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

Did anybody (of our clowns) read the original paper in electro analytical Chemistry 1990 287, p293?

OR even better the paper in ICCF3? that shows the graph (fig.8) of extended >3 hours heat production after cell is dry?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Did anybody (of our clowns) read the original paper in electro analytical Chemistry 1990 287, p293?

OR even better the paper in ICCF3? that shows the graph (fig.8) of extended >3 hours heat production after cell is dry?

Wyttenbach, the clown is you.

(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?

Quote from Ascoli65

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.

Thanks for the clarification - accepted.

I agree with the second part if legitimate research is still using that experiment - I think you maybe said that at ICCF24 some of it was? I agree - especially given the level of external hostility that is perhaps unfortunate.

Perhaps those here who talk to the people doing real stuff will note this discussion and in future anyone writing a paper will reference different research.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Display More

About the foam/microbubble issue.

The experimental results provided by can are really very interesting and could provide a definitive insight on the size composition of the foam inside the cell.

But let me insist on this video (1). I know, the whole video is only popular junk and I understand looking at videos is boring, but in this case the images shown starting from t=00:27 are really revealing.

As reported on the initial frames, they come from a not identified archive and span from 1989 to 1992. Therefore in 2012, when the video was prepared (one year after of the Rossi exploit, who is also shown in this video) there still was somewhere an archive containing several unpublished videos of the F&P experiments. There is no reason to think that in the meanwhile this archive was lost. So it still exists and maybe it contains the entire time-lapse video recording of the "1992 boil off" experiment.

The other important thing is the structure of the foam shown around t=00:44. You can see large bubbles traveling through a thick layer of small bubbles, this is the most probable bubble structure which filled the cells during the final boil-off periods. The thick layer of small bubbles formed in the previous period as shown at t=00:33 when the boiling was less intense and the liquid layer was much higher. In the last part of the boiling off the larger steam bubbles inflate the preexisting thick foam layer made by electrolysis microbubbles and smaller vapor bubbles, so pushing up the apparent upper level of the cell contents as shown and explained here (2a-2b).

At t=00:38, the video clip shows two people who are attentively watching at this bubbling cell. One of them resembles Martin Fleischmann the other is a Japanese gentleman.

At t=00:55 the video clip shows a dried cell full of deposited salt and a date June 23, 1992, one and half month after the conclusion of the "1992 boil off" experiment.

The timing of these video clips are shown and described here (3a-3b). They are compatible with a short quick demo, probably held at a higher current than the original experiment of April-May, carried out from F&P to show the behavior of their cell to their Japanese guest.

Is it the close-up video which was mentioned by JR in his "Review of the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons" (4) and cited in the title of this thread? I asked him (5), but he has not yet answered. In any case, it shows a F&P cell full of foam and 2 people looking attentively at it.

(To be continued for the HAD stuff)

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OQu44UIC_s

(2a) https://imgur.com/a/q7QpRF5

(2b) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

(3a) https://imgur.com/9ZIgaNK

(3b) RE: FP's experiments discussion

(4) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf

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

Ascoli - I block W because he introduces too much noise! Contradicting the clear errors does not help - he just ignores contrary evidence and repeats them. I am very slow to do such a thing: but I have found it very helpful.

Your scholarly critique of.

Calorimetry of the Pd-D20 system:

from simplicity via complications to simplicity,

should be submitted to Physics Letters A for much valued peer review.

Or

Submit it for presentation at ICCF-25.

Physics Letters A 176 (1993) 118-129

North-Holland PHYSICS LETTERS A

Calorimetry of the Pd-D20 system:

from simplicity via complications to simplicity

Martin Fleischmann

Department of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Southampton, lJK

and Stanley Pons

IMRA EUROPE, Sophia Antipolis, 06560 Valbonne, France

Received 21 December 1992; revised manuscript received 4 March 1993; accepted for publication 8 March 1993

Communicated by J.P. Vigier

We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd-D20 system which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation ( > 1 kW cme3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution.

