What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
This Game Sucks view!
threadless.com - Grab this epic gaming tee for only $12 during the Threadless Holiday Sale!
233 Comments
- ohanon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+62"It's the most abundant element in the world"
My BS in chemistry tells me water's not an element...it's a compound. - doktorrocket, on 10/10/2007, -7/+61A lifelong RF broadcast engineer seeks to cure cancer with radio waves, now claims to have solved energy problem with radio waves as well. I salute him for trying, but I can't help but think when your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+42"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on."
- Rbstr, on 10/10/2007, -4/+38The Laws of Thermodynamics make it impossible for this to make a net energy gain.
There would have to be energy coming from nothing for it to work that way.
Yes, I am a chemist. - smartpatrol, on 10/10/2007, -7/+32If you could separate H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, burn it (thereby turning it back into H2O), separate that into hydrogen and oxygen again, burn it again, ad infinitum, then that's a perpetual motion machine. It breaks the second law of thermodynamics. It's that simple.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24I love how much pseudo-science gets posted in digg comments
- smartpatrol, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Jesus H Christ. It's the laws of physics. If you could separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen, burn it (turning it back into H2O), separate it into hydrogen and oxygen again, burn it again, etc etc etc. . . that's a perpetual motion machine. Please shut up.
- GreatToast, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20OK, find, "the radio frequency generator he's using CERTAINLY draws at least a few hundred watts". And I'm comfortable also saying that 100%, without doubt or reservation, the RF energy he's dumping into the system is MUCH larger than the energy released by burning the hydrogen, that's physics. Deal with it.
- hankmt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Twains exact quote: "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth even gets its boots on"...but close enough.
More applicable..."a lie got almost three thousand diggs yesterday...how many will this story get" - nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Brilliant analysis.
I was thinking much the same, but couldn't put it so well. He was looking to cure his own cancer, mind you, with the tools of his trade (his trade being radio broadcast).
Well, while you're at it, why not try to desalinate water with that thing? (someone says to him)
And then he gets some sort of plasma going, not altogether different than the grape in the microwave trick (google it - I've tried it - it works!), and some quack (yeah, that's right: quack) named Rustum Roy declares it the most amazing thing in "water science" (a quack field that overlaps homeopathy) in 100 years. All I can say is, I hope the next 100 years works out a little better for this branch of "science". - capiCrimm, on 10/19/2007, -2/+17hammers cure cancer?
- ricksite, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16This technology isn't totally useless. It is certain to find its way into a Rube Goldberg contraption.
- gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -7/+19Uhhhhh, I don't think Kanzius is claiming that his RF generator is breaking the water molecules down at an overunity rate. (a rate at which the energy out is more than the energy in). In fact he's not making any claims at all about the device's efficiency, therefor, he doesn't need to put a Kill-A-Watt on to measure input. Regardless of whether or not it's more efficient than hydrolysis, it's obviously a less messy and maintenance prone way to make Hydrogen. Obviously that's the point. That there could be an easier, perhaps more efficient, and obviously more garage-space friendly way to get hydrogen for our fuel cells and H powered cars if we so chose to go that way. An interesting thing to note here is that he's still following the Cancer cure angle, and isn't too interested in the energy angle.
- smartpatrol, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12NO it's not worth researching. It clearly breaks the second law of thermodynamics. The amount of energy you can extract by burning hydrogen and oxygen must ALWAYS be less than the energy it takes to separate them.
- coviecarbine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Dude, theres this car man, that runs completely on water, man. -Hyde That 70's show
- smartpatrol, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10It doesn't matter if it's salt water, fresh water, de-ionized water, water from Mars, or urine from some magical leprechaun. H2O is H2O is H2O. You can't get more energy from burning Hydrogen and Oxygen than it takes to separate H2O into Hydrogen and Oxygen.
- nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14I loved this opening line from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette article:
"For obvious reasons, scientists long have thought that salt water couldn't be burned."
I wonder what those "obvious reasons" are that the writer thinks these naive scientists had in mind? - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Alas, most diggers seem to have a physics/chemistry knowledge gleaned from supermarket checkout tabloids.
- cindylauper, on 10/19/2007, -2/+11because its freaking water...is everyone on digg retarded?
