FP's experiments discussion

  • I believe your green and Blue lines are incorrect.


    I'm sure they are not fully correct. I also put a couple of question points along them. But they are representative of what happened in the F&P cells during the boil-off experiments.


    What really matters is the blue line. Its trend is easily recognizable until the moment of image I. The position of the level on image J has been roughly estimated observing the level drop during the 47 minutes between images K and I and considering the 89 minutes (almost the double and at a higher power level) to get to image J. This level also complies with the estimate made in (1).


    Quote

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


    Until now, we have identified 4 public videos. You don't know when each of them was digitized and when it started to circulate within the LENR community (btw, this is one of the most interesting thing to know).


    The longest and more detailed video is the one posted on YouTube by Rothwell in 2015, 23 years after the test. But Rothwell also wrote that (2): "This video was provided to LENR-CANR.org by Prof. Martin Fleischmann, IMRA Europe". Fleischmann retired from IMRA in 1996, so it is likely that Rothwell received that video in 1996, or even earlier, already digitized "in a gigantic file" (3).


    Quote

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


    If you mean from the images on my jpeg (4), you are right. For this reason I have specified for each image its exact position in the video from which it was obtained. Watching the videos allow to more easily locate the position of the interface between the different layers.


    Quote

    Flweischmann had an easier job when the video was fresh.


    Sure. He and Pons also had the possibility to observe the buildup of the foam in real time just by looking directly at the cells. But this only reduces the chances that what is reported in their ICCF3 paper derives from an involuntary mistake.


    In their paper (5), F&P wrote: "As it is possible to repeatedly reverse and run forward the video recordings at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make reasonably accurate estimates of the cell contents. We have chosen to time the evaporation/boiling of the last half of the D2O in cells of this type and this allows us to make particularly simple thermal balances for the operation in the region of the boiling point."


    Robert Horst, a serious, competent and active member of the LENR community, has recently admitted (6): "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 videos are now "out of the bag". It's time for everyone to take their own position: foam or liquid?


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) https://www.mail-archive.com/v…eskimo.com/msg102718.html

    (3) https://www.mail-archive.com/v…eskimo.com/msg102627.html

    (4) FP's experiments discussion

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

    (6) FP's experiments discussion

  • That is covered by a 2% increase in kr'.


    May be you have forgotton that there was always a drift before the refill. After refill there was always decrease... Please read what Hansen says about the overall accuracy of the calorimeter! You also never refuted the claims by other reviewers that did exclude any energy relevant recombination.


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


    May be you could tell us about your independence...


    Utah state University at least believed that Hansen was independent. May be they (Fleischmann, Hansen) had once a common ancestor in the Neandertaler ages...


  • According to Krivits, Shanahan was paid by the DOE to critique he and Marwan's paper:


    "Ironically, despite the fact that the Department of Energy has spent virtually nothing to support LENR research for 20 years, the department has paid for Shanahan's extensive comments to our paper (under Contract No. DE-AC09-08SR22470)."


    Long story short; the Royal Society of Chemistry published an article in Sept 2009, that was co-authored by Krivit and Marwan. It put a positive spin on LENR. In April 2010 Shanahan responded to the article in his typical negative, anti-LENR way. Not being critical of Kirk, but I find it odd the DOE would pay him to do this. Why would they contract out to one of their already salaried employees (he works for the DOE), or anyone for that matter, to counter a puff piece on LENR?


    If true, it does not make sense.