EDIT-i have changed the title of the thread as stated now.
As some may know,i carried out some experiments on arc heating some time back.
Back then it was nicknamed !cold fusion!,although an incorrect description of what was happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJQ1RAznwgw
A few days ago,member Duncan posted a video on another thread showing this MagneGas production.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjRhcX-QUYE
So the plan here is to combine the two,where not only do we created heat (a waste product in the MagneGas system),but at the same time,produce the combustible MagneGas.
This gas is claimed to be more energy dense than LPG,and burns 4000*C hotter than Acetylene,while also requiring less volume to do so.
It can be produced using almost any waste liquid product,although here i will be using just water.
The required system voltage is between 30 and 50 volts DC--so well within our range.
Carbon rods are also required as the electrode's ,but they are an easy find--do you know where? O0
So,here is my plan.
I intend to make the simple setup shown in the second video,which is not that much different than the DUT i used in my test's. Not only will i be calculating the watt hours used to heat a set volume of water,but at the same time also producing the MagneGas.
As was calculated in my testing,the watt hours needed to raise the temperature of a given volume of water,ended in a near unity result-as it should,as we were just heating water by way of resistive heating-and some other small effects that may or may not have been there. The point is,if the same results can be had with the MagneGas setup,where we can raise the temperature of a given volume of water,at a 1:1 ratio of the power delivered to the system,but also produce a flammable gas to do useful work,i think this may just tip the scale's in favor of a COP>1 result.
My only concern is-how much of the carbon rods will be consumed in the process.
The carbon rods will of course be obtained from old non rechargeable batteries.
Evolvingape will be helping out on this one as well,as his hhop system has much to offer here i feel.
MagneGas is safe to compress to high pressures,which means it can be stored efficiently,and used to provide fuel for many systems.
It also has lower Co2 emissions than any other fossil fuel out there,and produces oxygen when burnt.
The fact that is uses a DC current,makes this fuel directly producible from solar panels.
So at the end of the day,you could be producing fuel free of charge-except the cost of the carbon rod's,and that will depend on how much of the carbon is consumed in the process.
More info to come as i find it.
Brad
This 1898 patent cited by magnagas and others for your inspection
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US603058 (http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US603058)
Quote from: Duncan on 2017.07.13, 04:04:55
This 1898 patent cited by magnagas and others for your inspection
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US603058 (http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US603058)
So it would seem that this magnegas system was designed and patented in the 1800s-
So how was magnegas able to patent it again?,as the system is the very same.
Brad
Not an area I know much about Brad, but I think patents are only good for 20 years. Also the powers that be tend to copy and re-release patents (that have escaped their net)usually by proxy to prevent them being put into production. They call it 'ringing the patent' I recall MJN had the pleasure of this underhand treatment regarding one of his devices. when this fake inventor was phoned it quickly became apparent he had no idea how 'his invention worked'.another example would be the horizontally opposed ICE tied up by Bill Gates
Quote from: Duncan on 2017.07.13, 07:08:51
Not an area I know much about Brad, but I think patents are only good for 20 years. Also the powers that be tend to copy and re-release patents (that have escaped their net)usually by proxy to prevent them being put into production. They call it 'ringing the patent' I recall MJN had the pleasure of this underhand treatment regarding one of his devices. when this fake inventor was phoned it quickly became apparent he had no idea how 'his invention worked'.another example would be the horizontally opposed ICE tied up by Bill Gates
Well,i am not sure as to how you can patent a device when an existing expired patent already exists?.
The description in the MagneGas patent
Quote: An application for a recycler includes a pressure and temperature resistant metal vessel that is filled with a liquid. Within the vessel is at least one submerged electric arc between a pair of electrodes (e.g. carbon based electrodes) powered by either a DC or AC current. The electric arc produces a combustible gas as the liquid is pumped through a bore in one or both of the electrodes, delivering the liquid directly to the location of the arc, thereby reducing or eliminating any ignition of the gas by the arc.
And now the description in the Hilliary Eldridge patent of 1897
Quote: Our invention relates to electrical retorts for manufacturing hydrogen gas from Water to be utilized as a fuel for heating purposes. lVe construct the apparatus with electric appliances and With means for feeding Water thereto, so as to produce an electric are Within a closed vessel containing a suitable quantity of Water. The heat evolved by the electric are and the electrolytic action of the electric current on the Water operate to decompose the Water into its component elements, hydrogen and oxygen. The gas thus produced is conducted to a suitable gasometer containing a Water-bath. The oxygen, freed by the decomposition of the water in the retort, unites or combines with the vaporized carbon evolved by the consumption of the anodes and cathodes of the retort and produces carbonio-acid gas, the major portion of which is washed out or absorbed by the Water within the gasometor, to which the gas from the retort is conveyed.
These two systems are the very same,and give the very same results.
How has MagneGas got away with this?
This is not there invention at all,but they claim it is,and now making a great deal of money from some one elses idea.
Perhaps we stick to the original patent that has expired--would that remove us from any legalities from magnegas?,as we would be replicating the expired patent from 1897 O0
Anyone here reading this that is versed in patent legalities,have any idea as to where we would stand on this--should we decide to go larger than home experimenting ?.
Brad
Below is a diagram from the 1897 patent,but i believe that a much more simple vessel can be made from RHS,with a size to suit your needs.
How safe is this gas?,well have a look at the below video O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76oIcODTjJo
Brad
Hi Brad.
Regarding the re patenting, I feel sure it's known as " prior art " perhaps someone didn't do their homework properly?
Another similar gas known as Dowson's gas was made by passing steam through an enclosed retort containing smouldering Peat. This was used to power early Gas ( town gas ) engines.
I often wondered whether this process could be modernised? It seems it was over 100 years ago!!
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.07.12, 23:23:45
Evolvingape will be helping out on this one as well,as his hhop system has much to offer here i feel.
I think hhop gen 2 hybrid would best suit your application here Brad. You don't need the liquid inlet non return valve, or it's water reservoir to refill the chamber, just close it off. The only matter leaving the system is the gas, burned to water into the second system.
Energy Input is equal to rise in system liquid temperature + losses to the environment. Fully insulated container energy in must equal energy out.
The gas pressure evolved is capable of doing work on a water column that is open to atmosphere. Potential energy is stored in the raised water at the end of your timed input energy cycle.
hhop gen 2 gas bypass tube is not on the hybrid drawing but should be included. All you have to do to convert a hhop gen 2 system to a hybrid is replace the sparkplug with a flow control shut off valve.
This allows you to store the matter phase change transition differential energy in the gas atmosphere reservoir, like a super massive low pressure (relevant ish) bladder accumulator.
The DC electrical energy input is controlled over a period of time and acts as the system prime mover. Total energy input is equal to specific heat rise in temperature of the liquid (without boiling).
The gas evolved can be measured as mentioned earlier by the potential energy stored in the raised water column. This can now be released to prime move the next part of the cycle.
The valve at the top of the chamber can now be opened and the combustible gas, waste product of the COP=1 heating cycle, will be pumped to atmosphere by the raised weight water column.
If you chose to burn this gas at a steady rate and heat a volume of water and add this to system energy output then if the primary heat cycle really is at or close to COP=1 then you will be COP>1 total system output.
The carbon rod consumption is the solid fuel rate input to the system. Similar to SMD.
Here's another approach to producing a fuel gas
employing a Carbon Arc.
Research has been done to "arc" sewage into a fuel
gas with good results (http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2016/june/opinion-a-solution-to-the-challenge-of-land-disposed-sewage-sludge).
More about Plasma Arc Gasification. (https://www.alfaenergysolutions.com/home/plasma-arc-gasification/)
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.07.13, 12:05:11
Hi Brad.
Regarding the re patenting, I feel sure it's known as " prior art " perhaps someone didn't do their homework properly?
Another similar gas known as Dowson's gas was made by passing steam through an enclosed retort containing smouldering Peat. This was used to power early Gas ( town gas ) engines.
I often wondered whether this process could be modernised? It seems it was over 100 years ago!!
Cheers Graham.
Is that much the same as the wood gas setup's ?
Brad
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.13, 18:53:22
I think hhop gen 2 hybrid would best suit your application here Brad. You don't need the liquid inlet non return valve, or it's water reservoir to refill the chamber, just close it off. The only matter leaving the system is the gas, burned to water into the second system.
Energy Input is equal to rise in system liquid temperature + losses to the environment. Fully insulated container energy in must equal energy out.
The gas pressure evolved is capable of doing work on a water column that is open to atmosphere. Potential energy is stored in the raised water at the end of your timed input energy cycle.
hhop gen 2 gas bypass tube is not on the hybrid drawing but should be included. All you have to do to convert a hhop gen 2 system to a hybrid is replace the sparkplug with a flow control shut off valve.
This allows you to store the matter phase change transition differential energy in the gas atmosphere reservoir, like a super massive low pressure (relevant ish) bladder accumulator.
The DC electrical energy input is controlled over a period of time and acts as the system prime mover. Total energy input is equal to specific heat rise in temperature of the liquid (without boiling).
The gas evolved can be measured as mentioned earlier by the potential energy stored in the raised water column. This can now be released to prime move the next part of the cycle.
The valve at the top of the chamber can now be opened and the combustible gas, waste product of the COP=1 heating cycle, will be pumped to atmosphere by the raised weight water column.
The carbon rod consumption is the solid fuel rate input to the system. Similar to SMD.
QuoteIf you chose to burn this gas at a steady rate and heat a volume of water and add this to system energy output then if the primary heat cycle really is at or close to COP=1 then you will be COP>1 total system output.
This is what im hoping for O0
It is much the same as i have already done,but without the !carbonated ?! gas,as i was using different electrodes.
If i can achieve the same !heating a volume of liquid! results that i achieved before,but where the carbon rods are used to produce a stable gas fuel,then yes,we will be above a COP 1 .
I will begin constructing the DUT this weekend,and i already have a couple of small carbon rod's.
I want to find out how fast the rods are consumed in the process.
Brad
Quote from: muDped on 2017.07.13, 20:23:38
Here's another approach to producing a fuel gas
employing a Carbon Arc.
Research has been done to "arc" sewage into a fuel
gas with good results (http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2016/june/opinion-a-solution-to-the-challenge-of-land-disposed-sewage-sludge).
More about Plasma Arc Gasification. (https://www.alfaenergysolutions.com/home/plasma-arc-gasification/)
Quote: PAG transforms carbon-rich organic waste into long chain hydrocarbons in the form of a hydrogen-rich synthetic gas, which is used to generate clean heat and power. In the PAG process, the waste feedstock (such as sewage sludge) is streamed into a gasifier in dry or slurry form, where it reacts in an oxygen-starved environment with steam at elevated pressure and temperature.
The resulting synthetic gas is composed of about 85 percent carbon monoxide and hydrogen, with a small amount of carbon dioxide. The process results in minimal or greatly reduced emissions.
So,it would seem that it is quite common-and efficient O0
Thanks for the info muDped
Brad
Ok,progress report for this mornings work,and my nickname for the DUT
About 2/3rd's done building the ~PlazArc~ reactor.
The hardest bit was building the electrically isolated,sealed,adjustable carbon rod holder from scratch(on left side of reactor).
Just have to drill the holes in each of the rod holder's for the rods to fit into,and then held in place by a tapered gland retainer.
Then make the bolt on lid,with the blow off valve,and gas outlet.
Also two barbed hose fittings to be welded in,so as we can pump the water through a heat exchanger (small radiator),and make use of the waste heat.
Should have the DUT finished by tomorrow,along with it's first run.
Brad
I'm Impressed! very nice!
Looks like another "Rainmaker" ...a much more robust rainmaker
this time, maybe figure a method to add all that rain she shakes from the heavens ....... to the measurement protocol....
:o
although It does seem better shielded ? may not transmit as good ?
you should get some method for testing the _output_ Film ??? ...or??
Well i didnt even get to the workshop today,as got called into work for an emergency job.
Boss said it would only take a couple of hour;s---8 1/2 hours later C.C
Anyway,will try and get some done during the week,but it's quite cold in the evenings here ATM,so will see how we go.
Is anyone else going to be experimenting with this setup?.
Brad
Here's a paper you maybe interested in.
http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/files/Poster/Gupta
I'm having a little nibble at cavity/plate heaters in general Brad, a'la visiting that O'l chestnut of Peter Davey's et al. At least there's a little in common so no doubt we'll bump into each other soon enough.
As an example I suggest George Wiseman's observations at the very end of this web page might be of interest to you .
He was after browns gas but ended up with a 'wise heater ' which like most of us he's reluctant to claim as OU (but its obviously pretty close) Mr Dumas had no such hesitation 116% Oh, oh La la
http://www.rexresearch.com/dumas/dumas.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/dumas/dumas.htm)
Kind regards Duncan
Quote from: Peterae on 2017.07.16, 09:33:32
Here's a paper you maybe interested in.
http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/files/Poster/Gupta
Most interesting Peter--thanks
700% is a !big! gain,and would take some very bad calculation/measurements to get it that wrong.
This was with CEA (carbon electrode arc),which is what we will be doing.
I have also been watching a few video's of carbon arc lighting.
I see a lot of the old search lights were carbon arc lights,along with early cinema projection cameras.
Brad
Quote from: Duncan on 2017.07.16, 10:23:51
I'm having a little nibble at cavity/plate heaters in general Brad, a'la visiting that O'l chestnut of Peter Davey's et al. At least there's a little in common so no doubt we'll bump into each other soon enough.
As an example I suggest George Wiseman's observations at the very end of this web page might be of interest to you .
He was after browns gas but ended up with a 'wise heater ' which like most of us he's reluctant to claim as OU (but its obviously pretty close) Mr Dumas had no such hesitation 116% Oh, oh La la
http://www.rexresearch.com/dumas/dumas.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/dumas/dumas.htm)
Kind regards Duncan
Ah yes-cavitation heat.
I remember when i was racing boat's,if you had the prop trimmed to high,it would cavitate,and melt the tips of the prop--and these were thick S/S prop's.
Brad
And here is another name for it-->AquaFuel
http://tesla3.com/free_websites/cold_fusion.html
Quote: To make AquaFuel - a low voltage/high amperage ac or dc electric arc tunnels through water between the tips of carbon electrodes. The 5,000 to 7,000 oF heat from the arc dissociates nearby water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Carbon atoms break loose from the electrodes and form bonds in this high energy plasma soup. The resulting hydrogen/carbon/oxygen molecules cool and bubble up to the surface in the surrounding water.
... Nontoxic carbon dioxide and water vapor are the exhaust products from AquaFuel and air combustion. Hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide emissions are negligible even without any pollution control equipment of any type.
Automobile engine oil stays clean and lasts long - reducing the need for frequent oil changing and cutting waste oil disposal problems. AquaFuel combustion creates lower exhaust gas and engine oil temperatures - helping to preserve oil integrity while the system runs cooler than burning gasoline in the same engine producing nearly the same power.
... AquaFuel could be marketed for use in all engines, needing only the addition of simple intake adapters such as found on fleet vehicles converted to run on natural gas or propane. AquaFuel can supply the market requirement for fueling thermal electric power generation, internal combustion engines, furnaces, heaters, stoves, and desalinization systems...
Seems to me that MagneGas are only one of many who have this gas production method.
So now all we have to do is use both the heat output(possible LENR effect there when using carbon rod arc),and the combustible gas as a fuel source.
The combination of the two has a very good chance of tipping the COP in favor of 1>+
Brad
Also found this web page.
This is sounding promising O0
http://blazelabs.com/n-aquagen.asp
Quote: INPUT=Watt hr/Litre of our generator = 5400/(40*60)= 2.25 Whr/Litre
OUTPUT=COH2 quoted energy = 380 BTU/cf = 3.93 Whr/Litre
Fuel Conversion efficiency = 3.93/2.25 = 175%, COP=1.75
This confirms a gas production process COP>1.
And clean--see test chart below.
Brad
Hi Tinman
I'm not sure if you add anything to your water, but the Arie Degues patent suggested adding a lithium, Beryllium or Boron atom into a gasoline fuel mixture to add a Nuclear fusion event drastically increasing MPG, well it has occurred to me you could do the same here, maybe try a weak solution of Boric Acid in your water and see what difference there is. O0
In this area - This guy and these claims have nagged at the back of my mind , so just in passing and a possible alternative to carbon http://www.electricitybook.com/cornish-generator/ (http://www.electricitybook.com/cornish-generator/)
(research on that patent quoted brings much more to light)
Quote from: Peterae on 2017.07.16, 14:30:22
Hi Tinman
I'm not sure if you add anything to your water, but the Arie Degues patent suggested adding a lithium, Beryllium or Boron atom into a gasoline fuel mixture to add a Nuclear fusion event drastically increasing MPG, well it has occurred to me you could do the same here, maybe try a weak solution of Boric Acid in your water and see what difference there is. O0
Hi Peter.
The good thing is,that once i have the unit up and running,we can try a number of thing's.
I read in one of the many web sites i have been looking at,that adding a small amount of sugar to the water will extend the life of the carbon rods by 100%,without effecting the gas output or it's quality.
It also seems that we can use either DC or AC,and so by using AC,we eliminate any chance of producing HHO,and so no flashbacks into the reactor O0.
Im hoping that Steve Jones and ION will join in,once i have it up and running,as They are well versed in Calorimetric measurements.
Brad
Quote from: Duncan on 2017.07.16, 22:52:18
In this area - This guy and these claims have nagged at the back of my mind , so just in passing and a possible alternative to carbon http://www.electricitybook.com/cornish-generator/ (http://www.electricitybook.com/cornish-generator/)
(research on that patent quoted brings much more to light)
I think i will steer clear of that one,reason being-->some numbers from the patent.
Quote: A unit substantially as shown in the drawings has been used to drive a 500 cc motor cycle engine. The wire 22 had a diameter of 1,6 mm and was of commercial purity (98% Al). The unit produced over 1000 cc of hydrogen a minute, with an aluminium wire consumption rate of 140 to 180 cm per minute. The rate of deposition of aluminium oxide was about 4 kilograms per 500 kilometers travelled.
Conventional modifications were made to the carburettor to enable the engine to run on a mixture of hydrogen and air.
The wire 22 carries a voltage of about 18000 volts with a current of about 1 amp.
So,this setup uses 1.4 to 1.8 meters of ali wire a minute
!Apparently! the P/in to the unit is 18000 volts at 1 amp+18 Kilowatts :o
All to produce 1 ltr of hydrogen per minute ???-->something is not right here ???
All patent info here
https://www.google.ch/patents/US4702894
Brad
Brad – I am certainly not trying to miss- direct . Please however note this thing is pressure regulated (as pointed out in the patent) indeed it did demand 18 kw for very short bursts in short if blowing gas is the thing , this thing farted loudly twice an hour, I do better than that in my local bar – just saying
Hi Brad and all
I'm in France ATM, that time of the year :) when I get back I will let you have some of what I have done in the past. A normal ICE will not cut it AFAIAC, a turbo jet will when designed to run on a different gas and to use the heat produced at the same time.
A jet engine works on expanded air, it is heated, expands through the turbine and so creates power. It can be over 80% efficient, unlike 25% of an ICE, I'm talking shaft power here, not thrust, and most of the loss is to heat. You can extract another 50% of that heat loss by pre heating your water with the exhaust gas.
If I have another spare moment here I will post more, other than that it will have to wait until my return.
Regards
Mike 8)
This was what I did back in 1989 and had an agreement not to do anything for 15yrs, this patent was then made because the agreement was about to run out and would give them a further 20yrs. The name on the patent is only a holder, ex navy and does not know anything of how this works, he has a well paid retirement. The drawings are an exact copy stolen from my office in Wrexham along with my passport "I was living in Spain at the time". A long story which could turn into a non fiction book.
https://www.google.com/patents/US20060086603
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2017.07.17, 14:42:27
A normal ICE will not cut it AFAIAC, a turbo jet will when designed to run on a different gas and to use the heat produced at the same time.
Any heat engine submerged in the sump of a liquid cryogenic working fluid will transfer heat very efficiently, especially if externally insulated.
Brad's blow off safety valve for gaseous fuel creates the conditions for a DUT external thermobaric explosion in the presence of any ignition source. This concerns me, hhop gen 2 hybrid negates this problem via a controlled gas expansion and volume retraction, so the system operates at low pressure. Brad is careful, copycats are not.
A blow off valve can also operate as an automatic gas pressure system feedback timing governor. The peak pressure achieved triggers the snapvalve, which creates a drop in pressure behind the dump valve piston. This rapidly equalising gas impulse drives the piston mass of the cold engine.
That system runs on a high compression hot engine, and a low compression efficient gas expansion powered cycle. (no ignition event). I call it hhop gen 7 O0
Quote from: Centraflow on 2017.07.17, 14:42:27
You can extract another 50% of that heat loss by pre heating your water with the exhaust gas.
You can do the same thing with a cryogenic gas propellant, that has spent it's energy driving the mass, and reduce the energy required to bring it up to phase transition point.
Recycling very hot waste gas to a cold waste gas environment must offer the maximum benefits due to a large thermal potential difference gradient being present.
your system of fracture is very elegant Mike and I know perfectly well that you had obliged a gagging requirement.
It seems to me the the opposition regard any acknowledgment to mean - forever
you did warn me all those years ago that working on that system would attract unwelcome attention from some very nasty people, I confess in my enthusiasm to learn the secret of 'mans red fire' (or rather the other mans red fire)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maRanuCqY64 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maRanuCqY64)
I opted to totally ignore your warning. That was to prove a big big mistake. like king Louis things didn't go well.
To enlarge on that just a little on my return from Spokane my house had been burgled and ransacked a lot of valuable things moved about but left behind, apart that is, from the workshop,equipment and work in progress. That was taken and test equipment ruined.
Both my car and motorcycle were vandalized the motorcycle beyond any resuscitation hope.
Down at my local watering hole the next day a rather big guy (a bit like big king Louis) 'accidentally' knocked me and my bar stool flying - "Oh dear very very sorry - still a healthy guy like you won't mind a few knocks"now and again.I dare say the same goes for your daughter - and so it goes on.
you perhaps didn't realize it at the time (because I certainly didn't until later when I started checking with others who were following that thread and building) but your time and the time of others who had attended specifically to listen to you and exchange information was carefully orchestrated.
Didn't you wonder how come no one building on your thread was there to attend your lecture?
Also as I probed the situation later It became very apparent that the PM system leaks and information passed to those in the inner circle.
Luckily I had Nivisser's contact details anyway. check with him if you wish but you'll find that forum and the conference it organized is actually a self serving 'crock of shit'.
On a brighter note I did in due course build on your fx6 principles at least to a point where I knew it to be 'true and valid'.
you'll now appreciate that our meeting in the airport departure lounge was never supposed to happen I wondered at the time why Matt was trying to delay my ride to the airport until the last moment also why I was whisked away else where (with great insistence) to work on one of those silly toy wheels.
I know you have one or two patents in your own right but the whole area seems dubious to me .From Bill gates stealing and using Sinclair's WYSIWYG system to IEE head Robert Adams miserable treatment from the Patent office all those years ago. If its obviously COP>1 you are simply not going to get a patent. in fact your far more likely to enjoy a lot of unpleasantness or mort.
What profit then in developing such systems?
I confess my own enjoyment is the research and history of really one off,determined ,clever people.
It should be noted that 'concerned' governments one way or another have first dabs on any patent you might choose to submit. The tongue in cheek reason being 'energy could be a weapon of war' I guess a tank won't go very far without a few big mouthfuls of something of t'other . unless fitted with one of Mr Pogue's carb's of course
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=986 (http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=986)
It might be interesting to consider someone who successfully bucked the unholy system, a system which actually outlaws efficient solar panels. someone working in the same area you are right now Brad. I write of course of the famed case of Stan Meyer. In a way Its quite easy to regard Stan as naive
that is until you take into account that he was well aware that he was going to be executed.
There is no-one across COP>energy research who hasn't heard of Stan no one who isn't aware of at least some of the sad saga. Most unfortunately at some level view his demise like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuH72G5qXow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuH72G5qXow)
But they are aware - In that respect his murder was not in vain.
Its important to realize that Stan was already a Millionaire in his own right . He owned a trucking spares and development company which already boasted several ingenious big money making devices one of which constantly monitored the pressure of all rolling tires and alerted the driver in real time.
In a nutshell Stan didn't really need the money that his water fracture promised. Here however is Stan making it loud and clear (to me at least) that he was well aware of the opposition and what the outcome was probably going to be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGHv9qrbR5k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGHv9qrbR5k)
What actually got Stan publicly executed in the 'land of the free' was his knowledge of this catch 52 situation. Stans solution was request his patent advisor to take out patents all over the world . from Nigeria to Swaziland Holland et'al prior to involving his own countries system.
As you can imagine the patent system in some of these countries is simply a rubber stamp money collecting scam, Still when "the powers that be" said to Stan we can't issue a patent because 'its a weapon of war' and further issue this gagging order, of course " in the interests of national security" the calculated response of oh dear me --- I can't do that unfortunately that patent and all its doings is already issued in many other countries. did not sit well.
R.I.P Stan Meyer . A brave man
Quote from: Duncan on 2017.07.18, 09:38:46
your system of fracture is very elegant Mike and I know perfectly well that you had obliged a gagging requirement.
It seems to me the the opposition regard any acknowledgment to mean - forever
you did warn me all those years ago that working on that system would attract unwelcome attention from some very nasty people, I confess in my enthusiasm to learn the secret of 'mans red fire' (or rather the other mans red fire)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maRanuCqY64 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maRanuCqY64)
I opted to totally ignore your warning. That was to prove a big big mistake. like king Louis things didn't go well.
To enlarge on that just a little on my return from Spokane my house had been burgled and ransacked a lot of valuable things moved about but left behind, apart that is, from the workshop,equipment and work in progress. That was taken and test equipment ruined.
Both my car and motorcycle were vandalized the motorcycle beyond any resuscitation hope.
Down at my local watering hole the next day a rather big guy (a bit like big king Louis) 'accidentally' knocked me and my bar stool flying - "Oh dear very very sorry - still a healthy guy like you won't mind a few knocks"now and again.I dare say the same goes for your daughter - and so it goes on.
you perhaps didn't realize it at the time (because I certainly didn't until later when I started checking with others who were following that thread and building) but your time and the time of others who had attended specifically to listen to you and exchange information was carefully orchestrated.
Didn't you wonder how come no one building on your thread was there to attend your lecture?
Also as I probed the situation later It became very apparent that the PM system leaks and information passed to those in the inner circle.
Luckily I had Nivisser's contact details anyway. check with him if you wish but you'll find that forum and the conference it organized is actually a self serving 'crock of shit'.
On a brighter note I did in due course build on your fx6 principles at least to a point where I knew it to be 'true and valid'.
you'll now appreciate that our meeting in the airport departure lounge was never supposed to happen I wondered at the time why Matt was trying to delay my ride to the airport until the last moment also why I was whisked away else where (with great insistence) to work on one of those silly toy wheels.
I know you have one or two patents in your own right but the whole area seems dubious to me .From Bill gates stealing and using Sinclair's WYSIWYG system to IEE head Robert Adams miserable treatment from the Patent office all those years ago. If its obviously COP>1 you are simply not going to get a patent. in fact your far more likely to enjoy a lot of unpleasantness or mort.
What profit then in developing such systems?
I confess my own enjoyment is the research and history of really one off,determined ,clever people.
It should be noted that 'concerned' governments one way or another have first dabs on any patent you might choose to submit. The tongue in cheek reason being 'energy could be a weapon of war' I guess a tank won't go very far without a few big mouthfuls of something of t'other . unless fitted with one of Mr Pogue's carb's of course
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=986 (http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=986)
It might be interesting to consider someone who successfully bucked the unholy system, a system which actually outlaws efficient solar panels. someone working in the same area you are right now Brad. I write of course of the famed case of Stan Meyer. In a way Its quite easy to regard Stan as naive
that is until you take into account that he was well aware that he was going to be executed.
There is no-one across COP>energy research who hasn't heard of Stan no one who isn't aware of at least some of the sad saga. Most unfortunately at some level view his demise like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuH72G5qXow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuH72G5qXow)
But they are aware - In that respect his murder was not in vain.
Its important to realize that Stan was already a Millionaire in his own right . He owned a trucking spares and development company which already boasted several ingenious big money making devices one of which constantly monitored the pressure of all rolling tires and alerted the driver in real time.
In a nutshell Stan didn't really need the money that his water fracture promised. Here however is Stan making it loud and clear (to me at least) that he was well aware of the opposition and what the outcome was probably going to be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGHv9qrbR5k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGHv9qrbR5k)
What actually got Stan publicly executed in the 'land of the free' was his knowledge of this catch 52 situation. Stans solution was request his patent advisor to take out patents all over the world . from Nigeria to Swaziland Holland et'al prior to involving his own countries system.
As you can imagine the patent system in some of these countries is simply a rubber stamp money collecting scam, Still when "the powers that be" said to Stan we can't issue a patent because 'its a weapon of war' and further issue this gagging order, of course " in the interests of national security" the calculated response of oh dear me --- I can't do that unfortunately that patent and all its doings is already issued in many other countries. did not sit well.
R.I.P Stan Meyer . A brave man
Well,if you had of put that story(MIB-suppression-and the likes)forward 3+ years ago,i would have called bullshit-this you would have seen in many of my replies to those that screamed the same song.
But now-now i tread with caution with what i do,and the time in which i will do it.
Some form of safety exists with this carbon arc stuff,as it has been done by many people, publicly announced and presented.Other systems will have to wait until retirement,where there will be little that they can take away--maybe things would have changed by then O0.
Anyway,im heading back out to the workshop,to do some more on the PlazArc reactor.
Brad.
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.07.18, 10:56:17
Some form of safety exists with this carbon arc stuff,as it has been done by many people, publicly announced and presented.
Brad.
Indeed Brad.
It's " old hat " as I mentioned earlier this gas, under many names, was used to power early engines far away from a gas main!
CO
is flammable and combined with H burns nicely. I followed up on Peterae's Boric acid suggestion and found that it makes a very good lubricant that actually improves with the pressure..... Ideal for an ICE!
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.07.18, 15:19:01
Indeed Brad.
It's " old hat " as I mentioned earlier this gas, under many names, was used to power early engines far away from a gas main!
CO is flammable and combined with H burns nicely. I followed up on Peterae's Boric acid suggestion and found that it makes a very good lubricant that actually improves with the pressure..... Ideal for an ICE!
Cheers Graham.
Hi Grum
Yes,everything i read says this is one of the best,cleanest fuels around-and so easy to make.
JLN labs has some great info on this system-he call's it the BingoFuel reactor.
He runs his on about 30 volts AC,which means no dangerous HHO explosions O0
His little setup produces 3 LTRs a minute.
I should be giving mine it's first run today-hopefully,just to see how fast the carbon rods are consumed.
The question is now-->are the carbon rods considered a fuel,gas stabilizer,or just a consumable ?.
Here is the link to JLNs tests.
http://bingofuel.online.fr/bingofuel/html/bfr10.htm
Brad
Quote:
The question is now-->are the carbon rods considered a fuel,gas stabilizer,or just a consumable ?.
They are IMO, a stabilizer and a consumable. The carbon is oxidised so leaving no free oxygen to cause explosion, air has to be added to start the reverse reaction, that of burning, once started the oxygen molecule in the CO can be broken away and be used as an oxidiser again, but this time with hydrogen producing H2O and again with C but producing CO2.
It must always be considered that when burning with air, 72% N2, nox will be produced
Regards
Mike 8)
Ok,so below is a quick video of the PlazArc's first run,and man dose it thump out the gas O0
I believe i made an error with the design,in that one of the rod holders is grounded to the body of the steel reactor. This rod is consumed about 4 times faster than the rod that is isolated from the reactors body :o
So it would seem that i have to isolate both rods from the reactors steel body ?--anyone?.
Anyway,the reactor is filled with 1 ltr of rain water-no electrolites added.
The reactor is being powered by my old arc welder-so an AC current.
The welder is set on it's lowest setting-20 amp's,but the reactor is only using close to 11 amps at 34-36 volt's.
The water boils in under 2 minutes at this P/in O0
A rubber glove stretched over the reactor with a small (7/16)copper tube pushed through the rubber glove,enabled me to get a rough gas flow output.
The gas output is about 3 ltr's a minute-measured by way of displacement of 1 ltr of water from a 1.25 ltr coke bottle-19 seconds to do so.
The gas it self burns very well-a very light colored orange flame,and no flash back into the reactor--so gas seems to be very stable.
At this point (proof of concept complete),i have decided to build a larger unit,and isolate both the carbon rods from the body of the reactor.
I have just gone and bought a box of carbon gouging rod's,and they were cheaper than i expected--works out to be 18 cents a rod,and they are 8mm rod's-largest i could buy at the welding supply shop.
They are copper coated,but i dont see that being a problem-pic below.
The video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWCFNt3Tu_I
Brad
Quote from: Centraflow on 2017.07.19, 09:15:04
Quote:
The question is now-->are the carbon rods considered a fuel,gas stabilizer,or just a consumable ?.
They are IMO, a stabilizer and a consumable. The carbon is oxidised so leaving no free oxygen to cause explosion, air has to be added to start the reverse reaction, that of burning, once started the oxygen molecule in the CO can be broken away and be used as an oxidiser again, but this time with hydrogen producing H2O and again with C but producing CO2.
It must always be considered that when burning with air, 72% N2, nox will be produced
Regards
Mike 8)
Hi Mike
Yes-i have also confirmed that the gas will not burn until it is mixed with the ambient air--no flash back into the reactor. We also know that by using an Alternating Current,we will not be producing HHO--looks like we are on the right track here. O0
Brad
Excellent work Brad! I love the sound of the thing. It's really bubbling away too. And it looks like it's consuming the rods pretty fast, from your rate of adjustment.
I think that the gas evolved is bound to be saturated with water, that is, unreacted water in the form of steam or water vapour. Do you have any means of drying the gas output, so you can get volume flow measurements that are just for the gas (COHH? ;) )itself?
I wonder what would happen if instead of water you used, say.... vodka?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gSXi3BkkNA
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.07.19, 10:23:57
Excellent work Brad! I love the sound of the thing. It's really bubbling away too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gSXi3BkkNA
QuoteI wonder what would happen if instead of water you used, say.... vodka?
Lol-the vosla (vodka/tesla)reactor :D
The best thing about that video,is i can now put a face to the name--well half of one anyway lol.
QuoteAnd it looks like it's consuming the rods pretty fast, from your rate of adjustment.
As mentioned in my last post--only one rod is being consumed fast.
The rod that is !grounded! you could say,to the reactors steel body,is consumed about 4 times faster than the isolated rod--not sure why,but there obviously is a reason.
Those rods are from AA batteries,and are only 3mm in diameter,and there is a lot of current flowing through them(as far as rods that small go).
The rods seem to be melting ???,rather than being vaporized,as there is big blobs at the tips of the rods when i do a run. The rods are also very soft-chalky like,and you can break them up with your fingers.
The new 8mm carbon rods i bought are very hard and brittle,so i think the rods from the batteries are not very healthy-maybe just to old,as they came from batteries that had been sitting in an old remote control i had in one of my junk boxes for who knows how long.
QuoteI think that the gas evolved is bound to be saturated with water, that is, unreacted water in the form of steam or water vapour.
Yes,i did have water coming through the pipe,but the gas still burned quite well.
I would have thought that the water coming through would add the the water in the bottle i was using to measure the gas output with,by way of displacement.
QuoteDo you have any means of drying the gas output, so you can get volume flow measurements that are just for the gas (COHH? ;) )itself?
I do indeed,and that will be all in the PlazArc V2==which is already under construction.
I just got back from the hardware shop,as i needed a 12mm glass cutting hole saw,to cut the hole in my bourbon bottle reactor,and the rubber grommets to seal the 8mm rods. O0
Brad
Hi Brad.
If it were me I'd bang the tube straight into the smallest working ICE I had!
As most of us are aware that water vapour won't hinder it's use.
Regarding your earlier question I see the Carbon rods being both consumable and fuel, making the CO.
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2017.07.19, 09:15:04
The question is now-->are the carbon rods considered a fuel,gas stabilizer,or just a consumable ?.
All three.
The thermal COP=1 or thereabouts from Brad's earlier experiments may only apply for the specific heat system, with any boiling occurring creating heated water vapour/steam removing energy from the system via latent heat liquid to gas phase transition.
Localised boiling will be happening at the electrodes anyway, but system latent heat energy loss needs to be observed for deviation from the COP=1 result. (energy being lost through heat transported in pseudo gas liquid water droplets)
The radiator idea might work if the thermal COP=1 goal is found to be specific. The prime mover to pump this liquid being the gas pressure developed from phase transition volume differential.
An auto carbon rod inserter needs to be designed to maintain the spark gap for repeated cycles.
I go along with Grum, in the last war both spitfires and huricans ran on water vapour to extend their range for the same amount of fuel. Does not your car run better when it is raining?
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.19, 18:14:36
All three.
An auto carbon rod inserter needs to be designed to maintain the spark gap for repeated cycles.
This has been done many times.... ;)
http://www.lafavre.us/brush/lamparc.htm
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.07.19, 18:43:33
This has been done many times.... ;)
http://www.lafavre.us/brush/lamparc.htm
I know O0
Sometimes us grandads need to fill in the blanks for the readers that don't know. (sometimes me)
We should continue our old discussion on a single piston high compression maximum heat engine, using ethane, methane, hho, carbon gas mixed fuels..
That li'l old Leek engine sure showed promise!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwjTDXR31KA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TADh_zpFXp0
Hi Grum,
what do you mean by "high-frequency spark" ?
Do you mean a multi-spark-ignition-system ?
http://dtec.net.au/Multi%20Spark%20Ignition.htm
(http://dtec.net.au/Multi%20Spark%20Ignition.htm)
Mike
Two centuries old and still amazes.. if only he had submerged it in water..
Quote from: Centraflow on 2017.07.19, 18:41:56
I go along with Grum, in the last war both spitfires and huricans ran on water vapour to extend their range for the same amount of fuel. Does not your car run better when it is raining?
Not so much when it's raining,but more so when it's cold.
When it's a cold brisk morning,the air is much denser,and this becomes a form of intercooler for the engine.
Brad
Quote from: Kator01 on 2017.07.19, 20:08:52
Hi Grum,
what do you mean by "high-frequency spark" ?
Do you mean a multi-spark-ignition-system ?
http://dtec.net.au/Multi%20Spark%20Ignition.htm
(http://dtec.net.au/Multi%20Spark%20Ignition.htm)
Mike
Hi Mike.
Perhaps not. We were using an RMC PWM to drive a standard 12 volt ignition coil driven in the low KHz region.
There seemed to be an optimum frequency that worked the best.
I was amazed that the engine ran at all considering the fuel is so perfect, stoichiometrically!
Cheers Graham.
suggest centre tapped 110 volt tranny (obviously not using 240v input) I guesss you have the same beasts in OZ for construction site use ? perhaps input from a variac if youv'e got a big enough beast around your drum.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.axminster.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct%2Fcache%2F1%2Fimage%2F920x%2F9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95%2F1%2F0%2F102174_xl.jpg&sp=dbb0aa35a6e653246495dd02407927b3)
of course centre tap to your case - the centre tap (ground) is de'facto at 55v in normal use . love that thing Brad, throw some weeds in with the vodka might make a good hubble bubble!
@tinman
QuoteNot so much when it's raining,but more so when it's cold.
When it's a cold brisk morning,the air is much denser,and this becomes a form of intercooler for the engine.
I would agree and as an Engineer I have one number burned into my mind that I will never forget ... 2257. 2257 KJ/Kg is the latent heat of water and while rain/water may flash into steam within the combustion chamber aiding combustion it also carries latent heat out of the engine which is wasted. It is wasted because when the steam in the exhaust condenses in the atmosphere it liberates exactly 2257 KJ/Kg which was given to it within the combustion chamber.
Cold air aides in the expansion ratio which relates directly to Carnot efficiency or simply put Delta T. The change in temperature is the change in pressure which causes a force to act on a piston over a distance which is work. The amount of force which acts over a distance in any given period of time is power.
What is not easy to grasp is that adding water reduces carbon build up which reduces turbulence which aides combustion. Water acts as a moderator controlling the burn rate as any water flashing to steam must absorb exactly 2257 KJ/Kg allowing for more energy dense or volatile fuels. On the far end of the volatility spectrum one could conceivably burn Nitroglycerin. If an extremely small amount was perfectly vaporized and all the water vapor absorbed all of the energy and flashed to steam then there is no explosion there is only absorption followed by a pressure wave causing expansion and work.
I understand it is a bogus proposition so far as safety is concerned however that does not mean it cannot work. The real problem is stabilizing a supposedly explosive substance so that it is only explosive under strict conditions. Diesel fuel burns slow and it's awesome to start my fire pit, in a combustion chamber under pressure it burns faster and under an extreme pressure rise it is in fact explosive. That it what pre-detonation is... a pressure wave acting outwards compressing unburned gas near rings which causes it to detonate in turn causing an extreme pressure build up. Why?... because now we have two pressure waves which collide with one another causing excessive pressure.
Could we utilize this multi-wave like phenomena... well of course we can it's just a matter of working through the problem.
On the surface of it there is no obvious reason why one rod should be consumed faster than the other and that in itself is interesting hence I suggest center tapped transformer to see if that equalizes things .
I am reminded oddly of balancing a Leedskalnin PM holder by tapping windings on one side to find a neutral (non holding state) in order to satisfy myself that the relationship was pi/2. anyway now your up and running I dare say there's lots of other things you want to try, enjoy,
Quote from: Duncan on 2017.07.20, 07:52:25
On the surface of it there is no obvious reason why one rod should be consumed faster than the other and that in itself is interesting hence I suggest center tapped transformer to see if that equalizes things .
I am reminded oddly of balancing a Leedskalnin PM holder by tapping windings on one side to find a neutral (non holding state) in order to satisfy myself that the relationship was pi/2. anyway now your up and running I dare say there's lots of other things you want to try, enjoy,
Duncan
I am not sure why a center tapped transformer would be any different,as it would still send an alternating current to the reactors rods.
The only difference between the two rod's is as stated before--the one that is earthed to the steel body of the reactor,is the one that is consumed 4 times as fast--?>after pulling out the rod's and measuring them,it is being consumed closer to 6 times faster ??? .It has to be something to do with sharing the same polarity as the steel body of the reactor,as swapping the rod's over resulted once again in the one earthed to the body being consumed at a much higher rate than the isolated one.
Anyway,that issue is about to be sorted,as i bought a piece of high temp clear pollycarb tube today,which measures 125mm in diameter,and 200mm long. This will eliminate any ground sharing problem. O0
Well a quick coffee and chat with the wife,and im off to start on V2.
Brad
understood Brad , I look forward to V2 !
I would also have a look at including some environmental measuring tools during
the run ?
were your last [few years back] experiments truly effecting the electrostatic field ?
Cadman posted this in Smokey's thread here http://overunity.com/17100/sm0ky2s-modified-voss-machine/msg508450/#new
Quote
Hi Vladokv,
Here are some good tools to replicate.
http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq/hvmeasurements/
And a video of some of these in action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r3h7IC8LWY
Regards
Cadman
end quote
IMO since there is a strong opinion on electrostatics in other claims of late ["Tariel"??]
anybody experimenting on any ambient harvesting methods should have a measuring device for Electrostatic field strength running just in case ?
there is no better way to get where your going than to know where you've been...
just one mans opinion.
I was doing a bit of reading on this subject last night while looking through patents, there were quiet a few, one said you get increased gas produced when running at increased pressure and also by using a spherical polished vessel the light energy gets reflected to the centre focal point which is the arc position also increasing efficiency by not wasting the energy in lost light, the reaction itself is actually endothermic meaning energy is lost to keeping the arc hot as the formation of the gas has a cooling effect, so insulation should also increase efficiency.
One other thing worth noting is that it is possible to use a copper alloy catalyst to convert COH2 into Methanol, that would be pretty cool to get a storable liquid out, we have a methanol fire in the front room, it looks like a large spirit burner that was used to heat model steam engines, methanol is not that cheap to buy over here, about £3 a litre, but the fire is great and very clean to burn with no fumes
Single Step Oxidation of Methane to Methanol–Towards Better Understanding
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813000581
"The potential use of methanol as a fuel is well known. Many research scientists are working on single stage production of methanol. Currently it is being produced by a conventional two-step process which is expensive and energy intensive. Conversion of methane to a liquid fuel is a more desirable alternative to compressed natural gas due to ease of storage. The two-step process produces liquid methanol by the steam reforming of methane to synthesis gas followed by the high pressure catalytic conversion of the synthesis gas to methanol."
Direct Methane to Methanol
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780444632531
"This book provides all those who work in the field of gas processing and gas chemistry with the theory and experimental data to develop and apply new processes based on direct oxidation of natural gas."
Solar energy produces methane from CO2 with new catalyst
https://www.solardirectory.com.au/news/1358-solar-energy-methane-co2
"Australian scientists now have a catalyst that converts carbon dioxide into methane gas using solar energy.
The University of Adelaide, in collaboration with the CSIRO, developed the process, which could potentially replace fossil fuels.
It could also lead to lower CO2 emissions from existing carbon-based fuel technologies.
The new catalyst drives the process of combining CO2 with hydrogen to produce methane and water."
and the process itself:
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2017/TA/C7TA00958E#!divAbstract
"The conversion of CO2 into chemicals of commercial interest is a rapidly expanding area of research. Here, we present a highly active and stable CO2 methanation catalyst that is derived from a Ru-impregnated zirconium-based metal–organic framework (MOF) material. The Ru-doped MOF is transformed, under reaction conditions, into an active catalyst which yields CO2 conversions of 96% and a CH4 selectivity of 99%. We demonstrate that the final catalyst was composed of a mixture of Ru-nanoparticles supported on monoclinic and tetragonal ZrO2 nanoparticles. Notably, such catalytic activity has only been achieved using the MOF templating strategy. Catalysts of the same composition were synthesized via different methods but were less active for CO2 methanation."
By heck, they get warm !! :D
Not wishing to be outdone...... Ordered these today....
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/50-Copper-Coated-Carbon-Air-Arc-Gouging-Rods-8mm-x-300mm-6/272722187699?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2648
I have a few ideas of my own to try. ;)
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.07.21, 16:44:26
By heck, they get warm !! :D
Not wishing to be outdone...... Ordered these today....
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/50-Copper-Coated-Carbon-Air-Arc-Gouging-Rods-8mm-x-300mm-6/272722187699?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2648
I have a few ideas of my own to try. ;)
Cheers Graham.
There the ones Grum--cheap as chips O0
I bet that little bench top motor you had running some time back on HHO,would run straight from the gas output of the carbon arc reactor.
I noticed that the copper coating on the gouging rods is rather rough(not smooth),and so may present a little sealing problem. It looks like some 240 wet and dry sandpaper soon smooths out the copper coating,so maybe not so bad.
I should have V2 up and running today,and then to work out some form of self feeding of the rods.
Brad
Just a quick update pic on the V2 build.
The reaction chamber is done,so now just need to install the rod's and rails for them to run on.
Also will be installing an external water tank,so as to increase the volume of water for the system.
Extra outlets will also be installed,so as to pump the water through a radiator when the time come's.
P.S- volume of reactor is 2.6 L
Brad
Second update on the reactor so far.
Now have the rod guides in,and contact brushes fitted.
Also fitted the two access ports(front side).
Just have to fit the high current relay,and do the wiring,and then give her a test run O0
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.07.21, 22:41:32
I bet that little bench top motor you had running some time back on HHO,would run straight from the gas output of the carbon arc reactor.
That's what I am betting on too.. liquid is nice for storage, increased power and energy density, but you cannot beat the simplicity of fuel gas to immediate work done in an ICE.
Over the long term any corrosion issues in the engine caused by the particular gas evolved can be observed and prevented, just an engineering problem.. by golly I wish we had an 'Engineer' around here!
Ok,so here is the first run of the PlazArc reactor V2
So now we know that the gas go's bang quite good under pressure lol--twice in fact. Due to me not keeping an eye on the water level,the super heated plasma ignited the gas in the reactors chamber.
Just having a bite to eat,and back out to the work shop to finish the mod's-->to stop further explosions O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ycGMglPdgU
Brad
Really short on time here, and not had a chance to watch the entire video but the ignition incident at 04:16 is really interesting.
Just before the gas in the chamber ignites and blows the tube out of the receiving water tank you can see the water level in the bottle rising, while it lowers to expose the carbon electrodes to the gas in the reactor. At this point if you were to follow the hhop gen 2 hybrid design you can release the gas pressure in the reactor and the two water levels will equalise. The gas can then be burnt off external to the system and the cycle can repeat again. It is important to note that all my hhop system cycles were started from a system fully bled condition so that there was no air and therefore no oxygen present, other than that produced by the hho reaction, in your carbon gas system I would say this is an even more important consideration.
Good stuff Brad, I am really impressed with your rapid progress and noted how you did not seal the system to atmospheric pressure while testing.. very good safety advice in a well done demonstration. I will try and catch up with the rest of your progress later.
O0
A screen shot from the next video,that i am just splicing together now.
Man this setup makes some gas.
Enough to run a small engine for sure Grum O0
Brad
Here is the second run--and theres smoke lol.
Anyway,this time we light up the gas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeLTvd7m4W8
Brad
Hydrogen sulphide (bad egg smell), I wonder what those rods contain apart from carbon and copper!
Great video as always
Regards
Mike from a warm France 8)
Brad
Grum is once again knee deep in a Car repair [family member stuck on the road]
such is the life of the good hearted "fixer"..
Bag of Gas just floating around :D
Brad
Magnegas ? seems everyone, an uncle Tom cobbley an'all for well over a hundred years thats gone near this has given it another name (and another patent)... Brad gas .. or...O.U.R Gas lol fill ya boots.
Its certainly fun watching its progress.
It would seem that we do indeed have very high voltage spikes across the carbon rods during the arcing.
My supply voltage is around 22-27 volts,but we blew the crap out of a 240 volt neon that was placed across the two electrodes.
You cant see it in the video,but when the arc stop's,it looks like the whole jug of water is on fire for a couple of seconds,-and not just the red glow you see in the video--the camera just cant pick it up good enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwZYDXBT94k
Brad
Ok,whats everyone's thoughts of me placing my old scope across the two electrode's?
Will it go bang?
Brad
Hi Brad.
Perhaps the common name of " Water gas " is best? Or Lowe's gas.
It seems this gas was made a long time ago, and according to Wikipedia more efficiently than standard " Town " gas!! :o
From your photo it would suggest a good ratio ot Hydrogen..... O0
How about trying a resonant input? Match a capacitor to your transformers output inductance based upon your mains frequency.
Could be interesting...... ;)
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.07.24, 10:44:52
Hi Brad.
QuoteIt seems this gas was made a long time ago, and according to Wikipedia more efficiently than standard " Town " gas!! :o
Yes,1897 in fact Grum
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US603058
QuoteHow about trying a resonant input? Match a capacitor to your transformers output inductance based upon your mains frequency.
It would want to be one beefy cap to handle that kind of current.
QuotePerhaps the common name of " Water gas " is best? Or Lowe's gas.
It seems that there is many names for it,and most of the people doing this,are doing it the same way.
So,as it all started back in 1897,and was patented back then,i dont see how anyone has the rights to this form of gas production?.
Knowing that there is some very high voltage spikes going on across the electrode's,it will be dam near impossible to get any sort of accurate power measurements.
QuoteFrom your photo it would suggest a good ratio ot Hydrogen..... O0
Oh,the gas is no problem,and yes,a good ratio of H in there for sure.
Volume of gas is no problem either-enough there to run a small motor for sure.
What we need,is to get the power consumption down,and i do not think that the arc welder is a very good transformer to use on this-as you would know.
Brad
Mmmm think I'd put a big resistance in series with any scope having seen that neon pop - In fact resistance in circuit with the neon first . as for resonance there are two flavours to consider series or parallel. of course your going to have a good inspection of this waveform when you can.
I would beg to remind that an impulse wave (DC) might be a good option which can be brought to resonance as shown by fellow member gotoluc some time ago .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJQvqTpBdiQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJQvqTpBdiQ) O0
Initial progress.
My site transformer with the centre tap has an inductance that when calculated gives a 50 HZ resonance with 436 micro farad. I've got 3 motor PF correction caps in parallel that indicates 450 microF can someone suggest a series value to bring my value down?
The input open circuit wattage is around 27 ( poor efficiency ) I'm going to try improving this with the addition of resonant capacitor on the input side.
I might have to do only short runs as the safety tapping is only a fraction of the size of the secondary winding gauge.
With good power factor correction I don't see a problem with measurements, at least, not until the reactor is running,
I might have to change my opinion.... :)
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.07.25, 10:58:51
Initial progress.
My site transformer with the centre tap has an inductance that when calculated gives a 50 HZ resonance with 436 micro farad. I've got 3 motor PF correction caps in parallel that indicates 450 microF can someone suggest a series value to bring my value down?
The input open circuit wattage is around 27 ( poor efficiency ) I'm going to try improving this with the addition of resonant capacitor on the input side.
I might have to do only short runs as the safety tapping is only a fraction of the size of the secondary winding gauge.
With good power factor correction I don't see a problem with measurements, at least, not until the reactor is running,
I might have to change my opinion.... :)
Cheers Graham.
Well i am most happy with my large transformer,as i have so much range to choose from.
Upon reading your post Grum,i went and checked how much standby power it draws.
With the neutral of my mains connected to the COM(common) pin on the transformer,and the live connected to pin 9,the standby draw is only 12 watts O0
Also while connected to this pin combination,i have on the high current output(which is also isolated BTW),35/0/35 VRMS.
As i connect the live to the next pin down(pin 8),on the output i get 37/0/37 VRMS-and so on,as i drop the live pin down another number,i raise the high current output VRMS by 2 volts each side.
Then there is the + - 10 volt pins,which also go's up or down depending on which pin i have the live connected to.
Also ;),there is all the pins not being used by the live,which vary in voltage,and where you can either use the common as one pin,or the live as one pin,and then use one of the unused pin's as the other connection.
There are so many combinations with this transformer-i can have any AC voltage from 2.2 volt's,right through to 368 volts,in 2 volt increments O0
This transformer is now my golden child of the workshop :D
I wonder what you would pay for something like this one now days.?.
Brad
I hope this was not mentioned before.
Here is a patent for an Electric Furnice
https://www.pssurvival.com/PS/Heat_and_Cool/Electric_Furnice_Patent_1899.pdf