Posts by JedRothwell

    This is evidently due to the fact that, at the end of the drying period, a thick layer of residual and persistent foam remained at the bottom of the cells.

    That is utterly impossible. The cathode was so hot, it melted the Kel-F plastic plug at the bottom of the test tube. This is clearly stated in the paper. The melting point of Kel-F is over 150°C. It is not possible for foam or liquid water to remain in an open cell at those temperatures.

    Your hypotheses violate elementary physics and common sense. Any 10-year-old child would know that what you say is impossible.

    Does Ascoli65 really believe that liquid water or foam will remain in a test tube that is over 150°C? Or is he just trolling us? I can't tell.

    Other pathological skeptics have been contributing preposterous hypotheses here recently. Shanahan claimed that hydrogen damage to x-ray film can produce a sharp image of the anode and sharply defined areas of radioactivity that repeat time and time again in different x-ray films, or in two films placed one behind the other. When I pointed out that other x-ray films are placed outside the cell, he bugged out. He won't even try to explain away that.

    Such arguments are the best proof that pathological skeptics are wrong. Nothing I could say would discredit them as much as what they say themselves.

    I added two new search fields:

    First author name or partial name:
    Any author:
    Word(s) in title:
    Word(s) in any field:

    Unfortunately, the free version ran out of bandwidth quickly. I will have to pay $36 a month. So I will migrate it to another database in the next few months. I can recreate most of the features of this database. It just takes longer.

    This database sure is fast. Plus the new server seems faster too.

    There is no water left in the cell after an anomalous heat boil off. No water and no foam. Not only is there no water, but the plastic holder at the bottom often melted, which means the temperature was far above 100 deg C.

    There is water left during a calibration with electrolysis heating only. That is because the power turns off as soon as the water line drops below the anode or cathode. Also, the heat balance is zero during a calibration (no excess heat).

    My ISP upgraded the server. I think it works faster. However, the library index system stopped working. I was planning to replace it anyway, so I did it in a big hurry this afternoon. I have made only one screen so far, but it was dead simple to do. I think the new index is a big improvement.

    There are two ways to search at present:

    1. First author name or partial name.
    2. Word(s) from title.

    You can use either or both. Search for "roth" and "future" and you find 6 papers by me.

    You can search several words in the title, in any order. Such as: "anomalous isotopes" OR "isotopes anomalous." It finds the same 8 papers either way.

    Have a look. The direct link is here:

    Embedded in page:

    Suggestions are welcome.

    This is free, but traffic is limited. I don't think many people use the indexes. If many people do start to use them I will have to start paying $25 a month. Or I will have to find another database server that works within my ISP.

    And within a few days of the F+P press conference scientists at Los Alamos had reproduced their results but never published them.

    I do not think it was days. It took weeks just to load in most cases. Anyway, Storms and others at Los Alamos did replicate, and they did publish. Perhaps others did not publish, but if they didn't, I wouldn't know about them.

    It's possible to sort the data points within the program before exporting.

    With the GetData program, that does not work well. It's a long story. Anyway, it takes only a millisecond to sort within the spreadsheet.

    Here is how my final version looks:

    Here is a close-up of the Potential curve new version (blue) superimposed on the original (black), for Day 1 and Day 2. This shows the limits of the point capture method:

    This is common, I have done it multiple times, in fact, many of my modifications are actually “customer request” that were found in the field.

    So have I. This is called "Beta Testing" in the software biz. It is fine for software.

    However, if an automobile company were to start selling their self-driving cars now, in a Beta Test mode, or if a drug company were to distribute untested, unproven drugs over the counter to anyone . . . and something went wrong, those companies would be driven into bankruptcy by lawsuits and government regulator fines. If Rossi were to install a few reactors and something went wrong, such as gamma radiation he did not expect, that would be end of him and his dreams, and probably the end of cold fusion.

    Assuming Rossi's gadget actually does what he claims (which I do not believe), it is absolutely unthinkable that one would be installed in a customer site now, without thousands of hours of exhaustive safety testing first. This is the 21st century, not 1924, when companies sold radium-laced drinks. See: "For that Healthy Glow, Drink Radiation!"…lthy-glow-drink-radiation

    The GetData program that lives in your computer might be a better choice. It may produce higher resolution. I have not compared it carefully, but today I did the following, which may be beyond the capabilities of the online program:

    I produced a 1200 dpi scan of the graph from the printed book.

    I used the GetData program to scan this image point by point, collecting ~4330 points automatically. That is about the limit to the program. I bumped it up to higher resolution but it only scanned half the graph.

    I manually added a few points that were missed at the ends of some of the spikes. Like so:

    Here is the result. This is the Potential section from the bottom of Fleischmann's graph:

    You have to sort the points into ascending order within the spreadsheet, then graph them as an x-y scatter graph. If you do not sort them, it comes out looking like this, because the points added manually go to the end of the list:

    David French's family distributed this letter:

    A Life Well Lived

    (message en français à suivre)

    Dear friends and family,

    We regret to announce that our father, David John George French, passed away peacefully on December 2nd at Kingston General Hospital with his children, his sweetheart and a dear friend at his side.

    True to himself, Papa took his leave from this world while having an adventure. He courageously and successfully made a trip to visit his sister Sherry, making sure to include his famed off-the-path pit stops along the way.

    As David practiced his beloved profession to the end and has a great many friends spread across the map, we have concluded that it will be best for our Celebration of his life to be held in the spring. We will be sending out invitations in due course.

    Thank you all for having been part of our father's life and adventures,

    Alexandre & Geneviève French

    NB! If you have any affairs to address in regards to David's Intellectual Property practice, please contact us, the executors, by replying to this email.


    Une vie bien vécue!

    Chers parents et amis,

    Nous avons le regret de vous annoncer que notre père, David John George French, est décédé paisiblement le 2 décembre à l'Hôpital général de Kingston avec ses enfants, sa bien aimée et son cher ami à ses côtés.

    Fidèle à lui-même, papa a pris congé de ce monde en pleine aventure. Il avait courageusement réussi à faire le voyage pour rendre visite à sa sœur Sherry, tout en veillant à inclure sur le chemin ses fameux détours enrichissants.

    Étant donné que David a pratiqué sa profession jusqu'au bout, et qu'il avait de nombreux amis répartis sur toute la carte, nous avons conclu qu'il serait préférable que sa Célébration de vie se déroule au printemps. Nous vous transmetterons l'invitation en temps opportun.

    Un grand merci à tous d'avoir fait partie de la vie et des aventures de David,

    Alexandre et Geneviève French

    NB! Si vous avez des affaires en lien avec la pratique en propriété intellectuelle de David, veuillez s'il vous plaît nous joindre (nous les liquidateurs) en répondant à ce courriel.

    Here is a graph from:

    Fleischmann, M. The Present Status of Research in Cold Fusion. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion". 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy

    This is Fig. 1:

    It is an important paper, and the OCR version of the text has so few errors, I thought I would do a complete conversion. In other words I am converting it to Microsoft Word and from that I will make a nice new Acrobat file. I got to figure 1 I thought, "this deserves close analysis." It deserves to be reset from scratch.

    I looked around the Internet and found a program that converts graphs into digital data:

    That is something many scientists want to do, I expect.

    Anyway, I have the program and I am learning how to use it. I have generated a bunch of data from the cell temperature curve in the graph, and then I generated this new x-y scatter graph from that data:

    I have not quite figured out how to use the program. This graph is missing the data points that drop down to 39°C at the beginning of day 4 and then rapidly recover. But you can see it is generally correct. Here is how the program sees Day 4 data:

    I can't seem to make those little purple spots extend below and then come back up. I'll figure it out sooner or later.

    The program is simple. You mark the starting and ending points and numeric values of the x-axis (2 to 6) and then the y-axis (38.5 - 40.0), and then click on the curve and the program generates a table like this:

    2.1109 38.5688
    2.1155 38.6207
    2.1204 38.6749
    2.1313 38.7224
    2.1505 38.7555
    2.1765 38.7746
    2.2041 38.7916
    2.2297 38.8145
    2.2530 38.8439
    2.2750 38.8776
    2.2958 38.9143

    . . .

    The first number is the x-axis coordinate, and the second number is the y-axis value for that coordinate.

    The x-axis numbers are not evenly spaced so you have to make it an x-y scatter graph (which my voice input program thinks is an "ex-wife scatter graph").

    There are some problems with the original image of this graph. The distance from Day 3 to Day 4 is longer than from Day 4 to 5 and 5 to 6. There is no marker for Day 2. So I estimated where it should be.

    I have not done the voltage yet.

    When I finish I will upload the new version of the paper and append this data table to it.

    This is somewhat off topic but:

    . . . The most famous example of digitizing a graph in the history of cold fusion was done by MIT. They manually added a bunch of data points to hide the apparent excess heat. See my illustration of this in a paper by Mel Miles, on p. 23:

    This displays the most recent documents at the top. I reprocessed the seven most recent ones with the new version of Acrobat:

    I added some more, and will do others as time permits.

    Here is an example of the improved OCR. This is the text you see when you copy and paste text. This is ICCF-3, p. 6:

    ICCF3 Old

    Here , t he r e sul t s of calorimet r i c measurements on
    an e l e c t rochemical ce l l of nove l de s ign are reporte d .
    The s e r e su l t s enab l e apparent corre lat ion s to be
    e s t ab l i shed between the exce s s power gene rat ion , t he
    e l e c t rochemi cal current and the ave rage deute r i um
    load i n g . The s e cor re l ations are di s cu s s e d in t e rms o f
    t h e phenomenolog i cal mode l for exce s s power gen eration
    i nt roduce d p r e v ious l y 2, 3 .

    ICCF3 New

    Here, the results of calorimetric measurements on
    an electrochemical cell of novel design are reported.
    These results enable apparent correlations to be
    established between the excess power generation, the
    electrochemical current and the average deuterium
    loading. These correlations are discussed in terms of
    the phenomenological model for excess power generation
    introduced previously 2, 3 .

    As you see, the older version of Acrobat had problems with spacing between letters.

    I have come to the conclusion that either Ascoli never read & understood the linked FP paper or he is unable to imagine the difference between the video shown and the real difference of an experiment run in a dewar, that cannot be filmed.

    The experiments that were filmed were run in cells with clear glass, that could be filmed. They were sort of like Dewars. That is to say, they had an evacuated test tube layer but no silvered inner surface.

    In other tests, F&P used half-silvered Dewars, with a window at the bottom. Most of the heat transfer went through the window, which was always submerged. Thus, changes in the water level did not affect the calorimetry much.

    Patterson told Jed that if he couldn't have all of the marketshare he didn't want any, from what I remember.

    Something like that. He and his grandson Redding said he wanted a "100%" market share. I think I told him he will probably get that: 100% of nothing. That's how it turned out.

    As I recall, he also helped torpedo F&P's patent. He was not a nice person.

    With Patterson, I have no longitudinal observation of history and of course, I have not studied the results at all. So yeah, it's a gut feeling based on what I said above-- 8 years of experiments and not a trace remaining doesn't suggest anything worked.

    That is completely wrong. I don't know where you got that, but it is nonsense. Perhaps you read that in Wikipedia? Let me advise you that getting information about cold fusion from Wikipedia is like drinking water from a sewer. (If you want to know the plot of a Japanese comic book series, Wikipedia is probably okay.)

    Regarding the Earthtech test, it was ill advised. The wrong test of the wrong effect, done by the wrong people. It was doomed from the start, in my opinion, and that is what I said at the time.

    Ascoli questions the fact that the cell was half full of water ( as F&P reported) at the start of the last 10 minutes before the cell was dry. (I.e. Ascoli thinks the water level was very low and thefore low or no excess heat over the last 10 minutes).

    It was easy to see the water level before it boiled. They kept a careful inventory of water. There is no question how much water was in the cell. Whether it boiled away in 10 minutes, 15 minutes or 20 minutes would not change the conclusion in the least, so it makes no sense to argue about that.

    If there had been no excess heat in the last phase (10 minutes or 20) it would not be boiling. There was not enough input power for that.

    Which US test are we talking about which was supposedly done with Rossi far away? I mean, is there a link? Who did these tests and how?

    Tests performed long ago, before Rossi went public. The people involved do not want me to post their names or share any data. Sorry about that. Take it or leave it. I don't think it means much.

    Patterson probably failed because he never had anything that worked and was deluding himself and others.

    Dennis Cravens tested them carefully, independently of Patterson. I looked closely at his work, and I visited the experiment. As far as he & I could tell, they worked. Perhaps we were deluded but I don't think so. I do not think you can point to any technical reasons showing how and why we were deluded. If you cannot say "you were wrong for reasons A, B, C" where A, B and C are specific technical reasons, then you are merely saying it is your gut feeling we are wrong. Your gut feeling cannot be tested, proved or disproved.

    (A "gut feeling" means intuition. Intuition is often right. It is powerful, instinct-based feeling that should never be ignored. But it cannot be debated. It is never proof of anything.)

    JedRothwell: I have to say it again. In any confidence scheme, it's usually the part you don't get that gets you.

    You miss the point. If you don't get that part, you cannot say it is scam. I can point to specific technical reasons showing that Doral was a scam. I cannot point to any reasons showing the first Levi report was a scam. Therefore I have no technical or scientific reasons to say it was. Neither do you, as far as I know. You can say that your gut feeling is it must be a scam. You can say that based on Rossi's history and personality it is very likely to be a scam. That's reasonable. I agree with both statements. But they cannot be debated, proved, or falsified. There is no proof. Whereas there is loads of proof that Doral was a scam.