While it is an interesting hypothesis that the real nascent energy of pre-split monatomic H is greater than previously ascribed by a factor of 2-3, this has nothing to do with the eCat's COP of 2.5. The eCat input is not burning H2, it is primarily electric. When the eCat is run for a long time and an overall COP of 2.5 (to pick an example) is achieved, that COP is from the (heat energy out)/(electrical energy in). For a COP of 2.5, there is 1.5x the input ELECTRICAL energy as excess heat out. If this goes on for a long time, the excess heat out can be hundreds or thousands of times the energy available from any chemical source which could be hypothetically contained inside the reactor. It is from this that the Ragone plot is taken. These experiments are generally run with a small fixed charge of H2, which puts strict limits on the available energy from H2 burning or chemical energy in general.
Conclusion: a long term test with COP = 2.5 produced by chemical means would require a chemical output that is hundreds or thousands of times greater than what could produced according to today's chemical enthalpy of H. So, arguing that the COP of 2.4 could be explained with a mistake in H enthalpy of a factor of 2.4 is off the mark by a huge factor (100's to 10's of thousands) and the statement is wholly specious. Bob Higgins On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only > returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if > the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the > range of COP >2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be > illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif > > >
