Burning salt water

[bascule]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lud1qceKqyQ

 

Yet another aww shucks lone non-scientist inventor accidentally discovers a way to burn salt water while trying to cure cancer.

 

He seems to meet the general requirements of a crackpot. But I'm curious as to what's going on here. Can electrolysis be caused by electromagnetic radiation, as opposed to actually running a current through the water, and how is it producing enough hydrogen to actually create a flame? And how can it be pumping that much energy through the air but still be safe enough for you to stick your hand through it?

[bombus]

It's might not be a hoax, or crackpot, but how much energy is being used up to make the flame? I'd bet it doesn't end up as a net gain. If it is for real it will probably be bought up by Shell and buried!!

 

Have you heard about that company in Ireland who claim to have discovered free energy? see below:

 

http://www.steorn.com/

[insane_alien]

its been done before, what bombus said is true, there is no net gain. you can do the same thing with standard electrolysis. this is just a wireless version.

[CPL.Luke]

although he is using salt-water, the salt could catalyze the electrolysis reaction and thus produce a net gain of energy, however that would be unlikely, and it looked like he was using some very powerful microwaves.

 

his idea on cancer was interesting though, although if you had a chemical that targeted cancer cells and why not put something into it that would kill the cells without the radio waves.

[insane_alien]

the thing is though, catalysts only change the activation energy, they do not change the overall enthalpy of the reaction.

[Klaynos]

his idea on cancer was interesting though, although if you had a chemical that targeted cancer cells and why not put something into it that would kill the cells without the radio waves.

 

We do this already, with visible wavelengths, radio is too weak really.

 

It's called pdt, photodynamic therapy I'm told by my lab partner who's done a module or 3 on medical physics.

[CPL.Luke]

yeah we do... but using high frequency radio waves (more in the microwave band) could allow for more specific targetting.

 

wouldn't visible wavelengths be absorbed by the skin?

[Sayonara]

Have you heard about that company in Ireland who claim to have discovered free energy? see below:

 

http://www.steorn.com/

 

I blogged the challenge a couple of times but soon lost interest. I see that they have redesigned their web site, shame the content has varied little in almost a year. How long can demonstrating free energy take?

[Sayonara]

Anyway, just watched the movie.

 

My question is... how does the energy released compare to the energy requirements of the radio transmitter?

[insane_alien]

the energy used by the transmiter would be larger than the energy released by burning the Hydrogen. i don't know the efficiency of radio transmitters but i would expect it requires a good 50% more energy.

[Sayonara]

Well I'm so glad he is on the case then. The energy crisis is solved!

 

Tune in next week, when we see him provoking fresh tumours in a ward full of cancer patients.

[Klaynos]

yeah we do... but using high frequency radio waves (more in the microwave band) could allow for more specific targetting.

 

wouldn't visible wavelengths be absorbed by the skin?

 

Radio waves have a longer wavelength and therefore cannot have such a small focus as visible, UV etc...

[CPL.Luke]

yes but human tissue allows them to pass through far more easily than gamma and x-rays (which is the conventional form of radiation therapy)

 

and as such if you doped the tumors with a specific chemical that would absorb the radiowaves, then it would be far more effective.

 

do you have a source for the use of visible and uv to treat cancer? those wavelength shouldn't be able to penetrate deep enough to impact the tumors, also it would take a tremendous amount of power to heat the tumor to the point where it would be damaged. Whereas x-rays and gamma rays attack the tumor by damaging the dna and thus stopping the tumor from growing.

[YT2095]

it`s probably some form of Radiolysis I expect.

and will be nowhere close to unity, nevermind Gainfull

it`s not new either.

[lucaspa]

the energy used by the transmiter would be larger than the energy released by burning the Hydrogen. i don't know the efficiency of radio transmitters but i would expect it requires a good 50% more energy.

 

Exactly! Second Law of Thermodynamics. He is using electricity from the power grid to make the radio waves. So, in order to actually decrease the use of fossil fuels, the electricity must be made by wind, solar, tidal, or nuclear power.

 

Also, the energy density of hydrogen is much less than gasoline. The saltwater + microwave generator is going to weigh more than the gasoline + engine in cars now. That decreases the efficiency.

 

his idea on cancer was interesting though, although if you had a chemical that targeted cancer cells and why not put something into it that would kill the cells without the radio waves.

 

yeah. The problem is finding something that will locate only the cancer cells but not normal cells. Putting something with the targeting chemical is the easy part. So the guy basically skipped right over the hard part.

 

In using radiotherapy to treat cancer, the problem is that the x-rays kill all the cells in the path, both before and after they pass thru the tumor. Also, radiotherapy is only good on very localized cancers. Any widely spread cancer -- as in metastasis -- has too many locations for radiotherapy.

 

do you have a source for the use of visible and uv to treat cancer? those wavelength shouldn't be able to penetrate deep enough to impact the tumors,

 

I haven't found anything clinically except for treatment of melanomas -- which are skin cancers. However, I did find the following paper. It is on cells in culture, not in the patient.

 

1: Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2007 May;83(5):289-99.

 

Reproductive death of cancer cells induced by femtosecond laser pulses.

 

Thøgersen J, Knudsen CS, Maetzke A, Jensen SJ, Keiding SR, Alsner J, Overgaard J.

 

Department of Chemistry, University of Aarhus, Denmark. thogersen@chem.au.dk

 

PURPOSE: High intensity femtosecond (1 fs = 10(-15) s) laser pulses may, via

multi-photon processes, cause reproductive cell death at wavelengths that

otherwise are harmless. We study the efficacy of inducing reproductive death of cancer cells by ultraviolet (UV), visible (VIS) and near infrared (IR)

femtosecond laser pulses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Human squamous carcinoma cervical cancer cells are irradiated by femtosecond laser pulses at 800 nanometers (nm), 400 nm, 266 nm and 200 nm. The reproductive death is assessed by colony forming assay. The contribution from multi-photon processes is evaluated by comparing the cell reproduction subsequent to irradiation by collimated (low intensity) and focused (high intensity), pulsed laser beams with identical fluences. RESULTS: Suitable femtosecond pulses are capable of arresting cell reproduction at all the tested wavelengths. Irradiation at 266 nm is far more efficient than the other wavelengths, both in terms of the fluence and the absorbed dose needed to induce reproductive cell death. The collimated 800 nm beam is unable to induce reproductive cell death even at a fluence of 230 Joule/square centimeters (J/cm2). However, focused 800 nm pulses with much higher intensities, but lower fluences efficiently arrest cell reproduction, thus highlighting the dramatic effect of multi-photon processes. At the intensities used in the present work focusing the 400 nm beam improves its efficacy by an order of magnitude, whereas focusing the 266 nm beam does not improve its efficacy. CONCLUSION: Femtosecond pulses at 200, 266, 400 and 800 nm induce reproductive cell death if the intensity is sufficiently high. Multi-photon processes can improve the efficacy substantially and even result in reproductive cell death at wavelengths, where single-photon processes are harmless.