URGENT! WATER AS FUEL DISCOVERY FOR EVERYONE TO SHARE

[gotoluc]

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"!

@dopey, you sound like a knowledgeable person. The information here may not please everyone. If you truly seek answers then you should know that a replication is needed.

Anyways, how could you trust our answers??? when we don't speak your science.

Luc

[Ursine]

Thanks Luc,

I'm stripping an old pc power supply now and I've got my eye on an old CRT in my closet.

Dave

[AbbaRue]

If anyone hasn't seen this show I would highly recommend you do.
It is related to what we are trying to achieve here.

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=Equinox+-+It+Runs+on+Water+%28Free+Energy+-+1995%29&hl=en&sitesearch=&aq=-1&oq=#

[gotoluc]

If anyone hasn't seen this show I would highly recommend you do.
It is related to what we are trying to achieve here.

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=Equinox+-+It+Runs+on+Water+%28Free+Energy+-+1995%29&hl=en&sitesearch=&aq=-1&oq=#

@AbbaRue, yes an excellent choice for this occasion. Thanks

Luc

[dopey]

@dopey, you sound like a knowledgeable person. The information here may not please everyone. If you truly seek answers then you should know that a replication is needed.

Anyways, how could you trust our answers??? when we don't speak your science.

Luc

@Luc and All...

Please don't be offended.  I fully understand that your work on this is not being done "to please me" or to satisfy my personal curiosity.  Certainly, I am not demanding anything from anyone here at all.  I applaud your enthusiasm and your eagerness.  The project is quite interesting.  That having been said and sincerely meant, I cannot help but continue to wonder about the rush to "replicate".

I don't understand how anyone attempting replication would have any idea whether or not they had succeeded or failed.  After reading most of the thread and watching most of the videos, I have apparently missed the part where the specific performance claims and metrics are described.  Can someone tell me where that information is? 

In order to replicate a legitimate experiment, no matter whose science is being used, isn't it rather necessary to have a measurable result in mind?  Otherwise, no one could ever possibly complete a replication and claim the experiment to be a success.  This is the part that I'm confused about and it is perfectly understandable and fine if the forum members do not share my confusion or feel that my question is even legitimate. 

In "my science", as you call it, the claim of a successful replication requires some form of objective comparison of measurable repeatable results in a known, controlled setting.  I would appreciate any help in understand what constitutes a successful replication in "your science", if I may be permitted.

Golf is a great hobby and a popular pursuit of many.  Is there more to "your science" of "open source replications without measuring results" than a very enjoyable hobby?  Golf, you see, does not claim to answer any practical real-world problems (other than relieving the boredom of the wealthy).  This thread and most other threads here seem to begin by announcing the discovery of a fantastic and wonderful new advance in useful practical knowledge and promises of an amazing new breakthrough technology. 

Yet none of the hundreds of enthusiastically-launched threads seem to end by actually demonstrating any useful benefit beyond providing an entertaining and enjoyable hobby.  And there's nothing wrong with that, by God!  As long as it is not cloaked in some grandiose pretense (or is that what fuels it all?) of actually solving some real problem.

Could this ubiquitous sequence of initial manic enthusiasm, "propagation" of aggressive "blind replication efforts" and a willingness to ignore the need to quantify and accurately measure/describe/publish results be related to the obvious fact that every one of these threads seems to die a slow agonizing death in the end...without providing squat "for mankind"? 

Or is this one finally going to be the one that flowers into a utopian future...

"My science" would describe the experimental apparatus that produces the high voltage pulses as a "black box" with a given set of port characteristics and a function.  The focus, then, of exploring the actual phenomena of interest would shift to the measurement and documentation of specific results and possibly a theory, if existing known principles fail to explain the observed, measured behavior.

"Your science" seems to focus on the endless details of constructing various versions of the experimental apparatus without ever first describing it as a "black box function".  The business of evaluating, measuring, describing and documenting the "surprising new unexpected results" that are always claimed or at least suggested...well...it seems to vanish entirely from the efforts.  Theories abound from all quarter well prior to any clear description or objective evaluation of the "assumed-a priori-to-be-surprising" results.

Have I got it wrong?  It's okay...no one has to answer...I can just lurk and observe the progress or degeneration...

It would be neat, though, if someone actually published some decently-measured controlled (i.e. made under known conditions)observations and some clear claims of experimental (hopefully surprising and promising) results.  Then, and only then, would I be interested in replicating.  Otherwise, how would I know if I had replicated with success?  Or isn't that important in "your science"?