The result was keep but reference more thoroughly. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep was tested by polymer engineers in akron ohio you can link to tv23.com to see the video of the test
This person has proposed a fringe theory not accepted by the scientific community, and the article makes no other claim to notability. I might change my mind if someone can find a source for this theory in a credible scientific journal Shalom Hello 16:43, 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. --John S Burns 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two observations. This is an excellent article for young physics students learning to use judgment and follow thermodynamics of processes. No perpetual motion. No laws of thermo are in jeopardy and the article as it stands on Wiki does not claim any outlandish violations. Second, this might be a slick way to make hydrogen from electricity if efficiency is high enough and if hydrogen is actually produced. Delivering hydrogen as a commodity makes much less sense than pushing electrons down a wire but with the unholy grail that the high efficiencies of internal combustion might be preserved. What is ruefully missing in this whole mess is enough information to reproduce the effect.