SEP 12

I'm glad I'm not the only one who caught that slight ommission from all the press about burning salt water.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

We gotta find an alternative to oil before the crisis begin.

http://www.prankvideoz.com

you lost me at

"and disregarded it as not-very-interesting science."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, he's come up with a safe electric candle / stove / etc. Turn the radio waves off, and it puts itself out!

is anyone sure that it isnt simply breaking the NACL and the sodium is reacting in the water?

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

The amount of pseudo-science in the comments is more scary than the widespread news coverage... Are that many people scientifically illiterate?

@ 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

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.

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.

Err ... burning hydrogen creates water. You'll never run out after 500 years.

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 ...:)

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!!!!

@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!!!".

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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).

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.

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

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...:)

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.

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.

lol @ inaccurate chemical formula

At least balance the equation and keep Oxygen grouped in 2. Here:
2H2O -> 2H2 O2

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

@ 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 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?

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.

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.

:P

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

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.

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.

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

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
Please. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go consult a basic chemistry book. What you're saying has absolutely no bearing on reality whatsoever.

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.

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.

http://www.hydrogennow.org/Fac...drogen.htm

The point is it is an option with great future potential.

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)

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.

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 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

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!

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...)

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?

im in ur bathtub settin firez

We can use this to make fire from the sea.

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.

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.

@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

all debate about efficiency aside- this discovery does retroactively make the science in Batman Begins sound possible.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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...

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...

This may have applications in desalinization plants, depending on just how wasteful using radio waves to break the bonds of water moecules is...

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.

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?

How many kcals are produced from burning a gasoline molecule?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.--

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.

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?

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.

Water is not an element!

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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)

is anyone sure that it isnt simply breaking the NACL and the sodium is reacting in the water?

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.

The real question is what was the cost of the desalination of the water? Is it cheaper than the current cost?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

If it's more energy efficient than electrolysis,then it's a major breakthrough. Solar to hydrogen is coming. The only question is cost.

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

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 burning in this process (and we can infer that is the case because they are using salt water as opposed to desalinated water that NaCl is crucial to this process). I have watched both News Channel 3 YouTube videos to gain insight on this process. In the second video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9B8...ed&search=) they mention briefly that a researcher of some unsaid university verified that the process gives off hydrogen which we see burning in conjunction with the sodium (which must be assumed discolors the blue-burning hydrogen). The researcher stated that the hydrogen was released from the water due to the heat from the flame. Now, bare with me a second, what if the machine is breaking the much weaker (compared to the hydrogen-oxygen bond) sodium-chlorine bond and producing enough heat once combusted to break down the hydrogen-oxygen bond? Who knows if that's the case but I figured I'd offer my speculation. I've also read another article which states that John Kanius and others working on the project have suggested that the process is more than 100% efficient. http://peswiki.com/index.php/ Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt_Wate
r_Using_Radio_Waves

From wikipedia.org: Owing to its high reactivity, sodium is found in nature only as a compound and never as the free element. Sodium reacts exothermically with water: small pea-sized pieces will bounce across the surface of the water until they are consumed by it, whereas large pieces will explode. While sodium reacts with water at room temperature, the sodium piece melts with the heat of the reaction to form a sphere, if the reacting sodium piece is large enough. The reaction with water produces very caustic sodium hydroxide and highly flammable hydrogen gas. These are extreme hazards (see Precautions section below). When burned in air, sodium forms sodium peroxide Na2O2, or with limited oxygen, the oxide Na2O (unlike lithium, the nitride is not formed). If burned in oxygen under pressure, sodium superoxide NaO2 will be produced.

Guys. Guys. Guys. Everyone is getting crazy. There is only one question that needs to be answered. Is the process energy positive? I am not a physical scientist, I am an economist! All I care about is “Net Output”! Is the output positive or negative in relation to the energy input?

OK… I agree that using an RF Generator is just a different type of electrolysis, but is the process efficient (energy positive)?

I have only one (1) question!

If 1 Kilowatt (1KW) of electricity is used in the RF Generation Process, how much electricity can be generated using the hydrogen produced by the process?

If the answer is: Output < Input … This is a cool trick, but it is not an energy source.
If the answer is: Output = Input … Why waste our time converting energy from one state to another.
If the answer is: Output > Input … Lets stop sailing oil tankers on salt water and lets start burning it.

I’ll let the more mathematical and / or scientific answer my question.

Thanks for reading,

Walter

There is one way that using radio frequencies could be more efficient than standard electrolysis, and that is natures own way of using harmonics when energy is propagated through a medium. Take water for instance, if you place a hydrophone in water and send sound waves at a given frequency, then use another hydrophone to pick up the transmitted sound and run it through a spectrum analyser, you will find not only your original frequency, but also many multiples of that frequency. For example, if you transmit 100Hz, you will get frequencies showing up at 100, 200, 300, 400 Hz etc gradually getting weaker as the harmonics increase. Everything in the universe is governed by movement at particular frequencies depending on what it is and what systems it is interacting with, this includes the electrons making the bond between hydrogen and oxygen in water. If the correct frequency could be found, one that matched the frequency of the water molecule or a harmonic of that frequency, then the breaking of the bond would be much easier than standard electrolysis and a hell of a lot more of the electromagnetic energy would be used as each harmonic of the frequency used would play a part in breaking the bond. Ever seen a glass break just using sound waves, get the right harmonic frequency and it doesn't take a lot to break the glass.....

Just a thought, the laws of thermodynamics were not written by nature, they were written by man. I see a lot of people referring to the 'laws' as though they were the absolute truth and under no circumstances can they be broken. When Albert Einstein wrote his theory of relativity, it was met with some scepticism by the scientific community as several Newtonian laws would be broken by its acceptance, but we now know he was correct, or at least he is until another scientist comes up with something better to explain the universe that we live in. So why is it that people find it so hard to keep an open mind and accept at least the possibility that the 'laws' of thermodynamics could be broken. ;D

I have a question here, not a statement of fact, or a great plan to save the Earth, just a question.

If this were used in a coastal area, and set up like this, do you think it would work?

1 - Tidal hydro generator wind turbine to power RF transmitter

2 - hydrogen chamber burning the released hydrogen to make steam for electricity

3 - Collection of fresh water for desalinized water.

