| Burning Salt Water to Cure the Energy Crisis! NO! |
| Written by Hank Green | ||
| Wednesday, 12 September 2007 | ||
|
John Kanzius shoots radio waves at salt water, and then lights it on fire. This is a fairly impressive display, I mean, we don't think about water as being flammable. But I'm having a really hard time believing that it's energy positive, particularly because it would break the laws of physics. The radio waves simply loosen the bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen and allow them to be easily broken when exposed to heat.
Comments
(227)
Thank you!
written by Edward , September 12, 2007
Waste
written by Hank , September 12, 2007
The waste isn't the problem. There's certainly more crap in coal than in salt water, and we don't have any problems burning it. The problem is that it can't work...otherwise I'd be jumping for joy.
waste
written by josh , September 12, 2007
the waste can be dumped in death valley or some other such location. the process does not need to be energy positive to be useful as a method of hydrogen synthesis (and perhaps energy store for an intermittent power generator like a wind turbine). it does need to be relatively efficient though.
More energy in is not a big deal
written by Mike , September 12, 2007
So what if it takes more energy in than what comes out of the process? The energy in can come from renewable sources that can not be stored, i.e. Sunlight or wind energy, to Hydrogen that can be stored for when there is no sunlight or wind. Using the world's oceans as the raw material for creating Hydrogen from sunlight sounds like a win to me. Power input is not an issue. He is not claiming a perpetual motion machine or cold fusion.
Just a thought
written by Art , September 12, 2007
What if you use the power from the wall to initially power the RF for the bond breaking, then use the part of the energy released to produce the power for the RF. Just like one big loop.
Thank you
written by Phil Dufault , September 12, 2007
Thanks for confirming the skeptical part of my brain when I read another article two days ago -- I was thinking, how is this supposed to produce more energy than what's required to generate the radio waves.
Much thanks for the article!
...
written by Mike , September 12, 2007
I would bet money that he isn't using a mixture of sea water, rather a sodium chloride (NaCl, salt) and hydrogen oxide (H2O, water) mixture derived from ocean water. The impurities in ocean water might burn along with the oxygen and hydrogen, but I would imagine that they would hinder the reaction.
Futureproof
written by Rider , September 12, 2007
blah
written by blah , September 12, 2007
you lost me at
"and disregarded it as not-very-interesting science."
Umm...yes it is, actually
written by Lee , September 12, 2007
First off, solar energy and wind energy CAN be stored pretty efficiently in batteries. In fact, they MUST be stored or the extra energy would just be expended elsewhere (as heat or something, if my rudimentary physics doesn't fail me now). Also, power input is ALWAYS an issue or we're just spinning our wheels (metaphorically speaking).
For example, if it takes 5 gallons of gasoline to make 1 gallon of ethanol due to farming methods, transportation, etc., how exactly did such a process work towards weaning us off of gasoline? If we're trying to look for alternative energy sources, why are we devoting even MORE of the traditional sources to do such a thing? Its bad science, really.
Need more articles like this
written by Lee , September 12, 2007
As I initially read the article about burning water this was the first thing I thought of. People who know nothing of science will just accept the idea of burning water. But what is happening here appear to be nothing more then an altered form of electrolysis. Thank you for this article.
...
written by Derek , September 12, 2007
While there is a good chance you are right, you still don't have any solid evidence so I don't see why you have to be so confident in your title. Using this as a fuel isn't an outrageous claim and we don't even know so many things such as the minimum amount of energy to break these bonds and how much energy we can get out. And to the person above saying that salt water isn't very clean, have you seen the stuff oil produces? Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you're going to sound that sure, give me some evidence.
...
written by Steve-o , September 12, 2007
Well, there is lots of industry that uses the remains from salt water. Chlorine comes from salt water and is the most important industrial chemical in the US. I work for a company that does that. But I'm thinking that if you can push the RF energy through more water (more volume) than you could touch with electrodes, you might be onto something.
You could also maybe use off shore wind energy to just get the hydrogen from the water and pump it on-shore? According to the article they have to "ignite the water", it doesn't sound like it is self initiating. Just some thoughts.
efficiency is the key
written by chilyo , September 12, 2007
I think the key here is to find out if this technology is more efficient than current methods of removing h2 from water. If it is, you increase the ability to deliver h2 as a viable fuel. also, it seems that this method would lend itself much more readily to microgeneration of h2 then the electrolysis methodd.
on the other hand....
written by David W. , September 12, 2007
On the other hand, he's come up with a safe electric candle / stove / etc. Turn the radio waves off, and it puts itself out!
...
written by Denx , September 12, 2007
is anyone sure that it isnt simply breaking the NACL and the sodium is reacting in the water?
...
written by Travis Swientek , September 12, 2007
I don't 100% agree with your title nor your post. You can harness energy from other sources. Think about how plants harness the suns energy...
How can you say this is not an "energy-positive" process? Is it even possible to achieve "energy-positive"? I don't think so, you're fighting the laws of physics. Newton's laws of motion can describe this very well, Every action has an Equal AND Opposite reaction. Basically, you have to take something to give something... When producing gasoline, do you know how much energy is needed to seperate crude oil into the forms of fuel we use? Now understand that oil is not a renewable resource, water is, so if it takes energy to convert water to something usable, so be it! We're essentially getting rid of the pollution and using a source that will probably never go away in our time. 
...
written by Whome? , September 12, 2007
Isn't the potential interest in this as new way to get hydrogen out of water?
"Making" and storing hydrogen are the two stumbling blocks to fuel cells. Is it more energy efficient the electrolysis? If it is by any sizable margin, then it's sort of a big deal for fuel cells.
Don't know the minimum energy to break t
written by dr.psilo , September 12, 2007
Derek says:
...we don't even know so many things such as the minimum amount of energy to break these bonds and how much energy we can get out... Yes, we do.
Important discovery
written by Important discovery , September 12, 2007
This is an important discovery nonetheless if it holds true. Aside from the possibility of refining the RF generator to require as little power as possible to generate the effect necessary, and aside from the fact that the by-products of the reaction would be useful on something like a submarine, and aside from the fact that the process looks like it is much faster the electrolysis and besides the fact the heat given off is enough to weld metals it is just plain cool and apparently unknown until recent.
no water = no humans
written by Greg H , September 12, 2007
Why would anybody be happy if we could burn water as fuel? Yes, there is a lot of water, but think about using water as the only fuel source for the entire planet's energy needs. Now think about 500 years of that. There's not going to be much water left. No water means that the earth will be totally void of all life.
Wow.
written by Anonymous Coward , September 12, 2007
The amount of pseudo-science in the comments is more scary than the widespread news coverage... Are that many people scientifically illiterate?
Hydrogen Fire = Blue / Sodium Fire = Red
written by Phil , September 12, 2007
@ Greg H: When the hydrogen burns it recombines with the oxygen to make water, hydrogen is the most abundant element on earth and as an element it's not going anywhere.
Additionally I don't know if anyone realizes but that's a sodium fire, last I heard hydrogen burns blue. Additionally, if it is the sodium that's burning your left with chlorine which is less than ideal. -Phil
You didn't read the same article I did
written by Rob , September 12, 2007
They clearly pointed out this is not an energy positive process... All this was, is a proof of concept. Now you need money to do the research to generate the radio waves using less power. It may come with time, just look at cellphones over the past decade...with money comes research and improvements.
A Water-based Gasoline Substitute is Rea
written by 10756517 , September 12, 2007
Pending US Patent 10/756,517 describes a water based substitute for gasoline and the mechanism for burning the new fuel. The water based substitute is NOT patented and is in the public domain.
This is how it works. A small amount of finely powdered coal (carbon) is mixed with a very weak salt water solution. A hair-thin stream of the mixture is injected between two high voltage electrodes INSIDE the combustion chamber. An electric charge flows through the water (short circuit) and the electric arc raises the temperature of some of the water to about 6,000, which is as hot as the surface of the sun. Some of the water breaks down into Hydrogen and Oxygen and promptly explodes, igniting the carbon. Carbon may not be the best ingredient but there are many more to try.
...
written by Ross , September 12, 2007
Err ... burning hydrogen creates water. You'll never run out after 500 years.
professional skeptic
written by thefaz , September 12, 2007
thank you for pointing out that there is no free lunch in the real world. the article did not point out that there must be a net energy loss in burning the water.
however, i have been running my car on water for years. i just run it thru a flux capacitor and ...
Why so skeptical!!
written by Ryan , September 12, 2007
Everyone is being so cynical about this without even knowing how much energy is necessary to create the radio waves. If it is a small enough amount of energy, it could be provided through other clean methods such as wind turbines. Then 100% of the energy produced by burning the hydrogen (perhaps to boil water for a steam turbine system) could be utilized. Sheesh...have an open mind people!!!!
Hate the article, Not the scientist(s)
written by jim d , September 12, 2007
@Hank: I think you're ascribing blame to the scientists for the poor job of the reporter. I don't think any of the researchers involved are proposing that they are "creating" energy.
I'm really ignorant of the science of fuel cells, but my understanding is that the current processes for acquiring the hydrogen for use in a fuel cell is rather inefficient. I think the more intriguing discovery that this guy may have found is a way to harvest hydrogen from water that is more efficient than current methods. Unfortunately, I'm sure the reporter dismissed all of that and just latched onto "OMG water on FIRE!!!".
no water = no brains
written by David Johnson , September 12, 2007 Why would anybody be happy if we could burn water as fuel? Yes, there is a lot of water, but think about using water as the only fuel source for the entire planet's energy needs. Now think about 500 years of that. There's not going to be much water left. No water means that the earth will be totally void of all life. Ummm, do you have any idea how much water there is on Earth? Especially salt water...? ...and it doesn't matter a pair of dingo's kidneys because you can't burn water. What the machine does - at best - is split water into hydrogen and oxygen, which then can be burned. And you know what you get when you burn hydrogen and oxygen? You get WATER! Net water loss...zero. (net energy loss, of course, is probably annoyingly high...) I severely doubt that this is more efficient than plain old wires-in-the-jar electrolysis myself. That's already pretty darn efficient (I read a quote of 70%) and turning electricity into radio waves and then broadcasting them at the water has got to add a whole new set of losses onto the process.
Hello, this is new!
written by norm , September 12, 2007
Why knock this new method of "cracking" water, is your employer scared?
No real testing has been performed yet, from what I have read, we don't know the energy output vs input from this process; more testing needs to be done, more research may increase the energy output efficiency of this process. Do you work for the oil industry?
...
written by 10756517 , September 12, 2007
Picture a lightning bolt. An electric arc that reaches 6,000 degrees and breaks water molecules down into Hydrogen and Oxygen, which promptly explode rattling windows five miles away.
No picture that same process shrunk so small it pushes a piston inside your lawnmower.
...
written by David Johnson , September 12, 2007 Everyone is being so cynical about this without even knowing how much energy is necessary to create the radio waves. If it is a small enough amount of energy, it could be provided through other clean methods such as wind turbines. Then 100% of the energy produced by burning the hydrogen (perhaps to boil water for a steam turbine system) could be utilized. Sheesh...have an open mind people!!!! There's this amazing process called "electrolysis" in which one takes electricity, puts it through water, and gets hydrogen and oxygen. It's pretty efficient. It is highly unlikely that taking the electricity then putting it through a radio then putting it in water is going to be more efficient. In fact, I'll bet it's less than half as efficient as the wires-in-the-water trick. So, in essence, even your "small enough" will be larger than processes we already have...
@Ryan
written by MarcB , September 12, 2007
It doesn't matter how much energy it takes to produce the radio waves, it will ALWAYS be greater than the amount of energy those waves can deliver to the water molecules. It's simple physics and thermodynamics.
Sure, we can generate radio waves with incredibly tiny amounts of power these days, and detect them from astoundingly huge distances (look up ham radio low power records, sometime), but those low power waves will NOT have the necessary energy in them to tear apart water molecules. At best they can raise the temperature of the water somewhat. If this were true, then your average 2.4ghz cordless phone, WiFi access point, or microwave would be causing people to explode left, right, and center.
about the Greg H. comment
written by ..1 , September 12, 2007
My friend, surely we dont have so much oil as we have of water. I simply dont see, that by burning salt water we would run out of it in 500 years, because there's more water in the planet than it is of land. On other thing: burning water doesnt mean that the water vanishes, it means that the connections between the molecules would be broken, where-by the energy would come. The elements would continue to exist like the oxigen and the hydrogen.Now the hydrogen that would result from the "water burning" could power the fuel cells. And the oxigen would be released to the environment where with the hydrogen from, for example, the car tanks would combine and form again the water molecule. So the process of "burning salt water" would be a renewable process of getting energy.
*sigh*
written by David Johnson , September 12, 2007 [img=Picture a lightning bolt. An electric arc that reaches 6,000 degrees and breaks water molecules down into Hydrogen and Oxygen, which promptly explode rattling windows five miles away.
Irrelevant Difference
written by Chris Taylor , September 12, 2007
WHO CARES. you know what I am tired of? I am tired of people saying you can not put in less than what you get out. GIVE ME A BREAK. I have ONE reply to that.
DUH! We call that entropy IE ever GUESS why we are running out of gasoline? whmmm because we are using it faster than the planet can MAKE IT. Again another DUH! I do not care if it takes more energy to make this than I get from it. All I care about is CHANGING my energy source to one that is #1 CHEAPER than 25cents a mile (20mpg at $2.50/gal) and #2 NOT being dependent on gigantic corporations who want nothing more than to rape me. ELECTRIC CARS ARE LESS EFFICIENT too. You get LESS OUT of those batteries than you put into them? so how about you dismiss electric cars too.??? Its not a matter of less in more out ANYONE with half a brain knows and understands what entropy is and gas cars have to comply with entropy as well. Duh again. Its about WHICH IS CHEAPER. The problem with this method is that we need a way to STORE the hydrogen. ie its the same problem. I can not PRODUCE the hydrogen IN the car in real time (ie fill the tank with salt water) since then an electric car would be more efficient. but if I could generate and store the hydrogen on my CHEAP POWER in my house and then pump that into my car. WELL now lets start talking.
*sigh*
written by David Johnson , September 12, 2007 it means that the connections between the molecules would be broken, where-by the energy would come. Ummm, chemical energy comes from making connections. No energy is going to come from what is essentially "unburning" water back to hydrogen and oxygen. None. Zero. Less than zero, in fact. It's called "science" - look it up...
...
written by 10756517 , September 12, 2007
Your scale is way off. You are making a spark just that hot inside your lawnmower just as it is. The "missing" ingredient is something to boost the flash to produce more usable energy.
Pending US Patent 10/756,517 describes a water based substitute for gasoline and the mechanism for burning the new fuel. The water based substitute is NOT patented and is in the public domain. This is how it works. A small amount of finely powdered coal (carbon) is mixed with a very weak salt water solution. A hair-thin stream of the mixture is injected between two high voltage electrodes INSIDE the combustion chamber. An electric charge flows through the water (short circuit) and the electric arc raises the temperature of some of the water to about 6,000 degrees, which is as hot as the surface of the sun. Some of the water breaks down into Hydrogen and Oxygen and promptly explodes, igniting the carbon. Carbon may not be the best ingredient but there are many more to try.
Re: no water = no humans
written by Brett Johnson , September 12, 2007
Greg H apparently didn't look at the second half of the process, which recombines the hydrogen and oxygen to form ... water. The big difference is salt water goes in and fresh water comes out. Even if it is an energy net-negative process, recovering the heat to feed energy back into the system could make a more efficient de-salination plant.
what if?
written by what if , September 12, 2007
not a big science person at all, but wouldn't you be able to increase the volume of salt water that is exposed to the radio waves?
in his tests, he has one test tube with the RF generator(and yes it does seem like a waste). but what if he had hundreds or thousands of mini tubes in the direct path of the RF generator?
...
written by Greg H , September 12, 2007
Burning hydrogen does not create water. It converts hydrogen into heat energy. This process has water as a waste product because the leftover oxygen molecules in the fuel (h20) will combine with hydrogen in the air and form another h20 molecule.
Some people are saying that water is a renewable resource and it just isn't. The water that we have on this planet is all we get. If we start burning it for fuel, it will be gone faster than most people would expect. I'm glad no energy positive process has yet been found.
...
written by Michael , September 12, 2007
I am by no means a scientist, having only taken a few chemistry and physics classes but, crud oil and coal endure extreme amounts of heat and pressure to be produced. Water, on the other hand, does not have these great amounts of energy applied to them. As many of you were saying "you have to put energy into it to get it out". The crude oil already has a great deal of potential energy stored within it, the water does not until the hydrogen is separated, in which case, more energy is applied.
Please -- learn basic chemistry.
written by Tom Ritchford , September 12, 2007
You cannot make energy by cracking water and then burning the hydrogen, in exactly the same way that you can't make energy by bringing boulders to the top of a mountain and rolling them down: no matter what, it'll cost you a little more energy to get the boulders to the top than you get rolling them down to the bottom.
All of your arguments fail based on that -- you're saying things like "what if we go a different way to the top? what if we grease the path on the way up? What if we make the boulder rounder?" but you can't get over the law of conservation of energy! Now, of course you can get HUGE amounts of energy out of seawater -- simply extract out the deuterium or the tritium and use it for fusion power. But that's not chemical and it isn't going to be done with a little electrode.
I agree with "what if?".
written by richard , September 12, 2007
What we see there is a small quantity being bombarded by what looks like a pretty power-hungry RF generator.... but if someone were to crunch the numbers and figure out the optimum ratios, i.e. RF energy per liter of salt water, the chemical composition of the water etc.... who knows. Maybe there's a critical threshold at which the RF is enought to break down the bonds, and allow for a positive energy output throughout the whole system.
What if someone figured out how to channel everyday ambient RF to boost the process? Don't write this one off till someone has done the numbers on it, I'd be REALLY interested to see what they come up with.
how is this useful?
written by mind , September 12, 2007
why would you need to burn salt water to power a car?
last year i bought a new hybrid, and had some work to done to take out the gasoline engine, and put a big alternator (from a semi truck) in its place. now the car runs off of only electricity, and that electricity is produced by the alternator. i charged it 70k miles ago, and have had no problems since! i don't even need oil changes any more!
phd
written by penny , September 12, 2007
Sometimes, bonds can break in an exothermic reaction--for example I can use an RF generator to break bonds in wood and burn it--it's called fire.
The missing part of the article is that he is also using a nanometal catalyst---catalysts can lower the energy required to break bonds. So, is it energy positive--I don't know, but it would break NO laws of physics if it were. Sodium when combined with water bursts into flame. Boron and water give a slower reaction, one that is a great way to store the solar energy required to separate borax. If you remember those ads in the back of popular science magazines for a powder to turn water into fuel--well, that is what it was--19th century chemistry. The best storage IMHO is to use nanoparticle iron--and this has been tested. It has more storage capacity than Gasoline. Powdered metals are the basis for very good military rocket fuels--not to mention the extremely exothermic reaction called the Thermite reaction--aluminum iron oxide. It can easily melt an I beam. Aluminum can be separated from Bauxite by electricity--that is why we built the Niagra Falls hydroplants. It can also be separated by solar mirror. There are lots of already in place substitutes for gasoline and oil---if one simple looks to 19th century chemistry.
ecogeek is missing the point
written by Marcus Hulbert , September 12, 2007
I think the "ecogeek" is missing the point here. No article I've read is claiming this to be some physics defying innovation. Gas, coal, oil, sun, wind, dung, whatever you're burning, the system is losing energy. The universe is losing energy (i.e. entropy). The (potentially) good thing about this is, like others have said, it is a novel way to (supposedly) produce hydrogen and the hydrogen can then be used as a clean burning, portable fuel source. No fuel source is energy positive; the gasoline that powers your car certainly took more energy to produce then it provides. Perpetual motion machines are psuedo science...making profitable, portable energy is not. Whether this turns out to be a profitable method of making energy remains to be seen, so the issue is (on a most basic level) one of net monetary returns, not of net energy returns (as is the case w/ perpetual motion machines).
...
written by Kevin , September 12, 2007
The articles I have read have all been vague as to the specifics of the process. Your attempt at analysis is equally vague and less informative. You state in bold type that the radio frequency generator he's using consumes several times more energy than the flame on the other end produces. In the following line you wonder why no one has yet put a kill a watt on the other end of the RF generator. HUH??? Without knowing how much energy the RF generator requires and how much energy is produced by the burning process, all we have is idle speculation. What makes this interesting is the use of RF waves as a catalyst for a chemical reaction. It is important to note that chemical reactions do not create energy, they release stored energy. It takes a lot of energy to get oil out of the ground, processed, and distributed. It is profitable because burning the oil releases stored energy far in excess of what is required to obtain it. Even if this process has no value as a source of energy, it offers a novel approach to chemistry that may lead to a lot of spin off technologies and processes.
...
written by penny , September 12, 2007
Ecogeek is correct that is usually takes as much or more energy to break a bond as to make it. But, in the presence of a catalyst--which lowers the energy required to break the bound--net energy can be released when the bond is reformed somewhere else.
Thus, if such a catalyst really exists--it breaks no laws of physics--but, does it exist? That is the question. Penny
...
written by thefaz , September 12, 2007
a cheap method of cracking water would obviously be a good thing. if this is better than electrolysis, i will be impressed. But, those little hydrogen molecules are notoriously difficult to contain and store at useful densities. (anybody want a cryogenic tank in the trunk of your car?)
adsorbtion into metals has a long way to go too. what half of the folks commenting here don't seem to understand is that you are not really burning water. you are actually burning whatever fuel was required to generate the electricity (oil, coal, uranium, wind, solar, etc) to crack the water. as someone previously commented, why burn 5 gallons of gas to make 1 gallon of ethanol? (unless you put it in bottles and charge high prices for it...
Water is not renewable
written by Michael , September 12, 2007
I'm not sure where people get the idea that water is renewable, but it simply isn't. In fact, it's less renewable than oil. While it is true that we are using fossil fuels faster than the planet can make them, the planet IS making them. If we were to not use fossil fuel period, the amount it on the planet would increase over time, so long as life exists.
The same is not true of water. We have as much water now as we've always had, and we will have the same amount of water a million years from now as we have today, assuming we don't start destroying it as an energy source. Burning hydrogen produced from water does not cause it to become water again. It causes oxygen and hydrogen in the atmosphere to join into water. So, even assuming that the process had a zero-loss effect on water (which it wouldn't), I'm pretty sure we still need to breathe, right? You can follow this chain of cause and effect as far as you like, but somewhere along the line we run out of a resource necessary for sustaining life. In case you're wondering, no, I don't work for an oil company, and yes, I am an advocate for renewable energy. But the belief that we can just start destroying water with reckless abandon without a downside is pure folly.
...
written by penny , September 12, 2007
You don't even have to reform the bond to get net positive energy. Think of it this way--the water molecular is like a weight on a pulley. The catalyst
burns the rope. The weight falls, and the molecule separates--and heat is released in the kinetic energy of motion of the parts. In a similar way, it takes quite a bit of energy to form a uranium 235 nucleus--to hold the protons together against electrostatic attraction. But, the slow neutron collision changes the binding ( induced change of the tunnel potential) and the nucleus splits into traveling parts with six million electron volts of FREE energy. That is not more than required to MAKE the nucleus, so conservation of energy is NOT violated. But, it is quite a power source.
Oxygen is a diatomic molecule
written by Jon , September 13, 2007
lol @ inaccurate chemical formula
Correction
written by Kyle , September 13, 2007
At least balance the equation and keep Oxygen grouped in 2. Here:
2H2O -> 2H2 O2
jeeze
written by mind , September 13, 2007
jeeze man. these comments are like, psuedoscience central.
THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS ARE NOT HARD: 1. YOU CAN'T WIN 2. YOU ALWAYS LOSE 3. YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME sorry, even if a catalyst lowers the energy level required to break a bond, it doesn't lower the energy converted into potential energy from splitting that bond. just because you've heard of something called a 'catalyst' and know generally what it does, doesn't mean that the parts you don't know can break the laws of thermodynamics. what do you think the process of 'burning' is? its reacting something with oxygen. when you burn hydrogen, you create water. let's look at the possibilities: hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water, sodium and chlorine (assumed) combine to form salt. output product -> ZOMFG SALT WATER!!! hydrogen and chlorine combine to form hydrochloric acid. sodium and oxygen form sodium oxides, which react with water and create sodium hydroxide. sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid react to form salt water! who knew! if the output products are the same as the input products, the process is obviously not usable-energy positive (second law) i took chemistry over 10 years ago and i still know this stuff. honestly, i don't care how excited you get about every piece of 'green' news, keep your ignorant comments to yourselves. a lack of understanding of the physical world (and thereby relying on the obviously biased media to 'inform' you) is the cause of most of the world's problems.
Thank You
written by Clay , September 13, 2007
I've been trying to tell people this all week...Thank you for actually having the brains, using them, and going out and getting the word out. Huge kudos, man.
Correction
written by Kyle , September 13, 2007
Well, it didn't keep my HTML formatted properly. It's 2H[2]O->2H[2] O[2]
Too bad there's no "preview" button.
...
written by Kyle , September 13, 2007
And again it deleted my PLUS SIGN between the H and O on the right hand side of the equation. And again I have to wait 2 minutes to make the correction.
If I wasn't concerned with leaving accidentally incorrect statements of my own online, I'd just leave the blog.
Water is not renweable? uranium is free
written by thefaz , September 13, 2007
Michael,
ok, when we crack these water molecules, we're getting two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. when we burn the hydrogen, we're using the same proportions (unless you want to react your hydrogen with something else like fluorine.) are we to understand that the oxygen atoms created in this magic process disappear? they're either vented into the atmosphere of saved for another purpose. there is no, none, nada, zip, net loss of water unless you use that oxygen for something else. i suspect you were being funny so pardon my indignant tone. Penny, the energy released by splitting a(n) uranium atom is not FREE energy any more than burning a piece of wood is FREE energy. you are correct that conservation of energy is not violated, it's just that someone else paid the price to make the fuel. i can get FREE energy at my local gas station if i drive away without paying.
and one more note
written by mind , September 13, 2007
re: efficiency
i'm guessing that electrolysis has to be more efficient than this, just because it's going to be a lot easier to make nice slower DC rather than creating rapidly changing -radio waves-. plus you've got to have electricity for this process, which is a very 'pure' form of energy in the first place. i think the most promising technologies are ways of creating hydrogen directly from sunlight, probably biologically. and newer nuclear reactor designs (although I've heard that there actually isn't enough fissionable materials to provide long term energy). oh, and if fusion dropped out of the sky, i wouldn't be opposed :p
one more time
written by Greg H , September 13, 2007
Burning hydrogen does not create water. The hydrogen is converted into heat energy. After you 'burn' it, it is no longer hydrogen and cannot recombine with oxygen to make water. It is gone.
Looking at the numbers though, there is enough water that even if we only get 10% efficiency we could last a few hundred thousand years. It will probably create havoc for ocean life and cause us all to starve to death, but whatever, burn it.
...
written by thefaz , September 13, 2007
Greg,
most of us who took chemistry 101 in high school did the experiment where we "burned" hydrogen and produced water. just watch the TV commercials for hybrid cars. they will tell you that what comes out of the tailpipe is water clean enough to drink. (or buy used Chem 101 textbook.)
nothing new... could do with with 200wat
written by neosin , September 13, 2007
You can do this with only 200watts. FYI they make a 4x5 solar array that puts out 200watts. This engine could work. But you can bet it will be canned like the others before it. He's not the first to do this.
My thoughts
written by thegr8revealing , September 13, 2007
I swore i read something about it that says that the salt in the water lowers the amount of RF energy that needs to be put in it by comparison to normal tap or distilled water...
im no professor though.
...
written by thefaz , September 13, 2007
the salt in the water increase the conductivity (or lowers the resistance.) it helps in regular electrolysis but i don't know what effect it would have in this case.
if i recall correctly, pure water isn't a great conductor but i don't have my book handy.
Science 101
written by hdragun , September 13, 2007
@ Greg H
Are you crazy? When you burn a chemical, the atoms (which hydrogen is) are not destroyed. In this case the hydrogen and the oxygen combine for form water. This is not some kind of nuclear reaction where the atoms are destroyed. The RF generator splits the bonds between the oxygen and the hydrogen. The hydrogen then reacts with the oxygen to form water. That combustion is the flame you see in the video. You may what to do some research before you start talking about destroying matter.
"Burning" Hydrogen
written by Jeff , September 13, 2007
Burning is oxidation, the product of Fe O (dropping the coefficients) is rust, the product of H O is H2O.
Both processes release energy, both processes require energy to reverse. The only advantage of RF in this process is that creates a neat flame... ...except if this is treated as desalinization, and also water purification! Perhaps that energy released by burning (3000 deg - maybe it's plasma?)can help break down complex chemical pollutants - could that be useful?
...
written by 10756517 , September 13, 2007
nothing new... could do with with 200wat
written by neosin, September 13, 2007 You can do this with only 200watts. FYI they make a 4x5 solar array that puts out 200watts. This engine could work. But you can bet it will be canned like the others before it. He's not the first to do this. Actually the Patent Office does think this is new. They just keep thinking it is a new type of battery.
Free energy IS NOT A FAIRY TALE
written by Ian Rubber , September 13, 2007
Look, when you look at any individual system then the law of conservation of energy holds true, but it is not true.
All of the energy that we have at our disposal here on earth originates in stars. Our sun and other older stars that produced the atoms that all matter here is made of. All of those stars are a product of, and recieved all of their energy from the big bang, and the big bang is the product of... That's right, free energy from nothing. Follow your hypothysis to the end wether you like it or not. ALL energy is free energy. Entropy is just a local phenomenon. 
Paradigm Shift in Science in coming kids
written by enchant , September 13, 2007
Hank, apologies, but you are kinda dopey...about 150 years ago, we thought sickness was cause by spirits...and we still have NO certainty about the deeper nature of Quantum Physics...we don't even know what Gravity is. So, this is not only possible, it has been done anecdotally many times before in different manners. GOOGLE BOYD BUSHMAN for some more interesting exceptions to the rule
Are all hippies this stupid?
written by Rob , September 13, 2007
Amazing. If you think this makes sense, you don't know anything about how chemical processes work. Basically, you're an idiot english major who should keep his/her mouth shut. And no, you're not helping by thinking outside the box. You're just being stupid because that box, moron, is the universe.
Here's an actual alternate energy source that would work - if we could somehow capture all the hot air exuded by all the hippies talking about all the things that would never work in a million years and use that in a basic turbine setup, then I predict we could end our dependence on foreign oil and instead just rely on homegrown stupidity. To end on a happier note, if we could somehow turn all the rage you idiots cause real engineers into electricity, then we could stop using coal and nuclear fuel too.
...
written by 10756517 , September 13, 2007
Just checked out Boyd B on google. They've had the same thing at The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia for 30 years, that I know of.
...
written by penny , September 13, 2007
Dear Jeez Man,
I guess you missed that my posts were SATIRE. Here are some clues: Mention of a mysterious powder that makes water into fuel--from back page ads in science mags, no less. Signing my post ...PHD Discussion of mysterious catalyst and tunneling ( aka cold fusion) Comparison of an endothermic reaction ( making U235 nuclei) with an exothermic one ( burning hydrogen). Lots of errors in elementary orthography--from a supposed Phd. Arrogant refs to 19th century science. // Of course, you don't break the law of conservation of energy--the other two laws of thermo are irrelevant here. It's called SATIRE. Now, each of the supposed "gasoline replacement methods" I posted have serious caveats. That was part of the joke. Here is another "replacement"--melt salt with solar energy to separate out the sodium and use that to combine with water as your power source. That is also SATIRE, in case you missed it. Penny
reply to science 101
written by Greg H , September 13, 2007
Can you show me where I said anything about destroying matter? The hydrogen is converted into heat energy. You know, e=mc^2? That energy is then used to move your car or boat or whatever.
The only way this process can give you 100% of the water used back is if you don't burn the hydrogen. If you don't burn the hydrogen, you aren't getting any energy at all out of the process. You're just splitting the hydrogen and oxygen and then letting them recombine. To remake the water, new hydrogen is required to come from somewhere.
Greg H, no. no no no
written by BK , September 13, 2007
Greg H
Please. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go consult a basic chemistry book. What you're saying has absolutely no bearing on reality whatsoever.
...
written by penny , September 13, 2007
Dear Jeez Man,
I guess you missed that my posts were SATIRE. Here are some clues: Mention of a mysterious powder that makes water into fuel--from back page ads in science mags, no less. Signing my post ...PHD Discussion of mysterious catalyst and tunneling ( aka cold fusion) Comparison of an endothermic reaction ( making U235 nuclei) with an exothermic one ( burning hydrogen). Lots of errors in elementary orthography--from a supposed Phd. Arrogant refs to 19th century science. // Of course, you don't break the law of conservation of energy--the other two laws of thermo are irrelevant here. It's called SATIRE.
Reply to Greg H
written by Red , September 13, 2007
Please please please check the huge amount of research out there. When you burn hydrogen it is NOT used up, it is merely combined with oxygen. The energy released comes from the formation of the water molecule.
