FP's experiments discussion

  • Robert Horst:

    1. 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.


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


    Also the Roulette paper from 1996 referred to earlier have modified the setup to reduce foam and still 250% excess measured.

  • 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 [t]han a few percent. ”


    Typical old school error analysis. This quote is not dated but probably preceeds my 2002 publication. However, give F's comments on my work in the Miles correspondence, I'd guess he held this belief until he died.


    Fleischmann was very well aware of the foam and possible entrainment, as he stated:

    “...We cannot imagine how it could carry off most of the water and cause 50% to 300% apparent excess, [l]ike that measured using boil-off calorimetry at IMRA and the French AEC”


    Entrainment, no. CCS/ATER, possibly, needs to be checked.

  • Kirkshanahan:


    "But Fleischmann did just that (at least he tried to)."

    NO need for harassment here!


    I will repeat what you surely read:

    The magnetic tape video was of course of a lot better quality in 1992, when Fleischmann used it. It would of course degrade depending on storage until it was digitized some 17 years later.

  • but I'm not sure what ATER is.


    At The Electrode Recombination. This is NOT electrochemical recombination. It is the same chemistry as what occurs at the recombination catalyst in a closed cell, except it is happening at the electrode surface, under the electrolyte. And, it is postulated, based on available evidence, but needs to be conformed to be the cause of a CCS. I am not wed to the idea it is THE explanation.


    One major mental error the CFers have made from the beginning is to think the only recombination possible at the electrode is electrochemical recombination. That process IS limited to ~2% of the maximum possible recombination heat, as I pointed out in my 2005 reply to Szpak, Mosier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann. As long as you are working at the >+/- 5% level, it makes very little difference. However, a CCS of ~2.5% zeroed out at 780 mW signal in Ed Storms work, so ignoring <5% errors isn't a good idea in the calorimeters typically used for CF work.

  • 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.


    The elapsed time (in s or ks) used in the paper graphs in the F&P paper (1) starts from the beginning (time-of-day = 00:00:00) of Saturday, April 11, 1992. This date appears at time 1:03 of the video "Four-cell Boil-off" (1).


    You can get a confirmation of this starting time, reporting the time on the video when the cells begin to generate some bubbles (at about 11:30:00, that is 41400 s) on the first graph of Figure 7 of the paper, which plots the heat transfer coefficient computed on the basis of the water temperature, and hence affected by a certain thermal inertia.


    Quote

    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.


    Yes, I agree and I thank you for the scruple of having looked at the video so many times.


    Quote

    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.


    The period you mention is revealing. I's worth noting that in video (2), which reports the blue arrows indicating the presumed water levels, most of that part was not included and the sequence starts at 21:52:58 when Cell 1 appears to be full again.


    Quote

    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.


    Yes, I counted 14 different video clips, i.e. video sequences. For each cell, there are 2 or 3 different clips which span a period of about 6 hours (about 4 hours for Cell 1).


    Quote

    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.


    Thank you for your opinion.


    Now we need to better understand what really happened during and after that fundamental test.

  • And, it is postulated, based on available evidence, but needs to be conformed to be the cause of a CCS. I am not wed to the idea it is THE explanation

    Thankyou for that Kirk , I'll read up on the 2005 2%.

    I'm still trying to figure out if there is boseinic condensation in 2004 . http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTneutronemi.pdf


    I take it your CFers have good lungs :)https://breathe4tomorrow.wordp…12/28/two-types-of-cfers/

  • Ascoli,


    There seems to be some fatal flaws in your analysis:


    1. The video you have analysed with blue arrows etc is a video made by Steven Krivit.


    The video that is linked in the F&P paper has no such blue arrows painted on.


    I suspect the blue arrows have been Added by Krivit, and should not be misunderstood as part of the paper.


    2. There is no time stamp in the video linked in the paper, only in Steven Krivits video. Krivits video Should not be confused as part of the official paper. And by the way Krivits video show some time after 12:00, not 00:00:00.



