F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

Quote from Ascoli65

I just would like to focus as much as possible on the information contained in the ICCF3 paper.

Why? So you can pretend the rest of the information does not exist?

Quote from Ascoli65

The oscilloscope is an unnecessary distraction.

No, it proves they measured all of the power (I*V) at high resolution, which proves you are wrong. It also proved that Morrison was wrong, which got his goat. He claimed they only measured every 10 minutes, as I recall.

Quote from Ascoli65

If you take foam for liquid, as F&P did in their ICCF3 paper, you can easily produce even higher apparent gains.

If it were foam, unboiled water would leave the cell, and much of the lithium salt would be missing. So you are wrong. Either you do not understand this simple fact, or you will not admit it. I recommend you do some actual electrochemistry with ordinary salt -- and detergent if you like. You need to stop waving your hands and inventing impossible physics. Do some real world observations and you will see that you have not discovered something that other people overlooked since 1867.

Quote from JedRothwell

I recommend you do some actual electrochemistry with ordinary salt -- and detergent if you like

Real experimentation with real stuff is what produces real physics.

Unfortunately the entity Ascoli65 appears incapable of such but just maybe......

March 23 at MIT is too early,, however

September 8-13, 2019 in Assisi, Italy may be possible for discussion of this paper.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t…Vaw1O5BcvnBwkCOLLDOrvSisC

"

A search for excess heat production from highly loaded deuterides of palladium was carried out using a closed isoperibolic calorimeter. The main aim of these studies was to test the hypothesis that the production of excess heat from electrolytically prepared deuterides of palladium only occurs when (amongst other conditions) the D/Pd loading ratio exceeds a value of about 0.85–0.90, as estimated by resistance ratio measurements. However, despite the achievement of D/Pd loading ratios in excess of 0.90, no excess heat was observed in any of the experiments within the estimated experimental error of ± 1.5%.

Excessive foam was observed at high current loadings despite there being over 100 previous published reports where this phenomenon was not observed.

This excessive foam may be the cause of prior erroneous calculations of excess heat.

Article in Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 3 June 2019 with 2 Reads Author Ascoli65 Anonymo . Contact? ???

Ascoli:

You have yourself wound up tightly here. I sincerely suggest you stop and think.

Fleischmann repeatedly wrote that the cell did not boil dry during control runs. I told you that many times. Apparently, you rejected that because you felt sure it is impossible -- because there is no space below the cathode and above the Kel-F plug. You were CERTAIN of that! You thought we were making a stupid mistake about a simple shape. Did it not occur to you that you might be wrong? That you might not understand the shape of the cell? Did you not think: "maybe I should look at the schematic to see what Fleischmann was talking about"?

Fleischmann, Pons and their many assistants did this test 16 cells at a time, many times. They did many blanks. Why would they say "water remained in the cell after the connection between the anode and cathode was broken" if that were physically impossible? How stupid do you think they were? You are assuming that people make incredibly stupid mistakes for years on end, and they kept saying there is water left where no water can be.

I did not see you were confused about this. It never occurred to me that you did not understand, until out of the blue you wrote:

"No, you are wrong, because the water level can't fall BELOW the cathode, for the simple reason that the cathode rests on the Kel-F support, ie there is no space between the bottom of the cathode and the top of the Kel-F support (3)."

That is awfully arrogant! It is such an off-the-wall misunderstanding, I had to read it a few times to figure out what you meant. It never occurred to me that anyone would fail to understand why the water level drops below the cathode.

Now that you have looked at Fig. 1, do you see your mistake? You have made many, many similar mistakes. Your entire analysis is based on misunderstandings and errors. You apparently fail to understand why the salt remaining in the cell proves your entire hypothesis is wrong.

You need to stop and think. Question yourself and your assumptions. Be skeptical about your own ideas. When you conclude that Fleischmann, or I, or someone else is making a terrible mistake that even a 5-year-old child would not make -- saying there is water where no water can fit -- you should ask yourself: "Did they make that mistake, or do I misunderstand?"

The reason why Ascoli is continuing barking up this tree is that he thinks errors in this paper would question all of their previous work.

But Ascoli is barking up the wrong tree.

As I have explained many times, the F&P boiling water experiment (1) is not important, since it is not the CF/LENR discovery, but a test of possible increased heat at higher temperatures.

At boiling the cells are at little more violent conditions and do introduce a few more difficulties in measuring some aspects, like water level.

So, it may or may not contain errors, but in my earlier analysis I have showed that their main hypothesis in the paper (increased energy and power densities at higher temperatures) may in fact be correct.

This thread would be way more interesting if discussing the findings as described in the 2 hr presentation of Hagelstein.

And we may note that Hagelstein do not mention boiling cells, but the most important early discovery and the early important confirmation by McKubre of the original discovery.

I would recommend for everyone to watch the presentation, it is really interesting (1).

These are two of the important figures to consider:

1. F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

Quote from oystla

This thread would be way more interesting if discussing the findings

The clinical elimination of the many socalled replications with a negative for excess heat

down to a small group of which Green/Quickenden is the best... and is still flawed.. is most interesting

And important factors in the graph below on F&P excess heat confirmation by Mckubre is

1. Using D2O vs H2O shows different behavior. Why?

2. Increased input current increase the excess heat in D2O, but NOT in H2O, Why?

3. The accuracy bars is shown for each datapoint. This indicates that H2O has no excess heat (within the accuracy range), while D2O have definite excess heat. From where originates the excess heat when using D2O?

And a wonderful difference in McKubre vs F&P calorimetry was that McKubre used flow calorimetry with closed calorimeter, where much of the criticism on possible errors in the F&P isoperibolic calorimetry where removed (like "recombination", "electrolyte replacement / refill", etc..

Flow calorimeter using water as medium for heat exchange make things very easy, since heat capacity of water is accurately known, and water flow and temperature can be measured to high accuracies.

I therefore consider the Mckubre confirmation a very strong confirmation of the F&P excess heat discovery.

Quote from RobertBryant

The clinical elimination of the many socalled replications with a negative for excess heat

down to a small group of which Green/Quickenden is the best... and is still flawed.. is most interesting

The dissection done by Hagelstein of negative results are very revealing

Quote from JedRothwell

When you conclude that Fleischmann, or I, or someone else is making a terrible mistake that even a 5-year-old child would not make -- saying there is water where no water can fit -- you should ask yourself: "Did they make that mistake, or do I misunderstand?"

Let me add that I have often make equally stupid mistakes while translating or copy editing papers. I have often misread things. I start off with misleading assumptions. Everyone does this. When I am copy editing, I make a list of page numbers and questions. I often look back the next day and wonder how I could have gotten it so wrong. When you think the author made a bone-headed, inexplicably stupid mistake, you have to stop and ask yourself: "is that really what the author meant?"

When I think I have found a mistake, I ask the author what he or she meant. I would not send an author this kind of arrogant message:

". . . the water level can't fall BELOW the cathode, for the simple reason that the cathode rests on the Kel-F support"

That's presumptuous. I would write something like:

"I do not see how the water level can fall below the cathode. Isn't the cathode sitting on the Kel-F support? That leaves no space at the bottom of the cell, so the water cannot fall any farther than the bottom of the cathode."

Hopefully, before zapping that off to the author and making a fool of myself, I would let it sit for a day, read it back, and ask myself: "wait a second . . . is the cathode is sitting on the Kel-F support? Is that what the schematic shows?"

Along similar lines, Ascoli got the notion that the cell boiled for hours, I assume because he mistook electrolysis bubbles for boiling. That mistake is understandable. But he should have asked himself: it is possible the thing boiled for hours? The answer is no, that's not possible. There isn't much water in a cell. If it were boiling hard enough for a person to see the bubbles, all of the water would soon be vaporized. It would not take hours.

Quote from Ascoli65

A good opportunity to make public some other experimental data

IS Ascoli65 attending ????

Quote from Ascoli65

March 23 at the LENR Colloquium at MIT

Surface tension is school simplicity, you can create a void through a tube having a heat source centered bottom and have surface tension foam hold volume~ .

Quote from Ascoli65

I've just posted a new jpeg (3), which I hope will resolve once and for all this controversy:

IMO, there was NO FREE SPACE BELOW THE CATHODE.

I have seen the cells. There was space below the cathode. There is always space below the cathode in a cold fusion cell, because the anode has to extend below it, or it will not load. Also, the Kel-F plug is a ring, leaving space inside it.