Re: [Vo]: Re: Excess hydrogen without much excess heat
Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: JR As far as I know he does. He has not described the O2 in detail. It is not stochiometric; there is extra H2 because the O2 from electrolysis at the anode is separated out by the inverted funnel. If it is not stochiometric then we can conclude that peroxides are being created in addition to the hydrogen evolved. No, I mean it is not stochiometric because the oxygen from the anode is diverted out of the cell via another tube. During ordinary electrolysis, only hydrogen is captured. During pyrolysis a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen evolves from the cathode, under the funnel, and this is all captured. But if you ignite this effluent gas there will be some left-over hydrogen. (Mizuno does not ignite it or recombine it.) - Jed Interesting read. Mizuno has not controlled for a cold plasma. If some of the hydrogen is ionized to a proton plasma and some of the oxygen is ionized to O2+ or O3+ the result is a cold plasma of monoatomic gases. This was already discussed by William A. Rhodes http://www.keelynet.com/energy/oxyhyd1.htm [Note the Email address, he is still around ]. Yull Brown, who never acknowledged Mr Rhodes prior work, and others in the water fuel area discussed this discovery extensively for years but no one ever got peer reviewed because of Rhodes prior rights. If the plasma is kept from contact with an electron source it will remain a plasma. This depends on the geometry of the cell and the bubble size alot. Its lack of valence electrons prevents the formation of H2 and O2 or H2O, some OH formation is possible if water vapor is available. Because the plasma is monoatomic it will have 2 moles, to H+, of gas not 1 mole of H2. It will have double the volume. The same goes for the Oxygen. It will give volumes of 2190 cc not 1144 cc for the same absolute mass of hydrogen. Note 2190 cc is approximately double the expected volume. A charged plasma will occupy a greater volume than an uncharged H2 gas because of repulsion. This is why the measurements for the times when only the plasma was on is almost 3 times the expected volume. If a cold plasma is present it will be cold relative to other hot plasmas but will hold other energy; the enthalpy difference between two H+ and H2 and the enthalpy difference between a plasma of H+ and O3+ and H2O. H+ and O3+ as plasmas can also disrupt solid materials, bonds and latices causing them to SEEM to burn at strangely low temperatures. Or seeming to give the gas an incredible energy density. Rhodes gas/plasma is used by jewelers because it cuts and welds metals with out cooking adjacent gems. I could design a test cell to detect the plasma. A mass spectrometer will be totally confused by a cold plasma. No valence electrons, no spectrum. In some experiments two decades ago the gas killed the expensive spectrometers. I need to send this stuff to Dr Mizuno does anyone have an email address? The volume of good stuff on Vortex is getting huge; its becoming overwhelming. And I only work three days a week! :-P
[Vo]: Re: Excess hydrogen without much excess heat
Michel, I am still not getting your vortex postings nor your direct cc mail - but from your recent message in the archives - all I can say in response is that I understand your point-of-view on this, but do not agree with it. Obviously, more work with better detail needs to be performed before anyone can suggest that OU has been demonstrated in a robust way. But I see a strong suggestion of this happening - and you do not. Since we are free to disagree, it is my further contention that this line of experimentation, using the Mizuno technique, or variations on it - should be of highest priority to anyone with the necessary resources to build something similar (but improved!), because: 1) there is evidence of nuclear transmutation and without expensive materials. 2) there is evidence of slight overunity-heat and substantial excess hydrogen over Faradaic - perhaps 80 times more. 3) if the excess hydrogen could be made to react explosively within the confines of a specially-designed oscillating reactor, then there is an expectation that the series of sequential explosions might be both synergetic - in the creation of even more of the same anomaly - and also allow for energy conversion of heat into electricity at the same time. 4) there is a possibility - however faint it may appear to some of us - that an overall device can be built which will either *self-power,* or if not self-power, then it will effectively reduce the electrical input necessary, at any given level of output, so that the net heat relative to net electrical P-in becomes most extraordinary, instead of letting the skeptics claim "experimental error." In regard to the last point - for the sake of argument, lets say that in the Mizuno experiment, once it reaches the optimum glow discharge regime and the plasma electrolysis sets-in, and assuming that this level can be maintained for longer than Mizuno has chosen to do so, that he is inputting 700 watts of electricity (350 volts and 2 amp) and that he is seeing 800 watts of heat from the level of weight loss of water, and that he is seeing the equivalent of 700 watts of potential hydrogen heat - but he has chosen not to burn it (it is exhausted unburned). This is all in keeping with the published results. OK. In the alternative situation which I am proposing, where a *bellows-type* reactor is