Article View: sci.physics.fusion
Article #1239Request for published report exceeeding E*I
From: STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 17:41
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 17:41
95 lines
4707 bytes
4707 bytes
-------------------- NOTE: This is being re-submitted due to the note at the end of this digest suggesting possible problems with submissions...sorry if this is a duplicate. SPK... Jon Webb [webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)] writes: >It is permitted in science to give a lower weight to results that have >not appeared in the archival literature, which includes both examples >you mention above. Has anyone ever published in a journal a result >which exceeds I*V? I believe that all the results published in >journals have been much smaller effects, which can be explained by the >various sources of heat contamination I mentioned in a previous post. > I refer you to the August 1991 Fusion Technology article "Excess Heat Productionby the Electrolysis of Aqueous Potassium Carbonate ..." by Mills and Kneizys (the present author) in Vol 20, Number 1, pages 65-81. In that article, on pages 78-79, there is a table that includes seventeen or so Nickel/Potassium Carbonate cells that gave excess heat. In that table, we published excess heat result percents that were calculated with the 1.48V*I correction, but we also printed the raw data so that anyone could draw their own conclusions. Just pulling out the data from one of the less productive cells, cell 14, where there was stirring, no extra heater power, and Aqueous Potassium Carbonate with Nickel cathode. We reported an excess heat of 243%, with a delta T of 6.9 C, a cell constant of 14.8 C/Watt, an input voltage of 3.08, and a constant current of 85 milliAmperes. The TOTAL output power is: 6.9 C /(14.8 C/Watt) = .466 Watts With the 1.48*I correction, the input power was: (3.08-1.48) x 0.085 = .136 watts The excess heat reported was: [((.466-.136)/.136) x 100] = 243 If we ignore the 1.48*I correction, the total input power is: 3.08 x .085 = 0.262 Watts Seems we observed power exceeding V*I by: [(.466-.262)/.262] x 100 = 78% And this was from one of the less productive cells. Jon Webb also writes: >Well, Farrell is now claiming 2.5 Watts in, 50 Watts out. He has not >published information about the experiment, nor permitted an unbiased >observer to view it. It seems to me that this is far less open than >many others have been, including people you've been associated with. While Dr. Farrell does not need me to speak for him, Mills does need someone on the Net to speak for him. That person is currently Dr. Farrell, and I never read Dr. Farrell say that he was doing the experiment, rather that Dr. Farrell was relating Mills current experiment in progress for you information. Mills is running a business, and as such has to decide when and how to release information...but as well as I know him, he very much wants to release all pertinent information after such time as his "business" legal rights have been protected. On a general note, I would generally post much more information, except that I am very dissappointed with the tone of this net at times. It seems we have far too much personal jabs, and other non-science postings, that really don't belong here, and I hate to just add fuel to the fire. I have defended the Mills and Farrell theory quite often from ridiculous, nonspecific attacks. While I do not believe that they have a workable atomic or CNF or HECTER theory, I have heard few (and read less) reasonable reasons why their theory is incorrect. Saying that it violates quantum mechanics is not a valid reason to reject a theory. Theories that violate theories are not inherently incorrect. Theories that violate experiment results, the laws of physics or the laws of mathematics, on the other hand, do have problems. I would be happy to discuss the problems I know of with the M&F theory, but I don't was to just add fuel to this theory "bashing". Can we all make a slightly late New Years Resolution to just stick to the scientific method? On a humorous note, the acronym I suggest for this whole process of excess heat production is Gobs Of Energy From Unknown Sources (GOEFUS). But there I've gone and broken my own resolution. Oh, well, I hope you all can forgive me. Sincerely, Steve Kneizys Ursinus College --------------------
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9301071530.AA27161@suntan.Tandem.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!fusionShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!fusion From: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu> Subject: Request for published report exceeeding E*I Message-ID: <9301071530.AA27161@suntan.Tandem.com> Sender: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) Reply-To: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu> Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:41:48 GMT Lines: 95