FP's experiments discussion

  • Level of bubbles / foam in the F&P cell

    I had a closer look at the Ascoli suggestion of high foam level during the last 10 minutes of boiling in the F&P paper [1]


    By studying the Video [2] attached in the paper, I have therefore produced the following graph based on the last 20 minutes of fast water level/ bubble/foam level drop, until the cell was dry,


    I assume that the end time of the last 10 or 20 minute periods you mentioned is the last available video frame occurring at 22:26:58, so I think that the starting time of your graph is arounf 22:07. Isn't it?


    As for the curves, the one you attribute to me ("Ascoli water level") is wrong. I wonder where you got it from. For me, the liquid water zeroed shortly after 21:57. So, in your graph, this curve should coincide with the x axis.


    The other two curves are also wrong.


    The "Visual top bubble level" curve starts at almost 20 cm, but the visible unsilvered portion of the cell reaches only 14 cm above the Kel-F support, because the total height of the Dewar tube was 25 cm and more than one third was silvered. Moreover, its highest level, between 21:37 and 21:57, was about 1 cm below the silvered portion. In reality, the video shows that at the beginning of your graph (22:07) there is only foam, and its upper level is at 8 cm. Your curve ends at zero, but it is way clear that at least 4 cm of foam remain at the end of the video clip (22:26).


    Finally, I wonder where your "F&P water curve" comes from. As shown in my last jpeg (1), the 2 blue arrows in the "Four-cell boil-off" videos are 34 minutes away each other and the difference between their levels is about 6 cm.


    Quote

    One should expect a constant foam level during the last boiling phase, which leads to some evident conclusions here:


    As seen, the Ascoli suggestion would require an 8 cm high foam level at the start of the last 10 minutes of boiling, and only foam the last 4 minutes.


    But 4 minutes of only foam is way too long time, the level should have dropped much fast then at the end.


    In the interpretation proposed in (1), the foam thickness decreases slightly from 8 cm in E to 7 cm in F, after it has settled down due to the cessation of the vapor lifting. So the 8 cm thickness was reached by the foam at the end of boiling, not at the beginning. After F, the foam thickness shrunk partially due to the breaking of the weaker bubbles, but the smaller ones lasted for weeks.


    You know, this is a very special beer. :)


    Quote

    The F&P conclusion of some 2,5 cm foam/boiling bubble phase on top is a more logical conclusion.


    Can you provide a reference for this F&P conclusion?


    At 22:26 there is no foam. The cell is completely empty at this point, the whiteness is only the bright light shining on the cell. You see the same whiteness later when boiling cell 2, which has a little less or yellower light shining.


    After boiling there remains a diffuse whiteness along Cell 1. At half height, it could depend on some deposit on the internal wall, but the lowest few centimeters are clearly filled with foam. You can appreciate the difference in compactness.


    You can better see the difference in the last video frames of the video, after the boil-off of Cell 4. You can see that the amount of residual foam is different in the 4 cells. In Cell1 and 4, the foam height is about 2 cell diameters, and 1 diameter in Cell2. Cell 3 is the only one where its level went to zero.


    Quote

    And actually: The Cell boiled only during the last 15-20 minutes maximum, as shown in the temperature trend line, where the temperature level off towards 100 degC.


    The Cell 1 was already boiling in the previous series of video clips from 18:33 till 19:00 (2), that is several hours before the final boil-off period you are talking about.


    Quote

    My trendlines as shown below is most likely the correct one, and the foam level was not more than 2,5 cm.

    There is therefore overwhelming reasons to believe F&P where right here.


    As already said, my opinion is different, but it is good to have a comparison between two or more interpretations. I hope that other L-F members, in particular the most experienced and informed about F&P calorimetry, will join this discussion in order to arrive to a common interpretation of what F&P videos show.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

  • This discussion of foam is ludicrous.


    Ludicrous is what happened at the beginning of the 90ies and during the following 3 decades.


    Quote

    Even if there was foam, it had no effect on the calorimetry, because virtually no entrained, unboiled water left the cell. Only pure water left it, and the heat of vaporization of that weight of water tells us how much energy it took. As I have pointed out again and again, Fleischmann made certain that only pure water left by measuring the salts left behind in the cell.


    My interpretation of the F&P results does not require the liquid entrainment hypothesis. Even assuming no entrainment, almost all the water left the cell as pure vapor before the beginning of the "grand finale", the last minutes of boiling considered by F&P in their calculations at page 16 of their ICCF3 paper (1).


    It was easy to see the water level before it boiled. They kept a careful inventory of water. There is no question how much water was in the cell.


    This has nothing to do with my interpretation, which assumes that the cells were regularly filled before the beginning of the boiling phase, which lasted MANY HOURS before the "grand finale" considered by F&P.


    Quote

    Whether it boiled away in 10 minutes, 15 minutes or 20 minutes would not change the conclusion in the least, so it makes no sense to argue about that.


    It makes a lot of sense for anyone who understand the calculation on page 16 of the F&P paper. And in any cases, the water boiled away in hours, not minutes.


    Quote

    If there had been no excess heat in the last phase (10 minutes or 20) it would not be boiling. There was not enough input power for that.


    Absolutely wrong. The boiling can be reached sooner or later if the input power is greater than the 11 W calculated by F&P as the thermal losses from the cells due to radiation. In the experiment described in (1), the input power reached 50 W.

    The experiments that were filmed were run in cells with clear glass, that could be filmed. They were sort of like Dewars. That is to say, they had an evacuated test tube layer but no silvered inner surface.


    They were silvered in the upper portion, as described in the text and shown at figure 1 of their paper (1) and visible in all the available videos of their experiment.


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

  • I have come to the conclusion that either Ascoli never read & understood the linked FP paper or he is unable to imagine the difference between the video shown and the real difference of an experiment run in a dewar, that cannot be filmed.


    Probably the one who never read or understood the F&P paper (1) we are talking about since weeks is you.


    From http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf (bold added)


    ABSTRACT

    We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd/D2O system which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1kWcm-3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution. This has led to a particularly simple method of deriving the rate of excess enthalpy production based on measuring the times required to boil the cells to dryness, this process being followed by using time-lapse video recordings.

    […]

    For the second value of the pressure, 0.97 bars, the cell would have become half empty 11 minutes before dryness, as observed from the video recordings (see the next section) and this in turn requires a period of intense boiling during the last 11 minutes.

    […]

    The simplest procedure is to make time-lapse video recordings of the operation of the cells which can be synchronised with the temperature-time and cell potential-time data. Figs 6A-D give the records of the operation of four such cells which are illustrated by four stills taken from the video recordings, Fig 10A-D.

    […]

    As it is possible to repeatedly reverse and run forward the video recordings at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make reasonably accurate estimates of the cell contents.

    […]

    Figure 10. Stills of video recordings of the cells described in Fig 6 taken at increasing times.


    Quote

    The Cathode is about 1cm above the bottom of the container. The experimenters report a dry cell & a molten KEL-F Supp that can only happen at 300C.


    The cathode rests on the KEL.F support. Figure 1, in the above quoted F&P paper, doesn't exactly correspond to the cells used in the reported experiment.


    Quote

    Why did the Pt D2O control Cell never show a destroyed KEL-F.


    Why did F&P never show the photos of the destroyed KEL-F support?


    Quote

    Even more demanding why did it never run dry or boil off ??


    Because, as I already told you (1), F&P didn't show these results, contrary to Hansen who showed the results of their control tests in which the blank cells reached the boiling conditions.


    Quote

    Live Cells: Which process delivers the energy to boil off the remaining liquid below the cathode? (As no more current flows...)


    As said, the cathode was in contact with the lower support. No liquid below it.


    Quote

    The video Ascoli likes to comment is made from free cells sitting out of the dewar and is just used for illustrating the boil-off, thus the timing will be different because of intense heat loss through radiation...


    The videos I'm talking about are those provided by F&P to Rothwell and Krivit, and presented at ICCF3 in October 1992 for illustrating the behavior of the cells during the four-cell experiment carried out during April-May, the major experiment of F&P. They were also used, as described in the F&P paper, to derive the boil-off parameters (45 cm3 of water vaporized in 10 minutes) that have been the basis for the main heat excess claims of F&P and all the other CFers.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • The daily frequency of Ascoli's replies over the last 27 days show much more concern for foam

    than Fleischmann's 6 correspondences.


    … and without costs for public funds or private investors! :)


    Jokes aside. I have proposed here on L-F an unexpected interpretation of the F&P results and it's my commitment to respond as soon as I can to all the remarks and objections raised by other members.

  • Ascoli,


    One day, I hope you explain why this matters so much to you that you persist as you do? What motivates you to such an extent, that you dedicate so much of your time to refuting LENR? At first it was only Rossi's early years at the UOB, which was understandable, but now you are taking on FP's, and that makes me curious.


    Not complaining, as we all here have passions that engulf us with little reason. However, my guess is you do have a reason. You have always been one to share your thoughts.


    Take care.

  • Ascoli:"The Cell 1 was already boiling in the previous series of video clips from 18:33 till 19:00 (2), that is several hours before the final boil-off period you are talking about."


    This depends on what temperature you think boiling occurs at. If boiling occurred at 99,5 degC, then boiling started not earlier than 20:00.


    If you believe boiling starts at 99,9 degC, then boiling started earliest at 21:40.

  • Actually,


    Ascoli propose boiling before 100 degC is reached in the fluid.


    If boiling occurs at below 100 degC, then it should occur along the Palladium cathode, which is another evidence of LENR excess heat event, since the electrodes should never be hotter than the fluid itself.


    It is the electrolyte fluid that represents the resistor where electrical energy is lost as heat, which means its the fluid that heats the electrodes when there is no LENR event, not the other way around.

  • If boiling occurs at below 100 degC, then it should occur along the Palladium cathode, which is another evidence of LENR excess heat event, since the electrodes should never be hotter than the fluid itself.


    To suggest that the electrodes and the fluid must always be isothermal is 'pushing it a bit'. Heat is created either at the cathode/electrolyte interface (which makes equal temperatures more likely) but IMHO it is mostl likely created just below the electrode surface in which case the electrode would certainly be hotter, especially since the electrode surface may be covered in bubbles which will of course offer a much less efficient heat conduction path than the liquid electrolyte would.

  • Starting and duration of the boiling period (Cell 1)


    In analyzing the behavior of the F&P cells during the boil-off phase, it is essential to understand when boiling begins and its overall duration. These data are not provided in the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 (1), but can be roughly derived from Figure 6, as shown for Cell 1 in the following jpeg.

    xngmaJd.jpg


    The beginning of boiling can be deduced from the shape of Tcell, which is the temperature of the water measured inside the cell. Since the temperatures of water and internals are not perfectly uniform, boiling begins before Tcell reaches the boiling point (101.4 °C for the heavy water at 1 atm). In particular, the warmest part of the cell is the cathode, thanks to the paths of the current lines that concentrate on its surface.


    The first and smaller vapor bubbles - which are generated when the water bulk temperature is quite far from the boiling point - condense before leaving the water, releasing their latent heat content to the liquid water.


    As the water temperature approaches the boiling point and the power available for water heating increases, the bubbles became larger and reach the water surface, escaping the cell and taking away their latent heat, so that the heating rate of the water temperature starts to decrease. This point is marked with an inflection point along the Tcell curve.


    Despite the coarseness of the curves plotted on its expanded portion, the graph of Figure 6A allows to locate this inflection point at about 1343000 s, ie at 13:00 on the 16th day, that is about 9 hours before the dry-out time.


    Of course, the amount of heat taken away by the vapor is low at the beginning, because the input power is just over the 11 W calculated in (1) as heat losses due to radiation. As the voltage increases due to the formation of even larger bubbles and the consequent reduction of the electrode surface wetted by the electrolyte, the vaporization rate of water increases and Tcell tends to become horizontal, converging toward the boiling point value. In the meanwhile most of the water content is vaporized, well before the time reported by F&P in their paper (1).


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

  • Ascoli:"The Cell 1 was already boiling in the previous series of video clips from 18:33 till 19:00 (2), that is several hours before the final boil-off period you are talking about."


    This depends on what temperature you think boiling occurs at. If boiling occurred at 99,5 degC, then boiling started not earlier than 20:00.


    If you believe boiling starts at 99,9 degC, then boiling started earliest at 21:40.


    The jpeg just posted (1) was intended to answer this remark of yours. Temperature is not uniform within the cell, so that boiling begins much earlier than Tcell reaches the boiling point. This starting time is marked by the inflection on the Tcell curve, as explained in the jpeg.

    Ascoli propose boiling before 100 degC is reached in the fluid.


    If boiling occurs at below 100 degC, then it should occur along the Palladium cathode, which is another evidence of LENR excess heat event, since the electrodes should never be hotter than the fluid itself.


    Yes, it occurs on the cathode for the reasons I had already explained some time ago (2, point 7).


    Quote

    It is the electrolyte fluid that represents the resistor where electrical energy is lost as heat, which means its the fluid that heats the electrodes when there is no LENR event, not the other way around.


    Even if the electric energy is dissipated entirely in the electrolyte, this dissipation occurs at the highest volumetric intensity on the cathode surface, due to the concentration of the current lines on its surface as shown in the last jpeg. They further thicken when vapor bubbles begin to form on the cathode, as already explained by Alan Smith, so reducing the wetted surface.


    In the final minutes of boil-off, the current density on the cathode surface increases dramatically due to the lowering of the water level below the top of the cathode. This could easily explains some deformations at the KEL-F support, on which the cathode rests, due to its excessive heating.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

  • Figure 6A allows to locate this inflection point at about 1343000 s, ie at 13:00


    the blur from your pixel manipulation shows no clear inflexion


    the time is about 13.00 +/- 3 hrs using your 9 hr calibration??? or is it 9hr +/-5 hr?


    any reasonable competent peer review would require clarification of this point... among others.

  • The duration of the top flat temp area is approx. 17200 seconds, i.e. 4,7 hrs, not 9 hrs.


    But, as I have tried to explain in the jpeg, the flat temp area is only that part of the boiling period during which ALL the heating power (ie the input power in excess of the heat losses) is dissipated by vaporization of water. Before this flat temp area, namely in the period after the inflection point t1, the heating power is partially absorbed by the warming up of water and partially dissipated by its vaporization.


    In any case the video clips from 18:33 to 19:00 have been filmed during the boiling period and this boiling period was much longer than reported by F&P.

  • the blur from your pixel manipulation shows no clear inflexion


    the time is about 13.00 +/- 3 hrs using your 9 hr calibration??? or is it 9hr +/-5 hr?


    You are right, the inflection point is at 13:00 +/- X h, but X is much smaller than 3.


    As shown in my "manipulated" graph, the red (inclined) timeline is comprised between two blue timelines which are separated by 10000 s (that is 2¾ h). The Tcell curvature at the first blue line is clearly positive, while the Tcell curvature at the second blue line is clearly negative. So, the inflection point is between these blue lines. Even placing it on the right blue line, the vaporization losses would start 6+ hours before the "grand finale" mentioned by F&P. This doesn't change at all my interpretation of the boiling transient, since the highest electric power was fed during the last hour.


    In any case, there was plenty of time and input energy to vaporize almost all the water content before the final period assumed by F&P as that one during which half of the water content has vaporized.


    Quote

    any reasonable competent peer review would require clarification of this point... among others.


    Well said!! I wonder how it was possible that the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 in October 1992 (1), was published in May 1993 in a peer reviewed journal (2) without changes, except for the addition of an introduction.


    Beyond the correction of the many errors and sloppiness contained in the ICCF3 paper, the peer-reviewers should have required to include the curves of all the main parameters (temperature, voltage and current) during a period of several hours around the dry-out of each cell, as was done in Figure 8, but only for the temperature of Cell 2. The omission of these graphs is a serious misrepresentation of data, which by itself invalidates any extraordinary conclusion reported in that paper.


    In any cases those original data should still exist somewhere. It is impossible that the data of the most important CF experiment were lost. Probably SP has a copy. Also the Japanese, who paid dozens of M$ for that experiment and for the following failed attempts to reproduce its results, should have some copies. Now, it would be the time to look at them more carefully.


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

    (2) http://coldfusioncommunity.net…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf

  • Ascoli. I suggest that you should try to see this movie. It would add something a little more solid than foam to your arguments, perhaps something that would wash them away. Sadly it isn't AFAIK on DVD, but there are no doubt other ways of seeing it.


  • You are right, the inflection point is at 13:00 +/- X h, but X is much smaller than 3.


    Ascoli65 ..when you submit your 9 -page paper to Physics A

    you will need decent data not

    photoshopped blurry videos and skewed figures.

    a coherent layout...would be an advantage

    also a real name will be essential


    assertions such as +/- X is much smaller than 3 will need to be justified.

    inter alia inter alia inter alia


    Otherwise you are wasting your time.

  • Well, I think I'm getting tired of this discussion and will soon move on.


    But Ascoli, is this issue really important?


    F&P calculated some 385% excess heat in the 10 last minutes in this paper.


    So... what If they really where wrong and had less water at the start of last 10 minutes and much lower excess heat.......like 20% ? ...or lower ....10%..... ? Well still higher than measured at lower temperatures.


    But does it really matter?


    Is the excess heat or power density the real issue? Or is it the science behind these heat Events?


    I mean, to me , which have known cold fusion since the mid 90's, the important fact of cold fusion was the sudden heat bursts that suddenly occured and just as sudden dissapeared during long periods of electrolysis in F&P cells.


    The paper Ascoli brings up I noticed later and found it interesting that excess heat seemed to increase at higher temperatures, but I did not really think of it then and not now as the most important paper in CF history.


    Fleischmann himself thought his most important paper was the 54+ Pages 1990 paper, which has survived the test of time ever since.