Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Hydrogen energy => Water arc energy systems => Topic started by: Zephir on April 13, 2017, 01:54:19 AM

Title: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir on April 13, 2017, 01:54:19 AM
Water arc explosions (http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Electrolysis_Water_Arc_and_Dielectric_Breakdown/Leavitt - Do water arc explosions release internal water energy - 2013.pdf) 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KGvwn_T8Ww), Max Spark Rate Demo  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aGIcIgtrLk)

For further reading: The Mysteries of Fog (http://watercalendar.com/2013/august/) (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 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3438.0;attach=24496) (364.3 kB), Powerful-water-plasma-explosions.pdf (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3438.0;attach=24497) (313.59 kB), GraneauEditorial94.pdf (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3438.0;attach=24498) (178.4 kB), P4.pdf (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3438.0;attach=24499) (320.36 kB)
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: pomodoro 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.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir on April 13, 2017, 01:46:44 PM
There are many successfull replication with water plasma electrolysis (Mizuno (http://www.rexresearch.com/mizuno/mizuno.htm), Naudin (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/html/cfr10.htm), Vachayev (http://rulev-igor.net/theme_171.html), Bazhutov (http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/06/29/report-bazhutof-plasma-electrolysis-system-provides-up-to-6-times-excess-heat/), Kanarev (http://www.making-hydrogen.com/plasma-electrolysis.html), Prosvirnov (http://lenr.seplm.ru/), Kanzius (https://nick2.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/kanzius-and-penn-state-chemist-rostum-roy/), Andi (http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/07/diy-cold-fusion-experimenter-claims-cop-11-with-a-naoh-electrolysis-system/), Mills (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/er.3142/abstract)), therefore it's highly probable, Graneau was on to something real.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: pomodoro 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.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: TinselKoala on April 13, 2017, 05:21:01 PM
There are many successfull replication with water plasma electrolysis (Mizuno (http://www.rexresearch.com/mizuno/mizuno.htm), Naudin (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/html/cfr10.htm), Vachayev (http://rulev-igor.net/theme_171.html), Bazhutov (http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/06/29/report-bazhutof-plasma-electrolysis-system-provides-up-to-6-times-excess-heat/), Kanarev (http://www.making-hydrogen.com/plasma-electrolysis.html), Prosvirnov (http://lenr.seplm.ru/), Kanzius (https://nick2.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/kanzius-and-penn-state-chemist-rostum-roy/), Andi (http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/07/diy-cold-fusion-experimenter-claims-cop-11-with-a-naoh-electrolysis-system/), Mills (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/er.3142/abstract)), 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.

Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: TinselKoala 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.

 
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance) is based on pathoskeptical fallacy, that the lack of replications means failed replications.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: pomodoro 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.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir 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 (http://waterarcresearch.blogspot.cz/2015/12/wrapping-up-results-from-stanford.html) and videos (1 (https://youtu.be/M3dYhBseMJY), 2 (https://youtu.be/OsCgomCnoVw)) 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pnriCJCAiE). 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 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Neal_Graneau/publication/231781707_Arc-liberated_chemical_energy_exceeds_electrical_input_energy/links/553984c90cf247b858812edb/Arc-liberated-chemical-energy-exceeds-electrical-input-energy.pdf), 2 (http://www.free-energy-info.com/P4.pdf), 3 (http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/GraneauIE13-14.pdf)).

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.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: TinselKoala 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
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir 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... :-)
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: pomodoro 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.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir 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.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: pomodoro on April 15, 2017, 01:59:34 AM
No. We are talking about a beaker with sodium carbonate and two tungsten electrodes. A DC current is passed. Its impossible to pass a DC current for any time longer than that required to charge the double layer and not have a chemical reaction at both electrodes. The cathode may have a plasma sheath but hydrogen will surely be made at the plasma/water interface, just as oxygen or oxide, hydroxide or carbonate, depending on the anode metal will be made at the anode.


The reason is simple. As soon as the voltage at the double layer at each electrode exceeds that required by the ions to reduce or oxidize, there is an acceptance of an electron at the cathode and a release at the anode. A chemical reaction occurs. 
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir on April 15, 2017, 03:28:15 AM
Quote
As soon as the voltage at the double layer at each electrode exceeds that required by the ions to reduce or oxidize, there is an acceptance of an electron at the cathode and a release at the anode. A chemical reaction occurs.
 

Some chemical corrosion always occurs, but ideal plasma electrolysis has electrodes solely surrounded with coat of water vapor filled with plasma, so that the electrode actually doesn't touch the electrolyte due to Leidenfrost effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect). This regime can be also recognized with sudden change of discharge color (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBpvaocqYig&feature=youtu.be&t=5) above certain limit of input power, once the electrode switches itself from electrolysis mode into a plasma discharge mode.

Albert Einstein: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler".
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: pomodoro on April 15, 2017, 04:47:45 AM
No, the plasma is an extension of the electrode. At the plasma/electrolyte interface , is where the electrolysis occurs. Well the cathodic reaction only that is. Interesting, its easier for the anode to strike an arc but as it is believed that some kind of cold fusion occurs, it is the cathode that is chosen as the arcing electrode as that is where hydrogen is formed, by you guessed it, ELECTROLYSIS! The tungsten cathode is meant to have some hydrogen embrittlement before it produces OU . Some prayers might help too.


This plasma electrolysis has nothing to do with magical plasma OU like in gas discharge tubes, its all about cold fusion of hydrogen. Or perhaps warm fusion. ;)
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir on April 15, 2017, 12:19:38 PM
You should really delete yourself from here - but not for hostility toward overunity concept, but for insufficient mental capacity, which is primary reason of this attitude. Did you ever play with high voltage over surface of water? Well, it's not difficult to achieve the circuit closed with water surface, even when both electrodes are outside the water: the discharge comes from first electrode to water, the current passes the water and another discharge comes from it through air into another electrode. Because both electrodes don't touch the water, no electrolysis can run on them and the transfer of current is solely electronic - i.e. no ions participate on it.

The ideal plasma electrolysis is the same process, except that both electrodes are immersed, but they still remain separated from water with layer of ionized water vapor (at least one of them). Only their arrangement is similar to electrolysis, the chemistry and physics not. Not to say, that many experiments (Energoniva) utilize high frequency current - so no electrolysis can run on electrodes even at the second electrode.

Quote
This plasma electrolysis has nothing to do with magical plasma OU like in gas discharge tubes, its all about cold fusion of hydrogen. Or perhaps warm fusion
Or perhaps because of hydrinos. Or perhaps condensed plasmoids. Or perhaps due to recombination of atomic gases. We simply don't know. The overunity has been observed in various plasmas other than hydrogen too (there (http://overunity.com/17230/lord-rayleigh-patent-1946-energy-from-gases-after-an-electrical-discharge) is whole thread about it). So I seriously doubt, that the cold fusion will be involved in all these cases.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: pomodoro on April 15, 2017, 02:07:36 PM
Quote from: Zephir
. Because both electrodes don't touch the water, no electrolysis can run on them and the transfer of current is solely electronic - i.e. no ions participate on it.

This is a massively retarded statement. Try it  with doubly distilled water that has no ions and see what a massive arc you get.  You get no conduction at all, apart from the miniscule dissociation of water giving a resistivity of 18Mcm.  But you will get conduction if there is no water phase and only vapor, but you stated that there is water liquid between the electrodes right?

Since you like your journals so much go find one with DC, yes DC only,  passage of current through liquid water  involving no chemical reduction or oxidation at the interface with electrodes or plasma.  Even the Grotthuss mechanism requires reduction of the proton at the cathode.

There is no frigging DC conduction through water without some type of electrolysis  unless the water is  completely gaseous between the electrodes and thus becomes ionized.  AC current at a high enough frequency can, as it is capacitivilely coupled through the double layer.  But you did not see to know that did you.  I deliberately left it out before  to check your knowledge.
It can even do it al lower frequency , so long as the reactions are completely reversible, you better look reversible  up quick, for your next smartass reply.

So please , show us, with real science,  you know some nice journal, how water, liquid water, not vapour, magically conducts a DC current without electrolysis at the water to electric source interface.

