Esoteric Dissertations from a One-Track Mind

September 16, 2007

Energy Ignorance: Making Saltwater Burn

Filed under: culture, media, science — codesmithy @ 12:51 am

The above video is infuriating to say the least. Unquestionably, John Kanzius did something cool. But the lead-in of an inventor did something that could change the world is patently false. Basically, he found a way to break the chemical bonds of water using radio waves to form hydrogen and oxygen which promptly recombines, producing water. The reaction is purely chemical, not nuclear. In short, it is a Rube Goldberg machine, a complicated means of generating power when an electric motor would have been sufficient. The reason for the amazement is that we don’t see the intense radio waves necessary to break the chemical bonds in the first place and semi-amazing feat of making water burn. However, basic scientific principles such as conservation of energy should be broadly apparent even in the most basic observation. The most important question to whether saltwater is an viable energy source is also unasked: how much energy does it take to run the machine that generates the radio waves, and how much energy is produced? It is safe to say the answer is: it takes more energy to run the machine than is produced because some of energy is wasted, radio waves that missed chemical bonds and went elsewhere, heat lost in the reaction, etc.

The “news” report as it stands is merely sensationalist. It isn’t news, it is entertainment. It doesn’t represent the best thinking in society. It represents the basest. How could anyone involved in that report have passed high-school, let alone college? The probable answer is: they didn’t think about it. They just reported the most wild speculation and qualified it. Although, they implied much stronger claims and desperately tried to shore up validity of the report and the findings, but it was merely all appearance. Why hasn’t a business picked up on Kanzius’ invention? Because they are not that stupid, and if they were, they would quickly go out of business!

That said, I don’t blame Mr. Kanzius at all. He had a good idea for curing cancer. However, the difficult part is developing the nano-machines or viruses that will attach themselves to cancer cells, not killing the cancer cells after they have been tagged. Although, he was probably just working in the area that he understood better first.

So, the problem isn’t with Mr. Kanzius, the problem is with the news station that ran the report. The one that put out speculation, mindless blather and fabricated fantasy without the most basic consultation with the equivalent of a high-school physics teacher.

This type of reporting damages society. People with no understanding of science will use this report as evidence that technology will save us. I can’t dissuade them. I don’t own a television network. This blog doesn’t generate that much traffic. Simply put, I can’t undo the damage Channel 3 has done. They are actively misinforming people. As, Harry Frankfurt argues in “On Bullshit,” bullshit is more damaging to the truth than lying. In lying, one knows the truth but seeks to actively hide it. Bullshit, on the other hand, is what this report is. It shows a capricious disregard for what the truth actually is, as if it is irrelevant. I would be highly surprised if WKYC Channel 3 ever mentioned the report again.

The report speaks to energy superstition instead of reason. With the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism, energy is the single most important environmental, economic and political issue of my life-time. The view broadcast of energy is so shallow. Energy is something that comes out of outlet, much like meat comes from the store. Not something to be understood, but esoteric magic. How did the media develop into a conduit of such mindless blather? Is it because of advertising, or because people do not demand better?

Correction: it is Kanzius not Kansas

Advertisements

30 Comments »

  1. Any form of new energy should be praised until they’re proven. Your ignorant, or one track mind, stance on this topic is meaningless propoganda design to allow other to loose interest in this dicovery. Others have found a way to produce enough energy to drive a vehicle such as this.

    Or many similar discoveries. You need to pick on someone who has proven to drive a vehicle using water. Most of us know that burning salt water is just speculation until it’s proven.

    Comment by Jamie Zimmerhofle — November 8, 2007 @ 3:06 pm

  2. >>Any form of new energy should be praised until they’re proven.

