This is a whole lot of nonsense. Where do you get magnesium electrodes? Why.., by extracting Mg from sea water and refining it with large electrical currents. Which you get how?

Notice he used nice pure salt, NaCl. That is not sea salt--which contains bromine, iodine, potassium, whale shit, and lots of stuff not in a cutesy "demo".

When you electrolyze sea water, you do not get hydrogen and oxygen. You make Clorox, sodium hypochlorite!

And planet Earth is running low on fresh water already, so the idea of diverting tons of it for energy is ludicrous. Besides that, water is not a source of chemical or electrical energy (mechanical maybe when it falls from a high place).

Planes will never fly faster than sound. Their metal frames will disintegrate.

https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2023/feb/hydrogen-seawater

I know your point. But certain things in the physical world are absolute: there is no cold lower than absolute zero (-259 C); you cannot send a space ship faster than the speed of light, ca $3,000,000 m/sec; Preachers and priests argued that invisible germs cannot cause disease--only a god can make you sick; humans cannot fly by flapping their arms.... No perpetual motion machine is possible.
I am sympathetic for pe3ople who iwiwsh to explorte aqndf find new things. I am enormously distrustful of people who make outlandish claims, usually for fun and profitm and fame. And it hurts me thqatn so many unknowledgeable people are taken iin, often to their finasncial hurt.

There is no gizmo for $49.95 that will make your car run on water (not even a hybrid).. or give you 100 mpg (altho much supressed).

Your point about trains is really only true for the USA. Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans make trains that go faster than 200 mph, 360 kph. Even 450 kph and remain on their rails (whereas US trains routinely fall off their rails even at 60 mph). So you cannot advance an idea that only applies to a subgroup addicted to cowcatchers and cowboys (it was James Watt (1736-1819) in England that made steam power.)

I give the authors credit for acknowledging the Chlorine issue. They admit they don't know what to do about it either.

There are only 4 Four Forces in nature, in the Universe;
1. the Gravitational force;
2. The Electromagnetic force;
3. The Strong nuclear force;
4. The Weak nuclear force.
The EM force is responsible for all atoms, all sound and light, all life, all biology, all mechanical and electrical matters, all matter--for sure, and most energy--burning, hydro, refrigerations, ..

If you are skeptical of my skepticism about 'hydrogen', just ask yourself:
Do catalysts violate conservation of energy?

You may find this informative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_equation

II read they liberated "1 kg of hydrogen". Does anyone grasp how much volume that is at STP? It would take over a house and before it mixes with Oxygen and blows up, reverting mostly to H2O and some H2O2.

I will not discuss the E-cat, cold fusion, scams and delusions here.

Oh, I read it carefully from the first. I pondered what
“Our process not only omits carbon dioxide, but also has no chlorine production.” means. Is this a typo for "emits"? "Emits NO CO2"?
Cl production? Well, ocean water contains lots of chlorine, mainly in the form of the chloride ion. You don't have to "produce" it--it's already there. Do the authors mean "release free chlorine Cl2 gas"?

Now, the confusing demo prominently shows the magnesium electrode, which is vital, apparently. BUT in the paper's study, https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202207310
Nitrogen-Doped Porous Nickel Molybdenum Phosphide Sheets for Efficient Seawater Splitting
-----not Mg, but NiMoP 'sheets". Quelle difference! Even w/o the nitrogen doping.

Where is this demo? 1½ yrs ago...I am glad they are keeping the grant money flowing.

I ask again, do you think a catalyst can overcome the law of conservation of mass and energy?

There are only 92 'natural' elements----all the Universe is made from them (worry not about the Trans-U metals). There is no element at. no. 46½

I am not against science, new discoveries, but I am against exaggerated and misleading claims, fooling people and people fooling themselves with magical thinking.

Happy 4th.

Clearly these people are idiots and frauds. The data in their paper is obviously fabricated. How they got it published at all is beyond me.
(Note obligatory tag.)

it is an energy carrier. The source is that large fusion reactor millions of miles away.

If you think about it... the fuel for all "dirty" forms of energy is also the same large fusion reactor. The difference is the process and the time scale by which either Hydrogen gas or fossil fuel is made and stored. Green hydrogen is made from the sunlight that falls on us today. Fossil fuels capture that same sunlight, only over a period of millions of years, and ends up in the form of complex hydrocarbons that we burn, releasing carbon dioxide as a by-product, which we find very inconvenient. When we burn pure hydrogen, we end up with water again.

Storing and using hydrocarbons ( coal, oil, natural gas ) is much easier than storing pure hydrogen ( it tends to escape and burning it can be dangerous ). Not to mention energy density is much better with hydrocarbons than hydrogen ( unless you compress it as a gas or find another way to make a fuel out of Hydrogen ).

Hydrogen, however, is a fuel. You can burn it in an ICE, or a turbine or use it in a "fuel cell.”

It seems, it may also be a fuel source! But, what do those idiots at the USGS know. Right?

Hydrogen, as a free gas, is a fuel source... unfortunately it doesn't appear on the earth in large quantities as a free gas... And when it does, it tends to escape. Vast quantities are locked up as water, both salted and non-salted.

what the article in the OP references using WATER as a fuel source because it contains Hydrogen. But the energy that is required to break the H2 and O bond is relatively large... electrolysis is one method to break the bond. Therefore whatever is used to break the bond is the fuel source.

Strictly speaking, almost all stored energy originates from the sun, either over a period of a growth season ( wood for example ) or over centuries ( or much longer ) in the form of fossil fuels ( which is WHY they are called fossil fuels ). The major exception to this is nuclear fuels.

Everything you think you know about hydrogen may be wrong.

https://www.usgs.gov/news/featured-story/potential-geologic-hydrogen-next-generation-energy

one that, to date, we have no technology to reach.


---
However, he quickly cautions, We have to be very careful in interpreting this number, though. Based on what we know about the distribution of petroleum and other gases in the subsurface, most of this hydrogen is probably inaccessible.

In other words, hydrogen supplies are too deeply buried, or too far offshore, or in accumulations that are too small, making it highly unlikely they could ever be economically recovered.