----------------- the following is an open offer from Tom Napier:
A monitoring system for cold fusion cells.
Tom Napier (tom@phact.org)
A home-built
continuous monitoring system could verify the operation of
cold fusion and similar heat generating cells.
I have read many reports of electrolytic cells which sporadicallyThe Proposal
Confirming these ratios requires only the measurement of electrical
power, water flow and temperature rise. Since this would be within
the
capability of many home experimenters, I am proposing that the proponents
of such devices make samples available to competent experimenters to
allow
their products to be independently tested.
The system described below would run unattended for a week, making
a
continuous record of power, water flow and temperature rise.
This
eliminates the possibility of energy storage within the system and
will
verify any net energy output. This system could test any cell
whose
output is in the zero to 500 W region. I am prepared to install
proffered
cells in such a system, to run a test and to report the results in
the
open literature.
During the one week test period, the relevant powers, temperatures andThe test
The system I propose [see tester.gif] has an elevated tank containingAn outline
The water is discharged at a constant level into a flow measurement
unit similar in principle to an automatic rain gauge. From there
it flows
into a holding tank capable of dissipating up to a kilowatt without
a
significant temperature rise above ambient. A cooling fan and
additional
radiation area can be provided if required.
A pump circulates water from the holding tank to the elevated tank.
In
practice most of this water returns via the overflow rather than via
the
cell. The maximum possible mechanical energy input to the cell
can thus
be computed from the flow rate through the cell and the difference
in
water levels, making it unnecessary to measure the power input to the
pump.
Construction
For cheapness and simplicity the water circulation system will be
constructed mostly from 1/2 inch PVC pipes and fittings. Apart
from a
vent hole, it will be completely sealed to minimize evaporation of
the
water during the test. Unless otherwise advised, commercial distilled
water will be used for this test.
Measurements
The rate of water flow is not expected to vary rapidly since it
is
largely set by the difference in the input and output water levels
and the
size of the fixed restriction. Thus only the mean flow rate need
be
measured and a tipping-bucket type of gauge can be used. This
closes a
contact each time a fixed quantity of water passes into it, around
four
times per minute. The gauge can be built entirely from plastic
parts.
Its tipping is sensed by a potted magnet and a reed relay.
Other fundamental measurements are the water temperatures entering and
leaving the cell. It is proposed to use sealed, precalibrated
thermistors. Teflon mesh will be packed in the sensing area upstream
of
both cell thermistors to mix the flow. The thermistors have a
temperature
coefficient of around -3.3% per Celsius degree in the region from 20
to 35
C. The ambient temperature and the water temperature in
the two tanks
will also be recorded.
The thermistor resistances will be sampled in turn by a 12-bit
ratiometric analog to digital converter at a rate to be determined.
(Once
per second would be a good number.) The accuracy of resistance
measurement will be around one part in a thousand, giving a relative
accuracy in the region of 0.03 degrees. The temperature scale
will be
calibrated with a dummy cell in place of the real one; an accuracy
of
around 0.5 degrees should be attainable. Since ultimately only
a
temperature difference matters, the absolute accuracy is less important
than, for example, aging effects in the thermistors. Resistive
heaters
fitted in a dummy cell will be used to verify the correct operation
of the
system and to correct the outflow thermistor for convection effects.
The final measurement is the electrical power input. It is proposed
to
drive the electrolytic cell from either a constant current or a constant
voltage source at the discretion of the cell's manufacturer.
Both the
current and the voltage will be sampled. These samples will be
multiplied
to compute the power and the mean result continuously recorded.
(Note,
this technique would not be suitable if there were any reason to suppose
that the cell current and/or voltage will vary rapidly. It is
not capable
of measuring RMS power in a bandwidth greater than half the sampling
rate.
Tests will be carried out before the system test to confirm that no
rapid
variations are present.)
The flow meter switch will be sampled at the same rate as the
temperature to determine if it has changed state. The number
of seconds
per flip gives only a rough idea of the instantaneous flow but the
long
term flow rate, which is what matters, should be accurate to about
1%.
