Can Sound Waves Boil water at overunity efficiency with specific frequency of sound?

The full Question is:
Can Sound Waves Boil water at overunity efficiency if the sound generated is at waters resonance?

I have been watching this video on youtube (link below) and found various articles describing this device developed by a New Zealand man, Peter Davey, which boils water within around 10 seconds and is exceedingly efficient because it doesn't expend energy boiling water that evaporates over the course it is boiled. I calculated some numbers I found regarding this device. It runs on about 20 Watts, and can boil 100 grams of water in ten seconds from what i have been able to surmise. Also the validity of this device may seem quesitonable coming from youtube, but it is a recording of a New Zealand news broadcast, so then question of the validity of the New Zealand media.

Input energy:
P = W/t
20Watts = W/10
200 Joules

Output energy:
Q = mc(deltaT)
Q = (100g)(4.18)(100 C - 25C)
31350 joules

First I felt that the excess energy was produced by a chemical reaction induced by the sound in the breaking of the polar covalent bonds of water to form hydrogen and oxygen, but with further investigation I found that:
H2 + 1/2 O2 --> H2O + Heat
This disproves the theory that water breaking down can be accredited with the excess heat produced since it is an endothermic reaction.

I then also calculated the change in mass that would occur to determine if this device works on the principles claimed (that were disproved) by Dr. B. Stanley Pons and Dr. Martin Fleischmann regarding the ability to induce a fusion reaction at room temperature. There are some discrepancies though between the alleged device of 1989 and this sonic boiler, in that the fusion experiment of 1989 used Heavy Water, where as this sonic boiler uses tap water, and the 1989 experiment makes no note of inducing this reaction with sound.

E = mcc
(31,500 - 200 joules) = m(9.00 *10^16)
m = 3.461111 * 10^-13 grams
So If the excess heat induced by sound is produced by fusion then the intial 100 grams of water would experience a loss in mass of 3.461111* 10^-13 grams.

Any conclusions or ideas of what could be occuring?
What is the resonance of water?
Is this even possible?
Is equitment avaliable to test this, such as an adjustable tunning fork that goes from high to low frequencies?

LINK: youtube.com/watch?v=5JrpdVZyt_s[/url]

P.S. Sorry for the crazy long post, but I wanted to prevent anyone from doing more work then necessary to answer/provide input.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The "integrity" of the NZ media is very much like that of media organisations everywhere. The criteria have bugger-all to do with hard science, and everything to do with "a story" - even if the story is out there.
For example, recently a reporter interviewed someone in NZ who claims they can run a car on H20, after extracting hydrogen from it, or something. I watched the interview but so few details were given (it's all rather hush-hush of course) I had no real idea what the working principle is. There has been a fair queue of dudes with similar claims, throughout the history of the combustion engine, and often these ideas seem to pop up when oil is scarce - like during global wars, oil shortages or high prices.

Perhaps those are the only real things involved, though. I reserve judgement, but no previous claim of combustion of H20 in a heat-cycle engine has yet emerged as a real working machine, that I know about anyway.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please watch this video to see radio waves make hydrogen for very cheap amount of electricity.

http://runyourcarwithwater.org/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes, all things have a particular resonance. It can be figured by the number of oscilations at the speed of light over one meter. As such barium is like 39 ish with like 14 decimals.

 

this goes back to tesla.

 

When I want to make a cup of tea I shout at my kettle till the water boils.

 

Yeah the search continues

I have continued to search for answers on some forums of questionable credibility, but despite my lack of faith in their validity, they seem to have been qualified in the field of electronics.
Here Are some of the forums that have had extensive experience with the replication and testing of this device.

energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/1414-daveys-water-heater.html

overunity.com/index.php/topic,4083.0.html

IN both forums the user that started the thread provided a reasource to begin the discussion with. THe first site listed requires you to be a memeber to view it but on the second site it is accessable. The reasource from he second site contains a more detailed description of the Sonic boiler in addition to other aclaimed overunity heaters. IF you scroll down in the pdf you will find a schematic of the Boiler with the only complete description I have ever seen, describing all the aspects of the machine.
Although the second site provide a better source for discussion, the first sites forum members were able to constructivly go farther by acctually building and testing the device, and finding strange occurances with it that I attribute to electrolysis and oxidation. The only aspect that the forum failed to do was find a method to properly tune the device to 50Hz which is the alledged frequency that water resonates at and high efficiency is achieved.

One user made a suggestion but it was never carried out here is an excerpt: (from the first link, user elias)

"I didn't get time to tune one, But I would recommend you building or buying a variable frequency AC power supply for this purpose. This would make it much easier to tune it. The article says that he has worked on it years to make it operate like this, we don't want to spend years to make a device be able to operate at exactly 50 Hz. So It is more wise to build it and make the adjustments to the frequency instead of the device itself to see at what frequency the current draw drops, as it seems that should drop at a certain frequency."

Is this a viable solution to the problem of tuning the Boiler? IF so where the hell would I find one? (cheaply, I don't have a money growing wallet)

 

Not one of those people have any idea what they are talking about. The resonance frequency of water is VERY high - up in the microwave region (which, by the way, is the basis upon which ordinary microwave ovens operate on.)

And here's another hard, fast and accurate rule for you to consider. Anyone who claims to have invented an over-unity device is either a fool or a con artist. (People have been bilked out of millions of dollars by J.V. Naudin and his like.) Any - and I repeat ANY - such device would violate the laws of thermodynamics - and there's no getting around that.

 

The US patent office will not accept any patent for anything to do with free energy o over unity machines or perpetual motion machines unless the inventor can prove said machine has been running for at least a year without being 'plugged in' or filled with petrol etc.

Nothing yet.

 

Right. Just like there was absolutely NO WAY anything heavier than air could fly. Or no way the Earth is round otherwise wed be able to see it.

Dont you people realize that current limitations are just gaps in knowledge?

I acknowledge the current laws of physics makes this impossible, but the physics we have now wont be the physics 100 years from now, so saying ANYTHING is impossible is making the claim you know exactly how EVERYTHING works. Only god (if he exists) can make that claim my friend.

 

Someone once said

"If you go against Newton, you're common place. If you go against quantum mechanics, you're bold. If you go against relativity you're daring. If you go against thermodynamics, you're wrong".

 

Some one once said "Its impossible to anything heavier than air to fly"
Your point?

 

Yeah, right! You just keep on believing that we can violate the principles in the laws of thermodynamics and see what it gets you. Those are fundamental principles and TOTALLY unlike the other rather silly things you've tried to compare them to.

Tell me - seriolusly - do you actually understand the three basic laws of thermodynamics anyway? It would appear that you clearly do not.

 

Well to first address the begining of your statement, if you read further or any at all you would understand that your not tunning the sound projected by the device to be 50Hz but the sound that travels through the metal spheres to be 50Hz so that when it changes mediums (metal to water) the properties of the sound wave will also change.

Second with regard to the law of thermodynamics, nothing is set in stone and no law of science is safe from question. Look at the radical evolution of our perception of the atom across the past century, from the plum pudding model to the electron cloud model. Even the name of the atom has become a fallacy because the atom is no longer the known smallest unit of exsistance as its name suggests, it has been replaced by the quark. If all scientists were as stubborn as you then our current society would not only be our present society but our future one to, becasue no progress can be made when you don't explore the unexplored.

EndlightEnd is right in saying that science is an ever changing field, that will not and should not retain its laws throughout the ages.

"Science is a series of judgments, revised without ceasing."

William Hazlitt understood that "Science is the desire to know causes" and thats what I wanted to do with this thread, know the cause if any of this occurance. I never said that energy was coming from no where, but rather asked where it was coming from (chemical reactions, table top fusion). By continually posting that this is a fraud you are doing nothing but hindering any progress we could be making to acctually determining the validity of this claim. If you believe this is truely a sham then there is no need to comment because we will eventually come to the same conclusion if you are correct, read-only. But if you are wrong then you may have dampened the possibity of another great invention and another essential revision needed in the laws of science.

 

A mis-quote, which was a statement of engineering ability, not scientific knowledge...

 

The fact we couldn't build something isn't the same as excluding something as impossible on fundamental grounds. We don't know how to build a 10 mile high building but that doesn't mean it cannot be done in principle. Getting over unity energy output is excluded by every theory which describes energy.

 

Maybe there is some sort of hidden energy in this.
Or it could just be lies about the overtunity.

 

Every theory has made by men (who make mistakes all the time).
Our scope of experience is limited not only by the VERY small part of the universe we live in, but also by our fundamental biological limits (such as seeing only part of the electromagnetic spectrum).
And for you to sit here and tell me we can know ANYTHING for certain is just ludicrous for me. Science is changing all the time with new evidence, surely you must recognize this. Given enough time, who says we cant prove that wrong one day?
A little imagination wouldnt hurt you ya know.

 

Good call.

 

ALL the time?
They're not even right now and again?

Except, of course, for the bits that aren't.
The laws of thermodynamics have held up pretty well so far, and now some woo-woo (correction: ANOTHER woo-woo) comes along, says he's beaten them and (once again) fails to produce any hard evidence...

What I find interesting is that the guy "boils" the water while it's in a glass, which remains in one piece. Strange...