Man trying to cure cancer thinks he found a way to burn salt water

[liberal N proud]

Radio-waves will heat certain metals. Tiny bits of certain metal are injected into a cancer patient.

Those nano-particals are attracted to the abnormalities of the cancer cells and ignore the healthy cells.

The patient is then exposed to radio waves and only the bad cells heat up and die.

But John also came across yet another extrordinary breakthrough.

His machine could actually make saltwater burn.

John Kanzius discovered that his radio frequency generator could release the oxygen and hydrogen from saltwater and create an incredibly intense flame.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=68227

Video: http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=35660&bw=

[hobbit709]

1. Repeat number 158

This seems to pop up about every two days here. And it's hokum to boot

See thread from two days ago
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1522737

[liberal N proud]

2. Hadn't seen it before

Wasn't trying to promote the theory. It probably uses more energy to create the RF waves than made by the burning it supposedly does.

[Trillo]

3. Has anyone verified that?

Has this dude released full specifications of the precise waveform used: shape, frequency, amplitude? In turn, has anyone else repeated his results?

Presumably, if enough scientists are not able to duplicate results, then either it's a scam or the dude hasn't released his full data set.

Presumably, if enough scientists are able to duplicate, then enough data would hopefully be aquired to make a definitive statement that either it uses more energy as RF generation that recovered from the hydrogen, or it does not.

I'm just as uncomfortable reading the discussions on DU claiming this 'probably' doesn't work, as reading of his device that claims it does. It reminds me of the global warming 'public debate', the warmers versus the anti-warmers, which really seems more like ideology than science.

[Speck Tater]

4. Once more with feeling: It uses MORE energy than it gives back.

It is NOT an energy source. It uses more microwave energy to separate the hydrogen than you can possibly get back by burning the hydrogen. We will have a serious energy problem in the near future when oil production can no longer keep up with demand, and we have morons showing us useless sparkly baubles to distract us and make us feel complacent in the face of a major crisis.

Converting energy from one form to another ALWAYS results in energy loss because NO method of conversion can be 100% efficient. This has been proven often enough, and conclusively enough that ANY claim of perpetual motion (or self-fueling energy conversion) can be dismissed immediately as just more horse manure.

[Trillo]

5. More ideology.... nt/t

[Speck Tater]

6. NOT ideology. Thermodynamics.

Granted, any sufficiently advanced science looks like magic to anyone who does not understand it, but those who DO understand it know it's not matter of "faith" or "dogma", but of verifiable fact.

That some people don't know the difference between verifiable facts and mere dogmatic opinion is why con artists can still bilk people out of money for perpetual motion schemes.

[Trillo]

7. The challenge of the scientist is to disclose the data.

Where's the data proving their is no peak production at a specific frequency, waveform, and amplitude?

This should NOT be difficult for a scientist, or better, groups of scientists, to prove or disprove, and compare energy in versus energy out, along with disclosing of their data, as definitive. The theory to be disproved is whether there is a harmonic frequency that breaks the molecular bonds with little energy input versus other non-harmonic frequencies that require greater inputs.

[Speck Tater]

8. What you suggest violates basic thermodynamics.

Go to the library and check out a freshman physics book. Study the section on thermodynamics. If you still feel that way then you haven't yet grasped the material in the chapter. Rinse and repeat.

I'm not going to argue basic thermodynamics with you, nor will I try to convince you that the earth is not flat. It really is that basic. If you had a grasp of basic thermodynamics you would understand just how preposterous it is to even debate the issue. Like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether dragons breathe blue fire or orange fire. Honestly, it really IS that silly to even be discussing it. And it is NOT a matter of opinion, but of basic physics.

End of discussion.

[Trillo]

9. More ideology....

Handbook of Chemistry and Physics makes the 'wild assertion' (oops, sarcasm carried me away momentarily) that there are resonance frequencies.

Until this scientists discloses the data so other scientists can definitely prove or disprove, and if he has disclosed his data, and the others claiming disproof haven't, then I'll just presume you are blowing smoke up our collective asses.

[Speck Tater]

10. OOOO. Another misunderstood buzzword "Resonance" WOW!

So you're claiming resonance creates energy out of thin air? Please, please, please, know what you are talking about before trying to debate something you don't understand. That you can even imagine that this is "ideology" PROVES beyond a shadow of doubt that you DO NOT understand the subject.

Either that, or sink all your money into the project and hope for the best.

[Trillo]

11. In post number eight, you wrote:

"End of discussion".

What else have you lied about?

[Speck Tater]

12. Whatever. nt

[Speck Tater]

13. Here's a link. Go argue it with experienced engineers

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/9309/Salt-Water-as-Fuel