineer (or perhaps scientist) I should have a more open mind. Yes it was something like that I think.

I agree, however, nanotechnology and RF produced by light spectrums and safer, more recyclable freiendly nuclear is changing that fast. gls

"...as a potential source of energy it falls flat on its face due to the enormous amounts of electrical energy required to produce the radio waves compared to the minimal amount of heat energy or hydrogen produced..."

In a nutshell, that's just about it.

The calculus must include total invested amount, versus the total extracted amount, pick your preferred currency, (Joule, Watt, Calorie, Erg, Whatever), set it all under a common denominator, and that's all there is to it.

Just about.

Can anyone show any numbers on this? And answer it?

I figured Rustum Roy would have something put on paper?

Seems that this process produces a 1500 ce temp. If confined to a combustion chamber with an appropriate crank and an 11 wined motor to generate a sustained 12 amps. What's so flat?

11 wined motor

What did you mean here?

What's so flat?

The energy input (to split the water into hydrogen) is far greater than the energy output from a generator driven by an internal combustion engine. In practice, you'd expect perhaps 50% efficiency in generating the hydrogen, 30% in an engine, and 90% in an efficient alternator. Thus, for each unit of energy put into creating the hydrogen, you'd get .5 x .3 x .9 out: 13.5% You'd be wasting 86.5% percent of the energy you originally had.

Oooh, look. Isn't it sweet - there's a little rinky-dinky Stirling Engine in shot!

Hey, don't knock the stirling engine. That to show us all how we can harness the magic fire for use! Ugg make fire, fire pretty. OUCH FIRE HOT, Ugg not like.

Stirling Engines are for celebration, not knocking. It's just that they aren't too common and many people have never seen one. One day, when the research and development budget (OK, sorry, the pocket money) can stand it, there will be a working model on this desk assembled from a kit (with warm thanks to Stirling Stan for recent guidance off-line) for further study.

The whole point of showing us the Sterling engine example was to prove to the general public that burning Hydrogen could be used to produce useful work (ohhhh, it moves). Ugg have nothing against Sterling engine, Ugg just feel insulted by unnecessary display of basic chemistry and the fact that a person must have been living in a hole if they don't already know that hydrogen can equal fuel to make car go vroom, vroom (I would also think that more people have heard of hydrogen powered cars (thru the media) than the Sterling engine and its principles).

Ugg seen it all before, even presentation look like scam rather than scientific or engineering development presentation.

Ugg have no comment about curing Cancer with radio waves. Whole thing looks very fishy.

idiot. resonance is a totally different type of physics theory. its edison vs tesla. ugg read more talk less.

Lets stick to the facts then. After reviewing the technology, the experiment and the person behind it I was not able to find any facts, information or even second-source verification that indicated that this was anything more than a case of bad lab work, faulty science (and easily dis-proven) or downright scam (really a combination of all of the above). There is no cheap source of free energy here unfortunately. We real scientists and engineers are working on it still, we will let you know when we have something.

Of course if you had read more of my (and others) previous posts in this and other threads you would have got that message.

Hi guest,

Idiot is your name or degree? I see you keep using it.

Please login and let's talk about that "different type of Physics" you say is resonance.

You made me very curious.

Regards

idiot

John Kansas (sp) a retired broadcast engineer is looking for way to cure cancer using radio waves. Duuh! Radio waves differ from x-rays by frequency and wave length. The whole thing doesn't pass the 'smell' test!

Using salt water for electrolysis to produce gas to burn is reminiscent of Brown's gas propaganda. Here again it takes more energy for the electrolysis than you can get back from the flame, let alone the additional losses of running a Stirling engine to run a generator to electolize more salt or any other kind of water.

It looks like John is seeking publicity more that finding a cure for cancer with radio waves.

Surely there must be a news article somwhere in print with more details. In the meantime don't invest time and money in the scheme. SS

I thought that cancer had allready been cured by electromagnetic radiation in the 1920's by a man called Royal Rife, inventor of the universal microscope, capable of magnification up to 68,000 times. I also read that he was assasinated by the drugs companies for refusing to sell patents and after corolating the specific resonant frequencies by which various bacterias and pathogens exploded while being viewed by his microscope and exposed to EMR.

Yes, the vast conspiracies are out there to make life miserable for little folks and line the pockets of either the mega international corporations or the socialist/communist elite, whichever the case may be!

Little guys keep coming up with perpetual motion inventions that defy the maxims of thermodynamics and give us free energy, only be squashed by vast conspiracies.

The one I love the best is the car with a motor powering the rear wheels and a generator on the front wheels. The generator on the front makes the power that runs the motor powering the rear wheels in steady state. The story goes that Exxon-Mobil squashed the invention and did in the inventor because it would ruin the petroleum industry if big cars getting more than 100 miles per gallon are allowed using this "easy to implement" invention.

Ya thats true...I wonder if john kansas is using similar freqs in his experiment? Also could Dr.Rife's machine cure HIV/AIDS the same way it does cancer? I would like to know what freq he is infact using . Is there a web site that has this info?

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=68227

Read about Raymond Rife and the technology that he developed before being a skeptic. Optimisim is what makes the world go around. Thanks for your contribution.

I have read about this lately-the said efficiency was 76%

A car is only around 20%, maybe 30% efficient.

Possibly a new means to use electricity, store the hydrogen, then run it in your vehicle.

Seems there would be alot more room for the "green in the 56-46% efficiency that is over an auto to process, store, and transport the hydrogen.

Someone told me that GM is now developing vehicles that will run on full hydrogen.

Seems to be the fuel of the future.

The hydrogen economy is more Tooth Fairy thinking from political science majors. Here is the comparison between a hydrogen economy and an electrical economy, and you tell me which way we should go:

* Start with 100 KWH of renewable electrical power from solar cells or wind turbines or whatever.

* First Alternative: Make hydrogen via electrolysis of water, compress it or liquify it, transport it and use it in a 50% efficient fuel cell in an automobile.

Result with hydrogen as an energy carrier => 23 KHW to the wheels at best

* Second Alternative: The electron economy, do not make hydrogen. Transmit the electricity using utility grids and charge batteries.

Result without hydrogen => 69 KWH energy to the wheels

Hmmm. Let's see, that is 3 times as much energy available to power an automobile using the electron economy and forgetting about the hydrogen economy. Obviously, this means that the cost of running electric automobiles are substantially lower. Which approach would you choose?

The next question you will ask is how can this be true with all the political hype about hydrogen? Well, the key is the word "political." There are very few engineers and scientists employed to do sanity checks, which is why we have the government subsidizing methods for making electricity that cost more than $0.50 per KWH when the normal stuff off of the grid can be had for less than $0.15.

There are several proven technologies to generate power economically with minimal CO2 and little pollution, but apparently they are not sexy enough for our self-styled political "BRANIACS" in Washington, D.C. and the clueless in Hollywood.

Right on!!!!

You have some good points about the advantages of an electrical vehicle vs hydrogen. However there is the rest of the story you failed to mention. One major stumbling block in the electrical vehicle technology is the batterytechnology lags far behind the rest of the system. For many, many years we have been restling with the technology and efforts for easy, clean disposable batteries. It's going backwards to make more heavy duty batteries in massive quantities, which eventually have to be disposed or rejuvenated, creates additional 'green' problems. GM had an all electric prototype corvett that would go 0-200 mph in record time over 20 years ago. The chemical battery issue is a large technical problem, and is of principal concern when using consistant heavy dc loads. The hydrogen vehicle concept doesnt have these problems of heavy load requirements from the batteres, and therefore the batteries can be more friendly, smaller, and last longer before failure (more green). The water and seperation techniques can be safely enabled on board the vehicle, require very little "power" to get the hydrogen 'bubbles' from the solutions of water or alternatives such as hydroxy , and safely delivered to the intake ports of the engine. So, I think the future of 'mobile' energy will come from hydrogen in a big way. Whether the hydrogen comes from hydroxy, water itself, or air...there is plenty of it. The real solutions I'm looking for are the efficient methods to seperate, store,deliver the hydrogen with 'low power requirements' and still be in the closed loop. On a diiferent note about the John Kansas cancer efforts, whereby he plans to inject gold into the body, then heat with radio frequency waves to destroy the weak cells....has he considered the same concept using the iron that is naturally exisiting in the body in the same manner. The weak cells attract the iron in a similar way as the gold and the induced waves could target those cells without the artificial injection process...just food for thought.

Best Regards

True, but hydrogen is much easier to compress and store. How efficient is carrying around 2 tons of batteries in the car to store the electricity? Also, hydrogen keeps the current power structure in place since they will be selling hydrogen instead of gasoline - same distribution methods, same filling methods etc. If you really look at gasoline - how inefficient is it to transport all that gasoline around to stations burning gasoline or diesel in the trucks that transport it. Yet, it's the only portable energy available... The only problem with hydrogen is bad press... one word... Hindenberg!

The efficiency I saw mentioned was 76%, and that was the efficiency of splitting the water into h2 and o2. If you simply burned the hydrogen in your car, then the 20 - 30% efficiency would be further reduced by the inefficiency of splitting the water. (.76 * .25 = .19). If you consider that electricity is produced with 38% efficiency, then by this route, the coal to wheels efficiency would be 7%. Not too appealing.

Better to take the electricity and put it directly into an electric vehicle, where you would at least avoid the ICE inefficiencies.

If the efficiency is really 76%, that is pretty good for splitting water, on a par with current commercial processes.

The efficiency rating of 20-30% you mentioned is the efficiency attained in combusting gasoline. The efficiency rating for combusting hydrogen would be much much higher, near 100%.

Dear all,

I was ignorant about the existance of this technology. I am glad to know about it now. After viewing the video, I identify the principle as a way to do electrolysis of water by means of a RF power input. This technology is an alternative to traditional electrolysis.

Everyone who has ever done electrolysis knows that water as such is not a fuel. Hydrogen on the contrary is. The question then becomes : How much electrical energy does it take to make 1 normal cubic meter at 25°C of Hydrogen. Industrial equipment to produce this quantity of hydrogen by electrolysis today does this at the cost of 4,3 kWh.

Is John Kanzius' method more effective? I don't have data about this. Can anyone find out for the forum participants?

About 90% of world's hydrogen production is made with waste heat and not by electrolysis. It is all a matter of cost. Waste heat often comes for free as a byproduct of another process.

For the moment I would say there is nothing spectacular about it. Starting with electricity to make something run on electricity goes with best efficiencies through a conducting wire (directly) or indirectly by charging supercaps and modern batteries and using good electronics.

Please find John Kanzius' efficiency data, then we will talk further.

I furthermore wish John Kanzius a lot of success with his cancer treatments. I think that is where is his great value for mankind.

Best regards,

Randolph Toom

www.heat2power.net

This topic seems to be very interesting...Can someone briefly explain on this topic in chemical point of view.......

Chemically, what appears to happen is this:

The radio waves break down the electrolyte (salt water) into H2 and O2. These burn, recombining to form water vapor. A trace amount sodium from the salt colors the flame, making it yellower then it would be with hydrogen and oxygen alone.

The inventor (?) has claimed at various times, that

1. this is something other than electrolysis

2. this is electrolysis at about 76% efficiency

3. this is electrolysis at "over unity" efficiency

4. that someone had to tell him that it might be hydrogen that is burning.

The single fact that he claims "over unity" (a term only used by perpetual motion machine promoters) makes me very very skeptical.

If the idea is to create heat, then it would be much more efficient to simply take the electricity feeding the radio wave generator and send it to a hair dryer.

You will get more heat and energy by using the electricity directly in an electrical heating element than by powering an RF generator to make hydrogen and then combusting the hydrogen.

The RF is breaking down the salt water into hydrogen and oxygen, which then recombine to produce a flame and heat. No matter how it is done, the same amount of energy is required to break the bonds between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms.

Electricity powers the RF generator that is used to decompose the salt water, and the RF generator is 70% efficient at best in creating the RF energy and getting it to where it is needed. High effieciency standard electrolysis methods are about 75% efficient.

There is no free lunch and hydrogen cannot overcome the Laws of Thermodynamics in chemical processes. The exception is using hydrogen as fuel for a nuclear fusion power plant. Nuclear power overcomes the laws of thermodynamics due to the transformation of matter.

In summary, use the electricity directly to make heat, and you will get much more heat than if you make hydrogen and then burn it.

Perhaps I'm just an optimist, but I hope that Mr. Kansas really is publicizing this find in order to get money to fund his cancer research the way he says in the video, and not just to make some quick cash.

"Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. Now, I've heard that this law has been in question"

Matter is consevered when converted to something else and must be accounted for. Likewise Energy is conserved and must be accounted for. In this case you can not recover all of the USEFUL energy you put into a system as a finite percentage MUST be dumped to an Energy Sink.

Anyone including John Kanzius making any claims regarding the use of radio frequency waves as a cure for cancer is contrary to all of the whoop and hooray about the hazards of GigaHz range RF signals from cell phone causing cancer.

The con-census of all parties, it was a non issue.

All I have been able to find on the internet regarding his alleged use electrolysis of saltt water to generate hydrogen to burn to run a Stirling engine to generate power to use for the electrolysis of more salt water is a emaciated dog running downhill to oblivion. Pretty U-Tube presentation, etc. ad nauseum really tell nothing of any value to anyone not inclined to gullability.

The second law of thermodynamics say you can' realize as much output as you put it in a system, in other words you can't win, in fact you can't break even. Every such scheme is one attempting to achieve PM or Perpetual Motion.

No one to date has publicaly demonstrated a genuine PM device of an kind. Nor do I expect to see one anytime soon or later!

IMHO John Kanzius' is self deluded, wasting time and money on Go Nowhere Projects!

Hi Stirling Stan.

You're completely right. Unfortunately, incompetent or manipulative media is transforming the general public into some scientifically illiterates in this century of science and technology. Who takes advantages? The oil and gas companies. Why find alternative energy solutions when we can waste time and resources for pseudo-science? Don't you see that when presenting such a scam as the future of energy, media is biased and no true scientist is asked to comment? It's a shame. Wake up guys.

I'm really worried to see this discussion having only 17 entries and 555 viewers. It means that the danger of manipulation is extremely high. It's normal that energy is a hot subject, but please don't give any credit to that guy who consumes in his "demonstration" several kW to produce a few watts of power. You can do better with your microwave... Not to mention the key words like "cancer cure" used frequently as subliminal manipulation!

I've read the articles and seen the videos, the media is definiately making this out to be more than it is, but what it is cannot be ignored.

What it is is (English is funny) a previously unknown reaction of radio waves on salinated water. That radio waves can react to the structure and release significant amounts of hydrogen is a great find even though it is not perfectly efficient. Do we not walk around because it takes more energy to grow, transport, prepare and consume food to power our chemical/electical bodies? No.

It is science, and interesting to boot! The man who is trying to discover another treatment method for cancer found something neat that we can all appreciate and he's not bucking for a Nobel for it but if it brings more attention to his cancer treatment, good for him! The thought of YouTube contributing to cancer research is pretty cool in my book.

Thugar The Terrible

Waiting on new account registration :)

Great forum, thanks all contibutors!

All I have been able to find on the internet regarding his alleged use electrolysis of saltt water to generate hydrogen to burn to run a Stirling engine to generate power to use for the electrolysis of more salt water

Did he really indicate that? I thought it was a "Jumping on the Hydrogen power source" bandwagon (misguided), rather than a free energy discovery (delusional).

