FP's experiments discussion

  • 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)...

  • 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.


    Quote

    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.


    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.

  • 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?


    Quote

    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.


    As I have already explained (3), the curves in your diagram have no relation to the available information.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) 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.


    Quote

    Without 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.


    Quote

    Inventing 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.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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?


  • 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:


    Quote

    With 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. . . .



  • Totally incomparable.


    Whether the universe is described by equations that need a cosmological constant or not is an open question. Still. There are proposals for dark mass/energy resolution that require one - and others that don't.


    Scientists in general follow Einstein and put one in with great unhappiness if it allows an otherwise good theory to track experimental evidence.


    I'd agree that scientists make stupid errors and do not always recognise them. It is viewed as very poor form if as with the Lugano authors they are notified of an error and refuse to correct it or defend it.

  • 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 ;-).


    Yes, no doubt the facts you have reported highlight a fascinating story about the mystery of human nature.

    But beware, you are reading the book upside down. :)


    Quote

    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.


    Exactly! It would have been quite simple to weigh each cell and tracing the curves of the water mass. Why they didn't? F&P had been working with this type of cell for many years, they knew that this datum was fundamental. Surely the reason was not the lack of resources. At the time, a world-leading automotive industry had already put at their disposition a lot of money, a dozen collaborators and a brand new laboratory in one of the most expensive locations in the world.


    Quote

    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.


    It depends on the error and on the paper. An error in an initial paper is less serious than an error in a final paper, issued after the phenomenon has been studied for more time and a full control of the experiments has been achieved, as Krivit wrote in 2009 introducing the results of the F&P boil-off experiment:

    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.


    Quote

    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.


    The errors in the important 1992 paper are too blatant and serious for not having an impact on the scientific reliability of the authors. IMO, this impact affects all their works on the same field, because the experimenters are by far the most important "tool" in any test.


    Quote

    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.


    I know, you believe all their claims and this is why we can't agree on the reality of CF/LENR:



    Anyway, please note that we are talking for now about the F&P's 1992 boil-off experiment and of the related papers and videos. We can still find an agreement on some limited topics. It seems to me that you are admitting again that the results contained in the 1992 paper are wrong.


    Now, let's move onto the next step. In order to find an agreement on how much these errors can impact the previous works, we must first to agree on their probable factual causes. Do you have any idea of how these errors could have happened? More precisely:


    (1) - HOW it was possible that at page 16 of their 1992 paper, F&P made the calculation assuming that half of the cell's water vaporized in 600 s, while it is evident from their own video that this assumption is false?


    (2) - HOW it was possible that on Fig.8 of the same paper, F&P stated that the cell was dry 3 hours before its cooling, while it is evident from their own video that dryness occurred at least 2 hours after the time shown on the figure?


    (1) FP's experiments discussion


    (2) FP's experiments discussion


    Off-topic image removed. Alan.

  • I know, you believe all their claims and this is why we can't agree on the reality of CF/LENR:


    Flat earthers are welcome! If you cannot believe in the subject of this forum then your presence (in this forum) is a waste of time. On our side there is no need to believe in LENR. We see it daily, we measure the extended and specific radiation of just temperature driven reactions.


    Your claims are based on hope. I think your statement should be the last in this foam epos. As you truly confirm you don't believe in LENR physics reality.

  • Scientists in general follow Einstein

    Some scientists use GR and SR where appropriate ..cosmology especially

    .also GR and SR are very useful for driving my car AFAIK.

    Einstein's limited himself to four dimensions... 3D + T ..

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.03058.pdf

    this is a limitation for lockstep followers.

    More dimensions appear to be very useful ..even necessary ?

    for some important phenomena

    Einsteinism isn't a well followed dictum in biology... not like Darwinism...

    although there are wayward heretics.

    Totally incomparable.


    Comparable.. and contrastable.

    Scientists make errors .. but Einstein was theoretical..nonlab ... Fleischmann and Pons were esperimentalists

    Experimentalists make errors.always .. the competent one's minimise and estimate them.

