"Bert Hickman" wrote in message
. ..
Vince Morgan wrote:
"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:fxF8k.51809$gc5.48712@pd7urf2no...
----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au wrote in message
And what could this mean?

Quote:

highly efficient mechanism for liberating stored chemical energy and therefore a possible future energy source.

Why would one consider energy conversion if what you have is less than
it
cost you in the first place?
I'm probably wrong, because I usually am
Regards,
Vince




Hi Vince,

You read correctly. A similar paper, "Arc-liberated chemical energy
exceeds electrical input energy" can also be found in the Journal of
Plasma Physics (UK) (2000), 63: 115-128, by Dr. Peter Graneau. Other
papers dealing with underwater electrical explosions include:

"Electrodynamic explosions in liquids", Applied Physics Letters, March
1, 1985, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp. 468-470, by Peter Graneau and P. Neal
Graneau

"Powerful water-plasma explosions", Physics Letters A, Volume 117, Issue
2, 28 July 1986, Pages 101-105, by Roy Azevedo, Peter Graneau, Charles
Millet, Neal Graneau

"The Anomalous Strength of Cold Fog Explosions Caused by Water Arcs",
Pulsed Power '98 (Digest No. 1998/258 and 1998/441), IEE Symposium on
1-2 Apr 1998 Page(s):40/1 - 40/3, by Neal Graneau

In the first cited paper above, Dr. Graneau used a capacitor bank with
known initial energy to create an underwater arc within a volume of
water inside a thick steel tube. The explosive capacitor discharge
creates a fog that exits the tube at high velocity (100 - 1000 m/s)
depending on the initial bank energy. Graneau measured the momentum and
energy of the high velocity water fog using a ballistic pendulum. He
found that, for many (but not all) "shots", the kinetic energy of the
water jet exceeded the initial energy of the capacitor bank by as much
as 40%. Additional energy was (apparently) liberated from the media, but
the mechanisms have not been identified. The phenomenon was relatively
repeatable...

Bert
Thank you Bert,
I'm very pleased to see the above. I had seen a couple of the citations
myself but couldn't remember where exactly.
40% isn't useful (even if it were reliably repeatable) as an energy source.
However, the fact that it happens at all is something of note I believe.
Thank you again,
Regards,
Vince