Isn't it sad, for every new development there is a new scam designed to take advantage of it. Mechanical (free work thru perpetual rotation), Electricity (free energy thru perpetual rotation), nuclear (cold fusion thru room temperature water electrolysis), Gas engine (electrolysis of water, increased fuel economy thru magnets, etc), Hi-fi audio (increased sound quality thru polarised cables, gold plated single-phase wall sockets), hydrogen economy (electrolysis of water all over again), aliens (quite a few developments supposedly).

Perhaps I should patent the following before someone else does.

- Singularity generator (Utilises quantum physics and mechanics, along with nanotechnology to create a microscopic black hole that creates massive rotational force to a rotating shaft. This creates limitless free power when connected to a car alternator) - made out of an old toaster oven, a sock (used), two paper clips, a Tesla coil, lots of fridge magnets and a special element called "gulliblinium".

It will sell. Like any successful scam it all comes down to marketing and the consumers wants, belief and ignorance overriding their judgment.

No, on second thoughts perhaps not. How would I ever live with myself.

"- Singularity generator (Utilises quantum physics and mechanics, along with nanotechnology to create a microscopic black hole that creates massive rotational force to a rotating shaft. This creates limitless free power when connected to a car alternator) - made out of an old toaster oven, a sock (used), two paper clips, a Tesla coil, lots of fridge magnets and a special element called "gulliblinium"."

Day late and a dollar short. Tom Bearden and his fellow 'energy from the vacuum' got there first.

If people can "reinvent" water electrolysis and magnet free-energy motors every year then I can reinvent zero point energy (mine uses a black hole AND a toaster oven, not a vacuum).

All I need is some good buzzwords. How about "Stri-dendent particle analysis reveals a whole new way of looking at our universe"

Perhaps the black hole is in fact in another dimension perpendicular to ours (hence you cannot scientifically measure it). Ha.

I feel dirty.

"Perhaps the black hole is in fact in another dimension perpendicular to ours (hence you cannot scientifically measure it). Ha.

I feel dirty."

Crawling around in and through black holes is a dirty business.

I love this idea...I particularly see the useful prospect of the used sock! :-) One suggestion, however, there is fairly well-known physical axiom that states that ALL free energy machines must use AT LEAST one magnet! :-)

there is fairly well-known physical axiom that states that ALL free energy machines must use AT LEAST one magnet! :-)

Excellent point! How about this: we replace the field coil in the alternator mentioned with permanent magnets. It seems to help if we discover the effect we are trying to promote by accident. So we replace the field coil with permanent magnets because we know the permanent magnets will improve fuel economy by the well-known effect that such magnets have on gasoline. But lo and behold, when we put the magnets in the alternator, we find that it turns by itself. We put it back in the car (tricky with it spinning like crazy) and find that when we tension the belt, the engine starts spinning along with the alternator. We call in the polymer scientists to help determine 1. how to keep this away from the petroleum companies, 2. how far over unity we've gone (but we sense that it is at least 20:1) and 3. to help us design a large rubber bubble to be used as our secret lab.

"...improve fuel economy by the well-known effect that such magnets have on gasoline..."

?

Was this post there to test our level of attention?...

Here in the US, home of the gullible, there have been many magnetic fuel efficiency "improvers" sold. The "theory" is that the magnetic field "polarizes" the fuel (although, given that gasoline is non-polar, one would wonder how a magnet could have any effect whatsoever). One might also wonder how this polarization would be maintained as the fuel passes through the lines and fuel injectors, and how this seemingly impossible "polarization" might improve combustion. Of course, it does not. The EPA has tested several versions, and none have any effect whatsoever on fuel efficiency. But people still buy them.

O.K, I got it now. Hey, people here in Israel buy Chinese magnetic bracelets an could to improve the blood circulation, and blood does have iron content in the hemoglobin.

I can't make my mind as to their choice: Do they buy it because it is Chinese, as these (Chinese) cannot have any form of folly in their traditional medicine, or because they (Israelis) know for fact that magnetising the iron in their blood improved anything at all,except for the income of the sellers of these gadgets.

I'm afraid being gullible is a universal trait, with many Israelites to prove it...

As a lay person of limited scientific understanding, I found this thread fascinating for its novel application of fridge magnets and a nano black hole (available in various designer non-colors I assume). However, I think you've gone well off the maglev tracks by ignoring THE SOCK.

We ALL know there is an alternate universe FULL of single socks originally belonging to a pair originating in this universe and that through electron tunneling the two socks continue to be connected on a subatomic level. One need merely dangle the sock in THIS universe within a Schroedinger box to attract its twin in the OTHER universe into a state of uncertainty. That state is obviously untenable, so I envision massive amounts of energy would be expended as the two socks wrestle over which universe is preferable.

A used clothes dryer with its window spray-painted black and pipes full of water replacing the heating elements surrounding the circular clothes basket should work well as the Schroedinger box AND as a means of capturing the resultant release of free energy to turn the water to steam.

I'm not sure what to do with the toaster. I guess you could repair the toaster, make some toast to butter and strap that buttered toast to a cat's back, but otherwise, I'm clueless.

Good luck with the magnets, but keep that sock handy.

Regards,

Enquiring Mind

It is definitely something that can be looked in and further studied and practiced so that more knowledge can be obtained.

As I said: you are definitely a victim of manipulation. If you're so convinced of what you say, try to describe the "demonstration" in terms of physics and engineering.

As a second thought, you might be John Kanzius himself.

I understand the theory of thermodynamics cannot be broken but we are missing the big potential here in a different arena. This proves that at certain radio frequencies and containment geometries certain salt/metal/water/gas/plasma combinations create unique reactions. It is possible one of those combinations can create a different kind of reaction... a fusion reaction. When that happens we've hit the jackpot!

There is nothing unique about the reactions in this RF setup.

A fusion reaction is impossible along these lines. Containment, or implosion, is required to create the high temperatures and pressures required for fusion.

RF alone can only excite electrons and ions, it does not contain them under conditions that could cause fusion.

RF as a means for making hydrogen, there are cheaper ways to get hydrogen and deuterium to use as fuel for fusion.

Edykes is perfectly right. It seems that my first add here didn't convince you.

Manipulation begins with the cancer cure story. It gives you the impression that you, the viewer, are in good hands. John Kanzius was initially studying a cure for cancer... Well, I reviewed his patent on cancer cure which has as core concept the gold nanoparticles' bond only to tumors which are then killed by RF induction. There is no such selectivity and is not true that his technique is non-invasive (as claimed) because the enhancer has to be injected! What determines if only cancer cells are targeted? Surgeon's hand and imaging techniques. It happened to me to work in this field.

If you google John Kanzius, you'll also find other articles on his energy experiment. In one of them, he declares: "it seems the process has over-unity efficiency". Later on, it is said that the discovery is so important that Kanzius refuses to give any more details...

The famous salt water exposed to RF experiment has nothing to do with electrolysis and this is the only point I agree with Kanzius. What happens there is just a split of NaCl molecules, Na ions reacting with water and resulting Hydrogen and NaOH. As you probably know, metallic sodium reacts violently with water and generates hydrogen. Further on, resulted hydrogen burns in air, the flame being colored by sodium in yellow (hydrogen flame would be otherwise invisible). Then Kanzius uses the heat to fuel a small Stirling engine. Let me tell you something: I've seen that Stirling engine (exactly that size) manufactured by college students taking a Mechanics course that works with your palm's heat! Now, can you tell me how many energy conversions are there? At least 4.

First, electrical energy conversion into RF energy. By the size of his tumor-killing machine, it takes at least 1,000W to power an RF source (taken from broadcasting) with an efficiency of about 70%. Secondly, RF is exciting ions in the salt water with an optimistic efficiency of 20% and heating it with an efficiency of 40% (like in your microwave oven). So 60% for the second conversion. Thirdly, the exothermic chemical reaction between sodium and water and the combustion of hydrogen in air that could have around 80% efficiency in generating heat. Finally, heat conversion into mechanical work through a Stirling engine having about 70-80% efficiency.

For an input of 1,000W, if you do the math with the above optimistic figures, you finally get 268W. Where is the over-unity efficiency? In reality, what Kanzius gets there is much less, under 100W. I'm not surprised he refuses to give more details...

Those two polymer engineers commenting the marvel could not say more than is a lot of heat there, Ya, maybe to boil an egg with 1KW.

I have nothing against John Kanzius and I don't know him personally. He can be a nice guy but a little bit confused in energy conversion Physics and engineering.

All I can say for sure is that some people having interests in fossil fuels are paying reporters to manipulate the public with this kind of pseudo-science. I'm not blaming Kanzius at all because he also could be a victim and may not be aware he is used.

So please guys, stay cool and look elsewhere for energy solutions.

The argument seems to be that the machine making the radio waves may use more energy than the "burning water" puts out., making the process inefficient.

The solution seems logical: use a truly renewable energy source (turbine power / wind or water maybe?) to create the power for the machine to make the radio waves.

Result: The machine creating the radio waves runs indefinitely(theoretically) , creating the radio waves needed to separate the HO from the 2O, thus the hydrogen needed.

This is a Double Post, my bad- I was not registered before,

The argument seems to be that the machine making the radio waves may use more energy than the "burning water" puts out., making the process inefficient.

The solution seems logical: use a truly renewable energy source (turbine power / wind or water maybe?) to create the power for the machine to make the radio waves.

Result: The machine creating the radio waves runs indefinitely(theoretically) , creating the radio waves needed to separate the HO from the 2O, thus the hydrogen needed.

There is no shortage of experts in this world, only of useful results.

I wish you good luck in running Kanzius' machine for ever, jhaven007.

Regards

Is this an open forum for discussion or a bunch of super "know-it-alls"?. I am not a scientist, never said i was. I was more posing a question, an IDEA(shocker!), than assuming a solution.

Thank you for the backhanded comment , Hottech. you have successfully made me waste my time with a response.

I agree with you that this forum is for open-minded people, with different backgrounds looking for knowledge, sometimes making some fun. I don't know everything either and I had no intention to offend you in any way. I apologize if you feel like that.

However, your post did not seem to me like a question but like an irrefutable solution. I made fun of your idea, not of yourself. It's a big difference.

Please accept my apology.

Even if you think it's a waste of time to reply, I have some more to say about your idea (this time seriously, no jokes) that I think is of general interest.

After admitting that Kanzius' process of generating hydrogen might not be efficient, you propose to power that machine with renewable energy. The problem is that renewable energy (better said electricity made of) is the most expensive and still inefficiently generated. To waste this electricity on another inefficient process, makes it even less efficient and painfully expensive. This was my point!

The perception that renewable energy is for free and for ever is coming from another manipulation (sorry to repeat myself). Especially solar and wind technologies sellers are saying that, forgetting to add that any of those requires huge investments, some take a lot of land to be deployed, a lot of pollution is generated before becoming a product, maintenance costs are involved and the amortization takes many years; all these under government incentives, subsidies, etc. For instance, in Ontario, the government pays for each kW generated by solar 7 times more than we pay per consumed kW to the utility company. But if I invest in equipment, land, etc. in order to generate and sell 1MW of power through photovoltaic technology, I'll brake even only after 10 years! Not to mention that any severe weather quite "popular" lately can destroy it in a minute. Another issue is pollution which produces the dimming effect on sunlight and brings down even more the fragile efficiency of conversion. The fact that nobody is charged for the sunlight is just an illusion.

Don't take me wrong - I'm not criticizing renewable technologies - actually I'm very much involved in these - but there is still a long way to go. The first priority is energy saving - so called "negative kWh" and my comment is concerning that direction.

Errata: instead of "kW" please read "kWh".

Thanks

Hottech:

You are right on. I am also involved in solar projects, and the cost of the electricity is incredibly high. On top of that, most of the photovoltaic panels are imported from Japan, which really screws over our balance of payments. We are paying the Japanese for 30 years of power UP FRONT !!!!!! Instead of paying Saudi Arabia a little every year.

The cost per REAL WORLD KWH with solar is 50 cents per KWH and higher. Note that I said "real world KWH," not imaginary solar KWH. We all hope that the cost will come way down, but it will be a long time before it will be close to competitive, if it ever happens.

You are exactly correct about all the snake oil and rose colored glasses for solar power. Nothing in this world is free, including the sun.

People who buy these systems with inverters, and sometimes with batteries, think that everything is going to work forever. Solar panels degrade at 0.4% per year or at a higher rate, depending on the technology. Even if a panel manages to survive 30 years worth of heating and cooling thermal cycles, hail storms, tornados, etc., it is going to self destruct due to its inherent light induced aging mechanisms. The warranty for 25 years is only 80% output for a reason. Also, the warranty is pro rated for the age of the collector, similar to how it works for tires.

Always read the specs under "NOC - Normal Operating Conditions," not the advertised rating. For example, a 100 watt solar panel is really a 75 watt panel when new, and you won't even get that on a very hot day (as temperature rises, output decreases).

There are maintenance and insurance expenses for solar systems that are not zero. Even if the panels manage to all survive a long time, the inverters break down periodically and must be replaced, and the same for batteries, if used.

Maintenance expenses are to the owner's expense at an electrician's rate of $70 an hour. The utility does not come out to fix your solar equipment.

It is unfortunate that the real costs are not correctly tallied in the sales brochures. Solar is good, but truth should never be compromised.

edykes - you forgot to mention the cost of disposing hazardous materials such as batteries - but I forgive you .

You pictured very well the real world of PV. Ontario is paying 42 cents/kWh which is under your estimation of the real cost of PV energy production. The government is not willing to invest and is tempting the private sector to do that but at no profit; they definitely had very good advisers! Politically sounds great when using key words like carbon credits, incentives, support for clean energy, etc.

Anyway, the excitement of having a PV installation fades after 3-4 years.

The solution could be the manufacturers to forget about that huge 25-30 year warranty for PV panels and to declare a much shorter life cycle of their products. The technology is evolving at fast pace and like in the computers world, nobody can afford to use a product economically and efficiently for more than 4-5 years. As you said, solar is very good but equipment replacement should become part of the industry's vocabulary.

Hottech:

Thank you for forgiving me. If only it were so easy for my wife ...

I am not estimating the cost of power production, the numbers are facts from my own direct installation experience and the work of others. If anything, they are underestimates. The solar enthusiasts rarely provide correct numbers. As noted before, a 100 watt panel is really a 75 watt panel, that steadily degrades to a zero watt panel as time marches on. Consequently, the REAL WORLD cost of the power is 47% more expensive than what the enthusiasts with the political science degrees claim. That's a big difference between hype and reality.

The average power level produced over the first 20 years will be only 68 watts, if it stays in one piece, due to the degradation effects mentioned earlier, IF THE PANELS ARE KEPT CLEAN. Believe me, bird poop and dirt knock power production way down. Now you get into water consumption and labor to keep them clean. Birds love to perch on the top edge of the panels.

A good thing about solar photovoltaic power in Canada is that the solar cell junction temperatures stay very very cold which improves efficiency, but that does not help much when you have no sun in the winter at those high latitudes! Definitely have to believe in the tooth fairy to think that solar panels in Canada are a good investment.

There is a feel good aspect to solar that does help many people psychologically - from that standpoint it is decidedly better to make the investment and feel good than to squander the money on psychiatrists.

There is more to disposing of hazardous materials than batteries. Check out the nasty stuff used to make the photovoltaic cells. And unlike nuclear, this stuff has INFINITE HALF LIVES. The long term disposal problem has not been solved, there is no nation-wide program in place, recycling processes are unproven -- it looks like the wacko leftists are left with no logical option but to SHUT DOWN SOLAR immediately until we can spend 50 years studying the environmental impact.

Paving over an entire region with solar collectors could wipe out endangered species.

The same people who claim that deserts are "fragile ecosystems that need protecting" are the same people who see nothing wrong with paving over the entire states of Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada with solar collectors and their support structures using hundreds of millions of tons of materials.

You have to have a sense of engineering humor when working with these people.

It is good to have people interested in solar power, but what is it with all the bald face lies going around??? If Ford sold a 100 Hp car that got only 75 horsepower, the same people would claim fraud, convict the auto manufacturer and send the executives to prison.

I wouldn't open Pandora's box by discussing wives' forgiveness...Makes me feel continuously guilty .

Maybe estimation was not the correct word. I know exactly where you're coming from when commenting the real price of solar power. For this reason, I evaded from deploying present technologies and work on future ones, trying to address the drawbacks you described so well. I filed a PCT application on a PV generator that: is highly protected from the elements, needs much less cleaning, increases the power/collector-area ratio (much smaller footprint), brings the generator closer to the load (less voltage drop on wires), directly generates AC with no inverters and can be made of on the shelf components - all in one. Of course, it's still very expensive and no funds raised so far. So here I am...

Hottech:

Well, that is ambitious! Any time you want to share the details ...

I'm talking only to billioneers!

If that is your email address, I'll send you the link.

To Hottech: this is not relevant to the actual theme being discussed here but I felt the need to write a somewhat non-relevant comment.

It takes a very big person to write the apology you did. I take my hat off to you for that because this type of willingness helps fuel discussion and exchange. Unfortunately a large number of people today are not capable of this.

I'm really glad you're back, jhaven007. I felt very bad for hurting your feelings.

Don't feel guilty you came up with an apparently non-related issue. Sometimes, during a discussion, divagations are even more catching than the main subject!

Regards.

Michael

That's what I'm talkin' about! Thanks for replying, people could learn a thing or two from that mind-set. Forum members such as yourself are the reason these exist. Thanks again, apology accepted. Now lets talk about these interesting topics :-) Hopefuly renewable energy will someday be affordable and thus feesable for everyday use. Technology has come a long way(wasn't that long ago that a computer weighed tons and filled a whole room, now pill-size robots can travel the body. Good luck to all the scientists, and here's to Big Oil finally catching up with reality. I'll be back, and i look forward to many more interesting posts

The video clip reminded me of electrolysis in high school chemistry. The clip was probably made by the energy industry to keep the hope alive that a technological breakthrough will help America avoid the need to conserve and do the obvious thing that other industrialized nations do -- raise taxes on energy.

04July1776:

Here we go again. Raising taxes on energy???!!!?? Energy is good. Human progress is measured by energy consumption. It is no coincidence that the standard of living in the USA and Canada is high and the energy consumption is high.

The question as engineers is NOT how high we can raise taxes and how much we can stomp on the lower classes who just want to stay warm in winter and cool in the summer. ==> The question is how to we produce lots of reasonably priced power that does not screw up the environment or cause excessive global warming.

One hundred years from now energy consumption world-wide is going to be dramatically higher than it is today -- or else the world will continue to live in poverty. To wish for lower energy consumption is to wish for lower incomes, less personal freedom and more widespread poverty.

Conservation is excellent with the correct mindset. The conservation that makes sense is the kind where you feel just as good as you did before but you are now saving more money. For example, the compact florescent bulbs. You get just as much light, but over the life of the bulb you save energy and money.

Taxes are a left wing cop out. We need fewer collectivist bureaucrats in our lives, not more of them. Converting Americans into high tax no air conditioning European Socialists is not progress. We had a revolution in 1776 so that we don't have to put up with that $%#*.

Remember the Boston Tea Party? Americans revolted against a one penny tax on tea! How far we have slid into tax hell since those days. Now every time you turn around every Tom, Dick and Jane wants new taxes on everything and an army of lawyers and tax accountants and judges to manage the mess.

I was told that it wouldn't be safe for a bunch of hydrogen bombs driving around. What is the safety impact?

Few things are more dangerous than gasoline.

Hydrogen is lighter than air and burns upwards. Gasoline runs down and burns up everything and smoothers it.

It is a common misconception that hydrogen is very dangerous (don't get me wrong it is dangerous, it is just that so many fuels are more dangerous).

The problem with hydrogen is how to store it. The energy density by volume is extremely low (although by weight it is high).

Hydrogen is not a primary energy source, it is an energy carrier. Consequently, something has to make it and use a lot of energy in the process. This is the "magic" with diesel and gasoline, easy to contain in low pressure tanks with very high energy density and cheap.

The best that it is possible to do when making hydrogen from water is about 76% efficiency using very high temperature processes (due to basic electrochemical limintations), which is a massive amount of energy lost right at the beginning. Then huge energy losses occur due to the need to compress or cryogenically cool it (liquify). Then you have the problems and costs with storing high pressure gases or extremely cold liquids. Not much energy left when you get to the wheels of your car.

Someone is going to have to invent a novel low pressure way to store hydrogen that can be recharged quickly in order for hydrogen to succeed as an automobile fuel. Right now, all this talk about a hydrogen economy is total nonsense, it is unaffordable. The politicians and activists talking this up need to go get educated and hit the labs and invent some stuff instead of wallowing around in their liberal arts make believe world.

It would be wonderful to have a good cost effective and usable hydrogen solution. Unfortunately, it is a very difficult technical problem to solve, and a solution, if there is one, is unlikely any time soon.

There is a good solution in the here and now that is much more efficient than the hydrogen economy.

Hi everyone, This is my first post on this forum-just discovered it today. "Someone is going to have to invent a novel low pressure way to store hydrogen that can be recharged quickly in order for hydrogen to succeed as an automobile fuel". In response to what Edykes has written, you may have heard about experiments with carbon nanotubules, as one approach to finding a low pressure way to store hydrogen. However, this solution is still likely years away from materializing (if it ever does). Recently, a prof at the University of Windsor in Canada has been working on a method of hydrogen storage that's been attracting some attention. It involves using titanium oxide and silica to absorb hydrogen gas. http://autos.canada.com/green/story.html?id=0bbd0c10-2ed9-4e4c-9c12-49bbcb09cada&k=36502&p=1 As with many research projects in the works, this one may be many years away before it has the possibility of being realized. Thought you might be interested in checking it out. Look forward to sharing ideas with the rest of you on this forum. J-man

It's no different than the M.I.T. experiment that's been on the news. In fact almost the same thing. It's not very efficient either, but looks cool.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"An MIT research team has figured out how to wirelessly illuminate an unplugged light bulb from seven feet away.

Details about WiTricity, or wireless electricity, are scheduled to be reported today in Science Express, the advance online publication of the journal Science, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said.

In a December story in the Globe, MIT physicist Marin Soljacic sketched out a vision of how everything from iPods to laptops could be wirelessly recharged by using a carefully designed magnetic field to deliver power to such devices from a range of 10 to 15 feet.

Now, MIT said, Soljacic and a research team he works with have some data to begin validating his theory - namely, the successful experiment to light a 60-watt light bulb from a power source two meters away, with no physical connection between the power source and the light bulb."

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/07/2057236

Ah, Tesla, I knew him well.

People,

I very much appreciate the responses giving the thermodynamic balance for this reaction and noting that it is less efficient than either gasoline power or hydrogen power with hydrogen generated by other means. However, as an engineer what I am most interested in is the dollar balance that would take into account both capital and operating costs. There is some oil price at which this less efficient power system would be more cost effective. The question is whether we have reached it with $60/bbl oil. Also, if the RF system for electrolysis is compact and rugged enough (and cheap enough) to fit in the engine compartment of a car, this method could be better than hydrogen power systems that require transportation and storage of large amounts of hydrogen. (Existing gas stations could probably be easily modified to sell clean saltwater easier than converting them to selling compressed gas.)

