FP's experiments discussion

  • No, it's not a valid option. Entrainment has nothing to do with the "foam issue", as I have already explained to you (4).


    This what your reference (4) says :


    "I specified in the first quotation what I admit I was wrong. It was only about the amount of the liquid entrainment, i.e. that it cannot explain the 100% of the excess heat claimed by F&P in their 1992 paper.

    Up to here, the withdrawal part of my comments. But … But, as said in the first comment, it happened that a much simpler and even more mundane explanation arose from a better analysis of the available documentation, and this alternative explanation is much worse for the authors of the 1992 paper and for the subsequent developments on the CF/LENR research based on their claims. I don't repeat here this alternative explanation, which is based on video evidences and the "foam issue", which are still alive arguments. So I'm sorry, but apart from the specific claims of JR that I quoted in the second comment, I still consider wrong all the other objections to the alternative interpretation that I proposed starting from October 31. Of course, I'm open to correct or even reconsider this last interpretation on the basis of well-founded and documented objections. I'm not here to defy the other members of the forum, I asked since the beginning their collaboration, even by means of criticisms to my hypothesis. I hope that all together we can find the truth about the 1992 experiment.

    The first step in finding a viable solution is to discard the fake ones."

    That made no sense to me, other than you were desperate to keep the foam issue alive, after first admitting you made an error.

  • That made no sense to me, other than you were desperate to keep the foam issue alive, after first admitting you made an error.


    Why should I have been desperate for an error? I made others. The anomaly in science is not to commit some errors, the anomaly is not recognizing them.


    Have you an idea of how many errors are contained in the F&P documents, even in the peer-reviewed ones. Have you understood which blatant and deliberate error is contained on Figure 8 of their ICCF3 paper? Can you realize what does it means to present the foam, that they knew was abundantly produced in their cells, as it were boiling water? Those who made these errors were really desperate to keep alive an illusion they had spread all over the world.


    I repeat, with respect to the interpretation of the F&P boil-off experiment, the entrainment hypothesis is no longer necessary to explain those extraordinary results. The "foam issue" allows a completely different and much more straightforward interpretation.

    Foamageddon! Not going to happen.


    It's already underway for almost 30 years, even if the poll will not happen. But considering, in accordance to those who published them on YouTube, how much convincing the F&P videos should have been, all this fear to ask an opinion on what they really show is quite meaningful.

  • Ascoli,


    After the second time you admitted your error about entrainment invalidating the FP's boil-off experiments, I congratulated you for being a gentleman about it. It is the sign of a good scientist to be able to admit they were wrong, learn from it, and try again another way.


    And no, I am not aware of all the errors in the FP's papers. but I am certain though, you will show me. What I am aware of, is they were both world class electrochemists, with many papers between them, along with mountains of data, publicly available for anyone to study, and find fault. Others have tried...most in the early days when F was alive, and the CF story was fresh, but those attacking their basic calorimetry work, and XH results, were quickly proven wrong. In some cases embarrassingly so.


    In the meantime, they have been replicated many times, as a quick run through of LENR-CANR's ICCF compendium proves. Some very recently. 30 years now as you like to point out, and their work still stands.

  • Misrepresentation of the boil-off time of Cell 2


    The F&P paper presented in October 1992 at the ICCF3 in Nagoja (1) contained 2 main conclusions:

    - excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system;

    - 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.


    Both these conclusions are wrong. The groundlessness of the second one is particularly evident. In fact, it makes specific reference to the Fig.8, the only one in the paper which shows, with a reasonable detail, the trend of one main recorded variable: the cell temperature during the entire boil-off phase of Cell 2. This figure is shown in the following jpeg:

    j7xYZnk.jpg


    The figure contains some notes that indicate the times in which Cell 2 becomes ½ dry and full dry, as well as the period during which "Cell remains at high temperature for 3 hours".


    The reasoning made by F&P is that after the complete dryness of the cell the electric circuit is open, therefore no external power is fed into the cell and the several hours during which the temperature remains high can be explained only with a heating power originating from the cathode, which, in the F&P interpretation, could only be nuclear in nature.


    All this reasoning is affected by an origin flaw, since the arrows the Figure 8 are misplaced. The full dryness of the cell occurred at least 2 hours after the time indicated by F&P on that figure. The same authors provided the undisputable evidence of this misrepresentation in the video that was published by Krivit in 2009 (2). In fact, thanks to the hh:mm:ss time superimposed to the images and considering that the boil-off of Cell 2 occurred during the 20th day of testing, it can be estimated that the emptying of Cell 2 didn't occur before an elapsed time of 1655200 s (from 00:00:00 of April 11, 1992).


    The same figure with the same wrong annotations was included in the article published on PLA in May 1993 (3) and in the paper presented in December 1993 at ICCF4 (4), where this curve provided the only experimental evidence for the alleged phenomenon which gave the title to the document: "Heat After Death".


    In conclusion, not only the misrepresentation of experimental times in Figure 8 (1) is undeniable, but it's very hard to imagine how it could have happened by accident. Even much harder is to realize how it is possible that it could have passed a peer-review (3), the writing and scrutiny of a paper entirely dedicated to this false claim (4) and dozens of years during which the myth of the Heat After Death based on that fake figure was believed and celebrated by the LENR community (5).


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

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

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

    (4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

    (5) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…ivit-S-ANewLookAtLENR.pdf

  • And no, I am not aware of all the errors in the FP's papers. but I am certain though, you will show me.


    OK, let's start from the most serious error: the misrepresentation of the times of the boil-off phase on Figure 8 of the F&P paper presented at ICCF3, shown in the jpeg just posted above. Is it sufficient to make you aware of this F&P error?


    Quote

    What I am aware of, is they were both world class electrochemists, with many papers between them, along with mountains of data, publicly available for anyone to study, and find fault.


    So they were also capable to convert temporal data between various time units. But it doesn't help to explain the time misrepresentation shown in the jpeg, it only supports the deliberateness of this error.


    Quote

    Others have tried...most in the early days when F was alive, and the CF story was fresh, but those attacking their basic calorimetry work, and XH results, were quickly proven wrong. In some cases embarrassingly so.


    None of them had addressed the time misrepresentation on Figure 8, as well as the "foam issue".


    Quote

    In the meantime, they have been replicated many times, as a quick run through of LENR-CANR's ICCF compendium proves.


    Let's focus for now on the errors contained in the F&P papers.


    Quote

    Some very recently. 30 years now as you like to point out, and their work still stands.


    Could it stand also the proposed poll?


  • In conclusion, not only the misrepresentation of experimental times in Figure 8 (1) is undeniable, but it's very hard to imagine how it could have happened by accident. Even much harder is to realize how it is possible that it could have passed a peer-review (3), the writing and scrutiny of a paper entirely dedicated to this false claim (4) and dozens of years during which the myth of the Heat After Death based on that fake figure was believed and celebrated by the LENR community (5).


    I would not persist with this line of reasoning if I were you.

  • Speaking about the F&P errors.


    Yes, they are typographic errors, possibly introduced by somebody hoping to discredit the work, Far more likely under the circumstances than the scandalous reasons for them you have claimed, but equally un-provable.

    You did plenty of explaining yourself. What you observed was a typographic error and some misplaced blue arrows, nothing more I am certain, and from that you have constructed a whole conspiracy.


    Can you please elaborate a little more?


    With reference to Figure 8 of the F&P paper (*), which are the typographic errors you mean?

    If any, how was it possible that they were replicated in at least 3 other important documents?


    As for the arrows, how do you explain the times that appear next to them. For each cell, the time period between the initial and the final time is much longer than the 10 minutes considered by F&P in the calculation reported on page 16 of their ICCF3 paper (**). Do you mean that all these times were also "typographic errors, possibly introduced by somebody hoping to discredit the work"?


    (*) FP's experiments discussion

    (**) FP's experiments discussion

  • Why do you not speak about Ascoli errors anymore?


    Just because no one speaks about them anymore. I'd be pleased if you point out any errors in my analyses of the F&P mistakes, so that I could explain or correct them. Do you see any error in the two posts I linked in my previous comment to AS?


    Quote

    Your famous fake video blue lines ???


    Well, the video is famous, but is not mine. It is by F&P and was published in 2009 by Krivit (1). Furthermore, the video shows no blue line, but blue arrows (more precisely the ">" character) and blue time stamps which were added on it by F&P in the 90s, to indicate the timing of the presumed water loss from the 4 cells during the boil-off.


    And yes, arrows and times are fake. Would you like to explain us why?


    (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

  • What Rossi has invented, sam12, is a bizarre method of extracting money from negligent and/or incompetent investors. What is most amazing is the extent to which it has succeeded thus far.


    Why Rossi? The first patent application on CF/LENR was filed by F&P on March 13, 1989 (US 323513), ten days before their press conference, which is almost 30 years so far.


    Quote

    Anyway, it's good entertainment and a small glimpse into the human psyche and the phenomenon of "belief."


    I would say that the entire CF/LENR history is much more than a "small glimpse" into these phenomena.


    It's pretty telling that Darden only verified Rossi's fraud by accident (when he used an unfueled reactor without knowing it)!


    And how much telling is the fact that the foamy behavior of the electrolytic cells, which determined the major results claimed by F&P, has not yet been recognized by the LENR supporters, nor by the critics, despite the videos that show it?

  • And how much telling is the fact that the foamy behavior of the electrolytic cells, which determined the major results claimed by F&P, has not yet been recognized by the LENR supporters, nor by the critics, despite the videos that show it?


    Speaking of "foamy behavior", that should read: "despite the videos *Ascoli claims* show it". After all, what they show is in the eye of the beholder.

  • Speaking of "foamy behavior", that should read: "despite the videos *Ascoli claims* show it". After all, what they show is in the eye of the beholder.


    May I ask what you see inside the F&P cells shown by the video (1) at t=0:33 and beyond? Isn't it a "foamy behavior"?


    As for the other 4-cell videos, what they show is in their pixels. I'm not the only one who see the foam (2). On the contrary, it seems to me that nobody dares anymore to claim that the videos clearly show boiling water, at most a few claim that they are too deteriorated to allow any meaningful evaluation of their images. But sooner or later, the videos will be analyzed with some professional tool and the results will be made public. In the meanwhile, my poll proposal is still valid (3).


    (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OQu44UIC_s

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

  • Ascoli65


    Basically, people here don't want to speculate in a nasty way about dusty experiments that cannot now be explored further. which I agree. However, some people hold up these experiments as good evidence now which I disagree. Your objections cannot be proven but certainly cast doubt. However, from my POV, there is enough doubt anyway in this boil-off phase stuff. Now.

  • Basically, people here don't want to speculate in a nasty way about dusty experiments that cannot now be explored further. which I agree.


    I understand, but don't agree. I'm not speculating in a "nasty way" and those you call "dusty experiments" are the basis of the ultimate claims of the reality of LENR (1). The myth of infallibility of the author of these "dusty experiments" has been widely used in the last 30 years to silence any doubt on the existence of CF:

    Rothwell, on August 29, 2018, wrote (Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?) :

    As far as I know, you have not found an experimental error in any other mainstream experiment. You thought that you found some in Fleischmann's boil-off experiments, but all of the problems you found were ruled out by Fleischmann.


    However, as soon as errors are highlighted and demonstrated on the basis of documents provided by F&P themselves, these experiments are considered "dusty" and the same videos that were been published to show "the dramatic heat effect of the cold fusion reaction on the water fuel" (1) immediately become too deteriorated to allow any meaningful evaluation of their images.


    I understand that this is the only possible defensive line for those who want to support the LENR reality to the utmost, but I can't understand why you agree with them. Shouldn't the assessment of the truth of the first and more authoritative claims on the existence of a physical phenomenon be the priority for any further effort in the same direction?


    Quote

    Your objections cannot be proven


    Why not? Is it so difficult to make a video be examined by professionals? And, please, tell me, which one of the objections raised about the time misrepresentation on Fig.8 of the ICCF3 paper cannot be proven?


    (1) https://coldfusionnow.org/flei…roduction-to-cold-fusion/

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

  • Sorry, I am too busy watching the countdown clock to the demo. Maybe after it reaches zero, I will have enough time to watch your bubbles.


    Well, probably it would have taken less time than your replies, anyway, I understand, the countdown has the precedence. Thereafter, there will be all the time to celebrate a bubbling 30th anniversary.

  • However, some people hold up these experiments as good evidence now which I disagree.

    You say you disagree, but you have no technical justification for your disagreement. You have not found any error in the boil off experiments. You claimed that the steam pressure is pushing drops of water up the cell walls, but that is impossible. If it were possible, it would happen with any cell of this geometry, and it would happen every time, so there would be no blank experiments or calibrations. I went through the literature and gave you a list of other reasons why you are wrong, but you did not address a single one of them.


    So, I do not think you actually disagree. I think you are only trying to show that you are a cool kid with the in crowd, the oh-so-sophisticated crowd that knows better than Fleischmann, Storms or McKubre. You do not actually have a valid reason to disbelieve any of the major experiments. If you had a reason, you would given it by now.


    However, from my POV, there is enough doubt anyway in this boil-off phase stuff. Now.

    Since you cannot give a reason for this POV of yours, and the "droplet" reason you gave previously is preposterous, you POV is based on emotion, not logic, facts or science.