FP's experiments discussion

  • We are already very accommodating to dissenting views, so I am afraid to ask what other help from us you need.


    It depends on the scale of values that governs the activity of the forum. If priority goes to the faith in the LENR reality, then I have no further request in addition to the benevolent tolerance with which my posts have been accepted. If, on the other hand, the priority goes to the search for truth, whatever it is, then much could be done to try to arrive at a more shared interpretation of the 1992 F&P experiment and of related documents, as has been done - not without a strong internal struggle - for the Ecat.

  • For example, if you agree with Ascoli that water does not boil at 1 atm and ~150 deg C, you have to say so.


    I've never said this, and you well known it. Keeping on attributing me false statements is a low grade rhetoric tactic. But this only shows that you have no valid arguments to rebut my criticisms to the F&P paper


  • If, on the other hand, the priority goes to the search for truth, whatever it is, then much could be done to try to arrive at a more shared interpretation of the 1992 F&P experiment and of related documents, as has been done - not without a strong internal struggle - for the Ecat.


    I assume you mean we allow questions about the motivations of persons, and institutions. Open up the conversation as to their character, integrity and intent. Other than Rossi, we already know the answer to that, so I do not see the need. LENR researchers are motivated by their natural curiosity, and a desire to fulfill their scientific duty to understand a phenomenon that, if real, will have a profound impact on humanity. No more, no less.


    So probably best we stick to the science.

  • robert bryant ...It's an opinion for cripes sake, not a study


    Its an opinion without any evidence....

    There are millions of these invented on the fly every day and discarded the next.

    So YOU don't have to provide evidence of recent claims???


    And yet you require others to provide evidence.

    Is that not a double standard? 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.""

    Try finding,, even 13 of twenty.. please find names and public statements.. in the last five years... otherwise your claim is baseless.

    I made no claim. I stated no theory.

  • I assume you mean we allow questions about the motivations of persons, and institutions. Open up the conversation as to their character, integrity and intent. Other than Rossi, we already know the answer to that, so I do not see the need. LENR researchers are motivated by their natural curiosity, and a desire to fulfill their scientific duty to understand a phenomenon that, if real, will have a profound impact on humanity. No more, no less.


    No, I didn't mean that.


    As I've just told you (1), I started this discussion by posting a series of technical comments devoted to clarify some issues of the F&P paper (2). I asked if anyone knew if there were some other videos circulating in the LENR community and in particular if the videos with the blue arrows were circulating before the publication on YouTube in 2009 and since when (3). Nobody answered, apart Robert Horst, who provided the link to a longer video published by Rothwell on 2012 (4).


    Is it a so big problem to arrive at least to a conclusion about the author/authors of the blue arrows?


    Quote

    So probably best we stick to the science.


    This is what I've asked since the beginning.


    Others have tried to derail the discussion toward more general and specious items in order to skip the specific argument of the F&P paper. In some cases, I've deemed opportune to answer, as in the case of the requests from moderators to clarify my more general position on LENR. It happened even after I had already clarified that was not my intention to deal with the personal characteristics of persons other than their scientific reliability (5).


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    (4) FP's experiments discussion

    (5) FP's experiments discussion

  • Ascoli says "...the ICCF3 paper (1) is the major document of MF, so it is the best starting point to examine the vast CF literature..."


    Again Ascoli is completely wrong.


    And he shows complete lack of understand the meaning of a Seminal paper.


    The 58 Pages seminal paper of 1990 where the absolute most important paper of CF, since it started this new field of Science. And it has never been sucessfully refuted [1]


    All criticism where answerred by Fleischmann, and the critics- they never answerred.


    The ICCF3 paper was just a continued research to test the hypothesis of larger power and energy densities at higher temperatures.


    And again Ascoli points to some blue arrows painted on by Krivit in the video marked produced by Krivit.


    The video linked in the Paper (the IMRA video) has no such blue arrows.


