Salt Water as a Power Source?

[bstreep]

[quote=Bash;299109Parenthetically, it's nearly impossible to get NSF funding unless and until a preliminary study has been published.[/quote]

And THIS is the reason I left academia. It's ALWAYS, all about the money. All he's trying to do, is to get some TAXPAYER money (NSF - I went to graduate school for a PhD courtesy of an NSF grant) - to do a BS study on something he and every other scientists worth a dang already knows, doesn't generate more energy than is expended.

What a total freakin' waste of taxpayer money. If this guy gets a grant of taxpayer money, he should be thrown in jail for fraud.

[James S]

I'm not sure that we have learned everything there is to know in this world?

[Robertcateran]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

It should be pointed out that most people on the bandwagon to limit atmospheric carbon (including politicians) understand the technical issues of global warming debate as well as they do the video that kicked this thread off.

And the ones that actually understand the physics are very concerned.
I do understand the physics, have a glimmer of the complexities of the models and have a strong concern

[Robertcateran]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

It might not be "free" energy, but I am inclinded towards having a bicycle powered generator onboard.



Perhaps some of the fellas might want to update their "Seeking Soulmates" details to mention that the ideal woman would enjoy long bicycle rides

Note he is in a good position to pick up some methane

[Robertcateran]

In spite of the crap associated with the article, the process may be a moderately efficient means of splitting water without expensive catalysts, but there didn't seem to be any thing on its efficiency. Short term storage of hydrogen may be a suitable means of transport if the storage difficulties can be overcome. My own experience is that it is extremely difficult to store as it is such a small molecule and embrittles metals it is stored in.
Sir Mark Oliphant relayed to me a vision of splitting water in the desert from solar thermal electricity in the centre of Australia and piping it to the cities. There would be enough storage in the pipes for stability of supply.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Robertcateran

Note he is in a good position to pick up some methane

Woman Wanted - Must enjoy long bicycle rides. EDIT: Own hosepipe an advantage.

[fareweather]

I think this thread has more per capita references to the most famous equation in the world than any other thread on any forum, maybe there is more BS going on here than we can keep track of.

These are the undisputed facts:

Electrolysis=hydrogen=hydrogen injection=go faster!!
Bicycle riding=methane=methanol injection=go faster!!

Oh yea, E=emcee squared, F=emaye ;this thread has alot of (em) and is picking up some serious (aye), it might be time to duck.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Bash

What this study confirms is that the phenomenon you saw in the video was able to be independently confirmed under controlled laboratory conditions.

The problem is that almost no one in the media (and as a result, among the general public) understands what that "phenomenon" actually is. It is not the creation of energy. It is not the burning of salt water. It is, in fact, little more than a new and novel way to perform electrolysis and then immediately burn the hydrogen as it is released.

It is an interesting discovery, but it is not even close to being the earth-shattering, life-altering, radically new discovery that the media has been touting it as, and that those who do not understand the reactions taking place seem to think it is.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by bstreep

(NSF - I went to graduate school for a PhD courtesy of an NSF grant)

In the current Grant Policy Manual (NSF 05-131 July 2005), use of NSF funds for student fellowships and Ph.D. dissertation research are specifically disallowed. Reference section 633.2 (a) #2 and #3.

Regardless, I find the claim that it's all about the money to be a bit spurious. Most of my colleagues in academia earn far less money doing pure research than if they were to join the corporate world and involve themselves in product development. It's not uncommon to see people with 7 or 8 years of grad school earning less than $50,000 per annum, solely because of their passionate pursuit of knowledge.

I've seen no evidence that anyone withing the scientific community, or for that matter within academia, predicts that this process will create more energy than is expended. However, that limitation doesn't preclude the possibility of this process having useful applications, even potentially for the boating community. More important, in the short run, is to understand the dynamic of how this process works. That, ultimately, is how we learn--at least those of us with open minds.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by James S

I'm not sure that we have learned everything there is to know in this world?

I am absolutely sure that we have NOT learned everything there is to know in this world. I am equally sure, however, that there are some things we HAVE learned. There are some things we DO know. There are some things that have been exhaustively researched, thoroughly tested, and are now clearly and completely understood. Conservation of energy is one of those things.

[bstreep]

Originally Posted by Bash

In the current Grant Policy Manual (NSF 05-131 July 2005), use of NSF funds for student fellowships and Ph.D. dissertation research are specifically disallowed. Reference section 633.2 (a) #2 and #3.

I was at Rice University, Houston, TX, in a PhD program in Molecular Genetics. 1978. I can assure you that I did not pay for my education - none of us did.

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by bstreep

I was at Rice University, Houston, TX, in a PhD program in Molecular Genetics. 1978. I can assure you that I did not pay for my education - none of us did.

consider yourselves lucky .. I paid for mine

[Dick Pluta]

FWIW, even crackpot theories need to be explored. Sometimes they lead to something. I'm about to be 70 and my first portable radio had vacuum tubes. It had two monster batteries that, if I forget to shut it off at night, would be dead in the morning. I'm sure that at that time, somewhere, some crackpot was talking about "semiconductors". I have often wondered what our energy crisis would look like if we needed tubes to run our computers. Let the nut cases run. We need them. The "scientists" know all too well what "everybody" knows to be true and do nothing. In a few years some tenured PhD at a respected university will distill out the grain of truth hidden in this, or some similar, "scam" and we'll make another leap forward.

Dick Pluta
AEGEA

[bstreep]

Originally Posted by gonesail

consider yourselves lucky .. I paid for mine

Let me clarify - I didn't pay for my PhD part of my education - the rest of it was paid by my wonderful parents - and we, in turn, did the same for our kids.

[Fishman_Tx]

The video only exhibits the uneducated media's report of a side-effect from this man's experimentation. More for entertainment value than anything else. This technology is NOT new and is being/has been researched by many others. He just stumbled on the effect trying to achieve other goals.

The feasibility of the process to become a usable source of energy is only limited by the RF equipment's performance ability to generate the appropriate amount of energy to cause electrolysis to occur at an ACCEPTABLE output vs input level EFFICIENTLY. At this time, the energy input/output ratios are unacceptable for power generation. With the gains made in electronics miniaturization; i.e. digital switching power supplies, frequency oscillators, switching amplifiers, etc. we are not too far from being able to make the ratios workable for steam-powered electricity generation. I don't think we'll ever be able to achieve at or near 100% any time in the near future (if ever). NO energy conversion process is 100% efficient, except possibly solar or wind and then ONLY on the LONG term basis (equipment/maintenance cost vs output).

Just my 2 cents....

BTW, in the Army, I used to cook my lunch in the field by putting a weiner on a stick and putting it up in front of a IHAWK missile system tracking radar. Took about 4 seconds to burn it.


Fish