Klein gas brouhaha
Received the following comment regarding my previous posts (here) on Ruggero Santilli, the theorist behind Klein gas.
Dear Mobjectivist:
Concerning your rude and offensive comments regarding Dr. Ruggero Santilli, a great mathematician and scientist, who has been nominated for the Nobel Prize on more than one occasion, and about whom you have written "Ruggero Santilli may be just a lunatic fringe scientist, in disguise" and that critics should not "waste their breath on this nutcase".
I think that you had better do some further reading of Ruggero Santilli's vast works, to increase your knowledge of his contributions to math, physics and quantum chemistry. When you said that Santilli was "a new name to the mix", you reveal the true depth of your ignorance. He has been working in the field, including research at Harvard, since the 1970's. You can see his CV on his website. http://www.i-b-r.org
By the way, where is your CV?
I have read some of Dr. Santilli's papers and the first several chapters of his text on Hadronic Mechanics, and would suggest you begin there. {His report on efficiencies of various processes is quite clear and to me seems quite correct, contrary to your comments.} However, to call this scientist a "nutcase" in your blog does not contribute to greater understanding, and is incredibly revealing, --but more about YOU and YOUR attitude, than anything about Dr. Santilli.
Sincerely,
Sam Spade in Scandinavia
I apologize profusely. I probably should not participate in character assassination. Probably should let the body of evidence decide the theory's worth. With that in mind, the following email correspondence contains a more measured criticism of the contested theory. (Courtesy of a colleague from work)
FYI only!
Re: Review of US. Patent Application 2004/0149591 A1
I have spoken to a well-respected physicist who knows Ruggero Santilli for many years and he describes him in one word - unreliable.
I have read and reviewed the patent application and other papers
written by Ruggero Santilli. I doubt that the electrolyzer described in the patent application will produce the excited species that Santilli describes. Santilli's other papers discuss the excited states for atoms, radicals and molecules that are produced from an electric arc. An arc process has the high electric and magnetic fields that Santilli states are necessary to produce electromagnecules, or magnecules. The electrolyzer described in the patent application has no mechanism for employing a high electric and/or a high magnetic field that are claimed to be necessary in Santilli's other papers to produce the excited state of hydrogen and oxygen.
In other papers that describe the generation of combustible gas from an electric arc, the stability of reaction product gas is not described or mentioned, other than to state that coupling at the atomic, radical or molecular level stabilizes the species. I have doubts about the science that Santilli describes for coupling and the stability of gas products.
I have doubts about the capability of the simple electrolysis apparatus, casually described in the patent application and without any greater supporting details in other papers, to maintain the excited state of hydrogen or oxygen to achieve and realize the claimed high energy density released during combustion of these species. Santilli may be ahead of his time but what is disclosed in the patent application does not convince or prove to me that magnecule HHO is formed and has any stability. Some analytical results, similar in description to those from the electric arc experiments, are available in the patent. No detailed data is given for energy released from these magnecules with storage time. There is no discussion of the materials or required electric and magnetic fields for containing or transferring this highly energetic gas. (Think of the difference between data from other start high technology companies and the information available here.) At best, there is much applied science and development before the application of this technology to practical problems is realized.
Based on the technology and the technologist, I recommend that ____ commit no funds to The Center for Strategic Alliance or the Institute for Basic Research to support development of the equipment covered under U.S. Patent Application 2004/0149591 A1 to produce a combustible gas from water. This technology is at best in its infancy.
If you have questions or comments please feel free to contact me.
Regards, ____
Apparently, the western Kentucky company quoted above (The Center for Strategic Alliance and here ) promised interested parties samples of the Klein gas concoction, but the parties never received the goods. When the parties (i.e. marks) questioned the hillbillies, the moonshine schysters asked for some upfront investment money. ... Q.E.D.
posted by @whut at November 06, 2004
9 Comments:
Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it." - George Monbiot
you go a long way to proving that quote..
Gentlemen,
I'm not sure who you are, but I have seen the Kelin Gas Generator, it works.I have cut steel, melted tungston, and run my fingers through the flame.... it does ALL they claim and will be further developed to prove the "hillbillys" know a little more than you give them credit for .....this will go a long way to free us from the "camel piss" we have been paying through the nose for lately.
Ted Blackwell
Good for you. Mixing hydrogen with oxygen is an explosive combination. Hillbillies will continue to believe that there is something special about the Klein gas, and ignoring the fact that it is energy intensive to produce.
Energy intensive? Plug it into the wall, pour water into the top, Cut everything from tungsten to lead and work all day for less then dinner mony for you and your wife.
I have seen it work as well.
not only as a cutting torch but also as a vehicle fuel.
Klein's gas is merely an attempt to rename and steal the rights to Brown's gas. They make essentially the same claims and produce the same results.
See http://forums.hypography.com/chemistry/6608-hho.html for a complete listing of comparisons.
If it sounds too good to be true, it generally is. A machine that makes fuel by some unknown mechanism involving nothing more than water and operating at atmospheric temperature and pressure is not likely to be an efficient one.
Advice to wannabee scientists. A part of the scientific process is observation, observation with as much subjectiveness removed as possible. Is the repeated use of the term "hillbilly" a scientific criteria in your observations? At best it is just funny, like Abe Lincoln, another shallow thinking joker from the hills. Stick to objective observations with honest premises. Honest Abe
Yea, all you "wannabee" scientists, watch out for the science police coming down on you. Like hard.
I too have not only personally seen this unit in operation but have operated it. It does not use water exculsively as the fuel! We had a mixture of oil by-product and water, thus raising the BTU content of the output. The output gas was then stored in containers and used to power a car which I drove. The power consumtion used to produce this output fuel makes the Magnegas not cost effective from calculations because the cost of electricity is clearly more expensive than gas. However, as gas prices approach $5 a gallon this process begins to look more promising because of the environmental tradeoff.
Post a Comment
<< Home