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

  • I just would like to focus as much as possible on the information contained in the ICCF3 paper.


    Why? So you can pretend the rest of the information does not exist?


    The oscilloscope is an unnecessary distraction.


    No, it proves they measured all of the power (I*V) at high resolution, which proves you are wrong. It also proved that Morrison was wrong, which got his goat. He claimed they only measured every 10 minutes, as I recall.


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


    If it were foam, unboiled water would leave the cell, and much of the lithium salt would be missing. So you are wrong. Either you do not understand this simple fact, or you will not admit it. I recommend you do some actual electrochemistry with ordinary salt -- and detergent if you like. You need to stop waving your hands and inventing impossible physics. Do some real world observations and you will see that you have not discovered something that other people overlooked since 1867.

  • I recommend you do some actual electrochemistry with ordinary salt -- and detergent if you like


    Real experimentation with real stuff is what produces real physics.

    Unfortunately the entity Ascoli65 appears incapable of such but just maybe......

    March 23 at MIT is too early,, however

    September 8-13, 2019 in Assisi, Italy may be possible for discussion of this paper.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t…Vaw1O5BcvnBwkCOLLDOrvSisC

    "

    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%.

    Excessive foam was observed at high current loadings despite there being over 100 previous published reports where this phenomenon was not observed.

    This excessive foam may be the cause of prior erroneous calculations of excess heat.

    Article in Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 3 June 2019 with 2 Reads Author Ascoli65 Anonymo . Contact? ???

  • Ascoli:


    You have yourself wound up tightly here. I sincerely suggest you stop and think.


    Fleischmann repeatedly wrote that the cell did not boil dry during control runs. I told you that many times. Apparently, you rejected that because you felt sure it is impossible -- because there is no space below the cathode and above the Kel-F plug. You were CERTAIN of that! You thought we were making a stupid mistake about a simple shape. Did it not occur to you that you might be wrong? That you might not understand the shape of the cell? Did you not think: "maybe I should look at the schematic to see what Fleischmann was talking about"?


    Fleischmann, Pons and their many assistants did this test 16 cells at a time, many times. They did many blanks. Why would they say "water remained in the cell after the connection between the anode and cathode was broken" if that were physically impossible? How stupid do you think they were? You are assuming that people make incredibly stupid mistakes for years on end, and they kept saying there is water left where no water can be.


    I did not see you were confused about this. It never occurred to me that you did not understand, until out of the blue you wrote:


    "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)."


    That is awfully arrogant! It is such an off-the-wall misunderstanding, I had to read it a few times to figure out what you meant. It never occurred to me that anyone would fail to understand why the water level drops below the cathode.


    Now that you have looked at Fig. 1, do you see your mistake? You have made many, many similar mistakes. Your entire analysis is based on misunderstandings and errors. You apparently fail to understand why the salt remaining in the cell proves your entire hypothesis is wrong.


    You need to stop and think. Question yourself and your assumptions. Be skeptical about your own ideas. When you conclude that Fleischmann, or I, or someone else is making a terrible mistake that even a 5-year-old child would not make -- saying there is water where no water can fit -- you should ask yourself: "Did they make that mistake, or do I misunderstand?"

  • The reason why Ascoli is continuing barking up this tree is that he thinks errors in this paper would question all of their previous work.


    But Ascoli is barking up the wrong tree.


    As I have explained many times, the F&P boiling water experiment (1) is not important, since it is not the CF/LENR discovery, but a test of possible increased heat at higher temperatures.


    At boiling the cells are at little more violent conditions and do introduce a few more difficulties in measuring some aspects, like water level.


    So, it may or may not contain errors, but in my earlier analysis I have showed that their main hypothesis in the paper (increased energy and power densities at higher temperatures) may in fact be correct.


    This thread would be way more interesting if discussing the findings as described in the 2 hr presentation of Hagelstein.


    And we may note that Hagelstein do not mention boiling cells, but the most important early discovery and the early important confirmation by McKubre of the original discovery.

    I would recommend for everyone to watch the presentation, it is really interesting (1).


    These are two of the important figures to consider:








    1. F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement
  • And important factors in the graph below on F&P excess heat confirmation by Mckubre is


    1. Using D2O vs H2O shows different behavior. Why?


    2. Increased input current increase the excess heat in D2O, but NOT in H2O, Why?


    3. The accuracy bars is shown for each datapoint. This indicates that H2O has no excess heat (within the accuracy range), while D2O have definite excess heat. From where originates the excess heat when using D2O?


    And a wonderful difference in McKubre vs F&P calorimetry was that McKubre used flow calorimetry with closed calorimeter, where much of the criticism on possible errors in the F&P isoperibolic calorimetry where removed (like "recombination", "electrolyte replacement / refill", etc..


    Flow calorimeter using water as medium for heat exchange make things very easy, since heat capacity of water is accurately known, and water flow and temperature can be measured to high accuracies.


    I therefore consider the Mckubre confirmation a very strong confirmation of the F&P excess heat discovery.


  • When you conclude that Fleischmann, or I, or someone else is making a terrible mistake that even a 5-year-old child would not make -- saying there is water where no water can fit -- you should ask yourself: "Did they make that mistake, or do I misunderstand?"


    Let me add that I have often make equally stupid mistakes while translating or copy editing papers. I have often misread things. I start off with misleading assumptions. Everyone does this. When I am copy editing, I make a list of page numbers and questions. I often look back the next day and wonder how I could have gotten it so wrong. When you think the author made a bone-headed, inexplicably stupid mistake, you have to stop and ask yourself: "is that really what the author meant?"


    When I think I have found a mistake, I ask the author what he or she meant. I would not send an author this kind of arrogant message:


    ". . . the water level can't fall BELOW the cathode, for the simple reason that the cathode rests on the Kel-F support"


    That's presumptuous. I would write something like:


    "I do not see how the water level can fall below the cathode. Isn't the cathode sitting on the Kel-F support? That leaves no space at the bottom of the cell, so the water cannot fall any farther than the bottom of the cathode."


    Hopefully, before zapping that off to the author and making a fool of myself, I would let it sit for a day, read it back, and ask myself: "wait a second . . . is the cathode is sitting on the Kel-F support? Is that what the schematic shows?"



    Along similar lines, Ascoli got the notion that the cell boiled for hours, I assume because he mistook electrolysis bubbles for boiling. That mistake is understandable. But he should have asked himself: it is possible the thing boiled for hours? The answer is no, that's not possible. There isn't much water in a cell. If it were boiling hard enough for a person to see the bubbles, all of the water would soon be vaporized. It would not take hours.

  • The real cell had no free space below the cathode


    In the last days, there have been several posts addressing the issue of the position of the cathode inside the cells used in the 1992 boil-off experiment and the possibility that the water level could have fallen BELOW the cathode. I have already answered these arguments, inviting to look at an old post (*), which includes a jpeg whose images show that the cathode actually rested on the Kel-F support, so that there was no free space underneath it and therefore the water (liquid) level could not have dropped below the cathode.


    Yesterday, looking again at that jpeg, I saw that a reference was missing. Being that thread closed, I can't correct the post anymore, so I post here below the revised version of the jpeg with the correct references:

    zDqqph7.jpg


    However, since these images have not been sufficient to resolve this controversy, I propose a new jpeg here below, containing a more detailed analysis of the electrode configuration inside the tested cells:

    hRI6F3X.jpg


    On the left, it is explained why the cell drawing shown in Figure 1 of ICCF3 paper (1) is wrong, that is it doesn't represent to actual configuration of the cells used in the 1992 boil-off experiment.


    The first error, concerning the aspect ratio (H/D) of the cathode, is evident. The reported dimensions of the actual cathode are 12.5 mm for the height and 2 mm for the diameter, which give an aspect ratio of 6.25. On the contrary, the cathode shown in the drawing has an aspect ratio much closer to 2.


    For the second error, the raised position of the cathode above the Kel-F support, it's necessary to refer to the images on the right and to an elementary consideration of a structural nature.


    The images in the middle are taken at t=0:45 of the "1992 Four-Cell Boil-off" video published by Krivit in 2009 (2). That video shows precisely the experiment reported in the ICCF3 paper, so we are sure that the images of the cell at the beginning of the video show the assembling of a cell of the same type as those used in the 1992 experiment. The red circle in the central image highlights a darker trace ending in the middle of the upper face of the whitish support. It corresponds to the lower part of the cathode. The red rectangle in lower image shows the dimension of a cathode, whose dimensions (12.5 x 2 mm) are in scale with the diameter of the support, which is 25 mm (1 inch).


    A final confirmation is provided by the bluish image on the right. It has been taken at t=0:32 of a YouTube video (3). I don't know where and when this image has been shot. Surely it refers to a cell different than those used in the 1992 experiment, but of the same identical type. In fact it features an aspect ratio compatible with the correct value of 6.25. Thus, this image shows very clearly the real electrode configuration during the 4 cells boil-off experiment.


    A final structural consideration provides an explanation of the reason why the cathode should rest on the support. In boil-off experiments, the internals of the cells are subjected to many hours of shaking forces due to the intense bubbling caused by boiling during the final boil-off phase. The cathode is placed at the end of a thin glass tube, whose outer diameter can be estimated in about 3 mm, which extends almost 20 cm below the upper plug. This thin and very fragile glass tube requires to have a fixed point at its lower end, otherwise it would easily break. Therefore it is mandatory, and anyway highly reasonable, that the lower tip of the cathode is inserted in the lower Kel-F support.


    (*) FP's experiments discussion

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

    (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

    (3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN26SszEBZQ

  • Fleischmann repeatedly wrote that the cell did not boil dry during control runs. I told you that many times. Apparently, you rejected that because you felt sure it is impossible -- because there is no space below the cathode and above the Kel-F plug. You were CERTAIN of that!


    The question of control runs is interesting. I have already dealt with it many many times, see for example (1). We can discuss it again in the future, but not now, because the ICCF3 paper (2) doesn't cite any control run.


    As for the cathode and its position with respect to the Kel-F support (lower plug), I've just posted a new jpeg (3), which I hope will resolve once and for all this controversy:

    IMO, there was NO FREE SPACE BELOW THE CATHODE.


    Quote

    You thought we were making a stupid mistake about a simple shape. Did it not occur to you that you might be wrong? That you might not understand the shape of the cell? Did you not think: "maybe I should look at the schematic to see what Fleischmann was talking about"?


    These are good questions, that I ask you.


    Quote

    Fleischmann, Pons and their many assistants did this test 16 cells at a time, many times. They did many blanks. Why would they say "water remained in the cell after the connection between the anode and cathode was broken" if that were physically impossible?


    I didn't find your quote in the ICCF3 paper (1). Could you cite its reference?


    Quote

    How stupid do you think they were? You are assuming that people make incredibly stupid mistakes for years on end, and they kept saying there is water left where no water can be.


    This is a very important observation. I hope you realize that you are linking the reliability of F&P and their many assistants to the presence of a free space between the cathode and the lower plug in the cells used in the 1992 boil-off experiment.


    Quote

    I did not see you were confused about this. It never occurred to me that you did not understand, until out of the blue you wrote:


    "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)."


    Exactly, I confirm you that I'm not confused at all about this. The images in the above jpegs speak for themselves and represent only a small part of the confirming evidences that can be found in the documentation available on the internet.


    Quote

    That is awfully arrogant! It is such an off-the-wall misunderstanding, I had to read it a few times to figure out what you meant. It never occurred to me that anyone would fail to understand why the water level drops below the cathode.


    So, you are confirming that none of the many LENR experts you have known, practically all the experts in the field, has ever raised any doubt wheter Figure 1 in the "MF's major paper" could have been wrong. Aren't you?


