I can sense a lot of frustration and anger from some people in this thread - because of confusion.  Very probably some of this confusion is deliberate sabotage.  But probably most of it is just communication difficulties - and semantics ARE important to avoid confusion.

Overunity - the word is meaningless.  Some say it's important, others say "who cares? - Just make it work!".  I believe we are all meaning the same thing, but using a poor choice of word.

IF the energy to create the spark is Less than the Power obtained from the power stroke - we are wasting energy.  The motor will not "run" on water - it will "run" on Electricity, which we will have to purchase.  This is obviously not going to liberate us from Big Oil.  So can we agree that we need "over-unity" in the sense that the power output of the spark-induced explosion Has to be greater than the power input supplied by the battery.  This should be a no-brainer - so why are we fighting over this?

Most importantly: there are still people at this late stage in the thread talking about Hydrogen and Burning and High Amps and Mist.  The working principle and source of available energy has been explained in detail - yet some are persisting on the wrong path than can only lead to failure. 

Big thanks to allcanadian!  Brilliant charging circuit - thank you, thank you!  And excellent advice about not putting the cart before the horse.

Our belief in the actual working principle of this energy source will change how we build, and ultimately lead to success or failure. 

We clearly aren't all on the same page - and no doubt I am angering some of you right now.  My intention is to bring focus and point out some of the ignor-ance and dis-information that seems to be sinking this thread. 

I personally feel I've been handed the keys to real free-energy and it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or does.  Or how civil or nasty they are in an internet thread. 

IMO these recurring ideas will lead to failure:

The idea that this is combustion of hydrogen - 1st mistake.  (We are liberating the Latent Heat of liquid Water in a low temperature process)

The idea that mist is required (and forgive me for mentioning ultrasonic misters earlier on - I didn't know the principle at that time).  If the energy comes from the transition of water into vapour - if we start with vapour, there is no energy left.  (Mist should be the Output of engine - not the Input.) 

The idea that higher current is required: Sure - we can make big sparks and blow up water, but at the huge expense of 10,000 J instead of 50 J by way of comparison.  This approach seems doomed to failure before we start.  (IMO, high voltage is needed to bridge the gap with plasma - and an extremely short high current pulse is required to explode the water.  High Amps ARE necessary - but not for very long, and not necessarily at high voltage.  Power = Volts x Amps - and we can't afford to waste either doing the wrong thing at the wrong time).

Brute force and ignorance are the answer to a lot of life's problems.  Just not this one.

We need intelligent circuit design - and to do that, we need to understand the basic principles we need the circuit to accomplish.

I shall shut up now.  Thanks to all those who have opened my eyes.

The idea that this is combustion of hydrogen - 1st mistake.  (We are liberating the Latent Heat of liquid Water in a low temperature process)

The only problem I have with the idea that latent heat is being liberated in the process of converting liquid water to fog, is that under normal circumstances (e.g. evaporation), the latent heat quota of liquid water must be filled in order for the liquid to convert to a vapour state. That is, heat or other photonic energy is normally absorbed by the water (added to the water from an external source) for the conversion of liquid to vapour to occur. Latent heat energy is not released.

Latent heat is usually "liberated" when a vapour condenses back to a fluid, or a fluid is converted to solid. This is the opposite of what appears to be happening in the experiments shown.

The explanation given by Peter Graneau from Northeastern University Boston USA and Neal Graneau from Oxford University UK, is a little more involved than that, I know, but it still leaves me a little puzzled ?

Can anybody expand on the explanation given by Graneau. ? I am not disputing the explanation, but I am struggling to fully understand it.

Cheers all.

Please see my latest two "Proof Of Concept" videos here:

NICE work! Seeing that engine turn over, i was screaming out "yes!!". I've been one of the people in this thread nagging for someone to prove how much power this spark has in it, and I am now convinced.

As has been said in here earlier today, if what s1r says is true and a plasma arc of huge proportions is what we need in order to run an engine with enough power to move a vehicle (or do useful work), I now have total confidence that this thread - all about improving the spark - is the best thing this concept needs.

Thanks for demonstrating this, Ossie.

