Water Explosion
Michael Hannon
The following is a verbatim text* of the work of a real
scientist/engineer, as opposed to the armchair science practiced by
the resident "good 'ol boys" in this NG.
OHannon
*(Minus one simulated graphic - Fig.1, which will be placed in its
original place in the text below, which shows a series circuit in which
a capacitor C with a voltage Vo across it is in a series circuit with
and inductor L and a Resistance Rw [the resistance of a quantity of
water]). There is an open switch between C and L.
/ _______
__/ _| L |___________
| |_____| |
___|___ __|_
| | | |
Vo | C | | Rw |
_|___|_ |____|
| |
|__________________________|
Fig. 1: Water Arc Discharge Circuit
(anywhere you see mH here it means micro-Henry, and anywhere you see mF,
it means microFarad - the mailer won't send the Greek micron symbol)
"27th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference Proceedings
San Diego, CA, August 3-7, 1992, Vol. 4, pp 335-33
929469
Electrically Induced Explosions in Water
Gary Johnson Kansas State University
ABSTRACT
A 2 mF capacitor was charged to voltages in the 1-10 kV range and
discharged into water column through a 38 mH inductor. At voltages up to
about 6 kV, the water acted as a relatively high resistance and the
circuit decayed as an overdamped RLC circuit. Resistance decreased with
time. When the resistance dropped below about 10 W, the water would
explode if the capacitor still had sufficient energy. The loudness was
distinctly greater than an equivalent amount of gunpowder.
During the explosion, resistance would drop still more, so the circuit
would become underdamped and oscillatory. Remaining water droplets are
cool to the touch, so there is no evidence that the water has boiled
into steam, although that has to remain a possibility. A low impedance
arc in air sometimes forms after the explosion so the explosion is not
necessarily caused by an air arc.
INTRODUCTION
For many years, a number of researchers have sought a completely new
energy source, one freely and widely available. Tesla, Moray, and
Bearden are among the better known of these searchers [1].
It is likely that some energy will have to be expended in order to tap
into this source, perhaps in a manner similar to a heat pump. A heat
pump is able to move several units of heat energy from the outdoors to
air conditioned space for the cost of a single unit of electrical
energy. The heat energy is readily and freely available, but requires an
electrical input to move it to a desired location.
The ratio of heat energy output to the electrical energy input is called
the Coefficient Of Performance (COP) and is well over unity. So "over
unity" machines are already widely used. But is there another source of
energy in the ambient besides sensible heat? If there is, we would
expect some experiments to yield more output energy than the known
energy input. There would probably be nonlinear and threshold effects,
which would help explain why the new source has not been previously
identified. High voltages, high currents, and/or resonant phenomena may
be necessary. Experiments which may be operating in, "over-unity" mode
need to be carefully reported and then replicated by other researchers.
One such phenomenon which deserves a careful examination is electrically
induced explosions in water. It has not been proven that the energy
released by the explosion is greater than the electrical energy supplied
(and doing it will be difficult), but there are certainly unexpected
effects associated with the high voltage and high current operation.
There is also an arc, which may be important in developing the new
energy source [2].
A careful investigation of the phenomenon may yield new insight into
basic electromagnetic theory, such as the longitudinal Ampere's force
proposed by Graneau. It may illuminate a method of tapping into a new
energy source assuming the energy developed in the explosion is great
than the energy originally stored in the capacitor. And even if it can
be fully explained by classical physics, it may still offer a technique
for protecting the contacts high voltage switches. With a water channel
in series, the switch will close into a moderately high impedance, with
minimal arcing. After a small time delay (allowing the switch to be
fully closed), a plasma arc is established in the water, providing a low
impedance path to the load.
GRANEAU'S EXPERIMENTS
Peter Graneau, a physics professor at Northeastern University, and his
associates, have performed several experiments with water-plasma
explosions [3,4]. The basic circult for all the experiments is shown in
Fig. 1.
The capacitor C is charged, and then discharged through an inductor
L and a water column with effective resistance R'o. [3] describes a 0.5
mF and a 2mF capacitor charged at voltag' up to 10 kV, while [4]
describes a 8 F capacitor charge at voltages up to 30 kV. The inductance
was 876 mH in [3] and 11.1 mH in [4].
The discharge from a small voltage was silent, with unnoticeable
movement
of the water. They call this type a electrolytic discharge. As either
the voltage or the capacitance increased, an arc discharge would form,
with audible noise. Arc formation seemed to depend on the total charge
passing through the water. A float above the arc would be forced upward,
but the impulse seemed to terminate with the arc. No followthrough push
from expanding steam nor any vapor escape from the water could be
discerned.
/ _______
__/ _| L |___________
| |_____| |
___|___ __|_
| | | |
Vo | C | | Rw |
_|___|_ |____|
| |
|__________________________|
Fig. 1: Water Arc Discharge Circuit
In two cases with the same stored energy, a 0.5 mF capacitor charges to
6 kV and a 2 mF capacitor charges to 3 kV, the second case resulted in
an arc explosion while the first did not. In both cases, the heat
dissipated in the water was less than one calorie, in a container of
about 120 grams of water. Their conclusion, based on measurement,
calculation, and visual observation, was that the explosion was not
based on thermal effects. They conclude, rather, that the explosion was
due to longitudinal Ampere forces.
This concept of a tension force in a single conductor due to the
current flow in the conductor is not taught in introductory
electromagnetic theory courses, but Graneau makes a good case for such
longitudinal forces in [5].
They discovered that tap water produced explosions about twice as
strong as those in saturated saltwater. The explosions in distilled
water were even stronger, except that it was difficult to initiate the
arc in distilled water.
The calculated pressure in the chamber in the last test in [4] was
27,000 atm. Their comment was "This explains why the cartridge was
split." They defined a figure of merit as the strength of the explosion
per unit action integral of the current pulse, and found that the
figure of merit for their system was three times as high as the very
best railgun performance. Railguns have better acceleration
characteristics than chemical explosives, so water arcs have more "bang
per buck" than any other explosive, save perhaps nuclear.
Water arcs are therefore interesting to study. At a minimum, they would
ndicate that Ampere's force law needs to have a longitudinal component.
It is conceivable, however, that careful experimental studies will show
that the total energy emitted from the explosion is greater than the
input electrical energy. This would certainly support the concept that
the vacuum has a high energy density and that we might be able to
extract some of this energy with the right equipment."
More forthcoming........
Michael Hannon
Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> The following is the second section of the text of
Gary Johnson's report on his experimental verification
of powerful electrically induced explosions in water,
based on previous findings of Peter and P. Neal Graneau.
_______________________________________________________________________
"27th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference Proceedings
San Diego, CA, August 3-7, 1992, Vol. 4, pp 335-33
929469
Electrically Induced Explosions in Water
Gary Johnson Kansas State University
(2nd posted section)
HOME WORKSHOP EXPERIMENT
No well equipped high energy laboratory was available, so it was
decided to replicate as much as possible of Graneau's water arc
experiments in a home workshop. The water column length and diameter
would be varied and any instrumentation problems would be noted. No
attempt would be made to do any calorimetry measurements. These are far
beyond the capability of this particular home workshop.
Two 0.5 microF, and a 1 microF, 25 kV, power factor correcting
capacitors were purchased from the local junk yard. A 120:7200 volt
potential transformer was purchased at an auction. Some 7.5 kV diodes
were obtained from a surplus electronics catalog. No good high voltage
switch was available, so a 100 A knife switch was borrowed from the
electrical engineering department. The bakelite base would not withstand
10 kV, so the metal parts of the switch were mounted on a 6 inch PVC
end cap, which worked quite well. The switch lever was extended about
a foot with a section of PVC pipe to increase the clearance from the
high potential parts.
The inductor consisted of 19 turns of 4 gauge wire on a piece of 6 inch
PVC pipe, with inductance of 38 microH. The exact value seems to be
non-
critical, since the primary purpose is to lower the resonant frequency
to the point where the oscilloscope and other instrumentation can keep
up with the oscillations.
Water contacts were made with two hollow brass structures about 1 cm
in diameter that were obtained from a local lighting supplies store.
These were approximately spherical where contact with the water was
made. Heavy wire or copper tubing with bolted or soldered connections
were used throughout to keep the circuit resistance to a minimum. The
equivalent series resistance of the capacitors, the inductor, the
switch, and the wiring was calculated to be 0.6 ohm from the
oscillation obtained by discharging the capacitor into a short.
The oscilloscope used was a Phillips PM3350, rated at 50 MHz and 100
Megasamples per second, with the Phillips PM9355 current probe, rated
at 7 microsec rise time. Voltage was measured with a Keithley 602
Electrometer with a 30 kV probe. This high impedance probe was
necessary to keep the measuring circuit from discharging the capacitors
prematurely.
Ear plugs were essential. The reports were loud enough that operating
in
a typical campus building would be impossible during regular office
hours.
FALSE TRIGGERING
The contact arc at the switch and the current of several hundred
amperes
in the circuit emitted a strong electromagnetic pulse, adequate to
cause
false triggering in the scope. The scope would appear to collect data,
but it was either before or after the event of interest. Filters were
placed on both the probes and on the power lines, but made no
difference. The radiation was entering the scope through its case rather
than through the leads. Moving the scope further away helped, but not
enough. A copper screen room was needed but none was available.
A poor man's screen room was built from two junk microwave ovens. These
were identical units of a decade or more ago, when microwave ovens
tended toward large and heavy, with a steel case. The insides were
removed, and the front cut off from one and the rear cut off from the
other. The two cases were then mated together with sheet metal screws.
The final result looked like an unusually deep microwave oven, complete
with the door in working order. The scope would easily fit inside. A
power line filter was added where the power cord entered the modified
oven. The signal was brought in by a small 50 ohm coaxial cable through
a small hole. The scope would be armed to collect data, the door
closed, and then the knife switch closed.
The door would then be opened and the trace examined. This technique
eliminated the false triggering up to the limits of the experiment,
approximately 10 kV and 1000 A.
CURRENT PROBE
The Phillips PM9355 current probe is only rated to about 4 A peak, so
some method of current division had to be used. The manufacturer
suggested placing several identical wires in parallel, and measuring the
current in one of the wires.
This technique did not work because the probe would insert additional
impedance into the wire being measured, causing the current to divide
unequally. This effect is called the burden of the meter.
The solution was to put a 0.1 ohm, 10 W resistor in series with the
water arc. A 50 ohm coaxial cable was connected across the resistor.
The other end of the cable was terminated with a 50 ohm resistor inside
the oven. Current through this resistor was then measured with the
PM9355 probe. The 0.1 ohm resistor was placed inside an aluminum box to
reduce the transient electric field effects. The burden of the probe
was small compared with 50 ohms so this technique worked rather well.
WATER COLUMN
Three different sizes of plastic tubing were obtained, with nominal
inside dimensions of 1/8, 5/32, and 7/32 inches. These were cut in
lengths of 1 and 2 cm. The tube was filled with saturated salt water or
tap water and placed in a horizontal position between the two
electrodes. Surface tension of the water was usually adequate to keep
the water in place in an otherwise dry and clean piece of tubing. The
electrodes were held in place by the stiffness of a few inches of 4
gauge copper wire. That is, the electrodes were free to move when an
explosion occurred. For some tests, the electrodes were held to the
tubing with large rubber bands. This would help keep the tubing in place
for small water arcs, but seemed to have little difference on the
results.
The final section is forthcoming....
