I usually don't comment on sensational science news (unless it has to do with basic cell biology) but this is just really ... bad. According to several news we can now use radio waves to convert water into hydrogen, which of course can be burned back into water. What exactly are these reports saying?
From an AP article:
The discovery has scientists excited by the prospect of using salt water, the most abundant resource on earth, as a fuel.
And read this, from Wired:
Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist ... called Kanzius' discovery "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years."
I can't wait to see whether other researchers can replicate these results. If they could, it would blow away results cold fusion experiments have seen in terms of the amount of energy generated.
OK hold on a bit.
So the guy found a new way to break water bonds with radio waves. Interesting, but in no way will this solve any of the world's energy problems. Nor is it anything close to cold fusion.
Anyone knowing the basics of Physics and Energy could tell you why. In the best case scenario it will take just as much energy to break the bonds in the H2O molecule as you will get back from reforming them. Add in the second law of thermal dynamics thermodynamics and you are almost guaranteed to lose some energy to the environment with each step.
No, we can't create energy from scratch. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and no you shouldn't invest in radio emitters, well at least not for this purpose ...
Update:
To make this concept easier to understand here's a recap:
H20 + energy (radio waves) => H2 + 1/2 O2 => H20 + energy release
The amount of energy that you can capture + energy lost to the environment (output) = energy from radio waves (input).
And this is why the sea can't provide unlimited energy in the form of hydrogen fuel (unless we use the hydrogen for fusion energy ...)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Yeah, I saw that and went, "Wow. Do people just not learn chemistry and physics anymore in school?"
It's thermodynamics, not "thermal dynamics"
Given all the ridiculous stuff posted by the odd global warming denialist on the web, why are you surprised that knowledge of thermodynamics is practically nonexistant?
Add in the second law of thermal dynamics and you are almost guarantied to loose some energy to the environment with each step.
No, add in the second law of thermodynamics and you are absolutely guaranteed to loose some energy to the environment with each step.
Surely the simpler response would be "How are you going to power the radio generator?"
gwc,
Thanks - that's a case of bad science blogging.
Check out Rustum Roy's web site:
http://www.rustumroy.com/
Not that his fascination with alternative medicine actually demonstrates anything about the current claim, but I do think it should encourage caution about anything he pronounces on ("water science", which Roy mentions, seems to refer mostly to homeopathy research, based on the materials on his site).
Of course, there's also the basic physics of this, as noted by Alex. Burning hydrogen is of interest in the context of fuel cells because you can create distance between the formation of the hydrogen (from water) and the burning of the hydrogen (to reform water).
It was also on CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/10/tech/main3246430.shtml
There is even a video.
Perpetual motion? Of course not.
A really supercool thing to do with water? Yes!
Incidently, Rustum Roy did *not* compare it to fusion, that's the reporter from Wired's comment- the quote doesn't make that terribly clear.
Also Colst- at most, this demonstrates people can be idiots outside their fields. Yes, he writes on homeopathy, but he's also got over 800 publications (counting conference proceedings and such) including, e.g., R. Roy, D. Agrawal, J. Cheng, and S. Gedevanishvili, Unexpected sintering of powdered metals parts in microwaves, Nature, 399, 664 (June 17, 1999)- he's a ceramics scientist, and a good one, whatever else he may be.
Hey, uhh, this is burning salt water - not water. One video I've seen showed them adding salt to water for a demonstration, for example.
The claim isn't that they are taking apart and putting back together the H2O molecules.
"Also Colst- at most, this demonstrates people can be idiots outside their fields."
As I said, "Not that his fascination with alternative medicine actually demonstrates anything about the current claim,"
I should clarify that by "claim" I'm referring to the hyping rather than the actual experiment - I have no reason to doubt that they are managing to get hydrogen from water and then burn it. I'm more talking about his statement that this is "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years On his web site, he talks about the links between "water science" and homeopathy. He also hypes homeopathy, psychic healing, and other aspects of whole person healing. I just think that his excitement needs the be viewed with his tendency to embrace fringe ideas in mind.
But anyhow, yes, a cool thing even if the fuel angle doesn't seem plausible. There are several good uses for plasmas on the surface of water, I'm sure that someone will think of a good use for this as well.
A good use?
Well the military is interested. They could set fires in front of any enemy ship! That reminds me of how Archimedes allegedly set fire to enemy ships with a collection of mirrors. Of course hydrogen was not involved directly in that technology (although I guess the EM rays came from hydrogen fusion reactions occurring in the sun's core ...)
re: water=perpetual energy,not? Damn you, what about atoms?
Strictly speaking, the equation above is insufficient. Since there are other materials in the water, you actually have:
2 H2O + energy + (salts, form 1)
-> 2 H2 + O2 + (salts, form 2)
-> 2 H2O + "more" energy + (salts, form 2)
So "theoretically" you could have balanced equations if the salt entered some new form with lower energy. Theoretically is in scare quotes because I'm quite confident you couldn't actually balance the equation with variations on sodium chloride structures, but technically someone would need to take the time to look up a couple more data points to be strictly correct.
The other point is that I haven't seen any mention yet that radio waves can't effect the "water-hydrogen bond," can they? They are completely the wrong frequency; UV light could split the bond and IR could stretch it, but radio waves? I'm having trouble picturing any way this contraption as described could liberate hydrogen.
Nice try gz, but unlikely. According to your theory H2O is a catalyst that enhances this reaction:
salt1 => salt2 + energy
If this were the case, the ocean would be a ticking time bomb. If an energy source appeared that would allow the molecules to overcome the activation energy of this reaction, the sea should convert salt1 into salt2 + a lot of thermal energy. In any case what could salt1 and salt2 be???? Something with a lower energy then dissolved Na+ and Cl-???? You describe a very unlikely scenario. Most likely the salt is a catalyst for the reaction
H2O + radio waves => H2 +1/2O2
This reaction is unstable and reverses releasing energy. Thus in a way the salt and the water act as catalysts for this reaction:
radio waves (EM energy) => thermal energy
An interesting finding but not something that will revolutionize science.
Just as I hit enter on the previous comment, I realized that another reaction could be possible.
Na+ + e- + radio waves => Na
Na is very unstable in water and would immediately react.
Na => Na+ + e- + thermal energy
(of course e- can come from many sources such as 2H2O => H2O2 + 2H+ + 2e-). In the end it's the same thing you convert radiowaves to thermal energy.
Alex, you misunderstood me. I'm not "trying" to explain anything, I think it's complete bunk. I thought I made that pretty clear in my post. Indeed, I'll follow up on your comment by pointing out that if the mythical left-over salt form is soluble in water, you're back to a perpetual motion machine (as you can redissolve the salt and start over).
I was just pointing out that, strictly speaking, you need to recognize the other components are there before calculating the net energy change. A nitpick, yeah, but important in other contexts--absent that, other valid reactions start to look impossible (including a lot of biological ones.)
For the record, I'm even skeptical they are getting hydrogen--if there is any way radio frequencies can have an effect on the O-H bond, I'm unaware of it. What's making the "water" burn, then, if not complete sleight of hand? For me, sleight-of-hand is actually the most plausible explanation for the video at the moment.
about producing the hydrogen....it's true that radio waves don't have the energy to actually dissociate H-O bonds....but it's also conceivable that a multi-photon process may be able to do so. however, a multi-photon process is also likely to be substantially less efficient at converting radiative energy into chemical energy than a simpler single photon process.
Let's look at the BIG picture. Even if new invention requires more engery than it takes, the question we need to ask - "Does this invention take less energy than typcial desalination plants??". If so, we may have a winner. Think about it, use the radio wave to desalinate the water and, at the same time, use the incredibly hot flame to power a steam turbine to generate electicity. Albeit, the output power would be less than the input power. But still, this new process could possibly allow us to desalinate water for much less power than today's typical desalination since it's bypoduct will generate back some of the electricity it uses. Massively expensive and complex desalination plants could be eliminated to a much simpler/less power hungry process. We should be exploring this use of the invention instead of getting caught up in the rhetoric. I don't care if it takes more power than it outputs, as long as it can be built at a massive scale and uses less energy than current desalination plants. Perhaps desalination could be done with much less investment and only supplemental power (aka renewable) instead of the massively complex, costly, and power hungry desalination plants that even the super rich countries try to avoid.