real overunity discovery

real overunity discovery

Technologue: Oceans: Four - If we could just burn salt water, we'd never run out of fuel


By Frank Markus
Photography by Lionel Deluy Art By Atomos
...The story is a compelling one. Retired TV-station owner and broadcast engineer John Kanzius was conducting experiments for a cancer cure, in which metallic nanoparticles coated to target certain diseased cells are bombarded with radio waves superheating the particles and killing the cancer cells. (This line of research is ongoing and reportedly shows promise.) With the nanoparticles suspended in a salt-water solution, the test tube unexpectedly ignited. Somehow the water was dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen and then burning, allegedly giving off more energy than went into generating the radio waves...

This one looks like the real McCoy.

maybe.. maybe not.. nothing will develop id say.. hope im wrong tho.

What makes you say this is the real thing? To me it looks just the same as all the other BS free energy devices. The amount of energy needed to break water up into H and O is exactly the same as the energy given off when they reunite. Even with perfect efficiency this device doesn't generate power.

me i say "eh" and dont think about it..

jim thinks a sec and spews logic on your face..

i doubt he'd put it so bluntly tho.. maybe i shouldnt either.. oh well.

-G

Kanzius has found a novel way of breaking down water into 2×H2 and O2. It might even be better than electrolysis. I don’t know.

But I do know that it cannot produce any more energy than it requires. Even in systems where you use resonance to get a very impressive result from what seems like a very small input, you’re not getting more energy out than in.

It wasn't oxygen and hydrogen!

This combustion happens a lot in nanoparticle labs, and is a well known phenomenon. Copper and Gold nanoparticles catalyze the breakdown of water plus atmospheric carbon monoxide to give carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas, which is explosive.

CO+H2O → H2+CO2 (catalyzed by Cu and Au nanoparticles)

It is unlikely that retired TV-station owner and broadcast engineer John Kanzius would have known this, but every nano-chemist does.


[edit on 31-10-2007 by Saurus]

Why do I suspect it may be the real deal? Because it was an accidental discovery. He didn't set out to solve the energy problem but was experimenting on possible cancer treatments with nanoparticles. We know nanoparticles need very little energy to start reacting. I am thinking they may be behind the lower input.

Many of us chemists have made this exact same discovery quite by accident, and I can guarantee you that it is something we thereafter try to avoid!

[edit on 31-10-2007 by Saurus]

reply to post by Saurus

Plus, there's the salt content. Sodium & Chlorine by themselves are explosive and may somehow be contributing to the higher temperature yield.

You're not getting what I'm saying...

When working with gold and copper nanotubes, hydrogen gas is frequently emitted. Hydrogen gas burns.

The phenomenon observed by the radio guy could happen daily in all nanolabs (where precautions are not taken to remove the hydrogen gas.)

The reaction is well understood. There is no mystery. What the radio guy observed is commonly observed by many, many nano-chemists, and the reasons for the burning is well known.

The energy released was not even due to the radio waves, but to the reaction.

reply to post by Saurus
You're saying hydrogen is released by water even if it just sits there; because of the nanotubes. I take it the gold is unaffected and could be reused?

What the article is suggesting is that in the field of 13.56MHz radio frequency the reaction YOU are describing seems to be exponentially enhanced.

Fair enough...

I agree that certain frequencies could increase the rate of release of hydrogen gas...

Constantly referring to someone conducting experiments with nanoparticles in order to cure cancer as a "radio guy" is more than a little obnoxious, I'd say.

It seems to me the "discovery" isn't the reaction, but the fact that radio waves at a controlled frequency could cause the reaction... From what I can tell, and I'm no nano-scientist, this isn't the same thing that you see in nanolabs "everyday", there's the possibility that the radio waves as a catalyst may get an "energy discount" for the the same reaction.

No hard research has been conducted as yet -- it's only been a few months since the water first caught fire -- but Dr. Roy speculates that because the 13.56-MHz radio frequency is a harmonic of the natural frequency of sodium ions, the waves are causing these positive ions to vibrate intensely. Van der Waal's effects attract the oxygen end of water molecules to the positive sodium ions, and the vibration shakes the oxygen molecules hard enough to break the hydrogen bonds, freeing the hydrogen gas, which then ignites and burns. If true, the radio waves may be giving us electrolysis at a deep energy discount, allowing the flame to produce a net energy gain without breaking any thermodynamic laws.

No hard research has been conducted as yet -- it's only been a few months since the water first caught fire -- but Dr. Roy speculates that because the 13.56-MHz radio frequency is a harmonic of the natural frequency of sodium ions, the waves are causing these positive ions to vibrate intensely. Van der Waal's effects attract the oxygen end of water molecules to the positive sodium ions, and the vibration shakes the oxygen molecules hard enough to break the hydrogen bonds, freeing the hydrogen gas, which then ignites and burns. If true, the radio waves may be giving us electrolysis at a deep energy discount, allowing the flame to produce a net energy gain without breaking any thermodynamic laws.

-
My point is this...

- This is a commonly observed phenomenon.

- Hydrogen gas (which burns) is always released in this type of reaction.

- The researcher is claiming that in his own particular case of this frequently observed phenomenon, the flame produces a net energy gain without breaking any thermodynamic laws.

- The opening sentence of your quote:
No hard research has been conducted as yet.



I switch on a lightbulb. The tungsten filament heats up and glows. I claim that in this particular case, the tungsten filament is producing more energy than it uses. No hard research has been conducted as yet. What is the difference?