The Art Of Creating Doubt About Science

  • Or arguing and deflection for pages and pages against 50% recovery when it is plotted as plain as a nose on a face...

  • I am very much on topic.

    A simple discussion of calorimetry was broadsided by denial and attacks on the correct interpretation of what the graphs being discussed contained. Nearly every direct question was left unanswered. The possibility of the 50% recovery was even dismissed as impossible by an expert. People were defending against some perceived attack against the reported information while simultaneously steadfastly ignoring the content of the same information.


  • My answer is here:

    Takahashi: Enhancement of Excess Thermal Power in Interaction of Nano-Metal and H(D)-Gas

    This is not the place to discuss this topic.

  • A mysterious way! That only you can understand. Or that you are keeping secret. You should tell us how a mistake relating to foam invalidated flow calorimetry. Show why the mistakes at MIT reached out and invalidated the entire plasma fusion program. How can a mistake made by one author "undermine the authority" of another author? Because you imagine that other author agrees with the result?


    Do you mean that the experts commissioned in 2004 by the LENR community to write the letter to DoE didn't agree with the results reported in the documents they selected and submitted to the department in order to demonstrate the reality of CF and support the request for public funding?


    Quote

    You have no idea how many cold fusion researchers know about or care about the boil-off results. Based on the questions I asked several of them writing the recent paper, they never thought about it. They have no interest in it. It is a fact they never tried to replicate it.


    But it is also a fact that F&P experiments are cited in almost all CF papers and that at the beginning of your recent "Review of the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons" you wrote that the boil-off experiment was the culmination of their experimental activity.


    Quote

    Furthermore, you have overlooked countless technical details and proof that your hypothesis is wrong. Such as the fact that the cells produced heat before and after the boil off, and the reflux cell produced heat for months, while condensing the steam. You have made dozens of idiotic mistakes, which you do not see. You are suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. You are incompetent and this leads you to imagine you are an expert.


    You are digressing too much.


    This is the video (it shows the arrows mentioned in his comment) carefully watched by Robert Horst , a reputable member of this forum.



    This is the version that he linked at the end of his comment.


    Here is once again his comment with some added emphasis:

    FP's experiments discussion

    Robert Horst

    Nov 6th 2018

    […]


    However, I looked at the video a couple dozen times and am inclined to agree that the arrows are foam levels, not liquid levels. The cells seem to transition through three clear phases. In the first phase, you can see that it is mostly liquid with gradually increasing bubbles as the liquid boils. In the second phase is is mostly foam and in the third phase, the foam level rapidly decreases to zero. You can tell the foam phase because sometimes the level decreases and then increases again, which could not happen with liquid. For instance, look at Cell 1 at 21:23 when it is full of foam, 21:40 when the top of the foam is a little lower, then 21:55 when it is full of foam again. Several times the video cuts away for hours between phases 1 and 2. For Cell 1, there is a cut between about 11:30 and 18:36.


    The Enthalpy Balance in the paper is based on only the last 10 minutes and assumes the liquid is boiling then. Even though I have great respect for Fleischmann's work in general, I would have to agree with Ascoli that this paper is likely flawed.


    For ease of finding them again, here are links to the video and the paper. (It is hard to get much out of stills. You need to run the video to see how the levels are changing.)

    https://youtu.be/Tn9K1Hvw434

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



    Could you please specify what is wrong with the above description of what happened inside the F&P cells?

  • Could you please specify what is wrong with the above description of what happened inside the F&P cells?


    1. People who saw the cells in person, and people who saw the clean original versions of videos did not see foam. I saw a much clearer video (which is no longer available) and the bubbles were nowhere near to the top. It is not foam, by the way. Surfactants kill the reaction.

    2. Fleischmann, Pons, Biberian, Miles and others who did boil off experiments measured the salts left in the cells and confirmed that no significant amount of unboiled liquid left the cell. There was some, as BIberian told me. (See https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf).

    3. The continuous boiling reflux cells could not have had this problem, yet they produced copious excess heat, measured by another method.


    4. All of the other reasons I have given you before, such as the fact that the cell was producing heat before and after the event, so it is not likely it would temporarily stop during the boil off.

  • Ascoli65 .


    Please stop flooding this thread with your foam posts. You have said all of this many times, and very few posters are interested. Further posts on this particular matter will be put into 'clearance'.


    This argument was introduced in this thread by JR, who wrote this post (emphasis added):

    The Art Of Creating Doubt About Science

    JedRothwell

    Sep 14th 2020


    This video reminds me of people who think that if they can just find a mistake in the original paper by Fleischmann and Pons, the entire field of cold fusion will vanish. All those other papers by other researchers? They don't count.


    This comment was clearly directed to me, as JR specified in his reply to me (emphasis added):

    The Art Of Creating Doubt About Science

    JedRothwell

    Sep 14th 2020


    You have hit the nail on the head. You are one of the very people I had in mind when I wrote that. You have the delusion that you have found a problem in a paper by Fleischmann and Pons. …


    So, I have only answered to a call from JR to discuss this topic.


    It seems to me that L-F readers are quite interested, because in the meantime this thread has jumped on the top of the "Hot Threads" list.


    IMO, the discussion achieved a very interesting result. In his last comment, JR raised no objection to Robert Horst's description of what appears in the two videos of the "1992 boil-off experiment", which are available on the internet today. Hence, it's legitimate to conclude that he also agrees that these videos show that the cells where full of foam during the second phase of the boil-off transition, as judged by RH in his comment. This is a good starting point to further discuss why F&P didn't considered the presence of foam in their calculations reported in the "Simplicity" paper and, on the contrary, they assumed that all the residual content of the cells was liquid. In the first point of his last comment, JR proposed a couple of possibilities to explain this F&P assumption. I would like to discuss with him the plausibility of these possibilities, but I can't do so if I risk that my answer will be moved into "Clearance".


    So, I hope that your warning will be removed or, alternatively, that the topic raised by JR will become the subject of a new dedicated thread, where this discussion can continue.

  • Or you get suspended again. I don't mind, but I must say that claiming that people who fail to dispute what you say must agree with you is nonsensical. It makes debating anything with you as pointless as shouting at the radio.

  • This is a good starting point to further discuss why F&P didn't considered the presence of foam in their calculations reported in the "Simplicity" paper and, on the contrary, they assumed that all the residual content of the cells was liquid.


    In the excess heat cold fusion tests, there was no liquid left in the cell. The cell boiled dry. What was left was the lithium salt, because the water boiled away. This was titrated to see how much was left in the cell. A little of it ended up in glass wall of the cell, and could not be removed.


    In the calibrations, the boiling stopped as soon as the water level fell below the cathode, because the power was cut off. There was some liquid left in the bottom of the cell in these tests.


    If there had been significantly less lithium left in the cell than was originally dissolved in the electrolyte, that would show that unboiled water was leaving the cell, which would mean you cannot compute enthalpy from the mass of water times heat of vaporization.


    Perhaps you meant "they assumed that all the residual content of the cells was lithium"? (Not "liquid.") They did not assume that. They tested it to confirm it was, and how to see much of it was left.

  • Or you get suspended again. I don't mind, but I must say that claiming that people who fail to dispute what you say must agree with you is nonsensical. It makes debating anything with you as pointless as shouting at the radio.


    Let me explain. I said so because JR started is answer to me quoting my specific question: "Could you please specify what is wrong with the above description of what happened inside the F&P cells?"


    However, he didn't raise any objection to the Robert Horst description, but he answered: "1. People who saw the cells in person, and people who saw the clean original versions of videos did not see foam. I saw a much clearer video (which is no longer available) and the bubbles were nowhere near to the top. It is not foam, by the way. Surfactants kill the reaction."


    For my common sense, the only possible interpretation of this kind of answering is "[OK, Robert Horst was correct in describing what can be seen in the videos presently available on the internet, but] People who saw the cells in person, and people who saw the clean original versions of videos did not see foam."


    In his last reply, here above, JR didn't object with this interpretation. Anyway, If I have been wrong in interpreting it, I apologize, but, in case, my question remains unanswered.

  • JedRothwell ,

    sorry, for the moment, I can't answer your comments in this thread, otherwise my answers will be moved into "Clearance", or I will be suspended again. We'll continue our discussion, when I'll be allowed to freely state my opinion on F&P experiments, the same way you are.


    In the meanwhile enjoy the virtual comic book release party (Cold Fusion comic book available now! ).

    xL3R0tz.jpg

    Prosit !


    (Side pictures on the jpeg coming from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OQu44UIC_s )

  • JedRothwell,

    sorry, for the moment, I can't answer your comments in this thread, otherwise my answers will be moved into "Clearance", or I will be suspended again.


    I am sure you can tell us what you meant by "they assumed that all the residual content of the cells was liquid." Was that a typo for "lithium"? Or did you mean to say something about the residual liquid? There wasn't any. The cell was boiled dry in the cold fusion experiments. As I said, there was some liquid left in the calibrations with Pt in D2O.


    The fact that the cells boiled dry with the excess heat, but they did not with the calibrations, is also evidence there was excess heat. If it had been only electrolysis heat, it would have stopped as soon as electrolysis stopped, and there would have been water left in the bottom of the cell.

  • I am sure you can tell us what you meant by "they assumed that all the residual content of the cells was liquid." Was that a typo for "lithium"?


    I can't tell you anything, other than there are no typos, until I'm allowed to explain my opinion, as freely as you are. I hope you are not expecting that I engage in a discussion with you with a further handicap besides the language.


    Cold fusion is a very fascinating story of bubbles & babbles. I don’t need to make recourse to babbles, because F&P videos already speak by themselves, confirming the existence of bubbles and …, well I can't say.


    In effect, the front cover of "Discover Cold Fusion" comic is the best iconic representation of this story, which could ever have been chosen. My best compliment to the authors and to all consultants and contributors.