The Art Of Creating Doubt About Science

Quote from Paradigmnoia

What sort of experiment would be sufficient to test the foam hypothesis?

Can foamy boiling water in a tube without electrolysis be used informatively?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Do I need dewars, or will graduated cylinders be good enough?

It seems that a graduated cylinder is good enough:


(From http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/diycfr/index.htm , with detailed instructions)

But to reproduce the same amazing effect shown in the videos of the 1992 boil-off experiment, I think it is necessary to use a cylinder with the same dimensions of the F&P cell and replicate the same electrolytic process.

Quote from Ascoli65

But to reproduce the same amazing effect shown in the videos of the 1992 boil-off experiment, I think it is necessary to use a cylinder with the same dimensions of the F&P cell and replicate the same electrolytic process.

You also have to use palladium instead of platinum, and you have to observe excess heat before and after the event. With D2O and platinum, there is no excess heat effect, and water remains in the cell after the boil off stops. With palladium and excess heat before and after, you get a complete boil off, leaving the cell dry. These facts cannot be explained with your foam hypothesis. Why would the foam be different with palladium? Why would excess heat before the event make the foam different? Why did all of the water leave the cell when there was excess heat? How can foam explain that?

Also, while we are listing question that you refuse to answer, why don't you tell us what this means, given that there was no liquid in the cell:

"they assumed that all the residual content of the cells was liquid."

The residual content was not liquid, as anyone could see by looking. There was no liquid. So why do you claim that F&P assumed it was liquid? What is that supposed to mean, if anything?

Of course you will refuse to answer, and of course you will falsely claim you are not allowed to answer, but I thought I'd ask. Let everyone see you are evading the issue and posting nonsense.

Once, in my youth, just after first reading about electrolysis, I got a two wire cord from an old lamp and put one end, split apart and the wire exposed at the end, in a 2 quart Mason jar filled 3/4 with water and plugged in the other end in. I “knew” the AC would just alternate the O and H production but the captured combination would be good enough for something. Big streams of bubbles, looked good, wandered off to do something else while the gas accumulated...

Came back an hour maybe at the most later, and the water in the jar was then at a full roiling boil, steam everywhere, water splashed about... Luckily the cord was unplugged without incident.

Quote from JedRothwell

Of course you will refuse to answer, and of course you will falsely claim you are not allowed to answer, but I thought I'd ask.

I have been warned not to post on this topic in this thread. See:

If you want to discuss this argument with me, you should open a new thread dedicated to the F&P boil-off experiment and hope that it will not be closed, as already happened several times in the last two years.

Quote

Let everyone see you are evading the issue and posting nonsense.

Interested people have just to read this short thread to discover who was babbling nonsense for 30+ years around a bubbling tube.

Quote from Ascoli65

I have been warned not to post on this topic in this thread. See:

Oh give us a break! You just now posted on this topic in this thread. Yet you refuse to answer any questions or explain what this means:

"they assumed that all the residual content of the cells was liquid."

You are using this "warning" as an excuse to evade the issues.

Quote from JedRothwell

Oh give us a break! You just now posted on this topic in this thread. Yet you refuse to answer any questions or explain what this means:

"they assumed that all the residual content of the cells was liquid."

You are using this "warning" as an excuse to evade the issues.

In this thread, I'm not free to replicate on this topic the way I'd need.

Open a new dedicated thread and I will explain you what is the meaning of my quote.

Quote from Ascoli65

In this thread, I'm not free to replicate on this topic the way I'd need.

Cut the bullshit. Anyone can see you just wrote whatever you pleased about this topic. You are not restricted. You can answer anytime you like.

Quote from Ascoli65

Open a new dedicated thread and I will explain you what is the meaning of my quote.

Open it yourself! Oh, wait. You will say you can't do that because for reasons and that's why.

You are not fooling anyone.

Quote from JedRothwell

Open it yourself! Oh, wait. You will say you can't do that because for reasons and that's why.

Exactly. I'm not allowed to create a new thread. See:

Fake&Succeed strategy in R&D. What about CF?

Quote from Alan Smith

Ascoli65 While you are quoting me, please allow me to quote myself - from August 2019...

my memory is a bit hazy but when we had quite a long discussion of the ascoli foam hypothesis I could not find any killer argument against it applying to some of the F&P evidence.

Others felt (1) That F as an expert could not possibly make such a rudimentary mistake. That does not move me. (2) The experiment has been replicated. That does not move me given that the successful replication was very precise, and made identical assumptions, so would show the same artifacts. (3) That there was other evidence (different from the foamgate photos).

i'd love to have a careful examination of each strand of the argument here because i found ascoli's argument quite convincing but under interrogation I'd want more connection between it and other evidence.

My conclusion was that this was real negative evidence for one part of the claims - that those photos show clearly the effect. The weight you attach to that then depends on other factors. Ascoli's position, I think was that the claim made on basis of the foamgate photos implies unexpected error or fraud, and therefore makes any other consideration of evidence irrelevant. Perhaps however I am misremembering this and there was then strong evidence for the photos proving what it was then claimed they proved?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Others felt (1) That F as an expert could not possibly make such a rudimentary mistake. That does not move me. (2) The experiment has been replicated. That does not move me given that the successful replication was very precise, and made identical assumptions, so would show the same artifacts. (3) That there was other evidence (different from the foamgate photos).

(1) No one said that. Fleischmann himself would never say that. He often discussed his own mistakes, in lectures, and in conversations with me.

(2) Some replications were close, while others were quite different. As an example of the latter, Pons set up a reflux calorimeter which could not possibly have had this problem. The condensed water was cooled and it fell back into the cell. It ran for months, and it showed excess heat in the boiling mode.

(3) I gave a long list of reasons why the foam hypothesis is wrong. I repeated some of them here, just above. I wish you would read them before making this comment. I repeat:

"You also have to use palladium instead of platinum, and you have to observe excess heat before and after the event. With D2O and platinum, there is no excess heat effect, and water remains in the cell after the boil off stops. With palladium and excess heat before and after, you get a complete boil off, leaving the cell dry. These facts cannot be explained with your foam hypothesis. Why would the foam be different with palladium? Why would excess heat before the event make the foam different? Why did all of the water leave the cell when there was excess heat? How can foam explain that?"

There are several other objections to the foam hypothesis, but I will not repeat them, unless you care to address these and show problems with them. Ascoli will never address them and he has never shown any problem with anything that Fleischmann, Pons, or I said about this experiment.

I discussed many aspects of the boil off phase here, and I included links to many papers by F&P:

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

Quote from Curbina

However, the opposite has also happened, which is organized attempts to dismiss Evidence based doubts about scientific research that has failed to meet speciation after considerable time and economic resources poured in it (I am sure many will agree with me that Hot Fusion research Is such a case, albeit many more will disagree).

People express doubt about the potential technological value of hot fusion. I do not think anyone suggests the science itself is faulty, or that the experiments do not show what is claimed. The doubts are about questions such as: How can you convert the nuclear reaction output into electricity? How can you deal with the irradiated walls of the reactor? Here is a study from LANL that discusses some of the problems with plasma fusion:

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

Quote from Curbina

in this regards, with the added factor that LENR has obtained results of excess heat, which are questioned, but Hot Fusion has not even got to that stage.

You sound like Steve Krivit. I think this is incorrect. Plasma fusion has produced excess heat. It has not produced more excess than the total input power to the reactors. This is understandable, given the way the machines work.

Quote from JedRothwell

You sound like Steve Krivit. I think this is incorrect. Plasma fusion has produced excess heat. It has not produced more excess than the total input power to the reactors. This is understandable, given the way the machines work.

You should use the right(correct words JED! excess heat always means a COP > 1 and COP always includes all energy needed to produce the heat.

Thus ITER will not (never!!) produce excess heat. ITER will for sure produce some fusion heat but that is not excess heat!

Quote from Alan Smith

Ascoli65 While you are quoting me, please allow me to quote myself - from August 2019...

You are welcome.

My answer is still valid: Fake&Succeed strategy in R&D. What about CF?

Moreover. As for the refusal to take in consideration "photographic evidence, scientific papers" this criticism apply to JedRothwell, not to me. His posts on this thread demonstrate how he is struggling to negate the evidence shown by the videos produced in 1992 by F&P, rising again and again the same tangential and not pertinent objections.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You should use the right(correct words JED! excess heat always means a COP > 1 and COP always includes all energy needed to produce the heat.

Thus ITER will not (never!!) produce excess heat. ITER will for sure produce some fusion heat but that is not excess heat!

That is incorrect. Suppose the the Tokamak produces output of 10% of the input energy. The COP is 1.1. The 10% is excess heat. It resembles a heat pump, where the input electric power also warms the house, so it is included in the output. (Except for the power needed for the outdoor fan.) A COP for a refrigerator is more complicated. Here is the COP calculation for a heat pump:

https://www.nordicghp.com/2015…efficient-of-performance/

Calculating Coefficient of Performance

First, you’ll need two things:

1. Energy out, or the heat pump’s expected output.
2. Energy In, or how much energy it takes to run the heat pump.

Using these two values, we can complete the formula below:

In this formula, energy out is the heat pump’s output in Btu/hr, and energy in is the energy required to run the heat pump, measured in watts.

A tokamak COP is very low. It is far from being a practical device. However, it is intended to be an experimental device to explore the science. It is a little unfair to hold it to the standards of a commercial power reactor. On the other hand the plasma fusion researchers keep saying the reactors might become a practical source of energy someday, so it should be said that they are far from that now. Plus, they have a lot of gall saying cold fusion is impractical.

They also have a problem with scale. Apparently, for reasons I do not understand, you can only make the reactors efficient when they are gigantic. Like ITER. I believe a power-generating one would be so gigantic it might be impractical.

Quote from JedRothwell

That is incorrect. Suppose the the Tokamak produces output of 10% of the input energy.

We can forgive you as you are not a physicist. Your formula is for simple minds only.

Energy has different forms. Heat is of no use as it cannot be transported over long distances and it always dissipates = It cannot be stored...

To produce real energy = energy you either can use or store you need a much larger COP than what you define as COP. The best heat conversion engines today have 60% efficiency ! So you need at least a COP of 1.66 for a break even as e.g. ITER uses current as input not heat...

Quote from Ascoli65

My answer is still valid: Fake&Succeed strategy

Best example is hot fusion: Fake claims: We replicate the sun = brainless nonsense blatantly wrong!

We produce energy... No : You just wast energy - + you destroy equipment and produce a terrific amount of radioactive waste.

ITER is the most brainless approach in physics history to just waste (30'000'000'000$$$$$ )money. Or may be the most clever idea to finance a fun live (Surf/golf , wine & dine) in south of France.