FP's experiments discussion

  • 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.


    OK, I looked at it, and that one short segment looks like small bubbles first, which then turned into what may be foam, but of a thin consistency. Had the energy source abruptly cut off, whatever you want to call it would have quickly dissipated. Now back to watching that clock. I do not want to miss when it turns zero. :)

  • OK, I looked at it, and that one short segment looks like small bubbles first, which then turned into what may be foam, but of a thin consistency.

    That is the difference between electrolysis bubbles of O2 and H2 coming from both electrodes, versus boiling water coming from the cathode only. There is no foam.


    With ordinary electrolysis, if you raise the power level high enough, and the electrodes are about the same size (as they are in this case), water will boil at both electrodes. Since it is only boiling at the cathode in this case, it cannot be from input electric power. This is one of the many reasons we know the heat is anomalous. Ascoli and THHuxley refuse to address this fact, or any of the others proving this is real heat.

  • Digging into the science of foamology, it appears what I saw does not meet the scientific criteria to be classified as foam. As I said; it was of a thin consistency, and IMO without an energy supply would instantly dissipate/dissolve.


    Foam generally has a membrane structure integrity that is maintained by various forces (think a good English stout), that can independently maintain it's geometry after formation....at least for a short time, and much longer in some cases. What I saw could not have done that. It was bubbles.

  • Quote

    Foam generally has a membrane structure integrity that is maintained by various forces (think a good English stout)

    In Irish 8) stout and other beers, the head is made of proteins bound together by hop resins. The whole mixture is hydrophobic, which leads to it’s persistence.


    For Ascolis latest brainchild to be valid, it would required some sort of adulterant in the test tube that could form a stable foam.

  • For Ascolis latest brainchild to be valid, it would required some sort of adulterant in the test tube that could form a stable foam.


    Bockris and others told me that surfactants (detergent) sometimes cause bubbles in electrochemical cells. I assume they are left over when the cells are washed but not rinsed thoroughly. They contaminate the cell and prevent high loading, which in turn prevents the cold fusion effect. In other words, when you have foam, the cell does not produce cold fusion.


    The difference between foam and bubbles from boiling is readily apparent to the naked eye, both the way they look, and the way they persist (as Shane D. noted above).

  • Foam is Foam! The Foamy Behavior of the F&P cells


    OK, I looked at it, and that one short segment looks like small bubbles first, which then turned into what may be foam, but of a thin consistency. Had the energy source abruptly cut off, whatever you want to call it would have quickly dissipated.


    Shane, in the LENR dispute we have been on the opposite sides of the barricade for many years, but there has always been a mutual respect, and none of us has tried to bamboozled the other. In a verbal dispute, the common sharing of the meaning of words is essential to possibly reach a widely shared agreement on facts, which in turn is essential to find the truth, as you also wish (1).


    Now, you wrote in your last comment: "what may be foam" and "whatever you want to call it". Well, I'm curious to know what does it mean "foam" for you.


    An internet site, which collects various definition of English words, proposes at first the following one:

    From https://www.yourdictionary.com/foam :


    The definition of foam is a thick frothy lather of bubbles.

    a. An example of foam is the white bubbles at the top of a freshly poured glass of beer.


    Previously I have addressed to you some images shown by a video published by "Truthloader Investigates" (2). The same images are shown in the following new jpeg:

    9ZIgaNK.jpg

    On the left side, there is a sequence of 5 images taken from as many consecutive video segments.

    - Image A shows the small bubbles you also mentioned. They are due to the electrolytic gases generated on the surface of the electrodes.

    - Image B, taken after 37 minutes, shows a "thick frothy layer" of "white bubbles on the top" of the liquid, so by definition it is foam!

    - Image C, taken only a few minutes thereafter, shows MF showing his foamy cells to a presumably Japanese guest. It means that, most likely, the video was shot by SP with the same camera used to film the 4-cell experiment described in the paper presented by F&P at ICCF3 (3).

    - Image D, taken three hours later, shows a huge layer of foam inside a F&P cell. The foam looks much more dense and doesn't seem to be subjected to such a quick dissipation as you said.

    - Image E, shows the date of June 23, 1992, a Tuesday, i.e. 6-7 weeks after the conclusion of the 4-cell experiment, started on April 11 and lasted about 4 weeks.


