Posts by Ascoli65


    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 [1], 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 [1], and of the other derived equations, to cell conditions far from the boiling point. But, F&P have used Equation [4], derived from Equation [1], 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:


    JUGEMKw.jpg


    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):


    N4BazKi.jpg


    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.


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

    (2) http://coldfusioncommunity.net…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    (4) FP's experiments discussion

    (5) FP's experiments discussion

    (6) FP's experiments discussion

    Even if 99% of what Ascoli says was true, it would not be a definitive proof there is nothing behind LENR numerous experiments,


    I agree. In the sense that what I said in recent months refers to the 1992 boil-off experiment, therefore, logically speaking, only that single experiment is disproved by my criticisms, assuming they are true. But in practice, this has an impact also on the scientific reliability of F&P and of the other CF researchers who have endorsed those specific wrong results. This impact doesn't automatically disprove the other tests performed by them, it only increases the factual confirmations required to believe in the validity of these tests. This limited consequence requires, however, that the LENR community recognizes the error of the 1992 boil-off experiment, because if, on the contrary, it denies the evidence of a clearly wrong experiment, it loses any credibility necessary to successfully defend the validity of the remaining tests.


    Quote

    … and his enthusiasm would be there only to push more research with more attention to more details


    I understand scientist who believe in their experiments, and skeptics who warn them to check details. that is sincerity, science, humanity, and prudence.


    This is also understandable. But IMO, before engaging in more research, the field should carefully analyze the results collected in the past experiments. The first step should be to verify the internal congruity of these results and only after having excluded any obvious error, it would make sense to perform other experiments with more attention to more details.


    Quote

    I understand also, but with more sadness when uncertainty in evidences is exploited to support certainty of absence.


    I understand it is sad for those who enthusiastically believe in the soundness of their results, but it is, and must be, the norm. In claiming the discovery of a new extraordinary phenomena all uncertainties play in favor of the old ordinary status. It's the duty of the discoverers to reduce as much as possible the area of uncertainty, by putting at disposition of the scientific community all the information useful to remove as many doubts as possible.


    Quote

    I would propose someone repeats an F&P/Miles/Storms/McKubre/Violante/Letts experiment, but it seems they have done it recently, and nobody cared, still criticizing F&P89-92.


    IMO, speaking about the 1992 boil-off experiment of F&P, its many replication attempts have been carried out pursuing the wrong goal, ie obtaining TRUE positives.


    It would have been more meaningful pursuing a FALSE positive replication. It wouldn't be much expensive, because it would be achieved quite easily. The aim should be to reproduce a rapid decrease of the cell volumetric content as shown in the 1992 video, but providing the calorimeter with a continuous monitoring of the cell mass. The probable observation of a progressive decreasing of the cell mass in line with the electric energy dissipated inside the cell would eliminate any doubt about the misinterpretation of the results of the 1992 experiment.

    It is your view Ascoli65 and only your view.


    Take off the foam covered glasses and check out the real world.

    Check out how much support you have on this thread for your view

    your one and only Ascolian view


    Are you really equating the LENR-Forum with the real world? You should agree that, at least from a statistical point of view, the real world outside this forum has a totally different perception of the reality of Cold Fusion.


    Anyway, the fundamental importance given by the LENR community to the 1992 boil-off experiment and to the related documents is well documented in literature and in internet debates. It is not my view.


    The reactions to my comments were also easily predictable. I chose to share my criticisms about the major paper of the CF founders on a forum aiming to promote the research in this field. What should I have expected: praises, congratulations, likes? I'm only thankful to admins for their hospitality and to mods for their fairness, which allowed me to get what I was looking for and that I couldn't have found elsewhere: a strong criticism of my remarks. Exactly what was needed to test and verify their validity. In addition, I also received some rare but highly useful and appreciated direct support. What more should I have asked for?

    MF actually said at 3.28 "This is the device with which we are aiming to try to maintain boiling conditions for about 3 months

    Notice that Ascoli 65 is deceptively changing the words in a manner which shows a very good command of English,

    I suspect that Ascoli65 is a competent speaker of English but feigns difficulty.

    So actually it WAS NOT JUST A MATTER of 3 months .. NOT AT ALL... This is Ascoli65's DECEPTION.


    The words in my previous post were: "So, he directly confirmed that the "desired Excess Heat" had already been achieved. At that point, it was just a matter of maintaining the boiling condition for about 3 months, as he explained in the same documentary at t=35:28."


    In my opinion, these words summarizes also what the BBC narrator said just before MF (at 35:19): "They see the next step as engineering problem. How to maintain such high heat releases for longer periods of time." So, for what I understand, the BBC audience have been induced to believe that the engineering problem were mostly tied to the capacity of maintaining the boiling condition for 3 months.


    In any case, I indicated the link to the video and the time (which was 35:28 and not 3:28) so that anyone who understand English better than me can deduce his own interpretation.


    Quote

    Six decades for cold fusion prectical application gives a 2049...startup date.

    a bit sooner than ITER-FUSION = 2050++.


    Are you saying that the CF/LENR initiatives are aimed at playing the same game?


    Quote

    Practical application of nuclear technology is very difficult …


    Practical application of whatever technology is simply IMPOSSIBLE if based on misrepresented data of misinterpreted experiments.


    Quote

    Ascoli65 seeks to limit the context to the myopic Ascolian world view centred around one1992 paper.


    It's not my view. Large part of the F&P's activity first, then of MF's remembrances and, finally, of the propaganda carried out by the most active LENR advocates relies on the 1992 boil-off paper (2) and on the related videos. Therefore, a suitable and due way for the MIT organizers of the CF Colloquium to improve public awareness of this "important" field is to urge the participants to provide a definitive clarification of the fundamental claims contained in this unique paper.


    Quote

    Qual è il significato +?


    The meaning of the question mark is to represent the request to oystla , JedRothwell , Wyttenbach and the other L-F members of showing which term in equation [1] of the 1992 paper accounts for the enthalpy carried away by the vapor bubbles produced by boiling. This question has remained unanswered so far. I extend this request also to the LENR experts who will meet Saturday at MIT. Let's see if they will be able to answer.


    (1) https://patentimages.storage.g…66d704042/EP0463089B1.pdf

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

    Fleischmann and Pons were experimental scientists.

    They made no prediction date of practical application. AFAIK.

    Fleischmann wrote to Melvin Miles around 2003

    "I told the folks that the only research which was now justified was that aimed at producing a working prototype""


    The Colloquium announcement (1) speaks of "desired Excess Energy". F&P already claimed in their 1992 paper (2) "specific excess rates [which] are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors."


    And in 1994, speaking from his office at IMRA-France during his interviews for the documentary "Too close to the Sun" (3), MF told the BBC audience (at t=14:25): "And since we have been here, we’ve got up to about 4 kW/cm3, which is about the level of heat release you get in what is called a FBR."


    So, he directly confirmed that the "desired Excess Heat" had already been achieved. At that point, it was just a matter of maintaining the boiling condition for about 3 months, as he explained in the same documentary at t=35:28.


    Unfortunately, all this bold declarations were based on a single boil-off experiment, the one carried out on April-May 1992, whose lab video shows that F&P mistook foam for boiling water, completely mistaking the evaluation of the power balance, which gave an non-existent excess heat and, moreover, at a level suitable for practical applications.


    Quote

    F&P did not play on the ITER field where the goalposts are shifted continually... now at 2050++?

    and currently billions of euros are poured into a new concrete Stonehenge in Provence, France

    and even a few miserable 60 sterling millions in Oxford UK... depending on how Brexit breaks.


    You can also add the 500(++…) MEuros that Italy is going to waste in the DTT (Divertor Tokamak Testing) facility. So what? Here we are talking about Cold Fusion and more specifically of the F&P experiments.


    Quote

    Ascoli65 can indulge in historical prophecy and postdict what F&P should have predicted..,

    but Ascoli65 can also reveal to the world and MIT, Italy

    the intricacy of Term 5 +? in his pixelated masterpiece...


    This is the time of revelation for MIT. This scientific institute is going again to put its prestigious name at disposition of the LENR community. That's good, if it is done for improving public awareness, as stated in their announcement. It's less good, if the MIT name is used to delude the public with unfounded information. It is responsibility of the organizers to request that the main claims, on which the CF research is based, be adequately clarified for the benefit of the public.


    They could start with the 4 kW/cm3 claim, by showing to the participants to the CF Colloquium the video of the 1992 boil-off experiment (4) and asking them to clarify once and for all if the content of the cells during their final boil-off phase was boiling water (liquid fraction = almost 100%) or mostly a mix of foam and vapor bubbles (liquid fraction <<100%).


    (1) http://world.std.com/~mica/2019colloq.html

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

    (3) http://vimeo.com/9438745

    (4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

    The world is waiting.... Italy... MIT


    The world is waiting MIT, whose "Energy Production and Energy Conversion Group" organizes the "The 2019 Cold Fusion [LANR] Colloquium at MIT" in order "to increase excellence of science and engineering and improved public awareness of the development of this important field" (1).


    Will they really improve "public awareness"?


    A 2019 theme is "engineering "road" from achieving the hydrided lattices in nickel and palladium and similar metals, to releasing the desired Excess Energy". A road which seems to be much longer than what Fleischmann and Pons let the public believe when, in 1992, claimed (2) "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."


    Will the Colloquium organizers ask the CF/LENR/LANR veterans, who will meet under the MIT authoritative brand, to clarify how this road has started about 30 years ago, in order to increase public awareness of whether it will ever have a successful end?


    (1) http://world.std.com/~mica/2019colloq.html

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

    As said the boil off was always an extrapolation or and estimate.


    Not exactly. The 1992 boil-off experiment is the most famous of the F&P tests and their results have been presented in the following decades as the most tangible proof of the CF reality and of its capacity to provide excess heat for practical applications.


    In the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 (1), the presumed results of the boil-off phase have been calculated (see Page 16) on the basis of experimental data, which the authors presented as "reasonably accurate estimates" or "accurately known" (see Page 14). However, as shown in the related video, these data resulted to be misinterpreted and misrepresented.


    Quote

    The proof for LENR is the whole phase before.


    You are probably talking about those numbers indicated as Qf/W and aligned on the four diagrams of Figure 6. But this is not a proof. These are only numbers obtained with a highly questionable procedure, better described in the 1990 seminal paper (2), and applied to unknown raw data. Hence no proof, just a declaration.


    Quote

    The boil off only shows the potential of LENR …


    As far as can be seen from the lab video, the boil-off only shows the potential of LENR to delude people about the capacity of the F&P method to produce excess heat.


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

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

    The COP figure seems to be an "ITER goal" and part of their exorbitant self-esteem, not sure ...this is common stuff to google from the ITER page, and you can find the JET data in other places as well...


    Yes, "exorbitant self-esteem" seems an appropriate way to define the "ITER goal" and Krivit has provided a much more realistic power balance (the energy one is even worse), which turns out to be negative (1):

    ITER-85.png


    However, I'd remind everyone that this thread is dedicated to the F&P experiments and I would ask the mods to possibly move all the above comments, including this one, somewhere more appropriate, as anticipated (2).


    (1) http://news.newenergytimes.net…t-and-iter-fusion-claims/

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

    Why can't Ascoli65 be more assertive

    Don't rely on Oystia.

    Don't be humble.. Assert Ascolian algebraicity.


    My math is not important. It can wait. What is important here and now is whether F&P math is correct and my assertion is that it is not correct. The calorimeter model described at Page 3 of their major paper (1) is not adequate to describe the energy balance when the cell is near or at boiling conditions, because it lack the term which accounts of the enthalpy carried away by the vapor bubbles produced by direct boiling. Is this claim not assertive enough?


    oystla is fundamental on this issue. He triggered this last and fundamental debate on the adequacy of the calorimeter model, when he pointed at Fig.7 to claim that F&P proved mathematically some crucial aspects of the boil-off timing (2). However, this Fig.7 is based on Equation [4], which derives from the calorimeter model represented in Equation [1], and both these equations lack of the boiling term. This is another blatant and fundamental nonsense contained in the paper reporting the most famous F&P experiment.


    oystla is the only one - among thousands of L-F members, mostly LENR supporters, and, in many cases, strenuous advocates, who even claim to have strong competence in the field – to have carefully looked at the documents and carried out a correct and serious scientific confrontation on the matter. I'm grateful to his effort and would like to conclude our confrontation on the 1992 paper (1) with a common agreement on its validity and then proceed to the examination of the seminal 1990 paper (3), as he asked many times.


