Overunity.com Archives

Greetings All,

I need input on this concept that has been nibbling at the back of my brain for some time. Please, :o any and all comments or ideas are welcome here.

So many efforts.... all heading for the same goal...... running engines on water.

For me, emulsifying Brown's Gas within a liquid... is an awesome concept.

It is doable.

It is, (imo) what em-Fuel has stumbled onto.

I also believe, if we can crack this nut, this could help many of the current projects trying to run ICEs on water..... from plasma sparking, to vaporization and HHO, to small engine water projects.

This concept, I would like to see developed open source.... my thoughts as to "how'd dey do dat?" will come .... but first I wanted your input(s).

The below pic is from this site... notice what is being described... that sounds exactly like they've trapped Brown's gas in micro bubbles.... ready for injection, combustion and thoroughly blended throughout the liquid.

Isn't that an awesome concept??? (or am I just tripping?  ::) )

Micro Bubble Technologies
http://www.microbubbletech.com/index.html



Here are some youtube vids on the concept....

50/50 ionized water / diesel emulsion in oil burner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8PbdymGFk8

40w/60d em-Fuel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzIQBLaM5-o

MicroBubbleTech youtube site.... many vids here!
http://www.youtube.com/user/MicroBubbleTech

one that Luc just posted
50/50 Burn time demo...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP6kLaVyDBY

How can we do this?  ???

Excellent topic Randy ;)

What ever I can do to help please feel free to ask.

@everyone, come on let's get the ball rolling,... it's time to rock and roll ;D

Oh...also winter is coming and we want this working before!... right!

Luc

GE ionized water ?? people are drinking this in japan? do we/you know how to make this?  Chet  PS I know heat helps to mix oil and water, but ionized sounds /looks better 

Quote from: gotoluc on August 24, 2008, 06:37:19 PM
Excellent topic Randy ;)

What ever I can do to help please feel free to ask.

@everyone, come on let's get the ball rolling,... it's time to rock and roll ;D

Oh...also winter is coming and we want this working before!... right!

Luc

Thanks Luc  ;)

I'm glad you responded, I was actually thinking that you and others might be able to spearhead a simple experiment I had in mind.

After doing some research and thinking on this
Take a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8qHKwiBvhI

They are emulsifying oil and water using ultrasonics.

To Luc and All who want to try to crack this nut.....

My concept is to take a small 50ml beaker or baby food jar with oil and water and see if a fogger emitter can put out enough mechanical energy to micro mix the solution.
I would get really exited if it would.  ;D
If not, perhaps others might have more insight into hi power ultrasonic circuits/devices.

The next step would be to simultaneously electrolyze a brim full capped jar to generate brown's gas under pressure.... while running the fogger.
If we could make and trap the gas.... we would be on the right road I think.

I believe part of the reason the fuel mix stays emulsified is the ionization of the water through electrolysis.

I guess the nice thing is.... this isn't theory.... they've done it.
we just have to figure out how to do it in our towns and villages across the world.  :D

Hi goldenequity,

I looked at the video and also found this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8PbdymGFk8&feature=related

and this one!...looks like the Japanese have been doing this for a while: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI54ZQqw5Ps&feature=related

I can keep going but most of them are Japanese.

You know what I think... I think this emulsifying is going on in the GEET bubbler! have a look: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8902559328011576310

Once I have my half geet plasma engine working we will know much more

Luc

I absolutely agree that the GEET process is both emulsifying and ionizing the mix...... the elements are all there.
although I'm not familiar enough to know whether hydrogen and oxygen are split from the water..... to have those
trapped and distributed throughout the liquid and available to a plasma spark would be ideal at TDC.....
we will watch your GEET progress anxiously.
Good luck to you Luc...... get 'er done  ;D

Same stuff..... different company (India)

perhaps different process.... emulsified fuel! (Let's do this!!!!!!)

http://www.hydrodrive.co.in/HYDRODRIVE%20HYDROBURN%20WATER%20FUEL%20TECHNOLOGY.htm

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronpaulaudio.com%2Fpublic%2Findiaemulsion.jpg&hash=8800047ad3b3f73e8b0709cc8f8ba76513186787)

The Nanomizer is the device MicroBubbleTech (Japan) uses in their emulsification process

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microbubbletech.com%2F1.jpg&hash=172eab636a0c0d0b8c53df59885564ff5442d1fc)


Here It is disclosed that they are electrolyzing water in the process! (aka Brown's Gas folks!)

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microbubbletech.com%2F7.jpg&hash=ad9d12296f1df368d579daa1e4831f33dec01ff5)

The Nanomizer is the device MicroBubbleTech (Japan) uses in their emulsification process.

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronpaulaudio.com%2Fpublic%2Fnanomizer.jpg&hash=2076f667bfae072c7294d99fe31294ddbd10ffdd)

Here It is disclosed that they are electrolyzing water in the process! (aka Brown's Gas folks!)


(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronpaulaudio.com%2Fpublic%2Fmanufacturing.jpg&hash=b908f587e29e2ca648c4c4b6c8338ede2835b065)

Golden E. Great start to the thread looks like a lot of potential.
Hope it keeps rolling.  :)
Regards bren.

the patent link:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=2eKXAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=MicroBubble+nakashima

Quote from: wings on August 25, 2008, 09:09:57 AM
the patent link:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=2eKXAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=MicroBubble+nakashima

Thanks for that wings... I'm going to study that patent for some clues heh-heh!
thanks Kremlin for dropping in... cheers!

I hope this little project sits on the back of people's brains and teases some neurons... ;D

While we're studying patents....
Here is a link to a review of and patents of work by Rudolf Gunnerman ..... all the pieces (except for electrolysing!) are here in his work with
emulsifying alcohols and oils and water, including test results on vehicles.

http://www.rexresearch.com/gunnrman/gunnrman.htm

He basically describes 2 methods for the mechanical mixing:

• Fluid dynamics employing shear and vorticies
  
• Ultrasonics

Hi

I have done some quick water/veg oil mixing using a small fog machine. I have to keep the oil to about 5-10% max otherwise the fog machine refuse to work.

I left it for about 10 mins, as you can see the water is mixed with some oil, the top part is mostly oil and water. I scoop some using a spoon, place it on fire, pop and flames are produced  ;D

This is the Nanomizer...... it's a fairly simple device... I'll discuss what I else is found in a study of the patent,
but for now I would just say..... that there's many ways to skin a cat!  ;)


(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fronpaulaudio.com%2Fpublic%2FNanomizer2.jpg&hash=5d0822b8e6ec51890efdc2dbe49bdc84276dafea)

Chris!
That's EXCELLENT man..... I'm so encouraged  ;D
Like I said.... this IS doable..... and LOTS of ways to skin this cat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah I think its the only way forward at the moment, that is mixing water/fuel.

I was originally exploding water using sparks using gotolucs circuit, after seeing my own results and reading others, Im more and more convinced that it is not possible to run the engine like that at the moment.

I remember pouring used veg oil from a take away and I see some water mixed with it. I use veg oil because I used to run my car on straight veg for about 2 years with no problem until the clutch went.

The only question is, if we mix 50/50, I wonder if the energy is also reduced to 50%? I hope not  :-\

Here is a possibility:
Most of us who have been studying this gas for awhile are struggling NOT with the power of HHO....
but how to SLOW down the burn rate so that it EXTENDS through the power stroke.
I think this is the way.... it's going to be a breakthrough as we develop this with plasma for ICE's.
I think it will be more powerful the more we trap the gas.... I can't wait!!!!!

BTW....
The patent claims that the liquid (water) is electrolyzed into HH and O as it passes through the magnetic field created within his magnetic/shear chamber.
That the mixer ITSELF electrolyses.
I can't help but believe that he figured out to introduce Brown's Gas along the way as he was emulsifying kerosene and water.
Either way the goal is the same...... trap them tiny bubbles!!!  ;D

Quote from: goldenequity on August 28, 2008, 12:44:49 AM
BTW....
The patent claims that the liquid (water) is electrolyzed into HH and O as it passes through the magnetic field created within his magnetic/shear chamber.
That the mixer ITSELF electrolyses.
I can't help but believe that he figured out to introduce Brown's Gas along the way as he was emulsifying kerosene and water.
Either way the goal is the same...... trap them tiny bubbles!!!  ;D

I have just done a quick one, use egg beater to mix water and veg oil. LOL

It works more or less the same as the fog machine, but mixing is much more rapid.

I think what we can do is have fuel and water tank. Then mix them on demand, this way the mixer can be just a small device driven by an electric motor. Some cars have electric fuel pump in the tank, but I dont think it will mix it good enough.

I cant test HHO water mix, I havent built a HHO machine yet.  :D

Quote from: Chris31 on August 28, 2008, 12:23:12 AM
Yeah I think its the only way forward at the moment, that is mixing water/fuel.

I was originally exploding water using sparks using gotolucs circuit, after seeing my own results and reading others, Im more and more convinced that it is not possible to run the engine like that at the moment.

I remember pouring used veg oil from a take away and I see some water mixed with it. I use veg oil because I used to run my car on straight veg for about 2 years with no problem until the clutch went.

The only question is, if we mix 50/50, I wonder if the energy is also reduced to 50%? I hope not  :-\

Hi Chris31, good work on your part ;) I also ran used veggie oil in my VW Golf some years back. I was also going to try it in my half GEET plasma engine but I see you beat me to it :P .. I still have about 15 gallons of the oil left.

Keep up the great work!

Luc

I think it's important to know...
Water molecules are polar.
They assemble/align themselves loosely in an end-to-end, north to south configuration.

This defines/creates what we call "surface tension" individually and collectively.
Oil molecules are non polar.  They don't align in any structured fashion.
Without getting too crazy here.... this is why they separate,
The water molecules have the strength of their attraction to one another and "line up" so to speak.
And their strength is in numbers.... the more they can migrate and re-assemble the more they will.
Hence the "bigger" bubbles in the microsope pic.

Emulsions are formed by breaking the surface tension (polar alignment) of water at a molecular level.
You can do this chemically.... with surfactants (detergents).

The Nanomizer is doing it with magnetic field (and fluid dynamics) destroying the water bond both
molecularly (4% comprising the "larger" H2O bubbles) and atomically (hh bubbles and O bubbles)
if only long enough for the oil to surround and insulate both the positive HH FROM the negative O.

Remember em-fuels above microsopy (above) and their claim....
that there's only about 4% remaining as liquid water...
which is the only thing that they can get to centrifuge out.
That is an incredible feat.

So.... all that to say this:
When we say 50/50 water and fossil fuel ... that REALLY puts the wrong image into our head.
It's probably more correct to say that their emulsion is:

• 50% fossil fuel
  4% water
  15.33% Oxygen
  30.66% Hydrogen

or

• 54% Liquid
  46% Gas

THAT sounds a whole lot better than "half water" doesn't it?

Cheers to all you good people out there....

Golden E. still looking good thanks for the info clear drawings etc:
thinking of mixing spliting liquids, have you looked at this tech: http://www.advancedbiofuel.net/Technology.htm
Ok, jim griggs came up with this tech: some years ago, mainly for the heating industry, but now obviously moving on to other things.
Also this is top quality, top price engineering. But I have seen very basic attempts on the web that have seemed to mimic, and get the results.
Search jim griggs, maybe worth a look.

Regards, Bren :)

Thanks for that Bren... I checked it out. :)
They don't give away too much about their process....
but it looks like they use "water hammer" to effect the mechanical mixing by cavitation....
they also infer nothing in regards to hh and O.....
so I would say you're right.....that they are about emulsifying
and thoroughly blending 2 (or  more) LIQUIDS to make a blended biofuel/biodiesel product.
Thanks for this.

Jim Griggs developed the "Hydrosonic Pump" which is now commercialized by http://www.hydrodynamics.com/ (http://www.hydrodynamics.com/),HydroDynamics, inc.
Thanks for this...
It is probably the same technology/device that Advance Biofuels is using to mix their product with.
It uses cavitation to effect the mechanical mixing.

However, HydroDynamics DOES go on to say that it is perfectly capable of mixing liquid and gas....
but it should be kept in mind that it also is being touted as a "heater".... the cavitation causes friction!
You can watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBxpn6odtcA

I'm still much more impressed with this process...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8qHKwiBvhI

I'm still looking for some clever minds out there in our community
knowledgeable in Piezoelectronics and transducers to enter this thread..(hint hint)  ::)

more thoughts.....

Look at it this way, we will simply displace a costly liquid with a "free" gas.

The more liquid you can displace with explosive micro-bubbles, the CHEAPER your fuel will become.

Not to mention, the fact that you have enabled a safe, portable, liquid to store hydrogen.... and not under pressure!

That's pretty awesome all by itself :o.... as the "storage" of hydrogen has always been argued as a logistical "problem."

After doing some research regarding ultrasonics.... it is capable of BOTH gasification and de-gasification and is used in the industrial setting for accomplishing either.

It depends on the frequencies involved but it certainly emulsifies at the molecular level and does it fast. The transducers seem kind of pricey as well.

Using simple fluid dynamics with an effective mixing chamber employing shear and cavitation AND introducing Brown's gas into the agitation (instead of "creating" it using the magnetic field/Nebulizer) may be ALL that's necessary to trap the gas within the oil and should be tried first.
If it's that simple.... then so be it!

Beyond that....
The nebulizer patent claims ability to create the hydroxyl ion... OH.
If that is true... it would first ionize the water which is THEN emulisified with the oil. This "1st" stage of splitting the H20 molecule may be a crucial part of successfully creating such a stable emulsion.

Cheers 2 all!

RE: EM-Fuels/MicroBubbleTech/Nanomizer (above)
This is a recent review in TruckstopUK magazine: http://www.truckstopuk.co.uk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=234

The article brings outsome important distinctions/advantages  regarding the difference between
a "standard" emulsion of water/diesel vs. a "Brown's Gas" emulsion of HHO/diesel.... as follows:

QuoteWater in fuel emulsions are not new; in fact they?ve been around since the early 1900s and in general are a well known and well proven technology. Emulsification is the process of blending two or more usually immiscible liquids in a way to prevent separation, in this case fuel (diesel, kerosene, bunker oil and bio-oils) and water.

This emulsion is injected into an engine's combustion cylinder where, because of the water content it reduces the peak combustion temperature, which in turn reduces gaseous and particulate pollutants. When the water droplets in the emulsion suddenly vaporise to steam in the high cylinder temperature, they cause so-called ?micro-explosions? inside the surrounding fuel droplets. Whilst these micro-explosions improve the atomisation of the fuel by exposing more of its surface area to the air, which in turn increases combustion, this vaporisation of the free water droplets contained in traditional emulsions can also extract excessive heat from the burn, thus reducing overall engine efficiency.

QuoteFor a variety of reasons, the use of water in fuel emulsions in the road and marine transport industries has been relatively limited to date. This has been partly because up until recently neither emissions, nor indeed fuel costs, were a significant concern for vehicle or ship operators, and partly because traditional water in fuel emulsion products suffer from two significant drawbacks. These are (1) instability in storage ? despite the use of stabilising additives, without stirring a considerable proportion of the water in the emulsion can separate out ? and (2) a reduction in engine efficiency caused by the extraction of heat from the fuel burn as a result of the explosive vaporisation of the water droplets.
Micro Bubble Technology's new nano-technology overcomes both of these two drawbacks, and has arrived at a time when both emissions and fuel costs have moved to the top of the agenda.

That is because they are trapping Brown's gas in their emulsion and NOT just water droplets!!!! (water droplets = only 4%)... read as they describe it (without of course using the term "Brown's Gas" heh-heh ;D

QuoteAt a fundamental level, MBT's Nanomizer? emulsifiers work along similar lines to traditional emulsifiers, however the technology works at a nano-level (less than one millionth of a metre) to produce water and fuel droplets which are up to 10 times smaller than those in traditional emulsions, ranging from 0.1 to 1 micron in diameter. The patented technology also causes a breakdown of the water droplets in the emulsion into separate hydrogen and oxygen radicals, which bind with the fuel droplets at a molecular level.
Despite the fact that the emulsion produced by the Nanomizer? emulsifiers contains a very high level, 40% by volume, of water, less than 4% of this water remains as free, unbound, droplets.

Ok... there ya go... now this next disclosure is an important one too..... they include a "dash" of chemistry as well.... an "emulsifying" agent.... we can talk about this.... there's a host of sufactants available... no big deal!!

QuoteThe emulsification process is aided by the inclusion of a small quantity, 0.3% by volume, of a proprietary additive during the process; this additive has been formulated to also provide additional free oxygen radicals during the burning of the emulsion.
The oxygen-contactable surface area of these sub-micron sized fuel droplets is up to 10,000 times greater than in standard sized fuel droplets, so coupled with the availability of the free oxygen radicals from the molecularly bound droplets and the additional oxygen-providing properties of the proprietary additive, there is a virtually complete burn.

Here's where they extol why the trapped HHO provides the energy that more than compensates for the 4% H20 caloric loss:

QuoteThere is also additional energy released from the explosive recombination of the remaining hydrogen and oxygen. The latter can more than compensate for any loss of efficiency caused by the initial heat extracted from the burn by the vaporisation of the small percentage of free water droplets contained in the emulsion.

Here they sum up their advantages:

QuoteThe consequence of MBT?s patented emulsification process compared to other emulsification technologies is thus four-fold:
(1) Because of the low free water content, the emulsion fuel is far more stable during storage; up to 1 year can be expected under normal storage conditions. No subsequent stirring of the emulsion is necessary to prevent separation.
(2) The far more complete burn results in greater engine efficiency, between 95% and 107% efficient compared to using just the preprocessed oil. The somewhat counter-intuitive ?above 100%? figure is because unprocessed fuel itself does not burn with 100% efficiency and, dependent on application, the increased efficiency of burn of the fuel produced by MBT?s Nanomizer? emulsifiers can better this base-line figure.

(3) There is a greatly reduced level of exhaust emission pollution from emulsions produced by MBT?s Nanomizer? emulsifiers. In general all pollutants, particulate and gaseous (SOX, NOX, CO and CO2) are reduced by up to 60% compared to the preprocessed oil, however trials in Korea and Japan have shown that in some applications this reduction has been up to 90%.
(4) There is a very considerable cost saving due to the high, 40% by volume, water content of the fuel produced by MBT?s Nanomizer? emulsifiers.

Anyone else out there playing with this stuff?? Let's try trapping some bubbles folks!   :)

Good stuff,

I cant wait to start playing with this properly. Im too busy with the plasma spark at the moment  ;D

Exploding this stuff with plasma is definitely on the menu Chris.
I've extended an invite to a fellow HHOer who has a good size Ultrasonic transducer to play with.
Will see if he wants to play with this.....
I think a high-speed mechanical shear mixer (even without the Nanomizer opposing magnets)
will get us down the road.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzIQBLaM5-o&feature=related  emulsion (micro-bubble) 60% diesel 40% water
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E34HD1Jsl78&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8PbdymGFk8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8qHKwiBvhI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAfOumO8JU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhMBCnzF0k4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfhacTEcZhE&feature=related
Pese-Collection 2008

Quote from: goldenequity on September 01, 2008, 05:38:32 PM
I think a high-speed mechanical shear mixer (even without the Nanomizer opposing magnets)
will get us down the road.

I tried this quickly already, and it work much better than the ultrasonic.

The material I use is a syringe, I attach a drill such that the plunger mix the water/oil inside the barrel. The result is mixed air/water/oil and igniting it produce a pop and flash. Leaving the mix to stand for a while and it tend to start separating again.

Not designed to do such thing of course ;D just didnt wanna start machining parts only to find it doesnt work.

Once I get the plasma going, Ill run the small 26cc engine I have on normal fuel then inject the water/fuel mix as it run. The size of the fuel tubing would perfectly join with the syringe I have, containing the mix.

Ill join it with a T-piece, run the engine on normal fuel, let it warm up, block the fuel comming from the fuel tank, then slowly inject the mixture from the syringe into the fuel line. Let see how it goes :D

@ Pese thx for your collection!
@Chris
Thanks for your continued interest/efforts.... that's pretty ingenious! Let us know how it works!

If I've learned anything so far, is that simply mixing water and Diesel is not going to get us where we want to go.
The water will not stay mixed and will separate (unless a surfactant is added.)

But EVEN if you do manage to mix water.... the droplets, no matter how small, will have the negative effect of "cooling" off the burn,
and reduce over all efficiency of the engine.

What we need is someone to violently mix Brown's Gas (not water) and Diesel (or other FF)....

the trapped BUBBLES will do several things (the smaller the better):
1. stay in solution and stabilize the emulsion for a long useful period (1 year?)
2. add to the combustion and increase the efficiency of the burn
3. displace the expensive liquid with "free" gas
4. almost eliminate hydrocarbon emissions

I'm hoping someone, somewhere can easily do this and report their outcome to this thread.
The questions remaining would be:
1. can you effectively mix the two under simple atmospheric pressure? Do they stay mixed?
2. if not.... we need to mix under some degree of pressure and get the bubble size as small as possible.
3. then try injecting emulsion  into both a small diesel engine AND gas engine

I just saw an ad on T.V. this afternoon for Diesel Magic... or something like that.... they want 46 cents per gallon.... it's probably water and a surfactant!!!
The testimonial was some guy in front of a Ford Truck saying "I got 20 miles to the gallon!!"

I'm even starting to like the looks of a creamy white fuel....  :o

Thanks Art..... :)
Sounds like the Bill Williams design.... look like this?
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronpaulaudio.com%2Fpublic%2FDuplexCell017.jpg&hash=6ce091251e98988e1061197501ea0fbd2aabd8f9)

You never know ..... until you find out  ;D

Take a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kpswB6Ae-o

It's a great example of "degasification" with ultrasonics....
I believe it happens with the higher frequencies.
But they also use ultrasonics for gasification.... and I assume it
would be at the lower frequencies... enough to cause cavitation and the
micro-mixing of fluids and molecules without "frying" the bubbles....
I am just poking around the edges of all this..... but I DO know that shear mixing can
work as well.  We need to try everything.... but start with whatever we can get our hands on. ;D

with reference to cavitation emulsifying see the followings:

in detail
http://www.advancedbiofuel.net/Technology.htm
http://www.advancedbiofuel.net/

other related

http://www.hydrodynamics.com/technology_review.htm
http://www.hydrodynamics.com/publications/ipst_whitepaper.pdf
http://www.padrak.com/ine/HSONIC.html
http://www.rexresearch.com/griggs/griggs.htm
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff2000/ip3.htm
http://homepages.strath.ac.uk/~clcs09/projects/pwpump.htm
http://www.delphion.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/US05188090__
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/1070165.pdf


Wings

@ Loner... True!
@ Wings
Thanks for all the Hydrosonic links!
@ all
you can see Jim Griggs Hydrosonic Pump demonstrated here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBxpn6odtcA

I see the Hydrosonic pump as an awesome machine...and primarily a heater...which is how they are marketing and applying it.
It is even capable of sonoluminescence where you have interplay between sound energy and light through cavitation effect.

Whereas much effort has been spent in getting rid of the effects of cavitation (i.e. Submarine propulsion), Griggs took advantage
and amplified/encouraged cavitation to the point of generating/releasing heat "inside" the liquid by stretching the H (hydronium ion) and
the OH (hydroxyl ion) into both near (and actual) separation/disassociation from one another.... the result releasing heat from the "collision"
of these ions.  The effect being that the metal components stay cool while the liquid gets hot!

By comparison.... I look at the Hydrosonic Pump as being on the scale of a LASER....
whereas I think all WE really need to do the job is a Hi-Powered flashlight.

On a fundamental level, I hope what is developed here is a modest and effective procedure/device that can be replicated in "everyman's" backyard.

In its most basic model:
Taking the Brown's Gas from a simple electrolytic cell with the output into semi-viscous fossil fuel liquid(s), where it is agitated to a  micron level and trapped as hydrogen and oxygen in a stable emulsion either in a batch or flow configuration.

Let's just make the creamy liquid and try burning it!  ;D

OK..... Here's the OFFICIAL goldenequity experiment #1 (unpatented!  ;D)

1. Connect 1/2" (fuel/solvent tolerant!) tubing to the input and output ports of a closed impeller driven pump (mag pumps are preferred) and then to a 1 gallon container so as to circulate liquid(s) in a closed loop back into the container.  **Closed impellers have much closer tolerances to the pump cavity and develop much greater pressure than "open" impeller (trash)  pumps.  The bigger the pump the better.

2. On the input tubing side, splice a 1/2"X1/2"X1/4" "tee" fitting which will serve as a venturi for introduction of gas (or liquid!). Attach a 1/4" ball valve to control the venturi.

3. Fill (measure) the gallon container with only "enough" #2 Diesel to charge the system loop for recirculation.

4. Pour entire liquid content into duplicate container and mark fluid level; set aside.

5. Re-pour liquid back into pump container.

6. Attach valved venturi line to the output of an HHO cell.

7. Turn pump on and circulate diesel.

8. Try introducing the HHO via ventui by bleeding the valve open slightly for 10 minutes. Observe effects.

9. Try HHO at 1LPM for 10 minutes. Observe effects.

10. Add 3-10 drops of liquid detergent (observe etc. bla bla)

11. Add 1oz of distilled water to 1 gallon container. (ditto observe)

12. Pour finish contents into the duplicate container and mark "new" fluid level of emulsion.

13. Measure difference in levels/calculate liquid displacement of trapped gas.

14. Try the emulsion in a gas and/or diesel small engine!

Oh yeah.... capture this on video and youtube it so we can all hypothesize and have fun with you!  ;D

btw... most pumps are water pumps with seals NOT rated for solvents. The seals will suffer from running diesel.
either consider the pump a "contribution" to Science  :) and prolong it's life by flushing with water/soap between experiments;
or use a Mag pump.... however, a Mag pump is ONLY an open impeller design..... which will never give us the pressures (or cavitation!) of a closed impeller.
Some pumps have better seals than others to withstand corrosion, Ph, solvents etc..... if buying a new pump.....look for Viton or EPDM seals.  ;)

Here's the simple setup described above: :)

GE    ionizing water,  HV effects in water , electrostatic effects in water, http://www.stifflerscientific.com/ 
                                 Chet

@ Chet..... thx I'll chek it out  :)

@ all
OK.... your not going to believe this.... allright, sure you will, there's nothing new under the sun..[Ecclesiastes]...
Doing more research on emulsifying ..... did you know there's more than one kind of emulsion? there are at least 4!...
You can get Oil in Water.... or Water in Oil..... to name two. ::)
We want Water in Oil.... and only 4% or so .... the rest we want to be micron-bubbles... so we should get a nice creamy white emulsion. ;)

I found a 1975 patent tonight on a simple setup that makes an emulsion of oil and water down to 1-2 microns!
check it out:  http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4009117.html
Guess what?
It's exactly the setup I posted (this afternoon) (except he added a nozzel.... so I updated / included one!).  And, oh yeah.... he found that
they had MUCH better results in shear and agitation by using an OPEN impeller vs.a CLOSED impeller.  :o

