FP's experiments discussion

  • Quote


    Twice I asked you some specific points, you never answered, I don't blame you for that because that's your choice and I respect it. On my side I only answer with specifics when I estimate that this can somehow enhance the debate.


    In that sense, I value much more the likelihood of two competing hypotheses than any prior opinion one may have on them. It is clear to me that strong prior opinions (that some have on CF) represent too much a barrier to allow a constructive debate.


    The issue is not prior opinions, but whether it is possible to evaluate evidence regardless of prior opinion. After all, where prior evidence is not equally balanced, a rational person will have a (possibly strong) prior opinion.


    Anyway if I (on balance do not respond to arguments with specifics more than those with a different view to me you would be wise to treat my views lightly, and vice versa. that is why in this case I think Cude makes the most convincing case.

  • IMO, that is being overly harsh. Even with a (?) mark at the end. [...] So no reason to make it personal.


    Not my intention to be harsh and, in my comment, there was nothing personal against anyone.


    I was replying to a (quite harsh, in this case) comment which was blaming me for a religious mind closure. I have only observed that this psychological limitation is very common in our current society, and it concerns science and technology as a whole, with no exceptions, cold (and hot) fusion included.


    Quote

    It is also unfair of you to lump Rossi in with the rest of the field, portraying all as one "socio-psychological phenomenon". Even you must realize that is a bit if a stretch? LENR history, quality of the research/researchers, motivations, personalities, are all different from, and better than Rossi and his story. They could not be more different.


    IMO, there are many similarities and coincidences showing that the Ecat farce is the natural evolution of the CF/LENR history. Both initiatives began with a patent application, followed by a public event in which the media were invited to directly communicate these alleged inventions to the public, bypassing the usual scientific procedure. Subsequently, the rights on the F&P patents were acquired by ENECO, a company who reminds of IH (1). Moreover, one of the main ENECO's stakeholder and a first protagonist of the CF/LENR field, closely accompanied Rossi in his first steps in this exclusive world (2).


    Last but not least, in evaluating the excess heat produced by their cells, F&P made the same wrong assumptions on the dryness of the outgoing steam, which also allowed to overestimate the heat produced by the Ecat by a factor of up to 6 times during the demo held on January 2011 (the balance to the x12 gain, stated in the calorimetric report, being obtained by misrepresenting the water flow rate).


    Quote

    Now, after slaying the Ecat, you seem to have set your sights on doing the same to LENR, and anyone associated with it.


    I just followed the appeal launched by JR in this same thread. He strongly urged those who are not persuaded by the reality of the CF/LENR phenomena to look at the technical details of the boil-off experiments performed by F&P and by their replicators, in particular Lonchampt. I did it and the most meaningful results I found are summarized in the following table:



    All maximum values of the excess heat (XH gain) were obtained at boiling conditions. It's obvious to everyone, where these seemingly positive results come from (3):

    slide_21.jpg


    The gain decrease in the above table can be easily explained by the extra care taken in improving the test set-ups along the years, which caused the excess heat to progressively fade away, as is typical when measurement artifacts are involved.


    Finally - as already mentioned (4) - in his second paper on the F&P experiments, Lonchampt anticipated his intention to repeat the tests "with mass flow calorimetry that will simplify the possible calibration errors". But he has not publish any other paper on this same subject. Not a good sign for those who wish to convince people that "F&P ont répliqué et été réplique, de plus avec des méthodes calorimétrique plus simples (car Fleischmann étant a des plus grands experts du monde à ce sujet avait, comme l’a bien démontré George Lonchampt utilisé des astuces d’experts loin devant les autres notamment Caltech et MIT)."


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (2) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

    (3) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf

    (4) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

  • LENR is far more than just demonstrating successful excess heat. May be you should spend some time with reading papers and attending meetings.


    Reading papers is exactly what I did to better understand the soundness of the calorimetric measurements performed by F&P, as strongly suggested by JR (who probably has read much more papers and attended much more meetings than any else here on L-F)


    As for attending meetings, it's too demanding. But, looking at the "A Brief History of ICCFs" by McKubre (1), I admit that it would be a nicer way to realize that "LENR is far more than just demonstrating successful excess heat".


    Quote

    Jaque Ruer (presented this spring in Paris) recently analyzed ( in a professional lab) one of the famous Fleischmann electrodes, that produced a lot of excess-heat, to look for transmutations. The seen isotope shift can only be explained by a nuclear reaction between palladium and deuterium.


    Are you talking about the author of the article titled "Analysis of the Potential Thermal Behavior of the Energy Catalyzer as Described in the Patent US 9,115,913 B1" (2)?


    Quote

    But we need not to convince you that LENR is real. It's your turn to explain why one silver isotope is seen in a much higher, than the natural ratio.


    Probably for the same reason that isotopic shifts were claimed for the various Ecat versions since 2008 (3).


    Quote

    If you don't understand that it is your turn to disprove all the LENR findings, then may be, you don't understand how science works.


    All the (alleged) LENR findings? Well, it would require too much time, but for what I've already seen, I think to have better understood how science works.


    (1) Media reports, no discussion please.

    (2) http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…entist-on-e-cat-greenwin/

    (3) https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110005506A1/en

  • If you don't understand that it is your turn to disprove all the LENR findings, ...

    All the (alleged) LENR findings? Well, it would require too much time, ...


    Actually, there is a much shorter way to do this: identify the most representative document in the LENR field, and disprove its findings, or, even better, let some recognized LENR expert do it.


    JR has just posted this comment:

    ... I talked to many experts such as Adm. Griffin, Fleischmann, and many distinguished non-experts such as Clarke. I listened carefully and I ran the manuscript past them to be sure I described their points of view correctly. I consulted with most of the people who knew about cold fusion at that time.

    [...]
    * See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusionb.pdf


    In the linked document - "Cold Fusion Will Lower the Cost of Both Energy and Equipment", a recent paper presented at ICCF20 in 2016 - JR cites only one reference relating to CF/LENR findings [bold added]:

    From http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusionb.pdf

    […]

    In contrast to the conventional sources of energy in Table 1, cold fusion has characteristics that may make it very inexpensive. It is safe, easy to produce, flexible, scalable and clean. We know it has these qualities because on rare occasions it has produced stable, high power continuously for weeks, at boiling temperatures. In the best experiment on record, the Icarus 9 reactor produced the same power density as a fission reactor core (Table 2). [4] The performance demonstrated in these tests would suffice for nearly all practical applications.

    […]

    4. Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons.

    Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments Run at IMRA Europe. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.


    So, JR (the most informed expert in the CF/LENR field) identified Icarus 9 (a test carried out 20 years earlier) as the best experiment on record.


    But, wait, this is the same experiment for which Lonchampt wrote in 1998 (1): "The boiling experiment deserves more attention, as shown by Roulette et al. who demonstrated that more excess heat could be obtained that way. We have in progress a similar experiment, but with mass flow calorimetry that will simplify the possible calibration errors. Blank runs with platinum have already been done showing that this type of calorimetry has a sensitivity better than 2%."


    Therefore, the LENR findings that - after 20+ years - JR still considers the best on record were already heavily challenged in 1998 by Lonchampt, the nuclear expert who is considered by JR (and by other LENR supporters, like AlainCo) the best replicator of the F&P experiments, and who "de facto" disproved the findings of the two CF fathers (2)!


    Now, it's your turn to demonstrate the logic of this Catch22 situation.


    (1) http://www.jeanpaulbiberian.net/Download/Paper%2046.pdf

    (2) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

  • Actually, there is a much shorter way to do this: identify the most representative document in the LENR field, and disprove its findings, or, even better, let some recognized LENR expert do it.


    As said and many times repeated in this forum: The best documented and radiation measured LENR experiment is Lipinski's Lithium H* fusion.


    search for: WO 2014/189799 A9 or US 2016/0118144 A1 Patents!! 100eV is the input energy with the highest COP (>1000).


    We would be very pleased if you can refute these claims...



  • Further to this point, and Jed's possible rebuttal stating that F&P were aware of the issue and checked salt levels to show that in fact the expected amount of water was boiled off, and not entrained.


    Entrained water droplets (resulting in the false positive energy excess as above) can derive from two mechanisms:


    (1) direct entrainment - salt content will equal that of liquid and therefore entrainment leads to total salt loss.

    (2) distillation: liquid -> vapour -> liquid within the calorimetry envelope. In this case entrainment carries no salt.


    Without careful analysis to disambiguate these two distinct mechanisms salt measurement says nothing about quantity of entrainment.


    F&P say they measured salt levels to to provide assurance that there was no significant liquid entrainment: that does not cover the case of distillation within the calorimetric boundary.


    F&P do not note this lack, nor consider the possibility of (2).


    More generally: an effect which is much larger under boil-off conditions should be viewed with suspicion. The electrolyte temperature is no different from what it would be at 100C but with low evaporation. However all these potential error sources, and others caused bu turbulent conditions in vessel being different from those found in calibration, are much more significant.


    THH

  • Entrained water droplets (resulting in the false positive energy excess as above) can derive from two mechanisms:


    (1) direct entrainment - salt content will equal that of liquid and therefore entrainment leads to total salt loss.

    (2) distillation: liquid -> vapour -> liquid within the calorimetry envelope. In this case entrainment carries no salt.


    Without careful analysis to disambiguate these two distinct mechanisms salt measurement says nothing about quantity of entrainment.


    F&P say they measured salt levels to to provide assurance that there was no significant liquid entrainment: that does not cover the case of distillation within the calorimetric boundary.

    As I pointed out to you -- time after time after time -- they also checked within the calorimetric boundary. That is to say, they carefully washed out the cells with ultrapure water and then tested to see how much salts were removed, then they used other techniques to determine how much salt was permanently in the wall. They described this in the papers I pointed out to you. You refuse to admit they thoroughly addressed this issue, and you refuse to tell us what other technique they might have used to prove there was no significant entrainment.


    You will not take "yes" for an answer.



    More generally: an effect which is much larger under boil-off conditions should be viewed with suspicion. The electrolyte temperature is no different from what it would be at 100C but with low evaporation.

    And as I pointed out again, and again, and again, if there was a problem it would show up in the calibrations, which showed no heat. And, no, there is no suspicion, and no difference between the power level during the boil off phase and the phases before and after it. The cell is just as hot in the heat after death phase following boil off, although of course a different calorimetric method must be used.

  • As I pointed out to you -- time after time after time -- they also checked within the calorimetric boundary. That is to say, they carefully washed out the cells with ultrapure water and then tested to see how much salts were removed, then they used other techniques to determine how much salt was permanently in the wall.


    jed, I understand that, and I'm sure they did, but that does not answer the point. If the entrained water is distilled then no amount of checking salt content within the calorimetry boundary will distinguish between entrained water (no excess enthalpy of vaporisation) and water vapour (excess energy of vaporisation).

  • jed, I understand that, and I'm sure they did, but that does not answer the point. If the entrained water is distilled then no amount of checking salt content within the calorimetry boundary will distinguish between entrained water (no excess enthalpy of vaporisation) and water vapour (excess energy of vaporisation).


    And if the calorimeter had a hole in the bottom that would give an equally misleading result. If 'ifs and ands were pots and pans' we could go into the catering business. The point is that Martin Fleischmann was a world-class experimentalist who got a Nobel Prize for producing a body of work based on thousands of experiments. Having seen XSH in electrolytic loading of metals myself at levels well above the noise and at temperatures way below 60C I have zero doubts about the effect. PdD is a door-opener to a whole new kind of physics. I'm not sure that of itself it is particularly useful method of creating useable amounts of energy, but it is an excellent system for use when creating a theoretical model that is accord with the measured effects.

  • If the entrained water is distilled then no amount of checking salt content within the calorimetry boundary

    I do not understand what this means: "if the entrained water is distilled." Do you mean that water is first boiled and distilled inside the test tube separating from the salt, then it condenses, and then without mixing in with the electrolyte it leaves the cell? How would that work? The only way it can leave is as vapor. Also, the top is a narrow long tube that will not allow any liquid out.


    The salt left in the cell was exactly the same amount that was added with the electrolyte, as closely as can be measured with modern instruments. That includes salt left free in the bottom of the test tube, and salt embedded in the walls. Both are measured. Since all of the salt added as electrolyte is found, none of it leaves the cell during the test. Therefore, the water was boiled away; it did not leave as droplets. Droplets would remove some of the salt.

  • The point is that Martin Fleischmann was a world-class experimentalist who got a Nobel Prize

    No, he didn't. He told me he was "within shouting distance" of a Nobel. He was an FRS, he got the palladium medal and was president of the electrochemical society, but he never got the Nobel. Which, in my opinion, speaks poorly of the Nobel committee and tells us nothing about Fleischmann.

  • No, he didn't. He told me he was "within shouting distance" of a Nobel. He was an FRS, he got the palladium medal and was president of the electrochemical society, but he never got the Nobel. Which, in my opinion, speaks poorly of the Nobel committee and tells us nothing about Fleischmann.


    I know Jed. I just wanted to see if THH would bite. Apologies, sometimes I cannot resist a little mischeif.

  • Thanks, THH, for your interesting assessment.


    Further to this point, and Jed's possible rebuttal stating that F&P were aware of the issue and checked salt levels to show that in fact the expected amount of water was boiled off, and not entrained.


    Here below, you find the Morrison's criticism to the calorimetric method used by F&P, and the reply from the two CF's fathers:

    From http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf


    Morrison's criticism, 12 May 1993

    Secondly, there is the assumption that ALL the liquid present in the tube 600 seconds before dryness, was boiled off. That is none of it was carried out as a liquid, from the test tube. Now the video shows that there is highly turbulent motion. And as Kreysa et al. [3] showed, 74 seconds after the palladium becomes dry, temperatures of a few hundred degrees can be reached. Thus it is reasonable to expect that with such a chaotic system, some fraction of the liquid is blown out of the test tube as liquid and therefore should not be counted. The existence of such a fraction is omitted from the simple Fleischmann and Pons calculation. And no attempt to measure this fraction is described.

    [3]. G. Kreysa, G. Marx, and W. Plieth, J. Electroanal. Chem. 268(1989)659.



    F&P reply, as reported by Swartz on 17 Aug 1993

    Stage 4 Calculation Douglas Morrison first of all raises the question whether parts of the cell contents may have been expelled as droplets during the later stages of intense heating. This is readily answered by titrating the residual cell contents: based on our earlier work about 95% of the residual lithium deuteroxide is recovered; some is undoubtedly lost in the reaction of this "aggressive" species with the glass components to form residues which cannot be titrated. Furthermore, we have found that the total amounts of D2O added to the cells (in some cases over periods of several months) correspond precisely to the amounts predicted to be evolved by (a) evaporation of D2O at the instantaneous atmospheric pressures and (b) by electrolysis of D2O to form D2 and O2 at the appropriate currents; this balance can be maintained even at temperatures in excess of 90 degrees C [7]

    [7] S. Pons and M. Fleischmann in: Final Report to the Utah State Energy Advisory Council,

    June 1991.



    F&P used two arguments to rebut Morrison's critique.


    In the first they mentioned the checking of the final salt inventory, but this justification is weak. They cited an early work, without giving any reference to it which would have allowed to verify the similarity of the respective experimental conditions.


    The second justification, the global balance of D2O, is feeble as well. I haven't find the reference they cite, and in any case they admit that the balance was made for "temperatures in excess of 90 degrees C", which doesn't necessarily mean at boiling temperatures.


    Anyway, the F&P reply confirms that they were aware of the error due to liquid entrained in the vapor, otherwise they wouldn't have checked the final balance of salt and D2O. Knowing how critical this method was to this parameter, they should have repeated this check for any major experiment they performed, especially those they wanted to publish. Instead they omitted to address this important issue in the paper published on May 1993, on Physics Letter A.


    It took only a few days to Morrison to raise his criticism to this calorimetric method and, on the 12th of the same month, he sent it to the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup. Therefore, it is even less justified that no reference to the liquid fraction in the vapor was included in the F&P paper presented with the same title more than three years later, in 1996, at the ICCF6.


    Quote

    More generally: an effect which is much larger under boil-off conditions should be viewed with suspicion.


    Yes, but - in the F&P case – the results of Lonchampt replications allow to go beyond the suspicion.


    JR reported that Lonchampt performed a precise replication "with the assistance from Pons and Fleschmann" (1). However he was unable to repeat the 400% energy gain claimed by F&P. He only obtained an alleged maximum gain of 150%, less than half of the original experiment he was replicating.


    Two years later, this gain dropped further to 29%, less than 1/10 of F&P original claim! At the time, in 1998, Lonchampt, a well trained engineer at CEA, had already spent about 5 years in trying to replicate the experiment of F&P, with their personal assistance, and all he got was a progressive decreasing of the excess heat, until almost complete disappearance.


    Each experimenter would consider this downward trend as the confirmation that the original measurements were influenced by a large systematic error due to some experimental artifacts. In this case it was easily attributable to the underestimation of the liquid content in the steam, as Morrison argued immediately after the first publication of the F&P original results.


    In conclusion, the F&P energy findings have been already disproved by Lonchampt, who confirmed in this way the soundness of Morrison's criticisms to their calorimetry.


    (1) http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/6thiccf.pdf

  • Let me add that THHuxley ignores many other aspects of this experiment which also show that the heat is real, and not an artifact of input power measured incorrectly. I have pointed these other aspects to him many times, and showed him where Fleischmann pointed them out, but he refuses to address them. For example, I pointed out that the cell continues to boil even after the water level falls below the anode and cathode. When that happens, the input power is cut to zero. Electricity will not cross the air gap. During a test with Pt and/or ordinary water, the boiling stops immediately, and the cell begins to cool. After the test, there is a little unboiled liquid left at the bottom of the cell, and the Kel-F plu is intact. Whereas with anomalous excess heat:


    1. Boiling continues until all the water is gone.

    2. The cell does not cool. It often gets hotter after all the water is gone.

    3. The Kel-F plug melts.


    Obviously, spurious heat from a measurement error would not cause these effects. Plastic does not melt because someone misinterprets an instrument reading. It would also not cause two-weeks of excess heat before the boil off


    THHuxley refuses to address these facts and many others. Instead, he continues to claim that pure condensed water can leave the cell in measurable amounts large enough to affect the heat balance. Or he claims that measurable amounts left during the weeks before the boils off, even though the water was measured carefully and no such amounts were detected, and even though it would take hundreds of times more water than there was in the cell to produce megajoules of artifactual excess heat. He claims that differences between Pd and Pt, and between ordinary water and heavy water, might make a tremendous difference in how condensed water droplets behave at the top of the cell. But no such differences are described in the literature, or in techniques used to separate heavy water from light water, and he cannot describe a mechanism that would allow them. This is hand-waving. His hypotheses are all impossible. They are pathological skepticism.

  • 3. The Kel-F plug melts.

    Some tidbits on KelF specs:


    Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorotrifluoroethylene

    "This results in having a relatively lower melting point among fluoropolymers, around 210–215 °C."


    https://www.aetnaplastics.com/…aetnaproduct/18/PCTFE.pdf

    [ASTM Method]D648 Heat Deflection Temp (°F / °C) at 264 psi 258 / 126

    [ASTM Method]D3418 Melting Temp (°F / °C) 415 / 212


    http://www.complast.com/kel-f/neoflon.htm

    Melting Point 210-212°C

    Deflection Temperature (66 psi) [ASTM Method]D-648 126 °C


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_deflection_temperature
    The heat deflection temperature or heat distortion temperature (HDT, HDTUL, or DTUL) is the temperature at which a polymer or plastic sample deforms under a specified load.

  • During a test with Pt and/or ordinary water, the boiling stops immediately, and the cell begins to cool. After the test, there is a little unboiled liquid left at the bottom of the cell, and the Kel-F plu is intact. Whereas with anomalous excess heat:


    1. Boiling continues until all the water is gone.

    2. The cell does not cool. It often gets hotter after all the water is gone.


    reference please.

  • Some tidbits on KelF specs:


    Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorotrifluoroethylene

    "This results in having a relatively lower meltingpoint among fluoropolymers, around 210–215 °C."

    This material is melts at 300°C. More to the point -- as I said -- it does not melt with Pt or H2O and a heat balance of zero, but it does melt with anomalous heat that continues after boiling. When there is no anomalous heat, the power cuts off and boiling stops as soon as water level drops below the anode and cathode. Some water is then left at the bottom of the cell where the Kel-F plug is located, so the plug does not get hot or melt.


    No doubt you will explain why that is an instrument artifact, but I don't think it could be.


    reference please.

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

  • 2. The cell does not cool. It often gets hotter after all the water is gone.


    From http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf , page 19

    […] 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; […]


    BUT, Fig.8 is an expansion of Fig.6B, which shows that voltage remains greater than zero until the cell remains at high temperature. In particular, voltage oscillates around a value of 5-6 volts, a value close to the initial voltage, that - with a current of 200 mA, much less than the final 500 mA - had been enough to increase, from 20 to 30 °C, the temperature of a much higher water content. This behavior was unique among the 4 cells in the documented experiment. For the other three cells, as documented in Figs.6A, 6C and 6D, the voltage dropped directly to zero, and it was followed almost immediately by the decrease of cell temperature.


    This different behavior is clearly visible in the figures included in the paper, but was not mentioned in the text by the two authors, the legendary F&P, nor highlighted in the comment of their bard!


    (Sorry, Shane, just a technical tie-break from vacation, I couldn't resist. :) )

  • This material is melts at 300°C.


    Then it would not be Kel-F as F&P claim in their paper. Kel-F's melting point is more like 200-215C, as I showed in the references in my prior post. F&P specifically say this: "furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300ºC. "

    That actually says nothing about what the materials melting point actually is, just that it is less than 300C. But given that Kel-F melts at 215C or so, how can they jump to 'exceed[s] 300C'? The best they could really say is 'exceeds 215C'.


    Furthermore you obviously missed the point of listing the deformation temperatures. You will note they are listed at two pressures and both are 126C, well below the melting point, both being determined via an ASTM method. You will also please note that they are determined to be the same temp at two different applied pressures. That suggests the value may remain the same at even lower applied pressures. In the words, the deformation that F&P noted could easily and with high probability occur at ~125C. That temp is certainly reasonable to obtain in their experiments, especially in the static environment of 'after boil-off'.


    They obviously weren't plastics chemistry experts and seemingly mis-identified the phenomenon that resulted in the deformation. There is only one way to resolve this, and that is to get more data, which is unlikely to happen. So for all intents and purposes we are now left with...wait for it... the Fleischmann and Pons Melted Plug Anecdote! (you may recall that anecdotes aren't science...)




    This paper does not say what you say it does. Surprise, surprise...


    Checking the paper for occurrences of 'pt', I found 16, but only 4 were for 'Pt'. The rest were for 'pt' as part of another word. Also, only one occurrence of 'platinum'. All were with respect to a supposed 'control', or non-excess-heat run. It is acknowledged that F&P *thought* Pt cathodes were inactive, but Storms proved they aren't. However, that whole point is barely relevant because everyone also acknowledges that getting the Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect (FPHE) is difficult to do. It is likely more difficult on Pt but not impossible. So having a null run is expected.


    The key point with regards to the referenced paper is that *one* 'excess heat' experiment is discussed in detail ("We examine next the results for one Pd cathode "), and *no* other results are presented other than a null Pt 'calibration' run. I noted this problem in another instance in my whitepaper (http://coldfusioncommunity.net…4/SRNL-STI-2012-00678.pdf) w.r.t. the Pd data presented where I overlaid two thermal histories from this paper (and its Phys. Lett. A version). They were identical, yet F&P only talked abut one of them showing excess heat, and specifically after the electrical connection was disrupted, in what everyone calls a 'Heat-After-Death' instance. But why only claim XSH in one case when they show data for two identical thermal histories? Makes no sense... How hard would it have been to put up a table saying 'We ran x experiments and observed XSH in the following:"? This paper is notable for what it *doesn't* report.


    {Note to those who read JR's referenced paper: F&P discuss one run from a set of 4 using similar Pd electrode with slightly different current time profiles. The Figures 6A-D show the thermal histories. It is obvious from the text that the in-Figure caption of 6D is wrong in that it refers to 'electrode 2'. That should be 'electrode 4 instead. The 'x' in 'Demo9_x' is the electrode number.}

  • Then it would not be Kel-F as F&P claim in their paper. Kel-F's melting point is more like 200-215C, as I showed in the references in my prior post. F&P specifically say this: "furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300ºC. "

    You have a genius for missing the point. Suppose the temperature is 200 - 215 deg C, as you say. The point is, the plug melts in tests with Pd-D when there is excess heat, but it does not melt in control tests with Pt-H or Pd-H, when there is no excess heat. The exact temperature does not matter.


    Your other comments also miss the point or they are mistaken.


    By the way, information not found in this paper can be found in others, so perhaps you should misconstrue them as well.

  • You have a genius for missing the point. Suppose the temperature is 200 - 215 deg C, as you say. The point is, the plug melts in tests with Pd-D when there is excess heat, but it does not melt in control tests with Pt-H or Pd-H, when there is no excess heat. The exact temperature does not matter.


    And you are an idiot savant at missing the point, twice now. The melting point is not the issue, the deformation temperature is. That value is 126C based on literature references. So, the 'damage' F&P saw was likely caused at ~125C, not at over 300C. 125C at the plug in that apparatus after electrolysis stopped is reasonable, not exceptional. No excess heat required.


    Your other comments also miss the point or they are mistaken.


    By the way, information not found in this paper can be found in others, so perhaps you should misconstrue them as well


    No, they're don't.


    I asked for references and you pull the old 'go find it yourself', while asserting vehemently (in all your posts) that what you say is true. My experience with you is that you make things up when you need them, so like those who choose to ignore Rossisays, I choose to ignore Jeddisays. I will consider actual references that support your assertion. But so far you are zero out of one.

  • Ascoli65


    Your comments made me take a second look and I found something interesting. As I noted in my whitepaper, the ICCF3 paper that JR referred to was later published in a slightly modified form in Phys. Lett. A, 176 (1993) 118. They presented the Figures 6B and D from ICCF3 as FIg 8a and b in PLA93. I compared the B and D figures in my whitepaper, but comparing the D and b Figures (i.e. supposedly the same data) I find a discrepancy. The cell voltage at the end of the run in Fig. 6D is at 0V exactly, while in 8b is shows as a few volts positive! (See attachment. Note that the blue shaded boxes are 'select' boxes and were drawn with the top of the box at exactly 0 V.)


    Applying Gene Mallove's criteria, we can call F&P frauds and con men based on this!!


    (Note: Gene Mallove disputed the legitimacy of the MIT authors clipping their CF study results to omit baseline shifts up and down at the start and end of their Figure. They also called the center of the noisy trace as 0. Gene thought this was fraudulent. In fact it is SOP since baseline shifts like that are a common problem. However in F&P's data that we discuss here, it makes a difference, because 0V means no conductivity and no ohmic heating. Positive V on the other hand leaves an active heat source in the cell by implication. The final point is the same as made by myself and Ascoli65, F&P did a poor job when writing this paper.)

  • Hi Kirk,

    thanks for your information and attention.


    Ascoli65- You may want to glance at Fig. 1 in http://coldfusioncommunity.net…4/SRNL-STI-2012-00678.pdf


    I don't see any significant difference.


    My conclusion was the method used to claim excess heat was flawed.


    These are also my conclusions, inferred on the basis of the internal inconsistencies in the ICCF3 paper and the results of the Lonchampt's replications.


    Fig.1 of your whitepaper is interesting, as shows that the two cells behaved the same way regardless of the initial elapse time. The big difference is in the final "heat after death" claimed by F&P for the cell of Fig.6B. This presumed HAD is based on the erroneous assertion (see Page 19) that, during the period in which the cell B remained at high temperature, the electrical circuit was open due to a complete dry-off of the cell. This is not true. Not for cell B. In fact, Fig.6B clearly shows that a residual voltage (about 5-6 V on average) lasted until the cell remained at high temperature. What happened?


    It seems that the test procedure was that the current had to be manually interrupted once the cell was apparently dry, in fact at the end of the ICCF3 paper we read "We have therefore chosen to work with "open" systems and to allow the cells to boil to dryness before interrupting the current." It is possible that when cell B looked dry, the current was not interrupted but inadvertently reduced to a lower value, maybe at the same initial value of 200 mA, and then completely shut off only a few hours later. Evidently this residual power was sufficient to maintain a high temperature around the thermocouple.


    Whatever the cause of this anomalous behavior, F&P had the original data of both temperature and voltage, and as they expanded the final period of the former they could (and probably did) have expanded even the latter, so they should have been aware of the fact that the voltage (as well as the current) was not zero. Therefore, they should have included a figure in their paper showing this voltage anomaly and provide a suitable explanation for it. But they didn’t, giving rise to the anecdote - one of the many myths in CF field - of the ability of their cell to run in HAD mode.

  • Ascoli65


    You know there is another consideration not routinely brought up in considering these experiments, namely unloading. For the case of Pd and assuming the bulk loading level matters (which I don't but most CFers do), as the electrolyte level drops below the top of the metal Pd cathode the uncovered portion no longer has the electrolytic force present to keep the H or D in the metal. You have converted to a gas loading situation, with the external H2 pressure being that which is supplied by the electrolysis and limited by the atmospheric pressure plus any flow restrictions. That means that the H concentration in the Pd will drop precipitously in the uncovered region, and the H from the covered region will migrate to the 'lower pressure' unloaded areas. Thus the total H conc in the metal will start dropping. It should rapidly get below the magic H/M of 0.9 or so, down to the 0.7 range, which McKubre says won't do cold fusion.


    (Further, the H in the uncovered Pd is readily able to react with the O2 from the electrolysis, unloading it even faster.)


    By the time the electrolyte level gets to the bottom of the electrode, the H or D concentration should be minimal, and CF should have stopped. So, what would be driving a HAD? Nothing except some data interpretation error IMO.

  • You know there is another consideration not routinely brought up in considering these experiments, namely unloading. ...

    So, what would be driving a HAD? Nothing except some data interpretation error IMO.


    I totally agree with you. It is also well explained in your whitepaper. But you know as well that, in this field, all the problems raised by this kind of considerations are solved by postulating the existence of a few miracles that explain the alleged positive experimental results, which, by definition, are believed to be carried out by experts who are considered unable to make mistakes. The situation is still the same described in 1990 by Morrison in the conclusions of his "Cold Fusion Review" (1).


    This is the reason why I think the most effective considerations are those based on internal inconsistencies, i.e. those present in the same paper (such as the ignored residual voltage at the end of the F&P experiment of Fig.6B), or those among papers issued in the same circle (as the vanishing of excess heat reported by Lonchampt in his replications of the F&P experiments (2)).


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

    (2) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

  • Ascoli65,


    You also might enjoy http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GoodsteinDwhateverha.pdf It describes the skewed reviewing that happens in the field. Goodstein wasn't aware of my 2002 publication in 2000 (even thought he original manuscript came out then, see http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf). I would guess he would be really interested to see the blatant use of a strawman argument in http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf used to discredit my explanation of the FPHE. To see what I really said you have to look up J. Env. Monitor., 12, (2010), 1756-1764. The 'MarwanJane...' paper immediately followed mine.

  • Is this statement based on some real mass diffusivity calculations you've done, or is it all just a bit hand-wavey?


    It is based on personal experience with gas loading of a variety of hydrides, including Pd , supported thick film Pd, and Pd alloys. They unload very rapidly when well activated.


    Edit: I should add that when Ed Storms measured loading by weighing loaded electrodes, he did so by immersing them in liquid nitrogen. The H atom recombination reaction goes to near zero rate at <120K or so. If they didn't unload fast, Ed wouldn't have needed to do that.

  • So you have personal experience of measuring hydrogen loading in the lower portion of an half-immersed electrode?

    Was this electrode you used of similar cross-section?

    Was its overall length the same?

    What proportion of the electrode was sticking out above the electrolyte's surface in your experiment?

    Was the submerged length the same?

    Did you attempt to quantify the effects of these parameters - to understand whether you could extrapolate your experience in electrolysing half-submerged electrodes, into a general statement?...



    Thus the total H conc in the metal will start dropping. It should rapidly get below the magic H/M of 0.9 or so, down to the 0.7 range, which McKubre says won't do cold fusion.


    Or did you just make it up?