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

  • @ mods,

    many posts on this thread seems to be just provocations aimed at disturbing the debate. I know that my arguments are challenging, to say the least, for the LENR community, but I hope that the search for truth is important for many of us regardless of our views on the reality of CF phenomena and I think that there are many LENR supporters who are able to dispute my criticisms in a more constructive and effective way.


    This thread has been opened by me, and I feel responsible for providing an ambient where people interested in seriously debating the scientific aspects of the F&P experiments are helped in following the discussion and possibly encouraged to provide their contribution. So, I kindly ask the mods to enforce and preserve such an ambient.

    For me, the difference between an honest skeptic and a hyperskeptic is whether or not they accept that the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event was replicated in 153 peer reviewed journals by the top ~100 electrochemists of the day. It is an inductive watershed. On one side is honest skeptics, and on the other side are hyperskeptics or skeptopaths or skeptics with some strange agenda.


    It is this basis on how I choose to treat skeptics. You chose the dishonest, skeptopathic side of the inductive watershed and so I will treat you in that manner. It's pretty simple. We even had here on this forum recently, a person who previously chose the skeptopath route and abandoned it for the honest skeptical route.


    Do yourself a favor and choose the honest path.

  • The current was not logged because it was always the same, only the voltage varied.


    Regardless of this reason, which in any case I consider an insufficient justification in such an important and well funded experiment, the lack of any current logging is something that has been agreed upon only in recent days.


    Until now, many L-F members believed that F&P could have directly checked the open-circuiting of the cell by looking at the current log, as was firmly stated by Wyttenbach , who wrote to me (1): "Do you really think that they did not log the current in a separate stream? How else could they ever even think about trying to calculate something?".


    Now you affirm that "the current was not logged", confirming what you already said yesterday (2): "And if the current is always constant there is no need log it, since it is a given".


    I think this is a useful outcome of our discussion, because too many people here, including a knowledgeable member of the LENR community like JedRothwell who liked both the posts (1) and (2), seem to be misinformed about many details of this fundamental milestone in the CF history.


    Quote

    The voltage drop to zero when the cell was dry may have caused some models of PSU to shut down.


    Not the voltage, but the current drop to zero caused the PSU to shut down and, consequently, to drop the voltage to zero. Otherwise, the galvanostat would have kept the voltage at the maximum level of 100 V, as also noted by oystla (3).


    This is an important piece of information to understand the 1992 boil-off experiment, because the switch-off time of the PSU should have been the start time of the alleged HAD event claimed by F&P.


    Quote

    Neither of these facts has any relevance at all to your protestations about these experiments, but you seem to think they do.


    Why not? As I've explained to oystla (4), these two details confirm that there has been no HAD event during the 1992 boil-off experiment. I think that this is a very relevant fact indeed.


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

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

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

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


  • Robert - is there some autoformat thing in your PC that makes algebraic come out a strange color? Weird! Especially since I don't see what algebra there is here.

    You are turning now to a second question: what could differences between controls and experiments come from?


    That is a worthwhile question, but not the one at hand, which is what is the possible magnitude of errors in the experimental results.


    I'm less willing to discuss the "differences with controls" question. I'm interested in it, just I do not have your apparently high levels of skill and omnipotence, to be able to know such things. So although I can think of a few starting points for differences, the ramifications elude me, mainly because the way that the various possible error mechanism could be influenced by differences is (to me) unclear,


    You can rest your views here on the fact that you are clear, perhaps, and know there can be no differences that might account for this. But I will doubt that, because you have not even yet been interested in understanding and bounding the possible errors, let alone understanding all of the possible precise relationships between system state and errors. Nevertheless we could continue to discuss these differences, and you can make me better informed.


    No autocolorformat on my PC - makes a boring but I hope clear post. :)

  • This is typical of your obtuse approach. The current was not logged because it was always the same, only the voltage varied. The voltage drop to zero when the cell was dry may have caused some models of PSU to shut down. Neither of these facts has any relevance at all to your protestations about these experiments, but you seem to think they do. That is why I am justified in saying you have no interest in debate or discussion, with the implied possibility that you might be wrong. All that interests you is the hot fusion party line, that is quite apparent to everybody.


    ETA- there may have been a dwindling of the current at the end of these experiments, but possibly/probably because the voltage had reached its limit. Not important.


    Alan - I must question this.


    I can understand a constant current circuit that a you say has a voltage limit. But then, the voltage would not fall to zero when the cell was dry. So I wonder if there is certainly that under the relevant conditions (boil-off and after) the input power is accurately known from the voltage. Maybe the results do not depend on this. My problem is the lack of precise documentation of the results I've seen, and the very variable experimental conditions, which means I cannot make blanket assumptions that what normally works is working as expected without explicit confirmation.

  • Re RobertB #394


    Questioning how the "isotope effect" could exist.


    We agree there are differences due to D vs H, and that the errors here can scale with them, RB has pointed out that this should be linear scaling.


    However #394 diagram references "runaway heating effect". Any such nonlinear behaviour would serve to amplify differences and make results in the two cases look very different. There are many possible nonlinear effects here - given a complex system - foam - etc.


    I take this as one example validating my claim that highly nonlinear effects can exist in the system, that change linear differences into things that look very different.

  • Especially since I don't see what algebra there is here.

    Anytime one uses written symbols rather than numbers like X,V, 1,2 11010 with arithmetic operations like +/x/-etc..

    it is called algebra.


    P/(P*-P) is an algebraic expression

    It is not arithmetic. 3/(3-2) is arithmetic


    In its most general form, algebra is the study of mathematical symbols and the rules for manipulating these symbols; it is a unifying thread of almost all of mathematics. It includes everything from elementary equation solving to the study of abstractions such as groups, rings, and fields

    Algebraic notation describes the rules and conventions for writing mathematical expressions, as well as the terminology used for talking about parts of expressions. For example, the expression 3 x 2 − 2 x y + c {\displaystyle 3x^{2}-2xy+c} 3x^{2}-2xy+c has the following components:

    Algebraic equation notation.svg

  • There are many possible nonlinear effects here - given a complex system - foam - etc.


    Please elaborate with algebra and arithmetic

    using the specific physicochemical properties of

    protium versus deuterium, and H20 versus D20


    rather than using a verbal foamy generalization


    e.g diffusion coefficient, enthalpy of formation,

    enthalpy of vaporisation..


    For D and H and D20 and H20 they are not

    so different from each other

    as can be seen in yellow

  • makes a boring but I hope clear post


    Boring and pedantic.and pointless

    . try teaching algebra to the normal five year old

    and you will need colours and food and all kinds of teaching aids

    and it will still be very difficult.

    that's why arithmetic is taught for the most part of primary school.

    It is you who started this pointless arithmetic/algebra distinction.


    The math is arithmetic- I'd not dignify it with "algebra".


    Please apply your algebra skills specifically to "There are many possible nonlinear effects here - given a complex system - foam - etc."



  • While Galois Theory was one of my favourite modules at uni, I think we have now strayed too far from the topic at hand.


    I am however interested in the AI giving you the autocolorformat thing. It seems to do conjunctions nicely. Annoying though - rather like autocorrect on phones which I hate because it replaces perfectly good words by more common and completely different alternates!

  • Robert: the thing is - I don't dislike you enough to want to continue this only mildly amusing conversation. In fact I don't dislike you at all. Which means that I'd only continue this if I felt some useful communication could result.


    I've said what I've got to say, and you questioning me about it will not lead to more, unless I can find some additional definite point to make. You are at liberty to view what I say in whatever way, with whatever colours, you like.

  • The main problem with your analysis is there is just too many assumptions


    I was watching the movie Denial the other day.


    The assumptions and errors of the protagonist were all on oneside..

    favouring their deep seated prejudice.


    "Mr Justice Gray said the charges he had found to be substantially true were that

    "Irving had for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence"

    This thread came to mind

  • I've said what I've got to say, and you questioning me about it will not lead to more, unless I can find some additional definite point to make. You are at liberty to view what I say in whatever way, with whatever colours, you like.


    Instead of a color try to use different metals. Why did Pd-D behave different than Pt-D that gave no excess energy! One of the most compelling P&F controls beside many others.

  • don't dislike you enough to want to continue this only mildly amusing conversation. In fact I don't dislike you at all


    Please desist fromdislike, emotional and personal


    I don't know THH from a bar of soap


    Bring on the algebra ..Galois or otherwise explaining "


    "There are many possible nonlinear effects here - given a complex system - foam - etc."


    with regard to the isotope effect

  • Instead of a color try to use different metals. Why did Pd-D behave different than Pt-D that gave no excess energy! One of the most compelling P&F controls beside many others.



    I'll answer this just once more.


    Of course I don't know. To think otherwise would be having delusions of omniscience. Equally you do not know why you should assume the two are the same.


    However, I'll give an argument that is plausible as to why the two might be different.


    Pd and Pt have very different characteristics. Pd allows D ingress and under sustained loading conditions the surface will be significantly changed (physically) by this. Your question is therefore why do different electrode surface characteristics alter the temperature profile of these experiments?


    Again, I don't know. But, now, it seems plausible that they would alter things. Especially given the possibility of ATER, foamgate, etc.


    Also I am concerned about cherry picking here. Jed has said (I think) that FPHE/ATER/LENR effects in D/Pd systems under electrolysis are fragile in that they depend on exact electrode condition in ways not understood and do not always happen. Can we be sure that all H/Pd (for example) systems do not show similar effects to D/Pd? To take one example. Even of there is a consistent replicable effect for D/Pd not present for any other combination of D/H Pt/Pd it is an interesting thing to be investigated, but not particularly anomalous because we know that D and H will diffuse differently and that Pt/Pd will also allow diffusion in different ways.

  • Especially given the possibility of ATER, foamgate, etc.

    The "possibility" of these things is zero to 5 significant digits. They are preposterous nonsense. They violate elementary laws of physics and they fly in the face of knowledge, techniques and instruments going back to the Medieval era. If you actually believe they might be possible, your judgement is poor.


    Jed has said (I think) that FPHE/ATER/LENR effects in D/Pd systems under electrolysis are fragile in that they depend on exact electrode condition in ways not understood and do not always happen.

    First, it wasn't me who said that. Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms, Miles and many others said that, in great detail. Second, the conditions are well understood. It is true they do not always happen, but when they fail to happen, the reasons are usually clear. For example, the metal fractures instead of loading. When the conditions are met, the effect always occurs. The strength of the reaction is proportional to the extent it meets the conditions. See the McKubre equation for details.


    In short, your have totally distorted what the authors said, to such an extent that your version is imaginary. I wonder if you have even read the literature. I wonder why you are posting an imaginary version of cold fusion here.


    Regarding the McKubre equation, it is purely empirical. Engineering, not physics. It does not pertain to or reveal much about the fundamental physics of the reaction. In other words, it resembles the data and equations worked out by the Wright brothers in 1903 to model airplanes and propellers. As Crouch explained:


    "Engineering was the key. The Wright brothers functioned as engineers, not scientists. Science, the drive to understand the ultimate principles at work in the universe, had little to do with the invention of the airplane. A scientist would have asked the most basic questions. How does the wing of a bird generate lift? What are the physical laws that explain the phenomena of flight?

    The answers to those questions were not available to Wilbur and Orville Wright, or to anyone else at the turn of the century. Airplanes would be flying for a full quarter century before physicists and mathematicians could explain why wings worked."