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

  • What Ascoli set out to do, and what his intentions are now, are irrelevant. His claims should be addressed on their own merits regardless of his motivation. As it happens, his claims have no merits.

    Fine, I agree.


    Tell us, please, "when the boil off events begin and end" (1), for each one of the 4 cells in the "1992 boil off" experiment.


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

  • Why should I discuss about any other LENR claim or experiment, when it is impossible to discuss on the evidence of the only experiment for which we have the original images, the same which have been used by the experimenters to derive their claims?

    This argumentation is totally moronic made by a possible paid hot fusion troll.


    The papers conclusions - we see cold fusion - have been made by Fleischmann from reading 5 highly accurate TC's. Finally Fleischmann just wanted to get out the 99.9% fit with his calorimetry model, when he did look at the video to get some clarification with the help of daily change in air pressure he only could use after the experiment. This fitting helped him to adjust the final total dry out moment by a few seconds....


    Cold fusion has been declared due to 3 hours of heat after death measured by 5 TC's and of course the recorded large excess enthalpy.

  • OK, then as far as you are concerned you have FP's dead to rights. And since you claim they were the genesis (although they were not) of the science, their offspring LENR in all it's various forms is a pseudoscience. I respect your opinion, and the polite and methodical way you conducted yourself.


    Other members disagree though, and it appears there is nothing from here on out that you, or THH can say to change their opinions, nor they yours. As I said before, the two sides are at an impasse, and has become counter-productive. So, my vote is to shut the discussion down and send both sides back to their respective corners.


    Not that it matters, but I enjoyed the thread. Unfortunately, recently it turned acrimonious and started spiraling out of control. I knew it was doomed when even THH got angry. :) If it were up to me, everyone would be able to debate these contentious issues without ever taking it personal. Like our LF motto says: "Check your ego at the door, and don't insult other members".

  • Jed, I have raised issues. You have said you have addressed them. Perhaps, to save time, you could quote an answer more specific than


    17 pages - your paper - could not find my issue addressed? I scanned it quickly.


    91 pages (Miles) where is my issue addressed? I was not up to reading 91 pages on spec.


    etc.


    It does not help, when specific issues are raised, to quote several 100 pages of stuff and say "the answer is in there somewhere".


    I did look at this stuff a long time ago - I may have missed answers to my issues, in which case I'm sure you can direct me to them since you are more familiar than I am with the literature.

  • For gods sake read it again!!!

  • Jed, I have raised issues. You have said you have addressed them. Perhaps, to save time, you could quote an answer more specific than


    17 pages - your paper - could not find my issue addressed? I scanned it quickly.

    I shouldn't engage but . . .


    Points 1 and 2 are covered in the section "Possibilities for error." Find the rest yourself. Do not ask for any more hand-holding or spoon-feeding. I am not capable of explaining it more clearly than I did in this paper.

  • OK, then as far as you are concerned you have FP's dead to rights.

    Sorry, I can't understand what does it mean.


    Quote

    And since you claim they were the genesis (although they were not) of the science, their offspring LENR in all it's various forms is a pseudoscience.

    It's not me to say that F&P are at the root of LENR. See for instance this recent initiative (1): "ARPA-E acknowledges the complex, controversial history of LENR beginning with the announcement by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in 1989 that they had achieved deuterium-deuterium (D-D) “cold fusion” in an electrochemical cell."


    As for pseudoscience, I can't draw that conclusion, but the obstinacy to refuse to looking into possible errors made by F&P is not a good starting point for anyone who is claiming to have obtained some extraordinary results in the field.


    Quote

    Other members disagree though, and it appears there is nothing from here on out that you, or THH can say to change their opinions, nor they yours.

    I still hope it is possible. The opinions can be changed on the basis of the weight of the arguments, as Curbina said (2) "Let the weight of the arguments decide which vision prevails."


    JR has just wrote (3): "What Ascoli set out to do, and what his intentions are now, are irrelevant. His claims should be addressed on their own merits regardless of his motivation. As it happens, his claims have no merits."


    This is encouraging. Let's see if he really wants to enter in the merits of my arguments and answers my questions about the begin and the end of the boil off events (4)..


    (1) https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/…55-4c3b-a211-b128d2a4a0e4

    (2) RE: The Playground - No more Covid Games Please.

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

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

  • Sorry, I can't understand what does it mean.

    It means you are sure they (FP's) were wrong.

    JR has just wrote (3): "What Ascoli set out to do, and what his intentions are now, are irrelevant. His claims should be addressed on their own merits regardless of his motivation. As it happens, his claims have no merits."


    This is encouraging. Let's see if he really wants to enter in the merits of my arguments and answers my questions about the begin and the end of the boil off events (4)..

    Sorry, but I am afraid this discussion will end soon.

  • It means you are sure they (FP's) were wrong.

    Thanks.


    To be more precise, I became convinced that both the conclusions of the F&P's Simplicity Paper are wrong.


    And, do you have a your own opinion on the two issues (foam and arrow) which are under discussion? Had F&P been right or wrong in their two conclusive claims of the Simplicity Paper?

    Quote

    Sorry, but I am afraid this discussion will end soon.

    Well, not the first time it would happen.

    It wouldn't be a tragedy, my friend.

  • Shane D.

    Closed the thread.