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

Quote from Drgenek

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.

This is a link to an independent replication site (now not available directly, only via web archive) that shows electric input versus assumed energy content of the output on a very simple desktop setup, and it derives a COP of 1.75.

Aquafuel generator

Another video that illustrates the wasted energy in the arc light itself.

Setting aside the issue of the efficiency of conversion, which may be debated ad nauseam, the practical use of this system for powering a fleet of service vehicles is what has driven my interest on this technology for many years. Even at the efficiency listed in conventional "power to gas" conversion, if you can use solar energy to produce the arc, tungsten rods and waste water instead of pure water, you could have a very low operational cost of fuel for your fleet. If it works even at the standard accepted efficiency of 75%, and is carbon neutral, the only thing that prevents this to be commercially succesful, at least in my country, is the fixed monthly tax to LPG or NG powered cars.

Edit to add: This fixed tax for NG and LPG powered cars was around USD 3150 per year (paid monthly) for both kinds of cars, but now was lowered to around USD 1000 per year (paid monthly) for LPG cars and was kept at the USD 3150 for NG powered cars.

Quote from Frogfall

I'm sorry to have to say this, but (speaking as a professional engineer, who has been running tests on engines and power systems for over 40 years) - that page is utterly deranged garbage.

Apart from the fact that all the calculations are totally wrongheaded, you cannot run a no-load test on an IC engine, and make any statement about its power and fuel consumption under load. It isn't an "independent replication" - it is a travesty.

No need to be sorry, nor angry.

This is clearly an amateur DIY type of page, and the data that one can rescue as having some value from this page, therefore the reason I mentioned it as a way to answer the request of Drgenek , is because it provides a simple and straight forward record of electric energy input vs gas volume evolved. The energy content of the gas is assumed to be the conventional chemical energy content of the COH gas at atmospheric pressure, and is not measured by testing of any kind.

I had posted this page, and a book from Santillis that is much more technically detailed on page one of this thread, as follows:

Quote from Curbina

In this book from Santilli, starting from page 89 there’s a report of an empirical measurement of the “commercial overunity” measured as around 2,8 (times the electric energy input compared to the heat and energy contained in the gas output) that is quite interesting. I insist he did not consider the light output.

https://thechurchoflife.net/wp…942d08aee8c477fade4da.pdf

One section after he proceeds to calculate the Maximum Predictable efficiency from Quantum Chemistry and the value is 0,79, so he empirically demonstrates that Quantum Chemistry was not able to predict the empirical results obtained.

This happened in 1998, and he claims later he was able to get the overunity factor to 3,5 in bigger reactors.

This is something I have always liked about Santilli, he always provided empirical proof of his claims.

Quote from Frogfall

The anger comes from knowing I'm going to have to spend waste time digging through poorly written "background" documents, to show why they don't stack up.

Display Spoiler

source

That’s one of my favorite memes of all time. Don’t waste your time with the blazelabs report if you don’t want. Instead I would be interested in your take on Santilli’s pdf linked here:

https://thechurchoflife.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/cf8614_e0ce2fc0c20942d08aee8c477fade4da.pdf

starting from page 89.

“Anomalous Energy Balance of Hadronic Molecular Reactors”

I have known about companies in the waste to energy sector talking about using plasma for near to 20 years now, but I stumbled upon this one just this morning. Same claims I have read before, I contacted them to see if they tell me at what stage are they now, but as I have already posted in this thread before, quoting from a published book, and specially when talking about solid wastes, plasma waste gasification can be energy self sustaining, and within the race to the much coveted “net zero” I wonder why this type of system is not more talked about.

What We Do — COH2 Energy

Edit to add: this is the book chapter I refer to that addresses plasma waste to energy efficiency.

Efficiency of Plasma Gasification Technologies for Hazardous Waste Treatment

The chapter is devoted to the development of technologies for the processing of carbonaceous wastes, including hazardous ones, using plasma energy sources. In…

www.intechopen.com

Quote from Frogfall

There are a still a few things I'd like to say about this site/report.

Firstly, the no-load engine test:

We don't know how the gas volumes and flows were being measured, so will have to work with the figures provided, for now.

They go on to calculate the electrical power for the generated gas, in Whr/Litre for the 3600 rpm run:

However, they are not generating 40 L/min of fuel gas, that is the air/fuel mix. They say they are generating 6.5 L/min. So the above calculation should be:

Input = 5400/(6.5*60) = 13.85 Whr/Litre

Next a selected calorific value for the fuel gas has been converted from BTU/cf to Whr/Litre:

They haven't quoted a source for the 380 BTU/cf, but it isn't too far different from some other web quoted values for COH2, although they should have mentioned whether it was at a standard temperature and pressure, and then compensated for the conditions in their rig. But we'll let that one rest.

They then go on to calculate an efficiency for their gas generator:

This, of course, is completely wrong - as they have used the wrong gas volume.

The calculation should be:

Fuel Conversion efficiency = 3.93 / 13.85 = 28.4%

Is this a sensible figure? Since they are breaking down pure water (not a typical electrolyte), and disintegrating a carbon rod, all with a steady DC current, I don't find this 28.4% figure to be particularly outrageous.

Display More

I appreciatte your efforts to point the shortcomings of this report, and I repeat, the only value that I rescue from it is the part of electric energy to gas volume. It falls short from what Santilli et al reports in his book, but he is taking much more factors into account in his calculations.

Quote from Alan Smith

The only survivors I know have changed over to plasma destruction of toxic or infectious waste at huge expense to the waste producer.

Yes, the book chapter I shared backs your assertions 100%.

Quote from Frogfall

Magnegas-2

It seems that in 2017, the Magnegas company changed production methods for its "Magnegas-2" product, and had fully positioned itself as a supplier of "acetylene alternatives" to the welding and gas-cutting industry.

See: MagneGas Announces Significant Continued Improvement in MagneGas2 Production from Butanol Feedstock

The calorific value of Magnegas-2 has been boosted, as compared to the original Magnegas, with the addition of some acetylene, methane, and ethylene.

All the "hadronic science" stuff seems to have disappeared, and the company appears to have sanitised its image.

See: Acetylene & MagneGas-2 End-use and Safety Assessment (PDF)

It is probably is safer to handle than acetylene (which can be dodgy stuff, if you haven't been trained to use it properly), but I would have liked to see a comparison with propane - which has displaced acetylene for many applications.

Actually, butanol (and particularly bio-butanol) is already a potential "drop-in" replacement for petrol (gasoline). Although whether the economics and environmental implications of biofuels, in general, make sense is open to debate.

Display More

The company underwent a lot of changes due to its publicly traded stock character and Santilli and family were kind of forced to yield all control of it, around the time when it changed name to Taronis technologies.

Bio Butanol is a direct replacement for gasoline, but producing it efficiently is still a work in progress.