Salt Water as Fuel

Drat, damned as a nay-sayer again. I guess I can't help myself.

I met a 60 year old man in the library yesterday who was looking for an electrical engineer. From the way he talked, I was wary of revealing my profession. I told him that I knew some engineers, however, what did he have in mind? Well, this is what he told me:

* He has a U.S. PATENT on a process to make as much electricity as you want, without adding any more after the initial "push."

* Start with a battery bank, run a DC motor powering an AC generator. Use some of the output of the AC generator to charge the batteries, and the rest of the output to power another motor that turns another generator, and so on until you are generating 100 MW of power with no additional energy added.

* He lamented all the "nay-sayers who tell me that I have to have an electrical engineer verify this. It is so expensive to build this equipment."

* He can't get a government grant without the electrical engineer.

I told him not to worry:

* The government funds stranger stuff than this, so there is hope.

* I gave him directions to this discussion thread so that he can communicate with positive thinking engineers who would embrace his ideas and help him out. I warned him that most of them are nay-sayers, so he has to be very careful who he selects.

Hi Barely Dabbling.

In this context, I'm not worried when a politician calls me "the worst of all". I think you know what peer review means and the original question was addressed to people having technical knowledge.

The difference between our times and Inquisition is motivation and purpose. In Middle Ages, people were literally fried for political reasons: keeping masses in ignorance and preserving power for the few. Nowadays, media is used for mass manipulation and misleading but the purpose is the same. As someone famous said, only means are changing.

I had no intention to "fry" Kansius as I stated in my posts. I simply tried to dismantle a manipulation using just common sense, public knowledge and personal experience. I hope that you, as a politician having important friends and connections, think like me that is immoral to play games with people's hopes for curing cancer and finding a solution to energy crisis. Kasius also broke the engineers' and scientists' code of ethics. You cannot publish something that is not reviewed by peers and if the results are not seriously measured and reproducible. Otherwise, you make a fool of yourself.

You say go public and tell the real story. In a sense, you're right but what about the professionalism of the TV station and TV reporter? What if politicians would question that? But do they have the motivation to do that when they use the same channels for you know what. Please don't take it personally, it's just a rhetoric question.

No offense, but your call for going into politics is not tempting me. On the other hand, if you want to blame someone for our "negative attitude", try our teachers. Unfortunately, it's a very long list...

If you consider reviving your grandfather's concept, I'm open to learn.

Regards,

Michael

First observation I notice when people discuss alternatives energies is the term "free energy".It is used by debunker's and proponents equally.I find it annoying.You are always going to pay for something to make energy for you.Really, we are not ever...or a long way off ...at least....going to get "free energy".

Sure it is different to use the nitrogen out of the air and run an engine, that is a demo I would love to see on UTUBE.Oh what fun,but for experienced players ONLY.LOL.Still not "free energy" because you need to buy the generator to do this and that's not free, even if we pull the energy out of the air.

The internet is a great source of misinformation.I especially grind my teeth when I see people who talk with authority on subjects that they clearly know nothing about, or purposely leave out information that anyone who is truly up to date with relevant information would know.

My take on the video(s) is this:

1) The first clip I saw was the one with the black anchorwoman.At first glance this looks impressive, but the reporting job done on it was different.Too much fluff and not enough information.I watched it a few times and I did notice something was amiss.

The video seems to cut between two purported experiments, the paper towel one and another which appears to be chemical reaction.This is very confusing, as it is being energy that this is all the same stuff, in this video.

It seems like this video came out first, I could be wrong.

Someones suggestion on another form was this:

There's an alternate explanation - a wet blanket, I fear.
The wet paper towel would conduct electricity, which includes radio waves. When placed near the RF generator, it would act as an antenna, absorbing RF energy, which would be released as heat.

So that seems to be what he is doing with the RF's.The paper towel experiments don't really show hydrogen burning.But there are experiments that show hydrogen burning.Hummmm

2)I also noticed on the first video how he is lighting the hydrogen gas.Instead of a lighter he appears to be using a dropper!I have never seen a lighter that looks like this.If he was lighting hydrogen he would be using a lighter.This is starting to look like a slight of hand trick.The burning seems more like some sort of chemical reaction, which is fine but say that's what it is, don't say it is the RF's doing this.If this is the case then it is obvious that the RF's does not work to produce hydrogen.

OOPSIE...In further videos he is using a dropper and this time it is shown.This has to be chemical reaction.

I noticed, is there is yet another video showing a purplish liquid,where water was added and the color of the water was changed to a reddish color, while this purported RF machine was doing it's thing.This is not to be confused with the red liquid that is shown for the cancer treatment, which is nano gold?The only problem is in the experiment with the paper towel, the RF machine was used and there was no change in the color of the liquid.

In some parts of the video it seem like it was important to have the bottom of the test tube covered with the hand or you got it, paper towel.Like there was something in the bottom.Ever heard of a test tube holder?I prefer more transparency myself.

The cancer stuff I highly doubt is "inspiration in the night"more like John was reading information about Rife on the internet, come on.Platinum (and other)metal(s) are already used in cancer treatment in conjunction with radiation.1+1+2 .I am no medical expert, but have a friend that had cancer treatments like this and by the way, these metals are not good for the body.

I am calling a big BS on this one, for sure.These are not honest demonstrations.

This seems like some kind of crappy propaganda put together by the MSM to prove to the public that see-there really is no conspiracy, if a man came up with something like this ,the media ,of course would report it.BS baffles brains.

RF is used in industry to make ozone.

Comments?

Congratulations Guest!

Your observation #2 is devastating. I watched again the video frame by frame and I could clearly see that a drop of something is coming through the pipette and falls into the liquid (which I don't think any more it's salt water) in the lab tube. Until that the liquid is clear but after is bubbling and the resulting Hydrogen is spontaneously igniting. You're definitely right: it's about a chemical reaction that has nothing to do with the RF exposure and all the bla-bla-bla.

Sorry Kansius, but you're caught on your own video!!! First I thought you're innocent but now I see how guilty you are. Guys like you should be prosecuted for scientific fraud and mass manipulation. If you were looking for "fame", now you have it all!!!

Thank you Guest for bringing this irrefutable proof of this scam which confirms all the "nay sayers" doubts.

Best regards,

Michael

Thanks Micheal,

As I said,at first glance, this appears to be an amazing phenomenon.What a crock.

I am very familiar with hydrogen research and I know some researchers who have already gone through the FM frequencies and they told me they got nothing from this.These people are a WAY more qualified then this guy and the research is real.

This prompted me to review the videos VERY carefully.

Still,despite this, none of the real research has been reported seriously by the MSM,it remains the stuff of urban legend.Good for John Kansius, I bet this crock will get him millions of R&D money,while serious projects get the shaft.Nice for the media to give him all of this coverage and to help him with his magic show.

There is no doubt in my mind that the reporters in this piece knew the demos are dishonest and In some parts where the hydrogen is being produced by chemical reaction, you can even see near the bottom of the tube the image appears blurry, ie, to hide the fact that there is something in the bottom of the tube.

John had some help from chemists to pull off this crapola.

This clip was brought to my attention by a scientist who fell for it too.

Sorry John, the jig is up.Please explain why you are clearly demonstrating chemical reaction,when you are supposed to be demonstrating RF breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen?

A small bubble of hydrogen oxide will make a large bang when ignited.If it was Hydrogen oxide that John was igniting, in the copious amounts as shown,none of these guys would have any hearing left or worse.Sorry, just shot down that claim too.John Kanzius making hydrogen only with this chemical reaction.

"...I bet this crock will get him millions of R&D money..."

Too reminiscent of the Korean "Brown Gas" from yesteryear's crop?

Crock is the name of the game now. You don't make money inventing something useful. You make money convincing folks you have it. that's all. The best money is in R&D budgets for years to come, funding something inconclusive. Too vague to prove or disprove. Something you can jog for years.

Brown Gas? Good. May last for 3 to 4 years. Cold Fusion? Even better. Much, much better. May last for 30 to 40 years.

When I first saw the video I put some salt water into a small glass container put that container into a zip-lock bag, and then put the assembly into the microwave. As I expected, nothing happens until the mixture gets hot enough to boil. Isn't salt and water in most foods? Also as expected, finally and only steam was produced. Unless there has intentionally been a sugnificent detail held back (gold catullus?) or unless the process is frequency specific the process looks bogus to me.

One thing for the sake of the doctor and his claimed discovery, it might be that the process is frequency sensitive. It looked like the doctor was building something in the High Frequency range not microwave. Also he mentioned putting his hand in the RF path. Something you wouldn't do with microwave or high power RF. But then dosen't the body contain a saline like solution too.

Lets hope that he will have some more critical elements to share.

Jim

"Lets hope that he will have some more critical elements to share."

Hi Jim,

He has nothing else to share but a public apology which crocks like him never do.

Guest is right again: Kanzius could never do his scam without the complicity of reporters and others who are seen in his video and some behind the scene. By their estimated number, the pie he has to share should be big. Unfortunately, this pie is money stolen from serious scientific research. Mass manipulation is going hand in hand with conspiracy against honest people.

It's amazing how manipulation works: it's like a brain distortion that sometimes cannot be rectified even if the proof is in front of your eyes. Just take a look (frame by frame) before and after Hydrogen ignition.

At this point, your hope intrigued me.

It occurs to me that the flame would have to appear different on video than it would in real life. One can imagine that H2O can be split by RF at some frequency. (If we accepted that, then one would certainly not want to put a hand anywhere near such an RF source -- having blood and cellular fluids converted to gas is a completely unappealing prospect.) But suppose we give Kanzius the benefit of the doubt, and say that he has split water into H2 and O2 -- an unimpressive feat, if ever there was one.

If he's created some H2 and O2, it should burn with an invisible flame. But the flame is yellow. (Perhaps there is some sodium involved, to explain the color -- but I doubt it.) Here's a fun experiment. Point any digital still camera at the IR led in the end of a TV remote control. Press any remote control button. In the camera's LCD viewfinder you will see a bright light, (reddish, yellowish) because the imaging chips in these cameras (and chip-based video cameras) respond very well to IR. So a hydrogen flame could look like a candle flame, once on video, because it emits plenty of IR.

Suppose the paper towel is simply soaked in alcohol. Of course there would be a flame. Suppose we drop a small chunk of sodium metal into the water. Again we expect a flame. There are hundreds of reasonable explanations for what we see on the video without the need for Kanzius's "invention" doing anything out of the ordinary or new. Hundreds of opportunities for fraud. If a legitimate scientist believed he'd discovered a new , efficient method for hydrolysis, then would he not take reasonable measures to keep it secret, rather than publishing it through the woefully uncritical mass media? Alternatively, if he wanted to give the process away, then he would publish details in the science journals, and provide some plausible explanations for what is happening. Furthermore, no reasonable scientist would propose using water as a fuel because it takes more energy to split the water than you get out of it by burning the H2.

Would a legitimate scientist use the term "free energy" knowing 1. there ain't no such thing 2. that he would be subject to ridicule, and 3. that doing so would make other scientists run the other way? Would a fraudster use the term. Sure. It has worked so many time in the past, and ill-informed people continue to invest millions in free-energy scams. "Free energy", "over unity" and "perpetual motion" are synonyms, in this context. Successful fraudsters currently shy away from using the term "perpetual motion" because it sends out a warning message even to the completely ill-informed. "Over unity" has a friendlier, more scientific ring to it, so is now more frequently used in the scam business. (Unfortunately "free energy" has not one but several legitimate meanings in science, and even more unfortunately one is from the astronomy and cosmology world -- so fraudsters can say that "even Carl Sagan believed in free energy.")

The web is chock full of impossible contraptions "running" on video but without any credible evidence whatsoever. The Perendev motor is a classic example. Ditto Dennis Lee's series of exploits. We've even had promoters of these technologies right here on CR4 (search for Perendev motor, for example). Interesting enough, our own Perendev motor creator decided to abandon his efforts along those lines, apparently in response to our comments... but then immediately turned to another proposed perpetual motion project!

Imagine if all this effort were turned to something productive.

"...Imagine if all this effort were turned to something productive..."

This is exactly why it's such a shame.

The use of brilliant minds to fool innocent folk is such a poor achievement. There is a saying in Hebrew: "A dirty stone thrown into a pristine well by one fool, cannot be remedied by a hundred wise men"

The word is catalyst.

Anyone estimate the energy of the flame itself, and compare to the 200w

input?

Anyone contact the co-inventors for further info?

"Anyone contact the co-inventors for further info?"

Feel free to do so

We won't object.

Flame: maybe 100 watts? Input who knows? I can't find any documentation whatsoever, and Kanzius stated (according to reports that might be questionable) that he will not release any details on the process, other than that it operates at "over unity".

Guest: there is still hope in the world as long as clear minds like yours are still there.

Excellent comparison and appropriate thoughts!

Michael

Ditto

Great analogy!

(There might be those who would say that there's a lot more than ash resulting from buring wood... but to them you might say "Well OK, throw the CO2 on the fire too.)

Is there any possibility that the RF waves are creating a catalytic situation with the salt as well as providing the energy for electrolysis?

Ask Mike O'Mara - the reporter who made the video.

MOmara@wkyc.gannett.com

Re: miscellaneous earlier postings

(1) Hydrogen generated from sodium-containing water solutions is indeed typically bright yellow due to small but optically potent inclusions of sodium ions in the evolved gas. The simplest example is the hydrogen-generating aluminum-water acid reaction that takes place when dissolved sodium hydroxide (home experimenters: please use extreme care with any form of NaOH!) is used to remove the protective corundum coating from the highly electronegative aluminum as quickly as the oxide forms.

(2) Salt water does nothing at the microwave levels involved, else the fellow's hand would have exploded when he put it into the wave path. The pipette is reasonable if it assume the "secret sauce" is a small dose of gold nanoparticles.

(3) The mechanism in the latter case would be nanoscale electrolysis of a conductive saltwater solution via strong microwave polarization of the nanoparticles. It would not be that different from the impressive sparks generated by metals placed in ordinary microwave ovens, but presumably would be operating on a much smaller (lower voltage) scale that would in turn be more electrolytically effective than sparks.

(4) From the above points I would judge that assertions of conscious fraud are at the very least premature. The real issues are: (a) the need for independent verification in labs to confirm or eliminate any concerns of poor procedures or deceptive practices; (b) realistic assessments of efficiency, which are likely to be somewhere between low to very low in comparison to using the same Joules of electrical energy to perform direct electrolysis of a salt solution instead of sending them into a magnetron; and (c) use of public media to present what should have been documented in a reviewable paper first -- a procedure that pretty much begs for accusations of fraud (regardless of the reality or lack thereof of the effect itself) due to its avoidance of any independent peer review process.

Errata:

Bullet (1) sentence 1: "is indeed typically" => "typically burns"

Bullet (2) sentence 2: "if it assume" => "if one assumes"

On closer inspection: Is that even a pipette?

I could very easily be persuaded that it to be nothing more than the working end of a piezoelectric spark lighter.

If that is the case, I must of course fully retract my earlier speculations about gold nanoparticles. Conversely, I would also assume that regardless of claims on the video, placing one's hand in the same beam location as the test tube is probably a really, really bad idea. E.g., one wonders about issues such as the salty nature of blood, the inevitability of creating at least some transitory free radicals when breaking apart water, and the delicacy of DNA.

And to re-emphasize: If one strips away the editing and commentary, what the video really seems to show is this: Water being broken down through the application of energy into hydrogen and oxygen, followed by recovery of some of that energy by recombining those two components back into water in a robust, impressive flame. The net efficiency of the process is very much open to question, especially in comparison to, say, old-fashion and boring electrolysis. Or better yet: If you really want to warm something up efficiently, why not unplug the microwave altogether and use an electric heater instead?

