NationStates Jolt Archive

http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570
STOLEN!
ERIE, Pa. - An Erie cancer researcher has found a way to burn salt water, a novel invention that is being touted by one chemist as the "most remarkable" water science discovery in a century.

John Kanzius happened upon the discovery accidentally when he tried to desalinate seawater with a radio-frequency generator he developed to treat cancer. He discovered that as long as the salt water was exposed to the radio frequencies, it would burn.

The discovery has scientists excited by the prospect of using salt water, the most abundant resource on earth, as a fuel.

Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, has held demonstrations at his State College lab to confirm his own observations.

The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen, Roy said. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies, he said.

The discovery is "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years," Roy said.

"This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Roy said. "Seeing it burn gives me the chills."

Roy will meet this week with officials from the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense to try to obtain research funding.

The scientists want to find out whether the energy output from the burning hydrogen — which reached a heat of more than 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit — would be enough to power a car or other heavy machinery.

"We will get our ideas together and check this out and see where it leads," Roy said. "The potential is huge."

That's pretty much the most awesome thing I've seen all week.

THE OP

http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570

ERIE, Pa. - An Erie cancer researcher has found a way to burn salt water, a novel invention that is being touted by one chemist as the "most remarkable" water science discovery in a century.

John Kanzius happened upon the discovery accidentally when he tried to desalinate seawater with a radio-frequency generator he developed to treat cancer. He discovered that as long as the salt water was exposed to the radio frequencies, it would burn.

The discovery has scientists excited by the prospect of using salt water, the most abundant resource on earth, as a fuel.

Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, has held demonstrations at his State College lab to confirm his own observations.

The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen, Roy said. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies, he said.

The discovery is "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years," Roy said.

"This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Roy said. "Seeing it burn gives me the chills."

Roy will meet this week with officials from the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense to try to obtain research funding.

The scientists want to find out whether the energy output from the burning hydrogen — which reached a heat of more than 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit — would be enough to power a car or other heavy machinery.

"We will get our ideas together and check this out and see where it leads," Roy said. "The potential is huge."

Imagine, people being able to fill up their cars at the beach...

I suppose it depends how efficient it is at giving out energy. Sea water is rather more important to the world than the fuels we currently use, we couldn't have a full switch over if we're using up half the ocean in a decade.

I thought only my wife could do that. :D

The only thing that worries me is corrosion. If you didn't know already, salt water corrodes metals fairly quick, and even more so when there is electricity running through it.

http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570

Imagine, people being able to fill up their cars at the beach...

This isn't the only big innovation in 'water' technology, recently... I seem to recall something about 'HHO' generators with some pretty extraordinary properties, just a while back.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of this... or if this technology just 'disappears'.

It takes more energy to break down the water than the burning hydrogen produces. Net loss of energy. How can this be useful?

It takes more energy to break down the water than the burning hydrogen produces. Net loss of energy. How can this be useful?

I must have missed something. Where did it say this?

It takes more energy to break down the water than the burning hydrogen produces. Net loss of energy. How can this be useful?Usually... but a certain percentage of water disassociates to form +H ions and -OH ions. In salt water this percentage rises. I presume that that the radio frequencies help this disassociation or prevent 'reassociation', thus allowing hydrogen gas to form with a lower energy input.

They found a way to collect and burn hydrogen using salt water and radio waves?
Dear diary, jack pot.

I must have missed something. Where did it say this?Basic chemistry - conservation of energy. Burning O2 and H2 relreases energy, therefore the reverse (water -> hygrogen and oxygen) requires an input of energy.

Basic chemistry - conservation of energy. Burning O2 and H2 relreases energy, therefore the reverse (water -> hygrogen and oxygen) requires an input of energy.

I understand that it requires an input of energy. I was asking where it said in the article that this particular process requires more than is released?

I'm not saying it doesn't or that you don't have more information that what the article states.

I suppose it depends how efficient it is at giving out energy. Sea water is rather more important to the world than the fuels we currently use, we couldn't have a full switch over if we're using up half the ocean in a decade.

Well, oxygen and hydrogen readily combine with great frequency. My guess is that the cycle will continue as it always has. Unless you think there will never be rain again.

I understand that it requires an input of energy. I was asking where it said in the article that this particular process requires more than is released?

