FP's experiments discussion

  • 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...)

  • 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:

    oF1UInb.jpg


    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?


  • JedRothwell


    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.


    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.

  • 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?


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • 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?


    Quote

    Thankyou 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.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • 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.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • 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:

    Quote

    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.

    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).



    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.


    Quote

    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?


    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

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

  • A scientific discussion? If only it were. Actually, it isn't clear (to me) who is trolling who here, but there is certainly trolling going on. This topic has been flogged to the point of exhaustion, and since contests between the unproven and the improbable seldom bear any edible fruit, suggest that you guys call it a day.

  • This topic has been flogged to the point of exhaustion


    Not quite .

    .but actually I greatly prefer to deal with Alfven resonances and metastable isotopes.

    and the emergent Wyttenbach dense mass/energy 4D theory

    which appears to have promising explanatory power.


    Far more fruitful then retrospectively jawing over a single F&P paper

    and a video tape of unclear pedigree from circa 1990.


    The practical field of LENR has moved on long ago from the electrolytic cell

    with its thin, almost 2D watery interface. and its severe

    temperature limitation of 100C.


    In 2018.. hotter (300-900C) ,dry plasmas which have a very different physics

    from the electrolytic cell are the focus of research because they

    have the potential for higher rates of and more controllable LENR

  • 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.


    In Moderator School, they taught me to only intervene when absolutely necessary, and at this point I see no compelling reason to do so. While you are both being aggressive, it is respectful, informative, and intellectual. RB has even given you some :thumbup:.


    I say, let the better argument win. If that is possible in this case, considering the main evidence is an old grainy video.

  • 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.


    Alan, this comment of yours is profoundly anti-scientific and disrespectful.


    It is of similar quality and content to the (ignorant of detail) anti-LENR comments from many in mainstream science that are so castigated here.


    Why do i say this? Ascoli has advised precise, well-documented, critiques of a single F&P paper. Even though it is just one paper it is worth looking at because it has attracted much previous comment (Morrisson etc) and also is held out by many on this site as clear well-presented proof of LENR. In fact when asking for a single paper to start with, many would give this (I remember it being so used here).


    Now, many disagree with Ascoli's conclusions and I'm happy that they should present that with their arguments and evidence. So, I notice, is Ascoli.


    However this "meta-critique" is an ad hom - making claims about Ascoli's general scientific competence without specific evidence, and more important it generalises from the details of Ascoli's critique, which stand on their own, to some larger emotive argument which rests on difficult to justify generalisations.


    I do not respect it, and Alan although I respect some of your qualities I've noticed on occasion (here, and some comments previously noted by me on the Rossi thread) that you make advocacy style comments on the basis of no evidence. it does you no credit with those here who like detailed analysis and discussion more than tribal advocacy (perhaps those are a decreasing number, if so I'm sorry).


    In the various meta-comments you and others have made about Ascoli's points I see the following flaws:


    "F&P has been replicated - therefore it does not matter". Logically incorrect:

    (1) Systematic errors in F&P could be replicated by the paper most commonly shown (Longchampt) who follows F&P very precisely

    (2) Suppose F&P is erroneous but Longchampt valid. Then we have one sighting of LENR not two. A big difference in the scientific world.


    "Modern LENR proof is more important than F&P":

    Fair enough. But Ascoli's interest in F&P is reasonable when modern people here advance the F&P evidence as clear proof of LENR, and it continues to be seen by those in the field as important evidence. Of course if/when modern evidence is clear F&P becomes irrelevant. The (public) modern evidence is not clear to many (including me).


    "These objections are based on speculation and grainy videos, and not proven":

    I agree. Nothing can easily be proven about interpretations of an old experiment. However if an error is shown as plausible this makes a significant difference in how the experiment is viewed from when no such error has been identified. Especially in the case of experiments interpreted as showing some hitherto unnoticed effect (LENR) the burden is on those claiming such new effects to prove that there is no other explanation (in this case misinterpretation of foam).


    "Ascoli only addresses the boil-off excess heat - not needed since other phases of the experiment also show LENR. "

    That is a separate matter, and since F&P remark on the boil-of excess heat as significant, if in fact they have mistaken this we should (in their shoes) interpret that also as significant.


    Ascoli, if I remember right, also makes some rather speculative comments himself about the quality of other LENR work, the probity of LENR reserchers, etc. Those also I do not respect, since they are not based on detailed argument. And his discussion of the F&P paper does not rest on these speculative comments.

  • I disagree completely. Lately Ascoli has been arguing "you're right - I'm wrong" and trying to say that he has won the argument (because he says he has) or based on twisting the replies of others asking him questions.

  • A scientific discussion? If only it were.


    OK. Probably scientific is a bit too emphatic for a discussion about foam and time conversion. Let's define it a concrete discussion on facts. Nevertheless, I think that the topic should interest everyone here on L-F, regardless of the position relative to the reality of LENR.


    This debate concerns a document, which is one of the most important (the "major" for Rothwell) of F&P and which contains two precise claims:

    1 – "excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system; the specific excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors."

    2 – "following the boiling to dryness and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high temperature for prolonged periods of time, Fig 8;".


    These two claims have strongly influenced the subsequent development of the CF/LENR research until the appearance of the Ecat in 2011.


    There is evidence provided by the available videos of the 1992 experiment - evidence mainly based on digitized information, such as the timing, that are not subjected to any possible misinterpretation or degradation – which demonstrate that both these claims are false.


    Quote

    This topic has been flogged to the point of exhaustion ...


    I started this topic on October 20 (1), on page 29 of this thread. A couple of more pages would have been sufficient to clarify all the issues and to reach a widely accepted interpretation of the 1992 results. It would have been enough to ask for the old guard's collaboration, that is, those who probably possess confirmatory data and documents. Instead we are on page 51.


    Why is it so difficult to ascertain the reality of these two claims referring to an experiment, which is the best documented among those carried out by the two pioneers of CF? Yes, I know, we are in a LENR-Forum, but what should prevail in our debate, the search for the truth or the defense of an illusion?


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

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

  • These two claims have strongly influenced the subsequent development of the CF/LENR research until the appearance of the Ecat in 2011.


    Well, Ascoli, you are entitled to your claims, but not your facts.


    And the fact of the matter is that it is the 1990 paper that strongly influenced the subsequent development of the CF/LENR research.


    And it is a big misunderstanding that the validity of "the two claims" is vital for the survival of CF/ LENR.


    The two claims is purely connected to the hypothesis of increased excess heat / power density / energy density at higher temperatures.


    And in the paper they claim to confirm their hypothesis.


    The 1990 paper documented the sudden heat bursts at prolonged electrolysis at lower than Boiling temperatures, and is the real mystery or LENR phenomenon.


    It would of course be nice If F&P where right also in their claims of increasing excess heat or power density at increased temperatures. But it is not of vital importance for the evidence of LENR.

  • Alan, this comment of yours is profoundly anti-scientific and disrespectful.


    No - it is entirely based on facts. Facts which have got Ascoli67 censured several times in this thread by me and others, and previously got him into trouble in other threads. And since his basic premise is based in very slim evidence taken from a partial reading of a single paper and images adorned with blue arrows by the illustrious Krivit, his opinion is worth no more than yours based , one assumes, on reading a few posts

  • Thank you, THH, for your intervention. You have well described the situation in this debate and my position.


    I have just to clarify a couple of points:


    "These objections are based on speculation and grainy videos, and not proven":

    I agree. Nothing can easily be proven about interpretations of an old experiment.


    The main information contained in the videos are "digital", such as timing, and are not subject to any misinterpretation or possible degradation. These information are in clear contrast with the claims contained in the F&P paper.


    Quote

    Ascoli, if I remember right, also makes some rather speculative comments himself about the quality of other LENR work, the probity of LENR reserchers, etc.


    I was forced to sometimes deal with other LENR works because of the kind of objections that were opposed to my specific remarks on the F&P paper. See for instance (1).


    However, I never objected to the "probity" of LENR researchers. I rather said (2-3) that for me the experimenters are part of the test (actually they are the main "instruments") and that in assesing the plausibility of a claim it's also necessary to consider the scientific reliability of its authors. If this reliability is somehow uncertain, their claims require an additional quantity of experimental evidence and information in order to be accepted as valid or real.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion