Production of fuel with COP above 1 (electric energy input/heat energy output) patent about to expire in 2021

Quote from can

There are a number of similar experiments also on JL Naudin's website http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/

From these however it's clearer that they were basically gasifying the graphite rods used into CO+H2 (syngas).

Whether the heat energy content of the gases (when combusted in air) will be substantially larger than that of the electricity put into producing them will depend on the process used, I guess.

Yes, I know about JL Naudin's efforts, he does not focuses in the COP, just in the ease of production of the gas, but as you can see in the pictures, BlazeLabs experiment uses a very close to JL Naudin's setup, so, I think that the COP>1 is more of a property of the process itself, it can be improved, but is not hard to see it expressed. BlazeLabs did not include the released heat of the arc, nor the intense photon emission, in the COP calculation.

Quote from can

By the way, I just learned that the electric arc process is actually a mainstream method for gasification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification

Indeed, can , I know about it, and have known for as long as I have known of the "Magnegas".

Anyway, It has been touted as one great alternative technology for recycling of solids, but I would hardly call it "mainstream", as it has its own share of skeptics and denyers, albeit in this case is more due to the practical-technical challenges of its implementation, that has failed due to the problem of high temperature and difficulty to keep the arc and waste feed going smoothly, AFAIK.

In the case of solid wastes no one has ever claimed COP>1, AFAIK, as it has been claimed, and experimentally proven, In the case of liquid wastes. My take is that the way to make solid waste gasification going, is to transform the solids into a liquid slurry. So far, no one has tried that.

Quote from Alan Smith

I had a quick look at the Naudin website, and saw no mention of the electrolyte. This could also have a big bearing on apparent COP. If you are burning graphite/carbon to make CO2 and were using something like NaOH as an electrolyte you have perfect conditions for making sodium carbonates, initially Na2CO3. I don't think you would see much change in conductivity and the reaction is exothermic at around 400W/h per Kg of Na2CO3 produced. The second order reaction if you keep the CO2 flowing is to sodium hydrogen carbonate . This is also mildly exothermic, but not favoured thermodynamically and much slower.

I don’t know about JL Naudin (Think he uses Plain tap water) but Blazelabs, and also Santilli, have done the Experiments with bi distilled water, and with that they have got the COP>1.

Quote from can

By the way, I just learned that the electric arc process is actually a mainstream method for gasification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification

I found a book chapter that deals with the energy efficiency of plasma gasification. It’s from Former Soviet researchers, and it quite lenghty. But I found this part , talking about how to make the process energetically self sufficient by using the energy from the produced gas to produce requirement of the plasma torch, that in the end says it all without specifically talking about the COP>1.

This is because in the waste there’s much more energy stored than the energy needed to release it. These conclusions are reached without resorting to any outlandish theory.

https://www.intechopen.com/boo…hazardous-waste-treatment

Well, Duh, I probably should have read the energetic efficiency of plasma gasification of solid wastes chapter till the end before commenting, as the conclusions spell it in direct terms:

This paper just showed in my Google Academic Search, from February 2020. It is not really a great journal nor a great paper, but the researcher studied Simulations of electrolysis of water (From puré to desalination reject brine) with microwaves and found it to have an energetic efficiency above 100% and claims the explanation is from LENR happening in the plasma. He then proceeds to validate the model experimentally. The researcher is from Florida A&M University:

Article information:

http://www.ijewfn.org/index.php/ijewfn/article/view/16

Full pdf Can be read here:

http://www.ijewfn.org/index.php/ijewfn/article/download/16/1

The key paragraph that made me take notice of this paper, is this one:

The basic thermodynamic analysis of the experimental studies revealed a consistent energy efficiency of the process greater than 100%, (especially in the 20 V trials) even though the magnetron used for microwave generation was only 55% energy efficient. This indicates that Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) are occurring in the dielectric barrier plasma discharge in the water in the electrolytic environment. Further research is necessary to understand and advance the fundamental science behind such LENR as well as to assess and validate the mechanism of such reactions.

Since this paper is about production of H with efficiency "above unity", and thus it implies some sort of nuclear process might be lending the extra energy, I think this thread is appropiate for the discussion of this thread.

I invited Dr. Dev to join LENR forum, I hope he does. His paper has a number of aspects that aren't really clear about the exact experimental set up, It would be great if he joins in order to have a better understanding on how his experiment is performed, specially in the sense of how to attempt a replication.

One of the things that happens when one has been reading and studying these so called “fringe technologies” for so many years is that one can’t help but find similarities between things that on the surface can be considered completely non related. The paper of Dr. Dev has been lingering in my brain’s back burner as one part of the setup was “familiar”, along with the concept of doing plasma in a partial vaccum, and I finally realized that I was thinking of the so called GEET plasma fuel reformer, which is a clever and relatively simple backyard tinkerer’s way to use an ICE exhaust heat and the combustion chamber’s partial vacuum to break down any aqueous or liquid mixture and turn into a syngas to fuel the engine, on board and on the go. Once one allows to admit the possibility that plasmas are a viable way to go “beyond chemical energy” and tap at least a subset of the energy stored in matter, a.k.a. as weak nuclear energy, this sort of stuff starts to make a lot of sense. I know, “it’s impossible”, but again “People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it”.

Quote from Max Nozin

Curbina for time he spent making the video, he could register business and start selling 0 emission engines, if only it worked. Or was it this time, like many times before, the Man in Black/Rothchild agents stole the gizmo from us?

Have you ever read the story of Paul Pantone, Max Nozin ? He never wanted to sell it, he wanted people to learn it and use it. In France there's a healthy number of DIY type backyard tinkerers that have built their own versions adapted to a wide array of ICE powered machinery (even an helicopter!) and reported / documented their efforts. Some even got featured in TV news reports. Jean Louis Naudin made his own replication and documented it very well, and proved that the system is capable of doing what it says.

One of the simplest versions, called the "SPAD" is mostly suitable for high powered Diesel engines, like the ones in Tractors and Backhoes, and is a rather simple contraption that is added to the exhasut pipe, and there's a local shop in France that builds custom versions, stainles steel made. They are widely reported to double gas efficiency of the diesel engines.

I can fetch some links if you are interested.

I have known and read of all these for years, I am just beginning to understand really why they were so resisted. These are simple ways to tap the weak nuclear energy from matter.

Quote from Alan Smith

Hi Max.

You have no idea how difficult it is to sell even relatively conventional new technologies that disrupt existing commercial pathways, even when they are demonstrably profitable and useful.

I can attest to this, from personal experience and career, even proposing an selling an ordinary water treatment technology can get you in trouble, when it is perceived as creating a problem by those who are already dumping a contaminant and claim is impossible to not do it.

Quote from Max Nozin

same story all over again. Quite often inventor has a package of believing in aliens and wholistic cures.

What's the problem with that? can't you separate the persons beliefs from their useful ideas?