posted
I don't know if it's a "viable" energy source though. I've never seen any proof that the energy needed to sustain the reaction is less than the usable energy produced.
It's neat looking, but I doubt it's going to change the way we generate power.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the saltwater part of it had anything to do with him trying to cure cancer. Seemed liked that was just a happy accident.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nonetheless, it was implied that he used the same microwave strength&frequency in his search for a cancer cure. And that he stuck his hand in the same microwave beam that was decomposing the saltwater.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The link just brings me to a site with dozens of articles and videos on it. Nothing looks like it's about saltwater.
Okay, I did a search and found it.
But... how much energy does the radio emitter use? If it's less than is generated by the saltwater, then you only need external energy as a starter, after which you could run this for free, with a net profit of energy. But if it's more, then it's a bust. You'd need to burn oil, or uranium or whatever, to get the fuel to burn the saltwater.
posted
I'd like figures about net energy output. How much juice does this require? How much energy does it put out?
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Okay, I did a search and found it.
But... how much energy does the radio emitter use? If it's less than is generated by the saltwater, then you only need external energy as a starter, after which you could run this for free, with a net profit of energy. But if it's more, then it's a bust. You'd need to burn oil, or uranium or whatever, to get the fuel to burn the saltwater.
You'd think they'd have mentioned that...
I wasn't able to find the article, if you know where it is, could you please link it. I'm not expecting much, though. If this were real, it would most likely be released in a much more reliable source. People have been promising energy from water for years, and they've pretty much all been some combination of crazy and/ or frauds.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
it's not an article. it's a video that loads automatically towards the top of the page.
i think the most important part of all of this is what Lisa said:
quote:But... how much energy does the radio emitter use? If it's less than is generated by the saltwater, then you only need external energy as a starter, after which you could run this for free, with a net profit of energy. But if it's more, then it's a bust. You'd need to burn oil, or uranium or whatever, to get the fuel to burn the saltwater.
that's the crux of the matter. and they don't have any info on that.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: I wasn't able to find the article, if you know where it is, could you please link it.
Go to the top of the page in the original link and click on Energy. That'll bring you here. There's an item listed there called "06.16.07- Turning Saltwater into Fuel....WKYC Cleveland". It's a direct link to the video, which is here.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
H2O --> H2 + 1/2O2 (thermal decomposition of salt water, caused by RF heating).
Then in the flame
H2 + 1/2 O2 --> H2O (Combustion of Hydrogen Gas).
There is no physical way that this net process can generate energy. The first law of thermodynamics indicates that the RF energy necessary to decompose the water must be greater than or equal to the energy recovered with the hydrogen is burned. As presented by the news show, this is a perpetual motion machine and anyone who has had high school chemistry or physics should be able tell you it is impossible.
What is possible is that this technology is a more efficient way to produce hydrogen from water than electolysis or other common processes so it could be valuable. But still this process could never produce more energy than the RF power required so it is not and could not ever be a source of clean renewable energy.
Any high school student should be able to tell you that the claims made by the news caster violate the most fundamental physical laws and are therefore false. I am so sick of this kind of irresponsible reporting.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: 8<snip What is possible is that this technology is a more efficient way to produce hydrogen from water than electolysis or other common processes so it could be valuable. snip>8
I think The Rabbit has it. As a new process for releasing Hydrogen from Saltwater it could be useful - especially if it is more effecient than current means.
I wonder if they have done any testing on the minimum RF power levels, optimum frequencies etc.
Watch this space, but I doubt it will change the world.
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: And that he stuck his hand in the same microwave beam that was decomposing the saltwater.
Actually, microwaves emit very weak radiation. In fact, visible light emits stronger radiation then microwaves.
For the record, its not so much that visible light and microwaves emit radiation. Rather, both of them *are* radiation.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