This has led to a particularly simple method of deriving the rate of excess enthalpy production based on measuring the times required to boil the cells to dryness, this process being followed by using time-lapse video recordings. Our use of this simple method as well as our investigations of the results of other research groups prompts us to present also other simple methods of data analysis which we have used in the preliminary evaluations of these systems.

1. Introduction

One of our major objectives in developing the calorimetry of Pd and Pd-alloy cathodes polarised in DzO solutions [ l-7 ] has been to find simple illustrations of the fact that there is excess enthalpy generation in these electrodes whereas there is no such effect for Pd-based cathodes polarised in HZ0 (nor for that matter, for Pt cathodes polarised in D20 solutions). The simplest illustrations are purely qualitative: we have already drawn

attention to the fact that, after prolonged polarisation, one can sometimes observe regions in which there is an increase of temperature accompanied by a decrease of cell potential with time for Pd-based cathodes such as that shown in fig. 1. The design of the Dewar-type calorimeters used in these experiments is illustrated in fig. 2. In the versions in current use the silvering of the top portion ensures that the heat transfer is controlled by radiation across the lower unsilvered part. The heat transfer coefficient controlling heat transfer to the surrounding water bath is then nearly independent of time provided the level of the electrolyte remains in the upper, silvered, zone. One can therefore pose the question:

“How can it be that the temperature of the cell contents increases whereas the enthalpy input decreases with time.9”

Our answer to this dilemma naturally has been:

“There is a source of enthalpy in the cells whose strength increases with time.”

At a more quantitative level one sees that the magnitudes of these sources are such that explanations in terms of chemical changes must be excluded [ 7 1.

Indeed, information of this kind was already included in our first major publication [ 11. As the Dewar calorimeters used in that study were not silvered in the top region, the heat transfer coefficients decreased with

time following each refilling of the cells (to make up for losses of DzO due to electrolysis and evaporation).

The purely qualitative conclusion “there is a source of excess enthalpy in the cells” was therefore confined to

the rather extreme illustrations of the “bursts” in the rates of excess enthalpy production such as that shown in fig. 3 (for a complete analysis of these “enthalpy bursts” see figs. 8, 9 and 10 of ref. [ 11).

At the next level of the quantitative analysis of the experimental data, we naturally require models of the

calorimeters and the calibration of the heat transfer to the surrounding water baths. We have shown [ l-6 ] that the behaviour is determined at a close level of approximation by the differential equation

Here kk (W Kw4) is the heat transfer coefficient which is assumed to be purely radiative: we have shown elsewhere that the neglect of the conductive contribution leads to a small underestimate of Qf( t). It will be noted

that one of our preferred methods of calibration uses a “square heating pulse” AQH( t- t, ) -AQH( t- t2) applied using the resistive heater (fig. 2) (the remaining symbols are defined in table 1).

References

[ 11 M. Fleischmann, S. Potts, M.W. Anderson, L.J. Li and M. Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem. 287 (1990) 293.

[ 21 M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, Fusion Technol. I7 ( 1990) 669.

[ 31 S. Pons and M. Fleischmann, in: Proc. First Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, Salt Lake City, UT, 28-31 March 1990.

[ 41 S. Pons and M. Fleischmann, in: The science of cold fusion: Proc. Second Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy, 29 June-4

July 199 1, eds. T. Bressani, E. de1 Guidice and G. Preparata, Vol. 33 of the Conference Proceedings of The Italian Physical Society

(Bologna, 1992) p. 349.

[ 51 M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanal. Chem. 332 (1992) 33.

[ 61 M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, Proc. Third Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, ICCF3, Nagoya, Japan, 2 l-25 October 1992, submitted.

[ 71 M. Fleischmann, in: The science of cold fusion: Proc. Second Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy, 29 June-4 July 1991, eds.

