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

  • 3h of heat after dead is not wrong

    The event claimed by F&P in their ICCF3 paper is wrong: FP's experiments discussion


    We (LENR) will kill ITER and most hot fusion soon as this is fringe science based on an unconfirmed model, that was never able to deliver any useful results. You should teach your friends about this not us!

    I've already explained my position on these subjects: Clearance Items

  • I did not refer to the e-cat. Focardi, Piantelli and others did Nickel- hydrogen research during the 1990's and found some excess heat event.

    Anyhow, going back to F&P there are far far too many replications, with improved instruments, to just throw it away with "human factors".

    And no, the boiling experiment is very different from the lower temperature experiments, and any possible errors do not impact their earlier results 🤓

    You need to read a litle more 😉

  • The March 23, 1989 press conference of F&P is mentioned in the first paragraph of almost every history on Cold Fusion, regardless of their being pro or cons its reality.

    ***And it's a lousy place to start because F&P were working with someone else at another university who it appeared to them was going to steal the wind from their sails. They were pressured by their own departments to do the announcement and it was a big splash. But it was still the wrong way to introduce such an important development in science.

    Over the past 30 years, F&P experiments have been considered by the LENR community as indisputable examples of good practice in conducting and documenting CF tests.

    ***Indisputable? You're starting off the discussion with nonsense polemics?

  • My personal position is well known: I see no reason to believe in the reality of the F&P effect.

    ***Why? On the thread I posted, we got a couple of hyperskeptics to admit that the P&F Anomalous Heat Effect had been replicated more than 150 times by the ~100 top electrochemists of their day. Please post why you think the top 100 electrochemists of the day made some kind of incredibly obtuse error that would make such a giant magnified COP effect.

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

    I am aware that this position is not popular, to say the least, among the members of this LENR-forum, however this is the only place on earth where it is possible to see at which extent it is valid, by gathering constructive criticisms

    ***Constructive? My thread was polluted by seagulls who move the goalposts for science. That's essentially Ludditism. If you intend for constructive criticism then you need to find ways to disinvite people like Kurt Shanahan, Interested Observer, Joshua Cude, Mary Yugo, and other skeptopath seagulls. That's how you'll get CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

    - based on facts and, hopefully, on new data

    ***You should start with Old Data before you move onto New Data. After all, based upon the Old Data, the F&P effect has been replicated 153 times by the top 100 electrochemists of their day. And as Jed pointed out, it's not like the hot fusioneers even attempted to replicate the effect. All they did was set up some poorly laid out calorimetry and look for Neutrons. When they didn't find them, they argued from silence to say that the effect doesn't exist. So how can an effect that does not exist fool the top 100 electrochemists of their day? You should start there before you move on to "new" data.

    - in order to better understand how the F&P results were obtained.

    ***You're already starting off with a biased approach that invites skeptopaths.

  • But over the last decade more documents have been published on the internet which provides new info on these experiments.

    ***Well, THAT certainly is unique in science history. Even Poywater was addressed within a couple of years rather than 30 years. And the P&F effect was replicated in 153 peer reviewed journals... where are all the peer reviewed journals with all this new information? You should be LEADING with this information.

    In particular, the publication of some videos allowed the public to directly evaluate the behavior of the F&P electrolytic cells during the most crucial phases of their boil-off experiments.

    ***You mean , like the video of P&F putting dye into their cell to prove that it was mixing properly? That was the biggest and most primary objection to their research, and it was quickly dispensed with.

    This new evidences are in clear contrast with the results reported in some important F&P papers.

    ***CLEAR contrast? As clear as mud. There's 153 peer reviewed replications. Where are the peer reviewed replications of these supposed videos? The level of contrast in the approach to science -- one side has 153 peer reviewed journals, the other side has some kind of video on youtube-- is a real good example of Clear Contrast.

    The 30° anniversary is a good opportunity to solicit informed and authoritative confirmations on the existence of these inconsistencies,

    ***The peer reviewed replications were the STANDARD scientific opportunity to solicit informed and authoritative confirmations and/or refutations of any inconsistencies. This 30-year ex-post-facto youtube approach is incredibly NONauthoritative.

    which in turn could lead to a wider debate on the reality of the effect claimed by F&P.

    ***I sincerely doubt that there is an intention for wider debate. This is more of an exercise in throwing out lunch food to the existing seagulls. But I will try to cull any useful or positive information outside of seagull droppings and post it on my after-action thread here:


  • Now, almost 3 decades after their experiments, it's time to understand what "reasonably accurate" means when referring to F&P's claims.

    ***No, the time to understand "reasonably accurate " was 30 years ago when the top 100 electrochemists of the day were looking into it and publishing in peer reviewed journals. P&F spent a couple of years looking at this weird phenomena before they had a meltdown/boiloff.

  • 1989.. where was I ..


    Well I was even later... 2014..

    For me it was around 2007 or 2008 and Iwas hearing that there were ongoing cold fusion experiments that had changed even the name of the venture into LENR.


    How I Made Money from Cold Fusion

    Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo

    Posted on 1/23/2010, 12:28:49 PM by Kevmo

    Freeper gets a fascinating contract listed on Intrade, bets that the experiment will be replicated, and cashes in.

    In 2008, Dr. Yoshiaki Arata performed a fascinating experiment with Deuterium Gas loaded onto a Palladium matrix, and without any input power, showed that there was some excess heat. Generating excess heat in cold fusion cell wasn't a new development -- scientists had been replicating the Pons-Fleischman effect for 2 decades. What was a new development was how easily replicable this particular experiment was. It seemed to me that this would be the easiest way to replicate anomalous heat production, removing the tired old standby excuse that the energy input from electrolysis was causing this excess heat, because there was NO energy input in this experiment. So I proposed to Intrade that they open up a contract that this experiment would be replicated in a peer reviewed, scientific Journal.

    I also posted a discussion thread on the Intrade forum


    "This week, Dr. Yoshiaki Arata demonstrated Cold Fusion in a reproducible environment. I sent in a suggestion to intrade that a contract be opened up that it would be replicated in a peer-reviewed journal by January 1, 2009. I haven't heard yet if there's any interest."

    AZoNano.com Energy Breakthrough as Japanese Physicist Sucessfully and ...


    To my surprise, Intrade opened up this contract in 2008, where it basically stagnated. Since I was not involved in the peer review process, my assessment was that the experiment would only take several weeks to make it through the grueling process, rather than several months. It was actually someone at Free Republic who set me straight on that:


    The contract closed at the end of 2008 at zero, meaning that anyone who bet that the experiment would be replicated and published had lost their bet.

    I found the contract fascinating and asked Intrade to open a new contract in 2009, which they did. A few months into 2009, there started to be some replication experiments published by scientists, but the whole process was outshined by Dr. Pamela Mossier-Boss publishing her exciting results where she showed that there were Neutrons being generated in the cold fusion cell at the Navy Space Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR).

    'Cold Fusion' Rebirth? New Evidence For Existence Of Controversial Energy Source


    ScienceDaily (Mar. 23, 2009) — [Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called "cold fusion" that may promise a new source of energy. One group of scientists, for instance, describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring. The report, which injects new life into this controversial field, will be presented March 23 in Salt Lake City, Utah, at the American Chemical Society's 237th National Meeting. "Our finding is very significant," says study co-author and analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., of the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, Calif. "To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device."]

    And then the CBS TV newsmagazine 60 Minutes chimed in with their report on cold fusion on April 19, 2009, pushing the Arata replication results further into the background. The video and an article describing it are here:


    I started posting references to replication of Arata's experiment in the Intrade Forum, saying such things as, "Oh, and the experiment was a replication of Arata's demonstration last May. So it was in quantitative fact proof that Arata's demonstration worked as stated. " From the PhysOrg article and discussion:

    'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source


    I transferred as much money as I was willing to lose over to Intrade. This was harder that I thought it would be, because Intrade does not accept credit cards. I bought up as many contracts as I could, and posted that I would pay $5-$6 for a contract that would pay out at $100. In reality, it's paying 50-60Cents per contract, and the payout is $10, for some bizarre reasoning that Intrade uses 1/10th of the actual monetary figures. To my surprise, there were still folks at Intrade posting that I was "Mental" , or as BobbyE wrote: "I have trouble getting reality shows listed early but this crap of a contract gets listed? What was the total volume? Unreal." My response was: "Feel free to make money from my foolishness. Those 500 contract bids at $5.50 are mine. Put your money where your mouth is."

