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

  • Ascoli: " ....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.."


    Well, you confuse two vital points in this science.


    1. Practical applications for use in society

    2. Papers that try to understand the causes and mechanism of LENR / cold fusion.


    F&P where very clear of their Intentions allready in 1989: their plans was to engineer a practical system that could compete with the normal nuclear power stations in producing practical power. Also as proven by their Patent from 1990. You do not spend huge sums of money on patents If you have no commercial intentions.


    So for practical applications, the 1992 paper was of importance, since that was their intentions of their reearch in France, and the paper describes their experiment in that direction.


    But for the science of CF/LENR it is not the important one. The seminal paper of 1990 will and always will be the most important Scientific F&P paper.


    And it will be understanding the science behind LENR that will rewarded the Nobel price, not engineering a practical system for utility.

  • 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😉



    I agree with you: too much is made of this paper. I don't give it the importance Ascoli does. BUT - equally - from the reaction here of you and others it seems that you give it great importance, in which case ascoli's argument for it being important is at least half justified.


    From my POV if LENR is real it is very difficult to see how 30 year old early experiments could have results anything like as significant as many replications (some careful) and other related results. In any normal field they would be forgotten by now except as a pioneering attempt.


    The real issue is why further research and replication over 30 years has not already nailed the matter so that errors, if they exist, are known and referenced.

  • Key Experiments That Substantiate Cold Fusion Phenomena
    Compiled by Eugene F. Mallove, Sc. D., Editor-in-Chief
    Infinite Energy Magazine

    I agree with everything on this list except Mills, because Mills has not been independently replicated as far as I know. There were several attempts to replicate but they failed.


    Later studies with Ni alloys apparently worked, but they have not been widely replicated yet.

  • The real issue is why further research and replication over 30 years has not already nailed the matter so that errors, if they exist, are known and referenced.

    The answer is obvious! The matter has been nailed. There are no errors. They do not exist. If they existed, they would be known and referenced. For 30 years skeptics have searched for errors in the major papers listed by Mallove, but they have not found any. Attempts to find errors by Morrison, Shanahan, THHuxleynew and others failed. (THHuxleynew tried to explain the boil-off experiments with the hypothesis that the steam pushes up drops of water, which is utterly impossible. I do not think he has offered any other reasons to doubt other experiments.)


    Some people may say, "skeptics might find an error in the future so the issue is not settled." That is equally true of every experiment in the history of science. Someone might discover that Newton's prism experiment showing that white light includes all colors was wrong. But that is exceedingly unlikely. After the skeptics have spent years looking for errors without finding one, the only rational judgement is that there are no errors. If we do not decide that, no question in science will be decided, and progress will cease.

  • I agree with you: too much is made of this paper. I don't give it the importance Ascoli does. BUT - equally - from the reaction here of you and others it seems that you give it great importance, in which case ascoli's argument for it being important is at least half justified.


    From my POV if LENR is real it is very difficult to see how 30 year old early experiments could have results anything like as significant as many replications (some careful) and other related results. In any normal field they would be forgotten by now except as a pioneering attempt.


    The real issue is why further research and replication over 30 years has not already nailed the matter so that errors, if they exist, are known and referenced.

    When Ascoli spreads misinformation outside this forum and presents it as facts, not as his opinion, I need to react and provide some counter arguments.


    And the real issue in my opinion is: After 1989 the field of cold fusion was in real need to develop theories to explain the effect, and perform required test of theories to converge into some explanations and bring the field into clarity.


    But the nuclear physics community threw the field into darkness in 1989. So there was no theorists except Hagelstein and a few others that used time on this field, and even less money that could be spent on testing theories.


    So the only thing happening in the field was new experimental science to figure out what could work by trial end error.


    And to this day we know some of the conditions that will make the excess heat appear in deuterium-palladium systems.


    But I still believe we need to find the explanatory theory to get LENR into real practical applications.


