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

Quote from oystla

So you started by the bold and earth shattering claim of "it doesn't account for the vapor carried out by the bubbles directly produced by boiling!", which would be devastating to all of F&P's work.

May be you did not understand the ramification of your claim?

I guess I do and it seems that you too are aware of the consequences. Good to know, so we can save a lot of time in examining the other papers.

Quote

You mean you tried to read the 1992 paper again and did not understand it?

Well, I would dare to have understood that it is completely wrong. But, you know, I am affected from the Dunning Kruger syndrome (1). So help me please to understand where I fail.

Quote

Or tried to read the seminal 1990 paper and did not understand where the term for vapor is included?

Be careful, I didn't write "the term for vapor". Look better at my statement, I referred to "the vapor carried out by the bubbles directly produced by boiling!" I hope you understand the difference.

Anyway, I had already read the seminal 1990 paper (2). On page 37, in the Appendix 3, dedicated to the "“Black box” models of the calorimeter", there is this figure A3.1:

The caption says: "Fig. A3.1. Complete “black box” representation of the heat flows in the Dewar calorimeters used in this work." So, this complete representation of the calorimetric model of the F&P's cells should also include the term for the enthalpy carried away by the steam bubbles produced during the boiling period.

Can you please show me where can I find this term? Above, under, on the left, on the right or in the middle of the box?

Just point your finger.

Quote from RobertBryant

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..

Wonderful! For such a genius like you, it shouldn't be so difficult to answer this simple question related to the ICCF3 paper (3):

Which term in equation [1] corresponds to the formula used by F&P to calculate the "Enthalpy output in Vapor" on Page 16?

Quote

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?

Display More

I too wonder why such an eclectic man is wasting his time following this thread and provokingly replying almost all my posts.

(1) FP's experiments discussion

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

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

Quote from JedRothwell

There was no boiling in "this work" (the work this schematic described). This paper describes calorimetry below boiling.

I know. I was responding to oystla, who asked me "to read the seminal 1990 paper" and "understand where the term for vapor is included".

In my previous posts, I never mentioned the 1990 paper (1). I was referring to the 1992 boil-off paper (2).

Quote

The paper that describes the boil-off event includes the heat of vaporization in the equations. In equation 1 it is part of "enthalpy content of the gas stream."

So, you finally answered my old question of last September (3). But you are wrong. My old question, as well as my recent blue comment (F&P incredibly omitted to consider, in their calorimeter model, the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling!), referred to the vapor produced by boiling, not to the vapor supposed to saturate the gas stream.

As I told you yesterday (4), there are various types of bubbles and there is a huge difference between the vapor content they carry away. In the boiling condition, the vapor in the gas stream is negligible with respect to the vapor produced directly by nucleated boiling on the hot surfaces of the electrodes.

Well, the calorimetric model in the 1992 paper (which reports the results of a boil-off experiment) doesn't include the term which accounts for the enthalpy carried away by the steam bubbles!

The equation [1] in 1992 paper (2) includes only the terms illustrated in Figure A3.1 of the 1990 paper (1), in which, as described at point (b) of the Appendix 3, "the gas stream has been assumed to be saturated with D2O vapor at the partial pressure P which applies to the cell temperature; P* is the atmospheric pressure and L is the enthalpy of evaporation of D2O which has been assumed to be independent of temperature." Therefore, the term L, which appear in the equation [1] of the 1992 paper (2), takes into account only the tiny amount of steam required to saturate the small hydrogen and oxygen bubbles produced by electrolysis.

In conclusion, in their 1992 boil-off report (2), F&P used an equation [1] that describes a calorimeter model suitable only for under-boiling experiments, such as those described in their 1990 paper (1). However, they used this equation [1] for deriving the equation [4] for calculating the heat transfer coefficient (k_R)₁₁, whose numerator lacks the term to account for the enthalpy carried away by the vapor produced by boiling. They calculated the presumed trend of this coefficient (k_R)₁₁ during the last test day of Cell 2, obtaining the curves shown in Fig.7C and used these curves to make some erroneous considerations on the times required to boil-off half of the water content of the cell. Eventually, they preferred to use, for the calculations on Page 16, the even worse duration of the boil-off derived by a misinterpretation of the lab video.

