Thanks Jed but IMHO a CF paper claiming excess heat which wouldn't state -or provide the data to derive- the values which were subtracted from each other to derive it, would be definitely incomplete. A proper description of such an experiment would obviously state not only the values found, but also the method used to measure them.
So my question to Ed is, among such proper descriptions of your own excess heat experiments, as I am sure there are plenty, is there one you could recommend? Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer >I wrote: > >>>Er... Jed, are you saying that most CF papers reporting excess heat >>>do not report input power (or energy), nor output power (or energy) !? >> >>They often report excess power or energy, which is output minus >>input. Of course there are papers that report all values. > > Some papers report only the excess power normalized to volume of Pd, > which is annoying. Especially when you have no idea what the volume > of Pd is. See, for example, Table 10, p. 44 in this otherwise excellent paper: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf > > This is really only useful for a comparison, not to get the absolute > value. This proves that some materials work much better than others > but there is no telling how much power was actually involved. The > column headings are: > > Source, the supplier who provided the Pd > > d, cm, diameter in centimeters > > V, cm3, voltage normalized to the volume of Pd. (And who knows what that was?) > > Px/V, W/cm3, excess power per volt or watts per cm3. (Apparently the > same in all cases? This must be the maximum for all run, such as the > 9 positive runs with JM Pd, row #5) > > There is no mention of COP in any of Miles' papers as far as I can > recall. He does often discuss electrochemical properties and > recombination, especially in the context of his papers about his > disagreement with Jones et al. But the ratios of input electrolysis > power to output power (the COP) is not discussed. Miles or any > electrochemist will know many steps for lowering this ratio by > improving efficiency electrolysis. They do not take these steps > because there is no point or because the steps will interfere with > the experiment. For example, everyone knows you can reduce > electrolysis power by putting the cathode and the anode closer > together. Having the anode and cathode too close together makes it > difficult to assemble the cell and observe the reaction (with a glass > cell) so they leave them far apart. You cannot let them touch. With a > liquid electrolysis when the anode and cathode touch it is short > circuit and game over. > > For that matter, you can reduce electrolysis powered by a factor of a > thousand or more by using a solid-state gas loaded proton conductor. > This brings the anode and the cathode so close they touch, and it > eliminates almost all resistance. Mizuno, Oriani and others reported > some success with this technique. Input power is trivial -- less than > a milliwatt, as I recall, and the output range from about half a watt > to a burst large enough power to melt the ceramic proton conductor > and vaporize the silver power leads. (This was probably thousands of > watts or so for a few seconds.) But unfortunately, while this > technique did show promise it is very difficult to do and after > several years of struggle they gave up trying to improve it. They > simply did not have the resources to make progress. If that avenue of > research had been properly funded it might have panned out by now. > > I think Biberian is still pursuing this. His biggest problem is that > the anode and cathode heat up and lose contact. In other words, they > do not touch, which causes a failure -- the opposite from liquid electrolysis. > > - Jed >
