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: Emulsifying Brown's Gas  (Read 52366 times)

kampen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #60 on: September 08, 2008, 09:42:09 PM »
@ GE

OK ...now Kampen..... whaddayagot and what does your fact finding tell us?
Is it a nonionic, cationic or anionic surfactant?   (this is fun!)
A:
Active Emulsifier name DX50SPS (Germany)
Non ionic surfactant emulsifier based on mixes of the most active emulsifier. Especially designed formineral oils waxes and bitumens. It offer a non ionic emulsion which able to use with all kind of charge offering a consistent product of maximum wetting and dispersing efficiency.

or this one,
Emulsifier name: T-20
Molecular formula:  C58H113O26
Molecular weight: 1226.48
Characteristics:This kind of oily amber liquid dissolves in water, carbinol, ethanol, glycol, propyl alcohol and cottonseed oil.
Its HLB is 16.7.
Quality standard:
Outward appearance: Oily amber liquid.
Acid value/(mg KOH/g): <2
Saponification value/(mg KOH/g): 40-55
Hydroxide radicle value/(mg KOH/g): 90-110
Moisture content/(mg KOH/g): <3

Usage:This product is oily or watery emulsifier, which can beused as lubricant, disperser, antirustion agent and antistatic agent.

Last NEWS:
decided to make a Emulsifier myself, small-size unit, testing for home heating.
Will keep you informed.

kampen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #61 on: September 09, 2008, 03:43:03 PM »
INFO:

A new pollution-control technology for ships may become an industry standard following an exciting pilot project starting in February aboard the 5,100-TEU containership APL Singapore.

Using a device known as the water-in-fuel emulsifier, water is mixed with marine diesel fuel just before the fuel is injected into the engine, which could reduce nitrogen oxides – a principal component of smog – by as much as 20% or more. Emissions of particulate matter could also be lowered.

Preliminary results should be available by the second quarter of this year. If they show that the technology is effective, APL could install the emulsifier on other ships. In addition, Danish-based MAN Diesel, the world’s largest manufacturer of marine engines and maker of the APL Singapore’s main engine, has said it would consider including the machinery with its equipment if results are positive.

In addition, the test will also include evaluating additional pollution-control devices installed on the APL Singapore’s fuel injectors. Known as slide valves, they prevent fuel leakage during combustion, leading to a more complete fuel burn and reduced emissions.

The test will begin on a voyage of the APL Singapore from Kaohsiung (Taiwan) to Los Angeles and Oakland (California) in February. Emissions will be monitored with various ratios of water to fuel, and also at various levels of engine power. It’s estimated that for every 1% of water, nitrogen oxides are reduced by the same amount. The study will test water contents of up to 25%.

Once the vessel reaches Los Angeles, the slide valves will be installed on the engine’s fuel injectors. The research team will then continue monitoring emissions on the leg to Oakland to see how much more pollution is reduced by the slide valves.

The US$1.3-million research is co-sponsored by several public entities, including the US Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board, four local California air-quality districts and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The APL Singapore will continue using the emulsifier whenever it’s in California waters. California is a world leader in working with companies to reduce pollution.

This test marks the beginning of a three-year evaluation of the fuel emulsifier, where APL will study the effects of the water-in-fuel mixture on the APL Singapore’s engine. Mixing water with fuel is counter-intuitive, and some suggest it could corrode engine parts over time. The long-term test will determine if water in fuel is indeed compatible with marine engines.

Using the fuel emulsifier and slide valves is part of a broader APL strategy for reducing air pollution. Also recently installed on the APL Singapore is a next-generation lubrication system that could reduce the burning of cylinder oil by 20 to 50%.

In accordance with California regulations in effect since 1 January 2007, APL is also using low-sulfur diesel fuel in its ships’ auxiliary engines while vessels are in California waters.

APL has numerous other pollution control initiatives underway. Among them are a program to replace older yard tractors in container terminals with newer, more environment-friendly models; the use of bio-diesel fuel for yard tractors and mobile container-handling equipment; electric ship cranes; an expanding collection of more than 2,400 electrical plugs instead of diesel generators for refrigerated containers at US West Coast terminals; strong support of the voluntary speed reduction program in Los Angeles Harbor; and experiments with a chemical-free organic enzyme that improves combustion of heavy fuel oil, thereby reducing pollution.
 
 


Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #62 on: September 09, 2008, 09:04:36 PM »
Hi Kampen,

can you please tell the producer of this emulsifier DX50SPS ? I coud not get any result on this product-name using different
seach-engines.

I am living in Germany and can contribute in doing more  detailled reseach. usually I do direct contact ( phonecalls etc ) until I find everry detail of what I want.

Thank you

Kator

goldenequity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #63 on: September 10, 2008, 02:15:10 AM »
Hey all  :)
Been out of town a few days.... still a few more to go... glad to see some progress here..
Good work and thanks for the follow up Kampen   :)  It would be good to know what family
of chemistry the surfactant comes from.... and ethyloxalate? alkyphenol? amide?
see what you can find out..... they won't give out their formula of course but they
should tell you some chemical makeup data and what it's general make up is.
take care all.  ;D ;D

mrsiegel2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #64 on: September 11, 2008, 02:38:18 AM »
Gentlemen:

You have done a wonderful job of analyzing our technology.  One must understand some conditions occur as to how the EM-Fuel is produced.  Firstly,  We can work with any non-gasoline carbonaceous fuel.  In order for the oil droplets to capture a O or H molecule the oil particle must be no larger than .1 micron.  Things behave differently at these sizes.  Secondly we electrolyze the H20 in a low energy environment.  Thirdly, you need a special additive that will prevent the micro bubble to recombine.  Without the additive the oil droplets will recombine freeing the gas.  The final EM-Fuel is not really an emulsion as there is really no free water (other than the unprocessed water).  In Kerosene and Bunker EM-Fuel we have piratically no water at all.

We use 60% fuel, 40% H20 and .03% additive.  Em-Fuel uses 40% less fuel, has a 60% reduction in emissions, and cost 25% less than the preprocessed fuel.

If any one has any questions I will gladly try to answer them.

I will answer all e-mails.  Go to the web site for my e-mail link.

Michael Siegel
President
Micro Bubble Technology Inc.
www.microbubbletech.com

goldenequity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #65 on: September 11, 2008, 04:48:31 AM »
@MrSiegel2
What a kind post you have made.  Thank you.
I will take it at face value as you have made no deception as to who you are.

I guess, first off, we wish you and your company no harm.  What you have accomplished is wonderful.
Live long and prosper!  Your company and its product will save lots of money in fuel costs to the larger
applications and companies, like marine, industrial, processing to name a few, not to mention the reductions
in emissions that are spewing from these factories and tanker ships.  We wish you much success in your
company's marketing and growth.

As you have taken the time to review the thread, you can see it is altruistic to its very core.
Our intention is to skin the same cat.... a different way and then share it with the "little" people.
They're running around this planet trying to make ends meet in an Oil driven global economy that is
crushing them.  We want to help take some weight off.

Perhaps you can relate and may indeed have the heart to wish us the same success.
In fact, It would seem to me,
to be the ONLY reason I think of, that you would disclose yourself in such an open and non-threatening way to us.

So..... welcome to the thread Mr. Siegel:)
You're more than welcome to input here.

I guess my first question to you would be..... primarily, are you a businessman, chemist or an engineer....?

goldenequity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #66 on: September 11, 2008, 05:30:35 AM »
@ all
Sorry for my temporary absence from the thread... blessings to all.
I bring GOOD tidings!

In my research, I have found another nugget! and this one is from a man
who is now 90 years old.
In 1975-1979 this man, Ferguerson, patented a surfactant combination that created a
Clear emulsion of gasoline and water that worked very well and handled up to 22% water as tested.
It was a rather flexible combination of surfactants that did the job very well.

First of all, a little history regarding fuel/water emulsions.  They actually go back at least one hundred years.... perhaps farther.
World War II was the climate that saw the U.S. Airforce developing water/kerosene aviation fuels.... not to reduce emissions or save
gas (God knows it was CHEAP back then)..... it was primarily done to "cool off" engine operating temperatures.... which it does VERY well.....TOO well for our purposes (heh heh).

Anyway.... the primary family of surfactants used were from the ethyloxalate group of nonionic surfactants.  Since then, there have been
many, many combinations JUST WITHIN THAT FAMILY..... and then, of the different derivatives.... there are HUNDREDS of formulas using different Molar combinations of the SAME chemicals.  These "formulas" are then what the surfactant companies sell as "proprietary" and proceed to give their own NAMES to.

Such things as Kampen's find called "DX50 SPS" or "T-20" is that mfr.'s molar combination of KNOWN SURFACTANTS that are of a more generic nature and available and well-known to "those in the business".

So, I think it's important for us all to understand the nature of this..... and not be intimidated by it.... or "overly" impressed by "secret" formulas.  OK?

I'll come back in a little bit and write more about Mr. Ferguerson. Stay tuned!
Cheers!  ;D

PS... also it IS important to understand, as Mr.Siegel/Micheal pointed out.... that ULTIMATELY we will not be creating an "emulsion" and the combining of immiscible liquids..... it is rather called or described by several names....

micro gas emulsions
gas emulsions
gas aphrons
wet foams

and the technologies that have been pioneering this work are marketing the product as flocculants for floatation tanks in the suspension/separation of solids for mining and ore separation, agriculture manure processing, cosmetic applications etc....
so.... let's get used to calling it and thinking of it as a "wet foam" or gas emulsion. ;D
« Last Edit: September 11, 2008, 06:00:09 AM by goldenequity »

goldenequity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #67 on: September 11, 2008, 08:48:26 AM »
Gas Emulsion and Volume Displacement

Think about this:

At atmospheric pressure:
take a balloon and fill it with 1 liter of Brown's Gas.
now take it and push it down into a bucket with 1 liter of Diesel Fuel.
You will now have displaced 1 liter of Diesel Fuel and in essence, doubled your volume in the bucket.
You would now have 2 liters of combustible fuel.

That's all we're trying to do folks.
You already know how long it takes to produce 1 liter of HHO...... not long!
We just need to make small bubbles.... and trap them!
 :)

kampen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #68 on: September 11, 2008, 05:13:30 PM »

Just curious, is the NANOMIZER commercialy availabel and what's the price for a NANOMIZER.

kampen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #69 on: September 11, 2008, 07:47:05 PM »
@Kator01

Sorry for delay in answering your request. To avoid any misunderstanding the name is
DX50 and SPS.
DX50 is a multifunctional (diesel-oil) fuel additive and the SPS is the emulsifier (active tension inhibitor) with specs as explained.
Unfortunately this mixture is NOT commercially available, yet. I received a sample ca. 10l from a friend in Germany for testing purpose. Have done tests with this mixture on cultivated algae-(diesel-fuel) running a diesel-engine generator just fine.
As far as I know DX50 is made in Germany and SPS is made by Ciba-Geigy Switzerland.

Hope this info will be of any help.

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #70 on: September 11, 2008, 09:48:58 PM »
Hi goldenequity and everyone who is now part of this important research.

I see some good information going around here and thank everyone for their participation.

Can we not consider any off the self products for this purpose? I'm no chemist that's for sure but I've worked quite a bit on car engines over the years and used degreasers. The product that keeps coming to mind is called Gunk. I don't know if this is a Canadian or American product but it work really well to dissolve grease on engines and the interesting thing was water is what worked best to rinse the grease off. The water would turn into a milky white color, much like the emulsified water fuels we are seeing.

Like I said I'm no chemist :P so if you know this is not worth the time no need to reply.

Keep up all the great work.

Luc

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #71 on: September 11, 2008, 10:13:42 PM »
Ooops, wrong thead ;D

mrsiegel2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2008, 12:36:11 AM »
goldenequity

Engineer and businessman.  I open to anyone that can help with the technology.   In fact I would like to hire a bunch of you guys.   I am quite surprised at the analysis done on the technology.  We are quite open and willing to talk.  The only thing is I will not disclose the secret sauce. Also go the the web site and review our battery.  This technology actually makes the 400 mile electric car possible. (www.microbubbletech.com look up CNT battery.)


Michael Siegel

mrsiegel2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #73 on: September 12, 2008, 12:44:26 AM »
Kampen

We sell the system. We have various sized systems.

1 - 5 MT/Day
10 MT/Day
30 MT/Day
60 MT/Day
We can go up to 250 MT/Day.

These systems at the present time are out of the price range for the average guy.  It is designed for industrial applications and maritime use.

A distributor would purchase a system and then resell into the market.  Ironically the officials of the large cities in the US are not interested in saving any money.  Presently our biggest orders are coming from areas where the price of diesel is $10 and over per gallon..

Michael Siegel
Micro Bubble Technologies Inc.

goldenequity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #74 on: September 12, 2008, 05:32:43 AM »
@ Michael Siegel

Thanks for the compliments to the members, I wish your company success and perhaps someone may want to contact you directly.

I would like to address you on something that perplexes me about the ability of your device and your process.

It's a simple math problem.

As I understand your process, and as you declared in your previous post, let's say your EM-fuel has a mix of 60% Kerosene and 40% water.
As you also declare, and the microscopy shows, you end up with only 4% liquid water within the 60% Kerosene and the REMAINING 36% water is then therefore being declared as having been converted to Hydrogen bubbles and Oxygen bubbles and trapped/isolated separately within the gas emulsion.  Right so far?

So by example, let's say at the input of your Nanomizer,
we simultaneously introduce the 2 liquids (I assume that's how it works) and we input by your ratio, 60 liters of Kerosene along with 40 liters of water.

If your device did NOT split the water into gas...... we would simply end up with 100 liters of a 60/40 blend of liquid.

But your device (except for the 4%) does create the hydrogen/oxygen gases..... so,
that means, in your end product,
we can account for 60 liters of Kerosene, and 4 liters of liquid water,
so ........the remaining 36 liters of water would therefore now have to be in the form of a gas.

We know that if you take 1 liter of liquid water and split all the H20 molecules into hydrogen and oxygen..... you will end up with approximately 1800 liters of gas as the known ratio is roughly 1800:1 (by volume under atmospheric pressure).
So,
Taking the above example, we would have to account for the 36 liters of water that would now have been converted
to (1800 X 36) 64,800 liters of combustible gas!


It doesn't matter how "small" the bubbles are..... volume is still volume and you would have created 64,800 liters of gas volume.
That 64,800 liters of gas can certainly NOT be contained within 64 liters of liquid.
UNLESS during processing, the Nanomizer fails to contain and capture ALL the gas it creates during the processing/electrolysing.
Where else could it go?

I have to use my brain here.
You are NOT converting 36 liters of water to gas in an instant with the Nanomiser and ending up with 64,800 liters of gas... no way.
I suspect you ARE however electrolysing (as we are) and introducing Brown's Gas into the mix..... maybe with 4%-6% water to introduce your surfactant (secret sauce  ::) ).....and the Nanomizer converts maybe 1-2% into gas...... and that's fine with me... it means we're on the right track!  It also means that the actual ratio of actual liquid water to liquid kerosene is probably more like 6/94 (with 2% of the water as gas)  :o

What am I missing here?  This is a friendly question btw... I really would like to be able to wrap my head around this.
Cheers!  ;D

« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 06:13:42 AM by goldenequity »