Screenshot #1 is at 0 seconds, Screenshot #2 at 2 seconds, Screenshot #3 at 10 seconds.
Screenshot #3 appears to be at a higher angle. If you lower the camera, can you see the waterline? In #2 you can see it. Is the foam so thick by #3 (10 seconds) that you can no longer see the waterline?
My best compliments. The video is very interesting. Your foam looks like that shown in this video (1) at 00:32.
Is it possible to post what happens to the foam level after the power is shut off?
From frames that weren't in the gif:
@16 seconds (turned PSU off):
@20 seconds (no more bubbles):
KOH in presence of organic contaminants will foam readily. Using ultra pure water will reduce the problem.
I have never done electrolysis myself, just ultrasonic experiments, where foaming also occurs due to the intense vibration. But we used ultrapure water (distilled and deionized twice) and pro analasi salts. I work with Chemical Analysts and they are absolutely maniac about contamination sources.
The foaming increased significantly after I added K2CO3 but I don't know if due to the electrolyte itself (which is not lab-grade) or the increased amounts of ions or solution conductivity, or something else. The water was ordinary tap water; it doesn't normally foam when boiled.
Screenshot #3 appears to be at a higher angle. If you lower the camera, can you see the waterline? In #2 you can see it. Is the foam so thick by #3 (10 seconds) that you can no longer see the waterline?
The waterline is still visible in Screenshot #3, albeit much lower than at the start of the test. You need to click the image to enlarge it, or to watch the gif in the link I posted in the message. I indicated it here:
Display MoreFrom frames that weren't in the gif:
@16 seconds (turned PSU off):
@20 seconds (no more bubbles):
The foaming increased significantly after I added K2CO3 but I don't know if due to the electrolyte itself (which is not lab-grade) or the increased amounts of ions or solution conductivity, or something else. The water was ordinary tap water; it doesn't normally foam when boiled.
This quick dissappearance is more consistent with microbubbling than foaming, and I have to clarify it’s exactly what happens with Ultrasound experiments, microbubbling during the experiment that disappears quickly after shut off. True foam would remain after stopping the electrolysis.
The waterline is still visible in Screenshot #3, albeit much lower than at the start of the test.
When you turn off the heat, does the waterline go back up to where it was at the start of test? This is what Ascoli has been saying, I think. However, for his hypothesis to be right, the apparent waterline would have to be ~4 times lower than the actual one. Plus there would have to be a lot of water left in the cell after the boil-off, while in fact, it is completely dry, with only the salts left at the bottom.
So, if you turn off the heat, does it go back up to where it was? This is what Ascoli has been saying, I think. However, for his hypothesis to be true, the apparent waterline would have to be ~4 times lower than the actual one.
Yes, there is no persistent foam in my case, so I guess It could technically be microbubbling as Curbina mentioned. It's something I often observed with moderately concentrated electrolyte solutions during electrolysis with a large amount of power, significant overvoltage and electrolyte boiling.
In the example posted, the water level returns back to about the same it was before applying power. I did not want to turn the room into a steam room, so I only powered the jar cell for a brief period. The steam produced under these conditions is also rather wet and will carry electrolyte everywhere.
When you turn off the heat, does the waterline go back up to where it was at the start of test? This is what Ascoli has been saying, I think. However, for his hypothesis to be right, the apparent waterline would have to be ~4 times lower than the actual one. Plus there would have to be a lot of water left in the cell after the boil-off, while in fact, it is completely dry, with only the salts left at the bottom.
can is doing conventional electrolysis, So its not truly boiling but release of H and O. Probably the waterline returned to a very close point to the start.
If you get foam, you will not get cold fusion. Or most other electrochemical effects. That is what every electrochemist says. Foam is contamination. It must be eliminated by careful steps. When I say "careful" I mean that I have watched Mizuno and others spend days cleaning the electrodes and purifying the heavy water.
Jed - if you were serious you would watch the released video and note the visible existence of foam (or dense bubbles, which for our purposes amounts to the same thing).
You would also note Lonchampt's statement about the existence of foam in his replication.
Reality should trump all preconceived notions - including ones about what conditions allow CF to work - or indirect arguments about what you would expect certain researchers to do or not do.
THH
The electrolyte must first reach temperatures close to the boiling point for that effect to happen. When it does, current starts decreasing.
Not in the case of F&P's experiment! They used a 150V rail (evidence supplied by ascoli) or at any rate (evidence from graphs in paper) a high voltage constant current source.
Thus bubbles will increase the voltage across the cell significantly, but not decrease the current (or only inasfar as the CC source is non-ideal). The effect will be higher power going in and more bubbles! The voltage was initially 5V so you can see that 150V gives you quite a big room for a power boost as bubbles and/or deposits increase resistivity.
It was when I realised this built-in positive feedback (electric, not from LENR) that I wanted to look again at these results as we have been doing here.
In fact - if you assumes the bubbles are uniformly distributed during boiling - the increase in cell volatge (recorded in the paper) is a proxy for the actual density of the liquid. Thus with 2X the voltage = 2 X the resistivity we have only 50% the liquid mass. (well - I am not certain it scales linearly - and we have the effect of additional resistance from electrode deposits separate from boiling - but that would be a good first approximation guess).
Which matters when the boiling level is used as a proxy for the liquid volume, as F&P did.
I just think it extraordinary that this "level of white boiling stuff you can see" is seen by some here as a good way to establish liquid volume when the videos quite clearly show highly variable levels due to boiling and what looks on the videos like foaming but to save Jed's sensitivities I will call "small bubble formation".
EDIT - maybe it was a 100v rail? Sorry I have forgot what ascoli said - anyway it was HIGH.
Not in the case of F&P's experiment! They used a 150V rail (evidence supplied by ascoli) or at any rate (evidence from graphs in paper) a high voltage constant current source.
Expanding more in detail what I wrote above: at least in my case, before the foam effect occurs, the electrolyte solution must be heated up significantly, it won't occur right away. With normal electrolysis and constant voltage (30V in my case), current will increase with temperature, up to a certain point where it does not increase anymore and instead starts decreasing slightly. This change appears to signal that the electrolyte is about to boil. Soon after this, I get boiling and the foam effect.
I only have a 30V/10A adjustable bench DC power supply at disposal, although 120V/3A ones appear to be easily available commercially at low costs. Possibly that could allow closer conditions to F-P's experiment, but I am not currently planning to purchase one.
At 120V it's possible that a plasma or sparking could occur in the cell depending on operating conditions, but it needs to be verified. Probably not too likely to occur with LiOH at 0.1M concentration instead of KOH.
This quick dissappearance is more consistent with microbubbling than foaming, and I have to clarify it’s exactly what happens with Ultrasound experiments, microbubbling during the experiment that disappears quickly after shut off. True foam would remain after stopping the electrolysis.
Just to be clear - for the argument ascoli propsoes, and I agree, over the boil-off enthalpy calculation, microbubbles or foam it makes no difference.
Perhaps a review at this point:
whether we have "microbubbles" or foam affects some arguments about the HAD evidence - but not ascoli's argument about that.
The argument of the last few pages - and the proper one (because HAD was anecdotal) is about the "simple" estimate of enthalpy out from the F&P paper. This is how they get their evidence about the boil-off phase excess heat - that spectacular 3X enthalpy in.
If that last segment of the video has microbubbles or foam, then the change from 50% full to 0% full as determined by level must correspond to less than 50% change in the electrolyte volume.
In fact it corresponds to an unknowable and variable amount of the electrolyte - whose remaining volume depends on the exact density of the microbubbles/foam but is plausibly a lot less than 1g/cc (the density approx of the unmicrobubbly electrolyte).
This hypothesis completely explains the specially high apparent excess enthalpy as not excess enthalpy but an incorrect estimation of the liquid volume change over the last 10 minutes.
The evidence for this is inescapable if you watch the video (the last 10 minutes is foam/microbubbles not mostly clear electrolyte) and follow the logic and read F&P's paper where they say how they determined that the 50% level was 10 minutes before the end.
Finally - just one other circumstantial observation.
The CC source with a high rail is designed to push more power into the electrolyte towards the end, as the electrolyte level decreases and bubbles increase. The extra power will clearly change the speed at which bubbles form and hence the overall bubble consistency. That, in turn, must change in some unquantified way the relationship between level and liquid volume.
Which is why the way F&P estimated their 50% volume in this experiment is so problematic. "Trust me - I'm a famous electrochemist" should not apply in the face of such clear problematic evidence.
THH
At 120V it's possible that a plasma or sparking could occur in the cell depending on operating conditions, but it needs to be verified. Probably not too likely to occur with LiOH at 0.1M concentration instead of KOH.
What will matter for that is the cell voltage. At the very end when it is up at 120V you could not rule that out - though I'd not expect it.
the current LENR reactions are running at temperatures running in the region 300 - 900 C
which are way above what an electrolytic cell can do without pressurisation.
the current gas-solid reactions are not subject to the same explosive phase change
which has a high risk of destroying the apparatus.
F&P ran at most at 210C when the Kel F supports melted..
H2O versus D2O is interesting.. as is H2 versus D2
in seems that D2 gives more heat output..?
The closest replication of F&P in recent years
( will much less budget) was Staker..2016-2018?
showed a runaway with D2O... not with H20
no foaming reported..
but definitely the runaway ended the experiment..
Display Morethe current LENR reactions are running at temperatures running in the region 300 - 900 C
which are way above what an electrolytic cell can do without pressurissation.
the current gas-solid reactions are not subject to the same explosive phase change
which is have a high risk of destroying the apparatus.
F&P ran at most at 210C when the Kel F supports melted..
H2O versus D2O is interesting.. as is H2 versus D2
in seems that D2 gives more heat output..?
The closest replication of F&P in recent years
( will much less budget) was Staker..2016-2018?
showed a runaway with D2O... not with H20
no foaming reported..
but definitely the runaway ended the experiment..
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.
Another result that Ascoli65 will simply ignore. He is determined to ignore anything that proves that his imaginary proof that F&P were wrong is in an on itself, wrong.
Another result that
who?
Curbina..you are a moderator.. i don't have to sift through all the garbage..
Plaudits to you guys
Another result that Ascoli65 will simply ignore. He is determined to ignore anything that proves that his imaginary proof that F&P were wrong is in an on itself, wrong.
No, I haven't ignored it (1). It's an old workhorse of RB, who is participating to this thread bragging about ignoring the comments of those he wants to criticize. A typical troll behavior, which, despite your role as a moderator, you are praising and encouraging. But that's ok, because it reveals a lot about psychological reaction of people realizing their inability to oppose criticisms for lack of valid counter-argument.
Anyway, your logic is at least bizarre. The specific errors made by F&P in their 1992 Simplicity Paper can't be eliminated by any other alleged positive results claimed by anyone else.
who is participating to this thread bragging about ignoring the comments of those he wants to criticize.
The forum users are free to block comments from users they personally dislike. I don't encourage it, nor endorse it, and personally don't ever do it, but can't preclude users of doing it.
Anyway, your logic is at least bizarre. The specific errors made by F&P in their 1992 Simplicity Paper can't be eliminated by any other alleged positive results claimed by anyone else.
From the moment that you have pretended that the errors you think were made by F&P invalidate the whole field of LENR research, we are forced to remind you that the field is well alive, and kicking.
the current gas-solid reactions are not subject to the same explosive phase change
which is have a high risk of destroying the apparatus.
About 30 years ago F&P talked about
the vaporisation ...
Pressurised system were used I think afterwards,,
but why bother with the expense and the risk
(at 900C???)
when the present gas-solid phase systems
are giving easier results for
the likes of
wyttenbach takahashi mizuno.iwamura. alexandrov celani mastromatteo..?