- smartpatrol, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9You don't have to measure it. Because of the second law of thermodynamics, the energy being dumped into the system by the RF generator MUST necessarily be more than the energy released by burning the hydrogen.
Whether that is MUCH larger is a matter of opinion, but it must be larger. However, considering the fact that many of those RF waves are probably missing the water altogether, and considering that many H2O molecules probably absorb some of the RF energy (but less than that required to separate into hydrogen and oxygen) and subsequently release it back out. . . . I'd be shocked if it wasn't orders of magnitude more energy being put in than being released. - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12> "Oh my lord. How does this stuff make its way across the internet at such lightning speeds!"
"A lie can travel halfway across the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." --Mark Twain - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"You have less evidence that the author's device draws "a few hundred watts" as the author does that his process actually generates useable energy."
Let me guess, you also believe in intelligent design?
First law of thermodynamics, buddy. With a black box with some mass in it, with RF input and heat as the output, the *only* way he can get more energy out is if some mass is turning into energy.
But sure, I guess in your world anything that means a total rewrite of physics as we know it is VASTLY more probable than "He didn't account for this factor". Riiiiiight. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - smartpatrol, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10You are an idiot.
- otakushark, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Nothing about breaking down water or recombining it violates the second law since it requires energy to be added in order to do that. Nor is that perpetual motion for the same reason, plus the reaction is not a self-sustaining loop.
- nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"they clearly said they were going to need more research to check whether it could be a viable energy source"
That's the point! They said it, and it isn't true. There is no rational reason to believe it could be a viable energy source. - smartpatrol, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The amount of energy you can extract by burning hydrogen and oxygen (making water) must always be less than the energy it takes to separate the bond in the first place. When you burn something and use that to generate power, some of that heat must necessarily be lost as entropy. This is the second law of thermodynamics. Even if you could break the second law and do it 100% efficiently, the energy you would gain by burning hydrogen and oxygen would exactly equal the energy required to separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen. You could never do more than break even. Another way to look at it is this: you are putting energy into the system by beaming it with radio waves, then you are getting SOME of that energy back by burning the hydrogen and oxygen.
I honestly don't know why it has to be salt water, but it makes no difference. - nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7"It could be plausible."
To someone who requires no evidence for it, and ignores all prior empirical evidence and scientific knowledge to the contrary, yes, it could be plausible. - av4rice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Those silly carmakers thinking they could replace our centuries-old standby: the horse
- roncri, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I think a few people need to take a better look at the original article.
1. He never claimed anything except that he was breaking the molecules apart. While it's true you need to use more energy to generate the radio waves than from the potential energy you receive back in Hydrogen, Hydrogen can be stored. If you could use solar to generate the electricity to generate the radio waves then you have a good portable source of energy which make Hydrogen cars much more practical. A lot depends on what the efficiency rating is.
2. His version of using radio waves doesn't require using a needle and could also handle free floating cancer cells if it works out.
Finally, this illustrates why random DIGGERS should NOT be commenting on articles if they don't understand what they are reading!!! - n5yat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The news report implied you could "run your car on water" - and to do that, you'd put water in your car,
and then separate the H and O from the water, then burn it to get energy to run the car AND sustain the
operation to separate H and O from water. To do that, the process MUST yield more energy than it consumes,
and it won't. So, the car can never even start moving, because all the energy generated from burning goes
back into separating more H and O from the water.
Now, as to being a convenient way to generate H so that you can pull up to a filling station, get some H for
your fuel cell powered car, that's a different story, and NOT the one the TV station presented. - catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8He was talking about hydrogen, Dr. smarty pants.
- nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8The people who fall for this pseudo-science quackery ... I'd love to know where they stand on the evolution vs intelligent design "question".
- nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"Ok. So let's think about this. The water is used as a FUEL. So for people that keep blabbering about "perpetual motion" and such -- this is not applicable as the FUEL is consumed in the process."
It is not consumed. Burning doesn't consume the atoms that constitte the ater being burned, it rearranges them. They are burning the hydrogen released from the water. This produces EXACTLY the same amount of water from which the hydrogen was released. Start with a gallon of water, you end with a gallon of water. - nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"An interesting thing to note here is that he's still following the Cancer cure angle, and isn't too interested in the energy angle."
He has cancer. - thecolor11, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6iamnos, I'm not sure you DO understand. If you run this thing in a cycle, the best you can do is maintain the energy initially in the system. Adding any intermediate steps only makes it SEEM more complicated, but I can assure you that it doesn't change the fundamental cycle. Any intermediate steps only create more ways to lose energy.
- Bkaufman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Read the above comments. I don't know much about the chemistry, but there are numerous people above that say it can't be a net energy positive. I have a little bit of experience with RF systems as well, and I can tell you that they require alot of power to operate.
- smartpatrol, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It CAN NOT be a viable energy source, because you must necessarily put in more energy than you get out of it. BTW, electrolysis isn't an energy source either.
- nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8what 'smartpatrol' said below
From the article: "Dr. Roy's tests on the machine last week provided further evidence that the process is releasing and burning hydrogen from the water."
It's breaking water down into hydrogen and oxygen and burning them again to produce water. The water doesn't get consumed. Start with a gallon of water, run this process as long as you like, and you always have a gallon of water. If this can produce more energy than it consumes, it can run a perpetual motion machine. Free energy. Which I might even be willing to believe in, given one tiny shred of evidence it might be possible. But none is offered, or even suggested to have been seen. - sammy22b06, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5the word element has only one meaning when you are talking about any chemical reaction, sorry.
- n5yat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7The science is bad:
Nothing is quantified - no stated measurement of exactly how much energy is generated,
no stated measurement of how much microwave energy is being pumped in, and therefore
no stated measurement of the energy yielded.
Plus, this kind of scheme has been published and refuted time and time and time
again. It takes X amount of energy to force the water to separate into Hydrogen and Oxygen.
If, and I repeat IF, you could then combine the Hydrogen and Oxygen again to get water,
the energy release is EXACTLY what it took to separate them to begin with. Net gain: zero.
In reality, you NEVER have 100% efficiency, so you get back LESS energy than you used to
separate the hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore, you cannot use the technique to GENERATE
power, because you consume more than you produce. How hard can that concept be?
The man's credibility is low:
How plausible can a guy be who wakes up in the middle of the night to invent a cancer
cure using radio waves? It doesn't take but a second on "Google" to find that he was beat
to the punch some time ago:
" Thermal Ablation is the destruction of cancer by extreme heat or freezing. The most common technique uses radio waves (microwaves) to generate heat. This technique is called radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The destruction of cancer by freezing is known as cryoablation.
Radiofrequency Ablation is a minimally invasive procedure in which a hollow needle is placed directly into the tumor. The physician guides the placement of this needle using image guidance, such as Computed Tomography or Ultrasound. Once the needle is properly placed, metal tines are deployed from the hollow core of the needle. These tines penetrate and envelope the tumor. "
Finally, this illustrates why random journalists should NOT be science reporters!!! They'll believe anything, and don't have the knowledge to ask the right questions. - smartpatrol, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6You don't know what you're talking about. Wind power is extracting energy that ultimately came from the Sun. This guy's method is more like using a fan to blow air at a windmill and use that to generate electricity.
- Veritate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I think it was a joke. I laughed, anyway.
- smartpatrol, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4When the water evaporates, the sodium ions will recombine with the chloride ions and become NaCl -- salt.
- Cogboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Only problem is they cure life as well.
- flashingcurser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Running high amounts of electricity through water is one way of making hydrogen. It forces apart the bonds in H20. Because this process is greatly inefficient you will never get an equal amount of energy from burning the hydrogen than the electricity you put in to separate it. The real question is, is his method more efficient?
Some day we will have nuclear fusion and abundant electricity to create hydrogen. For those who are thinking, "but we will have electric cars" I don't think battery technology will allow us to have electric semi-trucks. - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Take container of salt water.
Toss into Sun.
"But does it burn"? - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4WTF does that hve to do with it? You might was well say "It's peanut butter, not jello".
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Any physics textbook can help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy - LittleDas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This just gives you a messy mixture of oxygen and hydrogen, hydrolysis gives you hydrogen at one electrode and oxygen at the other.
Why do people keep saying, "This is totally gonna be useful for fuel cells!!"
We've already got an efficient and simple method. - leftler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually electric flatbed trucks where used in large cites where they could be recharged often before the internal combustion engine was popular in cars.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 234 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is