“Kanzius Effect” RF-induced flame from saltwater

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Turtle

...Then we have someone saying the glass is burning, and I have to say what kind of glass is it? ...

Here's some chemistry on the glass side: >>

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION of BOROSILICATE GLASS
Chemically speaking, borosilicate glass substitutes boron oxide particles in place of the soda and lime particles found in soft glass. The boron oxide serves as a flux or glue to hold the silicate particles together with aluminum oxide and sodium oxide. Because the boron oxide particles are so small, the silicate is held together more closely resulting in a much stronger glass.

Solstice Glass - About Borosilicate Glass

[Nitack]

Oh MB... I am actually eagerly awaiting your take on this particular topic

[Mercedes Benzene]

Originally Posted by Nitack

Oh MB... I am actually eagerly awaiting your take on this particular topic

Sorry. I haven't been following this thread. And now that I've been summoned by a certain turtle, it's a lot of information to digest.
I have to wait until I get home though, since for some reason, my work computer is not letting the sound on the video play.

[modest]

The patent says:

The invention relates to a method of using radio frequency waves to artificially create catalytic action in a catalyst-free chemical reaction within a substance. To mimic or imitate the catalyst, radio frequency waves are transmitted through the substance at a signal strength sufficient to electronically reproduce the effect of the physical presence of a selected catalyst. The radio frequency waves have a selected transmission frequency substantially equal to a catalyst signal frequency of the selected catalyst, defined as the signal frequency determined by nuclear magnetic resonance of the selected catalyst.

Catalytic simulation using radio frequency waves - Patent 6217712

But, I think this is wrong. I think it mis-characterizes the way a photocatalyst works. An article on artificial photosynthesis:

About the same time, American chemists discovered a class of compounds called ruthenium trisbipyridines that are sensitive to blue light. These orange-colored molecules, which give Mihok's test-tube solution its mashed Creamsicle appearance, fire off an electron when struck by a photon of light. "Ru-bipy" — as it's known in chemistry circles — "is a fantastic reducing agent when stimulated by light," says Mallouk. "Water-splitting requires 1.23 volts of energy. The excited state of Ru-bipy gives off 2.1 volts — almost twice what we need."

Energy at the Speed of Light

So, in order for this thing to do what Kanzius is claiming, it would need to use the energy of the radio wave to remove an electron from the chlorine. Basically, to photodissociate the chlorine ion freeing the electron for the hydrogen to grab. But, a radio wave doesn't have the energy to photodissociate a chlorine ion, I'm sure. It has nowhere near that energy.

So, I'm at a loss...

~modest

[Mercedes Benzene]

To me, this guy's *efforts* blithely violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Apparenlty, many *actual* scienctists have been unable to recreate his claims:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/dec...chterm=kanzius

Alas, using radio waves to tap hydrogen and oxygen as a combustible source of energy is inefficient, and scientists have so far been unable to adapt the process for energy production.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

To me, this guy's *efforts* blithely violate the laws of thermodynamics.

I think we're all solid that this has zero chance of making more energy than it uses. Actually, I don't think Kanzius has claimed otherwise.

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

Apparenlty, many *actual* scienctists have been unable to recreate his claims:
Can Radio Waves Really Make Water Burn? | Technology | DISCOVER Magazine

Yeah, I think your link is debunking the idea that water buns like gasoline. While that's also not Kanzius' claim, I bet some people walk away from these videos with exactly that idea.

The link also says that this is normal electrolysis that's happening.

Kanzius had essentially replicated the centuries-old method of water electrolysis, separating water into hydrogen and oxygen gases by running a current through water loaded with salt, which makes it conductive.

I'm curious how they came to this conclusion because it's exactly what I've been trying to figure out. Are they really suggesting that passing an EM field through salt water with no electrodes is expected to electrolyze water?

If it's just the capacitance caused by the field then it should happen just as easily in a microwave - shouldn't it? Assuming this is a normal RF generator - I can't figure why this would happen. I can't figure why a radio wave would make electrolyzed water.

~modest

[Mercedes Benzene]

Originally Posted by modest

The link also says that this is normal electrolysis that's happening.

I'm curious how they came to this conclusion because it's exactly what I've been trying to figure out. Are they really suggesting that passing an EM field through salt water with no electrodes is expected to electrolyze water?

If it's just the capacitance caused by the field then it should happen just as easily in a microwave - shouldn't it? Assuming this is a normal RF generator - I can't figure why this would happen. I can't figure why a radio wave would make electrolyzed water.

~modest

Since they used the word "essentially," my guess is that they mean it is comparable (but not equivalent) to electrolysis, since electrolysis requires a direct current. Any form of energy would be capable of splitting the O-H bonds in the water, as long as it reaches a "critical" level capable of overcoming the bond energy.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

Since they used the word "essentially," my guess is that they mean it is comparable (but not equivalent) to electrolysis,

Agreed. I see that now.

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

since electrolysis requires a direct current. Any form of energy would be capable of splitting the O-H bonds in the water, as long as it reaches a "critical" level capable of overcoming the bond energy.

I agree, but a hydrogen bond is too strong to be broken by a radio wave photon... at least through ordinary photodissociation/photolysis.

~modest

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

Since they used the word "essentially," my guess is that they mean it is comparable (but not equivalent) to electrolysis, since electrolysis requires a direct current. Any form of energy would be capable of splitting the O-H bonds in the water, as long as it reaches a "critical" level capable of overcoming the bond energy.

Actually, AC current does the job too, it just doesn't seperate the gases H & O. Each electrode produces each gas alternately and the result is the mixed gas called Brown's gas at both electrodes. So in this regard, the radio signal is the alternating current.

Not that I know what's going on here yet. Did I notice the flame start spontaneously in some of the vids? Hey; did y'all know flame is a conductor? I still want to know what's left in the tube when it runs dry! Scrape it out, weigh it, spectroscopize it, and find out how much salt etcetera actually burned. Also I noticed in that blog Modest gave that 200 watts is specifically mentioned. Where'd I put that?....

That is all.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Actually, AC current does the job too, it just doesn't seperate the gases H & O. Each electrode produces each gas alternately and the result is the mixed gas called Brown's gas at both electrodes. So in this regard, the radio signal is the alternating current.

Not that I know what's going on here yet. Did I notice the flame start spontaneously in some of the vids? Hey; did y'all know flame is a conductor? I still want to know what's left in the tube when it runs dry! Scrape it out, weigh it, spectroscopize it, and find out how much salt etcetera actually burned. Also I noticed in that blog Modest gave that 200 watts is specifically mentioned. Where'd I put that?....

That is all.

Ooooo. Poor choice of words on my part!
I didn't mean direct current as in DC (the noun). I meant direct as an adjective describing current, meaning, current directly run through the water. Directly.
Sorry for the confusion.