THOR
Below you will find the live open document spearheaded by Nykyta Vovk for the replication attempt of Malcolm Bendall's "Thunderstorm" device.
Any comments are welcome, it looks like a promising technology which may provide part of the answer to CO2 and other emissions. Bob Greenyer is helping with analysis of samples from reactors and understanding the process and potential means of optimisation.
Schematics for "dualling vortex tube"
Comments
In any case, have you turned off the electrical spark/light and observed the oxygen concentration? The spark will produce ozone and NOx, which will aid in combustion. However, unless it is very intense, these additions will be minimal. If it were intense, the CO2 emitted from the electricity generation at a power station would outweigh any environmental impact on the generator.
As to CO, there are cheap electrical devices available for its measurement. See Digikey for examples. You can run them trivially with an Adrinio. A GC requires a PLOT column, which cost ~$1K and a TCD detector. You can run it on argon, but He is preferred (and very costly now) - we pay $350/cylinder and that is wholesale.
In any case, the data is not all there to get very excited as it is not clear what problem is being addressed.
Thankyou
Quoting Robert Greenyer:
I predicted if it was indeed these things, then this would have caused the production of the signature iron rich crenellated microspheres. Theses were then subsequently found on the inside of the large previously run TSG.
This was our focus, the not obvious or well known and that which we are possibly uniquely capable of predicting which turned out to be true. That being said, we would like to do a number of controls on old exhaust pipes, though the coherent matter/flux loops have not been observed in ordinary exhausts for over 100 years.
We will expand upon other things we have found and implications, we are crowd funded and reliant mostly on volunteer time to achieve our output, producing a 50 page report on stuff that there are millions of people more qualified to do would be a pointless task for us.
Quoting Jon Pall Vilhelmsson:
Thanks Bob for a prompt reply I've been watching the Cosmic summit 24 online. It's a lot of information to digest and Plasmoids are very interesting.
If these "well known things" that I and others are pointing out aren't addressed in a 50 page report then the credibility goes out the window. I understand it's a work in progress. I wish Malcolm Bendall, you and the whole team all the best.
PS: I'm a 57 years old graphics professional with a BA in small business management, a diploma in physics and a former motorcycle mechanic. If I can see those problems presented then other professionals will too...
Quoting Jon Pall Vilhelmsson:
Thanks for pointing that out. That's the point I was looking for
It's no secret that lean burning engines reduce emissions. However it comes at the cost of performance and longevity and lots of other factors. Lean burning engines run hotter for example and that may explain the hot exhaust and low emission not plasmoids 'n stuff! The fact that despite all the information in the report doesn't account for this MAJOR problem with the set up nullifies the test results... Sorry
What is the ratio of the atmospheric air coming in the engine through the air filter and the extra "treated air" with plasmoids and stuff?
A choke is a very rough control on fuel/air ratio. It's only used for cold startup by restricting airflow thus making the fuel/air ratio much richer. Smaller jets inside the carbortor are the actual mechanism for controlling fuel/air ratio. By adding more air through a bypass, after a correct carburator air/fuel mixing, changes the whole dynamic of the engine. You need someone who really understands gasoline combustion engines. In UK alone there are millions of people who understands carborated piston engines. The car mechaninc next door will do.
The chemical formula for gasoline combustion is the following:
2 C8H18 (l) + 25 O2 (g) → 16 CO2 (g) + 18 H2O (g) + Heat
(In real world application the formula is more complex.)
The Carbon (C) in the fuel will either convert to CO2 (Carbon dioxide) or CO (carbon monoxide in a low oxigen burn) or by some miracle change into a different atom structure by low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR).
It the test isn't measuring the CO output then the whole test procedure is nullified. Sorry.
The test should be based around the chemical reaction C8H18 + O2 → CO2 + H2O and explain what happens to the molecules and it's atom structure rather than all the air treatment stuff. That's all interesting and just about everyone wants this to work BUT the setup has BIG problems and someone must point it out. Sorry
Or just shoot the messenger and that solves that problem right? I'll show my self out...
can some one let me know if it originates prior to the geet reactor being published
thanks
grabcad.com/.../...
Ancient GEET presentation.
For quick context: contrary to the tech in topic, GEET bubbled not the air through water but the air through the fuel itself to get vaporized fuel. Final exhaust was claimed to be void of most pollution. The fuel was said to be much more flexible with this retrofit, people ran then on weird fuels and some mixed in water.
One generator was able to do the work of multiple engines or a really large generator, it was not needed to scale the reactor up. There's probably a lot more other interesting stuff in the presentation. What does apply to tech in topic, remains to be seen.
It sure will be interesting to see what happens when a second generator is hooked up the one and the same reactor, roughly doubling the reactor gas flow and (I guess) increasing the pressure difference on the 4 ends of the reactor, but perhaps not the temperature deltas.
Thanks for responding.
While I agree with myself and you...we do hear from researchers that the final exhaust is colder than expected? This is attributed to LENR, but until we know for sure, we can't say where this occurs. There might be a reality where there is an LENR cooling effect already before the engine block intake.
Google says ideal intake temperature is 50-70ºC for diesel. This may or may not be the same with plasmoids in the mix? There is an opportunity to test what happens with warmer or cooler intake air down the line.
Yes, the intake air after the retrofit should be warmer. The vortex tube, if nothing else should at least behave as a heat exchanger. So some energy in the form of heat transferred from the exhaust gas to the intake air.
Excellent work!
If modular enough in construction, similarly interesting would be trying unidirectional rather than opposing gas flows. The unidirectional/ parallel flow would give individual plasmoids and atoms longer time to interact, but time (and with it, distance) may not actually be factors in the transmutation.
Inlet air temp just prior to combustion would be interesting to measure in both cases and the control.
I assume "we" are feeding hotter air into the engine vs control?
RSS feed for comments to this post