FP's experiments discussion



  • 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"

  • 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.

    Add to that hundreds of other electrochemists and chemists who read the paper and say it is correct. You find it almost impossible to believe that all these people failed to find the blatant error. So, apparently you conclude that they found it, but they are part of a giant conspiracy to pretend the paper is valid. Either that, or you conclude that the creme de la creme of 20th century electrochemists could not do elementary chemistry.


    Have you considered the possibility that you are wrong, and there is no error?