Burning Salt Water

[Ken Massingale]

I'm still wondering....

Besides the thermodynamics implications (if it produces net energy, it violates the 2nd law), I wonder if he tried his device without the salt. If it works only with salt added, then how much salt? (Sea water is about 3%, I think). It would be interesting to have someone else replicate the experiment - that includes changing the test tubes, using purified water, research grade NaCl instead of table salt, etc.

I'm also wondering about the flame. In combustion, at least, yellow flame means low efficiency (much of the carbon is not burned), blue flame is high efficiency. I'm trying to remember what color flames are produced by Sodium and Chlorine. I don't think they're yellow flames, but I'm not sure. Otherwise, I don't know what else would cause the flame since there isn't supposed to be any carbon in the system.

There are claims that the process produces elemental sodium and chlorine.

Sodium metal burns spontaneously in air. I think it's explosive in water (sodium metal, not the ion).

Chlorine gas and hydrogen gas together can also be explosive. When they're burned together, the result should be muriatic acid, and that can be tested with a pH meter.

I'm just jotting down some thoughts. I could be wrong on any number of details, but this guy's stuff is interesting research, if it's real. There's been so many claims of producing energy from water, and they've all turned out to be hoaxes. I'd like to see this guy let others test his results in a controlled setting, without him around, but based on his methodology. I can't find much about the APV Polymer engineers, but I found an APV Coatings in Akron Ohio.

And I still can't figure out what 76% of Faraday's Theoretical Limit means.

I believe one of the scientist said the temp reached 1500 C. They did use tap water and Morton salt in one test.

[Thom2]

And I still can't figure out what 76% of Faraday's Theoretical Limit means.

What's REALLY amazing is that the ONLY instances Google finds of the 'exact' phrase is attached to an article related to this same project.

Something smells fishy here

[Anna]

I believe one of the scientist said the temp reached 1500 C. They did use tap water and Morton salt in one test.

It still doesn't make sense. I'm really curious about the flame. I already know it's not going to work as a viable fuel alternative (not viable if he uses electricity to power his machine; if he couples it with solar or other renewables, it might work, but then why bother?), but the flame is what gets me. What's burning? Hydrogen gas self-ignites at 550 degrees C and it disperses quickly, producing water with oxygen. I think something else has to be burning to produce 1500 degrees C. I'm still trying to figure out if elemental sodium or chlorine will do it, but they're really unstable and I have my doubts.

Of course I don't know much about the effects of radio frequency. So maybe, as a benefit of the doubt, he really has discovered something new there.

In any case, I'd like to see the results from other researchers.

What's REALLY amazing is that the ONLY instances Google finds of the 'exact' phrase is attached to an article related to this same project.

Something smells fishy here

Thom, exactly.

[Dale In Corona]

The problem is GIGO.... y'all are undoubtedly searching for "Faraday's Theoretical Limit " when you should really be searching for "Faraday theory" or something like that... I'm not going to feed you, but I will show you how to fish... Michael Faraday is the man you want to learn more about and it is his theory of Electromagnetic Waves Field Theory that is being referred to with the phrase "Faraday's Theoretical Limit"

Happy reading...

Dale

[BigguyZ]

Looks like this has been in the news for a while....

I remember seeing something about a year ago about someone using water to create a super hot flame. They used it to cut metal in the video I saw. Haven't heard of anything about it since...

Edit-
I'm also not sure if it violates the 2nd law if you consider that the Hydrogen-Oxegen bonds in water has a potential energy. So by using up the fuel, there is a possibility that the process could be self-sustaining... Then again it's been 5 years since I had my college Thermo class...

Edit 2- Here's the video I mentioned...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU&NR=1

[Thom2]

The problem is GIGO.... y'all are undoubtedly searching for "Faraday's Theoretical Limit " when you should really be searching for "Faraday theory" or something like that... I'm not going to feed you, but I will show you how to fish... Michael Faraday is the man you want to learn more about and it is his theory of Electromagnetic Waves Field Theory that is being referred to with the phrase "Faraday's Theoretical Limit"

Happy reading...

Dale

I was actually on my way to searching otherwise, it just struck me as suspicious that article after article made reference to this "Faraday's Theoretical Limit" as if it were some sort of standard or reference point and I couldn't even come up with that phrase attached to anything else non-related to this project.

[Stytooner]

Just an observation on the Farraday effect. I see this every time I powdercoat something. The powder just can't overcome the field made in coners of charged parts. I compensate by saturating the part and the corners are filled as well. For larger parts, turning the PC gun off for a moment with change the effect and allow you to coat inside corners.
I don't fault the guy for showing what he found. It will take a guy like him and a discovery to outdo fossil fuels. There has to be other ways of making fuel or using other technology that would provide the world with sustainable fuel without the prospects of nuclear eradication.
I am scepticle as the next person, but new things have been found in the recent past.
This guy may have stubbled upon the reason so many ships and planes go missing in the Bermuda triangle. The right radio frequency with gaseous hydrogen bubbles might just spark a burn.

[Anna]

The problem is GIGO.... y'all are undoubtedly searching for "Faraday's Theoretical Limit " when you should really be searching for "Faraday theory" or something like that... I'm not going to feed you, but I will show you how to fish... Michael Faraday is the man you want to learn more about and it is his theory of Electromagnetic Waves Field Theory that is being referred to with the phrase "Faraday's Theoretical Limit"

Happy reading...

Dale

Dale, I really wish you'd educate us. I have a passing familiarity with Faraday's laws, but I can't tell which one this guy is referring to. Law of induction? I don't think that applies. Law of electrolysis? That doesn't apply either! At least I think neither one applies. Maybe you can elucidate? Also, how do you compute Faraday's Theoretical Limit?

[linear]

Also, how do you compute Faraday's Theoretical Limit?

Well, I ain't no engineer, but I reckon if you can walk about 5 miles an hour, and you got 24 hours in a day, then 24 times 5 is around 120 miles, and you can walk about that Far a day. Theoretically.

[Anna]

Well, I ain't no engineer, but I reckon if you can walk about 5 miles an hour, and you got 24 hours in a day, then 24 times 5 is around 120 miles, and you can walk about that Far a day. Theoretically.

Added: I'd think that your calculations will depend on whether you're drunk or sober while walking. And while computing.

[Black wallnut]

Well, I ain't no engineer, but I reckon if you can walk about 5 miles an hour, and you got 24 hours in a day, then 24 times 5 is around 120 miles, and you can walk about that Far a day. Theoretically.

I don't care who you are that there was funny!

[scorrpio]

Law of electrolysis? That doesn't apply either! At least I think neither one applies.

Faraday's law of electrolysis states there is a minimum theoretical amperage that needs to pass through substance before electrolysis occurs, and that seem like it might apply. This theoretical minimum assumes that conditions are ideal.

The flame color is really not something to judge here since it is hydrogen, not carbon, being burned.

Salt is critical to electrolysis as it ionizes water, turning it into electrolyte. I, however, also question the amount of energy that piece of equipment consumes.

[Anna]

Faraday's law of electrolysis states there is a minimum theoretical amperage that needs to pass through substance before electrolysis occurs, and that seem like it might apply. This theoretical minimum assumes that conditions are ideal.

I already looked at that, and I'm stumped because that requires a value for the current Q. The guy specifically said this is not electrolysis either. From what I remember, he claims to "break the bonds between Na, Cl, H and O." Na and Cl exist as ions. Na may be hydrated, but that's a very weak bond to begin with (pH of salt water is ~7).

Presumably, it should be Faraday's work in electromagnetics, but that was mostly induction of current in an electromagnetic field (if I'm remembering correctly). Again, I can't see how current is produced here.

But I'm really curious and I'd very much like to know what Faraday's theoretical limit is as they define it. My own understanding of Faraday's laws are apparently very limited, and I'd like to learn what it is I don't know.

The flame color is really not something to judge here since it is hydrogen, not carbon, being burned.

Salt is critical to electrolysis as it ionizes water, turning it into electrolyte. I, however, also question the amount of energy that piece of equipment consumes.

The reason I wondered about the flame color is that it's an interesting experiment. My memory of flame color is that hydrogen burns clear (no color) and rapidly. So it can't be hydrogen that's producing the yellow flames that goes on for a while. At that rate, also, the amount of water in the test tube should deplete rather fast.

That's why I started wondering if it's the sodium or chlorine, but they're unlikely because of the instability. The only thing left is salt itself. I don't know anything about burning salt. Maybe someone here does. I read somewhere that salt may burn at high enough temperatures, but I don't really see how that applies here. It seems like spontaneous combustion (no initiating flame) is suggested, but I just don't see how.

Also, I saw the experiment where he used a piece of paper as a "wick." At 1500 degrees, why doesn't it burn? (Remember that steel melts at 1500 degrees C) If gases are producing the flame, how does it wick?

I also wondered about using RF. That's a larger wavelength than microwave, isn't it? If RF can produce this phenomenon, I'd think so would microwave.

Anyway, I didn't want to dismiss this guy's claims outright. I thought it would be more fun to find inconsistencies. Besides, if it's real (which I doubt, but that's beside the point), there might be some other interesting things going on.

Just had to add: I believe that for electrolysis, one needs a cathode and an anode. Unless I'm completely wrong and should have failed general chemistry class.

[LCHIEN]

Faraday's 1st Law of Electrolysis The mass of a substance produced at an electrode during electrolysis is proportional to the number of moles of electrons (the quantity of electricity) transferred at that electrode. Faraday's 2nd Law of Electrolysis The number of Faradays of electric charge required to discharge one mole of substance at an electrode is equal to the number of "excess" elementary charges on that ion. The above, Faradays laws of electrolysis from Wikipedia.

Note on clors of combusion:
You cannot judge energy of material being burned solely by the color. - depends on the material. If you are burning natural gas alone the the orange/yellow blueness is related to the temperature and completeness of combustion. But if you add some other materials, the color of combustian can be overwhelmed by traces of the colors, particularly metals. Note Fireworks for examples, the variety of colors is by the addition of trace amounts of metals into the incendiary materials.


As for this whole hoopla, its not 100% clear to me if we are electrolyzing the water or the ionized sodium chloride, but if we're burning the whole thing its generally accepted it takes, after efficiency losses, more energy to dissocciate the ions than you can get by combusting them back together, RF field or none.

so it sounds like a whole bunch of hooey to me.

[Anna]

Note on clors of combusion:
You cannot judge energy of material being burned solely by the color. - depends on the material. If you are burning natural gas alone the the orange/yellow blueness is related to the temperature and completeness of combustion. But if you add some other materials, the color of combustian can be overwhelmed by traces of the colors, particularly metals. Note Fireworks for examples, the variety of colors is by the addition of trace amounts of metals into the incendiary materials.

But there are supposedly only four components: hydrogen, oxygen, sodium and chlorine. One or a combination of those has to cause the flame. Unless there's something else in the liquid that we don't know anything about, that also produces a sustained yellow flame.

Would be nice to do a mass spectrograph of the flame products because I think we'll find traces of carbon. This has been done before. Guy claimed that he invented an engine that runs on water alone. A test of the exhaust showed CO, CO2 and H2O. I'm guessing we'll find something similar in this case.