A gentleman from Erie named John Kanzius made a somewhat "shocking" discovery while he was working on a radio-wave generator he had developed for the treatment of cancer. While attempting to desalinate sea water using radio frequencies, he noticed flashes, and within a few days, had saltwater burning in a test-tube as if it were a candle. The discovery spawned interest from the scientific community, mostly concerned with whether or not the water could be used as a fuel, and of course, healthy doses of disbelief. Last week, a Penn State University chemist named Rustum Roy held a demonstration proving that the science is sound, noting that the water doesn't burn, though the radio frequencies weaken the bonds holding together the salt, releasing hydrogen which is ignited when exposed to the RF field. Mr. Kanzius and Dr. Roy say the question now is the efficiency of the energy, and are presenting the technology to the US Department of Defense and Department of Energy to investigate how useful the technology will be. Of the plentiful maybe-fuel (which apparently burns so hot it can melt test-tubes) Dr. Roy says, "This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," and (without recognition of the poetic irony, as far as we can tell), "Seeing it burn gives me chills." Check the TV report after the break to see the water in action.
[Thanks, Paul]
posted Sep 11th 2007 2:02PM
expect "BIG GAS" to hush this up.
why was this low ranked? just a year ago another american developed a water powered welder/ electricity as well and it was bought by a gas company.
earlier than that battery after battery is bought up by each gas company.
it's really not a conspiracy if it's not hidden.
thiss tuff is just plain the way it is.
if this guy isn't careful about who he seels it to it won't be ever een again as well.
If I represented an oil company, it would certainly be in my interest to attempt to purchase any disrupting technology patents such as Kanzius' method. Especially if it would hurt my business and/or change the status quo. And it's legal to shelve a patent/technology.
For example, "Hoover later admitted that it did consider buying the [cyclonic separation] patent from James Dyson, but only to keep the technology out of the market."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_%28company%29#History
The oil companies are rating it low. :D
POW, POW! 2 TO THE DOME! Oil Company problem solved!
Watch "Sudden Impact" (if you can find it)...
http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_item.asp?userid=99365871333391&item_id=25553&searchID=209162
"We Gangsta, we hard core, NO ONE F's with our profits!" Will we kill to protect it? HELLs YEA!!!
you mean Rush Limbaugh?
pa-ching. But seriously - obvious comment here - how much energy is being used by the RF to break the H20, that's the key question and as with all these miracles, and that's the bit we are not told.
Also, don't let him anywhere near me when I get cancer!
I really don't think you know what your talking about. The guy that you are talking about is Danny Klein, I know this because he lives in the my neighboring city Clearwater. He WAS NOT bought out. Here is the companies page http://www.hytechapps.com/company/contact
Now I am no fan of big oil and its allies. However while it is possible for them to buy out competition, its not ALWAYS the case. Do you really think that just because you saw this technology presented last year that it will already be the undoing of petroleum industry. If so you are either dense of just ill informed. Practical use of a product such as this spends years in R&D before it even begins to filter into public consumption. Thats not even taking into consideration the fact that big oil is so enbedded into our daily lives. You would have to retrofit and or sell new hydrogen cars to the entire GLOBE. Well thats surly able to be done in a years time! There time is coming and they know this. Chances are that if big oil does buy out one of these processes (which have been around since the 1960's) it will do so in preparation for the collapse of the petroleum industry.
This tecnology is really nothing new. This was discovered in the 1960s by
Dr. William Rhodes and later made more public buy Yull Brown. It is know by several names Brown's Gas, Rhodes Gas and HYDROXY. While this process does seem to hold the answers to our growing petroleum problem, it is still not yet efficient enough from what I have read to replace petroleum at present. I need to do some more reading on this process as it uses radio frequencies instead of electrolysis (the normal means to create the gas) and there for maybe more efficient.
The point of this is, do some damn research before opening your mouth and letting "baaaa, baaaa, baaaa" come out like the rest of the sheep.
Terrorist Weapon Extrodinare.
Oh, by the way the RF can be solar powered. Sweet me, I mean my Son will be driving, er flying, a Solar/Salt powered Tesla Twin Turbo. YOU GO BOY!!!
So when can I buy a salt-water candle to replace my Spencer's Gifts plasma globe?
damn um my comment did damage huh?
Interesting video, HORRIBLE writing for the reporter and anchor. If this ever sees the light of day I would be quite surprised, but I'm really hoping it will.
I would have spent more time talking about the potential for cancer treatment rather than attempting to turn it into another news item about the environment/energy.
I have questions about noxious gaseous byproducts. I've forgotten, but doesn't salt burn into some pretty poisonous stuff? I know it's the hydrogen burning, but I bet the residual heat also burns some salt.
I guess that would depend on if you separated the hydrogen from the salt before it ignited...
well... salt is sodium chloride... chlorine can be poisonous in gasous form, but i seem to remember it takes larger amounts, otherwise you just get a little light headed. sodium itself is pretty neutral, though it degrades quickly when contacted with air.
David, why bother answering when you don't know what the fvck you're talking about. First, salts don't necessarily have to be sodium chloride. Second, when's the last time you saw sodium metal? If you have seen it you might recall it's stored in oil because when it comes into contact with water it reacts with it to form sodium hydroxide (strong base) and hydrogen gas (which catches fire in the exothermic reaction). I'd hardly call that "neutral" no matter how you're defining it.
This article is presented in a moronic way. Yes, YOU CAN USE WATER AS FUEL, but you have to first separate it into hydrogen and oxygen. That requires at best the same amount of energy put into it as you'd get out. In reality it takes more energy put in than you get out. Not such a bad thing if you're using solar, wind, or geothermal energy to do it but it's terrible if you use conventional fuels. This is just another way of getting hydrogen, but first we need to find clean ways of supplying power to get the hydrogen. Which begs the question, why don't we just use the energy directly and skip the hydrogen middle-man.
Wow, I really get tired of people replying and attacking people when they themselves don't have a clue what they are talking about. yoinkers, I'm calling you out since you seem to feel the need to call others out.
First off, you're correct, salts don't necessarily have to be sodium chloride, however in the video and in the demonstration, the water (be it pure, tap, whatever), is mixed with salt from a bag, thus, sodium chloride. Additionally, if you wanted to extend this to using ocean water, it's largely sodium chloride, though obviously has a few other bits and pieces mixed in.
There's one strike.
Yes, pure sodium does react violently with water, however, anyone with a high school education in chemistry knows that when two elements are naturally joined, they typically create strong bonds and are much more stable. This is exactly the case with NaCl. When sodium and chlorine are bonded, they form a very stable compound. This compound, obviously as we all know, no longer reacts violently in water. Thus we can with our high school education easily determine that NaCL != Na.
There's two strikes.
And finally, your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense since, as all of us with that high school education in chemistry again know, it's impossible to get more energy in return than you put in. This is the first law of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Until Steorn comes back and proves our basic laws of life wrong (hah), then every single reaction will result in the same amount of energy in return as is used for the reaction. The only thing we're doing is trying to find how much EFFICIENT energy we can get back in a usable form.
That's strike three.
Yoinkers, grow up and show some respect, dork.
uh, actually, you can get more energy out than you put in. That's the whole point of "fuel". You can't change the total amount of energy in a closed system, but you can move it around and change its form - for example, nuclear power releases the energy stored in the bonds within atoms, thus giving you a lot more energy back compared to the energy you added to the system by firing the initial neutron. However, if you had to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in the water, that takes a decent amount of energy, and capturing the energy released by burning hydrogen is difficult to do efficiently.
Next time you are giving a lecture on chemistry and the conservation of energy, understand the statement. Total amount of energy, unchangeable. Form that the energy is in, changeable.
There is prior energy contained in chemical bonds, so it makes sense that if you find a way to release that without putting in much energy then it obeys the laws of physics and yet you have something useful.
And what's new is that the salt/mircowave acts as part of a catalyst in a way we didn't use yet and that means it might reduce the energy/effort compared to the old method which can be useful in some setups or as a starting block to discover yet other procedures, perhaps in manufacturing rather than energy harvesting.
And perhaps this also gives insight in the chemical composition of stars and some (proto-)planets, where you might find natural radiation also creating such effects I'm guessing.
Remember all movies why aliens attack earth? It's because they used upp all their resources on their planet and using all the salt water as fuel.
John, I'm well aware of the laws of thermodynamics and the situation at hand in creating efficient fuels. My reply was more intended to point out the inaccuracies in yoinkers' scathing reply telling someone else how wrong they were. In fact, I left the statement somewhat open ended to allow such a reply. I never said form couldn't be changed. That's actually the very dilemma of fuel. Creating a reaction that has more usable product than waste product.
The problem with fuels such as gasoline are exactly what you said, the majority of the energy is in the bonds, however that's only one part of the equation. Creating a substance with such potential energy is extremely difficult, and in fact nearly impossible to create, and definitely impossible to make enough of. Don't forget to look at both parts of the process, the stored energy doesn't come from nowhere, and if we want to create a new fuel source, we have to have a way to use something that's not only easy to use when we want the energy out, but is also easy to put energy into. Salt water obviously would make the first part of the process very simple. In the past with electrolysis, this type of fuel has been the opposite of gasoline, gas takes too much time and work for humans to create, but burns extremely easily. Utilizing hydrogen from salt water is very easy to make, but hard to efficiently utilize when the energy is extracted (in the case of electrolysis). This new method aims to make the creation and extraction easy, thus making it much more efficient all the way around.
@Andrew:
Wow, talk about the kettle calling the pot black, calling the coal dirty, etc. You're blasting yoinkers for being essentially right (what the hell was David talking about, "sodium itself is pretty neutral, though it degrades quickly when contacted with air": what exactly is the chemical definition of "degrading"?!), then you create a strawman which you proceed to thoroughly beat up by accusing him of claiming the opposite of what he actually stated re the laws of thermodynamics. Dude, develop some English comprehension already.
Here's a real doozie on your part in a later post:
> Utilizing hydrogen from salt water is very easy to make, but hard to efficiently utilize when the energy is extracted (in the case of electrolysis).
Utilizing [...] is very easy to make?! Mi no comprende. This sentence is a study in incoherence, which goes for most of the rest of your posts as well.
Could all of you guys quit replying to my original post. Every time you do I get an email notification. Reading all of your complaints is actually starting to hurt and I feel dumber for it. Go find another place to conduct this argument, Please!
Interesting... Not ten minutes ago, was I reading about piezoelectricity (basically, voltage caused by mechanical stress placed on a crystal/mineral).
How cool is this? Is there anything radio waves can't do? I mean they can cook your food, broadcast your favorite music, let you watch the big game, and now create a source of fuel...
Daddy, when I grow up, I want to be a radio wave :D.
um, radiowaves can cause pain (see military weapons) and death (microwave radiation)...
And you need ALOT of electricity to separate hydrogen...which is the point "yoinkers" made about energy and efficiency.
True... I just said radio waves can do everything... Bringing pain and death are certainly included...
After watching the video, and seeing the transmitting device, I start to wonder about the efficiency of this technology as well... But, then, Microwave ovens went from 6-foot tall ovens to something that can fit on a countertop... It took 30+ years, but the point is, that someone may be able to streamline this Radio-Hydrogen-splitting to a more efficient (and cost-effective) process... Eventually.
hell yeah!
Just a note. Water isn't an element, as it is refered to in the video. I believe its a compound.
I think he meant 'element' in the more antiquated sense of the word i.e. 'water', 'fire' 'earth' etc. I know it isn't very scientific, but since he obviously knows what a scientific 'element' is, I think we can cut him some slack :-)
It is one of the five elements... Earth, wind, water, fire and moolti-pass Corbin Dallas
On the periodic table, Water (Aq) is right next to the human element (Hu).
F'n ROTFL!!!! G-d d-mn it that's funny!
! Raghu @ Sep 11th 2007 3:47PM
! It is one of the five elements... Earth, wind, water, fire and moolti-pass Corbin Dallas
it's not a matter for "big oil" to suppress. This is simple physics matter. How much energy does it take to create a radio wave to "burn" seawater? How much energy does the "burning" seawater put out? We will never be able to fuel our cars with seawater, the laws of thermodynamics do not allow us to.
