A interestingly flawed paper.

[Richard Hull]

This paper was delivered recently at a new energy conference.

http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/aehodme/index.htm

Unfortunately, even a cursory look at the setup shows that while their calorimetry appears well done to a limited degree, the stumbling block remains the electrochemists inability to handle electronic and electrical instrumentation properly. This effectively, puts into question their process and results. I am embarassed for the authors who surely were besieged by their peers and certainly any electronically adroit people at the conference

If Earthtech had run this, they would have got the same results except the Pout and Pin lines on the graph would have flipped upside down.

It bothers me to see scientists who are skilled at calorimetry or electrochemistry allow their work to be poisoned by not having on hand a good electronics technician or engineer to properly deal with input power measurements.

Once again, as in the ARGON ARC tube thread recently put up here, a process of high intensity arcing foils easy power input measurment. When will the new energy community realize that reactive and or arcing circuitry demands very careful electrical input power measurement techniques!

While their calorimetry appears unique (boling water mass determination of energy output), it is somewhat bizarre as most scientists are used to sealed, tightly controlled calorimeter systems.

I ran across this on my usual monthly search for interesting info on new energy that bears some sort of viable proof of process. Unfortunately, this was an example of how not to do good work.

Richard Hull

[Alex Aitken]

Actually, I think the calorometry sucks. A draught for example would squew the data in favor of excess energy by a massive amount. Or a change in atmospheric pressure. O2 and H2 gas evolution from the electrolysis will also carry off water vapour.

The fantastic thing about heating water, is that you can use a massive amount, and keep it sealed, so the temperature changes are very small and easily compansatable. You can measure 1/1000 of a degree with a resistance thermometer pretty trivially.

I agree about problems with measuring the power of an arcing supply. Probably the thing I love the most though is attributing the excess power to the production of some of the most expensive metals on the planet.

[Richard Hull]

If you read carefully, they allowed their calorimetry to suck a bit as they measured such a decent power input to output ratio that they felt the calorimetry need not be overly rigorous or precise. They felt that this bizarre method was satisfactory as their power in measurements were so low.

Actually, in using their methodology of calorimetry, they were THROWING AWAY output power energy in such a non-closed system. This is the very reason they felt so confident.

It all goes back to their horribly erroneous input power readings.

If they flawlessly measured the input energy and used this form of calorimetry and still had more out than in then that would, indeed, be something worth looking into. Their calorimetry sucked AGAINST them finding a truly close power difference. It leaked like a sieve inspite of the object of the science involved being OK , in theory. The real world always snaps back to bite one in the butt when following theory without regard to simple realities.

Richard Hull

[Alex Aitken]

I didnt see them throwing away output power by doing it in the open, they compansated for conduction losses with the heater run, In many ways thats the problem as its an energy loss that can be borrowed from for more evaporation by air flow for example. The heater run was also done for a much shorter time than the full thing. It would have made more sense to run the experiment so the output results were the same, and control the power to the heater to maintain it. Thats a much more accurate way of doing things. The amount of power used in electrolysis will be very small, this is the only thing deliberatly ignored but its trivial.

[TBenson]

Hi,

Yes this is a good example. Over the past 10 years or so I've had the opportunity to "attempt" reproduction of 5 cold fusion experiments of similar stripe, all of which were claiming significant (50-300%) excess heat over input. In all cases I found systematic errors in either:

1. Input power measurement. Richard of course you hit it on the nose.

or

2. Calorimetry.

Once I fixed the problems, the excess heat disappeared completely. These problems are rife in the CF research world which is one reason why it's so hard to make progress. For every 1 paper I suspect is real, there are a dozen that are crapola.

The two problems above are so damned difficult. Power input is brutal to measure properly and calorimetry can defy even the smartest investigator (I think of thermal heat as a flock of microscopic little cats, forever refusing to go the way you want them to go)

So my current advice to CF people is...don't believe your results and don't publish anything until you've see identical results in a totally DIFFERENT method of calorimetry. For example if you're doing flow-through calorimetry, you must duplicate in a seebeck calorimeter, or just send it to some other trusted person. For input power, don't trust it until you've used a resistance heat calorimeter to double check input numbers.

Sigh.

[Richard Hull]

Tom, it is the few folks out there in CF with your verve and objectivity that might ultimately win the day for CF. The problem is, as Fleischman said shortly after his announcement, "there are those who see this simple apparatus and think that they can go out and have a quick dabble at it and win....When they get negative results in two days, they say that we were wrong".

This is a serious business and requires a serious, yet sustained effort.

If any of this "subtle science", as I now call it, were easy, it would have fallen into common knowledge years ago. We are probably pecking at the lobes of another revolution in science and just haven't seen the forest for the trees.

Richard Hull