FP's experiments discussion

  • You made that up. There are no "known bugs" in any major experiment by Fleischmann, McKubre, Miles or anyone else. You claim you found errors, but when I and others point out your mistakes, you do a vanishing act. You refuse to address the points listed by the authors. Let me repeat the points from the Fleischmann boil off tests that you have never addressed, even though you claim you found problems in it:

    1. A heat balance of zero in several different calibrations.

    No surprise. In the F&P method, the calibrations are done to calculate the global heat transfer coefficient k, so the heat balance should be zero by definition in ALL the different calibrations.


    2. All of the salts left in the cell.

    FWIK, this issue was addressed only in the response to Morrison (1), where Fleischmann wrote that they recovered about the 95% of the residual lithium deuteroxide in their earlier work. But, for these early works, F&P also wrote in one of their first article (2) that they "adopted a policy of discontinuing the experiments (or, at least, of reducing the current density) when the boiling point is reached." So they didn't check the inventory of the salt left in the cell after the boiling tests described in their "major paper" presented in 1992 at ICCF3 (3).


    3. Boiling with no input power, much longer and hotter than in the calibrations.

    Not true (4).


    4. Boiling with Pd-D2O only, and not with Pt, H2O or a resistance heater. …

    Hansen reported that F&P reached boiling conditions with Pt cathode, as shown in Figure 1 and seg. of the paper he presented at ICCF2 (5).

    This behavior was implicitly confirmed by the experiments carried out by Lonchampt, as reported by Biberian in the paper he presented in 2007 (6): "We measured (see table 1) at boiling temperature excess heat up to 29 %, in qualitative agreement with Fleischmann and Pons. However, the magnitude of the excess heat that we measured was less important than what they observed. Their analysis of the boiling off in two periods, assuming that the vast majority of the excess heat was produced at the end of the experiment was difficult to evaluate. The experiments in Li2SO4 are surprising since they seem to show that the palladium is active, and that even platinum is active."

    Evidently, they apparently got excess heat at boiling condition also using Pt cathodes.


    ... How can the choice of metal or water affect cause the "droplet" theory to work? How can the source of heat do this?

    Biberian was surprised that a Pt cathode could be as active as Pd one. A far less surprising conclusion is that neither Pt, nor Pd are active, and that the apparent excess heat resulted from a wrong way of calculating the output heat, that erroneously neglects the droplets entrained in the gas stream.


    5. Melted plastic when the calibration leaves the plastic underwater.

    Plastic has a low melting point. In the final stage of the boiling off of the electrolyte, the residual water is in form of foam, which has a much lower heat transfer coefficient.

    Anyway, if that phenomenon was to be deemed so important, it would have to be adequately documented with many detailed photographs of the damaged component.


    6. Excess heat a week before the boiling, and for up to a day after it. Why did it stop for 10 minutes only?



    7. Boiling on the cathode only.

    Obviously! The cathode surface is much less than the anode one, so the specific current is much higher at cathode surface.

    Furthermore, the cathode surface is vertical, so that the upper part is in contact with a warmer coolant and in the final boiling stage can easily reach and exceed the boiling temperature. On the contrary the thin and long wire that constitutes the anode is essentially horizontal and is easily cooled by the surrounding water.


    8. Droplets so small they cannot be detected, yet so large they produce a gigantic error, making 30 W look like 150 W.

    This is nothing but the gigantic error that has been committed throughout the entire CF/LENR story, from F&P experiments to Ecat tests.

    In boiling conditions, an apparent excess heat of 5 times the input power means that the mass of water leaving the cell as liquid droplets is 5 times the mass of water that leaves the cell as gas (or dry vapor). Considering that the specific volume of dry steam is about 1650 times the specific volume of liquid, it is sufficient that the volume of droplets is 1/330 of the volume of the gas stream. It is not so easy to be detected by eye.


    9. Impossible physical theories that violate 18th and 19th century laws of physics, yet -- by some miracle -- produce exactly the same results as conventional theories, so that there is no test that can distinguish which is right, and no way to falsify the new theories. The conventional theories prove there is excess heat; the impossible theories rely on things like droplets too small to measure that leave no physical, measurable trace, yet magically remove most of the water. This is pathological science.

    Pathological is to ignore the warnings on the calculations of output heat at boiling conditions that have been raised even at ICCFs by CF people:


    From: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf

    Extra care must be taken during phase changes

    Apparent Excess Heat vs. Dryness of Steam

    Only 5% of the volume fraction being condensed water will cause one to BELIEVE that you have a 6x gain in power!

