Abstract
High current pulsed arcs in both water and air, are able to liberate
chemical energy from the arc medium which can be recovered in either
mechanical or electrical form. Despite the high currents, the arc is
relatively cold which apparently makes this a highly efficient mechanism for
liberating stored chemical energy and therefore a possible future energy
source. In the case of water, hydrogen bonds are broken in order to create
the observed small fog droplets. The energetics of small droplet bonding
requires that the remaining hydrogen bonds will be expected to drop into
lower energy configurations than in bulk water and thus the transition to
droplets can release a large amount of chemically stored energy. Similarly
in air, arcs break covalent bonds which are also a source of stored chemical
energy. It appears that more mechanical energy is liberated in the water
arcs for a particular discharge energy. However the lower mass and
consequent higher velocities of the end products of the air arc explosion
probably explain why the these arcs are more suited to direct conversion to
electrical energy

I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release a
large amount of chemically stored energy"
This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that released in
air via broken valence bonds.
I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort of
outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.

Comments?
Vince

In a previous post I raised the question of whether or not excess
electrical
energy could be obtained via a sparkgap.
The consensus, based on published research was a resounding 'no'.
However, whilst ferreting about I came across what appears to be
'considerable' material from highly respected institutions that claims
otherwise.
E.g..

"Liberation of chemical energy in pulsed high current arcs in liquids and
gases
Graneau, N.
Dept. of Eng. Sci., Oxford Univ.

This paper appears in: Pulsed Power 2000 (Digest No. 2000/053), IEE
Symposium
Publication Date: 2000
On page(s): 19/1-19/4
Meeting Date: 05/03/2000 - 05/04/2000
Location: London, UK
References Cited: 7
INSPEC Accession Number: 6623248
Date Published in Issue: 2002-08-06 23:27:03.0
"


I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release a
large amount of chemically stored energy"
This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that released
in
air via broken valence bonds.
I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort of
outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.

Comments?
Vince

But all that aside, let us also note that even if you could split
water with an energy requirement on a par with the energy developed,
that doesn't make the idea all bull. There would be distinct
advantages to running vehicles on fuel that produces zero pollution.

On Jun 25, 11:04 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au
wrote:

I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release a
large amount of chemically stored energy"
This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that
released in
air via broken valence bonds.
I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort of
outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.

Comments?
Vince

I certainly don't want to chime in with the usual "debunkers" and
start suggesting that you go read freshman texts on "conservation of
energy", but some of that has a certain relevance here.

It's really all about coming to a detailed understanding of what is
going on. The first point is that we all know that a "pulsed arc" can
liberate chemical energy. Example: a spark sets off an explosion! But
the KEY item is that the chemical energy already has to be STORED and
ready for release. The speculation in the above abstract has to do
with hydrogen bonds as a form of "stored energy". I'm not sure if that
is true, but splitting water into hydrogen and Oxygen is not. It TAKES
energy to do that. You don't RELEASE it!

They aren't actualy splitting the components. What I was able to garnish

However the lower mass and
consequent higher velocities of the end products of the air arc explosion
probably explain why the these arcs are more suited to direct conversion to
electrical energy

----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4863074c$0$30464$afc38c87 at (no spam) news.optusnet.com.au...
In a previous post I raised the question of whether or not excess
electrical
energy could be obtained via a sparkgap.
The consensus, based on published research was a resounding 'no'.
However, whilst ferreting about I came across what appears to be
'considerable' material from highly respected institutions that claims
otherwise.
E.g..

"Liberation of chemical energy in pulsed high current arcs in liquids
and
gases
Graneau, N.
Dept. of Eng. Sci., Oxford Univ.

This paper appears in: Pulsed Power 2000 (Digest No. 2000/053), IEE
Symposium
Publication Date: 2000
On page(s): 19/1-19/4
Meeting Date: 05/03/2000 - 05/04/2000
Location: London, UK
References Cited: 7
INSPEC Accession Number: 6623248
Date Published in Issue: 2002-08-06 23:27:03.0
"


I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release a
large amount of chemically stored energy"
This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that
released
in
air via broken valence bonds.
I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort of
outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.

Comments?
Vince

--------------
I do not read this as implying that the energy liberated exceeds the
input
energy.

What I read is that there is, in the configuration used, there is a
particular input energy that is optimal - higher efficiency than at
higher
or lower input levels. That is reasonable.
--
Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly. As I am the only one who thinks

highly efficient mechanism for
liberating stored chemical energy and therefore a possible future energy
source.

Abstract
High current pulsed arcs in both water and air, are able to liberate
chemical energy from the arc medium which can be recovered in either
mechanical or electrical form. Despite the high currents, the arc is
relatively cold which apparently makes this a highly efficient mechanism
for
liberating stored chemical energy and therefore a possible future energy
source. In the case of water, hydrogen bonds are broken in order to
create
the observed small fog droplets. The energetics of small droplet bonding
requires that the remaining hydrogen bonds will be expected to drop into
lower energy configurations than in bulk water and thus the transition
to
droplets can release a large amount of chemically stored energy.
Similarly
in air, arcs break covalent bonds which are also a source of stored
chemical
energy. It appears that more mechanical energy is liberated in the water
arcs for a particular discharge energy. However the lower mass and
consequent higher velocities of the end products of the air arc
explosion
probably explain why the these arcs are more suited to direct conversion
to
electrical energy

However the lower mass and consequent higher velocities of the end products
of the air arc (As opposed to water: me)explosion probably explain why the
these arcs are more suited to direct conversion to electrical energy
[/unquote]

And what could this mean?



Why would one consider energy conversion if what you have is less than it
cost you in the first place?
I'm probably wrong, because I usually am
Regards,
Vince

In a previous post I raised the question of whether or not excess
electrical
energy could be obtained via a sparkgap.
The consensus, based on published research was a resounding 'no'.
However, whilst ferreting about I came across what appears to be
'considerable' material from highly respected institutions that claims
otherwise.
E.g..

"Liberation of chemical energy in pulsed high current arcs in liquids and
gases
Graneau, N.
Dept. of Eng. Sci., Oxford Univ.

This paper appears in: Pulsed Power 2000 (Digest No. 2000/053), IEE
Symposium
Publication Date: 2000
On page(s): 19/1-19/4
Meeting Date: 05/03/2000 - 05/04/2000
Location: London, UK
References Cited: 7
INSPEC Accession Number: 6623248
Date Published in Issue: 2002-08-06 23:27:03.0
"


I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release a
large amount of chemically stored energy"
This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that released
in
air via broken valence bonds.
I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort of
outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.

Comments?
Vince

In the same general vein, please see the following link:

Vince Morgan wrote:
"Don Kelly" <dhky at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:fxF8k.51809$gc5.48712 at (no spam) pd7urf2no...
----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
And what could this mean?



Why would one consider energy conversion if what you have is less than
it
cost you in the first place?
I'm probably wrong, because I usually am
Regards,
Vince




Hi Vince,

You read correctly. A similar paper, "Arc-liberated chemical energy
exceeds electrical input energy" can also be found in the Journal of
Plasma Physics (UK) (2000), 63: 115-128, by Dr. Peter Graneau. Other
papers dealing with underwater electrical explosions include:

"Electrodynamic explosions in liquids", Applied Physics Letters, March
1, 1985, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp. 468-470, by Peter Graneau and P. Neal
Graneau

"Powerful water-plasma explosions", Physics Letters A, Volume 117, Issue
2, 28 July 1986, Pages 101-105, by Roy Azevedo, Peter Graneau, Charles
Millet, Neal Graneau

"The Anomalous Strength of Cold Fog Explosions Caused by Water Arcs",
Pulsed Power '98 (Digest No. 1998/258 and 1998/441), IEE Symposium on
1-2 Apr 1998 Page(s):40/1 - 40/3, by Neal Graneau

In the first cited paper above, Dr. Graneau used a capacitor bank with
known initial energy to create an underwater arc within a volume of
water inside a thick steel tube. The explosive capacitor discharge
creates a fog that exits the tube at high velocity (100 - 1000 m/s)
depending on the initial bank energy. Graneau measured the momentum and
energy of the high velocity water fog using a ballistic pendulum. He
found that, for many (but not all) "shots", the kinetic energy of the
water jet exceeded the initial energy of the capacitor bank by as much
as 40%. Additional energy was (apparently) liberated from the media, but
the mechanisms have not been identified. The phenomenon was relatively
repeatable...

Bert
Thank you Bert,

. The phenomenon was relatively repeatable...

John Kanzius is an Amateur Radio Operator that has demonstrated the ability
to dissociate salt water into Hydrogen and Oxygen using RF.

He is also
involved in a fascinating RF-based cancer-fighting technique that might be
described as "nano-based targeted diathermy." OT but very promising and
very interesting.

For more information see the book, "The cancer cure that worked" by
Barry Lynes

Vince Morgan wrote:

Hi Vince,

You read correctly. A similar paper, "Arc-liberated chemical energy
exceeds electrical input energy" can also be found in the Journal of
Plasma Physics (UK) (2000), 63: 115-128, by Dr. Peter Graneau. Other
papers dealing with underwater electrical explosions include:

"Electrodynamic explosions in liquids", Applied Physics Letters, March
1, 1985, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp. 468-470, by Peter Graneau and P. Neal
Graneau

"Powerful water-plasma explosions", Physics Letters A, Volume 117, Issue
2, 28 July 1986, Pages 101-105, by Roy Azevedo, Peter Graneau, Charles
Millet, Neal Graneau

"The Anomalous Strength of Cold Fog Explosions Caused by Water Arcs",
Pulsed Power '98 (Digest No. 1998/258 and 1998/441), IEE Symposium on
1-2 Apr 1998 Page(s):40/1 - 40/3, by Neal Graneau

In the first cited paper above, Dr. Graneau used a capacitor bank with
known initial energy to create an underwater arc within a volume of
water inside a thick steel tube. The explosive capacitor discharge
creates a fog that exits the tube at high velocity (100 - 1000 m/s)
depending on the initial bank energy. Graneau measured the momentum and
energy of the high velocity water fog using a ballistic pendulum. He
found that, for many (but not all) "shots", the kinetic energy of the
water jet exceeded the initial energy of the capacitor bank by as much
as 40%. Additional energy was (apparently) liberated from the media, but
the mechanisms have not been identified. The phenomenon was relatively
repeatable...

Bert
--
I find this subject very interesting. The more I think about it the more

"Bert Hickman" <bert_hickman at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:m6ydncqLDeM6Nf7VnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
Vince Morgan wrote:

--
I find this subject very interesting. The more I think about it the more
weird it seems to be.
An emission spectra would be interesting to examine I think.
There would have to be very rapid component separation within the plasma,
surely. But, as little gas is found in the final products it would appear
that they also recombine rapidly. The recombination should be implosive?
The lack of steam indicates a largely adiabatic process? There is a
pressure wave but apparently the overall pressure normalizes very rapidly
and leaves no residual expansion of the products. So how do the water
droplets form?

If it is condensate it shouldn't be a 'cold fog'. A
shockwave of sufficient magnitude would be a likely candidate I would
think.
I can't see a transition from bulk water to droplets releasing much
energy,
if any at all. But then again, I don't have the skills to determine this
at
all.
However, as small water droplets can ionize perhaps they do become
repulsive.

If this is true and there is to be found excess energy (and apparently
there
is) the source for that should be found either within the plasma, or in
very
close proximity to it one would think.

"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au>wrote
news:4866f2fc$0$13943$afc38c87 at (no spam) news.optusnet.com.au...
"Bert Hickman" <bert_hickman at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:m6ydncqLDeM6Nf7VnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
Vince Morgan wrote:

--
I find this subject very interesting. The more I think about it the
more
weird it seems to be.
An emission spectra would be interesting to examine I think.
There would have to be very rapid component separation within the
plasma,
surely. But, as little gas is found in the final products it would
appear
that they also recombine rapidly. The recombination should be
implosive?
The lack of steam indicates a largely adiabatic process? There is a
pressure wave but apparently the overall pressure normalizes very
rapidly
and leaves no residual expansion of the products. So how do the water
droplets form?

It is the segmentation of a conductor. See:

http://www.df.lth.se/%7Esnorkelf/Longitudinal/node3.html#SECTION00300000000000000000

If it is condensate it shouldn't be a 'cold fog'. A
shockwave of sufficient magnitude would be a likely candidate I would
think.
I can't see a transition from bulk water to droplets releasing much
energy,
if any at all. But then again, I don't have the skills to determine
this
at
all.
However, as small water droplets can ionize perhaps they do become
repulsive.

It is better to say "charged".

If this is true and there is to be found excess energy (and apparently
there
is) the source for that should be found either within the plasma, or in
very
close proximity to it one would think.

To charge something we need a source of charge with a voltage. The Earth
is
such. The bulk of water has very small electrical capacity. The droplets
formed during segmentation have huge electrical capacity.
Similar proces has place when water evaporate from grounded metal
container.
Steem is charged and migrate up quickly. Without the connection with the
Earth the steem is neutral and is lazy. Is there an excess energy?
I'll have to give the above more thought. And, yes. It is reported that as