FP's experiments discussion

  • 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. 


  • 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.


    Good objection. But it only implies that Pons could have presented at least 2 videos.


    As reported by Morrison, he had 30 minutes at his disposition, 10 more than the other speakers. I guess, he started with the "Four-cell Boil-off" video, which is well suited to illustrate the cell, the experimental set-up and the main result, ie the presumed boil-off behavior and - by means of the blue arrows - its duration, then he could have presented one or more additional videos.


    In any case, it should not be so impossible to get an authoritative confirmation of the origin of the video and its arrows. We are discussing an important issue on the most important LENR website, talking about the most important CF videos, shown during the presentation of the most important paper of the field, written and presented by the two founders and most important leading figures. I'm still confident that someone will tell us what was presented in Nagoya in 1992. We all are here to seek the truth, aren't we?


    In the meanwhile, I will continue to assume that the video with the blue arrows was prepared by F&P in the summer of 1992 and presented by Pons in October at the ICCF3. After all, as already told you (1), the Figure 10(B) and (C) of their paper are congruent with the timing indicated by the blue arrows, and, most importantly, it's the choice of the video clips to be assembled that reveals the intentions of its authors, not the blue arrows. Do you think that Krivit could have selected these clips by himself?


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • it should not be so impossible to get an authoritative confirmation of the origin of the video and its arrows.


    No word from Krivit so far on how much the data was "Krivitized"


    There's no story in in this 'important issue' for Krivit..even if he uses his journalistic licence to make it a full Fleischmanngate.

    .. i guess we'll never know

  • No word from Krivit so far on how much the data was "Krivitized"


    There's no story in in this 'important issue' for Krivit..even if he uses his journalistic licence to make it a full Fleischmanngate.

    .. i guess we'll never know


    There have been no "Krivitzation" of the "Four-cell Boil-off" video, of course. First because it makes no sense, second because he certainly was not the only one to be in possession of that video and, if there had been a copy of it without the blue arrows, it would have been reported in this discussion by someone else.


    Quote

    There's no story in in this 'important issue' for Krivit..even if he uses his journalistic licence to make it a full Fleischmanngate.


    He has been involved in "ITERgate" for a few years. He is doing an excellent and commendable work to find and enforce the truth about past performances and future prospects of hot fusion. I think he will do the same for the cold one, using the same methodical approach.


    For what I have seen, he rightly avoids relying on information or analysis of anonymous people, so I expect that he will ask about the foam issue to authoritative and recognizable experts, as he did in the case of ITER.


    It will take time, but I am confident that he will require to the CF community the same consistency that it has demanded from the people involved in the HF.


    Quote

    .. i guess we'll never know


    Still missing more than 4 months to the 30th anniversary of the announcement of the cold fusion discovery. Give him time to investigate and find the necessary confirmations.

  • "

    if there had been a copy of it without the blue arrows"


    Well, yes there is. The F&P paper you would like to analyse has a linked video without the blue arrows. A video that should be used, and not the non authorised video produced by Krivit with blue arrows painted on by Krivit

  • Well, yes there is. The F&P paper you would like to analyse has a linked video without the blue arrows. A video that should be used, and not the non authorised video produced by Krivit with blue arrows painted on by Krivit


    I was referring to the short video titled "Four-cell Boil-off", one of the two videos published in 2009 by Krivit. I don't think that there exists a version of THAT video without the blue arrows.


    As already shown (1), there are at least 4 videos on the web which contain some clips of the original lab video recording. Only the above cited short video has blue characters (arrows or numbers) on the images, because its purpose is clearly illustrative, and it is very probable that it has been used by Pons during its presentation in Nagoya. On the contrary, the original lab video recording and 3 out of 4 of the public videos don't have any character stamped on them, beside the time (hh:mm:ss) on the lower right corner.


    The 4 video stills included in the F&P paper (2) in Figures 10 (A) to (D) are also taken from the original video, so they don't show any blue arrow.


    Two of these video stills, namely those included as Figure 10 (B) and 10 (C), are presented in the paper as showing the "final period of boiling dry" of the first and last cell respectively, but - as shown in the video published in 2015 by Rothwell - they have been shot AFTER the boiling period of each cell, when the foam - that had filled the entire cell during the very last boiling phase - was receding due to its breaking-up.


    So the evidences that the calculation of energy balance in the F&P paper is based on a stunning misrepresentation of the boil-off evolution and timing, leading to completely wrong conclusions about the generation of any excess heat, is already contained in the paper itself, and it is demonstrated in the "IMRA time lapse" video published by Rothwell. The 2 videos published by Krivit are superfluous for the demonstration of this astonishing mistake.


    Anyway, not my problem. The fact that somebody in the LENR community could think that the misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the F&P experimental data depends on the editing by Krivit of the "Four-cell Boil-off" video, is one more reason for him to take care of this issue.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

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

  • We wait for a sound explanation why the control cell never did show any boil off and foam ...


    I don't remember where F&P explicitly stated that control tests "never did show any boil off and foam". They probably did, but at this point it would be very useful to provide exact references to any of their statements. In any case, my opinion is that many of their results have been either misrepresented or kept hide.


    As for your specific question, it can find a partial answer in the report that Hansen submitted to the Utah State Fusion/Energy Council and then presented to ICCF2 in 1991 (1). As already said (2), Figure 1 shows the temperature and voltage trends of a blank experiment performed by F&P, which behaves in the same way of the 4 cell experiment presented at ICCF3, i.e. the temperature approaches the boiling point and the voltage skyrockets toward the maximum allowable limit.


    So, in this case, the right question would have been: why this blank experiment was publicly reported by Hansen, but was not revealed by F&P?


    Quote

    ... and other (in your mind) strange effects...


    The effects I'm not talking about are not strange at all. For sure, they are much more ordinary than the miracles that have been postulated in almost 30 years in the vain effort to explain of the extraordinary (and unfounded) claims made by F&P. Anyway, I will try to explain them better, so that they can be shared with other minds.


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

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

  • s for your specific question, it can find a partial answer in the report that Hansen submitted to the Utah State Fusion/Energy Council and then presented to ICCF2 in 1991 (1). As already said (2), Figure 1 shows the temperature and voltage trends of a blank experiment performed by F&P, which behaves in the same way of the 4 cell experiment presented at ICCF3, i.e. the temperature approaches the boiling point and the voltage skyrockets toward the maximum allowable limit.


    So, in this case, the right question would have been: why this blank experiment was publicly reported by Hansen, but was not revealed by F&P?


    Thanks for the independent confirmation report of Hansen.


    He already confirms solid excess heat for the steady state phase...


    During days 3 and 4, Qf cannot be less than 0.1 watts or so—say 0.11 watts. Just for the two days this corresponds to 45 eV per Pd atom. This is already an order of magnitude larger than the energy to vaporize the entire Pd electrode. We have thought of no other self consistent explanation than that the excess heat is real and very significant.

  • Axial distribution of water during the test (Cell 1)


    At the end of October, two jpegs were posted that illustrated the analysis of the evolution of the axial distribution of water in Cell 1 (i, ii). This analysis subdivided the cell height in two regions: a lower mostly Liquid region (L) and an upper mostly Void region (V). Hypothetical trends, limited to the boiling-to-dry phase, were proposed for the variation in the height of region L and of the liquid fraction in region V. This former analysis was based on the video of the "Pons presentation" at Nagoya in 1992, whose quality did not allow to distinguish the stratification within the two regions.


    Subsequently, another video was reported, called "IMRA time lapse" (iii). This video is much longer and more detailed, so it allows to extend the analysis to a longer period and to better define the stratification inside the cells, which now can be subdivided in the following 4 layers:

    - T (as Transparent): it's the lowest layer containing liquid water, which is totally or partially transparent;

    - B (as Bubbling): is the overlying liquid layer in which the rising bubbles occupy the whole cross section, so that it appears completely bright;

    - F (as Foam): the layer containing foam;

    - E (as Empty): the upper layer that does not contain water in any form.


    The T and B layers form the L region, where the liquid fraction is greater than 90%. The F and E layers form the V region, where the liquid fraction is below 1%.


    The evolution of the heights of these 4 layers during the entire test transient of Cell 1 is shown in the following jpeg:

    PTIo42q.jpg


    The cell images are extracted from 3 videos (1-2-3) and the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 (4). They show the evolution of the axial distribution of the water within Cell 1, although, in order to extend the analysis period, three of them show other cells (namely 3 and 4), which should be representative of Cell 1 in the same situation.


    The cell images are labeled with capital letters: A to N for those extracted from the videos, P for the image taken from the paper. These labels are reported on the upper graph and scheme for indicating their time position with respect to the whole trends of the temperature and voltage of Cell 1 (graph on the left) and with respect of the video clips from which they are taken (bar scheme on the right). This last scheme is derived from the synoptic showing all the clips available on internet (iv).


    The sequence of images is crossed by 3 colored lines which indicate the approximate level of the 4 layers. The blue line separates the Liquid region from the Void region. The green line subdivides the Liquid region into the lower Transparent layer and the Bubbling one. The red line subdivides the Void region into the Foam and Empty layers.


    Another 3 black horizontal lines indicate as many fixed reference levels with respect to the longitudinal section shown on the left side. The thick upper line indicates the internal upper limit of the cell, the thin discontinuous line the lower limit of the upper silvered portion of the cell, and the lowest thin continuous line marks the lower limit of the internal free volume. This lower limit is located just above the KEL-F disc that supports the electrodes and appears as a white bar at the bottom of the images. This longitudinal section has been taken from Figure 1 of F&P paper (4), but probably its internals don't correspond exactly to the cell model used in the reported tests.


    Below, the single images of the cell are described. Each description will start with the source (the reference plus the video time) and the time of day (in hh:mm:ss) indicated in the video frame.


    A – [(1) at 00m11s, 11:29:53] Cell 1 before the switching on. The water is completely transparent, there are no bubbles. The liquid level is not visible because it is hidden by the silvered upper portion of the cell, it is assumed that it was at the level indicated in Figure 1;


    B - [(1) at 00m37s, 11:30:19] Cell 1 a few seconds after the switching on. The gas bubbles produced by electrolysis at 200 mA rise vertically, remaining concentrated in the innermost part of the cell;


    C – [(1) at 02m06s, 3:55:14] Cell 3 in the last available video frame of the Cell 2 boil-off phase. As it can be seen in the graph included in the jpeg posted in a previous comment (iv), this image shows the Cell 3 at a temperature slightly above 70°C, so it is considered representative of Cell 1 at the same conditions, which onset a couple of days before the boil-off phase. The electric current is now 500 mA, there are more gas bubbles at mid height, but the water is still transparent up to the top of the unsilvered portion.


    D – [no image] The onset of boiling. No image is available for this important moment. Boiling should start when the input power exceeds the 11 W estimated in (4) as the heat loss by radiation at 100°C, ie after the voltage reaches 22 V, which occurs a few hours before the time of the following image E. At this time, the water temperature should be almost at the boiling point and some areas of the electrodes are already beyond that point, so that steam bubbles add to the gas bubbles generated by electrolysis. It is expected that above a certain height, the raising bubbles, increased in number and volume, occupy the whole cross section of the cell, determining the appearance of the bright Bubbling layer, where there is no more transparency. Probably, the thickness of this layer increases very rapidly, extending quite soon to almost the upper half of the cell;


    E - [(1) at 02m29s, 5:02:04] Cell 4 at the beginning of first video clip (n.11) showing its boiling phase. As showed in (iv), this video clip is the earliest among the boil-off phases, since it starts about 6 hours earlier, so its beginning shows the first available image of the boiling phase of any cell. This image shows that a thin layer of Foam appears just below the silvered portion. This Foam layer is more evident watching the video. It is partially hidden by the silvered screen and progressively thickens due to the lowering of the underlying Liquid region;


    F - [(1) at 02m40s, 5:25:04] Cell 4 at the end video clip n.11. Looking at the video it seems that the Foam layer is now entirely below the silvered portion, so that it is in full view and a thin darker Empty layer appears over it. The Foam thickness can be estimated in a about half centimeter. The analogues situation of Cell 1 should occur 2-3 hours earlier than the following image;


    G - [(1) at 00m37s, 18:33:01] Cell 1 at the beginning of the short video clip n.2. It's the first available video frame for the boiling phase of Cell 1. Now the Foam layer is well below the silvered portion and its thickness has grown to about one centimeter;


    H - [(1) at 00m49s, 19:00:15] Cell 1 at the end of video clip n.5. The Foam thickness has grown further above the Bubbling layer, whose upper level has in turn lowered further. This is the last image where this two layers are clearly distinguishable each other, thanks to the difference of the brightness at their interface. The 4 images from E to H show that the brightness of the Bubbling layer is more intense at half height of the cell, then decreases with height, maybe due to a partial condensation of the bubbles or for an optical effect. This fact is important in the subsequent analysis of the evolution of the water layers, since when the Liquid region lowers due to the loss of water, the difference in brightness at the interface between the Bubbling and Foam layers diminishes until they become indistinguishable;


    I - [(3) at 00m52s, 19:47:58] Cell 1 at the end of the first video clip that appears on the wall screen during the Pons' presentation at ICCF3 in Nagoya. The synoptic of the available video clips (iv) shows that this clip lies in an intermediate period not covered by any other clip, so it provides unique information on the evolution of the Foam layers. Looking at the video it is possible to estimate that the Bubbling level is now a few centimeters below the silvered portion and that the Foam thickness has increased to almost one cell diameter. Even the lower partially Transparent layer begins to decrease due to the much more intense production of vapor;


    J - [(1) at 00m50s, 21:16:58] Cell 1 at the beginning of the video clip n.6. The height of the lower Transparent layer is now less than one cell diameter. The Foam level is about one diameter below the silvered portion, but now it is no more possible to distinguish its interface with the Bubbling layer, even watching the video. It's likely that their interface is quite low, close to the Transparent layer so that most part of the cell is already full of Foam. The video shows that the Transparent layer reduces very rapidly. The gradual uncovering of the electrodes causes a rapid increase of the voltage in order to keep the current constant and the consequent increase of the dissipated electric power accelerates the evaporation rate of water, which in turn generates an even greater quantity of vapor, whose volume had been estimated in a previous jpeg (v). This high volumetric flux of rapidly rising vapor displaces and lifts the overlying Foam which is pushed toward the upper unsilvered limit of the glass, so that the cell appears again completely bright;


    K - [(2) at 01m17s, 21:52:58] Cell 1 at the beginning of the second clip in the "Four-cell Boil-off" video. This is the moment previously described in which the cell appears completely bright again, but this brightness is due to the Foam that is lifted by the vapor that is produced at the maximum volumetric rate. A blue text with time (21:52) and a blue arrow appear immediately at the beginning of this clip. The blue arrow was probably meant to indicate the level of the water at the said time. Hard to say which criteria was used to place this arrow, because in the exact moment at which the cell appears, it looks completely bright, but its level is rapidly changing. After a while, the exhaustion of the liquid water causes the sudden cessation of the vapor flow, the Foam is no longer lifted and its level rapidly drops to half height. Subsequently, the Foam level continues to decrease at a slower pace due to the breaking of its bubbles;


    L - [(2) at 01m30s, 22:17:58] Cell 1 in the same clip as above, in the moment when the lowest blue arrow is shown accompanied by the corresponding time (22:18) in blue digits. With reference to the clip scheme, this image is at the end of the thin white bar, which represents the time interval between the most extreme blue arrows appearing during the whole video clip represented by the thicker reddish bar. The duration of this interval is 26 minutes and, as already said (vi), it is not known how it could have been related to the 10-11 minutes that F&P stated were required to boil-away the last half of the initial water content;


    M - [(1) at 01m25s, 22:26:58] Cell 1 at the end of the video clip n.6. A few minutes after the image L, the residual Foam remains almost at the same level, well above (a couple of cell diameters) of the cell bottom;


    N - [(1) at 03m13s, 11:11:04] Cell 1 at the end of the video clip n.14. This is the very last image of Cell 1, taken from the last frame of video (1), at the end of the boil-off of Cell 4, that is after 25 days from the beginning of the experiment, and more than 10 days after the end of the boiling phase of the Cell 1 itself. Despite all this time, the Foam still persists at the bottom of Cell 1, with a volume not very different from that at time M. The video shows that the same happens for the Cell 2 and 4, while Cell 3 is the only one in which the Foam disappears almost completely in the outer part of the cell, but it persists in the innermost part. This indicates that the boil-off process generates a long-lasting Foam, which should not have been unnoticed by the experimenters who opened the cells at the end of the experiment;


    P – [(4), 22:03:57] Finally, it is described the image of Cell 1 derived from Figure 10 (B) included in the F&P paper presented at ICCF3. Its time, intermediate between the images K and L, and its caption ("The first cell during the final period of boiling dry with the other cells at lower temperatures.") confirm that this image was meant to represent the period during which half of the water content (that is 45 cm3 (2.5 moles) out of the initial 90 cm3 (5 moles)) vaporized in just 11 minutes (as stated on page 13 of the report) or in 10 minutes, as assumed in the calculation reported at page 16. This calculation gave a value of 145.5 W of excess heat generated during these last 10 minutes, that, divided by the volume of the Pd cathode, became 3700 W/cm3. Two numerical results summarized in this way by F&P on page 19 of their paper: "We note that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system; the specific excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors."


    Extraordinary claims based on a completely wrong assessment of their experiment, that, let me say, for nearly 30 years have been driving the inconclusive research of an impossible goal.


    (i) FP's experiments discussion

    (ii) FP's experiments discussion

    (iii) FP's experiments discussion

    (iv) FP's experiments discussion

    (v) FP's experiments discussion

    (vi) FP's experiments discussion


    (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434

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

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

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

  • Extraordinary claims based on a completely wrong assessment of their experiment, that, let me say, for nearly 30 years have been driving the inconclusive research of an impossible goal.


    More than a dozen of Labs did repeat the above extraordinary claims. They all found them being true including some military labs... All confirmed large excess energy of much higher than chemical level in amounts of Pd atoms present. Ascoli too knows the independent confirming report of Hansen and others.


    Ascoli65 : It is may be grand time that you explain what you think would be an impossible goal.


    We that stay in Labs and measure, we know that LENR is the normal version of nuclear fusion and that LENR can even start without adding any energy. We know this because we measure radiation not heat. Thus there is no discussion about LENR anymore. The only discussion is:


    Who is first with a process that delivers a market ready heater/ heat source!

  • Ascoli;

    I believe your green and Blue lines are incorrect.


    As I said before, the video have degraded from 1992 until it was digitized some 17 years later.


    It is not possible to see the actual water levels from pictures.


    Flweischmann had an easier job when the video was fresh.

  • More than a dozen of Labs did repeat the above extraordinary claims. They all found them being true including some military labs... All confirmed large excess energy of much higher than chemical level in amounts of Pd atoms present.


    Not quite. They ran similar experiments and got vaguely similar results, but not to any confidence-inspiring level. Also, they all failed to consider CSS/ATER, which leaves open the possibility that their 'excess heat' signals are due to the use of the wrong thermal model to interpret their data. And 'large'? Not so much even if true.



