From: Bob Higgins 

 

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.

 

Hi Bob,

 

Actually no. The fixed charge of H2 puts a limit only on available nuclear 
energy, but not on a contribution from positronium (vacuum energy which is 
essentially vast, according to Dirac). 

 

You can complain that “semantics” should not allow this type of gain to be 
called chemical energy – but clearly it is not nuclear energy, therefore 
“chemical” is closer than nuclear - if those are the only two choices, since 
the kinetics are chemical and nowhere close to nuclear.

 

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.  

 

Not exactly true. A sequential “chemical” gain (from Ps) would require only 
slight net gain (3.4 eV) which does not result in a permanent change of the 
hydrogen, to insure reuse… IOW a gain which keeps protons in play for the next 
iteration.

 

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. 

 

Not at all. In fact you have clarified your error in the underlying assumption- 
to one which assumes that anything not chemical is nuclear, which is wrong – 
since in fact this excess energy is in the range of chemical (>10 eV) but it is 
sequential, iterative and continuing over time. There is no mistake in H 
enthalpy, only a mistake in the assumption that there is but a single iteration 
per active atom.

 

Jones Beene  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



Reply via email to