Source:
http://sovereignwarriors.ning.com/group/alternativeenergy/forum/topic/show?id=6194679%3ATopic%3A48045&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topicClaim: Free Energy - 1000 Times Overunity
Posted by Jaro on April 23, 2011 at 9:55pm in Alternative Energy
This is an interesting write-up about "atomic hydrogen welding", which is supposed to use 103 cal. to split normal hydrogen into its monoatomic state, but releases 109,000 cal. when it’s recombined back into diatomic hydrogen. That’s 1000 TIMES higher energy output than input! And the hydrogen isn’t even burned, so it can be reused. I tend to believe that, since there are many hydrogen-based devices that showed overunity, like cold fusion, electric arc under water and others.
The way it works is by simply blowing hydrogen through an electric arc, which dissociates the hydrogen into its atomic state and produces very high temperature, high enough to melt tungsten (melting point 3422 °C, 6192 °F),. Blowing the hydrogen at hot tungsten wire had similar effect,which would be easier to do. The whole article is in the linked pdf file on page 81.
I mean isn't it interesting, you don't actually burn the hydrogen, yet you get a temperature as high as one produced by oxy-acetylene torch, which uses pure oxygen?
"The atomic hydrogen reaction first came to my attention in 1964,
when I was studying industrial processes at Sam Houston State
University, in Huntsville, Texas, the year after taking an introductory
course in college physics. While reviewing various welding processes in
a textbook, my eyes fixed on an older process called "atomic hydrogen
welding". By that time, the process was already considered "obsolete".
To me, the process seemed valuable, not only because it produces such
high temperatures—above 3400° F.—enough to melt tungsten—the
highest temperatures producible by man—but is also "self-shielding",
and can be used to weld diverse metals, often without flux, with a
concentrated flame producing little heat distortion, when welding thin
metal. In the process, 'normal' diatomic H2 is shot through an electric
arc which dissociates it into "atomic" hydrogen, H1. This atomic
hydrogen recombines at the (welded) metal surface, producing the very high heat Though the process interested me then, and always has, I have never seen an atomic hydrogen welding unit for sale, for the 31 years hence.
Industry's obvious excuse for laying the valuable process aside
was that it had been 'replaced' by 'better' processes, such as Heliarc,
TIG, and MIG welding, though they rarely mention "plasma arc
welding", which has also almost disappeared from the market. Since
plasma arc welding is merely an extension of the atomic hydrogen
process, using a specially redesigned torch, the 'mysterious' reasons are
undoubtedly the same.
It also showed the gas passing at right angle through the arc. In this old
textbook, it was stated at page 170 (emphasis mine), as follows:
"Langmuir (1912) discovered that hydrogen at low pressure in contact with
a tungsten wire heated by an electric current is dissociated to some extent
into atoms:".... 'This absorbs a large amount of energy, about 100 kcal
Per gram-molecule. " "... The atomic hydrogen formed is chemically very
active. Atomic hydrogen is formed when an electric arc between tungsten
electrodes is allowed to burn in hydrogen at atmospheric pressures (Fig
106)".
The text continued:
"Atomic-hydrogen blown out of the arc by a jet of molecular hydrogen
across the arc, forms an intensely hot flame, capable of melting tungsten
(m. Pt. 3400 °). This flame obtains its heat from recombination of
hydrogen atoms to H2."
"Hydrogen being set free in a chemical reaction is often more reactive
than hydrogen gas."
confusions, in an obvious attempt to cover up the truth in between.
The older text showed the clearer construction of a device, and the
newer text showed that only 103 cal./gram mole were required for
dissociation, while the older text showed that 100,000 cal./gram mole
were liberated on recombination. Only by jumping back and forth
between the two sources was I able to put a complete documentation
together, and discover the conflicts.
It was apparent from the newer text, that the writers intended for
us to believe that the final 100 k.cal./gram molecule heat—later upped
to 109 k.cal/gram molecule—was absorbed from the arc, but the 103
cal./gram molecule dissociation heat figure showed a net 108,897
cal./gram molecule unexplained.
