PDA

View Full Version : Most abundant substance soon to be fuel.



WUTWZAT
09-11-2007, 05:36 PM
It seems that scientists in PA while trying to push radiowave thru salt water caused it to catch fire. It seems at a certain frequency the radio waves cause the hydrogen to be released from salt water then catch fire at about 2300 degrees..... They are now seeing how this can be converted to work in automotive applications.
WOW, talk about looking for one thing and finding another, these guys stand to be Jed Clamped rich!! :D

WUTWZAT
09-11-2007, 05:39 PM
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."

RiverToysJas
09-11-2007, 05:42 PM
So you're saying a motivated mad scientist can set the world on fire??? :eek: ....OR ransom every sea faring nation for trillions!!! :eek:
This is bad.....very bad..... :rolleyes:
RTJas :D

Phat Matt
09-11-2007, 05:43 PM
Oil companies will pay him to stop research. :)

Phat Matt
09-11-2007, 05:53 PM
Here is the video story. I wonder why you wouldn't hear more about this? Seems like this would rank with finding out the world isn't flat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM&mode=related&search=

Ryphraph
09-11-2007, 06:02 PM
How much energy is required to generate the radiation? Remeber, there is no free energy.
Ryph

Phat Matt
09-11-2007, 06:04 PM
How much energy is required to generate the radiation? Remeber, there is no free energy.
Ryph
I am sure it takes more energy to get the reaction right now but it is still a break through.

whiteworks
09-11-2007, 07:27 PM
The bond enthalpy of NaCl (412.1 KJ/mol) is farely high, almost half of the strongest diatomic bond enthalpy CO (1076.5 KJ/mol). But at such a high temperature this wouldn't be a problem. If the Sodium was giving of energy, wouldn't you have chlorine gas released?:D

lakeluver
09-11-2007, 07:39 PM
But where will we boat when we burn up all that fuel???:idea:

Seadog
09-11-2007, 07:58 PM
This may have applications for electrical generation and lower cost hydrogen production, but I would doubt seeing motors burn seawater.

RiverToysJas
09-11-2007, 08:03 PM
This may have applications for electrical generation and lower cost hydrogen production, but I would doubt seeing motors burn seawater.
I agree, he's chasing the wrong application IMO.

SmokinLowriderSS
09-11-2007, 08:04 PM
How much energy is required to generate the radiation? Remeber, there is no free energy.
Ryph
There is the problem, Right now the energy required to break the molecular bonding is HUGE.
The energy required will always be huge, the cost right now is enourmous, far from worthwhile. 40 more years of research, and maybe it'll be of some use. :idea:

phebus
09-11-2007, 08:52 PM
Here is the video story. I wonder why you wouldn't hear more about this? Seems like this would rank with finding out the world isn't flat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM&mode=related&search=
Your fockin' kidding me, right? :D

Phat Matt
09-11-2007, 09:46 PM
Your fockin' kidding me, right? :D
If you were able to use salt water instead of fossil fuels...no.

HM
09-11-2007, 10:21 PM
Damn, I was hoping someone had figured out how to turn mexicans into fuel. I volunteer to start testing on SWB. :devil:

Infomaniac
09-12-2007, 05:55 AM
Damn, I was hoping someone had figured out how to turn mexicans into fuel. I volunteer to start testing on SWB. :devil:
OMG ROFLMAO :D
How much energy is required to generate the radiation? Remeber, there is no free energy.
Ryph
No one claims it is free. I'm pretty sure the second law of thermodynamics apply in every sitution. For now anyway.
Let me throw this out for discussion. How much energy do you think it took to get your tankfull of fuel?
The energy used to locate the oil, drill the oil, transport it how many times? during the process, refine it, pump it into your vehicle etc. I would guess that gas or diesel is horribly ineffecient to produce.
The main difference is the VOLUME of the production. Mass production is how it is possible to use it. Gas is produced on a gobal scale
So... Im still not convinced that producing hydrogen from water is much different than producing gasoline or diesel from crude.
You still have to produce them from a base material. They both need an outside source of energy to do the transformation or production. The crude is not supplying the energy to transform itself.
Does anyone actually know how much energy it takes to make the gas or diesel from crude? If you made two identical SMALL quantities of hydrogen and gasoline. Which one would require more energy to produuce? Regardless of where the energy to produce it comes from.

atomickitn
09-12-2007, 06:39 AM
OMG ROFLMAO :D
No one claims it is free. I'm pretty sure the second law of thermodynamics apply in every sitution. For now anyway.
Let me throw this out for discussion. How much energy do you think it took to get your tankfull of fuel?
The energy used to locate the oil, drill the oil, transport it how many times? during the process, refine it, pump it into your vehicle etc. I would guess that gas or diesel is horribly ineffecient to produce.
The main difference is the VOLUME of the production. Mass production is how it is possible to use it. Gas is produced on a gobal scale
So... Im still not convinced that producing hydrogen from water is much different than producing gasoline or diesel from crude.
You still have to produce them from a base material. They both need an outside source of energy to do the transformation or production. The crude is not supplying the energy to transform itself.
Does anyone actually know how much energy it takes to make the gas or diesel from crude? If you made two identical SMALL quantities of hydrogen and gasoline. Which one would require more energy to produuce? Regardless of where the energy to produce it comes from.
great point ..:idea:

Jyruiz
09-12-2007, 06:49 AM
Oil companies will pay him to stop research. :)
Yup, it will never happen.

Infomaniac
09-12-2007, 05:04 PM
Oh Yea
great point ..:idea:

WUTWZAT
09-12-2007, 06:17 PM
Yup, it will never happen.
ANd you'll never see battery powered cars on the freeway or hybrids. :D
Jason

Boatcop
09-12-2007, 06:54 PM
Here is the video story. I wonder why you wouldn't hear more about this? Seems like this would rank with finding out the world isn't flat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM&mode=related&search=
It ISN'T??? :eek:
Next your going to tell me there's no Santa Clause. :rolleyes:

MBlaster
09-12-2007, 07:08 PM
Oil companies will pay him to stop research. :)
Unfortunate but true.
After WW2 one of my moms cousins invented a carb that would give 30 more mpg with no decrease in performance. He was paid enough $ to go away. Never heard about his invention again.

Seadog
09-12-2007, 07:13 PM
There are a lot of questions to be answered. How much energy does the process take? Does it only work with sea water? What by-products are produced? If the process is viable, it may be that the use of solar, wind, or wave action can create enough power to extract the hydrogen. Its use next, is dependent on several things. Fuel cell are not there yet. Transportation and fuel movement of hydrogen is still a safety hazard. There is a possibility that the hydrogen could be used to produce electricity through conventional power plants.

malcolm
09-12-2007, 07:16 PM
Unfortunate but true.
After WW2 one of my moms cousins invented a carb that would give 30 more mpg with no decrease in performance. He was paid enough $ to go away. Never heard about his invention again.
I wonder how many other smart guys they've had to pay off since then? :D

Ryphraph
09-12-2007, 07:41 PM
OMG ROFLMAO :D
No one claims it is free. I'm pretty sure the second law of thermodynamics apply in every sitution. For now anyway.
Let me throw this out for discussion. How much energy do you think it took to get your tankfull of fuel?
The energy used to locate the oil, drill the oil, transport it how many times? during the process, refine it, pump it into your vehicle etc. I would guess that gas or diesel is horribly ineffecient to produce.
The main difference is the VOLUME of the production. Mass production is how it is possible to use it. Gas is produced on a gobal scale
So... Im still not convinced that producing hydrogen from water is much different than producing gasoline or diesel from crude.
You still have to produce them from a base material. They both need an outside source of energy to do the transformation or production. The crude is not supplying the energy to transform itself.
Does anyone actually know how much energy it takes to make the gas or diesel from crude? If you made two identical SMALL quantities of hydrogen and gasoline. Which one would require more energy to produuce? Regardless of where the energy to produce it comes from.
Obviously there is a cost associated with making oil into fuel and distributing it.
I don't know all of the specifics, but from what I remember hearing, gasoline remains one of the most efficient, transportable energy sources we have. I believe there is a lot of discussion about E85 being some savior but there is not enough acreage on the planet to replace what we use in oil based fuel. It is a sad day when we start putting food in our cars fuel tanks.
Gasoline has the economies of scale in its favor as well. the infrastructure and markets are well entrenched for its production and sale.
Ryph

spectras only
09-12-2007, 10:02 PM
I wonder how many other smart guys they've had to pay off since then? :D
Malcolm , my country men invented the carburator;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1nos_Csonka
.When Janos Csonka and his brother emigrated to the USA , they had designed many carburator models that were way more efficient than the most recent ones :idea: . These carbs were put on the back burner , long time ago .I have some drawings lost in my pile of papers , showing an extremely simple design . It could have been built as a single barrel or any number of barrels , atomizing fuel with better air/fuel ratio , compared to a conventional carb of today , but fuel was relatively cheap until the late 70's .

Boatlesss
09-12-2007, 10:16 PM
Is this the same technology as the HH0?
http://www.wimp.com/fuelwater/

Phat Matt
09-12-2007, 11:05 PM
Is this the same technology as the HH0?
http://www.wimp.com/fuelwater/
I don't think it's the same because the other guy is using radio waves to get it to burn. This guy converted an old car to run on water. He has probably been wacked by now. :D

Infomaniac
09-13-2007, 06:40 AM
I don't think it's the same because the other guy is using radio waves to get it to burn. This guy converted an old car to run on water. He has probably been wacked by now. :D
That guy has a Brown's gas welder or torch.
What you see from the RF generator video is Brown's gas. It is the hydrogen and the oxygen. He has to light it off the difference is using RF instead of electrodes (sp) to break up the water.
BTW SEADOG Hydrogen is safer to transport than gas. The hydrogen is asorbed into the media in the storage continers like acetelyne.

Seadog
09-13-2007, 06:58 AM
Info, it depends on the transporting medium. You can add it to adsorption tanks, but it requires energy to release it. It also has a lot of weight and volume, which makes it difficut to haul around. The most likely means is the use of compressed gas cylinders. They are still heavy, but have more volume of hydrogen per cubic foot of capacity. The big difficulty is charging the tanks. Like propane, it will require a special connector and recovery hose. I doubt the the feds will allow self service on such a system. I am surprise that the Democrats don't ban self service now.

Boatlesss
09-13-2007, 08:38 AM
I don't think it's the same because the other guy is using radio waves to get it to burn. This guy converted an old car to run on water. He has probably been wacked by now. :D
He probably isn't still alive.
There have been some interesting deaths associated with people who claim to make a water based fuel.
I never have seen this new torch technology.. ????? :idea: