Hydrino, small hydrogen, LENR and Simon Brink & Randell Mills. The new possibility?

Quote from Curbina

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.

Calling a scrappy scan, of unknown provenance, added to the back of a scanned paper, a "supporting results annex" is stretching academic terminology a little too far.

Magnegas^TM was ordinary producer gas (a carbon monoxide & hydrogen mix), albeit made in an odd way. There is no g/mol figure for the MagneH^TM samples that were analysed for gas content, in the actual paper.

Note that carbon monoxide has a molar mass of 28.010 g/mol.

Quote from Frogfall

There is no g/mol figure for the MagneHTM samples that were analysed for gas content, in the actual paper.

The results are indeed mentioned in the paper as molecular weight units (a.m.u.), which is the same than g/mol. This is why I called the annex “supporting results”, because these figures are indeed mentioned in the paper. The scanned paper was downloaded from a site related to Santilli.

Quote from Frogfall

Note that carbon monoxide has a molar mass of 28.010 g/mol.

No one discusses this. The gas analyzed in the paper as MagneHydrogen was passed through a zeolite system to get it, which is known to absorb CO and CO2.

Quote from Curbina

The results are indeed mentioned in the paper as molecular weight units (a.m.u.), which is the same than g/mol. This is why I called the annex “supporting results”, because these figures are indeed mentioned in the paper. The scanned paper was downloaded from a site related to Santilli.

Ah yes - found it. But he says they were tests of the "same type of MagnaH" - and at different labs - so were not the same sample. And the "supporting data" was added by someone unknown, but it was on a site "related to Santilli".

Quote from Curbina

No one discusses this. The gas analyzed in the paper as MagneHydrogen was passed through a zeolite system to get it, which is known to absorb CO and CO2.

Zeolites get clogged. Unless properly de-clogged, they won't work. Different samples of "processed" gas could therefore have different levels of of CO removal.

Maybe the results make more sense if viewed through a Santilli Telescope.

Quote from Frogfall

Maybe the results make more sense if viewed through a Santilli Telescope.

That blunder was epic, I acknowledge it, but the underwater arc gas work is from decades before, and it has been researched by others as well.

Quote from Frogfall

And the "supporting data" was added by someone unknown, but it was on a site "related to Santilli".

This “supporting data” as you call it are lab tests they paid to test the gas. These are the actual lab reports they got from the labs and that were used to substantiate some of the claims of the paper.

You may disagree with the results, and that is fair enough.

If you read the paper you will see the whole point of publishing the paper was to report results that are anomalous because the gas contains both more energy than “it should” (measured experimentally) and weights more than “it should”. The hypothesis of Santilli is that the gas is not chemically bonded, but magnetically, thus being formed of clusters of molecules. This thread is about hydrino/small hydrogen and similar ideas. The hypothesis of Santilli is that the atoms exposed to an intense magnetic field in the arc somehow release energy from the electron orbitals, which creates atoms with electrons moving in restricted parts and thus having an intense magnetic moment, so they get attracted to each other and form the clusters. These clusters tend to have atomic masses that are multiples of the chemical species, which is also postulated by Simon Brink, who is more inspired by Holmlid. In that sense is why I maintain there’s a relationship between the work of Mills, Holmlid, Simon Brink and Santili. The latter has been on this since the late 1990s and he had his own alternative “Hadronic Mechanic” to explain these results, one may argue he is not right, but he has interesting lab results that some others have seen independently.

Anyway, my interest in this topic is about to become 20 years old, and I used to focus in the anomalies reported because I think

they are another aspect of LENR (not a popular idea, I acknowledge), but my current interest focus in this has shifted towards practical use for the environmentally oriented consumers market.

I am planning to start a rural lifestyle in the next two years and I have this in mind to recycle farm sewage for being the least energy dependent on the grid. It can become a side business for me as patents are expired and know how is all what you can charge for beyond the cost of building a system.

JedRothwell has had a run-in with Santilli in the past. He found him very difficult to deal with. On the topic od Zeolite adsorption, I have found it to very durable if freshly baked out. I used a cylinder with aboit 800 grams of Zeolite beads to clean up several thousand litres of H2 and then later for gas analysis using my mass spec. Not a trace of CO was seen.

Quote from Alan Smith

had a run-in with Santilli in the past. He found him very difficult to deal with.

He is a controversial character, no doubts, and frequently engages in quarrels, of which there are several published accounts. My interactions with him have been polite and friendly, on the other hand. Italian and to a great extent, Latinoamerican characters, are known for their tendency to have very vocal falling outs, for later becoming friends again. I am Latinoamerican, but a an outlier wherever you place me so I don’t fit that bill.

