FP's experiments discussion

LENR has hundreds of scientists with real addresses and real lives and real papers

of which over 1000 scientific papers are documented at

https://lenr-canr.org/

the avatar Ascoli65 has no name , no address and no life

it has a virtual existence only..

Quote from RobertBryant

LENR has hundreds of scientists with real addresses and real lives and real papers

of which over 1000 scientific papers are documented at

https://lenr-canr.org/

the avatar Ascoli65 has no name , no address and no life

it has a virtual existence only..

Well, this is the explanation given by a real science insider, that your virtual avatar cherry-picked for you from a recent comment posted by the real LENR-CANR librarian.

You see? It fits perfectly with LENR.

the avatar Ascoli65 has no name and no paper

On the other there are are hundreds of real scientists who have written scientific papers on LENR

Number 1. Alexander Karabut

Experimentalist

from Alexander Karabut: A Russian Scientist’s

Tenacity and Contribution

by Marianne Macy

Photo courtesy of Nataliya Famina

Dr. Alexander Borisovich Karabut died on March 15, 2015. His friend and colleague Dr. Yuri Bazhutov reported that Karabut passed away in the hospital after suffering a stroke.

Dr. Karabut got his Ph.D. from State Technical University, Moscow in 1987. A prolific and inventive nuclear engineer, inventor and experimenter, Karabut worked at the Scientific Research Institute and Scientific Industrial Association in Podolsk, commonly known as LUCH. He was a senior researcher at LUCH at the time of his death.

Nataliya Famina, friend and colleague of Karabut, reported that a seminar in memory of Dr. Karabut was held on March 24. She, Irina Savvatimova and Alexey Roussetski spoke about Karabut’s life and work. Famina reported, “Irina and Alexander published their first paper on cold fusion shortly after Fleischmann and Pons. Irina said that they had observed the effect of excess heat long before F&P, they hadn’t paid attention, they had been more interested in transmutation.”

Of course ... who will mourn an avatar?

Quote from RobertBryant

Of course ... who will mourn an avatar?

Wow, your argument is sooo scientific … that looks like a menace.

Is this all that the LENR community can oppose to my remarks about the F&P claims?

My best compliment to everybody!

the avatar Ascoli65 has no name and no paper

On the other there are are hundreds of real scientists who have written scientific papers on LENR

Number 1. Alexander Karabut

Alexander Karabut was way ahead of Wyttenbach et al in suggesting that metastable isomers were

significant in the LENR process and indeed used gamma spectrometers much earlier to pick up their

signatures.

In addition Karabut managed to do calorimetry on his deuterium palladium glow discharges

which was quite an experimental feat in 1992. using a totally different calorimetry procedure to that

of Fleischman and Pons in 1990.. but confirmed what he had observed for many years prior.....

that there was xs heat.

Karabut observed that there were neutrons emitted in small amounts.. and gamma,X kev and charged particles in larger amounts

but that the xs heat was 1000 to 10000 times in xs of the heats due to these emissions.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=…Vaw3c6HHJSpt3N_CDVq6EaSLX

Karabut's experimental expertise was recognised by Peter Hagelstein, who mourned his death.

Of course ... who will mourn an avatar?

Quote from Ascoli65

consensus it raises among the active magicians

Well, if one considers LENR being just magic, then it's difficult.

Quote from Ascoli65

They wrote "our major paper on the calorimetry …" on an article published in July 1992

Yes, I do not think their later work changed their opinion of their own work. The initial major paper from 1990 also described their initial discovery, which was heat bursts at temperature much below boiling temperatures.

Quote from Ascoli65

You don't see the big issue because you didn't look closely at the numbers on Table 2

The table seems to show a range of possible excess heat, ranging from a low Kr value to more realistic Kr which produce higher Excess.

It should not be surprising that one would like to present ranges of results based on possible ranges of input parameters.

The point would be that if all are positive, i.e. excess heat, then there are some mysteries to be solved.

Quote from Ascoli65

The fact that F&P never admitted to be wrong

Well, may be they were not you see

They presented sound arguments against all of Wilsons comments. He should have replied.