It can be put simply like this: Two water molecules (2H2O) are cracked to produce hydrogen and oxygen (2 H2 and 1 O2 molecules) through electrolysis. Usually, the oxygen is dumped into the atmosphere of earth, which is about 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen (yes, i know about the other gases, im simplifying) The previously created hydrogen molecules (2 H2) are burnt with air, in which the nitrogen mostly does nothing, and the oxygen present (it will use one O2 molecule) combines with the hydrogen to form two water molecules (2H2 and 1O2 become 2H2O) Nothing is lost here. Not hydrogen, nor oxygen. There are changes in energy states, and as there is no way that 100 percent efficiency can be achieved in any stage of the process, there is a net loss of energy overall as some becomes heat (in the electrolysis stage as well as combustion) and light (also in combustion) If we crack water to turn it into hydrogen and oxygen to burn, the only way we could lose water is if we took the hydrogen away from the planet itself. Releasing it raw into the atmosphere, it may eventually make it to space, but given its reactiveness, its unlikely that it would make it.
For Greg H.
written by Joe , September 13, 2007
...
written by me , September 13, 2007
The point is it is an option with great future potential.
re: penny
written by mind , September 13, 2007
most phds are airheads, concentrating intensely on what they know, but generally clueless about what they aren't concentrating on.
your rambling contains valid points, just strung together in weird ways. it also contains things that i skipped (like the thing about the ads, don't recall what you're talking about there). satire should usually be to the point, and not be open ended. see my first comment about the hybrid car. if i had written that i read a lot of articles or that i heard it was a good approach, you can assume i'm clueless. since i wrote that i've done it and it's been working, and you know such a scheme to be impossible, you can assume i'm just joking around. also, your comment was just one of many misguided ones on this thread. (mr burning-hydrogen-gets-rid-of-it!!) i wonder if all the stupidity came because this was posted to digg (as opposed to reddit)
To the 80% gullible people here
written by Lupin , September 13, 2007
Wow, science illiteracy has grown a lot it seems. It's really disturbing and it is close to making me angry to read so much BS.
(btw. sorry if I mix up technical terms, but I'm from Austria so English isn't my first language) First BS argument: water is used up. The water that is split into H and O is immediatly recombined to water in the fire. If not you, would waste even more energy than this experiment already uses. So "water in" equals "water out". (Sidenote: hydrogen is not the most abundant element on earth, as stated somewhere in a comment. It barely made it into the top ten with less than 1%) Second BS argument: "conversion of H into heat". Wow you took E = mc^2 very literally, but wont be happing here. If you want to do that, go to the LHC at the CERN in Switzerland. Just takes an 27km circumference ring of liquid helium cooled, superconducting magnets, which accelerate the protons (H) to 7 tera electron Volts. Third BS argument: "catalyst lowers the energy required to break the bond". A catalyst wont make the reaction use less energy. It is basic chemistry that energy used/released for the transition from one state of a molecule to another is a state function, i.e. it is independent of the way the transition is made (see the example with the stone above). So going from H2O to H and O always uses the same amount of energy. A catalyst only reduces the activation energy of a reaction, which is another thing alltogether.
ho-ly crap
written by eric , September 13, 2007
The comments (most, not all) on here make me lose faith in humanity. Holy crap.
It's a fantastic discovery that RF can be used to separate H20 into H2 and O2, but for the love of thermodynamics people, you can not get more energy out of this process then you put in. Here's why: You start with water (liquid) and you end with water (vapor). The path you take between these two state points doesn't matter and their difference in enthalpies tells you how much useful energy you can get out. As it turns out, the enthalpy of vapor water is higher than liquid water. This means that it takes energy to convert liquid water into water vapor. So, for the layman, they've essentially discovered a very fancy way to boil water. Now, I'm not knocking the importance of the discovery. It's pretty cool that this can be done, but nobody's going to use this fire to boil water to run any steam turbines anytime soon. And if anyone does, please please please kick them in the nuts. Love, a concerned chemical engineer
Greg H. please give up
written by Travis , September 13, 2007
Greg H,
Please stop replying to this thread. Your last post proves you have no clue about what your talking about. If you can, attempt to read the article at this link to see what chemistry professors (people who spend their time studying chemistry and actually know WTF they are talking about) have to say about what actually happens during the combustion of hydrogen. Also FYI, atoms are not "destroyed" when hydrogen combusts (combusts = fire a little explanation for greg the caveman; atoms = really tiny bits that make up everything you see) http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov00/energy.davis.deb.html
To the 80% gullible people here (cont.)
written by Lupin , September 13, 2007
Some other random facts: every electronic circiut creates energy losses (ever wondered why you have a heatsink on your CPU?). How is the RF generated? By an electronic circuit (loss number 1). Then you have an antenna to radiate the RF. Antennas always more or less emmit in many directions simultaneously, means energy that can't be used (loss 2). Some radiation passes through the water without beeing absorbed (3). Burning is very inefficient. You see a flame? That light is energy. Can't be used (loss 4). Combustion is not complete, some hydrogen goes unused (loss 5). Using heat to move something (turbines, pistons) is a very costly. There is a thermodynamic limit, how much heat can be used to do work. No way around that (loss 6).
Still want to build a car around it? Good luck. But don't fret if someone zips by in his rechargeable battery car at ten times the speed hundred times the range on a fraction of energy used. Btw. most of this facts are taught in school, at least here in Austria. If you didn't get it there: if you can read this you can use the internet. Use it and educate yourself. Don't be gullible and think critically!
...
written by Penny , September 13, 2007
MInd,
It is a generational thing. The ads in Popular Science always included such things as: Magic powders to turn water into car fuel The ramble was PART of the satire--crackpots always ramble. Another giveaway was my use of "Nanocatalysts". Nano is the new crackpot buzz word. Do a websearch on "Nanogold"/ By the way, ALL of the important science discoveries of the last hundred years have been by Phd scientists. They are NOT airheads. Penny p.s. There are NO valid points in what I posted--every single thing has an important caveat. All are well known to readers of the back page ads in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics.
To the 80% gullible people here (cont. 2
written by Lupin , September 13, 2007
4. BS argument: "using more water will make it more efficient because the radiation strikes more water". If water is split, the energy of the radiation is absorbed. So it does not matter how many tons of water there are.
(don't know what the comment system has against this text, as soon as I try to post it, it tells me "comment to short", so I will change the text gradually and hope it posts sometime; originally should have been in the first post)
Not breaking laws of physics...
written by Mark , September 13, 2007
By releasing potential energy stored in water? He is not creating energy. Any more that the energy used to pump crude oil out of the ground is more that the potential chemical stored in the crude?
It's not a issue of physics here.
re: red
written by Greg H , September 13, 2007
Thanks, I think I get it now. I appreciate the discussion. The only energy that is released when the hydrogen and oxygen are burned is the energy that was originally put into the system to separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen. You end up with 100% of the water you started with, which is proof that you didn't get any energy out of the water.
...
written by Craig , September 13, 2007
This is fantastic. We can now burn salt water. We're saved. Now we've got a way to stop the oceans rising and we can acutally make them recede. We can reclaim land. And when we burn all this water, we'll make more clouds, which will bring more rain and we'll have more crops which means more bioethanol. This is truely the saviour of mankind.
But seriously. When you burn hydrogen you get water, or a strange liquidy substance called dihydrgoen monoxide. I don't believe it's energy positive, and i appreciate the author for pointing this out. Greg H. you best be sitting this argument out from here on. The facts are against you.
re: all
written by Greg H , September 13, 2007
My comments were only an attempt to understand what it was that I was missing. Thanks for the information. Out of respect for those who do in fact know wtf they are talking about, I will stop posting.
A little industry and ideas
written by Robert Rosenthal , September 13, 2007
It's doubtful this process produces more energy than it uses, but that doesn't reduce it's value to many areas.
