Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[James Bowery]

Errata: I'm recovering from an operation on my arm so I'm using voice
recognition to do my typing and it makes error that sometimes I miss.

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 6:37 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Barry Kort's critique may be invaluable because it may open up funding for
> cold fusion research. Note that even graduate students replicating cold
> fusion research is forbidden.  An honestly skeptical master's thesis
> however might not do career damage.  The implied experimental conditions
> are relatively inexpensive to reproduce. When I say reproduce I mean
> reduced the apparent excess heat.  The area in which these pseudo-skeptics
> always fail is to fail to reproduce the excess heat effect in accordance
> with their critique of the experiments. The kind of error Barry is talking
> about should appear in just about any electrolytic system whether deuterium
> or hydrogen based. It should also hear whether it is palladium or nickel
> based. It sounds like Barry is close to having a quantitative model. It
> should be able to predict quantity of excess heat appearing at various
> loading levels. It should be reliable.
>
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
>> I am in total agreement with the statements from Bob.  In every
>> simulation that I have conducted using LTspice the system input power is
>> accurately determined by the product of the constant current source DC
>> value and the average DC voltage measured at the node of entry.  During my
>> testing I used several different models.  In some systems I allowed the
>> resistance from the node to ground to vary according to a sine wave model,
>> while in others I toyed with square wave forms of variation.
>>
>> I also experimented with additional resistive loads connected effectively
>> in parallel with the DC entry node.  Both AC and DC connections were tested
>> for the external node.  For some testing I simulated a capacitor that was
>> capable of virtually shorting out the input voltage variations by absorbing
>> most of the AC current being generated by the changing resistance of the
>> modeled cell load.
>>
>> One interesting observation that I carefully observed to be true was that
>> the varying resistance within the cell due to a process such as bubbles
>> forming and breaking actually generates AC power that can be coupled away
>> from the cell under certain conditions.  This power can be terminated into
>> an external load and siphons away some of the input power that is supplied
>> by the DC current source.  Under this condition the actual input heating
>> power applied to the cell can be less than calculated by an amount equal to
>> that which is lost into the coupled load.   This lost power makes the real
>> COP greater than what is calculated.  Fortunately, the error is small and
>> only present when an external load is coupled to the cell.  There is no
>> indication that any significant load capable of absorbing the cell
>> generated AC power is present during Dr. McKubre's testing.
>>
>> I consider the internal conversion of input DC power into AC power that
>> can be transferred away from a cell such as this to be essentially the same
>> process as seen during the operation of an RF power amplifier.  In that
>> case, the device heats up to a temperature that is determined by the
>> difference between the DC input power and the RF output power that leaves
>> the system.  The true amplifier heating power will always be slightly lower
>> than what you would expect without any RF conversion taking place.  The
>> behavior of a class 'A' RF stage serves as an excellent example of what I
>> am observing in the simulations.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Bob Higgins 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 2:42 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component
>>
>>  BTW, David Roberson and I have corresponded with Barry Kort about the
>> claim that McKubre's measurements were as much as 3% in error due to
>> presumption of constant current and average voltage between samples for
>> calculation of average power.  The claimed mis-measurement is attributed to
>> the changing voltage due to the bubbles in the cell rapidly changing the
>> cell resistance and hence cell voltage.  Complicit in the argument is the
>> inability of the power supply in constant current mode to adequately slew
>> to keep up with the changes in resistance.  Barry claims that reflections
>> setup in the the connecting wires as transmission lines causes dissipation
>> of the tim

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[James Bowery]

Barry Kort's critique may be invaluable because it may open up funding for
cold fusion research. Note that even graduate students replicating cold
fusion research is forbidden.  An honestly skeptical master's thesis
however might not do career damage.  The implied experimental conditions
are relatively inexpensive to reproduce. When I say reproduce I mean
reduced the apparent excess heat.  The area in which these pseudo-skeptics
always fail is to fail to reproduce the excess heat effect in accordance
with their critique of the experiments. The kind of error Barry is talking
about should appear in just about any electrolytic system whether deuterium
or hydrogen based. It should also hear whether it is palladium or nickel
based. It sounds like Barry is close to having a quantitative model. It
should be able to predict quantity of excess heat appearing at various
loading levels. It should be reliable.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I am in total agreement with the statements from Bob.  In every
> simulation that I have conducted using LTspice the system input power is
> accurately determined by the product of the constant current source DC
> value and the average DC voltage measured at the node of entry.  During my
> testing I used several different models.  In some systems I allowed the
> resistance from the node to ground to vary according to a sine wave model,
> while in others I toyed with square wave forms of variation.
>
> I also experimented with additional resistive loads connected effectively
> in parallel with the DC entry node.  Both AC and DC connections were tested
> for the external node.  For some testing I simulated a capacitor that was
> capable of virtually shorting out the input voltage variations by absorbing
> most of the AC current being generated by the changing resistance of the
> modeled cell load.
>
> One interesting observation that I carefully observed to be true was that
> the varying resistance within the cell due to a process such as bubbles
> forming and breaking actually generates AC power that can be coupled away
> from the cell under certain conditions.  This power can be terminated into
> an external load and siphons away some of the input power that is supplied
> by the DC current source.  Under this condition the actual input heating
> power applied to the cell can be less than calculated by an amount equal to
> that which is lost into the coupled load.   This lost power makes the real
> COP greater than what is calculated.  Fortunately, the error is small and
> only present when an external load is coupled to the cell.  There is no
> indication that any significant load capable of absorbing the cell
> generated AC power is present during Dr. McKubre's testing.
>
> I consider the internal conversion of input DC power into AC power that
> can be transferred away from a cell such as this to be essentially the same
> process as seen during the operation of an RF power amplifier.  In that
> case, the device heats up to a temperature that is determined by the
> difference between the DC input power and the RF output power that leaves
> the system.  The true amplifier heating power will always be slightly lower
> than what you would expect without any RF conversion taking place.  The
> behavior of a class 'A' RF stage serves as an excellent example of what I
> am observing in the simulations.
>
> Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Bob Higgins 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 2:42 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component
>
>  BTW, David Roberson and I have corresponded with Barry Kort about the
> claim that McKubre's measurements were as much as 3% in error due to
> presumption of constant current and average voltage between samples for
> calculation of average power.  The claimed mis-measurement is attributed to
> the changing voltage due to the bubbles in the cell rapidly changing the
> cell resistance and hence cell voltage.  Complicit in the argument is the
> inability of the power supply in constant current mode to adequately slew
> to keep up with the changes in resistance.  Barry claims that reflections
> setup in the the connecting wires as transmission lines causes dissipation
> of the time varying component.
>
>  David and I both did simulations of this setup using SPICE analysis in
> transient simulation mode, which analyzes the circuit from first
> principles.  In my simulation I used a model for a voltage source in a
> feedback configuration with a sense resistor to comprise a current source
> similar to how real power supply current sources are made.  Finite slew
> rate of the voltage was introduced. A lossy transmission line was used
> between the source and a load 

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[David Roberson]

I am in total agreement with the statements from Bob.  In every simulation that 
I have conducted using LTspice the system input power is accurately determined 
by the product of the constant current source DC value and the average DC 
voltage measured at the node of entry.  During my testing I used several 
different models.  In some systems I allowed the resistance from the node to 
ground to vary according to a sine wave model, while in others I toyed with 
square wave forms of variation.

I also experimented with additional resistive loads connected effectively in 
parallel with the DC entry node.  Both AC and DC connections were tested for 
the external node.  For some testing I simulated a capacitor that was capable 
of virtually shorting out the input voltage variations by absorbing most of the 
AC current being generated by the changing resistance of the modeled cell load.

One interesting observation that I carefully observed to be true was that the 
varying resistance within the cell due to a process such as bubbles forming and 
breaking actually generates AC power that can be coupled away from the cell 
under certain conditions.  This power can be terminated into an external load 
and siphons away some of the input power that is supplied by the DC current 
source.  Under this condition the actual input heating power applied to the 
cell can be less than calculated by an amount equal to that which is lost into 
the coupled load.   This lost power makes the real COP greater than what is 
calculated.  Fortunately, the error is small and only present when an external 
load is coupled to the cell.  There is no indication that any significant load 
capable of absorbing the cell generated AC power is present during Dr. 
McKubre's testing.

I consider the internal conversion of input DC power into AC power that can be 
transferred away from a cell such as this to be essentially the same process as 
seen during the operation of an RF power amplifier.  In that case, the device 
heats up to a temperature that is determined by the difference between the DC 
input power and the RF output power that leaves the system.  The true amplifier 
heating power will always be slightly lower than what you would expect without 
any RF conversion taking place.  The behavior of a class 'A' RF stage serves as 
an excellent example of what I am observing in the simulations.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 2:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component


BTW, David Roberson and I have corresponded with Barry Kort about the claim 
that McKubre's measurements were as much as 3% in error due to presumption of 
constant current and average voltage between samples for calculation of average 
power.  The claimed mis-measurement is attributed to the changing voltage due 
to the bubbles in the cell rapidly changing the cell resistance and hence cell 
voltage.  Complicit in the argument is the inability of the power supply in 
constant current mode to adequately slew to keep up with the changes in 
resistance.  Barry claims that reflections setup in the the connecting wires as 
transmission lines causes dissipation of the time varying component.


David and I both did simulations of this setup using SPICE analysis in 
transient simulation mode, which analyzes the circuit from first principles.  
In my simulation I used a model for a voltage source in a feedback 
configuration with a sense resistor to comprise a current source similar to how 
real power supply current sources are made.  Finite slew rate of the voltage 
was introduced. A lossy transmission line was used between the source and a 
load resistor, that was modeled as having a sinusoidally varying resistance (+ 
a constant).  The simulated results were compared to that of an ideal current 
source driving the same load.  The instantaneous power waveform was computed in 
the simulation and its average was taken to get average power delivered by the 
source to the load.


The simulation results confirmed that the use of the constant current value 
times the average voltage between samples accurately computes the average 
delivered power.  The differences between the feedback power supply model and 
the ideal constant current source (the presumption) was on the order of ppm, 
possibly due to the slew effects of the source or just imperfect value for the 
constant current the power supply sets (due to offset).  This ppm difference 
was far below other errors in any real measurement by McKubre.  The "3%" figure 
for the error in the McKubre's measurements being attributed to use of constant 
current and average voltage to compute average power in the face of variations 
in cell resistance appears to be completely unfounded.


Barry calculated his solution mathematically including the delta functions that 
arise from step changes in resistance.  He did not 

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[H Veeder]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H Veeder  wrote:
>
> From the point of the calorimeter heat is not absorbed since no heat
>> vanishes.
>>
>
> The energy does vanish! You put in X amount of electricity but only a
> fraction of X comes out. The rest goes into changing the chemical structure
> of the egg you are cooking, or the hydride you are forming (or whatever
> endothermic process is happening).
>
>
Most of the electrical energy vanishes into potential energy. No heat
energy​ has vanished. Instead the calorimeter registers the slight increase
in heat energy.



>
>
>> Like all measuring instruments a calorimeter is incapable of doing
>> anything other than it was designed to do and that consists in detecting
>> changes or lack of changes in heat content. Whether or not the data it
>> supplies  represents exothermic or endothermic reactions requires further
>> interpretation based on additional knowledge.
>>
>
> "Endothermic" means the reaction absorbs energy. It outputs less than you
> put in. Obviously the calorimeter tells you that is happening. It can do
> that for the same reason it tells you that a chemical or nuclear reaction
> produces *more* than you put in. It does not require any interpretation
> or additional knowledge. That's like saying you need additional knowledge
> to be sure you have gained weight when your bathroom scale says you are 10
> lbs heavier. No, you don't. The numbers are right there.
>
>
This is an incorrect analogy because weight cannot become potential weight
the way electrical energy can become potential energy. If it was possible
then you could store 9 lbs of potential weight after eating 10 lbs of food
and only gain 1 lb according to the bathroom scale.




