Gentlemen -
I'm studying a phenomenon called "water arc explosions" where anomalous heat production has been claimed for a long time, yet there appears to be little ongoing / careful-quantitative research at this time.
I'm interested in learning more - and invite your participation. I'll be glad to share what I learn.
1. Past history is summarized in a 2013 paper by a high-school student (Animas HS, in Durango, Colorado):
QuoteSection III: Summary of Past Research
Water arc explosions were first described in 1907 by John Trowbridge of Harvard University, though the phenomenon was not studied in detail until it caught the interest of Peter and Neal Graneau in the mid-1980s (Graneau and Graneau, 1985). By discharging a high-voltage capacitor through around 100 mL of water, the Graneau team was able to expel the water from a dielectric cup. At the time, the Graneaus conjectured that the arc discharge generated high- pressure steam within the water which expanded rapidly and resulted in the observed explosions. Measurements in Graneau and Graneau (1985) and Hathaway and Graneau (1996) indicated that water arc explosions were unusually strong.
--http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Electrolysis_Water_Arc_and_Dielectric_Breakdown/Leavitt%20-%20Do%20water%20arc%20explosions%20release%20internal%20water%20energy%20-%202013.pdf
Can anyone help find the 1907 paper by Trowbridge -- or the 1985 papers by Graneau and Graneau?2. Note that these experiments involve electrical currents in ordinary H2O - and pre-date the "cold fusion in heavy water" claims by Pons and Fleishchmann, for whom H2O was the CONTROL experiment. Thus, this H2O-arc approach should NOT be confused or conflated with claims by Pons and Fleischmann.
3. Others are doing experiments in recent years with arc electrolysis in water and point to anomalous heat also, including Woopy a few years ago. (Typical experiments use W cathodes at high-temps in the water.) I would be intrigued to learn of any CAREFUL measurements of input and output energy (or power) in recent experiments. Woopy made a valiant attempt, but seems to have abandoned this line of research for some reason. (Correct?)
4. I did some experiments along these lines a few years ago - never felt comfortable calling this "cold fusion" or "LENR" - and now it is clear that the history goes WAY back before 1989 when "cold fusion" was announced.
5. I'd like to get a fresh start on these experiments, going back to the original papers of 1907 and 1985 for starters - then examining what variants are out there, and which looks most promising -- including, which approach is most amenable to careful Eout/Ein measurements.
Any comments would be appreciated - is anyone else interested?
From the student's paper:
Graneau, P., & Graneau, N. (1985). Electrodynamic explosions in liquids. Applied Physics Letters, 46(5), 468.
Graneau, P., Graneau, N., Hathaway, G., & Hull, R. (2000). Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy. Journal of Plasma Physics, 63, 115-128.
It would be great to acquire these papers.
I'm also very interested in water-arc experiments using tungsten electrodes (I've started experiments along those lines) - where the W cathode gets VERY hot in the water+electrolyte.
I'm wondering whether this discovery is what led to the
development of the Electro-Hydraulic Shock Wave Generator
which is the heart of the Lithotripter?
Interesting article with thought provoking links:
The Mysteries of Fog (http://watercalendar.com/2013/august/)
Greneau's work has some problems ,the claims were investigated quite extensively and found lacking.
I will see if I can find that Data and reference it here.
I must add ,I think investigating water is a good path.
respectfully
Chet k
There is a lot of misinformation and outright lying about the work of Peter Graneau and his son Neal Graneau on the internet.
For example, the 2000 paper in J. Plasma Physics was _retracted_ by George Hathaway, in whose laboratory by far most of the Graneau experimentation was performed.
Quoting Hathaway:
QuoteI published a rebuttal of the Graneau excess-energy claims a letter to
> the editor of Infinite Energy Magazine V12 #71 2007 (pg 4). In it, I claim
> that the conclusions which I published together with the Graneaus in Jnl.
> of Plasma Physics were not logically able to be derived from the
> experiments we performed together. In other words, while there may be some
> gain mechanism in water subject to electric arc discharges, it has not been
> proven by experiment.
This retraction is difficult to find, whereas the mythos surrounding Graneau is everywhere.
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77959.html
The morals of this story: Do not proceed to engineering before the basic scientific issues have been sorted out. Do not engage in circular argumentation. Do not let your own assumptions blind you to data from good experimentation. Do not cherry-pick data in an attempt to confirm your assumptions. Do not perform confirmatory "demonstrations" in lieu of real experiments that have the ability to assign causality, with proper controls.
And furthermore: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
.
Thank you, muDped, Chet and TK for comments on Graneau.
Again, my primary interest here is on:
1 - the HISTORY of H2O electrolysis and xs heat claims;
and
2 - in finding the best experimental approaches involving H2O electrolysis.
