|
|
07-10-2007, 04:51 PM
|
#11
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 358
Country: United States
|
Hek, dont be a smartass:P you know what I meant..
__________________
__________________
|
|
|
07-10-2007, 05:17 PM
|
#12
|
Supporting Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 348
Country: United States
|
I think he meant released from anything.
__________________
|
|
|
07-11-2007, 05:13 AM
|
#13
|
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,209
Country: United States
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by landspeed
(2) More importantly, the closing statements, as it fades out, is 'Looking into making this process more efficient'. What does that mean? That at the moment the RF generator uses more energy than it produces? If so, how do they assume it will end up using less energy than it makes?
|
Remember conservation of energy - energy in + potential energy stored = energy out + remaining potential energy. Energy out can be broken down further as "usable energy" + "loss" - where loss is typically waste heat through friction or deformation in a physical system. If you had something that produced more energy than it used, it would be a "free energy" (perpetual motion) machine and you'd be a billionaire!
Just by the looks of that RF generator and seeing what it can do, it looks to be very heavy duty and probably takes a lot of power to run.
|
|
|
07-11-2007, 04:39 PM
|
#14
|
Supporting Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
|
DaX -
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaX
Remember conservation of energy - energy in + potential energy stored = energy out + remaining potential energy. Energy out can be broken down further as "usable energy" + "loss" - where loss is typically waste heat through friction or deformation in a physical system. If you had something that produced more energy than it used, it would be a "free energy" (perpetual motion) machine and you'd be a billionaire!
Just by the looks of that RF generator and seeing what it can do, it looks to be very heavy duty and probably takes a lot of power to run.
|
Since he was talking about a "cancer killer", I was thinking it was sized to target a whole human body. Maybe a car-sized one could be more focused. If it was used to "crack" the sea water into hydrogen for fuel cells, then maybe it could be smaller.
I kept listening for them to talk about the amount of "energy-in" and "energy-out", but that seemed to be missing.
What is the "Jet-TV" logo in the lower corner of the video? I couldn't find it on the web.
CarloSW2
|
|
|
09-11-2007, 11:56 PM
|
#15
|
Supporting Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
|
Hello -
Here's another article :
Salt water as fuel? Erie man hopes so
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07252/815920-85.stm#
Quote:
For obvious reasons, scientists long have thought that salt water couldn't be burned.
So when an Erie man announced he'd ignited salt water with the radio-frequency generator he'd invented, some thought it a was a hoax.
John Kanzius, a Washington County native, tried to desalinate seawater with a generator he developed to treat cancer, and it caused a flash in the test tube.
Within days, he had the salt water in the test tube burning like a candle, as long as it was exposed to radio frequencies.
His discovery has spawned scientific interest in using the world's most abundant substance as clean fuel, among other uses. ...
|
CarloSW2
|
|
|
09-12-2007, 02:20 AM
|
#16
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 771
Country: United States
|
Your article says "One immediate question is energy efficiency: The energy the RF generator uses vs. the energy output from burning hydrogen."
And old boy doesn't give a straight answer, yet everyone is talking about it as fuel? I guarantee that the fuel aspect is a shady deal, though the hydrogen release from a ton of rf energy input (that machine goes up to 1400 watts and is probably not very efficient) is quasi interesting.
And what cancer patient wants to be used for fuel anyway?
P.S. Gotta love the all the conspiracy comments about it:
http://donklephant.com/2007/05/28/tu...ter-into-fuel/
|
|
|
09-12-2007, 06:28 AM
|
#17
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 812
Country: United States
|
Quote:
The fuel, nothing more than saltwater.
|
And this giant radio wave generator.
I hate news media.
Water is already a pretty low energy state substance. The only way a fuel is feasible is if you can find a way to take it from it's current state, to even even lower energy state. Raising it's state VIA a process -- not sustainable.
__________________
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.
Bike Miles (Begin Aug. 20 - '07): ~433.2 miles
11/12
|
|
|
09-12-2007, 08:21 AM
|
#18
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,546
Country: United States
|
lol saltwater kills the outsides of cars id hate to find out what happens inside an engine! if you continuously ran the engine it would work maybe cuz no time for rust to form...
|
|
|
09-17-2007, 08:11 AM
|
#19
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 50
Country: United States
|
|
|
|
09-17-2007, 10:04 AM
|
#20
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 125
Country: United States
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbgobie
Haven't read the link yet (at work). But water is already more expensive than gas... Gas is one of the cheapest liquids to buy...
+ rust. + what is the energy capacity of salt water?
|
Only bottle potable, drinkable water is more expensive then gas....if salt water could be used, it would be dirt cheap.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Car Talk & Chit Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
» Fuelly iOS Apps |
|
» Fuelly Android Apps |
|
|
|