Need your help!! Ultra-Efficient water hydrolysis

[tinu]

Please take your time; better than a quick and dilute discussion.

About PG: I was not aware about his work until several days ago but yes, I?ve been able to see the flaws after reading the only paper that was posted here. It is clear that he believes the other way around (condensing leads to cooling etc.). Before moving on, let?s just say Graneau was a catalyst for the whole group, ok?  Besides that, I?d maybe save one question from Graneau: is the shock wave able of breaking H-bonds in small droplets of water or otherwise able of influencing/speeding up/ the evaporation of mist in air? If the answer is yes, I see hopes.

The drop in temperature in the above-mentioned movie is without any addition of water (mist) except, of course, the existing vapors in air. That?s why, if indeed a drop in temperature is manifesting, that would be crucial imho. Otherwise, I fully agree that surface to volume ratio is the proper explanation for cooling.

The main issue above all is about s1r9a9m9, a mysterious/anonymous user that made very bold claims. Bold enough that sufficient momentum grew here and elsewhere either to validate or to refute. Personally, I?ve heard many stories about water-powered-engines and several proved to be crappies (like electric-water-steam or other kind of alike jokes), others were not close enough for me to pursue them but the fact is I never took the time to deeply dig into the subject. (I never took the time before this site to dig into ?pyramid power? either and now I regret that emotional decision that, like in your case with Graneau, wasted precious time but at least I know for sure what?s about ?pyramid people? )
This time I plan to slowly move forward (and learn some into the process) until I reach a reasonable verdict one way or another. So slowly that to earn something even if someday it proves it was nothing more than a big tale.  So, I?m not in a hurry at all.

Best regards,
Tinu

[TinselKoala]

@ resonanceman: Great--I personally think this approach has promise (but see below, too.). Just BE CAREFUL! The voltages involved are lethal, the caps can reach out and smite you from farther than you might think, and you won't survive a discharge of 0.3 mFd at 10 kV. Also the overpressures are tremendous and any sealed container is likely to fail. The process is used for metal forming, after all! Use ear protection, eye protection, and physical shields so you aren't struck by flying debris. I am not kidding!!

@Tinu: I believe the water droplets are produced from bulk water by Rayliegh instabilities in collapsing bubbles of vapor or superheated steam, in the water. .Like this:
http://www.cordin.com/im350.html
When the chamber is smaller than the bubble you can imagine what happens
And also by reflected shock waves bouncing around in the container. If conditions are right, in a deeper underwater chamber, really nice, fast travelling vortex rings can be generated, and these do transfer momentum thru the water very effectively. Unfortunately the only applications I can think of for this are weapons-related.
Now, a data point on water ICEs. High performance conventional internal combustion engines use water-injection systems to prevent detonation at high manifold pressures and relatively low RPMs. The water is injected directly into the cylinder or just upstream of the hot intake valve  along with the f/e mix. Without the water injection, at those power levels, the engine would destroy itself in short order.
Just a data point to consider.

EDIT to add: I do not trust any experimental data that comes from PG or NG (Neal Graneau, a researcher formerly at Oxford, Peter's son and co-author). There are certain problems with the data collection and processing in their work, not to mention the interpretation. It seems that there is a rather large file drawer problem. That is, there is a lot of data that does not support their hypotheses, but this data is ignored, since it must be wrong, since it does not support their hypotheses. I am not kidding, this is how they reason.

And another edit: I realized I didn't fully answer r-man's question. No, I have not tried igniting the fog itself. I never thought of it. Thanks, I'll see if a test can be arranged, but it might be a while.

[vdubdipr]

sorry for not having the time to read all posts on this thread but without watching the video and seeing that its high voltage i would guess its steam, like in a higher power electrolyser, when you see smoke its steam. peace

[resonanceman]

@ resonanceman: Great--I personally think this approach has promise (but see below, too.). Just BE CAREFUL! The voltages involved are lethal, the caps can reach out and smite you from farther than you might think, and you won't survive a discharge of 0.3 mFd at 10 kV. Also the overpressures are tremendous and any sealed container is likely to fail. The process is used for metal forming, after all! Use ear protection, eye protection, and physical shields so you aren't struck by flying debris. I am not kidding!!


And another edit: I realized I didn't fully answer r-man's question. No, I have not tried igniting the fog itself. I never thought of it. Thanks, I'll see if a test can be arranged, but it might be a while.

Tinsel

It  would   be great  if you can  run that test  ........but it might  be  a good idea to find out if we are talking about the same thing

As I understand  the  discharges that  you studied  was   a very quick  discharge from a   bank of capacitors

The   discharges that  will be  using  will  be much slower and lower voltage.

I   don't  have any proof  .......but my  understanding is that the   plasma  in an arc   in water  gives off more energy than  it is  supposed to 

It  may be that   your  tests   used  a  arc  that was just to fast to  allow the plasma to create much heat .

I  think it is very possible that at  very high speeds  the  energy that would  have  created heat is  channeled in another  direction ........a  direction that takes less time  than   raising  the energy  level of the atoms .





As far as the  safety  thing ......   my goal  is to design  a system that is practical and can be used in most  engines   By  most people  .........   I  understand the way  Sr1  connected the  high  voltage .        It  was  pretty much his only option ..    But it is  dangerous .

I  plan  to   make   my plug so that no high  voltage is  grounded  to the  frame of the car . 

To me a system that  is likely to  kill someone  if a simple mistake is made  is just not practical . 




So  far my   favorite  for  powering  the arc is   Allcanadians   circuit   from the  Tesla  challenge  thread  . 
I am thinking of  using  a toroid core and  and   running  fairly high  frequency . 

I still have alot  to learn  before  I can even start on  the  coil ..


gary

[TinselKoala]

Oh, I see. Yes, I've seen some continuous plasma arc electrolysis systems. There are some YouTube videos, IIRC. but I don't have the links at my fingertips.
You are right, my research has only to do with high-energy capacitive discharges, I don't know about plasma electrolysis. I just jumped in with the Graneau research because of the video and photos at the top. There may be some electrolysis happening in the PG experiments but we always saw it as a problem--if the water is too conductive there can be problems generating the fast arcs so we generally used distilled water. The oscilloscope traces generally show a few tens of microseconds of voltage droop due to electrolysis at the very beginning of a discharge, but once our arcs have formed, the water is blasted out so fast it isn't in contact with any charges for long enough.
I think.
But I will try igniting the fog the next time I run a "shot".
(I always argued that there may be some water burning in these PG experiments, but I advanced it as a better explanation of excess energy than PGs reverse thermodynamics. But then we realized there wasn't any excess energy that needed to be explained, so I never pursued the burning water (or its electrolysis products)).