constructed to be pulsed with the same 700 watts BUT of pulsed DC and at a frequency of 440 Hertz; and the reactor is designed in a reverse-loudspeaker configuration, but with many more turns or wire in the coil than normal, so that electricity can be removed at the same potential of 350 volts - and recycled... OK hope you are with me so far, as this is not that easy to verbalize. At the very least, this should give 800+700=1500 watts of heat in the reactor (less the weight of the hydrogen which is double counted by Mizuno) so a net of about 1440 watts is available - even if there is zero synergy. If that heat and kinetic energy of explosion can be converted into electricity at 30% efficiency, then about 480 watts which can be recycled. Not enough to self-power. However, then subtracts from the 800 watts of input normally required to power the device, so that the net input beomces 800-480= ~320 watts of input - yet the heat rejected is two-thirds of the net, and the additional input ends up as heat as well so that instead of a COP of less than two which can be written-off by the skeptics as measurement error, we have a COP of 1440/320 or well over 4, which can no longer be ignored by skeptics and especially since it is a *commercially useful* level of excess heating which will allow for electrically-produced heat to compete with (and surpass) both natural gas and the heat-pump, as the prime source of space heating. ... in my dreams? Jones
[Vo]: Re: Excess hydrogen without much excess heat
Hi Jones, my comments inserted below. Thanks in the name of all the non-native English speakers here for keeping your posts concise like the one I am responding to. > Michel, > > This is most inconvenient, as I still do not get the email from > you via vortex, so I am having to go back and forth to the archive > site, in order to see your posts. Thankfully we have > cut-and-paste. > > In another paper on the lenr site, perhaps a bit more clearly > stated: > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTconfirmatib.pdf > > > Mizuno clearly says- quote: "The power efficiency graphs (Figure > 4B) show almost 100%. However, in the experiment, heat recovery > for oxygen evolution was not measured. So, we can only conclude > that partial power efficiency was close to 100%. " > > That was "power efficiency" P-in net ompared to P-out(H2) = > ~100% - and not related to "current efficiency" > > If - as you state - only about 1.5% of the power input equivalent > is being utilized for dissociation, then to this efficiency of > "nearly 100%" which is already accounted for by Mizuno - in order > to get the true COP we must add the 98.5% of the input power not > being used for dissociation, plus the heat recovery from the > oxygen evolution - which is not stated, but can be estimated - so > when all of this is included, we are back up to a COP= ~3 . No, no, we can only add up percents of the _same thing_, input energy here. Output energy is 1.5% (dissociated gas, which could release this much energy if recombined) + 98.5% (ohmic heat) + 30% at most (excess heat). See what I mean now? If not, please go back to my first post in this thread and tell me what you don't understand or disagree with, it would be nice to solve this controversy. > Which > is in keeping with the Naudin results. > > BTW - pehaps ... in deference to you inquisitive countryman, J.L. > Naudin (who I personally admire for his perserverance, despite > occassional lapses in power measurement) - you have not raised any > objection to his work yet I have actually raised many objections to JLN's methods and conclusions regarding COPs, you probably didn't get my posts as you explained above. Trying to CC you on this, see if you get the CC any better than the Vo rebroadcasting. > but one must presume you have found > some of what you consider to be the same problem there ? I never said there was a problem in Mizuno's conclusions (I wouldn't know), I said there was a problem in what you inferred from them. Michel
[Vo]: Re: Excess hydrogen without much excess heat
Michel, This is most inconvenient, as I still do not get the email from you via vortex, so I am having to go back and forth to the archive site, in order to see your posts. Thankfully we have cut-and-paste. In another paper on the lenr site, perhaps a bit more clearly stated: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTconfirmatib.pdf Mizuno clearly says- quote: "The power efficiency graphs (Figure 4B) show almost 100%. However, in the experiment, heat recovery for oxygen evolution was not measured. So, we can only conclude that partial power efficiency was close to 100%. " That was "power efficiency" P-in net ompared to P-out(H2) = ~100% - and not related to "current efficiency" If - as you state - only about 1.5% of the power input equivalent is being utilized for dissociation, then to this efficiency of "nearly 100%" which is already accounted for by Mizuno - in order to get the true COP we must add the 98.5% of the input power not being used for dissociation, plus the heat recovery from the oxygen evolution - which is not stated, but can be estimated - so when all of this is included, we are back up to a COP= ~3 . Which is in keeping with the Naudin results. BTW - pehaps ... in deference to you inquisitive countryman, J.L. Naudin (who I personally admire for his perserverance, despite occassional lapses in power measurement) - you have not raised any objection to his work yet but one must presume you have found some of what you consider to be the same problem there ? Jones
