unifying theory: Pantone, Vortex and planet Earth

[crispus]

Hello !

It has been a year since I "spy" on this forum. It's not snobbery, but I had nothing more to say!

However, I learned a lot about the Pantone process during your discussions.

I looked for a theory which answers most of the observations made by the experimenters, and put it on line at Quanthomme, but unfortunately it seems that it "fell by the wayside" since nobody spoke about it on this forum.

As I am not sure on what subject to post I propose to create a new one. I invite you to read the following document in pdf:

http://vortex.francophone.free.fr/docum ... vortex.pdf

Please, no chapel quarrel between sites. I just propose to provide concrete explanations to the process.

I am waiting for your comments. See you soon.

Marc

[Other]

Hello
first Thank you for your well documented tone on a theoretical way of the panton.
Obviously many read it and I even put some comments in a post
(the physicist's opinion posted on September 27 at 8:30 a.m.)
this a theoretical explanation, but in visual practice there are signs which do not correspond to the subject of the hairspring on the rod
and for cavitation on the stems ..

Andre

[Capt_Maloche]

It's interesting, and I like it when we talk about MHD

On the other hand you push a little far on the output of the turbines of power stations and on the explanation of the terrestrial magnetic field

if your nice thesis is correct, the implantation of a VSLA at the entrance of the reactor should improve its start-up, but do not be wrong in the direction of rotation compared to the "magnetization" of the central rod

[crispus]

Hello André. Always quick to react on a forum. And in general not to say nothing!

I found the thread that you indicated to me.

I am neither a physicist nor a theoretician, not even an engineer (although - only having administrative rank), despite the documentary bulimia that led me to this theory still under construction.


To answer Christophe who wonders about my job, I am an electronics teacher in a technical high school, with a Bac + 4 university training, after a short but intense industrial experience as an automation engineer. For the rest I prefer to remain anonymous but if he wants to know more -> MP.


Having come to auto mechanics out of necessity when I was a student, I only have my vehicles maintained in one garage: mine


I mounted a "G system" on an AX diesel at the beginning of 2006, "to see" and I saw ... That this assembly was not ready.

That is to say that my car "drank water" without flinching but without real fuel economy.

And then sometimes, miraculously, I hardly press the accelerator any more and it advances alone at 90 km / h. There I know it works.

Then, always out of curiosity, I taped a magnet (small engine inductor) on the fuel hose of my 806: 8% savings ... before the glue heats up and the magnet disappears!

Finally I made a AVEC which transformed my 806 diesel: more flexible, even more nervous driving, with 12 to 18% savings, which I have never obtained over the previous 200.000 km (I bought it new).

The results obtained with these ends of sheet (Pantone or vortex) are unjustifiable by standard equations. In particular for AVEC, the turbulence having, as you pointed out in your posts, only disadvantages for specialists!

So I studied closely the phenomenon of ionization which is in my opinion the key to operation. I came to this conclusion:

Along with the "fluid mechanics"; you have to build a"fluid electronics", that is to say
no longer consider only pressure and temperature, but polarity!

I had the trigger in early September: Lorentz's forces are barely mentioned in first class, they just serve to introduce Laplace: we quickly abandon the charged particle, to replace it with an electric current in a conductor.
Big mistake:

- An electron travels only 2,16 km / h in copper: we could follow it on foot! But you need good eyes!

- A unit charge ion (+ or -) moving at 800 km / h produces ... 370 times more effect! There is no photo!

And this fact has been totally overlooked: could it be the influence of a "copper lobby"?

The difficulty is to channel these ions which ask only to fly away in nature: hence the interest of the vortex ...

Regarding your remarks, I admit that my theory does not explain everything yet, but a good part.

To avoid making messages too long, I'm already sending this. See you soon.

[lusitano]

good evening crispus,
First of all welcome to this site. Lots of extravagant ideas, but how many innovative and extra-lucid ones circulate here.
I have carefully read your hypothesis if I have often lost the thread since I am not a scientist.
However you confirm me in my idea that I try to carry out for months:
increase the speed or induce a greater vortex movement on the rod; see isolate it to the maximum to allow more violent angular movement!
see even replace the tube?
Only here are what materials? what resistance to cavitation and at what temperatures and at what prices! I hadn't really thought about magnets.
That said if I get something I will talk about it,.
I hope that your interventions will be numerous I think that we will enormously appreciate them. @ +

[bob_isat]

hi crispus

you too could see that it is frustrating to propose a theory and then behind ... nothing

well, yeah. there may be a new theory every week and among them the good one ... that will change NOTHING.

but what should we expect?


the pantone is condemned to remain a DIY, must we make a reason?


I saw that you are quoting my page on the electrification of water vapor.

http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/elect ... eureau.htm

it is based on observations made on the reactor (luminescence, odor of ozone, influence of ph, loss of efficiency from 100Â ° c) and similar patented systems and a scientific publication and then ? ....


(if not I read your theory and as I leave the studies I allow myself to say that you confuse turbulent flow and flow "in spiral".

there is absolutely NO REASON that the path of the particles in the reactor takes place in a spiral, especially with a step as small as that you indicate.

the particles "sucked in" go in a straight line in laminar flow and "a little in all directions" in turbulent flow, with an axial speed nevertheless preponderant.

when to "the conversion of 100% of thermal energy into mechanical energy" ... how to say ....)

[Christophe]

there is absolutely NO REASON that the path of the particles in the reactor takes place in a spiral, especially with a step as small as that you indicate.

the particles "sucked in" go in a straight line in laminar flow and "a little in all directions" in turbulent flow, with an axial speed nevertheless preponderant.

when to "the conversion of 100% of thermal energy into mechanical energy" ... how to say ....

+1

I rather think that this subject can provide theoretical theories of scientific explanations for what could happen in the reactor: https://www.econologie.com/forums/le-compres ... t2402.html

[Other]

Hello

there is absolutely NO REASON that the path of the particles in the reactor takes place in a spiral, especially with a step as small as the one you indicate

(For the step I agree with you)

however in 1922 a certain Mr Ranque just blew in a tube to make a vacuum cleaner and that turns and even in two coaxial layer, and that from the beginning I had made an entry in the reactor at 90 degrees of the rod to induce this movement, well it was not just to increase the passage time in the reactor, I have spent many years improving industrial ovens with this principle of to make a vortex flame to increase the time of passage of the flame in long industrial heating furnaces of Bram.
A tubular flow always get in the way due to a parasitic reason, a simple spot of welding on the rod is the primer, an entry, angle and it's gone, to make a laminar flow requires polishing and building care.
Now, experience tells me that forcing a whirlwind in the reactor does not bring me much more than isolating it electrically.
The spiral, the magnetism, the cavitation pins, the electrification of the water drops is all of the consequences of the passage of wet gases in a tube, but what interests us is what it does in the engine! (it's a bit like a layman who makes an electric arc and watches the current flow and finds it astounding)


as for theories, they are all plausible and + or credible.
But I think we have to go further than in the engine, it is in the engine that we have to look, what makes this change what in the engine? and I am convinced that there are other ways than the panton to make (the good product that the engine must swallow) The researchers do not put as much energy on the rejection of inert gas in the engines, for nothing. With a panton the rejection of vapor modified so as not to use the word electrified is similar to an ERG rejection, only better. We DIY enthusiasts have not yet understood the dosage depending on the use of the engine.

Andre

[crispus]

Hello bob_isat and thank you for your work on the water vapor which influenced me well!

I admit it, I was deliberately provocative in my subject. Old pedagogical technique to try to "wake up" the audience and attract their attention. Apparently it worked a quarter turn!

Of course, we will never be able to convert 100% the heat of the exhaust in movement,
but I maintain that

Carnot's principle only applies to an electrically neutral fluid.

Subjected to several antagonistic forces which keep it firmly on its trajectory, at a distance from the other molecules, an ion trapped in the vortex cannot escape its kinetic energy in the form of shocks, therefore absence of energy. heating and pressure. On the other hand, this supply of energy is converted into movement ... In MHD, heat and pressure are not necessarily linked.

If not,

How to explain that the yield is better when the gas leaves only at 100Â ° C of the reactor (dixit André),

- while he entered it at 80 ° C,

- and traveled 1 mm from an intense heat source (500Â ° C?).

Because the input heat was converted into rotational energy of the vortex, which "concentrated" the ions by tightening the turns (s, i si) and produced an intense electric field, generating plasma.

Better: out of the reactor, in the absence of heat supply, the vortex will continue to rotate as long as the ions have enough kinetic energy, their progressive loss of speed refreshing the leads. An ionized vortex acts as an intercooler.

I remind you that the ions do not recombine as long as they are in motion. In principle, when the valve is closed, the recombination takes place and the ionization disappears. Unless the vortex is maintained: it then turns like a flywheel while waiting for the valve to reopen.

The rest is coming (for André).

[crispus]

I am now convinced that when the system is efficient, most of the molecules are "broken" down to the atom:

H2O = H + H + O,
CO2 = C + O + O,
NOx = N + O + â € ¦ + O.

Each dissociated molecule increases the number of ions (whatever their sign), and strengthens the electric field by avalanche effect: the opposite of electrolysis!

In principle it is the energy resulting from the combustion of the hydrocarbon in the cylinder, which breaks the O2 molecules, part of which will be recombined into CO2. It's energy lost from the start ...

The reactor can produce monoxygen from the oxides of the ambient air: it is also an air freshener!

Hence the breathtaking remark from Pantone on the increased O2 level after the engine was running ...