Salt Water as a Power Source?

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by wacko

maybe these radio waves could create 10 units of energy and we get 8 units out of it. that would be like 80% efficiency.

No, I'm sorry, but they can't. The inescapable fact of the matter is that the video you posted represents one of two things:

1. A scam run by someone who understands the reactions taking place.
2. A demonstration of complete ignorance and extraordinary self-delusion by someone who does NOT understand the reactions taking place.

It is one of those two, and cannot possibly be anything else. My money is on it being a scam.

In any case you need to accept the fact that in this universe in which we live, salt water is NOT a fuel, no matter what kind of radio waves you transmit through it.

[anotherT34C]

Nah, he was just an old dude trying to cure the cancer he was afflicted with. And it's a pretty cool effect, in any case.

Feel free to blame those fools in the media for jumping to grandiose conclusions without checking with the local community college.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Lake-

Wasn't it Jefferson who said the people would ge the government they deserved? They'll get the future they deserve, too. For better or worse.

...it was de Tocqueville, a French philosopher better known as Alexis-Charles-Henri Clére de Tocqueville. I believe the entire quote was: "In democracy, the people get the government they deserve."

A wise man, that de Tocqueville. He also said, "No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. '

[hellosailor]

"A demonstration ...by someone who does NOT understand the reactions taking place"
Uh-oh, nuclear fusion in the hands of untrained operators. Looks like a Darwin Award will be placed over the crater that was his home town, if he succeeds.

[bstreep]

OK, this discussion is getting way old.

This is just plain carp, and a visit back to high school chemistry will remind you of how impossible this is.

[Bash]

...for those of you despairing of the media coverage on this discovery

Burning Salt Water Update – Debunking Salt Water Fuel - Popular Mechanics

[Bash]

...of researchers at Penn State who are taking the discovery seriously:

GoErie.com: PSU to study Kanzius invention

[anotherT34C]

Science and the media have a strained relationship. Scientists are extraordinarily conservative and exact in their language, and the media, in their quest to sell papers or boost ratings, is... not.

This tends to give the public the false impression that science proceeds in grandiose leaps, where with every leap, all preceeding science has been proved false. In fact, science tends to plod along at a more or less steady pace, each new bit building on the accumulated preceeding bits.

The false impression the public has, does enormous harm to scientists credibility, which is particularly dangerous when it comes time for scientists to give warning.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Bash

...of researchers at Penn State who are taking the discovery seriously:

Bunkum !!!

Rustum Roy is not a Pennsylvania State University researcher, he’s a professor Emeritus, and an infamous contrarian.

Here’s his* paper, “Observations of polarised RF radiation catalysis of dissociation of H2O-NaCl solutions”, published in Materials Research Innovations**, Volume 12, Number 1, 3-6 (March 2008).
➥ http://www.rustumroy.com/Scans/Obser...2%20is%201.pdf

* by R. (Rustum) Roy*, M. L. Rao, and John Kanzius

* and Roy’s website: ➥ Friends of Health

** Materials Research Innovations accept papers in all areas of materials research: metals polymers ceramics composites electronic materials and biomaterials. Papers may be experimental or theoretical and report on: -Synthesis of new phases or composites -New processes for making new materrials or for making them better faster cheaper "greener" -New characterization tools and their application -Properties of new materials -New devices based on new materials -New theories or correlations to explain observations This journal-because of its super peer review procedures-is especially suited for the publication of results which are so new so unexpected that they are likely to be rejected by tradition-bound journals. This journal invites readers to submit papers covering nontraditional topics at the frontier of science and technology and their management. The journal will publish original papers of different length conference announcements and reports. It invites special reviews that link important current active areas to their roots in basic science.

Super peer review is based on reviewing the authors, not the particular piece of work. Moreover, that review can be done easily and on objective criteria. What is the major criterion? That the author (at least one) shall have published in the open, often peer-reviewed (!!) literature, a large (30-50 papers) body of work.

➥ in-cites - Journals - Materials Research Innovations

[bstreep]

From the paper's conclusion:

"The flame is a burning reaction, probably of an intimate mixture of hydrogen oxygen and the ambient air".

REALLY? "PROBABLY"? No more definitive than PROBABLY?

What a perfect example of a "scientist" puking out junk science on paper.

Notice that in the 4 pages of garbage science, there is NO EFFORT to quantify the energy expended (the RF) versus the energy liberated - and that, folks, is the crux of the discussion.

[mesquaukee]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

E=mc^2 refers to the rest mass of a particle. That is, the energy required to create that complete particle from vacuum. It may suprise folks to learn that this happens all the time. When you clap your hands, for instance, the kinetic energy of the particles that make up your claping hand gets transfered to the vacuum and 'creates' a few light particles. Most of the time, the particles vanish quickly in a blip of light. This is a smaller scale version of what happens in a particle collider. So I'd have to correct you that matter CAN in fact, be created. Energy cannot (well... not exactly).

I'd also correct you that the Earth is not properly a semi-closed system. The Earth + the Sun is.

Matter was not created. It was transformed from part of the energy of the hands striking each other.
E=MV^2 where; M=mass of hands, V= velocity of hands.
C just refers to the velocity of light

[Captain Bill]

I wouldn't call this a scientific study, but it is an interesting observation. The author clearly states that he is not claiming that he is getting more energy out than he is putting in. Given that statement it is clear the author is not claiming that this is a new energy "source", despite the proclomations of the mindless talking heads in the media.

The only thing that I might grant is that this seems to be a new means of generating hydrogen from water. Now the question is, is this more efficient than existing electrolysis or thermal dissociation. Both of which, by the way, are energy losing propositions. So far as I can tell there are only four power "sources" on the planet, solar, geothermal, gravitational, and Nuclear fission. Someday we may be able to add man made fusion to the list, but not yet. For those that might be prone to argue, Wind, Biofuels, hydroelectric, and currents are types of solar energy. Petroleum and coal are simply fossil solar energy. Gravitational energy is tidal energy.

[highseas]

Wave energy is the future,check out; SyncWave Energy Incorporated.Now I just need the portable model!

[Bash]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Bunkum !!!
Rustum Roy is not a Pennsylvania State University researcher, he’s a professor Emeritus, and an infamous contrarian.

Professors Emeriti are an important part of the research faculty at every major research university in this country.

Professor Roy holds an astounding three emeritus postions at PSU: one in solid state (a field in which he formerly held an endowed chair), another in materials, and a third in STS. At the same time, he holds a position as Visiting Distinguished Professor of Materials at Arizona State, and as Visiting Professor of Medicine at the University of Arizona. He is generally considered one of the top four or five materials scientists in the nation, having authored over 1,000 papers, and is the most senior member of the National Academy of Sciences in ceramics, a field in which he has pioneered any number of important discoveries. He is also a member of the national science academies of Sweden, Japan, Russia and India.

Professor Roy recently testified in the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Technology and Research, and thereafter received a standing ovation from the committee members. This is the only time that such a thing has happened in the 16-year history of the committee.

He revels in the term "contrarian" which was first bestowed upon him, I believe, by Newsweek magazine. This is largely the result of his own critiques of academic science from the inside. He has long been a champion of inderdisciplinarity, and these days his opinions are seen as being far more mainstream than they were in the 50s and 60s.

I have never personally met Professor Roy, but I've had the opportunity to work with two other members of the National Academy of Sciences, and I from that experience I can assure you that they don't vote lightweights into the academy.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by bstreep

What a perfect example of a "scientist" puking out junk science on paper.

...you'll see that the paper qualifies itself as a preliminary study. This is a technical distinction. In the discourse of academic science, a preliminary study is conducted to determine whether further research is warranted. Parenthetically, it's nearly impossible to get NSF funding unless and until a preliminary study has been published.

What this study confirms is that the phenomenon you saw in the video was able to be independently confirmed under controlled laboratory conditions.