1. Your refute where only your thoughts, no evidence of errors
Apart from the wrong reference to the video still in Figure 10 (A) (see my point 3 below), the other assumptions you made are not exactly errors. They are just arbitrary assumptions of plausible data which give a small excess heat of 15% (about the 4% of the value claimed by F&P) and that could easily became -15% (missing heat) simply by slightly changing some of these assumptions.
Overall, your analysis goes in right direction. It's the same approach I used a few months ago (1): extending the energy balance to the whole period of many hours during which the cell loses heat by evaporative cooling, because the electrolyte is near or at boiling temperature..
Your main error is methodological: thinking that an unbalance of +15% in an Energy Budget calculated by using the coarse data available on the F&P paper can be considered evidence of the presence of excess heat. This unbalance is only the results of inaccuracies in the input data and, hence, the proof that there has not been any excess heat.
2. " So, your Energy Budget calculation would show that F&P were 96% wrong (the percentage difference between their 385% and your 15%)."
Well, your are wrong. F&P calculated ove the last 10 minutes, while I calculated over 10 hrs. And since I show an increase of energy and power density at higher temperatures, both F&P and myself may be correct, its just math
Yes, it's just excess heat produced by math! You can't rely on these arguments to demonstrate the generation of excess heat. The F&P approach was wrong, yours is right and provides a substantial equivalence between input and output, the mismatch being due to the inaccuracy of the data.
3. "you took the initial time of 11:30 from the video still on Figure 10. "
No I did not. I used the graph from the last Dip in temperature= last refill and until the end of electrolysis. The delta seconds is easy to calculate, and if we know when the test ended, we know the time of refill
You know, its just math
Are you kidding me? Please, don't mix math with cunning.
There is no way to estimate a half hour time from a graph whose single pixel has a duration of 1h40m (2).
In your previous post (3) you wrote: "1.Refill time: 11:30 as taken from the Video linked in the F&P Paper". So, you mentioned the Video in the Paper. The only video images in the paper are shown in the four video stills of Figure 10 and the video still on Figure 10(A) has precisely the time 11:30:07 stamped on it.
4. "F&P didn't provide enough data to support their claims". "They had all the experimental data, but they avoided to make them public in a sufficiently detailed form."You completely misunderstand the meaning of Scientific papers. They are there to present the overall data, what they did and discussions, NOT present all raw data.
I disagree. F&P concluded their paper saying that "excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input". This is a very extraordinary claim. Isn't it? But the alternative and trivial interpretation of their experimental data is that the electric energy input was sufficient to evaporate all the water.
Well, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences" means that all the margins of uncertainty in the disclosed data play in favor of the most trivial interpretation. If you want to demonstrate that your extraordinary claims are real you must provide adequate data. Keeping the raw data hidden, can be only interpreted unfavorably to the extraordinary claim.