sci.energy

Evgenij Barsukov wrote:
> Bill Ghrist wrote:
>
>> Marvin wrote:
>>
>>> Hard to see any potential, for the same reason other schemes like it
>>> fail. Thermodynamics rules.
>>
>>
>> First of all, this is not a "scheme," it is an interesting and
>> unexpected phenomenon which may or may not have practical applications.
>>
>> Secondly, the fact that the amount of energy available from a process
>> is less than the input does not preclude it from having practical
>> uses. If that were the case then nobody would ever convert energy
>> from one form to another, . in a turbine generator, because the
>> energy of the final product is always less than the energy ( . heat)
>> used as input. Likewise, there would be no devices powered by
>> rechargeable batteries, since you don't get as much electrical energy
>> out as you put in.
>
>
> It looks like the media has messed things up with the timing.
> Electrolysis by microwaves have been invented in 1981:
> See US Patent 4,265,721 by Hackmyer:
> /netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml% &Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1= .&OS=PN/4265721&RS=PN/4265721
>
>
> Electrodless electrolysis (specially if done with decent efficiency)
> would have tremendous applications, just because electrodes are
> expensive and corrode rather fast (specially for water electrolysis).
> That is why Hg-electrode was used for years to make NaOH out of NaCl
> (still used in some backward places).
> Having gases together is a disadvantage, but could be overcame in
> many cases where gases have different properties.
>
> However, considering that it never really got off the ground since
> 81, it looks like efficiency is very bad, as you would expect - most of
> the energy is simply converted to heat.
>
> Regards,
> Evgenij
>
>
Could you use a maser to remotely perform electrolysis on sea water?
It might make a good weapon for burning off shore targets......

Gregg