FP's experiments discussion

  • 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.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • You are always welcome here, ...


    Yes, I know, thanks for your hospitality. I was just referring to my criticisms to the F&P results. I understand that they are not welcome here, of course.


    Quote

    I am aware of your role in exposing Rossi. You did, and continue to do, a very good job of it. You can even see the fruits of your labors right here on LF, as he has become in many ways a laughing stock...as he deserves. Others of course, helped to open some eyes about the man, including the IH/Rossi court records, but still you played a part and should be proud of that.


    Well, you know, my position is quite peculiar with this respect. I've never exposed Rossi, I don't care about him. Not by chance I speak about Ecat, avoiding mentioning Rossi. I've rather exposed the inconsistencies of the Ecat tests, which have been carried out, documented and/or supported by people who had the institutional duty to correctly inform the public and the decision makers. The Ecat affair goes well beyond Rossi, who is only the front man and, eventually, the main scapegoat.


    Quote

    However, I see little comparison's between he and FP's. It is one thing to bring Rossi down, and quite another to try the same with FP's.


    Rossi vs. F&P is the wrong comparison, they have not played the same role. F&P should be compared with the academic people who supported the Ecat reality, especially those of UniBo. Scientists, professors, researchers, experts in general are the real source of public credulity in both the FPHE and Ecat initiatives, the most important in CF/LENR history.


    Quote

    You may get them on some valid discrepancies, but motives, character, abilities, integrity, you will not.


    On an individual level, I'm only interested in the reliability of the persons who have been involved in experiments on FPHE, Ecat, etc. It is necessary because, as already said, the experimenters are part of the experiments and their reliability is essential to establish the credibility of the experimental results. I'm not interested in any other personal feature.


    On a more general level, the explanation of a social phenomenon such as CF/LENR may require the analysis of some other characteristic or psychological attitude. But this is not the moment, nor the place to speak about these topics.

  • On a more general level, the explanation of a social phenomenon such as CF/LENR may require the analysis of some other characteristic or psychological attitude.


    Cold fusion might be a social phenomenon for those outside the field, for those of us who work within it CF/LENR is a fascinating intellectual puzzle, a harsh mistress and part of our duty to try to make a difference to the future of the world.

  • a fascinating intellectual puzzle, a harsh mistress and part of our duty


    Has it got easier without the wet electrochemical cell used by F&P..?


    Certainly D.D. Dominguez, D.A. Kidwell, G.K. Hubler, S-F Cheng, M.A. Imam, K.S. Grabowski and D.L. Knies U

    at the Navy Laboratory found LENR a harsh mistress..with two years of negative expts..its lucky the US govt was paying..

  • Cold fusion might be a social phenomenon for those outside the field, for those of us who work within it CF/LENR is a fascinating intellectual puzzle, a harsh mistress and part of our duty to try to make a difference to the future of the world.


    FWIK, after 30 years and more than 0.5 B$, the main and only scientific result from CF/LENR research has been obtained in the psychological field, thanks to the intuition of the long-run researcher Stan Szpak: "scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe."


    This dictum circulates only within the LENR community to explain the opposition to CF (1). It's a pity, because IMO it also explains the LENR phenomenon itself (see Luke 6,42), as well as large part of the scientific research, to the point that - providing to add (many) in front of "scientists" - it could be presented as a well reproducible "Szpak Law".


    A corollary to this law is that "(many) scientists consider a duty to save (or improve) the world, starting from their own".


    At a broader socio-psychological level, ie removing the word "scientists", the Szpak Law (and its corollary) applies to everyone, including me. It is encoded in our DNA.

  • can . I didn't mention money, Ascoli65 did when he quoted Szpack. "Scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe." I am merely curious about what he is hoping to achieve, and if he considers himself to be a scientist how does it pay him not to believe in the cold fusion fairy.

  • Alan Smith

    I mean that some people might have motivations other than monetary for obsessively opposing cold fusion research and actively work against it. I'm only making the monetary remark because it's often suggested that prominent skeptics are on the payroll of large energy companies and because it seemed convenient within the wording context of that comment.


    So what would it pay him in this case, i.e. what would he have to gain from his extensive debunking efforts, since it's argued that cold fusion could solve many world problems if conclusively proven true? If he's one of those people who think that it would instead be a disaster for the survival of mankind, by picking irrelevancies and blowing them out of proportion he might be trying to delay the inevitable in the vain hope that people will start questioning the validity of the entire field and stop looking. Saving taxpayer's money? Nah, nobody believes that and the author probably doesn't either.


    Other than this, he might be simply the most competent troll ever seen so far, but trolls typically are into the game for the quick adrenaline rush and don't waste too much of their time building their arguments.


    I haven't followed the foam discussion in detail; this was just a quick observation-speculation I wanted to make.

