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

  • 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).


    I guess this is all a fantasy too.In your mind anyway.

  • Further to the cathode analysis, here's a snip from somewhere else...if you don't like foam, these might suit you better.


    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v…80.3762&rep=rep1&type=pdf


    5. Neutron Activation Analysis of Deuterated Pd Samples which had Produced Significant amounts of Excess Heat.
    Tom Passell of Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) had arranged for samples of Pd
    cathodes which were known to have “exhibited episodes of excess heat beyond all inputs” during
    electrolysis in LiOD, to be analyzed for possible changes in trace element nuclide composition
    using Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA). He was clearly motivated to do this following reports
    of isotopic anomalies observed by other workers using the NAA technique which is more
    appealing to nuclear physicists than mass spectrometry which is subject to molecular ion
    interference issues. Also NAA gives an integrated overall global result and is not sensitive to
    local variations within a sample. Mo et al from China too had reported [5.1] at ICCF 7 in 1998 a
    20 to 34% increase (Zn64/Zn68) activity ratio in samples of thin Pd wires exposed to gaseous
    hydrogen isotopes using NAA techniques.
    Passel obtained his first samples for analysis by NAA from Stan Pons; these were thin slices
    from the 2 mm dia Pd cathode rods used in the Icarus 9 experiments conducted at IMRA, Europe,
    One was taken from an active Pd cathode (22.1 mg in weight) which had generated significant
    amounts of excess power during electrolysis while the second (29.3 mg) was a control taken from
    a similar but virgin rod. The NAA measurements were carried out by Bush and Logowski of the
    department of Chemistry, University of Texas, Austin campus. These measurements indicated
    [5.2] that the Pd108 to Pd110 isotopic ratio of the active Pd sample was depleted by about 28%
    relative the virgin cathode sample. In addition the concentration of several trace elements were
    found to be higher relative to the control sample, the most noticeable being Fe (56 times) and Zn
    (12 times); The concentrations of Co, Cr, Cs and Eu too indicated an increase by a few times.

  • Every long journey begins with a first mile


    Another attempt to railroad the discussion...this time ..with a platitude

    The F&P experiments were not the first mile in coldfusion

    Coldfusion is not a linear one track from 1989,

    but a loose and fragmented network of many researchers and research work over many decades.

    Which is why Jean ends up finding the anomalous isotopes Ag107/Pd107 , in 2018..not Martin and Stan.


  • Nope. It is correct.


    What is correct? The 600 s for the vaporization of half of the initial water content of a cell? Absolutely not, it's not correct at all.

    This value is contradicted by the lab videos produced by F&P themselves.


    Half of the initial water content corresponds to 2.5 moles of water (50% of 5 moles), that is about 45 cm3 of liquid water, which - in a cell with a free cross section of 5 cm2 - corresponds to an height of 9 cm of water, an all water column, without foam or steam bubbles inside! In summary, the lab video should have shown a 9 cm drop in 10 minutes (600 s) of a fluid that should have been almost completely liquid (liquid fraction close to 100%).


    On the contrary, the images taken from the F&P videos show a totally different story (1). On the basis of the blue arrows on one of the videos, the apparent fluid level drops of about 7.5 cm in not less than 24 minutes (a lowering rate of about 3 cm in 10 minutes, ie a third of the value reported by F&P in their ICCF3 paper). Moreover, the video shows that the fluid inside the cells during the boil-off phases is anything but completely liquid. It is largely composed of foam and steam bubbles.


    So, the lab video shows that the 600 s period - considered as the time required to vaporize half of the initial water content of each cell and used by F&P on Page 16 of their ICCF3 paper to calculate the output heat rate during the boil-off phase - is not correct. It is completely wrong,


    … as anyone can see, looking at the documents available on the internet.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • In this case the starting point is one of the most significant paper of F&P

    ***No, not at all. Throw it out. Then let's discuss the other 152 peer reviewed replications of the AHE.




    and of the entire CF field,

    ***Complete delusional nonsense.


    so the remaining road could be downhill.

