He did not ignore that. He showed conclusively that no such droplets exist, with several methods, mainly by showing that all of the salt was left in the cell. [...]
No doubt, you will ignore what Fleischmann wrote and you will continue to repeat that nonsense, but you should be aware that anyone who reads the literature will see that you are wrong.
Nope! I take in great consideration what Fleischmann wrote.
Surely F&P were aware of the droplet issue. In their paper "Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water system" submitted to the J. of Electroanal. Chem. on December 1989 (1), we can read: "A number of important conclusions follow from these time dependences: […] thirdly, we have found that cells are frequently driven to the boiling point, e.g. see Fig. 11. The rate of enthalpy production must become extremely large under these conditions since the dominant mode of heat transfer is now the latent heat of evaporation (see Appendix 3). It is not possible, however, at this stage to make a quantitative estimate of the heat output since the cells and instrumentation are unsuitable for making estimates under these conditions. It should also be noted that, although the cell potential initially decreases (in common to the situation for the bursts) there is usually a change to an increase of the potential with time when cells are driven to the boiling point probably due to the loss of electrolyte in spray leaving the cells." [bold added]
Formula (A3.2) in Appendix 3 ("“Black box” models of the calorimeter") includes the enthalpy of evaporation L, but in a way which was unsuitable to take into account the heat of evaporation at boiling point, as well as the influence of the entrained droplets, as would have been mandatory in the calculation of this fundamental component of the enthalpy balance. In the gargantuan black box model of their calorimeter, they have incredibly omitted to add a couple of very simple terms into the enthalpy and mass balances for modelling this well known effect. They should have considered the possibility of "loss of electrolyte in spray leaving the cells", then demonstrated that this term was zero for each one of the tests discussed in their papers!
The same omission is repeated in the paper presented at ICCF3 (2). Also in this case, the authors presented an enormous formula for "Modelling of the calorimeter", which didn't include the terms for the boiling phase, notwithstanding the paper was aimed to describe the high excess heat alleged to be generated at this condition.
They then spent many pages dealing with the "Precision and Accuracy of the Heat Transfer Coefficients", in which they introduced a term "beta" to account for "a more rapid decrease than would be given by electrolysis alone (exposure of the solid components of the cell contents, D2O vapour carried off in the gas stream)". This means that they saw an anomalous loss of electrolyte during the test, but they wrongly attributed this loss entirely to D2O carried off in the gas stream as vapour.
Finally, at the end of their report, they included an alien calculation sheet (at page 16) fallen from heaven, where a formula - different from all the others previously illustrated - was used for computing the "Enthalpy Output In Vapour". Unjustifiably, they assumed that all the 2.5 moles - lost in the last part of the boiling phase - exited the cell as vapour, in contradiction to what they wrote at the end of 1989.
Assuming, as you said, that they really "showed conclusively that no such droplets exist", being aware of the enormous impact of this aspect on the enthalpy balance, they should have discussed the issue in the paper, describing the methods they used to ascertain that no D2O left the cell in liquid phase, and providing the relative data. On the contrary, these justifications appeared only after Morrison raised his critique to the article published on Physics Letters A with the same title of the ICCF3 paper (3), as I already pointed out in a reply to THH (4).
Also, if that were the cause of apparent heat, it would happen with the control tests with platinum and ordinary water. It does not.
Where can I find the description and the results of such control tests?
For what I found, even with a Pt cathode, the cell temperature reaches the boiling point with a rate sufficient to boil off all the electrolyte, see Fig.1 of (5).
There is much else that you cannot explain, such as: Why is it boiling at all, given that the input power is far lower than during the control tests?
If you refer to the Fig.6B of (2), the input power during the alleged HAD is not known because the authors omitted to show both the voltage and the current registered during this phase. In any case, the water remaining after the boiloff was much lower than the inventory presents during the control tests.
There are a whole series of questions I put to THH which he has ignored. No doubt you, too, will ignore them so I will not repeat them.
THH has new theory that droplets of pure water can condense on the cell walls and then be driven up and out of the cell by steam. …
I did not ignored them. As already said, I intervened in that discussion (4). Anyway, THH is able to answer your questions by himself.
My theory is much simpler: the "loss of electrolyte in spray leaving the cells" has been recognized by F&P themselves in one early report (1).