Akito Takahashi is the first to admit his and his researchers' debt to Fleischmann and Pons.
Not to mention Arata (a skeptic) replicated FP's in 1990, and just recently (2017) Beiting of Aerospace One Corp. replicated Arata. Hard to believe Ascoli's assertion that FP's were wrong, when you see they spawned these successful replications by so many well qualified researchers.
Not to mention Arata (a skeptic) replicated FP's in 1990, and just recently (2017) Beiting of Aerospace One Corp. replicated Arata. Hard to believe Ascoli's assertion that FP's were wrong, when you see they spawned these successful replications by so many well qualified researchers.
Were these boil-off experiments?
Para,
Just FP's electrolysis AFAIK.
Anyways, where are the original, un-marked-up videos? Probably they can be digitized with much higher quality nowadays. Hopefully they are on Beta, rather than VHS.
There are other videos showing some parts of the original video recorded on tape. FWIK so far, there are four videos, in order of decreasing length of the experiment images:
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434 - "IMRA lapse time" (Rothwell, 2012)
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8 - "1992 Four-Cell Boil-Off" (Krivit, 2009)
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n88YdKYv8sw - "Pons presentation" (Krivit, 2009)
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXaijlN1AKo&t=2m17s - "Good Morning America"
I summarized in a scheme the temporal position of all the video clips contained in these videos (*).
As marked-up video, you probably refer to one of the video published by Krivit (2). This video has a resolution of 540x360, but the longer IMRA video (1) can be downloaded with a much better resolution of 1280x720 and is not marked up. I found other interesting information on this longer video (**).
All the images of the experiment contained in these videos comes from an original and much longer videotape recorded during the experiment. Maybe there are some copies around of this original video, hopefully in a digitized form, but I strongly doubt that the owners will let them public. Rothwell didn't even inform readers here on L-F that the IMRA video he had published in 2012 was available on YouTube. For what I've seen so far, very few are interested in shedding light on this foam issue.
Anyway all the necessary info is already contained in the first 2 videos. I think that some video post-processing can extract much more information from them.
very few are interested in shedding light on this foam issue.
WRONG.. I am extremely interested... have you done your due diligence and evaporated 0.1M NaOH in H20 by boiling yet , Ascoli65.???
Tell me how many km of foam form..
Maybe tomorrow after your dreams... Buona notte..sogni d'oro
Buona notte from NZ
Rothwell didn't even inform readers here on L-F that the IMRA video he had published in 2012 was available on YouTube. For what I've seen so far, very few are interested in shedding light on this foam issue.
Google is your friend: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pons+fleischmann+boil+off+video
See? My video is the 3rd one down. You can't miss it.
Very few are interested because . . .
How much light might be shed on the hypothesis water that remains liquid at 1 atm and temperatures between 150 deg C and 300 deg C? That's what you are claiming. In 3rd grade elementary school science classes people learn that the boiling point of water is ~100 deg C. Did you not learn that? Why are you coming here and disputing it? How can anyone be "interested" in such a lunatic assertion?
Your assertions about conspiracies are silly and can be ignored. But this kind of nonsense -- dressed up as science -- is disruptive. It is as if you were going to an ornithology discussion group and claiming that birds cannot fly. This kind of trolling is insulting, disruptive, and its only purpose is it derail the discussion. The same can be said for Shananhan's crackpot theories, such as his latest one: that hydrogen contamination can cause x-ray film to show sharp images of the cell contents, with the same image appearing again and again. He didn't try to explain how these images also appear on x-ray film outside the cell which cannot be exposed to hydrogen, but I am sure he will come up with a cockemamie "theory."
QuoteOnly person publicly calling them liars, and marked by a tiny footnote, will be Ascoli... maybe Kirk also.
I can't follow Ascoli enough to know if he is accusing F&P of lying. Few if any people do. Lying, no. Likely mistaken and definitely overoptimistic, yes.
either they didn't know what they were doing or they were trying to enchant the readers with an apparent and striking, but unsubstantiated, accuracy
Here in unsophisticated un PC New Zealand
"they were trying to enchant "
means lying.
Display Moreeither they didn't know what they were doing or they were trying to enchant the readers with an apparent and striking, but unsubstantiated, accuracy
Here in unsophisticated New Zealand
"they were trying to enchant "
means lying.
He probably meant to say something positive, but because his English is so bad, it came out negative in the translation. 
Perhaps I am being a tad immoderate..but the assertion by Ascoli that ALL post- Fleischmann&P replicators in the US, Italy, France and Japan are WRONG is rather extreme.
I can't follow Ascoli enough to know if he is accusing F&P of lying. Few if any people do. Lying, no. Likely mistaken and definitely overoptimistic, yes.
I've just explained my position in this respect (1). I'm not calling anyone a liar.
You came here in the middle of a dispute that has lasted for many weeks. The dispute goes directly to the CF core, because it deals with the main experiment and paper of F&P. In my opinion, the claims reported in their 1992 paper are untrue, because they are based on false experimental data and a false representation of crucial experimental facts. This opinion is based on the observation of the video filmed and released by the same authors of the paper, which show foam when and where it was claimed there was boiling water.
Some L-F members, even if skeptic toward this hypothesis, are interested in clarifying this foam issue and posed a series of alternative explanation that have helped to improve the interpretation of the F&P experiment. Others seem to have entered directly in the fogging operative mode, trying to boycott the discussion by shifting attention to marginal aspects and asking specious questions. Nothing new, it already happened with the Ecat, as you know very well. It usually happens when there are no valid argument to reject a criticism, so this gives me confidence that the "foam issue" is valid.
If you are interested in contributing to this debate, you are welcome.
Some L-F members, even if skeptic toward this hypothesis, are interested in clarifying this foam issue and posed a series of alternative explanation that have helped to improve the interpretation of the F&P experiment. Others seem to have entered directly in the fogging operative mode, trying to boycott the discussion by shifting attention to marginal aspects and asking specious questions
Please don't fog with some and other..
Be specific Ascoli65.. Graci
I can't follow Ascoli enough to know if he is accusing F&P of lying. Few if any people do. Lying, no. Likely mistaken and definitely overoptimistic, yes.
What about the other ~180 labs that replicated them? Are they also mistaken and definitely overoptimistic? What about MIT and Cal Tech, who replicated and then lied about it, claiming they did not. That's not overoptimistic.
I do not think you understand experimental science. If hundreds of laboratories could replicate something at high s/n ratios, and still be wrong, the scientific method would not work. We humans would still be living in caves. There is not a single instance in the history of science in which hundreds of labs turned out to be wrong about an experiment. They have often been wrong about theory.
I am sure you have not found any error in this experiment, so your claim they are mistaken and overoptimistic has no rational basis. This is your unfounded opinion without a shred of evidence to support it. No one has found any errors in this experiment, even though thousands of people despite F&P and would love to find an error. Perhaps you agree with Ascoli that water does not boil at 150 deg C. Or perhaps you agree with THHuxley who claims that unboiled water left the cell but the salts magically stayed behind. These are not rational beliefs. They are extreme nonsense.
I am sure you have not found any error in this experiment, so your claim they are mistaken and overoptimistic has no rational basis. This is your unfounded opinion without a shred of evidence to support it.
To put it another way, this is science. You don't get to wave your hands and declare this or that is true based on nothing, without a shred of evidence. You can't just make stuff up and expect to be taken seriously. When you say someone is mistaken, you have to point to the mistake they made.
When you say unfounded and imaginary things, you demonstrate that you know nothing about science and nothing about how to present a convincing argument in a technical discussion. You have zero credibility. Nothing I can say would make you look worse than what you yourself say.
You have no credibility because you have no basis for what you say, and no evidence. Others have no credibility because they make ludicrous assertions, such as water does not boil at 1 atm and 150 deg C, or hydrogen contamination causes the same sharply defined image to appear time after time on x-ray film. No pathological skeptic has presented a valid argument against F&P or any other mainstream experiments in this discussion, or any other discussion at this web site. Not once. The reason is obvious: there are no valid arguments.
What is the boiling point of the solution when it is saturated in lithium left behind when the water boils away, once there remains only a cm or less in the boil-off test tube?
approx., 2,43 C for 2.4 M NaCl which is approx. 24 times the initial LiOH concentration of o.1M
You can work it more exactly with molality rather than molarity from
So the boiling point of a 50/50 Li/H2O solution is about 175 C ?
How much light might be shed on the hypothesis water that remains liquid at 1 atm and temperatures between 150 deg C and 300 deg C? That's what you are claiming.
No, I'm not claiming this. I have already explained my criticisms many times. The last directly to you (1). But, well, I understand, you have no other argument to contrast the reality that F&P were wrong. This is your only viable tactic, the same you used as long as possible to defend the reality of the Ecat results.
The calculation at page 16 of the F&P paper (2) are wrong, because they rests on experiment data which are invented (as the 600 s) or misrepresented (as the 22500 J). The 144.5 W of excess enthalpy and the consequent 3700 W/cm3 of specific excess enthalpy are FALSE. They have not been demonstrated in the F&P document.
Moreover the Figure 8, which is at the base of the alleged phenomenon of the HAD, is wrong. The "dry cell" indications have been placed about 3 hours before the time when the drying really happened. The claim of a 3 hours period during which the cell remain at the boiling point even without current is FALSE. The HAD event have not been demonstrated in the F&P document.
The only thing that the F&P paper of 1992 (2) demonstrates is that its authors are unreliable. And, your specious questions demonstrate in the most evident way that you have no valid arguments to reject what emerges from the videos of the 1992 experiment.
(1) FP's experiments discussion
(2) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
So the boiling point of a 50/50 Li/H2O solution is about 175 C ?
You mean LiOH/H2O...
Depends on your calculation...also initial solution volume and final solution volume need
to be realistic... if you have 0.1 ml water final.....this may be splattered away instantly
lets say 20 ml reduces to 0.5 mls D20 .... still pretty splatterable
this means 0.05g LiOD per 0,5 mls D2O..LiOD MW 25
moles/kg = 4
2x0.51x4= 4C rise in BP
Check my figures.. mental arith.. need to catch a plane early tomorrow am..
The solubilty of LiOH in water (and I see no reason to suspect that LiOD in D2O would be significantly different) is around 12.7gr/100ml at STP. I dont think thaat this would increase to as much as 25gr/100 ml in even near-boiling water. So 50% solution would contain a significant amount of solid material precipitated from solution even if hot.
