"Benj" <bjacoby@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:3743110c-219a-42e0-85ca-62ceac8707a3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jun 25, 11:04 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > I've taken particular note of "the transition to droplets can release
a
> > large amount of chemically stored energy"
> > This is of course energy that can be accounted for. So too that
released in
> > air via broken valence bonds.
> > I also took note of the required "kiloampere current" which is sort
of
> > outside the definition of "sparkgap" I guess.
> >
> > Comments?
> > Vince
>
> I certainly don't want to chime in with the usual "debunkers" and
> start suggesting that you go read freshman texts on "conservation of
> energy", but some of that has a certain relevance here.
>
> It's really all about coming to a detailed understanding of what is
> going on. The first point is that we all know that a "pulsed arc" can
> liberate chemical energy. Example: a spark sets off an explosion! But
> the KEY item is that the chemical energy already has to be STORED and
> ready for release. The speculation in the above abstract has to do
> with hydrogen bonds as a form of "stored energy". I'm not sure if that
> is true, but splitting water into hydrogen and Oxygen is not. It TAKES
> energy to do that. You don't RELEASE it!
>
They aren't actualy splitting the components. What I was able to garnish
from another artical on this was that in the transition from bulk water to
atomisation (droplets) an amount of energy is released. There is very,
very
little gas produced apparently.
However, it actualy is claimed that the kinetic energy of the droplets
exceeds the arch energy. Though not in the above extract as Don has
pointed
out.
[quote]
It appears that more mechanical energy is liberated in the water
arcs for a particular discharge energy
[/unquote]
As Don has pointed out, and you have aluded too (I think:), the above may
have been incorrectly understood by myself. However, the research seemed
to
be directed toward answering the 90 years old question involving the
'apparent' over unity of arch generated water explosions.
They speak of energy recovery, arguing that with water the kinetic energy
is
high, but due to the low mass of air, it would be better to recover the
energy electricaly.
[quote]
However the lower mass and
consequent higher velocities of the end products of the air arc explosion
probably explain why the these arcs are more suited to direct conversion
to
electrical energy
[/quote]
I realize that this is chemicaly stored energy. However, being able to
release some of waters chemical energy (no combustion is nice) if it takes
less energy than that released, is exiting and novel, to me anyway.
Regards,
Vince
|