    3. F&P topped up the cells at intervalls, and I have found no information in the paper when the last top up occured. But probably it is close or at Boiling point, as in the Lonchampt paper.


    Regards

    Lande

  • Time localization of the boil-off clips in 4 videos


    After the video "IMRA time lapse ..." (1), whose link has been provided by Robert Horst, the number of videos available on the web showing clips of the lab video shot during the 4 cell experiment described in the paper presented by F & P at the ICCF3 rose to 4.


    The "IMRA time lapse ..." video is of higher quality and is also the longest. It contains a total of 14 video clips that refer to the lighting of the 4 cells and their boil-off phases. Below is a list of these clips.






    Duration



    #

    Description

    at

    from

    to

    Video (s)

    Test

    Span

    1

    Power-on

    00:11

    11:29:53

    11:30:19

    19

    26"


    2

    Cell 1

    00:37

    18:33:01

    18:40:01

    4

    7'


    3

    Cell 1

    00:41

    18:41:51

    18:42:51

    1

    1'


    4

    Cell 1+noise

    00:42

    18:44:24

    18:44:25

    1

    -


    5

    Cell 1

    00:43

    18:46:15

    19:00:15

    6

    14'


    6

    Cell 1

    00:50

    21:16:58

    22:26:58

    35

    70'

    3:53

    7

    Cell 2

    01:26

    22:35:14

    22:53:14

    8

    18'


    8

    Cell 2

    01:34

    2:49:14

    3:55:14

    32

    66'

    5:20

    9

    Cell 3

    02:06

    22:44:04

    22:58:04

    7

    14'


    10

    Cell 3

    02:14

    3:34:04

    4:05:04

    15

    31'

    5.21

    11

    Cell 4

    02:29

    5:02:04

    5:25:04

    11

    23'


    12

    Cell 4

    02:40

    10:48:04

    11:10:04

    11

    22'


    13

    Cell 4 - Rewind

    02:51

    11:03:04

    10:32:04

    4

    -29'


    14

    Cell 4

    02:56

    10:35:04

    11:11:04

    17

    36'

    6:09


    End

    03:15







    The localization of the video clips is illustrated in the following jpeg and compared to the position of the clips available in the other videos.


    jm50iLc.jpg


    The second video by length is the one titled "Four-cell Boil-off" (2). It contains 6 clips, 4 of which refer to the final boil-off phases. In these 4 clips appear the blue arrows that should indicate the lowering of the water level. The time interval between the two frames with the arrows placed in the more extreme positions is represented with a white rectangle inside the larger one that indicates the entire duration of the video clip. It's worth noting that not all 6 clips in video (2) are entirely included in the 14 clips of video (1), in particular the first clip of Cell 2.


    The third video by length is the one that appears on the screen of the ICCF3 room during the presentation of Pons (3). This video contains only 2 clips whose images refer to Cell 1. The first clip shows a short period not covered by the first 2 videos.


    Finally, there is the short sequence that appears at 2m17s of the episode of "Good Morning America" aired in 1994 (4). It should be noted that this clip goes slightly beyond the corresponding clips of the other movies, a sign that has been derived from a different, even longer movie.

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

  • There seems to be some fatal flaws in your analysis:


    It's possible. I hope to fix any flaw with the help of the L-F members.


    Quote

    1. The video you have analysed with blue arrows etc is a video made by Steven Krivit.


    The video that is linked in the F&P paper has no such blue arrows painted on.


    I suspect the blue arrows have been Added by Krivit, and should not be misunderstood as part of the paper.


    It's very unlikely that the arrows have been added by Krivit. He posted the video in 2009, but the fashion of the blue arrows (actually a ">" sign) seems to me much older. Anyway, I have already asked (1-2) if any L-F member has more info on the preparation and circulation of this video. I hope someone will provide useful information.


    The videos reporting some clips of the 4-cell experiment are very important in order to understand the issue of the misinterpretation of the water level drop in the F&P cells. I hope that the jpeg, that I have just posted, is somehow helpful. It shows that none of the 4 video contains entirely all the others, so all of them should derive from some precursor. It's clear that the original lab video, probably video recorded on a tape, didn't have any arrows superimposed on it, but IMO that kind of video editing could have been available at the time. Consider that F&P had at their disposition the best technology on the market.


    Quote

    2. There is no time stamp in the video linked in the paper, only in Steven Krivits video. Krivits video Should not be confused as part of the official paper. ...


    Caption of Figure 10 reports: "(B) The first cell during the final period of boiling dry with the other cells at lower temperatures.". The time on the still (B) is 22:03:58, which lies between the frames with the upper (21:52) and lower (22:18) blue arrows of the video published by Krivit.


    The same for Figure 10(C) whose caption says "(C) The last cell during the final boiling period, the other cells having boiled dry" and whose time is 10:43:34. In this case the upper blue arrow in the video is at 10:35 and the lower at 11:10.


    So, there is a perfect agreement between the time on the video stills reported in the paper and those superimposed next to the blue arrows in the "Four-cell Boil-off" video.


    Quote

    ... And by the way Krivits video show some time after 12:00, not 00:00:00.


    The video shows the power-on of the cells at around 11:30 of the first day (April 11, 1992), which started at 00.00.00.


    Quote

    3. F&P topped up the cells at intervalls, and I have found no information in the paper when the last top up occured. But probably it is close or at Boiling point, as in the Lonchampt paper.


    In the F&P experiment of 1992, the cells were topped once a day, as shown on each one of the 4 graphs of Figure 6 by the periodic drop of the cell temperature. These temperature excursions allow to easily locate the refills, as shown in a previous jpeg (3).


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

  • Good hero IMO:


    Fleischmann's professional career was focused almost entirely on fundamental electrochemistry. Fleischmann went on to teach at King's College, Durham University, which in 1963 became the newly established University of Newcastle upon Tyne. In 1967, Fleischmann became Professor of Electrochemistry at the University of Southampton, occupying the Faraday Chair of Chemistry. From 1970 to 1972, he was president of the International Society of Electrochemists. In 1973, together with Patrick J. Hendra and A. James McQuillan, he played an important role in the discovery of Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering effect (SERS) a contribution for which the University of Southampton was awarded a National Chemical Landmark plaque by the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2013, and he developed the ultramicroelectrode in the 1980s. In 1979, he was awarded the medal for electrochemistry and thermodynamics by the Royal Society of London. In 1982 he retired from the University of Southampton. In 1985 he received the Olin Palladium Award from the Electrochemical Society, and in 1986 was elected to the Fellowship of the Royal Society. He retired from teaching in 1983 and was given an honorary professorship at Southampton University.



    Fellowships, prizes and awards


    Secretary/Treasurer of the International Society of Electrochemistry (1964-1967)President of the International Society of Electrochemistry (1973-1974)Electrochemistry and Thermodynamics Medal of the Royal Society of Chemistry (1979)Fellowship of the Royal Society (1985)Olin Palladium Medal of the Electrochemical Society (1986)

    Cold fusion (1983-1992)




    Fleischmann confided to Stanley Pons that he might have found what he believed to be a way to create nuclear fusion at room temperatures. From 1983 to 1989, he and Pons spent $100,000 in self-funded experiments at the University of Utah. Fleischmann wanted to publish it first in an obscure journal, and had already spoken with a team that was doing similar work in a different university for a joint publication. The details have not surfaced, but it would seem that the University of Utah wanted to establish priority over the discovery and its patents by making a public announcement before the publication. In an interview with 60 Minutes on 19 April 2009, Fleischmann said that the public announcement was the university's idea, and that he regretted doing it. This decision would later cause heavy criticism against Fleischmann and Pons, being perceived as a breach of how science is usually communicated to other scientists.

