Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 09:28:18 -0800
Reply-To: Courtney Hook <courtneyhook@SHAW.CA>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Courtney Hook <courtneyhook@SHAW.CA>
Subject: Re: Alternative Fuels - Salt Water
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=response
I'm with John, with intelligent use of atomic energy we can have a ready
supply of electricity with which to heat homes, light them, and even produce
electric cars, which are completely viable. Oil companies keep electric cars
from becoming a reality.
Courtney
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rodgers" <inua@CHARTER.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: Alternative Fuels - Salt Water
> Mike S wrote:
>> At 07:51 AM 12/2/2007, John Rodgers wrote...
>>> With an oil crisis looming, cheap fuel would be nice. So how about
>>> using
>>> salt water for fuel.
>>>
>>> John Kanzius, a communications engineer, retired, was looking for a
>>> cure
>>> to cancer and stumbled on this. I have a video of this if anyone would
>>> care to post it on their website. It' probably not a new concept,
>>> except
>>> for me.
>>
>> Salt water doesn't burn, misunderstandings of the mainstream media
>> notwithstanding.
>>
>> He bombards saltwater with radio waves to cause it to split into
>> hydrogen and oxygen. Interesting, but it will always take as much or
>> more energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen than is released
>> when burning it (recombining the hydrogen and oxygen).
>>
>>
> True, it really is only the components of the salt that are recombining
> in combustion, after they have been split from each other in the first
> place - AND it takes energy to do the split - more than what is produced
> by the burning or combustion of the salt components.
>
> Yeah, it's a challenge. What is often forgotten by almost every one
> except the science types in the debate over energy is that all this
> energy (including atomic energy) comes from our sun. When that solar
> energy reaches earth it goes through a series of changes of form, is
> temporarily stores as coal, oil, wood, etc, and eventually released once
> again to radiate out into space. We have a problem in the fact that we
> need some forms of that energy more than we need others for our
> civilization. That comes largely from our lack of knowledge - we do in
> fact know a lot, but not much when compared to what we might come to
> know. We need to know much more about how to efficiently extract usable
> energy at various points along the energy stream as it flows through our
> planet, without upsetting the ecology of our planet and making the place
> unlivable.. That is a tough call, but we must get there.
>
> As for myself, at this point in time - and my opinion may well change as
> new knowledge comes forth - I believe that atomic energy is the solution
> to the need for ongoing primary power needs - including home energy and
> vehicular energy requirements. I've seen prototype planning
> presentations - so there is thinking along those lines - but thus far no
> workable solutions. But I believe it will come, and part of those
> solutions will also be what to do with related waste materials. I
> certainly wouldn't want my garage to glow in the dark with radioactivity
> nor my neighbors either. And I'm sure he wouldn't. So, there are issues,
> but I do believe that solutions aren't impossible.
>
> As for current fuels - I guess gasoline is the fuel that pound for pound
> has the most energy available for ease of release. We have not yet found
> a truly suitable substitute, and I believe that the corn based fuels are
> going to prove out to be a disaster in the making in the long haul.
> Takes too much energy to make the stuff, plus it cuts into the food
> supply in many ways. Not a good thing.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Rodgers
> 88 GL Driver
>
| 
