The real problem is the lack of information. Whether it's viable or
just a scientific curiosity depends on a lot of information that has
not been provided.
How much power is required to get the reaction started?
(How big a battery to start the car?)
If it needs 2KW of microwave energy for 10 minutes to start the
reaction, you're looking at a huge (and heavy) battery.
Can the reaction generate enough power to be self-sustaining?
(Once started, can it continue to run?)
It has to provide power to keep the reaction going, plus power to move
the vehicle and power to recharge the starting battery.
The Stirling engine is an attention getter, but they generally don't
provide enough power to move even a small vehicle.
The Tesla coil is an impressive display of "transferring" electrical
energy without wires, but no one is powering vehicles or driving water
pumps that way because of the inefficiency. The efficiency of burning
saltwater has not yet been determined ;-)
I'm 60 and I did this as a seventh grade science project (with fresh
water and an acid additive), using a battery and carbon rods. Science
teacher wouldn't let me do it with salt water, because of the release
of chlorine gas.
Very impressive for the judges as I would lift the collection tube of
hydrogen off the, rod turn it over and put a match to it and get a pop
from the hydrogen burning.
However, the energy in was greater than the energy out, so no big deal
Amazing how stupid the media can be. Obviously it takes more energy to
break up the water then is produced by burning it again. Is RF any more
efficient than electrolysis? Very unlikely.
The cancer cure is probably just as silly. It is possible that the metals
might be selectively attracted to the tumors, but he probably didn't
determine that at 3am. And if they are, then it would probably be better to
attach something toxic to them than to try to heat them with RF.
There isn't anything new about splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen,
then burning the hydrogen.
Trouble is, it's impossible to get as much energy back out of burning
the hydrogen as you have to put into the water to decompose it in the
NoOne N Particular wrote:
| I think there must be something else going on. Correct me if I'm
| wrong, but I seem to remember that the flame produced by hydrogen
| burning is nearly colorless?? What was making his flame so red?
WAG: There's a surplus of hydrogen available and the flame is cooler
than if there'd been more oxygen.
Kind of like the way an acetylene flame changes color (colour,
eastponders) as you adjust the oxygen flow on a welding torch.
DeSoto, Iowa USA
|| WAG: There's a surplus of hydrogen available and the flame is
|| cooler than if there'd been more oxygen.
|| Kind of like the way an acetylene flame changes color (colour,
|| eastponders) as you adjust the oxygen flow on a welding torch.
| It was "salt water". So there is sodium around, which would color
| the flame orange. elementary, my dears.
(Being glad I said "WAG:) Doh!
DeSoto, Iowa USA
But, but, but as a mineral, alumin(i)um is usually found as an oxide. It
wasn't until after an expensive, energy-intensive way was found to free
aluminum from its oxide that the metal became really useful. It is true
that aluminum forms a protective oxide layer when exposed to air (in
contrast to iron, which gets an autocatalytic layer of rust that eats
further and further into the metal).
Freeing up hydrogen by letting water react with aluminum seems an
uneconomical way to generate fuel.
Where did the RF energy come from anyway? In the article some guy
talked about 24 VDC, cell towers, etc. generating 400 watts. So what???
That energy is dispersed so much that, by the time you get a few
hundred feet from the tower, its down to milli or microwatts. Did
y'all notice the HUGE machine that was producing the RF in the article?
Was that "free energy"? I can't beleive how gullible people can be.
The only positive thing about it is that if the news media is busy
being suckered in by stuff like this, they aren't out there starting any
As far as "new" goes, Tesla had it first, anyway, at least the RF part.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.