[ExI] FW: [agi] Burning Saltwater - This Could Change Everything and a possible Cancer Cure to Boot

aiguy at comcast.net aiguy at comcast.net
Mon Sep 10 17:59:11 UTC 2007

I am not a chemist or physicist so I am definately at a disadvantage in this conversation but lets say that the amount of energy created by burning the hydrogen in the water is X.

The amount of energy required to break the  bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen in the water using electrolysis is greater than X or Y so Y > X so there is a net energy loss, but

Since breaking the bonds and releasing hydrogen is not equal to X then why can't there be another variable Z that represents the amount of energy that it takes to 
sonicly seperate the hydrogen in salt water where Z < X and there is energy gain.

The law of conservation of energy may not being violated since the amount of energy created by burning hydrogen X, does not not have to be less than the energy required to break it's bonds to oxygen.

If the salt is in fact the magical ingredient and what they are seeing is a new chemical phenomena, perhaps the salt acts as a catalyst why then is it impossible for X to < Z.

Aren't catalysts used commonly in chemistry to increases the rate of a chemical reaction by reducing the activation energy, but which is left unchanged by the reaction.

They state in one of the articles that very little of the salt is lost.

Isn't it possible that sonic exposure could combine with the salt to create an unknown catalytic reation?


Definition: A subtance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction by reducing the activation energy, but which is left unchanged by the reaction. 
Examples: A piece of platinum foil is a catalyst for the combustion of methane in air. 

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> 

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 02:52:47PM +0000, aiguy at comcast.net wrote: 
> > 
> > Unfortunately none of these articles are publishing the amount of 
> > energy required to produce the reaction efficiency. 
> How is this different from an inferior version of a plasma torch? 
> > It looks like the frequency generator will have to be more tightly 
> > coupled with the water chamber to attain maximum efficiency. 
> What's wrong with a simple electric arc? 
> > And even then the trillion dollar question is will the energy input 
> > be significantly less than that required by normal electrolysis 
> I don't understand that question. Are you expecting more energy than 
> you input? 
> _______________________________________________ 
> extropy-chat mailing list 
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070910/e840c5cd/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list