    18th and 19th century stuff!

    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

    (2) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf

    (3) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (4) FP's experiments discussion

    (5) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HansenWNreporttoth.pdf

    (6) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPcoldfusiona.pdf

  • JedRothwell

    I agree with Ascoli65 detailed points in #7312 (I think all of them, and I've made most myself elsewhere) and so will not repeat them. And this is not the thread for that discussion, which in any case we have had before. My "going away" is because when both sides have made their points restating them ad infinitum is not helpful.

  • I agree with Ascoli65detailed points in #7312 (I think all of them, and I've made most myself elsewhere)

    All of his statements are factually wrong. If you read the literature, you will see that. You could easily confirm that everything he says is nonsense or contrary to the facts, yet evidently you believe it. You are very gullible.

  • All of his statements are factually wrong. If you read the literature, you will see that. You could easily confirm that everything he says is nonsense or contrary to the facts, yet evidently you believe it. You are very gullible.


    Is it possible that you simply believe what you have read because it aligns with your current belief system?

    Just asking

  • OR,

    Is it possible that you simply believe what you have read because it aligns with your current belief system?

    Just asking

    Let me explain in more detail. THHuxley has been given two sources of information:

    1. Peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals written by distinguished experts. Claims that have been independently replicated. Methods grounded in rock-solid 18th and 19th century physics, such as the heat of vaporization of water, or methods of ensuring that a chemical retort is working correctly. In many cases the proof of the claims can be seen with the naked eye, in the videos. For example, you can see that the input power is insufficient to boil the water, and you can see that only the cathode is hot, which means the boiling cannot be from input electricity. THH does not need to take anyone's word for these things. He can also boil salted water himself in a test tube to confirm other aspects of it.

    2. Comments by an anonymous internet troll that range from physically impossible blather to outright denial of facts that were well established by 1790.

    THH believes the latter. This shows an appalling lack of judgement. His credibility is zero.

  • 2. Comments by an anonymous internet troll that range from physically impossible blather to outright denial of facts that were well established by 1790.

    A fact that were well established at those times was that steam engines had problems with liquid droplets mixed with steam. These problems became particularly severe with the diffusion of steam locomotives, and was solved by Stephenson with the invention of the "steam dome" which "acts as a simple steam separatot and minimises the risk that water will be carried over to the cylinders" (1).

    This is 18th and 19th century physics, not rocket science (*), but CF people seem to have discovered it only in 2011 (2), and some of them still deny the huge effects of this well-known phenomenon on the calorimetry of the CF devices.

    (*) Well, actually the first Stephenson's locomotive with a steam dome was the "Rocket", but it worked for real.

    (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_dome

    (2) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf

  • Jed, my credibility will be what it is.

    For readers here, I'll give a summary of why the key paper often cites does not convince me as it does Jed. Many may find the detailed references here useful, so they can decide for themselves. it is hard work, but interesting.

    Abd collation of the debate with references to all source materials

    Key paper published in Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129 : Calorimetry of the PD-D2O System: from Simplicity via Complications to Simplicity ,

    Reply from Morrison, published Physics Letters A 185, 28 February, 1994, 498-502.

    Reply to reply from Fleischman et al: Letters A 187, 18 April 1994 276-280.

    No internet troll here! And peer reviewed arguments on both sides of the issue, arguing different things.

    The first point is that scientists with peer-reviewed arguments are therefore sometimes wrong. Morrison and Fleischmann et al differ markedly, they cannot both be right.

    The second point is that reading a sequence like this: original, reply, reply to reply is very informative. Each document, read on its own, seems convincing to somone not expert. However, by comparing the arguments in the documents one can see which points are answered, which ignored, which evaded. You need enough math to follow the equations, first year university physics or maths would do. You need enough general knowledge to follow the arguments and then do additional research where needed.

    Have fun!


    PS - Shanahan is a published scientist, whose views (on that merit) should be considered as potentially valuable. Calling him an internet troll may or may not be accurate, but does not do justice to his historic (peer-reviewed published) addition to this debate. Shanahan's views are however well after the interchanges above. it is worth fully reading the original material, and then considering Shanahan's contribution.

    PPS - I realise I've laid out the source material on which I base my current views, but not given the views! Maybe later...

    PPPS - it is somewhat ironic Jed quoting mainstream distinguished scientist status and peer-reviewed journals, as a positive. I'd agree with him, though set less store by it than he does. But the LENR field as a whole claim that mainstream science has bad judgement and cannot be trusted. Specifically that the mainstream view of LENR, held by very many distinguished scientists, is wrong.

  • Key paper published in Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129 : Calorimetry of the PD-D2O System: from Simplicity via Complications to Simplicity ,

    Reply from Morrison, published Physics Letters A 185, 28 February, 1994, 498-502.

    Reply to reply from Fleischman et al: Letters A 187, 18 April 1994 276-280.




    Plus several others such as:




    Plus the video, available in several places and linked to here.

    PPPS - it is somewhat ironic Jed quoting mainstream distinguished scientist status and peer-reviewed journals, as a positive. I'd agree with him, though set less store by it than he does.

    It is not a bit ironic. I think that a peer-reviewed paper published in a mainstream journal by a world class expert that sticks to the laws of physics has more credibility than a claim by an anonymous internet troll that violates 18th and 19th century physics. THH disagrees.

    But the LENR field as a whole claim that mainstream science has bad judgement and cannot be trusted. Specifically that the mainstream view of LENR, held by very many distinguished scientists, is wrong.

    The distinguished mainstream scientists who say that cold fusion is wrong know nothing about it. I have spoken with them, and read their comments. They have no idea what instruments are used, what has been observed, or what conclusions have been drawn. Therefore, they are not acting as scientists and their views are worthless.

  • What? But I'm not anonymous, so JR must not have been talking about me. I thought he meant Zeus46...

    I meant Ascoli65, in the message THH referenced above: Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Your views do not violate 18th and 19th century physics. They violate the last 600,000 years of common sense; i.e. things that everyone has known since the discovery of fire and cooking. Such as the fact that that a hot object cools in less than 3 days, and that a bucket of water left in ordinary conditions does not evaporate overnight.

  • The distinguished mainstream scientists who say that cold fusion is wrong know nothing about it. I have spoken with them, and read their comments. They have no idea what instruments are used, what has been observed, or what conclusions have been drawn. Therefore, they are not acting as scientists and their views are worthless.

    Except for me...

  • Misinterpretation of dry-out timing and mechanism of the 4-cell Boil-off experiment

    A simple cross checking of the public information available on the more meaningful F&P work, the 4-cells boil-off tests described at ICCF3 in 1992 (1), reveals a big error in the timing of the boil-off phases, which entails a wrong interpretation of the dry-out mechanism, which in turns is at the basis of the overestimation of the heat output and consequently of the claiming of the existence of a nuclear phenomenon capable of providing the excess heat required to fulfill the energy balance.

    This mismatch is due to the different modes used to record and indicate the time in the experimental data. The numeric data have been recorded in function of an elapsed time, which started from the beginning (00.00.00) of Saturday, April 11, 1992. This is the time value reported in seconds on the t-axis of the diagrams. On the contrary, the video frames of the video recorded during the whole experiment (which lasted almost one month) report the time in HH.MM.SS.

    The ICCF3 paper contains many diagrams and 4 video frames. The diagrams mostly refer to the evolution of the cell 2, while no video frame refers to this cell. However, a shorter version of the recorded video, containing a collection of few clips referring to the topic moments of the test, was published by Krivit in 2009 (2), and it also includes 2 clips referring to the boil-off period of cell 2:

    1st clip - 4 minutes from 22:35:14 (video t=1m35s) to 22:39:14;

    2nd clip - 27 minutes from 3:26:14 (video t=1m37s) to 3:53:14 (t=1m49s).

    After having converted their day times into elapsed times, these 2 video clips can be positioned onto the diagram of Figure 8, which shows the evolution of the temperature along the day before the cell 2 boil-off. This merging is shown in the following jpeg.


    The 2 video clips lie respectively more than 3 hours before and about 2 hours after the moment at about 1646000 s of elapsed time in which F&P positioned the dry-out stage. These mismatches rise severe concerns on the correctness of the boil-off and dry-out timing and mechanism assumed by F&P, in particular:

    A – F&P stated that the last half of the cell water contents vaporized in about 10 minutes during the last stage of the boil-off phase of each cell. At page 16 of their paper (1), they calculated in 182 W (11+171 W) the averaged total output generated inside the cell 2 in this short period, and concluded that 144.5 W were in excess with respect to the 37.5 W of input power. This timing was based on the analysis of the frames of the video recorded during the test. In particular for the cell 2 they derived the half dry and the full dry instants on the basis of the second clip. However, the period of the video recording considered does not coincide with the peak of cell voltage, that they deem to trigger the "positive feedbeck" of the nuclear phenomenon which provides the excess heat necessary to vaporized the water (3). Moreover, the bright portion of the cell contents does not represent the liquid water, but the foam. So, the lowering of the bright volume inside cell 2, that was highlighted by arrows in some video frames, does not indicate the decreasing of the liquid volume but that of the residual foam. This means that the largest part of the water had escaped the cell well before the start of that clip;

    B – most part of water leaves the cell well before the short drying period indicated by F&P, and the first video clip shows the real mechanism by which this happens. In fact, the lower third of the unsilvered portion of the cell is still filled with liquid water, but the upper part is full of foam up to the limit of the silvered portion. So we can argue that, behind the silver layer, the foam reaches the cell plug and that its liquid part is entrained by the gas stream which flows through the vent pipe, and this liquid outflow can last for many hours.

    This interpretation removes any need to suppose the existence of an arcane nuclear phenomenon, required to explain the wrong assumption of F&P that all the water contents of the cell vaporized in a short period of time and left the cell as dry steam.

    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

    (3) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsSproceeding.pdf#page=157

  • Evolution of the water contents inside cell 2

    In their ICCF3 paper (1), F&P discussed the problem of properly timing the variation of the water contents inside the cell:

    "… It is therefore necessary to develop independent means of monitoring the progressive evaporation/boiling of the D2O. 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. Figs 6A-D give the records of the operation of four such cells which are illustrated by four stills taken from the video recordings, Fig 10A-D. …

    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. We have chosen to time the evaporation/boiling of the last half of the D2O in cells of this type and this allows us to make particularly simple thermal balances for the operation in the region of the boiling point. …"

    [bold added]

    So F&P affirmed that they intended to sinchronize the temperature time diagrams with the video recording and repeatedly run the video in order to accurately estimates the water contents. However, from a simple comparison with some time frames extracted from the YouTube video (2), we can see that they incredibly reported a wrong interpretation of the time evolution of the water contents inside the cell.

    The following jpeg shows the evolution of the water content inside the cell 2. The frame sequence allows to easily recognize and locate the upper level of the liquid remained inside the cell. It shows that the loss of water mass happened well before what F&P said.


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

  • A closer look at the boil-off phase of cell 2

    The following jpeg expands the time period around the boil-off of the cell 2 of Figure 6B (1).


    The already cited YouTube video (2) contains a short sequence starting at 22:35:14 (on the 20th test day, ie t = 1636514 s) that shows the behavior of cell 2 during the boil-off phase. The timeline on the expanded diagram indicates that the corresponding cell voltage has reached about 30 V after a few hours of continuous increasing. The simultaneous dropping of the liquid water level to about ¼ of the initial height suggests that the corresponding reduction of the surface of the anodic wire submerged by liquid water is the main cause of this progressively accelerated increase in voltage. It continues with the same trend up to point B, where the curve suddenly starts to rise much faster until it reaches in C the maximum allowable value of 100 V. The simplest explanation of this sudden acceleration is that in B the liquid level is dropped at the top level of the cathode. Since then, a further drop in the liquid level leaves unwetted an increasing portion of the cathode surface, provoking the sharp rise of voltage.

    This simple interpretation of the experimental time-voltage curve implies that most of the water has left the electrolytic cell 2 at time B, long before the time assumed by F&P in their paper (1), that is around the peak voltage in C. Without considering that the arrows in the frame D and E of the video (2) place this dry-out period even later.

    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf


    (from 1m34s)

  • Videos reveal the real behavior during boil-off of Cell 1

    The jpegs presented in the previous comments show how easy it is to distinguish the liquid part of the cell contents from the accumulated foam above it and how the boil-off period consists of a first stage of lowering the liquid level followed by a second phase in which only the above foam is reduced. The first phase lasts for a few hours and involves most of the electrolyte content of the cell. The second phase lasts much less and entails a small variation in the residual mass content of the cell. However, F&P relied on the timing of this second phase to estimate that the last half of the initial water mass had evaporated in just about 11 minutes (1).

    One wonders if F&P realized the real behavior of the cells in the first boil-off phase. The answer to this question is positive and is provided by a short video (2) that shows a part of Pons' presentation to the ICCF3, while on the screen a piece of the experimental video is projected showing the 4 cells under testing. This video sequence refers to the boil-off of Cell 1 and allows to follow almost entirely the lowering of the water level in the cell, starting from about ¼ of the initial level, until the complete disappearance of the water.

    The following jpeg compares the frames taken from the video of this Pons presentation, with those of the short experimental video examined in the previous comments, here called for semplicity "Short test video" (3).


    It is evident that the blue arrows superimposed on the frames of the "Short test video" don't indicate the decrease in the mass of water in Cell 1, but only the lowering of the residual foam. Is it possible that F&P didn't realize this obvious fact that they could have observed in hundreds of tests performed during many years with similar cells and that Pons had before his eyes during his presentation in Nagoya? In this regard it would be interesting to know what Pons says while presenting those images. Unfortunately, the superimposed Japanese translation prevents from understanding them. Is there anyone able to understand and transcript them down here?

    To complete the panorama of the publicly available videos documenting the boil-off of Cell 1, we can cite the short clip included in the "Good Morning America" program broadcasted on May 1994 (4). They go from 22:13:58 to 22:28:58 and therefore they refer to the last part of the period shown in the "Short test video". The words during that clip are: "but, as this lab video shows, the devices [can do (?)] boil over and dry out after just a short while". I think that the images were provided by F&P and the text agreed with them.

    It remains to understand what is the source of the "Short test video" posted by Krivit in 2009 and who superimposed the blue arrows and the scripts on its frames. Does anyone know if it is a video originally prepared by F&P themselves?

    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf (F&P paper)

    (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n88YdKYv8sw (Pons presentation)

    (3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8 (Short test video)

    (4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXaijlN1AKo#t=2m17s (Good Morning America)

  • The strange case of Cell 4 (and Cell 3)

    The previous comments discuss the evolution of the water content within Cells 1 and 2 of the test described in the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 (1). As for the remaining Cells 3 and 4, it is worth noting a strange misattribution of a small sequence included in the "Short test video" (2), as shown in the following jpeg.


    On the frame labeled with F (at t=2m02s of the video, daily time 5:05:04), a blue arrow appears at the bottom of Cell 3, as indicating the conclusion of the boil-off phase of this cell. The previous video clip ended with a frame (close to frame E) timed 4:03:04 and marked with a blue arrow placed at 1/3 of the cell height. However, in these two frames E and F, Cell 4 appears very differently: in the first, it is almost completely transparent as it was at the beginning of the test, while, in the second, it appears almost completely bright, due to the foam accumulated in the upper part, and to the bubbles rising in the lower part, where the transparency only remain at sides of these bubbles. It is impossible that such an evolution has occurred in just one hour.

    It just happened that the frame F was given a wrong interpretation. It actually refers to the boil-off phase of Cell 4 and occurs about 5 and half hours before the first frame G of the subsequent video clip starting at 10:35:04 and whose first frame is marked with a blue arrow placed in the upper third of the cell. So, it could have taken about 5 hours to boil away the residual liquid water which was still present at time F, a quantity that can hardly reach one third of the initial mass. To know how long it took to boil away the entire initial water content, it would need to have some more frames between E and F, in particular some showing the foam appearing below the lower level of the upper silver layer.

    The wrong attribution of a frame sequence raises again the issue of the authors of that "Short test video", whose title announces:

    1992 Four-Cell Boil-Off

    by Fleischmann and Pons

    Produced by Steven B. Krivit

    New Energy Times


    So, who did choose the sequences in the video and placed the arrows and the scripts on the selected frames? Did Krivit only published a video that was already circulating among the CF community?

    Does anyone has a more complete version of the recorded video showing the instant in which the foam begin to build up on top of the liquid water?

    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

  • Vapor volume generation during boil-off (Cell 3)

    As known, the estimate of the heat output of the electrolytic cells in the tests described in the paper presented by F&P to ICCF3 (1) is based on the rate of decreasing of the water content during the boil-off phase. However, the authors affirm that the initial electrolyte content, quantified in the paper in 5 moles of (heavy) water, remains unchanged, thanks to the daily refills, until just before the final phase, which, according to them, would last less than an hour (10-11 minutes for the complete evaporation of the last half of liquid water).

    The video images (2) discussed in the previous comments show instead that many hours before this final phase the upper part of the four cells appears bright, a sign of the presence of many gas bubbles. These gas bubbles may be those that rise from the bottom of the cell in which they are generated by vaporization of water, or be part of the foam layer that forms above the liquid. In any case, their volume subtracts space from the liquid phase and therefore the mass of water present in the cell substantially decreases well sooner than estimated by F&P.

    To get a qualitative idea of how much volume is occupied by the gaseous phase, it is useful to estimate the production of gaseous volume in function of the electric power dissipated in the electrolyte.


    The previous jpeg shows that for every 10 W of power available for vaporizing of water, 6.25 cm3 of steam are generated in each second, a volume equivalent to a layer of 1.25 cm of the cell, considering that its free cross-section is approximately 5 cm2. This vapor reduces the area of the electrodes (especially of the cathode) in contact with the electrolyte, so the galvanostat must increase the cell voltage in order to keep constant the current at 0.5 A. This produces a further increase in the vaporization, and this positive feedback continues until the maximum allowable voltage, set at 100 V, is reached.

    At the maximum total power of 50 W, about 40 W are available for evaporation and a steam volume equivalent to a 5 cm layer is generated every second. This steam must go up quickly along the cell and cross the upper plug along the vent, whose area is a fraction (1/10, 1/20, ... ?) of the cross section of the cell. The consequent acceleration intensify the entrainment of water in the outlet gas stream.

    As a final observation, it is worth noting that the transient of Cell 3, chosen to illustrate the increase in cell voltage, has the peculiaruty of a long period of time, estimated over several hours, where the voltage seems to oscillate between 50 and 100 V. If the numerical values of the measurements made during the test were still available, it would be interesting to verify the actual presence of these oscillations and understand the cause.

    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

  • You've done a great job at delineating why the F&P video method for computing excess heat is flawed. I suspect F&P figured that out eventually since they never used that method in a subsequent paper.

    Who can say what they figured out? What is certain is that they didn't publicly admit these flaws and that the paper they presented at ICCF3 is still considered (after 25 years) the Fleischmann's "major paper" (1, pag.14).

    After all, the "Four-cell Boil-off test" was performed after many years of research, when F&P had already developed a good control on their methods, as reported by Krivit in 2009 (2): "By 1993 [it's a typo, actually it was by 1992], 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."

    The 1992 test is and will remain the cornerstone of the F&P activity, the event that gave rise to two of the main myths of CF: the ability to generate an excess heat density in the order of 4 kW/cm3 and the so-called "heat after death".



    (2) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…ivit-S-ANewLookAtLENR.pdf

    Let's call it foamgate?

    Well chosen. Bubblegate would be more general, but foamgate sounds much better.


    it does rather cut against the "infallible electrochemist" arguments Jed advances for taking their results as correct because they say so, without detailed supporting evidence.

    I fully agree, but I also must admit that he was right in urging to read the literature very carefully.

    On the contrary, Morrison was wrong in asking for "a cup of tea". He should have asked for "a foamy cappuccino"! :)

    ... there was no foaming and no entrained water, ...

    Lonchampt, who tried to replicate the original F&P experiment as closely as possible, wrote in his 1996 paper presented at ICCF6 (3): "It is difficult to follow accurately the level of water during this period because of the formation of foam, so it is only at the end of the experiment, when the cell is dry that the excess heat can be calculated with precision."

    The tendency to form foam in the calorimeter used in 1992 for the Four-cell experiment (probably the ICARUS 2 model) was confirmed by F&P themselves when they presented the ICARUS 9 model to the same ICCF6 (4):

    "These calorimeters are much improved in thermal dissipation, sensitivity, precision, and accuracy compared to the original calorimeters used in these laboratories from 1992 to 1995. The present design incorporates better seals at all liquid/casing interfaces, and at the thermistor inlet ports. […] Foam rise in the calorimeter at the boiling temperature has been minimized."


    … as proven by every method you or anyone else could think of.

    It should not be so difficult to carefully check the formation of foam and the liquid entrainment in a F&P cell. The imminent coming of the 30th anniversary of the F&P press conference, would be a the perfect opportunity to repeat their 1992 test and fully investigate these crucial issues.

    (3) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf

    (4) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf

  • Axial distribution of water during boil-off (Cell 1)

    In analyzing the behavior of the F&P cells in the tests described in their ICCF3 paper (1), it is useful to take into account how the water modifies its axial distribution during the boil-off phase. For this purpose we need to go back to Cell 1, already examined in the previous comments, as for this cell many frames are available from the video of Pons presentation at the ICCF3 in 1992 (2).

