FP's experiments discussion

    • Official Post

    Predictably, they completely failed to measure the time accurately.


    Not sure who you mean by "they", but I saw a 300s scan average, that Ascoli thought was not sufficient to accurately capture the boil-off event as described by FP's. That is only one of the issues he brings up. Most above my head, but little push back. Jed used to counter everything, but I think he is worn out. Can not blame him, as he has fought so many battles. One man can do so only much.

  • STAKER-1

    However the Staker video should give some opportunity for fruitful FP discussion.,, for a few days..

    Time mark 23.31

    "if you think this is good, this is my data and this data is NOT a line that I drew through the data

    .this is just a series of dots that were taken by the data acquisition card, put in an Excel file,

    and plotted automatically on the curve and

    to get a new data point you just move the electrolysis current up a little bit,

    or the electromigration current up a little bit, to a new set point, and let it come too too steady state

    and acquire a new data set.
    so you could move it every 15 or 20 minutes, three or four times the time constant, and get a new data set.
    so you just bump this thing around, until we acquired all the data that you see here, on the curve,

    and I was delighted when I saw this. I was ecstatic.
    the precision in the power could be measured to plus or minus a half a milliwatt and the delta T to 0.05 degrees C,

    so the power out had a plus or minus fifteen milliwatt precision.

    overall precision for the experiment is a half a percent. "


    Transcript is courtesy of a former LF member. Alhamdulillah.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • STAKER-2 : tm 24.55

    "so the factors that enabled this are the data acquisition, where I didn’t have take data by hand.

    there was no human bias. [it] could gather thousand data points a minute average them,


    and that helped with the precision.
    enclosing the the cell itself into an air sealed chamber was really a key,

    but the biggest and single most important one was the use of the medical syringe which allowed approach to steady-state.

    this is a data set, again the same data set, the calibration curve

    , but at the end of the experiment, where we had seen excess heat,
    and then I said to myself, “am I still on the calibration curve?”"

    courtesy of AL.

  • STAKER-4"during the experiment the cells ran higher than that calibration curve.

    [????????? right here shown and then that is an excess power of about 0.3 Watts.

    doesn’t sound like a lot, but the specimen is very very small."

    courtesy of AL.



  • Oystla (and those who strangely agreed with this post).


    That is just wrong. An inappropriate use of statistics. The different conditions here are not each a random sample!


    LENR is hypothesised to work only in highly hydrogen (or for F&P deuterium) loaded palladium electrodes. Change the electrode, or the gas, and it stops. That is the basis on which controls are made. But - the difference between H and D or Pt and Pd, also causes physical changes. Maybe the specific physical effect which is interpreted as excess heat (with, from the boiling phase of this experiment, no evidence) happens only for D and Pd.


    in the case of Pd electrodes we know physical mechanisms (the D loading) that apply, and would significantly alter electrode surface conditions, therefore changing relevant physical characteristics.


    That is no more unlikely or mysterious than that the same conditions enable LENR, and it explained by normal physics as well as LLENR is explained by unexpected physics.


    For the LENR hypothesis to fly you need definite evidence of something that could only be nuclear: too much excess heat, or high energy particle emissions. Or, much less easy to validate, nuclear transmutation.

  • For the life of me, I can not imagine, were Fleischmann alive and healthy today, that he would not mop the floor with the likes of Ascoli,


    Or maybe he would have simply dismissed my remarks on his 1992 test the way Josephson did with respect to the those on the 2011 demo on the Ecat (1).


    Quote

    Now he is dead, and can no longer defend himself, and the sharks are circling the carcass.


    I find this comparison very unfair. Do you mean that, being dead, it is no longer possible to raise any criticisms about his scientific activity? After all, I've only picked up the JR's invitation to carefully read the CF literature, especially that related to the F&P and the replications of their experiments, and look for any mistakes. I think I've found a crucial one, I described it in the best way I can, and I'm here to answer any comment on the merit of my analysis. Should I deserve to be compared to a shark for this?


    Not sure who you mean by "they", but I saw a 300s scan average, that Ascoli thought was not sufficient to accurately capture the boil-off event as described by FP's. That is only one of the issues he brings up. Most above my head, but little push back.


    Oh no, my issue is different and it is not at all above the head of any person capable to transform an hh.mm.ss time into seconds, and vice versa.


    Let me explain it once again with reference to the jpeg titled "Misinterpretation of dry-out timing and mechanism" (2). The diagram of Figure 8 shows the temperature trend in the Cell 2 for a period of almost one day. A vertical arrow indicates the time when the cell becomes dry. Then we have a couple of frames of the lab video showing, by means of blue arrows, what was presented as the rapid lowering of the water level inside the cell. So you expect these two moments to occur just before the "Cell dry" arrow on Figure 8, but if you converts the hh.mm.ss time written on the video frames into the time scale of Figure 8 expressed in elapsed seconds from the beginning (00.00.00) of April 11, 1992 (the starting day of the experiment), and consider that they are taken in the 20th day of testing (*), you will see that those frames refer to a couple of hours after the "Cell dry" arrow.


