Tweet
Chris didn't disassemble it...he loaned it to another guy and never got it back. I know the details of why, and why getting it back is now not likely to happen, but am choosing not to say because it really isn't anyone's business.
Chris is not particularly interested in hydrogen production. There are any of a dozen good reasons for that. One major one is that hydrogen embrittlement will destroy an internal combustion engine, so any practical solution will likely require external combustion. That increases the complexity considerably, and as a reasonably poor 28 year old, I seriously doubt he has the resources to tackle the problem.
Contrary to assertions here that there is no chemical answer, it seems that John Kansius' experiments would suggest otherwise. The fact that only a couple have managed to demonstrate the effect doesn't invalidate the fact that pure EM energy can cause water dissociation in an ionic solution. Since that is an established fact, rather than questioning Chris Hunter's statements, you might should be questioning why you were unable to reproduce the effect.
The point I'm trying to make is that there really is more than one question here:
1. Is it possible to dissociate water via magnetism?
2. Does that process deplete the water of its ionic content?
3. Can it be done at an energy discount?
I think Chris would answer yes, no, and yes.
John Kansius proved at the very least yes, unknown, and unknown.
Before I ruled it a failure, I would personally be trying to understand why I couldn't replicate the Kansius experiment with a strong magnetic field, because that should be possible. Only after replicating that much, would I move into evaluation of the last two parts.
There is zero doubt in my mind that if I stuck a piece of copper wire in water, and subjected that wire to a variable magnetic field, there would be a point when that wire would have enough voltage induced in it to start electrolysis. The key would be rate of change of the field. Too slow, you get nothing, but beyond some threshold you would get gas.
If you were to increase the number of wires while decreasing the length of each, it would still work, but I expect you would need to increase the rate of change. You could do that by increasing the field strength at the same frequency, or by increasing the frequency. As before, when you hit the correct threshold it would work.
If that conductor were reduced to something atomic sized, I would expect that the rate of change would need to be extremely high. To do so would likely require both high frequency and high current. That is something that doesn't come naturally, especially for those not skilled in the art. From what I have observed around these forums...the questions asked about drive circuitry...it is obvious to me that most would struggle to build a full H bridge drive that can push current and frequency to the levels that might be required.
Since an atomic sized conductor would probably not produce a coherent magnetic field, I'm not sure that Lenz would apply, or would apply poorly. That has very significant efficiency implications that might affect question #3. Additionally, since a magnetic field does not dissipate power, in the absence or reduction of Lenz, the use of high Q resonant circuits might make it possible to create the magnetic field needed with very little input power.
Once the threshold was hit, I would expect the knee of the reaction to be very sharp, since quite suddenly 10 to the gazzillionth conductors would hit the voltage needed to start dissociation.
While I can't vouch for Chris, I can come up with enough reasons that it might work that I'd cut the guy some slack...
There are obviously questions that need to be answered, so why don't those of us who are interested in a fair evaluation, wander back over to the thread on OU, and return this thread to Farrah's capable hands.
Chris is not particularly interested in hydrogen production. There are any of a dozen good reasons for that. One major one is that hydrogen embrittlement will destroy an internal combustion engine, so any practical solution will likely require external combustion. That increases the complexity considerably, and as a reasonably poor 28 year old, I seriously doubt he has the resources to tackle the problem.
Contrary to assertions here that there is no chemical answer, it seems that John Kansius' experiments would suggest otherwise. The fact that only a couple have managed to demonstrate the effect doesn't invalidate the fact that pure EM energy can cause water dissociation in an ionic solution. Since that is an established fact, rather than questioning Chris Hunter's statements, you might should be questioning why you were unable to reproduce the effect.
The point I'm trying to make is that there really is more than one question here:
1. Is it possible to dissociate water via magnetism?
2. Does that process deplete the water of its ionic content?
3. Can it be done at an energy discount?
I think Chris would answer yes, no, and yes.
John Kansius proved at the very least yes, unknown, and unknown.
Before I ruled it a failure, I would personally be trying to understand why I couldn't replicate the Kansius experiment with a strong magnetic field, because that should be possible. Only after replicating that much, would I move into evaluation of the last two parts.
There is zero doubt in my mind that if I stuck a piece of copper wire in water, and subjected that wire to a variable magnetic field, there would be a point when that wire would have enough voltage induced in it to start electrolysis. The key would be rate of change of the field. Too slow, you get nothing, but beyond some threshold you would get gas.
If you were to increase the number of wires while decreasing the length of each, it would still work, but I expect you would need to increase the rate of change. You could do that by increasing the field strength at the same frequency, or by increasing the frequency. As before, when you hit the correct threshold it would work.
If that conductor were reduced to something atomic sized, I would expect that the rate of change would need to be extremely high. To do so would likely require both high frequency and high current. That is something that doesn't come naturally, especially for those not skilled in the art. From what I have observed around these forums...the questions asked about drive circuitry...it is obvious to me that most would struggle to build a full H bridge drive that can push current and frequency to the levels that might be required.
Since an atomic sized conductor would probably not produce a coherent magnetic field, I'm not sure that Lenz would apply, or would apply poorly. That has very significant efficiency implications that might affect question #3. Additionally, since a magnetic field does not dissipate power, in the absence or reduction of Lenz, the use of high Q resonant circuits might make it possible to create the magnetic field needed with very little input power.
Once the threshold was hit, I would expect the knee of the reaction to be very sharp, since quite suddenly 10 to the gazzillionth conductors would hit the voltage needed to start dissociation.
While I can't vouch for Chris, I can come up with enough reasons that it might work that I'd cut the guy some slack...
There are obviously questions that need to be answered, so why don't those of us who are interested in a fair evaluation, wander back over to the thread on OU, and return this thread to Farrah's capable hands.
Comment