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

  • Ascoli, you misunderstand.


    They assumed set Value until dry to be CONSERVATIVE in their calculation of excess heat, it does not mean they did not log.


    But as Wyttenbach says, they did not need logging since the Galvanostat was set to 500mA.

  • Your invented rest current has been refuted by the document now...


    Which "rest current" and which "document"? Are you able to indicate any precise reference, or your only purpose is just to contradict me with a few scattered words?


    Quote

    May be it will take you a week until you understand this...


    Not a problem. Many people here took a few decades just to understand that the cathode in the F&P cells was resting on the Kel-F support.


    Quote

    Your invented non logging of current is easily refuted by the fact that they logged the voltage. When using a constant current supply there is no need for logging the current....


    Bizarre logic. Voltage and current are two different quantities and, in the F&P experiments, they are not even proportional each other. Anyway, this is what you wrote just three days ago:

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


    Do you really think that they did not log the current in a separate stream? How else could they ever even think about trying to calculate something? Just by look at a video as you do ??


    So, you were sure that F&P logged the current in a separate string, because it was essential for their calculations. Now, you are saying that is there was no need for logging the current. I admit I'm unable to follow your logic.

  • Bizarre logic. Voltage and current are two different quantities and, in the F&P experiments, they are not even proportional each other.


    You either have no idea what you are talking about, or are simply trolling. Voltage and current are not different quantities, they are different units of measurement, like pressure and volume. And if the current is always constant there is no need log it, since it is a given, but logging the voltage is required.

  • It is surely you, who are so certain these results stand, who must show that all the different properties of D and H


    THHuxley calculates ( but does not show the algebraic basis )

    that the calorimetric error at 80C is 20% and asserts that at 100C it is notionally infinite,

    I commend THH on actually doing some calculation work and algebra which Ascoli65 rarely does.


    It would be interesting to see the algebraic basis for this calculation


    and to see how this algebraic basis accounts for the isotope effect

    i.e the 0/100% difference for H20/D2O in anomalous heat via calorimetry by F&P

    given that physicochemical properties of H/D do not differ by 0/100%

    but at most differ by 50%/100% .... (for H20/D20 the differences are much smaller)



  • I think I do show it. The P/(P*-P) fcator varies from 0 -> infinity (notionally) at 100C. You can calculate it from H2 (D2O not much different) partial vapour pressures.


    The approx 20% (L) comes from the ratio between the electrolysis enthalpy and the D2O vaporisation enthalpy I quoted. If you look at the P&F equation what I say follows. Do I need to repeat that?


    The math is arithmetic- I'd not dignify it with "algebra".


    THH

  • You either have no idea what you are talking about, or are simply trolling. Voltage and current are not different quantities, they are different units of measurement, like pressure and volume.


    Bah!

    From https://data.kemt.fei.tuke.sk/…ials/Short%20textbook.pdf

    2. Basic electrical quantities

    The basic electrical quantities are electrical current and voltage, …

    2.1. Electrical current and charge

    … basic unit of measure is ampere (symbol A) …

    2.2. Electrical voltage

    … the unit of measure is volt (V) …


    Pressure and volume are different quantities.

    Atmosphere, bar, psi and torr are different units of measurement of the pressure.

    Cubic meter and gallon are different units of measurement of the volume.


    Quote

    And if the current is always constant there is no need log it, since it is a given, but logging the voltage is required.


    The galvanostat keeps the current constant until the voltage stays below the rail voltage of 100 V, thenceforth the current must necessarily decrease until it eventually zeroed. In any case, an experimental set-up aimed at verifying the most extraordinary and urgent discovery in the history of humankind and which benefits from a multimillion funding is expected to be equipped with monitoring and logging of the electric current flowing through the cell, as Wyttenbach firmly affirmed three days ago (1).


    Now, after it was shown (2) that F&P didn't do so, the current logging suddenly becomes useless and those who liked the previous Wyttenbach post now support the posts which state the contrary.


    Is it really me who is trolling?


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

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

  • Ascoli, you misunderstand.


    They assumed set Value until dry to be CONSERVATIVE in their calculation of excess heat, it does not mean they did not log.


    I didn't misunderstand. I know that the footnote was aimed at stating the conservativeness of assuming that the current was maintained at the set value. But this was not my point.


    The specific argument under discussion in this moment is the alleged HAD event claimed to have occurred during the 1992 boil-off experiment. For such an event, it is useless to be conservative in the calculation of the input power, because it should be zero by definition. On the contrary, it is necessary to be sure that the conditions which characterize a HAD event were actually satisfied, ie that the electric circuit was open during the HAD period, so that no current flowed through the cell and, hence, the input power was equal to zero. However, the sentence in the footnote highlighted in yellow confirms that the current was not monitored, therefore the only way to infer the cessation of the current was the zeroing of the voltage caused by the automatic switching off of the PSU.


    But the voltage curve in Fig.6B (1) clearly shows that voltage didn't go to zero (2). Thus, the current continued to flow through the circuit for the entire period during which the cell remained at high temperature. This means that the input power didn't stop and, therefore, NO HAD event has occurred.


    Do you agree?


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

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

  • any case, an experimental set-up aimed at verifying the most extraordinary and urgent discovery in the history of humankind

    The 1989 discovery of anomalous heat has been verified by many over 3 decades


    latest was Staker, replicated reported 2018

    discussed here by Lomax

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net/iccf-21/videos/staker/


    But it wasn't the most urgent discovery..by far

    I think that was Salvarsan 1912

    for rampant Syphilis

    the "French disease:)

    or perhaps penicillin in WW2

    or the Enigma code/ A bomb, also WW2.

  • @ mods,

    many posts on this thread seems to be just provocations aimed at disturbing the debate. I know that my arguments are challenging, to say the least, for the LENR community, but I hope that the search for truth is important for many of us regardless of our views on the reality of CF phenomena and I think that there are many LENR supporters who are able to dispute my criticisms in a more constructive and effective way.


    This thread has been opened by me, and I feel responsible for providing an ambient where people interested in seriously debating the scientific aspects of the F&P experiments are helped in following the discussion and possibly encouraged to provide their contribution. So, I kindly ask the mods to enforce and preserve such an ambient.

  • This thread has been opened by me, and I feel responsible for providing an ambient where people interested in seriously debating the scientific aspects of the F&P experiments are helped in following the discussion and possibly encouraged to provide their contribution.So, I kindly ask the mods to enforce and preserve such an ambient.


    You are (sadly) not interested in debate, but in endlessly repeating the same mantra, and denying anything -even well-founded arguments - to the contrary. Since this is your totally inflexible position you will have to (sometimes) suffer some critical or exasperated posts from those who are not of the flat-earth persuasion. And kindly contain your argument -such as it is - to this thread, which you created especially at the mods request. Anything abusive posted here will as usual be moved to clearance, but otherwise, you made this bed, now lie on it.

  • I feel responsible for providing an ambient where people interested in seriously debating the scientific aspects of the F&P experiments

    The 1989 discovery of anomalous heat has been verified by many over 3 decades


    latest was Staker, replicated reported 2018

    discussed here by Lomax

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net/iccf-21/videos/staker/

    The isotope effect is difficult to explain with foam, Term 5, and other Ascolian ambient inventions and conceits

  • You are (sadly) not interested in debate, but in endlessly repeating the same mantra, and denying anything -even well-founded arguments - to the contrary. Since this is your totally inflexible position you will have to (sometimes) suffer some critical or exasperated posts from those who are not of the flat-earth persuasion. And kindly contain your argument -such as it is - to this thread, which you created especially at the mods request. Anything abusive posted here will as usual be moved to clearance, but otherwise, you made this bed, now lie on it.


    Please, look again at the RobertBryant posts (8 out of 20) on the previous page, as well as at the dozens he posted before, then ask yourself whether you would have tolerated the same behavior in the "Clean Planet" thread or in any other thread of your interest. From my point of view, the disturbance they cause is largely compensated by the evidence they provide on the kind of argument used to defend the reality of LENR, so they are welcome. However, as the proponent of this thread, it was my duty to ask the mods to preserve the readability of its pages for the benefit of the L-F members and of the guests interested in this topic. This is what I did.


    As for my mantras, I think I'm not the only one here to repeat the same things. This is a tough debate and I have to use the same arguments to reply to the same objections.


    My goal is clear: reaching a broad agreement on the validity of the results of the F&P experiments, beginning from the 1992 boil-off experiment. It's an hard task because we start from very different points of view.


    However, I think that in recent months, thanks to the contribution of many L-F members genuinely interested in this topic, we have made a lot of progress to better understand many important details of that experiment. For example, I no longer see any major objection to the fact that the cathode was resting on the Kel-F support. Moreover, in the last few days, we have understood that the current was not logged and, thanks also to your suggestion, that the PSU switched off automatically as the current went to zero.


    I think that these small advances will allow us to share a common and better vision of how the 1992 experiment was carried out and perhaps to reach a wide agreement on the reality of its results.

  • Moreover, in the last few days, we have understood that the current was not logged and, thanks also to your suggestion, that the PSU switched off automatically as the current went to zero.


    This is typical of your obtuse approach. The current was not logged because it was always the same, only the voltage varied. The voltage drop to zero when the cell was dry may have caused some models of PSU to shut down. Neither of these facts has any relevance at all to your protestations about these experiments, but you seem to think they do. That is why I am justified in saying you have no interest in debate or discussion, with the implied possibility that you might be wrong. All that interests you is the hot fusion party line, that is quite apparent to everybody.


    ETA- there may have been a dwindling of the current at the end of these experiments, but possibly/probably because the voltage had reached its limit. Not important.

  • Ascoli,


    The main problem with your analysis is there is just too many assumptions, and the conclusions in either directions for this particular paper is not important for the science or for F&P previous work.


    Boiling cellls is different from the work that was replicated by many.


    With Regards to current , they did read the current, but since they where conservative in their calculations, the Form of the current curve (as the cell approach dry) from 500mA to 0 A is not important.


    However, They may have logged the last period, but we cannot conclude either way by the paper. But you conclude, and that is an assumption.


    Anyhow the HAD paper specifically evaluates several HAD Events, and states 100V and 0 A during the HAD period, so I believe they would have noticed and discussed different values, If there was.



    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsSheatafterd.pdf