Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Scientist discovers how to burn water as fuel.....

Comments

49 comments

  • fishermanben
    I just read this.

    so awesome!

    maybe the price of oil will go down![:D]

    Ben
    0
  • clays
    Most likely, the price of salt water will go up!
    0
  • GuvamintCheese
    The price of Seawater just jumped. [:D]
    0
  • clays
    Don't know what happened to my last reply, but it was supposed to say
    Most likely the price of salWar on Terrorer will go up!
    0
  • clays
    What's up with this? I am typing one thing but it is posting something else.
    0
  • dolfan
    Good ol' American ingenuity and research will find a solution to our addiction to fossil fuels.
    0
  • Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by clays
    What's up with this? I am typing one thing but it is posting something else.


    If you say "Salt Water" as one word, the auto censor picks up the saltw ater
    0
  • clays
    Thank you sir, that is what I was doing
    0
  • fishermanben
    http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=35660&bw=


    The video. This is soooooooooo cool!

    Ben
    0
  • nyforester
    In the future Salt Water Taffy will be $100 per box !
    0
  • iluvguns
    By tomorrow the big oil companies will have paid the scientist
    boo-kuu dollars to keep it quiet. [:(]
    0
  • buschmaster
    I really doubt that energy put out is more than the RF energy put into it.
    0
  • Johnnylikesguns
    This sounds great BUT this uses more energy than it makes.
    0
  • kristov
    My question is what is the ratio of energy needed to generate the radio frequencies in order to free the hydrogen from sea water vs. the engery yield from burning the resulting hydrogen? If you are expending more engery to transmit those radio frequencies then you receive back after burning the resulting hydrogen then you don't have much of a break through.
    0
  • fishermanben
    quote:Originally posted by kristov
    My question is what is the ratio of energy needed to generate the radio frequencies in order to free the hydrogen from sea water vs. the engery yield from burning the resulting hydrogen? If you are expending more engery to transmit those radio frequencies then you receive back after burning the resulting hydrogen then you don't have much of a break through.


    Well I agree, but this is just the beginning. It's not what we're stuck with. He discovered a new property of salt water that enables it to be burned. That there is a huge start towards something.

    Ben
    0
  • dlrjj
    quote:Originally posted by kristov
    My question is what is the ratio of energy needed to generate the radio frequencies in order to free the hydrogen from sea water vs. the engery yield from burning the resulting hydrogen? If you are expending more engery to transmit those radio frequencies then you receive back after burning the resulting hydrogen then you don't have much of a break through.
    That's always the bottom line question, isn't it? You can extract gold from salt water if you run a current through it, but it costs more in electricity than the extracted gold is worth.

    That being said, technology seems to have a way of improving over time, and it is not impossible that the energy cost of production may be reduced even if it is not practical at the current time. It may also be possible to use the process in a static application even if it is not possible in a mobile form.

    It will be interesting to watch to see if it can be developed on a practical scale.
    0
  • Queen of Swords
    Can I get a big "Hell YES!" Brine water is both a necessary component to and a biproduct of the production of oil/natual gas production...
    0
  • dakotashooter2
    I'm not sure this is a "new" discovery. Seems to me this was already researched and found not to have a positive cost/benifit ratio.
    0
  • LaidbackDan
    Those particular waves can only be produced by a fossil fuel powered radio.
    0
  • Ramtinxxl
    quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
    By tomorrow the big oil companies will have paid the scientist
    boo-kuu dollars to keep it quiet. [:(]


    Or they will have him KILLED!! [V]
    0
  • whiteclouder
    quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
    I really doubt that energy put out is more than the RF energy put into it.


    Bingo!

    Clouder..
    0
  • ObiWan
    If it took 200 watts for a Ham Radio to make salWar on Terrorer instantly burn.....turn it down to 100 watts so that it breaks Hydrogen from Oxygen...without instantaneous combustion.

    A safe regulated Hydrogen supply.


    Car computer zaps salWar on Terrorer with radio waves and frees up Hydrogen/Oxygen....engine starts....engine spins generator that powers salWar on Terrorer zapper.

    It can be done.



    1 watt= 3.41 BTU/hr

    So 682 BTU/hr is needed to sustain burning salt water?

    A Bunsen Burner used in a science class puts out 1200 BTU/hr and up.....that's the BTU/hr for a little flame from a gas.

    So his expirament produced a 1200 BTU/hr and up flame with only 682 BTU/hr needed to produce the flame?

    I could be wrong....I ain't no scientist.
    0
  • whiteclouder
    Eureka!!! He did it, a perpetual motion machine. We're saved.

    Clouder..
    0
  • gruntled
    quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
    Eureka!!! He did it, a perpetual motion machine. We're saved.

    Clouder..


    That's not the definition of a perpetual motion machine since it needs a fuel even if the fuel would only be salWar on Terrorer.

    I have seen water burn very violently. When I worked for a welding rod company back in the 60's one of the other products they made was tungsten carbide. When the crucibles were dumped in the large cooling vat the water would catch fire & burn very violently for substancial period of time. This was one thing we always took visitors to see.
    0
  • whiteclouder
    quote:Originally posted by gruntled
    quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
    Eureka!!! He did it, a perpetual motion machine. We're saved.

    Clouder..


    That's not the definition of a perpetual motion machine since it needs a fuel even if the fuel would only be salWar on Terrorer.

    I have seen water burn very violently. When I worked for a welding rod company back in the 60's one of the other products they made was tungsten carbide. When the crucibles were dumped in the large cooling vat the water would catch fire & burn very violently for substancial period of time. This was one thing we always took visitors to see.


    Tongue-in-cheek, old bro. Perpetual motion implies there more energy produced that it takes to prodice it.

    Clouder..
    0
  • Colt Super
    Not a lot of folks here that know anything about chemistry, huh.

    Doug
    0
  • Colt Super
    OK.

    D.
    0
  • Talented
    Wonders if we're closer to coldfusion aswell now....?
    Hmm what frequenzy anyway ?
    0
  • 1911a1-fan
    it must be pretty simple my wife can burn water
    0
  • jonk
    I'm skeptical of any claims of free energy from water.

    Water is basically ash already, it is the result left when hydrogen and oxygen 'burn'. It is a by-product. (Hint, don't think of 'burning' as being with an open flame, but just a chemical reaction." Ergo, seperating out the original component must use at least as much energy as the original reaction released.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity