Possible Energy Source: Burning Seawater

Cancer Researcher Discovers Hydrogen From Salt Water Can Be "Burned" By Radio Frequencies

(AP)  An Erie cancer researcher has found a way to burn salt water, a novel invention that is being touted by one chemist as the "most remarkable" water science discovery in a century.

John Kanzius happened upon the discovery accidentally when he tried to desalinate seawater with a radio-frequency generator he developed to treat cancer. He discovered that as long as the salt water was exposed to the radio frequencies it would burn.

The discovery has scientists excited by the prospect of using salt water, the most abundant resource on earth, as a fuel.

Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, has held demonstrations at his State College lab to confirm his own observations.

The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen, Roy said. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies, he said.

The discovery is "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years," Roy said.

"This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Roy said. "Seeing it burn gives me the chills."

Roy will meet this week with officials from the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense to try to obtain research funding.

The scientists want to find out whether the energy output from the burning hydrogen - which reached a heat of more than 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit - would be enough to power a car or other heavy machinery.

"We will get our ideas together and check this out and see where it leads," Roy said. "The potential is huge."

[rushman71]

This is pretty interesting. Probably in the next 20 to 50 years, the possible need for oil would be down to a nil. Next, they will actually make the Flux Capacitor!!!

[edjohn66]

This is some of the most exciting news I''ve heard in a long time. Think of what problems this would solve... no more energy dependence, no more burning fossil fuels, no more funding terrorists with oil money....

I also wonder what lengths Exxon will go to in order to stop this discovery from ever coming to fruition....

[killtheliars]

How great would it be for us in the U.S. if we could become totally self sufficient again. The middle eastern economy would crumble and we could let all of those people go back to killing each other off and eating dirt.

[ckcool192001]

This is a truly amazing discovery. Imagine pulling up to a water station.. do you want pacific, Atlantic or Mediteranian?

The only thing I am worried about is these oil companies paying off this guy to ''forget'' about this discovery.

[phldml]

I guess going to the beach will become
a lot more expensive. We''ll see signs like Don''t pee in the fuel sourse please, and No jugs allowed !!! Virtually Free fuel Hmmm???

[eggy1620]

The only way he will be able to be %u201Cbought off%u201D by Big Oil is if he is foolish enough to patent any of his work. Leave it publicly available, like open source software, and it will flourish.

[loublain]

I Hate to "rain" on your parade, but unless somone has repealed the laws of thermodynamics this ain''t gonna work . The radio waves require energy to generate. If the amount of energy to generate the waves exceeds the amount reclaimed you get noplace. if the amount of energy from the radio waves plus the entropy loss in the conversion is less than the thermal energy recovered you are creating energy from nothing, which is not allowed (Even by Democrats). Nice try but it does''nt pass the B**s** test. go back to looking for cold fusion

[blakejonston]

Bogus
It would require more energy to burn the seawater than to harness the energy produced by seawater (basic physics).

[blakejonston]

Bogus
It would require more energy to burn the seawater than to harness the energy produced by seawater (basic physics).

[blakejonston]

Bogus
It would require more energy to burn the seawater than to harness the energy produced by seawater (basic physics).

[blakejonston]

Bogus
It would require more energy to burn the seawater than to harness the energy produced by seawater (basic physics).

[blakejonston]

Bogus
It would require more energy to burn the seawater than to harness the energy produced by seawater (basic physics).

[blakejonston]

Bogus
It would require more energy to burn the seawater than to harness the energy produced by seawater (basic physics).

[blakejonston]

This is bogus. It would require more energy to burn seawater than the seawater produced.

[rational_1]

I Hate to "rain" on your parade, but unless somone has repealed the laws of thermodynamics this ain''''t gonna work .
Posted by LOUBLAIN at 11:45 AM : Sep 10, 2007

I understand what you''re saying about thermodynamics. However, even if there is a net loss of energy, say in generating hydrogen (for a fuel cell) from electricity obtained from solar/wind/hydroelectric sources, you''d still be able to produce a portable fuel source.

