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

    THHuxleynew wrote: Oct 9th 2018

    The particles reported by Holmlid come from products of high power lasers. So some high energy particles and even fusion are not unexpected. Hardly LENR. No evidence the particles are "strange" or "exotic" either. But, what is good, is that there is definite evidence of particles and what they are can be argued.

    What is bad for LENR is that this is not LENR. It still might be interesting.

    Quote
    avatar-default.svg THHuxleynew wrote: Mar 27th 2019 Why is Holmlid's LENR giving him such obvious high energy products, whereas almost all other LENR does not do that - except a few experiments that possibly show alphas (PAB) or gammas (AS)? No coherence


    I read the verbiage that THHuxleynew writes.. and remember it. unfortunately. Maybe THHuxleynew can try to do the same:)

    According to THHuxleynew. ARE Holmlid's reports LENR (QUOTE2) or not LENR (QUOTE1)..???

    Holmlid doesn't call it LENR, btw.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    In the case of Cell 2, the voltage remains above zero for the entire period of the alleged HAD. By comparison with the other cells, it means that the current didn't stop. Therefore, the residual voltage shown in Fig 6B is more than sufficient to affirm that, during the claimed but inexistent HAD, there was no open-circuiting of Cell 2, contrary to what was claimed by F&P in their 1992 paper (2).


    And you certainly noticed that the temperature goes back to 20C too, before the current is 0 ?? and that the time in the graph is way after the HAD ?? So what you see is just the stopped experiment.


    This is Completely wrong.


    No current is running when cell is dry, only in Ascolis alternative facts ;)


    But this happens when critics like Ascoli do not bother to read and study the papers on the matter


    Like this from F&P




    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsSheatafterd.pdf

    And the idea of not all D2O vapor included in the equations is pure nonsense.


    Or let's see what Fleischmann says on the subject:






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

    [1] https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf

    [2] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…AnalysisOfExperiments.pdf

    [3] http://www.newenergytimes.com/…schmannM-SomeComments.pdf

    [4] https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    [5] https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsSheatafterd.pdf


    These two comments are not contradictory. I don't always remember the things I say, but always post honestly and based on a coherent view. I may make errors and I may have some variation in interpretation, as we all, if honest and not fixed on one view irrespective of context or evidence, do.


    So: is Holmlid's stuff LENR? If it is, as claimed here by some, it is incoherent. If it is not, as some others here think, then it provides no support for LENR, and equally stands alone and therefore has no related confirmatory evidence (other than the very small number of Holmlid + students related work).


    I don't think calling my posts here verbiage is helpful, or true. For example, when I posted about P/(P*-P) I was genuinely trying (and I think succeeding) in understanding the issue and how the different to and fro insults slung by many related to facts.


    If people here don't want that they can (politely) ask me to leave because though I don't court (and generally don't get) likes, and I enjoy working stuff out when I can, I'm not one to go on posting when others don't want my contribution.


    If (some) other people (e.g. you) wish to continue insulting me gratuitously (verbiage) that weakens their case.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    (2) I have not done the work to bound it (need to work out for myself what KS is saying about the "gamma" term). It might bound in such a way as to justify KS's statements, or not. Again this is what it would be interesting to see laid out here.


    In order to simplify your task a little I will explain. This is all in prior posts but it is scattered about and confused by the ramblings of the peanut gallery, so I’ll clarify.


    The F&P calorimetric method is actually a dynamic chemical process model heat balance equation. They construct an equation that supposedly accounts for all the instantaneous changes to the energy content of the cell. Thus they have terms for heater inputs, radiative heat loss, energy carried away with mass loss, and a term for 'excess heat'. The mass loss term is what I am discussing here. Ascoli is correct that this does not apply to the so-called ‘HAD region’, since the energy balance equation becomes undefined when the electrolyte is boiling, and since when the electrical contact is broken by electrolyte loss, the current stops.


    F&P went to great lengths to define the radiative heat loss constant ‘properly’, and this activity was the primary subject of several papers by them, including the 2004 paper by Mosier-Boss, Szpak, Miles, and Fleischmann that critcized my work, and the unpublished manuscript of Fleischmann’s that Miles published in Infinite Energy in 2017 which repeated the prior noted critcisms.


    So, to reiterate, I will discuss below the term developed to account for the energy content lost by the electrolysis gases leaving the cell. (BTW, this means this calorimetric method only applies to open cells. You wouldn’t have that term in a closed cell.)


    In the original formulation of the term, shown in Oystla’s post F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement (Fig. A.3.1), there is a Greek letter ‘gamma’ at the front of this term. You have to check their glossary to see what it is, but it is a numeric measure of the ‘faradaic efficiency’, as they term it. (That is something of a misnomer if ATER (ATEC) occurs.) However, they actually apply a modified version of the original equation where they have dropped out the gamma, the one you showed in F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement (also they drop a beta term too, but that’s another story.) The term is included as a loss of energy, so the leading sign is negative. Thus, by dropping the gamma, they assume it equals 1, and therefore subtract all the possible heat loss for 100% Faradaic efficiency. They then ‘tune’ their calibration constants (‘heat transfer coefficients’) to match the results of a calibration run or period of a run. They then apply that semi-empirical equation to an ‘unknown’ run.


    However, at the same time, they acknowledge that there can be up to a 2% recombination reaction occurring from a parasitic electrochemical reaction at the electrodes (this is NOT ATER/ATEC). For them, this is just 'noise' and is unimportant. This is what the so-called ‘Will’ (from Fritz Will) model models. So, they acknowledge that the faradaic efficiency can be as low as 0.98 sometimes. Therefore, if that reaction is occurring, gamma should be 0.98, not 1.0. That means their model will subtract too much heat out under those conditions (2%). The only way their model can then be matched to the real data (without changing the calibration constant) is to offset the extra loss with a gain in the term they call ‘excess heat’. In reality, that term is just an ‘error accumulator’. Having a positive value for it can arise from the impact of assumptions just as shown above, and does not force one to the conclusion that a true, extra heat source has appeared.


    Now you might think that limits the error to 2%, but you would be forgetting the Pfactor (a sub-part of the whole mass loss term). I detailed the effect in post F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement . The point is that that 2% error, which F&P and SMMF consider ‘just noise’, gets increasingly magnified by the Pfactor the higher the temperature of the cell goes. As I noted 2% at 20C turns into 12% at 50C, etc.


    Now, the Will model predicts that the % electrochemical recombination will fall off as T increases, and in fact that’s what we see in the F&P data shown on the Figures (I’m recalling Fig. 6 here), so that is a confounding factor.


    But further, if the ATER or ATEC I proposed based on the Storms data occurs, that doesn’t have to follow that rule, and it will also be improperly compensated for by the ‘no-gamma’ model F&P (and later M. Miles) used. So we have two separate mechanisms that can produce less than 100% ‘Faradaic’ efficiency, yet F&P assume it is always 1.0. And most importantly, they don’t evaluate the magnitude of this error at their usual operating temperatures. The things they report as excess heat could just as easily be recombination.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    THHuxleynew As a general principle, better to use the warn button at the time you feel offended by something than bring it up in a post. Tho it might not always seem like it, the mods are here to help. Replying in a post always tends to start a bit of 2 and fro that is not conducive to a hopefully pleasant if fiercely argued discussion.


    Thanks Alan. I'd hope not. And my feelings are not exactly hurt - it is more that personalising the argument seems to me to reflect badly on anyone who personalises it. Maybe that does not need to be said!


    In this case, while I think Robert could criticise my posts in any number of valid ways, calling them "verbiage" tells us something about his emotional state, not my posts.



    More D2O in the exhaust gasses means more enthalpy lost to the cell from both temperature change and heat of vaporisation (and therefore more excess heat) so as I understand it if the D2O component is smaller calculated excess heat will be smaller, not higher.

    Thanks Kirk.


    So as I now understand it the P/(P*-P) term is challenged in three ways:


    (1) Agreed by F&P but viewed as insignificant, non-ideal Faradaic efficiency. Causing a false positive excess power of maybe 2% of the term

    (2) As hypothesised by Kirk, some unusual extra ATER mechanism that could cause an error of in principle up to 100% of this amount.

    (3) By non-equilibrium D2O concentration, causing an unknown error of up to 100% of this term (likely a false positive for the reason I and oystla both gave, though oystla got the sign wrong) in some unknown circumstances certainly including boiling.


    Important to note that you do not need all three of these mechanisms, just one might be enough to explain claimed values (numbers needed to determine this).


    It would be instructive to compare the quoted excess heat results with this term's value, at various temperatures.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    And you certainly noticed that the temperature goes back to 20C too, ...


    Of course. With reference to the jpeg in (1), the temperature of Cell 2 goes back to 20°C shortly after the cell dries out, an event that occurs at the time indicated by the letter "B" on the jpeg in (2).


    Quote

    before the current is 0 ??


    The current doesn't appear in any graph. However the jpeg in (2) shows that the decreasing of the cell temperature starts shortly after time "B", in agreement to the hypothesis that cell current stopped at least 2 hours after the "Cell dry" time indicated by F&P in Fig.8.


    Quote

    and that the time in the graph is way after the HAD ??


    Which graph and which time are you talking about?


    Quote

    So what you see is just the stopped experiment.


    No. I refer to the period of few hours shown in Fig.6B of the F&P paper (3), which goes from the large (but not complete) drop of cell voltage, to the complete drop of cell temperature. This period corresponds to the 3 hours indicated in Fig.8, which F&P interpreted as a HAD event. However, the residual voltage circled in green in the jpeg (1) and the correct positions (instants A and B) of the dry-out times indicated in the jpeg (2) demonstrate that there was no HAD event.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

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

    electrolysis enthalpy 237kJ/mol (dominates power in)

    vaporisation enthalpy 40kJ/mol (dominates P/(P*-P) term)


    So these errors are bounded at approx L*20% of energy in where L is that P/(P*-P) factor. At 50C H2O has partial pressure approximately 12%, so the P/(P*-P) factor is around 13%.


    The error in COP (power excess as fraction of electrolysis input powe) is therefore bounded by around 2.5%.


    This error bound increases sharply as temperature increases (and is notionally infinite at 100C).

    At 75C it is 12%. At 80C it is 20%.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    More D2O in the exhaust gasses means more enthalpy lost to the cell from both temperature change and heat of vaporisation (and therefore more excess heat) so as I understand it if the D2O component is smaller calculated excess heat will be smaller, not higher.

    I'll check the sign once more 😉


    Anyhow, I think we are being a litle stupid discussing calorimetry equations which where discussed and evaluated "to death" back in early 90's.

    Quote from oystla

    No current is running when cell is dry, only in Ascolis alternative facts


    Obviously, but I didn't say it. I meant instead that current runs during the entire period in which Cell 2 has remained at high temperature, for the many reasons listed in (1).


    Quote

    But this happens when critics like Ascoli do not bother to read and study the papers on the matter


    Like this from F&P

    8004-pasted-from-clipboard-png


    The sentence you highlighted in yellow describes the normal behavior of a simple electric circuit whose resistance goes to infinity: the current goes to zero while the voltage remains above zero. However, in the 1992 boil-off experiment, all the 4 cell voltages went to zero after their dry-out, as you can see in Fig.6A-D of the 1992 paper or in the jpeg (2). How do you explain this discrepancy?


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

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    It is indeed a historically oriented thread which you might feel has no relevance now.


    Both Kirkshanahan and THHuxley have dropped CCS from LENR history.

    however on LF there are over fifty posts pertaining to it

    and it is relevant to F&P expts and has wide applicability toevery

    known analytical chemistry method.

    "

    The problem I located can evidence anytime a calibration curve is used,

    which includes practically _every known analytical chemistry method_,


    not just mass flow calorimetry. "


    Kikshanahan 2001

    the obvious explanation would be that they turned off the power supply.


    Anyhow, the HAD did not occur in every cell, but "frequent".


    Robert: this is a bit elliptical for me.


    I'd just add that CCS is a grand name for something blindingly obvious and common, but much more significant in CF electrolysis calorimetry experiments than most due to the fact that they have high input powers relative to the reaction output power. In addition high loading H/D systems are unusual and could conceivably induce unusual effects like ATER.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.