The Sea May Burn
Well I started out down a dirty road
Started out all alone
And the sun went down as I crossed the hill
The town lit up the world got stillIm learning to fly but I ain't got wings
Comin down is the hardest thingWell the good old days may not return
And the rocks might melt, and the sea may burnIm learning to fly but I ain't got wings
Comin down is the hardest thing
(Tom Petty, Learning to Fly)
A Pennsylvania man has done something nobody has ever seen before. He has made seawater burn. And it burns hot enough to melt a few rocks, too.
For obvious reasons, scientists long have thought that salt water couldn't be burned.
So when an Erie man announced he'd ignited salt water with the radio-frequency generator he'd invented, some thought it a was a hoax.
John Kanzius, a Washington County native, tried to desalinate seawater with a generator he developed to treat cancer, and it caused a flash in the test tube.
Within days, he had the salt water in the test tube burning like a candle, as long as it was exposed to radio frequencies.
His discovery has spawned scientific interest in using the world's most abundant substance as clean fuel, among other uses.
Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, held a demonstration last week at the university's Materials Research Laboratory in State College, to confirm what he'd witnessed weeks before in an Erie lab.
"It's true, it works," Dr. Roy said. "Everyone told me, 'Rustum, don't be fooled. He put electrodes in there.' "
But there are no electrodes and no gimmicks, he said.
Dr. Roy said the salt water isn't burning per se, despite appearances. The radio frequency actually weakens bonds holding together the constituents of salt water — sodium chloride, hydrogen and oxygen — and releases the hydrogen, which, once ignited, burns continuously when exposed to the RF energy field. Mr. Kanzius said an independent source measured the flame's temperature, which exceeds 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, reflecting an enormous energy output.
As such, Dr. Roy, a founding member of the Materials Research Laboratory and expert in water structure, said Mr. Kanzius' discovery represents "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years."
Dr. Roy cautions that this is still very early in the game, so to speak. The energy equations have yet to be worked out. (It is not known if it takes more energy to produce the reaction than is actually generated.) Much more research is needed before anything other than a really amazing parlor trick comes from this. But Mr. Kanzius has come up with something here that is worth looking into. Oddly, this is just a side note to his real purpose - cancer treatments using the radio frequency device he invented - which is apparently ongoing with papers being written about experiments.
By wheels, Tuesday, 11 September , 2007 @ 2:50 pm
You know, if it weren’t for the environmentalists, we could have done this with the Cuyahoga River years ago.
By Anna, Tuesday, 11 September , 2007 @ 2:56 pm
“(It is not known if it takes more energy to produce the reaction than is actually generated.) ”
It has to take more energy to produce the effect than actually generated. Otherwise, this guy is on his way to a Nobel Prize for overturning the Laws of Thermodynamics!
Lots of discussion on the net. I’m personally skeptical, although I think the flame and what produces it is interesting. Some people claim plasma effect. I would like to see the results reproduced, though.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 11 September , 2007 @ 3:10 pm
They used to do it with the Cuyahoga on a regular basis:
http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/07/20/the-cleveland-bottled-water-party/
Yeah, I know, Anna. I think it’ll turn out to be a neat trick - which might well have a couple of practical applications. But it isn’t going to be the salvation of the earth. (What’s scary to think about is this being weaponized.)
By Anna, Tuesday, 11 September , 2007 @ 4:54 pm
What’s scary to think about is this being weaponized.
Yep. I was thinking, “I’m made out of salt and water. That guy better not be pointing that thing at me!”
By ThomasD, Tuesday, 11 September , 2007 @ 5:19 pm
I’m gonna join Anna out on her (very stout) limb and say that this process is going to abe a net energy loser (likely a rather large loser at that.)
Separating water into its component molecules, hydrogen and oxygen, via an electrical current (aka electrolysis) is one of the main ways of generating large quantities of hydrogen gas.
What’s likely happening here is the specific radio frequency used is inducing an electrical current (likely also why you need salt water - being much more conductive) that is resulting in electrolysis of the water molecules.
But, there is still hope for this guy. If (big if) it turns out that his process is more efficient than standard methods of electrolysis it could be a major breakthrough.
The strange part? The measurements and calculations necessary to evaluate the efficiency of the process are pretty darn simple - oddly surprising that they haven’t already been done.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 11 September , 2007 @ 5:30 pm
Yeah, I don’t see it as being a big winner - unless it is a greatly more efficient way to produce hydrogen - and, as you point out, that is a big if.
By Anna, Tuesday, 11 September , 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Thomas, I’ve been thinking about how the current can be induced given that they invoke “Faraday’s theoretical limit,” and, as it applies to this case, I can’t find a definition anywhere. Don’t we need a cathode and anode to have current flow? I thought that electrolysis of water produces hydrogen gas in one electrode and oxygen gas in the other in a redox reaction. If they’re all mixed up, I don’t think it’s going to work. But then, college chem has been some years ago.
In any case, I find the presence of the flame interesting. There’s nothing there that could possible produce a yellow flame that I know of (there are no carbon sources supposedly) and hydrogen burns colorless. He must have added something, or there’s a new process that’s going on (pretty unlikely, but still interesting).
By Gaius, Tuesday, 11 September , 2007 @ 7:13 pm
Orange-yellow color indicates sodium, Anna.
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/jcesoft/cca/cca2/MAIN/FLAME/CD2R1.HTM
Not really an unexpected result, I think.
By Anna, Tuesday, 11 September , 2007 @ 7:32 pm
Cool. Thanks, Gaius. I wonder why the chemist from Penn said that the only product is H2O? Would burning salt water produce only H2O? I wonder what the residue is going to be. And if NaOH is produced. I guess I’m having a hard time imagining the process. Oh, well.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 11 September , 2007 @ 7:44 pm
At 3,000 degrees there is also a hell of a lot of NOx being produced by that flame. Nothing is ever free, is it?
I like posting about stuff like this because it is interesting, but my engineering training also makes me highly dubious about a lot of the claims.
Oh, and Thomas, the equations could be run now, you’re right. But this is a crude experimental device at best, I assume. They wouldn’t be really meaningful just yet until things were refined. (But I’d be shocked if there is anything better than about a 35% efficiency. Which would make it a net loser.)
By Quilly Mammoth, Tuesday, 11 September , 2007 @ 8:18 pm
Anna,
When I read this at work the first thought I had was of Dr. Evil…”Now _that’s_ a frickin laser!”
The next thought I had was that this could very easily be developed into an area defense weapon. If the psychological effects of a Claymore mine are great on charging soldiers imagine the effect of seeing your fellow soldier burst into flame.
I don’t care how many bugles the People’s Army has, this would stop them in their tracks.