What's been released from the test tube is often refered to as "Brown's gas", a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen that burns pretty efficiently and cleanly. Many companies sell a Brown's gas generator based on standard electrolysis (you know, two electrodes in water, plus electricity. Adding salt allows the current to flow more efficiently, just like adding a bit of baking soda to an old-fashioned humidifier creates more steam).

The only new wrinkle is using a microwave to break apart the water, rather than an electode and DC current. NO chance this is more efficient than taking DC current directly from a solar array with electrolysis to make brown's gas. Creating microwaves as an intermediate step will be at least half as efficient.

But imagine the advntages of a new microwave that browns as it heats!

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. This "discovery" pops up every couple of years. Why is Treehugger repeating this guy's "free engery" claim?

This is bad science. It should be left as such and ignored. Right along with Big Foot, Unicorns and Perpetual motion machines.

From the article:

"But researching its potential will take time and money, he said. One immediate question is energy efficiency: The energy the RF generator uses vs. the energy output from burning hydrogen."

Like gregb said, I can't imagine this will be more efficient than electrodes, but who knows. Even if it is more efficient, it definitely won't produce a net positive output. But, at best, this COULD make a hydrogen economy possible. We'll have to wait and see.

I second the other comments here - this should not be thought of as a new source of energy, but it could be a more efficient way to get hydrogen from water using an external power source. There currently isn't a good, high efficiency way to split water on a large scale, which is a major problem that needs to be solved if we are to move to a hydrogen economy. However, the claim that this could be an alternative source of energy is nearly impossible, as it would involve violating the principal of conservation of energy, a physical law so reliable that nobody has ever documented a (reproducible) violation of it in the history of science.

I Googled Rustrum Roy and he's not exactly a mainstream scientist. He's into all sorts of fringe science like trying to demonstrate a basis for homeopathy and trying to reconcile religion with science. The homeopathy bent is where he comes up with the notion of "water science".

My first question was how much power the microwave generator was drawing to produce the small flame. I expect the earlier poster to be correct, the reaction will take much more energy input that it produces.

Breaking the bond between Hydrogen and Oxygen takes as much energy as is released. There is NO ENERGY gained in this process.

This is NOT a viable form of "clean energy."

Water is not renewable, it can also depleted if all human used it as fuel. what will happen if all the water gone? How can we replaced it?

Even if this is less efficient than existing, it might still have useful applications. For example, if it could be harnessed to work with unprocessed seawater then the energy to produce radio waves could be obtained from, say, tidal power.

This story has been making the rounds for the past few days, but I have yet to see a story (or blog entry!) which isn't wholeheartedly credulous towards this "discovery" as the new solution to the energy crisis, global warming, foreign oil, etc. I must say I'm not surprised, but it would be nice to see some fact checking done by someone who's at least taken high-school physics before this invention is promoted as the next best thing since sliced bread.

From what I can tell, this seems to be the basic premise of the device: Radio waves break the water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, which then bubble up and are burned. The heat released from the burning can then power something like a sterling engine, thus generating power.

But here's the intrinsic problem: Breaking the molecular bonds in a water molecule (H2O) to give hydrogen and oxygen takes exactly as much energy as you get out when you then burn that hydrogen and oxygen back into water. Exactly. No more, no less. No matter how you do it, through radio waves, electrolysis, super-heating, or by some other means, it will take the same amount of energy to split each molecule of water.

When you couple this with the fact that no real process is 100% efficient, along with the good old 2nd law of thermodynamics, you end up with a process which, in the most ideal world possible, can break even, and in the real world falls far short of even that. Therefore, the output energy from the burning saltwater can be no more, and is certainly less, than the energy input to the radio wave generator. One would do better to cut this device out of the equation altogether and just use the electricity that would otherwise be powering the radio wave generator!

What Kanzius really claims to have invented is a perpetual motion machine, and therefore, members of the scientific community have good reason to seriously doubt his claims of eventually being able to attain a net energy output.

To quote the old adage, "if something seems too good to be true, it probably is."

Maybe the cancer curing device holds more promise ;-).

Its not a perpetual energy machine, and nowhere does he claim he is getting "something for nothing." It boils down to what he thinks he can get as an efficiency rating (I've ready 76%) which is about as good as existing electroalysis methods. The key benefit would be how scalable and how fast the technique would work. If the system is simple enough, it would go along way to a sustainable hydrogen economy. Generate the energy to then generate the hydrogen via this process. The hydrogren would serve then as a green alternative for other stores of energy, so that large scale solar/wind/etc energy plants then produce the hydrogen which would then be used the same way we currently use gas and heating oil.