In any event, no net energy is being generated. All the energy in that flame is coming from the same power grid you use to heat food in your own microwave oven.

And on even closer inspection...

First, a warning: I am naught but a poor, bewildered software engineer who has absolutely no business whatsoever speculating on such complex matters of materials science. If I was you, why... I wouldn't even bother to read what I'm about to say!

....

Hmm, still here huh? OK, I warned you, so you can't blame me! :)

First, I note again that the proper place for this entire discussion really should have begun with a detailed paper that describes the experimental method in sufficient detail to permit independent reproduction and testing of the effect shown in the video. This reduces both excessive hype and its inevitable inverse reaction, total disdain, neither of which is terribly helpful for experimentation. Any recipe given in such a paper should be detailed enough for any interested independent laboratory to fully reproduce the effect.

The goal of the experimenter in a case like this should be to disprove utterly and undeniably their own results -- to do flatly everything in their power to point out either the incorrectness or the utter triviality of whatever finding they have made. This is the most impressive style of persuasion possible, because if the experimenter does explore every such avenue and cannot find a way to prove their finding to be false or trivial... well, then, that means they must have one truly impressive, rock solid, and incredibly interesting result, yes?

This is of course just the scientific method.

So, here's my small contribution of an idea that could be tested to help establish the pedigree of this quite fascinating video.

As I watched it, I kept wondering why the flame looked both odd and familiar. It finally hit me: the flame in the video has some of the same smooth, slightly curved, and fast-jumping behavior of a plasma strand within a plasma sphere -- you know, one of those glass balls that sends streams of plasma towards your hand if you touch it.

The flame-like effect in the video is not that, of course. It is fatter, yellower, and plopped down in the middle of ordinary sea-level-pressure air. But conversely: That is one odd looking flame, and the oddities about it are to me a bit reminiscent to the continuous discharge plasma streams seen in plasma spheres.

So, my poor suggestion for a hypothesis to eliminate is this: Since microwaves are well known to create discharges in conductors -- the old C-shaped aluminum foil strip in the family micro, please put it on something expendable if you try it -- and since boiling salt water would presumably increase the conductivity of the thread of steam flowing upwards from it (think of those potassium salt anti-static sheets you put in clothes driers), I propose that one hypothesis that should be tested and eliminated is that the flame is actually just a chubby, distended electrical discharge that is following the higher conductivity path of slightly salty steam over a boiling test tube.

That kind of microwave-induced discharge plasma frankly would be a bit easier to imagine at such scales than, say, an atomic recombination plasma, which one would expect to be very short range indeed (e.g., confined to the fluid). You would still get a lot of heat -- we are talking about a plasma stream after all -- but it would nicely remove the difficult issue of how H2 and O2 (or H and O if you insist) manage to separate long enough to form a multi-inch flame over the tube. Instead, all you would need is air, a little sodium, and a microwave-induced electrical discharge similar to that seen whenever metal is placed in a microwave oven.

I emphatically note that this little idea could be totally and absolutely incorrect. But that is precisely the fun of playing with a interesting and beautiful effect like this one, yes? One should never forget the fun part of science!

And by the way: For this hypothesis, I can't see any reason why someone with, say, a Pyrex test tube, an old microwave to demolish, and salt water (and gloves... and EYE GOGGLES!!, and of course a good measure of common sense?...) could not give the idea a shot at home. I already tried it with an open cup: no dice! There may be a secret sauce! But cups make lousy streamers of steam, so I'd call that result very incomplete. But if someone has a test tube and micro to spare and does succeed... well now, what an interesting video and recipe they would have, yes?

Bottom-Line: Hoax...

Who would have thought?

Brown Gas Anyone?

Cold Fusion perhaps?

That's brilliant, Yuval!

Is that salt water?

John G. Cummins: "However why aren't we hearing more about this in the news, Why does information like this come out and then just die in it's tracks???"

It is NOT news.

It is PURE B. S. and not worth the time it take to write or read about it.

Dear forum members,

I am a chemist...German, and on my 70 something years, i am still involved in research and in teaching.

Having said that, ALL of you who had Chemistry in school, have read some of my work.

This is my First ever comment on a forum, but i felt that my years allow me a few words of wisdom to you all, that seem to share the bond of higher education.

FIRST- As a teacher, i would flunk ALL of you with the lowest possible grade!

Reason- Science is not made of personal beliefs but hard facts that are for the most part still beyond our comprehension. THAT is why i still research...

The cancer research conducted is a very valid research AND viable...

Your own views have precluded from listening carefully so that you would get all the facts...the Gold Nano particles have a delivery vehicle that has been proven to work in controlled circumstances .

And my final reason for flunking you is that you remind me too much of a certain distinguished Scientist that throttled someone and shouted "let's hear it now working"...and work it did, and human voice was heard from a wax Edison cylinder.

I found this forum while researching the data available on the Internet, and some of my students are just behind me laughing and making comments of how lucky you are that you're not here in person for me to pull your earlobes .

I do not judge or dismiss Mr. Kanzius as crazy, as a matter of fact I have been asked to replicate the experiment together with a team of colleagues from various fields and i can tell you all that I'm very excited from what i have read and seen.

You all seem to know the rules...well forgive an old man and bare with me.