Michael Hannon
> > The following is the final section of the text of
> Gary Johnson's report on his experimental verification
> of powerful electrically induced explosions in water,
> based on previous findings of Peter and P. Neal Graneau.
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> "27th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference Proceedings
> San Diego, CA, August 3-7, 1992, Vol. 4, pp 335-33
>
> 929469
> Electrically Induced Explosions in Water
>
> Gary Johnson Kansas State University
>
>
"RESULTS
Preliminary tests were performed with 1 mF of capacitance and voltages
up to 10 kV, on the shortest and thinnest piece of tubing. At voltages
up to 7 or 8 kV, there would be little or no sound, but the water may
be blown out of the tubing.
At 9 kV there was a small "pop" part of the time. At 10 kV there was a
larger pop, similar to a small firecracker. Tap water may have been
slightly louder than salt water, but certainly not much. Low resistance
arcs were hard to establish, so all the remainder of the tests were
performed with 2 mF of capacitance.
The circuit acts as an overdamped RLC circuit when the resistance of the
water column is greater than about 3 ohms. The water resistance
decreases
with time and with the applied voltage, making it difficult to present
specific values with broad application. Examples would be the 7/32 inch
ID by 1 cm long tubing which had a resistance of 27 ohms at 6 kV and 17
ohms at 10 kV, at 10 ps after switching, and the 5/32 inch by 1 cm long
tubing which had a resistance of 55 ohms at 6 kV and 32 ohms at 10 kV,
also 10 microsec after switching. Only if a low impedance arc forms will
the resistance drop below 3 ohms and the current becomes oscillatory.
This takes time to develop and will not occur consistently even for
apparently identical conditions.
For example, compare two consecutive tries at 10 kV on the 1/8 inch ID
by 2 cm long tubing. Both produced a loud bang, similar in loudness. In
the first try, the current was 50 A at 5 microsec after switch closing,
80 A at 50 microsec, a peak of 130 A at 130 microsec, and went to zero
at 153 microsec. In the second try, the current was 24 A at 5 microsec,
72 A at 50 microsec, and went to zero at 166 microsec. At 138 microsec,
however, an arc was apparently initiated, so there was what appeared to
be a half cycle of an underdamped wave between 138 and 166 microsec. The
peak current of this half cycle was 540 A.
Longitudinal Ampere forces vary as the square of the current, so if the
explosion is due to these forces we would expect a significant
difference in loudness. Since little or no difference was noted in the
explosion, there remains a question whether the longitudinal Ampere
forces are even a major cause of the explosion.
Another observation was that of small bubbles forming in the tubing,
with no arc and no noise. At 6 kV, a 7/32 inch by 1 cm piece of tubing
would show a very small (less than 1 mm diameter) bubble. At 8 kV, the
same tubing would show a bubble about 2 mm in diameter. The presence of
a bubble will lower the arc inception voltage. That is, with the bubble
in place, the next firing at 8 kV may be adequate to cause an arc with
an oscillating waveform. Increasing the capacitance also lowers the arc
inception voltage.
Loudness was found to be inversely proportional to the tubing area. The
loudest reports were from the 1/8 inch ID tubing. Changing from salt
water to tap water did not make nearly as great a difference.
Some numerical results are shown in Table 1. The voltage V is in kV,
the maximum current is in A, and t is in microsec after the switch is
closed. The size is the nominal inside diameter in inches by the length
in cm. The loudness of the bang varied from just noticeable to very loud
as the voltage increased and the volume of water decreased.
Only the 1/8 inch ID tubing yielded waveforms that were partly
oscillatory, and then only at 8 and 10 kV. Otherwise, the waveforms
looked like a classic RC discharge curve, except that R is decreasing
with time. This tends to flatten the curve, or even to let it rise to a
peak sometime after the switching.
Another comparison on the longitudinal Ampere forces can be made
from the 8 kV test of the 7/32 x 1 and 5/32 x 1 samples. The available
energy was the same and the current waveforms were similar in
appearance. The peak current for the 7/32 x1 was 272 A, with no noise,
while the pealc current for the 5/32 x 1 was 196 A, which produced a
good pop. The current density for the smaller tubing was about 40%
greater than for the larger tubing, so perhaps current density is more
important to a water explosion than the actual current.
TABLE 1
Maximum Current and Time to Maximum
V size i max t bang?
------------------------------------
6 7/32 x 2 62 4 No
8 7/32 x 2 84 4 No
10 7/32x2 111 30 No
6 5/32 x 2 30 50 No
8 5/32 x 2 46 75 No
10 5/32X2! 71 75 Yes
6 1/8x2 26 100 No
8 1/8 x 2 45 140 Yes
10 1/8x2 136 125 Yes
10 1/8 x 2 420 140 Yes
10 1/8x2 130 130 Yes
10 1/8x2 540 150 Yes
6 7/32 x 1 180 10 No
8 7/32 x 1 272 20 No
10 7/32 x 1 468 18 Yes
6 5/32 x1 111 30 No
8 5/32 x 1 196 30 Yes
10 5/32 x 1 456 50 Yes
6 1/8 x1 91 45 Yes
8 1/8 x 1 530 75 Yes
10 1/8 x 1 940 45 Yes
CONCLUSIONS
Electrically induced explosions in water are relatively easy to produce
with a 2 mF capacitor charged to 10 kV. Expanding steam does not
seem to be the main cause. Similar explosions are obtained with
significantly different peak currents, which raises questions about
the longitudinal Ampere forces being the primary cause. It is therefore
conceivable that we are tapping a new energy source.
More experiments need to be performed to demonstrate this one way
or the other. A better screen room, larger capacitors, and a better high
voltage switch would be helpful. A variety of electrode and water
channel
configurations need to be tested to separate out the effects of water
arcs and water explosions. A calorimeter test would be interesting. A
microphone pickup to electronically determine loudness would be useful.
Of course, even if water explosions are tapping into a new energy
source,
this technique may not be the optimum one to extract this energy. But it
could lead us toward a better understanding of this source.
REFERENCES
1. Johnson, Gary L.,
"Searchers for a New Energy Source - Tesla, Moray, and Bearden",
IEEE Power Engineering Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, January, 1992, pp. 20-23.
2. Hathaway, George D., "Zero-Point Energy: A New Prime Mover? Energy
Requirements for Energy Production 8: Propulsion from Vacuum
Fluctuations", Proceedings of the IECEC, 1991.
3. Graneau, Peter and P. Neal Graneau, "Electrodynamic Explosions in
Liquids", Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 46, No. 5, March 1, 1985, pp.
468-470.
4. Azevedo, Roy, Peter Graneau, and Charles Millet,
Powerful Water-Plasma Explosions", Physics Letters A,
Vol. 117, No. 2, July 28, 1986, pp. 101-105.
5. Graneau, Peter, Ampere-Neumann Electrodynamics of Metals,
Hadronic Press, Nonantum, Mass. 02195, 1985
Harry H Conover
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
:
: Preliminary tests were performed with 1 mF of capacitance and voltages
: up to 10 kV, on the shortest and thinnest piece of tubing. At voltages
: up to 7 or 8 kV, there would be little or no sound, but the water may
: be blown out of the tubing.
: At 9 kV there was a small "pop" part of the time. At 10 kV there was a
: larger pop, similar to a small firecracker. Tap water may have been
: slightly louder than salt water, but certainly not much. Low resistance
: arcs were hard to establish, so all the remainder of the tests were
: performed with 2 mF of capacitance.
OK, let's run the numbers and see if we see anything new or
amazing.
For a charged capacitor, energy in Joules (Watt-Seconds):
E = 1/2 CV^2.
= 0.5 x (2 x 10^-6) x (10 x 10^3)^2
= 100 Joules.
This is about the energy output of a rather large photographic
strobe light, and similar energy to what scientists some years
back used to power exploding wire experiments.
Let's look at what 100 Joules represents. It's 1-Watt for
100-Seconds, 100-Watts for 1-second, 100,000-Watts for a
millisecond, or 100-Megawatts for a Microsecond.
Yep, this would be more than sufficient energy to create quite
an impressive sounding pop when quickly discharged through water.
There is certainly not 'Rocket Science,' except of course, to
the science ignorant.
Harry C.
Michael Hannon
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> :
> : Preliminary tests were performed with 1 mF of capacitance and voltages
> : up to 10 kV, on the shortest and thinnest piece of tubing. At voltages
> : up to 7 or 8 kV, there would be little or no sound, but the water may
> : be blown out of the tubing.
> : At 9 kV there was a small "pop" part of the time. At 10 kV there was a
> : larger pop, similar to a small firecracker. Tap water may have been
> : slightly louder than salt water, but certainly not much. Low resistance
> : arcs were hard to establish, so all the remainder of the tests were
> : performed with 2 mF of capacitance.
>
> amazing.
>
> For a charged capacitor, energy in Joules (Watt-Seconds):
>
> E = 1/2 CV^2.
> = 0.5 x (2 x 10^-6) x (10 x 10^3)^2
> = 100 Joules.
>
> This is about the energy output of a rather large photographic
> strobe light, and similar energy to what scientists some years
> back used to power exploding wire experiments.
>
No wire, Mr. CONover - just plain water - just dielectric, no
conductor, no superheating of that conductor. This isn't an exploding
wire, Mr. CONover - it is exploding WATER, and WATER is your
super-dielectric.
> Let's look at what 100 Joules represents. It's 1-Watt for
> 100-Seconds, 100-Watts for 1-second, 100,000-Watts for a
> millisecond, or 100-Megawatts for a Microsecond.
>
> Yep, this would be more than sufficient energy to create quite
> an impressive sounding pop when quickly discharged through water.
>
Oh, really?
How?
Explain how the energy transfer takes place, in conformity with
thermodynamic law.
> There is certainly not 'Rocket Science,' except of course, to
> the science ignorant.
>
> Harry C.
>
Certainly, eh, Mr. CONover?
Virtually no heat (< one calorie) was dissipated the exploding water,
and no steam, and the pressure generated in the Graneau experiments was
27,000 atmospheres - well over 400,000 psi, from 120 grams of water,
with less than 1 calorie of that energy going to heat.
Quoting the text, which you failed to do properly,
Since, according to you, it is "certainly not 'Rocket Science,' except
of course, to the science ignorant," explain it.
Explain how the water arc produced a strength of explosion THREE TIMES
AS HIGH AS THE BEST RAILGUN PERFORMANCE, better than ANY OTHER
EXPLOSIVE, including all KNOWN high explosives, only to be surpassed in
the strength of explosion by NUCLEAR reaction.
Simple, Huh?
Nothing fancy going on here, right?
Let's hear it, Mr. CONover -
let's hear the thermodynamics, the physics.
400,000+ psi from 120g of water, with less than one calorie of heat
energy dissipated in the process.
That certainly looks like a good "rocket fuel" to me - as a matter of
fact, how much actual rocket fuel would it take to generate that
strength of explosion, Mr. CONover, since the figure of merit for that
type of energy production is greater than any known explosive or
chemical rocket fuel?
But that's not rocket science, right, Mr. CONover - it's simply
explained, and unimpressive, right? Sounds like more of one of your lame
excuses than an anywhere near accurate assessment. Kind of like saying
that generation of force easily comparably greater than the World Trade
Center bombing, or the Oklahoma City bombing, is not even worth
considering, or understanding, because it's totally unimpressive.
Let's hear it, Harry.
More evasion and excuses? More bogus explanations based on the obviously
ignorant circular logic you are now famous for in your other
"explanations?"
