Hi everyone, I have seen a video on youtube that shows a possible new way to obtain HHO gas. The system seems to be ultra efficient and extremely quick.
The video shows how you can put some drops of water inside in a device similar to a Gauss Gun and get all the HHO in less than a second.
I think that when you put some drops of water inside the device and a high frequency discharge is applied all the water molecules brokes in less than a second instead of the classical electrolysis systems than you need to apply constant energy to release slowly the HHO gas.
This is a quick reaction, so the gas is obtained in less than a second. The man says that is water vapor but I?m sure that is a HHO gas.
The Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O27hq1NC_U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O27hq1NC_U)
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.
Wow, very helpfull information.
The only thing that I want to know if the cloud was water or hho gas. You say to me that is water :(
I though that it was hho because the cloud was very big if you compare with the quantity of water that the man put inside.
Thank you very much for the info. Your information is very very helpfull.
Magnethos
So.. the answer to this is that the cloud is water and not HHO gas... :(
So, there is nothing to do.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 10, 2008, 05:40:25 PM
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.
What is really amazing is how much you were prepared to readily deflect Graneau video ???
Also, how is it, that an obvious foremost research scientist as yourself would be on an overunity site ???
Regards, Larry
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 10, 2008, 05:40:25 PM
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
@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.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 10, 2008, 05:40:25 PM
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
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!!
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 10, 2008, 05:40:25 PM
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
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? ;D)
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
@ 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.
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
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2008, 05:52:47 PM
@ 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
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)).
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2008, 01:53:39 AM
continuous plasma arc electrolysis
Tinsel
Calling it continuous plasma arc electrolysis threw me for a minute
I was really just trying to say that I think that compared to what you were doing longer duration sparks should provide more heat.
My intent is to create as much heat with plasma as I can with an amount of energy that can be provided by a normal automotive electrical system . ..
If there is not enough heat from plasma then igniting the water would be the next option .
In that case I would be getting close to continuous plasma arc electrolysis .
I am guessing that the water may stay in the pump section for dozens or maybe even hundreds of pulses before it finally gets shot out through the second check valve .
I am thinking of a set of electrodes right after the pump to make sure that the water keeps moving
Then I thought a restriction to make the water spray into the main plasma chamber .
I really think that by this time SOME of the water should be in small enough particles to behave like browns gas .
I believe hydrogen will burn with a mixture of as little as 10 % I don't think 10 % should be hard to achieve .
If it doesn't ignite easily with the setup I have planned ..... hitting it with a few more pulses might be required .
If my understanding of the prosess is right ......the extra pulses would have to be before the restriction that causes the water to be sprayed into the main chamber .
It looks to me that just arcing will create heat ........but for the most part will instantly burn any HHO that it makes .
If the water is heated enough and forced through a restriction at high speed that should break most of the droplets into much smaller sizes making it easier for the whole mass to ignite .
About your next shot
I hope you will be triggering the arc with the cold fog plume itself .
gary