The energy appears the be negative in this explosion.
Are you saying it is an implosion ??
In that case, I'm starting to smell "Joe Cell"...
Just assuming for a second that there is implosion going on,
or even that there is somehow a larger explosion than should be
the case given the input energy,
would the total energy gain (at the explosion side of the equation)
plus the input energy perhaps account for the apparent energy gain
in Lucs readings? In other words, could it be that the OU readings
Luc gets are indeed not "real power" in the circuit, but when the
explosion (implosion?) is taken into account the OU readings
do accord with the total energy output? Even if the OU does not
occur as "real power" in the circuit, it does occur as "real power"
in the explosion (implosion?)...?
If so, then the apparent OU circuit readings might be a good indicator
for the final output COP...?
I'm just speculating here.
And on another note, if there is implosion going on, then we might
see similar effects as are claimed to occur with the Joe Cell,
in particular the claimed cooling effect... (It is said the exhaust of
a Joe Cell modified car becomes freezing cold during operation,
because it absorbs energy from the environment as the implosion occurs.)
And that might not only be used for energy efficient air cooling,
but it may even be possible to use it as a heat sink for other
devices, thereby increasing effective energy production...
That said, I can't help but notice how most people working on hydrogen
and/or "water fuel" experiments seem to be focused on producing hydrogen,
but I hardly evr see anyne actually run an engine on the produced hydrogen
and then see how much electrical energy they can get from the engine
(if connected to a dynamo or even if the engine itself is part of a generator).
I do regularly see people cite the volume of gas produced by a certain amount of power,
and I see many people getting excited when they think their electrolysis circuit
is producing OU readings, quite a number getting excited when the volume of gas
they manage to produce is larger than that of others, but I hardly ever see anyone
actually talking about how their hydrogen-fueled generator produces more electrical
output than was needed to produce the hydrogen.
I have heard quite a few claims in the past of people who say they've been driving
a water-fueled car for a while already, but when push came to shove they either
disappeared from view or they had to admit they did have to hook their battery up
to a grid-powered charger every night, and were thus actually running their car on
grid power.
And if we're going to be using grid power to produce hydrogen to run our combustion
engines on, then it's still more efficient to switch over to electrical cars.
After all, unless we have some funky over unity electrolysis, the process of producing
hydrogen, then burning it to produce motive force, is quite a bit less efficient than
producing motive force directly from electricity.
So i guess the question remains: what exactly are we looking at here?
Are we looking at over-efficient electrolysis? If so, where is the proof of this,
who has compared the volumes of gas produced by this circuit to the volumes
produced by other means? Who has burnt the volumes of gas to see how much
actual power can be derived from it? Who has compared that power output to the
input to the circuit?
Or are we looking at a funky way to get what appear to be much larger spark effects?
I understand that larger air arcs by simply adding a B-field while not increasing the
voltage seems to suggest that there is somehow either an effective voltage amplification
in the B-field zone, or there is a lowering of the dielectric 'constant' of the air inside the B-field.
If it were the former, it might be possible to get actual additional power from this if we
use it in an electrolysis setup, as it would seem logical that the water also "sees" a higher
voltage and thus electrolyses faster than it should. It is of course equally possible that there
is somethign else going on that just has the effect of enlarging the spark but there is no
actual (or even "virtual") voltage increase at all, and in that case there is no additional electrolysis.
If it were the latter (dielectric constant lowered), then it seems to me we still have a similar
situation where it may be possible that the dielectric constant is lowered because the water
molecules already 'split' a little bit, increasing free charge particles, increasing conductivity,
and of course then it should take less energy to split more of them into H2 and O2. But same
thing goes here, it seem equally possible that there is a different effect at work and the electrical
conductivity increases (resistance decreases) not because of partial dissociation of the water,
but rather because of some other B-fied effect... (I'm hesitant to suggest spin-coupling
)
So what exactly are have we got?