URGENT! WATER AS FUEL DISCOVERY FOR EVERYONE TO SHARE

[epwpixieq-1]

Measuring is also important to determine whether a perceived "event" is really worth any trouble investigating!  Lots of "talk" and exchange of ideas and arguments is involved.  99% of scientific work that results in real discovery and development has to do with making sure you are not fooling yourself.  The other 1% has to do with imagination and exploration.

This is why Tesla was not communicating with the others ! It was a lost time for him.
He was a builder and discoverer and notedly was marginalized by the scientist community. The World is lucky that sometimes there are people that can use their imagination and exploration a lot more then their reliance on/making sure to not fooling themselves.

sas

[happyvalley808]

Well said.....

HV

[bumfuzzled]

Clearly, no one here agrees on any measure of success nor is there any concensus on what the experiment consists of.  Each person has their own definitions.  So much for "replication"!  In this environment, there is no hope of success and no chance of failure.  It's a hobby.

Well I think it's pretty clear how to replicate any one of the many circuits in this thread. When you get a plasma arc then squirt a lil water on the gap and if the arc gets bigger then lo and behold you have success. Seems pretty simple to me but if you wanna get a govt grant and millions of dollars in test equipment just to say "yeah that arc got bigger when I squirted water on it" then by all means go ahead and do that. Good grief. 

[dopey]

Well I think it's pretty clear how to replicate any one of the many circuits in this thread. When you get a plasma arc then squirt a lil water on the gap and if the arc gets bigger then lo and behold you have success. Seems pretty simple to me but if you wanna get a govt grant and millions of dollars in test equipment just to say "yeah that arc got bigger when I squirted water on it" then by all means go ahead and do that. Good grief. 

The promise of the thread is hopefully something beyond being able to say and demonstrate that "yeah that arc got bigger when I squirted water on it".  If that was the extent of it, to impress youself and your friends that a spark seems to get bigger when you squirt water on it, then I would think the video would suffice.  What would be the point of replication, other than a fun hobby project (and there's nothing wrong with that)? 

You must admit that it is a giant leap to conclude from any of this that the theorized energy being released from the water molecules is necessarily greater than the energy required to form the spark.  The published scientific paper does suggest that and* [see edit] does appear to be reasonably legitimate on its face and to have employed at least reasonable efforts toward measurement accuracy, although I understand the results have been widely challenged and credibly disputed by equally diligent researchers.  And, even with all the high-tech lab equipment and physics expertise of the whole lot of them focused on the subject, none have even attempted to show anything like a water-powered machine (on even the tiniest scale) based on this and it's been near ten years since that publication.

To conclude from any of this that by simply jacking up the pulse fed to an ICE's spark plug(s) and possibly tinkering with the carburetor or injection system, that an ICE would be able to run on water...that seems like a rather giant leap of faith and hope to me.  And one that remains entirely unsupported by evidence of any credible nature.

[edit]  On a more careful reading of the published paper, I have to qualify the stricken statement in a very important way that is basic to the whole question here.  It does not claim that the energy released from the water is greater than the energy required to make the plasma.  What it claims is that the total energy measured is greater when the water is present.  So the claim is not that there is any kind of overunity being shown, but rather that some tiny amount of energy appears to be added by the addition of the water into the plasma.  There is a huge yet subtle distinction there!

So, to make an analagous example, if I build an ICE with this technology, and let us say that the thermal energy released by a single "dry spark" (no fuel of any kind...gasoline or water or wahatever) in my machine is equivalent to 1 joule, let us say, then we obviously would not expect that amount of energy to expand the air in the cylinder with enough force to move the piston significantly.  In other words, you would not expect the energy just coming from the plasma arc on a normal car engine, by itself, to run the engine, would you?

Now, say that we had discovered this water thing causes the same 1 joule spark of energy (when dry) to mysteriously release 2 joules or even 5 or 10 joules of energy.  This is far more generous than anything suggested by the published paper or the original video of this thread.  Do you think the engine would run now?  Hell no, it wouldn't.

This whole thread seems to be based on a completely false hope that if water could be used to magnify the heating energy released by an electrical spark by a relatively small factor (far less than an order of magnitude), that one could skip the gasoline altogether.  Do you think that your car's engine would run on nothing but air if you put in a ten-fold ignition system?  Ten spark plugs per cylinder, each driven with the same energy that the single one there now has?  Or one spark plug per piston being hit with ten times the electrical energy?  Obviously not!

The foolish conclusions being leapt to in this thread and the wasted enthusiasm and efforts those wrong and unbased conclusions are leading to...all of it is the result of this pig-headed refusal to intelligently discuss the subject in any reasonable manner prior to diving headlong into utterly useless 'replications' of hardware.  It is a hobby where the enjoyment seems to be derived from an insistence on group delusion.

[dopey]

P.S.  My car runs on piss and vinegar.  I built it myself in 1966.