FP's experiments discussion

Quote from JedRothwell

All cold fusion experiments have controls, such as Pt-H

As THH noted, Pt-H is not a 'control' for Pd-D, nor is Pd-H if one is thinking chemically...

Quote from JedRothwell

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

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

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Actually, in the Marwan, et al, paper, the problem is that they completely mis-state what I said. One cannont prove someone else's statement wrong when one doesn't even know what was said.

F&P boil-off experiments (1992) – A Foamy Story

Quote from RobertBryant

I look forward to Ascoli65's intellectually honest demonstration
of foaming [...]

and observing what kind of foam occurs.

This is the best I can do for you.

Referenced in the jpeg:

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

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

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

(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OQu44UIC_s

(5) http://vimeo.com/9438745

(6) http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf

(7) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf

Quote from Ascoli65

This is the best I can do for you.

You don't have microwave oven and/or you can't buy NaOH??? lenr-forum.com/attachment/6798/

I look forward to Ascoli65's intellectually honest demonstration

1. 0.4 gm NaOH/100 mls water

2. 0.4 gm NaOH/100 mls beer

Please boil and observe what kind of foam occurs.

after that source some LiOH ...... ~0.5 gm

F&P Boil Off experiments (1992-1993) – Calculation of Excess Heat (PART 2)

In previous part [1] of this analysis we investigated excess heat in the period between 72 and 87 degC (Fig 6A in the paper [2] ).

Next we will be analyzing the period between 10 and 11 in the figure below attached. This period is a continuing period after the last analysis, and is still below boiling temperature, but has a higher rate of temperature increase, and may therefore be of interest.

This would also tell us something on the trend of excess heat as function of temperature.

Results:

As shown the excess heat is now increased in the 97 to 210% range, i.e. higher than previous analysis. The results of this and the previous analysis [1] may now be plotted in the following graph attached .

When the cell temperature for some mysterious reason starts to increase after weeks of electrolysis, we note that the phenomenon increases in strength as temperature increases.

And as indicated, the anomalous temperature trend may very well be exponential to even higher values at boiling conditions.

Conclusion:

By analyzing the higher temperature region but still below boiling conditions, we conclude that there is a clear trend to higher excess heat at higher temperatures. Further we may conclude that the F&P paper is confirmed as much as feasible, without evaluating the difficult region at boiling conditions

[1] FP's experiments discussion

[2] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

1993 revised version of [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf

Quote from oystla

Another fatal error in the Ascoli analysis:

Of the input electrical energy he assumes 10 watt lost as heat, which is approximately correct, BUT then he assumes the remaining is available for vaporization.

However, this is not correct, a large portion (60% + increasing with temperature) goes into splitting of the water molecules to H2 and O2, and therefore less available to heat.

The assumption that recombination is not possible in these open cells is of course just that. Based on experience of non-FPHE-active cells in which it does not seem to happen

If recombination happens - for example in some electrode-surface dependent ATER process - then that water splitting energy remains in the cell.

One of the reasons why F&P style open cells are just not a reliable way to demonstrate possible LENR effects. Such an effect would create exactly the type of heat anomaly (between inactive control and active) documented in the Longchampt replication.

When speculating there is some new and not understood physical effect at work to explain these results we have a choice: ATER or LENR. I now look forward to a chorus of dismissal, without seriously considering the evidence, from ATER-deniers unwilling to imagine novel physics (except of their own preferred sort) in these experiments.

By analyzing the higher temperature region but still below boiling conditions, we conclude that there is a clear trend to higher excess heat at higher temperatures.

Why does that make me think of Lugano?

I agree with this, if you insert the work apparent. The trouble is that pretty well any of the possible error mechanisms are also plausible (perhaps exponentially) dependent on temperature: take for example ATER and entrained D2O.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Why does that make me think of Lugano?

why does that make you think of Lugano?

Quote from THHuxleynew

take for example ATER

THH mentions a word but gives no details on how it might operate in an LIOH/Pd cell or cite any tests proving its existence in the literature.

Quote from RobertBryant

I look forward to Ascoli65's intellectually honest demonstration

I've already shown you my demonstration. It's in the previous jpeg (*).

I believed it was self-explanatory, but if you need an explicit explanation I'll provide it, referring to the documents listed in the jpeg.

As you know, I'm dealing - since a few week - with the F&P claim, which is the specific object of the paper they presented at ICCF3 in October 1992 (3). F&P claimed to have generated nearly 150 W of excess heat in the final period boiling dry for each of 4 cells that they tested in an experiment started on April 11, 1992 (1). This value derives from the calculation on page 16 of their paper (3), in which it was assumed that half of the initial water content (5 moles /2 = 2.5 moles = 45 cm3) evaporated in about 10 minutes (600 s). F&P stated that these assumptions were based on the careful observation of the images of a lab video recorded during the test, some stills of which were included in their paper (3). For instance Figure 10(B) shows Cell 1 during such a period of presumed intense vaporization.

