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

Thomas,

Ridicule? Not sure what you refer to, but my apologies If you feel offended.

My point is the following:

The most probable scenario in my opinion is that Rossi has presented a business plan with goal of a commercialized product ready for market this year, If a final test was successful.

That means that the test plant must go thorugh as close to actual market conditions as possible, and that the test contract would reflect this.

" Would supplying 500kW average be a success?"

No it would not. 1 MW is the agreed dutypoint. But of course, If the customer have some partial shutdown, this would cause the Rossi plant to turn down delivery. But according to Rossi, the agreed power delivery is 1MW, at some minimum regularity. Normal Industry goal would be more than 90% regularity.

" Is the 1MW heating the plant output, in which case it will indeed be supplied, the only question is how much electricity is used to do this?"

The Rossi plant is installed at customer site, and the customer will of course want to know and measure how much el. Power the Rossi test plant is consuming, If not Rossi is bying power directly from the power Utility Company, which is less likely.

"You seem to be confusing fact and speculation."

My asessment is only based on what Rossi have stated on his blog. But of course he could be lying ( but somehow I think [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] would note it)

But both pressure,temperature,flowrates and el.power consumption are really easy measurements and it would be really unprofessional not to implement, especially in a case of claimed LENR ;-), and i final stage of commercialization. At that point all measurements must be a proven point, of course.

Also, you would need these measurements to control the plant, feed and turndown requirments.

Regularity a "Meaningless requirement"? Really? You would not Expect a contract contains a spesific requirement for regularity of the plant?

The point here was that Rossi would not state the contractual number on his blog. Is it 85%? 90%? Higher?

A contract is meaningless if just handled by Rossi.

"Why?"

Because Rossi have stated he gets payment for heat. The Customer must of have control of what he's paying for.

Since the contract is between Rossi and the customer? You just can't know.

And to repeat what Rossi said: "the customer will CONTINUE to buy heat if contract is fulfilled. But I Expect Rossi have an exit opportunity in the contract, If his Company is not satisfied with the economics...

Quote

Never forget that Rossi can be a crook and LENR real, both are not mutually exclusive. Worse, as of today we can't exclude that LENR will go mainstream thanks to a crook.

I think it is important to realise that Rossi may not have working reactors and yet not be a crook. Also, I absolutely agree that Rossi's stuff not working does not itself say anything about LENR.

But, it means a whole load of evidence that convinces some ([lexicon]IH[/lexicon], Woodford) is not relevant.

Oystla said:

Quote

"You seem to be confusing fact and speculation."

My assessment is only based on what Rossi have stated on his blog. But of course he could be lying ( but somehow I think [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] would note it)

Oystla also said (in the same post)

Quote

The most probable scenario in my opinion is that Rossi has presented a business plan with goal of a commercialized product ready for market this year,
If a final test was successful.That means that the test plant must go thorugh as close to actual market conditions as possible, and that the test contract would reflect this.

Your assessment, as you honestly state here, is based on this "most probable scenerio". That is your speculation. And your other conclusions all depend on it.

Personally, I have a different "most probable scenerio" but anyway I don't assume it is true.

Quote from Thomas<br>Clarke

My
argument requires nothing except a certain humility.

Quote from Mary<br>Yugo

It's so stupid, it defies credibility except to the most gullible of individuals. Surely
you're not one of those!

Wow, the spiders of 'humility' weaving a web of 'credibility' - its a trap!!

Ha ha! But now that we have:

Huw Price and his "reputation trap' guide lines",

Marcello Truzzi – “Regretfully, the term “skeptic” today is being used by many who adopt that label for themselves in a misleading way. To many, it is falsely equated with the term rationalist.”, also

James H. Hyslop – “True scepticism means that we do not know, not that such a thing is not true”, and

Thomas S. Kuhn – “.. there is an “essential tension” within science since it must on the one hand preserve its accumulated knowledge by acting cautiously and conservatively while on the other hand remain an open system ready to take in new and potentially revolutionary data and concepts. This balance is maintained through a number of methodological prescriptions which make it difficult but not impossible for the claimant of an anomaly to obtain acceptance of the claim”.

In my book, TC & MY you are well and truly ‘rumbled’.

Best regards
Frank

PS: Alain, sorry, hope you don't mind me copying from your post, I found it a breath of fresh air. See "Distinguishing non-belief and disbelief... on skepticism..."

