The errors you think you found in the boil off experiments are entirely in your imagination. No one else agrees with you.
You are wrong. Others have recognized that the available videos of the boil-off experiment demonstrate that the excess heat claimed by F&P was only due to a wrong interpretation of what happened inside the cells, as explained in this post (emphasis added):
RE: FP's experiments discussion […] 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. 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. 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. 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. For ease of finding them again, here are links to the video and the paper. (It is hard to get much out of stills. You need to run the video to see how the levels are changing.) |
This only lists 8 of the papers.
In 2004, DoE required that, in addition to a short written report, only a limited list of 6 selected CF papers should have been submitted for the review process. The F&P paper on boil-off experiment was the first paper in this list, apart the written report, so it was considered, by the most representative CF members which selected this very restricted list, the most meaningful and best described CF report issued in the previous 15 years. It follows that all the other documents published until 2004 were deemed to be less important than the F&P's "Simplicity Paper".
QuoteIf you cannot find an error in these papers, that means cold fusion is real.
No, it just means that the information provided in these papers is not sufficient to recognize the artifacts on which the author's claims are based. Thanks to the available videos, the 1992 boil-off experiment is instead the only one which allows us to see exactly what was saw by the experimenters, so that we can judge the correctness of their interpretation..
QuoteYou have the delusion that you found an error in the paper by F&P. You have an even weirder delusion that by finding an error in one paper, that magically disqualifies many others papers, by other authors, about other experiments. Including unrelated experiments with tritium. You think there is some magic hierarchy of papers such that when one at the bottom is wrong, the others above it fall like a house of cards. That is absurd.
Your obstinacy to negate such blatant errors as those present in the F&P's paper is the best confirmation that whatever incongruity is present in any other CF document it will be overlooked by you and by all the others CF experts which don't recognize this same F&P's error.
QuoteThat is like saying that a recall defect in a Ford magically makes all other cars by Toyota and GM defective.
Please, don’t mix up working and not working things.