Saltwater Can Burn

[Brassmask]

I've been wondering what the downside or negative is for this.  I know that there are lots of people here who just live to shoot holes in anything that may change the world for the better so I am certain that there will be lots of negativity here.

So.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM



http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07252/815920-85.stm



Salt water as fuel? Erie man hopes so
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."

[Lanya]

Amazing!  What a great and unexpected finding....I'm very hopeful about this.
Thanks, Brass.

[Amianthus]

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.

This is the main question, but it was buried in the article. If it takes more energy to release the hydrogen than the hydrogen provides, this is not useful for anything that needs a mobile power source, ie, vehicles.

[BT]

I'm all for any feasable alternative energy process to be successful and reach the marketplace.

This might be  a way to handle the excess saltwater created by global warming.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It would appear to violate one of the laws of thermodynamics if the energy used in producing the RF frequency was greater than the energy produced by the burning hydrogen.

Of course, science has no absolutes, only probabilities.

Still, it is worth looking into and experimenting with. Radio waves can be beamed from afar, to places where a flame is otherwise impossible.

[Universe Prince]

It would appear to violate one of the laws of thermodynamics if the energy used in producing the RF frequency was greater than the energy produced by the burning hydrogen.

What makes you think so?

[Amianthus]

It would appear to violate one of the laws of thermodynamics if the energy used in producing the RF frequency was greater than the energy produced by the burning hydrogen.

I think you have this stated backwards.

Regardless, there are endothermic reactions and exothermic reactions. The former absorb energy (using more energy for the reaction than released) and the latter emit energy (releasing more energy than used in the reaction). The second is what is needed for a portable energy source.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Regardless, there are endothermic reactions and exothermic reactions. The former absorb energy (using more energy for the reaction than released) and the latter emit energy (releasing more energy than used in the reaction). The second is what is needed for a portable energy source.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not stated what quantity of energy is required to generate the RF waves needed, so the type of reaction here is not made clear by the description. The quantity of energy produced is also unknown. Both figures are needed in order to evaluate the possibilities of the device.

I agree that it would have to be the latter type (exothermic)  to be useful for a portable energy source.

The laws of thermodynamics suggest that there cannot be such a thing as a perpetual motion machine. If the RF waves needed took less energy to produce than the energy derived from the burning Hydrogen (which would, of course combine with the Oxygen to form water once again), that is precisely what this device would be.

One can imagine this as an ideal way to power ships across the ocean, chuffing along turning saltwater into Hydrogen and Oxygen and then recombining it again as they sailed along. Entire floating cities could be built so people could cruise the world on the cheap.

 I imagine that it could be hard on the fish, and perhaps the icebergs.

Still, it bears looking into.

[Amianthus]

The laws of thermodynamics suggest that there cannot be such a thing as a perpetual motion machine. If the RF waves needed took less energy to produce than the energy derived from the burning Hydrogen (which would, of course combine with the Oxygen to form water once again), that is precisely what this device would be.

No, it would not be. After all, your car produces all that it needs from the fuel, with extra energy to spare (to run your radio, charge the battery, etc.) There are other energy losses to prevent it from becoming a perpetual motion machine.

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, it would not be. After all, your car produces all that it needs from the fuel, with extra energy to spare (to run your radio, charge the battery, etc.) There are other energy losses to prevent it from becoming a perpetual motion machine.
===============================================
Not a really good analogy.

The reason my car is not a perpetual motion machine (and we were not talking about any cars here) is that I have to keep putting gas (well, biodiesel or dinodiesel) in my tank. We all know that the internal combustion engine is not even a terribly efficient source of energy.

This device, if used in a ship, would take in seawater (salty H20) and would expel H20. Probably salty H20, because the salt is not going to vanish.
One assumes that the saltwater intake would equal the saltwater outflow.

Of course, if it took in more than it emitted, then it would not be a perpetual motion machine. One could only wonder where the excess H2 and O might have gone.

It would be impossible for it to produce more saltwater than it took in, unless it used water vapor from the atmosphere. In this case, the solution would be weaker than the original solution.

Imagine if gold, which is present in minute quantities in all seawater, could be extracted as a byproduct. Then you might be able to pay to build subsequent devices without any net cash outlay.

I have read that there is more gold floating around in tiny bits in the oceans than has ever been dug up and refined on land.


 
 

[Amianthus]

One assumes that the saltwater intake would equal the saltwater outflow.

Why does "one" assume that?

[kimba1]

doesn`t that mean sea salt has gold in it?

[Amianthus]

doesn`t that mean sea salt has gold in it?

Depends on the purity. If you just scrape some off a rock, yes.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why does "one" assume that?
====================================
As the one in question, I would assume that this is a chemical reacion and not a nuclear one.

The number of atoms of H and O would be equal, unless the H or the O were in some way changed into some other element or into electoons, protons or neutrons.

If this were the case, then it would also be a nuclear reaction. I don't imagine that this is at all likely from the description given.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a huge amount of gold floating about as teensy microscopic flakes in the oceans. However, the energy to filter them out and separate them from an even greater number of other microscopic particles would cost more than the value of the gold thus derived. This may not always be the case, as a better process could be devised, the price of gold could rise, or both of these could occur.

Recently, it became worth the expense to derive petroleum from the Athabasca tar sands in Canada, after all. A good thing for the people of Maritime Canada, who ran out of codfish.

[Amianthus]

As the one in question, I would assume that this is a chemical reacion and not a nuclear one.

The number of atoms of H and O would be equal, unless the H or the O were in some way changed into some other element or into electoons, protons or neutrons.

If this were the case, then it would also be a nuclear reaction. I don't imagine that this is at all likely from the description given.

"One" needs to go back and re-take inorganic chemistry.

First, if this was a pure H₂ and O₂ reaction, it would occur with distilled water. Since it was claimed that it is done with seawater, we have to assume that something in the seawater is involved. Now, it can be further claimed that some compound in the seawater is acting as a catalyst^[1], however, there is this statement in the original article: "Tests on different water solutions and concentrations produced various temperatures and flame colors." Since it's common knowledge that hydrogen burning in the presence of oxygen produces a colorless flame of a fixed temperature, the assumption has to be made that there are other reactions going on at the same time. Some of these will undoubtedly produce other hydrides, therefore producing less water going out than going in. So, "ones" assumption is incorrect.

^[1] A catalyst is a compound that aids a chemical reaction but does not participate in the reaction itself.