    Quote

    Now that you have looked at Fig. 1, do you see your mistake? You have made many, many similar mistakes. Your entire analysis is based on misunderstandings and errors. You apparently fail to understand why the salt remaining in the cell proves your entire hypothesis is wrong.


    Well, let me ask you the same questions, but related to the above jpegs.


    Quote

    You need to stop and think. Question yourself and your assumptions. Be skeptical about your own ideas. When you conclude that Fleischmann, or I, or someone else is making a terrible mistake that even a 5-year-old child would not make -- saying there is water where no water can fit -- you should ask yourself: "Did they make that mistake, or do I misunderstand?"


    Please, show my jpegs to, let's say, a highschool student and ask him/her if the water level can fall below the cathode.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

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

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


  • Instead of name calling me, directly or by allusions, stupid, arrogant, presumptuous and fool, why don't you ask your friends in the LENR field if the schematic in Figure 1 of the ICCF3 paper really represents the cells used in the 1992 boil-off experiment?


    Perhaps some of them might find it interesting as a suggestion for a speech on that important F&P experiment to be discussed next March 23 at the LENR Colloquium at MIT. A good opportunity to make public some other experimental data or videos related to that historic milestone of CF.


    Quote

    Along similar lines, Ascoli got the notion that the cell boiled for hours, I assume because he mistook electrolysis bubbles for boiling. That mistake is understandable. But he should have asked himself: it is possible the thing boiled for hours? The answer is no, that's not possible. There isn't much water in a cell. If it were boiling hard enough for a person to see the bubbles, all of the water would soon be vaporized. It would not take hours.


    Along similar lines, I will show you that the 4 cells boiled for hours.

    Let's first solve the question of the cathode.

  • The question of control runs is interesting. I have already dealt with it many many times, see for example (1)


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


    You present this paper as support of the idea that Hansen's review showed that F&P's work was erroneous. He actually says in the introduction 'I came into this assignment neither for nor against. Halfway through I was still neutral. I must admit to having become somewhat pro recently, but am trying to remain objective.'


    Further he shows that the behaviour of a control (he calls it a blank cell) is entirely predictable and showed no XS heat. He then goes on to show that some test cells did produce XS heat. Which is why he ended up 'somewhat pro'

  • I've just posted a new jpeg (3), which I hope will resolve once and for all this controversy:

    IMO, there was NO FREE SPACE BELOW THE CATHODE.


    I have seen the cells. There was space below the cathode. There is always space below the cathode in a cold fusion cell, because the anode has to extend below it, or it will not load. Also, the Kel-F plug is a ring, leaving space inside it.

  • Also, the Kel-F plug is a ring, leaving space inside it.


    Yes, it is -I have seen one of the originals too. Though the ring is one with a relatively small hole. The plug also has a stud projecting beneath it which can just about be seen here, acting as a spacer thus ensuring there was liquid beneath it. Apologies for the poor photograph btw, the light was not too good.


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


    You present this paper as support of the idea that Hansen's review showed that F&P's work was erroneous. He actually says in the introduction 'I came into this assignment neither for nor against. Halfway through I was still neutral. I must admit to having become somewhat pro recently, but am trying to remain objective.'


    Further he shows that the behaviour of a control (he calls it a blank cell) is entirely predictable and showed no XS heat. He then goes on to show that some test cells did produce XS heat. Which is why he ended up 'somewhat pro'


    I mentioned a detail contained in that paper, namely the curves in Figure 1, and I referenced the source. This doesn't mean that I have endorsed the entire content of that paper, including the opinions of its author. In that context, I was only interested in some of the raw data Hansen had received from F&P, in particular those of a control run which exhibited a behavior similar to those of the cells tested in the 1992 boil-off experiment.

  • This doesn't mean that I have endorsed the entire content of that paper


    So, you know better than F&P, and better than Hansen who set out write a critical review and ended up pretty much agreeing that F&P were right. At this point, your credibility is not looking too good, a little too much of your opinion' and much too much disregarding the evidence.