Re: RF to burn salt water

Kerry.Thurber@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 14, 12:39 pm, Don Lancaster <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Kerry.Thur...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Sep 13, 7:04 am, levik11 <levi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What the power of radio frequency has to be applied to be decompose
water molecules to hydrogen and (?) oxygen compare to energy spent?

RF cannot disassociate H2O at any intensity. It takes x-rays to do
that.

The RF is probably inducing a current into the container or whatever
that in turn is doing a normal (but horribly inefficient) electrolysis.
How they would get the essential dc term remains a mystery.

Their claim of 70 percent efficiency is ludicrous, since it is difficult
to generate from-the-mains rf at that efficienty by itself.

Separating the hydrogen from the oxygen would be enormously difficult.
As would separating either from plain old water vapor.

Even if valid, that would be 70 percent efficient at converting very
high value kilowatt hours of energy into very low value ones. And thus
totally useless. Because of the inevitable and unavoidable staggering
loss of exergy.

The fact that the claim was derived from attempts at a quack cancer cure
does not lend much credibility.


Well, we've had this argument before. The truth (or untruth) of the
matter is independent of its source, and all science doesn't come from
respected scientists--never has, never will.

This particular gentleman came up with an RF way to treat cancer
(never claimed for it to be a cure) because he himself was suffering
from cancer. The method he envisioned will do nothing for his
particular cancer, but he advocated it because he hated to see the
small children with cancer. Tiny metallic nanoglobes can be migrated
to infuse solid tumors without surgery. The RF waves leave the
surrounding tissue unheated, but heat the cancer enough to kill it.

The effectiveness of his method is still under evaluation, but as one
who recently lost a lovely woman to cancer, I applaud his efforts, and
note that his method works as well as or better than many which come
from more respected institutions, and even better than some which were
used to treat my late wife. Had we been given the opportunity, we
would have tried it.

Back on subject:

The man doesn't have the education to understand what he's doing.
Maybe his scientist buddy (who certainly knows better than this) is
seeing dollar signs, and doesn't really care about whether it works or
not. You can attract a lot of venture capital from headlines. Or
maybe something is going on which neither of us knows anything about.
Let's wait and see.

There was absolutely no point in reading beyond "seven times Faraday" in the story.

And even if you did, the words "stainless steel" guarantee that what is claimed flat out ain't gonna happen. Because of the hydrogen overvoltage of iron.

The claims are utterly and totally bogus.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf



--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@xxxxxxxxxx

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RF to burn salt water
    ... water molecules to hydrogen and oxygen compare to energy spent? ... The fact that the claim was derived from attempts at a quack cancer cure ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: RF to burn salt water
    ... water molecules to hydrogen and oxygen compare to energy spent? ... Their claim of 70 percent efficiency is ludicrous, since it is difficult to generate from-the-mains rf at that efficienty by itself. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: RF to burn salt water
    ... water molecules to hydrogen and oxygen compare to energy spent? ... can regualar salt water be used? ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)