-
-
Ascoli, You claim F & P to do some of the most obvious and simple errors possible Really ?
Yes, but no wonder, it happened again with the professors who tested the Ecat.
QuoteSO your final actual claim in all of this is " If they had done so, letting the readers know which was the actual trend of the voltage during the few hours around the dry out of the cell, it would have been obvious to everyone that the input electric energy would have been sufficient to account for the evaporation of all the water."
It's just one of my opinions on this subject, not my final claim.
QuoteSo you believe either
- They didn't thoroughly log the voltage and current during their experiment, which was used to calculate actual excess energy - or even worse
Like other aspects of their experiment (1), the voltage and current logging was sloppy. For instance, as Morrison has denounced in 1993 (2), the data were logged every 300 s, so that only 2 (max 3) points fell in the 600 s period of final boiling considered by F&P.
But, from my POV, the logging rate is not the main issue, unless you really believe that half of the water contents vaporized in only 10 minutes. A 5 minutes logging time would have been adequate to describe the voltage trend in the much longer period of many hours during which part of the electric input power was available for vaporization. The real problem is that F&P omitted to show in their paper the trend of the voltage during this crucial period of their test. This is scientifically inexcusable.
Quote- They did not do the excess energy calculations right - or even even worse
Yes, I think it is evident.
Quote- They build a big hoax just to try to get millions in funding from the government
This argument is OT in this thread which is dedicated to discussing only the F&P experiments and their interpretation.
QuoteWell, luckily Science work by replication of papers and checking for errors. And this was done by several laboratories several times, which proves something is worthy of further study.
In this regard, it's interesting to look at the statistics on the scientific articles on CF published by JR in 2009 (3) and partially based on Britz bibliography. Fig.2 on page 11 provides the trends since 1989 of the published articles subdivided among positive, negative and undecided. At the beginning, the negative articles exceeds the positive ones, afterword both curves quickly lower, with the negative curve remaining mostly at zero. This shows that many of the laboratories that in a first time gave credit to the F&P, lost their interest when the inconsistency of their claims was widely recognized. Since then, only those labs and authors which were producing similarly inconsistent and apparently positive results continued to publish on this argument.
But this is not the main point. What I would like to underline is that the F&P paper (1) we are talking about is classified as positive by Britz in his bibliography (4), as indicated by the presence of the "res+" mark among the keywords associated to that paper (see pages 204-205). Of course, Britz based his classification on the claims of the authors of the documents he listed, but if the paper (1) is considered positive, you can imagine how reliable the classification of the other positive documents can be.
QuoteLike this - one of the many many papers confirming the results , which even have a drawing of their logging equipment J
Lonchampt was the replicator who lead me to better examine the basics of the original F&P tests (5). In the paper you mentioned, he admitted the difficulty of following the lowering of the water content due to the formation of foam. He wrote in section 3.2: "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."
However, by introducing the table summarizing the energy balances of some of his tests, he added: "As described in section 3.2, the exact evaluation of the excess heat can be made only at the end of the experiment, since it is difficult to follow accurately the water level during the experiment. However it is very likely that most of the excess heat occurs at the end of the experiment after the voltage burst. We call this last period the “grand finale.”"
From these last words, it seems that he concentrated all the water loss by evaporation in the period which followed the reaching of the maximum voltage, which in his case was 150 V, for a max power of 75 W. So, it seems to me, that he ignored all the energy input in the ramping up phase of the voltage, after the input power had exceeded the level of the heat dissipated by radiation, which should not have been very different from the 11 W calculated by F&P for their cell.
In conclusion, he confirmed the results of F&P, including their errors.
(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
(2) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/DROM/cfu8.shtml
(3) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
(4) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BritzDcoldnuclea.pdf
(5) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?
-
In conclusion, he confirmed the results of F&P, including their errors.
Do you think that MF became aware of earlier errors such as you have described (especially after the Lonchampt paper)
and due to the toxic climate just went on quietly eliminating them from future experimental work.
If you can do.it... then MF probably could to.... he went to sleep with this stuff for a number of years.
-
Do you think that MF became aware of earlier errors such as you have described (especially after the Lonchampt paper)
and due to the toxic climate just went on quietly eliminating them from future experimental work.
If you can do.it... then MF probably could to.... he went to sleep with this stuff for a number of years.
@bocjin
That is speculation, and not of much use. When dealing with claims that are not easily understandable, like LENR, we need precise data, not: "I imagine these guys, who did not publish it, nevertheless corrected and got some other unknown result".
As a general comment it fails: imagine applying it to the Lugano authors?
-
As a general comment it fails:
Fails what?. I was interested in Ascoli65's opinion... not yours... I am well aware of your opinion already
-
Ascoli65
"
Do you think that MF became aware of earlier errors such as you have described (especially after the Lonchampt paper)
and due to the toxic climate just went on quietly eliminating them from future experimental work?
If you can do.it... then MF probably could to.... he went to sleep with this stuff for a number of years."
-
Ascoli65please explain: There was no total evaporation for days. How can Ascolis model explain a sudden evaporation...
I'm pleased to explain my POV, but, as I have already told you (1), there is no Ascoli model. It's mainly a matter of different usage of the same model used by F&P.
As for evaporation, it didn't happen suddenly. There was no evaporation until the water temperature remained well below the boiling point. As the temperature was approaching the boiling point, I expect that the heat generated by the electric current began to gradually generate small vapor bubbles, particularly on the hottest spots on surface of the electrodes. The widening of the surface not wetted along with the reduction of the overall density of the electrolyte due to the vapor bubbles, caused an increase in the overall resistance through the cell and in turns of the voltage required to maintain a constant current. This led to a further increase of the electric power dissipated in the water, and this "positive feedback" brought the voltage to reach the maximum value of 100 V. The electric energy generated during this transient, which lasted several hours, was sufficient to vaporize all the water inside the cell.
Maybe, as some larger oscillations in the T curve could suggest (2), the first hot spots on the electrodes which generated the first vapor bubbles - thus triggering the above process – were formed a few days before the dry-off of the cell, when the bulk water temperature was around 70°C, but these early bubbles condensed inside the cell. But these are just speculations. The availability of a more complete version of the lab video, including the onset of boiling, would help to better understand this process.
-
Do you think that MF became aware of earlier errors such as you have described (especially after the Lonchampt paper)
and due to the toxic climate just went on quietly eliminating them from future experimental work.If you can do.it... then MF probably could to.... he went to sleep with this stuff for a number of years.
Your question is appropriate and very intriguing, but it is also terribly delicate, so that a premature answer risks to open a Pandora's box of controversies. Maybe it's better to delay this argument until the factual aspects of these flaws in the F&P experiments and papers are further discussed, better understood and hopefully accepted and shared by a larger number of the L-F members.
As said by THH, we need for the moment more precise data, but less speculations, especially those not strictly devoted to provide tentative interpretations of the experimental facts.
-
to open a Pandora's box of controversies.
another one? ..
yes you are correct . It's better to wait
"until the factual aspects .. in the F&P experiments and papers are further discussed, better understood "
For me the secrets of deuterium are enough of a box right now
-
Ascoli: "Morrison has denounced in 1993 (2), the data were logged every 300 s, so that only 2 (max 3) points fell in the 600 s period of final boiling considered by F&P."
Pure heresay and speculation? Morrison was informed by someone that claimed Fleschmann had told someone that only 300 seconds electric logging intervals where used throughout.
Anyhow1: If your theory where right, they should see the same trends I blank experiment, but they did not.
Anyhow 2: Science work by questioning the results and then perform better experiments to avoid possible artifacts, like improved logging and the use of closed cells, like McKubre and others did and confirmed F&P results.
Other experiments confirming results also means the original F&P experiment and paper most likely showed real results worthy of a follow up.
And by the way: You are aware that the Higgs boson do not show up every time in CERN, even if the same protocol is used....
-
Pure heresay and speculation? Morrison was informed by someone that claimed Fleschmann had told someone that only 300 seconds electric logging intervals where used throughout.
The paper shows data points averaged every 300 seconds. Not taken; averaged. Taking one data point every 300 seconds is quite different from taking thousands and averaging them. When Morrison challenged Fleischmann at the conference, saying this was inadequate, Fleischmann showed a slide of an oscilloscope trace of the data. The trace showed no spikes or other problems that would call into question the averaged data. The oscilloscope data was not included in the paper, but Morrison knew it was taken.
The point is, an oscilloscope is much faster with higher resolution than most data collection computers.
-
Fails what?. I was interested in Ascoli65's opinion... not yours... I am well aware of your opinion already
Fails to be true - self-evidently - [in the more general case]
-
Ascoli: "Morrison has denounced in 1993 (2), the data were logged every 300 s, so that only 2 (max 3) points fell in the 600 s period of final boiling considered by F&P."
Pure heresay and speculation? Morrison was informed by someone that claimed Fleschmann had told someone that only 300 seconds electric logging intervals where used throughout.JR just confirmed that the logging interval was 300 s. This is a too long interval to properly analyze a phenomenon that, in the F&P interpretation, would have lasted about 600 s.
But the real problem is that F&P did not provide any voltage data to support their energy balance calculation on page 16 of their ICCF3 paper (1), not even the two values that fell in the considered boiling period. An even more serious problem is that they omitted to provide the trend of the cell voltage in the entire boiling period as they did in Fig.8 for the cell temperature. Considering that the voltage is necessary for evaluating the input power, I can't see any valid reason for this lack of transparency.
QuoteAnyhow1: If your theory where right, they should see the same trends I blank experiment, but they did not.
They actually saw it, as reported by Hansen in his report to the Utah State Fusion/Energy Council (2). Hansen elaborated the original data provided by F&P of some of their experiment. In Figure 1, he shows the temperature and voltage trends of a blank experiment, which behaves in the same way of the 4 cell experiment described in (1), i.e. as the temperature approaches the boiling point, the voltage skyrockets toward the maximum allowable limit.
The big problem, in this case, is that these data have been reported by Hansen and not by F&P.
QuoteAnyhow 2: Science work by questioning the results and then perform better experiments to avoid possible artifacts, like improved logging and the use of closed cells, like McKubre and others did and confirmed F&P results.
Morrison questioned the results published by F&P, but the cold fusion community was not aware about how the science works:
From the DEBATE BETWEEN DOUGLAS MORRISON and STANLEY PONS & MARTIN FLEISCHMANN ( http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf )
Dear Colleagues:
There has been considerable misinformation circulating about the paper by Drs.Fleischmann and Pons in Physics Letters A,176 (1993), May 3. We were particularly repelled by the various outlandish criticisms made repeatedly in this electronic forum by Douglas O. Morrison, which were transparently intended to tear down the work of other scientists without regard for the facts. Dr. Morrison's stubborn belief that cold fusion research is "pathological science" is incorrect. Continuing to push that idea does not serve him well, nor does it help the cause of understanding the extraordinary phenomena associated with hydrogen-loaded metals that have been revealed in numerous experiments these past several years. Accordingly, we have decided to post the document that follows, which was prepared by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann and which was previously circulating within the cold fusion community.
Anyhow, I am talking about the F&P experiment they presented at ICCF3 (1), whose conclusions are evidently wrong. Those people who claimed to have confirmed those results were evidently as much wrong.
QuoteOther experiments confirming results also means the original F&P experiment and paper most likely showed real results worthy of a follow up.
Even more likely: experiments confirming wrong results are as well wrong.
QuoteAnd by the way: You are aware that the Higgs boson do not show up every time in CERN, even if the same protocol is used....
I'm also aware of the incommensurable difference between the research on the Higgs boson, and the observations on some water boiling in a Dewar tube.
(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
-
Fails to be true - self-evidently - [in the more general case]
What is self-evident to me is that this comment scores highly on your IPSS. Humanly it could be true..
During and after emotional arguments many humans fail to acknowledge their own errors.
This is self-evident even on Lenr-Forum, which is .......oh so human....... e.g....................................................
-
Even more likely: experiments confirming wrong results are as well wrong.
Do you think that it is likely that subsequent confirmatory experiments have the same kind of technical errors as what you describe from your video shots?
-
Ascoli:
Illustrating average of voltage and current on a graph is not the same as saying they calculated power from average of current and voltage.
Fleischman where more intelligent that most people. They would of course be aware of this especially for periods of fast change.
Anyhow: my take is that there are way too many positive measurements from different setups to discard the phenomenon.
And no, we are not at the end of science, there are a lot more to discover
The idea that this phenomenon should have appeared in every test done, when the definitive causes and mechanisms where and are not yet fully understood, is a complete nonsens and misunderstanding of how new Scientific discoveries work.
-
Anyhow: my take is that there are way too many positive measurements from different setups to discard the phenomenon.
Agreed. The problem is they arise becasue of a faulty assumption about how the calorimetry works, one made by all CF calorimetrists to date.
-
one made by all CF calorimetrists to date.
1. How many CF calorimetrists = all ..( n=?) to three significant figures.
2. Define "CF calorimetrist"
-
1. Yes, all. Infinite precision.
2. people who use calorimetric data to claim LENR has occurred in their experiments. (Note that this means those who do the work, not those who comment on it.)
-
1. Yes, all. Infinite precision.
infinite precision is a religious concept God Bless You
..... but that aside what are your thoughts on the latest Slater paper.... have you had a look?