    Now, start thinking how it is possible that the water level inside the cell drops a couple of hours after the cell has dried out, and you will realize the rest.


    (1) http://www.physicsforums.com/s…hp?p=3219729&postcount=85

    (2) FP's experiments discussion


    (*) For example, the frame with the blue arrow indicating the upper level reports the time 3.26.14 on its lower right corner, meaning that it was shot 19 days, 3 hours, 26 minutes, and 14 seconds after the beginning of the experiment, that is 1,654,718 seconds for the elapsed time scale used in Figure 8.

  • For the LENR hypothesis to fly you need definite evidence of something that could only be nuclear: too much excess heat...


    Michael Staker states on Pg 20 .http://coldfusioncommunity.net…F21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf


    "The magnitude of excess heat (Figures 22 and 23) confirms Fleischmann-Pons heat effect from nuclear origin.
    The amount of excess heat per cc of Pd (150 MJ/cc) or per Pd atom (14000 eV/atom) is too large for a chemical
    reaction
    , which produces energy per atom less than 2 eV/atom."



    Perhaps there is disagreement btw THH and Staker? LENR doesn't fly ....it heats nuclearly

  • so that all the other works confirming the reality of their "extraordinary claims" would lose their meaning.

    Ascoli65 . ..

    So all other works include Staker's work.? Slaker's 3 years of work loses its meaning?

    Are you sure???

    Staker might had a boil off while making coffee...its a possibility...or he might have dozed off. I could ask him....


    [email protected] and Phone: 410 617 5188 Maybe early on Tuesday

  • Ascoli:


    You are good at Cherry-picking 😉


    Vaporization of 2,5 moles requires in average of 41,5 kj/mol or some 104 KJ for 2,5 mole or some 29 Wh energy. Vaporization of 2,5 moles in the last 10 minutes then require 174 watt average power.


    And as we see from the graphs the average input electrical power is way lower, so I don’t see the magnitude of error you refer to.


    AH, wait, in your eyes of a low quality video you see another water level than F&P did when the video tape where fresh and clear..


    OK, and then to the arguments


    1. You do mention foam escaping as a major error. And boil off period is based on some visual interpretation of low quality video. Also, I do not see the paper specifically state when the last top up of the cell occurred before boiling period.

    The Longchamp paper is an excact copy of the F&P experiment (according to the authors). There they state top up every 1 cm3 consumed, up to close to boiling (99-101 degC).

    Which means your visual inperpretation of low quality video would be wrong.


    1. Whiteness on low quality video may only be …light reflection on the glass.


    2. Well, Closed Cell calorimetry don’t care if some droplets escape and not only dry steam, so the overall excess heat measurement & calculations will be more accurate. Fleischmann continuation of open cells, shows he was in control of his experiment, since he knew about possible water escpaping.


    3. Digitization –2009 AFAIK, only what I deduct from Krivits work. Ask Krivit.


    4. You question the start of excess heat events? SO you haven’t fully understood the graphs you question? The excess heat starts early and is actually plotted on your referred graphs, see if you can find the figures 😉.


      The extreme conditions at boiling where interesting because that showed the largest excess Power regime, and therefore interesting in an engineering-new-clean-power-to-the- world-perspective. But from a pure science view the whole excess period is equally interesting.


    5. The dry out period is your interpretation of a low quality video.


    6. “The video quality is more than sufficient” is a claim of yours, not a fact.

    7. Article “It clarifies many things and confirms my opinion” - really?

    As the article points out, Fleischmann was very well aware of the foam and water carry over possibility


    From the article:


    “It is equally clear that the NHE researchers did not know that Pons and Fleischmann addressed this issue years ago.”


    Or Fleischmann “(actually, we recover ~95% of the alkali by dissolving the residues and titrating; some is undoubtedly lost by irreversible eactions with the glass walls of the Dewars.)”


    or


    “They cannot explain IMRA Europeʼs results because Pons and Fleischmann did check for them and found no significant problem.”


    “On the other hand, as far as is known, entrainment has never been observed to cause more than a minor error, no more han a few percent. We cannot imagine how it could carry off most of the water and cause 50% to 300% apparent excess, ike that measured using boil-off calorimetry at IMRA and the French AEC”


    Or


    Fleischmann: “He pointed out another possible problem with the NHE set up. At various times when he visited the NHE lab, he noted that they added too much water to the cell, which raised the water line too high, which would greatly enhance entrainment.”


    The end statement where particularly describing of the times in question


    “First they attack a rival scientist in the mass media without revealing the technical reason for the attack; then they circulate rumors about the reason; then, much later (or never) they publish a paper describing the supposed problem. The problem they cite is orders of magnitude too small to explain anything, so they refuse to do a quantitative analysis. They pretend that a 3% error can explain away a 300% result. They wait until the public has forgotten the dispute and the rivalʼs reputation is permanently damaged.”





    “….estimated the wrong rate of water vaporization on the basis of the foam level and supported or believed the consequent wrong conclusions.” Which is a claim of yours – not a fact


    “The real problem is the large overestimation of the vaporization rate due to the large underestimation of the boil-off duration.” Which is a claim of yours -not a fact. Ascoli – you have probably missed a few refills of water in your assessment.


    “F&P provided a completely wrong duration of the boil-off phase!” – Based on your investigation of low quality video and trying to expand timelines not detailed in the paper and not knowing when last top up of water actually occurred and using information from outside sources not only the paper.


    Anyhow: The excact replication in the Longchamp paper proved them right, as did several other laboratories with various set-ups like using closed cells.

  • Huxley:


    "Maybe the specific physical effect which is interpreted as excess heat (with, from the boiling phase of this experiment, no evidence) happens only for D and Pd."


    Really? So dO you have some new mechanism that may provide 300% excess heat, that Platina never experienced?


    All the "excuses" from critics so far is related to measurements error, which also should show up on blank experiements. This means statistically, there is a pheonomenon in use of Palladium not explained.


    And this fact where never discussed by the critics in the 90's, only that they found some possible errors done by F&P in excess heat tests. Strange then that F&P never did the same errors in blank experiments.

  • LENR is hypothesised to work only in highly hydrogen (or for F&P deuterium) loaded palladium electrodes.


    I urge people to stop talking with Ascoli & THH. Their nonsense level has hit an all time high.


    F&P's works has been replicated by dozens of LAB's within 2 years of their first presentation. There is no discussion anymore that these experiments show LENR as everything needed (transmutations. helium, excess heat) has been measured.


    The obviously "troll-like" LENR denier THH still believes that LENR is only seen in hydrogen loaded Pd... (see red ink)


    As reported elsewhere. We can produce radiation on demand by just heating or even without heating by just mixing LENR active fuel...


    Thus anybody that tells he is not believing in LENR needs, may be, medical help or has to explain why he is not believing that transmutations, radiation, 4He and huge excess heat are an indicator of a physical fusion process or, he has to tell us an other explication how these effects (transmutations, radiation, 4He and huge excess heat) are made out of the nirvana...


    (The later can be explained either by drugs or money...)

  • The obviously "troll-like" LENR denier THH still believes that LENR is only seen in hydrogen loaded Pd... (see red ink)


    As reported elsewhere. We can produce radiation on demand by just heating or even without heating by just mixing LENR active fuel...


    Thus anybody that tells he is not believing in LENR needs, may be, medical help or has to explain why he is not believing that transmutations, radiation, 4He and huge excess heat are an indicator of a physical fusion process or, he has to tell us an other explication how these effects (transmutations, radiation, 4He and huge excess heat) are made out of the nirvana...



    Sorry: I don't believe LENR is known to be seen anywhere. there are many anomalies, none of which individually are replicable and clearly LENR. It is claimed to be seen in very many places! The discussion here was about F&P experiments hence my comments about Pd and Pt.


    As I understand it this radiation anomaly that Alan et al have is not obviously controllable. If it is, then how it is controlled can be documented and it might make a case for LENR. Not without some work, because as you know at the very low levels reported here there are things that can give these results, as possibly can IR the GC. I'm happy to believe that all these sources have been ruled out - but only when the attempt to do this has been written up and critiqued by a general audience (not just hand-picked). You only need one unconsidered trifle...


    As far as I can see, no-one has yet even written up carefully the results and how they are controllable (in a replicable fashion).


    I'll be happy to be proved wrong.


    THH


  • Forgive me Oystla - but I believe from this you are not understanding my previous post?

  • Michael Staker states on Pg 20 .http://coldfusioncommunity.net…F21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf


    "The magnitude of excess heat (Figures 22 and 23) confirms Fleischmann-Pons heat effect from nuclear origin.
    The amount of excess heat per cc of Pd (150 MJ/cc) or per Pd atom (14000 eV/atom) is too large for a chemical
    reaction, which produces energy per atom less than 2 eV/atom."

    Perhaps there is disagreement btw THH and Staker? LENR doesn't fly ....it heats nuclearly


    And I have shown in my first publication how one can get an artificial excess heat signal from a faulty calorimetric assumption, one that EVERY LENR claim is based in to date, i.e. there is no confirmed excess heat signal anywhere.