FP's experiments discussion

Quote from kirkshanahan

Using your ESP again bocjin?

Thanks Kirk ..I wasn't reading that thread.

Sorry i don't use ESP which is sin. Sometimes the ES (Espiritu Santo) speaks to me.

So you still stand by your quick look?

"Took a quick look at the paper. He assumes only eletrochemical recombination is allowed and that that is limited to 2%. IOW he uses the original F&P "gamma=0" assumption without proof. IOW there is no allowance in his calorimetry for CCS/ATER, yet he uses the same design as all the other CF cells that I claim allows for the CCS to happen. Excess heat claims are suspect. (P.S. This paper is a good example of how not to convince a skeptic. Science by assertion and assumption rarely does.)

Edit: "gamma = 0" implies the assumption of no recombination. In the original F&P calorimetric equation it might actually be "gamma=1", I didn't go back and check if he used gamma or '1-gamma' in their equation."

Quote from Shane D.

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.

Hero-worship aside, no person is immune to mistake making. Perhaps you are unaware of Fleischmann's history...

"Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering: From Noble to Transition Metals and from Rough Surfaces to Ordered Nanostructures"

Zhong-Qun Tian, Bin Ren, and De-Yin Wu, J. of Phys. Chem. B, 106(37), (2002), 9463

From the Introduction

"The first measurement of a surface Raman spectrum from pyridine adsorbed on an electrochemically roughened silver electrode was reported by Fleischmann, Hendra, and McQuillan in 1974, …These authors initially thought [incorrectly – KLS] that the electrochemical roughening procedure has significantly increased the surface area of the electrode so that the intense surface Raman signal of pyridine can be obtained….They [Van Duyne and Jeanmaire] provided strong evidences to demonstrate that the enormously strong surface Raman signal must be caused by a true enhancement of the Raman scattering efficiency itself." [i.e. not by surface roughening]

"Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering", Alan Campion and Patanjali Kambhampati, Chemical Soc. Reviews, 27 (1998) 241

From “History and fundamentals”

"SERS was discovered, though not recognized as such, by Fleischmann, et al. in 1974…"

Looks like lightening struck twice in the same place to me...

Quote from RobertBryant

So you still stand by your quick look?

Yes. What is worse is I had extensive 'discussions' with him on spf in the 2002 timeframe on this very issue. So, he knows that a criticism of the methodology exists, he just ignores it, which as I said before, is a classic sign of pseudoscience.

Quote from RobertBryant

IOW there is no allowance in his calorimetry for CCS/ATER, yet he uses the same design as all the other CF cells

Wow since 2002

I don't really understand your acronymious style Shanahan

Is there a published paper where you have carried out your Shanahanian methodology in practical calorimetry?

i would like to have a quick look at it.

Quote from RobertBryant

Is there a published paper where you have carried out your Shanahanian methodology in practical calorimetry?

You are so amusing...

My 'methodology' is strictly a difference in data analysis. I showed how 'my' method works in the 2002 publication, the original manuscript of which was submitted in 2000, and can be found here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf

I also posted this: Mizuno's bucket of water

which shows how to get a CCS from my basic assumption of changed steady states.

Quote from kirkshanahan

you are so amusing...

Glad to oblige.

I like your tritium papers

.wow ~24 papers... I only have one .

So there is no paper where you have carried out your methodology with real H20 from C to J in all your publications?

Quote from Shane D.

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.

Skeptics here like me feel the emphasis on F&P is weird in a real science. For me it has always been a point against the case for LENR. There has been so much more recent work, similar, better documented, better instrumented. For example McKubre.

So why insist on F&P? It is LENR advocates (some of them) who do this. When they do skeptics merely ask the obvious questions...

Quote from THHuxleynew

So why insist on F&P?

It is Ascoli who is picking MF's dead bones.

Why not insist on Staker who is very much in corpore in Maryland today?

Quote from RobertBryant

So there is no paper where you have carried out your methodology with real H20 from C to J in all your publications?

I see that you insist upon misunderstanding. My first paper is a 'real' re-analysis of real CF data supplied by Dr. Ed Storms in 2000. My reanalysis showed: 1.) a trivial change in calibration constant amounting to 1-3% of the original Storms value zeroed out a 780 mW excess heat signal completely, and 2.) there was a distinct and noticeable systematic trend in the changes that presented through 3 sets of triple-runs (where Ed ran the input power up and back down, then repeated twice). Extremely powerful evidence for chemical effects, which could potentially occur in any F&P-type experiment.

Your continued badgering on this indicates that you think I need to go run some experiments myself. I don't. I pointed out a potential error and even presented a plausible chemical mechanism for it. It is up to the CF experimentalists to ensure their work does not suffer from this error. Which is what they refuse in toto to do. They thus earn the moniker 'pseudoscientist'.

In the strictest sense, my job actually ended with my first publication. However, I defended against critics twice, and commented on subsequent CF papers that ignored the problem.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Your continued badgering

I asked you twice.. that is not badgering.

Perhaps i have touched upon a sensitive point.

Maybe you could have a play around with some calorimetry equipment at DOE by the River Savannah sometime.?

Quote from RobertBryant

I asked you twice.. that is not badgering.

Within 26 minutes is. You had obviously not read, let alone understood, my paper and post, you clearly had an ulterior motive. Your behavior dovetails with your prior tag-teaming with Z and JR, and your clear TB leaning.

Quote from kirkshanahan

you clearly had an ulterior motive.

What might that be?

Ascoli, I do not think it's straight forward to use glimpses of videos, since it is not clear when topping up of the cells ended.

Anyhow, I do not think you should consider your focused paper to necesarily be the most important paper of F&P. F&P papers where all of importance and of interest and gave various important results and on how they performed their research, and important development in their research.

The later experiments in France improved the setups further, like the paper from 1996, which reported a very strong excess heat event of 250%

Ref,

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

And important to note, "Foam rise in the calorimeter at the boiling temperature has been minimized. "

Quote from RobertBryant

What might that be?

Trolling...

Therefore you are hereby relegated to the Troll Zone...(that's the 3rd zone of the two-zone model)

Quote from kirkshanahan

Therefore you are hereby relegated to the Troll Zone...(that's the 3rd zone of the two-zone model)

God Bless You Kirk

I've really tried to make sense of your CCS. stuff... but I'm not sure what ATER is.

I shall have a quick look at your writings again..but i would really have loved to have seen how you apply them to your own calorimetry work.

Ascoli,

Since you think my posts are too long, we can take it in bits

As I stated, your copied graph includes excess heat after just a few days in that particular test. And you don't see it?

It is actually plotted on your referred graphs, see if you can find the figures 😉.

Again: 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.

Quote from Ascoli65

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?

It looks to me like the video timestamps are time-of-day because they all are for hours 0-23. But the graphs in the paper appear to be time from the start of the experiment (in seconds or Ksec). So to line them up, you need to know what time of day corresponds to 0 Ksec.

However, I looked at the video a couple dozen times and am inclined to agree that the arrows are foam levels, not liquid levels. The cells seem to transition through three clear phases. In the first phase, you can see that it is mostly liquid with gradually increasing bubbles as the liquid boils. In the second phase is is mostly foam and in the third phase, the foam level rapidly decreases to zero. You can tell the foam phase because sometimes the level decreases and then increases again, which could not happen with liquid. For instance, look at Cell 1 at 21:23 when it is full of foam, 21:40 when the top of the foam is a little lower, then 21:55 when it is full of foam again. Several times the video cuts away for hours between phases 1 and 2. For Cell 1, there is a cut between about 11:30 and 18:36.

The Enthalpy Balance in the paper is based on only the last 10 minutes and assumes the liquid is boiling then. Even though I have great respect for Fleischmann's work in general, I would have to agree with Ascoli that this paper is likely flawed.

For ease of finding them again, here are links to the video and the paper. (It is hard to get much out of stills. You need to run the video to see how the levels are changing.)

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

Hi Robert,

Quote from Robert Horst

It looks to me ...

...

For ease of finding them again, here are links to the video and the paper. ...

Thank you very much for your insights and for the link to the video.

I'll give a better look to the video before answering.

There is a clearer copy of the video of the boiling cell on the internet somewhere. I forget where. The URL was in this thread I believe. It was broadcast on TV, in Japan and in Canada as I recall. It is clearer because it is not time lapse. You can see the difference between electrolysis bubbles and boiling. You can see that boiling occurs only on the cathode. It does not show the entire event and it is not time stamped, so you cannot use it to do calorimetry, but it does make it clear that the skeptics here do not have a leg to stand on.

There was a close up video years ago that was even better. I wish I had a copy but I had no means of collecting video when it was available.

There is a slightly better version here:

It shows the array of temperature sensors in a closeup, and then in the time lapse sequence it shows the difference between electrolysis bubbles (fine bubbles) and boiling (coarse bubbles). I saw much better videos years ago in Canada and on NHK. I might have something in my file cabinet from Canada on a DVD.