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

    Quote from Ascoli65

    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]

    You are mistaken. The cathode remained hot; the inside of the cell remained hot; the remaining water boiled away. If that had not happened, the Kel-F plug would not have melted. The remaining water was below the hot cathode, but in the enclosed space the cathode heated it enough to boil it away. You can easily confirm this by putting a resistance heater in a cell and . . . I joke! I don't mean it! Of course you will not confirm this!


    Of course it did not boil away in calibration runs with electrolysis heat only.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You are mistaken. The cathode remained hot; the inside of the cell remained hot; the remaining water boiled away. If that had not happened, the Kel-F plug would not have melted. The remaining water was below the hot cathode, but in the enclosed space the cathode heated it enough to boil it away. You can easily confirm this by putting a resistance heater in a cell and . . . I joke! I don't mean it! Of course you will not confirm this!


    Of course it did not boil away in calibration runs with electrolysis heat only.

    I find all these arguments about the exact construction of the cell, inferring from that what might be, difficult.


    However the actual data cannot lie. I am convinced by the relative timing of the video, and the graph in the paper. The claimed point at which the cell was dry does not seem correct.


    THH

    Unless they (Krivit, Fleischmann etc take your pick) merely picked the wrong frame shot (because it was available) when they wrote the paper. To me that is far more credible than suggesting that there was total incompetence or fraud. And ask yourself this, does the cooling curve at the end of the graph look like a Newtonian cooling curve? Seems to me it is not the right shape.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Unless they (Kvit, Flesischmann etc take your pick) merely picked the wrong frame shot (because it was available) when they wrote the paper. To me that is far more credible than suggesting that there was total incompetence or fraud. And ask yourself this, does the cooling curve at the end of the graph look like a Newtonian cooling curve? Seems to me it is not the right shape.

    I'm not suggesting, as ascoli does, incompetence or fraud.


    I am suggesting unreliable data. As with Mizuno, no-one to my knowledge believes that he is not a sincere honest and creative scientist. It does not mean conclusions about what his reactors are actually doing are correct.


    The nature of the HAD data, where there are large nonlinear and irreversible changes in a dynamic system, make it particularly difficult for anyone to check they have got things right.


    THH

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You are mistaken. The cathode remained hot; the inside of the cell remained hot; the remaining water boiled away. If that had not happened, the Kel-F plug would not have melted. The remaining water was below the hot cathode, but in the enclosed space the cathode heated it enough to boil it away. You can easily confirm this by putting a resistance heater in a cell and . . . I joke! I don't mean it! Of course you will not confirm this!


    Of course it did not boil away in calibration runs with electrolysis heat only.

    It is you who are mistaken.


    In the cells used during the "1992 boil-off experiment" there was no water under the cathode. The electrodes rests on the Kel-F support. This is what the images on the "1992 boil-off video"(1) show. This is a documented evidence, not just words like yours.


    F&P wrote in a 1990 paper titled "Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water" (2) that the electrodes were held in place by the […] Kel-F spacer at the bottom of the cell. This is a documented quote, not just words like yours.


    In Fig.8 of the Simplicity Paper (3), which is the main subject of this specific conversation, the vertical arrow on the right is marked with the words "Cell dry". The horizontal arrowed segment, highlighting that "Cell remains at high temperature for 3 hours" starts from the vertical arrows indicating the instant in which, in accordance to F&P, the cell has dried!


    What does "Cell dry" mean for you? Does it means "water below the cathode?" , as you are keeping to say? Is this what you mean?


    Well, in any case my conversation with THH was about the position of the vertical arrow that, in Fig.8 of the Simplicity Paper, indicates the instant of the full dryness of the cell. The lab video proves that the position of the vertical arrow is totally wrong! In consequence the F&P statement about HAD is completely false!


    Are you able to disprove these two specific claims of mine with documented facts, or do you intend to keep replying by repeating the same undocumented words?


    (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

    (2) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf

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

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I'm not suggesting, as ascoli does, incompetence or fraud.

    To be clear on these delicate aspects.


    I have never considered F&P incompetent, and I never used the word "fraud", not even with Rossi.


