FP's experiments discussion

  • Much of the same material is covered in the Lumanauw MS Thesis which you can freely access. This reference also covers the details of bubble formation and combination and talks about gas holdup that causes layers of “froth.” (See p. 92)

    D. Lumanauw, Hydrogen bubble characterization in alkaline water electrolysis, 2000

    https://tspace.library.utoront…/1807/14070/1/MQ54129.pdf


    Thanks a lot, Robert. Suggesting this thesis, you provided the second fundamental contribution to this discussion, in addition to the link to the "IMRA time lapse" video.


    Figure 4.14, showing the froth structure model, is very enlightening and should definitively close the long controversy about the build-up of foam inside the F&P cells.


    Your considerations are interesting too, but let me add a couple of observations.


    Quote

    In the 1992 paper, the long steady increase in voltage at constant current is due to increasing bubble volume. By using a constant current source, bubbles increase resistance which increases voltage which in turn creates more bubbles in a positive feedback loop until eventual thermal runaway.


    The positive feedback mechanism you have described applies for sure in the last part of the experimental evolution of each cell, after the start of boiling on the hottest spots of the electrode surfaces, when water temperature is about 70°C. I doubt it could have affected the previous period of slow increase, because before the water starts to boil, the amount of bubbles produced is strictly related to the current, which is constant. The slow voltage increase in this period is probably due to the dilution of the electrolyte caused by the daily filling up of pure heavy water, to compensate for the loss due to electrolysis. As noted by Wilson, part of this loss can be attributed to the liquid entrained in the gas stream at the exit.

    From http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…AnalysisOfExperiments.pdf


    The areas were decreased as a function of time to accommodate the 5.5 ml day-’ of H,O addition required to restore the electrolyte level. (This is somewhat higher than the 4.9 ml day-i loss resulting from electrolysis at 0.6 A. The excess is no doubt due to evaporation and droplets in the vapor caused by bubbling. This 10% volume effect of evaporation translates to a 1.2% evaporative energy loss. The experimental observations were not corrected for this.)


    Quote

    The Fleischmann graph in Fig. 8C shows the lowest power as .862 W at 200 ma which would make V0 = 4.31 V.


    There is probably a typo. It should be .882 W in Figure 6C.


    Quote

    The enthalpy calculation starts when the cell is supposed to be half empty. During the last 10 minutes, the average power is 37.5W at .5A which makes the average voltage 75V. We can assume conservatively that the voltage ramps linearly during that time from 50V to the final value of 100V.


    I would suggest to avoid guessing the trend of cell voltage on the basis of the info contained on page 16 of the F&P paper (1). Unless you know the real trend from the original data logging, it's impossible to know what happened in the last 10 minutes. Moreover, we don't even know the cell to which the data of page 16 refer.


    Quote

    Using 1.54V for V0, if the start of the last half-cell boil off is 50V, then at that time Vratio = 1.54/50 = .031. Using equation (B1), the void fraction at that time is .95 (only 5% liquid).


    This is an interesting approach for a first rough estimation, but we should consider that the Maxwell relationship was derived for a homogeneous distribution of bubbles, which is not the case of the F&P cells, especially during the last minutes of the boil-off. Actually, during this period of time, the videos show a lower thin transparent (i.e. mostly liquid) layer whose thickness progressively reduces to zero. Therefore, the voltage increase may also depend from a strong increase in current density, as shown in Figure 1.3 of the Lumanauw thesis.


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

  • The original issue Ascoli have raised wrt how much water was boiled off in the last 10 minutes is only intersting wrt how much excess heat there really are at elevated temperatures: Very high, medium or low excess ?


    Answer: NO excess. ZERO. Even the 10 minutes period has no sense, it's a pure invention.


    Quote

    Also to note: Fleischmann was very well aware of pitfalls and possible issues, and answered and investigated all criticism they were presented.


    Well, looking at this letters to Miles written from England while the experiment we are talking about was underway in France, it seems that he was very active in asking others to answer the criticisms to his work:

    From: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf

    21 April 1992

    Dear Mel,

    [---]

    [Following is the letter to Stan Szpak and Giuliano Preparata that Fleischmann copied to Miles]

    Let me now turn first of all to a possible way of dealing with Douglas Morrison’s “Cold Fusion Update No. 6”. Some of the other commentaries can be taken on board in a preliminary way in any document we may wish to circulate about this article. This would not stop us from writing further about these commentaries at a later date.

    We start with a summary, list of subjects and general introduction written by M.F. This would be written in a very neutral and Olympian way. […]

    […]

    Section 1 will deal with Douglas Morrison’ commentary on the G.E. Paper and should be written by S.P. This could start with a statement of facts, the main point being that Douglas Morrison’s statement that we have not written a rebuttal is incorrect.

    […]

    Section 2 will deal with Douglas Morrison’s comments on the neutron measurements in the Kamiokande detector. In many ways the ideal person to do this is Hideo Ikegami and I believe that he is really obliged to do so since he spoke at Frascati about this topic.

    […]

    Section 3 Since this section is supposedly about the work at SRI, we should ask Mike McKubre to comment.

    […]

    Section 4 I would suggest that Melvin Miles should comment on 4.1 and he might as well go on to 4.2 as well. Perhaps we would like to question what the “fatal problems with the calibration procedures” might have been in a system which has been so “beautifully instrumented”.

    I believe that Takahashi could comment on Section 4.3 but Mel could do this equally well.

    […]

    Section 5 I am A.N. Other 57 should state that articles which are sent out on the bit net should have proper references.

    […]

    Section 6 I believe that Tulio should comment on this section.

    […]

    Section 7 I would like to add a Section on “Sins of Omission and Hallmarks of Excellence” which I believe should be written by Melvin Miles.

    […]

    Section 8 This should be the concluding section and could be another Olympian statement by myself.


    So, MF left to himself only the Olympian introduction and conclusions of a collective response to the criticisms raised by only one person.


    Quote

    But the evidence of excess heat persisted even at their later work, as presented in the Icarus paper [2], They even state in this one “Foam rise in the calorimeter at the boiling temperature has been minimized.”


    The major evidence in this paper is that its authors have disavowed the previous MF declarations about the absence of foam in the F&P open cells.


    Quote

    And the Lonchampt precise replication paper also prove excess heat [3]


    It only proves that Lonchampt precisely replicated also the F&P errors.


    Quote

    So the Hypothesis of Ascoli that F&P where wrong in the 2,5 moles of water the last 10 minutes is I consider weak.


    Weak is a unexpected good progress. You are on the right track. :)


    Quote

    But I will not discard the possibility that the water level may have been somewhat lover, But even 50% lower water content would still result in significant levels of excess heat, i.e. the F&P hypothesis of increased excess heat at higher temperatures would still hold.


    There is a much simpler method to estimate how much water was present at the beginning of the last 10 minutes, assuming that you know which last 10 minutes of which cell you are talking about. Find out how much electric energy was fed in this period, remove the heat lost by radiation, calculate how much water could have evaporated by the remaining heat and you get best possible estimate.

  • My claim that you refer to is that water that has been "boiled" - transitioned to vapour state - could still leave the cell calorimetric boundary in a condensed (liquid) state.

    I recall you said this would be in the form of droplets being pushed up by vapor pressure. I pointed out this is impossible for several reasons, which you ignored, mainly:


    The vapor pressure is a tiny fraction higher than 1 atm. It cannot push anything. The cell outlet is far too wide for it to build up any measurable pressure.


    It would have to lose so much water the droplets moving up would be readily visible. There would be macroscopic quantities of water moving up.


    No liquid water falls out of the top of the cell onto the surroundings. (Yes, they did check for that.)


    Most important: The energy balance is zero during calibrations. How could your mechanism only work with Pd-D2O in cells that produced excess heat before and after the boil off event?



    To be blunt, your hypothesis is impossible nonsense.

  • The many F&P reported cal tests never entered boil-off mode. I'm happy to take such calibration evidence if you can find it anywhere in F&P's published output?

    The Pd-H blanks did enter boil off mode, and so did Biberian's. Furthermore many of the Pd-D cells did not work. They boiled off without producing excess heat before, during or after the event. I am sure this was reported by P&F, and I am also sure they told me, in person, and described it at conferences. But I cannot find the papers describing it. My search programs do not always work, and I do not have every paper in electronic format. So, you will have to take my word for it.


    Do you really, seriously think that two of the most accomplished electrochemists of the 20th century would not calibrate?

  • My search programs do not always work, and I do not have every paper in electronic format.

    Some of the papers from F&P and Biberian describe how water is left in the bottom of the cell during calibrations, because it stops boiling the moment the liquid falls below the cathode. I am sure this is in some of the papers but it is not something I can search for with a simple search technique. (Electronic searching has its limits. AI will help in the future.)

  • Some of the papers from F&P and Biberian describe how water is left in the bottom of the cell during calibrations, because it stops boiling the moment the liquid falls below the cathode. I am sure this is in some of the papers but it is not something I can search for with a simple search technique. (Electronic searching has its limits. AI will help in the future.)


    AI will tell you that the cells used in the experiments for which water is left on the bottom, because liquid falls below the cathode, are of the model shown in Figure 1 of the 1992 F&P paper, where the cathode is suspended above the Kel-F support, but that the four cells used in the 1992 experiment were different and the electrodes were resting on the support (1).


    On request, the AI will also explain why in this last model of cell the liquid cannot fall below the cathode.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • Ascoli, "The major evidence in this paper is that its authors have disavowed the previous MF declarations about the absence of foam in the F&P open cells."


    Well, NO, they have always been aware of foam and bubbles , as described by Fleischmann [ 1]


    "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.)."

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

  • Ascoli: "There is a much simpler method to estimate how much water was present at the beginning of the last 10 minutes......"


    Like your method? Take pictures of some old fuzzy videos, interpret light shining on the cells as foam, disregard the differente behaviour of of calibration cells, blank cells vs cells exhibiting excess heat, assume F&P lacked knowledge or disregarded obvious artifacts of droplet carry over, foam,...


    Ascoli:"...seems that he was very active in asking others to answer the criticisms to his work":


    No, Fleischmann answerred critisism of his own work, and let others answer critisism of their work, like Mckubre answer ciritism of Mckubre's work.



    FP's experiments discussion


  • Again, Fleischmann where very well avare of the role of vold fraction and ITS implication on the voltage, as referred to in my prevoius posts.


    Also, the void fraction you explain above would we in the path of electricity between the anode and the cathode.


    The highest void fraction would be in the shortest distance between the anode and cathode, and Gradually reduced void fraction further away to achieve same resistance over the longer path of electricity.


    And If the cathode exhibited film Boiling, your analysis would be wrong, but the consequence the same, increased voltage, as stated by Fleischmann at several occations.


    The void fraction may therefore be much lower elsewhere in the cell, i.e higher water content in the cell, than your analysis shows, i.e. 50% filled cell at the start of the last 10 minutes is still possible.



    FP's experiments discussion

  • There is probably a typo. It should be .882 W in Figure 6C.

    I would suggest to avoid guessing the trend of cell voltage on the basis of the info contained on page 16 of the F&P paper (1). Unless you know the real trend from the original data logging, it's impossible to know what happened in the last 10 minutes. Moreover, we don't even know the cell to which the data of page 16 refer.

    This is an interesting approach for a first rough estimation, but we should consider that the Maxwell relationship was derived for a homogeneous distribution of bubbles, which is not the case of the F&P cells, especially during the last minutes of the boil-off. Actually, during this period of time, the videos show a lower thin transparent (i.e. mostly liquid) layer whose thickness progressively reduces to zero. Therefore, the voltage increase may also depend from a strong increase in current density, as shown in Figure 1.3 of the Lumanauw thesis.

    You are right that the .862 was a typo. Using .882 W, that calculation would change V0 from 4.31 to 4.41.


    Also, you are correct that we have no way to know the exact voltage at the beginning of the final 10 minute period. In the graphs of Fig 6, the width of the vertical voltage line represents about 50 minutes according to my measurements - it is certainly more than 10 minutes. However, in all four graphs you can clearly see that it hits 50V before the last jog of the vertical line to the right, meaning that the last 10 minute period must start at 50V or more. Using 50 is still conservative.

    I did find a math error though. We cannot use 1.54V for V0 because of the way I assumed the same current for the initial and final conductance. Instead, we need to use the minimum voltage that could drive .5A. In Fig 6C, that is at power 3.355W or 6.71V. Rerunning the numbers, that changes the result to being off by a factor of 2.7 instead of 10. The COP comes to 1.83 and the results are not so clear. There are still several other errors, like using 10 min in the calculation while the text says it took 11 min, the overestimate of enthalpy out due to remaining liquid after boil off, the uncertainty in the voltages, and the distribution of the bubbles. But it still seems pretty clear that the paper calculation of excess energy is way off due to omitting any consideration of void fraction.


    As you say, this is still just a rough estimate due to the fact that the bubbles will not be evenly distributed throughout the remaining liquid.

  • It is true that the calculation assumes that bubbles between anode and cathode have about the same distribution as elsewhere. But the cell construction has the anode surrounding the cathode, and the bubbles need to rise up to fill most of the area above the cathode to exit. It is clearly just an estimate, but seems unlikely to be wrong by factors of 2 or more which would be needed to make the paper's conclusion correct.


    Regarding film boiling, I do not see how that could increase the resistance by that much. Do you have a reference?


    Also remember that the high voltage and resistance starts a full day before the final 10 minute period. If it started to boil then, the liquid would boil off long before the final 10 minutes.


    And if the cell is boiling furiously, the bubbles are displacing liquid and you can no longer use the liquid levels (even if correctly measured in the videos) to determine the liquid volume. The paper completely ignores this factor.

  • Huxley, "Also remember that the high voltage and resistance starts a full day before the final 10 minute period."


    A day before ?


    I did a similar analysis as Lonchampt at one point, and found some 15% excess from last fill of cell to cell was dry:


    For last refill of cell 1, the cell was at approx. 19 Volts at araound 12:00, and the cell was dry at 22:25...,, ref.


    FP's experiments discussion

  • Horst: "Regarding film boiling, I do not see how that could increase the resistance by that much. Do you have a reference? "


    Assuming there is LENR happening in the cathode, it should get very hot, and I believe could create film Boiling, a gaseous layer on the cathode should increase the resistance a fair amount. How much? Depends on the conditions I would think, like gas layer thickness.


    Also there is another indication of hot cathodes in live cells:


    After the current was turned off the cathodes had high temperatures for hours, while blank cells dropped off immediately.

  • Regarding possible carry over during Boiling, here is one comment from Fleischmann on that issue:


    "Douglas Morrison first of all raises the question whether parts of the cell contents may have been expelled as droplets during the later stages of intense heating. This is readily answered by titrating the residual cell contents: based on our earlier work about 95% of the residual lithium deuteroxide is recovered; some is undoubtedly lost in the reaction of this “aggressive” species with the glass components to form residues which cannot be titrated."


    Ref.

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…eischmann-and-pons-reply/



  • No-one is saying here that entrainment (of the different types possible) needs to happen. Only that if the apparent heat balance is wrong, entrainment is one possible reason for the discrepancy. LENR is another, as is mismearurement due to wrong chracterisation of water level. Before reaching for LENR all the mundane possibilities such as entrainment need to be considered and ruled out (that means careful sympathetic consideration, rather than blanket dismissal). Thus it is fair to give mundane mechanisms here the same careful and sympathetic attention that people on this site would most likely give to an LENR hypothesis.


    More generally, the F&P experiment had very different condition at different times, so all these arguments need to restricted to specific conditions where they can more accurately be estimated, and not generalised over other conditions - as some the the argument above appears to be doing.

  • Quote

    This topic has been flogged to the point of exhaustion, and since contests between the unproven and the improbable seldom bear any edible fruit, suggest that you guys call it a day.

    I agree completely. And my earlier point was that if LENR could be reliably and reproducibly demonstrated to produce substantial and significant amounts of excess heat for sufficient time and/or could self run for significant time, none of these arguments would make sense and neither would lack of acceptance of funding by the general scientific community. Vague and arguable results won't cut it after all these years. Same applied to Steorn and same applies to BLP/Mills.