Claimed COP = 1.75 Anyone see the main problem with that claim ?
http://www.blazelabs.com/n-aquagen.asp
... other than that the original idea- of Santilli, and those already in
the crowded field of aquafuel (13,000+ hits on google) are variations
and not the same technique in every case. Here is the major player:
http://www.santillimagnegas.com/
... which technology suffers from the tactics of its inventor, and the
closeness of his patent to the many of prior art:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/09/Hillsborough/Snubbed_by_mainstream.shtml
But as for the OU claim itself:
Sure, lets make it clear than any such setup will consume the carbon
electrodes, so the net energy balance must include the carbon as a major
input - BUT - as in the case of the Blaze experiment above, the result
is --far-- different than the normal and well-know "water gas shift"
reaction, which is not OU (~80% efficient).
The water gas shift reaction is an inorganic chemical reaction in which
water and carbon monoxide, usually obtained by pyrolyzing or
electrolyzing carbon (coal) or biomass, then reacts to form carbon
dioxide and hydrogen (a form of water-splitting, using C as the consumable)
CO + H2O --> CO2 + H2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_gas_shift_reaction
There was a time historically, before large methane deposits were found,
when this gas was known as "town gas" but it was dangerous due to carbon
monoxide poisoning, in some cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_gas
Here, in the Blaze experiment, in the process of consuming the
electrodes, this device operates in OU conditions, according to Xavier.
If such a system were adapted for automotive, it might be possible to
mass-produce the electrodes from cleaned and compressed coal dust, which
electrodes, stored like a quiver of arrows, are automatically fed as
needed (such as is done above).
Instead of filling-up with gallons of petroleum, you would fill-up with
arrows of compressed coaldust. Back to the future.
Jones
