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

Posts by Ascoli65

    Which do you prefer as your title? for the abstract writeup?

    Ascoli65 PhD (AF) ? or Ascoli65 (Anon) Frothologist?


    Frottologist is OK.

    Anyway, my abstract, chapters and conclusions are already written in this forum. Now it is the turn of the LENR specialists to explain the "foam issue" to the world.


    In 1992, in Nagoya, around 300 people had the opportunity to see the F&P videos and become the first witnesses of the immense power of the foam.

    iccf3-group-photo-e1538052342869-768x584.jpg


    For some of them, the F&P foam provided the job of a whole professional career. A pleasant job, travelling the world claiming to be its savior (1):

    "After almost 30 years of studying seemingly anomalous nuclear effects in metal hydride systems what can we say that we have learned with high-level confidence? For some of us it has been a nearly full- time journey; for a rare few nearly fully-funded. After this time and effort what is it that we can assert and defend about our new knowledge of nuclear reactions in condensed matter? These questions are subjective and I will focus my answers on what I have learned by direct experiment and analysis, and from the experience of a few close colleagues – mostly ENEA (Italy), Energetics (Israel), MIT and various Navy Labs around the US."


    Well, after this time and effort what is it that they can assert and defend about the "foam issue" in the F&P experiments?

    Quote

    Perhaps you can humbly share a cappucino with Researchers Celani and Violante


    They should rather share a cappuccino knot among themselves. By combining their know-how, the inventor of the knotting technique for nuclear reaction enhancement and the maker of the world's best LENR wires can produce the most performing device in the history of LENR. It would be a great revenge for the Italian scientific Institutes that have paid their work (and their travels) for decades and a big relief for all Italian citizens who think that these Institutes have wasted a lot of public money.


    Quote

    La santa umiltà confonde l'orgoglio e tutti gli uomini di questo mondo e tutte le cose che sono nel mondo. Francesco d'Assisi


    "I don't know whether you have done your calculations but, about two or three years back, I did a first assessment of what the first successful device would be worth and it came out at about 300 trillion dollars." Martin Fleischmann


    Quote


    Regarding the photo you posted, I wonder what your next argument in support of the CF will be.


    (1) http://coldfusioncommunity.net/iccf-21/videos/mckubre/

    The 1998 report , by your compatriots Daniele Gozzi et al.http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GozziDxrayheatex.pdf

    is at least six years younger than the grainy video

    you are using as the basis for your Lake Bled presentation.


    The grainy video, as you called it, has been published on the web in order to accompany the video "Introduction to Cold Fusion" in order "to shows the dramatic heat effect of the cold fusion reaction on the water fuel" (1).


    If its quality was deemed sufficient to show an inexistent nuclear phenomenon, it is for sure more than sufficient to see the foam, a lot of foam, that really filled the cells.


    As for the ICCF2, this is the last location announced.

    From https://www.infinite-energy.co…azine/issue141/ICCF21.pdf

    ICCF22

    The chairman and location, and sometimes the dates of the next conference, are decided at each ICCF by the International Advisory Committee (IAC). That group is made up of the past Chairmen and Co-Chairmen of a conference in this series. The IAC met on the evening of June 6 to consider a proposal from Bill Collis to hold ICCF22 at Lake Bled in Slovenia in the fall of 2019. That proposal was accepted. Subsequently, Bill Collis determined that the conference could be held in Assisi, Italy, at a more favorable cost. The IAC concurred with this possibility. So, ICCF22 is slated to occur in the center of Assisi during September 8-13, 2019. The location will be the Hotel Domus Pacis.


    If you want to listen the "intellectually honest" explications of the "foam issue" that you are invoking and that will be certainly provided by the CF experts, be careful, book for the right destination. You will also have the opportunity to learn by ancient experts and modern scientists how to weave electric wires in order to enhance nuclear reactions in them.


    (1) https://coldfusionnow.org/flei…roduction-to-cold-fusion/

    Cold Frotthology (CF) dans la Côte d'Azur


    Do alkali metal hydroxide solutions boil and FOAM?


    Yes, the electrolyte solutions used in the F&P cells boil and make FOAM, a lot of, as shown by the available documentation.


    If you want a demonstration, please look attentively at the previous jpeg (*) and read carefully its explanation (**).


    (*) FP's experiments discussion

    (**) FP's experiments discussion


    Quote

    Attributing Lipid Transfer Protein 1 to Fleischmann and Pons is Ascoli Frothology


    If, instead, you are more interested in satire rather than seriously debating the foam issue, you can enjoy this jpeg.


    EvWzG1P.jpg


    The Ascoli Frothology (AF effect) impact on Italian CF research

    Ascoli will share a cappuccino with Daniele Gozzi in the piazza cafe

    and sympathetically enlighten him how the " AF effect" negates

    1. The confirmation of F&P excess heat

    ...


    CF has spread all over the world and, unfortunately, it took solid root in Italy. We like frothy cappuccinos and bier.


    But the report you mentioned is too old. The last achievement of the Italian research on CF integrates perfectly this foamy tradition, with an even older tradition which goes back to the habit of the Franciscan friars, "i frati Cappuccini". This name comes from their hooded headgear (cappuccio) and, in turn, the name of today's hot drink comes from the color of their poor habits (1).


    It seems that the next ICCF22 will be celebrated in Assisi, in an hotel managed by the Franciscans. Maybe the fate of the CF is to finish where it began, that is in the foam. In this case, that of warm cappuccinos served by Capuchins wearing their ropes made of capuchin knots, the last and only remedy to get some holy excess heat (2).


    (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Friars_Minor_Capuchin

    (2) https://www.researchgate.net/p…ower_at_high_temperatures

    Another fatal error in the Ascoli analysis:


    Of the input electrical energy he assumes 10 watt lost as heat, which is approximately correct, BUT then he assumes the remaining is available for vaporization.


    However, this is not correct, a large portion (60% + increasing with temperature) goes into splitting of the water molecules to H2 and O2, and therefore less available to heat.


    Are you saying that the most talented electrochemists of the last century did such a silly mistake in their calculation at page 16 of their ICCF3 paper (1)?


    They were sloppy, but not so much. In their calculation, the input power available for vaporization was 26.5 W, that is 171 W (enthalpy of vaporization) minus 144.5 W (presumed excess heat). It also coincides to 37.5 (enthalpy input) minus 11 W (enthalpy losses to ambient), ie all the input power beyond the losses to the ambient was considered by F&P as available for vaporization.


    The portion which goes into the splitting of water molecules to H2 and O2 was already accounted by the 1.54 V term shown in the first equation, which F&P called Ethermoneutral in equation [1] at page 3. Therefore, it is a minor portion of the input power since the beginning of the test and its percentage decreases as the Vcell increases.


    In consequence, your "Calculations of Excess Heat - Part 1 and 2" (2,3) are completely wrong.


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    The temperature increase may come from a change in the electrolyte concentration, as has been noted before.


    The temperature increase involves several but more elementary mechanisms.


    The first mechanism simply occurs when the input power is greater than the heat loss. This is the reason of four daily Tcell increases shown in the diagram in Figure 1 of the PLA article (1). Each daily increase tends to an asymptotic equilibrium value, ie the Tcell necessary to dissipate all the input power.


    The second mechanism depends on the dilution of the electrolyte as explained by Morrison on the basis of the information provided by GE (2). This dilution increases the resistance of the electrolyte, which in turn - being the current constant – requires an increase of the voltage and of the input power and eventually, for the first mechanism, of the asymptotic Tcell.


    The first two mechanisms are responsible of the gradual increase of Tcell during most of the run, the period that the CFers call the charging time. At the first onset of the boiling on the hot spots of the electrodes, a third mechanism appears, due to the partial unwetting of their surfaces caused by the bubbles. This provokes a further increase in the electric resistance, which in turn increases the current and the power, which enlarges the bubbles and the area of the unwetted surface of the electrodes. This positive feedback rapidly increases the voltage up to the limit value (100 V) and lasts until the cell is completely dry. In the very last phase of this boiling phase, the progressive unwetting of the electrodes accentuates this phenomenon.


    Quote

    I'm not arguing with you here, just pointing out that the point where the electrode is exposed to the gas space is a significant breakpoint too.


    It could be considered a minor breakpoint, because it changes qualitatively the situation inside the cell. It could give rise to some side effect, for instance it further increases the electric resistance. But IMO the break point between the LXH and HXH regimes occurs at the onset of boiling. A correct energy balance covering the entire boiling period, which lasts several hours and not 10 minutes as claimed by F&P, is sufficient to explain the vaporization of the entire water content.


    Quote

    Startup of boiling might also change the characteristics of the gas phase as well. Lots of complications to go around.


    Yes. This is the reason why it is necessary to separate the regimes relative to the various XH claims.


    Quote

    For me the bottom line is that the video techniques was never used again, and in fact comments were published suggesting that was deliberate and likely due to the fact that there were unreported problems with it, as I indicated in my whitepaper and as you have shown in detail.


    The video technique was regularly used by MF, as reported in (4) by Miles: "I was impressed by Martin’s handling of questions and criticisms and by his video that showed how quickly red coloration added to the cell becomes mixed in response to stirring issues."


    F&P probably used this visual technique extensively even after the April-May 1992 experiment. In the "Good Morning America" reportage (5), probably shot in spring 2014, you can see at 2:06 a calorimeter containing 4 numbered cells, which seems to be ready to be filmed. The fact that F&P didn't publish any other video after the ICCF3 speaks loudly about the outcomes of their subsequent attempts.


    Quote

    Your general conclusion that the field has proceeded over the years on a sketchy basis is also correct IMO.


    Sketchy from the scientific point of view, not from the propagandistic one.


    (1) http://coldfusioncommunity.net…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (4) https://www.infinite-energy.co…/pdfs/Fleischmannobit.pdf

    (5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXaijlN1AKo

    I look forward to Ascoli65's intellectually honest demonstration


    I've already shown you my demonstration. It's in the previous jpeg (*).


    I believed it was self-explanatory, but if you need an explicit explanation I'll provide it, referring to the documents listed in the jpeg.


    As you know, I'm dealing - since a few week - with the F&P claim, which is the specific object of the paper they presented at ICCF3 in October 1992 (3). F&P claimed to have generated nearly 150 W of excess heat in the final period boiling dry for each of 4 cells that they tested in an experiment started on April 11, 1992 (1). This value derives from the calculation on page 16 of their paper (3), in which it was assumed that half of the initial water content (5 moles /2 = 2.5 moles = 45 cm3) evaporated in about 10 minutes (600 s). F&P stated that these assumptions were based on the careful observation of the images of a lab video recorded during the test, some stills of which were included in their paper (3). For instance Figure 10(B) shows Cell 1 during such a period of presumed intense vaporization.


    The aforementioned video still reports a time of 22:03:58, but some short versions of the same lab video recording - available on internet - show that the Cell 1 was almost full of foam well before that time. See, for example, the video still at 21:20:58 of the video (2). Therefore, the cell was full of foam even at the time of the video still included in the paper (3). It means that the experimental data were (possibly) heavily misrepresented and that the assumptions made by F&P to calculate the excess heat were (possibly) totally untrue.


    After the ICCF3, the Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry announced a multi-year program on cold fusion, financed with 30 M$ and including a new dedicated laboratory in Sapporo. F&P were hired as senior scientific advisors. The BBC documentary "Too Close To the Sun" (5) includes some scenes of the F&P visit in Sapporo (from 36:18 to the 4 "Kampai!"). The BBC speaker tells the audience that the celebration arrived after a few days of "frantic presentations". It's quite probable that the short videos of the "Four-cell Boil-off" experiment was presented in these meetings.


    This New Hydrogen Energy (NHE) program ceased in 1998, without any reliable results, as reported in an Infinite Energy article (6), in which the program manager complains:

    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. We found problems with their calorimeter, and we feel that their entire data set is weak and questionable."


    In particular, the Japanese tests were affected by foaming problems, but - as reported in the corresponding box in the jpeg - this was not the case for the IMRA Europe tests, because F&P checked this problem. The same IE article (6) adds:

    "It is equally clear that the NHE researchers did not know that Pons and Fleischmann addressed this issue years ago. Miles, McKubre, Bockris, Fleischmann and others have repeatedly warned it can happen. Some heavy water supplies produce a lot of foam which can reach the top of the cell and expel unboiled electrolyte out of the cell. Miles and Fleischmann say they have identified the cause: heavy water can be contaminated with surfactants"


    In a 2004 letter to Miles (7), MF confirms that the Japanese tests were "plagued" by the foaming problem and that he "wrote to them at length about it".


    Up to this point, it can be understood that the responsibility for the failure of the 30 M$ Japanese research program was due to their inability to procure, in 4-5 years, a few liters of the right heavy water necessary for the F&P cells. But the video referenced as (4) provides a completely different scenario.


    This very peculiar and important video contains some scenes shot in the IMRA Europe laboratory on June 23, 1992, that is a few weeks after the end of the "Four-cell Boil-off" experiment, and well before the ICCF3 conference and the NHE agreement. From the times reported on the screen images it's clear that the F&P cell generated a lot of foam in a few hours and that MF was aware of this behavior, because he was showing his cells to a (probably) Japanese guest.


    In conclusion, it is quite evident that the heavy water used at the IMRA Europe laboratory in the same months when the "Four-cell Boil-off" experiment was carried out had the same foaming problem denounced in the following years by the Japanese and that F&P knew it. But this fact poses a big problem of inconsistency with what has been continuously affirmed by F&P, strenuously repeated by their supporters and naively believed by their fans.


    So, your request for an "intellectually honest demonstration" is indisputably reasonable, but I would urge you to address it to people who, for their role in the CF/LENR story, are in a better position to explain the inconsistencies described above.


    (*) FP's experiments discussion

    F&P boil-off experiments (1992) – A Foamy Story


    I look forward to Ascoli65's intellectually honest demonstration
    of foaming [...]

    and observing what kind of foam occurs.


    This is the best I can do for you.

    l7aFNl7.jpg


    Referenced in the jpeg:

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

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

    (3) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

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

    (5) http://vimeo.com/9438745

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

    (7) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf

    I look forward to Ascoli65 PhD presentation : Lake Bled ,Slovenia , October,2019


    I too look forward, how the intellectual honest men of science - who will participate to the next ICCF22 - will deal with the F&P foam issue.


    So when is your beer analogy going to progress to Pd/D/beer testtube simulation ?


    The Pd/D/beer testtube simulation is already in progress since long:

    http://vimeo.com/9438745 (from 38:07 till the final 4 cells glasses toast)

    What was in the Pd/D2O Li etc mixture that could cause foaming.

    Were M&P sloppy and drip their beer into it?


    I rather wonder what could have caused the F&P to see excess heat in their cell.

    I don't think that they dropped the exquisite French beer into it:

    http://vimeo.com/9438745 (from 3:28 till the final laugh)


    Quote

    Or have you been enchanted by your foamy hypothesis?


    Do you mean enchanted like these ones?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OQu44UIC_s (from 0:32 till the enchantment of real scientists looking at real foam)

    It is easy to see how the cell voltage could rise sharply when it is mostly foam. It could even be oscillating between 100 V and about 5V as the foam bubbles evaporate and re-form connections.


    This is very interesting. The oscillation of cell voltage, in connection with the 300 s period of logging and the effect of "pixelization" in the graph of Figure 6(B), is a good candidate to explain the apparent dropping in the voltage curve, which was proposed by F&P as the evidence for their Heat After Dead claim.


    In any case, a major flaw in the F&P paper (1) is to not have included the voltage (and possibly the current) curves in an expanded region of few hours including the entire boiling period, as they did, but only for the cell temperature, in Figure 8. In a scientific context, omitting crucial information like these could be considered a (possible) severe misrepresentation of data .


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    "You see, but you do not observe" 🤓


    Here's a clue; integrate the input power from the last time the cell was filled (and therefore full) and until it was empty


    I already did. See, please, the column Evap (kJ) in the first table of the jpeg included in the post (1).


    Quote

    Anyhow, you maintain "whiteness" in the video is equal to foam, but that is not necessarily true. it can also be reflection of bubles transported through a pure water phase, as seen in the beginning of the videos and Gradually increasing in strength


    I think to have addressed this issue in a previous jpeg (2). Anyway, to better explain the characteristics of the different layers, I just posted a new jpeg that uses an analogy with a glass full of beer (3).


    Quote

    Please remember that eyes are some plus minus 100 megapixels, while the old video recording is probably less than a megapixel resolution. So I maintain the view that the experienced eyes of F&P knew what they observed in 1992' after the hundreds of tests prior to 1992.


    Yes, I agree. F&P knew what happened in the cell during their 1992 experiment, and the same applies to all the people who have had the opportunity to get a copy of the short videos and possibly receive a copy of the original full length videotape recording.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    PS

    As explained, Your green line is a trick of light and Shadow as shown in my post


    FP's experiments discussion


    I already replied to your remark: FP's experiments discussion

    Description of layers in analogy with a glass beer


    A previous jpeg (*) described a possible evolution of the axial distribution of water within Cell 1 during the F&P experiment reported in their ICCF3 paper (1). This evolution has been described showing the possible time trend of the levels at the interfaces between 4 different layers: Transparent, Bubbling, Foam and Empty. In order to better specify the definition of these four layers, it could be useful to make an analogy with the stratification of the beer in a glass.


    The following jpeg shows a glass of beer in which the foam is being enhanced by blowing in a tube immersed in the liquid (1), compared to a subset of the images of Cell 1 extracted from the jpeg (*).
    CJeaSci.jpg
    The image of this glass of beer reproduces quite well the situation inside the F&P cells. The lower beer remain Transparent and Bubbles rise in the innermost part of the glass, remaining very close to the inflating tube. On the top of the beer, a thick head of Foam appears very bright. In between the Transparent and the Foam layers, there is a thinner layer which looks almost as bright as the foam but maintains the yellow nuances of the beer. This corresponds to what has been indicated in (*) as the Bubbling layer.


    This Bubbling layer is almost uniformly filled with the rising bubbles which expand, or recirculate, occupying the entire cross section of the container. In the case of the F&P cell, this expansion occurs quite soon, probably due to the small diameter of the tube and the presence of many internals within it.


    In conclusion, it's possible, even if not always so easy, to distinguish the Bubbling layer (mostly liquid) from the Foam layer (mostly void) when looking at a photo or a video still. In any case, the motion in the videos helps to better distinguish these two layers, as can be seen in this slow motion video (3).


    (*) FP's experiments discussion

    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (2) https://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/beer-foam-enhancer/

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

    The Japanese are still spending millions and Professor Akito Takahashi has plenty co-workers in 2018 ..all unmindful of GSVIT Ascoli's foaming


    How can you say that? Maybe some of them are used to visit this L-F site and are now mindful of the foam issue.


    However, it is a good opportunity for you to inform them about this discussion, as you have already done with Krivit and Staker.


    Being so numerous and having such a profound knowledge of the classic experiments of F & P, one of them could hopefully be told to explain us, in this lonely forum, how to correctly interpret the videos of F & P.


    Probably, some of them have also a copy of the full length lab video recording and can provide a better description of what happened in long sections that F&P removed in preparing the shorter versions.

    1. " Ignorance" Hypothesis. Very improbable ..except to a test-tube novice such as Ascoli, who ignores all counter evidence
    La valutazione è improbabile.


    I had answered your remark about the meticulousness of F&P in preparing the graph you posted (1), in which two series of numbers are aligned: the Input Enthalpies (Ei) and the Excess Enthalpy (Ex). Both these quantities are written with 3 decimals, down to the mW range. This make no sense, for many reasons.


    Just to mention the funniest one. Ei values greater than 1 W have been calculated with a numerical accuracy of 5 mW (they ends with either 0 or 5), while the Ex values, which derive from Ei, are shown with a numerical accuracy of 1 mW.


    There is no needing to be neither a tube expert nor a tube novice to notice these kind of inconsistencies.

    Quote

    2."Fraud" hypothesis. Ascoli65 and HGBranzell are similar ,. zero evidence that either are true.

    La valutazione soffre di hybris.


    This is very unfair from your side. I didn't mention the F word.

    Furthermore, the similarity with another L-F member is inappropriate, I have to account only for what I say.

    3. Foam hypothesis

    Based on Ascoli's interpretation of an unclear contextual-poor video still, ............zero - corroborating evidence


    That's a legitimate opinion on your side. A few others have expressed a different opinion, sharing my interpretation of the video.


    This is an open debate. Let's hope that many other CF/LENR followers will join it, bringing their opinions and knowledge in support of both the interpretations on this important issue.


    There are still 4 months to go before the 30th anniversary of the F&P press conference. It would be good to arrive at that appointment with a generally accepted opinion on the foam issue.

    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    Regarding “FoamGate”:


    Ascoli believes the 25 cm high tube cells of F&P where mostly filled with foam and not approximately 50% (2,5 moles) water at the start of the last 10 minutes of boiling.


    I believe what is shown by the videos prepared by F&P, that is that the cells where mostly filled with foam at the start of the last 10 minutes of boiling.


    Btw, 25 cm is the total length of the cell. Considering the upper plug and the lower support the internal height available for the water was closer to 18 cm. In addition, the upper silvered portion reduced the visible height of the water column to only 13 cm.


    Quote

    So, one important question is then what feasible layer of foam is actually possible to generate on top of boiling heavy water. In experiments by Miles below, a 3 cm layer of foam is identified during Boiling.


    Suggesting, as Ascoli does, foam at another order of magnitude at 20+ cm foam layer is not realistic or feasible


    Why not? The 3 cm height is only an intermediate step to reach the height that would have given the impression that the cell was almost full of water. Furthermore, as explained in (1), the foam layer accumulated at the end of the boiling phase was lifted by the high speed of the vapor generated when the cell voltage reached its maximum. This allowed the foam to fill all the unsilvered portion of the cell.


    Quote

    One should remember here that Fleischmann was very well aware of possible foaming and knew how the foam developed during boiling.


    And of course, they also used their eyes during their various boiling experiments, not only a video tape 😉. So they knew and had experience of possible height of foam layers during boiling.


    Yes, don't worry. Everybody knows.


    Quote

    A few replies from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles:

    Now as to the possible foaming in the cells. The Japanese were plagued by this problem due

    to their use of D2O destined for N.M.R. experiments. This contained added detergent to aid the

    filling of sample tubes. We wrote to them at length about this and I thought that the problem had been cleared up.”


    This is one of the more amazing page, in this tragic story. The Japanese spent dozens of million dollars of public and private money, trying for many years to vaporize the water in the F&P cells at the same speed at which the foam had settled-down in the original F&P experiments. No wonder that they didn't succeeded.


    Unfortunately, after the Japanese, it was the turn of the Italians to have hired as scientific advisor one of most creative electrochemist in the world, and great expert in foam.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    I can face possible.. and probable if you can provide probable evidence.


    The evidences have been provided by F&P in their ICCF3 paper and related videos. They are at disposition of those who have the ability and the willingness to see them. I can't provide these last.


    Quote

    As for possible foam... I'd go with the probable, almost certain meticulousnessness

    of the creators of these drawings

    who had a lot more intimate testtube time than Ascoli65.


    As already said (1), the data indicated by the green arrows in the graph you posted are not related to the foam issue.


    Regarding the meticulousness of their creators, it could be explained in two (possible) ways: either they didn't know what they were doing or they were trying to enchant the readers with an apparent and striking, but unsubstantiated, accuracy.


    The many years that they spent in designing, building, operating their testtubes and in analyzing and reporting the relative results, including the videos, would (possibly) point to the second explanation.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    Your word " Misrepresentation" is a misrepresentation of the truth.


    Why? Can you tell me what is the truth of the Four-cell Boil-off experiment? And, btw, would you answer my old question about what the videos show? Liquid or foam (1)?


    Quote

    Can you find a better word that does not prejudice the " discussion " in your favour?


    What about "possible misrepresentation"?


    In any case, the discussion should proceed in favor of the truth, not mine. I hope that this is also the prevailing scope of most of the L-F members and guests, notwithstanding the sadness and disappointment of many of them in face of such an unexpected (possible) truth.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    Ascoli ..maybe Krivit is interested in foamgate.


    I have already specified my expectations (1) and you have informed him (2). Nothing more to add.


    Quote

    I doubt that if Fleischmann watched and rewatched and measured several videos {many more times than you ever did) then he would not have noticed foam.


    He also was in possession of the original video recording which is much longer than the four short videos publicly available on the web (3).


    Probably the original lab video lasts about 1 hour (60 min), at least, and could have recorded on a 90 or 120 min videocassette. Anyone who received a copy of that video was in the condition to easily notice and follow the lowering of the water level during the 5-6 hours that preceded each dryout of the four cells, including the build-up and settle-down of the foam at the very end of these boil-off periods.


    Quote

    Perhaps he was blind.


    The reasons which led to the liquid/foam misrepresentation should be investigated only after the reaching of a more general consensus on what happened during the 1992 experiment.


    To this respect, the retrieving of one copy of the original lab video can be very helpful in clarifying the reasons of this misrepresentation.


    As for the image of the Figure 6 that you added to your post, the excess enthalpies indicated by the green arrows have nothing to do with the "foam issue". As explained in a previous jpeg (4), those numbers refer to the LHX claims, while the "foam issue" pertain the XHX claims.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    (4) FP's experiments discussion

    To bring this to LENR specifics, Abd said a while ago that there was money for some guys to redo Pd/D2 work looking for correlation between excess heat and He. That set of experiments is to the point of your question, because if some controllable and replicable effect can be identified they could use it reliably in their experiments.


    [...]


    The merit of new experimental work is that any such possibility, since it has been suggested, can relatively easily be checked and prevented in the new experiments. That would require them to read Shanahan's published work and explicitly guard against that possibility using better experimental design, rather than arguing on theoretical grounds that it could not happen as others have done. I'd expect that, from any competent group replicating the work, because Shanahan's CCS can be detected or evaded quite easily once you admit it as a possibility.


    THH, let me ask you, do you really think that such an experimental checking still makes sense after the "foam issue" aroused? Don't you think that the verification of a correlation between XH and He requires that the claims about the existence of the two anomalous phenomena to be correlated is at least believable? Now we are in the situation in which the first claimants of such anomalies could have heavily misrepresented their experimental results in order to obtain an inexistent XH, "in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors". If this misrepresentation is real, we are facing a serious problem of reliability.


    In the long lasting debate on the reality of the F&P claims, the criticisms have often been rebutted on an authoritative basis, just reporting some F&P's says and stressing the unquestionable competence and reliability of the two CF pioneers. This is a valid general argument, as long as it lasts. But the videos of their 1992 experiments seems to show that this is no longer applicable to them.


    Don't you think, at this point, that the priority for the scientific community - at least that part interested in finding and proclaiming the truth about the F&P claims - is to better investigate the "foam issue", check if it is true and, if so, determine how such an incredible mistake could have happened?


    Instead of inconclusive tests on the phantom He/XH correlation, wouldn't it be better to promote an experimental effort to reproduce the boil-off transients in the F&P open-cells in order to check the likelihood of the foam build-up and measure the actual rate of vaporization during the boil-off event?

    In other words, instead of struggling to reproduce non-existent phenomena, isn't it easier to reproduce the possible flaws in the F&P experiments which led to the their unsubstantiated claims?

    Your fatal flaw in your analysis is that you think you see water levels, when you actually can't on these old degraded video tapes.


    And you have been tricked by light and shadows, as we clearly see in below pictures, where you think it's water level in your horizontal red line, but it is a shadow that has been there all the time from behind as seen in the other picture which is completely water filled tubes and still you see the same shadow where I placed an arrow..


    The second picture (the one with the red F) comes from the jpeg posted with the comment "Videos reveal the real behavior during boil-off of Cell 1" (1). It's a small portion of the entire jpeg showing only two images of Cell 1. On the right of these 2 images, there is a series of 6 images that shows how the level of the liquid level decreases before and during the final boil-off phase indicated by F&P as the period during which half of the initial water content would have been vaporized. So, shadows and reflections in the videos have nothing to do with the evident progressive lowering of the liquid level within the cells.


    Regarding the quality of the video, as already said (2), the longest was given to Rothwell in a digitized form by Fleischmann, when he was still at IMRA, ie before 1996. Its quality is more than enough to see what happened during the 1992 experiment, provided there is readiness in seeing it.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion