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

  • So: is Holmlid's stuff LENR? If it is, as claimed here by some, it is incoherent.


    So THHuxleynew now states that his position is less polarised than in the above two quotes

    which to me as prima facie appeared contradictory.


    Some others call Holmlid's stuff LENR (not THH) and some other's(not THH) call it not LENR.

    Thankyou for clarifying that ..THH. ..

    Sorry if you take offense to verbiage... but when I see a whole page of disparate ideas in a post I tend to think.

    "excessively lengthy or technical speech or writing."

    The less that one writes the less there is to remember...

    I find that useful as I advance into seniority/geriaticity

  • (3) By non-equilibrium D2O concentration, causing an unknown error of up to 100% of this term (likely a false positive for the reason I and oystla both gave, though oystla got the sign wrong) in some unknown circumstances certainly including boiling.


    Important to note that you do not need all three of these mechanisms, just one might be enough to explain claimed values (numbers needed to determine this).


    Repeating clever arguments does not make them true... Why is the blind run with Hydrogen or inactive cathodes (like Pt) not showing the same ATER ????

    No. I refer to the period of few hours shown in Fig.6B of the F&P paper (3), which goes from the large (but not complete) drop of cell voltage, to the complete drop of cell temperature. This period corresponds to the 3 hours indicated in Fig.8,


    What P&F say in Fig.8 : Figure 8. Expansion of the temperature-time portion of Fig 6B during the final period of rapid boiling and evaporation.


    What Ascolis says: I know it better! I can read down to a 100000 dots/ mm (same period Fig 6B). I wrote the paper and did the experiment with the help of a video recorder. P&F are cheating! Or more keen this figure 8 is lying! And this fool of a Hansen did not notice it!


    Oh I start to like this crummy muppet show!

  • Repeating clever arguments does not make them true... Why is the blind run with Hydrogen or inactive cathodes (like Pt) not showing the same ATER ????


    I don't know. Nor do I know these experimental are in fact significantly wrong. But equally you don't know they are not significantly wrong. Large differences in behaviour between D and H are expected because of different physical characteristics, diffusion, etc. The complexity of all the different possible issues in these open cells makes it not possible for me to bound errors other than as I did above (and that BTW is more than you have done here, so you should thank me).

  • different physical characteristics, diffusion, etc.


    Physical diffusion of H and D should be or the order of 1:2 not 0%:100%.


    Electrochemically they are very similar.. electrolysis of H2O, D20 yields H2/D2.


    The fact that there is a 0%:100%. difference in the anomalous heat suggests that there is neither a physical nor chemical phenomenon

    at the core.


    Please don't make general statements such as D is different from H and its complex?????

    Life is complex.


    Show why with numbers and equations ,,properties. Science is complex

    That's why we do use these tools.

  • Robert: this is a bit elliptical for me.


    I'd just add that CCS is a grand name for something blindingly obvious and common


    No CCS is not blindingly obvious and common'

    Its something touted both by you and Kirkshanahan as a significant factor clouding LENR calorimetric evidence for decades


    It is common according toKirkshanahan


    The problem I located can evidence anytime a calibration curve is used,

    which includes practically _every known analytical chemistry method_,

    not just mass flow calorimetry. "


    However there has been no uptake in experimental physical chemistry of the CCS effect AFAIK in two decades


  • It is surely you, who are so certain these results stand, who must show that all the different properties of D and H - together with cal shifts from them - give errors bounded below the results? I have done some of this work for you.

  • the obvious explanation would be that they turned off the power supply.

    Some lab PSU's also have 'open circuit shut-off. When the current falls to zero- off they go.


    Exactly! The correct explanation is that the PSU's automatically shut-off when current falls to zero! This causes the voltage zeroing along with the current!


    Now, look again at the jpeg in (1) and in particular inside the green circle. You see? The voltage of Cell 2 doesn't fall directly to zero. It stays above zero for the entire period during which the cell remains at high temperature after a first large drop in voltage. The only possible explanation for this behavior is that the current during this same period keeps running, it doesn't fall to zero, otherwise the voltage would have dropped directly to zero.


    This FACT is in open conflict with the second conclusion on Page 19 of the 1992 paper (2) which states: "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".


    This conclusion is false. The circuit doesn't open at the time indicated on Fig.8, but more than 2 hours later, as explained in the jpeg in (3). There was no Heat After Death!


    F&P were in possession of the data logging containing the measured data of at least temperature and voltage (and probably also current), but they chose to represent in Fig.8 only the temperature curve, omitting to represent the voltage curve.


    Any idea that can justify this inexplicable omission?


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

  • This FACT is in open conflict with the second conclusion on Page 19 of the 1992 paper (2) which states: "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".


    The lower graph that does not directly go down to the base line is the temperature as labeled in Fig.6b.... not the current.


    May be you could make a funny proposal how 3 hours of current could have flown through normal air and caused a heating of the cathode that virtually has no resistance at all.. compared to other components...

  • The lower graph that does not directly go down to the base line is the temperature as labeled in Fig.6b.... not the current.


    No, it's the voltage. The voltage is the first to drop, the temperature followed after a few hours. Otherwise, claiming a HAD event would have been a total nonsense. The two labels in Fig.6B are on the right of both the falling vertical lines, so they can't help in recognizing them.


    Quote

    May be you could make a funny proposal how 3 hours of current could have flown through normal air and caused a heating of the cathode that virtually has no resistance at all.. compared to other components...


    Which air? The supposed gap under the cathode? Haven't you yet realized that Figure 1 in the F&P paper (1) was only a "schematic diagram"? The cathode was actually resting on the Kel-F support plug, as shown a few weeks ago (2). The current flowed through the electrolyte until the boil-off of the last drop of liquid water. No HAD.


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

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

  • Anyhow, I think we are being a litle stupid discussing calorimetry equations which where discussed and evaluated "to death" back in early 90's


    I think that none of the many attendees at MIT F&P 30th anniversary or its Russian counterpart in Moscow

    took one iota of interest in the stultifyingly useless posts on this thread

    and the situation will not change for the next September LENR conference in Assisi, Italy

    given the communication skills exhibited by Ascoli65 and more recently

    by Kirkshanahan.

  • It is indeed a historically oriented thread which you might feel has no relevance now.


    The relevance of the topic discussed in this thread can't be greater than the relevance of CF field, which is indeed quite low, as evidenced by the absence of any interest from the media for the 30th anniversary of its announcement.


    However, this same topic should be of utmost relevance for the few people or organizations that are still interested in LENR.


    I would remind you of the last article on LENR written by the co-founder of a prominent academic center (1), whose "goal is to steer a small fraction of Cambridge’s great intellectual resources, and of the reputation built on its past and present scientific pre-eminence, to the task of ensuring that our own species has a long-term future."


    This article concludes the list of reasons why it makes sense for the humankind to bet on the reality of the CF/LENR phenomena by citing this conclusion taken from a recent report (2018) published by the Norwegian Defence Research Institute: "… and adds that for the original Fleischmann and Pons reactions in particular, ‘the documentation is highly convincing. ’"


    Well, this thread aims to understand how convincing this documentation, as well as the reported results, is.


    (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…Study_of_Existential_Risk

    (2) https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3…old-fusion-at-thirty.html

  • The correct explanation is that the PSU's automatically shut-off when current falls to zero! This causes the voltage zeroing along with the current!


    More likely a manual intervention / shut down of F&P on the equipment. According to F&P paper the voltage input remained high on those experiments particularly focused on HAD



    They did read the current, and according to their paper it fell to 0 as cell dried (with an error margin at 0.5 mA). The voltage is not that important if current where logged.


  • However, this same topic should be of utmost relevance for the few people or organizations that are still interested in LENR.


    I would remind you of the last article on LENR written by the co-founder of a prominent academic center (1), whose "goal is to steer a small fraction of Cambridge’s great intellectual resources, and of the reputation built on its past and present scientific pre-eminence, to the task of ensuring that our own species has a long-term future."


    This article concludes the list of reasons why it makes sense for the humankind to bet on the reality of the CF/LENR phenomena by citing this conclusion taken from a recent report (2018) published by the Norwegian Defence Research Institute: "… and adds that for the original Fleischmann and Pons reactions in particular, ‘the documentation is highly convincing. ’"


    And the point we have tried to make here is that you are focusing your critics on the wrong F&P paper, since this was not their main discovery, just a potential extension of their discovery.


    The original discovery was the work that was replicated on various setups by many, which confirmed their results of the Original discovery, and which was not boiling cells.


    Boiling cells adds challenging factors that everyone acknowledge, also F&P themselves as stated in their paper.


    Everyone can make mistakes, even you and me ;-)


    So the strength from F&P discovery comes when others replicated their original work with success, not if their boiling cells contained errors or not.

  • More likely a manual intervention / shut down of F&P on the equipment.


    No, the switching off of the PSU's couldn't have been manual for obvious reasons. Moreover, the dry-out of Cell 1 happened in the very late evening of a Sunday (1) and Cells 2 and 3 dried-out in the middle of the night (2). A timely manual intervention would have required the permanent presence of someone h24*d7.


    So, the PSU's turned off automatically as suggested by Alan Smith (3).


    Quote

    According to F&P paper the voltage input remained high on those experiments particularly focused on HAD


    Any reference? And, anyway, what does it mean? We are talking about the specific HAD event claimed to have occurred during the 1992 boil-off experiment in only one of the 4 cells under testing. FWIK this is the only presumed HAD event that has been documented by F&P, although the permanence of a residual voltage during the period in which Cell2 remained at high temperature demonstrates that there was no HAD at all (4).


    Btw, can you cite any other HAD event documented by F&P?


    Quote

    They did log the current, and according to their paper it fell to 0 as cell dried (with an error margin at 0.5 mA). The voltage is not that important if current where logged.

    8010-pasted-from-clipboard-png


    Monitoring and logging the current would have been not only reasonable, but mandatory. I also believed that F&P did it (5), although the absence of any current curve in all the F&P documents was inexplicable and rather suspicious. But thanks to your clipping of the their paper on the HAD (6), we have the confirmation that F&P didn’t log the cell current!


    In fact, the small dagger at the end of the highlighted sentence indicates the following footnote:

    JIyDJDR.jpg

    You see? The cell current was assumed to be at the set value, this means that they did no measurement and, consequently, no logging of the cell current! And it can also be noted that the two references in the footnote refer exactly to the documents describing the 1992 boil-off experiment.


    It's amazing. The more you explore this story, the more absurd it appears!


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

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

    (4) FP's experiments discussion

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

    (6) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsSheatafterd.pdf

  • It's amazing. The more you explore this story, the more absurd it appears!


    Yes! Your invented rest current has been refuted by the document now... May be it will take you a week until you understand this...


    Your invented non logging of current is easily refuted by the fact that they logged the voltage. When using a constant current supply there is no need for logging the current....