    The following jpeg summarizes the results of this analysis:


    Seven views (A to G) of Cell 1, taken from as many frames of the video, are lined up along the time axis that spans a period of 3 hours, from 19:30 to 22:30 on the 16th test day. As already mentioned in (3), these frames show how the space inside the cell presents a clear separation between two regions:

    - the lower region, here called region L (liquid), is still partially transparent and consists mainly of liquid water through which bubbles - due to vaporization and, to a lesser extent, to water electrolysis - rapidly rise;

    - the upper region, here called region V (void), is almost uniformly bright due to the presence of many voids consisting of both the bubbles that occupy the entire cross section and the foam that builds up on the top and progressively thickens. It is impossible to distinguish the zone of intense boiling from that of the foam, so that this region will be considered as a whole, giving it an average value of void fraction, that is, the volume occupied by the bubbles and foam compared to the free space available.

    That said, we want to estimate how the progressive loss of water by evaporation (the losses for electrolysis and for liquid entrainment are neglected for simplicity) affects the 2 regions, in particular the level of the L region and the void fraction of the V region.

    For this purpose, frames B and C, which are 1.5 hours apart, are considered. The lower transparent portion of the cell makes it possible to estimate that during this period of time the height of the L region drops by about 2 cm, ie - taking into account that the average free section is 5 cm2 (4) - the volume of water in this area decreases by about 10 cm3 in 1.5 hours. This accounts for a vaporization power of about 5 W, not enough to dissipate all the available input power.

    In fact, by positioning the instants B and C on an expanded portion of the diagram of Fig.6A (1), we can see that, in the meanwhile, the electric input power increases from 20 W to 30 W. Subtracting the 11 W which, at the boiling temperature , are dissipated by radiation (1), the power available for vaporization is much greater than the 5 W corresponding to the lowering of region L. As detailed in the jpeg, assuming that between B and C the power input has an average value of 25 W, a quote of 14 W would be available for vaporization and this would result in the vaporization of 28 cm3 of liquid water. Since 10 cm3 are attributable to the shortening of L region, the remaining 18 cm3 must be attributed to the reduction of the liquid fraction of V region, ie to the increase in its void fraction. Given that 18 cm3 corresponds to 3.6 cm of liquid column and that the average height of region V between B and C is about 15 cm, this means that the void fraction increases by 24%.

    Then, recapitulating, the extra power available for vaporization from B to C leads to a loss of 28 cm3 of water, equivalent to 31% of the initial content of 90 cm3 (5 moles). This loss determines a lowering of the L region by 2 cm and a further increase of the void fraction in the V region by 24%. These effects are caused by the portion of input energy represented on the graph by the intersection between the yellow area (heat available for vaporization during the entire boil-off phase) and the dotted contour (heat input during the 1.5 hours examined). It is thus possible to visually estimate that already at the instant C the cell has lost most of the initial inventory of water, that had been restored during the last refill. This refill happened just before the power input exceeded the value of 11 W.

    Although very approximate, as based on rough and ready data, this analysis shows how impossible it is that half of the initial water content vaporizes in the final 10 minutes of the boil-off phase, as F&P assumed. This wrong assumption lead to a huge overestimation the heat produced by their cells, and in consequence to the erroneous conclusion that they were able to generate excess heat of nuclear origin.

    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n88YdKYv8sw

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    (4) FP's experiments discussion

  • I admire your chutzbah ..

    But I admire your quickness in understanding why F&P were wrong. You replied in just 8 minutes!


    perhaps you would like to submit a refutation to a scientific journal?

    Real scientific journals have since long dropped the argument. This forum is the only place in which this refutation can be understood and be somehow useful for someone.

  • be somehow useful for someone.

    The experts and the counter- experts can both be amiss... its always good to have as many checkers as possible.

    great work with simple tools... organised scrutiny is useful

    "In 1942 Robert Merton described CUDOS, the prevailing Norms of Science. In this acronym,

    C is for communalism (discoveries are not private property, they belong to all scientists),

    U is for universalism (principles of validation of claims are universal, not subject-specific),

    D is for disinterestedness (primary motivation for scientists is not money; it is love of truth), and

    OS is for organized scrutiny (skepticism is very useful)

  • Axial distribution of water during boil-off (2nd part)

    The following jpeg aims to complete the analysis initiated in (*) regarding the evolution of the water content in Cell 1 during the boil-off phase of the F&P experiments described in (1).


    In the first part, the variations between the B and C frames of the video (2) of the height of the liquid region (L) and of the vacuum fraction of the void region (V) were analyzed. Frame B and C were 1h30 m apart in the middle of the boil-off transient. In order to get an idea, even if approximate, of the behavior of Cell 1 during the whole boil-off phase, it is also necessary to consider the initial and final instants of the relative transient.

    The final instant is the F frame already shown in (*). This frame is the first of the video sequence in which the dark part, which indicates the presence of a transparent liquid region at the bottom of the cell, disappears completely. This frame is positioned 45 minutes after frame C. After this frame time, the region V occupies the entire free volume of the cell and further reductions in the water content can only be achieved by further reducing the liquid fraction of this region.

    The initial instant will be called time O, to indicate the onset of evaporation, ie the moment when the electric power input (Ptot) exceeds the 11 W estimated as the heat dissipated by radiation, so that an extra power is available for water evaporation (Pvap). From the central diagram of the jpeg in (*), it is possible to estimate that time O occurs about 5 hours before frame B. At this time, Cell 1 could appear in the state of Cell 2 in frame B, ie almost completely transparent: a column of liquid water, with an inner column of raising droplets, due to the gases released by electrolysis, and whose overall volume is negligible. At time O, therefore, the region L occupies the entire volume of the cell and the region V has yet to start forming.

    With the aforementioned times, the overall duration of the transient from O to F is 7h15m.

    Simple calculations make it possible to derive the values listed in the first table of the above jpeg. From the values of Pvap and of the frame times, we get the vaporization energy of each period (Evap) and subsequently the volume of water vaporized in each period (Wvap), calculated on the basis of the volumetric enthalpy of vaporization (2676 J/cm3). It is to notice that in each of the 3 periods, a quantity of water of about one third of the initial content of 90 cm3 (5 moles) is vaporized. Therefore the amount of residual water (Wres) at the end of the transient is only a few percent of the initial value.

    The calculated trend of Wres is represented in the first diagram by the green line, where it is compared with what should have been its trend according to the evaluations made by F&P in (1), where they stated that the last half of the initial content of water (2.5 moles, equal to 45 cm3) vaporized in just 10 minutes. The diagram clearly shows that this assumption made by F&P - represented by a red segment - is incompatible with the Wres trend estimated on the basis of the real power input. The excess slope of the red segment turns into the alleged excess heat calculated at page 16 of (1).

    To complete this analysis, the values of the height of the L region and of the average liquid fraction in the V region are shown in a second table and plotted in the adjacent diagram.

    (*) FP's experiments discussion

    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n88YdKYv8sw

  • Wow!.. topmarks for persistence.. Ascoli

    Perhaps Brian Josephson would be interested ..He's got Chutzpah too...

    Cold fusion: Fleischmann denied due credit

    Philip Ball's obituary of Martin Fleischmann

    like many others, ignores the experimental evidence contradicting the view that cold fusion is 'pathological science' (sewww.lenr.org

    I gave an alternative perspective in my obituary of Fleischmann ...

    describing what I believe to be the true nature of what Ball calls a “Shakespearean tragedy”.

    The situation at the time of the announcement of cold fusion was confused because of errors in the nuclear measurements (neither Fleischmann nor his co-worker Stanley Pons had expertise in this area) and because of the difficulty researchers had with replication. Such problems are not unusual in materials science. Some were able, I contend, to get the experiment to work (for example, M. C. H. McKubre et alJ. Electroanal. Chem. 368, 55–56; 1994; E. Storms and C. L. Talcott Fusion Technol. 17, 680; 1990) and, in my view, to confirm both excess heat and nuclear products.

    Scepticism also arose because the amount of nuclear radiation observed was very low compared with that expected from the claimed levels of excess heat. But it could be argued that the experiments never excluded the possibility that the liberated energy might be taken up directly by the metal lattice within which the hydrogen molecules were absorbed.

    In my opinion, none of this would have mattered had journal editors not responded to this scepticism, or to emotive condemnation of the experimenters, by setting an unusually high bar for publication of papers on cold fusion. This meant that most scientists were denied a view of the accumulating positive evidence.

    The result? Fleischmann was effectively denied the credit due to him, and doomed to become the tragic figure in Ball's account.

    © B D Josephson 2012


  • May be Ascoli should once explain what he would like to tell us!

    There was no total evaporation for days. How can his (Ascolis) model explain a sudden evaporation...

    Does he want to tell us that max excess heat was only 40W instead of 50W ? (based on a few video frames & with no access to laboratory journals...)

    May be he is not aware that within 6 weeks of the 1989 PF-anouncement 4 different (US) LAB could reproduce the initial effect! One being a military LAB.