    Now then, Brullioun have managed to get LENR working by trial and error, but COP of 3 is too low. They need to find higher levels.


    A right theory would resolve all of these issues, no more need for trial and error approach.

  • You forgot what they stated in te paper

    [...]
    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.


    It's not my belief, but of MF. The 2.5 hours were the first conclusion of F&P, as reported in (1). Personally I also disagree with this other approach they used to derive a longer, and hence less wrong, period of time. The only correct approach is to calculate the energy balance during the entire boiling period, that is from the time when the energy input became greater than 11 W, which is the value estimated by F&P on page 16 of their ICCF3 paper (2) for the enthalpy output to ambient.


    What I meant in (1) is that, for F&P, the (absolutely wrong) evidence provided by the video prevailed on the other (less wrong) evaluation based on the evaporation rate at certain pressures. Mine was an answer to Wyttenbach who had written "They nowhere state that their paper(s) is (are) based on the Ascoli video(s) ...". I have shown, on the contrary, that, for F&P, the 1992 paper was actually based on their (wrong) interpretation of the video.


    Quote

    F&P where very clear of their Intentions allready in 1989: their plans was to engineer a practical system that could compete with the normal nuclear power stations in producing practical power. Also as proven by their Patent from 1990. You do not spend huge sums of money on patents If you have no commercial intentions.


    So for practical applications, the 1992 paper was of importance, since that was their intentions of their reearch in France, and the paper describes their experiment in that direction.


    But for the science of CF/LENR it is not the important one. The seminal paper of 1990 will and always will be the most important Scientific F&P paper.


    It could be a good way to distinguish the 1990 and 1992 papers. In any case F&P got dozens of M$ from the Utah and the Japanese to engineer a useful embodiment of their alleged discovery. Their ICCF3 paper is the only published outcome for this huge financial effort and it is even wrong, as anyone can understand just by looking at their available videos.


    As for the 1990 seminal paper, I already told you (3), that, for what I have seen so far, it is also questionable. Anyway, I promised to discuss this more scientific paper, but for now the ICCF3 paper on the 1992 boil-off experiment has the precedence.


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

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

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

  • You are distorting the issues,


    Ascoli will distort for another hundred posts at least


    Example- "boil off experiments:, 1992 The only practical application of FPHE ever published"


    1. 1992 :Ascoli attempts to narrow the thirty years of LENR results to ONE report-1992

    2. only practical application - It was never a practical application -Dewar testtubes are not practical

    3. FPHE : Ascoli65 means the FleischmannPons Heat Effect.


    This anomalous heat- which is far in excess of chemical heat and persists for hours after energy input

    is not Fleischmann and Pons' personal property. it is not FPHE


    It is owned by a community of researchers in Italy, USA, France, UK, Japan, China and Russia....

    and has been observed and documented many times..by hundreds

    all who would disavow ownership of a nuclear phenomenon.

  • No, they never concluded that. You are distorting the issues, and misrepresenting what they said.


    The 2006 document "Thermal Behavior of the Polarized Pd/D-D2O System" belongs to your LENR-CANR library (1).

    Starting from the bottom of Page 180, it reads (emphases added): " … 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”.


    Perhaps I have misrepresented the true meaning of the sentence. Can you please provide the correct interpretation?


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

  • Perhaps I have misrepresented the true meaning of the sentence

    what is Ascoli65's true meaning of the sentence


    "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”.


    and how does this one sentence on the bottom of Pg 180

    support the basis of an argument?

  • I agree with you: too much is made of this paper. I don't give it the importance Ascoli does. BUT - equally - from the reaction here of you and others it seems that you give it great importance, in which case ascoli's argument for it being important is at least half justified.


    How can you say this? I started looking at the ICCF3 paper last September, but you were already disputing on it exactly one year ago (1) and you probably started this controversy much earlier.


