Chief Dick Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 Too bad the radio signals will kill all the bees and therefore the worlds food supply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robash Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 who cares about food or bee's when you wont have to pay $3.50 a gallon for gas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Great, lets deplete the oceans next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 I hear Morgan Freeman and Keanu Reeves are making a movie about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackshi17 Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 There is no mention of the by-product of this burning. Salt buildup would probably occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Great, lets deplete the oceans next. No man, this counters the rising oceans from Global Warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Actually, dimethylfuran is one sweet fuel, made of sugar with 40% more energy (comparable to gasoline)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Actually, dimethylfuran is one sweet fuel, made of sugar with 40% more energy (comparable to gasoline)... fuzzy science Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABearWithFurniture Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 wrong there is 100's of billions going to big oil and the republitards are making a killing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.