I'm not saying it doesn't or that you don't have more information that what the article states.

It doesn't say it in the article, but it's still basic chemistry. If you are converting water into hydrogen and oxygen then recombining them into water, there is no energy gain. The very best you could theoretically achieve is to break even, and only if your process was 100% efficient.

This process of cracking water with radio waves might be useful for producing hydrogen and oxygen for other uses, but not for energy generation. At least not until nuclear fusion can be made workable.

Hmm, I think it would increase the amount of rain since then we'll be putting quite a lot of water vapor in the air :(

Not to mention it will get colder since we're not producing as much CO2 as we used to so all the plants, algae etc. that have grown now will suck out the rest of the CO2.

Conclusion: Yay, finally I can make snow dolls again here :D

Hmm, I think it would increase the amount of rain since then we'll be putting quite a lot of water vapor in the air :(

Not to mention it will get colder since we're not producing as much CO2 as we used to so all the plants, algae etc. that have grown now will suck out the rest of the CO2.

Conclusion: Yay, finally I can make snow dolls again here :D

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

I understand that it requires an input of energy. I was asking where it said in the article that this particular process requires more than is released?

I'm not saying it doesn't or that you don't have more information that what the article states.Ah, I see. You're right it doesn't say anywhere in the article about how much energy is used.

I also gave Gartref a reply as to why you might be able to get energy out of this process.

I still have reservations as to whether this could work on a large scale as I guess it will be removing water from the salt water, making it more concentrated - meaning carbonate deposits may form and stop the engine from working.

And if this process ever gets refined and perfected, I can't wait to see a company start up with the name Fire Water.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

Everything is a greenhouse gas, water vapor happens to be self regulating.

Know what would happen if we doubled the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere ???

Twice as much rain, that's what.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

Yes I know, but have you heard of rain? :)

Maybe someone will build a mega scale generator one day and threaten the world with burning seas. :o

Pretty cool, even though it sounds like b-movie science.

Maybe someone will build a mega scale generator one day and threaten the world with burning seas. :o

For one billion, million, gajillion, fafillion... shababalu... million...yen

It doesn't say it in the article, but it's still basic chemistry. If you are converting water into hydrogen and oxygen then recombining them into water, there is no energy gain. The very best you could theoretically achieve is to break even, and only if your process was 100% efficient.
That is true of all energy generating equipment. What is happening is that the excitement of the water by the electromagnetic radiation allows the hydrogen to separate when it is normally not possible, and so you can burn the hydrogen, which since the electronegativity of oxygen is so high means that you don't need too high of a reaction energy to get the reaction started.

Besides, if we could bathe our enemies' oceans with this radio wave technology and set their oceans on fire, why on earth would you need something else?

It takes more energy to break down the water than the burning hydrogen produces. Net loss of energy. How can this be useful?

That's exactly what gasoline is...and it's extremely useful. It requires about 20% more energy to make than it provides. However, what matters isn't the energy balance, what matters is the usefulness of the energy in a given state. I mean, you could have the world's most abundant and efficient source of energy, but if it is unusable, it's as useless as not having anything.

So, if it is most economical and practical to use this as fuel, it will be used no matter the energy balance.

The Greeks called, they want their fire back.

For one billion, million, gajillion, fafillion... shababalu... million...yen

Translation: 36 Dollars. :p

I suppose it depends how efficient it is at giving out energy. Sea water is rather more important to the world than the fuels we currently use, we couldn't have a full switch over if we're using up half the ocean in a decade.

You are just going to piss away a solution for the rising sea levels from polar ice melting? C'mon now this will save us trillions in moving cities to higher grounds. :rolleyes:

The Greeks called, they want their fire back.

I was wondering if they may have hit on the answer to Greek Fire. However one would have to wonder how the Greeks would be able to use radio frequencies.

http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570
STOLEN!


That's pretty much the most awesome thing I've seen all week.

That is pretty sweet.
Excepting, of course, that *anything* burns if it's hot enough.
:p
*someone's gonna say "space". i just know it*

The Greeks called, they want their fire back.

Here you go, with interest.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/USS_Prometheus_-_StarTrekVoyagerS04E14.jpg

Besides, if we could bathe our enemies' oceans with this radio wave technology and set their oceans on fire, why on earth would you need something else?


