Wasser / Water Explosion - Free Energy

[HorizonDelta]

Graneau speaks English in vid, it's just the speaker who speaks German ! The question about energy ratio out/in i.e. efficiency is open, anyway an amazing exp ;-) have also a look on vid: "H2o wireless antennae-electric pendulum" for more water exps with light

[eitorferstr32]

Ah !

[rockdots]

Professors speaking in foreign languages know what they're talking about!

[fjette1]

I learned that some guy has tried to use this water explosion technique to drive turbines and levers but always got much less energy than he put in. Both him and I hve told Graneau that he was wrong, but he's more interested in becoming famous than learning the truth...

[Injudiciously]

@fjette1 -- Thanks for that welcome voice of reason.

[JenMichel100]

@fjette1

hahahahahaha great job!

[fjette1]

@JenMichel100 When one of Mr Graneau's collaborators asked us to analyze their experiment, we accepted to do the job using our shock-tracking code since we were curious about how fast the water was really accelerated. The water kinetic energy was calculated to be 350% of the spark energy in Mr. Graneau's analysis, but we found it to remain below 5% of the spark energy. This illustrated the importance of the external forces acting on the water, which Mr. Graneau wrongly assumed to be negligible.

[JenMichel100]

@fjette1

i was able to replicate this,,,,, and it work! and it can run cars

[JenMichel100]

@fjette1 im sure u are paid well

[fjette1]

@JenMichel100 Actually, I currently work in a University as a researcher (my field of expertise is fluid mechanics and shock waves). I value my independence, I rather make less money than not have control of how I do my research. So I haven't been making much money :) We even undercharged when we did the job for Mr. Graneau's collaborator, because we thought that was an interesting problem that had to be studied and understood properly.

[JenMichel100]

@fjette1

how much did they paid u?

[fjette1]

There isn't more energy than what's put in.

Graneau estimated the kinetic energy of the water based on how high a block of wood placed on top of his device flies. He wrongly assumed the water collides with the wood, although they're already in contact before the spark is discharged.

He also wrongly assumed there are no forces acting on the water other than the arc, but the water pressure acts against its container. By neglecting this force, he overestimates the water kinetic energy.

[renderrob]

read Ganeau's paper here:

scribd com doc 15115795 Graneau-Paper-on-Water-Explosi­ons

[renderrob]

Graneau states in his paper:

"It should be noted that [...] the amount of fog absorbed in the balsa-wood secondary projectile was 0.537g. If at any time this water mass had existed as steam, it would have required the expenditure of 1213J, an amount equal to the latent heat of vaporization. However, the total energy discharged from the capacitor was only 40J"

[renderrob]

The input energy was measured at 40 J. Graneau offers a comparison to an ordinary match, which liberates between 100-200 J of thermal energy. You cannot cause water to explode with that amount of heat energy.

[RasterRob]

If you read Graneau's paper, "Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy", you will see that he shows quite clearly that the water is changing from a liquid state, into a cold fog (minuscule liquid drops suspended in air). There is no electrolysis occurring, and the energy released is in excess of the energy present in the electric arc.

When you make assumptions, you are bound to **** up.

[overunitydotcom]

Komm zu overunityPUNKTde , um das zu diskutieren.

Bitte PUNKT mit einem richtigen "." Punkt ersetzen.

Danke.

Gruss, Stefan.