FP's experiments discussion

  • TH,


    Agreed,

    If the process is self sustaining, an Olympic swimming pool could be boiled off, no?


    Connect the equipment to marine batteries to get needed voltage, then the input energy

    Quantity is known, the output energy would be whatever amount of water is bolied off.


    Pretty simple really and absolutely identifies

    an energy producing process.

  • The Japanese are still spending millions and Professor Akito Takahashi has plenty co-workers in 2018 ..all unmindful of GSVIT Ascoli's foaming


    How can you say that? Maybe some of them are used to visit this L-F site and are now mindful of the foam issue.


    However, it is a good opportunity for you to inform them about this discussion, as you have already done with Krivit and Staker.


    Being so numerous and having such a profound knowledge of the classic experiments of F & P, one of them could hopefully be told to explain us, in this lonely forum, how to correctly interpret the videos of F & P.


    Probably, some of them have also a copy of the full length lab video recording and can provide a better description of what happened in long sections that F&P removed in preparing the shorter versions.

  • Huxley, Regarding your "The boiling results (inferred from the above equation) are valid only if the gasses exiting are dry. As you know, this is not shown by F and equally not shown by Longchampt et al."


    Well, F&P did consider the dryness of steam and possible connecting artifacts. The analysis of lithium in steam would indicate the level of carry over, and they found very low levels.


    As an example for carryover of liquid I may repeat some of the communication From my earlier post:


    "

    In the document [1] below, there are some communication between Fleischman and Melvin Miles on the issue of foam:


    Tests done by Miles in 2002++

    Dear Martin,

    I will mail the pH and weight data from Mr. Sumi today. The pH change does not support the

    “spillover of electrolyte” proposed by Mr. Moxley in his letter. I did observe about 3 cm of foam

    in my cell during boiling, but the liquid level was well below the cell top. The loss of liquid by

    forming may be a problem if NHE ran their cells over-filled as you suggest. It was not a problem

    in my boil-off experiment.

    Sincerely,

    Mel Miles«


    A few replies from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles:

    Now as to the possible foaming in the cells. The Japanese were plagued by this problem due

    to their use of D2O destined for N.M.R. experiments. This contained added detergent to aid the

    filling of sample tubes. We wrote to them at length about this and I thought that the problem had been cleared up.”

    ….

    You have also pointed out that the anomalous value of (kR′) on day 61 was probably due to foaming in the cell. This is another problem which we pointed out to our Japanese colleagues. Samples of D2O sometimes contain added detergent to aid the filling of the NMR tubes!”

    We once had a batch of D2O that foamed badly. We traced this back to the Girdler-Sulfide process used by AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.).


    "


    Anyhow: when closed cells where used with recombination catalyst, wet vs dry steam is no longer an issue, and they still measured excess heat.



    [1] http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf

  • There are still 4 months to go before the 30th anniversary of the F&P press conference


    I look forward to Ascoli65 PhD presentation : Lake Bled ,Slovenia , October,2019


    Title

    Fleischmann and Pons 'enchantment' hypothesis and valutazione


    Abstract

    GSVIT foam simulations .. k'R=9.09 x 10-9 WK-4, .... HR video /I non video.. hubris




  • The 1992 paper has more data supporting the foam hypothesis.


    In the Enthalpy calculation, they compute an average input power of 37.5W for the 10 (or 11) minute boiloff period. The graphs show that they are using a .5 A constant current supply, which means that the cell voltage must have averaged 75V during those 10 minutes of decreasing levels (of either foam or boiling liquid). Note that the Fig 6 graphs show the voltage at less than 5V, then quickly rising towards the 100V limit when boiloff is finished.


    It is easy to see how the cell voltage could rise sharply when it is mostly foam. It could even be oscillating between 100 V and about 5V as the foam bubbles evaporate and re-form connections.


    The question is whether the cell voltage could average 75V while boiling. We do not need to do an experiment to figure this out because I found an excellent paper that examined this in excruciating detail:

    Evaluating the Behavior of Electrolytic Gas Bubbles and Their Effect on the Cell Voltage in Alkaline Water Electrolysis, Dongke Zhang and Kai Zeng, 2012. This paper is behind an ACS paywall, preventing me from uploading the whole thing, but here is one of the key figures:


    They did both theoretical calculations and measurements with different current and electrolyte concentrations and the highest voltage they ever saw was around 5V. The hightest delta-V due to bubbles was never more than a few volts.

    Zhang also writes:
    "Similar to gas bubble evolution caused by boiling or desorption, electrolytic gas bubble formation involves nucleation, growth, and departure. All these steps determine both the residence time and the diameter of the gas bubbles, which are important parameters for determining the resistance effect. It is thus important to gain a detailed understanding of the electrolytic gas bubble behavior which will help to alleviate the resistance of the electrolytic bubbles"


    It seems possible that vigorous boiling could increase the voltage above 5V, but very unlikely that it could reach 75V. If it got that high, there would have to be so many bubbles that observations of the level could no longer be used to determine the volume of liquid. I think this is solid additional evidence that the last 10 or 11 minutes must have been mostly foam.