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

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

(3) FP's experiments discussion

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

Quote from JedRothwell

If you know that, why don't you just say that? What not just say: "You mean the 1992 paper. Vapor is not included in the 1990 paper"? That is a minor clarification. Instead of writing that, you write pages of bullshit, misdirection, misinformation, and "gotcha" booby traps. You act as if this somehow advances the discussion. All it does is confuse the issue! You are not scoring any points. As Alan Smith put it, you "veer between the insignificant and the incomprehensible." (Well said!)

You write all that verbiage and you clip bits and pieces from different papers in a muddled mish-mash. From what you wrote, I and others concluded you do not realize these two papers describe different methods of calorimetry.

My comment was addressed to oystla. He tried again to switch the discussion to the 1990 paper (1), as he has been trying to do for many months. I have told him many times that for now I'd like to conclude the confrontation on the 1992 paper (2), which deals with the boil-off experiment, and then move on to the under-boiling experiments reported in the 1990 paper. So, he knew that I'm aware of the difference between the methods used in the two papers.

You intervened in our exchange. That's OK. You are always welcome, of course, but it's up to you to understand the context of the ongoing discussion.

Quote

Now you tell us "I know." Okay, if you know, does that mean you deliberately confused the two, to drive the discussion further off the rails?

No. Why should I do it? I just answered a specific question of oystla on the 1990 paper. In all my previous post, I only mentioned the 1992 paper. This is my focus for now. I'm trying to maintain the discussion as clear and readable as possible, despite the limits of my English.

Quote

It is already far off the rails, with your mind-boggling claim that a paper devoted to describing the heat of vaporization does not include any reference to the heat of vaporization. It seems your goal is to confuse the issues, distract the reader, and subvert the discussion with chaos.

You are confused, because you are trying to change my words. I never claimed that "a paper devoted to describing the heat of vaporization does not include any reference to the heat of vaporization". Instead I said (3), with reference to the 1992 boil-off paper (1), that "F&P incredibly omitted to consider, in their calorimeter model, the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling!".

You see? It is different. I'm referring specifically to the vapor produced by boiling, not to the vapor which saturates the gas bubbles produced by electrolysis and which is represented in the equation [1] of (2) in a term called "enthalpy content of the gas stream". This latter term includes, of course, the heat of vaporization L, multiplied by the rate of volumetric gas production (I/F * 0.75) and by the partial pressure of vapor (P/(P*-P)).

But equation [1] of (2) should have included another term, in which L should have been multiplied by the rate of vaporization of the water mass due to boiling.

Do you agree with me?

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

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

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

Quote from RobertBryant

Fleischmann and Pons used measurements, equations and calculations.

Ascoli65 uses pixels,quotes links at random

( and the occasional insult) but has

NO MEASUREMENTS, EQUATIONS or CALCULATIONS.

• JedRothwell and Wyttenbach like this.

F&P used also wrong measurements, wrong equations and wrong calculations. Their 1992 paper (1) is a formidable collection of such errors. For instance, the first equation of your table, that you derived from their calculations at Page 16, is blatantly wrong.

In my posts, I use the means that I deem more useful to clarify my opinion and I put all the necessary links to allow the readers to check by themselves what I write.

And, most importantly, I've never insulted anybody, contrary to the two gentlemen who liked your post.

As for the MEASUREMENTS, I use the data of the documents under discussion and of any other available and useful source.

When correct, I use the EQUATIONS reported in the above documents, otherwise those of the consolidated physics.

Regarding the CALCULATIONS, I did a lot. For example, you can find here (2) my alternative analysis of the energy balance of the boil-off experiment reported in (1).

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

(2) FP's experiments discussion

Quote from RobertBryant

Ascoli65 has MISCALCULATION

Ascoli65 can’t find k'_R in Fleischmann’s paper because 10^-10 is miscalculated as 10^-9

Ascoli65 : inverting the relationship shown on page 16, we obtain k'_R=9.09 x 10^-9 WK^-4.?"

We can't find that value in the paper , can you find it?

Oystia: you may look for the K value in the paper.....and find it....as I did

You see, very few chemists were better in math than Fleischmann ..

So Yes, Ascoli is in error by a factor of 10

Ascoli65. OOPS! It was a typo! {translated from Ascolianese }

FP's experiments discussion

My apologies to Edvard Munch

Display More

Thank you, Robert, for one of the most significant acknowledgments I've got during my interest in the F&P activity. Your link is dated November 19, 2018. It means that you have not been able to find any other more recent and more serious error!

Anyway, in this other link, you find the answer I had given at the time: FP's experiments discussion

As for Edvard Munch, he was a Norwegian, wasn't he? Have you an idea, of how many "OOPS!" should now resonate in those lande?

Quote from Alan Smith

Except for Fleischmann and Pons of course.

So, you are confirming that I haven't insulted anyone.

To say and prove that F&P were wrong is not an insult.

The calorimeter model doesn’t consider the boiling!

In recent days, the debate on the F&P paper, presented in 1992 at ICCF3 (1), focused on this statement, I've raised in a recent post (2): "F&P incredibly omitted to consider, in their calorimeter model, the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling!" Some L-F members vehemently rejected such hypothesis.

In order to find an agreement on this important issue, the following jpeg provides some elements useful to clarify the reason of the above claim:

The upper mathematical expression has been extracted from equation [1] of the paper (1), which represents the mathematical model of the 4 cells (calorimeters) used during the 1992 boil-off experiment.

In particular, the term reported in the jpeg refers to the "enthalpy content of the gas stream", ie the loss of enthalpy of the system due to the stream of the gas bubbles, hydrogen (D2) and oxygen (O2), produced by electrolysis on the surfaces respectively of the cathode and the anode. It is also assumed that these small gas bubbles are saturated with D2O (vapor).

The curly brackets enclose all the terms associated to the enthalpy carried away by the gas stream. The factor I/F in front of the first curly bracket reminds that the gaseous molar flow is proportional to the current I divided by the Faraday constant F.

The inner square brakets enclose three terms, which represent the loss of enthalpy due to the sensible heat respectively of the D2, O2 and H2O (vapor) molecules in the electrolytic gas stream. The last term inside the curly brackets accounts for the latent heat of the vapor which saturates the gas bubbles.

The amount of this saturation vapor is proportional to electrolytic gas flow (0.75*I/F) and to the partial pressure of vapor, expressed by the P/(P*-P) ratio, where P is the saturation pressure at the temperature of the electrolyte and P* is the atmospheric pressure.

Equation [1] correctly represents the calorimeter model only at low temperature, until the sole bubbles in the cell are those produced by electrolysis. As soon as the temperature of hot spots on the electrodes becomes sufficiently high, nucleate boiling begins on their surfaces. This is a completely different phenomenon, for which the production of steam is proportional to the heat flux through the electrode surfaces, not to the electric current. Contrary to the electrolytic gas bubbles, the boiling bubbles are large and completely filled by vapor, with negligible D2 and O2 gases entrained in them. So, at high temperature - that is "at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point", as specified in the abstract of the paper (1), equation [1] is no longer valid, because it lacks any term that represents the enthalpy carried away by the vapor produced by boiling.

(1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
(2) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

Quote from oystla

[...]
BUT: Their major paper of 1990 describes the model of calorimeter that is a generalized model for all temperature ranges. And as shown in the paper, the “black box” model in Appendix 3 includes all terms required for a complete model.

[...]

I'm a little disappointed that Ascoli has not yet discovered the term, but I'm not at all surprised .

No, I haven't discovered the term which accounts of the enthalpy loss due to direct boiling, neither in the above Fig.3A, extracted from the 1990 paper (1), nor in the equivalent Equation [1] of the 1992 paper (2).

I've already asked you to help me in localizing this term (3). I admit I'm not able to do it. So, please, tell me where it is.

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

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

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