Instead of bleeding in Brown's gas of course,
he was bleeding in water (and a surfactant 1-3%)..... but the incredible part is:

• 1. by allowing it to recirculate through the pump and out the nozzel 4-5 times.... they repeatedly got 90+% of their water molecules down to 1-2 microns!  If you can do that with liquid.... you can CERTAINLY do it with bubbles!
  and...
  2. HE SOLD THE PATENT TO SUN OIL COMPANY WHO NOW OWNS IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ::)
  

This thing is I think all but done!  No ultrasonics needed.  This patent and the guy's simple testimony has me convinced that this thing is E-Z !!
I'm thinking Uncle Harry can easily make this in his back yard and run his furnace and truck with it and save (I'm hoping) 40% on his fuel price this winter..... with tiny bubbles!  :)
Peace on Earth.... Goodwill to men.... Big Oil kiss my ass. ;D

Quote from: goldenequity on September 04, 2008, 02:09:24 AM
@ Chet..... thx I'll chek it out  :)

@ all
OK.... your not going to believe this.... allright, sure you will, there's nothing new under the sun..[Ecclesiastes]...
Doing more research on emulsifying ..... did you know there's more than one kind of emulsion? there are at least 4!...
You can get Oil in Water.... or Water in Oil..... to name two. ::)
We want Water in Oil.... and only 4% or so .... the rest we want to be micron-bubbles... so we should get a nice creamy white emulsion. ;)

I found a 1975 patent tonight on a simple setup that makes an emulsion of oil and water down to 1-2 microns!
check it out:  http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4009117.html
Guess what?
It's exactly the setup I posted (this afternoon) (except he added a nozzel.... so I updated / included one!).  And, oh yeah.... he found that
they had MUCH better results in shear and agitation by using an OPEN impeller vs.a CLOSED impeller.  :o

Instead of bleeding in Brown's gas of course,
he was bleeding in water (and a surfactant 1-3%)..... but the incredible part is:

• 1. by allowing it to recirculate through the pump and out the nozzel 4-5 times.... they repeatedly got 90+% of their water molecules down to 1-2 microns!  If you can do that with liquid.... you can CERTAINLY do it with bubbles!
  and...
  2. HE SOLD THE PATENT TO SUN OIL COMPANY WHO NOW OWNS IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ::)
  

This thing is I think all but done!  No ultrasonics needed.  This patent and the guy's simple testimony has me convinced that this thing is E-Z !!
I'm thinking Uncle Harry can easily make this in his back yard and run his furnace and truck with it and save (I'm hoping) 40% on his fuel price this winter..... with tiny bubbles!  :)
Peace on Earth.... Goodwill to men.... Big Oil kiss my ass. ;D

WOW goldenequity,

you are doing great work here ;D  Where is everyone ???... Are we not interested in saving up to 50% on heating this winter ???... or is everyone here living in the South.

Come on everyone!... at least let goldenequity know you are reading his post and find them informative.

As soon as I have some free time this is what I will be working on as you know it is not far fetched science. You know it's going to work.

Enough said!... lets get the ball rolling ;)

Luc

Exerpts from the above patent:

1. He was motivated by trying to save money  ;D

• .......fluid emulsion is made up by the oil supplied and then shipped to the mine site. Since the fluids are typically 40% water almost half of the shipping costs are for shipping water.....Preparation of the emulsion at the mine site would avoid this.....individual emulsification equipment would be needed at each site. If a cheap, simple emulsification process were available the foregoing problems could be eliminated.

2.  Simple

• ...... A simple inexpensive process for making very stable water-in-oil emulsion comprises metering the oil and water in the proper proportions through an open face centrifugal pump and then through a nozzle followed by repeated cycles through the pump then nozzles until the emulsion forms.  While the equipment involved is conventional off-the-shelf items it has not heretofore been used in such a combination.

3. Stable

• .....In our invention we achieve emulsions with a particle size of less than one micron and emulsion stabilities as high as at least eight months.

4. Surfactant/Dispersant

• .......A surface active agent is employed usually in the amount of 0.1-10%, usually 1-5%. The specific agent employed is not critical and those skilled in the art will recognize that there are literally hundreds of emulsifiers for oil-water emulsions.

5. Pump / Impeller / RPM

• .......The pump employed is an open face centrifugal pump as other types of pumps, even the conventional type centrifugal (closed face), do not provide enough shear to achieve formation of stable, small particle size emulsions. In open face centrifugal pumps, also known as open impeller pumps, the impeller is, as the name implies, open on one side. The impeller is mounted with the open side next to a wear plate with a finite clearance of say 0.01-0.02 inch. Usually there is only about two vanes on the impeller.......The impeller should turn at a speed of at least 1000 RPM, preferably at least 2000 RPM, more preferably at least 3000 RPM.

6. Nozzle

• .......The purpose of the nozzle is to provide additional shearing and reduce the time required to form the emulsion. This is done by restricting the flow in the discharge line from the pumps thus increasing the shearing rate in the pump as well. Preferably the restriction reduces the cross-sectional area of that discharge line by one-third, more preferably by one-half. The pressure drop across the nozzle should usually be at least 10 p.s.i., preferably at least 20 p.s.i. The nozzle can be quite sophisticated or can be merely a valve partially closed but is preferably the former in the interests of efficiency. Suitable nozzles are those conventionally used on fire hoses.

7.  Water Ratio / Water feed (Faster is better!  :) )

• ......The relative proportions of the ingredients will normally be 20-60% water and 40-80% oil ......Preferably the amount of water is 35-50%.......In order to achieve the desired less than two micron particle size, preferably less than one, the water must be added to the oil fairly rapidly......The water should be added over a period of time which is not greater than three times the time it takes to pump the total water-oil volume through the pump.....Ideally the water is mixed in over one time.....two times is also suitable.

8. Recirculation, Dispersion & Stabilization

• ......Once the oil and water are mixed they are circulated through the system again and again until the desired particle size is achieved and the viscosity levels out. After 5-10 repetitions the less than one-two microns will usually be reached but the viscosity (DISPERSION!) will usually not stabilize until 20-60 repetitions have taken place......The 1-2 micron size is important as it contributes greatly to emulsion stability. Our emulsions are stable for at least two months, i.e., there is no water separation on standing at 70? F for two months, preferably four months, more preferably eight months.

9. Temperature (might NOT be too important for diesel) but warm (indoors) is probably preferable.

• .....the temperature should be 50?-140? F. Below 50? F is too cold to form an emulsion and above 140? F the emulsion exists partly as an oil-in-water emulsion.

:) :) :)

Quote from: gotoluc on September 04, 2008, 10:28:51 AM
WOW goldenequity,

you are doing great work here ;D  Where is everyone ???... Are we not interested in saving up to 50% on heating this winter ???... or is everyone here living in the South.

Come on everyone!... at least let goldenequity know you are reading his post and find them informative.

As soon as I have some free time this is what I will be working on as you know it is not far fetched science. You know it's going to work.

Enough said!... lets get the ball rolling ;)

Luc

Thanks Luc......
I think when the Plasma efforts integrate with this, it's going to really take off.  I'm trying to be patient..  ::)

Big Oil has tried to KILL all the fuel saving gadgets through the years by buying up the ones that work.... like the Pouge carb.... and have deliberately moved against VAPORIZATION..... by getting rid of the carburetors in our vehicles and re-formulating the fuel to suppress vaporization... (so we add Xylene etc.)
Well guess what.... this stuff should LOVE their injection systems and doesn't NEED to vaporize.... it just gets sprayed/atomized into the cylinders!  We already know and have seen BubbleTech's EM-fuel work!
I also believe we (through experimenting) can come up with an emulsion blend with gasoline that will work in EFI gas engines..... why not????

Cheers! ;D
randy

Golden-E. As Luc said " your doing a great job"
That patent' is a light in the dark, read that and it does'nt much immagination to agree it can be done, to our own needs, and spec:
in our own back yard.
Just now clearing some space in garage so I can  join the fun.

Many thanks, regards, Bren :)

Ref:
Taking the Brown's Gas from a simple electrolytic cell with the output into semi-viscous fossil fuel liquid(s), where it is agitated to a  micron level and trapped as hydrogen and oxygen in a stable emulsion either in a batch or flow configuration.

Let's just make the creamy liquid and try burning it!  Grin

Brown gas (Watergas) is more than a simple elektrolysis (it need 4 volts per cell)

make gasoline/water emulions, it is easy.
to burn water with the gasoline make more energy
lot of people have done this before.some labors and
unversities have proof this up to 50% with gasoline aswell diesel.
Pese

@ Krem
Excellent!

@ All
Once we get this setup and recipe down..... I think a MOBILE setup could easily be made with the tank and pump in the back of a pickup!!!!!Are you out of work???? Cash poor?  ???
Build this setup in the bed of your truck and start your own processing and delivery service......help others/help yourself!!!!!
Freedom Works!!!!!  :) :) :)  Go for it and help us get this thing NAILED DOWN!

 :D
Hi everyone just a note to let you know im here
  Great work everyone.  I have been following several of these threads and it looks to me that you are on the edge of a breakthrough.
I have been working on a couple of engines and just got the plasma spark working .
I just built hydrogen electrolisis cell.
I really like the idea of mixing the fuels and ignititing with plasma spark.
I just need to work on the electronics a little more
Getting the ignition timming right and building a pulse generator are taking longer than I thought
I'm slow but am having fun and making some progress.
Ill let you know if I get an engine running.
  Thanks everyone for all your hard work on this.
IM looking forward to see what this new mix will be capable of :D
  Gourdman!!!

Thanks gourdman.  Sounds like you have all the elements in progress.... keep us posted! :)
@ pese.... yup this stuff is not new... EXCEPT for the HHO direct blending.... which will compensate for the BTU loss of plain "water" emulsion combustion.
I'm aware of the varieties of "pure" Brown's gas and Eagle Research's description of "hyper" gas.... but at this point, any Hydrogen/Oxygen into the
emulsion is going to be a big step in the right direction.... good thoughts for "fine tuning" our emulsion though.  :)

Static Mixers
Static Mixers are another way of introducing more shear to the system.
Here is an inexpensive static mixer I found that would fit into a 7/8" I.D. hose or pipe.
Probably would work best on the OUTPUT side of the pump and would be best
with the bigger GPM systems (1/3+ hp pumps etc.)
10 inches long, it's made of HDPE plastic and will flex and could be shortened for less resistance to flow.
It's cheap too.  ;D

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronpaulaudio.com%2Fpublic%2Fstaticmixer.jpg&hash=7f2738d063f535610649835d360d88f0121cde54)

Oh Im always reading this thread, excellent infos from GE.

Will post when I have something new, just abit busy with the plasma spark controller at the moment thats all  ;D

@ ALL,

Thanks for all the INFO, keep up the good work.
See below my suggestion for Pump for Recirculation, Dispersion.

Hope (finaly) this will work.

That pump certainly has some muscle!  ;D
I guess it all has to do with what you envision as far as capability/capacity for production.

I confess I am thinking more in line of a "bench top" model for experimenting and testing,
for where we are in a "proof of concept" stage.

I am thinking along the lines of a 1/3 - 1/2 HP open impeller mag driven pump.
Iwaki pumps are the best in the business but they are expensive.
March pumps are very well suited (look at the model 5.5 line with Viton seals).
Cheers!

Here's the exploded view of an Iwaki Mag driven pump

I would like to kind of sum up where I think we are with development and
what remains left to be done.

I think we've established that the emulsion process does not need Ultrasonics and
that is a relief from a practical standpoint.  MicroBubbleTech is using shear and the
previous patent clearly argues that it is very practical and simple to do so.

We have approached everything from the standpoint of mechanics.... and that needed
to be done..... mixing.

But were not going to completely solve this puzzle until we start delving into the Chemistry.
Such things as viscosity, dispersion, hydrophobic and hydrophyllic  molecular properties of the fluid,
cannot be solved with mechanics alone.

I think that water, and it's droplet size, and it's stability and blending/dispersion within the emulsion (miscibility), even if it's
ONLY 4% and sheared to pieces, will still tend to agglomerate across time if not "put in it's place"
at a molecular level with chemistry.

This brings us to surfactants.
MicroBubbleTech confesses in their publications that they add an "ingredient" to their process besides
water and diesel (kerosene) and that it "aids" in stabilizing the emulsion.
The previous patent also declares the need for a surfactant..... so it's time!

I have been doing hours of research on this (happily  :) ) and have learned alot.
Stay tuned for coming posts on this..... as it is the last nut to crack!

And thanks for all who post.... it's encouraging when I check on the thread.
I can't wait to see a vid of someone's setup!

randy

Would this be THE ACTIVE "Ingredient"  we are looking for?
See below, specs:

Main performance:
1. Is easy to dissolve in the water, the easy biodegradation, to wash with the foaming performance is good.
2. Effective surface tension inhibitor.
3. Has the remarkable emulsification, the disperser and increases dissolves the function.
4. Has the very high electrolysis allowance.
5. Has the extremely high stability under in the high temperature acidity or the alkazid solution.

Technical specification:
Project target
Outward appearance light yellow to amber brown transparent liquid
PH value 6.0---7.0
Chlorination natrium content % < 1.0
Activeness content % 39

Using:
This is one kind of highly effective surface active agent, it has the remarkable emulsification, the disperser and increases
dissolves the function.
Has the extremely high stability under in the high temperature acidity or the alkazid solution.
In view of the fact that it has the various function emulsifier (water soluble) 4. 5, 9 and 20 moles.
Ecofriendly and approved in all applications.
Enable insoluble substances and water to mix together and stay mixed as a homogenous emulsion

Let me know.

@GE sweet!! I guess its play time for me [Some Amazing finds you have there]
Hopefully show time soon
@Kampen  sounds good what is it ?
          Chet PS shearing , cavitating combustibles  [static,heat build up etc.] might be tricky
@ Pese what have you got on this[any info would be good] ?

Play time is right.... this is going to be the best part.....
the more participation in researching and studying and then
experimenting, observing and reporting back to each other the better!

One thing...... plan to get/find some baby food jars for this....
there's no need to experiment with the effects of different surfactants on
gallons of fossil fuels..... this is lab time.... and the scale should be in milliliters not liters.

At the outset, I would say that the BEST surfactant or combination of surfactants
should do their job of water-in-oil with very little amounts and just a little stirring.....
and handle anything from a 20-40% water/fuel mix....that's when you know you've got a good recipe!  ;)

Then you leave it overnight and check for any beginnings of separation in the following days.
That's what we're shooting for....... and there won't be JUST ONE that works... but some should
work better for the money than others.....

This should be part "McGuiver" (try stuff and see if it works) and part (a lot research and reading like
Kampen has begun to do (very cool!)

OK ...now Kampen..... whaddayagot and what does your fact finding tell us?
Is it a nonionic, cationic or anionic surfactant?  :) (this is fun!)

PS... as we try different surfactants we will be dealing with chemical manufacturing companies...
guess what? They will ship samples. (not so much "supply" companies but mfr.'s will)

So the more research you do.... the more you can "speak" their language....
do your homework, focus in on something and know WHAT you want and WHY before you talk to them....
you might get lucky and get them to help and send off samples to try.  ;D

GE   funny thing Cutting oil comes to mind [lathes cnc etc] water oil mix  Stays in solution forever
Yes Mfg. will ship samples no problem yes lingo important but not always [they want to SELL]
WOW this is exciting stuff
small jars /samples good idea
figure a base line temp ? as a reference point for combusting ,and how to measure without to much expense ?[I forgot a long time ago this info will have to scratch the head]
Oh yeah did I say this is great stuff !! 
      Chet

@ GE

OK ...now Kampen..... whaddayagot and what does your fact finding tell us?
Is it a nonionic, cationic or anionic surfactant?   (this is fun!)
A:
Active Emulsifier name DX50SPS (Germany)
Non ionic surfactant emulsifier based on mixes of the most active emulsifier. Especially designed formineral oils waxes and bitumens. It offer a non ionic emulsion which able to use with all kind of charge offering a consistent product of maximum wetting and dispersing efficiency.

or this one,
Emulsifier name: T-20
Molecular formula:  C58H113O26
Molecular weight: 1226.48
Characteristics:This kind of oily amber liquid dissolves in water, carbinol, ethanol, glycol, propyl alcohol and cottonseed oil.
Its HLB is 16.7.
Quality standard:
Outward appearance: Oily amber liquid.
Acid value/(mg KOH/g): <2
Saponification value/(mg KOH/g): 40-55
Hydroxide radicle value/(mg KOH/g): 90-110
Moisture content/(mg KOH/g): <3

Usage:This product is oily or watery emulsifier, which can beused as lubricant, disperser, antirustion agent and antistatic agent.

Last NEWS:
decided to make a Emulsifier myself, small-size unit, testing for home heating.
Will keep you informed.

INFO:

A new pollution-control technology for ships may become an industry standard following an exciting pilot project starting in February aboard the 5,100-TEU containership APL Singapore.

Using a device known as the water-in-fuel emulsifier, water is mixed with marine diesel fuel just before the fuel is injected into the engine, which could reduce nitrogen oxides â€ââ,¬Å" a principal component of smog â€ââ,¬Å" by as much as 20% or more. Emissions of particulate matter could also be lowered.

Preliminary results should be available by the second quarter of this year. If they show that the technology is effective, APL could install the emulsifier on other ships. In addition, Danish-based MAN Diesel, the world’s largest manufacturer of marine engines and maker of the APL Singapore’s main engine, has said it would consider including the machinery with its equipment if results are positive.

In addition, the test will also include evaluating additional pollution-control devices installed on the APL Singapore’s fuel injectors. Known as slide valves, they prevent fuel leakage during combustion, leading to a more complete fuel burn and reduced emissions.

The test will begin on a voyage of the APL Singapore from Kaohsiung (Taiwan) to Los Angeles and Oakland (California) in February. Emissions will be monitored with various ratios of water to fuel, and also at various levels of engine power. It’s estimated that for every 1% of water, nitrogen oxides are reduced by the same amount. The study will test water contents of up to 25%.

Once the vessel reaches Los Angeles, the slide valves will be installed on the engine’s fuel injectors. The research team will then continue monitoring emissions on the leg to Oakland to see how much more pollution is reduced by the slide valves.

The US$1.3-million research is co-sponsored by several public entities, including the US Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board, four local California air-quality districts and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The APL Singapore will continue using the emulsifier whenever it’s in California waters. California is a world leader in working with companies to reduce pollution.

This test marks the beginning of a three-year evaluation of the fuel emulsifier, where APL will study the effects of the water-in-fuel mixture on the APL Singapore’s engine. Mixing water with fuel is counter-intuitive, and some suggest it could corrode engine parts over time. The long-term test will determine if water in fuel is indeed compatible with marine engines.

Using the fuel emulsifier and slide valves is part of a broader APL strategy for reducing air pollution. Also recently installed on the APL Singapore is a next-generation lubrication system that could reduce the burning of cylinder oil by 20 to 50%.

In accordance with California regulations in effect since 1 January 2007, APL is also using low-sulfur diesel fuel in its ships’ auxiliary engines while vessels are in California waters.

APL has numerous other pollution control initiatives underway. Among them are a program to replace older yard tractors in container terminals with newer, more environment-friendly models; the use of bio-diesel fuel for yard tractors and mobile container-handling equipment; electric ship cranes; an expanding collection of more than 2,400 electrical plugs instead of diesel generators for refrigerated containers at US West Coast terminals; strong support of the voluntary speed reduction program in Los Angeles Harbor; and experiments with a chemical-free organic enzyme that improves combustion of heavy fuel oil, thereby reducing pollution.

Hi Kampen,

can you please tell the producer of this emulsifier DX50SPS ? I coud not get any result on this product-name using different
seach-engines.

I am living in Germany and can contribute in doing more  detailled reseach. usually I do direct contact ( phonecalls etc ) until I find everry detail of what I want.

Thank you

Kator

Hey all  :)
Been out of town a few days.... still a few more to go... glad to see some progress here..
Good work and thanks for the follow up Kampen   :)  It would be good to know what family
of chemistry the surfactant comes from.... and ethyloxalate? alkyphenol? amide?
see what you can find out..... they won't give out their formula of course but they
should tell you some chemical makeup data and what it's general make up is.
take care all.  ;D ;D

Gentlemen:

You have done a wonderful job of analyzing our technology.  One must understand some conditions occur as to how the EM-Fuel is produced.  Firstly,  We can work with any non-gasoline carbonaceous fuel.  In order for the oil droplets to capture a O or H molecule the oil particle must be no larger than .1 micron.  Things behave differently at these sizes.  Secondly we electrolyze the H20 in a low energy environment.  Thirdly, you need a special additive that will prevent the micro bubble to recombine.  Without the additive the oil droplets will recombine freeing the gas.  The final EM-Fuel is not really an emulsion as there is really no free water (other than the unprocessed water).  In Kerosene and Bunker EM-Fuel we have piratically no water at all.

We use 60% fuel, 40% H20 and .03% additive.  Em-Fuel uses 40% less fuel, has a 60% reduction in emissions, and cost 25% less than the preprocessed fuel.

If any one has any questions I will gladly try to answer them.

I will answer all e-mails.  Go to the web site for my e-mail link.

Michael Siegel
President
Micro Bubble Technology Inc.
www.microbubbletech.com

@MrSiegel2
What a kind post you have made.  Thank you.
I will take it at face value as you have made no deception as to who you are.

I guess, first off, we wish you and your company no harm.  What you have accomplished is wonderful.
Live long and prosper!  Your company and its product will save lots of money in fuel costs to the larger
applications and companies, like marine, industrial, processing to name a few, not to mention the reductions
in emissions that are spewing from these factories and tanker ships.  We wish you much success in your
company's marketing and growth.

As you have taken the time to review the thread, you can see it is altruistic to its very core.
Our intention is to skin the same cat.... a different way and then share it with the "little" people.
They're running around this planet trying to make ends meet in an Oil driven global economy that is
crushing them.  We want to help take some weight off.

Perhaps you can relate and may indeed have the heart to wish us the same success.
In fact, It would seem to me,
to be the ONLY reason I think of, that you would disclose yourself in such an open and non-threatening way to us.

So..... welcome to the thread Mr. Siegel.  :)
You're more than welcome to input here.

I guess my first question to you would be..... primarily, are you a businessman, chemist or an engineer....?

@ all
Sorry for my temporary absence from the thread... blessings to all.
I bring GOOD tidings!

In my research, I have found another nugget! and this one is from a man
who is now 90 years old.
In 1975-1979 this man, Ferguerson, patented a surfactant combination that created a
Clear emulsion of gasoline and water that worked very well and handled up to 22% water as tested.
It was a rather flexible combination of surfactants that did the job very well.

First of all, a little history regarding fuel/water emulsions.  They actually go back at least one hundred years.... perhaps farther.
World War II was the climate that saw the U.S. Airforce developing water/kerosene aviation fuels.... not to reduce emissions or save
gas (God knows it was CHEAP back then)..... it was primarily done to "cool off" engine operating temperatures.... which it does VERY well.....TOO well for our purposes (heh heh).

Anyway.... the primary family of surfactants used were from the ethyloxalate group of nonionic surfactants.  Since then, there have been
many, many combinations JUST WITHIN THAT FAMILY..... and then, of the different derivatives.... there are HUNDREDS of formulas using different Molar combinations of the SAME chemicals.  These "formulas" are then what the surfactant companies sell as "proprietary" and proceed to give their own NAMES to.

Such things as Kampen's find called "DX50 SPS" or "T-20" is that mfr.'s molar combination of KNOWN SURFACTANTS that are of a more generic nature and available and well-known to "those in the business".

So, I think it's important for us all to understand the nature of this..... and not be intimidated by it.... or "overly" impressed by "secret" formulas.  OK?

I'll come back in a little bit and write more about Mr. Ferguerson. Stay tuned!
Cheers!  ;D

PS... also it IS important to understand, as Mr.Siegel/Micheal pointed out.... that ULTIMATELY we will not be creating an "emulsion" and the combining of immiscible liquids..... it is rather called or described by several names....

micro gas emulsions
gas emulsions
gas aphrons
wet foams

and the technologies that have been pioneering this work are marketing the product as flocculants for floatation tanks in the suspension/separation of solids for mining and ore separation, agriculture manure processing, cosmetic applications etc....
so.... let's get used to calling it and thinking of it as a "wet foam" or gas emulsion. ;D

Gas Emulsion and Volume Displacement

Think about this:

At atmospheric pressure:
take a balloon and fill it with 1 liter of Brown's Gas.
now take it and push it down into a bucket with 1 liter of Diesel Fuel.
You will now have displaced 1 liter of Diesel Fuel and in essence, doubled your volume in the bucket.
You would now have 2 liters of combustible fuel.

That's all we're trying to do folks.
You already know how long it takes to produce 1 liter of HHO...... not long!
We just need to make small bubbles.... and trap them!
:)

Just curious, is the NANOMIZER commercialy availabel and what's the price for a NANOMIZER.

@Kator01

Sorry for delay in answering your request. To avoid any misunderstanding the name is
DX50 and SPS.
DX50 is a multifunctional (diesel-oil) fuel additive and the SPS is the emulsifier (active tension inhibitor) with specs as explained.
Unfortunately this mixture is NOT commercially available, yet. I received a sample ca. 10l from a friend in Germany for testing purpose. Have done tests with this mixture on cultivated algae-(diesel-fuel) running a diesel-engine generator just fine.
As far as I know DX50 is made in Germany and SPS is made by Ciba-Geigy Switzerland.

Hope this info will be of any help.

Hi goldenequity and everyone who is now part of this important research.

I see some good information going around here and thank everyone for their participation.

Can we not consider any off the self products for this purpose? I'm no chemist that's for sure but I've worked quite a bit on car engines over the years and used degreasers. The product that keeps coming to mind is called Gunk. I don't know if this is a Canadian or American product but it work really well to dissolve grease on engines and the interesting thing was water is what worked best to rinse the grease off. The water would turn into a milky white color, much like the emulsified water fuels we are seeing.

Like I said I'm no chemist :P so if you know this is not worth the time no need to reply.

Keep up all the great work.

Luc

Ooops, wrong thead ;D

goldenequity

Engineer and businessman.  I open to anyone that can help with the technology.   In fact I would like to hire a bunch of you guys.   I am quite surprised at the analysis done on the technology.  We are quite open and willing to talk.  The only thing is I will not disclose the secret sauce. Also go the the web site and review our battery.  This technology actually makes the 400 mile electric car possible. (www.microbubbletech.com look up CNT battery.)


Michael Siegel

Kampen

We sell the system. We have various sized systems.

1 - 5 MT/Day
10 MT/Day
30 MT/Day
60 MT/Day
We can go up to 250 MT/Day.

These systems at the present time are out of the price range for the average guy.  It is designed for industrial applications and maritime use.

A distributor would purchase a system and then resell into the market.  Ironically the officials of the large cities in the US are not interested in saving any money.  Presently our biggest orders are coming from areas where the price of diesel is $10 and over per gallon..

Michael Siegel
Micro Bubble Technologies Inc.

@ Michael Siegel

Thanks for the compliments to the members, I wish your company success and perhaps someone may want to contact you directly.

I would like to address you on something that perplexes me about the ability of your device and your process.

It's a simple math problem.

As I understand your process, and as you declared in your previous post, let's say your EM-fuel has a mix of 60% Kerosene and 40% water.
As you also declare, and the microscopy shows, you end up with only 4% liquid water within the 60% Kerosene and the REMAINING 36% water is then therefore being declared as having been converted to Hydrogen bubbles and Oxygen bubbles and trapped/isolated separately within the gas emulsion.  Right so far?

So by example, let's say at the input of your Nanomizer,
we simultaneously introduce the 2 liquids (I assume that's how it works) and we input by your ratio, 60 liters of Kerosene along with 40 liters of water.

If your device did NOT split the water into gas...... we would simply end up with 100 liters of a 60/40 blend of liquid.

But your device (except for the 4%) does create the hydrogen/oxygen gases..... so,
that means, in your end product,
we can account for 60 liters of Kerosene, and 4 liters of liquid water,
so ........the remaining 36 liters of water would therefore now have to be in the form of a gas.

We know that if you take 1 liter of liquid water and split all the H20 molecules into hydrogen and oxygen..... you will end up with approximately 1800 liters of gas as the known ratio is roughly 1800:1 (by volume under atmospheric pressure).
So,
Taking the above example, we would have to account for the 36 liters of water that would now have been converted
to (1800 X 36) 64,800 liters of combustible gas!

It doesn't matter how "small" the bubbles are..... volume is still volume and you would have created 64,800 liters of gas volume.
That 64,800 liters of gas can certainly NOT be contained within 64 liters of liquid.
UNLESS during processing, the Nanomizer fails to contain and capture ALL the gas it creates during the processing/electrolysing.
Where else could it go?

I have to use my brain here.
You are NOT converting 36 liters of water to gas in an instant with the Nanomiser and ending up with 64,800 liters of gas... no way.
I suspect you ARE however electrolysing (as we are) and introducing Brown's Gas into the mix..... maybe with 4%-6% water to introduce your surfactant (secret sauce  ::) ).....and the Nanomizer converts maybe 1-2% into gas...... and that's fine with me... it means we're on the right track!  It also means that the actual ratio of actual liquid water to liquid kerosene is probably more like 6/94 (with 2% of the water as gas)  :o

What am I missing here?  This is a friendly question btw... I really would like to be able to wrap my head around this.
Cheers!  ;D

GolenE, would' not we all like to get our head round this!
But your doing a great job so far, and your conversation with the 'Bubble-man' are much appreciated.
I have to say there is a great feeling of good things to come on this site, if you can just keep us focused.

Many thanks, Bren.

I suspect that what we're dealing with is a matter of semantics in the "advertising world".
Can you call Brown's gas .... water? I suppose so but it's not exactly the "truth" from an engineering standpoint. (imo).
But we do have enough information to do some backwards calculations:

If we have take the end product..... let's say 100 liters of EM-fuel gas emulsion.
They say it's 60% Kerosene...... that's 60 liters (volume) of Kerosene.
The remaining 40% of "volume" is 4% LIQUID water.... that's 4 liters Water.
that leaves 36% volume OR 36 volume liters as GAS of emulsion Foam.

Dividing that 36 liters of GAS (foam) by 1800 would reduce the approximate gas volume back to liquid water.
36/1800 = 0.02L of liquid water = 20 milliliters

So..... the Nanomizer is roughly converting 20 milliliters of every 4 liters of water to GAS.
That translates to 0.5% "electrolysed".... (not really "electrolysed" either.... more like "pulverized" by magnetic/shear separation.)

Anyway..... that's my take...... how close am I Michael?  :)

PS.... not to belittle the power of the Nanomizer either...... I'm not sure what your FLOWRATE is through the Nanomizer..... but even
fracturing 20 milliliters of water into gas takes a fair amount of TIME with standard "brute force" electrolysis..... on the scale electrolysers we use....So the Nanomiser is STILL quite a respectable device.  ;D

Quote from: kremlin01 on September 12, 2008, 06:52:20 AM
GolenE, would' not we all like to get our head round this!
But your doing a great job so far, and your conversation with the 'Bubble-man' are much appreciated.
I have to say there is a great feeling of good things to come on this site, if you can just keep us focused.

Many thanks, Bren.

Thanks Krem.....
actually going through all this in my head has helped alot in keeping on track towards solving the puzzle.

We now know the proper proportions to create our gas emulsion fuel.
Let's say we have a 100L (26.4 gallons) capable tank/pump backyard setup.... the average "tank" volume fillup for a Diesel truck.

Add 60L / 16 gallons of diesel to the processing tank
Mix together (*exact proportion to be determined) say .5% / 500ML / 2 cups /32 ounces of surfactant to 4L / 1Gal. Water.
We now know we want to introduce
36L of Brown's Gas to be trapped as "foam".... so,
if we have a 1L/min electrolyser..... we venturi the output for 36 minutes while we bleed the water/emulsifier mixture
into the same venturi..... and we already know to introduce that "little" amount of liquid water/surfactant rather rapidly....
because the previous patent sez that "faster is better".
We should end up with 100 L / 26.5 Gallons of our "own" EM Fuel.

We're still on track! I'm excited.  ;D

We can now also determine what size pump we need for this scale setup.

Our liquid that we now want to circulate is 16gal diesel plus 1gal water
for a total of 17gal of liquid.

We want to circulate that at least 20-40 times to get our bubble size and dispersion correct
according to the previous patent. So let's say 30 times.

Our electrolyser is going to be "finished" in 36 minutes.
If we want to sychronize our pump to the electrolyser....
we need to recirculate our 17 gal. 30 times in 36 minutes or 17X30= 510gal. in 36min.
510/36 = 14 GPM

That's a pretty big pump ..... but we'd be completely process our fuel in about 36 minutes.
and I think there's some flexability here.... smaller pumps would just take longer... but would probably still do the job.
So.... all that to say.... get the biggest pump you can find/afford.... open impeller of course.  :)

NOTE: This would be a good sized setup for production..... BUT we're STILL in a "proof of concept" mode..... so I
would still scale all this down in proper proportion to a "bench" top model first..... just do the math and say make a 5gal. processor,
or do what a friend of mine is working on..... use a kitchen BLENDER and adapt/input the output tube of your electrolyser down into the vortex of the liquid.... "purge" the blender of "air" first with HHO before you turn on the blender!  ;D

A (very) Short Course in Surfactants:
There are 2 terms used in the surfactant world...... hydrophyllic (loves water) and lipophyllic (loves oil). 

A system was developed (by the Atlas Corporation 1971) to "rate" those properties,

primarily for nonionic surfactants, that is called the HLB.... the Hydrophyllic Lipophyllic Balance.  The "normal" working scale is 0.5 - 19.5 (there are exceptions!)

ALL SURFACTANTS HAVE BOTH a water loving portion and an oil loving portion or they would not have surface activity.
That ratio is what is called its "balance" or HLB.......(is this getting boring??  :) )
The lower HLB numbers are more Lipophyllic and more oil soluble
The higher HLB numbers are Hydrophyllic and more water soluble

Experience shows a good surfactant system should have a blend of at least 2 surfactants; mixtures of a Low HLB and a High HLB
give MUCH better coverage at the interface and can offer the best economics by using the LEAST amount of total required surfactant to
provide a stable emulsion.

The hydrophyllic side is usually a polyhydric alcohol (alcohol with an OH attached) OR ethylene oxide
The lipophyllic side is usually a fatty acid or a fatty alcohol.
Very often.....Ethylene oxide can therefore be added to a variety of alcohols, amines and fatty acids

---

Although there are 7 major types of nonionic surfactants.... there are 2 that absolutely dominate the nonionic market (so most "formulas") will include at least one surfactant from these catagories:
ALCOHOL ETHOXYLATES
or
ALKYLPHENOL ETHOXYLATES (excellent cleaning agents for grease and oil)

---

Two other catagories are often selected from in choosing a 2nd or 3rd surfactant to achieve a desired result for an intended application:
FATTY AMINE OXIDES (high foaming; dishwashing liquids, cleansers and other products where high foam is acceptable)
ALKANOLAMIDES (foam stabilizing/viscosity enhancing)

• *Alkanolamides are based mainly on coconut oil, the most common being Coconut Diethanolamide A.K.A. Cocamide DEA

---

btw.... Luc
here's a "standard" recipe for a hand cleaner:  :)   hey.... it's worth a try..... why not?

Part A:   White Spirit or Turps                            39.00%
                        Oleic Acid                         7.60%
 
               Part B: TRIETHANOLAMINE              3.60%
                       Ethoxylated Nonyl Phenol           5.00%
                        PROPYLENE GLYCOL             2.50%
                       Glycerine                                  1.00%
                        Water                  41.30%
                                                                  100.00%
 
      (Lanolin) can be added to Part A If desired.
 
         Heat Part B to 70C and add Part A with agitation.

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronpaulaudio.com%2Fpublic%2Fgaspatent2.jpg&hash=fc0fab6fc76cb8d6554611147107ed1fc882daab)

Here is a described recipe and formula for creating an inverted emulsion (water-in-oil). 
It surprisingly produces a â€Ã...“clearâ€Ã, (rather than a â€Ã...“milkyâ€Ã,) emulsion of gasoline and water and has worked successfully for the inventor on mixes up to 22% water. 

Besides being a clear emulsion, benefits are the simplicity and ease of mixing as the compatibility of the 2 surfactant types used, provide the normally incompatible liquids, complete disbursement and total miscibility, and in addition, only fractional amounts of the 2 nonionic surfactants are required.

This single document attempts to provide the reader all the information necessary to identify and acquire the necessary chemistry to create and test the emulsion recipe and to perform tests to develop the emulsion for their own use in creating and combusting the emulsion fuels in their own automobiles for testing.  It should be tested with diesel and home heating oil and should be amenable to most if not all hydrocarbon fuels.

The 1975 United States Patent 4158551 claims the 22% water-in-gasoline fuel combusted properly with no modifications (at that time) to the test engine; and further demonstrated an increase of 25% in fuel economy.

Needed, are 2 chemicals commonly used by manufacturers and found among the ingredients listed in many common household and industry products.
They are (both) nonionic surfactants; unregulated and obtainable; and are both required for this rather flexible formula for emulsifying water and gasoline.

1.   Cocamide DEA
      **used in tests was trade name CALAMIDE C made by Pilot Chemical Company and VARAMIDE MA-1
     made by Ashland Oil.
     Generic Cocamide DEA is easy to obtain and available in 1gallon/5 gallon/55 gallon amounts.
     A quick search found an available suppliers at the following links:
     http://www.chemistrystore.com/cart.cgi?group=49899&child=49909
     http://stores.ebay.com/The-Chemistry-Connection_Surfactants-Emulsifiers_W0QQcolZ2QQdirZ1QQfsubZ7QQftidZ2QQpZ3QQtZkm
        **many "sample" sizes of various surfactant/emulsifiers here
Below Attached is a list of the various Trade Names of the various Cocamide DEA formulas on the market.

2.  An EthOxylated NonylPhenol
     There are many trade names and formula derivatives of this broad based nonionic surfactant;
     all or many may work as well as another.
     The 3 different formulas used were of the Ethoxylated alkylphenol derivative variety and all worked.
     All formulas had different Molar concentrations of Ethylene Oxide to NonyPhenol; and all variations worked.

     It should be noted only Ethoxylated alkylphenol formulas were used in the patent testing and are listed as:
      **VARONIC N30-7 and VARONIC N-6 made by Ashland Oil and IGEPAL CO210 made by GAF Corporation.
Below Attached is a list of the various Trade Names of the various EthOxylated NonylPhenol formulas on the market.

It is pointed out by this writer, that all or many of these common nonionic surfactants may work (especially of the Ethoxylated alkylphenol varieties) and that those used by the inventors were merely readily available at the time.

The following various methods demonstrate the flexibility in creating the emulsion:

1 ml. of IGEPAL CO530 and 1 ml. of CALAMIDE C were poured into 78 ml. of gasoline and then 20 ml. of tap water was added. A slight shaking of the container formed a clear emulsion.
The gasoline-water emulsion of the present invention can be readily formed by adding the surfactants to the gasoline and then introducing tap water. No prior stirring between the gasoline and surfactants is required,

1.5 ml. of IGEPAL CO210 was added to 82 ml. of gasoline in a beaker. 1.5 ml. of CALAMIDE C was added and 15 ml. of water. A gentle shaking of the beaker produced a clear emulsion of the gasoline in the water.

3.5 ml. of VARONIC N30-7 and 3.5 ml. of VARAMIDE MA-1 were mixed with 70.5 ml. of gasoline and 22.5 ml. of water.

2 ml. of VARONIC N-6 was poured into a beaker containing 88 ml. of gasoline. 10 ml. of tap water were added and emulsified into the gasoline by gently shaking the beaker.

Here is a comprehensive list of Ethyloxylated NonyPhenol  and Cocamide DEA surfactants
of various trade names and molar concentrations that are in the market place and manufactured
by various chemical companies like Pilot Chemical, Ashland and many, many others...... check for samples!

Generic Cocamide DEA is easily obtained here.... they have many common soap/shampoo surfactants in sample sizes
http://stores.ebay.com/The-Chemistry-Connection_Surfactants-Emulsifiers_W0QQcolZ2QQdirZ1QQfsubZ7QQftidZ2QQpZ3QQtZkm (http://stores.ebay.com/The-Chemistry-Connection_Surfactants-Emulsifiers_W0QQcolZ2QQdirZ1QQfsubZ7QQftidZ2QQpZ3QQtZkm)

Obtaining EthylOxylates will most likely have to be from Chemical Companies but there's lots.
If you find a company that seems willing to sample/help with suggestions for diesel fuel.... let everybody know!!  ;D

Also.... as per Luc's suggestion regarding GOOP hand soap... emulsifier.... why not? It more than likely has an ethyloxylated nonyphenol in it... I like the cocamide DEA as well.... it's concentrated, it emulsifies and foams.... and it is relatively cheap.
Look around locally.... there are many folks into soap making as a hobby and there may be local supply for pickup & save shipping.

Quote from: goldenequity on September 13, 2008, 08:58:48 PM
Also.... as per Luc's suggestion regarding GOOP hand soap... emulsifier.... why not? It more than likely has an ethyloxylated nonyphenol in it... I like the cocamide DEA as well.... it's concentrated, it emulsifies and foams.... and it is relatively cheap.
Look around locally.... there are many folks into soap making as a hobby and there may be local supply for pickup & save shipping.

Hi goldenequity,

thanks for all this great research, most of it is way past my ::)... but it looks great.

The product I mention is called Gunk... it's a automotive engine degrease and interestingly it looks and smell like Kerosene and turns white when you use water to remove the now mixed Gunk and oil off the engine.

Keep up the great work ;)

Luc

Yeah.... I know.... it's a whole nuther world... and the LAST thing I want
to do is freak anybody out about all this surfactant stuff.... we've really got
it very simple and basic up to this point and I absolutely want keep it that way.

There's only 2 ingredients needed from the patent:
Cocamide DEA (in many shampoos)
and
an EthylOxylated AlkaPhenol (I don't think it matters which one.... there are lots... it's an OH Alcohol)

Will something else "off the shelf" on "under the cabinet" work?
You never know ...... until you find out.

Remember the first patent said there were "hundreds"..... they used one of the sulfates (these are anionic surfactants).
Ever heard of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate? Sure you have.... it's on the back of your shampoo as well!  :D
Sodium Carbonate/Potassium Carbonate have surfactant qualities as well.  Castor Oil may work.
People will just have to experiment and see what works..... and report failures or successes so we can all learn together!
Cheers 2 All!  ;D

Hi guys,

Today I tried to mix water with gas and I think I came up with a reasonable emulsion.

I've poured some gas on a glass and then added 1/4 of water.
Then some drops of hair shampoo "Garnier", dish washer "Fairy".
At this point it starts to mix but it slowly separate also if let quiet.
Then I added a few drops of common 70% ethilic alcohol.

The mixture seems to stabilize long enough for a quick experiment.

At ebay.co.uk I could not find any COCAMIDE DEA and ETHOXYLATED NONYLPHENOL (IGEPAL).
We are doomed here on Europe :'(

Hi anyone know where 'Goldeneqity' went?
He seemed to be getting on top of this item.

regards, Bren.

This may be a silly idea, but has anyone tried one of those ultrasonic cool mist devices to emulsify the Brown gas-Oil medium?

Hi y'all!!
Just another silly question...  ;)

Did anybody tried emulsifying oil and water using microwave oven??  ::)

According to what I know,
microwave oven create some kinetic energy in water molecule to generate friction...  ;D
Thus, making heat...

I have no microwave oven in my house  :D , can somebody try this??

Thanks...

Let me add a piece to the puzzle because like you I see a lot of the pieces coming together. I think we are all trying to get hydrogen to form hydrinos - Only Cal Tech so far understands and patented the use of casimir cavities inside the skeletal catalyst to allow the atoms to orient and form molecules in an extremely condensed form...hence the name. Casimir plates are paralell metal plates that restrict the wavelength of larger virtual particles from occuring between the plates vs outside the plates. if the plates aren't braced the difference will push the plates together which is why DARPA is trying to find ways to avoid nano "aggregation" of metal materials. This also makes the plates difficult to self assemble except as multistep where alloys are leached out to form the cavities.... I think this also explains the force everyone is fighting in their methodology. you have to create these cavities either chemically or mechanically, stop them from self aggregating AND get the monatomic hydrogen to form covalent bonds while in this compressed orientation or it will simply "untwist" on exiting the cavity. I predict if you take a careful look at your set up you will find some form of metallic confinement on the order of casimir geometry (<2nm) - I do reccomend experimenting with skeletal cats since they automatically give you the fixed geometry and allow you to concentrate on agitating the cavity and supplying the monatomics without letting them pre mic. good luck Fran    byzipp.com/energy