You are certainly creating a lot of expectation here! This will be perhaps the most thorough independent experimental replication and data we will have available, and what better when it comes from a source I fully trust. Kudos and I hope everything goes great!!!
I have to ask, the recall software does not seem to be able to open the files in txt format, it only accepts SI-d extension, is some conversion needed?
Reading the software manual it says one can export a file to txt, specially to read the annotations, but the software can't read the txt files. Is there a way to get the original SI-d files or to convert them back to SI-d files? The manual easyview manual does not have any instructions on that AFAICT.
Load the SI-d file and export to txt and you will get the same txt that I produced. You have the SI-d file and RECALL, that is what I used to make the txt
The txt format I exported from the Recall software when in Alan's lab, as at that time, I had not found the install code for the software and wanted to keep my commitment to make the raw data public. I left it in the downloads because there may be some people that do not want to install the RECALL software or have a mac and can't. These people would still have the raw data. I can't remember if I included the txts for the active run - I think I didn't as by this time I had that solved - I will fix that.
Our ancestors saw this gigantic feature in the sky - a scaled-up, macroscopic "Birkeland Current" version of the streamers we see in VEGA, lending credence to what else our ancestors state, namely that there was an original sun - "proto-Saturn" - with Mars and (later) Venus being MUCH closer to Earth than they are now:
If you have the heater (load) on, and you have Oxygen in the Exhaust and "free" Carbon, then is not possible (probable) that some of the Oxygen reacts with the Carbon to form CO2 ? Same with Hydrogen and Oxygen, although as the temperature is much above 100 degrees Centigrade, it would likely form super-heated steam if the Hydrogen was in contact with the Oxygen for long enough. Perhaps under load, less Hydrocarbon is burned in the reaction chamber but instead dissociated in the exhaust to provide the "free" Carbon. Still, a major reduction in CO2, maintenance of Oxygen levels to close-to-"normal air", and no Hydrocarbons is still a win
I have kept wondering about these results as I come back to the idea that we now have an independently acquired data set, from a trusted source, that shows that the concentration of CO2 produced by a genset, that has been modified with the TSG, is roughly 4,5 times lower under the same load conditions.
We still truly need to verify that the exhaust gas flow is comparable among the control and the TSG, but assuming it is, one could rapidly propose a carbon reduction project (to obtain and sell Carbon reduction certificates) in which the only intervention required is retrofitting existing ICEs with a TSG, claiming a reduction of roughly 778 kgs of CO2 per non modified ICE 1000 kgs CO2 release. Any ICE considered as a fixed source of CO2 emissions that releases 500 metric ton of CO2 per year could claim 389 metric tons of CO2 emission reduction per year. At a rough average of USD per ton of carbon credit, the retrofit may pay for itself.
Just a follow up comment now that I had a chance to review the SI-d files. I just looked for the Peak CO2 pressure in mbar in both the TSG run and the Control run, and the peak CO2 pressure of the control is 4,51 times the peak CO2 pressure of the TSG.
In the case of Oxygen the peak O2 pressure of the control is 0,47 times the peak O2 pressure of the TSG.
I fiddled a bit with online tools until I convinced myself that mbar pressure was directly convertible to mass and that the ratio of Control/TSG was the same when calculated for the mass in mg/L, so now I can be sure that the unmodified generator releases 4,51 times more CO2 and 0,47 less times O2 than the TSG modified generator. This may not be as spectacular as Bendall claims, but, I repeat once again, is very useful for purposes of continuing using ICEs in an increasingly restrictive scenario.
In connection with possible post combustion creation of CO2 in the exhaust pipe (from breakdown of hydrocarbons then mixing with Oxygen in the exhaust, creating a second “burning” as the Carbon and Oxygen combine), I was wondering whether a double-TSG configuration on series on the exhaust pipe would help, either as:
—0–0–0—
or:
—0–0–0–0—
with the second part being used to consume any CO2 formed following the break down of the hydrocarbons in the first part (I am assuming under load the burning of the hydrocarbons becomes less efficient)
You are certainly creating a lot of expectation here! This will be perhaps the most thorough independent experimental replication and data we will have available, and what better when it comes from a source I fully trust. Kudos and I hope everything goes great!!!
There is more to come after this, people can do their own analysis on the spectra etc.
Having trouble to install the software to review the data, the setup asks for a code that should be on the CD label, is that available?
Install Code for ProcessView = easyview
Duh, I looked for it, but I wasn't thorough enough, sorry, and much thanks!!!
It is in the references here:
https://remoteview.substack.com/p/ultr-hydrogen
I will add it to the blog also.
I have to ask, the recall software does not seem to be able to open the files in txt format, it only accepts SI-d extension, is some conversion needed?
Reading the software manual it says one can export a file to txt, specially to read the annotations, but the software can't read the txt files. Is there a way to get the original SI-d files or to convert them back to SI-d files? The manual easyview manual does not have any instructions on that AFAICT.
Load the SI-d file and export to txt and you will get the same txt that I produced. You have the SI-d file and RECALL, that is what I used to make the txt
Sorry Bob, somehow
I missed this answer, the thing is that the zip file that one gets by clicking in
the button to dowload the data, only contains the txt files, not the SI-d files.
Serve me right trying to do things on a few hours sleep just before I walk onto a plane!
Thank you for the heads up, I have corrected it, please redownload from the same link.
The txt format I exported from the Recall software when in Alan's lab, as at that time, I had not found the install code for the software and wanted to keep my commitment to make the raw data public. I left it in the downloads because there may be some people that do not want to install the RECALL software or have a mac and can't. These people would still have the raw data. I can't remember if I included the txts for the active run - I think I didn't as by this time I had that solved - I will fix that.
visually informative, enticing for those who needed to see a physical layout!
It’s a beautiful build
Nice work Bob and Malcolm!
Invaluable work done here
So well prepared and well organised!
I am really looking forward to this first run of an independent Thunderstorm Generator test set-up.
the following may be of some interest, especially with the Cosmic Summit coming up:
Gigantic Ancient Earthwork DISCOVERED in New Mexico Resembles a 'Swastika' Navajo Earthwork?
https://youtu.be/C58hC92P12U
Our ancestors saw this gigantic feature in the sky - a scaled-up, macroscopic "Birkeland Current" version of the streamers we see in VEGA, lending credence to what else our ancestors state, namely that there was an original sun - "proto-Saturn" - with Mars and (later) Venus being MUCH closer to Earth than they are now:
Dwardu Cardona: Earth’s Primordial Stellar Host | EU2014 Conference
https://youtu.be/8Zf_17jcZPQ
Wal Thornhill: The Saturn/Earth Connection and Our Place in the Universe | Space News
https://youtu.be/6fjcPguafug
So, is it possible (probable) that our ancestors learned from what they saw and developed the knowledge we are only now "rediscovering"?
If you have the heater (load) on, and you have Oxygen in the Exhaust and "free" Carbon, then is not possible (probable) that some of the Oxygen reacts with the Carbon to form CO2 ? Same with Hydrogen and Oxygen, although as the temperature is much above 100 degrees Centigrade, it would likely form super-heated steam if the Hydrogen was in contact with the Oxygen for long enough. Perhaps under load, less Hydrocarbon is burned in the reaction chamber but instead dissociated in the exhaust to provide the "free" Carbon. Still, a major reduction in CO2, maintenance of Oxygen levels to close-to-"normal air", and no Hydrocarbons is still a win
I have kept wondering about these results as I come back to the idea that we now have an independently acquired data set, from a trusted source, that shows that the concentration of CO2 produced by a genset, that has been modified with the TSG, is roughly 4,5 times lower under the same load conditions.
We still truly need to verify that the exhaust gas flow is comparable among the control and the TSG, but assuming it is, one could rapidly propose a carbon reduction project (to obtain and sell Carbon reduction certificates) in which the only intervention required is retrofitting existing ICEs with a TSG, claiming a reduction of roughly 778 kgs of CO2 per non modified ICE 1000 kgs CO2 release. Any ICE considered as a fixed source of CO2 emissions that releases 500 metric ton of CO2 per year could claim 389 metric tons of CO2 emission reduction per year. At a rough average of USD per ton of carbon credit, the retrofit may pay for itself.
Just a follow up comment now that I had a chance to review the SI-d files. I just looked for the Peak CO2 pressure in mbar in both the TSG run and the Control run, and the peak CO2 pressure of the control is 4,51 times the peak CO2 pressure of the TSG.
In the case of Oxygen the peak O2 pressure of the control is 0,47 times the peak O2 pressure of the TSG.
I fiddled a bit with online tools until I convinced myself that mbar pressure was directly convertible to mass and that the ratio of Control/TSG was the same when calculated for the mass in mg/L, so now I can be sure that the unmodified generator releases 4,51 times more CO2 and 0,47 less times O2 than the TSG modified generator. This may not be as spectacular as Bendall claims, but, I repeat once again, is very useful for purposes of continuing using ICEs in an increasingly restrictive scenario.
In connection with possible post combustion creation of CO2 in the exhaust pipe (from breakdown of hydrocarbons then mixing with Oxygen in the exhaust, creating a second “burning” as the Carbon and Oxygen combine), I was wondering whether a double-TSG configuration on series on the exhaust pipe would help, either as:
—0–0–0—
or:
—0–0–0–0—
with the second part being used to consume any CO2 formed following the break down of the hydrocarbons in the first part (I am assuming under load the burning of the hydrocarbons becomes less efficient)