Foks0904 . <> wrote:

If this is purely in reference to the 3% gain chronicled by McKubre years
> ago in the old [EPRI] report, we already know that might be an ambiguous
> result . . .

McKubre never reported a 3% gain. Even with his calorimeter that would be
in the margin of error at the bottom of the scale, although he can detect
the difference between, say, 40% and 43%. As I recall, McKubre reported
gains ranging from 20% to 300% with input power, and infinity without input
power, in heat after death. He once remarked that for the entire run, the
gain was ~3%. I wish he had not said that. It is a meaningless number. It
is like reporting the average speed of your car including the times it is
parked, or waiting at a red light. The only meaningful number for "gain" or
"COP" is when excess heat is clearly present.

The effect of bubbles in electrochemical cells is well understood and it
has been easy to observe at least since oscilloscopes were invented. It
cannot possibly produce an error on this scale. Not even 1%. People who
speculate about such things have read nothing and know nothing.

This notion is somewhat similar to the claim that cells might be "storing"
chemical energy and releasing it. Ignorant skeptics come up with this
several times a year. You need only glance at the data to establish that:
1. Nothing is being stored; there are no endothermic phases, and 2.
Continuous, uninterrupted bursts of heat far exceed the limits of
chemistry. A calorimeter can detect an endothermic reaction as well as it
can detect an exothermic reaction. If this was chemical storage, the
endothermic phases would show up as clearly as the exothermic phases that
follow them, and the two would balance. This is exactly what you see for
the small amount of energy that is stored and release by palladium hydrides.

- Jed

Reply via email to