Fla. Man Invents Machine To Turn Water Into Fire

Fla. Man Invents Machine To Turn Water Into Fire

www.wpbf.com

SANIBEL ISLAND, Fla. -- A Florida man may have accidentally invented a machine that could solve the gasoline and energy crisis plaguing the U.S., WPBF News 25 reported.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 25-5-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Make sure you watch the video in the story, its on the top right hand side of the article.

Pretty neat stuff. Flame reaches about 3000 degrees F, which is consistent with hydrogen burning temp.

www.wpbf.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I think one of the first questions must be, how much energy from the radio waves are needed in relation to how much energy is extracted from the burning process.

And this is assuming there's no hanky-panky with the idea in the first place.

Thats so cool!

Now lets all watch him get shot and whatever work he's done get destroyed.

I dont believe radio waves require too much energy to be transmitted. A portable FM transmitter could run off of a 9 volt battery. But then how many glasses of water near FM transmitters have burst into flames?

Originally posted by NGC2736
I think one of the first questions must be, how much energy from the radio waves are needed in relation to how much energy is extracted from the burning process.

I agree, this is an important factor. If there is a low energy consumption to achieve this - such as maybe a regular car alternator can achieve, this could be an amazing breakthrough.

I wish right now I could use this for my pool! The water is so bloody cold!

Is there any information on just what frequency he used? What power output?

This will go nowhere until such tests can be reproduced by others.

But just in case, I'm stocking up on salt today, because if there's anything to this, I know the American system well enough to bet that the price will triple for sea salt within a week of this being tested by someone else and found to have merit.

Originally posted by NGC2736
I think one of the first questions must be, how much energy from the radio waves are needed in relation to how much energy is extracted from the burning process.

I saw this on the news the other night and that was the first question I asked.

What I did find amazing is the paper towel put in the test tube did not burn and the temps reached 3000F.

The question to find out is what is the frequency used and the amount of energy needed to ignite the water.

Surely more energy would be needed to create this reaction than would be extracted from it. After all energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. Plus some energy would likely be lost via, heat, sound or whatever.

This is the man who also made news about his cancer cure. This water energy find was by acccident from working with his cancer cure device, which I belive is the same device, it just has differing effects probably at differing frequencies.

Some of the most interesting inventions come about by accident.

Wasnt there a website in the video that was shown momentarily, I didnt catch it...

Originally posted by scepticsteve
Surely more energy would be needed to create this reaction than would be extracted from it. After all energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. Plus some energy would likely be lost via, heat, sound or whatever.

Yeah.

And even if it had 100% efficiency (which is impossible), you'd still not be able to use any of the energy recovered to anything else but to split the water molecules again.

This sounds alot like Aquygen Gas which is actually a commericially available system. It was originally developed as a water-based welding technology and has been used to power cars. Perhaps a similar discovery? As has been mentioned, to truly vet this out we would need to know the specifics about the RF generator and its power requirements to know whther this is a viable fuel alternative.

Originally posted by scepticsteve
Surely more energy would be needed to create this reaction than would be extracted from it. After all energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. Plus some energy would likely be lost via, heat, sound or whatever.

What is your point? Is anyone claiming that this is over-unity energy? How about oil? Is the energy required to drill, pump, refine and transport oil less than the energy output per barrel? Of course not. An alternative energy source doesn't have to be over-unity to be important. Sheesh people. Read first write second.

Its already been invented

If you mix Texas style Mexican food with water fire still erupts.


I wonder "really" if its the salt that burns or the water?

That's really cool if it works on a grand scale

I would love to be able to tell the Middle East to go to hell and keep their oil.

[edit on 25-5-2007 by Royal76]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Thats so cool!

Now lets all watch him get shot and whatever work he's done get destroyed.

Thanks for my Laugh Out Loud moment of the day.

So how long before someone ignites the Pacific Ocean and the whole thing goes up like a cheap baby blanket?

So someone with a bit more pull than I have ought to contact this guy and get him to come online and explain how this works. Sort of a guest appearance, as it were.

I mean we're mostly skeptics a of anything that's too good to be true, but if this thing was viable for use, I would trumpet it long and loud.

So staff, here's a chance to be a hero.

Originally posted by jtma508

Originally posted by scepticsteve
Surely more energy would be needed to create this reaction than would be extracted from it. After all energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. Plus some energy would likely be lost via, heat, sound or whatever.

What is your point? Is anyone claiming that this is over-unity energy? How about oil? Is the energy required to drill, pump, refine and transport oil less than the energy output per barrel? Of course not. An alternative energy source doesn't have to be over-unity to be important. Sheesh people. Read first write second.

So you agree with what I said? Whats your problem then moron, just because no-one said that it was an over-unity energy doesn't mean its not worth pointing out. I suspect your either trying to get your posts up, or you really are that arrogant.

Originally posted by jtma508

Originally posted by scepticsteve
Surely more energy would be needed to create this reaction than would be extracted from it. After all energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. Plus some energy would likely be lost via, heat, sound or whatever.

What is your point? Is anyone claiming that this is over-unity energy? How about oil? Is the energy required to drill, pump, refine and transport oil less than the energy output per barrel? Of course not. An alternative energy source doesn't have to be over-unity to be important. Sheesh people. Read first write second.

You seem to have missed my point also. This water/fire reaction is direct. The process of mining, transporting and refining of oil, will of course produce more energy than is spent on it, otherwise it is not worth doing. However If you compare the process of burning oil to release energy, then energy is simply being released through the reaction. As i'm sure you are aware, setting fire to petrol (or gasoline) is very easy and requires very little energy input to release its stored energy, hence why the internal combustion engine is so effective. I suspect that this machine would take a much greater energy input to create the same output as a combustion engine.

At no point however did I rule this out as a viable or interesting energy option. I was simply stating a few simple laws of physics that people seem to be forgetting.

I suggest you take your own advice.

Originally posted by scepticsteve
So you agree with what I said? Whats your problem then moron, just because no-one said that it was an over-unity energy doesn't mean its not worth pointing out. I suspect your either trying to get your posts up, or you really are that arrogant.

What right do you have calling me a moron? First, you have no right calling me (or anyone else on this board) names. I quoted your post citing conservation of energy and losses. The only purpose for citing that would be to point out that the system is not over-unity. Since no one made that claim (or even suggested it) the comment was clearly out-of-place.

I'm baffled entirely by your last post. You most certainly have to include all the steps to produce the fuel to measure its 'value' as a fuel. The fact that you can light a match to petrol is meaningless. You can't just light a match to crude oil. I'm sure you'd agree that pumping seawater is a great deal less involved and hugely less expensive than pumping crude oil. What remains to be determined is how many BTU's are expended pumping, refining and transporting crude oil (per barrel) relative to the BTU output of a barrel of oil vs. the same assessment for this seawater system. Clearly the latter has a massive advantage relative to the ubiquitous availability of the raw material. What needs to be determined is how many BTU's are needed to inject into the system (in the form of electrically generated RF) vs. how many BTU's of energy are generated.

The 3000F (1922K) flame in air is cooler than hydrogen, methane, octane or propane (all around 2300K) so the energy output is likely less as well. Again, the key is what was consumed to produce the gas vs. what is the BTU yield of the gas corrected for volume.

I am feeling to apathetic to fully read, or reply to your last post. I think we both may have missunderstood each other on several points, I'm content to leave it at that.