Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Technology => Topic started by: Pumblechook on 14/01/2009 09:01:35
-
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=n-hm5gCEUvc
-
Another? There was one already?
-
Where do these people think electricity comes from?
-
Does remind you of elec car fans. They think the elec comes out of the air.
-
The one positive thing about this story is that the large microwave he has built is unshielded so with any luck all the stupid people standing in awe around it will be gently steralised and not breed any more stupid people...
As to what is happening, he has just put a long thin conducting thing essentially in a microwave, and he has got a spark out the top. This is not going to yield anywhere near as much electricity as you put in, so not going to solve any energy shortage.
-
You are right, the energy is coming form the micro waves breakign down the H20 molecules and the salt is the allowing the reaction, it is only a bizaar version of electrolosis which also created Hydrogen and Oxygen,
Once ignited you have the eternal flame, but only as long as the energy id being dumped into the salt water.
-
It is not microwaves. The RF generator is around 300 Watts at 13.56 MHz.
-
Very practical indeed. As long as my car is connected to an energy source that creates the waves, I can burn saltwater to run a tiny sterling motor that supposedly moves the car. Back and forth a short distance to stay connected to the source of energy required for this process. Not to speak about that it takes more energy to "prepare" the water then you get back from burning it.
Is there not anyone working at those TV stations who reported this nonsense (3 or 4 during this 9 minute video) who has actually a tiny bit of science background and a sliver of ability to ask technical questions and evaluate the answers? This is just so dumb! Are we returning to the dark ages that fast?
In German this is called "Bauernfaengerei". Catching farmers. Farmers meaning "gullible people" which is not what I think applies to all farmers.
-
Is there not anyone working at those TV stations who reported this nonsense (3 or 4 during this 9 minute video) who has actually a tiny bit of science background and a sliver of ability to ask technical questions and evaluate the answers? This is just so dumb! Are we returning to the dark ages that fast?
I hate to ask but which part of the World are these TV stations situated? Where are all the gullible people?
-
My favourite bit was when he suggested that you could use this to run a generator, and generate electricity!
-
Is there not anyone working at those TV stations who reported this nonsense (3 or 4 during this 9 minute video) who has actually a tiny bit of science background and a sliver of ability to ask technical questions and evaluate the answers? This is just so dumb! Are we returning to the dark ages that fast?
I hate to ask but which part of the World are these TV stations situated? Where are all the gullible people?
Without going back to watch those 9 minutes again, I would say they were all in the good old, USA. That does not mean that other nations are immune though. I was informed about the benefits of water as a fuel by a Canadian. Having lived in Germany for 25 years, I would say it is better there but not much. Most people believe what they want to believe and use what results in the smallest changes of one's life-style. The gullible people can be found anywhere where rational thinking are not accepted as the best way of thinking. In the USA you can be irrational without having to fear ridicule. Regrettable, but tolerance of free speech and thought has gone that far. It seems to be more admirable to express your nonsensical opinion than to express that an opinion is nonsensical.
-
It's a very endearing quality of the 'Americans" in general that they are more than happy to take the mickey of themselves.
-
It's a very endearing quality of the 'Americans" in general that they are more than happy to take the mickey of themselves.
What does that mean: "to make the mickey of themselves"? Please, for a simple German-American.
-
To make fun of/laugh at/tease themselves basically.
-
To make fun of/laugh at/tease themselves basically.
Thanks. I am not sure if we do this voluntarily though. Very often I fear this is honest and well-intentioned ignorance. And that might(!) include me sometimes(!).
-
They (Americans) are much better at it than the Brits in films and on TV.
The cultural differences are striking in many ways. In the UK we are far tougher in interviews with Politicians and much less 'respectful' than in the US but there are far more 'ghastly' /corrupt / stupid characters in US films than in the relatively 'coy' British films.
Still, the next President is definitely a plus for you lot!
-
Yes, next Tuesday will be the first time ever I will feel remotely proud to be American. Many people feel awfully optimistic here and that is a good thing during times that need (maybe even blind) optimism to go forward and try to turn the boat around.
I do have to say though that I LOVE British comedy. Maybe not all of it, but the dry, dark humor pleases me a lot.
-
Seems to me that most of you here are completely missing the point.
Assuming that the whole thing is not a hoax - and for once I'm not inclined to jump to the conclusion that it is - then this is a very interesting phenomena.
For those of you that have immediately resigned yourself to the fact that this 'nothing special', 'no big deal' - he's simply breaking down water into H & O, I ask you simply this: what is the science behind it?
Some of you seem far more interested in how much energy it's taking to do this - whereas you should really be asking yourself, 'How the hell is this happening?'.
Someone was talking about microwaves, but it was stated that he was operating his rf transmitter at 13.6MHz - not Ghz. Besides microwaves would simply boil off the water.
Furthermore, many people who have poo-pooed this in other places say it is just electrolysis.
Well, it certainly is not electrolysis. So what is it?
Also, it would be nice to know exactly what gases are being evolved, hydrogen, oxygen, both? If it was electrolysis, we would be getting hydrogen and chlorine! What part is the sodium chloride playing in all this?
For now, forget about the 'water fuel bandwagon' nonsense that uneducated and ignorant news reporters tend to immediately jump on, and instead put your mind to the science involved.
This is actually far more interesting and indeed intriguing than most of you are giving it credit for.
-
I think Dave may have worked out what's going on...
As to what is happening, he has just put a long thin conducting thing essentially in a microwave, and he has got a spark out the top. This is not going to yield anywhere near as much electricity as you put in, so not going to solve any energy shortage.
And I think I'm entitled not to give it much credit, when the implication is that we should use electricity to power a radio wave emitter, which we can then use to enable salt water to 'burn', which we can then use to generate electricity...
Plus, I'm very dubious about the bit where he put his hand in the machine - it may have been the editor/journalist twisting the images to make the story more interesting, but human blood is pretty similar to salty water...
-
Yep Bev, looks like Dave has it all worked out there, glad you pointed it out:
he has just put a long thin conducting thing essentially in a microwave, and he has got a spark out the top
Well there you go, the science so fully explained, and so eloquently put. Golly, I wonder where Dave gets his inspiration from?
Joking aside, if that explanation is good enough for you or anyone else, then I suggest that a science forum is not really for you.
Of course, you're free to give it as little credit as you want to, it's just I thought this was a science forum, and kinda expected a little more, well... science!
If you read my post I did say, forget about the 'water fuel, free energy' nonsense. From a scientific interest point of view, this is not the issue.. or at least should not be the issue.
The SCIENCE is the intriguing part.
Essentially his machine is an induction furnace, primarily designed for heating up nanoparticles that lodge themselves to cancer cells. Hence the cancerous cell, and only the cancerous is destroyed. Of course you can put your hand in the machine without harm- it's not a microwave!
Given that this IS a science forum, is there anyone even remotely interested in the actual science behind this phenomena!?
-
Kanzius makes no claim it is miracle (free) energy from water. He is probably annoyed that it has been portrayed as such by the press which is absolutely typical of them.
The tube is too small to have circulating currents.. It will be a tiny fraction of the 22 metre wavelength. The only other known (?) mechanism is dielectric heating.
Like with so many other 'major' discoveries like this few people seem to follow it up and we hear no more. I could in fact try it here. I have a source of around 600 Watts at 13.56 MHz. He uses 300W I think.
-
Okay Farrah, I thought Dave's explanation was okay because it makes sense to me, as a zoologist and not a physicist.
My reaction to this was based on the way it was presented to me, and perfectly acceptable as such.
As a cancer treatment, the major issue would be attracting the gold nanoparticles to cancerous cells, and then finding a way to excrete them again. Otherwise, you wouldn't need this technology as if you could target only cancer cells, you could target them with drugs.
However, you're quite right, the science of what is happening is very interesting. What do you think is going on?
-
Ok
Mr P wrote:Kanzius makes no claim it is miracle (free) energy from water. He is probably annoyed that it has been portrayed as such by the press which is absolutely typical of them.
Which is a thing that I feel gets overlooked by most, the free energy nonsense simply being the invention of silly reporters out to make it a more appealing story for the layman.
The fact is that we really seem to have something interesting and - as far as I am aware - unknown happening here.
So, what do we have?
A solution of Na+, Cl- and H2O.
We also know that ionisation is and endothermic reaction, hence requiring energy to take place. Water itself is continually very fractiionally self-ionising due to molecular movement and collisions, but the resulting H+ and OH- ions quickly reform as the more stable water molecule.
In standard electrolysis employing an electrolyte, we draw a two-way current through the solution due to the charged ions. These ions collide with water molecules which causes water to ionise. The more electrolyte, the more charged species, the more collisions, the more water ionises for any given applied voltage. However, to evolve as hydrogen and oxygen any water molecule ionising into H+ and OH- must immediately give up and take electrons otherwise it will again quickly reform as water. In standard electrolysis, collisions and hence ionisation at an electrode, will allow these ions to give up or take on an electron. Hence we get an atom of either hydrogen or oxygen which combines with another to be evolved as gas. The key thing here is that the electrodes provide or take away the necessary charges.
Now, although Kanzius did have an electrolyte (NaCl), he has no electrodes to supply or take away electrons. So, it cannot be electrolysis as we know it.
And what about the chlorine? Ok, information is a bit sketchy, but I would have expected that someone would have noticed if chlorine was being given off - very nasty yellow/green gas with a very strong and distinctive smell, that will eat your lungs if you breath too much of it!
So, we have a saltwater solution being bombarded by electromagnetic radiation. This must surely be adding energy to the solution to create the reaction, but what reaction can possibly be taking place.
The sodium and chlorine ions, as charged particles, will surely be influenced by the electromagnetic field. If they are induced into movement, could it be that this kinetic energy is enough to cause reactions. If so what?
Unlike in electrolysis, simple ionisation of water does not work in this scenario.
Could it be, and I'm only hypothesising here, that enough energy is being absorbed by the solution to cause the sodium ion to take back its electrom from the hydroxyl ion. If this happened, the sodium atom would immediately react with a water molecule to give off hydrogen. But there is little to base this upon.
If we knew for sure what gas/es were being evolved, this would surely be helpful.
Obviously, I do not know what is happening, I only know that it is NOT electrolysis and not a microwave oven.
Actually I was rather hoping that someone on the forum might be able to add a little insight into the phenomenon.
-
In standard electrolysis employing an electrolyte, we draw a two-way current through the solution due to the charged ions. These ions collide with water molecules which causes water to ionise. The more electrolyte, the more charged species, the more collisions, the more water ionises for any given applied voltage. However, to evolve as hydrogen and oxygen any water molecule ionising into H+ and OH- must immediately give up and take electrons otherwise it will again quickly reform as water. In standard electrolysis, collisions and hence ionisation at an electrode, will allow these ions to give up or take on an electron. Hence we get an atom of either hydrogen or oxygen which combines with another to be evolved as gas. The key thing here is that the electrodes provide or take away the necessary charges.
I don't think this is true, actually. My understanding of standard electrolysis is that there is no increase in ionisation, but rather that those ions closest to the electrodes are oxidised/reduced, and diffusion basically does the rest. Your description above sounds more like how a gas discharge lamp works.
You are correct in saying that the H+ and OH- species present in water are transient, but they need not be long-lasting to be available at electrodes in "normal" ([H+]=10^-7) water.
I haven't watched the video as I am using a lab PC before going home - my laptop having broken ;( (and so cannot really comment on what's in it) but presumably the role of the sodium chloride is to make the solution conducting so that currents can be induced in it (just as they would be in a radio arial).
Any device capable of exciting enough current in a nanoparticle to cause it to heat up and thereby destroy tumour cells need not necessarily be entirely without heating effects on strong salt solutions. The thing about cancer therapies is they are not, typically, without side effects (they don't have to have great side effect profiles to compare favourable with most forms of chemotherapy), so I wouldn't necessarily expect the device to have zero effect on tissue not doped with nanoparticles, and I think I would expect at least some heating effect on a concentrated salt solution (I have no idea whether this is infact a concentrated salt solution, if it is a very dilute, say physiological concentration then it's a different matter).
-
Hi Rosy
My description for electrolysis may not be 100% accurate, but that said, even at the highest levels there seems to be some contention between scientists as to exactly what is happening. Even everyday standard electrolysis is nowhere near as simple and straight-forward as most people tend to think it is - been there and got the t-shirt! [;)] That aside, the point I was trying to make was that Kanzius's discovery is in no way immediately comparable to standard electrolysis.
However, since you bring it up. If there is no increase in the ionisation of water when we add an electrolyte, why then do we even need the electrolyte? Or are you saying that there is an increase in ionisation, but only at the electrodes? Which, I might add is precisely where scientists tend to be at odds.
Whichever way you look at it, drawing a heavy ion current through water would surely inccur many collisions, creating enough kinetic energy to ionise some water, not just at the electrodes, but surely also throughout the solution. A bit like driving a bus at 50mph through a busy pedestrian only town centre on market day!
It's not the heating of the salt water that is an issue - I too would expect it to get hot if there are charged species being induced to move. The issue really is on the possible reaction to explain the liberation of hydrogen and oxygen - if that's what the gasses are?
Apparently the water could be ignited at various salt levels, from very weak to quite strong.
To me, the odd thing is, that if you tried to ignite the gas coming off a small electrolyser, it tends to pop and explode. I've never seen anyone burning the gases coming off an electrolyser and maintaining a steady burn or flame as is the case of Kanzius.
Intriguing.
It might even be that the science behind this, when fully understood, goes a little further to explaining some of the more contentious areas of normal electrolysis.
-
The whole thing sounds like a poor man's cold fusion. It's so full of holes, its not worth discussing. If there's anything in it, it needs to be looked into a lot more deeply than utube can do.
-
Curious Sophie, what holes are you talking about exactly. Or are you too simply dismissing this as a non-starter... a hoax?
And I'm confused; is it not worth discussing, or is it worth looking into deeper than utube? This isn't utube it's a science forum and looking into it a little deeper is exactly what I'm attempting to do.
Seems to me that by now scientists somewhere are probably looking into much more deeply as I write.
Maybe it's just me, but this just doesn't have the ring of a clever hoax about it.
How quick people are to dismiss things without any real thought or consideration - makes you wonder how we ever got out of the dark ages!
-
Kanzius first did this back in April 2007 I think. Why has he been quiet since and why has nobody else tried? See if you can Google something. There was earlier work on this I think but nothing in the last nearly 2 years. Negative results dont tend to get much coverage.
I have got a 600 Watts High Frequency amplifier. I need to build two loop aerials and connect the second to a load so that the amplifier always 'sees' a load. That is what I think he has there and he puts the tube between them.
-
...How quick people are to dismiss things without any real thought or consideration - makes you wonder how we ever got out of the dark ages!
The real question is how long it will take to get back in the dark ages if we are willing to accept things without real thought or consideration. It is not the skeptics who have brought us in the dark, attempted to leave us in the dark, or will bring us back there.
-
For a science forum, there is a great deal of negativity.
Surely this negativity and skepticsm has to be justified as much as positive, forward-thinking has to be.
Why immediately presume it to be a hoax? If it's not, surely the science is worth discussing.
Karsten said:
The real question is how long it will take to get back in the dark ages if we are willing to accept things without real thought or consideration
My whole point was the fact that most people seem to be dismissing this without any real thought or consideration before coming to a preconceived conclusion.
Does make me wonder how science ever progressed to where it is now, as it clearly appears there are a lot of people still living in the dark ages. I'm only surprised that you haven't yet sort this man out and had him burned at the stake as a witch!
Mr P, good luck with your experiment. I've seen it stated that Kanzius was using 13.6MHz, but this might not be accurate. Would it not focus the EMR if you actually wound the antenna around a glass jar containing a saltwater solution.
Here are a couple of links to a little more info:
http://www.rustumroy.com/Scans/Observations%20of%20polarized%20MRI%20vol%2012%20is%201.pdf
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=74285&GID=zk4SwIKSnGIds9hUfynnp+AmKjjOke5Fp+37lHLYo9Q%3D
-
For a science forum, there is a great deal of negativity.
...
My whole point was the fact that most people seem to be dismissing this without any real thought or consideration before coming to a preconceived conclusion.
Does make me wonder how science ever progressed to where it is now, as it clearly appears there are a lot of people still living in the dark ages. I'm only surprised that you haven't yet sort this man out and had him burned at the stake as a witch!
Blimey, you're on a very high horse, aren't you? The negativity here is due to the way this was presented to us by the presenters on the news clips shown - not as "Look at this interesting bit of science" but as "Wow! this man can burn salt water - this could solve the energy crisis!". This obviously garners a negative response.
Also, did you realise you were the first person to being up the idea of it being a hoax?
-
Well firstly Bev, if none of you suspect this to be a hoax... what is the problem. Why are most of you being so dismissive of it? It is surely either fact or fiction. So what is it, fact or fiction - get off the fence!
Surely you're not naive enough to expect TV reporters and journalists to actually delve into any science (which of course would be waaay above them). Of course they're going to play on the free energy, burning saltwater angle - would you really expect anything different from those uneducated morons?
I simply - it seems somewhat naively - thought that, this being a science forum... hold on let me check... Yep... this being a science forum there there would be people around here that could see past the TV hype and look at the possibly very interesting science behind the discovery.
Obviously I was wrong and it would seem that a science forum - or at least this science forum - is not the place to talk... well, science!
-
Where did this attitude come from? - there were very few disparaging remarks about the science, merely about the coverage - My personal comments were:
Where do these people think electricity comes from?
and
My favourite bit was when he suggested that you could use this to run a generator, and generate electricity!
Most of the rest of the conversation was about people being gullible enough to think of this as an energy breakthrough.
So you're right, we were not discussing the science. But, therefore, we were not being negative about the science, merely about the presentation.
It being or not being a hoax has nothing to do with the fact that the interviewers, presenters and editors all failed to see that this could not be a solution to an energy crisis.
You presumably see why this isn't an energy breakthrough, so why come in all guns blazing? Surely you could have avoided any aggro by saying something along the lines of "Yes, tv people can twist things and be rubbish, but I'm interested in the science going on here - anybody know how it works?"
-
There is a .pdf report (I can't find it at mo) partly or wholly written by Kanzuis where he states the RF generator is 300 Watts at 13.56 MHz which is just a frequency allocated for diathermy....no other significance.
I suspect he had something like this to start with being a radio ham like me.. I have one of these.. It covers the 14 MHz band so would probably work at 13.56 with or without a minor modification...
http://www.rigpix.com/linears/fl2100b.htm
-
Bev, myself and Mr P are the only ones who remotely showed any interest in the science in the first place. The rest of you are more interested in the way the discovery was covered in the news.
So my original comments about most of you completely missing the point are quite valid. It's not about the news report - or is shouldn't be.
I take it you're not interested in the science side of it then.
-
As I said earlier:
However, you're quite right, the science of what is happening is very interesting. What do you think is going on?
I also told you that I am a zoologist by training, and other than adding my comments about targeting cancer cells with gold nanoparticles, I cannot comment on the science. I look forward to seeing Pumblechook's results.
So my original comments about most of you completely missing the point are quite valid. It's not about the news report - or is shouldn't be.
Maybe it shouldn't be, but that is to what we responded. The first post consisted solely of a link to ridiculous news coverage, to which we reacted. Maybe the discussion would have moved on to the science, but either way our responses were valid in context.
Obviously, text on a forum is not the best way to communicate the full subtleties of one's meaning, but I would appreciate it if you could find a way to be less aggressive in your posts.
-
Fair enough. Diplomacy and subtlety have never been amongst my many virtues. And I think I've now made my point.
Perhaps we can then move on to the science.
Mr P, I was wondering if you have any thoughts on possible reactions taking place within the test tube. A few ideas or theories now might just spur the discussion in the right direction.
-
FD
And I'm confused; is it not worth discussing, or is it worth looking into deeper than utube? This isn't utube it's a science forum and looking into it a little deeper is exactly what I'm attempting to do.
I put that in a grumpy way but I meant that the amount of real rubbish on utube makes it a poor basis for any serious Scientific discussion. We might just as well start discussing fairies at the bottom of the garden on the evidence of a fuzzy clip on utube.
If it is serious Science there will be alternative sources with a bit more gravitas and authenticity.
Any mention of the prefix "nano" suggests possible snake oil.
-
Sophie
Forget the utube link, like you say anyone can upload any old garbage there.
Instead take a look at the links I posted above. I think you will agree that they do provide a little more in the way of 'gravitas'. If I had seen the utube link first my interest may never have been kindled.
And, yes I know I come across as headstrong at times, but you know me from our electrolysis discussions awhile ago Sophie, I do tend to say it like I see it!
Mr P, I think I might have to invest in something like that RF amp. I've got most equipment but not one of those. I guess you just have to make sure that the output sees the right load do you?
-
I've recently trawled through many google links on this discovery, only to find that many scientists simply agree that oxygen and hydrogen are being liberated and burned. I have no reason to disagree with this. However, many also liken it to simple electrolysis and seem to see it as 'energy in - energy out. No big deal!'
The thing I find most extraordinary about these comments from scientists is that no where can I find any mention of the reaction taking place. Why can't these so-called scientists see that water cannot be ionising as in electrolysis!
I really find it quite mind boggling that any scientist is happy with the explanation that goes something like, 'yes, you add energy to the water and you break up water into hydrogen and oxygen'.
Is it just me, or has the 'science' in 'scientist' become rather meaningless?
-
The term 'electrolysis' just implies splitting with electricity. We surely agree that is the result when you put water in and you get the gases out of an electrolytic cell. The details of what goes on when the ions of other substances are involved are a bit cloudy but I don't think there is any way to get over the fact that the energy in the original bonds in H2O needs to be supplied from somewhere if you want to break them. If there is no net change in the dissolved compounds (i.e. if the energy doesn't come from a chemical source) then the energy to split the H and O has to come from the electrical input.
In that sense, there is not much chance that what has been seen can involve getting something for nothing.
-
I have read those links and neither of them suggest that you can get more out that you put in.
So, as I said earlier, there is not much point in discussing it in those terms. It's not a "Free Energy Breakthrough".
It might be (is) interesting in another context, though.
-
Hi Sophie,
yes I understand the term, 'electrolysis' and see that I missed out the 'standard' before electrolysis, as I was implying that what we understand to be happening in 'standard', everyday, high school, electrolysis, can not be happening here.
Why is everyone continually harping on about the 'Free Energy' nonsense. This is irrelevant in terms of the science involved from decomposing water using EMR, but people can't seem to see past this.
I don't for one minute expect to be getting something for nothing - and frankly I have little interest in this - I just wish other people would stop letting this nonsense cloud their judgement and instead consider the science itself.
This has to be considered new science, otherwise I would by now have seen, somewehere, a balanced electrochemical reaction for the reactions taking place. Think about this, the standard, everyday electrolysis equations that we are used to seeing no longer apply - they simply do not fit... do they?
Do you yourself have any suggestion as to what reactions are occurring?
-
Fair enuf FD. It was unfortunate that the thread / utube clip seemed to emphasise the nonsense part of the report.
I don't really know enough about chemistry to contribute.
We frequently have heated threads concerning what
"really goes on" during electrolysis.
Using RF power to produce the necessary E field means that you don't need electrodes. The O2 and H2 must form some very small bubbles as an intimately mixed froth at the surface. The flame has typical Hydrogen flame colour.
I wonder how carefully the RF frequency was chosen; perhaps it was a transmitter he just happened to have around.
-
As I posted before........
There is a .pdf report (I can't find it at mo) partly or wholly written by Kanzuis where he states the RF generator is 300 Watts at 13.56 MHz which is just a frequency allocated for diathermy....no other significance. The 27.12 MHz harmonic is also allocated.
I suspect he had something like this to start with being a radio ham (K3TUP) like me.. I have one of these.. It covers the 14 MHz band so would probably work at 13.56 with or without a minor modification...
http://www.rigpix.com/linears/fl2100b.htm
-
Mr P
Yes I checked out what you said, and clearly medical equipment and medical research has specific RF frequencies allocated to it, 13.56MHz being just one. So, I would assume that Kanzius must have been using one of these frequencies, if not 13.56MHz.
Sophie
Maybe it's because of my interest and background research into standard electrolysis that I so instantly recognised problems with the reactions - and hence the mystery. For me the article immediately posed interesting scientific questions that no one has even touched on.
My problem does not lie in the fact that the electrolyte solution must be absorbing RF power, but rather the fact that in 'standard' electrolysis, adding energy causes water to ionise forming H+ and OH- ions when it's covalent bonds break. But to become hydrogen, and hence be given off as a gas, the H+ ions picks up an electron from the cathode to become an atom. With this RF method, we do not have this source of electrons - no cathode. So water can't be ionising into H+ and OH-, it must then surely be a completely different and perhaps unrecorded reaction.
We also know that the NaCl plays a part because nothing happens without the electrolyte present. But again, this electrolyte in standard electrolysis gives us Hydrogen and Chlorine gases - no Oxygen.
It would be interesting to know if other metal salts can be used, such as sodium hydroxide and potassiium hydroxide. I suspect that they would work equally well. I also suspect that the metal ion is playing an important role - but of course this is only conjecture.
Do you now see why I'm so intrigued by this phenomenon, while being equally intrigued by the fact that no one else seems to have realised the mystery but me.
-
http://philipball.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-burning-water-here-is-my-latest.html
-
-"Richard Saykally, a chemistry professor at the University of California at Berkeley, called the recent paper's claims "pseudo-science" in an interview with Chemical and Engineering News."-
http://popularmechanics.smartmoney.com/science/research/4271398.html
Someone suggested it was a simple RF flashover on the surface of the water like you get in high power waveguides which have water vapour in them.
-
Saykally reckons the efficiency ..elec to hydgrogen is likely to be very low....
http://www.rustumroy.com/Water%20on%20fire%20makes%20scientists%20burn.%20C&EN%20news.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Saykally
-
Hi Mr P
I'd not seen the fist 'philipball.blogspot' link that you provided above, but I feel it is one of the more thoughtful, better written and well balanced pieces, which pretty much parallels my own thinking on the matter.
Saykally calls it 'pseudoscience' at one point, but in his defence this terms seems specifically aimed at a suggestive explanation of the process provided by Kanzius and Roy, and not at the process in its own right. Saykallys mention of the possibility of a plasma being generated is fair enough, but he does not follow up this possibility with any kind of plausible reaction, so in that sense, he offers no better an explanation than Kanzius and Roy.
There is a mention by Philip Ball of the 'phenomenons potential likeness to electrolysis and wonders why the authors haven't pointed this out', which I find rather strange as to me it is the unlikeness of this to standard electrolysis that is the main point of interest.
I too wonder why no one had sampled the gas/es to determine exactly what they are - I'm sure they know by now.
The Roy and Kanzuis paper still does not address any electrochemical reactions, and indeed this - by far the most interesting aspect - has not been addressed anywhere that I have seen.
All very interesting, with even authorities on the subject of water seemingly at a loss to either understand or explain the electrochemical reactions involved. The science remains a mystery.
-
FD
I see your problem with electron availability but an E field can produce ionisation. There is no information as to the expected electric field inside the diathermy machine but I guess it's safe to assume that it is enough. Electrolytic cells can work with very low applied voltages and, if the impedance of the gap / cavity were in the region of 50ohms, the voltage, for a dissipated 300W, would be just under 40V. The gap appears to be about 0.2m so the field gradient would be in the region of 200V/m. I should imagine that would be enough to provide the sort of gradient you'd find right next to a conventional electrode. That's a bit glib, I realise, bearing in mind the conductivity of the salt solution, which only occupies a small fraction of the 'gap' in the machine.
RF fields produce ionisation of gases very easily - see the movie - which may or may not have relevance to the situation in solutions.
-
Hi Sophie
I'm at a bit of a loss as of what to make of your last post. You seem to acknowledge my problem with the electron availability, but then say,
but an E field can produce ionisation
.
I don't see how saying this provides any kind of an answer to the lack of electrons, or how it relates to the first part of your sentence. Please elaborate.
Maybe it's my fault, perhaps I'm failing miserably to make myself clear on this point.
I have no problem with RF EMR ionising the water molecule, but for the resulting ions to become atoms of oxygen and hydrogen and hence liberated from the liquid medium, charges do need to be collected and dropped somewhere. This normally happens at the electrodes in a standard electrolyser, but where can an H+ ion pick up an electron in this process, there simply is no supply of electrons.
It is not the ionisation that is the problem, but it is one thing ionising water, and quite another thing to get H2 and O2 from those resulting ions.
Do you see now what I'm getting at?
If an EM field produced 'electrons' as well as ionisation, then all would be well - but it doesn't.
-
It has occurred to me just how unlikely it is that the specific frequency of 13.56 MHz alone is responsible for the Kanzius discovery. Don't you think that this would be one hell of a coincidence?
Water absorbs EMR at 2.4GHz, ie, the microwave oven, and though there would inevitably be some ionisation (water is continually self-ionising), the result we all know of is heat. But we are nowhere near 2.4GHz here, or even near the 500MHz sodium RF absorption frequency, which I believe is what sodium vapour lamps operate at.
Furthermore unlike water alone, a solution of salt water contains anions and cations that will be induced into movement by ANY frequency of EMR. So maybe it is not about ions and molecules absorbing the RF radiation, rather the collisions induced by the RF electromagnetic field acting on the cations and anions - the induced kinetic energy.
However, this might give us the H+ and OH- ions but still doesn't explain how we get from this stage to the liberation of oxygen and hydrogen??
-
Please elaborate.
If the field is high enough then it can an polarise atom enough to separate an electron or to separate two halves of a molecule with imbalanced charges. Let's face it, it's a local field that causes any chemical reaction; it's all fields, innit?
Why these shouldn't recombine with the next spare opposite ion is probably because they're going at some speed due to the field.
Are we sure that the reaction we see in the flame is and O H reaction? Couldn't it be an H OH reaction? Not enough energy perhaps.
See. My Chemistry is not good enough, as I said.
It seems your (and my) problem is not to do with how you put the energy into the system, it's how the O gets formed.
Someone will have to tell me I'm talking b**cks and give us the right answer.
Bored Chemist or someone can probably do the decent thing and put me out of your misery.
-
Hi Sophie
We are obviously on quite different wavelengths here, as I'm not at all following your line of reasoning.
The thing is, irrelevant of what is causing it, when water dissociates it ionises into H+ and OH-. If the water molecule dissociated cleanly into hydrogen and oxygen atoms (as it seems many people assume it does) then there would be no problem with four hydrogen atoms combining to 2 x H2 molecules and two oxygen atoms combining to the O2 molecule - both these would be liberated as gas.
But this is not what happens. Ionisation leaves a hydrogen ion H+ and a hydroxyl ion OH-. To become a gas this hydrogen ion must first become an atom again so needs to pick up an electron from somewhere. A H+ can't join with another H+ - like charges repel for a start, and hydrogen ions are not liberated as gas, we know this from Faradays laws.
No, we are not sure that H and O is being liberated, which of course would help.
I'm not sure anyone can yet provide a specific answer at this time.
-
We are obviously on quite different wavelengths here
That's probably because, when talking Chemistry, I am very likely to be b/s-ing.
If there are spare electrons around, then you'd have no objection? Perhaps these come from the Cl ions then, which could also be shaken up by the RF. RF fields can be pretty disruptive. The frequency need not precise in the close presence of other atoms - unlike in gases.
-
Hi Sophie,
All electrons should be accounted for, as unlike in a metal with loosely bound outer electrons, ions are the current carriers in a liquid, not electrons. If there were free electrons pottering about in the solution they would be quickly snapped up by the sodium ions.
If the H+ ion took an electron from the Cl- ion, then the chlorine would be free to join with another chlorine atom to become a chlorine molecule and evolve as chlorine gas. A very nasty visible, smelly gas, which I really suspect someone would have noticed before their lungs started to dissolve. It may also dissolve in the water to become chlorinated water, again very smelly - think swimming baths. If chlorine gas evolved with hydrogen, when burned they would get hydrogen chloride, which would react with any moisture in the air to become hydrochloric acid - all quite nasty stuff.
At least your giving me pause for thought, and it's nice to have someone to talk to. [;)]
-
No idea then.
Unless it's a very dynamic thing and (atomic) hydrogen, being very light, finds its way to the surface before it can be recombined.
Actually, the effect could just be on the surface where there could be high levels of current flowing (skin effect). Could it be generating a plasma just on the surface?
I wonder if the pH of the solution changes after some time? I was thinking of NaOH - but then there would be chlorine as well. Bummer.
-
Hello everybody. I've done a bit of (non-technical) research into the Kanzius experiment. After viewing the utube video in slow motion, there are clues as to the RF generator used. It turns out he is using a commercially available high power RF generator. The frequency is 13.56MHz. This is a frequency used for various things from low power RF IDs up to high power plasma etching equipment. It turns out the generator he used is from a company called ENI. The model number is ENI OEM-6B3 RF Generator 3 Phase 650W 13.56MHz. As a matter of fact, a used version is available on ebay at the time I write this for $2000. Check out the front panel the ENI generator to that on the video. An exact match, knobs and all. ENI has a few different models to choose from with different maximum output power (eg 200, 300, 650W). The model number above is 650W.
So while it's interesting to speculate if what he's doing is real why not purchase the same generator and try it out? You may need to get creative on the antenna.
Now, as to whether more energy is output from the reaction versus input energy.... Let's think about it slightly differently. If this is a hydrogen/oxygen reaction. The flame may likely give off pure water.... aka "desalination". In this case, the question here is whether the experiment uses less power than current desalination plants. If so, we have a winner, not for fusion, but rather desalination. In addition, the desalination process could be made more efficient by converting the excess heat into recovered electricity. If this process could be scaled up and use less energy than current desalination plants we have a winner.
Thoughts?? And if anyone has an extra $2K plus an idea on the right antenna, why not give it a try?