So, the question is does the energy produced from the burning greater than the energy used to generate the radio frequency? if so, it works for sure. but I seriously doubt that. The only thing too solve is how can we get a ENERGY-FREE constant radiofrequent environment. Then we can talk the rest!!!!!

Gasoline works well because of the energy used to create it (the oil it comes from), millions of years of heat and pressure. Not so with water, thats why it takes more energy to burn it than it creates.

Just imagine… the main reason there aren’t a lot of hydrogen powered vehicles on the road today is that storing the hydrogen is dangerous.

Wrong. Reason is it cost more energy to produce the hydrogen need to run the car then using gasoline.
Electricity is need to make hydrogen. Where does electricity come from? Burning coal, nuclear power, burning natural gas, hydro, wind, sun etc. Unless this RF thing has better efficiency then other method, its useless and nothing new.

Did you even watch the video? The Salt Water, under bombardment by RF, makes up the fuel. Meaning, RF Energy and Salt Water are the fuels collectively. No one bombards their gasoline with anything in their cars, it is the release of its chemical energy which took a long time to get there. The only similarity to gasoline is the O2 (Oxygen gas) and H2 (Hydrogen gas) that comes out of the test tube. Those two gases that recombine during combustion most resemble gasoline. Unfortunately, the energy of that flame, if completely enclosed and recaptured, would at best (in an equation only) equal the energy it took to run the RF Generator.

There is nothing new to see here other than another alternative to produce Hydrogen using electricity and a wonderful opportunity to get away from chemotherapy.

I’m excited about this promising new idea & hope it can help soon!

So, you’re saying he found the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine? Of course there is more energy going in than is being released. No way is more energy being produced than is input – if so, alert the physicists, with a detailed mathematical explanation and the ability to reproduce the experiment.

You are absolutely right about this being a treatment as opposed to a cure. But if it does ultimately work out like they envision – namely you get a shot and stand between some radio waves – it will sure put a major dent in cancer in general!

With regards to the energy production I seriously doubt more energy is going in than being released. That is pure hydrogen they are burning at 3000 degrees. We already have combustion engines that can run on hydrogen, and they could easily drive an alternator big enough to produce the equivalent of whatever household current he’s plugged into in his garage.

Just imagine… the main reason there aren’t a lot of hydrogen powered vehicles on the road today is that storing the hydrogen is dangerous. But if you can create it on demand that would solve all the problems!

Even if you couldn’t get the technology into autos any time soon, it would be easy to build large scale hydro-electric generators that extract the hydrogen from water and burn it to turn a massive generator. Remember, hydrogen has three times the stored energy of refined gasoline!

Well, I guess we’ll see what happens, but if this works out it’s going to be amazing!

John

The reaction is very interesting from a theoretical standpoint though.

Also, be careful with the term “cure cancer.” What he is trying to develop is a better form of chemotherapy… his idea is to improve existing methodology. If his idea works, and very likely there are many technical hurdles before this technology will make it to the “bedside,” it will be a new TREATMENT in physicians’ arsenal, not a cure.

Paul

This is a great article. I hope the machine makes it to clinical phases in humans. We certainly need a definite cure for cancer. Remember, eat lots of curry, garlic, and green tea…these have also been shown to cure some cancer.

Jenny