Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[H Veeder]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> H Veeder  wrote:
>
>
>> Ok so you can design a calorimeter to detect this particular endothermic
>>> reaction, however, if you don't know a-priori what type of endothermic
>>> reaction or what energy source is involved a "standard" calorimeter might
>>> fail to detect it.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>> ​Another potential problem is that a calorimeter designed to detect an
>> exothermic reaction might prevent an unknown endothermic reaction which is
>> a prerequisite for the exothermic reaction. ​
>>
>
> A calorimeter cannot be designed for exothermic or endothermic reactions.
> If it can measure an increase in heat, it can measure a decrease with the
> same accuracy and precision. When a reaction produces heat and then stops
> producing it, the calorimeter always shows that decline. You always see the
> power fluctuating up and down; the calorimeter always measures in both
> directions equally well. With an endothermic reaction the decline goes
> below the starting point. That's the only difference. The calorimeter does
> not care about that.
>
> If the cell was storing up energy, you would see it for sure. Scott Little
> showed a beautiful example of this once. He put a rechargeable battery into
> a calorimeter and charged it up. There was a deficit comparing electricity
> to the rising temperature. Then he discharged the battery through a
> resister in the cell. All the lost energy came back. The balance was close
> to zero.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Was the temperature of the water in the calorimeter rising during charging?



Harry

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Foks0904 .]

Thanks for the clarification Jed. Easy to misunderstand the 3%.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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
>
>

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Jed Rothwell]

H Veeder  wrote:


> Ok so you can design a calorimeter to detect this particular endothermic
>> reaction, however, if you don't know a-priori what type of endothermic
>> reaction or what energy source is involved a "standard" calorimeter might
>> fail to detect it.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
> ​Another potential problem is that a calorimeter designed to detect an
> exothermic reaction might prevent an unknown endothermic reaction which is
> a prerequisite for the exothermic reaction. ​
>

A calorimeter cannot be designed for exothermic or endothermic reactions.
If it can measure an increase in heat, it can measure a decrease with the
same accuracy and precision. When a reaction produces heat and then stops
producing it, the calorimeter always shows that decline. You always see the
power fluctuating up and down; the calorimeter always measures in both
directions equally well. With an endothermic reaction the decline goes
below the starting point. That's the only difference. The calorimeter does
not care about that.

If the cell was storing up energy, you would see it for sure. Scott Little
showed a beautiful example of this once. He put a rechargeable battery into
a calorimeter and charged it up. There was a deficit comparing electricity
to the rising temperature. Then he discharged the battery through a
resister in the cell. All the lost energy came back. The balance was close
to zero.

- Jed

[Vo]:Protons Hog the Momentum in Neutron-Rich Nuclei

[H Veeder]

Protons Hog the Momentum in Neutron-Rich Nuclei

https://www.jlab.org/news/releases/protons-hog-momentum-neutron-rich-nuclei

​quote <<...the researchers compared the momenta of protons versus neutrons
in these nuclei. According to the Pauli exclusion principle, certain like
particles can't have the same momentum state. So, if you have a bunch of
neutrons together, some will have low momentum, and others will have high
momentum; the more neutrons you have, the more high-momentum neutrons you
would see, as they fill up higher and higher momentum states.
But according to Higinbotham, that expected picture is not what the
researchers found when they measured high-momentum protons in neutron-rich
nuclei. "What this paper is saying is the reverse, that the protons
actually have the higher-average momentum. And it’s because they’ve all
paired up with neutrons," Higinbotham says. "It’s like a dance with too
many girls (neutrons) and only a few boys (protons). Those boys are dancing
their little hearts out, because there aren’t very many of them. So the
average proton momentum is going to be higher than the average neutron
momentum, because it’s mostly the neutrons that are sitting there, doing
nothing, with nothing to pair up with, except themselves.">>


Harry​

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[H Veeder]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:48 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> H Veeder  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ​Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction but instead of absorbing heat
>>> energy it absorbs light energy.
>>> I doubt a calorimeter would detect that.
>>>
>>
>> The light source would have to be inside the calorimeter to affect the
>> process, so yes, it would detect the energy from the light. All energy
>> converts to heat. Unless the calorimeter was made of glass the light would
>> not escape. (Some calorimeters are made of glass. Some have glass windows.)
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
> Ok so you can design a calorimeter to detect this particular endothermic
> reaction, however, if you don't know a-priori what type of endothermic
> reaction or what energy source is involved a "standard" calorimeter might
> fail to detect it.
>
> Harry
>
>
​Another potential problem is that a calorimeter designed to detect an
exothermic reaction might prevent an unknown endothermic reaction which is
a prerequisite for the exothermic reaction. ​

Harry

Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON

[Robert Dorr]

If you measured at 2.5u you would be dealing with IR directly emitted 
from the interior of the hot cat because at that wavelength the 
alumina would be somewhat transparent to IR. Measuring at the 
wavelengths they did the IR cameras were only reading the surface 
temperature because of aluminas's opaqueness at wavelengths above 
approximately 3.5u. Almost everyone gets hung up on the visible 
wavelength pictures that were published in the report. They bear 
almost no relation to what the IR cameras were observing.


Robert Dorr


At 04:51 PM 10/24/2014, you wrote:

Worth listening to, but they were talking at cross-purposes at times.

3-way complication between reflectance, emission and transmission. 
Said that wires could cause shadows. (But not, by my analysis from a 
diffuse source. unless the wire is very close to the surface).


Their system can be used to *determine* the emissivity.

