*Correction: Not ELFORSK, EPRI

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> 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 . <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