Maybe the relevance of his finding is a cheaper, easier or more effective way of generating the hydrogen for fuel cells, not necessarily 100% transfer of energy from electricity to hydrogen. I don''t know... I''m no engineer.

[jimfinster]

You don''t get something for nothing during a chemical reaction. He is disassociating the components of seawater using an RF generator, then re-combining them by combustion. There is no way that he is getting more energy out (heat) than he is putting in (electricity to power the RF generator).

It may have some value for hydrogen production, though...

[hawksprings]

So Blakejonston, are you saying this is bogus?

...

[actornaught]

blake & lou think they''re the only smart people on earth, pretty funny. Of course they''re looking at efficiency, it''s the primary direction of the current research.

[cpaide]

"Seeing it burn gives me the chills."

Me too, considering that more than 1/2 of the oxygen in the atmosphere is generated by plants in the oceans.

Ya, forget about oil and coal: let''s burn the oceans for energy. When that runs out, we can ignite the atmosphere and move to Mars or something.

[poeticreator]

"You can''t get more energy out than you put in" is referring to the energy originally put into the system (i.e. millions of years of compressed organic material in oil or inherent in the hydrogen in water) not the miniscule amount of energy added at the end to release the magnificently explosive hydrogen.

[boldwin223]

So we burn the coal to make the electricity to make the hydrogen to burn in cars to use up the oxygen supply.

[poeticreator]

NO! We burn the HYDROGEN to make the electricity to make the hydrogen to burn in cars to MAKE MORE WATER.

[hober_mallow]

So what happens to all of that extra salt?

[cpaide]

NO! We burn the HYDROGEN to make the electricity to make the hydrogen to burn in cars to MAKE MORE WATER.
Posted by poeticreator at 01:26 PM : Sep 10, 2007

Ya, that makes more sense: burn hydrogen to make hydrogen to make more sterile water. Do we still get to burn the oceans and the atmosphere?

[actornaught]

campo, what??? your english sucks, forget posting here, you make no sense whatsoever....

[usmcgeorge]

Hey isn''t this the stuff that the Navy has been dumping overboard from their Nuke submarines. They take in seawater and extract the oxygen and dump the hydrogen back into sea??
I cannot remember the name of the gadget that is used to separate the O from the H2O but it uses an electrical current to do the job. All this guy did, was to reinvent the wheel. Hey you submariners out there, let''''s hear from you.

[octavianfdlr]

This has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever read. It''s like using a pump and a dam to extract hydroelectric power from the water in a well -- you get out no more energy than you put in.

[pat1967-2009]

USMCGeorge...
It''s called an Oxygen Generator. It contains electrolytic cells to disassociate the oxygen from hydrogen in water. Needs lots of electricity, something a shipboard nuke plant makes lots of. The hydrogen, however, is not keps onboard as it is an explosion hazzard.

[zunipus]

CBS needs to hire science reporters who understand science. Apparently our Bush-League-Bumbling government needs to hire some scientists as well to even consider funding this guy.

This is how it works folks: Water = H2O, so it has hydrogen bonded in it. If you expose the water to sufficient energy (which itself requires what is called the PRIMARY FUEL to create) the hydrogen will break free of the oxygen. It will escape the water as H2 gas. H2 gas can the be burned. This makes the H2 gas the SECONDARY FUEL, never ever primary when it is created from water. Repeat after me: Hydrogen released from water is NEVER EVER THE PRIMARY FUEL.

Conclusion: You need a PRIMARY FUEL to create the H2 gas. So what is it going to be? Hmm? Coal? Oil perhaps? So the idea of using ANY kind of water, salt or otherwise, as a primary fuel source is IGNORANT if not an outright con job. It most certainly is a waste of money to research. The research was done over a century ago.

