Posts by Alan Smith

That is recoverable energy. the other 15% is the 'Angel's Share' but it still exists.

I think you guys are inventing scenarios that just never exist in real life. That you have no hope of ever replicating.

Quote from axil

The 85% efficiency is the combined electric/thermal efficiency.

The combined electrical and thermal output is 100% - there is no other place for it to go.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Alan: I just need to know which bit you disagree with:

(1) that a resistive layer forms

(2) that it heats up the electrode enough.

The idea that putting a resistive layer over a Pd electrode makes it hot is unusual to say the least.. How about coating it with epoxy - would that heat it up?

Quote from THHuxleynew

The fact of a resistive layer must heat up the electrode

Tom, when you post this as a serious argument I give up.

I agree, especially since the 85% efficient fuel-cell doesn't exist outside of a laboratory- if there. Commercial hydrogen-air fuel cells are at best 50-60% efficient

This is a waste of my time to be honest. I am not about to be drawn into the discussion of what exactly that video shows, it has very very little to do with the whole body of evidence that LENR is real. Find another argument if you like, but for me pursuing a couple of hand wavers on a tandem is a waste of breath.

Ascoli's attempts to discredit an entire field of research are simultaneously sad and laughable. Without an experiment effort to replicate this with any reasonable facsimile of the F&P cell you are both just hand waving - supported only by Ascoli's vivid imagination and cherry-picked scenarios. You have it seems never experimented with or worked with electrolytic systems, perhaps Ascoli never has either. I don't know.

On the other side of this story, I have faith in F&P's skill and probity, and the huge body of experimental evidence from others showing that XSH in Pd/D systems is a genuine phenomenon.

Quote from Ascoli65

There is nothing of extraordinary in this behavior.

That is about as specious an argument as it is possible to create. That is in itself extraordinary. The cell is dry when it suits some arguments, and wet when it suits others. A kind of 'half-full / half empty' debate.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Back to the Natural Philosophy Alliance 2010

The playlist title is "Frank Gordon - How Hot is Cold Fusion?"

This is segment 6.

This section also contains input from our member Simon Brink .

Quote from THHuxleynew

Kel-F - as I'm sure you know is an insulator. However it would be in direct contact with a bit of Palladium heated up to 400C by that 40W. If it works for soldering irons (at only 15W for a cheap one) it should work for palladium electrodes

Next time you have a moment, try attaching a wire to a good dieletric in the bottom of an empty glass beaker. Tell me how many volts it takes to melt it.

Quote from Ascoli65

The Kel-F support of the electrodes melted, not the electrodes

Kel-F being commonly used as a conductive heating element of course.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Your previous (substantive) points have all been shown incorrect.

No- you proffered alternative arguments. Not the same thing.

You are just blowing smoke. But never mind, so long as you enjoy it.

So, towards the end of this experiment all the water in the cell had evaporated, in which case the cell resistance would be almost infinite and there would be no current flow and no joule heating.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You can see from 6B that the voltage increases over the experiment from approx 7v at the start of the 500mA portion of the run up to 5X

So- a whole 17.5 watts. Couldn't do a lot of boiling with that.

Infinite Energy is always a good read. #161 contains a lot of cold fusion stories - some of which may be available free online soon.

Virtual subscriptions are not expensive btw. The cover painting on this one is by another cold fusion (bubble fusion) guy, Roger Stringham.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

One of the WFC’s nine Divisions, Indian Head’s mission is to research, develop, test, evaluate, and produce energetics and energetic systems for U.S. fighting forces.” -end quote – Inventor: Pharis Edward Williams Original Assignee: Pharis Edward Williams https://www.google.com/patents/US20130235963A1

Abandoned I see,

In the interview Ed says " The nuclear active environment is an environment

that causes or allows atoms to come together in such a way
as to allow nuclear interaction. How the atoms go about
doing this requires more detail. The environment allows the
atoms to come together with a relationship to one another
that would allow fusion to take place by some mysterious
mechanism. The kind of environment that would allow
atoms to come together is determined by the chemical
nature of the material, because this happens in a chemical
structure. Therefore, the rules that apply to a chemical structure must apply. These atoms don’t come together with the
anticipation of fusing. They’re in a chemical environment
doing whatever the chemical environment requires them to
do. Chemists study and understand the nature of such an
environment and the rules that apply. I’m trying to apply
those rules to what’s happening."

I think this is a superficial account of some very deep thinking.

Quote from THHuxleynew

(1) during electrolysis over a long period of Pd with D (or sometimes H) solid or semi-solid residue can build up around the electrode

(2) this residue could have a resistivity higher than that of the electrolyte

(2a) a similar mechanism showing increased local to electrode resistivity as the electrolyte heats up would be bubble-formation on electrode surface (I gave the calcs above) this would make power dissipated immediately around the electrode per cc higher than in bulk electrolyte

(2b) ATER is yet another mechanism that would heat up the electrode more than the bulk electrolyte

(3) in this case a portion of the power normally dissipated in the electrolyte would be dissipated in this layer.

(3a) worth remembering that with no power dissipated in the electrode bulk, for a long run, the electrode bulk temperature will equilibrate to the electrode surface temperature.

(4) this would heat up the electrode more than the electrolyte

(5) not much extra temperature is needed for the electrolyte close to the electrode to boil id the electrolyte is at a temperature close to 100C anyway.

(6) this sequence of events, or something like it, explains the boil-off observations with power applied.

Display More

How on earth did you dream up all this nonsense?

What is the possible chemical nature of this hypothesised high-resistance coating on the cathode in a D2O/LiOD system? Never seen that happen in possibly 50 trials. If I had my notebooks here I could tell you exactly.

Since in your example this coating reduces current flow the system would cool down. It is exactly the same as having a smaller electrode.

Also- since this imaginary coating is intimate contact with the electrolyte it would also be cooled to electrolyte temperature- even if by some magic the electrode could heat up. The only magic I can think of is LENR magic.

I have often had problems with coating build-up on the electrodes in plating and cleaning tanks, in every case the current drops off very quickly. So no joule heating of anything, because there is less current flow.

Of course the bulk electrode temperature and the electrolyte temperature equilibrate over time. And stay there while current flows, but not after. However, that means nothing. I only mentioned 'bulk electrode temperature' because it is easier to measure than surface temperature in the presence of an electrolyte.
Since Ascoli -according to you- could not possibly reproduce any of these effects while adhering however loosely to the F&P protocols I am calling it nonsense. Because it cannot be done. He knows it, you know it too.

And before you start on again about constant current versus constant voltage PSU's I am pretty sure that only in extremes would that make any difference - and F&P would be very wary of extremes.