Hi TK, do you have any references for that? It must be a challenge to measure things like this right...

I've been thinking about the practical problems involved in getting current through water...

As with any dielectric - it breaks down in a thin channel between the conductors. This presumably flash-boils / electrolyses / burns just that very thin channel of water - causing the explosion effect. So only a teeny bit of water is 'converted' (to steam / HHO whatever). This is why there's so much spray in the youtube experiments...

So the main problem is how to isolate & 'ignite' the 'fuel' effectively...

I kinda like the hydrino theory - and there seems to be a decent amount of supporting evidence for it... I *really* like the idea that he has developed a GUT from classical principles. That's cool. Of course I'm far too slow to know if it's right, but it looks feasible...

Hi TK, do you have any references for that? It must be a challenge to measure things like this right...

It is indeed challenging. When Graneau himself was directing the research at Hathaway's lab in Toronto, chaos reigned. The man was so very sure his hypothesis was correct, that they simply bypassed scientific testing altogether and put major effort forth to capture and convert the excess momentum in the fog that Graneau was sure had to be there. Turbines, Pelton wheels, secondary projectiles, MHD (but not superconducting!), underwater rockets, you name it, all were tried. When none were successful it became apparent that there was something wrong... with Graneau's model, which relied on conservation of momentum and a circular set of assumptions. When science regained control of the project, a new model was developed with outside help, that described events at the arc and in the surrounding water with shock-wave mathematics. This allowed a proper accounting without circular assumptions and showed that there wasn't any excess energy liberated after all. In order to make the necessary measurements and to image the shock waves in the water, special ultrahighspeed, high contrast Schlieren video photographic techniques had to be developed, a transparent but incredibly strong arc chamber constructed, etc etc. Along the way, delving into the past research of Graneau and his early colleagues like Richard Hull, discrepancies were found like those I mentioned in the previous post, and more. All of this caused Hathaway ultimately to withdraw his name as co-author on some of their publications. You can find a lot of this information by googling keywords Graneau Hathaway water arc. I'll admit to having some "insider knowledge" that you might not be able to find on the public internet. Regardless, the Graneau story is a fascinating one, and Peter Graneau has some very interesting ideas. His book "Newton vs. Einstein" written with his son Neal is an important book, even if half of it is .... er..... rather speculative.

I've been thinking about the practical problems involved in getting current through water...

As with any dielectric - it breaks down in a thin channel between the conductors.

That's right. In the case of the Graneau work, a very thin channel indeed is actually involved in the water arc, when it works right. There is a phase called "electrolytic conduction" though. That is, you have your water sitting in your arc chamber and it has electrodes immersed or contacting the water. When the triggered air gap (TAG) is fired to close the circuit to the capacitor bank, if there is too much inductance or if the water isn't pure, or other factors, you can get conduction thru the bulk water that delays or prevents the sharp arc explosion from happening. There is usually a little bit of electrolytic conduction at the start of every arc, which can be seen on the oscillograms of the process.

This presumably flash-boils / electrolyses / burns just that very thin channel of water - causing the explosion effect. So only a teeny bit of water is 'converted' (to steam / HHO whatever). This is why there's so much spray in the youtube experiments...

Yes, that is basically right, except that the water may actually be effectively "torn apart" at the hydrogen bonds by the very high currents (several kiloAmperes) that develop in the arc. This is part of Graneau's hypothesis that might be correct, and it revolves around the phenomenon of Ampere tension. It's not quite boiling or flashing into steam; Graneau believed that the "fog" was actually cold and that the energy went into accelerating it rather than heating it. Graneau saw lots of spray and assumed that all of it was being produced at the arc, which is the fundamental error that led to his overestimation of the energy released in the arc process. In fact most of the spray is "entrained" or splashed water caused by the very small mass of water that is actually vaporised (whether by flashing to steam or by Ampere tension) in the tiny arc channel itself. This was revealed by the Schlieren shockwave imagery.

So the main problem is how to isolate & 'ignite' the 'fuel' effectively...

From the descriptions of the apparatus at BLP, it seems that he's using some kind of meshing gears to make arc chambers "on the fly", metering and refreshing the water in the pockets as the gears turn. This is just a guess on my part based on the descriptions I've read. I'd like to see the real apparatus; the published drawings aren't very detailed. These water-arc explosions create incredibly high pressures from the shock wave in the incompressible water. If a completely sealed and filled chamber is used, steel walls rip, bolts and welds break, all kinds of havoc results, like punching holes in thick aluminum plates. It is tough on apparatus, believe me.

I kinda like the hydrino theory - and there seems to be a decent amount of supporting evidence for it... I *really* like the idea that he has developed a GUT from classical principles. That's cool. Of course I'm far too slow to know if it's right, but it looks feasible...

Now we are above my pay grade. I'm no theoretician, but somehow I doubt that the hydrino theory is correct; smarter people than I have examined it and found it wanting in real evidence, mathematical coherence and predicted consequences. If his experiments and apparatus work as he claims, that's one thing. Making up an entire new physics to explain it.... that's harder for me to swallow. You have to ask... why isn't all the free hydrogen in the world in this lowest-energy hydrino form, if it exists?

You have to ask... why isn't all the free hydrogen in the world in this lowest-energy hydrino form, if it exists?

Because the lowest energy state is not the most stable.
An ice cube is a lower energy state, but strives to go to higher energy states if available.


Equilibrium isn't nessecarily the lowest.


The fuel is renewable something like "by releasing the hydrino into the ambient it absorbs radiant heat and returns to a 1/1 instead of 1/137'th energy form"

Thanks for the link TK

Jerry Decker at Keelynet says this:

How many years have we heard about Blacklight, yep since 1991 and still no product on the market, just like Searls' free energy/flying saucer, Newmans' gyro electron power spike free energy, Lees' thermal free energy power and Moellers' flying car, Negres' compressed air car, ad nauseum, we NEVER SEE THEIR PRODUCTS FOR SALE...every so often when they need money or attention, they post another sensational demonstration or claim that never results in working devices we can buy and use. So take this latest announcement with a huge block of salt like all the other announcements they've made over the last 23 or so years. Put up or shut up. - JWD

http://www.keelynet.com/

I see nothing in the quote from Decker that is untrue. Do you?

Stefan you can close this website now.

Lol, that's funny... I was thinking the other day just the same thing... "Stefan - we've got OU, you can close the forum now, thanks"

Of course we don't have OU yet. Do we 'Turbo', if that *is* your real name? 

lol again.