[lyner]

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.

[lyner]

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.

[Farrah Day]

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?

[lyner]

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.

[Pumblechook (OP)]

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

[Farrah Day]

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.

[Pumblechook (OP)]

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-burning-water-here-is-my-latest.html

[Pumblechook (OP)]

-"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. 

[Pumblechook (OP)]

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

[Farrah Day]

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.

[lyner]

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.

[Farrah Day]

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.

[Farrah Day]

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??

[lyner]

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.

[Farrah Day]

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.

[lyner]

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.

[Farrah Day]

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. []

[lyner]

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.

[curiosity is best]

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?