Let's hear how, and why, it takes place, and why it's so "simple, and
"certainly not rocket science," (isn't rocket science "merely" the
"simple" burning of fuel whose figure of merit doesn't even reach
that of water arc?) Mr. CONover.
OHannon
Harry H Conover
First Michael, please learn to use your editor to reduce the
amount of material you are quoting. Net etiquette is that
the material being quoted is less than the size of your
comment. Some of the better newsreaders enforce this.
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Harry H Conover wrote:
: > OK, let's run the numbers and see if we see anything new or
: > amazing.
:
: No wire, Mr. CONover - just plain water - just dielectric, no
: conductor, no superheating of that conductor. This isn't an exploding
: wire, Mr. CONover - it is exploding WATER, and WATER is your
: super-dielectric.
Dumping 100 Joules of electricity will produce quite a pop!
: > Let's look at what 100 Joules represents. It's 1-Watt for
: > 100-Seconds, 100-Watts for 1-second, 100,000-Watts for a
: > millisecond, or 100-Megawatts for a Microsecond.
: >
: > Yep, this would be more than sufficient energy to create quite
: > an impressive sounding pop when quickly discharged through water.
: >
: Oh, really?
Yes, it's a fact.
: How?
100 Joules of energy dissipated in a small volume of water (the path
of the current) in a short time interval superheats the water (because
there is insufficient time for the heat to be conducted away before the
water becomes superheated...steam does the rest. Same thing happens
when lightning strikes a tree except that the stakes (energy input)
are larger.
: Explain how the energy transfer takes place, in conformity with
: thermodynamic law.
The energy contained in the capacitor (100 Joules in this case) is
resistively dissipated in accordance with Ohms law in a small fraction
of a second. This is consistent with both the first and second laws
of thermodynamics.
: Certainly, eh, Mr. CONover?
Absolutely, Michael. Rocket science this is not.
:
: Virtually no heat (< one calorie) was dissipated the exploding water
I see, and the 100 Joules transferred from the capacitor to the
water went where? I could convert the 100 Joules into calories for
you, but you should be able to do that for yourself. Rest assured,
it's a good bit more than 1-calorie.
Oh yes, I forgot to ask how you know that only one calorie was dissipated
in the water? This is curious, since 100 Joules was input to the water.
: and no steam, and the pressure generated in the Graneau experiments was
: 27,000 atmospheres - well over 400,000 psi, from 120 grams of water,
: with less than 1 calorie of that energy going to heat.
Absolutely amazing. Must be God's hand making an intervention.
:
: Quoting the text, which you failed to do properly,
No need, since anybody really interested in that verbose piece of
off-topic material can read your original post. Hell Michael, if
you're going to continue to pollute the net with your nonsense,
at least observe some degree of net etiquette. Edit your damn
posts!
:
: "In two cases with the same stored energy, a 0.5 mF capacitor charges
: to
: 6 kV and a 2 mF capacitor charges to 3 kV, the second case resulted in
: an arc explosion while the first did not. In both cases, the heat
: dissipated in the water was less than one calorie, in a container of
: about 120 grams of water. Their conclusion, based on measurement,
: calculation, and visual observation, was that the explosion was not
: based on thermal effects. They conclude, rather, that the explosion was
: due to longitudinal Ampere forces.
Then they came to an incompetent, uninformed, unscientific conclusion.
Note at in reaching this ridiculous conclusion, they omitted to address
where the 100 Joules from the charged capacitor was dissipated, which
is obvious to anyone with even half a brain. Given that they obviously
don't understand either basic electric circuit behavior or the
conservation of energy, what makes you believe that their calorimetry
doesn't stink as well?
:
: This concept of a tension force in a single conductor due to the
: current flow in the conductor is not taught in introductory
: electromagnetic theory courses, but Graneau makes a good case for such
: longitudinal forces in [5].
This is little more than babble. Quite obviously, they haven't a clue.
: They discovered that tap water produced explosions about twice as
: strong as those in saturated saltwater. The explosions in distilled
: water were even stronger, except that it was difficult to initiate the
: arc in distilled water.
Now Michael, ask yourself: Why might it be more difficult to initiate
an arc in distilled water? Remember me trying to teach you about the
dielectric properties of distilled water? Bingo!
:
: The calculated pressure in the chamber in the last test in [4] was
: 27,000 atm. Their comment was "This explains why the cartridge was
: split." They defined a figure of merit as the strength of the explosion
: per unit action integral of the current pulse, and found that the
: figure of merit for their system was three times as high as the very
: best railgun performance. Railguns have better acceleration
: characteristics than chemical explosives, so water arcs have more "bang
: per buck" than any other explosive, save perhaps nuclear."
....Again, bullshit walks!
: Since, according to you, it is "certainly not 'Rocket Science,' except
: of course, to the science ignorant," explain it.
I believe I already have.
: Explain how the water arc produced a strength of explosion THREE TIMES
: AS HIGH AS THE BEST RAILGUN PERFORMANCE, better than ANY OTHER
: EXPLOSIVE, including all KNOWN high explosives, only to be surpassed in
: the strength of explosion by NUCLEAR reaction.
Simple, it didn't. What they observed was nothing more than the
effect of 100 Joules of electrical energy being rapidly dissipated
(likely in a fraction of a millisecond) in a limited volume (the
water immediately adjacient to the current path) of water.
:
: Simple, Huh?
For a knowledgeable person, very simple.
: Nothing fancy going on here, right?
Correct, Michael.
[balance of Hannon blathering deleted for bandwith considerations]
Harry C.
Craig Cotham
Craig Cotham <jcco...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>(part of post snipped)
>>
>>(anywhere you see mH here it means micro-Henry, and anywhere you see mF,
>>it means microFarad - the mailer won't send the Greek micron symbol)
>>
>
>The usual convention is to use a small u for micro (uF, uH) since it
>resembles the Greek symbol. This also avoids confusion with the milli
>prefix, which is a lower case m. Whose dumb idea was it to use a Greek
>letter for micro anyway? Probably the damn French ;)
>
>I'm going to try to send a Greek mu (it is mu, isn't it) just to
>see how it comes out. Here it is: =B5
>
>Craig
>
I't came through correctly on my newsreader, if it showed up
as something obscene on anyone elses, my apologies. :)
There may be a simpler way, but you can produce several Greek symbols
by holding down the alt key entering a three digit code on the numeric
keypad then releasing the alt key (mu is 230).
Craig
Craig Cotham
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The following is a verbatim text* of the work of a real
>scientist/engineer, as opposed to the armchair science practiced by
>the resident "good 'ol boys" in this NG.
> OHannon
>
>*(Minus one simulated graphic - Fig.1, which will be placed in its
>original place in the text below, which shows a series circuit in which
>a capacitor C with a voltage Vo across it is in a series circuit with
>and inductor L and a Resistance Rw [the resistance of a quantity of
>water]). There is an open switch between C and L.
>
> / _______
> __/ _| L |___________
> | |_____| |
> ___|___ __|_
> | | | |
> Vo | C | | Rw |
> _|___|_ |____|
> | |
> |__________________________|
>
> Fig. 1: Water Arc Discharge Circuit
>
>(anywhere you see mH here it means micro-Henry, and anywhere you see mF,
>it means microFarad - the mailer won't send the Greek micron symbol)
>
Michael Hannon
Mpower wrote:
>
> Harry H Conover wrote:
> > : No wire, Mr. CONover - just plain water - just dielectric, no
> > : conductor, no superheating of that conductor.
>
> ions accelerated through the water would have collided...
>
According to the report, and Johnson's account of the report of the
Peter and P. Neal Graneau, Roy Azeved, and Charles Millet, which is
posted right in this NG, there wasn't.
Are they all lying?
> <snip>
> >
> > Dumping 100 Joules of electricity will produce quite a pop!
> >
> > : > Let's look at what 100 Joules represents. It's 1-Watt for
> > : > 100-Seconds, 100-Watts for 1-second, 100,000-Watts for a
> > : > millisecond, or 100-Megawatts for a Microsecond.
> > : >
> <snip>
> >
> > 100 Joules of energy dissipated in a small volume of water (the path
> > of the current) in a short time interval superheats the water...
> <snip>
> >
According to all the listed accounts from the indendently-conducted
tests, it didn't.
> > : Explain how the energy transfer takes place, in conformity with
> > : thermodynamic law.
> >
> > The energy contained in the capacitor (100 Joules in this case) is
> > resistively dissipated in accordance with Ohms law in a small fraction
> > of a second.
> <snip>
> actually, the sound of the explosion is part of the energy dissipation
> and I would ask if this is all 'resistive'. I would anticipate there
> would be a mechanical fraction from the initial stress on the
> dielectric which then relaxes after the dielectric is punctured..
Both of you are completely ignoring what was stated. Less than one
calorie was dissipated in an explosion which created 27,000 atmospheres
of pressure.
>
> > Absolutely, Michael. Rocket science this is not.
>
> <grin> Michael thinks so...
You have no idea what was going one in the phenomenon related in this
report.
You refuse to acknowledge the facts of the report .
Your answer to the phenomenon as reported by independent testing is
that it never happened - they were all just dreaming that what took
place right in front of them (and neither of you) didn't really happen
- now, that's "pinnacle" science if I ever saw it.
>
> > I see, and the 100 Joules transferred from the capacitor to the
> <snip>
> > in the water? This is curious, since 100 Joules was input to the water.
>
> If it was all transformed into heat, we would never hear the <pop!>
> 1000w for 100 mS would represent a fairly loud <pop!>
Less than one calorie was dissipated - that is what it says, and the
other references of the Graneau work are there at the end of the report
to provide more information . THERE WAS VIRTUALLY NO HEAT, according to
the report, by Senior IEEE member, Gary Johnson.
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Then they came to an incompetent, uninformed, unscientific conclusion.
> > Note at in reaching this ridiculous conclusion, they omitted to address
> > where the 100 Joules from the charged capacitor was dissipated, which
> > is obvious to anyone with even half a brain. Given that they obviously
> > don't understand either basic electric circuit behavior or the
> > conservation of energy, what makes you believe that their calorimetry
> > doesn't stink as well?
> >
> Harry, your calorimetry stinks as well if you disregard
> the acoustic energy not translated into heat in the water.
How about the 27,000 atmospheres of pressure generated?
> Now apologize to Michael for making a complete fool of him <g>
>
> > Now Michael, ask yourself: Why might it be more difficult to initiate
> > an arc in distilled water? Remember me trying to teach you about the
> > dielectric properties of distilled water? Bingo!
> >
>
> You actually tried to "Teach" Michael ?
> You should never try to teach physics to TrueBeliever.
> Faith is much more important than any Facts...
>
> <snip>
> >
> > [balance of Hannon blathering deleted for bandwith considerations]
> <amen>
> >
I have to admit - I thought these people were actually a bit smarter
than they're showing here - these responses by Mr. CONover and MPower
are actually STUPID, nonsensical, and total evasion of the
scientifically-reported facts.
This is just a further disgrace coming from people who claim to have
credentials.
Absolute disgrace.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
> >scientist/engineer, as opposed to the armchair science practiced by
> >the resident "good 'ol boys" in this NG.
> > OHannon
> >
> >*(Minus one simulated graphic - Fig.1, which will be placed in its
> >original place in the text below, which shows a series circuit in which
> >a capacitor C with a voltage Vo across it is in a series circuit with
> >and inductor L and a Resistance Rw [the resistance of a quantity of
> >water]). There is an open switch between C and L.
> >
> > / _______
> > __/ _| L |___________
> > | |_____| |
> > ___|___ __|_
> > | | | |
> > Vo | C | | Rw |
> > _|___|_ |____|
> > | |
> > |__________________________|
> >
> > Fig. 1: Water Arc Discharge Circuit
> >
> >(anywhere you see mH here it means micro-Henry, and anywhere you see mF,
> >it means microFarad - the mailer won't send the Greek micron symbol)
> >
>
> The usual convention is to use a small u for micro (uF, uH) since it
> resembles the Greek symbol. This also avoids confusion with the milli
> prefix, which is a lower case m. Whose dumb idea was it to use a Greek
> letter for micro anyway? Probably the damn French ;)
>
> I'm going to try to send a Greek mu (it is mu, isn't it) just to
>
> Craig
I tried thisbefore and it didn't work, but here goes - µ
IT WORKED? The last time I tried this, it didn't. OK,
Thanks - I can start using it again.
Michael
Michael Hannon
Harry:
Virtually no heat (< one calorie) was dissipated in the exploding water,
and no steam, and the pressure generated in the Graneau experiments was
27,000 atmospheres - well over 400,000 psi, from 120 grams of water,
with less than 1 calorie of that energy going to heat.
Johnson's quote:
"In both cases, the heat dissipated in the water was less than one
calorie, in a container of about 120 grams of water. Their conclusion,
based on measurement, calculation, and visual observation, was that the
explosion was not based on thermal effects."
Now, You were saying about superheated steam, WHERE, Mr. Conover? CAN
YOU READ? "Virtually no heat(less than 1 calorie)was dissipated, and no
thermal effects as a basis of the explosion. NO SUPERHEATING, Mr.
CONover.
> : Explain how the energy transfer takes place, in conformity with
> : thermodynamic law.
>
> The energy contained in the capacitor (100 Joules in this case) is
> resistively dissipated in accordance with Ohms law in a small fraction
> of a second. This is consistent with both the first and second laws
> of thermodynamics.
"Resistively distributed?"
How?
You are once again lying, evading and misrepresenting what happened.
>
> : Certainly, eh, Mr. CONover?
>
> Absolutely, Michael. Rocket science this is not.
How would you know - you still ahve yet to even vaguely approach an
explanation of the phenomenon. You have an explosion which generates
tremendous force and NO HEAT, from even distilled water, and you say
it's a resultof Ohm's law and thermodynamics, absolutely no explanation
of how those laws are enacted in the phenomenon. Since when does the
amount of electricity you discuss (where did you get this 100 joules
figure anyway?) across a reported water breakdown resistance of 17, 27,
and 32 ohms pass without generating EVEN ONE CALORIE OF HEAT in that 120
grams of water?
You haven't got a clue what is going on here, Mr. CONover, and are
attempting to cover it up with jargon generalizations.
> :
> : Virtually no heat (< one calorie) was dissipated the exploding water
>
> I see, and the 100 Joules transferred from the capacitor to the
> water went where? I could convert the 100 Joules into calories for
> you, but you should be able to do that for yourself. Rest assured,
> it's a good bit more than 1-calorie.
Define a calorie, Mr. CONover. the HEAT ENERGY required to raise the
temperature of 1 gram of water 1 deg? WHAT CALORIES? WHAT HEAT?
>
> Oh yes, I forgot to ask how you know that only one calorie was dissipated
> in the water? This is curious, since 100 Joules was input to the water.
Quoting Gary Jonhnson, ONCE AGAIN:
"In both cases, the heat dissipated in the water was less than one
calorie, in a container of about 120 grams of water. Their conclusion,
based on measurement, calculation, and visual observation, was that the
explosion was not based on thermal effects."
Do you need a translator? Do you have a problem with understanding
English?
> : and no steam, and the pressure generated in the Graneau experiments was
> : 27,000 atmospheres - well over 400,000 psi, from 120 grams of water,
> : with less than 1 calorie of that energy going to heat.
>
> Absolutely amazing. Must be God's hand making an intervention.
Is that your scientific explanation of the phenomenon?
Since you offer no other valid one regarding physical theories and laws,
that is all you have left. But if you conducted the experiments
yourself, you would get the same result, intervention by God, or not.
>
> :
> : Quoting the text, which you failed to do properly,
>
> No need, since anybody really interested in that verbose piece of
> off-topic material can read your original post. Hell Michael, if
> you're going to continue to pollute the net with your nonsense,
> at least observe some degree of net etiquette. Edit your damn
> posts!
>
Now you're calling a report from the 27th Intersociety Energy Conversion
Engineering Conference Proceedings at San Diego, in August 1992, written
by a Senior Member of the IEEE, directly involving a remarkable hydrogen
phenomenon, "off-topic material," and "nonsense," "polluting the net."
> : "In two cases with the same stored energy, a 0.5 mF capacitor charges
> : to
> : 6 kV and a 2 mF capacitor charges to 3 kV, the second case resulted in
> : an arc explosion while the first did not. In both cases, the heat
> : dissipated in the water was less than one calorie, in a container of
> : about 120 grams of water. Their conclusion, based on measurement,
> : calculation, and visual observation, was that the explosion was not
> : based on thermal effects. They conclude, rather, that the explosion was
> : due to longitudinal Ampere forces.
>
> Then they came to an incompetent, uninformed, unscientific conclusion.
> Note at in reaching this ridiculous conclusion, they omitted to address
> where the 100 Joules from the charged capacitor was dissipated, which
> is obvious to anyone with even half a brain. Given that they obviously
> don't understand either basic electric circuit behavior or the
> conservation of energy, what makes you believe that their calorimetry
> doesn't stink as well?
>
No, what they came to, due to the fact that they measured virtually no
heat dissipation, was a phenomenon which you have no explanation for,
and neither do they. You are now accusing Peter (Northeastern Univ.) and
P. Neal Graneau, Roy Azevedo, Charles Millet, and Senior Member of the
IEEE, Gary Johnson, of Kansas State University Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering - all of of them - of being coincidentally
incompetent in their research of a single phenomenon.
What do you think your chances are of being even remotely correct?
> :
> : This concept of a tension force in a single conductor due to the
> : current flow in the conductor is not taught in introductory
> : electromagnetic theory courses, but Graneau makes a good case for such
> : longitudinal forces in [5].
>
> This is little more than babble. Quite obviously, they haven't a clue.
Uh huh.
>
> : They discovered that tap water produced explosions about twice as
> : strong as those in saturated saltwater. The explosions in distilled
> : water were even stronger, except that it was difficult to initiate the
> : arc in distilled water.
>
> Now Michael, ask yourself: Why might it be more difficult to initiate
> an arc in distilled water? Remember me trying to teach you about the
> dielectric properties of distilled water? Bingo!
>
And?
So what?
Tthe explosion that did take place in distilled water produced the
greatest amount of energy, because of its purity, where less energy was
lost to dissipation in contaminents.
> :
> : The calculated pressure in the chamber in the last test in [4] was
> : 27,000 atm. Their comment was "This explains why the cartridge was
> : split." They defined a figure of merit as the strength of the explosion
> : per unit action integral of the current pulse, and found that the
> : figure of merit for their system was three times as high as the very
> : best railgun performance. Railguns have better acceleration
> : characteristics than chemical explosives, so water arcs have more "bang
> : per buck" than any other explosive, save perhaps nuclear."
>
> ....Again, bullshit walks!
>
Really? BUllshit
> : Since, according to you, it is "certainly not 'Rocket Science,' except
> : of course, to the science ignorant," explain it.
>
> I believe I already have.
>
> : Explain how the water arc produced a strength of explosion THREE TIMES
> : AS HIGH AS THE BEST RAILGUN PERFORMANCE, better than ANY OTHER
> : EXPLOSIVE, including all KNOWN high explosives, only to be surpassed in
> : the strength of explosion by NUCLEAR reaction.
>
> Simple, it didn't. What they observed was nothing more than the
> effect of 100 Joules of electrical energy being rapidly dissipated
> (likely in a fraction of a millisecond) in a limited volume (the
> water immediately adjacient to the current path) of water.
>
> :
> : Simple, Huh?
>
> For a knowledgeable person, very simple.
This statement is a crystal-clear example of your blind, arrogant
egomania.
YOU HAVE NEVER EVEN SEEN THE PHENOMENON TAKE PLACE:
"Simple, it didn't. What they observed was nothing more than the
effect of 100 Joules of electrical energy being rapidly dissipated
(likely in a fraction of a millisecond) in a limited volume (the
water immediately adjacient to the current path) of water."
Pure, unadulterated, presumptive, blind egomania.
You have fabricated a lie in order to cover your tracks, Mr. CONover.
What happened is exactly as these legitimate researchers and the report
from the IECEC states.
You have now, as you have so many times before regarding other reports
and eyewitness accounts, announced that this report is a fabrication and
lies.
Prove it.
The report, by an IEEE Senior Member, is there, in black and white.
How do you go about showing that these legitimate researchers have ALL
LIED to the scientific and engineering world, Mr. CONover, and for what
reason?
Go ahead - make our day.
You have, once again, ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTANTIATION for this accusation.
NOTHING.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Craig Cotham wrote:
>
> Craig Cotham <jcco...@netdoor.com> wrote:
> >Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>(anywhere you see mH here it means micro-Henry, and anywhere you see mF,
> >>it means microFarad - the mailer won't send the Greek micron symbol)
> >>
> >
> >The usual convention is to use a small u for micro (uF, uH) since it
> >resembles the Greek symbol. This also avoids confusion with the milli
> >prefix, which is a lower case m. Whose dumb idea was it to use a Greek
> >letter for micro anyway? Probably the damn French ;)
> >
> >I'm going to try to send a Greek mu (it is mu, isn't it) just to
> >see how it comes out. Here it is: µ
> >
> >Craig
> >
> as something obscene on anyone elses, my apologies. :)
>
> There may be a simpler way, but you can produce several Greek symbols
> by holding down the alt key entering a three digit code on the numeric
> keypad then releasing the alt key (mu is 230).
>
> Craig
I just did it - funny it wasn't working before when I tried it - it
worked in my posting of the Einstein document I did.
I think I need a new motherboard.
OHannon
K. Jones
Michael Hannon wrote: I have to admit - I thought these people were
actually a bit smarter
> than they're showing here - these responses by Mr. CONover and MPower
> are actually STUPID, nonsensical, and total evasion of the
> scientifically-reported facts.
> This is just a further disgrace coming from people who claim to have
> credentials.
> Absolute disgrace.
>
> OHannon
What has this to do with SCI.ENERGY.HYDROGEN?
K. Jones
The opinions expressed are my own, and not those of my employer.
Michael Hannon
> : temperature of 1 gram of water 1 deg? WHAT CALORIES? WHAT HEAT?
>
> participating in this newsgroup.)
>
> Now read carefully:
>
> 4.186 Joules = 1 gram-calorie (this is called the mechanical
> equivalent of heat in physics texts)
>
> We can state that when the capacitor discharged, the electrical
> energy contained therein was dissipated in two primary forms. A
> very small component of that 100-Joules of energy went into the formation
> of electrogmagnetic radiation. However, the vast bulk of that energy
> was dissipated as heat in the dissipative media through which it passed.
>
No, that cannot be stated. The stated evidence is otherwise, and
contrary to your statement. Less than one calorie of heat was dissipated
in the water during the experiment. Obviously it was measured -
otherwise the quantitave report of the degree of heat dissipated could
not have been given. You conclude that what happened was not just
otherwise, but that a vast majority of thwe energy went into thermal
energy, but your conclusion does not agree with one scientific
eyewitness's account, and you weren't even there.
> Now, since 100-Joules is the energy equivalent of 23.889 gram-calories
> of heat. Since it is no longer energy stored in the capacitor, I
> am simply asking you where you believe it went?
>
> This is neither a trick question nor a difficult one.
>
> Harry C.
First of all, what 100 joules - where did you get the figure from?
The peak current in the Johnson 10kV explosion was 540A, (PEAK, NOT
AVERAGE) The average for that 138 µsec time involved could have been any
fraction of that, but let's say it was .707 x 540A (which I personally
doubt), or about 382 amps, which would yield about half that 100-joule
figure.
Where do I believe it went?
According to EVERY KNOWN SCIENTIFIC WITNESS to the phenomenon, it didn't
transfer into any accountable thermal energy dissipated in the exploded
water.
(Does that sink in, or is there some other means by which you need to
understand the report? Do you really think that all these researchers
turned their backs and twiddled their thumbs on the thermal question
here? Do you really think that they were that stupid? Even I,
intelligence-impaired as you think I am, couldn't even possibly make
such an obvious "mistake.")
SO- What do I think?
It had to be somehow transferred into the energy required to generate a
pressure of 27,000 atmospheres, from the original 1 atm, without the
dissipation of even 1 calorie of heat in the process.
This isn't just my conclusion, but the conclusion of every one of the
original Graneau experiment researchers, and Gary Johnson, who wrote the
report, after proving to himself by his own experience that the Graneaus
weren't lying about what they saw in their own experiments.
According to George Wiseman and Jimmy Reed, a similar phenomenon takes
place with the combustion of a Brown's gas/air mix in an engine running
on it - despite the fact that sufficient pressure to run the engine is
generated by the combustion, the flame temperature never exceeds 274
degF; and after performing Brown's gas/air explosions in front of my own
eyes, I have to agree - there was no significant heat generated in those
explosions either - no part of the container or fixtures was even warm
after each explosion, but there was a flash of blueish-white (possibly
ultraviolet as well) light in the explosion which was clearly visible
from the igniting gas/air mix. Had I not had this experience myself
before even reading the Johnson report, I would not have found it nearly
as believeable, but I've had my own experience of such explosions, where
instantaneous high pressure (detonation) is produced, generating an
exceptionally loud, sharp, percussion effect, and virtually no heat at
all.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Much, much more than you have ever exhibited here, Mr. Jones.
The electrically induced explosion of water (you know- 2 parts hydrogen,
one part oxygen?), and the massive pressures generated by such an
explosion, are quite emphatically relevant to sci.energy.hydrogen, and
the addressing of grossly erroneous, abusively presumptive analyses of
the report of a Senior Member of the IEEE, and other previous
scientists, regarding such explosions, by Mrs. CONover and Mpower, along
with your selectively stupid comment about such addressing, which just
adds to the disgrace you would also apply to the true scientific pursuit
involved in this remarkable report by Gary Johnson, is highly
appropriate to this NG.
OHannon
Harry H Conover
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
:
: Define a calorie, Mr. CONover. the HEAT ENERGY required to raise the
: temperature of 1 gram of water 1 deg? WHAT CALORIES? WHAT HEAT?
Very good, Michael. (I see you've learned at least one thing from
participating in this newsgroup.)
Now read carefully:
4.186 Joules = 1 gram-calorie (this is called the mechanical
equivalent of heat in physics texts)
We can state that when the capacitor discharged, the electrical
energy contained therein was dissipated in two primary forms. A
very small component of that 100-Joules of energy went into the formation
of electrogmagnetic radiation. However, the vast bulk of that energy
was dissipated as heat in the dissipative media through which it passed.
Now, since 100-Joules is the energy equivalent of 23.889 gram-calories
Mpower
Michael Hannon wrote:
>Harry H Conover wrote:
>>>Harry H Hannon wrote:
>>>>Michael Conover wrote:
>>>>>Harry H Hannon wrote:
>>>>>>Michael Hannon wrote:
>>>>>>>Harry H Conover wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Harry H Hannon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Michael Conover wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Harry H Hannon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>Michael Hannon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harry H Conover wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harry H Hannon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Michael Conover wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Michael Hannon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Michael Hannon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harry H Conover wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Michael Hannon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harry H Conover wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Michael Hannon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harry H Conover wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Michael Hannon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harry H Conover wrote:
Mpower
Michael Hannon wrote:
> K. Jones wrote:
> > Michael Hannon wrote: I have to admit - I thought these people were
> > actually a bit smarter
> > > than they're showing here - these responses by Mr. CONover and MPower
> > > are actually STUPID, nonsensical, and total evasion of the
> > > scientifically-reported facts.
> > > This is just a further disgrace coming from people who claim to have
> > > credentials.
> > > Absolute disgrace.
> > > OHannon
> >
> > What has this to do with SCI.ENERGY.HYDROGEN?
> >
> > K. Jones
> >
Harry H Conover
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
:
: First of all, what 100 joules - where did you get the figure from?
Go back and re-read the thread. I showed you how to do the calculation.
As anyone whose studied basic electrical circuits or circuits knows
(or at least should know) that the energy stored in a capacitor is
1/2 CV^2. For a 2 mfd capacitor charged to 10KV, this is 100 Joules.
: The peak current in the Johnson 10kV explosion was 540A, (PEAK, NOT
: AVERAGE) The average for that 138 µsec time involved could have been any
: fraction of that, but let's say it was .707 x 540A (which I personally
: doubt), or about 382 amps, which would yield about half that 100-joule
: figure.
Suggest you study some basic physics and cirucits.
: Where do I believe it went?
:
: According to EVERY KNOWN SCIENTIFIC WITNESS to the phenomenon, it didn't
: transfer into any accountable thermal energy dissipated in the exploded
: water.
[snip]
: It had to be somehow transferred into the energy required to generate a
: pressure of 27,000 atmospheres, from the original 1 atm, without the
: dissipation of even 1 calorie of heat in the process.
Sound's like were making progress.
Now, how does the passage of a pulse of electrical current through
water develop high pressures? Perhaps by superheating water into
steam very rapidly? After all, isn't this the generally accepted
mechanism describing how a lightning bolt splits a tree in half
without even charing the wood adjacient to the split? It's
an example of Ohms Law in actions.
Now think about this just a little. The jolt of electrical
current through the water is exactly like a miniature lighning
bolt passing through the water. The main difference, is that
there is no wood to split.
If you ever travel to Philadelphia, you can watch a demonstration
where they blow apart logs by discharging a charged capacitor
through the log. This make a sound that literally shakes
the entire building. (You see to like the spectacular, so I believe
that you would enjoy this demonstraion a lot, even if you don't
understand how it works.)
They've been doing the same demo for at lest 40 years, so it isn't
exactly rocket science, and neither is the pop produced by dumping
a charged capacitor through water.
Harry C.
John M. Feiereisen
In <5p391t$3...@news-central.tiac.net>, con...@tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) wrote:
>For a charged capacitor, energy in Joules (Watt-Seconds):
> E = 1/2 CV^2.
> = 0.5 x (2 x 10^-6) x (10 x 10^3)^2
> = 100 Joules.
Temperature rise due to 100 J heating 120 grams of water:
U = m*c*T or T = U/m/c
where: U = Energy (100 J or 0.1 kJ)
m = Mass of water (120 g or 0.12 kg)
c = specific heat of water (~4.18 kJ/kg-C)
T = Temperature rise, deg C
T = 0.1/0.12/4.18 = 0.199
One hundred Joules of energy will raise the temperature of 120 grams
of water by approximately 0.2 degrees C. Hardly noticeable even with
good instrumentation.
Considering that if there's a 'pop' some of the 100 Joules must go
into acoustic and kinetic energy (not to mention the latent heat of
flashing a bit of water into steam), the temperature rise of the water
would be even less.
--
John M. Feiereisen feierejm(at)utrc.utc.com
J Daniel
Waiting to be attacked but none-the-less....
The whole issue of Water Explosion is nothing new it follows the same
premise as the old exploding wire trick...The point being..and material
the is conductive either via electron or ION will give you and
explosion...Some will indeed offer a better display than others...
While you are all discussing it..try some of the mineral magnatite or
even Limestone soaked in salt water if you really want a
display...anyway read some old POP SCI magazines from the turn of the
century and then you will see that nothing is new....
John M. Feiereisen
In <5pb6rp$o...@news-central.tiac.net>, con...@tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) wrote:
>Because the energy discharge is so very brief the instantaneous power
>dissipation at the underwater arc will be intense (likely 100-Kw or
>so) for approximately a milliscond, superheating the adjacient layer
>of water into very high pressure steam that produces the explosion
>effect. (Because of the sharp power transient, very little energy
>is lost to more distant water during this interval.)
As an undergrad I did maintenance at an apartment complex. We had
dozens and dozens of used 9V batteries we had taken out of smoke
detectors. They were too trashed to power the detectors, but they
still produced about 9V.
I liked to take a whole bunch of them and connect them in series to
make a several hundred volt battery. I'd use this to charge up a
bunch of air conditioner starting capacitors I had connected in
parallel. Once my big capacitor was all charged up, I'd slap the
leads together and get a huge spark with a loud CRACK! It was
enough of a jolt to melt the wires where they came together. I never
thought about arcing it under water -- would have been interesting...
John M. Feiereisen
In <5pbgev$e...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com (Bill Ward) wrote:
>feie...@nospam.utrc.utc.com (John M. Feiereisen) wrote:
>>One hundred Joules of energy will raise the temperature of 120 grams
>>of water by approximately 0.2 degrees C. Hardly noticeable even with
>>good instrumentation.
>According to the account posted, the largest water columns were about 5
>mm by 20 mm max or about 2*pi*(.25)^2 = ~.39 ml = ~.39 g of water, not
>120g.
Sorry about that. I was going by the 120 gm figure Michael has posted
numerous times. If the water directly subject to the current is
~0.39 gm, where does this 120 gm of water come in?
Michael Hannon
>
> Go back and re-read the thread. I showed you how to do the calculation.
> As anyone whose studied basic electrical circuits or circuits knows
> (or at least should know) that the energy stored in a capacitor is
> 1/2 CV^2. For a 2 mfd capacitor charged to 10KV, this is 100 Joules.
>
believe. You presumed to use certain figures in the text, perhaps.
Your personal egotism here seems to be endless.
> : The peak current in the Johnson 10kV explosion was 540A, (PEAK, NOT
> : AVERAGE) The average for that 138 盜ec time involved could have been any
> : fraction of that, but let's say it was .707 x 540A (which I personally
> : doubt), or about 382 amps, which would yield about half that 100-joule
> : figure.
>
> Suggest you study some basic physics and cirucits.
Suggest you provide "why" I should in this context, since no exact
figure is given, other than the description of the waveform during the 8
and 10 kV detonation being partly oscillatory, with others having a
classic RC discharge shape, instead of implying insulting inuendo, for
which you are much more infamous.
> : Where do I believe it went?
> :
> : According to EVERY KNOWN SCIENTIFIC WITNESS to the phenomenon, it didn't
> : transfer into any accountable thermal energy dissipated in the exploded
> : water.
>
> [snip]
>
> : It had to be somehow transferred into the energy required to generate a
> : pressure of 27,000 atmospheres, from the original 1 atm, without the
> : dissipation of even 1 calorie of heat in the process.
>
> Sound's like were making progress.
How is that, Harry? Because you now think that I'm beginning to
"understand" things the way you see them?
Progress requires that you take the FACTS as reported, not as you would
have them reported, and you still refuse to acknowledge those reported
facts.
>
> Now, how does the passage of a pulse of electrical current through
> water develop high pressures? Perhaps by superheating water into
> steam very rapidly? After all, isn't this the generally accepted
> mechanism describing how a lightning bolt splits a tree in half
> without even charing the wood adjacient to the split? It's
> an example of Ohms Law in actions.
>
There was NO superheating of the water, Harry. The possibility was
mentioned, but dismissed, because of lack of evidence, and strong
evidence that there was none at all - less than one calorie of heat
dissipation in the 27,000 atm explosion.
How many time do you have to see this in print here before it sinks in?
If you have to, MEMORIZE the report, so you won't forget this passage:
"In two cases with the same stored energy, a 0.5 湩 capacitor charges
to
6 kV and a 2 湩 capacitor charges to 3 kV, the second case resulted in
an arc explosion while the first did not. In both cases, the heat
dissipated in the water was less than one calorie, in a container of
about 120 grams of water. Their conclusion, based on measurement,
calculation, and visual observation, was that the explosion was not
based on thermal effects."
and:
"The calculated pressure in the chamber in the last test in [4] was
27,000 atm. Their comment was 'This explains why the cartridge was
split.'"
> Now think about this just a little. The jolt of electrical
> current through the water is exactly like a miniature lighning
> bolt passing through the water. The main difference, is that
> there is no wood to split.
>
No, you don't have any real idea what the current passing into the water
looked like - you are presuming to know what it was like, and you have
no idea - you weren't there, and have no experience in this phenomenon,
no matter how muchyou may believe you do.
YOU WEREN"T THERE, HARRY.
> If you ever travel to Philadelphia, you can watch a demonstration
> where they blow apart logs by discharging a charged capacitor
> through the log. This make a sound that literally shakes
> the entire building. (You see to like the spectacular, so I believe
> that you would enjoy this demonstraion a lot, even if you don't
> understand how it works.)
>
Simulation of lightning striking a tree. What in the world does that
have to do with this? A tree is made of wood, which is much more
conductive when wet than distilled water, Mr. Conover, and which burns
when struck by lightning.
> They've been doing the same demo for at lest 40 years,
So what?
so it isn't
> exactly rocket science, and neither is the pop produced by dumping
> a charged capacitor through water.
Pure conjecture based on nothing but denial of the facts reported.
>
> Harry C.
>
Once again, you presume to understand what you have NEVER WITNESSED, or
researched, over the reported personal eyewitness accounts and
scientific measurements of qualified people, one of whom is an IEEE
Senior Member, who discussed those experiments at an Intersociety Energy
Conversion Engineering Conference, in San Diego, CA, in 1992.
That, Mr. CONover, is not only verging on hubris,
but is pure presumptive egomaniacal nonsense.
OHannon
Harry H Conover
John M. Feiereisen (feie...@nospam.utrc.utc.com) wrote:
: In <5p391t$3...@news-central.tiac.net>, con...@tiac.net (Harry H
: Conover) wrote:
:
: >For a charged capacitor, energy in Joules (Watt-Seconds):
:
: > E = 1/2 CV^2.
: > = 0.5 x (2 x 10^-6) x (10 x 10^3)^2
: > = 100 Joules.
:
: Temperature rise due to 100 J heating 120 grams of water:
:
: U = m*c*T or T = U/m/c
:
: where: U = Energy (100 J or 0.1 kJ)
: m = Mass of water (120 g or 0.12 kg)
: c = specific heat of water (~4.18 kJ/kg-C)
: T = Temperature rise, deg C
:
: T = 0.1/0.12/4.18 = 0.199
: One hundred Joules of energy will raise the temperature of 120 grams
: of water by approximately 0.2 degrees C. Hardly noticeable even with
: good instrumentation.
: Considering that if there's a 'pop' some of the 100 Joules must go
: into acoustic and kinetic energy (not to mention the latent heat of
: flashing a bit of water into steam), the temperature rise of the water
: would be even less.
Thanks John, precisely.
I suspect that Michael's confusion may be the assume that the entire
container of water much reach the boiling point, whereas in a high-speed
event such as this, it is only the localized region immediately adjacient
to the path of the arc that becomes super-heated by the discharge.
Because the energy discharge is so very brief the instantaneous power
dissipation at the underwater arc will be intense (likely 100-Kw or
so) for approximately a milliscond, superheating the adjacient layer
of water into very high pressure steam that produces the explosion
effect. (Because of the sharp power transient, very little energy
is lost to more distant water during this interval.)
One this transient event is over, e.g., the steady-state solution,
energy not lost to the environment via the shock wave mechanism
is conducted, convected, and otherwise diffused through the
entire body of water, which is sufficiently large that, as you point
out, the temperature rise is barely measurable.
Harry C.
Ian Johnston
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: (Isn't it funny that Mr. Johnston didn't mention that
: P. Neal Graneau is at the very same university he claims
: to teach at, conducting high voltage experiments?)
Why? Lots and lots of people do research on problems in electrical
engineering. None of Graneau's current work would appear to have the
slightest relevance to your deluded ramblings, or support your fantasies
in any way. Just becuase it's "pulsed power" doesn't mean the rules need
rewritten.
Troll.
Ian
Michael Hannon
>
> Go back and re-read the thread. I showed you how to do the calculation.
> As anyone whose studied basic electrical circuits or circuits knows
> (or at least should know) that the energy stored in a capacitor is
> 1/2 CV^2. For a 2 mfd capacitor charged to 10KV, this is 100 Joules.
>
> : fraction of that, but let's say it was .707 x 540A (which I personally
> : doubt), or about 382 amps, which would yield about half that 100-joule
> : figure.
>
> Suggest you study some basic physics and cirucits.
>
> :
> : According to EVERY KNOWN SCIENTIFIC WITNESS to the phenomenon, it didn't
> : transfer into any accountable thermal energy dissipated in the exploded
> : water.
>
> [snip]
>
> : It had to be somehow transferred into the energy required to generate a
> : pressure of 27,000 atmospheres, from the original 1 atm, without the
> : dissipation of even 1 calorie of heat in the process.
>
> Sound's like were making progress.
>
> water develop high pressures? Perhaps by superheating water into
> steam very rapidly? After all, isn't this the generally accepted
> mechanism describing how a lightning bolt splits a tree in half
> without even charing the wood adjacient to the split? It's
> an example of Ohms Law in actions.
>
> current through the water is exactly like a miniature lighning
> bolt passing through the water. The main difference, is that
> there is no wood to split.
>
> where they blow apart logs by discharging a charged capacitor
> through the log. This make a sound that literally shakes
> the entire building. (You see to like the spectacular, so I believe
> that you would enjoy this demonstraion a lot, even if you don't
> understand how it works.)
A very poor analogy, Harry.
Have you ever heard of lightning striking a lake, and causing it to
explode, Harry? That would be a much closer analogy, but I've never
heard of it taking place. I've been in a room where lightning struck.
The arc was approximately an inch in diameter, and went from ceiling to
floor, causing an immense "crack" sound, without passing through any
wood, except for the ceiling board it passed through. The floor was
concrete.
>
> They've been doing the same demo for at lest 40 years, so it isn't
> exactly rocket science, and neither is the pop produced by dumping
> a charged capacitor through water.
>
That same "demo," Harry, has been going on for millions of years -it's
called lightning striking a tree, and has little, if nothing, to do with
the phenomenon in the Johnson experiment; and for you to use it as an
analogy here is indicative of the quality of your mentality regarding
what went on in the research.
OHannon
> Harry C.
>
Michael Hannon
John M. Feiereisen wrote:
>
> In <5pbgev$e...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
> bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com (Bill Ward) wrote:
>
> >feie...@nospam.utrc.utc.com (John M. Feiereisen) wrote:
>
> >>of water by approximately 0.2 degrees C. Hardly noticeable even with
> >>good instrumentation.
>
> >mm by 20 mm max or about 2*pi*(.25)^2 = ~.39 ml = ~.39 g of water, not
> >120g.
>
> Sorry about that. I was going by the 120 gm figure Michael has posted
> numerous times. If the water directly subject to the current is
> ~0.39 gm, where does this 120 gm of water come in?
>
> --
> John M. Feiereisen feierejm(at)utrc.utc.com
Try reading the posted report, Mr. Feiereisen.
In the Graneau experiments, 120g of water were exploded by a 2 湩
capacitor charged to 3kV, producing a pressure of 27,000 atmospheres in
the water cartridge, and causing it to crack, while the total heat
measured that was dissipated in the water was less than 1 calorie, as
the text shows:
"In two cases with the same stored energy, a 0.5 湩 capacitor charges
to 6 kV and a 2 湩 capacitor charges to 3 kV, the second case resulted
in an arc explosion while the first did not. In both cases, the heat
dissipated in the water was less than one calorie, in a container of
about 120 grams of water. Their conclusion, based on measurement,
calculation, and visual observation, was that the explosion was not
based on thermal effects."
AND:
"[4] describes a 8 湩 capacitor charge at voltages up to 30 kV. The
inductance was 876 焙 in [3] and 11.1 焙 in [4]."
"The calculated pressure in the chamber in the last test in [4] was
27,000 atm. Their comment was 'This explains why the cartridge was
split.'"
Read the report if you want the facts as reported, Mr. Feiereisen, not
Mr. CONover's posts.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
Anyone interested in Peter Graneau's credentials might want to check
this URL, and see the collection of books he has authored.
http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/graneau.txt
and that of P. Neal Graneau:
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/~labwpc/Staff/graneau.pn.html
and the pulsed power site, which has a bogus link address there:
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/~ppampb/ppa.html
(Isn't it funny that Mr. Johnston didn't mention that
P. Neal Graneau is at the very same university he claims
to teach at, conducting high voltage experiments?)
OHannon
Harry H Conover
Here is what Michael Hannon says he posted.
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
:
: Try reading the posted report, Mr. Feiereisen.
:
: In the Graneau experiments, 120g of water were exploded by a 2 湩
: capacitor charged to 3kV, producing a pressure of 27,000 atmospheres in
: the water cartridge, and causing it to crack, while the total heat
: measured that was dissipated in the water was less than 1 calorie, as
: the text shows:
:
: "In two cases with the same stored energy, a 0.5 湩 capacitor charges
: to 6 kV and a 2 湩 capacitor charges to 3 kV, the second case resulted
: in an arc explosion while the first did not. In both cases, the heat
: dissipated in the water was less than one calorie, in a container of
: about 120 grams of water. Their conclusion, based on measurement,
: calculation, and visual observation, was that the explosion was not
: based on thermal effects."
:
: AND:
: "[4] describes a 8 湩 capacitor charge at voltages up to 30 kV. The
: inductance was 876 焙 in [3] and 11.1 焙 in [4]."
:
: "The calculated pressure in the chamber in the last test in [4] was
: 27,000 atm. Their comment was 'This explains why the cartridge was
: split.'"
: Read the report if you want the facts as reported, Mr. Feiereisen, not
: Mr. CONover's posts.
:
But here is the summary in Hannon's original post. Note: Key portions
of the message header are included to validate the authenticity of this
post, since Hannon will not doubt again lie and claim it's a misquote
or that he never posted it.
Extracted Hannon post begins --
From: Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
Subject: Re: Water Explosion
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 02:36:01 -0700
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Lines: 163
Message-ID: <33B4DB...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
"RESULTS
Preliminary tests were performed with 1 mF of capacitance and voltages
up to 10 kV, on the shortest and thinnest piece of tubing. At voltages
up to 7 or 8 kV, there would be little or no sound, but the water may
be blown out of the tubing.
