Posted on 09/09/2007 7:53:44 AM PDT by grundle
For obvious reasons, scientists long have thought that salt water couldn't be burned.
So when an Erie man announced he'd ignited salt water with the radio-frequency generator he'd invented, some thought it a was a hoax.
John Kanzius, a Washington County native, tried to desalinate seawater with a generator he developed to treat cancer, and it caused a flash in the test tube.
Within days, he had the salt water in the test tube burning like a candle, as long as it was exposed to radio frequencies.
His discovery has spawned scientific interest in using the world's most abundant substance as clean fuel, among other uses.
Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, held a demonstration last week at the university's Materials Research Laboratory in State College, to confirm what he'd witnessed weeks before in an Erie lab.
"It's true, it works," Dr. Roy said. "Everyone told me, 'Rustum, don't be fooled. He put electrodes in there.' "
But there are no electrodes and no gimmicks, he said.
Dr. Roy said the salt water isn't burning per se, despite appearances. The radio frequency actually weakens bonds holding together the constituents of salt water -- sodium chloride, hydrogen and oxygen -- and releases the hydrogen, which, once ignited, burns continuously when exposed to the RF energy field. Mr. Kanzius said an independent source measured the flame's temperature, which exceeds 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, reflecting an enormous energy output.
As such, Dr. Roy, a founding member of the Materials Research Laboratory and expert in water structure, said Mr. Kanzius' discovery represents "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years."
But researching its potential will take time and money, he said. One immediate question is energy efficiency: The energy the RF generator uses vs. the energy output from burning hydrogen.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
But what about the poor great whites?!?
> ... an independent source measured the flame’s
> temperature, which exceeds 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit,
> reflecting an enormous energy output.
The energy released in recombination is the same as
it normally takes to uncouple the H2 and O, unless
he’s invented a new type of catalytic divorce-omatic.
The lack of insight regarding “over unity” from this
inventor suggests he’s got no handle whatever on how
much RF energy he’s dumping into the water.
Utter gibberish.
Please count me among them.
Not this sh*t again...
If you put electricity through salt water, it breaks apart the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen. Any junior high science student knows that (but obviously not journalists).
The problem is that it takes more energy to break those bonds than the resulting gasses are able to product when burned.
Even if that problem is overcome, there are huge problems with the storage and transportation of those gasses. As it turns out, the stuff leaks right through metals, making them brittle in the process. And, you can imagine that the same problem affect the motors as well.
The story is working its way down the food chain. When it gets to India Times it will finally be done.
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Understand but it does open up a possible avenue of research... say nuke powered hydrogen generation.
Please explain: Is the sentence gramatically incorrect? Is the explanation of the concept incorrect? Or are you saying that the experiment is a hoax?
“What’s the frequency, Kenneth?”
Show me the math on the energy in versus the energy out.
Petroleum is not an energy source — it is an energy storage container. The energy contained in those products tend to be greater than the energy that was used to get it into the fuel tank, mostly because that energy was put in there by God (nature, etc).
Conversely, I don’t know of any means where energy is naturally stored in water, and therefore, any use of water as an energy storage medium will, at best, release only as much as it took to get it into the tank, and probably, a lot less.
“Please explain: Is the sentence gramatically incorrect? Is the explanation of the concept incorrect? Or are you saying that the experiment is a hoax?”
The actual process is well-known, with various governments having done extensive research on using salt water as fuel during wartime. Any chem student, even at a junior high level, can explain the process for you.
The inventor claims that he’s found a way to make water burnable in a way where the net energy output is greater than the energy required to get it to that state. That’s the part that I don’t believe, and the part where the article gets fuzzy.
The hype is a hoax, designed to get funding for a university.
I guess the Penn State chemist who specializes in these matters referring to this discovery as, “the most remarkable in water science in 100 years” didn’t pass his junior high science class.
Why are Freepers such cynics and know-it-alls?
Maybe nothing will come of it. It still is an interesting discovery.
The only question that matters is how much energy is used in this process, and how much energy is liberated from the salt water. If you get more out of it than you put in, it’s good.
“I guess the Penn State chemist who specializes in these matters referring to this discovery as, “the most remarkable in water science in 100 years” didn’t pass his junior high science class.”
That’s why I say he’s doing a hoax to get funding for Penn State. He’s got to know the challenges. I’ll believe his pronouncements when I see them published in a good proper scientific journal.
We’re “cynical” because we apply critical thought processes to ideas presented to us. You know, thinking, like I was taught to do by a couple of great professors?
It isn’t an “interesting discovery.” This was “discovered” back when electricity was first put through water.
Lastly, we’re “cynical” about ethanol too — another great boondoggle that will take us nowhere closer to being able to flip the bird to the oil tyrants of the world.
You hit the nail on the head.... most of this discoveries are energy, not an energy source (container).
I have this discussion with the green crowd at work. They want electric cars and buses to end the strangle hold oil has on us. But when I ask them how will they produce all the electricity in the quantity needed they fall silent. There are a lot of interesting things on a small scale but when applied to large scale usage they fall apart.
That’s “eerie!”
Despite the decline in quality of original research in recent years, you will not have to worry about that.
These stories really do seem to come up every New Moon...(Looking at calender).
I still remember the absurd quackery in the '70's when we had the so-called Energy Crisis.
I understand that people my dismiss me for being bitter, as I am still awaiting delivery of my "Water into Gasoline Pills" from J.C. Whitney that I ordered decades ago.
“They want electric cars and buses to end the strangle hold oil has on us. But when I ask them how will they produce all the electricity in the quantity needed they fall silent. There are a lot of interesting things on a small scale but when applied to large scale usage they fall apart.”
The last I heard, in order to recharge car batteries in a reasonable amount of time (1 hour?) you’d have to empty an entire power grid to recharge a few cars.
Worse yet, no one talks about the eco problems when you have massive heavy metal mines in places like China, with the corresponding smelting factories in places that don’t care about the environment.
They don’t want to talk about the whole issue of disposal of such batteries.
They don’t want to talk about the problems associated with making cars that will probably only last as long as the batteries, instead of cars that run 300k miles (diesel).
And, they don’t want to talk about the safety issues of a person being involved in an accident when there are 500 pounds of batteries involved.
“I understand that people my dismiss me for being bitter, as I am still awaiting delivery of my “Water into Gasoline Pills” from J.C. Whitney that I ordered decades ago.”
It’s in the mail, along with your 80 mpg carburetor and that little vortex thingy that “atomizes” your fuel.
"It's true, it works," Dr. xxx said. "Everyone told me, 'xxx, don't be fooled. He put electrodes in there.' "
Oh No..He never heard of induction coupled plasma, or was not able to transfer the concept.
I am depressed and ashamed. I have faculty friends at Penn State, and have the highest regard for the place, as well as the Nittany Lions.
Here’s the deal: I was an Economics major and not a brilliant chemist. From my understanding, RF waves are not the same as electricity. Correct me if I am wrong on that.
You can say it is the same theory but RF waves and electricity are not the same. Please show me (since this is such common knowledge) where someone has previously used this method to the same effect. Rememeber - not electricity but RF.
I would like to see this come out in a scientific jounal as well and maybe we will.
Cynicism is not the same as critical thinking, of which I am more than capable of doing, thank you. But there seems to be quite a tendency at FR to show others just how brilliant and knowledgable one is on any given subject. I find it very interesting and a bit odd as well as a sign of deeper issues concerning one’s self-image.
That I why I contend that it is not about saving the planet from pollution, it is about controlling economies.
“Here’s the deal: I was an Economics major and not a brilliant chemist. From my understanding, RF waves are not the same as electricity. Correct me if I am wrong on that.”
I too am an Econ major (long time ago).
Just how do those RF waves get created? Could there be some electrical source doing that? Or, are those RF waves just coming from the sun or somewhere else “free”?
I’m hoping that someday someone figures out that if you drop some common metal into the solution, it will do the work for us. However, if such a thing exists, we’d see mass discharges of O2 and H2 whenever that stuff got wet in the wild.
Bottom line — no matter how you break apart those little atoms, it takes energy. And, it takes more energy to break them apart and to promote combustion than we get when they’re recombined.
They have a magnetic component as well as an electrical component. Where things begin to unravel is the condition where people forget that the conversion of electricity into RF is never 100% efficient, and the ability for RF to do actual work with a conductor is never 100% efficient. Thus, there are two stages of energy loss (expense) in addition to the amount of energy it takes to dissociate water by simply putting electrodes and DC into the water. And even simple electrolysis is a losing proposition in supplying hydrogen as "Fuel", starting with the fuel to generate the electricity and the associated inefficiencies, transmission losses, etc.
The only reason a microwave oven is faster in cooking is because a wavelength is chosen that resonates with the water dipole. It is not particularly more energy efficient than a hot plate, with a 100% efficient heating element. It just gets the energy in faster.
Thermodynamics reduces to "There is no free lunch". It's "slow and cheap" or "fast and expensive". a 700 Watt microwave, or a 200 Watt hot plate-Both do the job.
Guess I’d better stop using my microwave to heat water - I don’t want my kitchen to explode.
That was posted about two weeks ago. Aluminum/gallium amalgam produces hydrogen when dropped into water.
I bet the first thing a bean counter would say is "Let's go read Alcoa's electric meter and see how many kWH it takes to make a pound of aluminum".
(Sinking feeling)
“I have this discussion with the green crowd at work. They want electric cars and buses to end the strangle hold oil has on us. But when I ask them how will they produce all the electricity in the quantity needed they fall silent. There are a lot of interesting things on a small scale but when applied to large scale usage they fall apart.”
I believe the answer is nukes, nukes and more nukes!
“I bet the first thing a bean counter would say is ‘Let’s go read Alcoa’s electric meter and see how many kWH it takes to make a pound of aluminum’.”
Yup. We can’t burn up lot of energy in various forms just to produce some energy in a certain form.
Granted, the process of getting crude out to our fuel tanks in usable form takes energy too, and that process has been “refined” (pun intended) for the past 100 years to make it more efficient.
you will all eat your words when I unveil my new garbage powered flux capacitor !
wait... really ? dang
For those who want to believe that this is the magic that the article implies it is, go to the PESwiki website for some other magical (and some real, to a point) devices and processes. You’ll have a grand time I promise.
For those who want to believe that this is the magic that the article implies it is, go to the PESwiki website for some other magical (and some real, to a point) devices and processes. You’ll have a grand time I promise.
I think you’re probably right. I doubt this gives a net release of energy.
I figured it was probably bogus. But just in case, I wanted people to hear about it.
Yes, that’s the important question.
Guys,
I am not saying that it does not take electricity to create the RF waves or that this is a free energy lunch. What I was saying was that this is a very interesting discovery. And, yes, it is a discovery because no one has ever done this with radio waves before. The “discovery” is that you could use RF to achieve the result and that this was not something that we all learned in junior high school. Whether it translates into a wonderful new enegy source was not the point of my posts. The point was how quick some members of FR are to jump all over anything like this. It happens quite a bit and I find it to be a bit cynical in that you can’t just appreciate the joy of the discovery. Some would rather find the “bad” and, at the same time, show everyone just how smart they are.
This may not have been the intention of anyone today but that is the way it comes across.
This isn’t putting electricticy through sea water, it’s putting RF energy through sea water. May or may not be a real difference there. Worth checking out, just in case. Would also be worth tuning that RF emitter just to see if there is some specific frequency that is more effective than whatever he is using.
The whole point of science, as I understand it, is to find out, not deny it’s possible because it doesn’t fit what you already know.
I have yet to come to any (AND I MEAN ANY) energy thread on this forum that proposes a new concept, where the naysayers don’t completely destroy the thread.
EVERY SINGLE ENERGY CONCEPT WE UTILIZE TODAY, HAD NAYSAYERS TELLING EVERYONE IT WOULD NEVER WORK.
99.99% of the time they are right, but you know what, that one time when they’re wrong won’t get persued if they keep it up.
Let these things play out on their own. When it’s over, say, “That’s what I thought.” No big deal.
The claim is that they don’t want to see good money thrown away on a bad idea. But the truth is, any money that is spent on new ideas will get the same damned reaction out them, so what the hell does drive the real complaint anyway?
Do these folks all work for coal, oil and natural gas concerns, or are they just flat earthers afraid to see any new ideas tried. And don’t tell me everything has been tried before.
Hell, every new discovery proves that that idea hadn’t been tried before. But it is new, so naysayers naysay on...
Please, don’t you ever put an energy report on this forum again that isn’t already generating 1,000 gigawats in upstate New York! Do you understand????? /s
Thanks for the post. As I said, it strikes me as a combination of cynicism and having to prove your the smartest kid in the class. Sort of like Al Gore ;-)
Agreed!
Smallest hotplate I’ve ever seen is 1500 watts. You use it to heat the container, which in turn heats the water. Microwave puts most of the heat directly into the water. That makes it more efficient twice. (not two times as efficient, but two modes of efficiency.)
> Whether it translates into a wonderful new energy
> source was not the point of my posts.
But that was the point of the original, typically
incompetent legacy media report.
I agree there may be something scientifically
interesting here. I doubt there is any free lunch
energy-wise.
Also, unlike traditional electrolysis, this process
seems to release both gasses at the same point; a
dangerous mix that may not be trivial to separate
into containers of H2 and O2 (without even more
energy to liquify them).
Only because it IS a hoax. A variation on perpetual motion of the first kind.
I love the joy of discovery, myself. I worked in R&D for forty years, six of them directly related to hydrogen energy. I want as much as anyone for breakthroughs to happen. But things like this that are so full of holes defame and do a disservice to genuine advances. Here is just one example:
an independent source measured the flame's temperature, which exceeds 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, reflecting an enormous energy output.
TEMPERATURE is not HEAT Energy. This is a frequent pitfall for novice energy inventors, even sincere ones! A reviewer reading a publication at this point would throw up their hands.
Whenever there is a ferocious demand for something, Bad Reasoning appears, whether it is Energy issues, Ethanol/Gasoline mixtures, The Internet Bubble, Vitamin megadoses,"Climate Change" etc..
Yes, I do jump on these, because people may invest in them with tragic results, or pin hopes on them that disappoint, at the least. I believe it to be an ethical matter. I should not CARE any more, I suppose, because I did retire last year, but the real cynicism is not in people who respond to these shrouded opportunities, but is instead comitted by people who try to capitalize on the failure of Science Education in order to extract money. That is cynicism in a cold-blooded form.
Hey, you just made me put down my coffee and go to the kitchen and read labels!
The Microwave is 3,850 Watts, and the hot plate is 1200.
Now I am going to have to microwave my coffee...
Have you been to the lab and check out this divice?
That's not the process being described here.
No.
We will all get to check it out when it appears in a peer-reviewed publication.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.