[Gasification] Conserve -- Run an Arc reformer now!!

[Daniel Chisholm]

On Fri, 2007-22-06 at 08:56 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:

> There is not link -- there exists a very sloppy 2.6 meg sized PDF file sent
> to me with  those results - -actually -- a number of them
> 
> The kind where FAX sheets are scanned into a PDF file.
> 
> Using my "magic" I have been able to rip one of these and put it together
> as graphics into a single ZIP file -- which I will send you off list.

> It is now a reasonable 220 KB in size.
> 
> But first -- I would rather a number of people interested tell me they want
> it -- as uploading is a chore here -- and I'll only do it once.

If you want, Peter, send it to me, I'll put it up on my server, and link
to it here, so anybody can fetch it at their leisure.


> OK dudes -- let's cut all the BS and get down to the nuts and bolts.

Yes.  Please.


> I can send you a huge amount of archived coms with Leonard that point out
> in great detail how his results are totally impossible.

> As you might have noted by the last posting -- I am not that naive in
> regards to this field. And that is the reason Leonard ended communicating
> with me off list -- after all the hard asses on the Gas list chased him away.
> 
> Now -- I to -- like the hard asses -- has a very bad time accepting any of
> this -- fraud -- scam -- impossible!! But unlike our beloved hard asses --
> I do keep on checking -- after all -- leave no stone unturned.
> 
> So -- it faded away -- Leonard got sick -- never heard from him again --
> this two years ago.
> 
> Then someone posted the Noah thingy -- OK -- more "fraud -- scam --
> impossible"
> 
> However -- two stones now turned over showing the same worm!!

I'm not following what you are saying.  Was Leonard a promoter, or a
debunker?  Are you suggesting that the Noah thing is, or is not a scam?
Are you saying that you have worthwhile information that suggests it's
worth looking in to?


> Little researching on the net -- whoa -- everyone and their 3rd cousin is
> claiming the same.
> 
> Including Ceciro -- who is no "dummy" and we are talking a 450 million
> investment project!!
> 
> I also found the same everywhere -- one of the best studies was done in
> Australia!!
> 
> I posted all those links Daniel -- but maybe you were so self convinced (of
> course -- always with a little help from Kevin) that you decided not to
> waste time verifying hard data when so obviously it has to be all a fraud -- 

I will confess that I have not followed and studied every link you've
posted to the list.  There simply isn't enough time, one has to do a bit
of triage and decide where to best invest one's time.  Yes, this does
risk missing some good stuff, so if I've made a mistake and you would
like me to look at a specific site or two, by all means tell me which
one(s) and I'll go check it out.

Anything that looks like a scam or a fraud, I usually don't waste my
time investigating further.  There are certain red flags which trigger
this behaviour in me, violations of fundamental physical laws and
outward signs of a stock or investment swindle being a few of the more
obvious ones.

As far as "verifying hard data" goes, if someone suggests they have a
process that will get a million BTU from 70 pounds of biomass, what is
your assessment of their claims?  Should I consider this to be "hard
data", which I somehow ought to verify?  FWIW my interpretation is that
this is not data but a claim, and one that is outrageous on the face of
it.

If you've found promising data that I have missed, point me there and
I'll have an honest look at it.  While you are at it, I would really
appreciate if you would also eliminate the personal attacks and
innuendo, they are not appreciated or helpful.  If necessary I can deal
with useful, interesting but abrasive people, but to be honest I really
prefer and favour polite cordial conversation with competent people.


> As for me -- I can't see this many scientific institutions of high
> standards doing tests and all coming up with fraudulent numbers to scam a
> naive public into parting with their dollars -- or I could be wrong and the
> US has descended that low??
> 
> You tell me -- OK!!!
> 
> Admittedly -- I can't understand how they are achieving this -- not at all.
> 
> But it is getting harder and harder to ignore that so many are!!

Point me to where the results are made, I'll evaluate them and let you
know what I think.  Unfortunately all I've seen so far are some press
releases that set off a lot of my scam-alert alarm bells.

I'm not going to say that something like cold fusion or room temperature
superconductors are impossible, I know better than that.  But I also
know the difference between a press release, and reported claims and
data, and well-presented theory, and independently reproduced data.  A
BS filter helps sort through things...

> Here is how Leonard explains what is happening -- in regards to the simply
> incredible returns.
> 
> Mind you -- I find this nest to impossible to believe -- and my mind is
> chanting over and over:
> 
> "fraud -- scam -- impossible"
> 
> But to guys like me -- science is the art of observation -- I am not going
> to let my "beliefs" interfere with well recorded observations!!

In my opinion, you are overstating your scientific impartiality and
methods.  On more than one occasion you have made mistakes on fairly
simple matters, ones that a well-honed art of observation, application
of prior knowledge, and analysis might have saved you from.

> We have plenty of Kevins good at doing that -- there is no need for me to
> join that club!!

I will say this once, and once only: piss off with the pointless and
prejudicial personal attacks on any of this list's participants

If you ever do this again, I promise that responding to you in a
worthwhile or helpful manner will go right to the bottom of my priority
list.

(To every other list participant, please accept my apologies for
stepping past, for the very first time, the reasonable bounds of
politeness and decency that you ought to expect on this
gasification-list.  Please also accept my promise that I will try to
never do this ever again).

> Daniel -- I am confused over your role -- are you a Kevin type "Bash
> everything "new" always and only do that" or do you actually do hands on
> stuff? Observe -- dwell on the data -- and in a reasoning and logical
> manner try to reach reasonable and logical conclusions??

I'm trying to learn, to make something work, and hopefully even to make
a business out of it, and to waste as little time as possible on
fruitless avenues of inquiry, and fruitless collaboration and
communication.


> I simply reason that this does appear to be "worth" further research and
> investigation!!
> 
> 
> 
> Peter/Belize
> 
> ***************
> 
> From: LWheeler45 at aol.com
> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:25:29 EST
> To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> 
> Remember this Bio Arc does it.  1.5 or better energy out than used in process.
> 
> And that is NOT using the hydrogen and other gasses.  Also the inert gas
> used in process is Nitrogen and Argon  recycled.  Attached is the chemistry
> on output from medical waste.   

There's not enough context here to know what he's talking about.

I see that it was posted on the gasification list, perhaps I can
retrieve it from the archives.  I truly hope it is not one of those
hopelessly noisy and polluted threads, and that I am able to find the
useful information there.....?

"1.5 or better energy out than used in process" is a minor red flag,
he's not clearly claiming a perpetual motion machine, but there is a bit
of that flavour.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.


> TBReed and All:
>  
> I'm not talking about using microwaves to  gasify.  Any piece of matter
> that is at a temperature higher than absolute  zero always emits
> electromagnetic radiation at various intensities and at  various
> wavelengths.  The amount of radiation emitted is primarily a  function of
> the material properties and temperature.  This spectral  distribution is
> commonly refered to as the Planck Distribution.  Microwaves  are just one
> type of electromagnetic radiation.  Visual light, infra-red  and
> ultra-violet are other types of radiation that occur in certain wave bands
> across the spectrum.
>  
> Every piece of matter above absolute zero  emits radiation, and this
> emission occurs primarily in the visual, ultra-violet  and infra-red bands.
>  The interesting point to note is that the radiation  intensity increases
> with the fourth power of temperature.  This means that  if the temperature
> of the object is doubled, the radiation output increases by a  factor of
> 16.  In terms of absolute temperature, 1260 degrees Celsius is
> (1260+273)/(20+273)=5.2 times as hot as room temperature, and the amount of
>  thermal radiation an object emits at 1260C is 731 times as much as
> compared to  what it emits at room temperature.  This is very significant!  

OK, good summary of basic 3rd-year physics, no mistakes there (which is
nice to see).  But I'm not sure what the followup or application is...?


> ************and*****************
> 
> Nope the figures are 9,000,000 BTU from 120 Amps 3 phase 440 and 6 yards
> per hr of medical waste. plastic blood containers tubes etc.human body
> parts rubber gloves sharps, bandages paper, gauze.

Dunno what he's talking about.

120A/3ph-440V is a (resistive) power of 91kW (if I haven't made any of
my usual 3-phase mistakes ;-).  In terms of BTUs, this is 310,000
BTU/hr.

9MMBTU is an energy figure.  No idea what he's saying w.r.t. how it
relates to the electrical power figure.

Presumably he's talking about some process efficiency, but there just
isn't enough info here to understand what he is claiming, and then to be
able to verify the claims.


> The effect is achieve by the 4th order heat on the rollers and inside the
> magnetic filed of the plasma arc. 

Without further context, I don't know what effect he is talking about.
 
> This list guy mentioned it and a Ph D physics guy told me of the expected
> event at a meeting when he reviewed the data.


-- 
- Daniel
Fredericton, NB  Canada