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

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

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


    Quote

    The world, Italy and MIT are waiting.


    The world is awaiting MIT!

    I am waiting for Ascoli65's algebraic definition of " vapor bubbles produced by boiling"

    in Term5.

    Is it D2O or A2O?

    Time in Italy 2.14 am .Time in MIT 9.14 pm.

    • JedRothwell likes this.


    Let's give oystla some more time to figure out and explain how the calorimeter model of Fleischmann and Pons represents this term.


    Then there are the CF veterans, who are going to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Cold Fusion announcement at MIT. They should be able to easily solve the mystery. Many of them have thoroughly analyzed the papers and models of F&P and have proclaimed their validity for decades. So, they should know the answer … if there is one.


    JedRothwell , who liked your post, is sure that the calorimeter model in the 1992 paper (1) includes the term which accounts for vapor from boiling (2-3). I hope he will be in Boston next Saturday, to ask the major world experts in LENR to show where it hides, so to avoid the "devastating" consequences feared by oystla (4).


    In any case, I'll wait until next Monday before proposing my definition of Term5.


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

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

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

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

    About six days to go till til the 30th anniversary of Fleischmann and Pons public announcement of their first findings


    Six days for avoiding the risk of the consequences predicted by oystla :

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


    So you started by the bold and earth shattering claim of "it doesn't account for the vapor carried out by the bubbles directly produced by boiling!", which would be devastating to all of F&P's work.


    May be you did not understand the ramification of your claim?


    And, for my understanding, the ramification can hardly spare those who supported this work.


    Btw, I'm still waiting his reply to my answers to his last remarks.


    I agree if your


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


    refers only to the vapor which saturates the streams of D2 and O2 bubbles produced by electrolysis, in accordance with Appendix 3 of the F&P's 1990 paper (1), where it is specified that: "the gas stream has been assumed to be saturated with D2O vapor at the partial pressure P which applies to the cell temperature". It means that the [A3.2] term of (1) accounts only for the steam that leaves the cell inside the D2 and O2 bubbles, and only within the limit of the quantity which saturates those bubbles. It does NOT represent ALL the vapor leaving the cell, in particular the vapor produced by direct boiling, which onsets when the water temperature is approaching the boiling point.


    Actually your equation [2] expresses an upper limit, ie the "=" should have been a "=<". The reason is that, a low temperatures, the evaporation from the surrounding water is limited by the kinetic, ie by the evaporation rate. In the opposite situation, when direct boiling begins, your equation [2] makes no sense, because the denominator (P'/P-1) goes to zero.


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


    Actually, if you read a little about water electrolysis you will learn that the Efficiency of splitting water increase with increasing temperatures. That is why there are a lot of work at developing high temperature electrolyzers.


    i.e. There are relatively spoken more H2/D2 gas produced at 100 degC than at 40 degC


    Are you sure? FWIK, every second, electrolysis generates 0.5 moles of D2 and 0.25 moles of O2 for each Faraday (F) of current (I). The "gas stream" term in the F&P model has no dependency from the temperature. It has only a coefficient "gamma", equal or less than 1, defined as the "current efficiency of electrolysis".


    Quote

    All electrolyzers have losses, i.e. the energy is both gone into D2 / O2 production AND heating the electrolyte.


    In the F&P cells, the Joule heating of the electrolyte is always predominant, especially at boiling conditions, when cell voltage is high.


    Quote

    For an electrolytic cell the formula (4) will produce the total amount of D2O vapor.


    TOTAL Saturated D2O vapor energy rate stream = L * (3) = L * (3/4) * (I/F) * P / (P'-P)........................................... (4)


    Ref my previous message above for the important formula (1) that is the starting point here.


    NOT the TOTAL amount of D2O vapor, only the limited amount required to saturate the D2 and O2 bubbles. See my first answer in this post.


    Quote

    The formula for D2O steam at pure resisitive heating of water would be a little simpler, but here we developed the formula for an electrolytic cell.


    Which would it be this simpler formula in your opinion?


    OK, I see another misunderstanding.


    You think there is no additional D2 / O2 production even if current increase, but that's wrong.


    Also D2+O2 rate increases as per


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


    You did say you agreed with the formulas


    The misunderstanding is yours. Please read again my phrase. I wrote that the "gas stream increases by 10%". Of course, I referred to the electrolytic gas (D2 + O2) which increases by the same amount of the current. However, due to the simultaneous 10% increase of the voltage, the dissipated power increases by 21% and, hence, the TOTAL production of vapor increases by the same amount, ie more than twice the amount predicted by the "gas stream" term included in the F&P model.


    Even if I shouldn't reply to an OT and ad-hom comment like yours, I remind you once again that I've already explained my position on this subject (1).


    As for the F&P papers, I think you could provide a better help to their scientific reliability if you explain how their calorimetric model takes into account the enthalpy losses due to the vapor produced inside their cell by direct boiling. Not a hard task for someone who is going to revolutionize the basis of the nuclear physics.


    (1) Clearance Items

    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)

    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


    I had already told you (1) that "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."


    You see? I too try to write as clear as possible. But, just in case, I try to explain what it means with other words.


    It means that I believe in all your equations from [1] to [4] (*), but only if they are correctly applied for calculating the sensible and latent heat carried away by the vapor that saturates the electrolytic gas, which doesn't include the vapor produced by direct boiling.


    (*) I use the square brackets to distinguish equations from links


    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...


    No, I'm of the opinion that, near or at boiling, the heat from electricity, which is the only form of energy required to explain the results reported in the 1992 paper (and IMO in all the other LENR reports), is mainly removed by the latent heat associated to the steam generated by two completely different mechanisms: (a) the saturation of the gas bubbles produced by electrolysis and (b) the vapor bubbles produced by direct boiling on the hot surfaces of the electrodes, the latter being by far the most important. The "Enthalpy content of the gas stream" term in the calorimeter model described in equation [1] of (2), as well as in Appendix 3 of (3), accounts only for the enthalpy carried away by the vapor produced by the first mechanism.


    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.


    I was talking about the second case, of course, and you confirm that your equation [4] can't accounts for the vapor produced by Joule heating. You should remember that at boiling conditions, most of the electric energy is dissipated by Joule effect in the electrolyte and in the electrodes.


    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.


    I know, but this variation has nothing to do with boiling. Consider these two opposite situations:


    A) when cell temperature increases from 40°C to 60°C the vapor content in gas bubbles triples (the saturation pressure goes from 78.5 mbar to 245 mbar), but in both cases there is no boiling at all;


    B) at boiling condition, if the cell voltage (V) increases by 10%, the current (I) also increases by 10%, it means that the gas stream increases by 10% and hence the vapor carried away by them increases by 10%. However, the electric power (V*I) dissipated inside the cell increases by 21% and, since the water is already at his maximum temperature, all this extra power should be removed by increasing the total vapor flux by 21%.


    Do you see why the vapor produced by these two mechanisms (the saturation of the electrolytic bubbles and the direct boiling) are completely decoupled?


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

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

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

    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!

    From How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

    [bold added]


    JedRothwell

    Aug 14th 2017


    THHuxleynew wrote:

    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:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf


    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:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf


    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:


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…-blew-up-it-must-be-lenr/


    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?

    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?


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

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

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

    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?


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


    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!


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

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

    [...]
    BUT: Their major paper of 1990 describes the model of calorimeter that is a generalized model for all temperature ranges. And as shown in the paper, the “black box” model in Appendix 3 includes all terms required for a complete model.

    [...]

    I'm a little disappointed that Ascoli has not yet discovered the term, but I'm not at all surprised ;).


    No, I haven't discovered the term which accounts of the enthalpy loss due to direct boiling, neither in the above Fig.3A, extracted from the 1990 paper (1), nor in the equivalent Equation [1] of the 1992 paper (2).


    I've already asked you to help me in localizing this term (3). I admit I'm not able to do it. So, please, tell me where it is.


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

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

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