This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links

272) Trying again to confirm reality of excess heat


Ludwik Kowalski; 2/24/2006
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043



Introduction

Those who read previous items (#252, #253. #267 and #270) are probably aware of the fact that two recent attempts to replicate a Mizuno-type results failed. This has been reported, and discussed, at the ICCFF12. Pierre Clauzon, and other people at the ICCF12 (including Mizuno himself), think that we failed to generate excess heat because our protocol did not allow for sufficient loading of Pd with hydrogen. That must be true; the details of the protocol used in Paris were not described in the paper of Fauvarque et al.. That reminded me an observation made by Jed Rothwell last Summer. Jed wrote:

“I think the NEDO fiasco bears an important lesson for both Scott Little and Kowalski: first-hand on-site consultation and training with experts is essential to a test of this nature. You must look over people's shoulders and use their instruments and thoroughly familiarize yourself with the experiment before attempting to do it yourself. In the future, we hope that cold fusion will become more of a science and less of a black art, and more people will be able to do the experiment from a printed recipe. . . The discrepancy between Mizuno's results and Little's are a mystery. I do not think progress toward resolving this mystery will be made until Little and Mizuno spend several weeks working together, perhaps using some of both sets of instruments. Mizuno reportedly has a great deal more space these days in his new lab, so it should be easier to work with him.”

After the conference Pierre did invited me to work with him in Paris. We discussed this and decided that working together in Richard’s laboratory, in Colorado, would be more desirable. Confirming realty of excess heat in another laboratory, using different instruments, would be more important than observing excess heat again in Paris. Pierre is going to work with us and the purpose of this unit is to describe the results. Jed is right; nothing is better than personal cooperation and working in each others laboratory.

A Mizuno-type experiment, especially when excess heat can be measured in terms of the amount of evaporated water, can be relatively simple and relatively inexpensive. I hope it could be used to produce excess heat on demand. Suppose that Richard and myself convince ourselves that excess heat can indeed be generated at the rate of 50 W or more, as reported at ICCF12. If this happens then independent investigators will
be needed. I hope that some readers of this list will become our partners. The goal would be to demonstrate that a nearly 100% reproducible setup can be built in any lab and used by any qualified researcher. Then, perhaps, something will change in the attitude of mainstream scientists toward excess heat. But we should not repeat the old mistake by saying, prematurely, that the effect is nuclear. In describing and demonstrating the “excess heat on demand” the scientific question will be “what produces the totally unexpected heat?”

That introduction was composed on 2/25/06. I do not know what the outcome of the new sets of experiments will be. But, as suggested by Perre, our results, either positive or negative, will be published. Publishing negative results, as I wrote in unit #281, is as important as publishing negative results, especially when there is a controversy. The cause of discrepancy must be found; it will be either a faulty procedure we followed last Fall or a systematic procedural error in Paris. I think that a line between what is positive and negative should be clearly defined before we begin experimenting. Pierre wrote that the COP in Paris, at 350 V, is between 1.35 and 1.40. On that basis I suggest that any COP>1.20 should be considered a confirmation of the French result. Any COP below 1.20, on the other hand, should be considered a failure to confirm. But that is only the confirmation aspect of our work. Consistent presence of excess heat at the level of COP>1.10 should be considered a great step forward. It would mean that both teams must continue working to determine limits of accuracy (maximum possible systematic errors) and levels of precision (standard deviation of COP values).

I am not going to write anything else here till the end of March. For the time being this unit will sit on the desktop of my computer. The situation will probably be clear to all of us after one week of intensive work in Colorado.

Appended on 6/29/2009

1) Results of our work were presented at the ICCF12, in Yokohama, Japan, 2005 (15th International Conference on Cold Fusion). The report can be downloaded from

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf

2) As described in Unit 358, a systematic error in measuring electric power with this watt-meter, was found by Clauson and his colleagues. Their most resent results, as reported at ICCF13, are consistent with negligible excess heat in Mizuno-type experiments.

References:
1) Fauvarque, J., P. Clauzon, and G. Lalleve, Abnormal excess heat observed during Mizuno-type experiments. 2005, Laboratoire d'Electrochimie Industrielle, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers: Paris. Available as: <http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FauvarqueJabnormalex.pdf>
2) Ludwik Kowalski, Scott Little, George Luce and Richard Slaughter,
Available as: <http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FauvarqueJabnormalex.pdf>
3) Mizuno ICCF12
Available as: <http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FauvarqueJabnormalex.pdf>

This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links