"Burning" salt water.

He's actually separating hydrogen from the water and burning the hydrogen. If he gets research funding, and if it proves efficient enough, this could eliminate a few of the huge hydrogen roadblocks.

Making hydrogen with electrolysis has a (purported) negative energy balance - apparently it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than most technologies can release (fuel cells being among the worst). If the radio waves take less energy than electrolysis, then it might be feasible to build a "water engine". Electricity is used to generate radio waves which release hydrogen, which generates electricity, which is divided among powering the vehicle and generating more radio waves. The fuel is over-priced "premium" sea water shipped directly to your local Exxon from converted off-shore oil rigs.

Shipping and storage issues of hydrogen would also be eliminated (I suppose) if a device could be made efficient enough to release enough hydrogen from a gallon of water that it could displace the same amount of gasoline. We'd be creating hydrogen on demand.

And it might address the whole 'depleting the Earth's usable oxygen level' issue that doesn't get a lot of press. (Who needs oxygen anyway?) See, when Exxon makes hydrogen, they end up with marketable hydrogen and oxygen in big tanks. When vehicles use hydrogen, they take oxygen out of the local atmosphere and trap it in water vapor. Hence, a city full of hydrogen powered vehicles ends up with less oxygen and a lot wetter. (Wouldn't that make summers in L.A. a lot of fun?) Who's got all the displaced oxygen? Why Exxon, of course! So here's where we form government committees to study the problem and... oh, you get the idea. But releasing hydrogen on demand would (presumably) also release oxygen on demand which could be recombined in the engine / fuel cell / whatever.

Yeah, it's a stretch. The only tangible outcomes I see in the short term are (a) applications for isolated situations like long-term under sea research. And (b) a rash of new and improved convert-your-car-to-run-on-water Internet schemes.

mt2 said:

Making hydrogen with electrolysis has a (purported) negative energy balance - apparently it takes more energy to make the hydrogen than most technologies can release (fuel cells being among the worst). If the radio waves take less energy than electrolysis, then it might be feasible to build a "water engine". Electricity is used to generate radio waves which release hydrogen, which generates electricity, which is divided among powering the vehicle and generating more radio waves. The fuel is over-priced "premium" sea water shipped directly to your local Exxon from converted off-shore oil rigs.

Click to expand...

No, that's impossible. You can't get more energy out of this reaction than you put into it.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

And it might address the whole 'depleting the Earth's usable oxygen level' issue that doesn't get a lot of press. (Who needs oxygen anyway?)

Click to expand...

Oxygen is 20.946 percent of Earth's atmosphere. You can't deplete it. Not that way, anyhow.


Using radio waves to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen might be useful if it can be done at significantly higher efficiencies than conventional electrolysis.

A potential obstacle is that this process sounds like it would produce oxyhydrogen gas, which is a highly volatile mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. These gases would then need to be separated to produce a safe and practical fuel (hydrogen gas), which would add complexity and reduce the efficiency of the overall process.

Have you guys seen the youtube video of this?

YouTube - Saltwater Burns - John Kanzius

If you've ever used a hydrogen torch, you know it's a faint blue flame. This flame is so yellow, it implies a sodium transition.

tonybelding said:

No, that's impossible. You can't get more energy out of this reaction than you put into it.

See here: Perpetual motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Wasn't implying that. I was suggesting (skeptically) that (a) if radio waves are more efficient at releasing hydrogen than electrolysis and (b) if the device could be made small enough, then hydrogen could be released on demand and you would "burn" through a tank of saline solution. I see what you mean, in that it takes energy to separate the hydrogen (or oxyhydrogen) from the water and presumably you would get less energy converting it back. Believe me, I'm no big believer in overunity. It seemed to me that such a thing is not perpetual motion because it releases stored chemical energy in sea water. (Stored chemical energy in sea water? Dear lord, what am I saying?)

I had hoped my lame attempts at humor relayed a tongue-in-cheek attitude. Maybe next time I'll insert a ton of those lame-ass smileys.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go finish the resume I'm sending to Steorn.

I was suggesting (skeptically) that (a) if radio waves are more efficient at releasing hydrogen than electrolysis

Click to expand...

They might be more efficient than electrolysis but the whole system cannot consume less energy in any form than you get out of burning released hydrogen. If you could do that, you would then just connect output to input and voila: overunitiy. No go.

Looks like there is a concept car designed on the "salt water" idea.

http://aetherforce.com/electric-car-powered-by-salt-water-920-hp-373-milestank/

And, so, where are these cars that run on salt water???

I'll believe it when I actually see a functional prototype.

Go visit the Geneva Motor Show, March 2015. The Quant F is on display, the all-new successor of last year's Quant E.

Even technology that is too god to be true can be improved - isn't that comforting to learn? :biggrin: