I would like to hear this one. If you take the universe as a closed system. Energy can be changed from one form to another (or to matters) but can not be created, at least that is the current understanding.
The research community is tinkering with different ways to unleash hydrogen. Here is another project...........Cheap And Easy Technique To Produce Hydrogen From Visible Light Is Almost Ready In regards to the radio wave method not having enough scientific research and published papers behind it.......that is true at this point in time. However, when Rustum Roy is able to replicate the experiment, then it does become more credible. Salt Water as Fuel? Rustum Roy isn't just some unknown chemist
Just say how you can create energy and provide the source. Unless you say god, I truely want to know.
I'm just amazed that people can belief energy can be created from nothing. If this were possible, energy bills would be a lot lower... The funny part is that no one sees that the salt water only burns with the radio waves like it's just playing a radio...i love how they neglect to mention the power of the beam they are pumping into that water. I'm sure I could make water burn too if you gave me a gigawatt laser.
Nobody is saying he's creating it from nothing, just that this is something new that could have good uses in the future after more research is done. I'm more amazed by the people that keep harping on about how it uses more energy than it creates like they're some sort of scientific geniuses and nobody else knows about the laws of science.
I agree there, this could be a new way of generating energy and who knows, maybe we could generate cheap radio wave energy one day or use some other wave energy (maybe harvest from the space).
Yup, you'd better stop now. God forbid you actually learn something. It's elementary physics, dude. AND it's supported by Einstein's discovery of Special Relativity. But, then again, your entire argument of "No, it can't" sure is persuasive.
EDIT: But, then again, your entire argument of "Yes, it can." sure is persuasive. damn. I hate it when I mess up my sarcasm.
Yes it can. The taco bell I had last night had very little stored energy. This morning, it release a lot of energy.
I don't think it's hokum. The radio waves weaken the bonds enough for the hydrogen to choose a lower energy state while releasing energy. In the worst case, the discoverer has found a new property of water which can now be researched and exploited.
yeah, but electrolysis was discovered using an electric current over 100 years ago. what's the difference in using radio waves powered by....an electric current. Using radio waves to manipulate water is nothing new by the way. In fact, you've done it before. Everytime you put something into the microwave in fact.
I'm not sure any of us really knows whats going on at a molecular level here, but its not that. You could say that the bonds are being weakened, but for this to happen, a chemical reaction must be taking place in which the bonds between H and O are being totally broken. This requires a high energy transition state, followed by whatever bond breaking and forming that occurs. My best guess would be some sort of radical reaction where somehow, oxygen and hydrogen radicals are formed, and when they recombine, O2 or H2 can be formed. What makes me skeptical about the process is the fact that they are using radio waves, which are just about the lowest energy form of electromagnetic radiation that exists. If radio waves have enough energy to drive this reaction forward, visible light waves should do the same since they have a much higher frequency and energy.
But the media IS implying that burning saltwater might be used an an energy source: If you use more energy to burn it than you get from the heat/light of the flame, there's no way it can be an energy source. That's what many people have an issue with, the implication by the media (and Kanzius himself?) that it might be a panacea energy source. (i.e. "using the world's most abundant substance as fuel"). On the other hand, who knows, maybe this is one step in a series of steps that will eventually lead to a later discovery of a phenomenon that does in fact produce/release more energy than it consumes. That would be cool. But it's not there yet.
Only about 15% of the energy from the fuel you put in your tank gets used to move your car down the road or run useful accessories, such as air conditioning. A lot of energy was invested in getting the fuel out of the ground and into your car. Perhaps the improvement they are talking about is to get the return close to 50% of the energy used from the a fuel to get your car down the road. In the mean time, the cost of getting the fuel to you is also less. I don't think anyone is talking about getting 100% or 120% return on energy.
but with this salt water trick, you're actually getting a negatieve return. You don't even get 1%. You get -x%. You actually put in more energy than you put out. For example, if this thing truly could work, you could use the heat generated to power a generator that powered the radio transmitter that lysed the water into hydrogen and allowed it to combust back into water. But that can't happen. Because the energy yielded would be less than enough to keep the process going. However, with other energy sources, the energy can actually power the generator....it's self-sufficient. That's because you are extracting the energy out of a substance. In the case of solar or wind, you are extracting the energy from fusion taking place 90 million miles away. In the case of nuclear, it's the fission of atoms. And in the case of fossil fuels, you're unleashing the energy held in carbon bonds.
How about this. Use solar, wind, oil or whatever to generate 100 unit of energy. Use the 100 unit of enery to boil water, get 50 unit of energy from the boiling water to propel the car. This is called 50% return on energy.
