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 <g> but one must presume you have found
some of what you consider to be the same problem there ?
Jones
