Tuesday, September 11, 2007

If ...

James Hudnall points to this tale of the truly weird. For the second time, as his commenter notes.

Should this prove to be anything like what it appears it might be, the most important question I can think of is, does the RF generator require more or less power to operate then the released gases can be used to generate? If the answer is "less", then this may prove to be the most profound bit of serendipity ... well, ever.

UPDATE: Prof. Rustom Roy mentioned in the Post-Gazette story has a web page here with a link to video of the burning salt water.

This is a May 5th news report about John Kanzius and his invention of a promising cancer treatment. Using the same equipment, his further discovery concerning salt water is covered here. Both stories are from the local Jacksonville, Fla. NBC affilliate.
Posted by at
Labels:

2 comments:

Kevin said...

It's actually not that weird. The radio frequency breaks the chemical bond and produces gaseous hydrogen and oxygen, which is then heated to ignition.

I don't believe in perpetual-motion machines, so the energy IN to the water must be more than the energy back out of the flame.

In other words, "burning salt water" is not a source of energy. It's a sink.

September 13, 2007 at 2:43:00 PM CDT
Will Brown said...

Welcome Kevin;

What I found weird was the serendipitous nature of the discovery, not that hydrogen can be released from it's bond to oxygen especially. See here, for only one alternative example.

I haven't seen any concern over the perpetual motion angle; it's been pretty clear all along that it's necessary to continue radiating RF for the gaseous effect to continue to occur. My initial question remains unanswered so far; how much energy is required to generate the RF field vs how much energy can the heat generated produce? Once that has been determined, then we might want to start getting excited.

September 14, 2007 at 1:02:00 AM CDT

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)