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

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


    Here is how you can show it to me:

    1. Get a tall test tube similar to this.
    2. Fill it with approximately this much liquid (40 ml).
    3. Boil it with enough heat that you can easily see the bubbles, not just enough for a tiny amount of film boiling.
    4. Keep it going for hours without boiling away all of the water.

    I am confident that it will all boil away in ~20 minutes, not hours. But please, go ahead and try it.


    You can also do this with a small pot on a kitchen stove. Fill it with 40 ml of water, boil the water with enough heat that you can easily see the bubbles. See if it will boil for hours and still have liquid left.

  • 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.


    Actually, I have no problem of credibility, because I never say "I am" or "I know", so "believe me". I only show the evidences I can find on the internet, cite the references, provide a my opinion and tell the reader: look with your eyes and check it by yourself, and if there is something wrong, please, tell me so that I can check in turn and, if necessary, correct my opinion.


    Along the same line, I'm not particularly interested in what F&P or Hansen or any other author wrote, said or thought. I prefer factual evidences (videos, pictures, data records, graphs, drawings, etc.). Then come the people-says, whose credibility decreases as they prove to be in contrast with the facts.

  • I have seen the cells. There was space below the cathode.


    I too have seen the cells (on videos, photos and drawings) and there is no space between the cathode and the Kel-F support, apart the wrong Figure 1 in the ICCF3 paper (1).


    Quote

    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.


    Really? Ah, I see. This should be the reason why the F&P cells don't work. In almost every section drawing of a F&P cell, apart the wrong schematic shown in Figure 1 of the ICCF3 paper, the cathode is in contact with the lower support. Even the F&P patent (2) shows cathodes well leaned on the lower support (see Figs. 2 and 9).


    Quote

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


    A ring? Strange, all the lower supports in the longitudinal sections included in the cited patent - as well as any other longitudinal section, including the wrong Fig. 1 in the ICCF3 paper, that I saw so far - look like disc.


    Anyway …


    we are discussing here about the ICCF3 paper (1), the cells used in the 1992 boil-off experiment described in the paper and the longitudinal section of these cells reported in Fig.1.


    What's your opinion? Figure 1 is correct or wrong?


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

    (2) https://patentimages.storage.g…66d704042/EP0463089B1.pdf

  • Here is how you can show it to me:
    [...]

    I am confident that it will all boil away in ~20 minutes, not hours. But please, go ahead and try it.


    You can also do this with a small pot on a kitchen stove. Fill it with 40 ml of water, boil the water with enough heat that you can easily see the bubbles. See if it will boil for hours and still have liquid left.


    Please, do it yourself. Don't worry for me. I know how to show that the water in the cells of the 1992 boil-off experiment has boiled for hours. All the material is on the internet. No need for pots or stoves.


    I also know that I'll never convince you to admit it, but this is not my problem. This is rather a big problems for those who publicly deny the evidences.

  • I too have seen the cells (on videos, photos and drawings) and there is no space between the cathode and the Kel-F support, apart the wrong Figure 1 in the ICCF3 paper (1).

    So, you think they put the wrong figure in this paper, and in several other papers about these boil off experiments, and you think Fleischmann showed me the wrong cell, and all those years this went on, NOBODY NOTICED.


    That seems unlikely to me.


    There were a variety of cells in different experiments. Perhaps you saw images of cells used in other experiments.

  • Please, do it yourself. Don't worry for me.

    I did! I boiled 50 ml of water on the stove in three tests. I lowered the flame to produce just enough bubbles to be visible, around the edges of the pot. That was almost as low as the flame will go. See the photo below. The three tests took 4 minutes, 8 minutes, and 6 minutes.


    NOTES:


    8 minutes is much shorter than several hours.

    In the first test, the flame was a little high and there was more boiling.

    50 ml was the smallest measuring cup I have. The F&P cell held 40 ml.


    I expect you will go on saying you can boil 40 ml for hours. Again, I suggest you try it. But of course you will not.


    Here is the photo:


  • Here is how you can show it to me:

    1. Get a tall test tube similar to this.
    2. Fill it with approximately this much liquid (40 ml).
    3. Boil it with enough heat that you can easily see the bubbles, not just enough for a tiny amount of film boiling.
    4. Keep it going for hours without boiling away all of the water.

    I am confident that it will all boil away in ~20 minutes, not hours. But please, go ahead and try it.


    You can also do this with a small pot on a kitchen stove. Fill it with 40 ml of water, boil the water with enough heat that you can easily see the bubbles. See if it will boil for hours and still have liquid left.

    I suggested that we would eventually get to this point near the beginning of the other closed thread.

  • So, you think they put the wrong figure in this paper, and in several other papers about these boil off experiments, ...


    Yes, they did it. Figure 1 does not represent (in every detail) the cell used in the experiment described in the ICCF3 paper (1). Otherwise, we should think that they indicated the wrong dimensions of the cathode (12.5 x 2 mm) in the caption of Fig,6 and filmed the wrong cell at the beginning of their "1992 Four cell Boil-off" video, as explained in the second jpeg of (2).


    Quote

    ... and you think Fleischmann showed me the wrong cell,...


    I don't know what MF showed you. I first believe what I see in videos, pictures and the like. Have you a visual documentation of what he showed you?


    Quote

    ... and all those years this went on, NOBODY NOTICED.


    I don't know, if nobody noticed it. I expect that many noticed it, but nobody said it. Probably they understood that the schematic in Figure 1 was just … schematic, that is an scheme indicative of the parts that made up the cell and not an exact representation of the real cell used in the experiment.


    Do you think, instead, that all the members of the LENR community, including the top experts who were in close relationship with F&P, really believed that there was some space below the cathode? Did you ask them?


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

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


    P.S. – As for your test of boiling water in the pot, I will explain how absurd is what you did. But only after the conclusion of this discussion about the cathode.

  • Actually the Hansen report (1) is very interesting, especially since Hansen had the raw data from the F&P available for analysis. Since the report was published in 1991, this would be data from 1991 and earlier.


    And in the raw data we may note the following revealing facts, that contradict conclusions from Ascoli.

    However, we should note that these cells are different in time and place from the cells Ascoli has analyzed in the 1992 paper.

    So there may or may not still be errors in the 2002 paper, but as I shown many times, not as large errors as Ascoli believes.


    The graph below from the Hansen report show a shorter time from refill to the increase in voltage and temperature than the 1992/93 papers, which is interesting.


    Another important difference is that the 92/93 papers used 200 mA and 500 mA, while the Hansen graph below use 400 mA and incrase to 800 mA.


    Hansen reports from the raw data that 3,3 moles where evaporated in 45 minutes period in below graph. If we calculate from the last refill at 345600 seconds to the 355700 seconds in the graph, we may add also a tiny amount of water that where evaporated in the time before. (8ml where added to top up at each refill)


    We then get some 3,33 moles removed from refill at 345600 seconds to 355700 seconds.


    In this period the current was first 400 mA and increased to 800 mA at 352900 seconds.


    The input energy from refill to 355700 second point calculates to maximum 53 600 Joules electrical energy.


    Evaporating 3,33 moles of water would require roughly 140 000 Joules.


    So, from the raw data Hansen investigated we find that the cell produced 2,6 times more energy than was provided as external input.




    (1) http://www.newenergytimes.com/…-ReportToTheUtahState.pdf

  • And another conclusion from above is that the Ascoli analysis is a waste of time when the raw data is not available for analysis.


    Blowing up graphs and looking at old videos would not be the recommended way of doing investigations and concluding "facts".



  • Working this out is estimable, but not much help in the case of the F&P cells. free boiling water in open air will be losing water vapour with the bubbles in the obvious way. In a semi-closed container (as the F&P cells) things are slightly different. When the water has contaminants so that the bubbles "foam" it is completely different. That is bvecause foam bubbles stay in the liquid much longer than pure water bubbles, which give up their water vapour as soon as they hit the surface. Thus the efficacy of the bubbles in removing water from the system is completely different.


    I'm not convinced ascoli is correct because of the uncertainties here - but his specific arguments have some merit and in many cases I cannot see posted here any significant rebuttal. For example, he claims the anode is touching its support, others here say not. Thus far he has produced more evidence on that specific matter than others who say he is wrong (on that matter).


    Just because somone is right on a specific matter does not mean their conclusions are correct, but it is best for truth if everyone can look at all the individual facts and argue them without prejudice, first.


    For example; anode touching or not touching kevlar support. There seems to be some disagreement. Who is right? Are we so incapable of looking at evidence here that we cannot determine this? or is it just that the physical evidence - photos and videos - is unclear. I believe ascoli claims various drawings including one in a patent - others claim a figure in a research paper.

  • There is a fundamentally wrong assertion underlying Ascoli's comments about the 'disc or ring'. That is that if the Kevlar support was a disc it forms a watertight seal against the walls of the calorimeter. Since the whole electrode assembly can be easily inserted and removed (I have done it myself) this is obviously not the case, it is an easy fit. And since there is definitely a projecting stud on the bottom of the ring on the one I photographed it cannot sit on the bottom of the enclosure, but is held at a fixed distance above it.


  • Well, I believe the Hansen report analyzing the raw data would be a better judge of the main question: Excess heat, than the Ascoli analysis of blown up graphs and old videos (where the blue arrows was most likely put on by Kriwit).


    And as I showed above The Hansen analysis using raw data is very revealing.


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

  • Working this out is estimable, but not much help in the case of the F&P cells. free boiling water in open air will be losing water vapour with the bubbles in the obvious way.


    Right. I also did this test holding the pot sideways with the top partially on, so that it more resembled a test tube, with a point source at the bottom heating the fluid. (No photo. I couldn't hold the camera and the pot at the same time.) This also took ~8 minutes. I realize this configuration with a pot is very different from a test tube. It is a very rough approximation. Still, it demonstrates that if the vapor bubbles are large enough to be seen with the naked eye, ~40 ml of water will boil away in 10 or 20 minutes. Not hours. That would be 10 to 15 times longer than it actually takes, with any method of boiling, in any container.


    I'm not convinced ascoli is correct because of the uncertainties here - but his specific arguments have some merit and in many cases I cannot see posted here any significant rebuttal.


    Are you saying it is possible to boil 40 ml of water for hours, with vapor bubbles large enough to be visible?? Do you believe that? I suggest you try it. If you do not consider my test to be a significant rebuttal, do your own test.


    Anyone who thinks this is possible lacks common sense and a grasp of everyday physics. Any cook who has boiled water in the last several hundred thousands years would know that you cannot boil this amount of water for hours.



    For example; anode touching or not touching kevlar support. There seems to be some disagreement. Who is right?


    Fleischmann and his co-workers are right. They published that schematic several times, and I and others saw that it matches the cell. Do you seriously think they would publish the wrong schematic and show it many times in lectures without noticing it was wrong? Or do you think they were deceptive? Why? What would be the purpose of showing the wrong schematic? Frankly, this discussion is ridiculous. It is an example of pointless pseudo-skepticism over non-existant issues.