Does the energy generated exceed the energy required to run the radio wave generator? Unless and until it does, then, like the current state of nuclear fusion, it cannot be a viable energy source. Anyone know if it produces more energy than it comsumes?
I call BS on this. The law of physics prohibits getting energy out of nowhere. So if he could burn salt water, he must have spent way more energy on the radio frequency generator.
I came up with an idea that you could burn coal, oil, methane, or any of 100 different compounds to get energy. What he should do is run the whole thing in a closed system so the rejoined hydrogen and oxygen can be separated again. That way, not only does the machine run on salt water, but it never needs to be refueled. Hooray perpetual motion machines. On the other hand, if we recognize that it takes more energy to break down the water than is produced by burning the hydrogen, we can still possibly get some use out of this. What if we hook up powerful radio transmitters to nuclear power plants, and broadcast this frequency (which they showed to be harmless to humans). Then the nuclear power (or solar, or hydroelectric, whatever) can be used to break down the salt water and the end users can have free energy locally. That of course assumes this technique can be done at long range. If possible it would allow us to use green energy sources that are not practical in a car (for example) by basically transmitting the energy from the central location. Maybe it could just be used to improve the efficiency in creating hydrogen fuel cells. Meh, I guess this is why we have scientists.
I'm not sure where you are getting this from. Where is there energy coming "out of nowhere"? It is coming from burning the water. When you burn gasoline, is it coming from out of nowhere? No, it is potential energy that is being converted to kinetic energy (I think those are the labels). The big question is, is the potential energy in burning saltwater greater than the energy needed to generate the radio frequencies?
I'm reminded of a tongue-in-cheek way of explaining the laws of thermodynamics: You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit the game. So, no, the energy from burning the saltwater is not greater then the energy needed to generate the radio waves.
I was wondering the exact same thing. As far as whether more energy is coming out of the process than it I'm wondering if it is the water that is burning or the hydrogen released that is burning? The articles seem to imply it is the hydrogen that is released in which case you probably aren't getting more energy out since the energy has been expended to break the oxygen / hydrogen bonds. If it is the water itself burning as part of the process of breaking the molecular bonds then there might be more energy coming out of the process.
As per the link I provided, he uses much more energy with radio waves than he gets out from the "water fire" at this point. And again, this is just kind of a stunt until he goes through the normal scientific process, or someone else does for him. I can patent toe cheese bread spread, but that doesn't make it noteworthy, useful, or desirable.
is he the first person to burn salt water with radio waves? if so that is a big deal whether or not he uses more energy than the fire produces especially at such an early stage.
If his discovery is truely great, I am sure he would have published in scientific publications and requested peer reviews. If the whole thing takes more energy then it produces at this point, it sounds like a big nothing to me.
It may not be a viable energy source now, but there's no reason to simply dismiss it. With more research a more efficient way to create the radio waves, or other uses for it could be found. And oil isn't magically turned into the gas you put into your cars, it requires energy to process it.
I'm just running off of memory, so hopefully someone will help if I get the details wrong. Nuclear explosions are not considered a "system" so don't work the same way, it's just an uncontrolled release of the potential energy within the atomic bonds of the plutonium/uranium (for a fission bomb). Even there, you still aren't getting 100% of the energy converted to destruction, since much of it is wasted in light emission. In a nuclear power plant (which is a controlled decay system), you still are not getting all of the energy available from the decay of the nuclear material. Only the heat energy of the decay is used to heat the water to make the steam that powers the turbine. There is light and other energy given off that is just lost. So even in the case of a nuclear power plant, you still aren't near 100% efficiency. Therefore, there is no thermodynamic violation.
this is so stupid, I can't believe an energy company gave this fool money. This is quack science, another cold fusion but so much more obvious. Does anyone see that you're actually using up more energy? Where does this unleashed energy come from... Let's see, you start with water....and you end with water.... Hmmm, it's magic....oh wait, maybe it comes from that super high-powered radio transmitter....which is powered by electricity, which is powered by coal or nuclear. So really, we've discovered another way to do electrolysis.
Guys, I figured out a way to produce hydrogen fuel by simply running an electrical current through water. Does anyone want to give me money?
IF this is true, then obviously, at this point, his hydrogen and oxygen separation method will be studied A LOT more and become more developed. You fools who are worrying about the energy input vs. output need to shut up and appreciate a good scientific discovery. only time will tell if this will be a reasonable way to provide energy in mass quantities. This could have so many uses beyond pure generation of energy. What about hydrogen production for fuel cells in cars? Would you rather have a tank of explosive, compressed hydrogen strapped to your butt, or a tank of salt water? or how about oxygen generation for people who need oxygen tanks? that would be a much safer way to get pure oxygen than carrying around a big flammable gas tank.
Okay, I have a news flash for you people... ALL energy production methods burn up more than is provided. Simple law of physics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.... Did you hear that? I'll repeat: Energy cannot be created. Also.... There is no known energy production method that produces as much energy as it consumes - that's called perpetual motion or perpetual energy. It doesn't yet exist. All that gas you burn in your cars? Think about it. It takes a whole helluva lot of work to get it out of the ground, refine it, and get it in a pump for you. So, quit yer b****in' Yeah... I'm sure that this guy who discovered this thing has to use a LOT of energy to run the radio wave generator that lets him extract hydrogen from salt water. The Wright brothers didn't build a 747 on their first try either. The thing they built barely left the ground. But it was huge. And when Bell invented the phone, it wasn't digital hi-fi broadcast across the planet. It was low-fi audio across a copper cable from one room to another. But it was huge. With research, we may be able to determine exactly what frequency and wavelength is necessary to extract the hydrogen from the water, and it may be possible to create such a radio wave generator that doesn't use up much juice. With that in mind, imagine this scenario: Average home uses solar panels to run the radio-wave generator. Radio-wave generator separates hydrogen from water, storing hydrogen in container. Container is placed in car and engine burns hydrogen instead of gasoline. Car operation costs: just the cost of the water. Are we there yet? No. We don't know if the solar panels can create enough juice to power the radio wave generator. But there ARE people who are modifying cars to run off of hydrogen. And there are people who have found ways to store hydrogen SAFELY in tanks to be placed into cars. These people are innovators who have great ideas, but are fighting governments and oil companies.
Energy is not created in nuclear explosion or hopefully cold fusion one day. What we do is release the energy that is stored already. We only provide the energy to trigger the realease. Same thing goes for gas, the amount of engergy stored in oil and coal is already there, we only realease it, we do not create energy. I am only saying if this process is actually true scientific breakthrough, it will be validated by the scientists around the world, and people would find applications for it. If it is not useful, well we know what will happen to this scientist.