Quote from Ascoli65

Evidently, Wilson and his colleagues were not paid by GE for losing more time

Well, if I where Wilson I would have made a reply in any case, it would not take much resource to answer. At least just to save some of my reputation

Quote from Ascoli65

The Hansen report is interesting

Yes it is, and yes they do agree on the mystery, ref

So Hansen where very positive in their analysis [3].

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

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

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

Number 1. Alexander Karabut

Quote from RobertBryant

On the other there are are hundreds of real scientists who have written scientific papers on LENR

Number 1. Alexander Karabut

[...]

In addition Karabut managed to do calorimetry on his deuterium palladium glow discharges

which was quite an experimental feat in 1992. using a totally different calorimetry procedure to that

of Fleischman and Pons in 1990.. but confirmed what he had observed for many years prior.....

that there was xs heat.

Display More

Are you going to talk about each of the hundreds of CF/LENR people who claimed to have observed excess heat replicating the F&P effect or in another original way?

In this case you should start a new thread, this one is dedicated to the F&P's experiments and I'm still waiting for your answer on the "IMRA time lapse" video posted by Rothwell:

FP's experiments discussion

Btw. I don't know how much clever and reliable Number 1 was, but those who are still interested in the Ecat saga can read his late opinions quoted in this article: https://translate.google.com/tanslate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://vz.ru/columns/2015/3/12/733833.html&prev=search

the avatar Ascoli65 has no name and no paper

On the other there are hundreds of real scientists who have written scientific papers on LENR

Alexander Karabut ..No.1...

-Ph.D. 1987. from State Technical University, Moscow ( similar to MIT in USA

- worked as weapons scientist (until the labs were were closed post-USSR).

-from a nuclear background,, not an electrochemist like Bockris.. or Fleischmann ..

- more competent to investigate the significance of the isotopic composition on LENR

Nuclear tools:

- glow discharge chamber in which cathodes, such as Pd, could be loaded with deuterium. maximum voltage ~1500 V, the maximum current ~ 100 mA.

-flow calorimeter , gamma,X detectors etc.

Findings -some.. there are many more.

1. Emissions of ~14 MeV Alpha particles , ~~3 MeV protons identified when the cathodes were Pd, Ti and Ni, but not Ta.

2. Emissions of Gamma rays A 10hr glow discharge current with a Pd cathode produced gamma activity observable for ~ 8 days after turning the current off. Many radio isotopes were identified by peaks position and decay times including metastable isomers.

3. Anomalous non-radioactive nuclide production in the cathode

e.g for Iron (50% ⁵⁷Fe near the surface of the palladium and 30% ⁵⁷Fe at 400 nm depth, versus 2.2% in ‘natural’iron.).

4. The rates of nuclide production were significant but much less than the rate that would account for the excess heat generation

5. Coherent x-ray emission, associated with atomic L and M levels of heavier atoms.

Karabut -a great Russian soul

unlike the avatar Ascoli65

Does an avatar have a soul? or a sole ?

Quote from RobertBryant

Does an avatar have a soul? or a sole ?

Do androids dream of electric sheep?

Quote from oystla

Yes, I do not think their later work changed their opinion of their own work. The initial major paper from 1990 [...]

If you refer to the 1990 paper as their "initial" (ie provisional) major paper, it makes sense, but it remains that the ICCF3 paper of 1992 is considered the "final" (ie definitive) major paper of MF.

Quote

The table seems to show a range of possible excess heat, ranging from a low Kr value to more realistic Kr which produce higher Excess.

It should not be surprising that one would like to present ranges of results based on possible ranges of input parameters.

Not at all. On the contrary, it should be very surprising, if you consider what F&P claimed in the same paper about the accuracy of their calorimetry.

However, as I have already told you, I'm willing to better explain this point and the other issues of 1990 paper, but I would prefer as first to conclude the discussion about the 1992 one.

Quote

Well, may be they were not you see

May be. In any case, in this discussion I showed some factual evidences, taken from their documents, which IMO demonstrate that F&P were wrong. The fact that they denied to be wrong doesn't disprove my remarks, which can be confuted only on the same factual basis, not by appealing to the authority of F&P or any other scientist who endorsed their claims.

Quote

Yes it is, and yes they do agree on the mystery, ref

[…]

So Hansen where very positive in their analysis [3].

Hansen begins the paragraph you quoted with the usual "If". Moreover, he completely base himself on F&P data and approach. The real mystery for me is how it was possible that a professor in physics and chemistry could even shortly have thought that the Q_f curves shown on Figure 3 and 4 of his paper were representative of a real excess heat of a possible nuclear nature.

Anyway, as for the 1990 paper, I'm willing to discuss about this other document after the completion of the debate on the 1992 paper. I hope you agree that it's not fair to jump from a document to another leaving its analysis halfway.

So, if you still think that F&P were right in their 1992 paper, I would invite you to answer the same questions on its 2 conclusions that I have already put many times, for example in FP's experiments discussion

Quote from RobertBryant

the avatar Ascoli65 has no name and no paper

On the other there are hundreds of real scientists who have written scientific papers on LENR

Alexander Karabut ..No.1...

-Ph.D. 1987. from State Technical University, Moscow ( similar to MIT in USA

- worked as weapons scientist (until the labs were were closed post-USSR).

-from a nuclear background,, not an electrochemist like Bockris.. or Fleischmann ..

- more competent to investigate the significance of the isotopic composition on LENR

Nuclear tools:

- glow discharge chamber in which cathodes, such as Pd, could be loaded with deuterium. maximum voltage ~1500 V, the maximum current ~ 100 mA.

-flow calorimeter , gamma,X detectors etc.

Findings -some.. there are many more.

1. Emissions of ~14 MeV Alpha particles , ~~3 MeV protons identified when the cathodes were Pd, Ti and Ni, but not Ta.

2. Emissions of Gamma rays A 10hr glow discharge current with a Pd cathode produced gamma activity observable for ~ 8 days after turning the current off. Many radio isotopes were identified by peaks position and decay times including metastable isomers.

3. Anomalous non-radioactive nuclide production in the cathode

e.g for Iron (50% ⁵⁷Fe near the surface of the palladium and 30% ⁵⁷Fe at 400 nm depth, versus 2.2% in ‘natural’iron.).

4. The rates of nuclide production were significant but much less than the rate that would account for the excess heat generation

5. Coherent x-ray emission, associated with atomic L and M levels of heavier atoms.

Karabut -a great Russian soul

unlike the avatar Ascoli65

Does an avatar have a soul? or a sole ?

Display More

Avatar has no soul, he is a radish

Time in Italy 2.35 am

Perchance to dream

An avatar has no soul and no sleep.

.neither do radishes nor cherries

lenr-forum.com/attachment/7522/

Quote from RobertBryant

Alexander Karabut ..No.1...

-Ph.D. 1987. from State Technical University, Moscow ( similar to MIT in USA

- worked as weapons scientist (until the labs were were closed post-USSR).

-from a nuclear background,, not an electrochemist like Bockris.. or Fleischmann ..

- more competent to investigate the significance of the isotopic composition on LENR

Nuclear tools:

- glow discharge chamber in which cathodes, such as Pd, could be loaded with deuterium. maximum voltage ~1500 V, the maximum current ~ 100 mA.

-flow calorimeter , gamma,X detectors etc.

Findings -some.. there are many more.

1. Emissions of ~14 MeV Alpha particles , ~~3 MeV protons identified when the cathodes were Pd, Ti and Ni, but not Ta.

2. Emissions of Gamma rays A 10hr glow discharge current with a Pd cathode produced gamma activity observable for ~ 8 days after turning the current off. Many radio isotopes were identified by peaks position and decay times including metastable isomers.

3. Anomalous non-radioactive nuclide production in the cathode

e.g for Iron (50% 57Fe near the surface of the palladium and 30% 57Fe at 400 nm depth, versus 2.2% in ‘natural’iron.).

4. The rates of nuclide production were significant but much less than the rate that would account for the excess heat generation

5. Coherent x-ray emission, associated with atomic L and M levels of heavier atoms.

Karabut -a great Russian soul

Display More

Well. Start a new thread on the real discoverer of the Cold Fusion. This one is dedicated to F&P's experiments.

Quote

unlike the avatar Ascoli65

Does an avatar have a soul? or a sole ?

I wonder if you, and those who echo you, have a sense of ridicule and a face to be ashamed of for such arguments.

But I realize that they are the only ones you can oppose to my remarks.

Quote from RobertBryant

Karabut -a great Russian soul

Of course Ukraine is a great country too..

the avatar Ascoli65 has no name and no paper

On the other there are are hundreds of real scientists who have written scientific papers on LENR

No 2. John Dash - a great Ukrainian soul transplanted in America

https://www.infinite-energy.co…rces/john-dash-pases.html

Of course Dash was not an electrochemist

but he was a metallurgist

and indeed was brave enough to experiment with uranium LENR

something that Fleischmann talked about.. but never quite got around to

"In April 1989, my department head asked me to try to reproduce the results reported a few weeks earlier by Fleischmann and Pons.

We had previously studied the electrolysis of water with an acidic electrolyte

, so we used the same composition, except that heavy water was substituted for light water in the electrolyte.

Using a small (about 1 sq. cm), cold rolled palladium foil cathode about 25 μm thick,

we observed macroscopic plastic deformation of the cathode soon after the start of electrolysis.

I had never seen such behavior in my 30 years of research on electrolysis.

In his research he never referenced any avatar with cherries

Quote from Ascoli65

you refer to the 1990 paper as their "initial"

Sorry, I meant seminal

One could argue there are several major papers of F&P, but THE most important by far is the 1990 paper.

The 1990 paper started the whole new area of science, and all its branches

The 1992 paper did not start any new branches, and therefore is not as important.

The 1990 is 3 times as big in volume as the 1992 paper, which in itself do not say anything of the quality, but say something of the scope and importance.

The excess heat below boiling is undisputed to this day, I.e. the critics never answered Fleischmans reply to their criticism.

As earlier discussed the 1992 paper may have errors, but I believe the main point was proven, that excess heat increase at higher temperatures of the cell.

But, in the future history books wet D-Pd systems may well become known as a dead end wrt practical usable LENR, but how it all started will never be forgotten

Quote from Ascoli65

real mystery for me is how it was possible that a professor in physics

Well, as the professors of chemistry and physics knew is that there are only two choices (if you discard errors then ) Either the cause is chemical or the cause of heat is some nuclear phenomenon.

We know what power and energy densities that chemical processes may produce, and if the measured heat is above, then you need to consider the alternative, as F&P and Hansen pointed to.

Quote from oystla

One could argue there are several major papers of F&P, but THE most important by far is the 1990 paper.

This is just your opinion and, in any case, the 1990 paper was wrong, as shown on Table 2 of their response to Wilson.

Quote

As earlier discussed the, but I believe the main point was proven, that excess heat increase at higher temperatures of the cell.

You can believe what you want, but the real main points of that ICCF3 paper are the 2 conclusions at the beginning of page 19, which, as amply shown in this discussion, are both completely wrong, so they have not been proven at all.

Your "1992 paper may have errors" means that you, as well as any other LENR supporter in this Forum, are unable to refute that F&P misrepresented the data of their most famous experiment, the 4-cell boil-off test documented in their major paper.

Quote

Either the cause is chemical or the cause of heat is some nuclear phenomenon.

For what I've seen so far in CF/LENR (from F&P to the Ecat) the cause of the "real heat" is electricity, while the cause of the alleged "excess heat" is a combination of misrepresentation of data, misinterpretation of physics and mathematical artifacts.

The scientific work of Karabut and Dash is outstandingly brilliant and has restored my interest in LENR after the Rossi debacle. Might be best to scrap all thoughts of replicating any of that and move on to study D or H gas discharges in Karabut-type reactor chambers. Keep the Mo anode the same dimensions but extend a Ni cathode (Pd would be better but maybe too expensive) to a much larger surface area to generate the extra heat + link this (via the casing) to a heat exchanger.