All of this work is suspect. First of all, an intepretive issue.
First of all, the definition of COP.
COP (Coefficient of Performance): A measurement of the instantaneous
efficiency of heating or cooling equipment. It represents the
steady-state rate of energy output of the equipment divided by the
steady-state rate of energy input to the equipment, expressed in
consistent units (i.e.
<http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/buildings/homes/ratings/terms.htm#watt>watts-out
per watts-in or
<http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/buildings/homes/ratings/terms.htm#Btuph>Btu/h-out
per Btu/h-in). Thus, the resultant value of COP is unit less. Most
vapor-compression heating and cooling equipment has COPs greater
than unity. That means it delivers more heat energy than it consumes.
Note, first of all: "rate of energy" refers to power. That's measured
in watts, or BTU/hr.
There is a significant level of confusion in writing about cold
fusion between excess power (XP) and excess energy.
Excess power is instantaneous, it is output power minus input power.
That there is XP does not show that there is a nuclear reaction,
because chemistry can do it. Further, simple delay can create an
appearance of XP.
If IP is the input power, then, COP = XP/IP.
For example, dump a lot of power into a heating element for a second.
The measured temperature of the whole device will rise *later*, as
this heat is released to the electrolyte and reaches the
temperature-measuring element. If the input power has been turned
off, the COP, then, could be infinite, i.e. a rising temperature (for
a short time) with no input power.
Electrochemical cells can store energy, and that energy might later
be released. It will show up, while being released, as XP. While
energy is being stored, the cell will show negative XP.
What is of true interest is excess *energy*. And because XE can be a
result of chemical reactions, we are really looking for *anomalous*
XE. This XE must be integrated over the life of the experiment, or
one might simply be seeing the result of energy storage. Chemical
energy might be "stored," as well, in the initial composition of the cell.
Cold fusion calorimetry must take into account all the inputs (which
includes cell materials) and all the outputs (which includes evolved
gas and whatever is left in the cell).
So if you are looking for XP alone, you might easily find it, without
it meaning much.
I don't see the kind of data being reported that would allow someone
with skill to interpret the results; instead, you report only a
calculated COP. Without knowing the actual data, this isn't
particularly meaningful.
I'd expect to see -- and do see in raw experimental data from cold
fusion researchers -- a spreadsheet with recording of ambient
temperature, input current, input voltage, and cell temperature. In
most work, input current is held constant (which is good up to well
over 100 KHz), there is bubble noise below that frequency, and the
power supply can compensate) and voltage varies. Under those
conditions, constant current, voltage can be averaged over short
periods and thus can be used to calculate input power. If current
also varies, the calculation must be an integral, and if the
variation is fast, as with bubble noise, the integration must be fast
as well, i.e., with short integration intervals.
This is why almost all cold fusion work is done with a power supply
in constant current mode. You can easily make current regulators with
a few dollars' worth of components. The Galileo project included
instructions for making cheap current regulators to produce the
specified protocol currents.
You have calculated the Output Power by making assumptions about the
volume of the electrolyte, cooling, etc. In cold fusion calorimetry,
of the type you are attempting, OP is determined through
calibrations, with known power input (from a heating element). I.e.,
with a known output power, with a particular experimental setup,
there will be a certain temperature rise over ambient.
There are still lots of problems, but this approach can get you close.
Trying to calculate the heat loss from a cell is quite difficult; one
is dealing with radiative loss, which is at the fourth power of the
temperature difference, as well as conductive and convection losses.
There is also the issue of energy carried away by the generated
gases. If you are using DC power input, you might assume that all the
generated hydrogen and oxygen are unrecombined. Most of it will be.
A sign that you've done everything correctly would be a COP of 1.0 at
steady-state. More accurately, the integral of the output energy
should equal the integral of the input energy.
At 06:28 AM 10/15/2012, Jack Cole wrote:
After stopping the experiment and watching the temp drop, I see I
was losing more heat than I thought. Taking this into account there
appear to have been times over 100% efficiency (not including losses
of energy to electrolysis). I saw a drop in temp of 2.5F in 60 mins
after removing power. The temp of the 1 gallon of water dropped
16.9F in 7 hrs.
So I have an average of 2.4F temp loss per hour. To be
conservative, I factor 2F of heat loss into my formula, and exclude
earlier values in the run where the ambient temp and bath temp
differ by less than 10F.
Here are my COP calculations with those assumptions.
Time COP
14:56:00 1.43
15:19:00 1.3
15:36:00 1.12
15:51:00 1.2
17:03:00 1.2
17:50:00 1.12
18:52:00 0.98
19:51:00 0.93
20:09:00 0.95
Here is how I calculate COP (sorry I use English units, I'll convert
to metric in subsequent experiments).
Input power.
W = ((Amperage at Time 1 + Amperage at Time 2) / 2) * ((Voltage at
Time 1 + Voltage at Time 2) / 2) * (Minutes in interval / 60)
Then convert to BTU.
Input BTU = W / .293 (converting watts to BTU)
Output Power.
Output BTU = (Temp at time 2 - temp at time 1 + (2 * (minutes in
interval / 60))) * (134.25/16)
Note - 134.25 is the weight of water in the surrounding bath and
electrolytic cell in ounces and the 2 refers to heat loss per hour.
COP = Output BTU / Input BTU
Please let me know if you see any errors in my formulas or
logic. Even if I presume a heat loss of 1.5F per hour, four of the
values in the above table still give over-unity COP.
What I don't like about what I did above is needing to calculate in
heat loss. I suppose I can wrap the styrofoam bucket in insulation
(Rossi-style).
Jack
On Oct 14, 2012 4:21 PM, "Jack Cole"
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
Better results today, but still under-unity. I replaced the anode
with 4 stainless steel washers soldered directly to the
wire. Starting temp of the surrounding bath was 69.4F and last
measure was 85.2F (for 1 gallon of water + 5 oz in the electrolytic
cell). Average ambient temp 70.2F. Average input voltage is 12.1 and
current is .69. Average COP .66 (low=.52 high=.80). Of course
there is energy loss with power going into the electrolysis, which
has not been included in the calculations. I'll keep it running and
see how hot it can get or if anything changes.
Jack
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Jack Cole
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
After running all night with my new setup, I observe no excess
heat. The current dropped throughout the run. The COP values start
at .43 and trail off to .12 at the end. Back to the drawing board.
Thanks for your write-up Jeff. I have definitely seen significant
heating in my experiments using a higher current level than you are
using, but does not approach unity based on my last experiment.
