Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jr2 on March 16, 2012, 07:31:43 pm
-
Basically, this dude supposedly found a way to use radio waves to get the hydrogen and oxygen out of salt water and burn it. He found this whilst trying to find a cure for cancer, by injecting patients with nano-particles of gold (which are attracted to abnormalities of cancer cells and ignore regular cells) and then use a radio frequency generator to heat up and kill the cancer cells.
APV (?) company in Akron, OH supposedly checked it out, and the saltwater burns at 1500 degrees Centigrade
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/video/33kPzu
OK, HLP, tear it up, or confirm... possible?
EDIT: No Nuke, you are NOT allowed to mount an orbital radio frequency generator tuned to burn the world's oceans. You want to get rid of 99.9% of human life, not all life. Right, Nuke? Nuke? Nuuuke...? -runs off to go catch Nuke before he can assemble and build an orbital death ray-
-
Probably doesn't work.
-
I'm aware that that is a distinct possibility, however, since this appears to be featured on the news, I would hope that it also appears, at least, to work...
EDIT:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt_Water_Using_Radio_Wav es
The late John Kanzius found a way to burn salt water with the same radio wave machine he is using to kill cancer cells.
Kanzius was testing his external radio-wave generator to see if it could desalinate salt water, and the water ignited. A university chemist determined that the process is generating hydrogen, which can be burned as fuel.
While the phenomenon is interesting, it is not yet practical for energy generation as long as more energy is consumed by the radio frequency device than is produced for burning. Efficiency-wise, they started at around 76 percent of Faraday's theoretical limit. (Other Hydrogen-from-Water methods, such as the one being pursued by Bob Boyce, are approaching 7x Faraday). They subsequently quietly reported that they surpassed 100% efficiency, which would mean that the system is somehow harnessing environmental energy such as from the zero point or some other yet-to-be discovered phenomenon.
Another problem to be overcome from burning salt water is the liberation of toxic chlorine (from the Cl of NaCl/salt).
Kanzius said if someone wants to buy up the rights to the technology, that would be fine. He would use the funds to finance his quest to cure cancer.
I guess this is "news" from ~2009??
So, it either doesn't work, or does and someone shut it down. -_-
EDIT2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kanzius (has 5 or 6 patents and other sources linked)
EDIT3: I guess why it doesn't work is that it takes more energy to generate the radio waves than is produced by the 1500C fire... however, there appear to be some claims that they got around that somehow, but no real... details. :ick:
If you want to make a big discovery, release the details on the internet. You might not get rich, but I'm betting you won't ever have to pay for a meal or hotel room if you put your mug in with the invention. (Oh, I guess you'd have to patent it and 'release' it somehow, otherwise some big company would steal it from you.)
-
EDIT: No Nuke, you are NOT allowed to mount an orbital radio frequency generator tuned to burn the world's oceans. You want to get rid of 99.9% of human life, not all life. Right, Nuke? Nuke? Nuuuke...? -runs off to go catch Nuke before he can assemble and build an orbital death ray-
honestly i havent really decided whether i want to kill all life or just most of it. i had always operated on the assumption that a near extinction event will pull humanity's collective head out of its collective ass and build a civilization that will put everything that has come before to shame. unfortunately, these days im starting to doubt that it will happen that way. so sterilizing the earth is starting to sound like a really good idea.
-
Basically, this dude supposedly found a way to use radio waves to get the hydrogen and oxygen out of salt water and burn it. He found this whilst trying to find a cure for cancer, by injecting patients with nano-particles of gold (which are attracted to abnormalities of cancer cells and ignore regular cells) and then use a radio frequency generator to heat up and kill the cancer cells.
Dunno about the second one. But doesn't the first produce the same results as hydrolysis?
-
Yes, but the electrodes wear out .. radio waves don't.
The whole problem is putting too much power in and not getting enough out. Which, again, supposedly was solved, but -0- evidence for it.
Guess that will teach me to believe that people wouldn't go and try to make a big fuss out something that might not even be worth mentioning. One of my first questions would have been 1) how much energy do those radio waves take? And perhaps, depending on the answer I got, 2) how much can you reduce that energy requirement?
-
I can't speak for the "burning water" bit, but I can confirm the potential applications for magnetic nanoparticles in cancer treatment. The lab I did undergrad research in was looking into the same stuff.
-
EDIT: No Nuke, you are NOT allowed to mount an orbital radio frequency generator tuned to burn the world's oceans. You want to get rid of 99.9% of human life, not all life. Right, Nuke? Nuke? Nuuuke...? -runs off to go catch Nuke before he can assemble and build an orbital death ray-
honestly i havent really decided whether i want to kill all life or just most of it. i had always operated on the assumption that a near extinction event will pull humanity's collective head out of its collective ass and build a civilization that will put everything that has come before to shame. unfortunately, these days im starting to doubt that it will happen that way. so sterilizing the earth is starting to sound like a really good idea.
For collective humanity to pull their head out of their ass the notion that pulling your head out of your ass is a good thing would have to reach critical mass and become part of the Zeitgeist.
A near extinction event would propably have a short term effect only, if any. Starting from scratch, especially with short term problems like "survival" to worry about... would likely just lead to a repetition of the same mistakes. I think humanity sort knows how to recover from near catastrophes or world wars... what they don't yet know is how to happily live ever after. A new world war or near extinction event would merely repeat the cycle. And even if humanity gets wiped out who is to say that evolutions successors are gonna be any better, for all we know, they might invent soap operas, reality TV and talk shows a whole century earlier! harr.
