Val_ написал(а):Немножко не так выразился - применении в промышленных масштабах, может и реализуемое, применение в быту (те же автомобиле на воде) - не думаю.
На счет себестоимости уже говорилось - испытания и расчет затрат - дело нескольких часов. На вскидку могу - какая стоимость генератора ВЧ-сигналов и усилителя к нему для мощности хотя бы 100 кВт?
Может потому, что там не было никакого "чуда"? Водород можно получать и в нормальных условиях, без затрат энергии, но с затратами ресурсов или применением катализатора (стоимость которого не известна).
Все признаки тишины вокруг изобретения,говорят о том,что оно рабочее и перспективное. Я не зря привел выше объявление о новой модели машины,которая,по-видимому,использует тот же принцип изобретения.
Кстати,по-поводу получения водорода;в 2008 году планировал установить на свою машину агреггат для электролиза,который должен был экономить топливо до 30%. В тот год ,цены на бензин были на пике,а я ездил на 4 литровом моторе. Когда я стал опрашивать людей,которые себе уже поставили подобный дивайс,то даже они не были уверены в точных цифрах экономии. После этого я усомнился в пользе этой машинки и не стал ее ставить.Вполне возможно,что аппарат был эффективен,но отсутствие информации из независимых источников способно было разочаровать даже оптимистов подобных новинок. Сам аппарат продавался за 400$,но установить его самому,не будучи опытным механиком было невозможно. Сами обычные механики ничего не знали о принципе действия и установке. Так же и здесь,голословный скептицизм в комбинации с незнанием принципа действия изобретения,помноженный на желание похоронить изобретении от финансово заинтересованных в этом сторон.
Доктор Растум Рой , известный специалист по наукам о материалах, высоко оценил изобретение Канзиуса и назвал его «самым значительным открытием в науке о воде за последние сто лет».
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rustum_Roy
Может по совпадению,а может и нет,престарелого ученого не стало 1.5 годами позже смерти самого изобретателя.
http://theintentionexperiment.com/the-r … experiment
Предлагаю внимательно вчитаться в этот комментарий:
True. Exactly right in fact. Hence it may well be the case that there are far more efficient frequencies that initiate this phenomenon.
There is still very little information available on this even though it goes back to 2007. Since then Kanzius, has of course passed away from cancer and Rustum Roy, the scientist at Penn State University, that took up the baton has since died too. I was in contact with Rustum Roy at one point before he became ill. I was curious about the reactions that must be taking place, and he replied saying that it was not as complicated as I might think and that he would be providing all the relevant details shortly on the Penn University website… then he went and died on me!
At the time Kanzius’s discovery aired, quite a few scientists swiftly dismissed the phenomenon as nothing important, saying it was simply another form of standard Faraday electrolysis. I was somewhat incensed by this nonsense coming from – of all people – scientists. Clearly this phenomenon has little bearing on Faraday electrolysis and to the best of my knowledge this was the first time that water had been dissociated this way.
The thing that interests me most about this is the fact that Kanzius had no electrodes in the water, hence no charge exchange medium – something that is crucial to Faraday electrolysis. So if the RF was simply dissociating the salt water into ions, unlike in Faraday electrolysis, these ions would have nowhere to drop and pick up charges in order to become gas atoms. Something more must be happening!
Under Kanzius’s conditions, the phenomenon does not manifest itself with just water. However, it did manifest itself with varying concentrations of salt.
What many people may not know is that many varied solutions were later tested and it became apparent that the solutions that caused the greatest effect were those that would also make the best electrolyte solution for standard Faraday electrolysis.
The uneducated (and indeed some scientists) will tell you that the RF energy is simply breaking down the water molecule, releasing the oxygen and hydrogen which then ignites from the heat generated by the RF energy. What they all fail to do is provide a balanced chemical equation for the reaction/s that must be taking place.
My problem is this: when we add energy to the water molecule it dissociates into ions, it does not break cleanly into oxygen and hydrogen atoms. In fact one of the O-H bonds breaks, leaving H+ and OH-. The H+ almost immediately bonds with a stable H2O molecule to become H3O+, whilst the OH- ion remains in solution. But here’s the thing, the OH- bond is now far, far stronger than the O-H bonds of H-O-H, and so is much harder to break.
So, whereas the OH- and H3O+ ions in standard Faraday electrolysis will exchange charges via the electrodes to become atoms, this, of course, cannot happen in the case of the Kanzius phenomenon.
Now, I’m not inclined to think that the RF energy is conveniently dissociating the water molecule cleanly into oxygen and hydrogen atoms, which then simply evolve as gases… so what is occurring?
Well we know that we need an electrolytic solution, and if we take common table salt in water, we have a mixture containing: H2O, Na+, Cl-, H3O+ and OH-
It is therefore logical to assume that it is a reaction between these ionic species and/or the water molecule, results in the evolution of at least hydrogen – and more likely than not oxygen.
In water, Sodium is a very reactive metal, immediately reacting to give hydrogen and sodium hydroxide:
2Na + 2 H2O > 2NaOH + H2
So if our Sodium (Na+) ion was somehow caused to react for instance with the hydroxyl (OH-) ion, then we would have and oxygen atom and a hydrogen atom free to evolve from the solution. The now Sodium (Na) atom would immediately react again with a water molecule to create a hydroxide and more hydrogen.
But I’m just speculating here – I’m no chemist. But why some experienced chemist has not yet confirmed and published the actual reaction equations is quite baffling to me. Whatever, it is clear that the process must be very different to standard Faraday electrolysis, and the scientists that poo-pooed this phenomenon need to reassess the situation.
As far as overunity goes, well this is something I’ve given no thought to, as I have assumed not. It would however be prudent to investigate the phenomenon further to at least compare the efficiency of this process with standard Faraday electrolysis.
For a while now I’ve been working on a combination of both processes. That is using low power RF to ionize the water in order to make standard Faraday electrolysis far more efficient. Work is ongoing, but somewhat hindered by the lack of a suitable RF power amplifier.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1477.0