# FP's experiments discussion

• Rate of water/foam level lowering in the cells

As known, the core of the 1992 F&P paper (1) is page 16, where an excess heat of 144.5 W was calculated, which allowed the authors to conclude: "We note that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system".

This calculation is based on the central assumption that the last half of the electrolyte (ie 2.5 moles of heavy water) has vaporized in 600 seconds (10 minutes). This estimate was based on the video recorded during the test: "As it is possible to repeatedly reverse and run forward the video recordings at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make reasonably accurate estimates of the cell contents. We have chosen to time the evaporation/boiling of the last half of the D2O in cells of this type and this allows us to make particularly simple thermal balances for the operation in the region of the boiling point."

In 2009, a video titled "1992 Four-Cell Boil-Off" was published by Krivit on YouTube (2). This is a demonstration video showing some preliminary information on the F&P experiment started on April 11, 1992, such as the details of a cell. The main part of this video contains the video clips supposedly showing the last evaporation phase of the 4 cells. The temporal localization of these clips has been shown in a previous jpeg (3).

For each cell, the lowering of the apparent level is highlighted with a blue arrow that moves downwards. The first and last appearance of the arrow are accompanied by its time. The following jpeg collects some video frames that show all the positions of the blue arrow.

By estimating the vertical position of the arrows with respect to the ruler shown on the right, where it is assumed that the normal water level is 18 cm above the KEL-F support, it is possible to deduce the 4 curves shown in the graph, which describe the lowering of the arrow height in each cell. This graph shows that the upper arrow is usually positioned around 11.5 cm, while the lower one appears at a height of about 4 cm, so that the total decrease in the water level indicated by the arrows is 7.5 cm ca. The lowering time varies from 20 to 35 minutes.

Therefore, the resulting rate of level lowering indicated by the 4 curves is very different from the estimate made by F&P, ie 9 cm in 10 minutes, and which is drawn in red to the left of the graph.

Furthermore, the vertical ranges of the 4 curves are very different than expected. In fact, being referred to the last half of the D2O content, their lower ends should have been at 0 cm, not 4 cm above the support. This is evidently due to the fact that, at the end of the drying period, a thick layer of residual and persistent foam remained at the bottom of the cells. This interpretation is confirmed also by the extra lower arrow indicated at the end of the Cell 3 sequence, but which is taken from a clip filmed 4 days later, as already explained in a previous post (4).

In conclusion, the available videos of the 1992 four-cell experiment don't support the estimate made by F&P of a rapid vaporization in just 10 minutes of half the water content on which their calculation of an excess heat of 144.5 W was based. So, there is no way to figure out where the 10 minutes have come from, apart from a pure invention of the authors.

• This is evidently due to the fact that, at the end of the drying period, a thick layer of residual and persistent foam remained at the bottom of the cells. This interpretation

1. Is this a fact or an interpretation?

2. how thick is this layer of ''fo(a)m'?..0.1 mm, 0.5 mm, 1 mm, 5 mm 10 cm?

• I think it described excactly what I said.

The paper is reporting a result of a hypothesis of F&P, that the anomalous heat power density increase with temperature.

[...]

It is therfore not describing the CF discovery as such (which was the subject of their 1990 paper) but a continuing research to test the range of the effect.

My remark concerned the word "hypothesis": F&P didn't present their results as HYPOTHESIS, but as FACT.

In doing so, they spent their academic and scientific authoritativeness in assuring readers that they had been able to effectively and undoubtedly achieve the extraordinary results reported in their paper.

But, as shown in the last jpeg - as well as in the previous ones - this is not true. This evident contradiction, fully demonstrated by their 1992 paper (1) and by the subsequent peer-reviewed 1993 article on PLA (2), poses a big problem of reliability with their respect, which concerns all the previous and successive documents on CF.

How is it possible to believe, for example, the correctness of the mW to W excess heats reported in Table 3 of their 1990 seminal paper (3), knowing that the 145.5 W of excess heat claimed 2 years later (1-2) were calculated on the basis of invented data?

• But, as shown in the last jpeg - as well as in the previous ones - this is not true

As verified in the peer-reviewed scientific journal "Nature Jpeg"??

• Official Post

...therefore, the resulting rate of level lowering indicated by the 4 curves is very different from the estimate made by F&P, ie 9 cm in 10 minutes, and which is drawn in red to the left of the graph.

So Krivit's estimate of the measurements is more accurate than F&P's actual measurements? I am amaze.

• This is evidently due to the fact that, at the end of the drying period, a thick layer of residual and persistent foam remained at the bottom of the cells.

That is utterly impossible. The cathode was so hot, it melted the Kel-F plastic plug at the bottom of the test tube. This is clearly stated in the paper. The melting point of Kel-F is over 150°C. It is not possible for foam or liquid water to remain in an open cell at those temperatures.

Your hypotheses violate elementary physics and common sense. Any 10-year-old child would know that what you say is impossible.

Does Ascoli65 really believe that liquid water or foam will remain in a test tube that is over 150°C? Or is he just trolling us? I can't tell.

Other pathological skeptics have been contributing preposterous hypotheses here recently. Shanahan claimed that hydrogen damage to x-ray film can produce a sharp image of the anode and sharply defined areas of radioactivity that repeat time and time again in different x-ray films, or in two films placed one behind the other. When I pointed out that other x-ray films are placed outside the cell, he bugged out. He won't even try to explain away that.

Such arguments are the best proof that pathological skeptics are wrong. Nothing I could say would discredit them as much as what they say themselves.

• I am amaze.

You am become azure. Or something like that, from the Bhagavad-Gita. ("I am become death.")

• Official Post

To that Jed, I can only say 'Shanti, shanti, shanti'.

• "As it is possible to repeatedly reverse and run forward the video recordings at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make reasonably accurate estimates of the cell contents. We have chosen to time the evaporation/boiling of the last half of the D2O in cells of this type and this allows us to make particularly simple thermal balances for the operation in the region of the boiling point."

Of course - according to Ascoli - Fleischmann was not able to handle a video recorder and to stop a running counter... May be Ascoli relies on a different foamy video source...

Just to many wet dreams, may be ...

• Ascoli:

I believe we should rather use the video linked in the paper and not the one with blue arrows painted on by Krivit, in his video.

And when we look closer at for example Cell 1, we see clearly that the 4 cm layer bottom you believe is foam, is actually a salt deposit layer on the glass.

And this will change the conclusion drastically.

It is showing more clearly when the light changes from very bright to more yellow tint for cell 1 and cell 2.

At 22:25: Cell 1 is empty, salt deposits on the wall, Cell 2 electrolysis ongoing

Light has changed to more yellow tone, salt deposit on cell 1 more clearly visible as salt, not foam.

• I believe we should rather use the video linked in the paper and not the one with blue arrows painted on by Krivit, in his video.

Fine. This is a big step ahead. Let's use the videos, but being aware that:

- none of the 2 short videos available on the web (1-2) is explicitly linked in the paper (3). The paper only mentions an original video recording - surely on tape - from which the clips of the 2 short videos were extracted. The 4 video stills, included as Figure 10 in the F&P paper, appear in both short videos.

- the blue arrows shown in the short video (2) preexisted to the publication in 2009. That type of titration was already available in the early '90 for the camcorders or VCRs that had the possibility of superimposing a title on the tape. The software available in 2009 would have allowed to paint much more sophisticate scripts. So these arrows was added by F&P in 1992, when they assembled the demonstration video, which Krivit published in 2009.

Quote

And when we look closer at for example Cell 1, we see clearly that the 4 cm layer bottom you believe is foam, is actually a salt deposit layer on the glass.

Yes, it is also possible that it is the deposit of some substance present in the foam that eventually settled on the glass wall.

Quote

And this will change the conclusion drastically.

No, this is not absolutely influential. I'm talking about the groundlessness of the 10 minutes assumed by F&P in their calculation on page 16 (1), while the first video still showing the possible deposit on the glass refers to several days after the Cell 1 boil-off.

Quote

It is showing more clearly when the light changes from very bright to more yellow tint for cell 1 and cell 2.

Yes, light changes help to highlight some different details in the cell, but …

Quote

At 22:25: Cell 1 is empty, salt deposits on the wall, Cell 2 electrolysis ongoing

No. At 22:25, Cell 1 has no more liquid water, but the brightness indicates the presence of about 5 cm (2 inner diameters) of residual foam. As for Cell 2, beyond electrolysis, also the vaporization at the cathode was already ongoing.

Quote

Light has changed to more yellow tone, salt deposit on cell 1 more clearly visible as salt, not foam.

