Atomic hydrogen furnace with COP of 21

[SilverToGold]

I agree, people need to be careful when working with this stuff. With this much energy, it's not hard to imagine something very dangerous could happen.

I don't know what Langmuir knew or anyone else, all I can say with certainty is we have to do it for ourselves and see what really happens.

I would be very interesting to see exactly what type of radiation comes out from this process!

[SilverToGold]

I do believe heat is one of the byproducts of the hydrogen atomic process if you look at the reference materials given by Lyne.

Lyne is the man who LEAKED the so called Cold Fusion process to Pons and Fleishmann so called "discovery". He leaked them a substandard process that involved expensive platinum cathodes and a less than optimal process than the one he knew about. They took the bait.

He found in the Langmuir reference that lead amalgam is the far superior cathode and that is the reason he suggest using it.

I recommend reading his books, they are gold and very interesting to boot.

[gravityblock]

Molecular hydrogen to Atomic hydrogen

Here's a quick summary of the quotes below found in a publication titled, "Hydrogen-induced disintegration of fullerenes and nanotubes". Molecular hydrogen will dissociate with a net gain in energy on fullerenes. The dissociated hydrogen pair or atomic hydrogen then bond on top of the adjacent carbon atoms to the fullerenes cage. This atomic hydrogen bonding to the fullerenes cage releases stress which allows the bonds of the carbon atoms to be broken abruptly with another net gain in energy. The energy barrier to propagate the fracture decreases at successive steps. The energy released following the initial step, may activate the zipperlike cleavage at the crease without further energy investment (run-away effect or chain reaction).

Molecular hydrogen does not dissociate on planar graphene, but does so with an energy gain on fullerenes, with the dissociated hydrogen pair preferentially binding on top of adjacent carbon atoms.

We found that the energy needed to break one bond is larger than the energy to break two adjacent bonds, shown in a dark color in the left panel of Fig. 2(c). Continuing this concerted bond breaking mechanism should cleave the edge, causing the structure to disintegrate

Consequently, the calculated transition paths for the disintegration of hydrogenated fullerenes and nanotubes represent the optimum cleavage path in unconstrained systems. Following an initial energy investment of 1.7 eV, the bonds break abruptly, leading to the final structure depicted in the right panel of Fig. 2(c). There is a net energy gain of ~2 eV associated with the bond breaking, caused by releasing the accumulated stress.

Our results indicate that the energy barrier to propagate the fracture decreases at successive steps. As a matter of fact, it may be reasonable to assume that the energy released following the initial step may activate the zipperlike cleavage at the crease without further energy investment. Once cleavage is initiated, the unzipping process transforms the stressed crease into two overlapping graphene edges in an exothermic reaction.

Staffman at the other forum, found a patent on isolating fullerenes. It says the fullerenes in soot, contained in a quartz vessel, can be evaporated by microwaves in seconds. The fullerenes gas, brown stuff, then condenses on the walls of the vessel.

A small particle of carboxy fullerene is placed on top of heat sensitive explosive. Irradiation with a 785 nm laser (1W) results in an instantaneous explosion. In the absence of carboxy fullerenes, the laser with output power of (5W), failed to ignite the explosives.

GB

[Ordo_Ab_Chao]

@Gravityblock
Your quotes are interesting, but why do you post them with little to no explanation as to why you posted them?
That's great, they found that "bucky balls" can split molecular hydrogen into atomic.....then the single atoms bind to adjacent "bucky balls", snapping the structure apart, which releases "more energy". Also, a 1watt laser can snap the structure, creating a detonation of "explosives"...where a 5w laser alone could not.
It sounds to me as if, they found good ways to create cascading pressure waves through the destruction of fullerene (aka "bucky balls" and nano tubes). This is cool, but isn't really consequential here...it can be a catalys, but the product we need binds with carbon. Maybe resulting carbon hydride may be useful? Idk, was that your point? If it is, you should look how tight those bonds are...(i personally don't know)


@All
Lyne is pretty smart, and has some very "choice" tid-bits, but I would take it with a bit of skeptisism. His Tesla research is pretty good, but his whole theory is based on a fallacy...a tesla coil tuned to any harmonic wave lengths (1/4, etc) will not produce DC, just won't. What will happen, is you will get the strongest induced AC waves because the nodes will match nicely. This isn't to say Tesla didn't produce DC coils, he had some inventive ways, one method was wraping the out put on iron bars that completed the magnetic circuit of a horseshoe magnet. Also precise timing of spark gaps on a synchronous motor...
Anyway, Lyne suggested atomic hydrogen was the mechanism at play in "cold fusion" not that he leaked it...also Langmuir tried to say the extra energy flowed from the arc to the metal surface, this explanation wasn't accepted, and now only a few special markets use atomic hydrogen welding, one being military applications...hmmm, despite it being THE best welding method...hmmm

[SilverToGold]

@All
Lyne is pretty smart, and has some very "choice" tid-bits, but I would take it with a bit of skeptisism. His Tesla research is pretty good, but his whole theory is based on a fallacy...a tesla coil tuned to any harmonic wave lengths (1/4, etc) will not produce DC, just won't. What will happen, is you will get the strongest induced AC waves because the nodes will match nicely. This isn't to say Tesla didn't produce DC coils, he had some inventive ways, one method was wraping the out put on iron bars that completed the magnetic circuit of a horseshoe magnet. Also precise timing of spark gaps on a synchronous motor...
Anyway, Lyne suggested atomic hydrogen was the mechanism at play in "cold fusion" not that he leaked it...also Langmuir tried to say the extra energy flowed from the arc to the metal surface, this explanation wasn't accepted, and now only a few special markets use atomic hydrogen welding, one being military applications...hmmm, despite it being THE best welding method...hmmm

I wouldn't take what he says with a grain of salt. He obviously does not know everything and some things he says may not be totally accurate but like any source, you have to do it YOURSELF to really find out. Don't follow anyone like what they say as gospel. But unlike 99% of people, Lyne is an originator and he provides sources for most of his reasoning.

As far as the "DC" Tesla coil, I believe what Lyne was saying is that the output if properly tuned, will be predominantly one polarity over an other. Youv'e got a damped sine wave under an exponential envelope, that things DOES NOT sum up to zero usually! So there is a "net" activity of one charge over the other per spark discharge.

If you cycle a Tesla coil through different frequencies, you'll notice that characteristic of the spark changes. The different characteristics of the output is in part related to the overall charge buildup of the coil. Lyne's DC is not DC in the strict sense, it's more of one charge over the other.

Lyne conducted the original "Cold Fusion" process in 1980 (Pons and Fleishmann "discovered" it in 1988), he leaked a VERY INEFFICIENT process along with misinformation about it to someone he suspected was spying on him to watch the thieves "choked on their own snot". Go read Pentagon Aliens 3rd Edition, p 237 : he very clearly outlined what he did and why he leaked it.

[mikrovolt]

[QUOTE=Savvypro;132927]I'm posting this in response to the misconceptions that have been brought up in the recent posts, that have already been covered in this thread and have been stated by a couple of people...

What you want to talk about is William R Lyne and his atomic furnace.
As part of the process of finding out what he did is reviewing evidence
just like he did by reviewing the atomic torch. This is not misconception.
You want people to accept Lynes view point but I don't have tangible proof that pure hydrogen is better than oxy-hydrogen. What Lyne said that it was not necessary. He goes on that it comes from radiant space.
and he wrote a book.

The chief opponents to hydrogen technology say that it is not cost effective to use hydrogen and they always point to the expensive ways that the Big Labratories methods, they have prevented the technology from suceeding.

Moller showed what he was talking about, Lyne who wants to get his credit
goes on about how Moller stole his idea. Who can you believe ?
The lobbyist who were schooled in the arts but became traders.
I trust what I see not book writers. This has been painful.

So to move in a meaninful direction with Lyne were is his invention and data ?

[gravityblock]

@Gravityblock
Your quotes are interesting, but why do you post them with little to no explanation as to why you posted them?
That's great, they found that "bucky balls" can split molecular hydrogen into atomic.....then the single atoms bind to adjacent "bucky balls", snapping the structure apart, which releases "more energy". Also, a 1watt laser can snap the structure, creating a detonation of "explosives"...where a 5w laser alone could not.
It sounds to me as if, they found good ways to create cascading pressure waves through the destruction of fullerene (aka "bucky balls" and nano tubes). This is cool, but isn't really consequential here...it can be a catalys, but the product we need binds with carbon. Maybe resulting carbon hydride may be useful? Idk, was that your point? If it is, you should look how tight those bonds are...(i personally don't know)

Carbon plasmas or electric arcs form fullerenes. Some of the methods mentioned in this thread are forming small amounts of fullerenes during the process, which I suspect is responsible for most of the energy gains seen. If you want a controlled reaction, then the fullerenes may be the way to go.

GB

[gravityblock]

The below quote was accidently left out of my original post on the fullerenes publication. Hydrogenation is used in Cold fusion or LENR's to activate the material. The hydrogenation process of the fullerenes may be the reason for the LENR's, especially since the LENR's occur on the surface of the materials and not in the bulk. Sometimes the material will never activate in LENR's experiments, even though other batches of the same material will activate. The batches which do activate, may be due to having small amounts of fullerenes, while the batches that do not active may not have any trace amounts of fullerenes. They have found that etching the materials will achieve a higher success rate for activation. The etching process itself can form fullerenes. After the molecular hydrogen is dissociated into atomic hydrogen with an energy gain on fullerenes, then the atomic hydrogen adsorbs or bonds to the cage of the carbon fullerenes to release stress. This releasing of stress allows the carbon bonds to be abruptly broken with another energy gain. Kill many birds with one stone, so to speak.

GB

Calculations at higher coverages suggest that after the first two atoms are adsorbed, additional hydrogens should preferentially adsorb along straight lines on the substrate. We believe that formation of this energetically preferred adsorption pattern can be achieved by surface diffusion of hydrogen atoms at temperatures found during many hydrogenation reactions since the activation barrier for sigmatropic rearrangement of chemisorbed hydrogen atoms is only ~1 eV. Even though there are no preferential adsorption sites on a carbon nanotube, atomic hydrogen is believed to adsorb preferentially along lines parallel to the axis of the outermost tube to release stress.

[SilverToGold]

Moller showed what he was talking about, Lyne who wants to get his credit
goes on about how Moller stole his idea. Who can you believe ?
The lobbyist who were schooled in the arts but became traders.
I trust what I see not book writers. This has been painful.

So to move in a meaninful direction with Lyne were is his invention and data ?

You need to do more research before you make such off handed comments. Moller ADMITS he STOLE the idea from Lyne after he was busted for stealing it originally and trying to call it his own. So many people have stolen from Lyne and called it their own, it's disgusting. It's insulting to insinuate Lyne is bogus when he has done nothing but given to society.

The fact that Lyne does not give more information is because he has been mistreated, robbed, has had numerous murder attempts made by so called "friends" of his, lost an unborn child in one murder attempt when his car was fired upon with his pregnant wife in the car and has got nothing but disrespect from this so called "free energy" community which is filled with a lot of spooks and mis-informants. He's rightfully bitter and would rather do his own thing and who can blame him. Society is a bunch of sociopathic vipers.

Please do your research before you question a man's life work and character.

Free Energy from Atomic Hydrogen by Nicholas Moller

[Savvypro]

@mikrovolt
If you read my post you'll see what I mean, and I explain the misconceptions.

But I'll answer your points here...

I'm posting this in response to the misconceptions that have been brought up in the recent posts, that have already been covered in this thread and have been stated by a couple of people...

What you want to talk about is William R Lyne and his Atomic furnace.

Not exactly correct as I cover the JLN experiments on the Moller design, the title of this thread is also in reference to the experiments.

As part of the process of finding out what he did is reviewing evidence
just like he did by reviewing the Atomic torch. This is not misconception.

I never said that was a misconception, my post clearly points out the misconceptions I was referring to - that this is not Browns gas and that no Oxygen is involved.

If it were, there would be no need for this thread, as there are other threads on Browns gas and HHO.

I started this thread to discuss the energy aspects of the Atomic Hydrogen process. The torch was brought in because it was relevant. But along the way, the misconception that this was Browns gas or HHO crept in, you can clearly see from the posts made in this thread, before the thread went cold for over a year and before you joined the discussion.

You want people to accept Lynes view point but I don't have tangible proof that pure Hydrogen is better than oxy-Hydrogen. What Lyne said that it was not necessary. He goes on that it comes from radiant space.
and he wrote a book.

If you go through this thread, you'll see that I never once say that Lyne is the man and no one else should be taken into account. Lyne (in the book which details the Hydrogen furnace) covers a process on how to fill the "furnace" so as to ensue that there is little to no Oxygen in there with the Hydrogen. Becuase: Oxygen + Hydrogen + container = bomb waiting to go off...

The chief opponents to Hydrogen technology say that it is not cost effective to use Hydrogen and they always point to the expensive ways that the Big Labratories methods, they have prevented the technology from suceeding.

I couldn't care less what the "chief opponents to Hydrogen technology say". All I'm concerned with, is the fact that the Atomic Hydrogen process exhibits a phenomena that is worth investigating. Even just based on the figures that Irving Langmuirs states - i.e.: the input amount and the resulting output amount. That's still over 1,000 time a difference from input to output.

Moller showed what he was talking about, Lyne who wants to get his credit
goes on about how Moller stole his idea. Who can you believe ?

Technically neither of them came up with the idea, as Lyne published a book covering Langmuirs discovery, which may have been turned into an energy generator for some black project. Lyne was the first to publish the potential use for Atomic Hydrogen as an energy source, with a furnace design of his own. Moller states that he got the idea from Lyne’s book.

The lobbyist who were schooled in the arts but became traders.
I trust what I see not book writers. This has been painful.

So to move in a meaninful direction with Lyne were is his invention and data ?

In his books... (see previous answer to make sense of this one).

[mikrovolt]

Well I have been scolded.

The Term "Atomic" has given a stigma to hydrogen research,
Historically it is what people used to refer things such as the A-bomb
It cast a dark shadow. It causes me to become frustrated.
Or the term "XRAYS" but to what degree. Just a word but Not very quanitative .

That government has refrained from disclosing truth about hydrogen
this omission of correct information helped to delay what we believe
is a clean energy. Later opponents will call dirty to scare the masses,
causing delay the alternative technology.

If you research printed publications you will find that nuclear power plants were sold to the public as
safe and you will find alot of press but little press on safe hydrogen.

It is this term "Atomic" that can cause a thread to be delayed.
Edison killed an elephant and effectively delayed useful alternative energy technologies.

If I might refer back to victims of ringworm irridiation that it may have a parallel.
Instead of the electrocution of an innocent elephant it was a a population treated with xrays
and I believe there were some who knew better but were either affraid to talk
or the use of the mass media to discredit their opinions. And who promoted this medical
procedure. The net result of this crime was to
insure future profits on energy resources by creating a an aweful horror
image. It and many other grotesque images associated with "Atomic"
effectively slowed and even stopped the safe hydrogen technology to this date.

I began research in hydrogen in 1964 I never liked to use the term Atomic.
For those who remember this man who once stood on his hydride tank
while bullets were fired at the tank. to try to dispel the "bomb" image
see what he did in 1966 to this date. What about nitric oxide? what happens to hydrocarbons.
Roger.Billings.info

[Savvypro]

Well I have been scolded.

The Term "Atomic" has given a stigma to hydrogen research,
Historically it is what people used to refer things such as the A-bomb
It cast a dark shadow. It causes me to become frustrated.
Or the term "XRAYS" but to what degree. Just a word but Not very quanitative .

That government has refrained from disclosing truth about hydrogen
this omission of correct information helped to delay what we believe
is a clean energy. Later opponents will call dirty to scare the masses,
causing delay the alternative technology.

If you research printed publications you will find that nuclear power plants were sold to the public as
safe and you will find alot of press but little press on safe hydrogen.

It is this term "Atomic" that can cause a thread to be delayed.
Edison killed an elephant and effectively delayed useful alternative energy technologies.

If I might refer back to victims of ringworm irridiation that it may have a parallel.
Instead of the electrocution of an innocent elephant it was a a population treated with xrays
and I believe there were some who knew better but were either affraid to talk
or the use of the mass media to discredit their opinions. And who promoted this medical
procedure. The net result of this crime was to
insure future profits on energy resources by creating a an aweful horror
image. It and many other grotesque images associated with "Atomic"
effectively slowed and even stopped the safe hydrogen technology to this date.

I began research in hydrogen in 1964 I never liked to use the term Atomic.
For those who remember this man who once stood on his hydride tank
while bullets were fired at the tank. to try to dispel the "bomb" image
see what he did in 1966 to this date. What about nitric oxide? what happens to hydrocarbons.
Roger.Billings.info

My post was not to scold, nor was it my intention.

Your take on the reason why hydrogen was kept back is new to me. I personally believe it was the Hindenburg disaster that did the most damage, then you have the subsequent congressional investigation which laid the blame solely on Hydrogen. Instead of the fact that the canvas coverings of the Hindergberg were coated with rocket fuel, which meant that it was just a matter of time before the Hindergberg went up in flames.

Edison’s killing of the Elephant was to try to convince people that AC was dangerous and that DC was the only safe way to go. His stunt just strikes me as Edison trying to do a P. T. Barnum style stunt - but failing miserably.

On your last bit about: "What about nitric oxide? what happens to hydrocarbons."

The same reduction happens when you burn alcohol in a jet engine. David Blume in one of his videos talks about it when they tested alcohol on a jet engine - so it's not just limited to hydrogen.

The way hydrogen is promoted just reeks of replacing one centrally controlled and manipulated energy system for another one. It hasn't taken place yet because the generation of hydrogen can not be controlled as easily as oil wells and refineries. Electric cars just keep the current incumbent system in place.

All the main stream alternatives to oil that are pushed are just jokes, especially the way they are promoted - always being centralised. Not one alternative involves a decentralised alternative (except David Blume's one - but the msm aren't pushing his alternative). And their all stated as being 20 to 30 years away from being viable. Anyone starting to see the joke now

[mikrovolt]

To Savvypro,
No you never scolded me, you have been a fine host
helping were you can. I have no hard feeling to silvertogold I just acknowledge the previous post, sorry about lyne.

My last comment is what happened to the hydrocarbons ?
simply vanish ?

So in this picture:

http://www.energeticforum.com/attachments/renewable-energy/7814d1299171016-atomic-hydrogen-furnace-cop-21-lahf.jpg

Here is this furnace running on nascent hydrogen, H2 circulates as a closed loop. The H2 goes through an arc and enters a chamber at 3500K where a heat exchanger fluid transfers the heat to an appropriate application. The H2 recombines and is pumped back into the hydrogen storage tank. This is used as a simplified model.

The Muller device uses a sputtering plasma instead of the tungsten arc
so we can only conclude from what Naudin says: output approx 200% COP >17 , watts in 5.22, watts out 88.83

[Savvypro]

To Savvypro,
No you never scolded me, you have been a fine host
helping were you can. I have no hard feeling to silvertogold I just acknowledge the previous post, sorry about lyne.

My last comment is what happened to the hydrocarbons ?
simply vanish ?

No hydrocarbons involved, the chamber should only have hydrogen.

So in this picture:

http://www.energeticforum.com/attachments/renewable-energy/7814d1299171016-atomic-hydrogen-furnace-cop-21-lahf.jpg

Here is this furnace running on nascent hydrogen, H2 circulates as a closed loop. The H2 goes through an arc and enters a chamber at 3500K where a heat exchanger fluid transfers the heat to an appropriate application. The H2 recombines and is pumped back into the hydrogen storage tank. This is used as a simplified model.

In that image: the H2 is split in to 2H in the lower chamber, in the bigger chamber it is combined via an arc back into H2 resulting in heat being given off. The 3500K is how high the temp can get in the chamber if the energy given off isn’t removed.

The Muller device uses a sputtering plasma instead of the tungsten arc
so we can only conclude from what Naudin says: output approx 200% COP >17 , watts in 5.22, watts out 88.83

There are actually a couple of things that we can conclude. The theory has been experimentally proven by an independent researcher. We just need more replications to ensure it's not a fluke - I’m not saying this to cast doubt, just the opposite. The more replications the better, as more replications means more knowledge and proof is gained that this process works and is safe or not.

The basic phenomena is a gain of over 1000 time from input to output.

We may not be able to actually capture 100% of the full energy that is given off, by the process - but 20+ time is still noting nothing to sneeze at. Just build more furnaces, pay just to power one and all the others are powered for free. Simples

Also there is a very large room for improvement in terms of extracting as much of the out put as possible.

On a different note, this may actually be the process that powers the sun - has anyone ever ever thought of that?

[SilverToGold]

To Savvypro,
No you never scolded me, you have been a fine host
helping were you can. I have no hard feeling to silvertogold I just acknowledge the previous post, sorry about lyne.

My last comment is what happened to the hydrocarbons ?
simply vanish ?

So in this picture:

http://www.energeticforum.com/attachments/renewable-energy/7814d1299171016-atomic-hydrogen-furnace-cop-21-lahf.jpg

Here is this furnace running on nascent hydrogen, H2 circulates as a closed loop. The H2 goes through an arc and enters a chamber at 3500K where a heat exchanger fluid transfers the heat to an appropriate application. The H2 recombines and is pumped back into the hydrogen storage tank. This is used as a simplified model.

The Muller device uses a sputtering plasma instead of the tungsten arc
so we can only conclude from what Naudin says: output approx 200% COP >17 , watts in 5.22, watts out 88.83

Hey mikrovolt, didn't mean to come off harsh on you, I just have a soft spot in my heart for Lyne's work and it's sad to see him not get more attention when he has done so much and but few really study him (and even more rip him off.) He didn't come up with the hydrogen torch but he did show it was an overunity process! And he did leak out the so called "Cold Fusion" process to those guys in Utah. The man deserves some respect is all I'm getting at.

And if you look further, you don't need hydrogen. You could use He, Argon or any inert gas and get far better results than hydrogen. Look into Nobel gases, the Papp engine, or even the atmospheric air as Lyne points out.