Posts by oystla

Quote from Ascoli65

PS

Are you able to answer the above question highlighted in red?

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?

You mean you tried to read the 1992 paper again and did not understand it?

Or tried to read the seminal 1990 paper and did not understand where the term for vapor is included?

What about reading the Wilson critique from 1992. He explains the terms well

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…AnalysisOfExperiments.pdf

Or while you are at it you could also read the Fleischmann reply to Wilson, where F&P explains further the calorimeter enthalpy balance

http://www.newenergytimes.com/…schmannM-SomeComments.pdf

Or just take a course in Electrochemical calorimetry

Quote from Ascoli65

Lande, are you really a chemical process engineer?

Please, can you explain the physical meaning of the second term (the one with P, P* and L) in the numerator of the formula [4] included in my previous post (1), so that I too can understand how good was my comment and laugh with (or of) you?

(1) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5850-f-p-s-experiments-%E2%80%93-30-years-after-cf-announcement/?postID=106281#post106281

Are you serious ?

Ascoli just found the reason for F&P's "Excess Heat" calculations since the 1980's: They forgot to include the energy term for water vapor produced in their mathematical model for the calorimeter .

Why are you bothering doing this "research" when you do not understand electrochemistry ?

I suggest you read the paper once more.

Or even better, you could read their Major paper on the subject, the 1990 paper (1) . You see the term for water vapor would always be required, also for their work below boiling

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

Quote from Ascoli65

No. Lonchampt referred to both. He noticed that the denominator of the relation [3] of his paper (1), that is the difference (P*-P) between the atmospheric pressure (P*) and saturation pressure (P) at the cell temperature (that he erroneously called "the water pressure at the temperature of the bath"), goes to zero as cell temperature approaches the boiling value, therefore this relationship can't be used without introducing huge errors.

Yes, Lonchampt has wisely choosen to calculate the energy balance in the boiling region by using his relation [6], which is equivalent to the calculations on Page 16 of the F&P paper (2). But unlike F&P, who arbitrarily and erroneously applied this method to the supposed last 10 minutes of boil-off, Lonchampt applied this method starting from the moment when "temperature reaches a value close to boiling, i.e. typically 99 to 101°C", that is for the whole period of many hours during which the water in the cell was boiling.

However this Lonchampt's criterion to mark the onset of boiling is still inadequate: the boiling on the electrode surfaces begins when the water bulk temperature is lower than 99°C. A better criterion would have been to start from the moment when the input power becomes greater that the 9-11 W estimated as the heat losses by radiation/conduction.

In each diagram shown in the Lonchampt paper (1), the label "Excess Heat" must be changed to "Energy Unbalance" or, even better, "Balance Error". The same holds for his relations [1] and [6].

The only thing F&P proved in their Fig.7C of (2) (I guess you are referring to this specific diagram) is their inability to make an energy balance!

Fig.7C is wrong with many respects, starting from erroneous indication of the cell dryness at the time of about 1656 ks, despite the lab video indicates a time of around 1655 ks, that is about 9000 s after the time indicated in Fig.7C.

Fig.7C shows the values of (k'_R)₁₁ calculated by the following relation [4] of (2).

The numerator contains 3 terms:

1 - the energy input due to electrolysis;

2 - the energy content of the gas stream, including the heat carried away by the steam which is supposed to saturate the gas bubbles produced by electrolysis;

3 - the change in the enthalpy content of the calorimeter due to the increase of its temperature.

Looking more deeply at the second term, the presence of the difference between the specific heat of gaseous and liquid D2O is questionable, in fact Lonchampt didn't include it in his equivalent relation [3] of (1). But this is a minor issue.

The big problem is that the second term is evidently inadequate to account for the energy losses due to evaporation during boiling, for the following two reasons:

a - the factor P/(P*-P) goes to infinite (as already said);

b - and, most importantly, this term only accounts for the vapor which saturates the gas bubble produced by electrolyses, it doesn't account for the vapor carried out by the bubbles directly produced by boiling!

In other words, in their major paper (2) - which, as stated in the abstract, "concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1kWcm-3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution" - F&P incredibly omitted to consider, in their calorimeter model, the enthalpy loss due to vapor produced by boiling!

(1) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf

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

Display More

Please Ascoli, do not try to be an electrochemist 😉

And there is a difference in mathematical theoretical calculations and practical measurements.

By making theoretical calculations we may identify the borders and expected results.

Anyhow:

P is partial pressure which applies to the cell temperature; P* is the atmospheric pressure and L is the enthalpy of evaporation of D2O.

I.e you are wrong If you understand the above 😉

The suggestion that Fleischmann forgot the vapor from Boiling in his mathematics is the best comment so far 🤣😅😜

Quote from Alan Smith

Well, it's a very strange kind of a patent application. Basically an attempt to hijack a physical state and arrangement of atoms. As here:-

1. An apparatus for generating power via low energy nuclear reactions (LENR), comprising:a quasicrystal or quasicrystalline approximant material designed to have an arrangement of atoms, associated with a structure of the quasicrystal or quasicrystalline approximant material, forming active sites for LENR to occur when the material is loaded with a hydrogen isotope.

2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the quasicrystal or quasicrystalline approximant material has an arrangement of metal atoms forming active sites for LENR, wherein the metal atoms are organized as atomic clusters of metal atoms.

3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein a hydrogen isotope gas is loaded into the quasicrystal or quasicryalline approximant material with the hydrogen isotope being a reactant species for LENR at the nuclear active sites via at least one of: 1) hydrogen isotope fusion and 2) metal atom-hydrogen atom fusion.

4. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the metal atoms comprises palladium and the gas comprises deuterium.

5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the material comprises a clathrate guest-host system in which the guest comprises atomic nano-clusters of metal atoms having a different symmetry than a host cage.

6. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the guest comprises atomic nano-clusters of a metal with the atomic nano-clusters having a different symmetry than the host cage selected such that the atomic nano-clusters have a restriction on at least one degree of freedom for tunneling that increases an atomic tunneling probability, relative to no restriction.

7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the material has an energy landscape with a network of double well potentials, with each double well potential having a first well site and a second well site selected for tunneling to occur from an occupied well site to an unoccupied well site of the double well potential.

8. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein each double well potential imposes a restriction on at least one degree of freedom for tunneling of a heavy atom.

9. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the material has a restriction on a degree of freedom for atomic tunneling including at least one of a spatial restraint, a temporal restraint, and an orientation restraint on degrees of freedom.

10. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the restriction on the degree of freedom is selected to maximize a negentropy.

11. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the quasicrystal or quasicrystalline approximant material comprises a guest-host clathrate material having a negentropy at a maximum possible level.

12. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the material is designed with a guest-host structure create tautomeric tunneling.

13. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the material is designed for tunneling phason flips to occur of at least metal atoms as at least a part of the mechanism for LENR.

Display More

Haha, and how is Klee Irwin going to prove that potential commercial CF / LENR products is violating his patent

Quote from Ascoli65

Their method to calculate the evaporation by means of the saturation pressure, was totally inadequate, even though it provided a less erroneous estimation of the time required to boil-off half of the water mass. It's not just me who affirm this. Lonchampt explained the reason for this inadequateness"

you misunderstand the point made by both F&P and Lonchampt.

Lonchampt referred to the water vapor pressure, not the atmospheric pressure. There is no problem in measuring atmospheric pressure accurately at three decimals, 0,966 bar vs. 0,953 bar.

Lonchampt use the term with saturation pressure up to 99 degC, but above 99 degC, they instead choose to calculate the energy to evaporate the total amount of water.

And by the way, it is interesting that also Lonchampt show a general trend of increased excess heat at higher temperatures

But as a theoretical approach the vapor pressure term would be included at all temperatures,as F&P showed in their more advanced mathematical approach. And F&P proved mathematically in their figure 7 that at atmospheric pressure of 0,953 bar the Kr (the heat transfer coefficient) calculated would have to gradually reduce 8 hrs before totally empty cell and. In such case the cell would have to be half full 2,5 hrs before empty.

They argue that this approach is unlikely, since the heat transfer coefficient did not show marked reductions hrs before Boiling and it meant there would be no Boiling the last period (Boiling would reduce the time to empty), and the measured atmospheric pressure where higher than 0,953 bar

Quote from Ascoli65

How can you say this? I started looking at the ICCF3 paper last September, but you were already disputing on it exactly one year ago (1) and you probably started this controversy much earlier.

This is the MF's major paper, as Rothwell wrote last August (2): "Fleischmann’s mathematical analysis of calorimetry was far more complex than most people's. […] He liked nothing better than an experiment stripped down to its essentials, so that it could not be refuted. The title of his major paper says it all: “From simplicity via complications back to simplicity.” (bold added)

Believe him for once.

In this thread we are not debating whether LENR is real or not. We are only discussing whether some of the papers, which are brought by LENR supporters as the indisputable proof that LENR is real, are correct or not. And the F&P paper presented at ICCF3, despite being issued in 1992, is the paper which is most frequently presented, in particular by Rothwell (3), as proof of the indubitable experience of MF in calorimetry.

Completely wrong approach. The first step is to check whether the evidences provided by those who claim the discovery of an extraordinary phenomenon are correct, starting from the completeness and internal consistency of the experimental data. If these elementary requirements fail, it is not justified to waste public money trying to replicate this phenomenon.

(1) Uploaded Letters from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles

(2) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf

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

Display More

Their major paper ?

I thought we just agreed that the 21 pages 1992 paper is an important paper on road to practical implementation of Cold fusion utilization in society, I.e. it proved the increase of Power and energy densities at elevated temperature.

F&P used the years after 1990 to identifiy possible ways of increased excess energy for practical applications.

But the major F&P paper in the science of Cold Fusion, is the 58 pages 1990 paper (1) , and there should be no doubt.

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

Quote from Ascoli65

It's not my belief, but of MF. The 2.5 hours were the first conclusion of F&P, as reported in (1). Personally I also disagree with this other approach they used to derive a longer, and hence less wrong, period of time. The only correct approach is to calculate the energy balance during the entire boiling period, that is from the time when the energy input became greater than 11 W, which is the value estimated by F&P on page 16 of their ICCF3 paper (2) for the enthalpy output to ambient.

What I meant in (1) is that, for F&P, the (absolutely wrong) evidence provided by the video prevailed on the other (less wrong) evaluation based on the evaporation rate at certain pressures. Mine was an answer to Wyttenbach who had written "They nowhere state that their paper(s) is (are) based on the Ascoli video(s) ...". I have shown, on the contrary, that, for F&P, the 1992 paper was actually based on their (wrong) interpretation of the video.

It could be a good way to distinguish the 1990 and 1992 papers. In any case F&P got dozens of M$ from the Utah and the Japanese to engineer a useful embodiment of their alleged discovery. Their ICCF3 paper is the only published outcome for this huge financial effort and it is even wrong, as anyone can understand just by looking at their available videos.

As for the 1990 seminal paper, I already told you (3), that, for what I have seen so far, it is also questionable. Anyway, I promised to discuss this more scientific paper, but for now the ICCF3 paper on the 1992 boil-off experiment has the precedence.

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

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

(3) FP's experiments discussion

Display More

And Again you are wrong.

The document (1) as you describe yourself is mainly dedicated to cell calibratiuons, i.e. heat transfer. And that is also the main point.

The video where used as a separate source of information. If they used too low atmospheric pressure the cell would have to be half empty 2,5 hrs before visual empty from the video. But that would again lead to conclude a heat transfer coefficient that gradually reduced, which was not observed in their calibrations.

So using atmosferic pressure as measured was the likely correct approach.

