[_Microft]

The article contains a broken link to the paper but I think I found it on Sci Hub. It's short by the way, just three or four pages of own content:

https://sci-hub.do/10.1179/143307508/270875

Edit: it's a bit of a strange paper with a lot of talk about unrelated things (imo) but there seems to be this unexpected effect which might make it worthwhile to investigate it independently from what one thinks of this paper. The setup seems to be simple and cheap enough that there should not be huge obstacles to get easy and fast results.

[marcosdumay]

Personally, I read it as "mostly unmodelled, difficult to calculate experiment behaves in a way no scientist ever predicted, but not very far from what simpler ones do".

If I was looking for something to research, I wouldn't pick this one. It's not strange enough to compensate for how hard it is to understand it. (But then, I wonder how I the photoelectric emission fits on that dimension...)

[dr_dshiv]

If I understand, you are saying you wouldn't try to empirically research this because 1. burning salt water isn't strange enough and 2. it would be difficult to calculate and model.

That seems reasonable and yet unfortunate. It seems like the kind of experiment that a scientist would try to undertake out of sheer curiosity.

[dr_dshiv]

Thanks for the edit. I view this all through the lens of the politics of science. Some radio technician figures out a really unexpected natural effect, it gets major news coverage by a scientifically illiterate press (claiming free energy), and the scientific mainstream pounce: "how foolish they were to think that energy could be extracted from water!" And yet (and this is the thing that makes me jump up and down), we still have a really unexpected property of nature! Study that shit, people! I might be wrong, but it seems that the reason the topic isn't studied—even to measure the inefficiency—is due to some unhealthy politics in modern science.

I expect it will first be studied by YouTubers like "the plasma channel".

[gus_massa]

> Study that shit, people!

From a practical point of view, It looks like an interesting demo, but I don't think it has too many applications. I only can imagine that it may be useful as a sterilization process, whatever virus or bacteria that is in the solution will be extremely unhappy with so much H2 and O2 around. The flame and the small risk of an explosion is a problem.

From a theoretical point of view, it's easy to model isolated small molecules. Big molecules or combination of molecules is exponentially more difficult, like in ~exp(5*N) where N is the number of atoms and 5 is an oversimplification. There are some approximations that reduce it to a polynomial time like ~(5N)^12 or ~(5N)^9 less if you use more approximations. And with more approximations you can calculate it in linear time that is very useful for biochemistry that are interested in big molecules. Anyway, most of these methods assume that atoms don't move, or don't move too much, or use a lot of simplifications.

Simulation water at the molecular level is a nightmare. You need to simulate many molecules, each one moving around, that form bounds between them that are not stable enough to simulate like a fixed length, but stable enough to be ignored. And now you need to add a strong electromagnetic field to the mix, and the nightmare is upgraded to the Freddy Krueger level.

[_Microft]

There seem to be a lot of low hanging fruits to characterize the phenomenon, so I would not try to simulate the process yet. Dependence of the amount of produced gases on the concentration and type of salt, the temperature, radio frequency, input power seem very easy to check if the necessary equipment is available. Pick a few parameters and hand the task over to a bachelor/master student or maybe research assistant and see what results come out.

"Effects of different parameters on the efficiency of electrode-less water splitting", sounds like an acceptable topic for a bachelor thesis for example ;)

[gus_massa]

I agree, there are many interesting variables (temperature, concentration, frequency, shape of the container, localization of the beam, ...), and impurities/catalyzers open another huge amount of tweaking opportunities.

It's just that most papers pretend that the result has some practical or theoretical application, and I think it's difficult to get one.

[dr_dshiv]

But isn't that challenge of simulation exactly why empirical study would be valuable?

I'd want to know how the Hydrolysis effect varies as a function of EM frequency and salt composition. Hypothetically, different EM frequencies could produce resonance effects in water. Basically, I'm curious how the flame might grow bigger at different EM frequencies.

If anyone has any access to EM equipment like this, I'd definitely pay $1000 to catalyze. Seriously! I haven't been this curious about a physics phenomena since I learned about sonoluminescent bubble implosions "Mysterious Glowing Bubbles". Seriously. https://www.newswise.com/articles/mysterious-glowing-bubbles

RIP Dr. Apfel, he was a big influence on me.

I know Alan McGaughey at CMU does water modeling at a molecular level, pretty cool stuff: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=HmNtygkAAAAJ&hl=en