----- 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