Oh finally just to rub it it, have you , yes you tried using Zinc Sulfate, or copper sulfate as the electrolyte,  youll be very embarassed indeed when you see the mass of zinc or copper engulfing the beaker right where the plasma is , Oh dear.. :o :o :o
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir on April 15, 2017, 03:54:00 PM
Quote
There is no frigging DC conduction through water without some type of electrolysis  unless the water is  completely gaseous between the electrodes and thus becomes ionized
The ions within plasma are different than these ones existing in the solute. Within plasma oxygen gets ionized in the same way like the hydrogen, both they're discharged at the cathode - the water therefore splits and migrates along arc, but it doesn't separate there into hydrogen and oxygen.

Quote
you know some nice journal, how water, liquid water, not vapour, magically conducts a DC current
Why I should explain it, if the water remains present just in vapour state during plasma electrolysis? Anyway - I frankly don't understand why we are discussing all of it here: even if the classical electrolysis would run massively during plasma electrolysis, it still wouldn't contribute to explanation of its overunity - on the contrary. The discussion with you resembles the TinkelKoala's pseudo-problems for me: if you want to understand and advance in overunity, you should remain focused to phenomena, which can support it - and not to some classical physics OT BS. 

Quote
yes you tried using Zinc Sulfate, or copper sulfate as the electrolyte,  youll be very embarassed indeed when you see the mass of zinc or copper engulfing the beaker right where the plasma is
If you would try the plasma electrolysis with copper electrodes and hydroxide solution, you could be very surprised with massive formation of iron and another heavy elements including gold, silver and palladium. And this is something even more interesting than just overunity. The iron block held at the picture bellow reportedly comes just from pure water and anything else.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: pomodoro on April 15, 2017, 05:15:56 PM
Oh dear, a very weak reply indeed. Learn your lesson, if you are not an expert in electrochemistry don't give lectures on it. Stick to something you know about.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir on April 15, 2017, 06:12:14 PM
If it would be really weak, you would argue it already - I know your mindset already well.. ;-) The lack of electrolysis in high energy density systems has its counterpart in overunity electrolysis at low energy fields, where no electrodes are actually present. So we can have no electrolysis, where you would expect it - but also electrolysis, where you wouldn't expect it (video 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNvLwDX2WW0&feature=player_detailpage#t=89), 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo)).

Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: pomodoro on April 15, 2017, 07:41:19 PM
God's sake, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into pure shite.  Those photos are of an inductively coupled plasma. ICP for short. Obviously home made. A kilowatt of RF heats some NaCl from the solution and vaporizes it to give the impression of a flame as thee atomic lines of sodium are emitted in cooler regions. Check out the commercial ICPAES ones that are even more impressive and make Argon 'burn'.
ICP can achieve 10000 degrees and clearly shows that no transmutation occurs as its used to measure atomic emissions from solutions, and surprise surprise no new element lines show up when using ultrapure standards.


Look, I'm not going to keep this pathetic thread going as you have run out of steam,  there is no OU in plasma electrolysis that we can replicate , water conducts as a liquid using ions and good luck with that.  If you don't believe that then do some experiment with accurate equipment and give us all the details and make sure anyone can get the same results. Those success stories are faked or wrong, do it for yourself and see the truth.

 
If it would be really weak, you would argue it already - I know your mindset already well.. ;-) The lack of electrolysis in high energy density systems has its counterpart in overunity electrolysis at low energy fields, where no electrodes are actually present. So we can have no electrolysis, where you would expect it - but also electrolysis, where you wouldn't expect it (video 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNvLwDX2WW0&feature=player_detailpage#t=89), 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo)).


Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir on April 15, 2017, 10:20:35 PM
Quote
Those photos are of an inductively coupled plasma.

Which can be ignited with lighter (https://youtu.be/p8xYUDiSGDk?t=70)? Interesting...  In 1982, a team of chemists at Western Illinois University reported the room-temperature decomposition of water vapour into hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen using radio frequency waves with around 60 percent yield [S Roychowdhury et al, Plasma Chem. Plasma Process., 1982, 2, 157]. They too used precisely the same frequency of 13.56 MHz - no coincidence really, since this is a common frequency for radio frequency generators. And in 1993 a Russian team reported the apparent dissociation of water into hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals using microwaves[V L Vaks et al, Radiophys. Quantum Electron. 1994, 37, 85].

I'd say, your "counterarguments" are gradually getting more and more shitty.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir on April 15, 2017, 11:15:52 PM
BTW This device (https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4759-cold-fusion-device-based-on-high-voltage-pulses-introduced-to-membrane-for-rever/) is based on high voltage & frequency pulses introduced to membrane for reverse osmosis (http://www.lenntech.com/products/membrane/sea/general/reverse-osmosis-desalination-membranes.htm) with COP > 120. Device is able to heat 500 grams of water from 22 ° C - 93 ° C during 720 seconds with using of battery input 1.7 Watts. Average life-time of membrane is 35 minutes.This device show the way, how to do plasma electrolysis without actually running a plasma - just by constraining the water molecules into a narrow channels.  YT videos 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8aNIp8ag8Y), 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxWuo2GCkrQ). See also Plasma Discharge in Liquid Water-Treatment and Applications (https://www.scribd.com/document/224013320/Plasma-Discharge-in-Liquid-Water-Treatment-and-Applications)
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: ARMCORTEX on April 16, 2017, 04:06:08 AM
Its time to go read and become self trained expert now zephir.

If no college you must learn yourself.

These sites about overunity will not educate you on anything.

Simple steps first, then move to difficult things.

C/C++ , math, electronics. Then you may start calling yourself ready.

A lvl 1 weak character is not ready for final boss.

Off you go now Zephir.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir on April 16, 2017, 07:11:00 AM
Quote
These sites about overunity will not educate you on anything.

So what are you doing here, if you don't believe into overunity, you're not apparently interested about my links and you even cannot find anything useful here?

A disruptive agent job?

Please kindly delete yourself from here and don't forget to kindly wipe out all posts which you invilingly did during your stay here.

Thank you in advance.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: ARMCORTEX on April 16, 2017, 07:45:21 AM
Since you have been polite I will remove myself, you seem the stubbon person.

But rest assured Zephir, you are being watched.

But not for the reasons you think, you are not that dangerous to us.

A simple pest to be squashed later on as we break your will, blocking off all avenues of success.

We have created hundreds of false leads for you to fall into, our russian colleagues also help out.

You will stay right where you are sheeple, You dont take orders well also, now you are forever crossed from working in any of our companies. We will however summon you for consideration.

I can crush your life with a few clicks be careful Zephir.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: ARMCORTEX on April 16, 2017, 09:29:16 AM
Shit your pants yet Zephir?

We are a very well oiled machine.

A little twig like you gets munched up very quickly even if you had working technology.

We will invite you in the truck and you will see where Pablo Escobar got his inspiration.

And we will keep very good tabs on you, and if you cross us it will be legal to solve the Zephir problem.

Just one more unhealthy boy with a heart attack, our guys leave no trace whatsoever.

Do yourself a favor Zephir, be a good boy, we need better electronic warfare personnel, cyberwar personnel, material scientists, doctors, engineers.

We dont need disobedient little OU rebels that cant build the technology we need.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: Zephir on April 16, 2017, 03:04:43 PM
Well, this is how typical dedicated troll (http://i.imgur.com/IdGDUxK.gif) of overunity forum looks like. He's is indeed too stupid for being real agent - but he acts as reliably.
He is attracted to informative posts instinctively -  but you can never read something substantial from him, as he deals with persons only, not with overunity links and information. This activity substitutes social life for him: an illustrative example of why the moderation of board is necessary.
Title: Re: Energy from water arc explosions
Post by: ChileanOne on July 04, 2019, 02:18:04 AM
It's a real shame this thread became so stranded from the interesting topic and became an insulting ground. I hope we can get back on trail.
There's a blog from a Stanford undergaduate student that earned a grant of USD1500 and spent it all reproducing the results of Graneau's water arc explosions, with different shots measuring excess energy in the range between 1,2 to 28 times the electric arc input energy vs the caloric/kinetic/and luminous energy output from the explosion. His last post is from Dec 2015, but he explains all his methods and published all the results, so we can say that he basically proved that Graneau was right and that there is overunity in water arc explosions, so, where's his overunity prize????
http://waterarcresearch.blogspot.com/ (http://waterarcresearch.blogspot.com/)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5Fyzk8vn-a4/VnNQF-_cuHI/AAAAAAAAAWo/fy1_QGseSnU/s320/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-12-17%2Bat%2B5.07.08%2BPM.png)