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 <>

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

Reply via email to