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

This is what I meant when talking about a higher mass per mol, these are laboratory results, not theoretical calculations.This comes from the supporting results annex in the paper attached.

I pasted the above comment on this thread as it pertains to it.

Today, I just came back to my keyboard from receiving a copy of "It's not electrolysis" the book published in 2020 by William Richardson, about whom Santilli wrote an article in 1998 in Arxiv as being an example of the applications of his Hadronic Chemistry. This man has been working on this for 50 years and got a patent in 2001. He also drove cars, generators, and many other devices with this gas.

Drgenek , I appreciate your input, I have known about the idea of magnegas for 18 years now and I am just now coming to understand it better. I finished my first pass of the Richardson book and he seems to think that the CNTs created play a role, this was interesting to read.

One of the things that Richardson states in his book is that he sent samples of the same batch of gas to 4 different laboratories and got back 4 different results. This is interesting because it tells that the gas produced is not conventional at all and the composition results can be confusing, to put it mildly.

What has surprised me more about how Richardson approached this technology is how simple his proof of concept tests were. He literally created the gas “by hand”, holding the electrodes and controlling the arc gap with his own hands in a bucket of water and collecting the gas with an inverted funnel and lighting it to show people how it worked.

Later he used more equipment but it was still off the shelf compressors, he first used air compressors to take it to 150 PSI and the a second high pressure one as He stored the gas at 1800 PSI on scuba diving bottles. The most sophisticated part of his industrial production system was the carbon rod continuous feeding system, that also mantained the arc gap within a narrow band to make the process continuous.

He stated to be able to run a 2.2 KW generator at full load for 40 minutes out of one scuba bottle.

Quote from Drgenek

I have been trying for years to figure out what that non-chemical fuel is.

Thanks. It is indeed a mistery. Some propose the creation of charge clusters but that’s not easy to prove.

Reading the story of William Richardson has been really interesting. He developed a system for making this gas out of mostly standard equipment skillfully assembled and demonstrated many of its curious features, but above all, that it was perfectly usable for practical purposes.

Running a 2.2 genset at full load out of a scuba bottle of arc water gas.

Custom made arc water gas production system

Something that I did not know and is sad to find out, is that Richardson collaborated with Santilli in a company called Toups Technology, and Richardson claims the IP attorney of this company sold the IP rights to Santilli. Very dirty move. He seems to blame the lawyer tho, not Santilli.

Another thing I never heard before, the gas has a smell said to be similar to ozone. This is interesting, as ozone is not reported as constituent from the gas analysis.

Quote from gerold.s

behaviour of nano tubes seems not to be new....

Thread

Modern tiny water fuelled nuclear energy reactor

Modern tiny water fuelled nuclear energy reactor:

After a discussion with the inventor / discoverer of MWCNT fusion method ( James F. Loan ) here is the conclusion:



a proof of concept has been made using water, regular tap water, but D2O is recommended, there are various methods to achieve nuclear fusion, some of them are violent and cause harmful radiation ( but can be useful when handled correctly ) and others don't have any bad byproduct, just clean fusion.


this one can replace conventional…

goldinium

Oct 16th 2020

Not at all, I am aware of this company. What I had never realized before is the relationship to the underwater carbon arc gas oddities.

The issue of the "overunity", on which I should not focus, but is hard not to, was never mentioned directly by William H. Richardson in his patents. However, one can deduce it from what Richardson himself tells in his book "It's not electrolysis", where, at the end of chapter 2 contains the following paragraph:

"Our current production unit produces, per hour, one two hundred cubic foot bottle of AquaLene at two thousand psi for 42 kilowatthour. This amount of kilowatthour includes the power supply that powers the arc, numerous wirings, the pumps, computer control system, the low and high pressure compressors, the window fans, refrigerators, and overhead lights. The entire building's electrical usage is monitored by a meter to determine power consumption".

Chapter 5 on the other hand contains three different approaches to determine the energy content of one cubic foot of AquaLene. The different results more or less arrive at the same average of 1171 BTU/cubic feet.

Now, from the previous figures one can derive the following:

1 kilowatthour is equivalent to 3412,1416 BTUs. So, producing 200 cubic feet of AquaLene requires 42Kwh x 3412,1416 which is rounding up 143310 BTUs. These 200 cubic feet of AquaLene contain 200 x 1171 BTUS = 234200 BTUs. So, the brute COP of the process (electric energy input / heat energy that can be obtained from burning the gas produced with said electricity) is 234200/143310 = 1,63.

Is important to note that this COP is only considering the energy retrievable from the gas by burning it to produce heat, and it doesn't considers as outputs neither the heat released during the creation of the gas, nor the light emitted by the arc during the process, so the total COP of the process would be probably slightly higher if those two outputs could be experimentally measured and incorporated in the calculation.

The value one can derive from Richardson's data is roughly in line with the same brute COP calculated by Blaze Labs in a much simpler setup, which was 1.7.

I know is a controversial issue, I am just trying to call the attention to the fact that, no matter how theoretically impossible this is, independent observations seem to corroborate tha producing gas this way has a COP above 1.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I thought/read the reality (in a sports car) was 10%....

The automotive tests indicate that 1 cubic foot of gas obtained in a so called "Hadronic Reactor" had basically the same energy content that 1 cubic foot of natural gas. Don't know where you get the 10% figure.

I had found a paper in Thai language of the build of a small "Plasma Arc Flow" reactor, that had a font problem that wouldn't let me translate it via Google (the font was garbled), but I found an online OCR tool that let me recover the text with unavoidable bugs, but now I can translate the text. The reported COP considering only the electric energy input and energy of the gas output is 1.845. When the heat output is considered, the COP is 2.498.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The magnetic H*-H* just leads to a compression of the normal fuel.

I agree, but is quite a useful trick!