    And, if there where no excess heat generated at all in the paper Ascoli love to discuss, the water volume at the beginning of the last 10 minutes would be 7,6 grams, or less than 10% of the original 5 mole test tube volume.


    So the suggestion that F&P in the hundreds of tests during the 80's and 90's read off wrong water level, like 50% when the actual level was less than 10% is Absolutely nonsens.


    F&P also had many "live" cells that did not produce excess heat in addition to control cells, which means they where able to see the differences when the video tapes where fresh.


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

  • Remind me again how much has been spent on "hot fusion" and how successful that has been...

  • Hi Mark.

    Remind me again how much has been spent on "hot fusion" and how successful that has been...


    For what concerns my position, way too much and without any prospect of success. See also: Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”


    Since you are new to this discussion, may I ask you an opinion about the video brought to our attention by Robert Horst ( FP's experiments discussion )?


    What is in the cells during the last phase of the boil-off: foam or boiling water?

  • Again Ascoli is completely wrong.


    The subject of this discussion is the 1992 paper of F&P: is it correct or wrong?


    For the rest of your post, I have already answered to all your remarks. I can add something on a couple of them.


    Quote

    And again Ascoli points to some blue arrows painted on by Krivit in the video marked produced by Krivit.

    The video linked in the Paper (the IMRA video) has no such blue arrows.


    The blue arrows were added directly to a videotape with an old titling technology. It couldn't have been done by Krivit in 2009.


    Anyway, Krivit joined the CF field only after 2000. If he got that video, it means that many others in the CF field have the same video. If was Krivit who added the blue arrows, all the others would still have a copy without the arrows. I mean a copy of the demonstration video which begins with the drawing of the cell, not of the "IMRA time lapse" video that has a different sequence of clips.


    Many CFers know about this discussion. Why did no one say that he has the same video without the arrows? Why does nobody here ask it to the people who have been mostly in contact with F&P?


    Quote

    So the suggestion that F&P in the hundreds of tests during the 80's and 90's read off wrong water level, like 50% when the actual level was less than 10% is Absolutely nonsens.


    It's a matter of opinion. To me it would seem the most sane explanation. Anyway, FWIK, we only have videos of the 1992 experiment, so we can only judge that experiment for now.


    BTW: do you see foam or boiling water in that video?

  • Many CFers know about this discussion. Why did no one say that he has the same video without the arrows? Why does nobody here ask it to the people who have been mostly in contact with F&P?


    By the power bestowed me as Moderator, I order whomever has the original foam tapes (without the arrows) to turn them over...Now!

  • By the power bestowed me as Moderator, I order whomever has the original foam tapes (without the arrows) to turn them over...Now!


    Weeeeell done! After such an authoritative and peremptory order, if no one will provide within … let's say … 10 minutes (it seems to me an appropriate time period, considering the argument) … the video without the arrows, it will mean with absolute certainty that that video doesn't exist and that Krivit didn't add any arrow. So that we can definitively set aside this silly hypothesis. :)

  • Have you finally realized that the ICCF3 paper is indefensible?

    rhetorical question straight from the year 0BC


    Ascolius 65 always tries rhetorical tricks to prejudice the argument.

    Ascolius 65 asserted that 1992 was seminal which is why he attacked it.

    According to this Ascolian logic...1990 is much more seminal so why does he not attack 1990?

    Is it because there is no grainy video in 1990 to generate foam in his frothing imagination?




    Furthermore re... 1992 ..Ascoli65 ..you have not given any reasonable answer

    as to how the whole palladium cathode.. intilally a few degrees above the BP of LiOD solution

    can be heat to >>175C while in contact with LIOD solution being at <<105C

    after cessation of contact btw the cathode and the boiling electrolyte

    will cease any current and current heating effect.


    You do not give clear explanations or unfoamy sources

    BTW where is your source for $70M for Leonardo..or is this just more rhetorical froth?