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

Quote from Alan Smith

Thank you so much for this remarkable piece of news. Did you make any experimental tests of Aquafuel, or was your work on the theoretical underpinnings of Richardson's Aquafuel? And BTW, do you have a link for the relevant patents?

The mass balance for AquaFuel was based on the equations derived from mass balance and stoichiometry based on data in Santilli's patent application on intermediate controlled fusion processes. The inputs have to be water, carbon from the electrode and contamination with atmospheric air. The output had to match the chemical analysis of AquaFuel as provided by NASA. I didn't repeat NASA assay.

The mass balance shows that hydrogen from the hydrolysis of water disappears, that the expected transmutation product appears, that reactions in ICFP occur in water as they do in deuterium gas phase and that two hydrogens can substitute for one deuterium in the reactions.

The most remarkable thing about AquaFuel is that the heat/torque yield is massively in excess of the value predicted basis on the chemical analysis. So how is that energy stored in the fuel gas? This data is also in the AquaFuel report by Santilli. I didn't replicate it.

Quote from Drgenek

The output had to match the chemical analysis of AquaFuel as provided by NASA. I didn't repeat NASA assay.

From: AquaFuel: An example of the emerging new energies and the new methods for their scientific study

In other words, this is virtually the same as "Town Gas", as used to be created by heating coal under steam in the retorts of a 19th century gasworks. The only difference is that "AquaFuel" is created by heating an expensive carbon rod underwater, using an electric arc.

Quote from Frogfall

From: AquaFuel: An example of the emerging new energies and the new methods for their scientific study

In other words, this is virtually the same as "Town Gas", as used to be created by heating coal under steam in the retorts of a 19th century gasworks. The only difference is that "AquaFuel" is created by heating an expensive carbon rod underwater, using an electric arc.

Yes, that is the NASA data I used. The proper name of the historical reaction you refer to is the water-gas reaction. Now, hydrogen is mostly made by steam-reforming followed by the water-gas shift reaction. When Santilli published and patented improved version, he was still using an electric arc. That is not a trivial point.

Quote from Drgenek

Yes, that is the NASA data I used.

Well you really can drive a vehicle with it, as has been done many times before:

Gas Bag Vehicles

Wood gas cars were not the only answer to the limited supply of gasoline in World War One and Two. An even more cumbersome alternative came in the form of the…

www.lowtechmagazine.com

Quote from Frogfall

From: AquaFuel: An example of the emerging new energies and the new methods for their scientific study

In other words, this is virtually the same as "Town Gas", as used to be created by heating coal under steam in the retorts of a 19th century gasworks. The only difference is that "AquaFuel" is created by heating an expensive carbon rod underwater, using an electric arc.

The difference is that the AquaFuel is produced using an electric spark in hydrocarbon based waste. This produces EVOs that are carried in the gas as whole chemical makeup is defined above in the quote. The EVO is the active agent in the LENR reaction. Like cavitation, it gives AquaFuel the ability to destroy matter rather than melting it.

Ohmasa gas is the product produced in a cavitating chamber using an electric arc. Both Ohmasa gas and AquaFuel use the same LENR based matter disintegration principle to cut metal.

Quote from axil

But maybe the reaction is caused by something OTHER than fusion that naturally produces a broad radiation spectrum. Now how tragic would it be to follow the fusion illusion for decade after decade when the cause of the reaction is something completely OTHER than fusion.

A patent application of mine was published. US020180322974A120181108 (storage.googleapis.com)

A summary of the method from the claims is as follows:

method produces nuclear reactions and whereby said method produces a cluster of energetic atoms wherein atoms of said cluster and / or atoms introduced into said cluster react by various nuclear reactions to produce de novo synthesis of elements and whereby said method produces said chemical / nuclear compositions that in turn produce nuclear reactions and whereby said method produces said chemical / nuclear compositions that have fuel value.

If you have the skills, you can follow the mass balance and stoichiometry which is show in that application. That math shows nuclear fusion with a great deal of accuracy and precision of measurement. So, there is no illusion of fusion.

You are not incorrect that Matsumoto has shown clearly that cold fusion produces something neutron-like that will disintegrate to produce the various images he calls blackhole, wormholes and whiteholes. Matsumoto claims the failure to produce typical radiation of fusion is due to itons. Itons cause electronuclear collapse and electronuclear regeneration. Sadly, you are wrong about fusion. It is the fusion part that makes the itons. The majority of the useful output of cold fusion as done by Matsumoto (EVOs in water) is a result of the electronuclear collapse and regeneration.

You have a good understanding, but you get the pieces wrong. I will not engage in discussion with you because you don't examine any view but your own. When you do you, you provide a list of wrong statement too long to address. Sorry, most of the time I just don't see any value of being drawn into your arguments. You seem to be trolling as much as the people you complain about.