Carrying on: 1 --The history includes work by Trowbridge in 1907 as noted before; also Frungel in 1948 and 1965 papers; and Gilchrist and Crossland in 1967. About the same time as Graneau's publications, we also find a publication by Azevedo of MIT - 1986.
I should add that Davey in Australia also did work in light water electrolysis in the 1940's and thereafter ("Davey bells") - claiming xs heat production, but evidently without careful measurements.
2 - There are many experiments now claiming xs heat in H2O experiments: Woopy (Laurent, although he appears to have abandoned this line of research), Mike - I like his work; Brad's work is also promising; Ron and Slider (Mark) and perhaps Luc are doing work in this arena also. I'm aware of considerable effort in Japan involving H2O and H2-gas-loading (as I've reported elsewhere).
The question now is - which line of H2O-based anomalous heat research is most promising? -- in terms of:
1 - amount of anomalous heat production
and
2 - careful Eout/Ein measurements
and
3 - simplicity of design and ease of replication.
And then -
4 - who will be the first to produce a REPLICABLE and PUBLISHABLE experiment showing xs heat production using H2O or H2? And will they give credit to earlier H2O/heat research, as explained in point 1 above? (or does this matter? I think it does. I've noticed a tendency, perhaps for political reasons, to give credit where it is NOT due, while withholding credit from early pioneering researchers.)
Hi Steve and all
Still a bit busy with the industrial SMD, but getting near the end, scaling up always creates a few problems in whatever it may be.
I like your interest in excess heat, though it was not really my goal. Creating fog!!!! hmmm well I used to use fog as a base for breaking down the water, that was how I came across it by accident one day back in the 80's.
Now to get things right:- UK English or USA English ;D
Fog or Smog in England is water vapour with particulates in the water, always.
Mist in England "maybe" just water vapour, unless you live by the sea, in which case it contains salt, as in sea mist.
You see there can be a marked difference in what you maybe describing. I could go on and on but would fill pages, I think I can explain why some people get excess heat and others not. If you want to talk on skype about this let me know, I can talk a lot quicker than typing :)
My time is GMT+1, most days I am available, but let me know beforehand O0
Regards
Mike 8)
May be of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aGIcIgtrLk
:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KGvwn_T8Ww
(warning: flickering lights, don't watch if you have a seizure disorder or are sensitive to flashing lights)
You see, I expected that the arc would pass through the water droplets and perhaps "explode" them Graneau-style but without requiring the arc chamber. But to my surprise, the water drops triggered the arc all right but actually went _around_ the drops on their surfaces. This can be clearly seen in the first video above (the slideshow) in the photos through the red filter. In order to get the photos I had to stop the camera lens all the way down and use multiple layers of the red gel to reduce the light even more. There are several good shots there where you can clearly (more or less) see the arc channel going around the drops rather than through them. There was only minimal disruption of the water drop and only a little splashing. The yellowing of the water in the reservoir is due to formation of oxides of nitrogen and nitric acid.
One must wonder whether using a water solution of
a salt to make the water conductive would have made
a difference?
That your experiment produced enough NO and NO2
to discolor the water is very interesting. You may have
discovered a more efficient way to produce Nitric Acid electrically
than the usual air discharge method with the discharge
products bubbled through water.
If I ever get my lab back I'll have to give it a try. 8)
These are very cool experiments indeed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aGIcIgtrLk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KGvwn_T8Ww
thanks for posting them
Yes they are cool experiments, what else do you expect from the laboratory of the TinselKoala!
The way the electrical energy hugs the boundary plane of the water droplet is very interesting. We often forget that there are two fluids in this experiment, not just the liquid water. The water droplet is dropping through air between the electrodes due to the greater density of the liquid in an inert gas medium under the influence of the Earth's gravitational field.
Years ago I suggested a kind of opposite experiment with an hho bubble ascending through a liquid water medium between two electrodes, this grew out of observations of hhop gen 1 and 2 behaviour. Later on I theoretically proposed fuel air bubbles being ignited in an entrained water flow through a de Laval nozzle. I never performed the experiments to prove this theory as I was busy with hhop gen 3 and 4, the true focus of my work. It will be interesting to see if hho bubbles can be combusted this way and if my crude estimations of the dielectrical breakdown energy across the bubble boundary plane were accurate.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.04.04, 23:26:44
You see, I expected that the arc would pass through the water droplets and perhaps "explode" them Graneau-style but without requiring the arc chamber. But to my surprise, the water drops triggered the arc all right but actually went _around_ the drops on their surfaces. This can be clearly seen in the first video above (the slideshow) in the photos through the red filter. In order to get the photos I had to stop the camera lens all the way down and use multiple layers of the red gel to reduce the light even more. There are several good shots there where you can clearly (more or less) see the arc channel going around the drops rather than through them. There was only minimal disruption of the water drop and only a little splashing. The yellowing of the water in the reservoir is due to formation of oxides of nitrogen and nitric acid.
