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.
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.
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.
> 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 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.
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".
> 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.
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 !!!
Further efficiency could enable hydrogen fuel to be stored as H20+NaCl rather than compressed hydrogen gas
ummm. no. unless you are going to carry around a battery that has a little more power in it than you expect to get from the hydrogen. The only method we know of getting power from hydrogen (besides fusion, which has a its own host of problems) is through oxidation, whether by burning or a more controlled reaction in a fuel cell. In order to get the hydrogen out of the water, you would have to spend at least a little more energy than you would get back from it. You can't carry around water and use it as a fuel source unless we are talking fusion. It just can't be done.
"Self sustaining" does NOT imply perpetual motion/free energy, so long as you are still required to add more fuel. A candle burning is a self sustaining process that gives more energy out than you put in. You can easily get an hour of heat from the brief second you lit the candle. If this process was efficient enough, you could use the heat generated from it to generate more microwaves that would keep the process going, hopefully with some extra energy output as well. You'd have to add more fuel, but then, most reactions work that way. -Taylor
@ taylor your example of the candle is a bad one. some process made the parafin, and that process took energy to happen. So in short term, the candle put out more than it recieved. bu, if you think all the way back to when the carbohydrates that made the parafin were made, you would clearly see that it is still zero sum. The only point of putting energy in a chemical (i.e. Hydrogen) form is for storage. hydrogen fuel cells are better than current tech batteries for storing energy, but in the future, hydrogen might not be as good of a storage medium.
Wow, wow, WOW!!! This thread is a prime example of the decline of science in the USA and its replacement with mysticism and "sounds about right"-ism. Mysticism such as the belief that electricity is not energy but some special incantation that can persuade hydrogen to release its strong embrace on oxygen (or vice versa), or that the strength of molecular bonds is something indeterminate that cannot be measured and varies at will. This is a return to the days of alchemy and magic potions and spells.
To all who keep referring to water as a "fuel", it is NOT a fuel in any traditional sense of the word. Just apply some common sense to the matter if science doesn't mean anything to you: our planet is covered 2/3 with water and has been so for millenia, and water (in any of its states) appears to be very plentiful throughout the universe as well. Yet there are virtually no openly occurring fuels of any other kind that would remain unexpended for any length of time when in the presence of suitable oxidants and catalysts. There is so much energy being released to the surface of this planet that virtually all naturally occurring fuels are expended quite quickly. Forests combust spontaneously when hit by lightning, and so would any surface deposits of coal, crude oil or anything else that uses oxygen as an oxidant. And yet the world's oceans have persisted in their pristine, liquid and unburned state for millions of years, despite being constantly bombarded with cosmic radiation, lightning and all sorts of other mechanical energy. If the hydrogen in the oceans, bonded to oxygen, contained more energy that way than in its free form, it would take just one lightning strike to ignite all the world's oceans, and they would have been long gone. Matter always proceeds from high energy states to low energy states, that's called entropy. The strength of the bond between oxygen and hydrogen atoms can be calculated precisely. If we had tiny little tongs to grab an oxygen atom and a hydrogen atom to pry them apart, we would have to exert exactly as much energy to do that as we get when we let go of them again and the pop back together. Separate, release, separate, release, always the same energy in and out. However, we don't have tiny little tongs, we only have much larger and cruder and less precise means of separating the two atoms: we have to literally bathe billions of them at once in excesses of energy, be it electricity or RF, or X-rays, or strong light (lasers etc.), and most of this energy goes to waste in the vast spaces between the atoms, with only a small fraction of it actually contributing to prying those two atoms apart. That's why in the real world it takes so much more energy to separate hydrogen and oxygen than the strength of their bond would suggest: we only have a massive hammer, and these are such tiny nails.
"I'm moving to a small studio and for some reason the cable connection is in an awkward place and I need a way to transmit HD quality video and audio no more than 20 feet away. What is the best wireless HDMI transmitter / receiver for this situation? Thanks!"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
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 !!!
Further efficiency could enable hydrogen fuel to be stored as H20+NaCl rather than compressed hydrogen gas
ummm. no. unless you are going to carry around a battery that has a little more power in it than you expect to get from the hydrogen. The only method we know of getting power from hydrogen (besides fusion, which has a its own host of problems) is through oxidation, whether by burning or a more controlled reaction in a fuel cell. In order to get the hydrogen out of the water, you would have to spend at least a little more energy than you would get back from it. You can't carry around water and use it as a fuel source unless we are talking fusion. It just can't be done.
@ Patsy
"Self sustaining" does NOT imply perpetual motion/free energy, so long as you are still required to add more fuel. A candle burning is a self sustaining process that gives more energy out than you put in. You can easily get an hour of heat from the brief second you lit the candle. If this process was efficient enough, you could use the heat generated from it to generate more microwaves that would keep the process going, hopefully with some extra energy output as well. You'd have to add more fuel, but then, most reactions work that way.
-Taylor
@ taylor
your example of the candle is a bad one. some process made the parafin, and that process took energy to happen. So in short term, the candle put out more than it recieved. bu, if you think all the way back to when the carbohydrates that made the parafin were made, you would clearly see that it is still zero sum.
The only point of putting energy in a chemical (i.e. Hydrogen) form is for storage. hydrogen fuel cells are better than current tech batteries for storing energy, but in the future, hydrogen might not be as good of a storage medium.
Wow, wow, WOW!!! This thread is a prime example of the decline of science in the USA and its replacement with mysticism and "sounds about right"-ism. Mysticism such as the belief that electricity is not energy but some special incantation that can persuade hydrogen to release its strong embrace on oxygen (or vice versa), or that the strength of molecular bonds is something indeterminate that cannot be measured and varies at will. This is a return to the days of alchemy and magic potions and spells.
To all who keep referring to water as a "fuel", it is NOT a fuel in any traditional sense of the word. Just apply some common sense to the matter if science doesn't mean anything to you: our planet is covered 2/3 with water and has been so for millenia, and water (in any of its states) appears to be very plentiful throughout the universe as well. Yet there are virtually no openly occurring fuels of any other kind that would remain unexpended for any length of time when in the presence of suitable oxidants and catalysts. There is so much energy being released to the surface of this planet that virtually all naturally occurring fuels are expended quite quickly. Forests combust spontaneously when hit by lightning, and so would any surface deposits of coal, crude oil or anything else that uses oxygen as an oxidant. And yet the world's oceans have persisted in their pristine, liquid and unburned state for millions of years, despite being constantly bombarded with cosmic radiation, lightning and all sorts of other mechanical energy. If the hydrogen in the oceans, bonded to oxygen, contained more energy that way than in its free form, it would take just one lightning strike to ignite all the world's oceans, and they would have been long gone. Matter always proceeds from high energy states to low energy states, that's called entropy. The strength of the bond between oxygen and hydrogen atoms can be calculated precisely. If we had tiny little tongs to grab an oxygen atom and a hydrogen atom to pry them apart, we would have to exert exactly as much energy to do that as we get when we let go of them again and the pop back together. Separate, release, separate, release, always the same energy in and out. However, we don't have tiny little tongs, we only have much larger and cruder and less precise means of separating the two atoms: we have to literally bathe billions of them at once in excesses of energy, be it electricity or RF, or X-rays, or strong light (lasers etc.), and most of this energy goes to waste in the vast spaces between the atoms, with only a small fraction of it actually contributing to prying those two atoms apart. That's why in the real world it takes so much more energy to separate hydrogen and oxygen than the strength of their bond would suggest: we only have a massive hammer, and these are such tiny nails.