- Agreed: Timestamps seems from 0-23:59, so one need to now the 0 time to line them up.
And Ascoli refer to a Zero point in time, but I see no reference in the Paper to the starting time.
To me This makes Ascolis “analysis” flawed. He assumes starting time from heresay outside the paper?
2. Looking at the videos we all see foam or bubbles at top. But what we do not see, is where the water level is below the bubbles, because of the video quality. The original video quality was of course much better in 1992, so it would be easy for F&P to analyse the film.
Ascoli thinks he actually see water level lower than F&P, but what Ascoli sees is a trick of the light. If you watch the video at 11:30, you even there see a “water level” which is not really true, since you see bubbles pass though a clear liquid phase passed the “seemingly water level”
The videos of this quality can therefore not be used for any analysis in my opinion.
3. Foam in general:
Fleischmann was very well aware of the foam and possible entrainment, as he stated:
“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”
4. Top up of water level:
F&P topped up the level in the cells up to the boiling point. The paper does not state exactly when they stopped topping up.
Therefore the Ascoli analysis is flawed, and videos cannot be used for any quantitative analysis.
5. What we need to do is rather look at statistics and replications, like the Lonchampt paper, A very precise replication, where they even state the rate of topping up the cell and up to which point they stopped.
Also the Roulette paper from 1996 referred to earlier have modified the setup to reduce foam and still 250% excess measured.