The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

This is one of the coolest things I have read in a long time.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/09/11/tech-water.html

A cancer researcher has used an instrument that he was working on to treat cancer to "burn" salt water. The instrument emits a radio frequency that apparently weakens the bonds in the water molecules, and releases the hydrogen. This has so much potential.
Craig

The US Gov't will kill the patent before it gets off the ground. Gotta keep the gasoline economy here until there is no more gasoline. Sounds like one more way the rest of the world can advance while our gov't continues to live in the past with regards to fossil fuels.

murray wrote:The instrument emits a radio frequency that apparently weakens the bonds in the water molecules, and releases the hydrogen.

It would if you discount the amount of energy required to fuel the process in the first place.

There is no question that energy in vs. energy out is the key to this having any real impact. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics say that it is impossible to have a net energy gain by splitting the hydrogen from a water molecule and burning it. However, achieving 100% efficiency isn't necessary to make this process extremely valuable (especially if the required energy inputs were generated using carbon free methods). I have been following this story on the internet for a about a month now, and you get many diverging opinions from academics that understand the physics. The problem is that I can't find solid sources for information. A lot of stuff is posted on wiki type sites, and quotes the inventor John Kanzius (but I can't find the primary sources for these quotes, and certainly do not consider any wiki a reliable source of information - and therefore who knows if the quotes attributed to him are reliable). According to those sites John Kanzius originally clamed he had a 76% efficiency (which is a massive improvement over electrolysis), but now claims to have achieved greater than 100% efficiency (according to most physicists that is impossible). Apparently since he made that achievement he has decided that he shouldn't release anymore details to protect his intellectual property (which is a smart decision). I guess time will tell.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

murray wrote:The instrument emits a radio frequency that apparently weakens the bonds in the water molecules, and releases the hydrogen.

It would if you discount the amount of energy required to fuel the process in the first place.

That is why electric cars and hydrogen powered cars aren't emisions free. Right now per mile a hydrogen powered car, either fuel cell of internal combustion, actually pollutes more than your typical SUV. The prcess for produciing hydrogen is an "extremel dirty" process now.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:

murray wrote:The instrument emits a radio frequency that apparently weakens the bonds in the water molecules, and releases the hydrogen.

It would if you discount the amount of energy required to fuel the process in the first place.

That is why electric cars and hydrogen powered cars aren't emisions free. Right now per mile a hydrogen powered car, either fuel cell of internal combustion, actually pollutes more than your typical SUV. The prcess for produciing hydrogen is an "extremel dirty" process now.

Your statement is true only in that the electricity needed to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water, comes mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. If the process is powered by solar, wind, or hydro power, there are zero emissions.

Your statement is true only in that the electricity needed to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water, comes mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. If the process is powered by solar, wind, or hydro power, there are zero emissions.

Exactly!

As a slight diversion to this thead, here in Ontario we have an energy provider called "Bullfrog Power". They generate carbon-free electricity using wind generators and low impact hydro power. It cost a premium of about $0.03 per kilowatt hour. You actually continue to draw your electricity from the Ontario grid, and Bullfrog injects green power onto the Ontario grid to match the amount of electricity that you use. It is a great way to reduce your environmental impact. We switched to Bullfrog a few months ago. It costs us about $25 a month more than the "dirty" electricity did. I'm not sure if such programs exist in the states, but if they do, everyone should consider it.

murray wrote:There is no question that energy in vs. energy out is the key to this having any real impact. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics say that it is impossible to have a net energy gain by splitting the hydrogen from a water molecule and burning it.

Entropy.

murray wrote:However, achieving 100% efficiency isn't necessary to make this process extremely valuable (especially if the required energy inputs were generated using carbon free methods).

If the energy required to support this second process is already CLEAN, why do I need a further introduction of entropy in this same second process?

95% of all hydrogen produced in the world, including the US, is produed by "steam reforming", in which methane is fractured through the use of high temperatures, yielding hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and water.

The process produces large quantities of carbon dioxide.

The costs associated with the use of electrolysis, the other most common method, are prohibitive. While the process itself is clean, greenhouse gasses are produced in the production of most of the electricity required for the process.

It seems the most cost effective method of achieving this goal would be to capture all of the hot air politicians blow in an election year. That would most likely create an equivalent amount of energy to U-238 fission, without the U-239 radioactive waste created by fission.

Redskin in Canada wrote:If the energy required to support this second process is already CLEAN, why do I need a further introduction of entropy in this same second process?

We use power sources that are less than 100% efficient in terms of energy in vs. energy out all the time. The charge/discharge efficiency of most rechargeable batteries is usually around 60 to 75%.

murray wrote:We use power sources that are less than 100% efficient in terms of energy in vs. energy out all the time. The charge/discharge efficiency of most rechargeable batteries is usually around 60 to 75%.

Should the -main- emphasis not be placed on the expansion of -primary- sources of CLEAN energyrather than admittedly inefficient ways to transfer it from one source to another? Denmark and other Scandinavian countries are WAY ahead of Canada in the use of wind farms, for example.

Energy is still too cheap in North America to make it cost effective to invest in energy designed to feed the Provincial power grids. Your Ontario wind farm company is having a hard time "over my way down east" (Canucks talk).

I completely agree with your comments on the need to invest in the expansion of clean sources of energy. Our provincial government has continually stalled on promises to decommission our coal burning power plants. This is exactly why we need to support companies like Bullfrog Power. About 2500 households in Ontario have made the switch to Bullfrog, and many businesses (the Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s Head Office just made the switch – which will hopefully send a message to their Ontario Power Generation colleagues). In the last couple of months they began offering their clean power in Alberta. I haven't heard of their troubles "down east", but hopefully they will overcome them and be able to offer their services to all Canadians. It really is an easy way to support the development of renewable “carbon-free” power generation sources. Paying a little extra money for your electricity also makes you more conscientious of your power consumption, something that we all need to do.