Future of energy

[AndyK5]

isn't that wasting water though? I don't think the world should switch to using up all the sea water.

I am gonna take your question seriously and answer is as you were not being sarcastic, because maybe you were not. That machine does not burn water, it burns the hydrogen that is being released by the NaCl (sodium chloride, salt) molecules interacting with the radio waves in a way I have no idea about. Since water is made of 2 hydrogen and one oxygen molecule, there is a great chance that the reaction after the burning releases oxygen back in to the atmosphere which will combine with free hydrogen atoms , form H20 molecules, pile up on clouds, rain back on the oceans and voila you got your salty water back.

[Justin W.]

I am gonna take your question seriously and answer is as you were not being sarcastic, because maybe you were not. That machine does not burn water, it burns the hydrogen that is being released by the NaCl (sodium chloride, salt) molecules interacting with the radio waves in a way I have no idea about. Since water is made of 2 hydrogen and one oxygen molecule, there is a great chance that the reaction after the burning releases oxygen back in to the atmosphere which will combine with free hydrogen atoms , form H20 molecules, pile up on clouds, rain back on the oceans and voila you got your salty water back.

lol fair enough. I barely watched the video as I had to go somewhere and I wanted to at least post something to get a response by the time I got back. I mean, the video said "burning salt water..." haha. Either way, thanks for enlightening me.

[Jason Hyatt]

That has nothing to do with the laws of Thermodynamics. The laws state that you cannot have a perfect engine. Best you can have is around %50 range. After waste, friction etc.. the average efficiency of a gasoline engine rests about %15. That number by the way is considered very good, among other engines we can build. The reason for that is the fact that Oil is an amazing subject and when exposed to proper conditions it releases much more energy than it takes to create the situation. The difference is the net work you can do with that energy ( or waste). This guys system creates temperatures in excess of 1500 centigrade. Radio frequency's generators don't take much energy, so I think this may work, but the main problem lies with how to actually implement this in to a usable thing. I mean it would make very clean and efficient steam engines the way it sits, but that wouldn't be any use to us at this point.

It has everything to do with thermodynamics.


The three laws of thermodynamics in a nutshell:
#1 You can't win
#2 You can't break even
#3 You can't leave the game

Gasoline is an excellent source of energy because when you cleave the hydrocarbon bonds through rapid oxidation (burn it) those bonds release energy (any time you're breaking a covalent bond you're releasing a quantum of energy. Gasoline just happens to have a LOT of covalent bonds tied up in a structure that, with a little heat and extra oxygen, are easy to break). In order to use hydrocarbon fuels you don't have to break them apart first then burn them; burning them IS breaking them apart. You're not trying to put the hydrocarbons back together in your engine, you're only taking them apart. Putting them back together requires exactly as much energy as it takes to break them apart and is exactly what you're doing with electrolysis.

To burn the hydrogen in water, you first have to cleave the hydrogen-oxygen bonds and make HHO gas. That takes energy and the energy you get from burning the hydrogen will never -- because of thermodynamics -- exceed the amount of energy required to make the HHO gas in the first place. So the net result will always be negative. Which returns me to my previous point: Does the radio frequency generator utilize less energy than is obtained from the resulting reaction and of so, how?

[Jason Hyatt]

I am gonna take your question seriously and answer is as you were not being sarcastic, because maybe you were not. That machine does not burn water, it burns the hydrogen that is being released by the NaCl (sodium chloride, salt) molecules interacting with the radio waves in a way I have no idea about. Since water is made of 2 hydrogen and one oxygen molecule, there is a great chance that the reaction after the burning releases oxygen back in to the atmosphere which will combine with free hydrogen atoms , form H20 molecules, pile up on clouds, rain back on the oceans and voila you got your salty water back.

Nope. The burning is the recombination of two atoms of hydrogen with one atom of oxygen. Hydrogen and oxygen don't freely combine in the atmosphere or anywhere else for that matter without an input of energy. The forming of covalent bonds between hydrogen and oxygen is a violent and rapid process.

[AndyK5]

It has everything to do with thermodynamics.


The three laws of thermodynamics in a nutshell:
#1 You can't win
#2 You can't break even
#3 You can't leave the game

Gasoline is an excellent source of energy because when you cleave the hydrocarbon bonds through rapid oxidation (burn it) those bonds release energy (any time you're breaking a covalent bond you're releasing a quantum of energy. Gasoline just happens to have a LOT of covalent bonds tied up in a structure that, with a little heat and extra oxygen, are easy to break). In order to use hydrocarbon fuels you don't have to break them apart first then burn them; burning them IS breaking them apart. You're not trying to put the hydrocarbons back together in your engine, you're only taking them apart. Putting them back together requires exactly as much energy as it takes to break them apart and is exactly what you're doing with electrolysis.

To burn the hydrogen in water, you first have to cleave the hydrogen-oxygen bonds and make HHO gas. That takes energy and the energy you get from burning the hydrogen will never -- because of thermodynamics -- exceed the amount of energy required to make the HHO gas in the first place. So the net result will always be negative. Which returns me to my previous point: Does the radio frequency generator utilize less energy than is obtained from the resulting reaction and of so, how?

I am no chemist so you are probably right about the formation of water etc.. however as far as the laws of thermodynamics, again they do not matter. The reason why is that they apply to everything in the universe and they are as far as we know unbreakable. The laws basically state that you can't make a perfect engine and entropy of the universe always increases. If you look at what is happening here, it is about the same thing as oil. When you have crude oil, you can't really use it, you have to refine it to states that will make it usable in certain types of engines. And even after that it is not a free form of energy. To get heat energy out of your refined oil, you must introduce oxygen and a spark or very high compression in case of diesel engines. After this you will use some of the energy that is created as work and dump most of it as exhaust, basically wasting it. In this case it is a similar process, work is done on the saltwater mixture and energy is released. Frequency generators do vary greatly in power, so technically it is possible for it to take more energy to break the bonds than the total energy released but again that wouldn't be breaking the laws of thermodynamics, it would only mean that we suck at building frequency generators. In both cases laws of thermodynamics are not a deciding factor on if this thing is going to be efficient or not, they only tell us what is the best possible case scenario and what is not possible at all.