http://www.google.com/url?sa=i…Cht7&ust=1545102653189181
a 2003 paper by fleischmann
this is similar to what Ascoli65 says he can see in the grainy 1992 video he uses as his main evidence
Ascoli65 alleges that F&P did not use the 1992 drawn IC in the video
You forgot to mention Leonardo Tech., the most advanced and financed in the field
The subject of this discussion is the 1992 paper of F&P: is it correct or wrong?
Wrong. Ascoli65.Read the title of this discussion..
Although you often attempt to confine this discussion when it suits you to the 1992 paper
(for which you rely on a foamy grainy video..as you main source of evidence)
the discussion title is
""FP's experiments discussion""
The seminal 1990 paper is much more pertinent to FP's experiments than the Leonardo Tech" meme you introduced.
Where was Leonardo Tech in 1990 or 1992?????
You try to confine the discussion to 1992 foam when it suits you
but introduce any other topic when it suits you and your rhetorical purpose
RobertBryant - Where did your Isoperibolic Calorimeter drawing come from? The Fleishman92 paper has a drawing of their cell and it shows the thermistor above the cathode, not next to it.
Even more important: It shows why Ascoli's reasoning completely fails. The cathode is at least 2cm a above the support. The support is just needed as protection in case somethings falls down and it fixes the anode wire!
Ascoli: Are you able to understand this drawing (I too already posted weeks ago...). No current - no heat - no more Ascoli nonsense! (I hope...)
Display MoreHi Mark.
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 See also: Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”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?
I have no idea based on the available "evidence". I'm no physical scientist. I certainly wouldn't have the hubris to criticize the work of respected scientists who couldn't even rebut criticisms.
I'm afraid that Ascoli cannot really understand the scientific method so is not really able to mount serious criticisms except by overlooking inconvenient truths (like multiple replications, controls experiments etc). So, since he doen not personally believe that LENR is possible he mounts sneak attacks on the character of anybody working in the field - no matter how competent or respected - who gets results. And then makes multiple posts begging for somebody to agree with him that anybody working on LENR is possibly a fool, but if not, certainly a knave.
Fig. 1 doesn’t show the cell used in the experiment
In the last days, there is a dispute over the position of the electrodes with respect to the Kel-F support. The caption of Figure 1 in the ICCF3 paper (1) reads "Schematic diagram of the single compartment open vacuum Dewar calorimeter cells used in the experiment described in this work", but the drawing doesn't correspond to the arrangement of the cell shown in the available videos. The following jpeg collects some of these images:
At the beginning of the demonstration video "1992 Four-cell Boil-off" (2), the entire internal assembly, used in the 4 cells of the April-May 1992 experiment, is shown and is different from that of Figure 1, especially in the lower section where the electrodes are positioned.
This lower section can be seen in a better detail in a couple of images from the video "Is the world warming to cold fusion?" uploaded to YouTube by Truthloader Investigates (3). These images clearly show that both the anode and the cathode rest directly on the Kel-F support, contrary to what is shown in Figure 1 of (1).
This last video also reports some images of the Four-cell experiment, which show how the anodic spiral is in contact with the plastic support.
This discrepancy in the F&P documentation of their main experiment, which is also repeated in the peer-reviewed article on PLA published several month later (4), is a further sign of the sloppiness of that work, which has no apparent justification considering the vast human and financial resources available to the two authors.
(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf (ICCF3 paper, Nagoya (J), October 1992)
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8 (Video “1992 Four-cell Boil-off”, from Krivit 2009)
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OQu44UIC_s (Video Truthloader Investigates)
(4) http://coldfusioncommunity.net…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf (Article on PLA, May 1993)
is a further sign of the sloppiness of that work, which has no apparent justification considering the vast human and financial resources available to the two authors.
More Ascoli65 rhetoric!!!!!!
Ascoli65 ..please quantify your
vast human and financial resources"
Is it more or less than the 70Million $ you purport Leonardo Tech has?
This is the third time I ask you
where I the evidence for this 70M $?????????
You are so specific about this amount... you must have a specific source?
The evidence LENR is going nowhere these days is the lack of support by prestigious organizations (as institutions), lack of verification by national or major testing labs, and lack of interest by entrepreneurs. Like I said, one hallmark of bad science is that it's proponents fail to realize the full implications of being right.
QuoteDisplay MoreIts 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?
It is always up to the proponents of a claim to provide good evidence for it. It's usually virtually impossible for critics to prove the negative. For example, take Rossi (yes, please take him somewhere). He may have done a hundred phony or bad experiments and demos. I can't prove the hundred and first won't succeed. I can't review and decide about each claim and each venture. In Rossi's case, it's more than enough for reasonable certainty to know his colorful and pitiful history of scams and cheats.
The evidence LENR is going nowhere these days is the lack of support
Another unevidenced generalisation by a generalisation specialist
Please provide evidence... that is the hallmark of science.
Even more important: It shows why Ascoli's reasoning completely fails. The cathode is at least 2cm a above the support. The support is just needed as protection in case somethings falls down and it fixes the anode wire!
Ascoli: Are you able to understand this drawing (I too already posted weeks ago...). No current - no heat - no more Ascoli nonsense! (I hope...)
I had already answered this kind of remarks of yours (1). I have now collected in the jpeg posted above the images of the real set-up of the F&P cells tested in the April-May 1992 experiment. It seems to me that it is very different from the configuration shown on Figure 1. Can I have your opinion about it?
More Ascoli65 rhetoric!!!!!!
Ascoli65 ..please quantify your
vast human and financial resources"
Is it more or less than the 70Million $ you purport Leonardo Tech has?
This is the fourth time I ask you
where is the evidence for this 70M $?????????
Ascoli65 ..please quantify your
vast human and financial resources"
A few million dollars a year and 20 to 25 researchers.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1992/1…n-us-is-hot-in-japan.html
A few million dollars a year and 20 to 25 researchers.
according to Toyoda how much of that was going to Fleischmann and Pons?
Thankyou for at last providing some kind of source for your rhetoric.
Is it more or less than the 70Million $ you purport Leonardo Tech has?
This is the fifth time I ask you
where is the evidence for this 70M $?????????
according to Toyoda how much of that was going to Fleischmann and Pons?
I wasn't referring to the personal income of F&P. It's not my business.
I was referring to the human and financial resources made available for the F&P's research not only by Toyoda, but also by the Japanese government and by other first class companies of Japan. In addition to their role at IMRA France, F&P had been appointed scientific advisors of the Japanese program NHE. All the funding and the personnel of these two initiatives were at their disposition.
Do you have an idea of what the cost might have been to draw a correct section of their cell?
QuoteThankyou for at last providing some kind of source for your rhetoric.
I always provide the sources of my statements. I only avoid answering specious questions. The reference to Leonardo Corp. (not Tech, I corrected my post) was directed to Shane D. and has a meaning in the context of his previous comment (1). I think, he has understood the allusion, otherwise I will respond to a specific request from him.
he has understood the allusion, otherwise I will respond to a specific request from him
So your exact $70 million dollars was an allusion!!!!!
Now you are being typically evasive, Ascoli65,
the hallmark of a rhetorician.
I also asked you to quantify what share M&F got.. "the vast resources"
You failed to give a number.
What share of Ministry of International Trade & Industry 3 billion yen,
did M&F get??? 100%, 10%,1%???? in1992?
Are you talking about dimes & yen when the huge vast ITER
elephant-in-the-room is billions of euros? (Again you were remarkably
evasive in your response to Mark H about ITER's cost
but remarkably exact in your response to ME, not Shane !!!
The Ecat has attracted around 70 M$, the current record for the field. ""
This is the sixth time I ask you
where is the evidence for this 70M $?????????
Have you forgotten that you responded to ME, not Shane?
I had already answered this kind of remarks of yours (1).
Yes we all see the crust of LiOD on the inner wall of the glass.
But Ascoli as a seer can look through this wall...
My proposal Ascoli: Do it like all trolls. Invest a little bit bit of money or improve your skills and reproduce / fake a video that proves all your claims.
May be - in the mean time - you have lost your target out of sight. LENR has been documented/proven by F&P in the phase before the boil-off. The boil off just shows the potential of LENR. In your place I would invest your time to unlock the potential of LENR and not in trying to deny that the river flows downwards...
This is my last response in this thread. LENR needs my time!
where is the evidence for this 70M $?????????
Have you forgotten that you responded to ME, not Shane?
I clarified to you (1), at your request, something I wrote to Shane D and that he (probably) understood at once.
If you ask him, he will explain to you.
Next time, I will only answer your own arguments, and only those sensible.
Anyway, your specious and off-topic arguments confirm that you have realized that the ICCF3 paper is indefensible.
This is my last response in this thread. LENR needs my time!
Thank you for the attention.
Have a good luck and be careful with the authors you will choose to mention in your next documents.
============== P.S. (+22h) ==============
I forgot:
QuoteMy proposal Ascoli: Do it like all trolls. Invest a little bit bit of money or improve your skills and reproduce / fake a video that proves all your claims.
Thanks also for recognizing that the evidences on which I base my statements are authentic, thus confirming that I am not a troll.
your specious and off-topic argument
You Ascoli65... and you alone introduced the Leonardo Tech meme
a specious and offtopic argument
to FP's experiments discussion
not me..shortly before 7.53pm.
You couldn't stop yourself from bringing up Andrea Rossi,
It is likely that your whole "discussion" is not motivated by
anything but a little Sicilian vendetta with Rossi and Levi
for which you were banned in September,2017,
I am just wondering which portion of your evasive anatomy
you pulled the 70M$ from?
is it confidential? Is it foaming?
This is the seventh time I ask you
where is the evidence for this 70M $?????????
Have you forgotten that you responded to ME, not Shane?
You couldn't stop yourself from bringing up Andrea Rossi,
I solicited a debate on some concrete issues contained in the major F&P paper, posting a series of technical jpegs, which you soon intertwined with your specious questions (1).
Rossi and my interest in the Ecat initiative were brought into the discussion by Shane D. (2) and I explained him the nexus to the ongoing discussion on F&P (3).
QuoteDisplay MoreIt is likely that your whole "discussion" is not motivated by
anything but a little Sicilian vendetta with Rossi and Levi
for which you were banned in September,2017,
I am just wondering which portion of your evasive anatomy
you pulled the 70M$ from?
is it confidential? Is it foaming?
In this debate, you remained one of the last defenders of the F&P activity, certainly the most active, a sort of champion of the category. I think that your low grade arguments and wording should be embarrassing for all those who still believe in the correctness of the F&P claims and also for the Forum that hosts them.
From my POV, your words are the best confirmation that CF/LENR is mostly a socio-psychological phenomenon.
QuoteThis is the seventh time I ask you
where is the evidence for this 70M $?????????
Have you forgotten that you responded to ME, not Shane?
It's no longer a my problem, but a moderators' one.
If they deem that this is the way to handle a scientific and fair confrontation on the F&P issues, then they will allow you to reach the seventieth time and beyond.
(1) FP's experiments discussion