Seems to me at *least* you would have a self-sustaining desalinization plant. Is this viable, or do you have the conservation of energy problem again?

Great discussion, great Potential, has anyone considered taking the water from the dead sea and trying that in the same experiment?

Using Gasoline (or rather "Petrol") in the tank, engine is only 33% efficient.

However, using H in the tank appears better, and being able to generate H or Hydroxyl "on the go" from a tank of water, where the only problem is having to PERIODICALLY FILL THE TANK BACK TO FULL WITH WATER (OR YOU SIT MOTIONLESS AT EMPTY UNTIL YOU DO) does not violate the laws of physics by creating a perpetual motion machine.

Now someone said the electricity needed to power the converter needs more power input in than what could be usable out...

I would direct their attention to their CAR SPEAKER STEREO SYSTEM and AMPLIFIER. It generates WATTS of SOUND, especially if you like the cars, the cars that go BOOM (sound-wise, of course) how much watt-energy is inputed into those stereo systems? and how much wattage goes out? Ask yourself this question next time you pull up to one of those Honda CRX cars with the stereo system booming and wonder to yourself how much MPG they get with the stereo on...and with it off.

The electrolizing system could work the same with radio frquencies aimed at a tank of water and using harmaonics and distortion could lower the needed input to a desirable level. With sheilding and vibrational dampening and buffering (just like in anti-skip designs in car CD/DVD players) the gas production could be steady and reliable. so the car keeps going at any speed you wish.

it's amazing to me how everybody seems to be a physicist and thermodynamics genius, quoting their laws, but nobody seems to realize that all these laws state is you cannot win, you'll never get more energy out of something than is put into it. The only reason we see this salt water burning as ridiculous is because we need to put energy in to get it out in a useful way, heat! Typically nature has given us fossil fuels that took million of years to produce, they come from animals and plants, think of the energy it took to grow the plant or animal and then compress and turn it into oil. The efficiency of burning oil in internal combustion engines is horrible but since our personal net energy is great we don't care. Burning salt water can be this efficient if not better but the net energy looks to be much worse than other fuels because we need to do some work in getting the energy into a usable state.

There are too many people in this world anyway and technology will never advance quick enough for us to survive without a mass reduction of homo sapiens. This is literally a fact. And its funny how people like to fantasize that there will be a way to save our ecosystem without such a circumstance.

Car audio uses large amounts of energy to produce a small amount of sound. Look up AB Class amplifiers.

So what is the point you are makeing here??
(Also car audio power is refered to as 'wanker watts 'not watts rms.)

The more electrical energy you draw from your engine puts more load on the engine equals more petrol used.

In reading the original article I see where the young man has not enough knowledge to research all of the areas that could benefit his research. For example we have created a Plasma Incubator Reactor System that purifies or desalinates water, depending on the temperature of the Plasma stream we use, this creates hydrogen because we break the chemical bond between the two gases that make up water which is Oxygen and Hydrogen. We extract about 2% of the pure Hydrogen and use it in a revolutionary way(using the Wave Action Technology developed in Norway) to create electricity which is used in offsetting the energy requirement to run the Plasma Reactor and if we use the H2 as a fuel we get even more electric conversion, and Oh buy the way, the rest of the gases are recombined to produce a distilled water. This is the process that is being used in Texas in the Barnett Shale Natural Gas drilling arena to purify the process known as a Slick Frac Water. If you want more info go 9164347880.

okay when burning the saltwater does it get rid of the saltwater? When i say that i mean does the fire brun up all of the saltwater because if so then we would run out of water.

Ok.. The pop sci article said the freq. needed was 14mhz...so what about a resonant chamber to increase the reaction? (Kinda like a water-bound reflex klystron tube!) Make those rf waves bounce around a bit to increase the yield..maybe bring the bonds to just the breaking point and then finish the job with conventional electrolysis to increase the output..who knows? Maybe knock the electrons into a syncronated spin like positron emitting scanners do for imaging technology..and then transmit in bursts.... Its just the first step to an exciting discovery. Wonder if that test tube will be for sale on e-bay...

Wow, all these posts in less than two months; and quite a broad spectrum of opinion.

I suggest anyone seriously considering this topic should review a few key concepts, for starters:
Heat of Solution
Heat of Hydration
Lattice Energy
Heat of Vaporization
Heat of Combustion
Heat of Condensation

( http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/vrche...age_27.htm is readable and informative)

The consensus scenario of the demonstrated process seems to begin with seawater or lab-prepared saline, H2O(NaCl).

If you were to state up-front a set of assumptions about the composition of the saltwater solution, you could (with not too much difficulty) calculate the energy content of the solution.

The most obvious products of the demonstrated process (apart from the heat) appear to be condensed desalinated water, and a remaining quantity of of the original source saline.

One might reasonably presume the remaining saline is both lower in mass, and higher in salt concentration.

Both of those would seem to hold true if the Na and Cl ions were not appreciably removed from the source (which has not been claimed or demonstrated to be true. And may in fact be false, if

earlier comments about flame color and "sodium-fire" have merit)

But assuming only H and O leave the test-tube, they leave in various forms:
H2O (vapor)
H2(gas)
O2(gas)
H- (ion, unlikely)
-OH (diatomic anion, also unlikely)
O-- (singlet oxygen, don't blink)

But no matter how these atoms leave, if we assume they are liberated in a H:O ratio of 2:1 and finally condense to liquid at original temp in a separate container, the accounting becomes a bit

simpler in concept. And then the essential economic questions rise up rather easily above the din of "you-cant-something-for-nothing" and "laws-of-physics" chatter.


==========================================
Think about the problem this way:
I start with two containers on the lab-bench. One is empty, the other contains a kilogram of saltwater, salinity of 3.5%
(3.5 grams of NaCl thoroughly dissolved in 996.5 grams of H2O)

I begin the process, any process, it doesn't matter, so pick your favorite.

I stop the process once the formerly empty container now holds 500 grams of H2O.
(You'd have to test to be sure it was just pure water, but for now let's assume it is.)

Let's say that no reactants or products left the system, and none were added from the outside.

