Wikiversity/Cold fusion/Skeptical arguments/Were the excess heat results ever shown to be artifact?

From CFC
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal discussion philosophy.png An editor has expressed concern that this article may not fit into the scope of Wikiversity. Do not use this template unless you have read and understand the Wikiversity project proposal.

You may wish to:

  • Move this page to a site where is is more appropriate.
  • Find a school or topic that this article belongs under.
  • Move this page into your userspace.

If a use cannot be found for this page on Wikiversity, then it may be deleted by a custodian after a period of 5 days. It may be deleted immediately if it meets speedy deletion criteria. If the deletion is contested, then please list the page at requests for deletion for discussion instead.

Tagged by This page is under review per recently closed WV:RFD. Please ignore the 5 day deadline above, as the review will take longer than that. Mu301Bot (discusscontribs) 22:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC) (signed on behalf of User:Mu301)
PrirodneNauke.svg Resource type: this resource may consist of Fringe science.

We will examine criticism of cold fusion calorimetry. Are there any unresolved issues over the calorimetry?

We may cover published criticisms, but also we may develop our own theories, discuss them, research them, and, if we find mature questions, ask them of those familiar with these experiments.


If a CF experiment vents liquid water, as mist or droplets, and if the calorimetric calculations assume that this mist was, instead, water vapor, there will be a substantial error term developed, because vapor will carry away far more heat than liquid water. This term would lead to apparent excess heat. This would not affect truly closed cells, but some cells are operated "closed," but routinely vent overpressure. What coverage of this issue can we find in the literature? What cell designs and modes of operation would be vulnerable to this error? How could this affect reported excess heat as shown in published work?

Input Electrical Power Model[edit]

Is electrical input power directly measured with precision watt-meters, or is it computed from a (possibly simplified) model that leaves out some significant fraction of the true input power? Or are these computed measurements sufficiently accurate to not be a source of error in estimating excess heat?

An argument was created by a user here, regarding neglect of cell capacitance, it's found on Talk:Cold fusion/Skeptical arguments/Were the excess heat results ever shown to be artifact?/Electrolytic capacitor.

Confirmation of excess heat analysis by helium[edit]

Finding of helium is found to be correlated strongly to excess heat, as confirmed by many researchers, and Storms (2007, 2010) estimates the ratio at 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4. There are no contrary reports or reviews published in mainstream journals. The correlation of helium and excess heat, according to Storms (2010), is considered by many the strongest evidence for cold fusion. Helium confirms that the calorimetry is at least roughly correct. We will study the helium findings themselves under Cold fusion/Excess heat correlated with helium; in this seminar will we will look at helium as an independent confirmation of excess heat.

Morrison-Pons-Fleischmann debate[edit]

In 1993, there was an exchange of arguments between Douglas Morrison and Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. Among other issues, misting and input electrical power issues were examined. Let's look at this. --Abd 19:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)