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

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


    I didn’t say this, my words were: "these two claims have strongly influenced the subsequent development of the CF/LENR research until the appearance of the Ecat in 2011".


    In any case, don't worry, if LENR has survived the Ecat farce, it will survive any other debacle.


    Quote

    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.


    Does it mean that you finally realized that the two F&P claims contained in their 1992 paper are wrong?

  • Oh sure. He claims that water remains liquid at 1 atm and ~175 deg C. That's real scientific, isn't it? Right up there with your magical claim that unboiled water leaves the cell but the salts remain behind.


    Jed, that is a good comparison, except that you misunderstand my claim. Perhaps you also misunderstand Ascoli's points?


    My claim that you refer to is that water that has been "boiled" - transitioned to vapour state - could still leave the cell calorimetric boundary in a condensed (liquid) state. Thus the fact that water egress is established as pure D2O from measuring salt concentration change in cell does not guarantee that the corresponding enthalpy of vapourisation is lost from the cell.


    This is a much more subtle (and less obviously false) version of the Rossi erroneous assumption of dry steam. It shares the fact that the actual status of the steam leaving the cell was never directly checked.

  • Huxley,


    The idea that water is first vaporized and then condens before leaving the calorimetry, does not hold up to scrutiny.


    Firstly few if any calorimetry cells has been investigated as much and as widely as the F&P cold fusion calorimetry cell.


    Secondly, these inaccuracies would be identified in the many calibration tests done.

  • The original issue Ascoli have raised wrt how much water was boiled off in the last 10 minutes is only intersting wrt how much excess heat there really are at elevated temperatures: Very high, medium or low excess ?


    Also to note: Fleischmann was very well aware of pitfalls and possible issues, and answered and investigated all criticism they were presented.


    In the paper in question [1] they even say “We conclude once again with some words of warning. A major cause of the rise in cell voltage is undoubtedly the gas volume between the cathode and anode as the temperature approaches the boiling point (i.e., heavy steam). The further development of this work therefore calls for the use of pressurised systems to reduce this gas volume as well as to further raise the operating temperature.»

    But the evidence of excess heat persisted even at their later work, as presented in the Icarus paper [2], They even state in this one “Foam rise in the calorimeter at the boiling temperature has been minimized.”


    And the Lonchampt precise replication paper also prove excess heat [3]


    So the Hypothesis of Ascoli that F&P where wrong in the 2,5 moles of water the last 10 minutes is I consider weak.


    But I will not discard the possibility that the water level may have been somewhat lover, But even 50% lower water content would still result in significant levels of excess heat, i.e. the F&P hypothesis of increased excess heat at higher temperatures would still hold.


    [1] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    1993 revised version of [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf

    [2] https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf

    [3] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf


    • The many F&P reported cal tests never entered boil-off mode. I'm happy to take such calibration evidence if you can find it anywhere in F&P's published output?
    • Sure the cells have been investigated: but boil-off mode is unpleasantly difficult to control and not favoured by replicators (with a single exception). I await your citing the investigation that substantiates your critique?
  • My claim that you refer to is that water that has been "boiled" - transitioned to vapour state - could still leave the cell calorimetric boundary in a condensed (liquid) state. Thus the fact that water egress is established as pure D2O from measuring salt concentration change in cell does not guarantee that the corresponding enthalpy of vapourisation is lost from the cell.


    Let me provide a contribution to clarify this issue.


    The mechanism you are talking about is one of the potential way in which the energy balance of the cell could have been affected by the larger phenomenon of liquid entrainment. But this entrainment is the wrong interpretation of the results of the boil-off experiments.


    There are several mechanisms that could cause liquid entrainment. This is a tentative list (I would ask you and others to suggest possible integrations or improvements):

    A – microdroplets produced by the electrolytic gas bubbles at the moment of their formation or when they exit the water;

    B – droplets, produced as above but by the water vapor, whose dimension depends on the intensity of boiling;

    C – foam which build up on the water surface and that, when the level is close to the top, could overflow from the cell;

    D – and finally droplets produced by the vaporization/condensation mechanism mentioned in your comment.


    In A, B and C mechanisms, droplets and foam contain some salt, so that both the enthalpy balance and the salt inventory are affected. On the contrary, mechanism D produces droplets which does not contain salt, so it affects the energy balance, but not the salt inventory.


    As for the period of occurring:

    A -- is always present (but becomes negligible with respect to B after its beginning);

    B -- begins when water temperature is close to the boiling point and the vapor bubbles formed on the electrodes are allowed to surface without condensing in the water mass;

    C -- could occur in some occasions at the beginning of B mechanism if the cell is almost full;

    D – condensation of boiled water should happen above the water level after the beginning of B, but at that point the water level is still high (not so much empty space above it) and temperature is close to boiling point, so it seems to me that it is a rare and negligible mechanism.


    In any case, summing up all these mechanisms of liquid entrainment, their effect on the energy balance is negligible and cannot explain the alleged excess heat claimed in the F&P paper. With this respect I was wrong when, in September (1), I concluded that the entire excess heat "was easily attributable to the underestimation of the liquid content in the steam".


    I was basing my explanation mainly on the deductions of Morrison, who seems to have never doubt the timing proposed by F&P. In fact in his critiques posted on May 1993 (2), he wrote: "there is the assumption that ALL the liquid present in the tube 600 seconds before dryness, was boiled off. That is none of it was carried out as a liquid, from the test tube. Now the video shows that there is highly turbulent motion. And as Kreysa et al. [3] showed, 74 seconds after the palladium becomes dry, temperatures of a few hundred degrees can be reached. Thus it is reasonable to expect that with such a chaotic system, some fraction of the liquid is blown out of the test tube as liquid and therefore should not be counted. The existence of such a fraction is omitted from the simple Fleischmann and Pons calculation. And no attempt to measure this fraction is described."


    As shown above, Morrison suggested an explanation based on liquid entrainment without objecting the 600 s period reported in the F&P paper, but this is not the right way to explain the excess heat calculated by F&P. I found my alternative explanation in two steps.


    The first step concerned the timing. It happened by chances: trying to synchronize the images of the "1992 Four-cell Boil-Off" video with the events indicated on Fig.8 of the F&P paper, it appeared a first clear discrepancy, as illustrated in the jpeg posted on October 20 (3). My interpretation was still erroneously because it was still based on liquid entrainment, in this case of foam. However the timing was already modified with respect to the F&P assumption.


    The second step, arrived a few days after, on October 31, when it resulted from a simple calculation that the electric energy fed to the cell during the boiling period was sufficient for vaporizing all the water, without considering any liquid loss due to entrainment (4).


    This explanation, coupled with the "foam issue", provides the most obvious and simple interpretation of the results reported in the F&P paper of the 1992 experiment. It doesn't imply that no entrainment occurred during that experiment, but this entrainment is no more necessary and can be neglected. It could have amounted to a few percent of the water loss. In reality, almost all the water left the cell as dry steam thanks to the electric energy fed into the cell and this interpretation also comply with the exact salt balance claimed by MF.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) https://groups.google.com/foru…on/_fke9KWvOWE/discussion

    [email protected]

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    (4) FP's experiments discussion

  • Returning to a scientific detailed of the Fleischmann 1992 paper.


    In an earlier post, I talked about how the voltage graph by itself should be able to show that the cell could not have been half full at the beginning of the final 10 or 11 minute boil off. The enthalpy calculation depends on the cell being half full then. My earlier comments were either not clear or not understood.


    It seemed like someone should have already figured out the relationship between voltage and electrolyte conduction. Once I found the right search term, I came across several relevant references. The key term is void fraction which is a ratio of the bubble volume to liquid volume. As the void fraction increases, the conductance from anode to cathode decreases (in other words, the resistance increases). The 1992 paper omits the void fraction in the enthalpy calculation which is a serious error as shown below. This term of art should have been well known to a leading electrochemist like Fleischmann.


    In the 1992 paper, the long steady increase in voltage at constant current is due to increasing bubble volume. By using a constant current source, bubbles increase resistance which increases voltage which in turn creates more bubbles in a positive feedback loop until eventual thermal runaway.


    This paper talks about the relationship between void fraction and conductance:

    L. Sigrist, O. Dossenbach, On the conductivity and void fraction of gas dispersions in electrolyte solutions, JOURNAL OF APPLIED ELECTROCHEMISTRY 10 (1980).

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00726089

    Unfortunately, this paper is behind a paywall, but below I have copied a key figure and part of the text.




    (The basis of this work was done by James Clerk Maxwell of Maxwell’s Equations fame. This work is from A Treatise on Electricity And Magnetism – Volume 1 – 1873.)

    Much of the same material is covered in the Lumanauw MS Thesis which you can freely access. This reference also covers the details of bubble formation and combination and talks about gas holdup that causes layers of “froth.” (See p. 92)

    D. Lumanauw, Hydrogen bubble characterization in alkaline water electrolysis, 2000

    https://tspace.library.utoront…/1807/14070/1/MQ54129.pdf


    Equation (5) of Sigrist says that conductivity drops as the void fraction approachs 1. Conductivity K is the inverse of resistance R, thus the left side of the equation K/K0 equals R0/R. At constant current, R0 = V0/Iconst and R = V/Iconst. Dividing these, the left side of the equation = V0/V which I will call Vratio. Then:

    Vratio = (1-e)/(1+e/2) where e is the void fraction.


    Solving for e,

    e = (1-Vratio)/(1+Vratio/2) (Equation B1)

    where e is the void fraction and Vratio = V0/V


    The Fleischmann graph in Fig. 8C shows the lowest power as .862 W at 200 ma which would make V0 = 4.31 V. But the bubbling should really start where the electrolysis begins which would make V0=1.54V

    The enthalpy calculation starts when the cell is supposed to be half empty. During the last 10 minutes, the average power is 37.5W at .5A which makes the average voltage 75V. We can assume conservatively that the voltage ramps linearly during that time from 50V to the final value of 100V.

    Using 1.54V for V0, if the start of the last half-cell boil off is 50V, then at that time Vratio = 1.54/50 = .031. Using equation (B1), the void fraction at that time is .95 (only 5% liquid).

    (Using 4.31V for V0, the void fraction is .88 or 12% liquid.)


    This means that the enthalpy calculation should have been based on 5% full instead of 50% full and the calculation is off by about a factor of 10.
    This would reduce the COP from the paper's claim of 4.85 to a COP of .44 (if both the conduction and vaporization are reduced due to the void fraction), or a COP of .71 (if only the vaporization is affected).


    This calculation shows that the entire energy from the boil off could have come from the runaway input power supplied during the last 10 minutes.