URGENT! WATER AS FUEL DISCOVERY FOR EVERYONE TO SHARE

[gazzzwp]

Abba Rue

Can you sketch a circuit for us to show what you have in mind?

I have all the kit ready - I am just lacking ideas.

Check out the circuit in my post #1091 to see where I have got to so far.

I have 2 x high voltage capactitors if needed.

Gazza

[bumfuzzled]

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.

Ok, just because you say it won't run an engine then I'm gonna stop experimenting with it. Thank you sooooooooo much for saving me time on this, glad you came along!!! I really thought water had more energy content than gasoline, thank you for setting me straight on that too. Oh yeah, I also thought it was overunity but once again thanks for setting me straight!! Folks let's cease and desist all experimenting immediately because Dopey says it won't work!! He knows that we aren't testing anything, we are just sitting there looking at the spark going ooooohhh aaahhh.

I'll make it simple for ya, I am trying to see if this will run any kind of motor at all. Will it power a full size car engine? Doubtful but I don't know for sure because obviously I'm not as smart as you are. I can't just read a few papers on the internet (we all know everything on the internet is true) and say yeah that'll work or nope that won't work. I have to see for myself, that's just how I am ya know. If you are too stupid to read the thread and deduce from it what the intent is hear then you seriously need to move away from the keyboard. Boy you sure fit your name to a T.

[michaelpaul]

Just ignore the Dope. Don't lose sight of our goal.

[Shiver]

I think Dopey is making some very valid points, and he must feel like he's hitting his head against a brick wall.  I thought this group was about moving away from the heirarchical/centralised/microsoft approach, to the collaborative/decentralised/linux approach, but it's looking more like a mob rule.

I'm really not into the idea of trying to make ICE run as a first step, but to initially try to outline what is happening here.  However, in the spirit of trying to come up with something useful for those that really want to go straight for the ICE, let me recycle a few pertinent points that I've gathered from this thread.  There are two broad effects going on here that seem to be lost in the size of the thread.  There is the 'hot' ignition that uses current along with either the an electrolyte or water with a dielectric constant that leads to the same effect, and the 'cold' non/low thermal expansion that appears to be breaking the inter water bonding which is leaving the water molecule intact.

Using that latter, it is my believe (from others obervations), that this 'explosion' occurs in about 10ms, after which it implodes.  So the net pressure before and after the reaction is zero change.  This would be very simple to demonstrate by wetting the plug then putting a baloon securely over the end and doing a cold explosion.  My expectation is that the baloon will be the same size approximately before and after the explosion.  I also think that it won't expand very much, as even if the water expands by 1000 times, as the amount of water involved in relation to the volume capacity of the baloon it probably won't be enough to break it (I'd love to be wrong).  That's not a total loss though, it just means it would be better utilized in a different kind of engine as I stated much earlier in this thread, but if we're steadfast about ICE, then it has some implications:

1.  If it expands in 10ms (for example), that means you need to get the piston somewhere in the region of BDC before the implosion tries to pull it back up (or open a valve).  That's a heck of a lot of acceleration for a piston on a standing start, and a lot of volume to be filled with a smallish explosion.
2.  The most difficult part would be the standing start, and would likely benefit from an almost constant burn in order to attempt to keep the water expanded until the piston passes the bottom.  Once the piston is moving fast enough (say 6000rpm), a single pulse per revolution may keep it in motion, so faster running may be far more efficient (and may be the difference between draining the battery and charging it, assuming we don't yet know where the chemical or RE is taking place).

If the possible sources of entrained energy are unquantified, or possibly even unquantifiable by known instruments, then it would be well worth while to try to create an experiment that would allow the effects or derivatives of that energy to show us (eg simple baloon, static small explosion chamber with a couple of reed valves or tesla valvular conduits).

It looks to me that the benefit of the cold explosion is the huge energy pulse rather than the volume change.  I'll bet it could drive a hydraulic ram or something very well.  Maybe there's leverage there that could be exploited.

[resonanceman]

I think Dopey is making some very valid points, and he must feel like he's hitting his head against a brick wall.  I thought this group was about moving away from the heirarchical/centralised/microsoft approach, to the collaborative/decentralised/linux approach, but it's looking more like a mob rule.

Shriver

I disagree
Dopey  has not  brought up any valid points ........and has added no  information  that may be useful  to anyone here .
He  didn't  even read  enough of the   thread to  understand what we are trying to do here .

Dopey  only wants a place to argue .........a  thread to trash .

I'm really not into the idea of trying to make ICE run as a first step, but to initially try to outline what is happening here.  However, in the spirit of trying to come up with something useful for those that really want to go straight for the ICE, let me recycle a few pertinent points that I've gathered from this thread.  There are two broad effects going on here that seem to be lost in the size of the thread.  There is the 'hot' ignition that uses current along with either the an electrolyte or water with a dielectric constant that leads to the same effect, and the 'cold' non/low thermal expansion that appears to be breaking the inter water bonding which is leaving the water molecule intact.

Using that latter, it is my believe (from others obervations), that this 'explosion' occurs in about 10ms, after which it implodes.  So the net pressure before and after the reaction is zero change.  This would be very simple to demonstrate by wetting the plug then putting a baloon securely over the end and doing a cold explosion.  My expectation is that the baloon will be the same size approximately before and after the explosion.  I also think that it won't expand very much, as even if the water expands by 1000 times, as the amount of water involved in relation to the volume capacity of the baloon it probably won't be enough to break it (I'd love to be wrong).  That's not a total loss though, it just means it would be better utilized in a different kind of engine as I stated much earlier in this thread, but if we're steadfast about ICE, then it has some implications:

1.  If it expands in 10ms (for example), that means you need to get the piston somewhere in the region of BDC before the implosion tries to pull it back up (or open a valve).  That's a heck of a lot of acceleration for a piston on a standing start, and a lot of volume to be filled with a smallish explosion.
2.  The most difficult part would be the standing start, and would likely benefit from an almost constant burn in order to attempt to keep the water expanded until the piston passes the bottom.  Once the piston is moving fast enough (say 6000rpm), a single pulse per revolution may keep it in motion, so faster running may be far more efficient (and may be the difference between draining the battery and charging it, assuming we don't yet know where the chemical or RE is taking place).

If the possible sources of entrained energy are unquantified, or possibly even unquantifiable by known instruments, then it would be well worth while to try to create an experiment that would allow the effects or derivatives of that energy to show us (eg simple baloon, static small explosion chamber with a couple of reed valves or tesla valvular conduits).

It looks to me that the benefit of the cold explosion is the huge energy pulse rather than the volume change.  I'll bet it could drive a hydraulic ram or something very well.  Maybe there's leverage there that could be exploited.

In  general I agree  with  most of what you have  said here.

I agree that it  will take  a much longer  burn    .........especially  when the engine is cold .
I  am  guessing  15 to 20 degrees   .................starting  at TDC

Your  balloon  idea  is  interesting .........but  I think  that most people here are already aware that  there an  implosion  type  of effect  following  the  expansion .



gary