Display Moreapparently 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/
Ascoliosis is a more modern complaint.. the meaning is ill defined
however a preoccupation with foam is a persistent symptom
Bizarre. Author seems prone to illogical statements during hissy tantrums. Seems to prefer that to dealing with facts.
illogical statements during hissy tantrums
Its actually rather silly to participate in SOTtish and Ascolian diablogue
at once.. I shall desist
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.
It is electrolyte, which is water and lithium. However, the heat of vaporization is the same as it is for water, so there is no error. (Almost the same.) The mass of lithium is small. All of the lithium is left in the cell after the water is boiled away.
The problem is that wet systems will always be temperature-limited by their very nature,
Not very temperature limited. For most applications, the limits would not matter. It is no more temperature limited than pressurized water uranium fission reactors. These usually operate up to around 300°C. Higher temperatures would produce better Carnot efficiency, but more wear and tear on the equipment. Since the fuel cost is low it makes more sense to optimize for equipment longevity.
Fission reactor temperatures are also limited because the zirconium fuel rod cladding has a low melting point.
Cold fusion at 300°C would not work for aerospace applications, but for most other applications it would be fine. A tiny cold fusion thermoelectric device used to power a pacemaker or a cell phone would work fine at a much lower temperature. In the 1970s, low temperature thermoelectric plutonium-238 powered pacemakers were used. See:
The boil-off experiment is the subject of MF's major paper, as stated by Rothwell, not by me
I believe you should ask Rothwell what he meant then. I'm telling you that the answer from the majority of CF community would be that the Major paper is the 1990 paper, the Seminal paper that initiated the whole field.
And as stated by Alan Smith, started a road with many branches.
F&P presented the excess heat as a FACT not as hypothesis
You always start with an indea, a hypothesis which may then ne tested in the lab if possible.
F&P noted that there was a slight increase in COP going from 20 degC to 80 degC and therefore went to even higher temperatures. In [1] they reported then even higher COP at boiling.
It's certainly wrong
But likely not as wrong as you think. You don't have adequate data quality to conclude. And the normal way of criticizing papers is to ask questions to the authors, not to deep dive into fuzzy videos and try to analyze extreme blow up of graphs.
There is no evidence of excess heat in that 1990 paper, just claims.
Which means you did not read the seminal 58 pages F&P paper [4]
The heat bursts presented in the 1990 paper [4] with power and energy higher than possible chemical reactions has never been explained. And the ones that tried where answered by Fleischmann and the critics never returned.
Contrary to your quotation, the 1996 Roulette paper
And my point was that the Roulette paper confirms higher COP at boiling conditions than at lower temperatures, which was the main idea here. I also stated that the 1992 paper was probably not accurate, as Fleischmann himself stated in the "some words of warning" statement in the paper.
we are discussing the 1992 paper
Are we? But you are concluding by the 92 paper that all CF/ LENR is wrong since you think the 1992 paper is wrong. But that is a premature conclusion. As I earlier explained the 1992 paper only focus on higher temperatures and not on the original discovery, which happened at more controlled conditions below boiling.
[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
I believe you should ask Rothwell what he meant then. I'm telling you that the answer from the majority of CF community would be that the Major paper is the 1990 paper, the Seminal paper that initiated the whole field.
And as stated by Alan Smith, started a road with many branches.
JR is at the top of the LENR hierarchy and has a long and deep knowledge of F&P, their activities and their documents. What JR meant about the importance of the 1992 paper is clear: it was the major. Anyway, even if you prefer the 1990 paper, you can't deny that the paper presented at ICCF3 is one of the most important and now we are just talking about this 1992 paper.
The fact the both its 2 conclusions are wrong poses a big issue for all the many branches originated from any F&P document, especially because those who follow these alternative roads don't recognize these F&P mistakes, thus rising doubts about their ability to properly evaluate information and data.
QuoteYou always start with an indea, a hypothesis which may then ne tested in the lab if possible.
F&P noted that there was a slight increase in COP going from 20 degC to 80 degC and therefore went to even higher temperatures. In [1] they reported then even higher COP at boiling.