Very interesting and well done videos TK. The droplets are quite big in relation to a fog, and I expect the outer "shell" of the droplet is more conductive than the direct path through the water.
To explode the water droplet, I came to the conclusion that the water has to have a multi nano capacitive/ diode formation, like lots of capacitors in series and parallel. With this formation the "capacitors" break down, the dielectric being water, and the power has to be at a resonably high frequency, at least in the khz.
To make the thing really work well you use dual frequencies, ie VHF and UHF. This all goes back to my younger days as a radio HAM and working satellites in space around the world, I also worked the space shuttle from time to time, those were the days.
There is a lot more to all this as you can imagine, but I'm afraid it is no longer for open explanation.
This is me in those days, now 66yrs old and retired
Regards
Mike 8)
Dear All.
Great videos !! O0
I wonder how the " Fog " from, the now ubiquitous " Micro foggers " would react ?
Cheers Graham.
Hmmm.... good question. I wonder if it would allow sparking at all or simply short out the electrodes and prevent the cap bank from charging. Might make an even more efficient nitric acid generator though!
Of course one could use a triggered air gap in series with the sparking electrodes so that voltage is only applied to the sparking electrodes when the TAG is triggered externally. Interesting idea. At present I no longer have the physical space to be able to perform such experiments. I'm jam-packed with junk up to my ears. Barely room for a dog to lie down at my feet.
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.04.05, 18:13:10
I wonder how the " Fog " from, the now ubiquitous " Micro foggers " would react ?
Isn't Randal Mills now using
fog and electric current through two molten streams of silver, to produce his Brilliant Light ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUBheBH9eio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUBheBH9eio)
Note, that at 4:30s the electric current is turned off and only fog + silver remains.
Verpies
this is like a science fiction movie ,self sustaining after the power goes off ?
SunCell®, the world's new energy source that releases massive power by conversion of hydrogen to dark matter
has this company gone thru name changes ?
absolutely Jaw dropping video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUBheBH9eio
The electricity producing SunCell® uses a catalyst to cause hydrogen atoms of water molecules to transition to the lower-energy Hydrino® states by allowing their electrons to fall to smaller radii around the nucleus. This results in a release of energy that is intermediate between chemical and nuclear energies and a nonpolluting product. The energy release of the hydrogen separated from H2O, that can be acquired even from the humidity in the air, is over one hundred times that of an equivalent amount of high-octane gasoline. The highest known power density with direct electricity conversion facilitates essentially all power applications untethered to fuels or grid infrastructure. The electrical generation cost is anticipated to be less than 10% that of any known power source.
thanks for posting it
i
The SunCell video is intriguing - but very few words/commentary. H2O/HHO.
At the 11:00 mark, the bright glow continues with "Ignition Off" - but for how long? And is there any measure of TOTAL Eout and Ein? Any write-up/commentary?
There is some commentary in these videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtA4FdRrCkY
https://vimeo.com/194678559
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2017.04.08, 11:12:59
The SunCell video is intriguing - but very few words/commentary. H2O/HHO.
At the 11:00 mark, the bright glow continues with "Ignition Off" - but for how long? And is there any measure of TOTAL Eout and Ein? Any write-up/commentary?
In this video(below),he states at 57 sec,that peak power is 5 000 000 watts,and 1 300 000 watts average power.
He also go's on to state that the P/in is equivalent to two hair dryers :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjDSFzlXq4Q
One of the tests i carried out with my !star in a jar! experimenting,was to place a solar panel next to the jar,and see how much power i could draw from the light-through the solar panel.
Turms out that i could not get any energy from the solar panel at all,using the light produced from the water arc-even though it lit up the whole workshop very well. ???
I could see orange,red, and white light,but the solar panel picked up nothing.
Brad
Wow! this is really interesting..
Brad, I especially resonated to your remark:
"
In this video(below),he states at 57 sec,that peak power is 5 000 000 watts,and 1 300 000 watts average power.
He also go's on to state that the P/in is equivalent to two hair dryers :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjDSFzlXq4Q
One of the tests i carried out with my !star in a jar! experimenting,"
This is encouraging!! "One of the tests i carried out with my !star in a jar! experimenting,"
SO - are you replicating the Mills device, perhaps on a smaller scale? Verpies?
Smaller scale and readily-replicable seems like a wise plan...
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.04.08, 23:59:40
In this video(below),he states at 57 sec,that peak power is 5 000 000 watts,and 1 300 000 watts average power.
He also go's on to state that the P/in is equivalent to two hair dryers :o
He throws around a lot of numbers. Most of them come from the
Stefan-Boltzmann law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law), which states that a perfect blackbody surface of 1 square meter area, emits this many Watts:
1m
2 at 100ºC emits 1.1kW of light (the temperature of boiling water)
1m
2 at 2227ºC emits 2.2MW of light (the temperature of the filament in a common incandescent light bulb)
1m
2 at 3000ºC emits 6.5MW of light (the temperature of the filament in a halogen incandescent light bulb)
1m
2 at 3422ºC emits 10.6MW of light (the melting temperature of Tungsten)
1m
2 at 3642ºC emits 13.3MW of light (the sublimation temperature of Graphite)
1m
2 at 3880ºC emits 16.9MW of light (the melting temperature of Tantalum Carbide)
1m
2 at 4727ºC emits 35.4MW of light (5000ºK)
1m
2 at 5327ºC emits 55.8MW of light (The surface of the Sun at 5600ºK)
1m
2 at 5930ºC emits 84.0MW of light (the boiling temperature of Tungsten)
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.04.08, 23:59:40
One of the tests i carried out with my !star in a jar! experimenting,was to place a solar panel next to the jar,and see how much power i could draw from the light-through the solar panel.
Turms out that i could not get any energy from the solar panel at all,using the light produced from the water arc-even though it lit up the whole workshop very well. ???
That is because solar cells cannot convert that frequency of light to electricity.
More than 99% of the light coming out of Mill's SunCell is in the invisible hard UV range (10nm - 250nm) that the photovoltaic cells are insensitive to. (IOW such light messes up PV cells).
That's why Mill's surrounds his Hydrino reaction with a graphite sphere that is supposed to absorb the UV light and heat up to 3200ºC, which makes it glow with
blackbody radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation) on the outside of that sphere.
Blackbody radiation at 3200ºC consists of much lower light frequencies, to which photovoltaic cells are sensitive to. These PV cells must be the expensive 3-layer kind to achieve ~40% light-to-electricity conversion efficiency.
This UV --> GlowingBlackbody --> PV --> Electricity conversion, is the Achille's heal of his device, especially that graphite burns up in oxygen at these temperatures, unless it is surrounded by Argon, etc...
Verpies
would be nice to read your musings on this [a possible experiment]
??
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2017.04.09, 00:53:19
Wow! this is really interesting..
Brad, I especially resonated to your remark:
"
In this video(below),he states at 57 sec,that peak power is 5 000 000 watts,and 1 300 000 watts average power.
He also go's on to state that the P/in is equivalent to two hair dryers :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjDSFzlXq4Q
One of the tests i carried out with my !star in a jar! experimenting,"
This is encouraging!! "One of the tests i carried out with my !star in a jar! experimenting,"
SO - are you replicating the Mills device, perhaps on a smaller scale? Verpies?
Smaller scale and readily-replicable seems like a wise plan...
No,this was in reference to my two electrodes in a jar of water test's i carried out a few years ago.
I believe it was all the hype back then,and it was called !cold fusion!-although i believe that to be incorrect.
The video below shows the test.
I had a 100 ohm resistor across the solar cell,and got very little out of it,regardless of the light being in the visible range,and very bright.
With 2.1 ltr's of water,we raised the temperature from 33*C to 75*C,using 100 watt hour's of power-so a rise of 42*C.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJQ1RAznwgw
Brad
Picking nits here... but the Watt-hour is a measure of energy, not power, and 100 watt-hours is the same as 360,000 Joules (100 watt-hours x 60 minutes/hour x 60 seconds/minute = 360,000 watt-seconds or Joules.)
And you have raised 2.1 liters of water by 42 degrees C, so that should have required
4.18 Joules per Degree Per milliliter (or gram), or 2100 ml x 4.18 J x 42 C = 368,676 Joules -- an apparent OU result.
But not by much, COP=1.024 . Small errors in the initial temperature or volume measurements or in the input power or time would cancel out the slight OU figure.
Still, it's a nice result. O0
(please check my math, somebody!)
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.04.09, 03:48:49
Picking nits here... but the Watt-hour is a measure of energy, not power, and 100 watt-hours is the same as 360,000 Joules (100 watt-hours x 60 minutes/hour x 60 seconds/minute = 360,000 watt-seconds or Joules.)
And you have raised 2.1 liters of water by 42 degrees C, so that should have required
4.18 Joules per Degree Per milliliter (or gram), or 2100 ml x 4.18 J x 42 C = 368,676 Joules -- an apparent OU result.
But not by much, COP=1.024 . Small errors in the initial temperature or volume measurements or in the input power or time would cancel out the slight OU figure.
Still, it's a nice result. O0
(please check my math, somebody!)
