To "recap" the analysis (tired pun based on the Pirelli name) ... these school kids could get a lot of mileage out of a well-conceived experiment.
As to the point that this cannot be both a fluidized bed reactor, if it is using gas supported nanopowder and at the same time be a true electrolysis cell (in the sense of splitting H2O) unless the supporting gas is steam or contains steam, that is incorrect. Technically a fluidized bed reactor can use a liquid as the support medium, instead of a gas. I have never seen a FBR that did not use a gas, but Wiki the expert says both types qualify. Therefore, any of the reactors shown on Naudin's old page would be both a fluidized bed reactor - and a plasma electrolysis cell - if - the cell contained a suspension of metal powder supported by water (the distinction being that the nanopowder itself is not soluble in water). That makes the most sense. Consequently, there is no problem in the description details- in calling this device both a FBR and a plasma electrolysis cell. In fact, it is a nice hybrid. This Italian replication of Mizuno may or may not be novel due to the nanopowder (if that is really what is the important detail) but it is interesting that they have done it when no one else thought of it (apparently) and it is fairly elegant, no? Naudin claims a significant gain of up to COP= ~2.5 without nano - so what is the improved gain with nano? BTW - at the time these Naudin experiments came out - 6-7 years ago, we assumed Naudin could be underestimating his real gain by not always including the recombination heat of split gases (he treated water loss as steam only). So his decent gain could be better than it seemed. This presents a strong case for the proposition that a much simpler type of unpressurized reactor with no need for tank hydrogen could be on the horizon - at least for some uses like hot water. Mizuno had two patent applications for the early work (if he did not abandon them) and one wonders if he or his patent attorney had the foresight back then to include the possibility of a colloid or suspension of nanopowder - in the original claim. Doubt it. If not, Ahern's claim is looking good for gas-phase, and the FBR version of the school kids could be wide open... -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene It is probably plasma electrolysis (aka glow discharge electrolysis) Here is Naudin's replication of Mizuno and Ohmori http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/html/cfrdatas.htm It would be interesting to know if the nanopowder was added to water as a colloid -----Original Message----- From: Akira Shirakawa http://22passi.blogspot.it/2012/04/fusione-fredda-scuola-la-studiano-e.html "I'll mention that it's an electrolytic cell (Mizuno-, Iorio- type), with the fundamental difference that it uses free nanopowders, not treated and not fixed [to anything], which we managed to confine and turn on in a totally innovative fluidized bed reactor"
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
