Here is a video showing you just what a drinking bird can do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYhNw6SuTfA


Nink...I like your idea too, but that is a lot of birds...ha ha.

Bill

I love it,  the sad thing is that this is about as advanced as we have gotten with using water as a fuel (evaporative cooled heat exchange engine).  If you scroll back about 20 pages or so  there was some photos of my bird setup using coils and magnets and it's about as effective.  (maybe if we combine the two, :-)

Here is a vine without his coils on my twitter feed https://twitter.com/NINK/status/528252772291207169 he is since gone through a transformation Rastafarian look with felt aluminum and graphene ink (you can guess what I am up to now).  The bird feeder was the real genius so I don't have to fill up the water and I know how much he drinks

WATER IS NOT FUEL

Very creative Sir.  I like it.  I especially like the bird feeder gravity water feed supply bottle.  Very nice work.

Bill

A substance is a fuel when it is consumed in the process of releasing energy.  Fuel goes in, energy and waste product (ash) come out. 

If you could get back all of your feedstock at the end of a cycle that also delivers net energy then you got something for nothing.  One might reasonably then ask:  Why do you need the feedstock that doesn't get consumed?

The cost of refining petroleum does not justify it's production alone. The manufacturing of plastic is needed to make the process profitable. The other thing is, the COP of the Kanzius burn process depends on the amount of water placed in the radiation zone and the number of  burners ignited. It can cost less to burn water his way then to manufacture petroleum.

Kanzius uses a lot of electric power, as microwaves, to turn the water into gases, then he burns the gases. Since he is burning salt water, it burns with the characteristic yellow flame of sodium. He is putting in a lot more energy than he is getting out, and guess what the "ash" is of his burning: it is water.

To claim that he is "burning water" as a fuel is about the same thing as claiming you are eating dirt with sunshine dressing, when you have a nice green salad for brunch.

The frequency generated to start with was in the 13-14Mhz range (13.56Mhz) which is High Frequency, 13.56Mhz is the industrial frequency which does not need a license. The final frequency in the water is another thing, what a lot do not understand is this was using a feedback, similar to a microphone infront of a speaker, but in this case a reciever on the other side of the test tube. The resulting EM waves have a profound effect on the oxygen more than the hydrogen, creating elongation of the molecular bond and finally breaking the bond (it is infact molecular stress that finally breaks the bond), NaCl is just a catylist to create a charge separation, there are others that can do this as well.


I believe the input power was 300w (input and not radiating) and tests done by third parties showed that it was up in the 90% efficient as it stood, so correct not OU. This was taken on by the navy and is to be used (is used) to make aircraft fuel onboard the aircraft carriers, energy used not being a problem when you have only 25% of their reactor power being used, so energy comes for free in this case   and so does the starting material, the ocean, CO2 maybe needed if the ocean does not supply enough, but I believe it does.


This is not new, it was done back in the 70's and again in the 80's, just a little covered within the description (poetic licence? I'm sure it was).


Best regards


Mike G6GVA amongst others

The U.S. Navy makes fuel this way. Now you look real smart again with your impudent RCMP credentials.

Synchro1 read what you just wrote:  "The US Navy makes fuel this way."  Neither the water nor the carbon dioxide feed stocks are fuel.  They are feed stock to a process that makes fuel out of those feed stocks by using a lot of energy. 

I don't know what you are on about with the RCMP.

Here is something to think about:  Are hydrocarbons the ultimate hydrogen storage mechanism?  Suppose that one had a convenient and low-cost way to capture tail pipe CO2.  Suppose also that one had a: clean, plentiful, and cheap source of electricity.  One could then take advantage of the advantages of liquid fuels without having to pull oil from the ground, or dump net CO2 into the atmosphere. 

Synchro1 read what you just wrote:  "The US Navy makes fuel this way."  Neither the water nor the carbon dioxide feed stocks are fuel.  They are feed stock to a process that makes fuel out of those feed stocks by using a lot of energy. 

I don't know what you are on about with the RCMP.

Here is something to think about:  Are hydrocarbons the ultimate hydrogen storage mechanism?  Suppose that one had a convenient and low-cost way to capture tail pipe CO2.  Suppose also that one had a: clean, plentiful, and cheap source of electricity.  One could then take advantage of the advantages of liquid fuels without having to pull oil from the ground, or dump net CO2 into the atmosphere.

All you need to do is find an extension cord long enough to reach down to the carrier from an altitude of 30,000 feet! Try burning potash by focusing high frequency broadcast radiation at it!

Quote from Kookcooala:
 
"Take some white ashes from your fireplace. Get some more energy out of that, why don't you? Nobody would even try, they know it's a waste of time".

If you attach a wind turbine to the roof of your electric car will you charge your battery as you drive along so you can drive further?

If I put a Pelton wheel in front of my electric water pump can I use the energy crrated to ruñ the water pump.

If I convert water to HOH can I use the hydrogen gas to convert more water to HOH?

Yes you will generate energy from all these examples but the energy created is less than the energy used to create it.

I can't believe we continue to have this discussion

I can believe it. Look at how reasoned, factual responses are met with insults and foot-stomping. Consider the source...

I can believe it. Look at how reasoned, factual responses are met with insults and foot-stomping. Consider the source...

It's more correct to compare salt water to crude oil then it is to compare it to potash based on the arguments you're citing.