Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"  (Read 64967 times)

gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #120 on: July 19, 2017, 01:20:01 PM »
"It
is possible that this technology also holds the key to
turning radioactive waste into a nonreactive
substance"

Ina flash yes

The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is the technology holding the key to turn radioactive waste into a nonreactive substance.

Gravock

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #121 on: July 19, 2017, 01:32:51 PM »
"(LFTR) is the
technology holding the key to turn radioactive waste
into a nonreactive substance."

That and a myriad of other ways I foresee yes

gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #122 on: July 19, 2017, 01:42:18 PM »
"(LFTR) is the
technology holding the key to turn radioactive waste
into a nonreactive substance."

That and a myriad of other ways I foresee yes

Please list the myriad of other ways. 

Thanks,

Gravock

pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #123 on: July 19, 2017, 01:48:18 PM »
Here is a quick first run of the reactor.
It is consuming the small rods quite fast,but i believe that the rods are of poor quality.

This is running on an AC- around 11 amps at 34-36 volts.
It is producing about 3LPM of raw gas-not dried-so an MMW of 8.02  :)

The new,larger reactor is already under construction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWCFNt3Tu_I


Brad


Very good! Unfortunately though, no carbon loss = no gas. The H2 : CO volume ratio is always 1:1.   You may be able to thermally decompose a little water, but its a very lossy method.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #124 on: July 19, 2017, 06:19:18 PM »
"Please list the myriad of other ways."

Put me in a lab and I"l find that list for u and more mr gravock.I'm pretty sure those who already are in labs are looking.if they haven't found a list yet they will,,oh yes sir-ee they will

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #125 on: July 20, 2017, 01:17:52 AM »

Very good! Unfortunately though, no carbon loss = no gas. The H2 : CO volume ratio is always 1:1.   You may be able to thermally decompose a little water, but its a very lossy method.

But what happens when you account for all energy output from the system?--
1-the energy in the gas being produced
2-the energy required to raise the temperature of a volume of water
3-the light output from the system.


Brad

pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #126 on: July 20, 2017, 06:59:04 AM »
Normal electolysis requires about 240kJ/mole from your electrical supply minimum.
Reacting carbon with water requires only 131kJ/mole. The difference is not free, its from the reaction C+0.5O2-->CO which gives 110kJ/mole.
Because you have a very high temp arc, more heat is wasted than in normal electrolysis due to the heat transfer between the water at 100C and the arc at 1000+ C, so you will get boiling.

When you burn the gas you get the same heat from the hydrogen as you would with HHO plus additional whopping 283kJ/mole from CO+0.5O2 ---->CO2

Overall you used electrically 131kJ+heat&boil water  but you get back 240kJ from burning hydrogen and 283kj from burning CO.

So yes, there is a gain but its at the expense of the carbon. 

Beware , according to wikipedia one breath only of just 3% CO can kill !   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning#Acute_poisoning
« Last Edit: July 20, 2017, 09:27:37 AM by pomodoro »

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #127 on: July 20, 2017, 12:31:54 PM »
Normal electolysis requires about 240kJ/mole from your electrical supply minimum.
Reacting carbon with water requires only 131kJ/mole. The difference is not free, its from the reaction C+0.5O2-->CO which gives 110kJ/mole.
Because you have a very high temp arc, more heat is wasted than in normal electrolysis due to the heat transfer between the water at 100C and the arc at 1000+ C, so you will get boiling.

When you burn the gas you get the same heat from the hydrogen as you would with HHO plus additional whopping 283kJ/mole from CO+0.5O2 ---->CO2

Overall you used electrically 131kJ+heat&boil water  but you get back 240kJ from burning hydrogen and 283kj from burning CO.

 

Beware , according to wikipedia one breath only of just 3% CO can kill !   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning#Acute_poisoning

Quote
So yes, there is a gain but its at the expense of the carbon.

I think there is more to it than just carbon loss.
There is much talk of an LENR event happening within this type of system.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #128 on: July 21, 2017, 06:40:28 AM »
Normal electolysis requires about 240kJ/mole from your electrical supply minimum.
Reacting carbon with water requires only 131kJ/mole. The difference is not free, its from the reaction C+0.5O2-->CO which gives 110kJ/mole.
Because you have a very high temp arc, more heat is wasted than in normal electrolysis due to the heat transfer between the water at 100C and the arc at 1000+ C, so you will get boiling.

When you burn the gas you get the same heat from the hydrogen as you would with HHO plus additional whopping 283kJ/mole from CO+0.5O2 ---->CO2

Overall you used electrically 131kJ+heat&boil water  but you get back 240kJ from burning hydrogen and 283kj from burning CO.

So yes, there is a gain but its at the expense of the carbon. 

Beware , according to wikipedia one breath only of just 3% CO can kill !   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning#Acute_poisoning

Pomodoro

What is the energy value of say 100 grams of carbon-the type that is used in carbon rods such as gouging rods.

With this type of info,we can calculate just how much energy the carbon rods contribute to the calculated energy output.


Brad

pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #129 on: July 21, 2017, 02:51:18 PM »
The actual production of H2 +CO from water produces no heat at all!  Being endothermic it sucks heat out of the arc. Every 12g of pure C requires 131kJ. Unfortunately it is not a spontaneous reaction at room temp and requires a high temperature to work. The heating and boiling of the water is pure waste from the arc power supply only.  Accurate measurements are difficult, but if you insulate the container extremely well  and use heaps of water to prevent boiling , you can calculate heat into the water from the specific heat of water ,the volume and the temp rise. Say this easy to calculate amount is is XkJ.
Then measure the mass of carbon used up,that has actually dissapeared, not just crumbled and floated around.Since each 12g was 131kJ from the electrical power, you can calculate that energy call this YkJ (note carbon rods have clay mixed in, so there are errors already). Add X+Y to get the heat out of the arc.  Calculate or measure  accurate  electrical Joules in from transformer, call this Z and if you find that X+Y is much greater than Z then you might have something worth investigating LENR etc.  I say much greater because there are bound to be big error because you are not in a lab environment with well calibrated instruments , there is also heat lost to the gas and the graphite purity is unknown. The arc is intermittant so in reality an integrating power measurement device is required.  An alternative is to measure the volume of gas , its temperature and atmospheric pressure and relate that back to the amount of carbon actually burned.  When I tried LENR with tungsten, I used DC as it was easy to measure the well filtered voltage on a large capacitor . The current was a bit crazy, but a simple filter from the current shunt with an RC constant into the seconds smoothed this well, but it wont work at all with AC. Kept temp well below 100 and stirred water all throughout to stop localized boiling but I was constantly measuring temp so stirring helped .

h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #130 on: July 21, 2017, 11:43:35 PM »
Can I ask you a question Tinman, Why did you give up on Meyer's technology and start pursuing this carbon rod thing you are doing right now?

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #131 on: July 22, 2017, 12:28:17 AM »
Can I ask you a question Tinman, Why did you give up on Meyer's technology and start pursuing this carbon rod thing you are doing right now?

There are a few reasons h20power.

The gas produced by carbon arc is much safer to store,and no flashbacks into bubblers-and the likes,as we are using an alternating current.

The energy value in the form of heat (heating water)is easy to calculate,and also put to good use.

And also a large amount of light is given off at the same time.

The bulk of what is left after the gas is burnt,is water and oxygen.


Brad

h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #132 on: July 22, 2017, 01:22:12 AM »
There are a few reasons h20power.

The gas produced by carbon arc is much safer to store,and no flashbacks into bubblers-and the likes,as we are using an alternating current.

The energy value in the form of heat (heating water)is easy to calculate,and also put to good use.

And also a large amount of light is given off at the same time.

The bulk of what is left after the gas is burnt,is water and oxygen.


Brad


With Meyer's technology there is no safer way to store the hydrogen and oxygen than in the form of water itself. The technology doesn't produce any waste heat in the water bath and uses pulse DC from a DC power supply on the primary side. On the secondary side the voltage use on the water capacitor is AC but I guess you would already know that having read the pdf file I put out titled, "The Voltage Dissociation of Water." Meyer's quenching circuit technology makes for the safe transport of the mixed gases as it prevents any flashbacks from occurring. The gases are never stored but used at the point of consumption when needed. Using standard safety protocols making use of Meyer's technology is almost as easy as 123.
This technology doesn't have any products that are used up and really only barrows the water as the water itself is not consumed. When it comes to power generation this technology has no equal which is why I am confused by your giving up on it. Plus there is no need to do any peer review studies as the patents are already in the public domain. All that any of us that figure out how to get it working need do is start putting it to use in any area of business we choose to put it to use for.
Your going to be going up against Meyer's technology with this technology you are working on and you have to prove it safe to powers that be, find some way to prevent them from blocking you on making it, and figure out just what market you will be trying to get into. All I need to do is put Meyer's technology to use without all of that red tape. But a better question for you is how long do you expect to go from the prototype stage to being able to go into mass production with your technology? If you have no plan to go into mass production and only plan on Open Sourcing the technology then you are asking everyone to build what is known as a "One Off" which is the most costly way of making anything and you will have no assurances that those whom give your technology a try will not inadvertently kill themselves by not following instructions correctly.


On the other hand True Green Solutions will be putting Meyer's technology to work for the masses in a safe usable product that will be mass produced for affordability. I am not going to disclose where the company is heading right now but you will know once the products hit the marketplace. Sorry to see you toss in the towel like this but I know this technology is a tough nut to crack as it has taken me many years to figure out how to get it working correctly and I still don't have all the answers yet. My hope is when my company does go to market with this technology you and the others of these many forums will give this technology your full support. Can I count on you?

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #133 on: July 22, 2017, 12:34:03 PM »
Well here is the first run of the PlazArc V2.

Two explosions,due to me not keeping an eye on the water level in the reactor chamber--oh well lol.

Problem been fixed,and some mods being made.

Next video up tonight,of a longer run--hopefully.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ycGMglPdgU


Brad

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #134 on: July 22, 2017, 01:09:08 PM »
"Well here is the first run of the PlazArc V2.
Two explosions,due to me not keeping an eye on the
water level in the reactor chamber--oh well lol."

Auuw tinman keep up the good work. so long as u got the concept correct its jus a matter of experiment and time