More...
from a post here on vortex back on 12/31/12 to vortex-l I looked at the Papp cannon video again. At 3:00 in, Papp is filling the cannon from one of the flasks. It has a sizable amount of clear liquid at the bottom of that flask. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2tuk31pS2M&feature=player_embedded Is that liquid clorinated water is see? On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
