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

Quote from Ascoli65

No, the switching off of the PSU's couldn't have been manual for obvious reasons. Moreover, the dry-out of Cell 1 happened in the very late evening of a Sunday (1) and Cells 2 and 3 dried-out in the middle of the night (2). A timely manual intervention would have required the permanent presence of someone h24*d7.

So, the PSU's turned off automatically as suggested by Alan Smith (3).

Any reference? And, anyway, what does it mean? We are talking about the specific HAD event claimed to have occurred during the 1992 boil-off experiment in only one of the 4 cells under testing. FWIK this is the only presumed HAD event that has been documented by F&P, although the permanence of a residual voltage during the period in which Cell2 remained at high temperature demonstrates that there was no HAD at all (4).

Btw, can you cite any other HAD event documented by F&P?

Monitoring and logging the current would have been not only reasonable, but mandatory. I also believed that F&P did it (5), although the absence of any current curve in all the F&P documents was inexplicable and rather suspicious. But thanks to your clipping of the their paper on the HAD (6), we have the confirmation that F&P didn’t log the cell current!

In fact, the small dagger at the end of the highlighted sentence indicates the following footnote:

You see? The cell current was assumed to be at the set value, this means that they did no measurement and, consequently, no logging of the cell current! And it can also be noted that the two references in the footnote refer exactly to the documents describing the 1992 boil-off experiment.

It's amazing. The more you explore this story, the more absurd it appears!

(1) FP's experiments discussion

(2) FP's experiments discussion

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

(4) FP's experiments discussion

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

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

Display More

Ascoli, you misunderstand.

They assumed set Value until dry to be CONSERVATIVE in their calculation of excess heat, it does not mean they did not log.

But as Wyttenbach says, they did not need logging since the Galvanostat was set to 500mA.

Quote from THHuxleynew

It is surely you, who are so certain these results stand, who must show that all the different properties of D and H

Quote from THHuxleynew

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%.

Display More

THHuxley calculates ( but does not show the algebraic basis )

that the calorimetric error at 80C is 20% and asserts that at 100C it is notionally infinite,

I commend THH on actually doing some calculation work and algebra which Ascoli65 rarely does.

It would be interesting to see the algebraic basis for this calculation

and to see how this algebraic basis accounts for the isotope effect

i.e the 0/100% difference for H20/D2O in anomalous heat via calorimetry by F&P

given that physicochemical properties of H/D do not differ by 0/100%

but at most differ by 50%/100% .... (for H20/D20 the differences are much smaller)

Quote from RobertBryant

THHuxley calculates ( but does not show the algebraic basis )

that the calorimetric error at 80C is 20% and asserts that at 100C it is notionally infinite,

I commend THH on actually doing some calculation work and algebra which Ascoli65 rarely does.

It would be interesting to see the algebraic basis for this calculation

and to see how this algebraic basis accounts for the isotope effect

i.e the 0/100% difference for H20/D2O in anomalous heat via calorimetry by F&P

given that physicochemical properties of H/D do not differ by 0/100%

but at most differ by 50%/100% .... (for H20/D20 the differences are much smaller)

Display More

I think I do show it. The P/(P*-P) fcator varies from 0 -> infinity (notionally) at 100C. You can calculate it from H2 (D2O not much different) partial vapour pressures.

The approx 20% (L) comes from the ratio between the electrolysis enthalpy and the D2O vaporisation enthalpy I quoted. If you look at the P&F equation what I say follows. Do I need to repeat that?

The math is arithmetic- I'd not dignify it with "algebra".

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Do I need to repeat that?

No.

what in the algebraic "P/(P*-P) factor" could account for the

different calorimetric response

to H20 versus D20:

the isotope effect?

as replicated, reported by Staker , 2018

wow I just realised its late Friday night in the UK? 11pm

Its 10 am .. a nice sunny morning here

just crushing somechick peas to make felafel

cooking only gives me pleasant emotions

I might try cooking some goose later on

Quote from Ascoli65

Is it really me who is trolling?

Yes.

If one asks a silly question ...

Quote from Ascoli65

any case, an experimental set-up aimed at verifying the most extraordinary and urgent discovery in the history of humankind

The 1989 discovery of anomalous heat has been verified by many over 3 decades

latest was Staker, replicated reported 2018

discussed here by Lomax

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/iccf-21/videos/staker/

But it wasn't the most urgent discovery..by far

I think that was Salvarsan 1912

for rampant Syphilis

the "French disease

or perhaps penicillin in WW2

or the Enigma code/ A bomb, also WW2.

Quote from Shane D.

the French disease

that's what the Italian's called it in Naples in 1494

,,so soon after 1492.(.good old Columbus in the New World)

and probably the Tahitians when they were 'syvilised' in C18

.. a terrible scourge which led to the invention of dentures

An alternative option could be to open another Ascoli65 thread, where only he can post and discuss and answer his questions...or limit this one for all other users to “read-only”...

Quote from Ascoli65

I feel responsible for providing an ambient where people interested in seriously debating the scientific aspects of the F&P experiments

Quote from RobertBryant

The 1989 discovery of anomalous heat has been verified by many over 3 decades

latest was Staker, replicated reported 2018

discussed here by Lomax

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/iccf-21/videos/staker/

The isotope effect is difficult to explain with foam, Term 5, and other Ascolian ambient inventions and conceits

Ascoli,

The main problem with your analysis is there is just too many assumptions, and the conclusions in either directions for this particular paper is not important for the science or for F&P previous work.

Boiling cellls is different from the work that was replicated by many.

With Regards to current , they did read the current, but since they where conservative in their calculations, the Form of the current curve (as the cell approach dry) from 500mA to 0 A is not important.

However, They may have logged the last period, but we cannot conclude either way by the paper. But you conclude, and that is an assumption.

Anyhow the HAD paper specifically evaluates several HAD Events, and states 100V and 0 A during the HAD period, so I believe they would have noticed and discussed different values, If there was.

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