I carefully measure the amount of effort(energy) my process required. I'd like to call it "Ep"

Here is what you'd need to measure:
What does the source container now hold? Let's assume the NaCl is conserved completely in the source container.
The original 3.5 grams of NaCl is still there, but only 496.5 grams of H2O remain.
The salinity is now 7.0%

Now:
1. measure the energy content of the original state (Eo)
2. add the energy required by the process (Ep)
3. measure the energy content of the final state (Ef)

Calculations required:
Before Process
How much energy (in kcals) is contained in 1000g of 3.5% salinity H2O(NaCl)?

After Process
How much energy (in kcals) is contained in 500g of 7.0% salinity H2O(NaCl)?
How much energy (in kcals) is contained in 500g of 0.0% salinity H2O(NaCl)?

(Be sure to account for all of the "Heats" above as well as the bond energies.)

Does anyone else's brain insert "man" and "like" when reading the comments that say we'll run out of water or air? Did they post their comments while their roommate's dreadlocked boyfriend packed another bowl?

I am interesting about what is the needed energy for splitting of water molecule but in condition of different temperature and what is the influence of the magnetic field over of water molecule breaking in different temperature too.

Using nuclear energy can produce needed fresh water and hydrogen and will prevent rising sea levels! What more can you want? Gary

Gary, ever hear of a thing called nuclear waste?
And if a reactor over heats ,and explodes like in Chenoble....well.......Pro's/con's.

Water is what you get when you BURN Hydrogen. So to use water as energy, first you have to UNBURN it. This is like trying to put COAL back together from Carbon Monoxide fumes. And it will ALWAYS take more energy than it produces. If you don't understand this, stop commenting, and leave it to the engineers.

I hear about these things every few years. Tell him to make something usefull.

Otherwise, I'm not buying!

watch this link. it's possible. it's easy. it's true.
the by-product is water vapor. everything we burn is a product of the earth and the by products aren't always nice. solar power would be exceptional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhXrvCCILw

Aw Come on, people--Prove to me that I'm wrong in thinking that this is a place to see some of, and hear about, new things on the possibility horizon--not a showroom for polished, 100% efficient machines, with which you can cause your peers to worship YOU when they behold your purchase! Yeah--it's boringly easy to find fault with anything that's "invented" by dreamers and science fictionists. They are "Geeks"--look it up--not as completely balanced in all areas of humanity like "WE" are. But--THEY came out of their dream world of believing that perfection IS attainable, and modeled another variation of compounded raw physics. Big deal--we know about Hydrogen, and some other elements. And how to force things to amuse us for a while. Then we get bored, and look in our "lego" box--(we've outgrown our Lincoln Logs, haven't we) for a variation of the same thing...something to push our lazy butts down the road, away from what we are bored to have already "attained", onward--to where we think we can be pampered for being the "First" at something.
Variations on a theme! The thrill will wear off! Do you yet realize? The only tongue-dragging enthusiast to really win in the inevitable end, is he who overcomes the end itself! Onward! Stop wasting time here! You can be forgotten and unheeded for being only a player in an obsolete object lesson, or be part of an eternal cure--which would necessitate YOU becoming less important, and MORE teachable!
I point at myself--because the playpen of this physical world is getting louder and more bullying--it will soon kill us all. You can't get out and survive intact! You want a change? Discover that which will remain in the end, and work out the beginning foundation carefully! From the end!
Sometimes I am reminded of all the bitching from the back seat of the car, by the selfish whiner brats that are never satisfied--on a long trip to "who cares?"
The other folks I read here are very refreshing! I like new things, too. BTW--who are we all talking too when we complain? Anybody that will agree? Would I be wasting Hydrogen to tell you to shut up? Shouldn't we rather be patted on the back for our boldness to TRY to do something good--in the face of the doomsayers?
You know you've wasted your time reading some of this crap--because you disagreed with it, and have enjoyed some of it--because you liked it. Who cares about what you think about somebody ELSE's good work, Mr Fingerpointer? Get off your fat consumption ass and do something for the good of others! And quit making such a stinky mess for the rest of us.......
Find your own opinion and write it. Look it over, and toss it in the can, here. Just like everybody else. You might just rather look for fixing THE END.

I have used the Aquygen replacement for Oxy-Acetylene.
It works just as described on the website.
The maunfacturer also has thoroughly documented his test cases of use in automobiles, with a commercially available device this year.
http://www.hytechapps.com/

I am suprised and upset by the amount of negativity being thrown around here. Weather or not salt water is a good source of energy will have to be answered by more research.
Now, the people that feel the need to say degrading or disrespectful things to another person, just because they are misinformed have failed to be good humans! Knowledge is power. If you really want a solution to any crisis we as a people face today you must freely share knowledge without judgement or malice. My field of work and research (non-native invasive plant management and re-naturalization) has little to do with renewable or alternative energy sources, but is very much dependant on education and volunteer cooperation. If I were as mean to my volunteers as some of the supposedly higher educated minds commenting here, I would be out of business. Perhaps if more people with the right minds and the right knowledge actually TALKED and DISCUSSED such topics with your COMMUNITY (!!!) then there would be less ignorance to upset you and more activism towards a solution to our energy crisis that actually works! We are all in this together, weather you like or not. Just a thought.

ps- Perhaps people are more comfortable making negative or disrespectful comments to one another on the internet due to it's impersonality? If this is the case then I STRONGLY encourage those people to try the same thing in a face to face conversation/discussion/debate and see how far you get, even with factual knowledge to back up your position.

Thanks.

If anything useful comes of this than the discussions and effort will be worth it. Might be a big "if", however.

In response to the commentator who felt the posts were just a bunch of ramblings from frustrated English majors;it is very possible that many of the comments were not written by folks versed in science. It is unfair to punish the English majors of the world, though. (Full disclosure, I was never an English Major.) If that were true, the quality of the English taught in universities would be roughly equal to that of fifth-grade in my era. (I'm thirty-five, do your own math.) Just because spell-check isn't on the header options for posting doesn't make it illegal to own your own dictionary. I'm not sure if it is just the internet that engenders such poor writing skill/technique or lazy writers (who should be ashamed) or proof of what happens schools are staffed by teachers making one percent of a typical CEO's income. Whatever the case, this thread alone, with few exceptions, has set back both science and English decades. Any intelligence gleaned from it was wiped clean by the vast, nearly incomprehensible stupidity put forth otherwise. Outside of "hate" speech, this is one of the more compelling arguments against free speech I have ever come across.

