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 <g> 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
