Off the wall OT: Salt water an alternative fuel

TGS wrote on 9/11/2007, 4:20 PM
I wonder how long before this becomes a faded memory

http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570

Radio Frequencies Help Burn Salt Water

By David Templeton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Tue, 11 Sep 2007, 11:41AM

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."

Comments

Kennymusicman wrote on 9/11/2007, 4:30 PM
Suddenly those boy racers with music blaring will be "doing their bit" contributing to society's power generation by ensuring the radio frequencies (mixed with a bit of bass for good measure) are played loud..
JJKizak wrote on 9/11/2007, 4:41 PM
I saw it on tv a couple weeks ago.
JJK
Coursedesign wrote on 9/11/2007, 5:17 PM
All it takes is 1 kW of RF blasting 1kg of water to output 500 Watts!

We're saved!

I think I'm gonna stake claim just outside territorial waters and become a water baron!

Or, psst, you wanna buy some water in Florida?

I think I'll bottle it and sell it as an energy source under the trade name Watter(TM).

Jingle: "Things go Better with Watter! Cars and Motorcycles and Airplanes too!"

"Your Car will Make a Volt with Watter! No more slow starts..."

"Amp your Ride with Watter!"

jwcarney wrote on 9/11/2007, 5:26 PM
On a family trip, you could stop by the side of the road and everyone could pee into the fuel tank.
Take that OPEC!!!
DGates wrote on 9/11/2007, 6:00 PM
Someone will make a mistake and set all the oceans on fire!
PixelStuff wrote on 9/11/2007, 6:31 PM
Does salt raise or lower the boiling point of water, normaly? I know it lowers the freezing point.

I was just wondering what the salt is for in the experiement. And then what do you do with the salt once you burn off the water? Or is the salt burned with it?


John_Cline wrote on 9/11/2007, 7:47 PM
jb, the salt isn't added, it's in the ocean salt water to begin with. It raises the boiling point, but it doesn't seem like they're exactly boiling the water, so it makes no difference.

Apparently, the RF releases the hydrogen from the salt water, which is then burned. The salt is probably going to remain. If that's the case, I'll put it on my french fries.

I wonder how much RF power we're talking about and whether the energy derived from the hydrogen is greater than the energy required to release it from the salt water?
MichaelS wrote on 9/11/2007, 8:59 PM
"Hey man...have you heard about the car that runs on water...man!"

Hyde
That 70's SHow
riredale wrote on 9/11/2007, 9:27 PM
I'll only be impressed if the guy links the technology with the 100mpg carburetor that those nasty oil companies squelched 50 years ago.
PixelStuff wrote on 9/11/2007, 10:04 PM
jb, the salt isn't added, it's in the ocean salt water to begin with. It raises the boiling point, but it doesn't seem like they're exactly boiling the water, so it makes no difference.

I was trying to theorize the reason for the salt. Or why it wouldn't work with pure water. Are you sure it raises the boiling point of water instead of lowering it? Because lowering the boiling point would lend to the theory of the radio waves having an easier job of exciting the molecules. Or that perhaps they are vibrating or maybe resonating the salt crystals.

Of course I guess it might follow along the same reasoning why a microwave oven works better with dirty water than pure.

GenJerDan wrote on 9/12/2007, 1:22 AM
Salt water is easier to break down.

The RF is just separating the hydrogen & oxygen. Hydrogen burns. Ta-da!

However....isn't it releasing chlorine, too? That can't be good.
TGS wrote on 9/12/2007, 1:30 AM
It should be releasing Oxygen too, which should make it even better, as far as the fuel part goes. I always thought the original US Space rockets ran on liquid Hydrogen and liquid Oxygen (mostly).
I don't remember hearing about chlorine in sea water, but I'm no expert.
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 9/12/2007, 1:39 AM
well, in my book it's only usefull if the can make it effecient enough to be worthwhile, just as a geek though, I'm totally amazed, and think this is FREAKIN AWESOME.

Dave
PixelStuff wrote on 9/12/2007, 1:45 AM
Just in case everyone is wondering what all is left once you burn off the Oxygen and Hydrogen.. http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm


That is of course if you use real water from the sea and not just salt water.

rustier wrote on 9/12/2007, 2:19 AM
even if you could get these fantasy cars to actually run on sea water they would be discharging out the tail pipe a caustic brine along with the chelants you would need to prevent a buildup of minerals in the reactors - a major environmental problem

I think I liked the matrix movie better
RexA wrote on 9/12/2007, 2:25 AM
I wonder how much RF power we're talking about and whether the energy derived from the hydrogen is greater than the energy required to release it from the salt water?
----

Exactly! Obviously this isn't a science group or that would have been the first question. There are many ways to split water into H's and O's -- a battery and two wires can do it. The problem is they all need more energy to do the splitting than you get back when you burn the gases to make water and energy. I'd bet the RF thing is very inefficient.

It's like the idea that electric cars can solve the CO2 problem. How do we get the energy to make the electricity to feed the cars?

Oh well, it's WAY OT for this group -- unless you want to think about that there will be no video editing if society starts really coming off the rails.


Coursedesign wrote on 9/12/2007, 7:22 AM
Does salt raise or lower the boiling point of water, normaly? I know it lowers the freezing point.

Today's Multiple Choice Counter question:

What is the freezing point of pure water?

A) 0C/32F

B) Who knows?


The correct answer is B).

In some especially cold lakes, water temperatures of -25C have been measured, and I'm sure that's not the record by a long stretch.

Of course, as soon as the water stops moving you get a block of ice in about a nanosecond.

(Before that, the constant movement of the liquid prevented the crystallization we call freezing.)
Coursedesign wrote on 9/12/2007, 7:32 AM
Does salt raise or lower the boiling point of water, normaly? I know it lowers the freezing point.

Today's Multiple Choice Counter question:

What is the freezing point of pure water?

A) 0C/32F

B) Who knows?


The correct answer is B).

In some especially cold lakes, water temperatures of -25C have been measured, and I'm sure that's not the record by a long stretch.

Of course, as soon as the water stops moving you get a block of ice in about a nanosecond.

(Before that, the constant movement of the liquid prevented the crystallization we call freezing.)
apit34356 wrote on 9/12/2007, 7:43 AM
Don't forget the ATM pressure, air temperature, air movement and moisture in the air,------ even moving water will freeze if surface vaporization is great enough to "release" the 520( +- not exact) cal/gram at sea level to crystallize.
rchristiejr wrote on 9/12/2007, 8:08 AM
Its A.
You may be referring to water that has been "super cooled."

GenJerDan wrote on 9/12/2007, 9:12 AM
I don't remember hearing about chlorine in sea water, but I'm no expert.

From the salt: sodium chloride.

Now...where does the sodium get to? And what sort of fun can we have with that? :^)
Coursedesign wrote on 9/12/2007, 9:43 AM
Its A.

Yes, the water is by definition "supercooled."

Wikipedia: Supercooling is the process of chilling a liquid below its [normal] freezing point, without it becoming solid.

(The bracket word is mine, I think you can see why this is necessary, and why Wikipedia needs to be updated so frequently.)

And because there is no fixed freezing point, the right answer is B).

You can argue all day about theoretical water with no impurities and no movement (not even thermal currents), but those aren't normal conditions.
Coursedesign wrote on 9/12/2007, 9:49 AM
Don't forget the ATM pressure, air temperature, air movement and moisture in the air,------ even moving water will freeze if surface vaporization is great enough to "release" the 520( +- not exact) cal/gram at sea level to crystallize.

Hmmm, interesting. I didn't know vapor pressure affected also freezing.

But is that really correct, or is it a circular definition?

If the water releases a lot of calories, that would lower its temperature, but why would that make it freeze?

Freezing is defined as crystallization; without starting nuclei, etc., it would seem to not matter much if the temperature dropped a bit more, as movement should still prevent crystallization. The molecules will move more slowly, but I can't imagine the difference between say 273K (~0C) and 253K (~-20C) is that great?

apit34356 wrote on 9/12/2007, 11:46 AM
"Hmmm, interesting. I didn't know vapor pressure affected also freezing." Yes, vapor pressure has have an effect. Helps with the starting point. State change solid <->liquid and liquid<->gas is the same amount of energy, a lot cals are losed or needed for phrase change. Not to start a debate but many models used in the global warning debate fail to correctly calculate the energy requirements for the ice melting, thus increasing the impact of man's energy production. The same is true about of CO2 reflectivity of infrared "heat" modeling, suggesting a continuous reflective process downward but basic Physics and Chem. demonstrates differently, 1-loss of transfer, 2-non directional energy release,..etc... But Global warning is big money on campus today. Its very PC if you want any money for your department or research for the last fifteen years. Clean air and water is very important , garbage management is important, but understanding the Pacific Volcanic ream is rising the ocean temperature by 1 C ---> water vapor,etc, plus since 2000 thru 2004 the sun's Xray radiation hitting the upper atm and the the north polar has being massive, then there's the solar fares' energy, etc, but these are complex and boring issues, they don't produce manageable sound bites for the new kid in town and rises more questions than the town crier can answer and managed the crowd's attention. Again, not wanting to start a PC argument about Global Warming.