Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: A RESEARCH PROJECT (AND A GOOD LAB)



On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:28 PM, Brian Whatcott wrote:

At 01:47 PM 9/9/2005, Ludwik, you wrote:

/// NO SPECIAL ELECTRODES OR HIGH VOLTAGE POWER
SUPPLY IS NEEDED -- ONLY ORDINARY WATER AND AN IMMERSION HEATER.
BY USING THE SETUP OF FIGURE 1 (WITH AN OHMIC HEATER ONLY)
STUDENTS WILL COLLECT DATA TO TRACE THE PINK CURVE (SEE FIGURE 2). ///

I read this and the preceding capitalized copy from Ludwik, and
suddenly
realized
this would make a capital demonstration of the generation of energy
from
thin air.

One would immerse a pressed metal powder cube in water, heat it to 95
degC
and then monitor its cooling rate.

Then, using the sintered powder as an electrode, one would impregnate
the cube with a gas, say hydrogen, by electrolysis and repeat the
cooling rate observations.

The cube , now provided with internal thermal impedance, would cool at
a
different rate - one supposes, more slowly. If this were the
case, how
easy to argue that the cube was demonstrating internal heat production.

1) I had in mind is a common immersion coffee heater (or something like
that).
2) Nowhere did I suggest a " pressed metal powder cube in water."
3) But I appreciate mentioning a scenario to be avoided. The idea that
the so-called "excess heat" might be nothing more than previously
accumulated energy is certainly valid. That issue must be addressed in
any serious investigation.
4) How many joules of thermal energy could be injected into water from
your 1 cm^3 cube, Brian? How does it compare with 100 kJ of excess
heat, presumably measured in France.
5) Please note that two different experiments were suggested:
a) measuring latent heat L of boiling water at 100 C (checking that
it is the same as L of evaporation).
b) testing an "excess energy" claim made in the French paper.
6) My tentative expectation (based on two experiments performed so far)
is that the excess heat is apparent; it is not nuclear. But I remain
open-minded.
7) Is it reasonable to think that the amount of energy needed to boil
one gram of water, near arcing and sparking electrodes (very high local
T), is significantly less than L at 100 C? That would be an explanation
of French results.

8) In my opinion students would benefit from addressing this claim, as
explain in:

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/252clauzon.html

In my opinion the topic does deserve discussion on this list. Why do we
prefer to discuss things about which most of us know very little? Take
advantage of a real claim (made by real scientists) that can be made
meaningful in a course you are teaching. Promote critical thinking and
creativity. Your students deserve this.

9) I am going to work on that "excess energy" project at the end of
this month. Instead of working alone I will be working with a man who
has recently built MOAC. That stands for Mother Of All Calorimeters.
His prediction is that even experimental data reported in the French
paper will not be confirmed. PLEAS READ my unit #252 (the URL above)
and join us, if you can.

10) Give your students a chance to be involved in an ongoing
controversy. What kind of harm can possibly result from this? Please
reply ! ! !

Ludwik
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l