Good luck to science and English alike. They both appear to need it.

I agree with the person that said that about our water. What if we use up all our water we dont have no water. I guess we we have to find a way to produce more water.

It ocurred to me the other day that if we want to convert to hydrogen combustion to provide our transportation needs, the best approach might be to install a hundred nuclear reactors of 1000 MW each in the desert in Nevada, hydrolyze water, and load the liquid hydrogen into tank cars. Like aluminum production, it makes sense only if you have lots of cheap electricity around. The electricity produced on a project of this scale should only be a few cents per kilowatt. Wind or solar panels are alternatives, of course .... whatever costs less.

The author of the article, respectfully, is patently incorrect. A small amount of electrolysis is all that is needed to split the Hydrogen from the Oxygen. All the science "experts" here can argue hypothesis all they want, but they cannot argue with physical reality. Brown's Gas has been around almost 30 years and the only thing keeping it from the public is supression from Big Business.

I have personally seen these machines pull an insignigicant amount of electricity from the wall to cut through a 3 inch piece of steel like a hot knife through butter. It seems to me it would take a small R&D investment to convert the use of this technology and powerful energy source to vehicles.

Read more about Brown's Gas here, and do a search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen_flame

Development of this as our main fuel would make the US 100% energy independent, make the cost of everything we buy go down (cost of transport), eventually return thousands of dollars annually to every American family, practically eliminate the funding of terrorism, and eliminate most pollution.
Can you imagine the impact?

To just sarcastically reject a concept like this outright is irresponsible and dangerous. At the very least, we should all pursue this concept with guarded optimism. Otherwise the concept will be exactly where Exxon wants it. Buried, until we run out of oil.

BTW, we must consider that anyone here being completely negative when considering a breakthough technology like this (including the author) MUST be suspected as a Big Oil paid employee dispatched to create doubt. They have everything to gain by having employees get environmentalists to doubt and fight amongst themselves. BE AWARE.

They would much rather you talk about a hybrid car or airplane that gets 50MPG of oil, than one that uses no oil at all.

You are all insanely, horrifyingly stupid. Please do not reproduce.

Don't worry about these dopes reproducing. If they flunked physics, chemistry and economics, how could they figure out biology?

Besides, they will probably all blow themselves up with their hydrogen generators.

why don't you who wrote this articles leave it to the pro. you're just a rookie. think biq, not bitch.

I'm going to say this much.....

With oil being the lifeblood of any economy, any thing that forces inside of that economy think is a threat to IT or to the economy that IT thrives in...will use any means necessary to destroy it, preserving their 'way of life'

and water cars pose a threat not only to Oil, but to the Government providing that economy, that oil thrives in, needing the taxes the oil generates.

Why buy unleaded when you can get your fuel in ways from Mother Nature, that is FREE? Money then would not circulate as speedily around, as the economy would like you to help make it circulate, if you're getting your 'go-go juice' for free....Why that's cheating, wouldn't you say?

And since people don't like cheaters...what do we do with them? We destroy them. We stop them from cheating...

We take them away...we take their inventions away...we threaten them to be silent and not utter such 'blasphemous' 'nonsense and drivel' about such things...

that only PROS, with HIGH-FALUTEN' pieces of paper called 'degrees' or 'master's degrees' or 'doctorates' or 'CAPTAINS OF INDUSTRY' can only dabble in, not YOU, the lowly serf....you have to be like the REST OF US and PAY PAY PAY in order to be considered by US to be 'good' like we are......

Now you kinda know what Gay people face....they are viewed as 'cheaters' getting their sexual pleasure, and not paying for it, by producing babies, or getting married to make sexual activity 'legit'

Why do you think we have all kinds of 'double standards' when it comes to SEX?

We want to see it, we want to take pleasure from it, we want to control it, regulate it, gain POWER from it...but we don't want anyone else to....right?

Water Cars are the Faggots to the Economy.....Sure, if properly designed, A hummer equipped a water based engine system can get 80-100 miles a gallon...so what? When it's doing THAT, the driver of that water based engine isn't spreading around his dollars, at the gas station, buying GAS and FOOD, and COFFEE, to circulate that money into the economy, speedily enough....He's not paying his FAIR SHARE....get it? Same excuse the IRS wants you to tell yourself when you pay the payroll tax, you're paying your FAIR SHARE, being BETTER than the OTHER guy who you figure DOESN'T (Class envy.)

and when I talk about "forces inside the economy using any means necessary to neutralize a percieved threat...." I mean just that...

churning out 'data' that 'shows' ....

any mechanism that can make water transform, burn, and return to water using electrical force multipliers and waveform manipulation, to use what would be 'less energy in' to get 'more energy out'...

-1. would violate the laws of physics...citing the 1st and/or 2nd law of thermodynamics, and then dismissing said mechanism and then the idea, without really taking into account the material used, its structure within water, and HOW the electrical impulses are applied...

2. saving breath and allowing others to shoot down said idea using the 'thermo laws' in various ways...

3. using inventors own secetive ways against him...and then fudging things around so that what would look like an 'honest test of invention' turns out to be 'exposure of a scam'...

I know a lot of people would like to point to Stanley Meyer being a fraud...even using his own tapes to 'prove' he's a fraud by stacking what he says up against what 'experts' say and then just siding with the 'experts' to forward your argument....

Just think what would happen, if he won his court case and PROVED his invention worked as advertised.

OIL is BIG BUSINESS. TAX COLLECTION/PREPARATION/EVASION(in all forms legit and not-so) is BIG BUSINESS!
It makes the money circle around at speeds desirable to the players inside the economy.

Anything that would render the GAME obsolete, renders those payers OBSOLETE.

Even if it would 'free the people'.

Even if said inventions 'work as advertised'

it is still a threat to 'The GAME of life' and to the 'winners' in that game.

and the winners are OIL, BANKS, GOVERNMENT.

period.

look at what the pharisees did to jesus...when he told them the truth, when asked "are you the son of God" and he said "I am." Well, they HAD to stop that right then and there because HE was a threat to what they percieved "the way of life"

Just think of the possibilities that a navy could do with this.Horrible thought...but thats what it will be used for.
Instead of free fuel. It will be used to continue the oil cartel strong-hold on the people of earth.

It would make an effecive weapon desingined to destroy....yup yup yup

there's something in the military thank you to clinton..."Don't ask, don't tell"
referring to Gay people serving....

Perhaps we all have to become outlaws, hiding in plain sight, using these devices, just to save ourselves from the ever-crushing power of these businesses, and their desire for profit-by-control.

But what happens when governments have to come to grips with the floodgates being cracked open?

How can big businesses become big now without controlling things?

I'm not sure....

Sounds like a great concept, but what happens when we run out of water? There is only so much water and they are not making anymore. It’s kind of like land.
I have heard that there is the same amount of water on the earth now as there were millions of years ago. Sometimes it is frozen, sometimes it is a gas (as in evaporated and in the atmosphere) sometimes it is buried underground, sometimes some areas of the earth have less of it than other areas, but there is always the same amount of water on the earth.
I am not a scientist, but I do remember basic chemistry and water consists of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. If you burn off the hydrogen how do you get water as a byproduct?
What happens when we burn up enough water that we start harvesting ice off the already depleted polar ice caps and the ocean start getting lower and lower? We can live on this planet without oil, but can the human race or all other living things survive without water?
Sorry but I don’t think that this is the answer.

How exactly do you break the water down......is it cost effective?.....sure it is better for the enviroment, but will it hurt the water supply, will it become polluted?
What is the advtanage for this over electric energy?

can you show a diagram? It's for a science fair project

couldn't the radio waves be produced the same way electricity is generated on an alternator, transferring the kinetic energy?

Just wondering, I hear so many scientific minds spout mumbo jumbo about the Law of Conservation of Energy, that you have to 'put more energy into something than you get out of it'. Just wondering, was that what happened with the nuclear weapons, did they have to put more energy into splitting the atom than they got out of it? And do they put more 'energy into gas' than they get out of it? I thought you could just light a match and gas is more than happy to release its energy, because it's already stored in there. I really doubt the developers of the atomic bombs knew they had to put 'more energy in' than they would have gotten out, because they wouldn't have even bothered trying, or maybe they understood physics better than these modern day 'scientists' who spout the mumbo jumbo?

I like the idea of using renewable energy sources to power this reaction, and then store the oxygen and hydrogen for later demand EXCEPT I wold be a little concerned about storing such a highly volatile mixture of gasses.

The process doesn't separate the gasses, which alone would be dangerous enough, but mixed and stored under pressure - I don't like to think about what would happen if it found any kind of ignition source... :o

In the future there may new methods to create alternative power sources such as water... but if I remember well, a car that runs on water has already been developed, but it hasn't reached the market because of the threats coming from oil companies saying that they will kill his family[the inventor's family].

It's nice to see that people are taking notice of this. We MUST take back control of our contry( for the people, by the people).
All of you who take the time to read this article know who is in control and how they maintain their control.
WE CANNOT LET THEM SWEEP THIS UNDER THE RUG!!!
If you don't beleive that your country would use threats to stop the developement of this technology then you are just as ignorant as those who thought we went to Iraq because of wmd's.
We must take it upon ourselves to look out for those who are being threatened, write blogs (what happened to the guy who?) make it Known!! The company that makes the water purifiers, why did they stop the oxyhydrogen development suddenly?
Talk about it with everyone so they can talk about it with someone. Have you ever watched a story on U.S. broadcasting then watched the same story on BBC?
We ARE here!!
Our eyes are open, we are waiting..........
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Listen this is not rocket science. You guys are looking at this the wrong way. The entire point of creating fuel for a car is that you store energy in some medium (fossil fuel or hydrogen) and recoup it in the vehicle at a later time. There is ALWAYS a net energy loss. The simple fact is with fossil fuels the energy in occurred due to geological processes over the course of many millennium. The reason we use it though is the refining an processing of the fossil fuel takes LESS energy than we get by burning it, creating a self-sustaining system that leaves excess gas to power our cars. But now to this system.
Forget the process you use to split the water. In fact, lets assume absolutely no energy loss and assume every ounce of power you put into the water will split the molecules and give you oxygen and hydrogen (there will actually always be losses as noone has ever made such a system). Now, you move the hydrogen and oxygen to you car. How do you get the energy back. This guy's method is to burn the hydrogen and capture the energy in a reciprocating engine (a basic car engine). Remember, reciprocating engines are used simply because they are the most efficient (while maintaining reliability and cheapness) technology engineers have to turn heat from combustion into mechanical motion (moving the car). No engine has ever or will ever be built with 100% efficiency. See engineering sources for more information (I wont give you a lecture) but the efficiency (even if the engine is frictionless and absolutely perfect) is still dependent on thermal efficiency which is related to the compression ratio. You need an infinite compression ratio to get 100% efficiency. THIS CANNOT HAPPEN. Therefore in a car now, you can not and will NEVER get even the same amount of energy out as you put in to make the hydrogen. Fuel cells are what everyones talking about because they have even better efficiencies than the current engines, but are still not ever going to be 100% efficient. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Reasons why this does work:

Now that you aren't expecting to make energy from nothing, lets look at the process.

1)Clean energy is produced from a hydroelectric plant or wind source. This is not making energy, it's harvesting energy from the already existing natural energies that are in wind, water, etc.
2)This energy is used, at a loss, to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.
3)Energy is used to ship the hydrogen and oxygen to the consumers. Energy is used to move trucks or pump it through pipelines.
4)The energy is recovered by recombining the hydrogen with oxygen. This can be done, and is currently done in some engines, by burning it. This has a whole slew of problems in the application (which is the real reason its not being done right now except in a few cases). A much better way of recouping this energy was discovered in the fuel cell. The fuel cell recombines the hydrogen with the oxygen and pulls electricity from it rather than attempting to gather what energy you can from its combustion. This will always have losses of energy.
5)As you can see, it is much more efficient to use energy in you house, which comes directly from that wind turbine, than it does to store it and recoup it from a fuel in your car. However, if we want to use cars, these power losses wont be gotten around any time soon. Fact is, the best efficiency we can get out of a car would be to have a completely plug in car. This would draw power from the wind power rather than going through all those other steps. Only problem is, current technology is lagging here and has the best car out there only able to go about 40 miles on a full charge (and no, I don't count those small extremely light cars that get 100 miles on a charge that crazy eco people made to prove a point because they aren't practical and the fact is the general public will never buy them in large numbers). Thus if you want to drive distance you need a portable fuel that stores energy and you will need to lose all that energy to do it.