At 9 kV there was a small "pop" part of the time. At 10 kV there was a
larger pop, similar to a small firecracker. Tap water may have been
slightly louder than salt water, but certainly not much. Low resistance
arcs were hard to establish, so all the remainder of the tests were
performed with 2 mF of capacitance.
Extracted Hannon Post ends --
Harry C.
Harry H Conover
I don't usually followup on my own posts, but this time it's worth it!
Compare this quote from a earlier Hannon post as well. When compared
with what he says that he posted, I believe you'll observe a
stark contast. I'll let the reader reach his/her own conclusions
as to Hannon's reading ability or truthfulness.
From: Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
Subject: Water Explosion
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 12:09:41 -0700
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Lines: 171
Message-ID: <33B40F...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
The following is a verbatim text* of the work of a real
scientist/engineer, as opposed to the armchair science practiced by
the resident "good 'ol boys" in this NG.
OHannon
[snip for bandwidth]
GRANEAU'S EXPERIMENTS
Peter Graneau, a physics professor at Northeastern University, and his
associates, have performed several experiments with water-plasma
explosions [3,4]. The basic circult for all the experiments is shown in
Fig. 1.
The capacitor C is charged, and then discharged through an inductor
L and a water column with effective resistance R'o. [3] describes a 0.5
mF and a 2mF capacitor charged at voltag' up to 10 kV, while [4]
describes a 8 F capacitor charge at voltages up to 30 kV. The inductance
was 876 mH in [3] and 11.1 mH in [4].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of quote from earlier Hannon post.
I won't even make a comment about a 8 F capacitor charged at voltages
up to 30 KV! ROFL. (I just don't want to be around when they
discharge that baby!)
Harry C.
Michael Hannon
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> I don't usually followup on my own posts, but this time it's worth it!
>
> Compare this quote from a earlier Hannon post as well. When compared
> with what he says that he posted, I believe you'll observe a
> stark contast. I'll let the reader reach his/her own conclusions
> as to Hannon's reading ability or truthfulness.
More bogus nonsense, Mr. CONover.
>
> From: Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
> Subject: Water Explosion
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 12:09:41 -0700
> Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
> Lines: 171
> Message-ID: <33B40F...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
>
> The following is a verbatim text* of the work of a real
> scientist/engineer, as opposed to the armchair science practiced by
> the resident "good 'ol boys" in this NG.
> OHannon
>
> [snip for bandwidth]
Snip for bandwidth? Or snip to exclude the inclusion which preceded the
text below, which stated:
"(anywhere you see mH here it means micro-Henry, and anywhere you see
mF,
it means microFarad - the mailer won't send the Greek micron symbol)"
I posted this because I was having a problem posting the "Á" symbol.
I later learned how to remedy this problem.
>
> GRANEAU'S EXPERIMENTS
>
> Peter Graneau, a physics professor at Northeastern University, and his
> associates, have performed several experiments with water-plasma
> explosions [3,4]. The basic circult for all the experiments is shown in
> Fig. 1.
>
> The capacitor C is charged, and then discharged through an inductor
> L and a water column with effective resistance R'o. [3] describes a 0.5
> mF and a 2mF capacitor charged at voltag' up to 10 kV, while [4]
> describes a 8 F capacitor charge at voltages up to 30 kV. The inductance
> was 876 mH in [3] and 11.1 mH in [4].
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> End of quote from earlier Hannon post.
>
> I won't even make a comment about a 8 F capacitor charged at voltages
> up to 30 KV! ROFL. (I just don't want to be around when they
> discharge that baby!)
>
> Harry C.
Another inaccurate, misleading quote by you, Mr. CONover.
It wasn't an 8F capacitor, but an 8ÁF capacitor.
The original post of this contains a TYPO, probably relating
to the Greek symbol "Á," which I was having a problem posting
at the time. Simple inference of the context surrounding that
typo would clear that up for anyonew who wasn't looking to
purposely find fault with the post, regardless of the truth of its
contents, which is EXACTLY what you have done since it was posted.
(now the "good ol' boys" here, instead of posting the kind of
"contributive, quality discussion" they are whining doesn't exist
here, will probably jump ALL OVER THIS SINGLE TYPO instead - why?-
because they haven't got a single thing better to do here.)
Here is my quote, pasted exactly as I posted it in the post you are
replying to here:
"AND:
: '[4] describes a 8 ÁF capacitor charge at voltages up to 30 kV. The
: inductance was 876 ÁH in [3] and 11.1 ÁH in [4].'"
As well as the inclusion posted with the first section of the Gary
Johnson Report, which is the beginning post of this thread:
Once again, there's nothing you won't stoop to,
is there, Mr. CONover?
Scientific professionalism? You've got to be kidding,
Mr. Feiereisen.
This is low-life, petty mockery at its finest, posted by
someone you say never has not acted in a professional manner?
You've got to be kidding.
OHannon
Michael Hannon
> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 02:36:01 -0700
> Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
> Message-ID: <33B4DB...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
>
Where is the first section of this post, inwhich it is stated that this
is PART of the report previously posted?
You have deleted it. It reads like this
Subject: Re: Water Explosion
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 02:36:01 -0700
From: Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: oha...@worldnet.att.net
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
References: 1 , 2
"> > The following is the final section of the text of
> Gary Johnson's report on his experimental verification
> of powerful electrically induced explosions in water,
> based on previous findings of Peter and P. Neal Graneau."
Why did you delete this section - in order to mislead anyone reading
your post?
Of course you did.
You leave them with the impression that this below is all I posted, when
the ENTIRE REPORT IS POSTED< IN THREE PARTS.
Definitely a "professional" approach to science.
> "RESULTS
>
> Preliminary tests were performed with 1 mF of capacitance and voltages
> up to 10 kV, on the shortest and thinnest piece of tubing. At voltages
> up to 7 or 8 kV, there would be little or no sound, but the water may
> be blown out of the tubing.
> At 9 kV there was a small "pop" part of the time. At 10 kV there was a
> larger pop, similar to a small firecracker. Tap water may have been
> slightly louder than salt water, but certainly not much. Low resistance
> arcs were hard to establish, so all the remainder of the tests were
> performed with 2 mF of capacitance.
>
> Extracted Hannon Post ends --
>
> Harry C.
Pure baloney, Mr. CONover.
You are lying again.
There were two other posts BEFORE THAT ONE
containing ALL of the rest of the Johnson Report,
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF IT.
And the very quoted contents you say weren't
there are in those earlier posts.
THIS IS CALLED FRAUD ON YOUR PART, MR. CONover.
You are fraudulenntly misrepresenting what I posted
by not including the part you say I never posted.
The Johnson Report is posted in three parts,
and is labelled as such in each part,
all of it posted in sequence, on this same thread.
There's nothing you won't stoop to,
is there, Mr CONover?
OHannon
Michael Hannon
This IS sci.energy.hydrogen, where you were drawing such stupid
conclusions, based not on the facts of a report on water explosion by a
Senior Member of IEEE, Gary Johnson, but on your conjecture as to what
happened, despite statements quite to the contrary by the author of the
report WHO WAS THERE, WHEN YOU WEREN"T, isn't it?
And you're asking me what my response to your erroneous conjectures on a
phenomenon have to do with the state of sci.energy.hydrogen?
What do YOU have to do with sci.energy.hydrogen, forming totally
erroneous conjecture-based conclusions about the report on a water
experiment YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT, other than that erroneous conjecture?
What kind of science of hydrogen-based energy do you call that?
OHannon
Michael Hannon
> : P. Neal Graneau is at the very same university he claims
> : to teach at, conducting high voltage experiments?)
>
> engineering. None of Graneau's current work would appear to have the
> slightest relevance to your deluded ramblings, or support your fantasies
> in any way. Just becuase it's "pulsed power" doesn't mean the rules need
> rewritten.
>
> Troll.
>
> Ian
Nice attempt at fabrication and evasion, Mr. Johnston, about one of the
men who conducted the original experiments in water explosion and:
" Their conclusion, based on measurement, calculation, and visual
observation, was that the explosion was not based on thermal effects.
They conclude, rather, that the explosion was due to longitudinal Ampere
forces."
The experiments the Graneaus conducted were with high voltage pulsed
power, provided by a capacitor charged with high voltage and current,
and suddenly switched on, providing a high-voltage, high-current pulse,
which caused the water in the experiments to explode.
Troll? Or only one of a few persons here trying to get the real facts
out, while people like you try to hide, obfuscate, and discredit them.
OHannon
Bill Ward
feie...@nospam.utrc.utc.com (John M. Feiereisen) wrote:
>In <5p391t$3...@news-central.tiac.net>, con...@tiac.net (Harry H
>Conover) wrote:
>>For a charged capacitor, energy in Joules (Watt-Seconds):
>> E = 1/2 CV^2.
>> = 0.5 x (2 x 10^-6) x (10 x 10^3)^2
>> = 100 Joules.
>Temperature rise due to 100 J heating 120 grams of water:
> U = m*c*T or T = U/m/c
>where: U = Energy (100 J or 0.1 kJ)
> m = Mass of water (120 g or 0.12 kg)
> c = specific heat of water (~4.18 kJ/kg-C)
> T = Temperature rise, deg C
> T = 0.1/0.12/4.18 = 0.199
>One hundred Joules of energy will raise the temperature of 120 grams
>of water by approximately 0.2 degrees C. Hardly noticeable even with
>good instrumentation.
According to the account posted, the largest water columns were about 5
mm by 20 mm max or about 2*pi*(.25)^2 = ~.39 ml = ~.39 g of water, not
120g.
<begin quote>
WATER COLUMN
Three different sizes of plastic tubing were obtained, with nominal
inside dimensions of 1/8, 5/32, and 7/32 inches. These were cut in
lengths of 1 and 2 cm. The tube was filled with saturated salt water or
tap water and placed in a horizontal position between the two
electrodes.
<end quote>
Regards,
Bill Ward
James C. Allison
What ever happened to Gene A. Townsend?
I miss his acerbic wit.
--
Hang in there!
Regards and sincere best wishes
AllisonWonderland
---
CHECK OUT THE WEBPAGE AT
http://www.livingston.net/allison/home.htm
Comments welcome.
Harry H Conover
Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Harry H Conover wrote:
: >
: > I don't usually followup on my own posts, but this time it's worth it!
: >
: > Compare this quote from a earlier Hannon post as well. When compared
: > with what he says that he posted, I believe you'll observe a
: > stark contast. I'll let the reader reach his/her own conclusions
: > as to Hannon's reading ability or truthfulness.
:
: More bogus nonsense, Mr. CONover.
Evidently you, Mr. Hannon, are even to stupid to realize that
with the information included in the header, anyone can go back
and trace the authenticity of the quote to you. Even without
the header, those with a decent news server and news reader can
go back to the beginning of this thread and read your original
post.
Once again Hannon, your lies have been caught and documented for
the world to see.
The only thing about you that coninues to puzzle most readers here
is why do you do it? Are you really this disturbed, on simply a
moron?
By the way Hannon, as others have repeatedly asked you without
a reply, who is your employer and what is it that you actually
DO for a living?
Harry C.
John M. Feiereisen
In <5pdiim$e...@news-central.tiac.net>, con...@tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) wrote:
>The only thing about you that coninues to puzzle most readers here
>is why do you do it? Are you really this disturbed, on simply a
>moron?
