The “Thunderstorm” reactor as another potentially easy to replicate, and very useful, possibly LENR device

Quote from Fm1

People say the same thing when you try to explain cold fusion

That's the first mistake. Don't explain it, but describe it. That works much better.

It is a little wild, but with the right vacuum in the bubbler and an ionizing source (UV Photons Included) interesting things do happen.
These pressures may not be occurring in these systems, but if they keep the science open, I will keep an open mind.
Source

Usually when there is a cavitating body there is also tremendous localized pressure, and this system is allegedly built to induce such conditions.

One thing I think is certain, more testing and replications should be done openly.
Who knows, maybe it will be a helpful tool to prevent CO2 in our atmosphere if that is our desired goal?

There's an entertaining 25 minute documentary called "The Story of the Joe Cell", which has been available on youtube for a decade.

If you've never seen it before, then here it is:

Interestingly, the Joe Cells tend to produce foam when running:

Now look at the "thunderstorm" demo:

That bubbler unit seems a lot longer than the earlier units...

Quote from Curbina

These are other results released some weeks ago. This level of CO2 and CO emission reduction is not independently verified, but this is for showing the claims that is being made and that has been at least partially verified by third parties.

The oxygen readings with the device on are essentially atmospheric, which suggests dilution of the measured exhaust gasses with atmospheric air. Has someone done any stoichiometric math to test for simple air dilution?

Curbina - I am saying the bubbler unit seems to have grown in length since the days when the company itself was saying that they fed electrolysed gases into the unit. I just find that rather interesting. And why is the extra part at the bottom not transparent, like the rest of the unit? I though they were claiming that the project is "open source".

Quote from Frogfall

And why is the extra part at the bottom not transparent, like the rest of the unit?

I suspect that the milky cloud is in fact mineral wool for filtration purposes.

Quote from Frogfall

There's an entertaining 25 minute documentary called "The Story of the Joe Cell", which has been available on youtube for a decade.

If you've never seen it before, then here it is:

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

Interestingly, the Joe Cells tend to produce foam when running:

Now look at the "thunderstorm" demo:

That bubbler unit seems a lot longer than the earlier unit

Display More

Quote from Frogfall

That is certainly an improvement.

As I mentioned further up this thread, this is really a Meyer/Joe device - which (for historical reasons) would not get through any patent application process on it's own anyway. The "bubbler and thunderball" device is there to draw attention away from the electrolyser.

However, as far as I'm concerned, it seems there were anomalies around the Stan Meyer device - when operating in the lab - that were never fully addressed when the unusual USPO investigation concluded it was simple electrolysis (rendering it unpatentable). Stan himself never fully understood why his device sometimes appeared to create more gas than it should, for the electrical power supplied, and sometimes didn't. Publicly he tried to mask this lack of understanding with a mix of technobabble and religion. As far as I'm aware, his infamous "beach buggy" never performed as intended, either.

Nevertheless, variants of the "anomalous electrolyser" have never gone away. Some people might say that is just evidence for it being a perpetually recurring scam. But it could also be evidence that something more peculiar is going on.

Display More

this thunderstorm engine doesn't resemble Stan Meyers hydrogen buggy in any way. I found this this morning accidentally just reading Google news. This is what Stan was doing

Water-injected 2.0-liter turbo-four hydrogen engine spits out 410 hp

Water-injected 2.0-liter turbo-four hydrogen engine spits out 410 hp

Austrian mobility technology company AVL had a pretty good day for itself earlier this month, when it confirmed simulations that showed its prototype 2.0-liter…

newatlas.com

IC engine Water injection has a very long history (going back at least to WWII aero engines).

I was even taught about it in college in the 1970s.

It had nothing to do with Stan Meyer's OU water to oxyhydrogen device.

Quote from Frogfall

IC engine Water injection has a very long history (going back at least to WWII aero engines).

I was even taught about it in college in the 1970s.

It had nothing to do with Stan Meyer's OU water to oxyhydrogen device.

I beg to differ

Stanley A Meyer Water Fuel Spark PLug Injector | 3D CAD Model Library | GrabCAD

A 3D CAD model? As modelled by Stan Meyer? (Died March 20th, 1998)

Stan's engine injector was simply a way to locate the electrolysis as close as possible to the combustion chamber, so as to minimise the potential hazards from an uncontrolled oxy-hydrogen explosion. Quite sensible, really.

Maybe it would be better to consult Stan's patent.

Quote from Frogfall

Of course there is less carbon in the exhaust. That's just because the engine is burning less petrol in relation to the volume of exhaust. That's exactly what will happen if you squirt air and electrolysed water (hydrogen and oxygen) into the inlet manifold - which will also affect the carburettor, by messing up the manifold depression.

How much power is taken by the electrolyser?

If as you say, then what little carbon is in the exhaust comes from the petrol. That is very little.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The oxygen readings with the device on are essentially atmospheric, which suggests dilution of the measured exhaust gasses with atmospheric air. Has someone done any stoichiometric math to test for simple air dilution?

If the atmospheric gas was just passed through, then the exhaust gas should have 20.95% oxygen as for atmospheric gas. It has a little less.

It maybe that there is a nuclear reaction like in BJ Huang results. If so then Neon-22 would be produced.

Quote from Drgenek

If as you say, then what little carbon is in the exhaust comes from the petrol. That is very little.

If the atmospheric gas was just passed through, then the exhaust gas should have 20.95% oxygen as for atmospheric gas. It has a little less.

It maybe that there is a nuclear reaction like in BJ Huang results. If so then Neon-22 would be produced.

If the electrolysized gas was stoichiometric, and went into the engine to replace hydrocarbon fuel, then the H2O should recombine and no oxygen should be unburnt. If just the hydrocarbon fuel was reduced and the engine inlet air volume remains the same, then the just-split stoichiometric gas would be leaned out excessively and near-atmospheric oxygen in the exhaust would be from misfiring cylinders.

Or the stuff goes into the exhaust directly. Maybe through the burnt exhaust valves after pouring leaned out oxyhydrogen through the engine a bit…

To keep the "Thunderstorm" powered engine running there must be a source of energy. Common though is that if petrol is the source of energy then carbon will be in the exhaust in proportion to the energy needed. As Frogfall points out if less petrol is drawn into the engine, then less carbon is in the exhaust. Frogfall's suggestion is that an unknown reaction is the source of this energy. He suggests it may be like GEET or a Joe Cell.

I have suggested a recycle of entropy. Common though is that heat from the exhaust leads to electrolysis. Paradigmnoia has indicated that any electrolyzed water is burn back to water so that the oxygen content is slightly leaned out by water vapor. This stiochiometry is what is reported but does not account for the energy.

I have suggested that the B J Huang reaction may be the source of the energy. The reactions would then be 1) the hydrolysis of water, 2) charge cluster catalyzed fusion of hydrogen to oxygen-16 to produce oxygen 17 and charge cluster catalyzed fusion of oxygen-17 to oxygen-17 to produce sulfur-34 then charge cluster catalyzed fission of sulfur-34 to carbon-12 and neon-22. B J Huang's evidence suggests that it is extremely improbable the reaction he proposed does not occur during heat transfer to produce water vapor from water. That reaction could be applied in the case of "Thunderstorm" power.

The overall reaction consumes hydrogen and oxygen as fusion fuels and produces carbon and neon-22 as fission products. The carbon reacts with water to produce carbon dioxide and the hydrogen produced by carbon reaction with water is combusted with excess oxygen in the engine intake to produce water. The overall reaction would be 3O₂ + 2H₂O = 2CO₂ + 2Ne. If this reaction occurs in "Thunderstorm" then one should be able to shut off the petrol and engine would continue to operate and to exhaust carbon dioxide. If the reaction occurs, then the engine is burning hydrogen, but its origin is not hydrolysis but rather the water shift reaction. The engine is expected to top out at full open throttle by a limited rate of one of the following: a limited rate of heat transfer to water in the intake, the limited concentration of water rather than vapor in the inlet, a limited rate of charge cluster catalyzed fusion/fission, excessive temperature in the fusion/fission zone of the reactor destroying the charge clusters or due to the limited rate of shift gas reaction.

If the B J Huang reaction drives "Thunderstorm", then detection of neon-22 as B J Huang did provides very certain evidence of what is happening.

Quote from Drgenek

If the B J Huang reaction drives "Thunderstorm", then detection of neon-22 as B J Huang did provides very certain evidence of what is happening.

Just to be clear, you are referring to the cavitation of a liquid and gas of H2O/Oxygen in a experimental system when you write about bjhuang lǎo shī 's experiments, correct?

Quote from Diadon Acs

Just to be clear, you are referring to the cavitation of a liquid and gas of H2O/Oxygen in a experimental system when you write about bjhuang lǎo shī 's experiments, correct?

That would be the correct thread.

Cavitation (sonofusion) reactor from B-J. Huang et al.. see #76

Quote from Drgenek

That would be the correct thread.

Cavitation (sonofusion) reactor from B-J. Huang et al.. see #76

Just wanted to make it clear for anyone else who reads along is all. Thanks.

Jordan has posted his promised Thunderstorm Generator build guide.

THOR

This is an interesting system, with interesting results.

Thinking of it as "potential LENR" comes on the (see discussion on some other thread) pseudo-science side of the science / pseudo-science dividing line. Or, colloquially, "minds so open that they fall out".

(1) No NAEs - the one half-plausible and generally agreed LENR mechanism

(2) no obvious anomalies

So why LENR?

YHH