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

  • Given the HAD region claims are silly too, F&P were totally working in the noise

    Hi Kirk

    Did Dieter Britz give you any advice on the HAD region and the Szpak T effect? in 2002

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/g…hi-FOIA-00929-00952-W.pdf

    "

    07/18/2002 08: 14 AM

    Hi Dieter ,(Britz) DOE

    I have been totalling up my time recently , and I find I am spending too much time for too little return.

    I do seem to have the penchant for teaching , even though I ' m not in academics.

    And , in my current job assignment , I am the only chemist in a group of 15 metallographers .

    I used to have a ~chemist as a supervisor , but even that left me starved for conversation (re . chemistry).

    I do like chemistry, and 1 feel somewhat isolated where 1 am now .

    The Internet was one way of maintaining professional level contacts . Also, I realize that I have ' the addiction ',

    I seem to have withdrawal symptoms if I don’ t get my ' CF fix ' routinely.

    But intellect shall prevail ! I think 1 've learned just about as much as I can or want from the ' field', such as it is.

    I am getting less and less out of it , and in turn , I seem to be 'helping ' no one .

    The ones who need the help the most ignore me because they are emotionally committed to their suppositions .

    For them , it has become a matter of faith . I know about faith , as you know , but in my dealings in the CF area

    I have always tried to use standard science and logic .

    But , I need to quit . I have a couple of items to wrap up though .

    For example , and this is where I need your professional advice.

    In my most recent post in the ' F&P HAD ' thread , I talk about Szpak 's T claims ,

    and attack it from the computational side .

    However , it has occurred to me that I may be being too harsh , in that the concentration of the reactive species (water ) will not actually be changing that much

    , even though the electrolyte concs change by 100- 200%. I 'd need to look up the detailed model Szpak references ,

    or I can ask you I bet .

    Was I too quick to reject the steady state condition? Or will the electrolyte concentration changes grossly affect things?

    There are other things I don 't like about the study as well , that I didn ' t get into yet , so I probably could put out a couple more long posts.


    I guess in the end I have to ask what good it does to comment on spf .

    No one who matters (actual researchers , funding orgs.) is watching. (Just the historian !)

    I ‘ve begun a 1st draft of a paper that responds to Ed Storms ' claim that my TA paper is 'only' applicable to his Pt work.

    Dieter , in fact I can go back through all the CF calorimetry literature and see evidences of the same problem,

    including F&P ' s work . There is the wrinkle in their work about ' bursts ', but if you postulate a messed up calibration and

    just look at delta- T, you find the same delta- Ts there as in Storms ' (and probably McKubre ' s) work, so I can make a case

    that they just don ' t measure recombination properly.

    However ,that paper keeps getting bigger and bigger, and again I don ' t know what value it has in the end.

    What I was contemplating doing was just do a so-so job on it, and then putting it out as a

    government report , and not actually getting it published , just publically released .


    I am going to try to stop responding to the ' groupies ' like Salsman and the like. The one guy that bugs me right now is Staker .

    He 's made some claims that I would like to evaluate , but his behavior seems a clear flag that I should expect zip from him,

    so I guess I just drop that too.

    In the end, the thing that keeps me coming back is that the likes of McKubre keep getting funding to do sloppy science .

    I really wanted to impact the funding orgs by pointing out minimum acceptable quality levels , but again ,

    I don ' t know who ' s listening . In any case , we need to stay in touch , even if it ' s not about CF, and I will definitely try to do so .

    Kirk

  • I let oystla the pleasure of explaining you why his curve goes to infinity


    haha, You mean the P/(P'-P) has the wrong form :S



    But you still don't get the physics and chemistry here


    Mv / (Mv+Md+Mo) = P / P*


    You cannot choose what kind of Vapor you would like to include or not.


    Learn a little of partial pressures, mixture of gases, mole fractions etc. lazy you 8o

  • At boiling temperature, Lonchampt (3) switched from his Equation [1], equivalent to the Equation [1] of the F&P paper (1), to his Equation [6], which no longer contains the nor-treatable term P/(P'-P). Lonchampt has changed equation because,


    Lonchampt chose to evaluate the total enthalpy necessary to evaporate the contents of the cell, therefore he correctly changed the formula.


    F&P chose another path, but as I said many times, potential errors in this paper does not matter, it was not their main discovery or their main paper ;-)


    And Lonchampt confirmed excess heat, so what's the issue ^^?

