FP's experiments discussion

  • Leonardo Tech is not the most advanced in the field


    On what basis do you make this claim?

    What portion of your 500 million $ does Leonardo have?


    The Ecat has attracted around 70 M$, the current record for the field.


    Moreover, since it appearance, it is also steadily and by large on top of the CF/LENR discussions, the only thing that can be produced by this field.

  • Ascoli65 . Picking one old paper for criticism (criticism mainly supported by your very individual and partial interpretation of some grainy images) out of thousands of papers produced by F&P and others, and choosing one where the principal experimenter is dead and the other long retired from public life does not disprove the reality of LENR, but only the solid reality of your own fixed beliefs. One swallow does not make a summer, and one paper you choose to criticise does not destroy a whole field, especially since your nay-saying is based on your own interpretation of matters that, due to the passage of time, can no longer be clarified exactly. There are probably a million (or more) blatantly wrong papers published in reputable journals covering the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, psychology, social science, economics and more. Some are rebutted vigorously later, most are left in obscurity, And these papers are not just 'less than perfect', but based on flawed and irreproducible experiments and data. Which is not the case with the main body of F&P's work, which was carefully performed and has been reproduced and confirmed countless times by others.


    As for your assertion that LENR only produces chatter, and not real results, perhaps you are unaware of those that 'don't talk'?


    Many researchers at the big (and secret) weapons research facilities who have access to huge budgets and impeccable diagnostics are well aware of the reality of cold fusion. They don't talk about it because they cannot, however, they do attend conferences like the ones organised by ICCF, not to attack but (sometimes) to present papers - using the names of non-military public institutions they are 'attached'' to as cover - or to ask questions that might cast light on their own work. Those who work in the US and EU secret world are well aware that the Russians have made big strides in the LENR field with military matters in mind, and are playing 'catch-up' as they can. I wish them luck, since what starts out as 'top secret' eventually becomes common knowledge. These are not mad obsessives, but some of the finest scientists on the planet, and they would not agree with you, which is just as well.

  • Picking one old paper for criticism (criticism mainly supported by your very individual and partial interpretation of some grainy images) out of thousands of papers produced by F&P and others,


    I have said many times that, as stated by Rothwell, the ICCF3 paper (1) is the major document of MF, so it is the best starting point to examine the vast CF literature, as I and many others have been invited to do. In the case of this paper, videos provide an exceptional help to verify the reality of the F&P assertions. Their quality is quite good to recognize the foam. But the most important information (and inconsistencies) comes from the timing superimposed on the images and from the blue arrows of the short video published by Krivit. These info are not affected by the quality of the video.


    I've requested the collaboration of the LENR community to clarify any aspect of this document. It would be sufficient to find the old record of the main experimental parameters (temperature, voltage and possibly current) and an integral copy of the video recording. Surely there are copies of these data circulating in the LENR community. Why does no L-F member support this request? Nobody is interested in the truth?


    Quote

    here are probably a million (or more) blatantly wrong papers published in reputable journals covering the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, psychology, social science, economics and more. Some are rebutted vigorously later, most are left in obscurity, And these papers are not just 'less than perfect', but based on flawed and irreproducible experiments and data. Which is not the case with the main body of F&P's work, which was carefully performed and has been reproduced and confirmed countless times but others.


    But this thread is dedicated to F&P and we are discussing about their major paper and how careful the work done by its authors has been. Let's examine one paper at a time. Which are the conclusions of this long debate about the correctness of this paper? Is it correct or not?


    Quote

    ... Those who work in the US and EU secret world are well aware that the Russians have made big strides in the LENR field with military matters in mind, and are playing 'catch-up' as they can....


    And would it be me the conspirationist? :)


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

  • It is not about critics and skeptics needing to disprove them.


    This is troll logic!


    The claims have been proven hundred times in dozens of labs. A US military lab did reproduce it within 2 weeks... Now you have to run the experiment with the proven setup an tell (= exactly document) us why it did not run.


    That's the way science works. But in Troll-topia the Ascoliypse is more likely than a troll is able to even think about doing an experiment.

  • That's the way science works. But in Troll-topia the Ascoliypse is more likely than a troll is able to even think about doing an experiment.


    No, science works in a different way. If a reliable scientist makes a claim and describe it in a public document, the first step is to check the internal consistency of that document and the supporting documentation, in our case the videos. If, some discrepancies are found, the next step is to resolve them with the help of the authors, if possible, or of the people who endorse their claims. Only after having resolved these discrepancies, it is reasonable to attempt an experimental replication of the initial claims.


    The F&P paper we are talking about fails the first step. It is internally inconsistent. It is wrong in a blatant way and its conclusions are FALSE.


    It's the burden of those who support the F&P claims to explain and solve the inconsistencies raised in these last weeks. Until now, they have failed to do so.

  • Getting the truth is what I'm trying to do and I think I'm doing it in a respectful way. As a moderator, you have a certain power in controlling the discussion. Would you help me in this effort?


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

  • sn't it obvious from the lack of papers outside of the few specific venues designed especially for LENR related subjects?

    That is not obvious because it is not true. Cold fusion papers have been published in many mainstream journals such as the Japanese J. Applied Physics, which is one of the most prestigious peer reviewed journal in Japan. Papers have not been published lately because the authors are dead.


    Jed predictably challenges me to prove my point by finding authors who have data to support that LENR is a very tiny and unpopular slice of scientific research.

    No, I am asking you to prove your point by citing facts. If you cannot cite facts, show us a paper written by someone who has examined the major cold fusion experiments and found errors. There is no such person and there are no such errors.


    You need to give us quantitative facts that can be checked against the literature and the laws of nature. For example, if you agree with Ascoli that water does not boil at 1 atm and ~150 deg C, you have to say so. We can look that up in a textbook to see if you are right. Technical facts, not your imaginary assertions about popularity. Science is not a popularity contest, and even if cold fusion is unpopular that has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong.

  • 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?