Thomas,

here is a comment from Rossi, that answers much of our debate:

"
Andrea Rossi
April 3rd, 2015 at 7:44 PM
Desmondet:
The measurement system of the 1 MW E-Cat is made by:

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions

1 PCE 830 to measure the consumption of electric power, which has been installed between the container of the reactors and the electric power source of the Customer’s Factory, plus

the Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider

56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positions

All the data are taken by the certified registration system made by the referee, who has placed the certified gauges to calculate the COP, and collected in his computer. All the referee’s gauges are certified and sealed.
Besides all this, there is the master Gauge, which is the manufacturing plant of the Customer, which needs 1 MWh/h of thermal energy carried by steam: if they receive this energy they pay for the plant, provided we give the granted COP, otherwise they do not pay. They measure with their instrumentation the amount and quality of the steam, but most of everything, they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters. Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts. So far the Customer is satisfied. Nevertheless, I have to add that it is soon to assume final considerations and we are aware of the fact that within the end of the year the results could be positive, but also negative.

best regards
A.R.
"

And

"
Andrea Rossi
May 2nd, 2015 at 6:38 PM
The 1MW E-Cat does not have the power to supply 1 MWh/h of energy without the Rossi Effect. The total power of the resistances is about 250 kW, therefore by Joule effect we can give max 250 kWh/h of energy. This is why we have to study well the duration of the charges and, until we have not a precise idea, we have fixed in 6 months the fuellife. This time we have the possibility to try 1 year; obviously as soon as we notice a decrease of efficiency we change the charge.Since we have 400 days at our disposal to operate 350 days, in this test and R&D agreed upon with the Customer, we have room for this experiment.Warm Regards,A.R.
"

Of course it may be all a fu*$€>**g! Lie ? but it is unlikely [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] are that stupid ?

Quote from oystla

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions

What I don't understand about this detail is that I thought there were ~ 100 self-contained modules. Would these be thermocouples on top of any in the modules themselves? Perhaps they are the thermocouples of the referee, not added by Rossi.

Quote from oystla

they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters.

To me, as a non scientist, confirming that to the satisfaction of all stakeholders will be the Eureka moment!

Best regards
Frank

PS: Brent was up 1.69% at $34.29 (£23.47), and West Texas Intermediate crude was up just shy of 1.2% to $33.70 (£23.06).

Quote from Mary Yugo

Is the customer now so dumb they can't read a meter or a computer printout?

I see, if the customer is about to confirm Rossi's claims then there must only be one reason Mary!

Maryyugo

Hi Mary, You asked what company is doing Rossi's certifications. Bureau Veritas.

Mary, you should seriously think about doing something other than bashing Rossi

Frank,

You are entitled to your view. And also entitled to use ad homs instead of substantive arguments to support it. I'll just point out I don't consider that very helpful conduct. Nor do I understand your conclusion from the rather vague personal comments you make! Rumbled in what sense? I have never been aware I had anything hidden to be rumbled!

Oystla was saying (and continued to repeat this) that he was certain of x,y,x giving reasons that were assumptive.

I said (truly) that I was not sure what was true, but that I was sure he could not be sure. It is a certain type of humility that allows one to admit uncertainty. As T.H. Huxley said:

Quote

Sit down before fact like a little child, and be
prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever
and to whatever abyss Nature leads or you shall learn nothing

The real world is often contrary to our expectations and so when making arguments it is helpful to distinguish what we know from what we assume.

Oystla:

Quote

The measurement system of the 1 MW E-Cat is made by:56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions1 PCE 830 to measure the consumption of electric power, which has been installed between the container of the reactors and the electric power source of the Customer’s Factory, plusthe Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positionsAll the data are taken by the certified registration system made by the referee, who has placed the certified gauges to calculate the COP, and collected in his computer. All the referee’s gauges are certified and sealed.Besides all this, there is the master Gauge, which is the manufacturing plant of the Customer, which needs 1 MWh/h of thermal energy carried by steam: if they receive this energy they pay for the plant, provided we give the granted COP, otherwise they do not pay. They measure with their instrumentation the amount and quality of the steam, but most of everything, they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters. Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts. So far the Customer is satisfied. Nevertheless, I have to add that it is soon to assume final considerations and we are aware of the fact that within the end of the year the results could be positive, but also negative.

This is a helpful quote. It does not answer the questions because we know that what Rossi says (Robotic plants etc) is very inexact.

The key part is:

Quote

but most of everything, they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters. Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts. So far the Customer is satisfied.

which as you can see agrees with the metering idea.

The comment about 56 thermocouples, online registration system, etc is a bit vague, it sounds good but on past form I would not venture to interpret exactly what it means.

In any case however certified the gauges are, if the thermocouples are placed incorrectly Rossi will get an incorrect COP. And there is no guarantee (or likelihood) that the referee will go round checking thermocouple placement. Rossi seems quite happy with his previous tests - which were clearly wrong in this respect.

There is also no likelihood we will ever know what the referee checks. I can have no confidence he will do this rigorously since the "independent" technical guys Rossi has used in the past have all been demonstrably not up to the job of detecting errors in spite of impressive equipment and measurements.

Which is why I still think the electicity meter measurement method is less spoofable. And we still do not know what the contract is, how the COP is calculated (from in/out measurements or electricity meters) and my previous uncertainty remains. Your previous certainty still looks unsubstantiated.

Quote

To me, as a non scientist, confirming that to the satisfaction of all stakeholders will be the Eureka moment!Best regardsFrank

It depends on whether they pay for the input to Rossi's plant. If all the power in comes from the customer's supply, which looks likely, then an overall reduction in electricity use is significant - if it is not within errors. I guess we don't know what these are.

Thing is, there are many ways in which the customer could be satisfied, and unless we got the details the headlines from Rossi could be positive when the electricity meter results were marginal or even negative. Rossi, i'm sure, is capable of believing his own (spoofed if past demos are taken as indicative) instrumentation, which will be more accurate, over a broad brush electricity meter result.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Rumbled in what sense? I have never been aware I had anything hidden to be rumbled!

Maybe not, it is of course subjective and I apologise if my 'impression' offended you. Its just that I do think 'styles' of presentation are either supportive of discovery or lend themselves to constructing some sort of 'reputation trap'. Surely those who invest in unproven opportunities knowingly understand they may loose their money, this is the nature of the free market. But when there appears to be a concerted approach to discredit certain ideas and those who invest in them, rather than seeking 'clarity' then personally I question that motive and instinctively think 'there must be something in this LENR stuff'.

For the record, I neither believe nor disbelieve in LENR but I am very interested in honest, impartial and credible science of the type an investor might be persuaded by. This does not necessarily require a proven theory and if I make the right decision early I could make a great deal of money. I could of course loose it all as well but where would we be if we all sat on our hands listening to the nay sayers?

Mary

You may of course have a point but I'm not persuaded in the same way EW et al influence my thinking.

A cop once told me you have to be careful how you protect your most valuable assets. If you have dangerous and aggressive dogs guarding your compound making a great deal of noise making people feel uneasy that walk by, then you are advertising you have something of great value.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from Mary Yugo

And you still believe he is somehow being persecuted?

You have clearly missed the point again.

This post is not particularly about Rossi or whether he is persecuted or not, it is about the potential for main stream scientists to become alienated if they associate with LENR.

Read - https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-…ossibility-of-cold-fusion.

Quote from AlainCo

Huw Price, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, has called the stigma suffered by cold fusion a reputation trap. Meanwhile it has been scientifically proven that elite scientists really can hold back scientific progress. Or, as Nobel Laureate Max Planck put it: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Price writes, “As a question about sociology, the answer is obvious. Cold fusion is dismissed as pseudoscience, the kind of thing that respectable scientists and science journalists simply don’t talk about (unless to remind us of its disgrace). As a recent Fortune piece puts it, the Fleischmann and Pons experiment ‘was eventually debunked and since then the term cold fusion has become almost synonymous with scientific chicanery”.

He also recalls: “No doubt one could find some physicists who would claim it was impossible. But they might like to recall the case of the great nuclear physicist Lord Rutherford, who claimed in 1933 that ‘anyone who expects a source of power from transformation of… atoms is talking moonshine’ – only days before Leo Szilard, prompted by newspaper reports of Rutherford’s remarks, figured out the principles of the chain reaction that makes nuclear fission useable as an energy source, peaceful or otherwise”.

Fear not though Mary, I see you 'potentially' as LENR’s Lord Rutherford.

Thomas wrt your:

"In any case however certified the gauges are, if the thermocouples are placed incorrectly Rossi will get an incorrect COP. And there is no guarantee (or likelihood) that the referee will go round checking thermocouple placement."

According to Rossi the referee chose the placement of the referee's field instruments, which feeds the referee's computer.

And to calculate COP you will have to know data of heating medium that feeds to and leaves the Rossi plant and the el. Power fed to the Rossi plant.

But let's not overcomplicate this;

All what's needed is:
- a measurement of the heating medium (steam) leaving the Rossi plant / container. From earlier pictures this is a single pipe to be connected to the Customers system
- a measurement of the heating medium feed (returning to) the Rossi plant

Pressure, temperature and mass flowrate of these two water streams will be enough to calculate the energy delivered by the Rossi plant.

The next you need is the el. total power fed to the Rossi plant, and then you have enough to calculate COP pretty accurately.