The aquafuel patent number is 5,435,274, according to "Infinite
Energy" Vol. 2, No. 9, 1996, which had a good article about it and a
copy of the patent.
The front cover of that issue of IE contains an impressive picture of
an arc in an aquarium bubbling up enough of the gas that it is
collected by an upside down funnel over the aquarium that appears to
be maintaining a good sized flame at the tip of the funnel.
Again, the composition of the AquaFuel:
Compound Percent
--------------- -------
Hydrogen 46.483
Carbon dioxide 9.329
Ethylene 0.049
Acetylene 0.616
Oxygen 1.164
Nitrogen 3.818
Methane 0.181
Carbon Monoxide 38.370
=======
Total 100.015
Based on a cost for carbon of $0.30 per pound, the process appears to
be favorable in cost per Million BTU's:
AquaFuel $3.58
Gasoline $10.32
Natural Gas $9.55
Electricity $25.49
It is interesting to consider the possibility the primary Rossi
"catalyst" is carbon, the secondary one water vapor. I have been
simulating various slabs of thermal storage material above and below
the Rossi "reactor" chamber, which is said to be 20x20x4 cm. This
reactor, if it exists at those dimensions, would be a box inside the
inner 30x30x30 cm box which has "wings" on top, and which is located
within the 50x60x35 cm outer box, and connected to the outside via 4
pipes. On the left front is the hydrogen feed tube. In the center
are the two wire feeds for main 220 V heating resistor power which
are carried via a single 1 1/8" pipe to the inner box. These two
pipes enter the inner box below the wide bolted flanges which hold
the inner box together. Then, most interestingly, there are two 1
1/4" pipes, each of which carry a single lead from the "frequency
generator", but which are located on *opposite sides* of the wide
flange, one above and one below. Now to describe why this is
interesting.
The 30x30x30 cm inner box with wings clearly contains a very large
mass, because what is outside that box does not come close to
accounting for the 98 kg mass of the device. Based on the thermal
decline curves, it also contains a very large thermal mass, and low
thermal pulse transmission speed, very roughly characterized in my
simulations here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph6S.png
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph5S.png
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph2S.png
These graphs were from a model with no active control, i.e in which
thermal conduction is not controlled, enhanced, by turning *off* or
reducing power to controllers, possibly located in the two 1 1/4"
pipes. With such controllers the power spikes are much larger, but
that is another subject.
The model I developed assumes the existence of two identical
symmetrical sets of slabs of material, one set above and one below,
or possibly going from side to side. The thermal cross sections I
produce, Graph6S for example, shows the cross sections of one of
these slabs at numerous elapsed times (in minutes).
The ability of any such heat retention model to accurately simulate
the 6 Oct. 2011 Rossi test always boils down to whether the Tout
thermocouple was in thermal contact with the steel nut, or whether
the loose insulation threads insulated the thermocouple from the nut,
and whether the thermocouple extended out in the air beyond the steel
nut, and in either case or both thus exposed the Tout thermocouple
primarily to the air temperature under the silicon wool insulation
blanket. See:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanTcoupleClose.jpg
Now for what I think is an interesting though wild thought. The two
separate large conduits for the "frequency generator" input could be
used to drive an arc between the hot innermost surfaces of the two
slab sets. In other words, the thin 20x20x4 Ni "reactor" could have
insulating ceramic sides. Inside the 20x20x4 cm reactor, metal top
and bottom plates could be heated to incandescence by external heater
coils. The hydrogen, Ni, H2O and carbon between the plates, once the
plates were hot enough, could be located within a high frequency arc
environment. The separate large pipes, one low, one high, would be
required to house two ceramic insulated "ports" for the "frequency
generator" leads, one to the top innermost metal plate, one to the
bottom plate on which the Ni and carbon rests.
The stored heat in the large thermal mass slabs could sustain a low
resistance arc inside the reactor for hours.
This explanation provides both pro and con arguments for free energy
generation on top of the thermally stored energy. The con argument is
that the chemical energy of the carbon and hydrogen would have to be
accounted for in the overall energy balance for the tests, just as
the oxdation of electrodes must be accounted for in some types of
cold fusion tests. The extra chemical energy makes a conventional
explanation far more feasible in the case of Rossi's results. The pro
side is the provision of a recyclable energy production method. As I
noted in prior posts, for example see:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53616.html
the energy per atom, based on Rossi's long term fuel numbers noted
therein, [i.e. 9.464x10^5 eV/(Ni atom) up to about 30 MeV/atom] is
well above that reasonably available from hydrino formation, and well
above that which is feasible from one or two gamma emissions per
atom, given that such high energy gammas (on average) at the observed
power levels would be readily observable. A recycling mechanism, or a
gamma suppressing mechanism, such as deflation fusion, are required
for any kind of sensible explanation, given Rossi's supplied numbers
quoted in the above reference. Given Rossi's reliability, however,
this kind of discussion is so highly conjectural it is probably not
worth having.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
