URGENT! WATER AS FUEL DISCOVERY FOR EVERYONE TO SHARE

[AbbaRue]

@Dopey
I don't understand how you could watch the videos and not understand what this thread is about.
When electricity is discharged through a spark gap in water, a large amount of energy is released,
with enough pressure to blow a hole through 1/4 inch of aluminum. 
This thread is trying to tap this energy of water and use water instead of hydrocarbons to run an engine. 
The specialized spark gap appears to be tapping into an alternate energy source,
which causes the water to expand with enough force to run an engine.

@Everyone else
I hope I can explain this right. 
It would be easy to produce a steady high current output.
Find the ideal capacitance value for the spark, and then place as many of these capacitors
in a circuit as needed to keep up with the discharge speed.
While discharging one over the spark gap the rest are being charged, then rotate to the next capacitor as needed.
A 4 cylinder engine would have 4 capacitors, by the time you get back to cylinder #1 capacitor #1 is fully charged again.
If you get to #1 to fast for it to have charged then you can use 8 capacitors and each one is used every 2nd round.
What ever amount of capacitors is needed to keep up. Even if you need 20 capacitors. 
So that will solve the capacitor charge time problem. 
A car running on this could have a short warm up time while all the capacitors charge up to get them ready. 
Then away you go.

All we need to do is find the ideal capacitance and the best way to feed the water into the spark gap.

[xbox hacker]

xbox hacker,
Good work!  Give this a whirl.  Make a solution of colloidal copper as your electrolyte using simple electrolysis and distilled water.

Go to Home Depot and get a foot of number 12 copper wire and remove the plastic coating and make your electrodes from that.  This is a high enough grade of copper to perform this experiment.  In no way are colloids of this grade of copper fit for human consumption, in other words do not drink.

IndianaBoys

I was just going to use some Lye.... But i might give it try. (that rhymes...LOL)

[radicalzero]

I love what everyone is doing. I just have a thought. If we look at the original s1r9a9m9 story, he said that he had dropped a live ac cord into a bucket of water. If we look at the process of electro hydraulic formation of metal we see that a large discharge occurs within a body of water (or oil). One of the videos posted here show a two liter bottle blasted off when a larger amount of water is on the plug.

Would it be better to measure the amount of empty space within the cylinder at TDC and only inject that amount of water into the cylinder. That way the shockwave produced in the water could push the cylinder and produce work without trying to split it or enhance the contents of the water. It seems to me that the water isn't actually a fuel but a medium for the shockwave (since water doesn't compress like air does).

If this is the case then the water could be reused over and over again (maybe a closed loop system). I know that too much water in a cylinder will cause it to lock up (because it can't be compressed).

Just my impressions at this moment. Thanx Dan Wilson Jr.

[winner]

Yes...Post 1088 is a perfect example.  It goes on at great length about a complicated theory of something or other and uses a large number of non-traditional terms (diodes slamming shut and compressing things... ) and vague gibberish trying to explain something that the writer obviously does not understand.  Nowhere does it answer any of the basic simple practical questions I've asked.

What is the whole contraption intended to do?  Does it do it?  How well, in objective, measurable terms?  Does it do anything that normal, standard physics cannot explain on first principles?  If so, what?

Without solid answers to those questions being sought and discussed, the tendency is toward a ring-around-the-rosy parade of endless meaningless gibberish explanations that don't even warrant being called theories.  I'm sure it's fun to pretend and play, but will it get anyone any closer to providing answers to real-world energy problems...that is the question.  I have no opinion as yet, other than to say that what I've read on the thread so far does not address any of the basic scientific issues or questions.

Have I missed something?

These are good questions and I agree too they need clear answers. Here is my take, as an interested observer:

What is the whole contraption intended to do?

From Gotoluc's first post, the "contraption" is intended to produce an "efficient way to change water to a fuel." I'm sure it was also intended to provide a simple device for others to build and see first hand the water plasma spark phenomenon, thus growing public awareness and interest in this potential energy source. A third goal, I think, was to provide a practical starting platform for others to experiment with and explore improvements. Gotoluc, if I am wrong in my understanding, please correct me.

Does it do it?

The circuit appears at first to produce an efficient "water to fuel" effect, yes. By "efficient," this is in contrast to the comparatively high current HHO production experiments.

How well, in objective, measurable terms?

Callanan/Ossie has pointed us to a research paper "Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy." See >this post<. Do you have any suggestions on how results can be measured? The FE open source movement is the "wild west" of research, so not everyone is going to have exactly the same wagon. ;-) Yes, it would be great to establish a common measurement technique to evaluate effectiveness of circuit changes.

Does it do anything that normal, standard physics cannot explain on first principles?  If so, what?

I don't think anyone is making a claim of this sort. But, I would say it DOES produce an extraordinary effect, easily reproduced, and thus is valuable as a teaching tool and a starting place for open source propagation.

[dopey]

Thank you, Winner

Those are good answers.  So...the idea that excites here is more than neat, pretty sparks and excited forum comrades having fun playing in their chosen hobby, I take it.  There is the elusive promise of "Changing Water into Fuel".  But no one here has yet made any kind of measurement as to whether the resulting fuel provides more or less energy than required in electrity to change it.  Some other guys with entirely different apparatus report that they have done it with COP>1 but no one in the "scientific community" has reproduced that work.

Is all of that about right?  I guess the way to measure it is to burn the fuel produced with a know measured quantity of electrical energy input in the most efficient possible way in an insulated, closed environment.  Then measure the temperature rise produced in a known quantity of media such as air or whatever the "water fuel" is proposed to be used to heat.  If the idea is that this "fuel' can power an internal combustion engine, then heating compressed air rapidly in an enclosed volume is the measure of merit.

The energy-content figures for gasolines of varying octane under varying conditions of use (pressure, air/fuel mix, etc) are well-studied in the scientific literature.  Of course there, the spark igniting energy is fairly miniscule compared to the energy released.

Here, it appears that the spark igniting energy may be significantly more...possibly (actually quite probably) more than the total energy available from the resulting "fuel".  Finding the answer to this question, in my opinion, would be the key to deciding whether this is a practical real phenomenon worth developing.  I don't see that answer being pursued very diligently here, that's all I'm saying.

Anyway, Winner...thank you very much for your response.  And to all...carry on, gentlemen!  Let's see who is the first to demonstrate and quantify something here that perks up the curiosity of "regular scientists"!