Better men than these two tried to bring F&P down, and they only did it by lying to Congress about their own results.
Who lied to Congress about their own results? The people at MIT lied in journal paper, I think. Gene Mallove thought they did. I am pretty sure they did, for the reasons shown on pages 22 - 24 here:
It was alleged by someone who attended the hearing that the MIT guys also lied to Congress, some kind of enquiry? You might know better than me. That was a direct statement btw, not third hand.
, for the reasons shown on pages 22 - 24 here:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMisoperibol.pdf
The people at MIT didn't lie..they were just economical with the truth
"averaged over one hour blocks..."
was it Wrighton or Parker? or others?
Where is the closeup video of the 1989 MIT PFC/JA-89-34???
"
Within estimated levels of accuracy, no excess power output or
any other evidence of fusion products was detected"
https://corporation.mit.edu/all-members/mark-s-wrighton
MIT NSE: Faculty: Ronald R. Parker
It was alleged by someone who attended the hearing that the MIT guys also lied to Congress, some kind of enquiry?
I don't recall that. It may well have happened . . .
As I said, if you were serious, you would boil some water in a graduated cylinder and see for yourself how well the volume can be measured. Put it on a weight scale to get another simultaneous measure of mass.
You need to avoid surfactants, as I said. They cause actual foam, as opposed to the imaginary foam you describe. There is never significant foam in an electrochemical cell. If there were, the electrochemical effect you are trying to replicate would not happen. Cold fusion definitely never happens with surfactants or other contamination. That is what Fleischmann, Bockris and many others told me.
If you set out to deliberately boil water in a way that produces foam and makes it hard to measure the water level, I am sure you can accomplish that. Add a dab of Palmolive. You can always do an experiment wrong. For example, Jones did a "replication" to show that recombination is significant in a cold fusion cell. He did this with a cell with the wrong shape, fat and short, and with power levels about a thousand times smaller than anyone would use for cold fusion. Hey presto! -- recombination galore. As Mel Miles commented, he might as well have added palladium powder to the water to ensure full underwater recombination.
When I get time, I will boil liquids in dewars and post the results like it or not. I bet I can boil liquids in a dewar almost any way I want to with some practice. That is a threat as much as promise.
However, I am currently busy upending 100 years of conflation of some other issues combined with over-reliance on historic interpretations and therefore cannot do it very soon. I have collected 3 years of proofs for the other issue, and will spring a new paradigm maybe in Spring. (Nothing to do with CF or HF or anything else relevant here.)
If nobody has boiled liquids in dewars sufficiently to settle the foam debate as much as can be, by then, then buckle up.
was it Wrighton or Parker? or others?
Well there was a newspaperclip...but not a video..of""averaged over one hour blocks...""
"
Leading the criticism has been Mark S. Wrighton of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Wrighton said he obtained technical details from U. officials and started a duplicate experiment. It has been going continuously since March 27 with no evidence of fusion, he said last week.
Wrighton said he was "very skeptical" of the Utah claim, as was John Deutch, MIT's provost. "It would be terrific if it's true, but I don't think it's true," Deutch said.
https://corporation.mit.edu/all-members/mark-s-wrighton
🙂
When I get time, I will boil liquids in dewars and post the results like it or not.
Boiling water in dewars takes some time and it will be substantially inconclusive: if you will find a lot of foam, some people here will say that you did not use the same water, glass , salt, and so on used by F&P in 1992.
In the meanwhile, could you please tell us your opinion about the presence of foam in the cells as shown in the two available lab videos (1-2) of the "1992 boil off" experiment?
Is the interpretation given by Robert Horst (3) correct for you?
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434
, I will boil liquids in dewars and post the results like it or not.
with palladium or without?
For what it's worth, sometimes in past hobby experiments with electrolysis I have driven electrodes to high current and voltages (e.g. 30V 10A or something around this), and after a while the electrolyte would start boiling. Typically I would use KOH in varying concentrations, often around 1M. Foaming also perhaps due to KOH saponifying organic residues in the vessel easily occurs under those conditions and can be kind of dangerous due to the trapped H2-O2 gases. I never filmed that nor tried LiOH, however.
Any alkali will saponify (make into soap) grease from handling electrodes or less than perfectly clean glassware. But I doubt that many experienced electrochemists allow that to happen by carefully degreasing everything and never handling bare metal electrodes without gloves.
I think this whole thing is fatuous. We have two skeptics throwing peanuts based on a paper written decades ago by two scientists who would probably not employed them as lab technicians. Based on ropey evidence too. Better men than these two tried to bring F&P down, and they only did it by lying to Congress about their own results.
The two scientist and the 1992 Simplicity Paper are those mentioned in the "Review of the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons" (1) that JR published in August 2020, that is only 2 years ago, and that he mentioned at least a dozen times since then, in order to support his thesis. They also appear on the front cover of the comic book "Discover Cold Fusion". Therefore, I think that investigating whether the conclusions in the Simplicity Paper are correct or not is a legitimate and proper argument.
I've pointed to two well specific errors contained in the paper, which completely undermine both the conclusions of F&P. These errors can be only detected by closely examining the time-lapse video recorded during the experiment. Two version of this video were only published in 2009 and 2012 only.
I doubt that the "better men" which have tried to evaluate the correctness of the Simplicity Paper before 2009 have had the chance to look closely at these videos. Huizenga and Morrison attended the presentation at ICCF3 in Nagoya, where Pons showed and explained a lab video (2), but just watching it once it's not enough to detect the F&P errors. It's necessary to watch it many times and very carefully as Robert Horst did more recently (3).
(1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf
The people at MIT didn't lie..they were just economical with the truth
Yes the did directly present their positive results to the US military. Of course not knowing that they already did replicate it months ago... This is the same as now in Ukraine fro Putin. Its a total loss loss situation.
They couldn't ask for funding without telling people that they did cheat. And at the end they has to kill Malove to bring it under the carpet...
Display MoreBoiling water in dewars takes some time and it will be substantially inconclusive: if you will find a lot of foam, some people here will say that you did not use the same water, glass , salt, and so on used by F&P in 1992.
In the meanwhile, could you please tell us your opinion about the presence of foam in the cells as shown in the two available lab videos (1-2) of the "1992 boil off" experiment?
Is the interpretation given by Robert Horst (3) correct for you?
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434
I will make foam. Lots of foam.
And then I will make the foam crust incandesce, because I know I can do it, because I already did do it 40 years ago.
No, I know for a fact it has no significant foam. I know because I have seen a clear, close up video of a boil off; because there is a photo of a boil-off at LENR-CANR.org;
Fact are welcome, but words are not facts. Where is the close up video you are talking about? This video (1) at t=00:27 shows a close up of a F&P cell producing bubbles. Is that the video you are referring to?
Quote… because there is a photo of a boil-off at LENR-CANR.org
Could you please post this photo, or provide its address?
Quotebecause Fleischmann, Bockris and many other electrochemists told me that bubbles are fatal to cold fusion and most other electrochemical experiments. Those are not theoretical grounds. They are observations and common sense.
In this case, they are just fatuous words, anecdotes. The only solid facts shown in this discussion are the videos of the "1992 boil off" experiment. They prove that both F&P conclusions contained in their Simplicity Paper are wrong.
It was alleged by someone who attended the hearing that the MIT guys also lied to Congress, some kind of enquiry? You might know better than me. That was a direct statement btw, not third hand.
The War Against Cold Fusion / What's really behind it? (sfgate.com)
In a telling interview, former Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) executive Tom Passell says that at least some of those involved in the campaign to debunk cold fusion intentionally misled congressional investigators and the public.
EPRI is the Palo Alto-based consortium of utility companies that conducts research into power generation and distribution technologies. Besides his professional credentials, Passell has an excellent reputation as a longtime, well-known, Palo Alto civic volunteer.
Passell says that shortly after the ERAB panel persuasively denounced cold fusion as junk science in congressional testimony, some of the members of that panel quietly came to EPRI seeking money so they could study the phenomena themselves. Apparently, cold fusion research was only worthless if someone else was getting the money to do it.