    In the case of F&P, I've long pointed out the sloppiness of their papers, as have you. And, more recently, I have used the word "negligence", in relation to the lack of checking of the position of dryness instant in Fig.8 of their Simplicity Paper.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I find all these arguments about the exact construction of the cell, inferring from that what might be, difficult.

    The exact construction of the cell does not matter, as long as it does not allow droplets of water out. Chemical retorts, invented in Medieval times, and teapots both prevent droplets. Anything resembling them will work, and it will allow you to measure the heat of vaporization, and to confirm that F&P's cell was completely dry.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    However the actual data cannot lie. I am convinced by the relative timing of the video, and the graph in the paper. The claimed point at which the cell was dry does not seem correct.

    It does not "seem" correct? What is that supposed to mean? You can easily confirm that it was dry by putting a resistance heater into a cell and boiling water with it. Even after the water line falls below the heater, the water will continue to boil (evaporate quickly) until it is all gone. The cold fusion cathode produced enough heat to melt the Kel-F, so obviously that was enough to boil away the rest of the water. Do you think the heat magically escaped from the cell without heating the rest of the water? Do you think heat does not go down, only up? Do you think that heat enough to melt plastic at 212 deg C magically did not boil water?


    You or Ascoli could easily test your ideas in a kitchen with ordinary objects such as a resistance heater and a teapot. You will not do this because you know damn well you are wrong, and you don't want to see proof of that. Any person who has cooked a meal or made tea in the last few thousand years would know you are wrong, and that everything you claim is nonsense.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    In the cells used during the "1992 boil-off experiment" there was no water under the cathode. The electrodes rests on the Kel-F support. This is what the images on the "1992 boil-off video"(1) show. This is a documented evidence, not just words like yours.

    The Kel-F supports are rings. They are not solid. There is plenty of space in them to hold water. Furthermore, with an electrolysis control test, boiling stops as soon as the water falls below the cathode, which is a considerable distance above the Kel-F supports, because the anode extends below the cathode. So there is water left in the cell in a calibration, because no electricity flows after the water falls below the cathode.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    However the actual data cannot lie. I am convinced by the relative timing of the video, and the graph in the paper. The claimed point at which the cell was dry does not seem correct.


    THH

    Back to the graph - does the last part of the curve look like a Newtonian cooling curve, the kind of thing you would get from ordinary cooling of a 'dead' system.


    This is a Newtonian curve, the F&P one is not concave like this one, it is convex, which suggests a diminishing source of heat but active, not passive. AKA cold fusion.


    Lightbox

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Back to the graph - does the last part of the curve look like a Newtonian cooling curve, the kind of thing you would get from ordinary cooling of a 'dead' system.


    This is a Newtonian curve, the F&P one is not concave like this one, it is convex, which suggests a diminishing source of heat but active, not passive. AKA cold fusion.


    Lightbox

    The same issue is what Parchi presented at the ICCF 24th asking if they had Heath after death, their cooling curve is part Newtonian but then it becomes slightly convex also.


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

    Thanks 1
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    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.

    In its sloppiness, the Simplicity Paper lacks an adequate description of the equipment and criteria used to acquire, elaborate and store the measured data.


    Something more specific can be found in a paper by Miles published after 2000 (1):

    "Each Dewar cell was connected to the Icarus 2.00 data acquisition system via eight connections: anode, cathode, short thermistor (2), long thermistor (2), and resistive heater (2). The power to each cell was controlled by its own potentiostat/galvanostat (Hi-Tek DT 2101) while a fourth instrument supplied power to the resistive heaters in each cell. A reading for the cell voltage, two cell temperatures, bath temperature, cell current, and time was recorded every 300 seconds for each of the three cells. These readings were also shown in real-time on the console display. This Icarus 2.00 system was similar to those used in earlier work in the IMRA-Europe laboratory in France." [underlines added]


    So, it is plausible, as it would also be reasonable (given the high budget at their disposal), that the cell current was also measured and recorded.


    Certainly the cell voltage, called "potential" in the Simplicity Paper, was recorded, because it appears in Fig.6B and the like. Therefore. another big question about this work is why F&P chose not to show the potential curve in Fig.8 of the Simplicity Paper. They, or their collaborators (at that time they had at least 12 technicians at their disposal), could have easily expanded the cell potential as well as they did with the time-temperature portion of Fig.6B, and put them both in Fig.8.


    With respect to the extraordinary proofs required for demonstrating an extraordinary claim such as HAD, this omission appears as a lack of transparency, which adds to the lack of diligence to adequately check the instant of cell dryness. Both lacks have an impact on the reliability of the claims made in the Simplicity Paper and of its authors.


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

    Quote from Ascoli65

    With respect to the extraordinary proofs required for demonstrating an extraordinary claim

    After all this years, you seem to be the only one still thinking these are extraordinary claims. We have now seen hundreds of results supporting that some yet still not fully understood process happens, and it has been proven across a variety of systems and hydrogen isotope/ metal combinations. Your obsession with the boil off results,

    at this height of the game, looks quaint.

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

    Like 1 Thanks 1
    Quote from JedRothwell

    because the anode extends below the cathode.

    This is shown in the diagrams and the photo from Biberian. The anode has to be larger than the cathode in a bulk-Pd electrochemical cold fusion experiment. This is important. You can see why when you test ordinary materials. Bubbles form on the cathode. Suppose the anode is the same size as the cathode, or smaller. It does not extend above and below it. The ends of the cathode are exposed. You will see many bubbles will form on the exposed parts. The hydrogen will migrate to those parts and escape. With Pd-D, you will not achieve high loading. High loading is essential to triggering the cold fusion effect. Storms and others say that once the effect is triggered, loading can fall and the heat will continue, but in any case, high loading is essential for the initial phase.


    In some early attempts to replicate cold fusion, the anode was smaller than the cathode. In a few cases, part of the cathode stuck out above the electrolyte. The cathode will not load with those geometries.


    The anode is usually a spiral wire or mesh. It goes all the way around the cathode. It is a spiral wire rather than a solid ring (a foil bent into a cylinder) for convenience. So you can see inside, and confirm there are bubbles evenly distributed on the cathode, and no large cracks. It is easy to see cracks; large bubbles form on them. They are not like the fine bubbles on a good, crack-free cathode. (Storms thinks that tiny cracks are needed, but they would be too small to be visible with bubble formation.)


    You can make the anode and cathode out of two foils or rods, side by side, driven with a D-cell battery or a DC power supply. This would never load with Pd and Pt. It would never work for cold fusion. However, if you want to learn about electrolysis, you can see many things with this arrangement. Iron electrodes (nails, for example), and ordinary salt water will show you a lot. Ascoli or THH would learn a terrific amount if they would familiarize themselves with this, and also with a resistance heater, and with nails heated to incandescence. They could, for example, measure heat of vaporization by boiling away water. Or they could see that the specific heat of water is 10 times greater than metal, so boiling stops a moment after you drop an incandescent nail into water. Or they could verify that a continuously heated resistance heater will drive all the water out of a cell even when the waterline falls below the heater. They could do all of this and more, but they will not do any of these things, because they don't want to see proof that their claims are nonsense.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    With respect to the extraordinary proofs required for demonstrating an extraordinary claim such as HAD, this omission appears as a lack of transparency, which adds to the lack of diligence to adequately check the instant of cell dryness.

    They checked for cell dryness by looking at the cell. Anyone can see the instant of dryness; the steam stops coming out. After the test, they examined the cell. It was dry. The only thing left was the powder from the reagent (lithium). They carefully measured the reagent, to confirm that only pure water left the cell, with no droplets. If droplets had left there would be less reagent than they added. The amount of reagent recovered was exactly the same as what they added, minus a tiny amount that was absorbed in glass walls and could not be removed, even "aggressively." A thin film of this could be seen on the glass walls. This is all described in the papers. Which, obviously, you have not read or you do not understand.


    (Note that the cells used in the visual boil off video experiments were not half-silvered so you can see what happens in them. The half-silvered ones would make some of these visual observations difficult, although they did use a dentists mirror to look inside.)

    Quote from Ascoli65

    To be clear on these delicate aspects.


    I have never considered F&P incompetent, and I never used the word "fraud", not even with Rossi.


    In the case of F&P, I've long pointed out the sloppiness of their papers, as have you. And, more recently, I have used the word "negligence", in relation to the lack of checking of the position of dryness instant in Fig.8 of their Simplicity Paper.

    Fair enough. I apologise for misquoting you.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The Kel-F supports are rings. They are not solid. There is plenty of space in them to hold water.

    The ring shaped support is a new entry in your kaleidoscopic set of excuses for not recognizing the undisputable errors in Fig.8 of the Simplicity Paper.


    The lower Kel-F support in the F&P's cells are solid discs not rings. They are represented as solid discs in all the dozens of sections of that cell that you can find on the internet.


    Additionally, F&P wrote (1): "The electrodes were held in place by the deep Kel-F plug and Kel-F spacer at the bottom of the cell." Electrodes is plural, the word includes anode and cathode. Cathode is on the cell axis. How could a ring shaped support hold in place the cathode?


    The water cannot fall below the cathode because the cathode has to be held in place by the Kel-F support, due to the vigorous boiling of the electrolyte, otherwise it will vibrate.

    Quote

    Furthermore, with an electrolysis control test, boiling stops as soon as the water falls below the cathode, which is a considerable distance above the Kel-F supports, because the anode extends below the cathode.

    Not at all. F&P wrote (1): "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."


    Then the electrodes (plural) were placed at the bottom of the Dewar.


    Quote

    So there is water left in the cell in a calibration, because no electricity flows after the water falls below the cathode.

    You keep talking about calibration. This is your straw man argument of the moment. There is no need to talk about calibration. The situation is clear just considering the "1992 boil-off experiment" as reported in the Simplicity Paper (2). In fig.8 there is a long vertical arrow on the right. Under the arrow, you read "Cell dry". What does it means "Cell dry"? It doesn't mean "water falls below the cathode", it means, instead, "there is no more liquid water inside the cell".


    But the lab video shows that the liquid water remains on the bottom of the cell much longer than the instant indicated by vertical arrow, so Fig.8 is wrong!


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

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

    Quote from JedRothwell

    It does not "seem" correct? What is that supposed to mean? You can easily confirm that it was dry by putting a resistance heater into a cell and boiling water with it. Even after the water line falls below the heater, the water will continue to boil (evaporate quickly) until it is all gone.

    Jed - that is not the point. And you are conflating two logically separate isues;


    (1) was the data from the experiment consistent

    Ascoli correctly argues it was not - the graph in the paper and the video are not consistent.


    (2) can we argue on some theoretical basis, based on known electrochemistry, that this system set up as specified, generating data as specified (but remember the data is inconsistent with the video - so which do we believe?) must have had HAD?


    I think this is unreliable for multiple reasons:

    (1) the data is inconsistent - so trusting part of it and ignoring the inconsistency is dangerous

    (2) there is a clear possible way in which the cathode, and support, could at the end of this long experiment could become temporarily very hot. That is when the paper notation claims the cell is dry, the video shows it is not dry. The unusual 200V (!) constant current supply is specifically designed to push very large power into the cell and cathode as the cell dries out. this experiment will not be done often because it has unusual components: specifically a 100W DC constant current PSU capable of 200V 0.5A (maybe higher - it is not clear from the paper how high a voltage the supply could go to). To answer Jed's question: during the period the electrolyte boils and therefore maintains close to 100C. The electrode, with large quantities of deposits that have high resistance and dissipate power, gets hotter than the electrolyte.


    Comment


    Throughout this discussion Jed's analysis makes sense if everything is consistent and as is normal for electrolysis experiements. During teh HAD phase the experiemnt was very muhc not normal. Who would do electrolysis with a constant current source bound to increase power arbitrarily at the moment when the cell is drying out?

    (1) it is difficult to make such a high voltage constant current source

    (2) the high voltages are a safety risk

    (3) to do electrolysis you need constant current for normal operation - maybe up to 10v or even 20v - all easily generated from a standard low voltage constant current supply such as a bench PSU. The actual electrolysis voltage will be < 10v typically (unless you have high resistance electrolyte).


    I will accept Jed's view that this is standard known science if he can show me other electrolysis experiments in which high-voltage constant current sources (up to > 200V) are used where the cells are boiled dry and therefore the full range of the supply voltage (and therefore power) is used.


    My slow evolution from disinterest to joining ascoli's camp is as follows:


    (1) I realised this was a high power CC supply which would push v high powers into the cell as it was drying out and therefore make things like unusual support melting quite possible.

    (2) Ascoli convinced me that the data in the appear and the video are clearly, and wildly, inconsistent (time of blue arrows vs time marked in paper as "cell is dry").


    Point (2) matters because the time of cell dryness is essential to the important headline claim here of large HAD. Therefore if this is inconsistent it is not a "minor detail" that could be overlooked but the central argument where the data is inconsistent.


    Jed's arguments do not address either of these two points.


    THH

    Quote from Ascoli65

    With respect to the extraordinary proofs required for demonstrating an extraordinary claim such as HAD

    This whole notion of "extraordinary proof" is a bad idea. A half baked notion which is not part of science. Quoting Melich and me:



    Claim 1.5. “As many have said, extraordinary results require extraordinary proof. Such proof is lacking.”


    This is not a principle of science. It was coined by Carl Sagan for the 1980 “Cosmos” television series. Conventional scientific standards dictate that extraordinary claims are best supported with ordinary evidence from off-the-shelf instruments and standard techniques. All mainstream cold fusion papers present this kind of evidence.


    Conventional standards also dictate that all claims and arguments must be held to the same standards of rigor. This includes skeptical assertions that attempt to disprove cold fusion, which have been notably lacking in rigor. . . .

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



    There is never any need for extraordinary proof. More to the point, the quality of being extraordinary is subjective. It is in the mind of the observer. It is not a scientifically measurable quality, and it cannot be quantified. Things that we see every day, and think nothing of, would have seemed extraordinary to people in 1970 (including me), and inexplicable black magic to people in 1600. You cannot qualify what is extraordinary and what isn't. As Curbina pointed out, cold fusion may have seemed extraordinary when it was discovered, but by now it is ho-hum. As Fleischmann said, "you have to get used to it, like getting used to an old bicycle."


    In 1821, Sequoyah developed and demonstrated the first writing system for a native American language, Cherokee. His system is still in use. He demonstrated it by having a little girl (his daughter, I think it was), wait outside the building where she could not hear, while people made up various sentences. He wrote them down, and had the girl come into the room. She read off the sentences. The adults said, "ah, that must be witchcraft." It seemed extraordinary to them. They had no idea how it was done. To us, writing seems mundane, understandable, and not a bit extraordinary. It was only extraordinary to people who had never experienced a written language.

    Quote from Curbina

    After all this years, you seem to be the only one still thinking these are extraordinary claims. We have now seen hundreds of results supporting that some yet still not fully understood process happens, and it has been proven across a variety of systems and hydrogen isotope/ metal combinations. Your obsession with the boil off results,

    at this height of the game, looks quaint.

    This thread started after JR wrote (1): "Whereas a 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."


    So, how is it possible that when JR keeps mentioning this old experiment he is regularly praised, while my objections on the correctness of the same experiment are instead considered obsession?


    Anyway, you said (2) that you "are formed to use scientific knowledge to resolve practical problems in each particular discipline". This is your chance to use your scientific knowledge to resolve this practical problem. Please, show me that I'm wrong in saying (3-4) that the vertical arrow in Fig.8 of the Simplicity Paper is misplaced.


    (1) RE: MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    (2) RE: Mizuno reports increased excess heat

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

    (4) https://imgur.com/a/ECW5yES

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I will accept Jed's view that this is standard known science if he can show me other electrolysis experiments in which high-voltage constant current sources (up to > 200V) are used where the cells are boiled dry and therefore the full range of the supply voltage (and therefore power) is used.

    Fleischmann described such experiments, as did others. Read the damn literature. Stop asking me to spoon feed it to you. You won't read or acknowledge it even if I do. I have given you fact after fact, carefully sourced, but you have ignored or contradicted every one of them. Stop pretending you will suddenly start to do science instead of idiotic handwaving.


    You will not read, and you will not lift a finger to make your case. You will not even drop a hot nail into water. You will do NOTHING that calls into question the bullshit you and Ascoli post here. You will not read anything, test anything, or use one milligram of common sense known to people for the last several thousand years, such as how to make a tea kettle that does not spray drops out, or how to tell when all the water is boiled out of a kettle.

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.