The aforementioned video still reports a time of 22:03:58, but some short versions of the same lab video recording - available on internet - show that the Cell 1 was almost full of foam well before that time. See, for example, the video still at 21:20:58 of the video (2). Therefore, the cell was full of foam even at the time of the video still included in the paper (3). It means that the experimental data were (possibly) heavily misrepresented and that the assumptions made by F&P to calculate the excess heat were (possibly) totally untrue.

After the ICCF3, the Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry announced a multi-year program on cold fusion, financed with 30 M$ and including a new dedicated laboratory in Sapporo. F&P were hired as senior scientific advisors. The BBC documentary "Too Close To the Sun" (5) includes some scenes of the F&P visit in Sapporo (from 36:18 to the 4 "Kampai!"). The BBC speaker tells the audience that the celebration arrived after a few days of "frantic presentations". It's quite probable that the short videos of the "Four-cell Boil-off" experiment was presented in these meetings.

This New Hydrogen Energy (NHE) program ceased in 1998, without any reliable results, as reported in an Infinite Energy article (6), in which the program manager complains:

“In the Pons replication experiment, we saw excess heat and by the same token we saw examples of a heat deficit, where the energy appeared to vanish. We found problems with their calorimeter, and we feel that their entire data set is weak and questionable."

In particular, the Japanese tests were affected by foaming problems, but - as reported in the corresponding box in the jpeg - this was not the case for the IMRA Europe tests, because F&P checked this problem. The same IE article (6) adds:

"It is equally clear that the NHE researchers did not know that Pons and Fleischmann addressed this issue years ago. Miles, McKubre, Bockris, Fleischmann and others have repeatedly warned it can happen. Some heavy water supplies produce a lot of foam which can reach the top of the cell and expel unboiled electrolyte out of the cell. Miles and Fleischmann say they have identified the cause: heavy water can be contaminated with surfactants"

In a 2004 letter to Miles (7), MF confirms that the Japanese tests were "plagued" by the foaming problem and that he "wrote to them at length about it".

Up to this point, it can be understood that the responsibility for the failure of the 30 M$ Japanese research program was due to their inability to procure, in 4-5 years, a few liters of the right heavy water necessary for the F&P cells. But the video referenced as (4) provides a completely different scenario.

This very peculiar and important video contains some scenes shot in the IMRA Europe laboratory on June 23, 1992, that is a few weeks after the end of the "Four-cell Boil-off" experiment, and well before the ICCF3 conference and the NHE agreement. From the times reported on the screen images it's clear that the F&P cell generated a lot of foam in a few hours and that MF was aware of this behavior, because he was showing his cells to a (probably) Japanese guest.

In conclusion, it is quite evident that the heavy water used at the IMRA Europe laboratory in the same months when the "Four-cell Boil-off" experiment was carried out had the same foaming problem denounced in the following years by the Japanese and that F&P knew it. But this fact poses a big problem of inconsistency with what has been continuously affirmed by F&P, strenuously repeated by their supporters and naively believed by their fans.

So, your request for an "intellectually honest demonstration" is indisputably reasonable, but I would urge you to address it to people who, for their role in the CF/LENR story, are in a better position to explain the inconsistencies described above.

(*) FP's experiments discussion

Quote from Ascoli65

I've already shown you my demonstration. It's in the previous jpeg (*).

You can't use a microwave oven, Ascoli .?

I could see zero foam generated in the O.1 M NaoH water but some in the beer.

Rather than relying on a grainy video as your justification of foam + endless Ascoli armchair hours.

Prepare

1. 0.4 gm NaOH/100 mls water

2. 0.4 gm NaOH/100 mls beer

Please boil and observe what kind of foam occurs.

Quote from THHuxleynew

By analyzing the higher temperature region but still below boiling conditions, we conclude that there is a clear trend to higher excess heat at higher temperatures.

As I posted here, FP's experiments discussion, the data follows the P/(P*-P) curve shape. Highly suggestive.

Quote from RobertBryant

You can't use a microwave oven, Ascoli .?

[...]

Please boil and observe what kind of foam occurs.

Il suffit de voir les spots filmés par la brasserie la plus extravagante et la plus chère de la Côte d'Azur.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The assumption that recombination is not possible in these open cells is of course just that.

No, it isn't. No one ever said "recombination is not possible." Obviously it is possible. They say it is not happening. All electrochemists make certain there is no significant recombination, by measuring the amount of make-up water added to the cell, and by other methods.

As Mel Miles explained when Steve Jones did an experiment showing recombination:

"Yes, when you use a cell of a radically different shape (short and fat), and you turn the electrolysis power down by a factor of a thousand, you do get significant recombination. This is well known. You might as well put some palladium powder in the electrolyte while you are at it." (paraphrasing)

In all successful cold fusion experiments that I know of, people use the right shaped cells, they take steps to ensure there is no recombination, and they also measure to ensure there is none. So the issue is off the table.

Huxley:

Recombination in F&P open electrolysis cells was heavily debated since their anouncement in 1989.

They did check the levels of recombination and found very smal percentage possible.

Also, later mainstream research where performed on the general issue, and like this one, it is proven that recombination is very dependent on current density, where high densities actually reduce recombination.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0022072896049728

And even 100% recombination would not explain my last calculation above.

Huxley,

On the issue of possible recombination, this discussion on Pages 3,4 and 5 explains the present understanding very well I believe.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…-Effect-Parts-1-and-2.pdf

Quote from oystla

They did check the levels of recombination and found very smal percentage possible.

Yes but they were assuming only electrochemically driven recombination with dissolved oxygen was possible. That's one of the points about ATER. I assume bubbles can reach the other electrode, which negates the relevance of the electrochemical problem.

Quote from oystla

Huxley,

On the issue of possible recombination, this discussion on Pages 3,4 and 5 explains the present understanding very well I believe.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…-Effect-Parts-1-and-2.pdf

Does not consider ATER.

Quote from JedRothwell

So the issue is off the table.

ROFL. Not hardly...

Well Kirk, so ATER is another ghostly phenomenon you propose, or do you have a paper proving the effect?

I believe the attachéd graph sums it up nicely.

F&P ran their cells well above 0,1 A/cm2, so there would be less than 5% recombination expected.

Quote from kirkshanahan

The temperature increase may come from a change in the electrolyte concentration, as has been noted before.

The temperature increase involves several but more elementary mechanisms.

The first mechanism simply occurs when the input power is greater than the heat loss. This is the reason of four daily Tcell increases shown in the diagram in Figure 1 of the PLA article (1). Each daily increase tends to an asymptotic equilibrium value, ie the Tcell necessary to dissipate all the input power.

The second mechanism depends on the dilution of the electrolyte as explained by Morrison on the basis of the information provided by GE (2). This dilution increases the resistance of the electrolyte, which in turn - being the current constant – requires an increase of the voltage and of the input power and eventually, for the first mechanism, of the asymptotic Tcell.

The first two mechanisms are responsible of the gradual increase of Tcell during most of the run, the period that the CFers call the charging time. At the first onset of the boiling on the hot spots of the electrodes, a third mechanism appears, due to the partial unwetting of their surfaces caused by the bubbles. This provokes a further increase in the electric resistance, which in turn increases the current and the power, which enlarges the bubbles and the area of the unwetted surface of the electrodes. This positive feedback rapidly increases the voltage up to the limit value (100 V) and lasts until the cell is completely dry. In the very last phase of this boiling phase, the progressive unwetting of the electrodes accentuates this phenomenon.

Quote

I'm not arguing with you here, just pointing out that the point where the electrode is exposed to the gas space is a significant breakpoint too.

It could be considered a minor breakpoint, because it changes qualitatively the situation inside the cell. It could give rise to some side effect, for instance it further increases the electric resistance. But IMO the break point between the LXH and HXH regimes occurs at the onset of boiling. A correct energy balance covering the entire boiling period, which lasts several hours and not 10 minutes as claimed by F&P, is sufficient to explain the vaporization of the entire water content.

Quote

Startup of boiling might also change the characteristics of the gas phase as well. Lots of complications to go around.

Yes. This is the reason why it is necessary to separate the regimes relative to the various XH claims.

Quote

For me the bottom line is that the video techniques was never used again, and in fact comments were published suggesting that was deliberate and likely due to the fact that there were unreported problems with it, as I indicated in my whitepaper and as you have shown in detail.

The video technique was regularly used by MF, as reported in (4) by Miles: "I was impressed by Martin’s handling of questions and criticisms and by his video that showed how quickly red coloration added to the cell becomes mixed in response to stirring issues."

F&P probably used this visual technique extensively even after the April-May 1992 experiment. In the "Good Morning America" reportage (5), probably shot in spring 2014, you can see at 2:06 a calorimeter containing 4 numbered cells, which seems to be ready to be filmed. The fact that F&P didn't publish any other video after the ICCF3 speaks loudly about the outcomes of their subsequent attempts.

Quote

Your general conclusion that the field has proceeded over the years on a sketchy basis is also correct IMO.

Sketchy from the scientific point of view, not from the propagandistic one.

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

(2) FP's experiments discussion

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

(4) https://www.infinite-energy.co…/pdfs/Fleischmannobit.pdf

(5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXaijlN1AKo