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

  • So, I have no problem to give you credit, in just this case. It means that the "close-up" video, you are talking about since 2020, did never exist, otherwise you and the other authors of the documentary should have seen it in the ponderous material that was collected to produce your documentary.

    It may not exist any more. I wouldn't know. As I recall, it came out after we made the video.


    Anyway, you are either accusing me of lying, or being crazy, so I think it best to end this conversation.

  • Your posts are off-topic for this thread. No more please.

    OK, I agree, this is not the right thread. I will no post here any other post on the F&P subject. But this subject was introduced in this thread by JR (1).


    Don't you think that his scoop deserve a new thread dedicated to the "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"?

    And I was just having fun with Ascoli, because of his obsession with the FPs boil-off.

    I'm happy you have fun. :) I also have, by seeing how any single word of JR is taken for true, even when he is not able to provide any proof.


    You did ask him (2): "Maybe it is time to give skeptics what they have demanded all along...a device clearly demonstrating excess heat with some practical consumer use? "


    He answered (3): "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."


    I think you too wish to help JR to find a copy of this video. Don't you?


    In which thread can we help JR to retrieve this crucial "close-up video" of the F&P boling cell?


    (1) RE: MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    (2) RE: MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    (3) RE: MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • I'm happy you have fun. :) I also have, by seeing how any single word of JR is taken for true, even when he is not able to provide any proof.

    Soon we will have all the ICCF24 videos available, and then you will see the field is well past FP's. No use quibbling over old experiments when we have verifications of XH/RF/transmutations flooding in from the likes of NASA, US Navy (Navsea), and the US Army.

  • Soon we will have all the ICCF24 videos available, and then you will see the field is well past FP's. No use quibbling over old experiments when we have verifications of XH/RF/transmutations flooding in from the likes of NASA, US Navy (Navsea), and the US Army.

    Such things have been said for years. We will see if anything is different this time. It is actually a scandal that the F&P experiments have to be dissected and argued over by grainy video or half forgotten videos instead of by just pointing to that machine over in the corner of the lab that works on F&R principles and is in everyday use for producing heat or radiation or whatever. That is the mark of a sterile field.


    The thing that appears structurally different in 2022 is Daniel_G's apparent willingness to distribute working reactors to well-prepared laboratories for open validations. I hope that works out.

  • Soon we will have all the ICCF24 videos available, and then you will see the field is well past FP's. No use quibbling over old experiments when we have verifications of XH/RF/transmutations flooding in from the likes of NASA, US Navy (Navsea), and the US Army.

    Why? From an historical point of view, quibbling over old experiments is exceedingly important just now, since NASA is going to equip its spaceships with powerful CF power generators. :)


    We must absolutely retrieve such an important document as the "close-up video" of the F&P boiling cell, before it get lost for ever.

  • It may not exist any more. I wouldn't know. As I recall, it came out after we made the video.

    Impossible.


    You said (1): "It [the video] was broadcast on a major TV channel as I recall." and "It was made by F&P and a TV reporter. I don't recall who."


    If the video existed, it should exists still now. A major TV channel, which sent a TV reporter to the F&P laboratory (in France at that time) doesn't lose a document like this. Moreover, such a TV channel doesn't wait years before broadcasting such an expensive video.


    Since the close-up video was made by both Fleischmann and Pons, and the TV reporter visited them in France, the program showing the close-up video should have been broadcasted well before 1998, the year during which your documentary "Cold Fusion: Fire from Water" was released. So, the alleged "close-up" video should have been at your disposal when you reviewed the footage stock for your documentary.


    Quote

    Anyway, you are either accusing me of lying, or being crazy, so I think it best to end this conversation.


    No, sorry, I don't mean that. it could just be that your memory is not so infallible. It happens. You often accompany your sentences with caution words as "I wouldn't know", "as I recall", "I don't recall who", and the like.


    In this case, it seems that you have a vague memory of the ABC program "Good Morning America", broadcasted on May 31, 1994 (2). In this program a young TV reporter, the PhD Michael Guillen, relates the TV anchorman about his travel in France, where he visited Fleischmann and Pons at the "15 million dollar lab created for them by the Japanese" (at 1:20). This program contains images recorded during the reporter visit and some others, presumably provided by F&P, related to old experiments, as a footage of the "4 cells boil-off experiment" (at 2:18). Immediately after Fleischmann says: "We have been able to achieve heat output at boiling point for 15 minutes, so now we have to device cells which can be maintained on the boiling conditions for 3 months". He says "15 minutes" and "3 months", but these are only words. No close-up video showing this achievement appears in the ABC program.


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

    (2)

    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.

  • You can't have that both ways. The conductive area and the current flow are proportionate as is the heat transfer.


    'mostly' and 'fully' are weasel words.

    Alan,


    I'd like to address the conventional physics here, which I feel I am competent to do. The context is the argument between ascoli's proposed mechanism for rapid boiling seen at the cathode towards the end of the experiment and "thermal runaway". I agree with ascoli that his proposed mechanism for both effects is plausible - in fact it is difficult to see how they could not happen given the observations in the literature (Longchamp) about electrode deposits causing electrode heating, and the assumption that these cells are driven constant current.


    As I understand it, there are two mechanisms:

    (1) deposit build-up on electrodes increases power dissipation through resistive heating of said deposits

    (2) as the electrode temperature approaches 100C bubbles form. These bubbles partially isolate the electrode from the electrolyte both thermally and electrically. If the power dissipated at the electrode stays constant this isolation will lead to am obvious runaway heating effect.


    Therefore the question is whether power dissipated at the electrode stays constant.


    This is simple: if the cells are run constant current power will stay constant or increase a bit: the locally higher resistance of the electrolyte will dissipate additional power: some of that power will contribute to electrode heating (this is separate from the increased thermal isolation). Note that we get plausible thermal runaway even with the power staying constant. If the cells are run constant voltage indeed we have reduced current and therefore power, and no thermal runaway.


    From comments about electrode over-voltage I rather assume these cells were run constant current? In which case Ascoli's point here seems correct?


    This is an area in which I am quite confident.


    Apologies if this point has already been made (e.g. by Ascoli).


    THH


    EDIT: reading https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    the cells described there were clearly run constant-current.

  • Such things have been said for years. We will see if anything is different this time. It is actually a scandal that the F&P experiments have to be dissected and argued over by grainy video or half forgotten videos instead of by just pointing to that machine over in the corner of the lab that works on F&R principles and is in everyday use for producing heat or radiation or whatever. That is the mark of a sterile field.


    The thing that appears structurally different in 2022 is Daniel_G's apparent willingness to distribute working reactors to well-prepared laboratories for open validations. I hope that works out.

    Absolutely. It is a sign of weakness in the field of LENR if anyone cares whether F&P experiments indicated a real effect, or were artifactual. By now there should be better, and more importantly replicatable and examinable, evidence. If from ICF24 there is that, I will be the first to become very excited!


    When analysing the F&P results it is important to consider each line of evidence, and claim, independently. For example: if there is a mechanism for the rapid runaway boiling that does not involve anomalous heat generation the observation of this cannot be used to support that. Of course, there may be other evidence which alone shows indisputable excess heat.


    I have always taken the view that all evidence during runaway phases of an experiment is inherently less reliable than during equilibrium. For obvious reason, the theoretical analysis is more complex and there is more uncertainty.


    THH


  • In addition to the above there is another purely electrical reason for thermal runaway. at the electrode.


    Perhaps counterinituitively, bubbles on the surface will also increase the power dissipated in the electrode as follows. The power results from a constant current I and the resistance of the electrode deposits. What happens if we halve the electrode effective surface area due to bubbles? The current density for the half still in electrolyte doubles. the overall power is:

    integral_over_electrode_surface(current density)^2 / surface conductance/unit area). In this case the integral is over half the area, but the current density increases by 2, and its square by 4, and the conductance per unit area is constant. Overall halving electrode area means doubling power dissipated under CC conditions.


    There is some approximation here if the bubbles are uniform, because you get current moving sideways in the resistive electrode deposit layer and that can to some extent counteract this effect. Nevertheless it is real and large, if bubbles occupy a significant proportion of the electrode surface.


    THH

  • Thank you @THH. However, I

    By now there should be better, and more importantly replicatable and examinable, evidence. If from ICF24 there is that, I will be the first to become very excited!

    That might involve you watching the presentations. Take care.


    However, Ed Storms has some observations on this topic that you might find useful.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228390447_A_Critical_Evaluation_of_the_Pons-Fleischmann_Effect_Parts_1_and_2


    In case you don't know the chap, here's what Marrianne Macey wrote about him recently...


    Dr. Edmund Storms, who will be presented with the Minoru Toyoda Gold Medal at ICCF24 in Mountain
    View, California (July 25-28, 2022),

    Ed Storms is one of the most prolific experimenters, theorists and writers in the history of
    cold fusion. Storms has a Ph.D. in radio-chemistry, and spent30 years at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) before his life changed to a path less travelled in March 1989

  • I'd like to address the conventional physics here, which I feel I am competent to do. The context is the argument between ascoli's proposed mechanism for rapid boiling seen at the cathode towards the end of the experiment and "thermal runaway". I agree with ascoli that his proposed mechanism for both effects is plausible - in fact it is difficult to see how they could not happen given the observations in the literature (Longchamp) about electrode deposits causing electrode heating, and the assumption that these cells are driven constant current.

    No, it is not plausible. There is no input power for most of the boil off. That is what the graphs show, and what common sense tells you must be the case. Got that? No Input Power. NO INPUT POWER, for crying out loud. Do you understand what that means? Ascoli does not, but you probably have some knowledge of everyday physics. If you do not understand that, I strongly recommend you try dropping a hot nail into water. Tell us what happens.


    Please, stop with the garbage and bullshit. I realize that you will never allow yourself to believe that cold fusion is real. You will deny all experiments, including ones like McKubre's, which is utterly irrefutable. You will come up with torrents of bullshit like what you just posted. Just stop it. It is unbecoming. It does not fool anyone, probably not even you. I am sure you do not seriously believe that metal the size of a nail can produce boiling for 20 minutes with no input power, or for 2 days, or for 70 days. Obviously, Ascoli believes that, because he is crazy, but you are not crazy, so stop acting as if you were.

  • That might involve you watching the presentations. Take care.

    Yes. God forbid Dr. Huxley should have to look at actual evidence. Or that he should ever be in a situation where he has to tell us why McKubre's calorimeter does not work, for example. I am sure he would come up with something, but it would be painful to watch.


    People often handwave and make up bullshit about Fleischmann. Every misfit and nitwit on the internet and at Wikipedia does that. Just as they attack Einstein's theory or relativity. For some reason they imagine they know better than Einstein. Anti-cold fusion nitwits pretend that Fleischmann and Pons are the only results ever published, and once they come up with a cockamamie reason to dismiss it -- such a nail that boils water for 20 minutes with no input power -- they think they have magically disproven all other experiments. They never even bother to try to explain McKubre, Storms, Miles or any other.


    We all have our foibles. We are all rational about some things, and irrational about others. Or bonkers, as the case may be. It usually does not matter. But cold fusion does matter. It is consequential. So it is a shame that educated people who are normally rational and scientific such as Huxley suddenly go off the rails and embrace lunatic nonsense when it comes to cold fusion. Many others embrace lunatic nonsense with regard to COVID and vaccines. That also causes great harm. It is a shame.

  • No, it is not plausible. There is no input power for most of the boil off. That is what the graphs show, and what common sense tells you must be the case. Got that? No Input Power. NO INPUT POWER, for crying out loud. Do you understand what that means? Ascoli does not, but you probably have some knowledge of everyday physics. If you do not understand that, I strongly recommend you try dropping a hot nail into water. Tell us what happens.

    Jed: I was arguing one point: that during CC electrolysis thermal runaway could be expected for the mechanism Ascoli highlighted earlier on this thread and indeed one other point which I have added above. Alan was arguing against this point - and I thought the matter should be resolved. If you read my post carefully you will see that the context (during electrolysis) is clear.


    I am not saying this happens when there is no power input.


    I look at the arguments here separately. I am not "putting it all together" when I am arguing specific points.


    The point here: runaway thermal reaction, and therefore boiling at the electrode, during electrolysis is very possible.


    THH

  • Jed: I was arguing one point: that during CC electrolysis thermal runaway could be expected for the mechanism Ascoli highlighted earlier on this thread and indeed one other point which I have added above.

    Problems:


    No such runaway event occurred, or can occur. F&P and others did many calibrations with ordinary electrolysis. You can boil water with it of course, but it does not run away. As soon as you turn off the power, or as soon as the water level falls below the cathode, boiling stops. The water left in the cell stays there. Power does not increase on its own. On the contrary, it decreases as the water level falls.


    Electrolysis never produces excess energy. If your imaginary electrolysis runaway even occurred, the heat balance would be zero. So it would have nothing to do with cold fusion boil off event. The measurements show irrefutable evidence of excess heat, as does the physical evidence such as the melted plastic.


    Ascoli dreamed up this nonsense about a runaway reaction. Now you are providing an imaginary reason for it. What is the point?


    I am not saying this happens when there is no power input.

    Since there is no power input during these events, you are saying that. So is Ascoli. You will not admit you are saying that, but what else could you mean? Anyone can see it is physically impossible for there to be power. Steam does not conduct electricity. There is no connection between the anode and cathode. The graphs show power is zero. In many cases, F&P and others deliberately turned off the power, to confirm there was heat after death.

  • Jed: I was arguing one point: that during CC electrolysis thermal runaway could be expected for the mechanism Ascoli highlighted earlier on this thread and indeed one other point which I have added above. Alan was arguing against this point - and I thought the matter should be resolved. If you read my post carefully you will see that the context (during electrolysis) is clear.

    I have probably done over 100 electrolysis experiments of many different kinds in the course of ordinary process engineering research, very few of them related to F&P's work, involving many different electrolytes and solute materials, a few under pressure, and some of them carried out at very high voltages indeed, once up to 2kV._ Never ever seen a situation where the electrode is hotter than the electrolyte, that is pretty much a fantasy situation, The electrical energy is dumped by the electrode into the electrolyte which gets hot. Anodes and cathodes are designed not to be resistors.


    Perhaps Ascoli could perform an experiment and video it where this happens?

  • I have probably done over 100 electrolysis experiments of many different kinds in the course of ordinary process engineering research, very few of them related to F&P's work, involving many different electrolytes and solute materials, a few under pressure, and some of them carried out at very high voltages indeed, once up to 2kV._ Never ever seen a situation where the electrode is hotter than the electrolyte, that is pretty much a fantasy situation, The electrical energy is dumped by the electrode into the electrolyte which gets hot. Anodes and cathodes are designed not to be resistors.


    Perhaps Ascoli could perform an experiment and video it where this happens?

    We already have videos of it happening!


    This system, where there is relatively little over-voltage beyond then electrolysis energy gap, is very incomparable with a high-voltage electrolysis system.


    The energy dumped into electrolyte will be high in a high-voltage system where the electrolyte resistance drops the electrode voltage. Whereas for F&P not so much power goes into electrolyte and the voltage is across the cell is around 5v initially.


    The point is that this behaviour is explained exactly by this mechanism. And it is pretty well inevitable if you get static bubbles on the cathode and the cathode layer resistance is significant (so that the electrode gets heated independently of the electrolyte which will have some resistive heating.


    The conditions of this experiment optimise that effect: relatively small low ohmic loss in electrolyte, long electrolysis times to get complex surface film on electrodes.


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


    Look at the cell voltage vs time and note that the electrolytic energy function voltage is 1.56V (or so I think it says) which should be subtracted from the cell voltage to give the ohmic loss voltage. It looks like there is around 4V- 5V of ohmic loss at low temps, going to double that or more as time progresses and the cell heats up. That means at that time half the power dissipated in or immediately around the electrode given we have a good mechanism for this increasing in resistivity exactly as seen here.


    That will cause the electrode to get much hotter.,

  • Well, until you or Ascoli produce a video of an experiment in comparable conditions to the F&P ones where you can get the cathode hot enough to boil the electrolyte you are merely hand-waving. I have done many and never seen that happen. High voltage, low voltage, controlled current, controlled voltage, I've probably done them all. The temperature of the cathode does not ever -that I have seen- rise above that of the electrolyte. You could possibly contrive conditions where that would happen, but they would be far removed from any setup F&P used.