Quote from Thetruemonty

Why?

We could make a comparative analysis...

How much energy does it take to make 1 gallon of gasoline?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/…allon-of-gasoline.164099/

Quote from jsmathers

You could include the energy budget also for solar cells for mining and melting the silicon when calculating the energy efficiency......

Actually, that does make sense when you are talking about the economics of commercial energy production. Analysts do include the energy needed to fabricate solar cells when they look at the overall efficiency of solar cells compared to other sources such as wind turbines or natural gas. This is used to estimate the energy payback time. See:

http://sinovoltaics.com/learni…k-time-for-solar-systems/

"The energy payback time (EPBT) of a power generating system is the time required to generate as much energy as is consumed during production and lifetime operation of the system. The past decade the energy payback time for solar PV systems has been reduced drastically."

This is also called "embodied energy." See:

http://www.yourhome.gov.au/materials/embodied-energy

Suppose it took a tremendous amount of energy to fabricate a cold fusion cell, for some reason. I do not mean energy that is stored up the way it is in a dry cell battery. You get that back. I mean embodied energy. That would be a nagging problem for the future. It would not be an issue for a laboratory experiment. Measuring it would confuse the issue.

Fortunately, we know this is not a problem. It takes very little energy to make a cathode or a cell. Not only is the energy payback time short, but so much energy is produced per gram of reactant that the overall balance is orders of magnitude better than any conventional system. This is what is known as energy overhead, which resembles payback time. The overhead for oil is large. It is 10% to 20% depending on where the oil comes from and who is making the estimate. This means it takes ~10% of oil we extract to drill, transport and refine the oil into fuel. Oil tankers, for example, run on oil. For coal, the overhead is about 8%. For wind turbines lasting 20 years, it is 2%. For cold fusion, assuming deuterium is the consumable, using today's heavy water separation techniques, it would be ~0.05%. Better techniques have been invented already, so it would lower than this. See my book, p. 46.

Quote from H-G Branzell

You do, it is called EROEI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…turned_on_energy_invested

As I explained above, you do not do an EROEI analysis in a physics experiment. You do this analysis in an overview comparing the economics of energy generating systems. And, when you apply it to cold fusion you find cold fusion is orders of magnitude better than any alternative, including uranium fission.

Quote from JedRothwell

This is what is known as energy overhead, which resembles payback time. . . . For wind turbines lasting 20 years, it is 2%

That is assuming the wind turbine blades and generator wear out after ~20 years, but the tower can still be used. That is a reasonable assumption. I have seen estimates that today's towers may last 100 years or more. Then again, today's towers may be too short for use 100 years from now, because blades may be longer.

If you have to replace the tower, I think overhead increases to some number higher than 2%, but I do not know what it would be. The tower has the most material by far.

My point is, these estimates are complicated, and they are only approximate. Be careful when evaluating them. There may be complicated issues left unsaid.

I broadly agree but what about heat input that is stored in the cell in chemical form and could be emitted later?' I'm no chemist so the following might be wrong but....

Perhaps heating during construction causes some metal in the cell to become oxidised abdorbing some of that heat, and then later during the test it's reduced back to the original metal liberating heat. It would be a mistake to think you started with metal and finished with metal when in fact you accidentally started with a mix of metal and metal oxide created by heating during construction. I can't remember my chemistry so this might be nonsense but do you get what I'm saying?

I suppose it's sufficient to show that the excess heat is too large to have a chemical origin.

PS Actually you are right, this would also show up in the control.

Quote from Alan Smith

Should I also include fuel used driving to the lab and back again, and weigh my bowel motions? Of course not! We are interested in justone thing at the moment, does a LION fuel tube produce anomalous heat and/or radiation when compared to a control tube. All else is window dressing.

No,

You should not include your fuel used for driving or your bowel movements.

IF, the anamalous heat is very low, as many have shown, is it possible that the energy used to prepare the tube was somehow stored in the tube and is now simply being released?

IF, the anamolous heat effect only lasts a short period at low output, it must be considered.