Talk:John Kanzius

Erie Unassessed

	John Kanzius is part of WikiProject Erie, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Erie, Pennsylvania, including the surrounding counties of Crawford and Warren, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project.ErieWikipedia:WikiProject ErieTemplate:WikiProject ErieErie
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

I cannot find any sources that discredit this idea. I am sure that these sources are there, if you find any, please do add them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things.

One the "cancer cure" is old stuff. Most of the ideas for this were abandoned back in the ninties. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/news/media/rel05/holt.htm

The free energy looks like an old hat perpetual motion device. Heat from his microwave oven seperates hydrogen and oxygen, then the hydrogen burns. Would probably be cheaper to use gasoline to burn the water apart than microwaves. Either way, it is hardly better than any other perpetual motion machine.

It is worth noting that like most hawkers of perpetual motion machines, he has a history of taking "donations to perfect his machine" from such things as firedepartments and other groups.

I think this page should be combined with the perpetual motion machines page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John S Burns (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some sources where this "invention" is discredited or described? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

$Insertformulahere$

Agreed. Perpetual motion and free energy are two sides of the same coin, and this baloney is most definitely a “free energy” machine. — NRen2k5 16:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know how it works , we can't find sites that discredit "water-burning" , Maybe this has been done before? I'll contact this guy for details.

Just though some one should change the "not peer verified" line. Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist has demonstrated that it is the real deal. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07252/815920-85.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.3.18 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First law of thermodynamics

Beam radio waves into something and it gets hot. Isn't that how a microwave oven works? ~ Infrangible 03:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen salt water instantly ignite a flame at a flip of a switch in a microwave as he has done with his machine. Big oil is very cunning, and don't think for a second they wouldn't be sending folks to Wikipedia to try and hush anyone who may threaten their profits. They've done much worse, you can take that to the bank. I'd be keeping my cards to my chest as Kanzius is doing, also. (Mind meal 08:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

its got nothing to do with big oil. its just bad science on this John Kanzius' part. theres no net change in entropy with the water (its just being split into its elements, then recombined - ie, burnt). theres no such thing as free energy. the ultimate energy source for this little gimmick is the RF source. its a neat trick, but its not a break-through. no oil company exec is going to be losing sleep after reading this article trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.230.201 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust you? You sure sound like big oil, trying to discredit a new source of cheap hydrogen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.101.34 (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At best it's going to break even -- energy in + water + salts ==> energy out + water + salts. Since you have to pump the water in and out, you might not even break even. Sorry. htom 20:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I second OtterSmith. If it worked at 100% efficiency, it would be a wash and break even (that's the best he could possibly hope for). Given the unlikelihood of actually attaining 100% efficiency, this machine is a fancy, radio-powered bbq, and little else. It's shameful how many news agencies have been fooled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.250.4 (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is he actually claiming?

I read the references, couldn't see anything that supports the line he personally "claims to having developed a way to produce energy", though there is what seems to be a quote from someone else talking of fuel (and it still doesn't necessarily follow this is a free energy/perpetual motion claim). A new way of decomposing water would be noteworthy in its own right, especially if it was efficient (is there prior art?). Work on using microwaves to treat cancer also seems notable, even if at least one respected agency concluded the treatment was ineffective/unproven. If the article is to suggest the guy is a charlatan (which may be the case), further references are definitely required. Danja 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's just claiming he found a new way to liberate hydrogen from water with microwaves, after which he can burn it (because hydrogen is flammable). It's been done a million ways before [maybe with and maybe without the actual burning], the real issue [IMO] is if it's more efficient than past methods for getting hydrogen from water. If it is, it might improve the economy of fuel cells- at present, if I recall correctly, the big barrier to their fuel is that most methods of getting hydrogen (among them from water) are ridiculously inefficient and therefore expensive. The news reporting on this is basically science illiterate, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.63.21 (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]