Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

Quote from JedRothwell

Whereas a close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons cell showed that the cathode was producing heat, the anode was not, and the bubbles were all from boiling, which was definitive proof of anomalous excess heat.

Could you please explain why this behavior should be considered a "definitive proof of anomalous excess heat"?

Quote from JedRothwell

Where "this behavior" is briefly summarized:

. . . A close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons cell showed that the cathode was producing heat, the anode was not, and the bubbles were all from boiling, which was definitive proof of anomalous excess heat.

Several reasons:

It was a clear, high resolution, color video with sound, unlike the time lapse ones. So you could see what was happening. People were shown. A hand was seen close to the cell, so you could see the scale of the device. (The scale was given, but you could verify it.)

This was not a half silvered cell, so you could clearly see the cathode and anode. Like most F&P cells, the cathode was a rod and the anode a spiral around it, so you could clearly see both of them. Where the anode is something like a mesh, you cannot see the cathode, because the anode should extend beyond the ends of a rod cathode, or the cathode will not load.

Electrolysis produces bubbles on both the anode and cathode. This phase was shown in the video. The bubbles from electrolysis are numerous and fine, similar to CO2 bubbles in a soft drink. They are all about the same size. When the cathode heated up, it began boiling the electrolyte. Bubbles from boiling look very different from electrolysis bubbles. They are much larger, and they vary in size. Electrolysis power was turned off before the water level fell below the anode and cathode, unlike in the time lapse videos. At that point, boiling continued at the cathode. All bubbles from the anode ceased. So, you could see that electrolysis had stopped, and you could also see that all of heat was being produced at the cathode.

The heat production was far higher than could be produced by deuterium outgassing and recombination at the cathode surface. So, this was anomalous heat. A cathode of this size and dimensions cannot produce enough recombination heat to boil water. Fleischmann described this here:

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

The reaction continued far longer than any chemical reaction could have, according to the people who made the video. The video itself did not continue very long, as I recall, so we have to take their word for it.

Display More

Thank you for your detailed answer. It's very kind of you.

Your description of what is shown in the close-up video looks very accurate and realistic. No doubt it exists, only wonder why such a relevant document has not been made public. Misteries of CF.

Any way in what you have reported I cannot find anything of anomalous.

It's well expected that in the F&P cells described by you, the same used in the 1992 boil-off experiment, the vapor bubbles develop on the surface of the massive central cathode more easily than on that of the thin external spiraling anode. The water around the central cathode is a bit hotter than the water which cools the external anode, and at or near the boiling conditions this fact makes a big difference. Even the size of the electrode has an influence. A larger rod can support a bigger bubble, before it leaves the electrode and rises. Viceversa, the thin anodic wire could have produced only very tiny vapor bubble, not very much distinguishable from the gaseous bubbles.

As for the boiling continuing on the cathode surface even after the turning off of electrolysis, there is no surprise as well. During normal electrolysis, cathode becomes much hotter than the surrounding water due to the concentration of the current lines towards its surface. Moreover the vapor film around its surface hinders the thermal exchange with the bulk of coolant. Sometimes the cathode becomes incandescent. After turning off electrolysis the sensible heat stored in the cathode is enough to generate vapor bubbles for a total volume hundreds of times that of the cathode rod. No need to hypotize recombinations or chemical reactions. It takes a while to generate all this vapor. So, no surprise that you have seen vapor bubbles until the end of the close-up video, which, as you reported, didn't last very long after the turning off of electrolysis.

So, in my opinion, the behaviour you reported is very far from being considered a "definitive proof of anomalous excess heat".

Quote from JedRothwell

Nothing like what you describe happens. There is no boiling at the cathode once electrolysis ends. I repeat, there is never any boiling at the cathode, or the anode. Even if they are very hot, they cool down instantly and stop boiling. The same thing happens when you drop an incandescent red nail into water. It boils for a moment, cools down, and stops.

This seems contradictory with what you have written, just a few messages above, in your answer to Wyttenbach: "However, if you only look at a video of a large cathode after electrolysis, you might see boiling. Not with this cathode though. It was too small, according to F&P."

If I understand correctly, you state that boiling at cathode after normal electrolysis could happen. It's just a matter of cathode size. But a 4 mm rod, as those used by F&P around 1992, is not exactly a nail. Independently from the size, the heat stored in a palladium cathode which reach an average temperature of just 100 °C above the boiling point is able to produce more than 100 times its volume in vapor bubbles.

