FP's experiments discussion

  • Melting point of Kel-F (PCTFE) seems to be about 212 C.

    I think there are different kinds. Fleischmann said it was 300 deg C:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf


    Wikipedia says 175 deg C:


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


    The exact temperature does not matter. There is no way water would remain in the cell at any of the temperatures quoted. Ascoli65 has predicated his claim on grotesque nonsense. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will see it is nonsense. So what is the point of saying it? What is he trying to accomplish? Does he actually believe this??

  • the cathode is more than a few tens of degrees warmer that the water, just for the joule effect;

    c - in the very last phase of the boil-off, all current is forced to pass through the lowest and very thin portion of the cathode in contact with the support.

    If all the water boils off at 101.5 C

    this must mean that "" all current is forced to pass through the lowest and very thin portion of the cathode through the support"" heating it to about 175-300C

    which means that PCTFE is a conductor!!!!!!


    Ascoli65 reveals more and more undiscovered chemical properties

    ...LiOH foams,

    LiOH is nonhygroscopic

    and PTFCE conducts electricity.

    What is he trying to accomplish

    Ascoli65 asserts that he is trying to save the world .. from Fleischmann deception.... in 1992...27 years ago

    which is convenient since Fleischmann died in 2012?

    • Official Post

    they reported untrue data on their 1992 paper, as is well documented by their videos;

    Probably, it's another misrepresentation contained in that paper

    This phrase, as well as the indications reported on Fig.8, is FALSE. Furthermore, if the authors were able to correctly convert dd+hh:mm:ss into seconds, this phrase is DELIBERATELY FALSE.


    No matter who your latest target is, it always comes to this. A conspiracy, or intentional deceit by the person. You may not realize this, but once you say these things, you lose most everyone. They write you off as another conspiracy theorist, and they do not pay anymore attention to you. And if they knew how long you have been at this, and how many you have put under your conspiracy microscope, they would write you off even sooner. I know I do. Do not get me wrong, I really enjoy reading you, and look forward to seeing you have made a post, but I know the ending already...which takes some of the enjoyment out of it.


    Fleischmann was at the end of an illustrious career, and had nothing to gain by making up something as crazy as cold fusion. Then expect to get away with doctoring reports along the way to fool everyone. Including Pons, his straight as an arrow (very honest) younger, but equally well established associate. They also could have chosen a cheaper "discovery" to pursue, as they both self-funded their early research with $100,000 of their own money. Or chosen a less capable (dumber), easy to fool collaborator than Steve Jones...doing his own research at the time on Muon catalyzed fusion.

    Then be so fortunate to actually have other credible people, and institutions replicate them shortly after going public, with more to follow. Even at this very moment, almost 30 years later the reports keep coming in. Yes, I know you believe every single one of these replications is bogus also, but as long as there was one success that has not been discredited...and there are many that withstood peer review, you simply cannot logically say they conspired to make up a story about CF, and "misrepresent" the data.


    It may one day be proven that they screwed up (doubtful IMO), but if so, history will record that their intentions were honorable. Only person publicly calling them liars, and marked by a tiny footnote, will be Ascoli... maybe Kirk also.

  • I expected a better quality response from the number one LENR website than insults,

    Ascoli has not responded to

    1. The fact that LiOD solutions do not generate foam when boiled

    2. The fact that when 0.24% LiOD solution evaporates it leaves a thin coat on the bottom of the testtube which is opaque to light

    3. The fact that LiOD is hygroscopic so that such coats several hours later exposed to moist air will disappear to the bottom of the tt.

    4. The fact that he is entirely reliant on to a poor resolution video to misrepresent this thin coating as foam

    5.The fact that the electrodes were at least at a temperature of 175C at the end. There is no way that the electrodes could remain conducting

    electricity to achieve this temperature if the LiOD solution had evaporated at 101.5 C.

    The heat generated was not coming from current but from some reaction inside the electrode.

    6. In addition Ascoli has never responded to my point that the inflection point that he refers to has at least a +/- 3 hour error either side

    of his indicated time point because of the extent to which he has falsely blurred the data by photoshopping the graph...

    where will you see such photoshopping done in any scientific paper???


