Radio Frequencies Help Burn Salt Water

[Un Con Troll Able]

By David Templeton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Tue, 11 Sep 2


ERIE, Pa. - An Erie cancer researcher has found a way to burn salt water, a novel invention that is being touted by one chemist as the "most remarkable" water science discovery in a century.

John Kanzius happened upon the discovery accidentally when he tried to desalinate seawater with a radio-frequency generator he developed to treat cancer. He discovered that as long as the salt water was exposed to the radio frequencies, it would burn.

The discovery has scientists excited by the prospect of using salt water, the most abundant resource on earth, as a fuel.

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.


Amazing! And with a potentially huge impact.

http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570

[DoctorDoom]

One wonders why they're releasing this as news again when it appeared in mid-August.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=49917

That's the thread that we ran at the time. And the same caveat applies: don't trust news stories that don't tell the whole truth. From that thread ...

<hr>
And now the rest of the story, the part the ignorant newsfolks don't bother to mention.

An elementary law of physics is that it is impossible to extract more energy from a system than is put into it. That's why perpetual motion is a fantasy.

Q: What is boiling the salt water and releasing the hydrogen?
A: Radio-frequency energy.

Q: What is generating the RF energy?
A: An RF oscillator/amplifier.

Q: How much RF power is the apparatus generating?
A: According to this wattmeter on the equipment, up to 1400 watts.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Science/Wattmeter.png

Q: What is the source of the electricity to power the unit?
A: Most likely the utility grid.

Q: And what is the most common fuel used in electricity-generating plants?
A: Coal, a hydrocarbon, with its "carbon footprint".

Q: What may we conclude from this demonstration?
A: Kanzius has invented a new and grossly inefficient way to electrolyze water.

Whoopee! :rolleyes:

[Un Con Troll Able]

I don't know that this is a perpetual motion fantasy.

After all, a bulldozer that burns 10 gallons of fuel to extract 20 tons of coal from the ground...

Don't mock science -- of I'll send Ben Grimm after you!!!

[Un Con Troll Able]

How many KWHs of electricity were consumed during the length of this separation (weakening) process? And what was the energy output potential in KWHs from the burning of the hydrogen? They say 3000 degress was reached, but that doesn't allow for energy output calculations by itself.

Perpetual motion machines do not need an outside source of energy once the motion has begun. This process does. The energy output in this instance only has an indirect relationship to the energy input because the output is based upon the burning of the hydrogen (a process independent of the molecular bond weakening process). There is no spontaneous energy creation here.

Output in this case is not limited to input because output is the result of the conversion of hydrogen to heat thru incineration -- not the result of radio wave application to a liquid.

[DesertFox]

I been burnin' water for, oh, nigh on 60 years now. Cain't cook worth a shit, neither.

[DoctorDoom]

I don't know that this is a perpetual motion fantasy.It's not an exact analogy, but only an expression of the meaninglessness of the process.

After all, a bulldozer that burns 10 gallons of fuel to extract 20 tons of coal from the ground...That's an irrelevant comparison. Coal is an energy SOURCE, the energy content of which far exceeds the energy necessary to produce and distribute it.

Don't mock science -- of I'll send Ben Grimm after you!!!Piffle! He'd wet his pants and find a quarry to hide in at the mere thought of encountering me.

<hr>
How many KWHs of electricity were consumed during the length of this separation (weakening) process? And what was the energy output potential in KWHs from the burning of the hydrogen?Since hydrogen is not available as a free element, the only way to obtain it is to separate it from a compound. That requires more energy than can be obtained from the separated hydrogen. Hydrogen is thus an energy transfer medium.

Perpetual motion machines do not need an outside source of energy once the motion has begun. This process does.As noted, the ref to perpetual motion was not a direct comparison.

The energy output in this instance only has an indirect relationship to the energy input because the output is based upon the burning of the hydrogen (a process independent of the molecular bond weakening process). There is no spontaneous energy creation here.The energy equations are based on immutable chemicals laws. In nature, it invariably requires more energy to break chemical bonds that can be obtained by the process that creates the bonds.

Fact: the energy required to break the hydrogen-oxygen bond electrolytically is greater than the energy that can be obtained by burning the hydrogen. The amount of energy available at the output of a system cannot be greater than the amount of energy into the system, and because of inefficiencies, it will always be less. That's the basis for rejecting perpetual motion.

To assume otherwise is to ignore the laws of conservation of energy.

Output in this case is not limited to input because output is the result of the conversion of hydrogen to heat thru incineration -- not the result of radio wave application to a liquid.Wrong. The energy content of the hydrogen is obtained at the expense of the energy source of the RF generator. Remember this immutable fact: energy in > energy out, no matter how many stages are involved.