FP's experiments discussion

  • Could you provide your statistical analysis of the PdD2 CF results from1989- 2014, that justify this rather general statement THH?


    Robert: I think you are making assumptions here. My general statement does not refer to any specific results, so could not be justified by reference to them.


    However, your comment here provokes another general statement.


    A statistical analysis of a set of results using differing methodologies, equipment, etc would not serve to determine whether a claimed effect was sporadic, because it might be perfectly replicable but only appear under particular (known) conditions.


    To bring this to LENR specifics, Abd said a while ago that there was money for some guys to redo Pd/D2 work looking for correlation between excess heat and He. That set of experiments is to the point of your question, because if some controllable and replicable effect can be identified they could use it reliably in their experiments.


    Quite apart from the correlation, their work would serve as an additional check on whether or not some replicable Pd/D effect exists, and analysis of their results would help determine the degree of replicability.


    We are still not out of the woods on that, because as Shanahan has argued there could easily be a replicable effect based on some unexpected (by F&P. Jed, and those in the CF field) mechanism for ATER or another experimental lacuna that would in some experiments create apparent XSH anomalies that are in fact experimental anomalies.


    The merit of new experimental work is that any such possibility, since it has been suggested, can relatively easily be checked and prevented in the new experiments. That would require them to read Shanahan's published work and explicitly guard against that possibility using better experimental design, rather than arguing on theoretical grounds that it could not happen as others have done. I'd expect that, from any competent group replicating the work, because Shanahan's CCS can be detected or evaded quite easily once you admit it as a possibility.


    I have not heard the results of these experiments, but perhaps they now exist?


    THH

  • THH which documents are badly documented ?


    The F&P paper very badly documents the experimental results that it discusses.


    And your quote:


    "Personally I find it somewhat cult-like that the flakiest part of a very badly documented experiment ."


    is misleading in that it leaves out the thing that I find cult-like, replacing that by a full stop! Having a very badly documented experiment has nothing to do with cults, and what you have quoted is clearly missing the second part of the sentence.


    I'm summarising here a point I made and various people including I think at the time McKubre agreed with that the F&P paper cited here as strong evidence (from simplicity to complications back to ....) is in fact very poorly documented if viewed as an authoritative account of important experimental results showing an anomaly not accepted to date by the scientific community. Rather, that paper is a discussion of calorimetry illustrated by offhand reference to a whole set of experiments, with a few poorly documented specific results, and a lot of generalisation. There is nothing wrong with that approach in a summary paper, nor in a paper whose intent is to discuss calorimetry. The problem is if its content is taken as a report of definitive experimental results, as many have done.

  • Robert: I was referring to Alan and not you as a Brit.


    Re cults: I have not claimed the existence of cults related to LENR, rather stated that some behaviour is cult-like and should be avoided. I don't see this is a war, or a negotiation, merely me and you saying what we can to further understanding of these matters.


    I have viewed Rossi followers as in some ways a cult, but then I don't see that has any relationship to LENR.


    Cults, of course, (and ECW shares some elements with this) have a strong tribal element where those with different views are scorned and free discussion is prohibited.


    Will I promise not to mention cults here? No. And I cannot see why you should object to that. Were I calling some group of people a cult, who were not that, you could call me out. You may wish to do that in the case of Rossi followers. Where I point to cult-like behaviour, as on ECW, again you can disagree with me. You see I've given my reasons which do hold for ECW.


    I also think that any group of people interacting socially with strongly-held views different from the majority has the potential to be cult-like (that is a general comment) and therefore when I find myself within such a group, even virtually, I take special care to avoid this.


    This site is admirably uncult-like in its moderation. Thanks to Alan and many others. Which is why I don't expect this post to be moderated.


    :)

  • I mean difficult to produce and therefore difficult to detect

    That makes no sense. There is no connection between the difficulty of producing an effect and the difficulty of detecting it.


    To take an extreme example, it is very difficult to produce a nuclear explosion but extremely easy to detect it. If you see the size of the bomb and size of the explosion, and you measure gamma rays and other effects, you can be absolutely certain it is a nuclear explosion. If you see the size of a cold fusion cell and you measure 100,000 more energy coming out of it than a similar-sized chemical reactor, plus tritium and helium, you can be absolutely certain it is a nuclear effect.


    It is difficult to clone a sheep, but especially with Dolly it was obvious she was the clone of her mother. You could tell by looking at her coat, and you could be more certain by examining her DNA.


    It is extremely difficult to sent a robot explorer to Mars but when the photos come back there is no question the robot is on Mars.


    It is difficult to program a computer to beat the world's top experts in games such as chess, go or Jeopardy, but once you do it, there is no question the computer has won.


    I could give hundreds more examples.


    Perhaps you mean it is "difficult to detect" because you have to wait and do the experiment over and over before you get a chance to detect the effect. That is incorrect. If you have the money, the expertise and the equipment you can set up an array of experiments. One or more is bound to work every time you do a run. Bockris used to run a 10 x 10 array. He got 20 or 30 to work every time. Fleischmann and Pons did arrays of 16 and they always got positive results, although not always 16 out of 16.

  • The F&P paper very badly documents the experimental results that it discusses.

    Not in my opinion, or Fleischmann's, McKubre's or in the opinion of any expert in calorimetry I have heard from. You think so, but you also refuse to address any of the proof that Fleischmann, I and others pointed out, such as the fact that only the cathode is boiling. And the fact that there is not enough input power to boil the water, and energy balance is zero in the the control runs. Since you evade any discussion of these issues, I assume you have no answers, and you are tacitly admitting Fleischmann is right.


    You claim there are problems, but you have never listed a single one, in this experiment, or any other major experiment. You are only pretending to be skeptical. A real skeptic would have some basis for doubt. You have nothing.

  • 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.

    This is nonsense. All cold fusion experiments have controls, such as Pt-H. They can always be turned off, although it sometimes takes a few days with highly loaded bulk Pd. It is like turning off a large pile of burning coal. You have to wait for the fuel to escape from the metal. No one has identified any plausible experimental error in the best experiments. You haven't even tried, as I noted above. You claim there are invisible, undetected errors. That is not falsifiable, and it applies equally well to every experiment in history.

  • We know what was claimed to be. [What temperature]

    Not claimed. Shown. The pen recorder trace was in the book, and I uploaded a copy here. The thermocouple that produced it was working before the experiment, during and after it, and it still works today. You saw the pen recorder trace, but you refuse to believe it. You selectively ignore any data that does not agree with your crackpot theories, and then you tell the audience here that a pen-recorder graph is a "claim." No, it is a direct instrument reading.

  • We are still not out of the woods on that, because as Shanahan has argued there could easily be a replicable effect based on some unexpected (by F&P. Jed, and those in the CF field) mechanism for ATER or another experimental lacuna that would in some experiments create apparent XSH anomalies that are in fact experimental anomalies.

    Shanahan's claims were shown to incorrect by experts. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf


    Just because someone, somewhere makes a claim, that does not mean it is a valid claim. You might as well say relativity might be wrong because hundreds of wannabe physicists on the internet claim they can disprove it. (Einstein has long been the target of crackpots.) Shahanan is trying to show the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, that calorimetry does not work, and that he is better at calorimetry than Bob Duncan and dozens of other world class experts who have done cold fusion experiments. The data does not show what he claims. Control experiments do not show what he claims. Why do you believe him?

  • Shanahan's claims were shown to incorrect by experts. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf


    Just because someone, somewhere makes a claim, that does not mean it is a valid claim. You might as well say relativity might be wrong because hundreds of wannabe physicists on the internet claim they can disprove it. (Einstein has long been the target of crackpots.) Shahanan is trying to show the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, that calorimetry does not work, and that he is better at calorimetry than Bob Duncan and dozens of other world class experts who have done cold fusion experiments. The data does not show what he claims. Control experiments do not show what he claims. Why do you believe him?


    Jed: just to answer this (and the other one about controls).


    I don't "believe" Shanahan. In fact I don't think Shanahan believes Shanahan in the way you mean.


    But equaly, when you say "Shahanan is trying to show the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, that calorimetry does not work, and that he is better at calorimetry than Bob Duncan and dozens of other world class experts who have done cold fusion experiments" I don't think you have a good argument.


    The nub of CCS/ATER is that some difficult to reproduce active environment on electrodes in certain Pd/D experiments induces ATER - normally considered impossible. That hypothesis is similar in nature, but less radical than, the LENR hypothesis to exaplin the same thing.


    Then, he notes that some type of CF cell would have a calibration constant shift due to changing in-cell temperature gradients from ATER.


