Burning the Worlds Oceans!

[420]

Who needs nuclear holocausts and global warming when we can just set the ocean ablaze!

Radio Frequencies Help Burn Salt Water

By David Templeton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Tue, 11 Sep 2007, 11:41AM
Email this Page IM this Story Bookmark this Story Add to your Del.icio.us account Digg this Story

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 â?? which reached a heat of more than 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit â?? 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."

___

Information from: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Humans are wacky.

-420

[Soul Sojourner]

Awesome.

Now, as long as they concentrate on the NEGATIVE effects this may have, if any. The purpose would be to find out if there are any... and what they are... how bad they are. For instance... if this were to somehow eliminate the water... you know, you can heat water until it evaporates... but it's not gone, you can cool it enough until it freezes... but it's not gone... but if you burn it is something they need to find out.

I see the possibility, because earth supposedly started without water, it was lava and magma and such and such that cooled and created water... as long as we're not somehow reversing that... and the water still recycles... all is well.

[420]

Since it only works on salt water I suspect that after the "fuel" burns out you are left with pure water. Probably doubles as a cooling agent if you can keep it under pressure so it doesn't evaporate when it heats up. So the "spent" fuel cells would just be full of pure water and you'd exchange it for a new salty cell.

-420

[Mercy]

Sounds pretty neat.

[Soul Sojourner]

Thing is, what is the purpose of the salt? The reaction to the radio frequency? But if that's the case, then that's just releasing the hydrogen to be burned... so you're actually just using hydrogen as fuel... technically. Thing is... there isn't any hydrogen in salt... so the hydrogen is straight from the water.... However, if you take away 2 hydrogen from a water molecule, you wouldn't be left with water... you'd be left with O, not H2O... if you burned all the hydrogen out of the salt water, all you'd have is oxygen, sodium, and chlorine. And I don't see how that would reform as water.

[cuchulann]

Thing is, what is the purpose of the salt? The reaction to the radio frequency? But if that's the case, then that's just releasing the hydrogen to be burned... so you're actually just using hydrogen as fuel... technically. Thing is... there isn't any hydrogen in salt... so the hydrogen is straight from the water.... However, if you take away 2 hydrogen from a water molecule, you wouldn't be left with water... you'd be left with O, not H2O... if you burned all the hydrogen out of the salt water, all you'd have is oxygen, sodium, and chlorine. And I don't see how that would reform as water.

[snapback]37441[/snapback]

Well once the hydrogen starts to burn the oxygen in proximity to it will burn as well as its pretty volitile too. The by-product of burning these two gasses together is water vapor. This is what happens with rocket engines. The salt I imagine is causing the ignition to occur at a more controlable temperature. Salt tends to cause chemical reactions to occur differently, like how salt water freezes at a lower temperature than fresh water. It wouldn't surprise me if I'm way off in my thinking as it has been over a decade since I last took a science class.

[Soul Sojourner]

Well once the hydrogen starts to burn the oxygen in proximity to it will burn as well as its pretty volitile too. The by-product of burning these two gasses together is water vapor. This is what happens with rocket engines. The salt I imagine is causing the ignition to occur at a more controlable temperature. Salt tends to cause chemical reactions to occur differently, like how salt water freezes at a lower temperature than fresh water. It wouldn't surprise me if I'm way off in my thinking as it has been over a decade since I last took a science class.

[snapback]37453[/snapback]

Well THAT makes more sense, and I had thought about that as well. The problem is, they don't say anything about the oxygen burning as well, so I was just going by what it said, though I doubt that the information in the article is complete enough to easily reach an understanding of the way it works. If this were the case, that would make the "Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies, he said" a half-truth. Though it says, "will burn as long as it is exposed." Does this mean that it will continue to burn forever, until the radio frequencies stop? That would be interesting.

[420]

Does this mean that it will continue to burn forever, until the radio frequencies stop? That would be interesting.

[snapback]37465[/snapback]

"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpsons

I would guess it's an either/or, until they turn off the signal or the hydrogen runs out.

-420

[Soul Sojourner]

"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpsons

I would guess it's an either/or, until they turn off the signal or the hydrogen runs out.

-420

[snapback]37469[/snapback]

Yeah, see, that would make sense "until the hydrogen runs out" but then... what about the left over oxygen and sodium chloride? You can't very well make water out of that... Or would it be released into the atmosphere like the hydrogen? Through exhaust, or some such, as is currently the release method.

[Mo]

How can I donate to this worthy research?  Anything to see a world without a need for petroleum.

[cuchulann]

How can I donate to this worthy research?  Anything to see a world without a need for petroleum.

[snapback]37492[/snapback]

Yeah, Nature put that crap deep under the ground for a very good reason. But if it were not for our intrusive curiosity where would be now? Hmm I sense a fragment to the discussion category about to happen. Especially when we take 420's inntial comment to mind about the subject.

[420]

Especially when we take 420's inntial comment to mind about the subject.

[snapback]37493[/snapback]

*Pictures Dr. Evil touching the edge of his mouth with his pinky and laughing maniacally while preparing to push the button to activate the "Radio Satellite" unless we pay him 100 trillion dollars!*

-420

[Tea-cup]

That quote is a joke, losing a lot of energy or breaking the conservation law. And never heard of electrolysis. The industry makes hydrogen out of gas at this date, other ways aren't profitable.

Maybe you'll find this interesting, it's more than some rumor:
http://www.iter.org/
(if you want a working experimental reactor: http://www.jet.efda.org/ )

- Mel

[Mo]

*Tries to decode Mel's msg...*

Too early on a Monday to understand...

Well if the by-product a salt water engine is indeed water vapor then that would be as bad as CO2, since water vapor is a green house gas as well.  Anyway I love climate change, I'm fed up with super cold winters up here!

[Anheg]

Anyway I love climate change, I'm fed up with super cold winters up here!

[snapback]37519[/snapback]

Yeah, and hopefully flood Quebec in the process!

*bunny hits head*
 

[cuchulann]

*Tries to decode Mel's msg...*

Too early on a Monday to understand...

Well if the by-product a salt water engine is indeed water vapor then that would be as bad as CO2, since water vapor is a green house gas as well.  Anyway I love climate change, I'm fed up with super cold winters up here!

[snapback]37519[/snapback]

Water vapor will collect and return to the earth as rain, it's part of the whole water cycle. People wouldn't be grumbling about CO2 if more logging companies looked into better land management by creating plantations instead of strip harvesting forests.

[Mo]

Water vapor will collect and return to the earth as rain, it's part of the whole water cycle. People wouldn't be grumbling about CO2 if more logging companies looked into better land management by creating plantations instead of strip harvesting forests.

[snapback]37529[/snapback]

Very true.  Save the forests!

[420]

*Tries to decode Mel's msg...*

[snapback]37519[/snapback]

I believe Mel was calling into question the validity of the article. Or possibly the validity of the demonstrations given by Penn State University.

I'm not exactly sure why the article should be doubted however.

-420

[Mo]

I believe Mel was calling into question the validity of the article. Or possibly the validity of the demonstrations given by Penn State University.

I'm not exactly sure why the article should be doubted however.

-420

[snapback]37533[/snapback]

I was just confused.  "Hydrogen out of gas"? Well Hydrogen is a gas so that's a little confusing.  Plus the fact that it's not profitable isn't a problem because it's normal that a process isn't profitable when first discovered.  Lastly those links to Nuclear Fusion is nice but I don't think we'll ever have nuclear powered cars where as having water fueled cars and houses would be a very nice thing.

[420]

Lastly those links to Nuclear Fusion is nice but I don't think we'll ever have nuclear powered cars where as having water fueled cars and houses would be a very nice thing.

[snapback]37534[/snapback]

Nuke powered cards would certainly give new meaning to the term "car bomb".

-420

[Soul Sojourner]

A traffic accident may destroy your city... that's worth it...

[Tea-cup]

I was just confused.  "Hydrogen out of gas"? Well Hydrogen is a gas so that's a little confusing.

I ment this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas ; lots of hydrogen in it.

And why I doubt the article ... I'll give it a quick shot, using basic knowledge of chemistry:

No matter how people do it, to get H out water you need to break the H-O bounds, and that requires a lot of energy. (I'll go out from a ideal and impossible 100% efficient methode to break it. That's better than whatever the article possible can be.) You gain the energy back when you create the H-O bounds again, but as with everything, you lose energy in the process (as heat for example). Even this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell , you'll lose quite a bit and it's more efficient than burning the hydrogen. There's just no way energy can be gained as described in the article. To gain energy, you'll have to use the hydrogen for fusion. But that's not buring, it isn't a chemical reaction to start with.

On the side, but on topic: One of the reasons petroleum is so awesome, is because it's childs play to get energy from it. The C-H bounds are relative easy to break by burning it (burn means recombine with O), creating H-O and C=O, especially C=O gives a lot of energy in the creation, and requires exactly the same amount of energy to break it. That's why CO2[/span] is one of the most stable molecules there exist, and why we're stuck with so much CO[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']2[/span] in the atmosphere. It's also why photosynthesis is so awesome. And why hydrogen alone isn't going to make your car drive like it's doing with petroleum products. Hydrogen alone can't hold as much energy as your fuel made by distillation of petroleum. Even our body likes to make CO[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']2 to power itself. (and hydrogen definitely can't be used to make many of the synthetic materials comming from pertoleum, finding another energy source is just one of the problems we face)

Feel free to kill me if you can point out a real error in my thinking here.

- Mel

[Mo]

I ment this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas ; lots of hydrogen in it.

And why I doubt the article ... I'll give it a quick shot, using basic knowledge of chemistry:

No matter how people do it, to get H out water you need to break the H-O bounds, and that requires a lot of energy. (I'll go out from a ideal and impossible 100% efficient methode to break it. That's better than whatever the article possible can be.) You gain the energy back when you create the H-O bounds again, but as with everything, you lose energy in the process (as heat for example). Even this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell , you'll lose quite a bit and it's more efficient than burning the hydrogen. There's just no way energy can be gained as described in the article. To gain energy, you'll have to use the hydrogen for fusion. But that's not buring, it isn't a chemical reaction to start with.

On the side, but on topic: One of the reasons petroleum is so awesome, is because it's childs play to get energy from it. The C-H bounds are relative easy to break by burning it (burn means recombine with O), creating H-O and C=O, especially C=O gives a lot of energy in the creation, and requires exactly the same amount of energy to break it. That's why CO2[/span] is one of the most stable molecules there exist, and why we're stuck with so much CO[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']2[/span] in the atmosphere. It's also why photosynthesis is so awesome. And why hydrogen alone isn't going to make your car drive like it's doing with petroleum products. Hydrogen alone can't hold as much energy as your fuel made by distillation of petroleum. Even our body likes to make CO[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']2 to power itself. (and hydrogen definitely can't be used to make many of the synthetic materials comming from pertoleum, finding another energy source is just one of the problems we face)

Feel free to kill me if you can point out a real error in my thinking here.

- Mel

[snapback]37553[/snapback]

I didn't read any of the articles posted in this thread.  I'm sure you are correct with your line of thinking, however part of the reason why a process with potential like this one requires lots of funding, is to make it into a more efficient process.  Oil is super easy and that is why we were able to use it with primitive technologies for so long, but now our technologies are much more advanced and coming to a point where we will be able to move to other sources of energy that require more advanced methods.  The trade offs will be far greater for everyone once we kick oil out the door.  As for other things that require petroleum, well we develop better materials than rubber and plastic and all that junk.

[Tea-cup]

It has the potential of becomming an effective way to get hydrogen out of water under certain conditions. I agree, that it should be researched. But saying that water can be used as fuel by burning it is a lie and leaving out other information (like the critic, the infancy of the work, the release of toxic chlorine) is disinformation. Like it stands there, a person could start to think that in the near future he'd be driving his car on salt water.

Maybe I should ignore things like this, but I hate how the media/internet reports things with a lack of knowledge, present it wrong and out of context. It's wrong to do so.

- Mel

[Soul Sojourner]

It has the potential of becomming an effective way to get hydrogen out of water under certain conditions. I agree, that it should be researched. But saying that water can be used as fuel by burning it is a lie and leaving out other information (like the critic, the infancy of the work, the release of toxic chlorine) is disinformation. Like it stands there, a person could start to think that in the near future he'd be driving his car on salt water.

Maybe I should ignore things like this, but I hate how the media/internet reports things with a lack of knowledge, present it wrong and out of context. It's wrong to do so.

- Mel

[snapback]37555[/snapback]

I agree, I was thinking the same thing. That's why I made those posts questioning... because I didn't hear ANY negative effects, only the good juicy shit... I didn't hear anything about what negative side-effects burning salt-water may have (if it's even been done as they portray it). That's why I mentioned the destroying water thought, and the leftover chemicals idea... With the way it sounds... I got the impression that there would be left over chemicals that could be toxic and dangerous and that it burns the hydrogen out of the water... effectively destroying the water. (as the hydrogen would be burned out and seperated from the oxygen, sodium, and chlorine... and with those things left by themselves... it's just a scary thought.

It's a lack of information. Like you said, it's disinformation and I'd say misinformation as well, simply because it allows you to derive an assumption on incomplete information, and is probably targeted at the general public, which are commonly known not to know much on this subject.

[cuchulann]

Maybe I should ignore things like this, but I hate how the media/internet reports things with a lack of knowledge, present it wrong and out of context. It's wrong to do so.

- Mel

[snapback]37555[/snapback]

The practice of mis-information by revealing only part of the data at hand is a practice that predates the internet, it even predates jounalisim. It's a key factor in the foundation in every form of government mankind has ever devised. One of my favorite examples is the main office of the NRA proudly displays the words, "The right to keep and bear arms." and disregards the remainder of that phrase "...with the intent to (establish/maintain) a well ordered militia." So tehnically one would have to be a member of a paramilitary group which has some form of governmental recognition to actually have the right to own a gun.

[420]

Look. All I want is a freakin' satellite with a freakin' radio transmitter in its head!

-420

[Mo]

NRA proudly displays the words, "The right to keep and bear arms." and disregards the remainder of that phrase "...with the intent to (establish/maintain) a well ordered militia." So tehnically one would have to be a member of a paramilitary group which has some form of governmental recognition to actually have the right to own a gun.

[snapback]37562[/snapback]

That's sweet.   Taking words out of context, using metaphorical notions in a literal sense.  Been going since Man learned to communicate.

We are selfish beings.  We use what we can how we can to benefit ourselves.

[Talon]

The law of conservation of energy states "Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another".

This invention is using energy to create radio waves, which are electrolizing the salt water to turn the water into hydrogen and oxygen, which are then being burnt to turn them back into water.

As the reaction is completely reversible, there is no net change in energy, other than the loss caused by imperfect conditions.

Its basically the energy equivalent of cycling on the spot for 20 miles to charge a battery that allows the cycle to travel without cycling for 5 miles - i.e. pointless.

Looks pretty, although it is well known that high frequency radio waves excite the state of water (microwaves, etc). Its the scientific equivalent of sticking a metal spoon in a cup of water in your microwave.

The media are just a bunch of monkeys, and there are millions of scientists and schoolchildren around the world wondering how people could be so dumb as to actually believe this.

The only potential benefit of using RF to break down water into H2 and O2 is if it is more efficient than current methods, which will make it cheaper to create H2 fuel cells, but its certainly NOT an energy source.

[Xen]

Its been around for ages, Pitty Fossil fuel is so lucrative