FP's experiments discussion

  • Kirk,


    You mean some ghostly CCS 😏......that suddenly appear .....and suddenly disappear....,somewhere.....sometimes.....we never know....where and when..... just like....ghosts....and can not be proven . ;) 🤓


    Or some ghostly water levels that some think they see in some old degrraded videos ;)

  • You mean some ghostly CCS 😏......that suddenly appear .....and suddenly disappear....,somewhere.....sometimes.....we never know....where and when..... just like....ghosts....and can not be proven . 🤓



    Sounds a lot like some ghostly XSH 😏......that suddenly appear .....and suddenly disappear....,somewhere.....sometimes.....we never know....where and when..... just like....ghosts....and can not be proven . 🤓

  • Sounds a lot like some ghostly XSH 😏......that suddenly appear .....and suddenly disappear....,somewhere.....sometimes.....we never know....where and when..... just like....ghosts....and can not be proven . 🤓



    And that is exactly the point. Were the claimed XSH effect easily replicable, rather than mysterious and difficult to find, it would by now be agreed by all, or diagnosed as an understood error.


    The same applies to AS et als "lovely gammas". If the effect is replicable and deterministic, it can be further understood and who knows, maybe our very own Alan can get a Nobel. If it stays tantalising, not capable of being precisely pinned down, not simply controllable, then the most likely cause ifs some experimental effect not understood. As elusive as LENR, but more prosaic.


    Oystla's comment above misrepresents the situation. Suppose we have some unclear and unreplicable may be there or may be not experimental results. The two possibilities are novel nuclear reactions of an unclear sort (no-one to my knowledge has found a precise LENR theory which predicts more than a small part of the claimed observations) or undetected experimental issues of an unknown (to the experimenter and anyone looking at partial write-ups) sort.


    Which of these two hypotheses is more likely?

  • So you're saying that if one puts a heated reactor in a bucket of water, the water temperature wouldn't rise to near it's boiling point? Kinda depends on the heater doesn't it?


    Yes, and you can work out just how hot by using equilibrium equations. AKA the 1st LofT. It would need to have been glowing red hot.


    Which according to you, is totally plausible, apparently.


  • What I have analyzed are the available data of the Four-cell Boil-off test carried out in April-May 1992, which were reported by F&P in two main documents: the paper presented at ICCF3 in October 1992 (1) and the article published on Physics Letters A (PLA) in May 1993 (2). The two documents are almost identical.


    In the PLA version, a couple of figures were removed and, considering that the article was addressed to a less specialized public, an introduction was added containing the two excerpts you quoted.


    These excerpts doesn't address the results of the experiment which were presented in both the 1992 paper and 1993 article. The subject of these last documents is well described at the beginning of their identical abstract:

    ABSTRACT

    We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd/D2O system which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1kWcm-3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution. This has led to a particularly simple method of deriving the rate of excess enthalpy production based on measuring the times required to boil the cells to dryness, this process being followed by using time-lapse video recordings.


    As you can see, the subject of the ICCF3 paper and the PLA article (the last article published by F&P on a main stream scientific journal) IS the "specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1kWcm-3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point", ie what I proposed to call a HXH claim.


    Moreover, as said in the above abstract, this HXH is "based on measuring the times required to boil the cells to dryness". And, finally, this measurement was done "by using time-lapse video recordings".


    Going backward: the video recordings, those that you want to ignore, are the experimental evidences for establishing the boil-to-dry times, on which the excess heat is calculated in the major paper of F&P, who are the founders of CF.

    Quote

    Anyhow: I haven't found any major errors in these papers yet, so any specific main critical points you would like to point to? which is actually inside the paper and not in some old video tapes not part of the paper?


    I already pointed it out many times. The major error is in the boil-to-dry time of the last half of the liquid water content that F&P used at page 16 of their ICCF3 paper to calculate the presumed excess heat. This time (600 s = 10 min) is strongly underestimated, even if referred to the vaporization of only half of water content. In fact, before this "grand finale", the cells were boiling for hours and their water content was already gone, leaving foam - nothing but foam - at its place. The boil-to-dry time, used by F&P in their calculation, was nothing else than the settling-down time of the foam during and after the boiling away of the last few grams of water.


    No wonder that you don't see this error. It's big as an elephant in a room. This is probably the reason why it has not been seen in almost 30 years, even by people that have deeply scrutinized and heavily criticized the work of F&P. Nobody would have thought that the room was hosting such an improbable animal. Moreover, the old householders have camouflaged it quite effectively and dimmed the lights. And now, the new householders tries in every way to move the visitors to the other rooms.


    If you really want to see the error, you should pay enough attention. Get the videos - which, as explained before, are an integral part of the paper - look at them very carefully - possibly a couple dozen times, as Robert Horst did (3) - and you will see the elephant in the room.


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

    (2) http://coldfusioncommunity.net…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

  • Not according to me, that's your strawman.


    Oh really?...


    So I've been piddling around with the equation bocijn found, using 10% relative humidity and 1 m/s air movement over the bucket for the first datum that JedR supplied in his into he referenced (10L evap'd in 1 day, but starting at 100C). The 100C starting point means we have to assume some sort of cooling curve, if we assume no CF heat. I assumed an average temp of 60C.


    So what's that then?


    Seems that you have a strange definition of 'straw man'... Apparently encompassing all things you wish just weren't true? A rhetorical last resort, as it were.

  • So what's that then?


    Its called an assumption. In particular, an assumed value for one of the parameters of a parametric study, which is what you seemed to have missed (deliberately in my opinion). You didn't like my assumption. Tough, get over it. If you were honest, you'd quote all the other values I used as well instead of trying to paint me as a quack who made an assumption and then acted as if it were the only value possible (which is more consistent with your behavior). Your rejection of that temp is based on your fixation on a given set of input values you derived from the written reports. I on the other hand was trying to construct a response surface with which to compare the reported results while working under an umbrella assumption of an inaccurate temperature reading. IOW, I assumed an error, you assumed LENR. THUNK.

  • And that is exactly the point. Were the claimed XSH effect easily replicable, rather than mysterious and difficult to find,

    What do you mean by "find"? Do you mean produce the effect or detect it?


    It is difficult to produce but in many cases it is dead easy to detect. It has often been impossible to miss. In thousands of tests power was high enough to measure with the first modern ice calorimeter made by Lavoisier in 1780. The people at Shell Oil made a close copy of that calorimeter and measured cold fusion excess heat with it. (It was somewhat more sensitive than the 1780 instrument, but not greatly so. Heat is a function of the mass of melted water, which could be measured with precision even in the 18th century.)


    Most other calorimeters closely resemble the ones made by J. P. Joule in the 1840s, as Fleischmann pointed out. The sensitivity of these instruments depends on the smallest unit of temperature you measure. Joule measured units of 0.01°F, as I recall. That would be sensitive enough to measure most cold fusion reactions.


    In other words, if you are saying the effect is difficult to detect, that is nonsense. Just about any scientist in the last 240 years could measure it with confidence. When Bockris called in the best calorimetry expert to review his results, the guy looked at the instruments and data, laughed, and said "anyone can measure that much heat." He meant it.


    If you are saying it is difficult to produce, you need to explain why that standard is meaningful. Start by telling us difficult compared to what. The top quark? The first cloned sheep, which worked ~1 in 1000 attempts? Many types of transistors in 1952? Rockets in 1958? The success rate for cold fusion is far higher than these things, but I doubt you claimed that cloned sheep did not exist when Dolly was in the news. I doubt you would have said "rockets don't exist" in 1958. You and others apply that a-scientific standard to cold fusion, and cold fusion alone. It is absurd. Many thousands of famous experiments are famous precisely because they were so difficult to achieve. Examples include the 1919 eclipse observation; Goddard's rockets; the atomic bomb; the detection of gravity waves, robotic exploration of Mars, and as noted, the top quark and cloned mammals. All of these things remain difficult to replicate. No one in the history of science has ever claimed that an experiment is invalid because it is difficult, or because the success rate is low.

  • We know the temperature of the reactor inside and outside. It is in the document I uploaded.


    We know what was claimed to be. That claim produces an anomaly. Mundane causes must be examined when attempting to explain an anomaly. Temperature measurement device malfunction is one such mundane problem that must be considered. Unless one has ESP or a predetermined conclusion.


    It is called a lie.


    Hyperventillating again. Get a brown bag, put it over your face, and stay that way to fix the problem...


    Happy Thanksgiving all, see you Monday maybe...

  • Ascoli,


    Your fatal flaw in your analysis is that you think you see water levels, when you actually can't on these old degraded video tapes.


    And you have been tricked by light and shadows, as we clearly see in below pictures, where you think it's water level in your horizontal red line, but it is a shadow that has been there all the time from behind as seen in the other picture which is completely water filled tubes and still you see the same shadow where I placed an arrow..


  • That is a good question Jed.


    I mean difficult to produce and therefore difficult to detect.


    While I agree that a replicable controllable effect could easily be detected, once you have an effect that cannot be controlled, that can switch off at any time for reasons not understood, you then cannot easily distinguish sporadic effect from sporadic experimental error. After all, the way we detect experimental errors is by noticing anomalies. But now there is no telling whether the anomaly is the real effect, or something intermittently wrong with the experiment.


    That is why science demands replicability before declaring anomalous results a sure sign of new physics.


    THH