Salt water generator

[Celephais]

Salt water as fuel? Erie man hopes so
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07252/815920-85.stm

Sunday, September 09, 2007

By David Templeton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
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.

Dr. Roy said he's scheduled to meet tomorrow with U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Defense officials in Washington to discuss the discovery and seek research funding.

Mr. Kanzius said he powered a Stirling, or hot air, engine with salt water. But whether the system can power a car or be used as an efficient fuel will depend on research results.

"We will get our ideas together and check this out and see where it leads," Dr. Roy said. "The potential is huge.

"In the life sciences, the role of water is infinite, and this guy is doing something new in using the most important and most abundant material on the face of the earth."

Mr. Kanzius' discovery was an accident.

He developed the RF generator as a novel cancer treatment. His research in targeting cancer cells with metallic nanoparticles then destroying them with radio-frequency is proceeding at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and at the University of Texas' MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Manuscripts updating the cancer research are in preparation for publication in coming months, Mr. Kanzius said.

While Mr. Kanzius was demonstrating how his generator heated nanoparticles, someone noted condensation inside the test tube and suggested he try using his equipment to desalinate water.

So, Mr. Kanzius said, he put sea water in a test tube, then trained his machine on it, producing an unexpected spark. In time he and laboratory owners struck a match and ignited the water, which continued burning as long as it remained in the radio-frequency field.

During several trials, heat from burning hydrogen grew hot enough to melt the test tube, he said. Dr. Roy's tests on the machine last week provided further evidence that the process is releasing and burning hydrogen from the water. Tests on different water solutions and concentrations produced various temperatures and flame colors.

"This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Dr. Roy said of salt water. "Seeing it burn gives me chills."
_________________________________________________

Interesting, just thought I would share, I'm sure some major drawback will surface, but a neat concept.

[Blazing247]

If it's the hydrogen that's burning, couldn't this apply to all water? Or is it the sodium chloride that is allowing something unique to happen?

[Atlanteax]

I'm thinking it's the sodium chloride...

...

In a perhaps not-so-ironic way, it is amusing how many past significant scientific breakthroughs in the past were entirely by accident.

[Celephais]

I'm thinking it's the sodium chloride...

...

In a perhaps not-so-ironic way, it is amusing how many past significant scientific breakthroughs in the past were entirely by accident.
You got chocolate in my peanut butter! You got peanut butter in my chocolate!

[Bobmuhthol]

<<If it's the hydrogen that's burning, couldn't this apply to all water? Or is it the sodium chloride that is allowing something unique to happen?>>

No, because the frequency isn't affecting the hydrogen; it's affecting the bonds between the NaCl and the hydrogen-oxygen bond. I wouldn't be surprised if a different molarity of salt yielded different results due to more/less salt being present for the frequencies to resonate, where obviously having more salt gives better output.

[Anebriated]

Cool discovery.

[Latrinsorm]

Chlorine is significantly more electronegative than oxygen. My guess is that freeing the Cl pulls the hydrogens away far enough for them to react as hydrogen rather than water, but not so far that they just turn into HCl molecules.

[Celephais]

I can't imagine this produces any more energy than is put into the system... chemically speaking the beginning and end points are the same...

NaCl+H20 -> NaCl + H2/O
(saying that the / would be the "weakly attached molecule")
ignite the H2 in the presence of the oxygen and it produces H2O again. Unless the waste product is some other chemical compound (watch it be something that releases Cl2 as a waste product), then there is no spot where energy can be produced.

It might be some neat way of transfering energy over the air, but I don't really see this turning into a energy source. (Maybe a good way to power electric motors, instead of using magnets to power a turbine you burn salt water).

[Methais]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/gonetothemoonos0.jpg

[Amber]

I heard about this ages ago. Here's a youtube link where you can actually see the generator he made. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM

[Bobmuhthol]

I can't imagine this produces any more energy than is put into the system... chemically speaking the beginning and end points are the same...

NaCl+H20 -> NaCl + H2/O
(saying that the / would be the "weakly attached molecule")
ignite the H2 in the presence of the oxygen and it produces H2O again. Unless the waste product is some other chemical compound (watch it be something that releases Cl2 as a waste product), then there is no spot where energy can be produced.

It might be some neat way of transfering energy over the air, but I don't really see this turning into a energy source. (Maybe a good way to power electric motors, instead of using magnets to power a turbine you burn salt water).

Now consider the amount of energy it takes to combust a diatomic hydrogen molecule vs. a water molecule....

Also, you're considering the types of product involved, not the energy levels. The combustion of hydrogen yields more energy than that which is necessary to separate the hydrogen with the generator, which entails a gain.

[Skeeter]

http://www.horrordvds.com/reviews/misc/pictures/nerds.jpg

[Celephais]

Now consider the amount of energy it takes to combust a diatomic hydrogen molecule vs. a water molecule....

Also, you're considering the types of product involved, not the energy levels. The combustion of hydrogen yields more energy than that which is necessary to separate the hydrogen with the generator, which entails a gain.
How do you figure? There are two types of energy, Kinetic and Potential. The idea of "burning" something is to convert potential energy to kinetic energy, which results in a loss of potential energy. Potential energy is either positional (rock on the top of a mountain), chemical or atomic (all technically "positional" if you look deep enough). It is physically impossible to gain more energy by burning hydrogen then you use to seperate the molecules, if they are only partially seperating the molecules then they are only partially burning them.

In order to output kinetic energy you have to lose potential energy in one form or another, so if the end result after they've finished burning the salt water is the same (ie hydrogen burns into water and remixes w/ the salt) there is no lose of potential energy.

That's all assuming they're just burning hydrogen and oxygen and nothing more complicated is happening, which is possible, but I really doubt it.


The combustion of hydrogen yields more energy than that which is necessary to separate the hydrogen with the generator
And I just have to repeat... Bob, you should know better than to say that.


Now consider the amount of energy it takes to combust a diatomic hydrogen molecule vs. a water molecule....
This makes it sound like you think it's just the diatomic hydrogen molecule combusting... hydrogen needs oxygen to combust pure H2 won't "combust", and you can't combust a water molecule... You should know all this from basic HS chemistry, which should be a lot fresher in your mind than mine.

[Latrinsorm]

It is physically impossible to gain more energy by burning hydrogen then you use to seperate the molecules, if they are only partially seperating the molecules then they are only partially burning them.
You're confusing the potential energies involved. There is energy stored inside hydrogen molecules that is distinct from the energy stored in the bonds between hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in water.
pure H2 won't "combust",It most definitely will if you set it on fire. If you'll recall from the article, "burning" didn't occur until someone actually threw a match in there.

[Tsa`ah]

...

Not exactly sure what your argument is. Salt water resonating the the field yields hydrogen. Whether or not the hydrogen is burning in the presence of oxygen released from the salt water or oxygen in the atmosphere is irrelevant.

The article notes a few PhDs verifying that there was indeed flame from salt water and a match while the salt water was in the energy field.

What you should be more interested in is this ....


Mr. Kanzius said an independent source measured the flame's temperature, which exceeds 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, reflecting an enormous energy output.

and ...


During several trials, heat from burning hydrogen grew hot enough to melt the test tube, he said. Dr. Roy's tests on the machine last week provided further evidence that the process is releasing and burning hydrogen from the water. Tests on different water solutions and concentrations produced various temperatures and flame colors.

So we know it isn't restricted to just saline (I'd imagine an animal in the field would die horribly), but it seems to work on other solutions ... which opens the door to various application depending on the heat (energy) required.

[Goretawn]

Sounds like it would make a great cigar lighter. Just watch the eyebrows.

[Celephais]

It most definitely will if you set it on fire. If you'll recall from the article, "burning" didn't occur until someone actually threw a match in there.


Not exactly sure what your argument is. Salt water resonating the the field yields hydrogen. Whether or not the hydrogen is burning in the presence of oxygen released from the salt water or oxygen in the atmosphere is irrelevant.
Do you guys know what burning something is? If you fill a vacuum with just H2 and attempt to light it on fire it WILL NOT BURN*. H2 only burns in the presence of oxygen. It is irrelevant if that oxygen is from the salt water or from the atmosphere but that doesn't disprove me, the system as a whole does not change in the burning process (if you input oxygen from the atmosphere your releasing oxygen from the saltwater)...

I completely agree that there is potential in this for many applications, but it is not an energy source. This would all be wrong if there is something more than just burning hydrogen going on.

*The only hope here would be a fusion reaction, having the hydrogen molecules combine to form helium and I think that takes something like 8 million degrees K to achive. It's possible that's the case, but then the potential energy in the system has changed, and that's technically not "burning" hydrogen.

[Latrinsorm]

the system as a whole does not change in the burning process Oh I get what you're saying now. You're correct in that no new atoms are popping up anywhere or anything, but you're incorrect because in burning the system releases heat, which can be used to power stuff. It's just like burning anything else, all the chemical components are still accounted for after.

[Celephais]

Oh I get what you're saying now. You're correct in that no new atoms are popping up anywhere or anything, but you're incorrect because in burning the system releases heat, which can be used to power stuff. It's just like burning anything else, all the chemical components are still accounted for after.

Yes it releases heat, but in order for that system to release heat it needs to burn 2(H2) + O2 into 2(H2O), in order for the H2 and the O2 to get seperated in the first place required the radio wave generator to input at least as much energy as was released in the process of burning. Like I said, it might be a great way to transfer energy or convert it, but since no potential energy has changed in the system, then no kinetic energy was created.

[Goretawn]

Obviously not my strong point (see my cigar lighter post), but is it possible that the output of power from the burning is greater then that used to run the radio wave generator? Isn't that what they are going to test to see if it is a viable power source? Imagine that, if so, then they can maintain (not initiate) this output using it's own power.

[Celephais]

Obviously not my strong point (see my cigar lighter post), but is it possible that the output of power from the burning is greater then that used to run the radio wave generator? Isn't that what they are going to test to see if it is a viable power source? Imagine that, if so, then they can maintain (not initiate) this output using it's own power.
See the problem is there is no such thing as free energy. Energy needs a source, it needs to come from something. Things need to change in order to produce energy.

When you burn hyrdogen it produces water, salt water is just an ionic solution, that is Na+ and Cl- suspended in H20. This is due to the polar nature of H20 (V shape with the two H- being attached to a O++). It sounds like the radio waves seperate the H ions from the solution, this leaves behind NaCl and O which would be burned with the Hydrogen, resulting in H2O and NaCL... which together, result in square one. So that means that the energy needed to pull the H ions out is the same amount released by the reaction... and obviously some of this energy will be lost (due to the radio waves not hitting the salt water or heat leaving the system).

The major advantage would be if it's efficient then it's a good way to convert electricity/radio waves into heat. It could also be a good way to transfer energy through the air. It is not an energy source if that's what is happening.

[Some Rogue]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/95147__nerds_l.jpg

[Clove]

See the problem is there is no such thing as free energy. Energy needs a source, it needs to come from something. Things need to change in order to produce energy.

I like you C, and you seem to be repeating yourself so I'll simplify the issue:

"The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings."
- First Law of Thermodynamics aka Conservation of Energy Law

ALL energy production falls under this law; it's ALL a conversion process.

Depending on how efficeint this process is, it could end up being a viable energy source, if only as an easy cost-effective method of generating hydrogen (assuming you can keep it from igniting once the radio waves liberate it).

[Tsa`ah]

Depending on how efficeint this process is, it could end up being a viable energy source, if only as an easy cost-effective method of generating hydrogen (assuming you can keep it from igniting once the radio waves liberate it).

Off the top of my head I can see, potentially, people filling their tank with saline if the process is too localized.

It would just be a matter of determining the yield per gallon of hydrogen, and potentially piping it to a combustion chamber (via tank resonating).

It would seem far safer than pressurizing a fuel cell with hydrogen.

[Celephais]

Off the top of my head I can see, potentially, people filling their tank with saline if the process is too localized.
That's the thing though, the saline doesn't go anywhere, you don't need to "fill" your tank with saline, because as it combusts it exhausts water (and leaves salt in the tank), replenishing the saline. Law of conservation says you've got nothing left to turn the drivetrain.

Please tell me what you think is being consumed?


It would seem far safer than pressurizing a fuel cell with hydrogen.
It certainly would be, it just seems like an efficient way to turn electrical energy into mechanical energy. Unfortunatly you still need to power the radio wave emitter, and it's going to take more than the energy produced by combustion.

[Stanley Burrell]

Do you guys know what burning something is? If you fill a vacuum with just H2 and attempt to light it on fire it WILL NOT BURN*. H2 only burns in the presence of oxygen. It is irrelevant if that oxygen is from the salt water or from the atmosphere but that doesn't disprove me, the system as a whole does not change in the burning process (if you input oxygen from the atmosphere your releasing oxygen from the saltwater)...

I completely agree that there is potential in this for many applications, but it is not an energy source. This would all be wrong if there is something more than just burning hydrogen going on.

*The only hope here would be a fusion reaction, having the hydrogen molecules combine to form helium and I think that takes something like 8 million degrees K to achive. It's possible that's the case, but then the potential energy in the system has changed, and that's technically not "burning" hydrogen.

You're also assuming this is a combustion reaction. Or you aren't -- But how could you gather that the reaction could cause that much intermolecular disturbance and remain at a (comparably) low temperature of 3000 degrees Fahrenheit?

[Celephais]

You're also assuming this is a combustion reaction.
Yeah... I even said I was assuming that (post or two before it)... and I stated that if that wasn't the case I would be wrong. The article itself says it's combustion (burning), but I'm saying it may not be combustion, because that's the only way they would actually produce energy with this system, if it wasn't combustion.

the energy output from burning hydrogen.

Christ, you even quoted me having said another possibility that it wasn't combustion. Stanely I can usually interpret your babble well and see the intelligence behind it, but come'on, a little reading comprehension.

[Tsa`ah]

That's the thing though, the saline doesn't go anywhere, you don't need to "fill" your tank with saline, because as it combusts it exhausts water (and leaves salt in the tank), replenishing the saline. Law of conservation says you've got nothing left to turn the drivetrain.

Please tell me what you think is being consumed?


It certainly would be, it just seems like an efficient way to turn electrical energy into mechanical energy. Unfortunatly you still need to power the radio wave emitter, and it's going to take more than the energy produced by combustion.

Now this is getting redundant.

First off, hydrogen is being consumed.

The trick would be to get the hydrogen to a combustion chamber (because you would be resonating the tank).

Second, you put plain old water in the tank when the hydrogen and oxygen have been exhausted (thanks for pointing out how we take care of the waste, aka salt problem).

Third would be .. you know squat about current automotive technology.

Just as an internal combustion or diesel engine needs a battery to get going, so would this car. The battery turns the starter (in this case the radio resonator), the engine starts and the alternator kicks in ... powering both the locomotion and the ignition (resonator).

It's rather simple in a crude way.

I suppose you think it's a hoax?

[Celephais]

You're also assuming this is a combustion reaction. Or you aren't -- But how could you gather that the reaction could cause that much intermolecular disturbance and remain at a (comparably) low temperature of 3000 degrees Fahrenheit?
You editted your post before I replied... but you made it fucking worse! Dude, I SAY that temperature is far too low for fusion right by the god damn asterisk!!! I acknowledge that there is another possibility, but then say that it's highly unlikely because of the temps!

Wow... Xyelin's "ignore stanely club" is looking better and better...

[Stanley Burrell]

Yeah... I even said I was assuming that (post or two before it)... and I stated that if that wasn't the case I would be wrong. The article itself says it's combustion (burning), but I'm saying it may not be combustion, because that's the only way they would actually produce energy with this system, if it wasn't combustion.


Christ, you even quoted me having said another possibility that it wasn't combustion. Stanely I can usually interpret your babble well and see the intelligence behind it, but come'on, a little reading comprehension.

Saying it's a "small scale" fusion/fission reaction is preposterous is all, no offense.

Edit - That was just in response to your second idea. Since you're the physicist, I'm wondering WHY it would be a combustion reaction, which it probably most certainly is. Is it L.D., dipole-dipole, H-bonding, etc. (initial) separation of matter. I am seeking your nuclear physical expertise on this on subject during both yours and my free time because I am genuinely curious and gladly acknowledge that you know more about the subject than I do. No need to get all touchy (I can't tell if you're just being snobbish or misinterpreting me, actually.)

[Celephais]

First off, hydrogen is being consumed.
No, this is completely wrong, Hydrogen AND oxygen are being consumed to form WATER. Think of a normal gasoline engine, gasoline needs oxygen to combust and forms exhaust. The exhaust from a hydrogen based engine is water. If you pump in 2,000 hydrogen atoms and combust them with 1,000 oxygen atoms you get 1,000 water molecules as exhaust.


Second, you put plain old water in the tank when the hydrogen and oxygen have been exhausted (thanks for pointing out how we take care of the waste, aka salt problem).
So absolutely nothing has been consumed, the exhaust from the engine replenishes the tank.


Third would be .. you know squat about current automotive technology.

Just as an internal combustion or diesel engine needs a battery to get going, so would this car. The battery turns the starter (in this case the radio resonator), the engine starts and the alternator kicks in ... powering both the locomotion and the ignition (resonator).
Of course I know this, I'm telling you that you cannot produce energy, in order to power the altenator enough to power the resonator you would need to take more of the mechanical energy from the drivetrain than is being produced by the combustion.


It's rather simple in a crude way.

I suppose you think it's a hoax?
No, I don't think it's a hoax, it's just not a power SOURCE. NOTHING is being consumed if it's a hydrogen burning system.

[Stanley Burrell]

You editted your post before I replied... but you made it fucking worse! Dude, I SAY that temperature is far too low for fusion right by the god damn asterisk!!!

You also say (right next to the god damn asterisk!!!)


It's possible that's the case, but then the potential energy in the system has changed, and that's technically not "burning" hydrogen.

I basically interpreted this that you were pondering an extremely narrow frequency within a small system as having possible responsibility for superheating a tiny space of atoms, or something to that effect. Calm down, dude. Please.

[Celephais]

Saying it's a "small scale" fusion/fission reaction is preposterous is all, no offense.
Fully agree, I was just trying to cut off anyone's attempt to say it's not combustion, because chemically/physically the only possible ways to derive energy require either a molecular change or an atomic change, I stated it takes something like 8 million K to get an atomic change so I thought that was good enough to say this is a chemical process.


Edit - That was just in response to your second idea. Since you're the physicist, I'm wondering WHY it would be a combustion reaction, which it probably most certainly is. Is it L.D., dipole-dipole, H-bonding, etc. (initial) separation of matter. I am seeking your nuclear physical expertise on this on subject during both yours and my free time because I am genuinely curious and gladly acknowledge that you know more about the subject than I do. No need to get all touchy
Obviously no expert, but I stayed at a holiday inn express last night, the context of the article...
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 Since salt water has only a handful of "bonds", the weakest of which, the magnetic bonds between the salt ions and the water (this is what makes salt water a solution, not a homogeneous mixture), which if weakened further wouldn't release hydrogen, the ohter bond being the molecular bond between hydrogen and oxygen. So they weaken that bond to release the hydrogen... releasing the hydrogen causes the ions to form salt (if it were a saturated solution, if it wasn't it would cause the remaining water to become closer to being saturated), and would also release the oxygen. The Hydrogen atoms would immediately form Hydrogen gas (H2), and the oxygen atoms would form either oxygen gas (O2) or Ozone (O3). The hydrogen gas cannot react with itself any further short of some massive temperatures (IE fusion, so not happening). So in order to combust or burn it needs oxygen (You should know this as a chemist, but others... you've seen the candle in a glass jar Mr. Wizard... without oxygen it won't burn). Since burning is just turning hydrogen and oxygen back into water... the system has not consumed anything.