  • Description of layers in analogy with a glass beer


    A previous jpeg (*) described a possible evolution of the axial distribution of water within Cell 1 during the F&P experiment reported in their ICCF3 paper (1). This evolution has been described showing the possible time trend of the levels at the interfaces between 4 different layers: Transparent, Bubbling, Foam and Empty. In order to better specify the definition of these four layers, it could be useful to make an analogy with the stratification of the beer in a glass.


    The following jpeg shows a glass of beer in which the foam is being enhanced by blowing in a tube immersed in the liquid (1), compared to a subset of the images of Cell 1 extracted from the jpeg (*).
    CJeaSci.jpg
    The image of this glass of beer reproduces quite well the situation inside the F&P cells. The lower beer remain Transparent and Bubbles rise in the innermost part of the glass, remaining very close to the inflating tube. On the top of the beer, a thick head of Foam appears very bright. In between the Transparent and the Foam layers, there is a thinner layer which looks almost as bright as the foam but maintains the yellow nuances of the beer. This corresponds to what has been indicated in (*) as the Bubbling layer.


    This Bubbling layer is almost uniformly filled with the rising bubbles which expand, or recirculate, occupying the entire cross section of the container. In the case of the F&P cell, this expansion occurs quite soon, probably due to the small diameter of the tube and the presence of many internals within it.


    In conclusion, it's possible, even if not always so easy, to distinguish the Bubbling layer (mostly liquid) from the Foam layer (mostly void) when looking at a photo or a video still. In any case, the motion in the videos helps to better distinguish these two layers, as can be seen in this slow motion video (3).


    (*) FP's experiments discussion

    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (2) https://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/beer-foam-enhancer/

    (3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekgzCPauXQM

  • Robert Horst:


    You forget one vital factor: current density on cathode surface.


    For F&P palladium it would be some 0,64 A/cm2 surface at 0,5 A with full cell.


    The current density decides the amount of gas evolution on the surface and therefore voltage requirements for constant current.


    Your referred paper is most likely much much lower current surface density at all test points, since one of the required features of F&P is very high densities.


    In my view there is film Boiling along the cathode surface, that is the cause of voltage increase, together with Gradually reduced water level.

  • "You see, but you do not observe" 🤓


    Here's a clue; integrate the input power from the last time the cell was filled (and therefore full) and until it was empty


    I already did. See, please, the column Evap (kJ) in the first table of the jpeg included in the post (1).


    Quote

    Anyhow, you maintain "whiteness" in the video is equal to foam, but that is not necessarily true. it can also be reflection of bubles transported through a pure water phase, as seen in the beginning of the videos and Gradually increasing in strength


    I think to have addressed this issue in a previous jpeg (2). Anyway, to better explain the characteristics of the different layers, I just posted a new jpeg that uses an analogy with a glass full of beer (3).


    Quote

    Please remember that eyes are some plus minus 100 megapixels, while the old video recording is probably less than a megapixel resolution. So I maintain the view that the experienced eyes of F&P knew what they observed in 1992' after the hundreds of tests prior to 1992.


    Yes, I agree. F&P knew what happened in the cell during their 1992 experiment, and the same applies to all the people who have had the opportunity to get a copy of the short videos and possibly receive a copy of the original full length videotape recording.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    PS

    As explained, Your green line is a trick of light and Shadow as shown in my post


    FP's experiments discussion


    I already replied to your remark: FP's experiments discussion

  • as bright as the foam but maintains the yellow nuances of the beer.


    I did a simulation with tapwater, 4% saltwater, and 4% tomato sauce/milk.( no beer in my house).

    The tomato/milk foamed on boiling, only the tomato/milk. Life is foamy.,, go look at ocean.


    I remember the new Asahi chlorine plant in 1985...H2 bubbles everywhere. NO FOAM.

    Every else in the Kraft pulp plant there was foam, especially on the pulp washing floor

    Reason... pinetrees are life.

    In food technology foams are a real problem for engineers:

    reason...tomatoes and peaches are life


    What was in the Pd/D2O Li etc mixture that could cause foaming.

    Were M&P sloppy and drip their beer into it?


    Or have you been enchanted by your foamy hypothesis?

  • It is easy to see how the cell voltage could rise sharply when it is mostly foam. It could even be oscillating between 100 V and about 5V as the foam bubbles evaporate and re-form connections.


    This is very interesting. The oscillation of cell voltage, in connection with the 300 s period of logging and the effect of "pixelization" in the graph of Figure 6(B), is a good candidate to explain the apparent dropping in the voltage curve, which was proposed by F&P as the evidence for their Heat After Dead claim.


    In any case, a major flaw in the F&P paper (1) is to not have included the voltage (and possibly the current) curves in an expanded region of few hours including the entire boiling period, as they did, but only for the cell temperature, in Figure 8. In a scientific context, omitting crucial information like these could be considered a (possible) severe misrepresentation of data .


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

  • And another issue of the Horst referred paper:


    If F&P was correct in that the cathode produced excess heat and Added to Boiling, it means they had film Boiling along the cathode surface, which would lead to higher required voltage at excess heat Events.


    I.e. Just as F&P experienced 🤓

  • I look forward to Ascoli65 PhD presentation : Lake Bled ,Slovenia , October,2019


    I too look forward, how the intellectual honest men of science - who will participate to the next ICCF22 - will deal with the F&P foam issue.


    So when is your beer analogy going to progress to Pd/D/beer testtube simulation ?


    The Pd/D/beer testtube simulation is already in progress since long:

    http://vimeo.com/9438745 (from 38:07 till the final 4 cells glasses toast)

    What was in the Pd/D2O Li etc mixture that could cause foaming.

    Were M&P sloppy and drip their beer into it?


    I rather wonder what could have caused the F&P to see excess heat in their cell.

    I don't think that they dropped the exquisite French beer into it:

    http://vimeo.com/9438745 (from 3:28 till the final laugh)


    Quote

    Or have you been enchanted by your foamy hypothesis?


    Do you mean enchanted like these ones?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OQu44UIC_s (from 0:32 till the enchantment of real scientists looking at real foam)

  • , how the intellectual honest men of science

    I look forward to Ascoli65's intellectually honest demonstration

    of foaming due to 0.1M LiOD

    One could start by boiling in a glass cup in a microwave oven

    1. 0.4 gm NaOH/100 mls water

    2. 0.4 gm NaOH/100 mls beer

    and observing what kind of foam occurs.


    Loading of metallic hydrides with "electrolytic" deuterium has been replaced

    by loading with "tank" deuterium..for a few years(decades?) now..

    perhaps one could examine if foam occurs with "tank" deuterium.



  • Another fatal error in the Ascoli analysis:


    Of the input electrical energy he assumes 10 watt lost as heat, which is approximately correct, BUT then he assumes the remaining is available for vaporization.


    However, this is not correct, a large portion (60% + increasing with temperature) goes into splitting of the water molecules to H2 and O2, and therefore less available to heat.

  • F&P Boil Off experiments (1992-1993) – Calculation of Excess Heat (PART 1)

    Ascoli have made a few analytical comments to paper [1], where I have pointed to several mistakes in his analysis in earlier comments.


    However, while Ascoli have focused on the very last boiling period, which is difficult to do caused by the present video qualities and wide requirements to make assumptions, like of water and foam levels, we may do some calculations just upfront boiling and evaluate excess heat, which is not reported in the paper as such:


    There are a few important factors which we first need to define:


    1.Electrolysis efficiency


    Ordinary alkaline Electrolysis may reach well above 60% efficiency. The F&P cell is not made with efficiency in focus and we may assume here 50 to 60% efficiency as a conservative range.


    2.Heat loss coefficient: The paper have measured a coefficient ranging from 0,728E-9 to 0,892E-9. We will use both values in this analysis.


    Now then; in the figures below we have marked off a few points, but the points in interest in this analysis is the points between the two last filling: Points 6 and 8.


    Data for these points are as follows:

    Read from Graph:





    Input

    Points

    Time(s)

    Fill(%)

    T (degC)

    Voltage

    El. Watt

    6

    1250000

    100

    72,5

    14,06

    7,03

    8

    1333333,3

    100

    87

    18,75

    9,375


    Going forward we may assume linear trend (conservative) and use the average power during this period at 8,2 watt


    We may also note that the time period between 6 & 8 is 83 333 seconds.


    Heat capacity of heavy water = 4,22 KJ/KgK, i.e. 6127 Joules have gone to heat the 5 moles during the period analysed.


    Molweight D2O= 20,027 g/mole


    In below I have used two cases explained :


    “Optimistic” i.e. maximum Excess heat - i.e. maximum heat loss coefficient and maximum electrolysis efficiency


    “Conservative” i.e. minimum Excess heat – the opposite of above


    Results:






    Heat

    Heat gained

    EXCESS

    EXCESS


    Electrolysis

    Electrolysis

    Radiative

    by fluid temp.

    heat

    heat


    NET

    NET

    Losses

    increase

    in period

    in period

    Calculated cases

    Electrolysis

    Heat loss

    Power to

    Total heat



    efficiency

    coeff

    Heat water

    in period

    in period



    (%)

    W/K^4

    Watt

    Joule

    Joule

    Joule

    Joule

    %

    Optimistic

    60

    8,92E-10

    3,281

    273417

    512072

    6127

    244783

    90

    Conservative

    50

    7,28E-10

    4,101

    341771

    572634

    6127

    236990

       

    69




    i.e. during the period of steep increase of temperature in the fluid at almost constant power input, we find excess heat levels of 69% to 90 % range.


    Also we note that the excess heat in the above period is higher than the early phase as noted in the paper, which range from 5 to 10% in the earlier 50-70 degC period.


    So there is therefore a probable cause to claim even higher excess heat at boiling conditions....


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

    1993 revised version of [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf