Burn Saltwater for Fuel!
Posted: September 11, 2007, 07:35:40 PM
I saw this and I couldn't believe it. If true, w o w ! !
http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570
Nate
http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570
Nate
The Aphelion Webzine Lettercolumn
http://aphelion.autographedcat.com/newforum/
http://aphelion.autographedcat.com/newforum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=878
I don't know. I guess the real question would be whether or not the burning gives off more energy than it takes to make the radio frequencies that make the reaction possible. If so, it would be usable as fuel.... The catch is, you have to continuously apply RF energy to trigger the electrolytic reaction. So ... can it ever make sense to USE energy to release a flammable gas (hydrogen) as an energy source? It seems a bit like having a mink farm where you use the flesh of the skinned minks to feed the next generation of minks -- it ain't 100% efficient, so eventually you wind up with less than you started with. Now, arguably, if the energy to generate the RF is derived from some otherwise untapped source (wave power -- hey, if you're using salt water, you are most likely near the ocean; wind; solar; geothermal (locate a plant near a high-temperature vent in the ocean floor?); thermocouple (exploiting the temperature difference between surface and deep water) ...), it might still be worth it.
(Advantages of hydrogen: burning it produces only water vapor, and since you are starting with hydrogen FROM water, this shouldn't be a problem. Disadvantages: volatile and difficult to store, suggesting that it should be burned near the point of generation to minimize losses and risk. So ... seagoing platforms (like offshore oil rigs, but without the need for drilling) using wave / solar / etc. energy to extract hydrogen, then burning said H[sub]2[/sub] to generate electricity; energy stored in batteries or transmitted as microwaves?)
RM
(1) No process is 100% efficient. So you can't get out more than you put in ("cold fusion" claims notwithstanding); you are lucky if you come close. (In the case of fossil fuels, consider the energy expended to extract, refine, and transport it.)I don't know. I guess the real question would be whether or not the burning gives off more energy than it takes to make the radio frequencies that make the reaction possible. If so, it would be usable as fuel.
Also, I don't buy that you'd need to be by the coast. Not sure how it is in Canada, but very little oil comes from inside the US. It's shipped or piped across the border, then distributed from there. Saltwater could easily work the same way.
Nate
I'm not looking for some Hippie perpetual motion machine. I'm not thinking it would be free energy for everyone. I'm hoping for something that could be used as a viable fuel that you can get into your car at less cost than gas.out more (1) No process is 100% efficient. So you can't get out more than you put in ("cold fusion" claims notwithstanding); you are lucky if you come close. (In the case of fossil fuels, consider the energy expended to extract, refine, and transport it.)
(2) See (1). Moving large volumes of seawater would not be "free". And the hydrogen content of seawater would by definition be a fraction of its total mass (it being H[sub]2[/sub]O, sure, but hydrogen atoms are much lighter than oxygen atoms (viz. the periodic table), and THEN there's all that salt (sodium, potassium, etc., etc., plus chlorine)). Much of the mass would be dead weight, and corrosive dead weight at that, so again, the energy derived would likely be exceeded by the energy used.* 'Sides, it would be silly to pipe huge quantities of water over extremely long distances (viz. the trailer for "Resident Evil: Extinction" to see what happens when you STOP piping water into Las Vegas...).
(*As compared to oil, anyway.)
Any chemists / engineers care to comment?
RM