Scientist Burns Water

[balamw]

Nah, the salt is still there 2H20 + RF energy + {other 3#$^t} > 2H2 + O2 + {other 3#$^t}. Unless there is something unknown there, the salt is not being consumed, at the very most it's acting as a catalyst, either way it's still there, its not being turned into energy. Now if the process was cracking 2NaCl > 2 Na + Cl2 that'd be nasty. Sodium and Chlorine gas are not things you want coming out of yer home perpetual motion generator.

Note. I still think it's a crock. I can't emphasize that enough.

That said. I didn't mean to imply that the salt is no longer there, but in the test tube, the salinity must be going up while the water vapor contains no salt. Think distillation.

Put another way, if you had to put some energy in to get the salt in the water in the first place, it is at least conceivable that you can get some of that energy back out. (In the case of sea water the sun provides a fair amount of energy daily)...

EDIT: According to Wiki, the guy admits that he's putting more energy in than he's getting out (for now), but he'll make it up in volume. .

B

 

[.Andy]

I'm wondering why no one has touched on the use for mass producing Hydrogen?

Because currently it's a very poor fuel in comparison to the alternatives like petroleum, diesel, or LPG. It's energetically expensive to produce and it's a bitch to liquidise and handle.

Would this method produce enough fast enough to meet the demand?

The biggest problem would be meeting the energy demands to power the RF source. That demand for energy would outstrip the amount of energy produced by the process.

 

[CanadaRAM]

I read through the lattice energy thing, and that's something - a tiny something, but it's there. But to regain that heat, the salt would have to actually crystallize -- you don't get it back when its still in solution.

The biggest problem would be meeting the energy demands to power the RF source.

That's the same problem with any energy source, whether fossil or generated by nuclear/solar/hydro/wind/whatever.

Generating the power is typically not the problem.

Transporting the stored energy to where it needs to be used is the big problem. Electric transmission lines have losses, and electricity is not always portable to where you want it (Your car, for example).

Chemical storage (gas, oil, ethanol, etc) can be somewhat conveniently transported (mainly because we have already spent gazillions on automobile/gasoline infrastructure and pipelines), but converting available energy to chemical is horribly inefficient unless you're a tree and have half a century to do it in. And then converting to energy again causes pollution.
Batteries are exceedingly resource intensive, heavy and costly.

H2 is another form of storage - it's harder to handle than some. But burning it doesn't pollute...much (you would still get nitrogen oxides and other byproducts depending on the type of combustion)

So imagine tidal or wave generated power stations, converting seawater to H2 gas for transport to the consumer.

 

[balamw]

I read through the lattice energy thing, and that's something. But to regain that heat, the salt would have to actually crystallize -- you don't get it back when its still in solution.

Above some level it'll precipitate out, won't it? Plus the energy balance between the lattice energy and heat of hydration must depend on concentration, no?

B

 

[.Andy]

Put another way, if you had to put some energy in to get the salt in the water in the first place, it is at least conceivable that you can get some of that energy back out. (In the case of sea water the sun provides a fair amount of energy daily)...

But at the levels of salinity in sea water you don't have to put in any energy to dissolve it. You are far better off directly harvesting the solar energy.

 

[balamw]

But at the levels of salinity in sea water you don't have to put in any energy to dissolve it. You are far better off directly harvesting the solar energy.

Again, I don't disagree. IT'S A CROCK. I'm just keeping an open mind and trying to come up with a plausible explanation for it not being as inefficient as it would seem to be on the face of it. And why someone trained as a scientist might actually think it could "work".

I think we have a number of problems here, not the least of which is getting science information as filtered through the mainstream media and with an agenda. http://www.badscience.net/?p=520

We don't really know what was meant by "salt water". What salt, what concentration, ...

The thing you are discounting though in your argument for direct solar conversion is that the sun has been shining on the ocean for a while now. If some of that energy is being stored in the ocean, and we can harvest it we can pull out more energy than the sun provides "live", 'cause we can tap into energy the sun provided many moons ago. (Same as fossil fuels, they are basically a battery of ancient solar power we have built the industrial world upon.).

B

 

[CanadaRAM]

No, I think the solar power hitting the ocean is stored simply as heat -- I don't think that the salt is accumulating any progressively stored power in terms of extra hidden energy. That heat energy could be exploited with a reverse heat pump working the difference in temperature between the thermoclines in the ocean. *

In order to get out the lattice energy, you would have to increase the concentration until the salt crystallized -- if I understand it, it's a all or nothing thing - you're either a lattice, or you're a solution. And that same energy would be released through simple evaporation of the water allowing the salt to crystallize, so zapping it with RF is just a fancy way of boiling off the water.

My guess is that the energetic O2 escaping the system would carry of as much or more heat energy as crystallization could generate.

*Note: in order to do work (generate energy) you have to move heat energy from one place to another. It is the DIFFERENCE in heat that does work. Your car motor would produce no power at all if it were in an environment that was as hot as the exploding gases in the pistons. It relies the heat of combustion being drawn away into the environment, to get power from the next combustion. You need not only a way to hot it up, but also a way to cool it down.

 

[balamw]

zapping it with RF is just a fancy way of boiling off the water.

You mean like a microwave oven? Unfortunately doesn't produce hydrogen.

May I repeat that it's a crock. Just playing devil's advocate, grasping at straws....

B

 

[Don't panic]

Finally a proper explanation foe Spontaneous Human Combustion.
I bet all those people were listening to Elton John on the radio.

 

[imac/cheese]

So imagine tidal or wave generated power stations, converting seawater to H2 gas for transport to the consumer.

This is the same thing I thought about when I read the article. A renewable energy source in the same location as a hydrogen source could result in cheaply produced hydrogen gas. The hydrogen gas could then be used to store energy for use in a powerplant. Tidal and wave powerplants are not really reliable or extremely consistent and have rather high maintenance requirements, but if they were used to produce and store hyrdogen gas, some of the reliability and consistency problems could be ironed out.

I agree that there will be no net gain in energy (but the guy will probably still get a lot of grant money).