The comments made by joclondon were understood and explored years ago,
which he would know if he had studied the literature and not used his
imagination to support Garwin's ignorance.
First of all, DC is used, which is supplied by a low impedance power
supply. As a result, there is very little out of phase component in
the power, a fact that can be easily determined. Nevertheless, there
is a small AC component on the DC because of bubble action. The effect
of this AC is reduced by taking many measurement of power and
reporting an average. The magnitude of this error is no more than a
few mW. Watt meters are not used, the volt and amp are measured
separately and fast data acquisition is used, as he suggests, a fact
he would have known if he had studied the subject.
Second, excess power has been measured in the absence of applied
power. In addition, its magnitude does not correlate with the shape
and size of the cathode or the nature of the power supply.
Third, many experiments are run during which bubble action is present
without producing any excess energy. Such blanks show that this is not
the source of apparent excess heat.
People seem to think that the researches are incompetent and do not
have the imagination to think of obvious potential errors, which only
they can imagine. As a result, we all have been deluded for 20 years.
In addition, these same people would not even try to read a few
documents or reviews. My response is to suggest they read the answers
that have already been posted on www.LENR.org and not waste time
trying to answer each question.
Ed
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Mark Iverson wrote:
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
