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

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

Apart from the wrong reference to the video still in Figure 10 (A) (see my point 3 below), the other assumptions you made are not exactly errors. They are just arbitrary assumptions of plausible data which give a small excess heat of 15% (about the 4% of the value claimed by F&P) and that could easily became -15% (missing heat) simply by slightly changing some of these assumptions.

Overall, your analysis goes in right direction. It's the same approach I used a few months ago (1): extending the energy balance to the whole period of many hours during which the cell loses heat by evaporative cooling, because the electrolyte is near or at boiling temperature..

Your main error is methodological: thinking that an unbalance of +15% in an Energy Budget calculated by using the coarse data available on the F&P paper can be considered evidence of the presence of excess heat. This unbalance is only the results of inaccuracies in the input data and, hence, the proof that there has not been any excess heat.

Quote

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

Yes, it's just excess heat produced by math! You can't rely on these arguments to demonstrate the generation of excess heat. The F&P approach was wrong, yours is right and provides a substantial equivalence between input and output, the mismatch being due to the inaccuracy of the data.

Quote

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

Are you kidding me? Please, don't mix math with cunning.

There is no way to estimate a half hour time from a graph whose single pixel has a duration of 1h40m (2).

In your previous post (3) you wrote: "1.Refill time: 11:30 as taken from the Video linked in the F&P Paper". So, you mentioned the Video in the Paper. The only video images in the paper are shown in the four video stills of Figure 10 and the video still on Figure 10(A) has precisely the time 11:30:07 stamped on it.

Quote

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.

I disagree. F&P concluded their paper saying that "excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input". This is a very extraordinary claim. Isn't it? But the alternative and trivial interpretation of their experimental data is that the electric energy input was sufficient to evaporate all the water.

Well, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences" means that all the margins of uncertainty in the disclosed data play in favor of the most trivial interpretation. If you want to demonstrate that your extraordinary claims are real you must provide adequate data. Keeping the raw data hidden, can be only interpreted unfavorably to the extraordinary claim.

• Your main error is methodological: thinking that

don't mix math with cunning

demonstrate that your extraordinary claims are real you must provide adequate data

NO DATA or CALCULATION from Ascoli65

only rhetoric and assertion, as usual

• Ascoli opened this thread, so he owns it. As far as I am concerned, it is his to close. The comments are spirited, but for the most part collegial and informative. Just because one disagrees with the other, is no reason to stop the debate.

• And as long as he keep his argument in this thread he can carry on.

• Ascoli: "...small excess heat of 15% (about the 4% of the value claimed by F&P"

Not that small 😉. But you did not get my point.

If the excess heat over some 10 hrs are 15%, and we know from the paper that excess heat are a few percent at lower temperatures, then it is not unlikely that most of the 15% excess was released during the last 10 minutes, meaning 15% over 10 hrs can be equivalent to very very large excess heat during the last 10 minutes.

Ascoli: " ......using the coarse data available on the F&P paper"

You critisize me for using coarse data, while your method of blowing up graphs to insane proprtions are valid ?

Excuse me for 😅😂🤣🤣😂

Ascoli: "There is no way to estimate a half hour time from a graph whose single pixel has a duration of 1h40m "

We know the timestamp on when the cell was dry, and correlation with the last dip in temperature on the graph and when the graph indicates the end, I confirmed by measuring the graph (same method as you 😋) that the refill was around 11:30+/- , and behold the video confirms timestamp 11:30.

And We know they refilled the cells once a day, so refills was done at 11:30 😀

The role of scentific papers is scientific communication. It is used to communicate the research results, to preserve scientific knowledge, it serves as a mean of communication among researchers so as to generate a dialogue between them.

Could there be errors? Of course, and further research and replications will at the end reveal possible errors. In this case, the replications have been performed on F&P original discovery, i.e. At temperatures Below Boiling, and they are too many positives to be ignored. You make too much out of this Boiling paper😉

• Analysis by pixels of final boil-off in Figure 6A – Cell 1

If the excess heat over some 10 hrs are 15%, and we know from the paper that excess heat are a few percent at lower temperatures, then it is not unlikely that most of the 15% excess was released during the last 10 minutes, meaning 15% over 10 hrs can be equivalent to very very large excess heat during the last 10 minutes.

Your +15% over some 10 h is not XH, it is just a math unbalance in your energy budget calculation, which, considering the uncertainties on the input data, could have turned out to be negative as well.