    I don’t agree, I save my praise for energy sources that have some hope of working. Ones based on fundamentally undermining conservation of energy and thermodynamics are not worthwhile pursuits in my humble opinion. The reporting in the video that Jamie linked to is just as awful I complained about in this post, as is this one:
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/67009/water_powered_car/

    As for the motorcycle video, the answers to the most obvious questions are deliberately hidden. What is the fuel, chemically? Can’t answer that, but my best guess is that is probably methanol or ethanol, since it relatively easy to modify the combustion engine to run on one of those two fuels (supported by the fact one doesn’t see them drink it). But speculating about it is semi-worthless, because exposing the fakery would be relatively easy if the artificial limitations on information were removed, and people who were qualified were allowed to examine and test the evidence first-hand. Information hiding of this type is a typical trick of shysters.

    Secondly, given a “water-based” fuel to run your vehicle, the essential question for viability is how much energy does it take to make the fuel? According to thermodynamics, the predicted answer is: it will take more energy to make the fuel than produced, meaning it will never be competitive as an energy source, just a transport. Since it isn’t a sustainable energy source, it doesn’t solve the important problem of our age.

    I did not feel I was picking on Mr. Kansas. I was upset by the reporting. The airwaves do belong to the public and the are leased to T.V. stations to add value to society. In all these reports, I feel that the reporters, producers and T.V. stations fell well short of their duty to inform the public, especially when they label it as news. They’ve actively misinformed people. As I have written before: “To the extent that the media turns an uncritical eye to these charlatans is a disservice to us all and displays the extent to which those who claim to inform us will sell out their patrons and hovel them in ignorance for the service of personal profit.” I stand behind the point of the criticism, although in this case I don’t think Mr. Kansas was a charlatan, however, the other two may be.

    Oh, and Jamie, leave a real email address (or at least a plausible one) next time. Especially, if you are going to call me ignorant and call my posts propaganda, otherwise I’ll think you are just trying to get your point across instead of trying to have a constructive conversation, which is the underlying purpose of this blog.

    Comment by codesmithy — November 9, 2007 @ 7:33 am

  3. The above complaint is bogus. What is demonstrated is a phenomenon, not an application. The naysay negativity is that of a small mind. He is debunking raw data — the raw data cannot be disputed, it’s demonstrated and it’s repeatable.

    Every first discovery requires R&D which can take years to refine and make applicable to any given need. Edison discovered that electricity flowing through a resistive wire caused it to glow. It took him over a decade to figure out how to apply this discovery in a way that was practical. If he listened to everyone like codesmithy who said, “yah, but the thing burns out 15 seconds after the electricity is applied — it’s of no use,” we wouldn’t have light bulbs.

    The demonstration is only the very first step in a long process that may or may not result in a particular application — it may result in totally unforeseen application; we will never no if people with vision and entrepreneurial vision listened to people with small minds. The implications will be realized only after a few million are invested in researching its application.

    Comment by Frank Angel — November 12, 2007 @ 2:01 pm

  4. Mr. Angel, I’m having a hard time trying to discern what you are talking about. Is it the methanol or ethanol powered motor-cycle or the burning salt-water? Who is debunking raw data? What is this raw data that can’t be disputed, that you can make a fuel out of water or make salt-water ignite?

    Regardless, the news reports misleadingly try to paint these discoveries as something that they are not: an energy generation solution. There is a hope among people that mankind will find a cheap, abundant energy source to replace oil. All the news reports try to paint these discoveries as “the answer” to the energy source problem. They speculate about it, but one simple question would deflate those sensationalist desires: what is the energy out versus the energy put in? A question the reporters, tellingly, never ask.

    If you believe that you can get more energy out of any of these processes than is put in, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. I wrote this post to remind people that besides the minor amount of energy we get from tidal, nuclear and geothermal almost all of our energy comes directly or indirectly from the sun. Oil and other fossil fuel are a pool of solar energy trapped long ago. An energy reservoir that humanity has discovered how to exploit, but will run out. Thinking that water can act as a similar energy source through non-nuclear means is silly.

    I don’t mind people making the discoveries, what I do have a problem with is the anti-intellectual, sensationalist media playing it up for something that it is demonstrably not. If, Mr. Angel, you feel that laws of thermodynamics are made to be broken, please forgive me if I burst out laughing. I think you’ll have as much luck as you would honing Jedi mind powers, proving 2 + 2 = 5, or equivalently, building a perpetual motion machine, but don’t let me stop you and feel free to call me a nay-sayer. In fact, I would eagerly anticipate status reports on each of those endeavors, if you felt like sending them to me.