    This was where I learned that there's a huge difference between what people say and what they actually do at Intrade. For all the huffing and puffing about this contract being a waste of time or effort or stupid, they still wouldn't take my money. I was forced to raise my price 5X to 7X what I originally asked before I could purchase contracts. That's when I wrote this article here on Free Republic:

    The End of Snide Remarks Against Cold Fusion

    Friday, June 05, 2009 5:56:08 PM · by Kevmo · 95 replies · 2,126+ views

    Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | kevmo, et al


    I ventured as much money on the contract as I was willing, with the expectation that the price would shoot up at any moment. I was surprised it didn't. I posted several articles showing that the experiment had been replicated and that the results were showing up in peer reviewed journals. But the price did not go up. There was one physicist at Intrade who argued against my claim, saying that the American Chemical Society wasn't a peer reviewed platform. The experiment had been published in a "symposium", and then in a peer reviewed book, which isn't a journal! I had to find other references to the replication experiments being published in at least one peer-reviewed journal and that the press had made mention of it. I found a bunch of articles and posted them, and even the hot-particle physicist know-it-all acknowledged that the experiment had been replicated in a peer reviewed journal.

    After the closeout date of the contract, Carl Wolfenden at Intrade had to pick his way through all the articles and support information that I generated and he decided that the terms of the contract had been met and it was paid out at 100. It couldn't have been easy for Mr. Wolfenden, because Intrade had at one time a physicist on staff but he had gone on to greener pastures. That's probably why Intrade hasn't yet posted the follow-on contract that I requested -- that Dr. Pamela Mellier-Boss's CR-39 Triple Tracks Neutron detection experiment would be replicated in a peer-reviewed PUBLICATION.

    So now I tell my friends that I'm the first layman to make money on Cold Fusion. Now I have even more trouble finding people who will take my bet. I feel that Intrade has made history, in a way. There's a parallel in scientific publication history, when Scientific American refused to publish articles that the Wright Brothers were flying, because it was supposedly impossible -- the greatest luminaries in science at the time had tried and failed ignominiously, like Dr. Langley at the Smithsonian. No one remembers who the genius was that turned down the article in Scientific American, but A.I.Root has his own unique place in history. So the lesson is that one puts forth his sincere witness of the technology in progress and lets the chips fall where they may.

    Gleanings in Bee Culture, January 1, 1905


    This issue of the Medina, Ohio based beekeeping magazine has the distinction of publishing the first eyewitness account of the Wright Brothers' historic manned flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. A. I. Root, the publisher of Gleanings in Bee Culture and a longtime friend of the flight pioneers, was permitted to write this first account and sent it off to "Scientific American." After nearly a year of silence on the part of the magazine, Root wrote its editor, who responded that it was difficult to believe that the event had actually occurred and that even if it had, the airplane would never have any practical application. When Root showed this response to the Wright Brothers, they suggested that he go ahead and publish it in his beekeeping magazine.

  • To me the interesting part of the lecture was what happened in 1920's and forward to F&P discovery in the mid 1980's. (Some would say re-discovery)

    Why they started the research etc. And as with many scientific discoveries there are a prehistory og overlooked lab results, og earlier controversial lab results hidden away etc.

    That prehistory of unsettled lab results rattling around was what got P&F interested in looking into this thing in the first place.

  • Interesting story. Mine is much shorter. The day after January 14, 2011, ....


    Well, at that point I got a quite clear opinion about what CF/LENR was. This opinion strengthened as I looked at the other Ecat tests performed in 2011.

    ***You seem to have an improper focus, because this effect was studied and replicated more than 20 years earlier , with replications posted on 153 peer reviewed journals. So you APPROACHED the field of LENR with the Prism of Rossi, similar to what Interested Observer did. You're way off.

    Very recently, since last September, I started looking at the F&P experiments, finding that they were affected by inconsistencies of the same nature of those found in Ecat tests.

    ***Then by all means, one by one, dismantle those replicated results of the top ~100 electrochemists of the day. Like I told Shanahan, here's a GIGANTIC chance to make a name for yourself.

    Your mysteries can be easily solved by fully understanding the 1992 boil-off experiment.

    ***Nonsense. You have an improper focus. Just throw out ALL boil-off experiments and focus on the excess heat results that have been replicated. Then revisit those boil-off experiments in LIGHT OF those replications.

    If the two macroscopic results claimed by F&P in their ICCF3 paper

    ***This is incredible nonsense. The MACROSCOPIC results of F&P were REPLICATED 153 times in PEER Reviewed Journals by the TOP ~100 Electrochemists of the day. Those were the MACRO results. You're going after ICCF 3 which happened after the hot fusion boys seagulled onto the science because their funding was threatened by some puny-brained electrochemists.

    - the same repeated by MF during his 1999 lecture

    ***This is 10 YEARS after the cold fusion debacle. You have an improper focus.

    - were lacking of any soundness, the most logical explanation of your mysteries is that even the microscopic results claimed by F&P in the '80ies were wrong.

    ***Way off, Way, way, way the friketyfrack off. P&F were among the top electrochemists of their day, and their results were replicated 153 times in peer reviewed journals by their colleagues who were among the "who's who" of electrochemistry. If P&F were "lacking in soundness" then the ENTIRE FIELD of electrochemistry was lacking in soundness. That's how far, how WAY, WAY off you are. "Most logical explanation???" What a gigantic pile of horse manure.

    Probably, the mystery of nature that begs attention involves human factors, rather than physical or chemical.

    ***You're right about that, because it was human factors that threw the wrench into this whole investigation. The human factors were that there was a bunch of hot fusion physicists who fed at the public trough and their funds were directly threatened. It would be as if HighTempSuperConductivity (which was invigorated right around the same time) were threaning some group of scientists who depended upon further funding for their research for HTSC to be flat wrong. As it was, there was no entrenched group of trough feeders threatened by HTSC research.

  • ...Focardi was the most active in affirming the reality of the Ecat performances.

    The only way I can explain this support is that Focardi and his colleagues were not reliable in their assessments of the energy performances of the Ecat. This unreliability can easily explain the claims relative to his early experiments.

    ***There is another, more likely way, one that follows Occham's Razor closer. That is that the P&F effect is REAL, that it had been replicated 153 times by the top~100 electrochemists of the day. And that Focardi and Piantelli had their own little Ni-H niche which was really difficult to get results from, even harder than Pd-D. Along comes a carnival barker who introduces at least 2 new wrinkles, and generates strong LENR results. Those 2 new wrinkles were that he was using H1 Gas instead of H2 Gas, with the H1-->H2 endothermic recombination effect inside the lattice triggering the LENR response, and adding Lithium to his secret sauce increasing the fission end of the effect. You say your approach is the "ONLY" way you can explain Focardi, but there are other ways.

    Evidently the human factors underlying the CF mysteries are common to any of its branch and are effective regardless of the metal used.

    ***Not so evident once one approaches this from the other side of those 153 replications rather than from your angle, of approaching LENR by way of Rossi.

  • kev,

    Keep the insults on the Rossi threads. Ascoli has been a gentleman, and played by the rules. This is his thread, and he deserves the same in return.

    Thank you. I will leave that up to Ascoli. His thread, his decision. I had my say, and unless he objects, will not interfere.

    Thank you, Shane, for your intervention.

    It's not a matter of insult. I haven't seen any particular insult. If you refer to "skeptopath", it's rather an opinion. The real problem is that I really can't figure out what his points are. As you know, my commitment is to answer all the replies to my posts, even the most demanding ones. In the case of kevmo, I really don't know where to start and what to say. I'm not sure he is really interested in this discussion. I have the impression that he is trying to boycott it. But maybe I'm wrong.

