285) Private correspondence before Colorado-2


Ludwik Kowalski; 2/22/2006
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043

Introduction
The outcome of Colorado-2 experiment was described in the unit #271. While waiting for the outcome of the Texas-2 and Paris-2 I decided to prepare and post this unit. It is essentially nothing more than private Internet correspondence between participants of Paris-1, Texas-1 and Colorado-1 experiments. If findings described in the item #271 are confirmed then the correspondence leading to these findings might become historically important. I will assume that readers of this unit are familiar with contents of units #252, #267, #270 and #271. The appendix following the correspondence is about Mizuno’s protocol, as described at the ICCF12 (12th International Cold Fusion Conference, November 2006, Japan.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 1
Richard --> Ludwik+ Pierre + Scott + George (9/30/05)
Just to let you know that my CF setup is running. No excess heat yet. As you can see from the picture the reaction is a lot different then what we were seeing with the Pinnacle. This is more like what the other researchers were seeing. I'm convinced that the low stored energy of the Pinnacle changes the reaction. Hope the conference is interesting. If you get a chance you might ask other how long they took to ramp up the voltage. I can't really tell from the reports.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 2
Richard --> Ludwik (12/11/05)
I thought you might find it interesting. Last night I had one test run that indicated excess heat COP=1.40. It seems to be important to ramp the voltage slowly to the critical region. I'm using two methods of measuring power. One method is a Kwh meter, that give a pulse every 2250 joules. The other is measuring volts and amps about 600 times a seconds and calculating joules. The two methods agree within 5%. This is just between you and me for the time being. Hope your experiments are going well.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 3
Ludwik --> Richard + Pierre + Scott + George (12/31/05)
As you probably know, from postings at CMNS, I am still in Japan. There is nothing earth-shaking to report. But, for the first time in my life, I experienced an earthquake. Not a big one, fortunately. But my bed (on the 11 floor of a 13 floor building) was shaking strongly enough to wake me up in the middle of the night.

My understanding was that Richard continued exploring excess heat in a Mizuno type cell. What are your findings, Richard? People who heard our CMNS report said we did not load the cathode with hydrogen long enough. Can five of us come to a common conclusion about the possible reality of excess heat? Pierre said that he might be able to come to the US to perform an experiment with us, and to convince us that the effect is real. Another possibility is to work together in his lab in Paris. What do you people think about these suggestions?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard --> Ludwik + Pierre + Scott + George (1/1/06)

The last couple of weeks I have not had a chance to try any new experiments. I've not seen any excess heat in the 30 test I've run. I would be willing to go to France and observe the experiment. I would like first to work closely with Pierre to try and replicate the experiment here. As a diversion I tried to replicate the APE experiment of J.L. Naudin. This experiment has just two tungsten rods in a solution of K2CO3. I sent Naudin a couple of emails asking several questions and I've not received any response. I'm back to working with an experiment closer to Clauzon. I have a couple of questions for Pierre:

How often do you start with a fresh K2CO3 solution?
I've been heating my solution with the CFR electrodes is this wrong?
Should I be using an ohmic heater?
Do you think the current density of the cathode/anode is important?
How do you raise the voltage to the operating point? Speed rate steps
How long does it take to reach the operating point?
How do you know your at the operating point?

I know you have already answered some of these questions. Since I've not been able to reproduce the results maybe a second explanation will help.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 5
Richard --> Ludwik + Pierre + Scott + George (1/2/06)
Pierre, Could you put together a timeline that shows your voltage adjustments and the voltage/current response of the cell for a successful experiment? I'm sure that I'm not using the correct voltage profile. You also indicate a delay in beginning the measurements as the current stabilizes. I would like to duplicate this profile if possible.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 6
Richard --> Pierre + Ludwik (1/25/06)
I thought you might like to look at this data. I'm not sure what it means!! I'm very skeptical of these results. I'm using two methods of measuring input power one is a commercial watt meter that gives a pulse every 2250 joules and the second uses the average voltage and current reading. The graph below is several hours of testing. The yellow line is the electrolyte loss and gain (I added more water).

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 7
Richard --> Pierre + Ludwik (1/25/06)

Pierre, I'm still looking for definitive results. I had some data last weekend that looked promising. I'm just not high enough about the noise level to be positive.

I have a lot of noise in my input power measurement where I'm measuring voltage and current to get power under plasma conditions. The commercial watt meter I'm also using gives a pulse for every 2250 joules delivered. These two methods correspond to within 5% when I'm using an ohmic heater. When I am measuring the plasma input power I see a much larger difference so I'm not sure which is the most accurate. A lot of my data shows COP = 1 +/- 5% regardless of which input power measurement I use.

I'm having trouble maintaining the yellow plasma for a long time. The plasma may start out being yellow but in a short time turns mostly white. The papers seem to indicate that the proper operating point is when you have the yellow plasma for an extended time. Do you agree with this statement? I see all the changes you mentioned as the voltage is raised. I plan on doing a lot more test!!! Hopefully I'll get some definitive results soon.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 8
Pierre --> Richard + Ludwik (1/25/06)
By the way Richard, where are you in the CFR tests ? I am anxious to know more about your experiment. Friendly yours Pierre. PS: we are trying also to duplicate the experiment of Koldamasov and Yang....

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 9
Richard --> Pierre + Ludwik (1/25/06)
“ I ran a dozen experiments tonight all negative. I . . “ Thanks for sharing. It seems to me that Richard has reached the point at which the best way to solve the COP puzzle would be to work with Pierre. Both of you indicated willingness to travel and work on the experiment together. Perhaps it is time to organize this; I would be happy to join you. Are you ready? When and where should we meet? Attached is the photo of Pierre

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 10
Ludwik --> Richard (1/27/06)
If going to Paris is a problem for you do not hesitate to suggest that Pierre comes to Boulder. He told me in Japan that this would not difficult for him. I would also prefer to use your setup in Pierre's presence rather than the other way around. We should not miss this opportunity to come to a mutual agreement, one way or another. That could become an interesting report at ICCF13, probably at washington DC next summer (I hope).

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =12
Pierre --> Ludwik (1/26/06):
When back from JAPAN to your home, are you always planning to see your dear aunt in PARIS ? If so, I would be pleased to arrange tests in my lab (CNAM) but also at " les Renardières" with Didier NOËL (EDF), and even with Jean-Louis NAUDIN at GIFNET (Fontainebleau). We will see after all these tests if we have to decide Richard and me to join our efforts somewhere...

