Ascoli65 Member
  • from Italy
  • Member since May 28th 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Ascoli65

    There were other tests using other methods of calorimetry, such as continuous reflux boiling. These other methods also showed excess heat. Other methods were also used before and after the boil-off.

    In your previous comment, you wrote "In France, they [F&P] repeated the experiment hundreds of times, 16 tests at a time. (Four arrays of 4 cells each, run simultaneously.) Nearly all of the tests worked. Results were much stronger and clearer toward the end of the project."

    I asked you: have you any evidence that these tests (I mean the hundreds of 16 tests at a time in four arrays similar to the experimental set-up with 4 open cells that can be seen in the time lapse video you have linked) have produced stronger and clearer results with respect to those shown in the "Simplicity paper" describing the "1992 boil off experiment"?

    In such a case, or assuming that you are in possession of privy information which confirm such better results, can you explain why F&P didn't publish them, so that the 5 CF experts commissioned in 2004 to select a few meaningful works to submit to DoE for review, had no other choice to include in the list a 12 years old document such as the "Simplicity paper"?


    It is not likely the heat started before the boil off, stopped during the boil off, and then started again after it.

    Yes, I fully agree. In my opinion it's even much more than unlikely, it's nearly impossible.

    Therefore, if F&P were able to commit such a big mistake in calculating the energy balance during the boil off phase in their 1992 experiment (the most famous and best documented of their experiments), there is no reason to believe that they were correct in calculating any excess heat in the phases before or after the boil off, nor in any other experiment carried out before or after the "1992 boil off experiment".

    If you do that it will be goodbye.

    Don't worry. I know I'm not allowed to open any new thread.

    Mine was just a suggestion to the Administrators/Moderators to provide JR with a space where he can finally discuss in detail his last paper on the F&P calorimetry, where he finally explains how F&P calculated the excess heat in their "1992 boil-off experiment", which is still the most important experiment in the history of cold fusion.

    But in a few days I will move this off topic comment elsewhere.

    This would finally be a good occasion to start a new thread where discussing all the subtle reasoning made by F&P to derive excess heat from their experiments, as reported in the JR's paper on F&P calorimetry (1)


    AFAIK F&P were not the main topic (or a topic at all) at ARPA-E, which is the focus of this thread.

    Well, one of the presentation made by ARPA-E was a "Summary of the 1989 and 2004 DOE reviews" (2). The title of the first slide is "Where it started*: the Fleischmann & Pons experiment (1989)". Next line: Observation: Excess heat (30 °C →50 °C). Next line: Hypothesis: D+D fusion responsible for excess heat.

    As for the 2004 review, it's well known that the F&P "Simplicity paper" was the first in a short list of CF works selected by the most important experts in the field to be submitted to DOE as a prove of the existence of this phenomenon. The "Simplicity paper" describes the "1992 boil-off experiment" and the lab video clearly shows that F&P made an incredibly huge mistake in calculating the excess heat. Therefore, no excess heat, and, in consequence, no need to hypothize any weird nuclear process responsable for such heat.

    (1) RE: ARPA-E LENR Workshop Oct 21-22 2021


    The paper and the video demonstrate that that 1992 boil-off experiment failed: the 4 cells did not produce any excess heat.

    This specific experiment, held in April-May 1992, is the only one with multiple arrays of 4 open cells mentioned and documented by F&P. FWIK, no other experiment of this kind was mentioned by F&P in the following years. Can you provide a contrary evidence?

    Anyway, repeating such a boil-off experiment is not difficult at all: just wait that the input electric power heats the electrolyte, until it boils and completely evaporates. In fact, as McKubre stated at the last ICCF (1), that experiment is the only one which has been exactly repeated by a third part, namely by Lonchamp, in 32 years of research on CF/LENR. A successful replication of a null experiment.

    (1) RE: What should we do next ? - A relevant question from Matt Trevithick

    There was a fascinating in-depth write-up of him by a woman reporter (forgive me - someone else will need to find the link) based on his staying with her + husband for a few days.

    Here it is:…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html

    But the article shed light not only on the Rossi's adventure, but also on the entire CF story. This is a crucial step:


    I met Rossi in Rome in 2009. My husband Michael Melich, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, had been involved with cold fusion since the start of the field, when his father Mitchell Melich (who had been on the advisory board of the National Cold Fusion Institute in 1989) called and asked him to read technical material. Through that connection he met Wilford (Wilf) Hansen, professor of physics at Utah State University and also a member of the NCFI advisory panel who took responsibility for the panel to evaluate data sets provided by Fleischmann and Pons. His report was presented to the panel and subsequently presented and published in the ICCF2 (July 1991) proceedings. Because of the integrity that he brought to that evaluation, efforts were taken to obtain data sets from Cal Tech, MIT and Harwell. Harwell co-operated and Hansen and Melich presented the results of their analysis at ICCF3 in Japan. On the basis of this work and other study, Melich concluded that the claims of Fleischmann and Pons were worthy of serious consideration.