Recording
A microcontroller will be used to sample the measurements and to store
them in a non-volatile memory chip. The controller will compute
the input
and output powers and both record and display them. It will also
check
for various alarm conditions and abort the test if a dangerous situation
arises.
Since sampling the temperatures and the power once per second would
generate some 10 Mbytes of data a week it is proposed to compute the
power
at one second intervals but to record only the mean power during each
one
minute interval. To warn of glitches, whether real or induced,
a flag bit
will indicate whenever one or more power samples has deviated
significantly from the one minute mean. A similar flag system
will warn
of any glitches in the temperature samples. Intervals containing
such
glitches shall not be considered in computing mean power inputs and
outputs.
If four temperatures are monitored, and all measurements are made with
12-bit accuracy, at least ten bytes of memory will be needed to record
one
data set. This includes a byte to record the water flow rate,
the pump
status and the alarm conditions. This gives a data accumulation
rate of
14.4 kbytes per day. A 1 megabit EPROM, a readily available part,
could
store over nine days of data.
PrecautionsA current or voltage limit will be set to avoid damage to the cell.
Since I am proposing to run this equipment in the basement of my home
I
shall require guarantees of the cell's safety. (For example,
that it has
no output of ionizing radiation and is not subject to thermal run-away.)
Conditions
Provided I am supplied with a cell on loan I am prepared to construct
this equipment and to conduct this test at no cost to the cell's
manufacturer. Once the test is started no adjustment or maintenance
of
the system will be permitted during the time allotted for the test,
a
minimum period of one week. Necessary intervention in an emergency
or for
any other reason shall be construed as failure of the test. A
short test
run will be made before commencement of the full test to verify that
the
system and the recording equipment are functioning correctly.
Any mean thermal power output over a one week test period which is
greater than four times the electrical power input to the cell shall
be
construed as a successful demonstration. The figure of 4:1 has
been
chosen to give a wide margin for instrumental error, while being easily
achieved by a system which works as advertised.
I am prepared to guarantee non-disclosure of the construction of the
cell. I shall not dismantle it or alter it in any way.
I shall reserve all rights to publish the details of this system and
the results of this test and may do so in any manner I wish.
Any such
publication will be fair and full, whatever the outcome of the test.
Qualifications
I graduated BS in physics and MS in electronics from a university
physics department which specialized in the instrumentation of
experiments. I have had many years of experience in the design
of
physical and electronic instruments as a staff member of both a university
physics department and an international scientific research organization.
I am currently a self-employed electronics design consultant and writer.
I have no connection, other than as a customer, with any energy generating
company and I have never been employed by any US government agency.
I
have no set views on the subject of cold fusion other than believing
that,
if it is a real phenomenon, a well planned and executed experiment
ought
to be able to demonstrate it clearly and consistently.
Offers of cells to be tested should be made to me at tom@phact.org.
More of tom's writings can be found at the bottom of: rants
I personally believe that we can learn the most from those who
think
differently than us. The following letter reposted (with
permission)
from Jed Rothwell is critical of my whole angle:
=========================
Dear Eric,
I am not interested in the free energy e-mail list for a couple of reasons.
1. Free energy is mainly about psychology, not physics. It is about
how
ignorant people delude themselves. I see enough of that in the people
who
oppose cold fusion. I am sick of the subject.
2. You occasionally confuse so-called free energy research with cold
fusion. The two have nothing in common. It is as if you were confusing
voodoo with modern medicine, or creationism with evolutionary science.
There should be no mention of cold fusion on your web page except to
point
out that it is legitimate, peer-reviewed, hard science supported by
overwhelming experimental evidence.
The free-energy crowd often claims their results are caused by cold
fusion.
They have apparently fooled you, because you trash real science based
on
what they say. You don't believe anything else they say, but when they
claim "we do cold fusion," you oblige them by listing cold fusion --
and
you thereby condemn it with guilt by association. A sensible person
who
reads your web page will assume that since cold fusion is listed, it
must
be the same kind of humbug. I think you suspect that cold fusion is
indeed
tainted, even though you admit you have not read the cold fusion
literature, which bears no resemblance to "free energy" hocus-pocus.
