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

• OK - I am quite slow, so let us deal with this bit by bit.

No problem, let's go bit by bit. But until the end. And, for now, leave aside Lonchampt too.

Quote

For me, the uncertainty over when the cell was dry is ridiculous. It does not matter when the cell is dry. What matters is the power in.

The power in is important for the first of the 2 conclusions of the simplicity paper, but the timing of the dry-out is fundamental for the second conclusion, the one about HAD, and I proposed to examine this second conclusion first.

Quote

Had they measured voltage and current in at this time (which they easily could have done) they would have power in (and also cell dry time) precisely from the V/I graph.

This is a really important point. I have some answers and some more questions about this, but it belongs to the first conclusion, and, as you said, it's better to go on bit by bit. For the moment with the HAD issue.

Quote

"I agree that the time on the diagram they provide for "cell is dry" is unevidenced"

No, that time is not "unevinced", that time is evidently wrong!

Quote

You seem to be saying that you know it is wrong. A stronger statement. You have not given your evidence for this!

The evidence is contained in the jpeg which I proposed to you (1). Did you look at it? Maybe it was too cryptic. Let me explain what it shows with other words.

On the upper-left corner, it shows the figure 8, including the wrong position of the vertical arrow. On the right side, it shows a detail of figure 8. On the time axis, the last segment, between 1650000 s and 1660000 s, has been subdivided into ten smaller segments of 1000 s each.

On this time portion, there have been indicated the two times A and B of the two video frames A and B shown on the bottom-left corner of the jpeg.

These two times, whose value in seconds is written in red, correspond to the time written in black, which are expressed in d hh:mm:ss. Please, check the time conversion.

The two frames comes from the "F&P's 1992 boil-off video" published by Krivit in 2009 (2). The first frame has been taken when the blue time appears on the video during the boil-off of the second cell. The blue ">" character shows the presumed level of the fluid , which was mainly steam. The second frame shows the second time indicated in the F&P's video, and the blue ">" indicates the lowest level reached by the foam during the boil-off phase. This last instant should correspond to the position of the "Cell dry" arrow on figure 8, but this last is evidently misplaced of at least 2 hours!

Is it more clear now?

Quote

I will give my evidence. However it is not certain. If Figure 6D and Figure 8 describe the same experiment - as is implied - then 1647,000s on Fig 8 corresponds to a time on 6D where the constant-current cell voltage is low and rising slowly => low impedance between electrodes => cell not dry. But then the endpoint in Figure 8 is too early for 6D. The two timescales cannot be compared hence we have little info. Like most of the paper I can give no credibility to the results because different parts of the description are taken from different experiments!

No, absolutely not. What you say would have been even a more serious manipulation of data. But it's not true. All the figures in the "simplicity paper" derive from the same boil-off experiment carried out in April-May 1992. You can easily see that the time scales of Fig.6B and Fig.8 are compatible each others.

Edited once, last by Ascoli65 ().

• The only F&P paper you have referred me to does not have careful documentation. For example Figures: 6B, 6C, 6D, 8 are all different experiments, (the time axes are different) yet they are described without mention of this important detail as though they are one experiment. It is not easy to decode them because the graphs are not properly captioned.

No, sorry THH. As I've already pointed out to you here above, all those graphs refer to a single experiment: the F&P 4 cells boil-off experiment carried out in April-May 1992. Watch the video (1). This single experiment featured four cells contemporarily. For each cell, two signals were recorded: the voltage across the electrodes and the inner temperature. Each one of the graphs on Figures 6A,B,C,D shows voltage and temperature of a single cell, but the time is the same. For each graph, time axis starts exactly at 0:00 of April 11, 1992.

The caption is correct. The first cell star immediately with current at 0.5 A, the 3 others with current at 0.2 A, which was later increased at 0.5 A at the beginning of days 3, 6 and 9.

If it can be helpful, I have merged the 4 diagrams in the jpeg you find at the bottom of an old comment (2), posted when I started to be interested in the F&P experiments.

• The original F&P experiment was highly uncertain

No, it was definitive, with very high signal to noise ratios, as were many of the replications. It was irrefutable. No one has refuted it, especially not you. Again, you make up nonsense and claim it is true, but anyone who has read the literature will see that you made it up. Why do that? Who are you trying to kid?

which is why those 180 labs did not continue to do CF work

The researchers do not continue because they are dead. They were all senior researchers with tenure and clout, and this was 30 years ago. If they had not had tenure they would have been fired for replicating cold fusion, the way Miles was. He was a Fellow of the Institute, but they gave him the heave-ho anyway. See:

• JedRothwell I commend you for your patience on keeping this never ending ping pong game with Ascoli and THH.

I think either of them has read “Discover Cold Fusion” by rubycarat and Matt Howarth. Perhaps the comic format will help them get a better understanding. We may consider sending them a gift one, if they want it.

I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

• JedRothwell I commend you for your patience on keeping this never ending ping pong game with Ascoli and THH.

I think either of them has read “Discover Cold Fusion” by rubycarat and Matt Howarth. Perhaps the comic format will help them get a better understanding. We may consider sending them a gift one, if they want it.

Thanks Curbina, for me it would be a real pleasure.

I'm a fan of that comic. I've been from the beginning (1).

In particular, the front cover is a masterpiece. Matt Howarth couldn't have represented my own opinion on the essence of CF in a better way: F&P looking at the same cell used in their 1992 boil-off experiment and a multitude of bubbles all around.

It expresses exactly what I've been saying here on L-F for three years: if you want "Discover Cold Fusion" you should first look closely at the F&P's1992 boil-off experiment (2).

I hope this comic will be translated into all languages, printed in millions of copies and distributed to all students at technical and scientific schools. It would be very instructive.

• Yet, just who is producing actual, measurable kilowatts?

Not Mills - unless you define "measurable" in an unusual way!

• You seem to be saying that you know it is wrong. A stronger statement. You have not given your evidence for this!

The prove is in the lab video (1), so it comes directly from F&P themselves!

The evidence is shown in this jpeg of mine (2).

I've already explained this jpeg to you two days ago (3).

Would you please be so kind to reply to my post and tell me if my explanation is convincing?

• Thanks for this.

Generally I defer to you for all details in this matter because you have looked at it with much more attention then me. However until I understand it myself that deference is uninformed and of little value.

OK - I agree - the 2nd of the two blue arrows coincides with the temperature drop, and the claimed cell-dry point is between the two arrows.

That assumes:

(1) the arrowed cell is the one in 6B/8 with the same experiment.

(2) the foam observed on that video can be used to determine cell dryness. I realise maybe F&P, or Krivit, thought it could. Personally I cannot see the water level at all easily.

I'd rather just not make any comments about cell dryness without the power in graph. Power in = 0 => cell dry.

Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding re 6A,B,C,D.

EDIT - just to be clear. There is no possible way the cell is dry on A. It might be drier - due to foam - but that would just increase the power in due to the constant current supply ans large available voltage to drive it. As resistance goes up so does power in. The time of A is well after the time claimed in 6B. Hence that claim is wrong.

Therefore the story about HAD is based on inaccurate evidence and hence should be ignored. (Ascoli will maybe not want to ignore it but draw other conclusions - I don't know).

JedRothwell - I guess you can follow the argument here. The Krivit video evidence from F&P boil-off experiment shows clearly cell becoming dry around the time at which the temperature drops. Not 3 hours before a F&P paper claims. This is indisputable. You can compare the data above. Key thing - due to the CC drive the cell must be completely dry for power input to stop. The high drive voltage will mean power can be dissipated even in a nearly 100% dry cell.

You can argue:

(1) the boil-off evidence is irrelevant - it is the pre-boil-off heat balance that is the key evidence. I will accept that and move on to that evidence.

(2) the Krivit video that everyone thinks refers to this experiment is in fact some other experiment.

You cannot argue:

This evidence (paper + video) shows strong HAD from the F&P experiment.

I'd be interested in your comments. Rather than say "no - you are wrong" it would be helpful to know which bit of the above argumnent you disagree with - it seems watertight to me.

THH

• OK - I agree - the 2nd of the two blue arrows coincides with the temperature drop, and the claimed cell-dry point is between the two arrows.

It's quite an intricate chain of events. Let me show you this new jpeg, which might be helpful for placing the events in the right order: https://imgur.com/a/ECW5yES

This jpeg reports Fig.8 of the F&P's "Simplicity paper" (1). On the right side of the time axis, a second time scale is added in red and synchronized with the time appearing on the videos.

The 5 small images on the top right refer to the second cell out of the four, and are taken from the frames indicated on the left, which come from two videos:

- frames 1, 2 and 3 come from the "IMRA time lapse video of boil off experiment" published by Rothwell in 2012 (2);

- frames A and B come from the "Pons-Fleischmann Four-Cell Boil Off" video published by Krivit in 2009 (3).

On the left side of each small images, a cyan vertical bar is added, which approximately indicates the height of the most transparent portion of the cell, which roughly coincides with the residual liquid water inside the cell. The white opaque part above is mostly foam.

It can be seen that the liquid transparent column persists up to frame A, that is well beyond the vertical arrow indicated on Fig.8. At frame B no liquid portion is visible anymore, the foam level has reached a quite stable level, but there may be some liquid left at the bottom of the cell, thus allowing the current to flow for a while longer, until the temperature remains high.

Quote

Therefore the story about HAD is based on inaccurate evidence and hence should be ignored. (Ascoli will maybe not want to ignore it but draw other conclusions - I don't know).

It can't be ignored. The most important conclusion of this analysis of Fig.8 is that the sentence "Cell remains at high temperature for 3 hours" is false!

This sentence is one of the most important claims of F&P and of the entire history of cold fusion. It has been repeated several times (always the same) in a series of subsequent documents (4). This fact alone has enormous implications.

F&P were well aware of the crucial importance of a careful synchronization between the time-lapse video and the temperature and voltage data, as said at page 14 of the Simplicity paper: "The simplest procedure is to make time-lapse video recordings of the operation of the cells which can be synchronised with the temperature-time and cell potential-time data." [underlines added]

Immediately below they added that they were able "to repeatedly reverse and run forward the video recordings at any stage of operation". [underlines added]

From the end of the experiment, the first week of May 1992, until October1992, when they presented their simplicity paper at ICCF3, they have had about 5 months to properly check the consistency of their claim about HAD, one of the most extraordinary and astonishing claim made up to then, because it stated that a unknown and controversial phenomenon was able to keep the cell hot for 3 hours without any input power.

This means not only sloppiness, it is also an indication of negligence.

Thereafter the same ICCF paper was submitted to a peer reviewed journal and published in May 2003 (5). Thus F&P have had 6 more months to check and correct the mistake about their wrong extraordinary claim.

In December 1993, at ICCF4, F&P presented a new paper entirely devoted to "Heat After Death" (6), and again for the third time they published the same wrong figure 8.

All this is inconceivable. How is it possible that F&P haven't spotted this huge mistake in one year and half, despite all the resources at their disposal at IMRA lab in France?

• I guess you can follow the argument here. The Krivit video evidence from F&P boil-off experiment shows clearly cell becoming dry around the time at which the temperature drops. Not 3 hours before a F&P paper claims. This is indisputable. You can compare the data above. Key thing - due to the CC drive the cell must be completely dry for power input to stop. The high drive voltage will mean power can be dissipated even in a nearly 100% dry cell.

I have not been following the discussion. I suggest you read the papers by F&P. You will see that everything you wrote here is nonsense.

The temperature drops because much of the heat came from electrolysis. After electrolysis stops, there is only cold fusion heat. The cathode remains hot. The cell does not have have to be completely dry for the power to stop. Power stops when the electrolyte level falls below the cathode. The vapor remaining in the cell cannot conduct a significant amount of power. This is clearly shown in the graphs; it is common sense; and you or Ascoli are welcome to do a simple test to confirm it. I kid! Of course you will not do any tests! You will not even try dropping a hot nail into water.

It is not possible for any measurable amount of power to be dissipated in an 80% dry cell. Calibrations with high powered electrolysis showed that all power stops the moment the liquid falls below the cathode, even though it still covers part of the anode. Boiling stops immediately, leaving liquid at the bottom of the cell. The plastic supports remain intact. Whereas with cold fusion heat, all of the remaining water boils away, the heat continues, and the plastic melts. Again, there is no current flowing and no electric power going into the cell when this happens.

This is clearly described in the papers as you and Ascoli will see . . . No! I kid again!! Of course you will not read the papers. Ascoli would not understand them if he did. You will not, in order to maintain "plausible deniability." For that matter, you will not read middle school textbooks because they show that everything you say about calorimetry and cold fusion are ridiculous violations of elementary physics.

I would say you are wasting my time asking me to spoon feed you details that are in the papers, but I am not doing this for your benefit, but rather for the benefit of other readers.

• The cell does not have have to be completely dry for the power to stop. Power stops when the electrolyte level falls below the cathode.

Wrong. The electrolyte level cannot fall below the cathode.

I suggest you read the papers by F&P. You will see that everything you wrote here is nonsense.

Experiments at low and intermediate current densities were carried out using 10 cm long electrodes; for the highest current densities the electrode lengths were reduced to 1.25 cm and the spacing of the anode winding was reduced to ensure uniform current distributions; such shorter electrodes were placed at the bottom of the Dewars so as to ensure adequate stirring. [underlines added]

Quote

This is clearly shown in the graphs;

Fig.8 of the Simplicity paper clearly shows that F&P did an undisputable error by saying that "Cell remains at high temperature for 3 hours". This is a false statement.

Quote

Calibrations with high powered electrolysis showed that all power stops the moment the liquid falls below the cathode, even though it still covers part of the anode. Boiling stops immediately, leaving liquid at the bottom of the cell. The plastic supports remain intact. Whereas with cold fusion heat, all of the remaining water boils away, the heat continues, and the plastic melts.

In the case of the 1992 boil-off experiment, the cathode and anode were both placed at the bottom of Dewar, see quote above. Current may have flown between them to the last drop of liquid water remaining in the cell, possibly causing the plastic to melt. There is no need for any esoteric source of heat, such as cold fusion.

Quote

This is clearly described in the papers as you and Ascoli will see . . . No! I kid again!! Of course you will not read the papers. Ascoli would not understand them if he did.

I mentioned a F&P paper and reported a precise quote.

• Wrong. The electrolyte level cannot fall below the cathode.

I suggest you read the papers by F&P. You will see that everything you wrote here is nonsense.

It did fall below the cathode. It evaporated completely with cold fusion heat. Not with electrolysis heat. That is what the papers say, and what many people observed. The plastic would not have melted if it had been in water.

In the case of the 1992 boil-off experiment, the cathode and anode were both placed at the bottom of Dewar, see quote above.

No, they are 1 or 2 cm from the bottom. The bottom is curved and you could not fit them down there. That is what the photos and diagrams show, plus I have seen a cell and I confirm that. See also:

At LENR-CANR.org.

• The bottom is curved and you could not fit them down there. That is what the photos and diagrams show, plus I have seen a cell and I confirm that

Me too. Jean-Paul Biberian has one of the originals - I posted a picture in here a few years back. I does have a curved bottom and a teflon (?) spacing ring just above it.

• I does have a curved bottom and a teflon (?) spacing ring just above it.

F&P used Kel-F a.k.a. PCTFE. See:

PCTFE has excellent chemical resistance, radiation resistance, and flammability characteristics. The material has a useful temperature range of -400°F to 380°F. [=193°C. Melting point 212°C]

• Thats it..thanks Jed. You know I trudged through all this with Ascoli a few years back. Just because he doesn't stop doesn't make him right.

• Thats it..thanks Jed. You know I trudged through all this with Ascoli a few years back. Just because he doesn't stop doesn't make him right.

You have to reckon his stubbornness and the fact he refuses to acknowledge that the Nickel hydrogen experiments are also successful and are directly derived from Fleischmann and Pons’s experiments.

I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

• It did fall below the cathode.

It's impossible. The water level can't fall below the cathode. F&P were very clear on this aspect (1): "The electrodes were held in place by the deep Kel-F plug and Kel-F spacer at the bottom of the cell." [underlines added]

The electrodes of the F&P cells used in the 1992 boil-off experiment were plugged into the Kel-F support. This plugging is essential for a experiment where the cell experiences a period of intense boiling,otherwise that the electrodes could move and modify their relative distance from each other. Both the cathode rod and the lower end of the anode wire need to be firmly held in place, therefore they are partially inserted into the lower Kel-F support.

Quote

No, they are 1 or 2 cm from the bottom. The bottom is curved and you could not fit them down there. That is what the photos and diagrams show, plus I have seen a cell and I confirm that. See also:

You are very unlucky, even the photo you posted shows that you are wrong. It's evident that the electrodes rest on the translucent plastic support, which has a thickness of about 1 cm, compared to the inner diameter of the cell which is 1 inch.

This is also confirmed in the first part (at about t=00:32) of the video of the 1992 boil-off experiment (2), which shows a thick plastic disc supporting the electrodes. There is absolutely no gap between the electrodes and the plastic disc.

All you say belongs to mythology, not science.

Furthermore, as clearly demonstrated in the lab video (2), the Fig.8 of the Simplicity Paper is wrong. The vertical arrow representing the "Cell dry" instant is misplaced and the sentence "Cell remains at high temperature for 3 hours" is completely false.

• I have not been following the discussion. I suggest you read the papers by F&P. You will see that everything you wrote here is nonsense.

I have some sympathy with you here. It is intricate. But I recommend patience. I also recommend reading stuff before you say it is nonsense?

I am no siding with ascoli over the HAD part of the F&P claims - based on their own evidence.

The temperature drops because much of the heat came from electrolysis. After electrolysis stops, there is only cold fusion heat. The cathode remains hot. The cell does not have have to be completely dry for the power to stop. Power stops when the electrolyte level falls below the cathode. The vapor remaining in the cell cannot conduct a significant amount of power. This is clearly shown in the graphs;

All agreed with you. What is not agreed is when the electrolyte drops below the electrode. In addition it is worth pointing out that the power in increases a lot during this final phase.

F&P had precise records of the voltage in - but they did not record current in as well, so we cannot know when the current drops to zero exactly. However we can be sure that while the voltage is high and increasing the current is still 0.5A.

It is not possible for any measurable amount of power to be dissipated in an 80% dry cell. Calibrations with high powered electrolysis showed that all power stops the moment the liquid falls below the cathode, even though it still covers part of the anode.

Can I ask - as an EE person I know that this depends on how high a voltage the supply can go to. What supply were these calibrations done with, and was that the supply used here? In any case how can we know when the electrolyte no mlonger covers the cathode given that there is so much crud and foam? I believe you are making assumptions. In any case that is not ascoli's main point.

This is clearly described in the papers as you and Ascoli will see . . . No! I kid again!! Of course you will not read the papers. Ascoli would not understand them if he did. You will not, in order to maintain "plausible deniability." For that matter, you will not read middle school textbooks because they show that everything you say about calorimetry and cold fusion are ridiculous violations of elementary physics.

Ascoli (and I - but Ascoli with more detail) has read the papers. Perhaps you would like to comment on the times shown in the papers and how those relate to those in the famous video? This is not about theory - it is about clear contradictions in the data and when that paper claims the cell was dry.

It is easier for you to assume that ascoli and I both are lying, or incompetent, or whatever. Also easier for you to read the paper and not check the evidence.

It should not be a big deal. That HAD claim I never rated - it was flaky. This just proves it.

• Thats it..thanks Jed. You know I trudged through all this with Ascoli a few years back. Just because he doesn't stop doesn't make him right.

Alan - I am a new convert to the part of ascoli's evidence where he points out that the claimed cell dry point is inconsistent with the video evidence. Which bit of it do you disagree with?

Really, this HAD claim is not good evidence anyway -0 so it should not matter much - but I do like to have details like this fully argued.