From: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Subject:  Request for published report exceeeding E*I
Reply-To: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:41:48 GMT

--------------------

NOTE:  This is being re-submitted due to the note at the end of
this digest suggesting possible problems with submissions...sorry
if this is a duplicate.
SPK...

Jon Webb [webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)] writes:
>It is permitted in science to give a lower weight to results that have
>not appeared in the archival literature, which includes both examples
>you mention above.  Has anyone ever published in a journal a result
>which exceeds I*V?  I believe that all the results published in
>journals have been much smaller effects, which can be explained by the
>various sources of heat contamination I mentioned in a previous post.
>

I refer you to the August 1991 Fusion Technology article "Excess Heat
Productionby the Electrolysis of Aqueous Potassium Carbonate ..." by Mills
and Kneizys (the present author) in Vol 20, Number 1, pages 65-81.
In that article, on pages 78-79, there is a table that includes
seventeen or so Nickel/Potassium Carbonate cells that gave excess heat.
In that table, we published excess heat result percents that were
calculated with the 1.48V*I correction, but we also printed the raw
data so that anyone could draw their own conclusions.  Just pulling
out the data from one of the less productive cells, cell 14, where
there was stirring, no extra heater power, and Aqueous Potassium
Carbonate with Nickel cathode.  We reported an excess heat of 243%,
with a delta T of 6.9 C, a cell constant of 14.8 C/Watt, an input
voltage of 3.08, and a constant current of 85 milliAmperes.

The TOTAL output power is:

6.9 C /(14.8 C/Watt) = .466 Watts

With the 1.48*I correction, the input power was:

(3.08-1.48) x 0.085 = .136 watts

The excess heat reported was:

[((.466-.136)/.136) x 100] = 243

If we ignore the 1.48*I correction, the total input power is:

3.08 x .085 = 0.262 Watts

Seems we observed power exceeding V*I by:

[(.466-.262)/.262] x 100 = 78%

And this was from one of the less productive cells.

Jon Webb also writes:
>Well, Farrell is now claiming 2.5 Watts in, 50 Watts out.  He has not
>published information about the experiment, nor permitted an unbiased
>observer to view it.  It seems to me that this is far less open than
>many others have been, including people you've been associated with.

While Dr. Farrell does not need me to speak for him, Mills does need
someone on the Net to speak for him.  That person is currently Dr.
Farrell, and I never read Dr. Farrell say that he was doing the experiment,
rather that Dr. Farrell was relating Mills current experiment in progress
for you information.  Mills is running a business, and as such has to
decide when and how to release information...but as well as I know him,
he very much wants to release all pertinent information after such time
as his "business" legal rights have been protected.

On a general note, I would generally post much more information, except
that I am very dissappointed with the tone of this net at times.  It
seems we have far too much personal jabs, and other non-science postings,
that really don't belong here, and I hate to just add fuel to the fire.
I have defended the Mills and Farrell theory quite often from ridiculous,
nonspecific attacks.  While I do not believe that they have a workable
atomic or CNF or HECTER theory, I have heard few (and read less) reasonable
reasons why their theory is incorrect.

Saying that it violates quantum mechanics is not a valid reason to reject
a theory.  Theories that violate theories are not inherently incorrect.
Theories that violate experiment results, the laws of physics or the
laws of mathematics, on the other hand, do have problems.  I would be
happy to discuss the problems I know of with the M&F theory, but I don't
was to just add fuel to this theory "bashing".  Can we all make a slightly
late New Years Resolution to just stick to the scientific method?

On a humorous note, the acronym I suggest for this whole process of
excess heat production is Gobs Of Energy From Unknown Sources (GOEFUS).
But there I've gone and broken my own resolution.  Oh, well, I hope
you all can forgive me.


Sincerely,

Steve Kneizys
Ursinus College
--------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion