This document has been published with courtesy of Pierre Clauzon, Ludwik Kowalski and Richard Slaughter
Publication date : March 20, 2006 - Last update : March 20, 2006
Pierre Clauzon, Ludwik Kowalski and Richard Slaughter made a CFR experiment in Boulder ( Colorado ) during the week of March 8th to 16th , 2006.
After a few days of adjusting their set up, they got values of COP up to 1.3 - 1.4... One example is given here after: ( obtained on March 14 th )
The voltage was 300 volts
Average current at the beginning, ~2.2 Amp.
Temperature at the edge of the beaker : 88°C.
(the altitude of Boulder is about 1500 m high and we measured a water boiling temperature of 94°C)
The retained value for the thermal loss, after preliminary tests, was 60 watts.
The experimental values recorded are the following :
(g), increment (g) energy
0, 3052, - 0 - -
2.5, 3022, 30 28.13 28.13
5.0, 2988, 34 54.24 26.11 .86
7.5, 2953.5, 34.5 77.79 23.55
10.0, 2922.5, 31 97.24 19.45 1.07
12.5, 2892.5, 30 113.9 16.6
15.0, 2867, 25.5 129.24 15.34 1.26
17.5, 2840, 27 143.62 14.4
20.5, 2818, 22 155.34 11.7 1.37
22.5, 2801, 17 164.0 8.7 1.51
The electric energy data were measured with our wattmeter UNIGOR 390 LEM. This wattmeter was tested on an ohmic heater placed in series with the CFR, so with the same perturbed current. Values obtained by boiling and by the wattmeter were in accordance within 1%.
This type of experiment was described in detail in our paper given at the ICCF12 meeting in YOKOHAMA (JAPAN) Nov. 2005. " Abnormal excess heat observed during Mizuno-type experiments " by Jean-François FAUVARQUE, Pierre Paul CLAUZON, Gérard Jean-Michel LALLEVE.
Below some additional datas and comments from Ludwik Kowalski :
|Mer 15 mar 2006 22:17|
Pierre Clauzon, Richard Slaughter and myself had a six day laboratory marathon in Colorado. It looks like the controversy about the paper of Faurarque et al. (concerning the Mizuno type excess heat experiment) will be solved in favor of French results. The name of the game now will be to convince mainstream scientists. What we need are independent confirmations, in at least two or three labs, that the "unexplained excess heat" is real. Very important details about the suggested protocol will be described very soon, probably in about a week or so.
1) We have runs with the COP (coefficient of productivity) above 1.20 at voltages between 300 and 350 volts. But there were many traps on our path. Four days ago I was nearly certain that we are not seeing excess heat. Here is one illustration. Two days ago we ended the first sequence of consistently large COPs (at least 10 runs). The next morning we worked for about 6 hours and every single COP was nearly one. Frustrated we started to think about all possible differences. Then we realized that the diameter of the W cathode was 2.4 mm yesteday and 3 mm this morning. With the 2.4 mm cathode we again had a sequence of consistently large COPs.
The essenial thing is to create conditions under which the electric wattage and the electric voltage are not too different. For example, 350 volts and about 1 or 1.5 A. This happens when the cathode looks as a uniform yellow-orange cylinder and the tip of the cathode is nearly as yellow-bright as the sun. These details were supplied to us by Jean Louis Naudin who seem to be ahead of everybody in this game. According to Pierre, he has a setup that performs "on demand; in his laboratory." He turns the switch on an excess heat starts coming, like after turning a bathroom heater. We are still very far from such comfortable situation. Perhaps Naudin will share some details about this device here.
2) Here is our protocol, more or less.
Transitions from one voltage to another are also slow, typically in one or two minutes. At stage (bb) blue sparks become visible at the tip. At stage (cc) the entire cathode (initially about 20 mm below the ceramic tube) is orrange-red. The inner diameter of the ceramic tube is larger than the cathode and we can push the cathode when what is left become ~5 mm or less. Allowing the cathode to become too short leads to large splashy ark-like boom.
We use distilled water but ordinary water seems to be justas good. At point our beaker was broken and we used a plain glass container. The COP was 1.3 at 350 V. At present we are using a plastic container. It works very satisfactory.
What else is important? Our non-evaporative losses are between 66 W (in the now broken beaker) and 95 W in the glass container. The losses seems to more or less proprtional to the open area of the container. This indicates that what is lost via conductivity through the walls is only a small fraction of the total. This is confirmed by the fact that the foam isolation of the wall does not result is a large reduction of the overall non-evaporative losses.
A good indication of the potential success is to see a very small change in current (preferably going down) when the voltage is changed from 200 to 250 Volts. There is a lot of what we do not understand but at least we know what condisions should be avoided. We suspect that occasional white "explosions" (producing strong splashes are due to ignitions of hydrogen bubbles. It is important to make sure that hydrogen does not accumulate below the anti-splashing shiels. Fountains of water were often seen escaping from the ceramic tube containing the tungsten cathode. A teflon disk above the ceramic tube, mounted on the tungsten rod, stops the fountains.
3) The radius of the anode does not seem to be important; we used Pierre's anode (diameter of about 4.4 cm) and Richard's anode (diameter 8 cm) at 300 V and obtained very similar COPs, about 1.2 or so. Pierre's anode is platinized Ti while Richard's anode is platinized Nb.
4) The rate at which cathodes are consumed are low when favorable conditions (low input power) are found. Do not even start measuring the COP if the current is higher than about 1.8 A (at 300 V). Reduce the voltage, wait a little and hope for the best. Sometimes favorable conditions (described are found rapidly but most often one has to make several attempts before finding them. Results are very reproducible under favorable conditions only. Our protocol does not guarantees favorable conditions. But we did recognize symptoms, such as white light and splashing, which are indicative unfavorable conditions (and the COP=1).
5) The cathode is inside a ceramic tube. The inner diameter of that tube must be at least 2 or 3 mm larger than the diameter of the cathode. In that way the cathode in cooled by the electrolte flowing up along the tube. I already mentioned the screen to prevent fountains ejected from the ceramic tube. The length of the cathode sticking out of the ceramic tube should be about 2 cm, initially. Richard has a nice way of pushing the cathode rod down manually, when necessary.
6) Unfortunately, frustration has not been eliminated; we still cannot say that a Mizuno-type can perform "on demand." Looking for a reliable protocol should be part of future efforts. We are counting on your help.
7) Data collected under favorable conditions are in agreement with what was reported by Fauvarque et al. We constructed a histogram of the COP distribution for the run performed at 300 and 350 V. So far it has 33 data "bricks." It shows 24 results with the COP between 1.2 and 1.4, 3 results with the COP between 1.4 and 1.4, 10 data points with the COP between 1 and 1.2, and one result with the COP of 0.81
8) The best indication that all our instruments performed properly is the COP was very close 1.00. We just made four measurements at 200 V (with the ohmic heater inserted to keep the wall temperature near 90 C) and the results were: 0.99, 1.00, 1.00 and 0.99
The cost of the entire setup can be kept well below $1000, if one is able to build a simple d.c. source of electric energy (up to 400 V and up to 3 or 4 A, plus a set of large capacitors to keep the voltage constant). The Unigore 390, borrowed from Jack Dufour, was thermally calibrated. But simple voltmeter and ampmeter (not calibrated), used at the same time, gave nearly the same amounts of electric energy for each run. But be careful with a dangerous power source electric energy.
Here is how a "watmeter" was calibrated yesterday in our ongoing Mizuno type experiment. We essentially repeated a procedure developed in CNAM in Paris. The electrolytic cell (producing typical glow dischrge current) was connected in series with a resistor of about 100 ohms and with a constant-voltage power supply. The average current was, for example, 2 A, depending on the total voltage. The UNIGORE 390 instrument (that we wanted to calibrate) was measuring the electric energy (in W*h). The amount of water evaporated, for example, in 20 minutes, was measured at the same time. Knowing that amount, and knowing the rate of non-evaporative losses (conduction and convection)we were able to determin thermal energy generated during the same 20 minutes.
The difference between the thermal energy and the electric w*h better turned out to be 0.43%. Knowing the about 1% uncertainty associated with our determination of thrmal losses we concluded that the electric enrgy measure with the instrument can be reliable at the level of about 1.5%. We are lucky that Pierre Clauzon, who developed the methode, was with us, in Richard Slaugther's lab.
Another detail worth mentioning is that ordinary tungsten cathodes perform as well as those that have 2% of Th added. This is good news for those who might wish to detect nuclear particles. And to those who migh think about possible health effects from eating too much thorium.
Tungsten we use is from the welding supply store; it costs about $50 to buy a box with 10 rods. The fact that 2.4 mm rods work while the 3 mm rods do not work is an indication that even thinner rods (or wires) might perform better. The local strength of the electric field (V/cm) increases rapidly when the diameter becomes smaller.
All numbers are in Pierre's notebook and he leaves tomorrow morning. It is easier to give you an example today than tomorrow. Below is one sequence of results obtained at 300 V. We noticed that the first run often has a much lower COP than subsequent runs. We speculated about why this might happen. But explanations are not part of what we want to accomplish; we want to have a reliable demo showing that the excess heat is real. The first COP, from any sequence, either low or high, is always rejected. We just wait for things to become stable.
time (min), mass (g), energy (w*h)
0, 3052, 0
2.5, 3022, 28.13
5.0, 2988, 54.24
7.5, 2953.5, 77.79
10.0, 2922.5, 97.24
12.5, 2892.5, 113.9
15.0, 2867, 129.24
17.5, 2840, 143.62
20.5, 2818, 155.34
22.5, 2801, 164.0
You will find that the last COP is 1.51 and the one before it is 1.37. The COP from the first 5 min, 0.86, was rejected according to our "protocol."
Here are additional details.
1) Can it be that tiny droplets (primage in French?) are responsible for the illusion of excess heat? During one experiment we placed two paper towels, of known weight, on the table next to our active container for exactly 2 minutes. Comparing the amount of water lost during that time with the tiny increase of the mass of the paper towel we concluded that no more than 2 +/- 1% of water was lost in the form of gootlettes that were large enough to hit the towels.
2) Here are five more data points for our histogram; all at 300 C. : COP=1.15, 1.19, 123, 1.19 and 1.21
3) We had only 5 points at 350 V (to stay away from possible troubles. The mean value is not significantely different from what one gets at 300 volts. But we do get the COP of unity at low voltages. This is a very strong argument that instruments are reliable.
4) About our tungsten -- in case somebody might be interested.
It was manufactured by Osram Sylvania Inc., Towanda, Pensylvania,
The label on the box (purchased today for $43) is: 2 7033 275 53 3/32X7
I hope this description will be useful to many.
return to the CFR project home page
March 20, 2006