Salt water burns possible fuel

Nope, because it's accurate. Efficiency is about how hot to convert energy into work with minimal loss to waste (usually heat).

There's no engineering department at my school, but I know a bit about physics. Energy is never lost or gained, merely transformed.
 
I got a perpetual motion machine...capture the gas coming from a cow's ass and burn it...well it's not perpetual but they are the most polluting thing on the planet and I believe methane is combustible.
 
NAIDANAC A said:
I got a perpetual motion machine...capture the gas coming from a cow's ass and burn it...well it's not perpetual but they are the most polluting thing on the planet and I believe methane is combustible.
Click to expand...

Gotta feed the cow. I see where you're going with this, everyone can just start driving around with a cow in the back.



























edit: somebody better take the bait.
 
NAIDANAC A said:
I got a perpetual motion machine...capture the gas coming from a cow's ass and burn it...well it's not perpetual but they are the most polluting thing on the planet and I believe methane is combustible.
Click to expand...

There's actually a dairy farm in California that does this. They collect all the manure from the cows and treat it with bacteria that converts it into methane. The methane is then collected and used to produce electricity. They're able to cover 80% of the energy needs of the farm this way, which I think is pretty cool.
 
I think some of you aren't thinking about the amount of energy required to run the radio device, if it isn't all that much, this is definately possible.

let's say you have a tank full of something combustible in a boiler(for a turbine)but in order to burn it, you have to put in one of those fish tank bubblers. energy will be required to start the boiler, but once the turbine spins the energy released from it will be able to power the bubbler and then some.

or, how about this, when you start your car you are using energy from the battery(or gravity if you pushed it down a hill, whatever), but once combustion starts, the engine runs off the alternator, the burning of the fuel is more than enough energy to keep the car going(spark plugs, fuel pump etc.[think radio device here]), so long as you have fuel.(gas and diesel generators work the same)

I don't know why some of you are saying this would be perpetual motion, it's CLEARLY not a closed system and would depend on a constant supply of fuel, so where you got the idea this would be perpetual motion is beyond me.
 
zenkidori said:
I think some of you aren't thinking about the amount of energy required to run the radio device, if it isn't all that much, this is definately possible.

let's say you have a tank full of something combustible in a boiler(for a turbine)but in order to burn it, you have to put in one of those fish tank bubblers. energy will be required to start the boiler, but once the turbine spins the energy released from it will be able to power the bubbler and then some.

or, how about this, when you start your car you are using energy from the battery(or gravity if you pushed it down a hill, whatever), but once combustion starts, the engine runs off the alternator, the burning of the fuel is more than enough energy to keep the car going(spark plugs, fuel pump etc.[think radio device here]), so long as you have fuel.(gas and diesel generators work the same)

I don't know why some of you are saying this would be perpetual motion, it's CLEARLY not a closed system and would depend on a constant supply of fuel, so where you got the idea this would be perpetual motion is beyond me.
Click to expand...

OK, you don't seem to be getting this. The reason you get energy from burning hydrocarbons is because the H-O bonds in water and C=O bonds in carbon dioxide are of a lower energy than the C-H and C-C/C=C/C?C bonds in hydrocarbons. In this case, we're already starting with the stable, low energy bonds in water, and with the very stable, low energy forms of sodium and chloride ions dissolved in the water. The only high energy bonds in this situation are the O=O bonds in O2, but let me show you why that isn't enough.

