Is Using Radiowaves to Heat Saltwater a Viable Energy Source?

  • Thread starter Aschere
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Reaction
In summary, the article discusses the use of radiowaves to heat up saltwater to temperatures as high as 3000F, raising questions about the energy efficiency of this process. The conversation touches on various theories and speculations, including the possibility of obtaining free energy and the role of different salts in sea water. However, the main focus is on the yellow flame color observed during the process, with some suggesting the involvement of Sodium ions and others proposing a spontaneous decomposition reaction of water. Ultimately, the participants of the conversation express skepticism towards the effectiveness of this method.
  • #36
If you follow the stories about this burning seawater (or the cancer cure variant) demo, note the reporter's name.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Still no one has debunked this in the laboratory??
 
  • #38
Yeah, the guy who originally did the experiment debunked it himself. :rolleyes:
 
  • #39
Dr. Roy, the materials scientist from Penn State, has stated that, despite appearances, the water is not burning. Philip Ball of Nature puts it a little more plainly, "Water is not a fuel."

You can always check the tailpipe of your car and note that water comes out as a product of burning. Or visit any power plant and note the clouds (water vapor) formed by burning.
 
  • #40
TVP45 said:
Dr. Roy, the materials scientist from Penn State, has stated that, despite appearances, the water is not burning. Philip Ball of Nature puts it a little more plainly, "Water is not a fuel."

You can always check the tailpipe of your car and note that water comes out as a product of burning. Or visit any power plant and note the clouds (water vapor) formed by burning.
Or in many cases, evaporative cooling from cooling towers.
 
  • #41
Astronuc said:
Or in many cases, evaporative cooling from cooling towers.

Yes, you do see clouds over the coolers, but I was referring to the flue gases.
 
  • #42
TVP45 said:
Yes, you do see clouds over the coolers, but I was referring to the flue gases.
You and I know that, and most PFers would understand, but I was thinking of the public at large. It's not just any power plant, but one's the burn fossil fuel. Some nuclear plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot of water vapor. Some fossil plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot more water vapor than the flue gas. Some local power plants put out brown flue gas, and I've seen brown clouds drifting east from horizon to horizon.
 
  • #43
It all depends on the plant. Coal plants produce very little water vapor - gas turbine plants produce twice as much water as carbon dioxide.
 
  • #44
Astronuc said:
You and I know that, and most PFers would understand, but I was thinking of the public at large. It's not just any power plant, but one's the burn fossil fuel. Some nuclear plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot of water vapor. Some fossil plants use cooling towers, and they put out a lot more water vapor than the flue gas. Some local power plants put out brown flue gas, and I've seen brown clouds drifting east from horizon to horizon.

Good point. I wasn't even thinking of nuclear. Duh!
 
  • #45
russ_watters said:
It all depends on the plant. Coal plants produce very little water vapor - gas turbine plants produce twice as much water as carbon dioxide.

Quite so. Most of the water vapor in coal fired flue gas is due to secondary water injection.
 
  • #46
Nmr?

I'm new to the "saltwater" discussion. 'Tis a puzzlement. Can't disagree with the generalities submitted so far, but a couplke of thoughts to stir the pot:
1. If the supposed new process is a method of extracting fuel rather than conversion of energy, then the process could conceptually have excess output.
2, The reported use (without numerical data or details) of a specific frequency brings to mind the setup for nuclear magnetic resonance NMR (used in MRI). I recall that HF range was used.
 
  • #47
edallen said:
If the supposed new process is a method of extracting fuel rather than conversion of energy, then the process could conceptually have excess output.

That supposes that there is some mystery chemical in water that we don't know about. There is hydrogen and oxygen, and the energy required to release the hydrogen is well known: The energy that we get from burning hydrogen is the same amount of energy that it takes to get the hydrogen out because they are inverse chemical reactions.

It doesn't matter if we release the hydrogen through electrolysis, or through excitation due to microwaves, the energy requirement to break the molecular bonds is the same.

I would imagine that we know more about the water molecule than we do any other molecule, less H2.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
i agree with ivan seeking.
 
  • #49
Unless he publishes more details all is speculation. Just because someone can make hydrogen and ignites it doesn't a scientific wonder happen. Perhaps he should take chemistry class if he thinks that's amazing. I would however be interested in what vibrates at what e/m frequency, including radio waves.
 
  • #50
LOL I found out if you put metal in a microwave it can start a fire. Can someone interview me?
 
  • #51
I suspect that the sodium chloride has something to do with boiling point elevation , and as the water evaporates the solution becomes more concentrated with the sodium chloride which raises the boiling point higher , somehow this may make the process of evaporation more favorable with respect to the rate of combustion.

Water evaporates increasing the kinetics of its gaseous constituents and then ions of sodium and chloride may assist in cutting the hydrogen bonds when they become gaseous . I have yet to find the blueprint of the setup, so my assumptions may be way off without considering the context of the experiment.

Reactions require a certain activation energy for appreciable product formation and energy is obtained if the free energy of the product is lower than what was consumed. We have the heating up of the water and the combustion of hydrogen, we're dealing with intermolecular attractions in the former and intramolecular bonds in the latter , so the process may actually be useful. Heating the water , however , is an inefficient process and I'm certain that there some concerns that pertain to engineering here.
 
<h2>1. How does using radiowaves to heat saltwater produce energy?</h2><p>Radiowaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation that can be used to heat objects. When radiowaves are directed towards saltwater, the water molecules absorb the energy and begin to vibrate, causing an increase in temperature. This increase in temperature can then be used to generate electricity through various methods, such as steam turbines or thermoelectric generators.</p><h2>2. Is using radiowaves to heat saltwater a renewable energy source?</h2><p>Yes, using radiowaves to heat saltwater is considered a renewable energy source. The energy from radiowaves is constantly being replenished by the sun, making it a sustainable option for generating electricity.</p><h2>3. What are the potential benefits of using radiowaves to heat saltwater as an energy source?</h2><p>One potential benefit is that saltwater is readily available and covers a large portion of the Earth's surface, making it a widely accessible resource. Additionally, using radiowaves to heat saltwater does not produce any greenhouse gas emissions, making it a clean and environmentally friendly energy source.</p><h2>4. Are there any drawbacks to using radiowaves to heat saltwater as an energy source?</h2><p>One drawback is that the technology for harnessing radiowaves and converting them into usable energy is still in its early stages and may not be as efficient as other renewable energy sources. Additionally, the equipment and infrastructure needed for this method may be costly to implement.</p><h2>5. How does using radiowaves to heat saltwater compare to other renewable energy sources?</h2><p>Compared to other renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, using radiowaves to heat saltwater may have a more consistent and predictable energy output. However, it may not be as widely available and may require more advanced technology and infrastructure. It is important to consider all factors when evaluating the viability of using radiowaves to heat saltwater as an energy source.</p>

1. How does using radiowaves to heat saltwater produce energy?

Radiowaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation that can be used to heat objects. When radiowaves are directed towards saltwater, the water molecules absorb the energy and begin to vibrate, causing an increase in temperature. This increase in temperature can then be used to generate electricity through various methods, such as steam turbines or thermoelectric generators.

2. Is using radiowaves to heat saltwater a renewable energy source?

Yes, using radiowaves to heat saltwater is considered a renewable energy source. The energy from radiowaves is constantly being replenished by the sun, making it a sustainable option for generating electricity.

3. What are the potential benefits of using radiowaves to heat saltwater as an energy source?

One potential benefit is that saltwater is readily available and covers a large portion of the Earth's surface, making it a widely accessible resource. Additionally, using radiowaves to heat saltwater does not produce any greenhouse gas emissions, making it a clean and environmentally friendly energy source.

4. Are there any drawbacks to using radiowaves to heat saltwater as an energy source?

One drawback is that the technology for harnessing radiowaves and converting them into usable energy is still in its early stages and may not be as efficient as other renewable energy sources. Additionally, the equipment and infrastructure needed for this method may be costly to implement.

5. How does using radiowaves to heat saltwater compare to other renewable energy sources?

Compared to other renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, using radiowaves to heat saltwater may have a more consistent and predictable energy output. However, it may not be as widely available and may require more advanced technology and infrastructure. It is important to consider all factors when evaluating the viability of using radiowaves to heat saltwater as an energy source.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
681
  • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
46
Views
12K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
642
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
547
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Back
Top