I'm beginning to wonder how long it'll be before we read about a
one Michael Hannon shooting up a McDonald's.
>By the way Hannon, as others have repeatedly asked you without
>a reply, who is your employer and what is it that you actually
>DO for a living?
Postal worker? :-)
Craig Cotham
Craig Cotham <jcco...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>Craig Cotham <jcco...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>>Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>(part of post snipped)
>>>
>>>(anywhere you see mH here it means micro-Henry, and anywhere you see mF,
>>>it means microFarad - the mailer won't send the Greek micron symbol)
>>>
>>
>>The usual convention is to use a small u for micro (uF, uH) since it
>>resembles the Greek symbol. This also avoids confusion with the milli
>>prefix, which is a lower case m. Whose dumb idea was it to use a Greek
>>letter for micro anyway? Probably the damn French ;)
>>
>>I'm going to try to send a Greek mu (it is mu, isn't it) just to
>>see how it comes out. Here it is: =B5
>>
>>Craig
>>
>I't came through correctly on my newsreader, if it showed up
>as something obscene on anyone elses, my apologies. :)
>
I look up this post on Alta Vista and on Dejanews and the symbol came
through as =B5. It's probably safest to stick with lower case u, to
avoid any confusion. In electronics at least, u is almost universally
used instead of mu. I know the physicists in the group are sticklers
for details, but surely they'll let this slide. ;)
Craig
Harry H Conover
: Conover) wrote:
:
: >By the way Hannon, as others have repeatedly asked you without
: >a reply, who is your employer and what is it that you actually
: >DO for a living?
:
: Postal worker? :-)
Well, he's certainly 'disgruntled' enough to pass for one.
Seriously, I've heard a rumor (only a rumor, mind you) that
Michael Hannon and Earl Curley (the resident 'certified net kook'
of sci.skeptic) are actually the same person.
I myself tend to doubt the truth of this rumor, since Curley posts
from a Canadian domain. Still, neither of them know how edit their
quotes, both are frequently caught in on-line lies, and on challenge,
both attempt to cover-up their mistakes through the posting of lengthy
rants and heated personal attacks. On-line statements and claims
posted by both of these gentlemen approach 100% error (on sci.skeptic,
reader's track and count Curley's lies and errors, but here there is
insufficient interest in Michael's to bother).
Of course Curley is way ahead of Hannon in the 'net kook' category,
plus has a libel suits filed against him in the Canadian
courts (by James Randi). In this respect, Hannon remains a
mere net 'newby' and people tend to grant him slack because
of this. He evidently mistakes the net for a fantasy world where
people just play -- his perception of science appears similar.
It may be a painful lesson when he finally realizes that this is
part of the real world.
When Hannon obtains his full 'net kook' recognition, no doubt
someone will be prompted to keep score!
Harry C.
Bill Ward
Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<major snip>
> Another observation was that of small bubbles forming in the tubing,
>with no arc and no noise. At 6 kV, a 7/32 inch by 1 cm piece of tubing
>would show a very small (less than 1 mm diameter) bubble. At 8 kV, the
>same tubing would show a bubble about 2 mm in diameter.
After reading the above, I went through a quick and dirty analysis to
try to figure out where the bubbles were coming from. I'm posting it
for entertainment and as an example of how conjectures are ruled out.
I wondered if the bubbles were evidence of dissociation of the water by
HV induced dielectric breakdown. A remote possibility, but worth
checking. If more gas was found than could be accounted for by
electrolysis, that would be pretty strong evidence. So I went to the
numbers:
The total charge passing through the system is
8e3 V * 2e-6 uF = 1.6e-3 couloumbs.
1.6e-3 coul /9.65e4 =1.7e-7 Faradays
1.7e-7 Faradays * 1.5 moles per Faraday = 2.6e-7 moles
2.6e-7 moles * 22.4 liters/mole = 5.7e-6 liters
A 2mm bubble has a volume of 1.33 * pi * (0.1)^3 cm = 4.2e-3 cc
4.2e-3 cc = 4.2e-6 liters, with 5.7e-6 liters expected.
So electrolysis appears to be enough to account for 75% of the bubble,
within the expected error in estimating the size of the bubble.
Or I screwed up somewhere. Anyone willing to check my work?
Regards,
Bill Ward
..
John M. Feiereisen
In <33B95E...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
<oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>John M. Feiereisen wrote:
>>
>> In <5pbgev$e...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
>> bward*remove_this*@ix.netcom.com (Bill Ward) wrote:
>> >feie...@nospam.utrc.utc.com (John M. Feiereisen) wrote:
>> >>One hundred Joules of energy will raise the temperature of 120 grams
>> >>of water by approximately 0.2 degrees C. Hardly noticeable even with
>> >>good instrumentation.
>> >According to the account posted, the largest water columns were about 5
>> >mm by 20 mm max or about 2*pi*(.25)^2 = ~.39 ml = ~.39 g of water, not
>> >120g.
>> Sorry about that. I was going by the 120 gm figure Michael has posted
>> numerous times. If the water directly subject to the current is
>> ~0.39 gm, where does this 120 gm of water come in?
>Try reading the posted report, Mr. Feiereisen.
>In the Graneau experiments, 120g of water were exploded by a 2 湩
>capacitor charged to 3kV, producing a pressure of 27,000 atmospheres in
>the water cartridge, and causing it to crack, while the total heat
>measured that was dissipated in the water was less than 1 calorie, as
>the text shows:
>"In two cases with the same stored energy, a 0.5 湩 capacitor charges
>to 6 kV and a 2 湩 capacitor charges to 3 kV, the second case resulted
>in an arc explosion while the first did not. In both cases, the heat
>dissipated in the water was less than one calorie, in a container of
>about 120 grams of water. Their conclusion, based on measurement,
>calculation, and visual observation, was that the explosion was not
>based on thermal effects."
You say less than one calorie is dissipated in 120 gm of water. I've
looked over the paper (all three sections!) and I can't determine how
they arrive at the "less than one calorie". One calorie going into
120 gm of water will raise the temperature of the water by 0.008333
degrees C -- even smaller than the 0.2 degrees C I show above. If
they're quantifying this "less than one calorie" through temperature
measurements of the 120 gm of water, they're using some pretty darn
good instrumentation.
BTW, I don't dispute any of their observations. Their conclusions, on
the other hand... I simply can't understand why they dismiss the
obvious conclusion that they're simply blasting water into steam with
electric arcs. I can make a heck of a CRACK shorting a charged
capacitor in air (rapid expansion of the air due to the arc), why
should it be any different in water (rapid expansion of water due to
the arc)? Maybe you could clarify this for us? Thanks.
H2OPWRD
In article <5pdn02$6...@newshost1.res.utc.com>,
feie...@nospam.utrc.utc.com (John M. Feiereisen) writes:
>Subject: Re: Water Explosion
>From: feie...@nospam.utrc.utc.com (John M. Feiereisen)
>Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 13:58:25 GMT
>
>In <5pdiim$e...@news-central.tiac.net>, con...@tiac.net (Harry H
>Conover) wrote:
>
>>The only thing about you that coninues to puzzle most readers here
>>is why do you do it? Are you really this disturbed, on simply a
>>moron?
>
>I'm beginning to wonder how long it'll be before we read about a
>one Michael Hannon shooting up a McDonald's.
>
>>By the way Hannon, as others have repeatedly asked you without
>>a reply, who is your employer and what is it that you actually
>>DO for a living?
>
>Postal worker? :-)
>
>
>
Very mature attitude ...very mature.
JW
Mpower
> : Conover) wrote:
> :
> : >By the way Hannon, as others have repeatedly asked you without
> : >a reply, who is your employer and what is it that you actually
> : >DO for a living?
> :
> : Postal worker? :-)
>
>
Guys, even postal workers have more balanced personalities
than Hannon.
>
> When Hannon obtains his full 'net kook' recognition, no doubt
> someone will be prompted to keep score!
>
> Harry C.
All he has to do to be certified is put up a web page.
I haven't printed certificates yet, but I do have a portion
of my website devoted to WACKOs like Hannon who host webpages
of their blathering.
cheers.
H2OPWRD
In article <33B9BD...@livingston.net>, "James C. Allison"
<all...@livingston.net> writes:
>What ever happened to Gene A. Townsend?
>
>I miss his acerbic wit.
His debunking checks were bouncing so he quit.
Regards,
JW
Gene Alan Townsend
James C. Allison wrote:
>
> What ever happened to Gene A. Townsend?
>
> I miss his acerbic wit.
>
Thanks for asking. I've become only an occasional lurker in this
newsgroup. I originally wanted to discuss some real hydrogen generation
and storage problems here, but the free energy morons have taken over
this NG.
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend
Hion solar
Does anyone have experience with AB5 metal hydride storage? Interested in
contrasting with AB2 metal hydride like Iron-Titanium-Manganese alloy.
Walt
K. Jones
Michael Hannon wrote:
<A ton of verbage that said nothing. Why use 10 words, when you can
write100
and say the same nothing??, anyways, I snipped it>
> > > > > OHannon
> > > >
> > > > What has this to do with SCI.ENERGY.HYDROGEN?
> > > >
> > > > K. Jones
> > > >
> > > OHannon <-- <-- What has this to do with SCI.ENERGY.HYDROGEN?
>
> This IS sci.energy.hydrogen, where you were drawing such stupid
> conclusions, based not on the facts of a report on water explosion by
> a
> Senior Member of IEEE, Gary Johnson, but on your conjecture as to what
>
> happened, despite statements quite to the contrary by the author of
> the
> report WHO WAS THERE, WHEN YOU WEREN"T, isn't it?
>
Hey, schmuck, yer getting confused again. Kindly show where I havemade
ANY comment about "what happened". You CANT Mikey, cause I
didn't. I couldn't care less about some schmuck getting excited about
boiling
water.
Kindly find out what the hell you are talking about, BEFORE you acuse
people, it
MIGHT make you look like less of an idiot. (Doubt it).
> And you're asking me what my response to your erroneous conjectures on
> a
> phenomenon have to do with the state of sci.energy.hydrogen?
>
I'm asking what does "exploding water" have to do
withSCI.ENERGY.HYDROGEN?? It's not that difficult of a question.
And yet you STILL haven't answered.
> What do YOU have to do with sci.energy.hydrogen, forming totally
> erroneous conjecture-based conclusions about the report on a water
> experiment YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT, other than that erroneous
> conjecture?
>
And what conclusion was that?? (Other than you are an idiot)?? K. Jones
The opinions expressed are my own, and not those of my employer, or
anyone else.
K. Jones
Michael Hannon wrote:
> The electrically induced explosion of water (you know- 2 parts
> hydrogen,
> one part oxygen?), and the massive pressures generated by such an
> explosion, are quite emphatically relevant to sci.energy.hydrogen, and
>
> the addressing of grossly erroneous, abusively presumptive analyses of
>
> the report of a Senior Member of the IEEE, and other previous
> scientists, regarding such explosions, by Mrs. CONover and Mpower,
> along
> with your selectively stupid comment about such addressing, which just
>
> adds to the disgrace you would also apply to the true scientific
> pursuit
> involved in this remarkable report by Gary Johnson, is highly
> appropriate to this NG.
>
> OHannon
WOW! No less than 100 words in a SINGLE sentence!!! And you
wonder why your ramblings are ignored.
Did you say the "explosion" was generated by hydrogen? I didn't see
that claim anywhere in the text.
K. Jones
The opinions expressed are my own, and not those of my employer.
'