When a neutron within a nucleus undergoes beta-decay splitting into an electron and a proton, the mass of the neutron exceeds the combined mass of the electron and proton. As per mass-energy equation, E-mc², the mass-deficit should appear in the kinetic energy of the decay products.

Accurate measurements, however, showed that the electron and proton carried less kinetic energy. At that stage (1931) when the law of conservation of energy was threatened, the existence of a new particle (neutrino), till then unknown, was postulated to save the law.

The particle predicted had to be neutral so that "charge conservation" is also applicable to the process because the decay products, proton and electron from the neutral neutron, carry positive and negative unit charges respectively.

The above shows the rigidity with which, presently, the energy conservation law is adhered to even in quantum phenomena.

Further more,the results of certain experiments in recent years involving electromagnetic induction effect are in violation of the conservation law of energy.

I could go on for ever here ... but that is really not the purpose of my comment.

Knowledge is responsibility, and yes there are many crack pots and loonies that do nothing to contribute to the welfare of science, scams too... but you are being no better then them really...here you are dismissing something that YOU have no knowledge about...how serious is that.

I take the careful approach, it looks promising lets see it it works, then and only then will i pass my judgment...and so should you.

As my final words here i would like to point out that you are all being to quick of the mark looking at the wrong end of the equation.

And the "thing" (like my grand daughter likes to say) is, what if it works???, what can we do with it??? does this defies what we assume for granted???

1.500 Celsius produces a lot of steam, for instance and that has real potential but i guess you all just proved it is a waste of my time...so maybe i should bow to you and go fishing as i should...

Werner

Post Scriptum

I will decline to comment on the Chemical atrocities i read above...and my respect to the non scholars here and the views they presented.

Werner:

I enjoyed reading your post.

I'd have to say that your post seems to commit the same travesty of which you accuse others. You seem to be stating that the law of conservation of energy is seriously called into question by Kanzius's work in creating and then burning hydrogen. For example you say "The above shows the rigidity with which, presently, the energy conservation law is adhered to even in quantum phenomena.

Further more,the results of certain experiments in recent years involving electromagnetic induction effect are in violation of the conservation law of energy."

If, as you say, "Science is not made of personal beliefs but hard facts that are for the most part still beyond our comprehension. THAT is why i still research...", then you would need to provide hard facts, not simpy your beliefs, that 1. The conservation of energy law is seriously called into question by electromagnetic induction experiments. 2. That the conservation of energy law is seriously called into question by the subject matter at hand: namely, provide support for the claim by Mr. Kanzius that he is achieving "over unity" with his hydrogen generating/burning experiment. 3. That there has been any peer-reviewed support for his claim that his generating/burning process operates with a net energy gain, and 4. that there has been peer-reviewed support for any claim that any other hydrogen electrolysis/burning scheme produces more energy than consumed. These are things that perhaps one of your laughing students can pull together in a couple minutes.

My chemistry profs would have flunked me if I produced chemical equations that show a net energy gain from water electrolysis and subsequent recombining of H2 and O2. Perhaps you can show the equation that supports this contention.

There is more to science than simple gullibility. Certainly, there is more that we do not understand than we do understand. To suggest that we should simply throw away what little we know, and jump on the free energy bandwagon, thereby distracting ourselves from doing productive work with a high probabilty of success, seems entirely counter to the intent of science and engineering.

If your last name is Krause or Kunz, then I'd suggest rereading your own texts.

As far as Kansius's cancer work goes -- yes, it appears to have some merit -- and I don't recall anyone here disputing its merit.

Dear Professor,

I would like to bring to your attention some FACTS regarding John Kanzius:

1) "Clinical trials have neither been approved, nor performed yet. It is reported that Kanzius is working with the Lee Memorial Health System (LMHS), a provider of health care in southwest Florida, to coordinate tentative clinical trials when approval is granted. Clinical trials may not begin for another three to four years." - cited from Wikipedia.

2) No patent office in the world granted ANY patent to John Kanzius so far. He sent only patent applications to USPTO (2 years ago!), WIPO, CIPO and EPA.

If you ever take the time to read any of his patent applications, you may come to the same conclusion as myself: I've never read such a vague "scientific" text and I deeply hope nobody will be ever exposed to his monstrous experiments. No patent means no scientific value whatsoever!

I am not - like 99% of CR4 contributors - going to impress you or anybody else with my Resume (excuse the lack of accents). Instead, I'll give you a clue why Kanzius's machine is nothing but a huge BS: in the patent applications he specifies what frequencies and what power has his RF generator: 13.56, 27.12, 40.68, 54.24, 67.80 and 81.36 MHz; power: 0 to 1000 W! As a scientist, professor, etc. - could you please calculate the dimensions of the transmitting and receiving antennas at this frequencies and what dimensions should have those human cells in order to absorb the RF energy at resonance?

I can't wait for your answer.

Hi Hottech,

I've watched the Kanzius videos on YouTube and elsewhere and when I read that the effect is actually electrolysis and the resulting flame is just free hydrogen recombining with oxygen, that makes a certain amount of sense to me. But I've seen such flames and what I saw on the video appears to me more like "ball lightning" than anything else.

I recall as a kid watching ball lightning bounce down a powerline and smash into a transformer on the pole with a tremendous explosion. I've been fascinated with this phenomenon ever since. One characteristic etched into my memory was the "live" quality of the ball; literally crackling with electrical energy. This is what I see when I watch the flame produced in the Kanzius videos.