It is possible that at the time of your second image, for example at 3:35:04, the foam could have vanished leaving a deposit on the wall of Cell 1, but that image refers to several days after the boil off, so it doesn't influence the considerations on the boil-off phase. Furthermore, the brightness at the bottom of the adjacent Cell 2 seems to be really foam, not a deposit on the wall.

By adding the unique behavior of Cell 3, whose foam has completely disappeared without deposit on the wall, it's possible that the residual foam on the bottom of the cells may have had different long-term evolutions. Absolutely constant, instead, was the position of the lower blue arrows, at about 4 cm above the lower supports. This fact indicates unequivocally that the experimenters were unable to detect a lower position for their lower arrows, apart the extra arrow misleadingly added to the sequence of Cell 3 (4).

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434 (IMRA time lapse – Rothwell 2012)

(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8 (1992 Four-Cell Boil-off – Krivit 2009)

• So Krivit's estimate of the measurements is more accurate than F&P's actual measurements?

If you are alluding to the possibility (which I consider impossible) that Krivit be the drawer of the arrows, let us hope that he will explain asap the origin of the videos he published in 2009.

Your hypotheses violate elementary physics and common sense. Any 10-year-old child would know that what you say is impossible.

Are you saying, I'm a CF believer?

Quote

Such arguments are the best proof that pathological skeptics are wrong. Nothing I could say would discredit them as much as what they say themselves.

Singular coincidence with the situation that emerges from the F&P videos. Anyway, I'm not a skeptic either. It's impossible to be skeptical in front to the overwhelming evidences provided by the authors themselves, showing that the experimental input data used to calculate the excess heat in the 1992 F&P paper were invented.

Of course - according to Ascoli - Fleischmann was not able to handle a video recorder and to stop a running counter... May be Ascoli relies on a different foamy video source...

Just to many wet dreams, may be ...

No, no. The situation is much worse. MF used to work with videos and, at the time, F&P had a dozen of co-workers. There is no room for incompetence or inadvertent mistakes. The time is on the screen, no need to look at the running counter.

In any case, the videos are on the web, available to those who can analyze them. There are many post-processing techniques that can extract a lot of additional information from those videos. The next 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT, on March 23-24, 2019 (1), is the right oportunity to launch a new topic in the field: F&P effect and Frothology (credit R.Bryant). At MIT have plenty of instruments and abilities to properly analyze those videos.

• Official Post

If you are alluding to the possibility (which I consider impossible) that Krivit be the drawer of the arrows, let us hope that he will explain asap the origin of the videos he published in 2009.

The you don't know Krivit.

• The next 2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT

""F&P effect and Frothology "" Ascoli65 presents his thesis to save the world..credits to Krivit.

• No, no. The situation is much worse. MF used to work with videos and, at the time, F&P had a dozen of co-workers. There is no room for incompetence or inadvertent mistakes.

Starting to think this was a remarkably prescient comment:

I've not been following Ascoli's arguments closely, mainly out of a fear it will eventually involve some elaborate conspiracy theory, but he seems to be saying F&P couldn't accurately time the boil-off during the actual experiment, so instead they relied on a heavily edited video of it they later found on the internet...

• Ascoli: “F&P didn't present their results as HYPOTHESIS, but as FACT”

And my point was that this paper does not describe CF discovery as such and is therefore not their major paper.

Listen; Experimental papers as this one present the results of research or investigations, based on some hypothesis they would like to prove or disprove.

In this case they even stated in the paper [1] “The main objective of these investigations has been to determine the conditions required to produce high rates of excess enthalpy generation at the boiling points of the D2O solutions. Our protocol for these experiments is based on the hypothesis that the….”

Also, they state in the paper [1] “information of this kind was already included in our first major publication…” (i.e. the 58 pages 1990 paper [2]).

And in their major paper [2] they described as they stated the “rather extreme..bursts in rates of excess enthalpy…”. This was the mystery still to be solved. And NOT if they were or where not able to read boiling water levels.

In the book [3] “Developments in electrochemistry: Science inspired by Martin Fleischmann” issued in 2014, Melvin Miles and McKubre authored a separate chapter on Pd/D related Cold Fusion. This chapter clarifies very well to everyone what the actual F&P discovery was and related research, i.e. something much more profound than a boiling water experiment.

And at last on excess heat vs not excess heat for the boiling test tubes: We should also note the sentence in [1] at the dry end period (where electrical input is zero) : “Furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300°C.”

• Listen; Experimental papers as this one present the results of research or investigations, based on some hypothesis they would like to prove or disprove.

In this case they even stated in the paper [1] “The main objective of these investigations has been to determine the conditions required to produce high rates of excess enthalpy generation at the boiling points of the D2O solutions. Our protocol for these experiments is based on the hypothesis that the….”

The results reported in the 1992 paper (1) are presented as FACTS. These facts are FALSE, because some crucial experimental data reported in the paper are wrong or misrepresented.

The word "hypothesis" appeared in this sentence (2): "Our protocol for these experiments is based on the hypothesis that the further addition of D+ to cathodes already highly loaded with deuterium will be endothermic." This hypothesis is not necessary to provide a mundane and much simpler explanation of the results of the 1992 experiment.

Quote

Also, they state in the paper [1] “information of this kind was already included in our first major publication…” (i.e. the 58 pages 1990 paper [2]).

Your underlining is too short. Even if F&P considered the 1990 paper as their first major publication, their major paper (without "first") is the 1992 paper (1) and the almost identical 1993 article (2), which are both wrong.

Quote

And in their major paper [2] they described as they stated the “rather extreme..bursts in rates of excess enthalpy…”. This was the mystery still to be solved. And NOT if they were or where not able to read boiling water levels.

The mystery is easily resolved just realizing that:

a – F&P were able to follow the boiling water level in their 1992 experiment, but they reported untrue data on their 1992 paper, as is well documented by their videos;

b - the two bursts documented in their 1990 article (3) are compatible with a concomitant activation of the resistive heater.

Quote

In the book [3] “Developments in electrochemistry: Science inspired by Martin Fleischmann” issued in 2014, Melvin Miles and McKubre authored a separate chapter on Pd/D related Cold Fusion. This chapter clarifies very well to everyone what the actual F&P discovery was and related research, i.e. something much more profound than a boiling water experiment.

From the summary of the cited Miles and McKubre article (4): "This chapter focuses on two details of Martin Fleischmann's final project:(i) the multithreshold materials constraints that prevented easy reproducibility of the Fleischmann–Pons heat effect (FPHE); (ii) the brilliant, implementation of the Fleischmann–Pons calorimeter, designed to take advantage of positive thermal feedback."

From Hagelstein's summary of ICCF3 (5): "the positive feedback leads to very high excess power generation and vigorous boiling."

Putting together the previous quotes we get:

a – the "F&P calorimeter" was designed to demonstrate a (presumed) "very high excess power generation" associated with "vigorous boiling " caused by "positive thermal feedback";

b – the "Fleischmann–Pons heat effect (FPHE)" is not "[easily reproducible]".

A possible (and probable) explanation of the previous points is:

- the FPHE - that is the presumed high excess power generation associated to vigorous boiling caused by the thermal positive effect occurring in the suitably designed F&P calorimeter – doesn't exist;

- therefore, this effect is impossible to reproduce, unless identical (or equivalent) errors are repeated (or committed).

Quote

And at last on excess heat vs not excess heat for the boiling test tubes: We should also note the sentence in [1] at the dry end period (where electrical input is zero) : “Furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300°C.”

Probably, it's another misrepresentation contained in that paper. Just two days ago Rothwell wrote (6): "The melting point of Kel-F is over 150°C."

Anyway, assuming that the reported melt is real (and in this case is unknown the reason why there is no public image of this melted support), it can be easily explained considering that:

a - the cathode rests directly on the Kel-F support;

b - the cathode is more than a few tens of degrees warmer that the water, just for the joule effect;

c - in the very last phase of the boil-off, all current is forced to pass through the lowest and very thin portion of the cathode in contact with the support.

In any case, the phrase you quoted is preceded by this one: "following the boiling to dryness and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high temperature for prolonged periods of time, Fig 8". This phrase, as well as the indications reported on Fig.8, is FALSE. Furthermore, if the authors were able to correctly convert dd+hh:mm:ss into seconds, this phrase is DELIBERATELY FALSE.

• The results reported in the 1992 paper (1) are presented as FACTS. These facts are FALSE, because some crucial experimental data reported in the paper are wrong or misrepresented.

Here is what is false: your notion that liquid water or foam will remain in an open test tube that is so hot plastic melts in it. That's not just false -- it is insane. If you believe that, you are astoundingly ignorant of everyday physics. If you don't believe it, you are trolling the audience here. Which is it?

## Subscribe to our newsletter

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

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required