|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|10-10-2007 07:49 PM|
|09-29-2007 07:11 PM|
How about the chlorine and oxygen in all this? If the Cl and O get together, they should make Clorox, and since it is bleach, it makes everything white, just like the flame above the test tube! So we get a cure for cancer, energy and laundry products all out of one process! As the lady in green on TV says, How cool is that? Can the glass in the test tube be a catalyst? Silicon has an S in it, and so does Sodium....just wondering
|09-28-2007 08:45 PM|
|09-27-2007 10:17 PM|
Originally Posted by AeroDave View Post
|09-27-2007 10:04 PM|
Originally Posted by webwork View Post
What geek kid has not made hydrogen and oxygen from electrolysis? I did. My friends also did. So did my siblings, and many other geek friends... heck, we made literally GALLONS of hydrogen and oxygen when I was a kid.
Kanzius' discovery, turns out, actually HAS been evaluated, and shown that it does NOT yield net energy. It's a neat experiment, thought provoking, but no better than the misguided attempts to create a "hydrogen economy."
|09-27-2007 09:34 PM|
Originally Posted by paul h View Post
Coal is CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP. Electrical production costs less than $0.02/kw-hr from coal, even the lastest and most expensive scrubbed coal electrical production plants. Nuclear is a bit more expensive, wind is closer to $0.10/kw-hr, solar maybe as high as $0.40/kw-hr. The amount of energy it takes to mine coal is miniscule compared to the kw-hr we get from burning a ton (2000 lbs) of it. Estimates are that it takes the equivalent of burning about 68 lbs of coal to obtain a ton of it - and we have plenty of it. Hundreds of years of it, in fact, even at our current and projected future ELECTRICAL energy demands.
The question of proven oil reserves is really a matter of access. Even at $150/barrel, crude is STILL cheaper to buy from mideast, offshore drilling, etc., but when it gets to be around $200/barrel, and gasoline approaches $8-$9/gallon... well THEN that's a different story. US Oil shale and the Canadian tar sands have enough proven oil reserves to supply North America alone for well over 150 years - more than the proven stores of mideast oil. It simply isn't economical to do so, because gasoline is so cheap due to cheap mideast oil.
Make no mistake, OPEC knows this. That's why they just decided to start producing more oil - exactly to keep the price per barrel down. WHY? b/c when it gets REALLY expensive, we'll turn to the more difficult but self-sustainable reserves available on our continent, and show them the middle finger. Then they'll go selling the oil to China and India.
In fact, that is exactly why we continue to be dependent on oil - it is simply the cheapest way out of the situation, global warming bs be damned.
So - back to the "discovery", "experiment" or whatever it is. So, this guy has found a way to take 200 watts, and create heat energy. What exactly does he plan on doing with this heat energy?
If you use it to take it through the rankine cycle and turn a turbine, you put in 200 watts of electrical energy in the form of radio waves, and convert it into a whopping 55 watts of electrical energy.... sounds like how you make a million dollars in racing - you first start with FIVE million.....
|09-12-2007 11:06 AM|
Home Made Quickie Hydrogen?
Is this a faster way to recharge a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle? Imagine a car or filling station hydrogen generator as such: Your car has a salt water tank which you use to replenish hydrogen by plugging your car into a wall outlet. In other words your car can have itís own hydrogen converter. This can be augmented by solar power especially when you park in the sun, your car can generate hydrogen all day long, you just need solar cells on the roof. Or a filling station gets shipments of salt water which goes into underground tanks, this is then rapidly converted to hydrogen on demand for your fuel cell vehicle using the radio waves and electricity.
it seems that a guy named Stanley Meyer used a similar system to create an autonomous water propelled hydrogen vehicle technology. It acceletrated the Hydrogen from water reaction using low current at a high frequesncy.
CHECK THIS OUT: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...92194168790800
|09-12-2007 08:12 AM|
Someone said "Almost certainly this is an energetic dead end; you don't get something for nothing in this universe,
I have read a great many post that seem to all say what was said here. but, I have to ask,
Is burning coal or oil or putting gas into your car any different? you put way more oil into the process of generating electricity for commercial use than you get out,,, but the grid needs electricity and yes it costs allot to produce it. If we spend allot to produce it by burning sea water rather than oil then we will be closer to breaking our dependency on foreign oil. this seems like a good idea to me. Who said that this discovery was "free energy" anyway? Why are so many people putting it down because it is not "free energy? It seems to me that it will beat burning oil all to pieces. Of course it's not Free but with some refinement it may well turn out to be cost effective when you factor in oil dependency. Look at all of the money put into extracting, transporting and refining oil and coal.
|08-30-2007 03:52 PM|
We know that the radiofrequency energy used was 200 watts, and the frequency was 13.56 megahertz.
200 watts is a lot of power to effect a small test tube of salt water. It would seem that a lower wattage would suffice.
My question is, why didn't the paper towel wick burn when it was in the test tube? Perhaps it didn't burn because it was damp?
|07-02-2007 08:04 PM|
|achieftain||He is am "engineer" of sorts, having been involved with radio and tv. I would agree he is not a "scientist". An inventor, absolutely. An accidental discoverer of something unexpected, what is known as serendipity -perhaps. Time will tell. 60 years ago would you have believed you could cook a hot dog with radio waves and not just two nails some copper wire, and a wall plug? (raise your hand everyone who did that- jst remember the nails go parallle and never ever pont them ast each other)|
|07-02-2007 07:58 PM|
Maybe our resident Chemist can give us some more clues.
|07-01-2007 09:45 PM|
I know very little about science, but I found this clip, hope it helps your intellectual retrospective, or whatever....
|06-11-2007 08:23 PM|
Oxidation vs Reduction
I feel the need to make a very important correction on the points made about the chemical term 'oxidation'. It occurs in the reverse from what was described: Oxidation refers to the LOSS of an electron from an atom, not the gain - which is noted by the plus sign on Na+ - i.e. the Na+ ion is an oxidized Na(s) atom, or a sodium metal atom which has LOST one electron. In the NaCl salt, the Chlorine is the NEGATIVE ion, with -1 charge, because the chlorine is more electronegative, and holds the electron more tightly than the sodium. Thus to convert Na+ back into its atomic (non-charged) form, you need to ADD an electron, not subtract one.
|05-22-2007 08:03 AM|
|lil goat||I put 5 pounds of bromine and 5 pounds of chlorine in my pool and it blew up, now there and alternative energy sorce. Let me ask all you skeptics, would you have ever believed you could heat something with invisible waves. I never would of, hang on a second I need to get something out of the microwave.|
|05-22-2007 07:15 AM|
|ScottJSmith||I think you're all missing the point: This guy discovered the cure for cancer and an alternate fuel source in his garage...Ahh, the American Dream!|
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|