Born September 8, 1935
Yes, I know that, yet somehow he himself said to me he was over 90 last time I communicated with him to ask how he was doing with the pandemic by mid 2020.
Production of fuel with COP above 1 (electric energy input/heat energy output) patent about to expire in 2021
-
Note that Santilli doesn't mention fuel/air mixture ratios. Also note that the amount of Aquafuel used in the above test in, order to achieve 1.86 HP at 3060 rpm, is not shown on the table. Hence the 90% power figure is achieved with an unknown mass flow rate of Aquafuel. Therefore the "40.087/13.2375 = 3.028" calculation is invalid.
Power is energy per time. The basis in tables is gms of fuel. So, grams of fuel used from start to end of test is basis of the calculated power. For Santilli, it appears he just drove the car with the magnegas and calculated fuel efficiency. i.e. miles per gallons. More miles per gallons is more power.
Given the nuclear derived fuel has no chemical composition, then it is illogical that the air to fuel ratio has an impact because it doesn't use air in whatever reaction is producing the heat. The reaction producing the extra heat is not a chemical reaction. If it was one could identify the chemical source.
-
Power is energy per time. The basis in tables is gms of fuel. So, grams of fuel used from start to end of test is basis of the calculated power. For Santilli, it appears he just drove the car with the magnegas and calculated fuel efficiency. i.e. miles per gallons. More miles per gallons is more power.
Given the nuclear derived fuel has no chemical composition, then it is illogical that the air to fuel ratio has an impact because it doesn't use air in whatever reaction is producing the heat. The reaction producing the extra heat is not a chemical reaction. If it was one could identify the chemical source.
That’s why I like much more the tests for direct comparison with natural gas shown in the book, where they compared how much NG vs how much Magnegas was required to achieve the same amount of temperature rise on a given volume of water.
-
-
It would be interesting to see the study by Aringazin and Santilli that details the chemical composition of the used antifreeze along with how much carbon rod is burnt per CF of magnegas. Over unity as calculated above ignores the energy of the starting materials.
Further, we can't just take the over-unity calculation using just tap water as a baseline, since in theory that would produce AquaFuel. It follows that magnegas is more energetic that AquaFuel but the energy contribution from the waste antifreeze is small (an increase from 2.78 to 2.83).
Santilli seems to confirm the trend implies by Aquafuel generator (archive.org) which indicates that power yield per volume of AquaFuel should increase with power applied. (Expected efficiency at 250 kW as compared to 50 kW input electrical energy).
-
The above figure is from Aringazin and Santilli. It implies that a plasma arc can occur where only 1/20 of the carbon come from the carbon rod. That also leads to the highest commercial efficiency of magnegas production. Perhaps assuming magnegas has a constant heat yield per unit volume under any production condition.
In general, the article suggests that of the energy in the chemical composition of magnegas is supplied by the electrical power input. Further, they state that when burning the gas that the heat output is about 3 times it's predicted heat basis on chemical composition. The implication then would be a COP of 6 to 7 for gas as shown in the graph. (That is to say that energy in waste is counted as lost but for commercial efficiency converts to fuel energy). However, the actual efficiency is less than one because energy in the glycol and carbon plus the energy from the arc exceeds the chemical and non-chemical energy of magnegas.
It seems therefore that gas productivity drops with a higher glycol flow rate while the lost from the carbon rod is less with high glycol flow rate. Further, the overall energy recovery from the waste likely drops with flow rate. They present no evidence for the greater than chemical efficiency in this paper. It seems unlikely to me that the greater than chemical efficiency does not vary with gas production conditions. A commercially profitable operation would depend on what carbon content the waste from magnegas has.
I speculate that improved operation removes purified water as magnegas waste and then recycles the carbon rich liquid to the reactor. That would then lead to more hydrocarbons in the magnegas.
-
I speculate that improved operation removes purified water as magnegas waste and then recycles the carbon rich liquid to the reactor. That would then lead to more hydrocarbons in the magnegas.
I recall that one of the many documents I have read over the years on this topic talked about enhanced efficiency when the liquid was recycled back to the reaction vessel in a closed loop. This would be consistent with your statement.
-
Further, they state that when burning the gas that the heat output is about 3 times it's predicted heat basis on chemical composition.
I thought/read the reality (in a sports car) was 10%....
-
I thought/read the reality (in a sports car) was 10%....
The AquaFuel and Magnegas process differ only by the carbon content of waste used for magnegas while Aquafuel uses water. As shown above AquaFuel produces 3x the torque/power expected based on its chemical composition.
Sonicated water produces a similar afterheat. When the sonicated metal is heated by a joule heater the joule increase in water/ sonicated metal exceeds the joule input of the heater. ENECOtheseventh.pdf (lenr-canr.org)
I am suggesting the non-chemical energy in AquaFuel or Magnegas, is the same fuel that produces the afterheat results from sonication.
I am suggesting that an actual mass/fuel is produced by cold fusion.
-
Overunity has been shown for electrical discharge in water.
-
This paper is from a study to recycle sewage sludge. It claims that a net gain of over 2 MW of electric energy can be obtained by recycling 250 t/day of wet sewage sludge and transforming it into gas to produce electricity in a turbine. Most of the waste heat is recycled for drying the sludge from 68% to less than 30% water content.
This makes no claims of overunity whatsoever and no exotic claims about the process or the efficiency, just plain old conventional thinking.
This is the kind of stuff I think could be developed for a domestic use.
-
Overunity has been shown for electrical discharge in water.
Alas no. I read this student's work. The key part is where he calculates the input and output energy from the discharge.
He does not give details of how he does this - and so we cannot know whether he is correct.
- What he says he is doing - should work (temperature rise) for the output energy. But we do not know what are his calculations or his data used, so cannot read anything into his results for this. The results are larger by a factor of 2 than the input energy calculated from the capacitor - however we do not from the spec he links know the tolerance of the capacitor, nor can we be sure he has calculated the output energy correctly.
- What he says he is doing will probably not work for input power - because at those very high pulse currents you get high induced voltage on probes and therefore the measurement is likely all wrong. This is suspected from the form of the current which looks like the voltage, whereas the exploding water is not likely to look like a constant resistance. So we do not know the input energy. Nor do we know how he is calculating it: it will require integration of the input waveforms multiplied together.
- My experience is that such work is more likely than not in error, in this case like of detail means we do not know.
-
Alas no. I read this student's work. The key part is where he calculates the input and output energy from the discharge.
He does not give details of how he does this - and so we cannot know whether he is correct.
- What he says he is doing - should work (temperature rise) for the output energy. But we do not know what are his calculations or his data used, so cannot read anything into his results for this. The results are larger by a factor of 2 than the input energy calculated from the capacitor - however we do not from the spec he links know the tolerance of the capacitor, nor can we be sure he has calculated the output energy correctly.
- What he says he is doing will probably not work for input power - because at those very high pulse currents you get high induced voltage on probes and therefore the measurement is likely all wrong. This is suspected from the form of the current which looks like the voltage, whereas the exploding water is not likely to look like a constant resistance. So we do not know the input energy. Nor do we know how he is calculating it: it will require integration of the input waveforms multiplied together.
- My experience is that such work is more likely than not in error, in this case like of detail means we do not know.
Tucker is replicating Graneau’s experiments. In any case, as stated before, I am shifting focus towards the “I don’t care if it’s exotic or not, I just care I can heat my home and light my house with it by recycling my own sewage so I can be 100% off grid” crowd.
-
Tucker is replicating Graneau’s experiments. In any case, as stated before, I am shifting focus towards the “I don’t care if it’s exotic or not, I just care I can heat my home and light my house with it by recycling my own sewage so I can be 100% off grid” crowd.
good luck with that one from sparks in water! -
good luck with that one from sparks in water!
It has been proven to be technically feasible, and some people just need that for wanting it as it enables them to get a greater degree of independence.
There are 5KW/h combined solar hydrogen systems that a few years ago sold for about USD 350K. Some people want them. That’s the market segment.
-
A better example of over unity in electrically induced explosions is as follows. Proc. 27th IECEC, Vol. 4, 4,335 (1992) by engineering professor Gary Johnson. This quote is from Moray King's book "Water the key to new energy." "Johnson's experiments confirm that both excessive force and energy (exceeding what was stored on the capacitor) was consistently exhibited from abrupt electric discharges in water"
Unfortunately, the typical efficiency to produce electric energy from mechanical energy disallows a cyclic over unity process.
However, what is brilliant light power doing? Basically, converting water into electricity by a variation of the above process.
-
Unfortunately, the typical efficiency to produce electric energy from mechanical energy disallows a cyclic over unity process.
I agree, but one does not need to put the focus on that, just on it being useful and practical.
-
Is not often that people study in detail stuff like the gas evolved by arcing carbon electrodes underwater. I found this paper that got me thinking about the results published by Santilli of his analysis of the gas. I got a copy of the paper through the usual alternative sources but can’t get it to upload.
It’s interesting that they see that the gas is rich in gaseous polyynes.
Submerged carbon arc in deionized water: A green route for scalable preparation of gas containing polyynesPolyynes and polyyne-based one-dimensional nanostructures are promising for several applications including ultra-compact circuits and electro-optical …www.sciencedirect.com