There are 3 other things that must be taken into account here TK.
1- the glass jar was also heated to the same temperature as the water,and so,the heating of that volume of glass must also be taken into consideration.
2-The glass jar was in no way insulated,and so,some of the heat energy would have been dissipated into the surrounding environment.
3- As the watt meter was before the FWBR,any energy dissipated by the FWBR would also have to be taken into consideration.
Against-
The watt meter was showing a power factor of .63-->what dose this mean for the calculated !energy! used?.
With a power factor of .63,would the watt meter have shown a larger or smaller amount of energy used?-or dose it calculate for the indicated power factor ?.
We have two things heating the water in this setup-as far as i can tell-and that is
1-resistive heating
2-the HHO produced during the process is also ignited,and the heat produced also heats the water.
A much more controlled experiment would have to be done,to gain any sort of accurate measurements with this one.
Brad
All true and it's good of you to remind me. I thought of something else on the OU side too: there is likely some water boiling to steam in the arc channel as well, and the enthalpy of vaporization represents another big "bill" that is paid by the input power, if that steam escapes. If the steam re-condenses inside the water though, perhaps that balances it out.
Quote from: Chet K on 2017.04.09, 01:38:32
would be nice to read your musings on this [a possible experiment]
Silver melted with gas flame in a metal container (or with one of these portable inductive cooking plates). The liquid gravity fed
* to a reaction chamber where the two streams of the molten silver meet. Add some hydrogen + lithium or potassium.
Current from a MIG welder applied to the silver streams. See how much the reaction chamber heats up.
If molten silvers scares you then the experiment shown in
this video (https://vimeo.com/194678559) at time index 22:00 looks simpler.
Now, to be a
devil's advocate:
I have never seen a convincing proof from BLP of the energy magnitude of that bright light. How do we know that the bright light is not just an underunity silver welding arc ?
They have never shown that graphite sphere absorb that bright light and heat up to incandescence (although that's excusable because heated graphite burns up in air. That's why they plan to surround it all with pressurized Argon).
Thermolysed H
2O or HO or HHO as a catalyst in a graphite sphere is implausible because oxygen + graphite burn up when heated.
* Gravity feed does not facilitate silver recirculation. For that the MHD Lorentz pump is a good solution. That pump requires DC current passing through the molten silver in a tube, orthogonal to magnetic flux from two NdFeB magnets.
Good points, all.
Brad in particular wrote:
"it was called !cold fusion!-although i believe that to be incorrect." TOTALLY AGREE.Now, re: measuring the input power or energy:
Brad:
Quote3- As the watt meter was before the FWBR,any energy dissipated by the FWBR would also have to be taken into consideration.
Against-
The watt meter was showing a power factor of .63-->what dose this mean for the calculated !energy! used?.
With a power factor of .63,would the watt meter have shown a larger or smaller amount of energy used?-or dose it calculate for the indicated power factor ?.
A much more controlled experiment would have to be done,to gain any sort of accurate measurements with this one.
Brad
Why not measure the DC voltage and current AFTER the FWBR? I realize there are fluctuations, but using an analog meter should give a decent mean value for the current, and the voltage here should be fairly constant. Then, to a first approximation, the input power is simply
Pin = V * I after the FWBR.
QUESTION: Is there a better way to measure the Input Power (after the FWBR, in such an interesting experiment as Brad's)?
Hi Steve.
I recently bought a DC watt meter, seems to work reasonably well but it only has a maximum of 60 V at 100 A capability.
With some fiddling Brad could do a bit of " power factor correction " by adding a capacitor across the input, alternatively a bit of mathematics could ascertain the actual input power. We were taught how to draw " Vector diagrams " but it's so long ago now that knowledge has been " overwritten " ! :)
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.04.09, 11:05:02
Hi Steve.
I recently bought a DC watt meter, seems to work reasonably well but it only has a maximum of 60 V at 100 A capability.
With some fiddling Brad could do a bit of " power factor correction " by adding a capacitor across the input, alternatively a bit of mathematics could ascertain the actual input power. We were taught how to draw " Vector diagrams " but it's so long ago now that knowledge has been " overwritten " ! :)
Cheers Graham.
Adding a cap across the input-i dont think will work,as the resistance of the load(cell) changes,as the water heats up--and by a large margin.
EG-at the start of the test(water cold),we are drawing around 1600 watts !according to the watt meter!,and then as the water nears the 75*C mark,we are only drawing around half that-800 watts,and as we near 100*C,it drops down to around 300 watts.
This is not an inductive load-(or not one we know of),but a resistive load,where the arc is playing hell on the resistive value's of that load.
Then there is the explosions and recombination of the HHO back to water--who knows what kind of havoc that is playing on the watt meter.
Placing a large value cap on the output of the FWBR,may make things a little better.
