FP's experiments discussion

  • 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.


    OK, you don't say that entrainment needs to happen, but my comment was intended to overcome the Rothwell's objections to the entrainment issue, which imply that it is the only alternative to LENR as an explanation of apparent energy imbalance in the boil-off experiments of F&P.


    Since the first critiques raised by Morrison and others, who saw in the foam entrainment a possible explanation to close in a mundane way the energy balance, F&P opposed the fact that after the boil-off they recovered 95% of the initial alkali inventory.


    This argument has been opposed by Rothwell to anyone who tried to explain the XH with liquid entrainment:

    From http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf (Infinite Energy, July 1997)


    … Fleischmann explained to Steve Jones in September 1993: “One could say some of the D2O is dispelled as droplets (actually, we recover ~95% of the alkali by dissolving the residues and titrating; some is undoubtedly lost by irreversible reactions with the glass walls of the Dewars.)”

    […]

    … On the other hand, as far as is known, entrainment has never been observed to cause more than a minor error, no more than a few percent. We cannot imagine how it could carry off most of the water and cause 50% to 300% apparent excess, like that measured using boil-off calorimetry at IMRA and the French AEC. Rothwell asked Kennel how much apparent excess heat this artifact produced, but he did not respond. We suspect the NHE saw marginal artifactual heat, a few percent at most. They determined it was caused by entrainment and they decided to circulate the rumor than the same mechanism can explain Pons and Fleischmannʼs results too, as if foam could remove two-thirds of the water from the bottom of a tall test tube. Rothwell thinks the NHE researchers are casting about for a reason to discredit Pons and Fleischmann. They have not been able to replicate, so they want the world to believe there is nothing to replicate, it was all a mistake in the first place.


    Therefore, in order to reconcile the entrainment hypothesis with the alkali recovery, someone (I don't know who was the first) began to propose the recondensation mechanism, to which Rothwell opposed the usual argument until today, for instance in the following recent comment on L-F:


    From: Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there? (September 18, 2018)


    THHuxleynew wrote:

    This argument is wrong. Recondensation in a retort is expected and because the recondensed liquid is distilled this does not prevent the retort from working.


    The recondensed liquid does not leave the retort. It falls back in. If it left the retort, the distillate would have a lot of contamination, so the retort would not work. In this case, even recondensed water would have some salts from the walls, if it left the cell. Therefore this mechanism cannot produce apparent excess heat.


    Even if a tiny amount of recondensed water leaves the cell, it would not be enough to change the apparent heat balance to produce 100 W of spurious (artifact) heat. Given the input power to the cell, nearly all of water leaving the cell would have to be in liquid state for that to happen. It would be readily apparent to the naked eye. Contrary to what you say, steam at ~1 atm cannot push liquid water up an open tube, but even if we accept that it can -- for the sake of argument -- it cannot push up most of the liquid water in cell up. Nor is there any way that much water could recondense without nearly all of it falling back down.


    Well, we should admit that, on this specific aspect, Rothwell was right: recondensation can't explain the alleged excess heat in a mundane way. More generally, he was right in saying that no other entrainment mechanism, like those listed in my previous comment (1), can explain more than a few percent of apparent excess heat. On this point, I was wrong too, as admitted in the previous comment.


    What I wanted to say now is that the simplest and most effective mundane explanation of the apparent excess heat in the F&P boil-off experiment is their misrepresentation of the entire boil-off period or, as you have called it, the "mismeasurement due to wrong characterisation of water level". This alternative interpretation of the F&P results can easily explain both the 100% of the energy mismatch (minus the few percents of possible entrainment) and the 95% of salt recovery (whose deficit could be explained with the marginal entrainment which caused the progressive dilution of the electrolyte during the first period of heating up).


    What I propose to anyone, who is aimed at the desire to arrive at a general accepted interpretation of the F&P results reported in their 1992 paper, is to focus on this simple explanation, bringing some more argument which could help solving the last doubts.


    The clarification on the misrepresentation of the boiling phase would be immediate if we could access the original data logging and the entire video recording. It's probable that these data are still circulating in the LENR community. It would be necessary to bring them out.


    A suitable opportunity to do it and to review in deeper detail the old F&P experiments, would be the next "2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT" which is scheduled for the 30° anniversary of the F&P press conference. Isn't it? I'm not in the condition to launch such an initiative, but maybe some L-F members, who are primarily interested in knowing the truth and have some scientific authoritativeness, can do so. What do you think about?


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • It is difficult to imagine what mechanism should cause condensation in the midst of a steam flow. ITS fine with possible condensation on the tube glass wall, where water Runs back down in the cell, but inside the steam flow?


    Condensation release a lot of energy and I believe also the upper thermistors showed still temperature at Boiling, so condensation inside steam flow should not occur.

  • In any case, summing up all these mechanisms of liquid entrainment, their effect on the energy balance is negligible and cannot explain the alleged excess heat claimed in the F&P paper. With this respect I was wrong when, in September (1), I concluded that the entire excess heat "was easily attributable to the underestimation of the liquid content in the steam".

    Well, we should admit that, on this specific aspect, Rothwell was right: recondensation can't explain the alleged excess heat in a mundane way. More generally, he was right in saying that no other entrainment mechanism, like those listed in my previous comment (1), can explain more than a few percent of apparent excess heat. On this point, I was wrong too, as admitted in the previous comment.


    It takes a true gentleman to publicly admit you were wrong, and then be so gracious as to acknowledge your opponents in the debate; RB, Oystla, JR, and Wyttenbach, were right all along. Thanks for doing that instead of leaving us wondering.


    So now I take it that the "foam issue", and old grainy videos are dead? Now on to the the timing of the boil period.

  • robert bryant


    Well, I'll try to be brief. The issue is how much "excess" (out-in) energy is produced compared to the portion of the mass of the device which could be hiding conventional or high energy chemical fuel, batteries and so on. And it's helpful to consider the claim- no point evaluating it if the results are low enough that they could possibly be in the noise.


    There has to be confidence that those doing the experiments are both honest and competent (sorry, Rossi) and the work has to be reproducible by an entirely different set of unrelated honest and competent people. Every effort has to be made to detect sleight of hand, errors in measurement and other errors. Finally, the excess energy must be enough to remove all doubts about the measurement method. That's all reasonable doubts as assessed by a variety of observers from several different disciplines. If you want, I can give you some typical numbers based on Rossi's claims, Mizuno's or whoever you prefer if I can access the claim. Rossi's earliest ecats are the simplest to evaluate, based on Lewan's excellent (but not fussy enough) observations and reporting. An example of an experiment which would meet criteria for a high probability of being good evidence for LENR would have been Dr. Levi's cited above if he had chosen to repeat it with proper observation and documentation of materials, methods, data collection, etc. Of course, he chose not to do that, which is evidence against the experiment.


    BTW, I notice you did not answer my question. What do you think sufficiency depends on? If you have no idea, it's hardly worth discussing this with you.

  • No-one is saying here that entrainment (of the different types possible) needs to happen.


    You are saying it might have happened, but that is impossible. As I pointed out time after time, and as Fleischmann was quoted above, the salts were left in the cell, so no significant entrainment occured, and no other mechanism removed unboiled water from the cell. That's all there is to it.

  • Well, I'll try to be brief. The issue is how much "excess" (out-in) energy is produced compared to the portion of the mass of the device which could be hiding conventional or high energy chemical fuel, batteries and so on.


    Many cold fusion experiments, in many labs, have produced anywhere from 100 to 100,000 times more energy than any chemical device of the same size. There is no chemical fuel in any cold fusion cell. There are no chemical changes from the beginning of the experiment to the end. There is no significant source of chemical heat, yet many cells have produced as much heat as you would get if you burned all of the furniture in the room. (Or as much as a liter of gasoline.)


    No doubt you will say that is not enough, but your demand for more than 100 to 100,000 is absurd. Even if you acknowledge it has been met, you will only demand a million or a billion.

  • It takes a true gentleman to publicly admit you were wrong, and then be so gracious as to acknowledge your opponents in the debate; RB, Oystla, JR, and Wyttenbach, were right all along. Thanks for doing that instead of leaving us wondering.

    So now I take it that the "foam issue", and old grainy videos are dead? Now on to the the timing of the boil period.


    Thanks for the question, because it gives me the opportunity to better clarify what I meant in the comments from which you took the two quotes.


    I don't know how my words sound for a native English speaker, but your interpretation has gone way too far from my intentions.


    I specified in the first quotation what I admit I was wrong. It was only about the amount of the liquid entrainment, i.e. that it cannot explain the 100% of the excess heat claimed by F&P in their 1992 paper.


    Up to here, the withdrawal part of my comments. But …


    But, as said in the first comment, it happened that a much simpler and even more mundane explanation arose from a better analysis of the available documentation, and this alternative explanation is much worse for the authors of the 1992 paper and for the subsequent developments on the CF/LENR research based on their claims.


    I don't repeat here this alternative explanation, which is based on video evidences and the "foam issue", which are still alive arguments.


    So I'm sorry, but apart from the specific claims of JR that I quoted in the second comment, I still consider wrong all the other objections to the alternative interpretation that I proposed starting from October 31. Of course, I'm open to correct or even reconsider this last interpretation on the basis of well-founded and documented objections. I'm not here to defy the other members of the forum, I asked since the beginning their collaboration, even by means of criticisms to my hypothesis. I hope that all together we can find the truth about the 1992 experiment.


    The first step in finding a viable solution is to discard the fake ones.

  • Many cold fusion experiments, in many labs, have produced anywhere from 100 to 100,000 times more energy


    In contrast..... well funded hot fusion research has produced no device with a break even energy production in over 33 years of attempts and the

    the longest plasma is AFAIK well short of the 2 minute mark... so much for significant/sufficient energy and significant/sufficient time


    NAME

    Investment

    Start Date

    Breakeven?

    EMC2 FUSION

    $10 million

    1985

    Not yet

    General Fusion

    $100 million

    2002

    Not yet

    Wendelstein Stellerator

    1400 million

    1994

    Not yet

    LPP Fusion

    $5 million????

    2003

    Not yet

    TAE Technologies

    500 million

    1998

    Not yet

    Lockheed Compact Fusion

    5 million?????

    2010

    Not yet

    ITER (the way)

    15000 million

    2007

    Not yet

    Helion Energy

    $19 million

    2013

    Not yet

    MIT Commonwealth Fusion

    50 million

    2018

    Not yet



  • There are a few posters here whose opinions are quite consistent and predictable. Since this site supports various discussions about developments in the LANR research world, specific criticism of particular developments are very useful. Relentless criticism of those who "believe" to one extent or another is, in my opinion, "trolling." The relentless and strident conclusion that all LENR research efforts are either incompetent or fraudulent is not useful. We all know that many people have made that conclusion, and it is not only useful, it is necessary for the correct scientific outcome. It is simply boring and at times insulting to sincere researchers not here to defend themselves, and so some of us, as surrogates do so.


    I, for one remain skeptical (believe it or not M.Y. et. al.) I also believe that continued research in the area is vital, not because it will "pan out", but because if we stop looking for the next breakthrough discovery it will surely never occur.


    If this, or any other blog site was reduced to the "I believe in LENR because it just must be true" vs. "all LENR research is pointless and stupid" it would be a stupid as some of the political crap we all are exposed to. Please consider this: I see far more of the "all LENR research is pointless and stupid" posts than I see "I believe in LENR because it must be so" ones. If you, the moderators can restore a balance in this regard you will have gone a long way toward having a site that focuses un news and ideas regarding LENR research rather than an oh so lame rehash of the conclusions of the already decided.

    Gomp,


    Not sure I see what you see.

    For the most part, the majority of “skeptics”,

    Comments are formed around all things

    Andrea Rossi, NOT, LENR.


    If polled, I would expect that 60-65% of this blog suspects some kind of as yet undiscovered nuclear effect is what will be discovered if/when LENR comes out of the shadows.

  • My wish would be that someone followed up on the work done at SPAWAR


    Oystla,


    They did. That tech was first brought over to Larry Forsley's GEC, and now they are working with NASA. In fact, taking place this month is the first year progress assessment of the GEC/NASA GRC 10kW hybrid LENR space generator:


    SPAWAR JWK LENR and the claims made by Global Energy Corporation (GEC)


    NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator

  • Thanks Shane, was not aware of this. Exciting !


    I always found the work at SPAWAR impressive and an ingenious way of achieving the required D/Pd loading.

  • Analysis by pixels of final boil-off in Figures 6A-B-C-D


    One of the main difficulty in verifying the energy balance of the boil-off phase of each cell in the 1992 experiment, described in the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 (1), is the lack of graphs showing the trend of measured quantities - such as the cell temperature and voltage, and possibly the current - during a short period of about 1 day, in which the boil-offs occurred. The only graph of such kind present in the paper is Figure 8, which refers to the temperature of Cell 2.


    This lack obliged to use the graphs shown on Figure 6 A-D, which however are extended on the entire test period of about one months. This extended period compresses the relatively fast boil-off transient in a thin section, only a few pixels wide. However, the pixel counting provides some approximate but useful information about the timing of the final boil-off, as shown in the following jpeg:
    GS8Bshd.jpg


    The upper part shows the time equivalent of each pixel. When zoomed, the graphs in Figures 6 show their pixel structure. Between the timeline corresponding to 1500 and 2000 ks, there are about 83 pixels, so that each pixel corresponds to 6000 seconds or 1h40m. This is a very long period compared to the 10 minutes taken on page 16 of (1) to calculate the energy balance, actually each pixel is ten times longer than the boil-off period considered in the F&P calculation.


    In the middle of the jpeg, the upper parts of the 4 graphs in Figures 6 A to D are reported with a vertical compression of ½. The temperature curves are shown for periods when they are greater than 70 °C. This is the temperature around which a subcooled boiling starts at the electrodes. Under these conditions, the vapor bubbles condense before leaving the cell until the temperature approaches the boiling point. As explained in (2), the point at which the temperature curves change their curvature from positive to negative indicates that some vapor began to escape from the liquid phase and hence from the cell. This vaporization period ends when the cell temperature drops rapidly to ambient value after the cessation of any electrical input, due to cell dryout. The yellow bars provide a rough estimate of the length in pixels of these vaporization periods, which correspond to a time period which ranges from 10 to 18 hours.


    In the lower part of the jpeg, the same four graphs are presented with a much higher compression ratio in vertical direction, so that the entire voltage excursions are included. A dashed horizontal line indicates the voltage level of 22 V which, multiplied by 0.5 A of constant current, compensates for the radiative heat losses of 11 W calculated on page 16 of (1), when water is at boiling condition. Hence, at boiling, all the input power above 11 W is available for water vaporization.


    The duration in pixels of the period during which some input power is available for vaporization is reported above the graphs by means of green triangles, for the ramping up period, red rectangles, when the voltage hits the maximum value of 100 V and thinner orange bars, for periods in which the voltage remains greater than zero after having reached the maximum. The total periods during which some electric power is available for vaporization range from 7 to 11 pixels, i.e. from 12 to 18 hours. The periods of maximum power are shorter (1 or 2 pixels) and it's not possible to know how long the voltage remained at 100 V during these periods. Anyway, it would be sufficient for the voltage to remain at its maximum value of 100 V for an entire pixel (1h40m) to provide more energy than required to vaporize all the initial 5 moles of water.


    This very rough representation by pixel of temperature and voltage value shows how large the margins are to explain the total vaporization of water as due to the electrical energy fed into the cell, without invoking any extraordinary nuclear phenomenon. It also show how crucial the detailed information about the trend of temperature and voltage during the boil-off period are and how serious was the misrepresentation of the experimental data resulting from their omission.


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

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

  • Ascoli;


    I disagree with your point above.


    The purpose of Scientific papers is to present results of tests done, and to present enough data for other scientists to replicatte the study.


    The paper of F&P together with their previous papers referred to in the paper provides enough information to replicate the study by other scientists.


    The purpose of Scientific papers is not to provide all raw data so that other scientist can recalculate all their results in that particular study.


    So I do not see a big problem with their choice of data presentation.


    Other scientists could of course issue papers of crtitism and therefore challenge F&P to issue clarifying papers with more details. That's how the Scientific communication works.


    One example in this case is then the precise replication of Lonchampt, which indicated the same range of results..


    Ref. On purpose of papers;

    https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=83

  • Exciting !I always found the work at SPAWAR impressive and an ingenious way of achieving the required D/Pd loading.


    Thanks to Pam MB and Lawrence Forsley for their perseverance. This youtube may have been posted before, but it is worth reposting.

    Credits to MFMP, plus F&P . A deuterium plus U-238 fu-ission space engine.



    Of course U238 can via neutron capture transmute to U239 which has a nice low energy transition via a metastable state at about 20 keV.


    Perhaps Pam and Lawrence will need to add Clifford donuts to their quantum expresso calculations.


  • 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.


    As shown in the previous jpeg (1), a single horizontal pixel lasts 6000 s, i.e. 1h40m, 10 times the final period of 10 minutes considered by F&P! So it's impossible to say anything about the beginning of this last 10 minute period. Furthermore, as shown in the lower part of the above jpeg, all the graphs of Figures 6 are inclined, so that the height of the ends of the vertical lines depends of the amount of this inclination.


    Quote

    …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.


    The consideration of void fraction are necessary to explain the rapid increase of the cell voltage.


    As for the heat excess, its calculation is way off due to the fact that the authors didn't consider the entire boiling transient of each cell for calculating the total amount of input energy available for vaporization. This last value should have been obtained by integrating the instantaneous electric power (minus the heat loss and the electrolytic power) on the basis of the measured data of voltage and current.


    The only possible conclusion from the 1992 F&P paper is that it is full of errors and omissions.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion