Here is a revised, longer (not quite book-length <g>) but still
useful set of reference data and speculation for water-based fuel.
Others have been sending interesting additional details and the
background concepts are maturing and evolving almost daily. The
attempt is to cover all the bases, should an anomaly be proven,
but the emphasis is focused clearly on the perceived difference
between "burning" H2 + O2 as opposed to exploiting the electrical
advantages of "common-manifold," or Brown's gas (BG) capacitance.
I stress the non-combustion aspects ("exploding capacitor" or
mechanical failure) of BG, as that phenomenon may NOT be subject
to the same thermodynamic laws and restraints as combustion ...
because, of course, it is "not exactly" combustion.
Starting with the basics: one mole of hydrogen gas equals two
grams; water is 18 grams/mole. Water enriched in 18O is 20
grams/mole, argon is 40. Notice that the argon is a monatomic
molecule occupying much less space than two molecules of water
vapor with the same molar weight and may have the anomalous
property of "efficient radiation." Most of these "fringe" concepts
like efficient-radiation and IPE (induced photon emission) can be
found in some speculative detail in the vortex archives (and
nowhere else):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html
Hydrogen relative mass in a water molecule is 2x100/18=11.1%;
oxygen relative mass is 16x100/18=88.9%. This means that 111.1
grams of hydrogen and 888.9 grams of oxygen are in every 1000
grams, or every one liter of water. The computational problems
seem to arise in getting the volume of gas quantified, as H2 is
both volatile and easily compressible.
One liter of hydrogen gas at STP weighs 0.09 g; one liter of
oxygen weighs 1.47 g. One thousand liters is a cubic meter. It is
possible to produce 111.11/0.09=1234 liters of hydrogen gas and
888.89/1.47=605 liters of oxygen gas from one liter of water
liquid - and the "expansion ratio" is thus 1839-to-1 when
completely gasified as separate components. The expansion ratio
of water to steam is 1680-1, in contrast - so there is a slight
negative volumetric efficiency in burning a stoichiometric mix.
Every gram of water contains 1.23 liters of hydrogen gas and every
gram of H2 has ~3 ^23 molecules, each with 2 electrons. Each
electrons carries 1^-19 coulombs charge. 1g/hour H2 production
requires 9.6^4 coulombs or ~27Amps of charge expenditure, in
theory and when accomplished by "brute force". However, in nature
there are copious free protons in water, but the "freedom" is
dependent on the time-scale of observation. In principle, water
can be split by limiting recombination, but in magnetic fields of
up to 20T. water cannot be split this way.
Theoretically, the minimum cell voltage threshold for splitting
water is 1.23V for "slow" separation and this will actively cool
the remaining water. 1g/hour H2 requires 27*1.23=33.21 Watts, and
at this voltage input returns about 15% energy more when burned.
It is the only fully documented case of macro overunity in
mainstream physics, but at this voltage the rate of formation is
very low.
More voltage is always needed in practice - at least 20 percent
higher and usable OU is not feasible on a large scale. To get 35
kWhr electrical equivalent of hydrogen output, which is about what
is needed for a large automobile at the speed limit, you would
need 25,000 Amps of current, generating 1kg/hour of gas at
slightly less than 2 volts, if everything else is optimized. That
is a tremendous amount of current for onboard use and highlights
the "impossibility" of doing this by conventional methods. Energy
consumption for production of 1000 liters of hydrogen gas, using
advanced traditional methods is ~5+ kWh or about ~70 % efficient
in practice. When looked at from the perspective of the liquid,
~5Wh is applied to every gram of water for complete hydrogen
separation.
The volume of oxidizer is the limiting factor in a traditional
ICE burning H2, since only 14% of the volume can be used of O2 in
a stoichiometric situation based on volume of all gases at STP. At
the maximum air/fuel ratio, hydrogen is so buoyant that it will
displace 29% of the combustion chamber leaving only 71% for the
air. As a result, the energy content of this mixture will be less
than it would be if the fuel were gasoline (since gasoline is a
liquid, it only occupies a smaller volume of the combustion
chamber, and thus allows more air to enter). Of the air,
approximately 21% is oxygen, 1% is argon, and the rest is mostly
nitrogen - approximately a 4-1 ratio to oxygen.
This situation results in either the need for a larger engine for
"straight" hydrogen burning, or supercharging to get a similar
output to the same engine fueled with gasoline. But there are a
number of possible alternative, among which is the closed-cycle
using an argon carrier gas, eliminating nitrogen. This is perhaps
the best solution on paper- IF enough capacitive-fuel can be
produced in an ongoing fashion by recycling a portion of the
engine's electrical output and by starting with precharged "fuel"
(even if the precharging is done onboard in a separate subsystem.
A very demanding challenge, of course, and one which even the very
suggestion of it having been done by garage tinkerers - inflames
the mainstream science establishment, so to speak, and for good
reason.
To show how difficult this goal of self-power appears to be - on
paper, consider the hydrogen-auto situation above needing 25000
amps. This much current produces parasitic waste heat and when one
cubic meter of hydrogen is burnt efficiently only 3.5 kWh of heat
energy is released - compared to the ~5 it took to make it, and
it gets worse from there. Hydrogen ICEs do have a significantly
higher Carnot efficiency, at least 40-45% fully one third higher
than their gasoline equivalent, but that pales in comparison to
the shortfall which is presented IF there is no 'additional
source' of energy being utilized.
The additional source of energy, if it is supplied by mechanical
failure of capacitance, may relate to the Casimir force acting on
hydrogen bonds, or else to the formation of "below ground state"
hydrino, or many other hypothetical possibilities alone or in
combination - which will not be explored here, except to state
that in a situation where capacitance is added into the equation,
various synergies come into play.
The electrical charge of one mole of electrons (approximately
6×10^23, or Avogadro's number) is known as a faraday and a
capacitor has a value of one farad when one coulomb or C of stored
charge causes a potential difference of one volt across its
terminals. One faraday equals 96.5 kC (the Faraday constant). In
terms of Avogadro - one coulomb is equal to approximately 10^-5
elementary charges, so for every 16 grams of water, the maximum
theoretical charge which can be stored is surely far less than the
~96.5/3 kC, three being the minimum molecules per one volt
"idealized" capacitor, but if one-in-a-hundred water molecules
participate, and are thusly charged in the 12 hour conditioning
process, this would provide something like ~2000 Farads/g of
conditioned water fuel... whoa! In theory, because of the
Helmholtz-layer "free" charging, far less input would be needed to
get that or whatever capacitance level is actually there.
Without such a powerful "natural" boost, but with the higher
efficiency of H2 combustion, when heat is converted to
electricity, it is easy to see that no more than about 25-30% of
the electricity needed to self-power an ICE and propel it at speed
can possibly be available from 'in situ' electric generation,
using the best traditional method - which is high current, low
voltage electrolysis. But yet there are at least 150 anecdotal,
eye-witness claims for self-powered vehicles using only water-fuel
(on the internet) going back 30 years. What is going on (assuming
that coordinated mass fraud, or mass-delusion is not taking
place)? Since the goal is not just self-power, but enough
"overage" to use the engine for transportation, it is possible (or
at least is worthy of further investigation) that a COP of about
6-8 has been achieved - on "occasion" in some of these reports.
Impossible ? perhaps, but is it coincidental that a water
"ultracapacitor" composed initially of 3 molecules of water,
rearranged by long exposure to an electric field and Helmholtz
electrodes, such that it takes the form of one hydronium attached
to one hydronium hydrate ion may have an unusually high
annihilation energy - which is the full 13.6 eV IP of hydrogen is
derived in optimum circumstances of a high compression engine.
Since acquiring the ~one +/- capacitance for these paired ions
(in the preconditioning phase) is likely to be about 60%
efficient, then that energy difference (capacitance P-in to heat
P-out) can account for the full COP of 6-8, in theory. Or
expressed another way, the enthalpy value would be 285.8 kJ/mole
for H2 and sits in stark contrast to strength of the "first" or
the H-OH hydrogen bond which is only 40 kJ/mole and can be
essentially "free". BTW the "second H-bond" in water is much
stronger and is generally assumed to be covalent.
In the case of hydrogen bonding in water, the thermodynamics
issues are distinctly different from covalent bonding. The natural
molecular movements in water involve the constant breaking and
reorganization of individual hydrogen bonds on a picosecond
timescale, and the process must necessarily be nearly lossless,
due to the enormous "transaction volume." One report in a
respected physic journal:
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/648.html
indicates that the formula for water, on this picosecond time
scale, is more like H1.5-O than H2-O (however that finding is in
dispute, as is the contradictory experiment, so the jury is still
out on the details)
But the bottom line is that to utilize the "free proton" as an
intrinsic OU feature of water-reality, which is certainly a
Casimir effect, we do not have to break the hydrogen bond of
water - so much as to limit recombination following natural
breakage ! AHA - now we are getting a picture of why the Meyer
electrostatic situation might work - it is not breaking the bond,
as does traditional electrolysis by brute force, but is *limiting
recombination.* The Helmholtz optimized cell may do this in a
slower, more robust and more elegant fashion
Let's backtrack first to the issue of theoretical thermodynamic
efficiency of an ICE: which is based on the compression ratio of
the engine, and the specific-heat ratio of the fuel and the Carnot
"spread" and the compressibility of the gas. The compression ratio
limit of an engine is based on the fuel's resistance to "knock" or
preignition. A lean hydrogen mixture is less susceptible to knock
than gasoline or even diesel - and therefore the fuel can tolerate
higher compression ratios. The specific-heat ratio is related to
the fuel's molecular structure. The less complex the molecular
structure, the higher the specific-heat ratio. Hydrogen = 1.4 has
a simpler molecular structure than gasoline and therefore its
specific-heat ratio is higher than that of conventional gasoline =
1.1. However, either of these, burned in a more efficient
oxidizer, like peroxides or super-oxidated mixed gases, can
increase the effective specific heat.
Hydrogen-fueled compression ignition engines are sparsely
mentioned in the technical literature because the auto-ignition
temperature is too high. For diesel fuel it is only 251C but the
auto-ignition temperature of hydrogen, surprisingly, is 585C and
therefore needs assistance, usually in the form of a spark plug.
This is another reason for its superb efficiency - in that despite
the very high flame speed, preignition and knock is not an
insurmountable problem, even at extremely high compression ratios
and very lean mixes. Plus steam has far superior compressibility
numbers than CO2.
Any fuel is hazardous and needs due care, but hydrogen's hazards
are different and generally tractable. It's extremely buoyant,
14.4 times lighter than air and 12 times more volatile than
gasoline, so leaking hydrogen rapidly disperses up and away from
its source. When ignited, hydrogen burns rapidly with a
nonluminous flame that doesn't readily scorch at a distance,
emitting only one-tenth the radiant heat (UV) of a hydrocarbon
fire and burning 7% cooler than gasoline. The sensory perception
is of an "implosion" due to flame speed and fast cooling of the
steam. More energy is shed in the UV - part of its combustion
efficiency.
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe with the
highest energy content per unit of weight- 52,000 British Thermal
Units (Btu) per pound (or 120.7 kilojoules per gram). When burned
with oxygen, the only by-products are heat and water. When burned
with air, some oxides of nitrogen (or NOx) are formed. Specific
heat of water: 1 calorie/degree temperature rise (very high - can
absorb a good deal of heat but maintain temperature (1 calorie =
4.184 joules). Latent heat of vaporization is high 2.452 k J (586
cal) - helps cooling of engine by vaporization. Water has low
viscosity because hydrogen bonds constantly make-and-break on a
picosecond scale. Cohesion: water molecules attract each other
(hydrogen bonds) causes surface tension; a column of water can be
pulled from above like a rope (a column of water has 1/4th the
tensile strength of a copper wire of similar diameter). Adhesion:
because it is polar, water can attract molecules of other polar
substances. Water as a solvent dissolves polar substances, ionizes
covalent compounds because of its extraordinarily high dielectric
constant when pure (dielectric constant = capacity to neutralize
attraction between charges). Ionization of water: water
dissociates naturally into H+ and OH- ions. The pH of water is
considered to be neutral pH = 7, meaning that H+ ion concentration
= 10^-7 moles/l and OH- ion concentration is also 10^-7 moles/l .
When CO2 is dissolved pH of water can be as low as 4. In a perfect
capacitance situation, the pH of charged water should remain near
7. If it is high or lower, it will be less potent.
In common manifold electrolysis (Brown's gas) there are three gas
streams merging into one - an anode gas (mostly O2), a cathode gas
(most H2) and a neutral-plate mixed gas (mixed peroxides). In
this situation, the anode and cathode are energy-conservative,
like traditional methods, but the (excess) energy, if there is
any, derives from the neutral-plate component - the mixed
peroxides, hydronium and superoxides, which may be bound ions in a
capacitance arrangement, and are subject to speedy recombination.
Visually, it can be seen that this neutral plate gas is most of
the output of a such a cell- but very few systems use it quickly
enough - and the capacitance is allowed to neutralize without the
benefit of the explosiveness which is possible. This probably
demands a high compression engine situation to optimize.
The next step in the evolution towards a reliable water-fuel
system might well involve using the best feature of all of the
prior art - the Meyer capacitance cell, the Brown's gas neutral
plate design, enhanced to benefit from maximum Helmholtz
capacitance AND the Joe-cell-variant contribution - which is the
water pretreatment regime.
It rests on logic alone to envision that if enough energy is
available from electrolyzing water into a capacitance fuel (as
opposed to splitting water), then the best implementation will be
closed cycle. There will be no need for air and the NOx pollutant.
Instead an argon carrier gas will be used. It also goes on logic
alone that if such an engine is possible - it will never be turned
off, once started, except for repair. It will be comparatively
tiny and sized to recharge onboard hybrid batteries and/or power
the owner's home at night (unless he has two of them). It can be
either home-based or transportable, or both depending on the
owners needs and resources. It will be made of exotic ceramics,
possibly a Wankel design and it will run 24/7!
There have been some alarmist warnings - as to what will happen if
massive amounts of ZPE are converted into useful energy in
3-space. Will gravity be somehow affected, etc. Let's delay that
huge issue until it can be shown in rock-solid demonstrations that
it is even possible. All we have now is anecdote. Even after
investing a few hours of time on this document, I must admit that
it is extremely unlikely, but even if the chance of it being
correct is miniscule - the payoff is so important to society that
almost any sacrifice is worth it.
The next few months could be a promising time frame for the
maturation of this grass-roots technology, and it is just too bad
(for many of us) that most of the action appears to be overseas
nowadays .... and even worse, that so much disinformation is
getting mixed into the lore of the WasserCar. To be expected
perhaps for a subject first explored by none other than Jules
Verne - and the subject of a David Mamet play. I hope that this
effort does not add more of it ....
... and speaking of 'play' it's now time to get 'discharged' from
all this speculative verbiage, and go 'let off a little steam' ...
Jones