I *think* they said it would be better to measure Alumina at a lower 
wavelength (2.5u?) and not in the IR band (8-14)?


So far, I see no reason to budge from my initial evaluation of 
"inconclusive". But just one more nail in the coffin and I might 
downgrade that to "failed". (But a failed experiment doesn't 
necessarily mean the ecat doesn't work).


In short, they were nuts to stick with the hotcat/IR calorimetry, 
and should have asked for a fatcat with water (non-steam) calorimetry.


ps : I have a black body / emissivity simulator under construction. 
But will it "rescue" or "kill" the results?


--
From: "H Veeder" 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:50:05 PM

MFMP interviews a spokesman for the company Williamson which 
specializes in non-contact temperature measurement. They discuss the 
problem of measuring the temperature of Alumina at higher temperatures.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3O3bSu6N7vwcDJUWGl1Y0pmTWs/edit?pli=1
(15 min. audio only must be downloaded to listen)

Harry

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8448 - Release Date: 10/24/14




-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8448 - Release Date: 10/24/14

Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON

[Alan Fletcher]

Worth listening to, but they were talking at cross-purposes at times. 

3-way complication between reflectance, emission and transmission. Said that 
wires could cause shadows. (But not, by my analysis from a diffuse source. 
unless the wire is very close to the surface). 

Their system can be used to *determine* the emissivity. 

I *think* they said it would be better to measure Alumina at a lower wavelength 
(2.5u?) and not in the IR band (8-14)? 

So far, I see no reason to budge from my initial evaluation of "inconclusive". 
But just one more nail in the coffin and I might downgrade that to "failed". 
(But a failed experiment doesn't necessarily mean the ecat doesn't work). 

In short, they were nuts to stick with the hotcat/IR calorimetry, and should 
have asked for a fatcat with water (non-steam) calorimetry. 

ps : I have a black body / emissivity simulator under construction. But will it 
"rescue" or "kill" the results? 
- Original Message -

From: "H Veeder"  
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:50:05 PM 

MFMP interviews a spokesman for the company Williamson which specializes in 
non-contact temperature measurement. They discuss the problem of measuring the 
temperature of Alumina at higher temperatures. 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3O3bSu6N7vwcDJUWGl1Y0pmTWs/edit?pli=1 
(15 min. audio only must be downloaded to listen) 

Harry 

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[H Veeder]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H Veeder  wrote:
>
>
>> ​Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction but instead of absorbing heat
>> energy it absorbs light energy.
>> I doubt a calorimeter would detect that.
>>
>
> The light source would have to be inside the calorimeter to affect the
> process, so yes, it would detect the energy from the light. All energy
> converts to heat. Unless the calorimeter was made of glass the light would
> not escape. (Some calorimeters are made of glass. Some have glass windows.)
>
> - Jed
>
>

Ok so you can design a calorimeter to detect this particular endothermic
reaction, however, if you don't know a-priori what type of endothermic
reaction or what energy source is involved a "standard" calorimeter might
fail to detect it.

Harry

[Vo]:OT: Fire From Ice

[H Veeder]

"...you can see it is getting very optically clear..."
Ice Fire Pt 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owF15LQT78o

"...and there you have it, fire from ice!"
Ice Fire Pt 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rL8Nt73gpY

Harry

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Jed Rothwell]

H Veeder  wrote:


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

The light source would have to be inside the calorimeter to affect the
process, so yes, it would detect the energy from the light. All energy
converts to heat. Unless the calorimeter was made of glass the light would
not escape. (Some calorimeters are made of glass. Some have glass windows.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[H Veeder]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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
>
>
​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.

Harry

Harry​

[Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON

[H Veeder]

MFMP interviews a spokesman for the company Williamson which specializes in
non-contact temperature measurement. They discuss the problem of measuring
the temperature of Alumina at higher temperatures.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3O3bSu6N7vwcDJUWGl1Y0pmTWs/edit?pli=1
(15 min. audio only must be downloaded to listen)

Harry

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Jed Rothwell]

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

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Ruby]

This guy is spamming lots of our Youtube's.
I let him post the same exact tome on two or three of our videos, but 
after that, I deleted his comments.

Ruby


On 10/24/14, 7:46 AM, Alain Sepeda 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.





--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Foks0904 .]

*Correction: Not ELFORSK, EPRI

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Foks0904 .  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 .  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 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Could this explain figure 3 in Storms's paper "The Status of Cold
>>> Fusion (2010) "?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Alain Sepeda 
>>> 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 

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Foks0904 .]

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 .  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  wrote:
>
>> Could this explain figure 3 in Storms's paper "The Status of Cold Fusion
>> (2010) "?
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Alain Sepeda 
>> 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 pr

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Foks0904 .]

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  wrote:

> Could this explain figure 3 in Storms's paper "The Status of Cold Fusion
> (2010) "?
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Alain Sepeda 
> 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.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[James Bowery]

Could this explain figure 3 in Storms's paper "The Status of Cold Fusion
(2010) "?

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Alain Sepeda 
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.
>

[Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component

[Alain Sepeda]

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.

[Vo]:Open Letter to the Hot Cat Testers

[Peter Gluck]

I have just published an Open Letter with basic questions iaddressed to the
scientists who have done the Hot Cat test in Lugano.

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/open-letter-to-authors-of-hotcat-lugano.html

I hope we can start a real dialogue- it could be relevant for understanding
 on what is based this new source of energy.
Thank you, Authors! Thank you, Readers!

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com