T. Bressani, E. de1 Guidice and G. Preparata, Vol. 33 of the Conference Proceedings of The Italian Physical Society (Bologna,

1992) p. 475.

[ 8 ] W. Hansen, Report to the Utah State Fusion Energy Council on the Analysis of Selected Pons-Fleischmann Calorimetric Data, in:

The science of cold fusion: Proc. Second Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy, 29 June-4 July 1991, eds. T. Bressani, E. de1

Guidice and G. Preparata, Vol. 33 of the Conference Proceedings of The Italian Physical Society (Bologna, 1992) p. 49 1.

[ 91 S. Pons and M. Fleischmann, to be published.

[lo] R.H. Wilson, J.W. Bray, P.G. Kosky, H.B. Vakil and F.G. Will, J. Electroanal. Chem. 332 (1992) 1.

Quote from Ascoli65

The experimental results provided by can are really very interesting and could provide a definitive insight on the size composition of the foam inside the cell.

Here's the entire video. I also added another from yesterday's crude tests showing a lower amount of foam before adding more K2CO3 electrolyte:

https://imgur.com/a/VcyE4Ko

Note that the electrolyte solution in these videos was already hot.

Quote from Wyttenbach

3 hours heat production after cell is dry?

and then there is 1996 Icarus9. onceupon a time

. as related by Jean-Paul

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Your scholarly critique of.

Calorimetry of the Pd-D20 system:

from simplicity via complications to simplicity,

should be submitted to Physics Letters A for much valued peer review.

Or

Submit it for presentation at ICCF-25.

Physics Letters A 176 (1993) 118-129

North-Holland PHYSICS LETTERS A

Calorimetry of the Pd-D20 system:

from simplicity via complications to simplicity

Martin Fleischmann

Department of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Southampton, lJK

and Stanley Pons

Display More

That paper has a string of comments:

Morrison (Physics A)

F&P (Physics A)

- after which Physics A refused to continue the conversation - as is normal

Shanahan (I forget where)

Marwan et al (again - forget where)

Shanahan (white paper unpublished)

You need to read the entire string

And AFAIK none published in Physics A - they were not interested enough.

Also relevant is this post from Alain - on an entirely different critique of the F&P results - which also has merit.

Post

RE: Doctoral Thesis Concludes Pons-Fleischmann Heat Effect Artefact of Chemical Reaction

The title is wrong, bu the study is a good job.

I've read it after a remark on the italian skeptic blog fusionnefredda.

you should check with real scientists (too bad Edmund storms is no more on vortex).

Her job is 3 part:

• first she found that the mild heat generated by some experiments with powders was due to Hydrogen/Deuterium echange. She then show that baking the palladium solve the problem, but that letting the electrode in open air in the lab, let water=hydrogen get into again.
• Second for

…

AlainCo

Jun 23rd 2014

Such effects could underlie many of the smaller anomalies detected.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Ascoli - I block W because he introduces too much noise! Contradicting the clear errors does not help - he just ignores contrary evidence and repeats them. I am very slow to do such a thing: but I have found it very helpful.

I haven't blocked anyone. I consider the reactions to my comments as one of the more interesting aspect of this thread from a socio-psychological point of view.

As for W., he has a singular ability to make a fool of himself.

Icarus9

What Biberian didn't mention was the poor reproducibilty

Too many variables in the electrolytic method?

https://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1996/1996Roulette-Pons-Results-of-Icarus9-ICCF6.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

There are enough idiotic mistakes in the final paper for anyone to see that Morrison did not even understand the difference between power and energy.

Thanks for the LENR-CANR refs.

I'll leave it to ascoli to point out how you are (I think) still not addressing his point. I'd like you to reference a video (so we are all on the same page) and two times separated by 600s for the 50% liquid and 0% liquid points. Then we can all check and see which of you and ascoli are correct.

Thus far ascoli is more believable because he has been more precise than you, but I am happy for you also to be precise and disagree with him. I think it is worth resolving this without doubt.

ascoli: just for reference please link the video again, and post again the two times which you think represent the (wrong) 50% and 0% points.

Re your point above about Morrison.

I don't much rate Morrison's critique. Shanahan did a much better job - and ascoli also - of the boil-off estimate.

HOWEVER - the F&P Simplicity paper, and your summary of it, confuses enthalpy with power giving an incorrect equation in its boil-off enthalpy estimate. We noted it above. So Morrison's confusion could be no worse than F&Ps. I agree it is an idiotic mistake and not expected.

from pp16 https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

CALCULATION Enthalpy Input By electrolysis = (Ecell - 1.54) × Cell Current ~ 22,500J Enthalpy Output To Ambient ≈ k´R [(374.5°)4 - (293.15°)4] × 600s = 6,700J In Vapour ≈ (2.5 Moles × 41KJ/Mole) = 102,500J

Such a mistake (repeated by Jed in his commentary) shows a severe lack of proof-reading in confusing enthalpy and power: the first formula is for power, not enthalpy, however the answer given is the correct enthalpy.

So those in glass houses should not throw stones!

Going through Morrisons's (not very good) critique and the replies to it we note (details below)

• Where I think Morrison has a poor point, it is addressed by Marwhan et al. In that case I agree with them
• Where Morrison has a very good point (adn it happens to be as discussed on this thread) it is ignored by Marwhan et al and by F.

[Morrison]

Secondly, a further neglect is that as the liquid is boiling vigorously, it must contain gas bubbles and hence the estimate of the amount of liquid below the estimated level, should contain a correction for gas in the liquid - but this possibility is not discussed in the Fleischmann and Pons paper. This problem could have been answered if the enthalpy of the fluid escaping from the cell had been measured, but there is no indication of any such check having been made.

This is exactly the point made by astolfi. Astlofi's point is muhc stronger, he gives additional visual evidence from the video to substantiate it.

Not answered by F&P or Marwhan

[Morrison]

Another important problem is the estimate of the input energy - here the input enthalpy is taken as the current multiplied by the (cell voltage - 1.54V). It is not explained how these quantities are measured.

Again, a point made by me (though less important). Not answered by F&P or Marwhan

[Morrison]

Also the cell voltage over the last 600 seconds cannot be read from fig. 8 as the bin size is 500,000 seconds and the trace is rising exceedingly steeply - as this is an important question, one would have expected the voltage trace over the last 600 seconds to have been shown in great detail.

A point also made by me. And correct. And - do you detect a pattern here? Not answered by F&P or Marwhan et al.

[Morrison]

Another important problem is the estimate of the input energy - here the input enthalpy is taken as the current multiplied by the (cell voltage - 1.54V). It is not explained how these quantities are measured. This is crucial as when the cell is boiling vigorously, the impedance must be fluctuating strongly. Thus the current will have both an AC and a DC component. If only the DC component were measured, then the input enthalpy would be underestimated. A detailed description of the current and voltage measuring systems showing their fast response characters is needed, but is not presented, so that although the estimate may be correct, the question is not considered.

This critique from Morrison is subtle, and mostly wrong. I am inclined to think it unlikely - BUT TAKEN WITH THE POOR TIME RESOLUTION I REALISE IT IS CORRECT. I am as qualified as (or maybe more than) Marwhan or Fleischmann in this specific matter. I will first give Marwhan's rebuttal of the point, and then my analysis:

[Marwhan et al]

Secondly, Douglas Morrison raises the question of the influence of A.C. components of the current, an issue which has been referred to before and which we have previously answered [4]. It appears that Douglas Morrison does not appreciate the primary physics of power dissipation from a constant current source controlled by negative feedback. Our methodology is exactly the same as that which we have described previously [4]; it should be noted in addition that we have always taken special steps to prevent oscillations in the galvanostats. As the cell voltages are measured using fast sample-and-hold systems, the product (Ecell - Ethermoneutral, bath)I will give the mean enthalpy input to the cells: the A.C. component is therefore determined by the ripple content of the current which is 0.04%.

This is incorrect:

(1) the issue here is not oscillations in the galvanostats (which I agree would not happen unless they are badly designed). The issue is oscillations in the resistivity of the cell due to changes in the foam/microbubble level or structure.

(2) That they have used this methodology before does not mean it addresses these concerns (and the situation here with fast boiling is unusual)

(3) Fast sample-and-hold systems do not help. The issue is WHAT IS THE SAMPLE RATE, and is input filtering correct so that ac components more than double this (Nyquist theorem) cannot invalidate the results. Specifically the estimate of 75V (which it is impossible to validate) might be wrong.

(4) HOWEVER - Morrison is wrong too (and actually more wrong). The ac component does not in this case (constant current drive) add anything to a power calculated from average voltage - if we are able to get average voltage correctly.

The problem (3) is that we do not know the sample rate, and ac fluctuations, unless averaged by enough samples, could lead to a large misestimate of the voltage. You could deal with this with suitable filtering, and a reasonably high sample rate. We have no answer about this and the point stands that it is extraordinarily careless not to publish the 600s segment of data from which the enthalpy estimate is made at better resolution. So Morison's critique here overall has some merit even though he has not given the correct reason. The bit that has merit (you get the pattern) is not addressed by Marwhan et al or F&P.

I don't want to distract from the more important criticisms by emphasising this - I'd expect normally anyone using a sample-and-hold circuit would have suitable filtering before it. But we have no idea in this case. and the fact that it is a fast sample-and-hold does not answer the matter at all - we need to understand how it was used (the sample rate)

EDIT - PS deleted after more careful scrutiny of the M et al comment.

When will the critics here explain the 3 hours after evaporation heat production???

Just a point about logic, often forgotten.

It is true that it only needs one clear proof of excess heat at nuclear levels - so the stage 4 calculation, critiques here by astolfi, can be wrong without invalidating the paper. However that stage has by far the most striking excess heat calculation - X4 out at a power of 30W in using first principle calculation (no control) and conservatively ignoring heat losses. It is the most striking result.

Equally true when answering critics. Suppose Morrison makes 10 critical points - 9 of which are wrong. If one of his criticisms is correct, and substantive, that invalidates the thing he is criticising.

Quote from Wyttenbach

When will the critics here explain heh 3 hours after evaporation heat production???

The 3 hours after evaporation don't exist. They come from a mistake made by F&P in positioning the "Cell dry" vertical arrow in Fig.8 of their Simplicity paper. The explanation was given in my comments (1-2-3) linked to this reply to you: RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

To be fair, I wouldn't be able to tell just by looking at the temperature graph alone that the cell dried up at the indicated point.

Without captions:

Quote from can

Here's the entire video. I also added another from yesterday's crude tests showing a lower amount of foam before adding more K2CO3 electrolyte:

https://imgur.com/a/VcyE4Ko

Note that the electrolyte solution in these videos was already hot.

Your video shows that during the foaming phase the contents in the jar splits into two well distinct layers, transparent liquid at the bottom and white opaque foam above it.

Despite all the differences with respect to the original F&P experiment, this stratification looks like the one shown by the "1992 boil off" videos as described in this jpeg (1a), explained here (1b). The limit of the liquid transparent layer, marked by a red dotted line, is quite clear, and the fluid above behaves as the foam of your video.

The main differences, besides the fact that your jar didn't get dry, is the diameter. It probably influences the level reached by the foam and the velocity of its settling down.

I wonder if you can repeat the experiment with a much narrower glass jar, as close as possible to the 25 mm of diameter used by F&P.

In any case thank you again for your contribution.

(1a) https://imgur.com/a/q7QpRF5

(1b) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?