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

  • 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.


    My conclusions refer to the F&P paper, reporting the results of the 1992 boil-off experiment. They may be contradicted and I invite you to do so, but it can't be done on the basis of the 1991 data reported in the Hansen report (1).


    Quote

    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.


    Are you sure? I only remember an analysis of yours (2), which turned out to be completely wrong (3) as you admitted (4).


    Saying "there may or may not still be errors" means nothing. IMO, the conclusions of the F&P paper of 1992 are completely wrong and I've explained the reasons (5). If you think, instead, that they are only partially wrong, you should estimate the 2 new correct values for the excess heat during the boil-off phase and for the duration of the so called "heat after death" of Cell 2. Numbers, not words.


    Quote

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


    It's not a waste of time. The available information (graphs in the paper and videos) are more than sufficient to show that the two conclusions in the 1992 paper are completely wrong. The availability of the raw data and of the original recorded video could help to evaluate if they were only partially wrong. For sure these information are still somewhere. The Hansen report demonstrates that F&P used to keep the data log files and Rothwell recently said he watched other videos (6): "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."


    Therefore, what we need to do is to urge the people who have this documenting material to make it available to the LENR community in order to allow a more precise analysis of the 1992 boil-off experiment.


    Anyway, for now the most urgent issue is the position of the cathode. What is your opinion about? Was there some space below the cathode, as shown in the schematic diagram in Figure 1, or the cathode rested on the Kel-F support, as shown by the images?


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

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    (4) FP's experiments discussion

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

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

  • Ascoli's comment to Huw Price on his new article. IMO, lots of absolutes for someone who already admitted he was wrong on one issue, and could be again:


    "Well, I don't agree with you, I'm sorry. The reason is that examining some of the most important and famous CF/LENR claims, they turn out to be simply wrong.

    I too got interested into CF after the January 2011 demo in Bologna, during which scientists of respectable academic institutions confirmed that the Ecat produced 12 kW of excess heat with 1 kW of electrical input. But this apparent miracle was simply due to a series of blatant flaws, as shown here: http://www.physicsforums.co...

    Your article also mentions that "for the original Fleischmann and Pons reactions in particular, ‘the documentation is highly convincing.’" Well, looking carefully at the available documentation of their most significant paper, which reports the results of a boil-off experiment carried out in 1992 on 4 electrolytic cells, it seems that this test was impaired by as many blatant errors, as presently discussed in detail on the most important forum about LENR: https://www.lenr-forum.com/...

    Of course, I don't expect nor ask to be believed on my words. I just invite you, your fellow physicists and the interested readers to carefully look at the original documents of the above-mentioned Ecat and F&P tests They will speak for themselves."


  • Ascoli's comment to Huw Price on his new article. IMO, lots of absolutes for someone who already admitted he was wrong on one issue, and could be again:


    Thank you for having reported here my comment. You saved me one life. :)


    This is the link to the entire comment: https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3…y.html#comment-4364276028


    Lots of absolute? I see only one.


    In order to be short, I reported my position on only two events: the January 14, 2011 demo of the Ecat and the 1992 boil off experiment of F&P.


    For the first event, I admit of having expressed an absolute opinion: "this apparent miracle was simply due to a series of blatant flaws".


    For the second event, I said, instead, "it seems that this test was impaired by as many blatant errors" and I invited the interested readers to follow the discussion here on L-F and not to believe my words, but to check the original documentation by themselves.


    Do you consider this last an "absolute" opinion?


    And, yes, my initial interpretation of the F&P boil-off test was wrong. But I started to examine it in September and in October, after having watched the videos, I realized which was the real flaw of that experiment. So what?


    In the case of the Ecat demo, I found a crucial flaw and reported it in an Italian site in a few weeks. For how many years, most of the people here, including those who are now criticizing my interpretation of the F&P experiment, have expressed their "absolute" support to the validity of that Ecat demo?


    Now, after many years, most of them became the harshest critics of Rossi. Well, give them time and they will probably modify their opinion also on F&P.

  • Ascoli's comment to Huw Price on his new article


    This is the link to the entire comment: https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3…y.html#comment-4364276028


    "As for the sailor's dilemma (missing an island or hitting an iceberg), let me remind a third option:

    going back as quickly as possible (even if I'm aware it's not an easy task at all). " ascoli65-->.Huw


    There is a fourth option: The Ascolian foam option

    This is to spray a mountain of foam on the ocean ...

    then the iceberg or the island don't exist.

    I forgot to mention to Huw about the fourth foamy option when I wrote to him on the 6th December,2018


    FP's experiments discussion

  • 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.


    Not necessarily. A disc forms a watertight seal in a tube only if it has exactly the same shape and dimensions as the inner cross section of the tube. A very small hole through the disc could also avoid the problem.


    In any case, as everyone knows, the cross section of a disc looks very different from the cross section of a ring. ALL the dozens of longitudinal cross sections of F&P cells, that can be found on the internet, show a disc at the base of the electrodes, not a ring.


    Quote

    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.


    The images to the right of the first jpeg (1) don't show any stud under the Kel-F support. However, it's possible that the cell you saw had a stub on the bottom of the support, but this stud was attached to a disc and not a ring.


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


  • I may repeat, just for you ;-)



    "

    • Energy Budget of the F&P cell

    Based on the analysis of Robert Horst I propose here an alternative analysis of energy budget in the F&P 1992 / 1993 paper


    In this analysis I look at Cell 1 from the refill on the last day and until the Cell was dry


    A few important definitions and data:

    1.Refill time: 11:30 as taken from the Video linked in the F&P Paper [1]

    2.Dry cell: 22:25


    We note that Ascoli thinks there are still foam present at the end, but in any case, this is evidently a very thin foam and a marginal amount of H2O, so 4,999 Mole is probably gone, I will assume its dry.


    3.Total time from refill to dry= 39 300 seconds



    4.Input energy: Electrical energy, where current is constant at 500 mA and voltage is regulated to keep constant current. Voltage trend:

    Voltage at refill time: 18,87 V


    Voltage at end: The graph cannot be analysed at this point, the last period of voltage increase is important, but the graph is not detailed enough to be analysed. F&P reported average Voltage the last 600 seconds of 76 volts. If the end voltage was 100 Volts as suggested, then the voltage should be 50 volts 10 minutes before end to acheieve 75 Volts in average in the period.

    We may now produce a voltage and power trends by reading the voltages of the curve and use the data above.



    5.Temperature trend:

    Ref first image above. Temperature at refill time= 85,3 degC

    Temperature at dry= 100 degC


    Now for tables of data:



    SUm of Output of evaporation, radiation loss, heat capoacity etc is approximately 626 000 Joules


    So the above calculates 543 554 Joules input heat from refill to dry cell, and excess energy during the period is therefore in the range 82 689 Joules, or 15%.


    Conclusion:

    1. We have confirmed Excess heat during last period of refill to dry cell
    2. We have confirmed the likely theory of increased excess heat at higher temperatures
    3. F&P reported 86700 Joule excess heat the last 10 minutes (while mine is 82689 J ) .The graph is not detailed enough to achieve quality of data close to 100 degC, where the largest power input is, but F&P had better data acquisition, and I am satisfied with their main claims, higher excess at higher temperatures. If it is 10% or 20% does not matter. The increase is interesting.


    [1] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    1993 revised version of [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf


    [2] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf


    "

  • I may repeat, just for you

    "

    Energy Budget of the F&P cell

    ...


    I have already refuted your analysis in December (1). But, I could add something more, just for you. :)


    In their paper (1), F&P claimed to have obtained "excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input". Actually, on the basis of their calculations on Page 16, it was 3.85 times (ie [(171+11)-37.5]/37.5 = 144.5/37.5). So, your Energy Budget calculation would show that F&P were 96% wrong (the percentage difference between their 385% and your 15%).


    Well, a real 15% excess heat would still be an extraordinary achievement from a scientific point of view, deserving the Nobel prize. But do you really think that the remaining 4% of the original F&P claim, which still separates your Energy Budget from a more reasonable ZERO excess heat, can lie on the audacious assumptions you have taken to estimate all the missing parameters you used in your calculations?


    Do you have any idea how many uncertain and even wrong assumptions you did in your calculation?


    For instance, you took the initial time of 11:30 from the video still on Figure 10(A) of the F&P paper. Well, that image refers to the beginning of the test, which occurred many days before the boil-off phase of the Cell 1. For a confirmation, see the "1992 Four-cell boil-off" video (3) at t=1:14. So, you haven't even read the caption of Figure 10, which says "(A) Initial charging of the electrodes". How can you prove, on this basis, that the cell produced some excess heat?


    All you have just demonstrated is that by using the correct approach of considering the entire period of many hours during which the cell has lost water by evaporative cooling - and not just the last 10 minutes, as F&P erroneously did - it is possible to easily explain the loss of all the water as caused by a trivial reason, that is the electric energy fed to the cell.


    Your most pertinent statement is: "the last period of voltage increase is important, but the graph is not detailed enough to be analysed". For anyone wishing to prove that the F&P boil-off experiment produced some excess heat, the analysis should stop at this point. F&P didn't provide enough data to support their claims. They had all the experimental data, but they avoided to make them public in a sufficiently detailed form. The coarse data they published, ie the four graphs in Fig.6A-D and the graph in Fig.8, can only be used to show that there was no excess heat and, therefore, that their conclusions were 100% wrong.


    If you want to demonstrate that F&P were only 96% wrong, you need more detailed data. You should join my call to the LENR community to publish the record of the 1992 boil-off experimental data. The next LENR Colloquium at MIT, on March 23, is the good opportunity to do so.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

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

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

  • Well, a real 15% excess heat would still be an extraordinary achievement from a scientific point of view, deserving the Nobel prize.


    Ascoli are you with your restricted cognition still able to explain us the gain factor of the 4 hours heat after death (HAD) phase?


    Do you have any creative idea, what can cause a cathode to be hot for 4 hours without any energy input?


  • 1. Your refute where only your thoughts, no evidence of errors


    2. " So, your Energy Budget calculation would show that F&P were 96% wrong (the percentage difference between their 385% and your 15%)."


    Well, your are wrong. F&P calculated ove the last 10 minutes, while I calculated over 10 hrs. And since I show an increase of energy and power density at higher temperatures, both F&P and myself may be correct, its just math ;-)


    3. "you took the initial time of 11:30 from the video still on Figure 10. "


    No I did not. I used the graph from the last Dip in temperature= last refill and until the end of electrolysis. The delta seconds is easy to calculate, and if we know when the test ended, we know the time of refill :-)


    You know, its just math ;-)


    4. "F&P didn't provide enough data to support their claims". "They had all the experimental data, but they avoided to make them public in a sufficiently detailed form."


    You completely misunderstand the meaning of Scientific papers. They are there to present the overall data, what they did and discussions, NOT present all raw data.


    Now: the scientists that read the papers may refute by publish their own tests and papers, and then The dialog is running until consensus is reached.

  • as everyone knows, the cross section of a disc looks very different from the cross section of a ring.


    ...only if drawn by someone conversant with all the foibles of engineering drawings. And this was not an engineering drawing but a technical illustration where the main aim is to reduce clutter while showing main features.. Big difference.

  • Ascoli are you with your restricted cognition still able to explain us the gain factor of the 4 hours heat after death (HAD) phase?


    Do you have any creative idea, what can cause a cathode to be hot for 4 hours without any energy input?


    You had already asked me about the "3h of heat after dead" (1). I answered that this F&P claim was wrong (2), linking the post where I explained the reason of their error (3) and you didn't reply anything.


    Now, after a few days, you repeat the same question, well not exactly the same, because in the meanwhile the HAD has stretched to 4 hours. What should I answer now, other than inviting you again to read my previous post (3) and possibly to reply in the merit?


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

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

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

  • You had already asked me about the "3h of heat after dead" (1). I answered that this F&P claim was wrong (2),


    I asked you for an explanation not your opinion (claim being wrong) . HAD has nothing to do with the setup just look a the T curve... Why do you claim that the T curve is wrong? Thermometer failure???


    When you have problems with cognition look for a doctor.

  • I asked you for an explanation not your opinion (claim being wrong) .


    And I answered you for the second time in a few days that you can find my explanation in this post:

    FP's experiments discussion


    Quote

    HAD has nothing to do with the setup just look a the T curve... Why do you claim that the T curve is wrong? Thermometer failure???


    Which curve did I say is wrong? Where did I say it? Are you able to provide some references for what you affirm?


    Quote

    When you have problems with cognition look for a doctor.


    I don't need it anymore. Recently I found online a psychologist who provides me with his diagnosis for free. He says I'm suffering from Dunning Kruger syndrome (1). So please be patient with me. :)


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • (1) FP's experiments discussion


    Ascoli65 does not appear to know that NO ONE reads that discussion

    It is a dead chimera of fuzzy jpegs and rambling Ascolian assertion.


    Will Ascoli65 continue hawking artwork on the piazza?


    Or will it present data / argument in a form...

    which fits the technological topic, as per Oystia.

  • I asked you for an explanation not your opinion (claim being wrong) .


    You never answered the question Mr. Ascoli. I see no difference in your behavior and Rossis behavior.


    I repeat it again:


    Why do you claim that the T curve is wrong? Thermometer failure???


    What is your explanation for heat after death??


    If you enter one more reference then I will ask to close the thread again. Or may be for a medical time-out.

  • What is your explanation for heat after death??


    I already told you 3 times in a few days that F&P were wrong about their claim of the occurring of an HAD event in their 1992 boil-off experiment. You can find my explanation (not of the HAD, which didn't happen, but of the reason why F&P were wrong in claiming it) in this previous post of mine:

    FP's experiments discussion (this is the 4th time)


    Quote

    If you enter one more reference then I will ask to close the thread again.


    That's interesting. So you are the one who asked to close the previous thread. Aren't you?

    FP's experiments discussion


    Quote

    Or may be for a medical time-out.


    If you need it, please, take it.