Posts by Ascoli65

Quote from kirkshanahan

You know there is another consideration not routinely brought up in considering these experiments, namely unloading. ...

So, what would be driving a HAD? Nothing except some data interpretation error IMO.

I totally agree with you. It is also well explained in your whitepaper. But you know as well that, in this field, all the problems raised by this kind of considerations are solved by postulating the existence of a few miracles that explain the alleged positive experimental results, which, by definition, are believed to be carried out by experts who are considered unable to make mistakes. The situation is still the same described in 1990 by Morrison in the conclusions of his "Cold Fusion Review" (1).

This is the reason why I think the most effective considerations are those based on internal inconsistencies, i.e. those present in the same paper (such as the ignored residual voltage at the end of the F&P experiment of Fig.6B), or those among papers issued in the same circle (as the vanishing of excess heat reported by Lonchampt in his replications of the F&P experiments (2)).

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

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

Hi Kirk,

thanks for your information and attention.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Ascoli65- You may want to glance at Fig. 1 in http://coldfusioncommunity.net…4/SRNL-STI-2012-00678.pdf

I don't see any significant difference.

My conclusion was the method used to claim excess heat was flawed.

These are also my conclusions, inferred on the basis of the internal inconsistencies in the ICCF3 paper and the results of the Lonchampt's replications.

Fig.1 of your whitepaper is interesting, as shows that the two cells behaved the same way regardless of the initial elapse time. The big difference is in the final "heat after death" claimed by F&P for the cell of Fig.6B. This presumed HAD is based on the erroneous assertion (see Page 19) that, during the period in which the cell B remained at high temperature, the electrical circuit was open due to a complete dry-off of the cell. This is not true. Not for cell B. In fact, Fig.6B clearly shows that a residual voltage (about 5-6 V on average) lasted until the cell remained at high temperature. What happened?

It seems that the test procedure was that the current had to be manually interrupted once the cell was apparently dry, in fact at the end of the ICCF3 paper we read "We have therefore chosen to work with "open" systems and to allow the cells to boil to dryness before interrupting the current." It is possible that when cell B looked dry, the current was not interrupted but inadvertently reduced to a lower value, maybe at the same initial value of 200 mA, and then completely shut off only a few hours later. Evidently this residual power was sufficient to maintain a high temperature around the thermocouple.

Whatever the cause of this anomalous behavior, F&P had the original data of both temperature and voltage, and as they expanded the final period of the former they could (and probably did) have expanded even the latter, so they should have been aware of the fact that the voltage (as well as the current) was not zero. Therefore, they should have included a figure in their paper showing this voltage anomaly and provide a suitable explanation for it. But they didn’t, giving rise to the anecdote - one of the many myths in CF field - of the ability of their cell to run in HAD mode.

Quote from JedRothwell

2. The cell does not cool. It often gets hotter after all the water is gone.

BUT, Fig.8 is an expansion of Fig.6B, which shows that voltage remains greater than zero until the cell remains at high temperature. In particular, voltage oscillates around a value of 5-6 volts, a value close to the initial voltage, that - with a current of 200 mA, much less than the final 500 mA - had been enough to increase, from 20 to 30 °C, the temperature of a much higher water content. This behavior was unique among the 4 cells in the documented experiment. For the other three cells, as documented in Figs.6A, 6C and 6D, the voltage dropped directly to zero, and it was followed almost immediately by the decrease of cell temperature.

This different behavior is clearly visible in the figures included in the paper, but was not mentioned in the text by the two authors, the legendary F&P, nor highlighted in the comment of their bard!

(Sorry, Shane, just a technical tie-break from vacation, I couldn't resist. )

Quote from Shane D.

Now though, that mission accomplished, and with your sights set on taking down LENR, you have gotten lazy.

I also got tired, Shane. It's time for me to go back on vacation. One more time.

But before leaving, I have to answer your funny proposal.

Quote

Go onto LENR-CANR yourself and dig in. Read everything in no particular order. Dedicate at least as much time there, as you did with the Rossi early years. […] So go on, do your homework and when done, come back and tell us what you found.

This mission is impossible.

It has been possible to confute with certainty the claimed Ecat performances, thanks to the many side information that have been incautiously released on the web, in particular for the tests carried out in 2011. If the only information available had been limited to the reports and declarations from the experts of so-called third parties, it would have been only possible to raise suspicious about their results, but the authoritativeness of the academic testers would have eventually prevailed on any criticisms, as the last Ecat supporters are still trying to do (1-2).

For the older CF/LENR tests, the only documents available are the test reports, accompained by all the myths that have grown around them and their authors. So, it is a unique circumstance that the calorimetric claims of the two fathers of CF are still considered the best on record by the organizer of the most complete LENR library, and that these findings were "de facto" disproved by the results of replications made by another protagonist of CF, widely praised by the same librarian. You can't get more from this old stuff.

Each of us can draw his conclusions. IMO, the stories of the CFathers and of the LENRenassaince man can be connected in a whole CF/LENR history which would make even more sense.

(1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

(2) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Shane D.

Yep, it is a vendetta.

Please, do not joke on this. It's not.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You just jumped over the troll barrier. In one thread you fight JED and here JED serves as your shield to avoid a loosing discussion.

I'm not fighting anyone. I've already explained to you why I'm here (1) and I just explained to Shane why it's not possible to talk about LENR without considering the JR position, with all its contradictions.

You are forgetting that you are posting in a thread in which 7 out of 30 comments in its first page are from JR. He strongly influences the agenda of the public LENR debate, and he proposes all the most widespread narratives. He did it with the Ecat, first vehemently supporting its reality, and later harshly accusing Rossi of fraud. A socio-psychological phenomenon essentially coincides with its narratives. We could say that JR is the father of the LENR phenomenon, the real one.

Quote

It is too late to find errors in old experiments ...

It's too late to check the old experiments, but it's not too late to evaluate the correctness of the old documents which reports their presumed results. In the case we are talking about, the disproving of the old F&P energy claims is already contained in the old Lonchampt papers.

Quote

... as it is to late to stop LENR.

Don't worry. The CF/LENR phenomenon has run for nearly 3 decades, the last due mainly to Rossi, and will go further.

Quote

Your attitude is very close to ABD's. Just trying to produce noise to distract people by referencing "low value" old experiments.

You don't read carefully the posts of this thread. Please, read them better from the first page. You will find that the prominence of old experiments was affirmed by JR, and confirmed by McKubre, who wrote: "Most of the progress I made at SRI and most of my residual knowledge (and an awful lot lost) came in the first 2-3 years of the "Fleischmann Pons era" when I had a group of 8-10 highly talented folk focussed coherently, energetically and full time and on FP experiments."

Quote

All well informed people (reading this forum) doing experiments know about the Lipinski findings, thus it's up to you be informed too.

You are continuing to modify your request. First, you praised Ruer and invited me to disprove ALL the LENR findings (2), now you stick on Lipinski alone. What's next?

Btw, I've already read the paper that Ruer dedicated to the October 6, 2011 experiment on the Ecat. Very interesting. Have you read it?

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

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

Quote from Shane D.

Seems like all your problems with LENR have to do with Rothwell? Early years first, now LENR in general. There is a difference between a skeptic, and being on a personal vendetta. So?

A personal vendetta? For what reason?

I'm here to discuss about LENR, and JR is a kind of official spokesman of the field, so that it is impossible to tackle any LENR subject without citing him and his role. He collected almost all the CF/LENR documents and organized them in a library, he spoke with almost every main protagonist of the field, he wrote books and overviews on the subject, he also has some personal skill on calorimetry, and finally, he posted tens of thousands of comments (almost 5 thousand here on L-F) for defending the reality of LENR.

So, in order to identify the most representative and skilful LENR researchers, and their best experiments and reports, who would you refer to?

PS:

Btw, JR still considers an almost 30 years old experiment of F&P as the best on record (and his record is the most complete in CF/LENR field), but the calorimetric results claimed by F&P have been "de facto" disproved by Lonchampt, a nuclear expert also well praised by JR. How do you explain this contradiction?

Quote from Wyttenbach

As said and many times repeated in this forum: The best documented and radiation measured LENR experiment is Lipinski's Lithium H* fusion.

Sorry, but you have not been the official librarian of CF/LENR for nearly 3 decades. JR is a much more representative and informed figure in the field and has decided that Icarus 9 from F&P is the best experiment on record. Lipinski&Lipinski have to wait their turn.

Quote

search for: WO 2014/189799 A9 or US 2016/0118144 A1 Patents!! 100eV is the input energy with the highest COP (>1000). We would be very pleased if you can refute these claims...

I have no time nor desire to review a patent application of 100+ page. Have you asked Jacques Ruer, the LENR expert you cited me earlier, what does he think about that patent?

Thanks, THH, for your interesting assessment.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Further to this point, and Jed's possible rebuttal stating that F&P were aware of the issue and checked salt levels to show that in fact the expected amount of water was boiled off, and not entrained.

Here below, you find the Morrison's criticism to the calorimetric method used by F&P, and the reply from the two CF's fathers:

F&P used two arguments to rebut Morrison's critique.

In the first they mentioned the checking of the final salt inventory, but this justification is weak. They cited an early work, without giving any reference to it which would have allowed to verify the similarity of the respective experimental conditions.

The second justification, the global balance of D2O, is feeble as well. I haven't find the reference they cite, and in any case they admit that the balance was made for "temperatures in excess of 90 degrees C", which doesn't necessarily mean at boiling temperatures.

Anyway, the F&P reply confirms that they were aware of the error due to liquid entrained in the vapor, otherwise they wouldn't have checked the final balance of salt and D2O. Knowing how critical this method was to this parameter, they should have repeated this check for any major experiment they performed, especially those they wanted to publish. Instead they omitted to address this important issue in the paper published on May 1993, on Physics Letter A.

It took only a few days to Morrison to raise his criticism to this calorimetric method and, on the 12th of the same month, he sent it to the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup. Therefore, it is even less justified that no reference to the liquid fraction in the vapor was included in the F&P paper presented with the same title more than three years later, in 1996, at the ICCF6.

Quote

More generally: an effect which is much larger under boil-off conditions should be viewed with suspicion.

Yes, but - in the F&P case – the results of Lonchampt replications allow to go beyond the suspicion.

JR reported that Lonchampt performed a precise replication "with the assistance from Pons and Fleschmann" (1). However he was unable to repeat the 400% energy gain claimed by F&P. He only obtained an alleged maximum gain of 150%, less than half of the original experiment he was replicating.

Two years later, this gain dropped further to 29%, less than 1/10 of F&P original claim! At the time, in 1998, Lonchampt, a well trained engineer at CEA, had already spent about 5 years in trying to replicate the experiment of F&P, with their personal assistance, and all he got was a progressive decreasing of the excess heat, until almost complete disappearance.

Each experimenter would consider this downward trend as the confirmation that the original measurements were influenced by a large systematic error due to some experimental artifacts. In this case it was easily attributable to the underestimation of the liquid content in the steam, as Morrison argued immediately after the first publication of the F&P original results.

In conclusion, the F&P energy findings have been already disproved by Lonchampt, who confirmed in this way the soundness of Morrison's criticisms to their calorimetry.

(1) http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/6thiccf.pdf

Quote from Wyttenbach

If you don't understand that it is your turn to disprove all the LENR findings, ...

Quote from Ascoli65

All the (alleged) LENR findings? Well, it would require too much time, ...

Actually, there is a much shorter way to do this: identify the most representative document in the LENR field, and disprove its findings, or, even better, let some recognized LENR expert do it.

JR has just posted this comment:

Quote from JedRothwell

... I talked to many experts such as Adm. Griffin, Fleischmann, and many distinguished non-experts such as Clarke. I listened carefully and I ran the manuscript past them to be sure I described their points of view correctly. I consulted with most of the people who knew about cold fusion at that time.

[...]
* See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusionb.pdf

In the linked document - "Cold Fusion Will Lower the Cost of Both Energy and Equipment", a recent paper presented at ICCF20 in 2016 - JR cites only one reference relating to CF/LENR findings [bold added]:

So, JR (the most informed expert in the CF/LENR field) identified Icarus 9 (a test carried out 20 years earlier) as the best experiment on record.

But, wait, this is the same experiment for which Lonchampt wrote in 1998 (1): "The boiling experiment deserves more attention, as shown by Roulette et al. who demonstrated that more excess heat could be obtained that way. We have in progress a similar experiment, but with mass flow calorimetry that will simplify the possible calibration errors. Blank runs with platinum have already been done showing that this type of calorimetry has a sensitivity better than 2%."

Therefore, the LENR findings that - after 20+ years - JR still considers the best on record were already heavily challenged in 1998 by Lonchampt, the nuclear expert who is considered by JR (and by other LENR supporters, like AlainCo) the best replicator of the F&P experiments, and who "de facto" disproved the findings of the two CF fathers (2)!

Now, it's your turn to demonstrate the logic of this Catch22 situation.

(1) http://www.jeanpaulbiberian.net/Download/Paper%2046.pdf

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

Quote from Wyttenbach

LENR is far more than just demonstrating successful excess heat. May be you should spend some time with reading papers and attending meetings.

Reading papers is exactly what I did to better understand the soundness of the calorimetric measurements performed by F&P, as strongly suggested by JR (who probably has read much more papers and attended much more meetings than any else here on L-F)

As for attending meetings, it's too demanding. But, looking at the "A Brief History of ICCFs" by McKubre (1), I admit that it would be a nicer way to realize that "LENR is far more than just demonstrating successful excess heat".

Quote

Jaque Ruer (presented this spring in Paris) recently analyzed ( in a professional lab) one of the famous Fleischmann electrodes, that produced a lot of excess-heat, to look for transmutations. The seen isotope shift can only be explained by a nuclear reaction between palladium and deuterium.

Are you talking about the author of the article titled "Analysis of the Potential Thermal Behavior of the Energy Catalyzer as Described in the Patent US 9,115,913 B1" (2)?

Quote

But we need not to convince you that LENR is real. It's your turn to explain why one silver isotope is seen in a much higher, than the natural ratio.

Probably for the same reason that isotopic shifts were claimed for the various Ecat versions since 2008 (3).

Quote

If you don't understand that it is your turn to disprove all the LENR findings, then may be, you don't understand how science works.

All the (alleged) LENR findings? Well, it would require too much time, but for what I've already seen, I think to have better understood how science works.

(1) Media reports, no discussion please.

(2) http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…entist-on-e-cat-greenwin/

(3) https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110005506A1/en

Quote from Shane D.

IMO, that is being overly harsh. Even with a (?) mark at the end. [...] So no reason to make it personal.

Not my intention to be harsh and, in my comment, there was nothing personal against anyone.

I was replying to a (quite harsh, in this case) comment which was blaming me for a religious mind closure. I have only observed that this psychological limitation is very common in our current society, and it concerns science and technology as a whole, with no exceptions, cold (and hot) fusion included.

Quote

It is also unfair of you to lump Rossi in with the rest of the field, portraying all as one "socio-psychological phenomenon". Even you must realize that is a bit if a stretch? LENR history, quality of the research/researchers, motivations, personalities, are all different from, and better than Rossi and his story. They could not be more different.

IMO, there are many similarities and coincidences showing that the Ecat farce is the natural evolution of the CF/LENR history. Both initiatives began with a patent application, followed by a public event in which the media were invited to directly communicate these alleged inventions to the public, bypassing the usual scientific procedure. Subsequently, the rights on the F&P patents were acquired by ENECO, a company who reminds of IH (1). Moreover, one of the main ENECO's stakeholder and a first protagonist of the CF/LENR field, closely accompanied Rossi in his first steps in this exclusive world (2).

Last but not least, in evaluating the excess heat produced by their cells, F&P made the same wrong assumptions on the dryness of the outgoing steam, which also allowed to overestimate the heat produced by the Ecat by a factor of up to 6 times during the demo held on January 2011 (the balance to the x12 gain, stated in the calorimetric report, being obtained by misrepresenting the water flow rate).

Quote

Now, after slaying the Ecat, you seem to have set your sights on doing the same to LENR, and anyone associated with it.

I just followed the appeal launched by JR in this same thread. He strongly urged those who are not persuaded by the reality of the CF/LENR phenomena to look at the technical details of the boil-off experiments performed by F&P and by their replicators, in particular Lonchampt. I did it and the most meaningful results I found are summarized in the following table:

All maximum values of the excess heat (XH gain) were obtained at boiling conditions. It's obvious to everyone, where these seemingly positive results come from (3):

The gain decrease in the above table can be easily explained by the extra care taken in improving the test set-ups along the years, which caused the excess heat to progressively fade away, as is typical when measurement artifacts are involved.

Finally - as already mentioned (4) - in his second paper on the F&P experiments, Lonchampt anticipated his intention to repeat the tests "with mass flow calorimetry that will simplify the possible calibration errors". But he has not publish any other paper on this same subject. Not a good sign for those who wish to convince people that "F&P ont répliqué et été réplique, de plus avec des méthodes calorimétrique plus simples (car Fleischmann étant a des plus grands experts du monde à ce sujet avait, comme l’a bien démontré George Lonchampt utilisé des astuces d’experts loin devant les autres notamment Caltech et MIT)."

(1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

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

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

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

Quote from Wyttenbach

Why do you visit this forum? For closed minds there are better places - like the catholic church, just to name one...

Because CF/LENR is the most interesting socio-psychological phenomenon in the last decades. Nothing better than LENR shows to what extent humans are capable of self-delusion. It has been a privilege to have had the possibility to examine its technical details and to exchange opinions with some of its main protagonists. I learned a lot discussing about the Ecat, and LENR in general. LENR touches almost every aspect of the reality of our world: science, politics, finance, psychology, rhetoric, global emergencies such as depletion of resources and climate change, and even … religion, why not? After all, science and technology - especially their pseudo-versions - operate nowadays as the new universal religions of the humankind.

This forum started his activity in February 2014 (1), strongly supporting the reality of the Ecat. At least 3 out of 5 administrators were fervent supporters of this "faith". The icon of one of them showed a hot-cat and the words "I WANT TO BELIEVE". But thanks to the mind openness of these same administrators, this forum has also accepted the opposite point of views, so that now, after 4 years, only few of his members still believe the Rossi-says, and these lasts are considered as members of a cult or a religion (2). All the other former believers have lost a "faith" but have acquired a "truth". Was it a positive or a negative outcome for them? And for you?

What if the "cult in the Ecat" is just a sect of a larger "cult in CF/LENR" which lasts since F&P spread it in 1989 (which in turns is a sect of the "super-cult in science and technology")?

This thread is devoted to investigate where the goal line of LENR is. It might be useful to remember where the starting line was, and also to consider the possibility that the two apostles of this religion were simply wrong.

(1) Welcome

(2) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from JedRothwell

The only problem is when the instrument affects the performance of the experiment.

This would have been a problem if the claimed phenomenon was real, but being LENR a non-existent phenomenon, the apparently positive performances obtained in some experiments are always due to one or more flaws in the instruments or in the method used to measure the data and calculate the energy balance. This is why in order to successfully replicate the results of a alleged positive LENR experiment, it is ESSENTIAL to exactly reproduce the original test set-up and carefully follow the original procedures step by step.

This maniacal care in reproducing every detail of the original tests, allowed Lonchampt to successfully replicate the F&P original experiments, achieving the same results. Today, after many years, the quite good description of his work presented at ICCF6 and ICCF7, allows us to better recognize the incredible flaws that determined those apparently positive results, both in the original experiments of F&P, and in the accurate replications of Lonchampt.

Quote from AlainCo

Just a point on Longchamps, as I know he is one of the only to have replicated the tricky isoperibolic calorimetry of F&P, which he proven was very subtle and efficient.

[...]

Replicating the instrument is not the best way to prove a point. changing the measurement method is good to cross check.

In this case his "careful, step by step replication" "of the 1993 boil-off experiments reported by Pons and Fleischmann" (1) was the best way to make us sure that F&P miscalculated the excess heat, and that their "tricky isoperibolic calorimetry" was conceptually wrong.

Lonchampt made a superb work, and wrote a couple of fundamental papers for understanding the reality and the history of CF/LENR.

(1) http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/6thiccf.pdf

Quote from hunter

Focardi never knew anything about Rossi’s stuff. He theorized an alleged “reaction” (Ni+H = Cu) believing to what Rossi’s said.

He never tested Rossi’s stuff independently and he has been used like a Trojan hourse by the fake chemical engineer Rossi in order to get some credibility also in the academic world despite his bad past.

Focardi, as professor emeritus of physics at UniBo, had the professional competence and the moral duty to be well informed about what and who he was introducing in his Department.

He and all his colleagues, at least the many involved in the public 2011 demos, had the responsibility to provide any explanation required by their peers and by the public on the experimental data that THEY had measured, calculated and released to the public.

There is no justification for their misbehavior.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Ascoli65: May be you should make it more clear is:

a) LENR is not a real physical phenomenon?

b) LENR is not a physical phenomenon capable of producing excess heat?

a) CF/LENR is a practically impossible physical phenomenon subject to the well-known reaction rate limitation explained, for example, in the Rossi-Focardi paper (1): "The tunneling probability becomes, as a consequence, P=4.7x10-1059, so small to make the capture of a single proton by a Nickel nucleus impossible. …"

b) CF/LENR is not capable of producing any excess heat, even if the theoretical limits mentioned above are ignored and, as reported in the aforementioned paper, only the alleged experimental evidences are considered: "… Nevertheless we have an experimental evidence of a large energy that can only arise from nuclear reactions between Nickel and Hydrogen, the only two elements existing in our apparatus."

Such a nonsense was believed by almost every people involved in the CF/LENR field, thanks to the involvement of scientists of a well known scientific institution. Now, after 8 years, nearly all of them would not bet a dime on the reality of those energy claims. But, nevertheless, they continue to argue that "anyway, LENR is a real phenomenon" (2). This faith is largely based on the myths of the reliability of F&P and of their replicators, especially Lonchampt.

Here are some excerpts that provide you a good picture of these myths [bold added]

So, you see, it's AlainCo, one of the most active LENR promoter, who claims that Lonchampt, a recognized maniac (in the good sense of a very careful and scrupulous replicator), was the only one to have replicated not only the phenomenon but also the calorimetry of the F&P. But what did he find? Let's see.

In 1993, Lonchampt started his work for replicating the F&P results, and reported his own results in only 2 papers in 1996 (at ICCF6) and 1998 (at ICCF7).

The conclusions of the first report were already reported in my previous comment, in the excerpt from the JR's review of the ICCF6. But more interesting details are contained in the central part of Lonchampt's paper. This is the most revealing:

In effect, despite the maniacal precision of the author, "A", "D" and "L" are not explicitly defined in the paper. We can only deduce that "A" and "D" are given by formulas (2) and (5) respectively. The definition of "L" as the "enthalpy of vaporization of the water (41,000 J.mol-1)" doesn't apply to the "L" used in (6), but we can infer that Lonchampt calculated the "total enthalpy necessary to evaporate the contents of the cell", by assuming that all the missing water escaped the cell as dry steam. This is a huge and incredible mistake on the part of someone who has been presented as a expert in calorimetry, especially after he recognized by himself the "difficult to follow accurately the level of water during this [boiling] period because of the formation of foam". How is it possible to assume a dry conditions with such an open cell operated at boiling conditions, with a foam on the water surface, so thick that prevents to determine the water level?

Two years later, at ICCF7, Lonchampt presented new results obtained with the same methodology. As usually happens when positive results are due to some artifacts, the measured excess heat was much lower than the previous ones. Here are some excerpts from this second paper [bold added]:

As you can see, by his own admission, the F&P calorimetry - that he meticulously reproduced - was so critical and difficult to evaluate that they (at CEA?) had already in progress a similar experiment performed by using another method: mass flow calorimetry.

Results from this last experiment? None. After ICCF7, Lonchampt apparently disappeared from the CF/LENR scene. He just appeared for a while in 2002, after withdrawing from CEA, as co-author of a Biberian paper (3) presented to the ICCF9. In this last work, without any connection with the F&P experiments, they used a "calorimetry [which] has a sensitivity of 1 mW, and therefore is capable of measuring even small excess heat production." Results? "So far we have not observed any excess heat."!

In conclusion, if you look carefully at his papers, Lonchampt - praised as the more reliable replicator of F&P - has been on the contrary the more authoritative debunker of the F&P pretense to have produced any excess heat. His papers show that in the whole CF/LENR history, from F&P to the Ecat, "l’erreur (assez typique) est là": the misrepresentation of the calorimetric experimental data.

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

(2) http://www.zpenergy.com/module…ews&file=article&sid=3789

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

Quote from JedRothwell

This is a technical discussion forum, and Interested Observer is not playing by the rules. Let me summarize the two points of view:

Me: I have written a book spelling out the technical reasons why cold fusion might be made practical. I can cite many distinguished experts in relevant fields who believe this, and who have published supporting information, such as the chief designer of France's power reactors, the people who designed the Indian atomic bomb, the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, and most of the world's leading electrochemists who designed countless practical applications in many industries.

Wow! This is the most impressive demonstration that CF/LENR is not a real physical phenomenon capable of producing excess heat.

JR, the author of a book spelling out the technical reasons why cold fusion might be made practical, has also contributed to prepare the calorimetric report on the January 14, 2011 test on the Ecat, a technical document in which was stated that an electric boiler was capable to multiply by 12 an electric power input of 1 kW. He also vehemently defended those outcomes for many years, before admitting he was wrong. I wonder how he can reliably judge the reality of previous CF results that were much lower.

But even more impressive is his reference to the role played by "the chief designer of France's power reactors". This last certainly was Georges Lonchampt, a French engineer who is considered the most scrupulous replicator of the Pons and Fleischmann original experiment.

The results of his replications were reported in a paper presented in 1996 at ICCF6. Here is a short and meaningful summary of the related lecture:

Basically, Lonchampt reported that the excess heat at low temperature, i.e. far from the boiling conditions, is quite low, and hence it can be easily attributed to a residual error after the calibration procedure. At intermediate level the calorimetric results are affected by a too large error. Therefore, the only meaningful level of excess heat, up to 150%, was calculated at boiling conditions. These results clearly show that Lonchampt mistakenly assumed that all the water evaporated as dry steam.

So, Lonchampt based his apparently positive results on the same misrepresentation of the steam condition, which, 15 years later, determined the false excess heat proclaimed after the Ecat test held in Bologna on January 2011.

Furthermore, his insistence "on doing a precise replication with assistance from Pons and Fleischmann" gives us the certainty that even F&P made the same calorimetric error.

Therefore, Lonchampt's replication of the F&P experiment is indeed a "superb" work that demonstrates in the most irrefutable way how wrong they have been all the main protagonists of the CF history, from F&P up to all the LENR experts who supported the Ecat results.

Quote from JedRothwell

The evidence for cold fusion was definitive by late 1990.

It is definitive since January 2011, that those who affirm that "the evidence for cold fusion was definitive" are plain wrong.

It is a well reproduced phenomenon replicated in thousands of statements and comments made by almost every expert in the field along many years.

Surely, there are also valid socio-psychological theories that explain it.

Back, just to answer your comments.

Quote from woodworker

I tend to be of the school that what man can dream, he can ultimately achieve

Please, consider the difference between dreaming and sleep-walking. First is pleasant, second is dangerous.

Quote

Now, as to Rossi, I think we agree that he is a complete fraud

Sorry, I don't agree. He is a PR man, the best ever in the CF/LENR history.

Quote from woodworker

I dln't view that as a conspiracy but rather as basic human nature.

Now, we agree.

Quote from woodworker

All of which begs the question then of his unwavering faith in Rossi

I don't know what his reasons are, but here they are the justifications AA provides:

These are valid arguments, until you look carefully at what the well known scientists and respected professors wrote and declared about the Ecat performances.

Greetings.

Quote from Shane D.

Not so easy as that. LF has become very popular. Much of LENR land tunes in here to keep abreast of developments, and weigh in on matters. Many of them are insiders, and some of them were involved with the Rossi story. We need them, and their participation here for the good of the field. Allow too much speculation about their motives, however carefully worded, and they go away.

Ascoli has made his point many times over.

I understand the exigencies of the forum, Shane, and appreciate your kindness and sincerity in saying that my position may hurt them. Let me take it as an acknowledgement of the solidity of my arguments.

Yes, I had the opportunity to express my points of view many times, so, not having other argument to share with the people here, it's time for me to take a vacation.

Thanks for your sympathy, … and for not having raised the "conspiracy" issue

Quote from Alan Smith

Ascoli65has made 2260 posts, the great majority of them on this one topic and recently has started to drag in more 'innocent bystanders' . Enough already, time for a little hostility on the mods part.

Right now, my score is only 421 posts (2260 are the points), which is a small fraction compared to many L-F users, with positions very far from mine. If my few posts are able to grab "innocent bystanders", it probably means that they have solid bases, and can't be easily rebutted. I'll take that as a compliment.

Anyway, until now - apart from some sporadic episodes - my comments have benefitted of a fair tolerance on the part of the administrators of this forum. I prefer not to turn it into open hostility or an unfair ban, so I let you regain the lost "innocent bystanders".

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Perma-banned? Don't turn this into ECW. The evidence that there is a conspiracy to promote LENR in Italy is just as strong as the evidence that their are vast conspiracies to suppress LENR, lacking. I don't see threats of perma-banning of those people. Particularly on this thread, "the old west." If you don't like the conspiracy theory, rebut it or ignore it. If I was a moderator I would move your post to clearance, as being too hostile.

Thanks for your support.

Quote from JedRothwell

I wish there were such a conspiracy! I am not usually in favor of purloining public money, but I would make an exception. It is for a good cause and what's morality without flexibility? This is in Italy, don't forget.

Anyway, seriously, I do not think this calls for banning Ascoli.

I also would have preferred it to be a conspiracy, so it would have been a single episode, limited to a group of conspirators. Unfortunately we are dealing with a widespread habit, not only in Italy. In today's society, science, research and, hence, academy have achieved the status of religion. Science provides hope in some salvation, and scientists are considered holy wizards, their good faith can never be doubted.

Anyway, thanks for your fair intervention.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Everyone makes mistakes and since determining whether something wrong is a mistake, or some deliberate falsification, is difficult and causes much stress for everyone better not to do it in any case where there is doubt.

I fully agree with you, and with this fundamental scruple in dealing with controversial facts, but .. the misrepresentations I'm talking about cannot be explained in any other way than deliberate falsification.

If you keep having in mind the Lugano report, which indeed produced a mess of raw and processed data, while talking about the January 2011 demo, without considering its specific and much more simple data, you will never realize how impossible it is that these wrong data derived from inadvertent mistakes. This will tell you a lot from where it came all the subsequent Ecat farce.

I told you the same things many times, so I don't think that this time will be different. If you want to understand what I mean, you will find what you need in my previous comments, otherwise you can choose to wait forever for a conclusive proof.

Greetings everybody.