900 X Overunity

[MarkE]

SSsooo
Mark E
you take this quote from Konstantin
Quote
"I agree. In Symphony 7A, active metal alloy is involved in the oxidation reaction."



and tell your readers it really means this
Mark E
quote
Ask not what you can do for your drain cleaner.  Ask what your drain cleaner can do for you.
[Intimating a solely Chemical reaction]
when in fact Konstantin actually said This...

Konstantin
Quote

"This is a Chemical Reaction"

Professor K. Balakiryan – "I agree. In Symphony 7A, active metal alloy is involved in the oxidation reaction. However, the amount of formed oxide for a one hour period is only 2.1%. During that same time, Symphony 7A produces more than 7 kg of hydrogen, and the share of that chemical reaction is only about 189 grams of hydrogen. If all the hydrogen in Symphony 7A reactor was produced by oxidation – reduction reaction, then in one hour we would spend 97.9 % of all active metal alloy, and the cartridge would have to be replaced practically every hour. This could have become the weak point of our hydrogen reactor. However, in Symphony 7A, the cartridge is replaced once a week, and for the model Symphony 7AM, cartridge replacement will take place once every four weeks."

end quote
@Mark E
I agree with letting the readers decide for themselves ,I don't think selective editing should be
a tool you need to bolster your claim.

Nor do I believe Konstantin Balakiryan is a thief or liar..

Chet you can believe what you like.  You can believe that SHT fission oxygen, which requires many orders of magnitude more energy than can ever be reclaimed by bonding hydrogen to oxygen, and that they do so with essentially no input energy.  You can believe that they have such a process that overturns nuclear physics with no evidence.  You can believe their claims that they fuse elements in their device that supposedly produces only hydrogen:  the most basic element which must be fused to make other elements.  You can believe that while supposedly transmutating water to hydrogen gram for gram that they destroy the mass of their admitted metal alloy.  You can believe that Bigfoot and Yetti are having babies together secretly trained as commandos for a secret army to battle ISIL.  Or you can: use your brain, assemble the evidence, and consider it critically.

[ramset]

Mark E
I'm just paying attention...You have very strong beliefs which help to keep your
investigative eyes on things you feel have merit .

I feel this "bond strength" can be manipulated ,which is a perfect example of how we don't see Eye to eye

and its happening in TinMan's water fuel thread.

these claims are not new
https://sites.google.com/site/braxpeace2/waterinfuelblends

here we have Johan running a loaded 35 KW diesel gen on 50% fuel 50% water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF_3rfuT46g

however Men such as yourself start calling people thieves and liars ...or just plain Stupid
when these claims are made.

if the bonding strengths can indeed be manipulated ??[as Arie Degeus, Johan and others have claimed.

well then I'll just keep paying attention.....you can take whatever position you chose

OH and just for clarity,  Johan cannot work with petrol engines .. only Diesel.


TinMan and his friend  have something very special...


Chet K

[MarkE]

Mark E
I'm just paying attention...You have very strong beliefs which help to keep your
investigative eyes on things you feel have merit .

I feel this "bond strength" can be manipulated ,which is a perfect example of how we don't see Eye to eye

Hydrogen bond strength is well quantified, as are binding energies.  Feelings are no substitute for meticulously obtained data.

and its happening in TinMan's water fuel thread.

No, tinman is experimenting with an engine where there are many variables.    He can observe:  fuel consumption, and power output at some load conditions.  TinMan has not shown that his experiments have any means to evaluate hydrogen bond strength.

these claims are not new
https://sites.google.com/site/braxpeace2/waterinfuelblends

here we have Johan running a loaded 35 KW diesel gen on 50% fuel 50% water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF_3rfuT46g

however Men such as yourself start calling people thieves and liars ...or just plain Stupid
when these claims are made.

Chet it would be helpful if you would actually read and comprehend both what is contained in the references that you cite, and the posts of others such as myself that you choose to argue against.  You cannot find, because I never asserted that all water injection and/or emulsification claims are the products of:  thieves, liars, or the just plain stupid.  If you bother to read through the references that you cited you will find a mix of claims.  Many of those claims are subject to the test conditions applied.  Coming back on track to SHT, I have shown a number of the complete absurdities and falsities in their claims.

if the bonding strengths can indeed be manipulated ??[as Arie Degeus, Johan and others have claimed.

well then I'll just keep paying attention.....you can take whatever position you chose

The problem is that you are not paying attention to the data that has been painstakingly obtained over the years.

OH and just for clarity,  Johan cannot work with petrol engines .. only Diesel.


TinMan and his friend  have something very special...


Chet K

We shall see what Tinman comes up with when he gets to the point where he has a defined experiment that he chooses to show.  The data always tells the story.  The data includes the design and test conditions under which any experiment is conducted.

[ramset]

Mark E
I never said you claimed all were thieves and liars, water has been added to fuel since day one.
However,
when someone makes a claim of 50% water and 50% fuel running a loaded 35kw generator
as well or better than straight fuel [my example  cited above]

what say yee?

[MarkE]

Mark E
I never said you claimed all were thieves and liars, water has been added to fuel since day one.

however Men such as yourself start calling people thieves and liars ...or just plain Stupid
when these claims are made.

Was that:  a) A poor choice of words, b) A strawman?  If you are going to attribute something to me, then be honest and attribute something that I actually have expressed.  It was enough that you vectored off onto TinMan's current experiments when discussing SHT's utter BS.  If I were TinMan, I would be greatly offended to be cast in the same group as SHT.

However,
when someone makes a claim of 50% water and 50% fuel running a loaded 35kw generator
as well or better than straight fuel [my example  cited above]

This is where I challenge you to improve your comprehension.

1) The name plate of a device is very different from the actual power that comes out of it.  It is very common: witness Gerald Morin and countless others covered by PESN over the years to take a name plate value and declare that an input or output power value.  It isn't.

2) What counts with a generator is how much fuel is consumed for any given load.  This is known as the specific fuel consumption:  SFC.

3) Many factors contribute to the SFC of a given generator design.

4) Water injection / emulsification schemes have been employed many places, sometimes with significant improvements and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances.

5) ICEs are often operated at low load where they are very inefficient.  Various approaches have been taken to try and address that.  It is conceivable that a scheme using water could improve fuel consumption at low load.  Depending on the specifics, a particular scheme may be valuable.   Whether or not the idea is new or not depends.  Over the past 120 years lots of people have tried to think of ways to use water to advantage in an ICE.  A lot of ground has been covered.

6) To date: claims that water itself acts as fuel have never been shown to have any merit.  Caloric output has never been shown to exceed that of the HHV of the fuel alone.

TinMan's language is often not scientifically precise.  At the moment it is not clear what he means when he says "catalyst", even though catalyst has a specific formal definition.  We will see as his experiments come along whether he has found conditions under which his water plus "catalyst" shows advantage versus straight gasoline under whatever test conditions he ends up using or not.  His "catalyst" may for example be an aromatic that tends to burn very hot and very fast that in no way chemically reacts with the water, but benefits from the thermal properties of the water.

Assuming that TinMan's experiments show better output / lower fuel consumption using his chosen approach versus straight gasoline, then the next logical question is whether that advantage is, or could yield a competitive SFC against currently marketed devices, and if so under what operating conditions.  Finally, there comes the issue of what mechanisms would be in play to yield the advantage should it manifest. 

what say yee?

I say the data always tells the story.