This also shows why it would be stupid to use this for powering the grid (the houses and power lines). You would need to take power to run the RF machine, lose power in transmitting that energy to the water (even if it is ridiculously small losses they are still losses that add up), then lose more power in changing the hydrogen back into water to turn your power into electricity. You would have had more power to keep it in the electricity form in the first place. This is called a energy negative process and unless a method is found to draw RF from the environment can never be used to actually generate power. To my knowledge, no machine has ever even been conceived to draw RF from the environment.

You can use radio waves to excite the water molecule. Then add High voltage to it you get 3 byproducts, hydrogen, oxygrn and electrons. Stanley Meyer has already done it and people are working on it now. It will be here soon.

There are many "crazies" around, who are running their cars on water only! The technology is there for some time already, from 1930.
http://video.google.com/videop...plindex=9
The question is, if you are mature enough to use it in wholesome way?
Not only to think how much $$$ you can get... :)

all this talk about big oil threatening people who invent "new energy" is so much bunk. when I was a kid, (1954) I was making hydrogen with a mason jar full of salt water and a couple flashlight batteries. few years later some red neck relatives were running an old Plymouth on battery acid and water. they run there hose from the hydrogen cell, to the intake manifold,that made it so the engine wouldn't idle down. they claimed they got some improvement in gas mileage, but they burned up both there brakes and there generator. (this was before the advent of the auto mobile alternator). my point in all this, is that these hydrogen generators are real simple to build, and if they worked, thousands of people would be using them, whether big oil, big govt. or big Bertha wanted them too or not.

all this talk about big oil threatening people who invent "new energy" is so much bunk. when I was a kid, (1954) I was making hydrogen with a mason jar full of salt water and a couple flashlight batteries. few years later some red neck relatives were running an old Plymouth on battery acid and water. they run there hose from the hydrogen cell, to the intake manifold,that made it so the engine wouldn't idle down. they claimed they got some improvement in gas mileage, but they burned up both there brakes and there generator. (this was before the advent of the auto mobile alternator). my point in all this, is that these hydrogen generators are real simple to build, and if they worked, thousands of people would be using them, whether big oil, big govt. or big Bertha wanted them too or not.

Magnets' opposite poles attract each other.

Magnets' similar poles repel each other.

And you coil a wire around a nail, and connect the two ends of that wire to a 9 volt... the nail attracts a paperclip, because at that point the nail's molecules happen to be aligned.

I ead somewhere you can make magnets out of regular metal in this fashion.

You will notice that Stan Meyer burned tab water through electralisis and Micro waves.

Kanzius burns salt water with radio waves. The issue is the frequency. This needs to be explored.

I need to submit to you that you suck at chemistry. It isn't H2O to H2O. Its salt water not H2O it has H2O in it but it isn't completely H2O. thus your hypothesis is wrong and it doesn't break the law thus this whole strand is wrong and you are an idiot. which can still be broken.

From this technology there will be advancements in the actual portability and availability of energy. Don't worry I'm sure our government will find someway to tax us for our energy use, at least it'll mean cleaner air, water, and food for everyone.

Lets give this a chance. Other than fire, I know of no energy source that was an off the shelf success. after all this guy is at least trying to solve some of our energy issues. Maybe our gov could take a lesson from him and others like him. I say GREAT!!! and keep the research going. Its nice to see people looking for newer and better things.

i understand what you're saying but the only problem with an energy source that sustains itself through a perpetual loop is, you can't sap energy from it without breaking the loop. This thing would have to sustain itself and give off excess energy to be harvestable. In other words it would have to be a loop with a tail(example: a star; yes stars are loops with tails they reform after they die and they give off excess energy for those who thought stars just up and disappeared one day when they die) However i do agree with Mike, input of energy is not an issue.

Kanzius admits that this process could not be considered an energy source, as more energy is used to produce the RF signal than can be obtained from the burning gas (that would violate the laws of thermodynamics), and stated in July 2007 that he never claimed his discovery would replace oil, asserting only that his discovery was "thought provoking."

Ogden, Shannon (2007-07-05). Salt Water Fuel. First Coast News

Mind provoking indeed. It is everything that Kanzius claims it to be. And it has potential as something. An engineer would probably be the most qualified to say how this can be used. But there are still plenty of people who claim this is a new potential source of energy, which is what so many other people are laughing about in this case here.

I saw him demonstrate how the radio wave process can potentially kill cancer cells. I think THAT'S rather exciting. Also, as far as fuel goes, how many things did Edicon try as filiments before he cracked the light bulb thing. At least there is a starting point with this. I'm sure the govt will find some way to squash this since it's anti-oil and the cancer aspect is anti-pharmicutial company

Energy is everywhere and in everything, it can never be created or destroyed it can only be transformed. Also E=MC2 so for every mass ( water ) Energy is porportional to it's mass. I know that energy will be transformed (not lost)in this process but the fact still remains. YOU CAN HARVEST WATER FOR FREE AND SPLIT IT FOR FREE (solar panels) AND RUN YOUR CAR WITH WARTER CHEAPER THAN GAS.

I also want to metion that even if you create the least efficent Fuell Cell of all time this way ( Rain & Solar Panels)
YOU STILL NET FREE GAS!!!!! So unless you like handing over you pay at the pump ( I think it's close to $4:00 per gallon now ) I would suggest researching Stanley Meyers patents also vist You Tube there are plenty of people teaching other how to build there own fuel cell ( I'm one who will show you how.. It's so easy )

Again, do not worry about all the people who say you lose enery by doing this ( actually they are right in a sence ) the fact still remains rain is free and so is sun shine so let's say you lose 98% of all the energy that adds up to $0.... Sounds good to me!
Also in reguards to the running out of water.. this will not happen as a result of this process the Hydrogen & Oxygen re form back to water when combusted.
In reguards to the electric car being so much more efficent than the Hydrogen Fuell Cell in an ICE. While this is true, my car happens to have an ICE and I'm no planing on buying another car ( can't afford it with these gas prices hah! )Besides to convert a gas burner to a gas burner is not that expencive.

