Salt water as fuel. Offically working......

Originally posted by DuncanIdahoGholem
How are solar cells so inefficient? Initial cost may be high, but they still produce FREE ENERGY after they are installed. They produce electricity from FREE sunlight, no? That seems pretty efficient to me. Could you imagine if every house had roof tiles made of solar panels and a solar hot water system? Sure you'd still need a bit more power from the grid, so what? If you reduce fossil fuels it is a good thing. The idea of containing each dwellings power generation on the premises itself is wrong. Ever heard how deserts are called wastelands? So lets not waste'em. Solar farming makes more coin than cattle per acre. And you don't have to feed them. And they don't need water and don't get sick. Think about it for a while.
The only pollution you get from solar panels is in construction and disposal.

I think people are getting a little carried away by all this. Sure solar energy is free but what about the process that make the panels themselves. That uses more energy, the cost of installation and the life cycle isn't energy efficient yet.


The point that people are getting at is: the energy the guy using to pump RF into the salt water is more than what is coming out the tube in a flame.

Have a look at the 2nd law of thermodynamics for some info:
en.wikipedia.org...

The guy is shown making a basic steam engine (I had a similar one that the guy on the video had in school)

So while he make be getting x amount of energy out of his unit he is putting x2 amout of energy into it.

If I hear another person quote "conservation of energy' and 'laws of science' I'll pull my eyes out through my eatascareta. Look, IF the 'laws' of science are inviolable and complete than I think everyone here agrees that there is nor will there ever be any zero-point, over-unity or 'free' energy. Do we all essentially agree on that? so:

'Laws' of Science = status quo forever (excepting some efficiency improvements)

What everyone in this field believes is that the 'laws' of science are anything but. They believe that 'classical' physics is flawed (an absolutely true and valid fact) and that there are forces/particles/waves/states that we simply have not yet fully understood that allow these as yet unexploited aspects to be used to 'create' energy. Most likley this has nothing to do with creating energy as much as it does exploiting changes in state to do 'work'. Like photons => CdS => electricity

Stating 'conservation of energy' over and over again gets no one anywhere. It's a waste of everyone's time simply because we are all aware of that chant. Many, many believe that it will soon be filed in the same drawer as 'If man were meant to fly God would have given him wings' and ' The earth is the center of our solr system' or 'everything is made-up of atoms'. Things change. New things are learned. It's intellectual evolution and it's happening right now... like it or not.

Originally posted by jtma508
If I hear another person quote "conservation of energy' and 'laws of science' I'll pull my eyes out through my eatascareta. Look, IF the 'laws' of science are inviolable and complete than I think everyone here agrees that there is nor will there ever be any zero-point, over-unity or 'free' energy. Do we all essentially agree on that? so:

'Laws' of Science = status quo forever (excepting some efficiency improvements)

I know it is disappointing to think that this may be true, and exciting to think you might see the dawn of a new day when energy comes out of nowhere for free. Yes, it would be GREAT! I would love it. But I think you've got a long, long wait.

The reason why is, we've got about 200 years of pretty intensive study that says the law of conservation of energy is pretty darn reliable as a guide to what's happening in various situations. It's not something some mean guy made up one day.

And so far, no one's found any reliable, documentable, reproducible situation where that doesn't happen. Nuclear energy was found to be an exchange of mass for an equivalent amount of energy. No violation.

And yes, due to the fact that the universe is "grainy", gases have macroscopic qualities even at the molecular level etc you will find tiny, temporary local violations where a cubic micron of gas spontaneously becomes colder than the average. But at the same time, another is becoming hotter than the average. You can't really get anything out of it - see also Maxwell's Demon, there are some really indepth mathematical analyses of the situation.

The latest is "zero point energy", vacuum fluctuations and spontaneous symmetry breaking. Great! Maybe something will come out of that - it's obvious that Van der Waals forces exist, Casimir showed you could extract an infinitesimal bit of energy by crushing two microscopic plates together, fluorescent tubes actually work every day, so it exists...but can you find a real way to use it?

What I see is a bunch of hucksters dressing up the same old perpetual motion machines, only now they're better, with added Dark Energy®!! When they can show me how their magic machine actually uses vacuum fluctuations instead of just claiming "I don't know how it works...it's vacuum energy!" I might be more ready to listen. The terms mean something but in this case they're just being used to sell snake oil.