First, remember that it is not actually burning water. Rather it's splitting the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Then they ignite those gasses. Several people have mentioned this. The amazing part is how much hydrogen is being produced. Yes, electrolysis has been used for a very long time to do this same thing. But it's MUCH slower. Do you remember in science class trying to collect enough hydrogen in a test tube to make one pop in about 5 or 10 minutes using electrolysis? I do, it was very boring. This process does it so fast it can support a rather impressive continuous flame! That's a nice output rate of gasses. Something like this could enable the so called "Hydrogen Economy" people keep talking about. One of the biggest limitations to it right now are the distribution and storage. With this process, a refueling station could potentially be a large saltwater storage tank with RF-Splitters and Compressors functioning "on-demand" to fill customers. (Possibly the same size and approximate appearance as current fuel pumps.) This process he's discovered is very possibly a big deal, just don't expect it to be "free energy". Oh yes, one more small note. The laws of physics are great, but they aren't complete. Don't be that surprised when you encounter something that breaks our previous understanding of how things work. It happens all the time, even these days. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but lack of proof might just indicate a lack of investigation...)
great concept.. posted 9-12-07
written by chris cotton , September 13, 2007
but, think about this being produced. the more flammable something is.. the bigger of a bomb it makes.. imagine a world war where some country thinks its a great idea to ignite the entire water surrounding the country using these waves.. there goes the ENTIRE world.. once water is flammable what do you put it out with?
...
written by josh , September 13, 2007
im in ur bathtub settin firez
Sea heater
written by Luiso , September 13, 2007
We can use this to make fire from the sea.
...
written by StartEarth.com , September 13, 2007
Just wondering how this will affect climate change if we start building 'water plants' on a large scale. Is it a way to keep the rising sea levels at bay? Just thinking out loud. I'm sure if we all put our minds together we can work out all of the issues that nature throws at us. All it needs is willpower and the ability to think outside of the box.
...
written by Mark R. , September 13, 2007
It always amazes me how "scientists" will hang their hat on a ignorant statement saying, "its impossible because it breaks the laws of physics." And yet, they have done no research to find out if their statement is true. Or just the fact physics may be wrong, I mean it was invented by humans so i'm sure there is a flaw or 2 in the theory somewhere.
My point, Don't dismiss something without any proof that you are correct or you will surely be made a fool. Just as all the scientist that believe it was impossible for the earth to be hit by asteroids, Just as all the scientists that believed there were no other planets in any galaxy other than our own. Just like the ones that will be made fools when, at least, microbial life will be found on another planet. I'm not saying it will work. I'm just saying your not as smart as you think you are if you hang your hat on unproven statements. Especially, if the understanding of the finer points of physics is beyond your gray matter. Which it probably is for Hank and 98% of those who make the, "it breaks the laws of physics" statement. Just my 2 cents.
Is the salt required?
written by Phil , September 13, 2007
@Josh: LOL!
Isn't anyone else curious as to why the salt must be there in the first place? If you watch the video it only ignites after he adds the salt. Now it's possible this changes the way the particular frequency of RF affects the water, however, it also makes me curious... Could you get the same reaction to take place without the salt by simply changing the frequency of the RF generator? Or is the reaction dependant upon the NaCl? If it's dependant upon the salt then I believe this does more harm then good. Or would the sodium turn back into salt in the presence of the chlorine atom? I'm not a chemist so this is directed to all the people here more qualified than myself. Thanks, -Phil
on the plus side
written by kasmire , September 13, 2007
all debate about efficiency aside- this discovery does retroactively make the science in Batman Begins sound possible.
We're Gonna See More of This
written by Zephyr , September 13, 2007
I won't retype it here, but earlier in the week I wrote about why we're all so hungry to believe a story like this one: http://www.parknpool.com/weblo...p63#more63
boogie woogie
written by F.X. Leech , September 13, 2007
dude, they DID mention that the input energy was not sufficient enough to yield an increase in output from the ignition of the salt water. maybe you missed that.. obviously it has to undergo rigorous testing, which will probably take another decade, to produce any feasible results. calm down eco geek, they're trying their best. let's give them some good karma.
The internet works
written by grad , September 13, 2007
I am proud of the net today...Greg H. has gone from a very poor understanding of chemistry to a better understanding of chemistry! Yay for everyone here that allowed him to get something usefull out of these comments and kudos to Greg for staying with it long enough to "get it" many on the webs would just blather on inanely without learning something. Way to go Greg!
Thank you
written by jb , September 13, 2007
Thanks for point this out. When I first saw the silly news reports, that's the first thing I thought: that radio wave machine must be sucking up a lot more power than could ever be harnessed from the flame. Why none of the news reports, and endless blog links brought this up or questioned the energy economics shows how naive most media can be about energy topics.
Maybe more complex than it looks.
written by Eric , September 13, 2007
It is possible that the radio waves are breaking the salt bonds and then the sodium or chlorine is robbing the oxygen from the water allowing the hydrogen to be released. Similar to a thermite reaction only endothermic initially. This is the only way that I can see it being an energy positive process. It was mentioned in the article that this process did not work with fresh water. The post gazette did mention that research was needed to see if it was energy positive and that is true research is needed there maybe something there. Trying to summarize the process by putting 3 equations over a picture is as stupid as the original article by the post-gazette. Sure energy can't be created or destroyed, but the when you burn gasoline you are only adding a little energy and getting a lot more out. There is a lot of energy in chemical bonds and manipulating this may cause positive results. The end result is that more research is needed to understand it fully. It probably is energy negative then we are no worse than when we started or maybe there is more there than meets the eye. A discovery like this would do a lot more for the environment than driving around hybrid car or using one sheet of toilet paper.
I think everyone's missed the point...
written by Christopher , September 13, 2007
If the energy input is still reasonably low (would love to see the numbers on that) I think the real value of this experiment isn't to produce energy, but rather to cheaply turn salt water into potable water - burn them into H and ), then burn them back sans the salt and crap. This could be HUGE in the 3rd world where safe, drinkable water is hard to find, but there's a whole ocean just off the coast...
Technician
written by andy , September 13, 2007
I'd like to know more about how the radio waves actually separate the hydrogen and oxygen bonds. If there is a special "sweet spot" resonance wavelength and frequency, it might be useful in speeding up normal electrolysis, perhaps using lower powered radio waves in pulses to weaken the bonds. It needs some more research and creative ideas on how to set up a positive energy gain in the reactions. Seems dangerous, the human body is full of liquid similar to salt water...
Technician
written by Andy , September 13, 2007
This may have applications in desalinization plants, depending on just how wasteful using radio waves to break the bonds of water moecules is...
Steam powered locomotives.
written by Mike , September 13, 2007
As it says, steam powered locomotives that pulled hundreds of tons. The steam came from burning wood, coal, cow patties, or just about anything that would burn to create the heat to build up the steam pressure. So, my thoughts are was that energy effiecient? Nope, certainly not and burning salt water probably would amount to the same thing but surely steam gemerators can be built to take advantage of a 1500 degree flame that coal or wood most likely can't reach without special blowers or such. Coal in power plants now is energy efficient? I doubt it but we still burn it to produce steam to turn the turbine so we have electricity, at least the emmissions of salt water are water, which eventually rain back down on us.
Where you people think hydrogen comes from? It is made with water as well and there are making cars to hopefully sell in the future that will burn this. The water will not leave Earth, it is here to say unless we shoot into space for some strange reason. Coal and other fossil fuels being burned are being consumed fast, so salt water is a much bigger supply that is readily available and easy to aquire, without needing to dig up the Earth to get to it. The waste from it should be mainly the salt...DUH, just add fresh water again and you should be ready to go again. The salt is vibrating and bouncing of the hydrogen and oxygen that seperates them, or at least that is my guess. I still think this is going to change the world once some other great minds put their heads together and make the facilities to get the most efficient use out of this. Burning water in cars(hydrogen) and everybody was jumping for joy, burning salt water and they think it is a trick and don't want to trust it when I see future power plants harnessing this technology. And we all know, the world moves on electricity, lol.
...
written by Lorad , September 13, 2007
For the people that want to use this as a power source using wind or solar to power it, are you daft?
If it takes 100watts of power lets say to generate 99.9watts (probably not this efficient, but what the heck) you still lost 0.1watt right? So why not just use the power you got from wind or solar directly? If you store it in a battery same argument. If you generate power so you can generate less power, what is the point?
gasoline energy output?
written by Dave , September 14, 2007
How many kcals are produced from burning a gasoline molecule?
...
written by George D. , September 14, 2007
One can not compare the two processes
1 - splitting water to H and O (giving energy) and the burning (getting energy) those to water again and 2 - burning fossil fuels to ashes, gases. Actually, process 2 is equivalent to the second phase of process 1, i.e. BURNING. Now, if we decided to restore fossil fuels from ashes, gases by some "unburning" process, we'd have to put in enough energy to satisfy all the laws of physics. To make another analogy - fossil fuel is like pumping out of the ground pure Hydrogen and then burning it to water and lots of energy. Regerding the salt water - It has no molecular structure, because the ions of Na and Cl have already destroyed it. The RF additionaly increases the internal temperature. This could be done with simple heating, but RF is more efficient, because it generates a narrow spectrum wavelength, which can resonate with ions weights. Just my 2 cents.
So how much energy is he using?
written by Bob , September 14, 2007
You claim that they're using more energy is being used to generate the flame. The flame was recorded to be 3000 degrees F, out of the test tube.
Is the signal a narrow band? A wide band? Would the frequency need to be increased to alight a one gallon tank? You make a claim with no substance to back it up.
Not so fast.....
written by Tim Fuller , September 14, 2007
So, for the layman, they've essentially discovered a very fancy way to boil water.
-------------- I put a match to the steam coming out of my teapot and it didn't burn. What am I doing wrong? Enjoy.
SEVERAL TIME EH....
written by Gordon , September 14, 2007
So you claim that the RF generator uses several times the energy that it creates through the breakdown of the salt water. Where do you get these wonderful facts and figures. You speak of facts figures and numbers as though you are a definative source. Question: how much energy does the RF generator use? Fact: the flames in the test tube reached temperatures great enough to melt the test tube. Question: exactly how hot is that Mr. Green and couldn't you store that energy? Perhaps next time you think about making a rude comment about someone else's creation you should first ask yourself: i) do I know all the facts ii) have I myself ever created something productive rather than bitching about somone else'c creation. Yes its true, this is not the answer to our unexhaustable energy cries. True it MAY or may not produce more energy than it consumes but that doesn't mean it isn't useful . Also you seem to have completely forgotten the fact that it was originally designed for and is still being used in research studies for TREATING CANCER. So before you presume to be an expert and impart your knowledge upon the "midless masses" maybe you should go back to school and retake basic physics assuming you ever did and then re-read this articles that you are so quick to shut down. Good day sir.
this WOULD work
written by optimist with a brain , September 14, 2007
everyone here is caught up in the energy-in energy-out issue. it IS true. ur NOT going to get more energy out than in. so at best we can have the MOST efficient way of converting other sources of energy into a form that we can use readily, namely electricity. renewable stuff like the WIND, the TIDES, EARTHQUAKES, etc.
is there any other form of energy thats NOT renewable?........anyone?.....anyone at all? hint, its energy positive.....given to us for free....every day....come on....someone....ahhhh u in the back? yesssssss....the sun. are YOU energy positive? where do YOU get ur lazy ass energy from everyday on the couch? it all boils down to (forgive the pun) water and sunlight. the food in between is just an example of the MOST EFFICIENT CONVERSION OF SUN ENERGY on earth. we drink water, plants drink water, EVERYTHING needs water. why? because its the most efficient CATALYST for extracting the energy from the sun. energy that pours into our world from sunrise to sunset. every...single...day. if this guy can find a way to convert sun energy to the radiowaves needed to break or even loosen the bonds temporarily, we have a winner. the secret seems to be that its much more efficient to use it IMMEDIATELY and NOT store it, as most are hung up upon. loosen? the most successful resale companies have found that stocking ON DEMAND bring more profits. it takes ENERGY to STORE. u dont use it, u lose it. what if we could use the suns rays, via radio waves, to "ignite" just the water we need, when we need it? food for thought.
Facts of Physics
written by Anon , September 14, 2007
As a physicist I am dismayed at the state of science education in this country, again manifested in many posts in this thread. Some, though, do
contain truths, and eco-geeks assessment is correct, that the process of RF breakdown of water is not an energy source. But then the administration could sell the country on the 'hydrogen car' as an alternative to doing something useful, such as increasing the 'CAFE' (corp. ave. fuel economy ~ car mileage) standards.-- One obvious consideration here is that to make RF, you use electric power, which is already a most useful form of energy. But the production of RF power is inherently inefficient, so you lose right there. Then not all RF energy will be used to break the H-O bonds, much will be lost in just heating the water. (Indeed, if you just heat water enough, these bonds will break). Then, when you use this hydrogen by burning it (in an engine or to make steam for a turbine to make electricity), you lose again a lot as heat. The 'laws of physics' governing such processes, that is the conservation of energy (and thermodynamics), are well-established, so allowing it to dismiss claims of 'energy production' in such processes easily. And anybody with high-school science should be able to dismiss the claim of 'Salt water as fuel' as obviously misleading, as it seems to imply an energy source, which is is not. As for energy storage by making hydrogen (from electricity), currently the best thing would be to turn off the least efficient power plant from the grid (and thus save the coal/oil/natural gas that it burns). Next best thing would be some pumping scheme (pumping water to a higher-lying reservoir, so when you need it, let it run down again through your turbine). Or you could run you Aluminum smelter an extra shift.-- By the way, plasma bubbles in water have been seen before, e.g. see T. Maehara et al,Radio Frequency Plasma in Water, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Volume 45, Issue 11, pp. 8864 (2006). http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JaJAP..45.8864M So,until I can read his publication in a scientific journal, I don't know what is new about Mr. Kanzius' RF hydrogen generator. The newspaper article is only hype.--
Yup
written by Clay , September 14, 2007
yes, it's true...
most people have little to no understanding of rudimentary physics. and most people never look beyond the most superficial level. the result: most people find something like this, take it at face value, and have no knowledge of why it's not particularly interesting physics, and why it won't solve all our energy woes.
Still, there is something going on here.
written by Chris , September 14, 2007
Before we can definitively say that this process isn't producing a net (useable) energy surplus, we must figure out exactly what kind of reaction is actually going on here. Is there some catalyst in the seawater which allows the H and O bonds to easily unzip when exposed to a specific RF vibration or is it something else altogether? Is there some kind of unknown cold fusion reaction being produced here?
Just a few comments from one who knows v
written by Crash , September 15, 2007
First, I'd like to say that great inventions are hardly ever created intentionally. For example, the post-it note was created by accident while trying to create another type of glue, and saran wrap was created initially for the purpose of insulating military antennas. So to everyone trying to say this concept doesn't have merit, I'd suggest you open your mind a little. It is possible (aside from being probable or not) that something such as this may impact the world on a scale we can't imagine (something like the wheel).
Second, there aren't any processes on Earth that are "creating" energy. The amount of energy available on Earth comes exclusively from external sources (the sun, or even more distant events such as the formation of the earth, as is the case with geothermal energy). The arguments about whether energy can be created (or in some arguments above, destroyed) is just a lot of fluff from people trying to make themselves sound halfway intelligent. All energy that has been stored on Earth instead has merely been changing states from one form to another since it was trapped here. I've done enough ranting for the moment; now onto some questions. My first question is, what would happen if he were to point that RF frequency directly at salt? I wonder if it has occurred to anyone that maybe water just happens to be a red-herring in this. I wonder if the RF couldn't be magnified in a resonant cavity before being directed at the salt water to increase its efficacy. My personal belief is that if we are truly trying to harness energy more affectively, we need to do more research on resonance. Nicola Tesla had some pretty fascinating experiments using electricity and the earth as a resonant object. What would happen with a piezo-electric crystal enclosed in a bottle tuned to it's resonant frequency, and a light wind blowing across the neck.
...
written by greg , September 15, 2007
Water is not an element!
...
written by David , September 15, 2007
The RF is transmiting at 350 Watts. I noticed that when it was on TV. They did not show the frequency. I guess that is the secret. Of course it isn't in the microwave range. I suspect that it is in a VLF or even ELF range based on what his experiement was originally set to do. Also, it doesn't take much power to generate 350 watts HF, VHF, or even UHF. To generat 350 watts of output in VLF or ELF takes massive amounts of power. I doubt it's microwave or higher, as he wouldn't stick his hand in front of 350 watts of microwave energy output. Bottom line: if it's 350 watts in the VHF range, then the burning water, especially a the temperature they claim, could easily produce the power to generate 350 watts. However, I suspect it's much lower, perhaps even ELF. That is another story all together.
Now I asked because I could find a sourc
written by Dave , September 16, 2007
How many kcals are produced from burning a gasoline molecule?
I also wonder if this guy has discovered how Archimedes sunk the enemy's ships
Hope for the best!
written by jj , September 16, 2007
Only thing I'm woried about is some idiots using this to make explosives. How would you track down where the radio waves came from? I would just hate seeing more tax dollars going toward "heightened security". No more bottled water on the planes...
Burning Salt Water
written by John , September 17, 2007
Some people think they know everything. They should examine it for themselves before they make definitive comments.
You can get more BTUs out of a Heat Pump then if the equivalent electrical energy was used to make the heat directly. This is well within the laws of Physics as we understand it. The same people would say that it would violate the laws of Physics if it hasn't been already proven. Unfortunately their egos are so big that it covers their eyes.
Hydrogen Is Not a Source of Energy
written by Brian Vrieze , September 17, 2007
For those talking about hydrogen as a source of energy, you are mistaken. My source is the History Channel or Discovery Channel I forget which. Scientists in Europe are creating highway systems with Hydrogen refueling locatinos.
The scientist that was interviewed made it abundantly clear that Hydrogen is a way to make energy portable, just as gasoline is portable. The advantage is Hydrogen is clean. You can clean the air in areas like LA by burning fossil fuels out of the low lying areas where polution settles. You must expend some other type of energy, (Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and yes fossil fuel) to create the Hydrogen. Then you can use it in your car or what ever.
Humanity at it best
written by freddy , September 17, 2007
I don't know what is into people's mind, burning, consuming seems to be the only way to survive. If the enthusiasm shown in this posts were aimed to achieve better and more efficient renowable energy sources, we could have kick oil of our lives a long time ago.
Even though water seems inexpensive, it is not, playing with the balance of our nature has always been a bad choice. Changing our ocean's salinity (yes if would be changed if we start 'burning' salt water - this actually sounds exactly like the same warnings made several years ago about pollution and the ozone's layer) will damage our ecosystem and in a few years we will be struggling (again) to ge rid of such earth killing form of energy. Renowable resources, changing our energy consumption pattern, redesign of our equipments and gadgets, that is a better way to solve our energy problems (IMHO)
repeating an earlier question (which no
written by David Q , September 19, 2007
is anyone sure that it isnt simply breaking the NACL and the sodium is reacting in the water?
why would this be demonstrated
written by Badcompany , September 19, 2007
Why would this process be demonstrated to the public? Cornell university knows all the know it alls would come out to debunk there discovery. I think you are all over educated beyond your Intelligence. You all believe in global warming to. Just wait five minutes and the weather will change. Science is perfect and never changes like the weather.
...
written by Davidk , September 21, 2007
The real question is what was the cost of the desalination of the water? Is it cheaper than the current cost?
why waste electricity?
written by max , September 24, 2007
Yes, why waste it and complicate the life? I'll tell you the secret how to make hydrogen from water without electricity. Mix some HCl with water, throw some zink in it, enjoy! When run out of hydrogen, simply add some more zink and HCl. What? it takes energy to make zink? So it does to make electricity. But to be serious, what he has invented was just some form of an electrolysis. Why hasn't anybody taken a U-tube, put some salt water in it, put two electrodes, plugged it into 220V and then brought a lighted match to a cathode, got the fire (sure it will pick up some salt from water and thus make the flame red), shot the video and uploaded it on youtube and made a fuss?
is anyone sure that it isnt simply break
written by max , September 24, 2007
Answer: NaCl in water does not exsist. What does exist are just ions of Na and Cl- surrounded by water molecules. To make metallic Na you need to give it one electrone somehow. You cannot do it by microwaves, because it does not emit electrones. You cannot do it by electrolysis either, because there is always ions of hydrogen in solutions whic are less elecronegative than Na, so on the cathode they always compete with Na and get electrones first. What microwaves do, they split molecules of water. Why salt is needed - to increase the conductivity of water.
che eng.
written by cw smith , September 24, 2007
I really enjoy reading the explainations on the salt water fire. I know that it is not wise to say something is not energy positive when we know that perpetual motion does exist. If one will consider the electrons within the atoms themselves, they realize that their motion is non-stop fueled by atomic forces much of which we are unknowledgible except by the Almighty God. Atomic energy is an example of the kind of energy which is bound in the atom. regardless of what we may say, the mechanism of burning salt water when explosed to rf is interesting and deserves chemical and mechanical measurements to determine the energy yeild if any. Furthermore, the chemical reactions are not really proven without gc data to support the gases released and chemical assay of the remaining salt solution. Note. the possibility of breaking the laws of thermodynamics are possible since they may in fact be in error when it comes to atomic interactions with the real world chemistry. Subatomic interactions are possibly occuring since, bonds are breaking. what exactly could cause this? Quantum mechanics explains the release of photons when the electron is excited and jumps to a different energy level. Quantum mechanics are very difficult and hard to understand since the math involved is complicated and applictions are expensive to test. Regardless, the energy bond breaking could be a result of something lower level occuring in the atom itself causing the bonds to break. no one could really say for sure unless investigated. The best solution is to test with the scientific method and prove what is happening by what is known and deduce the truth otherwise everyone sits around like idiots guessing and making assumptions which may or may not be the truth. Thanks, enjoy this artical cs.
Please be open
written by aholder , September 29, 2007
i know this method, this burning of water, does not gives off more energy than it takes to create water. i know this because i too know that the laws of conservation of energy cannot be broken. but here's the deal: do we have to go through the trouble or expend the energy required to make 2 hydrogen atoms, one oxygen atom, and some salt bond together? do we have to create salt-water? well, salt-water, we probably would have to create if we wanted to use it as fuel, but water? hell-freaking-no! nature has most graciously done the work for us! much the same as she did when she made freaking oil!
so, the real question is: does the radio-frequency generator require more energy than is given off by the burning of the hydrogen? i think, with sufficient design, it would not. therefore, you could expend some energy and get what you expended back, plus some more. so the next question is how much more? but do we really care how efficient it is? water is the most abundant substance on the planet! who cares if it is less efficient than burning gas?! the price of the resource is what really matters! if the cost of buying salt-water at a pump is cheap enough, i will not care if 20 gallons of gas will get me farther than 20 gallons of water.
Burning Water
written by Delgan , October 04, 2007
I discovered how to burn water in 2003, I do not use sale water I use fresh water. The sound of the combustion is the same as John Kanzius version, I do not use RF waves. I was told at the time I was crazy and was critized. I then did a demonstration for a PHD chemists in British Columbia, Canada in 2004-2005 at first they were very excited, and the investor who was friends with the chemist went to numerous cities in the U.S. and then a few months later in 2005, I was told to just work on the smaller aspects of my discovery and "stay away from the big stuff".
John MacGougan
Why do we assume the process is complete
written by David , October 06, 2007
I've noticed people jumping to the conclusion that the radio energy completely breaks the atomic bonds. I don't know that we can be sure this is happening. The fact that information is being given in order to reproduce the experiment.
What if the radio waves are at some harmonic caused by the presence of salt disoved in water. That could mean that the fire and the addition of air or some other element found in salt water, could cause a chain reaction that produces an apparent excess of energy. Just a thought.
And What About Ethanol???
written by Pasquale , October 06, 2007
Doesn't ethanol production consume more energy than the amount
of energy produced by ethanol? (Remember when it was called White Lightin' or corn likker?) And how about the price of food rising on the basis of the increasing (no pun intended) use of corn being diverted to ethanol production? "Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds" -Shakespeare
...
written by Perry , October 07, 2007
If it's more energy efficient than electrolysis,then it's a major breakthrough. Solar to hydrogen is coming. The only question is cost.
...
written by Lowell , October 08, 2007 I wonder why even the most experienced and intelligent physicists would question the possibility that perhaps it could take less energy to product the heat from the radiowaves on the salt water. Check out the link at the bottom to see another example that clearly illustrates the notion that power out cannot exceed power in. It's another realm of physics but it still proves the second law of thermodynamics is foolish notion regardless of how brilliant the those who are convinced it cannot be breached are. This one will blow your notions that the second law of thermodynamics is a fixed fact: go to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3484490731703421398 and check out the irrefutable proof, Lowell
Speculation
written by Hollis , October 10, 2007
It seems that most everyone is assuming that the machine is using energy in the form of radio waves to break the hydrogen-oxygen bond. If that were the case, everyone who is pointing to the second law of thermodynamics would be correct in stating that the process is energy negative. One intelligent fellow who posted on this blog mentioned that the color of the flame indicates that there is sodium | ||
on the other end of the RF generator, I'm not sure. None of the linked stories are really outright saying that this is an energy-positive process, but they aren't saying otherwise either, which is kinda frustrating.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
On a side note, nobody has really considered potential waste from this process. Salt water has A LOT of stuff in it, and this process merely separates the hydrogen from the oxygen in water. What happens to the sodium, chloride, sulfate, etc. ions that are in fairly high concentrations in sea water?