(I can't tell if you're just being snobbish or misinterpreting me, actually.)
Little of both ;)


Calm down, dude. Please.
Hah, don't worry I don't let the PC actually affect me... it's just fun to overreact in posts. If anything I know you understand this stuff a lot better than most people so I hold you (and bob) to higher standards.

Everyone else... enjoy the wall of text.

[Tsa`ah]

I think someone needs to take a trip back to jr high chem.

By your explanation, we don't consume gasoline.

I'm perfectly aware that combustion produces water and carbon dioxide. I'm also aware that "burning" hydrogen in the presence of oxygen creates water. I'm also aware that either produces heat, and in doing so produces pressure when contained ... hence the principle behind automotive and diesel engines (well diesel engines apply pressure to a fuel source until they combust).

I KNOW this process entails splitting a water molecule and then slamming all 3 pieces back together. What you DON'T understand is simply that I'm saying "let's put them back together in a chamber to harness the pressure and heat ... that isn't the tank".

And you don't vent steam into a tank you're deriving your energy from ... boom bad, scalding hot salt water worse ... use a garden hose and let the exhaust become rain ... then again you've just asserted that it's akin to perpetual motion and I think you're off your rocker for suggesting it.

Try to think these things though.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm'a just go with ye olde n = +1 and the excited orbit reacts exactly the same as it would if you stuck some electrodes into your NaCl(aq).

Says the guy worked in a cancer center: Electromagnetic resonance imaging pimps out the radii your body's atomic orbitals (although I think the image produced is a recording of them falling back into place.)

Maybe some cracked out MRI technology gone awesome.

[Celephais]

I think someone needs to take a trip back to jr high chem.

By your explanation, we don't consume gasoline.
Sure we consume gasoline, but you don't see us trying to form C8H18 out of CO2 and water. The reason is that has to take exactly as much energy to get back to the components as is released on combustion, minus waste. We let the pressures of the earth take care of that.


I'm perfectly aware that combustion produces water and carbon dioxide. I'm also aware that "burning" hydrogen in the presence of oxygen creates water. I'm also aware that either produces heat, and in doing so produces pressure when contained ... hence the principle behind automotive and diesel engines (well diesel engines apply pressure to a fuel source until they combust).

I KNOW this process entails splitting a water molecule and then slamming all 3 pieces back together. What you DON'T understand is simply that I'm saying "let's put them back together in a chamber to harness the pressure and heat ... that isn't the tank".
I said it was a good way to convert electricity into mechanical energy... it just doesn't actually consume anything.


And you don't vent steam into a tank you're deriving your energy from ... boom bad, scalding hot salt water worse ... use a garden hose and let the exhaust become rain ... then again you've just asserted that it's akin to perpetual motion and I think you're off your rocker for suggesting it.
You don't know what a condenser does then do you... letting the water go and refilling doesn't actually do anything to the system other than release heat (which you seem to think is free). If I caught all the steam that was released from my car and let it fill a tank in my back seat, and when I ran out of "gas" I let the tank cool down on it's own and poured it into my tank... what potential energy was consumed?

For gasoline the chemical potential energy is in the C8H18 molecules, we burn them with O2 to form CO2 and H2O (2 C8H18 + 25 O2 ----> 18 H2O + 16 CO2 to be exact). We exhaust the water and the carbon dioxide...
If we exhaust H2O and use H2O as a fuel... what exactly changed to release kinetic energy?

I am not stating this is infinite energy, I'm saying something has to power the radio wave emiter, and it can't come from the same burning hydrogen because it can't physically produce enough energy. You seem to think that converting water into water produces energy... it can't.

*I'm bored at work and having fun catching up on chemistry again.

[Stanley Burrell]

Stoichiometry is Satan. (Gasoline is octane?)

[Celephais]

Gasoline is octane?
Ideally...
But it can vary from like C6H14 up to C12H26 ... either way the formula is the same, just balanced differently. Burns with oxygen to form CO2 and H2O ... Of course the formula never works out perfectly... oooH I just found this:


gasoline is a complicated mixture of hydrocarbons with chemical formulas between C6H14 and C12H26, but a good "average" compound is C8H18. These react in an ideal situation to produce carbon dioxide and water, but in an actual automobile engine they also produce some amount of undesirable compounds including carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and sulfur-containing compounds

[Clove]

...I said it was a good way to convert electricity into mechanical energy... it just doesn't actually consume anything...
I am not stating this is infinite energy, I'm saying something has to power the radio wave emiter, and it can't come from the same burning hydrogen because it can't physically produce enough energy. You seem to think that converting water into water produces energy... it can't.

*I'm bored at work and having fun catching up on chemistry again.

If you didn't reclaim the water vapor created by burning H you would effectively be consuming the water.

You do need additional power to generate the sound waves necessary to begin the reaction- kind of like you need a battery to generate the spark to burn the gasoline. Once it gets going however you're able to convert enough thermal energy into kinetic energy and divert some of that (via alternator) back to your spark to ignite your fuel again. Depending on how much power it takes to get this saline burning a similar condition may exist- that's why they're researching it further.

[Tsa`ah]

....

Ok ... square one again.

The process appears to release hydrogen, we're assuming it's releasing oxygen as well ... though it would take an analysis of what's left in the tube to determine that.

Hell, it could just be a hydrogen atom being liberated from a water molecule leaving the remaining molecules to form hydrogen peroxide. You figure out the reaction between the two remaining molecules.

It could be 2 leaving the heavier and bulkier oxygen atom in the tube .... you don't know. You're only assuming the burning hydrogen is reacting with the very same oxygen it was liberated from.

Assuming it's just hydrogen, and a method of preventing it from forming a flame can be found, it's a matter of (again) piping it to an engine. You wouldn't want to hold on to the exhaust as you would become more efficient the lighter you were ... it makes no sense

Additionally, if we're talking about peroxide compounds being the "waste" it leave another dilemma of what to do with it, unless we're left with salt, then it's just a garden hose.


You do need additional power to generate the sound waves necessary to begin the reaction- kind of like you need a battery to generate the spark to burn the gasoline. Once it gets going however you're able to convert enough thermal energy into kinetic energy and divert some of that (via alternator) back to your spark to ignite your fuel again. Depending on how much power it takes to get this saline burning a similar condition may exist- that's why they're researching it further.

Already mentioned guy




Just as an internal combustion or diesel engine needs a battery to get going, so would this car. The battery turns the starter (in this case the radio resonator), the engine starts and the alternator kicks in ... powering both the locomotion and the ignition (resonator).

[Celephais]

Tsa'ah, I don't care if it reacts with the same oxygen at all, if you consume water and replenish with water you're doing nothing to the system.

If you intake oxygen like a normal vehicle and they leave the oxygen in the tube (exhaust oxygen) then you're doing nothing to the system.

A gasoline powered car has this as it's system:
Intake: C8H18 & O2
Output: CO2 & H2O
Chemically that's an exothermic reaction.

A car that produces it's own hydrogen from water would have this as the system:
Intake: H2O
Output: H2O
Chemically that is not a reaction

If it produced H2O2 the system would actually consume more energy... as H2O2 has more chemical potential than H2O, as H2O2 decomposes EXOTHERMICALLY into H2O and O2.
Intake: H2O + O2
Output: H2O2 + H2O
Chemically that's an endothermic reaction.

To quote you, you know squat about chemistry.

[Tsa`ah]

Instead of responding to your google chemistry ... I'll direct you to re-read my last post and the use a dictionary to look up the word assume.

I'll even throw in a few hints via key words.

Hydrogen peroxide
Peroxide compounds.

[Clove]

The process appears to release hydrogen, we're assuming it's releasing oxygen as well ... though it would take an analysis of what's left in the tube to determine that.

What are you talking about. If it is releasing H from a source of H2O it HAS to release oxygen as well. The hydrogen is fucking bound to the oxygen. Maybe you need Google chemistry. And I think it's safe to say they aren't forming dichlorine monoxide since the article didn't mention any sodium-water explosions.

[Celephais]

Instead of responding to your google chemistry ... I'll direct you to re-read my last post and the use a dictionary to look up the word assume.

I'll even throw in a few hints via key words.

Hydrogen peroxide
Peroxide compounds.
What the hell do you think Hydrogen Peroxide is? H2O2.
Producing H2O2 is an endothermic processes, meaning it will not happen spontaenously, and it takes energy to form. There is a reason water is so abundant, is that it's a very small molecule that's electrically balanced, so just about any reaction you can come up involving water on the left hand side will be endothermic (short of being on the left hand side with something incredibly unbalanced like Na metal... but that's the fuel that would be consumed).

The point is that you can't refuel with water if you exhaust water, since burning hydrogen exhausts water, you need to refuel with something else.

[Tsa`ah]

WTF ....

It takes energy to form? No shit? Good fucking thing there's energy being used to remove the hydrogen.

Now I suggest you two cocknozzles go back and take a look at what I posted and then read your sandy mangina responses.

Now use your fucking heads for something other than snot repositories and keep up.

If you want to discuss it, we'll discuss it. If you want to swing around your e-peens with google in your back pocket simply because of who you're responding to ... go somewhere else because it's getting old.

Since none of us have chemistry degrees ... I'll stick with we're making assumptions.

I've made a few of them, and one happens to be that 1 hydrogen atom is liberated from the water molecule leaving HO, since we have energy in the form of resonation (vibration) we have the potential for hydrogen peroxide to form ... or at least that's my understanding per work related reading some years back.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JCPSA6000060000001000270000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

[Latrinsorm]

Ah, alright. Good edit there. :)

[Tsa`ah]

I fuck up often.

[Celephais]

Out of curiosity Tsa'ah, are you saying that the energy required to create the resonation is less than is released in the hydrogen burning reaction?

[Tsa`ah]

The point is that you can't refuel with water if you exhaust water, since burning hydrogen exhausts water, you need to refuel with something else.

That statement is very poorly thought out on your part using your very own premise.

If hydrogen and oxygen are released what does that leave behind? NaCl.

Did this salt form an emotional bond with the water before it divorced? Will it just not play nice with it's new neighbors who are exactly the same thing?

If salt is left behind in the tank and you put in water ... you get salinated water.

[Tsa`ah]

Out of curiosity Tsa'ah, are you saying that the energy required to create the resonation is less than is released in the hydrogen burning reaction?

I've made no statement as to such. But it's a moot point since I can ask the same of refining petroleum.

[Celephais]

I've made no statement as to such. But it's a moot point since I can ask the same of refining petroleum.
And I would tell you it takes less energy to refine petroleum FROM CRUDE than is released from burning petroleum. Refining petroleum from CO2 and H2O would require the exact same (if done with no loss) amount of energy as is released when you burn petroleum, that's why we don't make petroleum, we refine it from crude.

[Celephais]

That statement is very poorly thought out on your part using your very own premise.

If hydrogen and oxygen are released what does that leave behind? NaCl.

Did this salt form an emotional bond with the water before it divorced? Will it just not play nice with it's new neighbors who are exactly the same thing?

If salt is left behind in the tank and you put in water ... you get salinated water.
I'm saying you can't refuel with the same thing you exhaust and expect to produce energy.

[Tsa`ah]

And I would tell you it takes less energy to refine petroleum FROM CRUDE than is released from burning petroleum. Refining petroleum from CO2 and H2O would require the exact same (if done with no loss) amount of energy as is released when you burn petroleum, that's why we don't make petroleum, we refine it from crude.


I'm saying you can't refuel with the same thing you exhaust and expect to produce energy.

You're still assuming. You don't know how much energy is required by the divice to resonate salinated water .... until you can post some facts, please begin your posts with "I assume".

[Clove]

I've made a few of them, and one happens to be that 1 hydrogen atom is liberated from the water molecule leaving HO, since we have energy in the form of resonation (vibration) we have the potential for hydrogen peroxide to form ... or at least that's my understanding per work related reading some years back.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JCPSA6000060000001000270000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

You're right assumptions are being made but from the article it sounds like a sonic version of electrolysis (also done with a solute catalyst); reinforced in my mind when the colleague was warned about electrodes.

I would be VERY surprised to find 1M H20 -> 1/4M H2 + 1/2M OH -> 1/4M H203 assuming that the extra 1M O2 came from the atmosphere. Other possible by-products are dichlorine monoxide Cl2O (which I very MUCH doubt given the leftover Na2 in the pressence of H20) or NaClO (bleach).

I really don't think it is unreasonable to suppose that H2O is being broken down to H2 and 02 in this process.

[Celephais]

You're still assuming. You don't know how much energy is required by the divice to resonate salinated water .... until you can post some facts, please begin your posts with "I assume".
No, I am not assuming, it's a fact. You cannot create energy.

If you could separate hydrogen from salinated water for less energy than is produced by burning hydrogen then we could just create unlimited energy.

As Clove already stated, it's the law of conservation, here is an article for you:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99022.htm

You realize, of course, that the amount of energy required to separate hydrogen from oxygen is exactly the same as the amount of energy released when they recombine
If you can't grasp that concept... I see no point in continuing this discussion.

[Sean of the Thread]

Tsa'ah has made this thread funny at the very least.

[Tsa`ah]

No, I am not assuming, it's a fact. You cannot create energy.

If you could separate hydrogen from salinated water for less energy than is produced by burning hydrogen then we could just create unlimited energy.

As Clove already stated, it's the law of conservation, here is an article for you:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99022.htm

If you can't grasp that concept... I see no point in continuing this discussion.

I never said energy was created.

I've suggested a method of harnessing the energy "released". It's not anyone here that fails to grasp the concept, it's you trying to impose that concept upon a process you don't understand based purely on assumption and a poor understanding of basic chemistry.

You keep saying you can't introduce the water to create more fuel, but you suggested introducing the exhaust to the fuel as a silly means of perpetual motion. See the contradiction?

You've sort of stumbled in every post you've made on the topic, maybe you should google some more chemistry and come back in a week when you might have a point.

Other than that, just reading more on the process (which isn't much) Kanzius seems to think there's something more going on other than simply burning hydrogen simply due to the temperatures claimed (1500-3000 F).


Tsa'ah has made this thread funny at the very least.

The day you make a post with an iota of thought will be one for the record books.

Move along slack jaw, there are too many words in this thread that would give you an aneurysm if you tried to read them. Go find a nice book with pictures or continue to violate your siblings/parents/children.

[Sean of the Thread]

Blah blah blah.


^^^ has more to offer than the majority of your posts.

[Gan]

I would think that heat/light would be the energy released by the flame. Hydrogen being the primary fuel for the combustion as released by the radio waves.

The byproduct of the combustion would be water and oxygen and NaCl. Since fire needs a fuel source after ignition, why couldnt the oxygen released be the source for the continued fuel for the flame?

Why couldnt the water byproduct replenish the salt byproduct thus creating more salt water, which in turn is continuously exposed to radio waves, thus separating the hydrogen as the added fuel source?

Could this be something thats in a sealed environment where the heat is conducted out as energy while the water and oxygen are captured back into the same environment as the combustion is taking place?

A self containing heat reactor. I guess the goal would be to keep the water from heating up to boiling point so creation of steam wouldnt kill the whole environment.

...Thoughts from a non-chemistry type person.

[Celephais]

I never said energy was created.

I've suggested a method of harnessing the energy "released". It's not anyone here that fails to grasp the concept, it's you trying to impose that concept upon a process you don't understand based purely on assumption and a poor understanding of basic chemistry.

You keep saying you can't introduce the water to create more fuel, but you suggested introducing the exhaust to the fuel as a silly means of perpetual motion. See the contradiction?
This is what I've been saying the whole time, that this is NOT a perpetual motion machine, if you use water as a fuel to exhaust water YOU are the one claiming perpetual motion. I am stating that they are just converting energy and they have no energy source, there is no fuel, there is no change of chemical compisition within the system, that the amount of energy output < amount of energy input.


You've sort of stumbled in every post you've made on the topic, maybe you should google some more chemistry and come back in a week when you might have a point.
I didn't have to google any chemistry, up until I started quoting articles was all chemistry I learned in high school and college, and I did pretty damn well in my chem classes, you on the other hand have stated ZERO scientific claims, at least attempt to back things up with any sort of science.


Other than that, just reading more on the process (which isn't much) Kanzius seems to think there's something more going on other than simply burning hydrogen simply due to the temperatures claimed (1500-3000 F).

Doing a little googling, hydrogen & oxygen can burn at temperatures reaching 4204 F, so the fact that his is burning 1500-3000 is not indicative of anything else going on.

[Bartlett]

It seems that we are assuming water will be the only byproduct of burning hydrogen and oxygen. H20 is only one of many combinations that will be produced. This is why you cannot perceive that a perpetual motion machine is being proposed (or at least you shouldn't). Wood, for example does not burn and turn back into wood. Granted, wood is more complex than water but the principle is the same. The amount of different combinations of molecules that can occur is mind boggling. Also worthy of consideration is the contamination of other molecules in the saltwater. If you contend that the oxygen already found in the saltwater will be used instead of "fresh air" to support combustion you don't have to consider the 79% or so of the air that is not oxygen, but the first point would still apply.

Burning Hydrogen is no different than burning anything else as far as getting energy from it. The heat produced (in this case 3000 degrees) is easily put to good use. The only question as to whether or not the heat from hydrogen in this system is viable as an energy source is whether or not the heat output from the burning will produce more energy than is required to run the transmitter. From the article, it seems they are optimistic that this is the case. The amount of energy produced by the heat is affected somewhere around none by what molecular combinations are possible from the exhausted particles.

As for reusing the salt left over in the tank, I think it would be best to get rid of it and replenish with more saltwater for three reasons. First you would have to expend energy to properly mix the salt and the fresh water. Second, the contaminants in the saltwater that did not get burnt in the combustion process would be left over in the salt until the solution would be saturated with molecules outside the scope of the clean laboratory, and third the amount of potable water we have on earth is expected to be a major problem down the road. Solving one problem with another of equal scope doesn't sound like a great solution.

[TheEschaton]

If you have purified water + salt, the only combinations can be between hydrogen, oxygen, sodium, and chloride. Assuming that the hydrogen is burned off, you could get only combinations of the last three. And all those combinations are much cleaner then gas byproducts.

-TheE-

[Bartlett]

Assuming you are using the oxygen from the O2 found in the water already that is correct. However, I was not challenging the cleanliness of the system. I was speaking more to the "no energy is produced, can't be a power source, this suggests perpetual motion" arguments

[Clove]

It seems that we are assuming water will be the only byproduct of burning hydrogen and oxygen. H20 is only one of many combinations that will be produced...

Because under ordinary conditions that's exactly what happens. And if this is a neat destruction of water followed by the immediate ignition of the generated H2; you end up with heat and hydrogen oxide aka water.


If you have purified water + salt, the only combinations can be between hydrogen, oxygen, sodium, and chloride. Assuming that the hydrogen is burned off, you could get only combinations of the last three. And all those combinations are much cleaner then gas byproducts.

-TheE-

Essentially true unless this process results in a partial destruction of water that leaves hydrogen gas (H2) and hydroxide ions (OH-) then peroxides (H2O2), salts (NaClO) acids (HCl) and even bases (NaOH) are all possible. The article doesn't give enough details but I really don't get the impression that this is the case.

[Bobmuhthol]

What the fuck happened to this thread

[Gan]

What the fuck happened to this thread

e + peen -----> asplosion^2

[Latrinsorm]

YOUR REACTION IS NOT BALANCED GOOGLE SOME MORE CHEMISTRY OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!