Mistaking froth for brains is humanity's oldest problem.
I agree. In the case of CF, more trivially, it was mistaken froth for liquids, probably.
QuoteAs for why, it's because the dead can't fight back.
Is this the reason why humanity does not adopt the Ptolemy's model anymore?
Anyway, SP can still explain his point of view on the foam issue, and he probably is the more entitled to do that:
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...
This is a discussion dedicated to F&P experiments, hosted by a LENR forum, why should I talk about hot fusion?
I'm talking about what I see in the F&P videos, and I see foam in there. Why should it be a nonsense? Don't you see the foam either?
QuoteWhy isn't Ascoli fighting the true waste of money????
When it happened the right occasion, I did it.
https://fusionefredda.wordpres…facce-dello-stesso-bluff/
Read it, maybe as a Swiss you can understand a little Italian. You are too biased against hot fusionists. Now, they are the best allied of the CFers. I wrote that post, when the ITER chief engineer spent quite friendly words in favor of CF and the Ecat. Probably, many of them know that hot and cold fusion are on the same side of the barricade and that the main risk for them is that the public realize the big bluff which is behind both.
Additional note to my last one [1]
To illustrate my point:
If there was Absolutely no bubling/foam level we would see a clear water level with a very linear fall the last 20 minutes with a Quick fall at the end.
With a high foam to water level ratio during the last 20 minutes we should have seen more of a constant foam level, which falled off quickly at the very end.
The trend was more linear than elliptic curve in the bubble/foam level in the F&P video, so I filmly think F&P where right.
It should be not too mathematically promoverer this.
Probably, many of them know that hot and cold fusion are on the same side of the barricade and that the main risk for them is that the public realize the big bluff which is behind both.
I agree that for the hot fusion side the bluff works out since 40 years.
For LENR we make no bluffs. We work hard to find a working reaction without promising a concrete goal.
We now have a precise model that explains how the nuclear energy (mass) forms, somethings the adepts of the standard model fusionists just dream of.
No foam will stop us...(Except in the pub next right corner!)
We now have a precise model that explains how the nuclear energy (mass) forms, somethings the adepts of the standard model fusionists just dream of.
No foam will stop us...(Except in the pub next right corner!)
I'm not trying to stop you. I already wished you good luck (*). Maybe your model will be successful to better explain some real physics phenomena, and may became famous and have many practical applications. But if its scope is to provide an explanation for bogus experiments, it's not a good beginning.
I saw that both your patent application (1) and your subsequent article (2) begin with a reference to F&P. So, you should be very interested in what is emerging in this discussion. I suggest you to carefully verify the soundness of the "foam issue" and, in case, to remove from your documents all the references to F&P, as soon as possible.
(*) FP's experiments discussion
(1) http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2018/0247719.html
(2) https://www.researchgate.net/p…nergy-nuclear-reactions-2
I had a closer look at the Ascoli suggestion of high foam level during the last 10 minutes of boiling in the F&P paper [1]
By studying the Video [2] attached in the paper, I have therefore produced the following graph based on the last 20 minutes of fast water level/ bubble/foam level drop, until the cell was dry,
One should expect a constant foam level during the last boiling phase, which leads to some evident conclusions here:
As seen, the Ascoli suggestion would require an 8 cm high foam level at the start of the last 10 minutes of boiling, and only foam the last 4 minutes.
But 4 minutes of only foam is way too long time, the level should have dropped much fast then at the end.
The F&P conclusion of some 2,5 cm foam/boiling bubble phase on top is a more logical conclusion.
[1] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
1993 revised version of [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf
[2]
This discussion of foam is ludicrous. Even if there was foam, it had no effect on the calorimetry, because virtually no entrained, unboiled water left the cell. Only pure water left it, and the heat of vaporization of that weight of water tells us how much energy it took. As I have pointed out again and again, Fleischmann made certain that only pure water left by measuring the salts left behind in the cell.
in case, to remove from your documents all the references to F&P, as soon as possible
Ascoli65 ,,when is the expected date for the journal Nature to publish your
"Refutation of the Pons and Fleischmann 1992 Anomalous Heat: Retrospective evidence of video froth and enchantment?
If it is asap, this 2018 will be a famous annus mirabilis for you
Jed,
Ascoli questions the fact that the cell was half full of water ( as F&P reported) at the start of the last 10 minutes before the cell was dry. (I.e. Ascoli thinks the water level was very low and thefore low or no excess heat over the last 10 minutes).
And I believe to have shown that the Ascoli suggestion is not possible based on evaluating the video and doing the above calculation.
I believe the bubble /foam layer in the F&P paper was in the same range as reported by the later replications done by Longchamp.
Ascoli questions the fact that the cell was half full of water ( as F&P reported) at the start of the last 10 minutes before the cell was dry. (I.e. Ascoli thinks the water level was very low and thefore low or no excess heat over the last 10 minutes).
It was easy to see the water level before it boiled. They kept a careful inventory of water. There is no question how much water was in the cell. Whether it boiled away in 10 minutes, 15 minutes or 20 minutes would not change the conclusion in the least, so it makes no sense to argue about that.
If there had been no excess heat in the last phase (10 minutes or 20) it would not be boiling. There was not enough input power for that.
More detailed axial analysis of water levels (Cell 1)
A quantitative analysis of the evolution of the axial distribution of the water within Cell 1 has already been presented in 2 previous jpegs (1-2). The subsequent availability of the "IMRA time lapse" video (3) allows to analyze the boil-off transient in a better detail, as shown in the following jpeg:
The series of 8 adjacent cells is taken from clip 6 in the "IMRA time lapse" video, which lasts 70' in real time, the longest continuous sequence in that video (4). The 8 images start at time 21:17:58 and are interspersed with a constant period of 10' each other, except the last period that lasts 9'.
The constant spacing period allows to easily follow the trend of the upper level of Foam (red line), which is characterized by two features:
- an initial progressive increase;
- a sudden and wide drop between images E and F.
This drop is attributable to the end of the foam layer lifting due by the intense generation of vapor in the very last phase of the dry-out of the cell. It means that the dry-out took place between 21:57 and 22:07.
Starting from the dry condition at F, it is possible to reconstruct the trend of the water level in the previous images, considering the quantity of water vaporized in each period of 10 '.
The lower left table provides the height of water that vaporizes in 10 minutes in function of the available power for vaporization. Considering an heat of vaporization of 2257 J/cm3 (*), a power of 10 W can vaporize 10*600/2257=2.66 cm3 every 10 minutes, that is about 0.5 cm of water column, considering a cross section of the cell of 5 cm2 (5).
From the expanded graph shown in a previous jpeg (2), and assuming for simplicity that the heat lost by radiation is 10 W instead of the 11 W calculated at pag.16 of the F&P paper (6), it is supposed that the power available in the 5 periods preceding the image F were 20-30-40-40-40 W. By summing up the corresponding heights of vaporized water columns, the curve of the equivalent full liquid column can be obtained. This is not the upper limit of what has been called the bubbling layer in a previous jpeg (7), because it doesn't include the volume of the bubbles rising in the liquid.
This volume is assumed to grow from 20% to 60% of the total volume occupied by liquid, different from foam or entrained droplets. These figures are arbitrary, but the swelling effect of vapor can be qualitatively assessed by considering the amount of vapor volume generated at the various power level. Considering an expansion factor of 1672, the volume of vapor generated by 10 W is 1672*10/2257=7.4 cm3/s, corresponding to a height of about 1.5 cm/s of the cell.
Having determined in this way a hypothetical trend of the upper limit of the liquid (transparent+bubbling) region, the thickness of the Foam layer can be obtained by difference. This makes it possible to notice that the foam thickness increases progressively from A to E. Most importantly, the foam thickness remains about the same between E and F even if its upper level drops a lot, which is what it is expected if the upper limit reached by the foam at E is caused by the lifting force of the intense vaporization in the very last minutes of the boil-off period. The subsequent drop from F to G, is mainly due to the breaking of the larger bubbles in the foam. After that period, the foam level remains almost constant even after days.
This model shows that at 21:52, when the upper blue arrow appears in the "Four-cell boil.off" video (8), the water content in the cell (the solid blue line) is very low, much much lower than the 9 cm corresponding to the 2.5 moles which F&P considered to have been vaporized in only 10 minutes.
The jpeg shows also the slope of the dotted black line connecting the 2 blue arrows appearing in the "Four-cell boil.off" video (8). It is much less steep than the slope of the decrease of the water level in accordance with the F&P assumptions. It remains a mystery where these assumptions come from.
(1) FP's experiments discussion
(2) FP's experiments discussion
(3) FP's experiments discussion
(4) FP's experiments discussion
(5) FP's experiments discussion
(6) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
(7) FP's experiments discussion
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8
(*) Errata/Corrige - In the previous calculation the heat of vaporization as been erroneously set at 2676 J/cm3, which is in reality the enthalpy of vapor at 100°C. The heat of vaporization is obtained by subtracting the enthalpy of liquid water at 100°C, that is 419 J/cm3. This gives 2257 J/cm3, that is 16% less than the value that has been considered in the previous calculation. However this error was always conservative with respect to the arguments claimed in the previous posts, because it caused an underestimation of the quantity of water which had already evaporated at the beginning of the final boil-off period.
Ascoli65 ,,when is the expected date for the journal Nature to publish your
"Refutation of the Pons and Fleischmann 1992 Anomalous Heat: Retrospective evidence of video froth and enchantment?
When they will accept anonymous articles written in bad English. 
When they will accept anonymous articles written in bad English
You always say that, but your English is excellent. Thank you for your spirited, and articulate arguments.
When they will accept anonymous articles
Why does Nature not accept anonymous articles?
Is it something to do with accountability?
I have come to the conclusion that either Ascoli never read & understood the linked FP paper or he is unable to imagine the difference between the video shown and the real difference of an experiment run in a dewar, that cannot be filmed.
The Cathode is about 1cm above the bottom of the container. The experimenters report a dry cell & a molten KEL-F Supp that can only happen at 300C.
Why did the Pt D2O control Cell never show a destroyed KEL-F. Even more demanding why did it never run dry or boil off ??
Live Cells: Which process delivers the energy to boil off the remaining liquid below the cathode? (As no more current flows...)
The video Ascoli likes to comment is made from free cells sitting out of the dewar and is just used for illustrating the boil-off, thus the timing will be different because of intense heat loss through radiation...
Ascoli:
At 22:26 there is no foam. The cell is completely empty at this point, the whiteness is only the bright light shining on the cell. You see the same whiteness later when boiling cell 2, which has a little less or yellower light shining.
And actually: The Cell boiled only during the last 15-20 minutes maximum, as shown in the temperature trend line, where the temperature level off towards 100 degC.
My trendlines as shown below is most likely the correct one, and the foam level was not more than 2,5 cm.
There is therefore overwhelming reasons to believe F&P where right here.
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
If you are referring to the direct viewing in real time, only SP could have (maybe) used his 100 megapixel eyes, because MF stayed in England throughout the test period (which lasted from April 11 until the last boil-off event on May 6), much more concerned with rejecting criticisms from his previous publications, than to personally follow his major experiment at IMRA, France:
| From: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf 1992-04-10 - From Stanley Pons (in USA ?) to Melvin Miles Martin sent me the attached letter today for me to read and approve. Martin will be busy tonight and this weekend, so I have decided to send it to you immediately since I have no changes to make. Thanks for considering this letter, and we look forward to hearing from you. Martin is in England and it will be best to reply to him there. 1992-04-14 – From Martin Fleischmann (in UK) to Melvin Miles […]I believe that irrespective of any short term objectives, we should prepare comprehensive documentation about past publications. That we’ll then give us freedom to decide about future publication plans. As you will realise, Stan and I are rather in the background in all the activity but we have boxes of files! […]Mike will phone you on his return to the U.S.A. I am sure you will have realised that we are concerned at present to sort out the past history but I believe that it would nevertheless be sensible to keep the contact Mel ↔ Mike ↔ Martin ↔ Stan under wraps just at present.” 1992-04-21 – From Martin Fleischmann (in UK ?) to Melvin Miles […] I see that in my letter of 2nd April I did not in the end explain to you why I restricted my questions to our own, the Caltech and the Harwell papers i.e. I excluded that from MIT. It is our view that the authors of the MIT paper are already in considerable difficulty regarding their actions in converting the raw data into the final text (reference 5 in my list). They are now being quite openly accused of fraud. […] We believe that the paper about the MIT work would make an excellent case study of how not to treat experimental data. 1992-04-24 – From Martin Fleischmann (in UK ?) to Melvin Miles […] As you will have gathered, I feel that there has to be some review of the published work and I agree with you that it is the paper from Caltech, MIT, and Harwell (as well as yours and ours) which should be so reviewed. A paper which you might also include in this list is that by Kreysa, Marx and Plieth. Although this is probably the worst of the bunch it did have considerable influence in creating the negative atmosphere and it is still referred to as being “an outstanding piece of work”. One possibility for publishing this is as you say Fusion Technology. A further possibility is in the Conference Proceedings of the Nagoya meeting and I will also explore with Roger Parsons whether he would accept a critique for the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. As you know, Heinze Gerischer has somewhat shifted his position and they might now be receptive to such a provocative review. Giuliano Preparata, Stan Pons and I have been considering a further possibility and that is to put out a compendium response on the Bitnet to Douglas Morrison’s latest “Cold Fusion Update No. 6”. In order for you to get some flavour of what we have in mind, I am now sending you my latest letter to Giuliano and Stan: as you see, we have it in mind that you will play a key role and it would certainly be helpful if you could send me your comments on this letter. Let me explain to you that Giuliano Preparata does not know that we are in touch and just in case I did not send you my letter of the 14th April, it is our view that we should keep the interaction Mel ↔ Mike ↔ Martin ↔ Stan confidential at this time. […] I would suggest that when we have got some way with this, we cold than consider, possibly with Mike Melich, whether we should proceed. […] 1992-05-05 – From Martin Fleischmann (in UK !) to Melvin Miles As I told you in my letter of the 24th of April I had intended to reply to your Fax of the 23rd about the the paper from the group at Harwell. Unfortunately, because of the usual overload of work I have not been able to deal with this before now and I doubt whether I will get to this point before I have to go to France this coming Sunday, 10th May. I will therefore write to you from there. It is likely that I shall spend most of the next two months in France so it would probably be best if you were to use our Fax number down there during this time. The number is 33 93 95 82 25. There are very few people who have this number (Mike Melich is one) so may I ask you to keep it secret for the time being. The Fax messages at home are normally read either by my wife or a close friend of ours and forwarded to us but it so happens that this friend is coming with us to France so our home number will not be serviced during this period. I shall also shortly be taking up again the question of further action with regard to Douglas Morrison’s Cold Fusion Update No.6. I am sure that we will be sending you a number of letters about this shortly. When I get to France we shall also started a further major revision of a commentary on our past calorimetric work. I imagine that this will prove to be useful to whosoever may wish to write a critique on the published papers. […] P.P.S. On checking through the correspondence, I see that you really do need some comments on the calorimetry as a matter of urgency and this will be the first matter I will deal with when I get to France. 1992-05-07 – From Martin Fleischmann (written in UK, sent from F) to Melvin Miles While collecting all my bits and pieces together in preparation for going to France, I ran across the attached letter to the Editor of Nature. It was our one and only attempt to get him to moderate his invective and/or try and be factually correct. Needless to say it was not published. I dare say that you will by now have had time to digest my letter to Stan Pons and Giuliano Preparata about Douglas Morrison’s “Cold Fusion Update No. 6.” and that you will soon receive letters asking you whether you will act on parts of this, somewhat along with lines which I outlined in my letter. […] […] P.S. I am sending this from France. |
As seen in the video it takes between 20 and 30 minutes from the top Boiling bubble level starts to shrink
It's not clear what you mean. Are you meaning that, as shown in my last jpeg (1), the foam level stays at its maximum level from about 21:37 to 21:57 and then starts to lower?
QuoteAnd 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
The Cell 1 was never completely empty, because several centimeters of persistent foam remained on its bottom for weeks up to the end of the experiment.
Quote2. 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.
As shown in (1), from 21:57 onwards the cell appears all white because it is full of foam. Practically all the water had evaporated before that time.
Quote3. 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.
With reference to (1), the upper Foam level drastically dropped between instants E and F because of the exhaustion of the water, whose intense vaporization had allowed the foam to have been lifted up to nearly the top of the unsilvered portion of the cell, which is only 14 cm above the Kel-F support.
QuoteConclusion: 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.
If you refer to the 20-30 minutes before the last video frame at 22:26, the cell contains only foam.
QuoteOr 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
If there was Absolutely no bubling/foam level we would see a clear water level with a very linear fall the last 20 minutes with a Quick fall at the end.
As explained in (1) this is exactly what happen between E and F. The very end of boiling happened in that period, between 21:57 and 22:07, when the last tiny layer of transparent liquid water at the bottom of the cell disappeared.
I have come to the conclusion that either Ascoli never read & understood the linked FP paper or he is unable to imagine the difference between the video shown and the real difference of an experiment run in a dewar, that cannot be filmed.
The experiments that were filmed were run in cells with clear glass, that could be filmed. They were sort of like Dewars. That is to say, they had an evacuated test tube layer but no silvered inner surface.
In other tests, F&P used half-silvered Dewars, with a window at the bottom. Most of the heat transfer went through the window, which was always submerged. Thus, changes in the water level did not affect the calorimetry much.
