Cambridge University Professor Huw Price on the ‘Reputation Trap’ of Cold Fusion (Update: Response in Popular Mechanics)

Well I'm sure this guy is clever enough - and in my 6 years at Trinity UG and PG I had a good time, so who am I to cast stones on his credentials?

But this article whows how readily Rossi spin and confirmation bias can take in rational outsiders.

Quote

As I say, I don’t claim that this evidence is conclusive, even collectively. It’s still conceivable that there is fraud involved, as many skeptics have claimed; or some large and persistent measurement error. Yet these alternatives are becoming increasingly unlikely.

Well, we know precisely what is the "large and persistent measurement error" that caused false positive results from the Lugano experiment. Yet this still is taken by many people (including, no doubt, the two funders) as strong objective evidence that however flakey he seems Rossi hs got something real.

Note, in this article, how Woodford and Darden are given as supporting evidence, even though the scientific data they use is, we know, false. Some here wil argue that these guys have done aditional DD beyond what we know. I'm sure they have checked that the 1MW plant is real. It seems unlikley though that it is better validated then the carefully scruitinsed independent scientific tests were...

Thomas,

Did anyone ever calculate the consequence of alumina electrical conductivity at high temperatures on the heating wire discussion?

Alumina have 1e+11 ohm*m in resistivity at room temperature and drops to 20 000 ohm*m at 1000 degC and further down to 100 ohm*m or lower at 1500 degC

Not relevant for the lower temperature Lugano experiment, and anyway whether current goes through alumina or wire makes no difference to the result. (I guess it might affect thermocouples though).

The I^2 vs P relationship on the two active tests rules out any significant temperature dependent resistance change between these two, and hence any significant leakage through alumina.

As I remember there was a resistance descripancy of some factor 3+ between the dummy and active tests.

Partial shorting of wires through alumina in active tests (which ran at 1200-1400 degC) would explain this?

Dear friends I am not exaggerating.

Some experimental techniques are so precise that their results are beyond question. The only way for these results to be discredited is claiming fraud in the production of the associated experimental results. Such results come from the transmutation assay of the Lugano ash nickel isotopic distribution. The pure NI62 nickel particle covered in Li6 isotope has only one possible explanation.

That particle is like the bleeding hand that doubting Thomas needed to confirm his faith.

The quantum mechanics that underpins the production of that particle is different from the QM that we all understand. Not only energy is teleported from inside of that particle but neutrons are teleported from the Lithium cover to the Ni atoms throughout the volume of that particle. The existence of such a new QM(non-associative QM) is a introductory preview of the kinds of wonders ahead of us in the very near future once cold fusion becomes commonly accepted.

The special kind of magnetic field that generates this type of monopole reaction has long been sought after by science.

Also see my post titled "LENR through spin":
LENR through spin.

Quote

Pinfold says the discovery of electronic monopoles will open up a whole new future for materials and technology if scientists can produce large numbers of them. "Monopoles could make materials strong enough to withstand a nuclear explosion and could also enable magnetic levitation."Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-03-m…ern-rewrite-laws.html#jCp

Quote

As I remember there was a resistance descripancy of some factor 3+ between the dummy and active tests.Partial shorting of wires through alumina in active tests (which ran at 1200-1400 degC) would explain this?

(1) the active tests ran at 710C - 780C - not 1250C - 1400C. See here.

(2) The resistance at 710C / 780C was identical. For a 3X change 400 -> 710 with no change at all 710 -> 780 you'd need something very weird.

(3) Alumina just does not conduct much at these low temperatures - and you'd need a low resistivity to be significant in parallel with the Inconel wires.

The 3X difference is crucially between the active and the dummy tests.

This could be reversal of a single clamp - but that does not fit because it would lead to a COP of 1/3!

It seems most likely to be change in the electrical connection from Wye (dummy) to Delta (active). This is basically harmless, since true power is measured. It would explain the results. It would be easy to implement. However the current crest factor is high and at the higher currents could potentially get near to saturating the 10A current clamps. So at higher powers, this switch would be a way to get apparently higher COP for the active tests due to current sensors saturating, but there is no evidence it is relevant at the powers used in the Lugano test.

The above is speculative - we don't know which current clamps were used (10A or 100A) nor when the saturate. But since my conclusion is that this potential source of error is not an issue I'm not much concerned by it.

Quote

Some experimental techniques are so precise that their results are beyond question. The only way for these results to be discredited is claiming fraud in the production of the associated experimental results. Such results come from the transmutation assay of the Lugano ash nickel isotopic distribution. The pure NI62 nickel particle covered in Li6 isotope has only one possible explanation.

Rossi has only one previous independent isotopic assay, which also showed extraordinary results: Ni was apparently transformed into Copper. This was much talked about at the time. A few years later Rossi said that he thought this result was probably due to contamination of the ash sample.

So there are two mundane explanations for this result:

(1) inadvertent "contamination" of the ash with Ni-62 used by Rossi as fuel.
(2) deliberate switching (by Rossi) at some point in the fuel -> reactor -> ash -> sample chain.

Given the history of contaminated ash samples one or other of these looks distinctly possible.

Quote

The quantum mechanics that underpins the production of that particle is different from the QM that we all understand. Not only energy is teleported from inside of that particle but neutrons are teleported from the Lithium cover to the Ni atoms throughout the volume of that particle.

Such teleportation is vanishingly unlikely. There is no coherence across the particle nuclei and any such coherence would immediately be decohered due to electrostatic and electroweak interactions with neighbouring particles.

Axil - you should spend some time looking at the real engineering behind quantum computers to get a better idea of why decoherence happens and how hard it is to prevent.

Quote

The existence of such a new QM(non-associative QM) is a introductory preview of the kinds of wonders ahead of us in the very near future once cold fusion becomes commonly accepted.

You have read a speculative account of non-associative QM. If it does exist, in some exotic circumstances, it must do so in a way that preserves existing experimental observations where there are no monopoles, and associative QM works well. In fact the hope of researchers is that known systems that simulate monopoles will also simulate non-associative QM. Thus we have a new and exciting tool to understand the behaviour of these exotic systems.

However, a topological insulator etc that simulates monopoles is not the same as a real monopole, and does not have the possibly extreme exotic properties that would come from real monopoles.

However, I am no expert. I am good enough to follow the equations if Axil derives them for me (from first principles would be best) showing that how this works is different from what a casual reading of the literature would indicate.

Yes, If your analysis is right and temperature was rather around 700 degC. But If temp was above 1100 degC some short curcuit could play a role

Oystla -

The same problem occurs:
(1) even at 1100C the conductivity you get is not enough to change resistance much from low temp, X3 is a large change
(2) if it were enough, then there would necessarily be a change in resistance between the two higher temperatures

So your speculation here falls regardless.

Though, also, the temperature was certainly low as I claim. There are no loopholes for the temperature measurement, since it depends only on the emissivity of alumina at 7-15um which is well understood and definite.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

So there are two mundane explanations for this result:

(1) inadvertent "contamination" of the ash with Ni-62 used by Rossi as fuel.
(2) deliberate switching (by Rossi) at some point in the fuel -> reactor -> ash -> sample chain.

These explanations are ruled out because of the way the fuel was loaded. Only a randomize sample fraction of the fuel was loaded into the DogBone. The remainder was set aside for comparison after the test run. The fuel held back was scanned for a particle that was like the 100 micron ash particle that came from the reactor after the test. That fuel particle that was held back shows a nominal isotopic makeup. The selection of fuel initially that was initially loaded into the reactor before the test run was done by the testers and not Rossi. Rossi just loaded the selected fuel into the reactor. I assert that it is impossible for Rossi to fabricate a 100 micron pure Ni62 particle also covered in lithium 6 that looks identical to the fuel particle that was held back for latter comparison covered in lithium 7. The manual handling of such a small particle in the presence of the testers would have be detected and is not even humanly possible.

The nickel particle that came out of the reactor came out randomly without preselection.

Also what makes the fuel particle and ash manipulation by Rossi even more remote was the fact that the fuel was covered on the whole with lithium 7 and the ash particles was covered with lithium 6.

Furthermore, both the Lithium 7 that went into the reactor and the Lithium 6 that came out of the reactor had a distinct isotopic fingerprint that is impossible to replicate before hand.

Thomas, your denial of these facts is not scientific.

@Mary Yugo

In your refutation of the Lagano results please provide references from the report and also use logic based on those references.

Quote from Mary Yugo

@axil why? The report is not adequate to rule in or out sleight of hand and the Swedish blind mice are not qualified to detect it. Rossi, on the other hand, is likely to have practiced it again and again before the performance.

It is beyond the capability of any human to perform slight of hand on a 100 micron particle. It is equivalent to pulling a ameba out of a hat.

Thomas, I found this comment over at MFMP,

"Jamie Sibley : The electrical conductivity of high temperature Alumina has been very problematic in my experiments. In some runs, I have had over 50 VAC conducted over to my thermocouple leads once the core temperature gets close to 1000*C. This voltage is partially removed by the common-mode-rejection of the thermocouple amplifier, but even with 100db of CMRR, the leakage voltage will still push the thermocouple inputs past the rails voltage and give completely bogus temperature readings. I believe this effect is the cause of many experiments by others, showing large and rapid temperature oscillations at high core temperatures. It is very unfortunate that our ceramic insulator of choice, becomes a conducctor at the desired operating temperatures. This makes using thermocouples exceedingly difficult."

seems Alumina conductivity at elevated temperatures may be an issue to consider more seriously...

the question for Lugano would then be:
-what was the spacing between the inconel wires in the alumina?
- what was the inconel wire size used?
- how many wounds was used for the reactor?

With this info we could calculate what temperature would be needed to achieve the conductivity to Explain the 3* mystery

Quote from Thomas Clarke

So there are two mundane explanations for this result:

Just to mention one extramundane possibility for getting copper from nickel:

α + 61Ni → ɣ + 65Zn + 4115 keV
65Zn → ν + 65Cu + 1352 keV

65Zn is a synthetic radionuclide and will decay by way of electron capture to 65Cu with a half-life of 243.8 d. The ɣ photon from the α capture and subsequent deexcitation ɣ photons would presumably have had to have been replaced by internal conversion or something analogous to it.

Slashdot have a tread covering the story.

http://science.slashdot.org/st…n-and-the-reputation-trap

Quote

Just to mention one extramundane possibility for getting copper from nickel:α + 61Ni → ɣ + 65Zn + 4115 keV65Zn → ν + 65Cu + 1352 keV65Zn is a synthetic radionuclide and will decay by way of electron capture to 65Cu with a half-life of 243.8 d. The ɣ photon from the α capture and subsequent deexcitation ɣ photons would presumably have had to have been replaced by internal conversion or something analogous to it.

Indeed - but it was rather a giveaway that the Cu isotopic ratios were natural - don't you think? Rossi left it hanging (as he has the Ni62) and did not actually admit to "contamination" until the guy he gave the sample to for testing was dead, several years later, so we don't know what he said at the time to the testers, who appeared convinced it was a real sample from the published statements.

@axil argues that there is no way in the whole process that Rossi could have "contaminated" the ash sample in this case. I'd say that from somone who shows on this forum extreme flights of imagination when it comes to mix and matching bits of complex physics this argument shows a surprising lack of imagination about how things can be spoofed - either deliberately or even by mistake.

If we had some prior information that meant we were 99% certain Rossi has an extraordinary physics reaction he was trying to commercialise, then these constipated arguments would make sense - you would be trying to fit the known facts into a preconceived viewpoint and any way it half worked would be good enough.

From my POV there is no such prior information and therefore the overwhelming likelihood is that Rossi is a flake. Whatever the chances are of LENR existing in any form (least unlikely would be Pd-D) the chances of Rossi having what he claims must be a lot smaller.