FP's experiments discussion

  • Suppose the discovery had not been called cold fusion; suppose it had been named “Anomalous Heat Event”


    In such a case, it would have been ignored even by Hollywood. The CF field gained most of its incredible popularity by the charming oxymoron in its name.


    Quote

    And the confirmations that came during the 90's would have increased the funding and we would today had another source of energy in use.


    During the first 90's, F&P enjoyed an incredible financial and material support. This bonanza led to the 1992 boil-off experiment and to the ICCF3 paper, which provides the most evident confirmation that they were wrong and unreliable.


    Quote

    Instead of focusing on experimental data (in the area in which F&P were recognized authorities) most critics focused on the disagreement between F&P’s intepretation and accepted theory.


    I agree on this. It's amazing that the foam issue has not been raised by anyone in almost 30 years. Who was in possession of a copy of the 4-cell video could have easily detected the errors. Anyway, I don't know which was the diffusion of the video at that time and if the main critics of F&P had a copy.


    Quote

    I mean - you think we have reached the end of science and there is nothing more to learn?


    No, I don't think so. There are many other interesting things to discover or explain. Every scientific question is intriguing. We are curious beings. I hope our civilization will solve as many of these fascinating mysteries as possible, but there is a dramatic problem of diminishing return. IMO, the most useful and easy-to-find technologies have been already discovered, so that, unfortunately, most part of the ongoing researches will only be useful for those who participate in some way to their realization and, possibly, to a small, lucky minority sitting on the top of the human pyramid which can satisfy its hunger for knowledge. But this will happen thanks to the exploitation of the limited resources which are already well known.


    Quote

    Why did not F&P see excess heat in every cell they ran?


    Probably because they claimed as excess heat the positive outcomes of the random error inherent in any measurement, especially when coupled with puzzling methods to calculate the results, as those used by F&P.


    Quote

    What is the conditions required to guarantee an excess heat event to occur ?


    The choice of a method for interpreting the experimental data which provides false results on a more deterministic basis. For example, mistaking foam for boiling water allowed to claim of having produced excess heat at the specific rate of fast breeder reactors for all the 4 cells under testing. In this case, it was achieved the full reproducibility … of the error.

  • But this will happen thanks to the exploitation of the limited resources which are already well known.


    Really? If you think that is true then you know nothing about science, which is still full of great mysteries. You might perhaps consider taking up stamp-collecting, a field whose limits are (mostly) known.

  • because they claimed as excess heat the positive outcomes of the random error inherent in any measurement, especially when coupled with puzzling methods to calculate the results


    Well this was thoroughly discussed during the 90's and all random errors where evaluated and found non exisisting in the best experiments by F&P, Mckubre, the Japanese, etc. etc. even by Italian ENEA :-)


    You mean the methods evaluating heat from table top electrochemical cell calorimeter are puzzling? in what way?


    I my mind, when other scientists than F&P made their own various calorimeter setups and also found excess heat (again not every time but..) that tells me that nature tell us something to hunt for.


    Just as hunting for a theory that explains antimatter generation and gamma ray bursts during lightning storms, which does not occur in every lightning.... but sometimes.....hmmm...may it is LENR related ;-)

  • When reading the pile of abstract, not really convinced (by conformism),

    this was my position " nature tell us something to hunt for."

    and as engineer, my vision was that even if there is nothing huge, an artifact may be a great discovery for engineering.


    When you see that mass of "possible discovery", criticized with wildcard explanations,

    but never properly explained clearly, and you don't see scientists hunting like war dogs, there is something that frighten them more than losing time and budget.

  • mistaking foam a Krivitised video for boiling water scientific evidence allowed to claim of having produced excess heat foamology


    JedRothwell likes this.


    The graph in a previous jpeg (1) shows that, for what concerns all the 4 boil-off periods of the 1992 experiment, the video published by Krivit coincides with the "IMRA lapse time" video published by Rothwell. Do you think that also the "IMRA lapse time" video has been Rothwellized?


    @JedRothwell

    Does your "like" to the quoted post mean that you also think that 4-cell video was manipulated by Krivit?


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • Well this was thoroughly discussed during the 90's and all random errors where evaluated and found non exisisting in the best experiments by F&P, Mckubre, the Japanese, etc. etc. even by Italian ENEA


    What an impressive and long list of independent and disinterested evaluations!


    Btw, could you give me a definition of "best experiments"? Could it coincide with the experiments for which random errors provided the maximum positive outcome? I know, it's a difficult question, but I'll provide you a hint.


    A few month ago (1) you directed my attention to one of the most interesting and revealing document, the article written by Rothwell and Mallove to complain about the Japanese government's decision to end the NHE program, a multi million effort aimed at reproducing the F&P effect. The article reports this statement:

    From http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf [bold added]

    […]

    “In the Pons replication experiment, we saw excess heat and by the same token we saw examples of a heat deficit, where the energy appeared to vanish,” explained program manager Naoto Asami, looking back over the work. “We found problems with their calorimeter, and we feel that their entire data set is weak and questionable." .

    […]


    Do you see? The NHE program manager explained that they saw examples of "excess heat" as well of "heat deficit". Can you imagine what it means? It means that the NHE measurements were quite correct and that the excess or deficit in the thermal balance was due to the random error inherent in any measurement. However, in the CF jargon, the experiments that led to a positive or negative balance are called "best experiments" and "failed experiments" respectively. The former are published in CF journals or presented at ICCFs, the latter are kept secret, as recalled by Rothwell in the same article:

    From http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf [bold added]

    […]

    As long ago as ICCF4, Rothwell recalls that NHE researchers and others in Japan told him they suspected entrained water is a problem with the Pons and Fleischmann experiments. NHE researchers have circulated rumors about this, alluded to it during press conferences, and discussed it informally on Internet. But they have never published a formal paper about it or discussed it at a conference.

    […]


    Quote

    You mean the methods evaluating heat from table top electrochemical cell calorimeter are puzzling? in what way?


    In the way that their method provides random numbers, as shown by F&P themselves in their response to Wilson's remarks (2). Table 2 shows three different sets of excess heat values (Qf/W) calculated for the calibration cycles shown on Fig.3A-B-C of the seminal paper issued in 1990. Well, 2 of these 3 sets, those in the last 2 columns, have been both calculated by F&P and are very different each other.


    Quote

    I my mind, when other scientists than F&P made their own various calorimeter setups and also found excess heat (again not every time but..) that tells me that nature tell us something to hunt for.


    Me too, but it suggests me to look deeper into our human nature.


    Quote

    Just as hunting for a theory that explains antimatter generation and gamma ray bursts during lightning storms, which does not occur in every lightning.... but sometimes.....hmmm...may it is LENR related


    Hmmm, let me think … Yes, at first glance, I also would put them all in one and the same basket!


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

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

  • When reading the pile of abstract, not really convinced (by conformism),

    this was my position " nature tell us something to hunt for."

    and as engineer, my vision was that even if there is nothing huge, an artifact may be a great discovery for engineering.


    Stepping down from poetry to concreteness, are you able, as engineer, to explain the artifacts at the basis of the 2 conclusions contained in the F&P's major paper and reported here below?

    From http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf : [bold and color added]


    We note that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system; the specific excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors. We also draw attention to some further important features: provided satisfactory electrode materials are used, the reproducibility of the experiments is high; following the boiling to dryness and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high temperature for prolonged periods of time, Fig 8; furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300ºC.


    Quote

    When you see that mass of "possible discovery", criticized with wildcard explanations,

    but never properly explained clearly …


    May I know your opinion about the clarity of the following 2 explanations aimed to criticize the above F&P conclusions, that are considered the most revealing of their "possible discovery"?


    red: FP's experiments discussion

    blue: FP's experiments discussion

  • What an impressive and long list


    Was not meant as such, just a few examples ;)


    definition of "best experiments"?


    I would say that the best experiments is the ones where there are consensus between the active researchers that these ones are...yes...good :)


    as an examples I believe the work at SPAWAR was considered sound and excellent experiments.



    as shown by F&P themselves in their response to Wilson's remarks


    Thank you for pointing to this response. Did you note what F&P stated was their MAJOR paper in [1]? Yes, let us use their own words, shall we? ^^


    And I do not see the big issue with the reply [1].


    F&P explains in further detail where Wilson have misunderstood or not understood their major paper.









    And by this Fleischmann absolutely killed the critical paper of Wilson in this Answer. Wilson never replied to F&P.


    The independent Hansen report [3] and analysis of the F&P work, should also be noted. Countrary to Wilson, Hansen found there actually may be some mystery of nature to be investigated further


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

    [2] https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf

    [3] https://www.newenergytimes.com…-ReportToTheUtahState.pdf

  • I would say that the best experiments is the ones where there are consensus between the active researchers that these ones are...yes...good


    as an examples I believe the work at SPAWAR was considered sound and excellent experiments.


    If you consider all the researchers active in the related scientific fields, the consensus on any CF/LENR experiment is negligible. If you consider only the LENR researchers, it looks like evaluating the execution of a magic trick on the basis of the consensus it raises among the active magicians.


    Quote

    Thank you for pointing to this response. Did you note what F&P stated was their MAJOR paper in [1]? Yes, let us use their own words, shall we?


    Yes, I had already noticed that. They wrote "our major paper on the calorimetry …" on an article published in July 1992 and submitted to the editor in March.


    The ICCF3 paper, the FM's "major paper", is successive! It was presented in October 1992 and published on PLA in May 1993. Moreover, in addition to the general feature of their calorimetry, it reports the calorimetric results of the most famous and apparently successful experiment performed by F&P: the production of "excess heat" at FBR specific rate in 4 cells out of 4, an extraordinary poker with 4 identical axes.


    Therefore, the F&P own words written in March 1992 don't contradict the Rothwell judgment expressed in August 2018.


    Quote

    And I do not see the big issue with the reply [1].


    You don't see the big issue because you didn't look closely at the numbers on Table 2, or you didn't reflect enough upon their meaning.


    Quote

    F&P explains in further detail where Wilson have misunderstood or not understood their major paper


    I was not referring to the word salad of complaints addressed to Wilson. The fact that F&P never admitted to be wrong doesn't necessarily mean that they were right, it could simply mean that they were obstinately wrong.


    Quote

    And by this Fleischmann absolutely killed the critical paper of Wilson in this Answer. Wilson never replied to F&P.


    Evidently, Wilson and his colleagues were not paid by GE for losing more time in this diatribe. The verdict on who was right arrived in 1997, at no more cost for GE, when the Japanese government ended a 4 years and $30 million program aimed at replicating the F&P effect. The clear conclusions from the NHE program manager are reported in the Rothwell&Mallove article cited in my previous comment.


    Quote

    The independent Hansen report [3] and analysis of the F&P work, should also be noted. Countrary to Wilson, Hansen found there actually may be some mystery of nature to be investigated further.


    The Hansen report is interesting and provides further hints useful to explain the errors in the F&P measurements. However it doesn't contain any reference to the "mystery of nature to be investigated", even though this is the common position of almost any professor or researcher, especially when they are personally involved in investigating these mysteries.

  • Ascoli65, If you are using JedRothwell as the judge please don't cherry pick his judgements


    don't contradict the Rothwell judgment expressed in August 2018.


    Does Ascoli65 really believe that liquid water or foam will remain in a test tube that is over 150°C? Or is he just trolling us? I can't tell. Other pathological skeptics have been contributing preposterous hypotheses here recently. ........December,2018

    You are a pill. (Annoying, in other words.) I have blocked you. Sayonara. ........July,2018

    Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Ascoli65, If you are using JedRothwell as the judge please don't cherry pick his judgements


    Are you his secretary?


    Well, tell him that I am still waiting his answer about your hypothesis of manipulation of the "4 cell" video published by Krivit in 2009 .

    By the way, I'm also waiting your answer about the same treatment for the "IMRA time lapse" video published by Rothwell in 2012.

    FP's experiments discussion

  • Just stop cherry picking


    Impossible! You know, cherry picking is the essence of reviewing. Whatever claim you are reviewing in order to assess its reality, the first thing you need to do it check its internal congruence. If only one sentence or number contradicts the others, you should first solve this single contradiction before doing any other check with the external world, the objective reality.


    In this respect, reviewing operates in the opposite way of researching. When you are doing research, that is you are inquiring the nature, you should consider with equal importance all the answers you get and then, if possible, provide an interpretation that explains all of them. In this case cherry picking is forbidden.


    It seems that in CF/LENR, people are expected to behave in the wrong way: cherry picking is allowed for research, but blamed for review.


    Quote

    If you choose to use someone who calls you a pathological skeptic as an authority

    then you are really scraping the barrel for support for your foamology.


    This is a nonsense. Rothwell remains an undisputed authority in the field, whatever he says about me. Furthermore, since CF is mostly a socio-psychological phenomenon - essentially based on propaganda - he is one of its main authorities. Therefore, it's impossible to ignore his POV.


    As for the foam issue, his piqued reactions to my remarks and his avoiding of answering my direct questions are the best confirmation that these remarks are valid and cannot be rebutted.

  • Rothwell remains an undisputed authority in the field, whatever he says about me.


    That's flattering in an odd way, but ridiculous. I don't have a PhD and I have only spent a few months in labs, mainly watching. Compared to someone such as Mizuno, McKubre or Bockris I know absolutely NOTHING about electrochemistry. Not 1 tenth of 1 percent. You can see what I mean here:


    https://archive.org/stream/Joh…28BookSee.org%29_djvu.txt


    On the other hand, I do know more than you do. Because, for example, I know that foam in water does not survive temperatures of ~150 to 200 deg C that are high enough to melt plastic.

  • That's flattering in an odd way, but ridiculous. I don't have a PhD and I have only spent a few months in labs, mainly watching.


    I was not flattering you. I did mention propaganda, because I was referring to your role in it. CF/LENR is essentially a fairy tale, so it needs storytellers and you are a master in this art. You have been able to propagate and support for many years the Ecat farce, the most incredible in the field, considering the stunning level of the claimed performances.


    Quote

    Compared to someone such as Mizuno, McKubre or Bockris I know absolutely NOTHING about electrochemistry. Not 1 tenth of 1 percent.


    But you know rhetoric, which - in a world based on information - is a much more effective knowledge than any other scientific discipline, in promoting dreams.


    Quote

    On the other hand, I do know more than you do.


    Yes, of course, much more. You are in the CF field since the beginning, you met almost all the people involved, collected and organized in a library most of the related documents. As I said, you are an undisputed authority in CF/LENR, but you are not able to rebut my remarks on the conclusions of the F&P paper that you consider the "major" of MF.