Ascoli, "The major evidence in this paper is that its authors have disavowed the previous MF declarations about the absence of foam in the F&P open cells."
Well, NO, they have always been aware of foam and bubbles , as described by Fleischmann [ 1]
"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.)."
Your reminding of MF awareness of the foam problem has the only effect of worsening his responsibilities with respect to the 1992 results.
Regarding the quote, it didn't come from MF, but from McKubre (MCHM):
Bury Lodge heading
Dear Mel and Linda,
If you check back through the correspondence, you will see that I eventually decided that some of the bottles of D2O had been contaminated by HDO. I must admit here that I was influenced in reaching this conclusion by our early experiences with the start-up of the N.H.E. Project (1). There was clear evidence of the “quenching” of excess enthalpy generation in the key experiments due to the addition of HDO instead of D2O (actually it looked more like the addition of H2O to me!). 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! 146
146 MCHM The comment is more of memory aid for me. 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.). We did not confirm this but I suspect that a lot of heavy water – and a lot of heavy water experiments – were heavily affected (not positively) by the presence of detergents (for whatever reason).