Posts by Ascoli65

    how about that for repeatabilty


    1992 boil-off experiment has been one of the most repeated CF experiment.

    Its behavior and outcome are easily reproducible. You can easily boil off all the liquid, while generating a lot of foam.

    However, the energy balance depends on the correct interpretation of the experimental data. If you confuse liquid water with foam, as done by F&P and others, you can get a lot of apparent but inexistent excess heat.

    But JR keeps repeating that F&P experiments and calculations were irreproachably correct.

    Not the major, and not the best. 😉


    It's the major:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf - Page 14

    The title of his major paper says it all: “From simplicity via complications back to simplicity.”

    (emphasies added)


    It was the only F&P experiment described in the 8 documents selected by the LENR people in 2004 (12 years later!) to be submitted to DOE:

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/g…ent/DOE2004/7Papers.shtml

    Scientific Papers Selected for the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy LENR Review


    M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O System; from simplicity via complications to simplicity," Physics Letters A, 176, (1993)

    (emphasies added)


    And its video is considered the best documented proof that cold fusion is real:

    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

    Regarding having all the information you need, anyone who understands calorimetry and experiments who looks at the graphs from McKubre or the videos from Fleischmann will see all of the proof you need to be sure that cold fusion is real, and that it cannot be a chemical effect.

    (emphasies added)

    FP's experiments discussion

    However, more to the point, you don't need papers. You don't need Fleischmann, Miles or anyone else. You can see for yourself. I mean that literally. Look a good copy of the boil off experiment video and you will see, …

    You can confirm much of this just by looking at the video, …

    (emphasies added)

    FP's experiments discussion

    You can see the proof yourself, right there in the video. You can also see that 30 W of electrolysis does not even boil the water. You can see a great deal, but you refuse to look. There are none so blind . . .


    FP's experiments discussion

    while it produces no electrolysis bubbles from either electrode. You doubt that was the case? LOOK AT THE VIDEO.


    So, LOOK AT THE VIDEO ! You will see bubbles, and a lot of FOAM !


    Therefore, the 1992 boil-off experiment is the major and best documented evidence that F&P were wrong.

    :)

    In November 2016 it is the beginning of Advent.

    Day 27 is red because it is a Sunday, and is on the first column, as in the English calendar.

    The revealing red date is 11, a Friday. You have two national day in the 11th days of a month: February 11 (National Foundation Day) and August 11 (Mountain Day), a recent holiday established since 2014. But Mizuno's shirt suggests iy was summer, and the last Febray 11 which was a Friday happened in 2011.

    I’ll think about that if you explain why it takes 4 times longer to reach a steady state only 2.5 C higher, and the calibration is substantially hotter at the same input power on the way up to 28 C.


    The jpeg below provides a plausible answer to your question and a possible simple explanation for the excess heat claimed for the Mizuno's experiments held in 2016.

    tRjaCNy.jpg

    He probably did say it, but he is a certified nutcase. All vaccine deniers are nutcases, along with flat-earthers and creationists.


    People who deny cold fusion are not all nutcases, but they are all wrong. ...


    … such as confusing power and energy, or input power with noise. Again, I am sure they really do confuse these things.


    And what about confusing foam and liquid water?


    Let's hope that future positive announcements about the efficacy of valid vaccines against SARS-Cov2 are not as much unreliable as those about CF effects!


    You are sharing with us very useful information and reasonable opinions about the Covid-19 situation in USA, Japan, and elsewhere. Thanks for doing it. But, please, don't mix up vaccines and CF. And don't put their deniers on the same level. It's gloomy.

    In fact, it seems he has the same strategy as Rossi, strange because anti Rossi a.......s don't notice this.
    he announced, through his sales representative JedRothwellthat he reached KW.


    Well, the same strategy has been going on going on for 30 years, ever since the first F&P experiments.

    No kWs since then. Only announcements based on misinterpreted artifacts, accompanied by the pressing invitation to replicate these alleged results.

    Nobody in the field noticed it. Did anyone?

    If you have followed this saga you (you could go back to archive material) you will know that Rossi specialises in obtaining false positive results from demos by misusing laws of physics. Of course the physics is Ok, it is just Rossi's interpretation that is broken.


    Actually the false positive results from the Ecat tests were measured and publicly claimed by other people, usually academicians or notorious LENR experts. Rossi is only specialized in exploiting these claims in his campaign to make the people believe that he developed functioning CF devìces.


    The misuse of the laws of physics for interpreting as excess heat any possible mundane error or artifact is not a prerogative of the Ecat saga. This way of doing has accompanied for 30 years the whole CF history, from the pioneering experiments of F&P, the Rossi's inspirers by his own admission, up to the most recent tests of Takahashi and his coworkers.

    Again let me point out that every single expert, at the W.H.O. the CDC and every other agency, says that a vaccine will be developed. They differ only in how long they think it will take. They express no doubts at all that it is possible.


    You say it will not happen. Two questions arise: 1. Why not? 2. Are you such an expert in this subject that you know more than all of these experts at major institutions? Tell us about your qualifications, your research, and the papers you have published.


    As I said before, one of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that the experts in a field are usually right, and people outside the field are wrong. Also, amateurs and random Wikipedia editors are wrong. Cold fusion researchers have been portrayed as mavericks, but they are just the opposite. As Fleischmann said, "we are painfully conventional people."


    With arguments like this, you are destroying even the last hope of developing a vaccine.


    All the best to you and everybody here on LF.

    Thanks for posting this. Many do not realize you frequently communicate (go straight to the source) with the Japanese researchers. Maybe there is a lesson here for skeptics: ask first before inserting foot in mouth?


    Yes, it does appear from your post that Takahashi and team, did in fact take into consideration all possibilities before concluding AHE. Including the hot debate item introduced by Ascoli in this thread.


    What does appear from the Takahashi et al. paper "Repeated Calcination and AHE by PNZ6 Sample" (1) is that they were, as obviously expected, well aware that water may form inside their reactor: "If the heat generation by PNZ6 at RT is from reduction of calcined sample (namely from formation of D2O water by D2 + O reactions), …".


    To see who put their feet in other's mouth, please just look at the reactions to the comment (*) in which I suggested this possibility as a simple explanation for the behavior of some temperature curves.


    (1) https://www.researchgate.net/p…on_and_AHE_by_PNZ6_Sample

    (*) Takahashi: Enhancement of Excess Thermal Power in Interaction of Nano-Metal and H(D)-Gas

    It's perhaps germane to note that when Matt Trevithick approached the forum to ask for suggestions about which experiment the LF forum community would most like to see performed, many people sincerely tried to answer what was a very difficult question. Ascoli repeatedly and disingenuously proposed a (to my understanding) - somewhat marginal - experiment, specifically because he thought it was likely to fail, prove that LENR wasn't real and thus dissuade Google from further research in the area. Quite aside from the fact that a single negative experiment doesn't prove anything about whether LENR is real or not, Ascoli was disingenuous about why he was suggesting the experiment. He presented the experiment as a good candidate for replication according to the criteria that were being discussed, rather than outlining his motive for advocating for the experiment. It was only later that his reasoning became clear. He repeatedly dragged the thread off-topic, and if my memory serves correctly, continued to advocate for the experiment even after he was asked, more than once, to desist.


    Your reconstruction of the facts is not correct. I've not been disingeuous.


    Being aware of the intent of Team Google, I refrained from intervening in the thread until a comment appeared in which:

    THHuxleynew wrote:

    One way to answer this question that might help people is this:


    What is the experiment that, if replicated negative, would most convince you that LENR was not real.


    This proposal was clearly aimed at solving the "Cold Fusion cold case", as defined in the title of the article in Nature authored by Trevithick et al., by demonstrating its unreality by performing a suitable and meaningful experiment.


    Only at that point, I posted my first comment in that thread (*), explicitly endorsing the aim of THH's proposal and suggesting to replicate the "1992 boil-off experiment" of F&P. Not at all a "marginal" experiment, as you have defined it, but the most important and best documented experiment which was published by the two founders of CF.


    Quote

    It was incredibly frustrating to read his contributions to the thread, because it was repeatedly pointed out to him that his chosen experiment was a bad candidate for a number of reasons. Ascoli persisted because, as became clear later, he wasn't thinking about the question the same way others were. He was pushing for an experiment he thought would fail, and so the technical challenges inherent in the experiment were of no consequence to him.


    No reason to be frustrated. I just proposed to repeat the most classic of the F&P tests, that was also included among those proposed by JR (1).


    I still hope that Team Google will eventually follow my suggestion and will solve the CF cold case, as it was its commitment to the scientific community.


    (*) Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

    (1) Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

    No, this is not rational. It is impossible. There is no liquid in the powder. Nothing to dry off. They spend days heating it high temperatures in air, and then in a vacuum, to ensure there is no liquid, and no oxygen.


    But there is bound oxygen in the powder put inside the reactor chamber, as stated by Takahashi and coauthors in their presentation to JCF20. This oxygen is bound to the metal atoms of the PNZ (or CNZ) powder, as well as to the Zr atoms of the zirconia beads, by forming oxides. I don't think that this bound oxygen can be removed from the PNZ powder by the treatment you mentioned. So, IMO, it is still there when the H (or D) gas is introduced at high pressure in the RC, causing the metals to be reduced as explained in the already cited paper from Edar & Kramer (1), so causing the formation of water inside the RC.


    This hypothesis doesn't seem so irrational to me. Maybe this jpeg could help in summarizing its basis.

    T8wfwFH.jpg


    (1) https://www.uni-muenster.de/im…/eder/papers/b109887j.pdf

    In the conclusions of the paper presented at JCF-20 it is stated ;-


    'Excess thermal power reached at the level of 200 W/kg-sample continuing for several weeks or more, by the elevated temperature interaction of either D-gas or H-gas and Ni-based binary nano-composite powders supported in zirconia flakes.'


    IMO, these conclusions are highly disputable, as the rest of the paper. There is no reason to assume the production of any power in excess with respect to conventional sources.


    Quote

    I think that heat output, in a very low pressure D2 environment goes beyond the modest effects recorded in Ascoli65's link :- https://www.uni-muenster.de/im…/eder/papers/b109887j.pdf Effects which were produced in experiments specifically designed to trigger oxidation/reduction effects and involved 'flowing hydrogen' at (presumably) BarG.


    The tests at Kobe University were run exactly at this range of pressure. See Tables 1 and 2 of Takahashi's paper: 0.5 MPa corresponds to 5 bar.


    So, the introduction of hydrogen inside the reactor chamber could have generated around 20 g of water by reduction of the metal oxides formed during the calcination process. This mass of water is enough to explain the behavior of temperatures recorded during the heat up phase of the test runs.

    Ascoli's claim that the powder is wet is wrong for the following reasons:


    1. There are several papers about the powder gas loading technique, by Takahashi, Arata and others. None of them says there is water in the powder.


    In the case of the last Takahashi's paper under discussion the problem (a big one) is for the authors of that work, not mine.


    Quote

    2. The powder is calcined for 180 hours in an electric oven, in ambient air, at 450 deg C. (p. 2) "Calcined" means "to heat (something, such as inorganic materials) to a high temperature but without fusing in order to drive off volatile matter or to effect changes (such as oxidation or pulverization)." The whole point is to eliminate any water or other volatile material.


    But, as just reported in my previous comment and by admission of Takahashi et al., re-calcination has the effect to heavily oxidize the powder, increasing its weight of about 5%, due to the extra oxygen tied to the metal atoms of the powder.


    Quote

    3. The powder is then baked at 450 deg C under vacuum "to meet the final RC pressure of less than 1 Pa." (p. 2) If there were liquid left in it, it would not fall to such low pressure.


    The liquid water presumably forms after this step, ie at the beginning of the elevated temperature (ET) runs, when H (or D) is introduced in the reactor chamber (RC) and reduces the heavily oxidized metal powder. This water remains trapped inside the volumes of RC and connected pipes during all the #M-N runs with M=1 (ie those performed after the first baking), being reabsorbed as liquid during the weekend suspensions of the ET runs. This water can be eliminated only by a second baking, provided that it is performed under evacuation condition, as it was done during the CNZ sequence presented at JCF20 (see page 22 of (1)). This is probably the reason why the TC4 plateau disappeared from the CNZ7rr#2-2 run (see page 34 of (1)), while it was present in the CNZ7rr#1-2 run (see page 31 of (1))


    Quote

    4. The cells are sealed, and run at high temperatures. If there were water in them, it would vaporize and probably fracture the cell. The pressure is measured in this and other experiments. It does not rise.


    I didn't see any pressure graph in the last Takahashi's paper or in the corresponding JCF20 presentation.


    Some pressure graphs are included in the ICCF22 presentation (2). The graph at page 16 shows that the reactor pressure (Pr) spikes at the end of the TC4 plateau. At that point, Pr drops and the storage tank (ST) pressure (Ps) suddenly rises from 0.3 to 0.5 MPa, probably due to an emergency opening of the valve located between the RC and the ST (see page 6 of (2)).


    (1) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas (JCF20 presentation)

    (2) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas (ICCF22 presentation)

    Where on earth did you get the idea that the powder is wet? Wet with what?!?


    There are many clues suggesting that the powder is wet.


    1st clue – The plateau along the TC4 curves is more than a clue, it's a strong evidence that a pure substance is involved in the process, as well known to any chemist or physicist, and even to high-school students.

    From https://sites.google.com/site/…rint%2F&showPrintDialog=1


    Pure substances have fixed melting points

    element%20particles10.png




    2nd clue – The substance presents in the reactor chamber (RC), whose boiling determines the TC4 heating plateau, is water (or heavy water), of course! The confirmation comes from the values of the boiling point in the PNZ and CNZ tests, whose initial gas fill pressures were 0.468 and 0.564 MPa respectively (see Table 1 and 2 of paper (1)). The TC4 temperature for a PNZ test was about 136.92 °C (see the bottom left graph on Figure 1 of paper (1)), while it was about 149.62 °C for a CNZ test (see the bottom left graph on page 36 of the presentation (2)). These values are in good agreement with the boiling points of water at those pressures.


    3rd clue – The presence of water inside the RC could be easily explained as the consequence of the reduction of oxides: This fact is well known, for instance, by those who work with zirconia (ZrO2):

    From https://www.uni-muenster.de/im…/eder/papers/b109887j.pdf


    The stoichiometry of hydrogen reduced zirconia and its influence on catalytic activity


    Reduction of zirconia with flowing dry hydrogen leads to the adsorption of hydrogen and to the formation of oxygen vacancies. The number of vacancies increases with increasing treatment temperature, with increasing hydrogen flow rate and with increasing treatment time. The presence of water vapour in the reducing hydrogen causes the number of oxygen vacancies to decrease, presumably due to an equilibrium shift according to the equation: Zr4++O2+H2 -> H2O+VO+Zr3++e.


    4th clue – As a consequence of the re-calcination treatment, the initial charge PNZ (or CNZ) powder inside the RC is heavily oxidized. The weight of powder increases of 4.87% due to the oxidation caused by the calcination process (see page 5 of the presentation (2)). Considering that the PNZ net weight in the RC is 438 g, an oxigen mass of 21.3 g is tied to the metals of the fine powder, whose complete reduction could form up to 24 g of water.


    5th clue – This water mass is in agreement with the duration of a typical TC4 plateau. In the first PNZ test, for example, it lasts about 25 minutes (see Figure 2 of paper (1)). Assuming that the lower temperature of the boiling water drains about 10% of the total heating power (140+95 W), the available heat would be 35,250 J (= 23.5 W * 1500 s). This energy is sufficient to vaporize 16 g of water, considering that the latent heat of evaporation of water at 140°C is about 2160 J/g.


    (1) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas (JCF20 paper)

    (2) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas (JCF20 presentation)

    The calorimeter in this paper shows variations in the start-up of the reaction. Figure 1 top left shows the heat increasing as the temperature reaches 300 deg C.


    The increase in the heating rate measured at about t=9:35 by RTD1 and RTD2 is easily explained by the drying off of the PNZ powder at the lower levels of the reactor chamber (RC). No need to invoke any anomalous heating due to an imaginary nuclear reaction triggered at whatsoever temperature level.


    At the beginning of the test, the powder is very wet, so the heating rate is slower. As temperature rises above the boiling point, the water evaporates starting from the bottom of the RC, where the cartridge heater is located. Subsequently, the dry powder heats at a higher rate.


    The strong initial wetness of the metal powder can also easily explain the flattening of the TC4 curve starting from about t=10:00. Note that 140 °C is close to the saturation temperature of water at the pressure of the gas inside the RC.

    We discussed it last summer. Most likely its magnetic cooling either from H*-H* going back to H-H what can be a strong kinetic reaction or from an other nuclear magnetic moment taking over energy.


    This effect is nothing new as said. We did see it also but in dense powder the delta T is much smaller than in a gaseous atmosphere.


    The only point that can be discussed is whether the event causes an induced current in the TC or directly cools down the end of the pipe.


    So you turned about one ton of kerosene into CO2 just to discuss with Takahashi how attributing his TC4 temperature fluctuations, which can be easily explained as ordinary cooling events caused by air conditioning of his lab at Kobe Univ., to weird magnetic cooling phenomena involving mysterious H* atoms. Very cool indeed!


    Anyway, as reported by RobertBryant (1), Takahashi said that "it is a silly idea if people are imaging non-exising air-conditioning of Kobe U MHE facility. The MHE cabin is precisely air-conditioned by Spindol AC to be 25 plus minus 0.1 deg C". You did report instead that "No fan is even close to the reactor...." (2). Who is wrong?


    Quote

    I completely understand when lost people like Ascoli need a Vodka to understand the weird phenomena of LENR....


    Maybe you are right on this point.

    Tell me how many bottles are needed to start feeling excess heat and seeing asterisks everywhere!


    (1) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

    (2) The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme