06.01.2015 Views

the new fuels with magnecular structure - Institute for Basic Research

the new fuels with magnecular structure - Institute for Basic Research

the new fuels with magnecular structure - Institute for Basic Research

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

96 RUGGERO MARIA SANTILLI<br />

There<strong>for</strong>e, <strong>the</strong> total energy output of <strong>the</strong> PlasmaArcFlow Reactors is given by<br />

E(mg) + E(heat) = 315 BTU/cf + 2, 254 BTU/cf = 2, 569 BTU/cf. (4.34)<br />

It <strong>the</strong>n follows that <strong>the</strong> energy efficiency of <strong>the</strong> PlasmaArcFlow reactors is underunity<br />

<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of maximal possible efficiency,<br />

=<br />

Energy efficiency predicted by quantum chemistry =<br />

Total energy out<br />

Electric energy in = E mg + E heat<br />

E electr<br />

=<br />

2, 569 BTU/cf<br />

= 0.79. (4.35)<br />

3, 238 BTU/cf<br />

It is possible to show that, <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of 50% efficiency (i.e., when 50% of<br />

<strong>the</strong> original H and O recombine into water) <strong>the</strong> total energy output evidently<br />

decreases. For detail, we refer <strong>the</strong> interested reader to Aringazin and Santilli [9].<br />

4.8 Cleaning Fossil Fuel Exhaust <strong>with</strong> Magnegas<br />

Additive<br />

Electric power plants continue to attempt <strong>the</strong> cleaning of <strong>the</strong>ir atmospheric<br />

pollution (see Figure 1) via <strong>the</strong> cleaning of <strong>the</strong>ir exhaust. Since <strong>the</strong> related<br />

equipment is very expensive and notoriously inefficient, <strong>the</strong>se are attempts literally<br />

belonging to <strong>the</strong> past millennium. Nowadays, <strong>the</strong> exhaust of fossil fueled<br />

electric power plants can be cleaned via cost competitive improvement of <strong>the</strong><br />

combustion.<br />

It is known that, whe<strong>the</strong>r burning petroleum or coal, about 60% of <strong>the</strong> energy<br />

in <strong>the</strong> original fuel is literally thrown through <strong>the</strong> fluke, and so is <strong>the</strong> relates cost,<br />

due to <strong>the</strong> notoriously poor combustion.<br />

It is also known in chemistry that hydrogen is <strong>the</strong> best additive to improve<br />

combustion, <strong>with</strong> consequential improvement of <strong>the</strong> environmental quality of <strong>the</strong><br />

exhaust. In fact, hydrogen has <strong>the</strong> biggest flame temperature and speed among<br />

all known <strong>fuels</strong>. Consequently, <strong>the</strong> injection of hydrogen as an additive in <strong>the</strong><br />

flame of fossil <strong>fuels</strong> burns <strong>the</strong> uncombusted component of <strong>the</strong> exhausts in a way<br />

proportional to <strong>the</strong> used percentage of hydrogen. A reason hydrogen as currently<br />

available has not (and cannot) be used as additive in fossil fueled electric power<br />

plants is its prohibitive cost (that in <strong>the</strong> U.S.A. is of <strong>the</strong> order of 50 times <strong>the</strong><br />

cost of natural gas per same energy content, as recalled in Section 1.3).<br />

Magnegas is <strong>the</strong> best additive <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> cleaning of fossil fuel exhaust known to<br />

<strong>the</strong> author 9 because:<br />

9 The documented indication of o<strong>the</strong>r additives comparable to magnegas would be sincerely appreciated.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!