So dear Nuke... in my eyes you are proposing to restart the cycle instead of finding a solution - or in other words: Your ideas are very much part of the problem. :)
Oups... did I just commit Blasphemy in Nukeism? ... what's that red laser target dot on my lawn?
-
Second Law of Thermodynamics.
You cannot split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then turn that back into water, without putting more energy into the system in the first reaction than you get out of the second. It doesn't matter if the energy put in through the first reaction comes from electricity, radio waves, or magical fairy flatulance. If you build a generator that runs off of "burning" salt water and try to power the radio transmitter with the generator, it's going to steadily lose energy, until the system shuts down. It's just like every other perpetual motion machine for which USPTO rightfully and automatically denies patents.
That news report is what happens when media companies decide that proper, educated science correspondents are expendable in rough economic times. It's kind of infuriating, really.
-
I can't speak for the "burning water" bit, but I can confirm the potential applications for magnetic nanoparticles in cancer treatment. The lab I did undergrad research in was looking into the same stuff.
So why are you withholding the cure for cancer from the world?
-
I'm waiting for someone to pay me...one million dollars! :drevil:
-
EDIT: No Nuke, you are NOT allowed to mount an orbital radio frequency generator tuned to burn the world's oceans. You want to get rid of 99.9% of human life, not all life. Right, Nuke? Nuke? Nuuuke...? -runs off to go catch Nuke before he can assemble and build an orbital death ray-
honestly i havent really decided whether i want to kill all life or just most of it. i had always operated on the assumption that a near extinction event will pull humanity's collective head out of its collective ass and build a civilization that will put everything that has come before to shame. unfortunately, these days im starting to doubt that it will happen that way. so sterilizing the earth is starting to sound like a really good idea.
For collective humanity to pull their head out of their ass the notion that pulling your head out of your ass is a good thing would have to reach critical mass and become part of the Zeitgeist.
A near extinction event would propably have a short term effect only, if any. Starting from scratch, especially with short term problems like "survival" to worry about... would likely just lead to a repetition of the same mistakes. I think humanity sort knows how to recover from near catastrophes or world wars... what they don't yet know is how to happily live ever after. A new world war or near extinction event would merely repeat the cycle. And even if humanity gets wiped out who is to say that evolutions successors are gonna be any better, for all we know, they might invent soap operas, reality TV and talk shows a whole century earlier! harr.
So dear Nuke... in my eyes you are proposing to restart the cycle instead of finding a solution - or in other words: Your ideas are very much part of the problem. :)
Oups... did I just commit Blasphemy in Nukeism? ... what's that red laser target dot on my lawn?
well this is why the sterilization strategy is better. if i let there be survivors, id probably have to take other steps, like creating a religion for the survivors or something to make sure there is another nuke somewhere down the line, to repeat the process, and likewise expect that nuke to do the same so that the cycle of nukeage continues. dont mind the red dot, its just a little target practice.
-
Oh, yeah, the big energy companies will just love to see THIS cut into their profits. It won't surprise me if some oil baron decides to use some of his considerable wealth to try and suppress this 'new' technology.
-
just to re-iterate....
Second Law of Thermodynamics.
You cannot split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then turn that back into water, without putting more energy into the system in the first reaction than you get out of the second. It doesn't matter if the energy put in through the first reaction comes from electricity, radio waves, or magical fairy flatulance. If you build a generator that runs off of "burning" salt water and try to power the radio transmitter with the generator, it's going to steadily lose energy, until the system shuts down. It's just like every other perpetual motion machine for which USPTO rightfully and automatically denies patents.
That news report is what happens when media companies decide that proper, educated science correspondents are expendable in rough economic times. It's kind of infuriating, really.
so no, energy companies DON'T have to worry about losing profits to this.
-
Why does this even need to be made into a perputual motion machine? Why not just put more salt water in when it runs out.
Plus, it is foolish to dismiss a new idea as 'impossible' just because it doesn't fit with science as it is currently understood. A lot of historical inventions were considered to be impossible to do at the time.
-
Why does this even need to be made into a perputual motion machine? Why not just put more salt water in when it runs out.
where do you get the energy to get the water to the machine when it runs out?the law is still heftily in effect.
-
Why does this even need to be made into a perputual motion machine? Why not just put more salt water in when it runs out.
It doesn't need to be made into a perpetual motion machine, and it's not an issue of the water running out. The machine splits water into its base components - hydrogen and oxygen - using energy, in the form of radio waves, to do so. The hydrogen and oxygen then react, producing water and thermal energy. The water never runs out because it's being reconstructed during the second reaction. It's not a useful energy source, since the thermal energy in that flame is less than the energy of the radiowaves being used to produce the flame. The problem is that the input energy is less than the output energy.
Plus, it is foolish to dismiss a new idea as 'impossible' just because it doesn't fit with science as it is currently understood.
This isn't revolutionary science. This is a demonstration that first-year Physics students can assemble as a project to present to their classmates. Though the application in cancer research is relatively new, the "energy-production" side all relies on well-understood principles, all of which will tell you that there's no net energy production.
-
If one search engines "Water Powered Engine" one will find hundreds of articles on the subject, some as old as 2005! Even if this is but a hoax, it is a really persistent one.
Edit: Apparently the 'impossible' salt water engine is a $15 toy
http://www.amazon.com/Elenco-Salt-Water-Fuel-Cell/dp/B004PBWQTS
http://www.jameco.com/Jameco/content/saltwater.html
-
Edit: Apparently the 'impossible' salt water engine is a $15 toy
http://www.amazon.com/Elenco-Salt-Water-Fuel-Cell/dp/B004PBWQTS
http://www.jameco.com/Jameco/content/saltwater.html
You are desperately grabbing at straws. That fuel cell is an exercise in electrolysis, not the burning of hydrogen and oxygen. This is effectively a chemical cell/battery. You'd have realized that, if you'd have bothered to read the second page you referenced.
