Yes and no. I will not state a COP figure, but you are a pretty good man on guesses ;-). okay I'm being a bit mean, you are close to factual.
Is not my point proven? We have the cart before the horse so to speak? If someone were to present a technology that would offer what we are talking about and the device to utilize it is not currently available, are you under the impression that it would not be swept under the carpet? If someone were today to come forward with Hydrogen production (in quantity) with a COP>1 it has no meaning, none at all, because big corp. and big government will control the outcome. Yet, if some way was available to use the Hydrogen NOW that could be packaged and shown, they could not stop it (my dream at least). If a person could go to Home Depot, Grainger or Cat or John Deer or anyone and get an off the shelf system to use the gas and see the outcome, we have obtained a milestone in Human Evolution. But, I state again that its not possible. So I guess you have your answer, COP>1 and COP<3.75. I know I'm of the MIB fear group, but I just can not think that giving the key away to the palace years in advance will insure the contents will be there when you are ready to move in and enjoy the comfort. You ideas and assessments are correct, yet in Germany and the US Black Nodes they are starting already to get wet under the arms. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 3:14 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: High efficiency electrolysis Ron, > but lets assume I can provide Hydrogen from water in excess of COP>1. Now what are we going to do with it > where the conversion does not eat up this gain? ICE engine is out! I may have to disagree on this point, as I am optimistically looking for continued advances on several fronts. Yes, fuel cells are out. Huge drain of time and effort. But ... both Ford and BMW have puts tons of money and man-hours into improving the H2 fueled ICE. They are not there yet but they can get a Carnot efficiency of 45% at single engine speed. BMW has gotten over 50%. Now at first blush - this looks to be of no great help because you would need COP>3 or closer to 4 to get anything useful ... even with a (much) larger engine to cover the parasitism ... but there are wildcards which built on the 55% waste heat of those ICE's: 1) thermo-electro-chemical water splitting 2) thermoelectric water radiolysis I don't see either getting close to COP>3 (compared to Faradaic) but... 3) either of the above, using LENR (perhaps Mizuno arc) techniques to provide more energy, and with or without ... 4) turbine/ICE dual engines where split cell water splitting is engineered so that peroxide is produced preferentially (instead of O2) and enriched in situ for use as a monopropellant in the turbine, while the H2 is burned in the ICE (or in a second stage tubine). All of these concepts are using waste heat, but realistically, unless the hydrino, LENR (or something unknown like the Graneau hypothesis) is also at work, and that extra energy can be harnessed as well, then this won't happen. Thermacore and Mizuno presents a good case that it can be done, in principle. But that is a far, far way from doing it now. At this point in time (terrorism concern) radiolysis is out for an automobile, but maybe not for a longer time horizon. The main point is that the USA should be putting the equivalent of the hot fusion budget into this! (including $$$ into your work) Jones
