Quote from https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6830-where-is-the-close-up-video-of-fleischmann-and-pons-boiling-cell/?postID=185109#post185109
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.
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.
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.
"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!
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?
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.