Fulvio Fabiani Discusses Rossi and the E-Cat with Mats Lewan

Quote

Thomas, your report is full of assumptions, and necessarily so. If you wish to argue from a factual standpoint, I humbly suggest you get hold of a high-temperature Optris P-160, and point it at some hot alumina.

I assume very little in fact. The numbers come from the assumptions and numbers the Lugano testers put in.

the real answer depends on
(1)
emissivity at Optris HT pass-band. That from the Optris documentation - no assumption) is 7-13um.
You don't need to know much about alumina to put that at close to 1.

(2) total emissivity of alumina at 1400C
I assumed 0.5, which is the total emissivity "book value". But if you look at it actually the real value can't be very different from this, and there is no uncertainty here from the Optris instrument.

For the temperature calculation the only uncertainty is (1).

If the temperature is correct then the reactor tube is obviously not at 1400C to a visual inspection - so Rossi would have to either have made the same mistake himself, and so think it glowed orange at 1400C, or be complicit in letting the testers make a mistake which gravely over-estimated COP.

However, I think you are absolutely right to be careful about assumptions and uncertainties and hope you apply this methodology to all the apparent positive results related to Rossi or replications, also to remember the possibility of plain mistakes which can't be detected from a limited write-up leading to apparent positive results.

You get just as many mistakes leading to apparent negative results but they are self-correcting. An LENR researcher with a COP of 0.5 would know they had some error and redo calculations or experiment.

Quote

I don't believe in LENR, I am convinced.This is a reversible process, unlike denial.

I challenge that. Your conviction that LENR exists is not reversable unless you can state evidence that would lead you to reverse it.

Your version of LENR is a theory which cannot be disproved, so I think it will be difficult for you to find that evidence.

Whereas - denial can be reversed by one incontrovertible replicable experiment. What MFMP are trying to find and admit they have not yet found.

Quote

To pathoskeps it is unshakable that it is all baloney. True believers are looking for investment opportunities. Fortunately there are still a few of us who simply do not know. Emergent properties of phase shifted matter have always been a delightful surprise and impossible to predict simply from the most basic laws of physics.

I agree with all three statements. I'd like to make some additions.

(1) A (non-pathological) skeptic might come to the judgement nevertheless that LENR as proposed is very highly unlikely as a scientific theory on the basis of:
(a) Non-specificity - the theory does not make precise predictions and this has no strong validating evidence, If the predictions are of the form "something otherwise impossible happens" they can be met through any combination of error, miscalculation, and also perhaps by some completely different non-nuclear theory.

(b) Extraordinaryness. Notwithstanding condensed matter complexity there are some ways in which LENR looks extraordinary. While extrordinary things happen, it is wise not to accept them as likely without extraordinary evidence.

(c) Lack of expected evidence. Nuclear reactions would normally have indisputable rock solid fingerprints in:
(1) isotopic change
(2) non-natural (and radioactive) isotopes
(3) high energy products
(4) some LENR experiment (given 25 years experimentation) that could be replicated and show definite evidence.
LENR without these expected fingerprints is further extraordnary.

Thus it is entirely reasonable that a (non-pathological) skeptic will view LENR is being highly unlikely and further will interpret possibly ambiguous results in the light of that view.

(2) emergent properties are indeed difficult to predict. But there are many properties that are basic and easy to predict, e.g. mass, charge imbalance (what happens if it is too high is very obvious) etc. Whether an LENR theory contravenes basic properties, or only emergent ones, is a matter of judgement and cannot simply be settled by your statement above.

emergent properties are indeed difficult to predict. But there are many properties that are basic and easy to predict, e.g. mass, charge imbalance (what happens if it is too high is very obvious) etc. Whether an LENR theory contravenes basic properties, or only emergent ones, is a matter of judgement and cannot simply be settled by your statement above.

That is exactly my point. My claim is not that some previously unknown state of matter leads to LENR, it is simply that from standard model principals, you simply cannot rule it out! If it helps my view of LENR is that while EXTREMELY unlikely given our basic understanding of how it all works, it simply cannot be ruled out. I don't know what proton capture should look like in a hypothetical condition of matter. Neither, my friend, do you, or any of the bombastic skeps. If we look at the entire history of "cold fusion" we are left with many reported cop > 1 results, by a wide variety of experimenters, from Gyro Gearloose to very well credentialed scientists. From frauds to sincere researchers. Can anyone really propose that they are ALL scam artists, or incompetent? That just simply doesn't make a bit of sense to me. So there (possibly ) IS a phenomenon of interest, and because of the almost infinite BENEFIT which would derive from understanding once and for all what is going on, it would be stupid beyond any measure to simply abandon the entire area of investigation. But, and this is a big but, those who have some idea how to demonstrate a NEW, previously unknown, effect have an overwhelming responsibility to the planet itself and the whole human race to provide concrete means of demonstrating
that effect. The farting around by the many selfish players trying to develop a "product" is despicable (say it like Sylvester the Cat". So I just want the skeptics to be a bit more genuine in their concerns and abandon the self righteous, "I can't be wrong" bullshit, and the crowd scrambling to get rich and famous to get a grip, and see that even a few days delay in getting very well equiped and funded labs to get after this is a SIN and ABOMINATION. And yes I mean you Andreas!

Quote

If it helps my view of LENR is that while EXTREMELY unlikely given our basic understanding of how it all works, it simply cannot be ruled out.

Absolutely, and I think there are very few skeptics who would want to make a stronger statement.

The problem for me with LENR has always been experimental - there is no evidence from experiment that indicates it. I realise that many here disagree with that statement. The issue for me as that the nature of the evidence presented is incoherent, and every element is either non-replicable or ambiguous or both.

The "meta-evidence" that Alain thinks points to LENR from Rossi, for example, I don't. Convincing Darden (a non-tech LENR supporter) to fund is no validation. Then convincing a single Trust to fund on the back of the two "independent" reports is also no validation. VCs will vary in how they validate and are not normally geared up to look for fundamental scientific proof of principle. In this case if they have the wrong science advisors they might take the independent reports as validation. For "one Trust" validation you need 1 out of maybe 20+ trusts approached to have a validation method that goes on Darden and Darden-recommended scientists rather than independent scientific judgement from somone capable of evaluating the reports.

The statements that [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] or the trust did some additional validation are no help. Rossi has claimed positive results from 15 or so tests, nearly all of which are known to be flawed, and all of which could easily be flawed. Unless the validation is scientifically rigorous and independent - essentially what the Lugano testers tried to do but with proper calorimetry - it means nothing. VCs are not likley to get so involved in new science. It ids just not their way of working for one little investment. So the additional validation would likely be Rossi and friends organised.

Could not one in theory transmit maybe 100's or even 1000's of W/cm2 of IR in the 0.5 to 2.5 micron band through that nearly transparent portion of the alumina IR band, and it would barely be noticed by the Optris using only the 7 to 14 micron band?

Paradigmnoia,

Yes, I think that is possible. Energy in form of radiation can have many different spectral distributions. Just think about laser light as an extreme example of that. But given that the "inner source" has a black body type of radiation, I think that a further condition has to be met, and that is that there has to be some divergence of the radiated field between the inner source and the outer shell. That's what I think, but I'm out on a limb here because I have very little experience in the area, and furthermore this inner source and outer shell configuration may not be applicable to the device in question.

@Paradigmnoia

Well, anything is possible. But some things are way way unlikely.

* According to physics, as currently understood.

The question is, should things be investigated, or have scorn poured upon them?

@Thomas Clarke

Maybe not a very exotic effect after all. I would guess that if you take a thermal camera and measure on an old style light bulb you would significantly underestimate the radiated power.

However, this does not have anything to do with the fact that the Lugano report contains a severe error in the thermal analysis, as you explained earlier. But it can provide a possible explanation for those who like to think that the Lugano test did contain LENR after all. I think though that one has to take into account that these types of double coincidences or double errors are very rare.

@colwyn

Quote

The question is, should things be investigated, or have scorn poured upon them?

I'm all for investigating things. Rigorously. That means anomalies get checked every which way for mundane possible solutions before they are heralded as some new physics.

That checking, and caution, is only "scorn" if you polemicise the matter and substitute feelings for observation and judgement.

Urban Eriksson.

Yes. You can't rule out weird affects given that at higher frequencies the alumina is translucent so some other surface influences emmisivity, but it is unlikely.

For those who are 99.9% convinced that Rossi is for real, and has what he claims, no one experiment with flakey results should cast doubt on that conviction.

For me, I look at the experiments and see consistent overestimation of COP through known mechanisms in nearly all the ones we have data for, and possible overestimation of COP through known mechanisms in the others.

That makes me think it strongly probable that Rossi, in inventive ways, finds tests that overestimate COP. That does not itself in any way imply fraud, although equally it does not rule it out.

Given such a proclivity I'd want rigorous independent tests before I reckoned it likely that Rossi has anything. There are none with positive results.

(The Ferrara test was Rossi's eqpt in Rossi's factory and not fully recorded, so it does not for me pass this test).

@Urban Eriksson
Re lightbulb.

Tungsten has 7-14um emissivity at 0.05 and visible region emissivity at 0.5.

However, at 780K 7-13um has band radiance of 3000
0.3-1um has band radiance of 13

The Planck curve peaks at 2.7um and it is data over this region that we would need to resolve the question - the Planck curve far outweighs the emissivity chnage for the two regions I could (quickly) google answers!

There are then other possible contaminating effects due to surface roughness, oxidisation, etc.

Quote from Mary Yugo

polluted irrigation channels deliberately

Do you have a reference for this latest slanderous accusation of yours? Or are we just expected to hunt for it in the long list of carefully chosen press articles you linked to?

Maybe you would also like to point out (with a proper reference) some specific flaws in Rossi's explanation of the affair, from e-cat.com:

Quote

The Patent Office Cicogna of Milan granted a patent on Rossi’s technology 1978. Rossi’s invention of transforming organic waste into oil was indeed a huge success. The major customers for his product Refluopetrolio were refineries, which found the synthetic oil especially useful and affordable for their processes. They used this fuel to produce fuel oils and solvents. All of this, however, was about to change. The fossil fuel industry took note of the fact that his company Petroldragon was manufacturing biodiesel. This made a huge industry take notice of Rossi’s efforts, and pressure on the Italian government began. The government suddenly classified everything that Petroldragon processed as toxic waste.

Interestingly enough, the waste that was being stored in Rossi’s factories suddenly had to be disposed of. The disposal company was paid much more to transport the “waste” from Rossi’s holding tanks, and the material was either burned or dumped in Campania, located in Southern Italy. There, the legally dumped toxic waste polluted the groundwater and soil. The governmental process of accepting bids and awarding waste disposal contracts usually takes several months, sometimes, years, to accomplish. However, in this instance, it only took days to complete the process.

Destroying Petroldragon was not enough, though. Rossi was immediately castigated in the public media for dumping toxic waste – the very same waste that had been fuel and biodiesel just a few weeks ago. The same waste that had been constantly tested by the Finance Ministry for years. Rossi was publicly accused of running unlicensed waste treatment plants. Tax evasion was added to the list of felonies, even though he had been constantly monitored for years by the Finance Ministry, which assessed all taxes.

However, the result of this was that any customers who had purchased fuel from Petroldragon had to hire waste disposal companies to remove it. Warehouses full of Refluopetrolio were condemned, and the owners held liable for dumping toxic waste – safely in barrels, of course, but dumping, nonetheless. Omar and the rest of Rossi’s plants were shut down. Over a period of 17 years, Rossi was detained several times. In each of these cases, he was acquitted. Five of the accusations of the charges had convictions. Those convictions were for failing to be in compliance with the suddenly changed permit laws. Although he has been vindicated over and over again, the damage to Petroldragon was fatal, and it was time to move on.

Display More

Colwyn,

I don't take sides on this matter of Rossi's history, and don't care much, but...

Mary referenced some contemporary Italian Newspaper reports, via Krivit. Your reply, without presumably looking at them, is to quote (effectively) Rossi's explanation and ask Mary what she thinks is wrong with that!

What I'd expect you to do is look at the newspaper reports, and say why either they are wrong, or they don't actually state what Mary claims.

Quoting Rossi, or a Rossi sourced summary account, in this case is irrelevant unless you compare it with the evidence against. If he was unscrupulous over waste then (and, perhaps conning investors) he is hardly likely to fess up to it now!

Alain, are you saying the destruction did not happen, or that you are sure on some theoretical grounds that it must have been accidental, and not deliberate?

I don't understand your certainty in this matter.

Thomas, why presume I commented on the articles without reading them? I know you felt obliged to comment on Mat's book without having read it, but don't tar us all with your brush.

The main reason I posted was because I do not believe there is any evidence that Rossi "deliberately polluted drainage channels". I think Mary just made it up. A link to prove otherwise would be nice.

As for your opinions on how debates over sources should proceed, I think you maybe missed my point, which admittedly I didn't make very clear: Strip the flowery language and opinion out of the Italian newspaper sources, the the bare facts pretty much agree with Rossi's accounts. Sure, blame is apportioned, and 'baddies' are demonised, but we know how the media works, right? So I say, show me where Rossi has lied about a fact in his statement. Basically he made and sold biodiesel, biodiesel was later reclassified as industrial waste, which caused a whole ****storm of bureaucracy, legal landmines and extra costs.

Seriously, one of Krivits' newspaper reports breathlessly mentions mafia hitmen driving away trucks full of gold bullion. It's like The National Enquirer during a slow August, being reported as fact by the Fox News of LENR "journalism".

Edit: To me, it sounds like Alain is saying: How on earth does any of that implicate Rossi?