The clinical elimination of the many socalled replications with a negative for excess heat
down to a small group of which Green/Quickenden is the best... and is still flawed.. is most interesting
The dissection done by Hagelstein of negative results are very revealing 
And important factors in the graph below on F&P excess heat confirmation by Mckubre is
1. Using D2O vs H2O shows different behavior. Why?
2. Increased input current increase the excess heat in D2O, but NOT in H2O, Why?
3. The accuracy bars is shown for each datapoint. This indicates that H2O has no excess heat (within the accuracy range), while D2O have definite excess heat. From where originates the excess heat when using D2O?
And a wonderful difference in McKubre vs F&P calorimetry was that McKubre used flow calorimetry with closed calorimeter, where much of the criticism on possible errors in the F&P isoperibolic calorimetry where removed (like "recombination", "electrolyte replacement / refill", etc..
Flow calorimeter using water as medium for heat exchange make things very easy, since heat capacity of water is accurately known, and water flow and temperature can be measured to high accuracies.
I therefore consider the Mckubre confirmation a very strong confirmation of the F&P excess heat discovery.
The reason why Ascoli is continuing barking up this tree is that he thinks errors in this paper would question all of their previous work.
But Ascoli is barking up the wrong tree.
As I have explained many times, the F&P boiling water experiment (1) is not important, since it is not the CF/LENR discovery, but a test of possible increased heat at higher temperatures.
At boiling the cells are at little more violent conditions and do introduce a few more difficulties in measuring some aspects, like water level.
So, it may or may not contain errors, but in my earlier analysis I have showed that their main hypothesis in the paper (increased energy and power densities at higher temperatures) may in fact be correct.
This thread would be way more interesting if discussing the findings as described in the 2 hr presentation of Hagelstein.
And we may note that Hagelstein do not mention boiling cells, but the most important early discovery and the early important confirmation by McKubre of the original discovery.
I would recommend for everyone to watch the presentation, it is really interesting (1).
These are two of the important figures to consider:
Please remember that the F&P original experiment and replications, was something else than boiling cells
To me the real mystery is heat bursts that occurred suddenly (below boiling), lasted for days and suddenly disappeared again. And no, it was not instrument failures
Anyhow, On the issue of celebrating 30 years anniversary of the F&P discovery:
This is an excellent 2hr summary presentation made by Prof. Hagelstein in 2017, and he even has a humor
Display MoreYou did mention him in the first link of my reply to Alan Smith (1). You said: "I am not really interested in boiling experiments, with the additional errors those may introduce, like the ones we have seen on Rossi nickel/hydrogen tests."
So you compared the (F&P) boiling experiments to the Rossi nickel/hydrogen tests. There is nothing wrong in this comparison. I too compared the Ecat steam tests to the F&P boil-off experiment. What surprised me is that you liked the Alan Smith's invitation not to turn this thread into a Rossi related thread, despite you were the first to mention him.
Anyway, I agree with Alan Smith. Let's focus on the F&P experiments without going from the CF prehistory to the nowadays consequences of their announcement, as the Ecat saga.
I know. Let me explain my point one more time. Focardi shared with Piantelli all the claims about their presumed NiH effect, which were published before the arrival of Rossi in 2007. His subsequent involvement in the Ecat affair has clearly shown that his claims about the calorimetric performances of a CF device are not reliable. This unreliability affects in turn all his previous measurements, including those at the basis of the results he claimed together with Piantelli.
In any case, in this thread there is no reason to mix up F&P (PdD) with P&F (NiH).
(1) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement
that was another setting, and not what this was referring to.
I mentioned the early Piantelli - Focardi Ni-H research, and next you jump to 2011 and drags in Rossi, which had nothing to do with my point.
And I have no idea what you mean by "Focardi shared with Piantelli all the claims about their presumed NiH effect, which were published before the arrival of Rossi in 2007."
The research of Nickel Hydrogen system started from an experimental observation made by F.Piantelli at the end of 1989 concerning a strange thermal effect at low temperature is a sample of Nickel with hydrogen. Piantelli had a closer look at this after he learned about the F&P heat effect in pallladium. Piantelli spoke of this effect to his friends Focardi and R.Habel during the SIF congress in Trento in October 1990.
In 1994 they published their first result in Peer reviewed journal, and in 98 another one paper "large excess heat production in Ni-H system".
And my point was that F&P had allready listed Nickel as one of the suitable materials in their Patent from 1990.
Ascoli "Rossi and Focardi were first mentioned in this thread by oystla.."
Excuse me, when did I mention Rossi?
You know, that could be called a blatant lie.
Piantelli I believe was the original researcher that found excess heat in nickel-hydrogen. He cooperated with Focardi long before Rossi came into the picture.
I did not refer to the e-cat. Focardi, Piantelli and others did Nickel- hydrogen research during the 1990's and found some excess heat event.
Anyhow, going back to F&P there are far far too many replications, with improved instruments, to just throw it away with "human factors".
And no, the boiling experiment is very different from the lower temperature experiments, and any possible errors do not impact their earlier results 🤓
You need to read a litle more 😉
Display More1989.. where was I ..
embarking on another career away from chemical /energy engineering after the NZ economy went into deep funk.
Then I see Fleischmann and Pons come on TV.. with cold fusion in a test tube..better than Feynman with his O-ring in a testtube in 1984
wow I thought ..its lucky I didn't continue with that peat and oilsand project. after that I heard nothing more..
Well I was even later... 2014.. for some reason I was reading about Randell Mills and that got me on to LENR Forum.
then I discovered that there was a whole bunch of literature..prehistory,,which was in addition to what Ascoli describes as the "two founders of CR"
Russians,, Italians.. Nobel Prize winners...
And I feel a litle lucky they did not succeed in 89, since I have been employed in the oil & gas industry since the early 90's , as a chemical processing engineer 😉
But it's now overdue, the world needs LENR 🤓
This is what got me interested in cold fusion:
On March 1989 there was a (premature) press conference of an interesting discovery. At the time I was a young student at the university, and watched it on the news. Shortly after, in May 1989, it was debunket thoroughly by the US physisist society. After that I forgot about it, until late 1998, when I discovered research was still going on, to my surprise.
After that I read a few papers, and a few books, and a lot of articles. I have been on and off the subject as a side interest ever since.
BUT; The mystery to be solved is not some boiling water experiment. This is not the mystery they discovered in the 80's, and is not the mystery that others have replicated. Others have replicated the original experiments, and variants of the original experiment and confirmed there are a mystery of natures that begs attention.
I am not really interested in boiling experiments, with the additional errors those may introduce, like the ones we have seen on Rossi nickel/hydrogen tests.
However, the Early experiments by professor Focardi and Piantelli also seem to confirm some Similar phenomenon is going on in nickel/hydrogen.
So there are branches of LENR in different systems.
Interesting enough, Also the patent of F&P described Nickel as a candidate....
Display MoreThe lecture you proposed is also included in an interesting and quite unbiased review (1) of some videos containing F&P speeches recorded in the first CF decade (1989-99). There is also a link to the list of other MF related videos accessible from wn.com (2).
Yes, a very interesting video (3). I noticed that 7 years after the 1992 boil-off experiment, the wrong conclusions of the ICCF3 paper (4) retained a central role in his lecture:
- at t=27:10 he mentions the 4 kW/cm3 calculated on Page 16 on the basis of a wrong estimation of the boil-off timing (5);
- while, starting from t=27:45, he presents the same graph of Figure 8, which is based on a wrong synchronization between the lab video and the data log (6).
I wonder how many of the other results presented in that lecture were equally wrong.
(1) http://judavis.blogspot.com/20…old-fusion-1989-1999.html
(2) https://wn.com/martin_fleischm…ance&upload_time=all_time
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQ6Cphe5nE
(4) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
To me the interesting part of the lecture was what happened in 1920's and forward to F&P discovery in the mid 1980's. (Some would say re-discovery)
Why they started the research etc. And as with many scientific discoveries there are a prehistory og overlooked lab results, og earlier controversial lab results hidden away etc.
A rare lecture of Fleischmann, "cold fusion - past, present and future"
Very technical, but worth while watching.
can't see overunity in a recent patent application..
perhaps Joi scientific are not pursuing that any more
The patent describes electrolysis of water(or seawater) to produce hydrogen.
So they want to use electricity in electrolyzer to produce hydrogen to produce electricity and drive stuff like ship engines....and electrolyzers 😉
Now If that is not overunity, what is 🤓😜 ?
They also describe a Stanley Meyer type system....so did they rediscover the holy grail.....or is it a scam.
I think it is a scam.
But I still believe in LENR 😎😎
...all attempts to minimize the importance of the F&P paper and the significance of their video, as well as the lack of any factual criticism
Attempts? Ha, Sorry it was never meant as an attempt, but as factual description of their published papers 😉
And I believe the critisism of your analysis was on the contrary, very factual.
Anyhow, I believe we were going in circles at the end, so I agree the closure of the thread were expected.
Einstein was not wrong, but for reasons other
I do not believe I said any reasons, I know the story thank you. It's an example of honest mistakes, which he could not know. Anyhow there are still some issues with the cosmological constant, but that is not he subject here.
Their claims were rejected by an even greater majority of their colleagues
And of reasons you have not investigated. Do not be lazy, but read the history, its really fascinating as study of anthropology if nothing else ;-).
I think the New York Times article from 1989 sums up the reson for rejection pretty well;
“Cold fusion, too, required too many miracles. The first was that an utterly unknown way of achieving fusion had escaped the attention of generations of nuclear physicists. The second was that deuterons could be squeezed closely enough together inside palladium for fusion to occur. The third was that the fusion produced so few neutrons. Each miracle, taken separately, was plausible. But the simultaneous appearance of three was strong circumstantial evidence of pathology at work.”
Actually the fusion term was forced upon F&P from outside, as Fleischmann stated "We did not call it cold fusion at all, that was a term that was wished on us, but we did not call it that.” “We felt the processes had to be nuclear, to account for the high levels of energy.”
The deciding moment in time for Cold Fusion was the MAY 1989 APS meeting in Baltimore.
A frenzy of tests had been performed between 23. March 23. and May 1989. Tests at Caltech , MIT and in other labs. Tests based on data from “news articles” and “TV pictures”, since Fleischmann and Pons did not reveal any exact lab data. These were very far from “scientific” replication efforts.
On May 1-2, 1989, a series of three “cold fusion” press conferences took place in Baltimore, MD at the American Physical Society meeting, the world’s largest yearly gathering of physicists. And Cold Fusion was pronounced dead and buried.
As The press after reported: NYT: "….the scientists on a panel at the American Physical Society meeting Tuesday voted 8-1 that they were 95 percent confident the excess heat was not produced by nuclear fusion."
Associated Press: "A panel of nine scientists on Tuesday disparaged Utah researchers' claim of achieving fusion in a jar, suggesting they were fooled by faulty measurements."
And when theoretical Physicists said no, then the chemical scientist society followed suit.
Their errors are not due to a lack of adequate equipment
Really? If they had better detectors, they could have measured the exact water content in their electrolytic cells, and we would not have had this discussion.
They should have placed their boiling cells on electronic weights, with data acquisition. That would have told them the accurate amount of water at any time.,
I'm only arguing about the scientific reliability of F&P, ie the trust that can be given to the trueness of their scientific statements
Well I would say that errors in one paper don't impact their scientific reliability in other papers, since experiments may be very different in scope, range and instrumentation.
Every paper must be evaluated separately.
the existence of the F&P errors and the impact of these errors on their scientific reliability
If one error in one paper impacts another paper must be evaluated from case to case. I do not think possible errors may impact scientific reliability as a general statement.
I think we belong to these different groups
I belong to the group that believe in the original discovery as described in F&P seminal paper.
Because similar results as been confirmed by many others many-many times.
And if LENR exist then strange things should happen in other systems than wet D-Pd system. And behold: We have confirmation of excess heat events in other material also, like the Piantelli-Focardi research or the nanor of Dr. Mitchell Swartz.
Could you explain how it was possible that they misrepresented the duration of the boil-off period
I do not think it is possible that they misrepresented as much as you think. With very high foam level, they would have ended with dry cell much earlier, but that is not what the video show.
To illustrate my point, if F&P had 3 cm bubble layer it would mach their video better than if the foam level very very high.
that you agree that F&P made the errors I was talking about
Not necessarily. I say there may be some issues, but it's not important for the existence of LENR. Everyone makes some error through their careers, and this is not their important discovery. There is another phenomenon that interests me, which is the heat bursts as I explained, and which is the Mystery.
In fact, you cited two famous example of mistakes, superluminal neutrinos and the cosmological constant, that have been admitted by their makers.
In that case you again have not adequate knowledge of the history.
Einstein removed the constant from his equations in 1931, and called the constant his "biggest blunder". But his real blunder was to remove it in the first place, since it was reintroduced in 1998, long after Einsteins death.
it is expected that they recognize and correct their errors asap
The ideal would be to recognize and find error asap, but that does not always occur, for many reasons, not because of dishonesty, but natural reasons, just as with Einsteins blunder.
a – the 2 conclusions (*) in the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 were both wrong;
b – if confirmed, the errors contained in this 1992 paper have a serious impact on the scientific reliability of the two authors.
For a - I would say we may challenge the energy or power density identified by F&P. But as I showed earlier there seems to be an increase in excess heart at increased temperatures towards and approaching boiling.
Anyhow, I do not think of this later work as important as the earlier research, and therefore to me this issue is not important - because -
for b - I absolutely disagree. All scientists makes blunders and mistakes through their careers, they are only humans
Yes, even at CERN when they thought to have proven Neutrinos travelled faster than light 
There is no question that F&P where Honest researchers, but that does not mean they did no mistakes.
The 92/93 papers is very different from their earlier work, where the earlier work focused at lower temperatures below boiling and therefore they would be able to be more accurate in their measurements.
SO I have full confidence in their seminal paper and the discovery they made, which brought us this new controversial area of science. But if no one confirmed their seminal paper, then I would not be here today. But as they did confirm it around the world, I believe there is something worth investigating.
Cold Fusion is generally considered by science and historians as among the biggest scientific blunders of the 20th century. Personally I believe they will be proven wrong, just as it took some time to bring back the Cosmological Constant of Einstein, "his biggest blunder"
their method provides random numbers, as shown by F&P themselves in their response to Wilson's remarks (2). Table 2 shows three different sets of excess heat values (Qf/W) calculated for the calibration cycles shown on Fig.3A-B-C of the seminal paper issued in 1990. Well, 2 of these 3 sets, those in the last 2 columns, have been both calculated by F&P and are very different each other
I believe you misunderstand the paper [1]. The excess heat values Qf is calculated at different times and is of course not constant. The Fig.3A-B-C is just some examples of many similar events of calibration and Qf calculation.
If the excess heat where constant we might suspect some calibration constant error that a certain K... have suggested
And of particular interest is the number of blank experiments showing as expected no excess heat.
But the most interesting mystery in my opininon is not the low excess heat events, but the random high excess heat bursts that occurred, which calculates to far beyond any chemical reaction power densities.
[1] https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf
you refer to the 1990 paper as their "initial"
Sorry, I meant seminal
One could argue there are several major papers of F&P, but THE most important by far is the 1990 paper.
The 1990 paper started the whole new area of science, and all its branches
The 1992 paper did not start any new branches, and therefore is not as important.
The 1990 is 3 times as big in volume as the 1992 paper, which in itself do not say anything of the quality, but say something of the scope and importance.
The excess heat below boiling is undisputed to this day, I.e. the critics never answered Fleischmans reply to their criticism.
As earlier discussed the 1992 paper may have errors, but I believe the main point was proven, that excess heat increase at higher temperatures of the cell.
But, in the future history books wet D-Pd systems may well become known as a dead end wrt practical usable LENR, but how it all started will never be forgotten
real mystery for me is how it was possible that a professor in physics
Well, as the professors of chemistry and physics knew is that there are only two choices (if you discard errors then ) Either the cause is chemical or the cause of heat is some nuclear phenomenon.
We know what power and energy densities that chemical processes may produce, and if the measured heat is above, then you need to consider the alternative, as F&P and Hansen pointed to.
Anyone care to comment on difference between Rossi and Brillouin technology?
As far as I know comparing to the original Rossi reactor, both where using Hydrogen, both where using Nickel and both are using some electrical pulse signal to get the reaction going?
Are we saying that Brillouin probably has something, while Rossi never had anything?
