Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83475
  • *Latest: cecvic

  • *Total Posts: 513270
  • *Total Topics: 15278
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: Energy from water arc explosions  (Read 7177 times)

Offline Zephir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
    • Reddit about Aether Wave Theory
Energy from water arc explosions
« on: April 13, 2017, 01:54:19 AM »
Water arc explosions were first described in 1907 by John Trowbridge of Harvard University, though the phenomenon was not studied in detail until it caught the interest of Peter and Neal Graneau in the mid-1980s (Graneau and Graneau, 1985). By discharging a high-voltage capacitor through around 100 mL of water, the Graneau team was able to expel the water from a dielectric cup. At the time, the Graneaus conjectured that the arc discharge generated high- pressure steam within the water which expanded rapidly and resulted in the observed explosions. Measurements in Graneau and Graneau (1985) and Hathaway and Graneau (1996) indicated that water arc explosions were unusually strong. The history includes work by Trowbridge in 1907 as noted below; also Frungel in 1948 and 1965 papers; and Gilchrist and Crossland in 1967. About the same time as Graneau's publications, we also find a publication by Azevedo of MIT - 1986. YT Videos Water Drop Trigger Apparatus, Max Spark Rate Demo

For further reading: The Mysteries of Fog (Graneau, P., & Graneau, N. (1985). Electrodynamic explosions in liquids. Applied Physics Letters, 46(5), 468, Graneau, P., Graneau, N., Hathaway, G., & Hull, R. (2000). Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy. Journal of Plasma Physics, 63, 115-128), see Graneau e.a. - Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy - 2000.pdf (364.3 kB), Powerful-water-plasma-explosions.pdf (313.59 kB), GraneauEditorial94.pdf (178.4 kB), P4.pdf (320.36 kB)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2017, 06:53:01 AM »
I suppose I should be flattered that you, of all people, should choose to use two of my videos in this topic.

You may not have noticed this, but if you look carefully at the slideshow still images, you can see that the arc does not in fact go _through_ the triggering water droplet but rather goes _around_ it, travelling on the surface of the drop. There is very little actual "explosion" of the water happening in my water-drop experiment. And a good thing, too, because it would probably have shattered my apparatus had the arc actually gone through the water, Graneau style.

You should be aware that George Hathaway, in whose laboratory by far the most of Graneau's experimental work was performed, formally retracted his co-authorship of the paper they published in J. Plasma Phys. It turns out that Graneau's conservation of momentum argument was circular, since he assumed a certain mass of water was vaporized into "fast fog" and then went on the basis of that assumption, through a convoluted chain of reasoning, to "prove" that that was the mass of water "exploded" by Ampere tension, and that mass of water in fog form would be able to transfer its momentum to other systems whereby the excess energy could be extracted and used. Of course this ultimate goal was never achieved. Unfortunately for Graneau, Hathaway's later work, using very sophisticated ultra-high-speed Schlieren photography and other methods, proved that only a tiny amount of water was actually vaporized into superheated steam, Graneau's fantasy "fast fog" did not in fact exist, and the "overunity" effects that Graneau thought he saw were the result of shock fronts in the water, not hydrogen-bond breaking by "ampere tension", and there never was, in fact, any energy produced over and above the capacitor bank energy used to explode the water in the first place. The Graneau story _outside_ of Hathaway's later lab work is plagued by data selection, misrepresentation of experimental results, omission of critical details, backwards thermodynamics, faulty reliance on an inapplicable model, experimenter bias and even downright mendacity. 

The bottom line is that it may-- or may not-- be possible to liberate hydrogen bond energy from water, but Graneau certainly did not manage to do it, nor did he succeed in proving his Ampere-tension hypothesis.

Offline pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2017, 01:31:15 PM »
TK, fair enough with the theory being wrong, but how did he miscalculate power in vs work done. Where did he screw up.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2017, 01:31:15 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Zephir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
    • Reddit about Aether Wave Theory
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2017, 01:46:44 PM »
There are many successfull replication with water plasma electrolysis (Mizuno, Naudin, Vachayev, Bazhutov, Kanarev, Prosvirnov, Kanzius, Andi, Mills), therefore it's highly probable, Graneau was on to something real.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2017, 03:16:16 PM »
My personal experience is that plasma electrolysis dont work.  I did Mizuno style pre boiling point so I could calibrate calorimeter without need of specific heats , but try out for yourself the simpler Mullove style experiment. Beware though, use big caps after the variac bridge and have some good filtering with RC constant into the seconds when measuring current across a shunt.  Voltage remains stable enough after arc , but the current needs a massive RC constant for filtering. Oh use Na2CO3 never NaHCO3 as some dorks did, as bicarb decomposes at bp of water and gives some pseudo OU.

Anyway, TK , what did our water exploder miscalculate exactly, pretty embarrasing if a renound physicist screws up some simple calcs like that and publishes.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2017, 03:16:16 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2017, 05:21:01 PM »
There are many successfull replication with water plasma electrolysis (Mizuno, Naudin, Vachayev, Bazhutov, Kanarev, Prosvirnov, Kanzius, Andi, Mills), therefore it's highly probable, Graneau was on to something real.
No, because the entire Graneau thesis and experimental program explicity _excluded_ electrolysis, either plasma or by normal electrical conduction through the water. "Shots" that showed evidence of electrolytic voltage drop prior to arc initiation were always weaker than shots that did not show this drop, and were discarded from the database.
Graneau's thesis was that Ampere tension in the arc channel actually physically pulled apart the water molecules at the hydrogen bond attachment to other water molecules. The water molecules were explicitly stated to remain intact, not electrolyzed, to form the "fast fog".

And several of your cited references, as usual, have been demonstrated to be faulty or at least not reproducible in qualified laboratories.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2017, 05:39:55 PM »
TK, fair enough with the theory being wrong, but how did he miscalculate power in vs work done. Where did he screw up.

There was never any problem with the input energy. This was carefully measured for each "shot" in Hathaway's lab and was solidly repeatable from shot to shot, with the proviso that occasionally electrolytic conduction was observed which caused input energy to the arc to sag. However, when Graneau himself was in the laboratory, a subtle process of data selection occurred. If Graneau didn't like the results from a shot, the data was often simply not recorded or included in the database for analysis. As I noted above, Graneau's argument was circular, in that he _assumed_ a certain mass of water was blasted into fog, and then he used anecdotal evidence from early work to "confirm" his assumptions about the mass of water involved. Then he took it for granted in further work that he was correct about the mass of the water blasted into "fast fog".
The problems arose when his Conservation of Momentum model predicted, using his _assumption_ about the mass of water, an excess of kinetic energy in the "fast fog" that was over and above the energy injected into the arc by the capacitor discharge. Rather than doing more "science" to test his assumption about the mass of water involved, Graneau pushed ahead into an "engineering" phase where he and Hathaway tried many different methods to try to extract or convert this supposed excess kinetic energy into some usable form other than a blast of "fog" and entrained water droplets. Many many different configurations were tried over a span of over seven years, and the fundamental claims about this "fast fog" and its mass and momentum were rather soundly disproven towards the end of that period. None of the attempted extraction-conversion schemes (secondary projectiles, Pelton wheels and other turbines, reaction (water rocket) engines, lever and ratchet mechanisms, etc.) ever yielded anything near the energies predicted by Graneau's CoM model-- and no wonder, because it was eventually shown by Hathaway that this model was wrong, inapplicable to the actual situation in the arc chambers, and the initial assumption of the mass of water involved in the arc blast was orders of magnitude greater than what was actually happening. There was never any "fast fog", there was only a minuscule mass of water actually vaporized into superheated steam in the arc channel, and the spectacular plumes that were observed by, for instance Richard Hull, were a result of entrained water and actually represented a loss mechanism.
Towards the end of the work Graneau was attributing all kinds of miraculous properties to the "fast fog" in an attempt to salvage his theory in the face of the data from the experiments in Hathaway's laboratory. The fog was cold, the fog was supersonic, the fog could interpenetrate many centimeters of water without disturbing it, only to result in a big messy blast when it hit the surface of the water from underneath, and so on. He eventually went away in a huff, denying the competence and results of the Hathaway laboratory, but those results were unequivocal and were tested many times in many different ways. Graneau was simply wrong.

 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2017, 05:39:55 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Zephir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
    • Reddit about Aether Wave Theory
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2017, 11:21:07 PM »
Quote
No, because the entire Graneau thesis and experimental program explicity _excluded_ electrolysis, either plasma or by normal electrical conduction through the water.
Plasma electrolysis is also NOT about electrolysis, the actual reaction and overunity runs inside arc discharge at the surface of electrode.

Quote
And several of your cited references, as usual, have been demonstrated to be faulty or at least not reproducible in qualified laboratorie

This is solely a (pseudoskeptic) speculation, because no reproduction attempts were actually published in scientific press, peer-reviewed the less. The pluralistic ignorance is based on pathoskeptical fallacy, that the lack of replications means failed replications.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2017, 03:45:21 AM by Zephir »

Offline pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2017, 03:37:17 AM »
Thanks for the explanation TK.  Nobody else has ever come out with a practical working OU device out of this simple setup neither by Graneau or anyone else so it is most definitely an embarrassing error by Graneau.  Its not an experiment  for anyone to try out unless you are in a farm,  the gunshot noises could be a problem in the neighborhood.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2017, 03:37:17 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Zephir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
    • Reddit about Aether Wave Theory
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2017, 03:57:13 AM »
This is just a pathoskeptic BS again: just because you don't know/you're lazy to do review at the web doesn't mean, nobody did try the water arc explosions successfully. For example at this blog and videos (1, 2) we can find the results of Stanford Plasma Physics Lab - as we can see, the net explosion energy exceeded the input pulse energy in EVERY shot observed. In shot 1, the measured explosion energy even exceeded the total energy stored by over 200%.

Compare also Richard Hull's research. With 50 J of input energy, the quantity of fog produced was of the order of 0.75 g of water. To dissociate this amount of water into oxygen and hydrogen would require 10 kJ of energy. Hence the fog explosion is unlikely to be caused by electrolytic dissociation of water molecules. This bond energy is said to be equal to the latent heat of evaporation, and therefore could contribute up to 2200 J/g (1, 2, 3).

BTW If you're not interested about overunity, what are you actually doing here - a disruptive agent job?
Please, do us favor and delete yourself from this forum finally. Thank you in advance.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2017, 05:03:00 AM »
Sigh. Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me?


You are citing some of the same research AGAIN that was proven to be the source of Graneau's INCORRECT assumptions which led to over 7 years of wasted time and millions of dollars of wasted money.  You can cite all the questionable research you like but that does not trump the hands-on experience of people who actually worked directly with Graneau, supported him with money and lab space and technicians, and finally showed him (and much of the prior "research" like Hull's claims) to be utterly and definitively wrong.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2017, 05:03:00 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2017, 05:05:44 AM »
"Plasma electrolysis is also NOT about electrolysis"....... what's it about then, chopped liver? Sometimes you really crack me up, Zephir.


 ;D ;D ;D ;D

Offline Zephir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
    • Reddit about Aether Wave Theory
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2017, 03:12:35 PM »
Quote
"Plasma electrolysis is also NOT about electrolysis"....... what's it about then, chopped liver?

Indeed. Dark matter is also not about matter, Big Bang is not about explosion, electron is not about amber and so on..
During plasma electrolysis the electrolysis (i.e. electrolyte splitting) is actually an undesirable process, which must be avoided  - as it decreases its energy yield and COP and it decreases life-time of electrodes by corrosion.

Welcome in our real, strange, overcomplicated OVERUNITY world... :-)

Offline pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2017, 05:28:28 PM »
Indeed. Dark matter is also not about matter, Big Bang is not about explosion, electron is not about amber and so on..
During plasma electrolysis the electrolysis (i.e. electrolyte splitting) is actually an undesirable process, which must be avoided  - as it decreases its energy yield and COP and it decreases life-time of electrodes by corrosion.

Welcome in our real, strange, overcomplicated OVERUNITY world... :-)


Verbal diarrhea.
 Electrolysis , ie redox reactions must occur for any current to flow through an electrolyte with wide spacing as used in all replications. Only with an underwater arc between both electrodes is electrolysis not mandatory. Otherwise an instant space charge occurs preventing any further current flow.

Offline Zephir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
    • Reddit about Aether Wave Theory
Re: Energy from water arc explosions
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2017, 05:40:10 PM »
Quote
Electrolysis , ie redox reactions must occur for any current to flow through an electrolyte with wide spacing as used in all replications

Nope, only when ionic transport between electrodes gets involved. But many batteries (in particular these ones with solid electrolyte) exhibit also electron transport of current - and this way of current doesn't require an electrolysis (it actually represent a shortcut for batteries, where it's avoided in general).  And inside the plasma the electrons and ions of gas contribute to current more than the electrolyte itself. You may think about it like about normal electrolyzer shorted/bypassed with plasma discharge tube in parallel.

Quote
Only with an underwater arc between both electrodes is electrolysis not mandatory

Well - and this is just the case of every plasma electrolysis. It's indeed necessary to understand the physics for to comment and oppose the overunity findings - but their understanding and acceptation requires even better understanding of physics - not worse.

 

OneLink