Whatever the outcome of this discovery is, we must not let the oil companies buy the patent and shelf it. The public should buy the patent and fund the research!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree it takes more energy to split water then comes out do to inefficiencies. So electrolysis or Radio Wave splitting doesn't matter. Yeah! We can create hydrogen.

We're not going to burn it. That would just be more inefficiencies to heat. So we're all talking fuels cells.

The thing is cars, trucks, planes, etc.. are mobile. So the real question is are hydrogen fuel cells better then the lithium batteries or other batter technology in terms of energy density/ ease of handling. A fuel cell is a form of a battery. The cell the hydrogen store the energy. The question is what holds more energy in the same amount of space/weight, a fuel cell and its hydrogen payload restraining tanks, or the batteries. What is easier for the consumer to deal with. We want to go as far as we can on single "charge" and we don't want a massive infrastructure change. Personally I wouldn't mind just paying 1 corporation for all my energy.

The reason we use oil instead of coal is its more dense and easier to handle. Same will apply when it comes to fuel cell or batteries.

Question, under normal circumstances breaking the bonds of water takes more energy and that produced from burning Hydrogen, but does that take into account the effect the radio waves have to weakening the bonds in the water molecule?

Here's an analogy I'm thinking of. If you take a piece of wood and try to break it in half with ur hands, the amount of energy you put into it depends on the orientation of the fibres. If the fibres are lined up colinear with your "chopping" action, then it's much easier to break than had the fibres been orthogonal to the line of action.

Just thinking if we have something similar going on here, maybe at a particular frequency the bonds start to resonate and destabilize, lowering the barrier of energy needed to break the bonds. In chemistry we all know that the struction and orientation of bonds plays a role in the barrier of breaking the bonds, so isn't it possible that we could get positive energy production from this if the radio waves have a similar effect (lowering the energy barrier to break the bonds)?

When I say net positive energy, I'm not saying create energy out of no where, I'm just saying if the bonds can be affected in such a way that the energy barrier to break the bond lowers to the point that energy released is greated than energy from the radio waves.

burning hydrogen (approx 2.5X the combustion and efficiency of gasoline) mean that as long as you are getting 40% efficiency increase from the hydrogen generation would it not make the car's fuel system function more economical (at least from a scientific standpoint) given that i know there are things on an automobile that you must take into consideration, (adjustments to the O2 sensors circuit) but given what has been made possible by this discovery, is it not feesable at all? sorry if i'm offending anybody who is more knowledgeable than i am by asking these questions. you just honestly never know what is possible anymore.

Peace!

You people are missing the point entirely. The device is meant to kill cancer/tummors, not burn salt water. That was just an interesting side effect.

I think it is so funny how people are so closed minded or mis the forest for the trees.

I am a lower middle class United States Citizen.
I am interested in affecting my bottom line right now and will worry about preserving mother nature when i am not so concerned about our economy collapsing (bread lines and walking = real fuel efficiency).
Addressing battery technology:
How much is it going to cost to convert (insert your car here) my car to a battery array and a GE Electric Motor? Duh! and where do i recycle my batteries, battery management system, etc.

Great, so it isn't very efficient, what is important is if the RF or some other unrecognized effect allows me to generate hydrogen ON DEMAND from a tank of water where my gas use to be stored, do i care that all of the energy from the second alternator that i had to add to keep it all going lowers the fuel efficiency to 3MPG, we are talking about water here, easy to refill anywhere, no infastructure changes required and safe to have in the ol' fuel tank. No storing of hydrogen, just inject it like a common injector works and fracture it in the cylinder.

No scientific testing program slated for a 10 year study, no regulation on who will be licenced to produce it, just a fairly cheap conversion $2000 to $4000 dollars and a healthy tax break for those who choose to and viola.

Lastly, i am pretty sure that people killed other people about the blasphemy of the world being round or that time is an absolute, or dark energy. Don't real scientists, be they chemists, bioligists (sp), physicists, have to keep an open mind to the fact that some day some one may come along and be able to prove thru "science" that 1 1=3 or the laws of thermodynamics as well as all laws may be bent or broken given certain circumstances that we do not now grasp, after all most science is observed. maybe we just can't observe these things yet.

All things are possible thru Christ who strengthens me...

how about $100 to $1000

Geez Im tired of these twits that think nature adheres to nice little laws that are fixed and immutable. The laws of thermodynamics only apply under very controlled idealised constraints. in reality (luckily) nature is unconstrained or at most self constrained ..read some papers on "re-gauging"...a tech term for "breaking" the laws of thermo...you dont need to break any laws.,..just understand the conditions for which the laws apply...and then youll know how to rid yourself of the constraints...meanwhile as you all waste time saying "things" cant be done...b/c the laws you so poorly understand say so...others do them....

. . .has anyone ask which radio frequency was used to produce this reaction? In order to gain recognition, the experiment needs to be duplicable

We have burdened one fuel source. Petroleum is waxing in existence at an alarming rate. All that is left would be wasted on transportation. We need to stop using oil for transportation today and dedicate the balance to other needed goods.

This is NOT a statement of faith... but everything that the Bible states in the book of Revelation is soon to happen if we don't find alternatives... notice the plural used here.

The ill-fate of dependence on a single resource like gas should have taught us all a lesson.

So instead of wasting time arguing as though we are all in a "Scientific-big-wang" contest... look under every rock, in every dark corner, and to the ends of this earth for a solution by tomorrow night... because when gas and petroleum becomes any more scarce... you will see ugliness in the human race unlike your wildest dreams.

There are no more boundaries indicating race, creed, or color regarding this issue. It is serious. It touches every man, woman and child alive... and the grim nature of this subject should shake us all to our core.

Now debate as the group that desperately needs a solution, whether you know it now, or just five years shy of knowing what I mean... all to damn well.

A very quick google shows there are a number of 14 megahertz radio stations in Europe and Russia.
It would seem likely there is at least one in North America.
So in fact all you have to do is tune in to a 14 megahertz radio station and if you have to intensify the audio signal it is no big deal.
So, yes we can burn saline water cheaply if not free.
The question is why are you so stuck on convential
learning?
For sure some caveman said you cant make a stick fly through the air with another stick. It's impossible.
But somebody invented the bow and arrow. And so we always have debunkers who look to the negative for answers. If you tried to look to the positive and see why new things could work you would be a happier person.
I can prove to you that Henry Ford sold out to Rockefeller and originally planned to burn hydrogen in his Model A's.
And it is well known that many carbourater patents that would have given us significant increases in gas milage were bought up by oil interests and never put in cars.
Big oil knows it's days are numbered. Why? Because more and more average people are seeing their ideas can work.

I firmly believe this is a gift to mankind...not everything can be explained by our limited knowledge of the world and the universe we live in..science though growing in depth of knowledge has only gained but a grain of salt to the content of the world..man has been given a gift to not use this gift would be a terrible act.

Wow, the comments I am reading here, on balance, astound me. Yes, this is a byproduct of medical study, but I fail to understand why the discovery should be less important because of that fact. Yes, it takes electricity to produce this reaction. But why must we assume that the electricity is generated from petrochemicals? That is the same disingenuous argument made against ethanol (that several gallons of gasoline must be burned to produce a gallon of ethanol when, in fact, the ENERGY of several gallons of gasoline must be used to produce a gallon of ethanol--whether actual gasoline is used is up to the producer--much of the inpuit energy is solar; the argument also ignores the renewable nature of ethanol). Hydrogen, like gasoline, is simply a portable source of energy. However, unlike gasoline and oil, we have a nearly limitless supply of hydrogen. Also, unlike gasoline, it is safe for the environment both in its production and combustion. Where batteries fail because they are too heavy, do not hold enough of a charge, or take too long to recharge, liquid and gaseous energy stores hold great promise. Especially if those stores are safe for the environment. The goals of portable energy production should be to produce renewable, safe, clean, portable, rechargeable fuel in an environmentally safe way that, when consumed, does not harm the environment. Our planet is three fourths covered by salt water. The only more ubiquitous potential sources of energy we have are sun and wind, and neither had proved reliable, cheap, or productive enough to replace our current energy infrastructure. What if our oceans are giant reservoirs of clean energy? Imagine how different a classroom globe looks in that light. That this discovery (which has been replicated by independent scientists) should be greeted with such fear, consternation, hostility and the like reminds me of the worst of our mythological, superstitious past.

true, the most important thing here is the concept. Not necessarily the energy in or out. The most glaring consequence of this article (that i think many people take for granted) is the slew of comments (well evaluated or not) which I think is very positive and generally from at the very least, well informed individuals. Keep the comments coming. Its informative ;D

Using radio frequencies is one thing, but what about connecting the radio frequency generator toward a container that holds the saltwater, where the container bounces the radio frequencies internally, and increase the volume of the saltwater to be burned?

What about connecting the radio frequency generator (where it amplifiesto the container that holds the saltwater, and construct the container so that it traps the radio frequencies?

Jeez….Education system fails again. If your going to be pig headed then stop posting and lock yourself in a room or something.
As of right now the creation storage and application of this process is crap. WITH THE INFORMATION GIVEN. Unless you guys have done this in your garage and you can give us exact numbers stop making assumptions and telling people to abandon all hope.
If this turns out to be some miracle energy source ok rock on but I doubt humanity would be that lucky hehe.
But firstly stop thinking of it as only a power source. There is a chance we can make this into desalination/power plants. Have you all forgotten the ever growing problem of fresh water. Before the bashing begins we already have reports of aquifers filling up with salt water because Mankind isn’t very good at thinking 10 years ahead. Fresh water is a problem all over the world and if we can somehow make this desalination process considerably efficient we can also help with the food shortage by creating more farm friendly land in the harshest areas of the world. Getting fresh water to certain regions, especially underdeveloped ones, would be a lot cheaper….hopefully.
Desert type coastal regions would benefit greatly with this technology. Ok it takes more power then it gives off but hell it pays for itself when your getting fresh water maybe? We can make solar energy plants in those flat areas to power these things or wind turbines. All we have is speculation and hope.
Furthermore this is relatively CLEAN compared what we are doing now. Waste products can be used for other applications other than energy. By all means I don’t think we should just start making hundreds of facilities like this, if we can ever get the technology for this to be beneficial. But it does wean us off oil making oil companies sweat.
Frankly to hell with efficiency its all about diversity. We live in a capitalistic country run by supply and demand. We diminish the demand of oil and venture to other fields. Instead of telling people to go pick up chemistry book how about you grab yourself an economics one? This statement is made generally and not to anyone in particular.
So I’ll wrap up my OPINION by saying I HOPE this turns out to be affective. If not for energy but for a variety of applications 2 3 or however many birds with one stone. Stop looking for something on par with oil something which we wasted and have yet been able to tap to its true potential. We, as a species, need to go green weather you like it or not and this method is as green as you can get. Use the sun, do what you got to do, turn off the power. Get over it, we are entering a new age until something better comes along.
I would love to hear your comments and critiques of my opinion because, unlike most people, I can learn and grow from them. Thanks ahead of time and thanks for everyones input its been highly informative.

This discovery could be the beginning of a new energy, if we were to refined it. Who know were it will take man kind. Cleaner energy, better living, independece = more wealth. Its all good.

Hello to everybody. I am looking for someone to help me convert my car to run on H2O. I live on th East Coast, about 30 miles south of Boston. If there anyone out there can help me , I would be greatful for the help. Sincerely Victor Ziembowski

Okay, Don't call me a free energy freak, but you're hardly being analytical.. A fuel transforms it's inherent molecular energy to another form, so, it isn't difficult to believe that you can use saltwater as a fuel and get some energy out. It is the method of conversion is what counts! You need to be able to put less energy in than what the fuel will produce in order to utilize the process into something useful.

You're comparing apples and oranges.. When you are giving the proof of conversation of energy from physics, you aren't considering the internal energy of the salt water. You're only considering what energy is used to convert the salt water and the flame.

I agree that it is useless stuff though.

I'm sure there's a way to convert Saltwater into an energy source. I mean come on..40 years ago we didnt know what a computer was. Now we have something that can fit in the palm of your hand...

Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

Wow, there would be enough salt to last forever!!!