the technology of E-cat is proven working more or less, by the pair of report of Ferrara AND Lugano, which independently exclude any of your hypothesis, fraud, scam, delusion, complicity...
I’m starting this thread to refute Alain’s above view as expressed here recently on the “Rossi – positive or negative” thread. There is absolutely no positive experimental evidence for Rossi’s devices, and much negative evidence. You can rationally accept that they work only if you also argue that Rossi is deliberately making it look as though they do not work. The absurdity of this hypothesis is obvious to most.
Rossi has conducted a large number of demonstrations claiming high COP. Every single demonstration which is documented has a known error mechanism that can be deduced from the public evidence and explains the results. Rossi has been informed of these errors, and has consistently refused to redo the identical test with the error closed. Instead he comes up with a new test which is very different and has a new error mechanism.
What about independent tests of Rossi’s device? There are three known tests with independent aspects.
- A Swedish would-be distributor (Hydrofusion) had the sense to do their own (completely independent) tests. They obtained negative results. The Rossi device operated as an electric heater. This is in the public record. Rossi claimed, after, that the tested device was broken. The question then remains why Rossi did not ship the distributor a working device for testing? This test is the only 100% independent test, conducted by someone who strongly wanted a positive result but had no connection with Rossi, and who did not allow Rossi to contaminate the test. Its negative result is therefore strong negative evidence.
- The Ferrara test (first Swedish Profs “independent” test). This test was more independent than Rossi’s demos, but still using Rossi’s setup on his premises with unknown interference by Rossi. More important, the recorded data from the experiment make it impossible to validate the power input which we know could easily have been spoofed. It was heavily criticised at the time and led the Swedish Profs to do another test that would close all the loopholes observed in this one.
- This final test was held at Lugano away from the Rossi lab. The Swedish profs did proper independent measurement of input power. The test was not on Rossi’s premises. Rossi had less involvement in the test – limited to putting powder in, taking powder out. The Lugano test had large intrinsic uncertainties (see the criticism on lenr canr for a summary of these). It also had a major error in testing caused by a change that Rossi introduced – using an alumina unpainted reactor for the first time. Those following the story will note a common theme – whenever a test is redone with old holes blocked, some new change is made to the protocol that introduces an entirely new error mechanism. In this case the error was subtle and resulted in a X3 overestimate of COP, also in a nonlinear apparent increase in COP with temperature. These two artifacts were a direct result of Rossi’s change in test conditions (moving from black painted to unpainted alumina reactor). They worked only because of unusually bad experimental practice, with no at temperature control and no independent temperature measurement. Together they were noted by the Swedes as being conclusive evidence of anomalous heat. Several independent restudies have identified this same error. Only mine has attempted to estimate its effect accurately, but all the restudies bring the COP to what is expected from an electric heater within the large uncertainties of the measurement method without any control.
Also notable is the unprofessional behaviour of the Lugano team. Instead of engaging with criticism – retracting results or refuting it – they have responded to a polite and serious critique with silence both publicly and privately.
The other notable aspect of the Lugano test is the isotopic results. The powder which Rossi handled showed difficult to understand isotopic changes. These were from natural abundance to that found in readily purchasable isotopes. Rossi has previously claimed (ad hoc) contamination for unusual apparent transformations. Perhaps he will do this again. What is indisputable is that this aspect of the test is not independent.
Leave aside all the "meta-data". The real data on Rossi's devices paints a very clear and consistent picture.