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

• equation [1] is no longer valid, because it lacks any term that represents the enthalpy carried away by the vapor produced by boiling.

Ascoli65 has No MEASUREMENT, NO EQUATION, NO CALCULATION

In contrast to Fleischmann and PONS

who used MEASUREMENT, EQUATION, CALCULATION

to show excess heat from Pd/D2 electrolysis 30 years ago, far in excess of chemical enthalpy change

The world awaits the Ascolian algebraic EQUATION

for the " enthalpy carried away from the vapor produced by boiling""

and its CALCULATION before March 23

• Oh dear

Now I see where your misunderstand, or is it lack of competence

And here is the answer you are looking for;

First we will assume that ALL gases leaving the cell is SATURATED with heavy-water vapor, so this covers both your electrolytic bubbles AND boiling bubbles 😉

Glossary:

Mv = Molar mass rate of Heavy water vapor leaving the cell

Md= Molar mass rate of D2 gas leaving the cell

Mo= Molar mass rate of O2 gas leaving the cell

P= Vapor Pressure

P'=Atmospheric pressure

I = Current (C/s)

F= Faradys Constant(96 485 C/mol)

L= Enthalpy of vaporization (D2O = 41521 j/mol)

So on to the mathematics:

The expression for massrate of saturated D2O vapor leaving the cell is

Mv / (Mv+Md+Mo) = P / P' .................................... (1)

And please believe me (1) IS the correct expression

Next the expression for the electrolysis (and we discard the little amount of D2 trapped into Palladium)

Md+Mo= I / (2*F) ..................................................... (2)

And please believe me (2) IS the correct expression

Combining (1) and (2) we will get

Mv= (3/4) * (I/F) * P / (P'-P) ..................................... (3)

So here you are (3) IS the massrate for a D2O SATURATED stream of gasses leaving the cell both saturated D2 gas, saturated O2 gas AND including your boiling bubbles, it IS the complete and total D2O gas rate.

The last item to add is to multiply with Enthalpy of vaporization to get the energy removed from the cell as saturated D2O gas stream 😊

TOTAL Saturated Heavy water vapor energy rate stream = L * (3) = L * (3/4) * (I/F) * P / (P'-P)........................................... (4)

And now you know where you misunderstood. Hope you learned something.But you did not bother to read the papers I suggested, lazy you 😉

• But you did not bother to read the papers

Thanks Oystia... I did bother to read them.. I learned that Fleischmann was very thorough and precise.

I guess the calorific value of the He4 and He3 is negligible.

• Thanks for your detailed answer. So, your answer is that the vapor produced by direct boiling on the hot electrode surfaces is included in the term "Enthalpy content of the gas stream" in equation [1] of the 1992 paper (1). But you are completely wrong.

In your math, you repeated what I had already explained in my last jpeg, so no problem believing you, but this only applies to the vapor that saturates the gas bubbles produced by electrolysis.

As I've shown in the jpeg, this term doesn't include the vapor produced by direct boiling, ie by the heat flux that leaves the hot surface of the electrodes when the surrounding water is already at boiling temperature so that it can no longer absorb any sensible heat.

This is evident from the fact that the entire "Enthalpy content of the gas stream" is multiplied by I/F, so it is proportional to the gas produced by electrolysis. This applies also to the last term in the curly brackets which include the latent heat of vaporization L and is equivalent to your equation [4].

Pretending that this term "covers both […] electrolytic bubbles AND boiling bubbles" is absurd, as it can be easily understood if the electrodes are replaced with an electric resistor, producing, let's say, 50 W of heat, ie 40 W more than the 10 W required to drive the cell to boiling. In this case there would be no production of electrolytic gas, therefore your equation [4] would give a null value at any temperature. So, what would happen in this case? Well, accordingly to the F&P model, the water temperature would continue to rise indefinitely beyond the boiling point!

Quote

And now you know where you misunderstood. Hope you learned something.But you did not bother to read the papers I suggested, lazy you 😉

The calorimeter model described in the Appendix 3 of the 1990 paper (2), is equivalent to the equation [1] of the 1992 paper (1). In particular the term above the "black box" represented in Fig.3A is identical to the term of equation [1] of (1), which I reported on the last jpeg. But this term includes only the D2O vapor which saturates the electrolytic gas bubbles, NOT the vapor carried away by the bubbles produced by boiling! Can you understand the difference?

Both the calorimeter models described in the 1990 and 1992 papers lack of the term that accounts for the enthalpy carried away by the vapor bubbles by direct boiling. This omission was adequate for the 1990 paper, because for the tests described there, as specified at page 24, F&P "have adopted a policy of discontinuing the experiments (or, at least, of reducing the current density) when the boiling point is reached". However, F&P have incredibly used the same calorimeter model, suitable for low temperature tests, in their successive 1992 paper for describing the behavior of the cells at boiling point. This is an absolute nonsense!

• As I've shown in the jpeg, this term doesn't include the vapor produced by direct boiling, ie by the heat flux that leaves the hot surface of the electrodes when the surrounding water is already at boiling temperature so that it can no longer absorb any sensible heat.

If that were true, the control experiments would show spurious excess heat. They do not. That's the whole point of control experiments. In this case, they prove that all of your assertions are wrong.

• Save your pixels Jed, he just doesn't get it.

• As I've shown in the jpeg,

The wine bottle is now empty .

the ASCOLI JPEG EQUATION

shows ASCOLI VAPOR takes ASCOLI WINE Away

Fleischmann and Pons are WRONG

Hail , the ASCOLI EQUATION +?..

March 23 is imminent

the world awaits the BIG REVEAL

AE-Day

ASCOLI EQUATION DAY

• This is evident from the fact that the entire "Enthalpy content of the gas stream" is multiplied by I/F, so it is proportional to the gas produced by electrolysis.

Let me ask you the following

Do you agree the mathematical expression for molar rate of D2O vapor in a electrolytic cell is correct or not?

Mv / (Mv+Md+Mo) = P / P' .................................... (1)

If not, why not?

Glossary:

Mv = Molar mass rate of Heavy water vapor leaving the cell

Md= Molar mass rate of D2 gas leaving the cell

Mo= Molar mass rate of O2 gas leaving the cell

P= Vapor Pressure

P'=Atmospheric pressure

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

• If that were true, the control experiments would show spurious excess heat. They do not. That's the whole point of control experiments. In this case, they prove that all of your assertions are wrong.

Why "all of [my] assertions"? It's a rhetorical nonsense. In the case, only the assertions related to this issue. Should I say that, since you were wrong about the presence of a gap below the cathode of the cells used in the 1992 boil-off experiment, all your assertions are wrong?

Anyway, I'm not wrong, in this case. It's your argument to be wrong, once again.

The control experiments reported in the 1990 paper (1), the only ones, FWIK, whose XH estimation was published, have been conducted at temperatures much lower than the boiling point, in a region where the calorimeter model described in Appendix 3 can adequately represent the behavior of the cells. So, their outcomes were not affected by the lack of the boiling term in the calorimeter model.

I'm not aware of any energy balance of a control experiment carried out at boiling condition. Can you cite one?

• Why "all of [my] assertions"? It's a rhetorical nonsense. In the case, only the assertions related to this issue.

The control experiments prove that all of your assertions about the calorimetry in this paper are wrong. Any of the problems that you believe you have found would affect the heat balance, so a control experiment would give the wrong answer.

Should I say that, since you were wrong about the presence of a gap below the cathode of the cells used in the 1992 boil-off experiment, all your assertions are wrong?

You could say that, but it is not true. Saying does not make it so.

• "Enthalpy content of the gas stream" is multiplied by I/F, so it is proportional to the gas produced by electrolysis

Ascoli, please remember that the energy input in an electrolytic cell IS electricity.

Electricity provides the energy both to heat the water AND to produce electrolytic gas.

And electrolyte is the resistor where some of the electric energy is lost as heat.

Are you of the opinion that there are other energy sources than electricity that produced the bubbles ?

But of course is we have some excess heat produced by LENR then...

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

• electrolytic bubbles AND boiling bubbles" is absurd, as it can be easily understood if the electrodes are replaced with an electric resistor, producing, let's say, 50 W of heat, ie 40 W more than the 10 W required to drive the cell to boiling. In this case there would be no production of electrolytic gas, therefore your equation [4] would give a null value at any temperature

If you replaced the cathode with a resistor and the Anode with a resistor, you would still run current through the electrolyte, and (4) would work.

If you replace the anode and cathode with single resistive heating, there would be no current going through the electrolyte and (4) would be zero BECAUSE (4) is developed for an electrolytic cell NOT for pure resistive heating.

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

• But this term includes only the D2O vapor which saturates the electrolytic gas bubbles, NOT the vapor carried away by the bubbles produced by boiling! Can you understand the difference?

Both the calorimeter models described in the 1990 and 1992 papers lack of the term that accounts for the enthalpy carried away by the vapor bubbles by direct boiling.

Please, I just proved mathematically that this is perfectly correct.

Do you really not understand the math?

I tried to make the math as clear as possible. Is there anything more I need to explain in my details?

Read my comment once more and ask any question you would like

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

• F&P have incredibly used the same calorimeter model, suitable for low temperature tests

Suitable at all temperatures.

Please note that the formula for total molar rate of D2O vapor rate -

Mv= (3/4) * (I/F) * P / (P'-P) ..................................... (3)

Gives very differenet results at 40 degC and at 80 degC. Why? Because the vapor pressure P increase from 10 kPa to 50 kPa over the temperature range.

so....

This is an absolute nonsense!

I had hoped you knew a little more about chemistry and mathematics

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

• Why "all of [my] assertions"? It's a rhetorical nonsense

2019Update on Fleischmann and Pons 1989

Ascoli will soon reveal the ASCOLI EQUATION

• The control experiments prove that all of your assertions about the calorimetry in this paper are wrong. Any of the problems that you believe you have found would affect the heat balance, so a control experiment would give the wrong answer.

We are talking about the 1992 paper on the boil-off experiment (1). This paper doesn't deal with control experiments. It reports the results of regular cells driven to boiling conditions. So the control experiments prove nothing about my assertions on the 1992 paper. Yours is a fuzzy logic.

In any case, what do you think about the explanation provided by oystla in (2)? Do you also agree that the "Enthalpy content of the gas stream" in the calorimeter model reported in equation [1] of (1), as well as in Appendix 3 of (3) accounts for the enthalpy carried away by the vapor bubbles produced by direct boiling?

• We are talking about the 1992 paper on the boil-off experiment (1). This paper doesn't deal with control experiments.

You are talking about that. I am talking about all of their papers regarding the boil-off experiments. The other papers do deal with control experiments. You ignore them because you want to pretend they do not exist. Your strategy is to take one isolated statement at at time out of context, "prove" it is wrong with faulty logic, while you ignore the other statements that explain why you are wrong.

• Death by a thousand 'buts'...

• You are talking about that. I am talking about all of their papers regarding the boil-off experiments. The other papers do deal with control experiments. You ignore them because you want to pretend they do not exist. Your strategy is to take one isolated statement at at time out of context, "prove" it is wrong with faulty logic, while you ignore the other statements that explain why you are wrong.

Well, actually I'm following YOUR strategy!

 [bold added] Aug 14th 2017 OK. How could LENR be disproved? That's obvious! You just show there is a mistake in an experiment, and out it goes. The way I did here, with my own work: Do that for every major study and hey-presto, cold fusion is gone. Dead as Polywater. You yourself gave it a shot the other day by trying to prove that the boil-off phase of Fleischmann's experiment here can be explained as entrainment: In my opinion, you were wrong for a variety of reasons, and even if you had been right that would still not explain the excess heat in the first few weeks before the boil-off, or the heat after death after the boil-off. So it would not kill off this experiment. As I explained in the comments here: I think you failed (the reader can judge) but anyway, that is how it is done. Finding errors and showing that the author's conclusions are mistaken is the one and only way to disprove an experimental discovery. You have to do that for every single major study. Even if 49 are wrong and 1 is right, the cold fusion effect is still real. That is the only way a widely replicated effect can be proven wrong. Theory cannot touch it. You have to show that every single test in every replication study is a mistake. The likelihood of that is astronomically small. Because it would only happen if hundreds of world-class experts in electrochemistry, tritium detection, mass spectroscopy, and various other disciplines made serious blunders, over many years, doing things they had done for 30 to 50 years. For people such as Bockris, Fritz Will, Yeager, or Mel Miles, they were doing things they were world-famous for doing. By "famous," I mean they were made Fellows of The Royal Society or the AAAS, they wrote the leading textbooks, they had buildings, institutes, international prizes and so on named for them. How likely is it that such people would make elementary blunders such as not measuring recombination, or not looking for entrainment? Or that despite extensive peer-review, not a single one of their colleagues realized these people were making mistakes. How likely? Well, it is roughly as likely as if you picked 200 experienced drivers at random, and on the morning of August 1, 2017, in clear weather for no apparent reason every single one of them accidentally drove off the road into a telephone pole. Actually, you don't have to wonder whether they made these blunders. You can read their papers and see for yourself they did not. Disproving one experiment out of many does nothing to disprove a claim. It is like proving that Hiram Maxim did not technically fly in 1894 even though his airplane left the ground. That is true. But it does not prove that Orville Wright did not fly in December 1903. The fact that Orville was not able to fly for many weeks in the summer of 1904, and the overall success rate for the first year of aviation was something like 20 flights out of 120 attempts, also proves nothing. Low reproducibility does not mean the effect does not exist. It doesn't mean anything like that. It means flying is harder than you might think. Cold fusion is also harder than you might think.

You see? I'm following your instructions: taking one document at a time, finding errors and showing that the author's conclusions are mistaken. And I started from the paper you have cited more frequently.

So, if you are confirming that the F&P paper on their 1992 boil-off experiment is wrong, we can take into consideration another one. But, I'm engaged with oystla to first discuss with him the 1990 seminal paper.

And what about the oystla interpretation of the gas stream term in the calorimeter model? Don't you agree with him?

• Ascoli65 has

"Algebra by pixel"

Ascolian logic is even more

idiosyncratic