Can anyone explain what the power factor value dose in the way of power being used?
Will the watt meter account for the power factor value,and calculate the energy being used(watt hours)using the shown power factor?,as the power factor seemed to be quite stable at .63 throughout the test.
Brad
Hi Brad.
It's now over 40 years ago since technical college, but I'm pretty sure, being a resistive variable load won't stop a PF correction capacitor from doing its thing. Perhaps one of our erudite members will connect a capacitor and correct me!
Cheers Graham.
PS. Brad, didn't you use a duff Platinum heater plug for your tests?
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.04.09, 12:52:40
Hi Brad.
It's now over 40 years ago since technical college, but I'm pretty sure, being a resistive variable load won't stop a PF correction capacitor from doing its thing. Perhaps one of our erudite members will connect a capacitor and correct me!
Cheers Graham.
PS. Brad, didn't you use a duff Platinum heater plug for your tests?
The anode was S/S,and the cathode was an iridium element from a glow plug.
Brad
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.04.09, 12:52:40
It's now over 40 years ago since technical college, but I'm pretty sure, being a resistive variable load won't stop a PF correction capacitor from doing its thing.
Perhaps one of our erudite members will connect a capacitor and correct me!
If the cap is
after the FWBR and power is measured after the cap then the PF will tend to unity as the capacitance increases.
The PF measured
before the FWBR, it will get worse (away from unity), because the current will flow into the FWBR-->cap only at the peaks of the AC sine wave.
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.04.09, 13:04:15
The anode was S/S,and the cathode was an iridium element from a glow plug.
Brad
Thanks Brad, I was obviously thinking about thermocouples!
Quote from: verpies on 2017.04.09, 13:19:28
If the cap is after the FWBR and power is measured after the cap then the PF will tend to unity as the capacitance increases.
The PF measured before the FWBR, it will get worse (away from unity), because the current will flow into the FWBR-->cap only at the peaks of the AC sine wave.
Hi Verpies.
I'm unsure but I think Brad was using a wattmeter on the primary of the transformer. If he was using a Microwave oven transformer they are known to be " mighty " rotten on power factor.
I have looked at many of my " decent " transformers they have a remarkably good PF , usually in the 0.9 Lag area.
I'm annoyed really, I seem to have forgotten most of my training, now having to rely on others for help. But around a 5 microfarad capacitor on the input would bring the transformer to near unity.
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.04.09, 14:22:37
Hi Verpies.
I'm unsure but I think Brad was using a wattmeter on the primary of the transformer. If he was using a Microwave oven transformer they are known to be " mighty " rotten on power factor.
I have looked at many of my " decent " transformers they have a remarkably good PF , usually in the 0.9 Lag area.
I'm annoyed really, I seem to have forgotten most of my training, now having to rely on others for help. But around a 5 microfarad capacitor on the input would bring the transformer to near unity.
Cheers Graham.
Transformer ???
There was no transformer.
The 240 volt AC mains went straight into the FWBR--no transformer.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.04.10, 08:12:23
Transformer ???
There was no transformer.
The 240 volt AC mains went straight into the FWBR--no transformer.
Brad
Well, whadayno!! :)
So what's causing that rubbish power factor? Is your wattmeter capable of discerning both, leading and lagging?
Cheers Graham.
It's wrong to even consider a power factor with non-sinusoidal current.
For that an I vs. V scopeshot is needed.
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.04.10, 09:56:17
Well, whadayno!! :)
So what's causing that rubbish power factor? Is your wattmeter capable of discerning both, leading and lagging?
Cheers Graham.
Well,it's going to be a !yuck! situation for the watt meter-i would think.
Lots of explosions and current pulses going on in that jar.
@ verpies
Cant use my scope,as it just trips out the RCD--common ground issues
Cant use my DMMs either,as they just go mental trying to get some form of steady reading--it's like watching an epileptic staring into a strobe light. :D
Brad
I know. If you have a 1:1 isolation transformer then use it. It will allow the scope to be used safely.
Using a scope then taking V(t) * I(t) = P(t) would work, then integrate the power vs time to get Energy (over a certain time interval).
HOWEVER - I think there must be a way to measure the voltage and current AFTER the FWBR without using a scope... even if the resistance is variable.
Graham wrote: "I recently bought a DC watt meter, seems to work reasonably well but it only has a maximum of 60 V at 100 A capability."
Would that work in this case - if the max voltage coming out of the FWBR was say, 55V? and not flat-DC...
Or is there a "DC watt meter" than can handle higher voltages (and currents if needed) -- that would work with the output of a FWBR?
I think 120V max would be sufficient; and 55V might work for arc electrolysis also.
Another approach, is to take the DC from a set of batteries. Another - use a super cap for the input power, then calculate the energy used straightforwardly (E = 1/2 C (Vend^2 - Vinitial^2)
Quote from: verpies on 2017.04.10, 14:39:12
I know. If you have a 1:1 isolation transformer then use it. It will allow the scope to be used safely.
Hi Verpies.
Your post reflected my musing whilst driving back from the supermarket.
Brad could also, if available, use a couple of transformers step down and back up to get isolation.
How would the wattmeter be affected looking at the input in this scenario?
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.04.10, 15:06:28
How would the wattmeter be affected looking at the input in this scenario?
If the transformer/s is/are tightly coupled then not at all.
So to measure the input energy going into some type of H2O-arc device, one could use:
1 - output from a FWBR (fed by the grid) going into the device - measure V using a true-RMS meter and I using an analog meter. A good estimate of the Power-in is thus: Pin = V * I.
2. A super-cap and simply measure the initial and final voltage, then
Ein = 1/2 C (Vinit^2 - Vfinal^2)
Eout -- I would measure using calorimetry. (Sure there will be losses, which can be minimized - but if Eout / Ein is sufficiently large, then a few losses won't really matter.)
Any comments on these methods - especially comments on better methods - would be appreciated.
A quick sketch of the HHO bubble switch idea.
Bubble size must be controlled but that is not hard to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakdown_voltage
I was musing on the hho bubble ignition idea and wondered if it was necessary to complete the circuit ? Because of the large dielectric breakdown differential between the liquid water and the hho gas I pondered that the gas bubble itself must be raised to the electrostatic energy level needed to breakdown the thin liquid water of the boundary layer liquid coating on the electrodes. Would this create hotspots within the bubble and cause a combustion event without the necessity of closing the circuit, and creating a spark path, by breaking down both electrodes water layers ? Any thoughts on this gentlemen ??
Dielectric Breakdown and its Influence on Ignition
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA264925
Abstract : Electrical conduction, dielectric breakdown and the consequent ignition of small pellets, 0.2 to 5 mm in thickness and 5 to 7 mm in diameter, of MTV compositions SR886B, SR886E and SR886E have been investigated. The investigations were made using d.c fields and high-speed photography at framing rates of up to one million frames per second was employed to follow the breakdown and ignition behaviour. It was found that under suitable conditions, the dielectric breakdown of the samples led to their ignition and the delay time between the breakdown and ignition could be as small as 20 - 25 microseconds. Furthermore, a special circuit was designed and constructed for determining the minimum ignition energies of samples of different thicknesses. It was found that for samples of thickness of approx. 0.2 mm the minimum electrostatic energy which could cause ignition was as low as approx. 1 mJ. Moreover, the minimum ignition energy was found to increase with the sample thickness. A model, based on our previous model for the electrical ignition of silver azide, has been proposed. According to this, the dielectric breakdown leads to the formation of high conductivity filaments in which Joule heating-results in the formation of high temperature hot spots. Ignition initiates at these hot spots. An essential feature of this model is that the dielectric breakdown is a prerequisite for electrical ignition.
Further musings:
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.338806
Abstract
The fast propagation (v≊106 ms−1) of an ionized and thermalized channel (ne≊1018 cm−3, T≊2.8×104 K) is studied in ambient air at atmospheric pressure, using gliding discharges produced over a charged dielectric slab. For surface voltages of about 100 kV, 1‐m‐long gliding sparks follow a straight line without any preionization of the gas. In this way, the discharges can be investigated with full diagnostics, including measurements of the current and of the propagation velocity, recording of the light emission (electronic image converter, spectroscopy, Lichtenberg figures), holographic interferometry of the spark channels, and detection of transient electric fields by capacitive probes. The various measurements are synchronized from optical fiber devices located close to the sparks. The study shows that the thermalized spark channel is produced by the three following stages: (a) a predischarge stage where the electron temperature Te≊2 eV is much greater than the gas temperature T0<1500 K; (b) a transient arc stage, lasting about 10 ns where energy is transferred from the electric field to the gas ionization; and (c) a heating stage, lasting from 25 to 60 ns, where the electric field has been largely reduced.
The hho bubble would be at atmospheric pressure but is not ambient air, its oxygen and hydrogen and so will combust the final end product being water, pressure pulse, and a release of heat (with a volume reduction after event concludes).
As Mike commented about TK's video the spark appeared to follow the path of least resistance around the water droplet boundary layer. Would it do the same thing on the inside of the hho bubble ? The shortest distance is straight across between the two electrodes, so it will be interesting to find out what the actual behaviour is.
If the high voltage breaks through the first electrodes liquid water layer, would it then raise the electrostatic field strength of the gas hho bubble to a value that is high enough to break the second electrodes liquid water layer in order to complete the circuit and create an ionising spark path ?
If the high voltage must be raised to a value that is equal to the dielectric breakdown of the two liquid surface boundary layers on the electrode + the hho gas gap straight line distance how does the second electrode know that the value has been reached at the first electrode ?
Would the information travel around the hho gas bubble and liquid water interface (bubble surface) while the spark propogation is straight line shortest distance between the two electrodes ?
This experiment raises a lot of questions! Please feel free to chip in if anyone has any ideas on what would happen. Once the data has been gathered and the experiment observed in super slo mo the opportunity for musing in advance of evidence is gone.. and that can be where a lot of the fun is.
O0
Dielectric strength
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_strength
In physics, the term dielectric strength has the following meanings:
Of an insulating material, the maximum electric field that a pure material can withstand under ideal conditions without breaking down (i.e., without experiencing failure of its insulating properties).
For a specific configuration of dielectric material and electrodes, the minimum applied electric field (i.e., the applied voltage divided by electrode separation distance) that results in breakdown.
The theoretical dielectric strength of a material is an intrinsic property of the bulk material and is independent of the configuration of the material or the electrodes with which the field is applied. This "intrinsic dielectric strength" corresponds to what would be measured using pure materials under ideal laboratory conditions. At breakdown, the electric field frees bound electrons. If the applied electric field is sufficiently high, free electrons from background radiation may become accelerated to velocities that can liberate additional electrons during collisions with neutral atoms or molecules in a process called avalanche breakdown. Breakdown occurs quite abruptly (typically in nanoseconds), resulting in the formation of an electrically conductive path and a disruptive discharge through the material. For solid materials, a breakdown event severely degrades, or even destroys, its insulating capability.
Factors affecting apparent dielectric strength
it decreases with increased sample thickness.[1] (see "defects" below)
it decreases with increased operating temperature.
it decreases with increased frequency.
for gases (e.g. nitrogen, sulfur hexafluoride) it normally decreases with increased humidity.
for air, dielectric strength increases slightly as humidity increases
Breakdown field strength
The field strength at which breakdown occurs depends on the respective geometries of the dielectric (insulator) and the electrodes with which the electric field is applied, as well as the rate of increase at which the electric field is applied. Because dielectric materials usually contain minute defects, the practical dielectric strength will be a fraction of the intrinsic dielectric strength of an ideal, defect-free, material. Dielectric films tend to exhibit greater dielectric strength than thicker samples of the same material. For instance, the dielectric strength of silicon dioxide films of a few hundred nm to a few μm thick is approximately 0.5GV/m.[2] However very thin layers (below, say, 100 nm) become partially conductive because of electron tunneling. Multiple layers of thin dielectric films are used where maximum practical dielectric strength is required, such as high voltage capacitors and pulse transformers. Since the dielectric strength of gases varies depending on the shape and configuration of the electrodes,[3] it is usually measured as a fraction of the dielectric strength of Nitrogen gas.
Here is a nice description of dielectric strength in polypropylene which mentions the creation of the conductive path. If the voltage was raised slowly over a period of time so that it was higher than the voltage necessary to breakdown the liquid layer on the first electrode (therefore the liquid must become conductive) it would then have to raise the voltage to a level equal to the breakdown on the second electrode, in order to complete the circuit.. this would provide a voltage 'gap' between the two electrodes that the hho bubble was occupying and should therefore electrostatically charge the hho bubble. If this voltage is higher than the voltage necessary to 'normally' create a conductive path through hho igniting it, but cannot complete the circuit for the spark to 'jump', how does the hho bubbles properties change ? if at all ? Would it hold a stable electrostatic charge that exceeds what would be required to normally ignite it due to a lack of being able to close the circuit ?
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2009/CherryXu.shtml
In a dielectric, or an electric insulating material, electrons are bound to atoms and molecules and there is a high resistance to electric current, which means that the material has a zero or near zero electrical conductivity. When breakdown occurs, the present electric field frees the electrons. If the electric field is strong enough, the freed electrons may accelerate and liberate other electrons when they collide with neutral atoms or molecules. The liberation of electrons may turn the material into a conductor with its positive charge. In order to calculate how much the voltage an insulating material can hold before breaking down, the dielectric strength of the material must be found, which is measured in volts per unit length. The higher the electric strength, the more useful is the material as an insulator.
Dielectric strength is a property of an insulating material and it is defined as the ratio of the breakdown voltage to the material's thickness. Breakdown voltage is the maximum voltage a material can withstand before a conducting path forms through it.
Interesting thoughts, E-ape. I'm approaching the point where I can do some experiments in my home lab once again... hurray!
Thanks Steve, it is an interesting little experiment that may be fun!
I will be happy to offer observations if you decide to give it a go. O0