FP's experiments discussion

Quote from Shane D.

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?

Not refuting LENR, but searching truth, which eventually is the same.

Quote

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.

As already said (1), between the Ecat affair and the F&P activity there is a strong analogy and many points of contact.

One of the most interesting was provided by Huw Price in his two essays on cold fusion (2-3), in which he seems to draw a line connecting the two most famous CF/LENR initiatives (2):

"The latter [LENR] was popularised in 1989 by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who claimed to have found evidence that such processes could take place in palladium loaded with deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). A few other physicists, including the late Sergio Focardi at Bologna, claimed similar effects with nickel and ordinary hydrogen. But most were highly skeptical, and the field subsequently gained, as Wikipedia puts it, ‘a reputation as pathological science’."

He refutes the definition of "pathological science" and urge people to look at the evidence (2):

"Again, there’s a sociological explanation why few people are willing to look at the evidence. They put their reputations at risk by doing so. Cold fusion is tainted, and the taint is contagious – anyone seen to take it seriously risks contamination. So the subject is stuck in a place that is largely inaccessible to reason – a reputation trap, we might call it. People outside the trap won’t go near it, for fear of falling in."

I looked at the available evidences and found wet steam or liquid water instead of dry steam (in the Ecat tests) and foam instead of boiling liquid (in the F&P experiments). It would seem the real contagious attitude in the CF field is to mislead people.

Now is the turn of HP to look more carefully at the evidences. His bet is going to expire and he should inform his Aeon readers about its outcome, publishing a new essay to complete his CF trilogy. As a philosopher of physics, he is in the right position to provide a socio-psychological explanation why some glass tubes full of foam have been able to produce tons of paper along three decades, with a cost of hundreds of millions of public and private money.

I hope that he has been duly informed about this discussion, so that he can write his piece being aware of the "foam issue".

Quote

Not complaining, as we all here have passions that engulf us with little reason. However, my guess is you do have a reason.

Well, we all have plenty of serious reasons. Just to remain on the same track, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge welcomes the visitors with this sentence:

Well, the author of (2) and (3) is one of its three co-founders (4).

(1) FP's experiments discussion

(2) https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-…ossibility-of-cold-fusion

(3) https://aeon.co/opinions/is-th…fusion-egg-about-to-hatch

(4) https://www.cser.ac.uk/team/

Ascoli: "... why some glass tubes full of foam have been able to produce tons of paper along three decades, with a cost of hundreds of millions of public and private money."

Please, hundreds of millions is probably to stretch it a litle🤓

And it was not foam nor Boiling that triggered the CF research, it was heat bursts at lower temperatures as described in the 1990 paper.

The 1992 and later tests was based on the thought that power density increased to high levels at high temperature, which would be required to compete with nuclear power.

Ascoli, you are making too much of this paper

Quote from Ascoli65

I'm not submitting a paper to Physics A and I already answered to you.

You asserted that the error on the inflexion point was much less than 3 hours.

You are giving no mathematical justification for this assertion.

You belief is not justification.You need more

Especially if are you submitting a paper to Huw Price.?

Please make sure it is coherent and well structured.

His knowledge of physics is rather dated... he is still talking about Einsteins TOR and 3D+T universe

which has already been out dated by the 4D+T reality proved in January 2018' by Zilberberg et al in Zurich.

Also you may have some difficulty in spinning your spiel about Fleischmann enchantment to address Huw's focï of

""biological risks, environmental risks, risks from artificial intelligence, and how to manage extreme technological risk""

Quote from Alan Smith

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.

The trailer is not so exiting, just words. Also the comment of a LENR fan (1) doesn't encourage to see it. Anyway thanks for the suggestion. This movie, as well as the others which have been produced on the CF subject, is another manifestation of the incredible suggestive power of the F&P's foam.

Maybe Huw Price will explain the psychological basis of this social phenomenon in his next essay on CF. I hope you have informed him about this debate on the "foam issue".

(1) https://www.imdb.com/user/ur4352705/reviews?ref_=tt_urv

Quote from Ascoli65

I hope you have informed him about this debate

It's Ascoli's foam to promulgate ... no one else is interested..not F&P...

not anyone

but Ascoli65 has ownership of this

poorly evidenced, poorly presented Ascoli foam.

re: film review Ascoli really needs to read the links he provides

This is basically just the Doral Window on low-grade VHS.

Here is an analysis of the Fleischmann 92 paper based only on the voltage plot in Fig 6B.

First, the cell can be modeled as a constant current source feeding a 1.54V zener diode in series with a variable resistance. The resistance is a function of the conductivity of the electrolyte, volume of electrolyte and air (bubble) coverage on the cathode. Even if bubbles are forming over the entire surface of the cathode, the time-average of air (H or vapor) coverage should never be more than about 50%, because on average half only could be covered by bubbles while the other half is covered by liquid that is yet to be decomposed or vaporized. If you imagine a continuous stream of bubbles from a fixed area, even if the bubbles in a vertical column are nearly touching each other, the time average of that cathode area would still have a max of about 50% H or vapor. See the diagram of this model below. I take the minimum resistance from the left-most point in Fig 6B, which is about 11 ohms. At that point, I assume the entire surface is liquid. Then, assuming the resistance is linear and determined by the liquid surface area, the resistance rises as the liquid coverage drops until resistance approaches infinity with no liquid at all on the cathode. The key point of this graph is to see that the voltage starts at 7.1V and rises to 12.6V at the 50% coverage point.

Now looking at Fig 6B, I carefully digitized the points for the last 24 hours of the experiment (accuracy is about +- 2000 sec but is sufficient for this analysis). This is the part of the graph with voltage above 12.6V indicating greater than 50% bubble coverage on the cathode. At any higher voltages, the drops in resistance need to come from somewhere else, namely the liquid level starting to drop or the liquid starting to be replaced with foam. See the plot of the digitized points below

Then I integrated the enthalpy input by summing the contributions from each plotted point = (V-1.54)*.5A*deltaTsec = watt-sec = Joules. The sum over the entire graph comes to 988 KJ.

The paper calculated that boil off of half the cell requires 102.5 Kj. So the energy input during the time above 12.6V is more than 4X the amount required to vaporize the entire volume of the cell. Someone could analyze the expected losses to ambient, but that seems unlikely to change the conclusion here that the vaporization was caused by the positive feedback loop that ramped up of the input power as the resistance increased.

Regardless of the losses to ambient, the cell could not have stayed liquid until the last 600 sec given the reported cell voltages.

Robert Horst:

It's virtually impossible to do your calculation, since the voltage curve is very difficult to read at the end period.

F&P stated some 76 volts in average the last 600 seconds, and therefore some 22,5 KJ the last 600 seconds as heat from electrolysis.

If we start with 100% filled cells around hr 12:00 +/- the last day, we get some 300 KJ lost as radiation heat until the cell was empty.

In addition some 24 KJ was used for producing H2/O2 in the period = 1.54V × Cell Current * t (seconds)

Evaporation of 100% of the cell (5 mole) requires 205 KJ

The electrical input energy was some 440 KJ in the same period, very depending on the quality of the voltage graph readings (!)

This means Output = 300+24+205 = 529 KJ

Excess heat = 529-440 = 89 KJ

Excess heat total since last refill = 20%

And if excess heat increase with temperature, much of the 89KJ end up at the end and we may end up at the values of F&P (which calculated 86 KJ excess during last 600 seconds)

But these values are very uncertain, since the graph is not easy to read with accuracy.

And as I said, to me this paper is interesting but not the most important one.

The interesting issue in this paper is that it may be possible to increase excess heat at higher temepratures, and therefore power and energy densities.

But the sudden heat bursts that occurs at lower temperatures was the real mystery.

The cell voltage and amperage were confirmed with a fast oscilloscope. There was no error in them. Calibration tests with Pt-H and Pt-D did not boil at these power levels.

Quote from Robert Horst

Here is an analysis of the Fleischmann 92 paper based only on the voltage plot in Fig 6B.
[...]
Now looking at Fig 6B, I carefully digitized the points for the last 24 hours of the experiment (accuracy is about +- 2000 sec but is sufficient for this analysis). [...]

Praiseworthy attempt to remedy to the lack of more detailed data, but you should pay attention to the time values. Probably, to get these values, you have expanded the time axis. In such a case the timelines are no longer vertical due to a very slight inclination in the original figures. So you have to estimate the time on the basis of inclined timelines like those shown for Figure 6A in the jpeg posted at the beginning of this page (1). But beware, each one of the 4 Figures 6 has its own inclination. For instance Figure 6B (2) has an opposite inclination with respect to Figure 6A. What you need to do is to expand the ordinate axis on the left by the same amount and use its final inclination to read on the abscissa the time of the points selected on the Vcell curve.

Quote

The paper calculated that boil off of half the cell requires 102.5 Kj. So the energy input during the time above 12.6V is more than 4X the amount required to vaporize the entire volume of the cell. Someone could analyze the expected losses to ambient, but that seems unlikely to change the conclusion here that the vaporization was caused by the positive feedback loop that ramped up of the input power as the resistance increased.

Of course, I agree on this conclusion, because it coincides with mine. But we should pay attention in supporting it with the right arguments.

I didn't check your reasoning that led to the value of 12.6 V as the voltage which indicate the beginning of vaporization. Anyway, this value seems reasonable to me because it corresponds to a Tcell of about 70 °C and probably at this average temperature the cathode has already reached the boiling point and some vapor bubbles are forming on its surface. However, these early vapor bubbles condense within the water mass, so they can't be considered to calculate the vapor which leaves the cell. IMO, there is no water loss due to vaporization until Tcell reaches 90-95 °C.

Heat losses by radiation to the ambient also play an important role in the thermal balance and can't be neglected. On page 16 of the F&P paper, a heat loss of 11 W was calculated, therefore only the input heat beyond this loss level can be considered to cause a water loss by vaporization.

A final remark. I would urge you to consider a cell different from Cell 2, because of the problem of the voltage drop occurring a few hours before the real dry-out of the cell. I propose to consider Cell 1, to compare your results with those shown in a previous post of mines (3).

(1) FP's experiments discussion

(2) FP's experiments discussion

(3) FP's experiments discussion

Quote from oystla

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?

Yes, it really matters. And, in any case, from the data reported in the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 (1) there is no reason to infer that they obtained any excess heat. Their results can be easily explained by simple and mundane physical mechanisms.

Quote

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

In this specific case, the real issue is the credibility of the authors.

Quote

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.

This is your opinion, but, as I have already told you (2), Rothwell considers the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 (1) the "major paper" of MF and, as reported in its abstract, this paper deals with the generation of excess heat "at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution."

Quote

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

Do you have a reference for this MF thought?

In any case, let MF speaks for himself. In the BBC documentary "Too close to the sun" (3) at about 14:25, MF says: "By October 1989 we’ve got 100 W/cm³, which is of order of heat release in a PWR. And by the summer of 1990 we’ve got an excess of a kW/cm³. And since we have been here, we’ve got up to about 4 kW/cm³, which is about the level of heat release you get in what is called a FBR.”

The "up to about 4 kW/cm³" are clearly the 3700 W/cm³ calculated on page 16 of his 1992 paper, on the basis of the alleged 2.5 moles of water vaporized in 10 minutes. He was talking to a BBC journalist, so he was aware of speaking to the world, and he was saying that the last and best achievement was the one obtained in the "4-cell boil-off" experiment carried out at IMRA France, whose results are reported in their ICCF3 paper.

Quote from oystla

Please, hundreds of millions is probably to stretch it a litle🤓

I don’t know. It's the estimation reported by Storms a few years ago (4):

"COLD FUSION … Has been studied for 23 years using about $0.5 B".

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

(2) FP's experiments discussion

(3) http://vimeo.com/9438745

(4) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf

Quote from RobertBryant

It's Ascoli's foam to promulgate ...

You are giving me too much importance. It's the F&P's foam which has to be "promulgated", not mine. And until now you have been its most active promulgator:

- Staker (1): "Staker might had a boil off while making coffee...its a possibility...or he might have dozed off. I could ask him...."

- Krivit (2): "No word from Krivit so far on how much the data was "Krivitized"",

- GSVIT (3): "Maybe GSVIT can do a more convincing simulation",

That's good, because the involvement of more informed and expert people increases the chances to arrive to a generally accepted interpretation of the foam issue.

Quote

re: film review Ascoli really needs to read the links he provides

The phrase you circled in red is exactly the one that discourages to see that film.

(1) FP's experiments discussion

(2) FP's experiments discussion

(3) FP's experiments discussion

(4) FP's experiments discussion

Quote from Ascoli65

Praiseworthy attempt to remedy to the lack of more detailed data, but you should pay attention to the time values. Probably, to get these values, you have expanded the time axis. In such a case the timelines are no longer vertical due to a very slight inclination in the original figures. So you have to estimate the time on the basis of inclined timelines like those shown for Figure 6A in the jpeg posted at the beginning of this page (1). But beware, each one of the 4 Figures 6 has its own inclination. For instance Figure 6B (2) has an opposite inclination with respect to Figure 6A. What you need to do is to expand the ordinate axis on the left by the same amount and use its final inclination to read on the abscissa the time of the points selected on the Vcell curve.

I took this into account with a very tedious but accurate way of measuring the times.

I took a screen shot of Fig 6B and pasted it into Visio, then rotated it to get the Y axis vertical (-0.35 degrees).

Then drew a line from (0,0) to (250,100) mm and moved/stretched the graph to make the (0,0) and (2500,100) points of the voltage graph exactly line up with the (0,0) and (250, 100) endpoints of the line.

Then locked the pasted graph's position and size and locked the (0,0) point of the line.

Then moved the other end of the line by typing a voltage (Y value) into the measure box, and iterated the X values until the end of the arrow was centered on the graph line. Visio allows you to zoom in very tight to get it centered.

Then record X and Y of that point and add a zero to X to make it Kseconds. Repeat for next point.

Next time, I would probably use a capture tool and save lots of work.

You also said "However, these early vapor bubbles condense within the water mass, so they can't be considered to calculate the vapor which leaves the cell. IMO, there is no water loss due to vaporization until Tcell reaches 90-95 °C."

This does not seem right. If the vapor condenses, then the water level does not change and there is no mechanism for the steady increase in resistance.

Water does not need to boil in order to evaporate. There is an average of 10W keeping the water very hot for 24 hours. My graph shows that the evaporation should start to be significant around 80C. That is where there is no more room on the cathode for more bubble coverage and another mechanism needs to take over to increase the resistance. If the temperature outside was 80 C (176F), some pretty deep puddles would evaporate in 24 hours.

Ascoli: "...timelines are no longer vertical due to a very slight inclination in the original figures"

When I cust & paste the graph for Cell 1 nto Excel and place a vertical line on along the side I find no such inclination

Quote from Robert Horst

I took this into account with a very tedious but accurate way of measuring the times. ...

There should be something wrong in your method. Please, consider your last time value, when the voltage reaches 100 V, it is 1662 ks. Then, look at Figure 8 in the F&P paper (1), the maximum Tcell is at about 1655 ks. That's impossible.

In the special case of Cell 2, the maximum voltage was reached 3 hours before the maximum Tcell, ie before the vertical line indicating the "Cell ½ dry" in Figure 8. However, after that time, it happens something strange in the electric parameters (voltage and current), which has not been reported in the paper and that makes this Cell unsuitable for the kind of analysis that you proposed in your previous post.

Quote

This does not seem right. If the vapor condenses, then the water level does not change and there is no mechanism for the steady increase in resistance.

I will explain better what I meant this evening.

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

Energy Budget of the F&P cell

Based on the analysis of Robert Horst I propose here an alternative analysis of energy budget in the F&P 1992 / 1993 paper

In this analysis I look at Cell 1 from the refill on the last day and until the Cell was dry

A few important definitions and data:

1.Refill time: 11:30 as taken from the Video linked in the F&P Paper [1]

2.Dry cell: 22:25

We note that Ascoli thinks there are still foam present at the end, but in any case, this is evidently a very thin foam and a marginal amount of H2O, so 4,999 Mole is probably gone, I will assume its dry.

3.Total time from refill to dry= 39 300 seconds

4.Input energy: Electrical energy, where current is constant at 500 mA and voltage is regulated to keep constant current. Voltage trend:

Voltage at refill time: 18,87 V

Voltage at end: The graph cannot be analysed at this point, the last period of voltage increase is important, but the graph is not detailed enough to be analysed. F&P reported average Voltage the last 600 seconds of 76 volts. If the end voltage was 100 Volts as suggested, then the voltage should be 50 volts 10 minutes before end to acheieve 75 Volts in average in the period.

We may now produce a voltage and power trends by reading the voltages of the curve and use the data above.

5.Temperature trend:

Ref first image above. Temperature at refill time= 85,3 degC

Temperature at dry= 100 degC

Now for tables of data:

So the above tables calculates 543 554 Joules input heat from refill to dry cell, while excess energy during the period is in the range 82 689 Joules.

Conclusion:

1. We have confirmed Excess heat during last period of refill to dry cell
2. We have confirmed the likely theory of increased excess heat at higher temperatures
3. F&P reported 86700 Joule excess heat the last 10 minutes (while mine is 82689 J ) .The graph is not detailed enough to achieve quality of data close to 100 degC, where the largest power input is, but F&P had better data acquisition, and I am satisfied with their main claims, higher excess at higher temperatures. If it is 10% or 20% does not matter. The increase is interesting.

We may also note that the later Lonchampt [2] paper appreciate the difficulty in reading water levels during boiling, and therefore they calculated the excess heat from last fill to dry cell, as I have done in this case.

And also Lonchamp confirmed excess heat of various levels and up to 20% in the refill to dry period [2] , higher than my value.

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

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

[2] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf

Quote from Ascoli65

And until now you have been its most active promulgator:

I have never promulgated Ascoli's foam

It is an artefact of a grainy video

Don't expect me or anyone else to promulgate anon's foamy invention. DIY(anon)

In addition why would I promulgate anything from an anonymous source

In the scientific papers I write all references have to be verified