    ***Nope. Knocking out 1 replication out of 153 is not looking at a downhill path. And you haven't even knocked it out, you're just doing the Shanahan Shuffle and making people roll their eyes and move on. If your stuff was so significant then you should be publishing papers in peer reviewed journals. I encourage you to pursue this "downhill path".


    I would kindly ask you to explain the specific reasons for your doubts.

    ***I stated the reasons for my doubts upthread and you said you were going to ignore me.

  • What is correct? The 600 s for the vaporization of half of the initial water content of a cell? Absolutely not, it's not correct at all.

    The duration of the reaction was confirmed with the records of the temperature and power consumption. The power cuts off the moment the water level falls below the cathode.

  • The duration of the reaction was confirmed with the records of the temperature and power consumption.


    Which reaction are you talking about? The mysterious nuclear reaction? The records of temperature (actually cell temperature) and power consumption (actually cell voltage) can only provide the input data for a rough estimation of the heat balance of the cell. On the basis of these records, there is no need to imagine any mysterious nuclear reaction to explain what happened inside each of the 4 cells under testing.


    As already shown (1), the coarseness of the available information provide plenty of margins to explain the total vaporization of water as only due to the electrical energy fed into the cell. Unless the LENR community provides the complete data set of the original data recorded during the 1992 boil-off tests.


    Considering the importance attributed by the LENR community to this crucial experiment, these record should be somewhere. It's impossible that they went lost. I've urged many time the community to make these data publicly available. I ask you to join me in this call to the people who are going to meet next March 23 at MIT, Boston to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the CF announcement, to bring with them and show these data.


    Quote

    The power cuts off the moment the water level falls below the cathode.


    The water level can't actually falls BELOW the cathode, because the cathode rests on the Kel-F support, so at most the water level can fall AT THE BASIS of the cathode (2). Anyway, it's clear that at that point the electric power cuts off. But at that time the electric energy provided during the previous many hours of boiling was sufficient to explain the complete dry out of the cell, without the need to postulate the presence of a phantom nuclear reaction.


    In any case, you have again ignored the issue of the discrepancies between the 600 s (10 min) used on Page 16 of the ICCF3 paper and the time periods ranging from 24 to 40 minutes shown on the 4-cells short video (3).


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

  • Considering the importance attributed by the LENR community to this crucial experiment


    Considering the importance attributed by the LENR community    the anonymous Ascoli65 to this crucial experiment

    I ask you to join me in this call


    I    the anonymous Ascoli65 ask you to join me   the anonymous Ascoli65 in this call

    to bring with them and show these data.

    So will the anonymous Ascoli65 be at MIT, Boston in March 23 ?

    to be shown the data? or in Neverland?

  • robert bryant


    You need to forget a lot of things to swallow Ascoli's purple pill. Lets make a list.


    The lack of boiling in the control reactors

    The transmutation of palladium seen on the test cathodes by Passel, Arata, Mizuno, Biberian and more

    The lack of transmutations on the control cathodes

    The lack of transmutations on the anodes

    The many hundreds of further positive experiments done by F&P

    The 150+ confirming experimental replications of the effect.

    The fact that MIT doctored their early positive results to make them negative, a sin exposed when the USN demanded the original data.


    If you can think of more to add, please do so.

  • A Purple pill I read gives one the ability to navigate societal norms while being fully aware of the truth,

    Neither fully aware of the truth or social norms apply to the anonymous Ascoli65.


    Perhaps the anonymous Ascoli65 can front up with a proper written refutation of the 1989 Fleischmann and Pons results such as this

    by T Green and T Quickenden,1995


    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%.

    Article in Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 389(1-2):91-103 · June 1995 with 2 Reads

    This is the best one of a whole bunch of refutations attempts. However this refutation

    failed because it did not achieve the peak current densities of Fleischmann and Pons.


    If Ascoli65 wishes to graduate into scientific normalcy ..

    it needs to write a peer reviewed paper in the same manner as TGreen, TQuickenden, MFleischmann SPons


  • Which reaction are you talking about? The mysterious nuclear reaction? The records of temperature (actually cell temperature) and power consumption (actually cell voltage) can only provide the input data for a rough estimation of the heat balance of the cell.


    Total power (I*V) was also measured, with meters and oscilloscopes. The exact heat balance of the cell was determined before, during and after the boil-off event. The heat from electrolysis and the nuclear reaction were both measured.


    The water level can't actually falls BELOW the cathode, because the cathode rests on the Kel-F support, so at most the water level can fall AT THE BASIS of the cathode.


    That is incorrect. When there was anomalous heat, all of the water in the cell boiled off, leaving only the lithium salts. The Kel-F support melted, which means the temperature at the Kel-F was at least 200 deg C, which is hot enough to boil away all of the water. The hot plastic alone would have done this, as would the heat radiating from the cathode. During control runs with ordinary electrolysis, the water did not all boil away. As soon as the water level fell below the cathode, electrolysis stopped, and the metal and water began to cool. The Kel-F did not melt, and some water remained in the bottom of the cell. The cell immediately began cooling, monotonically, according to Newton's law of cooling. Whereas with anomalous heat, the cell remained hot and sometimes became hotter. That is proof the anomalous heat continued with no input power.



    Anyway, it's clear that at that point the electric power cuts off. But at that time the electric energy provided during the previous many hours of boiling was sufficient to explain the complete dry out of the cell, without the need to postulate the presence of a phantom nuclear reaction.


    That is incorrect:


    The cell boils for 10 minutes, not "several hours." What on earth makes you think it was several hours??


    During control runs with the same input electric power, no boiling occurs. The cell never gets hot enough to boil. So the electric energy is not sufficient. During control runs with 3 times more electricity than normal, the cell does boil, but it stops the moment the power is cut off, and water remains in the cell.


    You are inventing totally false assertions about this experiment such as "several hours" instead of 10 minutes.

  • In any case, you have again ignored the issue of the discrepancies between the 600 s (10 min) used on Page 16 of the ICCF3 paper and the time periods ranging from 24 to 40 minutes shown on the 4-cells short video (3).


    That is incorrect. You have not read the paper carefully, and you have not understood at the video or the still images of the video. The paper says the boil off event took 11 minutes (~600 s) from the halfway point of intense boiling to dryness:


    "For the second value of the pressure, 0.97 bars, the cell would have become half empty 11 minutes before dryness, as observed from the video recordings (see the next section) and this in turn requires a period of intense boiling during the last 11 minutes. . . ." p. 13


    Enthalpy estimates are made for the latter 600 s. The still image in the paper, Fig. 10 B, was taken at 22:03 when intense boiling in Cell 1 had begun, but the cell was still mostly full. It reached the halfway point at 22:10. It was dry at ~22:20. The image of the cell does not change after this. The bottom of the cell is smeared with white salts, but there was no more boiling.


    Paper: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf


    Video:


    The time is hours:minutes:seconds. Seconds are not significant because this is a time-lapse video. Read the time in the video by stopping it from playing and moving the cursor. There are gaps in the recording.

  • The water level can't actually falls BELOW the cathode, because the cathode rests on the Kel-F support, so at most the water level can fall AT THE BASIS of the cathode. Anyway, it's clear that at that point the electric power cuts off. But at that time the electric energy provided during the previous many hours of boiling was sufficient to explain the complete dry out of the cell, without the need to postulate the presence of a phantom nuclear reaction.


    May be you should think about medical consulting. If it is clear to you that power is cut off and you cannot imaging that there was heat for 4 more hours.

  • Total power (I*V) was also measured, with meters and oscilloscopes. The exact heat balance of the cell was determined before, during and after the boil-off event.


    The ICCF3 paper (1) doesn't mention any oscilloscope. It only shows, on Figures 6A-D, the 4 curves of cell voltage. The text and the Figs 6 also report that the current was 200 mA at the beginning and 500 mA at the end of the test period. Of course, the V*I product gives the instant power and its integral over time is the total electric energy fed into each cell. But the document does not provide any experimental evidence of these electric parameters, with a timing sufficient to exactly evaluate the heat balance during the boil-off event.


    Quote

    The heat from electrolysis and the nuclear reaction were both measured.


    The ICCF3 paper doesn't provide any specific information on how the value of the heat from electrolysis was obtained. The value of the "Enthalpy Input – By electrolysis" has only been declared to have been about 22,500 J in the first line of the Calculation on Page 16 of the paper. Btw, this line, which contains one of the most important value for the heat balance, is the most sloppy I have ever seen in a scientific paper aimed to revolutionize the consolidate physics. It is even dimensionally wrong, because it misses the time, and this incredible lack is repeated exactly in the peer reviewed (sic!) article (2) issued after 8 months! Just to say.


    As for the heat from the alleged nuclear reaction, it has not been measured at all. Also because there was no need to postulate the existence of such reaction. The two authors of the ICCF3 paper erroneously attributed to a mysterious nuclear source the enormous imbalance of their energy calculation on Page 16, caused instead by misinterpretation of the experiment and misrepresentation of data.


    Quote

    That is incorrect. […] As soon as the water level fell below the cathode, electrolysis stopped, and the metal and water began to cool. […]


    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). If I understand correctly the meaning of the English preposition "below" (4), what you said is geometrically impossible.


    Quote

    The cell boils for 10 minutes, not "several hours." What on earth makes you think it was several hours??


    Many evidences. For instance each one of the cell temperature curves shown at Figs 6A-D of the ICCF3 paper (1), as explained in (5).


    Quote

    You are inventing totally false assertions about this experiment such as "several hours" instead of 10 minutes.


    I'm trying to provide my best interpretation of the 1992 boil-off experiment. I'm not saying I'm fully right. I started this analysis last September, proposing a wrong interpretation, totally based on liquid entrainment. I have had the opportunity to correct and improve my interpretation, thanks to the suggestions of the members of this forum, including your criticisms. It's possible that margins still exist to further improve this interpretation. The main purpose of this thread is precisely to urge the LENR community, especially the old guard, to provide as much information as possible about this important experiment, in order to overcome any doubt about the conclusions contained in the ICCF3 paper.


    But I'm quite sure of one thing: the most intense boiling period lasted much longer than 10 minutes and the evaporative cooling, due to localized boiling, lasted for several hours.


    Let's see at the end of this discussion who would have invented totally false assertions.


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

    (2) http://coldfusioncommunity.net…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    (4) http://www.nativeenglish.eu/prepositions-of-place/

    (5) FP's experiments discussion

  • The ICCF3 paper (1) doesn't mention any oscilloscope.


    Other papers do mention it, and Fleischmann showed the oscilloscope traces in his lectures. Much to the chagrin of Morrison who was there during one of the lectures.


    But what is your point? Are you saying the ICCF3 paper must include all evidence, from every source? You will not accept evidence from two or more sources: you demand everything be in one document? This makes no sense.


    The ICCF3 paper doesn't provide any specific information on how the value of the heat from electrolysis was obtained.


    Oh yes, it does. Other papers do as well. Again, you seem to be demanding that all information be in one place, as if you were incapable of reading two papers and combining the information from both in your mind.



    I'm trying to provide my best interpretation of the 1992 boil-off experiment. I'm not saying I'm fully right. I


    You are fully wrong. You did not even understand the duration, which was measured from the halfway point to the end, and which is indisputably correct even with that lousy copy of the video Martin gave me.


    I suggest you boil some water in a thin, tall test tube and see if you can replicate your ideas. You do not even need to do electrolysis. Just demonstrate an artifact that produces three times input.

  • 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). If I understand correctly the meaning of the English preposition "below" (4), what you said is geometrically impossible.


    You completely misunderstand. Look at the figure. The Kel-F plug does not take up all of the space at the bottom of the test tube. There is room for some water down there. With a control experiment, the water level falls until it goes below the cathode. Then electrolysis stops abruptly, and boiling stops a moment later. The Kel-F plug is still submerged in water.


    Also, the Kel-F plug supports the anode and the glass support rods, not the cathode. The anode extends above and below the cathode. In a control test, after the power goes off, some water would be left above the plug but below the cathode. A plug is a round ring, with space left in the middle, where some other unboiled water will remain. No water remained in the excess heat tests because the plug itself was so hot, it melted, at ~200 deg C. Obviously, that also boiled away the remaining water, even though the water was not in contact with the cathode.


    See Fig. 1 here: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

  • Also, the Kel-F plug supports the anode and the glass support rods, not the cathode. The anode extends above and below the cathode.


    The anode always envelops the cathode in a cold fusion experiment. It is always larger, extending above and below. Otherwise, the cathode will load with deuterium in the middle but bubbles will leak out of the ends, and it will not reach high loading.


    If Ascoli would read the literature, he would know this. He would have known that his statement "there is no space between the bottom of the cathode and the top of the Kel-F support" is incorrect. Or, if he had looked at Fig. 1 he would have seen this.

  • You have not read the paper carefully, and you have not understood at the video or the still images of the video.


    Well, let's see who read the paper more carefully and understood the video better.


    Quote

    Fig. 10 B, was taken at 22:03 when intense boiling in Cell 1 had begun, but the cell was still mostly full.


    The intense boiling "had began" since long and was nearly at the end. In fact, the caption of Fig.10 B (1) actually says: "(B) The first cell during the final period of boiling dry with the other cells at lower temperatures."


    As shown here (2), the still image of Fig.10 B (at t=22:03:xx) is comprised between the images F and G, in a series of 8 stills (frames) taken from the "IMRA time lapse" video (3).


    At 22:03:xx the cell was not at all "mostly full". As shown in (4), the apparent level in the second image of Cell 1 (taken at t=22:04:xx) was about 9 cm above the Kel-F support, that is it was already at half height of the initial water level, which can be estimated at around 18 cm. But, more importantly, at that time the apparent level was not representative of the liquid water, but of a mix composed mainly of vapor bubbles in FOAM!


    Quote

    It reached the halfway point at 22:10. It was dry at ~22:20.


    No, the cell dried out from liquid much earlier, around the time (22:03:xx) of the video still shown in Fig.10 (B).


    As explained in (2), the sudden drop of the apparent level between images E and F is due to the settling down of the foam due to the sudden stop of the vaporization of liquid, caused by the fall of its level at the base of the cathode. The intense steam production was already in place at the beginning of the sequence (image A at t=21:17:xx) and inflated the foam causing the rising of the apparent level inside the cell. Therefore, at the time of the still image in Fig.10 (B), Cell 1 was already under intense boiling for at least 45 minutes.


    Quote

    The image of the cell does not change after this. The bottom of the cell is smeared with white salts, but there was no more boiling.


    No. As shown in (2), from F to G the settled foam further reduces its volume due to the breaking of the larger bubbles, leaving only the smaller and more persistent bubbles, which have kept the apparent apparent level at about 4 cm for a much longer time. Only after a few days, see image I, this layer of thicker foam could have disappeared leaving a salt trace of the same height.


    Quote

    The time is hours:minutes:seconds. Seconds are not significant because this is a time-lapse video. Read the time in the video by stopping it from playing and moving the cursor. There are gaps in the recording.


    I know, thanks. I have thoroughly analyzed that video (5). The gaps are due to deliberate cuttings of the original recorded video, which was much longer and which I hope the LENR community will make public as soon as possible.


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

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) https://youtu.be/Tn9K1Hvw434

    (4) FP's experiments discussion

    (5) FP's experiments discussion

  • The intense boiling "had began" since long and was nearly at the end.