When a
bogus cancer researcher sells quack cures, he hijacks the terminology
of
genuine medical research. A boiler room con-man spouts stock market
jargon
like a legitimate broker. You would not condemn a real cancer researcher
because some shyster goes around pretending that he does similar research.
You would not add the real researcher's name to a list of people who
sell
poisonous quack remedies to dying patients. Why, then, do you associate
Pons and Fleischmann with the likes of Newman? Frankly, this is outrageous.
The harm you do outweighs the good that the educated and amusing sections
of your web page bring to the public.
As long as I am grousing, let me add that I despise this notion which
you
endorse:
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!
Extraordinary claims require precisely the same level of proof, and
the
same kind of proof, as any other claims. They require multiplicity
of
evidence, and high sigma, wide replication. Just how widely results
must be
replicated before you believe them is a judgment call. However, after
10 or
20 top-notch laboratories replicate a result, in projects that take
many
man years and millions of dollars (which makes them difficult to repeat),
any reasonable person will believe the results are real and not instrument
artifacts. Anyone who still doubts the reality of cold fusion does
not
understand the scientific method. Peer reviewed, positive cold fusion
results have been published by Texas A&M, SRI, Los Alamos, Hitachi,
Mitsubishi, University of Illinois, China Lake and dozens of other
world-class labs. Excess heat five orders of magnitude greater than
any
chemical reaction could produce have been observed, along with nuclear
effects including tritium, helium, transmutations, neutrons, and
short-lived radioactive isotope production. In many cases these effects
have been marginal, but in other cases they have been orders of magnitude
above the limits of detection. Tritium generation at Los Alamos increased
so much that it became difficult to sweep the tritium out of the vessel
between tests, so the mass of the cathode was reduced by a factor of
100.
[1] If this tritium had been caused by environmental contamination,
tritium
levels in the laboratory would have been so high the radiation alarms
would
have been triggered and the laboratory evacuated.
There can be no double standard in science. Once you move the goal post,
and you arbitrarily declare that some results require extraordinary
proof,
you can redefine "extraordinary" again and again until you begin
confabulating "extraordinary" reasons to disbelieve indisputable facts.
I
describe a classic example of this in my review of the 1995 Hoffman
book.
[2, 3] Hoffman concluded that the heavy water used in cold fusion
experiments contains tritium because Ontario Hydro sells used CANDU
fission
power reactor moderator water to the general public. I faxed this section
of the book to Ontario Hydro. They responded with a detailed two-page
fax
in which they show that Hoffman's idea is, quote: "pure nonsense."
They
said that the specific activity of tritium in used moderator water
is 100
million times higher than the level which can be legally sold to the
public, and it would cost far more to clean up moderator water than
it does
to refine virgin heavy water. When you examine the other attacks on
cold
fusion in scientific papers and books, you find that all other objections
boil down to this kind of "pure nonsense". [4, 5, 6] Some are subtle
nonsense dressed up in scientific terminology. When you strip away
the
terminology you find an assertion that chemical companies sell used
moderator water; or that mercury thermometers cannot measure the difference
between 50 and 100 degree C; or that electric power on Saturday and
Sunday
increases 10% to 100% yet this increase cannot be measured with laboratory
grade meters and data collection computers; or that electrochemists
routinely measure volts but not amps or vice versa; [7] ambient tritium
and
helium leak into the cells which explains results, even though this
would
require ambient levels of these gases high enough to suffocate or fatally
irradiate the experimenters. Note that I did not make up these preposterous
ideas. I took them from the anti-cold fusion literature. Even though
99% of
the scientific establishment supports the anti-cold fusion agenda,
it is
every bit as irrational, absurd, and idiotic as the "free energy" agenda.
The DOE, the editors at Nature, and the Nobel laureate physicists who
heaped praise on the Taubes book are as deluded as Joseph Newman, and
they
are far more dangerous to society.
Please note: I do not mean that some of the objections to cold fusion
are
nonsense. I mean that *every single published objection after 1990*,
without exception, is pernicious nonsense. All reasonable objections
to
experimental technique were eliminated by quality experiments in
world-class laboratories by the end of 1990. In any other context people
would instantly see how stupid the remaining objections are. People
cling
to this half-baked nonsense and these delusions because they want to
believe cold fusion does not exist."Free energy" supporters engage
in the
same kind of pathological thinking.
The core problem is that "extraordinary" describes a state of mind,
not a
fact of nature. One observer finds cold fusion extraordinary -- another
does not. People who are used to seeing cold fusion effects because
they
have been working in this field for 10 years no longer find excess
heat or
tritium "extraordinary." If I could step back 110 years in time and
bring
along with me a $5 hand calculator, a portable computer, or a uranium
oxide
thermoelectric generator (TEG), scientists and engineers would find
these
devices so extraordinary as to be unthinkable, but we take them for
granted
today. It is all a matter of what you are used to.
The burden of proof for extraordinary claims cannot not be set any higher
than that of ordinary, standard, routine claims. There are only two
standards and they apply equally to all experiments, radical or mundane.
They are, as I said, replication and the signal-to-noise ratio (sigma).
The
fact that the results are surprising to us cannot be a consideration.
If we
allow our preconceived notions about what can and cannot be true to
color
our judgment, we become blind to new discoveries, and progress grinds
to a
halt.
- Jed Rothwell
Footnotes
1. T. N. Claytor, D. D. Jackson and D. G. Tuggle, "Tritium Production
from
a Low Voltage Deuterium Discharge on Palladium and Other Metals," Los
Alamos
National Laboratory. http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm
2. N. Hoffman, "A Dialogue on Chemically-Induced Nuclear Effects: A
Guide
for the Perplexed About Cold Fusion," (American Nuclear Society, 1995)
3. J. Rothwell, review, Infinite Energy #3, p. 53
4. N. Hoffman, ibid.
5. G. Taubes, Bad Science, (Random House, 1993), See also National Public
Radio interview
6. D. Morrison, "Comments on Claims of Excess Enthalpy by Fleischmann
and
Pons Using Simple Cells Made to Boil," Nature, 1993
7. G. Taubes, ibid., p. 229 and elsewhere. Taubes never says why these
researchers allegedly did not measure voltage, or where he learned
about
this. He hints that they simply forgot. An electrochemist would *forget*
to
measure voltage about as often as you would forget to put on your clothes
before driving to work.
===================== end of post ==========
Jed,
I kind of thought that your
publication (which seems to ban me) is
mostly about free energy.
I consider cold fusion to be a step up from
the likes of Newman
and Lee, but I still feel
offended than my and other's
offers to attempt to measure cells
has gone ignored. I don't want to
wade through the 600 reports of
success, I want to see one work for a
few weeks putting out obvious excess
power. Maybe it does work, I
don't know either way at this point.
I've heard card-carrying
skeptics agree with your condemnation of
"Extraordinary Proof Deserves
Extraordinary Evidence". If you told
me you have a goat in your back
yard, I'd take your word for it. But
if you said you had a unicorn .
. . well, I'd only trust my own eyes.
I'm not qualified to measure tritium
- I am with heat. Get someone
to loan a working cell to me, Tom
Napier and Bob Parks. I'd rather
see it work.
Eric Krieg eric@phact.org
http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html
Subject:
Cold Fusion Report (Full
Text) On-line (fwd)
From:
Jim Giglio <jgiglio@nova.umuc.edu>
National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) has placed the 1989 report of
the
Cold Fusion Panel of the US Department of Energy's Energy Research
Advisory board (ERAB) on-line at the NCAS web site (www.ncas.org/erab/).
The panel analyzed claims that nuclear fusion could be initiated in
an
electrolytic apparatus similar to the setup that is used to generate
hydrogen and oxygen in high school chemistry labs. These claims were
found
wanting for a variety of reasons, and the panel recommended that the
department refrain from setting up any special programs to fund cold
fusion studies. The conclusions and recommendations of the panel
represented the consensus of mainstream science at that time, and
continue to do so today.
The ERAB report is not a quick read, but close study of the evidence
considered by the panel, as well as the reasoning employed by the panel
in
evaluating that evidence, is well worth the effort for anyone attempting
to evaluate cold fusion claims being put forward today.
*----------------------*
--