FP's experiments discussion

Boiling regimes at various stages

During the "four cell boil-off" experiment reported in the F&P paper (1), each cell goes through different boiling regimes, according to the electric current and to the (bulk) water temperature. The following jpeg helps to explain these different regimes.

The video still at 3:20:14, taken from the "IMRA time-lapse" video (2), exemplifies 4 different regimes of the cell and the graph on the right, obtained by superimposing the four Figures 6 of paper (1), shows the different condition of each regime:

- Cell 1 has completed its boil-off transient since 3 days and is already cold. There is only a thick layer of residual foam settled on the bottom;

- Cell 2 is shown during the most intense boiling phase. The lower transparent liquid layer is quite small. The cathode is much warmer than the surrounding water and generates a lot of vapor volume that goes through all the upper layers (bubbling water, rising foam and stationary foam on top) eventually escaping the cell and causing the loss of water mass;

- Cell 3 is at about 70°C, but, watching the video, it's easy to see the flux of small bubbles rising in its innermost region, just above the cathode. This indicates that at that time, the cathode is already at a temperature higher than the boiling point. However, contrary to Cell 2, these vapor bubbles don't reach the water surface and condense along their upward path, due to the low temperature of the surrounding water. In fact, the upper part of Cell 3 is as transparent as the upper part of Cell 4;

- Cell 4 is at about 60°C, the thin flux of bubbles which rises the cell is due only to the electrolysis gases.

Beyond these mechanism of water vaporization at the electrode surfaces, there is also the evaporation on the water surface of the cell, but its contribution can be neglected because, at low temperatures, it is very small and, at higher temperatures, it is much smaller than the vaporization on the electrode surfaces.

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

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

Ascoli persists in foam assertion.

Go boil some table salt .

See what happens

Quote from Ascoli65

There should be something wrong in your method. Please, consider your last time value, when the voltage reaches 100 V, it is 1662 ks. Then, look at Figure 8 in the F&P paper (1), the maximum Tcell is at about 1655 ks. That's impossible.

In the special case of Cell 2, the maximum voltage was reached 3 hours before the maximum Tcell, ie before the vertical line indicating the "Cell ½ dry" in Figure 8. However, after that time, it happens something strange in the electric parameters (voltage and current), which has not been reported in the paper and that makes this Cell unsuitable for the kind of analysis that you proposed in your previous post.

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

Display More

Thanks for spotting this. The method is OK. Near 100V the graph has a very fat line because temperature and voltage are right next to each other. One side of the fat line is about 1655 and the other side 1665. I probably guessed wrong on which half of the line was voltage, but that does not affect the main results. The main point of the graph was to figure out where the voltage drop had to be from something other than bubbles on the cathode, and that is 26.7 hours before this point.

If I get time, I will try to do a similar analysis for another cell.

Quote from oystla

So the above tables calculates 543 554 Joules input heat from refill to dry cell, while excess energy during the period is in the range 82 689 Joules.

Well, the 15.2% of error in your calculation is not too bad, considering that you are using data provided by authors who reported to have estimated a final 11 minutes boiling period and then used a value of 10 minutes in their most important calculation on page 16 of their most important paper (1). So you are almost right, a little more effort and you will find the right value for the excess heat: ZERO.

Quote

Voltage at end: The graph cannot be analysed at this point, the last period of voltage increase is important, but the graph is not detailed enough to be analysed. F&P reported average Voltage the last 600 seconds of 76 volts. If the end voltage was 100 Volts as suggested, then the voltage should be 50 volts 10 minutes before end to acheieve 75 Volts in average in the period.

[…]

Conclusion:

1. We have confirmed Excess heat during last period of refill to dry cell

[…]

You have only confirmed how it is possible to obtain whichever result just playing with numbers.

The average value of 75 V can only be inferred from the calculation on page 16 of the F&P paper (1), by inverting the first equation (which is also incomplete). F&P didn't stated that the average voltage in the last period was 75(+1.54) V, they didn't show any graph which would have allowed the readers to verify this crucial datum, they didn't even specify to which cell those data were referred.

To verify the energy input, we have only 4 graphs (the four Figures 6 in (1)) which are not orthogonal and whose horizontal pixel lasts 6000 s (1h40min), ie almost 4 times the period of 1654 s sufficient for balancing (at Pin=50W) the excess heat (82689 J) resulting from your calculation.

Do you really think that an extraordinary claim as that contained in the F&P paper can rest on such sloppy calculations?

Quote

We may also note that the later Lonchampt [2] paper appreciate the difficulty in reading water levels during boiling, and therefore they calculated the excess heat from last fill to dry cell, as I have done in this case.

And also Lonchamp confirmed excess heat of various levels and up to 20% in the refill to dry period [2] , higher than my value.

You only provided one possible explanation of how also Lonchampt could have obtained erroneous values of excess heat.

The only fact that the F&P paper (1) demonstrates is that they misrepresented the basic experimental data used to calculate their most important, most peer-reviewed, most documented and most cited heat excess claim.

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

Ascoli,

Seriously, you really think you can read the voltage curve with any accuracy for the last hour from the graph?

It is evident from the curve that we cannot read any accurate voltage number when we get closer to the end.

Therefore I used the VOLTAGE number from the F&P paper input energy calculation for the very end period.

I trust they where able to calculate an average voltage.

Or You are claiming they had some error in the data acquisition for voltage ?

Or you are saying they did not manage to correctly calculate the average of voltage during the last 600 seconds?

Do you have any supporting proof of wrong voltage data acquisition?

So you say not only did they read wrong water levels, but also their voltage trend is wrong?

I think you are grasping for air now, do not choke

And by the way, NO, it is not the most important paper of F&P.

The heat bursts at lower temperature are their most important finding, as reported in earlier papers.

This paper only suggested higher power densities could be achieved at higher temperatures. May be they where right also there.

Quote from oystla

Seriously, you really think you can read the voltage curve with any accuracy for the last hour from the graph?

No, I said the opposite. The four Figure 6 of F&P paper (1) have a time resolution of 6000 s for each horizontal pixel, too scarce to say what happened in the 600 s that F&P considered for the final boil-to-dry period. We can only say that, in each cell, the voltage has reached the maximum value of 100 V and that the width of the possible peak voltage extends from 2 to 5 pixels depending on the cell. Consider that 39 W (50 total input -11 for radiation) for 5256 s provide the 205 kJ required to vaporize all 9 moles of the initial water content.

Quote

It is evident from the curve that we cannot read any accurate voltage number when we get closer to the end.

Therefore I used the VOLTAGE number from the F&P paper input energy calculation for the very end period.

I trust they where able to calculate an average voltage.

Or You are claiming they had some error in the data acquisition for voltage ?

Display More

I don't know. However, this is not what I claim. I say that F&P pretended to claim the achievement of extraordinary results, without providing the most elementary and fundamental evidences for a crucial term as the electric power fed into the cell. This a serious misrepresentation of their experimental data, although not the worst in the paper.

Quote

Do you have any supporting proof of wrong voltage data acquisition?

No, and I'm not claiming that. But there are evident proofs that F&P heavily misrepresented the experimental data reported in their ICCF3 paper (1) and in the subsequent peer-reviewed article on PLA (2). As a consequence, it's not possible to believe in any F&P-say not supported by adequate evidences, such as the voltage during the final boil-off period or its duration.

Quote

So you say not only did they read wrong water levels, but also their voltage trend is wrong?

Which voltage trend are you talking about? Are you meaning a single average value deduced by inverting an incomplete equation?

Quote

And by the way, NO, it is not the most important paper of F&P.

This is your wrong opinion, which indicates that you are not able to defend the correctness of the ICCF3 paper.

Anyway, in this regard, ask Rothwell.

Quote

The heat bursts at lower temperature are their most important finding, as reported in earlier papers.

This paper only suggested higher power densities could be achieved at higher temperatures. May be they where right also there.

In 2009, Krivit wrote (3): "By 1993 [actually 1992], Fleischmann and Pons had developed such control of their experiments, particularly the cathode material, that they had the confidence and ability to set up a row of four cells side by side and initiate anomalous-heat reactions on all four at will."

If the ability of F&P to control their experiments is that one shown in their ICCF3 paper, you can imagine what kind of abilities they could have in the tests described in the earlier papers!

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

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

(3) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…ivit-S-ANewLookAtLENR.pdf

Quote from Alan Smith

scientists at Los Alamos had reproduced their results but never published them.

At least the scientists reproduced something in testtubes

Ascoli65 reproduces nothing.. but misrepresents everything

and will NEVER publish anything.

Is the 'stationary foam' lithium salt on the testube sides or is it Ascoli assertion?

Ascoli,

Since you bring up Krivit:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/TheSeminalPapers.shtml

And a seminal paper is the paper that initiates a lot of subsequent research and may event start a whole new field of science.....like Cold Fusion research.

And this is what the 58 Pages Seminal F&P paper of 1990 did do.

To this day, Fleischmann and Pons' seminal paper has never been successfully refuted in the scientific literature. And as Fleischmann called it, their first major CF paper.

And the 1990 paper described their discovery (which was not a Boiling cell !! ) and is now part of the formal body of scientific knowledge.

The paper you have studied has never spurred any new research, it was just a test of a F&P theory of higher power and energy densities at higher temperatures.

And Yes, as I described in the analysis, and confirmed by Lonchampt, they may well be correct in their 1992 paper, but any errors in this one paper does anyway not impact their 1990 paper.

And the only correct defenders or papers would be the authors.

So why don't you instead pick on some living CF researchers?

There are hundreds alive to choose from, and your choice is a dead one??

Almost complete vanishing of the residual foam in Cell 3

One of the most clear evidence of the role played by the foam in the erroneous assessment made by F&P about the timing of the boil-off phase (1) is the large amount of residual foam remaining at the bottom of the cells at the end of the respective boiling periods.

Immediately after boil-to-dry, the thickness of this residual foam is about 2 diameters in height. In the following days it behaves differently depending on the cell. Cell 3 is the only one in which the foam almost vanishes allowing you to see the inside of the cell, while, in the remaining three cell, a thick and opaque foam layer prevents you from seeing their lower internals.

This unique behavior of the foam in the Cell 3 could be the reason of the strange sequence of the blue arrows that mark the lowering of the brighter portion of the Cell 3 in the so called "Four-cell Boil-off" video (2), as described in the following jpeg:

Contrary to the other cells, during the video clips showing the boil-off of Cell 3, two lower arrows appear at video stills 4:02 and 5:03. The small delay between the two times could lead the watcher to believe that the disappearance of the residual substance (boiling water for F&P, foam for me) occurred in just one hour. However, the status of Cell 4 reveals that the video still at 5:03 belongs to a video clip related to the boil-off of Cell 4, which occurs more than 4 days after the end of the Cell 3 boil off.

The purpose of this second lower arrow on Cell 3 is not clear. In any case, the vanishing of the foam in Cell 3 confirms that the residual brightness at the bottom of the other three cells is due to the presence of a persistent foam and not to a possible deposit which forms on the cell walls.

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

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

Quote from Alan Smith

And within a few days of the F+P press conference scientists at Los Alamos had reproduced their results but never published them.

I do not think it was days. It took weeks just to load in most cases. Anyway, Storms and others at Los Alamos did replicate, and they did publish. Perhaps others did not publish, but if they didn't, I wouldn't know about them.

Quote from Ascoli65

is the large amount of residual foam remaining at the bottom of the cells at the end of the respective boiling periods.

Ascoli... please go evaporate 0.25 % salt solution vigorously and OBSERVE

how thin is the layer

of residual salt that coats the bottom and sides of the test tube

then take your LOW-RES foam assertion and throw it in

the trash can.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…nc_nanoparticle_synthesis

Quote from RobertBryant

Ascoli... please go evaporate 0.25 % salt solution vigorously and OBSERVE

how thin is the layer

of residual salt that coats the bottom and sides of the test tube

Please,

- take whatever solution you want;

- evaporate it and obtain a residue which coats the sides of the test tube;

- wait 4 days and OBSERVE if that residue vanishes (as happened for Cell 3 (1));

- post the photos here.

Thanks.

Btw, the side residues in the tube you posted looks very different from the brighter areas that can be observed at the bottom of the F&P cells (1). These lasts are compact and have a well-defined upper contour.

Quote

then take your LOW-RES foam assertion and throw it in

the trash can.

Waiting for the side residues in your tube to fade away, please go to this previous post (2), look carefully at the images and guess what is inside the various tubes. Then, open the last two links (6-7) of that same previous post, look for the word "foam" (or "foaming", or "foamed") and look who made the foam assertions.

(1) FP's experiments discussion

(2) FP's experiments discussion

Ascoli,

Residual foam at the end would not impact the excess heat calculation, it is just a marginal amount of water left

FP's experiments discussion

Quote from oystla

And a seminal paper is the paper that initiates a lot of subsequent research and may event start a whole new field of science.....like Cold Fusion research.

And this is what the 58 Pages Seminal F&P paper of 1990 did do.

I'm dealing with the F&P document (the ICCF3 paper) that is considered their major paper (1), not with the first paper of them that was not "rushed, very incomplete and contained a clear error" (2).

Quote

To this day, Fleischmann and Pons' seminal paper has never been successfully refuted in the scientific literature.

Better to say, it has been ignored. The article you are talking about was published by the "Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry" on July 25, 1990, that is a few months after Nature published the definitive crushing critique on CF (4). Why should the scientific community have wasted more time in refuting a document on a field that was already considered "discreditable to the scientific community as a whole"?

Quote

And as Fleischmann called it, their first major CF paper.

Reference?

Anyway, it's better to start with their definitive major paper, which is also the best documented.