    On 23 March 1989 it was finally announced at a press conference as "a sustained nuclear fusion reaction," which was quickly labeled by the press as cold fusion – a result previously thought to be unattainable. On 26 March Fleischmann warned on the Wall Street Journal Report not to try replications until a published paper was available two weeks later in Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, but that did not stop hundreds of scientists who had already started work at their laboratories the moment they heard the news on 23 March, and more often than not they failed to reproduce the effects. Those who failed to reproduce the claim attacked the pair for fraudulent, sloppy, and unethical work; incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate results; and erroneous interpretations. When the paper was finally published, both electrochemists and physicists called it "sloppy" and "uninformative", and it was said that, had Fleischmann and Pons waited for the publication of their paper, most of the trouble would have been avoided because scientists would not have gone so far in trying to test their work. Fleischmann and Pons sued an Italian journalist who had published very harsh criticisms against them, but the judge rejected it saying that criticisms were appropriate given the scientists' behaviour, the lack of evidence since the first announcement, and the lack of interest shown by the scientific community, and that they were an expression of the journalist's "right of reporting". Fleischmann, Pons and the researchers who believed that they had replicated the effect remained convinced the effect was real, but the general scientific community remains skeptical.

    In 2009, Michael McKubre concluded from his attempt to duplicate the "Fleischmann-Pons Effect", that there is "heat production consistent with nuclear but not chemical energy or known lattice storage effect". This was an extension of the work done by Miles at the Navy Laboratory (NAWCWD) at China Lake, California (1990-1994).


  • Ascoli: " It's very unlikely that the arrows have been added by Krivit."


    No on the contrary, it is very likely. The video starts by stating "produced by Krivit", and when the blue arrow marks appear the video there is also another bluish toned watermark with "new Energy Times" stamped in the video.


    So these arrows should not be misunderstood as being connected to the Fleischmann paper in any way, shape or form.

  • No on the contrary, it is very likely. The video starts by stating "produced by Krivit", and when the blue arrow marks appear the video there is also another bluish toned watermark with "new Energy Times" stamped in the video.


    IMO, before uploading the video to his YouTube site, Krivit has only added a title at its beginning and his watermark, as he does with everything he publishes. This is what "Produced by Krivit" stands for.


    He published the video in 2009, when he was engaged in supporting the Widom-Larsen theory. It's my opinion that he needed authoritative evidence to be associated with this theory, and, like many others in the CF field, he chose to resort to the most famous and apparently unassailable test: the 1992 experiment of F&P. In short, his reasoning was, well, F&P were successful in generating the excess heat, only their theory was wrong. So, in support of the right W-L theory, he published the 2 videos on the "Four-cell Boil-off" test and the "Pons presentation" at the ICCF3 in Nagoya, on October 1992, which probably were circulating since decades inside the LENR community.


    Furthermore, in 2009, Fleischmann was alive. I don't think that Krivit would have taken the responsibility of editing one of his video.


    In any case your point is interesting and deserve the attention of the LENR community. Maybe Krivit is aware of this debate and, if he wishes, he can personally clarify this issue.


    Quote

    So these arrows should not be misunderstood as being connected to the Fleischmann paper in any way, shape or form.


    I would be inclined to think that not only the video with the arrows was prepared in 1992, but also that it was presented by Pons at the ICCF3 in Nagoya.


    The structure of the video, the sequence of the images, the lack of a vocal description and, last but not least, the blue arrows that progressively descend along each cell seems to have been prepared to be presented and described to an audience of expert in the field. JR and McKubre were in Nagoya in 1992 and if they saw the video they for sure could not have forgotten it. May be, if they whish, they will tell us something more about this video and the Pons presentation at ICCF3.

  • Furthermore, in 2009, Fleischmann was alive. I don't think that Krivit would have taken the responsibility of editing one of his video


    "don't think that Krivit would have taken the responsibility of editing one of his video."

    SteveK has shown more responsibility to his story than his subjects in the past and does get his graph marks wrong sometimes.


    http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html


    Krivit is very much alive ...anyone got his email???

    .......very much truthful is another matter.


    [email protected]newenergytimes.com perhaps this is truthful ???

  • Some info on the Pons presentation at ICCF3 provided by Morrison and others


    Waiting to have more information, hopefully from direct witnesses, on the Pons presentation to the ICCF3 of Nagoya in 1992, we can rely on what reported by Morrison within a few weeks of the closing of the congress. These are the related excerpts [bold added]:

    From http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/DROM/cfu7.shtml


    Douglas R.O. Morrison's Cold Fusion Updates
    No. 7—1 November-6 December 1992


    Dear Colleagues,

    THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL COLD FUSION CONFERENCE.
    Held in Nagoya, 21 to 25 October 1992.

    […]

    SUMMARY

    […]

    There were only 23 talks - all of 20 minutes except Stan Pons who had 30 minutes.

    […]

    3. FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER.
    TAKAHASHI, CELANI, MALLOVE, DE NINNO, OKAMOTO, PONS, SMEDLEY.
    THEORY PANEL.

    […]

    3.6 Stan PONS began his talk by showing a short video of four cells with different inputs. Each cell boiled off its liquid after a different number of days. The cells seemed to be operated in the 60 to 80 C temperature range - it was said that the condition for success was to operate near the boiling point. This worried some as the corrections are much larger at high temperature. Some felt this was impressive proof, others that there are many different ways to make a cell with palladium boil (eg G. Kreysa et al., J Electroanal. Chem. 266(1989)437). The demonstration was not convincing to scientists as it needed more information - one would like to see the demonstration repeated in the presence of someone like Tom Droege to watch and test and preferably also with several video cameras.

    One striking feature of the video was the extremely small size of the cell, barely thicker than the thumb of the person holding it. […]

    He said that they were just entering their new building at the IMRA technical centre and showed photographs of it. He said they had 32 employees.

    […]

    HAVE A NICE TOMORROW

    this delightful phrase was seen in a Takayama shop window).

    (c) Douglas R.O. Morrison.


    Morrison seems to describe the video "Four-cell Boil-off" published by Krivit. In fact, not only the 4 cells are mentioned, but he makes an observation about the dimensions of the cell compared to those of an inch, as shown at 00:44 of the video (1).


    Impressive the number of 32 employees reported by Morrison. I wonder if he misunderstood or if it's a typo. Any idea?


    A few months later, in May 1993, Morrison added other details:

    From: https://groups.google.com/foru…on/_fke9KWvOWE/discussion

    [email protected]

    12/05/93

    DM-93/3.

    5th DRAFT - Scientific Comments Welcomed. 6 May 1993.


    COMMENTS ON CLAIMS OF EXCESS ENTHALPY BY FLEISCHMANN AND PONS

    USING SIMPLE CELLS MADE TO BOIL

    Douglas R.O. Morrison.


    M. Fleischmann and S. Pons [1] have published in Physics Letters A a communication entitled "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity". There they claim evidence for the production of excess enthalpy of greater than one kW per cc of Palladium in a Pd-D2O system. They comment that this is comparable with the rates obtained in a fastbreeder reactor. They note that the reproducibility is high. In this letter serious doubts are expressed about this claim and the methods used to derive it.

    […]

    In the third stage the behaviour near and during boiling is observed using a video camera. From this video, the time for the cell to go from about half-empty to dry, is taken - more precisely the amount of liquid boiled off is estimated over the final 10 minutes before the test tube was declared dry.

    […]


    I do not think that Morrison had a copy of the F&P video, so he probably relied on what he had seen in October 1992 in Nagoya. However, he confirms that "the time for the cell to go from half-empty to dry" was taken from the video.


    Another reportage from Nagoya, probably an indirect one, is contained in this article of a magazine that closely followed the CF developments since its appearance:

    From https://larouchepub.com/eiw/pu…fusion_conference_set.pdf

    EIR Volume 19, Number 49, December 11, 1992

    Japan cold fusion conference sets new direction for science

    by Carol White


    The Third International Conference on Cold Fusion held in Nagoya, Japan, Oct. 21-25 marks a turning point for this extraordinary new field of research. Now, three and a half years after Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann first captured headlines worldwide with their announcement that they could produce fusion in a test tube at room temperature, there is a body of experimental results which confirms their contention.