  • haha, you have discovered something that neither Wilson, Hansen or any of the other critics found, or F&P themselves in all the discussions they had on the issue 😉


    Yes, apparently I did. It is probably because the others are 'old school' when it comes to error evaluation and don't actually evaluate it, they just wave their hands a lot, and then others accept it. Glad you appreciate it!



    P is a partial pressure and thus very small the value in P'-P will (P' ambient pressure) will never even be close to 0. It's your understanding of Chemistry that is close to 0!



    "The boiling point of a liquid varies according to the applied pressure; the normal boiling point is the temperature at which the vapour pressure is equal to the standard sea-level atmospheric pressure (760 mm [29.92 inches] of mercury). At sea level, water boils at 100° C (212° F)."


    Boiling point | chemistry | Britannica.com


    https://www.britannica.com/science/boiling-point


    -------------------




    From: http://www.wiredchemist.com/chemistry/data/vapor-pressure (Note that the last point is 758, not 658.)


    It seems it's you W who needs remedial chemistry.

  • It seems it's you W who needs remedial chemistry.


    You are completely right. If you do as Ascoli does - P&F didn't do it - then you end up in an undefined point. But for the regular calorimetry below 80C - where P&F did measure most of the time and did prove LENR this plays absolutely no role at all.


    It gets even worse if you assume that the cathode is hotter than 100C what will give additional heat ( > 100C) to the bubbles what will reverse the equation.

    That's why P&F only tried to give an estimate for the boil off timing ( at T > 80C) with a slight variation of the ambient pressure.


    The crucial point in P&F's paper is the 4h HAD what happened without any water present.


    Final conclusion: Only in Ascolis dreams the division by 0 explains something he would like to explain. May be you should explain him why, at the boiling point we need no (complex) equation at all, but simply the time it takes to empty the reactor...

  • @W


    Perhaps you should reread this: F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement


    There, I show that F&P's method begins to be highly inaccurate by approx. 50C. That's why F&P said it can't be used 'near' boiling. Any discussion of using the F&P model near boiling is incorrect, because of what I outline above. Originally I missed that they admit this, but they actually do, they simply don't explain why. I do so above. In fact, all of their claims in the papers that have been discussed here so far are within the noise band, a clear sign of psuedoscience.


    Likewise, in the HAD region I long ago pointed out the temperature profile of the one claimed to show HAD was no different from the one claimed to be the 'control' . Ascoli did this also way back at the start of the prior thread on this. If one is a HAD why not the other? The whole video-basedmethod is worthless, as Pons admitted in a later paper by claiming they still needed to develop better calorimetry.


    F&P's results are all noise. Anyone who points to them as 'support' for their results being CF or LENR or LANR or CANR or... is hurting their credibility.


  • Dear all,


    On bubblegate - as propagated here for many posts. I finally (needing some diversion from other things) decided to work this out. NB - bubblegate is not the same as foamgate though it has some tangential relationship, see below.


    1. As is often the case on this forum, there is interesting empirical science at the heart of this, which is however not easy for people reading these posts to decode. (Well - it took me some time and effort - and if others find it easier they have not explained it here).


    2. In the above equation bubblegate refers to accuracy of the 3rd line (the 1/F { } bracket). I realise everyone knows this, but context, and hence the whole equation, is helpful.


    3. This is meant to represent the total heat power lost to the cell due to the evolved gasses. It contains terms from the specific heat content of the gases (which are supposed heated up by temperature DeltaTheta) , and the vaporisation enthalpy L of the D2).


    4. Here the D2 and O2 rate of gas evolution is known (accurately predicted) from the electrolysis current. The D2O in the evolved gas stream is predicted assuming that all the emitted D2O is in thermal equilibrium with the D2 and O2 in the bubbles. In this case we can work out the D2O volume from the D2 and O2 volumes and the known equilibrium partial pressures.


    For example: suppose the D2O partial pressure (in the bubbles) was 0.5 P where P is the total pressure. Then the D2 and O2 partial pressures would be P/3 and P/6 respectively (because the D2 volume is double the O2 volume for the same pressure). The coefficients of 0.5, 0.25 and 0.5 come from this. The factor P/(P*-P) represents the ratio between D2O and D2/O2 given thermal equilibrium. Thus as boiling point approaches there is more D2O and the ratio goes to infinity.


    Note that P must be the D2O partial pressure and P* the total pressure (1 atmosphere approx given this open cell). At low temperatures P is low and so this factor is also low, however it is not insignificant: you would be foolish to ignore it without quantitative evaluation.




    5. This is the key issue. The equation is exactly correct if you assume all the thermally-evolved D2O vapour is in thermal equilibrium with the electrolysis-evolved D2 and H2 in the bubbles. This assumption is true enough when the bubbles are created very slowly and there are no boiling bubbles (because there will be enough time for this equilibrium to establish). It will not true when bubbles are created quickly unless you suppose the D2O in the gasses have time to equilibrate with the surface of the cell. Nor when boiling bubbles (all D2O) exist. The system is not steady-state - the evolved gasses depart - so there is no reason to suppose thermal equilibrium happens and obviously it will increasingly be wrong as temperature approaches boiling.


    So:

    Ascolfi Term 5. Oystla et al are right that there is no Term 5. If F&P's assumption of thermal equilibrium with the surface is correct then Terms 1-4 are all that is needed. If the system is boiling then pretty clearly there is no thermal equilibrium and this way to calculate the D2O in the exhaust stream does not work. There is then no term 5 because the equation does not work, but you could see the additional (non-equilibrium) D2O vapour from boiling as notionally a Term 5 - just you could not from this method work out its magnitude. So, as is usually the case, there is some merit in both sides of the argument here, though the argument misses the key and important point. Interestingly, it is not clear whether this assumption (thermal equilibrium) overestimates or underestimates the enthalpy. At low temperatures and high currents D2 and O2 not in thermal equilibrium will be emitted at a fast rate and contain less D2O than expected here. At high temperatures the larger D2O emmission will mean there is more D2O than expected here.


    What does this tells us? This equation cannot be used at higher temperatures, and indeed using it at lower temperatures is dubious because there is no proof of when thermal equilibrium is met and when it is not met. That factor depends both on electrolysis rate and temperature and maybe on other things like foam on surface (which can change the rate at which equilibrium is attained) and the physics of bubble formation (again it can do that, and also change the time D2 and O2 has to equilibrate in bubbles).


    So any results resting on these equations are theoretically unsound. It is Ok to use them empirically if you can prove that either the D2O terms are insignificant, or the system is close to thermal equilibrium. However lots of things can change the system dynamics, and, and hence the contribution of these terms, including:

    • D2 vs O2 (different physical characteristics, maybe not a big deal but cannot be ruled out)
    • foam
    • temperature
    • rate of electrolysis


    So to validate this equation empirically you have to control each of these variables. It will break down at temperatures much lower than boiling (but quantifying this would be difficult). Longchampt seems to have realised the problem at boiling, but assumed the equation remains correct at high non-boiling temperatures.


    Kirk: I have not read your comment on F&P - I guess this problem (problematic assumption of thermal equilibrium in exhaust gasses) was what you identified?


    I've said before that F&P's work is very poorly documented in their papers. This is another example where a key assumption is not properly explained, nor properly validated.


    THH

  • haha, You mean the P/(P'-P) has the wrong form


    No, I meant that Wyttenbach didn't understand what we were talking about, so that it is better that you take care of his level of knowledge rather than mine.


    Quote

    But you still don't get the physics and chemistry here


    Mv / (Mv+Md+Mo) = P / P*


    You cannot choose what kind of Vapor you would like to include or not.


    As I've already told you, the kind of vapor represented by the term Mv in your equation was explained by F&P themselves in their seminal paper (1):

    h1h2nMy.jpg


    As you can see, the term Mv in your equation applies only to the vapor which saturates the D2 and O2 streams produced by electrolysis.


    Lonchampt chose to evaluate the total enthalpy necessary to evaporate the contents of the cell, therefore he correctly changed the formula.


    As I showed you yesterday (2), Lonchampt was forced to change the equation for the heat balance at boiling condition, as he explained (3): "In this region, the full calculation using equation (1) gives wrong positive excess heat measurements, and therefore cannot be applied."


    Quote

    F&P chose another path …


    No, not true. In their 1992 paper (4), F&P applied both the approaches – those represented by Equations [1] and [6] in the Lonchampt paper (3) - to the boiling period.

    1 - On Page 13, they used the first approach (which was inadequate for the boiling conditions) to justify the choice of a short duration of 11 minutes for the boil-off period.

    2 - Then, on Page 16, they used the second approach to calculate a non-existent huge excess heat on the basis of the wrong estimate of a too short boil-off period.


    Quote

    … but as I said many times, potential errors in this paper does not matter, it was not their main discovery or their main paper


    The errors in the 1992 paper are real (4), not potential. In any case, when we will find an agreement on this major paper, we can discuss the errors made by F&P in their previous 1990 paper (1).


    Quote

    And Lonchampt confirmed excess heat, so what's the issue ?


    The issue we are talking about is that the model chosen by Lonchampt to calculate the heat balance in (3) is different from the model used by F&P to justify in (4) the estimate of a too short boil-off period. This is a further evidence that the major paper of F&P was completely wrong.


    As for the alleged confirmation of the excess heat made by Lonchampt, please read again what I've explained you in December (5-6).


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

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

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

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

    (5) FP's experiments discussion

    (6) FP's experiments discussion

  • You are completely right. If you do as Ascoli does - P&F didn't do it - then you end up in an undefined point. But for the regular calorimetry below 80C - where P&F did measure most of the time and did prove LENR this plays absolutely no role at all.


    Now you are talking about "calorimetry below 80C", but you intervened in a discussion between oystla and me which concerned the boiling condition! It was also specified in the paragraph of mine that you quoted (1). Are you able to follow the argument under discussion? For the moment we are talking about the 1992 paper (2), which deals with boiling:

    eapsTwU.jpg


    Quote

    The crucial point in P&F's paper is the 4h HAD what happened without any water present.


    The crucial point of your crucial point is that F&P misrepresented the timing of the boil-off time (3). Consequently, there was no HAD, neither the 4 hours that you keep on dreaming about, nor the 3 hours actually claimed by F&P.


    Quote

    Final conclusion: Only in Ascolis dreams the division by 0 explains something he would like to explain. May be you should explain him why, at the boiling point we need no (complex) equation at all, but simply the time it takes to empty the reactor...


    The division by 0 affects the curves drawn by F&P (not by me) on Fig.7C and 9B of their 1992 paper (2). I have only been saying for several days that F&P have used the wrong model in deriving those curves, exactly because such a model implies the absurd division by 0.


    It's evident that F&P didn't used the calorimeter model described in their Equation [1] to calculate the heat balance during boil-off on Page 16 of their paper, but in these calculations they used the wrong short duration justified by some considerations based on Fig.7C, as you can read on Page 13.


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

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

    (3) FP's experiments discussion


  • So: Oystla.


    While I agree with the equation, you certainly can choose what the actual (rather than theoretically predicted) partial pressures are. The equation only applies in thermodynamic equilibrium and given that the gasses are flowing from the cell there is no guarantee or even likelihood that equilibrium vapour pressures have been achieved.


    The actual D2O volume emitted could therefore be either lower or (in principle, though probably not in practice, and would lead to condensation in the exhaust stream) higher than what is predicted here.


    The matter could be resolved by measuring the total volume of exhaust gasses (keeping them above 100C) and calculating the D2O from that rather than the unproven and (bound to be, in some cases) wrong P/(P*-P) assumption.

  • As I've already told you, the kind of vapor represented by the term Mv in your equation was explained by F&P themselves in their seminal paper (1):


    As you can see, the term Mv in your equation applies only to the vapor which saturates the D2 and O2 streams produced by electrolysis.


    oh dear 🤓


    Ascoli, read the sentence again and answer this: are you saying D2O vapor is NOT a gas ?




    I mean Really 😂

  • The crucial point of your crucial point is that F&P misrepresented the timing of the boil-off time (3). Consequently, there was no HAD, neither the 4 hours that you keep on dreaming about, nor the 3 hours actually claimed by F&P.


    No they did not! the point of "dry cell" has been reached when the voltage hit the max voltage and no current did flow anymore... There have been 3 hours with no energy input but high heat... Nothing you can see/detect in a video with different timing.


    Do you really think that they did not log the current in a separate stream? How else could they ever even think about trying to calculate something? Just by look at a video as you do ??

  • Ascoli, read the sentence again and answer this: are you saying D2O vapor is NOT a gas ?


    Which sentence are you talking about? The F&P's quote that I had posted in (1)? It says "the gas stream has been assumed to be saturated by D2O …". This sentence refers to the gas stream formed by molecules of D2, O2 and D2O, where the latter are (at most) only those necessary to saturate the D2 and O2 bubbles, not those produced by direct boiling.


    D2O vapor is a gas, but in this case it is a special one, because it is a condensable gas in thermal equilibrium with the liquid medium, while D2 and O2 are incondensable. The production rate of D2 and O2 gas streams is determined by the electric current alone. On the contrary the quantity of D2O carried off by these bubbles depends on the thermal equilibrium between the water surrounding the bubbles and the internal D2O vapor, as more extensively explained by THH.


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

  • F&P's results are all noise. Anyone who points to them as 'support' for their results being CF or LENR or LANR or CANR or... is hurting their credibility

    I do seem to have the penchant for teaching , even though I ' m not in academics.

    Lordy.. Kirkshanahan's efforts at 'teaching' have fallen on deaf ears for two decades

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/g…hi-FOIA-00929-00952-W.pdf

    "

    07/18/2002 08: 14 AM

    Hi Dieter ,(Britz) DOE

    I have been totalling up my time recently , and I find I am spending too much time for too little return.

    I do seem to have the penchant for teaching , even though I ' m not in academics.

    And , in my current job assignment , I am the only chemist in a group of 15 metallographers .

    I used to have a ~chemist as a supervisor , but even that left me starved for conversation (re . chemistry).

    I do like chemistry, and 1 feel somewhat isolated where 1 am now .

    The Internet was one way of maintaining professional level contacts . Also, I realize that I have ' the addiction ',

    I seem to have withdrawal symptoms if I don’ t get my ' CF fix ' routinely.

    But intellect shall prevail ! I think 1 've learned just about as much as I can or want from the ' field', such as it is.

    I am getting less and less out of it , and in turn , I seem to be 'helping ' no one .

    The ones who need the help the most ignore me because they are emotionally committed to their suppositions .

    For them , it has become a matter of faith . I know about faith , as you know , but in my dealings in the CF area

    I have always tried to use standard science and logic .

    But , I need to quit . I have a couple of items to wrap up though .

    For example , and this is where I need your professional advice.

    In my most recent post in the ' F&P HAD ' thread , I talk about Szpak 's T claims ,

    and attack it from the computational side .

    However , it has occurred to me that I may be being too harsh , in that the concentration of the reactive species (water ) will not actually be changing that much

    , even though the electrolyte concs change by 100- 200%. I 'd need to look up the detailed model Szpak references ,

    or I can ask you I bet .

    Was I too quick to reject the steady state condition? Or will the electrolyte concentration changes grossly affect things?

    There are other things I don 't like about the study as well , that I didn ' t get into yet , so I probably could put out a couple more long posts.


    I guess in the end I have to ask what good it does to comment on spf .

    No one who matters (actual researchers , funding orgs.) is watching. (Just the historian !)

    I ‘ve begun a 1st draft of a paper that responds to Ed Storms ' claim that my TA paper is 'only' applicable to his Pt work.

    Dieter , in fact I can go back through all the CF calorimetry literature and see evidences of the same problem,

    including F&P ' s work . There is the wrinkle in their work about ' bursts ', but if you postulate a messed up calibration and

    just look at delta- T, you find the same delta- Ts there as in Storms ' (and probably McKubre ' s) work, so I can make a case

    that they just don ' t measure recombination properly.

    However ,that paper keeps getting bigger and bigger, and again I don ' t know what value it has in the end.

    What I was contemplating doing was just do a so-so job on it, and then putting it out as a

    government report , and not actually getting it published , just publically released .


    I am going to try to stop responding to the ' groupies ' like Salsman and the like. The one guy that bugs me right now is Staker .

    He 's made some claims that I would like to evaluate , but his behavior seems a clear flag that I should expect zip from him,

    so I guess I just drop that too.

    In the end, the thing that keeps me coming back is that the likes of McKubre keep getting funding to do sloppy science .

    I really wanted to impact the funding orgs by pointing out minimum acceptable quality levels , but again ,

    I don ' t know who ' s listening . In any case , we need to stay in touch , even if it ' s not about CF, and I will definitely try to do so .

    Kirk

  • No they did not! the point of "dry cell" has been reached when the voltage hit the max voltage and no current did flow anymore... There have been 3 hours with no energy input but high heat...


    Their video shows a different timing. And the voltage continued to stay above zero even after the apparent peak (1). It means that the current was still flowing.


    Quote

    Nothing you can see/detect in a video with different timing.


    What do you mean with "different timing"? Are you arguing that the video was not synchronized with the other data records?


    Quote

    Do you really think that they did not log the current in a separate stream?


    Oh, no. It would have been a nonsense. I expect that they logged at least the cell temperature, the cell voltage and the cell current, along with many other variables, for example the bath temperature, the ambient pressure, the electric heater power, etc. The problem is that these data have not been adequately reported.


    Quote

    How else could they ever even think about trying to calculate something?


    But we don't know the logged data, so we don't know if their calculations were correct. What we can see in their 1992 paper is a lot of sloppiness and many errors (2).


    Quote

    Just by look at a video as you do ??


    I just did what they wrote to have done:

    From https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf  [bold added]


    This has led to a particularly simple method of deriving the rate of excess enthalpy production based on measuring the times required to boil the cells to dryness, this process being followed by using time-lapse video recordings.


    the cell would have become half empty 11 minutes before dryness, as observed from the video recordings.


    It is therefore necessary to develop independent means of monitoring the progressive evaporation/boiling of the D2O. The simplest procedure is to make time-lapse video recordings of the operation of the cells which can be synchronised with the temperature-time and cell potential-time data.


    As it is possible to repeatedly reverse and run forward the video recordings at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make reasonably accurate estimates of the cell contents.



    (1) FP's experiments discussion

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

  • THHuxleynew ,

    Thanks for your careful analysis. I mostly agree with it. I've only a few minor observations.


    For example: suppose the D2O partial pressure (in the bubbles) was 0.5 P where P is the total pressure. Then the D2 and O2 partial pressures would be P/3 and P/6 respectively (because the D2 volume is double the O2 volume for the same pressure). The coefficients of 0.5, 0.25 and 0.5 come from this.


    Your example implies that D2 and O2 bubbles, which form on the surface of different electrodes, are uniformly and completely merged. In reality, as outlined in (1), we have separate streams of D2 and O2 bubbles, in which the D2O vapor occupies (by your example) half the volume of each single bubble. Furthermore, the total volume of the D2 bubbles is twice the total volume of O2 bubbles. This gives the final coefficients of 0.5, 0.25 and 0.75, respectively for D2, O2 and D2O volumetric content of the whole gas stream.


    Quote

    5. This is the key issue. The equation is exactly correct if you assume all the thermally-evolved D2O vapour is in thermal equilibrium with the electrolysis-evolved D2 and H2 in the bubbles.


    You are right. The thermal equilibrium is indeed a key issue in the F&P model. You have better expressed what I've tried to explain by warning that "a[t] low temperatures, the evaporation from the surrounding water is limited by the kinetic, ie by the evaporation rate" (2).


    Quote

    Ascolfi Term 5. Oystla et al are right that there is no Term 5. If F&P's assumption of thermal equilibrium with the surface is correct then Terms 1-4 are all that is needed.


    Term5 was actually a name introduced by RobertBryant (3) to indicate my "question point" in (1). This "question mark" meant that Equation [1] lacked a suitable term to represent the enthalpy loss due to boiling vapor.


    I know that the present "gas stream term" in Equation [1] contains all it's needed at temperatures far from the boiling point, but the 1992 paper (4) is specifically dedicated to reporting the result of a boil-off experiment, so a complete calorimeter model should have included a term that represents the enthalpy carried away by the vapor produced by direct boiling. This term should have been based on an accurate and continuous monitoring of the water mass inside the cell, not a difficult task, even 30 years ago.


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

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

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

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

  • Their video shows a different timing. And the voltage continued to stay above zero even after the apparent peak (1). It means that the current was still flowing.


    This is basic electronics. The voltage must reach maximum if the resistance goes to infinite. There is only virtually a current flowing...

  • a clear sign of psuedoscience

    Perhaps Kirkshanahan means pseudoscience


    Like his fake CCS/ CCF paper which uses arbitrary constants /assumptions

    to change decent Storms data into Kirkshanahan BS


    How did he get this hit piece past the peer review?


    opaque, ungeneralizable, zero sensitivity analysis

    zero verification, zero backup references


    Clue.. the impact factor at that time was 0.8

    Imagine...

    Uncle Sam paid for this junk



    https://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms2000788/ms2000788.html

  • Kirk: I have not read your comment on F&P - I guess this problem (problematic assumption of thermal equilibrium in exhaust gasses) was what you identified?


    No, but you are correct that thermal equilibrium may not be obtained and that the equations' bases assume equilibrium. However, calibration doesn't require equilibrium it just requires steady state, and steady state doesn't imply equilibrium is attained either. What I have been discussing in this thread is the mathematical impact of a) the Pfactor term [ P/(P*-P) ] combined with b) the dropping of the gamma term. Those combine to make all of F&P's claims in this series of papers lie in the noise. Once that is established the rest of the arguments being made are somewhat unimportant to the final decision on the overall validity of whether F&P found 'excess heat' or not. (And just for the record, this is a separate issue from CCS/ATER (or maybe ATEC), although CCS/ATER can still apply if warranted.)