Since THH now believes the boil off theory, perhaps he can put on his tin-foil hat and fill in a few details that Ascoli refuses to enlighten us about.
I've already answered these questions many times. Let's try again.
Quote
For example, why does the cell produce heat before the boil off, and after it, but not during it? Or have you people discovered errors in the calorimetry before and after the boil off? Since that calorimetry is totally different from the boil-off version, what errors have you found?
The aim of the 1992 experiment, as reported in the abstract of the paper presented by F&P at ICCF3 (1) was to "present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd/D2O system which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1kWcm-3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution." So the investigation concerned the boiling region.
The conclusion are reported at page 19: "We note that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system".
This conclusion is wrong because the calculations at page 16 show that F&P completely ignored the presence of foam, which, as suggested by common sense and confirmed by their lab video, was present inside the cells during the last 600 s of the boil-off. This is a huge error, a +400% error.
But, you ask: what about the periods before and after boil-off?
Let's start from the second one. Conclusions at page 19 contain a second claim:"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".
F&P mention Fig.8 were they wrote "Cell remains at high temperature for 3 hours". This period represents the delay between a vertical arrow indicating the "Cell dry" instant and the downward slope of the temperature curve. Starting from ICCF4 this alleged phenomenon will be called HAD (Heat After Death). Well, looking at the lab video, anyone, capable of calculating a simple time conversion, will realize that the vertical arrows was mispositioned of more than 2 hours. Conclusion, there was no delay in the cell cooling, so no HAD. The phenomenon came from a blatant error of the authors.
And finally, the period before boil off.
The alleged excess heat are reported in Figs.6A to 6D. A few tenths of watt compared to a few watts in input. Let's say less than 10%. This excess heat, calculated in a very complicated way, was not mentioned in the conclusions.
Is it real or not? Well, my answer is: there is no reason to believe that it is real, on the contrary there are serious reasons to assume that it is wrong. Why? Because it is an extraordinary claim coming from the same authors who made much more impressive and bigger errors in estimating the heat released during and after the boil off.
In other words, the careful analysis of the "Simplicity Paper", compared with the evidences of the lab videos, clearly shows that the authors are unreliable, at least for this specific work. So the tiny X/H claimed before the boil off can be more reasonably explained by any possible error they made in the calibration procedure.
Believing those four cells produced any excess heat before, during and after the boil off phase is only a matter of faith.
(1) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf