Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
- JedRothwell
- Closed
-
-
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.
In their Simplicity Paper, F&P claimed that they identified the instant of the cell dryness by looking at the lab video.
In my opinion, they made a huge error as explained for instance in this jpeg (1a) and in the related post (1b).
(1a) https://imgur.com/a/ECW5yES
(1b) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
-
Unfortunately I don't currently have suitable narrow containers that could be used for more closely replicating the test to F&P's conditions.
I hope you like asparagus.
https://www.coop.ch/img/produkte/1200_630/RGB/3021599_001.jpg?_=1630553428488
-
Morrison made this point at a conference after Fleischmann presented a paper. Fleischmann responded by showing an oscilloscope trace of the data during the boil off, and he pointed out they have higher resolution computer data. They collapsed the data for the paper so that it would fit.
Naturally, Morrison never mentioned this. Neither will you. I do not know if Fleischmann ever published the oscilloscope trace or higher resolution data, but I saw them both, and I am sure they are real. You, of course, will refuse to take my word, of Fleischmann's word, and even if I showed you published versions you would go on denying they are real, or pretending they do not exist.
I think what this boils down to is that I trust scientists, and when I see data, I believe itI think you would be advised not to put words in my mouth: then you would say fewer false things!
I believe that you saw this scope trace - however a scope trace shown and report anecdotally is not evidence of the quality you would expect for world-shattering unexp3cte results (which, if real, this one is).
If F had been serious about documenting his experiment he would need - at very least - more information on what was the sample rate, how was the data collected, etc, etc. I actually believe this - why would I not? I however view it as poor practice and one which prevents external scrutiny of the details. Details matter.
Anyway - Morrison was correct - it is a defect in the paper, and a big one. Not however one that invalidates the results if you believe F did everything correctly. I take no view on that. It is of course unwise when wanting to be believed, and having such unusual results, to omit any step of the methodology, or to ask people to trust you have some things right without explanation.
What I do take a view on, because it is known, is that his methodology for estimating the 50% -> 0% electrolyte was incorrect. it could not possibly be correct when the tube viewed, during that phase, was full of foam/microbubbles.
-
I understand that Jed has decided not to respond further to the points ascoli and I have made.
That is a shame, because there is only really one substantive point relating to the boil-off phase - was F&P determination of the 50% full point from the video evidence possible given the micro-bubbles/foam?
It requires no science - just the ability to look at a video - which for some reason Jed wishes not to do.
Ascoli can be contradicted if you can see (inside all that foam) a liquid/foam interface 50% up the tube at 600s before the end on the video, and be sure that the bottom half (below the interface) is nearly all liquid (low bubble density).
I was hoping someone here would be motivated to do this and argue with ascoli.
THH
-
Maybe JeanPaul could donate Icarus9 to a good cause?
Preferably to some other more professional and established experimenter with better equipment and testing environment.
I initially cobbled up this test together on my desk just to show that under unusual electrolytic conditions it's easy to obtain lots of foam—I have already observed that several times in the past.
-
it's easy to obtain lots of foam
its well known..I used to see foam in electrolytic cells...even Asahi''s hydrogen cells in 1985.. but it might be nice to see Icarus 9 fly again.. if someone has the time.money
I'm more interested in #Kreminna..right now..rather than 1992
-
Preferably to some other more professional and established experimenter with better equipment and testing environment.
I initially cobbled up this test together on my desk just to show that under unusual electrolytic conditions it's easy to obtain lots of foam—I have already observed that several times in the past.
Looks like that one is settled then!
-
We still wait for our clowns/trolls to explain the 3 hour after boil of heat production.
If you know the total volume it is easy to calculate the evaporation rate at a given temperature. (Leads to halve dry, empty)
Conclusion:: Both trolls never did read the original papers. One troll did watch a faked video - a copy of a copy of what?
The papers answer all questions also a voltage graph is included. Only clowns invent fake voltages...
-
We still wait for our clowns/trolls to explain the 3 hour after boil of heat production.
Wyttenbach, calm down, please. You look hysteric and your insults only reveal the inconsistence of your arguments.
I've already told you (1-2), that the error made by F&P in claiming the "3 hour after boil of heat production" was explained in my comments linked to (1).
Let me make it easier for you.
a. Click on this link to my post: RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
b. Click on the link to the mentioned jpeg: https://imgur.com/a/ECW5yES
c. Look closely at the graph on the jpeg and read carefully the explanation given in my post
d. If you will understand what is written in my post and if you are able to make simple time conversions you will see why F&P have been wrong in placing the vertical arrow which in Fig.8 indicates the "Cell dry" condition, and you will understand why the "3 hour after boil of heat production" don't exist at all.
QuoteIf you know the total volume it is easy to calculate the evaporation rate at a given temperature. (Leads to halve dry, empty)
In the Simplicity Paper there are 2 errors not only one. You are confusing the "foam issue", which invalidates the F&P claim on excess heat, with the "arrow issue", which invalidates the F&P claim on HAD. The Simplicity Paper contains 2 conclusions and both of them are wrong, for different reasons.
QuoteConclusion:: Both trolls never did read the original papers.
Either you haven't read the Simplicity Paper, or you haven't understood it.
QuoteOne troll did watch a faked video - a copy of a copy of what?
A faked video? Are you meaning that JedRothwell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434 ) and/or Steven Krivit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8 ) published fake videos? Tell them.
QuoteThe papers answer all questions also a voltage graph is included. Only clowns invent fake voltages...
When compared to the videos published by Krivit and Rothwell, the Simplicity Paper only demonstrates that F&P have mistaken both their conclusions.
(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?
-
If F had been serious about documenting his experiment he would need - at very least - more information on what was the sample rate, how was the data collected, etc, etc. I actually believe this - why would I not? I however view it as poor practice and one which prevents external scrutiny of the details. Details matter.
Oh give us a break. Fleischmann published copious data. About 100 pages. His Navy paper with Pam Boss is 52 pages long. If he published a thousand pages you would still say it is not enough, and you would come up with a thousand more bogus reasons to reject it. McKubre and Miles both published book length descriptions of their work (both at LENR-CANR.org). You will not even look at them, or comment on them.
-
Wyttenbach, calm down, please.
No its fun to read clownery. For somebody that did never read the original P&F paper you are very creative. Putin will honor you!
-
Oh give us a break. Fleischmann published copious data. About 100 pages. His Navy paper with Pam Boss is 52 pages long. If he published a thousand pages you would still say it is not enough, and you would come up with a thousand more bogus reasons to reject it. McKubre and Miles both published book length descriptions of their work (both at LENR-CANR.org). You will not even look at them, or comment on them.
McKubre - I did look at, I did comment on, Might do so again some time. Look back on LF (though I know it is difficult to find stuff).
Miles - people discouraged me a bit from looking at his work - can't now remember the details. If it is important I am happy to do that.
Fleischmann 100 pages. it is unusually long for a write-up of an experiment. All I want is an experimental write-up which is carefully documented. Not in this case too much to ask. Will read something other than the simplicity paper if there are clear results presented better elsewhere? Does this 100 page thing do that? You never recommended it to me before when I was asking for evidence.
THH
-
I think we have heard quite enough of this. Your complaints are not backed up by much truly verifiable evidence, most of them have been answered in a polite and logical manner, but you will never accept that any other conclusions beside your own are valid. Personally I think you are an embarrassment to yourself and the forum. We have given you a great deal of time and space for discussion, but I get the impression that it is a waste of pixels and effort.
-
McKubre and Miles both published book length descriptions of their work
I do not like to read books on LENR unless they are describing some coherent theory (e.g. WL - or perhaps the NAS/NAE stuff - though that needs to get a bit more substantial, or the lattice screening stuff. Or what I'd really like would be the coherence stuff (but a book with a full quantitative QM treatment at least - I'm afraid though it needs QED and I'm not sure my memory of doing it ages ago is good enough to follow that: it would be a lot of extra work).
What I dislike is substituting appraisal of research papers with the original results for somone else's take on the same, where they suppress details.
I remember McKubre has very well written papers describing his work? I am not sure what a book would add to that except spin, which i do not need.
Miles - I just googled him and he is the energy out vs He4 relationship person.
I read quite a bit about that - and had quite a lot to say about it. In the end it was frustrating - better experiments could resolve the matter now. I remember there was a rumour that U Austin was funded a few years ago - but I've heard nothing since then.
I have no tolerance of some of the public accounts of that relationship which do not consider the key confounders in Miles's protocol
(1) too much He4 - and equipment is considered leaky and changed
(2) too little He4 (not clear whether an experiment with low He4 would be changes due to obvious equipment failure - e.g. bad cathode etc)
(3) correlation with time. The results as presented do not compare He4 vs excess enthalpy for the same experimental time. Obviously time correlates linearly with both He4 from leaks, and enthalpy.
(4) methodology - taking many results post-hoc and filtering them is problematic and it is difficult to be sure the filtering (for example as above) does not subtly cause the relationship.
(5) presentation. Some of the points looking nicely linear are actually taken at different times from the same apparatus and run - where all you need is a linear correlation between time and leaking, and between time and excess heat - both of which clearly exist. But these are not separated from points from different apparatus.
So it is very difficult to see whether the presented results are statistically significant given these confounders and I'd welcome a serious discussion of that but never found it. It probably is somewhere however...
-
I think we have heard quite enough of this.
Not enough for someone. Wyttenbach has insistently (and impolitely) asked "to explain the 3 hour after boil of heat production."
I gave to him the answer he was asking.
QuoteYour complaints are not backed up by much truly verifiable evidence, most of them have been answered in a polite and logical manner, but you will never accept that any other conclusions beside your own are valid.
In this thread I've raised 2 well specific issues related to the F&P Simplicity Paper, the "foam issue" and the "arrow issue".
They are based on the most truly verifiable evidence available in 30+ years of CF/LENR research, the "1992 boil off" videos.
These issues can be easily solved by looking at these lab videos.
In order to solve the "foam issue", I have asked JR (1) to tell us which are the time stamps on the video (2) when the boil off events begin and end.
In order to solve the "arrow issue", I have asked JR to tell us which is the time stamp on the video when cell 2 full dries and explain how it corresponds to the position of the vertical arrow on Fig.8 of the Simplicity Paper (3).
He answered (4): "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."
I don't think this is a logical answer, nor polite, nor acceptable.
So I'm still waiting a logic and polite answer to my 2 specific arguments.
(1) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434
(3) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
(4) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
-
Ascoli65 and THHuxleynew
Continually insisting that you are right, everybody else is wrong and that nobody has answered your allegations correctly is a game that quite a lot of the forum are tired of. I have had complaints about your obsessive and borderline irrational behaviour from both inside and outside the forum membership. The forum team are pondering further action.
-
Dear Alan,
While I agree with you that the topic here is pretty well finished, and do not wish to go on about it, I find your comment a bit strange - and if you really mean it I will leave this forum voluntarily should I be asked to do so.
I don't think ascoli or I are exactly insisting we are right (he may be, I am not). We maintain that the videos clearly show a given thing, ascoli has pics to back this up - although you REALY CANT SEE anything from the static pis - you need to look at the videos.
I think I keep on here because there seems some misunderstanding - or maybe others can see a line of liquid compatible with what F&P need for the boil-off enthalpy claim to be correct.
I don't see it is such a big deal. I am only keeping on because Jed and otehrs insist ascoli and I are "obviously wrong" but do not address the video evidence. for example, they could reference a video, give two points separated by 600s, and say that it is clear (or at least arguable) that between those two points there was 50% of liquid boil-off.
I am expecting Jed to do this - since he (I think) has looked at the video and worked this out. Then I can check his points and perhaps will agree with him, or perhaps disagree, but either way, for me, the matter is then finished. Anyone can view those two points and make up their own mind. (It would be helpful to do this on a longer video which has more context - if possible, rather than a shorter more edited video).
At the moment every reply to ascoli's claims is met with deflection. I am just incapable of leaving such lack of reply without comment. Normally lack of reply is taken as acknowledging the other side is correct - when the reply in this case is very simple and straightforward - just checking liquid level on a video and being specific as to which video, what times. After all, there are 2 or more videos, and 4 separate experiments in each video. So without specificity we cannot all check what people are saying.
Perhaps - for definiteness, ascoli could below just link the video and his two points (where he is claiming the visual evidence does not show liquid level change of 50%). If others then say - look we agree your points - but there is 50% liquid change we have reached the end of what we can do. (Or - they might say - no your two points are wrong - it should be these two points).
Sometimes you never get agreement - but surely this matter of eyeballing videos can be resolved as to what we are disagreeing about? It is not so much effort but there have been deflections now for many pages of posts.
It really annoys me that we can't do this - it seems so irrational.
THH
-
And - BTW - please do ponder further action in my case, in the light of the above "obsessive and irrational" post. If you believe I am mistaken and its conditions for ending the matter are already met by some post I missed - thus someone has referenced a video link and two times separated by 600s in said video as showing 50% liquid reduction, or has agreed there are none such but thinks this is irrelevant because we should believe F&P anyway, they may not have evidence we can see on a video but they are expects and can eyeball the video better than us, or maybe had access to an unpublished different video - then we can stop.
If moderators here believe that I am "obsessive and irrational" I will indeed leave the forum - I would not wish to post where rules are so defined. And I will be sorry: perhaps LENR is a cult, or, more likely, this public internet discussion of LENR does not reflect what those actively involved think. Either way not much point me staying here.
-
Obsessive might fit you and Ascoli both, but in different ways, but IMHO Ascoli65 is irrational on this topic at least, where as you are not.
