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 52259 times)

kremlin01

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #75 on: September 12, 2008, 12:52:20 PM »
GolenE, would' not we all like to get our head round this!
But your doing a great job so far, and your conversation with the 'Bubble-man' are much appreciated.
I have to say there is a great feeling of good things to come on this site, if you can just keep us focused.

Many thanks, Bren.

goldenequity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #76 on: September 12, 2008, 03:19:44 PM »
I suspect that what we're dealing with is a matter of semantics in the "advertising world".
Can you call Brown's gas .... water? I suppose so but it's not exactly the "truth" from an engineering standpoint. (imo).
But we do have enough information to do some backwards calculations:

If we have take the end product..... let's say 100 liters of EM-fuel gas emulsion.
They say it's 60% Kerosene...... that's 60 liters (volume) of Kerosene.
The remaining 40% of "volume" is 4% LIQUID water.... that's 4 liters Water.
that leaves 36% volume OR 36 volume liters as GAS of emulsion Foam.

Dividing that 36 liters of GAS (foam) by 1800 would reduce the approximate gas volume back to liquid water.
36/1800 = 0.02L of liquid water = 20 milliliters

So..... the Nanomizer is roughly converting 20 milliliters of every 4 liters of water to GAS.
That translates to 0.5% "electrolysed".... (not really "electrolysed" either.... more like "pulverized" by magnetic/shear separation.)

Anyway..... that's my take...... how close am I Michael?  :)

PS.... not to belittle the power of the Nanomizer either...... I'm not sure what your FLOWRATE is through the Nanomizer..... but even
fracturing 20 milliliters of water into gas takes a fair amount of TIME with standard "brute force" electrolysis..... on the scale electrolysers we use....So the Nanomiser is STILL quite a respectable device.  ;D
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 03:43:10 PM by goldenequity »

goldenequity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #77 on: September 12, 2008, 04:15:25 PM »
GolenE, would' not we all like to get our head round this!
But your doing a great job so far, and your conversation with the 'Bubble-man' are much appreciated.
I have to say there is a great feeling of good things to come on this site, if you can just keep us focused.

Many thanks, Bren.

Thanks Krem.....
actually going through all this in my head has helped alot in keeping on track towards solving the puzzle.

We now know the proper proportions to create our gas emulsion fuel.
Let's say we have a 100L (26.4 gallons) capable tank/pump backyard setup.... the average "tank" volume fillup for a Diesel truck.

Add 60L / 16 gallons of diesel to the processing tank
Mix together (*exact proportion to be determined) say .5% / 500ML / 2 cups /32 ounces of surfactant to 4L / 1Gal. Water.
We now know we want to introduce
36L of Brown's Gas to be trapped as "foam".... so,
if we have a 1L/min electrolyser..... we venturi the output for 36 minutes while we bleed the water/emulsifier mixture
into the same venturi..... and we already know to introduce that "little" amount of liquid water/surfactant rather rapidly....
because the previous patent sez that "faster is better".
We should end up with 100 L / 26.5 Gallons of our "own" EM Fuel.

We're still on track! I'm excited.  ;D

goldenequity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #78 on: September 12, 2008, 04:50:39 PM »
We can now also determine what size pump we need for this scale setup.

Our liquid that we now want to circulate is 16gal diesel plus 1gal water
for a total of 17gal of liquid.

We want to circulate that at least 20-40 times to get our bubble size and dispersion correct
according to the previous patent. So let's say 30 times.

Our electrolyser is going to be "finished" in 36 minutes.
If we want to sychronize our pump to the electrolyser....
we need to recirculate our 17 gal. 30 times in 36 minutes or 17X30= 510gal. in 36min.
510/36 = 14 GPM

That's a pretty big pump ..... but we'd be completely process our fuel in about 36 minutes.
and I think there's some flexability here.... smaller pumps would just take longer... but would probably still do the job.
So.... all that to say.... get the biggest pump you can find/afford.... open impeller of course.  :)

NOTE: This would be a good sized setup for production..... BUT we're STILL in a "proof of concept" mode..... so I
would still scale all this down in proper proportion to a "bench" top model first..... just do the math and say make a 5gal. processor,
or do what a friend of mine is working on..... use a kitchen BLENDER and adapt/input the output tube of your electrolyser down into the vortex of the liquid.... "purge" the blender of "air" first with HHO before you turn on the blender!  ;D
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 05:39:54 PM by goldenequity »

goldenequity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Surfactants
« Reply #79 on: September 14, 2008, 01:27:48 AM »
A (very) Short Course in Surfactants:
There are 2 terms used in the surfactant world...... hydrophyllic (loves water) and lipophyllic (loves oil). 

A system was developed (by the Atlas Corporation 1971) to "rate" those properties,
primarily for nonionic surfactants, that is called the HLB.... the Hydrophyllic Lipophyllic Balance.  The "normal" working scale is 0.5 - 19.5 (there are exceptions!)

ALL SURFACTANTS HAVE BOTH a water loving portion and an oil loving portion or they would not have surface activity.
That ratio is what is called its "balance" or HLB.......(is this getting boring??  :) )
The lower HLB numbers are more Lipophyllic and more oil soluble
The higher HLB numbers are Hydrophyllic and more water soluble

Experience shows a good surfactant system should have a blend of at least 2 surfactants; mixtures of a Low HLB and a High HLB
give MUCH better coverage at the interface and can offer the best economics by using the LEAST amount of total required surfactant to
provide a stable emulsion.

The hydrophyllic side is usually a polyhydric alcohol (alcohol with an OH attached) OR ethylene oxide
The lipophyllic side is usually a fatty acid or a fatty alcohol.
Very often.....Ethylene oxide can therefore be added to a variety of alcohols, amines and fatty acids
Although there are 7 major types of nonionic surfactants.... there are 2 that absolutely dominate the nonionic market (so most "formulas") will include at least one surfactant from these catagories:
ALCOHOL ETHOXYLATES
or
ALKYLPHENOL ETHOXYLATES (excellent cleaning agents for grease and oil)
Two other catagories are often selected from in choosing a 2nd or 3rd surfactant to achieve a desired result for an intended application:
FATTY AMINE OXIDES (high foaming; dishwashing liquids, cleansers and other products where high foam is acceptable)
ALKANOLAMIDES (foam stabilizing/viscosity enhancing)

*Alkanolamides are based mainly on coconut oil, the most common being Coconut Diethanolamide A.K.A. Cocamide DEA


btw.... Luc
here's a "standard" recipe for a hand cleaner:  :)   hey.... it's worth a try..... why not?

Part A:   White Spirit or Turps                            39.00%
                        Oleic Acid                         7.60%
 
               Part B: TRIETHANOLAMINE              3.60%
                       Ethoxylated Nonyl Phenol           5.00%
                        PROPYLENE GLYCOL             2.50%
                       Glycerine                                  1.00%
                        Water                  41.30%
                                                                  100.00%
 
      (Lanolin) can be added to Part A If desired.
 
         Heat Part B to 70C and add Part A with agitation.


goldenequity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Arnold Feuerman Patent
« Reply #80 on: September 14, 2008, 01:48:31 AM »
(http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/public/gaspatent2.jpg)

goldenequity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #81 on: September 14, 2008, 02:04:30 AM »
A Review of the Arnold Feuerman Patent

Here is a described recipe and formula for creating an inverted emulsion (water-in-oil). 
It surprisingly produces a “clear” (rather than a “milky”) emulsion of gasoline and water and has worked successfully for the inventor on mixes up to 22% water. 

Besides being a clear emulsion, benefits are the simplicity and ease of mixing as the compatibility of the 2 surfactant types used, provide the normally incompatible liquids, complete disbursement and total miscibility, and in addition, only fractional amounts of the 2 nonionic surfactants are required.

This single document attempts to provide the reader all the information necessary to identify and acquire the necessary chemistry to create and test the emulsion recipe and to perform tests to develop the emulsion for their own use in creating and combusting the emulsion fuels in their own automobiles for testing.  It should be tested with diesel and home heating oil and should be amenable to most if not all hydrocarbon fuels.

The 1975 United States Patent 4158551 claims the 22% water-in-gasoline fuel combusted properly with no modifications (at that time) to the test engine; and further demonstrated an increase of 25% in fuel economy.

Needed, are 2 chemicals commonly used by manufacturers and found among the ingredients listed in many common household and industry products.
They are (both) nonionic surfactants; unregulated and obtainable; and are both required for this rather flexible formula for emulsifying water and gasoline.

1.   Cocamide DEA
      **used in tests was trade name CALAMIDE C made by Pilot Chemical Company and VARAMIDE MA-1
     made by Ashland Oil.
     Generic Cocamide DEA is easy to obtain and available in 1gallon/5 gallon/55 gallon amounts.
     A quick search found an available suppliers at the following links:
     http://www.chemistrystore.com/cart.cgi?group=49899&child=49909
     http://stores.ebay.com/The-Chemistry-Connection_Surfactants-Emulsifiers_W0QQcolZ2QQdirZ1QQfsubZ7QQftidZ2QQpZ3QQtZkm
        **many "sample" sizes of various surfactant/emulsifiers here
Below Attached is a list of the various Trade Names of the various Cocamide DEA formulas on the market.

2.  An EthOxylated NonylPhenol
     There are many trade names and formula derivatives of this broad based nonionic surfactant;
     all or many may work as well as another.
     The 3 different formulas used were of the Ethoxylated alkylphenol derivative variety and all worked.
     All formulas had different Molar concentrations of Ethylene Oxide to NonyPhenol; and all variations worked.

     It should be noted only Ethoxylated alkylphenol formulas were used in the patent testing and are listed as:
      **VARONIC N30-7 and VARONIC N-6 made by Ashland Oil and IGEPAL CO210 made by GAF Corporation.
Below Attached is a list of the various Trade Names of the various EthOxylated NonylPhenol formulas on the market.

It is pointed out by this writer, that all or many of these common nonionic surfactants may work (especially of the Ethoxylated alkylphenol varieties) and that those used by the inventors were merely readily available at the time.

The following various methods demonstrate the flexibility in creating the emulsion:

1 ml. of IGEPAL CO530 and 1 ml. of CALAMIDE C were poured into 78 ml. of gasoline and then 20 ml. of tap water was added. A slight shaking of the container formed a clear emulsion.
The gasoline-water emulsion of the present invention can be readily formed by adding the surfactants to the gasoline and then introducing tap water. No prior stirring between the gasoline and surfactants is required,

1.5 ml. of IGEPAL CO210 was added to 82 ml. of gasoline in a beaker. 1.5 ml. of CALAMIDE C was added and 15 ml. of water. A gentle shaking of the beaker produced a clear emulsion of the gasoline in the water.

3.5 ml. of VARONIC N30-7 and 3.5 ml. of VARAMIDE MA-1 were mixed with 70.5 ml. of gasoline and 22.5 ml. of water.

2 ml. of VARONIC N-6 was poured into a beaker containing 88 ml. of gasoline. 10 ml. of tap water were added and emulsified into the gasoline by gently shaking the beaker.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 03:06:46 AM by goldenequity »

goldenequity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #82 on: September 14, 2008, 02:58:48 AM »
Here is a comprehensive list of Ethyloxylated NonyPhenol  and Cocamide DEA surfactants
of various trade names and molar concentrations that are in the market place and manufactured
by various chemical companies like Pilot Chemical, Ashland and many, many others...... check for samples!

Generic Cocamide DEA is easily obtained here.... they have many common soap/shampoo surfactants in sample sizes
http://stores.ebay.com/The-Chemistry-Connection_Surfactants-Emulsifiers_W0QQcolZ2QQdirZ1QQfsubZ7QQftidZ2QQpZ3QQtZkm

Obtaining EthylOxylates will most likely have to be from Chemical Companies but there's lots.
If you find a company that seems willing to sample/help with suggestions for diesel fuel.... let everybody know!!  ;D

Also.... as per Luc's suggestion regarding GOOP hand soap... emulsifier.... why not? It more than likely has an ethyloxylated nonyphenol in it... I like the cocamide DEA as well.... it's concentrated, it emulsifies and foams.... and it is relatively cheap.
Look around locally.... there are many folks into soap making as a hobby and there may be local supply for pickup & save shipping.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 03:44:54 AM by goldenequity »

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #83 on: September 14, 2008, 04:34:31 AM »
Also.... as per Luc's suggestion regarding GOOP hand soap... emulsifier.... why not? It more than likely has an ethyloxylated nonyphenol in it... I like the cocamide DEA as well.... it's concentrated, it emulsifies and foams.... and it is relatively cheap.
Look around locally.... there are many folks into soap making as a hobby and there may be local supply for pickup & save shipping.

Hi goldenequity,

thanks for all this great research, most of it is way past my ::)... but it looks great.

The product I mention is called Gunk... it's a automotive engine degrease and interestingly it looks and smell like Kerosene and turns white when you use water to remove the now mixed Gunk and oil off the engine.

Keep up the great work ;)

Luc

goldenequity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #84 on: September 14, 2008, 06:23:33 AM »
Yeah.... I know.... it's a whole nuther world... and the LAST thing I want
to do is freak anybody out about all this surfactant stuff.... we've really got
it very simple and basic up to this point and I absolutely want keep it that way.

There's only 2 ingredients needed from the patent:
Cocamide DEA (in many shampoos)
and
an EthylOxylated AlkaPhenol (I don't think it matters which one.... there are lots... it's an OH Alcohol)

Will something else "off the shelf" on "under the cabinet" work?
You never know ...... until you find out.

Remember the first patent said there were "hundreds"..... they used one of the sulfates (these are anionic surfactants).
Ever heard of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate? Sure you have.... it's on the back of your shampoo as well!  :D
Sodium Carbonate/Potassium Carbonate have surfactant qualities as well.  Castor Oil may work.
People will just have to experiment and see what works..... and report failures or successes so we can all learn together!
Cheers 2 All!  ;D

rfsimoes

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #85 on: October 05, 2008, 03:38:24 AM »
Hi guys,

Today I tried to mix water with gas and I think I came up with a reasonable emulsion.

I've poured some gas on a glass and then added 1/4 of water.
Then some drops of hair shampoo "Garnier", dish washer "Fairy".
At this point it starts to mix but it slowly separate also if let quiet.
Then I added a few drops of common 70% ethilic alcohol.

The mixture seems to stabilize long enough for a quick experiment.

At ebay.co.uk I could not find any COCAMIDE DEA and ETHOXYLATED NONYLPHENOL (IGEPAL).
We are doomed here on Europe :'(

kremlin01

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #86 on: October 09, 2008, 03:09:53 PM »
Hi anyone know where 'Goldeneqity' went?
He seemed to be getting on top of this item.

regards, Bren.

tulook

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #87 on: October 10, 2008, 08:58:23 AM »
This may be a silly idea, but has anyone tried one of those ultrasonic cool mist devices to emulsify the Brown gas-Oil medium?

lon92

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 39
    • High-Current - Lil' Genious
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #88 on: November 07, 2008, 02:36:27 PM »
Hi y'all!!
Just another silly question...  ;)

Did anybody tried emulsifying oil and water using microwave oven??  ::)

According to what I know,
microwave oven create some kinetic energy in water molecule to generate friction...  ;D
Thus, making heat...

I have no microwave oven in my house  :D , can somebody try this??

Thanks...



 

froarty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Emulsifying Brown's Gas
« Reply #89 on: December 09, 2008, 09:06:41 PM »
Let me add a piece to the puzzle because like you I see a lot of the pieces coming together. I think we are all trying to get hydrogen to form hydrinos - Only Cal Tech so far understands and patented the use of casimir cavities inside the skeletal catalyst to allow the atoms to orient and form molecules in an extremely condensed form...hence the name. Casimir plates are paralell metal plates that restrict the wavelength of larger virtual particles from occuring between the plates vs outside the plates. if the plates aren't braced the difference will push the plates together which is why DARPA is trying to find ways to avoid nano "aggregation" of metal materials. This also makes the plates difficult to self assemble except as multistep where alloys are leached out to form the cavities.... I think this also explains the force everyone is fighting in their methodology. you have to create these cavities either chemically or mechanically, stop them from self aggregating AND get the monatomic hydrogen to form covalent bonds while in this compressed orientation or it will simply "untwist" on exiting the cavity. I predict if you take a careful look at your set up you will find some form of metallic confinement on the order of casimir geometry (<2nm) - I do reccomend experimenting with skeletal cats since they automatically give you the fixed geometry and allow you to concentrate on agitating the cavity and supplying the monatomics without letting them pre mic. good luck Fran    byzipp.com/energy