The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???  (Read 27843 times)

lyner

  • Guest
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #25 on: 19/01/2009 21:12:03 »
The whole thing sounds like a poor man's cold fusion. It's so full of holes, its not worth discussing. If there's anything in it, it needs to be looked into a lot more deeply than utube can do.
 

Offline Farrah Day

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #26 on: 19/01/2009 22:46:42 »
Curious Sophie, what holes are you talking about exactly. Or are you too simply dismissing this as a non-starter... a hoax?

And I'm confused; is it not worth discussing, or is it worth looking into deeper than utube?  This isn't utube it's a science forum and looking into it a little deeper is exactly what I'm attempting to do. 

Seems to me that by now scientists somewhere are probably looking into much more deeply as I write.

Maybe it's just me, but this just doesn't have the ring of a clever hoax about it. 

How quick people are to dismiss things without any real thought or consideration - makes you wonder how we ever got out of the dark ages!
 

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #27 on: 19/01/2009 23:15:17 »
Kanzius first did this back in April 2007 I think.   Why has he been quiet since and why has nobody else tried?  See if you can Google something.  There was earlier work on this I think but nothing in the last nearly 2 years.  Negative results dont tend to get much coverage. 

I have got a 600 Watts High Frequency amplifier.  I need to build two loop aerials and connect the second to a load so that the amplifier always 'sees' a load.  That is what I think he has there and he puts the tube between them.     
 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #28 on: 20/01/2009 00:03:12 »
...How quick people are to dismiss things without any real thought or consideration - makes you wonder how we ever got out of the dark ages!

The real question is how long it will take to get back in the dark ages if we are willing to accept things without real thought or consideration. It is not the skeptics who have brought us in the dark, attempted to leave us in the dark, or will bring us back there.

« Last Edit: 20/01/2009 00:07:13 by Karsten »
 

Offline Farrah Day

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #29 on: 20/01/2009 09:45:53 »
For a science forum, there is a great deal of negativity.

Surely this negativity and skepticsm has to be justified as much as positive, forward-thinking has to be.

Why immediately presume it to be a hoax? If it's not, surely the science is worth discussing.

Karsten said:

Quote
The real question is how long it will take to get back in the dark ages if we are willing to accept things without real thought or consideration

My whole point was the fact that most people seem to be dismissing this without any real thought or consideration before coming to a preconceived conclusion.

Does make me wonder how science ever progressed to where it is now, as it clearly appears there are a lot of people still living in the dark ages. I'm only surprised that you haven't yet sort this man out and had him burned at the stake as a witch!

Mr P, good luck with your experiment. I've seen it stated that Kanzius was using 13.6MHz, but this might not be accurate. Would it not focus the EMR if you actually wound the antenna around a glass jar containing a saltwater solution.

Here are a couple of links to a little more info:

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

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=74285&GID=zk4SwIKSnGIds9hUfynnp+AmKjjOke5Fp+37lHLYo9Q%3D [nofollow]
« Last Edit: 20/01/2009 10:11:08 by Farrah Day »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #30 on: 20/01/2009 10:27:35 »
For a science forum, there is a great deal of negativity.

...

My whole point was the fact that most people seem to be dismissing this without any real thought or consideration before coming to a preconceived conclusion.

Does make me wonder how science ever progressed to where it is now, as it clearly appears there are a lot of people still living in the dark ages. I'm only surprised that you haven't yet sort this man out and had him burned at the stake as a witch!
Blimey, you're on a very high horse, aren't you?  The negativity here is due to the way this was presented to us by the presenters on the news clips shown - not as "Look at this interesting bit of science" but as "Wow! this man can burn salt water - this could solve the energy crisis!".  This obviously garners a negative response.

Also, did you realise you were the first person to being up the idea of it being a hoax?
 

Offline Farrah Day

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #31 on: 20/01/2009 10:54:46 »
Well firstly Bev, if none of you suspect this to be a hoax... what is the problem. Why are most of you being so dismissive of it? It is surely either fact or fiction. So what is it, fact or fiction - get off the fence!

Surely you're not naive enough to expect TV reporters and journalists to actually delve into any science (which of course would be waaay above them). Of course they're going to play on the free energy, burning saltwater angle - would you really expect anything different from those uneducated morons?

I simply - it seems somewhat naively - thought that, this being a science forum... hold on let me check... Yep... this being a science forum there there would be people around here that could see past the TV hype and look at the possibly very interesting science behind the discovery.

Obviously I was wrong and it would seem that a science forum - or at least this science forum - is not the place to talk... well, science!
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #32 on: 20/01/2009 11:14:51 »
Where did this attitude come from? - there were very few disparaging remarks about the science, merely about the coverage - My personal comments were:
Quote
Where do these people think electricity comes from?
and
Quote
My favourite bit was when he suggested that you could use this to run a generator, and generate electricity!

Most of the rest of the conversation was about people being gullible enough to think of this as an energy breakthrough.

So you're right, we were not discussing the science.  But, therefore, we were not being negative about the science, merely about the presentation.

It being or not being a hoax has nothing to do with the fact that the interviewers, presenters and editors all failed to see that this could not be a solution to an energy crisis.

You presumably see why this isn't an energy breakthrough, so why come in all guns blazing?  Surely you could have avoided any aggro by saying something along the lines of "Yes, tv people can twist things and be rubbish, but I'm interested in the science going on here - anybody know how it works?"
 

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #33 on: 20/01/2009 11:25:58 »
There is a .pdf report (I can't find it at mo) partly or wholly written by Kanzuis where he states the RF generator is 300 Watts at 13.56 MHz which is just a  frequency allocated for diathermy....no other significance.

I suspect he had something like this to start with being a radio ham like me..   I have one of these..  It covers the 14 MHz band so would probably work at 13.56 with or without a minor modification...

http://www.rigpix.com/linears/fl2100b.htm

  
« Last Edit: 20/01/2009 11:27:58 by Pumblechook »
 

Offline Farrah Day

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #34 on: 20/01/2009 11:42:55 »
Bev, myself and Mr P are the only ones who remotely showed any interest in the science in the first place. The rest of you are more interested in the way the discovery was covered in the news.

So my original comments about most of you completely missing the point are quite valid. It's not about the news report - or is shouldn't be. 

I take it you're not interested in the science side of it then.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #35 on: 20/01/2009 11:50:09 »
As I said earlier:

Quote
However, you're quite right, the science of what is happening is very interesting.  What do you think is going on?

I also told you that I am a zoologist by training, and other than adding my comments about targeting cancer cells with gold nanoparticles, I cannot comment on the science.  I look forward to seeing Pumblechook's results.

So my original comments about most of you completely missing the point are quite valid. It's not about the news report - or is shouldn't be. 
Maybe it shouldn't be, but that is to what we responded.  The first post consisted solely of a link to ridiculous news coverage, to which we reacted.  Maybe the discussion would have moved on to the science, but either way our responses were valid in context.

Obviously, text on a forum is not the best way to communicate the full subtleties of one's meaning, but I would appreciate it if you could find a way to be less aggressive in your posts.
 

Offline Farrah Day

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #36 on: 20/01/2009 14:17:13 »
Fair enough. Diplomacy and subtlety have never been amongst my many virtues. And I think I've now made my point.

Perhaps we can then move on to the science.

Mr P, I was wondering if you have any thoughts on possible reactions taking place within the test tube.  A few ideas or theories now might just spur the discussion in the right direction.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #37 on: 20/01/2009 17:48:12 »
FD
Quote
And I'm confused; is it not worth discussing, or is it worth looking into deeper than utube?  This isn't utube it's a science forum and looking into it a little deeper is exactly what I'm attempting to do.

I put that in a grumpy way but I meant that the amount of real rubbish on utube makes it a poor basis for any serious Scientific discussion. We might just as well start discussing fairies at the bottom of the garden on the evidence of a fuzzy clip on utube.
If it is serious Science there will be alternative sources with a bit more gravitas and authenticity.
Any mention of the prefix "nano" suggests possible snake oil.
 

Offline Farrah Day

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #38 on: 20/01/2009 18:37:54 »
Sophie

Forget the utube link, like you say anyone can upload any old garbage there.

Instead take a look at the links I posted above. I think you will agree that they do provide a little more in the way of 'gravitas'. If I had seen the utube link first my interest may never have been kindled.

And, yes I know I come across as headstrong at times, but you know me from our electrolysis discussions awhile ago Sophie, I do tend to say it like I see it!

Mr P, I think I might have to invest in something like that RF amp. I've got most equipment but not one of those.  I guess you just have to make sure that the output sees the right load do you?
« Last Edit: 20/01/2009 18:41:26 by Farrah Day »
 

Offline Farrah Day

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #39 on: 21/01/2009 11:03:43 »
I've recently trawled through many google links on this discovery, only to find that many scientists simply agree that oxygen and hydrogen are being liberated and burned. I have no reason to disagree with this. However, many also liken it to simple electrolysis and seem to see it as 'energy in - energy out. No big deal!'

The thing I find most extraordinary about these comments from scientists is that no where can I find any mention of the reaction taking place. Why can't these so-called scientists see that water cannot be ionising as in electrolysis!

I really find it quite mind boggling that any scientist is happy with the explanation that goes something like, 'yes, you add energy to the water and you break up water into hydrogen and oxygen'.

Is it just me, or has the 'science' in 'scientist' become rather meaningless? 
 

lyner

  • Guest
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #40 on: 21/01/2009 11:17:37 »
The term 'electrolysis' just implies splitting with electricity. We surely agree that is the result when you put water in and you get the gases out of an electrolytic cell. The details of what goes on when the ions of other substances are involved are a bit cloudy but I don't think there is any way to get over the fact that the energy in the original bonds in H2O needs to be supplied from somewhere if you want to break them. If there is no net change in the dissolved compounds (i.e. if the energy doesn't come from a chemical source) then the energy to split the H and O has to come from the electrical input.
In that sense, there is not much chance that what has been seen can involve getting something for nothing.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #41 on: 21/01/2009 11:22:30 »
I have read those links and neither of them suggest that you can get more out that you put in.
So, as I said earlier, there is not much point in discussing it in those terms. It's not a "Free Energy Breakthrough".
It might be (is)  interesting in another context, though.
 

Offline Farrah Day

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #42 on: 21/01/2009 11:48:21 »
Hi Sophie,

yes I understand the term, 'electrolysis' and see that I missed out the 'standard' before electrolysis, as I was implying that what we understand to be happening in 'standard', everyday, high school, electrolysis, can not be happening here.

Why is everyone continually harping on about the 'Free Energy' nonsense. This is irrelevant in terms of the science involved from decomposing water using EMR, but people can't seem to see past this.

I don't for one minute expect to be getting something for nothing - and frankly I have little interest in this - I just wish other people would stop letting this nonsense cloud their judgement and instead consider the science itself.

This has to be considered new science, otherwise I would by now have seen, somewehere, a balanced electrochemical reaction for the reactions taking place.  Think about this,  the standard, everyday electrolysis equations that we are used to seeing no longer apply - they simply do not fit... do they?

Do you yourself have any suggestion as to what reactions are occurring?

« Last Edit: 21/01/2009 11:51:01 by Farrah Day »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #43 on: 21/01/2009 17:39:20 »
Fair enuf FD. It was unfortunate that the thread / utube  clip seemed to emphasise the nonsense part of the report.
I don't really know enough about chemistry to contribute.
We frequently have heated threads concerning what
"really goes on" during electrolysis.
Using RF power to produce the necessary E field means that you don't need electrodes. The O2 and H2 must form some very small bubbles as an intimately mixed froth at the surface. The flame has typical Hydrogen flame colour.

I wonder how carefully the RF frequency was chosen; perhaps it was a transmitter he just happened to have around.
 