    Ascoli sits at his armchair generating beer foam pictures and alleging fraud/enchantment/ineptness, but expects others such as me


    1.to verify LiOD 0.24% do not generate foam... when it is self-evident from known chemical family properties

    2. to contact others such as Krivit to verify that Krivits video was untampered with... when that is the lynchpin of Ascoli's evidence

    3. to contact other researchers about the Ascolifoam issue when it is his anomalous issue


    It is Ascoli who should be offering proof

    1. that 0.25% LiOD does foam

    2. that LiOD is not hygroscopic

    3.that current can still flow and heat an electrode to >175C when there is no electrolyte solution


    Does Johnny- come lately Paradigmoia have a better response...."then just saying á better response..??????


  • I am not expert on electrolysis experiments, so I would expect someone who is to show or point the way to information that demonstrates the electrolyte cannot foam, that the salts from evaporated LiOD fall off the sides of the tube, that superconcentrated electrolyte at the end of the boiling experiments behaves similarly to the starting mixture in regards to current flow, figure out who marked up the videos and when, etc.

    Perhaps that burden does belong to Ascoli, but it also belongs to those who say “that’s not how it works”. Show me (and Ascoli) how it is wrong. This is old stuff, so there should be lots of experts and data. I can’t read Jed’s whole library.

  • Perhaps that burden does belong to Ascoli,


    The burden of proof belongs to Ascol65i and only Ascoli65.. who alleges that LiOD foams.

    In reality ,unless there is detergent or surfactant added to the D2O, 0.1M LiOD doesn't foam..

    which is why F&P made specific reference to this fact..

    from their own their learning curve..and advised the Japanese replicators

    to avoid surfactant treated D20 from the manufacturer.


    However Ascoli, because of his contrary bias, interprets this very cautionary advice about surfactants,

    to the Japanese , as certain proof that F&P had foam in their 1992 experiment.

    He has only to ask M.Staker if he had foam problems.. and how he overcame them....in ~~2014

    when Staker replicatedthe F&P..method AND result.. M.Staker is only an email away... and very much alive

    [email protected] and Phone: 410 617 5188 USA

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StakerMRpreprintco.pdf

    but that is one email too far for Ascoli65... who will milk Krivit's 1993? ?? low resolution video for all its worth

    ... knowing full well that Fleischmann is dead 6 years... and cannot respond.


    I appreciate your offer, Paradigmoia, to verify this but even if you come up

    with videod evidence that D2O /0.1M LiOD do not foam

    Ascoli will find some way to discredit or discount your proof..


    such as M&F didn't know about detergent

       or added detergent on purpose to enchant or deceive..

    ..or you have different testtubes from F&P etc etc


    I expect Ascoli to be here in 12 months time ..with the same Krivit video... and the same allegations.

    because of his (or her or its) obsessive confirmation bias ..... with no attempt to verify, by communication or experiment ,his foamy allegations and an instant exclusion of any replication by anyone anywhere on the basis of the Original SIN   FOAM in 1992 of the enchanting and deceitful Fleischmann....

  • Paradigmnoia;


    I believe I have pointed to many possible fatal errors of the Ascoli analysis,


    But you ask if electrolyte cannot foam? Yes it can, and Fleischmann was very aware of the fact.


    And what is foam? Soap ? Boiling bubbles on top of boiling water?


    Bubbles there will be, but how high bubling layer is possible?


    Let me repeat my previous post on the issue:


    "


    Ascoli believes the 25 cm high tube cells of F&P where mostly filled with foam and not water at the start of the last 10 minutes of boiling.


    So, one important question is then what feasible layer of foam is actually possible to generate on top of boiling heavy water. In experiments by Miles below, a 3 cm layer of foam is identified.


    Suggesting, as Ascoli does, foam at another order of magnitude at 20+ cm foam layer is not realistic or feasible 😉


    One should remember here that Fleischmann was very well aware of possible foaming and knew how the foam developed during boiling.


    And of course, they also used their eyes during their various boiling experiments, not only a video tape 😉. So they new and had experience of possible height of foam layers during boiling.

    In the document [1] below, there are some communication between Fleischman and Melvin Miles one the issue of foam:


    Tests done by Miles in 2002++


    Dear Martin,

    I will mail the pH and weight data from Mr. Sumi today. The pH change does not support the

    “spillover of electrolyte” proposed by Mr. Moxley in his letter. I did observe about 3 cm of foam

    in my cell during boiling, but the liquid level was well below the cell top. The loss of liquid by

    forming may be a problem if NHE ran their cells over-filled as you suggest. It was not a problem

    in my boil-off experiment.

    Sincerely,

    Mel Miles«

    A few replies from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles:

    Now as to the possible foaming in the cells. The Japanese were plagued by this problem due

    to their use of D2O destined for N.M.R. experiments. This contained added detergent to aid the

    filling of sample tubes. We wrote to them at length about this and I thought that the problem had been cleared up.”

    ….


    You have also pointed out that the anomalous value of (kR′) on day 61 was probably due to foaming in the cell. This is another problem which we pointed out to our Japanese colleagues. Samples of D2O sometimes contain added detergent to aid the filling of the NMR tubes!”

    We once had a batch of D2O that foamed badly. We traced this back to the Girdler-Sulfide process used by AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.).

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

  • Here is what is false: your notion that liquid water or foam will remain in an open test tube that is so hot plastic melts in it.


    Whether some foam remains or not inside the test tube is irrelevant compared to the test results reported in the F&P report (1). It's just an additional clue regarding the foam shown by the videos during the last phase of boil-off.


    The videos show different long-term behavior of the foam: it remains in Cell 2 and disappears in Cell 3. In Cell 1, the permanent whiteness could be that of a deposit on the wall, but its shape is congruent with some foam that has remained for a long time after the boil-off. For Cell 4 we can't say anything, because the last available video still refers to few minutes after its drying. Anyway, this last video still show a thick layer of foam.


    As for the effect of the molten plastic, it doesn’t affect the foam. As already said, this melting can be easily explained with the high temperature reached at the lowest tip of the cathode, which cooled very quickly once the current has ceased, without affecting much of the residual foam.


    The adjective FALSE contained in my post refers to different and much more relevant aspects of the F&P paper (1):

    - FALSE is the time of 600 s used on page 16 to calculate the Output Enthalpy and hence the Excess Enthalpy;

    - probably false - and in any case MISREPRESENTED, because not documented - is the Enthalpy Input of 22500 J;

    - absolutely FALSE is the positioning of the indications "Cell ½ dry" and "Cell dry" on Fig.8, which is the basis of the HAD claim.


    These false representations imply that both the conclusions given on page 17 are also FALSE.


    Quote

    That's not just false -- it is insane. If you believe that, you are astoundingly ignorant of everyday physics. If you don't believe it, you are trolling the audience here. Which is it?


    I exclude the second option. As for the first, well, physics is so big, even that one related to everyday phenomena, which I certainly ignore most of it. But I think I can see the foam in the videos available on internet (2-3), and this is enough to figure out what happened in the experiment documented in the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 (1).


    As for the behavior with respect to the audience here, everyone will judge by himself. I find it's quite significant that, after several weeks of discussion on this foam issue, the video you published on YouTube in 2012 (3) was brought to the attention of the audience by Robert Horst (4) and not by you.


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

    (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8 (1992 Four-Cell Boil-off – Krivit 2009)

    (3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434 (IMRA time lapse – Rothwell 2012)

    (4) FP's experiments discussion

  • But I think I can see the foam in the videos available on internet (2-3),


    Ascoli65 has developed his foam thesis from humble beginnings

    in September as 'a sort of fóam"

    to an incredibly differentiated mutant..

    persistent... brasserie... rising ...residual ... stationary... hundreds of million dollar! foam

    all on the basis of a low resolution Krivit video.

  • No matter who your latest target is, it always comes to this. A conspiracy, or intentional deceit by the person. You may not realize this, but once you say these things, you lose most everyone. They write you off as another conspiracy theorist, and they do not pay anymore attention to you. And if they knew how long you have been at this, and how many you have put under your conspiracy microscope, they would write you off even sooner. I know I do. Do not get me wrong, I really enjoy reading you, and look forward to seeing you have made a post, but I know the ending already...which takes some of the enjoyment out of it.


    I understand the reactions of the users of this forum to my remarks on the F&P paper. I am used to these reactions. They are the same ones I faced when I was addressing the inconsistencies in the Ecat reports. And you also know them very well. :)


    But this conspiracy arguments have no basis. I speak here of the factual aspects of the F&P experiment carried out in 1992 and about the FALSE data and statements contained in their documents (1-2). Conspiracies are evoked here by those who are not able to replicate to factual observations.


    I know that my criticisms are not welcomed in this forum, but this is the best place in the world where they can be discussed in order to be clarified. I greatly appreciated all the remarks made to my hypotheses and they helped me a lot to improve my understanding the 1992 experiment.


    I'm not doing anything else of what I've been invited to do many times: looking at literature. The CFers have always urged to look at the evidences, especially those reported in the peer-reviewed literature, and this is what I'm doing, starting from the most important document of CF/LENR.


    Quote

    Fleischmann was at the end of an illustrious career, and had nothing to gain by making up something as crazy as cold fusion. Then expect to get away with doctoring reports along the way to fool everyone. Including Pons, his straight as an arrow (very honest) younger, but equally well established associate. They also could have chosen a cheaper "discovery" to pursue, as they both self-funded their early research with $100,000 of their own money. Or chosen a less capable (dumber), easy to fool collaborator than Steve Jones...doing his own research at the time on Muon catalyzed fusion.


    This arguments have nothing to do with my criticisms of the F&P paper. Anyway you described a situation very similar to that of Focardi and his many UniBo colleagues, former students of him, who fully endorsed the 2011 Ecat results for at least one year and who have not yet withdrawn this support. Many strange and unexpected things happen in the scientific and academic fields. But, this is not the time to address these aspects. The priority is on the factual aspects of the foam issue.


    Quote

    Then be so fortunate to actually have other credible people, and institutions replicate them shortly after going public, with more to follow. Even at this very moment, almost 30 years later the reports keep coming in. Yes, I know you believe every single one of these replications is bogus also, but as long as there was one success that has not been discredited...and there are many that withstood peer review, you simply cannot logically say they conspired to make up a story about CF, and "misrepresent" the data.


    Just a couple of remarks to these consideration.


    First. It's almost impossible to demonstrate the inconsistencies of the results claimed in the CF documents, especially when they deal with very low level of excess heat. Without some additional information from providential photos and videos, it would have been difficult even for the high power claims contained in the Ecat's reports. For the F&P paper presented at ICCF3, we are in the very fortunale and unhoped-for situation in which we have such additional information.


    Second: The blatant errors and omissions contained in the F&P peer-reviewed article published on PLA (2) devoid the peer-reviewed documents of any guarantee about their correctness.


    Quote

    It may one day be proven that they screwed up (doubtful IMO), but if so, history will record that their intentions were honorable.


    I'm not challenging this aspect, it's not my aim, it's not my business. If we detour from the technicalities, we may tackle the most surprising scenarios. For example, I found very interesting what SP said at 44:45 of the BBC documentary (3).


    So, I could eventually find myself on the wrong side of the dispute about the CF reality, but I don't think it will be for technical or scientific reasons.


    Quote

    Only person publicly calling them liars, and marked by a tiny footnote, will be Ascoli... maybe Kirk also.


    This is very serious point that I need to clarify. Contrary to large part of the posters here on L-F, I've not called anyone "liar", not even those involved in the Ecat affair. I've only discussed whether some statements are true or not. If I guess they are not true, then I say they are untrue or false. Subsequently, looking for the reason for this untrueness and being the experimenters part of the experiment, it could happen that there is no other way to explain an error than to be caused by a deliberate mistake. It doesn't mean that the person who committed it is a liar. I'm not here to judge people and their general aptitudes. This is totally out of my scope. For me, the possible intentionality of a mistake has only a mere scientific value, because it affects - the same way it happens for an unreliable instrument - the scientific reliability of the person who commits it and only within the limit of the topic that is under discussion.


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

    (2) http://coldfusioncommunity.net…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf

    (3) http://vimeo.com/9438745

    • Official Post

    Ascoli,


    Thank you for your thorough (as always) reply. You are always welcome here, and all we ask is that you not personalize your arguments by careless use of words against a named person...and no, you can't hint either. I am sure your "poor English" is what gives us the false impression you are attacking, or insulting someone, when instead you are trying to make an innocent point. :)


    As I said before, the FP's science is fair game. In fact, this thread has been around in one form or another, for a few years. We do not shy away from a good fight, regardless of the individual, or institutions involved, and invite all comers to participate. This is all about getting to the truth, and the only way sometimes to do that is a good knock down, drag out (respectful) argument. Not to brag, but I think that is commendable, considering we are an LENR (believers)-Forum, as I am sure you would agree.


    I am aware of your role in exposing Rossi. You did, and continue to do, a very good job of it. You can even see the fruits of your labors right here on LF, as he has become in many ways a laughing stock...as he deserves. Others of course, helped to open some eyes about the man, including the IH/Rossi court records, but still you played a part and should be proud of that.


    However, I see little comparison's between he and FP's. It is one thing to bring Rossi down, and quite another to try the same with FP's. You may get them on some valid discrepancies, but motives, character, abilities, integrity, you will not.

  • I believe I have pointed to many possible fatal errors of the Ascoli analysis,


    Which fatal errors are you talking about? I remember an alleged "fatal error" of mine (1) which eventually turned out to be a "fatal error" of yours (2). What else?


    Quote

    Let me repeat my previous post on the issue:


    Let me put the link at the answer I already gave you (3).


    Quote

    The Japanese were plagued by this problem due to their use of D2O destined for N.M.R. experiments.


    So, we should believe that the NHE program - which did cost dozens of M$ and involved the major companies and several important universities in Japan - has failed because the Japanese were not able to procure a few liters of suitable D2O in 4-5 years? Can you provide a reasonable explanation of how it has been possible?


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

  • So, we should believe that the NHE program - which did cost dozens of M$ and involved the major companies and several important universities in Japan - has failed


    the reasons for the cessation of the NHE program in1998 are a lot more complicated than Ascoli65 might suggest

    in his hundreds of million dollar foam thesis

    "Official Japanese New Hydrogen Energy (Cold Fusion) Program to End— Missed Opportunities and Botched Management


    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t…Vaw3MZrmnfvMgnbQk2sBtD7i3


    Infinite Energy reported on the astonishing weaknesses of the NHE program in Vol. 2, No. 10, published after the Sixth International Conference on Cold fusion (ICCF6), which was held in October 1996 in Hokkaido, Japan. Contributing Editor Jed Rothwell pointed out several major technical problems with the research in his ICCF6 review and in An Open Letter to Japan's NHE Lab Directorate, written in Japanese and English, on page 28 of Issue #10. The letter includes 17 references to the literature, and it lists concrete problems with the protocols and materials used at the NHE lab, including low cell temperatures, improper cell and cathode materials, inadequate preparation and pre-testing of cathodes, and so on. These technical criticisms did not originate with Infinite Energy.

    They were suggested by Drs. Stanley Pons, Martin Fleischmann, John Bockris, Edmund Storms, T. Mizuno, Hideo Ikegami and the others cited in the footnotes. We pointed out that the French Atomic Energy Commission has successfully replicated the Pons-Fleischmann IMRA boil-off experiments (originally reported in Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129), because they were more careful about replicating every detail of the experiment, without making any changes.


    The NHE is staffed mostly by scientists and engineers new to the cold fusion field... They are on 6 to 12 month assignments to the NHE lab.



  • Even at this very moment, almost 30 years later the reports keep coming in


    The work at Technova continues. Akito Takahashi is the first to admit his and his researchers' debt to Fleischmann and Pons.

    December 9 ..news from Kobe.".. right on cue


    ""

    After the heat burst event, small (2-3 W) excess power level sustained for a day. Then we increased the H-gas pressure of SC (storage chamber) to ca. 1.0MPa to feed to RC with [120, 80] W heaters condition; we then started to observe rather slow H-absorption with significant endothermic condition. After saturation of H/Ni ratio, we increased RC temperature to have observed weeks-sustaining excess thermal power (ca. 12-14W in earlier weeks).

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…Sample_and_H-Gas/download