    A high point of the conference was the showing of a video produced by Stanley Pons featuring four different experiments in which cold fusion was occurring. These cells went from a temperature of 40°C to a rapid boil and boiled out their contents in around 11 minutes. The video used time-lapse techniques to show the boiling, while a clock was shown ticking off the 600 to 720 seconds which it took for the 2.5 moles of water heavy water in the cell to boil off. A rough estimate establishes that, at best, 40 minutes would have been needed to achieve the same result by plain electrolysis, were a nuclear reaction, not occurring. (The 40-minute figure discounts heat loss from the cell, due to radiation.)


    Since the energy requirements for such a boiloff are 100,000 joules, calculations approximate that a power input of 144.5 watts would have been required. In fact, the power input was 37.5 watts, of which roughly 11 watts were lost to radiation from the cell. Thus, there was a more than 400% energy gain. Stanley Pons estimated that he achieved a power density of 2.7 kilowatts per cubic centimeter in these experiments.


    The article mentions "a clock [that] was shown ticking off the 600 to 720 seconds". This clock does not appear in the video (1), but there may have been another clock in the room which was read while the video showed blue arrows descended along the 4 cells.


    Now let's analyze when these arrows appear in the video, based on the timing of the version published by Krivit (1). The following table shows first the times written in blue next to the upper and lower arrows of each cell and then the video elapsed time when they appear on the screen:


    Cell

    Upper

    arrow

    Lower

    arrow

    Real

    duration

    Video

    start

    Video

    end

    Video

    duration

    1

    21:52

    22:18

    26'

    1:18

    1:30

    12"

    2

    3:26

    3:46

    20'

    1:37

    1:47

    10"

    3

    3:42

    4:03

    21'

    1:51

    2:00

    9"

    4

    10:35

    11:10

    35'

    2:09

    2:25

    16"


    This table shows a big mystery. The differences between the blue times stamped aside the upper and lower blue arrows range from 20 to 35 minutes. Leaving aside the fact that the arrows presumably show the lowering of the foam and that they do not reach the bottom of the cell, the real duration of these presumed boil-off periods are two or more times longer than the 10-11 minutes estimated by F&P. Can someone provide an explanation for this huge difference, other than the highly improbable (and quite silly) hypothesis that the video durations in seconds were multiplied by 60?


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

  • Ascoli,


    There are a video showing Pons at ICCF3.


    As you can see, NO blue arrows, one white arrow, a watermark that says LINE.


    So very different from video produced by Krivit, who probably added blue arrows to illustrate what he thought would be approximate water levels.


  • Quote

    All the creds and still made a mistake. Amazing isn't it.

    Tongue in cheek aside, of course not. Linus Pauling believed to his death that vitamin C could vanquish major human cancers. And of course, Nobel laureate Brian Josephson believes in a lot of the BS promoted by Coast to Coast radio except maybe the alien rectal probes. "Allegedly, allegedly" to quote Steven Colbert. People who ought to know better still believe in strange things and yes, they make flagrant mistakes from time to time as do we all.

  • Linus Pauling makes a great example for the point I was trying to make, namely that everyone makes mistakes. See the Wikipedia quote below, esp. the purple highlighted part (my highlighting, red in original):


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ling#Biological_molecules


    In 1951, based on the structures of amino acids and peptides and the planar nature of the peptide bond, Pauling, Robert Corey and Herman Branson correctly proposed the alpha helix and beta sheet as the primary structural motifs in protein secondary structure. This work exemplified Pauling's ability to think unconventionally; central to the structure was the unorthodox assumption that one turn of the helix may well contain a non-integer number of amino acid residues; for the alpha helix it is 3.7 amino acid residues per turn.

    Pauling then proposed that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was a triple helix; his model contained several basic mistakes, including a proposal of neutral phosphate groups, an idea that conflicted with the acidity of DNA.