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

  • If you think cold fusion is easy to replicate, or that someone claimed it is easy, or that being easy or hard has any bearing on whether it exists . . . you have no idea what you are talking about.

    The LEC may be easier to replicate. Mizuno and I hoped that his experiment would be easier to replicate than the original F&P experiment. I think it was, but not as much as we hoped. However, being easy or hard has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is scientifically proven.

    The LEC is something of a mystery but I fail to see what connection it has with LENR?

    Mizuno's experiments, if replicable with careful documentation and methodology, would be real proof. It is a shame that this has not yet happened.

    The original F&P experiment was replicated at ~180 labs (Storms book). Anyone who says that is not enough is irrational. Such people would not be satisfied with 1,000 replications, or 10,000. I'm lookin' at you, THH.

    The original F&P experiment was highly uncertain - which is why those 180 labs did not continue to do CF work - they did not believe the results were best explained by novel nuclear activity.

    That may be right or wrong - but it is uncertain.

    The experiment described in the Simplicity paper is also highly uncertain - for the reasons Ascoli points out.

    They used different cell geometries, different kinds of calorimeters and so on. Some used closed cells. However, these replications produced the same results.

    The experiments all produced quantitatively different results, with the better controlled experiments producing much lower COP than the more poorly controlled ones. The fact that results were so different, and also different between different cells for the same experimenter, shows either irreproducibility or uncertainty - take your pick.

    Those supporting LENR as an explanation for this as always have to assume LENR effects are inherently difficult to reproduce precisely, and sensitive to uncontrollabel (or at least not controlled) factors. While that may be true (and can never be disproved) it also makes the evidence less convincing.

    I think it important to note that it was the process that was replicated, not every physical detail in every case. People add their own flourishes inevitably. But this makes the case stronger in that nobody (even THH) could reasonably claim that every one of these experiments showed the same schoolboy errors.

    Well Shanahan claimed that these experiments (or at least a very large number of them) did show two errors:

    (1) Incorrect calculation of experimental error in the case the COP is close to 1 due to calibration constant error. Not everyone did this (I think?) but certainly many did. That is a schoolboy error but one easy for calorimetrists to make because COP ~ 1 is not a very usual calorimetry condition.

    (2) ATER - which, rather like LENR - remains uncertain. What is certain is that those experimenters did not consider the possibility of differential D/H ATER.

    The mistake here is to assume that a large number of variable results all positive in a binary sense but without quantitative characterisation. In other words they agree over a binary hypothesis "more heat out than in" and nothing else - reinforce a hypothesis. They do not, because "more heat out than in will occur half the time and any experimenter showing less heat out than in will check everything till that no longer appears to be the acse. Any non-LENR experimenter will put similar effort into the more heat out than in case. However an LENR experimenter will check the obvious things and then reckon they have evidence of LENR. Taht is a recipe for very many experiments generating false positives. Note that those 180 labs with positives were not all of teh labs replicating. Some labs found nothing.

    So - we have two potential systematic errors not considered (and even when raised by Shanahan they were still not in the literature addressed). We have a prediction - COP > 1, which is so vague that we expect half of experiments with difficult to find errors to satisfy it.

    My stance here, which seems unpopular, is that addressed by one of the ICCF24 talks. It is a coherent and arguable stance - as that speaker pointed out. Those wanting to change skeptics minds could, as that speaker noted, try to find an experiment which is both certain and reproducible.

    I actually think that is what has mostly happened. Reproducible experiments get made more certain, certain experiments get replicated in the hope they will be replicable. It is just that the results are not good. I await with great interest more info on the excess Tritium results. The experimenters know what is needed, in clear written form, to answer my 1, 2a,b,c etc (when I say mine I think 2c was down to Jed). And of course they can reference and engage with the material from the very useful much older papers on measuring Tritium, showing that they have exercised similar care and cross-checking - though since their apparent results are significantly larger they will have an easier time of it than those early researchers did.

    Let me take as an example where efforts have been made but not succeeded Clean Planet. They claim a large excess heat effect which is reproducible. They have reproduced it. However in their published data which I have been given linked here they have not made the data less certain by closing possible obvious loopholes even when it would be quite easy to do that, and they have repeated experiments.

