"Don Kelly" <dhky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fxF8k.51809$gc5.48712@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------------------------
> "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4863074c$0$30464$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In a previous post I raised the question of whether or not excess
> > electrical
> > energy could be obtained via a sparkgap.
> > The consensus, based on published research was a resounding 'no'.
> > However, whilst ferreting about I came across what appears to be
> > 'considerable' material from highly respected institutions that claims
> > otherwise.
> > E.g..
> >
> > "Liberation of chemical energy in pulsed high current arcs in liquids
and
> > gases
> > Graneau, N.
> > Dept. of Eng. Sci., Oxford Univ.
> >
> > This paper appears in: Pulsed Power 2000 (Digest No. 2000/053), IEE
> > Symposium
> > Publication Date: 2000
> > On page(s): 19/1-19/4
> > Meeting Date: 05/03/2000 - 05/04/2000
> > Location: London, UK
> > References Cited: 7
> > INSPEC Accession Number: 6623248
> > Date Published in Issue: 2002-08-06 23:27:03.0
> > "
> > [quote]
> > Abstract
> > High current pulsed arcs in both water and air, are able to liberate
> > chemical energy from the arc medium which can be recovered in either
> > mechanical or electrical form. Despite the high currents, the arc is
> > relatively cold which apparently makes this a highly efficient
mechanism
> > for
> > liberating stored chemical energy and therefore a possible future
energy
> > source. In the case of water, hydrogen bonds are broken in order to
create
> > the observed small fog droplets. The energetics of small droplet
bonding
> > requires that the remaining hydrogen bonds will be expected to drop
into
> > lower energy configurations than in bulk water and thus the transition
to
> > droplets can release a large amount of chemically stored energy.
Similarly
> > in air, arcs break covalent bonds which are also a source of stored
> > chemical
> > energy. It appears that more mechanical energy is liberated in the
water
> > arcs for a particular discharge energy. 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'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 do not read this as implying that the energy liberated exceeds the
input
> energy.
>
> What I read is that there is, in the configuration used, there is a
> particular input energy that is optimal - higher efficiency than at
higher
> or lower input levels. That is reasonable.
> --
Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly. As I am the only one who thinks
otherwise, and due to my inexperience, you are probably correct.
But, but, but. What does the following mean in that context.
[quote]
However the lower mass and consequent higher velocities of the end
products
of the air arc (As opposed to water: me)explosion probably explain why the
these arcs are more suited to direct conversion to electrical energy
[/unquote]
And what could this mean?
[quote]
highly efficient mechanism for
liberating stored chemical energy and therefore a possible future energy
source.
[/quote]
Why would one consider energy conversion if what you have is less than it
cost you in the first place?
I'm probably wrong, because I usually am ;)
Regards,
Vince
|
