salt water instead of gas?
 

i thought i found this link on 2+2 but i can't find it LOL or OOT so maybe I stumbled upon this somewhere else. anyways check it out

salt water

Re: salt water instead of gas?
 

I saw that the other day. That is simply amazing!

Re: salt water instead of gas?
 

This is probably stupid reporting rather than misleading statements by the engineers.

This is a power transmission method. It will not allow you to get energy out of salt water (without putting a lot more energy in). It looks considerably less efficient than many other power transmission methods.

Re: salt water instead of gas?
 

So it's useless?

It still looks really amazing seeing water burn. It would be cool to see it in action.

Re: salt water instead of gas?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is probably stupid reporting rather than misleading statements by the engineers.

This is a power transmission method. It will not allow you to get energy out of salt water (without putting a lot more energy in). It looks considerably less efficient than many other power transmission methods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never got the point of this either. Sure amazing, but where is the energy supposed to come from that is used by the massive microwave?

Re: salt water instead of gas?
 

the way i interpreted it is it uses a little energy to get the initial burn but then can get a [censored] load of energy from the salt water. Kind of like how to start a fire you strike a match or use a lighter but still get a ton of energy from whatever you're burning.

Re: salt water instead of gas?
 

[ QUOTE ]
the way i interpreted it is it uses a little energy to get the initial burn but then can get a [censored] load of energy from the salt water. Kind of like how to start a fire you strike a match or use a lighter but still get a ton of energy from whatever you're burning.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, we disagree. How can we ever settle such a disagreement? I'm willing to bet $1,000 against $100 that your interpretation is wrong. Do you want to put your money where your mouth is, even given 10:1 odds? I thought not.

This isn't the first story on using an external energy source to split water to get hydrogen and oxygen, which can then burn to produce water. The reporters cut the "uninteresting" statements by the engineers about how you don't get more energy out than what you put in.

The reason this isn't completely uninteresting is that you don't have to have the energy source at the same location as the receiver. You can have a transmitter some distance away. On a good day, maybe you can get 50% efficient transmission, but that's going to be tough in a car, and you would still have to deal with a heavy, inefficient internal combustion engine afterwards.

Re: salt water instead of gas?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is probably stupid reporting rather than misleading statements by the engineers.

This is a power transmission method. It will not allow you to get energy out of salt water (without putting a lot more energy in). It looks considerably less efficient than many other power transmission methods.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just connect the engine to a generator, then plug it back into the RF generator obviously.

I invented a similar device when I was younger, involving a solar cell and a lightbulb.

Re: salt water instead of gas?
 

There is a way to calculate the efficiency of the energy transfers. I think physicists, chemical engineers, and good chemists can calculate the theoretical efficiency using some equations that uses terms like entropy, Gibbs energy and other techno jargon from what I vaguely remember.

I'm pretty sure that the energy put into making that match head is more than the energy generated by the matchhead; not including the items burned by the matchhead.

Re: salt water instead of gas?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, we disagree. How can we ever settle such a disagreement? I'm willing to bet $1,000 against $100 that your interpretation is wrong. Do you want to put your money where your mouth is, even given 10:1 odds? I thought not.



[/ QUOTE ]

lol, chill out clown