I would like to hear about this aspect of the discussion. Thanks.

Kevin J. Ashley, P.E.

There is some oil price at which this less efficient power system would be more cost effective.

I seems unlikely that a less-efficient system could ever be more cost-effective than a more-efficient system. The energy to create the hydrogen is anything but free. If it requires 100 HP of onboard generating capacity (fueled by fossil fuel, biodiesel, ethanol, electricity stored in batteries, etc.) to get 75 hp worth of hydrogen, there is a net loss. The higher the price of fuel, the higher the cost of that net loss, and the less desirable the intermediate conversion becomes.

Today, electricity is delivered to your home with about 38% efficiency -- in other words 62% of the energy value of the fuel running the generators is wasted. If you take that electricity and use it to split water, then you are adding further inefficiencies. To what end? Hydrogen burns no more efficiently than other fuels in an ICE, and fuel cells are not as efficient as batteries. Likewise, if you generate electricity onboard the vehicle (for use in splitting water), you are incurring an additional 25% loss. You would be 25% further ahead to use whatever the fuel is directly, no matter what the cost of that fuel.

The hydrogen "economy" is anything but economical.

Totally agree.

Taking aboard the raw material (salt water, water, whatever) and the power source to extract from that raw material the fuel is like putting on a vehicle a small refinery and fueling it with crude oil! Not to mention the power source for running the refinery!

In order to be efficient, a vehicle platform has to support only one energy conversion and focus on that conversion to make it as efficient as possible: electrical to mechanical or chemical to mechanical, for example. Any additional conversion put in an energy balance brings supplemental losses!

A hybrid vehicle is doing two energy conversions and for this reason it is said to be even less efficient than the old ICE. The extra mileage of a plug-in hybrid comes from the fact that it has two energy storages: the tank and the battery.

Kevin: you might not know how a power RF source works. Try to visit a broadcasting station and ask how the final RF stage is cooled! By my understanding, engineering is about predicting with a certain degree of accuracy, not guessing.

A hybrid vehicle is doing two energy conversions and for this reason it is said to be even less efficient than the old ICE.

I've been grappling with this daily for a while now. In designing this small vehicle I've been prototyping, my intent has been to keep things pretty simple, using primarily today's technology rather than tomorrow's... which is hideously expensive today. Where hybrids can improve overall system efficiency is when they allow the ICE to run at only (or mainly) at its peak efficiency. When operating on either side of the fully- loaded torque peak (but especially when operating on the low HP side) the specific consumption goes up substantially, with cars in commuting traffic operating at 2 or 3 times the optimum specific fuel consumption (and worse if they are sitting there idling).

So ya put together a spreadsheet with some rough figures, and say "Wow!" there are some opportunities for huge efficiency gains. Then you factor in generator losses, motor losses, battery charging losses... and the "wow!" goes to "hmmm". Soon you're looking for lighter batteries that can $$ accept $$$ higher charge rates, better generator $$$ efficiency $$$, better motor efficiency... and on $$$ and on $$$ and on. Just how large is the market for a tiny economy car that costs $50,000?

So your point is well taken: the fewer energy conversions, the better. In a series hybrid, there are really five: chemical to mechanical, mechanical to electric, electric to chemical, chemical to electric, and electric to mechanical.

But amazingly, it all works out pretty well. Certainly, for high speed cruise, where the engine of my small vehicle can operate near its torque peak, it would be nice to leave all the electrical stuff at home. But in stop and go, or even at low speed cruise, the hybrid system pays off, even without getting exotic.

Porsche built their first series hybrid (about the equivalent of the proposed GM Volt) in 1903. It worked pretty well. (It had wheel motors, rather than the crude inboard motor of a Tesla or GM EV1.)

Hi Blink.

I'm glad you have hands-on experience in energy conversions for vehicles. As you said, an advantage of the hybrids is the running of the ICE at its top efficiency. But we should not forget that hybrids have an ICE and a gas tank only because a fully electric car is too expensive due to today's batteries and their autonomy is too short. Actually we don't trust batteries and we don't want to be stranded in the middle of nowhere with drained batteries. What we see on hybrid vehicles is a sort of genset - the best package (energy/mass ratio) having a Diesel engine not a gas one. In pollution terms, they just move a portion of it from inside to outside the city.

Hybrid vehicles have been built also because the car industry and especially investors prefer incremental development instead of disruptive technologies.

Especially for city driving, what is worthy to do is recovering the braking energy. If you're interested to apply it to your prototype, check this out:

http://www.tavrima.com/pub.html

I believe that supercapacitors are the true solution for electric cars or a combination of battery with supercaps.

Regards

Michael

Very good point. Hybrids seem as a 'safe catalyst' to promote the investment in alternative motoring altogether, which is the psycho-shift we most need. After all, beyond the initial short-lived excitement of being new, unexplored technology, practical mundane issue mostly call the shots, in the 'drive to have a new drive' so to speak.

Thanks, Yuval.

No similar projects in Israel? I look forward to hearing of them.

Michael

Surprisingly (come to think of it, maybe not so) aside from some rare initiatives, most advanced technology research and development, including that of alternative drive systems, is in the various institutes for military/security research.

It has a two prong outlet: export in intent of funding for further research, and technological base for civil cooperation, utilising some sub-systems suitable for civil use.

Fuel-cells, were initially developed in early attempts to drive silent unmanned aerial drones, and later scrapped for inefficiency (weight to power ratio) during the nineteen eighties, being one example of many.

Surprising but understandable in the same time.

Thanks for the super capacitor link. I've been in touch with the Maxwell people (another supercap vendor) and their products look promising, albeit expensive. Although super caps have high power density their energy density is very low, so it takes a quite large super cap to store the energy of a single stop (which on even my tiny vehicle can be about 144 kW seconds).

But then there's the EEstor unit, which sounds too good to be true, with both very high energy and power density (better by a full order of magnitude than any available super cap). If it pans out, it will make for a revolution in electric vehicles -- charging as fast as you can pour electrons in... 100,000's of cycles, etc. Unfortunately, it's infuriatingly difficult to get info on the unit from either the developers or vendor.

Another really promising alternative is the lithium titanate batteries of Altairnano. They are very expensive now, ($10,000 - $20,000 for a tiny vehicle like mine if I went full electric, and depending on range) but other than price, they are a designer's dream. They claim 10 minute recharge time (requiring, of course, 480v three phase power at 400 amps). Get a few of these vehicles charging together, and you could brown out a small town! (Realistically, I can envision these charging stations cropping up in synch with the cars, so getting the infrastructure in place would not be too difficult. Of course, charging at home from 220v 30 or 50 amp service would be the norm.)

For X Prize types of vehicles, with 100+ MPG, it is hard to justify the cost of a diesel. If you can get to 120 mpg average with spark ignition, vs 150 mpg with diesel, (the efficiency gap is narrower in a hybrid, because you can operate each engine type closer to it's torque peak -- it's when throttled down that a SI engine starts looking much worse) you are already using so little fuel that you can't justify the difference in engine cost (even ignoring the difficulties in getting a new small diesel to comply with EPA standards.) My own design is a commuter car, not intended to replace the family's minivan, large sedan, etc. So the yearly mileage will be relatively low, making the cost justification even more difficult. With today's prices, the payback on a $1000 premium for a diesel, for my vehicle, would be about 25 years, even ignoring the cost of money.

For the X Prize vehicles to be successful in the marketplace, they will need to be both economical to buy and economical to run. (Or niche vehicles: the Tesla will probably sell well because it's a rocket, unique, etc) Achieving that combination of highly efficient and inexpensive is not all that easy.

You are very well informed, Blink!

I've read the EEstore patent and it seams to me it was written in a hurry and pretty unprofessionally from the legal point of view (claims, etc.). It might be easily swallowed by a big fish or even hidden from the industry stream.

By my knowledge, Maxwell supercaps are only low voltage and putting many of them in series is very tricky... I pointed to you Tavrima because is a different technology making applications easier as having much higher voltage in one bulkier but safer package.

Please keep us informed with your progress. You are a very interesting and committed guy.

Re Maxwell voltages: they seem fairly comparable, although I can't seem to pull up their site right now. You can buy a 48 V box from either vendor, for example, and I think they both go up into the hundreds.

Re voltage, the part of the EEstor story that seems believable is that the voltage is unusually high: 3200 V. Thus energy density can be relatively high. They claim to have solved all the Kaboom issues. Also, they apparently have a charge/output converter built into the unit, so that if you want 120 volts both ways, you just dial that in. Zenn motorcars invested $2.5 million in EEStor not long ago, so they evidently think it's the real deal. But there are so many things that seem a little odd...

re being committed: many have suggest that I should be.

The barium-titanate ceramic ultracapacitor. It sings, it dances, it well does everything better than virtually all other battery types and is also cheaper than them AND gasoline. I haven't read the patent but am very sceptical, especially the way they are implementing this new technology. I have seen it all before, high and mighty claims brought down to earth by real world problems.

Still, I will continue to watch as this and other new cutting-edge products development, but even if it does work these things take time to mature (like a good cheese). I just have this feeling that it is not going to be as good as they claim (such as having some really BIG problems that offset its advantages).

____________________________________________________________

There is a fine line between Genius and madness (or at least that's what the talking cheeses tell me).

Guest Post # 52

NEVER log in as Guest and then sign you name and qualifications lest ye step in 'it' over your shoe tops, or worse, and be embarrassed. Couldn't send private message.

IOW Don't cross your bridges before ye come to them lest ye pay (the dollar balance) toll twice!

There is no violation of Mass/Energy or the Laws of Thermodynamics. John Kansas is causing water HOH to split into hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) by adding energy into the system via bombarding salt water with radio waves.

John sKanzius said he's achieving over unity, which violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics unless either:

1) the Gibbs Free Energy of the products is less than that of the starting reactants (the difference being released energy which results in an over-unity state). A chemist should be able to answer this question as we know the reactants (water, oxygen, and salt) and the products (water, ammonia, chlorine).

2) Fusion is taking place. Is it conceivable that the right frequency of radio waves could result in harmonic frequencies that could result in standing waves of electron rich regions wherein fusion could occur using the same mechanism as Bussard's polywell? I don't think so - the polywell creates extremely high electrostatic charges and enough space to accelerate protons to unbelievable speeds. That can't happen on the scale of what's happening in a test tube.

I think scenario #1 is entirely possible, at least I haven't heard any comments to suggest otherwise. In fact, I don't think anyone has considered it. But like I said, a chemist should be able to figure it out. The products are held together by different bonds and may be in a lower energy state than the reactants. One way to answer the question is to ask is the process of creating ammonia from water and sodium produce more energy than the energy needed to remove hydrogen from water? If so then perhaps Kanzius is right.

Either way, the most efficient fuel cell is only 80% efficient so his process has to be at least 20% over unity (120% efficient) to generate electricity from his ammonia producing process. That's really what he has: an ammonia producing process which might generate an excess of energy. I doubt it will produce enough energy to compensate for the ammonia waste problems that will result. There are tons of over-unity processes, like burning trash - energy needed to start the reaction is a tiny flame, and the result is and exothermic reaction that continues as long as you have trash. But that doesn't make it feasible as a solution to the world's energy problems.

Perhaps you do not understand the term "over unity" as it is commonly used. Here is an excerpt from a Wikipedia article.

1. A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces strictly more energy than it uses giving the user Unlimited energy, thus violating the law of conservation of energy. Over-unity devices, that is, devices with a thermodynamic efficiency greater than 1.0 (unity, or 100%), are perpetual motion machines of this kind.

You say "violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics unless either"... and then give two conditions. The first is not an example of any violation of the 2nd law. Exothermic reactions (such as burning trash or any fuel) are good examples of ordinary conservation of energy. The free energy of the product is, of course, less than the free energy of the reactants -- the energy released is what we use to heat our homes, run our engines, etc.

I am unaware of anyone who has claimed to have a system running at "over unity" who is not simply deluded or deliberately committing fraud. Imagine the money to be made if such a machine could be created: simply duplicate the machines and you have unlimited energy, and thus unlimited profits. Read up on Dennis Lee.

One way to answer the question is to ask is the process of creating ammonia from water and sodium produce more energy than the energy needed to remove hydrogen from water?

How would one create ammonia from water and sodium? Where is the nitrogen coming from?

"How would one create ammonia from water and sodium? Where is the nitrogen coming from?"

Aint tignorance wunderfull?

Thars so much of it to combat. Fite ever onword!

Jack of all trades "Anyway, the overall effect is interesting but as a potential source of energy it falls flat on its face due to the enormous amounts of electrical energy required to produce the radio waves compared to the minimal amount of heat energy or hydrogen produced. As for other uses, well I am sure people could come up with them."

edykes@cvtv.net "The hydrogen economy is more Tooth Fairy thinking from political science majors."

Stirling Stan "No one to date has publicaly demonstrated a genuine PM device of an kind. Nor do I expect to see one anytime soon or later!"

and the worst of all Hottech "Unfortunately, incompetent or manipulative media is transforming the general public into some scientifically illiterates in this century of science and technology. Who takes advantages? The oil and gas companies. Why find alternative energy solutions when we can waste time and resources for pseudo-science? Don't you see that when presenting such a scam as the future of energy, media is biased and no true scientist is asked to comment? It's a shame. Wake up guys. I'm really worried to see this discussion having only 17 entries and 555 viewers. It means that the danger of manipulation is extremely high. It's normal that energy is a hot subject, but please don't give any credit to that guy who consumes in his "demonstration" several kW to produce a few watts of power. You can do better with your microwave... Not to mention the key words like "cancer cure" used frequently as subliminal manipulation!"

I have read this forum from it's inception to now and I ask you, could there be a bigger compilation of nay-sayers.

Say that you are right and a technology is far away for the breakdown of water to burn the hydrogen. Yes, we all get it. We need electricity to enact the RF to separate the hydrogen to produce the heat for the engine and everyone of these have a huge energy loss. I still find it compelling and have always found the extraction of hydrogen from water a highly useful study. It seems that water is the best package for hydrogen and the person who finally figures out how to separate it efficiently will be a hero to the world. Forget the Nobel prize. He or she will have a prize named after them. And if you in the room continue to present yourselves as the scouffers, you will one day be the scientists history laughs at who said what will then be common technology was impossible and if you had your way it would never have been completed because it is all one big conspiracy or scam.

On the other hand, I find your grounded views a little reassuring. As engineers you cannot afford to let media hype carry you away and it is your duty to inform the public when someone is taking them for a ride. Not deriding them for not knowing as much as you about your field. And the potential in this forum is just as amazing as the potential of using the hydrogen in water as a fuel. Stop talking like people who just can't believe it and start talking about it in terms of how could this be made to happen. Because the truth is if I can eventually dump water (salt or no) in my car and go, I'm in. And as for the whole wormhole thing, hottech, if you could get that underway I would be willing to stop driving and finally do my part for the environment. Although Gore would eventually say that wormholes are just another way mankind is warming or cooling the earth (depending on what trend the earth is in at the time of the claim).

" Barely Dabbling:" A very thoughtful first post on CR4.

It seems to me that Gov't. is throwing R&D $$$ into the various money pits so they can say, "See what research and development projects we are are funding to solve the 'energy crisis.'

