Posted on 09/09/2007 7:53:44 AM PDT by grundle
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."
But researching its potential will take time and money, he said. One immediate question is energy efficiency: The energy the RF generator uses vs. the energy output from burning hydrogen.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
Hey Dale, good to see you out this beautiful afternoon.
>>The energy released in recombination is the same as
it normally takes to uncouple the H2 and O, unless
he’s invented a new type of catalytic divorce-omatic.
The lack of insight regarding “over unity” from this
inventor suggests he’s got no handle whatever on how
much RF energy he’s dumping into the water.<<
Yep.
It was necessary to point out the scientific defects in the article, in order to make my point which you seemed to ignore.
It is wishful thinking which results in so many articles with no scientific content whatever which are designed to manipulate the expectations of the ignorant. If you are not among such ignorant readers, then good for you. But the existence of such articles is not an accident of ignorance, since any publisher is free to consult with experts in the field to eliminate ridiculous articles. It is the fact that they don't which is so telling.
>>Here’s the deal: I was an Economics major and not a brilliant chemist. From my understanding, RF waves are not the same as electricity. Correct me if I am wrong on that.
You can say it is the same theory but RF waves and electricity are not the same. Please show me (since this is such common knowledge) where someone has previously used this method to the same effect. Rememeber - not electricity but RF.<<
Bear in mind I’m not knocking the coolness of the experiment. I’m helping build a science lab in a few weeks and this would be an excellent demonstration.
And its a valid area to be looking at at. We need ways to produce, store and distribute hydrogen. Even though all current methods, including this one, are inefficient, work continues. For theoretical reasons you probably don’t care about this one will never create new energy but if fine tuned the losses might be small enough to be useful.
Without more info I can’t tell you if this exact method has been used. There are a number of patents of extracting elements, including hydrogen from compounds, including water using RF. Chang Yul Cha holds several of them but his patents reference patents back to the 80’s and work on RF hydrogen production going back to the 60’s.
Here is one that is semi-straight forward.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6783632.html
Now whether this is different enough to be distinct from previous work I don’t know. BTW RF is also used on fossil fuels to extract hydrogen but as with water the losses from converting electricity into RF and then zapping the gas are not practical, yet. Good question though.
Save the Wells!!
Well have fun, but don’t you dare discover anything. Ya hear me???
LOL
Actually, it doesn't resonate the water molecules; it just heats them (and the lipids proteins, etc.) by frictional motion.
The reason for its speed is that it delivers the energy to the interior of the food, whereas radiant/convection ovens have access directly only to the surface, and penetration to the interior takes more time.
The reason for its energy efficiency is that little or none of the energy goes into heating the enclosure or the food container (assuming you're following directions!).
Thermodynamics reduces to "There is no free lunch". It's "slow and cheap" or "fast and expensive". a 700 Watt microwave, or a 200 Watt hot plate-Both do the job.
The formulation I heard years ago in school still amuses me.
1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You have to play the game.
how
much RF energy he’s dumping into the water.
yes...that ENERGY has to be made. offsetting the energy created...
the guy is a fraud.
If the subject were golf, and Tiger Woods offered input, would he be doing that?
If the subject were basketball and Larry Bird made contributions, would he be a vain egomaniac?
The point is that there are people who make livings doing certain things in which they are competent. It's just what they do and who they are.
You were trained in Marketing. I have no expertise in it. Were I to post a vanity asking for advice on making my web-based business produce better customer responses, and you offered your professional input, I suppose I could stretch it to mean you were displaying your superior competence in your chosen field, but probably not. I would appreciate it, actually. You would be smarter in it than I am, and your input would be valuable.
Let me know after you try it.
lol...
I’ll let you in on the secret if I do!
No, and I don't need to. I don't need to jump off the top of a ten story building to know that I'd fall either. This is the equivalent of using a fan to run a windmill that powers the fan.
Well you may be right and may not be right. Until this has been judged on the specific claims, all those who claim it can’t work are simply playing the odds.
I don’t claim it does work. I simply observe that you haven’t seen it and cannot know for sure until you have, or have read the detailed reports of others who have.
As one poster already observed, there seem to be some fairly well trained people who have seen the device and think this guy(s) is on to something. On the other hand, some pros have been fooled before.
Thanks for your response.
Gee! How do I invest? LOL
What a bunch of BS.
Be grateful that there are some members with the technical background to readily recognize a blatant hoax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk4SZfnRufo
Be warned, there is profanity in this vid.
Interesting how you know that a chemist from PSU and an inventor who has worked with 2 of the most prestigious cancer clinics in the world have come up with a hoax. I am so grateful for your remarkable insight.
No we're not "playing the odds" We don't have to measure the fraud in a lab to know it's a fraud. The universe has certain underlying laws/principles or whatever you want to call them. No gadget built or observed process has EVER violated these laws. One of them is the first law of thermodynamics which says in essence "you can't get something for nothing." Perpetual motion of the first kind claims, as does this article, that you can get something for nothing. You can't. Dressing it up with "RF not electricity" is just snake oil sales pitch.
I simply observe that you haven’t seen it and cannot know for sure until you have,
Wrong again. I don't need to see an "antigravity generator" to know it's a fraud. I don't need to see a "pill that when you drop it into a tank full of water" will run your car. I don't need to see the crime rate in gun control cities to know that disarming the victims doesn't reduce crime.
Something like this (which btw has been cropping up regularly in one form or another since the mid 1800's - look up history of perpetual motion) is not physically possible. Those who are unaware of physics or slept through chemistry might say "well it MIGHT work" Nope not a chance in hell. What you have is one of two things: either an imbecile who is not measuring his energy inputs and outputs correctly or (much more likely) a con man looking for those people who did sleep through their chemistry and physics with money to "invest"
The email from Nigeria you got from DOCTOR MBUTU'S WIFE WHO NEEDS YOUR HELP IN GETTING $25,000,000 OUT OF AFRICA AND WILL GIVE YOU 10% IF YOU JUST SEND HER YOUR BANK ACCOUNT INFORMATION MIGHT get you $2,500,000, but getting that 2.5 million is infinitely more likely than this thing working.
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.