FP's experiments discussion

Quote

Twice I asked you some specific points, you never answered, I don't blame you for that because that's your choice and I respect it. On my side I only answer with specifics when I estimate that this can somehow enhance the debate.

In that sense, I value much more the likelihood of two competing hypotheses than any prior opinion one may have on them. It is clear to me that strong prior opinions (that some have on CF) represent too much a barrier to allow a constructive debate.

The issue is not prior opinions, but whether it is possible to evaluate evidence regardless of prior opinion. After all, where prior evidence is not equally balanced, a rational person will have a (possibly strong) prior opinion.

Anyway if I (on balance do not respond to arguments with specifics more than those with a different view to me you would be wise to treat my views lightly, and vice versa. that is why in this case I think Cude makes the most convincing case.

Quote from Shane D.

IMO, that is being overly harsh. Even with a (?) mark at the end. [...] So no reason to make it personal.

Not my intention to be harsh and, in my comment, there was nothing personal against anyone.

I was replying to a (quite harsh, in this case) comment which was blaming me for a religious mind closure. I have only observed that this psychological limitation is very common in our current society, and it concerns science and technology as a whole, with no exceptions, cold (and hot) fusion included.

Quote

It is also unfair of you to lump Rossi in with the rest of the field, portraying all as one "socio-psychological phenomenon". Even you must realize that is a bit if a stretch? LENR history, quality of the research/researchers, motivations, personalities, are all different from, and better than Rossi and his story. They could not be more different.

IMO, there are many similarities and coincidences showing that the Ecat farce is the natural evolution of the CF/LENR history. Both initiatives began with a patent application, followed by a public event in which the media were invited to directly communicate these alleged inventions to the public, bypassing the usual scientific procedure. Subsequently, the rights on the F&P patents were acquired by ENECO, a company who reminds of IH (1). Moreover, one of the main ENECO's stakeholder and a first protagonist of the CF/LENR field, closely accompanied Rossi in his first steps in this exclusive world (2).

Last but not least, in evaluating the excess heat produced by their cells, F&P made the same wrong assumptions on the dryness of the outgoing steam, which also allowed to overestimate the heat produced by the Ecat by a factor of up to 6 times during the demo held on January 2011 (the balance to the x12 gain, stated in the calorimetric report, being obtained by misrepresenting the water flow rate).

Quote

Now, after slaying the Ecat, you seem to have set your sights on doing the same to LENR, and anyone associated with it.

I just followed the appeal launched by JR in this same thread. He strongly urged those who are not persuaded by the reality of the CF/LENR phenomena to look at the technical details of the boil-off experiments performed by F&P and by their replicators, in particular Lonchampt. I did it and the most meaningful results I found are summarized in the following table:

All maximum values of the excess heat (XH gain) were obtained at boiling conditions. It's obvious to everyone, where these seemingly positive results come from (3):

The gain decrease in the above table can be easily explained by the extra care taken in improving the test set-ups along the years, which caused the excess heat to progressively fade away, as is typical when measurement artifacts are involved.

Finally - as already mentioned (4) - in his second paper on the F&P experiments, Lonchampt anticipated his intention to repeat the tests "with mass flow calorimetry that will simplify the possible calibration errors". But he has not publish any other paper on this same subject. Not a good sign for those who wish to convince people that "F&P ont répliqué et été réplique, de plus avec des méthodes calorimétrique plus simples (car Fleischmann étant a des plus grands experts du monde à ce sujet avait, comme l’a bien démontré George Lonchampt utilisé des astuces d’experts loin devant les autres notamment Caltech et MIT)."

(1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

(2) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

(3) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf

(4) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

Quote from Wyttenbach

LENR is far more than just demonstrating successful excess heat. May be you should spend some time with reading papers and attending meetings.

Reading papers is exactly what I did to better understand the soundness of the calorimetric measurements performed by F&P, as strongly suggested by JR (who probably has read much more papers and attended much more meetings than any else here on L-F)

As for attending meetings, it's too demanding. But, looking at the "A Brief History of ICCFs" by McKubre (1), I admit that it would be a nicer way to realize that "LENR is far more than just demonstrating successful excess heat".

Quote

Jaque Ruer (presented this spring in Paris) recently analyzed ( in a professional lab) one of the famous Fleischmann electrodes, that produced a lot of excess-heat, to look for transmutations. The seen isotope shift can only be explained by a nuclear reaction between palladium and deuterium.

Are you talking about the author of the article titled "Analysis of the Potential Thermal Behavior of the Energy Catalyzer as Described in the Patent US 9,115,913 B1" (2)?

Quote

But we need not to convince you that LENR is real. It's your turn to explain why one silver isotope is seen in a much higher, than the natural ratio.

Probably for the same reason that isotopic shifts were claimed for the various Ecat versions since 2008 (3).

Quote

If you don't understand that it is your turn to disprove all the LENR findings, then may be, you don't understand how science works.

All the (alleged) LENR findings? Well, it would require too much time, but for what I've already seen, I think to have better understood how science works.

(1) Media reports, no discussion please.

(2) http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…entist-on-e-cat-greenwin/

(3) https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110005506A1/en

Quote from Wyttenbach

If you don't understand that it is your turn to disprove all the LENR findings, ...

Quote from Ascoli65

All the (alleged) LENR findings? Well, it would require too much time, ...

Actually, there is a much shorter way to do this: identify the most representative document in the LENR field, and disprove its findings, or, even better, let some recognized LENR expert do it.

JR has just posted this comment:

Quote from JedRothwell

... I talked to many experts such as Adm. Griffin, Fleischmann, and many distinguished non-experts such as Clarke. I listened carefully and I ran the manuscript past them to be sure I described their points of view correctly. I consulted with most of the people who knew about cold fusion at that time.

[...]
* See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusionb.pdf

In the linked document - "Cold Fusion Will Lower the Cost of Both Energy and Equipment", a recent paper presented at ICCF20 in 2016 - JR cites only one reference relating to CF/LENR findings [bold added]:

So, JR (the most informed expert in the CF/LENR field) identified Icarus 9 (a test carried out 20 years earlier) as the best experiment on record.

But, wait, this is the same experiment for which Lonchampt wrote in 1998 (1): "The boiling experiment deserves more attention, as shown by Roulette et al. who demonstrated that more excess heat could be obtained that way. We have in progress a similar experiment, but with mass flow calorimetry that will simplify the possible calibration errors. Blank runs with platinum have already been done showing that this type of calorimetry has a sensitivity better than 2%."

Therefore, the LENR findings that - after 20+ years - JR still considers the best on record were already heavily challenged in 1998 by Lonchampt, the nuclear expert who is considered by JR (and by other LENR supporters, like AlainCo) the best replicator of the F&P experiments, and who "de facto" disproved the findings of the two CF fathers (2)!

Now, it's your turn to demonstrate the logic of this Catch22 situation.

(1) http://www.jeanpaulbiberian.net/Download/Paper%2046.pdf

(2) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

Quote from Ascoli65

Actually, there is a much shorter way to do this: identify the most representative document in the LENR field, and disprove its findings, or, even better, let some recognized LENR expert do it.

As said and many times repeated in this forum: The best documented and radiation measured LENR experiment is Lipinski's Lithium H* fusion.

search for: WO 2014/189799 A9 or US 2016/0118144 A1 Patents!! 100eV is the input energy with the highest COP (>1000).

We would be very pleased if you can refute these claims...

Quote from Ascoli65

Not my intention to be harsh and, in my comment, there was nothing personal against anyone.

I was replying to a (quite harsh, in this case) comment which was blaming me for a religious mind closure. I have only observed that this psychological limitation is very common in our current society, and it concerns science and technology as a whole, with no exceptions, cold (and hot) fusion included.

IMO, there are many similarities and coincidences showing that the Ecat farce is the natural evolution of the CF/LENR history. Both initiatives began with a patent application, followed by a public event in which the media were invited to directly communicate these alleged inventions to the public, bypassing the usual scientific procedure. Subsequently, the rights on the F&P patents were acquired by ENECO, a company who reminds of IH (1). Moreover, one of the main ENECO's stakeholder and a first protagonist of the CF/LENR field, closely accompanied Rossi in his first steps in this exclusive world (2).

Last but not least, in evaluating the excess heat produced by their cells, F&P made the same wrong assumptions on the dryness of the outgoing steam, which also allowed to overestimate the heat produced by the Ecat by a factor of up to 6 times during the demo held on January 2011 (the balance to the x12 gain, stated in the calorimetric report, being obtained by misrepresenting the water flow rate).

I just followed the appeal launched by JR in this same thread. He strongly urged those who are not persuaded by the reality of the CF/LENR phenomena to look at the technical details of the boil-off experiments performed by F&P and by their replicators, in particular Lonchampt. I did it and the most meaningful results I found are summarized in the following table:

Year	Authors	Max. XH gain	Reference
1992	F&P	4	http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…manM-Simplicity-ICCF3.pdf
1996	Pons et al.	2.5	lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf
1996	Lonchampt	1.5	http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf
1998	Lonchampt	0.29	http://www.jeanpaulbiberian.net/Download/Paper%2046.pdf

All maximum values of the excess heat (XH gain) were obtained at boiling conditions. It's obvious to everyone, where these seemingly positive results come from (3):

The gain decrease in the above table can be easily explained by the extra care taken in improving the test set-ups along the years, which caused the excess heat to progressively fade away, as is typical when measurement artifacts are involved.

Finally - as already mentioned (4) - in his second paper on the F&P experiments, Lonchampt anticipated his intention to repeat the tests "with mass flow calorimetry that will simplify the possible calibration errors". But he has not publish any other paper on this same subject. Not a good sign for those who wish to convince people that "F&P ont répliqué et été réplique, de plus avec des méthodes calorimétrique plus simples (car Fleischmann étant a des plus grands experts du monde à ce sujet avait, comme l’a bien démontré George Lonchampt utilisé des astuces d’experts loin devant les autres notamment Caltech et MIT)."

(1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

(2) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

(3) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf

(4) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

Display More

Further to this point, and Jed's possible rebuttal stating that F&P were aware of the issue and checked salt levels to show that in fact the expected amount of water was boiled off, and not entrained.

Entrained water droplets (resulting in the false positive energy excess as above) can derive from two mechanisms:

(1) direct entrainment - salt content will equal that of liquid and therefore entrainment leads to total salt loss.

(2) distillation: liquid -> vapour -> liquid within the calorimetry envelope. In this case entrainment carries no salt.

Without careful analysis to disambiguate these two distinct mechanisms salt measurement says nothing about quantity of entrainment.

F&P say they measured salt levels to to provide assurance that there was no significant liquid entrainment: that does not cover the case of distillation within the calorimetric boundary.

F&P do not note this lack, nor consider the possibility of (2).

More generally: an effect which is much larger under boil-off conditions should be viewed with suspicion. The electrolyte temperature is no different from what it would be at 100C but with low evaporation. However all these potential error sources, and others caused bu turbulent conditions in vessel being different from those found in calibration, are much more significant.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Entrained water droplets (resulting in the false positive energy excess as above) can derive from two mechanisms:

(1) direct entrainment - salt content will equal that of liquid and therefore entrainment leads to total salt loss.

(2) distillation: liquid -> vapour -> liquid within the calorimetry envelope. In this case entrainment carries no salt.

Without careful analysis to disambiguate these two distinct mechanisms salt measurement says nothing about quantity of entrainment.

F&P say they measured salt levels to to provide assurance that there was no significant liquid entrainment: that does not cover the case of distillation within the calorimetric boundary.

As I pointed out to you -- time after time after time -- they also checked within the calorimetric boundary. That is to say, they carefully washed out the cells with ultrapure water and then tested to see how much salts were removed, then they used other techniques to determine how much salt was permanently in the wall. They described this in the papers I pointed out to you. You refuse to admit they thoroughly addressed this issue, and you refuse to tell us what other technique they might have used to prove there was no significant entrainment.

You will not take "yes" for an answer.

Quote from THHuxleynew

More generally: an effect which is much larger under boil-off conditions should be viewed with suspicion. The electrolyte temperature is no different from what it would be at 100C but with low evaporation.

And as I pointed out again, and again, and again, if there was a problem it would show up in the calibrations, which showed no heat. And, no, there is no suspicion, and no difference between the power level during the boil off phase and the phases before and after it. The cell is just as hot in the heat after death phase following boil off, although of course a different calorimetric method must be used.

As I pointed out to you -- time after time after time -- they also checked within the calorimetric boundary. That is to say, they carefully washed out the cells with ultrapure water and then tested to see how much salts were removed, then they used other techniques to determine how much salt was permanently in the wall.

jed, I understand that, and I'm sure they did, but that does not answer the point. If the entrained water is distilled then no amount of checking salt content within the calorimetry boundary will distinguish between entrained water (no excess enthalpy of vaporisation) and water vapour (excess energy of vaporisation).

Quote from THHuxleynew

If the entrained water is distilled then no amount of checking salt content within the calorimetry boundary

I do not understand what this means: "if the entrained water is distilled." Do you mean that water is first boiled and distilled inside the test tube separating from the salt, then it condenses, and then without mixing in with the electrolyte it leaves the cell? How would that work? The only way it can leave is as vapor. Also, the top is a narrow long tube that will not allow any liquid out.

The salt left in the cell was exactly the same amount that was added with the electrolyte, as closely as can be measured with modern instruments. That includes salt left free in the bottom of the test tube, and salt embedded in the walls. Both are measured. Since all of the salt added as electrolyte is found, none of it leaves the cell during the test. Therefore, the water was boiled away; it did not leave as droplets. Droplets would remove some of the salt.

Quote from Alan Smith

The point is that Martin Fleischmann was a world-class experimentalist who got a Nobel Prize

No, he didn't. He told me he was "within shouting distance" of a Nobel. He was an FRS, he got the palladium medal and was president of the electrochemical society, but he never got the Nobel. Which, in my opinion, speaks poorly of the Nobel committee and tells us nothing about Fleischmann.

Thanks, THH, for your interesting assessment.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Further to this point, and Jed's possible rebuttal stating that F&P were aware of the issue and checked salt levels to show that in fact the expected amount of water was boiled off, and not entrained.

Here below, you find the Morrison's criticism to the calorimetric method used by F&P, and the reply from the two CF's fathers:

F&P used two arguments to rebut Morrison's critique.

In the first they mentioned the checking of the final salt inventory, but this justification is weak. They cited an early work, without giving any reference to it which would have allowed to verify the similarity of the respective experimental conditions.

The second justification, the global balance of D2O, is feeble as well. I haven't find the reference they cite, and in any case they admit that the balance was made for "temperatures in excess of 90 degrees C", which doesn't necessarily mean at boiling temperatures.

Anyway, the F&P reply confirms that they were aware of the error due to liquid entrained in the vapor, otherwise they wouldn't have checked the final balance of salt and D2O. Knowing how critical this method was to this parameter, they should have repeated this check for any major experiment they performed, especially those they wanted to publish. Instead they omitted to address this important issue in the paper published on May 1993, on Physics Letter A.

It took only a few days to Morrison to raise his criticism to this calorimetric method and, on the 12th of the same month, he sent it to the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup. Therefore, it is even less justified that no reference to the liquid fraction in the vapor was included in the F&P paper presented with the same title more than three years later, in 1996, at the ICCF6.

Quote

More generally: an effect which is much larger under boil-off conditions should be viewed with suspicion.

Yes, but - in the F&P case – the results of Lonchampt replications allow to go beyond the suspicion.

JR reported that Lonchampt performed a precise replication "with the assistance from Pons and Fleschmann" (1). However he was unable to repeat the 400% energy gain claimed by F&P. He only obtained an alleged maximum gain of 150%, less than half of the original experiment he was replicating.

Two years later, this gain dropped further to 29%, less than 1/10 of F&P original claim! At the time, in 1998, Lonchampt, a well trained engineer at CEA, had already spent about 5 years in trying to replicate the experiment of F&P, with their personal assistance, and all he got was a progressive decreasing of the excess heat, until almost complete disappearance.

Each experimenter would consider this downward trend as the confirmation that the original measurements were influenced by a large systematic error due to some experimental artifacts. In this case it was easily attributable to the underestimation of the liquid content in the steam, as Morrison argued immediately after the first publication of the F&P original results.

In conclusion, the F&P energy findings have been already disproved by Lonchampt, who confirmed in this way the soundness of Morrison's criticisms to their calorimetry.

(1) http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/6thiccf.pdf

Let me add that THHuxley ignores many other aspects of this experiment which also show that the heat is real, and not an artifact of input power measured incorrectly. I have pointed these other aspects to him many times, and showed him where Fleischmann pointed them out, but he refuses to address them. For example, I pointed out that the cell continues to boil even after the water level falls below the anode and cathode. When that happens, the input power is cut to zero. Electricity will not cross the air gap. During a test with Pt and/or ordinary water, the boiling stops immediately, and the cell begins to cool. After the test, there is a little unboiled liquid left at the bottom of the cell, and the Kel-F plu is intact. Whereas with anomalous excess heat:

1. Boiling continues until all the water is gone.

2. The cell does not cool. It often gets hotter after all the water is gone.

3. The Kel-F plug melts.

Obviously, spurious heat from a measurement error would not cause these effects. Plastic does not melt because someone misinterprets an instrument reading. It would also not cause two-weeks of excess heat before the boil off

THHuxley refuses to address these facts and many others. Instead, he continues to claim that pure condensed water can leave the cell in measurable amounts large enough to affect the heat balance. Or he claims that measurable amounts left during the weeks before the boils off, even though the water was measured carefully and no such amounts were detected, and even though it would take hundreds of times more water than there was in the cell to produce megajoules of artifactual excess heat. He claims that differences between Pd and Pt, and between ordinary water and heavy water, might make a tremendous difference in how condensed water droplets behave at the top of the cell. But no such differences are described in the literature, or in techniques used to separate heavy water from light water, and he cannot describe a mechanism that would allow them. This is hand-waving. His hypotheses are all impossible. They are pathological skepticism.

Quote from JedRothwell

3. The Kel-F plug melts.

Some tidbits on KelF specs:

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorotrifluoroethylene

"This results in having a relatively lower melting point among fluoropolymers, around 210–215 °C."

https://www.aetnaplastics.com/…aetnaproduct/18/PCTFE.pdf

[ASTM Method]D648 Heat Deflection Temp (°F / °C) at 264 psi 258 / 126

[ASTM Method]D3418 Melting Temp (°F / °C) 415 / 212

http://www.complast.com/kel-f/neoflon.htm

Melting Point 210-212°C

Deflection Temperature (66 psi) [ASTM Method]D-648 126 °C

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_deflection_temperature
The heat deflection temperature or heat distortion temperature (HDT, HDTUL, or DTUL) is the temperature at which a polymer or plastic sample deforms under a specified load.

Quote from JedRothwell

During a test with Pt and/or ordinary water, the boiling stops immediately, and the cell begins to cool. After the test, there is a little unboiled liquid left at the bottom of the cell, and the Kel-F plu is intact. Whereas with anomalous excess heat:

1. Boiling continues until all the water is gone.

2. The cell does not cool. It often gets hotter after all the water is gone.

reference please.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Some tidbits on KelF specs:

Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorotrifluoroethylene

"This results in having a relatively lower meltingpoint among fluoropolymers, around 210–215 °C."

This material is melts at 300°C. More to the point -- as I said -- it does not melt with Pt or H2O and a heat balance of zero, but it does melt with anomalous heat that continues after boiling. When there is no anomalous heat, the power cuts off and boiling stops as soon as water level drops below the anode and cathode. Some water is then left at the bottom of the cell where the Kel-F plug is located, so the plug does not get hot or melt.

No doubt you will explain why that is an instrument artifact, but I don't think it could be.

Quote from kirkshanahan

reference please.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

2. The cell does not cool. It often gets hotter after all the water is gone.

BUT, Fig.8 is an expansion of Fig.6B, which shows that voltage remains greater than zero until the cell remains at high temperature. In particular, voltage oscillates around a value of 5-6 volts, a value close to the initial voltage, that - with a current of 200 mA, much less than the final 500 mA - had been enough to increase, from 20 to 30 °C, the temperature of a much higher water content. This behavior was unique among the 4 cells in the documented experiment. For the other three cells, as documented in Figs.6A, 6C and 6D, the voltage dropped directly to zero, and it was followed almost immediately by the decrease of cell temperature.

This different behavior is clearly visible in the figures included in the paper, but was not mentioned in the text by the two authors, the legendary F&P, nor highlighted in the comment of their bard!

(Sorry, Shane, just a technical tie-break from vacation, I couldn't resist. )

Quote from JedRothwell

This material is melts at 300°C.

Then it would not be Kel-F as F&P claim in their paper. Kel-F's melting point is more like 200-215C, as I showed in the references in my prior post. F&P specifically say this: "furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300ºC. "

That actually says nothing about what the materials melting point actually is, just that it is less than 300C. But given that Kel-F melts at 215C or so, how can they jump to 'exceed[s] 300C'? The best they could really say is 'exceeds 215C'.

Furthermore you obviously missed the point of listing the deformation temperatures. You will note they are listed at two pressures and both are 126C, well below the melting point, both being determined via an ASTM method. You will also please note that they are determined to be the same temp at two different applied pressures. That suggests the value may remain the same at even lower applied pressures. In the words, the deformation that F&P noted could easily and with high probability occur at ~125C. That temp is certainly reasonable to obtain in their experiments, especially in the static environment of 'after boil-off'.

They obviously weren't plastics chemistry experts and seemingly mis-identified the phenomenon that resulted in the deformation. There is only one way to resolve this, and that is to get more data, which is unlikely to happen. So for all intents and purposes we are now left with...wait for it... the Fleischmann and Pons Melted Plug Anecdote! (you may recall that anecdotes aren't science...)

Quote from JedRothwell

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

This paper does not say what you say it does. Surprise, surprise...

Checking the paper for occurrences of 'pt', I found 16, but only 4 were for 'Pt'. The rest were for 'pt' as part of another word. Also, only one occurrence of 'platinum'. All were with respect to a supposed 'control', or non-excess-heat run. It is acknowledged that F&P *thought* Pt cathodes were inactive, but Storms proved they aren't. However, that whole point is barely relevant because everyone also acknowledges that getting the Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect (FPHE) is difficult to do. It is likely more difficult on Pt but not impossible. So having a null run is expected.

The key point with regards to the referenced paper is that *one* 'excess heat' experiment is discussed in detail ("We examine next the results for one Pd cathode "), and *no* other results are presented other than a null Pt 'calibration' run. I noted this problem in another instance in my whitepaper (http://coldfusioncommunity.net…4/SRNL-STI-2012-00678.pdf) w.r.t. the Pd data presented where I overlaid two thermal histories from this paper (and its Phys. Lett. A version). They were identical, yet F&P only talked abut one of them showing excess heat, and specifically after the electrical connection was disrupted, in what everyone calls a 'Heat-After-Death' instance. But why only claim XSH in one case when they show data for two identical thermal histories? Makes no sense... How hard would it have been to put up a table saying 'We ran x experiments and observed XSH in the following:"? This paper is notable for what it *doesn't* report.

{Note to those who read JR's referenced paper: F&P discuss one run from a set of 4 using similar Pd electrode with slightly different current time profiles. The Figures 6A-D show the thermal histories. It is obvious from the text that the in-Figure caption of 6D is wrong in that it refers to 'electrode 2'. That should be 'electrode 4 instead. The 'x' in 'Demo9_x' is the electrode number.}

Ascoli65 - You may want to glance at Fig. 1 in http://coldfusioncommunity.net…4/SRNL-STI-2012-00678.pdf

I don't see any significant difference.

My conclusion was the method used to claim excess heat was flawed.