Disassocation of water with polarized RF?

[gre]

I just found this (sketchy) paper on the web, and I'm curious why RF disassociation of h2o isn't considered to be possible? Let me know what you think.

 

 

http://www.rustumroy.com/Scans/Observations%20of%20polarized%20MRI%20vol%2012%20is%201.pdf

 

 

Thanks.

[GDG]

The radio-frequency photons do not have enough energy to disrupt a H-O bond (ionizing the water).

[Megabrain]

If it was easy to break the HO bond, we would not exist, after all this time sunlight would have destroyed all the water on teh surface of the earth, life would not have started, so although many think it's a shame we can't break the bond easily, I for one am quite pleased!

[gre]

If it was easy to break the HO bond, we would not exist, after all this time sunlight would have destroyed all the water on teh surface of the earth, life would not have started, so although many think it's a shame we can't break the bond easily, I for one am quite pleased!

 

Good point. I was mostly curious if some sort of resonant cavity could have been created in the tube allowing disassociation, but probably not..

Edited April 29, 2009 by gre

[gre]

If it was easy to break the HO bond, we would not exist, after all this time sunlight would have destroyed all the water on teh surface of the earth, life would not have started, so although many think it's a shame we can't break the bond easily, I for one am quite pleased!

 

 

Does polarized RF occur naturally?

[gre]

Well, despite all the reason why this phenomena 'shouldn't occur' ... It should be pretty hard to argue the experimental verification in this video..

 

http://www.wkyc.com/video/default.aspx?maven_playerId=articleplayer&maven_referralPlaylistId=playlist&maven_referralObject=690385132

 

What do you guys think?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Another credible link, imo

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-burning-water.html

 

And a discussion on the phenomena on a Chemistry forum (If anyone is even interested)

http://hypography.com/forums/chemistry/15804-kanzius-effect-rf-induced-flame-saltwater.html

 

 

I'm surprised there isn't more interest in this... Why could it be happening if 'known science' says it "shouldn't happen". Strange...

Edited May 14, 2009 by gre
Consecutive posts merged.

[GDG]

Well, despite all the reason why this phenomena 'shouldn't occur' ... It should be pretty hard to argue the experimental verification in this video..

 

http://www.wkyc.com/video/default.aspx?maven_playerId=articleplayer&maven_referralPlaylistId=playlist&maven_referralObject=690385132

 

What do you guys think?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Another credible link, imo

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-burning-water.html

 

And a discussion on the phenomena on a Chemistry forum (If anyone is even interested)

http://hypography.com/forums/chemistry/15804-kanzius-effect-rf-induced-flame-saltwater.html

 

 

I'm surprised there isn't more interest in this... Why could it be happening if 'known science' say it "shouldn't happen". Strange...

 

A YouTube video proves absolutely nothing: it is all too easy to fake such things. For example, do you believe that you can

, just because it is shown in a YouTube video?

 

The dearth of interest here is probably because too many of us have seen too many scams already. "Gasoline from water", or some variation, comes around every year or so. The way this story has been presented fits the usual mold: hype without publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A legitimate scientist would be measuring (and reporting!) the power input, and quantifying the amount (and the exact identity) of the gas produced. Most likely, a real scientist would not be releasing results until he or she had at least a theory that explained the effect.

 

Knowing the laws of thermodynamics, we know that even if the effect is real, the rf transmitter must be consuming more electricity than the hydrogen produced. I suspect that the ratio is probably ridiculous, like using a 500 W transmitter to produce less than 1 W worth of hydrogen. The handling of this story appears more calculated to attract funds from credulous investors.

[gre]

A YouTube video proves absolutely nothing: it is all too easy to fake such things. For example, do you believe that you can

, just because it is shown in a YouTube video?

 

The dearth of interest here is probably because too many of us have seen too many scams already. "Gasoline from water", or some variation, comes around every year or so.

 

The way this story has been presented fits the usual mold: hype without publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A legitimate scientist would be measuring (and reporting!) the power input, and quantifying the amount (and the exact identity) of the gas produced. Most likely, a real scientist would not be releasing results until he or she had at least a theory that explained the effect.

 

Knowing the laws of thermodynamics, we know that even if the effect is real, the rf transmitter must be consuming more electricity than the hydrogen produced

 

I suspect that the ratio is probably ridiculous, like using a 500 W transmitter to produce less than 1 W worth of hydrogen. The handling of this story appears more calculated to attract funds from credulous investors.

 

It is very strange most science minded people immediately jump to conclusions about this guy's claim. They don't even claim to be producing more energy than the device is consuming... But the point it is.. Who cares? If this method really works (even if it isn't energy efficient at all), it's probably a brand new way to disassociate water... Right?

 

Also, I'm not saying the experiments shown are definitive proofs, and I agree there definitely needs to be peer review. But I think the news clip should be thought of as credible, unless you think the whole science department at Penn State was scammed. I don't know.. Just seems like there should be more interest than there is... What would be required for you to be interested in this claimed "technology"?

Edited May 14, 2009 by gre