But as Fleischmann states in (1), The actual true result will be somewhere between 2,5 hrs and 10 minutes boiling, as stated above, but closest to the 10 minutes, ref figure below.

And in any case excess heat would be concluded.

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

Quote from THHuxleynew

I agree with you: too much is made of this paper. I don't give it the importance Ascoli does. BUT - equally - from the reaction here of you and others it seems that you give it great importance, in which case ascoli's argument for it being important is at least half justified.

From my POV if LENR is real it is very difficult to see how 30 year old early experiments could have results anything like as significant as many replications (some careful) and other related results. In any normal field they would be forgotten by now except as a pioneering attempt.

The real issue is why further research and replication over 30 years has not already nailed the matter so that errors, if they exist, are known and referenced.

When Ascoli spreads misinformation outside this forum and presents it as facts, not as his opinion, I need to react and provide some counter arguments.

And the real issue in my opinion is: After 1989 the field of cold fusion was in real need to develop theories to explain the effect, and perform required test of theories to converge into some explanations and bring the field into clarity.

But the nuclear physics community threw the field into darkness in 1989. So there was no theorists except Hagelstein and a few others that used time on this field, and even less money that could be spent on testing theories.

So the only thing happening in the field was new experimental science to figure out what could work by trial end error.

And to this day we know some of the conditions that will make the excess heat appear in deuterium-palladium systems.

But I still believe we need to find the explanatory theory to get LENR into real practical applications.

Now then, Brullioun have managed to get LENR working by trial and error, but COP of 3 is too low. They need to find higher levels.

A right theory would resolve all of these issues, no more need for trial and error approach.

Ascoli: " ....conclusion, this 2006 publication confirms that the 1992 boil-off experiment is the most important of F&P and it seems to be the only one of interest for practical applications.."

Well, you confuse two vital points in this science.

1. Practical applications for use in society

2. Papers that try to understand the causes and mechanism of LENR / cold fusion.

F&P where very clear of their Intentions allready in 1989: their plans was to engineer a practical system that could compete with the normal nuclear power stations in producing practical power. Also as proven by their Patent from 1990. You do not spend huge sums of money on patents If you have no commercial intentions.

So for practical applications, the 1992 paper was of importance, since that was their intentions of their reearch in France, and the paper describes their experiment in that direction.

But for the science of CF/LENR it is not the important one. The seminal paper of 1990 will and always will be the most important Scientific F&P paper.

And it will be understanding the science behind LENR that will rewarded the Nobel price, not engineering a practical system for utility.

Ascoli; "the video prevails on any other consideration, and lead them to reduce from 2.5 hours to 11 minutes their estimation of the time required to boil half of the water content of the cel"

You forgot what they stated in te paper

"The first value (ATM P=0,953 bar) has been chosen to give a smooth evaporation of the cell contents (M0 = 5.0 D2O) i.e., no boiling during the period up to the point when the cell be- comes dry, 50,735 s. However, this particular mode of operation would have required the cell to have been half-full at a time 2.3 hrs before dryness. Furthermore, the ambient pressure at that time was 0.966 bars. We believe therefore that such a mode of operation must be excluded. For the second value of the pressure, 0.97 bars, the cell would have become half empty 11 minutes before dryness, as observed from the video recordings (see the next section) and this in turn requires a period of intense boiling during the last 11 minutes. It can be seen that the heat transfer coefficient k  decreases gradually for the assumed condition P = 0.953 bars whereas it stays more nearly constant for P = 0.97 up to the time at which the cell is half-full, followed by a very rapid fall to marked negative values. These marked negative values naturally are an expression of the high rates of enthalpy generation required to explain the rapid boiling during the last 11 minutes of operation. The true behaviour must be close to that calculated for this value of the ambient pressure.

"

As they proved there was no such gradually decreasing heat transfer coefficient, and since the atmospheric pressure was close to 0,97 bar, your belief of half full 2,5 hrs before empty are completely wrong.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Ascoli's live in this forum is based on one video - at least the one he claims, that shows, what he thinks it does not show...

P&F made hundreds of experiments with no videos... They nowhere state that their paper(s) is (are) based on the Ascoli video(s) ...

For the same reason I can proudly confirm: Hollywood has proven that UFO's exist, that Brian is Jesus (sorry MP of UK..) that the US army always wins a war and that tomorrow extra terrestrials will land and kill the president...

OH! - and the earth is flat at least until yesterday ...

Display More

And Ascoli blows up graphs to insane proportions and think it is a good analysis.

While the Hansen report use the raw data which where made available for them.

Let's see - who to trust? an evaluation based on raw data, or and evaluation based on blowing up graphs and watching fuzzy videos 🤓 ?

Quote from RobertBryant

ICCF4 Hawaii 1994

Fleischmann and Pons reported "Heat after death"

Once the electrolytic current was switched off

the temperature of the dry cell kept rising

for 2.5 hours.

Notice that this is not pixelated Ascolian artwork

from the imaginary piazza,

Strong evidence that the heat was not from

resistance heating via electric current

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIproceedinga.pdf Pg 8-1

Display More

Very interesting.

And particularly that cells with H2O does not show any heat after death as with D2O.

The difference in behaviour between H2O and D2O is a very strong evidence of something interesting is going on.

Link directly to paper

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…f/ICCF-4/v2/8_ICCF4-2.pdf

And for the 30 year anniversary, we may enjoy this rare interview from December 1989.

There they mention the major discovery of heat bursts and their preparation of the definitive major paper , that was released in 1990, and that has been known as their seminal paper of this new science 😎

Quote from Ascoli65

Apart from the wrong reference to the video still in Figure 10 (A) (see my point 3 below), the other assumptions you made are not exactly errors. They are just arbitrary assumptions of plausible data which give a small excess heat of 15% (about the 4% of the value claimed by F&P) and that could easily became -15% (missing heat) simply by slightly changing some of these assumptions.

Overall, your analysis goes in right direction. It's the same approach I used a few months ago (1): extending the energy balance to the whole period of many hours during which the cell loses heat by evaporative cooling, because the electrolyte is near or at boiling temperature..

Your main error is methodological: thinking that an unbalance of +15% in an Energy Budget calculated by using the coarse data available on the F&P paper can be considered evidence of the presence of excess heat. This unbalance is only the results of inaccuracies in the input data and, hence, the proof that there has not been any excess heat.

Yes, it's just excess heat produced by math! You can't rely on these arguments to demonstrate the generation of excess heat. The F&P approach was wrong, yours is right and provides a substantial equivalence between input and output, the mismatch being due to the inaccuracy of the data.

Are you kidding me? Please, don't mix math with cunning.

There is no way to estimate a half hour time from a graph whose single pixel has a duration of 1h40m (2).

In your previous post (3) you wrote: "1.Refill time: 11:30 as taken from the Video linked in the F&P Paper". So, you mentioned the Video in the Paper. The only video images in the paper are shown in the four video stills of Figure 10 and the video still on Figure 10(A) has precisely the time 11:30:07 stamped on it.

I disagree. F&P concluded their paper saying that "excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input". This is a very extraordinary claim. Isn't it? But the alternative and trivial interpretation of their experimental data is that the electric energy input was sufficient to evaporate all the water.

Well, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences" means that all the margins of uncertainty in the disclosed data play in favor of the most trivial interpretation. If you want to demonstrate that your extraordinary claims are real you must provide adequate data. Keeping the raw data hidden, can be only interpreted unfavorably to the extraordinary claim.

(1) FP's experiments discussion

(2) FP's experiments discussion

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

Display More

Ascoli: "...small excess heat of 15% (about the 4% of the value claimed by F&P"

Not that small 😉. But you did not get my point.

If the excess heat over some 10 hrs are 15%, and we know from the paper that excess heat are a few percent at lower temperatures, then it is not unlikely that most of the 15% excess was released during the last 10 minutes, meaning 15% over 10 hrs can be equivalent to very very large excess heat during the last 10 minutes.

Ascoli: " ......using the coarse data available on the F&P paper"

You critisize me for using coarse data, while your method of blowing up graphs to insane proprtions are valid ?

Excuse me for 😅😂🤣🤣😂

Ascoli: "There is no way to estimate a half hour time from a graph whose single pixel has a duration of 1h40m "

We know the timestamp on when the cell was dry, and correlation with the last dip in temperature on the graph and when the graph indicates the end, I confirmed by measuring the graph (same method as you 😋) that the refill was around 11:30+/- , and behold the video confirms timestamp 11:30.

And We know they refilled the cells once a day, so refills was done at 11:30 😀

The role of scentific papers is scientific communication. It is used to communicate the research results, to preserve scientific knowledge, it serves as a mean of communication among researchers so as to generate a dialogue between them.

Could there be errors? Of course, and further research and replications will at the end reveal possible errors. In this case, the replications have been performed on F&P original discovery, i.e. At temperatures Below Boiling, and they are too many positives to be ignored. You make too much out of this Boiling paper😉

Quote from Ascoli65

I have already refuted your analysis in December (1). But, I could add something more, just for you.

In their paper (1), F&P claimed to have obtained "excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input". Actually, on the basis of their calculations on Page 16, it was 3.85 times (ie [(171+11)-37.5]/37.5 = 144.5/37.5). So, your Energy Budget calculation would show that F&P were 96% wrong (the percentage difference between their 385% and your 15%).

Well, a real 15% excess heat would still be an extraordinary achievement from a scientific point of view, deserving the Nobel prize. But do you really think that the remaining 4% of the original F&P claim, which still separates your Energy Budget from a more reasonable ZERO excess heat, can lie on the audacious assumptions you have taken to estimate all the missing parameters you used in your calculations?

Do you have any idea how many uncertain and even wrong assumptions you did in your calculation?

For instance, you took the initial time of 11:30 from the video still on Figure 10(A) of the F&P paper. Well, that image refers to the beginning of the test, which occurred many days before the boil-off phase of the Cell 1. For a confirmation, see the "1992 Four-cell boil-off" video (3) at t=1:14. So, you haven't even read the caption of Figure 10, which says "(A) Initial charging of the electrodes". How can you prove, on this basis, that the cell produced some excess heat?

All you have just demonstrated is that by using the correct approach of considering the entire period of many hours during which the cell has lost water by evaporative cooling - and not just the last 10 minutes, as F&P erroneously did - it is possible to easily explain the loss of all the water as caused by a trivial reason, that is the electric energy fed to the cell.

Your most pertinent statement is: "the last period of voltage increase is important, but the graph is not detailed enough to be analysed". For anyone wishing to prove that the F&P boil-off experiment produced some excess heat, the analysis should stop at this point. F&P didn't provide enough data to support their claims. They had all the experimental data, but they avoided to make them public in a sufficiently detailed form. The coarse data they published, ie the four graphs in Fig.6A-D and the graph in Fig.8, can only be used to show that there was no excess heat and, therefore, that their conclusions were 100% wrong.

If you want to demonstrate that F&P were only 96% wrong, you need more detailed data. You should join my call to the LENR community to publish the record of the 1992 boil-off experimental data. The next LENR Colloquium at MIT, on March 23, is the good opportunity to do so.

(1) FP's experiments discussion

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

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

Display More

1. Your refute where only your thoughts, no evidence of errors

2. " So, your Energy Budget calculation would show that F&P were 96% wrong (the percentage difference between their 385% and your 15%)."

Well, your are wrong. F&P calculated ove the last 10 minutes, while I calculated over 10 hrs. And since I show an increase of energy and power density at higher temperatures, both F&P and myself may be correct, its just math

3. "you took the initial time of 11:30 from the video still on Figure 10. "

No I did not. I used the graph from the last Dip in temperature= last refill and until the end of electrolysis. The delta seconds is easy to calculate, and if we know when the test ended, we know the time of refill

You know, its just math

4. "F&P didn't provide enough data to support their claims". "They had all the experimental data, but they avoided to make them public in a sufficiently detailed form."

You completely misunderstand the meaning of Scientific papers. They are there to present the overall data, what they did and discussions, NOT present all raw data.

Now: the scientists that read the papers may refute by publish their own tests and papers, and then The dialog is running until consensus is reached.

As the nobel prize winner Julian Schwinger said it: "Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?"

"My first attempt at publication, for the record, was a total disaster. "Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis" was written to suggest several critical experiments, which is the function of hypothesis. The masked reviewers, to a person, ignored that, and complained that I had not proved the underlying assumptions. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?"

- Julian Schwinger , 1994

Quote from Ascoli65

My conclusions refer to the F&P paper, reporting the results of the 1992 boil-off experiment. They may be contradicted and I invite you to do so, but it can't be done on the basis of the 1991 data reported in the Hansen report (1).

Are you sure? I only remember an analysis of yours (2), which turned out to be completely wrong (3) as you admitted (4).

Saying "there may or may not still be errors" means nothing. IMO, the conclusions of the F&P paper of 1992 are completely wrong and I've explained the reasons (5). If you think, instead, that they are only partially wrong, you should estimate the 2 new correct values for the excess heat during the boil-off phase and for the duration of the so called "heat after death" of Cell 2. Numbers, not words.

It's not a waste of time. The available information (graphs in the paper and videos) are more than sufficient to show that the two conclusions in the 1992 paper are completely wrong. The availability of the raw data and of the original recorded video could help to evaluate if they were only partially wrong. For sure these information are still somewhere. The Hansen report demonstrates that F&P used to keep the data log files and Rothwell recently said he watched other videos (6): "I have seen better videos and close up videos that clearly show the difference between electrolysis bubbles and boiling. Alas, I do not have copies! It is a darn shame. These videos circulated before the internet era."

Therefore, what we need to do is to urge the people who have this documenting material to make it available to the LENR community in order to allow a more precise analysis of the 1992 boil-off experiment.

Anyway, for now the most urgent issue is the position of the cathode. What is your opinion about? Was there some space below the cathode, as shown in the schematic diagram in Figure 1, or the cathode rested on the Kel-F support, as shown by the images?

(1) http://www.newenergytimes.com/…-ReportToTheUtahState.pdf

(2) FP's experiments discussion

(3) FP's experiments discussion

(4) FP's experiments discussion

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

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

Display More

I may repeat, just for you

"

• Energy Budget of the F&P cell

Based on the analysis of Robert Horst I propose here an alternative analysis of energy budget in the F&P 1992 / 1993 paper

In this analysis I look at Cell 1 from the refill on the last day and until the Cell was dry

A few important definitions and data:

1.Refill time: 11:30 as taken from the Video linked in the F&P Paper [1]

2.Dry cell: 22:25

We note that Ascoli thinks there are still foam present at the end, but in any case, this is evidently a very thin foam and a marginal amount of H2O, so 4,999 Mole is probably gone, I will assume its dry.

3.Total time from refill to dry= 39 300 seconds

4.Input energy: Electrical energy, where current is constant at 500 mA and voltage is regulated to keep constant current. Voltage trend:

Voltage at refill time: 18,87 V

Voltage at end: The graph cannot be analysed at this point, the last period of voltage increase is important, but the graph is not detailed enough to be analysed. F&P reported average Voltage the last 600 seconds of 76 volts. If the end voltage was 100 Volts as suggested, then the voltage should be 50 volts 10 minutes before end to acheieve 75 Volts in average in the period.

We may now produce a voltage and power trends by reading the voltages of the curve and use the data above.

5.Temperature trend:

Ref first image above. Temperature at refill time= 85,3 degC

Temperature at dry= 100 degC

Now for tables of data:

SUm of Output of evaporation, radiation loss, heat capoacity etc is approximately 626 000 Joules

So the above calculates 543 554 Joules input heat from refill to dry cell, and excess energy during the period is therefore in the range 82 689 Joules, or 15%.

Conclusion:

1. We have confirmed Excess heat during last period of refill to dry cell
2. We have confirmed the likely theory of increased excess heat at higher temperatures
3. F&P reported 86700 Joule excess heat the last 10 minutes (while mine is 82689 J ) .The graph is not detailed enough to achieve quality of data close to 100 degC, where the largest power input is, but F&P had better data acquisition, and I am satisfied with their main claims, higher excess at higher temperatures. If it is 10% or 20% does not matter. The increase is interesting.

[1] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

1993 revised version of [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf

[2] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf

"

Quote from THHuxleynew

Working this out is estimable, but not much help in the case of the F&P cells. free boiling water in open air will be losing water vapour with the bubbles in the obvious way. In a semi-closed container (as the F&P cells) things are slightly different. When the water has contaminants so that the bubbles "foam" it is completely different. That is bvecause foam bubbles stay in the liquid much longer than pure water bubbles, which give up their water vapour as soon as they hit the surface. Thus the efficacy of the bubbles in removing water from the system is completely different.

I'm not convinced ascoli is correct because of the uncertainties here - but his specific arguments have some merit and in many cases I cannot see posted here any significant rebuttal. For example, he claims the anode is touching its support, others here say not. Thus far he has produced more evidence on that specific matter than others who say he is wrong (on that matter).

Just because somone is right on a specific matter does not mean their conclusions are correct, but it is best for truth if everyone can look at all the individual facts and argue them without prejudice, first.

For example; anode touching or not touching kevlar support. There seems to be some disagreement. Who is right? Are we so incapable of looking at evidence here that we cannot determine this? or is it just that the physical evidence - photos and videos - is unclear. I believe ascoli claims various drawings including one in a patent - others claim a figure in a research paper.

Display More

Well, I believe the Hansen report analyzing the raw data would be a better judge of the main question: Excess heat, than the Ascoli analysis of blown up graphs and old videos (where the blue arrows was most likely put on by Kriwit).

And as I showed above The Hansen analysis using raw data is very revealing.

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

And another conclusion from above is that the Ascoli analysis is a waste of time when the raw data is not available for analysis.

Blowing up graphs and looking at old videos would not be the recommended way of doing investigations and concluding "facts".

Actually the Hansen report (1) is very interesting, especially since Hansen had the raw data from the F&P available for analysis. Since the report was published in 1991, this would be data from 1991 and earlier.

And in the raw data we may note the following revealing facts, that contradict conclusions from Ascoli.

However, we should note that these cells are different in time and place from the cells Ascoli has analyzed in the 1992 paper.

So there may or may not still be errors in the 2002 paper, but as I shown many times, not as large errors as Ascoli believes.

The graph below from the Hansen report show a shorter time from refill to the increase in voltage and temperature than the 1992/93 papers, which is interesting.

Another important difference is that the 92/93 papers used 200 mA and 500 mA, while the Hansen graph below use 400 mA and incrase to 800 mA.

Hansen reports from the raw data that 3,3 moles where evaporated in 45 minutes period in below graph. If we calculate from the last refill at 345600 seconds to the 355700 seconds in the graph, we may add also a tiny amount of water that where evaporated in the time before. (8ml where added to top up at each refill)

We then get some 3,33 moles removed from refill at 345600 seconds to 355700 seconds.

In this period the current was first 400 mA and increased to 800 mA at 352900 seconds.

The input energy from refill to 355700 second point calculates to maximum 53 600 Joules electrical energy.

Evaporating 3,33 moles of water would require roughly 140 000 Joules.

So, from the raw data Hansen investigated we find that the cell produced 2,6 times more energy than was provided as external input.

(1) http://www.newenergytimes.com/…-ReportToTheUtahState.pdf