I fully realize that for any claim of a "new energy system" to pass muster with the scientific community there are only TWO questions which must be answered. Everything else is hyperbole.

1. Can the system be reproduced from scratch by others?

2. Can the system verifiably produce over unity output?

As you and others accurately point out, so far, neither question has been satisfactorily answered. In time, I hope the answers to both will be "Yes". I do have a question to ask regarding the law of conservation:

Cosmologists are well aware of what can only be described as "missing mass" to explain the rate at which our galaxy and our universe are expanding. Even taking into account the massive black holes now known to exist in the center of many galaxies, there is still a considerable absence of mass in our universe. If this mass is not really missing, but just out of phase with our universe and some process was able to bring that mass (e.g. energy) into phase with our universe, would the conservation law be violated?

Just curious. Thanks for a very interesting thread.

Clarification of my question:

In rereading my hypothetical question, I see I may have been less than clear in readily acknowledging there is no known theory postulating a phase shift to explain the apparent missing mass of the universe. I am simply presenting a hypothesis to explain how such mass/energy can be UNobservable in our universe in all respects save the very observable effect it has on universal expansion. In that effect, the missing mass/energy seems to conform with the same physical laws as any "observable" mass/energy in our universe.

If, hypothetically, that mass/energy was every bit as much a part of our universe as the observable mass/energy and some process was able to bring that mass/energy into phase with our observable universe - seemingly out of nowhere - would that still be a violation of the conservation law?

Hi Enquiring Mind.

The answer to your question as it is asked is NO. In wouldn't be any violation of energy conservation law. BUT:

- if the invisibility of the "missing" mass is just a result of our "incompetence" of seeing it (lack of knowledge in what you call phasing or multiple dimensions), it is very likely to have similar if not identical properties with the visible one. Excepting gravity and natural radioactivity, a substance releases energy only if it is (energetically) excited and tends to the lowest and stable level of energy under given surrounding conditions.

As Yuval explained, there is no electrolysis in Kansius' claims. I would go back to what a Guest pointed out and I verified that Kanzius dropped something with a pipette into the test tube instead of using a lighter to ignite the hydrogen. It's a intentionally hidden chemical reaction.

Another thing is that in the range of 14 MHz and its harmonics up to order 6, the dimensions of the RF generator (better said antennas at λ/4) are completely wrong. At 14 MHz the antennae should have resonators of about 5 meters!

There is no way to brake hydrogen bonds using such frequencies and setup. Kanzius has only two goals: one is to become famous and second to get a lot of money for illusory scientific research. The first goal is achieved - even if someone can become famous and even remain in the history of unconvicted intelligent crime. For the second goal, he is in panic because his patent applications will expire without being issued any patent. For this reason he uses any media to put a pressure on fund raisers' victims. After patents being denied, he will play the card of conspiracy against him, blaming first the US Government, and will ask for more private money. This is all his scheme.

Hi Back,

You understood my question and the constraint params perfectly. Thanks for treating it as a serious question. Could you send me a link to the suspicious pipette video you mentioned? I ask because in all the youtube videos I watched, either the flame effect occurred spontaneously, or (in the instances using a piece of paper towel as a wick), Kanzius or Rutkowski initiated the flame effect with a piezo starter. I didn't see the pipette mentioned.

As a CB'er, I fully understand your concerns about VHF emitter size. Antenna size is the bane of all who work and play with radios. As a retired broadcast engineer, I'm sure Kanzius is well aware of the physical limitations of conventional emitters and may be throwing out discrete frequencies used in his machine as a smokescreen for how they're actually employed.

Think of a pastry chef laying out all the ingredients to make the perfect croissant, but leaving out details on the circumstances and sequence of preparation. An accomplished baker might get those details right, or might just as easily produce a golden brown brick. Of course, going back to the first key question I stated, at some point, he will need to include the ice-cold marble rollingpin and other details to prove its reproducibility by others.

Again, thanks and please send me that suspect video link.

The link is right in the first post of ARAGORN who opened this thread. BTW, where is ARAGORN? It is very unusual in CR4 for someone to open a discussion and never come back afterwards.

To see what I saw, I suggest to open the wmv file with Real Player not Winamp because you can stop the video at any point. I tried about 15 times until I could stop at the ignition moment (actually a few frames before) and the pipette and the drop falling in the test tube are right there. The bubbling and spontaneous ignition are the consequence of a chemical reaction. Hydrogen flame is invisible but can be colored with sodium to become orange.

Probably in the other videos Kanzius refined his scam by skipping the pipette frames, put more dilution to soften the chemical reaction and avoid the spontaneous ignition, then used a lighter.

Please come back and tell us what you saw.

"...It is very unusual in CR4 for someone to open a discussion and never come back afterwards..."

- Isn't this another form of Trolling? - > tease, then run away -

It's more like hit and run...

If you look at the video (referenced in the original post) and stop it just as the pipette comes in you will see the first flash of the "flame". It looks exactly like a plasma forming, with arcs to the RF generator -- it is not an ordinary flame, by any stretch -- much more the shape of a lightning bolt.

There are loads of experiments one can do with a microwave oven to generate plasma balls. In some of these experiments holes are melted through glass bottles, etc. Kanzius seems to have followed in the footsteps of hobbyist thrill seekers. By using low wattage, (200 watts apparently) the plasma is less destructive than it otherwise would be, and looks more like a flame. The plasmas generated in microwave ovens are much more dramatic, and could not be mistaken for a simple gas flame.

The Sterling engine helps to stabilize the plasma, making it appear more flame-like. This affect can be seen in plasma lamps, when you place your hand on the globe, and the arcs are drawn to your hand.

Given that one can find microwave oven plasmas on YouTube I think that Kanzius's initial explanations (which seem to vary to suit the audience: It is salt water burning, and we can imagine when you will fuel your car with salt water, earth's most abundant "element"... No, it's not electrolysis... Yes it is some form of electrolysis.... Now we are getting over-unity, so we are dropping into secrecy...) appear completely implausible. Fraud? Seems so -- he does not appear stupid.

Another microwave plasma. Grape plasma

I think you're right, Blink.

I reviewed the video (this time with Windows Media Player latest edition that allows to play frame by frame) and I've seen how the plasma-flame is attracted to the left wall of the gap between the 2 boxes. You can get the same effect if placing a candle flame between two conductive plates connected to high voltage DC. Probably the famous generator is just a HV - RF (like the one used in Kirlian photography). This explains the lack of antenna-type coupling and the relatively close distance between the two boxes. The fluorescent bulb lit when exposed to the gap is another proof there has to be HV there. Bit by bit we'll crack the mystery.

I'm sure Kanzius is well aware of the physical limitations of conventional emitters and may be throwing out discrete frequencies used in his machine as a smokescreen for how they're actually employed.

Firstly, I'm not sure Kanzius is an engineer of any kind. What is for sure is that he owned a TV station. Another wrong conclusion coming from subliminal suggestion was expressed by another contributor to this thread who said: "doctor Kanzius..." Just seeing Kanzius dressed with a white lab coat in a video and claiming he found a cure to cancer does not make him a MD! But the power of WORDS and suggestion is extraordinary.

As others said, Kanzius is not an idiot. He is a master of manipulation through media. All you see in the videos is very refined edited movie art. Only the expression of his eyes, face and body language cannot fool me.

For the same reason I am highly suspicious about the German professor here. Without being asked, first he says he's German (German science has a very high reputation!), then his name is Werner (you may associate with Werner von Braun!), then he's old and famous enough to be mentioned in all Chemistry manuals (that really crushed me) and finally insults all of us with his mark for Chemistry knowledge... Hello "Professor Kanzius"! Sorry, but your "demonstration" on how subatomic world functions is as good as your patent applications.

Secondly, if someone intentionally puts in a patent application wrong numbers, data, etc. as "a smokescreen", then he cannot expect to get that patent! The golden rule is to give enough (true) information for being understood and eventually reproduced by anyone skilled in the art.

"...what I saw on the video appears to me more like "ball lightning" than anything else..."

Good point, but that would suggest some plasma rip at high voltage through a non-conducting medium, which, frankly, I can't see in the mechanism suggested in the video publication

So either what we see is other than explained there, or at least not everything is revealed, and, according to Occam's razor, in the absence of clear-cut sighting, he simplest of explanations, usually corresponds with the truth

I enjoyed reading all of these post. Now that a major university has replicated these results and released a paper detailing the reactions, I wonder why no-one is commenting?

Would you care to link us to the alleged?

Can we run our car with water and gas?

Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

In short, it's a scam. The worst promoters (some making large amounts of money) have a history of fraud, and know full well that the systems do not work as advertised, in other words, to improve fuel efficiency. Many others are unwittingly promoting the technology in the same way that people who believe in fuel line magnets will write testimonials. The EPA has tested fuel line magnets, and found that they act exactly as theory would predict -- they have no effect at all on the fuel or on fuel efficiency. Popular Science tested several such devices, and found they all had no effect, or reduced efficiency -- exactly as would be predicted by conventional science.

Some links to look at:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/GasSavingDevicesMostlyAScam.aspx

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/22670/Finally-A-Great-HHO-test-Run-your-car-on-water

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/16914/HHO

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/21465/Saving-MPG-with-Brown-Gas-Generator

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/24028/Browns-Gas-for-Increased-Fuel-Efficiency-True

Of course, you can make one of these yourself for very little money. If you are so inclined, you can do your own experimentation.

Another scam. See previous threads and posts on CR4 for much more detail.

hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed, only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice eBook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.

The FTC is working to shut down the "water for fuel" scams. Also, there is a million dollar prize offered to any HHO scammer who can prove that his device actually works as advertised. There are many threads on CR4 exposing these scams: search HHO, Brown's gas, etc.

These devices actually reduce fuel efficiency slightly (just as theory would predict, because it takes more energy to split water than you get by burning the resulting gases) but they consume so little energy (and produce so little H2/O2 mix) that the loss is hard to measure, even on a dynamometer.

Right on.

Did you know "Ken" means "Blade" in Japanese?

The typical automobile alternator produces an abundance of excess electrical energy. This energy can be used to extract HHO from salted water, The HHO is only a suplement to gassoline or CNG, it works mostly as an oxygen booster. Buring HHO does not violate any laws for this application simply becuse you are just reclaming wasted energy that is produced by the alternator and converting that into a combustable suplemental fuel source. HHO does not work well in newer cars unless you modify the computer to compensate for the increased oxegen readings. I have a friend that is getting about 30 mpg now in his SUV with HHO suplementation. It is true that there are a lot of scams out there, but there are also a equil number of legitimate enterprises out there, who are getting very close to a full blown solution to the energy crissis.

The typical automobile alternator produces an abundance of excess electrical energy.

This statement, often repeated by HHO scammers and frauds, is (as you probably know) completely wrong. The electrical energy produced by an alternator is in proportion to the mechanical input energy. If you double the electrical load on an alternator, you double the mechanical effort required to turn it (meaning you double the fuel used to turn it). When there is no demand on the alternator, the field coil is automatically deenergized, making the alternator present negligible load to the engine.

The HHO is only a suplement to gassoline or CNG, it works mostly as an oxygen booster.

The most productive of these devices put out 1 to 2 liters of HHO per minute -- per the frauds' own claims. Several successful frauds sell units putting out even less. A 3.8 liter engine (about the average these days) running at 2000 rpm takes in 3800 liters of air in a minute. 20% of that (760 liters) is oxygen. If we assume 1.5 liters of HHO per minute, .5 liters would be oxygen and 1 liter would be hydrogen (remember: H2O). Therefore, the amount of additional oxygen is 1/1520 of the total ordinary oxygen intake. Obviously, this is not even remotely close enough to have any measurable effect at all. Standing near your engine and exhaling would have a far more pronounced effect than these HHO "boosters": your exhaled CO2 would tend to extinguish combustion.

...reclaming wasted energy that is produced by the alternator and converting that into a combustable suplemental fuel source.

1. Of course it's not wasted energy; it is energy taken from the fuel used to run the engine, which is working harder to run the more heavily loaded alternator. 2. And now you've changed your story. You just finished saying the effect is mainly from adding oxygen (not a fuel source). Now you are saying that you are converting electrical energy into a fuel source. Which is it?

It is true that there are a lot of scams out there,

This is the only thing you've written that makes any sense.

Can you think of anything that is actually true that would suggest why these things work, despite all the tests that indicate that they do not? Is the FTC part of some conspiracy?

Oh and by the way you will notice that the $1 million prize requires a $5K entry fee and there are more contingency's than can be counted, before anyone could ever hope to win the contest, in my opinion this contest is its self is a scam.

So let's see... Put yourself in the shoes of the working HHO device developer: You have a device (which would be worth billions to the auto industry) and someone is telling you you can have $1,000,000 if you can demonstrate that it works. What sort of idiot could not scrape together $5000 to win $1,000,000? Any legitimate business person would jump at the chance.

(The $5000 filters out some of the real wackos, of which there are hundreds. Even right here at CR4 we have people claiming insane things, such as that alternators magically produce "excess" energy. Imagine if that were the case: just plug an inverter into your cigarette lighter and run your whole house, or the whole neighborhood.)

Oh and by the way you will notice that the $1 million prize requires a $5K entry fee and there are more contingency's than can be counted, before anyone could ever hope to win the contest, in my opinion this contest is its self is a scam.

As any actual engineer or scientist will tell you (and that includes me) the contingencies such as "baseline", "independent testing" and "retesting" are absolutely vital to ensure an "apples for apples" comparison between a car with and without the modification.

As for the $5K entry fee, that is very low for an independent laboratory report of this detail (as in the people performing the tests will be losing money, not making any). I should know, I also worked at and with international electrical test labs. It is not unheard of to spend over $200,000 US on a single test (such as the one I am currently involved in).

My friends you have all missed the point. If you use solar energy to make hydrogen from water how much did the energy cost you? Forget about energy efficiency. I want economical efficiency. Secondly when a combustion engine burns hydrogen (Not efficently but who cares) the exhust is pure water and pure oxygen. Consequently cleaning the environment as you use it. Finally if we used all the government owned dessert space in Arizona and filled it with solar panels to make hydrogen you would fulfill ALL the energy needs in the USA. Imagine a government bond being created to build it. All the jobs and wealth it would create... Think about it !! Where's my prize money? LOL

My friends you have all missed the point. If you use solar energy to make hydrogen from water how much did the energy cost you? Forget about energy efficiency. I want economical efficiency

Have a look at my (and others) previous posts on the subject, it is explained very clearly. The short answer is if it requires more energy to make the solar panel (and associated converters and electronics) than you ever can get out of the solar panel during its life, let alone taking into account the poor conversion efficiencies of converting electricity to hydrogen (and all the necessary equipment that also requires electricity to make) then all you are doing by converting electricity to hydrogen is to waste electricity in unnecessary energy conversions. Where do you think the power comes from to make a solar panel?

Some people think we can just put up a solar panel and produce infinite amounts of energy in some over unity energy cycle system, the reality is the real world doesn't work this way. Only when you take into account the entire system do you get a real picture of just how much energy you spend compared to how much energy you get out.

Jack - An actual power generation, transmission and distribution engineer.

...And let's remember that light "wears out" solar cells due to light induced degradation. The cells that last the longest are the expensive single crystal cells that degrade in output by 0.5% per year. The thin film units degrade faster, and, of course, they are the units receiving all the hype.

In addition, they NEVER operate at their rated outputs. Read the fine print.

Note: The initial 5% degradation in the first 30 days is usually accounted for in ratings, but not always, so be careful.

Relativism is a cancer in science and quite often wrong. Just look at entwined protons. You should use it as a guide for what we know presently and not a set of absolute laws.