PS - Did you see my previous reply to you and the mentioned video?
I watched the video. It is popular fluff and highly inaccurate. I don't pay much attention to such things - if I did they would annoy me.
Otherwise - you have made your point that F&P's boil-off phase calculation here seems very wrong when the video is closely examined.
I don't go round speculating as to why its wrong. It is not a helpful thing to do with science. Just let them have made a mistake.
Display MoreJR reported (1-2) that he was helped by Pons for his "Review of the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons" (3), he published only 2 years ago, and repeatedly mentioned since then.
On page 16 of his review, JR wrote:
" The boil off method of calorimetry is simple compared the isoperibolic method, hence the title of the paper, “Simplicity.”
It takes about 10 minutes for half of the water to boil away. We know it takes that long because they made a time-lapse video of the event with a time stamp on the screen. The time when the boil off was triggered was known. The time when the boil off ends, with all of the water gone from the cell can be clearly seen in the video.
The video is on YouTube here:
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434"
Unfortunately, this is an old VHS video, and it is a copy of a copy, so the quality is degraded and the picture is blurry, but you can still see when the boil off events begin and end. The video is synchronized with the computer data of temperature and cell electrolysis input power."
So, JR says, that despite the degraded and blurry (in his opinion) picture, "you can still see when the boil off events begin and end". Therefore he, Pons, McKubre, or any other expert in electrolysis could tell which are, for each of the 4 cells, the 2 frames of the mentioned video in which the boil off begins and ends.
Moreover, since "the video is synchronized with the computer data of temperature" they could also tell which is the frame which corresponds to the vertical arrow on Fig.8 of the Simplicity paper.
(1) RE: What is the current state of LENR?
(2) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
(3) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf
PS - Did you see my previous reply to you and the mentioned video?
Great! Well it seems the correct resolution to this thread, instead of insults, is just for Jed to reference the video and the two points (10 minutes aprts) where it is clear the cell is 50% full and 0% full.
I, and others, will then happily watch that segment seeing whether this is plausible.
Ascoli is saying it is impossible to find such a 10 min segment because the level going down in 10 min at the end is foam not liquid.
Robert Horst in that 2018 thread was agreeing.
Jed could shut me up by doing this - then it would juts be:
Jed says its liquid
Ascoli says its foam.
I find the argument that it is foam pretty convincing so maybe Jed (and SP) have some other argument I am not understanding.
THH
You really need to retire Stanley pons is still alive and all your concerns have been covered over and over for years by Jed and the crew of experimenters.
OK - but Stanley is I believe not active in defending his old work with F - I agree he'd be an invaluable contributor to this discussion.
"concerns covered" could you just summarise in what way?
I feel a bit as though I am to be excommunicated because I have desecrated one of the deeply held beliefs of a religion - but that is not true. You understand the argument here? Why are the videos inconsistent with the boil-off enthalpy in that paper. It is a simple point to answer if in fact they are consistent.
Or, you can just say that this specific result was incorrect. It makes F&P look bad - but they are no longer active in the field and Stanley (though it seems alive) is I think not likely to take an interest in our discussion here or add to it.
It sort of amazes me how no-one is willing to give a clear counterargument to the foamgate idea: or even a suggestion about how foamgate could in fact be got round.
Y'are all acting like skeptics who when presented with apparently irrefutable LENR evidence make a whole load of wrong arguments - easily contradicted, but then say "I don't know how its wrong - but I know its wrong! And people who believe it are kooks!"
Only in reverse.
THH
Given that by definition LENR requires nuclear reactions, one way to distinguish the various approaches being pursued (with vigor) now is the characteristics of those reactions.
We can make this distinction:
Type 1 - reactions happen with unexpected high reaction rates in low energy systems: AND all (or nearly all) reaction products are forced to be low energy. Practically this means the excess nuclear-level quanta of energy must be fractionated over a very large number of particles so that the energy can couple to low energy phonons etc.
Type 2 - reactions happen with unexpected high reaction rates in low energy systems. Although branching ratios may change from those expected, there is no fractionation so that where the reaction requires a high energy particle as product it must exist.
This thread is to discuss - in the light of ICCF24 - what is the status of type 2 LENR? It has never been that popular in the past - every since F&P experiments did not show the expected high energy products from deuterium fusion. It is accepted that, for whatever reason, most LENR experiments are type 1. (A notable exception would be the CR-39 alpha track stuff).
Examples of type 2 would be the google/NASA electron screening stuff, or hybrid fission/fusion systems driven by low energy reactions, or even relatively low power laser catalysed reactions. Much of Holmlid's work would also be type 2 (but maybe not all of it).
Is this LENR?
How does it relate to type 1 LENR?
Are you an LENR skeptic if you are enthusiastic about type 2 LENR but highly skeptical about type 1? Is it OK to support type 1 but think therefore that the alpha track evidence is probably a mistake?
Is the distinction artificial?
What nonsense. you are merely saying because you are right, I must be wrong. That is not only logically bankrupt, it is also ethically questionable.
No. I am saying that I and ascoli have given clear arguments which you have not addressed. For example, you might want to point to the video and find this 600s segment with a 50% reduction in liquid level, or something.
All I am saying is that you are wrong in dismissing the arguments on the basis of F&P's being wonderful electrochemists. That is not a scientific argument.
F&P are not alive to defend themselves. But, were someone to critique a paper of mine, I'd want to answer the criticism directly.
I'd accept that maybe F&P's work is no longer relevant to LENR. That would shut me up - why rake through history - though not ascoli who would argue that it has always been quoted as very relevant.
THH
There's a number of other wonderful parallels in this paper, so I encourage others to read it. To me, the battle over plate tectonics teaches us a valuable lesson: If we want LENR to become mainstream, we need to get LENR into school curricula.
Try making it a predictive theory first?
Unless you want us to teach magic. Fun, but maybe not the right thing.
Display MoreNormally in LEC replications the voltage is measured between the Working Electrode (WE) and an inert counterelectrode across a gap via spacers, and the multimeter has an internal impedance of usually 1 or 10 MOhm, as per this diagram:
What I proposed in the previous comment was instead observing if a voltage could be shown across the WE as it is across the wire in Celani's case.
Since the WE will most likely have a negligible resistance due to its geometry (cylinders, bars, plates, etc), a resistor would be needed here for that.
I would not expect any voltage across the WE - but you can measure it directly with no resistor - it would be a low impedance circuit an insensitive to whatever load impedance you presented.
Whereas the LEC is a high impedance circuit and the measured voltage reduces as you give it a lower impedance load.
Do you also agree that the lab videos undoubtedly prove that F&P made a huge mistake in calculating the rate of enthalpy output?
Or do you still have any objections that might contradict this conclusion?
Actually - I don't go as far as you!
I never thought those rubbish videos proved anything much. It is difficult to be SURE what is the liquid level. Of course that makes F&P's whole paper groundless - based entirely on their subjective and unexplained "close observation of the video".
I think it is very unlikely the liquid reduces by 50% of volume in 600s - based on those videos.
I think F&P have the classic disease got by people who are infinitely more experienced than their audience. They leave out steps, make assumptions based on what they know. If, like Alan and Jed, you accept them as great people who cannot be wrong that is fine. If anyone else you find the gaps and assumptions intensely annoying. "Believe me, I know more than you" has never been an argument in a research paper that I can accept.
It is a bit like with Rossi. Suppose they had what they say. Then they could so easily have documented that experiment more carefully - chosen enthalpy calculation points that were quantitatively justified - not "estimating levels on a video" where foam and liquid and boiling liquid all look pretty similar. Made an iron-clad case that would convince their many doubters.
Like Rossi, BLP, many others, they choose to demo a system which it is very difficult to derive exact results from: and it does not even seem right when independent observers check it.
Even Robert Horst was not convinced...
The LENR community is very happy it is now being taken seriously. I am happy too. That serious work will lead to more clarity over whether LENR exists or not - surely something we will all welcome?
You do not need to rest on dodgy demos from the mists of history. At least, I hope not!
So here we have two people who know next to nothing about electrolysis disputing the findings of a world-class electrochemist and his very able colleague. I have performed probably several hundred electrolysis experiments, 44 this month alone. In a previous life I was responsible for formulating electrolyte mixtures containing suspended particles as well as plating tanks up to 15,000 litres, including some very high current high voltage systems . I don't consider myself an expert but I am pretty knowledgeable, which is enough to tell me that your topic is a waste of pixels and your arguments based on nothing more than guesswork.
Alan - that is a logically bankrupt argument you've just made.
(1) You quote the qualifications of two able electrochemists - and yet ascoli's argument is watching foam and cross-checling a video against a graph in a paper. Hardly electrochemistry. Nor do F&P answer ascoli's argument. They give no reasons for their statements about 600s (a peculiarly round number of minutes) between 50% full and empty.
(2) You say that you are knowledgable (which I agree) and then trash a simple argument - surely simple to contradict - without reasons. Is everyone here too simple-minded to follow your reasons? The argument from ascoli can be followed by anyone, and is clear. you could at least say which link in its chain your "expertise" contradicts.
I, as you know, am not very knowledgable - but very good at following arguments - even technical ones in areas I am less familiar with - and detecting BS. I am sensitive to it - I even detect it, and feel embarrassed, when I do it as happens occasionally - I am only human.
I do so here: in the F&P paper (lack of clarity about key aspects) and your support of it (no reasons given).
F&P said they considered the last half of the boiled water, therefore this 600s segment has to be necessarily at the end of the boil-off, it can't be elsewhere. The available videos, both the one published by Krivit and the one published by Rothwell, include these final boil-off periods, one for each cell, but none of them show a drop in liquid level from 50% to 0% in 600s.
I agree. However there is a possibility that foam is created during the boil-off and gradually goes down after all boiling has stopped. So determining the exact end of the boil-off period is not straightforward. I agree that subject to possible foam generation and subsidence the 600s must be at the end.
Jed, or others here, may dispute your determination of the liquid level in the cells. It would be interesting to see which video frames he considers correspond to 50% and 0% liquid level.
Display MoreOK, this is enough to explain in a ordinary way any claimed excess heat in the "1992 boil off" experiment.
The explanation is straight. This is a line extracted from page 16 of the simplicity paper:
In Vapour, 102,500J/600s ≈ 171W
This is the greatest term in the heat balance which gives an excess heat of about 4 times the input power.
It contains two data. Let's leave aside the boiling time at the denominator, it doesn't matter. The numerator was calculated in this other line:
In Vapour ≈ (2.5 Moles × 41KJ/Mole) = 102,500J
F&P multiplied two numbers. The second is correct (apart the K symbol which should have been in lowercase), and represents the latent heat of vaporization of heavy water (1). The second is the estimate made by F&P of the moles of water evaporated in the final boil off phase, that is the period marked with blue arrows in the video published by Krivit. But 2.5 Moles correspond to half the entire content of a cell at the beginning of the experiment, when it is full liquid!
However, in the final boil off phase, when F&P calculated the Output Enthalpy due to vaporization, the water mass in each cell was much lower, maybe 20, 10, 5% of the figure considered by F&P, who knows? In any case they made an enormous mistake. In short: in calculating the excess heat of their "1992 boil-off" experiment, F&P confused liquid for foam!
This is the main and definitive error!
(1) https://www.engineeringtoolbox…ic-properties-d_2003.html
Yes, that is my understanding of your point. It seems very likely (as Robert Horst also thought). To prove it to close-minded skeptics here (Jed etc) you need only to show that there is no 600s segment on the videos that corresponds to a 50% to 0% liquid level change.
Equally, to contradict you, Jed has to convince independent observers that the video shows that change (50% to 0% liquid level) over a 600s period.
It is quite simple.
Display MoreFor space enthusiasts like me, this is a great place to learn everything about advanced space propulsion systems that will be powered by emergent NASA CMNS energy technologies... Not "Cold Fusion" so to speak.. Yet the 'cold fusion' of Pons and Fleischmann never was cold in some nano spots was it, Lawrence? It was also 'lattice confinement fusion' in a wet cell rather than a dry cell electro chemical nano nuclear environment.
Food for thought since before the days when Peter Gluck pushed the dry cell vs wet cell debate. He called it Nanoplasmonic LENR
Anyways
I'm sure the NASA and Global Energy Corporation researches all know that Pons and Fleischmann were clearly vindicated many, many years ago, by the U.S. Government energetics research community at large.
It's time to bring folks up to date.
This Atomic Rockets post is well worth reading in it's entirety. From way down in the Lattice Confinement Fusion section.
Atomic Rockets
Powerplant Introduction
Power Generation
Link
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/power.php
Quote
“What we did was not cold fusion,” says Lawrence Forsley, a senior lead experimental physicist for the project. Cold fusion, the idea that fusion can occur at relatively low energies in room-temperature materials, is viewed with skepticism by the vast majority of physicists. Forsley stresses this is hot fusion, but “We’ve come up with a new way of driving it.”
(Not that new. Not proprietary certainly)
“Lattice confinement fusion initially has lower temperatures and pressures” than something like a tokamak, says Benyo. But “where the actual deuteron-deuteron fusion takes place is in these very hot, energetic locations.” Benyo says that when she would handle samples after an experiment, they were very warm. That warmth is partially from the fusion, but the energetic photons initiating the process also contribute heat.
There’s still plenty of research to be done by the NASA team. Now they’ve demonstrated nuclear fusion, the next step is to create reactions that are more efficient and more numerous. When two deuterons fuse, they create either a proton and tritium (a hydrogen atom with two neutrons), or helium-3 and a neutron. In the latter case, that extra neutron can start the process over again, allowing two more deuterons to fuse. The team plans to experiment with ways to coax more consistent and sustained reactions in the metal.
Benyo says that the ultimate goal is still to be able to power a deep-space mission with lattice confinement fusion. Power, space, and weight are all at a premium on a spacecraft, and this method of fusion offers a potentially reliable source for craft operating in places where solar panels may not be useable, for example. And of course, what works in space could be used on Earth.-endquotes
Post Script - Requested Reference
Peter Gluck
1937 - 2021
In Memory of Peter Gluck - Infinite Energy Magazine
Gluck, P. 1991. “Cold Nuclear Fusion in Thin Foils of Palladium,” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 154, 153-161)
Quote Infinite Energy Magazine
Currently, Dr. Gluck’s blog website Ego Out is still active: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/.
He posted from 2010 to 2018, with a final posting earlier this year, for a total of 1,408 posts over the years. The blogs are dedicated almost exclusively to various aspects of the LENR field. Dr. Gluck publicized his site widely and it became a sort of informal forum, with commentary and debate from readers.
In 2020, Thomas Grimshaw and David Nagel started the Ego Out Documentation Project (EODP), a project of the LENR Research Documentation Initiative led by Grimshaw. As part of this project, they archived all of the pages of Dr. Gluck’s blog site, which will be useful in the future if the website goes defunct. See a report about this collection in Infinite Energy #151/152.
As a testament to his ever-positive outlook, in one of our last communications with Dr. Gluck, he wrote: "During my next reincarnation I will solve the problem of cold fusion."-endquotes
gbgoblenote-Peter Gluck published his paper in a peer reviewed journal in 1991.
Skeptics like me hope that the (good science) NASA attempts to get useful fusion or fission power from lattice confinement will succeed. The likely technological solutions are less attractive than classic LENR (it it were to work), but still could be very important - especially under the conditions required by spacecraft.
Peter Gluck was a prolific and opinionated LENR blogger. His judgement in areas I know about was severely flawed. He supported Rossi very strongly at a time when it was obvious Rossi was a liar and almost everyone realised this - to the extent that he posted vituperative, personalised, and incorrect conspiracy theories about people who provided detailed technical arguments that Rossi's experiments were wrong. He had a sort of "high level" view of LENR where he did not engage with the specific technical details of experiments - this IMHO made his judgement subjective and inaccurate.
So Peter Gluck on Ego Out: (1) Personalised conspiracy theories - not my thing. (2) Did not engage with technical details - again not my thing.
Gluck was not positive when contradicting people he did not agree with.
THH
Re identifying cells. F&P refer to the "first" and "last" cell. Let us follow this - cell 1 is the first to boil, cell 4 is the last to boil, as given by video times and also times in Fig 6.
That means that 6A, 6B,6C,6D is first (1), second (2), third (3), last (4). No ambiguity.
I'd also point out that Fig 10A,B,C,D in the simplicity paper (ref above) are totally unhelpful to me. I cannot determine anything from them. Maybe they have lost something in scanning or copying and the originals were more helpful? The videos do have a lot more evidence because the way that bubbles move in them helps you to distinguish what is what.
Thanks Ascoli for the info re 100V rail.
It looks to me like the video timestamps are time-of-day because they all are for hours 0-23. But the graphs in the paper appear to be time from the start of the experiment (in seconds or Ksec). So to line them up, you need to know what time of day corresponds to 0 Ksec.
However, I looked at the video a couple dozen times and am inclined to agree that the arrows are foam levels, not liquid levels. The cells seem to transition through three clear phases. In the first phase, you can see that it is mostly liquid with gradually increasing bubbles as the liquid boils. In the second phase is is mostly foam and in the third phase, the foam level rapidly decreases to zero. You can tell the foam phase because sometimes the level decreases and then increases again, which could not happen with liquid. For instance, look at Cell 1 at 21:23 when it is full of foam, 21:40 when the top of the foam is a little lower, then 21:55 when it is full of foam again. Several times the video cuts away for hours between phases 1 and 2. For Cell 1, there is a cut between about 11:30 and 18:36.
The Enthalpy Balance in the paper is based on only the last 10 minutes and assumes the liquid is boiling then. Even though I have great respect for Fleischmann's work in general, I would have to agree with Ascoli that this paper is likely flawed.
Thanks for encouraging me to reread the discussion in 2018 - which I followed with some bemusement at the time. I had forgotten all the details: but re-examining the thread now makes it easier to clarify things. However I still have a lot I do not understand about the precise arguments made by Ascoli.
Having done this (and noting the extra info from ascoli) I will summarise my position:
I am going to answer ascoli's questions, but first fill in some context. I give my interpretation of his argument, with comments. It may be wrong, but I find it the best way to resolve misunderstandings.
Ascoli's conclusion rests on three independent bits of evidence (a) The blue arrows on a "condensed for presentation" copy of the video. (b) the clips selected in the condensed video (c) His own analysis [1] eyeballing the longer video linked in the F&P paper [3].
It is helpful to consider also the contrary arguments made by various members of LF, who considered Ascoli's argument and suggested it was incorrect
Now, ascoli claims that the 6B voltage/temp/time graph [3] endpoint time for a cell (which one?) is misaligned with the video endpoint - so that the period claimed for HAD was in fact HDE (heat during electrolysis).
In fact there are two separate arguments here: (1) the argument pursued in this thread that the HAD was not HAD because there was liquid in the cell. (2) the old argument That the 600s boil-off phase used to estimate enthalpy balance actually corresponded to different liquid levels that the 50% and 0% that F&P claim. To some extent these two arguments overlap - but they are not the same.
Now, answering ascoli's step-by-step questions:
I'd agree with both those points.
1. Diagram showing the vertical level of each phase (liquid/boiling/foam/empty) in cell 1, and the arrows (ascoli - a lot of work)
(note to ascoli - we have been discussing 6B. does that correspond to cell 1? or cell 2? And if we have been discussing cell 2 then it would be helpful to have a similar diagram for cell 2.
2. Diagram and tables showing the times of the video clips (ascoli - a lot of work)
4. Robert Horst post summarising views on F&P experiment
The levelized cost of electricity, disregarding subsidies, is: nukes $204/MWh, solar $41, wind $50.
Building a nuclear power plant is economic insanity. Nobody wants to pay 5 times more for electricity than they would from the cheapest, cleanest source, which is solar. The power companies are installing far more solar than any other source because it is the cheapest source. Nuclear power is obsolete. It costs far too much. It is dangerous. The Fukushima accident bankrupted TEPCO, the largest power company in the world. There is no chance nuclear fission will catch up. I doubt that tokamak plasma fusion will ever become practical either.
Just a point.
Nuclear power works as base load. Solar/wind do not.
So you need to add to the cost of them, enough energy storage to make them work when there is no sun/wind.
That is possible - but:
(a) It adds to the effective cost a lot
(b) it has just not been done enough yet.
We will get to all-renewable - no doubt - because battery (and other mains storage) tech is progressing but at the moment nuclear looks cheaper for base load than batteries. So we need it.
As always you need to look better than just single figures of cost.
Display MoreBaby crash in the city of Zurich is accelerating massively
In June, the drop in births in Switzerland's largest city was an incredible 31 percent. The crash thus increases significantly in speed.
https://insideparadeplatz.ch/2…beschleunigt-sich-massiv/
The city of Zurich, as the most urban place in the country, sets the pace in many areas. Now for newborns too.
Their number is collapsing. And how. In June, births in the city of Zurich fell by an incredible 31 percent compared to the average for the years 2015 to 2019.
Has it occured to anyone that few would plan to have children in the middle of a COVID pandemic? So the fact that there were fewer conceived 9 months ago is hardly surprising. Especially in a well-ordered place like Zurich where I bet there are few unplanned pregnancies.
Now - question for you - who was thinking - "this is because the vaccine decreases fertility"!
Given what this thread has become - I'd expect many.
THH
Which ones? Be specific. I have mainly referenced the top tier ones by Fleischmann, Miles, McKubre, Storms and others. They are well described. I suggest you ignore poorly described experiments.
Of those - the boil-off phase of the Simplicity experiment we are now discussing is poorly described.
For example: how high does that oh so important asymptote on voltage go? - it must be known, from the design of the CC source. How was the 75V over 10 min average voltage calculated, from what measurements?
I reiterate - this 10 minute segment is very far from steady-state. The voltage is asymptotic to infinity (subject to CC limitations which we do not know).
I WAS ignoring it - but others put it forward as strong evidence.
So it can, but very rarely - and you know what, you can hear it- even tiny amounts of gas go off with a sharp crack. But is it exposed to air, or to water vapour? That is the difference.
Well - the speed of the reaction is surely adjustable.
Air or water vapour? Well, after the cell has boiled off, there is no more water and no more water vapour. It is open. You tell me?
The 10 minute segment chosen is when conditions are very rapidly changing and we do not know how much of it has enough excess steam vapour pressure so as to prevent diffusion or turbulent convection from hot surfaces of air back into the cell.
PS - and for HAD this mechanism looks quite a good explanation? At that point there is no more steam and the electrode is hot and exposed to air.
