the vaporisation ...
there are other advantages to the gas-solid phase..versus electrolysis
1. current gas loading appears to favour almost vacuum to achieve low hydrogen concentration
.very difficult with a liquid water phase
2. solid composition flexibility.. electroconductive metals appear to be unnecessary,,.
also Takahashi mentions...
Further reflection...
Team Google presented their $10 million ten year failure to replicate the original P and F experiment in their Nature article.
Counterpoint
Team Google has three contemporary solid state, dry cell CMNS patents in development. The latest patent developed under a DOE contract at LLNL and the lead inventor was the interim Director of the UC Berkeley Fusion program.
Question
Why the secrecy? Team Google obviously does not want to discuss their promising pursuit of CMNS energy technologies.
Challenge
Find one article or interview where anyone on Team Google discussed their patents or ongoing expanded research and solid state, high energy CMNS advanced technology development program.
Or
Stay stuck in the past spinning old tales and yarns about the first wet cells of cold fusion news Circa 1989.
Hundreds of grad students, undergraduate students, and doctoral students are working in CMNS solid state research at major universities. The majority are being paid to do so.
I doubt that any are interested in a replication of the 1989 P&F wet cell experiment. The important part of the wet cell is not the wet part of course. The interesting parts are the dry part inside the Palladium, and the plasma interface at the surface, where the atomic process are occuring. A wet cell electrolysis system has bubbles that collapse (cavitation), a plasma interface at the edge of the cathode, and a dry solid state environment within the cathode.
If the reason to attempt a replication of the boil off experiment is to sway SKEPTICS you have already failed. Your results will never be accepted.
I would rather study the works being done by students in advanced CMNS research programs at Universities and by Team Google at LLNL. The SKEPTICS on this thread have a negative influence on others who are trying to get up to date on the validity of cold fusion research Circa 2022.
Team Google surely likes people looking the other way... No?
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.
RB is free to block whoever he want, but in this case he chose to block the only two users which are proposing and defending one side of the ongoing discussion. Your reply to his post (1), and your reaction to his admission (2) that he is posting here not even knowing the argument of the users he is criticizing are an implicit acceptance of his trolling behavior, and encourage him to continue to post here his repetitive and showy comments. Is this the last resource you have to contrast my arguments?
In case, it's a pity because, I hoped that the recent concrete initiatives of Rob and can had convinced you that it was worth to cooperate all together to reach an indisputable results on the foam issue (3).
QuoteFrom 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.
Actually, the strict relationship between the results of F&P and the reality of LENR phenomena has been asserted since long by JR, last time here (4): "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."
But, I think it would be better for the moment to find a common agreement on the much easier goal of ascertain whether the two conclusive claims in the F&P's Simplicity Paper are correct or not, and only later discuss the implications of our conclusion on the LENR field.
(1) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
(2) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
(3) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
But, I think it would be better for the moment
Why?
only later discuss the implications of our conclusion on the LENR field.
What the F... ?
Erik Ziehm received his Doctoral Degree on this lineage. Write up your critiques, coauthor your observations of the 'Simplicity Paper' and submit them to Nature, or Physical Review for publication, not here please. 🥺
The last few posts have been interesting.
Since RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
No-one has returned to foam/microbubble-gate.
I note the possible experimental work now - which I applaud - and which might shed further light on things.
But regardless of that, even if LENR is proven tomorrow, that COP=4 boil-off enthalpy estimate has been shown wrong.
Specifically, the video evidence which F&P say they based it in shows conclusively that due to foam and/or microbubbles the "bubble-watching" method used by F&P to ascertain how much electrolyte was boiled off has no validity.
It is quite unusual to get such a strong new understanding of an old experiment.
ascoli - the only qualification of your logic here is that I don't think you can distinguish between foam and micro-bubbles. People here seem to prefer the term micro-bubbles. There is, technically, a difference which is relevant to consideration of the anecdotal HAD evidence.
Anyway since that post we have had a severe case of politics
Specifically - having discredited one central result (not however all of the results in that experiment - we have not yet resolved the HAD stuff, nor the pre-boil-off phase) everyone moved on to different vaguely related material which is definitely off topic for this thread, with a deafening silence on the boil-off result.
ascoli - that is the best you will get here - people agree with you, so the matter can I think be closed.
JATM our UK politicians are giving a very good display of the same technique. When asked about why YK long-term interest rates spiked upward by +3% in one day after the new PM announced her tax-giveaway plans for the economy they simply ignore that question, and instead talk about support for household energy prices.
THH
estimate has been shown wrong.
NO
Erik Ziehm received his Doctoral Degree on this lineage. Write up your critique of the 'Simplicity Paper' and submit it to Nature, or Physical Review for publication, not here please. 🥺
GBG - your post very accurately summarises the "good news only" view of how internet comment on LENR should be undertaken.
There are multiple serious groups now looking at LENR. There are some aspects of that work that even a skeptic such as me thinks might be fruitful. And I certainly applaud the approach of those (serious) researchers. If there is science to come from the collection of anomalies noted by LENR folk then I think it will be found.
Why is it necessary uncritically to accept every canon of the LENR faith without question? That surely distorts the background information those now seeking to make progress have. Perhaps RB's intervention - in a coded political way - is agreeing with this? We should de-emphasise those initial D-Pd results? Personally I still find them the most interesting (and unlike many here I never saw the boil-off evidence as strong).
Oh - and you know well that since the view of Nature is that F&Ps experiments have been discredited, a paper now saying that would have minimal novelty value and therefore, however otherwise good, would not be published.
How about ascoli writes this stuff up and published in ICCF25? Or would that be censored?
THH
NO
Excellent! Please then give your explanation for how F&P estimated the volume of electrolyte boiled off - engaging with the above argument? I'd welcome a tenable alternate explanation. Let us see if one exists?
and only later discuss the implications of our conclusion on the LENR field.
Don't add me to "our" here.
I do not like to generalise when things are not understood fully (undoubtedly the case for LENR anomalies). In fact many of the LENR arguments in interpreting that data come from rabid generalisation "it must be LENR because we know that exists". Logically invalid. But equally logically invalid would be "It can't be LENR because one LENR experiment was shown to be invalid".
Nor do I accept that the boil-off evidence is seminal in the LENR evidence. I've never thought it that. Some other here might do so - and it is good that they understand that is wrong. It has been presented by some as a seminal experiment - it was good PR - but that is different.
Further reflection...
Team Google presented their $10 million ten year failure to replicate the original P and F experiment in their Nature article.
My memory is a bit hazy here. Did the say they tried to replicate the boil-off experiment? Or give any details of failed replication attempts?
Clearly you never present evidence that the claims that some unknown nuclear process are releasing energies well beyond those of known chemical origin within hydrated palladium as found within the electrochemical cells of Pons and Fleischmann might actually be correct as present by them.
Rather you obfuscate, misdirect, pontify and generalise that Pons and Fleischmann were wrong. Hence we have something brand new. A new buzzword on LENR FAQ for Skeptics...
FOAMGATE
Introduced and Promoted at LENR Forum
By THHuxley and Ascolie65
I do not like to generalise when things are not understood fully (undoubtedly the case for LENR anomalies).
Generalise
Generalize edit correction.
Simple Semantics I'm sure
I'd rather discuss the lesser of two evils rather than you two FoamGate delusionists.
How about Rossi eh? Just 😃 joking.
Journal of Nuclear Physics
https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com › ...
Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation ...
Generalized theory of Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion (BECNF) is used to carry out theoretical analyses of recent experimental results
Semantic Scholar
https://www.semanticscholar.org › ...
[PDF] Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear ...
Generalized theory of Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion (BECNF) is used to carry out theoretical analyses of recent experimental results
Pennsylvania State University
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu › d...PDF
Theory of Bose–Einstein condensation mechanism for ...
by YE Kim · 2009 · Cited by 71 — Theory of Bose–Einstein condensation mechanism for deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in micro/nano-scale metal
How about ascoli writes this stuff up and published in ICCF25?
You should both do that. I guarantee it will be accepted for publication and critique. You do understand that, what you simply call the 'Simplicity Paper' does not base it's claims only on the video you and Ascolie65 argue about?
Citations within that paper are supportive, exemplary and conclusive.
You should both do that. I guarantee it will be accepted for publication and critique.
It is a lot of work writing up a scientific paper - ascoli might be up for it. But I am afraid I do not believe your guarantee - now if Jed guaranteed that - yes - I'd believe it.
Citations within that paper are supportive, exemplary and conclusive.
Yes, I agree. It reads like a review paper rather than a report of novel results from an experiment. It was my initial reason (when recommended it by Jed ages ago) for distrusting its experimental description. Over-general. And in that generalisation you can bury inconvenient facts. Still, it had specific claims, and a specific video referred to in the paper. That is enough - at least for the boil-off estimates.
I have repeatedly asked for the real papers from F&P describing in detail their later (and presumably more useful) specific experiments and that is all I get in response. So I think it is all we have.
Don't add me to "our" here.
In my phrase you quoted ("and only later discuss the implications of our conclusion on the LENR field"), the word "our" doesn't mean me and you (THH), it was referring to my previous phrase "I hoped that the recent concrete initiatives of Rob and can had convinced you that it was worth to cooperate all together to reach an indisputable results on the foam issue", so I meant to include everyone, from skeptics to believers, who would like to come to a common conclusion on the foam issue.
Also, I mentioned possible implication on the LENR field, not on the LENR reality. I think that the acceptance of the evidence that F&P were wrong in their major work will inevitably have huge consequence on how the legitimate research on LENR will chose its reference arguments. The F&P's mistakes doesn't per se deny the existence of such a hypothetical phenomenon. The burden of proving or denying the LENR reality is left to the usual scientific practice of confirming a phenomenon by replicating it at will.