Usually it is only a short time till there is a new organization and new funding, announced with much fan fare that a 'new' solar energy project will build Solar Reflector arrays, to power a multiplicity of Stirling engines to alleviate the power shortage in the southwest and that a large public utility has been or will be contracted to deliver the power to areas of need. Such a new organization can best be described as the "same old ladies of the night in new kimonos."

There are multitudes of scam artist who sponsor and promote all kinds of scams to sell useless products or 'learned' volumes of BS on ephemeral subjects to the unlearned, ignorant, and creduluos but sincere individuals looking for the latest and greatest.

There are a few that truly believe that they have truly found a viable solution to the/a problem and nothing will persuade them otherwise regardless of how cockamamy it may be nor how persuasive the arguments against it. They will NOT be moved!

Can you suggest a way to be more effective in combating pseudo science and the scam artists?

"And if you in the room continue to present yourselves as the scouffers, you will one day be the scientists history laughs at who said what will then be common technology was impossible and if you had your way it would never have been completed because it is all one big conspiracy or scam."

That is NOT going to happen until and unless the immutable laws of thermodynamics are repealed! Scams are almost always and without exception based on something for nothing. That is the first test, "If it sounds too good to be true it almost always is."

I could not agree with you more. It doesn't just seem but it is the truth. Our government throws more money into "scientific" research that had the politicians had a different kind of education they would have been able to spot the scams. I have tons of varied scientists/engineers in my family although I am not one. Had it not been for them explaining to me what accreditations to look for when you hear someone speaking on a subject my ignorance would be complete. You see my background is in politics, (for one). And these politicians are operating in the same kind of ignorance I would be if I did not have the relations and friends I have. What is funny to me is throughout this forum I have read these assumptions by many in here that "everyone knows that" and it simply is not true. You do not have the layman's real view of the world and knowledge of engineering. The most effective way for you put a stop or huge slow down of gov't R&D money being used poorly is if you start getting political. Make political friends, run for office, get on the news with the real story. We don't fall in to scams because we just love spending money on useless things, we do it because we are ignorant. What we need are scientist and engineers who are not trying to get funded but rather offer direction, but that is about as hard as a politician not trying to get votes.

Also Blink I tend to get the heebee jeebees when someone says "over unity" too. So do many people but every engineer I know gets a twinkle in their eye after the initial irritation, and has a file of personal research into such projects. I've seen many and I bet if you are worth your salt you have one too. Who wouldn't want to be the one who does it or comes close: a clean burning alternative fuel with less than .1% energy loss.

Now I have seen the engines that run on water. My grandfather made one in his garage 20 years ago. It is not efficient and the engine needs constant repair but he is just a sailor with a great garage. How would you go about it?

How would you go about it?

I wouldn't. I am very nearly obsessed with efficiency and the careful use of our resources. In the US, we use 8 times as much energy per capita as is used in other industrialized countries. We are positively convinced that we have some "right" to do so, and we are willing to kill to guarantee access to the energy we "need". For me, these are no small concerns. So, if I am going to spend time pursuing energy-related dreams, I will do so in a way that seems to have some hope of a positive outcome.

Like your grandfather, I am a sailor with a (great) garage. (My garage is actually horribly cramped, and the nutcase who works there has a penchant for leaving it in total chaos... but at least there's a lathe, a press, some welding equipment, and loads of other tools.) In that garage, I have a proof-of-concept prototype for a 100 MPG vehicle. This vehicle already gets better than 100 MPG under carefully controlled conditions. It gets within a few percent of the MPG I'd predicted for it in its test mule condition. It will be modified, after I'm sure I am happy with the chassis dynamics, to improve its efficiency, along lines that would not surprise any engaged, broadly knowledgeable automotive engineer. (In fact, nothing about the Aptera -- a direct competitor to my own vehicle, and which gets 231 MPG at 55 mph -- would surprise any broadly knowledgeable automotive engineer. What would surprise such an engineer was their initial, pre testing, claim of 330 mpg at 65. That would require a Cd of .06 -- which is, in fact, what they claimed at the time, but their real Cd is .11 -- about half as good. Before their first tests, I said they could not achieve that Cd -- I was one of your dreaded naysayers. See, for example, this post. ) Getting my own vehicle to the point where it gets 100 MPG routinely, in city traffic and on the highway, (which equates to about 230 MPG on a perfectly flat highway on a windless day) will require a series of modifications that are completely unsurprising and predictable. Half a year from now, I'll have a vehicle that is in the same ball park as the Aptera, but that will cost less to produce, and which will have features that will make it a more attractive buying proposition. If we weren't direct competitors, their team and mine could sit down at a table and discuss each element of both designs. Everyone around the table would say: "Sure, I can see why you chose that solution," point by point.

If instead, I chose to run my vehicle on water, that conversation around the table would be entirely different, with a great many raised eyebrows. As a near term viable potential solution, the argument for water as a fuel simply doesn't hold... water.

The reason is, as I wrote above, that under the best possible condition the amount of energy you get out of burning H2 (or reacting it in a fuel cell) must be less than the energy you put into splitting the water. Given the high energy cost of creating hydrogen, we should at least use in in a fuel cell at perhaps 60% efficiency, rather than burn it in an engine at perhaps 30%. But both of those are unattractive when compared to storing the original energy (whatever we use to split the water) in batteries at 90% efficiency, and running an electric motor at 95%.

I am not a chemical engineer, but chemical engineering was my major in school. And I'm imaginative and creative, and can sit down at a piano and create music out of thin air. I am anything but some arch conservative mired in the status quo. But I can't come up with any plausible way that water can be used as a fuel that would be even remotely close to as efficient as storing energy in batteries or supercapacitors. So why throw away the things that I know work to pursue something I know does not. I have limited time on earth, and would like to spend it in ways that have a high probability of success, rather than spending it in mental masturbation.

I have read this forum from it's inception to now and I ask you, could there be a bigger compilation of nay-sayers.

Nay-saying or reasonable skepticism? In my view it's reasonable skepticism. With engineers familiar with the shady world of "free-energy," "over unity," and "perpetual motion" machines, hackles raise when yet another apparent scam comes along. Many millions of dollars have been lost to fraudsters such as Dennis Lee, and the internet makes it much easier for these individuals to fleece the public. What possible good is served by saying "Sounds great" when in fact, it sounds bad.

Kanzius has claimed "over unity" efficiency for his process. Any competent engineer, physicist, or chemist would be remiss to treat that claim as plausible. Is there a 1/1,000,000,000 chance that he has achieved an "over unity" process? No. Is there a 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance? Perhaps. But should the engineering types here, based on no evidence whatsoever that anything out of the ordinary is occurring, jump on the Pollyanna bandwagon and suspend disbelief entirely? To what end?

And the potential in this forum is just as amazing as the potential of using the hydrogen in water as a fuel.

I don't think any of the folks you criticized here would find anything even remotely amazing about the potential of using the hydrogen in water as a fuel. (Of course hydrogen burns. Of course you can get hydrogen from water.) Nor would it be even remotely amazing to use the hydrogen in methane or sugar as a fuel. But why would you want to do such a thing? Of course you can electrolyze water, and subsequently recombine the H2 and O2. Kids do that every day in grade school. The problem is that the forward reaction H20 > H2 + O2 requires as much energy as you can get out of the reverse reaction H2 + O2 > H2O, assuming your process is perfectly efficient (which it will not be) . This is true, regardless of how the water is split: electrically, with RF, with intense heat, etc. In any chemical reaction that can proceed in either direction the the energy released in one direction will equal the energy required in the other. If that is not the case, then we will have created energy out of nothing.

Are you expecting Hottech and Jack and Edykes and Stirling all to say "Energy from nothing... sure sounds good! ... 'Let's stop talking like people who just can't believe it and start talking about it in terms of how this can be made to happen'. It's a bit much to ask engineers to be well-versed in writing science fiction is it not?