New alternative energy source! WATER!

[chalupa]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RIRI600&show_article=1

ERIE, Pa. (AP) - 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.

Holy shit! I hope this works I hope this works I hope this works!

If it does, how long before Exxon crushes this guy?

Also, how long before we discover the pollutants it sets off?

Either way, this is kinda neat...basically, he has found a way to RELEASE MORE ENERGY THAN IS PUT IN. If my understanding of this (from the brief article) is correct, the main by-product of this will be water. Which will follow the natural cycle and end up...back..in...the...ocean....where it will mix with salts and form...SALT WATER AGAIN!

Woohoo!

This is too good to be true.

[rand0m]

Ok now minus the electricity required to power the radio-frequency generator from the electricity gained ... oh wait ... you're in negative?

[Fossil]

Wouldn't that eventually use up all the salt in the oceans? Granted that might take hundreds of years, but the effect would be pretty severe...no more fish.

[Sketcher]

Wouldn't that eventually use up all the salt in the oceans? Granted that might take hundreds of years, but the effect would be pretty severe...no more fish.

We probably would find another alternate fuel long before that happens. I mean, we haven't even been using gas in cars that long and we're already looking for alternates.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't there be negative effects in putting salt in gas tanks?

[chalupa]

Ok, first off -- the more energy in than out question:

If this part of the equation doesn't work, than, well, the idea doesn't work. They've known about electrolysis for many many many many many years, but that takes MORE energy than it gives. Why make even announce this if it is the same thing? I'm guessing they've discovered that under the right conditions, it may be possible to get more out than you have to put in. It just seems like it is possible.

Generating a radio frequency will take less energy than "electrifying" water in electrolysis. To me this seems like there is a magic combination of radio waves + dissociated ions + god-knows-what = elemental hydrogen, which will burn to form water.


Secondly -- as for the salt problem:

The elements that are removed from the water would form some kind of "salt" waste...effectively, since the water cycle is net 0, and you wouldn't be destroying or oxidizing or forming some other compound with the salt...they could both be dumped back into the ocean (the salt through a mechanical means, the water through the water cycle), where the salt would dissociate back into it's ionic form.

Thirdly -- as for putting this stuff in cars...

I don't think that would happen. This would be the driving force behind power plants, using the burning of hydrogen to turn turbines to supply electricity to the grid.

[rand0m]

Have you guys ever been educated?

[Burningnun]

Have you guys ever been educated?
No, for the sake of arguement, educate us.

[rand0m]

Water!

Wow

2 Hydrogens connected to a Oxygen.

When you burn Hydrogen it bonds with the Oxygen in the air and hence turns to water vapour.

This machine inefficiently breaks the Hydrogen - Oxygen bond ...

They then inefficiently burn the Hydrogen to form right back to the Oxygen.

So you start with water and end with water ... only you now loose energy via the radio emmiter and inefficient heat capture ...

[chalupa]

Water!

Wow

2 Hydrogens connected to a Oxygen.

When you burn Hydrogen it bonds with the Oxygen in the air and hence turns to water vapour.

This machine inefficiently breaks the Hydrogen - Oxygen bond ...

They then inefficiently burn the Hydrogen to form right back to the Oxygen.

So you start with water and end with water ... only you now loose energy via the radio emmiter and inefficient heat capture ...

Point of the article --> it may be possible that with the proper ionic concentrations, and the proper radio frequencies, that bond breaks more easily than it would normally, thereby releasing energy. The question it poses in my mind, my oh-so-random friend, is: does the energy acquired by the ionization action of salts in water actually give us the ability to split the hydrogen off and burn it for a net gain?

It is a question that seems plausible, and the Laws of Thermodynamics don't fully eliminate it without further study.

Why not see if it works? Or are we just a Grumpy Gus today? :)

[EvilShenanigans]

Water!

Wow

2 Hydrogens connected to a Oxygen.

When you burn Hydrogen it bonds with the Oxygen in the air and hence turns to water vapour.

This machine inefficiently breaks the Hydrogen - Oxygen bond ...

They then inefficiently burn the Hydrogen to form right back to the Oxygen.

So you start with water and end with water ... only you now loose energy via the radio emmiter and inefficient heat capture ...

I agree completely that the hydrogen cell system was retarded. But that is because they were using the reaction to to power the engine mechanically, but to power it electrically. So it defeated the whole point and just created an unnecessarily long way of electrically powering a car.

However, with this system, if I understand what they are saying correctly, the radio frequency BURNS the salt, which would create a reaction similar to the way modern engines work today. However, because salt is not NEARLY as explosive as gasoline, the effect would be decrease by a lot.

However you are getting a trade off. Salt water would be MUCH cheaper to use in replacement of gasoline, but it wouldnt be nearly as powerful. So chances are a mechanism that would be able to harness as much power as we need in things such as cars or generators, etc, is probably either much bigger, or would be much more expensive to make. But you're making a trade-off, once again, and we have to research and consider what the cheaper and better long term decision is.

But as to your point about this system being negatively efficient, this is different than the hydrogen cell. This system would output energy when you input salt, whereas the hydrogen cell output energy when input water and energy, which took just as much energy to split the water than you got, which like I said and agree with you, defeats the entire purpose. However, emmitting a radio frequency to burn a material is more efficient that splitting a molecule. The gasoline engine works the same way, where you input electricity and fuel, and get back energy. You could argue the same thing for that, but its all a matter of how much energy it takes to get the mechanism running versus how much it gives back.

So if you were going to argue that this system does not give you a positive energy output, I think I speak for everyone in asking you to provide the mathematical and chemical functions and equations that prove that, or even the testing that proves it.

Otherwise, its worth putting a little funding in to research in case their hopes turn out to be correct and we get a revolutionary new system.

We probably would find another alternate fuel long before that happens. I mean, we haven't even been using gas in cars that long and we're already looking for alternates.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't there be negative effects in putting salt in gas tanks?

lol, true...thats why we would have to create a different type of engine that could efficiently take advantage of the salt water. It would, unfortunately, if this system becomes widespread and successful, eventually nullify the gasoline engines. But that really is our goal in the long-term anyway.

[chalupa]

....whole buncha stuff....

No, I thinks you got it wrong. Read my post above yours.

My take on this is that while the radio frequency is applied to the salt water, the hydrogen atoms pop out of the solution. Then, the hydrogen and oxygen can be ignited.

It makes sense that you could build massive power plants right along the coast, and basically just dump the salty brine left over somewheres out in the water. You would most certainly increase the salt content of the local water, but, because of the water cycle (ie, water vapor will return to the oceans as rain) you would have no waste. Unless, of course, you are physically altering the salts somehow to generate this reaction. Then, you would have to dispose of the waste, but I have a feeling that the amount of salts in the oceans waters, as well as those that are generated by run-off from land, would last this cycle for a long time.

I don't think these people are thinking about running vehicles on this. I think they're betting they could build efficient, large scale power facilities that zap the hydrogen out of the saltwater, releasing a gas that has more energy than it took to release.

It is elegant, it is simple, but the question is: is the energy gained by the dissociation of salt into water greater than that which it would take to break it up?

I'm referring to random's post here...I don't know enough about the actual Thermodynamics of the situation, but it seems like it could be possible. Likely? I don't know. Possible? Sure.

[Papero]

I like my fossil fuels, good to know my car is powered by triceratops, just filled up 13 triceratops.

[chalupa]

I just reread the article...and I see what I did. When I read that, I imagined that the hydrogen would be burned to generate electricity. Their end statement is retarded...

Still though, read the above post and think about power plants.

[EvilShenanigans]

No, I thinks you got it wrong. Read my post above yours.

My take on this is that while the radio frequency is applied to the salt water, the hydrogen atoms pop out of the solution. Then, the hydrogen and oxygen can be ignited.

It makes sense that you could build massive power plants right along the coast, and basically just dump the salty brine left over somewheres out in the water. You would most certainly increase the salt content of the local water, but, because of the water cycle (ie, water vapor will return to the oceans as rain) you would have no waste. Unless, of course, you are physically altering the salts somehow to generate this reaction. Then, you would have to dispose of the waste, but I have a feeling that the amount of salts in the oceans waters, as well as those that are generated by run-off from land, would last this cycle for a long time.

I don't think these people are thinking about running vehicles on this. I think they're betting they could build efficient, large scale power facilities that zap the hydrogen out of the saltwater, releasing a gas that has more energy than it took to release.

It is elegant, it is simple, but the question is: is the energy gained by the dissociation of salt into water greater than that which it would take to break it up?

I'm referring to random's post here...I don't know enough about the actual Thermodynamics of the situation, but it seems like it could be possible. Likely? I don't know. Possible? Sure.

Exactly. I guess I just didnt really understand the concept of what they were burning or exactly what effect the radio frequency was doing to the salt water, but thanks for clearing it up.

I do know that the hydrogen cell has pretty much been debunked as inefficiently applying just electricity to split it, but if the radio frequency takes this shortcut, it could easily prove more efficient, and definitely worth looking into a little bit before completely throwing it off as stupid. As peak oil passes by, this is hardly the time to throw away any possible alternative before even taking a closer look at it.(not geared towards you, more towards guys like random that are disregarding the entire possibility.)

[scavenger]

Using electrolysis to split water, then allowing it to recombine loses 50% of the energy you put in, if I recall. Maybe this radio thing loses only 25% or something. Is that it?

[PitwrkzZ1]

But what powers the radio frequency generator?

[chalupa]

But what powers the radio frequency generator?

Hopefully the hydrogen it separates from the saltwater, at a net energy gain.

You never know...it might work.

[_Joe]

Water!

Wow

2 Hydrogens connected to a Oxygen.

When you burn Hydrogen it bonds with the Oxygen in the air and hence turns to water vapour.

This machine inefficiently breaks the Hydrogen - Oxygen bond ...

They then inefficiently burn the Hydrogen to form right back to the Oxygen.

So you start with water and end with water ... only you now loose energy via the radio emmiter and inefficient heat capture ...
Well, waves generally behave differently than regular matter. They aren't even really matter. So, I can see how it would be possible that this may, in some round-about way, take less energy to start than comes out.

Or, it could also be like that guy who claimed to have a brand new technology, but was just using old electrolysis.

[VoltiSubito]

One of these articles comes out every couple months with the next great solution for alternative energy... and every time a bunch of people get hyped up about it... including myself. Remember corn based ethanol?

The answer I like the best so far is creating hydrogen from an aluminum / gallium alloy:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070827174310.htm

That article is relatively recent, but I have seen the idea floating around for the last six months or so.

A note about energy... Energy out will always be less than energy in... thats just the way things are... thats why we are perpetually chasing the renewable cheap energy in...

[Slick37c]

Here's a video about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM

Armchair scientists are fucking retarded. Sorry just needed to say it.

[Meio]

A note about energy... Energy out will always be less than energy in... thats just the way things are... thats why we are perpetually chasing the renewable cheap energy in...

We know about the conservation of energy. We have a cheap source of energy at the minute, Nuclear Fission.

[VoltiSubito]

We know about the conservation of energy. We have a cheap source of energy at the minute, Nuclear Fission.

Perhaps YOU know about it, but some of the people on page one didn't really seem to get it... so I thought I'd throw out the simple explanation.

Nuclear fission is cheap. So whats wrong with trying to find a cheaper source of portable fuel? Like an easy way to produce hydrogren or HHO that isn't quite as dangerous?

[rand0m]

Nuclear fission is cheap. So whats wrong with trying to find a cheaper source of portable fuel? Like an easy way to produce hydrogren or HHO that isn't quite as dangerous?

We don't need to find a new source of fuel, we know everything we need already ...

[chalupa]

We don't need to find a new source of fuel, we know everything we need already ...

Are you saying fission is the answer?