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 13
Ludwik --> Pierre + Richard (1/26/06)
Pierre: My participation is much less important than that of Richard. I have not been in touch with Scott Little. Perhaps Richard was. What his attitude toward additional experiments? Since you and I are retired finding time (a week?) for an experiment in Paris is probably not a problem. But Richard has a full time job. So it is he who should suggest when we can possibly travel to France?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 11
Richard --> Ludwik (1/27/06)
I would like very much to go to France. I had the impression from Pierre's email that he was suggesting I wait until you had review all the test. I did not want to invite myself. I would be able to go the France in late February or early March.

I think it would be better to review his working system than try to make mine work. I could bring my measurement system and we could add it to Pierre's system. This would give us great confidence in the input power measurement.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =14
Ludwik --> Pierre + Richard (1/27/06)
Dear Pierre,
In my opinion it would be better if you could help us to confirm your results in Richard's lab than for one of us to go and witness your experiment. If you come and help us to demonstrate the COP > 1.2 in Colorado then it would be a second independent setup confirming your findings. It is not the same as one of us saying "I did not see anything wrong with the experiment performed in front of me in Paris." I am not an electrochemist. My testimony would not add much to what has already been described by you. Let Richard perform the experiment, using an independently built replica of your setup. You will watch and tell him what to do and what not to do. I assume he will be successful after a couple of days.

Suppose his results also become 100% reproducible. We would then describe the experiment with sufficient number of details and offer help to anyone who wants to be convinced that excess heat (at least several tens of watts) can easily be generated in a Mizuno-type cell. You would do this in Europe and we would do this in the US. Perhaps we can, after a year or two, convince honest mainstream scientists that the excess heat claims of Mizuno, Naudin, etc. can now be measured by any qualified researcher in any laboratory. That "missionary work" could transform the situation radically. One truly reproducible experiment will change the CMNS from proto-science into recognized science. That would be a fantastic accomplishment.

Are you able to come in February? Tell us at once and we will start talking about practical things. For example, how to minimize costs, etc. One possibility is for two of us to stay in the Youth Hostel in Boulder. That is where Richard's own home laboratory is. Boulder is less then one hour (by bus) from Denver; a major international airport. Any time interval between now and 3/2/06 or after 3/8/06 is OK for me. But we should start planning as soon as possible.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 15
Richard --> Ludwik (2/2/06)
Have you any word from Pierre about visiting Colorado? Did you get my last email? Below is a copy. I don't want to loose the opportunity to work with Pierre on this experiment! I'm willing to go to Paris if that's what it takes!

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 16
Ludwik --> Pierre (2/2/06)
Assuming the message I sent you about one week ago was lost I am writing again. The more I think about it the more am I convinced that we would accomplish more (in terms of convincing others that COP>1 is real) if your results are reproduced by Richard. Another success with your setup will not add much to what has already been reported by you. I hope that the absence of the reply from you does not mean that you sick, or something else of that kind. Please reply at once, even if you need some time to decide about coming or not coming to Colorado.

Richard, thanks for offering us your house for staying. Where is your lab now? Is it at your home or is it in another location? I will order the airplane ticket as soon as I know that Pierre is coming, and when? To get a cheap ticket I must buy it at least two weeks ahead of time.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 17
Richard --> Ludwik + Pierre (2/2/06)
This is great news. I'm looking forward to working with you both. My lab is now in my basement. I have a setup that will give us a little over 300 Vdc at 20 Amps on the cell. I'm using a variac, transformer and full wave bridge for rectification. It would be a good idea for Pierre to bring his electrode and anode. I still wonder about the Pt on NB for the anode. This is one common thing about Scott Little and my experiment.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 18
Pierre - Ludwik + Richard (2/2/06)
After discussing with my friends (Pr Fauvarque, J.P Bibérian and some others), I think I will go to Denver and try to help Richard to succeed with this experiment .First, Ludwik, are you always in Japan for the time being? Do you plan to go home via Paris (France) ? If yes, it will be for us very interesting to show to you our experiment at the CNAM laboratory. Second, I thanks also Richard for offering us his house for staying. I am a retired nuclear physicist and I will go to Denver at my own expenses, so I appreciate very much this Richard's offer. Now for how long and when.? I must ask for a visa from the American Consulate and it may take a few weeks, as our french passports are not yet in the new required shape. I will try to do my best by the end of this week.

I will also see air companies for their best fares, and I think that one week of stay in the USA is required in this case. I suppose that this will be a sufficient time for our experiment, as Richard must have already the necessary equipment. I think that the possible period could be for me between March the 6th to the end of March. Tell me please, both of you, if this proposal seems reasonable and, of course, as soon as possible. As you can see, I believe in cold fusion....

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 19
Ludwik --> Pierre + Richard (2/2/06)

I returned home about ten days ago. And only now is my biological clock more or less normal. I am glad that you are able to come to Boulder. If you are a skier take what you need and I would then do the same. But this is not as important as our experiment. I did not know that French citizens need visas to visit the USA; is this something new? Richard will probably tell us when is the best time to come, considering his regular work. Any time after March 8 is OK with me.

Can you bring your Pt anode; this would eliminate one possible uncertainty ("anodes are not identical")? Also one or two French tungsten rods, just in case this makes a difference. We should probably start discussing everything that can help us to succeed. My mind was away from this topic for while but I will review what I knew.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard --> Ludwik + Pierre (2/2/06)
This is great news. I'm looking forward to working with you both. My lab is
now in my basement. I have a setup that will give us a little over 300 Vdc
at 20 Amps on the cell. I'm using a variac, transformer and full wave bridge
for rectification. It would be a good idea for Pierre to bring his electrode and anode. I still wonder about the Pt on NB for the anode. This is one common thing
about Scott Little and my experiment.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Pierre --> Ludwik + Richard (2/3/06)
You were right, Ludwik ! I have no problem with my passport, quite new, and I don't even need a visa. So now, we have to agree for the week at Boulder. Are you OK, Richard and Ludwik, for the week starting from March the 6th? Thanks in advance for a quick reply. Friendly yours. . . . PS: of course, I will bring with me anode, cathodes and wattmeters... and maybe clothes for skiing!

