Uploaded Letters from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles

  • In between bouts, do not forget to read the Fleischmann letters. An amazing insight into the CF story through the eyes of the man who started it, and fought it until the day he died. In my reading, it seems to me one of the major obstacles others had in replicating FPs (including GE), was the complexity of their (FPs) calorimetry. It caused many to err, and not understanding they had erred, go on to report yet another failed attempt at replicating.


    That clearly frustrated Fleischmann, as he had to frequently point out the way in which those errors occurred -in some cases the correction turned the reports conclusions from negative to positive in his favor, but usually the damage had already been done. Morrison made it a point to use that complexity against them, saying that it invited mistakes. He may be right, but there is no doubt Fleischmann was light years ahead of most when it came to calorimetry. Where others saw complexity, he saw a beautifully balanced process, equipment and calculations which used properly, would ensure a trusted result.


    Miles, having the same expertise in the lab, and also having experienced some of the same problems with acceptance, was a natural fit for Flesichmann to turn to.

  • In my reading, it seems to me one of the major obstacles others had in replicating FPs (including GE), was the complexity of their (FPs) calorimetry.

    I think that is true. But there are two mitigating factors:


    1. It was not always as complicated as people thought. Morrison, in particular, got this wrong, as shown in the quote from the Morrison - Fleischmann debate:


    "Douglas Morrison starts by asserting: ‘Firstly, a complicated non-linear regression analysis is employed to allow a claim of excess enthalpy to be made’. He has failed to observe that we manifestly have not used this technique in this paper . . .”

    2. Other people used conceptually simpler methods, such as flow calorimetry and Seebeck calorimetry, and they also got positive results. Fleischmann and Pons themselves used the boil-off method, which is very different from their earlier method. If everyone in the history of cold fusion had used only Fleischmann's isoperibolic calorimetry, that would leave open the possibility that all of the positive results were systematic errors. Because the system would be the same in all cases. Fortunately, there are no common errors that might affect isoperibolic, flow, Seebeck calorimetry, ice calorimetry, microcalorimetry and all other methods that have been used. Each method has its own set of errors, but there are none in common.


    Other than microcalorimetry, these alternative methods are not as accurate or as precise as Fleischmann's original method. But they were good enough to achieve high signal to noise ratios in many cases.


    Some of these alternative methods are too complicated, in my opinion.

  • Jed,


    I guess MFMP spoiled me with their automated system they used at me356's place in eastern Czechia. Hook everything up to the reactor, and watch the LED readout of the + /- COP. It sure does get the audience involved! No having to wait weeks to crunch the numbers, and write up the tally. Detach everything, pack it up, and go to the next testing site, rinse and repeat.


    But yes, I understand what you say. Each situation requires it's own set up. And if everyone did it the same way, and a critic found one error, all have errors.

  • I will categorically state that Zeus46 has equally 'misrepresented' what I've written,

    There is no dispute here. No one has misrepresented you. You have repeated exactly the same arguments you made before. I correctly reported your arguments in my Introduction to the Fleischmann letters. I said Mizuno gave three reasons supporting his claim:

    1. Both Mizuno and his colleague Akimoto reported that the cell was far too hot to touch. Mizuno had to wrap it in towels to pick it up and move it to another room.
    2. The thermocouple installed in the cell registered over 100°C for the first few days.
    3. When the cell was placed in a bucket of water, the water evaporated overnight. Up to 10 liters per night evaporated, and more would have evaporated but the bucket only held 10 liters. This happened several nights in a row.

    You responded here, and elsewhere, to the three points as follows:

    1. You refuse to comment.
    2. You claim the thermocouple was wrong. That is incorrect. It was tested before and after the experiment. It is still in the lab and it still works.
    3. You claim that a bucket of water left in ordinary room temperature conditions will evaporate overnight. That is what you just said again. That is not true. That is crackpot nonsense.

    You also claimed there was "vermin" in the lab and that might explain why the water disappeared. That is also crackpot nonsense.


    You have made various other claims such as "if there were a hot object in the water." Obviously, there was a hot object. Mizuno felt it was hot, and the thermocouple showed it was hot. In response to these facts you have said that a hot object is not a heater, and the fact that it remained hot for a week does not prove there was heat being generated in it. That is also crackpot nonsense.


    There are no distortions or misunderstanding in my Introduction. If you think there are, I again invite you to write a rebuttal to be uploaded to LENR-CANR.org. I am sure you will not do this, but the offer stands.

