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

    That's nonsense and typical Rossifiction, Shane. Rossi could not extract the parts he didn't want to disclose. He had no lab, just an old warehouse. At the time, his ecats were manufactured by a very elderly gentleman using coarse plumbing tools.


    http://freeenergyscams.com/wp-…014/10/Plumbers-Tools.jpg (original is by Krivit, and he took the photo in person inside Rossi's "factory" -- he saw no work benches, no fine machining tools, just that ugly old kit)


    Completely removing specific metals or compounds from the mix would be difficult and expensive and it is unlikely that Rossi knows how to do it. But removing specific isotopes is essentially impossible without extremely costly and unwieldy facilities and even then. Rossi is simply yanking your chain and that of the marks who he knows will believe anything as long as it comes from Il Douche.


    And Shane, Rossi has value to the LENR debate. People such as Rothwell, McKubre, and even Storms, write about him as if they believe his crap. And that's the point. Many people who should know better, including some who write here, want to believe so badly that they listen to and defend Rossi, overlooking all the giant red flags which point clearly to deliberate fraud, and a long past history of criminality. And we should trust these same people to judge subtle and questionable evidence about LENR experiments which purport to show tiny amounts of excess power or helium under highly doubtful conditions? THAT is the point of Rossi.


    Quote

    Almost everything he has said, whether that be the reactor materials, fuels, fuel ashes, operating temps/fail safe, he seems to contradict later on.

    Right. So why should be believe that this chronic incorrigible liar EVER tells the truth? Or that he has the discovery of the century and all he can do with it is to squat in a rusty container at an undisclosed location and sit there for an entire year while revealing no conclusions or data presumably to protect an unnamed and probably nonexistent "customer".

    Quote from Shane D.

    As Storms, Lomax, Rothwell and others have said, from a scientific standpoint Rossi offers nothing of value to the LENR debate.


    I disagree heartily with Storms and Lomax. I am sympathetic to Jed Rothwell's position, which is more nuanced. Rothwell is not saying that Rossi is a distraction in the way that Storms and Lomax are. Rothwell thinks the calorimetry of the Elforsk test was not done well, and as a layperson I can say that that seems like an accurate assessment.


    I was personally dragged into this whole thing by hearing about Rossi, and I do not think he's been a distraction. I am sympathetic to his situation, although I think he could have taken some advice early on about how to communicate what he's doing with the public.


    There were two isotope analyses done in connection with the Lugano test by third parties (third-third parties? At what point does one become uncontaminated?). They both corroborate one another. They do not rule out deliberate fraud through very subtle chicanery, or unrepresentative results due to how the fuel and ash were sampled. But I consider them to have interesting information.

    Quote

    would like to see the acute sceptical scientific focus that Thomas can generate turn to the more amazing examples of cold fusion research: those being the experiments of LeClair and Holmlid. DogOne produced a replication of LeClair's cavitation reactor using a old washing machine motor and pump. The replication produced radioactive byproducts. I would like to know is Tom gets radiation sickness like LeClair and his partner did. Placing CR-39 particle detectors onto the reactor would produce great results. It would give Tom the opportunity to flex his scientific muscles.


    If you read Le Clair and the Nanospire people, their account of radiation sickness is completely bonkers, absolutely nuts. First, all they would have to do is reproduce the situation with proper measurement and shielding and they'd win all sorts of accolades and prizes and money and they have never done it in all the years since the supposed event. Second, they associate with nut cases. And third, they have never provided hospital records or anything in the form of the slightest evidence that they produced radiation much less the high level required to injure them. Axil, you believe anything anyone says. I bet the con men sell you some interesting products and services all the time.


    Eric Walker
    The chicanery isn't subtle. Rossi personally and directly handled the samples in this supposedly "indipendent" test and it wouldn't take a lot of skill to inject a bit of prepurchased 62-Ni into the mix. In fact, any other theory of how that isotope got into the mix and how ALL the nickel detected was that one isotope-- any other explanation is completely untenable. Or do you have a credible one? How does the reactor keep running at its usual power level when its nickel "fuel" is entirely converted to "ash"? Or wait... is the nickel a catalyst now? Rossi said so (another idiotic contradiction). If so, how and why does it convert at all? Catalysts are not changed in reactions -- by definition!


    Rossi could "communicate better?" Well, for openers he could have taken the advice on CALIBRATING his systems for output power measurement. He has NEVER done that in more than four years of screwing around with crappy tests, demos and experiments. Explain that, please, anyone. Is he that stupid? That negligent? WHAT?

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    The chicanery isn't subtle. Rossi personally and directly handled the samples in this supposedly "indipendent" test and it wouldn't take a lot of skill to inject a bit of prepurchased 62-Ni into the mix.


    You are starting from a position of prejudice against Rossi, and see anything he touches as contaminated. This may be the case, but I don't share your prejudice. The description above would never be applied to a scientist collaborating with another scientist to reproduce or understand results. We are being asked to give broad leeway to scientists and to regard everything that Rossi does with extreme suspicion. Maybe this is warranted.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Or do you have a credible one? How does the reactor keep running at its usual power level when its nickel "fuel" is entirely converted to "ash"?


    There are two explanations that I like in this connection, apart from deliberate fraud. There may be other good ones.


    (a) Bob Higgins thinks that what might have happened is that enriched 62Ni was in the fuel, perhaps on the understanding that 62Ni helps somehow. When the fuel was sampled, the 62Ni was missed. When the ash was sampled, the 62Ni was picked up. In this telling, the fuel and ash are unrepresentative.


    (b) The process consumes more than nickel (e.g., iron, etc.). Nickel is neither the sole fuel nor necessarily the most important component.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Or wait... is the nickel a catalyst now? Rossi said so (another idiotic contradiction).


    Ok. Perhaps Rossi's understanding of what is going on is inadequate. Or maybe he's lying through his teeth.

    Thomas,


    I think we need to investigate the early history, to analyse and better undérstand Rossi:


    I remember reading this interview with professor Focardi years back:
    http://www.radiocittadelcapo.i…cardi-english-version.pdf


    This interview convinced me that Rossi started out with a sincere interest in the phenomenon, a discovery that started within Academia. Also Focardi says he thinks energy comes from fusion of hydrogen and Nickel to Copper, but now we know that is not the case (at least not the main reaction)...,


    Is Rossi still convinced there is a commercial opportunity here without Fraud? Only Rossi knows.


    A few highlights from the interview:
    "......So Rossi calls me and tells me he’s interested in the subject. We met, talked things over, and I could see that he had some innovative ideas; for instance, he immediately thought of using powder. Powder increases the surfaces involved and thereby increases the hydrogen which gets into the metal. We came to an agreement and began conducting experiments -- this happened about two and a half /three years ago -- in Bondeno, where he had an assembly plant, he was running a business there.


    With these experiments came the first important results, the ones which led to the current result. "


    "After this, we began to build our first devices, extremely simple ones: a container, with a small cylinder inside, a tray for the nickel, which is the component we were using (we experimented with other metals too, we did all sorts of things) "


    "We came to perform experiments in which the energy produced was in the order of two hundred times the input energy -- and that’s quite a factor. "


    "I’m an experimental physicist, not a theoretical one -- but theoretical physicists think they know it all, they say “these things occur inside stars, therefore they cannot occur at 100, 200 K” "

    Quote

    You are starting from a position of prejudice against Rossi, and see anything he touches as contaminated. This may be the case, but I don't share your prejudice. The description above would never be applied to a scientist collaborating with another scientist to reproduce or understand results. We are being asked to give broad leeway to scientists and to regard everything that Rossi does with extreme suspicion. Maybe this is warranted.


    Rossi has a long history of saying things that are not true. Were he a scientist he would have lost his job. MY makes a credible case for your (a) - (c). She tends towards (a) but it does not make much difference, externally, which it is.


    Rossi is pretty similar to other free energy companies like BLP. The difference is that Rossi's claims are much grander, and his lack of show therefore much more marked. BLP, for example, make many claims about what their technology (in their view) is capable of. Their scientific tests are however all marginal. They claim they show excess heat beyond experimental error, and spectroscopic lines that indicate a new state of hydrogen. Scientists generally do not agree with either of these claims. Still, in this case the discrepancy can be seen as a scientific difference of opinion in which both sides have merit. In my view it is not that, but it would take careful judgement to decide.


    Whereas with Rossi his continual twists and turns, and flat statements about what he has that are later contradicted (about both industrial developments and science), are more blatent.


    Tom


    PS - I ask no-one to give leeway to scientists. Evidence must be tested and retested before it is credible.

    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. 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.


    Teleporting from inside particles? Sounds like a lot of quantum mysticism to me. Doesn't sound like anything nature would do.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Rossi has a long history of saying things that are not true. Were he a scientist he would have lost his job.


    Indeed. Thankfully he is not a scientist. Instead he's a colorful engineer with a colorful past. He has made a large number of distracting statements. Should we take his claims with a grain of salt? For sure. Should we view everything he does with extreme prejudice, as tainted with a kind of contagion to be avoided, not unlike leprosy? This is for each person to decide in seeking out the truth of the matter.


    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Rossi is pretty similar to otehr free energy companies like BLP. The difference is that Rossi's claims are much grander, and his lack of shoe therefore much more marked.


    I put Rossi in a different category than BLP. BLP insist on promoting a theory that is obviously wrong, which is bound up in their intellectual property, while Rossi has been willing to change his position (all over the place). I put BLP somewhat in the same category as Steorn or Nanospire, making allowances for the possibility that BLP may actually be seeing a small amount of excess heat. I am not a fan of them.


    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Whereas with Rossi his continual twists and turns, and flat statements about what he has that are later contradicted (about both industrial developments and science), are more blatent.


    Yes, he has contradicted himself on a number of occasions, and he is not very measured in what he says. What conclusions do you take from this?

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    PS - I ask no-one to give leeway to scientists. Evidence must be tested and retested before it is credible.


    When a scientist makes a claim of such-and-such, I don't think it's necessary to establish a strict chain-of-custody, like one would at a crime scene. The scientist mails something to another scientist, saying, "this is the control and this is from the live run; will you please take a look at it?" This seems quite acceptable to me.


    Do we allow Rossi the same latitude? Perhaps it would not be wise to grant him quite the same amount of latitude. But how far do we go in this?

    Quote

    Rossi is pretty similar to other free energy companies like BLP. The difference is that Rossi's claims are much grander, and his lack of show therefore much more marked.


    The difference is that Rossi is a *convicted* con man. Mills is a highly educated, hard working scientist who has a controversial theory which he has not been able to convince many other scientists of. Yet. Yes, Mills has been overly optimistic at times regarding the immediate commercial prospects of his science but that is certainly no crime.


    Similarities between Rossi and Mills are superficial.

    Quote

    I put Rossi in a different category than BLP. BLP insist on promoting a theory that is obviously wrong, which is bound up in their intellectual property, while Rossi has been willing to change his position (all over the place). I put BLP somewhat in the same category as Steorn or Nanospire, making allowances for the possibility that BLP may actually be seeing a small amount of excess heat. I am not a fan of them.


    BLP is not *obviously* wrong unless the benchmark of what is right or wrong is what most people believe. In science, majority does not ultimately rule. Facts rule. One scientist can change things.

    Just to make things clear on Rossi "convictions":


    "
    General Emilio Spaziante has pleaded guilty for corruption and has been sentenced to serve 4 years in prison: he is the officer of the Guardia di Finanza that closed Petroldragon and all the other factories of Rossi twenty years ago.


    This fact may cast some new light on that strange affair, that finished by Rossi being convicted of tax evasion (which seems triggered by desperate tentative to escape some money from the bankruptcy caused by the pursuits) , lack of pollution permit (because a change in the laws, despite clear support of the government before and some media) , but no fraud, despite clear witch hunt in the press, with unsupported accusation.One cannot fail to notice the coincidence in historical dates between the war against Andrea Rossi, now a major player in petroleum products thanks to his research and activities with Omar and Petroldragon, and the decision on the part of Camorra organized crime to establish itself firmly in the waste management business, and achieve a monopoly on waste disposal."
    "


    and read my last post on Focardi interview wrt early Rossi story. It's interesting.





    "

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Quote from Contrarian: “He was acquitted in some trials but convicted in others. So he remains a convicted con man.”
    Was he on trial for running a con game, and is that what he was not acquitted of?


    Its complicated. He was convicted on tax fraud as well as environmental crimes. My data is from Wikipedia but they might be wrong. Indeed, they probably only report bad information on Rossi like they do for BLP.


    Basically, its probably impossible to know with certainty without an exhaustive search of Italian court records which I am not willing to do. I may have to stop claiming that then. I can say though that he seems to leave a trail of trials behind him so that does not gender great confidence in his character.

    The work of Rossi is the most conservative and conventional example of a cold fusion application. There are other instances in cold fusion research that are truly unbelievable and yet science has predicted that these wonders must exist. I am referring to monopoles, tachyons, and micro black holes, quantum teleportation, hadronization, multi-particle entanglement, high temperature Bose Einstein Condensation, and non-associative quantum mechanics. These wonders have been their obsession and searched for by science for decades. It amazing, string theory and the theories of everything are based on the proposition that these wonders must exist. The string theorists have books filled with equations describing how these items must behave and yet when these behaviors are seen in experiment exactly as predicted, they say that these behaviors are impossible. Ironic, what craziness!


    Yes it is embarrassing. CERN wants to build a meson factory to help in their Higgs boson research for the tune of 20 billion euros, but Leif Holmlid, a chemist is producing K-mesons and fusion using a green laser pointer, Deuterium and some catalysts. Now that is embarrassing for particle physics. Mark LeClair can generate rare earths and even transuranic elements from water a using a water crystal that he has produced. Just imagine what science can do when they understand what they have predicted to exist does in fact exist. Maybe they will discover Dark Matter and the cause of Dark Energy, maybe they will understand how eternal inflation works, there is the lithium mystery to uncover, and many other impossible cosmological observations to unravel that maybe made understandable in the context and the necessary appreciation of the new cold fusion paradigm.

    Quote from Contrarian

    That's fine but can you tell me why you think so?


    There are several things that I find hard to swallow with Mills's theory. First is the notion of orbitspheres. These are proposed to be thin spherical shells of circulating current, which take the place of the three-dimensional statistical electron orbitals that electrons are currently thought to occupy. In the current understanding, there are spherical harmonics which describe the electrons orbitals, and these take a number of different shapes, depending on how much orbital angular momentum an electron has:


    The three dimensions and odd shapes of the orbitals are responsible for a number of effects in solids, including pi and sigma molecular bonds. But we must set all of this understanding aside if we are to adopt orbitspheres. For example, we can no longer understand internal conversion, in which an electron is ejected from an atom with an excited nucleus, as being due to an electron passing through the nucleus and having the energy of the transition dumped into it, for orbitspheres do not intersect with the nucleus. We must come up with another explanation.


    Eventually I learned that a differential charge distribution has been proposed as being on the surface of the orbitsphere, which is described by the spherical harmonics. In other words, in some places the charge will be more and in others less, in a way that is mathematically described by those shapes above. But that does not deal with the problem of internal conversion or understanding sigma and pi molecular bonds. After enough times of running into difficulties like this, I asked myself, is this theory for real?


    That said, there is at least one person whose opinion about physics I value who takes elements of Mills seriously.

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.