High repeatability rate in the history of LENR

Quote from JedRothwell

And for the record, as F&P explained, and I explained, we know this did not happen with their cells because all of the lithium salt they put into the cell was still there after the boil-off.

You are confusing foaming with liquid entrainment, or any other liquid loss.

Foaming doesn't necessarily implies liquid loss, so it doesn't affect the salt balance after the boil-off. Therefore the recovery of the all of the lithium salt at the end of the boil-off doesn't exclude the formation of a lot of foam.

However, foaming is able to explain in a straight mundane way the rapid decrease of the apparent level inside the four cells, which was documented by F&P in this video:

More precisely, this decrease is due to the rapid deflation of the foam, which progressively built-up during the final boiling phase, lasting a few hours. This foam was highly inflated by the intense generation of steam bubbles in the very last minutes preceding the complete boil-off of electrolyte, as it was better described here: FP's experiments discussion

Quote from Wyttenbach

May be the posters should first learn how do calorimetry as such an investigation

Definitely Michael Staker learned how to do calorimetry

It took him a few years ... but he replicated P&F's results

Quote from Ascoli65

However, foaming is able to explain in a straight mundane way the rapid decrease of the apparent level inside the four cells, which was documented by F&P in this video:

The liquid is all gone after the boil off. It it had not been vaporized, some -- or all -- of the lithium would also be gone. Even if you were right, and the apparent water level was lower because of foaming during the event, that would not change final analysis, and the fact that all of the liquid leaves the cell, but none of the lithium does.

There are many other reasons you are wrong, such as the fact that they used closed, reflux cells and got the same results.

Quote from JedRothwell

The liquid is all gone after the boil off. It it had not been vaporized, some -- or all -- of the lithium would also be gone. Even if you were right, and the apparent water level was lower because of foaming during the event, that would not change final analysis, and the fact that all of the liquid leaves the cell, but none of the lithium does.

All the liquid had been vaporized, I agree, but in a much longer period of time than the 10 minutes considered by F&P in the calculation at page 16 of their ICCF3 paper (http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf).

Actually, the boiling and evaporation phase lasted for a few hours, as explained here: FP's experiments discussion .

The electric energy dissipated in the electrolytic cell was sufficient for the complete evaporation of water, as shown here: FP's experiments discussion .

No need to assume the production of heat in excess with respect to the input.

Quote

There are many other reasons you are wrong, such as the fact that they used closed, reflux cells and got the same results.

The available information about their 1992 boil-off experiment carried out by using 4 open cells clearly show that F&P provided an absolutely wrong interpretation of what happened in each cell. Their misinterpretation is fully documented in a video. Why should anyone believe that F&P were more reliable for experiments carried out in closed cells and not documented by any video?

Quote from Ascoli65

All the liquid had been vaporized, I agree, but in a much longer period of time than the 10 minutes considered by F&P in the calculation at page 16 of their ICCF3 paper

There are several reasons why you are wrong. Here are four of them:

1. They didn't calculate it. They watched it. So did several other people. There is no doubt it took only as long as they said. It is easy to see when boiling starts, and when it stops, even if you were right that the water level is hard to measure midway through. Not only is it easy to see when the boiling starts, they know exactly when that happens, because they trigger that event by turning up the power for 3 minutes, and then turning it back down. (They do not turn it up enough to boil; it does not boil in a calibration even after the 3-minute pulse.) They know when they turned it up and boiling begins. The boiling stops when all of the water is gone, and you can see that the second it happens. Also, you are wrong: it is quite easy to see the water level, when you watch in person. Granted, it is not so easy to see that in a grainy timelapse video.

2. There is not enough power to make it boil in the first place. The power is no higher than it was during the week or two leading up to the event, when there was no boiling. So there has to be a lot of excess heat. There was no boiling in calibrations with the same input power level.

3. The boiling continues after the power is cut off, when the water level falls below the anode and cathode. In a blank run, with far more electrolysis power, it stops the moment the water level falls below the anode and cathode.

4. As I said, the experiment was repeated with continuous boiling in a reflux calorimeter. (Reflux means the vapor was condensed and fell back into the boiling liquid.) This lasted 3 months, not ten minutes. The water level did not change, and the water level was not used to estimate heat, so even if there has been foam, it would not have affected the estimate of heat. Again, input power was much too low to sustain boiling.

I have said all of this many times. I repeat it for the benefit of new readers. You will go on ignoring these reasons, and all the other reasons you are wrong. Carry on!

Quote from JedRothwell

1. They didn't calculate it. They watched it. So did several other people. There is no doubt it took only as long as they said. It is easy to see when boiling starts, and when it stops, even if you were right that the water level is hard to measure midway through.

I didn't say that they calculated the boiling period, I said that F&P erroneously considered a boiling period of only 10 minutes (600 s) in their calculation (see page 16 of their ICCF3 paper). And there is no doubt that this period is wrong, because their videos show that the level they considered was the level of the inflated foam, not of liquid water, as they erroneously assumed in their calculation. This fact can be realized by anyone who watches the video ( FP's experiments discussion ) .

Quote

Not only is it easy to see when the boiling starts, they know exactly when that happens, because they trigger that event by turning up the power for 3 minutes, and then turning it back down. (They do not turn it up enough to boil; it does not boil in a calibration even after the 3-minute pulse.) They know when they turned it up and boiling begins. The boiling stops when all of the water is gone, and you can see that the second it happens. Also, you are wrong: it is quite easy to see the water level, when you watch in person. Granted, it is not so easy to see that in a grainy timelapse video.

Absolutely not true. MF was in England while the experiment was running in France, as already shown here: FP's experiments discussion .

I can't say the same for SP, but let me strongly doubt that he spent a few weeks staying at lab and continuously watching the level inside the cells, or that he choose to trigger the boiling in the middle of the night: FP's experiments discussion .

Therefore, thanks to the available videos, everyone can watch exactly the same images that were seen by F&P when they wrongly estimated that the boiling period lasted only 10 minutes.

Quote

2. There is not enough power to make it boil in the first place. The power is no higher than it was during the week or two leading up to the event, when there was no boiling. So there has to be a lot of excess heat. There was no boiling in calibrations with the same input power level.

Not true. The diagrams in Fig.6A to D in their ICCF3 paper show that the input power starts exceeding the thermal losses (11 W) a few hour before the complete boil off. See jpegs in these already cited links: FP's experiments discussion and FP's experiments discussion . Therefore, there was all the input energy required to evaporate all the liquid elecrtolyte.

Quote

3. The boiling continues after the power is cut off, when the water level falls below the anode and cathode. In a blank run, with far more electrolysis power, it stops the moment the water level falls below the anode and cathode.

No, that is also not true. F&P reported a wrong timing in Fig. 8 of their ICCF3 paper, as demonstrated here: FP's experiments discussion

Quote

4. As I said, the experiment was repeated with continuous boiling in a reflux calorimeter. (Reflux means the vapor was condensed and fell back into the boiling liquid.) This lasted 3 months, not ten minutes. The water level did not change, and the water level was not used to estimate heat, so even if there has been foam, it would not have affected the estimate of heat. Again, input power was much too low to sustain boiling.

And I already replied that there is no reason to believe that what F&P reported about the outcomes of a closed cell test is more reliable than their wrong interpretation of what happened in the open cell test, reported in their ICCF3 paper and thoroughlydocumented in their videos.

I think this thread is reverting to fallacious old Ascolio-foamology

... but Dr Michael Staker's has a much more recent replication..

He can and does, unllike Fleischmann( who died in 2012), respond to queries about his research..

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StakerMRpreprintco.pdf.. 2019

"

Abstract

Results of a calorimetric study established the energy produced,

over and above input energy, from electrolytic loading of deuterium into Pd was 150 MJ/cm3 of Pd

(14 000 eV/Pd atom) for a 46 day period.

.

During this period, two run-away events were triggered by suddenly increasing current density
resulting in 100% excess power (2.4 W output with 1.2 W input)

and necessitating temporary cut back in electrolysis current.

The average excess power (excluding run-away) ranged from

4.7 ± 0.15 to 9.6 ± 0.30% of input power

while input power ranged from 2.000 to 3.450 W,

confirming the Fleischmann–Pons effect.

Quote from Ascoli65

Absolutely not true. MF was in England while the experiment was running in France, as already shown here

Well, he told me he was there, and I saw a video of him watching a boil off. Who should I believe? You or my lying eyes?

Quote from Ascoli65

Therefore, thanks to the available videos, everyone can watch exactly the same images that were seen by F&P when they wrongly estimated that the boiling period lasted only 10 minutes.

It could not have boiled at all with that level of input power. It did not boil until they triggered it. They know when they triggered it.

Quote from Ascoli65

No, that is also not true. F&P reported a wrong timing in Fig. 8 of their ICCF3 paper, as demonstrated here

Demonstrated in your mind alone.

During the experiment, MF was not in his lab at IMRA-France

Quote from JedRothwell

Well, he told me he was there, and I saw a video of him watching a boil off. Who should I believe? You or my lying eyes?

So, you affirm that Martin Fleischmann told you that he was in his lab at IMRA-France attending the 1992 boil-off experiment. Are you sure? Because, his presence in France in that period is denied by what MF wrote from his home in England in the same period of the experiment (1), as illustrated in the following jpeg:

Do you see? The 1992 boil-off experiment started on April 11 (2) and the last boil-off event happened on May 6 (3). However, MF wrote to MM that he had to go in France starting from May 10. Therefore he couldn't have been present in his lab at IMRA-France during the boil-off events.

Maybe, the video you watched was same video from which someone took the "archive footage" included in the "Truthloader Investigates" video published in 2012 (4), but for sure your eyes didn't see a video of MF watching the 1992 boil-off experiment! It's impossible.

Quote

It could not have boiled at all with that level of input power. It did not boil until they triggered it. They know when they triggered it.

No. As I've already shown, F&P themselves calculated that the heat losses were about 11 W. This power level was exceeded several hours before complete boil-off, and subsequently the input power progressively increased to the maximum possible value of 50 W. So there was plenty of input power and energy available for bringing the electrolyte temperature at the boiling point and evaporate all the liquid.

Quote

Demonstrated in your mind alone.

No, not at all. It is demonstrated by numbers in the jpeg attached to the already cited link: FP's experiments discussion . Any mind can easily check those numbers and realize that F&P were wrong in drawing the "Cell dry" line on Figure 8, placing it a few hours too early.

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

(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

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

(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OQu44UIC_s

A list of high repeatability claims should include Celani et al. experiments with Constantan wires. I do not know if these have been independently replicated, but they are claimed to be repeatable. See, for example:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acro…JPjcondensedz.pdf#page=15

Quote from Curbina

and the proved experimentally that is just recombination what causes excess heat.

The authors state that D2 or hydrogen accumulates in microcracks in older palladium

and releases heat during runaway by recombination

Staker.. found that only electrolysing D20/,,not H20 gave the excess heat

and it was not observed on platinum electrodes..only on palladium

as well .. the palladium used was probably newer than F&Ps.

Staker would probably have an opinion on the microcracks in his electrodes

maybe the authors should have read a bit more of the literature..

https://www.researchgate.net/p…e4RpwMkvR2rKT-B0Pg&_iepl=

Quote from Curbina

And from the other side, these authors claim to have finally explained how Fleischmann and Pons did it, and the proved experimentally that is just recombination what causes excess heat. And they publish in the same Journal than Fleischmann and Pons!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…abs/pii/S1572665720304653

The Galushkin et al. article, "Mechanism of thermal runaway as a cause of Fleischmann-Pons effect", has been already mentioned here: High repeatability rate in the history of LENR

The authors state that "the Fleischmann-Pons effect (of burst type) is caused by an exothermic reaction of a recombination of the atomic deuterium accumulated in electrodes during electrolysis of the electrolyte".

However, they erroneously conclude that such an "established mechanism of Fleischmann-Pons effect explains all the currently known experimental facts". This is absolutely wrong. The most important experimental result obtained by F&P, namely the alleged high level of excess heat they claimed to have obtained during the final boiling phases of the 1992 boil-off experiment (ref. 39 in the Galushkin et al. paper), can be only explained by the FOAM mechanism, as already extensively illustrated in this LENR forum.

Quote from Curbina

And from the other side, these authors claim to have finally explained how Fleischmann and Pons did it, and the proved experimentally that is just recombination what causes excess heat.

If this happens, the net energy from this effect has to be zero. All of the energy from recombination is input continuously by electrolysis. There is no delay. There is no storage, except during loading of the cathode, which can only hold a little gas. Not enough to produce a significant amount of energy. So, you have an endothermic effect (electrolysis) balanced exactly by simultaneous exothermic recombination.

That is also the problem with the paper by Galuskin et al. It cannot explain anything. The mechanism it describes cannot produce any excess heat.

Apparent excess heat from recombination can only happen with an open cell, when the researcher makes a mistake and does not measure the gas coming out of the cell. No researcher has made that mistake. It is very easy to avoid. See p. 28:

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

Quote from JedRothwell

Apparent excess heat from recombination can only happen with an open cell, when the researcher makes a mistake and does not measure the gas coming out of the cell. No researcher has made that mistake. It is very easy to avoid. See p. 28:

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

The cited paragraph in the above linked document concludes:

Quote

5.Since a recombination error is impossible in the second and third phase of this experiment, and since it was producing heat in those phases, it was probably producing heat in phase 1 as well. It is unlikely the heat in phase 1 was an instrument artifact, but real heat suddenly turned on in phase 2 and continued in phase 3. It is not possible the heat in all three phases was caused by a single artifact. The methods are completely different. There is no common aspect of the calorimetry that might have gone wrong. To show that all three phases were wrong, there would have to be three different systematic errors that produce roughly the same level of spurious heat. That would be a fantastic coincidence.

A few comments on these conclusions.

a1) I fully agree that the recombination error can't explain the alleged excess heat claimed in the second and third phases of the boil-off experiment,

a2) I also agree that a single artifact is unable to explain the calorimetric errors in all 3 phases, which are so different from each others.

However, in fact:

b1) the excess heat claimed by F&P in phases 2 and 3 of the 1992 boil-off experiment described in their "Simplicity" paper are simply caused by 2 other and different artifacts extensively explained in the last two years in this forum. More precisely:

b2) the presumed excess heat in phase 2, that is during the water boil-off, is due to a huge overestimation of the water mass evaporated in the short period lasting a few minutes during which the level inside the cells rapidly decreased from the top of the transparent portion of the glass tube down to a few centimeter above the kel-f support. This overestimation is caused by the totally wrong assumption that at the beginning of this period the cell was filled by liquid water, i.e. that the liquid fraction of the filled volume was nearly 1. In reality, the liquid fraction was very low, much closer to zero, because, at that time, the volume of the cell was almost entirely filled with foam swallen by the large water bubbles produced in the very thin layer of electrolyte, which was still on the bottom of the cell, after that most part of it was evaporated during the previous many hours during which the cell temperature was near or at the boiling point.

b3) the alleged excess heat in phase 3, that is after the complete boil-off, i.e. the so called Heat After Death phenomenon, is pure fantasy, supported only by an astonishing misrepresentation of timing in fig.8 of the "Simplicity" paper, in which the "Cell dry" instant was shifted ahead of more than 2 hours with respect to the real time reported in the abscissa of the temperature curve.

Of course these 2 obvious and indisputable artifacts has not been refuted, nor discussed, and not even mentioned in the recently published "Review of the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons", despite having been presented and explained many times in this forum.