Every research starts with an idea, of course, but the problem with the F&P paper on the boil-off experiment is that they ended this work confirming their initial hypothesis on the basis misrepresented experimental data. So their conclusions, and in consequence their hypotheses, are wrong.
The errors contained in their 1992 paper are particularly serious, because they were repeated in the peer-reviewed article published in May 1993, and, for what concerns the Figure 8, in the Heat After Dead paper presented at the end of the same year at ICCF4. This reiteration of the same errors on several documents heavily affects the reliability of their authors, with serious repercussions on all the others they published
QuoteBut likely not as wrong as you think. You don't have adequate data quality to conclude. And the normal way of criticizing papers is to ask questions to the authors, not to deep dive into fuzzy videos and try to analyze extreme blow up of graphs.
This is a nonsense, consider Copernicus vs. Ptolemy. In any case, I'm posting my criticisms on the most important public forum on LENR and they have been seen by the old guard who was in close contact with F&P. It is also possible that SP is aware of these criticisms. These experts have every opportunity to rebut my criticisms, but you have been left alone to oppose them.
It would be very easy to demonstrate that F&P were right, at least in part. It would be sufficient to publish the original data logs recorded during their boil-off experiment. I think there are still copies of them somewhere.
The same for the videos. As I have pointed out many times, the most important information disproving the F&P conclusions are the blue arrows and times on the video published by Krivit on 2009. These data are not subject to any possible deterioration. If someone keeps on insisting that this video was manipulated by Krivit, someone of the old guard can easily demonstrate this by publishing a previous version of the video without the blue arrows.
QuoteWhich means you did not read the seminal 58 pages F&P paper [4]
The heat bursts presented in the 1990 paper [4] with power and energy higher than possible chemical reactions has never been explained. …
I read the 1990 paper and found no demonstration of excess heat. It contains only statements, claims.
Also Figure 9B, posted by you, doesn't demonstrate the existence of excess heat, it only shows an anomalous trend in a curve, which in turn derives by an anomalous trend of the temperature curve shown in Figure 8B. This anomaly may be due to several trivial causes, for instance the activation of the auxiliary heater or a malfunction of the control unit. We know nothing about these experiments, not even their date. We don't know by whom they were followed, which was the set up, how many cells were tested, how the other cells behaved, and so on. In order to "demonstrate" an extraordinary phenomenon like a nuclear burst in an electrolytic cell, you should write a 58-page report just to properly document this sole event.
Quote… And the ones that tried where answered by Fleischmann and the critics never returned.
I saw Wilson's article with his criticisms to the 1990 paper (1) and the F&P response (2), both published in the August 1992 issue of JEC. IMO, they confirm the inadequacy of the method used by F&P to calculate the excess heat at low temperature, but, as already said, this is not the time to talk about the 1990 document.
However Wilson et al. didn't considered the bursts. Do you know other authors who criticized the 1990 article and in particular the claims on the bursts? Could you please provide the references, including those of the F&P answers?
QuoteBut you are concluding by the 92 paper that all CF/ LENR is wrong since you think the 1992 paper is wrong. But that is a premature conclusion.
It's only my conclusion and, I agree, it is premature as final conclusion of this debate. This is why I'm asking for a larger involvement of other LENR people, especially those who can provide more original data on the 1992 boil-off experiment.
At the present status of the debate, I think to have shown in (3) and (4) that both the conclusions of the 1992 paper are wrong. So far, my remarks remain uncontested. If this situation persists, the logical conclusion can't be different from what argued in my first point above and this conclusion would potentially affect the entire CF/LENR field.
(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…AnalysisOfExperiments.pdf
(2) http://www.newenergytimes.com/…schmannM-SomeComments.pdf
In any case, I'm posting my criticisms on the most important public forum on LENR and they have been seen by the old guard who was in close contact with F&P. It is also possible that SP is aware of these criticisms. These experts have every opportunity to rebut my criticisms, but you have been left alone to oppose them.
It's only my conclusion and, I agree, it is premature as final conclusion of this debate. This is why I'm asking for a larger involvement of other LENR people, especially those who can provide more original data on the 1992 boil-off experiment.
