snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 28 June 2007, 06:56 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,571
Glasses HHO gas to replace oil?

Comment: Supposedly, this guy Jimmy Klein has created a way to harvest energy from water. I wouldn't even bother asking how much truth is to this, since from what I know it takes more energy to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water, but this was on Fox news. I'm really curious about this...

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 28 June 2007, 07:08 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,571
Glasses Burning salt water

Comment: Someone sent this to me and I wanted to see if this is true or not. If so, it would be great for humanity. Anyway, if it seems too good to be true, most of the time it is.

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 28 June 2007, 07:25 PM
Lee Orac
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Are those the same videos? I can't see the first one since it's on youtube.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 28 June 2007, 10:01 PM
Griffin2020
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Different videos, and supposedly different technologies.

The first one is outright bunk.

The big question on the second one is: how much power does the radio transmitter need, I would bet it uses more than it makes.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 28 June 2007, 10:16 PM
Towknie's Avatar
Towknie Towknie is offline
 
Join Date: 25 September 2005
Location: Lewisville, TX
Posts: 5,577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin2020 View Post
Different videos, and supposedly different technologies.

The first one is outright bunk.

The big question on the second one is: how much power does the radio transmitter need, I would bet it uses more than it makes.

Just for the sake of curiosity, and based on the fact that I never made it through Chemistry 101, what makes the first video bunk? Is it the energy required to separate the Hydrogen from the Oxygen?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 29 June 2007, 12:03 AM
Alchemy Alchemy is offline
 
Join Date: 05 March 2001
Location: Plymouth, MI
Posts: 4,298
Default

Sigh.

First video: Typical dime-a-dozen electrolysis scam. Not even worth discussing.

Second video: Tagging cancer cells and using RF to kill them is not a new idea. It was clever ten or twenty years ago.

"Flame" is really water vapor with ionized salts entrained, as you'd find right above the surface of a boiling liquid. The RF induces a current along this ion plume, providing so much energy that the electrons in the ions move away from the nucleus and return, causing emission spectra. Note the jagged movement of the "flame" - a bit like lightning. The color indicates what is probably excited calcium.

The use of salts makes the steam plume more exciting and helps draw away from the fact he's using a very large microwave to boil water, and then using that water to turn an engine, which then generates some fraction of the energy used to boil the water.

An exciting science project. And one of thousands of free energy scams.

John White's page at APV is here. Chief chemical engineer. Note the setup: lab people pointing at a screen, Dr. White stating "And we saw it ... the temperature go up, to 1500 degC. That's...that's incredible." What was he talking about prior to the edit? Did he in fact debunk the free energy claims and have that cut out? Email him and find out.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 29 June 2007, 06:27 PM
Griffin2020
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Towknie View Post
Just for the sake of curiosity, and based on the fact that I never made it through Chemistry 101, what makes the first video bunk? Is it the energy required to separate the Hydrogen from the Oxygen?
In a way, yes, it would require more energy to seperate the (2)H from the O, than produces in combutsion. It would never simply recombine, due to the fact that O is not stable when unbonded (which is why it becomes O2, and H becomes H2.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02 July 2007, 05:11 PM
Delta-V
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Towknie View Post
Just for the sake of curiosity, and based on the fact that I never made it through Chemistry 101, what makes the first video bunk? Is it the energy required to separate the Hydrogen from the Oxygen?
Yes. He's using electricity to separate H2O into H2 and O2 (and claims it's something he calls HHO). Water is an ash. It's a combustion byproduct. It has no practical stored chemical energy. In order to turn it into something that has energy (no matter if it's H2/O2, or the mythical HHO), you have to add at least as much or more energy as you will get out of it, and usually much, much more.

His hydrogen torch/welder isn't new...it's similar to some used in places where it's impractical to use or store Acetylene. From what I know, however, it's not as easy to use as acetylene - it's not easy to set the flame at the proper 2:1 ratio and excess hydrogen embrittles metal while excess oxygen oxidizes it, neither of which is desirable in a weld.

The car obviously has some other energy input. The car can't produce energy from water.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 24 July 2007, 05:21 PM
cobra4j
 
Posts: n/a
Default HHO

A friend of mine sent me this video clip as well. I was very excited when I saw it- but then got to thinking the same thing- wouldn't it take more energy to create this flame than it will give? If the salt or something else in the water acts like a catalyst, or if the flame itself is creating a chain reaction in the salt water - then maybe or maybe not. I'm afraid I am skeptical.

However, it may be possible that he has found a way to more easily and cheaply break down water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, which would be very good news for the future if we start using fuel cell powered cars and other uses for hydrogen.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 24 July 2007, 05:50 PM
Eddylizard's Avatar
Eddylizard Eddylizard is offline
 
Join Date: 15 June 2006
Location: Tonbridge, Kent, UK
Posts: 17,859
Default

My father told me years ago in the 60's or 70's at the earliest (he tends to repeat his tales), about a technology whereby you fill your car's fuel tank up with water and then - here's the science bit - you drop a pill (of unspecified composition) into the tank.

The inventor was apparently paid a large sum by the oil companies, and told to go and live on an island and never speak of it again.

Is it any wonder I grew up sceptical?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 24 July 2007, 06:08 PM
Penguin
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The potential value of Hydrogen fuel is not that it produces free energy, its that it produces minimal pollution and is renewable. We do not have an energy shortage, we have a problem with storing/delivering energy. The Sun pumps many many times more energy into our world each day than we use in decades, the trick is collecting and storing it in usable form.

All the energy sources we use (except fission which releases energy stored by older now dead stars) are really just ways of releasing solar energy stored by some natural process. Hydro-electric uses the solar driven water cycle, Fossil fuels are basically time concentrated stores of photosynthetic energy, Geo-thermal is a little different but the core temperature is high due to enrgy derived from the Sun's gravity, etc.

All that said the problem with hydrogen is twofold. One, as has been pointed out, it takes a lot of energy to seperate it from water molecules so it is inefficient to 'refine.' Two, it's hard to store safely. I suspect that its virtues, clean burning and very efficient in terms of mass/energy output will eventually lead to some uses of Hydrogen burning engines in vehicles, but I also suspect that biofuels like methane and biodiesels will be more common. Its easier to grow stuff than to create massive solar generating facilities to generate electricity to crack water.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 24 July 2007, 06:52 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,844
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penguin View Post
. . . Geo-thermal is a little different but the core temperature is high due to enrgy derived from the Sun's gravity, etc. . .
Minor nitpick: actually, the core temperature is maintained by the radioactive decay of heavy elements, and is, in essence, just like fission energy. Your phrasing was quite elegant, by the way: energy stored by older now dead stars.

Fusion energy is (will be) even quirkier: it's energy bestowed us from the creation of the cosmos itself!

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 24 July 2007, 07:02 PM
Penguin
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
Minor nitpick: actually, the core temperature is maintained by the radioactive decay of heavy elements, and is, in essence, just like fission energy. Your phrasing was quite elegant, by the way: energy stored by older now dead stars.

Fusion energy is (will be) even quirkier: it's energy bestowed us from the creation of the cosmos itself!

Silas
Thanks for the compliment, and the information. I always thought that the heat came from the tidal pull of the sun. You live, you spout inaccuracies, you learn, you retract lol.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 24 July 2007, 07:20 PM
Alchemy Alchemy is offline
 
Join Date: 05 March 2001
Location: Plymouth, MI
Posts: 4,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
Minor nitpick: actually, the core temperature is maintained by the radioactive decay of heavy elements, and is, in essence, just like fission energy.
While heat generated by radioactive decay is significant, most of the energy in the heat of the Earth's core is from the compression generated when the planet formed and settled. The amount of energy that was generated, and the slowness with which this heat is transported to the surface, mean that the Earth's core temperature will not reduce by very much by the time the sun goes red giant.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 24 July 2007, 09:58 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,844
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alchemy View Post
While heat generated by radioactive decay is significant, most of the energy in the heat of the Earth's core is from the compression generated when the planet formed and settled. The amount of energy that was generated, and the slowness with which this heat is transported to the surface, mean that the Earth's core temperature will not reduce by very much by the time the sun goes red giant.
As Penguin said, "You live, you spout inaccuracies, you learn, you retract lol." However, wasn't that the basis for Lord Kelvin's opposition to the geological age of the earth? That the heat would all have dissipated long before 5 billion years had elapsed? He, of course, didn't know about radioactivity, and thus he had no way to know that he was wrong, or why; but he stood in opposition to geological scientists who were becoming more and more certain that his maximum age for the earth (c. 100,000 years) could not be correct.

Silas (if "to err is human" you can easily see my pedigree!)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 25 July 2007, 12:26 PM
cobra4j
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddylizard View Post
My father told me years ago in the 60's or 70's at the earliest (he tends to repeat his tales), about a technology whereby you fill your car's fuel tank up with water and then - here's the science bit - you drop a pill (of unspecified composition) into the tank.

The inventor was apparently paid a large sum by the oil companies, and told to go and live on an island and never speak of it again.

Is it any wonder I grew up sceptical?
That sounds like an episode of the old TV show "The Munsters" - Grandpa invented a gasoline pill - fill the tank with water, add the pill, and poof, instant gasoline.

Sorry- that's TV
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 23 May 2008, 10:15 PM
Alchemy Alchemy is offline
 
Join Date: 05 March 2001
Location: Plymouth, MI
Posts: 4,298
Default snopes and real life

I was having dinner with a colleague and, out of the blue, she asked me if I had seen the video in snopes's second post. She's a highly experienced scientist at a research institute in Japan, and her supervisor had seen this video while it was making the rounds last summer. Her team was asked to investigate.

She came to the same conclusion I did - entrained salts forming a current path - except I understand she needed to actually come up with proof and write a report.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05 June 2008, 07:12 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,571
Driver Man says car runs on water

A Jacksonville, Fla., man said he has invented a car that runs on tap water and the vehicle travels "100 miles to the ounce."

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/...on_water/2012/
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05 June 2008, 08:32 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 17,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penguin View Post
The potential value of Hydrogen fuel is not that it produces free energy, its that it produces minimal pollution and is renewable. We do not have an energy shortage, we have a problem with storing/delivering energy. The Sun pumps many many times more energy into our world each day than we use in decades, the trick is collecting and storing it in usable form.
I'll quibble, too. The solar flux is not quite that great. But the most important point you make here is true - it is pretty hard to gather it into sufficiently concentrated form to be useful, other than as the heat we already enjoy, of course. Much, perhaps most, of the photons are not energetic enough to release electrons in either photovoltaic cells or plants. The lower energy photons can be gathered by mirrors to reflect on a central heat collector, but this requires vast arrays.

Your other point about hydrogen is important to note, too. Hydrogen is often spoken of as an 'energy source.' These 'energy from water' schemes often play on that perception, but the flaw is that it takes more energy to split off the hydrogen then you will derive burning it. However, hydorgen is still very useful for the same reason fossil fuels are: you can carry a lot of stored chemical enerrgy in a small space and use it as need it by burning it using the ambient oxygen. It stores the energy more efficiently - at current technologies - than trying to store electricity by batteries or by trying to distribute it to mobile machines via a grid. So hydrogen can and probably will play a huge role in our energy future by allowing a clean and efficient way to carry energy generated by other means than fossil fuels, but it is not in itself an energy source (unless you have nuclear fusion).
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05 June 2008, 09:10 PM
BoKu's Avatar
BoKu BoKu is offline
 
Join Date: 20 February 2000
Location: Douglas Flat, CA
Posts: 3,683
Pig

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack View Post
I'll quibble, too. The solar flux is not quite that great...
Me three.

Yes, every day the the sun pumps out a gazillion times the energy we use in a decade. Unfortunately, only an infinitesimally tiny fraction of that energy strikes the earth. The vast majority of it heads out into interstellar space.

What strikes the earth is a handful less than humanity uses every day. The numbers I hear most often fall between 50% and 66%. And what we get from the sun includes the energy that grows plants and drives the weather.

Bob "BoKu" K.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.