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

Posts by Ascoli65

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

    Quote from can

    To be fair, I wouldn't be able to tell just by looking at the temperature graph alone that the cell dried up at the indicated point.

    In their Simplicity Paper, F&P claimed that they identified the instant of the cell dryness by looking at the lab video.


    In my opinion, they made a huge error as explained for instance in this jpeg (1a) and in the related post (1b).


    (1a) https://imgur.com/a/ECW5yES

    (1b) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

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

    Quote from can

    Here's the entire video. I also added another from yesterday's crude tests showing a lower amount of foam before adding more K2CO3 electrolyte:


    https://imgur.com/a/VcyE4Ko


    Note that the electrolyte solution in these videos was already hot.

    Your video shows that during the foaming phase the contents in the jar splits into two well distinct layers, transparent liquid at the bottom and white opaque foam above it.


    Despite all the differences with respect to the original F&P experiment, this stratification looks like the one shown by the "1992 boil off" videos as described in this jpeg (1a), explained here (1b). The limit of the liquid transparent layer, marked by a red dotted line, is quite clear, and the fluid above behaves as the foam of your video.


    The main differences, besides the fact that your jar didn't get dry, is the diameter. It probably influences the level reached by the foam and the velocity of its settling down.


    I wonder if you can repeat the experiment with a much narrower glass jar, as close as possible to the 25 mm of diameter used by F&P.


    In any case thank you again for your contribution.


    (1a) https://imgur.com/a/q7QpRF5

    (1b) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

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

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    When will the critics here explain heh 3 hours after evaporation heat production???

    The 3 hours after evaporation don't exist. They come from a mistake made by F&P in positioning the "Cell dry" vertical arrow in Fig.8 of their Simplicity paper. The explanation was given in my comments (1-2-3) linked to this reply to you: RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

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

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Ascoli - I block W because he introduces too much noise! Contradicting the clear errors does not help - he just ignores contrary evidence and repeats them. I am very slow to do such a thing: but I have found it very helpful.

    I haven't blocked anyone. I consider the reactions to my comments as one of the more interesting aspect of this thread from a socio-psychological point of view.


    As for W., he has a singular ability to make a fool of himself.

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

    About the foam/microbubble issue.


    The experimental results provided by can are really very interesting and could provide a definitive insight on the size composition of the foam inside the cell.


    But let me insist on this video (1). I know, the whole video is only popular junk and I understand looking at videos is boring, but in this case the images shown starting from t=00:27 are really revealing.


    As reported on the initial frames, they come from a not identified archive and span from 1989 to 1992. Therefore in 2012, when the video was prepared (one year after of the Rossi exploit, who is also shown in this video) there still was somewhere an archive containing several unpublished videos of the F&P experiments. There is no reason to think that in the meanwhile this archive was lost. So it still exists and maybe it contains the entire time-lapse video recording of the "1992 boil off" experiment.


    The other important thing is the structure of the foam shown around t=00:44. You can see large bubbles traveling through a thick layer of small bubbles, this is the most probable bubble structure which filled the cells during the final boil-off periods. The thick layer of small bubbles formed in the previous period as shown at t=00:33 when the boiling was less intense and the liquid layer was much higher. In the last part of the boiling off the larger steam bubbles inflate the preexisting thick foam layer made by electrolysis microbubbles and smaller vapor bubbles, so pushing up the apparent upper level of the cell contents as shown and explained here (2a-2b).


    At t=00:38, the video clip shows two people who are attentively watching at this bubbling cell. One of them resembles Martin Fleischmann the other is a Japanese gentleman.


    At t=00:55 the video clip shows a dried cell full of deposited salt and a date June 23, 1992, one and half month after the conclusion of the "1992 boil off" experiment.


    The timing of these video clips are shown and described here (3a-3b). They are compatible with a short quick demo, probably held at a higher current than the original experiment of April-May, carried out from F&P to show the behavior of their cell to their Japanese guest.


    Is it the close-up video which was mentioned by JR in his "Review of the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons" (4) and cited in the title of this thread? I asked him (5), but he has not yet answered. In any case, it shows a F&P cell full of foam and 2 people looking attentively at it.


    (To be continued for the HAD stuff)


    (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OQu44UIC_s

    (2a) https://imgur.com/a/q7QpRF5

    (2b) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    (3a) https://imgur.com/9ZIgaNK

    (3b) RE: FP's experiments discussion

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

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

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

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Did anybody (of our clowns) read the original paper in electro analytical Chemistry 1990 287, p293?


    OR even better the paper in ICCF3? that shows the graph (fig.8) of extended >3 hours heat production after cell is dry?

    Wyttenbach, the clown is you.


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

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

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

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

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Don't add me to "our" here.

    In my phrase you quoted ("and only later discuss the implications of our conclusion on the LENR field"), the word "our" doesn't mean me and you (THH), it was referring to my previous phrase "I hoped that the recent concrete initiatives of Rob and can had convinced you that it was worth to cooperate all together to reach an indisputable results on the foam issue", so I meant to include everyone, from skeptics to believers, who would like to come to a common conclusion on the foam issue.


    Also, I mentioned possible implication on the LENR field, not on the LENR reality. I think that the acceptance of the evidence that F&P were wrong in their major work will inevitably have huge consequence on how the legitimate research on LENR will chose its reference arguments. The F&P's mistakes doesn't per se deny the existence of such a hypothetical phenomenon. The burden of proving or denying the LENR reality is left to the usual scientific practice of confirming a phenomenon by replicating it at will.

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

    Quote from Curbina

    The forum users are free to block comments from users they personally dislike. I don't encourage it, nor endorse it, and personally don't ever do it, but can't preclude users of doing it.

    RB is free to block whoever he want, but in this case he chose to block the only two users which are proposing and defending one side of the ongoing discussion. Your reply to his post (1), and your reaction to his admission (2) that he is posting here not even knowing the argument of the users he is criticizing are an implicit acceptance of his trolling behavior, and encourage him to continue to post here his repetitive and showy comments. Is this the last resource you have to contrast my arguments?


    In case, it's a pity because, I hoped that the recent concrete initiatives of Rob and can had convinced you that it was worth to cooperate all together to reach an indisputable results on the foam issue (3).


    Quote

    From the moment that you have pretended that the errors you think were made by F&P invalidate the whole field of LENR research, we are forced to remind you that the field is well alive, and kicking.

    Actually, the strict relationship between the results of F&P and the reality of LENR phenomena has been asserted since long by JR, last time here (4): "Whereas a close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons cell showed that the cathode was producing heat, the anode was not, and the bubbles were all from boiling, which was definitive proof of anomalous excess heat."


    But, I think it would be better for the moment to find a common agreement on the much easier goal of ascertain whether the two conclusive claims in the F&P's Simplicity Paper are correct or not, and only later discuss the implications of our conclusion on the LENR field.


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

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

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

    (4) RE: MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

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

    Quote from Curbina

    Another result that Ascoli65 will simply ignore. He is determined to ignore anything that proves that his imaginary proof that F&P were wrong is in an on itself, wrong.

    No, I haven't ignored it (1). It's an old workhorse of RB, who is participating to this thread bragging about ignoring the comments of those he wants to criticize. A typical troll behavior, which, despite your role as a moderator, you are praising and encouraging. But that's ok, because it reveals a lot about psychological reaction of people realizing their inability to oppose criticisms for lack of valid counter-argument.


    Anyway, your logic is at least bizarre. The specific errors made by F&P in their 1992 Simplicity Paper can't be eliminated by any other alleged positive results claimed by anyone else.


    (1) RE: FP's experiments discussion

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

    Quote from Rob

    As part of my video project, I'm hoping to recreate the boil-off experiment and get a much better video documentation of it (4k, two cameras). I'm not doing the experiment itself because I'm not a scientist, so I'm partnering with someone who is qualified. If anyone here wants to produce a bullet list of requests for this experiment, I'd find it helpful and be happy to report back how much of it we can do.

    Three years ago, I proposed the LF community to select the F&P "1992 boil off" experiment as the highest priority experiment to be suggested to Team Google for replication (1), but my proposal didn't get through. Now, your intent is interesting, but I fear it doesn't have the resource, nor will have the notoriety of the Google initiative. Anyway, I wish you good luck.


    However, consider that, even if you will show a lot of foam emerging from the electrolyte, somebody will probably object that your "heavy water can be contaminated with surfactants" (2) or that you have not carefully degreased everything (3).


    My suggestion. Before engaging in a new demanding replication of the "1992 boil off" experiment, you should carefully examine the old one, especially the two lab videos (4-5). You are a video maker, probably you have the instrument and the skill to analyze these videos and possibly estimate the volume occupied by the foam. This would provide a further element to judge the correctness of the F&P conclusions.


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

    (2) http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf

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

    (4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434

    (5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

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

    Quote from Curbina

    Your criticisms are irrelevant after 33 years of experimental evidence that support that F&P were right.

    They are irrelevant for you, but they are absolutely relevant for the discussion in this thread whose argument refers to the F&P boil off experiment and the related videos. Anyway, luckily for you, you are not obliged to follow this thread and read its irrelevant comments.


    BTW, F&P were wrong in writing both the conclusions of their Simplicity Paper, the most important and mentioned document in the history of CF.

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

    Quote from RobertBryant

    1992 once upon a time.. Morrison F&P

    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

    My criticisms of the Simplicity Paper are different from those raised by Morrison, because they are based on the accurate examination of the available versions of the lab videos of the "1992 boil off" experiment, which have been published on YouTube in 2009 and 2012.


    My criticisms have not yet been rebutted (in the merit) by anyone here on LF.

    Morrison didn’t have the opportunity to accurately examine the lab video. He raised his criticisms in 1993, shortly after the publication on PLA of a slightly different version of the Simplicity Paper reporting the results of the "1992 boil off" experiment. His criticisms were not entirely correct, because he got the chance to watch the lab video only once during his participation to ICCF3 in Nagoya.

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

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Except that in this case many other people have used boil-off calorimetry in various experiments, including me, in Japan in an unrelated cold fusion experiment. (We also measured the remaining electrolyte on the weight scale, after stopping the boiling when about half was boiled out, so I am sure it worked.)

    Except that in this case we are talking about the F&P "1992 boil off" experiment and the errors contained in their Simplicity Paper. What was done by "many other people" doesn't eliminate these errors.


    Quote

    People have been doing this for 200 years. There is no doubt it works.

    No doubts that a correct calorimetry works, but the calorimetry of F&P for the "1992 boil off" experiment is not correct.


    Quote

    You or Ascoli could try it yourself and confirm that, but of could you never will.

    As I already told you, I'll not try. We already have two videos which show what happened in the F&P "1992 boil off" experiment, which is the argument of this discussion, not my trials.


    Quote

    I will grant, it is not the most precise method of doing calorimetry, but your assertion is that people cannot tell the difference between watching 45 g of heavy water boil away and watching 11 g boil away. It is the difference between the water level falling halfway down the test tube, and barely changing at all.

    No, my assertion is that the "1992 boil off" videos show that during the final boil off period the cell contents were mostly foam, but F&P considered the density of liquid water in their calculation of the enthalpy output. Therefore F&P were wrong. Videos indisputably show that what is falling in the final boil off phase is the foam level, not the liquid one.


    Quote

    No matter how much foam there is, anyone could see a difference as large as that.

    In the case of the "1992 boil off" experiment, F&P didn't even mention the foam in their Simplicity Paper. They simply ignored the presence of foam in their cells. They have been wrong.

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

    OK, I think we have completed our evaluation of the conclusions contained in F&P's Simplicity Paper, that we started a dozen days ago (1). I hope we now agree that both conclusions of this crucial report are wrong, since the lab time-lapse videos clearly show that:


    (a) F&P calculated the claimed x4 excess heat in the wrong way, ignoring the presence of foam in the cells;


    (b) F&P misplaced the "Cell dry" instant in Fig.8, thus deducing a non-existent phenomenon, later called HAD.


    Next questions are: How could these errors have occurred? How could these errors have been ignored by the CF/LENR community for about 30 years? Why has the evidence of these errors been rejected for almost 4 years, and even now opposed, by almost everyone here on LF?


    Well, I think that Rob psychological analysis (2) provides a good approach to find the answers. Just change the names.


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

    (2) RE: ERAB panel & evidence denial

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

    Sorry, I've just realized that I've linked the wrong addresses (2) and (3) in my previous posts:

    Post
    RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
    […]

    Thanks Shane, very interesting article.

    This is its only excerpt which relates to the topic of this thread:
    […]


    The Fire From Water documentary is available on YouTube (1), and the mentioned video footage starts at 24:39 and lasts 5 seconds, while MF says in background: "By 1992 we had video recording of intense energy release." Guess where the footage come from.

    Aren't you curious to see by yourself "why the scientists involved immediately assumed some kind of nuclear reaction was taking…
    Ascoli65


    I've corrected them.

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

    Quote from Curbina

    Ascoli65 its fun you post that documentary, a minute or so before the time stamp you highlight, one of the interviewees states that he was told he was trying to challenge the paradigm and that’s why he was shut off.

    Why is it fun? The entire documentary is interesting to me, not only the interview you have mentioned. However, you have to distinguish between facts and words. The first are more meaningful than the latter. The video belong to facts and the interview to words.


    It's much more fun to me that, in quoting the SFGATE article in a thread whose title speaks about videos, Shane D. skipped the only part which refers to the "1992 boil off " video and jumped directly to the Passel's sayings.

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

    Quote from Shane D.

    The War Against Cold Fusion / What's really behind it? (sfgate.com)

    Thanks Shane, very interesting article.


    This is its only excerpt which relates to the topic of this thread:

    Quote from https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/The-War-Against-Cold-Fusion-What-s-really-2930433.php

    "Since then, with funding from futurist Arthur C. Clarke, Mallove has been publishing Infinite Energy magazine, a publication devoted to spreading news about cold fusion experiments. Last month, Mallove released Fire From Water, a video documentary about cold fusion. Mallove is currently negotiating with several national networks interested in broadcasting the newly released video.

    There are several incredible moments in Fire From Water. It contains, for example, the first video footage I've seen of sustained energy releases in cold fusion cells. It's easy to see why the scientists involved immediately assumed some kind of nuclear reaction was taking place. If it's a parlor trick, as some critics contend, it's one of the best I've seen.

    The cells bubble with energy, looking like what you get when you poke a hot iron into a jar of water. But the water does not extinguish the heat. Instead, the cells bubble on and on, emitting steam, in amounts far greater than can be explained by the energy put into them. In some cases, the reactions go on for days, even weeks."


    The Fire From Water documentary is available on YouTube (1), and the mentioned video footage starts at 24:39 and lasts 5 seconds, while MF says in background: "By 1992 we had video recording of intense energy release." Guess where the footage come from.


    Aren't you curious to see by yourself "why the scientists involved immediately assumed some kind of nuclear reaction was taking place"? Plotkin, the author of the SFGATE article, said it is easy.


    Well, the footage in Fire From Water shows the Cell1 boiling in the elapsed period from 21:25:58 to 21:35:58, which is comprised between frames 3 and 4 in this jpeg (2), already published and explained ten days ago (3).


    As highlighted in the jpeg, the "1992 boil off" videos show that in the period between frame 3 to frame 4, which starts 1 hour before the end of the final boil off event identified by F&P, the upper part of the cell is already filled with foam. We can be sure that it is foam also because the level inside the cell increases during that period! It can't be liquid water. Nobody poured water during those 35 minutes. The level rises due to the increasingly large bubbles produced during that period which push up a thick layer of foam formed in several hours of cell boiling.


    Plotkin also noticed that "the water does not extinguish the heat". Of course it doesn't. At the time of the footage he saw, the water was at the boiling point and the input power was increasing more and more due to the increase of cell potential. Then he added: "the cells bubble on and on, emitting steam, in amounts far greater than can be explained by the energy put into them". Not true, the cell was boiling in accordance to the electric energy dissipated into it.


    The mentioned video footage doesn't show any excess heat. This article only confirms that the "1992 boil off" experiment is the only evidence of the F&P claims. But it is wrong.


    (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hsf7fYNlXQ

    (2) https://imgur.com/a/q7QpRF5

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