Display MoreAbd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
To bring them in series is just a bad idea with no payback, but didn't harm their test, because PdH rarely shows a physical effect.
I would never use/recomend this setup!
Even worse: For a calibration of chemical effects the H-cell (P13) could never be used, without measuring both voltages, which is much easier done with a paralell constant voltage source...
( because, if the voltage falls below a threshold, then the cell is chemically simply inactive...)
The point was that this is a well-known experiment, and the use of series connection so that experiment and control have the exact same current is not uncommon. Cold fusion researchers often use constant-current supplies, because it makes the measurement of power simple. I'm not going into all the detail here. The fact was that Wyttenbach was simply showing a lack of familiarity with cold fusion research, and used his inexperienced ideas of what is good and bad as a standard for making a definitive statement that was simply wrong.
The purpose of the test was to look for XP and to compare results with deuterium and hydrogen. This did it very effectively. Wyttenbach has not stated what he would use as an alternative, other than constant voltage, but it would introduce variables, almost certainly, that the electrochemists who do this work would not want. Yes, below a certain voltage threshold there would be little effect. They are not below that threshold nor are they close to it.
Because Wyttenbach has never done this kind of work, and has not studied the work of those who have, he has no idea of what benefits might accrue.
For myself, I considered doing a codep experiment with a light water control. I would have placed two cells in series, using a single constant current supply, thus providing the same current for both. Yes, the power input is different. But that comes out in the wash, the input power is subtracted. I am aware that it is a variable, but comparing hydrogen and deuterium will always involve some variation unless a lot more work is done. Efficiency of the work is an issue.
(Constant current means that the rate of evolution is constant for hydrogen and deuterium. It takes different voltages to make that rate the same for a hydrogen and deuterium cell.)
The voltages are measured. That's easy to do. The cells are treated identically, same method of recording data. I would have had for my data collection system the collection of three voltages, one of which would be ground. So it's really only two: the full voltage across the two cells, and the voltage across one of them, the one connected to ground on one side. So that's two voltages to record, plus the current, which is held constant. Measuring current is more complex than measuring voltage, one must have a shunt for each current to be measured (and there would be two). With constant current, there is one measurement of current, and it is often a computer-controlled setting in the power supply. It can be measured with a meter for confirmation, but these supplies are very reliable.
(I have done substantial analysis of raw data from work where the input to the cell was "constant power." That looks like a great idea, but I think it isn't. It really isn't constant power. It is a constant current supply that is programmed to change to keep power constant. When one tries to look at what is going on in the cell as to, say, a resistance drop that I noticed always preceded the appearance of XP in that work, it is then masked by the changes in programming. A mess. It *seems* simpler to control the power, but in actuality, constant current is preferred by electrochemists, it appears, constant voltage is almost never used. Power is then calculated.)
(Changing the current changes the rate of evolution of deuterium which is a critical variable. Allowing the voltage to change does not affect that variable if current is constant. Voltage is noisy because of bubbles changing the effective resistance of the interface layer which is where most of the voltage drop is found. My suspicion about that resistance drop is that there is a burst of alphas at low energies, lowering the resistance of the interface layer. This also explains the SPAWAR "hamburger" and the "chemical etch" of CR-39. It would only affect a very thin layer of electrolyte. These are all things that could warrant extensive investigation.)