Could this explain figure 3 in Storms's paper "The Status of Cold Fusion (2010) <http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf>"?
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> 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. >