The manipulators of information have both lied and made the
direct comparison between atomic hydrogen and gasoline as difficult as
possible, but I have waded through a multi-step mathematical, physical,
chemical and unitary process to get to the truth. Atomic hydrogen
produces over 109 k.cal./gram molecule, which is 109,000 k.cal./kilo.
Minus the 103 cal./gram mole endothermic dissociation energy, and a net
of 108,897 k.cal./kilo is left. A kilo equals 2.205 lbs., so a pound equals
453.51 grams. You must divide the net cal./kilo by lb./kilo to get cal./lb.,
then multiply this times °F/°C (1.
to get °F/lb. This is then divided by
grams/lb. to get 196,015 BTU/lb. The gross is 196.200 btu/lb. In
comparison to 19,314 BTU/lb for n-Heptane, atomic hydrogen has 10.5
times the energy per pound (of H1 per gal. of H2O). There is an easier
mathematical process, but this shows more clearly what I did.
No wonder the process "went out of use". With this process, a home
consumer would pay nothing for fuel, because he could produce a small
amount of hydrogen in his basement, any time he needed it, and could
use it over and over, ad infinitum. He could heat his house, drive his car,
and use it for "home-industrial", uses. In a motor cruiser on the ocean,
one would never have to worry about where the "next gallon" of fuel was
coming from, or what it would "cost", because like sunshine, the heat
from atomic hydrogen is "free", except, unlike sunshine, you could
produce as much as you want, any time, day or night, summer or winter,
rain or shine; the farmer would no longer be dependent upon the oil
cartels for his energy, and could run his machinery and heat his barns
"free". He could tell the fuel suppliers and the banks to screw themselves.
People in the far Alaskan north could heat large spaces without huge
expense. "Northern industry" would thrive again. The population
control Nazis will hate me.
For example, in the newer text, at page 1311, energy from the
combustion of hydrogen was stated at 29,000 calories per gram ( 52,200
BTU/lb). In the older text, this value was given at 62,100 BTU per pound
of hydrogen, with a comparative value for gasoline ("petroleum") at
19,800 BTU per pound (stretched to 20,825 BTU per pound in the newer
encyclopedia). These figures roughly comported with those in the
encyclopedia for n-Heptane ("gasoline") at 19,314 BTU/lb, and hydrogen
at 51,571.4 BTU/lb, which are more or less repeated at page 1137, with
n-Heptane at 10,737.2 cal./gram, and Hydrogen at 28,669.6 cal./gram,
yet nowhere in the newer text was the total output from atomic hydrogen
given that I could find, and nowhere in the newer or older texts was it
affirmatively stated that the hydrogen was not "consumed" in the
process.
The corrected figure (52,200 BTU/lb) shows, in a comparison
between the combustion of "normal hydrogen" (to form H2O or water)
and gasoline (to form CO2), that hydrogen has a yield of roughly 2.7
times that of gasoline, by weight. Then we come to a comparison between
gasoline and atomic hydrogen. Though the two can be compared BTUfor-
BTU and pound-for-pound, showing atomic hydrogen's phenomenal
output, the real measure of the atomic hydrogen process is gleaned only
from a comparison between the "input energy"—103 cal./gram molecule-
~and the net output. The "input energy" would be "unity" for the
process, because the process does not 'consume' the hydrogen, but only
returns it to its associated state as H2.
The dissociation energy,
subtracted from the gross output, would be the net output:
109,000 cal/gram mole (gross heat output)
Minus - 103 cal/gram mole (dissociation energy = "Unity")
Leaves - 108,897 cal/gram mole (net output - "Over-Unity"
because the hydrogen didn't have that
much calorific energy in the first place,
and was not 'consumed' in the second place)
In the atomic hydrogen process, hydrogen is not really a "fuel", but
rather a "medium" used in the extraction of and conversion of energy
from the ether, by transforming invisible radiation and electrical energy
into infrared (heat) radiation.
Conservatively speaking, the atomic hydrogen process bears a 10.5-
to-1 ratio to n-Heptane. Would you care for 315 miles per gallon? How
about 550,000 miles? It all depends on how many times you recycle it.
Whenever hydride systems are mentioned, there is
an obvious omission of the liquid hydride system developed by Dr.
Gerald Schafflander of California, the promotion for which Schafflander
and associates were abusively prosecuted by the SEC, as previously
stated in Space Aliens. Yet, the atomic hydrogen process would be more
than adequate—even fantastic—with only a pound of hydrogen, and one
could carry an extra 25 lbs of Dr. Schafflander's liquid hydride in the
trunk. Below is a direct comparison between the BTU/lb for combustion
of gasoline and molecular hydrogen, and the atomic hydrogen process,
respectively:
Gasoline combustion (n-Heptane) 19,314 BTU/lb
Hydrogen combustion (H2 + O) 52,200 BTU/lb
Atomic hydrogen (H2<--->2H) 196,200 BTU/lb
Note that the atomic hydrogen process does not involve a
"consumption" of the hydrogen, yet even if it did, the ratio between
atomic hydrogen and gasoline is still 10.5-to-one. Take into consideration
also that all the best methods for obtaining over a hundred miles per
gallon (even hundreds of miles per gallon) of gasoline in automobile
engines, utilize the vaporization of gasoline and mixture of it with air
prior to combustion, something which is easier to do with hydrogen,
because it is in a gaseous state at normal temperatures and pressures.
Also consider that while n-Heptane is a 'purer' gasoline, it hasn't been
available for years, and most "gasoline" is a dilute mixture with water
and various additives, with only about 50% n-Heptane, so I'm being as
kind as I can be to "gasoline".
If a pound of gasoline could propel a car 30 miles, the consumption
would be 666.6 BTU/mile. On the same scale, a pound of atomic
hydrogen would yield 315 miles. Then you could repeat it, over and over
and over. A pound of hydrogen could conceivably supply all your energy
needs for your whole life, and you could produce another 100 pounds of
it electrolytically, right in your basement, from tap water! Is this free
energy, or what?!
Though the facts of this "secret" hydrogen process are "hidden in
plain sight", one must beware of the disinformation, as well as the
common mistakes created by "scientists" who have been duped by the
RQMs. For example, in the 1976 Norton Encyclopedia, 5th Edition, page
1311, most of the pertinent facts about hydrogen are shown. The
"109,000 cal./gram molecule" for recombined hydrogen, reported in an
older text, was not shown directly, though the following facts which were
shown, are of particular note:
Heat of vaporization at 20.4° K 107 cal/gram
Energy released upon combustion 29,000 cal/gram
Heat of combustion at 25°C 63,317.4 cal/gram mole - gross
Heat of combustion at 25 °C 57,791.6 cal/gram mole – net
ANOTHER ASTOUNDING PROOF AND MORE HYDROGEN
METHODS
The Norton encyclopedia was in its 5th edition, and the "103
cal./gram mole" dissociation energy did not appear to be a typo or
misprint, and should have been corrected by that time if discovered.
How many books would I have to search to find such a 'misprint',
especially since I didn't expect to find the anomaly because of the
obvious concealment? Yet, in Physical Chemistry (1965) by E. A.
Moelwyn-Hughes of Cambridge (Pergamon Press, London), at page 418,
appeared the following:
NOTICE THIS LAST LINK HAS A ATOMIC HYDROGEN PROCESS AND SYSTEM DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATED IN CHAPTER VI:
ETHER PHYSICS
Chapter VI: FREE ENERGY MASSACRE:
The Atomic Hydrogen Process
©1996, WM. R LYNE
https://www.dmt-nexus.com/doc/Ether%20Physics.pdfMeta