Posts by Ascoli65

    Types of claimed XHs and possible causes of error

    In the present discussion about the possible errors contained in the F&P paper to ICCF3 (1), it often happens that different sources of error are mixed up. To avoid the resulting misunderstandings, it's useful first to identified the different types of excess heat claimed by F&P, which are affected by completely different source of errors.

    Although F&P, and the researchers who endorsed their claims, postulated the existence of a single nuclear effect, the FPE (*), which should have been the cause of any reported anomalous manifestation (excess heat (XH) or nuclear radiation), a more careful analysis of the HX anomalies suggests that they derive from different artifacts depending on the mathematical models used to analyze the experimental data, or even from a wrong determination of these data. The mathematical models and the experimental data used by F&P and their replicators are not uniform, but varies in accordance to the experimental regime, as better clarified by Lonchampt in paragraph 3.3 of his ICCF6 paper (2). Therefore, in analyzing these source of errors, it is essential to distinguish the various regimes or phases which onset during the F&P open cell tests and the type of excess heat claimed in each of them.

    The following jpeg should clarify the situation:


    By putting together the (a) and (b) regimes identified by Lonchampt (for which the same relation is used, neglecting only one term for the first regime), the following 3 types of excess heat can be identified:

    1) LXH - the Low-level eXcess Heat (about 1 W) that F&P claimed to occur during the entire run of their test until the cell temperature remains quite far from the boiling point. This LXH derives from the complicated mathematical model used by F&P to determine a single heat transfer coefficient k (see, for instance, equation [4] in (1)) which should take into account all heat losses at different temperatures and times. Consequently, this approach results in calibration problems due to neglecting or miscalculation of various possible side effects, such as partial recombination, droplet entrainment, etc., as has been pointed out by various authors long ago, for example Wilson (3), Morrison (4) and Shanahan (5);

    2) HXH – the High-level eXcess Heat (hundreds of W) that F&P have claimed to happen when the cell is allowed to boil-off to dryness. This HXH derives from a totally different path than LXH. Mathematics is also different. In (1), the HXH math is applied in the "CALCULATION" section on page 16, in which the equations are different from those shown in the section in which F&P explained their "Method of Data Evaluation" used to calculate the LXH. However, in the HXH case the error is not in the equations, but in the input data, which are completely out of the reality. F&P assumed that half of the initial water (i.e. 2.5 moles = 45 cm3) vaporized in just 10 minutes (600 s), but in reality the water evaporated in a much longer period, lasting several hours. F&P supported their wrong assumption by showing in their videos the rapid decrease of the foam at the end of the boiling period of each cell, assuming that it was rapidly evaporating water (6). Even if not explicitly stated, F&P have hinted that this HXH was produced in all the 4 cells of the experiment described in (1);

    3) HAD Heat After Dead events have been claimed by F&P to have occurred many times, but it has been documented only for one cell in the experiment described in paper (1). More specifically, they claimed that it happened after the conclusion of the boil-off phase of Cell 2 because, as shown in Figure 8, the cell temperature remained at the boiling point for about 3 hours after the presumed opening of the circuit due to the complete dryness of the cell. It's not clear which error led to this wrong claim, but, as already shown (7), a useful hint comes from the observation that during the 3 hours of presumed HAD the electric circuit was not open at all, as indicated by the voltage, which remained above zero for all that period.

    (*) It should be taken into account that the real FPE is considered to be associated with power densities greater than 1000 W/cm3, which have been claimed by F&P only in the 4 cell experiment, as said in the preface of the ICCF3 paper (1): "We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd/D2O system which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1kWcm-3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution." This power density was calculated in 3700 W/cm3 on page 16, so it refers to the HXH only.






    (6) FP's experiments discussion

    (7) FP's experiments discussion

    Note they report .07 to .17W excess heat.

    I fear, that we addressing two different sources of alleged excess heats: the low level XP who was claimed to happen even at low temperature - and that can be easily explained by one or more sources of CCS - and a much higher XP, that F&P claimed to have obtained only when their cell was brought to boil-off conditions and that can be explained with the foam issue.

    I'm dealing, for the moment, only with this second HL-XP because it is the specific subject of the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 (1): "We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd/D2O system which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1kWcm-3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution."

    So I think that also RobertBryant was meaning this last larger source of excess heat, when he asked about the errors in the Lonchampt's paper.

    Both the LL and HL excess heats have played important roles in the development of the F&P affair, however I fear that mixing up them does not help in understanding which were the real causes of their respective miscalculations.

    So, if you agree, I would propose to deal with one of them at a time, or at least to indicate clearly which XP we are talking about, the LL-XP or the HL-XP.


    What error have you, Ascoli, estimated for Lonchampt's paper and with what confidence interval?

    My estimate is that Lonchampt's errors coincide with the excess heats he reported in his paper (1). No confidence interval. This is my preliminary evaluation, based on the assumption that if someone claims to have reproduced a wrong result, his result is also wrong.

    As for the merit of the possible specific cause of these errors, it may not be so easy to find because his paper lacks many information and we don't have any video, as in the case of F&P's experiment. It is also inaccurate in many details. Just to cite one, in the first row of Table 2, which reports the experimental data of his best test, the sum of the "Enthalpy losses" and of the "Available Enthalpy" doesn't match the "Enthalpy Input" as it happens for all the other tests in the table.

    However, as Lonchampt is considered the only one to have successfully replicated the F&P boil-off experiment (the most important in the CF hystory), its paper deserves a more thorough examination. But for the moment the priority goes to the original, the F&P boil-off experiment that he claimed to have successfully replicated.

    So let me ask you. Have you watched the "IMRA time lapse" video whose link was provided by Robert Horst (2)? What is your opinion? Is it liquid or foam that, for example, fills Cell 1 at 21:23 and thereafter?


    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    I believe your green and Blue lines are incorrect.

    I'm sure they are not fully correct. I also put a couple of question points along them. But they are representative of what happened in the F&P cells during the boil-off experiments.

    What really matters is the blue line. Its trend is easily recognizable until the moment of image I. The position of the level on image J has been roughly estimated observing the level drop during the 47 minutes between images K and I and considering the 89 minutes (almost the double and at a higher power level) to get to image J. This level also complies with the estimate made in (1).


    As I said before, the video have degraded from 1992 until it was digitized some 17 years later.

    Until now, we have identified 4 public videos. You don't know when each of them was digitized and when it started to circulate within the LENR community (btw, this is one of the most interesting thing to know).

    The longest and more detailed video is the one posted on YouTube by Rothwell in 2015, 23 years after the test. But Rothwell also wrote that (2): "This video was provided to by Prof. Martin Fleischmann, IMRA Europe". Fleischmann retired from IMRA in 1996, so it is likely that Rothwell received that video in 1996, or even earlier, already digitized "in a gigantic file" (3).


    It is not possible to see the actual water levels from pictures.

    If you mean from the images on my jpeg (4), you are right. For this reason I have specified for each image its exact position in the video from which it was obtained. Watching the videos allow to more easily locate the position of the interface between the different layers.


    Flweischmann had an easier job when the video was fresh.

    Sure. He and Pons also had the possibility to observe the buildup of the foam in real time just by looking directly at the cells. But this only reduces the chances that what is reported in their ICCF3 paper derives from an involuntary mistake.

    In their paper (5), F&P wrote: "As it is possible to repeatedly reverse and run forward the video recordings at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make reasonably accurate estimates of the cell contents. We have chosen to time the evaporation/boiling of the last half of the D2O in cells of this type and this allows us to make particularly simple thermal balances for the operation in the region of the boiling point."

    Robert Horst, a serious, competent and active member of the LENR community, has recently admitted (6): "However, I looked at the video a couple dozen times and am inclined to agree that the arrows are foam levels, not liquid levels."

    The videos are now "out of the bag". It's time for everyone to take their own position: foam or liquid?

    (1) FP's experiments discussion



    (4) FP's experiments discussion


    (6) FP's experiments discussion

    More than a dozen of Labs did repeat the above extraordinary claims. They all found them being true including some military labs... All confirmed large excess energy of much higher than chemical level in amounts of Pd atoms present. Ascoli too knows the independent confirming report of Hansen and others.

    As I have already told you (1), Hansen's analysis was not independent at all.

    Regarding the really independent replications, it is recognized in the LENR community, that the most similar to the F&P experiments were the tests reported by Lonchampt at ICCF6 in his paper "Reproduction of Fleischmann and Pons experiments". He probably reproduced also the same mistakes made by F&P.

    As for the other labs, it would be interesting to know how many of them had a copy of the video with the 4 cells.


    It is may be grand time that you explain what you think would be an impossible goal.

    I already did it (2).


    We that stay in Labs and measure, we know that LENR is the normal version of nuclear fusion and that LENR can even start without adding any energy. We know this because we measure radiation not heat. Thus there is no discussion about LENR anymore. The only discussion is:

    Who is first with a process that delivers a market ready heater/ heat source!

    This discussion concerns F&P experiments, whose results have been and still are referenced as the starting point of almost all the CF/LENR activities.

    What I know, from my point of observation, is that the most notorious F&P's claims are based on the most incredible misrepresentation of experimental data that can be imagined, committed by scientists who are considered the foremost electrochemists of the time and deserving a Nobel prize. So there is a wide margin to think that extraordinary claims about strange nuclear phenomena claimed by people not having the same credentials derive as well from some unthinkable faults.

    Anyway, if you are sure of your results, I wish you good luck. But let me suggest you to clear your documents from any reference to F&P and to any document in which they are referenced.

    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

    Axial distribution of water during the test (Cell 1)

    At the end of October, two jpegs were posted that illustrated the analysis of the evolution of the axial distribution of water in Cell 1 (i, ii). This analysis subdivided the cell height in two regions: a lower mostly Liquid region (L) and an upper mostly Void region (V). Hypothetical trends, limited to the boiling-to-dry phase, were proposed for the variation in the height of region L and of the liquid fraction in region V. This former analysis was based on the video of the "Pons presentation" at Nagoya in 1992, whose quality did not allow to distinguish the stratification within the two regions.

    Subsequently, another video was reported, called "IMRA time lapse" (iii). This video is much longer and more detailed, so it allows to extend the analysis to a longer period and to better define the stratification inside the cells, which now can be subdivided in the following 4 layers:

    - T (as Transparent): it's the lowest layer containing liquid water, which is totally or partially transparent;

    - B (as Bubbling): is the overlying liquid layer in which the rising bubbles occupy the whole cross section, so that it appears completely bright;

    - F (as Foam): the layer containing foam;

    - E (as Empty): the upper layer that does not contain water in any form.

    The T and B layers form the L region, where the liquid fraction is greater than 90%. The F and E layers form the V region, where the liquid fraction is below 1%.

    The evolution of the heights of these 4 layers during the entire test transient of Cell 1 is shown in the following jpeg:


    The cell images are extracted from 3 videos (1-2-3) and the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 (4). They show the evolution of the axial distribution of the water within Cell 1, although, in order to extend the analysis period, three of them show other cells (namely 3 and 4), which should be representative of Cell 1 in the same situation.

    The cell images are labeled with capital letters: A to N for those extracted from the videos, P for the image taken from the paper. These labels are reported on the upper graph and scheme for indicating their time position with respect to the whole trends of the temperature and voltage of Cell 1 (graph on the left) and with respect of the video clips from which they are taken (bar scheme on the right). This last scheme is derived from the synoptic showing all the clips available on internet (iv).

    The sequence of images is crossed by 3 colored lines which indicate the approximate level of the 4 layers. The blue line separates the Liquid region from the Void region. The green line subdivides the Liquid region into the lower Transparent layer and the Bubbling one. The red line subdivides the Void region into the Foam and Empty layers.

    Another 3 black horizontal lines indicate as many fixed reference levels with respect to the longitudinal section shown on the left side. The thick upper line indicates the internal upper limit of the cell, the thin discontinuous line the lower limit of the upper silvered portion of the cell, and the lowest thin continuous line marks the lower limit of the internal free volume. This lower limit is located just above the KEL-F disc that supports the electrodes and appears as a white bar at the bottom of the images. This longitudinal section has been taken from Figure 1 of F&P paper (4), but probably its internals don't correspond exactly to the cell model used in the reported tests.

    Below, the single images of the cell are described. Each description will start with the source (the reference plus the video time) and the time of day (in hh:mm:ss) indicated in the video frame.

    A – [(1) at 00m11s, 11:29:53] Cell 1 before the switching on. The water is completely transparent, there are no bubbles. The liquid level is not visible because it is hidden by the silvered upper portion of the cell, it is assumed that it was at the level indicated in Figure 1;

    B - [(1) at 00m37s, 11:30:19] Cell 1 a few seconds after the switching on. The gas bubbles produced by electrolysis at 200 mA rise vertically, remaining concentrated in the innermost part of the cell;

    C – [(1) at 02m06s, 3:55:14] Cell 3 in the last available video frame of the Cell 2 boil-off phase. As it can be seen in the graph included in the jpeg posted in a previous comment (iv), this image shows the Cell 3 at a temperature slightly above 70°C, so it is considered representative of Cell 1 at the same conditions, which onset a couple of days before the boil-off phase. The electric current is now 500 mA, there are more gas bubbles at mid height, but the water is still transparent up to the top of the unsilvered portion.

    D – [no image] The onset of boiling. No image is available for this important moment. Boiling should start when the input power exceeds the 11 W estimated in (4) as the heat loss by radiation at 100°C, ie after the voltage reaches 22 V, which occurs a few hours before the time of the following image E. At this time, the water temperature should be almost at the boiling point and some areas of the electrodes are already beyond that point, so that steam bubbles add to the gas bubbles generated by electrolysis. It is expected that above a certain height, the raising bubbles, increased in number and volume, occupy the whole cross section of the cell, determining the appearance of the bright Bubbling layer, where there is no more transparency. Probably, the thickness of this layer increases very rapidly, extending quite soon to almost the upper half of the cell;

    E - [(1) at 02m29s, 5:02:04] Cell 4 at the beginning of first video clip (n.11) showing its boiling phase. As showed in (iv), this video clip is the earliest among the boil-off phases, since it starts about 6 hours earlier, so its beginning shows the first available image of the boiling phase of any cell. This image shows that a thin layer of Foam appears just below the silvered portion. This Foam layer is more evident watching the video. It is partially hidden by the silvered screen and progressively thickens due to the lowering of the underlying Liquid region;

    F - [(1) at 02m40s, 5:25:04] Cell 4 at the end video clip n.11. Looking at the video it seems that the Foam layer is now entirely below the silvered portion, so that it is in full view and a thin darker Empty layer appears over it. The Foam thickness can be estimated in a about half centimeter. The analogues situation of Cell 1 should occur 2-3 hours earlier than the following image;

    G - [(1) at 00m37s, 18:33:01] Cell 1 at the beginning of the short video clip n.2. It's the first available video frame for the boiling phase of Cell 1. Now the Foam layer is well below the silvered portion and its thickness has grown to about one centimeter;

    H - [(1) at 00m49s, 19:00:15] Cell 1 at the end of video clip n.5. The Foam thickness has grown further above the Bubbling layer, whose upper level has in turn lowered further. This is the last image where this two layers are clearly distinguishable each other, thanks to the difference of the brightness at their interface. The 4 images from E to H show that the brightness of the Bubbling layer is more intense at half height of the cell, then decreases with height, maybe due to a partial condensation of the bubbles or for an optical effect. This fact is important in the subsequent analysis of the evolution of the water layers, since when the Liquid region lowers due to the loss of water, the difference in brightness at the interface between the Bubbling and Foam layers diminishes until they become indistinguishable;

    I - [(3) at 00m52s, 19:47:58] Cell 1 at the end of the first video clip that appears on the wall screen during the Pons' presentation at ICCF3 in Nagoya. The synoptic of the available video clips (iv) shows that this clip lies in an intermediate period not covered by any other clip, so it provides unique information on the evolution of the Foam layers. Looking at the video it is possible to estimate that the Bubbling level is now a few centimeters below the silvered portion and that the Foam thickness has increased to almost one cell diameter. Even the lower partially Transparent layer begins to decrease due to the much more intense production of vapor;

    J - [(1) at 00m50s, 21:16:58] Cell 1 at the beginning of the video clip n.6. The height of the lower Transparent layer is now less than one cell diameter. The Foam level is about one diameter below the silvered portion, but now it is no more possible to distinguish its interface with the Bubbling layer, even watching the video. It's likely that their interface is quite low, close to the Transparent layer so that most part of the cell is already full of Foam. The video shows that the Transparent layer reduces very rapidly. The gradual uncovering of the electrodes causes a rapid increase of the voltage in order to keep the current constant and the consequent increase of the dissipated electric power accelerates the evaporation rate of water, which in turn generates an even greater quantity of vapor, whose volume had been estimated in a previous jpeg (v). This high volumetric flux of rapidly rising vapor displaces and lifts the overlying Foam which is pushed toward the upper unsilvered limit of the glass, so that the cell appears again completely bright;

    K - [(2) at 01m17s, 21:52:58] Cell 1 at the beginning of the second clip in the "Four-cell Boil-off" video. This is the moment previously described in which the cell appears completely bright again, but this brightness is due to the Foam that is lifted by the vapor that is produced at the maximum volumetric rate. A blue text with time (21:52) and a blue arrow appear immediately at the beginning of this clip. The blue arrow was probably meant to indicate the level of the water at the said time. Hard to say which criteria was used to place this arrow, because in the exact moment at which the cell appears, it looks completely bright, but its level is rapidly changing. After a while, the exhaustion of the liquid water causes the sudden cessation of the vapor flow, the Foam is no longer lifted and its level rapidly drops to half height. Subsequently, the Foam level continues to decrease at a slower pace due to the breaking of its bubbles;

    L - [(2) at 01m30s, 22:17:58] Cell 1 in the same clip as above, in the moment when the lowest blue arrow is shown accompanied by the corresponding time (22:18) in blue digits. With reference to the clip scheme, this image is at the end of the thin white bar, which represents the time interval between the most extreme blue arrows appearing during the whole video clip represented by the thicker reddish bar. The duration of this interval is 26 minutes and, as already said (vi), it is not known how it could have been related to the 10-11 minutes that F&P stated were required to boil-away the last half of the initial water content;

    M - [(1) at 01m25s, 22:26:58] Cell 1 at the end of the video clip n.6. A few minutes after the image L, the residual Foam remains almost at the same level, well above (a couple of cell diameters) of the cell bottom;

    N - [(1) at 03m13s, 11:11:04] Cell 1 at the end of the video clip n.14. This is the very last image of Cell 1, taken from the last frame of video (1), at the end of the boil-off of Cell 4, that is after 25 days from the beginning of the experiment, and more than 10 days after the end of the boiling phase of the Cell 1 itself. Despite all this time, the Foam still persists at the bottom of Cell 1, with a volume not very different from that at time M. The video shows that the same happens for the Cell 2 and 4, while Cell 3 is the only one in which the Foam disappears almost completely in the outer part of the cell, but it persists in the innermost part. This indicates that the boil-off process generates a long-lasting Foam, which should not have been unnoticed by the experimenters who opened the cells at the end of the experiment;

    P – [(4), 22:03:57] Finally, it is described the image of Cell 1 derived from Figure 10 (B) included in the F&P paper presented at ICCF3. Its time, intermediate between the images K and L, and its caption ("The first cell during the final period of boiling dry with the other cells at lower temperatures.") confirm that this image was meant to represent the period during which half of the water content (that is 45 cm3 (2.5 moles) out of the initial 90 cm3 (5 moles)) vaporized in just 11 minutes (as stated on page 13 of the report) or in 10 minutes, as assumed in the calculation reported at page 16. This calculation gave a value of 145.5 W of excess heat generated during these last 10 minutes, that, divided by the volume of the Pd cathode, became 3700 W/cm3. Two numerical results summarized in this way by F&P on page 19 of their paper: "We note that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system; the specific excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors."

    Extraordinary claims based on a completely wrong assessment of their experiment, that, let me say, for nearly 30 years have been driving the inconclusive research of an impossible goal.

    (i) FP's experiments discussion

    (ii) FP's experiments discussion

    (iii) FP's experiments discussion

    (iv) FP's experiments discussion

    (v) FP's experiments discussion

    (vi) FP's experiments discussion





    We wait for a sound explanation why the control cell never did show any boil off and foam ...

    I don't remember where F&P explicitly stated that control tests "never did show any boil off and foam". They probably did, but at this point it would be very useful to provide exact references to any of their statements. In any case, my opinion is that many of their results have been either misrepresented or kept hide.

    As for your specific question, it can find a partial answer in the report that Hansen submitted to the Utah State Fusion/Energy Council and then presented to ICCF2 in 1991 (1). As already said (2), Figure 1 shows the temperature and voltage trends of a blank experiment performed by F&P, which behaves in the same way of the 4 cell experiment presented at ICCF3, i.e. the temperature approaches the boiling point and the voltage skyrockets toward the maximum allowable limit.

    So, in this case, the right question would have been: why this blank experiment was publicly reported by Hansen, but was not revealed by F&P?


    ... and other (in your mind) strange effects...

    The effects I'm not talking about are not strange at all. For sure, they are much more ordinary than the miracles that have been postulated in almost 30 years in the vain effort to explain of the extraordinary (and unfounded) claims made by F&P. Anyway, I will try to explain them better, so that they can be shared with other minds.


    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    Well, yes there is. The F&P paper you would like to analyse has a linked video without the blue arrows. A video that should be used, and not the non authorised video produced by Krivit with blue arrows painted on by Krivit

    I was referring to the short video titled "Four-cell Boil-off", one of the two videos published in 2009 by Krivit. I don't think that there exists a version of THAT video without the blue arrows.

    As already shown (1), there are at least 4 videos on the web which contain some clips of the original lab video recording. Only the above cited short video has blue characters (arrows or numbers) on the images, because its purpose is clearly illustrative, and it is very probable that it has been used by Pons during its presentation in Nagoya. On the contrary, the original lab video recording and 3 out of 4 of the public videos don't have any character stamped on them, beside the time (hh:mm:ss) on the lower right corner.

    The 4 video stills included in the F&P paper (2) in Figures 10 (A) to (D) are also taken from the original video, so they don't show any blue arrow.

    Two of these video stills, namely those included as Figure 10 (B) and 10 (C), are presented in the paper as showing the "final period of boiling dry" of the first and last cell respectively, but - as shown in the video published in 2015 by Rothwell - they have been shot AFTER the boiling period of each cell, when the foam - that had filled the entire cell during the very last boiling phase - was receding due to its breaking-up.

    So the evidences that the calculation of energy balance in the F&P paper is based on a stunning misrepresentation of the boil-off evolution and timing, leading to completely wrong conclusions about the generation of any excess heat, is already contained in the paper itself, and it is demonstrated in the "IMRA time lapse" video published by Rothwell. The 2 videos published by Krivit are superfluous for the demonstration of this astonishing mistake.

    Anyway, not my problem. The fact that somebody in the LENR community could think that the misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the F&P experimental data depends on the editing by Krivit of the "Four-cell Boil-off" video, is one more reason for him to take care of this issue.

    (1) FP's experiments discussion


    No word from Krivit so far on how much the data was "Krivitized"

    There's no story in in this 'important issue' for Krivit..even if he uses his journalistic licence to make it a full Fleischmanngate.

    .. i guess we'll never know

    There have been no "Krivitzation" of the "Four-cell Boil-off" video, of course. First because it makes no sense, second because he certainly was not the only one to be in possession of that video and, if there had been a copy of it without the blue arrows, it would have been reported in this discussion by someone else.


    There's no story in in this 'important issue' for Krivit..even if he uses his journalistic licence to make it a full Fleischmanngate.

    He has been involved in "ITERgate" for a few years. He is doing an excellent and commendable work to find and enforce the truth about past performances and future prospects of hot fusion. I think he will do the same for the cold one, using the same methodical approach.

    For what I have seen, he rightly avoids relying on information or analysis of anonymous people, so I expect that he will ask about the foam issue to authoritative and recognizable experts, as he did in the case of ITER.

    It will take time, but I am confident that he will require to the CF community the same consistency that it has demanded from the people involved in the HF.


    .. i guess we'll never know

    Still missing more than 4 months to the 30th anniversary of the announcement of the cold fusion discovery. Give him time to investigate and find the necessary confirmations.

    There are a video showing Pons at ICCF3.

    As you can see, NO blue arrows, one white arrow, a watermark that says LINE.

    So very different from video produced by Krivit, who probably added blue arrows to illustrate what he thought would be approximate water levels.

    Good objection. But it only implies that Pons could have presented at least 2 videos.

    As reported by Morrison, he had 30 minutes at his disposition, 10 more than the other speakers. I guess, he started with the "Four-cell Boil-off" video, which is well suited to illustrate the cell, the experimental set-up and the main result, ie the presumed boil-off behavior and - by means of the blue arrows - its duration, then he could have presented one or more additional videos.

    In any case, it should not be so impossible to get an authoritative confirmation of the origin of the video and its arrows. We are discussing an important issue on the most important LENR website, talking about the most important CF videos, shown during the presentation of the most important paper of the field, written and presented by the two founders and most important leading figures. I'm still confident that someone will tell us what was presented in Nagoya in 1992. We all are here to seek the truth, aren't we?

    In the meanwhile, I will continue to assume that the video with the blue arrows was prepared by F&P in the summer of 1992 and presented by Pons in October at the ICCF3. After all, as already told you (1), the Figure 10(B) and (C) of their paper are congruent with the timing indicated by the blue arrows, and, most importantly, it's the choice of the video clips to be assembled that reveals the intentions of its authors, not the blue arrows. Do you think that Krivit could have selected these clips by himself?

    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    Some info on the Pons presentation at ICCF3 provided by Morrison and others

    Waiting to have more information, hopefully from direct witnesses, on the Pons presentation to the ICCF3 of Nagoya in 1992, we can rely on what reported by Morrison within a few weeks of the closing of the congress. These are the related excerpts [bold added]:


    Douglas R.O. Morrison's Cold Fusion Updates
    No. 7—1 November-6 December 1992

    Dear Colleagues,

    Held in Nagoya, 21 to 25 October 1992.




    There were only 23 talks - all of 20 minutes except Stan Pons who had 30 minutes.




    3.6 Stan PONS began his talk by showing a short video of four cells with different inputs. Each cell boiled off its liquid after a different number of days. The cells seemed to be operated in the 60 to 80 C temperature range - it was said that the condition for success was to operate near the boiling point. This worried some as the corrections are much larger at high temperature. Some felt this was impressive proof, others that there are many different ways to make a cell with palladium boil (eg G. Kreysa et al., J Electroanal. Chem. 266(1989)437). The demonstration was not convincing to scientists as it needed more information - one would like to see the demonstration repeated in the presence of someone like Tom Droege to watch and test and preferably also with several video cameras.

    One striking feature of the video was the extremely small size of the cell, barely thicker than the thumb of the person holding it. […]

    He said that they were just entering their new building at the IMRA technical centre and showed photographs of it. He said they had 32 employees.



    this delightful phrase was seen in a Takayama shop window).

    (c) Douglas R.O. Morrison.

    Morrison seems to describe the video "Four-cell Boil-off" published by Krivit. In fact, not only the 4 cells are mentioned, but he makes an observation about the dimensions of the cell compared to those of an inch, as shown at 00:44 of the video (1).

    Impressive the number of 32 employees reported by Morrison. I wonder if he misunderstood or if it's a typo. Any idea?

    A few months later, in May 1993, Morrison added other details:


    [email protected]



    5th DRAFT - Scientific Comments Welcomed. 6 May 1993.



    Douglas R.O. Morrison.

    M. Fleischmann and S. Pons [1] have published in Physics Letters A a communication entitled "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity". There they claim evidence for the production of excess enthalpy of greater than one kW per cc of Palladium in a Pd-D2O system. They comment that this is comparable with the rates obtained in a fastbreeder reactor. They note that the reproducibility is high. In this letter serious doubts are expressed about this claim and the methods used to derive it.


    In the third stage the behaviour near and during boiling is observed using a video camera. From this video, the time for the cell to go from about half-empty to dry, is taken - more precisely the amount of liquid boiled off is estimated over the final 10 minutes before the test tube was declared dry.


    I do not think that Morrison had a copy of the F&P video, so he probably relied on what he had seen in October 1992 in Nagoya. However, he confirms that "the time for the cell to go from half-empty to dry" was taken from the video.

    Another reportage from Nagoya, probably an indirect one, is contained in this article of a magazine that closely followed the CF developments since its appearance:


    EIR Volume 19, Number 49, December 11, 1992

    Japan cold fusion conference sets new direction for science

    by Carol White

    The Third International Conference on Cold Fusion held in Nagoya, Japan, Oct. 21-25 marks a turning point for this extraordinary new field of research. Now, three and a half years after Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann first captured headlines worldwide with their announcement that they could produce fusion in a test tube at room temperature, there is a body of experimental results which confirms their contention.

    A high point of the conference was the showing of a video produced by Stanley Pons featuring four different experiments in which cold fusion was occurring. These cells went from a temperature of 40°C to a rapid boil and boiled out their contents in around 11 minutes. The video used time-lapse techniques to show the boiling, while a clock was shown ticking off the 600 to 720 seconds which it took for the 2.5 moles of water heavy water in the cell to boil off. A rough estimate establishes that, at best, 40 minutes would have been needed to achieve the same result by plain electrolysis, were a nuclear reaction, not occurring. (The 40-minute figure discounts heat loss from the cell, due to radiation.)

    Since the energy requirements for such a boiloff are 100,000 joules, calculations approximate that a power input of 144.5 watts would have been required. In fact, the power input was 37.5 watts, of which roughly 11 watts were lost to radiation from the cell. Thus, there was a more than 400% energy gain. Stanley Pons estimated that he achieved a power density of 2.7 kilowatts per cubic centimeter in these experiments.

    The article mentions "a clock [that] was shown ticking off the 600 to 720 seconds". This clock does not appear in the video (1), but there may have been another clock in the room which was read while the video showed blue arrows descended along the 4 cells.

    Now let's analyze when these arrows appear in the video, based on the timing of the version published by Krivit (1). The following table shows first the times written in blue next to the upper and lower arrows of each cell and then the video elapsed time when they appear on the screen:










































    This table shows a big mystery. The differences between the blue times stamped aside the upper and lower blue arrows range from 20 to 35 minutes. Leaving aside the fact that the arrows presumably show the lowering of the foam and that they do not reach the bottom of the cell, the real duration of these presumed boil-off periods are two or more times longer than the 10-11 minutes estimated by F&P. Can someone provide an explanation for this huge difference, other than the highly improbable (and quite silly) hypothesis that the video durations in seconds were multiplied by 60?


    No on the contrary, it is very likely. The video starts by stating "produced by Krivit", and when the blue arrow marks appear the video there is also another bluish toned watermark with "new Energy Times" stamped in the video.

    IMO, before uploading the video to his YouTube site, Krivit has only added a title at its beginning and his watermark, as he does with everything he publishes. This is what "Produced by Krivit" stands for.

    He published the video in 2009, when he was engaged in supporting the Widom-Larsen theory. It's my opinion that he needed authoritative evidence to be associated with this theory, and, like many others in the CF field, he chose to resort to the most famous and apparently unassailable test: the 1992 experiment of F&P. In short, his reasoning was, well, F&P were successful in generating the excess heat, only their theory was wrong. So, in support of the right W-L theory, he published the 2 videos on the "Four-cell Boil-off" test and the "Pons presentation" at the ICCF3 in Nagoya, on October 1992, which probably were circulating since decades inside the LENR community.

    Furthermore, in 2009, Fleischmann was alive. I don't think that Krivit would have taken the responsibility of editing one of his video.

    In any case your point is interesting and deserve the attention of the LENR community. Maybe Krivit is aware of this debate and, if he wishes, he can personally clarify this issue.


    So these arrows should not be misunderstood as being connected to the Fleischmann paper in any way, shape or form.

    I would be inclined to think that not only the video with the arrows was prepared in 1992, but also that it was presented by Pons at the ICCF3 in Nagoya.

    The structure of the video, the sequence of the images, the lack of a vocal description and, last but not least, the blue arrows that progressively descend along each cell seems to have been prepared to be presented and described to an audience of expert in the field. JR and McKubre were in Nagoya in 1992 and if they saw the video they for sure could not have forgotten it. May be, if they whish, they will tell us something more about this video and the Pons presentation at ICCF3.

    There seems to be some fatal flaws in your analysis:

    It's possible. I hope to fix any flaw with the help of the L-F members.


    1. The video you have analysed with blue arrows etc is a video made by Steven Krivit.

    The video that is linked in the F&P paper has no such blue arrows painted on.

    I suspect the blue arrows have been Added by Krivit, and should not be misunderstood as part of the paper.

    It's very unlikely that the arrows have been added by Krivit. He posted the video in 2009, but the fashion of the blue arrows (actually a ">" sign) seems to me much older. Anyway, I have already asked (1-2) if any L-F member has more info on the preparation and circulation of this video. I hope someone will provide useful information.

    The videos reporting some clips of the 4-cell experiment are very important in order to understand the issue of the misinterpretation of the water level drop in the F&P cells. I hope that the jpeg, that I have just posted, is somehow helpful. It shows that none of the 4 video contains entirely all the others, so all of them should derive from some precursor. It's clear that the original lab video, probably video recorded on a tape, didn't have any arrows superimposed on it, but IMO that kind of video editing could have been available at the time. Consider that F&P had at their disposition the best technology on the market.


    2. There is no time stamp in the video linked in the paper, only in Steven Krivits video. Krivits video Should not be confused as part of the official paper. ...

    Caption of Figure 10 reports: "(B) The first cell during the final period of boiling dry with the other cells at lower temperatures.". The time on the still (B) is 22:03:58, which lies between the frames with the upper (21:52) and lower (22:18) blue arrows of the video published by Krivit.

    The same for Figure 10(C) whose caption says "(C) The last cell during the final boiling period, the other cells having boiled dry" and whose time is 10:43:34. In this case the upper blue arrow in the video is at 10:35 and the lower at 11:10.

    So, there is a perfect agreement between the time on the video stills reported in the paper and those superimposed next to the blue arrows in the "Four-cell Boil-off" video.


    ... And by the way Krivits video show some time after 12:00, not 00:00:00.

    The video shows the power-on of the cells at around 11:30 of the first day (April 11, 1992), which started at 00.00.00.


    3. F&P topped up the cells at intervalls, and I have found no information in the paper when the last top up occured. But probably it is close or at Boiling point, as in the Lonchampt paper.

    In the F&P experiment of 1992, the cells were topped once a day, as shown on each one of the 4 graphs of Figure 6 by the periodic drop of the cell temperature. These temperature excursions allow to easily locate the refills, as shown in a previous jpeg (3).

    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    Time localization of the boil-off clips in 4 videos

    After the video "IMRA time lapse ..." (1), whose link has been provided by Robert Horst, the number of videos available on the web showing clips of the lab video shot during the 4 cell experiment described in the paper presented by F & P at the ICCF3 rose to 4.

    The "IMRA time lapse ..." video is of higher quality and is also the longest. It contains a total of 14 video clips that refer to the lighting of the 4 cells and their boil-off phases. Below is a list of these clips.







    Video (s)











    Cell 1







    Cell 1







    Cell 1+noise







    Cell 1







    Cell 1








    Cell 2







    Cell 2








    Cell 3







    Cell 3








    Cell 4







    Cell 4







    Cell 4 - Rewind







    Cell 4









    The localization of the video clips is illustrated in the following jpeg and compared to the position of the clips available in the other videos.


    The second video by length is the one titled "Four-cell Boil-off" (2). It contains 6 clips, 4 of which refer to the final boil-off phases. In these 4 clips appear the blue arrows that should indicate the lowering of the water level. The time interval between the two frames with the arrows placed in the more extreme positions is represented with a white rectangle inside the larger one that indicates the entire duration of the video clip. It's worth noting that not all 6 clips in video (2) are entirely included in the 14 clips of video (1), in particular the first clip of Cell 2.

    The third video by length is the one that appears on the screen of the ICCF3 room during the presentation of Pons (3). This video contains only 2 clips whose images refer to Cell 1. The first clip shows a short period not covered by the first 2 videos.

    Finally, there is the short sequence that appears at 2m17s of the episode of "Good Morning America" aired in 1994 (4). It should be noted that this clip goes slightly beyond the corresponding clips of the other movies, a sign that has been derived from a different, even longer movie.





    It looks to me like the video timestamps are time-of-day because they all are for hours 0-23. But the graphs in the paper appear to be time from the start of the experiment (in seconds or Ksec). So to line them up, you need to know what time of day corresponds to 0 Ksec.

    The elapsed time (in s or ks) used in the paper graphs in the F&P paper (1) starts from the beginning (time-of-day = 00:00:00) of Saturday, April 11, 1992. This date appears at time 1:03 of the video "Four-cell Boil-off" (1).

    You can get a confirmation of this starting time, reporting the time on the video when the cells begin to generate some bubbles (at about 11:30:00, that is 41400 s) on the first graph of Figure 7 of the paper, which plots the heat transfer coefficient computed on the basis of the water temperature, and hence affected by a certain thermal inertia.


    However, I looked at the video a couple dozen times and am inclined to agree that the arrows are foam levels, not liquid levels. The cells seem to transition through three clear phases. In the first phase, you can see that it is mostly liquid with gradually increasing bubbles as the liquid boils. In the second phase is is mostly foam and in the third phase, the foam level rapidly decreases to zero.

    Yes, I agree and I thank you for the scruple of having looked at the video so many times.


    You can tell the foam phase because sometimes the level decreases and then increases again, which could not happen with liquid. For instance, look at Cell 1 at 21:23 when it is full of foam, 21:40 when the top of the foam is a little lower, then 21:55 when it is full of foam again.

    The period you mention is revealing. I's worth noting that in video (2), which reports the blue arrows indicating the presumed water levels, most of that part was not included and the sequence starts at 21:52:58 when Cell 1 appears to be full again.


    Several times the video cuts away for hours between phases 1 and 2. For Cell 1, there is a cut between about 11:30 and 18:36.

    Yes, I counted 14 different video clips, i.e. video sequences. For each cell, there are 2 or 3 different clips which span a period of about 6 hours (about 4 hours for Cell 1).


    The Enthalpy Balance in the paper is based on only the last 10 minutes and assumes the liquid is boiling then. Even though I have great respect for Fleischmann's work in general, I would have to agree with Ascoli that this paper is likely flawed.

    Thank you for your opinion.

    Now we need to better understand what really happened during and after that fundamental test.

    Ascoli, when I wrote cherry-picking, I referred to the article 🤓.

    Yes, I knew. I think I have peaked the right cherry in the F&P article, and I have applied the same method with your too long post.


    I will repeat my answer, since most of it answers your critics.

    No, it doesn't, and it's your turn to answer my previous question. I posed you a precise question about the info on the video whose nature was digital since the beginning. After you will have answered adequately, I'll deal with the other issues of yours.

    Have you read the Staker paper yet?

    Do you still assert that " Staker's 3 years of work loses its meaning" based on "boilups"??

    I gave a look to it. It seems to be a very accurate and professional document. Nice editing. Impressive bibliography. It looks as a good work and I think its author is a competent person in many fields. But all of this doesn't mean that what is claimed in it is also completely correspondent to the physical reality.

    The main claim in the abstract is: "The average excess power (excluding run-away) ranged from 4.7 ± 0.15 to 9.6 ± 0.30 percent of input power while input power ranged from 2.000 to 3.450 watts, confirming the Fleischmann-Pons effect." But I have no reason to believe that there exists any FPE, and, after what I saw in the ICCF3 paper and in the related videos, I have also many reasons to doubt of the reliability of the two authors.

    So, before wasting more time in looking better at a paper which claim to have confirmed a controversial effect, I would prefer to know more about the bases of that effect, beginning from the reliability of its first proponents.

    Ascoli, Kirk and THH are convinced that hundreds of modern scientists are incapable of making a measurement that any scientist could have made in the last 240 years. And they are convinced that they know better than the likes of Robert Duncan.

    Heck, I showed they were wrong just by listing some of the facts that anyone can see with naked eye, such as the fact that only the cathode is boiling. Not one of them has addressed that issue, or any of the others I raised.

    I answered the issues (1), including the point 7 which deals with the boiling on the cathode.

