New Alternative Fuel ~sorta new, not much attention~

First I would like to point out that I make this thread solely as public awareness and not a promotion of my company who deals with this tech. However this tech is widely spoken about on the web so its not really new just overlooked.

My company currently is developing the Aquafuel Technology. This is not the technology being developed by Aquafuel Research in the UK. Its a technology that turns water and graphite into a store-able combustible gas.

Secondly before any heavy speculation and explanations of the laws of thermodynamics is explained to me, I have a limited understanding of chemistry and the laws of physics. I'm only 24 so please take that into consideration before my intelligence is wade with my comments. however I can say for a fact I have a very detailed understanding of the technology and can answer most questions relating to it.

Now my point...The technology is often overlooked by science as being electrolysis and the gas produced is nothing more then a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. However this is simply not the case only because the energy released and how the gas reacts is beyond the chemistry of this simple mixture. For instance the gas can

1). Be stored under High Pressure without combustion
2). Is lighter then Air
3). Combustion will not occur without at least 10% air
4). attracts Hydrocarbons to itself
5) Burns with exhuast emissions consisting of Water Vapor, 6-7% CO2 and 15-18% Oxygen
6). During Decompression drops the temperature around it considerable similar to freon...(had a bottle bust open...turned to a block of ice)
7). Will Stay in a Party balloon for 6 months (however, its not lighter than air after 1-2 days and non-combustible, remains inflated for 6 months)
8). Can be turned into a liquid
9). Will cut steal, cook your food, run a car/generator and make Tobacco or other products taste unbelievable.
10). Economical...not fantastic not free energy just more for less

I can also name a few other things that are produced during the process of making the fuel but I will save that for later. As you can see I've made a list of some serious claims which can be demonstrated and reproduced. Now ok great whats the electrical cost you ask? well with the current off the self transformers like a Lincoln welder for instance we can produce 80CFT for every 1kw. each CFT of gas can produced 300-1200BTUs of energy depending on the Air/Fuel Ratio

You name a senator he's gotten a letter. Name a Company they've seen it, name a country they've seen it..except US sadly can't even get my local congressmen to look at it...I Don't really get it, am I missing a piece here? I know I make some wild claims but I can show you evidence to prove these claims and if need be teach individuals to conduct their own personal investigation (Very Dangerous..its will hurt you) I guess what I'm trying to get at is

A). Do you think this is bogus, and why
B). If true..why has nothing been done (Not hard to guess..would the oil companies want a tech loose. luckily for this companies sake they don't believe it works, the inventor has tried since the late 70's to get the word going.

What do you guys at ATS think? should I give up and bark up another tree?

Thanks for the time and thought

Seikaiden

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Seikaiden]

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Seikaiden]

I think for a new 'alternative' fuel ... we need to find something that doesn't produce CO2 ... we have enough of that already

I am qualified to answer its validity of a source of energy.

I suppose with the use of catalysts the exhuast could be reduced to oxygen and water, such as the new PZEV rating for some of the newer vehicles.

Not trying to denounce your tech, but I would like to see more progressive energy sources ... in fact ... I would like to see someone make use of the nuclear waste from nuclear reactors ... then basically the byproduct of a nuclear reactor would no longer be waste, but a fuel by-product. It seems we are a long way from fusion reactors or matter/anti-matter reactors ... but harnessing advanced power sources that produce massive energy from minimal product and with minimal waste would benefit the world ... even on a local scale ... allowing environmental public transportaion avenues ... and even one day similar things powering our personal vehicles.

I would say, if it was as simple as water and graphite, the oil companies would have exploited this already in the news ... since Hydrogen power has been made more mainstream already.

I am assuming you may have meant fuel for vehicles, since we don't normally associate fuel with coal for power plants. I believe batteries will become much more advanced storing more energy and lasting longer in smaller spaces. Using recapturing of spent energy and a small generator to keep the packs charged up. Switching to motors in wheels as well, to free up space and reduce drivetrain losses.

If we are talking a generator with a catalyst, and the technology you speak of ... I could very well see it being used ... since the generator required would be geared for electricity production, not torque and horsepower, thereby reducing size and rpm range requirements ... it could be built to only run when necessary and always operate at a peak efficiency, so the engineering would be reduced (no need for variable valve timing, simple intake/exhaust, etc.) ... it all depends on how things go in the next decade or two (though we could have had the technology years ago).

I don't see why you don't expand on your explanation in multiple posts, instead of baiting for questions ... I find it is easier to discuss something for most people when there doesn't seem to be things held back. Usually not a good sign, but no offense to you ... I can understand not wanting to pour your heart if no one wishes to listen anyway.

Well, Seikaiden, I've got a couple of thoughts....

1) You claim not to be using this thread as "not a promotion of my company who deals with this tech", though you DO mention this company in the first sentence of your post. Interesting...

2) You claim to have a limited understanding of chemistry and the laws of physics, yet you also seem to be claiming to have pioneered a revolutionary source of energy production. Not impossible, but highly dubious, at least in my opinion. You also seem to be dodging any questions of a quote-unquote "scientific" nature with your comment that "I'm only 24 so please take that into consideration before my intelligence is wade (sic) with my comments." Interesting again....

3) As for your collection of 10 claims for your seemingly "miracle" gas, I'm not an engineer or physicist, but with respect to
#1) Many gases may be stored at high pressure without combustion.
#2) Any gas which, according to your description, incorporates water and graphite, cannot be lighter than air. Sorry, try again.
#3) As with #1, this is rather common.
#4) Not my area of expertise. Can you provide evidence?
#5) See #4
#6) HIGHLY dubious. Again, can you provide evidence?
#7) A gas which will stay in a party balloon for 6 months, keeping the balloon inflated? Seeing as even ordinary air will not remain in a party balloon for 6 months, keeping the balloon fully inflated, I find this claim circumspect at best.
#8) Under proper conditions ANY gas, at least as far as I am aware, can be turned into a liquid.
#9) Again, highly dubious. Evidence?
#10) See #s 9, 6, 5 and 4.

Your lack of any presented evidence - even so much as a link to the website of the company you claim to represent - makes me highly suspicious of your claim.

Extraordinary claims carry an extraordinary burden of proof. Let's see some.






[edit on 5-8-2007 by PhloydPhan]

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist

I don't see why you don't expand on your explanation in multiple posts, instead of baiting for questions ... I find it is easier to discuss something for most people when there doesn't seem to be things held back. Usually not a good sign, but no offense to you ... I can understand not wanting to pour your heart if no one wishes to listen anyway.

I hesitate mainly because of the delicate nature of the subject and how it can be dismissed mainly due to the scientific nature of the tech and my lack of scientific understanding to explain it. I can open my heart more, I'm only being kind as to the length of my posts.

Originally posted by PhloydPhan
Well, Seikaiden, I've got a couple of thoughts....

1) You claim not to be using this thread as "not a promotion of my company who deals with this tech", though you DO mention this company in the first sentence of your post. Interesting...

2) You claim to have a limited understanding of chemistry and the laws of physics, yet you also seem to be claiming to have pioneered a revolutionary source of energy production. Not impossible, but highly dubious, at least in my opinion. You also seem to be dodging any questions of a quote-unquote "scientific" nature with your comment that "I'm only 24 so please take that into consideration before my intelligence is wade (sic) with my comments." Interesting again....

Um Did I mention the name of the company and its website? no strictly because I feared this type of response...interesting...

Yes I claim a lack of understanding of chemistry because I do (High School...and I slept through it)

Originally posted by PhloydPhan

Your lack of any presented evidence - even so much as a link to the website of the company you claim to represent - makes me highly suspicious of your claim.

Extraordinary claims carry an extraordinary burden of proof. Let's see some.

Some evidence can be seen on our website, nothing special only simple demonstrations. Much of the evidence is in shop form and require a live demonstration. White paper, there is some and can be submitted via e-mail or I can set up a pdf link when I get to work. I don't think I should post my companies website but proof should be shown what little i can show at this moment

definitiveenergy.net...

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Seikaiden]

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Seikaiden]

I'm currently setting up a way to display some photos to back up some claims.

Photobucket link

Here are some photos showing a couple of automatic units built as well as a few emissions photos.

To elaborate a bit more, first the gas is lighter then air despite graphite being used. this is the main problem with vehicle conversion. The gas acts like hydrogen and requires the engine timing to be changed to Top Dead Center.
Pre-Ignition is a problem as well as detonation. Valve overlap tends to flush some of the fuel out the exhaust before combustion. This is why we don't mess with cars even though we have demonstrated it in the past, its not our focus of fuel introduction.

As to what the gas is I don't know. I have a theory, but you can pick that a part all you want. Also I forgot to mention as a claim but the gas has a natural oder and doesn't require a smell to be added to detect its presence like natural gas. Impossible! but it does....why? beats me

As to my theory...I think the gas is not bonded to carbon rather hydrogen and Oxygen have been Captured in nano structures....bucky balls or nanotubes. the following link is to a paper about nanotube production in underwater AC Arcs.

Underwater Nano

This is only a theory, but I don't understand how the gas when burned would give off Oxygen when a Nasa Report states that the composition of the gas is mostly hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide unless...maybe large amounts of Hydrogen and Oxygen are present that normal IR can't pick up. Again this is only a theory based on my limited understanding.

The Link Below is of some Test Data on Aquafuel

External Link

Here is what proof I can show you at this time...white paper is limited because any serious organization wont take time to tell us what it really is other then telling us what they already know it is. This technology is a step into a different realm of energy production and yes the gas gives off co2 but I feel that can be eliminated once we get a better grasp as to what it really is and how the Carbon actually interacts with the gas to make its UNUSUAL properties. like why is it lighter then air!