>
>
>> We can rule out this scenario for most cold fusion experiments, including
>>> McKubre's, because the periods when there is no heat are shorter than the
>>> continuous periods when there is heat. So the deficit would have to be as
>>> large or larger than the positive heat release.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Whether or not an excess heat event is long or short is relative to when
>> the accounting period begins.
>> Does he include the time and energy spent loading?​
>>
>
> The balance is zero during loading, except the initial phase when the
> palladium loads a significant amount of hydrogen.
>
> As I said, there are no quiescent periods long enough to store energy
> below the level of detection, and during the exothermic periods far more
> energy comes out than any mechanism can store in chemical reactions.
>
>
An unknown method might exist for the storage of energy far beyond what
chemistry can do. I suggested the conversion of energy into mass as one
possibility.  Perhaps a variant of the newly discovered MIMS bond is
capable of storing enough energy. (A MIMS bond can store 1000 times the
energy of conventional chemical bond but they are too short lived to be
​useful in the context.
)



>
>
>> ​The calorimeter doesn't tell you there is a "deficit".
>>
>
> Of course it does! That's what it is for.
>
>
>
>>   The only thing it tells you is how much and how quickly the heat
>> content of the system changes.The "deficit" is an *interpretation* of this
>> raw data.​
>>
>
> Since you measure input electricity as well as output heat, you can see
> there is a balance, a deficit or an excess.
>
>
> To repeat, unless the temperature falls a calorimeter by itself cannot
>> tell you if an endothermic process has occurred.
>>
>
> No, the temperature does not need to fall. When it does not rise as much
> as it does when all input energy converts to heat, you know you have an
> endothermic reaction.
>
>
It is only by using another instrument to measure the input that you are
able to infer from the calorimeter's measure of the output that the
reaction was endothermic. That inference is made by you and not by the
calorimeter.




> Imagine you shovel 20 kg of coal into a 1 kg container. You then weigh the
> container. If it weighs 25 kg you have magically created excess mass. It
> weighs only 15 kg you have destroyed mass. That cannot happen with mass but
> it happens all the time with energy going into a system, for example when
> you cook eggs, charge up a battery, or strike a match (endothermic,
> endothermic, exothermic). The whole point of a calorimeter is to measure
> the energy balance in such reactions.
>
>
>
>> You need additional information to interpret the meaning of the lack of
>> rise in temperature .
>>
>
> Well, you have to know how the temperature reflects the power, but that is
> the same knowledge you need to characterize an exothermic reaction.
>
> I suggest you read a book about calorimetry, such as Hemminger and Hohne,
> which I spent a few hours cribbing from yesterday.
>
>
>
Since it is a textbook it deals with known science and it won't have a
chapter on unknown methods of energy storage.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Bob Higgins]

BTW, David Roberson and I have corresponded with Barry Kort about the claim
that McKubre's measurements were as much as 3% in error due to presumption
of constant current and average voltage between samples for calculation of
average power.  The claimed mis-measurement is attributed to the changing
voltage due to the bubbles in the cell rapidly changing the cell resistance
and hence cell voltage.  Complicit in the argument is the inability of the
power supply in constant current mode to adequately slew to keep up with
the changes in resistance.  Barry claims that reflections setup in the the
connecting wires as transmission lines causes dissipation of the time
varying component.

David and I both did simulations of this setup using SPICE analysis in
transient simulation mode, which analyzes the circuit from first
principles.  In my simulation I used a model for a voltage source in a
feedback configuration with a sense resistor to comprise a current source
similar to how real power supply current sources are made.  Finite slew
rate of the voltage was introduced. A lossy transmission line was used
between the source and a load resistor, that was modeled as having a
sinusoidally varying resistance (+ a constant).  The simulated results were
compared to that of an ideal current source driving the same load.  The
instantaneous power waveform was computed in the simulation and its average
was taken to get average power delivered by the source to the load.

The simulation results confirmed that the use of the constant current value
times the average voltage between samples accurately computes the average
delivered power.  The differences between the feedback power supply model
and the ideal constant current source (the presumption) was on the order of
ppm, possibly due to the slew effects of the source or just imperfect value
for the constant current the power supply sets (due to offset).  This ppm
difference was far below other errors in any real measurement by McKubre.
The "3%" figure for the error in the McKubre's measurements being
attributed to use of constant current and average voltage to compute
average power in the face of variations in cell resistance appears to be
completely unfounded.

Barry calculated his solution mathematically including the delta functions
that arise from step changes in resistance.  He did not go on to simulate
his circuit as a check of his math; and  I suspect there is an error in his
math or in how he has setup his model.

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Jed Rothwell]

H Veeder  wrote:

>From the point of the calorimeter heat is not absorbed since no heat
> vanishes.
>

The energy does vanish! You put in X amount of electricity but only a
fraction of X comes out. The rest goes into changing the chemical structure
of the egg you are cooking, or the hydride you are forming (or whatever
endothermic process is happening).



> Like all measuring instruments a calorimeter is incapable of doing
> anything other than it was designed to do and that consists in detecting
> changes or lack of changes in heat content. Whether or not the data it
> supplies  represents exothermic or endothermic reactions requires further
> interpretation based on additional knowledge.
>

"Endothermic" means the reaction absorbs energy. It outputs less than you
put in. Obviously the calorimeter tells you that is happening. It can do
that for the same reason it tells you that a chemical or nuclear reaction
produces *more* than you put in. It does not require any interpretation or
additional knowledge. That's like saying you need additional knowledge to
be sure you have gained weight when your bathroom scale says you are 10 lbs
heavier. No, you don't. The numbers are right there.



> We can rule out this scenario for most cold fusion experiments, including
>> McKubre's, because the periods when there is no heat are shorter than the
>> continuous periods when there is heat. So the deficit would have to be as
>> large or larger than the positive heat release.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Whether or not an excess heat event is long or short is relative to when
> the accounting period begins.
> Does he include the time and energy spent loading?​
>

The balance is zero during loading, except the initial phase when the
palladium loads a significant amount of hydrogen.

As I said, there are no quiescent periods long enough to store energy below
the level of detection, and during the exothermic periods far more energy
comes out than any mechanism can store in chemical reactions.



> ​The calorimeter doesn't tell you there is a "deficit".
>

Of course it does! That's what it is for.



>   The only thing it tells you is how much and how quickly the heat content
> of the system changes.The "deficit" is an *interpretation* of this raw
> data.​
>

Since you measure input electricity as well as output heat, you can see
there is a balance, a deficit or an excess.


To repeat, unless the temperature falls a calorimeter by itself cannot tell
> you if an endothermic process has occurred.
>

No, the temperature does not need to fall. When it does not rise as much as
it does when all input energy converts to heat, you know you have an
endothermic reaction.

Imagine you shovel 20 kg of coal into a 1 kg container. You then weigh the
container. If it weighs 25 kg you have magically created excess mass. It
weighs only 15 kg you have destroyed mass. That cannot happen with mass but
it happens all the time with energy going into a system, for example when
you cook eggs, charge up a battery, or strike a match (endothermic,
endothermic, exothermic). The whole point of a calorimeter is to measure
the energy balance in such reactions.



> You need additional information to interpret the meaning of the lack of
> rise in temperature .
>

Well, you have to know how the temperature reflects the power, but that is
the same knowledge you need to characterize an exothermic reaction.

I suggest you read a book about calorimetry, such as Hemminger and Hohne,
which I spent a few hours cribbing from yesterday.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[H Veeder]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H Veeder  wrote:
>
>
>> ​Unless heat is absorbed during charging and is released during discharge
>> a calorimeter can't tell you if an endothermic reaction occurred.
>>
>
> "The heat being absorbed" is the definition of an endothermic reaction.
> That's exactly what it is. Even if the energy is not subsequently released,
> you can still see the deficit during the storage phase. That is to say, if
> you were to charge up a battery but not later discharge it, then you would
> see a deficit with no compensating exothermic reaction following that. When
> you removed the battery from the calorimeter it would be fully charged up.
>
>
​From the point of the calorimeter heat is not absorbed since no heat
vanishes. Like all measuring instruments a calorimeter is incapable of
doing anything other than it was designed to do and that consists in
detecting changes or lack of changes in heat content. Whether or not the
data it supplies  represents exothermic or endothermic reactions requires
further interpretation based on additional knowledge.

​

> The only exception to this would be if the endothermic phase occurs over a
> very long time and the deficit is very small. It might be too small to
> detect with a given calorimeter. It might then be released as a short
> burst. We can rule out this scenario for most cold fusion experiments,
> including McKubre's, because the periods when there is no heat are shorter
> than the continuous periods when there is heat. So the deficit would have
> to be as large or larger than the positive heat release.
>
>
>

Whether or not an excess heat event is long or short is relative to when
the accounting period begins.
Does he include the time and energy spent loading?​




> You also need a-priori knowledge of how the energy is stored.
>>
>
> No, you don't. Energy is energy. All energy in all forms is either stored
> or it converts to heat. Because entropy.
>
>
​The calorimeter doesn't tell you there is a "deficit".  The only thing it
tells you is how much and how quickly the heat content of the system
changes.The "deficit" is an *interpretation* of this raw data.​
​



>
>> The calorimeter by itself only tells you that there was a mildly
>> exothermic reaction followed by more intense exothermic reaction.
>>
>
> No, the two would have to balance in intensity if they were roughly of the
> same duration. As I said in most cases endothermic phase would have to be
> shorter so it would be more intense and easier to measure.
>
>

>
>> Charging a battery is endothermic because it absorbs *electrical* energy,
>> not because it absorbs *heat* energy.
>>
>
> Other reactions that absorb heat energy (or any other form or source of
> energy) show a similar pattern in a calorimeter. For example, reactions
> that absorb laser light energy will also show a deficit -- assuming you
> measure the laser input correctly, which can be tricky.
>
>
To repeat, unless the temperature falls a calorimeter by itself cannot tell
you if an endothermic process has occurred. You need additional information
to interpret the meaning of the lack of rise in temperature .





> A battery happens to be a convenient way to demonstrate this but any
> endothermic reaction will do.
>
>
>
>> If a calorimeter were good at detecting all types of endothermic
>> reactions then you could substitute them for volt meters.
>>
>
> Well, a watt meter, not a volt meter. Yes, you can, and the instrument
> makers do. All high-quality, high-powered wattmeters use calorimetry. That
> is to say the heat up a resistor wired in series with the load, measure the
> temperature and convert that to power. This method eliminates any
> possibility of exotic waveforms or extremely rapid changes in electric
> power being missed by the instrument. This method detects every joule of
> electricity, no matter what.
>
>
​Of course, but you need to know what is causing the temperature change.

harry

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Bob Higgins]

As a follow-up to this, and as part of my appropriate public recanting,
here are the equations for power during a sample time.  This shows that if
the current is made a constant, then only the average voltage need be
acquired.  Between samples, a capacitance on the voltage measurement node
will cause the voltage to be averaged and the resulting voltage sample will
be an average voltage (RMS is explicitly NOT needed).  Here are the
equations.  I hope I got them right this time and I hope the image gets
through to Vortex (it is small).

​

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Well Dave, you have made a good and convincing argument.  My hat is off to
> you and I need to eat it with a big public helping of crow.
>
> It seems like if we go back to basics, the average power is  integral((I
> dot V)dt)/integral(dt).  If I is a constant, then you can pull I outside
> the integral and you get the average power as I x
> integral(Vdt)/integral(dt), which means the average power is I times the
> average voltage.
>
> Thank you for taking the challenge, making me rethink, and putting me
> straight!
>
> Regards, Bob
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:53 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
>> Bob, I take that as a challenge.  I am not offended my friend, but find
>> this a great opportunity to prove what I am saying is correct.  I predict
>> that you will agree with me once you have an opportunity to dig deeper into
>> the subject.
>>
>> It is not clear to me what you are showing in your example, perhaps due
>> to a problem with my display.  Let me choose an example for you to
>> consider.  Again, we can assume that the current being delivered into the
>> load is exactly 1 amp.  If we further assume that the load resistance is 1
>> ohm, then under DC conditions we will measure precisely 1 volt across the
>> load resistor.
>>
>> I and I assume you would calculate the power as being 1 watt delivered to
>> the load resistor under this static condition.  Now, suppose that the
>> resistance changes to .5 ohms.  In that case the voltage becomes exactly .5
>> volts.  This results in a power being delivered to the resistor of .5
>> watts.  For the other half of the AC square waveform the resistor becomes
>> 1.5 ohms.  In that case the power delivered becomes 1.5 watts since 1 amp x
>> 1.5 volts = 1.5 watts.  Since we are assuming a symmetrical AC waveform,
>> this is a pretty good example of that with numerous harmonics that also get
>> into the act.  The assumed waveform is therefore a 1 volt peak to peak
>> square wave that is riding upon a 1 volt DC average.
>>
>> So the total power average becomes (.5 watts + 1.5 watts) / 2 = 1 watt.
>> Each half of the waveform makes its contribution and they balance each
>> other out about the normal DC average of 1.0 watt.  This is true for all AC
>> waveforms, regardless of the harmonic content provided that the current
>> retains a constant DC value.
>>
>> I have stated this on numerous occasions and it is a general concept.
>> Power can only be extracted from a source current that flows at the same
>> frequency as the source voltage.  In this case the current is at a DC
>> frequency, so no power can be extracted from the source except into a DC(0
>> Hertz) voltage related load.
>>
>> Dr. McKubre essentially made the same statement with respect to his
>> experimental setup.  Another feature of a constant current environment is
>> that the power delivered into the load varies directly with the load
>> voltage and not proportional to the square of the voltage as is normally
>> encountered.  That is what allows the average to be used in this case
>> instead of having to deal with the messy RMS waveform additions.
>>
>> If you have reservations about what I have stated I strongly suggest that
>> you put together a Spice model.  That will prove that what I am saying is
>> right on target.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:10 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Let me know if you are still confused since it is important that we set the
> records straight and dispose of skeptical ideas.
>

Unfortunately I don't know enough about electronics yet to have an opinion
on Michael McKubre's assumptions about the electrical source he was using,
about the skeptics' complaints about those assumptions, or about your
rebuttal of the skeptics' complaints.  Perhaps one day.  Until then, I must
divide this factor out of consideration pending general consensus amongst
the EE's here (it seems like such a consensus might be coming together).

In these circumstances, it would be better if I stood out of the fray than
attempt to rebut any complaints about McKubre's assumptions about power
sources.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[David Roberson]

I suppose I should have stated that in a more appropriate manner.  What I was 
attempting to get across was that the waveforms must not contain a DC 
component.  Any DC portion would behave exactly as Dr. McKubre explained and 
appear as a valid input signal which remains after averaging and is included in 
the input power calculations.

The skeptics were implying that noise due to bubbles bursting at random, etc. 
would invalidate the measurements.  In that case invalidation is due to 
inaccurate measurement of the input power and energy for the cell. They were 
concerned that the AC signals arising out of their assumed process would cause 
an error in the input energy calculation and that has been shown to be a bad 
conclusion when a constant current input source is used.

Let me know if you are still confused since it is important that we set the 
records straight and dispose of skeptical ideas.  If you see anyone on a site 
suggesting that Dr. McKubre is making this error please correct them as soon as 
possible.  A simple spice program can make the concept crystal clear to anyone 
left in doubt.

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Oct 28, 2014 12:34 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component



On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:53 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Since we are assuming a symmetrical AC waveform, this is a pretty good example 
of that with numerous harmonics that also get into the act.




Is this a safe assumption?


Eric

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[David Roberson]

Thanks Bob for taking the time to follow my discussion.  If we are lucky others 
will help to inform the skeptics that Dr. McKubre is doing his experimentation 
in a manner that we can agree is appropriate.
 
Don't beat yourself up too badly since I have a hunch that very few others 
would have believed what I was attempting to explain.  At first it just did not 
pass the smell test.  I had the same reservations that you had until I used the 
same basic line of reasoning that you have just written below.

Now if we can only settle the temperature and radiated power questions from the 
latest testing!

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 10:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component


Well Dave, you have made a good and convincing argument.  My hat is off to you 
and I need to eat it with a big public helping of crow.  


It seems like if we go back to basics, the average power is  integral((I dot 
V)dt)/integral(dt).  If I is a constant, then you can pull I outside the 
integral and you get the average power as I x integral(Vdt)/integral(dt), which 
means the average power is I times the average voltage.


Thank you for taking the challenge, making me rethink, and putting me straight!


Regards, Bob



On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:53 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Bob, I take that as a challenge.  I am not offended my friend, but find this a 
great opportunity to prove what I am saying is correct.  I predict that you 
will agree with me once you have an opportunity to dig deeper into the subject.
 
It is not clear to me what you are showing in your example, perhaps due to a 
problem with my display.  Let me choose an example for you to consider.  Again, 
we can assume that the current being delivered into the load is exactly 1 amp.  
If we further assume that the load resistance is 1 ohm, then under DC 
conditions we will measure precisely 1 volt across the load resistor.
 
I and I assume you would calculate the power as being 1 watt delivered to the 
load resistor under this static condition.  Now, suppose that the resistance 
changes to .5 ohms.  In that case the voltage becomes exactly .5 volts.  This 
results in a power being delivered to the resistor of .5 watts.  For the other 
half of the AC square waveform the resistor becomes 1.5 ohms.  In that case the 
power delivered becomes 1.5 watts since 1 amp x 1.5 volts = 1.5 watts.  Since 
we are assuming a symmetrical AC waveform, this is a pretty good example of 
that with numerous harmonics that also get into the act.  The assumed waveform 
is therefore a 1 volt peak to peak square wave that is riding upon a 1 volt DC 
average.
 
So the total power average becomes (.5 watts + 1.5 watts) / 2 = 1 watt.  Each 
half of the waveform makes its contribution and they balance each other out 
about the normal DC average of 1.0 watt.  This is true for all AC waveforms, 
regardless of the harmonic content provided that the current retains a constant 
DC value.
 
I have stated this on numerous occasions and it is a general concept.  Power 
can only be extracted from a source current that flows at the same frequency as 
the source voltage.  In this case the current is at a DC frequency, so no power 
can be extracted from the source except into a DC(0 Hertz) voltage related load.
 
Dr. McKubre essentially made the same statement with respect to his 
experimental setup.  Another feature of a constant current environment is that 
the power delivered into the load varies directly with the load voltage and not 
proportional to the square of the voltage as is normally encountered.  That is 
what allows the average to be used in this case instead of having to deal with 
the messy RMS waveform additions.
 
If you have reservations about what I have stated I strongly suggest that you 
put together a Spice model.  That will prove that what I am saying is right on 
target.
 
Dave
 
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 3:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component


I hate to say this, but what you say is absolutely wrong.  You could only do as 
you describe if the "voltage" being averaged is the RMS voltage.  You cannot 
take the average voltage and multiply it by the average current to get average 
power.  For example, suppose that the voltage was V=1_0.5sin(wt).  The average 
of this voltage is 1.  Lets say we have a constant current of 1A.  By your 
method, the power would be 1 watt.  However, the actual power is:


P = (1A) sqrt(mean(1+0.5sin(wt))^2)) = (1A) sqrt(mean(1 + sin(wt) + 
0.25sin(wt)^2)) = (1A) sqrt(1+.25 (mean(.5 - .5cos(2wt


P = (1A) sqrt(1.125) = 1.0607 Watts



On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

The instantaneous power being delivered by the source is equal to the product 
of the current and voltage.  When the current is constant, only DC voltage 
loads can accept

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:53 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Since we are assuming a symmetrical AC waveform, this is a pretty good
> example of that with numerous harmonics that also get into the act.
>

Is this a safe assumption?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

No matter how intense and short the burst of energy is, as long as the
> calorimeter walls prevent it from escaping, and it produces enough joules
> of heat to be detected, it will be detected.
>

This is a great advantage of an approach that integrates the power over
time.  It is what makes IR cameras seem fiddly to me, although they may be
standard tools in relevant fields.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Bob Higgins]

Well Dave, you have made a good and convincing argument.  My hat is off to
you and I need to eat it with a big public helping of crow.

It seems like if we go back to basics, the average power is  integral((I
dot V)dt)/integral(dt).  If I is a constant, then you can pull I outside
the integral and you get the average power as I x
integral(Vdt)/integral(dt), which means the average power is I times the
average voltage.

Thank you for taking the challenge, making me rethink, and putting me
straight!

Regards, Bob

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:53 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Bob, I take that as a challenge.  I am not offended my friend, but find
> this a great opportunity to prove what I am saying is correct.  I predict
> that you will agree with me once you have an opportunity to dig deeper into
> the subject.
>
> It is not clear to me what you are showing in your example, perhaps due to
> a problem with my display.  Let me choose an example for you to consider.
> Again, we can assume that the current being delivered into the load is
> exactly 1 amp.  If we further assume that the load resistance is 1 ohm,
> then under DC conditions we will measure precisely 1 volt across the load
> resistor.
>
> I and I assume you would calculate the power as being 1 watt delivered to
> the load resistor under this static condition.  Now, suppose that the
> resistance changes to .5 ohms.  In that case the voltage becomes exactly .5
> volts.  This results in a power being delivered to the resistor of .5
> watts.  For the other half of the AC square waveform the resistor becomes
> 1.5 ohms.  In that case the power delivered becomes 1.5 watts since 1 amp x
> 1.5 volts = 1.5 watts.  Since we are assuming a symmetrical AC waveform,
> this is a pretty good example of that with numerous harmonics that also get
> into the act.  The assumed waveform is therefore a 1 volt peak to peak
> square wave that is riding upon a 1 volt DC average.
>
> So the total power average becomes (.5 watts + 1.5 watts) / 2 = 1 watt.
> Each half of the waveform makes its contribution and they balance each
> other out about the normal DC average of 1.0 watt.  This is true for all AC
> waveforms, regardless of the harmonic content provided that the current
> retains a constant DC value.
>
> I have stated this on numerous occasions and it is a general concept.
> Power can only be extracted from a source current that flows at the same
> frequency as the source voltage.  In this case the current is at a DC
> frequency, so no power can be extracted from the source except into a DC(0
> Hertz) voltage related load.
>
> Dr. McKubre essentially made the same statement with respect to his
> experimental setup.  Another feature of a constant current environment is
> that the power delivered into the load varies directly with the load
> voltage and not proportional to the square of the voltage as is normally
> encountered.  That is what allows the average to be used in this case
> instead of having to deal with the messy RMS waveform additions.
>
> If you have reservations about what I have stated I strongly suggest that
> you put together a Spice model.  That will prove that what I am saying is
> right on target.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Higgins 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 3:11 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component
>
>  I hate to say this, but what you say is absolutely wrong.  You could
> only do as you describe if the "voltage" being averaged is the RMS
> voltage.  You cannot take the average voltage and multiply it by the
> average current to get average power.  For example, suppose that the
> voltage was V=1_0.5sin(wt).  The average of this voltage is 1.  Lets say we
> have a constant current of 1A.  By your method, the power would be 1 watt.
> However, the actual power is:
>
> P = (1A) sqrt(mean(1+0.5sin(wt))^2)) = (1A) sqrt(mean(1 + sin(wt) +
> 0.25sin(wt)^2)) = (1A) sqrt(1+.25 (mean(.5 - .5cos(2wt
>
>  P = (1A) sqrt(1.125) = 1.0607 Watts
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
>> The instantaneous power being delivered by the source is equal to the
>> product of the current and voltage.  When the current is constant, only DC
>> voltage loads can accept power and thus energy from the source.  All of the
>> AC voltages that appear across the source terminals integrate to zero
>> during a full cycle and do not enter into the input power equation.  This
>> understanding seems to escape most people until they review the theories
>> carefully.  I had to prove roughly the same issue to several skeptics that
>> thought that DC due to load rectification of the AC power source could be
>> used to sneak extra power into the earlier ECAT.  They thought this was
>> possible since the input power meter did not monitor DC directly.
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[David Roberson]

Bob, I take that as a challenge.  I am not offended my friend, but find this a 
great opportunity to prove what I am saying is correct.  I predict that you 
will agree with me once you have an opportunity to dig deeper into the subject.
 
It is not clear to me what you are showing in your example, perhaps due to a 
problem with my display.  Let me choose an example for you to consider.  Again, 
we can assume that the current being delivered into the load is exactly 1 amp.  
If we further assume that the load resistance is 1 ohm, then under DC 
conditions we will measure precisely 1 volt across the load resistor.

I and I assume you would calculate the power as being 1 watt delivered to the 
load resistor under this static condition.  Now, suppose that the resistance 
changes to .5 ohms.  In that case the voltage becomes exactly .5 volts.  This 
results in a power being delivered to the resistor of .5 watts.  For the other 
half of the AC square waveform the resistor becomes 1.5 ohms.  In that case the 
power delivered becomes 1.5 watts since 1 amp x 1.5 volts = 1.5 watts.  Since 
we are assuming a symmetrical AC waveform, this is a pretty good example of 
that with numerous harmonics that also get into the act.  The assumed waveform 
is therefore a 1 volt peak to peak square wave that is riding upon a 1 volt DC 
average.

So the total power average becomes (.5 watts + 1.5 watts) / 2 = 1 watt.  Each 
half of the waveform makes its contribution and they balance each other out 
about the normal DC average of 1.0 watt.  This is true for all AC waveforms, 
regardless of the harmonic content provided that the current retains a constant 
DC value.

I have stated this on numerous occasions and it is a general concept.  Power 
can only be extracted from a source current that flows at the same frequency as 
the source voltage.  In this case the current is at a DC frequency, so no power 
can be extracted from the source except into a DC(0 Hertz) voltage related load.

Dr. McKubre essentially made the same statement with respect to his 
experimental setup.  Another feature of a constant current environment is that 
the power delivered into the load varies directly with the load voltage and not 
proportional to the square of the voltage as is normally encountered.  That is 
what allows the average to be used in this case instead of having to deal with 
the messy RMS waveform additions.

If you have reservations about what I have stated I strongly suggest that you 
put together a Spice model.  That will prove that what I am saying is right on 
target.

Dave
 
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 3:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component


I hate to say this, but what you say is absolutely wrong.  You could only do as 
you describe if the "voltage" being averaged is the RMS voltage.  You cannot 
take the average voltage and multiply it by the average current to get average 
power.  For example, suppose that the voltage was V=1_0.5sin(wt).  The average 
of this voltage is 1.  Lets say we have a constant current of 1A.  By your 
method, the power would be 1 watt.  However, the actual power is:


P = (1A) sqrt(mean(1+0.5sin(wt))^2)) = (1A) sqrt(mean(1 + sin(wt) + 
0.25sin(wt)^2)) = (1A) sqrt(1+.25 (mean(.5 - .5cos(2wt


P = (1A) sqrt(1.125) = 1.0607 Watts



On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

The instantaneous power being delivered by the source is equal to the product 
of the current and voltage.  When the current is constant, only DC voltage 
loads can accept power and thus energy from the source.  All of the AC voltages 
that appear across the source terminals integrate to zero during a full cycle 
and do not enter into the input power equation.  This understanding seems to 
escape most people until they review the theories carefully.  I had to prove 
roughly the same issue to several skeptics that thought that DC due to load 
rectification of the AC power source could be used to sneak extra power into 
the earlier ECAT.  They thought this was possible since the input power meter 
did not monitor DC directly.

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:


> . . . So to use such [thermal watt-] meters, you have to presume that you
> have no phase shift between the voltage and current (a point of residual
> equivocation and error).  To insure this is a correct presumption, you need
> an oscilloscope to check.  You are not getting something for nothing in
> this type of sensing.  These are not recommended for our line of research
> for lack of calibrated dynamic range.
>

Well, I wasn't suggesting this is a good type for any particular
application. I do not know enough about them to make that claim. I was just
pointing out to H. Veeder that some watt-meters do work by calorimetry.
Calorimeters are good at detecting "all types of endothermic reactions" --
in fact they cannot distinguish between types -- so you can substitute a
calorimeter for a watt-meter.

I have heard that one advantage of the thermal watt meter is that no matter
how short or unusual the wave-form is, it is always captured if the
magnitude is high enough. This is true of all calorimetry. No matter how
intense and short the burst of energy is, as long as the calorimeter walls
prevent it from escaping, and it produces enough joules of heat to be
detected, it will be detected. Naturally, if the energy is in the form of a
burst of x-rays that go right through the walls, or light in a glass
calorimeter, it will not be accounted for.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Alain Sepeda]

If you stabilize the current at I0 I think that the question of average is
solved.

you have

U(t)=U0+R(t)I0
P(t)=U(t)I0

what is proposed here is that R(t) is hugely unpredictable and changing
quickly.

in fact if you measure U(t) average over the time period, you have simply
the power injected. no need to panic with RMS, because I is constant.

Pavg=Uavg.I0




if I is not constant, as if you drive by voltage, you have to measure the
RMS of the current. I think that that is what McKubre found, probably
faster than me, and maybe simply reading electrochemistry literature.

the question is however to have a good current source with a high
bandwidth, wider than the one of the bubble instabilities, but there is
power supplies sold for that...

note that on the opposite of what was said here, adding capacitors would
not help. adding inductors in serie may however help the current source to
overcome huge transients, but with modern electronics it is useless.

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Bob Higgins]

In thermal wattmeter, the series wire that is heated measures the current
squared, not power.  This is useful for measurement of the power to the
load only if the load is resistive and the resistance does not vary because
the power is I^2R.  You could measure the voltage squared with a similar
resistive heater/thermocouple placed across the load which would measure
voltage squared.  However, neither gives you any indication of the AC phase
between the current and the voltage, and hence cannot be used to measure
real power in a device that has inductance or capacitance (all devices have
inductance and capacitance).  Also, such a metering of current squared can
only be calibrated accurately over a narrow range of power being measured -
that is why they have different resistors.   So to use such meters, you
have to presume that you have no phase shift between the voltage and
current (a point of residual equivocation and error).  To insure this is a
correct presumption, you need an oscilloscope to check.  You are not
getting something for nothing in this type of sensing.  These are not
recommended for our line of research for lack of calibrated dynamic range.

Instruments that compute power by sampling the voltage and current at high
rate (PCE 830) are more accurate in general and have high dynamic range.
They remain accurate as long as there are no high frequency components at
or above about 5/(instrument sample period).  That is what the oscilloscope
is used to check, or you could use a spectrum analyzer.  If you have high
frequency components that can create errors, you get an instrument that
samples with a shorter period.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>
> This is not my understanding.  Most wattmeters that are implemented as you
>> describe require the wattmeter to be the entire target load.  Otherwise,
>> there is no error-proof way to know how much power is dissipated in the
>> wattmeter in relation to that which is dissipated in the device.
>>
>
> The resistor is in series with the load, as I said. The meter also
> measures RMS voltage and amperage. The resister is small so the temperature
> changes are very rapid and small. Years ago, this is how some
> industrial-use meters for high power worked.
>
> Okay, this is called a "thermal wattmeter." You can look that up. See, for
> example:
>
> https://www.yokogawa.com/ymi/tutorial/tm-tutorial_wt_12.htm
>
> Some of them have two resistance heaters, with different resistivity.
>
>
>
>> Typical wattmeter instruments have a similar deficiency as was ascribed
>> as an error by McKubre - I.E. taking the average of the voltage and the
>> average of the current and multiplying them to get the power at a sample
>> time.
>>
>
> All of the watt meters do that as well. As I recall, they had three
> methods of measuring the power, which were used at different power levels.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:

This is not my understanding.  Most wattmeters that are implemented as you
> describe require the wattmeter to be the entire target load.  Otherwise,
> there is no error-proof way to know how much power is dissipated in the
> wattmeter in relation to that which is dissipated in the device.
>

The resistor is in series with the load, as I said. The meter also measures
RMS voltage and amperage. The resister is small so the temperature changes
are very rapid and small. Years ago, this is how some industrial-use meters
for high power worked.

Okay, this is called a "thermal wattmeter." You can look that up. See, for
example:

https://www.yokogawa.com/ymi/tutorial/tm-tutorial_wt_12.htm

Some of them have two resistance heaters, with different resistivity.



> Typical wattmeter instruments have a similar deficiency as was ascribed as
> an error by McKubre - I.E. taking the average of the voltage and the
> average of the current and multiplying them to get the power at a sample
> time.
>

All of the watt meters do that as well. As I recall, they had three methods
of measuring the power, which were used at different power levels.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Bob Higgins]

This is not my understanding.  Most wattmeters that are implemented as you
describe require the wattmeter to be the entire target load.  Otherwise,
there is no error-proof way to know how much power is dissipated in the
wattmeter in relation to that which is dissipated in the device.

Typical wattmeter instruments have a similar deficiency as was ascribed as
an error by McKubre - I.E. taking the average of the voltage and the
average of the current and multiplying them to get the power at a sample
time.  These wattmeters have a sample period, during which the voltage is
averaged and the power is averaged as an input to the power and RMS
calculations.  Good power meters will have a very short sample period.  The
PCE 830 used by the Lugano authors had a sample period of probably about
100 microseconds.  Only frequencies above about 5 kHz will cause an error
in power measurement for such an instrument because higher frequencies than
this get averaged out during the sample period causing an error.

On the other hand, many high resolution DAQ systems sample the current and
voltage with a sample period of 1-3 seconds.  So AC signals riding on the
input of frequencies greater than about 1 Hz will cause an error in
assessing the power.  If these AC signals are of small amplitude, the error
will be small in amplitude.  That's why researchers are admonished to check
their waveforms with a digital scope to look for AC signal components
impressed on their otherwise presumed DC sources and assess the impact of
the AC on the measurement of power.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> Well, a watt meter, not a volt meter. Yes, you can, and the instrument
> makers do. All high-quality, high-powered wattmeters use calorimetry. That
> is to say the heat up a resistor wired in series with the load, measure the
> temperature and convert that to power. This method eliminates any
> possibility of exotic waveforms or extremely rapid changes in electric
> power being missed by the instrument. This method detects every joule of
> electricity, no matter what.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Jed Rothwell]

H Veeder  wrote:


> ​Unless heat is absorbed during charging and is released during discharge
> a calorimeter can't tell you if an endothermic reaction occurred.
>

"The heat being absorbed" is the definition of an endothermic reaction.
That's exactly what it is. Even if the energy is not subsequently released,
you can still see the deficit during the storage phase. That is to say, if
you were to charge up a battery but not later discharge it, then you would
see a deficit with no compensating exothermic reaction following that. When
you removed the battery from the calorimeter it would be fully charged up.

The only exception to this would be if the endothermic phase occurs over a
very long time and the deficit is very small. It might be too small to
detect with a given calorimeter. It might then be released as a short
burst. We can rule out this scenario for most cold fusion experiments,
including McKubre's, because the periods when there is no heat are shorter
than the continuous periods when there is heat. So the deficit would have
to be as large or larger than the positive heat release.



> You also need a-priori knowledge of how the energy is stored.
>

No, you don't. Energy is energy. All energy in all forms is either stored
or it converts to heat. Because entropy.



> The calorimeter by itself only tells you that there was a mildly
> exothermic reaction followed by more intense exothermic reaction.
>

No, the two would have to balance in intensity if they were roughly of the
same duration. As I said in most cases endothermic phase would have to be
shorter so it would be more intense and easier to measure.



> Charging a battery is endothermic because it absorbs *electrical* energy,
> not because it absorbs *heat* energy.
>

Other reactions that absorb heat energy (or any other form or source of
energy) show a similar pattern in a calorimeter. For example, reactions
that absorb laser light energy will also show a deficit -- assuming you
measure the laser input correctly, which can be tricky.

A battery happens to be a convenient way to demonstrate this but any
endothermic reaction will do.



