Shared publicly  - 
Fascinating, via +Barry Kort .  
So relevant to my job.
And they seem to be getting quite tricky!
Robert Moser's profile photoChad Haney's profile photomary Zeman's profile photoBarry Kort's profile photo
pseudo science has been neglected for too long, it totaly undermines the fundament of true science. With the money in came the charlatans, thx freemarket thinking. ;)
Wow, the problem is getting worse. I get junk emails all the time inviting me to appear or publish in these pseudo conferences and journals. If these appeared in someone's CV, I may not pick up on them so easily. 
+Rajini Rao  exactly!!  and for me, at least, if cited at the end of a paper or patent application, it would be very hard to discern if it is a vanity publication or real, and when to trust their assertions.
Copying conference names like that ought to be actionable in some way- but I am not an expert.  It certainly seems to meet the "copying to deliberately  deceive" standard.
Sorting the Viceroys from the Monarchs is a difficult task across many a domain. 
HAHAHAHA good one +Barry Kort !!  Cold Fusion applications have been the source of much humor to the office....
By the way, while I was doing that investigation, trying to figure out how seemingly competent scientists were fooling themselves, I also took a look at Michael McKubre's work at SRI, which was featured on CBS 60 Minutes.  That one was quite a bit more subtle to diagnose.

Scott Pelley says, "It's not certain what's going on here, but there is clearly an effect that scientists are still struggling to explain -- that it's something very much like fusion that we see in the sun, but at room temperature, on a table top, and without harmful radiation.  Still very controversial, but top scientists in the world today believe there is something going on here in physics that we do not understand, and it may be a major power source in the future."

What they evidently don't understand, Mary, is how to correctly measure the electric power going into an electrolytic cell.

Here is my analysis of McKubre's error:

Comment from Moulton45 on Pelley's Reporter's Notebook

Scott, that's a great job of reporting.

I was intrigued by Richard Garwin's suggestion that Michael McKubre wasn't measuring the input electrical power correctly. How can that be? After all McKubre is funded by EPRI (Electrical Power Research Institute). If anyone should know how to measure electric power, it's the people at EPRI.

So I looked at how McKubre is measuring his input electrical power. He's using a constant current power supply and calculating the DC power into the cell. Like he says, that's a simple calculation. He multiples the constant current from his power supply by the average DC voltage across the terminals.

He doesn't bother with looking for AC power going in, because he's only driving his cell with a constant DC current.

But is he?

All real power supplies have a slew rate, which specifies how fast they correct when the ohmic resistance of the load changes abruptly. When McKubre's cells are bubbling gases, he notes this phenomenon, and notes that his Kepco BOP 20-20M 400-watt power supply has rapid voltage adjustments to compensate. You saw them on those oscilloscope traces.

But even though McKubre notes that, he still uses the power formula for DC, ignoring the AC transients arising from fluctuations in the ohmic resistance.

Your CBS News crew missed a golden opportunity when you visited McKubre's lab at SRI. Your sound recording engineer could have slapped a VU Meter across the terminals of McKubre's cell to measure the AC noise signal arising from the ohmic fluctuations from the bubbling of the electrolyte. Had he done that, I predict he would have measured about 500 mW of AC (audio) noise power going into the cell.

Scott, I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation of how much AC noise power was being pumped into his cell from the slew rate of his Kepco power supply. Using the values found in McKubre's EPRI report, I found that a 2 V peak-to-peak perturbation in the voltage across his cell would inject an additional 5% of AC electrical power over and above the DC power that he is carefully measuring. That's exactly the amount of "excess heat" he's getting out of his cells.

It looks to me like Richard Garwin was right.

It looks like the missing power is just the AC (audio frequency) noise power going into the cell because the constant-current DC source is not perfectly constant, as McKubre assumes.
Wow- excellent analysis- thanks!!
My colleague had a problem reviewing an article for one of these journals. The manuscript was poorly written and it was not worth a full "research article". It should have been condensed into a technical note. The editor kept pushing to have it accepted. The journal in question charges $1500.
+Chad Haney  interesting- getting legitimate reviewers by accident must be frustrating for those journals! (Meaning your friend wouldn't just sign).  
I spent twenty years of my professional career doing Network Planning at AT&T Bell Telephone Laboratories.  Among the issues I studied was the problem of noise on telephone lines. The AC noise in those electrolytic cells employed in Cold Fusion is mathematically equivalent to an analysis of both voice signals and noise in telephony. 

The mathematical analysis of the electrolytic cells used in Cold Fusion is almost exactly identical to comparable analysis for Alexander Graham Bell's original liquid transmitter of 1876. Indeed, the variable resistance transmitter that eventually became the industry standard in telephony for over a hundred years was the variable resistance carbon granule microphone transmitter invented by Thomas Edison.  

To my mind, it is astonishing that Michael McKubre at SRI and the other scientists in the field (not to mention the audio engineers in the CBS 60 Minutes film crew) failed to recognize the well-known physics of everyday telephony circuits as the most obvious explanation of the excess heat in those Cold Fusion cells.
Scott Pelley has just received the Fred Friendly First Amendment Award.  

In his acceptance speech, he offered contrition over the observation that, time again, mainstream journalism was failing to get the story right.  

I took the opportunity to point out that he still has a chance to go back and get this one (on Cold Fusion) right.

Scott Pelley: ‘We’re Getting the Big Stories Wrong, Over and Over Again’

Permalink to my comment at the above media site:
Add a comment...