Abd, Thanks for your explanation. That is very helpful.
Here is my raw data if you are interested. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmQQao2qEYIfdE9rTlplRVZ0STI0a1IwaGlXWVNWbGc I do think chemistry is happening with the Borax. Jack On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > All of this work is suspect. First of all, an intepretive issue. First of > all, the definition of COP. > > COP (Coefficient of Performance): A measurement of the instantaneous >> efficiency of heating or cooling equipment. It represents the steady-state >> rate of energy output of the equipment divided by the steady-state rate of >> energy input to the equipment, expressed in consistent units (i.e. < >> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/**consumer/buildings/homes/** >> ratings/terms.htm#watt<http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/buildings/homes/ratings/terms.htm#watt> >> >watts-**out per watts-in or <http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/** >> consumer/buildings/homes/**ratings/terms.htm#Btuph<http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/buildings/homes/ratings/terms.htm#Btuph> >> >Btu/h-**out per Btu/h-in). Thus, the resultant value of COP is unit >> less. Most vapor-compression heating and cooling equipment has COPs greater >> than unity. That means it delivers more heat energy than it consumes. >> > > Note, first of all: "rate of energy" refers to power. That's measured in > watts, or BTU/hr. > > There is a significant level of confusion in writing about cold fusion > between excess power (XP) and excess energy. > > Excess power is instantaneous, it is output power minus input power. That > there is XP does not show that there is a nuclear reaction, because > chemistry can do it. Further, simple delay can create an appearance of XP. > > If IP is the input power, then, COP = XP/IP. > > For example, dump a lot of power into a heating element for a second. The > measured temperature of the whole device will rise *later*, as this heat is > released to the electrolyte and reaches the temperature-measuring element. > If the input power has been turned off, the COP, then, could be infinite, > i.e. a rising temperature (for a short time) with no input power. > > Electrochemical cells can store energy, and that energy might later be > released. It will show up, while being released, as XP. While energy is > being stored, the cell will show negative XP. > > What is of true interest is excess *energy*. And because XE can be a > result of chemical reactions, we are really looking for *anomalous* XE. > This XE must be integrated over the life of the experiment, or one might > simply be seeing the result of energy storage. Chemical energy might be > "stored," as well, in the initial composition of the cell. > > Cold fusion calorimetry must take into account all the inputs (which > includes cell materials) and all the outputs (which includes evolved gas > and whatever is left in the cell). > > So if you are looking for XP alone, you might easily find it, without it > meaning much. > > I don't see the kind of data being reported that would allow someone with > skill to interpret the results; instead, you report only a calculated COP. > Without knowing the actual data, this isn't particularly meaningful. > > I'd expect to see -- and do see in raw experimental data from cold fusion > researchers -- a spreadsheet with recording of ambient temperature, input > current, input voltage, and cell temperature. In most work, input current > is held constant (which is good up to well over 100 KHz), there is bubble > noise below that frequency, and the power supply can compensate) and > voltage varies. Under those conditions, constant current, voltage can be > averaged over short periods and thus can be used to calculate input power. > If current also varies, the calculation must be an integral, and if the > variation is fast, as with bubble noise, the integration must be fast as > well, i.e., with short integration intervals. > > This is why almost all cold fusion work is done with a power supply in > constant current mode. You can easily make current regulators with a few > dollars' worth of components. The Galileo project included instructions for > making cheap current regulators to produce the specified protocol currents. > > You have calculated the Output Power by making assumptions about the > volume of the electrolyte, cooling, etc. In cold fusion calorimetry, of the > type you are attempting, OP is determined through calibrations, with known > power input (from a heating element). I.e., with a known output power, with > a particular experimental setup, there will be a certain temperature rise > over ambient. > > There are still lots of problems, but this approach can get you close. > > Trying to calculate the heat loss from a cell is quite difficult; one is > dealing with radiative loss, which is at the fourth power of the > temperature difference, as well as conductive and convection losses. > > There is also the issue of energy carried away by the generated gases. If > you are using DC power input, you might assume that all the generated > hydrogen and oxygen are unrecombined. Most of it will be. > > A sign that you've done everything correctly would be a COP of 1.0 at > steady-state. More accurately, the integral of the output energy should > equal the integral of the input energy. > > > > > At 06:28 AM 10/15/2012, Jack Cole wrote: > > After stopping the experiment and watching the temp drop, I see I was >> losing more heat than I thought. Taking this into account there appear to >> have been times over 100% efficiency (not including losses of energy to >> electrolysis). I saw a drop in temp of 2.5F in 60 mins after removing >> power. The temp of the 1 gallon of water dropped 16.9F in 7 hrs. >> >> So I have an average of 2.4F temp loss per hour. To be conservative, I >> factor 2F of heat loss into my formula, and exclude earlier values in the >> run where the ambient temp and bath temp differ by less than 10F. >> >> Here are my COP calculations with those assumptions. >> >> Time COP >> 14:56:00 1.43 >> 15:19:00 1.3 >> 15:36:00 1.12 >> 15:51:00 1.2 >> 17:03:00 1.2 >> 17:50:00 1.12 >> 18:52:00 0.98 >> 19:51:00 0.93 >> 20:09:00 0.95 >> >> Here is how I calculate COP (sorry I use English units, I'll convert to >> metric in subsequent experiments). >> >> Input power. >> >> W = ((Amperage at Time 1 + Amperage at Time 2) / 2) * ((Voltage at Time 1 >> + Voltage at Time 2) / 2) * (Minutes in interval / 60) >> >> Then convert to BTU. >> >> Input BTU = W / .293 (converting watts to BTU) >> >> Output Power. >> >> Output BTU = (Temp at time 2 - temp at time 1 + (2 * (minutes in interval >> / 60))) * (134.25/16) >> >> Note - 134.25 is the weight of water in the surrounding bath and >> electrolytic cell in ounces and the 2 refers to heat loss per hour. >> >> COP = Output BTU / Input BTU >> >> Please let me know if you see any errors in my formulas or logic. Even >> if I presume a heat loss of 1.5F per hour, four of the values in the above >> table still give over-unity COP. >> >> What I don't like about what I did above is needing to calculate in heat >> loss. I suppose I can wrap the styrofoam bucket in insulation >> (Rossi-style). >> >> Jack >> >> >> On Oct 14, 2012 4:21 PM, "Jack Cole" <<mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>jco** >> l...@gmail.com <jcol...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Better results today, but still under-unity. I replaced the anode with 4 >> stainless steel washers soldered directly to the wire. Starting temp of >> the surrounding bath was 69.4F and last measure was 85.2F (for 1 gallon of >> water + 5 oz in the electrolytic cell). Average ambient temp 70.2F. Average >> input voltage is 12.1 and current is .69. Average COP .66 (low=.52 >> high=.80). Of course there is energy loss with power going into the >> electrolysis, which has not been included in the calculations. I'll keep >> it running and see how hot it can get or if anything changes. >> >> Jack >> >> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Jack Cole <<mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>jco >> **l...@gmail.com <jcol...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> After running all night with my new setup, I observe no excess heat. The >> current dropped throughout the run. The COP values start at .43 and trail >> off to .12 at the end. Back to the drawing board. >> >> Thanks for your write-up Jeff. I have definitely seen significant >> heating in my experiments using a higher current level than you are using, >> but does not approach unity based on my last experiment. >> > >
