Crude oil replacement-sea water?

This story broke a few weeks ago.  If there is any truth to it, and there appears to be, this is something everyone should try to follow.

A cancer researcher, John Kanzius, attempting to desalinate salt water with radio frequency energy to study the effects on cancer cells, discovered to his amazement that the salt water caught fire.  Some believe that the sodium ions were excited to such a degree that they broke the bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen.  This caused them to exit the fluid and catch fire, reuniting again as water when ignited.  It is theoried that perhaps the sodium ions act as a sort of catalyst in the process.

A Penn State research chemist, Rustum Roy, duplicated the experiment in a University lab, further verifying its validity.  It has been said that the net energy gain is huge in that the amount of energy input required from the frequency generator is only a small fraction of the energy available from the freed hydrogen molecules.  Some counter arguments on this discovery state the Energy-In=Energy-Out law of physics, but fail to acknowledge the possible introduction of a catalyst type function (radio waves) into the process.

A YouTube report follows, in which John Kanzius shows the actual lab demonstration of the salt water catching fire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf4gOS8aoFk

With $100/bbl oil about to arrive everyone ought to carefully monitor whether this discovery gets "shelved" because it is a serious threat to oil revenues.  This could alter world events more than any other issue if this process can be verified by multiple labs everywhere.

Please note that, in the YouTube link provided, John Kanzius has no interest in profiting from this, and is only interested in its possible therapeutic uses as a cancer cure.  He is willing to let any interested parties carry forward the research of this discovery as a new energy source.  Therein could lie the seeds of a shelving of the idea if it falls into the wrong hands.

FeedFwd said: ... A catalyst works like a tunnel through a mountain.  It lowers the amount of energy required to make a reaction happen, but the net change in energy is the same. 

It appears that what you are saying is that, because the tunnel has been created, those who travel it will not have to expend the energy to go to the top of the mountain, but the energy to create the tunnel has to be taken into account.

The following from Wikipedia shows in graphical form how a catalyst reduces the energy to cause a reaction to take place using a hydrocarbon as an example:

Notice the difference in the "activation" energies between a non-catalygtic and a catalytic reaction.

The source for this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_coordinate

The energy released is, of course, the same in each case, but the activation energy is much less with a catalyst.  This, of course, is the problem faced by anyone trying to promote a Hydrogen economy.  The processes to produce the Hydrogen differ in the amount of energy input, and the net result is the expending of uneconomical amounts of it in all methodologies to date if account is taken of unintended consequences as well.  For example, ethanol from corn reduces the amount of corn that can be used for food.

The radio frequency process, from what has been released to the public, requires much less energy to separate the Hydrogen than what it releases when it recombines as water again.  That is why the RF was referred to as a "type of catalyst", though it isn't in the traditional sense.

This may yet turn out to be another hoax.  It could be a disinformation campaign, if you will, by those who wish to talk down the price of a barrel of oil (a ridiculous strategy, if true).  It may be yet another case of "cold fusion", which went nowhere.  Perhaps Roy and Kanzius are headed for the dustbin of history on this one, just as Pons and Fleischmann before them.

On the other hand, maybe there is something to it.  So what is your take on the video?  Did you watch it?  It appears that this is so simple that anyone that is somewhat handy could reproduce it in their garage.  This means that enough details would need to be available, such as the frequency output of the generator, how the RF waves are directed and the chemical composition of the salt water.

Some may wonder why an article, such as this, is posted on a website devoted mainly to illegal immigration.  Consider that there is a huge wealth transfer that has been taking place for a number of years from this country to oil producing countries outside the United States.  Also consider that many of these countries have leaders that are not particularly friendly to us.  Then consider the subject of terrorism and the open border policies of those in government. 

The following is another analysis of the "hydrogen from salt water" experiment.  The link to the article is as follows:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt_Water_Using_Radio_Waves

The article takes a more conservative assessment of the net gain from this process, saying that it was 76% efficient.  Even at that rate, this is a phenominal success, as the infrastructure to obtain the hydrogen is a tiny fraction of that required to extract oil.

The article then states:

"They subsequently quietly reported that they surpassed 100% efficiency, which would mean that the system is somehow harnessing environmental energy such as from the zero point (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Zero_point_energy) or some other yet-to-be discovered phenomenon."

This may fall into the category of catalytic reactions, as mentioned in the original post.  The response by FeedFwd was answered, but no further comment was returned.  Anyone wishing to debunk this process would be welcomed.  Science is about proven results, and not about desired outcomes.

You can follow the old thinking of the so called "law" conservation of energy if you like.

But the work of Nicoli Tesla, Stan Myers and a few others, show that it doesn't always apply.

Resonance is the key, I've been running my small truck with a HOD system (Hydrogen on demand) and gained approx 5 mpg around town.  Havent had time or energy to finish the work on the frequncy gen to go to full resonance system (running on water alone)  Check out following

www.waterpoweredcar.com

www.hydropowercar.com

lots of links and info 

i have a feeling that big oil will try and Shelve it if there is any real world benifit that would and or may hurt their greed .

remember the Holman-Moody ford that drove to D.C in 1978 ?? 70 mpg . this was powered on regular gas

never heard of it again . 

Tarkus said: ...

www.waterpoweredcar.com

www.hydropowercar.com

...

Not a whole lot of time was taken to view the links you provided.  What needs to be said, again, is that science is not about what you would like to be true, but about what can be proven to be true.  What these links provide is "junk" science.  This discredits what this forum subject was attempting to inform others about.

Most of us, who listen to all of this "global warming" controversy, view it as junk science.  Its proponents drive around in SUVs and jet in their private aircraft from place to place while telling the rest of us how we should be trying to save the planet.  No thanks.  No one should buy into unproven claims.

This additional information was discovered at the following link:

http://www.rustumroy.com/response_to_email.htm

Response to email and telephone communicators, who,

regretfully, I cannot answer individually

Re: Local observations of this phenomenon

Here's the latest news on the Kanzius Hydrogen generator:

11/22/07 - Pennsylvania State to test Kanzius Saltwater burning claims
Kanzius reached a joint working agreement Tuesday with Pennsylvania State University to develop uses for the device based on its ability to burn saltwater. "I think this device will yield a gold mine of scientific material," said Rustum Roy, Ph.D., director and founder of Penn State's Materials Research Laboratory and worldwide expert on the structure of water. "In science, we want to see something really new. This is most unexpected -- to everybody, to every scientist." Roy and his researchers will conduct experiments on the energy released from burning saltwater, the effectiveness of desalinating the water, and any other uses for the device other than treating cancer. Kanzius and Penn State will equally split the profit from any intellectual property gained from the device. Roy said he believes Kanzius' device uses radio waves to break the hydrogen-oxygen bond in saltwater using relatively little energy. He plans to study the energy released by breaking the bonds, and what is left when the bonds are broken. "In just the equivalent of two man-days of work, we learned enough to punch out two (scientific) manuscripts," Roy said. "I will present about John's device Tuesday at the Materials Research Society meeting in Boston." Now that an agreement between Kanzius and Penn State has been reached, Roy said the next step is to get research funding. "I think we will need a few million dollars for a few years of research," Roy said. "I'm confident we will get at least some funding. A major company was here, and I'm in contact with a half-dozen others." - Source

The following is from Materials Research Innovations. Pasting this into the comment box proved to be impossible, as it is a pdf file. If you wish to see the article with all the included photos, go to:

This is the story

What this shows, as mentioned in earlier posts, is that the salt in the water serves as a mechanism to work in conjunction with the RF generator to produce hydrogen gas. The exact energy balance has not been determined, but the input energy is more than the reduc products.

This, however, is the case with all processes, including the production of all gasoline and petroleum products. The value is portable energy that may require much less energy input to produce than petroleum products. Petroleum products require a catalytic cracking (fractionation) tower, which is a condensing unit wherein the different specific gravity products are collected, with the assistance of catalysts, at different heights within the tower. The catalysts reduce the amount of heat required to separate the various differing weights of petroleum byproducts. The heavier products are collected at the bottom and the lighter at the top in tray type structures, where they are piped to collection tanks. A boiler is required to supply the heat into the process. This is hugely expensive infrastructure, in comparison to what may be envisioned for hydrogen production by RF hydrogen from salt water. Of course huge exploration budgets aren't required either.

Observations of polarised RF radiation
catalysis of dissociation of H2O–NaCl
solutions
R. Roy*1,2, M. L. Rao1 and J. Kanzius3
The authors have shown that NaCl–H2O solutions of concentrations ranging from 1 to 30%, when
exposed to a polarised radiofrequency beam at 13?56 MHz at room temperature, generate an
intimate mixture of hydrogen and oxygen which can be ignited and burned with a steady flame.
Keywords: Radiofrequency, Radiation effects, Water
Introduction
Over the last few decades there have been a series of
claims of the possible changes in the ‘structure’ of water
caused by the influence of electromagnetic fields.1–7 The
authors have recently summarised in detail their perspective
on the structure of liquid water in several
papers,8–10 from the viewpoint of materials science as
opposed to the molecular configurations emphasised in
the chemical literature. Building on that materials
science perspective, the authors present only some early
observations in our laboratory repeating the serendipitous
discovery of a new phenomenon by Kanzius, which
point to a possible wider general scientific interest. The
effect of radiofrequency (RF) photons on the structure
and subsequent dissociation of water, to yield hydrogen
and oxygen is suggestive of other applications.
The present paper originated in the senior author’s
viewing of the YouTube presentation11 of television
reporter, Mike O’Mara, at WKYC-TV3 in Cleveland,
Ohio USA, which covered the discovery by Kanzius of
the fact that ‘sea water’ when exposed to a 13?56 MHz
polarised beam could then be ignited. The worldwide
dissemination of the video attracted the intense attention
of the lay public, business world and the scientific
community. The latter was largely very sceptical and
openly critical. Some individuals{ within the science
community could have been misled into thinking,
possibly due to the tenor and enthusiasm of the TV
announcer – that Kanzius had claimed that the effect, as
described below, was generating more energy than that
which was put into the system. No such claim has ever
been made by him.
During a visit to the Kanzius’ laboratory in Erie, PA
USA, the senior author first confirmed the facts that had
been reported in the TV report, namely a test tube of
saline (NaCl concentration approximately equals that of
sea water) in a clean Pyrex test tube with no electrodes,
when exposed to a radiofrequency beam, dissociated the
water into a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, which
when ignited by a match or a lighter could sustain the
flame as seen in the TV reports as long as the water
supply lasted.
Having confirmed the correctness of the observations,
it was arranged to bring the radiation source to the
microwave laboratory in the Materials Research
Laboratory at Penn State to conduct a series of
experiments of the authors’ design, with their equipment
and their solutions, on the phenomenon. The present
brief paper presents the preliminary findings, dealing
only with the facts of the earlier reports from Kanzius.
Owing to the extreme interest in the data, the report
reflects only the very first data obtained on the effects of
RF radiation on NaCl solutions in the authors’
laboratory.
Generation of hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis
and thermolysis has been studied previously.12,13 Photo
catalysis of various metal oxides has also been developed
for water splitting with y50% quantum yield.14
Meyer15,16 had earlier designed a method for obtaining
the release of fuel gas mixture including hydrogen and
oxygen from water in which the water is processed as a
dielectric medium in an electrical resonant circuit.
The effect of low energy (,1 eV) radiation on
condensed matter has been studied during the past few
decades; however, the literature is inconclusive and
scarce. Bhalla et al.17 very recently summarised various
solid state changes achieved with 1–3 eV photons.
Among many others, Colic and Morse18,19 have shown
the influence of resonant RF radiation on the gas/liquid
interface and on aqueous suspensions and solutions.20
Earlier work by Chibowski and Holysz21 on pH, conductivity
and Zeta potential of various treated colloidal
suspensions in water shows residual oscillations even
1Materials Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, 102
MRL, University Park, PA 16802, USA
2Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
3KC Energy, 3710 Volkman Rd, Erie, PA 16506, USA
*Corresponding author, email rroy@psu.edu
{It was perhaps this distortion that may have misled Philip Ball (who in fact
had written a book on water and had shepherded our own unexpected
similar microwave effects on solids past reviewers for Nature) in his rather
unwarranted critique in Nature (published online Sept. 14, 2007.) No
claims have ever been made by Kanzius of getting out more energy than
was put in, etc. He only reported a unexpected observation, a forgotten art
in modern laboratory practice, which could be pursued for a variety of
possible applications. His observations, fortunately for science, unfortunately
for his ‘unscientific’ critics who did not delve into the facts first, as in
normal science, appear to be correct.

2008 W. S. Maney & Son Ltd.
Received 28 December 2007; accepted 10 January 2008
DOI 10.1179/143307508/270875 Materials Research Innovations 2008 VOL 12 NO 1 3

after the field’s removal.22–27 Higashitani et al.,28
through a series of investigations, have quantified the
effects of magnetic fields in several papers dealing with
the ‘magnetic memory effect’. Pach et al.29 have shown
the effect of magnetic fields on CaCO3 crystal growth.
Yamashita et al.30 showed the effect of y100 Gauss DC
fields on the pH of specially preprocessed waters. It may
be noted that none of the work presented dealt in any
way with reactions remotely like the dissociation of
liquid water into its constituent elements H2 and O2.
This was first achieved by Faraday in 1831 using electric
currents at voltages .1?23 V.
While most textbooks of thermodynamics and phase
diagrams ignore any variables excepting P and T, it is, of
course, well known that electric E and magnetic H fields
are equally fundamental intensive variables. But these
variables have largely been ignored by mainstream
science, being regarded as de minimis, partly because
of confusions in terminology and partly because of the
imprecise use of the understanding of the kinetics of
phase changes in condensed matter as distinct from
molecular behaviour.
The most dramatic effects of the ability of weak
electromagnetic fields on condensed matter are, possibly,
those demonstrated by Roy et al.31–34 on the
radically different phase formation and direct decrystallisation
of many solids, including the most important
phases used in the electronic industry, namely ferrites,
barium titanates, and even elemental silicon. In these
papers it has been shown that using 2?45 GHz radiation
in a single mode cavity, dramatic differences are found
in X-ray diffraction (XRD), SEM, TEM and Raman
characterisation of the results of exposure, between the
electric and magnetic fields, and the ability to convert in
the solid state these crystalline phases to non-crystalline
phases. The work presented in the present paper
involves a paradigm disrupting observation of the main
bonding structure of a liquid phase.
Experimental
The equipment and its use in various medical institutions
such as The University of Texas M.D. Anderson
Cancer Center and The University of Pittsburgh
Medical Center has been described in more detail in
various presentations by these institutions. Approximate
maximum power for most of our experiments was
y300 W as recorded by the output dial of the RF
generator. The frequency of the RF was in the
13?56 MHz range (see e.g. exemplary published patent
applications of Kanzius35–38 (other patents pending)).
The authors prepared and processed a large series of
samples and report in the present paper on the NaCl–
H2O system. Sample concentrations were varied from
0?1 to 30% of NaCl. The Pyrex test tubes containing the
solution were held by means of a Teflon stand and were
individually introduced into the RF cavity. The effluent
gases at the top of the liquid surface were lit by means
of a lighter. They typically sustained a continuous
flame till the water was exhausted. Rudimentary
attempts were made to measure the temperature of the
flame – they agree with more detailed measurements
made by Dr Curley at M.D. Anderson, which place it
at y1800uC.39 Samples of the NaCl solutions were
analysed for structure changes with ultraviolet visible
a 0?3%NaCl in Pyrex test tube; b 3%NaCl in Pyrex test tube; c 30%NaCl in Pyrex test tube; d 3%NaCl in PTFE tube; e
3%NaCl in Silica glass; f DI water either in silica glass or in PTFE (not shown here) (do not ignite)
1 Mixtures of various concentrations of NaCl and water combusting (when ignited) in presence of 13?56 MHz RF
radiation
Roy et al. Observations of polarised RF radiation catalysis of dissociation of H2O–NaCl solutions

spectrophotometry and Raman spectrometry before and
after exposure to the RF field.
Results and discussion
Figure 1 shows a very simple view of the variation of the
flame size with the concentration of the solution. At 3%
(about sea water concentration) the results presented in
the YouTube video are essentially confirmed. Larger
flame sizes of about 4–5 inches are noted with higher
concentrations of NaCl. Immediately after the RF
power is turned ‘ON’, the flammable gas can be ignited.
The flame shuts ‘OFF’ instantly as soon as the RF
power is shut off. In the experiments to determine the
effect of concentration, the authors were able to show
that even 1 wt-%NaCl sustains a small flame continuously.
Also used were concentrations close to saturation
with NaCl that produce somewhat larger flames as can
be seen in Fig. 1. A solid sustainable flame is obtained
at all percentages of NaCl.1%. A small amount of Na
is adventitiously introduced into the flame as little
droplets; hence, the standard yellow colour in the flame
(Fig. 2A).
Faraday in 1831 first established that water could be
dissociated in a DC electric field with hydrogen emitted
at the cathode and oxygen at the anode. To the best of
the authors’ knowledge, besides the use of the electric
field current in some form, no other vectors have been
found to dissociate liquid water into hydrogen and
oxygen near room temperature. The use of weak
electromagnetic radiation to completely dissociate water
into hydrogen and oxygen is, therefore, the key
innovation discovered by Kanzius.
An interesting correlation exists with an example of a
similar action of radiation on NaCl solutions in a recent
paper by Brooks and co-workers.17 They explain their
phenomenon based on their detailed theory of ‘spectral
catalysis’. The most recent paper on work conducted at
Penn State shows that when irradiated by Na–D line
radiation, two important results are obtained
(i) a substantial change in the number and perfection
of NaCl crystals grown from NaCl solutions
(ii) growth is achieved even from several percent
under saturated solutions confirming the major
effect of physical light photons on the thermodynamics
of the system.
This shows that such electromagnetic radiation effects
on condensed matter, range across at least six orders of
magnitude of photon energy, covering visible light and
short wave radio.
The work cited above on resonant RF effects clearly
indicates the potential of specific resonant coupling of
such radiation into the structure of aqueous solutions.
What is new in the present work is the coupling of weak
radiation with a liquid to dissociate simple aqueous
solutions into continuous streams of intimately mixed
hydrogen and oxygen. The gaseous effluents are
obviously different from those obtained from electrolysis
as they are produced mixed in situ simultaneously.
Hence, the burning of these effluent gases should not be
compared precisely with the burning of molecular
hydrogen in air or the molecular oxyhydrogen mixtures.
Furthermore, it is important to find that the Raman
spectral analysis of the saline solutions before and after
the combustion confirms that there are substantial
structural changes in the water structure. Figure 2B
shows the Raman spectra of the saline solution before
and after exposure to the Kanzius RF field. These are
not discussed further in this context, but show that such
changes in the structure of the liquid phase (see Ref. 8)
are also correlated with such radiation effects, as also
have been observed with microwave photons at
2?45 GHz (Ref. 10).
Conclusions
It has been confirmed that polarised RF frequency
radiation at 13?56 MHz causes NaCl solutions in water,
with concentrations from 1 to over 30%, to be
measurably changed in structure, and to dissociate into
hydrogen and oxygen near room temperature. The flame
is a burning reaction, probably of an intimate mixture of
hydrogen oxygen and the ambient air. Most of the Na
present in the solution, concentrates progressively – as
measured – as the water is dissociated and burned.
References
1. M. Colic and D. E. Morse: Langmuir, 1998, 14, 783–787.
2. M. Colic and D. E. Morse: J. Coll. Interface Sci., 1994, 165, 243–
251.
2 (A) emission spectrum from flame generated by exposing
3%NaCl solution to RF generator (characteristic
Na–D line indicates that Na from small droplets ionises
emitting D line) and (B) Raman spectra of saline solution
before and after RF exposure
Roy et al. Observations of polarised RF radiation catalysis of dissociation of H2O–NaCl solutions
Materials Research Innovations 2008 VOL 12 NO 1 5

3. M. Colic and D. E. Morse: Phys. Rev. Lett., 1998, 80, 2465–
2468.
4. S. Rai, N. N. Singh and R. N. Mishra: Med. Biol. Eng. Comput.,
1995, 33, 614–617.
5. S. Ozeki, J. Miyamoto, S. Ono, C. Wakai and T. Watanabe:
J. Phys. Chem., 1996, 100, 4205–4212.
6. H. Hayashi: ‘Microwater, the natural solution’; 1996, Tokyo,
Water Institute.
7. K. Higashitani, A. Kage, S. Katamura, K. Imai and S. Hatade:
J. Coll. Interf. Sci., 1993, 156, 90–95.
8. R. Roy, W. A. Tiller, I. Bell and M. R. Hoover: Mat. Res. Innov.,
2005, 9, 577–608.
9. R. Roy: Proc. MRS 2007 Fall Meeting, Boston, USA, November
2007.
10. M. L. Rao, R. Roy and S. Sedlmayr: Proc. MRS 2007 Fall
Meeting, Boston, USA, November 2007.
11. First reported widely on YouTube on April 2007, available at:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/21/see-john-kanzius-combustsalt-
water/
12. S. Z. Baykara: Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2004, 29, 1459–1469.
13. E. A. Fletcher and R. L. Moen: Science, 1977, 197, 1050–1056.
14. A. Kudo, H. Kato and I. Tsuji: Chem. Lett., 2004, 33, 1534–1539.
15. S. Meyer: ‘Start up/Shut down for hydrogen gas burner’, US patent
no. 4465455, August 1984.
16. S. Meyer: ‘Gas electrical hydrogen generator’, US patent
no. 4613304, September 1986.
17. A. S. Bhalla, R. Guo, J. Brooks and M. Mortenson: Proc. MRS
2007 Fall Meeting, Boston, USA, November 2007, Paper 2, 10.
18. M. Colic and D. Morse: Coll. Surf. A, 1999, 154A, 167–174.
19. M. Colic and D. Morse: J. Coll. Interf. Sci., 1998, 200, 265–272.
20. L. Yezek, R. L. Rowell, M. Larwa and E. Chibowski: Coll. Surf. A,
1998, 141A, 67–72.
21. E. Chibowski and L. Holysz: Coll. Surf. A, 1995, 101A, 99–101.
22. K. Higashitani and J. Oshitani: J. Coll. Interf. Sci., 1998, 204, 363–
368.
23. J. J. Leahy, C. Macken and M. Ryan: J. Coll. Interf. Sci., 2000,
225, 209–213.
24. N. Kallay, Z. Trobic, M. Golic and E. Matijevic: J. Phys. Chem.,
1991, 95, 7028–7032.
25. L. Holysz and E. Chibowski: J. Coll. Interf. Sci., 1994, 164, 245–
251.
26. E. Chibowski and L. Holysz: Langmuir, 1992, 8, 710–716.
27. M. Colic, A. Chien and D. Morse: Croat. Chem. Acta, 1998, 71,
905–916.
28. K. Higashitani, J. Oshitani and N. Ohmura: Coll. Surf. A, 1996,
109A, 167–173.
29. L. Pach, S. Duncan, R. Roy and S. Komarneni: J. Mater. Sci.
Lett., 1996, 15, 613–615.
30. M. Yamashita, C. Duffield and W. A. Tiller: Langmuir, 2003, 19,
6851–6856.
31. R. Roy, P. D. Peelamedu, L. Hurtt, J. P. Cheng and D. Agrawal:
Mater. Res. Innovat., 2002, 6, 128–140.
32. R. Roy, P. D. Peelamedu, J. P. Cheng, C. Grimes and D. Agrawal:
J. Mater. Res., 2002, 17, 3008–3011.
33. P. D. Ramesh, R. Roy, D. Agrawal and W. Drawl: J. Mater. Res.,
2004, 19, 1599–1602.
34. R. Roy, Y. Fang, J. Cheng and D. Agrawal: J. Am. Ceram. Soc.,
2005, 88, 1640–1642.
35. J. Kanzius, W. H. Steinbrink, R. J. McDonald and M. J. Keating:
‘Systems and methods for combined RF-induced hyperthermia
and radioimmunotherapy’, WO patent application 2005120639,
December 2005.
36. J. Kanzius: ‘System and method for RF-induced hyperthermia’,
WO patent application 2005110544, November 2005.
37. J. Kanzius: ‘Enhanced systems and methods for RF-induced
hyperthermia’, US patent application 2006190063, August 2006.
38. J. Kanzius: ‘Enhanced systems and methods for RF-induced
hyperthermia’, EP patent application 1758648, March 2007.
39. C. J. Gannon, P. Cherukuri, B. I. Yakobson, L Cognet, J. S.
Kanzius, C. Kittrell, R. B. Weisman, M. Pasquali, H. K. Schmidt,
R. E. Smalley and S. A. Curley: Cancer, 2007, 110, 2654–2665.
Roy et al. Observations of polarised RF radiation catalysis of dissociation of H2O–NaCl solutions
Materials Research Innovations 2008 VOL 12 NO 1 6

employers,

I think you misunderstand how petroleum refining works.  It is true that it takes some energy to refine petroleum into gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, etc.  However, the amount of energy required for separation and reaction (including reforming, cat cracking, alkylation, isomerization, hydrotreating, etc) is only about 15% of the heating value of the crude.  Burning hydrocarbons with oxygen to CO2 and H2O is net exothermic or energy producing.  No matter how you do it, it is always net exothermic to combine H2 and O2 to produce H2O.  Going in the opposite direction ALWAYS requires energy, regardless of whether you use a catalyst or not.  This is not my opinion, it is basic thermodynamics.  Refineries are H2 short now that they need to remove so much more sulfur and if there was a way to get cheap, easy H2, they would be all over it like stink on a diaper.

FeedFwd said: ... Refineries are H2 short now that they need to remove so much more sulfur and if there was a way to get cheap, easy H2, they would be all over it like stink on a diaper.

Sorry.  Don't buy it.  Industries will never change, unless forced to do so by free markets.  Those who dominate a particular market are not gong to be predisposed to follow market forces, unless forced to do so by the market.

A case in point is the buggy industry at the turn of the last century.  Parts of the country involved in building them held on to the bitter end, so there was a sort of "buggy belt", instead of a "rust belt".  Perhaps the next belt will be a declining "petro-belt".

This sort of thing is also happening in the lighting industry.  A few corporations dominate it, and are holding back on new technologies that could drastically reduce energy consumption.  The reason for this is that they have large investments in traditonal lighting and are doing their level best to not impact that, except on their own schedule.  Lightling represents 20% of energy consumption overall.  The government's incursion into this market is not useful, as it never is.  Compact flourescent lighting (CFL) is be ing pushed by governments at t he behest of the lighting companies because it is still part of their more traditional approaches to lighting.

On the otherhand, light emitting diodes (LED) use approximately 1/3 the energy of a flourescent bulb.  And they are rated for lifetimes of up to 100,000 hours.  For those who read this, and are unaware of this technology, pay attention to traffic lights, and how they appear to have a pattern of light coming from them.  Also, automotive lighting, which is more typically used in tail lights, but is becoming more common in headlights as well.

The reason lighting companies can control lighting technology is that they are heavily involved in research into solid state lighting (also termed LED).  The investment in toolng for this technology, like that of petroleum products, is probably in the same neighborhood as that for the refining of petroleum products.

Compare this to the promise of a new technology that MAY require minimal investment, such as hydrogen from salt water.  When it come to opposing arguments to it, considering the source is a REALLY good policy.

Employers,

Free markets motivate,they don't force.  Companies in a free market strive to get and maintain a competitive advantage.  The bad way they do this is when they get government to protect them, but this is for another thread.  The good way is when they find ways to cut their cost to deliver goods and services and when they find things that they can do to make their goods and services more attractive to consumers than their competitors.  Commodity products are not really differentiated, so the bottom line is affected only by reducing costs.  You are not really saying, are you, that oil producers wouldn't like to reduce their cost of refining oil?  Whether the price of oil goes up or down, the lower their cost, the greater their profit.  Trust me, the refining industry is constantly trying to improve their processes.  There have been many changes in the last 10 or 20 years.  These include better automation, and better catalysts, among other things.  Some of their investments have clearly been directed by government regulation, but they are still investing to lower their costs.  Believe it or not, they have a budget they must live within, too.  And like other industries, there are pacesetters and laggards.  Each refiner must decide how to invest their limited capital for maximum effect and acceptable risk.  Maybe the refiners should stop refining oil and focus on producing hydrogen from saltwater.  But they may well run out of money and our economy may come to a complete halt before they are able to successfully commercialize it.  By all means, let people innovate and develop and commercialize new technology.  Just because a You tube video shows flames shooting out of a test tube of supposedly salt water, it does not mean we are going to be able to run our trains, planes, and automobiles on salt water anytime soon.  Every article and review, BTW, is careful to point out that they haven't reviewed the net energy required.  That alone should raise a red flag, even if you don't understand or believe the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass and energy.

I really do understand what you are saying.  There is incremental technology development and there is disruptive technology development.  My company's largest competitor is a company in the "late stage buggy production" position.  The same thing happened when steam ships began to replace sailing ships and even when 3.25 " floppies appeared.  Now all floppies are dead, but when the 5.25 " floppies were king, only a few innovative lap top manufacturers would consider the smaller diskettes.  A few years later, the larger ones were essentially dead. 

FeedFwd said:

Employers,

Free markets motivate,they don't force.  ...

Free markets motivate,they don't force.  Companies in a free market strive to get and maintain a competitive advantage. 

Those who dominate a particular market are not gong to be predisposed to follow market forces, unless forced to do so by the market.

Perhaps this is a distinction without a difference.  We'll go along with your choice, for the moment, but with an example where the word "force" is not taken out of context.

Suppose you took out a sub-prime variable interest rate loan, which you felt you were more than able to make payments on at the time.  Then the loan reset to a higher level, then a higher one yet.  It could be said that you felt "forced" to shop for a new one, because the consequences for not doing so would be some rather dire economic circumstances.  We are all "forced" to make changes in our investment decisions by markets that are not truly free, since they are manipulated by the banking industry.  Do you really think that the take-over of Bear-Stearns by JP Morgan was in the character of a "free" market, or was it more in the character of a market working under the auspices of a fiat currency system, with all that implies.

Commodity products are not really differentiated, so the bottom line is affected only by reducing costs. 

This is not really true.  In a business downturn, there will be a declining requirement for petroleum products, as well as those other commodities that figure into the manufacturing sector.  On the other hand precious metals, in particular gold and silver, could move in an entirely different direction due to inflationary forces driven by the current Fed policies of "Helicopter Ben".  If you are a monetarist (Friedmanite) you would probably dispute that.   We could well continue to see higher oil prices in a recessionary environment, but they will be in the character of a currency that is worth less.

Believe it or not, they have a budget they must live within, too.  And like other industries, there are pacesetters and laggards.  Each refiner must decide how to invest their limited capital for maximum effect and acceptable risk.  Maybe the refiners should stop refining oil and focus on producing hydrogen from saltwater.  But they may well run out of money and our economy may come to a complete halt before they are able to successfully commercialize it.  By all means, let people innovate and develop and commercialize new technology.  Just because a You tube video shows flames shooting out of a test tube of supposedly salt water, it does not mean we are going to be able to run our trains, planes, and automobiles on salt water anytime soon.  Every article and review, BTW, is careful to point out that they haven't reviewed the net energy required.  That alone should raise a red flag, even if you don't understand or believe the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass and energy.

On your first comment, "Believe it or not, they have a budget they (oil companies) must live within, too." 

There is no dispute mentioned.  There is only the issue of costs.  Having to rehash this, because you didn't carefully read what was said, or wished not to acknowledge, is a bit of a waste of time, but here goes.

The Kanzius experiment was done in the guy's kitchen in the middle of the night with his wife's pie pans, after an earlier experiment on desalination at the suggestion of another researcher, as they looked into the possibilities of cancer research.

So where is the big budget that you're alluding to?  This was not a government program, or an industry being given special tax considerations by the Federal Government.

Just because a You tube video shows flames shooting out of a test tube of supposedly salt water, it does not mean we are going to be able to run our trains, planes, and automobiles on salt water anytime soon.  Every article and review, BTW, is careful to point out that they haven't reviewed the net energy required.  That alone should raise a red flag, even if you don't understand or believe the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass and energy.

Are you trying to suggest that a Doctor of Chemistry, Rustum Roy, and the researchers he is working with have no credibility?  Did you even read the article posted from "Materials Research Innovations 2008 VOL 12 NO 1 6"?  Are you trying to say that all those that placed their name to this article are a bunch of charlatans?  Please DO get off this thermodynamics kick you are on.  You're not the only one that understands science.

It does appear that your comments are very much affected by your employer to the extent that you're willing to stretch the truth in order to remain in their favor.

employers,

When I see the word force, I think of somebody holding a gun (or knife in the case of a mad mullah) to your head and telling you what you will do.  In a free market, we all have to make choices.  Those choices are a result of the fact that there is not enough of everything to satisfy our every want.  When something is scarce, it costs more, but I assume you understand this and I won't belabor the point and insult your intelligence. 

When a loan doesn't work out, you have to react.  When the winter is colder than you expected, you have to react.  When your tire has a blowout during the middle of your vacation, you have to react.  You do have choices, although none of them may be pleasant.  So in that sense, you are not forced by the market to do anything.  You are motivated by your desires and what your options are.  Sometimes poor choices lead to poor options later on, as in the case of bad loans.  Sometimes, simple bad luck leads to poor options such as in the case of the blowout.  A free market is not responsible for either and offers solutions for both.

Precious metals are a commodity just like oil, pork bellies, and feeder cattle.  I'm not sure what your point is.  So what if gold goes up.  Or down.  It is responding to the larger market where there is a liquid supply and short term demand for gold.  The market is certainly complicated by the fact that gold can be a substitute for other commodities like currencies.  And it is worth asking if the price of gold is changing or if the currency is changing.  How many ounces of gold are required to buy a barrel of oil or 1000 head of cattle or a wedding gown or anything else?  How many dollar denominated Federal Reserve Notes are required?   As I read over your post, we probably are in agreement on all this.  My original point was that for a commodity, it is difficult to differentiate based on features to obtain more profit, so most commodity producers will try to reduce their production (and distribution) costs.  It is what drives so many people to try and avoid letting their product become a commodity.  That is why everybody tries to add new features (innovation) to their products.

As for the kitchen based experiment, it did not move a skateboard, let alone a car.  I know how combustion engines of various types work, including the sterling engine, but I'd say that extrapolating from the kitchen to the transportation industry reminds me of the guy at the blackboard overflowing with equations and the one little "balloon" in the corner that says: "This is where the miracle occurs."  I'm not going to discourage anybody from trying to invent a perpetual motion machine or even the next great engine of transportation.  I sure don't want to see my tax dollars being wasted on it, though.  If it has merit, somebody will convert it to a commercial offering and they will do so because they expect to get rich doing so.  We shall see who will step up to the plate with the piddlin' few million dollars required to study this phenomenon.  Dollars to donuts, it will be the government or a naive venture capitalist.  And if there is a benefit, dollars to donuts it won't be as a replacement for gasoline.

My comments may be affected by my inability to "imagine or dream big enough," but they have nothing to do with employment or employer.  I don't deny that radio waves can induce salt water to ionize.  I hope that some researchers will find a way to bring this to market.  I don't know Dr Roy, so I have no reason to suspect his credibility.  Anything he writes will be reviewed by peers that are more knowledgeable than I am.  BTW, do you know how chlorine is produced (from salt water) and that H2 is a by-product?  There are large-scale plants that do that today using electrolysis.  The hydrogen is captured and used to make other products like ammonia.

FeedFwd said: ... I don't deny that radio waves can induce salt water to ionize. ...

Read the lab report again.  Nowhere does it talk about ions.  If anything, this is a type of fractionation process.  It is believed that the sodium atoms, in the presence of 13.56 MHz RF are forced to vibrate violently.  This is their natural frequency and they break apart the water molecules into H2 and O2.  If you want to be a critic you have to at least understand that which you are criticizing.

Addendum:

A correction is given here for the natural frequency of sodium.  It is 26.451 MHz, which is almost a perfect harmonic of the frequency of Kanzius's RF generator.  This is according to the following: http://www.chem.tamu.edu/cgi-bin/NMR/periodic.sh?freq=0100&units=mhz&ref=c&x=64&y=134

Monday, November 5, 2007

The radio wave Wizard John Kanzius

When John Kanzius a retired radio station owner and self taught radio and TV engineer developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2004, he underwent the traditional chemotherapy sessions.

"I noticed young kids losing their smiles, losing their hair, and I said to myself: today's chemotherapy is cruel. There's gotta be a better way to cure cancer." -John Kanzius

With his extensive background in radio engineering John set out to see if he could somehow apply this knowledge in the treatment of cancer. John built himself a radio frequency generator (RFG) and began to experiment with various frequencies to exploit what is known as the Skin Effect.

Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is the self propagation of electromagnetic waves through a space. The electromagnetic spectrum encompasses all electromagnetic waves and classifies specific waves forms by two methods. First by their Frequency measured by the oscillation of the particle and measured in Hertz from e.g. 30 Hz - 300 Hz. Secondly by their wavelength distance, which can be anything from the size of an atom to hundreds of thousand kilometres across. Microwaves have wave lengths around 10 cm's and Radio waves are just above that with wavelengths from around 30cm to 10m. EMR has a peculiar property and that is when it comes into contact with a conductor its particles adhere to the conductor, excite the electrons within the conductor and thereby induce an electric current. This is the Skin Effect and it utilised by radio stations who broadcast EMR in the form of specific frequency registered radio waves that carry information in the form of amplitude, phase and frequency. These waves can travel very far depending on the power at which they where propagated initially and how much of the transmission is redirected by bouncing off the inner atmosphere of the earth. When these waves hit your antenna the Skin Effect is produced and because you have tuned in to a particular frequency you then hear a particular radio station.

John from experience knew that whilst radio waves induce a pronounced reaction in metals through the skin effect they have little or no reaction on the human body which is essentially a very bad conductor by comparison. Spurred by his and others suffering during chemotherapy John sought a way to apply this knowledge to his own situation. After experimenting with several metals John realised that the RFG could actually heat up and incinerate certain metals in an instant at the right frequencies. Faced with this empirical knowledge John saw that if he could achieve two things; One get the metal into the body and two make sure it goes to the cancer only, then his RFG might have a chance of actually curing cancer.

Enter Richard Smalley, Nanotechnology pioneer and creator of the Buckyball, who heard about John's idea in 2005. Richard proposed to John that perhaps constructed carbon nanotubes might by what he was looking for. This sent John on the path of nanoparticles and eventually to the door of the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston (ACC). This is where he met Dr. Steven A. Curley, Professor in Surgical Oncology who enthusiastically embraced the idea and started a preliminary research programme investigating the use of the RFG combined with nanoparticles.

"It's beyond remarkable, he was just a private citizen who just came up with an idea and had the wherewithal and the tinkering ability to do it."- Dr. Steven A. Curley

All that glitters may not be gold but nonetheless for future cancer patients this may be the case of all that glitters might save your life. For through much experimentation John and Steven have had good results with nano gold particles. Gold is an excellent conductor and when reduced to a nanoparticle solution it seems to be attracted to the impurities within cancerous cells. At least this was the case for the tumour ridden rats given that solution, and when exposed to the RFG waves those gold nanoparticles literally vaporised and took the tumours with them. John's results were favourable enough for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to purchase a patented Kanzius RF Machine (See actual machine version two in a Youtube Video) back in 2005. Interestingly the process was named and patented by John as RF-induced hyperthermia. Back to the ACC who bought their first unit in 2006 as part of the research programme and upcoming clinical trails using FDA approved nanoparticles.

"My jaw dropped when I heard how the experiments went, because they only ran these experiments on six animals and the results were perfect; one after the other" -John Kanzius

Though there still hangs the question of true targeting this is being worked on a furious pace. Steven is looking at a targeting molecule called Erbitux (aka: c255, Cetuximab), which is a chimerical monoclonal antibody that has the ability to bind to specific substances. If Erbitux can be modified to adhere to cancer cells and are themselves carrying the gold nano-particles. This would effectively target the cancer cells, and thus allow the RFG to vaporise them alone and leave the rest of the body unharmed. There are many obvious advantages to this treatment but the completely non-invasive process combined with targeting would seem to hold great promise. But it does not stop there for when John was demonstrating the RFG, a spectator noticed that an empty test tube near the machine formed a slight condensate and pointed this out to him.

This observation got John to thinking about the effect of the RFG waves upon water, and he duly experimented and found that water with a high concentration of salts reacted in a most strange manner. Every time John aimed the RFG at a test tube with saltwater he saw a spark above the water, curious he lit a wick above the test tube and turned on the RFG. Instantly a flame (see an actual Youtube Video demonstration of this), sprung up above the surface of the water, but died down when the RFG was turned off.

A water molecule consists of one atom of Oxygen and two of Hydrogen but is also very miscible, that is it mixes well with many other substances, and considered a virtual universal solvent in the amount of substances water can be mixed with to form one homogeneous solution. The sea is perhaps the best example of this property and contains a multitude of chemical compounds including high concentrations of common salts and minerals. What John surmised was the salt water in the test tube was the actual splitting of the covalent bond between oxygen and the hydrogen brothers. The resulting mix of oxygen and hydrogen gas released into the air from the salt water was then ignited by wick's naked flame. Another effect was the more John increased the strength of the EFG waves the hotter the flame became, and he clocked it in at the limits of his machines capability at over 1,647 degrees centigrade. Now fair enough, the power required to push the EFG wave strength to induce this temperature was considerable and far exceeded the actual energy output of the flame. But it opens up a whole new realm of possibilities for the investigation of this effect.

One of those possibilities is fine tuning the EFG to be able to disrupt the very atomic bonds within an atom. If this can be achieved then we have the keys to unlocking the power within an atom (we all know how powerful the atom can be if it split aka Nuclear reactors and Nuclear Bombs), in a safer more controlled manner. This could be the beginning of a new possibly clean or at least cleaner than current energy sources. And that is worth independent investigation, research and experimentation on a global open platform. So I say well done Mr John Kanzius you have given the world hope in two major fields that are present issues of major concern, but lets all be careful and not experience a repeat of Tesla, Klein, Rife or Meyer. Together slowly, surely and steadily with crucial knowledge shared, we can perhaps stem the rising tides and change the world for the better.

by Ivor W. Hartmann