Burning Salt Water

Researchers in Pennsylvania say they are able to burn salt water.

It kind of reminds me of an episode of the Beverly Hillbillies where Jethro modified the Clampet’s jalopy so that it would run on water. Jethro was always ahead of his time.

I wonder what the ratio is between the energy produced by the hydrogen the energy required by the RF generator?

In any case, if Al Gore is right, and the sea will rise several meters in the next several years, this Erie guy could be the answer to that problem.

14 thoughts on “Burning Salt Water

  1. Unless he has broken 1st law of thermodynamics (You can’t win) he can’t get more energy breaking the bond between hydrogen and oxygen than he gets from burning the hydrogen back to water.

    Unless he has broken the 2nd law of thermodynamics (You can’t break even) he can’t even get as much energy out as he put in.

    So he would be better off using the energy powering the radio-frequency generator to do what ever he wanted done.

  2. Sorry I wrote the first paragraph backwards. I meant to say:

    Unless he has broken 1st law of thermodynamics (You can’t win) he can’t get more energy from burning the hydrogen back to water than he used to break the bond between hydrogen and oxygen in water.

  3. Darn them laws of thermodynamics…they ruin everything, don’t they? 😉

    That would be interesting, really, but it puts me in mind of ethanol…it takes more energy units to create ethanol than ethanol itself will supply. It sounds good in theory, but until it becomes practical, it’s just an “oh, wow” oddity.

  4. The net energy gain from using ethanol as a fuel is a controversial. The government study “The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: an Update” says ethanol yields 34% more energy than it takes to produce it. However David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell states that corn ethanol requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. But even if the first figure is correct then if every bushel of U.S. corn, wheat, rice and soybean were used to produce ethanol (i.e. none for food), it would only cover about 4% of U.S. energy needs.

  5. Those statistics are pretty unpopular in our community, Allen. We have two plants looking to come into the area (less than 20 miles apart).

    However, without knowing the stats, it’s evident to me from just a few quick drives across the mid-west that we are not going to have enough corn or other organic matter with which to make a significant amount of fuel.

  6. Three, actually…there will be two in the Technology park in Clearfield and one in Curwensville. There are also plans for, I believe, Karthaus and possibly Decatur Township.

    This is why I have mixed feelings about ethanol…on one hand I know it’s a load of manure, on the other hand…jobs. Same about the landfill(s)…jobs. (I have fewer issues with the landfills, however.)

  7. Well if the “34% more energy” is correct there is no reason not to convert “excess” organic matter into ethanol. Ever little bit helps, but that is all it would be i.e a little help.

    But what has that to do with burning saltwater? 🙂

    Now if low energy nuclear reactions* (LENR), which are apart of the field of condensed matter nuclear science* actually produces extra energy we wouldn’t have to worry about burning saltwater or making ethanol for fuel.

    * Those are the fancy terms for Cold Fusion.

  8. At least Nature has a reasonable article on “Burning Water”

    http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070910/full/070910-13.html

    The following is extracts from the article.

    But the most fundamental, the most critical question about the whole business leaps out at you so immediately that its absence from these reports, whether they be on Pennsylvania’s JET-TV or on PhysOrg.com, is staggering. Can you get more energy out than you put in?

    I can answer that right now: no. … Extracting net energy from this total cycle is impossible, if you believe in the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

    But ‘energy for free’ enthusiasts don’t want to know about thermodynamics. …. Thermodynamics is the enemy of the Edisonian spirit of the backyard inventor.

  9. Yep — when I was a kid, I invented a car that had a large fan on it.

    The wheels were powered by a belt from the fan that was powered by the resistance of the air encountered as the wheels pushed the car along. The wheels were powered by a belt from the fan that was powered by the resistance of the air encountered as the wheels pushed the car along. The wheels were powered by a belt from the fan that was powered by the resistance of the air encountered as the wheels pushed the car along. The wheels were powered by a belt from the fan that was powered by the resistance of the air encountered as the wheels pushed the car along. The wheels were powered by a belt from the fan that was powered by the resistance of the air encountered as the wheels pushed the car along.

    The invention died from lack of an initiative force and the presence of inertia.

  10. To me, even knowing how, it still seems strange that a sail boat can go faster than the wind speed. An iceboat can actual go 3 to 4 times faster than the wind. This is a case where “common sense” is wrong.

  11. Common sense isn’t as common as it ought to be.

    Many times, when traveling in a caravan, I set my cruise at the speed limit. Inevitably, someone following me says, “Steve — you were speeding! I know you were, because I was going the speed limit and never caught up to you.”

    The fact that he kept the same distance behind me should have told him we were traveling at the same rate of speed. But he felt if we were traveling at the same rate, he’d catch me. Go figure.

Comments are closed.