    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    So all other works include Staker's work.? Slaker's 3 years of work loses its meaning?

    It's nothing with respect to man-years that have been spent in the last 30 years in the effort to replicate the ineffable F&P effect !


    Are you sure???

    Quite sure. Considering the type of the criticisms to my hypothesis that have been raised till now, I'm almost certain.


    Staker might had a boil off while making coffee...its a possibility...or he might have dozed off. I could ask him....

    [email protected] and Phone: 410 617 5188 Maybe early on Tuesday

    Good idea. Tell him also to give a look to this discussion, he could be interested to know how F&P calculated the heat effect that he think to have confirmed.


    You are good at Cherry-picking 😉

    Thanks, it saves me a lot of time, so let's apply the method to your last post.

    At this point, I fear that we will not find any agreement on the FACT, as defined in my previous answer (1). Anyway, I'll try to answer as many of your remarks as I can. But, in order to facilitate this discussion I'll cherry-pick one remark at a time.

    It seems that the quality of the video is your main concern [bold added]:


    AH, wait, in your eyes of a low quality video you see another water level than F&P did when the video tape where fresh and clear. […] And boil off period is based on some visual interpretation of low quality video. […] Which means your visual inperpretation of low quality video would be wrong. […] Whiteness on low quality video may only be …light reflection on the glass. […] The dry out period is your interpretation of a low quality video. […] Digitization –2009 AFAIK, only what I deduct from Krivits work. […] “The video quality is more than sufficient” is a claim of yours, not a fact. […] Based on your investigation of low quality video and trying to expand timelines not detailed in the paper and not knowing when last top up of water actually occurred and using information from outside sources not only the paper.

    OK, quality is subjective. Let the L-F readers judge for themselves if the quality of the videos were sufficient to better understand the evolution of the water inside the cells during the boil-off phase.

    Anyway, a possible digitalization of the video could have degraded a bit the quality of the analog information, but it didn't alter the information that were already in the digitized form, in particular the position of the four cells, the time (in superimposed on the lower-right corner, and the blue arrows with the relative blue time (in hh:mm) that have been add to highlight the position of the water level. Do you agree on this?

    Now, look please at the first jpeg titled "Misinterpretation of dry-out timing and mechanism" (1), and in particular at the video frame with the upper blue arrow (actually a ">" character). Anyone can read the original time in the lower corner (3.26.14) and the added blue time (3:26) to the right of the blue arrow. It means that, for the authors of the video, at that time, the water level inside the cell was in the upper part of the cell.

    Are you able to locate the time of that frame on the graph in figure 8? It is not an expanded graph, it is in the original size as it appears on the F&P paper (3). Its time axis ranges from 1590000 s (=18 days + 9.40.00) to 1660000 (= 19 days + 5.06.40). The 3.26.14 time of the above video frame + 19 days gives a total of 1654718 second. So this video frame is far on the right (at least a couple of hours) with respect to the vertical arrow which indicate the "Cell dry" time.

    How do you explain this discrepancy?

    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion


    For the life of me, I can not imagine, were Fleischmann alive and healthy today, that he would not mop the floor with the likes of Ascoli,

    Or maybe he would have simply dismissed my remarks on his 1992 test the way Josephson did with respect to the those on the 2011 demo on the Ecat (1).


    Now he is dead, and can no longer defend himself, and the sharks are circling the carcass.

    I find this comparison very unfair. Do you mean that, being dead, it is no longer possible to raise any criticisms about his scientific activity? After all, I've only picked up the JR's invitation to carefully read the CF literature, especially that related to the F&P and the replications of their experiments, and look for any mistakes. I think I've found a crucial one, I described it in the best way I can, and I'm here to answer any comment on the merit of my analysis. Should I deserve to be compared to a shark for this?

    Not sure who you mean by "they", but I saw a 300s scan average, that Ascoli thought was not sufficient to accurately capture the boil-off event as described by FP's. That is only one of the issues he brings up. Most above my head, but little push back.

    Oh no, my issue is different and it is not at all above the head of any person capable to transform an time into seconds, and vice versa.

    Let me explain it once again with reference to the jpeg titled "Misinterpretation of dry-out timing and mechanism" (2). The diagram of Figure 8 shows the temperature trend in the Cell 2 for a period of almost one day. A vertical arrow indicates the time when the cell becomes dry. Then we have a couple of frames of the lab video showing, by means of blue arrows, what was presented as the rapid lowering of the water level inside the cell. So you expect these two moments to occur just before the "Cell dry" arrow on Figure 8, but if you converts the time written on the video frames into the time scale of Figure 8 expressed in elapsed seconds from the beginning (00.00.00) of April 11, 1992 (the starting day of the experiment), and consider that they are taken in the 20th day of testing (*), you will see that those frames refer to a couple of hours after the "Cell dry" arrow.

    Now, start thinking how it is possible that the water level inside the cell drops a couple of hours after the cell has dried out, and you will realize the rest.


    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (*) For example, the frame with the blue arrow indicating the upper level reports the time 3.26.14 on its lower right corner, meaning that it was shot 19 days, 3 hours, 26 minutes, and 14 seconds after the beginning of the experiment, that is 1,654,718 seconds for the elapsed time scale used in Figure 8.

    @ oystla,

    First of all, thank you for your remarks and the link to the Infinite Energy article..

    Then a premise. The only true FACT (in capital letters) that my analysis is proposing to the L-F readers is that F&P were absolutely wrong in estimating the rate of vaporization inside their cells in the boil-off phases of their 1992 experiment. The error they made in estimating a time of about 10 minutes for the vaporization of the last 2.5 Moles of water is enormous (more than one order of magnitude), and led to a huge overestimation of the power output concentrated in this short period, and consequently to their excess heat claims.

    The above FACT is based on some observations and considerations that I exposed on the 8 slides posted in jpeg format. These observations and considerations are based on the paper presented by F&P at ICCF3 (1) - which lacks many information, in particular on page 16 which reports the wrong excess heat calculation - and on a couple of videos found on internet (2-3), containing some frame sequences of the lab video, which show the real behavior of the four cells under testing. Considering the scarcity of these infos, it is possible that some observations or considerations of mine are incorrect. For this reason, all criticisms on the merit are welcome. Meanwhile, I'm quite confident of the correctness of the FACT I'm proposing.

    And now my replies to your remarks.

    1. Water escaped as liquid and not gas is a claim of Yours, not a fact.

    The escaping of water as liquid was described by F&P in one of their first articles (4): "It should also be noted that, although the cell potential initially decreases (in common to the situation for the bursts) there is usually a change to an increase of the potential with time when cells are driven to the boiling point probably due to the loss of electrolyte in spray leaving the cells."

    In any case the F&P error in (1) is not based on the escaping of liquid water, but on the underestimation of the boil-off period.


    Level being foam and not water is a claim of yours, not a fact.

    It's a fact that the 2 video frames at 3:26 and 3:46 with the arrows indicating the level inside the cell have been recorded a couple of hours after the "Cell dry" time indicated on fig.8 (1). What else but foam could you find in a cell a couple of hours after drying?


    Both of these worries of Yours was answerred going to closed cell calorimetry.

    Closed cell calorimetry does not answer my remarks on the open cell experiment we are talking about. Furthermore, Fleischmann continued to focus his activity on the open cell calorimetry.


    2. The videos where made in 1992, and digitized in 2009 (AFAIK)

    Much of the visual quality was likely lost inbetween, so you should not spend much time on these low quality videos now.

    Interesting observation. Have you a reference for what you know? The history of these videos is very important to understand what happened.

    Anyway, as for the quality, that of the 2 videos is more than sufficient to estimate the difference between mostly liquid and mostly void regions: the former are dark while the latter are bright.


    Anyhow: as can be seen in your figure, the excess heat event started allready after 3 days in this particular test, so the extreme conditions at Boiling is just part of the story.

    If you refer to the temperature increase at around 200 ks, it reflects the sudden increase of current from 200 to 500 mA.

    In any case, the extreme conditions at boiling and their alleged consequences in terms of excess heat were exactly the specific subject of the "story" reported in the F&P paper (1).


    Anyhow 2: you claim water loss started earlier than F&P said, but I only see the the paper refer to 1/2 level not statement on initial start of water loss.

    As shown in the expanded fig.8 (1) included in the first jpeg, not only the water loss started several hours before the video frames marked with the arrows, but it also ended a couple of hours in advance, due to the drying-out of the cell.


    3, 4 and 5: . "Having a closer look" at bad quality video is not recommneded.

    As explained the video quality degradert a lot between the tape was recorded and later digitized.

    As said, the quality of the videos is more than sufficient.



    Ascoli: Fleischmann and the CF community where well aware of water and foam entrainment possibility in the steam outlet, as noted in the article Below.

    Thanks. Really interesting article. It clarifies many things and confirms my opinion.

    This article will be particularly appreciated by @kirkshanahan, who will at last find in it an authoritative and first-hand support for the CCS hypothesis, which was asked to influence the results both ways:

    From…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf :

    In the Pons replication experiment, we saw excess heat and by the same token we saw examples of a heat deficit, where the energy appeared to vanish,” explained program manager Naoto Asami, looking back over the work. “We found problems with their calorimeter, and we feel that their entire data set is weak and questionable."

    As for the foam problem, I don't doubt that Fleischmann and many in the CF community were aware of it, but this fact worsens the situation of those who estimated the wrong rate of water vaporization on the basis of the foam level and supported or believed the consequent wrong conclusions.


    They Checked and corrected for any possible wet steam. Still the excess heat where way too large to be explained by carry over.

    As already said, the carry over (or entrainment, or wet steam) issue is not the problem at the basis of the F&P error, i.e. the FACT described in the premise. The real problem is the large overestimation of the vaporization rate due to the large underestimation of the boil-off duration.


    Anyhow, as shown in fig 2 in the paper, a blank experiment where the only difference was using a platinum electrodes never showed any apparent excess heat behaviour.

    Fig.2 does not refer to the boiling conditions. The max. temperature was below 50 °C.


    And this were never explained by the critics claiming it was wet steam droplet carry over that caused apparent excess heat in real tests.

    It happened because none of them have thought the unthinkable, that is that F&P provided a completely wrong duration of the boil-off phase!

    Any other remarks?





    Ascolis arguments are pathologic as nobody makes exact claims for excess-heat for the boil-off phase. Important are the excess-heat claims before the boil off.

    The F&P paper we are talking about (1) begins with this paragraph: "We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd/D2O system which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1kWcm-3) 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."

    So this paper deals with, and ONLY with, the excess heat that should have been produced when the temperature were "close to (or at) the boiling point", i.e. during the boil-off phase.


    Presumably not, and also, since both Fleischman and Lonchhampt found excess heat before reaching Boiling point, your main idea of foam error is an incorrect assumption.

    Anyhow, others using closed cells nullified all possible errors connected to open cell and dry or wet steam, and therefore also confirmed the results of open cell.

    But wait, the other must then have other errors like the famous calibration ghost of Kirkshanahan.

    These are many different arguments. I'm willing to discuss all of them, but following a precise order, and sticking to the facts, one at a time. The foam error - or what else F&P committed in calculating the energy balance at boiling conditions in their major paper (1) reporting their boil-off experiment of 1992 - can't be eluded just by hiding it behind a curtain of smoke.

    IMO, for what I have seen, this first fact is described in the 8 jpegs posted in the previous comments:

    1 - Misinterpretation of dry-out timing and mechanism (FP's experiments discussion )

    2 - Evolution of the water contents inside cell 2 (FP's experiments discussion )

    3 - A closer look at the boil-off phase of cell 2 (FP's experiments discussion )

    4 - Videos reveal the real behavior during boil-off of Cell 1 (FP's experiments discussion )

    5 - The strange case of Cell 4 (and Cell 3) (FP's experiments discussion )

    6 - Vapor volume generation during boil-off (Cell 3) (FP's experiments discussion )

    7 - Axial distribution of water during boil-off (Cell 1) (FP's experiments discussion )

    8 - Axial distribution of water during boil-off (2nd part) (FP's experiments discussion )

    Did you see them? Did you find any major error in them or in the relative posts? Please, let me know. I will appreciate any factual criticisms.

    If you haven't find any major error, do you agree that F&P reported on their ICCF3 paper one of the "most obvious and simple errors" (just to use your previous words)?

    Only if we agree on this first fact, we can try to find an agreement also in the other arguments you mentioned.


    Do you think that it is likely that subsequent confirmatory experiments have the same kind of technical errors as what you describe from your video shots?

    Presumably Lonchampt made the same error, as I already explained at the end of a previous comment (*), but this is not necessarily true for the other replications: there are as many possibilities of error as the parameters involved in the calculation of the energy balance.

    The problem is that rarely the documents reporting these results have information sufficient to understand the cause of the calorimetric errors, and after almost 30 years it's almost impossible to find more information to supplement those presented in the papers.

    In the case of the F&P paper on the 4 cells, we have been particularly lucky to have the 2 YouTube videos published by Krivit in 2009, otherwise it would have been almost impossible to detect the error made by the two authors only on the base of their main documents (the paper presented at ICCF3 in October 1992 (1) and the slightly different article published in May 1993 by Physics Letter A (2)). Moreover, until the Ecat has monopolized the LENR debate, this specific work of F&P was the most celebrated and contested in the CF field, even years and decades after its publication, so that some other additional info can be gathered on the web.

    Anyway, IMO, if these incredible errors are confirmed, they would not only affect the correctness of the results reported in the paper describing that work, but even the reliability of the two authors, so that all the other works confirming the reality of their "extraordinary claims" would lose their meaning.

    (*) FP's experiments discussion