    Maybe they are unusual - the "less convincing" end of modern experiments. What annoys me is that many here seem to think them the mots convincing end of the modern experimental work.

  • Yes. As Fleischmann et al. put it in 1990: "It is hardly tenable that the substantial number of confirmations of the calorimetric data using a variety of techniques can be explained by a collection of different systematic errors nor that tritium generation can be accounted for by any but nuclear processes."

    I did not see this earlier. To decompose it:

    ATER + CCS are potential systematic error sources that will affect all of those F&P replication experiments. They were not recognised by many researchers and I do not think there is anyone who has fully excluded them. I challenge Jed or anyone else to post to the contrary. Mkcubre - the non-replicable large results from his runs would be definitive if replicated. They were not. The typical results, I claim, can be explained through ATER changing the temperature of the electrode (which has a conductive path through to the outside) relative to the electrolyte. This was not checked, and indeed would be difficult to check, although the relative temperature of the electrolyte in two different places was checked.

    Tritium generation would indeed be a great thing, and indicate nuclear sources. The issues with the older tritium experiments were very low levels of apparent generation which were difficult to separate from error effects when replicated. If however this ICCF24 experiments continues to show the results claimed, and can rule out all the error possibilities and get itself replicated, I would agree that we have very good evidence for LENR.

  • Mizuno's experiments, if replicable with careful documentation and methodology, would be real proof.

    F&Ps experiments are replicable and they have careful documentation. They were replicated by hundreds of researchers. But you don't believe them. If Mizuno's experiment was more widely replicated, I am sure you would invent an excuse to dismiss them, since you dismiss hundreds of other replications for no reason.

    Tritium generation would indeed be a great thing, and indicate nuclear sources. The issues with the older tritium experiments were very low levels of apparent generation which were difficult to separate from error effects when replicated.

    That is complete bullshit. Tritium was found at levels of 50 times background and more in 1990. If it had been in room at the same levels as in the cell, the building would be evacuated and condemned. It was never difficult to separate from error.

    You just make up this stuff! You say "low levels" and "difficult to separate from error" -- all nonsense. Anyone who has read the papers will see it is nonsense. Why do you do this? What is the point? Are you trying to fool people into thinking it is difficult to detect tritium at 50 times background?

  • Well Shanahan claimed that these experiments (or at least a very large number of them) did show two errors:

    (1) Incorrect calculation of experimental error in the case the COP is close to 1 due to calibration constant error. Not everyone did this (I think?) but certainly many did.

    No one made the errors Shanahan claims. These errors are physically impossible. See:


  • From 2015

    Speaking of Martin Fleischmann's discovery and what the precise mechanism is that is causing such a valuable effect.

    No solid theory.

    Think Cold Fusion? Nope

    We don't need a complete solid universally accepted theory.

    A must read... For studious skeptics.

    Sers and the Rise of the Raman Empire

    Sers and the rise of the Raman empire
    Dermot Martin looks at how Sers was invented and how it is expanding its sphere of influence

    Rough road

    After more than four decades of research and more than 12,000 publications on the topic, there is still no complete agreement on what the precise mechanism is...

  • The original F&P experiment was highly uncertain - which is why those 180 labs did not continue to do CF work - they did not believe the results were best explained by novel nuclear activity.

    That may be right or wrong - but it is uncertain.

    The experiment described in the Simplicity paper is also highly uncertain - for the reasons Ascoli points out.

    No, there is nothing of highly uncertain, my reasons show that F&P were certainly wrong!

    I'm sorry to tell you once again that you have not understood what kind of mistakes F&P made in their experiments. The same goes for Shanahan: calibration constant errors and ATER are nothing compared to them.

    You are the right to say what you want, of course, but if you admit (1) your "lack of interest in F&P experiment", please, be consistent, don't discuss about this topic. Talk about Mizuno, tritium, or whatever you like, but not about an argument that doesn't interest you. In this way, you are doing a disservice to the effort to investigate the reality of LENR.

    If, on the other hand, you want to talk about F&P, then be informed on their true errors. Enter the other thread (I'm not allowed to post on this topic in this thread, and this comment will be probably moved there, I hope) and first try to understand what huge errors F&P made in their most important experiment.

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

  • F&Ps experiments are replicable and they have careful documentation. They were replicated by hundreds of researchers. But you don't believe them. If Mizuno's experiment was more widely replicated, I am sure you would invent an excuse to dismiss them, since you dismiss hundreds of other replications for no reason.

    That simplicity paper - from F&P - had many holes. It made clear claims but left out much of the methodology and made clear assumptions what to this day are unproven. It was not what you would expect of a carefully reported experiment showing a major unexpected new scientific effect. It assumed ATER was not significant. it assumed cell conditions stayed the same control and active.

    We all agree that Longchampt was did a faithful replication of that experiment (and actually documented it better). We could go through that paper on another thread. I will point out why the results are not certain. For now, note that the "boil-off" results prove nothing except that at the end of the experiment with much higher power pushed into the cell due to the CC drive and the expected changes in cell electrolyte and electrode, the cell gets hot.

    I don't like the Simplicity paper (as ascoli, though he is less polite). I have asked for better F&P style experiments, since you claim 180 labs with the same results. I claim that 95% of those 180 no longer claim those results because they realised that better instrumentation, closed cells, etc, made any effects go away. McKubre shows a positive result in a long series of careful experiments. However his results are consistently muhc smaller than F&P and with one exception (which he could not replicate and it therefore must be treated with great caution) never found large excess heat.

    McKubre provides error calculations for his experiments which assumed, on the basis of minimal checking (he did some checking, but it did not exclude changes due to ATER), that conditions in the cell remain the same between control and active runs. The results depend on that assumption.

    Mizuno's results, if replicable, are different. +70% measured power is enough for an absolute determination of power out which therefore requires no calibration.

    You say that I am deliberately refusing to "believe" the CF results. I would love to see in them clear new physics, but frustratingly the ones replicable (F&P) are uncertain. The ones certain (Mizuno) are not thus far replicable. I am willing for that to change. Indeed I stay on this site partly in the outside hope that it will change - and things will become much more interesting.

    I am open to any credible mechanism for LENR. You will notice I have been cheer-leading the electron shielding (type 2) strand of work. It is credible - even though the numbers do not yet add up, the possibility of coherent electron effects in those lattices that are enough to cause fusion is real. There is as yet no credible mechanism for fractionating the nuclear-level excess energy down to a level where high energy products are not measured as expected, and it has always seemed to me the largest problem for LENR. But, I am open to something completely unexpected.

    Far from me being a died in the wool skeptic it is simple that I look at the whole of the LENR evidence without preconceptions or assumptions. There are undoubtedly interesting effects in those metal lattices. They do not fit nuclear reactions. All of the evidence in that direction so far is elusive and vanishes when examined very closely.

    I will rest my case on those Tritium results. If they are real, they can be replicated more carefully by other parties, written up carefully checking off every possible error mechanism (1, 2a, 2b, 2c, etc) and providing direct evidence why each of those ways out is not possible. The anomaly will then be inescapable and point to LENR.

    I hope that will happen. I expect that on more examination (and I have nothing against the team who produced those results, I am sure they wish this as much as me and) the apparent clear results now will vanish. then, LENR advocates will say that is due to different materials, etc, and the effect is not easily reproducible. I will say it is an effect which was irreproducible.

    What LENR advocates here ignore, is that if LENR is a real effect it is implausible that over such a long time, so many different experiments, such (normally) easy ways unambiguously to detect nuclear reactions at the claimed level, the evidence found remains at the level of unusual effects in metal lattices.

    • LEC - unusual electron effects in lattices - can break normal rules for electron escape from a surface and thereby generate the seen ionisation.
    • F&P - unexpected ATER catalysed by lattice and variable D vs H
    • SPAWAR film pits - highly unclear because chemical and heat effects on film could generate the claimed pits
    • Mizuno - strong results not replicable
    • Clean Planet - claims of strong replicable results are not strong because power out is measured indirectly with an obvious error mechanism (change in emissivity of surface) which strangely is not directly ruled out, for example by putting the replicable reactors in a proper calorimeter. (If they have written up experiments or demos better than what I've seen let me know).
    • Nuclear transformations. Such varied and incoherent results. All within possible contamination and movement and spectrum misreading mechanisms.

    I could go on. If LENR is real one or other of these results will pan out. That has not yet happened. There is however still much interest in the work for people like me who like mysteries. I want to understand what are those metal lattice effects. I want to understand what are the limits of electron screening - how much can it be boosted in metal lattices - and if the answer ends up being enough to generate useful LENR power I will cheer. (That however, will probably be type 2 - the results measured so far are nuclear reactions with the expected easily measured products). Combine that with a type 1 mechanism and all is open for LENR as a potentially useful new effect, because those low particle counts from screening experiment can be multiplied. A (presumed largely biassed towards product energies being fractionated. A type 1 mechanism would mean maybe only 0.1% or less of the reactions generated high energy products thus multiplying the calculated reaction rates from those experiments. I can live in hope of that - but I see not nearly evidence for it yet for that to be what I expect. Thus far, over 10 years here, my expectations have been realistic.

    With Rossi - I was correct. Admittedly I had an advantage over most here in that I understood the electrical tricks he played, and understood in great quantitative detail (a lot of work) the emissivity trick he played. I expected that initially because of the man's character. If he talks and looks land behaves like a Charlatan - he probably is one. If he really had what he claimed and were sane he would have got his Nobel Prize, or his $100,000,000, or both.

    I was deeply unhappy about "the Rossi effect". While it dragged money and interest towards LENR it was based on a lie. I was very happy about the google team investigation. I see no evidence that they were part of some sinister campaign to disprove LENR, or that they were stupid, or that they did not seek expert advice.

    Unfortunately they have not yet discovered LENR. The ideas from that which NASA is exploring remain just possible, and are exciting.

    Most people here - if they had my view - would be bored with the field. they want cheap easy energy, not better weight/power ratio radioisotope sources. And they are not interested in the science. I am juts more curious - I really like to understand these mysteries even when mostly the understanding lies in the realm of psychology not physics - and therefore is in the end unsatisfactory and unknowable. I love these 1 in 10,000 chances that electron screening might make for really large reaction rates under some conditions, or that some completely not understood fractionating mechanism is 100% effective in masking LENR by removing every single high energy product. But, I am realistic. The masking thing is unevidenced.


  • Please keep this comment on this thread. Ascoli is right - I am not as interested in the F&P stuff as he is because for the reasons I have given it is not safe. However, on the other thread, I will change spots and question his "certainty" in the hope that he will educate me. I am thus far neutral on that issue.


  • OK - ascoli. That boil-off experiment. Please enumerate the F&P mistakes.

    My understanding:

    • Heat balance during the close-to-equilibrium phase - no control of changing cell conditions (ATER + CCS).
    • Claims that boil-off shows unexpected energy generation. Completetely unsubstantiated.

    You will want to disagree with this? Or add to it?


    PS - I suggest we bring in Lonchampt (hope I've got name right now) because that replication is better described than F&P and he makes the same mistakes, but is clearer about it!

  • When Miles went to Sapporo, he used a cell that Fleischmann loaned to the lab. He did one of the experiments Fleischmann did earlier. So that was an exact replication. The results were also positive, at about the same level. But it was not what McKubre referred to as the original experiment. It was a later one.

    Those F&P results do not evidence LENR. There are error mechanisms. McKubre therefore decided to redo the same system with much more accurate calorimetry. The question for Jed and everyone else is why, when McKubre did the same thing with better calorimetry, did the magnitude of the excess heat effects drop down by a factor of 10 or more. A bit suspicious? Note that if McK's experiments had generated heat at the levels claimed by F&P they would have had unambiguous highly positive results validating the original claims and our understanding now would be very different.

  • Ok, thanks. Here we go.

    As for your two understandings, please leave the first one aside for now. The results during "the close-to-equilibrium phase" fall into all sort of possible inaccuracies, including those mentioned by Shanahan, but, more importantly, they are outside the scope of the "simplicity paper" (1).

    In fact, the introduction starts in this way: "We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd/D2O system which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1kWcm-3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution." [underline added]

    And the conclusions, are at page 19, state: "We note that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system; the specific excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors. We also draw attention to some further important features: provided satisfactory electrode materials are used, the reproducibility of the experiments is high; following the boiling to dryness and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high temperature for prolonged periods of time, Fig 8; furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300ºC." [underlines added]

    So the "simplicity paper" contains two main conclusions, and both refer to the boil-off phase:

    (a) – an excess rate of about four times, and

    (b) – the ability of the cells to remain at high temperature for prolonged periods of time.

    Let us focus, for now, on conclusion (b). It played a fundamental role in the CF history, because it will became the only public proof of the legendary HAD (Heat After Death) phenomenon.

    This second conclusion is explicitly based on Fig.8 on page 14, whose caption says: "Expansion of the temperature-time portion of Fig 6B during the final period of rapid boiling and evaporation." Therefore it refers to the second of the 4 cells.

    How was the curve on Fig.8 obtained? Quite simply, by plotting a short portion of the data that was used to draw one of the two curves in Fig.6B, the temperature one. This short portion begins at about 1,597,000 s, when temperature of the electrolyte is about 86 °C. Then it slowly reaches a maximum temperature of about 101°C, and suddenly drops at 1,657,000 s (at the right end of the horizontal arrow). The rising part is the longest and lasts 60,000 s, that is 16h40'.

    But, on that same figure, an upward vertical arrow marks the time in which, according to the authors, the cell has dried, thus determining the period during which the cell remained at high temperature, according to F&P. Why is that arrow in that position? Where did the authors get the time when the second cell was full dry?

    This is also explained in the "simplicity paper" on the same page 14: "It is therefore necessary to develop independent means of monitoring the progressive evaporation/boiling of the D2O. 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]

    So, F&P relied on the lab video to determine when the second cell went completely dry. But, fortunately, we still have the possibility to watch that video, so we have a unique opportunity to establish, 30 years later, whether the authors were right or wrong, with absolute certainty!

    The answer (F&P were wrong!) is contained in this old post of mine (2). Please, look at it. The referred jpeg, that I had posted, is no more there, but you can see it here (3).

    For the moment, I would stop here. Conclusion (a) can also be disproved with certainty on the basis of Figure 8 and/or the lab video. But, I think it's better to examine one conclusion at a time.

    Any objection up to here?

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

    (2) RE: FP's experiments discussion

    (3) https://imgur.com/X2q1TWv

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

    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.

    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.

    The figure contains some notes that indicate the times in which Cell 2 becomes ½ dry and full dry, as well as the period during which "Cell remains at high temperature for 3 hours".

    The reasoning made by F&P is that after the complete dryness of the cell the electric circuit is open, therefore no external power is fed into the cell and the several hours during which the temperature remains high can be explained only with a heating power originating from the cathode, which, in the F&P interpretation, could only be nuclear in nature.

    All this reasoning is affected by an origin flaw, since the arrows the Figure 8 are misplaced. The full dryness of the cell occurred at least 2 hours after the time indicated by F&P on that figure. The same authors provided the undisputable evidence of this misrepresentation in the video that was published by Krivit in 2009 (2). In fact, thanks to the hh:mm:ss time superimposed to the images and considering that the boil-off of Cell 2 occurred during the 20th day of testing, it can be estimated that the emptying of Cell 2 didn't occur before an elapsed time of 1655200 s (from 00:00:00 of April 11, 1992).

    The same figure with the same wrong annotations was included in the article published on PLA in May 1993 (3) and in the paper presented in December 1993 at ICCF4 (4), where this curve provided the only experimental evidence for the alleged phenomenon which gave the title to the document: "Heat After Death".

    So: I agree that the time on the diagram they provide for "cell is dry" is unevidenced and because their HAD results depend on it they are therefore invalid.

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

    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!

    EDIT: 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D all describe different experiments - because the time axes are different! extraordinary! 6B is the one closest aligned with 8 but given the difference I don't think I can have any confidence they represent the same experiment.

  • I agree with Lonchampt. They have a faithful replication but are much more cautious about claiming excess heat from CF.

    they are also agreeing with the assertion that electrode deposit build-up causes overvoltage (and therefore electrode-specific heating).

  • Compare:

    "no complete agreement as to the precise mechanism"

    "no even vaguely plausible possible mechanism" (for type 1 LENR).

  • F&Ps experiments are replicable and they have careful documentation

    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.

    Compare that with Lonchampt's similar graphs in his replication - where raw data is presented, carefully labelled.

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.