Specific diameter only influences the time required to release the overheat. But in your previous answer to me, you reported that, after "electrolysis power was turned off", the close up video "did not continue very long". So, IMO, you can't exclude that what you saw was just the effect of the cathode overheat at work.

In order to exclude it, we should look at the close-up video. Considering its importance and all the detail you have reported, you probably know who owns this video. Could you share this information with us? Could you ask the owner to make public his video?

Quote

It does not boil for 20 minutes or 70 days the way cathodes do with cold fusion.

Which experiments are you talking about? Any proof that this happens after the electrolysis was turned off?

1rst time i sort of agree with jed. a need of power to keep the system running as it also recharges.
today's tech is around 5 years before plate failure

Quote from JedRothwell

I said heat is produced by D2 formation at the cathode surface. With a cathode of this small size, that heat is far too low to produce boiling. See Fleischmann's calculation referenced above.

Kreysa, Morrison and others have claimed that cold fusion cathodes can produce much more heat. There was a palladium cigarette lighter in the 19th century. This was D2O formation in the presence of oxygen. This cannot occur in the video I described because the cathode was under water. D2O formation can only happen above the waterline where it would not heat the water. There can be no significant D2O formation at the electrodes with this geometry. (Actually, this cell was open, so D2O formation can only occur outside the cell.)

After the boil-off experiment, D2O cannot occur in the cell because these is no free oxygen in it. This has been confirmed by various methods. All of oxygen leaves the cell during electrolysis. It is not stored in the platinum anode.

I'm not considering the D2, nor the D2O formation, but only the overheat of cathode with respect to boiling water.

Quote

The vapor comes out very slowly, over several days, as Fleischmann pointed out.

Where did Fleischmann pointed out this? And which vapor are you talking about? The vapor I refer to does not "come out" from anything, but it is produced on the cathode surface thanks to the heat coming out from the overheated palladium.

Quote

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

For what I saw, the document that you have linked does not describe the behavior of any cathode after the electrolysis was turned off. As shown in figures 3 and 4, voltage and current persist until the end of the experiment.

Quote

Heat of a nail in a flame.

Drop it into some water.

Measure how long it produces boiling bubbles.

You will see that without input energy, boiling stops within seconds. ...

A 4 mm rod is larger than a normal nail. If placed in water at boiling point (not whatever "some water"), it generates vapor bubbles, whose total volume is hundreds time larger than the palladium volume. Moreover, if water is contained in a well insulated F&P cell, it could take some time to generate this vapor. There is no evidence that this time is shorter than what you saw in the close-up video. (BTW, why don't you disclose to the LENR community the owner of this fundamental video?)

Quote

... It is impossible for it to continue without input power for 20 minutes or hours, weeks, or months. D2 formation is input power but it is orders of magnitude too low.

I repeat. I never mentioned the D2 recombination. This seems a straw man argument of yours.

As for the 20 minutes up to months of boiling after turning off of electrolysis, you didn't provided any evidence yet.

Quote from JedRothwell

"Overheated" how much? It isn't incandescent.

In one of my previous comment I already mentioned "an average temperature of just 100 °C above the boiling point is able to produce more than 100 times its [cathode] volume in vapor bubbles.". Anyway, this is a conservative assumption. Someone reported that, in a F&P cell, cathode can reach 300°C.

Quote

Apparently you don't believe me, so I suggest you shut up and try it.

Well, this discussion started just because I gave you credit about the existence of a "close-up video" in which, as you told us, the cathode continues to generate vapor bubbles for some time after electrolysis was turned off. The problem is that this video is not publicly available. This is disappointing. I wonder why such a significant document is kept secret.

You wrote that "The reaction continued far longer than any chemical reaction could have, according to the people who made the video." Does it means that you know who they are? Why don't you share this important information with the LENR community?

Quote

What the hell is a "normal" nail, anyway?

A "normal" nail is what everyone has usually at home for hanging a frame on a wall. And its diameter is much less than the 4 mm of the F&P cathode.

Quote

Watch this video. You will see that a blacksmith quenches an incandescent piece of steel (at second 35) and within a few seconds boiling stops.

I carefully watched the video (https…youtu.be/eIJl0s0PJRk), but I wonder if you did the same. At second 35, the image change almost immediately after the blacksmith immerse the piece of steel into the barrel of water. The same happens for the next image, when the piece of steel is put in a transparent vessel. How can you say that "within a few seconds boiling stops"? It's simply not shown.

Anyway, your making reference to that video means that you have not well understood the difference between a barrel of cold water and a well insulated Dewar bottle containing well stirred water at boiling temperature. In the first case you have a huge sensible heat capacity for quenching the pieces of metal, that is the cool water has plenty of room to increase its temperature before reaching the boiling temperature. On the contrary, the boiling water in a F&P cell has no more sensible heat capacity, it can't no more absorb heat by increasing its temperature. It can only evaporate to remove the heat released by the overheated cathode.

This is plain physics and provide a simple conventional explanation to your description of the misterious "close-up video". Nothing of anomalous happened.

Quote from Ascoli65

Anyway, your making reference to that video means that you have not well understood the difference between a barrel of cold water and a well insulated Dewar bottle containing well stirred water at boiling temperature. In the first case you have a huge sensible heat capacity for quenching the pieces of metal, that is the cool water has plenty of room to increase its temperature before reaching the boiling temperature. On the contrary, the boiling water in a F&P cell has no more sensible heat capacity, it can't no more absorb heat by increasing its temperature. It can only evaporate to remove the heat released by the overheated cathode.

A good reply by Ascoli65. And I'm sure Jed will find a sensible response. But the basic truth behind this whole debate is that the fundamental experimental results cannot be simply replicated at will by anyone with an appropriately equipped lab. That is a huge problem. This debate should really not be happening. The fact that it is taking place at all indicates that the Pons and Fleischmann findings have little to tell us about reality.

Quote from Bruce__H

A good reply by Ascoli65. And I'm sure Jed will find a sensible response. But the basic truth behind this whole debate is that the fundamental experimental results cannot be simply replicated at will by anyone with an appropriately equipped lab. That is a huge problem. This debate should really not be happening. The fact that it is taking place at all indicates that the Pons and Fleischmann findings have little to tell us about reality.

Superfiailly that looked good, However, he doesn't explain how the cathode got to be at more than 100C if there was no magic happening. Electrolysis itself is endothermic, however, the Joule heating losses can boil the water for sure. But the Joule heating of the cathode itself is very small, since it is designed to have a very low electrical resistance while the electrolyte is the high resistance part of the system that soaks up the amperes. It is normally the electrolyte heating the cathode, not the cathode getting hot and transferring heat to the electrolyte. Cathode heating is also self-limiting, since the hotter it gets the more it becomes sheathed in bubbles and so the surface area of the cathode available to conduct current becomes smaller.

Quote from JedRothwell

There was no joule heating, and no electrolysis

I know that, but there is always Joule heating. The point I was trying to make (badly perhaps) is that even if there had been electrolysis up to the moment that the video started the cathode would not be hotter than the electrolyte if there was no LENR reaction, because normally it is the electrolyte that heats up. Think of an electric bar heater. The wires feeding the bar don't get hot because they have low electrical resistance, the bar gets hot because it has higher electrical resistance. In the case of the F&P cell the electrodes are the cooler wires from the wall outlet, , the electrolyte is the hot bar. But only if there was no LENR happening. Ascoli65 has created a self-defeating argument.

Quote from Alan Smith

Superfiailly that looked good, However, he doesn't explain how the cathode got to be at more than 100C if there was no magic happening. Electrolysis itself is endothermic, however, the Joule heating losses can boil the water for sure. But the Joule heating of the cathode itself is very small, since it is designed to have a very low electrical resistance while the electrolyte is the high resistance part of the system that soaks up the amperes. It is normally the electrolyte heating the cathode, not the cathode getting hot and transferring heat to the electrolyte. Cathode heating is also self-limiting, since the hotter it gets the more it becomes sheathed in bubbles and so the surface area of the cathode available to conduct current becomes smaller.

Sure. And I understand your point. But one can think of counterarguments -- maybe some cathodes have internal resistances from manufacturing defects, etc. -- and the debate is on again. My point is that scientific observations only properly live on if they give birth to procedures and devices that are used every day in the lab and in the world at large. And that hasn't happened with the P&F stuff. That is why a fruitless debate continues fueled by grainy videos. A debate that can't be solved by just pointing to some device used every day in the lab and saying "this is where the P&F work ended up, that device works on the same principle".

And to bring this whole thing back to the topic of this thread ... the papers by Rothwell and Mizuno were an attempt to spread the practical knowledge of how to build and operate Mizuno's device. I am now hoping for the sort of uptake and translation into everyday lab experience that never happened for P&F. So far, I don't see it. But now, recently, in this thread, Daniel_G seems to be saying that Mizuno knows why some replicators are not encountering success. Well I wish that he (Mizuno, or Daniel_G, doesn't matter) would update the published descriptions so that this whole thing will become real and not just yet another phantasm as seems so common for LENR claims.

Quote from Alan Smith

Superfiailly that looked good, However, he doesn't explain how the cathode got to be at more than 100C if there was no magic happening. Electrolysis itself is endothermic, however, the Joule heating losses can boil the water for sure. But the Joule heating of the cathode itself is very small, since it is designed to have a very low electrical resistance while the electrolyte is the high resistance part of the system that soaks up the amperes. It is normally the electrolyte heating the cathode, not the cathode getting hot and transferring heat to the electrolyte. Cathode heating is also self-limiting, since the hotter it gets the more it becomes sheathed in bubbles and so the surface area of the cathode available to conduct current becomes smaller.

Quote from Alan Smith

I know that, but there is always Joule heating. The point I was trying to make (badly perhaps) is that even if there had been electrolysis up to the moment that the video started the cathode would not be hotter than the electrolyte if there was no LENR reaction, because normally it is the electrolyte that heats up. Think of an electric bar heater. The wires feeding the bar don't get hot because they have low electrical resistance, the bar gets hot because it has higher electrical resistance. In the case of the F&P cell the electrodes are the cooler wires from the wall outlet, , the electrolyte is the hot bar. But only if there was no LENR happening. Ascoli65 has created a self-defeating argument.

No need of magic to understand why cathode heats at much more than 100°C, and no need to invoke any mysterious LENR reaction either. The explanation is contained in Lonchampt paper, 1996 ( http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf ) : f ormation of deposits on the cathode. Chapter 4 describes this phenomenon and a line on a scheme warns that "Such deposits result in overvoltage". This last is the progressive increase of voltage which was also reported for the "F&P's 1992 boil-off experiment". So the simple explanation is that this overvoltage locates mainly on the cathode surface due to deposits that accumulate during the experiment, causing the cathode to increase progressively its temperature.

Lonchampt continues: "In all of our experiments showing excess heat at boiling, we have observed a sudden jump in power input towards the end of the experiment indicating a sudden change in the overvoltage. This might be due to the formation of a water gas film at the surface of the cathode when large quantities of heat are produced, either by electrical heating or possibly by the excess enthalpy itself."

Therefore the water gas film has the effect to isolate the main source of heat (the cathode, in this case) from the coolant, so that the temperature of the cathode rises even more quickly. A behavior called "positive feedback" by F&P and that the two electrochemists connected to the onset of imaginary nuclear reaction, but that in reality is driven by much more mundane phenomena.

Quote from Bruce__H

Sure. And I understand your point. But one can think of counterarguments -- maybe some cathodes have internal resistances from manufacturing defects, etc. -- and the debate is on again. My point is that scientific observations only properly live on if they give birth to procedures and devices that are used every day in the lab and in the world at large. And that hasn't happened with the P&F stuff. That is why a fruitless debate continues fueled by grainy videos. A debate that can't be solved by just pointing to some device used every day in the lab and saying "this is where the P&F work ended up, that device works on the same principle".

A cathode with higher electrical resistance than the electrolyte would be a water heater. Not a workable electrode. You can buy water heaters in Walmart for sure. But for now, the P&F technology has worked thousands of times in many laboratories. As for 'manufacturing defects' you won't find many pieces of Pd with that particular problem. It would be resistance wire

Quote from Ascoli65

Therefore the water gas film has the effect to isolate the main source of heat (the cathode, in this case) from the coolant, so that the temperature of the cathode rises even more quickly. A behavior called "positive feedback" by F&P and that the two electrochemists connected to the onset of imaginary nuclear reaction, but that in reality is driven by much more mundane phenomena.

That's a pretty uniformed comment. If a film of water gas isolates thermally and presumably electrically the cathode then less current flows and less heating of the electrolyte occurs. If there is only a single spot of the cathode left conducting then the bulk electrolyte won't reach the temperature where it would readily boil. If you had any experience of electrolysers and plating tanks you would know that,