I am confused as to what they are claiming. They seem to be saying that they reproduced 'Graneau's efficiency', as reported. Perhaps this involves the transmission of thrust to lifting objects rather than the full amount of energy within the explosion. Graneau said this was a problem. He suggested a turbine.
_____________________________________________ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Papp and Water Quote from test results: "The average kinetic energy of the water projectile, based on its ability to lift objects, was around 0.1% to 0.3% of the input energy." ... extraordinarily poor results ... Now you understand why Hathaway backed away from Graneau. Unfortunately, this will not help Papp proponents. It is clear to me that if the Papp engine every worked for gain - the gain was a function of its radium content - pretty much as the patent states, and pretty much as was demonstrated in the Hubbard coil 90 years ago. There is no independent evidence that any engine without radium ever worked. There is plenty of evidence that many devices with radium worked much better than expected. Consequently, the decay energy is somehow magnified and usually this involves a high turn coil. Recently a new theory and patent has emerged to explain why the gain in some isotope decays can be vastly greater than expected. http://levitronicsenergy.com/index.htm http://www.rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm ... the light (or low mass) electron LME sounds a bit like Ken Shoulders EVO ideas .... From: Zell, Chris http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/waterarc/waterarcexplosion.html Try the above as to success. _____________________________________________ From: , 2013 Subject: RE: [Vo]:Papp and Water Caveat- please be aware that two of the four original authors of the 1998 water arc paper have later distanced themselves from the conclusions of a bona fide energy anomaly. George Hathaway, who had the best scientific credentials and reputation of the four, was vocal for several years in being not in agreement that there was proved gain in the water arc. He published a rebuttal in Infinite Energy in 2007. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg26685.html George used to post here before the list became corrupted with religion and politics debates before the 2008 election. We need some kind of moderation on this list. Who needs this kind of inane diversion? Too bad, it used to be a thoughtful group. BTW - there have been many replication attempts of Graneau's water arc - and none that I recall was positive. Jones From: Zell, Chris http://www.oocities.org/waterfuel111/water_explosion_menu.html The above isn't exactly Acta Physica but it has some interesting links and claims << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
