*Correction: Not ELFORSK, EPRI On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> 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 . <foks0...@gmail.com> 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 <jabow...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Could this explain figure 3 in Storms's paper "The Status of Cold >>> Fusion (2010) <http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf>"? >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> >>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
