Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Water into fuel?
http://www.wkyc.com ^ | 6/1/2007 | Michael O'Mara

Posted on 08/01/2007 8:46:09 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45

Retired TV station owner and broadcast engineer, John Kanzius, wasn't looking for an answer to the energy crisis. He was looking for a cure for cancer.

Four years ago, inspiration struck in the middle of the night. Kanzius decided to try using radio waves to kill the cancer cells.

His wife Marianne heard the noise and found her husband inventing a radio frequency generator with her pie pans.

"I got up immediately, and thought he had lost it."

Here are the basics of John's idea:

Radio-waves will heat certain metals. Tiny bits of certain metal are injected into a cancer patient.

Those nano-particals are attracted to the abnormalities of the cancer cells and ignore the healthy cells.

The patient is then exposed to radio waves and only the bad cells heat up and die.

But John also came across yet another extrordinary breakthrough.

His machine could actually make saltwater burn.

John Kanzius discovered that his radio frequency generator could release the oxygen and hydrogen from saltwater and create an incredibly intense flame.

"Just like that. If that was in a car cylinder you could see the amount of fire that would be in the cylinder."

The APV Company Laboratory in Akron has checked out John's amazing invention. They were amazed.

"That could be a steam engine, a steam turbine. That could be a car engine if you wanted it to be."

Imagine the possibilities. Saltwater as the ultimate clean fuel.

A happy byproduct of one man searching for the cure for cancer.

http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=35660&bw=


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: coldfusion; energy; johnkanzius; kanzius; rumor; saltwater
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: Fudd

Thank you, at least your response was intelligent. I am not familiar with this stuff as I’m no scientist or what have you and frankly have no interest in it. But I do know that people that come on threads of this nature and laugh and pooh pooh ideas that people are working on are the same types of individuals that told the Wright brothers they would never fly.

I’m glad there are people like that still in this world that will go out and try and do something regardless of those “who know better”.


21 posted on 08/01/2007 9:00:57 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (Famously frisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

Agreed.


22 posted on 08/01/2007 9:04:29 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
23 posted on 08/01/2007 9:08:48 AM PDT by Lost Dutchman ("Weep for the future Na'Toth, Weep for us all." (G'Kar-Babylon 5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
I tell you what does work. You take your water( clean, not salt) and mix it with gas with an ultrasonic transducer. Then send it to the fuel injection system. It should remain separate for as long as possible and only be mixed at the last minute before being injected. The ultrasonic waves make the emulsion like milk and you get water injection allowing higher compression and higher turbo pressure. The only problems ever encountered is when the waves are turned off and the water separates from the fuel. Hard starting is the result.

Work arounds are turning off the water supply before the ignition is turned off to purge the system. Another is a chamber before the injectors that re mixes the emulsion before starting. There are many more, but you get the idea. The point is you can burn a 50/50 mixture of water/gas if you do it this way. It has already been done years ago, so it works for sure. In carburetors, they had the problem of separation in the bowl, so no joy there. FI made this all go away. The power it takes to make the ultrasonic mixer is just a few watts so an alternator works fine for that. Water is heavier than gas, so there may be some extra weight on a small car. If you have a 12 gallon tank now, I'm not sure if you would want a 6 gallon water and a 6 gallon gas tank. Most would probably opt for an extra water tank and keep the gas.

24 posted on 08/01/2007 9:09:21 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
It has no commercial potential whatsoever.

I wonder how well the cancer treatment idea will work? It seems plausible, at least. In fact, I'm not sure why it didn't occur to someone earlier.
25 posted on 08/01/2007 9:11:03 AM PDT by JamesP81 (Keep your friends close; keep your enemies at optimal engagement range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

26 posted on 08/01/2007 9:16:29 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
Look at the energy required to break the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen in a water molecule. The RF generator HAS to generate enough energy to break those bonds. The energy available in hydrogen atom in a water molecule is about the energy required to break it apart. Then taking into account energy losses in the RF generator, it becomes a net energy loser.
27 posted on 08/01/2007 9:16:31 AM PDT by nuke rocketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
Those who poopooed the Wright brothers had NO clue into the knowledge of aerodynamics and physics available at that time. Samuel Langley and many other experimenters at the time knew that flight was possible. The kicker was getting a lightweight engine.
28 posted on 08/01/2007 9:20:10 AM PDT by nuke rocketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

If you have to ask, then you probably wouldn’t understand the answer.

