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 . <foks0...@gmail.com> 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 <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 <alain.sep...@gmail.com>
>> 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.

Reply via email to