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #44 on: 21/01/2009 18:04:35 »
As I posted before........

There is a .pdf report (I can't find it at mo) partly or wholly written by Kanzuis where he states the RF generator is 300 Watts at 13.56 MHz which is just a  frequency allocated for diathermy....no other significance.   The 27.12 MHz harmonic is also allocated. 


I suspect he had something like this to start with being a radio ham (K3TUP) like me..   I have one of these..  It covers the 14 MHz band so would probably work at 13.56 with or without a minor modification...

http://www.rigpix.com/linears/fl2100b.htm
« Last Edit: 21/01/2009 18:07:53 by Pumblechook »
 

Offline Farrah Day

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #45 on: 21/01/2009 20:25:06 »
Mr P

Yes I checked out what you said, and clearly medical equipment and medical research has specific RF frequencies allocated to it, 13.56MHz being just one.  So, I would assume that Kanzius must have been using one of these frequencies, if not 13.56MHz.

Sophie

Maybe it's because of my interest and background research into standard electrolysis that I so instantly recognised problems with the reactions - and hence the mystery. For me the article immediately posed interesting scientific questions that no one has even touched on.

My problem does not lie in the fact that the electrolyte solution must be absorbing RF power, but rather the fact that in 'standard' electrolysis, adding energy causes water to ionise forming H+ and OH- ions when it's covalent bonds break.  But to become hydrogen, and hence be given off as a gas, the H+ ions picks up an electron from the cathode to become an atom.  With this RF method, we do not have this source of electrons - no cathode. So water can't be ionising into H+ and OH-, it must then surely be a completely different and perhaps unrecorded reaction.

We also know that the NaCl plays a part because nothing happens without the electrolyte present. But again, this electrolyte in standard electrolysis gives us Hydrogen and Chlorine gases - no Oxygen.

It would be interesting to know if other metal salts can be used, such as sodium hydroxide and potassiium hydroxide.  I suspect that they would work equally well. I also suspect that the metal ion is playing an important role - but of course this is only conjecture.

Do you now see why I'm so intrigued by this phenomenon, while being equally intrigued by the fact that no one else seems to have realised the mystery but me.
« Last Edit: 22/01/2009 11:46:41 by Farrah Day »
 


Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #47 on: 21/01/2009 20:50:40 »
-"Richard Saykally, a chemistry professor at the University of California at Berkeley, called the recent paper's claims "pseudo-science" in an interview with Chemical and Engineering News."-

http://popularmechanics.smartmoney.com/science/research/4271398.html

Someone suggested it was a simple RF flashover  on the surface of the water like you get in high power waveguides which have water vapour in them. 
 

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • View Profile
 

Offline Farrah Day

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #49 on: 22/01/2009 11:41:24 »
Hi Mr P

I'd not seen the fist 'philipball.blogspot' link that you provided above, but I feel it is one of the more thoughtful, better written and well balanced pieces, which pretty much parallels my own thinking on the matter.

Saykally calls it 'pseudoscience' at one point, but in his defence this terms seems specifically aimed at a suggestive explanation of the process provided by Kanzius and Roy, and not at the process in its own right. Saykallys mention of the possibility of a plasma being generated is fair enough, but he does not follow up this possibility with any kind of plausible reaction, so in that sense, he offers no better an explanation than Kanzius and Roy.

There is a mention by Philip Ball of the 'phenomenons potential likeness to electrolysis and wonders why the authors haven't pointed this out', which I find rather strange as to me it is the unlikeness of this to standard electrolysis that is the main point of interest.

I too wonder why no one had sampled the gas/es to determine exactly what they are - I'm sure they know by now.

The Roy and Kanzuis paper still does not address any electrochemical reactions, and indeed this - by far the most interesting aspect - has not been addressed anywhere that I have seen.

All very interesting, with even authorities on the subject of water seemingly at a loss to either understand or explain the electrochemical reactions involved.  The science remains a mystery.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Yet another free energy from water breakthrough???
« Reply #49 on: 22/01/2009 11:41:24 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums