Claim: Free Energy - 1000 Times Overunity

[Meta]

Source: http://sovereignwarriors.ning.com/group/alternativeenergy/forum/topic/show?id=6194679%3ATopic%3A48045&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

Claim: Free Energy - 1000 Times Overunity

Posted by Jaro on April 23, 2011 at 9:55pm in Alternative Energy

This is an interesting write-up about "atomic hydrogen welding", which is supposed to use 103 cal. to split normal hydrogen into its monoatomic state, but releases 109,000 cal. when it’s recombined back into diatomic hydrogen. That’s 1000 TIMES higher energy output than input! And the hydrogen isn’t even burned, so it can be reused. I tend to believe that, since there are many hydrogen-based devices that showed overunity, like cold fusion, electric arc under water and others.



The way it works is by simply blowing hydrogen through an electric arc, which dissociates the hydrogen into its atomic state and produces very high temperature, high enough to melt tungsten (melting point 3422 °C, 6192 °F),. Blowing the hydrogen at hot tungsten wire had similar effect,which would be easier to do. The whole article is in the linked pdf file on page 81.

I mean isn't it interesting, you don't actually burn the hydrogen, yet you get a temperature as high as one produced by oxy-acetylene torch, which uses pure oxygen?





"The atomic hydrogen reaction first came to my attention in 1964,

when I was studying industrial processes at Sam Houston State

University, in Huntsville, Texas, the year after taking an introductory



course in college physics. While reviewing various welding processes in

a textbook, my eyes fixed on an older process called "atomic hydrogen

welding". By that time, the process was already considered "obsolete".

To me, the process seemed valuable, not only because it produces such

high temperaturesâ€"above 3400° F.â€"enough to melt tungstenâ€"the

highest temperatures producible by manâ€"but is also "self-shielding",

and can be used to weld diverse metals, often without flux, with a

concentrated flame producing little heat distortion, when welding thin

metal. In the process, 'normal' diatomic H2 is shot through an electric

arc which dissociates it into "atomic" hydrogen, H1. This atomic

hydrogen recombines at the (welded) metal surface, producing the very high heat Though the process interested me then, and always has, I have never seen an atomic hydrogen welding unit for sale, for the 31 years hence.



Industry's obvious excuse for laying the valuable process aside

was that it had been 'replaced' by 'better' processes, such as Heliarc,

TIG, and MIG welding, though they rarely mention "plasma arc

welding", which has also almost disappeared from the market. Since

plasma arc welding is merely an extension of the atomic hydrogen

process, using a specially redesigned torch, the 'mysterious' reasons are

undoubtedly the same.



It also showed the gas passing at right angle through the arc. In this old

textbook, it was stated at page 170 (emphasis mine), as follows:

"Langmuir (1912) discovered that hydrogen at low pressure in contact with

a tungsten wire heated by an electric current is dissociated to some extent

into atoms:".... 'This absorbs a large amount of energy, about 100 kcal

Per gram-molecule. " "... The atomic hydrogen formed is chemically very

active. Atomic hydrogen is formed when an electric arc between tungsten

electrodes is allowed to burn in hydrogen at atmospheric pressures (Fig

106)".



The text continued:

"Atomic-hydrogen blown out of the arc by a jet of molecular hydrogen

across the arc, forms an intensely hot flame, capable of melting tungsten

(m. Pt. 3400 °). This flame obtains its heat from recombination of

hydrogen atoms to H2."



"Hydrogen being set free in a chemical reaction is often more reactive

than hydrogen gas."

confusions, in an obvious attempt to cover up the truth in between.

The older text showed the clearer construction of a device, and the

newer text showed that only 103 cal./gram mole were required for

dissociation, while the older text showed that 100,000 cal./gram mole

were liberated on recombination. Only by jumping back and forth

between the two sources was I able to put a complete documentation

together, and discover the conflicts.

It was apparent from the newer text, that the writers intended for

us to believe that the final 100 k.cal./gram molecule heatâ€"later upped

to 109 k.cal/gram moleculeâ€"was absorbed from the arc, but the 103

cal./gram molecule dissociation heat figure showed a net 108,897

cal./gram molecule unexplained.



The manipulators of information have both lied and made the

direct comparison between atomic hydrogen and gasoline as difficult as

possible, but I have waded through a multi-step mathematical, physical,

chemical and unitary process to get to the truth. Atomic hydrogen

produces over 109 k.cal./gram molecule, which is 109,000 k.cal./kilo.

Minus the 103 cal./gram mole endothermic dissociation energy, and a net

of 108,897 k.cal./kilo is left. A kilo equals 2.205 lbs., so a pound equals

453.51 grams. You must divide the net cal./kilo by lb./kilo to get cal./lb.,

then multiply this times °F/°C (1. to get °F/lb. This is then divided by

grams/lb. to get 196,015 BTU/lb. The gross is 196.200 btu/lb. In

comparison to 19,314 BTU/lb for n-Heptane, atomic hydrogen has 10.5

times the energy per pound (of H1 per gal. of H2O). There is an easier

mathematical process, but this shows more clearly what I did.



No wonder the process "went out of use". With this process, a home

consumer would pay nothing for fuel, because he could produce a small

amount of hydrogen in his basement, any time he needed it, and could

use it over and over, ad infinitum. He could heat his house, drive his car,

and use it for "home-industrial", uses. In a motor cruiser on the ocean,

one would never have to worry about where the "next gallon" of fuel was

coming from, or what it would "cost", because like sunshine, the heat

from atomic hydrogen is "free", except, unlike sunshine, you could

produce as much as you want, any time, day or night, summer or winter,

rain or shine; the farmer would no longer be dependent upon the oil

cartels for his energy, and could run his machinery and heat his barns

"free". He could tell the fuel suppliers and the banks to screw themselves.

People in the far Alaskan north could heat large spaces without huge

expense. "Northern industry" would thrive again. The population

control Nazis will hate me.



For example, in the newer text, at page 1311, energy from the

combustion of hydrogen was stated at 29,000 calories per gram ( 52,200

BTU/lb). In the older text, this value was given at 62,100 BTU per pound

of hydrogen, with a comparative value for gasoline ("petroleum") at

19,800 BTU per pound (stretched to 20,825 BTU per pound in the newer

encyclopedia). These figures roughly comported with those in the

encyclopedia for n-Heptane ("gasoline") at 19,314 BTU/lb, and hydrogen

at 51,571.4 BTU/lb, which are more or less repeated at page 1137, with

n-Heptane at 10,737.2 cal./gram, and Hydrogen at 28,669.6 cal./gram,

yet nowhere in the newer text was the total output from atomic hydrogen

given that I could find, and nowhere in the newer or older texts was it

affirmatively stated that the hydrogen was not "consumed" in the

process.



The corrected figure (52,200 BTU/lb) shows, in a comparison

between the combustion of "normal hydrogen" (to form H2O or water)

and gasoline (to form CO2), that hydrogen has a yield of roughly 2.7

times that of gasoline, by weight. Then we come to a comparison between

gasoline and atomic hydrogen. Though the two can be compared BTUfor-

BTU and pound-for-pound, showing atomic hydrogen's phenomenal

output, the real measure of the atomic hydrogen process is gleaned only

from a comparison between the "input energy"â€"103 cal./gram molecule-

~and the net output. The "input energy" would be "unity" for the

process, because the process does not 'consume' the hydrogen, but only

returns it to its associated state as H2.



The dissociation energy,

subtracted from the gross output, would be the net output:

109,000 cal/gram mole (gross heat output)

Minus - 103 cal/gram mole (dissociation energy = "Unity")

Leaves - 108,897 cal/gram mole (net output - "Over-Unity"

because the hydrogen didn't have that

much calorific energy in the first place,

and was not 'consumed' in the second place)



In the atomic hydrogen process, hydrogen is not really a "fuel", but

rather a "medium" used in the extraction of and conversion of energy

from the ether, by transforming invisible radiation and electrical energy

into infrared (heat) radiation.

Conservatively speaking, the atomic hydrogen process bears a 10.5-

to-1 ratio to n-Heptane. Would you care for 315 miles per gallon? How

about 550,000 miles? It all depends on how many times you recycle it.



Whenever hydride systems are mentioned, there is

an obvious omission of the liquid hydride system developed by Dr.

Gerald Schafflander of California, the promotion for which Schafflander

and associates were abusively prosecuted by the SEC, as previously

stated in Space Aliens. Yet, the atomic hydrogen process would be more

than adequateâ€"even fantasticâ€"with only a pound of hydrogen, and one

could carry an extra 25 lbs of Dr. Schafflander's liquid hydride in the

trunk. Below is a direct comparison between the BTU/lb for combustion

of gasoline and molecular hydrogen, and the atomic hydrogen process,

respectively:



Gasoline combustion (n-Heptane) 19,314 BTU/lb

Hydrogen combustion (H2 + O) 52,200 BTU/lb

Atomic hydrogen (H2<--->2H) 196,200 BTU/lb



Note that the atomic hydrogen process does not involve a

"consumption" of the hydrogen, yet even if it did, the ratio between

atomic hydrogen and gasoline is still 10.5-to-one. Take into consideration

also that all the best methods for obtaining over a hundred miles per

gallon (even hundreds of miles per gallon) of gasoline in automobile

engines, utilize the vaporization of gasoline and mixture of it with air

prior to combustion, something which is easier to do with hydrogen,

because it is in a gaseous state at normal temperatures and pressures.

Also consider that while n-Heptane is a 'purer' gasoline, it hasn't been

available for years, and most "gasoline" is a dilute mixture with water

and various additives, with only about 50% n-Heptane, so I'm being as

kind as I can be to "gasoline".



If a pound of gasoline could propel a car 30 miles, the consumption

would be 666.6 BTU/mile. On the same scale, a pound of atomic

hydrogen would yield 315 miles. Then you could repeat it, over and over

and over. A pound of hydrogen could conceivably supply all your energy

needs for your whole life, and you could produce another 100 pounds of

it electrolytically, right in your basement, from tap water! Is this free

energy, or what?!



Though the facts of this "secret" hydrogen process are "hidden in

plain sight", one must beware of the disinformation, as well as the

common mistakes created by "scientists" who have been duped by the

RQMs. For example, in the 1976 Norton Encyclopedia, 5th Edition, page

1311, most of the pertinent facts about hydrogen are shown. The

"109,000 cal./gram molecule" for recombined hydrogen, reported in an

older text, was not shown directly, though the following facts which were

shown, are of particular note:

Heat of vaporization at 20.4° K 107 cal/gram

Energy released upon combustion 29,000 cal/gram

Heat of combustion at 25°C 63,317.4 cal/gram mole - gross

Heat of combustion at 25 °C 57,791.6 cal/gram mole â€" net



ANOTHER ASTOUNDING PROOF AND MORE HYDROGEN

METHODS

The Norton encyclopedia was in its 5th edition, and the "103

cal./gram mole" dissociation energy did not appear to be a typo or

misprint, and should have been corrected by that time if discovered.

How many books would I have to search to find such a 'misprint',

especially since I didn't expect to find the anomaly because of the

obvious concealment? Yet, in Physical Chemistry (1965) by E. A.

Moelwyn-Hughes of Cambridge (Pergamon Press, London), at page 418,

appeared the following:


NOTICE THIS LAST LINK HAS A ATOMIC HYDROGEN PROCESS AND SYSTEM DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATED IN CHAPTER VI:

ETHER PHYSICS
Chapter VI: FREE ENERGY MASSACRE:
The Atomic Hydrogen Process
©1996, WM. R LYNE
https://www.dmt-nexus.com/doc/Ether%20Physics.pdf

Meta

[ramset]

Meta
While I do not possess The ability to question your Math ,
I have NEVER personaly seen a viable explanation for Why Hydrogen can Do the Super high Temp "Thing"  [melt Tungsten] and still be a "cold" flame!

One other thing I must thank you for this Easter Morn
Because of personal reasons, I have never read ANYTHING that had the heading "Occult" this or that..............

Always figured Occult should be avoided!

Wow ,My Bad
Your link explains My ignorance ,nothing to do with Satan,everything to do with suppresion [perhaps a connection there].

But I am enjoying the read tremendously ,And I love your whole concept of "recycling" the HHO in perpetuity..............

Any "how to" advice or direction on utilizing this tech in a simple way?

Thanks
Chet

[Meta]

Meta

While I do not possess The ability to question your Math ,
I have NEVER personally seen a viable explanation for Why Hydrogen can Do the Super high Temp "Thing"  [melt Tungsten] and still be a "cold" flame!

One other thing I must thank you for this Easter Morn
Because of personal reasons, I have never read ANYTHING that had the heading "Occult" this or that..............

Always figured Occult should be avoided!

Wow, My Bad

Your link explains My ignorance, nothing to do with Satan, everything to do with suppression [perhaps a connection there].

But I am enjoying the read tremendously , And I love your whole concept of "recycling" the HHO in perpetuity..............

Any "how to" advice or direction on utilizing this tech in a simple way?

Thanks
Chet

ramset,

I've been studying overunity for 20, or so, years and understand many machines but this HHO tech is fairly new to me and it is not my work. I simply posted it from Sovereign Warriors website giving full credit to the Author, with the Source link. If you need more information, you might try to email the Author at Sovereign Warriors.

Meta

[ramset]

Meta
It has always been profoundly obvious to me that we could somehow take advantage of this HHO "flame anomoly" ,I mean How the Heck do we get from 400 degrees in ambient to 5000 degrees on Tungsten without turning up the gas??
Many thanks for sharing this,
I tried to go on your Link and It slows my computer down to a stand still
[very old comp]
Can you provide a link to the auther Directly or Pm/post  me the E mail
Thanks
Chet

[Cherryman]

Hi Ramset,

As i understand it correctly.
The most simple way would be:

1. Create Hydrogen
2. Blow this Hydrogen over a glowing tungsten wire ( Seems direction is important, but i could not find that yet) in a closed container, let the outflow coul down and just re-use it. 
3. With the heat produced, you can heat up water, steam, stirling , etc.

I do wonder if the tungsten should be kept under electrical current, or if the reaction would be auto-looping as the reaction heats up the tungsten as well, as long there is Hydrogen. (As in a pulsjet )

If re-using is not that simple, then still it would be more 5x profitable as gasoline according to the article.