ToiletDuck

Rick water still has hydrogen in it. H2O as you know. As long as it's there it's capable of being extracted. There is nothing that says you can't.

Secondly yes it might take 200% more energy to get it out but as I was saying earlier it matters on the application. Just because something uses more energy doesn't mean it's ineffective. Plugging a nuclear reactor into a plant to produce the hydrogen and then put that into automobiles, which would run clean, is a HUGE PLUS compared to how we are doing things now. If there is an 800% energy loss then big deal. It's the application of it. All that means is we aren't getting as much bang for the buck as we one day could. It doesn't mean we couldn't benefit from it greatly.

Imagine a US with only vehicles running on hydrogen? With dependency on the middle east out of the picture.... How much energy was lost in the conversion isn't really a concern since we have the ability to produce it in a very clean manor and cheaply. It's the medium of it being used which is the problem. We haven't found anything effective for combustion engines yet. This could be it. No more burning of fossil fuels.

Also notice actual Chemist are very amazed at it as well. Obviously there is something to it.

Spartan07

Does anybody know exactly how much energy loss is associated with gasoline? I mean, how much energy does it take to extract crude oil, refine it, transport it, deliver it, and then actually use it?

It seems to me that this system could run similar to most automobiles. A battery to store enough electrical energy to power the radio wave generators for a long enough period of time to start burning the hydrogen which starts the engine moving which in turn could power an alternator to charge the battery and continue the process. But, I could be completely and totally wrong here... Still seems like something worth pursuing.

rickair7777

It takes a fair bit of energy to do these things, but a lot of that energy is produced by waste products of the process. Oil pipeline pumping stations are often powered by large natural gas powered engines...the NG is an extra product from the oil well, and it is often not practical to collect it for shipment and resale.


You're missing the whole point...you MUST put more energy into the water than you can possibly recover by burning the H2. It would be far more energy effecient to just skip the H2 and run the car off the batteries using an electric motor.

rickair7777

I was not arguing against using H2 as an energy storage and transfer device. There are some downsides, but it is the cleanest solution for internal combustion engines.

The debate here was about whether you could put X amount of energy into saltwater and recover an amount of H2 where the H2 could be burned to produce energy greater than that required to split the H20 in the first place. You cannot...unless nuclear fusion is involved (or maybe antimatter )

I also agree whole-heartedly that conventional nuclear power (fission) could be used to provide the power to generate H2 or other alternative fuels.

rickair7777

Hmmm. If that journalista says so, then it must be true.

I think we can safely assume that this revolutionary new development in fundamental newtonian physics will be providing 90% of the world's power in about 18 months. Let's just all suspend judgement until 2009 and see where we're at then...

tomgoodman

I have nearly completed a device which extracts residual energy from the Big Bang. Tapping this force reverses the expansion of the universe and therefore makes time run backwards. You can power your car and grow younger too! Perfecting my invention will require only a small amount of additional funding (cash only, please).

1Seat 1Engine

Isn't that an ironic statement?


Rick, do me a favor and go back and read this thread with an eye to who is passing judgement.