John Kansius and his spectacular burning salt water
` It would be darn useful if the most common liquid in the world - salt water - could be used as a fuel. John Kanzius, a Pennsylvania man, says that he accidentally discovered a way of doing this when trying to desalinize some saline water - with a radiofrequency field.
` Supposedly, his radiofrequency transmitter breaks up the water molecules and releases hydrogen, which can then be ignited and turn back into water - and the cycle continues.
` Kanzius is not a scientist, however; he's a former broadcasting executive. Speaking of broadcasts, this 'amazing new development' has been on news programs around the country, though curiously, it hasn't been much of a hit among physicists.
` Allegedly, the radiofrequency field breaks the oxygen away from the hydrogen in water, but my question is (besides "does it actually work?"); "if he really is doing this, then is more energy coming out of it than what was put in?"
` In fact, Kanzius says it can't, which indeed makes perfect sense because doing this would mean his device is the basis for a perpetual motion machine that uses salt water fuel. As you may know, any perpetual-motion machine - by definition - requires that the first law of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy) as well as the second (the law of entropy) be broken.
` So ask yourself, could he really do that?
` As my biology teacher has explained, certain molecules can be fuel because they contain stored energy. Carbohydrates, for example, are a plant's way to store solar energy, and when an animal's digestive system breaks them down, that energy is released.
` Water, however, it not one of them. Sure, people break the hydrogen atoms off the oxygen atoms all the time when converting water into hydrogen fuel.
` However, that takes a lot of energy - usually in the form of petroleum products (at least for now), which raises the question of whether or not hydrogen fuel technology is a good idea right now. See, burning hydrogen fuel cannot possibly make as much energy as it needs to be created in the first place, so exactly how is it more energy-efficient?
` Even so, hydrogen is still a fuel because it can be burned to create energy - and water. Water, on the other hand (with or without salt) requires a lot of force to break apart, and doing this to water merely drains an energy source rather than releasing energy.
` So really, water is an exhaust product, not a fuel, and every time someone says it is, they never do manage to demonstrate it. Some are even caught cheating the public by selling unwitting citizens their patented devices or water-based fuels.
` Stanley Meyer is one such hoaxer - self-proclaimed inventor of the 'water-powered car' - who was charged with "gross and egregious fraud" in 1996. Conspiracy theories about him spout that the oil companies did nothing but give him trouble, and eventually poisoned him at a restaurant in 1998. (The coroner said he died of an aneurysm, but he was bribed to say that, right?)
` No one ever did figure out how his fuel cell was supposed to work.
` In Kanzius' case, he does not claim that this process creates energy - all it really does is cause the radiofrequency emitter to eat brutal amounts of electricity - but he does insist on the possibility that the laws of physics will not get in his way.
` We shall see, Kanzius, we shall see.
4 comments:
Although the physical sciences and I are light years apart—I am the first to admit my ignorance—I cannot perceive how Kanzius’s whatever can be energy and cost effective. However, remember that I am an admittedly obtuse where science is concerned.
S. E. E. Quine
These fantastic claims are always amusing...more are examples of "get rich quick" schemes with smoke and mirrors surrounding pathetic science. And some do buy into the ideas. John Kanzius is such a case. Scientifically, it would be impossible to extract energy by producing hydrogen from water and then burning it since this would be a basis for a perpetual motion machine...and the U. S. Government has issued this warning:
ISSUED BY THE U.S. PATENT OFFICE
REGARDING APPLICATION OF PATENTS FOR
“PERPETUAL MOTION” DEVICES
“The views of the Patent Office are in accord with those scientists who have investigated the subject and are to the effect that such devices are physical impossibilities. The position of the Office can only be rebutted by a working model. ... The Office hesitates to accept fees from applicants who believe they have discovered Perpetual Motion, and deems it only fair to give such applicants a word of warning that fees cannot be recovered after the case has been considered by the Examiner”
So far, neither the “first law of thermodynamics” [the energy of an isolated system is constant] nor the “second law of thermodynamics” [the entropy of an isolated system increases in the course of a spontaneous change] has been demonstrated. Despite inventor’s failures and ulterior motives, the devices and ideas are interesting. A classic case: “In 1880 John Gamgee invented an engine - the zero motor - in which heat from the surroundings boiled liquid ammonia which drove a piston. Expansion then was supposed to result in spontaneous condensation, the liquid ammonia returning to a reservoir to complete the cycle. Gamgee was probably sincere, and managed to persuade the Chief Engineer of the US Navy of its potential use. This was at a time when it was not clear where the USA would find sufficient coal to fuel its growing fleet. The Secretary of State for the Navy, and even President Garfield inspected the motor. The problem is, of course, that the gas needs to be cooled below the temperature of the ambient air, to cause it to condense (in fact to -33 degrees centigrade). This would require more energy than was obtained from the piston stroke.”