Ultimately this begs the larger question: whether it would be better to have a hydrogen version of our present economy (the same suburban development patters, houses, auto-focused society) or to transition to a different mode of development that stresses density and walkability. It may not be the most popular treehugger position, by I would expect that a hydrogren economy would be better embraced by market forces and consumers. Moreover, it may be cheaper to eventually replace gas stations & car with hydrogen filling stations and cars with hydrogen burning engines. The more dramatic solution, agragarian kibbitz and dense urban cities is perhaps far too much change for most people to accept (and accept in time). And frankly I seldom see realistic estimates about what it would truly cost to redevelop our existing suburban life into the alternative. Do we tear down entire communities and then rebuild them from scratch?

Thank you all for the comments (and for keeping us on our toes); you're certainly right to rap us for our gullibility in taking this at face value (a point helpfully reinforced by many of the commenters' citation of the second rule of thermodynamics) and for emphasizing that this, in fact, does NOT represent a viable source of clean/alternative energy.

Crikey, if water can burn, what next!? :)

Okay science geeks, name a source of power that produces more energy than was ever put into it? There is not any. For a hundred years we have been using petroleum, a bichemical storehouse of energy....and look at all the energy that naturally went into the process. Hence, every bit of this is a big...who cares. If this gases (H2 & O2) could be separated out in the process it might be intriguing on the merits that you did not have to use an expensive platinum cathode or anode to erode away as in electroysis. BUT, it sounds like a perpetual motion set up that while the energy put into the salt water indeed breaks the bonds of the water molecule, but the free energy simultaneously reignites the gases back into water. Nice light show but no real value......IF the gases could be separated then we have a new discussion for a Hygrogen economy.

Most Everyone is Missing the point.
Number one problem in energy, regardless of how you generate it or how much work goes into making it, is HOW TO STORE IT and use it as needed?
Trees and vegetable matter are the primary source of man used stored energy from the sun. Whether it is ancient stores of fossil fuel or bio-fuel from vegetable crops or a simple log on the fire

From my point of view, since wind, water, sun power, do not cost me, then the energy source cost is less important than efficient storage. A 12 volt, DC battery and the like is not an exciting method of stored power; try cooling your house with a windmill verus a hydrogen powered gernerator. But, a more streamlined, efficient step toward storing that power is much more important.

We do not have a shortage of energy in the world. We have a shortage of STORED Energy. Oil and gas are successful for the ability to control and distribute through the economy as a stored energy that is consumable and has a lot of energy per weight. Plus, it is always more expensive for any new technology to ramp up and replace common place institutions. Many generations fight change and cost associated with it. But, at least hydrogen base power is compatible with our current consumption system and combustion engines (well with some modifications).

Yet, People get excited about electric cars: You swap combustible pollution from the exhaust pipe to the power stations' smoke stack (usually fossil fuels).

Hybrid Cars: Greater fuel efficiency at the cost of Toxic batteries, more environmental disposal consequences, let alone the simple cost benefit analysis of how money does one actually save in gas savings versus the premium paid for the hybrid system... PS how much is gonna cost you to replace those battieries.

I am a fan of making technologies using natural models....our best solution will be creating a method of making hydro-carbon chains like trees and plants. Essentially man made wood or coal. A stable, storage of energy, tradeable, transportable, and able to be used as needed. Pulling excessive amounts of CO2 out of the air and stabilizing our global emissions. And, potentially being able to manage levels. This last comment is a pipe dream, but perhaps a smarter dreamer can make it a reality

Okay science geeks, name a source of power that produces more energy than was ever put into it? There is not any. For a hundred years we have been using petroleum, a bichemical storehouse of energy....and look at all the energy that naturally went into the process. Hence, every bit of this is a big...who cares. If this gases (H2 & O2) could be separated out in the process it might be intriguing on the merits that you did not have to use an expensive platinum cathode or anode to erode away as in electroysis. BUT, it sounds like a perpetual motion set up that while the energy put into the salt water indeed breaks the bonds of the water molecule, but the free energy simultaneously reignites the gases back into water. Nice light show but no real value......IF the gases could be separated then we have a new discussion for a Hygrogen economy.

Most Everyone is Missing the point.
Number one problem in energy, regardless of how you generate it or how much work goes into making it, is HOW TO STORE IT and use it as needed?
Trees and vegetable matter are the primary source of man used stored energy from the sun. Whether it is ancient stores of fossil fuel or bio-fuel from vegetable crops or a simple log on the fire

From my point of view, since wind, water, sun power, do not cost me, then the energy source cost is less important than efficient storage. A 12 volt, DC battery and the like is not an exciting method of stored power; try cooling your house with a windmill verus a hydrogen powered gernerator. But, a more streamlined, efficient step toward storing that power is much more important.

We do not have a shortage of energy in the world. We have a shortage of STORED Energy. Oil and gas are successful for the ability to control and distribute through the economy as a stored energy that is consumable and has a lot of energy per weight. Plus, it is always more expensive for any new technology to ramp up and replace common place institutions. Many generations fight change and cost associated with it. But, at least hydrogen base power is compatible with our current consumption system and combustion engines (well with some modifications).

Yet, People get excited about electric cars: You swap combustible pollution from the exhaust pipe to the power stations' smoke stack (usually fossil fuels).

Hybrid Cars: Greater fuel efficiency at the cost of Toxic batteries, more environmental disposal consequences, let alone the simple cost benefit analysis of how money does one actually save in gas savings versus the premium paid for the hybrid system... PS how much is gonna cost you to replace those battieries.

I am a fan of making technologies using natural models....our best solution will be creating a method of making hydro-carbon chains like trees and plants. Essentially man made wood or coal. A stable, storage of energy, tradeable, transportable, and able to be used as needed. Pulling excessive amounts of CO2 out of the air and stabilizing our global emissions. And, potentially being able to manage levels. This last comment is a pipe dream, but perhaps a smarter dreamer can make it a reality

Quote:

The scientists want to find out whether the energy output from the burning hydrogen — which reached a heat of more than 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit — would be enough to power a car or other heavy machinery.
"We will get our ideas together and check this out and see where it leads," Roy said. "The potential is huge."

The sad part is that the scientists don't already know where it leads. This could be a genuinely useful discovery for several reasons:

1. Ability to use saltwater.
2. Ability to simultaneously desalinate said saltwater (once the hydrogen is burned/used it produces pure water which we can't get enough of)
3. Possibly higher efficiencies. (esp if used with a catalyst)
4. Possibly cheaper infrastructure than current electrolysis.

Ideally, offshore wind power would be used to power a microwave device which would generate hydrogen from seawater. This hydrogen would be either stored at high pressure or (preferably) combined with pure carbon in a simple reaction to form CH4. CH4 could then be stored at ~500psi (low pressure) in the form of ANG. This could be regularly picked up by a tanker and transported to shore where it could be utilized.

Sure, efficiency would suck. Overall system efficiency would be~18% on the high side, but it could be VERY cheap and reliable which is really all we need.

"Crikey, if water can burn, what next!? :)"

Water can't "burn". Burn means oxidize and water is fully oxidized hydrogen. Water is not burning in this experiment. Hydrogen is.

The radio frequency energy breaks the water down into hydrogen and oxygen exactly like electrolysis would. The hydrogen burns.

As others pointed out, the electrical energy required to accomplish the breakdown of water by microwaves is more, probably *way* more, than the energy you can extract by burning the hydrogen again. This entire story is simply silly and not new.

If a technology exists that can break salt water down and capture the hydrogen, what efficiency is acceptable? How efficient is the "entire" supply chain of the oil to gas/diesel (drilling, transporting, refining ,delivering pumping, etc.) we are currently employing?

Microwaves, what does microwaves have to do with it?
200 watt RF is far from microwaves.

Hi

I currently live in Northern Ireland (the north bit of Ireland, that will sink first, yes I know ha ha..), so seawater is always on my mind.

I am very keen to elarn more about green initiatives as I feel there is a great potential worldwide being lost due to the petroleum based stranglehold on manufacturing.

Just out of curiousty could a possibility for this technology be applied to steam driven power for shipping. Since sea levels will rise , were unlikey to run out out of seawater fuel in the short term. If a boat were to take in some water to heat through this technology and applied it to heat water taken on this could drive turbines. I'm no engineer but is this a viable possibility?

No doubt the high frequency will ecite the salt water to a piont where it will , The unknown factor and I am not a scientist but have built a number of hydrogen generators produceing brown's gas, If anyone would know the actual harmonic frquency ,that splits water into hydrogen/oxygen , via radio frequency , please contact me , so I may try it for myself, You may not need gobs of energy if you know the vibration frequency needed to break water apart. ,You would be able at less power to the rf generator, therefore not trying to break the laws of pysics, but sticking to them. I try to keep a open mind on these matters until I can prove otherwise

Clearly, many of you have probably forgotten more than I'll ever know about science/technology. However, having viewed the "video" and having read your comments,, I can only think that "sometimes the best ideas are simple ones" and thus the most ellusive. There's probably just some little "tweak" that would somehow make this a viable alternative. Indeed, you'd think that THAT would be a worthy goal for some aspiring entreprenuer/environmentalist. He'd be right there with Thomas Edison, etc.

Then again, synthetic trees are nice.