    As for your complaint that it was a “phenomenon” and not an “application” that was being discussed, and I’m afraid there is no polite way to say this but, your ability to comprehend what is being stated between the lines has to be nearly as poor as ability to provide antecedents for your pronouns. From the blog stats, I know you didn’t click on the motorcycle, water powered car link, or the original you-tube link. So, I guess I know where you stand as far as informing your opinion before giving it.

    Comment by codesmithy — November 13, 2007 @ 6:58 am

  5. […] around the concepts for something that doesn’t appear to be all hype at first glance, unlike other discoveries the media plays up. Given the reaction from the physics community, I think it is clear it shows some promise. […]

    Pingback by Garrett Lisi and a Theory of Everything « Esoteric Dissertations from a One-Track Mind — November 15, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

  6. I agree that the news reporters don’t seem to have a grasp of the difficulties here. I have to assume that they:

    1. Understand but don’t care to share the real story
    2. Don’t understand
    3. Know something we don’t and are hiding it from the public.

    I have not been able to find any published numbers about the amount of energy required to make this happen compared to the amount of energy released. Unless a person has seen those numbers, they can’t truly claim to know with certainty whether or not this system is a viable energy source.

    Remember, every fuel we have on earth requires as much energy to make as it releases when burned. All the energy for every fuel on this earth comes ultimately from two places: The Sun and the radioactive core of the planet. So to say that sea water _can’t_ be a fuel because it is a renewable resource would be incorrect. It is only renewable as long as the sun dumps energy into it.

    Here’s something to consider. Does this effect take place on water without salt? If not, then how much energy is required to dissolve the salt? When talking about seawater, that salt is dissolved (ultimately) because of the energy from the sun. So, if we say, just for argument’s sake, that seawater only could be a fuel, we wouldn’t necessarily be breaking the laws of TD because ultimately any energy in seawater would have come from the sun and can’t be replenished without the sun.

    Here’s another thing to consider. If in this case we burn saltwater and the exhaust from the reaction is clean water, then we don’t necessarily have a perpetual fuel because we don’t have the original compounds after the reaction takes place.

    Here’s something else. If the energy released in the burn is equal to the energy used by the radio wave transmitter, then we have a net loss of energy because we haven’t accounted for the energy used in dissolving the salt. Doesn’t that break the laws of TD? If those were the only three places to account for energy, then we would have to assume that the energy released by the burn would HAVE to be greater than the energy used by the transmitter. Of course, nothing is that simple. There are probably a lot of things happening that we don’t know about yet that need to be accounted for when figuring out the thermodyamics of this system.

    Before writing this off completely, I we need to see experimental numbers.

    Comment by Dan Richardson — November 28, 2007 @ 9:26 pm

  7. Here is a post with some calculations that debunk this without having to do any experiments.

    If the news companies had taken 2 hours to call a chemist before running the story then they would have known that it is not a viable fuel source.

    So, despite my first inclination to hope for the best, I have to admit that codesmithy is probably right in condemning the reporters for bad journalism.

    Comment by Dan Richardson — November 29, 2007 @ 12:58 am

  8. oops, here is the link.

    http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/28609695/m/778003727831/p/2

    Comment by Dan Richardson — November 29, 2007 @ 12:58 am

  9. Thanks for link Dan. It was fairly interesting to get a complete explanation of what was going on in the Kansas video. You did ask some good questions, and no I hadn’t accounted for every possible explanation for what was occurring without violating thermodynamics. However, I do have a good background in chemistry and I was aware of the relative magnitude of effects, even if my specific knowledge has gotten rusty. It is nice to see more evidence supporting my view. I appreciate your intellectual honesty also. It is refreshing to see.

    However, I must admit I was surprised by the degree of the energy loss. Mr. Kansas would have been better off with straight electrolysis.

    The underlying fact of the matter is to get a chemical energy release, a more reactive chemical has to produce less reactive products, and I knew from previous experience that it is extraordinarily tough to get more inert products than water and salt.

    There is an argument that without my premises being exactly right than my conclusion just happened to be right. Think of it as the 16/64 (cancel the six‘s) = 1/4 argument. Had I lucked out? My claim was that the reaction was.
    H20 -> H2 + O2 -> H20

    When the actual reaction was:
    4 H20 + O2 -> 2 H2O2 + 2 H2O

    Actually, I using the best case scenario.
    Peroxides decompose quite readily:
    2 H202 -> 2 H20 + O2, which is the overall reaction I described.

    So, unless a more inert chemical product was being produced, which the report made no mention of and was exceptionally unlikely, this process was loser. The fact that the oxygen escapes later doesn’t weaken my argument, it makes it stronger. This isn’t true generally, but it is true specifically in chemistry. In short, it wasn’t luck, it was attacking the argument where it was strongest.

    Again, my problem wasn’t with Mr. Kansas. It was with the media. Sensational claims deserve greater scrutiny and skepticism, and the media frequently engages in this game where they do the opposite. The only defense is to be able to think.

    Comment by codesmithy — November 29, 2007 @ 8:07 am

  10. I’ll admit, I’m no chemist. I’m a journalist by trade and I’m willing to bet you are not, Mr. Smithy. So lets be fair, I will forgive you for your inept grammar, even though you choose to point out the grammatical short comings of other posters here and try to say that it’s a mark of their intelligence level while your own grammar leaves much to be desired.
    That said, on to my question. According to what little amount of information I could find on this story on the internet; many members of the scientific community are taking this story somewhat seriously. Where you seem to point out flaws that you call obvious, others, who apparently aren’t as knowledgable as you see merit and potential in this discover. Now, since you yourself did not make this discovery and in your original post offer no proof as to why the discovery is so obviously bogus, I would venture to say that you are basically “talking out of your rear end.” In posts that followed, you offered explainations in the form of jargon or “techno babble,” but nothing that your average layman would understand, which leads me to believe that your explanations probably hold about as much water as tissue paper diaper. But I’m no chemist, I don’t know, it just seems to me that if you were really that knowledgable on the subject, you would have either already conducted a similar experiment yourself or come up with a better reason why Kansas’ is so bogus, I mean really, everyone already knows that a viable energy source has to put out more than you put into it. I think you’re full of it.

    Comment by acs — January 2, 2008 @ 6:47 pm

  11. Hi acs. Chemistry is a large and fascinating subject. As such, I am unable to condense the relevant aspects of it down to a level I believe you would find appropriate. People more expert than I have written whole books about the subject exactly for such a purpose, so I would suggest going down to the local library and checking one out if you were truly interested. Taking a class from a local community college would also be good if you have the time and means. Apparently, I should find a book on grammar.

    However, the relevant area is the “Law of Conservation of Energy.” It is also the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. This law has some surprising consequences that are directly relevant to the phenomenon observed. With a good understanding of the basics, the “techno-babble” should be transformed into something more understandable.

    I would love for you to post a link to a scientist that took this seriously along with his credentials.

    I don’t have the time, energy, or resources to reconstruct Mr. Kansas’ device to prove to you that it doesn’t work. Here’s an idea, since you are a journalist and think I’m full of it, why don’t you track down Mr. Kansas and do exactly what I suggested? That would really show me.

    Comment by codesmithy — January 3, 2008 @ 6:45 am

  12. “…I mean really, everyone already knows that a viable energy source has to put out more than you put into it. I think you’re full of it.”

    I’m sorry, acs, but when I read that, I just had to roll my eyes. It so beautifully and succinctly summarizes the problem the public has with understanding this phenomenon.

    One of the most well-established principles in science is the second law of thermodynamics, which essentially says (for the layman): “you CAN’T get more energy out than what is put in; in fact, you can’t even get the same amount of energy out as what is put in; you WILL have losses.” (To the more scientifically literate, it says: “entropy increases in closed systems.”)

