CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Burning water: solution for world's energy needs?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Burning water: solution for world's energy needs?

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570

Quote:
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."
post #2 of 47
Oh boy. Imagine what the Department of Defense would want to do with this.

Burning enemy soldiers with radio waves!
post #3 of 47
It's only a matter of time before Exxon-Mobil claims the Indian Ocean is their corporate property.

Aside from that, this discovery is awesome.
post #4 of 47
Isn't this sort of thing covered in Revelations?
post #5 of 47
The future is Costner!
post #6 of 47
Wow, this could be a defining point in human history. I don't think words can do justice if this pans out.
post #7 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graynadian
I don't think words can do justice if this pans out.
How about "Fuck you fish"?
post #8 of 47
Seriously, the oil industry will shit blood if this actually works and the radio frequency generator can be produced inexpensively.
post #9 of 47
I seriously hope we must all spread some reputation around before giving it to Overlord again.
post #10 of 47
Unfortunately, the radio frequency generator uses more electricity than the amount of energy generated by the burning hydrogen...
post #11 of 47
I'm telling ya this is the start of the mad scientist comeback. Hasn't happened since the 50s. Get ready for a run on lab coats, rubber aprons and weird-ass assistants.
post #12 of 47
Thread Starter 
I am trying to collect my thoughts and think rationally about what this means. I know it's early, but *insert gibbering optimistic rant here*.

This is just insane. Salt water is abundant, is relatively easy to transport and harmless, and radio waves, unlike other varieties of the electromagnetic spectrum, can be easily blocked by conventional technology.

The byproducts would be harmless ... except for the heat ... there's just no downside. The scary thought is that no one will want to invest the working capital needed into this, because once you create the patents, you're going to lose the industry in a decade or two. It's not like mineral rights you can control forever.
post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete
Unfortunately, the radio frequency generator uses more electricity than the amount of energy generated by the burning hydrogen...
BOO!!! HISS!!!

I'm going to call my physicist buddy and tell him to get cracking on a solution.

Can you imagine what this could do to our global warming problem?
post #14 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete
Unfortunately, the radio frequency generator uses more electricity than the amount of energy generated by the burning hydrogen...
Of all the problems that might arise from energy production, this is one of the least worrisome. Methods of making frequency output stronger are probably more doable than creating more oil reserves where none exist, solving the coal/global warming issue, or figuring out what to do with radioactive waste.
post #15 of 47
I wish it could be THE solution, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kanzius

Wikipedia never lies! ahem
post #16 of 47
Two words will solve this problem:

Rich Hippies
post #17 of 47
What would you do with all that excess salt? I mean would it be dispersed as tiny particles as a result of the process or would it need to be collected in a seperate container and disposed of later? It sticks to any moisture so a simple exhaust pipe seems like it wouldnt work. Also, doesnt it tend to corrode almost anything having to do with machinery? Its entirely possible I just dont understand the concept very thoroughly though so feel free to correct me.

I still think its a good idea though, no matter the stumbling blocks, almost anything is a good alternative to oil.
post #18 of 47
The League of Shadows are one step closer to completing their plan.
post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord
The scary thought is that no one will want to invest the working capital needed into this, because once you create the patents, you're going to lose the industry in a decade or two. It's not like mineral rights you can control forever.
True, but think about the 20 years of licensing fees...man...that's a fair amount of cabbage!
post #20 of 47
I can see a school working on this and getting the patent or a rich philanthropist who would want to make the patent public.
post #21 of 47
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but if it uses more electricity than it produces then it isn't exactly a viable energy source. I'll give you two guesses where the electricity comes from. This is the same issue that plagues various other alternative fuel sources. If we have to use fossil fuels to produce clean fuel, which is generally the case, then nothing has been solved.

EDIT: Thanks for my new user title, EdHocken.
post #22 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by englebert
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but if it uses more electricity than it produces then it isn't exactly a viable energy source. I'll give you two guesses where the electricity comes from. This is the same issue that plagues various other alternative fuel sources. If we have to use fossil fuels to produce clean fuel, which is generally the case, then nothing has been solved.

EDIT: Thanks for my new user title, EdHocken.
I noticed this in the wikipedia gripe, and it doesn't make sense to me. Generating the radio field may be inefficient as hell right now, but if there's one thing science tends to be good at, it's increasing the efficiency of energy sources (unless that source is gasoline, which mysteriously never seems to be utilized more effectively). The whole idea of burning something is that you release stored energy.

Probably I just don't understand how this works. Still ... burning water, man!
post #23 of 47
http://chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102008

I posted this about 2 months ago with almost exactly the same title.
post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord
if there's one thing science tends to be good at, it's increasing the efficiency of energy sources.
Notable counter-examples: Fusion, nearly every biofuel production process. Sure the fuels themselves do not produce harmful emissions, but the process of creating them often does defeating the purpose. Essentially the only way to get around this is to use green energy (wind, solar, hydro-electric) to produce the electricity, but they make up a tiny fraction of the total electricity produced.

Fun fact: My home state, Washington, produces the most hydroelectricity in the nation.
post #25 of 47
I don't see why people don't use batteries to get around the issue of more energy being used than to produce. Well, I'm assuming that it's not being done. I would think that with batteries themselves, and their storage capacities, finally being revolutionized that new forms of energy production can only flourish as a result.
post #26 of 47
Quote:
"This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Roy said. "Seeing it burn gives me the chills."
Said the latest Aquaman villain.
post #27 of 47
I don't really get what you mean. Batteries have to be charged.
post #28 of 47
If all that's required for the reaction is salt water, a heat source, and very strong radio waves, then this looks promising. Even if the energy required to produce the radio waves is more than the water gives off, we should be able to increase the efficiency of the radio waves and/or increase the magnitude of energy from the salt water reaction. If this reaction is able to produce even .01% more energy than is required to make it, we're looking at something huge.
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graynadian
we should be able to increase the efficiency of the radio waves and/or increase the magnitude of energy from the salt water reaction.
Why? Any physicists or chemists here in the Sewer?
post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete
Unfortunately, the radio frequency generator uses more electricity than the amount of energy generated by the burning hydrogen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExxonMobil Press Release 09/12/2007
In an exciting discovery, scientists at ExxonMobil labs have solved the radio frequency energy loss problem by substituting Blue Whale blood for water.
...
post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Why? Any physicists or chemists here in the Sewer?
I'm not a chemist or physicist, but I've taken three years worth of physics and four years worth of chem and I have studied alternate fuels with similar issues to this miracle fuel. As I stated before, from the details that I have seen, it is far from viable in its current state and it is never a given that science will come up with a solution in the short term. I'm still waiting on fusion to be viable and every ten years it is ten years away. Also, I'm not even sure this is legitimate discovery, there are several such miraculous scientific discoveries reported each year that generally end up being either a hoax or a result of sensationalist reporting. I'll believe when I see it in a more reputable scientific publication.
post #32 of 47
What I was meaning by the batteries option was that couldn't batteries that were already charged, from another source initially, be used to power the devices to run the whole thing? Such as using batteries that were charged through hydroelectricity and then plugging the newly charged batteries into the "burning water" device? Then you use some of the power from the new power source to charge a new set of batteries and those new batteries then go on to be used in other new power devices.
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Why? Any physicists or chemists here in the Sewer?
I'm basing that assumption on the historical ability of humans to improve the efficiency of combustable reactions we rely on as power sources. There are of course counter-examples that englebert noted, but what we're talking about is producing radio waves in a more efficient manner, something we have certainly done since Marconi's first broadcast. If we have already reached the limit of radio wave production efficiency, or if we're unable to make this process efficient enough to have a net production of energy, then we'll have to keep looking. What has me excited is that even if we can make this process slightly efficient, the massive amount of fuel available would compensate for the relative inefficiency of the fuel compared to other fuels. Also, the byproducts would seemingly be limited to hydrogen, oxygen, and sodium chloride, none of which are toxic to humans.
post #34 of 47
I'm not sure of the actual reactions involved, but if it is anything like the production of hydrogen through electrolysis, it will potentially create by-products of chloride gas and sodium hydroxide. Both of which are pretty nasty, but at least they are useful industrially.
post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by donde
What I was meaning by the batteries option was that couldn't batteries that were already charged, from another source initially, be used to power the devices to run the whole thing? Such as using batteries that were charged through hydroelectricity and then plugging the newly charged batteries into the "burning water" device? Then you use some of the power from the new power source to charge a new set of batteries and those new batteries then go on to be used in other new power devices.
It's a nice idea, Donde, but it fails to obey the law of conservation of energy. If you have 100 calories of energy to begin with, and you have to use them to produce 99 calories of energy, you've lost that calorie. Add transmission loss from your water-burning process to a new battery, and you're down to 95 calories. (Take that, Professor Johnson! And you thought I was sleeping!)

The real breakthrough will be if the water-burning reaction can become self-sustaining, like fission or fire. Make that happen, and you've got yourself an energy source.

Side rant: you know who pisses me off? People who wank about windmills going up in their line of sight. Talk about a sustainable energy source!
post #36 of 47
This will never happen, but I'd love to see them cover Venus in solar panels and beam the energy to Earth, a la Transmetropolitan. That'd just be cool.
post #37 of 47
Thread Starter 
Well, at least we know the process works as reported, though no large scale practical applications have been contemplated.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ing-water.html

I find it interesting that the professor noted in the article was more fascinated by the desalination opportunities or hydrogen extraction (apparently pure water is what's left over when the burning is done) then he was with energy creation.
post #38 of 47
I understand what you're saying with regards to the laws of conservation, but what I'm trying to get at is a scenario like this:

You take a set of batteries that were charged through solar power and hook them up to the "burning water" device to run it. Now all the power that the water device creates can be used to charge up a new set of batteries and/or any other devices as needed.

I don't see how the laws of conservation would be broken since the water power device wouldn't be using its own power initially to start running.
post #39 of 47
That link won't load for me. Hydrogen production is problematic in its current state, so I can see a new process being more exciting to the aforementioned professor. Using the harvested hydrogen is probably much easier than having a salt-water burning rig since there is a pre-exisiting body of work which examines hydrogen use.
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by donde
I understand what you're saying with regards to the laws of conservation, but what I'm trying to get at is a scenario like this:

You take a set of batteries that were charged through solar power and hook them up to the "burning water" device to run it. Now all the power that the water device creates can be used to charge up a new set of batteries and/or any other devices as needed.

I don't see how the laws of conservation would be broken since the water power device wouldn't be using its own power initially to start running.
They speak to this in the article. If the energy produced through the burning is greater than that required to power the radio transmitter, you're on to something. If not, you're better off pumping that solar power directly into the energy grid.
post #41 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken
I'm telling ya this is the start of the mad scientist comeback. Hasn't happened since the 50s. Get ready for a run on lab coats, rubber aprons and weird-ass assistants.
Don't forget thick eyeglasses and whatever they use to make their hair really, really frizzy.
post #42 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaNewYork
Don't forget thick eyeglasses and whatever they use to make their hair really, really frizzy.
That sounds like a (unintentional) jab at me.
post #43 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by englebert
That sounds like a (unintentional) jab at me.
Hey, if you wanna be a budding mad scientist, you have to take the good with the bad. You can't be a mad scientist and assume that you get to walk around looking like Brad Pitt all day long.

Can you laugh maniacally? If you can laugh maniacally, you've got this in the bag.
post #44 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by donde
I understand what you're saying with regards to the laws of conservation, but what I'm trying to get at is a scenario like this:

You take a set of batteries that were charged through solar power and hook them up to the "burning water" device to run it. Now all the power that the water device creates can be used to charge up a new set of batteries and/or any other devices as needed.

I don't see how the laws of conservation would be broken since the water power device wouldn't be using its own power initially to start running.
Forget about starting up the reaction. The question is how much energy is used in a set time period to power the radio frequency generator breakdown of water in comparison to the amount of energy created by the heat generated in the sustained reaction.

Say the radio generator uses 10 times the electricity of an average household lamp, which .1 KWA per hour, or 1 KWA. If the heat given off in that one hour can be converted to >= 1 KWA, then you have a sustainable reaction, but it will need to be far greater than that as it needs to support itself and provide useable amounts of surplus power to be considered a viable energy source.
post #45 of 47
What's the big deal here? Cleveland figured out how to burn fresh water decades ago.
post #46 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by englebert
That sounds like a (unintentional) jab at me.
I think we're talking Dr. Forrester frizzy aka the kind of hair that one gets when sticking their finger in a light socket.

Not the well sculpted and maintained Dr. J esque afro that you have sir.
post #47 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken
Not the well sculpted and maintained Dr. J esque afro that you have sir.
I really need to track down the pictures of me dressed as Dr. J for Halloween.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Misc. Culture
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Burning water: solution for world's energy needs?