676Views68Replies

Author Options:

Burning Saltwater? Answered

i found this article in class today, and thought it was pretty interesting. a scientist discovered that by exposing saltwater to radio waves, it weakens the bonds in the water, and the hydrogen can be burnt.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/11/can-saltwater-be-burned-as-fuel/

50 Replies

user
Sandisk1duo (author)2008-07-10

Lets say it takes 40W of power to prouce the results, burning water, the heat generated by the flames might be able to power a steam turbine, that turbine would produce >20W power, meaning that this is not "free" energy....

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Grey_Wolfe (author)FrenchCrawler2008-07-10

I couldn't watch past the "I feel like a poor math teacher". I wanted to slap the guy. lol

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)FrenchCrawler2007-09-16

No he doesn't. Did you listen to what he thought salt was?
Hasn't got a 'kin-clue what he talking about, but he thinks it's the fuel of the future...

L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
FrenchCrawler (author)lemonie2007-09-16

Think that was bad? This guy is talking about "colors" of the water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5vBTItBjuE&mode=related&search=

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)FrenchCrawler2007-09-16

(apologies if I missed a note of sarcasm on the previous) Mmm, are these guys drunk, stoned or just twats? L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)lemonie2007-09-16

. I didn't see any signs of intoxication (but I wasn't really looking), so I'll go with the latter. ;) . That's assuming that a twat is similar to a twit. Around where I live, twat is slang for female genitalia. Not particularly vulgar, but not often used in "polite company," either.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)NachoMahma2007-09-16

I could have used a different word, moron? l

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)lemonie2007-09-16

According to an elderly dictionary I found in a cupboard, a moron is an individual "with the brain of a twelve-year old child".

Considers the membership...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)Kiteman2007-09-17

(I give up) The guy rambles for over 4 minutes about something he even admits he doesn't understand. Why? L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)lemonie2007-09-17

. You lasted longer than I did. I'm not sure if that makes you a better Man or a bigger sucker. LOL

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)NachoMahma2007-09-18

Perhaps I should have watched all of the clip? But I was getting very bored...

L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)NachoMahma2007-09-16

No, it means cheeky bits in the UK as well.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)Kiteman2007-09-16

. Twit, twat, moron. They all seem to fit. heehee . But then, _I've_ never said/done anything stoopid. LOL

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

I'm not sure, but I think he's making fun of Ian. It's kinda hard to figure out.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

He's just having a laugh. I thought that was a great response.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
its a lion (author)FrenchCrawler2007-09-16

... "i believe the sun consists of saltwater" i do not know enough about any of this to voice much of an opinion, but this guy... thanks for the video, it made me laugh.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)FrenchCrawler2007-09-16

. ROFLMMFAO!!!!! . "... Sodium nitrate .. I think, or sodium phosphate .. anyway, there's Sodium in it." I had to stop watching after that, my laughter was disturbing the dogs. Whatever that guy's takin', I want some of it! . Maybe it's just me, but I have a tendency to discount sources that give their presentations without a shirt (and who knows what else) on. If it was a female, I would enjoy the presentation more, but it would still be a little less believable. :)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
FrenchCrawler (author)NachoMahma2007-09-16

Here's the only chick discussing this matter (sorry, she still has her shirt on. But still she's a girl):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT-h0Zh2JCo&mode=related&search=
(though she's just speaking nonsense, except how oil companies buy the patents)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)FrenchCrawler2007-09-16

. Well, I have a problem with they're-buying-the-patents-and-hiding-the-technology conspiracies, too. Patents are public record and there's nearly always another way to do something that doesn't violate a patent.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
FrenchCrawler (author)NachoMahma2007-09-16

True, all you gotta do is change one small thing that was in the original patent (mayhap even improve the design) and get yourself another patent.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Actually look at just about anyone talking about using Saltwater as fuel on Youtube...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
fungus amungus (author)2007-09-19

From wikipedia:

Kanzius admits that this stage of development of his method, the process could not be considered an energy source, as more energy is used to produce the RF signal than can be obtained from the burning gas, and stated in July, 2007 that he never claimed his discovery would replace oil, asserting only that his discovery was "thought provoking."

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

ah. so people saw it and ran with it... seems like any little thing that they learn can combust (sp? firefox tells me "com bust") people think is fuel.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)its a lion2007-09-19

combust is spelled correctly...according to the WORD dictionary ;-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Grey_Wolfe (author)Goodhart2008-07-10

According to most english dictionaries, lol. Firefox is illiterate? lol

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)2007-09-11

High intensity EM can be fun, thanks! No use as fuel (as fungus).
And the presenters suck.

L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)lemonie2007-09-18

Even the lower end can be interesting (ELF, for instance).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)Goodhart2007-09-19

What wavelength are you referring to, and interesting how? (I don't know) L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)lemonie2007-09-19

ELF or Extremely Low Frequency radiation. The kind given off of small motors, florescent tubes/power supplies, tv's, (mostly older) CRTs, etc.

See here for one site......
or Here, but devices like this one
can be created with a pair of comparators (I have a schematic and a working device somewhere).

And one last site: Remote sensing tutorial....VLF/ELF

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Goodhart2007-09-19

Isn't ELF what they use to send very short coded signals to submerged submarines?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
maker12 (author)Kiteman2007-12-22
user
Goodhart (author)Kiteman2007-09-19

Yes, that would be included

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
maker12 (author)2007-12-22

i had salt water burn on me when i put 15v@3AMPS! power to steel wool in salt water. too leeds toched in the water. and went BOom in the water!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
CameronSS (author)2007-11-05

Here, I'll bump this up the forum list again. I just got the December 2007 Discover magazine, which is a fairly reliable resource, and they mention the story. At the end, it has the line, Alas, using radio waves to tap hydrogen and oxygen as a combustible source of energy is inefficient, and scientists have so far been unable to adapt the process for energy production. So yes, it does work, but no, it isn't a new energy source.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)2007-09-11

Highly questionable.

The invention is in the realm of physics and physical chemistry, so why does this chap take it to a pair of polymer engineers? Why not take it to the people best qualified to assess it's authenticity? They're very excited because the temperature hit 1500C (and that flame shown in the video was never 1500C), but no mention is made of efficiency, which should have been the first question from anybody interested in the effect as a source of energy.

The flame is a bright, sodium-orange, so I'd even question whether it's actually combustion of hydrogen gas (which burns pale blue). Could it instead be oxidising sodium vapours? If so, what happens to the chlorine?

Could it be excitation/decomposition of the salt, followed by the rapid energetic recombination of the sodium and chlorine?

I'm not impressed by the stirling engine demonstration at all. Granted that the stirling cycle is likely to be more and more important in the future, but that's because they can run on very small energy differentials (such as the heat of a hand).

There are salts in the human body - his hand should have been strongly affected if the claimed mechanism was real. Lighting the tube is a red-herring.

The system shown is a mains-powered RF-emitter. To work in a car, the same unit would have to be rendered portable, and be able to run off the energy released by the "combustion" of the salt water, and still have enough left over to run a car.

Sorry, until I see validated test-data from physicists, I'm filing this firmly under "woowoo (mis-guided)".

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Firebert010 (author)Kiteman2007-09-11

Excellent points. I've seen Hydrogen burn, however, and it definitely burns with an orange flame.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Firebert0102007-09-16

Hydrogen cannot produce a visible flame in a lighted environment. Also seen were the famous photos of the Hindenburg's bright, blistering hot fire and knew that hydrogen doesn't burn in that way. A hydrogen fire radiates little heat and is barely visible to the unaided eye.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Firebert010 (author)Goodhart2007-09-17

I hate to pull the Mythbusters out on this, but have you ever seen the Hindenburg episode?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Firebert0102007-09-17

Doesn't matter, I have seen "hydrogen burn" up close and personal; hydrogen bubbles, hydrogen from the tail of the Space shuttle (not the boosters, mind you), and etc. What people "saw" burning with the Hindenburg was the "Hindenburg", not "just the hydrogen gas".

But, let's look at that episode shall we?

To test the theory, the “Mythbusters” crew built three 1/50-scale models over three days. Two had re-creations of the skin on the original craft, and a third — well, we’ll get to that one.

The three members of the “build team,” Tory Belleci, Kari Byron and Grant Imahara, were not on the set the day of the shoot, but a small video team was. Cameras captured the action from several angles. Mr. Savage had also placed one camera on the ground, facing up toward the mini-blimp, with tiny models of people placed nearby to mimic the newsreel scenes.

It was time to make a disaster happen. Mr. Hyneman stood by an open door of the building to manipulate a long pole with a gas torch that he used to ignite the mini-zeppelin, which was more than 10 feet long, hanging inside. Mr. Savage pinballed between peeking through the door and sitting under a canopy outside watching video monitors.

The first blimp, not filled with hydrogen, burned slowly at its tail end for a minute and a half and then foomph! Fire raced along its length in just a few seconds. Mr. Savage shouted, “Oh, my God, look how fast it’s going!” ...

“The hydrogen’s helping,” Mr. Savage said. “To say that the hydrogen played no significant role is idiotic.”
“It’s busted,” Mr. Savage said of the myth. Mr. Hyneman added, however, that “the cloth did have something to do with it.” (I didn't claim that the hydrogen played no role, I said the hydrogen burn was invisible and what was being seen was the cloth burning, and they agree...)

The TV show “Mythbusters” made models of the Hindenburg to see what role its skin had in the disaster, left. Jamie Hyneman, a host, said he and the team “don’t have any pretense of teaching science.”

“I don’t think the ruling on a given myth is all that important,” Dr. Wallace said. “It is more about being curious and trying to figure things out.”

Sure, you take hydrogen and burn it in conjunction with paper, you will see the paper burn, no question about that.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Firebert010 (author)Goodhart2007-09-17

Earlier in the episode Adam set fire to pure hydrogen from a tank, for the specific purpose of observing what color it burned. It was quite a large orange flame. I really don't want to get in an argument here.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Firebert0102007-09-17

Nah, I don't wish to argue either, but there must have been something combining with the H2 molecules to turn it orange though. For instance: CaCO3, CaSO4 will turn flames orange that were not orange to begin with (calcium carbonate/calcium sulfate). A little dust from some drywall would do it, which is why they give the warning that their findings may not be scientifically conclusive.

The problem with the "investigation" is that it contradicts every scientific finding since the disaster. They were not busting a myth, they were crudely attempting to disprove the science of UCLA and others.

Contrary to popular belief—and the findings of two official investigations—it was not hydrogen that caused the disastrous fire aboard the famous Hindenburg zeppelin, according to a study by William Van Vorst of UCLA's chemical engineering department and Addison Bain, a former NASA researcher. After studying newsreel footage, examining the chemical composition of the "skin" of the airship and delving into the records of the German firm that built the Hindenburg, they found that hydrogen could not have been the culprit; instead, they believe, the material used to coat the airship's skin triggered the electrostatic activity that led to the fire.

The Graf Zeppelin, which was also kept aloft by hydrogen, went on to fly more than a million miles without incident.

I have a lot of respect for the Mythbuster team, but they are not always correct. I have noted several "myths" they themselves have "created" by ignoring science and trying to re-invent the wheel.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Firebert010 (author)Goodhart2007-09-17

I agree with you about the Mythbusters, skewing the truth about some myths, however the burning of the Hydrogen didn't have anything to do with the myth. It was a simple bench test to see how Hydrogen burns. Adam set light to a Hydrogen burner connected to a tank, the result was a tall orange flame. That's all I'm saying. The Graf Zeppelin was older technology than the Hindenburg, maybe some new advance in Airship design triggered the fatal fire...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Firebert0102007-09-17

I understand, and like I said, I have seen hydrogen burn "up close and personal (inches from my face)" in several environments, and I still wonder how they got it to burn "orange" on the show. Maybe I need to write them and ask? Thanks for being patient with me. And sorry if I caused any feelings of ill-will. They were not intended. .

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Firebert010 (author)Goodhart2007-09-17

Sorry, when you referred to the Hydrogen additives (CaSO4) I thought you referring to the video clip in the thread not my comment. Perhaps that is what happened in the video. Please forgive my mistake.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)Goodhart2007-09-17

. Wow! . The Mythbusters do a great job and have a lot of credibility with me, but they often point out that some of their experiments are as-close-as-we-can-get-without-busting-the-budget-or-killing-someone. I saw the Hindenburg episode and didn't think it provided much real evidence one way or the other. Some interesting data, but nothing I would consider conclusive.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)NachoMahma2007-09-17

Yeah, my point was that I was not even considering the myth portion of the Hindenburg, I was illustrating that one did not see the hydrogen burn (of course, it DID burn) but only saw the Hindenburg itself go up on flames. They pretty much demonstrated that, without the hydrogen, it looked a lot like the disaster itself. They only proved to me that the Hindenburg went up in flames (something we already knew) and that the hydrogen added to the speed of the ignition, but not to anything visible. The near invisibility of the hydrogen burn from the space shuttle demonstrates this all too clearly (again, not from the boosters which are a different fuel).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer