AutoblogGreen

Does this bunk really need to be repeated here AGAIN? I thought this was "AutoBlogGreen", not "MagicBlogDelusion".
When you can get a car running on this (without oil in the water), then you can post it here. Until then, don't waste our time with this BS.

Reply

I assume that more energy must be put into the radio transmitter than is released when the Browns Gas (or whatever) is burned?

Still, efficient electrolysis or a good way to desalinate water are both useful things... And burning the unburnable, even if it merely contributes in a small way to the heat death of the universe, sounds like a lot of fun!

Reply

Please, autobloggreen. Don't fall for snake oil like this. It really makes you look bad.

Reply

Maybe somebody can better comment on this than I, but if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_injection is to be believed, then this would be a more efficient method to generate hydrogen by using less current off the alternator.

Reply

I've seen this video make the rounds before, and setting aside the more outrageous claims made by ignorant reporters, there may be something interesting here.

This guy has discovered a way to electrolyze water without electrodes. That means there's no need to purify the water first. In fact, the inventor seems to hint that dissolved electrolytes actually help the process.

What I want to know is this: is the radio wave method for generating hydrogen at all competitive with existing methods? Even if it's only as efficient as conventional electrolysis it could have a place in a "hydrogen economy."

Reply

Soo many errors! First, the engine shown running is a small toy Stirling engine, not a steam engine.

Second, this isn't an energy source, the energy recoverable by heat and light is a small fraction of the energy needed to produce the radio frequency beam.

Third, this won't work to run an IC engine because it isn't an energy source.

Fourth, it isn't producing and burning hydrogen, as hydrogen burns with a nearly invisible flame, not the bright yellow "flame" shown here. The yellow color comes from excited sodium atoms, similar to a sodium vapor lamp.

In fact, it isn't a flame at all, but rather it is an electrical arc forming in the salt spray mist above the test tube. The arcing is similar to what sometimes occurs in microwave ovens, or with Tesla coils. The test tube filled with salt water acts as an antenna, collecting and focusing the radio waves. Watch the video carefully, near the end the "flame" flashes on and off several times - not a typical flame behavior, but common with arcing.

Reply

As another poster on another forum commented, this should be titled "Inventor inadvertently sterlizes young reporters"

It's like operating a microwave oven without containment.

Reply

It has been demonstrated that there is more than one way to release hydrogen from water. There are other alternative sources of free energy that would also make the release of hydrogen absolutely free.

Reply

The beam of radio waves disrupted the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen. At a resonant frequency, the bonds are most easily broken, like a tone resonant with a wine glass can shatter the glsaa. So, the hydorgen and oxygen are released which then "burn" on being recombined above the test tube. It validates another inventor, in Clearwater Florida, Dennis Klein, who has been able to do the same thing and both use it as a torch and as the fuel in his car. see fevj.org/energy-news/?p=96

Reply

If you watch closely, you'll notice the "flame" flickers oddly and flashes on and off - that is NOT burning hydrogen! Hydrogen burns with a pale blue flame, almost invisible. What we have here is not electrolysis or burning "browns gas", but rather electrical arcing, similar to sparks from a Tesla coil, or what sometimes occurs with bits of metal in a microwave oven.

Reply

I recently read that some autos had problems in the vicinity of the Empire State Bldg. They assumed it had something to do with the large sending and receiving of Radio waves from the multitude of units on the buildings roof. I wonder if this fact might be of interest in your experiments. In-house generators posible?
I have Prostrate Problem - not serious
Thanks for your efforts.
Virgil

Reply

So I understand that you can’t break the laws of thermodynamics to get a wash on energy produced versus energy expended. But perhaps someone with a better grasp on engineering can quell my curiosity. Who cares if you have to expend more energy to burn the fuel if it is renewable energy you are expending. For example: I noted that John Kanzius’ rf machine needed about 200 watts to generate the radio frequency that would cause the saltwater to separate the H and O2 molecules and to ignite the H. So if you were to apply this to a vehicle for instance. A wind turbine can generate 200 watts at 8 meters per second or perhaps less. Why couldn’t you rig up a scoop and turbine in a vehicle designed to generate the same and augment it with solar cells on the roof and perhaps Lithium ion or other batteries to store excess energy? With this combination or other more innovative ideas, it wouldn’t matter if you were using more energy to create the H burn would it? You would have a constant fuel supply as long as you were generating 200 watts of power capable of running the RF machine. Please respond.

Reply