In a previous post I raised the question of whether or not excess electrical
energy could be obtained via a sparkgap.
The consensus, based on published research was a resounding 'no'.
However, whilst ferreting about I came across what appears to be
'considerable' material from highly respected institutions that claims
otherwise.
E.g..

"Liberation of chemical energy in pulsed high current arcs in liquids and
gases
Graneau, N.
Dept. of Eng. Sci., Oxford Univ.

This paper appears in: Pulsed Power 2000 (Digest No. 2000/053), IEE
Symposium
Publication Date: 2000
On page(s): 19/1-19/4
Meeting Date: 05/03/2000 - 05/04/2000
Location: London, UK
References Cited: 7
INSPEC Accession Number: 6623248
Date Published in Issue: 2002-08-06 23:27:03.0
"
I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release a
large amount of chemically stored energy"
This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that released in
air via broken valence bonds.
I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort of
outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.

Comments?
Vince

On Jun 25, 11:04 pm, "Vince Morgan" vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au
wrote:

I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release a
large amount of chemically stored energy"
This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that released in
air via broken valence bonds.
I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort of
outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.

Comments?
Vince

I certainly don't want to chime in with the usual "debunkers" and
start suggesting that you go read freshman texts on "conservation of
energy", but some of that has a certain relevance here.

It's really all about coming to a detailed understanding of what is
going on. The first point is that we all know that a "pulsed arc" can
liberate chemical energy. Example: a spark sets off an explosion! But
the KEY item is that the chemical energy already has to be STORED and
ready for release. The speculation in the above abstract has to do
with hydrogen bonds as a form of "stored energy". I'm not sure if that
is true, but splitting water into hydrogen and Oxygen is not. It TAKES
energy to do that. You don't RELEASE it!

I for one, am not going to join with the "debunkers" in crowing that
the mythical free-energy "water splitter box" is impossible to build.
Clearly a water-splitter box that takes energy CAN be built. It's
called electrolysis. The still unanswered question is has anyone
demonstrated a splitter box that takes less energy than you get back
from the burning of hydrogen and oxygen. No credible demonstrations
yet as far as I know.

But all that aside, let us also note that even if you could split
water with an energy requirement on a par with the energy developed,
that doesn't make the idea all bull. There would be distinct
advantages to running vehicles on fuel that produces zero pollution.
And there would be further advantages if the water-splitter process
could be made to run on energy sources in less short supply than oil
is going to be now and more importantly in the future. Even if the
water splitter ran on coal it could buy mankind maybe a couple of
hundred years of breathing space if the coal pollution problems could
be solved.

One simply needs to think clearly about these things. Note that if the
water-splitter operates on an electric arc, then it is essentially
running on coal (electric power plants). It doesn't have to produce
"free energy" to be useful!

----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au wrote in message
u...
In a previous post I raised the question of whether or not excess
electrical
energy could be obtained via a sparkgap.
The consensus, based on published research was a resounding 'no'.
However, whilst ferreting about I came across what appears to be
'considerable' material from highly respected institutions that claims
otherwise.
E.g..

"Liberation of chemical energy in pulsed high current arcs in liquids and
gases
Graneau, N.
Dept. of Eng. Sci., Oxford Univ.

This paper appears in: Pulsed Power 2000 (Digest No. 2000/053), IEE
Symposium
Publication Date: 2000
On page(s): 19/1-19/4
Meeting Date: 05/03/2000 - 05/04/2000
Location: London, UK
References Cited: 7
INSPEC Accession Number: 6623248
Date Published in Issue: 2002-08-06 23:27:03.0
"

Quote:

Abstract High current pulsed arcs in both water and air, are able to liberate chemical energy from the arc medium which can be recovered in either mechanical or electrical form. Despite the high currents, the arc is relatively cold which apparently makes this a highly efficient mechanism for liberating stored chemical energy and therefore a possible future energy source. In the case of water, hydrogen bonds are broken in order to create the observed small fog droplets. The energetics of small droplet bonding requires that the remaining hydrogen bonds will be expected to drop into lower energy configurations than in bulk water and thus the transition to droplets can release a large amount of chemically stored energy. Similarly in air, arcs break covalent bonds which are also a source of stored chemical energy. It appears that more mechanical energy is liberated in the water arcs for a particular discharge energy. However the lower mass and consequent higher velocities of the end products of the air arc explosion probably explain why the these arcs are more suited to direct conversion to electrical energy

I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release a
large amount of chemically stored energy"
This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that released
in
air via broken valence bonds.
I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort of
outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.

Comments?
Vince

--------------
I do not read this as implying that the energy liberated exceeds the input
energy.

What I read is that there is, in the configuration used, there is a
particular input energy that is optimal - higher efficiency than at higher
or lower input levels. That is reasonable.
--

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer

Benj wrote:


But all that aside, let us also note that even if you could split
water with an energy requirement on a par with the energy developed,
that doesn't make the idea all bull. There would be distinct
advantages to running vehicles on fuel that produces zero pollution.

You only get zero pollution if you burn the oxygen with the hydrogen
and exclude air.

If you burn hydrogen with air as the oxidizer source, you get the
same nitrogen oxide pollutants as any other engine.

Actually worse, since hydrogen burns hotter than gasoline or diesel.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Benj" wrote in message
...
On Jun 25, 11:04 pm, "Vince Morgan" vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au
wrote:

I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release a
large amount of chemically stored energy"
This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that
released in
air via broken valence bonds.
I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort of
outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.

Comments?
Vince

I certainly don't want to chime in with the usual "debunkers" and
start suggesting that you go read freshman texts on "conservation of
energy", but some of that has a certain relevance here.

It's really all about coming to a detailed understanding of what is
going on. The first point is that we all know that a "pulsed arc" can
liberate chemical energy. Example: a spark sets off an explosion! But
the KEY item is that the chemical energy already has to be STORED and
ready for release. The speculation in the above abstract has to do
with hydrogen bonds as a form of "stored energy". I'm not sure if that
is true, but splitting water into hydrogen and Oxygen is not. It TAKES
energy to do that. You don't RELEASE it!

They aren't actualy splitting the components. What I was able to garnish
from another artical on this was that in the transition from bulk water to
atomisation (droplets) an amount of energy is released. There is very, very
little gas produced apparently.
However, it actualy is claimed that the kinetic energy of the droplets
exceeds the arch energy. Though not in the above extract as Don has pointed
out.
[quote]
It appears that more mechanical energy is liberated in the water
arcs for a particular discharge energy
[/unquote]
As Don has pointed out, and you have aluded too (I think, the above may
have been incorrectly understood by myself. However, the research seemed to
be directed toward answering the 90 years old question involving the
'apparent' over unity of arch generated water explosions.
They speak of energy recovery, arguing that with water the kinetic energy is
high, but due to the low mass of air, it would be better to recover the
energy electricaly.
I realize that this is chemicaly stored energy. However, being able to
release some of waters chemical energy (no combustion is nice) if it takes
less energy than that released, is exiting and novel, to me anyway.
Regards,
Vince

"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:fxF8k.51809$gc5.48712@pd7urf2no...
----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au wrote in message
u...
In a previous post I raised the question of whether or not excess
electrical
energy could be obtained via a sparkgap.
The consensus, based on published research was a resounding 'no'.
However, whilst ferreting about I came across what appears to be
'considerable' material from highly respected institutions that claims
otherwise.
E.g..

"Liberation of chemical energy in pulsed high current arcs in liquids
and
gases
Graneau, N.
Dept. of Eng. Sci., Oxford Univ.

This paper appears in: Pulsed Power 2000 (Digest No. 2000/053), IEE
Symposium
Publication Date: 2000
On page(s): 19/1-19/4
Meeting Date: 05/03/2000 - 05/04/2000
Location: London, UK
References Cited: 7
INSPEC Accession Number: 6623248
Date Published in Issue: 2002-08-06 23:27:03.0
"

Quote:

Abstract High current pulsed arcs in both water and air, are able to liberate chemical energy from the arc medium which can be recovered in either mechanical or electrical form. Despite the high currents, the arc is relatively cold which apparently makes this a highly efficient mechanism for liberating stored chemical energy and therefore a possible future energy source. In the case of water, hydrogen bonds are broken in order to

I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release a
large amount of chemically stored energy"
This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that
released
in
air via broken valence bonds.
I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort of
outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.

Comments?
Vince

--------------
I do not read this as implying that the energy liberated exceeds the
input
energy.

What I read is that there is, in the configuration used, there is a
particular input energy that is optimal - higher efficiency than at
higher
or lower input levels. That is reasonable.
--
Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly. As I am the only one who thinks
otherwise, and due to my inexperience, you are probably correct.
But, but, but. What does the following mean in that context.

[quote]
However the lower mass and consequent higher velocities of the end products
of the air arc (As opposed to water: me)explosion probably explain why the
these arcs are more suited to direct conversion to electrical energy
[/unquote]

And what could this mean?

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

Vince Morgan wrote:
"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:fxF8k.51809$gc5.48712@pd7urf2no...
----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au wrote in message
u...
In a previous post I raised the question of whether or not excess
electrical
energy could be obtained via a sparkgap.
The consensus, based on published research was a resounding 'no'.
However, whilst ferreting about I came across what appears to be
'considerable' material from highly respected institutions that claims
otherwise.
E.g..

"Liberation of chemical energy in pulsed high current arcs in liquids
and
gases
Graneau, N.
Dept. of Eng. Sci., Oxford Univ.

This paper appears in: Pulsed Power 2000 (Digest No. 2000/053), IEE
Symposium
Publication Date: 2000
On page(s): 19/1-19/4
Meeting Date: 05/03/2000 - 05/04/2000
Location: London, UK
References Cited: 7
INSPEC Accession Number: 6623248
Date Published in Issue: 2002-08-06 23:27:03.0
"

Quote:

Abstract High current pulsed arcs in both water and air, are able to liberate chemical energy from the arc medium which can be recovered in either mechanical or electrical form. Despite the high currents, the arc is relatively cold which apparently makes this a highly efficient mechanism for liberating stored chemical energy and therefore a possible future energy source. In the case of water, hydrogen bonds are broken in order to

Quote:

create the observed small fog droplets. The energetics of small droplet bonding requires that the remaining hydrogen bonds will be expected to drop into lower energy configurations than in bulk water and thus the transition to droplets can release a large amount of chemically stored energy. Similarly in air, arcs break covalent bonds which are also a source of stored chemical energy. It appears that more mechanical energy is liberated in the water arcs for a particular discharge energy. However the lower mass and consequent higher velocities of the end products of the air arc explosion probably explain why the these arcs are more suited to direct conversion to electrical energy

I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release a
large amount of chemically stored energy"
This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that
released
in
air via broken valence bonds.
I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort of
outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.

Comments?
Vince
--------------
I do not read this as implying that the energy liberated exceeds the
input
energy.

What I read is that there is, in the configuration used, there is a
particular input energy that is optimal - higher efficiency than at
higher
or lower input levels. That is reasonable.
--
Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly. As I am the only one who thinks
otherwise, and due to my inexperience, you are probably correct.
But, but, but. What does the following mean in that context.

[quote]
However the lower mass and consequent higher velocities of the end products
of the air arc (As opposed to water: me)explosion probably explain why the
these arcs are more suited to direct conversion to electrical energy
[/unquote]

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
--
************************************************** *
We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by huge
magnetic fields, Lichtenberg Figures (our "Captured
Lightning") and out of print technical Books. Visit
Stoneridge Engineering at http://www.teslamania.com
************************************************** *

"Vince Morgan" vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au wrote in message
u...
In a previous post I raised the question of whether or not excess
electrical
energy could be obtained via a sparkgap.
The consensus, based on published research was a resounding 'no'.
However, whilst ferreting about I came across what appears to be
'considerable' material from highly respected institutions that claims
otherwise.
E.g..

"Liberation of chemical energy in pulsed high current arcs in liquids and
gases
Graneau, N.
Dept. of Eng. Sci., Oxford Univ.

This paper appears in: Pulsed Power 2000 (Digest No. 2000/053), IEE
Symposium
Publication Date: 2000
On page(s): 19/1-19/4
Meeting Date: 05/03/2000 - 05/04/2000
Location: London, UK
References Cited: 7
INSPEC Accession Number: 6623248
Date Published in Issue: 2002-08-06 23:27:03.0
"

Quote:

Abstract High current pulsed arcs in both water and air, are able to liberate chemical energy from the arc medium which can be recovered in either mechanical or electrical form. Despite the high currents, the arc is relatively cold which apparently makes this a highly efficient mechanism for liberating stored chemical energy and therefore a possible future energy source. In the case of water, hydrogen bonds are broken in order to create the observed small fog droplets. The energetics of small droplet bonding requires that the remaining hydrogen bonds will be expected to drop into lower energy configurations than in bulk water and thus the transition to droplets can release a large amount of chemically stored energy. Similarly in air, arcs break covalent bonds which are also a source of stored chemical energy. It appears that more mechanical energy is liberated in the water arcs for a particular discharge energy. However the lower mass and consequent higher velocities of the end products of the air arc explosion probably explain why the these arcs are more suited to direct conversion to electrical energy

I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release a
large amount of chemically stored energy"
This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that released
in
air via broken valence bonds.
I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort of
outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.

Comments?
Vince

In the same general vein, please see the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ka...ated_discovery

John Kanzius is an Amateur Radio Operator that has demonstrated the ability
to dissociate salt water into Hydrogen and Oxygen using RF. He is also
involved in a fascinating RF-based cancer-fighting technique that might be
described as "nano-based targeted diathermy." OT but very promising and
very interesting.

Bill

"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

"Bert Hickman" wrote
. ..

. The phenomenon was relatively repeatable...

You can control it. If all set is grounded the effect hapenns. If isolated
from the earth no (also air should be dry).
The Earth has excess of electrons. Charged particles repel. During electric
oscylations the fog particles have enough time to gain electrons (from the
Earth). Charged fog make the explosion stronger. Of course there no
additional energy. It is like a heat pump. Dr Graneau invented a new type of
electron pump.
I have not done experiment. It is obvious in light of current knowledge. Do
you agree?
S*