Was there anything in the video to say what pressure the gas was being stored at in the vehicle tanks? Contrary to what the article on gas bag vehicles stated in Low-Tech Magazine, it seems CO can be compressed by a fair amount without too many problems. Air Products even seem to supply it in 2000 psi cylinders.

Storing Syngas at low pressure was just normal 19th century practice - as making pressure vessels was too expensive, and dangerous, back then. Hence the old gasholders that most towns had, when gas networks were first installed.

Of course the energy used in compression will reduce the COP still further - so it would be interesting to see some real-world test measurements.

I notice that in the Santilli Magnegas patent he says that the carbon rod needs to be changed every 10 minutes in his prototype gas generator. He also claims in the patent that a similar patented 19th century water carbon arc process was very inefficient - but in the video, by the magical power of writing out a bunch of new mathematical equations which overturn quantum mechanics, his process is suddenly 10x as efficient.

Quote from Frogfall

I notice that in the Santilli Magnegas patent he says that the carbon rod needs to be changed every 10 minutes in his prototype gas generator.

I quickly skimmed through the patent, and after the introduction and theory, it describes an improvement which does not use carbon rods. The carbon is from the slurry into which they are immersed.

Quote

[...] The sixth main novelty of this invention over pre-existing patents is the elimination of Carbon rods as electrodes and the use of high temperature resistant materials which do not necessarily release carbon under an electric arc. More specifically, extensive experimentation has established that, under a DC arc powered by 15 KW anodes composed by a tungsten rod of about 3/46 diameter and 2o length experience minimal consumption, with replacement needed over at least one month of operation.

Quote from Curbina

That he has been very controversial, does not mean that his ideas can't be useful.

Physical demonstrations, and properly instrumented tests, are the ultimate test of usefulness. Hypothetical models might be useful, or they might be a hindrance to continued development.

The Phlogiston theory, and the Caloric theory, were probably useful for a while. Our current text-book theories are quite useful. Machines get built, and some are found to be useful, regardless of background theory.

And when some of the machines that get built, designed according to the prevailing theories, prove to be useless - we are supposed to revise the theory (not spend lots of money building more expensive versions - such as ITER).

Interestingly, this is the Eldridge 1898 patent. It isn't all that different to Santilli's device.

Quote from Curbina

I had seen these videos years ago, now they are not easy to find. In the last 8 or so minutes Santilli gives a more theoretical talk on why the system has a COP above 1.

Santilli states he observes 121 cubic feet of Magnegas replaces 1 gallon of gasoline.

One gallon of gasoline is worth 128137.3 Kj.

If the 121 cubic feet of gas were pure water gas (50% H₂ and 50% CO) then it's expected heat yield is 40115.8 Kj.

Hence, 128137.3 Kj/40115.8 Kj = 3.1941. Magnegas produces 3.1941 times the heat expected from the thermodynamics of its best possible chemical composition.

The same thing happens with AquaFuel. AquaFuel produces 3.03 times the heat expected from the thermodynamics of its actual composition based on NASA analysis. Since AquaFuel is only 95.63% water gas, then 3.03/.9563= 3.168. Hence, Santilli's observation is as expected based on AquaFuel.

It is chemically impossible to get the observed energy yield in either case. Hence, logic dictates part of the energy is not chemical. Further, as I have shown by mass balance on AquaFuel a nuclear reaction occurs to produce AquaFuel. Hence, most logically, 66% of the energy from AquaFuel is from nuclear reaction. That is the nuclear reaction is producing a non-chemical fuel. With the above observation and same logic then the same is true of Magnegas.

Santilli claims the non-chemical fuel is due to energy in magnetic bonding (magnecules). But then where does that come from?

If you can find numbers showing the yield of liters of magnegas from a known composition of liquid and from known input of electrical power, I would greatly appreciate you sharing that data. That is what is needed to verify a COP over one.

Quote from Drgenek

AquaFuel produces 3.03 times the heat expected from the thermodynamics of its actual composition based on NASA analysis.

Reference?

Note that in 1998, Santilli wrote in: AquaFuel: An example of the emerging new energies and the new methods for their scientific study, that several things were still to be measured - number 1 being:

Quote

1) Measure the energy content of AquaFuel per unit volume in BTU or other units. It should be indicated that a number of measures of BTU via conventional means have failed to provide any scientific answer for various reasons. As an example, readings of BTU compared to methane were inconclusive because the former burns with about half of the air (Oxygen) requirement of the latter, thus voiding the scientific value of any measure without due thermodynamical consideration of the different air intakes. Similar unsettled results occurred with other measures. Innovative means for the needed measures are therefore under study.