What is it that distinguishes the two types of setups? Perhaps it is that they're fundamentally different in nature;
I think the difference involves the nature of the spark discharge. If the spark imparts a very high level of instantaneous power, pressure is produced and heat is minimized. Mills has gone in the wrong direction in forming his spark. It has too many amps and too few volts. He should have gone in the other direction in spark formation: very low amps and very high volts. Going the high voltage route would have increased his COP since little input power is involved for the same level of instantaneous power production. On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Has DGT ever reported a huge pressure increase and/or a shock wave >> immediately after the spark discharge? I would expect such a process to >> occur consistent with spark discharge in hydrogen that other people have >> seen. >> > > Good point. There are clearly different setups -- one where pressure is > important, and one where pressure is mitigated and/or does not arise. > Papp's and Mills's setups fall into the group where pressure is important, > and Karabut's and DGT's setups do not seem to involve much or any pressure > (at least, none is reported that I can recall). > > What is it that distinguishes the two types of setups? Perhaps it is that > they're fundamentally different in nature; one group uses nanoparticles, > for example, which emit photons in the EUV range and cause clusters of > water to explode due to Coulomb repulsion once the constituent elements are > ionized. Or perhaps it's as simple as there being workarounds to avoid the > buildup of pressure in the case of DGT and Karabut, where heat is what is > desired instead. > > In all cases, though, I think you have an anode; a cathode; a gas medium, > which probably contains hydrogen in some form; and something along the > lines of a glow discharge. > > Eric > >