Here are the chemical equations for the proposed situation of the RF waves reducing the sodium ions to sodium metal, the sodium metal reacting with the water to form NaOH and H2, and the H2 being burned:

1) Reduction of sodium and oxidation of chlorine (requires massive amounts of energy, btw)
Na?(aq) + Cl?(aq) --> Na + 1/2Cl?
​

2) Formation of NaOH and Hydrogen gas
Na + H?O --> Na? + OH? + 1/2H?​

3) Combustion of Hydrogen gas
H? + 1/2O? --> H?O​

Overall Reaction:
2Cl?(aq) + H?O + 1/2O? --> Cl? + 2OH?(aq)​

Heat of formation for H?O: -285.830 kJ/mol
Heat of formation for Cl?(aq): -167.4 kJ/mol
Heat of formation for OH?(aq): -229.9 kJ/mol
Heat of formation for O? and Cl?: 0

Overall heat of reaction = 0 + 2(-229.9) - 2(-167.4) - (-285.83) - 0 = 160.83 kJ/mol <-- the reaction is endothermic, which means it absorbs this much energy per gram-mole of reactants.

Are you still so sure that this could work?
 
Okay, obviously I didn't convey my thoughts clearly, otherwise we wouldn't have this.

chaos386 said:
No. No. No, no, no, no, NO!

I know what you meant, but you can never have Energy In < Energy Out. What happens when you burn gasoline is the following:

Energy In = Work Out + Energy Out​

"Energy In" is the internal energy of the fuels (plus their enthalpy, pressure, kinetic and potential energy), which gets converted into usable work and "waste" energy (waste heat, pressure, etc.).
Click to expand...

Alright, that's the difference in what we're counting as 'energy in'. I was not considering the energies stored in the fuel as part of the energy in, but rather only in the energy out (basically saying that the fuel was already there, what are you 'adding' to the fuel). Which works for a process, but not a system. And here we're talking about a process, not a system.

But considering that, the energy of the fuel (Energy out) must be equal to the energy input from the spark and compression (gasoline) or the radio emitter (salt water) in order to be self sustaining; Energy out needs to be greater to be useful.

Understand what I was saying now? Believe me, I know thermodynamics.
 
YF19pilot said:
Alright, that's the difference in what we're counting as 'energy in'. I was not considering the energies stored in the fuel as part of the energy in, but rather only in the energy out (basically saying that the fuel was already there, what are you 'adding' to the fuel). Which works for a process, but not a system. And here we're talking about a process, not a system.

But considering that, the energy of the fuel (Energy out) must be equal to the energy input from the spark and compression (gasoline) or the radio emitter (salt water) in order to be self sustaining; Energy out needs to be greater to be useful.

Understand what I was saying now? Believe me, I know thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

I knew what you were saying from the beginning, it's just that I'm used to visualizing processes differently. I jumped the gun in my reply a bit since I was in a hurry (for the non-engineers out there, we're basically saying the same thing, just using different ways to express the concepts). I'm studying chemical engineering, which means I have to think in terms of streams entering and leaving units, and I have to be aware of all the energies contained in those streams.

In this case I think it's important to keep track of the chemical energies of the products and reactants, since we're trying to find out whether or not the process is feasible.
 
chaos386 said:
I knew what you were saying from the beginning, it's just that I'm used to visualizing processes differently. I jumped the gun in my reply a bit since I was in a hurry (for the non-engineers out there, we're basically saying the same thing, just using different ways to express the concepts). I'm studying chemical engineering, which means I have to think in terms of streams entering and leaving units, and I have to be aware of all the energies contained in those streams.

In this case I think it's important to keep track of the chemical energies of the products and reactants, since we're trying to find out whether or not the process is feasible.
Click to expand...

Ah, I'm aerospace. For the most part when dealing with engine systems, I have to take the energy out from the combustion as energy in for the system. It works out, though.


You also have to forgive me, I wasn't what you would call "awake" yesterday. You're an engineer so I hope you understand. Probably didn't come off quite as well as I hoped.


Catching up to what Archie said:
Archie said:
It violates the first law. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. When you apply the first law it is:

Energy In = Energy Out

It also violates the second law. The second law states that a perpetual motion machine is impossible because the universe tends towards randomness. Like I said there is energy lost to friction, heat, and sound. This is the randomness. So in the real word you cannot get anywhere near 100% efficiency. chaos386 is right. When you apply the second law the equation becomes:

Energy In = Work Out/Energy Out + Waste
Click to expand...

I already re-explained what I said, but to be certain, remember that most of the second law applies to systems and not so much processes. Again, I was not considering the stored energy of the fuel in the energy out, see previous post for explanation.
 
Last edited:
chaos386 said:
OK, you don't seem to be getting this. The reason you get energy from burning hydrocarbons is because the H-O bonds in water and C=O bonds in carbon dioxide are of a lower energy than the C-H and C-C/C=C/C?C bonds in hydrocarbons. In this case, we're already starting with the stable, low energy bonds in water, and with the very stable, low energy forms of sodium and chloride ions dissolved in the water. The only high energy bonds in this situation are the O=O bonds in O2, but let me show you why that isn't enough.

Here are the chemical equations for the proposed situation of the RF waves reducing the sodium ions to sodium metal, the sodium metal reacting with the water to form NaOH and H2, and the H2 being burned:

1) Reduction of sodium and oxidation of chlorine (requires massive amounts of energy, btw)
Na?(aq) + Cl?(aq) --> Na + 1/2Cl?
​

2) Formation of NaOH and Hydrogen gas
Na + H?O --> Na? + OH? + 1/2H?​

3) Combustion of Hydrogen gas
H? + 1/2O? --> H?O​

Overall Reaction:
2Cl?(aq) + H?O + 1/2O? --> Cl? + 2OH?(aq)​

Heat of formation for H?O: -285.830 kJ/mol
Heat of formation for Cl?(aq): -167.4 kJ/mol
Heat of formation for OH?(aq): -229.9 kJ/mol
Heat of formation for O? and Cl?: 0

Overall heat of reaction = 0 + 2(-229.9) - 2(-167.4) - (-285.83) - 0 = 160.83 kJ/mol <-- the reaction is endothermic, which means it absorbs this much energy per gram-mole of reactants.

Are you still so sure that this could work?
Click to expand...

I think if anyone is right about what reactions are going on it would be you. But I think the whole situation here has to do with a non-classical way of separating the sodium. Honestly, until we get some more research and details to the actual process being used here, we are just speculating.

My hope, is there is something happening here that is very different from the normal way of doing chemistry. Nothing like nuclear reactions mind you, but not what we all are use to. If not, then there is really no story in the first place.
 
chaos386 said:
OK, you don't seem to be getting this. The reason you get energy from burning hydrocarbons is because the H-O bonds in water and C=O bonds in carbon dioxide are of a lower energy than the C-H and C-C/C=C/C?C bonds in hydrocarbons. In this case, we're already starting with the stable, low energy bonds in water, and with the very stable, low energy forms of sodium and chloride ions dissolved in the water. The only high energy bonds in this situation are the O=O bonds in O2, but let me show you why that isn't enough.

Here are the chemical equations for the proposed situation of the RF waves reducing the sodium ions to sodium metal, the sodium metal reacting with the water to form NaOH and H2, and the H2 being burned:

1) Reduction of sodium and oxidation of chlorine (requires massive amounts of energy, btw)
Na?(aq) + Cl?(aq) --> Na + 1/2Cl?
​

2) Formation of NaOH and Hydrogen gas
Na + H?O --> Na? + OH? + 1/2H?​

3) Combustion of Hydrogen gas
H? + 1/2O? --> H?O​

Overall Reaction:
2Cl?(aq) + H?O + 1/2O? --> Cl? + 2OH?(aq)​

Heat of formation for H?O: -285.830 kJ/mol
Heat of formation for Cl?(aq): -167.4 kJ/mol
Heat of formation for OH?(aq): -229.9 kJ/mol
Heat of formation for O? and Cl?: 0

Overall heat of reaction = 0 + 2(-229.9) - 2(-167.4) - (-285.83) - 0 = 160.83 kJ/mol <-- the reaction is endothermic, which means it absorbs this much energy per gram-mole of reactants.

Are you still so sure that this could work?
Click to expand...

Thank God somebody came to the same conclusion as I did, using chemistry.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top