Run your car on salt water

[Mr I]

กก AGUA SALADA REEMPLAZA AL PETROLEO !! - YouTube

[Scrumhalf]

It won't work. Hydrolysis of water is a highly energy-intensive process. You end up putting in more energy than you can extract from this.

Read this:

Water: Alternative Fuel of the Future?

[Mr I]

Not the same thing

[Scrumhalf]

Bottom line is that you can't extract energy from sea water. Electrolysis is endothermic. It takes in more energy than is can generate for use as a fuel. Anyone claiming otherwise is either deliberately or unknowingly violating thermodynamics.

It's a scam, bro. There are many companies that are started with premises like these. All they want is to attract enough gullible investors to sink some money into them.

[Mr I]

I don't think you can be that conclusive on this SH. The fact that fire/heat can be created from sea water was a suprise to me. That very fact demonstrates huge potential. Just seems to be a case of refining the process so that there is a net energy gain. I'm sure it took a lot of effort to refine and deliver those non renewables we take for granted today. I don't think we should write it off with such conviction just yet. Also keep in mind that if it was made to work there would be significant economic impact and I'm sure BP and Shell wouldn't like it. Before you jump and say I must be a conspiracy nut job, I'm just stating fact. With bio fuel being proven to work in deisel engines that weren't strictly designed for it, it seems suprising that auto manufacturers haven't turned to make engines for them wide market except a few buses. Not sure how environmentally friendly the bio fuel is though

[Bouncer]

school him scrum.

[Scrumhalf]

Most of these schemes break down when a careful accounting of the energy input/output is done.

Note that all fuels either have to be a source of energy or a carrier of energy. If they are a source of energy, then they release energy from their chemical bonds through some kind of chemical reaction (gasoline) or through a nuclear reaction (uranium), etc. Or they can be a carrier of energy like hydrogen, that can be combined with oxygen to generate energy (and water) in a hydrogen fuel cell. But you still have to make hydrogen first, which is a pretty energy intensive process through, you guessed it, splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

The John Kanzius story is pretty old. He is directing RF energy into the water that then splits and recombines to generate energy. Note that each of these steps is inefficient. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes 100% efficient energy conversion. So, you connect your RF generator to the electric grid to generate RF energy - not 100% efficient. You use the RF energy to excite hydrogen and oxygen atoms from water molecules - not 100% efficient. You then use a portion of their energy to recombine and generate energy - not 100% efficient. When you add it all up, it invariably turns out that you are putting in more energy than you extract from the water. If you don't (or won't) accurately and honestly account for all the energy you are putting in, you can conclude that you are generating energy, when in fact you are not.

[Mr I]

Bullshit SH, in a long winded way your just saying the process isn't energy efficient enough. Well guess what the same can be said for many now common accepted energy sources. Imagine if people were so defeat est when embarking on nuclear power lol! Or many other inventions.

[Scrumhalf]

The fallacy here is breathtaking. Your argument is a total red herring. Nobody is being defeatist. But the "inventor" has to provide a plausible explanation for how this thing works. There is no plausible mechanism by which this can generate energy. You are putting in more energy than you can get out!!!

I give up.

Hard to argue with a guy who insists energy can be created out of nothing. You carry on with your fantasies. I am sure the Illuminati or the Bohemian Club or the Freemasons or the Elders of Zion or someone else is responsible for suppressing this remarkable world-changing invention.

[Mr I]

Not talking about anything else no need to try and muddy the waters. I'm just saying that the concept has possibilities and your own argument rests upon the fact that it takes more energy to get energy from it. I'm not going to argue that but even that doesn't mean its a lost cause for the reasons I've stated twice now but you don't want to address so you revert to cheap shots. Oh well!

[FitnessBrat]

Wait, do you believe in Illuminati, Mr I? Just curious.

[Mr I]

Wait, do you believe in Illuminati, Mr I? Just curious.

Not in its truest sense no. I just posted some stuff up that was interesting and bouncer blew it up as usual and other sheeple followed. I do believe the concept that many are in fact controlled by few and that ignorance is bliss for most, even at the detriment in the long term.

[FitnessBrat]

Not in its truest sense no. I just posted some stuff up that was interesting and bouncer blew it up as usual and other sheeple followed. I do believe the concept that many are in fact controlled by few and that ignorance is bliss for most, even at the detriment in the long term.

I really just meant the "lizard people", as the Freemasons would have you believe.

[Mr I]

I really just meant the "lizard people", as the Freemasons would have you believe.

Lizard people? Care to elaborate FB? You can its my theed