John Kanzius, K3TUP is inventing again.

[K7FE]

John Kanzius, K3TUP is inventing again.

In the spirit of a true innovator, John Kanzius has used his RF heating to burn salt water. He demonstrates salt water flaming at 1500 degrees Celsius/2732 degrees Fahrenheit when exposed to the RF generator used in his revolutionary cancer treatment experiments. The radio frequency energy weakens bonds holding together the constituents of salt water -- sodium chloride, hydrogen and oxygen. When the hydrogen is released by exposure to the RF field, then ignited, it burns continuously.

Will the oil companies buy this out and squash the idea or invest in it to produce clean energy for our fuel hungry world. Will your government participate in the develop or sit back and do nothing. This could be an extremely inexpensive power and heat source for home generators, factories, cars, trucks, buses, trains, planes, ships, farm equipment and maybe even space ships. You may one day be fueling up the family vehicle with a garden hose and a handful of salt.

Water.........renewable, clean burning and since 2/3 of our world is covered with it, there will be no shortages. John said the idea is for sale and he will use any revenues received to further his studies on a cancer cure. There is significant work left to do since the device that makes the radio wave (RF) energy currently consumes more energy than is created by the burning salt water. This is a start, now lets see who picks up the ball.


Watch this video from late 2007 and see John's idea at work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf4gOS8aoFk

73,
Terry, K7FE

[wy6k]

The issue is whether it produces more energy than it consumes. Not interesting unless it does.

[KI6NNO]

The issue is whether it produces more energy than it consumes.

Yes, although it still looks cool! :cool:

[K1CJS]

[SIZE="4"].......There is significant work left to do since the device that makes the radio wave (RF) energy currently consumes more energy than is created by the burning salt water. This is a start, now lets see who picks up the ball.......

This idea has been around for quite a while--but the drawback is the process uses more energy that the process byproducts can produce. Nicola Tesla toyed with this idea, he had an electric car 'fueled' by a similar process, but nobody has yet been able to make it economically feasible.

Maybe (hopefully) someday that may change, but that day hasn't yet arrived.

[KB4BLU]

I am sorry but I am not impressed. I can break up water into Hydrogen and Oxygen using a flashlight battery and a drop of sulfuric acid (battery acid).

It takes more energy to do this than I would get back by burning the hydrogen. I seriously doubt he is getting an energy gain.

Using an analogy of the 3 laws of thermodynamics...

1. You can't win
2. You can't break even.
3. Don't even try.

[w6em]

If his process is more efficient than traditional electrolysis, then it might be worthwhile. But, if it always ignites the hydrogen, that's not so cool. Wasteful and dangerous......

[N9AS]

Soon! There is another way to produce Hydrogen on Demand and not the electolysis method. It is cost effective and could be within 3 years.
N9AS

[wy6k]

Soon! There is another way to produce Hydrogen on Demand and not the electolysis method. It is cost effective and could be within 3 years.
N9AS

Cost effective in what application? Do you mean as a replacement for existing electrolysis processes? So it would be a way to improve energy efficiency then rather than a source of energy. Right?

[w6em]

Soon! There is another way to produce Hydrogen on Demand and not the electolysis method. It is cost effective and could be within 3 years.
N9AS

There is another method being used that involves high pressure/temperature steam breaking up methane molecules. I don't know how energy efficient that one is. But, it would be storage-inefficient anyway since its gas to gas, not liquid to gas. Plus, I think its a fuel cell process, hence the H is recombined into water and the waste heat is captured and used for heating air/water.

As far as processes are concerned, think gas to liquid, then store and burn the liquid or go back to gas prior to combusion ala propane and butane.

If you've ever used a CNG vehicle, you know how limited the ranges are and a hassle the high pressure refuelling can be.

I'd have to peddle really hard to generate enough RF out of Kanzius' QRO amplifier to release enough H2 to feed a decent sized engine. :D

[N7PLC]

I could use an HF rig with a built in coffee cup warmer.

[nf0a]

[QUOTE=K7FE;1204349]John Kanzius, K3TUP is inventing again.



""Will the oil companies buy this out and squash the idea or invest in it to produce clean energy for our fuel hungry world"".

Energy has no definition of "Clean" no matter how it`s produced and never mind about green house gases and the like. I guess no one really cares anyway. No government does when $$$ involved by the few.:mad:

[W5HTW]

If weight were not a factor, which would be most efficient? TUP's hydrogen energy machine, or a nuclear reactor? Imagine if you could refuel your car only once in the ten years you owned it, with a single radioactive pill. And possibly not even with a steam turbine, but electric motors.

A good use for medium level nuclear waste. I'd opt for the nuclear solution. Not impossible, though certainly not feasible with today's technology. Safe on ships, but too heavy for cars, too expensive, too bulky, too difficult to handle, and needing high level security controls. But I would imagine a prototype nuclear powered car could be made today.

[K8ERV]

If it works, the gov will find a way to tax it.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

[K7FE]

Class without gas.
BMW launches second-generation Hydrogen 7

http://www.motorauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/BMW/odds/hydro/bmw_hydrogen_7_main01.jpg

This new BMW is strictly limited to running on hydrogen. Has almost zero-emissions, is more economical, has more power under the hood and is kind to the environment. Perhaps the most important news is that the new mono-fuel 7-series isn’t just a pipe dream either - the model shown above is a demonstration production vehicle that will be delivered to customers on a trial basis.

Now if I could only get my RF hydrogen generator working............hummmmm.

73,
Terry, K7FE

[N9AS]

In answer to Wy6K: Not to improve energy efficiency as a priority method but the method that produces maximum amount of hydrogen on demand at the cheapest cost.

In answer to W6EM: Fuel cells are actually using hydrogen as a carrier of energy and not hydrogen on demand. This leaves efficient use by automobiles a bit sluggish indeed.

Your explanation is correct especially on gas to liquid, then store and burn for efficient use. However hydrogen on demand is mostly an answer to power plants and home power/heat usage. Hydrogen use will point from power transfer perhaps electrical to motors instead of engine use of hydrogen on demand.

Strange as it may seem efficient hydrogen production will take heating and cooling. Cooling by evaporation is nine times more effective than cooling by water alone. Since water is the key ingrediant in hydrogen production on demand the biggest piece of the puzzel is in play.

In my experience with LNG and the cooling with compressors and pressure - hydrogen can be easily stored for power company use.

Now the method of producing hydrogen on demand needs four additional pieces of the puzzel. I'm sure we'll have them at hand and be able to tell the oil producing countries to "Pump your oil back into your feed bend and Eat your oil!" Soon!

Hydrogen on demand will allow communities and home owners to produce their own power/heat. Elemination of additional grid lines will save money. Also two of the biggest problems in the world will be solved..Hydrocarbons and Mr. Gore's global warming.

What the project needs most is a trusted custodian of the new process. Yes, I can see the government's Dollar a gallon tax on water upon transfer from oil as our energy source to hydrogen on demand.

I certainly don't have all the answers nor do I play someone who does on TV but I often stay at a Holiday Inn Express and often save on my car insurance. So please don't give me a second thought. But please give me all your ideas so we can work it out.

Hams still have the best ideas in technology over government.

[AF6IM]

Dissociation of H2O (with a pinch of salt for ions) into burnable hydrogen and oxygen has been used to swindle naive investors out of millions in various "water as burnable fuel" scams. It works, and is impressive visually, but it is a net energy LOSS. RF, DC, so called catalytic electrodes, it's all been done by the scam artists. Hey, its REALLY simple: if this process produces a net energy gain then demonstrate a stand alone self sustaining engine where ONLY water is added and there is no external power source. I'll take bets all day long that Kanzius cannot EVER do it.

As for his cancer cure, funny isn't it how one guy, if his claims are true qualifies hands down for two Nobel prizes next year, medicine and physics. Heat kills cells, and selective heating of malignant cells is great for fighting metastatic cells and leaving normal ones unharmed. Kanzius's nano particles do enhance heating when they are INJECTED directly into cancer sites, but there is no selective uptake. He cannot apply the particles systemically and have them naturally concentrate at cancer sites. If you can physically access a cancer site you can do many things including injecting chemo drugs, DIRECTLY heat the tissue, surgically remove the tissue, etc. Kanzius's process is just one of many. There are less invasive treatments including experimental proton therapies, intersecting x ray beam therapies, and many others.

The idea that big oil or big medicine can buy patents and suppress threatening technologies is urban myth. Once something is published, many people who don't give a damn about patents have access and they WILL exploit it. Look at India, they produce TONS of patented drugs without licenses from the patent owners and they are sold in countries where the patents are enforceable. It is underground and cannot be effectively policed. You cannot stomp a good published idea into the ground and kill it. Thats not how human nature works. The supposed 200 MPG carb that GM suppressed, the supposed Tesla wireless energy transmission that the power companies suppressed, all myths.

Plain and simple: if Kanzius can prove his water as fuel claims then he is certainly going to win the Nobel prize in physics. The oil crisis will be over. The sheiks will be crying their hearts out. Don't hold your breath.

[N2RJ]

If weight were not a factor, which would be most efficient? TUP's hydrogen energy machine, or a nuclear reactor? Imagine if you could refuel your car only once in the ten years you owned it, with a single radioactive pill. And possibly not even with a steam turbine, but electric motors.

A good use for medium level nuclear waste. I'd opt for the nuclear solution. Not impossible, though certainly not feasible with today's technology. Safe on ships, but too heavy for cars, too expensive, too bulky, too difficult to handle, and needing high level security controls. But I would imagine a prototype nuclear powered car could be made today.

The problem with a nuclear reactor in a car are idiot drivers.

Instead of just having a car accident, you'll have a nuclear disaster.

[W5HLH]

As for his cancer cure, funny isn't it how one guy, if his claims are true qualifies hands down for two Nobel prizes next year, medicine and physics.

. . . . . . . .

The idea that big oil or big medicine can buy patents and suppress threatening technologies is urban myth. Once something is published, many people who don't give a damn about patents have access and they WILL exploit it. Look at India, they produce TONS of patented drugs without licenses from the patent owners and they are sold in countries where the patents are enforceable. It is underground and cannot be effectively policed. You cannot stomp a good published idea into the ground and kill it. Thats not how human nature works. The supposed 200 MPG carb that GM suppressed, the supposed Tesla wireless energy transmission that the power companies suppressed, all myths.


It's guys like you------guys who insist on injecting common sense and facts into the discussion----who kill a lot of promising threads on QRZ.com.

I curse both you and your wretched spawn.

[W5HLP]

KB4BLU got it exactly right, in part

". . . Using an analogy of the 3 laws of thermodynamics...

1. You can't win
2. You can't break even.
3. Don't even try. "


Classic - True - A good test of Snake Oil. If they promise they can beat #1 or #2 you should immediately apply #3. You will end up better off (more money, cleaner environment, better efficiency etc). Short of someone finding the magic "ON" switch for Zero Point Energy extraction that's as good as it gets. In fact, trying to over-optimize most systems results in WORSE conditions. Entropy of the SYSTEM WILL increase - if you work really really hard to make your little slice of the universe neater and recycle, reuse and reduce you will stir up the rest of the cosmos for everyone else. Work the energy balances - most "going green" approaches just make someone else's ricebowl brown.


73
Herman - W5HLP
"Reality - more fun than drugs and legal in most states"

[W2JGA]

I could use an HF rig with a built in coffee cup warmer.

Get a boat anchor!:D

[NN4RH]

The ONLY way that hydrogen will ever be useful as a common fuel is if we totally rely upon nuclear power to produce the electricity that is needed to produce the hydrogen. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to burn fossil fuels to produce hydrogen, and wind or solar don't produce enough energy to be useful.

I don't think the public or the politicians are ready to face the fact that some day we're going to have to go pretty much all nuclear.

So Kanzius' RF work, whether or not it is better or more efficient (though I think probably not) than conventional means of producing hydrogen, is moot.

[n1dvj]

I agree about having to go nuclear. It's the only choice, but I don't see the other natural sources like geothermal, wind, and solar stepping up to the plate.

But all nuclear is not created equal. There's multiple fission technologies right now, and fusion is on the horizon.

I used to think that fission was a phase we should have passed through in less than 20 years, that we should have been on our way to fusion by the 60's, except for the artificial incentives in place for the atomic power industry. (Want to see a sweet deal? Just check out what liabilities an atomic plant would have if it melts down!)

But hopefully with He3 some new technologies will rapidly come to the forefront. Just have to see.

[K1CJS]

I could use an HF rig with a built in coffee cup warmer.

They've been around for quite a while already--they're commonly known as-------boat anchors! :D

[K1CJS]

The problem with a nuclear reactor in a car are idiot drivers.

Instead of just having a car accident, you'll have a nuclear disaster.

Yes, there are drivers who are idiots--and there are drivers who drive long distances--DAILY--and have never ever had a serious accident. Those drivers outnumber the idiots by a wide margin. On the other hand, there are idiots that cause accidents although they've never been in one themselves.

Also, just as there are cars now that keep the passenger compartment intact even through accidents that would have left older cars a pile of smashed up scrap, there are ways and means now to protect the small nuclear units cars would use and prevent release of any radioactivity to the surroundings.

At least that is one thing that can be said of automobile technology today--protection has finally been given the attention needed to catch up to the potentials of damage a car accident could cause.

[K1CJS]

........
1. You can't win
2. You can't break even.
3. Don't even try. "


Classic - True - A good test of Snake Oil. If they promise they can beat #1 or #2 you should immediately apply #3. You will end up better off (more money, cleaner environment, better efficiency etc)........

If this is the way everybody used to think, there would be no innovation, no new discoveries and no scientific advances. People who think outside the box and question traditional and accepted ways of doing things are the innovators who will succeed in freeing us from the addiction we have to OPEC and its oil.

[KB4BLU]

If this is the way everybody used to think, there would be no innovation, no new discoveries and no scientific advances. People who think outside the box and question traditional and accepted ways of doing things are the innovators who will succeed in freeing us from the addiction we have to OPEC and its oil.

Ok when you invent a perpetual motion machine I will listen to you. No one no matter how much they thought "out of the box" has ever violated basic scientific fundamentals.

[wy6k]

Ok when you invent a perpetual motion machine I will listen to you. No one no matter how much they thought "out of the box" has ever violated basic scientific fundamentals.

Ah, not true! Many discoveries have violated the "basic scientific principles" of the time. In reality, they just seemed to do so and ultimately they changed our understanding of scientific principles. Our understanding of what basic scientific principles are migrates over time and one needs to retain some humility and openness along the way.

Not that I'm saying perpetual motion will ever happen.

But using RF energy to liberate hydrogen may have some application. Some simple questions I have: is it more or less efficient than electrolysis? Can the hyrdrogen be captured for use later rather than burned as it is liberated? No matter, it is always good to search, explore, experiment. You never know what you will find or how useful it will turn out to be. So one should be cautious about branding such exploration as snake oil.

[NN4RH]

Ah, not true! Many discoveries have violated the "basic scientific principles" of the time. In reality, they just seemed to do so and ultimately they changed our understanding of scientific principles. Our understanding of what basic scientific principles are migrates over time and one needs to retain some humility and openness along the way.

. . No matter, it is always good to search, explore, experiment. You never know what you will find or how useful it will turn out to be. So one should be cautious about branding such exploration as snake oil.

On the other hand, I'm sure you've heard the saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" or somesuch.

More is needed than mere assertion that something operates outside the "basic scientific principles". That's a claim that any goofball can make. And unfortunately there are people that buy into such claims.

The "basic scientific principles" (BSPs) certainly serve a useful screening purpose. If some claim seems inconsistent with BSPs then that is or should be a red flag that it deserves a closer look. Someone tells you their magnetic gizmo puts out more energy than it uses - that violates known BSPs so that should trigger a response along the lines of "Prove It!".

This really doesn't relate to Kanzius. If everyone were to read carefully what he's actually claimed, there's nothing extraordinary about it - nothing that seems to violate any known BSPs. The issue is more along the lines of practicality or cost/benefit.

[KB4BLU]

Ah, not true! Many discoveries have violated the "basic scientific principles" of the time. In reality, they just seemed to do so and ultimately they changed our understanding of scientific principles. Our understanding of what basic scientific principles are migrates over time and one needs to retain some humility and openness along the way.

Not that I'm saying perpetual motion will ever happen.

But using RF energy to liberate hydrogen may have some application. Some simple questions I have: is it more or less efficient than electrolysis? Can the hyrdrogen be captured for use later rather than burned as it is liberated? No matter, it is always good to search, explore, experiment. You never know what you will find or how useful it will turn out to be. So one should be cautious about branding such exploration as snake oil.

Maybe I can be clearer. Some basic priciples that were though to true were not proven. One example is the earth centered universe that was thought to be a basic truth. However it was never given a rigerous proff. Even the king of Spain, Ferdinan I believe, commented when the earth centered universe was explained to him that if he had been around at creation he could have given God some advice. That model was that bad.

