Water as fuel?

[Chief Dick 478]

Interesting:

 

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 — 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."

[CaP'N GRuNGe 40]

Too bad the radio signals will kill all the bees and therefore the worlds food supply.

[Robash 0]

who cares about food or bee's when you wont have to pay $3.50 a gallon for gas

[AtomicCEO 4]

I just saw this story on the front page of Yahoo News, and I swear it's at least 3 months old.

 

I'm pretty sure there was a thread here that linked to a YouTube video of the scientist doing it. Big John?

 

It was also widely disregarded because the energy created by the burn was less than the energy required to create the radio waves, making it a net loss of energy rather than a "source".

[Bill Swerski 0]

It was also widely disregarded because the energy created by the burn was less than the energy required to create the radio waves, making it a net loss of energy rather than a "source".

 

Nevertheless, I'm sure that tens of millions of taxpayer dollars will be allocated for "burning saltwater" research.

[whoopazz 1]

Great, lets deplete the oceans next.

[Grimm74 5]

how much energy is required to generate radio waves powerful enough to ignite hydrogen in water? i would e surprised if the net effect is positive

[The Irish Doggy 11]

I hear Morgan Freeman and Keanu Reeves are making a movie about it.

[Yukon Cornelius 3]

Nevertheless, I'm sure that tens of millions of taxpayer dollars will be allocated for "burning saltwater" research.

wrong there is 100's of billions going to big oil and the republitards are making a killing

[jackshi17 0]

There is no mention of the by-product of this burning.

Salt buildup would probably occur.

[The Holy Roller 3]

There is no mention of the by-product of this burning.

Salt buildup would probably occur.

 

Win-win! As the salt is ejected out the tailpipe there would be no need for winter road crews to "salt" the roads when it ices. Salt miners would be freed of their onerous task to go on to another field of work, maybe civil engineering? I would no longer have to buy salt blocks for my cattle, just let them lick the exhaust pipe of the ole John Deere. Deer hunting will be much easier as the deer will be congregating along roads to lick up the salt emissions. Salt will be in such abundance the phrase, "...worth his salt..." will take on a much different meaning. Civilization is on the brink of an historic change!

 

Glad I'm here to watch.

[Dr. Love 5]

I haven't looked into this, but I can say with certainty that the water isn't being "burned" - which is oxidation that releases energy. The C-C and C-H bonds in the hydrocarbons in gasoline have a higher bond energy than the C-O and H-O bonds in the carbon dioxide and water product of the combusted fuel. That excess energy is what makes the heat and expansive force that powers the vehicle.

 

The H-O-H bonds in two moles of water contain less energy than the bond energy in 2 moles of hydrogen 2(H-H) and one mole of oxygen (O=O). Water can't be oxidized, it has to be reduced to decompose it into it's constituent parts. This means that electrons (energy) has to be added to the system. That's why hydrogen can be generated by the electrolysis of water, and that's also why hydrogen can be burned as a source of energy.

 

Whatever this guy is actually doing with the water, he's not burning it. My guess is this is a non-technical writer trying to make a huge story where there isn't really one.

[rattsass 103]

That saltwater fuel guy has been around for quite awhile now. It is phony as has already been stated. The amount of energy used to create that flame negates any value the theory may have.

 

How he scammed a local news team to present the story as "news" is beyond me.

[cre8tiff 5]

Great, lets deplete the oceans next.

 

No man, this counters the rising oceans from Global Warming.

[AtomicCEO 4]

I haven't looked into this, but I can say with certainty that the water isn't being "burned" - which is oxidation that releases energy. The C-C and C-H bonds in the hydrocarbons in gasoline have a higher bond energy than the C-O and H-O bonds in the carbon dioxide and water product of the combusted fuel. That excess energy is what makes the heat and expansive force that powers the vehicle.

 

The H-O-H bonds in two moles of water contain less energy than the bond energy in 2 moles of hydrogen 2(H-H) and one mole of oxygen (O=O). Water can't be oxidized, it has to be reduced to decompose it into it's constituent parts. This means that electrons (energy) has to be added to the system. That's why hydrogen can be generated by the electrolysis of water, and that's also why hydrogen can be burned as a source of energy.

 

Whatever this guy is actually doing with the water, he's not burning it. My guess is this is a non-technical writer trying to make a huge story where there isn't really one.

 

That's what I was trying to say.

 

[Ursa Majoris 102]

I haven't looked into this, but I can say with certainty that the water isn't being "burned" - which is oxidation that releases energy. The C-C and C-H bonds in the hydrocarbons in gasoline have a higher bond energy than the C-O and H-O bonds in the carbon dioxide and water product of the combusted fuel. That excess energy is what makes the heat and expansive force that powers the vehicle.

 

The H-O-H bonds in two moles of water contain less energy than the bond energy in 2 moles of hydrogen 2(H-H) and one mole of oxygen (O=O). Water can't be oxidized, it has to be reduced to decompose it into it's constituent parts. This means that electrons (energy) has to be added to the system. That's why hydrogen can be generated by the electrolysis of water, and that's also why hydrogen can be burned as a source of energy.

 

Whatever this guy is actually doing with the water, he's not burning it. My guess is this is a non-technical writer trying to make a huge story where there isn't really one.

Beat me to it.

 

 

 

[cre8tiff 5]

Actually, dimethylfuran is one sweet fuel, made of sugar with 40% more energy (comparable to gasoline)...

 

[Yukon Cornelius 3]

Actually, dimethylfuran is one sweet fuel, made of sugar with 40% more energy (comparable to gasoline)...

 

fuzzy science

[cliaz 26]

 

The problem with this is water is a constant on our earth. No matter what [minus what is aboard the space station] the amount of water on our planet stays the same and for good reason. If we start "burning" up sea water we will be removing water from our planet which will mess with the over all climate, eco systems, O2 level in the air, carbon levels in the ocean*.

 

 

*this is the big one as 60% of all the carbondoxide is held up in our oceans. We start using water as a source of energy we will release vast amount of this into the air which in turn will kill off all O2 breathing animals.

 

 

 

 

Very bad idea.

[MrTed46 12]

I just saw this story on the front page of Yahoo News, and I swear it's at least 3 months old.

 

I'm pretty sure there was a thread here that linked to a YouTube video of the scientist doing it. Big John?

 

It was also widely disregarded because the energy created by the burn was less than the energy required to create the radio waves, making it a net loss of energy rather than a "source".

 

 

That doesnt mean in the future they can make it more efficient. Look at fuel and where it has come now.

 

Granted I doubt this will ever happen but I wouldnt count it out based on preliminary testing. I would rather spend millions on science research rather than Iraq.

[ABearWithFurniture 149]

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

 

A rather sad note to this story as Roy was killed while in route to his meeting when the car he was driving was totaled by an Exxon fuel tanker.

[Bill Swerski 0]

wrong there is 100's of billions going to big oil and the republitards are making a killing

 

 

[Bill Swerski 0]

Water can't be oxidized, it has to be reduced to decompose it into it's constituent parts. This means that electrons (energy) has to be added to the system. That's why hydrogen can be generated by the electrolysis of water, and that's also why hydrogen can be burned as a source of energy.

 

Technically, that's not true. Electrolysis of water (like any redox reaction) both oxidative and reductive pathways. The protons on water are reduced to hydrogen gas and the "oxide" form of water is oxidized to oxygen gas. That said, I haven't read this guy's paper so I'm not sure if that's what's going on here. And water electrolysis typically involves electrical current, so there's not much of a gain energy-wise.