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

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    a bright flash from the bathroom caught my eye.


    The jar was now well boiled out, and the scum near the bottom of the jar had made a weird “sculpture” lattice formed by the current, bubbles, minerals etc., and it was glowing bright incandescent white-orange.

    I find this interesting! A white flash, followed by a glowing white-orange light material at the bottom.

    I'm guessing that the house fuse (presumeably 15 amp) blew at the time of the flash, unless you know otherwise. I assume that the bluish green patterned sludgy film mostly at the bottom was due to the fairly mineral rich water supplied to your home. I also assume that the copper wire was in contact with the bottom, unless you know otherwise.

    Anyway, i applaud the true spirt of adventure and truth seeking at an early age :)

    Here's a video of a guy electrolysing different water sources including tap water, showing the particulates forming in each. Note the blue green in the tap water. (Please ignore his conclusion that this demonstrates the ill effects of such water!)

    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.

    Quote from Mark U

    I find this interesting! A white flash, followed by a glowing white-orange light material at the bottom.

    I'm guessing that the house fuse (presumeably 15 amp) blew at the time of the flash, unless you know otherwise. I assume that the bluish green patterned sludgy film mostly at the bottom was due to the fairly mineral rich water supplied to your home. I also assume that the copper wire was in contact with the bottom, unless you know otherwise.

    Anyway, i applaud the true spirt of adventure and truth seeking at an early age :)

    Here's a video of a guy electrolysing different water sources including tap water, showing the particulates forming in each. Note the blue green in the tap water. (Please ignore his conclusion that this demonstrates the ill effects of such water!)

    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.

    It was powered until I unplugged it. Probably just an isolation transformer outlet in the bathroom.

    The blue-green was copper from the wires, which dissolved almost completely. I made a bunch of the powder more carefully in later attempts, and tried testing it with simple chemistry. Much of the powder was dissolved minerals from the well-known hard water in the area.

    Dear THHuxleynew,


    it seems to me that, once again, you are kicking against a brick wall in the thread on the ICCF24 presentations. I don't know if you got tired enough, I admire your perseverance, but I fear you are looping in another inconclusive discussion.


    Anyway, I take this opportunity to go back at a previous comment of you that I had left aside.


    I reply to it in this thread, which is more adequate to address what I'm about to ask you at the end.

    I thank you for having expressed such a positive opinion about me, but let me tell you that I'm not so sure you got my points exactly.


    First of all, I would like to clarify that I'm not personally anti F&P. I just point out that they have made huge mistakes in their most important work and I wonder how it is possible to discuss any other result obtained by referring to their alleged nuclear effect, without first clarifying the existence, cause, gravity and consequences of these mistakes.


    Since 2011, when I started to get interested in the LENR field due to the involvement of UniBo in the Ecat adventure, I have dedicated my attention to various protagonists of the CF/LENR research, starting from the Italians: Focardi and his fellows at UniBo and Celani. I also commented extensively on the works of Takahashi and Mizuno. So, I'm not single-minded with the F&P issues only.


    But when, in Autumn 2018, I began to take a closer look at F&P's work and realized what kind of mistakes they made in their "Simplicity paper", I felt that clarifying those mistakes was a top priority for understanding the entire evolution of the CF/LENR field.


    Now, back to us. If you like, I'd propose to do some science the way we like. Others will read and, if they wish, join our discussion.


    Just to be sure that it coincides with mine, would you, please, tell me what is your full interpretation of Fig.8 in the F&P's "Simplicity paper" (1)?


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

    Quote from Ascoli65

    Now, back to us. If you like, I'd propose to do some science the way we like. Others will read and, if they wish, join our discussion.


    Just to be sure that it coincides with mine, would you, please, tell me what is your full interpretation of Fig.8 in the F&P's "Simplicity paper" (1)?

    Take that discussion to the other thread please.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Take that discussion to the other thread please.

    Which other thread? The one about "ICCF24 presentations"?


    I can't understand why. The question I'm asking to THH is not related to any ICCF24 presentation.


    Moreover, you have asked that my "rhetoric", and I think you include in it also my "obsessions" with F&P mistakes, should be … er, expressed in this thread, which you kindly provided me on purpose (1).


    I don't want to interfere and disturb other discussions with OT arguments.


    (1) RE: Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    That is incorrect. When an experiment has been widely replicated at a high signal to noise ratio by experts, and these replications carefully reviewed, there cannot be errors in it. If there could be errors, the scientific method would not work. No experiment would ever be certain; no fact confirmed; and no scientific laws established. We would still be arguing over whether Newton's prism experiment was right, and white light has all colors in it.


    There has to be some reasonable limit to the number of replications and the s/n ratio we reach before a question is settled.


    You are saying that experimental techniques perfected by Faraday and J. P. Joule don't work. [...]

    Everyone agrees that Newton, Faraday and Joule's experiments have been replicated and that their science is correct. But what about LENR?


    Last year, McKubre said (1) that LENR has a "limited replicability – but not on demand – or from written description alone".


    Do you agree with him? Is this level of replicability comparable to the science of Newton, Faraday and Joule?


    Quote

    You have not found any errors and neither has anyone else.

    THH hasn't, but I (IMO) did. The problem is that he refuses to look closely at the only CF experiment (to be discussed in another thread (2)) that is well documented, and whose errors can be fully demonstrated.


    Quote

    McKubre himself says that an unreplicated result is tantamount to no result.

    In (1), McKubre also states: "b. As far as I am aware Lonchampt and his team were and are the only group ever to attempt an exact engineering replication of the original Fleischmann Pons experiment."


    So, does all of the LENR credibility depend on this one experiment? Or was McKubre wrong, in this respect?


    (1) RE: What should we do next ? - A relevant question from Matt Trevithick

    (2) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    Quote from Ascoli65

    In (1), McKubre also states: "b. As far as I am aware Lonchampt and his team were and are the only group ever to attempt an exact engineering replication of the original Fleischmann Pons experiment."

    Here's Biberian's tribute to Lonchampt :
    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…s/2018/08/JCMNS-Vol21.pdf


    Abstract

    Georges Lonchampt was one of the few French researchers who, from day one, worked on Cold Fusion. He started performing his own experiments, and later worked with Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. He successfully reproduced the two scientists’ original experiment, and was the only one able to successfully replicate the boil-off experiment.

    ...


    3.4. Boil-off experiments

    Following the announcement by Fleischman and Pons of excess heat, once the electrochemical cell is not refilled and the cell is let to boil-off until it gets dry [4], Lonchampt decided to replicate the experiment. He was successful, and Table 1 shows the actual results presented at the ICCF6 conference [5]

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Think on THH. I am not a theoretician, but anybody who believes that the SM is the final or even partially correct model of matter at all energy scales doesn't know much about the state of physics, or possibly hasn't read the latest begging letters from the LHC.

    It always amazes me here how I say one thing and people reply as though I'm saying something else.


    We all know SM is not final. And we all know (by definition) it is not even partially correct at all energy scales.


    But at the energy scales of nuclear reactions - which is where it has a lot of predictive power, it is amazingly accurate phenomenologically.


    In any case, you have not addressed my point which is that you do not need SM to expect high energy nuclear products as. The things I itemized - all of which are experimentally validated independent of your theoretical model, make high energy products a consequence of conservation of energy and other quantities we know are experimentally conserved.


    Physics is not a political thing - even if some people (many on this site) think of it as a political battle (LHC bad, LENR good). You may need politics to get funding - don't let it get in the way of the physics itself.


    THH

    This is where Longchampt adds some extra detail to the issues ascoli and others have identified with F&P open cells. His replication is so faithful that he gets the same results, with the same issues. He even comments on them. Ascoli who is much more interested in these experiments than me will comment.


    Ascoli, my lack of interest in F&P experiment is because it is a bad experiment. Boil-off conditions are difficult to evaluate. Open cells are much more problematic than closed cells - though closed cells also have issues. McKubre knew all this and did those same experiments properly - so given his results and F&P's I ignore F&P's as being fundamentally less trustworthy.


    Hence a relative lack of interest. I realise others here may have different views (not sure) - but I don't see anything I say will change that, so I leave it. I went through that "simplicity" paper and the 3 or 4 followups to it in detail at one time a few years ago. I concluded that the F&P paper had many gaps, that Longchampt filled the reporting gaps, and laid bear the points where assumptions were made that were not verified.

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    Georges Lonchampt was one of the few French researchers who, from day one, worked on Cold Fusion. He started performing his own experiments, and later worked with Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. He successfully reproduced the two scientists’ original experiment, and was the only one able to successfully replicate the boil-off experiment.

    Yes , I know. This is what Lonchampt claimed, Biberian reported, and JR, McKubre and any other LENR advocate believe.


    I also believe that Lonchampt was able to replicate the F&P boil-off experiment. That's the reason why I've recommended the LENR community to propose to Team Google the replication of this specific F&P experiment, and why I still hope that it will be replicated by the HIVER project presented at ICCF24.


    Did it successfully? It depend to what it mean. If it means that Lonchampt was able to reproduce a positive feedback, which led to the boil-off and dry out of the cell, I've no difficulty to share this meaning. If, contrarily, it means that he obtained any quantity of excess heat, then I strongly disagree. Lonchampt claimed to have obtained XH, but in my opinion, just as F&P, he was wrong in calculating the output energy, albeit in a different way than F&P.


    However, this was not my point, in this specific case, because this thread is not the place to discuss these details.


    I asked JR instead: do you agree with McKubre that the F&P boil-off experiment is the only replicated experiment in the history of LENR? Which would implies that it is the only LENR experiment which can be compared with the replications of Newton, Faraday, and Joule's experiments, and consequently can give LENR a real scientific status.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Ascoli, my lack of interest in F&P experiment is because it is a bad experiment. Boil-off conditions are difficult to evaluate. Open cells are much more problematic than closed cells - though closed cells also have issues. McKubre knew all this and did those same experiments properly - so given his results and F&P's I ignore F&P's as being fundamentally less trustworthy.

    This is all complete bullshit. There is not a shred of evidence for these statements. Boil off conditions have been measured very accurately since the 18th century. The heat of vaporization of water and other substances is know accurately to many decimal places, and the effects of humidity and atmospheric pressure are known. How would they be known if it were difficult to measure boil off conditions? McKubre wanted to use isothermal flow calorimetry, which would be difficult with an open cell. Fleischmann, Miles and others measured heat with open cells down to around 10 mW, over a very broad range of power. There is nothing untrustworthy about their results. You say there is, but your reasons are -- as I said -- imaginary.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    I asked JR instead: do you agree with McKubre that the F&P boil-off experiment is the only replicated experiment in the history of LENR?

    Of course not! That's preposterous. McKubre meant it was one of the few that was replicated rigorously down to the last detail. McKubre and others tended to make large changes to experiments, such as using a flow calorimeter instead of isoperibolic one. That is not an exact replication, but there is no doubt it confirmed the results.


    Scientists tend to do loose replications, adding enhancements that they think will help. Which sometimes do not help. In retrospect, an isothermal flow calorimeter is not as good an isoperibolic calorimeter, as McKubre himself ruefully admitted. Lonchampt was an engineer, not a scientist. Engineers tend to do things by the book, exactly according to instructions.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    This is where Longchampt adds some extra detail to the issues ascoli and others have identified with F&P open cells. His replication is so faithful that he gets the same results, with the same issues. He even comments on them. Ascoli who is much more interested in these experiments than me will comment.

    I've already commented on the Lonchampt results (1), but let's leave him apart for the moment and concentrate ourselves on the original, F&P.

    Quote

    Ascoli, my lack of interest in F&P experiment is because it is a bad experiment. Boil-off conditions are difficult to evaluate. Open cells are much more problematic than closed cells - though closed cells also have issues.

    So, you have finally confirmed my suspicion: you have not actually looked into the specific mistakes made by F&P in reporting the results of the boil-off experiment, you have only a vague impression that this experiment was bad.


    Let me say that this position is unscientific, and in this case I agree with JR. The F&P experiment is formally correct, it follows the basic criteria of the experiment done by Joule, Curie and any other recognized scientists who have demonstrated their undeniable discoveries by applying this method, with much less precise tools than those used by the two pioneers of CF. So the F&P results deserve our full attention.


    The problem is that, contrary to Joule, Curie, and the others, F&P made huge errors in reporting and interpreting some of their crucial data, which led them to draw two completely wrong conclusions: the 2 most important and cited conclusions in the history of CF.


    JR was also right in challenging you to show him any possible error in this F&P experiment, and, since 2017(!), he is still trying to get an answer from you:

    - "You just show there is a mistake in an experiment, and out it goes" (2)

    - "All you have to do is show one major error in an experiment, and in most cases that cancels out the entire result." (3)

    - "You will never find one mistake or one overarching factor that cancels out all evidence. You have to wade in and deal with details" (4)

    - and many other, I can't list all of them.


    So I think you deserve him an answer on this point, even with a delay of over 5 years, otherwise he is completely right in reproaching you for not having found any errors.


    But you should look at the big mistakes not at the small ones.


    The F&P's paper we are talking about (5) is divided into three part, like his title: "from simplicity" – "via complications" – "to simplicity". The first two parts are the longest, they are boring and basically useless. The main results and the conclusions, and also the errors, are in the third part which is very concise and interesting.


    It's very simple to look at it and find the errors, it takes a lot less time than looking at just one ICCF24 presentation.


    Conclusions, at page 19, mention only one figure, Fig.8. So, please, look at that figure and kindly provide us your interpretation of it, as I have already asked you (6).


    Thanks.


    (1) RE: FP's experiments discussion

    (2) RE: How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

    (3) RE: How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

    (4) RE: How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

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

    (6) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    This kind of circular arguments remind me about a joke that Scott Adams included in one of his Dilbert Books (I think it is in “Dilbert The Future”), where he was imagining ways to create “free energy”. One of the ideas was to offer a venue for a discussion between advocates for either MS Windows and Linux based operating systems, in a closed auditorium, and casually dropping an open mic comment about the virtues of Apple IOS. According to him, the hot air generated by the ensuing discussion could be harnessed by a wind generator In the only exit of the venue and power a block or two of the city.

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

    Haha 1
    Quote from JedRothwell

    Of course not! That's preposterous. McKubre meant it was one of the few that was replicated rigorously down to the last detail.

    He didn't say "one of the few", but the "only group ever". In fact, McKubre stated in his 2021 slide (1): "b. As far as I am aware Lonchampt and his team were and are the only group ever to attempt an exact engineering replication of the original Fleischmann Pons experiment."


    You may disagree with his opinion on this aspect, but you cannot change his words.


    Quote

    McKubre and others tended to make large changes to experiments, such as using a flow calorimeter instead of isoperibolic one. That is not an exact replication, but there is no doubt it confirmed the results.


    Scientists tend to do loose replications, adding enhancements that they think will help. Which sometimes do not help. In retrospect, an isothermal flow calorimeter is not as good an isoperibolic calorimeter, as McKubre himself ruefully admitted. Lonchampt was an engineer, not a scientist. Engineers tend to do things by the book, exactly according to instructions.

    In the same slide above, McKubre urged to:

    Quote

    c. Reproduce exactly first. Work with the originator directly, in person, understand their procedures at every step until the original effect is recreated. In 1996 Lonchampt et al* set out "simply to reproduce the exact experiment of Fleschmann and Pons – to ascertain the various phenomena in order to master the experiments". The phrase underlined is critical. Only from the position of mastery can systematic effects be studied.

    ...

    * Lonchampt, G., Bonnetain, L., and Hictor, P., "Reproduction of Fleischmann and Pons Experiment", in 6th ICCF, Okamoto, M., Toya, Japan, 1996, p. 113.


    Whether he is a scientist or an engineer, I wonder why, in so many years of experimental activity at SRI, when he could have worked directly with his friend MF, McKubre didn't follows his own advice trying to reproduce exactly that same "boil-off experiment", which he and 4 other LENR advocates (2) placed at the top of their short list of CF works, to be submitted to DOE in response of the request "provide a summary of the status of the field which articulates what are considered to be the most recent significant experimental observations and publications … ". (my underlines)


    This is another mystery of CF.


    (1) RE: What should we do next ? - A relevant question from Matt Trevithick

    (2) https://www.newenergytimes.com…010/34/344doereview.shtml

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.