Michel,
Still not getting your postings to vortex, but I have been
checking the archives periodically as my ISP filter removes about
10% of any newsgroup messages anyway, and all of yours.
These ISP filters are supposed to "learn" what constitutes "Spam,"
but I am getting more of that than ever before... Ha! so much for
"artificial intelligence."
My apology for the hasty original posting. The background is this:
there has been a lot of un-scientific anecdote recently about the
possibility of using treated-water in an internal combustion
engine - especially anecdote coming from Australia, where
marvelous claims have been made.
If true, there are a few ways to explain what could be going on -
in addition to deliberate fraud - which seems unlikely given the
number of reports and lack of a financial motive. But in an effort
to find some initial or probative evidence of an anomaly, this
simple experiment materialized, and it would be a mistake to read
too much into it. The idea is that "nanobubbles" form and store
electrical charge. There are scientific citation in support of
part of this premise - given in the previous postings. These
nanobubbles could probably NOT store H2 itself - as you suggest -
due to its volatility and the fact that there was force
circulation due to the container being placed over a large magnet.
The power supply for this simple experiment was a ubiquitous black
cube 6 v. DC wall transformer. It was drawing ~150 milliamps when
tested. I made no effort to datalog P-in. Perhaps someone better
equipped can do a better job with the details in the future, if
the nanobubble idea turns out to be tenable. Basically I was
trying to avoid water-splitting and just looking to see if there
was anything obvious or robust going-on with a long pre-charging
period of water, but using a Teflon-coated (hydrophobic) anode.
There could be something worth further investigation here, and
hopefully the next time I post on this, it will be a little better
documented. However, the water in this situation never gets to the
point of supporting a flame, which is seen in one of the videos
from Australia.
Furthermore, I do not think that the effect of explosive flashing,
following microwave irradiation, is due to retained H2 gas. And I
did make an effort to test 3% HOOH in the same way. I found that
peroxide is slower to boil-off than tap water, and never flashes.
Tap water (eau d'municipal ?) normally boils instead of flashing
in the microwave, but one sample did flash to steam (one time out
in ten trials), whereas the treated water always flashed, never
giving it time to boil, and always flashes much faster than the
boiling away period of either tap water or HOOH. Once it was
instantaneous follwong the oven coming on. That is the limit of
this simple experiment.
The "flash" itself is violent and totally clears the container,
but there is no assurance that all of the 1 ml of water per test,
was actually converted to vapor by phase-change - since as we
know - a flash of steam will always carry away some percentage of
atomized water, which has not undergone phase-change.
But - the bottom line is that an intriguing possibility exists
here (charged nanobubbles) for expalin the prior reports - or
which could be put to use otherwise. Certainly it might help to
explain at least part of the anecdotes which have been circulating
about "waterfuel".
Hope that is a little clearer.
Jones