Look at the following new jpeg, derived from a previous one (2), which shows in greater detail the pixel structure of the temperature and voltage curves in Figure 6A, referred to Cell 1, and that you have used in your Energy Budget:

Similarly, we can't say "we know from the paper that excess heat are a few percent at lower temperatures". From the paper (1), we only know that F&P indicated some numbers on the four diagrams of Figures 6A-D, described in the caption as "excess enthalpy outputs at selected times". But, from a scientific point of view, those numbers are only numerical mismatches, obtained from a formula applied to unknown input data.

In the absence of more accurate and reliable data, dubitative expressions as "it is not unlikely" or "can be equivalent" are resolved in the most ordinary and plausible hypothesis: there was no XH and the mismatches were due to inaccuracies in the input data.

Quote

You critisize me for using coarse data, while your method of blowing up graphs to insane proprtions are valid ?

Exactly! I have already explained you why this is perfectly logical and legitimate. If you want to demonstrate the reality of an extraordinary phenomenon on the basis of data that can be interpreted and fully explained on the basis of an alternative ordinary cause, all the margins of uncertainty on the experimental data play in favor of the ordinary option. It is an asymmetrical competition, with an initial handicap for the extraordinary competitor: the burden of providing indubitable evidence.

Quote

Could there be errors?

The answer is yes. The F&P paper on the 1992 boil-off paper contains a lot of errors of many kinds, even incredibly blatant errors. But the most important is that their two conclusions are evidently based on misrepresented data, so they are both wrong.

• And for the 30 year anniversary, we may enjoy this rare interview from December 1989.

There they mention the major discovery of heat bursts and their preparation of the definitive major paper , that was released in 1990, and that has been known as their seminal paper of this new science 😎

• Here 1994 (ICCF4) reactor design by Fleischmann. It shows an explicit teflon carrier for the cathode holding it way above the bottom. And explains:Cathode partially inserted into teflon carrier!

lenr-forum.com/attachment/7868/

• Can't get you link above to work.

• ICCF4 Hawaii 1994

Fleischmann and Pons reported "Heat after death"

Once the electrolytic current was switched off

the temperature of the dry cell kept rising

for 2.5 hours.

Notice that this is not pixelated Ascolian artwork

from the imaginary piazza,

Strong evidence that the heat was not from

resistance heating via electric current

• Very interesting.

And particularly that cells with H2O does not show any heat after death as with D2O.

The difference in behaviour between H2O and D2O is a very strong evidence of something interesting is going on.

Link directly to paper

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…f/ICCF-4/v2/8_ICCF4-2.pdf

• Representation of the alleged HAD in various documents

That diagram is the same as shown on Fig.8 of the ICCF3 paper (1), which refers to the boiling period of Cell 2 in the 1992 boil-off experiment. In this diagram, the drying-out times are misrepresented, as explained in (1a). The same temperature curve and the same wrong representation of the drying times have been repeated in others document (2-3-4), as shown in the following jpeg.

Considering that the same (wrong) diagram has been used many times until recent years, to demonstrate the reality of the HAD phenomenon, it seems that the 1992 event in Cell 2 is the only (alleged) HAD event for which there exists a (wrong) experimental evidence.

• misrepresented, as explained in (1a). The same temperature curve and the same wrong representation of the drying times

assertion from Ascoli65 as usual

Ascoli65 has obviously not read the 1994 paper which considers a wide range of scenarios

but it chooses to pick and choose pixels

in an incomprehensible and confusing display of piazza pics

Look forward to an Ascolian display on the sidewalk in Assisi later in 2019

• Ascoli's live in this forum is based on one video - at least the one he claims, that shows, what he thinks it does not show...

P&F made hundreds of experiments with no videos... They nowhere state that their paper(s) is (are) based on the Ascoli video(s) ...

For the same reason I can proudly confirm: Hollywood has proven that UFO's exist, that Brian is Jesus (sorry MP of UK..) that the US army always wins a war and that tomorrow extra terrestrials will land and kill the president...

OH! - and the earth is flat at least until yesterday ...

•  Key Experiments That Substantiate Cold Fusion PhenomenaCompiled by Eugene F. Mallove, Sc. D., Editor-in-ChiefInfinite Energy Magazine.....select technical papers that include substantive data providing documentation of the existence of "Cold Fusion." Abstracts or excerpts from these documents are provided so that the researcher may have a sense of the subject and content of the paper. We strongly recommend returning to the original documents to gain a fuller understanding of the validating work that has been been done in this field.

https://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/keyexpdata.html

• And Ascoli blows up graphs to insane proportions and think it is a good analysis.

While the Hansen report use the raw data which where made available for them.

Let's see - who to trust? an evaluation based on raw data, or and evaluation based on blowing up graphs and watching fuzzy videos 🤓 ?