Quote

And the 1990 paper described their discovery (which was not a Boiling cell !! ) and is now part of the formal body of scientific knowledge.

Just because it was ignored?

Quote

The paper you have studied has never spurred any new research, it was just a test of a F&P theory of higher power and energy densities at higher temperatures.

That paper has spurred research programs for dozens of M$ in the vain attempt to replicate the fake results reported in it.

Quote

And Yes, as I described in the analysis, and confirmed by Lonchampt, they may well be correct in their 1992 paper, but any errors in this one paper does anyway not impact their 1990 paper.

I don't think so. Thanks to the videos, the F&P 1992 paper allows us not only to check the reality of the results of the F&P tests, but also the reliability of the testers.

Quote

And the only correct defenders or papers would be the authors.

So why don't you instead pick on some living CF researchers?

There are hundreds alive to choose from, and your choice is a dead one??

Are you saying that it's not possible to analyze and, in case, to criticize the scientific work of Galilei, Newton, Einstein or any other past scientist simply because they can't defend their work anymore?

In any case, one of the two authors is still alive. I hope, he is in good health and informed about this discussion, so that he can clarify all the issues we are talking about. Probably, he is in possession of the original data of the measured parameters (temperature, voltage and possibly current) logged during the 4-cell boil-off experiment and of a copy of the entire video recording.

Moreover, there are many CF/LENR people still active in the field, who have worked with F&P on the same type of cell for years and who could have copy the same experimental material. Ask them to help you to defend and proclaim the true interpretation of the 1992 F&P experiment.

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

(2) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/TheSeminalPapers.shtml

(3) https://www.sciencedirect.com/…icle/pii/002207289080009U

(4) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MaddoxJfarewellno.pdf

Ascoli:

So you do not understand the meaning of a Seminal paper?

And you have not read the history. The paper F&P where pressured to release in 1989 where rushed.

The 58 Pages seminal paper of 1990 where the improved one that has never been sucessfully refuted [1]

Douglas R.O. Morrison performed a critical review in 1994, which was "rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal" by Fleischmann and Pons. Morrison did not respond to the rebuttal.

To this day, Fleischmann and Pons' seminal paper has never been successfully refuted in the scientific literature.

No other serious challenge to -- and no published refutation of -- the 1990 Fleischmann-Pons paper has been made in the scientific literature. By default, the Fleischmann-Pons work is now part of the formal body of scientific knowledge, despite the informal negative remarks by critics in the popular press.

[1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/TheSeminalPapers.shtml

The Scientific community agreed by hands in the air voting in May 1989 that CF where pathological science.

And After that, yes CF where ignored.

Sad but true.

Therefore few physisists read their 1990 paper, but where critisized by Wilson and Morrison.

BotH where answerred by Fleischmann, and they never answerred back.

And the mystery of LENR is still not solved.

There is no water left in the cell after an anomalous heat boil off. No water and no foam. Not only is there no water, but the plastic holder at the bottom often melted, which means the temperature was far above 100 deg C.

There is water left during a calibration with electrolysis heating only. That is because the power turns off as soon as the water line drops below the anode or cathode. Also, the heat balance is zero during a calibration (no excess heat).

Quote from oystla

Ascoli:

So you do not understand the meaning of a Seminal paper?

And you have not read the history. The paper F&P where pressured to release in 1989 where rushed.

The 58 Pages seminal paper of 1990 where the improved one that has never been sucessfully refuted [1]

Douglas R.O. Morrison performed a critical review in 1994, which was "rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal" by Fleischmann and Pons. Morrison did not respond to the rebuttal.

To this day, Fleischmann and Pons' seminal paper has never been successfully refuted in the scientific literature.

No other serious challenge to -- and no published refutation of -- the 1990 Fleischmann-Pons paper has been made in the scientific literature. By default, the Fleischmann-Pons work is now part of the formal body of scientific knowledge, despite the informal negative remarks by critics in the popular press.

[1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/TheSeminalPapers.shtml

The Scientific community agreed by hands in the air voting in May 1989 that CF where pathological science.

And After that, yes CF where ignored.

Sad but true.

Therefore few physisists read their 1990 paper, but where critisized by Wilson and Morrison.

BotH where answerred by Fleischmann, and they never answerred back.

And the mystery of LENR is still not solved.

Display More

Oystla,

Who presseured them to release the paper before it was properly reviewed?

Why?

Ascoli 65 wrote "" look for the word "foam" (or "foaming", or "foamed") lenr-forum.com/attachment/6964/

It is interesting to trace the development of Ascoli's foam since its conception ön Sept 28

from "sort of foam"

to "residual, rising and stationary foam.

When it reaches full term in 2019 it will have eyes and ears.