John Smith I wrote:
Tony Jaa wrote:
Water burns!
Man looking for cancer cure hopes to solve energy crisis
...

This video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lud1qceKqyQ

shows John Kanzius sticking his hand into the field/path of the RF from
the machine--I doubt if that is a microwave freq.

I can't seem to find a link on the man which states the freq(s) he is
using ...

Regards,
JS


http://youtube.com/watch?v=CwughofIC...elated&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=P9LhJ0AqI...elated&search=

A couple more links, including one where a congressman is getting
involved and advocating federal funding for development of this mans
discovery ...

Regards,
JS

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
John Smith I wrote:
Tony Jaa wrote:
Water burns!
Man looking for cancer cure hopes to solve energy crisis
...

This video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lud1qceKqyQ

shows John Kanzius sticking his hand into the field/path of the RF from
the machine--I doubt if that is a microwave freq.

I can't seem to find a link on the man which states the freq(s) he is
using ...

Regards,
JS


http://youtube.com/watch?v=CwughofIC...elated&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=P9LhJ0AqI...elated&search=

A couple more links, including one where a congressman is getting involved
and advocating federal funding for development of this mans discovery ...

Regards,
JS

It doesnt take much to tell that the flame is a plasma arc, not hydrogen as
claimed. A neon sign transformer would probably be much more efficent.

Jimmie D wrote:

...
It doesnt take much to tell that the flame is a plasma arc, not hydrogen as
claimed. A neon sign transformer would probably be much more efficent.



The whole point of the paper towel is to prove it is not a plasma arc,
which would burn the paper towel ...

View it again ...

JS

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Jimmie D wrote:

...
It doesnt take much to tell that the flame is a plasma arc, not hydrogen
as claimed. A neon sign transformer would probably be much more efficent.

The whole point of the paper towel is to prove it is not a plasma arc,
which would burn the paper towel ...

View it again ...

JS

Maybe not if it is wet with salt water. If that were hydrogen you wouldnt
even see the flame. There are no bubbles of gas in the tube.
Ive seen plasma flame very similar to this when playing with an old
microwave. While zapping old disk I have seen plasma flames that look
exacltly like thiose rise up from the disk, hey maybe thats a new form of
energy too.

Jimmie

Jimmie D wrote:

...

Sodium Chloride (salt) contains sodium (DUH! Huh?), well guess what,
sodium ions impart a yellow color to the flame and make it visible.

Hydrogen is lighter than air (the hindenburg! Duh, again!) this makes
the gas being emitted very anxious to head towards the ceiling. This
also is causing heat to be convected upwards RAPIDLY!

Result, paper towel is unburned.

If it were a plasma arc, the paper towel would be one electrode. Ever
see electrodes made of metal melt in a plasma arc? Carbon electrodes
burn away?

Nuff said ...

Regards,
JS

On Jun 5, 7:24 am, Jim Higgins wrote:

It's induction coupled plasma, not arc discharge plasma.

But let's explore the claim that the water is "burning." If water
burns, what are the reactants and what are the reaction products?

If it's hydrogen that's burning, then it was derived from the water by
applying enough energy to split the water molecule... and if this is
really the case then you've input as much energy in the form of RF as
you get back by burning the (allegedly) produced hydrogen.

Not necessarily. It could be more, less, or the same depending on the
precise nature of the reaction.

There's this nagging little thing called conservation of energy and
matter and getting more energy out of this particular system than you
put into it is a violation of the fundamental laws of physics and
chemistry.

True, but one must also consider the initial and final chemical energy
states in order to make a complete energy analysis. One can, for
example, obtain a great deal of energy from gasoline by expending a
small amount of ignition energy without violating conservation of
energy.

Thanks for the interesting induction coupled plasma discussion.

73, ac6xg


What's really happening is that electrons are being excited to higher
energy levels by application of an intense RF field and upon "falling
back" to their original state release the difference in energy between
the higher and lower states. It's not "burning" in the classic sense
of the term.

Here's a decent explanation of how induction coupled plasma is used in
analytical chemistry.http://www.cee.vt.edu/ewr/environmen...r/icp/icp.html

This invention will never withstand strict scientific review because
it will be trivial to demonstrate that it doesn't produce more power
than is input in the form of RF. No net excess power produced means
no new power source.

It's almost frightening that hams would consider the claims for this
thing to be valid. Not that I expect hams to be competent in every
scientific discipline, but there are some basic fundamentals
applicable to how the universe operates...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jim Kelley wrote:
On Jun 5, 7:24 am, Jim Higgins wrote:

It's induction coupled plasma, not arc discharge plasma.

But let's explore the claim that the water is "burning." If water
burns, what are the reactants and what are the reaction products?

If it's hydrogen that's burning, then it was derived from the water by
applying enough energy to split the water molecule... and if this is
really the case then you've input as much energy in the form of RF as
you get back by burning the (allegedly) produced hydrogen.

Not necessarily. It could be more, less, or the same depending on the
precise nature of the reaction.

There's this nagging little thing called conservation of energy and
matter and getting more energy out of this particular system than you
put into it is a violation of the fundamental laws of physics and
chemistry.

True, but one must also consider the initial and final chemical energy
states in order to make a complete energy analysis. One can, for
example, obtain a great deal of energy from gasoline by expending a
small amount of ignition energy without violating conservation of
energy.

Thanks for the interesting induction coupled plasma discussion.

73, ac6xg



Mr Higgins is correct, it is scary what people will believe, even when
something obvious is mentioned, like "conservation of energy".

I'd like to know what possible "final chemical energy states" might
exist here. What miracles occurred to release more energy from the
hydrogen? Combining with chlorine? Maybe, but where did the energy to
free the chlorine come from? None of the combinations will release more
than it took to free the elements from the compounds.

I'd love to find out that I'm wrong, though.

tom
K0TAR

Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:16:34 -0000, Jim Kelley
wrote:


On Jun 5, 7:24 am, Jim Higgins wrote:


It's induction coupled plasma, not arc discharge plasma.

But let's explore the claim that the water is "burning." If water
burns, what are the reactants and what are the reaction products?

If it's hydrogen that's burning, then it was derived from the water by
applying enough energy to split the water molecule... and if this is
really the case then you've input as much energy in the form of RF as
you get back by burning the (allegedly) produced hydrogen.

Not necessarily. It could be more, less, or the same depending on the
precise nature of the reaction.


OK... so would you mind explaining one or more variations on "precise
nature" that would make for a meaningful difference in energy?

Here's the thing. You stated that "you've input as much energy in the
form of RF as you get back by burning the (allegedly) produced
hydrogen." I'm merely pointing out that there is nothing about the
physics and chemistry here which makes that guarantee. As I went on
to say, a complete energy analysis requires that the initial and final
energy states must also be considered. If the final energy state is
higher than the initial state, then more energy will be input than
released in the reaction. If the final energy state is lower than the
initial energy state then more energy is released than is input.
Total energy is certainly conserved in any case.

I'm sure you can see my point here. It's far from controversial.

73, ac6xg

On 5 Jun, 07:24, Jim Higgins wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:42:00 -0700, John Smith I





wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

...

Sodium Chloride (salt) contains sodium (DUH! Huh?), well guess what,
sodium ions impart a yellow color to the flame and make it visible.

Hydrogen is lighter than air (the hindenburg! Duh, again!) this makes
the gas being emitted very anxious to head towards the ceiling. This
also is causing heat to be convected upwards RAPIDLY!

Result, paper towel is unburned.

If it were a plasma arc, the paper towel would be one electrode. Ever
see electrodes made of metal melt in a plasma arc? Carbon electrodes
burn away?

Nuff said ...

Regards, JS

It's induction coupled plasma, not arc discharge plasma.

But let's explore the claim that the water is "burning." If water
burns, what are the reactants and what are the reaction products?

If it's hydrogen that's burning, then it was derived from the water by
applying enough energy to split the water molecule... and if this is
really the case then you've input as much energy in the form of RF as
you get back by burning the (allegedly) produced hydrogen.

There's this nagging little thing called conservation of energy and
matter and getting more energy out of this particular system than you
put into it is a violation of the fundamental laws of physics and
chemistry.

What's really happening is that electrons are being excited to higher
energy levels by application of an intense RF field and upon "falling
back" to their original state release the difference in energy between
the higher and lower states. It's not "burning" in the classic sense
of the term.

Here's a decent explanation of how induction coupled plasma is used in
analytical chemistry.http://www.cee.vt.edu/ewr/environmen...r/icp/icp.html

This invention will never withstand strict scientific review because
it will be trivial to demonstrate that it doesn't produce more power
than is input in the form of RF. No net excess power produced means
no new power source.

It's almost frightening that hams would consider the claims for this
thing to be valid. Not that I expect hams to be competent in every
scientific discipline, but there are some basic fundamentals
applicable to how the universe operates...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The question is not what he is striving for is a valid quest.
The question is should the press or media decide on it's validity
and possibly consider the censoring of the story. Some people
on this newsgroup are angry because the story has been given
publicity that they feel is undeserved and harmfull to the minds
of some readers. They want to squash the idea by ridicule or
censorship since in their judgement it propulgates falsities
about science. If the minority in science who wish to decide
what is and what is not harmfull or fruitfull to the community
then the study of science itself is not required and
neither is debate.
Art

On 5 Jun, 11:29, Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:20:12 -0700, art wrote:
The question is not what he is striving for is a valid quest.
The question is should the press or media decide on it's validity
and possibly consider the censoring of the story. Some people
on this newsgroup are angry because the story has been given
publicity that they feel is undeserved and harmfull to the minds
of some readers. They want to squash the idea by ridicule or
censorship since in their judgement it propulgates falsities
about science. If the minority in science who wish to decide
what is and what is not harmfull or fruitfull to the community
then the study of science itself is not required and
neither is debate.
Art

I guess I'm one of the "angry" one... because this is yet another
case of bad science reported to a public that is incapable of telling
good science from bad science and which in this case wasn't even
offered the opportunity unless it was via knowledge gained from
elsewhere.
O.K. your complaint is noted.
Should the press add a disclaimer of the
veracity of the claims?
Should one have a trial with the assumption that
what is said is correct and not prematually presumed to be false?
At what degree level would one have to be a legitamate judge?
Should the Supreme Court be councilled before a statement is allowed
to be made?
Should the President council Congress before he faces the nation?
Should not YOU council others before you make a statement aboyut
others?
Lewellyn made an allegtation about the poor state of education of
other than himself
should he be stoned to death?
This a simple argument over something that was reported and YOU are
angry.
And you want your comments to be removed, but for why?
Do you consider that they may not be valid or stand the test of time?

This newsgroup allows you, an unknown to express his thinking
as a term of free speech while you on the other hand want to
stilt the free speech of others. Your highness, you are much to harsh
on those that you judge. Hopefully your house is not made of glass.
Art



Yes, I think that when the press reports on a perpetual motion machine
they're obligated (in a social contract sense vs a legal one) to point
out that such things are really impossible. And when they report on a
device claimed to burn water that represents a potential energy
solution... then I think the times (energy shortages, high gas
prices) demand more balance than was provided.

The real point being that there was no "debate" in the original story.
It was nothing more than a one sided "let's stir them up today" piece.