An ancient energy source gets a second life to perpetuity.

[atomsmasher]

An ancient energy source gets a second life to perpetuity.

I envisioned an electrostatic force splitting the water molecule in saltwater. This splits the molecule into its atomic components, H2 & O & in the next instant these same atoms re-join as a water molecule giving off a lot of heat.

The reaction will give off a lot of heat over and over in a chain reaction.

The reaction is through a DC current. I believe there are ways to speed up this reaction.

We should try varying the frequency of the DC current. I believe there is another frequency that will speed up the molecules splitting.

 To repeat,

Pass this electrical current through a solution of saltwater; and in that same instance the two elements will rejoin back into a water molecule.

Creating a never-ending cycle of splitting and rejoining. While at the same time the volume of water remains the same.

maybe I will start a topic on this.

What say you--?

[atomsmasher]

decided to follow to wherever it goes

 

[atomsmasher]

If what you are trying to achieve is heat, then you got it while at the same time your source to produce this heat is not depleted in the process.

The trick is to find the right frequency that accelerates the water molecule splitting.

This is like a tuning fork. If you create the right frequency glass will shatter. But there is only “one” frequency that can do the trick.

decided to follow to wherever it goes

 

[HallsofIvy]

Have you never heard of "conservation of energy"?  The heat energy given off when the atoms recombine cannot be more than the energy required to separate them.

[atomsmasher]

14 hours ago, HallsofIvy said:

Have you never heard of "conservation of energy"?  The heat energy given off when the atoms recombine cannot be more than the energy required to separate them.

Yes, I am aware of the principle of a “perpetual motion machine” and the other, "conservation of energy". The idea proposed is neither.

The idea proposed is to use electrolysis to split the water molecule and the next instant in time recombine the hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom back to a water molecule which releases a lot of “heat”.

All I am trying to propose is a more efficient way that may enhance to electrolysis process. If the product you are trying to accelerate is “heat” and a new way to accelerate this process producing more heat, then your objective has been achieved.

I am not breaking the law of "conservation of energy".

This is not a perpetual motion machine.

In my view of things “energy” is matter in motion.

If the energy of rubbing two sticks together creates heat and this heat creates fire that warms you through the night, then no laws of nature have been broken.

Edited May 11, 2021 by atomsmasher

[HallsofIvy]

"We should try varying the frequency of the DC current."

Right there you tell us you do not know what you  are talking about!  DC current does NOT have a "frequency".

[atomsmasher]

On 6/6/2021 at 11:40 AM, HallsofIvy said:

"We should try varying the frequency of the DC current."

Right there you tell us you do not know what you  are talking about!  DC current does NOT have a "frequency".

You are correct and I was wrong.

I have been searching for the reason why electrolysis is able to separate the water molecule from H2O to H2 and O.

If we can discover what mechanism that causes this split to occur we may then be able to use the splitting process to create energy by recombining the two (2) atoms, hydrogen and oxygen together

 

The reaction would be almost instantaneous.

The idea is to split the water molecule and then recombine the atoms repeatedly, over and over in a chain reaction creating enormous amounts of heat.

I have been searching for a new source of renewable energy and this is one idea I am not as of yet, wiling to forget.

Edited December 19, 2021 by atomsmasher

[bangstrom]

A continuous electrical current would keep the process going but it takes more electrical energy to split the water molecules than you could gain with combustion.

[atomsplit]

On 7/6/2021 at 2:34 AM, bangstrom said:

A continuous electrical current would keep the process going but it takes more electrical energy to split the water molecules than you could gain with combustion.

I disagree & I will continue to disagree until someone can actually prove the SeaEngine produces less energy than you get out of it.

Here is a good example-

How much energy did it take to start the energy release below?

Energy (X)

How much energy was released in the above explosion?

Energy (Y)

If you can prove that (Y) is less than (X) I will concede.

Good luck

(:-

Edited April 2, 2022 by atomsplit

[OceanBreeze]

On 4/2/2022 at 11:30 PM, atomsplit said:

I disagree & I will continue to disagree until someone can actually prove the SeaEngine produces less energy than you get out of it.

Here is a good example-

How much energy did it take to start the energy release below?

Energy (X)

How much energy was released in the above explosion?

Energy (Y)

If you can prove that (Y) is less than (X) I will concede.

Good luck

(:-

 

 

You seem to be implying that a nuclear reaction produces more energy than the energy required to set it off. You can claim the same thing about lighting a firecracker, or the energy needed to pull the pin and throw a hand grenade, or fire a bullet out of a rifle. None of these produce more energy than the energy put into them in the first place!

The only difference is the energy contained in a nuclear fissionable substance, or fusionable substance, was put there by Nature; we didn’t need to pack it in before using it!

However, the energy released in either a fission explosion, or a fusion explosion, is always less than the energy that is available.

 I can write a book about this subject, but so many books have already been written, the best I can do is encourage you to read them. Basically, it all comes down to the Einstein relationship (E=mc2). Because of the concept of mass-energy equivalence, mass is no longer considered unchangeable in a closed system.

Generally, in nuclear reactions, some conversion between mass and energy occurs so that the products generally have smaller or greater mass than the reactants. However, the total (relativistic) energy must be conserved.

Conservation Laws in Nuclear Reactions:

Conservation of nucleons. The total number of nucleons before and after a reaction are the same.

Conservation of charge. The sum of the charges on all the particles before and after a reaction are the same.

Conservation of momentum. The total momentum of the interacting particles before and after a reaction is the same.

Conservation of energy. Energy, including rest mass energy, is conserved in nuclear reactions.
 

I think a picture is worth maybe ten thousand words when it comes to this subject, so let me try that approach:

 

On the left of the iron group, which is considered reactionless, you have the yield from Nuclear Fusion. As you can see, the yield shown is about 5 MeV, almost all of it comes from the release of the binding energy per nuclear particle. These nuclear binding energies are enormous. They are on the order of a million times greater than the electron binding energies of atoms.

However, only about 5 MeV of this energy is released as kinetic energy of the 8.8 MeV available per nuclear binding energy. That right there should lay to rest any idea that the energy released is greater than what is initially available.

On the far-right side of the iron group, are the fission reactions. If you look at U235. You see that the average mass of fission fragments is about 118, meaning a fission explosion is only about 50% efficient. (it only uses up about 50% of the available “input” which was put there by a combination of Nature and nuclear enrichment done by man.

 

[atomsplit]

I sincerely appreciate your efforts in giving me a crash course in energy, ins, and outs. Now having said that you seem to be missing the point.

Everything depends on what the user is trying to achieve. The end product is the goal, not the path taken to get there.

If my goal is to crush a can then that is my objective, none other.

In this example the weight needed to crush this can is 50 pounds, but I do not have a 50-pound weight, I only have 10 pound weights, what do I do?

I stack 5 10-pound weights on top of each other and the can crushes.

My goal was achieved.

In the SeaEngine I am combining the lifting force of ten (10) balloons each attached to the other which gives me a greater lifting force than I get from one single balloon.

In my example the combined lifting force is 118,428 pounds of force. This force needs to be converted to watts.

What you need to keep in mind is that you only need to recharge the lowest balloon to keep the 10 balloons doing the lifting.

SEAPOWER44 (1)_optimize.pdf

[atomsplit]

Latest Seapower.pdf

[atomsmasher]

Scientists at the world’s largest nuclear-fusion facility have achieved the phenomenon known as ignition—creating a nuclear reaction that generates more energy than it consumes. Results of the breakthrough at the US National Ignition Facility (NIF), conducted on 5 December and announced today by US President Joe Biden’s administration, has excited the global fusion-research community. That research aims to harness nuclear fusion—the phenomenon that powers the Sun—to provide a source of near-limitless clean energy on Earth.

https://tinyurl.com/3dhw3ru7

[atomsmasher]

Here is another myth busted----

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light!!!!!

Oh Ya

As it travels through space, the solar wind reaches speeds of over one million miles per hour. In fact, its speed is so great that "bow shocks" form whenever it is forced to flow around the planets in the solar system. Such bow shocks also form around airplanes, rockets, or the Space Shuttle when these vehicles travel faster than the speed of sound in the atmosphere.

https://tinyurl.com/mryswzrf

 

[Halc]

11 minutes ago, atomsmasher said:

Here is another myth busted----

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light!!!!!

Oh Ya

As it travels through space, the solar wind reaches speeds of over one million miles per hour.

I think SoL is *slightly* faster than that.  This isn't exactly news either. Depictions of planets (Earth in particular) deflecting the solar wind are pretty common. 

[OceanBreeze]

14 minutes ago, atomsmasher said:

Here is another myth busted----

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light!!!!!

Oh Ya

As it travels through space, the solar wind reaches speeds of over one million miles per hour. In fact, its speed is so great that "bow shocks" form whenever it is forced to flow around the planets in the solar system. Such bow shocks also form around airplanes, rockets, or the Space Shuttle when these vehicles travel faster than the speed of sound in the atmosphere.

https://tinyurl.com/mryswzrf

 

You should review the units of speed before posting.

one million miles per hour is a tiny fraction of the speed of light which is 300 million meters per second.

That works out to over 670 million miles per hour which is much faster than the solar wind. (670 X faster)

[OceanBreeze]

On 4/2/2022 at 11:30 PM, atomsplit said:

I disagree & I will continue to disagree until someone can actually prove the SeaEngine produces less energy than you get out of it.

Here is a good example-

How much energy did it take to start the energy release below?

Energy (X)

How much energy was released in the above explosion?

Energy (Y)

If you can prove that (Y) is less than (X) I will concede.

Good luck

(:-

Here you are making the common mistake of confusing triggering energy with cause energy.

 For instance, when a massive sphere is caused to roll down a slope starting from a point of unstable equilibrium, then its velocity is assumed to be caused by the force of gravity accelerating it; the small push that was needed to set it into motion is not explicitly dealt with as a cause. In order to be a physical cause there must be a certain proportionality with the ensuing effect. A distinction is drawn between triggering and causation of the ball's motion.

By physical causation is meant an effect that was caused by physical interference propagated by force from object A to object B. Momentum is propagated by force according to the Noether's theorem applied to translational invariance in Lagrangian field theory, which is used to describe the fundamental forces of nature when applied to the standard model.

You should try to learn the difference to avoid making crackpot posts; unless of course, making crackpot posts is your goal.