226) Reading a strange patent description

Ludwik Kowalski (6/2/05)
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043

This unit is the continuation of what was in unit #216. It describes a strange initiative. I plan to follow that initiative because I believe that long-lasting commercial success is as important as reproducible experiments in science. How to separate hydrogen from water? By relying on electrolysis, or on thermal decomposition. But these methods are not economically effective ways to produce a fuel. A presumably effective method was patented by Hyunik Yang and Alexander Koldamasov. A description of their Korean patent can be downloaded from www.delphion.com The text is in English but the translation is far from being good. Information appearing on the first page is shown below.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The International PCT Publication Number is: WO2004/041715 A1
The title is: "APPARATUS FOR GENERATING HYDROGEN GAS"
The first inventor is: Yang, Hyun-Ik
The second inventor is: Koldamasov, Alexander Ivanovich
The initial publication date is: 21 May 2004 (21.05.2004)
The priority data is: 10-2002-0069231
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1) In the abstract I read that the apparatus uses highly purified water under “predetermined pressure.” The water flows through an narrow opening in the implant made from a dielectric material. I do not understand how high voltage impulses are generated in the implant by “cavitation emission” and how hydrogen atoms are separated from oxygen atoms. But I do know that separation of atoms is an endothermic process. What kind of energy is used to separate atoms? The authors refer to ions (which are magnetically separated) but the nature of ions is not clear to me. Do they refer to ionized molecules of water or do they refer to ions of hydrogen and oxygen?

2) Later I see that the dielectric material must have “tolerance to a cavitation emission phenomenon generated inside of the body.” I know that cavitation consists of formation of bubbles in a liquid. But what is “cavitation emission?” What is being emitted by what?

3) On page 4 I see a reference to “magnetic bodies.” Are these bodies magnetic monopoles? How else can I understand the following sentence? “Herein, magnetic bodies are formed at lateral sides of the channel such as a North pole of a group of the manetic bodies and a South pole of another group of the magnetic bodies face with each other.” How are H and OH ions, mentioned on that page, separated? What material is the “catalytic plate” made of? Would the answers be obvious to me if I were a chemist?

4) On page 6 I see a reference to a “high pressure wave.” But I do not understand the nature of that wave. The author writes: “Because of the high pressure wave, there are created fine cracks on the inner walls of the passage slot of the dielectric implant. Electrons are emitted from the fine cracks due to a property of the material used in the inner walls, i.e., the property that easily resulting in the cavitation emission phenomenon. The emitted electrons are dispersed within the operation fluid, thereby resulting in the Vavilov-Cheronkov effect.” I know that Cherenkov radiation consists of light emitted when the speed of electrons is higher than the speed of light in that medium. How are electrons accelerated to emit light? One thing is clear; a patent description is not a pedagogically written textbook.

5) On the next page I see a reference to “Lorentz force in a perpendicular direction to the magnetic field.” That force separates H and OH ions according to “their electric polarities, i.e. positive charged ions and negatively charged ions.” How fast must the fluid (containing ions) flow and how large should the magnetic field be to make such separation possible?

6) Please be aware that I am writing this as I read the text. The illustrations, whose descriptions begin on page 7, might provide answers to some of my questions.

7) Unfortunately, the illustrations did not help me understand the device. Figure 5, however, was useful. It made clear that “magnetic bodies” are not monopoles; they are N and S poles of two bar magnets (polarized sidewise) used to crate the magnetic field along the path of flowing water. The Lorentz force is due to that field, and to the velocity of ions formed in water. Hydrogen ions H⁺ are said to be separated from the OH^- ions by Lorentz force. But how are these ions formed? How much energy is needed to separate H⁺ from OH^-?

8) On page 14 I see this sentence: “ The apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein the dielectric implant is made of one of ruby and sapphire and inner walls of the passage slot contacting the operation fluid include a dielectric layer sensitive to the cavitation emission.” What properties of ruby or sapphire are essential in this application? Why are these substances better than other dielectric materials?

9) My main question has to do with energy. The device is supposed to produce fuel. It is well known that burning one mole of that fuel (2 grams of hydrogen) generates 495 kJ of thermal energy and produces one mole (18 grams) of water. If the device can be 100% efficient, which is an idealization, then these 495 kJ of energy can be used to produce 2 grams of hydrogen. What benefits can one derive from a device using more energy to produce fuel than the energy one can obtain from that fuel?

The only logical answer, without violating the first law of thermodynamics, is to postulate that an additional source of energy is being used. What is the nature of that source? I know how some people would answer this question. They would say that the so-called “zero-point energy” allows us to get more than two grams of hydrogen from 495 kJ of thermal energy. The theoretical idea of a hidden sourúce of energy would be acceptable to me, but not before an experimental confirmation. According to what was quoted in unit #216, commercialization of the device is going to start in several months. Will it use much less than 495 kJ of thermal energy to produce 2 grams of hydrogen? If so then the iESiUSA stocks sold at $4 a share will be worth much more that $4000 per share. But I am not ready to invest in their hydrogen-making machine.

Addendum (6/4/2005):
I WAS ASKED TO REMOVE THIS ADDENDUM. THE REQUSTER REFERRED TO MY PERSONAL SAFETY. YES, I AM CONCERNED !

Addendum (6/4/05):
Browsing the Internet I found this webpage http://100777.com/node/1146. Posted on the “site for Truthseekers,” the document contains a description of something called gCell. I do not know if this cell has anything to do with the iESiUSA invention. They say that catalytic conversion of water into hydrogen and oxygen takes place in a gCell. Here is a quote from the first paragraph:

“ . . . A second process involves a thermo, electro-catalytic reaction that results in the complete separation [of hydrogen from oxygen]. In the third process, small amounts of the hydrogen and oxygen gas molecules created in the second process recombine, providing additional electrical current to subsidize the overall gas generation process. A single Genesis gCell stack (about the size of a small car battery), consisting of several individual gCells, is capable of producing hundreds of cubic feet of gas per day. In comparison, a typical American home located in cold climates consumes approximately five metered cubic feet of natural gas a day. When converted to electricity this represents a 30kW output. The eCell does the reverse reaction to create a cheaper, more powerful, more reliable, longer life, and compacter fuel cell. . . .”

Unfortunately, the origin of “free energy,” needed to operate the gCells and eCells is not mentioned. This can be contrasted with what is explained at another website http://www.physorg.com/news3083.html . This description makes sense to me; it offers a way of using heat from solar energy concentrators (or high temperature nuclear reactors) to produce fuel for our automobiles. Here is the description:

“The U.S. Department of Energy has awarded Clemson University a three-year, $856,000 grant to develop more efficient methods for producing hydrogen. ‘The irony is that today, most hydrogen is produced by consuming the very fossil fuels we're trying to replace,’ said principal investigator Mark Thies, professor of chemical engineering at Clemson. ‘But, we can also produce hydrogen by splitting water into its two elements, hydrogen and oxygen. The trick is to find the most energy-efficient manner for carrying out that splitting process.’

Thies explains that proposed ‘thermochemical processes’ are much more efficient than the classic electrolysis method, which uses an electric current, for splitting water. The thermochemical processes require heat -- both solar and nuclear power have been proposed -- to operate and use complex chemical reactions to reduce the energy required to split the water.

These processes are still on the drawing board. Both high-powered experiments and high-powered computer calculations will be needed before hydrogen production can become a reality. Thies has assembled a diverse team of experimentalists, theoreticians and computer-aided design specialists to work on this challenging problem. The team includes Clemson professor David Bruce, John O'Connell of the University of Virginia, industrial consultant Paul Mathias of Cambridge, Mass., and Maximilian Gorensek of the Savannah River National Laboratory.”

Addendum (6/5/2005):
Here is a piece from the iESiUSA website: http://www.iesiusa.com/hydrogen.html
We believe that the low-cost hydrogen-generation technology is the “crown jewel” of the company because of its potential to revolutionize the energy supply through the world. iESi’s technology allows for the delivery of pure hydrogen directly to the compressor, without the usual requirements for . . . We are in the final stages of completing the manufacture of a hydrogen-generating unit. It will be available for private demonstration to licensees and investors in late 2004.

It is now June 2005; what did they demonstrate? In my opinion, selling reliable generators, under a very strong warranty, would be the best possible publicity. Many investors would buy a device if the “money-back guarantee” was formally offered for at least one year. A reliable device described on the iESiUSA website (already protected by the Korean patent) would pay for itself in much shorter time than one year. I am afraid that a demo might backfire, like the 1989 public announcement in Salt Lake City.

P.S. Units #229 and #230 (and some to be added later) are also connected with this topic.