> If a calorimeter were good at detecting all types of endothermic reactions
> then you could substitute them for volt meters.
>

Well, a watt meter, not a volt meter. Yes, you can, and the instrument
makers do. All high-quality, high-powered wattmeters use calorimetry. That
is to say the heat up a resistor wired in series with the load, measure the
temperature and convert that to power. This method eliminates any
possibility of exotic waveforms or extremely rapid changes in electric
power being missed by the instrument. This method detects every joule of
electricity, no matter what.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Bob Higgins]

I hate to say this, but what you say is absolutely wrong.  You could only
do as you describe if the "voltage" being averaged is the RMS voltage.  You
cannot take the average voltage and multiply it by the average current to
get average power.  For example, suppose that the voltage was
V=1_0.5sin(wt).  The average of this voltage is 1.  Lets say we have a
constant current of 1A.  By your method, the power would be 1 watt.
However, the actual power is:

P = (1A) sqrt(mean(1+0.5sin(wt))^2)) = (1A) sqrt(mean(1 + sin(wt) +
0.25sin(wt)^2)) = (1A) sqrt(1+.25 (mean(.5 - .5cos(2wt

P = (1A) sqrt(1.125) = 1.0607 Watts

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> The instantaneous power being delivered by the source is equal to the
> product of the current and voltage.  When the current is constant, only DC
> voltage loads can accept power and thus energy from the source.  All of the
> AC voltages that appear across the source terminals integrate to zero
> during a full cycle and do not enter into the input power equation.  This
> understanding seems to escape most people until they review the theories
> carefully.  I had to prove roughly the same issue to several skeptics that
> thought that DC due to load rectification of the AC power source could be
> used to sneak extra power into the earlier ECAT.  They thought this was
> possible since the input power meter did not monitor DC directly.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[David Roberson]

The note from Kur is seriously in error.  Dr. McKubre was entirely correct in 
his assumptions about the constant current operation of his cells.  As he 
explained, the AC noise voltage variations average out over the long term and 
do not contribute to the net input power calculations and hence energy.   The 
skeptics should listen more, study theory in detail, and speculate less.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Alain Sepeda 
To: Vortex List 
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 2:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component





2014-10-24 23:14 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell :

McKubre never reported a 3% gain. Even with his calorimeter that would be in 
the margin of error at the bottom of the scale, although he can detect the 
difference between, say, 40% and 43%. As I recall, McKubre reported gains 
ranging from 20% to 300% with input power, and infinity without input power, in 
heat after death. He once remarked that for the entire run, the gain was ~3%. I 
wish he had not said that. It is a meaningless number. It is like reporting the 
average speed of your car including the times it is parked, or waiting at a red 
light. The only meaningful number for "gain" or "COP" is when excess heat is 
clearly present.


The effect of bubbles in electrochemical cells is well understood and it has 
been easy to observe at least since oscilloscopes were invented. It cannot 
possibly produce an error on this scale. Not even 1%. People who speculate 
about such things have read nothing and know nothing.


This notion is somewhat similar to the claim that cells might be "storing" 
chemical energy and releasing it. Ignorant skeptics come up with this several 
times a year. You need only glance at the data to establish that: 1. Nothing is 
being stored; there are no endothermic phases, and 2. Continuous, uninterrupted 
bursts of heat far exceed the limits of chemistry. A calorimeter can detect an 
endothermic reaction as well as it can detect an exothermic reaction. If this 
was chemical storage, the endothermic phases would show up as clearly as the 
exothermic phases that follow them, and the two would balance. This is exactly 
what you see for the small amount of energy that is stored and release by 
palladium hydrides.


I relayed you answer on the dozen of similar post


note that Kur propose a more synthetic article
https://sites.google.com/site/barrykort/ac-burst-noise

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Alain Sepeda]

2014-10-24 23:14 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell :

> McKubre never reported a 3% gain. Even with his calorimeter that would be
> in the margin of error at the bottom of the scale, although he can detect
> the difference between, say, 40% and 43%. As I recall, McKubre reported
> gains ranging from 20% to 300% with input power, and infinity without input
> power, in heat after death. He once remarked that for the entire run, the
> gain was ~3%. I wish he had not said that. It is a meaningless number. It
> is like reporting the average speed of your car including the times it is
> parked, or waiting at a red light. The only meaningful number for "gain" or
> "COP" is when excess heat is clearly present.
>
> The effect of bubbles in electrochemical cells is well understood and it
> has been easy to observe at least since oscilloscopes were invented. It
> cannot possibly produce an error on this scale. Not even 1%. People who
> speculate about such things have read nothing and know nothing.
>
> This notion is somewhat similar to the claim that cells might be "storing"
> chemical energy and releasing it. Ignorant skeptics come up with this
> several times a year. You need only glance at the data to establish that:
> 1. Nothing is being stored; there are no endothermic phases, and 2.
> Continuous, uninterrupted bursts of heat far exceed the limits of
> chemistry. A calorimeter can detect an endothermic reaction as well as it
> can detect an exothermic reaction. If this was chemical storage, the
> endothermic phases would show up as clearly as the exothermic phases that
> follow them, and the two would balance. This is exactly what you see for
> the small amount of energy that is stored and release by palladium hydrides.
>

I relayed you answer on the dozen of similar post

note that Kur propose a more synthetic article
https://sites.google.com/site/barrykort/ac-burst-noise

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[David Roberson]

The information that I have received, which might not be totally accurate, is 
that most of the testing is done in constant current mode operation.  The 
supply current would be monitored and then plenty of negative feedback would 
come into play to ensure that the current remains fixed.  This type of control 
can be made very stiff and not sensitive to the voltage appearing across the 
output terminals.  A large capacitor connected across that set of terminals 
would offer an easy path for any transient currents generated by bursting 
bubbles or other short term changes that appear due to load variations.

I would not consider the capacitor as making the supply a constant voltage 
system.  It is true that it allows any instantaneous load transient currents to 
have an easy escape and therefore to bypass the DC current from the supply 
itself.  But, at the same time it allows the constant DC current to flow 
without having to compensate for large fast voltage swings that would normally 
appear across its output terminals.  This is the best of both worlds.  Steady 
DC current exiting the supply that can be assumed constant and in fact would 
be...slow voltage swings across the capacitor that can easily be followed to 
determine the true power being delivered into the load.  The larger the 
capacitor the better provided that supply stability can be maintained.

The instantaneous power being delivered by the source is equal to the product 
of the current and voltage.  When the current is constant, only DC voltage 
loads can accept power and thus energy from the source.  All of the AC voltages 
that appear across the source terminals integrate to zero during a full cycle 
and do not enter into the input power equation.  This understanding seems to 
escape most people until they review the theories carefully.  I had to prove 
roughly the same issue to several skeptics that thought that DC due to load 
rectification of the AC power source could be used to sneak extra power into 
the earlier ECAT.  They thought this was possible since the input power meter 
did not monitor DC directly.

The input power can be accurately determined in a system such as I am referring 
to by merely taking the slowly varying DC voltage that is residing across the 
large capacitor averaged over the entire time of the test.  This average DC 
voltage can then be multiplied by the known DC current from the source to 
arrive at the average input power.  Multiply this number by the time and you 
get the energy input into the cell.  I believe that it is as simple as that.  I 
read an article from a skeptic that made an attempt to confuse the issue by 
bringing up the small rapid AC currents generated by the collapsing bubbles.  I 
suspect that he just did not understand the problem.

Dr. McKubre has convinced me that he is a very savvy guy and I suspect that 
many of the skeptics underestimate his knowledge.  These skeptics are looking 
for every possible avenue in their quest to discredit everyone associated with 
this subject.  It is too bad that they are not up to the quality of the 
researchers that we have the privilege to know.

Dave   

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 1:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component


I have no first hand knowledge one way or the other [this was not my 
assertion].  I believe Dr. McKubre to be an outstanding researcher and have no 
reason to believe this escaped his attention.  Even if it did, it would only be 
a minor error and does not alter conclusions.


It will make a difference whether in constant current mode or constant voltage 
mode.  Given the nature of the chemical cell having a "cell voltage", constant 
voltage mode would likely be worse because I think the bubbles would cause 
larger swings in real instantaneous power than if the cell were run in constant 
current mode.  The problem exists to some extent with almost any real DAQ.  If 
the current remains perfectly fixed, the voltage will change and there will 
still be real instantaneous power variation, only I think less real 
instantaneous power variation than in constant voltage mode.  The smaller the 
real instantaneous power variation, the smaller the error introduced by using 
average current and average voltage over a discrete interval.  Keep in mind, we 
are talking about small changes in resistance - well within the regulation 
circuits of most power supplies. 


Adding a capacitor across the supply just insures constant voltage mode - which 
I believe would be worse than constant current mode.  The most practical 
solution is to reduce the sampling period by spending more on the DAQ.  The 
error can be reduced via shortening the sampling period until the error is no 
longer a concern - at additional cost of the DAQ.  Just like anything else, you 
can usually buy more accuracy.



Bob


On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Roberson  

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Bob Higgins]

I have no first hand knowledge one way or the other [this was not my
assertion].  I believe Dr. McKubre to be an outstanding researcher and have
no reason to believe this escaped his attention.  Even if it did, it would
only be a minor error and does not alter conclusions.

It will make a difference whether in constant current mode or constant
voltage mode.  Given the nature of the chemical cell having a "cell
voltage", constant voltage mode would likely be worse because I think the
bubbles would cause larger swings in real instantaneous power than if the
cell were run in constant current mode.  The problem exists to some extent
with almost any real DAQ.  If the current remains perfectly fixed, the
voltage will change and there will still be real instantaneous power
variation, only I think less real instantaneous power variation than in
constant voltage mode.  The smaller the real instantaneous power variation,
the smaller the error introduced by using average current and average
voltage over a discrete interval.  Keep in mind, we are talking about small
changes in resistance - well within the regulation circuits of most power
supplies.

Adding a capacitor across the supply just insures constant voltage mode -
which I believe would be worse than constant current mode.  The most
practical solution is to reduce the sampling period by spending more on the
DAQ.  The error can be reduced via shortening the sampling period until the
error is no longer a concern - at additional cost of the DAQ.  Just like
anything else, you can usually buy more accuracy.

Bob

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> If the internal current control feedback mechanism is slow to act, then
> the output current might indeed change significantly.  I have never put a
> constant current supply under careful supervision before but assumed that
> the guys designing them would go to lengths to ensure that they in fact
> maintain the output DC current constant under varying loads.  Have you
> performed this measurement on a high quality constant current supply?
>
> We also would need to assume that McKubre was not aware of the possible
> problems that have been pointed out.  Perhaps we should get feedback from
> him to answer that question.
>
> If the current does not remain fixed and DC, then there are many possible
> errors to follow up on.  On the other hand, if the source really does keep
> the current constant with adequate feedback control then the input power
> can be accurately determined by only taking into account the average DC
> voltage appearing across the supply terminals.  AC signal voltages
> generated due to bubbles, etc. should not enter into the power input
> measurement unless they force the supply to go into operation outside of
> its normal range.
>
> Bob, I would be somewhat surprised to find that an expert of McKubre's
> caliber would not have a good handle upon the input power and energy levels
> after chasing that sort of problem for many years.  Surely he would have
> seen the significant variation in current flowing through his test system
> at some time and attempted to rectify the situation with a better constant
> current system.  Perhaps something as simple as a large capacitor across
> the supply output terminals would smooth out the current pulses.  How
> confident are you that he missed this issue?
>
> Dave

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[David Roberson]

If the internal current control feedback mechanism is slow to act, then the 
output current might indeed change significantly.  I have never put a constant 
current supply under careful supervision before but assumed that the guys 
designing them would go to lengths to ensure that they in fact maintain the 
output DC current constant under varying loads.  Have you performed this 
measurement on a high quality constant current supply?

We also would need to assume that McKubre was not aware of the possible 
problems that have been pointed out.  Perhaps we should get feedback from him 
to answer that question.

If the current does not remain fixed and DC, then there are many possible 
errors to follow up on.  On the other hand, if the source really does keep the 
current constant with adequate feedback control then the input power can be 
accurately determined by only taking into account the average DC voltage 
appearing across the supply terminals.  AC signal voltages generated due to 
bubbles, etc. should not enter into the power input measurement unless they 
force the supply to go into operation outside of its normal range.

Bob, I would be somewhat surprised to find that an expert of McKubre's caliber 
would not have a good handle upon the input power and energy levels after 
chasing that sort of problem for many years.  Surely he would have seen the 
significant variation in current flowing through his test system at some time 
and attempted to rectify the situation with a better constant current system.  
Perhaps something as simple as a large capacitor across the supply output 
terminals would smooth out the current pulses.  How confident are you that he 
missed this issue?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 11:05 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component


What you say, Dave, is entirely true and always pragmatically wrong.  Most DAQ 
systems do not sample simultaneously and have an input capacitance that 
provides averaging.  Thus, you will always be reading average current between 
samples and average voltage.  Computing power from average current and average 
voltage will always be in error if there is any variation.  As the sampling 
period approaches zero, the sampled average current times the sampled average 
voltage will approach the sampled average power.  Unfortunately many DAQ 
systems have sampling periods of 1-3 seconds to sample many channels and 
provide best an most accurate readings (of the average) and to filter out 60 Hz 
and its harmonics.  This means that short scale current variation will be 
averaged (not RMS'ed).  