See: “Eric's History of Perpetual Motion and Free Energy Machines”
http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html
On thermodynamics:
“LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS”
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html
Recent examples are the popular "cold fusion" and the work done by Randell Mills. This is one of those curious anomalies of science that generates considerable interest, draws reputable and well-educated personalities, casts doubts on certain aspects of physics, stimulates the prospect of hope for a better and prosperous future of unlimited energy. These types of individualistic claims are common, but this one is getting considerable attention for the above reasons and the fact that big bucks are being funneled into the project. I get a bit suspicious when one size fits all, but here are the salient points briefly. Is a well-established model of physics [Quantum Mechanics] to be debunked by Randell Mills's 1,000 page/$100+ book "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics" and revolutionary experimental claims at his laboratory?
This proposal that Randell Miss makes is akin to the old "cold fusion" observations several years ago. If you remember "cold fusion" was a serendipitous event discovered by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons [University of Utah] and initially and falsely determined to be a heat producing model and the result of nuclear fusion--star fuel. What a deal: Huge thermal energy releases and the absence of massive harmful radiation. All accomplished with a platinum electrode and heavy water at room temperature. Too good to believe and it was. Most physicists consider this phenomena an unexplained anomaly--"...highly reproducible excess heat phenomenon in gas plasma systems...."
But now, Randell Mills has come along and rekindled the quest for unlimited energy not by fusion but "chemically" and something quite brazen regarding the physics of the hydrogen atom and the formation of the "hydrino". Quantum mechanics claim that for hydrogen the lowest possible energy state is 13.6eV bound with the single proton and nothing lower has ever been discovered. Mills claims that there is a lower state and that what happens is that an electron somehow is pushed further into the nucleus releasing energy--abundant and clean energy. Well, there goes the history and heuristic values of quantum mechanics right out of the window. No wonder so many authoritative notables such as Steven Weinberg are skeptical. Argh--is it a sham, voodoo science, P. T. Barnum in disguise? Maybe not, for there has been a tremendous interest and influx of revenue into this proposed technology from the private sector and government: Mid-Atlantic utility Conectiv. and a proposal by Morgan Stanley Dean Witter recommending a public stock offering.
The point is that most of these ideas and inventions can be debunked and thrown in the trash can but there are however a few that can spark further research and may prove valuable. I have read that John Kanzius's claim of using RF to treat patients with certain types of cancer may be viable when coupled with nanotechnology by attaching or implanting metallic chips [that's the "nano" part] in or near cancer cells or tumors and radiating the area with RF. It may hold promise of non-invasive methods of treatment.
I've seen the videos on the web, it does indeed produce the mixture of gases. But I'm certain that there is a large loss of energy. At best it might make energy storage cheaper, but I don't think it would be safe, since the gases don't come off separate electrodes like when you use electrolysis. Stoichiometric mixtures burn really well(explode well?), and all it takes is a spark. As for how much energy is being used to produce that mixture unless he's using a maser, and 100% of the RF is being absorbed in his saline solution, it has got to be a loosing situation. Thing is, it'll probably be a lot of money soon parted from more than a few fools.
` Where did the comment I posted before go? Weird....
` Thanks for your comments, everyone!
` Well, I'm about to make another post shortly, rather than go with one of the three or four I've been contemplating.
` As you will see, my life's been really hectic.
Post a Comment