    That is not intense boiling. It is intense electrolysis. The bubbles are O2 and D2, not D2O vapor. They are finer than bubbles from boiling. Unfortunately, it is hard for you to see this because the quality of the video is low. The boiling began about 10 minutes before the mid-point, and it lasts about 10 minutes longer.


    I have seen better videos and close up videos that clearly show the difference between electrolysis bubbles and boiling. Alas, I do not have copies! It is a darn shame. These videos circulated before the internet era. Anyway, the difference is:

    1. Electrolysis bubbles are finer, as I said. They look like the bubbles from carbonated water, not at all like boiling.
    2. Electrolysis bubbles come from both electrodes. Boiling from cold fusion comes only from the cathode. Boiling with a high power electrolysis control test comes from both electrodes. There is no excess heat in such tests.

    It is very easy to tell them apart with a better video. You instantly see the difference when you see them in person, in a test tube. You can confirm that easily. Run ordinary electrolysis with salt water, and then boost the power until the electrodes are hot enough to boil.



    No. As shown in (2), from F to G the settled foam further reduces its volume due to the breaking of the larger bubbles, leaving only the smaller and more persistent bubbles, which have kept the apparent apparent level at about 4 cm for a much longer time.


    If you look at actual electrochemical cells, with ordinary salt, you will see that you are incorrect. What you describe does not happen. Foam would not last for days in any case, and it definitely would not survive temperatures hot enough to melt Kel-F plastic.


    I think you are speculating too much, and you lack practical knowledge of electrochemistry. I recommend you do some tests with ordinary salt water and iron electrodes. Lithium is very dangerous and palladium costs a fortune, so of course you should not use them in a real cold fusion experiment. Just do some high school level testing and you will learn a great deal. You will stop making so many mistakes, and incorrect assumptions. Let me note that I have spent many weeks watching electrochemical cold fusion cells, so I do know bubbles when I see them.


    You can even add some detergent (surfactant) to a cell to see how foam acts. You might find that it causes unboiled water to leave the cell. I wouldn't know about that. However, I am sure there were no surfactants in Fleischmann and Pons' tests because:

    1. Electrochemists hate surfactants and other contaminants. They spend hours or days eliminating them. I do mean days! I have hung around labs watching them remove contamination from glassware.
    2. When there are surfactants or other contaminants, the cold fusion effect never happens.
    3. Foam would carry off some of the salt, in unboiled water. An inventory of the salt in these experiments showed that no significant amount left the cell. Foam did not remove any unboiled water, and neither did anything else.
    4. If unboiled water did leave the cell, the heat balance in control tests would not be zero. Which it was.
  • Other papers do mention it, and Fleischmann showed the oscilloscope traces in his lectures. Much to the chagrin of Morrison who was there during one of the lectures.


    But what is your point? Are you saying the ICCF3 paper must include all evidence, from every source? You will not accept evidence from two or more sources: you demand everything be in one document? This makes no sense.


    I just would like to focus as much as possible on the information contained in the ICCF3 paper. The oscilloscope is an unnecessary distraction. I haven't (for now) disputed the value of the current. The problem is that the data logging of the cell voltage, which was used to draw the curves in Fig.6 A-D, are not available and those curves are too coarse to appreciate a period of 10 minutes.


    Quote

    Oh yes, it does. Other papers do as well. Again, you seem to be demanding that all information be in one place, as if you were incapable of reading two papers and combining the information from both in your mind.


    A scientific paper can use information provided or demonstrated in other previous documents, but it should make reference to these documents. Which other paper shows the actual data used to estimate the 22,500 J declared on Page 16 of the ICCF3 paper? I see no reference for that crucial value.


    Quote

    I suggest you boil some water in a thin, tall test tube and see if you can replicate your ideas. You do not even need to do electrolysis. Just demonstrate an artifact that produces three times input.


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

    Watch the MF video, the apparent volume inside the cells is mainly due to foam, not liquid.

    It's not just my opinion: FP's experiments discussion