It may be better to create a calibrated analog multiplier and feed that into a 
DAQ channel.  Then you would be reading average power which would be OK.  If 
you had an analog RMS function, that would also be OK to be averaged.


Still, for bubble current/voltage noise, this represents only a small error bar 
in his experiment and does not invalidate the results.


Bob



On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:50 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

The total instantaneous power into the system can be calculated by taking the 
instantaneous source voltage and multiplying it by the instantaneous source 
current.  It does not matter whether you want to call it AC or DC since this is 
the total that is being delivered.  There is no more, regardless of how the 
load changes resistance.

If you then integrate the instantaneous power over the time period of interest, 
you get the total energy delivered by that source.  The requirement is that you 
must accurately measure the voltage and current waveforms during the period of 
interest.

If someone can show that the measuring system used by McKubre was not capable 
of following the waveforms then they might have a valid point.  I suspect the 
Mike knew how to make these measurements in an accurate manner.  The skeptics 
need to demonstrate otherwise.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Bob Higgins]

What you say, Dave, is entirely true and always pragmatically wrong.  Most
DAQ systems do not sample simultaneously and have an input capacitance that
provides averaging.  Thus, you will always be reading average current
between samples and average voltage.  Computing power from average current
and average voltage will always be in error if there is any variation.  As
the sampling period approaches zero, the sampled average current times the
sampled average voltage will approach the sampled average power.
Unfortunately many DAQ systems have sampling periods of 1-3 seconds to
sample many channels and provide best an most accurate readings (of the
average) and to filter out 60 Hz and its harmonics.  This means that short
scale current variation will be averaged (not RMS'ed).

It may be better to create a calibrated analog multiplier and feed that
into a DAQ channel.  Then you would be reading average power which would be
OK.  If you had an analog RMS function, that would also be OK to be
averaged.

Still, for bubble current/voltage noise, this represents only a small error
bar in his experiment and does not invalidate the results.

Bob

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:50 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> The total instantaneous power into the system can be calculated by taking
> the instantaneous source voltage and multiplying it by the instantaneous
> source current.  It does not matter whether you want to call it AC or DC
> since this is the total that is being delivered.  There is no more,
> regardless of how the load changes resistance.
>
> If you then integrate the instantaneous power over the time period of
> interest, you get the total energy delivered by that source.  The
> requirement is that you must accurately measure the voltage and current
> waveforms during the period of interest.
>
> If someone can show that the measuring system used by McKubre was not
> capable of following the waveforms then they might have a valid point.  I
> suspect the Mike knew how to make these measurements in an accurate
> manner.  The skeptics need to demonstrate otherwise.
>
> Dave

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[David Roberson]

The total instantaneous power into the system can be calculated by taking the 
instantaneous source voltage and multiplying it by the instantaneous source 
current.  It does not matter whether you want to call it AC or DC since this is 
the total that is being delivered.  There is no more, regardless of how the 
load changes resistance.

If you then integrate the instantaneous power over the time period of interest, 
you get the total energy delivered by that source.  The requirement is that you 
must accurately measure the voltage and current waveforms during the period of 
interest.

If someone can show that the measuring system used by McKubre was not capable 
of following the waveforms then they might have a valid point.  I suspect the 
Mike knew how to make these measurements in an accurate manner.  The skeptics 
need to demonstrate otherwise.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Alain Sepeda 
To: Vortex List 
Sent: Fri, Oct 24, 2014 10:47 am
Subject: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component



Barry Kort on Dr bob blog reported challenging critiques of McKubre experiments



http://www.drboblog.com/cbs-60-minutes-on-cold-fusion/#comment-37932



maybe some already have the debunking, the correction... i imagien it is 
addressed:







About a year after CBS 60 Minutes aired their episode on Cold Fusion, I 
followed up with Rob Duncan to explore Richard Garwin’s thesis that McKubre was 
measuring the input electric power incorrectly.
It turns out that McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his cells, 
and assuming (for arcane technical reasons) there could not be any AC power 
going in, and therefore he didn’t need to measure or include any AC power term 
in his energy budget model.
Together with several other people, I helped work out a model for the omitted 
AC power term in McKubre’s experimental design. Our model showed that there was 
measurable and significant AC power, arising from the fluctuations in ohmic 
resistance as bubbles formed and sloughed off the surface of the palladium 
electrodes. Our model jibed with both the qualitative and quantitative evidence 
from McKubre’s reports:
1) McKubre (and others) noted that the excess heat only appeared after the 
palladium lattice was fully loaded. And that’s precisely when the Faradaic 
current no longer charges up the lattice, but begins producing gas bubbles on 
the surfaces of the electrodes.
2) The excess heat in McKubre’s cells was only apparent, significant, and 
sizable when the Faradaic drive current was elevated to dramatically high 
levels, thereby increasing the rate at which bubbles were forming and sloughing 
off the electrodes.
3) The effect was enhanced if the surface of the electrodes was rough rather 
than polished smooth, so that larger bubbles could form and cling to the rough 
surface before sloughing off, thereby alternately occluding and exposing 
somewhat larger fractions of surface area for each bubble.
The time-varying resistance arising from the bubbles forming and sloughing off 
the surface of the electrodes — after the cell was fully loaded, enhanced by 
elevated Faradaic drive currents and further enhanced by a rough electrode 
surface — produced measurable and significant AC noise power into the energy 
budget model that went as the square of the magnitude of the fluctuations in 
the cell resistance.
To a first approximation, a 17% fluctuation in resistance would nominally 
produce a 3% increase in power, over and above the baseline DC power term. 
Garwin and Lewis had found that McKubre’s cells were producing about 3% more 
heat than could be accounted for with his energy measurements, where McKubre 
was reckoning only the DC power going into his cells, and (incorrectly) 
assuming there was no AC power that needed to be measured or included in his 
energy budget model.
I suggest slapping an audio VU meter across McKubre’s cell to measure the AC 
burst noise from the fluctuating resistance. Alternatively use one of McKubre’s 
constant current power supplies to drive an old style desk telephone with a 
carbon button microphone. I predict the handset will still function: if you 
blow into the mouthpiece, you’ll hear it in the earpiece, thereby proving the 
reality of an AC audio signal riding on top of the DC current.

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[H Veeder]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H Veeder  wrote:
>
>
>> Scott Little showed a beautiful example of this once. He put a
>>> rechargeable battery into a calorimeter and charged it up. There was a
>>> deficit comparing electricity to the rising temperature. Then he discharged
>>> the battery through a resister in the cell. All the lost energy came back.
>>> The balance was close to zero.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Was the temperature of the water in the calorimeter rising during
>> charging?
>>
>
> I don't recall. It was a long time ago. Anyway, it was less than it would
> have been if all the electricity had converted to heat. Some of it did
> convert convert to heat, but there was a deficit.
>
> - Jed
>
>

​​

​Unless heat is absorbed during charging and is released during discharge a
calorimeter can't tell you if an endothermic reaction occurred. You also
need a-priori knowledge of how the energy is stored. The calorimeter by
itself only tells you that there was a mildly exothermic reaction followed
by more intense exothermic reaction.

Charging a battery is endothermic because it absorbs *electrical* energy,
not because it absorbs *heat* energy. If a calorimeter were good at
detecting all types of endothermic reactions then you could substitute them
for volt meters. Heat is a form of energy and although energy cannot be
destroyed (according to CoE principle) heat can be destroyed by converting
it into another form of energy. Note that the terms endothermic and
exothermic are used in a way that supersedes their original meaning of
absorbing or releasing *heat*.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Jed Rothwell]

H Veeder  wrote:


> Scott Little showed a beautiful example of this once. He put a
>> rechargeable battery into a calorimeter and charged it up. There was a
>> deficit comparing electricity to the rising temperature. Then he discharged
>> the battery through a resister in the cell. All the lost energy came back.
>> The balance was close to zero.
>>
>>
>
> Was the temperature of the water in the calorimeter rising during charging?
>

I don't recall. It was a long time ago. Anyway, it was less than it would
have been if all the electricity had converted to heat. Some of it did
convert convert to heat, but there was a deficit.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[H Veeder]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> H Veeder  wrote:
>
>
>> Ok so you can design a calorimeter to detect this particular endothermic
>>> reaction, however, if you don't know a-priori what type of endothermic
>>> reaction or what energy source is involved a "standard" calorimeter might
>>> fail to detect it.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>> ​Another potential problem is that a calorimeter designed to detect an
>> exothermic reaction might prevent an unknown endothermic reaction which is
>> a prerequisite for the exothermic reaction. ​
>>
>
> A calorimeter cannot be designed for exothermic or endothermic reactions.
> If it can measure an increase in heat, it can measure a decrease with the
> same accuracy and precision. When a reaction produces heat and then stops
> producing it, the calorimeter always shows that decline. You always see the
> power fluctuating up and down; the calorimeter always measures in both
> directions equally well. With an endothermic reaction the decline goes
> below the starting point. That's the only difference. The calorimeter does
> not care about that.
>
> If the cell was storing up energy, you would see it for sure. Scott Little
> showed a beautiful example of this once. He put a rechargeable battery into
> a calorimeter and charged it up. There was a deficit comparing electricity
> to the rising temperature. Then he discharged the battery through a
> resister in the cell. All the lost energy came back. The balance was close
> to zero.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Was the temperature of the water in the calorimeter rising during charging?



Harry

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Foks0904 .]

Thanks for the clarification Jed. Easy to misunderstand the 3%.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Foks0904 .  wrote:
>
> If this is purely in reference to the 3% gain chronicled by McKubre years
>> ago in the old [EPRI] report, we already know that might be an ambiguous
>> result . . .
>>
>
> McKubre never reported a 3% gain. Even with his calorimeter that would be
> in the margin of error at the bottom of the scale, although he can detect
> the difference between, say, 40% and 43%. As I recall, McKubre reported
> gains ranging from 20% to 300% with input power, and infinity without input
> power, in heat after death. He once remarked that for the entire run, the
> gain was ~3%. I wish he had not said that. It is a meaningless number. It
> is like reporting the average speed of your car including the times it is
> parked, or waiting at a red light. The only meaningful number for "gain" or
> "COP" is when excess heat is clearly present.
>
> The effect of bubbles in electrochemical cells is well understood and it
> has been easy to observe at least since oscilloscopes were invented. It
> cannot possibly produce an error on this scale. Not even 1%. People who
> speculate about such things have read nothing and know nothing.
>
> This notion is somewhat similar to the claim that cells might be "storing"
> chemical energy and releasing it. Ignorant skeptics come up with this
> several times a year. You need only glance at the data to establish that:
> 1. Nothing is being stored; there are no endothermic phases, and 2.
> Continuous, uninterrupted bursts of heat far exceed the limits of
> chemistry. A calorimeter can detect an endothermic reaction as well as it
> can detect an exothermic reaction. If this was chemical storage, the
> endothermic phases would show up as clearly as the exothermic phases that
> follow them, and the two would balance. This is exactly what you see for
> the small amount of energy that is stored and release by palladium hydrides.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Jed Rothwell]

H Veeder  wrote:


> Ok so you can design a calorimeter to detect this particular endothermic
>> reaction, however, if you don't know a-priori what type of endothermic
>> reaction or what energy source is involved a "standard" calorimeter might
>> fail to detect it.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
> ​Another potential problem is that a calorimeter designed to detect an
> exothermic reaction might prevent an unknown endothermic reaction which is
> a prerequisite for the exothermic reaction. ​
>

A calorimeter cannot be designed for exothermic or endothermic reactions.
If it can measure an increase in heat, it can measure a decrease with the
same accuracy and precision. When a reaction produces heat and then stops
producing it, the calorimeter always shows that decline. You always see the
power fluctuating up and down; the calorimeter always measures in both
directions equally well. With an endothermic reaction the decline goes
below the starting point. That's the only difference. The calorimeter does
not care about that.

If the cell was storing up energy, you would see it for sure. Scott Little
showed a beautiful example of this once. He put a rechargeable battery into
a calorimeter and charged it up. There was a deficit comparing electricity
to the rising temperature. Then he discharged the battery through a
resister in the cell. All the lost energy came back. The balance was close
to zero.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[H Veeder]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:48 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> H Veeder  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ​Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction but instead of absorbing heat
>>> energy it absorbs light energy.
>>> I doubt a calorimeter would detect that.
>>>
>>
>> The light source would have to be inside the calorimeter to affect the
>> process, so yes, it would detect the energy from the light. All energy
>> converts to heat. Unless the calorimeter was made of glass the light would
>> not escape. (Some calorimeters are made of glass. Some have glass windows.)
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
> Ok so you can design a calorimeter to detect this particular endothermic
> reaction, however, if you don't know a-priori what type of endothermic
> reaction or what energy source is involved a "standard" calorimeter might
> fail to detect it.
>
> Harry
>
>
​Another potential problem is that a calorimeter designed to detect an
exothermic reaction might prevent an unknown endothermic reaction which is
a prerequisite for the exothermic reaction. ​

Harry

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[H Veeder]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H Veeder  wrote:
>
>
>> ​Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction but instead of absorbing heat
>> energy it absorbs light energy.
>> I doubt a calorimeter would detect that.
>>
>
> The light source would have to be inside the calorimeter to affect the
> process, so yes, it would detect the energy from the light. All energy
> converts to heat. Unless the calorimeter was made of glass the light would
> not escape. (Some calorimeters are made of glass. Some have glass windows.)
>
> - Jed
>
>

Ok so you can design a calorimeter to detect this particular endothermic
reaction, however, if you don't know a-priori what type of endothermic
reaction or what energy source is involved a "standard" calorimeter might
fail to detect it.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Jed Rothwell]

H Veeder  wrote:


> ​Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction but instead of absorbing heat
> energy it absorbs light energy.
> I doubt a calorimeter would detect that.
>

The light source would have to be inside the calorimeter to affect the
process, so yes, it would detect the energy from the light. All energy
converts to heat. Unless the calorimeter was made of glass the light would
not escape. (Some calorimeters are made of glass. Some have glass windows.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[H Veeder]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Foks0904 .  wrote:
>
> If this is purely in reference to the 3% gain chronicled by McKubre years
>> ago in the old [EPRI] report, we already know that might be an ambiguous
>> result . . .
>>
>
> McKubre never reported a 3% gain. Even with his calorimeter that would be
> in the margin of error at the bottom of the scale, although he can detect
> the difference between, say, 40% and 43%. As I recall, McKubre reported
> gains ranging from 20% to 300% with input power, and infinity without input
> power, in heat after death. He once remarked that for the entire run, the
> gain was ~3%. I wish he had not said that. It is a meaningless number. It
> is like reporting the average speed of your car including the times it is
> parked, or waiting at a red light. The only meaningful number for "gain" or
> "COP" is when excess heat is clearly present.
>
> The effect of bubbles in electrochemical cells is well understood and it
> has been easy to observe at least since oscilloscopes were invented. It
> cannot possibly produce an error on this scale. Not even 1%. People who
> speculate about such things have read nothing and know nothing.
>
> This notion is somewhat similar to the claim that cells might be "storing"
> chemical energy and releasing it. Ignorant skeptics come up with this
> several times a year. You need only glance at the data to establish that:
> 1. Nothing is being stored; there are no endothermic phases, and 2.
> Continuous, uninterrupted bursts of heat far exceed the limits of
> chemistry. A calorimeter can detect an endothermic reaction as well as it
> can detect an exothermic reaction. If this was chemical storage, the
> endothermic phases would show up as clearly as the exothermic phases that
> follow them, and the two would balance. This is exactly what you see for
> the small amount of energy that is stored and release by palladium hydrides.
>
> - Jed
>
>
​Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction but instead of absorbing heat
energy it absorbs light energy.
I doubt a calorimeter would detect that.

I did not mention this to lend credence to the endothermic explanation
because as you point out the energy stored stored would still only be
chemical in magnitude.
I mention it because endothermic nuclear reactions might play a role in the
production of excess heat.

Harry

Harry​

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Jed Rothwell]

Foks0904 .  wrote:

If this is purely in reference to the 3% gain chronicled by McKubre years
> ago in the old [EPRI] report, we already know that might be an ambiguous
> result . . .
>

McKubre never reported a 3% gain. Even with his calorimeter that would be
in the margin of error at the bottom of the scale, although he can detect
the difference between, say, 40% and 43%. As I recall, McKubre reported
gains ranging from 20% to 300% with input power, and infinity without input
power, in heat after death. He once remarked that for the entire run, the
gain was ~3%. I wish he had not said that. It is a meaningless number. It
is like reporting the average speed of your car including the times it is
parked, or waiting at a red light. The only meaningful number for "gain" or
"COP" is when excess heat is clearly present.

The effect of bubbles in electrochemical cells is well understood and it
has been easy to observe at least since oscilloscopes were invented. It
cannot possibly produce an error on this scale. Not even 1%. People who
speculate about such things have read nothing and know nothing.

This notion is somewhat similar to the claim that cells might be "storing"
chemical energy and releasing it. Ignorant skeptics come up with this
several times a year. You need only glance at the data to establish that:
1. Nothing is being stored; there are no endothermic phases, and 2.
Continuous, uninterrupted bursts of heat far exceed the limits of
chemistry. A calorimeter can detect an endothermic reaction as well as it
can detect an exothermic reaction. If this was chemical storage, the
endothermic phases would show up as clearly as the exothermic phases that
follow them, and the two would balance. This is exactly what you see for
the small amount of energy that is stored and release by palladium hydrides.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Ruby]

This guy is spamming lots of our Youtube's.
I let him post the same exact tome on two or three of our videos, but 
after that, I deleted his comments.

Ruby


On 10/24/14, 7:46 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
Barry Kort on Dr bob blog reported challenging critiques of McKubre 
experiments

http://www.drboblog.com/cbs-60-minutes-on-cold-fusion/#comment-37932

maybe some already have the debunking, the correction... i imagien it 
is addressed:


About a year after CBS 60 Minutes aired their episode on Cold Fusion, 
I followed up with Rob Duncan to explore Richard Garwin’s thesis that 
McKubre was measuring the input electric power incorrectly.





--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Foks0904 .]

*Correction: Not ELFORSK, EPRI

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Foks0904 .  wrote:

> If this is purely in reference to the 3% gain chronicled by McKubre years
> ago in the old ELFORSK report, we already know that might be an ambiguous
> result, and what does it have to do with the 60 Minutes presentation? I
> don't really care if they're able to shoot down one series of ambiguous
> experiments -- cold fusion history is littered with them, so what? No
> artifact is even close to being applicable to all systems, all experiments,
> etc. Excess heat is as close to a scientific reality as one can get (which
> of course doesn't mean 100% as you all know).
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Foks0904 .  wrote:
>
>> I'd wager this isn't a terribly important critique, considering it's on a
>> guys blog and at-a-glance not even approaching the authority of a white
>> paper. If I had to guess, I'd gamble this has been either implicitly or
>> explicitly covered elsewhere somewhere in the literature. The thing about
>> armchair skeptics (similar to Kirk Shanahan), though I appreciate "Dr.
>> Bob's" proactive nature & seemingly sincere attempts to explore this
>> subject, is that most of their "criticism" amounts to nothing more
>> than theory-crafting, and almost anything that can be imagined in science
>> will be imagined. There is no real desire to see this tested in a lab,
>> or perhaps their argument is, "You use your money, time, and psychological
>> energy into testing this, while I'll continue to sling innuendo from the
>> sidelines."
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:32 AM, James Bowery 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Could this explain figure 3 in Storms's paper "The Status of Cold
>>> Fusion (2010) "?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Alain Sepeda 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Barry Kort on Dr bob blog reported challenging critiques of McKubre
 experiments

 http://www.drboblog.com/cbs-60-minutes-on-cold-fusion/#comment-37932

 maybe some already have the debunking, the correction... i imagien it
 is addressed:



 About a year after CBS 60 Minutes aired their episode on Cold Fusion, I
 followed up with Rob Duncan to explore Richard Garwin’s thesis that McKubre
 was measuring the input electric power incorrectly.

 It turns out that McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into
 his cells, and assuming (for arcane technical reasons) there could not be
 any AC power going in, and therefore he didn’t need to measure or include
 any AC power term in his energy budget model.

 Together with several other people, I helped work out a model for the
 omitted AC power term in McKubre’s experimental design. Our model showed
 that there was measurable and significant AC power, arising from the
 fluctuations in ohmic resistance as bubbles formed and sloughed off the
 surface of the palladium electrodes. Our model jibed with both the
 qualitative and quantitative evidence from McKubre’s reports:

 1) McKubre (and others) noted that the excess heat only appeared after
 the palladium lattice was fully loaded. And that’s precisely when the
 Faradaic current no longer charges up the lattice, but begins producing gas
 bubbles on the surfaces of the electrodes.

 2) The excess heat in McKubre’s cells was only apparent, significant,
 and sizable when the Faradaic drive current was elevated to dramatically
 high levels, thereby increasing the rate at which bubbles were forming and
 sloughing off the electrodes.

 3) The effect was enhanced if the surface of the electrodes was rough
 rather than polished smooth, so that larger bubbles could form and cling to
 the rough surface before sloughing off, thereby alternately occluding and
 exposing somewhat larger fractions of surface area for each bubble.

 The time-varying resistance arising from the bubbles forming and
 sloughing off the surface of the electrodes — after the cell was fully
 loaded, enhanced by elevated Faradaic drive currents and further enhanced
 by a rough electrode surface — produced measurable and significant AC noise
 power into the energy budget model that went as the square of the magnitude
 of the fluctuations in the cell resistance.

 To a first approximation, a 17% fluctuation in resistance would
 nominally produce a 3% increase in power, over and above the baseline DC
 power term. Garwin and Lewis had found that McKubre’s cells were producing
 about 3% more heat than could be accounted for with his energy
 measurements, where McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his
 cells, and (incorrectly) assuming there was no AC power that needed to be
 measured or included in his energy budget model.

 I suggest slapping an audio VU meter across McKubre’s cell to measure
 the AC burst 

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Foks0904 .]

If this is purely in reference to the 3% gain chronicled by McKubre years
ago in the old ELFORSK report, we already know that might be an ambiguous
result, and what does it have to do with the 60 Minutes presentation? I
don't really care if they're able to shoot down one series of ambiguous
experiments -- cold fusion history is littered with them, so what? No
artifact is even close to being applicable to all systems, all experiments,
etc. Excess heat is as close to a scientific reality as one can get (which
of course doesn't mean 100% as you all know).

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Foks0904 .  wrote:

> I'd wager this isn't a terribly important critique, considering it's on a
> guys blog and at-a-glance not even approaching the authority of a white
> paper. If I had to guess, I'd gamble this has been either implicitly or
> explicitly covered elsewhere somewhere in the literature. The thing about
> armchair skeptics (similar to Kirk Shanahan), though I appreciate "Dr.
> Bob's" proactive nature & seemingly sincere attempts to explore this
> subject, is that most of their "criticism" amounts to nothing more
> than theory-crafting, and almost anything that can be imagined in science
> will be imagined. There is no real desire to see this tested in a lab,
> or perhaps their argument is, "You use your money, time, and psychological
> energy into testing this, while I'll continue to sling innuendo from the
> sidelines."
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:32 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Could this explain figure 3 in Storms's paper "The Status of Cold Fusion
>> (2010) "?
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Alain Sepeda 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Barry Kort on Dr bob blog reported challenging critiques of McKubre
>>> experiments
>>>
>>> http://www.drboblog.com/cbs-60-minutes-on-cold-fusion/#comment-37932
>>>
>>> maybe some already have the debunking, the correction... i imagien it is
>>> addressed:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> About a year after CBS 60 Minutes aired their episode on Cold Fusion, I
>>> followed up with Rob Duncan to explore Richard Garwin’s thesis that McKubre
>>> was measuring the input electric power incorrectly.
>>>
>>> It turns out that McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his
>>> cells, and assuming (for arcane technical reasons) there could not be any
>>> AC power going in, and therefore he didn’t need to measure or include any
>>> AC power term in his energy budget model.
>>>
>>> Together with several other people, I helped work out a model for the
>>> omitted AC power term in McKubre’s experimental design. Our model showed
>>> that there was measurable and significant AC power, arising from the
>>> fluctuations in ohmic resistance as bubbles formed and sloughed off the
>>> surface of the palladium electrodes. Our model jibed with both the
>>> qualitative and quantitative evidence from McKubre’s reports:
>>>
>>> 1) McKubre (and others) noted that the excess heat only appeared after
>>> the palladium lattice was fully loaded. And that’s precisely when the
>>> Faradaic current no longer charges up the lattice, but begins producing gas
>>> bubbles on the surfaces of the electrodes.
>>>
>>> 2) The excess heat in McKubre’s cells was only apparent, significant,
>>> and sizable when the Faradaic drive current was elevated to dramatically
>>> high levels, thereby increasing the rate at which bubbles were forming and
>>> sloughing off the electrodes.
>>>
>>> 3) The effect was enhanced if the surface of the electrodes was rough
>>> rather than polished smooth, so that larger bubbles could form and cling to
>>> the rough surface before sloughing off, thereby alternately occluding and
>>> exposing somewhat larger fractions of surface area for each bubble.
>>>
>>> The time-varying resistance arising from the bubbles forming and
>>> sloughing off the surface of the electrodes — after the cell was fully
>>> loaded, enhanced by elevated Faradaic drive currents and further enhanced
>>> by a rough electrode surface — produced measurable and significant AC noise
>>> power into the energy budget model that went as the square of the magnitude
>>> of the fluctuations in the cell resistance.
>>>
>>> To a first approximation, a 17% fluctuation in resistance would
>>> nominally produce a 3% increase in power, over and above the baseline DC
>>> power term. Garwin and Lewis had found that McKubre’s cells were producing
>>> about 3% more heat than could be accounted for with his energy
>>> measurements, where McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his
>>> cells, and (incorrectly) assuming there was no AC power that needed to be
>>> measured or included in his energy budget model.
>>>
>>> I suggest slapping an audio VU meter across McKubre’s cell to measure
>>> the AC burst noise from the fluctuating resistance. Alternatively use one
>>> of McKubre’s constant current power supplies to drive an old style desk
>>> telephone with a carbon button microphone. I pr

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Foks0904 .]

I'd wager this isn't a terribly important critique, considering it's on a
guys blog and at-a-glance not even approaching the authority of a white
paper. If I had to guess, I'd gamble this has been either implicitly or
explicitly covered elsewhere somewhere in the literature. The thing about
armchair skeptics (similar to Kirk Shanahan), though I appreciate "Dr.
Bob's" proactive nature & seemingly sincere attempts to explore this
subject, is that most of their "criticism" amounts to nothing more
than theory-crafting, and almost anything that can be imagined in science
will be imagined. There is no real desire to see this tested in a lab,
or perhaps their argument is, "You use your money, time, and psychological
energy into testing this, while I'll continue to sling innuendo from the
sidelines."

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:32 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Could this explain figure 3 in Storms's paper "The Status of Cold Fusion
> (2010) "?
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Alain Sepeda 
> wrote:
>
>> Barry Kort on Dr bob blog reported challenging critiques of McKubre
>> experiments
>>
>> http://www.drboblog.com/cbs-60-minutes-on-cold-fusion/#comment-37932
>>
>> maybe some already have the debunking, the correction... i imagien it is
>> addressed:
>>
>>
>>
>> About a year after CBS 60 Minutes aired their episode on Cold Fusion, I
>> followed up with Rob Duncan to explore Richard Garwin’s thesis that McKubre
>> was measuring the input electric power incorrectly.
>>
>> It turns out that McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his
>> cells, and assuming (for arcane technical reasons) there could not be any
>> AC power going in, and therefore he didn’t need to measure or include any
>> AC power term in his energy budget model.
>>
>> Together with several other people, I helped work out a model for the
>> omitted AC power term in McKubre’s experimental design. Our model showed
>> that there was measurable and significant AC power, arising from the
>> fluctuations in ohmic resistance as bubbles formed and sloughed off the
>> surface of the palladium electrodes. Our model jibed with both the
>> qualitative and quantitative evidence from McKubre’s reports:
>>
>> 1) McKubre (and others) noted that the excess heat only appeared after
>> the palladium lattice was fully loaded. And that’s precisely when the
>> Faradaic current no longer charges up the lattice, but begins producing gas
>> bubbles on the surfaces of the electrodes.
>>
>> 2) The excess heat in McKubre’s cells was only apparent, significant, and
>> sizable when the Faradaic drive current was elevated to dramatically high
>> levels, thereby increasing the rate at which bubbles were forming and
>> sloughing off the electrodes.
>>
>> 3) The effect was enhanced if the surface of the electrodes was rough
>> rather than polished smooth, so that larger bubbles could form and cling to
>> the rough surface before sloughing off, thereby alternately occluding and
>> exposing somewhat larger fractions of surface area for each bubble.
>>
>> The time-varying resistance arising from the bubbles forming and
>> sloughing off the surface of the electrodes — after the cell was fully
>> loaded, enhanced by elevated Faradaic drive currents and further enhanced
>> by a rough electrode surface — produced measurable and significant AC noise
>> power into the energy budget model that went as the square of the magnitude
>> of the fluctuations in the cell resistance.
>>
>> To a first approximation, a 17% fluctuation in resistance would nominally
>> produce a 3% increase in power, over and above the baseline DC power term.
>> Garwin and Lewis had found that McKubre’s cells were producing about 3%
>> more heat than could be accounted for with his energy measurements, where
>> McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his cells, and
>> (incorrectly) assuming there was no AC power that needed to be measured or
>> included in his energy budget model.
>>
>> I suggest slapping an audio VU meter across McKubre’s cell to measure the
>> AC burst noise from the fluctuating resistance. Alternatively use one of
>> McKubre’s constant current power supplies to drive an old style desk
>> telephone with a carbon button microphone. I predict the handset will still
>> function: if you blow into the mouthpiece, you’ll hear it in the earpiece,
>> thereby proving the reality of an AC audio signal riding on top of the DC
>> current.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[James Bowery]

Could this explain figure 3 in Storms's paper "The Status of Cold Fusion
(2010) "?

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

> Barry Kort on Dr bob blog reported challenging critiques of McKubre
> experiments
>
> http://www.drboblog.com/cbs-60-minutes-on-cold-fusion/#comment-37932
>
> maybe some already have the debunking, the correction... i imagien it is
> addressed:
>
>
>
> About a year after CBS 60 Minutes aired their episode on Cold Fusion, I
> followed up with Rob Duncan to explore Richard Garwin’s thesis that McKubre
> was measuring the input electric power incorrectly.
>
> It turns out that McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his
> cells, and assuming (for arcane technical reasons) there could not be any
> AC power going in, and therefore he didn’t need to measure or include any
> AC power term in his energy budget model.
>
> Together with several other people, I helped work out a model for the
> omitted AC power term in McKubre’s experimental design. Our model showed
> that there was measurable and significant AC power, arising from the
> fluctuations in ohmic resistance as bubbles formed and sloughed off the
> surface of the palladium electrodes. Our model jibed with both the
> qualitative and quantitative evidence from McKubre’s reports:
>
> 1) McKubre (and others) noted that the excess heat only appeared after the
> palladium lattice was fully loaded. And that’s precisely when the Faradaic
> current no longer charges up the lattice, but begins producing gas bubbles
> on the surfaces of the electrodes.
>
> 2) The excess heat in McKubre’s cells was only apparent, significant, and
> sizable when the Faradaic drive current was elevated to dramatically high
> levels, thereby increasing the rate at which bubbles were forming and
> sloughing off the electrodes.
>
> 3) The effect was enhanced if the surface of the electrodes was rough
> rather than polished smooth, so that larger bubbles could form and cling to
> the rough surface before sloughing off, thereby alternately occluding and
> exposing somewhat larger fractions of surface area for each bubble.
>
> The time-varying resistance arising from the bubbles forming and sloughing
> off the surface of the electrodes — after the cell was fully loaded,
> enhanced by elevated Faradaic drive currents and further enhanced by a
> rough electrode surface — produced measurable and significant AC noise
> power into the energy budget model that went as the square of the magnitude
> of the fluctuations in the cell resistance.
>
> To a first approximation, a 17% fluctuation in resistance would nominally
> produce a 3% increase in power, over and above the baseline DC power term.
> Garwin and Lewis had found that McKubre’s cells were producing about 3%
> more heat than could be accounted for with his energy measurements, where
> McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his cells, and
> (incorrectly) assuming there was no AC power that needed to be measured or
> included in his energy budget model.
>
> I suggest slapping an audio VU meter across McKubre’s cell to measure the
> AC burst noise from the fluctuating resistance. Alternatively use one of
> McKubre’s constant current power supplies to drive an old style desk
> telephone with a carbon button microphone. I predict the handset will still
> function: if you blow into the mouthpiece, you’ll hear it in the earpiece,
> thereby proving the reality of an AC audio signal riding on top of the DC
> current.
>

[Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Alain Sepeda]

Barry Kort on Dr bob blog reported challenging critiques of McKubre
experiments

http://www.drboblog.com/cbs-60-minutes-on-cold-fusion/#comment-37932

maybe some already have the debunking, the correction... i imagien it is
addressed:



About a year after CBS 60 Minutes aired their episode on Cold Fusion, I
followed up with Rob Duncan to explore Richard Garwin’s thesis that McKubre
was measuring the input electric power incorrectly.

It turns out that McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his
cells, and assuming (for arcane technical reasons) there could not be any
AC power going in, and therefore he didn’t need to measure or include any
AC power term in his energy budget model.

Together with several other people, I helped work out a model for the
omitted AC power term in McKubre’s experimental design. Our model showed
that there was measurable and significant AC power, arising from the
fluctuations in ohmic resistance as bubbles formed and sloughed off the
surface of the palladium electrodes. Our model jibed with both the
qualitative and quantitative evidence from McKubre’s reports:

1) McKubre (and others) noted that the excess heat only appeared after the
palladium lattice was fully loaded. And that’s precisely when the Faradaic
current no longer charges up the lattice, but begins producing gas bubbles
on the surfaces of the electrodes.

2) The excess heat in McKubre’s cells was only apparent, significant, and
sizable when the Faradaic drive current was elevated to dramatically high
levels, thereby increasing the rate at which bubbles were forming and
sloughing off the electrodes.

3) The effect was enhanced if the surface of the electrodes was rough
rather than polished smooth, so that larger bubbles could form and cling to
the rough surface before sloughing off, thereby alternately occluding and
exposing somewhat larger fractions of surface area for each bubble.

The time-varying resistance arising from the bubbles forming and sloughing
off the surface of the electrodes — after the cell was fully loaded,
enhanced by elevated Faradaic drive currents and further enhanced by a
rough electrode surface — produced measurable and significant AC noise
power into the energy budget model that went as the square of the magnitude
of the fluctuations in the cell resistance.

To a first approximation, a 17% fluctuation in resistance would nominally
produce a 3% increase in power, over and above the baseline DC power term.
Garwin and Lewis had found that McKubre’s cells were producing about 3%
more heat than could be accounted for with his energy measurements, where
McKubre was reckoning only the DC power going into his cells, and
(incorrectly) assuming there was no AC power that needed to be measured or
included in his energy budget model.

I suggest slapping an audio VU meter across McKubre’s cell to measure the
AC burst noise from the fluctuating resistance. Alternatively use one of
McKubre’s constant current power supplies to drive an old style desk
telephone with a carbon button microphone. I predict the handset will still
function: if you blow into the mouthpiece, you’ll hear it in the earpiece,
thereby proving the reality of an AC audio signal riding on top of the DC
current.