|
WouterFuel
|
 |
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2007, 06:27:49 PM » |
|
Aussiemark
Below is Les' reply to your question:
Sorry, this technology DOES NOT follow those “simple chemistry” rules!
This has been REPEATEDLY explained by several people, including Bob Boyce.
(I know you respect the man but I respect him probably even more since I UNDERSTAND him perfectly!)
I am surprised that you have not come across the 1% Hydroxy figure before since that too came mainly from Bob (but also some others….)
Here are some selected posts from Bob Boyce about the 1% Hydroxy figure. Please note also his comments about the much touted Faraday prediction. I am in complete agreement with his statements. It has somehow became a measure of “unity”!!!
I have no idea who started this rumor and when but I will tell you that the Faraday prediction never was, nor will it ever be a measure of “unity”!!
Quote:
“When dealing with efficiencies, keep in mind that according to Faraday predictions, it should require 2.34 W/h per L/h of hydroxy gas production. Power consumption below this could be considered above unity by many. I do not share this point of view.”
Bob (Aug 20, 2005)
“Yes, and hydrogen in its lowest energy form requires 4% H2 diluted in 96% air to achieve the same power as gasoline. Hydrogen in a high energy state can deliver the same power at just under 1% when diluted with about 99% air.”
Bob (April 26, 2006)
That looks like the published ratio for parahydrogen, the low energy state of hydrogen. The kind of hydrogen that comes from a tank and has had the excess energy bled away.
Even low pressure brute force electrolysis will typically produce hydroxy gas in which about 75% of the hydrogen exists in the orthohydrogen state, with about 2X more energy than that of parahydrogen.
Resonant reaction created monohydrogen is in an even higher energy state, with about 4X the energy of parahydrogen.
There are other states as well, such as deuterium and tritium (radioactive), but those are obtained through different processes.
Bob (May 25, 2006)
“There is much speculation on the amount of hydrogen or hydroxy gas required to run an engine. This is because not all hydrogen or hydroxy gases are equal. All of the published figures for calculating the amount of hydrogen gas it takes to run an engine are based on normal tank hydrogen, which is diatomic parahydrogen, the lowest energy form of hydrogen.
Freshly generated hydroxy from a resonance reaction contains 4 times the energy content. This is not just the hydrogen energy content, but the oxygen energy content as well. Even the hydroxy gas generated from straight DC electrolysis contains much more energy content than tank hydrogen, about twice as much.”
Bob (June 04, 2006)
“When catalysts are involved, output can be brought to above Faraday efficiency. But all in all, Faraday efficiency is pretty much worthless to use in guaging anything. After all, Faraday did his research so long ago, and what he had to work with was very limited. We have so much better to work with nowadays. People clinging to ancient rules as if they were gospel is what holds back progress.”
Bob (June 05, 2006)
“Sounds like the blind leading the blind here. Until you have experienced high efficiency electrolysis (150% to 200% or higher power efficiency), I guess you just don't want to believe it. Keep clinging to Faraday all you want and stay in the dark ages. Build what you want, how you want. It's your money.”
Bob (June 05, 2006)
“I feel that Faraday does not apply to catalytic reactions, only to electrolysis.
Now the resonance reaction, I'm not so sure what to define that as, over unity or under unity. If I was able to totally understand the mechanisms involved, then I might be able to define it one way or the other. I still use the catalyst, but some other factors appear to be at work there. Initially, I thought that it might be that the same (atomic count) amount of gas is being generated, but monoatomic instead of diatomic. But that should only double the volume for a given atomic count amount of gas production (and current draw). The measured differences were much greater than double, and at a much lowered current. The limiting factor seems to be how fast the gas can get out of the way of the electrodes when in that mode of operation. It's as if the electrolyte is literally boiling from heat, while the electrolyte temperature actually drops from what it was at prior to the resonant reaction starting.”
Bob ( July 11, 2006)
End quote.
Over the years there have been reports of people running engines with absolute MINISCULE amount of gas! For many years I have been saying that it is not the quantity but the QUALITY (high energy state) of the gas that matters!
This was further confirmed only a few weeks ago by a young fellow researcher here in Melbourne.
Another example is my friend George who ran a 2 ½ horsepower engine while only producing 3L of Hydroxy per minute, (with about 550W of power input).
He reported the gas pressure building up, meaning he had more gas than he needed to run that particular engine (at that particular speed)
According to your figures:
“Given hydrogen engines need around 6 to 7 litres per minute per hp….”, he should have needed at least 2 ½ x 6L which equals 15 litres!! (or 2 ½ x 7L, which is 17.5 litres)
So, what happened? Can any of the “scientific” types who push the ‘chemistry’, BTU’s, calorific values etc. bits, explain that??
Would you like me to explain?
Well, George has built everything according to my advice. No-one told him that he would need at least 15 litres of Hydroxy to run that engine, so……
To be blunt, Mark, you are on the wrong track!
I want to make it clear that I have NO more time to enter into further discussions/arguments about the “how much Hydroxy” and some other issues…..
I just want to get on with my work instead of arguing and playing “armchair scientist”…..
Regards
Les
|
