[IfritnoItazura]

For those interested in why this is bad science, a more detailed explanation by BuckG, a graduate Chemistry student:

Chemistry explanation of why this doesn't work

From ArsTechnica's forums (Reordered some parts and edited to save space, but the author's intent is preserved, I think.)

The energy is coming from the RF.

Radiofrequency is just a low energy frequency of light. Light is made up of photons and is pure energy.

The beam of RF shooting into the test tube is what makes the reaction possible. You can put into a reaction many different ways. You can heat something, you can shoot photons into it, or you can agitate it using a stirrer or sound pulses.

All are forms of energy used to deliver the push required to make energy loss reactions happen.

Basically, there are two "overall processes".

(i) Production of Hydrogen gas
(ii) Combustion of Hydrogen gas
Simplistically you can write out a "false" reaction, that is uninformative - save for getting at the energy values:

(i)
2H20(liquid) ---> H2(gas) + HOOH(aq)
delthaH = -191.17 - 2(-285.83) =>
+ 379.5 kcal per mol of H2 gas produced.


(ii)
H2(g) + 1/2 O2(g) ---> H20 (g)
deltaH = - 241.83 kcal per mol H2 gas burned

***

Overall the reaction is net:

+379.5 - 241.83 = +137.67 kcal per mol H2 gas burned
Endothermic (energy lost)

That's without even counting energy used to create the radio wave. If counting that, it'd be even bigger energy loss.

NaCl in water forms Na+(aq) and Cl-(aq) ions. They are presumably acting as a "catalyst", but does not alter the overall energy balance.

Generally the Na and CL ions are not doing anything. Before and after the reaction they are solvated with water. So overall the reaction I wrote, though not chemically accuarate, for the purposes of getting a number out -- gives you the correct answer.

If you want, you could account for solvation effects, but in the end those numbers cancel each other out, b/c like I said Na+(aq) and Cl-(aq) is there before and after.

The term is called spectator ions. In this case, although sodium likely plays a key step in making the reaction possible, from a thermodynamic perspective it is moot.

Kinetically however, the effects of Na+(aq) and RF to reach an excited state is huge. Without both, the reaction would not go and you would be just staring at salt water.

[...]

I just omitted the superfluous math on purpose. But for conceptual sake here you go:

NaCl(aq) has a deltaH of -407 kcal/mol

Inserting into both sides of the equation, since it is spectator you get:

[(-407) + (191.17)] - [ 2(-258.83) + (-407)] = +379.5

The combustion stays at -241.83 as there is no NaCl.

You still end up with +137.67 energy lost.

* * *

Also, the byproduct is Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2), a bleaching agent. As H2O2 is biohazardous, this process is a poor choice for producing H2 (Hydrogen gas).

Not to say that the discovery isn't exciting; apparently no one had realized RF and salt water can interact in this manner, exactly.

However, salt water is not a viable energy source, and this discovery did nothing to alter that. Also, the process is unsuitable for large scale Hydrogen gas production. In short, while this is interesting, it has little practical application at this point in time.

[Raydeus]

Originally Posted by IfritnoItazura

For those interested in why this is bad science, a more detailed explanation by BuckG, a graduate Chemistry student:

Chemistry explanation of why this doesn't work

From ArsTechnica's forums (Reordered some parts and edited to save space, but the author's intent is preserved, I think.)

That's without even counting energy used to create the radio wave. If counting that, it'd be even bigger energy loss.

NaCl in water forms Na+(aq) and Cl-(aq) ions. They are presumably acting as a "catalyst", but does not alter the overall energy balance.

Sorry but I liked Geordi's explanation a lot more.

Originally Posted by IfritnoItazura

Also, the byproduct is Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2), a bleaching agent. As H2O2 is biohazardous, this process is a poor choice for producing H2 (Hydrogen gas).

Not to say that the discovery isn't exciting; apparently no one had realized RF and salt water can interact in this manner, exactly.

However, salt water is not a viable energy source, and this discovery did nothing to alter that. Also, the process is unsuitable for large scale Hydrogen gas production. In short, while this is interesting, it has little practical application at this point in time.

Finally, it took all this time for you to make a proper post about this. Too little too late though since this thread already died, but progress none the less.

Besides, it's not like anyone actually believed this was a new energy source to begin with, we were just excited about how good it would be if it actually worked.

[Amele]

Originally Posted by Raydeus

Finally, it took all this time for you to make a proper post about this. Too little too late though since this thread already died, but progress none the less.

it took this long because that's basic high school chemistry and honestly, most of us assumed that anyone actually commenting on this sort of topic would have a basic grasp of basic high school chemistry.

Besides, it's not like anyone actually believed this was a new energy source to begin with, we were just excited about how good it would be if it actually worked.

uh, what? "if it actually worked" presupposes belief that this is a potential new energy source.

anything else is baseless scienceless speculation similar to: "wouldn't it be neat if we could breath vacuum?! "

[Mhurron]

Originally Posted by Amele

"wouldn't it be neat if we could breath vacuum?! "

It's too noisy in a vacuum.

[Murphie]

Originally Posted by Amele

it took this long because that's basic high school chemistry and honestly, most of us assumed that anyone actually commenting on this sort of topic would have a basic grasp of basic high school chemistry.

That displays a disturbing lack of understanding of how internet forums work.

Also, breathe.

[Raydeus]

Originally Posted by Amele

uh, what? "if it actually worked" presupposes belief that this is a potential new energy source.

Nope, it presupposes belief that there's the posibility of it happening, which can easily be proved or refuted with the proper testing.

There have been too many discoveries which went completely against common knowledge and were considered baseless speculation at some point. If you can't understand that science isn't an static subject and that nothing is written in stone then you have no right to speak about what's a valid theory and what isn't.

Originally Posted by Amele

anything else is baseless scienceless speculation similar to: "wouldn't it be neat if we could breath vacuum?! "

You mean "Wouldn't it be neat if we didn't need to breathe while in vacuum?". Geez,you gotta work more on your internetz.

And you see, there's a topic that could give you the solution to that problem. Click here.

[eticket109]

Keep in mind high school was a long long time ago for some of us. >.>

[Murphie]

And to be honest, once I was done with science, I promptly forgot about it. I needed that room in my brain for useless pop culture trivia.

[Raydeus]

Originally Posted by eticket109

Keep in mind high school was a long long time ago for some of us. >.>

Hey! I still remember everything I learned in my school days like it was yesterday!


...too bad I didn't learn much at the time because I was too busy being a teenager and stuff. <.<;

Originally Posted by Murphie

And to be honest, once I was done with science, I promptly forgot about it. I needed that room in my brain for useless pop culture trivia.

It isn't useless, I mean if we can win concert tickets from time to time with that knowledge then it's all good.