What everyone in this field believes is that the 'laws' of science are anything but. They believe that 'classical' physics is flawed (an absolutely true and valid fact) and that there are forces/particles/waves/states that we simply have not yet fully understood that allow these as yet unexploited aspects to be used to 'create' energy. Most likley this has nothing to do with creating energy as much as it does exploiting changes in state to do 'work'. Like photons => CdS => electricity

Yes, and people in the field of physics that actually know what they're doing will advance it. It's not really at the level where you can do Rutherford type experiments with sealing wax and gold leaf anymore. Science changes all the time. But you don't get to wake up one day and say "wow, I don't like that old conservation of charge law, let's get rid of it and start over", because it's not like you're making societal law. I can't make it legal by decree. See also: Canute. Until there's some reason to do away with it, or a new exception "yes, but not in this case", COE is a tenet that seems to hold all the time.

One day I'm sure you'll see old Neon Haze finally discover that you can derive QCD and QED from loop quantum gravity, and that LQG is a more accurate model. Maybe in there, hidden in the denominator of some arcane derivative, you can set this field this way, and that one that way, and out pops a huge energy flux. But you'll have to do some godawful tensor to figure it out.

Stating 'conservation of energy' over and over again gets no one anywhere. It's a waste of everyone's time simply because we are all aware of that chant. Many, many believe that it will soon be filed in the same drawer as 'If man were meant to fly God would have given him wings' and ' The earth is the center of our solr system' or 'everything is made-up of atoms'. Things change. New things are learned. It's intellectual evolution and it's happening right now... like it or not.

You're quite incorrect. It's often a good place to start. The entire science of thermodynamics is more or less based on it, and an awful lot of really neat things you see all around you work exactly as expected with their designs based on it being true.

Yes, things do change, but with something as well proven as COE, probably not with a wave of a magnet.

In this guy's case, his patents actually have some significant errors in field theory, which you might hope the examiner would catch but probably won't.


[edit on 12-7-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by DuncanIdahoGholem
How are solar cells so inefficient? Initial cost may be high, but they still produce FREE ENERGY after they are installed. They produce electricity from FREE sunlight, no? That seems pretty efficient to me. Could you imagine if every house had roof tiles made of solar panels and a solar hot water system? Sure you'd still need a bit more power from the grid, so what? If you reduce fossil fuels it is a good thing. The idea of containing each dwellings power generation on the premises itself is wrong. Ever heard how deserts are called wastelands? So lets not waste'em. Solar farming makes more coin than cattle per acre. And you don't have to feed them. And they don't need water and don't get sick. Think about it for a while.
The only pollution you get from solar panels is in construction and disposal.

Today you can install in the average size home for about $40,000 enough solar panels to run everything.

With people struggling to put FOOD on the table, I think this is wasted breath.


If it's such a good idea, do YOU run 100% green?

50%?

At all?.

The cost simply outweighs any projected benefit. I know I don't have that kind of money, and personally if I DID have eighty THOUSAND dollars to throw away... I can think of a hundred charities that will do more good for society than me being "respected" by "environmentalists".

Please.

here is some more noise associated with this.

Salt water as Fuel

Salt water as fuel? Erie man hopes so
Sunday, September 09, 2007
By David Templeton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

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.

What originally drawn me to the topic was a post in Slashdot.org's Firehose entry

Given recent developments I thought I'd read through this entire thread to see what all our local 'experts' were saying when the article first broke. BS the experts cried. It's a hoax. I love our 'experts'.

Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, has held demonstrations at his State College lab to confirm his own observations.

The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen, Roy said. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies, he said.

The discovery is "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years," Roy said.

"This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Roy said. "Seeing it burn gives me the chills."

Roy will meet this week with officials from the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense to try to obtain research funding.

Source

Deny ignorance indeed.

Wait for the punchline where it ends up being less efficient than a traditional electrolyzer.

Roy never said "OMG!! IT IS OU!" because it isn't. It's unexpected that it happened AT ALL, and maybe it's more efficient than a traditional electrolysis cell, which isn't all that great.

At any rate, I just asked him. I'll post whatever he replies, if he does.

You know that the corporations who dabble in medicine is going to do everything in their power to get other scientists to say "it's a hoax". Lets face it, you cannot argue with facts, and the fact is that so far in testing that it has passed every test.

You will have these corporations who make a living off of people dying and they will not stand for it, and I can see it getting dirty, real dirty.

And another thing, where is the massive media coverage? I mean, hello? Anyone there!? This could be the end all be all cure for every known cancer and also cure for other diseases/bacterias!!

Hmm, could this be another ploy of corporate America paying off the press to make the rest of the world not realize what is at stake here?

My advice is spread the word, from your friends, your family, to the media, even your senator. Make it known.

Well, no, I don't know that it's a fact that it's passed every known test. There's not that much data on it, frankly, and I don't believe they have permission to do human testing yet.

However, it is interesting. It is not a "treatment for every known cancer" as far as I can tell from the patent descriptions and test coverage, but if it works for even a good sized subset it would be a great thing.

