FP's experiments discussion

  • 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?


    Presumably Lonchampt made the same error, as I already explained at the end of a previous comment (*), but this is not necessarily true for the other replications: there are as many possibilities of error as the parameters involved in the calculation of the energy balance.


    The problem is that rarely the documents reporting these results have information sufficient to understand the cause of the calorimetric errors, and after almost 30 years it's almost impossible to find more information to supplement those presented in the papers.


    In the case of the F&P paper on the 4 cells, we have been particularly lucky to have the 2 YouTube videos published by Krivit in 2009, otherwise it would have been almost impossible to detect the error made by the two authors only on the base of their main documents (the paper presented at ICCF3 in October 1992 (1) and the slightly different article published in May 1993 by Physics Letter A (2)). Moreover, until the Ecat has monopolized the LENR debate, this specific work of F&P was the most celebrated and contested in the CF field, even years and decades after its publication, so that some other additional info can be gathered on the web.


    Anyway, IMO, if these incredible errors are confirmed, they would not only affect the correctness of the results reported in the paper describing that work, but even the reliability of the two authors, so that all the other works confirming the reality of their "extraordinary claims" would lose their meaning.


    (*) FP's experiments discussion

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

    (2) http://coldfusioncommunity.net…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf

  • Ascoli: "Presumably Lonchampt made the same error"


    Presumably not, and also, since both Fleischman and Lonchhampt found excess heat before reaching Boiling point, your main idea of foam error is an incorrect assumption.


    Anyhow, others using closed cells nullified all possible errors connected to open cell and dry or wet steam, and therefore also confirmed the results of open cell.


    But wait, the other must then have other errors like the famous calibration ghost of Kirkshanahan.

  • Presumably not, and also, since both Fleischman and Lonchhampt found excess heat before reaching Boiling point, your main idea of foam error is an incorrect assumption.


    Anyhow, others using closed cells nullified all possible errors connected to open cell and dry or wet steam, and therefore also confirmed the results of open cell.


    But wait, the other must then have other errors like the famous calibration ghost of Kirkshanahan.


    These are many different arguments. I'm willing to discuss all of them, but following a precise order, and sticking to the facts, one at a time. The foam error - or what else F&P committed in calculating the energy balance at boiling conditions in their major paper (1) reporting their boil-off experiment of 1992 - can't be eluded just by hiding it behind a curtain of smoke.


    IMO, for what I have seen, this first fact is described in the 8 jpegs posted in the previous comments:


    1 - Misinterpretation of dry-out timing and mechanism (FP's experiments discussion )

    2 - Evolution of the water contents inside cell 2 (FP's experiments discussion )

    3 - A closer look at the boil-off phase of cell 2 (FP's experiments discussion )

    4 - Videos reveal the real behavior during boil-off of Cell 1 (FP's experiments discussion )

    5 - The strange case of Cell 4 (and Cell 3) (FP's experiments discussion )

    6 - Vapor volume generation during boil-off (Cell 3) (FP's experiments discussion )

    7 - Axial distribution of water during boil-off (Cell 1) (FP's experiments discussion )

    8 - Axial distribution of water during boil-off (2nd part) (FP's experiments discussion )


    Did you see them? Did you find any major error in them or in the relative posts? Please, let me know. I will appreciate any factual criticisms.


    If you haven't find any major error, do you agree that F&P reported on their ICCF3 paper one of the "most obvious and simple errors" (just to use your previous words)?


    Only if we agree on this first fact, we can try to find an agreement also in the other arguments you mentioned.


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


  • Oystla: your argument here is rhetoric, not logic, and does not actually make any specific point except line 2 which is plain wrong. An error in the boili-off enthalpy due to foam does not depend on whether excess enthalpy was found before boil-off.


    There might (indeed you well know there are) other possible issues with those earlier calculations. But even if there were not it would not make Ascoli's boil-off criticism (where BTW F&P claim much higher anomalous enthalpy than at any other time) invalid.


    Address Ascoli's specific points?

  • Oystla: your argument here is rhetoric, not logic, and does not actually make any specific point except line 2 which is plain wrong. An error in the boili-off enthalpy due to foam does not depend on whether excess enthalpy was found before boil-off.


    @THH: Then it is up to you to explain us why the empty null-run cell did now show a boil up.


    Ascolis arguments are pathologic as nobody makes exact claims for excess-heat for the boil-off phase. Important are the excess-heat claims before the boil off.


    It is up to you (THH) now to join the club of pathologic science reviewers.. or to make a reasonable contribution.


    Just to remind you: We have 100% proof for LENR . There is no more room for deniers and discussions about the non existence of the phenomena called cold fusion.

  • Ascolis arguments are pathologic as nobody makes exact claims for excess-heat for the boil-off phase. Important are the excess-heat claims before the boil off.


    The F&P paper we are talking about (1) begins with this paragraph: "We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd/D2O system which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1kWcm-3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution. This has led to a particularly simple method of deriving the rate of excess enthalpy production based on measuring the times required to boil the cells to dryness, this process being followed by using time-lapse video recordings."


    So this paper deals with, and ONLY with, the excess heat that should have been produced when the temperature were "close to (or at) the boiling point", i.e. during the boil-off phase.


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

  • An error in the boili-off enthalpy due to foam does not depend on whether excess enthalpy was found before boil-off.

    That was ruled out by several tests such as inventorying the salt, which you ignore.


    There might (indeed you well know there are) other possible issues with those earlier calculations.

    There might be errors in any experiment, even Newton's prism experiments. That assertion can never be falsified, so it is not scientific. You have to say what those errors might be. Neither you nor Ascoli has pointed to any error that Fleischmann did not conclusively rule out.


    Address Ascoli's specific points?

    You should address Fleischmann's specific points, but you never will. You will evade and evade, and make statements that cannot be tested or falsified such as "there might be errors." You have never found any error in this experiment or any other major cold fusion experiment. You only pretend that you have found errors, or that Ascoli has.

  • Ascoli:


    Regarding your


    "

    1 - Misinterpretation of dry-out timing and mechanism

    2 - Evolution of the water contents inside cell 2

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

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

    5 - The strange case of Cell 4 (and Cell 3)

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

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

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

    "


    1. Water escaped as liquid and not gas is a claim of Yours, not a fact. Level being foam and not water is a claim of yours, not a fact.

    Both of these worries of Yours was answerred going to closed cell calorimetry.


    2. The videos where made in 1992, and digitized in 2009 (AFAIK)

    Much of the visual quality was likely lost inbetween, so you should not spend much time on these low quality videos now.


    Anyhow: as can be seen in your figure, the excess heat event started allready after 3 days in this particular test, so the extreme conditions at Boiling is just part of the story.


    Anyhow 2: you claim water loss started earlier than F&P said, but I only see the the paper refer to 1/2 level not statement on initial start of water loss.


    3, 4 and 5: . "Having a closer look" at bad quality video is not recommneded.


    As explained the video quality degradert a lot between the tape was recorded and later digitized.


    6,7,8:

    Ascoli: Fleischmann and the CF community where well aware of water and foam entrainment possibility in the steam outlet, as noted in the article Below.


    They Checked and corrected for any possible wet steam. Still the excess heat where way too large to be explained by carry over.


    Anyhow, as shown in fig 2 in the paper, a blank experiment where the only difference was using a platinum electrodes never showed any apparent excess heat behaviour.


    And this were never explained by the critics claiming it was wet steam droplet carry over that caused apparent excess heat in real tests.


    http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf


  • I disagree with the first point. I'm interested in that question, of course. But there are many possible differences between the various controls used here and active cells that could affect how much boiling there is, and 9distinct question) how much foam there is. Explaining that is complex.


    Where i disagree with some others here is how to evaluate things that are complex to explain. Do we assume there must be LENR?


    There may be indisputable evidence for LENR somewhere. All I can do is look in isolation at specific examples, and see what they show. There will inevitably be judgement calls about how to agglomerate many such not individually convincing examples. I would say they indicate no LENR, and point to the inevitability of their being such examples. Others would say that although holes can be picked in any one example the likelihood of all such holes being real is vanishingly small.


    I'm aware of this difference. It means that although we can agree on specifics that will not lead to overall agreement, nor should it, given that we have different judgements.


