Subject: Beyond Water-Arcs
Most readers of vortex are familiar with the water-arc explosion
experiments of the Graneau's (Ha! another one of those
"names-that-work" = Graneau = "big water"). This is perhaps the
most solid of OU results which is out there, but apparently the
big-water-brothers have never been lured into applying for the
Randi-prize, knowing that the clown could never pay-up anyway.
Two compilations of papers are available on the IE website:
https://www.mv.com/ipusers/zeropoint/secure/FORMS/onlinestore.html
One important paper is entitled "Solar-energy liberation from
water by electric arcs" but the "solar energy" part is really
little more than homage - an "appeasement" to traditional
science - as there is arguably zero attributable "solar energy"
involved in the experiment, and the authors are understandably
grasping at straws as to the real energy source - which is
probably ZPE.
Authors: GEORGE HATHAWAY, PETER GRANEAU and NEAL GRANEAU
Abstract
This paper reports progress in an experimental investigation,
started in the Hathaway laboratory in 1994, dealing with the
liberation of intermolecular bond energy from ordinary water by
means of an arc discharge. Photographic evidence of fog generation
and explosion during the arcing period is included. A new fog
accelerator is described and a table of results of the kinetic
energies of fog jets is provided.
A renewable water energy cycle is outlined. The fog kinetic energy
has been found to be greater than the difference between the
capacitor input energy and the heat losses. Given energy
conservation, the only external energy input that can account for
the fog kinetic energy is solar heat from the atmosphere.
END of Abstract. And unfortunately this work has not advanced much
since then.
Where do we go from here? Most of this work was done a decade ago
and has been verified by others to varying degrees - but not yet
put into a workable scheme involving a viable "prime mover",
useful for home power or automotive.
Part of the problem is the variability in gasoline pricing. It is
so easily manipulated in the USA that the current low cost (post
election blessing, soon to disappear) can lead any observer into a
state of false complacency. This would be a huge error, on the
national level, and one solution is to help to implement an
alternative energy scheme in a country where they really need it -
Asia or some wealthier European country like Germany. And then if
successful, force it down the throats of the PertroPACs.
The following is a tentative plan to put forward a [major advance]
of this Graneau water-arc finding - along with other advances into
operation in a complicated scheme by the end of the decade. It
involves the very same strong capacitive discharge of Graneau -
but "not exactly" into a water fog, as they did.
Instead the capacitive discharge is made into a quasi-fuel - a
liquid spray consisting of vaporized medium grade HOOH (40-50 %
peroxide in water, with or without up to 5% hydrocarbon dissolved
in the mixture in a colloidal form). The resultant steam is used
to drive a simple one stage turbine/generator. Since the
monopropellant turbine does not need air, the Carnot efficiency
can be extraordinarily high, making up for the far lower heat
content of the "fuel."
A formula which has been found to produce about 5 times more net
energy than what is recycled into the arc-discharge, and very
adequate for automotive use, consists of HOOH 40%, Water 45% and
colloidal carbon 5%. The "effective" Carnot efficiency is at least
65%, which is actually above the theoretical limit for the
existing temperature spread, which is low. The steam exhaust is
barely steam at all, and exits at about 300 degrees F. There is
some CO2 but comparatively little.
The carbon can be provided in the form of pulverized coal dust,
made from low grade and low sulfur demineralized coal, even peat.
This cleaned coal is available for $40 ton raw, or ~$85/ton after
pulverization and passing through dry demineralization process.
The same scheme will actually work with no carbon at all, but
requires about twice as much volume of fuel as with this minimum
5% mix.
This minimal mix works out to slightly over 4 cents per pound for
the carbon. The final fuel is fairly high density, compared to
gasoline and weighs 9 pounds per gallon. The 5% carbon content
should add only about three cents per gallon to the final
manufacturing cost of 25 cents/gal, of which 10 cents is for the
two kilowatts/gallon of electrical input (nighttime rate or
self-generated using some of the fuel) and the rest of the cost is
for capital, labor, and taxes - no profit is added as this is for
a "coop" or institution, in a petro-poor or developing country.
The originator of one of the basic "enabling" ideas - Delchav -
uses raw sugar instead of carbon, which costs about ten times more
per pound. Here is a website outlining an older version of this
general idea - along with other pieces of the puzzle - which is
now considerably improved by a direct process for making HOOH from
air and water, but using coal dust instead of sugar:
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/peroxide.html
Basically the idea is to have small cooperative refueling
stations, not unlike the current gasoline station except more
numerous and operated like a farmer's coop - but where the a
midgrade HOOH is actually produced onsite, using nighttime power
rates - and only in enough quantity (several thousand gallons per
day) for the next day's sales to coop members who have specially
designed hybrid autos. Imagine this in Germany, say or India,
where a taxi-fleet or postal service or commercial delivery fleet
is doing this and saving millions over imported gasoline.
This fuel will be required in substantial volumetric quantity as
it will take about 4 times more fuel by volume than gasoline, for
use in a hybrid car- but the raw materials for it consist only of
air(O2) and water and electricity. So to go on an eighty mile
round trip, where the Prius would use about two gallons of
gasoline this alternative vehicle would require 8 gallons (four
times more by volume), which is a small disadvantage for space -
but compared to the substantial monetary savings and substantial
reduction in CO2 - it is highly desirable to a certain section of
the population (the coop or fleet members) or a needy country.
The two gallons used by the Prius - at $10/gallon in the year
2010- when this scheme could be first implemented, should be
compared to a cost of the replacement fuel - of 8 gallons at 20-25
cents per gallon, plus whatever taxes are fair. Pricing is almost
too politically motivated to estimate outside any particular
country, but it should be noted that Germany, with little domestic
petroleum is already paying triple the US price for petrol (but
much of that goes to taxes).
Bottom line estimate - in 2010 a commuter or postal van in Germany
might see a net savings of 50% minimum over diesel - yet still
provide the same level of infrastructure taxes (for roads). If
gasoline does go up beyond the $10 gallon there, which some fear -
then the yearly saving would easily pay for the hybrid vehicle
itself.
This is doable. But it would take a national commitment to pull it
off. That will never happen in the USA due to PetroPAC dollars ---
but what about in wealthy but Petro-poor countries like Germany ?
Maybe I should start brushing up on my Deutsch ...
Jones