You do know that it just warms up the tumor cells, right? And that's been around forever? Google "diathermy hyperthermia tumor", there's about 15,000 hits. Kanzius has a twist on it involving getting the tumor cells to take up a metallic substance which heats them preferentially.

That's an amazing advance right there if you can do it. But it's not a mystic cure-all wonder device that can heal everything from chilblains to bunions. It is pretty cool even without the uberhype, though.

Excuse my ignorance, I only earned a BS in electrical engineering, but isn't this thing plugged into an electrical outlet?

Doesn't that make the electricity the fuel?

Salt water as fuel. Offically working......

Am I the only one who sees this contradiction?

Absolutely it does.

The really interesting thing here is that an h-field diathermy machine can cause separation of hydrogen and oxygen. The sodium oxide contamination is interesting as well.

Can this be a more efficient electrolysis method, maybe. If so, then it's worth it there. But I think the reporters are hyping it as some sort of OU/free energy source which I'm not expecting to see.

Grant you, I'd be really delighted if it WAS, sort of like I was cheering for Steorn even though I knew they'd have a problem at the demo of some sort. It's like buying a lottery ticket - you know you're not going to win but it's fun all the same.

A few points of disclaimer etc. I am a chemist. I am proficient in quantum mechanics. I am interested in the video...it is pretty cool....


To the "conservation of energy" gets violated group: No. It doesn't. Never on this scale. The numbers do not support it... there have been no concrete examples of a violation of those rules. Your concept of science has been distorted by many snake oil salesman. I apologize that we didn't rescue you from them. For your future contemplation: anytime someone says free energy, ask for the whole system. Not even the sun is free....it is cheap because we didn't build it but it isn't free.

To the others that are confused by the terrible explanation of what is happening: that is not fire. There are no hydrogen gases. Repeat after me: bond breaking requires voltage. Voltage requires Visible light or shorter. RF is Orders of Magnitude to large: it does provide intensity though...

What would be burning? Sodium is orange. Very orange. Hydrogen is clear. It is plasma from atmospheric gases: nitrogen and oxygen...induced by the RF energy. Fun to do...makes a good analytical instrument when made of argon. What is confusing here is the role of the salt water. It isn't supplying anything materially or it would bubble or explode. It might be a decent focal point and supply geometry though...

Also in the no free lunch category: The source of fuel here is whatever he is using to turn on his antennae.

By the way: ever tried to measure 3000 degrees? It isn't done with a mercury thermometer...

Enjoy.

Burn water, yeah, good idea. Anyone think of the consequences and/or byproducts of such an exchange?

Originally posted by Sytima
Burn water, yeah, good idea. Anyone think of the consequences and/or byproducts of such an exchange?

Supose that you can do it, they is no consenquence... like running out of sea water The result of the combustion is just... water.
The combustion is oxydation of the hydrogene in other words: 2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O

reply to post by Tom Bedlam


Even if this is not free energy could the energy of the burning salt water be as efficient or provide an equal amount of energy as oil?

This is similar to hydrogen cars. H2o is coverted to HHO which is a gas that burns. In this case, he use some sort of frequency to convert the H2O to a gas able to burn. Now, he just needs to harness the fire to power vehicles, which shouldn't be hard. This technology has been around for a long time. Good luck trying to get this technology out before the men in black come knocking.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
reply to post by Tom Bedlam

 

Even if this is not free energy could the energy of the burning salt water be as efficient or provide an equal amount of energy as oil?

The device is plugged into an electrical outlet.

It cannot be more efficient than a batter powered car.

The saltwater is not fuel. It is not providing energy. The electrical outlet in the wall that the transmitter is plugged into is the energy source.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by Malichai]

reply to post by Malichai


I understand what you are saying. My thoughts were along the lines of gasoline used in an engine it still needs to be ignited via the spark plugs to transform the energy.

Could something similar be done with the salt water and typical car battery powering a radio frequency devise to ignite the salt water?

If the answer is there is no stored energy in the salt water then I know it wont work, but if there is then why could it not be used similar to gas or any other fossil fuel?

But that is the problem, unfortunately, there's no energy in there other than what you add.

*however*

If you want to go to a 'hydrogen economy' using fission reactors as the power input, and this

1) actually DOES electrolyze the water, although I can't imagine what else is going on there

2) is much more efficient than the average electrolysis cell

then it might be worth something in and of itself. It doesn't have to be OU to be useful.

reply to post by Tom Bedlam


Thanks for the reply. You know Im no scientist so I was asking the question to learn something.

If I may be so presumtious to ask one more question? Why does the water allegedly burn at 3000 degrees? And would that not be enough of a source of energy to act similar to gasoline in a combustion engine? Ok sorry it was two questions.





[edit on 12-9-2007 by etshrtslr]