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Pierre + Richard (2/3/06)
I can come on Wednesday, March 8, or later. I suspect that Richard would probably prefer us to arrive on Friday because he has a regular job. . . Richard wrote “I will bring with me anode, cathodes and wattmeters... and maybe clothes for skiing!” That is good. What else would be worth bringing, Richard? You wrote that the highest voltage of your homemade power supply is 300 V. Is this enough? The COP was 1.35 at 350 V, and much less at 300 V. We certainly do not need 20 A. But going up to 370 V would very desirable. (Possible systematic and random errors of ~5% could prevent us from accurate measurements of COP below 1.10 or so.) What limits the voltage of your power supply? Can the limit be pushed up if we sacrifice the amperage? I am thinking about going down to below 4 A, as in many Naudin's setups. What about adding another front-end variac?
.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard --> Pierre + Ludwik (2/3/06):
The week of the 6 is ideal for me. One of my sisters will be skiing a Breckenridge starting the 11. She has a condo and we could stay one night there and ski a couple days. Ludwik I think you can ski free since you are over 70. I have additional family coming in starting March 15. Since Ludwik can't come until the 8th lets plan to run the experiment from the 8th to the 15th. If you need to come a day earlier or leave a day later that's OK. My basement is not really a lab but I have all the equipment we should need. I have plenty of K2C03 500g. I've been using just distilled H20 I've thought maybe we should use de-ionized distilled H20? I have 6 mm tungsten rod 0.3 meters long. It is very pure tungsten rod. I was burning so many of the 2-4 welding rods I purchased some larger diameter rod.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Pierre + Richard (2/4/06)
(3) I just spoke with Richard and he said that the power supply goes to 450V, not only 300V, as he indicated below. That is good, Pierre's COP at 300V was small but it was ~ 1.3 at 350V.
(5) I am very happy that we will be working together in about a month.
(6) Attached is a file with our recent correspondence. Please give me permission to attach it as an appendix to unit #271. That unit will be devoted to our upcoming experiments.
(7) Let us hope it will go to a museum (Palais de la Decouverte in Paris?) one day. But the precondition for this is to produce a protocol that can be used by any qualified researcher to demonstrate reality of excess heat anywhere in the world. That would certainly change our proto-science into science.
(8) We know what we wish to accomplish. But, hopefully, this will not prevent us from being objective. Let us hope for the best.
(9) We will have a lot to do after excess heat results become reproducible. The next step, both in Paris, Texas and Colorado, will be to optimize excess heat, one parameter at a time. Right?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard --> Ludwik (2/9/06):
Looks like Scott doesn't think it will work. [He wrote]: “Thanks for the invitation, Richard. Frankly, I just don't think the chances of any change in the outcome of that experiment outweigh the expense and time of the trip, despite the favorable location you have. Of course, if you guys do get o-u results with Clauzon's assistance, I would be honored to have the opportunity to perform the first independent replication of those results. Our apparatus is all still in one place and could be resurrected quickly and easily. Good luck. Stick to your principles and demand good measurements.”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Richard + Scott (2/10/06):
I am not surprised by Scott's reply. He has spent much more time on trying to confirm excess heat from Mizuno-type cells than we did. And each time the excess heat was nearly zero. In his place I would probably feel the same way. But I am glad that Scott remains open-minded. Let us hope that our results will be different. I am glad that he is ready to try again, if we succeed.

Pierre (and his friend Paul Biberian) think that our failure to succeed was due to insufficient preparatory loading. Paul is an electrochemist. My reaction to this (during a dinner in Japan) was “but we followed your protocol. If loading (by increasing the current gradually) is so important then why was it not even mentioned in your paper?” They smiled and said that such things should be obvious. Our description of the protocol, if the COP>1 is confirmed, should be much more detailed.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard --> Ludwik + Pierre (2/9/06)
Ludwik, I found out today that there is a way to run the Pinnacle on 220 single phase power.  I’m going to borrow another Pinnacle so that if we are successful with the variac system we will be able to use the Pinnacle and confirm our results.  This will also let us go to much higher voltages.  I think now that there was something wrong with our first experiments.     
 
Pierre,The Pinnacle is a programmable power supply that can deliver 0-800 Vdc in single volt increments.   The supply can be programmed to regulate the voltage current or power.   The supply is designed to deliver continuously 20 kW yes 20,000 Watts.  In our case we will be limited to about 4 kW.  It also reports joules deliver to the output.  We had some difficulties with it during our first experiment but I’ve learned a lot since then. 
Richard

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard -->Ludwik (2/10/06):
This is just between you and me.  Tonight for the first time I saw the current drop when it’s suppose to and the reaction inside the beaker became more placid.    These are thing that have been described by other researcher but I’ve never seen.   I’m very optimistic about the upcoming experiment.   Lets all have very positive thoughts.  This is going to be a lot of fun. 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Pierre + Richard (2/10/06)
I think that it is not too early to discuss the strategy we would follow if the COP>1 were definitely confirmed in our Boulder experiment. Presenting our results over the Internet, and at the ICCF13, is worth the effort but this is definitely not enough. I am thinking about many good reports that have been published in that way but had very little impact on the overall situation.

What should we do to convince mainstream scientists that a truly reproducible experiment now exists to explore a puzzling “excess heat” phenomenon? Our weakest point would be the inability to rule out a possibility that a chemical fuel might be responsible. Reviewers will not fail to notice that non of us is a chemist. I suggest that we ask Fauvarque, or another recognized electrochemist, to write a detailed appendix entitles “Excess heat cannot be of chemical origin.” He can probably do this now, on the basis of what has been done in Paris. Our paper would be stronger with an author who is an electrochemist. Samples of materials we used (pieces of electrodes, salt and water) should be preserved for future examination, if necessary. The paper should be sent to a mainstream journal. But it should not be a journal known for its unfair attitude toward CMNS. Any suggestion? Our paper should not mention cold fusion; it should refer to a “puzzling 100% reproducible, and simple to demonstrate” phenomenon. What else can we do to produce favorable attitude of mainstream scientists toward our findings?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard --> Ludwik + Pierre (2/11/06):
When we have positive results that are reproducible I’m sure that we can get the help of several people at Fermi Lab to help publish this in the manner that will get the attention it deserves.  My sister Jean Slaughter will be here later in March.  If we can show her positive results she will be a big help at Fermi Lab.  I’ve had emails from several others at Fermi that show real interest in CF.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Pierre --> Ludwik + Richard +his colleagues: (2/13/06)
A message from Naudin is shown and Mizuno’s ICCF12 paper is attached. Naudin wrote: “Pour info, regarde en PJ, le compte-rendu complet de Mizuno sur l'explosion de son CFR... C'est très intéressant, je pense qu'il a eu une nano-explosion nucléaire sur la pointe de son CFR... Soyez donc prudent dans vos manip à Denver...”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Pierre + Richard (2/13/06):
1) Thanks for the attached file (Mizuno). Very interesting. I do not recall him presenting this at ICCF12; perhaps I was too tired to pay attention.

2) Here is my description of Mizuno’s protocol, based on this ICCF12 report:

Mizuno’s Protocol (ICCF12 paper) K2CO3 at 0.2 M (700 cc in 1000 cc beaker).

a) Wait 3 minutes at V=0 (to show that cell temp=constant=30C
b) At t=180 sec start increasing V for about 30 sec. At t=210 s the voltage becomes 40 V.
The current during that 30 s time interval goes up with voltage and becomes 1.9 A.
The cell temperature is essentially constant 30 C.
c) Keep the voltage constant (40 V) till t=300 s. The current remains 1.9 A. The cell temperature goes up to ~31 C.
d) Sudden change of voltage to 65 V at t=450 s. The current starts growing rapidly, up to about 3.5 A.
e) Another sudden change of voltage (to 65 V) at t=550 s. The current becomes 4.7 A and then it starts going down rapidly. At t=700 s the current is 3 A; at t=2000 s I=2 A. The voltage is still 65 V at t=2000 s. The cell temperature at t=2000s is about 65C. This is far below boiling.
f) At t=2000 s the voltage is suddenly changed to 100 V. It remains 100 V till t=2500 s. The current also drops suddenly from 2 A to 1.6 A and then continues to decrease slowly. The cell temperature stabilizes at about 70 C. It never goes much higher.
g) Between t=2500 s and t=4500 s the voltage is changed, in eight small sudden steps, up to 250 V. Each step is by about 20 V, Once the voltage is changed it remains constant for about 6 minutes. The current keeps going down till t=3000 s; then it remains nearly constant, about 0.7 A.
h) At t=4500 s the current starts growing and the voltage is turned down. That is the end of one experiment.

3) This protocol is not good for us because only very small (hard to measure) amount of water will evaporate at 70 C, even if we wait for 2 hrs. Non-evaporative heat losses (conduction and convection), instead of being small, will become dominant.

4) I suggest that before coming to Colorado Pierre describes the boiling water protocol, more or less as Mizuno did (two graphs describing time dependence of three parameters). Also all qualitative observations, such as color and size of the plasma region at different times, relative strength of light emitted (going up, going down, remains about the same, etc.) We are going to replicate your boiling water experiment, not Mizuno’s experiment with two calorimeters. Protocol details will be of great help to us. Unless you already have them, I think that repeating the experiment (to collect as much information as possible), say at 350 V, is worth the effort.

5) What do you two think about my suggestion (in another message) to have a reputable electrochemist, for example, Fauvarque, on our team? He does not have to be present during the experiment. But he will write a detailed appendix about the upper limit of chemical energy that might possibly be in the excess heat we measure.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard --> Ludwik + Pierre (2/13/06):
Your right the protocol is not good for our test setup.  It is confirming what I’ve noticed recently that I’ve been rushing the test.  Up until a few days ago I thought that each test would only take fifteen to twenty minutes the time it takes to boil off 30-40 g.    Recently I’ve be giving the test a much longer soaking period at lower voltages.   This changes the appearance of the plasma at the higher voltages.
 
I’m looking forward to trying the Pinnacle again.  It will let me program the exact function described below.   If we can setup a repeatable function that produces excess heat that will be a great help.  Pierre if you could provide a similar step description then I can have the Pinnacle programmed before you arrive.  The other advantage of the Pinnacle is that it is designed to maintain plasma in gasses.  It has a feature that suppresses arc when they are generated in the plasma.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Pierre + Richard (2/14/06):
Plotting Mizuno's protocol as amperage (vertical axis) versus voltage (horizontal axis) one gets an interesting curve. Up to about 70 V the current grows with voltage, up to 4.7 A and after 70 V it decreases with voltage, down to 0.7A at ~200 V. How can this be explained? At low voltages the electrolyte is like a resistor (about 20 ohms). But R becomes much larger when a column of gas is formed around the cathode. At higher V the column becomes thicker and R goes up accordingly. That is the glow discharge mode. Above 250 V the current starts to go up because the arcing mode starts to develop.

I see no reason why what happens at 70 C should not happen at 100 C. The only difference is that the removal of the electrically generated heat at 70 C is done by cooling water (of their flow calorimeter) while at 100C this is done via rapid evaporation (boiling). Our last summer protocols were very different from the one described by Mizuno. That is why I am optimistic about the next experiment.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Pierre --> Richard + Ludwik (2/15/06):
I did receive your recent e-mails about Mizuno experiments, but I have to think more about that ... During the two last months, the Fauvarque lab was very busy with works to do for external contracts and my friend Gérard was not free to work with me ... But, yesterday, in the course to prepare my Boulder trip, we operate again our CFR experiment. We have to confirm the results obtained, but I am very glad to tell you that at 300 volts we got a COP value of 1.13 and at 350 volts a COP value between 1.35 to 1.40...( as in our YOKOHAMA paper)

Of course, the real problem is the validity of the measurement of the inlet energy. To morrow, we will try to have in front of all the experimental set up a second wattmeter in order to confirm the value of the measured watt-hours ... One point important, a good calibration with the auxiliary heater. Richard, do you have two electrical supplies? We think that the continuous water feeding does not work very well. So, now we do not use it any more and we just readjust the water level between two following tests ... I will bring with me cathodes, anode, the wattmeter used, ... OK, Ludwik, I will ask Pr Fauvarque for the appendix we need concerning the chemical energy reactions .. See in picture joined my friend Gérard preparing our experiment with me...

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Pierre + Richard + Gerard (2/15/06):
1) Thanks for the picture of Gerard. I am glad that he and you are performing confirming experiments. Please send us details of the protocol -- for example in the form of a table with three columns (time, volts and amps). Also additional details about the plasma column (color, intensity, etc.). As you certainly know, many details are usually forgotten later. The best time to describe is immediately after experiments. This will allow us to comment on your observations.

2) One way to be certain the your input energy measurements are reliable is to deviate from the protocol drastically. Try to use pure water. At ~10 volts you will see a lot of bubbles; this is ordinary electrolysis. They will probably be ionized at high voltages and plasma will be formed (perhaps a different color?). If this produces the COP=1 then the electric energy is measured properly. Another way to drastically deviate from the successful protocol would be to change polarity (making Pt negative and W positive). P.S. I see that Richard (in a message that just arrived) also suggests deviating from the protocol.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard --> Pierre + Ludwik + Gerard (2/15/06):
Yes I have two electrical supplies.  I’ve been doing my calibration using an ohmic heater and the same supply I used to drive the cell.  The ohmic heater is a 250 Volt 400 Watt device.  I get the electrolyte boiling as vigorously as possible and measure the evaporated loss and input power.  The non-evaporated loss always seems to be about 11 percent of the evaporated loss.   Using the 11 percent in my calculations always gives me COP=1.0 +/- 0.03.  Occasionally I’ve had anomalies where the COP has not been 1.  The COP results have been both above and below 1.   Until I rule out other explanation for the results I can’t claim excess heat.   I’m encourage by my latest data.    I also tried the continuous water feed and gave up.  I felt I could not keep track of the temperature of the extra water.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Pierre + Gerard + Richard (2/16/06):
Hi again. Another thought on your electric energy measurement. The fact that your COP is voltage-dependent seems to a reasonably good argument against a systematic error. Why would an instrument have a voltage-dependent systematic error? Why would the COP be 1.0 below 200 volts only? But, considering very high standards imposed on CMNS researchers (extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence), a demonstration that the COP=1 at 350 V, when pure water and two Pt wires are used, would be extremely useful.

Our goal, at this stage, is to publish a paper in a mainstream refereed journal. We should anticipate all possible accusations and address them before they address them. That seems to be the only way to win. So far we identified two "weak point" (a) chemical origin of excess heat and (b) a systematic error in measuring electric energy. What else should we address?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Pierre --> Richard + Ludwik + Gerard (2/18/06):
I send you a figure giving you the abstract of our 4 last CFR measurements made in order to prepare my trip. ( Ludwik, trying to please to you, I put the power now in abcisses) . As you can see, our tests give good results, values going from COP = 1.14 (300v) to COP = 1.46 (350v)... I am planning to write down our experimental protocol and I hope to send it to you once corrected by Gérard by next monday or tuesday. Richard, as you can see, once over about 300 watts, the thermal losses are constant and we get a straight line parallel to the line with thermal losses equal to zero ( 2260j per G). I do not understand your results giving thermal losses equal to 11% of the power, whatever the value of the power. An explanation for not finding COP>1.0 ? As the matter of fact, once all temperatures being at equilibrium, the thermal losses must be constant and the slope of the line gives you the value: 2260 j/G. Please do not hesitate to give me your comments... I may be mistaken of course!
[The attached graph shows that four new measurements were made with the following results:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Pierre + Richard + Gerard (2/18/06):
1) I am glad that Pierre's new results are consistent with what was shown at ICCF12.
2) And I like to see the 2260 J/g label (no cold water is added during an experiment)
3) It would be easier to make comments if tables with raw data were presented. Here is a suggested format:

Table 1 (Ohmic heater:)

Volts Amps (seconds) evaporated (grams)
25 ...... ....... ......
37 ...... ....... ......
51 ...... ....... ......
62 ...... ....... ......
78 ...... ....... ......

Note that I am using font "courier" to create a table. It usually helps. Just cut and paste each table and replace dots with numbers

Table 2 (electrolysis:)

Volts Amps (seconds) evaporated (grams)
300 ...... ....... ......
300 ...... ....... ......
330 ...... ....... ......
350 ...... ....... ......

If Pierre's protocol is similar to that of Mizuno [see the appendix below] then neither volts nor amps remain constant during an electrolysis experiment. In that case Table 2 would refer to mean values. I would like to see a table with v(t) and i(t) for each of your four experiments. That would be a complete set of raw data.

3) I do not know how to answer the question about the 11%.

4) One thing should perhaps be added. If what was actually measured was electric wattage, P, (not current) then the wattage should be specified in the columns with raw data. And the protocol should be V(t) and P(t). If the protocol was similar to that used by Mizuno then P was probably not changing very much during each experiment. That is because i(t) was going down when v(t) was going up. But the P(t) curve is needed, unless P was exactly constant, which is very unlikely. The best is to measure all three things independently v(t), i(t) and P(t). That what we should try to do in Boulder; do not forget to bring the wattmeter, Pierre.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Gerard --> Ludwik + Richard (2/20/06):
CNAM CFR EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOL:

First, we take care of the electrodes, essentially the cathode. We verify that the bottom of the tungsten cathode not covered by the ceramic tube is about 1.5 to 2.0 cm long. The ceramic tube must go at the other end out of the electrolyte level by 3 to 5 cm.

In our case of a beaker of 2 liters volume, the electrolyte level corresponds to about 1200 cubic cm . (0.2 M of K2CO3 )

Then, we begin the abacus of the thermal response by operating the ohmic heater. When temperatures equilibrium are achieved , we plot the answer on a graph, 100 watts of electrical power by 100. We send you an example few days ago.

Then, the beaker remaining at about 100°C due to the previous calibration, we put the electrical supplier on. We increase slowly the voltage. We observe pink sparks usually at about 100 v, but when the cathode is brand new the sparks begin at higher voltages ( 120 v to 150 v ).

Then we increase smoothly the voltage and observe the mean current intensity :

150 v 1.6 A
170 v 2 A
200 v 2 to 2.2 A

The light of the cathode is uniformly orange. Then we continue to raise the voltage :

200 v 2 A to 2.8 A

Light becomes milky orange and you can see that the intensity seems to reach a kind of asymptote…

Picture of the setup (showing the orange glow around the cathode) was included.

Then when we arrive to about 300 v, the intensity in A usually begins to decrease . The light is between yellow and orange. Some small explosions can occur and we verify then if there are not short cuts. We verify too if our grid anode is able to control the movements of the electrolyte. If not, we must dispose some Teflon grids in order to calm the electrolyte waves. We verify also if there are not too much droplets out of the beaker…

Once a value of voltage is chosen, we wait for a while to see if everything look stabilized. Then we begin our measurements by 5 minutes runs. Usually, we disregard the first one and we keep the two or three following runs if they give about the same results.

Then we go on for other voltages after verifying the cathode length….

The measurements consist only to get the values of watt-hours used and the weight of the missing water . The watt-hours gives us the mean electric power and the missing water the thermal power… That's all folks

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Gerard + Richard + Pierre (2/20/06):

Thanks for the protocol description, Gerard.

1) According to Google, "Unigore 390," is a digital instrument to measure ac and dc wattage. Your p(t), i(t) and v(t) keep changing during each experiment. I suppose you record samples of these three parameters. Right?

(a) Is it correct to assume that the averaging of samples is done electronically inside the instrument? In that case each recording is already a mean value from many samples. How many samples per recording?

(b) How often do you record mean values of p, i and v? I suppose that averaging of mean values is performed manually, after each experiment. By am not sure. Perhaps only p(t) is averaged.

c) What do you do to keep the voltage constant, for example 350 V, during an experiment?

2) What do you think about my suggestion to demonstrate that the COP=1.0 at 350V when pure water is used? I am assuming that our Boulder experiment will focus on your 350 V result (because of the large COP).

3) Richard, are you OK? You have been salient for several days. I hope to hear from you after you come home from work today. That would be about 20:00 by New York time. Pierre and Gerard will probably be in beds. I think that discussing details can be useful to all of us. Three weeks from today we will be in the middle of our attempt to succeed.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Pierre + Gerard + Richard (2/20/06):
Hi folks: Suppose our Boulder experiments confirm, without doubt, that the COP at 350 V can be as large as in Paris. What will we do with such success?

1) Should I assume that, at this stage, our main goal would be scientific and not commercial? Commercial attitude usually means secrecy while scientific attitude implies openness. My suggestion is to remain scientific. The goal should be to reverse the current unhealthy attitude of mainstream science toward CMNS. Do we have the same attitude about this?

2) I am not against being involved in attempts to become practical. It would be nice to find a sponsor with "deep pockets" willing to built a large and well equipped lab. Than a systematic investigation of materials and parameters can be organized in order to scale up the COP. But this should come naturally later. Let them come to us when our undeniable success is recognized by mainstream science. How to achieve such success? That is a big question. Having a 100% reproducible demos, one in Paris, one in Boulder and one in Texas, would be our first step.

3) And what should we do next? That is what I would like to start discussing.

(a) How to succeed in publishing a paper in a mainstream referee journal?
b) What "public relation" steps should be undertaken?

I have some ideas about these things. But first I want to know what three of you think about being completely open at this stage of the game. Nothing will be hidden from those who want to replicate our findings. One thing we should not do. You probably guess what I am thinking about. A press release would be highly undesirable. But going to as many scientific conferences, with working demos, would be OK. Nobody will object if an experiment is performed in front of scientists. Demos coordinated with handouts, and with good web pages, can be very effective. And we will be addressing experts, not journalists. In fact we will be inviting them to either confirm or to refute our findings experimentally. Nobody will accuse us of sensationalism, or of bypassing "normal ways" of reporting new findings.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard --> Ludwik + Gerard + Pierre (2/20/06):
Hi All, I’m fine.  I’ve been working mainly to make sure all the equipment is working correctly.  I’m also trying to set up a second cell so we can run two experiments at once.  Ludwik you mention earlier that you had a triple beam balance.  Could you bring that along?  I’m watching EBay for a second electronic balance so I can record the data to my computer like we did before.  I’ve also been checking my calibration based on your protocol Pierre.  I see some differences from one calibration to the next.  It is just measurement accuracy but I would like it to be closer.
 
What do you think of the idea of getting 5 or 6 publish scientist, that are not part of the CF community, to sign a letter stating that they have examined our methods and data and think the paper should be published.   The letter would be written in such a way that they don’t have to agree with results only that the methods and procedures are valid and that the paper deserves to be published.   We might have to demonstrate our experiment to get their cooperation.  The letter would be part of what is submitted for publication.  I agree that our paper must not mention CF or make any suggestion as what is happening.  We stick closely only to the claim of over unity output to input.  Your suggestion of getting an Electro-Chemist to state that it is unlikely to be chemical in nature is a good idea.   I’m just afraid that anything submitted that hints of CF, free energy over unity etc. will just be rejected without some traditional scientific support.   We might submit the paper to several journals stating clearing that this is what we are doing.  If done right we might create just enough competition that the journal feel obligated to publish.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Richard + Gerard + Pierre (2/20/06):
Richard: (1) The idea of submitting our paper with a signed letter of recommendation is good. In fact we may send this letter ahead of time and explain why we decided to do so. Then we would ask if the editor wants us to formally submit the manuscript to be reviewed. (2) You forgot to answer my question about being scientific or being commercial. (3) I will bring the triple balance; it will give us the mass lost +/- 0.2 grams.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard -->Ludwik + Pierre + Gerard (2/23/06):
Once again thanks for the protocol.  I feel like I’m learning to ride a bike.  Each session of running the experiment I feel like I’m getting better results. I still haven’t seen the rates in your paper but the data is improving.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Richard + Gerard + Pierre (2/24/06):
Hi Folks: How is everybody? I am recovering from a little cold. Better now at home than later in Boulder. Attached is a file that I want to post on my website today. It will open in a browser. Do you want me to say something more about our upcoming experiment?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Pierre --> Ludwik (2/24/06):
Bonjour Ludwik,
 
J'espère que vous avez retrouvé une bonne santé et que nous nous retrouverons tous à Boulder en pleine forme... A propos de votre récente question, personnellement, je préfèrerais attendre que nous ayons terminé nos expériences avant d'en parler. Mais ensuite, bien sûr, il faudra en parler, qu'elles soient négatives ou positives. Une annonce faite avant risque de nous mettre sous pression ... et perturber ainsi les expérimentateurs.
 
Vous savez que la mesure de l'énergie d'entrée est un des points qui fait l'objet d'interrogations... J'ai lancé une expérience décrite ci-dessous qui est censée ne pas faire appel à des considérations électriques pour fournir une réponse..
Dîtes moi ce que vous en pensez... Bien sûr, je vous transmettrai lundi ou mardi les résultats ( et en anglais pour Richard !). Excusez-moi de vous envoyer ce mail en français pour gagner du temps. Amicalement Pierre

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Pierre --> Ludwik (2/24/06):
Bonjour, Pour tenter de valider les indications de notre wattmètre, nous avons lancé hier après-midi une expérience avec Gérard en mettant en série la résistance de préchauffage (R=45 ohms) avec le CFR... L'expérience a très bien fonctionné et pour 300 v aux bornes du CFR, nous avions comme prévu 80 v aux bornes de la résistance... Ainsi, la résistance était soumise à une intensité très hachée de type CFR...
 
Seule variation notée : si nous avions bien au total 380 v constant,  les 300 v CFR et les 80 v résistance étaient variables... Il fallait s'en douter ! Pas de difficultés majeures cependant pour comparer l'échauffement de la résistance avec les watt-heures mesurés aux bornes de la résistance dans cette expérience. Les premiers résultats ont montré une bonne cohérence, mais il nous faut confirmer avec un plus grand luxe de précautions pour obtenir une bonne précision... Ci-joint le schéma du montage utilisé. Amitiés PPC

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Pierre (2/24/06):
I agree. References to our work will be omitted. I like your very clever approach.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Richard + Pierre + Gerard (2/24/06):
1) Responding to my message Pierre suggested that we should not advertise our upcoming experiment (as I did in the draft of unit #281). I agree that this would put us under unnecessary pressure. Therefor I remove references to our upcoming work.

2) After the experiment we will share the results widely, either positive or negative. In other words, it is a science project and nothing will be kept secret.

3) Pierre's message is in French. They are performing a very clever experiment whose purpose is to show that the wattmeter can be trusted, even when the current is highly irregular. The detailed description of results will be sent to us (in English) either on Monday or Tuesday.

4) Here is my understanding of what Pierre and Gerard are doing right now. The plasma cell is connected in series with a beaker that contains the ohmic resistor (45 ohms) in water. The power supply voltage is increased to produce the glow discharge in the cell. The only purpose of the the plasma cell is to produce the irregular current through the ohmic resistor.

5) The beaker containing the ohmic resistor is on the scale and the rate at which water is being evaporated is measured. The wattmeter measures the rate at which electric energy is received by the ohmic resistor. Let us hope that the electric wattage and the thermal wattage will be identical.

6) What is not clear to me is which potential difference should be 350 V, on the plasma cell or on the ohmic resistor. I think that it should be on the ohmic resistor, because that is where the wattmeter is. They are calibrating the wattmeter. The only reason to have 350 V on the plasma cell as well is to be sure that the current waveforms are essentially the same as during the excess heat experiment. Ideally each beaker should be at 350 V. Another possible approach would be to replace the plasma cell by a vibrating contact, for example, from an old doorbell or from a Tesla coil.

7) I still do not know how the wattmeter data are recorded. Do they just read the numbers, for example, every 5 seconds, or do they record numbers electronically at much higher rate.

8) I suppose the distribution of the power-supply voltage between the two beakers is controlled by changing the resistance of the ohmic heater (nichrome wires of different lengths, for example, from an old home heater or from a student laboratory rheostat).

300 V, P_el = 403 W, P_th=459 W) COP=1.14 I=P/V=1.34 A
350 V, P_el = 730 W, P_th=1070 W) COP=1.46 .I=P/V=2.09 A
300 V, P_el = 379 W, P_th=462 W) COP=1.22 I=P/V=1.26 A
330 V, P_el = 439 W, P_th=572 W) COP=1.30 I=P/V=1.33 A

These results are consistent with what was reported by Pierre at ICCF12.]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard--> Ludwik + Pierre + Gerard (2/24/06):
Pierre’s suggestion not to advertise is good.  I like Pierre’ check of the watt meter.  I’ve been using two methods of measuring input power since beginning of January.  One is an AC Watt meter just after the Variac.  The second is measuring V(dt) and I(dt) at the cell.  These two methods have agreed within +/- 3%.  I have strong confidence that the plasma current is random about a mean so errors are unlikely.    Essentially I’ve been using the watt meter with highest reading as my input power.  During calibration I get very consistent results.  During the experiment if every thing runs smoothly the two watt meters agree.  The AC Watt meter gives a DC pulse every 2250 Joules.  At high power rates it’s easy to miss a pulse this leads to some discrepancies.  This is one of the items I’ve been working on to improve.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard--> Ludwik (2/25/06):
I’ve been using 2260 joules/g for the vaporization of water.  This is for sea level.  Water boils in Denver at 97.3 degrees.  Don’t we need to use a slightly lower value for the Colorado experiment?    Unfortunately the amount of excess heat I’m seeing is about 10%,  if I have the right conditions.   This is just to close to experimental error.  I’ve been rechecking my calibration.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Richard (2/25/06):
I am happy that you measured the excess heat of 10%. Was this at 350 V? I do not think that difference between your ~10% and the ~35% in Paris is due to the pressure difference. But this is worth investigating. I do not know how L depends on the pressure and temperature. But I know that L does go down when the temperature goes up; it becomes zero at the critical point (374.1 C and 218.3 atmospheres). So at 97 C L is probably only very slightly larger than 2260 J/g.

Viscosity, like L is an indication of how strongly molecules attract each others. That is why I suspect that the temperature dependence of L for water is about the same as of its coefficient of viscosity. Here is a table for the viscosity coefficients:

degr C coeff
==============
0 1.787
10 1.307
20 1.002
30 0.7975
.....
80 0.3547
90 0.3147
95 0.2975
96 0.2942
97 0.2911
98 0.2879
99 0.2848
100 0.2898

As you can see, it is only 1% between 100 C and 97 C.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From Pierre --> Richard + Ludwik + Gerard (3/1/05):
We made with Gérard the planned experiments with a resistance of 98 ohms on this Monday. The results obtained are quite encouraging. The deviation between thermal power of the resistance ( measured with boiling) and the electric power as measured by our wattmeter was in most cases smaller than 2% and in one case equal to 3.7%. The current was the same than the CFR current... with a COP of about 1.12 to 1.14 ( voltage on the CFR = 250 volts and total voltage, CFR + R, equal to 407 volts). We try 300 volts with the CFR but we got 460 volts for the total (CFR + R) and then it was too much for  the power supply which caused some trouble to the wattmeter (intempestive stops). I will bring with me our technical paper on this subject. I ask again about my passport and both the air company and a travel agency told me that no visa was required for my passport... So I hope that I will have no trouble to go to DENVER...See you soon at Boulder...

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Pierre + Richard + Gerard (3/1/06):
Pierre: Thanks for good news. I suggest you bring the 98 ohms resistor to Colorado. Richard's Pinnacle power supply will probably have no trouble to extend the calibration of the wattmeter to 350 V. In my opinion we should focus on electrolysis at 350 V because the COP is large and small errors (up to 5%) can be tolerated.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik -- Scott (3/5/06):
. . . P.S. I am going to Colorado next Wednesday. Pierre, who is going to work with us, does not want to advertise our work because it will create unnecessary pressure. But he agree that results, either positive or negative, will be published after our work is completed. Hopefully this will be done in one week. Too bad that you are not able to come. We will be staying in Richard's home; his shop is in the basement. I will be happy to bring an additional sleeping bag. I wish you could be part of this combined effort to solve the controversy, one way or another.

Pierre will bring his wattmeter; it has been recently calibrated for the rapidly oscillating current. To accomplish this he used two cells in series. The purpose of one cell (plasma electrolysis) was to produce randomly oscillating current. The current was flowing through the ohmic resistor in the second cell. The rate of water evaporation from the second cell was giving them the thermal wattage. It was essentially the same as the input wattage from the wattmeter. Two weeks ago they measured the COPs again, at several voltages up to 350 V. This confirmed their results reported in Japan (COP =1.35 at 350 V).

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Scott --> Ludwik (3/5/06):
Good luck in Colorado. I trust you and Richard will not let Pierre "get away" with any measurement errors. If you do see a COP of 1.35, everything must be checked and double-checked before it can be accepted. In fact, I would say that an excellent test of the validity of such a result would be to repeat the tests in our lab. If WE also get a COP of 1.35 and we cannot find a mistake in the measurements, it will be time to celebrate, no?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard --> Ludwik (3/6/06):
What do you think of one of these as a title for our paper. (a) “Does Plasma Experiment Violate First Law of Thermodynamics?” (b) “Help Plasma Experiment Violates First Law of Thermodynamics!, (c) “Plasma Experiment Violates First Law of Thermodynamics.” Just musing.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik--> Richard (3/6/06):
1) I think that the title should more modest. Otherwise discussion will degenerate away from what we want. A sensational title would hurt us. If we are convinced that a really reproducible protocol has been found then the title should be something like "A simple reproducible protocol for observing the unexplained excess heat." We need independent confirmations, hopefully from many people, that our protocol is truly reproducible.

2) In my opinion we should follow the French protocol at 350 V only. Let not even try lower voltages because this would force us to address the issue of small error. The COP=1.3 or 1.4 would be much easier to "sell," and much easier to confirm by others, that smaller COPs. Pierre will be with us for 5 days only. Let us not try to do too many things at once. We will need many control experiments at 350 V. Also at least ten clean experiments to establish the mean COP and the standard deviation. The last day with Pierre (3/13/06) should be devoted to the draft of the article.

3) Do you still want me to bring the second (not electronic) scale? If so then reply as soon as possible; I am going to the university this evening.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Richard --> Ludwik (3/6/06):
I didn't get a seconds setup running so there is no need for the scale.  I
suspect you are correct about the title.  We want to be taken very
seriously.  I'm fairly convinced of the presence of excess heat at 350 Vdc.
Unfortunately with my setup I only seem able to reproduce about 10% is
excess of the input power. 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Richard + Pierre (3/6/06):
My arrival to Denver, at 16:44,  is by Continental (flight 728 from Newark, March 8) I will be waiting for Pierre near the fountain at the center of the main terminal. His arrival is at 18:29 (United flight 919 from Paris, March 8) I will turn my cell phone (portable) on at Denver. The number will be (862)-686-5053. See you both on Wednesday evening.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Pierre --> Richard + Ludwik (3/6/06):
I did receive your mail and hope to see you soon. By the way, I send to you enclosed an internal technical paper on our wattmeter tests. ( excuse me, Richard, it is in French, but I think it is understandable).I will have also others items to discuss with you. See you both on Wednesday...

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Pierre + Richard (3/6/06):
If it is not too late I would suggest that you also bring some potassium carbonate so that we can use it to prepare the electrolyte. Perhaps it has something that Richard’s salt does not have. Or just bring a bottle with already made electrolyte; perhaps the missing ingredient (Strorms calls it NAE) is in your water. How else can we explain that that at 350 V you have the COP between 1.3 and 1.4 while Richard has only 1.1?

Ideally you should bring the entire setup. But that is probably too heavy. Once we get the COP comparable with what you measured at 350 V then we should try to get the same with the setup prepared by Richard (his salt, his water, his beaker, his electrodes, etc.). You will be in Colorado for only 5 working days. We should use this time as productively as we can. In my opinion we should concentrate on what seems to be the easiest, on 350 V. Working at lower voltages would force us to address difficult issues of small errors while at 350 V the total systematic errors of 5%, or even 7%, would be irrelevant.

Once we confirm your result we will have to measure the COP, at the same voltage, at least ten times. This will allow us to determine the mean value and the standard deviation. Referees of our paper would insist that this is necessary in a paper claiming high reproducibility. Then we must describe the protocol as accurately, and as clearly, as possible and wait for at least several confirmations from mainstream scientists. Turning protoscience into science, by offering a truly reproducible, and simple to implement, CMNS experiment would be the ultimate reward for us.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Richard + Pierre (3/7/06):I was going to translate to you the description of the wattmeter calibration. But Pierre is correct; you should be able to figure out what they did. I already described to you the general idea; this file provides numerical results. They are in the last table. It compares thermal wattage (column 2) calculated from the number of grams evaporated (column 1) with electrically measure wattage (column 3). As you can see, the maximum difference was 3.7%. The calibration performed at 250 V and ~ 220 W corresponds to the current of 1.1 A. It is hard to imagine how the thermal power and the electric power could become very different. According to Mizuno, the current goes down when the voltage goes up. Therefore going to 350 V might have a small effect on the power. Fortunately, you have a very reliable power measuring system at any voltage, including 350 V.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Pierre --> Ludwik + Richard (3/7/06): 
I had thought already to bring our potassium carbonate and all our equipment except our beaker (2l), a little too heavy... and of course the balance and the power supply. I joined a picture, taken at the nuclear power plant or Dampierre-en-Burly. Pr Fauvarque was thinking that the neutrinos may play a role in this Mizuno experiment. Unhappily, we were not able to see any effect...You can see in the picture Gerard Lallevé and myself with our guide from the operating staff of Dampierre, Chistine Léger. A bientôt

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ludwik --> Pierre + Richard (3/7/06):
Great picture Pierre. Let us hope that the EDF (French Electricity Company) will take our results seriously. See you tomorrow.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Appendix -- Mizuno’s protocol
In his ICCF12 presentation (it is downloadable from the library at <www.lenr-canr.org>) Mizuno plots the values of the voltage and current versus time. That is his protocol. French protocol was similar. The only essential difference between the two experiment was in the method of measuring the heat. Mizuno’s cell was kept at a constant temperature (about 70 C) by cooling if with water circulating in a flow calorimeter. The cell described by Pierre (nearly identical to ours) was allowed to reach the boiling temperature and the amount of heat released was measured by the amount of water that evaporated. I see no reason why what happens at 70 C should not happen at 100 C.

During the first 20 seconds the potential difference between the electrodes was increased gradually to 40 V. In the next 20 seconds it was increased, in several steps, up to about 80 V. It then remained constant for about 30 minutes. For the next hour the voltage was increased, also in small steps, up to 250 V. The current was decreasing progressively at the same time. Then the voltage was turned off. I suppose that most of the excess heat was generated when the current was decreasing from about 4.7 A to about 0.7 A

Plotting Mizuno's protocol as amperage (vertical axis) versus voltage (horizontal axis) one gets an interesting curve. Up to about 70 V the current grows with voltage, up to 4.7 A and after 70 V it decreases with voltage, down to 0.7A at ~200 V. How can this be explained? At low voltages the electrolyte is like a resistor (about 20 ohms). But R becomes much larger when a layer of gas is formed around the cathode. At higher V the layer becomes thicker and R goes up accordingly. That is why the current decreases when the voltage increases. Above 250 V the current starts to go grow with voltage. This is probably an indication that the glow discharge starts to show a tendency to become an ark discharge. Our last summer protocols were very different from the one described by Mizuno. That is why I am optimistic about the next series of Richard’s experiments.

References:
1) Paris-1 experiment:
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) Texas-1 and Colorado-1 experiments:
Ludwik Kowalski, Scott Little, George Luce and Richard Slaughter, see item #271.
3) T. Mizuno's ICCF12 presentation:
Downloadable from the library of http://www.lenr-canr.org