FP's experiments discussion

Quote from Alan Smith

Kirk has one ATER paper AFAIK. LENR has thousands., but proof is in the eye of the beholder.

The issue, not addressed by LENR researchers, is how many of those thousands papers provide support for ATER?

Phenomenologically it and LENR are very similar. Skeptics would however argue that most of those papers provide support for neitehr ATER nor LENR (and I think a good many LENR researchers would agree).

The key distinction showing LENR not ATER would be your lovely gammas, if those prove to be the result of unexpected metal hydride-induced nuclear reactions rather than something else...

Or, of course, a working Rossi reactor. If that is not an oxymoron.

Quote from oystla

Huxley;

What I would like to see is a laboratory test destined for ATER specifically and proves how ATER impacts the test results. SO: There is none such tests performed.

But wait, we have 1000's of laboratory tests that was done specifically to prove various LENR phenomenon's. Which really just was ATER...no it was LENR...no it was ATER...no it was LENR...

and so goes life

Display More

And in any case a negative result for ATER would never disprove the hypothesis. ATER, like LENR, could be dependent on unknown difficult to reproduce surface conditions at the electrode.

So ATER enthusiasts can continue to point to the few results that ATER explains and ignore any negatives.

Quote from Alan Smith

Yes, we got him there.

You 'got' me?

No Alan, you don't 'got' me. First off, your experiments are not being conducted in a F&P electrolysis cell setup as I understand it, so you wouldn't expect to see at the electrode under the electrolyte recombination at all. If I'm wrong on that, I apologize. But if an F&P electrolysis cell can reliably be shown (i.e. reproducibly with control) to emit radiation, that might be a problem for an ATER mechanism. As I said to oystla, no problem. All 'proposed' chemical mechanisms are tentative anyway. Chemists learned that a long time ago. What would need to be done at that point then is to explain why a minor shift in calibration constant values can wipe out the 780 mW signal Storms obtained using 'conventional' means. ATER is simply my best guess as to what is going on. If I guessed wrong, so what?

But what I have observed so far is that what radiation results have been reported can (1) be explained by other means, or (2) are so irreproducible and so few in number as to not be reliable anyway. As I have tried to point out many times, my objective is to get the truth, not the fantasy. If the truth is 'LENR exists'. then so be it. No skin off my nose. But that can't be proven for F&P cells as long as my criticisms are ignored or misrepresented (as per JR's favorite paper).

Your bias is showing again.

Quote from RobertBryant

Which do you prefer as your title? for the abstract writeup?

Ascoli65 PhD (AF) ? or Ascoli65 (Anon) Frothologist?

Frottologist is OK.

Anyway, my abstract, chapters and conclusions are already written in this forum. Now it is the turn of the LENR specialists to explain the "foam issue" to the world.

In 1992, in Nagoya, around 300 people had the opportunity to see the F&P videos and become the first witnesses of the immense power of the foam.

For some of them, the F&P foam provided the job of a whole professional career. A pleasant job, travelling the world claiming to be its savior (1):

"After almost 30 years of studying seemingly anomalous nuclear effects in metal hydride systems what can we say that we have learned with high-level confidence? For some of us it has been a nearly full- time journey; for a rare few nearly fully-funded. After this time and effort what is it that we can assert and defend about our new knowledge of nuclear reactions in condensed matter? These questions are subjective and I will focus my answers on what I have learned by direct experiment and analysis, and from the experience of a few close colleagues – mostly ENEA (Italy), Energetics (Israel), MIT and various Navy Labs around the US."

Well, after this time and effort what is it that they can assert and defend about the "foam issue" in the F&P experiments?

Quote

Perhaps you can humbly share a cappucino with Researchers Celani and Violante

They should rather share a cappuccino knot among themselves. By combining their know-how, the inventor of the knotting technique for nuclear reaction enhancement and the maker of the world's best LENR wires can produce the most performing device in the history of LENR. It would be a great revenge for the Italian scientific Institutes that have paid their work (and their travels) for decades and a big relief for all Italian citizens who think that these Institutes have wasted a lot of public money.

