Could you explain how it was possible that they misrepresented the duration of the boil-off period
I do not think it is possible that they misrepresented as much as you think. With very high foam level, they would have ended with dry cell much earlier, but that is not what the video show.
To illustrate my point, if F&P had 3 cm bubble layer it would mach their video better than if the foam level very very high.
The errors made by F&P are really blatant.....
The error made by Ascoli is even more outrageous, than the one he claims to see. Without doing any confirming experiment that proves his hypothesis he invents fake facts and tries to flood the forum with his sloppy derivations.
Inventing experimental facts without doing an experiment is fraud! Or might be just to much foam (beer)...
It's amazing that the foam issue has not been raised by anyone in almost 30 years.
Maybe that tells you something?
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.
OK. It is possible to speak of error only for superluminal neutrinos. Einstein was not wrong, but for reasons other than what you said.
I've been inaccurate in my answer. My intention was to make short a long history, just to point out that in science errors must be recognized and because I'd like to keep the focus on the F&P experiments. But at this point a short detour could be appropriate.
FWIK, the value of the cosmological constant in Einstein's equation reflected three different and progressively more accurate conceptions of universe, which followed one another during the last century. The value introduced by Einstein in 1917 was aimed to adapt his equation with a static eternal universe.
Thanks to the improvement of the observational tools, in 1931 Hubble found that the Universe was expanding. This discover no longer required the presence of the cosmological constant in Einstein's equation, so it was dropped, which is equivalent to setting its value to zero. This simpler, and hence more elegant, mathematical description of an inertially expanding universe was accepted by all the astronomers, who only disputed if this expansion was constant or decelerating.
In 1998, thanks to a further improving of the observational capacity, it was discovered that the rate of expansion was instead increasing with distance, ie with time. Therefore, in order to adequately describe this new conception of an accelerated expanding universe, the cosmological constant was reintroduced, ie set again to a non-zero value, but this new value is different from that introduced by Einstein, because it reflects two totally different conceptions of universe.
Actually in the history of the cosmological constant, there was no mistake or at least no faulty mistake. The 1917 (Einstein's) and 1931 (zero) values were correct compared to the best knowledge of the times. Einstein didn't make any error and I doubt that he called the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder". It's probably a popular representation of the history.
QuoteThe 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.
Well, if this is your intent, It's not possible to compare the history of the cosmological constant with the F&P errors. The various values of the cosmological constant, which followed one another, were the best choice at the time, and each one was accepted by the overwhelming majority of contemporary astronomers.
The F&P errors belongs to a completely different story. Their claims were rejected by an even greater majority of their colleagues. Their errors are not due to a lack of adequate equipment, but consist in clear and serious misrepresentations of measured data collected from an extremely simple experimental set-up. Errors such as the discrepancy between different time units aren't even expected to happen in high schools. These are faulty errors, which severely affect the scientific reliability of those who commit them.
And, listen, I'm not challenging anyone's honesty. I'm only arguing about the scientific reliability of F&P, ie the trust that can be given to the trueness of their scientific statements. So, please, stop talking about honesty or dishonesty.
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.
There is a fundamental point in our discussion that requires to be clarified once and for all.
I'm not disputing with you about the existence of LENR, but only about the existence of the F&P errors and the impact of these errors on their scientific reliability.
More specifically, I'm not trying to convince you that LENR doesn't exist and I can anticipate that you will not convince me of the contrary, leaving aside the muonic CF and the undetectable rate of possible fusion events in accordance with the tunneling effect.
There are two opposing approaches with respect to the notion of LENR reality, which are followed respectively by believers and deniers, with agnostics in between.
- Believers assume that CFers are absolutely reliable, so they usually trust by default all their claims. Therefore they will continue to believe to LENR reality until every single claim of a CF phenomenon will be proved to be wrong. Of course, it's almost impossible to factually disprove every claim, so they will continue to believe in CF/LENR.
