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

  • Ascoli "Rossi and Focardi were first mentioned in this thread by oystla.."


    Excuse me, when did I mention Rossi?


    You know, that could be called a blatant lie.


    Piantelli I believe was the original researcher that found excess heat in nickel-hydrogen. He cooperated with Focardi long before Rossi came into the picture.

  • Excuse me, when did I mention Rossi?


    You did mention him in the first link of my reply to Alan Smith (1). You said: "I am not really interested in boiling experiments, with the additional errors those may introduce, like the ones we have seen on Rossi nickel/hydrogen tests."


    So you compared the (F&P) boiling experiments to the Rossi nickel/hydrogen tests. There is nothing wrong in this comparison. I too compared the Ecat steam tests to the F&P boil-off experiment. What surprised me is that you liked the Alan Smith's invitation not to turn this thread into a Rossi related thread, despite you were the first to mention him.


    Anyway, I agree with Alan Smith. Let's focus on the F&P experiments without going from the CF prehistory to the nowadays consequences of their announcement, as the Ecat saga.


    Quote

    Piantelli I believe was the original researcher that found excess heat in nickel-hydrogen. He cooperated with Focardi long before Rossi came into the picture.


    I know. Let me explain my point one more time. Focardi shared with Piantelli all the claims about their presumed NiH effect, which were published before the arrival of Rossi in 2007. His subsequent involvement in the Ecat affair has clearly shown that his claims about the calorimetric performances of a CF device are not reliable. This unreliability affects in turn all his previous measurements, including those at the basis of the results he claimed together with Piantelli.


    In any case, in this thread there is no reason to mix up F&P (PdD) with P&F (NiH).

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

  • I can’t argue with that, I was just noting your apparent solidification of ‘opinions’ into ‘facts’.


    What's so strange? I illustrated my opinions on the wrong conclusions of F&P boil-off paper on the basis of "facts": images, graphs, numbers and so on, all derived from info provided by F&P themselves. I did it on the only place in the world where they could have been rebutted, but nobody did it on the basis of equally factual and solid arguments, so that those "opinions" have solidified into "facts".


    The process was then completed: from facts via opinions to facts.

  • Let's focus on the F&P experiments

    Okay, the F&P Anomalous Heat Effect was replicated by the top ~100 electrochemists around the world in about 153 peer reviewed journals, about 180 labs. Let's say your exercise removes 1 or 2 of them. That's still about 150 more replications to go. There is no way that some obscure video is going to knock out 150 replications. And there's plenty of evidence to suggest that your video would even disqualify that boiloff event from 1992.

  • I did it on the only place in the world where they could have been rebutted, but nobody did it on the basis of equally factual and solid arguments, so that those "opinions" have solidified into "facts".

    I and others rebutted you, pointing out for example:

    • Liquid water and foam cannot exist at 200 deg C.
    • All of the lithium was left in the cell.
    • Control tests with ordinary water and Pt did not produce this effect.
    • There was only boiling on the cathode. Why would there only be foam at the cathode?
    • There was excess heat before and after the events, shown with different methods of calorimetry.
    • The boiling continued after the water level fell below the anode and cathode and the power was cut, whereas it stopped immediately with control tests.

    You have ignored these and other facts. You have come up with a physically impossible fantasy. The only reason you propound this nonsense is to to feed your own ego and support your own notion that you know better than Fleischmann and the other experts in calorimetry. There is not a shred of evidence for your claims. You are not convincing anyone of anything. The only reason people have not rebutted you recently is because you never listen, you never respond to criticism, and we see no reason to respond again to tiresome nonsense.

  • I suggest the best way to argue with Ascoli's obsession is to keep silent. Talking to yourself is no fun.

    I agree. However, I think it is a good idea to respond occasionally in case someone new to the discussion has just tuned it. I would not want people to get the impression Ascoli makes valid points, or that he somehow wins by default.

  • in case someone new to the discussion has just tuned it.

    I was actually impressed by the amount of detail in Fleischman and Pons' calorimetric analysis long ago

    even though today the complex compensations for watery interactions are irrelevant today

    since the new gas phase reactors are at 200-1200C+... so that the calorimetry is a not complicated by water.

    I 'm not sure whether the many nishysandy's are interested but maybe new others are,

    Thanks to this thread I learned that Oystia too, has oily palms

    Baka mo ichi gei.. is a saying in Japanese

    Even a fool has one talent.

  • that was another setting, and not what this was referring to.


    I mentioned the early Piantelli - Focardi Ni-H research, and next you jump to 2011 and drags in Rossi, which had nothing to do with my point.


    And I have no idea what you mean by "Focardi shared with Piantelli all the claims about their presumed NiH effect, which were published before the arrival of Rossi in 2007."


    The research of Nickel Hydrogen system started from an experimental observation made by F.Piantelli at the end of 1989 concerning a strange thermal effect at low temperature is a sample of Nickel with hydrogen. Piantelli had a closer look at this after he learned about the F&P heat effect in pallladium. Piantelli spoke of this effect to his friends Focardi and R.Habel during the SIF congress in Trento in October 1990.


    In 1994 they published their first result in Peer reviewed journal, and in 98 another one paper "large excess heat production in Ni-H system".


    And my point was that F&P had allready listed Nickel as one of the suitable materials in their Patent from 1990.


  • and next you jump to 2011 and drags in Rossi

    And I have no idea what you mean by "Focardi shared with Piantelli all the claims about their presumed NiH effect


    Perhaps you are be dealing with a righteous thinker

    https://betterhumans.coach.me/…nline-trolls-4a606ae25c2c


    " They choose the targets,

    twist the facts, and fabricate the stories.

    They also provide, for those who require it, the justification (however questionable)

    that what they are doing is not only justified, but righteous."


    https://betterhumans.coach.me/…nline-trolls-4a606ae25c2c

  • Okay, the F&P Anomalous Heat Effect was replicated by the top ~100 electrochemists around the world in about 153 peer reviewed journals, about 180 labs. Let's say your exercise removes 1 or 2 of them. That's still about 150 more replications to go.


    Ok, now I better understand what you mean and I can answer.


    My exercise is no different than what Rothwell has asked LENR critics to do:

    From How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals? [bold added]


    Q: OK. How could LENR be disproved?

    That's obvious! You just show there is a mistake in an experiment, and out it goes. The way I did here, with my own work:

    […]

    I think you failed (the reader can judge) but anyway, that is how it is done. Finding errors and showing that the author's conclusions are mistaken is the one and only way to disprove an experimental discovery. You have to do that for every single major study. Even if 49 are wrong and 1 is right, the cold fusion effect is still real.


    I've just shown that the F&P paper on their 1992 boil-off experiment is wrong, because both of its conclusions are mistaken. This is an important starting point, especially in view of the upcoming celebration of the 30th anniversary of the 1989 press conference, because it could trigger a deeper reflection inside the LENR community about the scientific reliability of the two CF pioneers.


    Quote

    There is no way that some obscure video is going to knock out 150 replications.


    Well, the videos I'm talking about, and which show that the F&P conclusions in their 1992 paper are wrong, refer to the boil-off experiment only, of course. However, they are not at all obscure, because they have been presented many times by Rothwell as the best evidence of the reality of the F&P effect:

    1. From https://coldfusionnow.org/flei…roduction-to-cold-fusion/


    This original Fleischmann and Pons video shows the dramatic heat effect of the cold fusion reaction on the water fuel.

    2. From Validity of LENR Science...[split]


    In some cases, the proof of excess heat is palpable or visible. In the F&P video, you can see that the electrolyte has boiled off, so there can be no current and no heating.

    3. From How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?


    Regarding having all the information you need, anyone who understands calorimetry and experiments who looks at the graphs from McKubre or the videos from Fleischmann will see all of the proof you need to be sure that cold fusion is real, and that it cannot be a chemical effect. It is no less convincing than the photos of airplanes flying over Huffman Prairie in 1905.

    4. From FP's experiments discussion


    However, more to the point, you don't need papers. You don't need Fleischmann, Miles or anyone else. You can see for yourself. I mean that literally. Look a good copy of the boil off experiment video and you will see, …

    […]

    You can confirm much of this just by looking at the video, …

    5. From FP's experiments discussion


    You can see the proof yourself, right there in the video. You can also see that 30 W of electrolysis does not even boil the water. You can see a great deal, but you refuse to look. There are none so blind . . .

    6. From FP's experiments discussion


    For example, the video shows that the cell does not boil with this much input power. There are only electrolysis bubbles at 35 W, and the power falls after boiling begins.

    […]

    You doubt that was the case? LOOK AT THE VIDEO.

    […]

    You can see for yourself in the video. Fleischmann liked experiments that told their own story, visually, and irrefutably.

  • Last spring in Paris Biberian presented the analysis (he did 2018) of one of the famous Fleischmann cathodes. There was a lot of excess Ag107 a product off LENR adding D to Pd. It was not a surface analysis. It was layer per layer etching down to a depth were no more anomalies could be seen.


    This is one more compelling confirmation of the famous work F&P did over the years they stood in France (Toyota-Lab).


    But some flat-"earther" will certainly find an alternate facts explanation.

  • I and others rebutted you, pointing out for example:

    - Liquid water and foam cannot exist at 200 deg C.
    - All of the lithium was left in the cell.
    - Control tests with ordinary water and Pt did not produce this effect.
    - There was only boiling on the cathode. Why would there only be foam at the cathode?
    - There was excess heat before and after the events, shown with different methods of calorimetry.
    - The boiling continued after the water level fell below the anode and cathode and the power was cut, whereas it stopped immediately with control tests.

    You have ignored these and other facts. You have come up with a physically impossible fantasy. ...


    These points have nothing to do with my remarks about the two conclusions of the F&P paper on their 1992 boil-off experiment. In this context, they are only strawman arguments used to shift the attention away from the real mistakes contained in that document.


    I will report again the two conclusions of that paper:

    From Page 19 of http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf : [bold and color added]


    We note that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system; the specific excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors. We also draw attention to some further important features: provided satisfactory electrode materials are used, the reproducibility of the experiments is high; 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; furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300ºC.


    The first conclusion states that the cells produced an excess heat of 4 times the enthalpy in input. This ratio comes from the data calculated on Page 16, namely: [(171+11)-37.5]/37.5 = 144.5/37.5 = 3.85. All these data was derived from a time length of 600 s, assumed to be the time in which half of the water content of each cell has vaporized during the boil-off phase. Well, this datum of 600 s is wrong, completely wrong. Therefore, the first conclusion is wrong.


    The second conclusion states that one cell (namely Cell 2) has remained at high temperature for more than 3 hours (as indicated in Fig.8) after the complete dryness of the cell. Well, this is not true. Cell 2 dried out more than 2 hours after the time indicated on Fig.8. Therefore, the second conclusion is also wrong.


    Do you see? I'm talking about numbers, not fantasies. Two mistaken numbers, two wrong conclusions. Unless you are able to show that the two numbers (600 s and 3 hours) are correct. Are you able to do it?


    Quote

    There is not a shred of evidence for your claims.


    For the first wrong conclusion look here: FP's experiments discussion
    and here, for the second wrong conclusion: FP's experiments discussion


    Quote

    You are not convincing anyone of anything.


    How you can say this? Did you ask everyone here?
    Earlier this year I proposed a poll on the opinion of the L-F members about the "foam issue": FP's experiments discussion
    You could support this proposal, so you can get a better idea of the other's opinions.


    Quote

    … and we see no reason to respond again to tiresome nonsense.


    You have never responded to my remarks on the two F&P conclusions.
    Btw, are you speaking here on the behalf of other people?

  • the discovery of a nuclear phenomenon

    This is one more compelling confirmation of the famous work F&P


    Biberian's analysis of an 18 yr old sample from natural palladium in the electrolytic ceil of Fleischmann and Pons:

    shows significant transmutation at "hotspots" on the Pd electrode.


    The transmutation to Pd107 and/or Ag107 on the surface cannot be produced by electrolysis.

    Electrolysis is just a chemical reaction.

    This is indeed a nuclear phenomenon.

  • Please remember that the F&P original experiment and replications, was something else than boiling cells ;-)


    To me the real mystery is heat bursts that occurred suddenly (below boiling), lasted for days and suddenly disappeared again. And no, it was not instrument failures ;-)


    Anyhow, On the issue of celebrating 30 years anniversary of the F&P discovery:


    This is an excellent 2hr summary presentation made by Prof. Hagelstein in 2017, and he even has a humor ;-)


  • It is good to see you are narrowing down the focus of your effort.


    Every long journey begins with a first mile. In this case the starting point is one of the most significant paper of F&P and of the entire CF field, so the remaining road could be downhill.


    Quote

    But I doubt you have proven their conclusions wrong in the boiloff experiment.


    It depends if you have already looked at my remarks, which you can find above, in my last reply to Rothwell.

    If not, I'd suggest you to look at them first.

    If, on the contrary, you have already looked at them carefully, I would kindly ask you to explain the specific reasons for your doubts.