2014-10-24 23:14 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>: > 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. >
I relayed you answer on the dozen of similar post note that Kur propose a more synthetic article https://sites.google.com/site/barrykort/ac-burst-noise
