New fuel sorce found.
09-11-2007, 09:05 PM
#1
Che Guevara
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
New fuel sorce found.
If you think about this in the grand scheme of things it made my jaw drop. The current potential is on a magnificent scale. Lets hope it all works out.
http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570
http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570
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."
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."
09-12-2007, 07:16 AM
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,543
Total BS! Even better than cold-fusion 
Basic chemistry doesn't support this...
Burning Hydrogen actually combines H2 and 02, releasing energy and combining the elemental gas into a new compound...H2O
H2O (water) is the low-energy state...in order to burn the hydrogen in water you would first have to seperate the the H and the O so you could recombine them to release energy.
Of course, there is no such thing as a free lunch...it takes more energy to seperate the H2O than you can recover by burning it again..
The only way this scheme might have worked is if the the guy's radio frequency emmitter imparted enough energy into the water to break the H-O bonds...but you would still have to provide a great deal of energy to power the RF thingy (probably from the electric company).
Hydrogen can be a fuel but, unlike petroleum, it is not an energy source because there are not vast quantities of unburned H2 laying around for us to use. There is plenty of already-burned hydrogen in the form of water, but you have to put a large amount of energy into it in order to use it is a fuel. Hydrogen fuel is good only because it creates zero emissions (just water), but it would still have to generated using power from the electric grid (which might be produced by coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro,solar, etc).
Basic chemistry doesn't support this...
Burning Hydrogen actually combines H2 and 02, releasing energy and combining the elemental gas into a new compound...H2O
H2O (water) is the low-energy state...in order to burn the hydrogen in water you would first have to seperate the the H and the O so you could recombine them to release energy.
Of course, there is no such thing as a free lunch...it takes more energy to seperate the H2O than you can recover by burning it again..
The only way this scheme might have worked is if the the guy's radio frequency emmitter imparted enough energy into the water to break the H-O bonds...but you would still have to provide a great deal of energy to power the RF thingy (probably from the electric company).
Hydrogen can be a fuel but, unlike petroleum, it is not an energy source because there are not vast quantities of unburned H2 laying around for us to use. There is plenty of already-burned hydrogen in the form of water, but you have to put a large amount of energy into it in order to use it is a fuel. Hydrogen fuel is good only because it creates zero emissions (just water), but it would still have to generated using power from the electric grid (which might be produced by coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro,solar, etc).
09-12-2007, 07:50 AM
#6
Che Guevara
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Rick there are other ways they could use it. Yes it might take more energy to get it than they get out of it but the application might make the difference. A car or truck can run of hydrogen, and technically nuclear electricity, but yuo can't put a reactor in it. They could use a reactor to create the energy to extract it.
What's so BS about it? Chemistry does support it. Water has hydrogen in it. It's pausible to extract that. Secondly ask a physicist about what he/she thinks of chemistry. Chemistry itself is a pile of BS when it comes to the scientific/physical end of things. Chemistry always seems to have more exceptions than rules. "Carbon only bonds with 4 partners... except when it bonds with 5 in these 1 million other instances". Not to mention chemistry PROVED there was nothing in an electron cloud, then they found the atom in there so said there was nothing smaller than the atom. Then there was the periodic table when they said these were all the elements in the world and yet they keep finding one here and there. Chemistry doesn't support string theory which is spreading like a wildfire. There's a reason why it's mixing powders and seeing what comes out. Physics supports or breaks theoretical chemistry. Not the other way around. There's no reason why this can't be plausible. It's already been demonstrated to groups of people.
What's so BS about it? Chemistry does support it. Water has hydrogen in it. It's pausible to extract that. Secondly ask a physicist about what he/she thinks of chemistry. Chemistry itself is a pile of BS when it comes to the scientific/physical end of things. Chemistry always seems to have more exceptions than rules. "Carbon only bonds with 4 partners... except when it bonds with 5 in these 1 million other instances". Not to mention chemistry PROVED there was nothing in an electron cloud, then they found the atom in there so said there was nothing smaller than the atom. Then there was the periodic table when they said these were all the elements in the world and yet they keep finding one here and there. Chemistry doesn't support string theory which is spreading like a wildfire. There's a reason why it's mixing powders and seeing what comes out. Physics supports or breaks theoretical chemistry. Not the other way around. There's no reason why this can't be plausible. It's already been demonstrated to groups of people.
09-12-2007, 08:00 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Sabre 60
Posts: 203
In order to power the device emitting the radio frequency, you need electricity anyway. And you probably have to use quite a bit of power to transmit those radio waves. I would bet it is not a very efficient way of powering anything (say a car or airplane).
09-12-2007, 08:13 PM
#8
Che Guevara
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
It's a new technology. Will take time to develop. Like I said it also matters on application of the fuel. Nuclear energy is very safe and clean yet automobiles run on gas which is produced in refineries powered by that same nuke reactor. Extracting the fuel from salt water would mean a big lack of field crews etc. They could build a facility on the edge of the water. Be much cleaner than producing oil. Time will tell.
09-15-2007, 11:33 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: KC-135T
Posts: 274
He's pretty well known up here in Erie. He has made something for cancer patients that GE and some other companies have been buying up like crazy. I would imagine with a big company like GE behind you, that things are pretty safe. On the local channel he actually showed a flame, I don't know if that proves anything, but he is not looked at as crazy up, since he made the stuff for cancer.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
