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: <[email protected]> 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 >
