Quote from: Zephir on April 13, 2017, 07:46:44 AM
There are many successfull replication with water plasma electrolysis (Mizuno, Naudin, Vachayev, Bazhutov, Kanarev, Prosvirnov, Kanzius, Andi, Mills), therefore it's highly probable, Graneau was on to something real.

No, because the entire Graneau thesis and experimental program explicity _excluded_ electrolysis, either plasma or by normal electrical conduction through the water. "Shots" that showed evidence of electrolytic voltage drop prior to arc initiation were always weaker than shots that did not show this drop, and were discarded from the database.
Graneau's thesis was that Ampere tension in the arc channel actually physically pulled apart the water molecules at the hydrogen bond attachment to other water molecules. The water molecules were explicitly stated to remain intact, not electrolyzed, to form the "fast fog".

And several of your cited references, as usual, have been demonstrated to be faulty or at least not reproducible in qualified laboratories.

Quote from: pomodoro on April 13, 2017, 07:31:15 AM
TK, fair enough with the theory being wrong, but how did he miscalculate power in vs work done. Where did he screw up.

There was never any problem with the input energy. This was carefully measured for each "shot" in Hathaway's lab and was solidly repeatable from shot to shot, with the proviso that occasionally electrolytic conduction was observed which caused input energy to the arc to sag. However, when Graneau himself was in the laboratory, a subtle process of data selection occurred. If Graneau didn't like the results from a shot, the data was often simply not recorded or included in the database for analysis. As I noted above, Graneau's argument was circular, in that he _assumed_ a certain mass of water was blasted into fog, and then he used anecdotal evidence from early work to "confirm" his assumptions about the mass of water involved. Then he took it for granted in further work that he was correct about the mass of the water blasted into "fast fog".
The problems arose when his Conservation of Momentum model predicted, using his _assumption_ about the mass of water, an excess of kinetic energy in the "fast fog" that was over and above the energy injected into the arc by the capacitor discharge. Rather than doing more "science" to test his assumption about the mass of water involved, Graneau pushed ahead into an "engineering" phase where he and Hathaway tried many different methods to try to extract or convert this supposed excess kinetic energy into some usable form other than a blast of "fog" and entrained water droplets. Many many different configurations were tried over a span of over seven years, and the fundamental claims about this "fast fog" and its mass and momentum were rather soundly disproven towards the end of that period. None of the attempted extraction-conversion schemes (secondary projectiles, Pelton wheels and other turbines, reaction (water rocket) engines, lever and ratchet mechanisms, etc.) ever yielded anything near the energies predicted by Graneau's CoM model-- and no wonder, because it was eventually shown by Hathaway that this model was wrong, inapplicable to the actual situation in the arc chambers, and the initial assumption of the mass of water involved in the arc blast was orders of magnitude greater than what was actually happening. There was never any "fast fog", there was only a minuscule mass of water actually vaporized into superheated steam in the arc channel, and the spectacular plumes that were observed by, for instance Richard Hull, were a result of entrained water and actually represented a loss mechanism.
Towards the end of the work Graneau was attributing all kinds of miraculous properties to the "fast fog" in an attempt to salvage his theory in the face of the data from the experiments in Hathaway's laboratory. The fog was cold, the fog was supersonic, the fog could interpenetrate many centimeters of water without disturbing it, only to result in a big messy blast when it hit the surface of the water from underneath, and so on. He eventually went away in a huff, denying the competence and results of the Hathaway laboratory, but those results were unequivocal and were tested many times in many different ways. Graneau was simply wrong.

QuoteNo, because the entire Graneau thesis and experimental program explicity _excluded_ electrolysis, either plasma or by normal electrical conduction through the water.

Plasma electrolysis is also NOT about electrolysis, the actual reaction and overunity runs inside arc discharge at the surface of electrode.

QuoteAnd several of your cited references, as usual, have been demonstrated to be faulty or at least not reproducible in qualified laboratorie

This is solely a (pseudoskeptic) speculation, because no reproduction attempts were actually published in scientific press, peer-reviewed the less. The pluralistic ignorance is based on pathoskeptical fallacy, that the lack of replications means failed replications.

Thanks for the explanation TK.  Nobody else has ever come out with a practical working OU device out of this simple setup neither by Graneau or anyone else so it is most definitely an embarrassing error by Graneau.  Its not an experiment  for anyone to try out unless you are in a farm,  the gunshot noises could be a problem in the neighborhood.

This is just a pathoskeptic BS again: just because you don't know/you're lazy to do review at the web doesn't mean, nobody did try the water arc explosions successfully. For example at this blog and videos (1, 2) we can find the results of Stanford Plasma Physics Lab - as we can see, the net explosion energy exceeded the input pulse energy in EVERY shot observed. In shot 1, the measured explosion energy even exceeded the total energy stored by over 200%.

Compare also Richard Hull's research. With 50 J of input energy, the quantity of fog produced was of the order of 0.75 g of water. To dissociate this amount of water into oxygen and hydrogen would require 10 kJ of energy. Hence the fog explosion is unlikely to be caused by electrolytic dissociation of water molecules. This bond energy is said to be equal to the latent heat of evaporation, and therefore could contribute up to 2200 J/g (1, 2, 3).

BTW If you're not interested about overunity, what are you actually doing here - a disruptive agent job?
Please, do us favor and delete yourself from this forum finally. Thank you in advance.