- Deniers assume that CFers are not necessarily reliable in their CF assessments, consequently they usually distrust by default all their claims, unless they are thoroughly demonstrated beyond any doubt. Of course, this is very difficult to happen, so they will continue to negate the reality of CF/LENR.
I think we belong to these different groups, so we can't find an agreement on the existence of LENR and trying to move the interlocutor from his group is a waste of time. However, this fact doesn't prevent us from discussing about single claims/claimants and possibly finding an agreement on their reality/reliability on the basis of limited and specific facts and evidence.
What I'm asking you is to discuss one claim/claimant at a time. For the time being, F&P's 1990 seminal paper and the heat bursts are not on the table.
The F&P errors belongs to a completely different story. Their claims were rejected by an even greater majority of their colleagues.
Even those who had replicated them.
I do not think it is possible that they misrepresented as much as you think.
Hey, there are too many "think" in your sentence. 
We go nowhere in this way.
It's not that I "think" F&P misrepresented their experimental data. I rather did show you that they misrepresented these data (1-2).
Furthermore, I'm not asking what you "think" about these misrepresentations. I'm actually asking you what do you see in the jpeg included in the referenced comments (1-2), which show these misrepresentations. Can you see them? Otherwise, are you able to explain me from where F&P derived the value of "600 s" and "3 hours" which they used to affirm their two claims in their 1992 paper?
QuoteWith very high foam level, they would have ended with dry cell much earlier, but that is not what the video show.
To illustrate my point, if F&P had 3 cm bubble layer it would mach their video better than if the foam level very very high.
As I have already explained (3), the curves in your diagram have no relation to the available information.
(1) FP's experiments discussion
The error made by Ascoli is even more outrageous, than the one he claims to see.
I'm here to give you the chance to prove my errors. All you have to do is just pointing out where they are.
QuoteWithout doing any confirming experiment that proves his hypothesis he invents fake facts and tries to flood the forum with his sloppy derivations.
Are you kidding? Do you mean that in order to point out one or more internal inconsistencies in the F&P documentation it is necessary to perform a confirming experiment?
As for the fake facts, I'm just reporting what I found in the F&P documentation.
And finally, am I flooding the forum? Come on, I'm posting far fewer comments than many other L-F members. Since last September, I'm essentially posting only on this thread and more than 90% are replies to other comments addressed to me, including yours.
QuoteInventing experimental facts without doing an experiment is fraud! Or might be just to much foam (beer)...
Previously you have called "idiots, ignorants, fools or just simple minded" any people that doesn't see the same "elephant" you see (1). Now, in a single line, you call me fraudster or drunken, even after declaring that the foam of beer is preferred by all of you, the knowledgeable (2). You have some problems with logic.
Anyway, I don't complaint for these compliments - not only because it would be futile, being them appreciated by the mods - but above all because they represent the best proof that you have no serious argument to oppose my remarks.
And, listen, I'm not challenging anyone's honesty. I'm only arguing about the scientific reliability of F&P, ie the trust that can be given to the trueness of their scientific statements. So, please, stop talking about honesty or dishonesty.
I very much misunderstood this statement then:
No, no. The situation is much worse. MF used to work with videos and, at the time, F&P had a dozen of co-workers. There is no room for incompetence or inadvertent mistakes.
""There is no room for incompetence or inadvertent mistakes.""
but there is plenty of room for innuendo from the avatar of truth
Even those who had replicated them.
No, they belong to the negligible minority, of course.
QuoteCan you show us that picture of your Grandma on the Pedalo again?
It's very kind of you to ask again, despite your disinterest for pedalos.
Well, here it is.
Can you please explain which typographical errors you see in Fig.8 of the F&P's 1992 paper (1)?
Can you please explain which typographical errors you see in Fig.8 of the F&P's 1992 paper (1)?
Can avatar Ascoli65 explain the meaning of
""No, no. The situation is much worse. MF used to work with videos and, at the time, F&P had a dozen of co-workers. There is no room for incompetence or inadvertent mistakes"" February,1992 2019
I'm here to give you the chance to prove my errors. All you have to do is just pointing out where they are.
Where is your paper based on an experiment that Re - produces foam ?????
Where is your paper based on an experiment that Re - produces foam ?????
You really are a strange guy! What I'm doing here is the review of the F&P paper presented at ICCF3, in order to find possible errors in the results of the boil-off experiment reported in it, as asked by Rothwell at the end of last August, challenging the LENR unbelievers to find even a single error in it (1). I don't think that the reviewers of a document are asked to reproduce the reported experiment and submit a paper to the author of the document before rising remarks on it.
As for me, I showed what I deem to be serious errors in dozens of those pictures with pedalos, that AS loves so much. You have just to point out which pictures and which pedalos you don't like and why.
(1) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?
Display MoreAnd, listen, I'm not challenging anyone's honesty. I'm only arguing about the scientific reliability of F&P, ie the trust that can be given to the trueness of their scientific statements. So, please, stop talking about honesty or dishonesty.
I very much misunderstood this statement then:
No, no. The situation is much worse. MF used to work with videos and, at the time, F&P had a dozen of co-workers. There is no room for incompetence or inadvertent mistakes.
Good point. Thanks for having highlighted it.
You can better understand the 2 phrases of mine, considering that incompetence or inadvertence or intentionality concern the factual level, ie they describe the material cause of the errors, that answers the HOW question. Looking for errors in a document, it's inevitable to envisage their possible material causes, because knowing or imagining how they might have happened gives more confidence on the plausibility of these errors.
On the contrary, honesty concerns the moral level, ie the final cause of possible errors, that answers the WHY question. This level is unnecessary to find and explain errors. When it involves specific people, I prefer to leave this level out of my comments and, unlike many other L-F members, I tried to scrupulously follow this rule for any topic I have dealt with.
I tried to scrupulously follow this rule for any topic I have dealt with.
Early morning BS 2.20 am Italian time
In truth,
Ascoli65's innuendo was alleging dishonesty .. it is not the first time
No, no. The situation is much worse. MF used to work with videos and, at the time, F&P had a dozen of co-workers. There is no room for incompetence or inadvertent mistakes"" February,1992 2019
Einstein was not wrong, but for reasons other
I do not believe I said any reasons, I know the story thank you. It's an example of honest mistakes, which he could not know. Anyhow there are still some issues with the cosmological constant, but that is not he subject here.
Their claims were rejected by an even greater majority of their colleagues
And of reasons you have not investigated. Do not be lazy, but read the history, its really fascinating as study of anthropology if nothing else ;-).
I think the New York Times article from 1989 sums up the reson for rejection pretty well;
“Cold fusion, too, required too many miracles. The first was that an utterly unknown way of achieving fusion had escaped the attention of generations of nuclear physicists. The second was that deuterons could be squeezed closely enough together inside palladium for fusion to occur. The third was that the fusion produced so few neutrons. Each miracle, taken separately, was plausible. But the simultaneous appearance of three was strong circumstantial evidence of pathology at work.”
Actually the fusion term was forced upon F&P from outside, as Fleischmann stated "We did not call it cold fusion at all, that was a term that was wished on us, but we did not call it that.” “We felt the processes had to be nuclear, to account for the high levels of energy.”
The deciding moment in time for Cold Fusion was the MAY 1989 APS meeting in Baltimore.
A frenzy of tests had been performed between 23. March 23. and May 1989. Tests at Caltech , MIT and in other labs. Tests based on data from “news articles” and “TV pictures”, since Fleischmann and Pons did not reveal any exact lab data. These were very far from “scientific” replication efforts.
On May 1-2, 1989, a series of three “cold fusion” press conferences took place in Baltimore, MD at the American Physical Society meeting, the world’s largest yearly gathering of physicists. And Cold Fusion was pronounced dead and buried.
As The press after reported: NYT: "….the scientists on a panel at the American Physical Society meeting Tuesday voted 8-1 that they were 95 percent confident the excess heat was not produced by nuclear fusion."
Associated Press: "A panel of nine scientists on Tuesday disparaged Utah researchers' claim of achieving fusion in a jar, suggesting they were fooled by faulty measurements."
And when theoretical Physicists said no, then the chemical scientist society followed suit.
Their errors are not due to a lack of adequate equipment
Really? If they had better detectors, they could have measured the exact water content in their electrolytic cells, and we would not have had this discussion.
They should have placed their boiling cells on electronic weights, with data acquisition. That would have told them the accurate amount of water at any time.,
I'm only arguing about the scientific reliability of F&P, ie the trust that can be given to the trueness of their scientific statements
Well I would say that errors in one paper don't impact their scientific reliability in other papers, since experiments may be very different in scope, range and instrumentation.
Every paper must be evaluated separately.
the existence of the F&P errors and the impact of these errors on their scientific reliability
If one error in one paper impacts another paper must be evaluated from case to case. I do not think possible errors may impact scientific reliability as a general statement.
I think we belong to these different groups
I belong to the group that believe in the original discovery as described in F&P seminal paper.
Because similar results as been confirmed by many others many-many times.
And if LENR exist then strange things should happen in other systems than wet D-Pd system. And behold: We have confirmation of excess heat events in other material also, like the Piantelli-Focardi research or the nanor of Dr. Mitchell Swartz.
The F&P errors belongs to a completely different story. Their claims were rejected by an even greater majority of their colleagues. Their errors are not due to a lack of adequate equipment, but consist in clear and serious misrepresentations of measured data collected from an extremely simple experimental set-up. Errors such as the discrepancy between different time units aren't even expected to happen in high schools. These are faulty errors, which severely affect the scientific reliability of those who commit them.
And, listen, I'm not challenging anyone's honesty. I'm only arguing about the scientific reliability of F&P, ie the trust that can be given to the trueness of their scientific statements. So, please, stop talking about honesty or dishonesty.
Your statement above, accusing F&P of misrepresentation, followed by the statement 'please stop talking about honesty or dishonesty' is illogical, nonsensical, and bigoted. If you cannot see that, then this is no hope for your ability to objectively review anything.
Ascoli65's innuendo was alleging dishonesty .. it is not the first time
No, no. The situation is much worse. MF used to work with videos and, at the time, F&P had a dozen of co-workers. There is no room for incompetence or inadvertent mistakes"" February,1992 2019
Ascoli65's assertion is contradictory. He is saying that Fleischmann and dozens of co-workers all know the results were invalid. It wasn't incompetent or a mistake. It was too obvious for that. If that were true, it would also be too obvious to cover up. It would not fool anyone. We would all agree with Ascoli65 that surfactants in water can foam on metal at 200 deg C. So, there would be no point to Fleischmann and co-workers conspiring to fool us. They wouldn't get away with it.
This reminds me of what Robert Park often said in 1989: "If everyone knows it's [cold fusion] wrong, why are they all doing it?" ("The Fizzle in Fusion") He answered because everyone was corrupt or foolish. That begs the question. Being corrupt or foolish does not make your calorimetry convincing. People don't believe you because you are corrupt. Here is Park's description:
QuoteWith dozens of laboratories attempting to confirm the Utah claim, it was inevitable that a few would screw up. A loose wire, electrode contamination, calibration errors, quirky detectors, all got reported as "anomalous effects" and treated as "partial confirmations." . . .
In five weeks it was all over; the few remaining puzzles would be found to have mundane explanations, additional sources of error would be tracked down, scientists would return to more productive lines of research. . . .
"Was this a delusion, an error, or a fraud?" By the end of the book, it is clear that cold fusion progressed through all three. . . .