    Ascoli too knows the independent confirming report of Hansen



    Hansen didn't confirm anything except the math produced signals. For ex., check Figure 2 in the Hansen report. This is for a 'blank' cell, i.e. no supposed excess. Except the Qf curve (i.e. excess heat) shows an excess of ~80mW at the peak of the cycle ending at ~75C (roughly) when using 6.1e-10 for kr'. Assuming the bath T is 300K, the radiant heat term in the F&P equation gives an output power of 4.15W. The plot shows ~80mW 'excess heat' at that point for the 6.1e-10 curve. That is covered by a 2% increase in kr'.


    In Fig. 4, for the same cycle (i.e. ~75C ending T), there is an ~330 mW 'excess heat' in the 6.1e-10 curve. That can be obtained by an 8% error in kr'. Now from the blank cell we expect at least 2%. The question is, of the 6% left, how much is error in the math method, how much is ATER, and how much is LENR? Personally, without more data on calibration variation, I can't separate the observed 'excess heat' into the appropriate bins. The results seem to fall within 'experimental error'.


    BTW, the currents used in the whole study were 200, 400 and 800 mA. With a thermoneutral voltage of 1.54V, that means that available recombination heat is 308, 616, 1232 mW respectively. The cells represented in Figs 2 & 4 only used 800mA however. That means the maximum excess heat signal represented only 100*330/1232 = 26.8% of the maximum available signal, assuming no 'bump-up' factor (which may be reasonable for open cells like these). The whole signal could be nothing but ATER, as studies of those other 'replications' suggest is likely.


    You are force fitting your desired conclusion to data that doesn't really answer the question.


    Edit: BTW, the fact that the Qf curves are not flat indicates the model used to compute it needs improvement. Especially for a 'blank' cell, it should be flat (and at 0).


    2nd Edit: I just recalled that the Qf is calculated with the whole F&P equation which includes the P/(P*-P) term. At 75C, there may be a significant error starting to creep in via that term as well...

  • Sometimes Krivit makes valid statements....sometimes


    "Throughout his comments, Shanahan makes erroneous, sweeping generalizations about LENR researchers.

    In doing so, he glosses over and ignores wide variances in the quality and thoroughness of reported experimental results among LENR researchers.

    He ignores the better results and expertise in LENR research.

    Some of that research is excellent, some is average, and some is inferior and erroneous"


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…8responsetoshanahan.shtml

  • More than a dozen of Labs did repeat the above extraordinary claims. They all found them being true including some military labs... All confirmed large excess energy of much higher than chemical level in amounts of Pd atoms present. Ascoli too knows the independent confirming report of Hansen and others.


    As I have already told you (1), Hansen's analysis was not independent at all.


    Regarding the really independent replications, it is recognized in the LENR community, that the most similar to the F&P experiments were the tests reported by Lonchampt at ICCF6 in his paper "Reproduction of Fleischmann and Pons experiments". He probably reproduced also the same mistakes made by F&P.


    As for the other labs, it would be interesting to know how many of them had a copy of the video with the 4 cells.


    Quote

    It is may be grand time that you explain what you think would be an impossible goal.


    I already did it (2).


    Quote

    We that stay in Labs and measure, we know that LENR is the normal version of nuclear fusion and that LENR can even start without adding any energy. We know this because we measure radiation not heat. Thus there is no discussion about LENR anymore. The only discussion is:


    Who is first with a process that delivers a market ready heater/ heat source!


    This discussion concerns F&P experiments, whose results have been and still are referenced as the starting point of almost all the CF/LENR activities.


    What I know, from my point of observation, is that the most notorious F&P's claims are based on the most incredible misrepresentation of experimental data that can be imagined, committed by scientists who are considered the foremost electrochemists of the time and deserving a Nobel prize. So there is a wide margin to think that extraordinary claims about strange nuclear phenomena claimed by people not having the same credentials derive as well from some unthinkable faults.


    Anyway, if you are sure of your results, I wish you good luck. But let me suggest you to clear your documents from any reference to F&P and to any document in which they are referenced.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?