Out of all the comments on the 60-minutes website, there is ONE reasonable critique which shows the person put some effort to research the subject matter and he asks some legitimate questions. I'd be very interested in reading Jed's, Ed's and any other Vorts' analysis of this gentlemen's material (see below)?
-Mark ============ [copied from the 60-Minutes website RE: comments to the Cold Fusion segment] Posted by joclondon at 7:47 AM : Apr 21, 2009 The comments by Richard Garwood, in your report, were probably correct. He suggested there may have been an error in measuring the input of electrical energy. The possibility of a 'systematic error' in the test protocols was also mentioned by Prof John Huizenga in his 1989 report to the US Dept of Energy. (DOE/S-0073 DE90 005611.) The following mechanism, from established, orthodox physics, may explain the source of the error. (Originally proposed in 2006.) That the under-recording of input electrical energy is due to the development of a phase shift between the current and the voltage in the electrical supply circuit. This results from the generation, during the course of the experiment, of highly polarised bubbles, [1]between the electrodes of the electrolytic cell. The polarisation of the ions in the boundary layer of these bubbles is accentuated by the presence of the electrode field. The polarised bubbles introduce a small capacitance value into what was initially a conventional DC circuit. With a highly stable DC source of input energy this is not a problem. However, in many of the tests analysed researchers have utilised variously, high frequency DC or AC supplies. As examples see, Eccles [2], Yamazaki [3], Piantelli [4], Storms [5], and Patterson [6]. The phase shift phenomenon in resistive/capacitive circuits is well documented. Although it is normally only looked at in detail in power factor correction problems. How you measure the input energy in such circuits becomes critically important. Current and voltage should be measured seperately, ideally with continuous high speed recording. The unreported input energy is likely to give a high speed transient signal. The use of conventional watt meters to measure input electrical power is likely to be problematical. Also the use of too long a sampling interval, or moving coil devices or visual inspection may not detect the transient signal. The conditions which appear to favour the presence of 'excess heat' are also those which facilitate phase shift. 1) A pulsed or oscillating supply current. The high the frequency the better. 2) a large interfacial area between the electrolyte and the generated gas bubbles, between the electrodes. Storms [5], page 6, and Patterson [7] and [8], may not have produced a catalytic surface as claimed, but merely an efficient method for producing gas nucleation sites. 3) A highly ionised electrolyte. 4) A high voltage between the electrodes. Features 1) and 2) must occur simultaneously, features 3) and 4) are desirable and serve to enhance the basic reaction. Any future claims for the generation of excess energy, (not just electrolytic cells) should incorporate and document means for the detection of phase shift. [1] Leonard B Loed. Static Electrification, 1958. Pub: Springer, Berlin. Page 66. [2] Patent: US 2005/0236376 A1. [3] Patent: EP 0 392 325 A2. [4] Patent: WO 95/20816. [5] E Storms. J. Fusion Technol., 29 (1996) 261. [6] Patent: US 2006/093874. [7] Patent: WO 97/39164. [8] Patent: WO 05/03437. Posted by joclondon at 7:47 AM : Apr 21, 2009 ============ No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2070 - Release Date: 4/20/2009 5:56 PM
