Jed has said (I think) that FPHE/ATER/LENR effects in D/Pd systems under electrolysis are fragile
Jed NEVER said that... that is THH's invention He made that up.
Its called clutching at straws
F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement
- Ascoli65
- Closed
-
-
Please elaborate on ATER, foamgate
in an algebraic rather than foamy way?
You've switched it off!
I cannot add to the vast sum of words given to us by Ascoli on foamgate. With able counter-arguments from many others.
ATER - no algebra I'm afraid, other than the 2D2 + O2 <---> 2D2O enthalpy that you well know.
-
Jed NEVER said that... that is THH's invention He made that up.
Its called clutching at straws
You had better ask Jed. I remember him saying that any group trying to replicate would need to choose electrodes from correct material, and that it was hit an miss.
I also note McKubre's careful and well-documented work. He obtained strong results in a very few runs, out of many tested.
-
You had better ask Jed
Ditto.. Jed's here.,, I think.
-
cannot add to the vast sum of words given to us by Ascoli on foamgate
Oh yes you can and you keep repeating them
-
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
There you go THH
distortion.. vague and prejudiced recollections and dare I say it ... verbiage..
don't take it personally
-
ATER - no algebra I'm afraid, other than the 2D2 + O2 <---> 2D2O enthalpy that you well know.
So how come 2D2 + O2 <---> 2D2O enthalpy occurs
and not 2H2 + O2 <---> 2H2O?
when the reverse happens quite happily in electrolysis..for both D and H?
Perhaps you will need some algebra to explain the isotope effect D versus H
and also the metal effect Pt versus Pd.
Don't say you 'don't know' but there are etc.unknowable reasons
-
Its 8.00 am..here
I'm having cooked goose for breakfast
-
I remember him saying that any group trying to replicate would need to choose electrodes from correct material, and that it was hit an miss.
It wasn't me, as I said. It was Storms, Cravens, Fleischmann and Miles in particular. "Hit and miss" is somewhat correct, but what that means is you have to test the material before you use it. Storms and Cravens describe the tests in detail. See, for example:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf
Suppose you test 100 samples and find only 4 that have the necessary qualities. (That is about the expected ratio for most samples.) Those 4 almost certainly will work. So, is that 4% reproducibility (starting with the entire batch), or is it 100% reproducibility? It depends on how you look at it, I guess. I think the question is absurd.
It takes a few years for one person to test 100 samples manually. It would take far longer to run 100 samples in cold fusion experiments without testing them. Ten years or so, I suppose. In other words, if you went ahead blindly, without any plan and without experience in materials research, you would probably flail around for years without seeing excess heat. It would fit your description of hit or miss, but it would be mostly miss. Many experiments in 1989 failed because the people doing them had no idea what the control parameters were or how to measure them. As Storms said, this is like trying to develop semiconductors by randomly testing pieces of gravel from your driveway.
With enough money, there is no doubt that automated methods of fabricating the material and testing it could be developed that would make the initial round produce 50%, or 80% or 95% instead of 4%. Instead of taking a year, it would take a week or so. Similar problems in material science have been solved to develop things like semiconductors and solid-state radar. Considerable progress in improving materials has been made at the ENEA. What needs to be done is no deep mystery. It is just a matter of automating the methods described in the literature. By "enough money" I mean ~$300 million, according to people who have that kind of money, and who have done similar projects.
Your version of the research seems to be: it is entirely hit or miss; no one has any idea why it is hit or miss, or what they are doing; and there has been no progress since 1989; no one has any idea what the control parameters are. This seems to be what you mean by "fragile." As I said, this is an imaginary version of events. You would know that if you had read papers from McKubre, the ENEA and elsewhere. Perhaps you have not read these papers and you are expressing opinions about research you know nothing about. Or you have have read it, you have some sort of agenda here, and you are sowing doubts by spreading misinformation and distortions.
-
I may have mentioned before that 2 members of my close family worked at Johnson Matthey in the UK, One of them ran the 'charge room stores ' - part of the foundry where re-melts of precious metal scrap were carried out, including palladium melts. These consisted of things like aircraft spark plug electrodes, jewelery, coins, medals, flutes(!) and false teeth. Often there would be a discussion by the foundry guys about something- it this really palladium or is it platinum or rhodium or even niobium? Very often they would just shrug and throw it in anyway. So not all Palladium - even from JM in those days-is the same grade of pure metal, despite what it says on the label. Using XRF such arguments are settled in a moment, but 30 years ago it was down to the foundry master's experienced eye to determine what went into the pot and what did not.
-
The main problem with your analysis is there is just too many assumptions, and the conclusions in either directions for this particular paper is not important for the science or for F&P previous work.
[...]
Anyhow the HAD paper specifically evaluates several HAD Events, ...The only HAD event documented in the HAD paper (1) is the one illustrated in Fig.8, which is the same claimed by F&P to have been happened during the 1992 boil-off experiment. Which other specific HAD event was documented in the paper (1)?
Anyway, I have already explained to you (2) the reason why there was no HAD event in the 1992 boil-off experiment, but, regardless of the importance you give to this event, I've not understood if you agree with me that it didn't happened or, otherwise, what are the specific facts/assumptions that you refuse.
-
The only HAD event documented in the HAD paper
There are quite a few HAD events...in the decades following 1990 e.g
1. Tian, J., et al. "Excess heat" and "heat after death" in a gas loading hydrogen/palladium system. in The 9th
International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2002. Tsinghua Univ.,
Beijing, China: Tsinghua Univ. Press.
2. https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf
I think this may be nearly the perfect embodiment of the original
Pons-Fleischmann idea. It is very clear to me that this is like
the heat-after-death phenomenon that so many have reportedcoming from cold fusion cells: heat production with no input
power after the reaction is triggered). The effect has been seenby Fleischmann and Pons (reported in Physics Letters A, 1993),
and especially in the work of Arata and Zhang (IE, Issue #18)with palladium-black material. Motorola in its tests (see IE Issue
#7) observed a multi-day heat-after-death effect in the PattersonPower Cell.
-
Display More
There are quite a few HAD events...in the decades following 1990 e.g
1. Tian, J., et al. "Excess heat" and "heat after death" in a gas loading hydrogen/palladium system. in The 9th
International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2002. Tsinghua Univ.,
Beijing, China: Tsinghua Univ. Press.
2. https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf
I think this may be nearly the perfect embodiment of the original
Pons-Fleischmann idea. It is very clear to me that this is like
the heat-after-death phenomenon that so many have reportedcoming from cold fusion cells: heat production with no input
power after the reaction is triggered). The effect has been seenby Fleischmann and Pons (reported in Physics Letters A, 1993),
and especially in the work of Arata and Zhang (IE, Issue #18)with palladium-black material. Motorola in its tests (see IE Issue
#7) observed a multi-day heat-after-death effect in the PattersonPower Cell.
So, you are confirming what I said: the only documented HAD event in the F&P paper dedicated to HAD (1) is the one they claimed to have happened during the 1992 boil-off experiment (2,3) and that, IMO, factual evidences show it didn't occurred at all (4).
(1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsSheatafterd.pdf
(2) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
(3) http://coldfusioncommunity.net…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf
-
Weird logic. It's like saying that a member of a jury is honest only if he has already accepted that the accused is guilty.
***No, it's like saying that before I look at some paper written 3 years after the original finding was replicated 153 times, that you acknowledge it has been replicated 153 times.
As for me, I have no problem to accept that M authoritative scientists
***M is about 100
(not only top electrochemists)
***Like Jed said, the Who's Who of electrochemistry
have claimed in N peer reviewed journals
***N is about 153
that they have replicated the Fleischmann and Pons AHE.
***You say you have no problem, but then you turn around and show that you have a problem with it.
I don't know if M~100 (and if they are all top electrochemists) and if N=153.
***Then start reading.
Maybe M and N are even greater, but this is not the point. The problem is that I have no reason to believe that they were right.
***That's because you're going out of your way to avoid reading those papers and confront yourself with this information.
For now, I've examined the n=1 paper (1), which was also published in a peer reviewed journal (2)
***Several years after the N=153 papers.
by m=2 top electrochemists who claimed to have (re)discovered such an extraordinary AHE effect.
***Maybe your ridiculous approach knocks out 3 of those 153 peer reviewed replications. It is tedious.
However, these papers are full of errors of all kinds (3), although the article was published in a peer reviewed journal.
***Go ahead and tear down those 153 peer reviewed replications by those top hundred electrochemists of the day.
I think I'm already on the honest and correct path.
***That's kind of the problem here.
Whatever your opinion, I invite you to join me in an honest and factual analysis of the document n=1,
***Sure, after you read up on those N=153 papers.
the F&P paper (1) describing the 1992 boil-off experiment.
***The 1992 paper was about something that happened 2 years after the F&P effect had been replicated, so it's just
If we find a agreement on its validity,
***Many of us have plenty of agreement on its vailidity.
we can analyze the document n=2 and then the other remaining N-2 documents, but one at a time.
***Nope. You need to start your counter at N=1 with the first replication of the FPAHE, go through to N=153, and THEN you can focus on your N=154 from 3 years later.
Post edited for aggressive language, and name calling. Shane
-
So, you are confirming what I said:
No I am not confirming what Ascoli65 said.NOT AT ALL
This Ascoli65 entity is misreading and misconstruing whatever is said and then
I said this
"There are quite a few HAD events...in the decades following 1990"
Where does it say I confirmed what anonymous Ascoli65 said??
Is this Ascoli65,, dyslexic or just drunk? Is this Ascolian Argument? AA?
The Heat after death phenomenon documentation can be found by keywording it on https://lenr-canr.org/
three Examples....
1991'' Tadahiko Mizuno Sapporo
One event described here which is not described in the technical literature is an extraordinary 10-day long heat-after-death incident that occurred in 1991 "
2003.Dardik et al Israel
This experiment also generated a significant amount of "heat after death". Superwaves were found to significantly accelerate the loading of deuterium into the palladium cathode of electrolytic cells.
2004. S.Szpak P.A. Mosier-Boss M.H. Miles M. Fleischmann
A perturbation in cell current yields another characteristics of the Pd/D system, namely heat-after-death. At the beginning of the third day the charging current was increased to 0.2A for a brief period of time, followed by a stepwise decrease to 0.05A and finally to 0.02 A, which was maintained for the next ca. 72 h.
The most important single result of this time period, viz. heat-after-death, is found in the analysis of the excess enthalpy decay..,,
-
As for me, I have no problem to accept that M authoritative scientists (not only top electrochemists) have claimed in N peer reviewed journals that they have replicated the Fleischmann and Pons AHE... ...The problem is that I have no reason to believe that they were right.
...Other than a vague sense that there must be some kind of limit to the hubris of a single ego, of course.
-
Wow, impressive, you have been able to smash every single phrase of mine.
***Yup. Almost nothing you say stands up to rational scrutiny.
Well, let's play for once your asterisk game. I choose the right arrows.
***I'll use 4 ****asterisks as my response-to-response.
Weird logic. It's like saying that a member of a jury is honest only if he has already accepted that the accused is guilty.
***No, it's like saying that before I look at some paper written 3 years after the original finding was replicated 153 times, that you acknowledge it has been replicated 153 times.
>>>>>I see.
****No, you don't see. You're just using an expression, and here it happens to mean NOTHING.
It's just like saying that before judging a person charged of a solid accusation,
****Nope, it isn't like that at all. You're trying to use a criminal court of law as an analogy, whereas I am using the ACTUAL FACTS ON:THE GROUND. ACTUAL FACTS beat secondary analogies EVERY TIME. it's an inductive principle.
you should accept that he and his accomplices be guilty of the previous 153 suspicious episodes. Still more weird.
****Here's a historical example of where actual facts beat out an attempted analogy. Rocks were falling from the sky, and farmers reported it. Scientists used the simple analogy of dropping rocks from multiple heights to extend the principle to say that rocks don't fall from the sky. That is, until a very well respected scientist or two reported seeing, you guessed it, rocks fall from the sky. That's when the perceived FACTS on the ground matched the ACTUAL facts on the ground and the analogy was shown to have failed.
As for me, I have no problem to accept that M authoritative scientists
***M is about 100
>>>>>That's your opinion.
****And below you claim a different number for M, you even go so far to say you don't know M, surrounding M:with all kinds of horse manure so that you can comment about how M is unknown and all that blather. That's a lot of blather for you to assert EXACTLY the same thing, that is, IT's YOUR OPINION. But then you turn around and CHANGE your opinion.
(not only top electrochemists)
***Like Jed said, the Who's Who of electrochemistry
>>>>>Errata-corrige: it's JR's opinion. Fine. Let's take him as a reference. After all, he is the LENR librarian and, for what concerns documents and authors, JedRothwell is the maximum authority here.
****That makes for an inductive touchpoint. We're talking about how many times the PFAHE has been replicated in peer reviewed journals and it just so happens that the LENR:librarian has a document outlining the 153 papers. That is an inductive point in favor of M = 153, which supports MY opinion and does NOT support YOUR opinion, your ridiculous opinion.
have claimed in N peer reviewed journals
***N is about 153
>>>>>OK, if it is a JR's estimate.
****Now you are starting to figure out a tiny little bit of Inductive Reasoning. You just acknowledged an inductive touchpoint and it favors what I said , and basically trashes what YOU said.
that they have replicated the Fleischmann and Pons AHE.
***You say you have no problem, but then you turn around and show that you have a problem with it.
>>>>>The problem
****Then you acknowledge you have a problem with it.
arises from your segmentation of my wording.
****To be candid, it's the only way I can tolerate your incredible nonsense.
If you join the last pieces you get "I have no problem to accept that M(~100 in N(~153) have claimed that they have replicated the F&P's AHE" where my acceptance refers to the words in bold.
****The simple fact is, you are starting to acknowledge inductive touchpoints such as that Jed is the LENR Librarian and that his number N=153 agrees with my stance and throws out your ridiculous stance.
I don't know if M~100 (and if they are all top electrochemists) and if N=153.
***Then start reading.
How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?
>>>>>I've already read that thread and also posted in it. It is a major source of inspiration on the F&P case, especially the JR posts. But, I admit, I have paid little attention to your posts.
****Maybe you shouldn't have done that, because I was the one who opened that thread. Once we remove all the skeptopathic , hyperskeptic, and SkWiSSA comments, the thread is exactly as you said, a source of inspiration. All because I decided this forum NEEDED that. Unfortunately for you, your comments would be removed as SkWiSSA.
Let's give a better look to your kickoff post. You wrote:
According to Jed Rothwell
The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of electrochemistry.
https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg82379.html
Where are all those replication reports?
Let's open your link. Ops! It's not from JR, it's yours. JR was only quoted. Well, no problem, just a minor inaccuracy. The referenced JR's mail is easily retrievable.
****Then why are you bringing this up? You just wasted the time of everyone who read through this horse manure. That is a form of crappy argumentation known as tldr.
It reads:
From https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg82325.html [bold added]
… The first tier of people to replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people who should have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. Also Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so on.
The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of electrochemistry….
Double OOps! Actually, the "~100" estimate is not referred to the number of the top electrochemists of the day, but to the number of their replications. JR listed only 10 names, plus F&P it makes 12 names. I don't think that the "so on" amounts at about 88 further top scientists.
****OMG. After all this horse manure tldr argumentation you actually have a real good point to make. Isn't it unfortunate that you can't make that point on the original thread where it should have been made? But that thread was shut down. Because of seagulls like you. Well, you made your bed and now ya gotta sleep in it. Now all ya gotta do is get Jed to sign up for a correction to the phrase and then we can back correct it, assuming that when Jed calls out 12 names and uses the words "such as" that it is representative of the creme de la creme, and extending it out to 100 would be extending it out to the creme.
So, you have filled many threads here with your claim of "top ~100 electrochemists" who would have replicated F&P, but you didn't understand that "~100" were the alleged replications, not the replicators.
****Fascinating. Up until now I had actually assigned a negative value to the garbage you write. But see how useful it is to address, point by point , what someone who disagrees with you has to say?
I'm not a native English speaker, but let me suggest you to start reading something like this:
http://www.esl-lounge.com/stud…learn-english-reading.php
****No thanks. I don't trust links posted by adversaries. Make your point
Maybe M and N are even greater, but this is not the point. The problem is that I have no reason to believe that they were right.
***That's because you're going out of your way to avoid reading those papers and confront yourself with this information.
>>>>>I've just started with "la crème" (the 1992 paper) "de la crème" (F&P)
****NO! You started with the CRUMBS de la CRUMBS. You're working on a side note of LENR, something that took place in 1992 rather than 1989, wherein the original PFAHE experiment was replicated by the Who's Who of electrochemistry and many others, in this case M for Many = 88 or so. But you've made a good start.
"de la crème de la crème of electrochemistry".
****You're misusing a french phrase which has been imported into English. Maybe you should read your own link that you posted above.
It takes time to eat all this crème.
****That's the fun of using this approach to commenting. You can throw out all kihds of meaningless expressions in tldr fashion because the only one who will read it is the guy you posted it to, if his eyes don't glaze over. And no , MEGO (American expression , an acronym of My Eyes Glaze Over) does not arise from eating creme, it arises from being so incredibly bored from what someone says that one falls asleep.
For now, I've examined the n=1 paper (1), which was also published in a peer reviewed journal (2)
***Several years after the N=153 papers.
>>>>>Sorry, I can't travel backward through the time.
****This far down into the tldr game that disingenuous jerks play, you start to see their true intent. Here, your true intent is to divert attention from those 153 papers, onto your ridiculously stupid attention of this event from 3 years later. So you come up with this inane useless phrase of not travelling backwards in time but the simple fact is, your FOCUS is PERFECTLY capable of travelling back through time because it ALREADY HAS. Your focus went to 1992 rather than 1989. And from that 1989 time frame there are 153 peer reviewed papers from the top guys in electrochemistry whereas your horse pucky focus is on something else. This makes you a SkWiSSA.
Now I have other stuff to do and will need to return to a 4****asterisk treatment of the rest of your disingenuous nonsense later. This is one of the reasons why folks like you use that tldr approach. It's an effective way to end arguments on the interwebs.
-
No I am not confirming what Ascoli65 said.NOT AT ALL
This Ascoli65 entity is misreading and misconstruing whatever is said and then
I said this
"There are quite a few HAD events...in the decades following 1990"Where does it say I confirmed what anonymous Ascoli65 said??
I'll show you.
In your previous reply, you wrote:
From: F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement
The only HAD event documented in the HAD paper
There are quite a few HAD events...in the decades following 1990 e.g
…
You see? My quote reads "The only HAD event documented in the HAD paper" and in my quoted post (*) I also added the reference to the link (1), which is the Pons and Fleischmann paper entitled "Heat After Death". Therefore, I claimed that, in this HAD paper, the only documented HAD event was the one which F&P claimed to have happened during the 1992 boil-off experiment and that, IMO, was totally invented.
Your reply continued in this way:
From: F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement [bold added]
…
1. Tian, J., et al. "Excess heat" and "heat after death" in a gas loading hydrogen/palladium system. in The 9th
International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2002. Tsinghua Univ.,
Beijing, China: Tsinghua Univ. Press.
2. https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf
I think this may be nearly the perfect embodiment of the original
Pons-Fleischmann idea. It is very clear to me that this is like
the heat-after-death phenomenon that so many have reportedcoming from cold fusion cells: heat production with no input
power after the reaction is triggered). The effect has been seenby Fleischmann and Pons (reported in Physics Letters A, 1993),
and especially in the work of Arata and Zhang (IE, Issue #18)with palladium-black material. Motorola in its tests (see IE Issue
#7) observed a multi-day heat-after-death effect in the PattersonPower Cell.
You see? You didn't cite any other HAD event, apart from the alleged 1992 one, which is reported on the HAD paper (1).
Moreover, the second reference you mentioned cites precisely the F&P article which reports the 1992 boil-off experiment. Now, this second reference was written by Mallove, one of the most knowledgeable CFers and close friend of MF, who, after 6 years, had no better HAD example to mention than that one claimed by F&P to have been happened in their 1992 boil-off experiment.
And this is exactly what I said in my post (*), plus the authoritative confirmation from Mallove.
QuoteIs this Ascoli65,, dyslexic or just drunk? Is this Ascolian Argument? AA?
Very kind of you, as usual. Let me reciprocate by suggesting to you, as I have just done with kevmo, to follow a basic course on language comprehension.
QuoteThe Heat after death phenomenon documentation can be found by keywording it on https://lenr-canr.org/
three Examples....
This thread is dedicated to the F&P experiments. When we have agreed that their 1992 HAD event has not happened, we will examine how the other CFers have replicated a non-existent phenomenon.
