History of Water Arc Explosions :
The unusual strength of explosions caused by a pulsed current flowing through water plasma was first noticed in 1907 by Trowbridge. in his early high voltage laboratory at Harvard University. When he passed an arc through a spray of water, the resulting explosion was louder than in ordinary laboratory air. During the second world war, Frungel measured the strength of water arc explosions and published his results in 1948. He concluded that they were not caused by heat and steam and freely admitted that he was unable to explain the phenomenon. Soon after Frungel's publications, water arc explosions found applications in electrohydraulic metal forming and underwater pulse echo sounding. In 1969, the US Bureau of Mines issued a long report on their investigation into using water arc explosions for rock fragmentation. In one experiment the investigators at the Twin City Mining Research Center noticed that the energy output was apparently 156% of the input. Not until the mid-1980s was the scientific basis of the puzzling explosions more extensively researched. At MIT. It was shown that the discharge of 3.6 kJ of stored capacitor energy would create pressures in excess of 20.000 atm. In 7 ml of water. 3.6 gm of water was ejected from an accelerator barrel at a velocity of the order of 1000m/s, sufficient to penetrate a ¼" thick aluminium plate. Joe Papp has a patent on this process. One story involvine this process was filmed and witnessed by a handful of impartial observers; that story dealt with his cannon and goes as follows: Papp decided to add a cannon to his collection of hardware to show all those that were interested in what he could really do. So on one early crisp sunny Sunday fall morning in October 1968, Papp trooped out to the desert with six or eight engineers from the Navy and TRW with a homemade cannon, powered by his invention. For this show, Papp decided to pull out all the stops that usually kept his engines docile and well controlled in the engine application and scaled up his technology to its maximum power potential. The barrel was four feet long, four inches in diameter, made of a three foot length of 3-inch schedule 50 stainless steel pipe (0.6 inch wall thickness) anchored and totally encased in a heavy one-foot thick reinforced concrete containment block. The breech was loaded with just 10cc’s of Papp’s "inert" water vapor/noble gas mix. For the breech, he used a spare cylinder head from one of his engines; for a projectile, he machined a piece of steel. Papp filled the cylinder head with his gas mix from five separate flasks and hooked up the power. Then Papp hit the start button. "We heard this tremendous explosion. It was a low rumble, like a bass sound," one witness there said. The projectile jammed halfway up the barrel and ripped the cannon in half. The back of the gun flared open like a stainless steel tulip strewn with 5/8 inch thick metal fragments. The concrete containment was mostly blasted into the air as a cloud reduced to rubble and dust. It also punched a crater about 3-feet in diameter and about 3-feet deep into the rocky desert hardpan and the 1-foot thick platform of plywood and 2x8 planks upon which all rested was reduced to a shower of splinters. This cannon and everything that Papp did was patented. These Patents are an official validation of a LERN technology that is unprecedented. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk> wrote: > I agree that the patent is written to confuse. > > By carefully selecting a few sentences and paragraphs from the patent I > think it is possible to find a rather neat semi-continuous flow version of > an intersting development of the Graneau water arc system, which is > consistent with the rather sketchy diagrams that they have shown. > > I wonder... > > Nigel > > > On 21/01/2014 18:29, Axil Axil wrote: > > Re from the patent: > > The current may be AC, DC or an AC-DC mixture. In > > an embodiment, comprising a magnetohydrodynamic plasma to electric power > converter, the > > current is DC such that a DC magnetic field is produced by the current. > > > The MHD converter is not developed yet so the demo will require external > power. > > > By the way. the patent is written to confuse and it is successful. The > patent defines every voltage, amperage, pulse rate and arc duration, and > every chemical that exists. In short, it says everything and its says > nothing. > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nigel Dyer >> >> The components of the demo don't look to me to be much like, for example >> the Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition Electrochemical Cell, so I was >> trying to work out what what we know about this configuration. >> >> For example, the energizing electrodes that are mentioned. Do we have >> an idea of what voltages might be involved and exactly how the >> electrodes energize the water? In some respects this setup seems oddly >> familiar. >> >> >> >> Nigel, >> >> Well - I do not profess to know what will be shown - but if this demo is >> not >> clearly self-powering (no battery or external PS) then it will be a >> disaster. It will not be sufficient to extrapolate. At this point in time, >> Mills must show a self-running device IMHO. >> >> Based on the history of LENR, as early as 1990 (if not 1989) it was >> suggested that the obvious thing to do with an electrolysis cell which is >> overunity, like the P&F cell - is to connect the gas output to a PEM fuel >> cell and thereby to "self-loop" the two. However, in the case of Pd-D the >> net gain is in thermal energy, and not in excess gas - so self-power >> cannot >> be accomplished easily that way. >> >> However, it is possible in the case of plasma electrolysis of water - for >> the excess energy to be in the form of excess hydrogen and oxygen, and >> this >> is my hope for the BLP demo - even if we are only in the 100 watt range of >> power which is being circulated. At one time it looked like Mizuno could >> pull this off with his glow discharge cell - but he never did. >> >> This demo will be a success if there is looped system (fully >> self-powering) >> in the 100 watt range, even if there is no usable excess. That is because >> no >> one has really done it before in a 3rd party demo. (there are numerous >> claims and reports of looping having been accomplished for short periods, >> but not in a robust, on-demand way or by a reputable inventor who is >> prepared to show it to independent third parties). >> >> Therefore - It is safe to say for the record that there is no >> independently >> proved self-powering energy device as of 2014 - and if Mills can pull that >> off - hats off to him. He will steal most of Rossi's thunder. >> >> Jones >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