    It is worth reminding that ICCF3 was the conference where F&P presented the results of the "1992 boil-off experiment" and showed their laboratory video:

    Cold Fusion is a drama with many actors. No doubt that Rossi is one of the more interesting characters, but his critics forget that he was inspired by F&P, the main heroes on stage, and was supported for many years by the same people who were closely related to the two electrochemists and who strenuously touted the validity. of their results.

    How did it happen that these sort of fakeries got the backing of so many world-class experts, including esteemed academics and even Nobel laureates? Well, here is a possible answer: .

    No. Even if the experiment were in error, that wouldn't prove anything about LENR, as a phenomenon, per se.

    No. The errors made by F&P in evaluating the outcomes of their 1992 boil-off experiment prove a lot. And even more, after McKubre has declared, at the last ICCF23, that the 1992 F&P experiment is the only one which has been exactly replicated in 30+ years of CF/LENR research (1).

    McKubre is the most famous, informed, and representative leading expert in the CF community. He has a very long experience in CF/LENR experiments. He was a great friend and a close collaborator of Fleischmann, and he certainly had the opportunity to carefully watch the 1992 lab video.

    So, if the F&P experiment were in error (but, IMO, anyone who carefully watch the video can see the errors), LENR ceases to be a physics topic and becomes a psychological issue: how is it possible that hundreds of eminent scientists have believed, and still are believing, in the F&P claims, despite the public availability of a video that clearly shows that they were wrong?

    Does a (hypothetically) erroneous boil off experiment refute the observations of x-rays in co-dep cells by the SPAWAR team? Because you have to account for that too.

    Yes, it does. Because the 1992 boil-off experiment is the most important experiment in CF history, because its validity is still undisputed in the LENR community (see the JedRothwell reply to your comment), and, last but not least, because McKubre declared that it is the only CF experiment which has been exactly replicated. It means that all the others CF/LENR experiments, including those made by SPAWAR, have not been replicated. This fact allows a much simpler explanation for all the other possible extraordinary observations made by any other CF researcher, that is that these claims are based on undetected artifacts.

    Btw, why are you using the hypothetical form talking about the errors made by F&P in 1992? What is your actual opinion? You have the possibility to solve any doubt just by looking at their video. What does it prevent you from doing it?

    (1) RE: What should we do next ? - A relevant question from Matt Trevithick

    It got me curious what has happened since 2016 when Krivit published his books? Is there somewhere in this forum or some other website that would give me a good overview of the current state of the art?

    Hi cyoung,

    did you already find a definitive answer to the crucial question upstream: is there anything real in the extraordinary results claimed in 30+ years of research on Cold Fusion?

    If not, I invite you to carefully watch the "1992 – Pons-Fleischmann Four-Cell Boil Off" video (1). Your basic college physics is more than enough to understand what happened there. It's just a matter of Joule heating, water boiling, bubbles and foam. No nuclear or exotic knowledge is required.

    This video, extracted from a lab video shot in 1992 and published by Krivit in 2009, documents the most important experiment in the history of CF. An experiment that is still considered, by one of the leading expert in the field, the only one to have been exactly replicated (2).

    Cold Fusion is a good subject for a novel. It is SF in itself and contains an intriguing mystery. IMO, the key to solving this mystery is provided by the video above. The solution is as much evident as it looks incredible, just like in the Mc Luhan's motto “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (credit AlainCo).

    Let me suggest you to develop your story starting from the video above. Ask Krivit how he got it and who made it, when and for what purpose it was done, and who had the opportunity to watch it prior to its publication. It might came up an interesting story. Good luck.


    (2) RE: What should we do next ? - A relevant question from Matt Trevithick

    Thanks, Shane, great slide indeed!

    It was presented by the most famous researcher still active in the field. McKubre was in the group of 5 super experts who submitted in 2004 the request to DoE for funding CF, and that selected the F&P "Simplicity paper" as the first in a very short list of the most representative results obtained over the first 15 years, then elapsed after the F&P announcement.

    After 15+ more years, the myth of the 1992 boil-off experiment is still alive. It's time to verify its reality.

    The 1992 boil-off experiment is exactly the one which should be reproduced in order to solve the mystery. It can be exactly reproduced. Lonchampt has shown that it can be done.

    This is the simple answer to the question from Matt Trevithick, as it was 2 years ago:

    from the article "However Lee did two simple experiments. Firstly he operated the cell with the anode and cathode very close together as F&P so that there was a chance that the hydrogen and oxygen emitted by the two electrodes could mix and possibly recombine - assuming no recombination, he calculates that he had then observed excess heat. He now moved the anode and cathode apart, and as he did so the apparent excess heat vanished. This he interpreted as evidence that recombination was occuring in the F&P - type conditions and could be falsely interpreted as excess heat."

    Lee Hansen may have detected some excess heat attributable to recombination, but I guess (I haven't read his paper) that the difference between the two cited experiments was very small, on the order of a few percents. But recombination cannot explain the 400% excess heat claimed by F&P in 1992. Morrison tried to explain such a huge gain by a combination of an underestimation of the electrical input, due to the large voltage oscillations during the final 600 s, and a recombination phenomena. This explanation is wrong.

    The videos of the 1992 boil-off experiments provide the simple and straightforward answer to the enormous mistake made by Fleischmann and Pons: foam inside cells. But these videos were not publicly available in Morrison's time.

    Recombination regurgitated .. Morrison 1993..


    The recombination explanation is hardly new.. first mooted around 1989..

    Recombination was mentioned in "Morrison's Cold Fusion Update No.8" (1), as indicated in the USPTO non-final rejection. This update concerns "the work that Fleischmann and Pons published in Physics Letters A", that is the 1992 boil-off experiment, and in particular "the excess rate of energy production […] four times that of the enthalpy input"-

    There is no doubt that recombination is the wrong explanation for this specific F&P's claim. The alleged excess heat is actually a consequence of the miscalculation of the energy balance during the last 600 s of the boil-off period, caused by having ignored the presence of the foam accumulated inside the cell.

    In 1993, the lab videos of the 1992 experiments weren't yet released (they were published by Krivit in 2009 and by Rothwell in 2015), so Morrison had no opportunity to closely examine those videos. If he had had the possibility to do so, he most likely would have realized by then the amazing artifact which allowed F&P to claim an inexistent excess of heat, and the CF story would probably have been much shorter.



    Is this old post a better synthesis of your opinion on AR story?


    The post is still valid, but nowadays a better synthesis on CF story should start from F&P and include the two EU projects HERMES and CleanHME.

    As for the AR adventure in CF, the most informed synthesis was provided IMO by Marianne Macy (1).


    I'm curious, on what basis would University of Bologna professors think that in 2011 Rossi had both the intention and the means to give them 500K Euros in funding?

    Underlines added.

    February 4, 2011 (a few weeks after the January 14 public demo) – From…-al-prof-mauro-villa.html :

    22PASSI. So che è in corso il perfezionamento di un contratto di ricerca tra Rossi e l'Università di Bologna per permettere al Dipartimento di Fisica di eseguire ulteriori esperimenti, parteciperà anche lei a questa ricerca?

    VILLA. Certamente, se gli attori principali lo vorranno. Come ho già detto a Rossi e Focardi, ho un laboratorio che è già attrezzato per misure di fisica nucleare: principalmente gamma e neutroni. …

    February 9, 2011 – From http://www.energeticambiente.i…ssi-38.html#post119169549

    … Per questo motivo ritengo che l'ing. Rossi introdurra' nel protocollo di accordo che verra' firmato col dipartimento di fisica una clausola che imporra' la totale riservatezza sulle energie dei gamma osservati, fatta esclusione per i gamma emessi dal rame o dal nichel, onde evitare che si possa ricostruire da esse la natura chimica dell'additivo.

    Con i piu cordiali saluti

    Sergio Focardi

    March 10, 2011 – From…energi/article3123849.ece

    According to Rossi, Eon was sold for about one million Euros.

    Rossi says the 500,000-Euro investment to develop the E-cat was made through his American company Leonardo Corporation, which prior to the development of the energy catalyzer was a parallel activity to Eon.

    From Leonardo Corporation Rossi is now paying the remaining 500,000 Euros to the Physics Department of Bologna University, following a new agreement under which the university will help Rossi with the continued development of the reactor and studies of its physical phenomena.

    June 19, 2011 – From…-ufficiale-sulle-cat.html

    Il Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna desidera comunicare che:

    è stato firmato un contratto di Ricerca con la Ditta EFA srl del valore di € 500.000 (+IVA), della durata di 24 mesi, …

    (in English:…NIBO-NoticeOfContract.pdf )

    That's 3 things. Reminds me of Monty Python, Spanish Inquisition:

    :) Yes, it looks similar, but the four things in JR's list are separated by periods, so they seem to be just synonyms or different aspects of one and only one thing, which is later called "moola" (1). In any case, a special emphasis is put on FUNDING, the first thing in the list and the only one in capital letters.

    Consider that in December 2011, when he posted the comment, JR was engaged full steam in convincing the world of the reality of the Ecat. He justified his own belief on the positive opinion of the UniBo professors, who in turns at that time were still hoping to get 500 thousands Euros in FUNDING from Rossi.

    In the same Vortex discussion (2), JR also highlighted the positive impression, which Rossi made on other CF/LENR experts, including a main supporter of the reality the F&P results. The same chain of interests and anecdotal beliefs at works for both couples: F&P and Rossi/Focardi.



    "Scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe!"

    Absolutely right, we should remark however that the percentage of these money-driven "scientists" in Big-Science projects is far higher than in fringe/non mainstream researches.

    It's hard to establish the percentages within these two groups. I'd say in a first approximation that the absolute number of (exclusively) money-driven scientists is proportional to the funding available for the respective projects, so I agree that they are much more numerous in Big-Science projects.

    Anyway, JedRothwell interpretation of the Szpak dictum ("If wor[l]d gets out that cold fusion is now attracting tens of millions in research funding, then most of the academic opposition will vanish overnight.") is clear and has been confirmed by the recent funding of the two EU projects on cold fusion: there have been no academic opposition.

    If there is something to be learned from the Rossi fiasco and even more from the world at large, it is that it is very difficult for people to be skeptical about something they strongly want to be true and it is almost impossible for people to be skeptical about something they already decided is true.

    For me, the truer finding from the whole CF activity is condensed in what was said by Stan Szpak: "scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe".

    These are some of the more interesting interpretations and corollaries of this dictum, appeared on the internet in the last 10 years, since the first Ecat demos:


    "Most scientists […] care about one thing, and one thing only:

    FUNDING. Money. Status. Power."


    "This is also what Upton Sinclair had in mind when he said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!""


    "If word gets out that cold fusion is now attracting tens of millions in research funding, then most of the academic opposition will vanish overnight."

    From RE: Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified) :

    "If funding becomes available, overnight hundreds of major scientists will say they believed in cold fusion all along."

    (I am aware that Robert Horst has agreed with you but only in the context of that picture, he never agreed with you in anything else)

    I know it. I never claimed he agreed with me in anything else. I just wrote: "But what matters is that neither you nor anyone else in the LENR field, except Robert Horst (1), has yet admitted that the FPE claimed by F&P in their 1992 boil-off experiment were artifacts caused by foam." Do you see? I only referred to the 1992 boil-off experiment.

    However, due to the importance of the authors and its inclusion among the 7 most significant CF works submitted to DoE in 2004, it represents the entry level of the awareness path on the essence of cold fusion. Who ignores this particular F&P's experiment, can't consider any other one.

    You sound like a broken record Ascoli65 .

    Everyone talking about events that happened 30 years ago sounds like a broken record.


    Are you even aware that there have been research teams that have confirmed the FPE, even with higher excess heat, but have alternative chemical hypothesis of where the heat comes from? Are they also seeing foam?

    The foam in the 1992 boil-off experiment is only the most evident and best documented artifact which caused the most important FPE in the history of CF. People believing that F&P produced excess heat and HAD phenomena in their experiments, despite the contrary overwhelming evidence provided by their own video, can also believe any extraordinary claim caused by any other artifact, not just foam.

    FPE is a socio-psychological phenomenon, not nuclear, nor chemical. Rossi exploited this anthropological phenomenon.


    Not saying that I or anyone else in the LENR field agrees with those chemical hypothesis discussed ad nauseam, but even those research teams agree the FPE is real, and worthy of further research.

    Almost all of the research teams conclude their reports stating that their findings are worthy of further research. But what matters is that neither you nor anyone else in the LENR field, except Robert Horst (1), has yet admitted that the FPE claimed by F&P in their 1992 boil-off experiment were artifacts caused by foam.

    (1) RE: FP's experiments discussion

    Both are interesting. It is also interesting to look back on these now that a number of years have passed and we can be in broad agreement that Rossi was a faker after all.

    Well, Rossi took inspiration from F&P. Any retrospective analysis should start with those who initiated this bizarre field of research in which experimental artifacts are misinterpreted as exotic nuclear phenomena that generate excess heat and are ultimately funded or sold for millions of dollars.

    And the artifacts of F&P are also much more evident than those of Rossi:

    Where were the pumps for the roof reactors before the 2012 Pop Sci article? They didn’t appear on the ‘steam’ outlet end until Ferrara it seems.

    You can see my interpretation of the layout of the 1 MW plant in the jpeg (1) I posted on EnergeticAmbiente (2) a few days after the October 28 test.


    (2) https://www.energeticambiente.…265944.html#post119265944


    Pompa EP (Esterni Posteriori) = (External Rear modules) Pump

    Pompa EA (Esterni Anteriori) = (External Front modules) Pump

    S (Sinistra) = Left

    D (Destra) = Right

    Passacavi = Cable sleeve

    Contatore = Water meter

    Vasca = Tank