-
You are desperately grabbing at straws. That fuel cell is an exercise in electrolysis, not the burning of hydrogen and oxygen. This is effectively a chemical cell/battery. You'd have realized that, if you'd have bothered to read the second page you referenced.
It's still energy from salt water, even if the process may be different. And it won't be marketed as a toy if it didn't work.
Oh wait, according to wikipedia, the process might be the same after all, if this is what you mean by 'burning' hydrogen and oxygen... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
-
You are desperately grabbing at straws. That fuel cell is an exercise in electrolysis, not the burning of hydrogen and oxygen. This is effectively a chemical cell/battery. You'd have realized that, if you'd have bothered to read the second page you referenced.
And it won't [sic] be marketed as a toy if it didn't work.
You, my good sir, have a great deal to learn about the world of advertising.
-
Or he's just trolling everyone.
-
you can make a weak battery with salt water, aluminum foil and toilet paper. i know because ive done it.
-
Second Law of Thermodynamics.
You cannot split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then turn that back into water, without putting more energy into the system in the first reaction than you get out of the second. It doesn't matter if the energy put in through the first reaction comes from electricity, radio waves, or magical fairy flatulance. If you build a generator that runs off of "burning" salt water and try to power the radio transmitter with the generator, it's going to steadily lose energy, until the system shuts down. It's just like every other perpetual motion machine for which USPTO rightfully and automatically denies patents.
That news report is what happens when media companies decide that proper, educated science correspondents are expendable in rough economic times. It's kind of infuriating, really.
Why does it have to re-combine to form water again? If there was a way to actually completely split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, just burn it (or at least split it completely enough to achieve a good burn). Any left-over water would turn to steam, (increasing the pressure on the cylinder / turbine, some aircraft and diesel engines use water injection to achieve this effect) assuming there was enough hydrogen to burn.
Any way to have an inhibitor to prevent re-combining of the hydrogen and oxygen? Can the radio field itself act as an inhibitor? Of course, depending on how much energy it takes to generate the radio field, that might not matter much..
-
Second Law of Thermodynamics.
You cannot split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then turn that back into water, without putting more energy into the system in the first reaction than you get out of the second. It doesn't matter if the energy put in through the first reaction comes from electricity, radio waves, or magical fairy flatulance. If you build a generator that runs off of "burning" salt water and try to power the radio transmitter with the generator, it's going to steadily lose energy, until the system shuts down. It's just like every other perpetual motion machine for which USPTO rightfully and automatically denies patents.
That news report is what happens when media companies decide that proper, educated science correspondents are expendable in rough economic times. It's kind of infuriating, really.
Why does it have to re-combine to form water again? If there was a way to actually completely split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, just burn it (or at least split it completely enough to achieve a good burn). Any left-over water would turn to steam, (increasing the pressure on the cylinder / turbine, some aircraft and diesel engines use water injection to achieve this effect) assuming there was enough hydrogen to burn.
Any way to have an inhibitor to prevent re-combining of the hydrogen and oxygen? Can the radio field itself act as an inhibitor? Of course, depending on how much energy it takes to generate the radio field, that might not matter much..
Well, your effectively asking "what happens when you burn Hydrogen." Here ya go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning)
-
Any way to have an inhibitor to prevent re-combining of the hydrogen and oxygen?
No. In order to burn hydrogen, oxygen must be present and the exothermic chemical reaction must occur, which will always produce water.
If you'll recall the fire triangle, in order for something to burn you require a fuel (hydrogen), oxygen, and an ignition source (energy). Remove one and no burning can happen.
-
So, (very random) question just popped into my head,
If the Hindenburg had simply burst open without the presence of an ignition source how much water would have been created?
-
What you are asking is "Will hydrogen gas oxidize under standard atmospheric conditions?"
The answer is no. Such an oxidation reaction requires some amount of activation energy (like a spark) to get going.
Of course, since it is exothermic, once it gets going it will keep on going until there is no more available reactant. Hence the complete destruction of the Hindenburg from one little spark. Whoops.
-
its ok, they were all nazis anyway.
this probibly wont create energy but perhaps will be more efficient than current means of splitting water. you might be able to use hydrogen as a proper storage medium if you can get a relatively high efficiency.
-
Why does it have to re-combine to form water again? If there was a way to actually completely split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, just burn it (or at least split it completely enough to achieve a good burn). Any left-over water would turn to steam, (increasing the pressure on the cylinder / turbine, some aircraft and diesel engines use water injection to achieve this effect) assuming there was enough hydrogen to burn.
Any way to have an inhibitor to prevent re-combining of the hydrogen and oxygen? Can the radio field itself act as an inhibitor? Of course, depending on how much energy it takes to generate the radio field, that might not matter much..
Holy ****.
-
Stuff needs energy to happen, and things always tend towards the most low-energy configuration, hence so many spheres in the Universe ;)
-
Holy ****.
This is why I advise everyone going to university to take a first-year Physics course as an elective or to fulfill a gen-ed requirement at some point. Even if they don't remember a single equation, they'll learn and retain so many basic concepts that it'd be a lot harder to make them fall prey to this kind of bull****.
Why does it have to re-combine to form water again? If there was a way to actually completely split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, just burn it...
Burning hydrogen is the process of combining it with oxygen, which produces water and thermal energy. If you have abundant reserves of free hydrogen and free oxygen, it'd be a wonderful fuel, but on Earth, most hydrogen is very firmly bound up in water or hydrocarbons (fossil fuels).
-
This is why I advise everyone going to university to take a first-year Physics course as an elective or to fulfill a gen-ed requirement at some point. Even if they don't remember a single equation, they'll learn and retain so many basic concepts that it'd be a lot harder to make them fall prey to this kind of bull****.
That's sadly not always the case. Just because you give a horse water doesn't mean that it will drink it, they have to want to drink it first.
Granted, there is a probability a student will remember SOMETHING from a course, but if the professor is a louse, the book sucks, the class at the wrong time, et cetera, that probability would be smaller than what we'd like it to be. However, if the student wants to learn the material, then that's a completely different matter.
-
that's a good point. i retained next to nothing of the "humanities" they made us take beyond the bits that were common sense anyway. and i even had a mild interest in some of them insofar as could see the reasoning behind being "well rounded" as they like to say.
-
I had recently taken an Environmental Engineering course, and was quite surprised at how interesting it was, and even more interesting was how most of the other student's weren't interested!
To further elaborate, much of the stuff in the "introductory" course stemmed from the 80's and 90's tree hugger propaganda campaigns. Common, who hasn't heard of world domination by machines, with a complete disregard to the effects of their manufacturing pollution?
Granted, I knew quite a bit of stuff the course taught already, but I hadn't realized I had learned it before. Similar "guerrilla" education tactics may be going on still... :nervous:
-
This is why I advise everyone going to university to take a first-year Physics course as an elective or to fulfill a gen-ed requirement at some point. Even if they don't remember a single equation, they'll learn and retain so many basic concepts that it'd be a lot harder to make them fall prey to this kind of bull****.
This is a terrible idea. 1) Not all first year physics courses cover the same material. Two semesters of physics and we didn't do anything with thermodynamics more in depth than a mention in passing. Here, you'd have much better luck taking an intro chemistry course to get this kind of knowledge. 2) Not every student has the time or money to take a full battery of introductory science courses. I managed to get 4 science classes out of the way in a year and a half, but I wouldn't want to spend any more of my time here on it because 3) Not every student needs to know this stuff. I'm here for computer science, not physics, and I wouldn't even think of forcing humanities or art students into university level science courses just to get their feet wet. Especially when you consider it will also require they take at least a couple semesters of calculus on top of that.
Those points aside, this is exactly what secondary school science classes are for. I'd guess that 90% of the material covered in the intro science courses at uni were covered in at least a conceptual basis in high school science courses, which for people that don't need to know how to use the knowledge is good enough. I'll go further and say the only way people will forget things they've learned in school is if they've never used it outside of school. Five years down the road if they haven't used it yet, they probably won't be using it. Jumping down people's throats because they don't understand the chemistry behind oxidation reactions is just immature when they don't do anything where they need to know.
-
/me points to BP's BFRed techroom description
-
/me points to BP's BFRed techroom description
What about it?
Am I going to have to explain special relativity to you again?
-
Obviously the trick to curing cancer is to invent subspace travel. Also, traveling through portals can remove poison from a man's bloodstream.
-
Obviously the trick to curing cancer is to invent subspace travel. Also, traveling through portals can remove poison from a man's bloodstream.
What does this have to do with the BFRed tech description
-
Obviously the trick to curing cancer is to invent subspace travel. Also, traveling through portals can remove poison from a man's bloodstream.
What does this have to do with the BFRed tech description
Alliance analysts have no explanation for this weapons system. The Sathanas' main beam cannons discharge kilotons of magnetically confined plasma at .9998 lightspeed. They are capable of continuous fire without overheating. It is unclear where the heat goes, leading GTI analysts to the unsettling conclusion that these weapons are not compatible with thermodynamics as we understand it. It is possible that waste heat is somehow shunted into subspace, or that the Shivans use quantum sleight-of-hand to process the heat out of local space. No allied warship can survive engagement with one of these weapons. Current GTVA tactical doctrine calls for concentrated bomber strikes to destroy these weapons before they can be brought to bear on allied capital ships.
-
Uh, what does that passage of science fiction technobabble from a soft SF video game written by someone who understands basic thermodynamics have to do with a failure to understand basic thermodynamics and chemistry
-
This forum needs more people citing FreeSpace ships.tbl entries in science arguments.
-
This is why I advise everyone going to university to take a first-year Physics course as an elective or to fulfill a gen-ed requirement at some point. Even if they don't remember a single equation, they'll learn and retain so many basic concepts that it'd be a lot harder to make them fall prey to this kind of bull****.
This is a terrible idea. 1) Not all first year physics courses cover the same material. Two semesters of physics and we didn't do anything with thermodynamics more in depth than a mention in passing. Here, you'd have much better luck taking an intro chemistry course to get this kind of knowledge. 2) Not every student has the time or money to take a full battery of introductory science courses. I managed to get 4 science classes out of the way in a year and a half, but I wouldn't want to spend any more of my time here on it because 3) Not every student needs to know this stuff. I'm here for computer science, not physics, and I wouldn't even think of forcing humanities or art students into university level science courses just to get their feet wet. Especially when you consider it will also require they take at least a couple semesters of calculus on top of that.
Those points aside, this is exactly what secondary school science classes are for. I'd guess that 90% of the material covered in the intro science courses at uni were covered in at least a conceptual basis in high school science courses, which for people that don't need to know how to use the knowledge is good enough. I'll go further and say the only way people will forget things they've learned in school is if they've never used it outside of school. Five years down the road if they haven't used it yet, they probably won't be using it. Jumping down people's throats because they don't understand the chemistry behind oxidation reactions is just immature when they don't do anything where they need to know.
while those may be valid reasons for some people not taking physics classes, that hardly makes ADVISING everyone to do so a terrible idea. he didn't say force everyone to do it. most universities have intro level classes for just about everything designed for non-majors to take as electives or just for interest. these should be well within the capabilities of anyone in college.
high school science is a joke. before i was able to take the advanced placement classes and was mixed in with the general population of retards, i had a science teacher who seriously thought gravity was stronger the futher apart you are. her example was something to the effect of you get tired climbing a mountain because gravity wants to pull on you harder when you try to escape it. i already learned in an economics class not to confront public schoolteachers when they are wrong, because you will just argue for half an hour in front of the class and get nowhere but pissed off. luckily that one just called me stupid instead of trying to give me detention or something.
-
high school science is a joke. before i was able to take the advanced placement classes and was mixed in with the general population of retards, i had a science teacher who seriously thought gravity was stronger the futher apart you are. her example was something to the effect of you get tired climbing a mountain because gravity wants to pull on you harder when you try to escape it. i already learned in an economics class not to confront public schoolteachers when they are wrong, because you will just argue for half an hour in front of the class and get nowhere but pissed off. luckily that one just called me stupid instead of trying to give me detention or something.
Fond memories of asking my teacher to define what a soul is and how we can be sure that humans got it but my dog doesn't. :)
Mind you, after he told us what a soul was and how you can recognize it, the discussion eventually devolved into which pets might have souls and which not.
Never argue with a class full of 12-13 year olds who love their pets. Never :) lol.
-
Cats do have a soul, that's for sure. Not that it changes anything. :)
-
Hmm. Ok, so:
Ammonia + Chlorine = poisonous gas. Doesn't need any sort of catalyst, spark, what have you.
Hydrogen + Oxygen = ???
IIRC, to combine freely (without needing a catalyst or a chain reaction of some sort), atoms need to be, hmm, what is it, out of balance? Like one needs to have less electrons and be positively charged, whilst the other needs to have that spare electron, thus, they will combine and share and electron, forming a molecule and thus making, say, water... Now it's been forever and a day since I touched chemistry (yuck! trying to balance the reaction or w/e they were called equations... ugh)... so.. just to refresh, hydrogen and oxygen are both balanced? They need an outside force to combine and make water, (of course, I know that conversely, they need energy to un-combine from water, as they are 'balanced' as water and don't really want to release that bond).
Also: Aardwolf: having just finished Portal 2, may I say, ahahahahahahahaha. :P I have a better solution then Cave Johnson's "We're throwing science at the wall here, we'll just see what sticks!" I'm throwing science at HLP, knowing they cannot resist dissecting it. I then observe, for much profit! And hope that my observation does not have the same results as observing the double-slit experiment. (Which, given the nature of online forums, most likely does!)
-
Uh, what does that passage of science fiction technobabble from a soft SF video game written by someone who understands basic thermodynamics have to do with a failure to understand basic thermodynamics and chemistry
It was a joke, derp.
-
Hmm. Ok, so:
Ammonia + Chlorine = poisonous gas. Doesn't need any sort of catalyst, spark, what have you.
Hydrogen + Oxygen = ???
IIRC, to combine freely (without needing a catalyst or a chain reaction of some sort), atoms need to be, hmm, what is it, out of balance? Like one needs to have less electrons and be positively charged, whilst the other needs to have that spare electron, thus, they will combine and share and electron, forming a molecule and thus making, say, water... Now it's been forever and a day since I touched chemistry (yuck! trying to balance the reaction or w/e they were called equations... ugh)... so.. just to refresh, hydrogen and oxygen are both balanced? They need an outside force to combine and make water, (of course, I know that conversely, they need energy to un-combine from water, as they are 'balanced' as water and don't really want to release that bond).
1 H + 1 O = 1 OH-.
Hydroxide, a component comonly used to determine acidity, is an unbalanced molecule and has a negative charge on it. Therefore it will try to combine with a + ion or molecule whenever it can.
3 H2O + Energy = 1 O3 + 3 H2
Or, a more stable compound:
2 H20 + Energy = 1 O2 + 2 H2
Therefore, the O2 and H2 from the reaction should theoretically be stable by themselves.
However, the energy provided by the radio waves can also do this:
2 H2 + 1 O2 + ignition = 2 H20 + Energy
Meaning, the energy provided by the radio waves raises the H2 molecules to their ignition point at roughly a little later after they where released from their previous H2O bonds. The salts, apparently, reduced the boiling point and/or ignition point down to where this phenomenon was possible with the cancer researcher's gear.
At least, that's what my 2 years of community college Chemistry say.
-
+1, thanks. :)
-
while those may be valid reasons for some people not taking physics classes, that hardly makes ADVISING everyone to do so a terrible idea. he didn't say force everyone to do it. most universities have intro level classes for just about everything designed for non-majors to take as electives or just for interest. these should be well within the capabilities of anyone in college.
That's silly. If something is an inappropriate course for someone, then advising them to take it anyway really is a terrible idea. Why would you advise someone to do something that isn't actually in their best interest? I haven't taken any science for non-majors nor do I know anyone that has, but I'd wager a guess that if people have taken it they would get nothing more out of it than they would from the standard course in high school. But like I said, just a guess.
high school science is a joke. before i was able to take the advanced placement classes and was mixed in with the general population of retards, i had a science teacher who seriously thought gravity was stronger the futher apart you are. her example was something to the effect of you get tired climbing a mountain because gravity wants to pull on you harder when you try to escape it. i already learned in an economics class not to confront public schoolteachers when they are wrong, because you will just argue for half an hour in front of the class and get nowhere but pissed off. luckily that one just called me stupid instead of trying to give me detention or something.