Where H2 is useful as a secondary fuel is when it can be used as a method of storage of energy that can be captured and conveniently used later. An example is capturing wind power to generate electricity that is used to create the H2 gas that is stored in a fuel cell and later burned in a car.

So next time someone tells you that water can be used as a fuel, laugh and teach them otherwise.

[gkc99]

What ***! You have to pump energy in to separate the hydrogen and the oxygen, which is somehow aided by the salt, but you get back less energy when you allow the resulting hydrogen and oxygen to react to form--you guessed it--water.

There will be losses. There is no perpetual motion. So you supply electrical energy to electrolyse the water, and burn the resulting hydrogen. Why not just use the electricity to turn your motor instead and forget the added step that introduces added losses?

[jackhighland]

It may be that the Reporter is a dolt; the scientist is another matter.

In the 1980s Swedish scientist Bjorn Ortenheim put a fog of water vapor into a magnetic field and pumped the water molicules into disassociating with a specific frequency of coherent light from a laser. The Hydrogen was released with less energy than the brute force method of electrolisis.

However, even if the H2 is a secondary fuel, it still burns clean and does not come from Iran.

[amazedd]

Brilliant?

[pepperwood2]

An Erie cancer researcher has found a way to burn salt water, a novel invention that is being touted by one chemist as the "most remarkable" water science discovery in a century.

John Kanzius happened upon the discovery accidentally when he tried to desalinate seawater with a radio-frequency generator he developed to treat cancer. He discovered that as long as the salt water was exposed to the radio frequencies it would burn.

This is quite a story. Let''s see now we use high radio frequency energy to turn salt water into Hydrogen + Oxygen. That''s pretty terrific. We can now power our vehicles,etc using Hydrogen. Simply amazing. Except there has already been other less expensive and safer ways to do the same thing. Where''s the story? De Je Vu!

[tomtomasters]

Sounds like a real bad idea to me. All we need now is to have some nut plug his radio waves into the ocean at some remote beach and catch the world on fire. You think 911 was bad, I think this genie should be put back into its jar forever.

[flreason]

Posted by tomtomasters

The hydrogen is only created in the presence of radio waves. Those waves have to be a particular bandwidth frequency and focused. To create the kind of burn you''re envisioning, you would need a massive radiowave. It is not a case of random radio waves igniting the whole ocean. If that were the case, all of the radio activity from ships would have caused the sea to burn a long time ago. However, it is always wise to look at possible negative results. Could this have some of the same negative effects on humans as sonar on sea mammals?

[ke6960]

any one else see that movie chain reaction with keonu reaves (sp?) same exact thing..... give or take....

[ke6960]

and to everyone complaining about the laws of physics and all that.... no duh but if (i say if cause they dont state that part)if it takes less energy to get the hydrogen out with radio waves than with electrolysis and hydrogen cars become more popular it is better over all energy to fuel ratio although it dosnt actually say anything about extracting the hydrogen but in theory....


and what about coal and oil..... those take energy to extract them from the ground and transport them not to mention all the energy that went into them over the past couple million years


then think about ethanol that every one is so fond of lately.... it has less energy than gasoline (read less mpg meaning you have to fill up more often) plus it takes some form of energy (power plants etc) to produce it from corn/sugar cane/etc plus using corn to make it raises the price of food corn and animal feed therefore raising the price of meat and milk and other dairy products

[charlesdjohn]

Somebody tell OPEC to put their oil back in the ground we don''t want it anymore.

I wonder if they can drink sand in the middle east?

[octavianfdlr]

CBS and the AP should retract this story. It only demonstrates that the AP reporter and the CBS and AP editors who passed it on are vastly more ignorant of science than the worst characterizations of our dear President (sometimes named "Dumbya" by his detractors).

Producing a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen in this manner requires at least as much energy input (in the form of microwaves) as is produced when the hydrogen and oxygen burn to produce water. However, unlike electrolysis, this method produces an extraordinarily dangerous explosive mixture of fuel and oxidizer which cannot even be safely stored for later use.

A much better technique is to use a paired pump and generator. You will not produce any power, but at least you will not cause an explosion!

[actornaught]

octovi, why retract the story? This is a new technique and is entirely appropriate to report here. Whether it will lead to an efficient use is entirely possible, but not a lock.

You and quite a number of other posters keep making the same energy in/energy out point. Why? I think one Captain Obvious that doesn''t read all the other Captain''s posts, was one too many...

[pepperwood2]

Somebody correct me if I''m wrong but I believe that we are now using Hydrogen to power our cars.

A few month ago I read an account of a person in California that was quite proud of the fact that their new automobile was powered from a tank of liquified hydrogen at 4000 or more psi and about 300 to 400 degrees below 0, all located in the truck of their car.

Unfortunately while it was parked in their garage underneath their home it was setting off the homes hydrogen detectors. Tank was breaking apart!

Solution - Park it in the street & increase home owners coverage. Nothing like sitting on a Hydrogen Bomb.

[octavianfdlr]

Why retract the story? Why print it? Better yet, put it under "odd" together with the story about the progress in finding the person who assassinated President Clinton back in 1998!

I wish that the name actornaught gave me (Captain Obvious) were even slightly appropriate. Unfortunately, there seem to be many people (in addition to the reporter and at least two editors) who are ready to believe that sea water might be a fuel whose chemical energy can be released by microwave irradiation.

There are far more posts to this article by Major Credulous than by Captain Obvious!

[eggy1620]

To all the thermodynamisists here, has no one considered the possibility that alternative energy sources will not make a dent in global warming? Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, just transferred from one form to another. I posit that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming. The increasing use of stored energy from the earth for the last several centuries has resulted in the transfer of that energy from chemical form to heat. As long as we continue using ANY form of energy, that energy will ultimately wind up as heat, which cannot be destroyed, and will continue heating the globe.

[octavianfdlr]

eggy1620, the last time that I suggested that anthropogenic greenhouse gases might not be responsible for global warming, I was labeled a tool of Exxon-Mobil. When I objected that there had not been time for Exxon-Mobil to construct the data I was accessing, I was accused of defending Exxon-Mobil for their misdeeds during WWII. Questioning the Gospel of Global Warming has also gotten me accused of promoting the dumping of millions of billions of tons of carcinogens into the atmosphere.

You ask "has no one...?" Many of us have. But the suggestion is not politically correct. Neither are the observations that sea level was close to 5 meters higher than now, a mere 115 thousand years ago, and that there were no SUVs or coal powered generating stations back then. Nor even Exxon-Mobil!

[gorph001]

I''ll believe it when I see it, "safe" energy from somehow converting "seawater"...what are the by-products of this?, how efficient could this be?...Does it take more energy in to produce energy out?...is that efficient, or usefull?

[hugbee]

He should talk to the guy who produced cold fusion using sound waves. I think they have a lot in common.

[Syndicate]

I''m skeptical. I think the energy from the radio waves is feeding the system. The radio waves are pumping energy into the bond between the hydrogen and the oxygen atoms. When the energy is enough the bond will break and the atoms will seperate. Use a flame to reverse the process and rebond the atoms. once the atoms bond the stored energy is released. I think your net energy gain is probably negative.

[altenergy1]

Thanks, this is a great news story. We need more news stories on alternative energy research. There are new discoveries going on in all directions but we seldom get to know of their work in progress. We need a variety of fuel sources instead of all our "eggs in one basket" on one planet. There is never more energy taken out than is put in to any type of fuel. There is certainly more sea water than oil on this planet unless it is renewing its self. We should be looking at everything in some new kind of way and use the tools and knowledge provided by previous researchers to assist our work. Surrender to enthropy should not be a chosen option. If all the forces,(money, energy, beliefs) that went into the destruction of our world was focused on constructing a more safe, healthful, and tolerent life style our energy problems would have more than already been solved.