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

  • Arguably, there have been many great and compelling experiments produced by the field the past 33 years, but it is no further down the path to acceptance.

    There have been good experiments, but they were not properly documented. They were not presented in way that could be understood by investors, reporters and other layman. (I am sure they could have been. That's the sort thing I do for a living.) Also -- and this is no one's fault -- no one made a video or on-line presentation of them, because that technology was not available yet. Okay, they could have made a video, but it would have been difficult, and not portable or uploadable.


    F&P made a video of their boil off event, but they did not preserve it. The best copy we have now is the one I uploaded. The quality is terrible.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Years ago, I saw a close up video of a boiling cell. It was a perfect demonstration! As I said above, "it 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." It also showed a person's hand, indicating the scale of the device, and much else. I wish I could find a copy.


    Maybe it is time to give skeptics what they have demanded all along...a device clearly demonstrating excess heat with some practical consumer use?

    I do not think a device with some practical consumer use is possible. I do not think anyone knows how to make such a thing. We have to learn far more about the fundamental physics of the reaction before we can tackle that. Plus, no one in this field has the kind of knowledge you find at GE or Hitachi, and without that no practical product can be developed. If you try to make a practical product now, you will waste large sums of money and many years. In the end, you will accomplish nothing. You will not attract useful venture capital. Smart venture capital will see your device is far from practical. Stupid capital will waste more money on a premature development effort, instead of experiments to discover the nature of the reaction.


    A proof-of-principle device might be worth the effort. That is how I would describe the Brillouin gadget shown in the video. However, it is poorly presented and the voice-over is technically inaccurate. It does not prove anything. Perhaps the presentation could be improved. I cannot suggest how to improve it, because the video does not reveal quantitative details, so I do not know the performance parameters. Such as input electricity and output heat. Without knowing these details, I cannot suggest how to improve it. Frankly, I have no idea what is going on in that demo, or whether anything interesting is going on.


    The fact that there are no quantitative details is the biggest problem with the demonstration! Why on earth wouldn't you say: "X watts of electricity are input (shown here in this meter), and Y watts of heat are being produced (shown by thus-and-such method)"??? It seems like the first and most important information you should include in the video.


    It was Garwin who said something like "boil me some tea".

    Yeah. And when F&P boiled a cup of tea, he ignored it.

  • 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"?

  • 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".

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

    A foregone conclusion.

    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.

    That is all complete bullshit, from start to finish. Countless null experiments have been done with ordinary electrolysis, sometimes driven to power levels high enough to cause boiling. 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. It does not boil for 20 minutes or 70 days the way cathodes do with cold fusion.


    You have a remarkable imagination, but you have no idea how physics work or what happens in these experiments, or in ordinary electrolysis.

  • 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?

  • 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."

    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.

    If I understand correctly, you state that boiling at cathode after normal electrolysis could happen.

    Not with this cathode.

    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.

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

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

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




    Again, let me suggest that before you speculate and make up impossible physics, try this grade school experiment:


    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. 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 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

    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.

  • 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.

    "Overheated" how much? It isn't incandescent. If you bring it to boil and cut the power, it will produce water vapor for about 2 seconds before the cathode cools and the boiling stops. If you don't believe me, try doing an actual experiment yourself, instead of endlessly yammering about imaginary physically impossible phenomena. Apparently you don't believe me, so I suggest you shut up and try it.

    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.

    Then use a 3" nail, for crying out loud! Here:


    https://www.lowes.com/pd/Fas-n-Tite-3-in-9-Gauge-Zinc-Plated-Steel-Common-Nails-1-lb/1000428283


    What the hell is a "normal" nail, anyway? It that like "overheated" palladium? Normal or overheated compared to what? Stop with ridiculous evasions and nonsense.


    I strongly recommend you try doing this. Or watch any blacksmith do it. You will find that even in boiling hot water, even with an incandescent red nail, the boiling stops within seconds. The heat capacity of water near boiling is far greater than the nail. The F&P cell was well insulated, but it was open, so the vapor escaped immediately, as it does when a blacksmith drops a nail into hot water. (Or hot oil that sometimes ignites as shown here.) The volume of the bubbles is irrelevant, because they instantly leave the cell.


    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.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • "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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Suppose it did reach 300 deg C. Heck, suppose it is incandescent red at 1500 deg C. Put it in water and in a few seconds the boiling stops. That is a fact. That has been know for thousands of years. If you do not believe me, try it yourself. The fact that it produces 100 times the cathode volume in steam is utterly irrelevant. The steam leaves the cell immediately. There is a hole in top of the cell!


    This is disappointing. I wonder why such a significant document is kept secret.

    It was not secret at all. It was broadcast on a major TV channel as I recall. It is lost.


    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?

    It was made by F&P and a TV reporter. I don't recall who.


    "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.

    This is ridiculous. You can buy a box of large nails, or you can heat up a dozen small nails, or use any piece of steel approximately this size. Stop with the bullshit and evasions. Try it, or shut up. Make a video showing an incandescent nail boiling water for 20 minutes with no input power. You will win the Nobel Prize.


    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"?

    Watch the video and you will see that in few seconds, the boiling in the transparent vessel has nearly stopped. Or look for another video. Or TRY IT YOURSELF, for crying out loud.


    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.

    This is complete and utter bullshit. The steam leaves the cell immediately. It goes right out the top, because the cell is open. If the water temperature is already close to boiling, the temperature does not increase. The water vaporizes and leaves the cell, carrying off the enthalpy. Try it with a Dewar if you do not believe me. (Never mind. You will never try anything, or believe anything, even common knowledge going back 7,000 years, to the beginning of the iron age.)

  • 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.

  • 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.

    There was no joule heating, and no electrolysis.


    The boiling shown in the video continued long after electrolysis stopped. You could see it stopped because the small bubbles of oxygen stopped coming off of the anode. Only the cathode was producing bubbles, and they were much larger than bubbles of hydrogen.


    It is easy to see electrolysis starting and stopping. Bubbles appear almost instantly. You can see it yourself with some wires attached to a D-cell battery in salt water. I recall there was an early telegraph system in the UK that used electrolysis as the signal. Bubbles meant "on" and no bubbles "off." There was also one in Spain in 1804.


  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    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.

  • 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

  • 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,

  • 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.

    You are confusing temperature with power, or with energy. The temperature of the cathode is not measured in an isoperibolic calorimeter. The calorimeter measures the net output of power from the entire cell, including cathode and anode. You are saying the temperature of the cathode might rise with the same input power. That is not true, but even if it were true, without excess power, the instrument would still show the same power level coming out. It has no way of detecting a change in the cathode temperature.


    This whole discussion is irrelevant to video I described, because there was no input power. Electrolysis was stopped. There were no bubbles on the anode. So, the cell would only cool down. If the cathode was hot enough to boil for any reason, the boiling would stop after a few seconds. The enthalpy would be carried out of the cell with the steam. You can easily verify this by the following steps, which you will not do:

    1. Heat some water in a pot to boiling with a flame.
    2. Heat a nail or other metal object with the same mass as the cathode to incandescence. Far hotter than the cathode. Any metal will do. All metals have about the same specific heat.
    3. Turn off the flame under the boiling water. It stops boiling in about a minute.
    4. Drop the incandescent metal into the water. The water around the metal boils for a second or two and then stops. The steam carries off the energy, because the top of the pot is open, as is the F&P cell. The water does not boil for 20 minutes. That would be absolutely, positively, 100% impossible without a source of energy powering the boiling. For the last 5,000 years, since the Bronze age began, any sane person in a kitchen or forge would have known that. Why you do not know it is a mystery to me.