    When codesmithy equated perpetual motion machines and 2+2=5 with this, it wasn’t really an exaggeration. You can’t get more energy out of breaking-up water molecule bonds than the energy it takes to break them up. It’s a very stable chemical.

    One could think of water as being in an “energy well” (low energy). In order to get energy from something, that something must decrease even more in energy (i.e., give off some energy—which can be harnessed for other purposes). But, breaking apart water into hydrogen and oxygen *raises* those molecules’ overall energy (at the expense of spending even more energy to accomplish this). Or, didn’t you get the memo about how hydrogen-powered vehicles operate by combining hydrogen and oxygen into water (the reverse process, which really does work), and harnessing the resulting energy?

    You can’t get energy both directions. It’s like saying it takes equal energy to ride a sled down a hill as to pull it back up.

    I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject; I’m not a chemist. But, I am an electrical engineer, so I do know *something* about energy and its transport and the principles that constrain it, and I have at least taken chemistry and physics courses at the college level (as well as physical electronics and other subjects of relevance, including an entire course exclusively on electromagnetic fields).

    codesmithy is right.

    Comment by J Edwards — January 24, 2008 @ 5:09 pm

  13. Can anyone tell me what the energy balance is with fuel oil?
    Drilling, extracting, transporting, pumping, fractionating (?), redistributing, re-pumping, igniting et.al. and the energy we get out.
    How does this compare to Kanzius’ energy equation?
    Is it then a comparison of the Laws of Thermodynamics or efficiency that matters?

    Comment by James Fusscas — April 6, 2008 @ 6:29 am

  14. Can anyone tell me what the energy balance is with fuel oil?

    At the end of the day, the energy balance is positive. This is only because we can ignore one key component which you can’t in Kanzuis’ approach. The chemical bonds in the fuel start in at a higher energy state as a given. This did not happen for free. Plants converted solar energy to form the higher energy bonds, then we discovered them and started exploiting them.

    How does this compare to Kanzius’ energy equation?

    Kanzius’ device is a huge loser from the get go. Water is already in a low energy state. He inefficiently breaks some of the bonds to create hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen, then burns the hydrogen. He is still left with hydrogen peroxide. Here are some values I got out of the 77th CRC.

    The enthalpy for Hydrogen Peroxide (liquid) is -187.8 kJ mol^(-1) Water is -241.8 kJ mol^(-1)(gas) and -285.8 kJ mol^(-1) (liquid) The hydrogen peroxide isn’t even being utilized in the reaction. Kanzius’ approach is actually worse than electrolysis. Oil is complex but a similar argument can be used for methane. Methane starts off at -74.6 kJ mol^(-1) this forms water which we already stated was -241.8 kJ mol^(-1) and carbon dioxide -393.5 kJ mol^(-1) in a clean burning reaction

    CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O -> -802.5 kJ exothermic
    4 H20 + O2 -> 2 H2O2 + 2 H2O (gas) -> 284 kJ endothermic (Kanzius)

    Is it then a comparison of the Laws of Thermodynamics or efficiency that matters?

    It is about starting off with a chemical reactant that readily produces lower energy products. Fossil fuels are the result of thousands of years of energy that plants and animals, for some reason, never got around to using. Think of it as energy we got as a result of inheritance. However, once it is gone, it is gone and we will have to move on to something else and live based on our own energy income.

    Comment by codesmithy — April 6, 2008 @ 8:51 am

  15. […] for Reuters.  One can compare and contrast the reporting to here to reporting displayed in “Energy Ignorance: Making Saltwater Burn.”  There are additional claims of different water-powered in the comments.  If Michelle […]

    Pingback by Reuters Falls for Water-Powered Car Hoax « Esoteric Dissertations from a One-Track Mind — June 14, 2008 @ 9:07 pm

  16. I don’t know about burning salt water, but it looks like Kanzius has come a long way in his fight against cancer. The June 22nd 2008 edition of the Naples Daily News (Naples, FL), had a front page article about Kanzius (he is apparently a snowbird to SW FL from PA). His cancer idea has come so far as to beginning human clinical trials. Lee Memorial Hospital in Ft. Myers, FL will be among the oncology centers around the country taking part in these trials. Gold nano-particles and specific antibodies will be used.

    Comment by John Rossi III — June 23, 2008 @ 9:12 pm

  17. Hi John,

    Here is the article you are apparently talking about:

    http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/jun/21/can-man-cure-cancer/

    It contains the same barely qualified claims of absurd speculation that I was complaining about before. It is disappointing to see nothing has changed. As for your claim that “his cancer idea has come so far as to beginning human clinical trials.” I suggest that you read harder.

    Every experiment by researchers has led them closer to clinical trials in humans, which the researchers believe could occur in three to five years.

    Also, when you are reading the article more closely, you may discover that they haven’t figured out how to get nano-particles into specific antibodies that will to go into cancer cells. What they have been doing is injecting particles in to cancerous tumors of lab animals and then zapping them with Kanzius’ device.

    Whether they are nano-machines or anti-bodies with nano-particles attached or embedded, that is the hard part of the problem as I pointed out before. Yes, Kanzius’ machine has potential given the development of a way to embed particles inside specific cells in the body. But, I hope you realize that is a medical breakthrough in and of itself. Given the discovery to tag individual cells of the body, Kanzius’ device is ancillary at best. Maybe he deserves some credit for the idea ,although, in fairness it has been a topic in Science-Fiction for years. Subsequently, I think who ever figures out how to tag individual cells deserves the most praise. If it turns out to be Kanzius, more power to him.

    But the article makes some other claims that are down-right ludicrous

    For example, if it can remove salt from sea water, the world might have an almost limitless supply of drinking water.

    Kanzius’ device is horrible for desalination. Breaking the hydrogen-oxygen bond is an awful road to go down from an engineering perspective, because the remainder of the process is going to be spent trying to recover that energy. Not to mention of radio waves that will invariably miss the bonds.

    It really surprises me how much blatant ignorance is thrown around this issue. I mean look at this article from the Daily Collegian
    http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/09/26/prof_tests_salt_water_energy.aspx

    You have a professor there. Why doesn’t the article give the energy efficiency of the device? If he is any sort of scientist, he must know. This is so intellectually painful for no good reason.

    Comment by codesmithy — June 24, 2008 @ 7:37 am

  18. I also tracked down Roy’s paper on the subject:

    http://www.rustumroy.com/Scans/Observations%20of%20polarized%20MRI%20vol%2012%20is%201.pdf

    It is so very disappointing because he just explains the phenomenon, not the efficiency. The good news was that I was right to begin with. It was water to water, not water to hydrogen-peroxide. The thing to notice is that there is no mention of a lower energy product, (just water to water) which means this process is a thermodynamic loser.

    Comment by codesmithy — June 24, 2008 @ 8:09 am

  19. […] As I wrote before: [T]he difficult part is developing the nano-machines or viruses that will attach themselves to cancer cells, not killing the cancer cells after they have been tagged. […]

    Pingback by Kanzius Redux « Esoteric Dissertations from a One-Track Mind — June 24, 2008 @ 9:40 am

  20. I have a degree in chemical engineering and worked for years in the energy business. The notion of a radio frequency induced chemical reaction (such as the one being discussed here) as a source of energy for doing useful work is completely laughable. Anyone with a degree in science or engineering should recognize this immediately. Of course, being able to heat things with radio waves is hardly revolutionary technology. I do it every day in my home microwave oven. Unfortunately, you cannot power your car with a microwave generator. The notion that you can speaks volumes to the degree of ignorance which now exists in our society. People who believe these things should not be put in charge of our energy future, but that seems to be the direction we are headed.

    Comment by Tom — July 1, 2008 @ 2:40 pm

  21. […] Medical (and Energy) Woo Continue I’m not exactly a fan of 60 Minutes, with its liberal biases, sloppy journalism, and uncritical, credulous reporting of various forms of quackery. Apparently, they’ve continued in that vein with another glowing report on John Kanzius’ “cancer-cure” machine, which is just an RF heater; using it to selectively kill cancer cells requires targeting molecules which bind only to the cancerous cells. The problem: such molecules exist for only very few cancers. This is the core problem of cancer treatment, differentiating the malignant cells from healthy ones, and Mr. Kanzius has done nothing to solve it. But then, this is the same machine, by the same man, that was claimed to “burn salt water,” a bit of simple radiation-powered electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen, and which was hailed as a revolutionary power source by those who don’t understand basic physics, such as conservation of energy. Codesmithy made these same points over 10 months ago. […]

    Pingback by Medical (and Energy) Woo Continue « Twisted One 151’s Weblog — July 21, 2008 @ 9:49 am

  22. I believe that everything is possible , Pretty big statement Huh. well you guys set around and talk about how this can’t work and you don’t even know a dam thing about it. You don’t know how much energy was used or if less could be used to create the same or better effects, or get more fuel. You can bet that if you really figured out the effect of oil consumption on our world you would come up with at least a worse case senerio. wars for oil- pollution not yet counted- deasiese not yet counted. on and on .

    Comment by victor — August 23, 2008 @ 7:07 pm

  23. Hi Victor,

    Everything’s possible? Turning lead in gold via a chemical process, is that possible? Telekinesis, is that possible? An invisible dragon in my garage, is that possible?

    People sometimes say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, I subscribe to Hume sensibilities in which we must count every non-occurrence is counted as evidence against the phenomenon. I won’t deny strong evidence for a particular case. For example, if a dragon like shape shows up on infrared looking roughly like a dragon when looking in my garage, etc. However, an unwillingness to answer the issue when it can easily be tested via an experiment (i.e. put Kanzius’ device on a low power setting so the hydrogen/oxygen doesn’t combust, capture the gas (possibly by displacing water ala high school chemistry), measure the amount of gas produced taking into account temperature and pressure and calculate the amount of energy it represents, compare it to the difference in readings on your power meter for amount of time that it took the device to generate the hydrogen/oxygen mix) must be recognized as huckstering at its finest. While I haven’t done the experiment with Kanzius’ device, I have done experiments like it. In fact, lots of people have. Every repeatable experiment has proven consistent with thermodynamics. So, really the question is, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, why do you believe the laws of thermodynamics have been suddenly overturned?

    To borrow a phrase from Lewis Black, thermodynamics is one thread in a larger tapestry I like to call reality. The fact is that we know a lot about thermodynamics. In order for Mr. Kanzius’ device to be a source of energy, it would be violating the laws of thermodynamics as was previously explained in the post and comments.

    The amazing thing about science, is that allows us to make these types of predictions. We take a collection of facts from numerous experiments and unify them into various laws, theories and principles. If you fault this approach, then let me paraphrase Richard Dawkins: science works, and anyone who cares to doubt it is encouraged to jump out the nearest tenth story window.

    Comment by codesmithy — August 24, 2008 @ 5:42 am

  24. “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

    Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Here is a link to the mathematical proof for those so inclined: http://kim.oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html.

    Quoted from the above link:

    “Suppose you are a programmer, and you are looking for bugs in a program. At first you cannot sleep at night because you are convinced that there must be a bug somewhere, you just haven’t found it yet. To find the bug, you test the program to see if you find something that doesn’t work as you expected. If you found something, it would be evidence that there was a bug. If you test the program a lot, and still find no evidence of a bug, this increases your confidence that there is no bug. In other words, it counts as evidence for the absence of a bug, and you are finally able to sleep better.

    After a while, your program is thoroughly tested, and you still find no evidence for a bug. You begin to suspect that there might not be a bug after all. However, if there is no bug, you will have no purpose as a programmer. You feel as if your life depends on the existence of a bug. You are now looking for the Bug that will save you. You believe that there must be a Bug, so you test your program even more thoroughly. When you still cannot find any evidence for a Bug, you start to rationalize: Although I cannot find any Bug, that does not prove that there is no Bug. You are now a true believer in the Bug.”

    Comment by Charlie — October 24, 2008 @ 11:28 pm

  25. The flame burns at 1500 degrees and keeps on for the period RF.

    The RF generator would just emit a special frequency (maybe combined with a few others – like a F-Sharp chord ;-)) and which just so happen to restonate with the underlying molecture structure of the medium, causing the bonds to break, releasing the component atoms. It’s not the intensity of the signal that matters (energy) IT’S THE SPECIAL FREQUENCIES.

    If you read up more on this, and actually research, you will find that this individual, the DoD and the DoE were in talks.

    I can’t find nothing else. It is likely his work is now classified and snapped up by the DoD and DoE, which if you know anything at all, you would know they have the blackop shit.

    Comment by Herman Schoenfeld — December 2, 2008 @ 11:11 am

  26. My last post got blocked.

    SUMMARY

    – an engineer who examined that device claimed the flame burns at 1500 degrees, and was “just incredible” indicating it was a viable technology as-is. WATCH THE VIDEO AGAIN AND SEE FOR YOURSELF.

    – The key to the RF signal are the FREQUENCIES not the ENERGY (amplitude).

    – The frequences would be a special set and related to fundamental natural constants involving those molecules and component atoms. Like an F-sharp chord on a piano/guiatar :-).

    – the emitted frequencies have the effect of turning the underlying molecular structure into a resonant cavity, breaking the bonds, and releasing the component atoms.

    – the trick to this device is knowing the frequencies to emit.

    The OP should bother to do the research before opining with authority. If he keeps going that way, he might just make professor!

    Comment by Herman Schoenfeld — December 2, 2008 @ 11:19 am

  27. Hi Herman, your last post wasn’t blocked. I look over all the comments before they show up. Sometimes it takes awhile.

    As for the points in the summary:

    1) the flame at 1500 degrees may be true, you need to get the hydrogen up to 1022 degrees F (550 C) before it will even ignite (http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/Safety-1.htm). It doesn’t change anything I wrote in the slightest.

    2) As for, “the key to the RF signal are the FREQUENCIES not the ENERGY (amplitude).” I don’t see why you mention the “signal”, the relevant level of investigation is what is happening to the chemical bonds at the quantum level. Regardless, it doesn’t change my analysis.

    The frequences would be a special set and related to fundamental natural constants involving those molecules and component atoms. Like an F-sharp chord on a piano/guiatar :-).

    – the emitted frequencies have the effect of turning the underlying molecular structure into a resonant cavity, breaking the bonds, and releasing the component atoms

    – the trick to this device is knowing the frequencies to emit.

    Resonance doesn’t violate thermodynamics.

    The OP should bother to do the research before opining with authority. If he keeps going that way, he might just make professor!

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at your contempt for higher learning. Ignorance is its own punishment. It is just unfortunate that its victims are so unaware of their plight.

    Comment by codesmithy — December 3, 2008 @ 7:43 am

  28. No one but you claims there is a violation of thermodynamics.

    The device works, as can be seen on video, and as engineers praised it on interview.

    JUST LIKE AN OPERA SINGER BREAKS A CLASS WITH HER HIGH PITCH VOICE

    A SPECIAL SET OF FREQUENCES CAN BREAK MOLECULAR BONDS

    Comment by Herman Schoenfeld — January 10, 2009 @ 4:09 am

  29. this has been demonstrated with regular water too, except with the reg water version, electrodes are places in the water causing the hydrogen and oxygen separation. Im envisioning a huge electrode like generators, and/or massive frequency generators that burn salt water too… think of output 100 times that of conventional coal electric plants. Im sticking with edison on this one. this is just the beginning of affordable energy for the masses. remember though.. look not to man for salvation, but only to God, the only way to true life. (Jesus). All good things are just another gift from God given to man.

    Comment by blogster — January 13, 2009 @ 6:03 am

  30. […] “90 Minutes in Heaven” is top, followed by Energy Ignorance: Making Saltwater Burn Marie Antoinette and “Let Them Eat Cake” Reuters Falls for Water-Powered Car Hoax […]

    Pingback by Responses to Lea Anne « Esoteric Dissertations from a One-Track Mind — March 6, 2010 @ 10:23 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: