sci.energy

Tanhks wrote:
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>> plenty560@ wrote:
>>
>>> Learn about it here: http://somedamnedsapammerssite
>> It's not. Really.
>> Don't even get us started on water as fuel.
>> Anthony
>
> It is in too
> http://www. /
>
> Everyone learned the electrolysis during school.
> You put in two electrodes into salted water,
> Pass it with electric current (ac or dc)
> the result is water molecule separated to hydrogen and oxygen.
>
> This "Salt water bombarded with radio frequency energy"
> is just a wireless version of electrolysis process.
> It is flammable is the result of hydrogen and oxygen which released from
> this electrolysis process start burning once emerge from the surface of
> the water.
>
> I would guess the energy needed to generate the radio frequency is
> bigger than the energy released from the burning of hydrogen and
> oxygen(which released from this wireless electrolysis process).

This is not a hoax, although it suffers from somewhat misleading
headline writing. If you read the original newspaper article (here is a
more direct link: /pg/07252/ )
you will see that this has been demonstrated independently by a Penn
State chemist. Of course, as stated by the previous poster, this is a
(new) form of electrolysis, so it is not legitimate to call the salt
water itself a "fuel." The hydrogen produced by the process could be
called a fuel to the extent that you can call hydrogen produced by other
means a fuel -- it is a means of taking energy in one form (in this case
electromagnetic) and converting to another form (chemical).

The article also states:

"But researching its potential will take time and money, he said. One
immediate question is energy efficiency: The energy the RF generator
uses vs. the energy output from burning hydrogen."

So they are not trying to pass this off as a "free energy" proposition.

BTW the "dead tree" version of the article had a photo with a very
impressive flame coming out of the test tube.