I don't know where you went but rest assured my high school (and probably most others) did not allow uneducated homeless people to teach our classes. Sure, there are always the occasional burnt-out jerks but total incompetence like what you've described is generally rare.
-
Hydrogen + Oxygen = ???
OH-
Water
H202
Take your pick, or read the info that was given to you on page 2.
-
Hydrogen + Oxygen = ???
Jesus ****ing Christ did you not read a single one of the replies that had already been given to you on page 2?
He pretty much never does.
-
Hydrogen + Oxygen = ???
OH-
Water
H202
Take your pick, or read the info that was given to you on page 2.
Hydrogen + Oxygen = ???
Jesus ****ing Christ did you not read a single one of the replies that had already been given to you on page 2?
He pretty much never does.
Any way to have an inhibitor to prevent re-combining of the hydrogen and oxygen?
No. In order to burn hydrogen, oxygen must be present and the exothermic chemical reaction must occur, which will always produce water.
If you'll recall the fire triangle, in order for something to burn you require a fuel (hydrogen), oxygen, and an ignition source (energy). Remove one and no burning can happen.
MMk, usually if I don't understand the answer, I tend to ask again until someone explains it in a way that I can understand.
In order to burn (exothermic) hydrogen, oxygen must be present... ok, duh so far, got that,.. ... and the exothermic chemical reaction must occur, which will always produce water. ok so far..
If you'll recall the fire triangle never used that, it just made sense once I was told about the basics of fire, but yeah, got that, in order for something to burn you need fuel, oxygen, and ignition source (energy). Remove one and no burning can happen. Yes, got that, I was asking if there was a way to prevent the oxygen and hydrogen from combining to form water before it could combust and produce heat, because, you know, water tends to lower the temperature just a little. Although I suppose if the exothermic reaction produced enough heat to get the water to form steam, it could still be useful...
Basically, what I'm getting at.. is there a way to consume some of the hydrogen and oxygen and convert it into heat? Or does that never happen? Why did the Hindenburg combust in a big ball of fire instead of exploding into a big cloudburst of steam? Also, how the heck does LOx and Hydrogen make a nice rocket (http://www.youtube.com/results?&q=lox+hydrogen+rocket+engines)?! (H2O2 makes (http://www.youtube.com/results?&q=H2O2+rocket) a nice fuel too (http://www.youtube.com/results?&q=hydrogen+peroxide+explosion).) I realize there's probably a simple answer, however, in my experience, someone explaining (z64555, thank you) with plain common sense is a lot easier for me to understand (since I have long lost the knowledge to figure out the answers myself, but can easily be reminded of the logic behind them) than trying to read up on all the extraneous information found by searching the internets.
-
That's silly. If something is an inappropriate course for someone, then advising them to take it anyway really is a terrible idea. Why would you advise someone to do something that isn't actually in their best interest? I haven't taken any science for non-majors nor do I know anyone that has, but I'd wager a guess that if people have taken it they would get nothing more out of it than they would from the standard course in high school. But like I said, just a guess.
high school science is a joke.
I don't know where you went but rest assured my high school (and probably most others) did not allow uneducated homeless people to teach our classes. Sure, there are always the occasional burnt-out jerks but total incompetence like what you've described is generally rare.
I can't speak to typical public science education, as my high school was one of the top-rated public schools in the nation, but there was one gigantic problem with my high school science curriculum that's endemic to public science education: Physics is not a required course. In many school districts in the United States, it's not even offered.
Yes, I advise everyone take an introductory Physics course in university, even though it overlaps nearly 100% with what would be taught in a high school Physics course. I advise everyone to take an introductory course in Physics at university because nearly nobody took one in high school, whether by choice or lack of the option.
Physics is also a course that I find people to be unnecessarily intimidated by. I'll grant, the higher level stuff is pretty mind-boggling, but you don't hit that in an intro-level course. Many people are perfectly capable of handling the material and wind up showing a genuine interest, once they've been nudged over the barrier of their own preconceptions.
So yes, when it's appropriate for me to advise someone on a course to take, if they've not touched Physics before, I recommend that they give the subject a try. Don't **** a brick over me telling friends/associates, "Hey, think about an intro Physics course. You'll learn a lot and impress your friends!"
-
Basically, what I'm getting at.. is there a way to consume some of the hydrogen and oxygen and convert it into heat? Or does that never happen?
Yes. There is a way to consume hydrogen and oxygen and convert it into heat. This is called 'combustion'. It is a process whereby hydrogen and oxygen combine, releasing heat and water vapor. You may also have heard of it referred to as 'burning'.
The relevant equation -- as you've been told several times now -- is: 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + heat
Why did the Hindenburg combust in a big ball of fire instead of exploding into a big cloudburst of steam?
The Hindenburg did in fact produce a vast amount of water vapor, as do LOX rockets. It also produced carbon, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates that did not undergo complete combustion.
Also, how the heck does LOx and Hydrogen make a nice rocket (http://www.youtube.com/results?&q=lox+hydrogen+rocket+engines)?!
LOX rockets work on the exact same equation: they burn hydrogen and oxygen to create heat and water vapor, which is expelled as steam. This is rocket exhaust. Most exhausts (including rocket exhaust) consist of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and nitrogen, plus scatterings of chemical contaminants which can (for example) give smoke various colors and smells.
