Silicon Republic: 7 fascinating reads for the STEM enthusiast in your life - An Impossible Invention among...

Mats' book about Rossi is most unfortunate because he takes at face value the Lugano results (COP = 3), which as we know, when analysed properly, show an electric heater.

The recommendation is about right: environmentalists, and those who believe in the impossible, will maybe be willing to put critical faculties on hold and ignore the contrary scientific evidence on Rossi's tests.

Mats is right that Lugano data is the best we have as an independent test. Mats himself however seems to have started with the idea that Rossi's stuff working is more or less proven by previous tests and then tries to find ways in which the Lugano results can be consistent with this. I expect he will now say that the excess heat measurements are unclear, mentioning criticism without noting that the calculation error of the Lugano testers is proven, and dsaying that the isotopic changes are proof positive.

The isotopic changes are not independent, with heavy Rossi involvement in this part of the experiment, and the possibility of contamination, or worse, as was found to be the reason for previous anomalous isotopic tests. That previous finding (possibility of contamination) was not admitted by Rossi until years after the actual test. So taking Rossi at his own judgement we have no reason to be confident the results are good now.

It is like a shell game. Each bit of claimed evidence only looks good because you assume, from other bits, that Rossi's devices likely work. So a whole load of things each unconvincing can be seen as convincing.

That analysis must cope with the anomalies. If Rossi's stuff works how could he possibly have given the Lugano Profs, for the latest, best, most independent test, an electric heater that they incorrectly measured as a COP =3 LENR device? When you start to look at that question in more detail the various options unravel.

EDIT

Quote

As said the tester Rossi did not manipulate the samples point, and please respect the fact.
you can try to introduce some skepticism, but not distorting reality.
you destroy your credibility by supporting denied facts.

I'm replying to Alain's comment below here because the thread does not let me post a normal reply - just hangs forever.

Alain,

The testers have said:

(1) The did not see Rossi tamper with samples
(2) They do not believe he did this
(3) They were not explicitly checking for this because they did not think it likely.
(4) They had one person in the room when Rossi was doing stuff.

I say (and this does not contradict what the testers say):

(1) They could not possibly know whether or not Rossi tampered with samples with one person watching, especially because neither trained to detect sleight of hand nor expecting this.

(2) Their belief is not evidence, and they have a bad track record since they believed the device showed excess energy when it did not and a little extra testing would have shown that. It beggars belief that they cannot tell from sight the difference between a 1400C surface and a 780C surface. At least it should have raised question marks in any good experimentalist's mind.

(3) Whether Rossi is or is not fraudulent, which both you and Mats seem to want to consider, is irrelevant. There are many inventors so convinced tehir inventions work that they overlook obvious evidence, misinterpret results, use obviously flawed data. Sometimes, no doubt, they do this deliberately. At other times they are irrational and truly believe what an objective observer would say was obviously false.

see above for my reply

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Mats' book about Rossi is most unfortunate because he takes at face value...

But one hour later...

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I'll read Mats's book. I'm only going by an Amazon review of this which said what I've said. But reviews are often innacurate.

Do you normally pass judgement on things that you haven't read?? I am sure that such learned man as yourself has no need for a lecture about secondary sources...

&"I propose that we relegate LENR to the science of alchemy. When I first witnessed hydrogen fusion 50 years ago my role was as a research alchemist. In this time span there has been no explanation of the phenomenon that fits our known laws of physics."

One of my posts on this Forum awhile ago.

&"Whether you think it’s the alchemy of science, or mankind’s greatest hope for survival in a future without fossil fuels, cold fusion energy is certainly a hot topic in the science community."

Now it's catching on worldwide. Tyy, Mary or George you should criticize subjects you know WTH you're criticizing. Take Shane D's good advice.

Quote from colwyn

Quote from Thomas Clarke: “Mats' book about Rossi is most unfortunate because he takes at face value... ”
But one hour later...

Quote from Thomas Clarke: “I'll read Mats's book. I'm only going by an Amazon review of this which said what I've…

You will see my comment does not say or imply I read the book. The second comment (quoted out of context) relates to the comment in an Amazon review that the Lugano test was required for investment.

I've corresponded in detail with Mats about the Lugano test so I know his views on its results - which is the main content of the post.

However - I've read the book now. It is very long on speculation and innuendo and gets the facts about the tests wrong. A good read in the science fiction category. Specifically:

• Mats does not mention the fact that the Lugano test excess energy measured was negative. Extraordinary for somone billed as "spending a long time thinking about whetehr fraud could be possible". Surely, in any such judgement, working out why Rossi gave the Profs (or let them keep - he had spares) a duff reactor is needed. Not only that, a duff reactor that magically measures like COP=3.
• Mats quotes Levi (after the event) as saying that Lugano was not needed for excess heat - that had already been proved by the previous test. That is no doubt true - but selective. The testers themselves did not think the previous tests proved excess heat. It was not long enough, and also they were clearly stung by Pomp's criticism since they tightened up the input power measurement.

There are some interesting bits of info in Mats account. He says that Rossi was present, during the Lugano test, for about 1 week in total! That seems a lot for an independent test, and also means Rossi must have been fully aware of how the device was performing.

So - for those who believe Rossi has working devices - the question is how can they reconcile this definitely not working device given to the testers and reported (with Rossi's full knowledge) as working?

The isotopic measurements do not of course mean the device works to generate energy. Although they would mean something highly unusual (extreme fractionation for example, though not nuclear reactions) they are the part of the test most subject to "contamination" whether innocent or deliberate, and personally I think they mean no more or less than Rossi's previous sample given for isotopic testing.

It seems likely that the wrong method of temperature estimation the Profs used must have been recommended by Rossi. Either Rossi used this method to obtain his own internal results (and ignored other contrary data like the color of the reactor) - in which case Rossi is deluded but charismatic enough to sway the profs with his delusion. Or Rossi deliberately gave them a measurement method that artificially showed a high COP when none such existed.

Now - perhaps those who disagree with my analysis can come up with some other explanation of the known facts? I'd be interested.

@Thomas Clarke

Don't forget also that your thermal analysis (which also is my current understanding) can be wrong. I find it very difficult to understand if there are any further considerations with this transmissive, yet diffuse, outer tube material made of alumina. If there is a smaller but warmer heat source in the interior, how will that affect things? I need some time to think about that.

If there are no problems with your Lugano analysis and one also considers the isotope analysis of the ash, then there are of course several different fraud theories to choose from. Either Rossi has been "frauding" all along, or he just discovered before the mesurement error himself before the Lugano test ended and switched. I'm not so good at making up fraud theories, and maybe we don't need them? Time will finally tell what is working and what's not.

Just asked Mary Yugo this same question. Do you think LENR in general is a scam or just some of those who are showing positive results?

Mary Yugo: Well, we can agree on one person for sure, I think Dr. Storms is a first rate scientist and he totally agrees LENR is going to change our lives. We can also agree on Defkalion, their President is/was a crook. What is your opinion of Dr. Michael McKubre and Dr. Sergio Focardi?

Mary Yugo: Well, we can agree on one person for sure, I think Dr. Storms is a first rate scientist and he totally agrees LENR is going to change our lives. We can also agree on Defkalion, their President is/was a crook. What is your opinion of Dr. Michael McKubre and Dr. Sergio Focardi?

Alain said:

Quote

Interesting analysis .

A theory of "it does not work" have to be coherent.

If it is fraud for isotopes salting, then it is fraud for calorimetry, which mean it was planned fraud... not a mistake. if scientists are corrupted, why make a bad report ? just make a good report from bad data ? This theory is incoherent.

If calorimetry is erroneous, then isotopic analysis is sincere... Then Ferrara is sincere, and thus Ferrara is an evidence of excess heat.

Note about Thomas clark theory of the emissivity errors, our only difference is on the radiation vs temperature curve in IR cam wavelength window. mine, computed from Planck law integration propose an approximated affine law, while Thomas is a power law. Problems is that we nearly agree on the temperature, so who cares.
Anyway the report is flawed by the lack of high temperature calibration. previous reasoning is more robust.

Skeptics should be skeptics on their skepticism.

Display More

So there are two types of criticism here:

(1) You disagree, still, with the thermal analysis of Lugano. I thought you now agreed with me, but if not please challenge me on the other thread? I explained why your "affine law" assumption was plain wrong and can back that up with a simple equation from physics (Planck Law). I can easily show your mistake (in fact if you look back at that thread I have done this - tell me where I went wrong, or ask for clarification of what you don't understand - I can write it out in more detail).

(2) You argue that my suggestions above about the metadata are incoherent.

I'll address (2) here.

Quote

A theory of "it does not work" have to be coherent.

While a theory has to be coherent my view of Rossi is based on the (external, real) data. Your arguments are based on the metadata. I do npt need to say anything coherent about the metadata because I argue that it is weak. You however do need to explain every bit of it, because your argument rests on its being strong.

Nevertheless I'll happily show that my interpretation of the metadata is not as you argue inconsistent.

I'll address your points above. I claim that they rest upon 4 assumptions you make.

Quote

If it is fraud for isotopes salting, then it is fraud for calorimetry,

That is an assumption you make. Rossi may well believe that his device works but have been unscrupulous about the isotopic sample. Two motives: to confuse possible competitors by providing bogus information, or to strengthen the case for vital funding which he believes will save the world. I agree he would in this case be lying, but from his POV the ends would justify the means.

Quote

if scientists are corrupted, why make a bad report ?

It is your assumption that because Rossi persuades the Lugano scientists to use incorrect thermography, they are corrupt. I very much doubt they are corrupt. The measurement method is one Rossi uses, he would tell them it needed adjustment because of the emissivity of alumina and explain how. They would think about it, check, and follow his working. It is very common. It is also common for a mistake to exist and not be seen by others.

Quote

If calorimetry is erroneous, then isotopic analysis is sincere...

Again you make an assumption. There are many resons why Rossi, while convinced from bad calorimetry that his device really works, would want to "contaminate" the samples. For example, he might want to make sure competitors had a wrong idea of what fuel he uses or how his stuff works. Or, he might want more funding and fake results to get that. Both reasons are lying, but they are still consistent with Rossi truly believing his stuff works. They are "end justifies the means" type of lying. No good scientist would accept that. But many people do.

Quote

Then Ferrara is sincere, and thus Ferrara is an evidence of excess heat

Again an assumption. You think that because it is not clear what error caused the Ferrara results that therefore they can have no error other than fraud? Rossi no doubt finds experiments and measuring methods that give positive apparent COP. In the Ferrara test all the equipment and I'd bet the measurement was Rossi's setup. It is easy to make some genuine mistake that reads input power wrong. The point is that Rossi will (in this hypothesis) be making genuine (stupid) mistakes that validate his ideas. Given sloppy working and selection of the setups that work that is easy. We cannot rule this out because we do not have enough data.

Consider the Lugano error. Was that obvious? It was only because the testers described their methodology in great detail that it could be detected.

So in summary - my reading of the metadata is coherent. That does not prove it is true, and the metadata is weak. Still - you give me a coherent explanation of why Rossi - closely observing the test - let it continue with what he knew was a non-working reactor? Or explain how he could have working devices and be so wrong about this one.