Need your help!! Ultra-Efficient water hydrolysis

[gyulasun]

I have met and talked to Peter Graneau several times.

@TinselKoala   (or playing with Nikola Tesla's name letters)

Would you tell what Peter Graneau responded to your conclusions?

Thanks,  Gyula

[TinselKoala]

@Gyula: Gladly. He went away mad, as you might expect. But at least he went away.

@Larry: Yes, amazing, isn't it. Obviously I am angry about my experience with Peter Graneau. I worked on his claims, more than full-time, for several years, and that's time I'll never get back. There is so much misinformation and downright falsification around Graneau's work (The silly video didn't even spell his name right!!) that I try to correct it wherever I find it. Of course, I don't expect you to believe me, after all, I do know where I'm posting!
For example, in Graneau's work he frequently cites the experiment he did at MIT which he describes thus: A "fast fog" jet from a water-arc explosion punched a 1/2 inch diameter hole completely through a 1/4 inch thick aluminum plate.
What's the image you get from that?
A jet, like in the Hull photo above, and an aluminum plate suspended in air above it, and the jet goes up and punches out the hole. Right?
Wrong. The experiment at MIT was what I call a "contact shot" meaning the arc occurred in a chamber completely full of water; the aluminum plate was in intimate contact with the water surface; the container was hermetically sealed; there was a punch-die held in place on top of the aluminum plate. There was no jet, except by Graneau's inference; the metal was punched by shock-wave compression of the water  forcing the metal through the punch-die.
This is standard hydrostatic metal-forming technique, not overunity, and it didn't even happen the way he wants you to believe.

Incidentally, the action in water-arc explosions typically occur in a few tens of milliseconds; wait a second and it's long over with. Hull's picture above was taken from a video frame, and shows some motion blur in the plume--that's why it looks so big.

[tinu]

Hello, Magnethos. I am new here, but not new to this subject. Peter Graneau (the video misspells his name) is well known in the alternative energy field. He has been around for many years.
Unfortunately, he is also wrong.
His momentum-transfer model, by which he calculates excess energy from his water-arc explosions, is wrong. A better model, incorporating an analysis of shock waves in water, shows that his explosions are not in fact overunity.
The big plume of "fast fog" (as Graneau calls it) that Richard Hull shows, and that you reproduce here, is not gas at all, it is small water droplets, and the shape of the plume may indicate that the jet is supersonic, although Hull did not, as far as I know, actually measure the velocity.
But I have.
I have repeated dozens of Graneau's experiments, discharging cap banks from 0.3 to 3.0 microFarads, charged to 12-20 kV, producing peak currents in the several kiloAmp range, at ringdown frequencies from 10 to 20 kHz (depending on the series inductance). I have launched projectiles, measured velocities, driven turbines of various kinds, even underwater jetboats powered by Graneau-explosions. I have trapped the whatever-it-is coming out, weighed it, and it is water. I have had other scientists do laser Doppler spectroscopy on the emissions from the Graneau "guns". The droplets are not as small as Graneau claims, they are not invisible (at least the ones we can see aren't!) and they do not interpenetrate water without disturbing it as Graneau claims. I have done high-speed Schlieren video photography of the shock waves produced in Graneau water explosions, and the shock phenomena are very evident. Data from these experiments went into the more accurate shockwave analysis of Graneau's systems and have shown that his energy balance calculations based on momentum are in error, and employ circular reasoning and other logical flaws.
In fact none of the claims of Peter Graneau have been confirmed by careful experiment and rigorous mathematical analysis.Many have been positively disconfirmed. Some of Graneau's co-authors on published papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature have repudiated the papers and have withdrawn their names from papers in publication.
I have met and talked to Peter Graneau several times.

I assure you, he is incorrect in his claims.
But it is water, not gas, coming out of his accelerators.

Hi TinselKoala,

Finally! Many thanks for coming here and for your competent postings!
Please check my similar post in http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,5024.280.html, which was not very welcome there.

I?d be interested in discussing with you the later developments (and claims) on ?water engine?, especially those regarding the ambient cooling following several discharges (same thread, page 18, quiman video post http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cInPBfJ2nT0 and subsequent replies http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,5024.680.html ). I don?t think at this time the effect is real but only an artifact of IR thermometer; I?m not sure about the final conclusion either and not able at this stage to conduct my own experiments. Can you please share some of your findings and/or thoughts on a possible cooling effect due to the shock wave?

Nonetheless, the main subject I?d like to discuss is about Prandtl-Glauert singularity and the possibility (firstly theoretical then practical) to employ it for latent heat extraction out of water vapors and its conversion into useful work. I?m just at the beginning of the path but it seems to me that such an approach may have chances of success and, therefore, the water-motor may actually be a real possibility. Maybe you want to quickly browse the above thread to get familiar with my views; relevant is the mention that these subjects seem (with very few exceptions if any) to be worthless raised there and, if you?re interested in these kinds of discussions, a clean place (like this thread or maybe a fresh one) would be more appropriate.

Best regards,
Tinu

[TinselKoala]

Hi Tinu
Thanks for that warm welcome. I know "newbies" have to work pretty hard around here to demonstrate credibility and competence, and that's good. I hope I can live up to the high standards that you and some others maintain here.

I'll have to do a bit of homework and review to be able to talk about the issues you raise! So I don't want to start just yet...other than to say that in our research we did do some sensitive thermometry, because of the claims of Peter Graneau (PG) concerning the "cold fog" hypothesis.

We were more interested in the immediate effects at and around the arc, and the nature and fate of whatever came out of the arc, and properly measuring the energy transfer from the capacitor bank to the water to the "secondary projectile" or some other mechanical means of capturing and extracting the energy, which PG believed would be greater than the input to the cap bank. There are many variables in these experiments, but the main one is whether the arc is in a completely submerged water chamber, or is in what we call a "cartridge" accelerator like shown in the photos above. Clearly the cartridge, when properly used, turns almost all the water into tiny droplets which are expelled from the barrel.

Graneau believes this is due to Ampere tension in the arc, fracturing not the water molecules themselves, but pulling apart or rather neutralizing the many of the hydrogen bonds that make water a liquid, and allowing it to form really tiny droplets, which are then forced out by the Ampere tension process (here his theory, as in many other places, gets a bit fuzzy.)  In Peter's mind this releases the hydrogen bond energy kinetically into the water, without warming the water at all.

Of course more conventional explanations say that the water is in fact superheated in the arc channel, it is blown out by an abrupt steam explosion (and maybe a dissociation and recombination of H and O) with an attendant shock wave, whose reflections and interference patterns fracture the bulk liquid water into tiny droplets which blast out the barrel.

Our thermal measurements were consistent with the conventional explanation. The tiny amount of water actually in the arc channel may only be micrograms, even if the chamber itself has milligrams or grams of water in it. The arc process is over with in a few tens of milliseconds if that long. PGs model says that the fog is produced during the arc and so should be detectable immediately during the arc. However we found over and over that the arc is over with long before anything comes out of the barrel. It may take several hundred milliseconds for PG's "fast fog produced at the arc" to make it out of the chamber, even if the chamber is small. Hence, the fog is not produced by the arc, but by processes (the shock wave) that continue long after the arc is extinguished. The tiny amount of superheated water won't warm the bulk water noticeably unless very sensitive measurements are done, and we did those. The warming of the bulk water is consistent with Joule heating of the tiny bit actually in the arc channel.
Now, it is my belief that the cooling to which you refer after several shots, happens due to the evaporation of the tiny fog droplets, which because of their large ratio of surface area to volume, happens very quickly and absorbs heat energy from the environment. (This conventional thermodynamic explanation is exactly backwards from PGs thermodynamics. For example, he believes that the condensation process on the outside of a glass of cold water, further cools the water. I am not kidding.)
I hope that's a fair start to our discussion, I'll have to bone up in the next day or so to continue.
Thanks!!

[resonanceman]

Hello, Magnethos. I am new here, but not new to this subject. Peter Graneau (the video misspells his name) is well known in the alternative energy field. He has been around for many years.
Unfortunately, he is also wrong.
His momentum-transfer model, by which he calculates excess energy from his water-arc explosions, is wrong. A better model, incorporating an analysis of shock waves in water, shows that his explosions are not in fact overunity.
The big plume of "fast fog" (as Graneau calls it) that Richard Hull shows, and that you reproduce here, is not gas at all, it is small water droplets, and the shape of the plume may indicate that the jet is supersonic, although Hull did not, as far as I know, actually measure the velocity.
But I have.
I have repeated dozens of Graneau's experiments, discharging cap banks from 0.3 to 3.0 microFarads, charged to 12-20 kV, producing peak currents in the several kiloAmp range, at ringdown frequencies from 10 to 20 kHz (depending on the series inductance). I have launched projectiles, measured velocities, driven turbines of various kinds, even underwater jetboats powered by Graneau-explosions. I have trapped the whatever-it-is coming out, weighed it, and it is water. I have had other scientists do laser Doppler spectroscopy on the emissions from the Graneau "guns". The droplets are not as small as Graneau claims, they are not invisible (at least the ones we can see aren't!) and they do not interpenetrate water without disturbing it as Graneau claims. I have done high-speed Schlieren video photography of the shock waves produced in Graneau water explosions, and the shock phenomena are very evident. Data from these experiments went into the more accurate shockwave analysis of Graneau's systems and have shown that his energy balance calculations based on momentum are in error, and employ circular reasoning and other logical flaws.
In fact none of the claims of Peter Graneau have been confirmed by careful experiment and rigorous mathematical analysis.Many have been positively disconfirmed. Some of Graneau's co-authors on published papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature have repudiated the papers and have withdrawn their names from papers in publication.
I have met and talked to Peter Graneau several times.

I assure you, he is incorrect in his claims.
But it is water, not gas, coming out of his accelerators.

Tinsel


I have been  working on the design of a  injector   that  uses  this principle .
IN short  my  plan is to   create an arc in an enclosed  space  between 2 check valves .
The   power  applied   to the arc  will  be used to vary the  output  of the injector . 





http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,5088.new.html#new


In  your experments   did you   ever try  to apply  an arc to the  cold  fog  stream ? 
I am  wondering  how small the water particles have to be before they start acting like browns gas
It seems to me that   if  the  blast  from the  cold fog  isn't enough  power .......  igniting  that  fog  should  release LOTS of energy ......... the  cylinder  could also be  filled with mist   to  add  more power



gary