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

Quote from Max Nozin

The problem is that the actual result is always NULL

These guys got out 90 minutes of increased autonomy on their helicopter by using the system created by Pantone. They had to remove it not because it didn't work, but because it infringed aeronautic authority regulations.

http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsu…neDe2004a2010/helico1.htm

I wouldn't call it "a null result".

Or, if you still consider it a null result, you can see plenty of more "null results" in the site where this is linked.

http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsu…0/Real2006SystPantone.htm

Quote from Max Nozin

and they could not install it in the bicycle because UCI threatened to sue?

If you see the numerous replications, there are plenty of cars, tractors, backhoes and even cargo trucks using the system, but they are all DYI tinkerers, you can't purchase this technology "off the shelf" nor is offered by the motor development companies as an option. At the very least, this technology could be considered as a very cost effective way to cut emissions.

Just now found that the company that offered the SPAD (a GEET inspired system) for High power Diesel Engines, folded up in July 2019. The thing is that, unless this get massively adopted by ICE manufacturers, which can't be arsed to even look at it, it will keep being a DIY tinkerer's technology, as even if it's relatively simple, the implementation and tune up for each motor is well outside the normal skills of the average joe.

I'm supposed to have around in my Hard Drive, which I downloaded over a decade ago, a theses conducting to the title of engineering by a student that researched this seriously, and found many of the claims to be true, and couldn't prove others due to lack of experimental resources for the scope ans size of his theses. Let's see if I can find it for sharing it here.

Quote from Max Nozin

Curbina you don't have to convince ICE manufacturers of anything. There are plenty of companies owning feels so large that single percentage fuel saving means millions a year. And they pay for custom routing, hybrid drivetrains etc. The Nikola founder made first money selling natural gas conversion kits. So it is most likely the claimants have nothing or have a bad personality scaring any potential partner away. That is why you need to do standard legwork to succeed , i.e. suit, shirt ties, shoes etc. and hiding the fact that your believe aliens exist till later.

I don't know about Pantone believing in Aliens or not. Sometimes people are just painted as crazy by the media. I think he wanted to help people, he was perhaps a bit overly emotional in his speech, and also he lacked the formal education so many demand, but his idea has been replicated and validated by others doing the leg work.

Others working in similar fuel reformers that can allow an ICE to run on a syngas made with by recycling the fuel exhaust heat and adding water or any other liquid as the fuel to gasify (one particularly well documented is the MIT's Plasmatron) that AFAIK have never believed in aliens, and have suited up and done the leg work, have never gotten anywhere also, even if their work has been published under peer review not one, but several times.

The basic idea of Pantone, without any of the esoteria, is generally called "plasma fuel reformers" and with some alternative tweaks or even more basic builds that take the whole design to the tailpipe, has been studied by many, all of them finding it's great for increasing fuel economy between a 5% to a 40% (the highest economy enhancement normally is produced at higher loads), and also for reduction of emissions. Attached one of the many papers on the issue.

One can only wonder why, after more than 2 decades, this is still not adopted by the automotive industry.

Are you telling me it doesn't work because you know it? or because you assume that the reason it hasn't been adopted is because it doesn't work? Because, I've got to tell you, tens of papers, technical reports, and even some technical reports from research projects sponsored with government money grants, say exactly the contrary: that it works, and very well.

Quote from Max Nozin

Papers, patents, YouTube don't start it again. We have been there so many times.

You can say 'sugar' hundred times don't make it sweet in the mouse. Show me hardware not paper.

So, you are like Saint Thomas. How come you got interested in LENR then? Do you think LENR is anything else than vaporware then?

Quote from Wyttenbach

LENR: It's how nature works - thus more than real. Not ITER like brain fart technology.

Don't have doubts about that Wyttenbach, and I think we can agree that some degree of LENR can happen within plasma, that can explain the so called "COP >1" that has been experimentally observed. But I am asking Max Nozin why on Earth he is interested in LENR if he has such a stringent level of incredulity about what others report.

The main difference is that conventional nuclear was expected and sought after.

We can say that Hot Fusion is far worse than LENR then.

To re state some points in hopes of a better understanding of why I think this is important LENR wise:

- It has been experimentally proven that production of syngas from water with a plasma arc between carbon rods leads to a situation in which the ratio of the total electric energy input taken by the process to the heat energy that can be obtained by burning the gas and the heat output of the process itself, can be up to 3,5. That doesn’t include the radiant energy produced by the intense light of the arc, that I think has been overlooked.

- Wether one believes the experimental reports that communicate this COP, is not what I intend to debate. The COP measurements have been verified to a sufficient degree IMO, and has been verified by relatively simple methods to be at least 1,75, in an open source desktop set up.

- What these measurements imply is that these reactions allow to tap the energy of matter beyond their chemical energy, but also well below their nuclear energy, in what has been termed “an intermediate form of fusion” that taps the energy from electronic orbitals instead of the nucleus.

- If one accepts that the energy contained I matter is equivalent to E=mc², then one might propose that plasma arc is a way to obtain an energy equivalent to a fraction of that upper bound, but that is still greater than the chemical energy we have been using and has been the basis of the human civilization development for over 250 years.

- If the process involves using part of the energy of matter greater than chemical but much lower than nuclear, it might as well be classified as belonging to the LENR field.

Just doing a recap of where I am at this moment in regards to this topic, and why I think is important LENR wise:

For the past two months I have been reviewing some literature on the energy balance of the production of so called syngas from aqueous solutions in which a plasma arc is created between carbon rods.

The most prolific and in depth analyst of this issue has probably been Ruggero Santilli, who dubbed his version of syngas “Magnegas” and he insisted since early in his publications that the energy balance of his process (which was very similar, but with some "tweaks", to earlier known processes) has a ratio of at least 3.5 when one considers all the energetic outputs of the system (process heat + energy stored in the syngas formed) to the inputs (electric energy to run the process). I think he forgot to consider the bright arc radiant energy, but that’s only usable if your reactor is transparent. This is a COP of 3.5, that he claims is for pure water, as he also said that Carbon rich liquids can give a COP of 7.5 (he obtained that value by processing discarded radiator liquid).

Now, Santilli also has some publications on the so called HHO production. As far as I know he worked with one of the many inventors of HHO machines, Denny Klein, and he published the paper in 2013 (International Journal of Hydrogen Energy) where he describes the output of the gas as a “new combustible gaseous form of water” and characterizes it as very similar in properties as the “magnegas”, composed of clustered water molecules that are bonded magnetically.

While Santilli openly talked about the COP of the plasma arc, and he got a lot of flak for it (impossible and all that), and wether if one believes him or not, he published data that, if taken as coming from valid and repeatable experiments, one would have no other choice but to think that the COP > 1 for his plasma arc process is experimentally proven. I am aware of at least one report of a "backyard" Engineer, who independently verified a raw COP (not considering the inefficiency of the power supply) with a value of 1.75 for a carbon plasma arc, measured in a small desktop setup (the report can be read here: http://www.blazelabs.com/n-aquagen.asp ).

To my best knowledge, however, Santilli never addressed the issue of the COP of the production of HHO by electrolysis in the machine of Denny Klein. This has picked my curiosity, because back when Denny Klein was selling his machine, I recall that from the brochure and technical specs, a rough calculation based on the energy consumption of the machine and the Nominal volume of HHO gas Stated as possible to obtain per hour, and from the known energetic value of a cubic meter of HHO, one could calculate that the COP was around 4.5.

The COP of production of HHO with electrolysis has been one of, if not the most, controversial topics around HHO, and I had not been able to find anyone that had actually published an experiment with methodologically accurate measures of it. Of course, from the orthodox point of view (as well as for the Plasma Arc Syngas production) the possibility of a COP>1 is non sequitur, but we are in an entire field that is outside of orthodoxia. And in the world of HHO backyard tinkerers, the COP >1 is often taken as a given, so not many of them are even trying or interested into proving it.

In this aspect, from my point of view, lies the essence of the relationship of HHO as a technology that belongs squarely in the LENR field (the same than Plasma Arc Syngas production). A COP above one in this kind of processes, points to a “beyond chemical” source of energy, and this, as Santilli once stated, points to an intermediate form of fusion, in which we are extracting energy from the electron orbitals instead of the chemical bonds between molecules and atoms. This, needless to say, is where the skeptics cry bloody murder, as from Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Chemistry, “it’s impossible”.

A few days ago in this same thread I posted a link to a paper I found, recently published online, admittedly not very skillfully written, from a researcher in the US, that obtained a greater than 100% efficiency (another way to say COP > 1) in the production of H from seawater filtration reject brine, using a microwave induced plasma to split water vapor in a vacuum. This is not electrolysis per se, and the author was interested only in the hydrogen, but he addressed, and even highlighted, the above 100% efficiency, and mentioned that it had to be some sort of LENR process involved, that needed further study. For that alone I found that the paper was worth reading and having on the radar (its this one, posted in the previous page http://www.ijewfn.org/index.ph…fn/article/download/16/10 ).

On the other hand, HHO has been also shown to induce transmutations, which would also confirm its LENR nature.

Now, since a couple of weeks ago I have been in contact with an HHO enthusiast from Cornwall, UK who is working in a very professional looking circuit for controlling water electrolysis, and he is working under the guidance of Dave Lawton, who is notorious for having been one of the few that claims truly having replicated the work of Stanley Meyer. This fellow from Cornwall sent me an over a 16 years old report from Dave Lawton that states that the water fuel cell he did the experiments with, was able to produce hydrogen with a COP of 3.58 considering the electric input compared to the energy that could be obtained from burning the hydrogen produced with that electric energy input. I hade never found anything published of the sorts for HHO production before, so I am rather happy that this report was sent to me by this very good fellow (the report is attachd to this post).

With a COP of 3.58, the so called "self looping" with a genset is still out of the question, because the nominal efficiency of 20% of gensets would require a COP of 5 to be able just to make the electrolyzer run from the genset output alone, without any additional load. But, a fuel cell, with an efficiency of 50%, could be enough to self loop an electrolyzer with a COP of 3.58, it would be enough for self looping and even an additional load.

I think that this is going to a be a project to which I will be devoting an increasing amount of time in the near term, as I think that no one has ever tried it, and would possibly be a way to generate a definitive proof of LENR, from an old and non usually related, but as equally as controversial field.

Just as Max Nozin wants to know who is “some” that claims COP>1 when making water explode with an electric arc:

Tucker Leavitt results for water arc explosions:

http://waterarcresearch.blogsp…ts-from-stanford.html?m=1

Quote from Max Nozin

Adamenko in Ukraine has been exploding wires for few decades and will retire doing that.

Well, that happens when you get experimental results that no theory predicts and no matter how consistent your results are, no one wants to try to replicate them because “it’s impossible”.