Quote from Alan Smith

On the topic od Zeolite adsorption, I have found it to very durable if freshly baked out. I used a cylinder with aboit 800 grams of Zeolite beads to clean up several thousand litres of H2 and then later for gas analysis using my mass spec. Not a trace of CO was seen.

This is my general perception regarding zeolite. We used it to dewater ethanol but reactivating it after did not work as well as with gases.

Quote from Curbina

That blunder was epic, I acknowledge it, but the underwater arc gas work is from decades before, and it has been researched by others as well.

I don't see any way in which that could be described as a "blunder". It is prima facie evidence of insanity.

The problem is that it casts doubt on anything he has ever done - since his marbles could have been lost a long time ago.

Do you have a list of papers produced by the "others", who researched this, and got the same results?

Quote from Curbina

This “supporting data” as you call it are lab tests they paid to test the gas. These are the actual lab reports they got from the labs and that were used to substantiate some of the claims of the paper.

You may disagree with the results, and that is fair enough.

I don't "disagree" with the results. Numbers are numbers. And I guess if it had been challenged, back in the day, the test reports from the labs in question would have been brandished. But, unfortunately, none of us have any real idea as to what substances were actually tested. Figures appearing in a paper are only evidence of something, not proof. We always have to look for corroboration, and (as is often discussed on this forum) at independent replication - to broaden the evidential base.

Quote from Alan Smith

On the topic od Zeolite adsorption, I have found it to very durable if freshly baked out. I used a cylinder with aboit 800 grams of Zeolite beads to clean up several thousand litres of H2 and then later for gas analysis using my mass spec. Not a trace of CO was seen.

Zeolites kept my mother alive for a decade (via an oxygen concentrator), so I know they can be cycled well, under the right circumstances. But they can also be ruined in fairly short order, if treated badly. Of course that presupposes that the "heavy" samples were treated at all...

Quote from Curbina

Anyway, my interest in this topic is about to become 20 years old, and I used to focus in the anomalies reported because I think they are another aspect of LENR (not a popular idea, I acknowledge), but my current interest focus in this has shifted towards practical use for the environmentally oriented consumers market.

That is a laudable aim - and I've no doubt you are sincere in that wish.

Quote from Curbina

I am planning to start a rural lifestyle in the next two years and I have this in mind to recycle farm sewage for being the least energy dependent on the grid. It can become a side business for me as patents are expired and know how is all what you can charge for beyond the cost of building a system.

Good luck with your plans - but I hope you carry out some careful (and economical) tests of your own, on the technology, before committing much personal expenditure on plant and equipment.

Quote from Frogfall

Do you have a list of papers produced by the "others", who researched this, and got the same results?

The “others” are not academics like Santilli. Look for

-William H. Richardson, who developped the technology and got patents for it before Santilli under the Aquafuel / Aqualene brands, eventually joined efforts with Santilli, and claims in his book “It’s not electrolysis” that the lawyer of the company sold the IP rights to Santilli.

-Blaze Labs, a page that is only available at the webarchive now.

-Jean Louis Naudine, who called it “the bingofuel” reactor.

Quote from Frogfall

Good luck with your plans - but I hope you carry out some careful (and economical) tests of your own, on the technology, before committing much personal expenditure on plant and equipment.

Thanks, but bear in mind that even with entirely conventional calculations this is absolutely technically feasible, and the economical aspects are subjective when you factor in the Net Zero mantra. Just power this with solar energy and you are doing what others do with Solar Hydrogen but much more cheaply.

Quote from Curbina

-William H. Richardson,

From Richardson's patent US5435274A. Did he claim anything more than an energy conversion?

The Blaze & Naudin tests seem to be based on the Eldridge, Clarke, & Blum patent of 1898.

Even in my short time on this forum we have been through this before. Are you claiming that there is an anomalous energy increase during these processes? And if so, is there any solid evidence for this, that doesn't come from a Santilli statement?

The people who now own the Magnegas^TM company don't make any such claim. Nor do they claim that Magnegas^TM has a higher calorific value than that of the product of the constituent gases (it is basically H₂ & CO syngas). In fact, for their newer Magnegas2^TM product, they have had to add a bunch of other gases in an effort to boost the calorific value, to try and compete with Acetylene and Propane for the gas welding & cutting market.

[Edit] From wikipedia, about Magnegas:

Quote

After an explosion at its facility in 2016, the company changed its raw material from organic waste to soybean oil. As of 2018, the company was not profitable; it had revenue from selling its gas to metalworking companies as an alternative to acetylene, and aspired to compete more broadly with natural gas. As of 2018 two people had been killed and one person injured by MagneGas canisters; as of July 2018 the company was under investigation by OSHA as well as the US gas transport regulator.[

Take care...

Quote from Curbina

Thanks, but bear in mind that even with entirely conventional calculations this is absolutely technically feasible, and the economical aspects are subjective when you factor in the Net Zero mantra. Just power this with solar energy and you are doing what others do with Solar Hydrogen but much more cheaply.

Are you including the energy required to manufacture all the carbon rods, and the energy used in compression?

Quote from Frogfall

From Richardson's patent US5435274A. Did he claim anything more than an energy conversion?

The Blaze & Naudin tests seem to be based on the Eldridge, Clarke, & Blum patent of 1898.

Even in my short time on this forum we have been through this before. Are you claiming that there is an anomalous energy increase during these processes? And if so, is there any solid evidence for this, that doesn't come from a Santilli statement?

The people who now own the Magnegas^TM company don't make any such claim. Nor do they claim that Magnegas^TM has a higher calorific value than that of the product of the constituent gases (it is basically H₂ & CO syngas). In fact, for their newer Magnegas2^TM product, they have had to add a bunch of other gases in an effort to boost the calorific value, to try and compete with Acetylene and Propane for the gas welding & cutting market.

[Edit] From wikipedia, about Magnegas:

Take care...

Display More

Richardson was of course careful not to claim any “overunity” in his patents, but I have the book he published in 2020 and he clearly was aware there was an energetic anomaly that he was more interested to know th source than in marketing.

Blaze labs also calculates an anomalous energy balance.

Jean Louis Naudine just focused in a simple replication and proof of concept, he was aware of the overunity claim, tho.

The story of Magnegas company is well known by me, accidents and all (BTW Richardson also had an explosion while making gas by hand, in his early days, and much later one high pressure bottle exploded by material fatigue while in storage). Santilli was forced out by the board, his son took over for a couple of years, with emphasis in safety (video shooting magnegas bottles with a barret sniper rifle included), but then he was taken ou also, the company sold and renamed Taronis, after that it completely collapsed.

Anyway, on safety concerns, I wouldn’t ever go beyond 150 psi for a farm system.

Quote from Frogfall

Are you including the energy required to manufacture all the carbon rods, and the energy used in compression?

Carbon rods are quaint. Latter patents included tungsten rods for liquids with high carbon content as sewage.

Quote from Curbina

Blaze labs also calculates an anomalous energy balance.

Been trying to track down the old site on the Wayback Machine - but keep getting redirected to a domain sales company.

Did they claim an anomaly in respect to "electrical energy in, versus amount of gas out", or were they claiming that the resulting stored gas had "magic properties"?

Quote from Curbina

Anyway, on safety concerns, I wouldn’t ever go beyond 150 psi for a farm system.

I guess you also have the option of double-membrane gas holders. The only energy required for these is to maintain the small inflation pressure needed between the membranes. As I guess you probably know, they are now widely used for temporary gas storage in farm biogas & generator systems, so the cost of small units has come down considerably. They can be mounted directly on the ground, or on top of any flat-roof building (although illustrations usually show them on top of biodigester tanks).

In fact, if you were to also run a small biodigester, it would probably be possible to combine the outputs in the holder.

Quote from Frogfall

Been trying to track down the old site on the Wayback Machine - but keep getting redirected to a domain sales company.

Did they claim an anomaly in respect to "electrical energy in, versus amount of gas out", or were they claiming that the resulting stored gas had "magic properties"?

The link is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20…azelabs.com/n-aquagen.asp

You already read it and found it faulty, which I don’t object.

Quote from Frogfall

I guess you also have the option of double-membrane gas holders.

Those are great but I live in a place where anything made of polymeric plastic that is exposed to the sun gets scorched in a couple of years, and as the gas production is voluminous I would have to have a big shed to make it last long.

Quote from Curbina

The link is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20…azelabs.com/n-aquagen.asp

Thanks. Coincidentally I'd just found it - the address being in the references of this document on Researchgate:

Spark-ignition engine performance with ‘Powergas’ fuel (mixture of CO/H2): A comparison with gasoline and natural gas

I guess you've probably seen this paper, but I think it is quite well written. There are no surprises in it, from my perspective.**

(** i.e. the perspective of someone who has been working with IC engines, that run on a variety of fuels, for over 40 years - and is also interested in the historical development of industrial engines that ran on H₂/CO syngas.)

Quote from Curbina

Those are great but I live in a place where anything made of polymeric plastic that is exposed to the sun gets scorched in a couple of years, and as the gas production is voluminous I would have to have a big shed to make it last long.

Fair enough. But, speaking as a fan of 19th century gasholders, something like this might survive

This is at Biggar gasworks museum, Scotland.

Quote from Frogfall

Fair enough. But, speaking as a fan of 19th century gasholders, something like this might survive

This is at Biggar gasworks museum, Scotland.

Incidentally, that’s more of what I had in mind, a “good ole gasometer”.