[NewCandle] Physical Methods Of Water

[Keith Nagel]

Hey Jones,

>Do you believe the Graneau arc results of COP --> ~2 ?

I'm not very familiar with the claim. This is the paper here, yes?

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=18687

I think we can all agree that Rich Hull is a talented experimentalist.

I am looking at the paper now ( if needed, I could send this to interested
readers directly. ) The energy analysis makes a few assumptions; I'd
be more comfortable with direct measurement. Although it's not clear
from this paper, current transformer T in figure 3 is a rogowski coil,
and so does not show the net DC generated by this class of discharge circuit.

When I was doing water arc experiments ( inspired by Graneaus early
work ) I used high voltage probes and a special hall type current
probe to characterize the arc impedence. What I developed from
that work was a circuit which could drive kiloamp pulses into
an arc, with _no explosion_ at all. So you could say, by riding
off in the opposite direction, I eventually met up with Peter...
The globe being round and all.

Has Peter et al done any more work on this since 2000?

K.


I have reasons to believe them based on the EVO phenomena - or possibly even the hydrino (or both) ... and on natural weather
phenomena.

The fact that Richard Hull has pretty much verified the discharge anomaly is encouraging, and the fact that Shoulders EVOs may be
involved provides the basis for a proto-theory of operation. Hull is one of the more careful alternative energy experimenters out
there. And Ken Shoulder's is equally trustworthy and competent.

Here is the further thing they may not yet see, as far as how to best implment or apply that Arc discharge finding - if it is indeed
real. If ... you can get the same kind of anomaly using HOOH that Graneau gets with water mist, and there is not much reason to
think otherwise (if it is an EVO thing) - *plus* you get the normal 800-1 expansion of the liquid-to-gas phase transition of
peroxide as it turns to steam and O2, following a Graneau-type discharge (you do not get much real steam with a water mist) - then
it really makes the energy balance look rather favorable for peroxide to become a preferred route or "vehicle" to achieve
"free-energy" via the arc discharge - and the best way to utilize the EVO phenomenon (if that is the basis of the effect).

Yes. I know this is a House-of-Cards... which can easily tumble down, but bear with me till you see the big picture.

Here is the bottom line. For MGP (45% enrichment peroxide) the heat energy inherent there is a factor of thirty times less than
gasoline, gallon-to-gallon - which sounds hopeless - except that the monopropellant expansion ratio changes everything, since you
can spin a small turbine with no need whatever to compress air first- which is where all the losses go with petrol conversion. And
it makes for a very cheap engine, as the heat produced will never get too great even though the effective pressure is very high. The
electrodes are the biggest worry (to wear quickly)

If something in the arc discharge, like EVOs (or hydrinos - remember that O is a hydrino catalyst) can give it double the heat - as
the experiments show - on top of the normal explosion of flash steam, which is already at 3-1 advantage since it is a
monopropellant, then the resultant 6-1 comparative ratio of conversion efficiency (compared to gasoline in an ICE) drops the deficit
from a thirty-one ratio of *effective energy* all the way down to a 5-1 deficit. Still of course, you will need 5 gallons of MGP to
replace every gallon of gas. Not a problem <g> he sez.

MGP can be made for an out-of-pocket expense equivalent to about one kWhr per gallon produced - which is ostensibly 10 cents to
ConEd or one of the other Cons, but not really as it just becomes parasitic drain --if --- the Graneau effect is real.

We have actually done this for extended runs (made HOOH using one kWhr net input). As you note, the catalyst tends to degrade over
time, but we have encouraging results with a new one, raising hope that this is solvable so that even 100% of grid power used can be
recycled from the turbine itself instead of bought - so that the whole thing is operating without much operating costs.

The five gallons per hour HOOH will arguably produce as much net torque as a gallon of gasoline, burned in an ICE - so this system
portends to be a major commercial success if the details/bugs can be worked out. Of course, I am presenting the best-case scenario -
but based on extending real short-term results, and a personal belief that the Graneau discharge is OU (which we have NOT
incorporated yet).

Based upon analysis of the peroxide engines, going back to torpedos in WWll - it is clear that they are not Carnot limited, and not
even heat engines per se, but more akin to a compressed air engine, and the efficiency based on normal "heat energy converted into
torque" if you just look at that factor - is close to 100% conversion.  I don't want to argue all this now  -  as I have a long
document getting ready for eventual publication - and it will document those details.

Anyway - it is my contention now that if all these unknowns pan-out:

1) the proper catalyst at a decent price (self-regenerating in situ - perhaps shuttled (alternated) back and forth using additional
parasitic electrical input to regenerate)
2) the Graneau effect (EVO effect)
3) the ability to recycle the oxygen from the exhaust, so that little new O2 is needed in a closed-cycle system (no problem there)
4) electrodes for the discharge that can be resurfaced as part of an automatic maintenance system

Then this could be a viable system for home power because that turbine which is burning 5 gallons per hour of HOOH is putting out
the equivalent of maybe 30 kWhr electrical. Even if one must recycle 80% of that electrical output back into the Graneau arc
discharge - and into making more HOOH, nevertheless one has essentially eliminated most out-of pocket costs and there is nothing
exotic in the equipment.

I hope this has conveyed some of the reason I am more excited about this than anything else on alternative energy scene right now.
But if you want to know what the "real" source of excess energy is (besides some ambient heat) - for now it will have to be
something vague with Dirac's name thrown  in there for good measure. But I have a feeling that the very same general method will be
shown to be active in Nature on occasion: the hurricane. About 30% of the net energy of a hurricane appears to be "excess" and if
you see one from high altitude - the swirl is ringed with continuous violent high altitude lightning.

Jones