Science - and the Media

Some fuel for the Global Warming fires...

Do you have any thoughts of your own? ...or do you just post links?

I know that there are dissolved metals in sea water; can you think of any other connection to metalworking?

Vaughn

Using RF waves to "Burn" water would be world changing IF the energy output is greater than the energy input required to burn the water. It may defy belief but it sure looks like it is worth looking into. I hope it works because anything that can help reduce our need for foreign energy is a big plus.

I have invested in a small company that is working on producing Hydrogen from waste water from sewage and various food processing plants using bacteria. They have ben successful on a small scale and have plans to build a large bio-reactor in 2008. You can see this in action at :

go to NanoLogix.com for more information.

Metal content: Maybe a Hydrogen metal cutting torch running off of your household toilet.

Dennis

And it won't be. That's impossible.

The input power budget would tell a lot. So far I've seen one reference - about 175 watts.

Below is a quote from one of the discussions. Probably a good guess - for sure a good starting point.

To get right to the point, I believe the Kanzius effect is caused by the polarization of the hydrogen molecules in the water.

This polarization causes the two atoms of hydrogen to lose their 105 degree orientation to each other and de-stabilize the water molecule.

The unstable water molecule comes apart easily then, combining hydrogen to hydrogen and oxygen to oxygen in a magnetic bond.

Because the water molecules? special property to hold sodium is lost, some sodium atoms must also be released to react violently with the water still present.

This ignites hydrogen which recombines with the oxygen to keep the wick from being consumed.

The unusual properties of the HHO gas, catalyzes the whole process to a very high efficiency.

The other (IMHO) best guess (actual metal content, Vaughn)

I have an updated post Here:

On June 16, 2007, Charles Kilmer wrote

to the kanzius effect discussion list:

I wrote a blog on this topic. Some of the links go back to this discussion group.

Read through the blog carefully.

What you should see is the secret sauce to the Kanzius effect. Its contained in one of kanzius patents and in an expired eu patent.

What's happening is that the RF is imitating the radio frequency of some catalyst for water separations. My guess is that the catalyst frequency that's being imitated is platinum since that's the big expensive catalyst in hydrogen fuel cells. What's happening is that the salt water is fooled into believing there's a platinum catalyst in the water.

The other thing that's happening is that the Na is getting really hot really fast. Na --like any metal in a microwave is a heatsink. The water is first destablized by the RF and then its broken apart by the superheated Na.

Now consider if they could eliminate platinum from fuel cells altogether while using salt water as a storage and fuel for hydrogen -- suddenly hydrogen fuel cell cars would be dramatically cheaper.

Have they published any technical literature on their technology? Anaerobic digestion has been used for decades to make methane from organic wastes and I'm wondering if they really have something innovative or are just riding what's left of the hydrogen bandwagon.

Mike

I'd suggest you do a little investigation into the energy required to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen, then calculate how many water molecules can be dissociated with 175 watts.

"Polarization of the hydrogen molecules in the water"??? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

The opinions of anyone who thinks that water contains "hydrogen molecules" should not be taken seriously.

According to the Law of thermodynamics:

1st law: You can't win. (You cannot create energy from nothing) Therefore the energy will never exceed what was there in the first place. 2nd law: You can't break even. (No energy transfer is 100% efficient, there will always be some loss) Therefore the energy produced will have to be less than the energy input.

Now in this case water is a low energy state for hydrogen and oxygen. You add energy into the water and disassociate the hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen and oxygen are now at a higher energy state. Burning the hydrogen in oxygen releases that energy and recreates the water. You are back where you started, except that you have less energy to repeat the cycle, because there were losses in your energy transfers.

You've neglected the 3rd and 4th laws. (not that it changes anything....)

Pete

True, I was just trying to point out the most applicable ones.

It has been a while, but the easy way to remember the first 3 are: You can't win You can't break even You can't even get out of the game.

One of the things that gets me on the "hydrogen bandwagon" is the claim that they need to get research money to develop cheaper fuel cells. But if we DID have a good source of hydrogen, we don't need fuel cell cars. Adapting an engine to run on hydrogen is not that much harder than adapting it to run on NG or LP. It is very low octane, but exhaust gas recirculation (steam) takes care of that problem.

Ford and at least three other major manufacturers are showing hydrogen-powered IC-engined cars at the car shows now. Ford, particularly, sees it as the interim technology that will bridge the gap until fuel cells are ready.

But IC engines are, at best, around 28% efficient. Fuel cells for cars are around 90% efficient. For stationary applications it's even higher.

-- Ed Huntress

I disagree. A fuel cell liberates hydrogen on demand; the alternative to using fuel cells in a hydrogen-powered vehicle is to carry a tankful of hydrogen -- thus turning every car on the road into a rolling bomb. *Any* breach of that tank (in a collision, for example), combined with *any* source of ignition, will result in a devastating explosion. (Does the name "Hindenberg" ring a bell?)

It's the safety aspect that worries me.

How does it "liberate hydrogen on demand"? The hydrogen/fuel-cell car I saw at the New York Auto Show a couple of years ago had regular gas tanks full of hydrogen. There has been talk of using methane or even liquid fuels to supply the hydrogen, but efficiency and maintenance problems are said to go to pot when you do. Not having any experience with it I wouldn't know for sure.

*Any* breach of that

Hydrogen has a wide range of explosive mixtures with oxygen, but it also goes straight up when it's released. Some experts I've read on the subject say it's slightly less likely to cause a disaster than a tank full of gasoline. Do you have some data based on experience?

I'm not claiming to know the answers to these questions, but I'd like to know what they are.

-- Ed Huntress

My understanding of the process is that a hydrogen fuel cell uses a chemical catalyst to release hydrogen gas from hydrogen-containing compounds -- it's not a tank of gaseous hydrogen.

If it did that instantly, there might not be a problem...

I'm not an expert. But I have some understanding of the chemistry involved -- and I've seen the film of the Hindenberg.

I think you're talking about hydride storage, which applies to storage for any kind of hydrogen-fueled power plant. It's a possibility for hydrogen-powered cars but the weight/volume problem is a big one. Of course, it's less of a problem with fuel-cell electrics than hydrogen-fuelled IC engines, because the former use a lot less hydrogen.

But most of the technology is something I haven't studied. Hydrogen seems to present big storage and distribution problems, but some experts say they'll be overcome. I'll have to wait and see.

-- Ed Huntress

I think the wave of the future is going to be in electric vehicles, using the emerging "ultra-capacitor" technology. Capacitors have three advantages over batteries for use in powering vehicles: they charge in seconds instead of hours, they're able to deliver power more rapidly when needed (e.g. accelerating from a dead stop, passing, or climbing hills), and the ultra-capacitor shows promise of attaining a much higher energy density (power to weight ratio) than is possible with any current battery technology.

Well, I'm all for electrics, if storage turns out to be manageable. I've been fascinated by ultracapacitors but I haven't seen any indications that their energy density is approaching anything reasonable for use in a car -- except as high-amperage buffers for acceleration and climbing hills.

Once again, too many technologies to follow, too little time. And too much politics and ideology in the whole thing.

I'm expecting a massive rebirth of nuclear fission power when two things happen: the policies of the UN and others finally fail to protect the remaining vestiges of nonproliferation; and world leaders look around at the options and finally get real. It probably will happen after I'm gone. Whether we use some kind of gaseous or liquid fuel as the energy storage medium for vehicles depends on advantages in electricity storage and other technologies. Eventually, the energy *source* probably will be nuclear-generated electricity. Some experts now say the resource, with eventual use of breeder reactors (50 - 100 years from now) will last many hundreds of years.

-- Ed Huntress

Sorry Vaughn. You are, of course, quite right.

Nobody comes to the freak show unless the barker stands outside the tent and taunts them in.

There have been megabytes of BS in this group about global warming. My politician sez science yours sez junk, did so, did not. They said it on TV, for Pete Sake!

Who is a person to believe?

This is from National Geographic. You know them. Yellow magazine that brought you all those topless native girls when you were growing up?

So, what we have here is satellite imagery of the North West Passage - the Arctic route from Europe to China - open - for the first time since satellites started watching in 1979.

For real.