Plasmatron system of MIT

[Centraflow]

Hi All

Thought I would post this very simple hydrogen system which MIT has a patent and is about to go into public domain as the 20 years are just about up. here is the patent

http://www.google.com/patents/US5425332

You will notice in the patent that water can be used, what is not in the patent is that the plasma can be an RF generated plasma. I will leave open to discusion of what other gases are involved!!!!

I will post as and when I can, I'm a little busy to say the least at the moment.

I do have other items involving this and I will post as and when I sort them out

Mike

[Centraflow]

Just a few extra items I have on file

Mike

[PhysicsProf]

Interesting stuff, Centraflow -- thanks for the info.
Looks like the patent expires in Aug 2013.

What is claimed is:

1. Rotary power system comprising:

a source of hydrocarbon fuel;

a plasmatron for receiving the hydrocarbon fuel and reforming it into a hydrogen-rich gas;

an internal combustion engine adapted to receive the hydrogen-rich gas from the plasmatron; and

a generator powered by the engine and connected to deliver electrical energy to power the plasmatron.

2. The system of claim 1 wherein the engine is connected to receive the hydrocarbon fuel in addition to the hydrogen-rich gas.

3. The system of claim 1 wherein the plasmatron is a water plasmatron.

4. The system of claim 1 further including a gas storage tank for receiving hydrogen-rich gas from the plasmatron and delivering hydrogen-rich gas to the internal combustion engine.

5. The system of claim 1 further including switching apparatus for selecting the relative proportion of hydrogen-rich gas and hydrocarbon fuel entering the engine.

6. Rotary power system comprising:

a first and a second source of hydrocarbon fuel;

a plasmatron for receiving hydrocarbon fuel from the first source of hydrocarbon fuel and reforming it into a hydrogen-rich gas;

an internal combustion engine adapted to receive the hydrogen-rich gas from the plasmatron and to receive hydrocarbon fuel from the second source of hydrocarbon fuel; and

a generator powered by the engine and connected to deliver electrical energy to power the plasmatron.

7. Rotary power system comprising:

a source of hydrocarbon fuel;

a compact plasmatron for receiving the hydrocarbon fuel and reforming it into a hydrogen rich gas;

an internal combustion engine adapted to receive the hydrogen rich gas from the plasmatron;

a generator/motor powered by the engine and connected to deliver electrical energy to the battery;

a battery connected to receive electrical energy from the generator/motor, a portion of electrical energy being supplied to the plasmatron.

8. Rotary power system of claim 7 wherein the generator/motor works as an electric motor receiving electrical energy from the battery to generate mechanical energy.

Is this system more efficient than burning gasoline in an internal combustion engine?  (How about if water is used as you suggest?)

[Centraflow]

Hi Steven, yes it is more efficient. The power input is very low in relation to the energy produced from using the gas for generation.

This has partly been covered up by concentrating the patent on a hydrocarbon reforming, but it has slipped in that water can be used along with a carbon cursor "CO2". This is basically a synthetic fuel reactor in it's simplest form, many years of work from my part has been done on this, using low energy input reactions to create synthetic fuel.

What has to be understood is the covalent bond breaking and recombining, on recombining "to form water" the energy produced is considerable. The "trick" is for want of a word, is making the covalent bonds such as for example N-N in N2, break with little energy and to do this you have to make it unstable and move in other elements, such as hydrogen in between. Once you have this state, by igniting the H the N is left to bond again and in so doing releases huge amounts of energy.

So what do we have! a small amount of H but a huge energy gain from the N's recombining "this is how explosives work", the stronger the bond forming, the bigger the bang for your buck, so to say

People only look at the H content and not the reactive consequences, this is where the cover up has come about that people only look at the H content. C + 2O=CO2 is an explosive event, also 2H + O=H2O is also.

An example of a simple breaking of a bond is a piece of string, try just pulling it directly apart!!! but if you tie a knot in a special way in the middle, you can break it apart very easily, this is what has to be done in chemical reactions. By experience these bonds have to be vibrated and can be vibrated with less energy used that the energy created when they rejoin, but you have to slip in between another element until you want that energy, you break it first and then remake it.

Mike

[PhysicsProf]

  Thanks for the clear explanation, Centraflow. 
"many years of work from my part has been done on this, using low energy input reactions to create synthetic fuel."

I believe you -- and sincerely wish you success in bringing this to fruition to benefit mankind.

[the_big_m_in_ok]

Hi All

Thought I would post this very simple hydrogen system which MIT has a patent and is about to go into public domain as the 20 years are just about up. here is the patent

http://www.google.com/patents/US5425332

You will notice in the patent that water can be used, what is not in the patent is that the plasma can be an RF generated plasma. I will leave open to discusion of what other gases are involved!!!!

Hey, Mike...
Is there some way you've thought of to make the electrical output greater---closer to unity---by using a magnetic concentration and extraction means, as in a magnetoplasmadynamic generator?
      Well, okay.   Fig. 6 of the patent you cited has a way of using an engine to turn a motor/generator and use that to power part or all of the plasmtron.   I meant taking power from the plasmatron itself.

Fortunately, a typical patent legally lasts 27 yrs., and, as mentioned by PhysicsProf, the 28th yr. begins in August of this year.    However, the patent was dated 21 June, 2013.   As I write this, today is 21 May 2013.   It lapses in exactly one month, assuming 31 days in a month.

--Lee

[Centraflow]

      Hey, Mike...
Is there some way you've thought of to make the electrical output greater---closer to unity---by using a magnetic concentration and extraction means, as in a magnetoplasmadynamic generator?
      Well, okay.   Fig. 6 of the patent you cited has a way of using an engine to turn a motor/generator and use that to power part or all of the plasmtron.   I meant taking power from the plasmatron itself.

Fortunately, a typical patent legally lasts 27 yrs., and, as mentioned by PhysicsProf, the 28th yr. begins in August of this year.    However, the patent was dated 21 June, 2013.   As I write this, today is 21 May 2013.   It lapses in exactly one month, assuming 31 days in a month.

--Lee

The patent time is 20yrs, not 27yrs. The system, if using a hydrocarbon fuel, does create all the energy that it needs to run, from a generator.

To extract power direct would need a special reactor design with collector screens where the electrons can be extracted. Would also need to see the total reactions so as to see that there are electrons going free to use! the formula has to balance.

Mike

[the_big_m_in_ok]

In regard to Centraflow's posted Reply #6,
       You're correct as to patents.   According to wikipedia, it's 20 yrs.
Thus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent


       I was relying on long term memory and confused by the the usual legal copyright provisions.   I was thinking of 27 yrs, when it was 28.
Thus:
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

Concerning the Plasmatron:  I still recommend thinking of adding a means for magnetoplasmadynamic power generation to the potential invention.   I wanted to patent a magnetoplasmadynamic generator based as an aft extension of a NASA spacecraft ion or plasma engine thruster.
       I used a less-than-honestly-forthcoming patent agent/lawyer and lost about 1500 dollars around 1980, or so.   Pissed me off, so I quit.

--Lee