FP's experiments discussion

  • I urge people to stop talking with Ascoli & THH. Their nonsense level has hit an all time high.


    I urge people to stop talking with Wyttenbach. His nonsense level has hit an all time high.


    In 2002 a paper was published detailing how an artificial excess heat signal could be developed without nuclear causes in F&P-type cells, even though integrating the signal led to the conclusion that only nuclear origins could explain it. No one has successfully challenged that paper.


    In 2005 a paper was published in response to a paper by Fleischmann and friends explaining why they got more water in their cell offgas than 'theoretically' possible given the electrolysis conditions used. (Hint: entrainment)


    THH simply asks pointed logical questions. People who spin stories from nothing always have issues with that. Ascoli has just put teeth into the objection raised in 2012 regarding these experiments, wherein it was shown that the thermal history of the cell with the supposed HAD was identical to another that was NOT claimed to show a HAD, which in turn showed that the method used to claim a HAD was present was most likely faulty. Ascoli's studies solidifed why that was.


    People who have preconceived ideas about what is going on and who then force fit the conclusions to the experiment are generally known as 'pathological scientists'. They evidence this by straight-up denying contrary analyses or by using faulty logical tactics like strawman arguments or obfuscation.

  • As I understand it this radiation anomaly that Alan et al have is not obviously controllable.


    That's true: Only very skilled house-wives can push the power up button... The other choice - power off - is even more complicated as it needs very high level AC-wiring skills.


    To understand the complex button press skills (we need to produce LENR based radiation) you should start some training. I suggest buy a micro-wave with a selection of 3 power levels and one start button.

  • As reported elsewhere. We can produce radiation on demand by just heating or even without heating by just mixing LENR active fuel...


    This is a very misleading statement.


    1.) The radiation results referred to are new, and unusual in the field. They are not yet to the level to be accepted as unquestionably true. They may get there in the future, but that's then. What we have today is the wishful thinking of a 'true believer', not proof.


    2.) One of the 'tricks' of the CF field is to uncritically lump all anomalous observations into one basket and claim the size of the basket proves CF (LENR) is real. However, when one critically examines each claim (which is a requirement of 'good' science), one rarely finds anything that is reliable and trustworthy. Possible error mechanisms are ignored and predetermined conclusions force fit to the reported results. But that is not legitimate science, and those studies should not be put 'in the basket' unless the problems with the reports are clarified, or a reproducible and controllable experiment is defined (which has not happened yet). A case in point is the use of the F&P data being currently discussed. There are tons of questions about it, but every CF advocate demands that these results be considered 'proof' of CF (they come from F&P after all right? How could F&P ever be wrong....). They aren't proof of anything. Then in turn, every case that uses them to claim 'LENR is real', as Wyt does routinely as shown above, is significantly weakened because they claim the F&P data (or other) forms part of the justification for the base claim that CF is real. Then, what we are left with is an inadequately defended proposition, which proves nothing.

  • The radiation results referred to are new, and unusual in the field.


    This statement is wrong. Already Lipinskis in their patent describe radiation on demand. (Different radiation patterns depending on inout energy etc..)


    Radiation is only produced in asymmetric LENR reactions, where the difference of the involved masses is over a certain threshold or the target nucleus is unstable.


    May be you should read more in-depth, what we reference as most compelling LENR (Lipinskis) up to date.

  • Ascoli:


    You are good at Cherry-picking 😉


    Thanks, it saves me a lot of time, so let's apply the method to your last post.


    At this point, I fear that we will not find any agreement on the FACT, as defined in my previous answer (1). Anyway, I'll try to answer as many of your remarks as I can. But, in order to facilitate this discussion I'll cherry-pick one remark at a time.


    It seems that the quality of the video is your main concern [bold added]:


    Quote

    AH, wait, in your eyes of a low quality video you see another water level than F&P did when the video tape where fresh and clear. […] And boil off period is based on some visual interpretation of low quality video. […] Which means your visual inperpretation of low quality video would be wrong. […] Whiteness on low quality video may only be …light reflection on the glass. […] The dry out period is your interpretation of a low quality video. […] Digitization –2009 AFAIK, only what I deduct from Krivits work. […] “The video quality is more than sufficient” is a claim of yours, not a fact. […] Based on your investigation of low quality video and trying to expand timelines not detailed in the paper and not knowing when last top up of water actually occurred and using information from outside sources not only the paper.


    OK, quality is subjective. Let the L-F readers judge for themselves if the quality of the videos were sufficient to better understand the evolution of the water inside the cells during the boil-off phase.


    Anyway, a possible digitalization of the video could have degraded a bit the quality of the analog information, but it didn't alter the information that were already in the digitized form, in particular the position of the four cells, the time (in hh.mm.ss) superimposed on the lower-right corner, and the blue arrows with the relative blue time (in hh:mm) that have been add to highlight the position of the water level. Do you agree on this?


    Now, look please at the first jpeg titled "Misinterpretation of dry-out timing and mechanism" (1), and in particular at the video frame with the upper blue arrow (actually a ">" character). Anyone can read the original time in the lower corner (3.26.14) and the added blue time (3:26) to the right of the blue arrow. It means that, for the authors of the video, at that time, the water level inside the cell was in the upper part of the cell.


    Are you able to locate the time of that frame on the graph in figure 8? It is not an expanded graph, it is in the original size as it appears on the F&P paper (3). Its time axis ranges from 1590000 s (=18 days + 9.40.00) to 1660000 (= 19 days + 5.06.40). The 3.26.14 time of the above video frame + 19 days gives a total of 1654718 second. So this video frame is far on the right (at least a couple of hours) with respect to the vertical arrow which indicate the "Cell dry" time.


    How do you explain this discrepancy?


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

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

  • So all other works include Staker's work.? Slaker's 3 years of work loses its meaning?


    It's nothing with respect to man-years that have been spent in the last 30 years in the effort to replicate the ineffable F&P effect !


    Quote

    Are you sure???


    Quite sure. Considering the type of the criticisms to my hypothesis that have been raised till now, I'm almost certain.


    Quote

    Staker might had a boil off while making coffee...its a possibility...or he might have dozed off. I could ask him....


    [email protected] and Phone: 410 617 5188 Maybe early on Tuesday


    Good idea. Tell him also to give a look to this discussion, he could be interested to know how F&P calculated the heat effect that he think to have confirmed.

  • 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.


    I answered the issues (1), including the point 7 which deals with the boiling on the cathode.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • Ascoli, when I wrote cherry-picking, I referred to the article 🤓.


    And I don't think digitizing a video necessarily degrades a video much. But storing a magnetic tape for 17 years will degrade the quality, depending on the storage. It is obvious that the video must have been much better when it was fresh.


    Anyhow, I believe F&P Added water to close to the Boiling point, so you must have missed some info in your research.


    I will repeat my answer, since most of it answers your critics:


    "

    Vaporization of 2,5 moles requires in average of 41,5 kj/mol or some 104 KJ for 2,5 mole or some 29 Wh energy. Vaporization of 2,5 moles in the last 10 minutes then require 174 watt average power.


    And as we see from the graphs the average input electrical power is way lower, so I don’t see the magnitude of error you refer to.


    AH, wait, in your eyes of a low quality video you see another water level than F&P did when the video tape where fresh and clear..


    OK, and then to the arguments


    1. You do mention foam escaping as a major error. And boil off period is based on some visual interpretation of low quality video. Also, I do not see the paper specifically state when the last top up of the cell occurred before boiling period.

    The Longchamp paper is an excact copy of the F&P experiment (according to the authors). There they state top up every 1 cm3 consumed, up to close to boiling (99-101 degC).

    Which means your visual inperpretation of low quality video would be wrong.


    1. Whiteness on low quality video may only be …light reflection on the glass.


    2. Well, Closed Cell calorimetry don’t care if some droplets escape and not only dry steam, so the overall excess heat measurement & calculations will be more accurate. Fleischmann continuation of open cells, shows he was in control of his experiment, since he knew about possible water escpaping.


    3. Digitization –2009 AFAIK, only what I deduct from Krivits work. Ask Krivit.


    4. You question the start of excess heat events? SO you haven’t fully understood the graphs you question? The excess heat starts early and is actually plotted on your referred graphs, see if you can find the figures 😉.


      The extreme conditions at boiling where interesting because that showed the largest excess Power regime, and therefore interesting in an engineering-new-clean-power-to-the- world-perspective. But from a pure science view the whole excess period is equally interesting.


    5. The dry out period is your interpretation of a low quality video.


    6. “The video quality is more than sufficient” is a claim of yours, not a fact.



    7. Article “It clarifies many things and confirms my opinion” - really?



    As the article points out, Fleischmann was very well aware of the foam and water carry over possibility


    From the article:


    “It is equally clear that the NHE researchers did not know that Pons and Fleischmann addressed this issue years ago.”


    Or Fleischmann “(actually, we recover ~95% of the alkali by dissolving the residues and titrating; some is undoubtedly lost by irreversible eactions with the glass walls of the Dewars.)”


    or


    “They cannot explain IMRA Europeʼs results because Pons and Fleischmann did check for them and found no significant problem.”


    “On the other hand, as far as is known, entrainment has never been observed to cause more than a minor error, no more han a few percent. We cannot imagine how it could carry off most of the water and cause 50% to 300% apparent excess, ike that measured using boil-off calorimetry at IMRA and the French AEC”


    Or


    Fleischmann: “He pointed out another possible problem with the NHE set up. At various times when he visited the NHE lab, he noted that they added too much water to the cell, which raised the water line too high, which would greatly enhance entrainment.”


    The end statement where particularly describing of the times in question


    “First they attack a rival scientist in the mass media without revealing the technical reason for the attack; then they circulate rumors about the reason; then, much later (or never) they publish a paper describing the supposed problem. The problem they cite is orders of magnitude too small to explain anything, so they refuse to do a quantitative analysis. They pretend that a 3% error can explain away a 300% result. They wait until the public has forgotten the dispute and the rivalʼs reputation is permanently damaged.”





    “….estimated the wrong rate of water vaporization on the basis of the foam level and supported or believed the consequent wrong conclusions.” Which is a claim of yours – not a fact


    “The real problem is the large overestimation of the vaporization rate due to the large underestimation of the boil-off duration.” Which is a claim of yours -not a fact. Ascoli – you have probably missed a few refills of water in your assessment.


    “F&P provided a completely wrong duration of the boil-off phase!” – Based on your investigation of low quality video and trying to expand timelines not detailed in the paper and not knowing when last top up of water actually occurred and using information from outside sources not only the paper.


    Anyhow: The excact replication in the Longchamp paper proved them right, as did several other laboratories with various set-ups like using closed cells.

  • Have you read the Staker paper yet?


    Do you still assert that " Staker's 3 years of work loses its meaning" based on "boilups"??


    I gave a look to it. It seems to be a very accurate and professional document. Nice editing. Impressive bibliography. It looks as a good work and I think its author is a competent person in many fields. But all of this doesn't mean that what is claimed in it is also completely correspondent to the physical reality.


    The main claim in the abstract is: "The average excess power (excluding run-away) ranged from 4.7 ± 0.15 to 9.6 ± 0.30 percent of input power while input power ranged from 2.000 to 3.450 watts, confirming the Fleischmann-Pons effect." But I have no reason to believe that there exists any FPE, and, after what I saw in the ICCF3 paper and in the related videos, I have also many reasons to doubt of the reliability of the two authors.


    So, before wasting more time in looking better at a paper which claim to have confirmed a controversial effect, I would prefer to know more about the bases of that effect, beginning from the reliability of its first proponents.

  • But all of this doesn't mean that what is claimed in it is also completely correspondent to the physical reality.


    I don't know what you mean by this,.


    Questions.

    1.Do you think that the temperature measurements are not Physical Reality?

    2.Do you think that the calorific heat is not Physical Reality?

    3.Do you think that Staker had Boilups in Physical reality?

  • Ascoli, when I wrote cherry-picking, I referred to the article 🤓.


    Yes, I knew. I think I have peaked the right cherry in the F&P article, and I have applied the same method with your too long post.


    Quote

    I will repeat my answer, since most of it answers your critics.


    No, it doesn't, and it's your turn to answer my previous question. I posed you a precise question about the info on the video whose nature was digital since the beginning. After you will have answered adequately, I'll deal with the other issues of yours.

  • I find this comparison very unfair. Do you mean that, being dead, it is no longer possible to raise any criticisms about his scientific activity? After all, I've only picked up the JR's invitation to carefully read the CF literature, especially that related to the F&P and the replications of their experiments, and look for any mistakes.


    Ascoli,


    What I meant was that Fleischmann is no longer here to defend himself. Not that he would bother to were he still alive, as he was only one man against so many critics. Water under the bridge though, and there are no rules in science barring critiquing the work of the deceased, as you, Kirk, and THH are doing. More power to you.


    Problem on our side, is that while we have many who could challenge your claims against FP's, they just are not all that interested in going to the trouble. It takes a lot of effort, and they do not think it is worth the investment in their time and energy. Especially so, as it appears you have made up your mind and nothing they say will change that...so what would be the point? Like I said, it appears you have already worn Rothwell out, or he decided he is wasting his time, and probably soon Oystla will throw in the towel also.


    Because you are outlasting everyone, an uninformed guest might read the thread and conclude FP's screwed up because Ascoli said so, and he encountered little push back from a largely pro-LENR crowd. I hope not, but that is my worry.


    I have read quite a bit on Fleischmann, and he was truly a unique scientist. Nobel quality. His high standing on the world chemistry stage was sealed. All he had to do was coast to the end of an illustrious career, and accept the accolades for his long list of accomplishments. Then he saw something in the lab in the early 1980's, decided to pursue it, and his life was never the same. I do not say it with any disrespect towards any of you skeptics here, but he could have run circles around you, when it comes to calorimetry...were he still around.

  • Kirk Shanahan does not read in depth Shanahan intones in depth his CCS mantra.


    "Kirk: What do you think of the Staker paper?"


    "Om mane padme CCS Om mane padme CCS"


    He has not even read the Staker paper???


    Using your ESP again bocjin? If so, you might tune it up a bit as you are way off here. I read the Staker paper (assuming you are referencing the recently announced one that Jed uploaded. That would be the only one of his I have seen to date.). I commented on it. I pointed you all to where I did that. (See: Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?). Do you actually bother to read anything?

    But specifically, how much detailed checking does it take to see if he (or anyone) has checked to see if 'plain Jane' calorimetry was all that was used or not? FYI - it takes about 5 minutes or less, depending on how much fluff the authors put in their papers.

  • Problem on our side, is that while we have many who could challenge your claims against FP's,


    Actually, you don't. Prime example being McKubre, who claimed that he had addressed my CCS concerns years ago. If he did, he seems to be unable to communicate it effectively (i.e., with data and supporting analysis). Your comment is TB wishful thinking.

  • This is why I think the forums are sometimes pointless. its the last post gets the last work even if its just a jab at the post above, reading everything to get just a bit of needed info ~ Seems they are built to do this, build a forum as a family tree format may be a better way.maybe one day~