[Vo]: Re: Excess hydrogen without much excess heat
- Original Message - From: "Jed Rothwell" No, I mean it is not stochiometric because the oxygen from the anode is diverted out of the cell via another tube. During ordinary electrolysis, only hydrogen is captured. During pyrolysis a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen evolves from the cathode, under the funnel, and this is all captured. But if you ignite this effluent gas there will be some left-over hydrogen. (Mizuno does not ignite it or recombine it.) Yes, but there is also evidence that plasma electrolysis specifically (and "high current efficiency" in general - as in radiolysis) --- that in these supra-Faradaic processes, the modalities are so different in detail that the radiation itself is removing a single proton preferentially. ... in effect allowing the remaining hydroxyl radicals (say from two adjacent 'proton-depleted' water molecules) to bond to form peroxide or hydroxyl-hydrates immediately, with free electrons picked up by the protons in picoseconds - and not necessarily happening on the anode itself. ... all of which could be a very advantageous situation (for finding OU) - but that particular situation can be dangerous - IF too much HO-OH should be allow to accumulate in the cell... which is another explanation for the well-known explosion in Mizuno's lab ! At around 45% concentration (or less), peroxide becomes very unstable. ... but when nature presents you with lemons ... you make lemonade, no? Jones
[Vo]: Re: Excess hydrogen without much excess heat
No sorry Jones, my analysis is correct I am afraid, and COP is only 1.3 at best, not 2 or 3, cf Mizuno's conclusion in http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTgenerationa.pdf -- 5. Conclusions We have reached several conclusions: 1. Current efficiency for the plasma electrolysis reaches 8000% to the input current. 2. Power efficiency[should be excess] for the plasma electrolysis reaches 30% to the input voltage.[should be power] --- I guess Jed didn't do the translation for this paper, the English is very bad. Michel - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:10 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Excess hydrogen without much excess heat > - Original Message - > From: "Jed Rothwell" > >> Michel Jullian wrote: > >>>No Jed, energy efficiency and current (faradaic) efficiency are >>>different things. > >> Yup. I mixed them up. > >>> And 3 times overfaradaicity for one overall run means that only >>> 3*0.5%=1.5% of input energy is going into dissociation, that's >>> why dissociation energy is usually ignored in the GDPE energy >>> balance (1.5% << 30%). > > I disagree with the full implication of this conclusion - as not > being indicative of what the paper clearly states. Mizuno says: > "The power efficiency graphs show almost 100% ..." (during plasma > dissociation run- not the whole run) > > OK it is confusing, as written, but here Mizuno has switched back > to total power, and not current-efficiency, and the resultant > power efficiency of the hydrogen produced at that stage is 100% - > but actual P-out could be considerably in excess of 100% when you > account for the heat recovery of oxygen evolution - which was not > measured ! > > Consequently Michel's analysis could only be correct if the 1.5% > of input energy which is going into dissociation, utilizes that > more than the 80-times current efficiency boost to give the 100% > power efficient (and the 98.5% of input is itself excess high > grade heat not accounted for relative to total energy) such that > the bottom line when stochiometric oxygen is accounted for is > results in a COP near 2 - just for the electrolysis, and does not > include the other heating which brings the net COP up to about 3 > (best case) > > At least that is the most optimistic reading, and falls in line > with the Naudin and some other experiments - but perhaps it is > time for submitting direct questions to Mizuno to clear this up. > > So, we can only conclude that partial power efficiency was close > to 100% relative to just the hydrogen evolution, and that there > was much input power in the system over this. Is it enough to > self-power using thermoacoustics ? > > Not clear. > > > Walter Faxon wrote: > >>>Just for the record, as well as detecting excess hydrogen is >>>Mizuno also detecting a corresponding amount of excess oxygen? > >> JR As far as I know he does. He has not described the O2 in >> detail. It is not stochiometric; there is extra H2 because the >> O2 from electrolysis at the anode is separated out by the >> inverted funnel. > > If it is not stochiometric then we can conclude that peroxides are > being created in addition to the hydrogen evolved. This is > potential chemical energy which could enter the picture later and > it may relate to why the reaction takes so long (1000s of seconds) > to get going. It also totally screws many of the prior > assumptions. > > Plus on the negative side: Here is a site which can add something > to the original question of why a plasma discharge in water will > not heat the water as much as it should, based on the net energy > input. In short, more water is "atomized" without phase change > (and the necessity of the high heat of vaporization). Sounds > plausible. > > http://www.powerlabs.org/waterarc.htm > > The author believes that there are two mechanisms related to the > "atomization" of water, and that their combined effect leads to > the sample being atomized without the need to actually bring the > sample to its boiling point [vaporized]. > > Now... does all this mean that the Mizuno et al findings of COP > near 3 cannot lead to a self-powered device? > > Before we can even attempt to answer that we must determine what > happens to the thermodynamics in a *closed cell* if and when the > excess (over Faradaic) hydrogen which is generated is exploded in > situ, and that energy returned at that stage --- is there some > additional synergy there? > > Jones >
Re: [Vo]: Re: Excess hydrogen without much excess heat
Jones Beene wrote: JR As far as I know he does. He has not described the O2 in detail. It is not stochiometric; there is extra H2 because the O2 from electrolysis at the anode is separated out by the inverted funnel. If it is not stochiometric then we can conclude that peroxides are being created in addition to the hydrogen evolved. No, I mean it is not stochiometric because the oxygen from the anode is diverted out of the cell via another tube. During ordinary electrolysis, only hydrogen is captured. During pyrolysis a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen evolves from the cathode, under the funnel, and this is all captured. But if you ignite this effluent gas there will be some left-over hydrogen. (Mizuno does not ignite it or recombine it.) - Jed
[Vo]: Re: Excess hydrogen without much excess heat
- Original Message - From: "Jed Rothwell" Michel Jullian wrote: No Jed, energy efficiency and current (faradaic) efficiency are different things. Yup. I mixed them up. And 3 times overfaradaicity for one overall run means that only 3*0.5%=1.5% of input energy is going into dissociation, that's why dissociation energy is usually ignored in the GDPE energy balance (1.5% << 30%). I disagree with the full implication of this conclusion - as not being indicative of what the paper clearly states. Mizuno says: "The power efficiency graphs show almost 100% ..." (during plasma dissociation run- not the whole run) OK it is confusing, as written, but here Mizuno has switched back to total power, and not current-efficiency, and the resultant power efficiency of the hydrogen produced at that stage is 100% - but actual P-out could be considerably in excess of 100% when you account for the heat recovery of oxygen evolution - which was not measured ! Consequently Michel's analysis could only be correct if the 1.5% of input energy which is going into dissociation, utilizes that more than the 80-times current efficiency boost to give the 100% power efficient (and the 98.5% of input is itself excess high grade heat not accounted for relative to total energy) such that the bottom line when stochiometric oxygen is accounted for is results in a COP near 2 - just for the electrolysis, and does not include the other heating which brings the net COP up to about 3 (best case) At least that is the most optimistic reading, and falls in line with the Naudin and some other experiments - but perhaps it is time for submitting direct questions to Mizuno to clear this up. So, we can only conclude that partial power efficiency was close to 100% relative to just the hydrogen evolution, and that there was much input power in the system over this. Is it enough to self-power using thermoacoustics ? Not clear. > Walter Faxon wrote: Just for the record, as well as detecting excess hydrogen is Mizuno also detecting a corresponding amount of excess oxygen? JR As far as I know he does. He has not described the O2 in detail. It is not stochiometric; there is extra H2 because the O2 from electrolysis at the anode is separated out by the inverted funnel. If it is not stochiometric then we can conclude that peroxides are being created in addition to the hydrogen evolved. This is potential chemical energy which could enter the picture later and it may relate to why the reaction takes so long (1000s of seconds) to get going. It also totally screws many of the prior assumptions. Plus on the negative side: Here is a site which can add something to the original question of why a plasma discharge in water will not heat the water as much as it should, based on the net energy input. In short, more water is "atomized" without phase change (and the necessity of the high heat of vaporization). Sounds plausible. http://www.powerlabs.org/waterarc.htm The author believes that there are two mechanisms related to the "atomization" of water, and that their combined effect leads to the sample being atomized without the need to actually bring the sample to its boiling point [vaporized]. Now... does all this mean that the Mizuno et al findings of COP near 3 cannot lead to a self-powered device? Before we can even attempt to answer that we must determine what happens to the thermodynamics in a *closed cell* if and when the excess (over Faradaic) hydrogen which is generated is exploded in situ, and that energy returned at that stage --- is there some additional synergy there? Jones
[Vo]: Re: Excess hydrogen without much excess heat
- Original Message - From: "Jed Rothwell" Again - this is likely to be partly semantic - because what you are calling 'anomalous heat' is in fact anomalous UV radiation in the Mizuno device - which will be downshift into heat in most circumstances, but if given the chance can and will catalyze a water-splitting reaction much more efficiently that "just" heat. I suppose some of it must always downshift into heat. It is hard to believe that the reaction works perfectly, splitting water and never "missing the target." But that seems to be what is doing, especially if we take Iizumi at face value. Yes much of it is shifted into heat - but - you shouldn't be backtracking from you initial and correct insight- which recognizes that the enthalpy of H2 itself - being removed rapidly by diffusion from the cell - this will actually *lower* the cell temperature itself very effectively. Even if much excess heat has being created, unrelated to the water-splitting > (i.e. there are LENRs as well as bulls-eyes ) <== this heat is being removed equally fast by the hydrogen evolution - so the cell can remain relatively cool (it does heat up a little) while at the same time shedding much more heat than if it had to shed head by blackbody radiation. IOW the relative coolness itself is standard physics - and it is the expected result of the extraordinary ability of H2 to remove heat rapidly. Even if the appearance of all that H2 goes beyond standard physics... Jones
Re: [Vo]: Re: Excess hydrogen without much excess heat
Jones Beene wrote: The normal blackbody heat photon/phonon of 2500 C. can cause pyrolysis, if the flux of them is intense enough, but they are in the wavelength of one micron and longer - whereas if anomalous ultraviolet or UV is being created in the plasma, that radiation could be in the 20-50 nm range (orders of magnitude higher in photon energy) and most importantly - this where the situation can become autocatalytic, in the sense of a chain reaction . . . This is what I had in mind: a high energy reaction that causes direct splitting. But wouldn't this also cause significant heat? Some of the photons would go nowhere and convert to heat, it seems to me. And if the energy from this is not anomalous, but merely a byproduct of ordinary reactions, should it not produce a large heat deficit? Again - this is likely to be partly semantic - because what you are calling 'anomalous heat' is in fact anomalous UV radiation in the Mizuno device - which will be downshift into heat in most circumstances, but if given the chance can and will catalyze a water-splitting reaction much more efficiently that "just" heat. I suppose some of it must always downshift into heat. It is hard to believe that the reaction works perfectly, splitting water and never "missing the target." But that seems to be what is doing, especially if we take Iizumi at face value. - Jed
[Vo]: Re: Excess hydrogen without much excess heat
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell One aspect of Mizuno's recent results bothers me. In some cases, he reports significant excess hydrogen without anomalous excess heat, or with only a little excess heat. I do not see how this could be, if the hydrogen comes from pyrolysis. I think that Mizuno must be using there term "pyrolysis" to broadly include both "photolysis" and/or "radiolysis" ... whereas the slight distinction involved in these underlying methodologies could be critical to understanding the anomaly. Espceially if there is a much stronger output in the EUV spectrum than is normal, which seems to be a characteristic of AGD in general. The normal blackbody heat photon/phonon of 2500 C. can cause pyrolysis, if the flux of them is intense enough, but they are in the wavelength of one micron and longer - whereas if anomalous ultraviolet or UV is being created in the plasma, that radiation could be in the 20-50 nm range (orders of magnitude higher in photon energy) and most importantly - this where the situation can become autocatalytic, in the sense of a chain reaction - since the photolysis reaction can yield another UV photon. This small wavelength also puts it firmly into in the range of the **Casimir force,** which is maximized at the Foster radius - which "external" input could enter into the picture in an non-thermodynamic way. It seems to me that if heat is causing pyrolysis, there must be far more heat than normal, so you would expect to see both excess heat and excess hydrogen. That would normally be true for "plain" photolysis - but in the case where the radiation output (much shorter wavelength than expected of combustion) becomes catalytic, causing the water to split in a different way and then release another UV photon. Assume there is no anomalous excess heat. In that case, because the excess hydrogen carries off enthalpy, the total heat from the reaction should be considerably less than the amount expected from ordinary electrolysis. Yet the heat balance is usually close to the expected level. How could there be just enough anomalous heat to split the water, carry off enthalpy, and reduce overall measurable heat right back down to the level you see with ordinary electrolysis? Again - this is likely to be partly semantic - because what you are calling 'anomalous heat' is in fact anomalous UV radiation in the Mizuno device - which will be downshift into heat in most circumstances, but if given the chance can and will catalyze a water-splitting reaction much more efficiently that "just" heat. There are just too many experiments in the literature now - showing this anomaly, to ignore. And it is an anomaly related to an anomalous glow. The Casimir force is not at all ruled out as being the force which makes UV light seem to act catalytically in causing chemical reactions at a much faster and more efficient rate would seem possible - when compared to just "heat" which cannot ever utilize the Casimir force - since its wavelength is fifty times too long. Jones