• F&P boil-off experiments (1992) The only practical application of FPHE ever published

Ascoli's live in this forum is based on one video - at least the one he claims, that shows, what he thinks it does not show...

P&F made hundreds of experiments with no videos... They nowhere state that their paper(s) is (are) based on the Ascoli video(s) ...

Yes, F&P made hundreds of experiments, but I expect that many of them have been videoed. In fact, it seems that MF used to utilize videos to demonstrate his points:

 Bokris: "I was impressed by Martin’s handling of questions and criticisms and by his video that showed how quickly red coloration added to the cell becomes mixed in response to stirring issues."

However, the only publicly available lab videos are those related to the 1992 boil-off experiment. This is confirmed by a publication issued by MIT in 2006, which collects some of the last reports prepared by MF and collaborators (1). The following jpeg shows the cover of this publication, which summarizes the most significant achievements of the MF contribution to the CF research at the time:

More than 17 years After the March 23 announcement, the 260 pages of this document are mainly dedicated to the cell calibrations. Btw, it's also worth to notice that all the longitudinal sections of the F&P cell (on the cover and on page 29, 133, 166, 213) show that the cathode rests on the Kel-F support!

The only practical results are illustrated in a paper, which is presented in the introduction to Chapter I by these words [emphases added]: "In a separate paper “More about positive feedback; more about boiling“ Prof. Fleischmann discusses aspects of this system of interest to practical applications, viz the design of an effective energy source."

This practical system is represented by the cells of the 1992 boil-off experiment described in the ICCF2 paper (2) and documented in some shorts video, for example (3), derived by the lab video recorded during the test.

This lab video plays a crucial role in the F&P interpretation of the 1992 experiment, in fact, starting from Page 180 of (1), we reads: " … Secondly, we conclude that the cell would then have to have been half-empty some 2.5 hours before achieving “boiling to dryness”, whereas video recordings show that this point was reached some 11 minutes before “boiling to dryness”.

Therefore, for F&P, the video prevails on any other consideration, and lead them to reduce from 2.5 hours to 11 minutes their estimation of the time required to boil half of the water content of the cell. It's obvious which kind of consequences on the calculation of the energy balance are caused by such a reduction of the boiling duration!

In conclusion, this 2006 publication confirms that the 1992 boil-off experiment is the most important of F&P and it seems to be the only one of interest for practical applications. The lab video recorded during this experiment is by far the most important experimental evidence of the results obtained. But, as we are discussing in this thread, the same video also shows that the F&P interpretation of this 1992 experiment seems to be completely wrong.

• . But, as we are discussing in this thread, the same video also shows that the F&P interpretation of this 1992 experiment seems to be completely wrong.

Assertion

how that the cathode rests on the Kel-F support

Ascoli has never seen a Kel F support.

They are rings,, not solid disks

otherwise it would very difficult to get them in or out of the tube

• The only practical results are illustrated in a paper

F and P boil off experiments:, 1992 The only practical application of FHPE ever published

Ascoli65 trying to twist the truth again.. The experiments were NEVER a practical application .

They were an experiment that showed that higher temperatures and higher current densities

produced more anomalous heat.

Ascoli's surreal patische of decontextualised comments and selective pixels

for the Assisi sidewalk preview. FREE

The Ascoli 2019 Serial Poster

• Ascoli; "the video prevails on any other consideration, and lead them to reduce from 2.5 hours to 11 minutes their estimation of the time required to boil half of the water content of the cel"

You forgot what they stated in te paper

"The first value (ATM P=0,953 bar) has been chosen to give a smooth evaporation of the cell contents (M0 = 5.0 D2O) i.e., no boiling during the period up to the point when the cell be- comes dry, 50,735 s. However, this particular mode of operation would have required the cell to have been half-full at a time 2.3 hrs before dryness. Furthermore, the ambient pressure at that time was 0.966 bars. We believe therefore that such a mode of operation must be excluded. 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. It can be seen that the heat transfer coefficient k  decreases gradually for the assumed condition P = 0.953 bars whereas it stays more nearly constant for P = 0.97 up to the time at which the cell is half-full, followed by a very rapid fall to marked negative values. These marked negative values naturally are an expression of the high rates of enthalpy generation required to explain the rapid boiling during the last 11 minutes of operation. The true behaviour must be close to that calculated for this value of the ambient pressure.

"

As they proved there was no such gradually decreasing heat transfer coefficient, and since the atmospheric pressure was close to 0,97 bar, your belief of half full 2,5 hrs before empty are completely wrong.