    So we have a document, coming directly from F&P, which demonstrates without any doubt the "foamy behavior" of their cells. Can we agree at least on this fact?
    Otherwise, which English word do you use to name the thick white layer of bubbles inside the cells shown in detail B1 and D1 of the jpeg?


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

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

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

  • Shane, in the LENR dispute we have been on the opposite sides of the barricade for many years, but there has always been a mutual respect, and none of us has tried to bamboozled the other


    Yes, I agree with that. And I honestly have never tried to bamboozle you. In fact, I usually avoid commenting on the science aspects when you start these discussions, but in this case you kind of dragged me away from the count down clock, so here I am.


    That said; the still photo snap shots (B & D) you provide, do not do justice to the argument. Taken at face value, B still looks like bubbles to me. D does appear to be foam. However, when I compared it to the video playback it was taken from (Ref 2), it still looks like bubbles...but a thicker consistency. Had whatever was supplying the energy to the tube been shut off, I would guess that foam as you call it, would rapidly dissipate.

  • That is the difference between electrolysis bubbles of O2 and H2 coming from both electrodes, versus boiling water coming from the cathode only. There is no foam.


    There is a lot of foam instead, as shown in the previous jpeg and in many previous ones.


    Quote

    With ordinary electrolysis, if you raise the power level high enough, and the electrodes are about the same size (as they are in this case), water will boil at both electrodes. Since it is only boiling at the cathode in this case, it cannot be from input electric power. This is one of the many reasons we know the heat is anomalous. Ascoli and THHuxley refuse to address this fact, or any of the others proving this is real heat.


    False. I have already addressed this specific fact, as I have already told you (1), as well as any other facts you have raised (2).


    In the F&P cells, the only real heat came from the electric power, as happens in any other CF/LENR device.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

  • Taken at face value, B still looks like bubbles to me.


    Yes, they are bubbles! Many bubbles at the top of the liquid electrolyte. All together they form a structure called foam, in the same way that many trees, next to each other, collectively form a wood, but individually they remain trees.


    Quote

    D does appear to be foam. However, when I compared it to the video playback it was taken from (Ref 2), it still looks like bubbles...but a thicker consistency.


    Well, at least it appears you as foam. I can assure you that it is foam indeed. :)


    Like any other foam, it is formed by bubbles, in this specific case by the smallest and most indistinguishable bubbles, which appear thicker and whiter. The larger and darker bubbles, which rapidly rise through the foam, are formed of gases which displace the foam.


    Quote

    Had whatever was supplying the energy to the tube been shut off, I would guess that foam as you call it, would rapidly dissipate.


    When the electric power - which supply the energy required to develop the electrolytic gas or the boiling vapor - shut off, the larger bubbles disappear and the thick foam, formed by the smallest bubbles, settles rapidly down, but doesn't dissipate at all. Thereafter, its residual volume decreases much more slowly, as happened in the 4 cells of the F&P experiment presented at ICCF3 (1).


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • At first you drew some significance between bubbles, and foam. If foam, it proved your point, if bubbles it did not. That is when you dragged me into this, and I pointed out the chemical property differences between the two cell wall states, and how the photos looked to me they were bubbles.


    Now, IMO, you are trying to tell me that bubbles and foam are both the same, and if one sees bubbles or foam, both prove your point that FP's were wrong?

  • Now, IMO, you are trying to tell me that bubbles and foam are both the same, and if one sees bubbles or foam, both prove your point that FP's were wrong?


    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”


    Lewis Carroll.

  • The key questions is not whether you call it foam or bubbles, but whether it is or is not 100% liquid. The paper assumes that the entire volume below the observed level is liquid, and the enthalpy calculation is based on vaporizing that volume. It is pretty clear that this assumption is wrong. The amount of the error can be debated, but this source of error certainly should not have been entirely ignored in the paper.

  • 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.

    [bold added]


    I highly appreciate your remarks, but I would appreciate them more is you be so kind to answer my replies: FP's experiments discussion


    Have a nice day.



  • The boil-off experiment is NOT the basis of LENR Claim as you propose.


    As I explained earlier it's only a test of hypothesis of increased COP at increased temperatures.


    Is the boil-off paper accurate? Probably not.


    Is there enough evidence to suggest there are higher COP at higher temperatures? I think so.


    SO what forms the main LENR claim ? The main claim is explained in paper [4], which is excess heat evidence higher than possible caused by chemical reactions, initially proven at lower temperatures than boiling.


    Research at boiling conditions will have their own challenges, also acknowledged by Fleischmann himself in the boil-off paper [1].


    “We conclude once again with some words of warning. A major cause of the rise in cell voltage is undoubtedly the gas volume between the cathode and anode as the temperature approaches the boiling point (i.e., heavy steam). The further development of this work therefore calls for the use of pressurised systems to reduce this gas volume as well as to further raise the operating temperature.»


    The later Roulette paper indicates continued success at boiling with improved electrolytic cells [2]


    Anyhow, my own take on this is that I don't find the boil-off experiment important, but the main seminal paper from 1990 [4] is important.


    The real question I have is if the F&P direction of wet cell LENR research was a dead end, compared to gaseous systems of Piantelli, Celani etc...



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

    1993 revised version of [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf

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

    [3] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf

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

  • The real question I have is if the F&P direction of wet cell LENR research was a dead end, compared to gaseous systems of Piantelli, Celani etc...


    Not a dead end, but the start of a road with many branches. The key achievment (with the benifit of 30 years of hindsight) was the clear demonstration of an anomaly. The problem is that wet systems will always be temperature-limited by their very nature, and IMHO the transition to 'hot and dry' systems using non-noble metals is a clear evolutionary step that will hopefully enable LENR technology to fill a broader range of requirements.

  • At first you drew some significance between bubbles, and foam. If foam, it proved your point, if bubbles it did not. That is when you dragged me into this, and I pointed out the chemical property differences between the two cell wall states, and how the photos looked to me they were bubbles.


    I don't remember when and where you told me about "the chemical property differences between the two cell wall states" and I don't understand what you mean. Could you provide a reference, please?


    As for the rest, at first I cited the "foamy behavior" of the F&P's electrolytic cells (1) and you dragged into this topic by yourself, disputing that the foam was only in my eyes (2). Then, I asked you what you see in the TruthLoader video (3), and you disengaged (4). I let you go (5), but you came back (6) saying that the video shows "what may be foam". Finally, since there is a big difference between "may be" and "is", I tried to show you – by images and an English dictionary (7) - that what the video shows is actually "foam". Sorry for the nit-picking.


    Quote

    Now, IMO, you are trying to tell me that bubbles and foam are both the same, and if one sees bubbles or foam, both prove your point that FP's were wrong?


    Oh no, bubbles and foam are not synonymous. Foam is made by bubbles, but bubbles are not made by foam. I brought to you the example of the forest (wood): if you see a forest you also see trees, but if you see trees not necessarily you are also seeing a forest.


    Going back in the F&P lab, inside their cells there are a lot of bubbles that form thick layers of foam. As correctly noticed by Robert Horst, the issue concerns the volume. Individually, the bubbles are void, but all together - when they form a foam layer - they occupy a volume. When this volume is misrepresented as liquid, as F&P did in the paper presented at ICCF3, it leads to commit a huge calculation error.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    (4) FP's experiments discussion

    (5) FP's experiments discussion

    (6) FP's experiments discussion

    (7) FP's experiments discussion

  • “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

    Lewis Carroll.


    Thanks so much for the cue. Yes, LENR is Wonderland, or the Foam through the Looking Glass, but Humpty Dumpty it's not me, if that's what you meant.


    I'm using the word "foam" because it has been widely used by F&P and by many other replicators of their experiments. And, above all, I'm not trying to determine its meaning. I'm referring to an English dictionary. Did HD have a dictionary with him?


    HD is a representation of the arrogance of those who pretend to be believed on the basis of their status, just because they are on the top of a wall. Well, there is same people in the LENR field who expect to be believed only because "they are" or because "they know". On the contrary, I provide evidence and references for everything I say, because I'm not "a master", I don't try to be believed for what I am or know, but only for what I show.

  • apparently Richard III

    (some say he was the butt of the Humptydumpty tale)

    suffered from severe scoliosis.

    https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/02/28/humpty-dumpty/


    Oh, my LENR Bard, you brought a fantastic topic in this discussion. Apparently (see Wikipedia) Richard III is also "a personification of the Machiavellian view of history as power politics" and "Machiavelli, as Shakespeare may want us to realise, is not a safe guide to practical politics", so his story fits quite well with CF:

    From http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg73665.html

    One of the cardinal rules of being a good military leader or a good politician is to make do with what you have, and to find a way to win by subterfuge if you do not have a material or strategic advantage. Cold fusion is very much a political fight, so we should take lessons from these disciplines.

    Jed


    Quote

    Ascoliosis is a more modern complaint.. the meaning is ill defined

    however a preoccupation with foam is a persistent symptom


    Very kind of you. Yes, CF seems to be affected by Ascoliosis and the "foamy behavior" is its more revealing and persistent symptom. Hard to cure and also to hide.

  • Welcome back, Lande. You had a long vacation. I hope, it was also relaxing. Well, let's resume our confrontation.


    The boil-off experiment is NOT the basis of LENR Claim as you propose.


    I repeat. The boil-off experiment is the subject of MF's major paper, as stated by Rothwell, not by me:

    From http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf (Page 14)


    … Hand in hand with his analytical legerdemain, he strongly believed in simple, direct experiments, such as the boil-off technique and graphs that spoke for themselves. He liked nothing better than an experiment stripped down to its essentials, so that it could not be refuted. The title of his major paper says it all: “From simplicity via complications back to simplicity.” …


    Quote

    As I explained earlier it's only a test of hypothesis of increased COP at increased temperatures.


    I also explained to you (1), that F&P presented the excess heat as a FACT not as hypothesis, despite the experimental data reported in their paper (2) were wrong.


    Quote

    Is the boil-off paper accurate? Probably not.


    It's certainly wrong, as already shown (3-4).


    Quote

    Is there enough evidence to suggest there are higher COP at higher temperatures? I think so.


    No, the only evidence so far is that higher temperatures imply higher errors.


    Quote

    SO what forms the main LENR claim ? The main claim is explained in paper [4], which is excess heat evidence higher than possible caused by chemical reactions, initially proven at lower temperatures than boiling.


    There is no evidence of excess heat in that 1990 paper, just claims. I'm willing to discuss this early paper as well, but for now the priority is to reach a more shared opinion on the 1992 paper.


    Quote

    Research at boiling conditions will have their own challenges, also acknowledged by Fleischmann himself in the boil-off paper [1].


    “We conclude once again with some words of warning. A major cause of the rise in cell voltage is undoubtedly the gas volume between the cathode and anode as the temperature approaches the boiling point (i.e., heavy steam). The further development of this work therefore calls for the use of pressurised systems to reduce this gas volume as well as to further raise the operating temperature.»


    The later Roulette paper indicates continued success at boiling with improved electrolytic cells [2]


    No, not at all. Contrary to your quotation, the 1996 Roulette paper reports an "excess power levels of up to ~250% of the input power", lower than the "about four times that of the enthalpy input" claimed in the 1992 paper (actually there is no reason to believe that there was any real excess heat in both).


    On the other hand, the Roulette paper confirms that there were serious foaming problems in the open-cell calorimeters, by explicitly admitting that "Foam rise in the calorimeter at the boiling temperature has been minimized."


    Finally, the fact that Fleischmann - who has always defended the open cell approach - doesn't appear among the authors, and not even in the references (whose section was completely omitted in the paper) suggests the existence of a disagreement between the two CF pioneers with respect to this point.


    Quote

    Anyhow, my own take on this is that I don't find the boil-off experiment important, but the main seminal paper from 1990 [4] is important.


    It will arrive the time for debating about the 1990 paper. For the moment, we are discussing the 1992 paper and the boil-off experiment described in it.


    Quote

    The real question I have is if the F&P direction of wet cell LENR research was a dead end, compared to gaseous systems of Piantelli, Celani etc...


    For what I've seen so far, the dead end of any CF/LENR approach comes when errors and misrepresentation, which provide the apparent excess heat, are revealed and widely recognized.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

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

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    (4) FP's experiments discussion