Experimental Evidence on Rossi Devices

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    As for the nuclear reaction, you will note that the calculation is the reaction change in total mass. I gave the nuclear transformation but use isotopic atomic weights for the numbers. These include with each nucleus the associated electrons (which indeed do not balance) and therefore the result is correct. To do it otherwise you would need to use nuclear masses rather than atomic weights and add in the electrons. Burdensome. (BTW if I had got the electrons wrong, by using nuclear masses, then the real answer would have been for even more excess energy than I show).


    You cannot do this, for much of the energy from proton addition will depart from the system by way of neutrinos in beta decays. That alone will result in a far lower effective energy balance.


    But proton addition is not even a likely pathway. But you assumed it was.

    They write, "The origin of this shift cannot be understood from single nuclear reactions involving protons." They also wonder whether lithium is involved. Here they qualify any speculative comments and say they amounted to an exploration of the question:


    Quote

    However, as discussed above, it is of course very hard to comprehend how these fusion processes can take place in the fuel compound at low energies. Presently we should therefore restrict ourselves to merely state that an isotope shift has occurred in Lithium and Nickel. We refrain from speculations in any dynamic scenario making this reaction possible at low energies. The reaction speculation above should only be considered as an example of reasoning and not a serious conjecture.


    Their assumption about the representativeness of their sample seems implausible in retrospect, but they were only making that assumption to explore the energy balance. There are several ways to get an energy balance involving nuclear reactions that does not result in 20x what was observed.


    Your section on "Isotope Shifts" was essentially taking down a straw man.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Really? We have - take home - Ni58 converted to Ni62. Most of the LENR mechanisms to date that don't use D suppose proton or neutron capture. The bottom line from this is as I've stated whatever the intermediates. You could imagine some complex reaction in which Li is involved, but there is just not enough Li for total conversion given any simple reaction (and the energy excess while lower is still too high). The case where there is partial conversion I do not apply this energy calculation to, but instead note that fractionation is a possible non-nuclear mechanism for this result. If you disagree with this you need to argue the case for some other reaction, with figures which I will check for you.


    Assume that the 62Ni was there from the start. Now we do not need to explain a shift to 62Ni. One way to proceed is to postulate alpha decay of heavier nuclides present in the fuel and occasional alpha capture by elements like iron and nickel. Each alpha decay will produce ~ 3-9 MeV. And each alpha capture will produce on that order of energy as well. What decays? Well, there was evidence to be found in Appendix 3 to the Lugano report that there were a number of heavier nuclides. What undergoes alpha capture? Could have been anything in the fuel, and not just nickel.


    This is just one scenario.


    Quote

    Don't be afraid!


    LOL.

    Quote

    But proton addition is not even a likely pathway. But you assumed it was.


    I'm not distinguishing between proton/neutron. There is no likely pathway for this reaction, as you well know, but repeated neutron addition is sort of possible.


    Quote

    for much of the energy from proton addition will depart from the system by way of neutrinos in beta decays.


    This argument has some merit. I did assume that all the lost mass would be contained within the reactor as heat, and energetic neutrinos represent energy lost. However, to invalidate my argument you need 95% of this energy to be so lost. That is I'm pretty sure not possible. In fact I'd be very surprised if more than 50% of the energy was so lost.


    So - if you believe this is an answer please show the set of reactions for which 95% of the energy lost is neutrino K.E? If I felt you were serious, rather than just trying to win a lost argument, I'd look up the answer myself...


    Quote

    That is incorrect. You made a number of bad assumptions.


    This comment is unfortunate. It is the way, incidentally, that I judge papers when two sides make opposing points. When the last point in a chain loses information and generalises incorrectly I go back to the previous points and see with what detail the matter is argued on both sides. Normally people give details that are correct (unless they are very uninformed) but are willing to make vague generalisations with more freedom, so that it is lack of detail that shows one side has lost a point.


    In this case you accuse me in generality of bad assumptions. You have made one such point explicitly, and one just now implicitly. I have fully answered the explicit point - in context, the assumption is a contingent hypothesis and therefore not assumed at all. That is clear reading the paper, even from the small part that I quoted. I have also explained why I did not consider energy balance in the more general case - again paraphrasing the paper. You have not commented on my explanation for this - indeed i think you cannot because I am logically correct.


    You have made another point - not considering neutrino energy - which we both know I think cannot answer the matter - though I give you credit that I did not consider this and perhaps I should have added a rider. It was an assumption, but not a bad one.


    Your first and main point - that I did not count electron masses - was just wrong as careful reading of the paper would have shown.


    So I do not at the moment see this "number of bad assumptions" you summarise here and can only conclude that you are substituting rhetoric for logic.


    Quote

    Even on purely logical grounds this section was quite unpersuasive.


    Perhaps you'd like to state where the logic of my argument does not persuade. The only loophole I can see is if you consider nuclear transformation at low energies more likely than fractionation? That would be a difficult case to sustain: but it is not a logical flaw, but one of judgement.[/quote]


    Quote

    Did you know what you were talking about? No.


    Again this is a summary point and I'm trying to find the details that substantiate it without success. Doubtless I make mistakes (indeed I know full well I do) but I correct these on reflection and being careful (on reflection) not to stray from what I know is something I care about. So please give details, if I have erred in my [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] here I will apologise.


    This somewhat unhappy exchange started when you stated here that you thought I was a liar (or at least someone appearing to be more confident than they were about what they posted). I reject this, and while I'm not offended it is important for me to follow through the matter. Should there be some misunderstanding, I'll correct it. Should I have made a mistake, I'll correct it (as I did in agreeing with you above that the "weight of products - weight of reactants" argument is rough and does not include neutrino energy - but equally if fair you will agree with me that this is not a bad assumption because the energy gap is so large.). There will be differences in judgement where people disagree - that is understood. But I do not go around accusing other posters of dishonesty unless this is truly merited. As it was when I called one of your statements above false. And in that case I'm calling your post dishonest, not attaching this attribute more generally to you. Indeed dishonest is harsh - an honest correction or sustainable qualification now from you would mean the entire matter was a mistake, rather than dishonesty.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    I agree, but maybe you should examine your reasons for this lack of trust more closely. Maybe you do react to superficial and incorrect readings of papers? Or maybe you had some initial bias.


    My lack of trust, first and foremost, is because I do not trust the use of the Stefan-Bolzmann law to give a trustworthy answer, especially without cross-checks and with so many free parameters. My next reason for not trusting your analysis is that you attempted to take down an uncharitable strawman in your isotope section, using logic that was easy to argue around. My third reason for not trusting your analysis is that you did not appear to understand that your approaches in these two cases were on shaky ground. I note that you continue to defend them.

    Quote

    I'm curious what your opinion is: how much faith would you put in a calculation (any calculation, by anyone) relying upon the Stefan–Boltzmann law and depending upon such parameters as the emissivity of the material and its geometry?


    I know very little about the fine points of using thermal cameras to measure temperature. For measuring the supposed function of Rossi's tube furnaces (which is all those hot cats are), it's completely unnecessary but then the use of a tube furnace to demonstrate Rossi's principle is unnecessary to start with. Enthusiasts conveniently forget that the ecat which Levi supposedly tested back in 2011 had roughly 10X the claimed power output and "COP" of the current hot cat, even if you accept the measurement, which of course Clarke, Branzell and I and many others do not.


    If you want to see an elegant demonstration of excellent and accurate calorimetry Rossi could have used for hot cat measurements, check this out (use Google translate if you don't read Italian):


    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…te-calorimetria-a-flusso/
    Of course, Levi and Rossi were probably told about this and if not, they should have known but naturally they would never test an ecat of any sort with a method which would reveal what it really does. That seems to have happened once. Hydrofusion did a test and it came out as no net power out by the ecat: http://tinyurl.com/c5k6du3 They were able to detect Rossi's mismeasurement.


    Quote

    When investors measurement 6 September in Bologna, however, could no heat energy is found in addition to the input electrical power... After measurement, announced Hydrofusion investment offer has been withdrawn and the company will now examine the measure on the whole Ecat technology or just the new model.


    Original article in NYTeknik Sept 2012.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    This somewhat unhappy exchange started when you stated here that you thought I was a liar (or at least someone appearing to be more confident than they were about what they posted).


    I've never accused you of being dishonest, and I don't believe that you have. My accusation is that you've been cavalier, and you're being cavalier. That gets in the way of ascertaining the truth. I've been cavalier in some ways as well, so this is not coming from a moral high ground.

    Eric,


    I'm not quite sure what your background is but you seem incapable of distinguishing between validity of an argument and whether you like it. I fully see that the assumption all the Ni went 62Ni is not likely. But the alternative means that the isotopic evidence does not imply nuclear transmutation. In the paper I was refuting the testers conclusion that this experiment provides positive independent evidence for nuclear transformation. My argument is logically correct.


    Personally, I see anyone who views the Lugano test as anything other than strong negative evidence for Rossi having anything at all is either incompetent, insane, or severely afflicted in some other more subtle way. That on both the evidence and meta-evidence. However that opinion is not to the point when it comes to factual statements.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    But the alternative means that the isotopic evidence does not imply nuclear transmutation.


    Here are ways to get transmutations without proton capture (or neutron capture):

    • 58Ni(4He,G)62Zn
    • 60Ni(7Li,6Li)61Ni
    • 7Li(p,np)6Li

    There are surely many others.


    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    In the paper I was refuting the testers conclusion that this experiment provides positive independent evidence for nuclear transformation. My argument is logically correct.


    You've shown one way not to get nuclear transmutations, and a rather implausible one at that. But have you shown that all ways to get nuclear transmutations are invalid? That is what your argument requires.


    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Personally, I see anyone who views the Lugano test as anything other than strong negative evidence for Rossi having anything at all is either incompetent, insane, or severely afflicted in some other more subtle way. That on both the evidence and meta-evidence. However that opinion is not to the point when it comes to factual statements.


    I'm not interested in defending the Lugano test in the slightest. There were many things that were lacking in it. What I'm interested in is a fair-minded, objective assessment, which goes to the effort to interpret everything as charitably as possible.

    Quote

    I've never accused you of being dishonest, and I don't believe that you have. My accusation is that you've been cavalier, and you're being cavalier. That gets in the way of ascertaining the truth. I've been cavalier in some ways as well, so this is not coming from a moral high ground.


    We both have a tendency in that direction, true, and I will accept this as both a retraction and and apology if you like. Were I would continue to argue is if you extend this accusation of "cavalier" to that of unacknowledged inaccuracy in my published output.


    You are perhaps lucky that a longer and detailed reply to your previous posts got lost and I have no energy this evening to repeat it. I'll happily come back to the matter on another occasion if anyone here wishes to challenge me.


    Quote


    There was proton capture


    All I'm assuming is overall Ni58 -> Ni62, and no element other than H available to do the job. That is warranted from the elemental analysis which shows all other elements are not present in sufficient quantities to do the entire conversion. Remember, the whole argument is contingent on this assumption which is explicitly stated as a hypothetical assumption, and not assumed true.

    Quote

    All of the nickel went to 62Ni


    I refer you back to the context where it is quite clear this is one branch of a case analysis, not (in the common use) an assumption even though rather confusingly I call it that. I was actually being very proper by acknowledging when aspects of the argument were explicitly contingent on some other unproven proposition. It is how mathematicians use the word and sort of the opposite of the way it is commonly used, because it means the argument as a whole is not assumptive.

    Quote

    Lithium was not involved


    I did actually consider this. I would not have explicitly included it because it would make this tendentious section too long. The isotopic results, being far from independent, are not worth such effort. But the possible Li reactions are not enough to do 99% conversion and anyway also generate too much energy to be correct.

    Quote

    There were not other reactions going on


    I did not elaborate on this but the only case I did not explicitly or implicitly consider is endothermic reactions exactly balancing exothermic. This is so implausible I did not think it worthwhile to do so but if you judgment is different then so be it.

    Quote

    Beta decays can be ignored


    If there was significant energy from this lost to the system then the betas would have been detected by the careful radiation monitoring.
    [/quote]

    Quote

    You've shown one way not to get nuclear transmutations, and a rather implausible one at that. But have you shown that all ways to get nuclear transmutations are invalid? That is what your argument requires.


    No - I'd never attempt such an argument. All I need is no way to achieve 99% Ni -> Ni62 (and the necessary mass difference) that has energy within the error range for the experiment. This is bounded by the fact that other elements are not present in large enough quantities to do this conversion 99%.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    All I need is no way to achieve 99% Ni -> Ni62 (and the necessary mass difference) that has energy within the error range for the experiment. This is bounded by the fact that other elements are not present in large enough quantities to do this conversion 99%.


    This is incorrect. In order to show that transmutations could not have been the source of the energy, you must show that all possible pathways are implausible. What is the point of showing that one implausible scenario is implausible?


    There were plenty of other elements in the experiment.

    Quote

    Absolutely. I do not retract a single thing I've said about your paper.


    In that case we must return to what started this undignified exchange.


    You said wrt the excess heat analysis:

    Quote

    Your analysis is exactly no more reliable than theirs.


    That is false.


    I replied here. My argument is irrefutable and you did not in any way refute it. At around this point you honestly stated that you distrusted anything I said, gave as evidence the small section of the report dealing with isotopic measurements, and we argued about that.


    You stand having made a provably (anyone reading this thread can see) false statement. I am surprised at your lack of gentlemanly behaviour in this matter, but perhaps in the heat of the argument you just forgot this?

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.