Richard

Hello all again,
As told some post before I worn out all my parts and waiting to restart with better protection, but there's something I think that maybe can help us all if possible to developp.

I used the hand switching between capacitor and coil approach. When succesful I changed to bigger capacitors to improve if possible the spark power, and sure it improved a little, enough to melt the plug.

Any case process is a little ticky, and the worse, it does not allow you to perform test in an easy and continuous way, at least for me, being a little impatient. (Sorry if English far from Shakespeare)


The question is:
As I am not able to design on my own a circuit to perform the pulses itself. Can you tell me if possible how to do or where to look for schemas for It?

I know signal generator and realys could do the trick, but those are not on my desk nor on everyone's budget, but I've seen some guys with more or less adjustable simple circuits that can change impulse rate as well as power pulses.

I think it could be very useful for everybody in order to look for the best parameters, as the ignition HV spark, low voltage power delivered through HV spark and so on, that at this moment I can test only once on every, hand-charge-capacitor-discharge-through-coil, hand-charge-capacitor-discharge-through-coil, melt-spark start over and so on...

Excuse my ignorance, there are more than 20 years I have to let away my very little electronic knowledge, (Knowledge?) and would most appreciate any help to build some kind of pulse automation to avoid wasting so much time in the tasks that have nothing to do with the real search.

Hope you can help.
Cheers.
Ri

Alan,
OK, then take your motor out of your car and put an electric motor in, or continue with this shortsided banter and keep paying $4.35 per gallon (and on the rise) for gasoline.

@geo,

@geo
Hi, don't get me wrong, what I meant was, if it is not OU, it cannot work, just like running a car on HHO gas alone (seen from an conservation of energy point). I hope this is OU and it looks like it will be found out very soon.
(some suggestions:
if the motor runs, do some torque and rpm measurements.
replicate a combustion chamber to study the explosive energy (also said before by another armchair) )

I hope I do add something valuable, if not, sorry for polluting this thread any further.

I think the Graneau document is extremely clear.  Fog/mist/water vapour has less latent heat energy than rain drops or liquid water. 

I've always wondered about mist.  We tend to think of mist as being steam - because it's associated with boiling kettles and such.  But steam is invisible.  The phase transition from water to steam occurs at 100 degrees C, give or take depending on pressure.  When we see water vapour - it's not steam.  And mist and fog are associated with cold temperatures. 

On a cold foggy morning - what turns the fog back into water? I'm not 100% sure, but i'm reasonably certain that it's the solar radiation that adds extra heat.  Whether it condenses to form water, or whether it takes off into the sky to form clouds - I don't know.  But it seems clear to me that A/ it doesn't get turned into steam, and B/ it absorbs a lot of energy before it becomes liquid water again.

I'm thinking that a closed loop system is probably going to require an extensive heat exchanger system, where it would clearly be seen that ambiant heat energy is absorbed from the environment in the process of distilling the vapour back into water to be reused.  I believe this is probably a valid mechanism for a perpetuum mobile of the second kind - an isothermal Maxwell Demon.  But that's probably considered off topic ...

Anyway - low temperature fog has often fascinated me regarding energy content, and I think it's becoming much clearer to me know.  There is energy here (in water), for certain.

If we take a quantity of water, add a small amount of energy, and output that water as vapour, which now lacks the hydrogen bonds holding it together - we know that energy is, allegedly, never created nor destroyed - so that energy is liberated in the process.

Sounds wierd - but seems to be whats happening.

@greendoor
Fog forms when water evaporates due to geothermal heat and makes contact to colder air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog no need to wonder anymore

That's an overly simplistic statement that doesn't work for me.  Are you saying that water is converted to steam (requiring temperature at boiling point) and that it condenses back into water when cooled by colder air?  Obviously not ... so what is the mechanism that turns liquid water into fog or mist?  I'm just saying i've never really understood this - although assumed it has something to do with brownian motion and kinetic heat energy.  My understanding has always assumed that fog or mist was like a transition stage between water and steam, and therefore at a higher energy level.  But that's clearly wrong ... so now i'm seeing it as a LOWER energy level than water ...

But don't quote me - i'm just trying to get my head around this stuff.