  • So, how does it pay you to actively disbelieve - at great length and in writing - something that could fundamentally change the future of mankind for the better?


    Hard to say. At the lowest level, there is some form of gratification in solving "a fascinating intellectual puzzle" in an unexpected way.


    If I had stumbled upon this same issue three decades ago, I could have add a willingness to save my future from the disastrous effects of the spreading of a belief in another false solution to the mankind problems. Now it's too late for claiming this conceited scope. It's possible that what remains of the present civilization is kept running by illusions, such as CF.


    At this point, the convenience in believing LENR or not is a matter of individual expectancies. The only absolute value which has remained is truth, but I'm aware that nowadays it could conflict with hope, an even more necessary value. Which one has to be chosen?


    Quote

    can . I didn't mention money, Ascoli65 did when he quoted Szpack. "Scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe." I am merely curious about what he is hoping to achieve, and if he considers himself to be a scientist how does it pay him not to believe in the cold fusion fairy.


    I consider me essentially a curios, which is a fundamental ingredient of true science.


    As for (many) current scientists, let's talk an expert:

    https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg59095.html

    https://www.mail-archive.com/v…eskimo.com/msg106309.html

  • If I had stumbled upon this same issue three decades ago, I could have add a willingness to save my future from the disastrous effects of the spreading of a belief in another false solution to the mankind problems.


    So you are trying to save the planet from LENR, and we are trying to promote LENR to save the planet. Interesting. I think this talk about money, resources, and talent being wasted on the pursuit of something you firmly believe is pseudoscience, is overblown, and over hyped. Most of those pursuing the science are older, were (some still are) working in universities, or government labs with plenty of time on their hands. Much of the lab equipment on hand is sitting there looking for a good use. Others are volunteers, working at home (Essex for example, Storms). Then there are the companies such as Technova, BEC, BLP working either from profits, or investor monies.


    So say for arguments sake; what do you think these people would be doing were they not looking into LENR? Alan told me he would be building model airplanes. Do you want him to stop helping Russ, and start doing that so he stops wasting his time on this CF stuff? If you ask me, there are millions of scientists in the world, and sparing a handful to work on LENR is not going to hurt anything, while alternatively having a reasonable chance to change the world. So why not?


    And money...plenty of that floating around being wasted on luxuries, wars, crime, etc. so what is a few million being diverted into LENR going to change?


    Thanks for finally revealing your motive. Here I thought it was constructing conspiracies out of thin air, and all along it has been to save the world "from the disastrous effects of a belief in another false solution to thr mankind problem". Honestly, I think you are wasting your time, because no one is going to stop their research based on your argument there is foam there, where no one else can see it. Anyways, we have Safire, NEDO, the Russians, BLP, BEC. Texas Tech, Atom Ecology, and others to buttress our belief nowadays...we do not need FP's anymore.


    But don't let that stop you. Take care. :)

  • As for the effect of the molten plastic, it doesn’t affect the foam. As already said, this melting can be easily explained with the high temperature reached at the lowest tip of the cathode,


    BTW Ascoli65... apropos your philosophical Szpak DNA

    could you show the forum

    with physics rather than philosophy

    how the lowest tip of the the cathode

    can melt PCFTE with an MP of >175C

    when the LiOD electrolyte it contacts is <105C???

    and when the current thru the cathode/anode ceases

    after the electrolyte level falls below the cathode???


    you said "easily" ...correct?

    I am fundamentally curios to see your physics in writing

    rather than your foam.


    "The only absolute value which has remained is truth"

  • FWIK, after 30 years and more than 0.5 B$, the main and only scientific result from CF/LENR research has been obtained in the psychological field, thanks to the intuition of the long-run researcher Stan Szpak: "scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe."

    First, no one has spent $500 million on cold fusion. That's ridiculous. Second, no one is paid to believe in cold fusion. On the contrary, scientist who believe in cold fusion had their funding taken away. In some cases they were forced into early retirement or fired.


    The locus of opposition to cold fusion is the plasma fusion project. Those people are being paid to not believe in cold fusion.

  • I'm only making the monetary remark because it's often suggested that prominent skeptics are on the payroll of large energy companies and because it seemed convenient within the wording context of that comment.

    No prominent skeptic is on the payroll of any energy company as far as I know. Most are on Uncle Sam's payroll, or Nature magazine's and they are not allowed to work for anyone else. The earliest and most prominent and effective opponents were in the plasma fusion program, and at academic institutions such as the American Physical Society and various universities. The opposition is caused by academic politics and the fight for funding. It has nothing to do with energy companies.


    If a practical cold fusion device emerges, I have no doubt the energy companies will oppose it. But at present they don't take it seriously, or they don't know it exists. Energy companies do not oppose plasma fusion research or space-based energy systems because they do not take them seriously. Nor should they. These are pie-in-the-sky schemes that will never amount to anything.