    Obviously, controls do not help this, because they will not show ATER and therefore the corresponding shift.


    I agree, there are calorimetric experiments that can quite easily be shown not susceptible to this, but many of the experiments cited by you (including F&P) do not show this.


    You don't need CCS/ATER to see that LENR "controls" are not necessarily controls. D vs H (and Pt vs Pd) make major physical changes that can affect system operation.


    The reaction of CF researchers in your Marwan reference above is basically to deny this can ever happen on theoretical (or other) grounds. That is similar to main-stream scientists denying LENR can ever happen on theoretical (or other) grounds and just as dangerous.


    Your comparators do not hold. For example, relativity was denied for many years before a vast amount of reproducible evidence existed in its favour. More importantly, relativity made precise unexpected predictions which were (long after the prediction) experimentally validated. LENR theory has no such predictions yet. If there were a consistent LENR theory that made precise unexpected and measurable predictions, even if it were a long shot, it would get investigated.


    In fact the various modified GR theories are all contenders. But they need to make distinct predictions, and those need to be shown correct. Last I heard the most interesting such contender was looking like its predictions were not being found. But it is early days.

  • 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..


    The second picture (the one with the red F) comes from the jpeg posted with the comment "Videos reveal the real behavior during boil-off of Cell 1" (1). It's a small portion of the entire jpeg showing only two images of Cell 1. On the right of these 2 images, there is a series of 6 images that shows how the level of the liquid level decreases before and during the final boil-off phase indicated by F&P as the period during which half of the initial water content would have been vaporized. So, shadows and reflections in the videos have nothing to do with the evident progressive lowering of the liquid level within the cells.


    Regarding the quality of the video, as already said (2), the longest was given to Rothwell in a digitized form by Fleischmann, when he was still at IMRA, ie before 1996. Its quality is more than enough to see what happened during the 1992 experiment, provided there is readiness in seeing it.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

  • But equaly, when you say "Shahanan is trying to show the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, that calorimetry does not work, and that he is better at calorimetry than Bob Duncan and dozens of other world class experts who have done cold fusion experiments" I don't think you have a good argument.

    It isn't my argument. See Marwan et al. They are experts and so is Duncan, and so was Fleischmann. Every one of these people who has bothered to look at Shanahan's paper say it is wrong, mainly for the reasons listed in Marwan. (For other reasons as well.) If you disagree, I suggest you write a detailed review of Marwan. Explain, for example, why it is that Shanahan's effect never happens with the control runs such as Pt-H. How can the choice of metals and the type of water cause the Shanahan effect to turn on or off?


    The nub of CCS/ATER is that some difficult to reproduce active environment on electrodes in certain Pd/D experiments induces ATER - normally considered impossible.

    No, the nub of it is that source of the heat moves and that affects the calorimetry, but only when you use Pd and D2O, never with other materials. That's impossible. Also, you are mistaken. Cold fusion is not difficult to reproduce. If you are an expert and you do 100 experiments at a time, you are bound to see it. Saying it is "difficult" is like saying it is difficult to clone animals because you have to do 1000 samples at a time (or in series).


    You have not addressed why is that kind of "difficulty" is an issue in the first place. It makes no scientific sense. Do you say that robot explorers on are Mars may not exist because they are difficult and time consuming to fabricate, launch and land?


    I agree, there are calorimetric experiments that can quite easily be shown not susceptible to this, but many of the experiments cited by you (including F&P) do not show this.

    You are wrong about that. Obviously you are wrong, because you have not given us a single reason to doubt Fleischmann's work, and you have not addressed any of the reasons Fleischmann and I listed, such as the fact that control experiments show an energy balance of zero. If you have a reason -- any reason! -- I am sure you would have listed it by now. You did once claim that there might be entrained, unboiled water, but that is wrong for a number of reasons that Fleischmann listed. Perhaps you still say that, but repeating a mistake does not make it correct.


    You keep saying this or that experiment is wrong, but you give no reasons. Waving your hands and saying there may be an error somewhere that someone someday may find is not science. A negative view has to be supported with as much rigor as a positive view. You are claiming that calorimetric techniques that have been used for centuries and constants such as the heat of vaporization of water are wrong, retorts do not work, and inventorying the salt left in the test tube does not prove the water was vaporized. These are radical assertions. You have to justify them.

  • More importantly, relativity made precise unexpected predictions which were (long after the prediction) experimentally validated. LENR theory has no such predictions yet.

    You are completely wrong.


    LENR does make predictions, and they have been confirmed in hundreds of experiments. For example, it predicts that when loading and the other parameters in the McKubre equation are met, the cell will produce excess heat without any chemical changes. If these conditions are maintained, the heat will continue indefinitely, amounting to thousands or in same cases hundreds of thousands of times more than any chemical source of heat, with no chemical changes.


    The McKubre equation is empirical, with no theoretical basis, but so was Ohm's law when it was formulated. It may be empirical but it is precise and it predicts behavior closely and (almost) always correctly. It predicts these results, which as you see are highly predictable and uniform:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress…loads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg


    LENR also predicts helium in the ratio to heat, 24 MeV per atom. Everyone who has checked this has confirmed it, albeit sometimes with broad error margins.


    I find your statement "it has no predictions" mind boggling. It is as if you have read nothing about the field.

  • LENR does make predictions, and they have been confirmed in hundreds of experiments. For example, it predicts that when loading and the other parameters in the McKubre equation are met, the cell will produce excess heat without any chemical changes.

    Not only does the equation predict heat, it predicts the magnitude of the heat, with r=0.85, correlation=73% in one example. See p. 14:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusiona.pdf


    The measured values closely follow the predicted values, in this and in most other experiments. In some cases unknown factors prevent this, but most of the time, experiments are predictable. That does not mean they are controllable. Conditions that satisfy the equation may be difficult to meet, but when they are met, the effect turns on, and you can predict the magnitude of the heat by measuring the electrochemical parameters. That is predictability. It is not easy reproducibility. The two are completely different qualities, although people often confuse them.


    To give a similar example, in 1958, if you managed to launch a rocket, and if you could keep it controlled, the payload would then orbit the earth in a very predictable fashion. However, most U.S. rockets exploded or went out of control. Launches were difficult to achieve for many complex reasons. But when all conditions were met and everything worked properly, there was no doubt the satellite was in orbit and the orbit was predictable, using Newtonian physics. The process was complex but successful results were very, very clear, and unarguable.

  • To bring this to LENR specifics, Abd said a while ago that there was money for some guys to redo Pd/D2 work looking for correlation between excess heat and He. That set of experiments is to the point of your question, because if some controllable and replicable effect can be identified they could use it reliably in their experiments.


    [...]


    The merit of new experimental work is that any such possibility, since it has been suggested, can relatively easily be checked and prevented in the new experiments. That would require them to read Shanahan's published work and explicitly guard against that possibility using better experimental design, rather than arguing on theoretical grounds that it could not happen as others have done. I'd expect that, from any competent group replicating the work, because Shanahan's CCS can be detected or evaded quite easily once you admit it as a possibility.


    THH, let me ask you, do you really think that such an experimental checking still makes sense after the "foam issue" aroused? Don't you think that the verification of a correlation between XH and He requires that the claims about the existence of the two anomalous phenomena to be correlated is at least believable? Now we are in the situation in which the first claimants of such anomalies could have heavily misrepresented their experimental results in order to obtain an inexistent XH, "in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors". If this misrepresentation is real, we are facing a serious problem of reliability.


    In the long lasting debate on the reality of the F&P claims, the criticisms have often been rebutted on an authoritative basis, just reporting some F&P's says and stressing the unquestionable competence and reliability of the two CF pioneers. This is a valid general argument, as long as it lasts. But the videos of their 1992 experiments seems to show that this is no longer applicable to them.


    Don't you think, at this point, that the priority for the scientific community - at least that part interested in finding and proclaiming the truth about the F&P claims - is to better investigate the "foam issue", check if it is true and, if so, determine how such an incredible mistake could have happened?


    Instead of inconclusive tests on the phantom He/XH correlation, wouldn't it be better to promote an experimental effort to reproduce the boil-off transients in the F&P open-cells in order to check the likelihood of the foam build-up and measure the actual rate of vaporization during the boil-off event?

    In other words, instead of struggling to reproduce non-existent phenomena, isn't it easier to reproduce the possible flaws in the F&P experiments which led to the their unsubstantiated claims?

  • Ascoli ..maybe Krivit is interested in foamgate.


    I have already specified my expectations (1) and you have informed him (2). Nothing more to add.


    Quote

    I doubt that if Fleischmann watched and rewatched and measured several videos {many more times than you ever did) then he would not have noticed foam.


    He also was in possession of the original video recording which is much longer than the four short videos publicly available on the web (3).


    Probably the original lab video lasts about 1 hour (60 min), at least, and could have recorded on a 90 or 120 min videocassette. Anyone who received a copy of that video was in the condition to easily notice and follow the lowering of the water level during the 5-6 hours that preceded each dryout of the four cells, including the build-up and settle-down of the foam at the very end of these boil-off periods.


    Quote

    Perhaps he was blind.


    The reasons which led to the liquid/foam misrepresentation should be investigated only after the reaching of a more general consensus on what happened during the 1992 experiment.


    To this respect, the retrieving of one copy of the original lab video can be very helpful in clarifying the reasons of this misrepresentation.


    As for the image of the Figure 6 that you added to your post, the excess enthalpies indicated by the green arrows have nothing to do with the "foam issue". As explained in a previous jpeg (4), those numbers refer to the LHX claims, while the "foam issue" pertain the XHX claims.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    (4) FP's experiments discussion

  • Your word " Misrepresentation" is a misrepresentation of the truth.


    Why? Can you tell me what is the truth of the Four-cell Boil-off experiment? And, btw, would you answer my old question about what the videos show? Liquid or foam (1)?


    Quote

    Can you find a better word that does not prejudice the " discussion " in your favour?


    What about "possible misrepresentation"?


    In any case, the discussion should proceed in favor of the truth, not mine. I hope that this is also the prevailing scope of most of the L-F members and guests, notwithstanding the sadness and disappointment of many of them in face of such an unexpected (possible) truth.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • Regarding “FoamGate” :


    Ascoli believes the 25 cm high tube cells of F&P where mostly filled with foam and not approximately 50% (2,5 moles) water at the start of the last 10 minutes of boiling.


    So, one important question is then what feasible layer of foam is actually possible to generate on top of boiling heavy water. In experiments by Miles below, a 3 cm layer of foam is identified during Boiling.


    Suggesting, as Ascoli does, foam at another order of magnitude at 20+ cm foam layer is not realistic or feasible 😉


    One should remember here that Fleischmann was very well aware of possible foaming and knew how the foam developed during boiling.


    And of course, they also used their eyes during their various boiling experiments, not only a video tape 😉. So they knew and had experience of possible height of foam layers during boiling.


    In the document [1] below, there are some communication between Fleischman and Melvin Miles on the issue of foam:


    Tests done by Miles in 2002++

    Dear Martin,

    I will mail the pH and weight data from Mr. Sumi today. The pH change does not support the

    “spillover of electrolyte” proposed by Mr. Moxley in his letter. I did observe about 3 cm of foam

    in my cell during boiling, but the liquid level was well below the cell top. The loss of liquid by

    forming may be a problem if NHE ran their cells over-filled as you suggest. It was not a problem

    in my boil-off experiment.

    Sincerely,

    Mel Miles«


    A few replies from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles:

    Now as to the possible foaming in the cells. The Japanese were plagued by this problem due

    to their use of D2O destined for N.M.R. experiments. This contained added detergent to aid the

    filling of sample tubes. We wrote to them at length about this and I thought that the problem had been cleared up.”

    ….


    You have also pointed out that the anomalous value of (kR′) on day 61 was probably due to foaming in the cell. This is another problem which we pointed out to our Japanese colleagues. Samples of D2O sometimes contain added detergent to aid the filling of the NMR tubes!”

    We once had a batch of D2O that foamed badly. We traced this back to the Girdler-Sulfide process used by AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.).


    [1] http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf

  • I can face possible.. and probable if you can provide probable evidence.


    The evidences have been provided by F&P in their ICCF3 paper and related videos. They are at disposition of those who have the ability and the willingness to see them. I can't provide these last.


    Quote

    As for possible foam... I'd go with the probable, almost certain meticulousnessness

    of the creators of these drawings

    who had a lot more intimate testtube time than Ascoli65.


    As already said (1), the data indicated by the green arrows in the graph you posted are not related to the foam issue.


    Regarding the meticulousness of their creators, it could be explained in two (possible) ways: either they didn't know what they were doing or they were trying to enchant the readers with an apparent and striking, but unsubstantiated, accuracy.


    The many years that they spent in designing, building, operating their testtubes and in analyzing and reporting the relative results, including the videos, would (possibly) point to the second explanation.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion