FP's experiments discussion

  • 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 Qf 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

  • Avatar has no soul, he is a radish

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:


  • 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.

  • 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:)

  • 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 ;-)


    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.

  • 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.

  • The scientific work of Karabut and Dash


    Fleischmann and Pons in their seminal 1990 work and

    subsequent research had a focus on excess heat.

    In contrast other LENR researchers from a wide range of fields


    Alain, why are the Low Energy NUCLEAR Reactions (re)searchers never trained NUCLEAR physicists?

    including trained nuclear physicists, metallurgists, engineers and chemists,geologist

    have covered many aspects of the LENR reactions.

    Both Karabut and Dash (Dashevski in Ukrainian) were intensely interested in the isotopic changes

    Karabut had the advantage of a strong nuclear background and better instrumentation (at that time~1990).

    This is why Karabut could identifiy metastable isotopes such as Rhodium 104m.

    The only known source would be synchrotons or atomic reactors

    not a deuterium tube at ~100V with a palladium cathode.

    The reference knowledge was not available on Wikipedia as it is today.

    So the significance of these results was not realised for a long time.

    What caused the LENR reactions producing Rh104m, Rh105m, Pd109m etc which do not exist naturally???????

  • their method provides random numbers, as shown by F&P themselves in their response to Wilson's remarks (2). Table 2 shows three different sets of excess heat values (Qf/W) calculated for the calibration cycles shown on Fig.3A-B-C of the seminal paper issued in 1990. Well, 2 of these 3 sets, those in the last 2 columns, have been both calculated by F&P and are very different each other


    I believe you misunderstand the paper [1]. The excess heat values Qf is calculated at different times and is of course not constant. The Fig.3A-B-C is just some examples of many similar events of calibration and Qf calculation.


    If the excess heat where constant we might suspect some calibration constant error that a certain K... have suggested ;-)


    And of particular interest is the number of blank experiments showing as expected no excess heat.


    But the most interesting mystery in my opininon is not the low excess heat events, but the random high excess heat bursts that occurred, which calculates to far beyond any chemical reaction power densities.






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

  • OT and ad hominem.


    Science is made by named persons. "OT and ad hominem" can only be made against named persons.


    You are an avatar that uses "professional fake new speeding" techniques. Thus serious people long time ago stopped reading your nonsense.


    If you want to proceed on a more serious basis given us just your background and affiliation.

  • Science is made by named persons.


    Science is made by identifying real facts and providing the correct interpretations.


    Quote

    "OT and ad hominem" can only be made against named persons.


    The issue of the anonymity of the L-F members was discussed a few months ago and it was decided that anons are welcomed as the named ones and should be treated the same way (*). An ad hominem arguments remains such regardless of who is addressed.


    (*) Anonymous vs Real Name, or members option to decide?


    Quote

    You are an avatar that uses "professional fake new speeding" techniques.


    Well, actually, I'd be an L-F member who uses an anonymous avatar, as allowed in this forum. I'm not using any other technique than reading carefully the CF/LENR documents and highlighting their errors, as I've been invited to do. In doing this, I try to be as professional as possible. As for the "fake news", I'm sorry, it doesn't depend on me, but on the subject I'm dealing with.


    Quote

    Thus serious people long time ago stopped reading your nonsense.


    It's a legitimate decision. However, I was told that someone from the "old guard" is reading what I'm writing. You too keep on intervening in the debate, liking many comments (not mine, of course), so I wish you you just wrote a nonsense. As for mine, you have the opportunity to demonstrate they are such.


    Quote

    If you want to proceed on a more serious basis given us just your background and affiliation.


    Well, you should understand that we are talking about claims made by people who decided to apply directly - through the media - to the ordinary people, ie millions of anonymous citizens in the world, telling them that they had discovered the way of solving their most serious and urgent problems. It should not be a so big problem if one of this citizen argues that they were wrong.


    But you are free to ignore me. For what I have seen so far, the scientific level of the debate will not suffer from your absence.

  • Alain, why are the Low Energy NUCLEAR Reactions (re)searchers never trained NUCLEAR physicists?


    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/

    No 3 Mahadeva Srinivasan


    I joined BARC in August 1957. BARC has a training school which recruits about 150-200 scientists every year

    They call for applications from all over India.

    Usually 2000, 3000, or sometimes 5000 people apply, all first-class graduates.

    I belonged to the first batch, recruited way back in 1957. ....

    . My specialization has been in the area of nuclear engineering and reactor physics,

    ..criticality experiments, nuclear instrumentation, and so on. ..neutron measurements

    . I spent about two years at the Argonne National Lab (USA) in 1961-1962,

    and later a couple of years at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories in Canada (19681970).

    Since then, I’ve been in charge of fission criticality experiments and fusion-related research at BARC....

    Srinivasan is reponsible for much LENR research.

    As an example was identification of tritium production in metals which were loaded with deuterium.


    Of course tritium is a product of high energy neutron reactions

    it is produced either by neutrons in fission reactors

    ( Fukushima is still contaminated with tritium)

    or by high energy cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere....

    and tritium production in the low energy situation

    of loading the metals titanium and palladium with deuterium ....

    indicated that LENR was occurring.

  • Now where a new area of physics is just starting, where more and more people can reproduce the way (LENR) nature produce all elements and seismic relevant energy, there are still many people that believe in an old religion based on the so called standard model.


    This evolving schism is a natural phenom that does accompany mankind since culture was introduced.


    But if we know that such persons believing in the old religion want to tell us the new one (LENR) is not existing.., then we the knowledgeable, simply name such people unskilled in the art. People that never saw an elephant have no right to say elephants don't exist. It's a matter of taste to call them idiots, ignorants, fools or just simple minded.


    Unluckily for the "old believers" we can prove that LENR exists, what for religions is a hard task.., that only can be completed by inquisition.


    Pons & Fleischmann had the guts to out themselves as the first ones "believing" in the data (LENR) they measured for years long. They were not the first ones that measured anomalous heat - this happened already at least half a century earlier - but as said they, P&F, had the courage to tell the world that old physics is wrong, what has, in the last 30 years, been privately confirmed by many great physicists, that.., didn't want to risk their pension.


    That's why I always will reference P&F in first place in a paper about LENR!

  • A monologue is not a debate.


    I know, thanks, but mine is not a monologue. More than 90% of my posts are in response to other comments addressed to me or that mention me.


    A monologue is more similar to what RobertBryant is doing (1-2) by listing all the LENR researchers trained in nuclear physics, addressing his comments to a former L-F member who is permanently banned and using as a pretest a post written 3 years ago. Maybe, this behavior could be of some interest to a mod which is interested in maintaining a fair context, where to develop a serious debate on the issues raised by a the still active L-F member, even if he personally dislikes these same issues.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

  • I believe you misunderstand the paper [1]. The excess heat values Qf is calculated at different times and is of course not constant. The Fig.3A-B-C is just some examples of many similar events of calibration and Qf calculation.


    No, this is not my point. It is obvious that different calibration events can give different values.
    I already provided you with some suggestions on my point on the Table 2 in the F&P response to Wilson.


    But again, there is another point which is much more urgent. You are by now the last L-F member who is still trying to affirm the reality of the F&P claims by using scientific arguments. I appreciate your commitment and I'm willing to discuss all your points. But if we don't reach a sort of agreement for each paper we discuss, our debate becomes a waste of time for us and for those who are following it.


    For now the priority is on the ICCF3 paper and we should first find a definitive agreement or disagreement on the following points that I have put on the table:

    a – the 2 conclusions (*) in the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 were both wrong;

    b – if confirmed, the errors contained in this 1992 paper have a serious impact on the scientific reliability of the two authors.


    Then we will examine the other F&P papers.


    (*) for details see FP's experiments discussion and upwards links

  • the foam of beer


    to beer or not to beer... that is the question

    can an Avatar drink?



    Pons & Fleischmann had the guts to out themselves as the first ones "believing" in the data (LENR) they measured for years long


    But many others confirmed their 1989 excess heat..with LENR

    including .... Dash(Dashevski) and Karabut....

    and as recently as 2018 ... Michael Slaker ,,

    metallurgist Loyola University,2018

  • a – the 2 conclusions (*) in the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 were both wrong;

    b – if confirmed, the errors contained in this 1992 paper have a serious impact on the scientific reliability of the two authors.


    For a - I would say we may challenge the energy or power density identified by F&P. But as I showed earlier there seems to be an increase in excess heart at increased temperatures towards and approaching boiling.


    Anyhow, I do not think of this later work as important as the earlier research, and therefore to me this issue is not important - because -


    for b - I absolutely disagree. All scientists makes blunders and mistakes through their careers, they are only humans ;-)


    Yes, even at CERN when they thought to have proven Neutrinos travelled faster than light :-)


    There is no question that F&P where Honest researchers, but that does not mean they did no mistakes.


    The 92/93 papers is very different from their earlier work, where the earlier work focused at lower temperatures below boiling and therefore they would be able to be more accurate in their measurements.


    SO I have full confidence in their seminal paper and the discovery they made, which brought us this new controversial area of science. But if no one confirmed their seminal paper, then I would not be here today. But as they did confirm it around the world, I believe there is something worth investigating.


    Cold Fusion is generally considered by science and historians as among the biggest scientific blunders of the 20th century. Personally I believe they will be proven wrong, just as it took some time to bring back the Cosmological Constant of Einstein, "his biggest blunder" ;-)

  • Maybe, this behavior could be of some interest to a mod which is interested in maintaining a fair context, where to develop a serious debate on the issues raised by a the still active L-F member, even if he personally dislikes these same issues.


    This has nothing to do with fairness or anything else. As for dislike, I think disinterest would be a more accurate summation of my reaction to your posts on the whole. You are attempting to pull the rug out from a whole field of investigation by harping on about some bubbles that may or may not be critical to experiments performed decades ago. To hell (as far as you are concerned it seems) with all the evidence from countless experiments and peer-reviewed papers showing LENR reactions elsewhere that have been pointed out to you over and over. It is if you were arguing that because the Pripet Marshes are flat, the the whole world must be flat. You have become like that person who drags out his holiday photos every time you see them, and that as we all know becomes very boring.

  • Anyhow, I do not think of this later work as important as the earlier research, and therefore to me this issue is not important - because -


    for b - I absolutely disagree. All scientists makes blunders and mistakes through their careers, they are only humans


    Yes, even at CERN when they thought to have proven Neutrinos travelled faster than light


    There is no question that F&P where Honest researchers, but that does not mean they did no mistakes.

    [...]
    Cold Fusion is generally considered by science and historians as among the biggest scientific blunders of the 20th century. Personally I believe they will be proven wrong, just as it took some time to bring back the Cosmological Constant of Einstein, "his biggest blunder"


    I skip point (a) and assume, from what you wrote, that you agree that F&P made the errors I was talking about (correct me if it's not true).


    As I already said, there is no problem with scientists making blunders or mistakes, it's human, but it is expected that they recognize and correct their errors asap. In fact, you cited two famous example of mistakes, superluminal neutrinos and the cosmological constant, that have been admitted by their makers.


    Furthermore, F&P were in complete control of all the data of the boil-off test. Their experiment consisted simply of 4 electrolytic cells in a water bath, nothing compared to the extent of the universe or the flight time of hardly detectable particles shot across hundreds of km of earth's crust.


    The errors made by F&P are really blatant. The time length of 600 s used in the estimate of excess heat at page 16 of their 1992 paper doesn't even correspond to the 11 minutes mentioned in another page of the same document and is much shorter than the boil-off durations indicated in their lab video. The error concerning the 3 hours reported in Fig.8 is even worse, because it implies an error in the conversion of time units.


    F&P were well aware of the importance of an accurate synchronization between the various experimental data. On page 14 of their 1992 paper they wrote: "The simplest procedure is to make time-lapse video recordings of the operation of the cells which can be synchronised with the temperature-time and cell potential-time data." And just below they added: "As it is possible to repeatedly reverse and run forward the video recordings at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make reasonably accurate estimates of the cell contents."


    Could you explain how it was possible that they misrepresented the duration of the boil-off period and the time of dry-out in Fig.8?


    Quote

    The 92/93 papers is very different from their earlier work, where the earlier work focused at lower temperatures below boiling and therefore they would be able to be more accurate in their measurements.


    The boiling temperature is not a so hard condition to deal with, anyway the errors in their 1992 paper, and in the almost identical 1993 article, concerned time, not temperature. The boil-off experiment were also carried out in a period of their CF research during which F&P enjoyed the maximum financial and material support and were free from any other academic burden. Why should we believe that their earlier works were not affected by such blatant errors as those contained in their 1992 paper?

  • Pons & Fleischmann had the guts to out themselves as the first ones


    In contrast, anonymous trolls hide behind in their avatars

    they fade quietly into nonentity when they are 100% proved erroneous.

    But this cowardly anonymity is no worse than the

    ..silence of the informed.


    ... an instance of course is the Quirra depleted uranium coverup

    where Generale Fabio Molteni attributed Sardinian birth mutants to

    "They are all relatives, relatives

    They marry between cousins, brothers one another"2012 SwissTV.


    But informed scientists in Italy were mostly silent

    which is why Australian journalist, Emma Alberici finds Quirra newsworthy in 2019.. even seven years after

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…of_Translational_Medicine

    lenr-forum.com/attachment/7559/

  • that you agree that F&P made the errors I was talking about


    Not necessarily. I say there may be some issues, but it's not important for the existence of LENR. Everyone makes some error through their careers, and this is not their important discovery. There is another phenomenon that interests me, which is the heat bursts as I explained, and which is the Mystery.


    In fact, you cited two famous example of mistakes, superluminal neutrinos and the cosmological constant, that have been admitted by their makers.


    In that case you again have not adequate knowledge of the history.


    Einstein removed the constant from his equations in 1931, and called the constant his "biggest blunder". But his real blunder was to remove it in the first place, since it was reintroduced in 1998, long after Einsteins death.


    it is expected that they recognize and correct their errors asap


    The ideal would be to recognize and find error asap, but that does not always occur, for many reasons, not because of dishonesty, but natural reasons, just as with Einsteins blunder.