    So, the only request I have is to remove all his comments above (possibly by moving them in his thread on F&P (1), after having reopened it) and give him a second chance to explain more briefly his position with respect to the issues that we are discussing in this thread.

    Otherwise, I will simply ignore him and his comments.

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

  • I did not refer to the e-cat. Focardi, Piantelli and others did Nickel- hydrogen research during the 1990's and found some excess heat event.

    I knew you didn't refer to the Ecat, but this affair has heavily impacted the reliability of Focardi in assessing the energy performances of a CF device, affecting in turn the reliability of his claims relative to the experiments he carried out in the '90ies with Piantelli.

    In short, the Ecat affair has impaired the credibility of the UniBo physicists in properly assessing the energy performances of whatsoever CF device and experiment.


    Anyhow, going back to F&P there are far far too many replications, with improved instruments, to just throw it away with "human factors".

    And no, the boiling experiment is very different from the lower temperature experiments, and any possible errors do not impact their earlier results 🤓

    Well, let's start from the 1992 boil-off experiment. This is the most cited and famous experiment performed by F&P and both its conclusions are wrong. Now, I agree that this fact doesn't automatically impact the results of all the other F&P experiments. But it poses a big question: HOW was it possible that the two scientists committed such blatant errors? This is about the same point where our discussion was interrupted almost a month ago (1).

    Another consequent question is: HOW was it possible that these blatant errors were overlooked by the people who examined the F&P boil-off experiment and who claimed to have replicated their results?

    Of course the "human factor" would provide an easy answer to these questions, but I agree with you that it would be a too simplistic answer. A much better answer could be provided after having understood the specific causes of these errors. This is the reason why I'm urging the LENR community to make public the original data of the 1992 boil-off experiment. After having better understood the causes of the errors in the F&P boil-off test, we can examine the other lower temperature experiments, as I promised you to do.

    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • Ascoli65 and others. This thread is about F&P experiments. Turning it into another Rossi-related thread is not the idea anmd is firmly discouraged Any non-F&P related posts will be moved somewhere more appropriate.

    I totally agree with you.

    As I've said many times, I don't care about Rossi, I'm only interested to the Ecat affair for what concerns the role of UniBo and its professors, including Focardi.

    Rossi and Focardi were first mentioned in this thread by oystla (1), to outline a parallel between the Pd-D approach to CF, originally proposed by F&P, and the Ni-H approach, of which the Ecat represents the most famous embodiment. As I am used to do, I replied to his comment on the merit (2).

    Anyway, I hope that this thread will be preserved from any topic other than F&P experiments and their scientific and factual aspects.

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

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

  • “Anyway, I hope that this thread will be preserved from any topic other than F&P experiments and their scientific and factual aspects.“

    And your opinions, based on a fragmented video of dubious provenance, of course.

  • And your opinions, based on a fragmented video of dubious provenance, of course.

    I affirm my opinions, of course. What else should I do?

    Regarding the 1992 boil-off experiment, my opinions are mainly based on the available lab videos of that event. Videos are one of the most dense, meaningful and reliable form of documentation. The total duration of the video clips available for the boil-off experiment is not so short. The "time-lapse video" published by Rothwell shows more than 4 and a half hours of real-time test (1).

    The available clips are sufficient to see that the F&P conclusions were wrong. However, a better understanding of the causes of their errors would have been allowed by examining the full video recording, that includes the missing time periods between the clips from 5 to 6 (Cell 1), from 7 to 8 (Cell 2) and, most likely, from 9 to 12 (Cells 3 and 4). That's why I'm asking the LENR community to make public the entire lab video.

    As for their provenance, all the short videos come from F&P and have been published on YouTube by Krivit and Rothwell. However, it's not clear for which specific purpose they were produced. It would be not too difficult to reconstruct the exact history of each of these videos. I've already asked, in vain so far, the other L-F members to help me in this effort. I think it would be in the interest of science and truth.

    (1) FP's experiments discussion