[NewCandle] Physical Methods Of Water

[Jones Beene]

Keith Nagel wrote:

> Yes, Sam Barros. I've alternately laughed and cringed reading
> that website, Sam is sorta a well funded version of me when I was a teen,
> more interested in blowing shit up than anything else (grin).
> But this is very crude experimenting.

The watermelon is a gimmick, sure, but don't sell Sam short on the 
water-arc page:
http://www.powerlabs.org/waterarc.htm

...even though he is a bit short-sighted as where to go ultimately with 
this finding, which shows that he is maturing but is not there yet.

Regarding this "cold" arc discharge (1860 J. per pulse), he says

"After several discharges the pressure inside the box remained at 1ATM. 
If the water was being vaporized by the discharge, a phase change 
expansion would be expected and hence some pressure increase should be 
observed. Similarly, if the water was being split up into hydrogen and 
oxygen by electrolysis, an even higher pressure increase should be 
observed. More importantly, there was no "fogging" inside the box, 
further refuting any steam condensation claims, and the temperature 
change was consistent with my theory that the water is not being 
vaporized."

OK - here is where it stands - in the big picture of combining all we 
know about water-arc discharges.

You have a gigantic shock wave, but little water splitting and little 
steam. Just "cold" fog. You cannot drive a turbine efficiently with 
"just" a shock wave, because turbines spin very rapidly and you cannot 
pulse the discharges fast enough sequentially to prevent a vacuum from 
immediately following every discharge and totally throttling the 
turbine, and ruining your energy gain. A turbine will hardly spin at all.

With MGP however, and in stark contrast to H2O - you do get a lot of 
steam and "real" pressure PLUS the humongous shock wave. This should be 
synergistic in driving a turbine - since the residual pressure between 
pulses will let you "reload" the cap, so to speak ... whereas with only 
a water arc there is no synergy and zero way to capture any gain.

Barros: "But how can a shock wave be produced when the net pressure 
change is zero? Conventionally, shock waves are produced by explosives 
...which decomposes to give 10 000 times its original volume in gas. 
This tremendous expansion gives rise to a shock wave traveling at 4500 
M/sec. The shock wave can be thought off as a sound wave, or, more 
accurately, as a pulse traveling through a medium of some sort. In an 
explosive this pulse is provided by the initial expansion, which pushed 
air molecules outwards at a very fast rate. Because gases are produced, 
a net pressure increase is observed. In the water atomization 
experiment, the shock wave implies that there must be an initial pulse, 
or expansion, but the zero pressure increase tells us that this change 
is non permanent and very quick. We can therefore rule out vaporization, 
and electrolysis, as both would result in a permanent pressure change."

OK - Sam was actually fairly accurate here, as far as he went, but like 
Graneau and others, he did not see that there is a way that you can have 
it *both ways* ...

By that I mean that you can utilize the energy anomaly (which all shows 
up in the shock wave, and may be related to "jounce"): and that method, 
as you have by now guessed is by using MGP (medium-grade-peroxide at 
about 45% enrichment) which will (or should) give you both the same 
shock wave (since it is also a dielectric, but also the residual flash 
steam to drive a turbine (at 100,000 RPM) when the pulse rate alone 
cannot begin to keep up; and the resultant vacuum will kill the anomaly 
without the follow-on pressure.

Jones