Regarding the Roulette 100W paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf
This details experiments carried out by Pons and associates while at the IRMA lab (Toyota funded) in 1996. Note that this is prior to my CCS publication, so this paper will NOT consider the CCS at all.
Based on this paper, I can say Jed’s comment (“Results from 100 W with no input power”) makes no sense. The paper describes 7 experiments conducted in a new calorimeter, 4 gave no excess, one is listed as ‘Variable’ % excess power with 30.5 MJ of “total energy”, presumably ‘produced’. (Based on the only data table in the paper, which Jed uses in his video.) One gave 150% excess power with 294 MJ produced, and the 4th in sequence gave 250% excess and 102 MJ produced. There is a line in the table with the label “Pwrexcess/W/4.2hr” which is unclear to me. The values listed are (-0.1, -0.6, 101, 17.3, 13.8, 74.5, 39.4). This is the only line of data that has “W” in the label, so it this the 100W Jed refers to? (If so it refers to run 3, which we have no information on besides what is in the table.)
The paper has several figures of data from experiment 4 (the one that produced 250% excess and 102 MJ). Presumably, the input power profiles are similar for all the experiments (hopefully?). You have to be careful in reading them because some of them have a 1/100 factor involved. The input power however, is never 0, as Jed claims. Figure 3 gives cell voltage (divided by 100) and Figure 4 give the current. During the 1st 35 hours, the Pin is low, Pin = 0.21A * 0.8*100 V = 17 W. Then the amps jumps up to ~0.9, and the voltage does some strange things. First it starts to increase in a slow, non-linear fashion until the 48th hr, where it jumps up to about 84V, so Pin is .9*84 = 75.6 W. But this is certainly not “0”. So Jed’s comment seems to be unrelated to this run at least.
THEREFORE due to lack of data and/or misstatements by Jed, I cannot confirm “100W excess power with zero input”. This is a typical result when examining cold fusion reports in detail.
Care to clarify Jed?
More confusion… Figure 5 gives “Cell Temperature”, apparently in degrees C, but the values plotted range from 0 to 1.0. So, I have no idea what this is. No mention of a 100 factor, but maybe we should multiply by 100 again?
The cell has three thermistors installed at different vertical heights (in a typical F&P cell design). I believe the calorimetric method is a type of isoperibolic calorimetry (i.e. Pout = k * (Tcell – Tbath)). They show the ‘excess power derived for each thermistor. They also note that depending on input power regime a different thermistor is used. In the 4thrun, the bottom one was not valid. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show this for the top and middle thermistor, and both show ~100W signals lasting ~25 hours, with a lead-in ramp up lasting about 16 hours and a following ramp down lasting about 7 hours or so. Figure 9 for the bottom thermistor shows a flat-lined 0 value signal.
Figure 10 shows the % excess heat but the peak value is ~ .16% of Pin (again no 100X mentioned but maybe this is actually 16%? Still, not 150%...).
Figure 11 shows accumulated excess energy and ends at ~310 MJ, but the table lists that run as producing 101 MJ. (Integrated Pin over that period (16+25+7 hrs) is 75W * 48 hrs * 3600 sec/hr = 13.13 MJ.)
So again I can’t make heads or tails from this. What gives Jed? Are you really claiming this paper shows 100W power out with no input? How do you do that?
BTW, there are no calibration equations or coefficients given, so I can’t easily estimate the possible CCS magnitude.
Show me where I’m wrong here folks….
Which makes some good points about odd units and the like. "Pwrexcess/W/4.2hr" ermm, what?
I'm not sure about the relevance of needing the calibration equations to estimate the 'possible CCS magnitude' though... I think it misses the point a bit.
I actually buy into Kirk's arguments about the potential for a moving heat source being able to positively skew some F&P-type results, and that the percentage of total heat loss from the calorimeter sets an upper bound on the magnitude of the effect. A novel hydrogen-oxygen recombination mechanism happening at the electrode could cause this... in theory. (Please correct me if that's not a good summary).
So the calorimeter in the above paper works by measuring two temperatures across a resistance, near the inner and outer surfaces of a submerged circular tube. The slice where these are measured is above the surface of the boiling electrolysis water inside, meaning the measured temperature difference is proportional to the heat captured from the boiled off steam, a lot of which is likely being lost out of the top of the calorimeter... Which would seem to make the "possible CCS magnitude" quite large.
But isn't the real question: What mechanism, of H-O recombination or otherwise, could cause this apparent shift of the heat source to above the surface of the boiling water?