The point I am trying to make is that NO ONE has ever violated a basic principal that was rigerously proven.

Another way of looking at what I am saying is Powered flight. In the early 1900's a scientist proved that passenger aircraft were impossible. There was no way to carry many passengers. The weight would be impossible to get in the air. What happened was no one knew too much about aluminum or other lightweight materials. Now was he right or wrong ?? Well his science was good as he was correct. The lightweight materials made it possible to have aircraft to carry more weight and still be able to stay in one piece.

Well I am at work and I don't know if I got my point across or not. SO back to work.

[W8JI]

Here go the wild conspiracy theories again. The oil companies are going to "buy up the invention and hide it".

This is really old old stuff. We did this experiment in science class in 5th grade 1960 using a battery to break down the water. RF is just another well known way to do it.

The problem is always, as others have pointed out, breaking the water down and getting more energy than it takes to break the water down. A kilowatt generator required to produce a few hundred milliwatts isn't a step forward, nor is the experiment new.

[KA5LQJ]

Originally Posted by N7PLC
I could use an HF rig with a built in coffee cup warmer.

Isn't that little retractable tray thingy on your desktop computer is for? :eek: :rolleyes: :p :D Muhahahahahahahaha!

The Debil made me do that. :D

Respectfully,
73,

Don/KA5-LQJ

[KA5LQJ]

It all sounds interesting, in theory. But that's just theory. And as far as Power (Electric & Natural Gas) companies taking over aternative power technology development for profit, it's already happening. American Electric Power [AEP] has already invested into the hydrogen power generation technology. Once it's perfeketed (hi hi), you can bet your Bippie, AEP will be charging and arm & a leg for those home generators.

NOW, if Science can figure out a way to convert all the Bravo Sierra that policitans generate with their mouths, Daily, into "gasoline" or "fuel", then we can tell the Special Interest to stick it in their ear!

[NOTE: No Politicians nor Special Interest were named in this post. However, I do put the "Curse of Abdul" on them.....May the fleas of a million camels infest all the hairy places on your bodies and your arms, legs, hands and feet, shrivel to short to scratch!]
:eek: :D

Respectfully submitted,
73,

Don/KA5-LQJ

[WA4NPL]

So Kanzius' RF work, whether or not it is better or more efficient (though I think probably not) than conventional means of producing hydrogen, is moot.

I could have gone all day long without seeing the word MOOT.......
Sounds like a hair-lipped cow.
LOL !!
Don WA4NPL

[MM0GDG]

Yo!
with great interest i have followed all the comments - some good, others in bad taste - about this quite clever way of generationg H.
One OM spoke about having done this kind of thing in 5th grade. How childish. And showing NO scientific knowledge or inventive spirit.
Havin obtaind a patent myself for a solar cell optimiser I know all about being rediculed and sneered at, until I demonstrated a working model at the Offshore Oil Exhibition. Naturally being a person with very limited means, I can not afford to manufacture myself. Companies offered assistance for a lion's share of the action leaving me with a paltry 2%. Needless to say I declined, but still pay my annual patent fees religiously. What you never had you never miss!!
By the way, my invention brings the solarcell efficacy from about 14% to 48%. A quantum leap, don't you think?
So, here's to all amateur inventors and let the spirit of innovation flourish.
Well done

73s

Alex MM0GDG

[W8JI]

Yo!
with great interest i have followed all the comments - some good, others in bad taste - about this quite clever way of generationg H.
One OM spoke about having done this kind of thing in 5th grade. How childish. And showing NO scientific knowledge or inventive spirit.
Havin obtaind a patent myself for a solar cell optimiser I know all about being rediculed and sneered at, until I demonstrated a working model at the Offshore Oil Exhibition. Naturally being a person with very limited means, I can not afford to manufacture myself. Companies offered assistance for a lion's share of the action leaving me with a paltry 2%. Needless to say I declined, but still pay my annual patent fees religiously. What you never had you never miss!!
By the way, my invention brings the solarcell efficacy from about 14% to 48%. A quantum leap, don't you think?
So, here's to all amateur inventors and let the spirit of innovation flourish.
Well done

73s

Alex MM0GDG

Perhaps that's because the lion's share of work remains to be done. People won't rush in and slit profits 50-50 with high risk ventures that cost at minimum a lot of money and time to make practical, if they can ever become practical. It just doesn't happen.

Maybe to you using RF to break down saltwater seems like a major breakthrough, but it is not new.

The actual problem is the amount of energy required to break down the water, NOT just breaking it down.

It's tough to face the real world at times, but the real problem is return on investment. If we invest 1000 watt seconds to generate 100 milliwatt seconds it isn't cause for celebration.

[AF6IM]

Yo!
with great interest i have followed all the comments - some good, others in bad taste - about this quite clever way of generationg H.
One OM spoke about having done this kind of thing in 5th grade. How childish. And showing NO scientific knowledge or inventive spirit.
Havin obtaind a patent myself for a solar cell optimiser I know all about being rediculed and sneered at, until I demonstrated a working model at the Offshore Oil Exhibition. Naturally being a person with very limited means, I can not afford to manufacture myself. Companies offered assistance for a lion's share of the action leaving me with a paltry 2%. Needless to say I declined, but still pay my annual patent fees religiously. What you never had you never miss!!
By the way, my invention brings the solarcell efficacy from about 14% to 48%. A quantum leap, don't you think?
So, here's to all amateur inventors and let the spirit of innovation flourish.
Well done

73s

Alex MM0GDG

Alex,

Do you mean "efficacy" or did you mean to say "efficiency" when you claim 48%?

Have you built and demonstrated a solar cell with 48% efficiency or is that an estimated number based on theory?

Put your US patent number here or a Google Patents link so we can all have a look at what your invention is.

Seems to me if you can actually demonstrate 48% efficiency, the solar photo voltaic companies would all be trying to buy your invention.

First Solar stock has skyrocketed. They make CdTe cells. If you could boost their efficiency three fold you'd be able to name your price for a license.

I work with patents every day . I have seen some spectacular inventions licensed for 3-6% of sales. Two percent, which you say you were offered may be low, but is isn't necessarily a ripoff. You have to be careful in defining the royalty base, the number upon which your percentage royalty is based. If you have a great car combustion invention that tripled efficiency, you'd want 5% of the car price, not 5% of the engine price.

IBM just announced what they call a breakthrough concentrator lens system for solar cells. It is combined with a cooling system for the cells.

Good luck with your invention.

73,
Mark

[ve7vpx]

Talk is cheap and even cheaper, if you can not come up with specifics.
Where is your spirit of inventing? to do so you must keep an open Mind. Guess its not the same as in the Good old days when we experimented and came up with new Ideas that were tried and respected by others. We then had to earn our license now you just buy an factory built transceiver. Just because your government and or high school or university tells you it can not be done?
Do you blindly believe them? They have a doctrine and have to follow it to the T. If so, I can only feel sorry for you ! That way of thinking is stale.

Go and Google Stan Meyer and watch or read and analyze its content but I guess some of you critics that have nothing better to do but to argue will still remain Status Quo.
If you come up with the Argument that you have done this Experiment in School long ago ,that is cheap talk. Proove it! give us perticulars like frequency,wattage,Method of coupling, Frequency (Audible or subsonic)
Wave shape etc. type of modulation. Until then.......... I will be polite and not say what I think.
Next time if you wish to comment intelligently , please come up with material facts, then we may take you seriously.
I tried to reproduce Kanzius water burning experiment Rf alone wont do it.
Get a Life all of you Critics and try it yourself maybe that will convince you that what Kanzius has discovered is new and not ancient Knowledge.
VE7VPX



Yo!
with great interest i have followed all the comments - some good, others in bad taste - about this quite clever way of generationg H.
One OM spoke about having done this kind of thing in 5th grade. How childish. And showing NO scientific knowledge or inventive spirit.
Havin obtaind a patent myself for a solar cell optimiser I know all about being rediculed and sneered at, until I demonstrated a working model at the Offshore Oil Exhibition. Naturally being a person with very limited means, I can not afford to manufacture myself. Companies offered assistance for a lion's share of the action leaving me with a paltry 2%. Needless to say I declined, but still pay my annual patent fees religiously. What you never had you never miss!!
By the way, my invention brings the solarcell efficacy from about 14% to 48%. A quantum leap, don't you think?
So, here's to all amateur inventors and let the spirit of innovation flourish.
Well done

73s

Alex MM0GDG