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

Yes Phloyd I know the difference between 'boiling-off' and electrolysis. If I didn't get it in high school it must have been in one of the nine chemistry courses I took in college. You might note that I did refer to lyse in my last post. I used boiling-off as a descriptive since that is exactly what it looks like when you watch electrolysis. The gases coming off the sea water are most definitely under pressure. Granted, not on the scale of those in the torch example but most definitely well over ambient due to the expansion of the gases. Once again, the sea water electrolyzes and produces some sort of gas. You are presuming O2 and H2. I'm not privy as to what specifically is being produced. That gas expands (relative to the sea water) and creates pressure as it exits the tube. If you don't believe me put water in a sealed container and microwave it.

I pointed out my concern over the flame color and the reported flame temperature in the last post. Again, since I don't know what the combusting gas(es) is/are I don't know what the flame color should be. If it were H2 we'd expect a bluish flame. It's not. Even if the combustion was H2 and Chlorine (another simple possibility) we'd expect a bluish flame. You are assuming that the electrolysis products are O2 and H2. If that's true, what is acting as the anode and cathode in the electrolysis model and how do you account for the uncharacteristic yellow flame? What's to say that the presence of the RF isn't creating a multi-gas product of H2, Cl2, O2, Br2 or possibly some molecular product? Another possble electrolysis product could be ClO2. It would have a yellow flame color and has a high exothermic potential.



[edit on 11-7-2007 by jtma508]

jtma508, I think we're saying similar things and just misunderstanding one another.

For the record, go back and read my posts from the beginning of the thread - I do not believe that the gases in the video are H2 and O2 - I'm saying that if Kanzius is telling the truth the gases in question should be H2 and O2, and the flame should be blue-ish.

Since those things should be true if Kanzius is telling the truth but clearly are not true - and your most recent post shows that we are in agreement on that count - Kanzius is a liar and the video is debunked.

Am I right that we're in basic agreement on those facts, of have I misunderstood your post?

i don't supposed it's occurred to any of you to actually track the guy down and ask him the questions that you are arguing on.

perhaps he can tell you why the tube didn't melt instead of you all speculating about why it didn't. etc

even, better - if you do happen to get in touch with him then invite him here to tell everyone about his invention. that way you can have all your questions aswered

by the way - can anyone tell me why the coffee i buy from some places gives me blisters on my tongue from one little sip yet doesn't melt the polystyrene cup?

[edit on 11-7-2007 by justyc]

See Phloyd, where we differ is that I'm not sure he's lying. He just may not know (yet) what he has. I've watched the video and nowhere does HE say that he's producing H2. The reporter says that a chemist TOLD him it was H2. I don't believe it is and consequently I don't believe it is simple electrolysis.

Why the tube does not melt is easily explained :- glass is a good conductor of heat, and because the glass is in contact with the water, most of the heat is transfered to the water, which evaporates, taking enough of the heat with it to prevent the glass from getting hot enough to melt.

Try this simple experiment yourself, which demonstrates this : take a paper or thin plastic cup, fill it with water, and then hold a lighter/flame to it (below the water level - since unlike glass, paper/plastic won't conduct/transfer the heat away as efficiently as glass will)... it won't burn as long as there is water in the cup.

IMO the flame could very well be as hot as they say.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
glass is a good conductor of heat,

Minor correction C.H.U.D., glass is actually one of the best insulators known to man, it's not a conductor...
As to the rest of you 'skeptics', if you will watch the second video I posted a link to, the guy won a contract from the US military to design a humvee to run on this stuff, it isn't a hoax. And yes it's created simply though electrolysis, that's why its called HHO gas, i.e. H2O.
Some really basic principles you guys are trying to debunk here, 8th grade kind of stuff. Yes it's real. And yes you can run an engine on it, it's called combustion. Drag out your old middle school science books and read up before you call somebody a liar, it helps to have some knowledge on the subject.

Originally posted by twitchy
As to the rest of you 'skeptics', if you will watch the second video I posted a link to, the guy won a contract from the US military to design a humvee to run on this stuff, it isn't a hoax. And yes it's created simply though electrolysis, that's why its called HHO gas, i.e. H2O.
Some really basic principles you guys are trying to debunk here, 8th grade kind of stuff.

The debunking part, as far as I'm concerned, comes in two stages:

1) it's part of a mysterious cancer cure (strike 1)
2) it supposedly has more energy in the offgas than you put in with the RF source (strike 2)

All he needs to do is mix in some anti-gravity claims and he'll have the snake-oil trifecta.

Could you possibly run a vehicle on it? Maybe. Is it a big new energy source? No.

Tom... I've been looking for information on the measurements for the RF part of the technology but have never seen that published. Do you have that info or can you provide a link?

Originally posted by jtma508
Tom... I've been looking for information on the measurements for the RF part of the technology but have never seen that published. Do you have that info or can you provide a link?

His rig uses multiples of 13.56MHz, usually 27.12MHz, at about 1000 Watts. His head setup has a coil on the left side and a load on the right side, so the tube is in the near-field of the transmitter, and it's predominantly h-field, I'd guess, based on size, frequency and the inductive nature of the antenna he's using.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by twitchy
glass is actually one of the best insulators known to man, it's not a conductor...

If that was the case, we would not need test-tube stands/holders when placing one over a bunsen-burner - we could just hold them in our hands ...but then making test-tubes out of glass would be pointless, since their contents would never heat up

Perhaps I should have said "relatively"... and I still maintain it is actually a good conductor of heat (in "solid" form - which is what we are talking about here, not glass fiber insulation for example). OK, it's no where near as good a conductor of heat as diamond for instance, but to say it is one of the best insulators and not a conductor is misleading.

If we compare it to the thermal conductivity of air, which is the other main way heat will be transfered away from the glass (in the case in question), we find that glass conducts heat better than air by a factor of 44x (from wiki glass has a thermal conductivity of 1.1W·m−1·K−1 and air is 0.025W·m−1·K−1 source).

As for best insulator known to man, my vote goes for Silica Aerogel, which has a thermal conductivity of 0.003W·m−1·K−1, or about 366x better at insulating than glass.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by C.H.U.D.]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
His rig uses multiples of 13.56MHz, usually 27.12MHz, at about 1000 Watts. His head setup has a coil on the left side and a load on the right side, so the tube is in the near-field of the transmitter, and it's predominantly h-field, I'd guess, based on size, frequency and the inductive nature of the antenna he's using.

That's interesting. Can you tell me where you found that information? I've been looking all over for whatever details have been published and have found nothing on the frequencies or power levels used. There are a number of conflicting reports/theories out there about this. I'd just like to get a sense of what info is real and waht is conjecture.

Originally posted by jtma508

That's interesting. Can you tell me where you found that information?

Would you believe...I put my fingertips on my temples and said OMMMMM.

After a while, my spirit left my body and traveled to his lab (I had to use Himalayan breathing techniques to get sufficient distance).

There I found he used to use a Yaesu FT1000MP Mark V as an exciter and PA, but then found he didn't have the power levels he wanted. So he got a 1kW linear to go with the Yaesu, which is what I think you're actually seeing in the video with his company name (Therm Med) plastered on it.

I don't recognize the model offhand though.

Or, if you don't believe that, I looked up their patents. I figured it was a 27.xx MHz transmitter anyway, since that's a standard band for diathermy, which was most likely what his cancer treatment was. And, lo! It was thus.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
If that was the case, we would not need test-tube stands/holders when placing one over a bunsen-burner - we could just hold them in our hands

You CAN hold it in your hand, just a few inches away from a 2500 degree flame, I do it every day as I blow glass professionally and have been for years, I promise you, glass is an insulator. A newly made marbles stays hot for hours. If air is a better insulator than glass, why put it in your house at all when you can just leave the roof off in the winter and stay alot warmer.

No it isn't some new miracle source of free energy, nobody is claiming that it is, but in a combustion reaction, it is a hell of alot cleaner than fossil fuels, and insanely abundant as it covers alot more earth than dirt does. The only draw back is the electrolysis of water requires a signifigant amount of electricity, but then again it has to be cheaper than bombs and body bags in the long run eh?

No, actually. The required electricity actually makes MORE pollutants during it's generation than the original fossil fuels.
Even in the case of nuclear power, eventually we run out of places to stuff the horrible waste into.

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
No, actually. The required electricity actually makes MORE pollutants during it's generation than the original fossil fuels.
Even in the case of nuclear power, eventually we run out of places to stuff the horrible waste into.

No actually... our current methods of producing that electricity is dirty and the greedy bastards that make it don't want you to grasp concepts like solar panels, or making electricity with a freaking potato and a couple nails, and the only pollutant thereof is that funky rotten potato smell.
As to nuclear waste, hell we'll just make bullets and shells out of it and atomize it into the soil and lungs of those not worthy to be our equals... oh yeah we already do that. Hey wait we can use it to iradiate our food.. oh yea we already do that too... It also makes some really pretty glass, vaseline and custard glass.
Don't worry about nuclear waste, as with flouride, they found many a nice way of distributing it equally amung us rather than costly disposal.

No one is with-holding anything regarding electricity generation, of that I can assure you. Don't knee-jerk yourself into such a paranoid reaction. Solar panels at this point in time are horrible in-efficient, and you still need some other RELIABLE source of energy in times when your roof-full of panels cannot get enough sunlight to run all your appliances.

Being green just simply is not cost-effective right now. Period.

I wouldn't expect you to try and swim the Atlantic when I have a nice boat right here. Get the idea?

A pound of potatoes is on average, about 69 cents, two nails and some wire adds roughly less than a dollar. A Duracell battery, well four of them, is damn near ten dollars... yeah I understand perfectly. Yes solar panels are inefficient, but I'd be willing to bet if you compared the amount of funding that goes into solar research with the amount of funding that goes into filling up pockets at your friendly neighborhood oil company... well I don't think dogma is the word, but you get the picture.
There's lots of ways to generate electricity, but few ways to pull oil companies off the tit long enough to nurse new technology into fruition.

Come on now, be realistic. You're going to be hard pressed to get 120v ac out of potatoes.

@80 potatoes for 120 volts by my figuring.
No you won't run your house on taters, that's why I compared it to a battery, not an outlet plug.

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.