Clearance Items

  • Oh do give us a break. The original Fleischmann Pons experiment was replicated and confirmed at over 180 labs,
    ...


    Come on! You know that the most celebrated and best documented F&P experiment is the "1992 boil-off experiment" described in their ICCF3 paper (1). But, as already discussed in this forum (*), the conclusions of this paper are blatantly wrong, as everyone can see by analyzing the original lab videos (2,3).


    All the other F&P experiments are much less documented and the claimed excess heats are so small to be comparable with the experimental margins of error, so that there is no reason to believe that they were real.


    Alleged confirmations from other (180?!) labs are presumably affected by the same kind of errors. In any case, it's not possible to trust any claim of successful replication made by people who didn't recognize the huge and obvious mistakes made by F&P in their "1992 boil-off experiment".


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

    (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

    (3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434
    (*) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

  • @Ascoli : As paid hot-fusion agent we can asumme that it's your job to spread fake news.


    Why fake? Ref.(1,2,3) come directly from F&P and were published on the internet by two of the most active CF/LENR supporters.


    The thread (*) was opened at the request of the LENR-Forum team and, until it was closed, each L-F member had the opportunity to express his position on the subject.


    And, finally, I've no connection with hot fusion, as I told you many times: F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

  • Come on! You know that the most celebrated and best documented F&P experiment is the "1992 boil-off experiment" described in their ICCF3 paper (1). But, as already discussed in this forum (*), the conclusions of this paper are blatantly wrong, as everyone can see by analyzing the original lab videos (2,3).


    I know that is your opinion, but I do not know anyone who agrees with you. I certainly do not. I think you should refrain from saying "everyone can see" since no one else sees it. Perhaps you should say "anyone should be able to see."


    You are making two assertions here:


    1. F&P were wrong. That's plausible, at least.

    2. Everyone can see this, and everyone agrees with you. That is wrong, as a matter of fact. No one agrees with you.

  • I think you should refrain from saying "everyone can see" since no one else sees it. Perhaps you should say "anyone should be able to see."


    OK, thank you. Your wording better expresses my thoughts: anyone with a basic knowledge in thermodynamics and looking at the written and visual documents of the "1992 boil-off experiment" should be able to see that F&P drawn the wrong conclusions.


    Quote

    You are making two assertions here:


    1. F&P were wrong. That's plausible, at least.

    2. Everyone can see this, and everyone agrees with you. That is wrong, as a matter of fact. No one agrees with you.


    OK for the first assertion. That's indeed my own opinion, as I have extensively documented and explained.


    As for the second assertion, I never stated that everyone agrees with me. I can only say that after rising the "foam issue" last fall, some L-F members agreed with me (1). Most are classified as LENR skeptics or naysayers. But the most important agreement came from a reputable and active member of the LENR community (2).


    Actually, no one knows how many agrees with me on the "foam issue" and its negative impact on the conclusions contained in the most important F&P paper. To get a better idea, it should have been allowed the specific poll, that was proposed on January (3).


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

  • As for the second assertion, I never stated that everyone agrees with me.

    "Everyone can see" means everyone agrees.


    No one can see what you describe. It is a fantasy. It does not happen. On the contrary, anyone who boils water in a test tube will see that you are wrong. What you describe would apply to any test tube, and any method of boiling, not just boiling with cold fusion heat.

  • "Everyone can see" means everyone agrees.


    Not at all! It means that everyone "have the possibility" to look at the original written and visual documents of the "1992 boil-off experiment" (because they are available on the internet) and those having basic skills in thermodynamic "have the possibility" to easily realize that the F&P claims were completely wrong.


    Quote

    No one can see what you describe. It is a fantasy. It does not happen. On the contrary, anyone who boils water in a test tube will see that you are wrong. What you describe would apply to any test tube, and any method of boiling, not just boiling with cold fusion heat.


    Anyone who want to see what I describe has just to click on the following links (1-2-3), watch the videos … and look at the FOAM inside the test tube.


    Google Team can and should do something more. They should replicate the most famous and documented experiment carried out by F&P, the "1992 boil-off experiment". It's very easy to reproduce its experimental setup, bring to boiling the water inside test tube … and obtain a lot of FOAM, without the needing of any cold fusion heat. That's what happened in 1992 inside the F&P's test tubes, but they erroneously calculated the excess heat (see (4), page 16) assuming that all the volume of the foam was instead liquid water!


    Everyone was aware of the foaming problem inside the F&P cells, but no one realized the huge error that they did in calculating the excess heat.


    The same boil-off test was replicated by Lonchampt, who reported in his ICCF6 paper (5): "It is difficult to follow accurately the level of water during this period because of the formation of foam".


    The same happened during the Japanese NHE program, as extensively reported in your "Infinite Energy" article of 1997 (6). The article cites "Elliot Kennel, an American researcher now with the NHE" who complained about the "huge flaws in Pons and Fleischmannʼs technique and data", and "described these as “holes in the data big enough to drive a truck through.”" These flaws were caused by "some heavy water supplies produce a lot of foam which can reach the top of the cell and expel unboiled electrolyte out of the cell".


    The same article reports a "Melvin Miles comments on the problems of foam: “. . . four experiments were all hindered by unusually large fluctuations in the cell voltages (±0.5 V) that were traced to a foaming problem in the D2O-LiOD solutions. This foam would collect in the coils of the anode and then release. …""


    Even "Fleischmann agreed that the NHE results were probably caused by foam, as others have observed."


    Also the two authors of the article admit that "Foaming and entrainment are wellknown problems. They must be checked for and prevented.". But they added: "They cannot explain IMRA Europeʼs results because Pons and Fleischmann did check for them and found no significant problem."


    Well. That's true only for entrainment. It cannot indeed explain how the "excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input", as claimed by F&P on their ICCF3 paper (4), because "entrainment has never been observed to cause more than a minor error, no more than a few percent", as you correctly noticed in the "Infinite Energy" article (6). But …


    But foaming does explain such excess heat! In fact, erroneously assuming that all the volume occupied by foam (and vapor bubbles) is instead full of liquid, as F&P did in calculating the energy balance of the "1992 boil-off experiment", could easily cause an overestimation of the output enthalpy of 3-4 times!


    (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

    (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434

    (3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kixLjK0HzGY

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

    (5) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf

    (6) http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf

  • I apologize for this being OT on this thread, but I do not know where to post the question since I cannot find the "Atom-Ecology" thread.


    Having been "off-line" for a month or so, I have not seen any updates on this project. At the time of my "vacation", this project was the next big thing with results at will, according to one principal, the end of the fossil age around the corner and visitors with significant qualifications.


    Now it seems Muzuno is in the spotlight and the Atom Ecology reactor forgotten about?


    What is the current status of the "dancing girls" as they were once described?

  • What does that have to do with my quoted response?

    I don't think you do responses as you said answers therefore deliberately intervene in conversations with clear objective to impose a deleterious, rotten climate.

    Even if currently, it's me who doesn't give a good example.

    I well watched you that is your tactic to destabilize people who adopt behaviors that aren't theirs.

    That JedRothwell had excessive optimism is probably true.

    Over time, there have been many good remarks, requests for further explanations, about the heater, the calorimetry, all the details that gave some doubts.

    however, he plays the game then answers questions as he can.

    I must admit that I didn't like him at all, because he was the loud speaker of Dewey's band.

    However apparently the tectonic plates redistributed the cards, and it seems to have a certain sensitivity, a true kindness despite a hard character sometimes ... like mine.

    I like the people with this profile, not the snakes as you.

    To come back to you, you try to demolish things with a certain sadistic pleasure, you are very clever and manipulative, but devil's too.

    I don't imagine you crazy but made to fuck the brothel here.

    Fortunally now the machine is running, it will not stop . that's for sure, which is very heavy, has struggled to accelerate since 1989 but it seems that it is now rolling on a flatter ground.

    Now I am sending a message to those for whom what I said has meaning.

    Especially don't go into his ping pong game, you will necessarily lose.

    Let this manipulator speak with himself.

    He mustn't disappear because it will reappear in another form.

    This will allow high level bloggers to be back here as recently that's that YOU don't want/plan .

    Water closed, I will never speak to you again.

  • Yikes. Word salad. Or I've never seen anything lose quite so much in translation! For example, this is a peachy sentence (in any language):


    "I well watched you that is your tactic to destabilize people who adopt behaviors that aren't theirs"


    I'm not even going to ask of the forum what it could possibly mean.