You enjoy the MIB part don't you? In all reality I don't believe they pay any attention to some one making claims unless there is a device or their expert University advisors get nervous. For the most part they sit back drink coffee and Red Bull, each donuts and get a big chuckle from all the fools. But, if you are headed to the local Flea Market to begin selling devices or have a semi loaded and headed to the Ace Hardware, I feel comfortable in the belief you will be contacted. SO enough of that, they are for sure rolling on the floor in cackles again.
Your idea looks good at first blush, but not being my field I have nothing to offer in aid, yeah or nay. As concerns standard electrolysis in water I have a bit of knowledge and that says that Heat is more of a detriment than advantage. The whole object of trying to stay below the thermo-neutral voltage level is to not internally create heat. I have yet to realize where getting all those little molecules agitated has a benefit. Now for Heat in the classic cell it is assumed that we can pull ~49kJ from the environment with the remaining 281kJ coming from our electrical input. This in itself looks good in that there could be a practical approach to using that cooling, but it don't hold for long and is far to slow for practical usage. So what does that say about Heat, in my work keep it away, the cooler the cell the better (no not cold, or below ambient). Pressure within the cell must be factored in, the 3.7kJ used to expand the gas can be increased by increasing the internal pressure. What may seem off the wall to some that have not tried it, is the placement of electrodes just under the surface of the electrolyte. Enough of that, I hope some one will comment on your idea as I have seen Heat Pumps easily fun at COP=9 and if I remember my reading can go to COP=12 (theory). If that is the case then maybe you have just not accounted for all of the loss that will take place. Indeed for Texas (most of it) a m2 of blackened copper collector can get you some real hot water. -----Original Message----- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) OK, if the MIBs didn't intercept my posts which they probably didn't (no one has knocked at my door yet), it must be that my scheme was simply not clear enough to provoke feedback. I'll try and make it clearer through a practical embodiment: Say we have an insulated hot water reservoir, pre-heated by a joule heater (used only to start the process), as the hot source, and ambient air as the cold source. An average efficiency Sterling engine (efficiency=40% conservatively, say 1000W heat in, 400W mechanical out) runs on those hot and cold sources (2LoT not broken), and through an appropriate quasi-lossless gearbox replaces the electric motor powering the compressor of an average performance house heating type heat pump (COP=3 conservatively), which therefore pumps 400W*3=1200W of heat from the ambient air to the hot water reservoir. 1000W out, 1200W in, surely there can be no doubt that after the initial joule heater kick this apparatus will run standalone, drawing its energy from the ambient air (cooling it so ventilation will be needed, by say a 10W fan), and providing nearly 200W continuous excess heat to the hot water reservoir? Does it make more sense now? ;-) -- Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 1:30 AM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: [Vo]: High efficiency electrolysis) > Oh I remember now, Jones doesn't get my posts for some reason. But surely others got them? Robin? Anyone? > > Or wait, did they... did YOU send the two posts back to me only???? > > Michel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:44 AM > Subject: [Vo]: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: [Vo]: High efficiency electrolysis) > > >>I can't believe they let my post through, I KNEW it was a good idea to post it during a total lunar eclipse! As many as possible of you guys please let me know if you received it too, let they know the free energy revolution is on the march! >> >> Michel >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:13 AM >> Subject: [Vo]: Loop closed? (was Re: [Vo]: High efficiency electrolysis) >> >> >>> Jones, your musings prompted the following idea here: >>> >>> 1/ There exist well known mechanical-to-heat converters with a COP>3, namely heat pumps used for heating purposes sucking the heat from ambient air: you get 3 to 4 times more heat out than the energy you have put in (probably much more since the figure I am quoting includes the sub-unity electrical-to-mechanical conversion efficiency of the heat pump's electric motor, of which we would have no need). Let's call such a device's efficiency COP1, with COP1 > 3 (conservative) >>> >>> 2/ As you say there exist heat-to-mechanical converters with an efficiency well over 40%. Let's call such a device's efficiency COP2, with COP2 > 0.4 (conservative again) >>> >>> 3/ Now if we drive a device of type 1 using a device of type 2, the combination's efficiency will be: >>> COP2*COP1 > 0.4*3 = 1.2 > 1 right? >>> >>> So we can close the loop, mechanical-to-heat-to mechanical, with excess energy to power the car or whatever. Right? :) >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 10:14 PM >>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >
