On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If this is purely in reference to the 3% gain chronicled by McKubre years >> ago in the old [EPRI] report, we already know that might be an ambiguous >> result . . . >> > > McKubre never reported a 3% gain. Even with his calorimeter that would be > in the margin of error at the bottom of the scale, although he can detect > the difference between, say, 40% and 43%. As I recall, McKubre reported > gains ranging from 20% to 300% with input power, and infinity without input > power, in heat after death. He once remarked that for the entire run, the > gain was ~3%. I wish he had not said that. It is a meaningless number. It > is like reporting the average speed of your car including the times it is > parked, or waiting at a red light. The only meaningful number for "gain" or > "COP" is when excess heat is clearly present. > > The effect of bubbles in electrochemical cells is well understood and it > has been easy to observe at least since oscilloscopes were invented. It > cannot possibly produce an error on this scale. Not even 1%. People who > speculate about such things have read nothing and know nothing. > > This notion is somewhat similar to the claim that cells might be "storing" > chemical energy and releasing it. Ignorant skeptics come up with this > several times a year. You need only glance at the data to establish that: > 1. Nothing is being stored; there are no endothermic phases, and 2. > Continuous, uninterrupted bursts of heat far exceed the limits of > chemistry. A calorimeter can detect an endothermic reaction as well as it > can detect an exothermic reaction. If this was chemical storage, the > endothermic phases would show up as clearly as the exothermic phases that > follow them, and the two would balance. This is exactly what you see for > the small amount of energy that is stored and release by palladium hydrides. > > - Jed > > ​Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction but instead of absorbing heat energy it absorbs light energy. I doubt a calorimeter would detect that. I did not mention this to lend credence to the endothermic explanation because as you point out the energy stored stored would still only be chemical in magnitude. I mention it because endothermic nuclear reactions might play a role in the production of excess heat. Harry Harry​