    This is the MF's major paper, as Rothwell wrote last August (2): "Fleischmann’s mathematical analysis of calorimetry was far more complex than most people's. […] He liked nothing better than an experiment stripped down to its essentials, so that it could not be refuted. The title of his major paper says it all: “From simplicity via complications back to simplicity.” (bold added)


    Believe him for once.


    Quote

    From my POV if LENR is real it is very difficult to see how 30 year old early experiments could have results anything like as significant as many replications (some careful) and other related results. In any normal field they would be forgotten by now except as a pioneering attempt.


    In this thread we are not debating whether LENR is real or not. We are only discussing whether some of the papers, which are brought by LENR supporters as the indisputable proof that LENR is real, are correct or not. And the F&P paper presented at ICCF3, despite being issued in 1992, is the paper which is most frequently presented, in particular by Rothwell (3), as proof of the indubitable experience of MF in calorimetry.


    Quote

    The real issue is why further research and replication over 30 years has not already nailed the matter so that errors, if they exist, are known and referenced.


    Completely wrong approach. The first step is to check whether the evidences provided by those who claim the discovery of an extraordinary phenomenon are correct, starting from the completeness and internal consistency of the experimental data. If these elementary requirements fail, it is not justified to waste public money trying to replicate this phenomenon.


    (1) Uploaded Letters from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles

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

    (3) How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

  • Ascoli65 is attempting again to distort the discussion from its original stated intention. At Post 1. ...173 posts ago


    Post 173

    We are only discussing whether some of the papers, which are brought by LENR supporters as the indisputable proof that LENR is real, are correct or not.


    Post 1

    In less than one month, on March 23, it will be celebrated the 30th anniversary of the press conference held in 1989 at the University of Utah, during which Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons revealed the results of their electrolytic experiments and claimed the discovery of a nuclear phenomenon which produced anomalous excess heat, thereafter called Cold Fusion.


    This thread is intended to provide a suitable place where the L-F members can discuss about the two founders of CF and their experiments in view of this important event

  • the 30th anniversary of the press conference held in 1989 at the University of Utah

    the true flavour of the conference

    and of the aftermath

    Eyewitness from Shelia(Shiela) Pons...the wife of Stanley the social behaviour of scientists Deseret News March 28, 1990


    30 years after....nuclear research in the USA is mostly marginalised

    there is not much research to cheerlead now.

    Fusion frenzy .. of course was a temporary mania and has mostly passed... but something of it remains

  • Starting from the bottom of Page 180, it reads (emphases added): " … 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”.


    Perhaps I have misrepresented the true meaning of the sentence. Can you please provide the correct interpretation?

    The meaning should be clear to any native speaker of English. "Have to have been" is a hypothetical. "For X to be true Y would have to have been . . ." Since Y was not true, X is not the case.


    Also, as I pointed out, it is physically impossible for 40 ml of water to boil with bubbles large enough to be seen for 2.5 hours. That's completely out of the question. You claim it can happen, but you will not test your assertion or show us proof, so I suspect you may not actually believe it. I can't read minds, but that is my suspicion. Let me put it this way: If you believe this, you lack the common sense that any cook since the discovery of fire would have. If you don't believe it, you are trolling us. Either way you have jumped the shark and this discussion has become a waste of time.



  • And Again you are wrong.


    The document (1) as you describe yourself is mainly dedicated to cell calibratiuons, i.e. heat transfer. And that is also the main point.


    The video where used as a separate source of information. If they used too low atmospheric pressure the cell would have to be half empty 2,5 hrs before visual empty from the video. But that would again lead to conclude a heat transfer coefficient that gradually reduced, which was not observed in their calibrations.


    So using atmosferic pressure as measured was the likely correct approach.





    But as Fleischmann states in (1), The actual true result will be somewhere between 2,5 hrs and 10 minutes boiling, as stated above, but closest to the 10 minutes, ref figure below.


    And in any case excess heat would be concluded.






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


  • Their major paper ?


    I thought we just agreed that the 21 pages 1992 paper is an important paper on road to practical implementation of Cold fusion utilization in society, I.e. it proved the increase of Power and energy densities at elevated temperature.


    F&P used the years after 1990 to identifiy possible ways of increased excess energy for practical applications.


    But the major F&P paper in the science of Cold Fusion, is the 58 pages 1990 paper (1) , and there should be no doubt.


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

  • The meaning should be clear to any native speaker of English. "Have to have been" is a hypothetical. "For X to be true Y would have to have been . . ." Since Y was not true, X is not the case.


    Thanks. I knew the meaning of "Have to have been". In the MF's phrase, it expresses that a first provisional, and hypothetical, conclusion (2.5 hours to boil-out half of the water mass), has been overcome by their (wrong) interpretation of the video (11 minutes to boil-out half of the water mass).


    But again, I don't even agree with the method used by F&P to determine the 2.5 hours (actually 2.3 hours in their ICCF3 paper). What I wanted to emphasize is that F&P based their timing of the water mass evaporation on the lab video, erroneously estimating that half of the water mass has evaporated in the last 11 minutes (further reduced to 10 minutes in their calculations).


    Quote

    Also, as I pointed out, it is physically impossible for 40 ml of water to boil with bubbles large enough to be seen for 2.5 hours.


    With large bubbles? Who said this? I only said that every cell boils for many hours, I didn't specified "with large bubbles".


    The boiling proceeds along the regimes illustrated in the following graph (1):

    ht-5-pool-boiling-curve-4-638.jpg?cb=1445884860


    Boiling starts at A, on those points of the electrode surfaces that are 5 °C warmer than the water saturation temperature. In this first regime, the sub-cooled nucleate boiling region, the bubbles condense in the bulk liquid, so they don't cause any loss of heat or water mass. But from point B onwards, the bubbles emerge from the water surface bringing with them mass and energy. In the case of the 1992 boil-off experiment, it is likely that the boiling regime on the cathode surface went beyond point C.


    Anyway, both the curves in the ICCF3 paper and the video show that the boiling regimes with evaporative loss of energy and mass, ie those beyond point B, lasted for at least 6-8 hours.


    Quote

    That's completely out of the question.


    Like the cathode suspended over the Kel-F support?


    Quote

    You claim it can happen, but you will not test your assertion or show us proof, so I suspect you may not actually believe it. I can't read minds, but that is my suspicion. Let me put it this way: If you believe this, you lack the common sense that any cook since the discovery of fire would have. If you don't believe it, you are trolling us. Either way you have jumped the shark and this discussion has become a waste of time.


    I've nothing to test. The F&P conclusions about the 1992 boil-off experiment are wrong simply on the basis of what they have reported on their paper (2) and what anyone can see in their videos.


    If you like to waste your time proving the reality of their assertions in the kitchen, I'd suggest you to use something like an electric heater for cup, like this below (3):

    61HMZR-Kl0L._SY450_.jpg


    It has a max power of 50 W, the right value to reproduce the input power during the boil-off experiment. Connect the heater through a voltage regulator and a power meter and put a thermocouple inside it. Put it on a scale, fill it with 90 cm3 of water, switch the power on and regulate the voltage in order to roughly reproduce the actual power curve measured during the 1992 experiment. Then see how long it takes to evaporate all the water mass and tell it us.


    (1) https://www.slideshare.net/jay…9/ht-5-pool-boiling-curve

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

    (3) https://www.amazon.co.uk/CUKKE…g-Stainless/dp/B074YZ92NV

  • With large bubbles? Who said this? I only said that every cell boils for many hours, I didn't specified "with large bubbles".


    The video shows the bubbles are large enough to see. Many unpublished videos and photos I have seen confirm that. You seem to think the bubbles are foam, but you are incorrect. You also seem to think that the bubbles from electrolysis are boiling, but they are not.