3 ms·

> radio waves can provide electrodeless water splitting and physicists don't care Probably they don't care, because as soon as that water is split, it is ignit

> radio waves can provide electrodeless water splitting and physicists don't care Probably they don't care, because as soon as that water is split, it is ignited and burned again, so you can't have any hydrogen, you have just changed some rf energy into heat, losing some energy into heat in rf setup... It's easier to just heat something directly with elecrticity. Now if someone invented a way for oxygen and hydrogen split that way to remain split for more than milliseconds, physicists would be more interested.

dr_dshiv 7y ago
Sounds like a good research question for physicists :)
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  I suspect physicists look at it for a moment and realize: Converting electricity into radio waves with energy losses, sent through the air with energy losses, to bombard molecules, which then resonate with the waves to use electromagnetic forces to split molecules, will always be less efficient than simply using that original electric current to do the same thing directly with less energy loss. This will always be energy inferior to simple electrolysis.
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    That may be; I don't know the proof. There may be combined approaches, too, with potential for lowest system cost. Here is a patent from an Israeli company on this topic, granted just this year: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2911976A4/it https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2911976A4/it
    - ChrisLomont 7y ago
      >There may be combined approaches, too, with potential for lowest system cost. This simply violates basic physics. Turning electricity into radio waves only to turn them back into electricity is always going to lose energy. This is fundamental. In a simplistic undergrad setting the absolute best you could hope for is zero loss, but there is no gain. In the real world with real materials there will be loss. >Here is a patent from an Israeli company on this topic, Patents are granted on all sorts of nonsense. Having a patent is not proof of usefulness, or efficiency, or marketability, or even if it is better than any other competitor. A patent means the material seemed novel enough to the patent inspector that after repeated rounds of claim modifications and paperwork he wan convinced the claimed item is new. Usually patents are on a small piece of a technology, since it, like this one, builds on a lot of pieces coming before it (hence all the other patents cited).
      - dr_dshiv 7y ago
        Every transformation will lose energy. Electrolysis isn't lossless either, hence the possibility for efficiency gains (or real-world cost reductions) through a combined approach.
phkahler 7y ago
>> Now if someone invented a way for oxygen and hydrogen split that way to remain split for more than milliseconds, physicists would be more interested Sounds exactly like a cool research area for physicists.
- dicknuckle 7y ago
  Isn't that exactly what this does? https://youtu.be/r3_UdBvyicU https://youtu.be/r3_UdBvyicU There has been a few videos about it on the Cody's Lab YouTube channel

dr_dshiv 7y ago

Sounds like a good research question for physicists :)

ChrisLomont 7y ago
I suspect physicists look at it for a moment and realize: Converting electricity into radio waves with energy losses, sent through the air with energy losses, to bombard molecules, which then resonate with the waves to use electromagnetic forces to split molecules, will always be less efficient than simply using that original electric current to do the same thing directly with less energy loss. This will always be energy inferior to simple electrolysis.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  That may be; I don't know the proof. There may be combined approaches, too, with potential for lowest system cost. Here is a patent from an Israeli company on this topic, granted just this year: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2911976A4/it https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2911976A4/it
  - ChrisLomont 7y ago
    >There may be combined approaches, too, with potential for lowest system cost. This simply violates basic physics. Turning electricity into radio waves only to turn them back into electricity is always going to lose energy. This is fundamental. In a simplistic undergrad setting the absolute best you could hope for is zero loss, but there is no gain. In the real world with real materials there will be loss. >Here is a patent from an Israeli company on this topic, Patents are granted on all sorts of nonsense. Having a patent is not proof of usefulness, or efficiency, or marketability, or even if it is better than any other competitor. A patent means the material seemed novel enough to the patent inspector that after repeated rounds of claim modifications and paperwork he wan convinced the claimed item is new. Usually patents are on a small piece of a technology, since it, like this one, builds on a lot of pieces coming before it (hence all the other patents cited).
    - dr_dshiv 7y ago
      Every transformation will lose energy. Electrolysis isn't lossless either, hence the possibility for efficiency gains (or real-world cost reductions) through a combined approach.

phkahler 7y ago

>> Now if someone invented a way for oxygen and hydrogen split that way to remain split for more than milliseconds, physicists would be more interested Sounds exactly like a cool research area for physicists.

dicknuckle 7y ago
Isn't that exactly what this does? https://youtu.be/r3_UdBvyicU https://youtu.be/r3_UdBvyicU There has been a few videos about it on the Cody's Lab YouTube channel