F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

  • Put it on a scale, fill it with 90 cm3 of water, switch the power on and regulate the voltage in order to roughly reproduce the actual power curve measured during the 1992 experiment. Then see how long it takes to evaporate all the water mass and tell it us.


    It should be 40 ml, not 90. If you recreate the 1992 experiment, it will take 20 minutes. The input power curve will not give the same performance because there was analous power. During this phase of the experiment the power is derived from time it takes to boil away. It is not the input power. If you put in less than input plus anomalous power, it will take longer. Put in considerably less and you will not see the vapor bubbles, so it will not look like the video.

  • The document (1) as you describe yourself is mainly dedicated to cell calibratiuons, i.e. heat transfer. And that is also the main point.


    Yes, the 2006 publication (1) collected several paper, most of which were dedicated to calibration, an aspect that, if the 1989 claims of F&P were valid, wouldn't have required a document of more than 250 pages 17 years later!


    Anyway, the 2006 collection contained also a paper dedicated to the long-awaited practical application of CF. This paper, titled "More about Positive Feedback; more about Boiling" was nothing else than the paper presented by MF at the ICCF5 (2), held in April 1995 in Monte Carlo. So, regardless of the purpose of the collection where it was inserted in 2006, the specific paper from which I took the sentence about the different times evaluated for the boil-off was dedicated to the practical application of the FPE, those at high temperature.


    Quote

    The video where used as a separate source of information. If they used too low atmospheric pressure the cell would have to be half empty 2,5 hrs before visual empty from the video. But that would again lead to conclude a heat transfer coefficient that gradually reduced, which was not observed in their calibrations.


    Their method to calculate the evaporation by means of the saturation pressure, was totally inadequate, even though it provided a less erroneous estimation of the time required to boil-off half of the water mass. It's not just me who affirm this. Lonchampt explained the reason for this inadequateness:

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

    Relation (1) is valid when there is no calibration pulses, and not at boiling, where the analysis using this approach becomes difficult because the denominator of (3) is close to zero as the temperature approaches boiling and water vapor pressure is close to the atmospheric pressure. At boiling, a different analysis is made which is described below.


    Quote

    But as Fleischmann states in (1), The actual true result will be somewhere between 2,5 hrs and 10 minutes boiling, as stated above, but closest to the 10 minutes, ref figure below.


    Really? Starting from page 180 of (1), corresponding to page 146 of (2), I read these words: "Secondly, we conclude that the cell would then have to have been half-empty some 2.5 hours before achieving "boiling to dryness", whereas video recordings show that this point was reached some 11 minutes before "boiling to dryness"."


    And eventually, the actual value F&P used in their calculation on Page 16 of the ICCF3 paper (3) was 10 minutes, which doesn't at all stay somewhere between 2.5 hours and 11 minutes. You have even more imagination than F&P! The above sentence simply confirms that F&P privileged the information derived from the video, as they explicitly written also in the ICCF3 paper.


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

    (2) http://coldfusioncommunity.net…ds/2018/08/140__ICCF5.pdf

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

  • Their major paper ?


    I thought we just agreed that the 21 pages 1992 paper is an important paper on road to practical implementation of Cold fusion utilization in society, I.e. it proved the increase of Power and energy densities at elevated temperature.


    F&P used the years after 1990 to identifiy possible ways of increased excess energy for practical applications.


    But the major F&P paper in the science of Cold Fusion, is the 58 pages 1990 paper (1) , and there should be no doubt.

    • JedRothwell likes this.


    Cunning again?


    With reference to the 1990 paper, you proposed to consider it "the most important Scientific F&P paper" (1) and I answered "It could be a good way to distinguish the 1990 and 1992 papers" (2), meaning that if the 1990 paper is the most important "scientific" paper, the 1992 one is the most important "applicative" one. I didn't say that the former is most important than the latter. In my view, it is true the contrary. Utah and Japan, and later, in a lesser extent, Italy, paid the consultancies of F&P, and a lot of millions for the research on their alleged FPE, for obtaining a practical application, not for filling hundreds of pages with calibration diagrams and relative speculations.


    Anyway, you can have your own idea, or even change it, like Rothwell, who wrote last August that the 1992 paper was the MF's "major paper" (3) and has just liked your comment, which was aimed to privilege instead the 1990 seminal paper. Whatever you think about the 1990 paper, the situation for the F&P's 1992 paper doesn't change: it is wrong.


    (1) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

    (2) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

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

  • the 1992 one is the most important "applicative" one. Post 184

    "boil off experiments:, 1992 The only practical application of FPHE ever published"

    Post158 =F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement


    DISTORTION!!!

    The 1992 paper was NEVER a "practical application"

    The Dewar testtube setup was a research tool.

    .

    Notice that Ascoli65 distorts even its own words.

    Post158 = "ONLY practical application " is distorted to "applicative" in Post 184 .

    The Brillouin boiler is application...not Dewar testtubes.

    What does the weasel word "applicative " mean? A whole range of ambiguity.

    Even the term ADHD is "applicative". It can be applied to Ascoli65.

    ADHD-Ascolian Distortional Hyper Dysfunction.

  • Their method to calculate the evaporation by means of the saturation pressure, was totally inadequate, even though it provided a less erroneous estimation of the time required to boil-off half of the water mass. It's not just me who affirm this. Lonchampt explained the reason for this inadequateness"

    you misunderstand the point made by both F&P and Lonchampt.


    Lonchampt referred to the water vapor pressure, not the atmospheric pressure. There is no problem in measuring atmospheric pressure accurately at three decimals, 0,966 bar vs. 0,953 bar.


    Lonchampt use the term with saturation pressure up to 99 degC, but above 99 degC, they instead choose to calculate the energy to evaporate the total amount of water.


    And by the way, it is interesting that also Lonchampt show a general trend of increased excess heat at higher temperatures :)


    But as a theoretical approach the vapor pressure term would be included at all temperatures,as F&P showed in their more advanced mathematical approach. And F&P proved mathematically in their figure 7 that at atmospheric pressure of 0,953 bar the Kr (the heat transfer coefficient) calculated would have to gradually reduce 8 hrs before totally empty cell and. In such case the cell would have to be half full 2,5 hrs before empty.


    They argue that this approach is unlikely, since the heat transfer coefficient did not show marked reductions hrs before Boiling and it meant there would be no Boiling the last period (Boiling would reduce the time to empty), and the measured atmospheric pressure where higher than 0,953 bar

  • you misunderstand the point made by both F&P and Lonchampt.


    Lonchampt referred to the water vapor pressure, not the atmospheric pressure. There is no problem in measuring atmospheric pressure accurately at three decimals, 0,966 bar vs. 0,953 bar.


    No. Lonchampt referred to both. He noticed that the denominator of the relation [3] of his paper (1), that is the difference (P*-P) between the atmospheric pressure (P*) and saturation pressure (P) at the cell temperature (that he erroneously called "the water pressure at the temperature of the bath"), goes to zero as cell temperature approaches the boiling value, therefore this relationship can't be used without introducing huge errors.


    Quote

    Lonchampt use the term with saturation pressure up to 99 degC, but above 99 degC, they instead choose to calculate the energy to evaporate the total amount of water.


    Yes, Lonchampt has wisely choosen to calculate the energy balance in the boiling region by using his relation [6], which is equivalent to the calculations on Page 16 of the F&P paper (2). But unlike F&P, who arbitrarily and erroneously applied this method to the supposed last 10 minutes of boil-off, Lonchampt applied this method starting from the moment when "temperature reaches a value close to boiling, i.e. typically 99 to 101°C", that is for the whole period of many hours during which the water in the cell was boiling.


    However this Lonchampt's criterion to mark the onset of boiling is still inadequate: the boiling on the electrode surfaces begins when the water bulk temperature is lower than 99°C. A better criterion would have been to start from the moment when the input power becomes greater that the 9-11 W estimated as the heat losses by radiation/conduction.


    Quote

    And by the way, it is interesting that also Lonchampt show a general trend of increased excess heat at higher temperatures


    In each diagram shown in the Lonchampt paper (1), the label "Excess Heat" must be changed to "Energy Unbalance" or, even better, "Balance Error". The same holds for his relations [1] and [6].


    Quote

    But as a theoretical approach the vapor pressure term would be included at all temperatures,as F&P showed in their more advanced mathematical approach. And F&P proved mathematically in their figure 7 that at atmospheric pressure of 0,953 bar the Kr (the heat transfer coefficient) calculated would have to gradually reduce 8 hrs before totally empty cell and. In such case the cell would have to be half full 2,5 hrs before empty.


    They argue that this approach is unlikely, since the heat transfer coefficient did not show marked reductions hrs before Boiling and it meant there would be no Boiling the last period (Boiling would reduce the time to empty), and the measured atmospheric pressure where higher than 0,953 bar


    The only thing F&P proved in their Fig.7C of (2) (I guess you are referring to this specific diagram) is their inability to make an energy balance!


    Fig.7C is wrong with many respects, starting from erroneous indication of the cell dryness at the time of about 1656 ks, despite the lab video indicates a time of around 1655 ks, that is about 9000 s after the time indicated in Fig.7C.


    Fig.7C shows the values of (k'R)11 calculated by the following relation [4] of (2).

    zG8Fopc.jpg


    The numerator contains 3 terms:

    1 - the energy input due to electrolysis;

    2 - the energy content of the gas stream, including the heat carried away by the steam which is supposed to saturate the gas bubbles produced by electrolysis;

    3 - the change in the enthalpy content of the calorimeter due to the increase of its temperature.


    Looking more deeply at the second term, the presence of the difference between the specific heat of gaseous and liquid D2O is questionable, in fact Lonchampt didn't include it in his equivalent relation [3] of (1). But this is a minor issue.


    The big problem is that the second term is evidently inadequate to account for the energy losses due to evaporation during boiling, for the following two reasons:

    a - the factor P/(P*-P) goes to infinite (as already said);

    b - and, most importantly, this term only accounts for the vapor which saturates the gas bubble produced by electrolyses, it doesn't account for the vapor carried out by the bubbles directly produced by boiling!


    In other words, in their major paper (2) - which, as stated in the abstract, "concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1kWcm-3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution" - F&P incredibly omitted to consider, in their calorimeter model, the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling!


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

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

  • The video shows the bubbles are large enough to see.


    Which specific video are you talking about? Is it one of those published? At which time it shows these bubbles? Just to know what you mean by large bubbles.


    Quote

    Many unpublished videos and photos I have seen confirm that.


    So, you are confirming once again that there are other visual documents of the boil-off experiment around. Aren't you? Could you explain us why these documents are not made public, while people are asked to believe in the extraordinary phenomenon they would confirm?


    Quote

    You seem to think the bubbles are foam, but you are incorrect. You also seem to think that the bubbles from electrolysis are boiling, but they are not.


    No, it's not so. I've already explained my interpretation about the different boiling regimes at various stages of the boil-off experiment (1).


    I'm aware that there are 3 types of bubbles:

    - hydrogen gas bubbles rising from the cathode surface;

    - oxygen gas bubbles rising from the anode surface;

    - steam vapor bubbles originating from nucleate boiling on the hottest part of both the cathode and the anode surfaces.


    The first two types are produced by electrolysis. These bubbles are very small and numerous. Their total volume depends essentially on the electric current and doesn't change significantly with temperature, even if they carry some steam. These small bubbles rise up to the water surface, where a part of them forms a progressively growing layer of thick foam.


    The steam bubbles are initially very small and rise through the lower and transparent column of liquid water, then they enter the foam layer contributing to increase its width. As the vapor production increases due to the increase of the electric current, the vapor bubbles become greater and, after having crossed the liquid layer, they enter the foam, swelling its volume and continuing to rise up to the cell top. Beyond a certain rate of steam production, the vapor is no longer confined to bubbles, but it chaotically follows some almost continuous paths to cross first the lower water and then the upper foam, causing in both cases a large apparent increase of their volume.


    None of these behaviors, which cause a strong reduction of the liquid fraction within the apparently filled part of the cell, was taken into account by F&P in their calculation of the energy balance on Page 16 of their ICCF3 paper (2).


    (1) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/2746-fp-s-experiments-discussion/?postID=98910#post989

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

  • - F&P incredibly omitted to consider, in their calorimeter model, the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling!


    My guess is that Ascoli65 has NO CALCULATION in Watts for


    the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling!.

    Perhaps it is just meaningless rhetoric, lets wait a few hours, days ?...time in Italy ~9 pm


  • Please Ascoli, do not try to be an electrochemist 😉


    And there is a difference in mathematical theoretical calculations and practical measurements.


    By making theoretical calculations we may identify the borders and expected results.


    Anyhow:


    P is partial pressure which applies to the cell temperature; P* is the atmospheric pressure and L is the enthalpy of evaporation of D2O.


    I.e you are wrong If you understand the above 😉


    The suggestion that Fleischmann forgot the vapor from Boiling in his mathematics is the best comment so far 🤣😅😜



  • The suggestion that Fleischmann forgot the vapor from Boiling in his mathematics is the best comment so far


    I guess if Ascoli65 provides a revelatory calculation of the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling

    then the rhetoric may have some substantial base.

    CALCULATION speaks more clearly than loud rhetoric. Time in Italy 10.30 pm.

  • The suggestion that Fleischmann forgot the vapor from Boiling in his mathematics is the best comment so far 🤣😅😜


    It is one of the most astounding "skeptical" comments I have read in a long time. Worthy of a Morrison Award. The whole point of the paper was to measure enthalpy based on the heat of vaporization!


  • Lande, are you really a chemical process engineer?


    Please, can you explain the physical meaning of the second term (the one with P, P* and L) in the numerator of the formula [4] included in my previous post (1), so that I too can understand how good was my comment and laugh with (or of) you?


    (1) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5850-f-p-s-experiments-%E2%80%93-30-years-after-cf-announcement/?postID=106281#post106281

  • Lande, are you really a chemical process engineer?

    time in Italy 12.27 am

    Ascoli65 questions others, but has NO CALCULATION to support its RHETORIC

    - F&P incredibly omitted to consider, in their calorimeter model, the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling!

    Ascoli65 has had 3.5 hours

    What is Ascoli65's alternative CALCULATION for "the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling!"

    What's watts??

  • It is one of the most astounding "skeptical" comments I have read in a long time. Worthy of a Morrison Award. The whole point of the paper was to measure enthalpy based on the heat of vaporization!


    Yes, I know, I reminded it in the blue phrase of my comment.


    Now, please, read again the end of that blue comment (F&P incredibly omitted to consider, in their calorimeter model, the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling!) and show me where, in the calorimeter model described in the F&P paper (1), a term appears that takes into account the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling, by indicating the number (from [1] to [8]) of the equation which contains it.


    It is substantially the same question I asked you last September (2). Have you found in the meantime the equation or do you hope oystla will find it for you?


    Btw, I don't know what the Morrison Award is, but please apply for the award, in one case or another someone here is eligible for winning it.


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

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

  • (F&P incredibly omitted to consider, in their calorimeter model, the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling!) and show me where

    Ascoli65 needs to show where Ascoli65 accounts for

    the enthalpy loss due to vapour

    in ITS CALCULATION.

    Perhaps there is NO CALCULATION.

    It must be a difficult CALCULATION

    because Ascoli65 has had four hours.

    Time in Italy 12.50 am. Days until 23 March =~10

  • Lande, are you really a chemical process engineer?


    Please, can you explain the physical meaning of the second term (the one with P, P* and L) in the numerator of the formula [4] included in my previous post (1), so that I too can understand how good was my comment and laugh with (or of) you?


    (1) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5850-f-p-s-experiments-%E2%80%93-30-years-after-cf-announcement/?postID=106281#post106281


    Are you serious ^^:D ?


    Ascoli just found the reason for F&P's "Excess Heat" calculations since the 1980's: They forgot to include the energy term for water vapor produced in their mathematical model for the calorimeter ^^:D.


    Why are you bothering doing this "research" when you do not understand electrochemistry ?


    I suggest you read the paper once more.


    Or even better, you could read their Major paper on the subject, the 1990 paper (1) . You see the term for water vapor would always be required, also for their work below boiling ;)



    (1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf


  • In your post, in addition to your usual provocations,, you have shown the calculations on Page 16 of the F&P paper (1), highlighting the formula referring to the Enthalpy Output in Vapour.


    Now, read again what I wrote to Rothwell on last September, in particular the phrases I have underlined now for you:

    From Ascoli65 to JedRothwell on September 29, 2018 - FP's experiments discussion


    Actually, I'm referring to the claims contained in the "major paper" of Fleischmann (1), the co-founder of CF. This document is the cornerstone of the whole CF/LENR building, and it is wrong. Badly wrong.


    This document deals with boiling, as stated in the 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."


    An example of calculation of these alleged "high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation" is contained on page 16. The procedure includes the computation of the "Enthalpy Output in Vapour" that is derived by a (incorrect) formula which is not even included in the calorimetric model described from page 3 onwards. How can a model be applied to the boil off segment of an experiment if it does not include the formula used to compute the balances of mass and enthalpy?


    All the formulas of the calorimetric model are numbered, can you please tell me the number which corresponds to the formula used at page 16 to calculate the "Enthalpy Output in Vapour"?


    Let's first clarify this major point, then we can talk about the other flaws of the models.


    Do you see the problem? The formula F&P used on Page 16 to calculate the "Enthalpy Output in Vapour" is not included in their calorimeter model. In particular it is not included in the equation [1] of Page 3, which summarizes all the terms F&P have used in the chapter titled "Modelling of the Calorimeters", as well as in the equation [4] of Page 4, included in the chapter "Methods of Data Evaluation: the Precision and Accuracy (sic!) of the Heat Transfer Coefficients".


    My blue comment to oystla (F&P incredibly omitted to consider, in their calorimeter model, the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling!) was referring to what he wrote here [underlining added]:

    From oystla to Ascoli65 on March 11, 2019 - F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement


    But as a theoretical approach the vapor pressure term would be included at all temperatures,as F&P showed in their more advanced mathematical approach. And F&P proved mathematically in their figure 7 that at atmospheric pressure of 0,953 bar the Kr (the heat transfer coefficient) calculated would have to gradually reduce 8 hrs before totally empty cell and. In such case the cell would have to be half full 2,5 hrs before empty.


    The aforementioned Figure 7 (all 3 sub-figures, but he was referring to the Fig.7C in particular) shows the trend of the coefficient (kR)11, which in turn is calculated by equation [4], which in turn derives from equation [1], ie the complete model of the calorimeter.


    Well, can you now show me which term of the equation [1] corresponds to the formula on Page 16, that you have circled in red?


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


    PS


    Are you able to answer the above question highlighted in red?

  • In your post, in addition to your usual provocations,, you have shown the calculations on Page 16 of the F&P paper (1), highlighting the formula referring to the Enthalpy Output in Vapour

    I have read and understood at least 6000

    journal publications in fields as varied as musicology, biochemistry ,pharmacology, immunology, interdisciplinary studies, clinical psychology, sociology, geology, microbiology, pathology, ecology ,cardiology, genetics. climate modelling

    nuclear physics, astronomy, evolution, chemical engineering, materials engineering..


    I have NO IDEA what Ascoli65 is talking about.

    Is it exhibiting deliberate OBTUSENESS or can it just not communicate.

    It refers to a pixel here, a quote there,

    a post here there and everywhere

    a few random smilies.


    If I can't understand Ascolianese

    I am sure many more cannot.

    If Ascoli65 wants to refute Fleischmann and Pons

    it needs to write in a coherent and contextualised

    manner. Who will bother wasting time

    trying to understand it?