Errata: I'm recovering from an operation on my arm so I'm using voice recognition to do my typing and it makes error that sometimes I miss.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 6:37 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Barry Kort's critique may be invaluable because it may open up funding for > cold fusion research. Note that even graduate students replicating cold > fusion research is forbidden. An honestly skeptical master's thesis > however might not do career damage. The implied experimental conditions > are relatively inexpensive to reproduce. When I say reproduce I mean > reduced the apparent excess heat. The area in which these pseudo-skeptics > always fail is to fail to reproduce the excess heat effect in accordance > with their critique of the experiments. The kind of error Barry is talking > about should appear in just about any electrolytic system whether deuterium > or hydrogen based. It should also hear whether it is palladium or nickel > based. It sounds like Barry is close to having a quantitative model. It > should be able to predict quantity of excess heat appearing at various > loading levels. It should be reliable. > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > >> I am in total agreement with the statements from Bob. In every >> simulation that I have conducted using LTspice the system input power is >> accurately determined by the product of the constant current source DC >> value and the average DC voltage measured at the node of entry. During my >> testing I used several different models. In some systems I allowed the >> resistance from the node to ground to vary according to a sine wave model, >> while in others I toyed with square wave forms of variation. >> >> I also experimented with additional resistive loads connected effectively >> in parallel with the DC entry node. Both AC and DC connections were tested >> for the external node. For some testing I simulated a capacitor that was >> capable of virtually shorting out the input voltage variations by absorbing >> most of the AC current being generated by the changing resistance of the >> modeled cell load. >> >> One interesting observation that I carefully observed to be true was that >> the varying resistance within the cell due to a process such as bubbles >> forming and breaking actually generates AC power that can be coupled away >> from the cell under certain conditions. This power can be terminated into >> an external load and siphons away some of the input power that is supplied >> by the DC current source. Under this condition the actual input heating >> power applied to the cell can be less than calculated by an amount equal to >> that which is lost into the coupled load. This lost power makes the real >> COP greater than what is calculated. Fortunately, the error is small and >> only present when an external load is coupled to the cell. There is no >> indication that any significant load capable of absorbing the cell >> generated AC power is present during Dr. McKubre's testing. >> >> I consider the internal conversion of input DC power into AC power that >> can be transferred away from a cell such as this to be essentially the same >> process as seen during the operation of an RF power amplifier. In that >> case, the device heats up to a temperature that is determined by the >> difference between the DC input power and the RF output power that leaves >> the system. The true amplifier heating power will always be slightly lower >> than what you would expect without any RF conversion taking place. The >> behavior of a class 'A' RF stage serves as an excellent example of what I >> am observing in the simulations. >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 2:42 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component >> >> BTW, David Roberson and I have corresponded with Barry Kort about the >> claim that McKubre's measurements were as much as 3% in error due to >> presumption of constant current and average voltage between samples for >> calculation of average power. The claimed mis-measurement is attributed to >> the changing voltage due to the bubbles in the cell rapidly changing the >> cell resistance and hence cell voltage. Complicit in the argument is the >> inability of the power supply in constant current mode to adequately slew >> to keep up with the changes in resistance. Barry claims that reflections >> setup in the the connecting wires as transmission lines causes dissipation >> of the time varying component. >> >> David and I both did simulations of this setup using SPICE analysis in >> transient simulation mode, which analyzes the circuit from first >> principles. In my simulation I used a model for a voltage source in a >> feedback configuration with a sense resistor to comprise a current source >> similar to how real power supply current sources are made. Finite slew >> rate of the voltage was introduced. A lossy transmission line was used >> between the source and a load resistor, that was modeled as having a >> sinusoidally varying resistance (+ a constant). The simulated results were >> compared to that of an ideal current source driving the same load. The >> instantaneous power waveform was computed in the simulation and its average >> was taken to get average power delivered by the source to the load. >> >> The simulation results confirmed that the use of the constant current >> value times the average voltage between samples accurately computes the >> average delivered power. The differences between the feedback power supply >> model and the ideal constant current source (the presumption) was on the >> order of ppm, possibly due to the slew effects of the source or just >> imperfect value for the constant current the power supply sets (due to >> offset). This ppm difference was far below other errors in any real >> measurement by McKubre. The "3%" figure for the error in the McKubre's >> measurements being attributed to use of constant current and average >> voltage to compute average power in the face of variations in cell >> resistance appears to be completely unfounded. >> >> Barry calculated his solution mathematically including the delta >> functions that arise from step changes in resistance. He did not go on to >> simulate his circuit as a check of his math; and I suspect there is an >> error in his math or in how he has setup his model. >> >> Bob Higgins >> > >
