Burn salt water instead . . .

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Wilbur Hubbard

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:42:43 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

Burn salt water instead . . .

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Wilbur Hubbard


Now if he could only figure out what to do with the cholrine gas that
I believe is also released.

Frank

Frank Boettcher brought forth on stone tablets:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:42:43 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


Burn salt water instead . . .

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Wilbur Hubbard



Now if he could only figure out what to do with the cholrine gas that
I believe is also released.

Frank

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

That is an enormously complicated way to burn diesel.

On Sep 11, 5:02 pm, RW Salnick wrote:
Frank Boettcher brought forth on stone tablets:



On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:42:43 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

Burn salt water instead . . .

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Wilbur Hubbard

Now if he could only figure out what to do with the cholrine gas that
I believe is also released.

Frank

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

That is an enormously complicated way to burn diesel.

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. 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. 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".

"Gogarty" wrote in message
...
In article s.com,
llid says...


Burn salt water instead . . .

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Wilbur Hubbard


Hmmm. He's using radio frequencies to dissociate water into its
elements, hydrogen and oxygen. What becomes of the sodiumn and
chlorine
ions?

The salt just stays in the water and maybe makes it a little saltier.

Not to mention the other elements and compounds found in sea
water. The only thing that's burning here is the hydrogen, either
recombining with the oxygen or after being piped away. And then
there's
the chlorine. Does it recombine with hydrogen instead of sodium and
become HCl aka hydrochloric acid?

The sodium chloride molecules aren't disassociated. Why should they be
unless the RF breaks them up too but they're probably more stable. Most
salts are very stable.


We'll be buring diesel for quite some time, I'm afraid.


Don't be so pessimistic. Producing RF takes very little energy. The
system could be the salvation of mankind. It could be an infinite supply
of almost free energy. If enough hydrogen is produced it can be burned
to produce plenty enough electricity to produce the RF. All it would
take is just a little surplus hydrogen energy and you could have extra
electricity. The perpetual motion machine we all fantasize about.

Wilbur Hubbard

On Sep 11, 1:56 pm, Gogarty wrote:
In article s.com,
says...



Burn salt water instead . . .

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Wilbur Hubbard

Hmmm. He's using radio frequencies to dissociate water into its
elements, hydrogen and oxygen. What becomes of the sodiumn and chlorine
ions? Not to mention the other elements and compounds found in sea
water. The only thing that's burning here is the hydrogen, either
recombining with the oxygen or after being piped away. And then there's
the chlorine. Does it recombine with hydrogen instead of sodium and
become HCl aka hydrochloric acid?

We'll be buring diesel for quite some time, I'm afraid.

I don't think this is what he is doing. If that was the case it
wouldn't need to be salt water. Distilled fresh water would be
preferred. They also said that it burns at 300 degrees F. Hydrogen
burns at less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit. He isn't just separating
out oxygen and hydrogen and burning the hydrogen. Something else is
going on here.

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.