But, here’s a simplified version.

Basically it has to do with the FACT that NO energy transformation is 100% efficient. Not only IS not, but CANNOT be. So you take natural gas and burn it, converting one form of potential energy, (chemical) and turn it into another (heat) and lose in the process, then you take that heat and turn a turbine, converting the heat energy to mechanical energy losing more, than you use that mechanical energy to turn a generator making electircal energy losing more yet again, then use the electricity to generate radiant energy (radio waves) losing yet more, which you use to pull hydrogen out of the water losing even more. You are losing energy at every turn (at least six transformations by my count).

My advice is to buy a cylinder of natural gas and save yourself a heap of capital investment, headache and hardship - all to accomplish less than nothing.


29 posted on 08/01/2007 9:20:45 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

bump


30 posted on 08/01/2007 9:25:39 AM PDT by lesser_satan (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fudd
On the other hand, if there something else in the salt water that is burning,...

Just as a point of interest, Elmer, would you care to clue us in as to just what this burning substance in sea water might be that we can extract with a net efficiency gain?

If you can identify it, great fame and fortune await you.

31 posted on 08/01/2007 9:27:18 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

==> “I wonder how well the cancer treatment idea will work? It seems plausible, at least. In fact, I’m not sure why it didn’t occur to someone earlier.” <==

The question is, exactly what would make these particles attach themselves to cancer cells, and ONLY to cancer cells? Achieving this selective attachment is the aim of much of the serious biological research looking for a “magic bullet” cancer cure.

But this real research focuses on finding a unique “marker” on the surface of cancer cells that could be targeted by a matching antibody. The antibody attachment would lead to destruction of the cancer cell by natural processes.

However, cancer is actually not a single disease, but a multitude of separate disease processes that arise in every tissue type in the normal body, and, because these defective cells no longer reproduce correctly, they become a moving target for any such targeted therapies.

This “cure” is far too simplistic to cope with the complex disease it is supposed to address. And as a potential fuel, it is even further off base.


32 posted on 08/01/2007 9:31:11 AM PDT by MainFrame65 (The US Senate: World's greatest PREVARICATIVE body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
It seems plausible, at least. In fact, I'm not sure why it didn't occur to someone earlier.

It did, although in a more sophisticated form. At least experimentally, various compounds have been developed that concentrate in cancer cells and are then activated to some form of lethality by the application of energy, either ultraviolet or visible light, radio waves , or X-rays. Some of these undoubtedly relate to heat generation (energy conversion from radio waves to heat energy be re-radiation. I can tell you for sure that this is NOT a novel idea. Google it. Do some research; find out. Maybe the reporter covering this non-story should have done a bit of research herself first.

33 posted on 08/01/2007 9:34:03 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
The APV Company Laboratory in Akron has checked out John's amazing invention. They were amazed.

I could have predicted that reaction. Amazing things tend to be amazing.

34 posted on 08/01/2007 9:39:40 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

So, the question becomes: How cheap a first source of energy to use and what kind of energy can I produce from it?


35 posted on 08/01/2007 9:40:48 AM PDT by elephantlips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

It works this way: You put 10 kw into making the radio waves, and you get 0.1 kw out in hydrogen energy.....


36 posted on 08/01/2007 9:41:10 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: elephantlips

Exactly.

And so the great appeal of hydro power, from waterwheels to giant multi-megawatt hydroelectric dam projects.

And also the great appeal of any form of fusion power, should it ever pan out.


37 posted on 08/01/2007 9:46:21 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
His machine could actually make saltwater burn.

Holy pastrami juices, Batman, turn the radio off or you might set the Atlantic Ocean on fire ;-)

38 posted on 08/01/2007 9:47:31 AM PDT by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Just as a point of interest, Elmer, would you care to clue us in as to just what this burning substance in sea water might be that we can extract with a net efficiency gain?

No, I can't. There's a lot I don't know about nuclear physics, RF energy, and sea water chemistry. What I do know, though, leads me to suspect the claim, while possible, is not highly probable.

39 posted on 08/01/2007 9:54:24 AM PDT by Fudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

I tend to think if it were this easy, someone would have been doing it already. Contrary to popular opinion, there are very few original ideas.


40 posted on 08/01/2007 10:03:34 AM PDT by rbg81 (DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson