OK - ascoli. That boil-off experiment. Please enumerate the F&P mistakes.
My understanding:
- Heat balance during the close-to-equilibrium phase - no control of changing cell conditions (ATER + CCS).
- Claims that boil-off shows unexpected energy generation. Completetely unsubstantiated.
You will want to disagree with this? Or add to it?
THH
PS - I suggest we bring in Lonchampt (hope I've got name right now) because that replication is better described than F&P and he makes the same mistakes, but is clearer about it!
Display More
Ok, thanks. Here we go.
As for your two understandings, please leave the first one aside for now. The results during "the close-to-equilibrium phase" fall into all sort of possible inaccuracies, including those mentioned by Shanahan, but, more importantly, they are outside the scope of the "simplicity paper" (1).
In fact, the introduction starts in this way: "We 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." [underline added]
And the conclusions, are at page 19, state: "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." [underlines added]
So the "simplicity paper" contains two main conclusions, and both refer to the boil-off phase:
(a) – an excess rate of about four times, and
(b) – the ability of the cells to remain at high temperature for prolonged periods of time.
Let us focus, for now, on conclusion (b). It played a fundamental role in the CF history, because it will became the only public proof of the legendary HAD (Heat After Death) phenomenon.
This second conclusion is explicitly based on Fig.8 on page 14, whose caption says: "Expansion of the temperature-time portion of Fig 6B during the final period of rapid boiling and evaporation." Therefore it refers to the second of the 4 cells.
How was the curve on Fig.8 obtained? Quite simply, by plotting a short portion of the data that was used to draw one of the two curves in Fig.6B, the temperature one. This short portion begins at about 1,597,000 s, when temperature of the electrolyte is about 86 °C. Then it slowly reaches a maximum temperature of about 101°C, and suddenly drops at 1,657,000 s (at the right end of the horizontal arrow). The rising part is the longest and lasts 60,000 s, that is 16h40'.
But, on that same figure, an upward vertical arrow marks the time in which, according to the authors, the cell has dried, thus determining the period during which the cell remained at high temperature, according to F&P. Why is that arrow in that position? Where did the authors get the time when the second cell was full dry?
This is also explained in the "simplicity paper" on the same page 14: "It is therefore necessary to develop independent means of monitoring the progressive evaporation/boiling of the D2O. The simplest procedure is to make time-lapse video recordings of the operation of the cells which can be synchronised with the temperature-time and cell potential-time data." [underlines added]
So, F&P relied on the lab video to determine when the second cell went completely dry. But, fortunately, we still have the possibility to watch that video, so we have a unique opportunity to establish, 30 years later, whether the authors were right or wrong, with absolute certainty!
The answer (F&P were wrong!) is contained in this old post of mine (2). Please, look at it. The referred jpeg, that I had posted, is no more there, but you can see it here (3).
For the moment, I would stop here. Conclusion (a) can also be disproved with certainty on the basis of Figure 8 and/or the lab video. But, I think it's better to examine one conclusion at a time.
Any objection up to here?
(1) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
(2) RE: FP's experiments discussion
(3) https://imgur.com/X2q1TWv