On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> 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
​Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction but instead of absorbing heat
energy it absorbs light energy.
I doubt a calorimeter would detect that.

I did not mention this to lend credence to the endothermic explanation
because as you point out the energy stored stored would still only be
chemical in magnitude.
I mention it because endothermic nuclear reactions might play a role in the
production of excess heat.



Reply via email to