Hmmm, now we can beat those pesky Russians at developing the worlds largest bomb! I suggest you email the Pentagon right away with this idea.

Hmmm, now we can beat those pesky Russians at developing the worlds largest bomb! I suggest you email the Pentagon right away with this idea.

Don't say anything faux-patriotic like "I'm an American" in the script - you want to sound respectable and believable. *nods*

*someone's gonna say "space". i just know it*


"space."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZa7px6NtFY

Corrected for funnier:

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

Don't say anything faux-patriotic like "I'm an American" in the script - you want to sound respectable and believable. *nods*

I think any respectable email needs "I'm an American" in the header. In fact I would suggest it for all emails. Even if you are not an American. ;)

I think any respectable email needs "I'm an American" in the header. In fact I would suggest it for all emails. Even if you are not an American. ;)

Didn't they just pass something along those lines?

Didn't they just pass something along those lines?

I think it was buried on page 1,776 of the Patriot Act.

"space."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZa7px6NtFY

Corrected for funnier:

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

You win.
Especially for Dilbert.

I think it was buried on page 1,776 of the Patriot Act.

:D

You win.
Especially for Dilbert.

...

There's a Dilbert cartoon?! What the hell?

Anyway, I'm vaguely impressed by this. We'll see if it can actually be utilized.

Well, it's certainly one way to combat the threat of rising sea levels.

why would anyone believe this crap.... ever tried setting salt water on fire with your radio? besides radio waves are transmitted all across the world.... why don't we have burning seas now?

and that HHO generator was scientific nonsense... ever heard of H2O with an electrode in it? it produces hydrogen which burns

That's exactly what gasoline is...and it's extremely useful. It requires about 20% more energy to make than it provides. However, what matters isn't the energy balance, what matters is the usefulness of the energy in a given state. I mean, you could have the world's most abundant and efficient source of energy, but if it is unusable, it's as useless as not having anything.

So, if it is most economical and practical to use this as fuel, it will be used no matter the energy balance.

No because with gasoline you're not trying to recombine it into what you started with. You're progressively breaking up the oil into simpler components.

Yes, theoretically you can use a fuel with a terrible energy balance, but in order to do that you need to generate massive amounts of energy cheaply. How are you going to generate that energy?

Wikipedia has a useful diagram of the terrible efficiency of hydrogen as a fuel. - here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Distribution).

Hydrogen isn't going to be used as a fuel on a large scale. There are too many problems with it.
- Very low density by volume, which means either huge storage requirement, or expensive and dangerous high-pressure storage.
- No large scale infrastructure exists for delivery of hydrogen. Costs of construction would be vast.
- Hydrogen leaks through any container.
- Hydrogen reacts with steal, causing it to become brittle and crack.
- Production of hydrogen is much more energy intensive than fossil fuels or electricity.

The question is: Does it give out more energy than you put in?

Hydrogen isn't going to be used as a fuel on a large scale. There are too many problems with it.
- Very low density by volume, which means either huge storage requirement, or expensive and dangerous high-pressure storage.
- No large scale infrastructure exists for delivery of hydrogen. Costs of construction would be vast.
- Hydrogen leaks through any container.
- Hydrogen reacts with steal, causing it to become brittle and crack.
- Production of hydrogen is much more energy intensive than fossil fuels or electricity.

It's essentially a battery and actually: Here's a good means of storage that doesn't leak, doesn't react and doesn't require expensive, dangerous high-pressure storage or huge storage requirements. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050907102549.htm)

I apologise that the article does not use spaces often enough.

And no large scale infrastructure exists for the delivery of most alternative fuels. Costs of construction will always be vast when changing the whole of society.

It's essentially a battery and actually: Here's a good means of storage that doesn't leak, doesn't react and doesn't require expensive, dangerous high-pressure storage or huge storage requirements. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050907102549.htm)

I apologise that the article does not use spaces often enough.

And no large scale infrastructure exists for the delivery of most alternative fuels. Costs of construction will always be vast when changing the whole of society.

Using ammonia to store hydrogen has been around for quite a while. The trouble is, ammonia is toxic and also form various hazardous compounds when mixed with other substances. You can't just go pumping it out of a car exhaust.


The infrastructure does exist for delivering electricity. The only problem is that electricity is not well suited to powering cars. It is well suited for mass transit though.
If investment is to be made, it would be better spent changing the transport infrastructure, rather than the energy infrastructure.

I wish we would figure out what we want water to do.

Burn or not burn, which is it?

We spent a ton of money making it so the Cuyahoga in Cleveland wouldn't burn, now we want to burn the water again.

If investment is to be made, it would be better spent changing the transport infrastructure, rather than the energy infrastructure.
US government spend money to help the general public? Ridiculous!

Using ammonia to store hydrogen has been around for quite a while. The trouble is, ammonia is toxic and also form various hazardous compounds when mixed with other substances. You can't just go pumping it out of a car exhaust.


The infrastructure does exist for delivering electricity. The only problem is that electricity is not well suited to powering cars. It is well suited for mass transit though.
If investment is to be made, it would be better spent changing the transport infrastructure, rather than the energy infrastructure.

They are using ammonia, but the only thing coming out of the car is nitrogen. The ammonia gets used up. It won't be pumping out of a car exhaust, it'll be going into the fuel tank. In a way, this is even better than using water as a storage for hydrogen, because instead of water vapour, you get an inert gas.

That's exactly what gasoline is...and it's extremely useful. It requires about 20% more energy to make than it provides. However, what matters isn't the energy balance, what matters is the usefulness of the energy in a given state. I mean, you could have the world's most abundant and efficient source of energy, but if it is unusable, it's as useless as not having anything.

So, if it is most economical and practical to use this as fuel, it will be used no matter the energy balance.

The initial energy input into gasoline doesn't require energy input from us. Your analogy only holds true if we had to create the crude oil from which the gasoline is refined in some production process, but that's not the case. Crude oil was created for us by nature. The fact is that the energy chain that leads to gasoline:

Production of crude oil ----> refining to gasoline ----> burning for mechanical motion is a net energy winner.

In this case, however, you are correct. The salt water in question is also a primary energy source that doesn't require the input of enery to create. The question here is whether the production of the radio waves and the spark necessary to make the resultant hydrogen burn is a net energy winner. Does the burning hydrogen give you more energy than is necessary to generate the radio waves and the spark? If it does not then it cannot be used as a fuel.

The thing that makes me despair most about hydrogen technology is that there'stoo much of it - how many options do we have for generation, production, storage and so forth? I'm just worried that everyone will be so caught up in a huge competition to get their product sold that no one will actually bother to get anything useful done :rolleyes: Sounds like the sort of thing we'd do huh?

In this case, however, you are correct. The salt water in question is also a primary energy source that doesn't require the input of enery to create. The question here is whether the production of the radio waves and the spark necessary to make the resultant hydrogen burn is a net energy winner. Does the burning hydrogen give you more energy than is necessary to generate the radio waves and the spark? If it does not then it cannot be used as a fuel.
Not that it invalidates your point but the radio waves are what ignites the hydrogen as well.

I think we may have found the secret of Greek fire

Not that it invalidates your point but the radio waves are what ignites the hydrogen as well.

Oh. Well that's nifty, then. I hope it works. I really hope it works "in the nick of time."

Using ammonia to store hydrogen has been around for quite a while. The trouble is, ammonia is toxic and also form various hazardous compounds when mixed with other substances. You can't just go pumping it out of a car exhaust.


The infrastructure does exist for delivering electricity. The only problem is that electricity is not well suited to powering cars. It is well suited for mass transit though.
If investment is to be made, it would be better spent changing the transport infrastructure, rather than the energy infrastructure.

Just imagine if this were actually done in rush hour traffic. Talk about road rage...

why would anyone believe this crap.... ever tried setting salt water on fire with your radio? besides radio waves are transmitted all across the world.... why don't we have burning seas now?

and that HHO generator was scientific nonsense... ever heard of H2O with an electrode in it? it produces hydrogen which burns

Ever hear of an ionospheric heater?

SURA ... EISCAT ... HAARP?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater

Quote:
"The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen, Roy said. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies, he said."

Uhoh...

He's implying that the water created from the hydrogen burning is contributing to the burning???
That's violating the conservation of energy law...

Radio waves breaking bonds?! That'll take some humongous amount of energy... about as much as burning the hydrogen gives... =/

Then again, maybe its has something to do with the salt. A conductor (salt water) and radio waves do funny things... it still shouldn't violate the conservation law though.