[Feba]

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

[Ziero]

But what energy does he use to create radio waves?

[IfritnoItazura]

This looks stupid to me.

From what little chemistry I understand, H2 is what was burning. It takes a certain amount of energy to break down the water molecules to get H2 (Hydrogen) and O (Oxygen) to begin with.

The amount of energy released by burning H2 + O to get H2O should be the same amount it takes to break apart H2O to get H2 and O, under perfect conditions. Since we don't live in a perfect world, it seems like it would take more energy to break apart water molecules than we'd get back from forming water molecules by burning H2 + O.

This looks more like energy consumption than generation.

[Necropolis]

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_articl...?storyid=68227

The energy required to generate a radio frequency capable of doing this is not that much. Yes you'll have to refill with fuel eventually, it's not perpetual motion. But it would be a lot more effective than our current fossil fuel sources.

They arn't breaking down the water itself so much, but by heating the metals in salt water it has a side-effect of breaking down the water molecules. Thus releasing hydrogen and oxygen. It's really an amazing discovery.

While on discoveries, here's another one I ran across. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel

Lowest density substance in existance, yet can withstand the blast of one kilogram of dynamite or a blowtorch of 2400 degrees Fahrenheit.

Lots of discoveries like this comming to the surface, just hope that they don't get patented by big oil companies, preventing forward progression.

[Amele]

Originally Posted by IfritnoItazura

This looks stupid to me.
From what little chemistry I understand, H2 is what was burning. It takes a certain amount of energy to break down the water molecules to get H2 (Hydrogen) and O (Oxygen) to begin with.
The amount of energy released by burning H2 + O to get H2O should be the same amount it takes to break apart H2O to get H2 and O, under perfect conditions. Since we don't live in a perfect world, it seems like it would take more energy to break apart water molecules than we'd get back from forming water molecules by burning H2 + O.
This looks more like energy consumption than generation.

without watching the video, one of the proposals for the waste from a hydrogen-fuel cell motor (being pure water HOH) is to reclaim some amount of hydrogen via solar panel input for recycling into the system - the issue is safely sequestering/transporting/repressuring the hydrogen for recombustion.

this isn't too difficult to overcome though, since it's pretty easy just to adapt existing fuel line technology for the purpose of transporting/repressuring. and sequestration isn't too much tougher from a technological standpoint.

you could alternately glean some amount of energy from ambient electromagnetic radiation, courtesy of the dozens of AM and FM radio stations within range of your vehicle. (whether this would provide usable amounts of power I don't know, but the potential is there.)

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Why does the cynical side of me just know that this man will be dead in a year or he'll make a public announcement that his discovery was a failure before convieniently moving into a mansion?

[Feba]

I think the bit that scares me is that he says he has no problem selling the patent and using the money to continue to fund his cancer research.

I mean, curing cancer is great and all, but sacrificing a solution to a global problem for a solution to another global problem seems a bit sad to me.

[Mhurron]

Originally Posted by Feba

I think the bit that scares me is that he says he has no problem selling the patent and using the money to continue to fund his cancer research.
I mean, curing cancer is great and all, but sacrificing a solution to a global problem for a solution to another global problem seems a bit sad to me.

Not everyones goals are the same, so I doubt he cares what you think of his plans.

Originally Posted by Omgwtfbbqkitten

Why does the cynical side of me just know that this man will be dead in a year or he'll make a public announcement that his discovery was a failure before convieniently moving into a mansion?

Cynical is not the same as paranoid. Feba's response was cynical, yours was bordering on stupid tinfoil hat paranoia.

[Feba]

Not everyones goals are the same, so I doubt he cares what you think of his plans.

But.. his name is Kanzius. I live in KANSAS. How can he not care what I think? We've got a lot in common!


Either way, it's unlikely his inventions and creations will ever actually do anything. This is one of those "madmen or revolutionary genius" types.

[Mhurron]

Originally Posted by Feba

I live in KANSAS. How can he not care what I think?

I think you just answered your own question.

[Raydeus]

Whoah I dunno if it will fly or not, but this are exciting times.


Now, if you excuse me I'll be over there waiting to hear that while looking for a way to cure cancer and make salt water energy more efficient, they accidentally discovered a way to travel faster than light using an old nuclear missile.

[Malacite]

> - > stop jinxing it!

This could very well be the real deal. We've already got Hydrogen Fuel-Cell technology, but it's flawed in that it requires too much electricity to create.

I'm with necro. Big Oil better not be the ones to get their grubby mitts on the patent. Please, this is too good to screw up!

[IfritnoItazura]

Originally Posted by Necropolis

The energy required to generate a radio frequency capable of doing this is not that much. Yes you'll have to refill with fuel eventually, it's not perpetual motion. But it would be a lot more effective than our current fossil fuel sources.

They arn't breaking down the water itself so much, but by heating the metals in salt water it has a side-effect of breaking down the water molecules. Thus releasing hydrogen and oxygen. It's really an amazing discovery.

Actually, the fire comes from burning hydrogen, which came from breaking down of water.

Burning 2H2 + O2 releases a lot of energy, and forms strong covalent bonds in forming water molecules. To break those covalent bonds, you need to supply a lot of energy. The same amount of energy, in fact, in forming those bonds.

From: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ult...ondEnergy.html

For any particular chemical bond, say the covalent bond between hydrogen and oxygen, the amount of energy it takes to break that bond is exactly the same as the amount of energy released when the bond is formed. This value is called the bond energy.

You can't get more energy from water than you put into it--at least not by breaking it down into H2 and O2. Radio wave or no radio wave, the energy it takes to break down water has to come from somewhere.

Originally Posted by Necropolis

While on discoveries, here's another one I ran across. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel

The article says it was discovered in 1931... Old news... ^_^;

Originally Posted by Necropolis

just hope that they don't get patented by big oil companies, preventing forward progression.

I've heard there are patents on tortilla. How you can get a patent for food which has been eaten for 6000 years, I've no idea. Apparently, prior work doesn't count when it's by Indians. >_>;

Originally Posted by Amele

without watching the video, one of the proposals for the waste from a hydrogen-fuel cell motor (being pure water HOH) is to reclaim some amount of hydrogen via solar panel input for recycling into the system - the issue is safely sequestering/transporting/repressuring the hydrogen for recombustion.

Totally different issues; the TV stations in video are claiming that salt water is an energy source by "burning" it using this magical radio wave emitter.

Originally Posted by Amele

you could alternately glean some amount of energy from ambient electromagnetic radiation, courtesy of the dozens of AM and FM radio stations within range of your vehicle. (whether this would provide usable amounts of power I don't know, but the potential is there.)

The amount of power would be tiny; radio waves lose energy proportional to 1/(r^2), where r is the distance between source and receiver, IIRC. Instead of reclaiming energy by taking it from AM/FM broadcast, it'd be much better to use lower power transmission and switch to digital format, if the energy used by radio stations is an issue.

[Necropolis]

Regardless of how this pans out, eventually we'll have to find an alternative fuel source. We are burning oil much faster than it's being created, and there is a finite amount of it. So even is Big Oil gets thier hands on it, they'll have to use it eventually. Though they'll find a way to own all the salt water in the world and charge us 5 bucks a gallon for water.

EDIT:

To Itazura; Yes the energy to break down a compound is equal to the energy used to create it. But I don't think you're looking at this quite correctly.

The energy released from a nuclear bomb far exceeds the energy used to detonate it don't you agree? And where does that energy come from? It comes form the bonds of the subatomic particles that are being broken. So you example does not apply to circumstances, perhaps this process is similar to nuclear reactions in that we're breaking atomic bonds, just not those of the atom itself.

Nuclear reactions however depend on isotopes of certain materials, perhaps there is some correlation between radio waves heating the metal and breaking the bonds and how we use nuclear energy. I can't say I'm an expert in that field, I usually only deal with the mathematics of it, not the physics.

[IfritnoItazura]

Originally Posted by Necropolis

To Itazura; Yes the energy to break down a compound is equal to the energy used to create it. But I don't think you're looking at this quite correctly.

The energy released from a nuclear bomb far exceeds the energy used to detonate it don't you agree? And where does that energy come from? It comes form the bonds of the subatomic particles that are being broken. So you example does not apply to circumstances, perhaps this process is similar to nuclear reactions in that we're breaking atomic bonds, just not those of the atom itself.

In the simplest terms, the energy from a nuclear reaction comes from the mass it loses; a part of the bomb material is converted into energy. E = MC^2, after all.

Covalent bond in water is an entirely different. No mass-energy conversion is involved.

Gasoline burns easily, because it is a mixture of some fairly unstable chemicals, which are eager to release energy; many of the chemical bonds involved are relatively weak.

Water does not burn easily--it is a very, very stable molecule. In order to "burn" water, you have to break it down to H2 and O2 first, so you would not be burning water, but burning hydrogen instead. It is that breakdown which takes energy. Whereas with gasoline, no such breakdown is needed before combustion.

Originally Posted by Necropolis

Nuclear reactions however depend on isotopes of certain materials, perhaps there is some correlation between radio waves heating the metal and breaking the bonds and how we use nuclear energy. I can't say I'm an expert in that field, I usually only deal with the mathematics of it, not the physics.

Again, nuclear reactions are very different; radioactive material will lose mass over time, even if sealed in containers which traps all particles emitted.

Water, for our purposes, retain the same mass if in completely sealed container. If you change it to H2 and O2 and change those back to water over and over in the sealed container, the mass will remain unchanged. You can use salt water instead of plain water, and the result will be the same, as long as no radioactive atoms are involved.