Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications

    Andrea, Thomas and Hank, you all made quite an effort for analysing the Lugano test results and I thank you for doing that. It should have been done before the Lugano report was issued, but maybe no qualified scientists could be found.
    Now the status of the Lugano document is very dubious and should be withdrawn, unless the autors come with clear new details or a proper response.
    I still believe that the found isotope shift is something to concentrate on. I fully agree that only many samples would allow a quantitative calculation with regards to mass-loss and energy release. The few samples they took were probably not representative.
    Mabe it is true what Axil Axil suggests, where he assumes that the hot cat is being used as a 'mouse' which uses uses radiation and/or particles to stimulate the E-cats, positioned around it. The problem I have got with that hypothesis it that no radiation was found.
    The good thing is that there is no need to go to 1300 degrees for testing. 800-900 degrees will be sufficient for showing some LENR effect. :D

    Yikes, Gerard, that is a desperate assumption. ALL the evidence of the last four years strongly suggests that ecats are nothing other than electrical heaters and that Rossi is a con man and a crook. Some people are too polite to tell you, apparently, but such is the case.


    And to repeat it for the umpteenth time: there was never any need to test a hot cat, which, at best, is claimed to be inefficient, low power and low "COP". Instead, the esteemed professors :dead: should have redone what Levi claimed to have accomplished back in 2011 by testing a low-temperature ecat with flow calorimetry. Higher power, higher COP, easier test -- all by a factor of ten! What incredible stupidity led them to sit for days watching an electric heater glow?

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Instead, the esteemed professors :dead: should have redone what Levi claimed to have accomplished back in 2011 by testing a low-temperature ecat with flow calorimetry. Higher power, higher COP, easier test -- all by a factor of ten! What incredible stupidity led them to sit for days watching an electric heater glow?


    Thanks for this suggestion re Levi. I'm relatively new to the LENR field, although I had a passing "news" related interest in CF over two decades back. Please give your best references for someone with some technical expertise to replicate the "E-cat" Levi tested, and to replicate the testing by Levi. A convincing best critical reference, in your view, would also be much appreciated.


    Thanks in Advance,
    Longview

    Mary likes to say things that are essentially true, but in a way that will antagonise almost anyone here.


    The issue about the old tests is that Rossi has dome (15?) demos and the original ones all demonstrated (it was claimed) a large COP. All have been shown to have understood error mechanisms explaining this, except one test conducted by Levi alone with his statement of an ultra-high COP. We have no detailed information about this so cannot know what was the error. These low temp ecat tests have never been replicated. Each one has a different setup, and a different new error mechanism. There is a trend down from high COP originally to 3 (the independent tests). Except the most independent test - the only one in a different lab -actually has COP 1.


    A trend like this where performance goes down over a sequence of tests is remarkable where somone is developing and optimising new technology, but usual where somone is mistaken or deceitful and seeing remarkable performance from errors. They will be convinced (in the mistaken version) the effect is real and will try everything not previously proved wrong to optimise it. As more things are proved wrong the scope for errors that seem to give high COP goes down.


    At this point Mary will point out why Rossi must be deceitful, not mistaken, and others here will argue with her.


    I don't need to get into that argument much. Anyone can see that this whole long sequence of tests fits "Rossi has nothing" very well, and "Rossi has something" not at all. Why oh why does the COP progressively go down, if he really has something?


    The idea that Levi is unreliable comes from this early outlying good test that Levi attested to with COP of (100?) that was clearly wrong.

    Sorry if I seem antagonistic, Thomas, but I find it hard to be patients with obvious crooks, con men, or idiots (the Swedish professors).


    You are mistaken that the method of cheating in Levi's experiment was a mystery. Of course, nobody has proof of anything because Rossi doesn't allow anyone to get close enough. However, the most probable and obvious method used to cheat in the early ecats was to misplace the single thermocouple which read the output temperature. All that was required was to place too close to the huge heaters (2 of them, one of which could only heat the cooling water!). Of course, a single proper calibration with an inert ecat would have shown this but Rossi never allowed it. When I asked him specifically about it through an intermediary (perhaps Rothwell), he replied that he didn't need blank runs because he already knew what would happen with those. What a guy! And you still think there's a chance he's honest but mistaken! Wow.


    Levi unreliable? It goes beyond that. Either he is in on the con and a crook himself, or he is stupid beyond all belief in that he did not ever repeat his one most successful test with proper controls. He was asked to, not only politely by Krivit in 2011, but since by no less than Brian Josephson, the Nobel laureate and believer in LENR. According to Josephson, Levi never replied to the email. Is that what an honest man does?


    Longview, I will try to reply to your question when I have more time.

    Quote from Longview

    Thanks for this suggestion re Levi. I'm relatively new to the LENR field, although I had a passing "news" related interest in CF over two decades back. Please give your best references for someone with some technical expertise to replicate the "E-cat" Levi tested, and to replicate the testing by Levi. A convincing best critical reference, in your view, would also be much appreciated.


    Thanks in Advance,
    Longview


    Longview, any government lab such as ORNL or Sandia or any major university physics department, acting as an official arm of the university (not individual professors) could test an ecat and repeat Levi's test. So could any testing lab like UL. Even a private company like Earthtech or Geoscience Ltd. could do the tests. The main thing would be for them to use their own method, their own instruments, and their own people. Rossi and Levi should be kept away though they certainly could give detailed instructions for properly running the ecat which could be treated as a "black box" with no need to open the interior.


    Best critical reference? I don't remember any more. Certainly you can try to find Steven Krivit's interview with Levi after the test. Levi was evasive and vague. If you can't locate the Youtube video, maybe I can find it for you.

    Thanks Thomas and Thanks Mary.


    Now I'm getting the picture. Levi was presented by Mary as an even more difficult to believe example. OK. For a moment there I thought we had a possibly neglected approach giving truly interesting effects. For me the modest COPs, particularly below 3, even though potentially revolutionary in themselves, remain problematic if, and as as long as they are unreliable.


    Those who read here know I have never directly supported Rossi. But, I don't think it is really necessary to assassinate Rossi's character to criticize much of what he does. His earlier misadventures are "interesting" and seem to fit some pattern: environmental issues arising, science and engineering, innovation, money, failure. But who has the actual documents or know exactly why he failed in various energy and environment related efforts? His "conviction" by a single administrative bureaucrat? Didn't I read that fellow has been charged with fraud himself? An how about lower level justice in Italy, the news from there out of lower courts is often not so good over here.


    A few overly ambitious projects.... we read of the successes after history is re-written.... Steve Jobs, "acid head" was driven from Apple, had to borrow from Bill Gates to rescue the company..... we don't hear much about that now. Government or private funding of research that does not pay out....come on, that is often the rule rather than the exception-- under the rationale that it strengthens the science infrastructure. Making far more of one's product than it ultimately delivers.... that can be said on a different time scale even of nuclear fission, hot fusion so far, "wonder drugs", pesticides, plasticizers and many other petrochemical products. An overly ambitious effort or two that fails... there are a lot of those kinds of stories to be told in the "Inventor's Hall of Fame" http://invent.org/hall-of-fame/


    The best alternative to the overt fraud interpretation of AR's behavior would be that he or [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] are really still working on the whole concept and are not yet willing to commit to any confining disclosures-- there having been such rapid progress. If that is the case, in my opinion he really should read the Lipinski UGC WIPO Application to see how one properly handles "covering all the possibilities" by having them disclosed as part of a "continuing application" for ultimate patent status. The fact that Rossi / [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] are not doing a continuing application makes makes me think he or they are not really making rapid progress, but instead... (read on).


    Another, less attractive face, but well short of fraud, may be that he does have something, but it is not very high COP and/or it is actually very similar to one or more of the many truly "speculative" LENR patents or other public disclosures out there. That is, AR's "innovations" might actually resemble one or more of existing published / patented / patent pending or patent expired approaches. Perhaps AR and/or [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] could be planning to market it under essentially a ''trade secret" approach. If so, it will be interesting to see how he prevents others from conducting corporate espionage and/or reverse engineering whatever might be there.... especially if he manufactures anywhere outside the EU or North America.


    But maybe we'll be surprised and within a year see the "customer" and its power consumption records indicating clear and convincing results.... <X [green with envy]


    Rossi secrecy might have once been an asset. I doubt it can continue much longer. He may have already be on the verge of losing a generation of "replicators". It appears to me to be a bit of greed. He is allowing replicators to expand the parameters of whatever technology he has. NIce idea, if he had the master patent in the field... no such luck. Better start disclosing completely and filing WIPO applications rapidly, or end up with nothing... [and as Mary strongly suggests, that may be exactly what he already has....}

    @Longview


    One of the problems with the Rossi farce is that people come into it late and the work needed to catch up is considerable. If you would read Krivit's references, which I linked, there is no doubt whatever that Rossi never made oil from waste. Instead, his company dumped toxins directly into irrigation channels causing a gigantic and immensely expensive environmental disaster for which Rossi was convicted of several felonies and sentenced to 8 years in jail. This is NOT based on the decision of a single magistrate but rather several trials with different officials and courts and all of it documented in then-current and reliable Italian news articles.


    Some of the convictions were reversed on technicalities but not all. And there is no doubt whatever that Rossi defrauded the US DOD in the early 2000's as is amply documented in Gary Wright's hard to read
    web site. There is also no doubt that Rossi lied to his distributors, all of which except two dumped him a year or so ago. The two remaining distributors have never sold anything in four years despite adds claiming 4 month delivery of megawatt plants and Rossi lies that he sold them to the US military! No doubt either that [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] did not do due diligence. And no doubt whatever that the ecat is nothing but an electrical heater. Unfortunately by now, it's a lot of stuff to read to get the real documentation so people tend to read Rossi's idiotic version on one of his pompous and inaccurate
    web sites or stupid and censored fan sites like e-catworld.com. I bet that's what you mainly read, Longview. In reality, Rossi has never accomplished anything except theft, duplicity, and con artistry.

    • Official Post

    about your accusation on Petrol dragon, it is based on innuendo and errors.
    for example the dumping in the river is the consequence of a documented sabotage done by strange people, while the city was discussing on the price of cleaning.
    strangely the price of cleaning exploded.
    since neihet rossi nor greens had any interest in pollution, you can understand who had interest.


    There is a long thread with aicles that you carefully ignore since long, like Krivit who prefer his own opinions to reality. It is his habbits to deform reality with talent to push his ideas.


    http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum-static/t-2384.html


    about TEG for the army, it seems you are incompetent in that domain and you did not notice that what he did was simply what many company are still doing.
    note aslo that it is LTI, his employer who was the contractor, and you are accusing LTI company to be a fraudster.
    Rossi like many, know that some anisotropic structur would allow better TEG, and he aaged to make a prototype with considerable efforts.
    he proposed to tes many industrialization methods to reduce the cost, with differents subcontractors, and tested the prototypes. it did not work.


    Rossi have clearly made some mistale in petroldragon, and I estimate that his process was not well industrialized.
    he tried to escape the catastrophe by putting money aside and was condemned for it.
    but his clients defended him.


    people should remember that at this period in Italy camorra was pushing through the green, stronger regulation for wastes, and proposing to dump them illegally in southern italy up to Somalia (which is a documented cause of somalia war, triggered by fishing problem due to pollution). Rossi who had started his business before that period, was working in another direction, giving value to wastes instead of putting destruction costs.


    all your pretended evidence of E-cat demo fraud, are just hypotheses, that given the protocol cannot be checked today. neither prove not disproven. innuendo cannot be the base of refuting recent evidence.
    what is documented is that Rossi had problems with his prototypes, who sometime clearly failed, (read An Impossible Invention by Mats Lewan), that is very secretive, exagerate often, and have problem to industrialize.
    This is compatible with the failure of petroldragon which can be understood simply if his process was not finished and was stil producing dioxine contaminated fuel (that were less regulated when he started his business, law changed meanwhile), and if he was still trying to improve it... Anywayere it is hard to know the reality because the journalist where all but honest, caught in a political war, and robabley as recent corruption case shows, there was mafia influence in the guardia di finanza who accused hm...


    later the situation was simpler. for TEG, rossi was an employee.
    and now with darden he is an employee.


    your conspiracy theory falled flat when Tom Darden joined the adventure. let us be serious.

    I find this discourse psychologically fascinating.


    The moment somone says "fraud" opinions polarise and the science is lost.


    Rossi makes scientific claims (for the last 5 years) that are extraordinary. About as surprising as the FTL neutrino claims.


    In that situation anyone rational requires unusually strong evidence to accept the claims as likely.


    Now, I think what happens is this:


    (1) People argue: either Rossi is a fraud, or the claims are true, at least to the extent that something LENR-like is happenning. "A little bit of LENR" is like "slightly pregnant". As far as physics goes either LENR exists or it does not. If it exists large excess energy is as likely as small excess energy.


    (2) People argue that it would be extraordinary for Rossi to be fraudulent, and therefore the collection of Rossi demos make extraordinary evidence as is needed to take LENR seriously.


    I can understand this argument: I just have reasons for thinking it unscientific.


    Scientists tend not to worry about fraud, because it makes clear evaluation of science more difficult. People are seen as fallible, capable of mistakes, also capable of persistent wrong ways of thinking that result in repeated mistakes. All of this is known to happen quite innocently where people will champion an obviously wrong theory long passed its sell by date.


    Obviously, sometimes people deceive others, deliberately falsifying results. When they do that it is often not for money, but because they have so much pride invested in the idea supported by the wrong results. The point is, we do better not to think about human motives here. Mistakes, and persistent bad mistakes, happen anyway.


    So for scientists the argument above does not work because the reasoning bout fraud is psychology not science and just not strong enough to support extraordinary evidence.


    For psychologists, the argument does not work because they know human fallibility is complex, and any mixture of delusion and deliberate fraud can happen, when they are mixed actions are not rational, so arguing: "Rossi could not do X - it would be irrational/stupid/unlikely" is very weak.


    However, random people with no great skill in psychology or science will see (1) and (2) as together making strong arguments.


    Mary - and many others, will look at the totality of evidence around Rossi and argue - "he is fraudulent - the facts make this likely". Whether they right or wrong this line of argument inflames people and is also impossible to debate on the internet. You will find web-sites cherry-picking facts. Determining the truth requires patience, persistence, and a wish neutrally to examine evidence. I bet Mary and Alain will both say they are doing this and the other is not.

    Thomas, I don't mind inflaming believers. They need something sharp to jar them into sense.


    I started with no preconceptions about Rossi. I wanted to believe he had something real. That's why I became interested in the topic. When the first issues with him were brought up (about wet steam), I expected him to repeat the experiment properly and put all those issues to rest. Certainly, any honest researcher would have done that! Instead, Rossi insulted his critics -- a hallmark of a nut case or a con man. Then, Krivit interviewed Levi and Levi evaded perfectly legitimate questions -- more reasons to doubt Rossi. Then Krivit and later Wright, revealed Rossi's extensive criminal history! Wow! Rossi denied it all but did not give credible explanations. Typical con man. Rossi tried to claim he had a PhD in physics from Kensington University. He did. He bought it without study -- Kensington was a disreputable diploma mill now closed. Then, all the idiotic claims on the misnamed blog "JONP". All the bad tests by the Swedes-- all easily correctible. The evidence for fraud, though circumstantial, is OVERWHELMING! I did not come to this conclusion lightly or superficially or casually.


    The reason Rossi got away with it is that scientists, well meaning like you, don't consider fraud as an explanation for unusual and extravagant claims. The overly polite and credulous Swedes will end up looking ridiculous and will lose all credibility as a result along with the other Rossi followers who are in the minority in that they really have scientific credentials. I feel badly about that.


    In the face of all the evidence, there is no other logical conclusion to consider than fraud. Or insanity but that is not consistent with the behavior.


    BTW, are you comparing what I write to Alain's stuff? With due respect to our host and his commendable desire to allow uncensored debate (for which he deserves praise) -- have you READ his stuff? I don't think it compares with mine not to mention Krivit, Wright, and of course Stephan Pomp. Don't be so hesitant to call out the truth! It is important for those who were fooled, bamboozled and flummoxed by Rossi to understand what happened and how it happened so it is less likely to happen again. That's mainly why I persist about it.





    What's your background mary or are you even a women? Some say you are a man hiding there? I watched you sprout off about fraud for years now & never answered you but ponder this with all the micro burst in the literature NOW!


    Just think of it this way, fast neutrons gave us the Bomb, thermalized in media such as water they gave us current nuclear reactors, now sub thermalized by surface plasmon politrons (SPP) of Widom & Larsen simplified thinking – electron collides with hydrogen ions at metal surfaces stimulated by EM frequency or frequencies ( Ni / Li) give us sub thermal neutron which can’t travel very far & make almost immediate isotopes such as Ni58 > Ni59 & so on up the isotope chain giving us tremendous power Rossi has tamed in Hot E-Cats, it’s that simple folks – no great mystery just a lot of hard engineering work IMHO! Jim


    Please put some technical input behind what you say so I can ponder something different about you & your thoughts. Have you ever worked in a lab, nuclear project, are you retired? I just don't see your facts up front & probably never will, has been my take of you for a long time now. I like the guys that question Lugano with calculations, but even they lead me to wonder what their positive accomplishments are to give me some more bite into what they say.
    I'll try not to question your authority further, but it's going to be hard, but I am a patient man who has long waited for truly clean nuclear process having worked with & been disappointed in the first two nuclear products.
    Your friend & devoted follower still trying to figure you & yours out. My simple take above makes more sense to me than you or yours but I still admire your spunk!


    https://disqus.com/home/discus…ad_44/#comment-2097658881


    Obvious Gerard McEk • 2 days agoThis argument is valid in most respects, IMO.


    What I haven't seen, and is certainly complex to calculate, is the effect of the specular reflection and selective emissivity of the interior (fuel) metals. Although the alumina filters some of it selectively, and diffuses some of it, it also passes the metallic peak emission portion transparently, and mostly invisibly to the camera, and increasingly with rising temperature (albeit strongly dependent on thickness/diffusivity). This includes both direct reflection of the wires back out, dispersed absorption and re-emission back out from the wires, and reflection of the dispersed transmitted IR light from incandescent alumina. This is a consideration in addition to direct emission from the wires, and not including direct heat from a reaction heating the interior (if it even does that). It is possible that this will increase the emissivity factor approximation (used for output calculations) significantly, since the emissivity of the alumina will not be representative of the total band emissivity due to the simultaneous metallic (Al-Li-Ni) spectral emissivity profile, and therefore the temperature dependent emissivity factor will need to be increased because a large portion of the energy emitted is at unmeasured and unaccounted-for (shorter) wavelengths.


    The MFMP test with the camera and original Dog Bone came closest to



    Obvious, what is you take on asymmetric glow noticed in fuel element. Noticeably in GS3 test I think. i think the micro burst are not necessarily centered but take place about anywhere in fuel element. Some of Rossi's glows were really off center also. DId you notice any of this? Also me356 had TC & IR was any info gleaned from that experiment & would he know something useful?

    Quote from JAROVNAK


    I summarise the issues here in my paper under the "caveats" section: specifically alumina transparency. While I agree with this comment that there are unknown errors here I disagree with the implications that (a) said unknown errors are known positive and (b) said unknown errors are potentially very large.


    I also think that looking for unknown errors as validation of extraordinary LENR is itself a weird business. The desperate attempt here is to find some wiggle-room to allow Rossi's device to work, and the Profs measurements be valid. Well, the Profs chose a very indirect and flaky way to measure power out so of course there is the possibility of error. In principle the results bound the COP in the range 1.5 - 0.7 (these are conservative figures).


    Although at higher optical frequencies the alumina becomes transparent the equation for power out at these frequencies is not positive. Whatever surface actually emits the power will have a smaller effective surface area than the reactor, so even if the power / unit area is higher this is counteracted. What the power per unit area is we do not know: it could be higher from Inconel wire, if oxidised. It could be lower from Inconel wire if not oxidised (the comparator emissivity, at 700C, is about 0.7). Let us suppose the wire has max possible emissivity 1. Then we have a 50% excess from emissivity, and a (50%?) deficit from the area reduction. Note that the wire will not be much hotter than the alumina surface - though it will be a bit hotter. From the equations for heat from radially from an inner cylinder to an outer one, and the thermal resistance of alumina, you can get a rough approximation. I'd expect around 50C or less. I have not bothered to do this calculation precisely (I'm remembering similar ones I did for how much hotter a core with heat production would be than the surface). Somone else could. If we take 50C that is an additional (1020/970)^4 = +22%.


    Furthermore, at 700C, a lot of the radiation is at frequencies where behaviour is known and the calculation stands. So this ballpark calculation tells us that there is an error, but it could be + or - and it is probably overall less than 20%.


    Finally, I agree with the poster that such an effect would be highly nonlinear versus temperature. That would lead, were it significant, to different COP values measured at 800W and 900W. However my vanilla calculation shows the same COP for these two different powers and this means any highly nonlinear error must be fairly small, further validating my calculation. One reason I wanted to release the code is for other people to try to break the near precise equal COP in the two active tests. That is strong evidence that there is no nonlinear LENR effect, no nonlinear unknown error mechanism. I did not cherry-pick this coincidence and it was robust as I changed the various parameters that affect things.

    Quote from Mary Yugo


    BTW, are you comparing what I write to Alain's stuff? With due respect to our host and his commendable desire to allow uncensored debate (for which he deserves praise) -- have you READ his stuff? I don't think it compares with mine not to mention Krivit, Wright, and of course Stephan Pomp. Don't be so hesitant to call out the truth! It is important for those who were fooled, bamboozled and flummoxed by Rossi to understand what happened and how it happened so it is less likely to happen again. That's mainly why I persist about it.


    No, your posts are quite different from Alain's in that I can understand them, and I cannot understand most of what Alain argues. But the two of you share an adversarial approach in which those with differing views from you are insulted. You are also equally convinced of your own rightness. That, however, does not mean that you are both equally right.


    In fact we broadly agree over the facts in this case, though not some of the implications where I am more hesitant than you. Where we disagree is the best way to communicate. For me, no point posting on internet if you do not wish to communicate - though I realise otehr people have other motivations.


    Specifically Rossi has written a lot on his blog that is lies, and a lot more that is total rubbish. That is a fact. Many here seem to be happy to overlook such facts and it is true that words are cheap and actions (specifically tests) count for more.


    I have looked at all Rossi's tests and none convince - that is - they all have known ordinary mechanisms to explain the results in such a way that there is no magic energy generation, hence the device is useless. It seems a bit unlikely that would be so if in fact the devices tested did really work, and small chnages to the experiments that would make them bullet-proof (and give definite results) have always been rejected by Rossi. Some here however will argue that Rossi deliberately creates the impression of his devices not working to stop competition. In fact I think I raised the idea first, when pointing out how the null Lugano results could be explained.


    The absurdity here is that we have (like LENR) an unfalsifiable idea. Any bad information about Rossi or his products can be taken as deliberate disinformation, so the meme that Rossi actually has something can survive forever.




    Tom

    Quote from Jarovnak


    I like the guys that question Lugano with calculations, but even they lead me to wonder what their positive accomplishments are to give me some more bite into what they say.


    Accepting what somone says because of their qualifications, or CV, or fame, or accomplishments is argument from authority. Nothing wrong with it, many do it, but it is unsound in science. The only arguments that matter are hard arguments challenged by counter-arguments with the matter resolved eventually by agreed fact and inference.


    I subject myself to that here and would on ECW except the guys there don't like arguments and counter-arguments. Anyone who does not conform with ECW groupthink and therefore is "negative" is banned. To my knowledge the guys there are deliberately not shown my paper (maybe it has now been posted - but trying to post it got me banned shortly after). That should tell you something about the intellectual weakness of their position, and it is a shame.

    Quote from JAROVNAK

    What's your background mary or are you even a women? Some say you are a man hiding there?


    What's the difference? I use a feminine pseudonym many places and a masculine one ("Al Potenza") on ecatnews.com. Why does it matter? I'm just someone who writes on the internet.


    Quote

    now sub thermalized by surface plasmon politrons (SPP) of Widom & Larsen simplified thinking – electron collides with hydrogen ions at metal surfaces stimulated by EM frequency or frequencies ( Ni / Li) give us sub thermal neutron which can’t travel very far & make almost immediate isotopes such as Ni58 > Ni59 & so on up the isotope chain giving us tremendous power Rossi has tamed in Hot E-Cats, it’s that simple folks – no great mystery just a lot of hard engineering work IMHO! Jim


    What's the evidence for ANY of that? And what about the early and, according to the claims, much more powerful and efficient, steam temperature ecats?


    Quote

    Have you ever worked in a lab, nuclear project...

    I can tell you I've done quite a bit of precision calorimetry and heat flux measurement but what difference does it make? I am not and don't claim to be a specialist in either heat transfer, fluid flow or nuclear physics. I'm just a person who can sniff out fraud, illogical actions and claims, lies, and general foolery. And I don't tend to trust convicted felons who also managed to cheat the government out of millions to such an extent that the descriptive paper which documents the fraud was removed from the agency (DOD/CERL) web site!


    Quote

    I just don't see your facts up front & probably never will...

    So refute my claim that each and every Rossi demo or public experiment was deficient and flawed. Refute Thomas's claims that the IR measurements are flawed. Refute the claim that in the first attempt by the Swedish scientists, they failed to properly measure and isolate the input power. Can you do any of that? If not, I don't care what you see or don't see. Why should I? Why should anyone?


    Quote

    I'll try not to question your authority further, but it's going to be hard, but I am a patient man who has long waited for truly clean nuclear process having worked with & been disappointed in the first two nuclear products.
    Your friend & devoted follower still trying to figure you & yours out. My simple take above makes more sense to me than you or yours but I still admire your spunk!

    I have no idea what this means. I claim no authority. I simply cite facts and arrive at logical conclusions. Your "take" is far from simple and makes some very unjustified assumptions about Rossi's honesty and about how nuclear forces work. Better look again at those assumptions. Or show me ONE properly done and irrefutable (preferably replicated) test of high power, sustained LENR. Just ONE. High power is 100W or more. Sustained is a factor of 10 more time than can be accounted for by chemical reactions or heat retention based on the mass of the device. Properly done is with input and output calibrated, blanked, isolated, and appropriately measured by competent people NOT associated with the inventor or manufacturer. Really, is that so difficult to grasp? Doesn't it seem odd to you that no such test has ever been done and reported upon?

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    No, your posts are quite different from Alain's in that I can understand them, and I cannot understand most of what Alain argues.


    Tom


    Re: your reference to the Mary Yugo's v. Alain's posts. It can take native English speakers some effort to understand Alain. Some of my first exchanges with him here were likely on that subject. But, over the months one can learn how he uses English. He appears he is fairly fluent in 8 or more languages. What I see is that he uses the compound words for particular scientific or nuanced technical ideas that have grown up say in French parlance and then he directly takes the components into English giving expressions that one has to think about a bit. It is sometimes a challenge, but the wheat exceeds the chaff, and the chaff itself is sometimes interesting, while perhaps farther out into "unfalsifiability" than we are used to. The French learn to speak conversational English at small doses along the way through what we call grade school and on. For that reason they are not necessarily receiving the big dose of "ISV" international scientific vernacular, that Asians often get well before they can even speak a sentence in English.


    The native speakers and writers of English have the luck to grow up in what has ironically become the Lingua Franca of the modern world, particularly in science.

    So, I guess someone or other does not like that I even try to explain to Thomas Clarke why it might be a bit difficult to read Alain's English?


    Sorry, perhaps you would like to post the specifics of your dislike here so I can directly answer your concerns.


    Or is it that I was willing to praise Alain's work here? i guess that's fair enough, if that is your opinion. Many here, and I, have learned a lot from / through Alain.


    No post? Then, I would just recommend loosening up a little bit.... whoever you are, you might just learn something of practical importance.


    And, I will be pleased to edit, on specific and justified request, any post of mine that has specific problems. I consider my posts here to be a bit of an archive and often edit them myself.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.