    On the second point I disagree partly. Many here have used boil-off evidence as a strong convincing plank in the judgement of whether these F&P experiments constitute evidence of LENR. It is therefore certainly not pathological to examine this. It is also important to examine other claims, and I've not seen ascoli say differently. You might in addition want to ask to what extent known bad practice in one area of reporting here contaminates other areas, but personally that would not prevent me from looking in detail at the evidence. It might make me a bit less likely to accept that evidence as authoritative: though in my case i don't tend to think any single evidence is authoritative.

  • Huxley; "But there are many possible differences between the various controls used here and active cells that could affect how much boiling there ........."


    The important fact here is that F&P NEVER experienced excess heat in their Many control cells over the years, which means that this is statistical important.


    Platina electrodes never showed excess with the same variations of control parameter as palladium electrodes, which experienced excess at very Significant precentage of cells and excess heat.


    So your explanation does not hold up to statistical scrutiny 🤓

  • @ oystla,


    First of all, thank you for your remarks and the link to the Infinite Energy article..


    Then a premise. The only true FACT (in capital letters) that my analysis is proposing to the L-F readers is that F&P were absolutely wrong in estimating the rate of vaporization inside their cells in the boil-off phases of their 1992 experiment. The error they made in estimating a time of about 10 minutes for the vaporization of the last 2.5 Moles of water is enormous (more than one order of magnitude), and led to a huge overestimation of the power output concentrated in this short period, and consequently to their excess heat claims.


    The above FACT is based on some observations and considerations that I exposed on the 8 slides posted in jpeg format. These observations and considerations are based on the paper presented by F&P at ICCF3 (1) - which lacks many information, in particular on page 16 which reports the wrong excess heat calculation - and on a couple of videos found on internet (2-3), containing some frame sequences of the lab video, which show the real behavior of the four cells under testing. Considering the scarcity of these infos, it is possible that some observations or considerations of mine are incorrect. For this reason, all criticisms on the merit are welcome. Meanwhile, I'm quite confident of the correctness of the FACT I'm proposing.


    And now my replies to your remarks.

    1. Water escaped as liquid and not gas is a claim of Yours, not a fact.


    The escaping of water as liquid was described by F&P in one of their first articles (4): "It should also be noted that, although the cell potential initially decreases (in common to the situation for the bursts) there is usually a change to an increase of the potential with time when cells are driven to the boiling point probably due to the loss of electrolyte in spray leaving the cells."


    In any case the F&P error in (1) is not based on the escaping of liquid water, but on the underestimation of the boil-off period.


    Quote

    Level being foam and not water is a claim of yours, not a fact.


    It's a fact that the 2 video frames at 3:26 and 3:46 with the arrows indicating the level inside the cell have been recorded a couple of hours after the "Cell dry" time indicated on fig.8 (1). What else but foam could you find in a cell a couple of hours after drying?


    Quote

    Both of these worries of Yours was answerred going to closed cell calorimetry.


    Closed cell calorimetry does not answer my remarks on the open cell experiment we are talking about. Furthermore, Fleischmann continued to focus his activity on the open cell calorimetry.


    Quote

    2. The videos where made in 1992, and digitized in 2009 (AFAIK)

    Much of the visual quality was likely lost inbetween, so you should not spend much time on these low quality videos now.


    Interesting observation. Have you a reference for what you know? The history of these videos is very important to understand what happened.


    Anyway, as for the quality, that of the 2 videos is more than sufficient to estimate the difference between mostly liquid and mostly void regions: the former are dark while the latter are bright.


    Quote

    Anyhow: as can be seen in your figure, the excess heat event started allready after 3 days in this particular test, so the extreme conditions at Boiling is just part of the story.


    If you refer to the temperature increase at around 200 ks, it reflects the sudden increase of current from 200 to 500 mA.


    In any case, the extreme conditions at boiling and their alleged consequences in terms of excess heat were exactly the specific subject of the "story" reported in the F&P paper (1).


    Quote

    Anyhow 2: you claim water loss started earlier than F&P said, but I only see the the paper refer to 1/2 level not statement on initial start of water loss.


    As shown in the expanded fig.8 (1) included in the first jpeg, not only the water loss started several hours before the video frames marked with the arrows, but it also ended a couple of hours in advance, due to the drying-out of the cell.


    Quote

    3, 4 and 5: . "Having a closer look" at bad quality video is not recommneded.

    As explained the video quality degradert a lot between the tape was recorded and later digitized.


    As said, the quality of the videos is more than sufficient.


    Quote

    6,7,8:

    Ascoli: Fleischmann and the CF community where well aware of water and foam entrainment possibility in the steam outlet, as noted in the article Below.


    Thanks. Really interesting article. It clarifies many things and confirms my opinion.


    This article will be particularly appreciated by @kirkshanahan, who will at last find in it an authoritative and first-hand support for the CCS hypothesis, which was asked to influence the results both ways:

    From http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf :

    In the Pons replication experiment, we saw excess heat and by the same token we saw examples of a heat deficit, where the energy appeared to vanish,” explained program manager Naoto Asami, looking back over the work. “We found problems with their calorimeter, and we feel that their entire data set is weak and questionable."


    As for the foam problem, I don't doubt that Fleischmann and many in the CF community were aware of it, but this fact worsens the situation of those who estimated the wrong rate of water vaporization on the basis of the foam level and supported or believed the consequent wrong conclusions.


    Quote

    They Checked and corrected for any possible wet steam. Still the excess heat where way too large to be explained by carry over.


    As already said, the carry over (or entrainment, or wet steam) issue is not the problem at the basis of the F&P error, i.e. the FACT described in the premise. The real problem is the large overestimation of the vaporization rate due to the large underestimation of the boil-off duration.


    Quote

    Anyhow, as shown in fig 2 in the paper, a blank experiment where the only difference was using a platinum electrodes never showed any apparent excess heat behaviour.


    Fig.2 does not refer to the boiling conditions. The max. temperature was below 50 °C.


    Quote

    And this were never explained by the critics claiming it was wet steam droplet carry over that caused apparent excess heat in real tests.


    It happened because none of them have thought the unthinkable, that is that F&P provided a completely wrong duration of the boil-off phase!


    Any other remarks?


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

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

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

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

  • We have so many well qualified LENR researchers, garage tinkerers, and believers here, it surprises me there are so few willing to stand up for FP's. Rothwell, with a little help from Zeus, and the old bocijn, and joined by Osytla just a few days ago, can do only so much to counter such a determined, and thorough skeptic as Ascoli. For the life of me, I can not imagine, were Fleischmann alive and healthy today, that he would not mop the floor with the likes of Ascoli, Kirk or THH.


    The guy was that good. He had a logical, and scientific answer to all the criticisms, and was more than happy to take the time to explain why, and how they were wrong. He wrote the book on calorimetry! Now he is dead, and can no longer defend himself, and the sharks are circling the carcass.

  • For the life of me, I can not imagine, were Fleischmann alive and healthy today, that he would not mop the floor with the likes of Ascoli, Kirk or THH.

    Robert Duncan is one of the world's leading experts in calorimetry. He would blow them out of the water if he bothered. Bockris, McKubre and many others would easily show they were wrong. Bockris was an expert but he took no chances. He said he called in the best expert in the state of Texas to evaluate his calorimetry. The expert looked at the equipment and the results, laughed, and said: "Anyone can measure that much heat! You don't need me." He wasn't exaggerating. As I have often pointed out, Lavoisier measured that much heat when he measured guinea pig metabolism and carbon dioxide production using an ice calorimeter in 1780. He showed that the ratio of heat to CO2 is the same as it is with combustion. Ascoli, Kirk and THH are convinced that hundreds of modern scientists are incapable of making a measurement that any scientist could have made in the last 240 years. And they are convinced that they know better than the likes of Robert Duncan.


    Heck, I showed they were wrong just by listing some of the facts that anyone can see with naked eye, such as the fact that only the cathode is boiling. Not one of them has addressed that issue, or any of the others I raised.


    Marwan et al. conclusively proved that Kirk Shanahan is wrong, here:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf


    There is no need for anyone to say anything more about his claims. He does not understand why he is wrong, so he resembles the black knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." There is really no point to arguing with him. Why bother cutting off his legs when Marwan already cut off his arms?


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • can do only so much to counter such a determined, and thorough skeptic as Ascoli.


    I've not been following Ascoli's arguments closely, mainly out of a fear it will eventually involve some elaborate conspiracy theory, but he seems to be saying F&P couldn't accurately time the boil-off during the actual experiment, so instead they relied on a heavily edited video of it they later found on the internet... Predictably, they completely failed to measure the time accurately, hence overestimated the amount of heat.

    Is that about right?