    Fleischmann and Pons were extremely competent experimentalists in their specialty.. electrochemistry.

  • THH: Scientists in general follow Einstein


    RB: Einsteinism isn't a well followed dictum in biology... not in the same league as Darwinism... although there are wayward heretics.


    Robert - try reading the second qualifying half of the sentence in my post?


    :)


    Quote


    RB: Comparable.. and contrastable.

    Scientists make errors .. but Einstein was theoretical..nonlab ... Fleischmann and Pons were esperimentalists

    Experimentalists make errors.always .. the competent one's minimise and estimate them.

    Fleischmann and Pons were extremely competent experimentalists in their specialty.. electrochemistry.


    I think you are not getting the point. There was no, and is no, internal error in Einstein either using or not using a cosmological constant. It seems likely that one or other may in the end prove a better fit to the universe, but which does that is at the moment an open question. Einstein was annoyed with himself because he hated introducing an arbitrary parameter and when he thought this was not compellingly needed this therefore became a silly mistake.


    Whereas if ascoli's argument hold then there is an internal error in the data and arguments documented by F&P. Ascoli would agree with you, perhaps, about the competence of F&P and therefore draw the implication that if there is an error it is deliberate. I tend always to think that humans are, well, human, and especially where strong feelings are involved, capable of making the most flagrant mistakes without any deliberate intention. Freud would have said something about this no doubt.


    The two cases (internal error, and possible lack of match between presented theory and discovered physical reality) are not comparable.

  • 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.


    Misrepresentation and dishonesty are two different concepts. Misrepresentation is an untruthful representation of facts, in our case experimental data, caused by incompetence or inadvertence or intentionality, etc. So it concerns a factual level of evaluation and I've already explained the difference with honesty, which concerns a moral level of evaluation, along with my position on this regard: FP's experiments discussion


    Off-topic image removed. Alan.


    The image was in-topic with the citation of Focardi made by oystla. In particular it was the first picture (1) ever published of the new couple that monopolized the attention to the LENR field throughout 2011. That picture adequately represents the absurdity of a sentence such as "We have confirmation of excess heat events in other material also, like the Piantelli-Focardi research …".


    Maybe it was too large (I don't know how to resize the images), but for sure it was much more in-topic than the foamy cherries and similar amenities which are allowed to be posted in this thread.


    (1) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…10-la-fusione-fredda.html

  • internal error


    Sorry ...don't get your internal/external point...


    please explain.


    "to err internally/externally is human...to forgive Divine (Pope) adjusted"

    sounds a bit off to me:)


    the foamy cherries

    Perhaps the image

    counters an underlying theme that

    is implicit and explicit in Ascoli65 posts


    Little dialogue is useful with

    an entity that continually cherry picks

    and states

    "LENR is a fairytale"

    ignoring hundreds of

    experimental evidence

  • 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.


    As already happened (1), JR modifies the words in my sentences in order to prove his theses:

    He wrote: "… Fleischmann and dozens of co-workers all know the results were invalid."

    I had instead written: "… F&P had a dozen of co-workers. There is no room for incompetence or inadvertent mistakes"


    The JR's version has an "s" (dozens) and an "all" (all know) in excess with respect of my original. This was enough to allow him to produce his usual foamy salad in the attempt to hide the foam generated inside the F&P cells.


    Actually, I meant that I find almost impossible that in a group, made by 2 world-class electrochemists and about twelve co-workers, no one was able to detect the blatant errors contained in the 1992 paper. I didn't mean that ALL the members of that group (even larger in virtue of the extra "s") were aware of these errors.


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • There is no room for incompetence or inadvertent mistakes" 'I find almost impossible that in a group,......."


    So I guess this means there is some room for incompetence/inadvertent mistakes.

    Perhaps the quote is not an innuendo that Fleischmann and Pons were dishonest .... after all..


    I guess also

    "LENR is a fairytale'

    means

    "LENR may be considered by some .... (but not Ascoli65 personally ) ...... as a fairy tale"