FP's experiments discussion

Quote from RobertBryant

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.

Display More

The cell shown on Figure 1 of the F&P paper (1), which you reported in your picture, doesn't correspond to the electrolytic cell model used in the April-May 1992 experiment, as you can see in the "1992 Four-Cell Boil-off" video (2).

Furthermore, as shown in (3), when the water is at about 70°C, the cathode is already at the boiling temperature, ie it is at least 30°C warmer. This occurs when the voltage is about 10 V and the cell is full of liquid water. It's reasonable to conclude that at the end of the boil-off, when voltage is 50 V and the liquid water is only a few millimeters, the cathode can easily reach the melting temperature of the plastic support.

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

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

(3) FP's experiments discussion

Quote from Ascoli65

It's reasonable to conclude that at the end of the boil-off, when voltage is 50 V and the liquid water is only a few millimeters, the cathode can easily reach the melting temperature of the plastic support.

Thanks for confirming LENR Ascoli. The heat of the cathode did melt the plastic support!

And yes.. - the paper you discussed now for months shows a different cathode placement. You are just unlucky to notice it just now, when it is to late to find an silent excuse! In the paper you discussed the gap between the plastic (bottom of case) and anode is "large", at least 2cm.

And as you said this proves LENR!

Quote from Ascoli65

It's reasonable to conclude that at the end of the boil-off, when voltage is 50 V and the liquid water is only a few millimeters, the cathode can easily reach the melting temperature of the plastic support.

Please Ascoli65 explain with physics rather than words

that it is reasonable

and that the cathode can easily reach...175C

Without numbers, formulas and equations,

Physics is only foamy philosophy.

You said it could be explained easily ? Correct?

The only absolute value which has remained is truth"

Geez, this gets so abstract and esoteric. Szpak already?

Most people including scientists and engineers who have even bothered to look at the current claims for cold fusion are skeptical or negative. The reason is that nobody can show them a device which reliably, reproducibly and verifiably self runs for long periods while producing plenty of heat. It's really that simple. Of course Jed will tell you that this has already been achieved but that was long ago and in a galaxy far far away. The art seems to have been lost or is not being practiced currently. What's needed to gain respect and belief is to provide that evanescent or mythical device now.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Most people including scientists and engineers who have even bothered to look at the current claims for cold fusion

please show 140 out of 150 cases where this generalisation is verifiable in the last five years

Quote from Wyttenbach

Thanks for confirming LENR Ascoli. The heat of the cathode did melt the plastic support!

No, I didn't. I said I'm not even sure the plastic melted, because in such a case the experimenters would have taken some photos and published them. But, even in the case it melted, it's nothing extraordinary. The cathode could have easily reached the melting temperature thanks to electric heating only.

Quote

And yes.. - the paper you discussed now for months shows a different cathode placement. You are just unlucky to notice it just now, when it is to late to find an silent excuse!

No, you are wrong. I raised this n-th discrepancy in the F&P paper almost a month ago:

Quote

In the paper you discussed the gap between the plastic (bottom of case) and anode is "large", at least 2cm.

No, it isn't. In the comment below yours, RobertBryant provided the best evidence for what I said. The background drawing appears at the beginning (from t=0:04 to 0:32) of the "1992 Four-Cell Boil-Off" video (1) and is identical to Figure 1 in the F&P paper (2).

The image he superimposed to the drawing is Cell 3 at about t=1:09 of the video. You can see that the internals are different. The anode is much smaller and cathode is inside it. Both rests on the plastic support (the white horizontal bar under the anodic spiral).

The video shows the real set-up of the electrodes at t=0:32. Do you see? Contrary to what is shown in Figure 1, they are in contact with the support. No gap!

Quote

And as you said this proves LENR!

You desperately miss any valid argument to defend the trueness of the F&P paper.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8 - "1992 Four-Cell Boil-Off" (Krivit, 2009)

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

Quote from Ascoli65

The video shows the real set-up of the electrodes at t=0:32. Do you see? Contrary to what is shown in Figure 1, they are in contact with the support. No gap!

As usual Ascoli evidence rests solely on a grainy video.

His only evidence.

So why is the accurate drawing in the video at all... is this just

Fleischmann enchanting the viewer?

How can any absolute scientific evidence be based on such poor

evidence?

The only absolute value which has remained is truth"

In Ascoli's evidence it all Ascoli interpretation

never... absolute truth

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Most people including scientists and engineers who have even bothered to look at the current claims for cold fusion are skeptical or negative.

.. and these people have chosen you to represent them??

Quote from Ascoli65

The cathode could have easily reached the melting temperature thanks to electric heating only.

Heating needs current Ascoli. If the water level is below the anode nothing happens...

Quote from JedRothwell

First, no one has spent $500 million on cold fusion. That's ridiculous.

No one? You are a genius of rhetoric. Oh yes, I agree: no (single) one has spent $500 million on cold fusion. But all together? Well, ask Storms:

Consider also that in the missing last 7 years, the Ecat initiative alone has collected about $70 millions thanks also to your support. Then there is the SKINR initiative, some residual or new public researches mainly in USA, Japan and Italy, probably some millions from the Gates Foundation, other minor initiatives throughout the world and so you reach another $100 millions to add to the Storms estimate.

Quote

Second, no one is paid to believe in cold fusion.

These are your words (1): "If funding becomes available, overnight hundreds of major scientists will say they believed in cold fusion all along."
The funding that was available for CF has been estimated by Storms.

Everyone can draw his conclusions.

Quote

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.

Including the academics who have tested and stated the extraordinary performances of the Ecat?

Quote

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

No, they support each other (2).

(1) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…d/?postID=29093#post29093

(2) Public funding of investigations into LENR?

Quote from RobertBryant

As usual Ascoli evidence rests solely on a grainy video.

His only evidence.

Well, speaking about evidences, it is evident that the only defense line for the F&P supporters is the alleged low quality of videos. Strange, the same videos should have shown "the dramatic heat effect of the cold fusion reaction on the water fuel" (1).

In any case, don't worry, the videos are on the internet, waiting to be analyzed by people more experienced than you and me.

However, if you want a quick response directly by your eyes, there is a video with even better images (2). Look at t=00:28. Is it a grainy image? Are you able to see the electrodes resting on the support? Then go at t=00:48 and look at the date: 23 6 1992. Only a few weeks after the F&P experiment reported in their ICCF3 paper. Finally, please go at t=00:55 and you will find both the electrodes resting on the support and the date.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Heating needs current Ascoli. If the water level is below the anode nothing happens...

For what I have just said above, the water level can't be below the electrodes.

(1) https://coldfusionnow.org/flei…roduction-to-cold-fusion/

(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OQu44UIC_s – Truthloader video

The SKINR initiative after two years of negative results produced undeniable positive results

Quote from Ascoli65

Then there is the SKINR initiative,

unless Ascoli65 believes all the SKINR researchers were enchanted by Fleischmann to believe that nickel

and rhodium.. which F&P never know about ..... produced these positive results

D.D. Dominguez, D.A. Kidwell, G.K. Hubler, S-F Cheng, M.A. Imam, K.S. Grabowski and D.L. Knies U.S. Naval Research Laboratory Washington, DC 20375........... 2012

Quote from Ascoli65

Are you able to see the electrodes resting on the support?

So if Ascoli65 believes in resting on the support

Please explain how a conductive palladium cathode

can heat up to 175C while maintaining a liquid bubbling film at 105C

between it and the anode

that is necessary for maintaining the electric current .

that is heating it

You said that this could be explained easily.

You may use a lifeline to a friendly physicist

if you so wish.

You have one hour.. since it is easy.. as you say

Perhaps I am mistaken, but would not the long thermistor be measuring the air (foam?) temperature once the fluid level drops to the bottom cm or so?

correction ..measuring the air temperature.. plus the crusted dried LiOD temperature.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

thermistor be measuring the air (foam?)

Quote from RobertBryant

.. plus the crusted dried LiOD temperature.

Isn’t that supposed to hydrate a bit and then fall back in?

Quote from JedRothwell

A person who claims that liquid water and foam can exist in a test tube at 1 atm and ~175 deg C is not competent at anything. As a troll, Ascoli makes his own side look terrible, not ours.

Thank you. You are so kind to put me in a confortable situation. If I'm wrong, I will be justified by my incompetence, if I am right, well, it will be a little satisfaction for a person not competent at anything.

On the contrary, you are not so kind with your CFers friends. Suppose it turns out I'm right. If a person not competent at anything finds in a few weeks of analysis of some documents found by chances on internet, that F&P mistaken foam for boiling water in their main experiment, reported misrepresented data on their main paper and were badly wrong about their main conclusions, how it will be considered your side, that was in possession of those documents and many others for almost 30 years?

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Most people including scientists and engineers who have even bothered to look at the current claims for cold fusion are skeptical or negative.

Okay, name three of those people. Where did they publish?

You made that up. There are no such people, and there are no such evaluations.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

The reason is that nobody can show them a device which reliably, reproducibly and verifiably self runs for long periods while producing plenty of heat.

That's absurd. This is an experimental science claim. No one in history would hold an experimental claim to such standards. That's like expecting the Curies to produce a nuclear bomb instead of a sample the produces 0.1 W. It is like demanding that the Wright brothers first airplane flight should have been across the Atlantic to Europe, nonstop.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Of course Jed will tell you that this has already been achieved but that was long ago and in a galaxy far far away.

I have never said anything remotely like that. You made that up.

Quote from Ascoli65

You are so kind to put me in a confortable situation. If I'm wrong, I will be justified by my incompetence

??

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Isn’t that supposed to hydrate a bit and then fall back in?

I suppose you have a reference for LiOH bubbles boiling on hot surfaces?

Not immediately

when the dry LIOD crust cools down and humid air is let into the

chamber.. it may rehydrate and then fall down as a ~5M solution

this could take an hour or day I suppose..