  • Shane D.


    F&P's calorimetric method is not that complicated. Their fancy equation which seems to confuse a lot of people is just the energy balance equation typically used in a dynamic chemical process model (a field I worked in for many years several years ago). I have pointed out several problems with it in my many-times referenced whitepaper. The biggest one is that it uses the 'lumped parameter approach' which negates its ability to handle ATER. Also, the backflips and cartwheels they go through to determine the 'best' method for determining the 'heat transfer coefficient' (aka calibration constant) proves my point about CCSs, if you use the wrong constant you get the wrong answer. Also, in the very beginning they had a term in their equation to allow for recombination, but they never really discussed it, and later Miles completely dropped it. This is probably because they didn't believe ATER could occur to any extent, which is just an assumption on their part. One would need to verify that ATER wasn't happening, which no CFer never did. In the end, I think F was enamored of his fancy methodology, but I doubt he was significantly better than Storms' or McKubre's high heat capture efficiency mass flow calorimeters.


    (As an aside, a former L-F participant who went off to another place has castigated me for using 'CFer'. That is an abbreviation of either 'cold fusion researcher' (my term) or 'cold fusioneer' (Eugene Mallove's term) and is not intended as derogatory.)

  • There is no dispute here. No one has misrepresented you. You have repeated exactly the same arguments you made before. I correctly reported your arguments in my Introduction to the Fleischmann letters.

    No, you didn't. How could you have when you clearly have no understanding of what I said as you have just proved again.?

    I said Mizuno gave three reasons supporting his claim:
    BothMizuno and his colleague Akimoto reported that the cell was far too hot totouch. Mizuno had to wrap it in towels to pick it up and move it to anotherroom.

    I granted this given that you are referring to when they disconnected it from the heaters that had heated it up to the point it was too hot to touch.



    The thermocouple installed in the cell registered over 100°C for the first fewdays.


    Malfunction.


    When the cell was placed in a bucket of water, the water evaporated overnight. Up to10 liters per night evaporated, and more would have evaporated but the bucketonly held 10 liters. This happened several nights in a row.

    This is the claim that is being investigated. To assume it is true in the 'proof' of it is to use circular reasoning. Thus I was investigating whether this might be believable. I found insufficient information to independently evaluate the claims.

    You responded here, and elsewhere, to the three points as follows:
    You refuse to comment.


    You claim the thermocouple was wrong. That is incorrect. It was tested before and after the experiment. It is still in the lab and it still works.


    I've commented until my fingers are worn to nubs, to no avail with you.


    Was it removed to do this? Was the cell disassembled? If so, then the tests are meaningless because the disassembly would have broken any accidental contacts that created secondary junctions, which would create false readings. More missing info...


    You claim that a bucket of water left in ordinary room temperature conditions will evaporate overnight. That is what you just said again. That is not true. That is crackpot nonsense.

    Again, you fail to quote me properly. This is a habit with you, which means you are deliberately misrepresenting what I say in order to discredit and insult me.

    You also claimed there was "vermin" in the lab and that might explain why the water disappeared. That is also crackpot nonsense.

    As I have remarked (and which you never seem to hear), this comment was half in jest. Of course, you have no sense of humor because of your fanaticism. The other half was to point out the situation was uncontrolled and thus susceptible to 'problems' like this. Just like the guy on spf that suggested that maybe some of Mizuno's 'buddies' played a prank on him and removed the water when he wasn't there. Replication would solve the issue.


    You have made various other claims such as "if there were a hot object in the water." Obviously, there was a hot object. Mizuno felt it was hot, and the thermocouple showed it was hot. In response to these facts you have said that a hot object is not a heater, and the fact that it remained hot for a week does not prove there was heat being generated in it. That is also crackpot nonsense.


    All addressed above. The fact that you felt the need to repeat it just substantiates my claims about you.


    There are no distortions or misunderstanding in my Introduction. If you think there are, I again invite you to write a rebuttal to be uploaded to LENR-CANR.org. I am sure you will not do this, but the offer stands.


    Of course there are. You seem to be incapable of dealing with criticisms. And, 'you got that right!', I won't be giving you a basis to rant on even more. You and Krivit are 'two peas in a pod'.

  • I granted this given that you are referring to when they disconnected it from the heaters that had heated it up to the point it was too hot to touch.

    As I am sure you know, this was the day after it was disconnected, and it stayed too hot to touch for 10 days, even after evaporating 17 liters of water. So, no, I am not referring to when they disconnected it.


    Please stop pretending you don't know that. It is tiresome. If you don't believe Mizuno, just say so.

    Malfunction.

    Nope. It worked before, and after, and it still works. Thermocouples are rugged and they seldom malfunction.

    [When the cell was placed in a bucket of water, the water evaporated overnight. Up to10 liters per night evaporated, and more would have evaporated but the bucketonly held 10 liters. This happened several nights in a row.]


    This is the claim that is being investigated. To assume it is true in the 'proof' of it is to use circular reasoning.

    No, this is an experimental observation. It is proof of the claim.


    For you to say this is "circular" is like saying the Apollo flights to the moon did not prove people went to the moon. According to you, that's circular reasoning. You want us to prove that people went to the moon by some proof other than the fact that people went to the moon.


    That's crackpot nonsense.

    Was it removed to do this? Was the cell disassembled?

    Of course it was removed. Of course the cell was disassembled. That's what it says in the book. There is a photo in the book showing it disassembled. I have seen the cell and the thermocouple, removed from the cell and sitting on the shelf.

  • And, 'you got that right!', I won't be giving you a basis to rant on even more. You and Krivit are 'two peas in a pod'.

    No, Krivit would not offer to upload a rebuttal. Perhaps you will say that I will not actually do that. That I will renege. However, there are many anti-cold fusion papers at LENR-CANR.org, including some by you, so anyone can see that I will follow through. I will also upload your "whitepaper" if you send it to me directly by e-mail with permission. *


    Your other comment makes no sense. Sending me a paper would not be "giving me a basis to rant." I already have that basis. I don't need anything more from you. I am offering you the opportunity to address the audience at LENR-CANR.org. Take it or leave it.



    * I will not upload a whitepaper or other materials from you without explicit permission. There are two groups of trouble makers opposed to LENR-CANR.org who have tried to get me to upload their papers without permission so they can file lawsuits against me. Publicly they attack me for not uploading, and they claim I am censoring them. But, when I did upload one of their papers, and commented on another, I got a nasty letter from their lawyers threatening a lawsuit. I don't trust you, and I suspect you might be playing that game.

  • I don't trust you, and I suspect you might be playing that game.


    I find that people who says things like this are usually projecting what they would do to others. You have no basis for your statement.


    The following is another example of how you systematically misrepresent what I write:


    You quoted me and responded thusly:

    Was it removed to do this? Was the cell disassembled?


    Of course it was removed. Of course the cell was disassembled. That's what it says in the book. There is a photo in the book showing it disassembled. I have seen the cell and the thermocouple, removed from the cell and sitting on the shelf.


    But what I actually wrote was:


    Was it removed to do this? Was the cell disassembled? If so, then the tests are meaningless because the disassembly would have broken any accidental contacts that created secondary junctions, which would create false readings. More missing info...


    The part you failed to quote documents why testing after disassembly is not decisive. But of course you omitted that, thereby implying I was just being ridiculous instead of specifying exactly what a known type of problem was.


    I don't trust you, but I have many reasons, one of which I just enumerated above.

  • The part you failed to quote documents why testing after disassembly is not decisive.

    The part you are ignoring is that the cell was too hot to touch, and it remained too hot to touch for several days, even after it evaporated several buckets of water. Do you think that was some sort of illusion? Do you think two people might have problems with their sense of touch?


    If you seriously doubt it was hot even though it was too hot to touch, AND the TC registered over 100 deg C AND it evaporated buckets of water, then you are delusional.


    If you simply don't believe that, welcome to the crowd. Many skeptics do not believe reports from cold fusion researchers.


    There is no point to arguing that the TC alone might have been wrong, when it was confirmed by sense of touch and by the water evaporating. You cannot "nibble away" at the facts by denying them one at a time, and making up impossible stories about them.



    You wrote:

    Quote

    . . . then the tests are meaningless because the disassembly would have broken any accidental contacts that created secondary junctions,

    Look at the photos. you can see for yourself how it was mounted. There is no chance it was in contact with anything else.

  • Pffft - I did, if you recall.


    I don't. Link? It would seem if you did, you didn't do well.


    My handy spreadsheet could be useful to you here...


    Yup, I checked your spreadsheet out. The only thing I didn't verify independently at this point is the equation to compute water vapor pressure, but it looks reasonable so it isn't worth tracking it down.


    You do need to eliminate Line 1 where you display your bias however.


    And please explain what 'significant' airflow means, and where this 'significant' airflow comes from?


    Recently Jed brought up a tidbit I didn't know. It's in this post: Mizuno's bucket of water


    He mentions that the 'abandoned' building is the "Nuclear Engineering Building in a National University" and that "It was a secure building with lots of expensive equipment, heavy machinery, radiation danger signs, heavy doors, badge access, 24-hour guards, etc.".


    A) This is hardly 'abandoned' and b) this brings up a whole new dimension to the air flow rate problem.


    In my current lab I have a chemical hood that lists the acceptable airflow rate at the face (with the doors in a particular position) of 80-150 lfm. It was actually tested and found to be 106 lfm. (That's ~0.9 - 1.7 mph, with actual = 1.2 mph.) But the 'abandoned' building with 24-hr. armed guards is a nuclear facility and rad hoods (hoods designed for use with radioactive materials) typically use higher flow rates, maybe 2-3X (i.e. up to 5.1 mph), but that depends on the specifics of the lab ventilation setup of course. Now, from 1996 to 2004, I personally worked in a rad lab (tritium specifically) that had massive floor to ceiling hoods about 12 ft. long. As I recall they moved about 3300 cfm. The air was drawn through a grille assembly mounted low on two sides of the long face. Best recollection is 3 or 4 slits about 1/4" wide going the full 12 feet. My calcs indicate that the face velocity at those points was in the region of 20 mph. And yes, the hoods had a tendency to suck your clothes or lab coats up against them if you got too close.


    Point is, your 'Patho-Max' version only used 5 mph and got 2.9 l/day water loss at nominal room temp of 22C. (In my rad lab, the airflow was so high that in the winter I could register 15-17C ambient temps when the outside was cold.) But if we take your 2.9 l/day and multiply by 4, we get 11.6 l/day, which exceeds your noted max loss rate of 10.0 handily.


    So Zeus, your bias against me has led you down the wrong path. We need to know specifics of what lab he used and where exactly he placed the bucket to get reasonable estimates of the actual airflow rate over the bucket, as well as the actual lab temp, to compute whether it was really possible to evaporate the 10 l/day or not. I doubt we will get that ever, which is why this event is an anecdote and not a scientific experiment. (Added: Also need relative humidity. Rad facilities often try to control that, but it is difficult if the airfows are as high as in my old rad lab.)


    So let's just drop the smoke blowing, agree to disagree as to the validity of the claims, and move on. The bucket anecdote _proves_ nothing, just like Rossi's demos.

  • You cannot "nibble away" at the facts by denying them one at a time,


    But that's that's they way it works Jed. You look at the data, searching for potential errors that would produce the anomalous results that are being claimed. You postulate reasonable ones and then go back and repeat the experiment. Failure to replicate means the result remain, forever, anomalous and not conclusive.


    and making up impossible stories about them.


    If you bothered to read what I write, you would see my proposed explanations are not 'impossible stories'. Only your fanatic bias allows you to say stuff like that.

  • But that's that's they way it works Jed. You look at the data, searching for potential errors

    Okay, so what potential error could cause two people to mistakenly think that an object radiating heat and it so hot it will burn them? What error can cause a bucket of water to evaporate overnight in ordinary room temperature conditions? You are the one asserting this impossible nonsense. It is up to you to justify it. Look for errors in your own hypotheses!

  • You say you are looking at the data for potential errors. Okay, so what potential errors have you found that make people think a room temperature object is too hot to touch? The human sense of touch is as reliable as any instrument. What error could cause it to malfunction that way? When has this happened? What caused it? If you think this has happened, give us an example from the literature.


    What error can make a bucket of water vanish overnight? You keep saying it can happen in room temperature conditions, but no one agrees with you, and there are no documents or textbooks describing how this might happen. You cannot demonstrate it. You have not left a bucket of water in a room and shown that it all evaporates. You, alone in the entire human race, claim this can happen, but you do not offer a shred of evidence for your claim.


    You say "look for errors" but you do not look for the errors in your own hypotheses.

  • Okay, so what potential error could cause two people to mistakenly think that an object radiating heat and it so hot it will burn them?

    so let me get this straight...

    the TC registered over 100 deg C


    Mizuno and friend repeatedly stuck their hands in a bucket of boiling water to prove the 'heater' was still working. Is that really what you're saying?


    What error can cause a bucket of water to evaporate overnight in ordinary room temperature conditions?


    Not an error, a high airflow rate over the water.