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 Jones Beene
-