This is total crap.
The energy it takes to seperate the Hydrogen from the oxygen is equal to the energy produced by burning the Hydrogen and oxygen which recombines them into water.
Just another perpetual motion machine scam.
Are you sure? How do you know this?
Actually, that is the root of the problem. Current methods of striping Hydrogen from water use a large amount of electricity which is generally generated by fossil fuels (Coal + natural gas)
However this method could be more efficient than current methods of producing Hydrogen and if so that could be a major boon to future of Hydrogen fuel cells.
This is high school physics. Dr Roy should be quite embarrest for even lending his name to this.
Um...they aren't claiming perpetual motion. They are saying that this could be a more efficient way to produce hydrogen from cheap, plentiful saltwater. And it would be on demand also, if it can sustain itself it would make a great fuel generator for a fuel cell.
@staniel:
> Um...they aren't claiming perpetual motion.
> if it can sustain itself it would make a great fuel generator for a fuel cell
Um, maybe they're not claiming it, but you sure as heck are implying it. "Self-sustaining" by its very definition means that you're getting at least as much energy out as you're putting in.
This is total tosh, please let's not go the 'high school' route.
Ever burned magnesium or exposed sodium to air? Did you do energy calculations then?
This is NOT perpetual motion. The whole point is that there is energy STORED in the bond between the hydrogen and oxygen. It took massive heat and energy to create that bond, and this process releases it. The water is FUEL. The concept behind a perpetual motion machine is that is does not require fuel.
By your logic, gasoline engines are perpetual motion machines.
There are RF fields everywhere. You don't need to generate them just for this. Stick this machine near a radio station, tv station, cell phone tower. Unlike electrolysis, all this thing needs is a strong RF field.
lfe, you should be embarassed for you posts.
Electrolysis is the process of running ELECTRICITY (not energy) through water to release hydrogen. Doing that in reverse (like in a fuel cell), it cannot create more than you put in. Because it's the same process in reverse.
What you don't realize is that hydrogen itself is a fuel. The thermal energy from burning that fuel actually exceeds the amount of electrical energy you put in to serperating it during electrolysis. It is not a zero sum game like you think. The problem is that converting that heat energy back to electricity is very ineffecient, so you still don't get more than you put in.
There is no law of physics stating that sperating H from O must require a certain amount of enegy. That is why many legit scientists have tried to discover new ways to seprate it by means other than electrolysis. One method often tried is the use of sound waves. Just because one method we know of (electrolysis) is a zero sum game, doesn't mean other methods couldn't be much more efficient.
This new discovery is one of those methods. It is not electrolysis. It uses radio signals to excite the salt in the water.
It may not be more efficient. Or it may be a lot more efficient. Even to the point where you get more out than you put in - and again there is no law of physics that contridicts this possiblity. This is not some kind of "perpetual motion" nonsense where you create energy from nothing. The H in the water is a stored fuel source. So it is not "nothing".
[quote]There is no law of physics stating that sperating H from O must require a certain amount of enegy. [/quote]
Except for the first law of thermodynamics.
You can't get more energy from re-oxidizing hydrogen than you spend to separate it. Basic physics.
> Just because one method we know of (electrolysis) is a zero sum game, doesn't mean > other methods couldn't be much more efficient.
Exactly - it doesn't have to be too much more efficient in order to become an improved method of storing energy collected by solar cells, for instance. If it's efficient enough, you would use a solar cell to power the RF generator to separate the hydrogen into a storage tank to be used when the sun goes down. Further efficiency could enable hydrogen fuel to be stored as H20+NaCl rather than compressed hydrogen gas, which would avoid the very high pressure tanks, be basically inert, and allow an easy method of refueling.
You people and your ridiculous laws. When are you gonna wake up and realize that there is no such thing as a law?
Sean O, the only think I should be embarassed is my mis-spelling of the word embarassed.
It takes exactly the same amound of energy to split split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen if you use hydrolosis, RF field, or hitting it with a hammer. This is indead High school physics. And I will bet my BS in physics and MS in Engineering against any education you might have that this is correct. Stop spouting crap when you do not have the core knowledge !!!