Re: firewater? [OFF-TOPIC]

["Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"rlsusenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <NoSuchPerson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in message news:46ec0fff$0$18910$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Robert L Bass wrote:
>>> Robert L Bass wrote:
>>>>> Unless Roy has come up with some new, magical
>>>>> laws of physics and chemistry, the same thing will
>>>>> be true of his RF electrolysis process.
>>>>
>>>> Kanzius' technique does not involve electrolysis.  Whether it is
>>>> efficient enough to be useful remains to be seen.
>>>
>>> Where can I find papers on this "technique"?
>>
>> Have you tried Google?  There are a number news of articles on the
>> subject.
>
> Yes, I HAVE used Google.  The results are all nontechnical BS about
> "burning saltwater".
>
> I also find the following excerpt quoted in one of these lay
> articles, explaining the same thing that I'm trying to explain:
>
> ==========
> ...
> "However, many engineering experts aren't as impressed. Energy
> experts like University of Akron Professor Emeritus, Rudy Scavuzzo,
> Ph.D, say the burning of salt water is nothing more than a new
> twist on a high school science experiment.

Did he test the device or is this supposition on his part?

> Scavuzzo told Channel 3's Mike O'Mara that the Kanzius invention
> requires too much energy to be worth celebrating...

And he know this because... ?

> Scavuzzo's son, Steven, a technical consultant for Babcock &
> Wilcox, said that salt water is not a fuel.

Hmm.  He said that salt water is not a fuel?  I don't think anyone
claimed that it was.

> "You can make steam or you can break it down," said Scavuzzo. "One
> way or another you have to add energy and one way or another,
> what's going to come out is less than what you put in."
> ...
>
> Straw man? Are you kidding me?

Nope.

> If you're "burning hydrogen" that's coming from salt
> water, you're talking about breaking the H-O bonds
> in the water to liberate molecular oxygen...

Yes, that is the idea.  Kanzius has not said whether the thing is
better than 1:1 efficient.  Please don't confuse 1:1 with 100%
efficiency (a physical impossibility).  The two are different
concepts.

> That takes energy, whether it's from electrodes or
> microwaves, it's elementary physics.  There is a certain amount of
> energy required to break those
> bonds.  It's the same amount of energy released
> when you form those bonds...

Not necessarily.  It is at least theoretically possible to "release"
(I think "convert" would probably be a better word) more energy than
is used in the process.  Whether this technique can do so is another
matter.

> You can't "trick" the bonds into releasing without
> that energy input, any more than you can trick a
> car into levitating without applying a force to it.

I don't think he's trying to trick anything.  We don't yet know how
much energy is consumed by the device or how much usable hydrogen gas
is being released.  Until that information becomes public it's
anybody's guess whether this is a significant development.  I don't
pretend to know that it is going to be useful.

> I can easily understand how, by application of
> microwave energy, you could disassociate
> hydrogen and oxygen from water -- and it would
> then readily combust...

Forgetting for the moment that no one said anything about microwaves,
I can understand how as well.  On that score we agree.

> -- and it would release, AT MOST, the energy
> absorbed from that RF energy...

You assert this emphatically as though you knew for certain.  Some
scientists who are working on it seem to think you're wrong.  I'll
wait for more data before asserting either way.  It could be a hoax
or a mistake.  It could be a means of generating limited amounts of
energy.  It might even turn out to be a major development.  We'll
see.

>>> Again, I don't understand where the energy to
>>> turn turbines is supposed to come from.
>>
>> Burning hydrogen.
>
> The quality of science education for the general
> population in the U.S. is astoundingly bad.  (I'm
> hoping that the problem is inadequate science education, and not a
> lack of ability to apply critical
> thought methods.)

Is that directed at me?  We haven't met, friend.  Enough said?

> There is no free hydrogen in salt water or any
> other kind of water (unless there's excess hydrogen
> dissolved in the water -- which is not the case)...

No one said anything about free hydrogen.

>>> Unless there's an atomic reaction involved, or
>>> some chemical reaction other than 2H2+O2 =>
>>> 2H2O, there's no fuel source here.
>>
>> Yep.
>
> Yep what?  Yep, there's no fuel source?

Yep, there's a chemical reaction.

> If this is just supposed to be a way to more efficiently
> produce steam or other turbine-turning gases from
> electricity, then I have no problem...

I don't recall anyone mentioning steam.

> If this is a claim that a new energy source has been
> found, then I'm sorry, but the fellow has deluded
> himself and (apparently) lots of others.

He didn't say it was a new energy source.

> Until I can read a scientific paper laying out what
> the guy is ACTUALLY claiming, I only have the
> blurred BS of press accounts and those who have
> read them to base my opinions on.

I also give little or no credence to press reports on scientific
matters because reporters are rarely scientists.  The same is true of
press reports on aviation matters.  Did you ever notice how many
times news reporters state that "the airplane's engine stalled?"

> Perhaps he's not claiming that there's an energy
> source here, in which case, there's no problem...