What do you mean by Term 5?
It was very, very important to you to get Oystia to interpret your question mark.
How many times did you ask him? three of four?
You made such a wonderful picture full of pretty bubbles and labels.
Now it is not important at all?
No, the absence of Term5 is still important of course, but it's not the main issue of the 1992 paper (1). Let me better explain. This major paper of F&P is full of errors of many kinds: substantial, conceptual and formal.
In Equation , the lack of a term, that you call Term5, accounting for the enthalpy carried away by the steam bubbles is a conceptual error. It wouldn't have been an error if F&P had limited the application of Equation , and of the other derived equations, to cell conditions far from the boiling point. But, F&P have used Equation , derived from Equation , to draw the curves shown on Figure 7 and to deduce some considerations relative to the boiling timing. This is a nonsense.
Moreover, paper (1) contains several formal errors. The most incredible one is shown on Page 16, the most important of the paper because it contains the energy balance of the boil-off phase, where the first equivalence is dimensional wrong, because of the missing of the time value:
Of course, a typo like this could happen, especially in a paper written in hurry for a congress, in this case the ICCF3 held in October 1992. What is really striking is that the same identical error appeared 7 months later, in May 1993, on the equivalent article published in a peer reviewed scientific journal (2):
But the most serious ones are the substantial errors, those which invalidates the 2 conclusions of the 1992 paper (1). These are the 2 conclusions:
From Page 19 of http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf : [bold and color added]
We note that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system; the specific excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors. We also draw attention to some further important features: provided satisfactory electrode materials are used, the reproducibility of the experiments is high; following the boiling to dryness and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high temperature for prolonged periods of time, Fig 8; furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300ºC.
The first conclusion is based on the results of the calculation on Page 16. The about four times energy gain is given by: [(171+11)-37.5]/37.5 = 144.5/37.5 = 3.85. All these values were derived from the assumption that half of the water content of each cell has vaporized during the last 600 s of the boil-off phase. But, as shown by the lab video (3,4), during the last boil-off period the cells were mostly filled by foam and steam bubbles. Moreover the 600 s period has no experimental basis (5).
The second conclusion states that one cell (namely Cell 2) has remained at high temperature for more than 3 hours (as indicated in Fig.8) after the complete dryness of the cell. This conclusion is also wrong, because, as shown by the video (6), Cell 2 dried out more than 2 hours after the time indicated on Fig.8.
Having determined the successive course of the research on Cold Fusion, these two substantial errors are much more important than the other conceptual and formal errors, even if all of them are serious, and would require a clarification from the LENR experts who are going to meet tomorrow at MIT, Boston.