Curbina Administrator
  • Member since Mar 1st 2014

Posts by Curbina

    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.

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


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    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.

    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

    Posting this video just to illustrate the brightness of the arc that could be recovered partially with PV cells.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    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.

    I quickly skimmed through the patent, and after the introduction and theory, it describes an improvement which does not use carbon rods. The carbon is from the slurry into which they are immersed.

    This is exactly what I referred to a couple of posts before, that if you use a carbon rich liquid, then you don't need carbon electrodes. Jean Louis Naudin uses tungsten electrodes.


    When Santilli begun to do arcs in gas in his Thunder Fusion Company, his counter electrode was of Tungsten. I begun following him in 2004, so I have seen quite a few iterations. I have some level of contact with him through ResearchGate, he is still active at 94+ years.

    by the magical power of writing out a bunch of new mathematical equations which overturn quantum mechanics, his process is suddenly 10x as efficient.

    I never said it was not controversial. Santilli has been controversial his entire career, to this day. He created his own Hadronic Mechanics to solve what in his own words were the shortcomings of QM. In this sense is a less flamboyant version of Mills. Both of their theories have things in common, which are also seen in the concept of UDH.


    That he has been very controversial, does not mean that his ideas can't be useful.

    I had seen these videos years ago, now they are not easy to find. In the last 8 or so minutes Santilli gives a more theoretical talk on why the system has a COP above 1.


    External Content m.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    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.


    Now that the patents are expired, one could team up with a local cab company and save a lot of money on gasoline / diesel. Unfortunately,

    in my country, cars modified for running on either LPG or NG have to pay a fixed monthly tax. Were not for this tax, running service cars on this kind of synthetic gas would be quite a bussiness.

    I came across this German company specialising in electrolysis equipment and exotica... looks useful. Online catalogue here.


    https://polymet.de/

    One of the advantages of using sewage as the liquid to recycle is that you can use tungsten electrodes instead of carbon ones for producing the arc and still get a similar gas due to the “organic compounds” suspended in the sewage. The downside is that the opaque liquid doesn’t let the spark to shine so brightly as to harvest its light.

    Finally I had a window of opportunity to fetch a not so old thread about production of fuel with overunity and moving the Off topic posts from the "how can we add glamour to LENR" thread to a more appropiate one.

    Again I commited the sin of talking about overunity when the correct expression is COP above one. Santilli used “commercial over unity” in his original patent application title, that I think was changed before it got granted, but anyway It is now expired.


    I still am intrigued by how much energy one could recover directly from the arc light itself in one of these transparent cell reactors like the one of BlazeLabs or Jean Louis Naudin. If you recall, one of the iterations of Brilliant Light Power reactors, and precisely the reason they changed their name from Black Light to Brilliant Light, and when they started to call their reactors “sun cell”, was designed to recover the output from the light with photovoltaic cells as a way to increase the COP of their system.

    I do find some of the blinkered fantasist cornucopian sentiments here quite disturbing.


    We are not even able to support our current levels of global industry and agriculture without resorting to human slavery, child labour, and the mass destruction of habitats necessary for diverse fauna and flora.


    Human beings are the planet’s most voracious parasites. But a parasite that destroys its host, without the option of another host to infest, will simply destroy itself too.

    I agree to a great extent, but we also have, as species, a lot of issues that are derived from psychological problems far more than from technical reasons. Many of our psychological problems, which are of diverse nature and affect different human groups to a different extent, have their highest level of impact in our so called "economic system", which is more than anything else a collection of sistematic psychological problems turned into control system.

    I will view this, as an "informable person," not as evidence of your superior understanding but as something quite different.

    Sorry but I am quite OCD about keeping things on topic. This thread is for skepticism on LENR's very existence, and your comments are of this tenor. That's all.


    About the collection of papers, you can spend months reading at https://www.LENR-CANR.org , and you will find some also mentioned along this thread, where we have been discussing the issue for a while.

    mjtrac , Alan Smith , JedRothwell , I had to move all these posts to this thread as they were derailing the "adding glamour to LENR thread" by going back again and again to an issue that is appropiate for this thread.


    I don't think you are being thick mjtrac , but we are at LENR-forum.com, way beyond your informable person level of skepticism. Feel free to keep the discussion going here, this thread was meant for that, but is also "on the shadow and off the spotlight".

    On the Useful Papers thread, within the past month, a link was provided to a paper which asserts reliable replication of Fleischmann Pons. Ignoring the paper's discussion of theoretical issues, the paper also lays out a series of steps that ought to lead to replication in any competent lab. It also indicates that such replications can be performed with a far less expensive material.

    I get you are referring to the more recent of M. Staker's paper? or perhaps to Ed Storms's? Nevertheless, I think it has been well stablished that the FP effect has been replicated many times, so for most of us is great to see another replication being published (Staker's paper was in a peer revewed journal), but the collection is ever increasing and has been for the last 33 years, and most people keep ignoring it.


    The issue of the reality of the phenomena is no longer in discussion, and hasn't been seriously for a while.


    What We need is to increase the awareness of it to channel more funding to get the phenomena to achieve a level of everyday usefulness.

    Is not really off topic, since the UK FT is a very likeable candidate to be a channel of the proposed letter to gain support for LENR, and knowing that historically it has been involved in the topic, adds to the Glamour Allure.

    Merci d'avoir partagé votre présentation fabrice DAVID ! Je trouve votre style très agréable à suivre même si c'est Français est une langue dont je n'ai que des notions de base, malheureusement.

    Please axil refrain from derailing the thread with your questioning of the theoretical background, you already have a thread for your EVO discussion.


    This thread is about adding "glamour" to LENR research.


    Back to that matter, plenty of good ideas have been already presented here. The letter being proposed with a list of signatures of people with weight in their own fields is my favorite. I think we can achieve that milestone with the coordinated effort of LENR-Forum members and their network of contacts.

    Certainly Hollywood can give an allure of glamour to everything, if it wants. I have one thread devoted to Hollywood mentions, be it direct or indirect, of "Cold Fusion" and these two movies are there, among others.



    I liked Sabine's video on Cold Fusion, bear in mind she consulted with Florian Metzler for it. I added my own response in the comments, now lost in the crowd, where I mentioned the increasing amount of replications, and I got an answer to it from Florian Metzler asking where that information is, I think he needs to dig deeper in LENR-CANR.org and also in LENR-Forum.com