FP's experiments discussion

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    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.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    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.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    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?

    Quote from RobertBryant

    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

    Quote from RobertBryant

    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

    Quote from RobertBryant

    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

    Quote from Ascoli65

    either they didn't know what


    1. " Ignorance" Hypothesis. Very improbable ..except to a test-tube novice such as Ascoli, who ignores all counter evidence

    La valutazione è improbabile.


    Quote from Ascoli65

    they were trying to enchant the readers


    Quote from H-G Branzell

    As it is they all act more like witch doctors trying to cure cancer by magic spells and healing.


    2."Fraud" hypothesis. Ascoli65 and HGBranzell are similar ,. zero evidence that either are true.

    La valutazione soffre di hybris.

    Quote from oystla

    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.


    I believe what is shown by the videos prepared by F&P, that is that the cells where mostly filled with foam at the start of the last 10 minutes of boiling.


    Btw, 25 cm is the total length of the cell. Considering the upper plug and the lower support the internal height available for the water was closer to 18 cm. In addition, the upper silvered portion reduced the visible height of the water column to only 13 cm.


    Quote

    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


    Why not? The 3 cm height is only an intermediate step to reach the height that would have given the impression that the cell was almost full of water. Furthermore, as explained in (1), the foam layer accumulated at the end of the boiling phase was lifted by the high speed of the vapor generated when the cell voltage reached its maximum. This allowed the foam to fill all the unsilvered portion of the cell.


    Quote

    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.


    Yes, don't worry. Everybody knows.


    Quote

    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.”


    This is one of the more amazing page, in this tragic story. The Japanese spent dozens of million dollars of public and private money, trying for many years to vaporize the water in the F&P cells at the same speed at which the foam had settled-down in the original F&P experiments. No wonder that they didn't succeeded.


    Unfortunately, after the Japanese, it was the turn of the Italians to have hired as scientific advisor one of most creative electrochemist in the world, and great expert in foam.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    Quote from Ascoli65

    The Japanese spent dozens of million dollars of public


    The Japanese are still spending millions and Professor Akito Takahashi has plenty co-workers in 2018 ..all unmindful of GSVIT Ascoli's foaming


    " A. Takahashi described earlier this year{1992} (obtaining tremendous Xs heat in a heavy water electrolysis

    experiment that ran at an average of 1.7 output power over input power for about two months.The total excess enthalpy generated was claimed to be about 2250 MJ/molePd (more than 20 KeV per Pd atom), .

    Following Takahashi's announcement, many laboratories attempted a

    replication.Takahashi's experiment is similar in many ways to the classical Pons-Fleischmann experiments with some variations. A Pd foil from Tanaka Kikinziku Kyogo (Tanaka

    Precious Metals Co.) with dimensions 2.5 cm H 2.5 cm H 1 mm is used for a cathodeinstead of a rod. The electrolyte volume is very large (700 cc of D2O with 0.3 M LiOD).

    An innovation of Takahashi is the use of a time-varying current which alternatesbetween a high mode (4-5 amps) and a low mode (0.2-0.4 amps) every six hours.Takahasi's calorimeter is an open cell flow calorimeter, where water from a chiller isflowing through a coil inside the cell, and the power is determined from a knowledge of the mass flow rate and the input-output temperature difference. ...

    The total input energy for the initial experiment was 250 MJ, the total output energymeasured was 410 MJ, leading to an excess of 160 MJ. Takahashi's excess power level claimed was 32 watts averaged over two months, with excursions to 100-130 watts. The

    cathode volume is 0.625 cm3 (0.0706 moles), so that the average power density is 51

    watts/cm3 and peak excursions are 160-208 watts/cm3"

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…origin=publication_detail




    .

    Ascoli,


    "You see, but you do not observe" 🤓


    Here's a clue; integrate the input power from the last time the cell was filled (and therefore full) and until it was empty ;)


    Anyhow, you maintain "whiteness" in the video is equal to foam, but that is not necessarily true. it can also be reflection of bubles transported through a pure water phase, as seen in the beginning of the videos and Gradually increasing in strength


    Please remember that eyes are some plus minus 100 megapixels, while the old video recording is probably less than a megapixel resolution. So I maintain the view that the experienced eyes of F&P knew what they observed in 1992' after the hundreds of tests prior to 1992.


    Quote from RobertBryant

    1. " Ignorance" Hypothesis. Very improbable ..except to a test-tube novice such as Ascoli, who ignores all counter evidence
    La valutazione è improbabile.


    I had answered your remark about the meticulousness of F&P in preparing the graph you posted (1), in which two series of numbers are aligned: the Input Enthalpies (Ei) and the Excess Enthalpy (Ex). Both these quantities are written with 3 decimals, down to the mW range. This make no sense, for many reasons.


    Just to mention the funniest one. Ei values greater than 1 W have been calculated with a numerical accuracy of 5 mW (they ends with either 0 or 5), while the Ex values, which derive from Ei, are shown with a numerical accuracy of 1 mW.


    There is no needing to be neither a tube expert nor a tube novice to notice these kind of inconsistencies.

    Quote

    2."Fraud" hypothesis. Ascoli65 and HGBranzell are similar ,. zero evidence that either are true.

    La valutazione soffre di hybris.


    This is very unfair from your side. I didn't mention the F word.

    Furthermore, the similarity with another L-F member is inappropriate, I have to account only for what I say.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    3. Foam hypothesis

    Based on Ascoli's interpretation of an unclear contextual-poor video still, ............zero - corroborating evidence


    That's a legitimate opinion on your side. A few others have expressed a different opinion, sharing my interpretation of the video.


    This is an open debate. Let's hope that many other CF/LENR followers will join it, bringing their opinions and knowledge in support of both the interpretations on this important issue.


    There are still 4 months to go before the 30th anniversary of the F&P press conference. It would be good to arrive at that appointment with a generally accepted opinion on the foam issue.

    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    Put it this way. That video, and equally a visual inspection of the videoed experiment, provides zero evidence for high energy production during the boil-off period.


    Those claiming that although it is not clear, we must believe F's interpretation because he was expert and could judge better than us are on a sticky wicket, for many reasons.


    OTOH, if there is other good evidence of very large excess enthalpy during boil-off those foamy test-tube pics are not needed, and for the same reason it is difficult to be sure that the white stuff is low D2O density foam.


    Perhaps a more pertinent question is why was F are offering such poor and ambiguous evidence of high power production? The obvious reason: because he did not have more convincing evidence.

    Huxley,


    You could of course start with this one Below, a more or less excact replication.


    Anyhow, what F&P tried in the last years, was to engineer a high power system for practical real engineering purposes, for the real world, not a Scientific journey to understand Excess heat cause.


    Like man found how to make fire and use it for practical purposes long before we knew the chemistry of combustion.


    But for F&P type electrolysis system, that was probably a blind road.


    But for Boiling replications, this is one below is one of them. And they even did not try to read actual water levels during Boiling ;)


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

    From Lonchanpt et al:


    Excess heat = A + L – D
    Where “A”, “D” and “L” have the same definition as above. It is difficult to follow accurately the level of
    water during this period because of the formation of foam, so it is only at the end of the experiment, when the cell is
    dry that the excess heat can be calculated with precision


    Agreed.


    The boiling temperature is only progressively reached as the bubbles, here initiated by electrolysis
    incorporate more and more water vapor. In this region, the full calculation using equation (1) gives wrong positive
    excess heat measurements, and therefore cannot be applied. This is probably due to an erroneous estimation of “B”
    which is very sensitive to pressure and temperature measurements. Up until now we have not been able to get a good
    blank experiment with platinum in this region using the full equation. Therefore, instead, we use the measurement of
    the enthalpy produced to evaporate the total amount of water contained in the cell, as described in section 3.2.


    Note no control here, to keep things honest.


    - below 70°C, between 0 and 5%
    - between 70°C and 99°C, about 10%
    - at boiling, up to 150% especially in the final phase which appears as the best condition to
    get a large amount of excess heat.


    The keynote results here are lower (nearer balance) than those of F. They also get larger for the regimes in which you'd expect key assumptions to be less correct.


    Concerning condensation on the inner surface of the plug, again our platinum runs indicate that it is
    negligible.


    Indeed, but note no equivalent control runs for the boiling condition.


    The boiling results (inferred from the above equation) are valid only if the gasses exiting are dry. As you know, this is not shown by F and equally not shown by Longchampt et al.


    In fact this same issue applies also (at a lower level) for the 70%-99% regime.


    More generally, this replication follows F closely, as do people here, making the same assumptions (e.g. dry steam).

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.