How long will it take to implement this break through in using salt water as fuel?

Question

http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570

Answer 1

It could be done now....if people were motivated to implement it.  Maybe, now that the current administration is being faced with so many pushes to reduce our dependance on oil........somebody will finally wake up and make these alternative fuels practical to use.  

By the way, this 'salt water fuel' is not a new thing....this technology has been around for quite some time.

Answer 2

Forever, salt water is not fuel, never will be.

The energy comes from the EMF ... electromagnetic force, i.e. his radio wave generator is plugged into the wall socket that's where the energy is coming from ... it is just a new form of electrolysis.

What IS significant is that he may have stumbled upon an entirely new scientific concept: that "water has a 'harmonic frequency' that makes it possible to break its chemical bonds."  

That has important industrial applications beyond burning H2 + O.  And it doesn't mean water is fuel.

Answer 3

Hydrogen is a viable form of energy and probably the fuel of the future

but I am astounded by the number of people who discount discoveries of this kind out of hand

Do they enjoy making visits to the fuel pumps and handing their hard earned cash over to the Arabs

Perhaps in the future there will be separate pumps for those who wish to save the environment and those who just couldn't give a d**n

The pumps could be changed, from.

Gas.

&

Hydrogen.

to

Fund terrorism.

&

Save the enviroment.

NOTE TO DISCO STU

I don't think you fully understand the technology

I am well aware of Faraday's 2nd law of thermo dynamics

But what can be done is to produce a very small amount of hydrogen (which burns 15 times faster than petrol but ignights at a slightly higher temperature)

and introduce it into the petrol air mix entering the carburetta

Normally, In the enging cyliner the spark plug ignights the petrol at the top of the cylynder which would  burns slowly in the cylinder to produce power to the car but on the exhaust stroke the fuel is still burning as it is expelled in to the exhaust system loosing a lot of potential energy

But with a little hydrogen added, the spark ignights the petrol at the top which in turn ignights the hydrogen which explodeds in the cylinder ignighting the remaining petrol much more quickly and thus getting more power from the fuel

and by the time the exhaust stroke comes around all the fuel has been burned so the gasses are not burning when they leave the chamber

You get a power boost, cleaner engine, cleaner oil, less emmissions and a saving in fuel cost ranging from between 25% to 50%

This is not pie in the sky technology is is being used more and more especially the trucking industry

and the US government have awarded a contract to build a hydrogen/petrol hummer for the military

Answer 4

This is interesting. But at this moment we don't know how much energy was consumed to generate the radio waves to break down the molecular bonds on the water.

The radio waves were undoubtedly produced by using electricity generated from external source.

To date, using fresh water, it has taken more energy to release the hydrogen gas from the water than the energy in the hydrogen gas produced. I suspect that may also be the case with the salt water used to produce hydrogen.

I am not getting my hopes up yet, there are laws of physics that apply to breaking molecular bonds.

Answer 5

So, did they get more energy out of this than they put in? It doesn't really say. I hope they did, but i'm guessing they were using a lot of RF and propably put more energy into generating the RF than they got from the heat.

Answer 6

Dreamweaver the reason this is discounted is because there IS no net energy output.  There cannot be, no matter how well it is designed.  It has nothing to do with oil companies or President Bush.  

Basic laws of physics and chemistry prevent this from working.  Follow the cycle:

Energy in --> radio waves ---> water ---> hydrogen/oxgyen ---> water + energy out

Energy out cannot exceed energy in.  The water is already "burned".  Going from water --> hydrogen/oxygen  and then back to water CANNOT have a net energy output, and will certainly come up short to at least some extent.  

This kind of "water fuelled" whatever has been around for at least 30 years and also proves to be an impossible perpetual motion machine.  Anything that runs on this effectively runs on the electricity which makes the radio waves.  

Sorry.  There is no such thing as "free" energy.  It always must come from a potential.

Answer 7

The article is greatly exaggerated.

The energy used by the RF machine is greater than the usable energy they can get out by burning the hydrogen.

Some goofball reporter should have gotten his facts straight before rushing to publish.

Answer 8

This is just another way to disassociate water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burn the hydrogen.  It may be more efficient than electrolysis or steam reforming of hydrocarbons, but the second law of thermodynamics mandates that the energy input will be greater than the energy produced by burning the hydrogen involved.