Flame - Hydrogen gas - sea water + RF energy - electrical power -
generator - diesel

That is an enormously complicated way to burn diesel.


Frogwatch wrote:
I did work similar to this in grad school. Basically, it uses
electricity to produce hydrogen but I am not sure it is any more
efficient than the normal electrolysis.

Yeah, that was my question... also, how much power does it take to
generate the RF? Combustion of hydrogen is powerful but then hydrogen
is also a tricky fuel to handle... hence the interest in developing
"fuel cells" which essentially allow it to react at lower temps &
pressures, producing energy in usable form without the Hindenburg-
style eruption.


.... The RF produces a high e
field producing discharges in the water surface thus making hydrogen.
We tried it to break up pollutants but the RF does not go very far
into the water so is sorta innefficient.

How about using an atomized mist into an RF chamber?

What he REALLY needs is a
pulsed electrical discharge in the water because that produces a
volumetric effect rather than a surface effect. This requires either
a rotating spark gap or some fancy solid state HV, high current
switches. I'd say, "Not much new here".

Electric dissociation of hydrogen from water has been done since the
1700s. Certainly "nothing new"!!

Regards
Doug King

without the Hindenburg-style eruption.

The dirigible burned so spectacularly not because of hydrogen, but because
of the HIGHLY flammable paint they put on the FABRIC covering.

without the Hindenburg-style eruption.


"Bill Kearney" wrote:
The dirigible burned so spectacularly not because of hydrogen, but because
of the HIGHLY flammable paint they put on the FABRIC covering.

Are you saying that the hydrogen lift bags of the Hindenburg did not
erupt spectacularly into flame?

DSK

On Sep 11, 10:23 pm, wrote:
without the Hindenburg-style eruption.
"Bill Kearney" wrote:
The dirigible burned so spectacularly not because of hydrogen, but because
of the HIGHLY flammable paint they put on the FABRIC covering.

Are you saying that the hydrogen lift bags of the Hindenburg did not
erupt spectacularly into flame?

DSK

I've forgotten most of this stuff (it was in the mid-80s). Basically,
the ions cannot respond to the RF but the very light electrons can so
it is the eelctrons in the water doing the work and being heated. A
mist might work but I remember that the discharge was very close to
the electrodes and fell off rapidly as you got away from them. This
guy probably has electrodes very close together.

Frogwatch wrote:
I've forgotten most of this stuff (it was in the mid-80s). Basically,
the ions cannot respond to the RF but the very light electrons can so
it is the eelctrons in the water doing the work and being heated. A
mist might work but I remember that the discharge was very close to
the electrodes and fell off rapidly as you got away from them. This
guy probably has electrodes very close together.

That makes sense, since the field strength drops off so fast as a
function of distance. How about emitting RF thru a screen or flat
plane emitter; maybe there is some promise a modulated fuel cell with
water mist or vapor pushed thru a carefully controlled RF chamber,
then re-converted almost immediately? If there is a net energy gain in
the reaction, then it should be much better than any hydrogen fuel
cell I've heard of.... Get it worked out, I'll draft a letter to the
BP board, I'm a stockholder.... you can split the royalties with me.


Regards
Doug King

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:18:23 -0700, wrote:

Frogwatch wrote:
I've forgotten most of this stuff (it was in the mid-80s). Basically,
the ions cannot respond to the RF but the very light electrons can so
it is the eelctrons in the water doing the work and being heated. A
mist might work but I remember that the discharge was very close to
the electrodes and fell off rapidly as you got away from them. This
guy probably has electrodes very close together.

That makes sense, since the field strength drops off so fast as a
function of distance. How about emitting RF thru a screen or flat
plane emitter; maybe there is some promise a modulated fuel cell with
water mist or vapor pushed thru a carefully controlled RF chamber,
then re-converted almost immediately? If there is a net energy gain in
the reaction, then it should be much better than any hydrogen fuel
cell I've heard of.... Get it worked out, I'll draft a letter to the
BP board, I'm a stockholder.... you can split the royalties with me.


Regards
Doug King


Seems I remember a high school chemistry experiment. Submerge an
electric arc in distilled water and wave a lighted match across the
top of the beaker and produce fire.

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:09:52 +0700, wrote:




Seems I remember a high school chemistry experiment. Submerge an
electric arc in distilled water and wave a lighted match across the
top of the beaker and produce fire.

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)


That was my eigth grade (nearly fifty years ago) science fair project.
Made an electrolosis device. Would work with either tap water with a
small jolt of sulpheric acid to increase conductivity, or salt water.

Two insulated elctrodes (carbon rods from old batteries) minor amount
of DC charge, and the electrodes begin to precipitate gasses. Pure
hydrogen on one, regardless of the fluid. Either oxygen (water with
acid charge) or chlorine gas, (sal****er).

Really impressed the local judges when every few seconds you could
take the collection test tube of Hydrogen, turn it over, expose it to
a flame and have it "pop".

I couldn't use the salt water fluid at the science fair, they didn't
want chlorine gas, even in small quantities, floating about.

Certainly nothing "breakthrough" about it. More BTU's in than out.
been done forever it seems.

Won second place in my category at the local fair. Didn't even place
at the state fair.

Frank

wrote in message
ps.com...
without the Hindenburg-style eruption.


"Bill Kearney" wrote:
The dirigible burned so spectacularly not because of hydrogen, but
because
of the HIGHLY flammable paint they put on the FABRIC covering.

Are you saying that the hydrogen lift bags of the Hindenburg did not
erupt spectacularly into flame?

DSK


They did but the fabric was "doped" (nitrocellulose + aluminium powder) and
that was a very significant contribution

Keith

"Bill Kearney" wrote:
The dirigible burned so spectacularly not because of hydrogen, but
because
of the HIGHLY flammable paint they put on the FABRIC covering.

Are you saying that the hydrogen lift bags of the Hindenburg did not
erupt spectacularly into flame?

Oh they burned alright, but being wrapped in a highly flammable material
made the fire all that much worse. The disaster may well have been avoided
entirely had they not put that on the covering.

Hydrogen dissipates quite rapidly. That and the amount needed for most
vehicle applications presents nowhere near the risks of an airship with
flammable paint.

Are you saying that the hydrogen lift bags of the Hindenburg did not
erupt spectacularly into flame?

"Bill Kearney" wrote:
Oh they burned alright, but being wrapped in a highly flammable material
made the fire all that much worse. The disaster may well have been avoided
entirely had they not put that on the covering.


IIRC you're right in that the skin caught fire first... most likely
theory is that it was sabotage. However the hydrogen lift cells burned
very quickly, faster than the skin.... which is why the film/photos
show a burst of flame from the nose while much of the skin was still
intact.


Hydrogen dissipates quite rapidly. That and the amount needed for most
vehicle applications presents nowhere near the risks of an airship with
flammable paint.

Depends on who you're talking to. There are a lot of difficulties
handling hydrogen as an industrial gas; certainly hydrogen fuel
systems can be made tight & safe. But they'll be more complex & more
expensive than a diesel fuel system... and look how many people have
problems with those

Regards
Doug King