When you learned microelectronics, contaminants seems real a bad term for the key of all modern electronics.
After all a Core i7 is something like silicon with just touch of contaminants, tiny oxidation, trace of metal... nothing important... mostly silicon, so it should be easy to make one.
Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project is in Japan testing in environment and near reactors with cesium chloride
it is not LENR but some kind of gas
Maybe using beach sand is a better option then
The samurai swords were made from the best ,
blackest tatara sand from Shimane
prefecture in western Honshu.
Without proper scientific tools
R&D took hundreds of years.
Finding the proper nucleo-chemistry
for a cold fusion reactor
needs proper scientific tools
.
perhaps also a
merciless shogun
regarding Ohmasa gas, revolution green post and discussion . Why isn't scientists all over that Ohmasa gas. It has not much
footprint on the net and it's been out for 10 years. It's either interesting science or a scam. I mostly see some company from
Bulgaria pitching this on the net (wasn't he brown gas guy from Bulgaria). Anyhow this is dangerous science it seams and people
has lost their lives tinkering with brown gas stuff.
Mizuno probably cannot attend ICCF22. So I will present his results. They are considerably better than what we reported in ICCF21.
The ICCF21 slides are here:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf
The paper has a lot more information than the slides. We finished it months ago, but the rest of the ICCF21 papers are still being edited and prepared for publication in the JCMNS. Jean-Paul told me this should take another month or so. Frankly, I find this annoying. I think he should enforce the time limits for papers more strictly. He should tell authors who are months late that their paper will appear in a subsequent issue of the journal, and not in the Proceedings issue.
I have been thinking of uploading Mizuno's ICCF21 paper as a pre-print, but I do not like to do that. If anyone would like to see a copy, please contact me. You can learn a lot about air-flow calorimetry. It can be a can of worms, but I think Mizuno did a great job and he ensured the results are good, using various techniques such as a traverse test of the outlet.
regarding Ohmasa gas, revolution green post and discussion . Why isn't scientists all over that Ohmasa gas. It has not much
footprint on the net and it's been out for 10 years. It's either interesting science or a scam. I mostly see some company from
Bulgaria pitching this on the net (wasn't he brown gas guy from Bulgaria). Anyhow this is dangerous science it seams and people
has lost their lives tinkering with brown gas stuff.
While this is reminiscent of Brown's gas claims or Santilli's Magnegas (perhaps crossed with LeClair's Nanospire), to me it seems related to other claims in LENR and LENR-like experiments where water is treated with cavitation, energetic discharges and so on, which I understand are niche experiments within the niche research field of LENR.
Unless the gases evolved are deliberately ignited or inadvertently allowed to collect in closed pockets or within any dense foam formed, the experiments shouldn't be any more or less dangerous than standard aqueous systems. It appears anyway that during the tests of the past couple days electrolysis wasn't being performed, so the evolved gases were minimal with only cavitation going on.
I liked Bob's question about oxygen. eg If OHMASA contains the optimum ratio of Hydrogen and Oxygen where does the oxygen come from to burn the LPG? They didn't seem to understand this question. Was it really just a language barrier.
After watching the video again (below) I believe Mr. Ohmasa did not understand what Greenyer was trying to get at. He thought he was asked if the fuel mixture needed an additional oxygen source to be used in the genset's internal combustion engine.
After watching the video again (below) I believe Mr. Ohmasa did not understand what Greenyer was trying to get at. He thought he was asked if the fuel mixture needed an additional oxygen source to be used in the genset's internal combustion engine.
That is what I thought Greenyer was trying to get at. He was asking if the fuel mixture needed additional oxygen. Since it was a mix of ordinary hydrocarbon fuel and the other gas, I suppose it would need air or some other oxygen supply. I had difficulty hearing what the other Japanese person is saying, but I think that is what he asked Ohmasa. I can't tell what the answer is.
This video illustrates the difficulty of trying to communicate with people in Japanese without the help of a professional interpreter. I know of several scientific discussions that ending in total confusion and misunderstandings because of this problem. I myself am incapable of interpreting. I do not have knack for it, and even if I did, it takes months of training. So if I had attended I would have been of little or no help. I can translate, which is a different skill. I can speak in English, or Japanese, but not both at the same time.
If I had been there I would have converted this meandering conversation to a written translation project. That is, I would sit down and write a series of questions in English, and then translate them, using a computer and Google translate. Why not? Make life easier. I say you should always do things the easiest way you can. You will still have plenty of difficulties.
Interpreting or simultaneous interpreting means you translate in real time, almost as quickly as the person talks, seemingly without thinking. Translating means you think about it. It usually means you translate text, but it could be something someone said. Several times a day I stop and say, "That's an interesting expression. I wonder what a good English / Japanese equivalent would be?" My family finds that rather annoying. Someone says, "what wonderful spring weather we are having this morning!" and I mutter, "ah, that's 'sawayaka' in Japanese, or 'refreshing' which is also how you describe a young woman in a different context . . . hmmm . . ."
I thought Greenyer essentially asked if the gas mixture contained both the fuel and the oxidizer, i.e. if it was some sort of stabilized oxyhydrogen mixture that did not need other oxygen atoms to burn. I imagine it would be a very unusual question to ask in the context of internal combustion engines and gensets. In the end the interpreter got confused too.
I thought Greenyer essentially asked if the gas mixture contained both the fuel and the oxidizer, i.e. if it was some sort of stabilized oxyhydrogen mixture that did not need other oxygen atoms to burn.
Yes, I think that is what he was asking. I cannot hear the Japanese conversation well enough to determine if they understood the question.
hat is what I thought Greenyer was trying to get at. He was asking if the fuel mixture needed additional oxygen. Since it was a mix of ordinary hydrocarbon fuel and the other gas, I suppose it would need air or some other oxygen supply. I had difficulty hearing what the other Japanese person is saying, but I think that is what he asked Ohmasa. I can't tell what the answer is.
Hysdrogen will run in an IC engine at concentrations down to 5% - it will run a little lower, but not reliably. The scoichiometirc mix of hydrogen obtained from the breakdown of water is 66% H2 and 33% O2- so it would stand a lot of dilution - in facti it is required, because an undiluted stochiometric mix of oxy-hydrogen is way too explosive for a standard engine to handle.
I was going to say, if the oxidizer is in this gas, that means it is stoichiometric. Meaning it is rocket fuel, and very dangerous. I wouldn't want to be in the building with that tank. I wouldn't want to be on the same city block!
If it is not stoichiometric and they do not add oxygen from air, there will be unburned fuel.
Anything close to a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen is a bomb. Experiments with so-called Brown's gas (silliness) have cost several lives and many buildings. And most if not all of the claims made for various forms of these mixtures are dangerous myths.
BTW, I know of no method of generating on board hydrogen in a vehicle and then using it to complement the fuel, which results in a greater net efficiency for the propulsion of the vehicle. If you know otherwise, please post it.
QuoteOn August 9, 2011, an apparent hydrogen/oxygen explosion occurred at the alternative energy firm Rainbow of Hope in the Sylmar section of Los Angeles. Timothy A. Larson, 42, an L.A. firefighter who was on disability leave due to an existing injury, was one of the two inventors critically injured in the blast, as they were thrown into an alley by the force of the explosion. Larson apparently lost an arm an a leg in the blast. In the hospital, William A. Stehl, 68, was induced into a coma with extensive shrapnel wounds in his face.
This latest accident occurred 14 months after Larson's brother (28-year-old Tyson Larson) was killed in a June, 2010 explosion at Realm Industries, in Simi Valley, their father's predecessor alternative fuel business. In 2008, there was an explosion at Realm Industries when it was located in a different building. The 2008 blast was smaller, and there were no serious injuries.
The mind boggles - how can anyone in 2007 not understand that water electrolysis produces H2 and O2 explosive gas mixtures? Weird science proposing altered bond angles in water molecules, its just crazy stuff and yet the US patent office swallowed this garbage? Surely somebody should have told them to stop their idiocy thereby avoiding explosions & serious injuries. Ohmasa's patent sounds equally dangerous and pointless because there is sufficient O2 in air to burn safely stored H2 gas on its own.
BTW, I know of no method of generating on board hydrogen in a vehicle and then using it to complement the fuel, which results in a greater net efficiency for the propulsion of the vehicle.
Years ago I read about attempts to reformulate gasoline on board automobiles to produce hydrogen, which was then used in hydrogen fuel cells. That sounds like a wacky idea, but it has merit. Apparently, the pollution byproducts from reformulation can be controlled and greatly reduced, and hydrogen fuel cells are so efficient the overall mile-per-gallon fuel consumption is better. It also makes sense because these are electric cars, and they can use regenerative braking, like hybrid cars. I don't know what happened to these projects.
The efficiency of fuel cells is shown in this document:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf
Here are the only two references I can find to on-board reformulation R&D projects:
"The first Jeep Commander, unveiled in 1999, incorporated an onboard reformer to produce hydrogen from gasoline for the fuel cell stacks."
http://www.umtri.umich.edu/con…ransportationBrochure.pdf
"Nissan is in charge of fuel-cell research, he says, and Renault won’t duplicate that effort. A Renault project for onboard reformulation of gasoline to make hydrogen for a fuel cell was dropped in 2006, Perrin says."
Ohmasa's patent sounds equally dangerous and pointless because there is sufficient O2 in air to burn safely stored H2 gas on its own.
It does sound dangerous. As I said, I wouldn't want to be on the same city block.
On the other hand, I have heard that fuel cells work better with pure O2 rather than air. The best way to fuel them is to have separate tanks of H2 and O2. This might be a good way to store electricity. It is being developed in place of batteries.
If wind turbines in North Dakota were used to produce H2 and O2, the plan would be to dump the O2 and ship the H2 to distant cities for combustion, or for fuel cells in automobiles and power generators. Another plan would be to make synthetic liquid hydrocarbon fuel. I do not know where the carbon would come from. Garbage, perhaps? North and South Dakota have enough potential wind energy using today's wind turbines to produce a flow of liquid fuel larger than all of the oil from the Middle East. This would cost a fortune, but anyway, it demonstrates that alternative energy could easily fuel the entire world.
The claims of Ohmasa gas being safe needs serious science to explain exactly why it is safe
and also rigid tests to show what parameters one should have not to get brown gas behavior,
then one need safety equipment to make sure with high confidentiality that the parameters is
well in their bound and the gas is made up as it should. All captured in regulatory documents.
Still that this gas is compressible and can be liquified is something that is hard to get wrong and
should turn the right knobs on a scientist who would like to answer "WTF is this". If this gas has
the benefits they claim it will take many many years until it get's into infrastructure. Even hydrogen
that is safer than brown gas has it's problems (Explosion in norway). Anyway I can't see any claims
on over unity when it comes to Ohmasa gas, just that it is cheap, with good properties, and ideal as
a energy storage used to store energy in windmills and solar cells. But it teases my imagination because
the claim is that there is some water molecules mixed into it in some way and according to Mills water
is a hydrino catalyst. I simply wonder what would happen if Randell Mills took this invention and ran
with it.
Oh when I see that they store a lot of quantity of that Ohmasa gas in house e.g. some unknown
brown gas like thingie compressed in tubes but assumed safe I get night mares.
Regarding the transmutation they claim, I guess a few ppm of Iron from a transmutation would not need
to much heat If produced to counter the claim that the temperature of the bottle was, was it 40 degrees?
Anyhow a calculation is needed to show that things are coherent. Also they don't see any nickel, which is
assumed to show that the iron is not from the fins. But isn't nickel concentrations a 10th of Iron in those fins
so If iron is 1ppm you should expect 0.1ppm Nikel and is the equipment sensitive enough to find that?
Finally I would have liked to see the same experiment with no deuterium to compare. I guess that MFMP will
run proper tests later with good controls later.
The same with the fins. A proper inspection and documentation before and after the tests. Anyhow the long
track of strange radiation emanating from a blistering cavitation implosion indicates that it's not mechanical
tracks that was there before the tests, this story really catches my interests.
On the other hand, I have heard that fuel cells work better with pure O2 rather than air.
I think I read there are fewer contaminants with pure O2. Plus, Mr. Google tells me:
https://www.researchgate.net/p…ther_than_atmospheric_air
"There are several advantages with respect to efficiency when utilising pure oxygen instead of air. On the one hand its beneficial for the cell itself due to the higher oxygen partial pressure as explained, reducing internal losses (overpotential, diffusion etc.) especially at the cathode.
Furthermore a "reversible" and closed fuel cell system can be realised as demonstrated to power onboard and propulsion systems. Take a closer look at NASA's Pathfinder, Pathfinder Plus, Centurion and Helios. Those were developed by AeroVironment.
On the system side the fuel cell balance of plant may be simplified in terms of blowers, coolers, heat exchangers, pressure control due to high pressure tanks etc. Further and detailed information may be found in here:
[1] Büchi et al., On the Efficiency of Automotive H2/O2 PE Fuel Cell Systems, 3rd European PEFC Forum, Paper-Id B091, Lucerne, 2005
[2] Büchi et al., Fuel Cells 7(2), pp. 159-164, 2007
[3] Büchi et al., Fuel Cells 7(4), pp. 329-335, 2007"
So, if you have a large, stationary electrolysis + fuel cell system to be used as a battery for surplus electricity, it might make sense to store both the H2 and O2 in tanks. Then again maybe not, because the compressor has energy overhead.
So, if you have a large, stationary electrolysis + fuel cell system to be used as a battery for surplus electricity, it might make sense to store both the H2 and O2 in tanks. Then again maybe not, because the compressor has energy overhead.
You're a bit behind on this Jed. The latest electrolysis systems are designed to run at high pressure. right up to 800 bar + if required. The energy overhead for electrolysis at high pressure is small, and there is no need to use a lossy and expensive compressor. And since the 2 gases are nover mixed the explosion danger is minimised.