Quote

La santa umiltà confonde l'orgoglio e tutti gli uomini di questo mondo e tutte le cose che sono nel mondo. Francesco d'Assisi

"I don't know whether you have done your calculations but, about two or three years back, I did a first assessment of what the first successful device would be worth and it came out at about 300 trillion dollars." Martin Fleischmann

Quote

https://28maoribattalion.org.n…e-wiremu-wharepapas-grave

Regarding the photo you posted, I wonder what your next argument in support of the CF will be.

(1) http://coldfusioncommunity.net/iccf-21/videos/mckubre/

Quote from Alan Smith

That is NOT OK. 'Frottologist' means an expert on 'frottage' obviously. Def: 'the practice of touching or rubbing against the clothed body of another person in a crowd as a means of obtaining sexual gratification.'

Oh, I see, thanks for the advice.

Well, best to stick to the Italian version "frottologo", a neologism which I derived - thanks to RB - from the Italian word "frottola".

A "frottola" is a popular untrue story or, more simply, a lie. Probably, it has the same origin of the English "frottage", because it derives from "frotta", a large group of people (usually peasants or boors) or animals proceeding without any order. Originally "frottola" was a literary piece of popular origin consisting of a bundling of bizarre and strange thoughts and facts, without connection or almost to each other, then it became a popular and benevolent synonym of lie.

Quote from Ascoli65

Now it is the turn of the LENR specialists to explain the "foam issue" to the world.

You inflate your world impact as an anonymous Ascoli65 poster.

The WORLD of today has more interest

in frottage than your alleged froth from 1992.

Of more relevance..is the Adriatic gas running out.?

How much could LENR reduce the tens of $billion that La Patria pays to the Russians for natural gas each year?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news…up-a-5-2-billion-pipeline

Quote from RobertBryant

You inflate your world impact as an anonymous Ascoli65 poster.

The WORLD of today has more interest

in frottage than your alleged froth from 1992.

Yes, I know. I was referring to the small minority of the people interested in energy problems and the possible alternatives to the present sources. People who are spread all over the world, however. They are sensitive to the mythical appeal of CF/LENR and have the power to influence public opinion and governments, as it happened many times in Italy, where each parliamentary inquiry in favor of the CF/LENR research (see for example (1)) has always mentioned its two pioneers.

I know that these opinion makers and the politicians ignore this discussion, but the "foam issue" can no longer be ignored by the CF/LENR community. In less than 4 months there will be the 30^th anniversary of the F&P conference, what are they going to write for celebrating this event? The usual accusations against the mainstream scientists, responsible for not having understood the F&P claims? Well, yes, in a certain sense they are accountable for not having detected and denounced one of the most incredible misrepresentation of experimental data that could be imagined, but concretely they were right in affirming the groundlessness of the F&P claims.

So, now it's the turn of the CF experts to deal with the foam issue. In the last 30 years, they have written thousands of (pseuso)scientific and propagandistic articles on F&P and their results, and next March? Will they completely ignore the foam issue or they will say that the available F&P videos are too grainy to raise doubts on what F&P had said?

You insistently asked me to be intellectually honest about the foam issue, let's see how this attitude will be implemented by the CF community.

Quote

Of more relevance..is the Adriatic gas running out.?

Yes, it's much more relevant, but everything is running out, everywhere, and the rate of depletion could also be influenced by the public's perception of the even slightly remote availability of some substitute.

Quote

How much could LENR reduce the tens of $billion that La Patria pays to the Russians for natural gas each year?

This is an interesting question, but you should first specify whether you are talking about a LENR technology or a LENR bluff.

(1) http://coldfusionnow.org/lenr-…italian-parliament-query/

Quote from Ascoli65

In less than 4 months there will be the 30th anniversary of the F&P conference,

Five years ago the 25th anniversary of the F&P conference, happened without much more than a murmur.

Where was Ascoli65 with his foam theory then.

In my area of the world " New Zealand smashed Italy 66-3 in Rome" is a lot more newsworthy.

Quote from RobertBryant

Five years ago the 25th anniversary of the F&P conference, happened without much more than a murmur.

In 2014, the LENR scene was already fully occupied by the Ecat. Anyway, the pro-CF political initiatives at the Italian and European Parliaments - mentioned in the article referred in my previous post - occurred in that period.

But in 2009, on the 20^th anniversary, there was a certain echo around the world (1) thanks to a concurrent ACS initiative (2). Perhaps the 30^th anniversary could be an opportunity for another initiative, possibly in the field of the sociology or psychology applied to scientific mythology.

Quote

Where was Ascoli65 with his foam theory then.

I was trying to explain to Lewan why his book on the Ecat was actually the story of a farce involving the world's oldest university (3). At the time, I thought that the Bologna demo was the most sensational farce ever in terms of academic involvement in CF.

I was not yet aware of the foam issue in the F&P experiments. Until recently, I didn't care much about the oldest CF/LENR claims, because I believed that - after so many years - it would have been almost impossible to prove any possible flaw. This situation suddenly changed after having cross-checked the timing information in their ICCF3 paper with those of the videos, when it emerged the strong possibility that it was not only a matter of misinterpretation of experimental data, but that these data were heavily misrepresented (4).

Anyway, by next December 31, a panel of 3 physicists could be asked to decide a bet on the existence of convincing evidences in favor of the reality of LENR, involving the philosopher of science Huw Price (5). Maybe the "foam issue" could prove decisive and the philosopher of Cambridge, besides losing his bet, should also rewrite his famous article about the "reputation trap" (6), whose most puzzling paragraph is the following:

"What if the failure to replicate wasn’t crucial after all? What if we already knew, on theoretical grounds alone, that cold fusion was impossible? But this would make a nonsense of the fuss over the failure to reproduce Fleischmann and Pons’ findings. And in any case, it is simply not true. As I said at the beginning, what physicists actually say (in my experience) is that although LENR is highly unlikely, we cannot say that it is impossible. We know that the energy is in there, after all."

At this point, I would expect Price to answer this question: What if we already know, on a factual basis, that F&P misrepresented their major findings on cold fusion? We know that the foam was there, after all.

(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/c…2009/ACS/MediaClips.shtml

(2) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…fColdFusionFromLENR.shtml

(3) https://matslew.wordpress.com/…d-the-e-cat/#comment-2064

(4) FP's experiments discussion

(5) http://www.metaculus.com/questions/65/

(6) https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-…ossibility-of-cold-fusion

Quote from Ascoli65

We know that the foam was there, after all.

Is that "We" a royal "We" or an anonymous " We"

I may share a philosphical and foamy beer with Huw when he gets back to Sydney...

I may impugn upon him and demand he bring some from the UK

I have no idea what brews are best... perhaps Essex

Quote from RobertBryant

Is that "We" a royal "We" or an anonymous " We"

It's the same impersonal "We", Price used in his quote: "We know that the energy is in there, after all."

It expresses common knowledge, experience and human senses, which allows most people to say "that's foam" when they see foam.

Quote

I may share a philosphical and foamy beer with Huw when he gets back to Sydney...

I may impugn upon him and demand he bring some from the UK

I have no idea what brews are best... perhaps Essex

I do not know either, but I can tell you that the most expensive one ever was the ICARUS-1:

http://vimeo.com/9438745#t=38m20s

When he gets back to Sydney, tell Huw, that there is a special offer for him at 1000 pounds a glass.

Quote from Ascoli65

I can tell you that the most expensive one ever

No beer in Provence ,just wine..

I won't ask Huw to buy Chateau Iter rose.

Too expensive and neither of us will be alive to drink it,

Essex beer should be enough for Huw to comprehend

a 4(6)D universe where 4D has no time and energy

is conveyed by magnetic flux rather than radiation...

and to incorporate it into his flow of time,2009

4 Objective flux?

The third ingredient of the "passage package" is the idea that time has a transitory, flux-like, or dynamic character, of a kind not captured by the spatialised concep­tion of time that is prevalent in physics (and popular with opponents of objective passage). Usually, of course, this ingredient is bundled with the other two: the transition in question is thought of as that of a distinguished moment, and as pos­sessing a particular orientation.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4829/

The new ingredient of the bundle — the ingredient I take to be most characteristic of the notion of flux — is that it is something to which a rate may sensibly be attached. Time passes at a certain number of seconds per second.

https://www.iter.org/newsline/269/1603

Quote from RobertBryant

No beer in Provence ,just wine..

I won't ask Huw to buy Chateau Iter rose.

Too expensive and neither of us will be alive to drink it,

He can buy Castelli DDT, not so much cheaper, but – if his theories are correct - we will be back again to drink it.

https://www.dtt-project.enea.i…atest/148-dtt-industryday

Quote

Essex beer should be enough for Huw to comprehend

a 4(6)D universe where 4D has no time and energy

is conveyed by magnetic flux rather than radiation...

and to incorporate it into his flow of time,2009

If a few cubic centimeters of foam (a few milligram of low quality heavy water) have been able in 30 years to rally thousands of scientists (including a few Nobel laureates) from dozens of the most famous scientific institutions and labs in the world, who spent many thousands of man-years to produce thousands of published papers, which have cost hundreds of millions of public and private funds, I wonder what else an ebullient mind as Huw's will be able to produce in the far future with an entire bottle of Essex beer.

As for the near future, the next step is his bet in favor of the reality of CF. It has a close expiration date and an outcome. Let's see what the panel of 3 physicists will decide. Beyond a certain level of culture nothing can be taken for granted anymore. Maybe at the word "foam" they will immediately think at the quantum foam that may have originated our Universe and will proclaim Huw as the bet winner and F&P as the first to have reproduced the Big Bang in laboratory!

Quote from Ascoli65

If a few cubic centimeters of foam (a few milligram of low quality heavy water) have been able in 30 years to rally thousands of scientists (including a few Nobel laureates) from dozens of the most famous scientific institutions and labs in the world, who spent many thousands of man-years to produce thousands of published papers, which have cost hundreds of millions of public and private funds, I wonder what else an ebullient mind as Huw's will be able to produce in the far future with an entire bottle of Essex beer.

A bunch of ruthless physicists/politicians were able to convince dozens of states to spend over 20 billions to build a so called hot fusion reactor. The outraging nonsense published in their papers like hot fusion being sun-like energy is just one small piece in the misdirection of the world.

Since more than 40 years it is known and physically proven that such a reactor (like ITER) can only be productive if a so called neutron blanket shields the environment. Such a blanket is made out of the famous element "unobtainium" that is inert to neutron radiation and does not activate.

If they ever start ITER for more than a few seconds, then they have to evacuate the building for days... At the end of the experiment(s) 20 Billion partly activated waste must be treated and the next party will start.

People like Ascoli telling "foamy nonsense" certainly like projects like ITER, what allows 1000's of physicists to sit in an armchair and to do what they like while waiting for the next experiment...

Why isn't Ascoli fighting the true waste of money????

Foam or bubbles in the F&P cell ?

Ascoli,

There is another problem with your analysis of the boil off period:

At the moment where we see that top boiling bubble level in the cells start to shrink, the video seems to show an all white cell, example cell 1 (21:59 to 22:25) in the video [1] linked in the paper, which in your mind indicate a cell full of foam and no water level.

So in the videos we can not identify clearly a water level, but F&P had a better view when the video tape where fresh, and of course when they used their own 100 megapixel eyes

But to the point:

As seen in the video it takes between 20 and 30 minutes from the top Boiling bubble level starts to shrink

And until the cell was empty.

1. 20 to 30 minutes is way too long period for the cell to only have foam, at these electrical input energy levels

2. With no LENR excess heat, the water level would have to be maximum 3 cm at the last 10 min point in time. But as seen in the video, the cell is all white, which means the present video quality is not adequate to verify level.

3. If we still assume 3cm water level and rest foam ( like some 17 cm foam...) with no excess heat event, we note that the foam level actually shrink not as expected. The foam level should have stayed high until all water was turned to foam and only then the foam should have started to drop- very fast at the very end just before completely dry.

Conclusion: The linear drop in the bubble level during the last 20 to 30 minutes means that the water level must have started very high in the cell when bubles started to shrink. Or in another way of explaining; with High foam levels Compared to water, the foam level should have stayed high until all water was turned to foam, i,e, very different behaviour than indicated by the video

[1]