I'm going to return to the core misunderstanding you seem to have:
Yes, got that, I was asking if there was a way to prevent the oxygen and hydrogen from combining to form water before it could combust and produce heat, because, you know, water tends to lower the temperature just a little.
What you are asking is, 'is there a way to prevent the oxygen and hydrogen from burning before they burn?' The act of combining into water is what release energy. You cannot have one without the other. You are essentially asking for free energy from nothing, as in a perpetual motion machine.
Although I suppose if the exothermic reaction produced enough heat to get the water to form steam, it could still be useful...
Congratulations, you've discovered smoke!
-
2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + heat
Am I correct in reading that as 2(2Hydrogen + 2Oxygen) therefore = 8 atoms reacts to produce 2(2Hydrogen,1Oxygen - gas form) + heat so 6 atoms, 2 are converted to heat? Or is that not quite right?
Mayhaps what I'm doing is (I just realized) is thinking that the fire seen in combustion is actually something other than visible radiation, much as the heat is thermal radiation... so it would really be:
2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + various forms of radiation, in this case, visible and thermal?
-
2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + heat
Am I correct in reading that as 2(2Hydrogen + 2Oxygen) therefore = 8 atoms reacts to produce 2(2Hydrogen,1Oxygen - gas form) + heat so 6 atoms, 2 are converted to heat? Or is that not quite right?
There is no nuclear fission in this reaction. I don't think you realize that you're suggesting that the simple act of burning a match involves nuclear fission. A chemical reaction conserves the atoms involved.
Two molecules of diatomic hydrogen - four atoms - react with a molecule of diatomic oxygen - two atoms (so six atoms total so far) to produce two molecules of water, with three atoms each. Six atoms on the left, six on the right. The heat that is released occurs because the chemical bonds required to bind two water molecules together are less energy-expensive than those in the reactants.
Mayhaps what I'm doing is (I just realized) is thinking that the fire seen in combustion is actually something other than visible radiation, much as the heat is thermal radiation... so it would really be:
2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + various forms of radiation, in this case, visible and thermal?
Heat is not thermal radiation. Heat is the kinetic energy stored in atoms and molecules. Electromagnetic radiation can be released by excited atoms whose electrons decay back to a lower orbital. The fire you see in combustion consists of hot (rapidly moving, kinetically energized) air emitting light. This air is contaminated with various particulates like soot.
The important lesson I need you to acknowledge is that you cannot avoid the production of water in combustion, because it is the production of water that allows energy release.
-
2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + heat
Am I correct in reading that as 2(2Hydrogen + 2Oxygen) therefore = 8 atoms reacts to produce 2(2Hydrogen,1Oxygen - gas form) + heat so 6 atoms, 2 are converted to heat? Or is that not quite right?
No.
The first "2" in 2H2 means two molecules of diatomic hydrogen. Thus, it represents four hydrogen atoms.
But that equation with those coefficients is not actually what happens -- the coefficients are used for mass balancing. What is really happening is the bonds in each molecule are broken (releasing energy), and then reassembled, in a new configuration, as H2O. The sum of the energies in the bonds of H2O is less than the amount of energy released from breaking the bonds in the first place. (That's the point folks were making a while back regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics).
No atoms are being "converted to heat" in this process -- the heat is the net release of energy between the process of bond breaking / rebonding.
Edit: This site explains all of this stuff rather well. (http://witcombe.sbc.edu/water/chemistryelectrolysis.html)
-
jr2, one of the fundamental laws of nature is that matter can never be created nor destroyed.
This means, during the entire life of Human existence, we haven't figured out how to create matter from absolutely nothing (we did figure out how to modify existing matter), nor have we found a way to utterly annihilate it out of existence (although we can blow it into tiny, tiny bits).
There is no way known to mankind at this moment to completely transform a chemical element into thermodynamic energy (heat), even though there are numerous theories postulating that said elements can very much do so (convert matter to energy and vice versa).
Therefore, whenever something combusts or burns, the starting matter is the same as the ending matter in the reaction, only transformed into different states (like vapor, liquid, solid, plasma).
The energy we obtain from burning, heat, is also a transformation of energy. That energy came from the molecules that where holding the elements together.
I guess in a sense, the molecules are like electromagnets keeping the elements together. If you can find the switch to turn off the electromagnet, you can not only disconnect the electromagnet's power source but also the elements it was keeping together... and use 'em for something else.
But keep in mind, not all of this energy is for the taking, a tiny bit of energy always remains after an exothermal reaction (combustion) in the bonds between the newly created molecules (ash, smoke, vapor, etc.).
P.S. Oh, if you don't understand what someone said, say so. That way you'll come across in a better light to them. :)
-
Aye, and I prematurely flew off the handle before more carefully reading the rest of your post, so apologies for that. We're happy to try explaining better if it's not coming through clearly the first time.
-
The important lesson I need you to acknowledge is that you cannot avoid the production of water in combustion, because it is the production of water that allows energy release.
Hmm, so, (I got the rest of it, BTW, including no fission involved, forgot that, d'oh!) the amount of water produced then is not enough to extinguish the fire? Wait, Why does water put out fire? It cools it down... I'm guessing the amount of energy required to change water from liquid to gas state decreases the energy of the reaction causing the fire enough to put it out, and, perhaps in addition, smothers the fire a bit by reducing the oxygen available (oxygen can't get through the liquid when the liquid is covering the object burning, and, the gaseous water displaces oxygen).
So, is the reason the water doesn't put out this reaction perhaps the fact that the gaseous water vapor is already at a high temperature due to the reaction from whence it was formed?
My questions before were a bit misguided, as I somehow thought that it was being suggested that the reason this reaction couldn't produce power was that the water formed would extinguish the fire... where I got that I don't know.
What you are actually saying, is that the energy released from the (thanks for the other explanation too, whatsisname) bonds isn't enough to power both the radio generator and still have enough left over to do anything, correct?
Sorry to be such a noob, but I haven't really bothered thinking about any of this stuff since chemistry (which, now that I am being reminded of it, is starting to come back, along with nightmares of trying to balance stubborn equations that just wouldn't compute right... probably because I have terrible handwriting when I'm in a hurry, and thus can't always accurately read back what I originally wrote)
My interest got piqued when I stumbled across the article in the OP, which I really should have Googled a bit more before posting... didn't bother, as I figured that if not one but three tv broadcast stations picked it up, it must have already passed level-headed inspection.... I mean, it wouldn't do to look stupid if it doesn't work, right? Ha, I guess when it doesn't work and they find out they just never mention it (who wants egg on their face over reporting something erroneous, right?), resulting in conspiracy theories when those who saw the broadcast don't see the promised tech / inventions that were suggested would now be possible.
EDIT: z64555, watsisname, thanks, (I was aware of matter neither being created nor destroyed, however, is converting matter completely into energy considered it's "destruction"... (if not, matter being neither created nor destroyed seems like a logical extension of 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction', as, if you take something out of existence, something else would have to come into existence.. heh, that'd be a bit boggling) or do we simply not know how to do that (convert matter completely into energy) yet? (i.e. is it theoretically possible or theoretically impossible, obviously we don't have a way of actually doing it yet... and since burning doesn't do it (now that I think of it, the energy released from fission of an atom into two less dense atoms.. that should have tipped me off that whole atoms weren't being converted into energy by combustion.. lol ;) )
-
What you are actually saying, is that the energy released from the (thanks for the other explanation too, whatsisname) bonds isn't enough to power both the radio generator and still have enough left over to do anything, correct?
Conservation of energy is one of the fundamental laws of reality.
You cannot power a radio generator in order to fuel the very process that powers the radio generator. That's a perpetual motion machine. It's like designing a car which uses electricity to move and uses motion to generate electricity: it will never even break even, let alone turn a profit. (You could generate some electricity, but you'd never get out more than you're putting in.)
No process can ever power itself. There must always be energy introduced from outside.
-
Right, but, I was thinking the 'fuel' for the whole operation would come from the water 'burning', releasing less water (not realizing that, d'uh, no water is going to be consumed, it's just going to be converted)..
Still, the bonds from two H2O molecules being less than 2 Hydrogen and 2 Oxygen molecules (six atoms, yes? two Hydrogen and 4 Oxygen?).. those bonds being less, how much energy is output from that?
Hmm... I think I'm starting to see a bit... the energy to release those bonds must be the same as the energy gained from the resulting bonds having less energy than the originating bonds.. and since every device loses energy (not 100% efficient), to work, it would have to be like a perpetual motion machine... I think I've got it now.
-
If you want to get your mind blown, research "Monopole generators." :drevil:
-
Hmm, so, (I got the rest of it, BTW, including no fission involved, forgot that, d'oh!) the amount of water produced then is not enough to extinguish the fire? Wait, Why does water put out fire? It cools it down... I'm guessing the amount of energy required to change water from liquid to gas state decreases the energy of the reaction causing the fire enough to put it out, and, perhaps in addition, smothers the fire a bit by reducing the oxygen available (oxygen can't get through the liquid when the liquid is covering the object burning, and, the gaseous water displaces oxygen).
So, is the reason the water doesn't put out this reaction perhaps the fact that the gaseous water vapor is already at a high temperature due to the reaction from whence it was formed?
Precisely. Here's the math to demonstrate:
Molar Mass of Water: 18.02 g/mol
Specific Heat of Water: 4.186 J/g°C
Latent Heat of Vaporization: 2260 J/g
Heat released by oxidation reaction of hydrogen: 572kJ/mol
Let's imagine one mole (~18g) of water is produced by the reaction at an initial temperature of 20°C (about room temp). How much heat is required to bring this water to boiling?
(100°C - 20°C)(1 mol)(18.02 g/mol)(4.186 J/g°C) = 6034 joules (~6kJ).
So any liquid water produced by the reaction will EASILY be brought to boiling by the excess heat produced. How about vaporizing it?
That's 2260J/g times 18g which is a whopping 40.7kJ.
We are still left with 525kJ of heat. Needless to say, that's plenty to turn the surrounding environment to a roiling fire.
-
Right, but, I was thinking the 'fuel' for the whole operation would come from the water 'burning', releasing less water (not realizing that, d'uh, no water is going to be consumed, it's just going to be converted)..
Still, the bonds from two H2O molecules being less than 2 Hydrogen and 2 Oxygen molecules (six atoms, yes? two Hydrogen and 4 Oxygen?).. those bonds being less, how much energy is output from that?
Well, you know what a LOX rocket is, right? You've seen fire burn? So clearly quite a bit of energy.
Matter can be converted directly into energy via annihilation with antimatter. Matter can be partially converted into energy through atomic fission. The magnetic monopoles mentioned above are for the moment purely hypothetical, though they are a consequence of some unproven GUTs.
-
If you want to get your mind blown, research "Monopole generators." :drevil:
http://tesla3.com/free_websites/zpe_bedini_monopole.html
... waaaay over my head. Some odd claims, though... where's his energy coming from?
Nuke, can you build that and tell me if it works? :lol: