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

Thomas,

Actually F&P included Deuterated Nickel in their "CF" patent from1989.

So they had an idea that CF would work in other materials than Pd. Materials that have the ability for high Hydrogen loading. May be F&P Focused on the wrong material, and got hung up in Palladium, when Nickel was a better choice?

Anyway. Excess heat in Dry Ni-H was not discovered by Rossi, but inside University research in the early 90's.

I've found some very interesting papers, with dry Ni-H cells and more powerfull than F&P cells (it seems).

That's probably where Rossi got his idea from.

I'll come back with more info when I've read the papers.

Quote

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

Oystla - I have no axe to grind on this issue, since my analysis of the temperature and hence power out is unaffected by whether or not there was such leakage.

But, I think you are not considering the facts I stated above. I've gone into it in more detail below.

(1) Alumina leakage is certainly enough to affect thermocouples where a few mA injected into the thermocouple earth wire could be significant. For equivalent leakage to matter for the Inconel we would need 10s of amps.
(2) This leakage was evident (from MFMP) only at much higher temperatures than existed in the Lugano test
(3) There is no way that alumina leakage, which would go on (on your figures) getting worse at higher temps, could give X3 change at lower temps and NO change to within 0.5% from 710C to 780C. As you can see from the table below the resistivity change gets higher at higher temperatures, and the fact that this is in parallel with the Inconel winding resistance also means that as the any affect will be amplified not reduced. Therefore for a X3 change over 300C we must have AT LEAST a X 3^(70/300) = 1.3X change in resistivity over the two higher temperatures (30%). The observed change here was < 0.5%.
(4)

alumina resistivity vs temp (see table) 20,000 ohm-m at 1000C.
hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/EuniceHuang.shtml

Inconel resistivity:
130 microohm-cm = 0.13 ohm-m. (It varies by type but not a lot).

Ratio of resistivities at 1000C: 200,000 (much higher at lower temps).
For ball park figure assume 2mm dia coils and 2mm spacing and 40 dia helix:
geometric factor (all units mm, units will vanish when we take ratio so do not matter):
round one coil we have R ~ 120/(2*2)=30
between coils we have R ~ 2/(2*120) = 1/120
Factor of 4000. So we'd need this factor to be up at 600,000 to explain a X3 change in resistance between 20C and 1000C.

---------------------------------------------------

General comment. When working stuff like this out it is helpful to pay attention to likelihood. I think working with LENR evidence you perhaps get used to ignoring what is likely and looking for "ways in which a given hypothesis could be made to work". Axil epitomises this. But, in reality, there are very many different hypotheses, all can be made to work if you bend uncertainties enough, but some are more likely than others. You keep your mind open and look for all the evidence for or against.

Having crunched the numbers here (which I agree adds certainty) you can see alumina resistivity is not the issue. But even without crunching the numbers going (3) above gives you the answer - and was what led me to believe this was not significant.

Another thing is evaluating the competing hypotheses of:
(A)clamp reversal or
(B) wiring change.
Both have the merit of predicting within 10% the quantitative observed resistance change. That is pretty good and adds weight to them. The geometry change argument is slightly better because the 10% remaining error can come from connecting wire length variation - though asymmetry in the windings could give 10% error for either of these two hypotheses, and is possible. So that is maybe an (insignificant) X2 factor in favour of wiring change.

Finally, since COP < 1 is impossible we can rule out reversed clamps. I'd also put the prior probability of reversed clamps as lower than wiring change since the profs, incompetent though their use of IR cameras undoubtedly is, probably would have noticed. They could be persuaded to change wiring on the (correct in principle) argument that to get higher powers into the reactor you need lower resistance, and the (partially correct) argument that it should make no difference to the input power measurement.

So we have a pretty confident "wiring change" explanation for this which fits all the facts and is not inherently unlikely.

The profs should have put this in their writeup - of course. They probably felt it made no difference. On balance, I suspect that is true. But this shows how assumptions can give errors because it would not always be true. There was no analysis of whether due to high crest factor the current clamps were saturting. IF this phenomena happens we have another experimental error giving apparently COP > 1 when it is not so.

The moral of this complex analysis is that experimental errors are tricky things. You must examine carefully every assumption, and even detailed write-ups such as Lugano can leave out assumptions (in this case that the current clamps do not saturate due to the crest factor of the current). I repeat, I think in this case there was no issue here. But there could have been...

It does mean that the reactor was disconnected and reconnected (and maybe removed for some operation or other) between the two tests - but then that is not unlikely and no reason to dislike this explanation - unless like axil you are trying to prove a "Rossi could never have swapped samples" meme.

To bring out the general point from the above:

it is common here for people to say: "look at this write-up - can you work out how it is wrong?". Well, sometimes one can. But often what is wrong is some unconsidered trifle not deducible from the writeup. Suppose the Lugano experiment was operating at higher currents, where clamp saturation was an issue, but the output measurement was calculated properly. The measured input power and current would both be within limits for the spec on the power analyser, but because the crest factor would be out of limits the measurement could saturate and give a spurious COP > 1 at higher input powers.

That requires skill and experience to detect. Even somone careful enough to check current and power are all within the measuring spec would not necessarily check crest factor - nor know what it is since the "black box" can vary it.

A writeup would usually not give exact details about input power measurement. The previous "independent" report gave no clear details. Without such details proving there is an error here is impossible. Yet there easily could be.

That is why the onus must be on the experimenter to prove that every last detail of the setup is not introducing errors. Normally this is done by comparing control and active setups, so that most sources of errors cancel. However there are always differences between control and active - it is then a matter of checking all of these possible differences. Again, the differences are not always obvious - look at MFMP's tribulations with Piantelli wire false positives for an educative lesson.

Thomas,

if the temperature really was down in around 700 degC, the Lugano test was a failure. But If it where up at 1200 degC, the alumina resistivity is down in the 100 ohm-m range, and will matter over the length of the coil, which is unkown....

but it does not matter, And I don't care . Rossi is saying the "factory acceptance test" will be finished in March, so we will know more of commercial realities in a few Months.

Anyhow, as I stated in my last comment above, I've found some interesting Ni-H dry cell research I'm reading now. I'm starting to see where Rossi got his ideas from.

Quote from oystla

Thomas,

if the temperature really was down in around 700 degC, the Lugano test was a failure. But If it where up at 1200 degC, the alumina resistivity is down in the 100 ohm-m range, and will matter over the length of the coil, which is unkown....

but…

Oystla - if you don't care, then you should not make the point you try to make above. If you care, you should reflect and make it correctly. If the experiment were up at 1200C then the observed IR cam temp readings would be all wrong, as I believe you have the ability to check for yourself. So casting doubt on this does not do you credit, unless you'd like to be explicit about your reasons. Note that uncertainty about alumina transparency is out of the picture here, because Al is not transparent 7-13u.

Further - my arguments above remain valid even if temp is 1200C. The "why does resistivity not change between the two high temp tests" is a killer and you cannot answer it under the hypothesis that resistivity change is responsible for the dummy/active discrepancy. I stated it clearly, and you are just ignoring it which seems to me rather impolite.

Best wishes, Tom

Quote

Rossi is saying the "factory acceptance test" will be finished in March, so we will know more of commercial realities in a few Months.

I wonder if we will. We will know what Rossi tells us of this test. Can you imagine circumstances in which that gives us more information? I can't...

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Indeed - but it was rather a giveaway that the Cu isotopic ratios were natural - don't you think?

It's been a while since I reviewed the assay that showed Cu from a few years ago. Do you have a link for the one you're thinking of, so that I can have more context?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

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.

I don't disagree about the flights of fancy.

About explanations, one test for me is whether a suggestion about deliberate ruse or mistaken error has gotten into black ops helicopters territory or not. Sometimes skeptical takes get into territory that feels like Mission Impossible or MacGyver. This is not to say such possibilities are incorrect; just to say that I note in the back of my mind that they're pretty fancy.

I try to keep in mind several possibilities at once -- the extramundane, the mundane, and the sinister -- and not decide on which is the most probable right away. Eventually there may be a sufficient collection of evidence to force me in a certain direction, almost against my choosing. Sometimes there is not, and I'm left hanging.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

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.

I think people should propose the extramundane if there is a specific reason to. Otherwise science would not advance. That is not to say that it's always probable or even likely. But it's good to have out on the table with the other possibilities.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

From my POV there is no such prior information and therefore the overwhelming likelihood is that Rossi is a flake.

Perhaps. This reasoning feels a little tenuous, but you might be right.

Eric -

Cu tests - perhaps someone could find the links - I base what I said on reading the material when it came out 3? years ago. The isotopic analyses were done I think by Essen or Kullander as part of the initial testing they looked at. No reason to doubt the analysis, but the sample of "ash" was provided by Rossi and he much later (again i do not have the link, but it can be found) said that he thought it was contaminated.

About priors for different types of errors.

I generally give black ops conspiracy theories very low prior - they are attractive to many people but seldom real (or perhaps it is just that the few that are real never get as far as people advocating them all over the internet - which would be a highly incompetent black operation). I do see the US (or any other) military as being more capable than most of being taken in by silly technological claims. Consider those attempts to kill goats by thinking at them. A military mindset must I think necessarily make skepticism more difficult, and military beaurocracy must make challenge of stupid practices almost impossible. Though of course there are many fine level-headed intelligent people involved in the military...

However I give mistake/delusion/fraud a very high prior when it comes to a company's evaluation of its own technology. The over-stating of technical advantages of some proposed breakthrough is pretty well mandatory. There is then a continuum from that to deliberately falsifying tests and from small high tech companies you often never know where they sit on this. Large companies can do it too: look at Volkswagon - you cannot get less flaky than them yet they too falsified highly technical tests for a long time. It does not take much for this too happen and the pressures to do so are large. When it happens it is extraordinary how people do not speak out.

I don't care, since I'm more interested in Scientific papers where the scientists is in full control of the object in question, not third party tests of potential commercial products, where NDA secrets still remains.

if the "factory acceptance test" is success, both Rossi's Company and Industial Heat will have to be more forthcoming with information If their intentions is to sell these on a commercial basis.

and "Rossi's theory"? - please. He has been as much out in the dark as the rest of LENR community wrt a correct theory for LENR. His original hypothesis of Cu transmutations was wrong.

Rossi based his work on Professors Piantelli, Focardi , Celani, etc. Andr their Ni-H excess heat discovery.

and presumably found a better recipe for more excess heat, by trial and error, not by guidance by theory.

Quote

if the "factory acceptance test" is success, both Rossi's Company and Industial Heat will have to be more forthcoming with information If their intentions is to sell these on a commercial basis.

Since Rossi has always been extremely vague about anything commercial. It is more likely, if he announces a success, that anyone wanting to buy should contact him. Then, if like previous "sales" they will get no reply if not sympathetic, or a reply that no info can be disclosed without an NDA. If you are a company wanting to seem to be selling, but with no good data to provide to those who buy, it is easy to do this. And such behaviour can always be justified on grounds of commercial secrecy.

Quote

and "Rossi's theory"? - please. He has been as much out in the dark as the rest of LENR community wrt a correct theory for LENR. His original hypothesis of Cu transmutations was wrong.Rossi based his work on Professors Piantelli, Focardi , Celani, etc. Andr their Ni-H excess heat discovery.and presumably found a better recipe for more excess heat, by trial and error, not by guidance by theory.

I'll agree with you about this. Noting that the trials seem universally to have been experiments capable of giving false positives.

@Thomas Clarke

I 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.

Holmlid claims the production of mesons as well as fusion. Holmlid is very open and will support a replication attempt. Let us get off of Rossi and onto the more amazing and interesting examples of cold fusion experimentation.

Quote

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.

You are most kind. I must respectfully decline the offer of a possible radiation-sickness-generating experiment. Quite apart from my family, who would be unhappy at such a venture, I enjoy more, and think I am better employed, scrutinising experimental reports from other people. Rather like what you do Axil, but with more focus on the numbers.

I'd be very happy (briefly, I somehow do not think it will take me long) to read LeClair's report on this experiment, and of course DogOne's replication - it will be fascinating, if a bit macabre, to get such validation. Did they have different doctors? And why is it that in the history of LENR no-one else has dies of radiation sickness - nor even been inconvenienced by it - nor even, for that matter, managed to detect radiation at larger than background levels?

LENR is certainly a field that needs more, not less, careful scrutiny of evidence.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Since Rossi has always been extremely vague about anything commercial. It is more likely, if he announces a success, that anyone wanting to buy should contact him. Then, if like previous "sales" they will get no reply if not sympathetic, or a reply that no info can be disclosed without an NDA. If you are a company wanting to seem to be selling, but with no good data to provide to those who buy, it is easy to do this. And such behaviour can always be justified on grounds of commercial secrecy.

This conjecture seems consistent with scam or almost-scam. Just so I understand your position -- is it that Rossi/[lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] are
(a) running a con game,
(b) tricking themselves and behaving in a way that will avoid popping their bubble of self-delusion,
(c) in a different category than either of these and/or something more nuanced?

Quote

Holmlid claims the production of mesons as well as fusion. Holmlid is very open and will support a replication attempt. Let us get off of Rossi and onto the more amazing and interesting examples of cold fusion experimentation.

Well if these are mu mesons then we do not have cold fusion - muon catalysed fusion is well understood and not viwed by any normal person as being cold fusion even though it is technically that. Does he claim we have instead a method of generating mu mesons that breaks conservation of energy? Or perhaps something entirely different. I vaguely remember it is pi not mu mesons Holmlid claimed.

Holmlid's experimental evidence has got gradually less convincing, and more incoherent, over a considerable period. Which particular paper amazes you?

Shane,

Quote from Shane D.

If you go to the Rossi Blog Reader, starting in Oct 2014, you can see this exchange, along with others where Rossi gives his arguments against the various points the critics make. Many of the same you make here.

I recall hearing at one point that the ratios of isotopes in the copper were the natural ones; perhaps that was from the Pomp critique. I am still trying to sort out the facts relating to copper and the E-Cat, because the topic is interesting to me.

From your summary I conclude that Rossi is giving us to understand that the copper that was sampled for the Elforsk test was not a reliable indicator of what was in the ash commented upon by Pomp et al.; beyond that I am unable to infer whether copper was never reliably found in the ash at any time, or whether it was, but was in the normal ratios, or whether it was, and it was in abnormal ratios. But I don't recall much being mentioned in the way of copper in the Elforsk report; perhaps it was an earlier test?

What is your understanding of how copper fits into things, from the beginning? I know that copper has been reported by Piantelli, and there's the connection from Piantelli to Rossi via Focardi, so it's possible that copper was a hypothesis that Rossi adopted as a starting point.

Quote from Shane D.

"The result of this time showed that the nickel contained in both the “fuel” and “ash” had the natural distribution of isotopes of nickel, that is, no isotope change of nickel which could be observed."

This, I take it, from the Pomp critique. I'm having a hard time placing this in the timeline, as the nickel isotopes were clearly in abnormal ratios in the Elforsk test.

Eric

Quote

This conjecture seems consistent with scam or almost-scam. Just so I understand your position -- is it that Rossi/[lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] are
(a) running a con game,
(b) tricking themselves and behaving in a way that will avoid popping their bubble of self-delusion,
(c) in a different category than either of these and/or something more nuanced?

It is difficult to give any precise answer to that question without more information about the relationship between Rossi and other [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] officers, and the [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] governance.

However my position for a long time is that Rossi complies with one of (a), (b) or (c). In principle that does not preclude his having some real LENR effect, though in absence of even ordinary (independent) evidence for this (I know some would disagree with this, but I see no such evidence) I would not suppose such an extraordinary outcome likely.

Personally I favour the "nuanced" version of (c) where there is some combination of (a) and (b) since these matters can easily be more nuanced, where for example an initial belief in a real effect turns into a deluded pursuit of the same, together with (possibly) elements of dishonesty self-justified by some "end justifies means" argument. For example, ash/fuel swapping with Ni-62 could be justified as:
"I know my reactors when working can do this transmutation. I need money to continue research. The profs are working at low temperatures where maybe the correct result will not come out, so to be surer I'll deliver what I know happens when things work properly".
or
"Oh no - I've just realised these reactors will need Ni-62 to work - I'd better swap fuel" together with a reluctance to disclose such interference perhaps due to IP secrecy issues.

Thus self-delusion can turn into selective dishonesty. MY and others would say that the ash Ni composition, similar to that of bought Ni-62, strongly indicates clear deliberate fraud and I have sympathy with that but do not jump to it immediately.

You will realise that this is pure speculation - all sorts of scenarios complying with (a), (b) or (c) remain possible, and whereas the experimental data can be properly understood - I suspect the workings of any single person's mind must remain forever somewhat mysterious. It would be presumptuous to think that one could reliably determine this.

Quote

This, I take it, from the Pomp critique. I'm having a hard time placing this in the timeline, as the nickel isotopes were clearly in abnormal ratios in the Elforsk test.

The Cu/Ni isotopic testing was done much earlier, on an early test some 3 years (?) before Lugano.

I wrote:

Quote from Eric Walker

What is your understanding of how copper fits into things, from the beginning?

An accurate, neutral writeup of this would be great. There are so many details, and the history spans a long enough time, that it's difficult to keep everything straight.