Thank you for the compliment: L-F is "the most important public forum on LENR". I would agree, but I am too modest to do that.
I think more of the old guard, and some of the new, would engage with you, if they could trust that you will not go off on these conspiracy tangents, or assign nefarious intent where simple error, or difference of opinion, is the better explanation.
I think more of the old guard, and some of the new, would engage with you, if they could trust that you will not go off on these conspiracy tangents, or assign nefarious intent where simple error, or difference of opinion, is the better explanation.
I have already clarified my position on these aspects several times:
JR is at the top of the LENR hierarchy
Listen, JR has done an amazing job for the CF community in his library of CF papers and documentation and as author of his own literature. And of course he is entitled to his opinions of F&P papers.
However, your lack of knowledge of the story of F&P is amazing on another level!
I suggest you read the authorative story of F&P research and events by reading Charles Beaudettes book from 2002:
https://www.amazon.com/Excess-…ailed-ebook/dp/B06VTH3TTF
Here you will learn all you need - and Yes the discovery was something else than a boiling experiment !
However Wilson et al. didn't considered the bursts. Do you know other authors who criticized the 1990
Yes I do, but I'm not your secretary 
Read the above book, and you will find details of all the critical reviews of the F&P 1990 Seminal-major-Paper that started the history of LENR and all it's branches.
And no, the 1992 paper did not initiate any new branches of CF/ LENR and is NOT their major paper.
Also Figure 9B, posted by you, doesn't demonstrate the existence of excess heat, it only shows an anomalous trend in a curve, which in turn derives by an anomalous trend of the temperature curve shown in Figure 8B. This anomaly may be due to several trivial causes, for instance the activation of the auxiliary heater or a malfunction of the control unit. We know nothing about these experiments, not even their date. We don't know by whom they were followed, which was the set up, how many cells were tested, how the other cells behaved, and so on.
Well, your lack of knowledge of the history of cold fusion makes me completely speechless.
Auxiliary heater? Control unit??
The initial discovery was made by F&P in 1984, and you believe they did not investigate all possible explanations? You mean faults happened randomly on and off during their 10+ years of experiments?
Or you mean they planned some deliberate hoax?
Yes, we do know a lot of these experiments, and yes we do know how many cells they where running.
Fleischmann - The most prominent electrochemist in his time did some stupid errors as you suggest or became charlatan in his older days ?
Well errors has been discussed before, read the above book and find out.
You pick a random paper and try to find some errors, when even Fleischmann himself states some words of warning of their findings in this particular test.
You see, any errors in the 1992 papers does not impact the original mystery of cold fusion discovery or any of the branches that grew out of it.
The bursts of heat that occurred at lower than boiling temperature and with higher power densities and energy densities than any chemical reactions was the real discovery, not some boiling water experiment.
@ oystia.
I have quite a nice piece of granite in my garden, but it is a little too heavy for me to move comfortably. Would you like to come over and argue it into being a little less dense?
@ oystia.
I have quite a nice piece of granite in my garden, but it is a little too heavy for me to move comfortably. Would you like to come over and argue it into being a little less dense?
Anytime 🤣. Gravity is just an illusion anyway...and giraffs ...and LENR 😅
Listen, JR has done an amazing job for the CF community in his library of CF papers and documentation and as author of his own literature. And of course he is entitled to his opinions of F&P papers.
My opinion is that JR's opinion on CF, especially on MF, is much more important than yours. Therefore, my opinion is that the 1992 paper is his major one. Anyway, you are entitled of your own opinions, of course.
QuoteAnd no, the 1992 paper did not initiate any new branches of CF/ LENR and is NOT their major paper.
I never said that the 1992 paper initiated a new branches of CF/LENR. On the contrary, the reported boil-off experiment is the apex of the F&P research on CF, because it was presented as the demonstration of their ability to initiate and control anomalous-heat reactions in multiple cells at will, as stated by Krivit, another well informed LENR supporter who is much more important than you:
| From http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…ivit-S-ANewLookAtLENR.pdf By 1993, Fleischmann and Pons had developed such control of their experiments, particularly the cathode material, that they had the confidence and ability to set up a row of four cells side by side and initiate anomalous-heat reactions on all four at will. |
QuoteWell, your lack of knowledge of the history of cold fusion makes me completely speechless.
Auxiliary heater? Control unit??
What's the problem? The auxiliary heater is the resistance used for calibration and the control unit is a generic way to indicate the galvanostat and any other component used to control the power supply to the cell or the temperature of the water bath.
QuoteThe initial discovery was made by F&P in 1984, and you believe they did not investigate all possible explanations? You mean faults happened randomly on and off during their 10+ years of experiments?
Why not? As just reported, Krivit wrote that F&P achieved a complete control of their experiments in 1993 (it was 1992, of course). If you consider that the results of their 1992 experiment were completely misrepresented (despite all the technical and human resources at their disposition), you can easily figure out how unreliable the previous experimental data were.
QuoteYes, we do know a lot of these experiments, and yes we do know how many cells they where running.
Who are "we"? Do you belong to the inner circle of CFers who have access to the original raw data of the F&P experiments?
QuoteFleischmann - The most prominent electrochemist in his time did some stupid errors as you suggest or became charlatan in his older days ?
Should I believe everything he reported just because he was a prominent electrochemist? This is an appeal to authority. Well, this is a legitimate argument in science, which however holds until the reliability of an authoritative source of trust is not disproved by facts. And it's a fact that the conclusions in his 1992 paper were wrong.
QuoteYou pick a random paper and try to find some errors, when even Fleischmann himself states some words of warning of their findings in this particular test.
It's not a random paper, it is his major's, the one which JR and other CF supporters have for long urged to examine thoroughly, challenging the skeptics to find even a single mistake. And I'm not talking of some generic errors. The paper is full of minor errors, at a such extent that I wonder how it could have been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, but I'm referring only to the major errors which led to the following two conclusions of the 1992 paper, both clearly wrong:
| 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. |
The words of warning don't refer to the above conclusions, which instead are presented as indisputable FACTS, but only to the possible further increase of the high level of enthalpy achieved in their 1992 experiment, by prolonging the cell operation in a pressurized system:
| Again from http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf : [bold added] 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. Apart from the intrinsic difficulties of operating such systems it is also not at all clear whether the high levels of enthalpy generation achieved in the cells in Figs 10 are in any sense a limit or whether they would not continue to increase with more prolonged operation. … |
QuoteYou see, any errors in the 1992 papers does not impact the original mystery of cold fusion discovery or any of the branches that grew out of it.
I would rather say that the errors in the 1992 paper impact positively the mystery of any other CF discovery claimed by F&P, because they show how any other claim can be easily explained on the basis of the unreliability of the authors. This explanation could also be extend to any other author or branch that grew out of these F&P claims.
I would rather say that the errors in the 1992 paper impact positively the mystery of any other CF discovery claimed by F&P, because they show how any other claim can be easily explained on the basis of the unreliability of the authors. This explanation could also be extend to any other author or branch that grew out of these F&P claims.
Your belief that if one thing is wrong then everything is wrong is profoundly unscientific.
My opinion is that JR's opinion on CF, especially on MF, is much more important than yours.
JedRothwell's opinion on the 1990 paper versus the 1992 paper is probably more evidence based and less idiosyncratic than Ascoli's opinion
Your belief that if one thing is wrong then everything is wrong is profoundly unscientific.
I know, but you didn't correctly reported my belief. I used the modal verb "can" for the previous F&P claims and its conditional "could" for other authors.
I wanted to mean that, contrary to the myth spread inside the LENR community, F&P are not infallible scientists at all. Their 1992 paper demonstrates that they committed fundamental, blatant and even elementary mistakes. This fact provides an easy and trivial possible explanation for all their claims that have not been replicated so far, i.e. all their claims related to CF.
Furthermore, the fact that the other CFers - who have claimed to have successfully replicated their experiments - didn't recognized those obvious errors in almost 30 years casts many doubts on their ability to adequately evaluate the F&P experimental data and this lack could extend to their own results.
The presence of errors in the F&P's 1992 paper is something which the LENR community has to face. Their members can no longer expect to be taken in serious consideration until they solve this issue. The 30th anniversary of the F&P press conference and the simultaneous LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT offer a good opportunity to get rid of this inconvenience.
I wanted to mean that, contrary to the myth spread inside the LENR community, F&P are not infallible scientists at all.
And neither are you an infallible reviewer.
And neither are you an infallible reviewer.
I never claimed to be. I started my review of the F&P claims by providing my opinions and asking the other L-F members to criticize them and provide more info on the subject. Thanks to the subsequent debate and some criticisms, I have had the opportunity to correct my initial hypothesis and to propose a more solid one.
This is the normal way in which science proceeds. Nobody is infallible. Mistakes and errors are always around the corner. No one can be blamed of having committed them, provided he recognize and correct them as soon as possible. Problems arise when obvious errors are denied and/or confrontation with those who have been called upon to believe in such wrong results is refuted, as so often happened in CF/LENR.
my opinion is that the 1992 paper is his major one
Yes of course you are entitled to your opinion, but it is not shared by the majority of Cold Fusion Community
as stated by Krivit, another well informed LENR supporter who is much more important than you:
Aha, and what does Kriwit think is the most important F&P paper? Check it out and you will be surprised
Even though I'm not your secretary, I will give you a hint
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/TheSeminalPapers.shtml
What's the problem
The problem is that you have not read the early story and do not know what was discussed and discarded as possible artifacts.
you can easily figure out how unreliable the previous experimental data were
And again you disclose a complete lack of competent knowledge of cold fusion history and what was the actual real discovery.
It's not a random paper, it is his major's,
No it's not, far from it. Ask Kriwit if you must
F&P are not infallible scientists at all.
Of course they were not. They even admitted themselves errors made during their research. The 1992 paper may even have serious errors without impacting their main discovery descried in their major seminal paper from 1990.
Actually you really-really need to educate and read the authorative book on cold fusion early history to be able to contribute with any intelligent critics.
https://www.amazon.com/Excess-…ailed-ebook/dp/B06VTH3TTF
And by the way, the above book also details the critics and criticism made to their 1990 paper, in addition to Wilson, which you asked for
Aha, and what does Kriwit think is the most important F&P paper? Check it out and you will be surprised
In the article you linked (1), Krivit doesn't say that the 1990 paper is the most important. On the contrary, in his 2009 article (2), Krivit gives much more space to the 1992 paper and significantly places it on the top of the references, even though it was cited after the 1990 one.
Anyway, even if the 1992 paper is not the major one for you, nothing changes with respect to the consequences of the clear and serious errors it contains.
QuoteThe problem is that you have not read the early story and do not know what was discussed and discarded as possible artifacts. [...] The 1992 paper may even have serious errors without impacting their main discovery descried in their major seminal paper from 1990.
I've read enough to have shown that the F&P's 1992 paper is badly wrong and neither you nor any other L-F member have been able so far to disprove my claims. The serious errors contained in the 1992 paper have a severe impact on the reliability of their authors and hence on any other extraordinary discovery or strange effect they have claimed and that the scientific community has not been able to replicate in almost 30 years.
QuoteActually you really-really need to educate and read the authorative book on cold fusion early history to be able to contribute with any intelligent critics.
Do you really-really think that I need to be educated by someone who has invested in CF and then wrote a book on the subject? I leave this kind of romances to my secretary. I prefer the originals.
(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/TheSeminalPapers.shtml
(2) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…ivit-S-ANewLookAtLENR.pdf
think that I need to be educated by someone who has invested in CF and then wrote a book on the subject?
Again you conclude before you investigate
Charles Beaudette never "invested in CF", he had a general interest in the progressions of science through history and invested time of writing this particular book of describing the events that took place.
And he makes an argument that the science community rejected the F&P discovery prematurely. If this discovery had progressed in a more orderly fashioned as normal in science, then more resources had been directed to this area and we may have been further today in understanding the matter.
And the pioneers of cold fusion think's the book is an accurate and objective description of the actual events that took place in the early years.
Yes, you really-really need to read it!
https://www.amazon.com/Excess-…ailed-ebook/dp/B06VTH3TTF
And I believe you will agree on the statement made by David Nagel in the introduction
