Future of energy

[Griffin Lambert]

[Tyler Timmermans]

this guy is probably dead by now killed by the oil companies.

[Griffin Lambert]

No, he's still going strong

[Harry Evans]

That's amazing. I work in tech consulting, looking for opportunities and trends. This could be a HUGE deal. That guy's gonna be rich.

[Jason Hyatt]

I guess my big question would be the same for any water-powered machine: how do you get around the laws of thermodynamics? There is an undeniable amount of energy in the bonds between oxygen and hydrogen found in water; that's not in question and hydrolyzing water into HHO gas has been done -- a lot. The problem is that it requires exactly as much energy to break those bonds and form HHO gas as you get out of the recombination reaction -- and that assumes 100% efficiency. Since no machine in history has ever been 100% efficient, nor can it be because of the laws of thermodynamics, the net result will always be negative. So I would have to ask the inventor (and I'd very much like to...): How much energy is required to power the radio frequency generator? How much energy do you get from the resulting reaction? If it is a net positive, this will revolutionize humanity. I know of no chemical or physical process that allows for a net positive result. Any physicists out there wanna tackle this one?

[Tyler Timmermans]

I guess my big question would be the same for any water-powered machine: how do you get around the laws of thermodynamics? There is an undeniable amount of energy in the bonds between oxygen and hydrogen found in water; that's not in question and hydrolyzing water into HHO gas has been done -- a lot. The problem is that it requires exactly as much energy to break those bonds and form HHO gas as you get out of the recombination reaction -- and that assumes 100% efficiency. Since no machine in history has ever been 100% efficient, nor can it be because of the laws of thermodynamics, the net result will always be negative. So I would have to ask the inventor (and I'd very much like to...): How much energy is required to power the radio frequency generator? How much energy do you get from the resulting reaction? If it is a net positive, this will revolutionize humanity. I know of no chemical or physical process that allows for a net positive result. Any physicists out there wanna tackle this one?

i think this is just one part of something that in the future that will be a hybrid of different clean energy sources like if the radio is powered by solar panels they your energy input is free.

[Mike Noronowicz]

they (the big companies or illuminati) won't allow us to have our own energy ,including solar power homes and windmills etc. its all about POWER ,CONTROL , MANIPULATION AND MONEY

[Tim Elliott]

i think this is just one part of something that in the future that will be a hybrid of different clean energy sources like if the radio is powered by solar panels they your energy input is free.

Then its just a way of wasting solar energy.


The future of our energy supplies is liquid fuel thorium reactors.

[AndyK5]

I guess my big question would be the same for any water-powered machine: how do you get around the laws of thermodynamics? There is an undeniable amount of energy in the bonds between oxygen and hydrogen found in water; that's not in question and hydrolyzing water into HHO gas has been done -- a lot. The problem is that it requires exactly as much energy to break those bonds and form HHO gas as you get out of the recombination reaction -- and that assumes 100% efficiency. Since no machine in history has ever been 100% efficient, nor can it be because of the laws of thermodynamics, the net result will always be negative. So I would have to ask the inventor (and I'd very much like to...): How much energy is required to power the radio frequency generator? How much energy do you get from the resulting reaction? If it is a net positive, this will revolutionize humanity. I know of no chemical or physical process that allows for a net positive result. Any physicists out there wanna tackle this one?

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.

[Justin W.]

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