|The Tom Bearden
|Subject: Salt Water Power!
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:19:33 -0500
The videos of Kanzius and his “watergas” or “salt water gas” discovery are much appreciated!
The tone of it – Kanzius was looking for a cancer treatment – is very proper.
I suspect he may have really stumbled onto something very good and very useful, if it can be followed up now and fully investigated and mastered.
It’s potentially a really good energy solution, particularly if the entire process has a COP>1.0. That is, if one can put in a little energy to the water, break down the water into H2 and O2 and then burn the H2 – and in the process recover more energy back out of the combustion recombination of the H2 and O2 than what one inputs.
Note that he has a good solution even if the process has COP<1.0, so long as he has a decent efficiency. It still would allow getting away from burning oil and coal, and getting onto “burning watergas”.
If the Kanzius process is COP >1.0, he will have to be violating the second law of equilibrium thermodynamics in there. Not to worry, one is permitted (in nonequilibrium thermodynamics) to violate that sad old “law” (it’s actually an oxymoron assuming its own contradiction has previously occurred but is not accounted) almost at will. One known and accepted way (in nonequilibrium thermodynamics) to violate the second law almost at will is by sharp gradients – or, sharp pulses of energy density, in other words. Since chemists do not consider that sort of 2nd law violation, the conventional chemists are going to argue that it is not possible.
We iterate the “magic” capabilities permitted by nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) thermodynamics systems, while absolutely precluded in equilibrium thermodynamics. A proper NESS system is permitted to (1) self-order, (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more energy than the operator himself inputs (the excess energy required is input by the active environment), (4) self-power (all the required energy input is provided by the environment freely, and the operator inputs none at all), and (5) exhibit negative entropy.
The reason that electrical power system engineers fail to build such systems is that such a NESS system is basically an asymmetrical system. With Lorentz’s 1892 arbitrary symmetrization of Heaviside’s 1880s vector equations, the resulting symmetrized theory arbitrarily discards all such asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, and allows only symmetrical Maxwellian systems that self-enforce COP<1.0. So the electrical engineers are trained to believe and accept that there exists no such thing as a COP>1.0 EM system, taking its excess energy freely from the active vacuum’s ongoing interaction with every charge. Indeed, the EE model falsely assumes an inert vacuum and a flat spacetime. Neither its assumed vacuum environment nor its assumed spacetime environment ever furnishes any excess net energy to the system in the EE’s model.
If one looks at the watergas phenomenon through the nonequilibrium thermodynamicist’s eyes, and then considers the transient fluctuation theorem whose existence and effects in fluids in regions of up to a cubic micron for up to two seconds or more have been rigorously proven by Australian thermodynamicists, then indeed one can have a process in water that does violate the second law and does allow a COP>1.0 overall process. And one can have a process that produces continuous negative entropy.
Consider this: Heat is just EM energy that is being scattered usually. So a key question becomes: “How can we produce EM energy or heat energy output, without inputting real, observable energy ourselves?”
It is clearly established that every charge and every dipole in the universe already freely and steadily pours out real, observable, usable photons – real EM energy – and yet there is no observable EM energy input. Instead, there is a “Maxwell’s demon” process being accomplished by that charge or that dipole. The charge or dipole is absorbing virtual energy, and producing and emitting observable energy.
Note that a single “classical” charge polarizes its surrounding virtual state vacuum with charge of opposite sign, so that the “classical, isolated charge” is actually part of a dipolar ensemble also. And for separated opposite charges, broken symmetry was predicted and rapidly proven experimentally in the 1950s, resulting in the immediate award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang for their prediction of broken symmetry – a giant revolution in physics whose ramifications have not yet made it into electrical engineering! And not much into chemistry either!
As Nobelist T. D. Lee points out, when we have a broken symmetry, something virtual has become observable. Because of its broken symmetry, any charge and dipole does indeed absorb virtual state energy, coherently integrate it to observable state, and re-emit the energy as real, observable photons – real, usable EM energy.
So yes, there are indeed “Maxwell demon” processes that violate the second law and are legitimate; every charge and dipole is already a glowing example.
E.g., see D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, “Equilibrium microstates which generate second law violating steady states,” Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648. This paper advances the transient fluctuation theorem which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. The theorem relates the relative probability of delivering negative versus positive work to an experimental vessel. The theorem applies to systems in a constant-temperature environment and initially at equilibrium.
“[There are many theorems] … that tackle the statistical nature of fluctuations. Specific forms of the various theorems depend on which thermodynamic parameters (temperature, volume, and so forth) are held constant, whether the system is prepared in an equilibrium state, and other factors. The transient fluctuation theorem tested by Evans and coworkers applies to systems in a constant-temperature environment and initially at equilibrium.” [Steven K. Blau, "The Unusual Thermodynamics of Microscopic Systems," Physics Today, 55(9), Sep. 2002, p. 19-21. Quote is from p. 19-20].
Actually Maxwell – who also was a thermodynamicist of note – was aware that the old second law was routinely violated in macroscopic fluids when one considers the molecules. Quoting Maxwell:
“The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body.” [J. C. Maxwell, “Tait's Thermodynamics II,” Nature 17, 278–280 (7 February 1878)].
To see how closely Maxwell’s view corresponds to the modern work of Evans et al., we quote Evans:
“We are known for deriving and experimentally confirming the Fluctuation Theorem. This Theorem gives an elegant extension of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so that it applies to finite systems observed for finite times. … The Theorem also resolves the paradox of how time-reversible microscopic dynamics leads to irreversible macroscopic behaviour. It also implies that as devices are made smaller and smaller the probability that they will run thermodynamically reverse to what one would expect, increases exponentially with decreasing system size.” [D. J. Evans, http://rsc.anu.edu.au/~evans/index.php.].
A further generalized form of the transient fluctuation theorem, due to Gavin Crooks at Berkeley, applies when one manipulates a system so as to change its free energy. See Gavin E. Crooks, “Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences,” Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 60, 1999, p. 2721-2726.
For a really startling paper, see D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, “Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States,” J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920. This paper proves that real physical systems can produce continuous negative entropy, in total violation to the flawed old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics.
And finally, see G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans, “Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601. The authors experimentally demonstrate the integrated transient fluctuation theorem, which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. Entropy consumption (production of negative entropy) is shown to occur over colloidal length and time scales, for up to two seconds and at micron size scales.
The source charge and the source dipole clearly and easily demonstrate experimentally that (1) there do exist proven processes that produce observable EM energy from the virtual state energy of the vacuum, and (2) an example of this proven process – from charges and dipoles – exists in every fundamental charged particle and dipole.
This clearly means that the potential for negative entropy effects (such as possibly the production of watergas in a COP>1.0 overall process) already exists in all atoms and molecules.
Thus there ought to be a way to do in water exactly what Kanzius appears to have done. The thrust of his work – and his conclusions as to the cause – are indeed already supported by hard science, just science that has been accomplished by Australian thermodynamicists!
A real advantage of such a real watergas process, of course, is that the combustion of the H2 and O2 obtained from the water just produces more water! And no CO2 emissions from the combustion process! You take a natural resource, trick it into being an energy (combustion of fuel) source by first using a negative entropy (negative work) process, and “exhaust” it back in the original form as water with usable heat liberated in the combustion process.
And it will also dramatically reduce CO2 emissions and thus global warming, if one replaces carbon fuels combustion with such a “pure” and “clean” process.
These are the kinds of effects and systems that our scientific leaders ought to be funding and investigating at full capability. Instead, mostly they are just funding rather orthodox “more of the same” technologies.
Let’s hope Kanzius or someone gets it for real, and then gets it out there very quickly.