[VO]: Call for new Ozone process
Howdy Vorts, As some are aware, one of our companies build water treating and wastewater disinfection chem feed inductors. We have depended on our industry to produce the remainder of the systems including the chemicals for this purpose. We are not chemists or physicists. We need systems that can produce quantities of in situozone gas at a lower cost and safer methods. There are new exotics entering the nation's water supply that we believe can be destroyed via ozone treatment but the existing processes for making ozone are both expensive and troubling. There are Vorts here that have an idea on the subject that may help our industry. Richard
Re: [VO]: Call for new Ozone process
DC PULSES. Nikola Tesla. Apparatus for Production of Ozone http://rpmgt.org/588177.html On 20/03/2008, R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Vorts, As some are aware, one of our companies build water treating and wastewater disinfection chem feed inductors. We have depended on our industry to produce the remainder of the systems including the chemicals for this purpose. We are not chemists or physicists. We need systems that can produce quantities of in situozone gas at a lower cost and safer methods. There are new exotics entering the nation's water supply that we believe can be destroyed via ozone treatment but the existing processes for making ozone are both expensive and troubling. There are Vorts here that have an idea on the subject that may help our industry. Richard -- -- we are all astronauts on board the spaceship earth. there are no passengers, only crew. - r. buckminster fuller
Re: [VO]: Call for new Ozone process
Thanks Esa, Obviously Tesla never built one like the patent drawing or he would have wound up with clean breath and a nitric acid bath. Richard Esa posted. DC PULSES. Nikola Tesla. Apparatus for Production of Ozone http://rpmgt.org/588177.html Howdy Vorts, As some are aware, one of our companies build water treating and wastewater disinfection chem feed inductors. We have depended on our industry to produce the remainder of the systems including the chemicals for this purpose. We are not chemists or physicists. We need systems that can produce quantities of in situozone gas at a lower cost and safer methods. There are new exotics entering the nation's water supply that we believe can be destroyed via ozone treatment but the existing processes for making ozone are both expensive and troubling. There are Vorts here that have an idea on the subject that may help our industry. Richard
Re: [VO]: Call for new Ozone process
From: R C Macaulay There are Vorts here that have an idea on the subject that may help our industry. If ozone could be made cheaply enough - and 'on the fly' then there is also a gigantic market for such a device in automotive- and probably in grid power (large power plants) as well. This is brought about by the increased heat-yield from combustion, when using ozone-enriched air, which will result in reducing fuel by not only more complete combustion and faster flame speed, but also by eliminating some of the energy necessary to convert O2 to ROS. That is not Richard's interest, of course, unless such a combustion process results in a dual-use ozone generator. IOW there is a substantial net savings from combustion from substituting O3 for some of the fuel which would be otherwise required. The price of ozone, as everyone know, is the glaring problem for using that concept now. The obvious questions to ask at the start, for any suggestion, are: 1) What is 'cheaply enough'? ... what is the target price and what does the end-product look like (specs)? what amount of nitrogen compounds can be tolerated? 2) Will that target price permit one to use O2, instead of air, as the starting raw material? Of course the answer there is probably no wrt to medical O2 ... but the more interesting question is this: is there an economical process for enriching air in O2, using magnetic separation for instance - which would be far cheaper but of far less purity than medical O2, but adequate for the purpose of making ozone cheaply, which product has some but not too much NOx (or which NOx can be removed in another step) ? I suppose what this is suggesting, in a practical device is this: The O2 in air has magnetic properties which allow it to be enriched to some moderate degree cheaply, but there is still going to be substantial nitrogen in any low-cost process not involving cryogenics. This is not a problem for automotive, as the nitrous compounds and NOx get obliterated in a hot explosion. The nitrogen products are a no-no for water purification, however, without another step to remove them. This factor might eliminate the cheapest ozone process- which would begin with enriching air in O2 from say 20% to 40% which is great for automotive. 3) Mother Nature's way, of course, is the shorter wl's of UV operating on O2 at low pressure. Ultraviolet BUVB 315 nm - 280 nm 3.94 - 4.43 eV Ultraviolet CUVC 280 nm - 100 nm 4.43 - 12.4 eV These shorter wl's of UV radiation are NOT efficient to make from electricity, except from arc discharge (or the Tesla method) and UV itself is easily absorbed (by even glass !) such that the Pyrex which must be used in industrial UV tubes removes most of the UVB and UVC . The so-called blacklight tubes available now are usually mercury discharge and emit almost entirely in UVA or lower- and consequently do NOT make much ozone per kWhr of input. Otherwise, of course, Richard would not be asking for suggestions but would install blacklight tubes... as any one can do for a hot-tub or pool, but that is expensive and ineffective for high volume use. In looking at this cheap-ozone problem (or opportunity) in the past, but with an emphasis on automotive implementation, the only hope which I could see then for making ozone on-the-fly, and at a cost which would be competitive on a substituted molecule-for-molecule bases with gasoline, for instance (about $1/kg) would depend on the 'questionable' possibility of UVC emission coming from below ground state hydrogen - i.e. if the hydrino process of Mills can be adapted. This does not have to be the full-monty BLP process ... which if that worked as claimed by Mills and Co. then *everything* changes at a more fundamental level ... i.e. since a viable hydrino process would be the equivalent of very cheap electrical power (exactly like robust LENR as envisioned by Jed Rothwell and others who are working on cold fusion processes). However, none of that has yet to live up to expectations or past claims... sadly ... but unlike the case with LENR, there does exist with the hydrino what can be called a BLP-lite version of the technology, which can be envisioned as producing only cheap UV from an unstable hydrino (short lifetime). This does not involve the stable hydrino, or hydrino hydride, at least not as Mills' envisions it. It does not infringe on his patents. It would actually NEED - or depend-on, a secondary process of converting UV -- ozone, in order to be a viable energy process. That would be the closest technique which is on the horizon, IMHO, for making ozone on-the-fly cheaply. Everything else which I could dig up in patents or on in the literature is a factor of ~10 times more expensive. Actually, there are some ways to pull this hydrino-like process off, which I can envision, but it would not be not be easy to do, and since Mills has already burned
Re: [VO]: Call for new Ozone process
On Mar 20, 2008, at 4:12 AM, R C Macaulay wrote: Howdy Vorts, As some are aware, one of our companies build water treating and wastewater disinfection chem feed inductors. We have depended on our industry to produce the remainder of the systems including the chemicals for this purpose. We are not chemists or physicists. We need systems that can produce quantities of in situozone gas at a lower cost and safer methods. There are new exotics entering the nation's water supply that we believe can be destroyed via ozone treatment but the existing processes for making ozone are both expensive and troubling. There are Vorts here that have an idea on the subject that may help our industry. Richard I'm only an amateur, but here is some food for thought for you. I expect if you mix the ozone with water, an apparently necessary step for water or wastewater treatment, you are going to get mixed oxidants, especially hydrogen peroxide: O3 + H2O - O2 + HOOH O3 + H2O - O2 + 2 HO O3 + HO - O2 + HOO and a host of other reactions depending on the water chemical contents. One option is to simply buy commercial hydrogen peroxide and mix it, but that doesn't meet your criteria for in situ generation. I posted earlier about commercial MIOX treatment equipment, which electrolyses brine, i.e. NaCl mixed with de-ionized (softened with ordinary water softener using NaCl flushed resins) water, and then mixes small amounts of that with the water to be treated (the water to be treated does not have to be de-ionized): On Jun 9, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: About the practical side of things, electrolysis of saltwater is now used commercially and very effectively to make a water decontaminate called MIOX which stands for mixed oxidents. See: http://www.miox.com/ A google search on miox shows lots of other references. MIOX is the stuff that accumulates about the cathode when electrolysing NaCl brine. MIOX is mostly HOCl, hypochlorous acid, but also lots of other oxy-chloro compounds and also H2O2, hydrogen peroxide. The process requires de-ionized water, otherwise the reaction product mix can vary substantially. It is far more effective than chlorine or bleach, and far safer, but requires very careful flow and/or concentration regulation to keep it that way. With holding times of a couple hours or more, even in concentrations with almost no residual taste, it is even effective against viruses. MIOX decontamination units are made in many sizes for use by water companies. At local state well operator classes I've seen an actual demonstration of a MIOX pocket pen run by AA batteries. The MIOX is produced in the pen by electrolysis and then mixed with a much larger volume of water to be decontaminated. The pen was produced for the military. The above MIOX stuff has multiple patents, and is fairly expensive, so you would need means of producing oxidants that avoid the patents, and a very reliable means of mixing the water with the oxidants at a fixed ratio (e.g. a fixed ratio flow rate pump, which should be a public domain method) and achieving a sufficient holding time for the oxidants to do their job. Many oxidants don't last long at concentration, so have to be generated on site, which is in your specification anyway. One means of beating the patents, while improving energy efficiency at the same time, might be to use electrode-less electrolysis. I suggest trying a thin layer of brine between dielectric covered capacitor plates as a capacitor in a resonant tank circuit. Brine could flow between the plates at a slow rate. I would start out with a very small capacitor initially, and small inductance, so as to get the frequency as high as possible. Based on recent data regarding the Kanzius process, a frequency of around 13.5 MHz may be optimal or desirable. This may be effective at generating HOOH, HO, HOO, as well as OH-, and OOH- radicals in addition to sodium hypochlorite, and other similar chlorine based decontaminants and mixed oxidants. The basic process would be: 2H2O - HOOH + H2 so hydrogen gas would evolve and would either need to be vented or maybe used to help drive the process, maybe as auxiliary fuel for a generator or fuel cell. I do have to wonder if ordinary electrolysis (as opposed to electrode- less electrolysis) is sufficient and can be done without patent violation, but it is expensive because Pt anodes are probably necessary. Use of a cheap thin high dielectric constant corrosion resistant dielectric, like alumina, as an AC electrode surface might do the job much cheaper Salt is still pretty cheap too. I hope this gives you some useful ideas. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Call for new Ozone process
On Mar 20, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: R C Macaulay There are Vorts here that have an idea on the subject that may help our industry. If ozone could be made cheaply enough - and 'on the fly' then there is also a gigantic market for such a device in automotive- and probably in grid power (large power plants) as well. The AC coupled resonant cell circuit I suggested earlier would produce at least some oxidants even without the use of NaCl. If water injection is used, then it might improve water injection efficiency if oxidants and hydrogen were in the water injected. It would take some testing to find out. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Call for new Ozone process
Hello Richard, I have no idea what's out there commercially, but here's how I would do it. There are high power, medium pressure argon-mercury UV lamps available commercially with quartz tube walls. One of these could be placed next to a quartz tube through which the water is pumped. A sparge would introduce small air bubbles into the water. The UV in the lamp would convert the oxygen in the air bubbles into ozone. To achieve optimum efficiency, each tube would be placed at the focus of an elliptical reflector. Dopants are available for such lamps to increase the output in the desired UV wavelengths. This seems so obvious, I imagine something like this is already available. M. --- R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Vorts, As some are aware, one of our companies build water treating and wastewater disinfection chem feed inductors. We have depended on our industry to produce the remainder of the systems including the chemicals for this purpose. We are not chemists or physicists. We need systems that can produce quantities of in situozone gas at a lower cost and safer methods. There are new exotics entering the nation's water supply that we believe can be destroyed via ozone treatment but the existing processes for making ozone are both expensive and troubling. There are Vorts here that have an idea on the subject that may help our industry. Richard Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [VO]: Call for new Ozone process
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:12:44 -0500: Hi, [snip] Howdy Vorts, As some are aware, one of our companies build water treating and wastewater disinfection chem feed inductors. We have depended on our industry to produce the remainder of the systems including the chemicals for this purpose. We are not chemists or physicists. We need systems that can produce quantities of in situozone gas at a lower cost and safer methods. There are new exotics entering the nation's water supply that we believe can be destroyed via ozone treatment but the existing processes for making ozone are both expensive and troubling. [snip] I'm not sure how efficient it would be, but I would consider a two stage process. 1) Use pressure swing absorption technology to produce nearly pure O2 from air. 2) Pass an electric arc through the pure O2 to create ozone. The first step (nearly) eliminates the problem of nitrogen oxides, the second step avoids the losses inherent in using UV as an intermediary. However you may have a problem finding electrodes that don't deteriorate too rapidly. If the remaining nitrogen oxides are a problem, then a third, chemical, step may need to be added to remove them. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[VO]: Call for new Ozone process
There are new exotics entering the nation's water supply that we believe can be destroyed via ozone treatment but the existing processes for making ozone are both expensive and troubling. Why not use chlorine? Ozone was tried in the past. It does not persist in the water supply. Chlorine lasts longer. The persistence allows it to get to bugs that are partially shielded. The thing to do is remove suspended solids. The nasty bugs tend to hide in the particles. Then apply a persistent chemical like chlorine. Ammonia can be also added. It tends to keep the Chlorine in solution. Those nasty zebra mussels tend to clam up when exposed to a chemical toxin. Its a problem. I had a class D sewage license in the state of PA. After 9/11 they required me to go through a criminal background check. I did this and maintained my license for another 2 years. Then they required me to attend continuing training. I am an Electrical Engineer and they suggested that I take courses in basic electricity. It was not worth it to me. I have been living in North Carolina and no longer work in water treatment. I dropped the license. I am waiting for the requirement for continuing training on my PE license to come. When that happens they can have that license to. I never used it. In order to obtain a sewage license in PA license I had to have some operating experience in a class C waste treatment facility. My employer at that time arranged it. I was to be in charge of a wheel plant and this charge included a package class D waste treatment plant. There at the class C city of Johnstown plant I saw something really uckey. It appears that some people tie a knot in rubbers so they do leak where they place them. They later flush them. They wind up floating at the waste treatment facility. Some of them ferment and fill up with gas. They look like beach balls floating on slime. Yuck. Frank Z **Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom000301)