If Passell's charge is true, it means some members of the ERAB panel intentionally lied to Congress, offering scientific testimony that cold fusion was unworthy of further study, testimony which they knew to be false. In non-scientific language, that's called perjury. "The search for money, for research funds, is a big thing," Passell says, "and sometimes takes precedence over the search for what we call truth."
In a telling interview, former Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) executive Tom Passell says that at least some of those involved in the campaign to debunk cold fusion intentionally misled congressional investigators and the public.
Passell says that shortly after the ERAB panel persuasively denounced cold fusion as junk science in congressional testimony, some of the members of that panel quietly came to EPRI seeking money so they could study the phenomena themselves. Apparently, cold fusion research was only worthless if someone else was getting the money to do it.
That was hilarious. I forgot that some of those people talked to the Congress.
Here is the Congressional Record for a hearing. I guess it was the first one? I went through this years ago but I don't recall much about it.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CSSThearingbef.pdf
(By the way, this copy is considerably more readable than the original scan. I did a lot of processing to clean it up, improve contrast, and so on. It is entirely in facsimile format, as you see, so I could not have introduced any mistakes. The underlying text can be copied, but I expect it has many OCR errors.)
That was hilarious
"From our standpoint, the key point of verification is the detection of neutron radiation". 
This has been reported in their published paper
Ballinger MIT 1989
"From our standpoint, the key point of verification is the detection of neutron radiation".
This has been reported in their published paper
Ballinger MIT 1989
That was entirely reasonable in early 1989.
The War Against Cold Fusion / What's really behind it? (sfgate.com)
Thanks Shane, very interesting article.
This is its only excerpt which relates to the topic of this thread:
Quote from https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/The-War-Against-Cold-Fusion-What-s-really-2930433.php"Since then, with funding from futurist Arthur C. Clarke, Mallove has been publishing Infinite Energy magazine, a publication devoted to spreading news about cold fusion experiments. Last month, Mallove released Fire From Water, a video documentary about cold fusion. Mallove is currently negotiating with several national networks interested in broadcasting the newly released video.
There are several incredible moments in Fire From Water. It contains, for example, the first video footage I've seen of sustained energy releases in cold fusion cells. It's easy to see why the scientists involved immediately assumed some kind of nuclear reaction was taking place. If it's a parlor trick, as some critics contend, it's one of the best I've seen.
The cells bubble with energy, looking like what you get when you poke a hot iron into a jar of water. But the water does not extinguish the heat. Instead, the cells bubble on and on, emitting steam, in amounts far greater than can be explained by the energy put into them. In some cases, the reactions go on for days, even weeks."
The Fire From Water documentary is available on YouTube (1), and the mentioned video footage starts at 24:39 and lasts 5 seconds, while MF says in background: "By 1992 we had video recording of intense energy release." Guess where the footage come from.
Aren't you curious to see by yourself "why the scientists involved immediately assumed some kind of nuclear reaction was taking place"? Plotkin, the author of the SFGATE article, said it is easy.
Well, the footage in Fire From Water shows the Cell1 boiling in the elapsed period from 21:25:58 to 21:35:58, which is comprised between frames 3 and 4 in this jpeg (2), already published and explained ten days ago (3).
As highlighted in the jpeg, the "1992 boil off" videos show that in the period between frame 3 to frame 4, which starts 1 hour before the end of the final boil off event identified by F&P, the upper part of the cell is already filled with foam. We can be sure that it is foam also because the level inside the cell increases during that period! It can't be liquid water. Nobody poured water during those 35 minutes. The level rises due to the increasingly large bubbles produced during that period which push up a thick layer of foam formed in several hours of cell boiling.
Plotkin also noticed that "the water does not extinguish the heat". Of course it doesn't. At the time of the footage he saw, the water was at the boiling point and the input power was increasing more and more due to the increase of cell potential. Then he added: "the cells bubble on and on, emitting steam, in amounts far greater than can be explained by the energy put into them". Not true, the cell was boiling in accordance to the electric energy dissipated into it.
The mentioned video footage doesn't show any excess heat. This article only confirms that the "1992 boil off" experiment is the only evidence of the F&P claims. But it is wrong.
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hsf7fYNlXQ
(2) https://imgur.com/a/q7QpRF5
(3) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
