Huw Price in AEON: Is the cold fusion egg about to hatch?

  • Huw Price, known for having made an article on LENR and the reputation trap that blcoks it's recognition, made an update today in an article, telling how things have evolved since his first article.


    [news=119,meta][/news]

  • Alain wrote:

    the last sentence, remind me my engineering equivalent statement.If you assume it is an artifact, a fraud, why ignore it ? it is probably an opportunity to make you job, to find a new artifact phenomenon, to find a tasty story full of deluded tycoons ?


    Because, as always, your argument here is binary and excludes the most likely real world hypothesis. Let me summarise it:


    (1) Rossi has no working technology
    (2) Rossi is charismatic and good at convincing both non-technical people and those hoping for LENR that he has working technology
    (3) Rossi does not often allow independent testing, and when he allows testing by honest but incompetent friends, as in Lugano, the independent tests prove negative.
    (4) [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] is an investment company set up by Darden who is no scientist but nevertheless convinced the world can only be saved by LENR. Therefore he will fund long-term LENR research.
    (5) It is in the interests of no interested parties to proclaim Rossi either deluded or a fraud. It is also almost impossible to distinguish between fraud and delusion when as here the inventor is eccentric, self-opinionated, and avoids external advice.
    (6) [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] appears now to have distanced itself from Rossi. Rossi is not CTO of [lexicon]IH[/lexicon]. [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] makes statements about having "a good team of thinkers". Rossi having nothing is therefore just one of many possibles failing from [lexicon]IH[/lexicon]'s POV and entirely normal.



    The two strong motivations for journalistic investigation are:
    (1) belief or hope that the world-saving technology might be real
    (2) a crusade to prove a fraudster is criminally responsible


    Given that neither can be proved I expect no big media organisation is going to follow Krivit and try (2), but a few might go for (1). The more realistic story:

    • Rossi, in absence of positive evidence and with plenty negative, has nothing
    • His state of mind and whether he is fraudulent or deluded must remain speculation

    is just not newsworthy.

  • One of us is deluded.


    question is who.


    Given your past behavior and unlike me never having admitted you were wrong, I don't expect you are able to do it if you have to.


    Anyway, some of your critics are good, and deserve to be admitted.
    That we admit we were wrong is what make a difference between us optimistic and nay-believers.
    The second, related, characteristic is that when we have no data we are optimistic, not sure.


    This is why when someone change his opinion ney-believers take it as a weakness, and not as a talent.


    Groupthink is a tactic of human brain to manage decision taken with partial data, to avoid changing initial decisions.


    I've been many time wrong, sometime by thinking I was wrong before.
    Never seen a nay-believer be wrong (in his paradigm).

  • From the Aeon magazine article:


    "Intriguingly, [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] copied their email to APCO Worldwide, a prominent Washington-based consultancy that specialises in, among other things, crisis and issues management along with public affairs, government relations and policy. Why, with the report on Rossi’s test in their hands, does [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] feel that it needs APCO’s services?


    A skeptical view might be that [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] are preparing to announce embarrassing news: that they have been duped by Rossi and perhaps by others involved in LENR development. (They are also apparently investors in Robert Godes’s Brillouin Energy in California)."

  • where is any data from Rossi? A month after the test is up. Upon reading about Rossi's thermocouple fiasco, there was never anyway that they were going to produce 1KW I was all enthused by reading about Rossi to start with but anyone that could try that obvious scam could be capable of anything. His past MO and lack of data is ringing warning bells and do real damage to Lenr work

  • ChrisBlythe wrote:

    where is any data from Rossi? A month after the test is up. Upon reading about Rossi's thermocouple fiasco, there was never anyway that they were going to produce 1KW I was all enthused by reading about Rossi to start with but anyone that could try that obvious scam could be capable of anything. His past MO and lack of data is ringing warning bells and do real damage to Lenr work


    Cassandra never got thanked for her predictions and this site is the same. Your opinion here is premature in the sense that we will get more info (or not) about the 1 year test in due course and can evaluate it then.


    Many here disapprove of your jumping the gun with [the wrong sort of] comment on this. Personally, I dislike the premature and IMHO incorrect claims that this upcoming report will add credibility to Rossi's murky case, but have never felt `-1`s are appropriate just because I disagree with someones's views!


    Anyway, commenting after we have more than rumours makes more sense whatever your views.Best wishes, and welcome to the forum,


    Tom

  • Yes, take your point, maybe I am being a bit hasty. I have been studying Mills work exclusively for 15 years and hot Lenr full time for maybe
    15 weeks so yes you might be right...I am however getting older a perhaps less patient. I have also learned as much about psychology of Experimentors and detractors in that time as I have about the science itself, lurking for 8 years on the hydrino forums and biting my tongue for 3 of those years and rightly or wrongly I build that into my assessments these days. I can't help that think that if I had been running an experiment for 1 year with a view to proving all my detractors wrong that I would be have reams of data from my control system (which surely would have to be fairly comprehensive and capable of generating a report) to be in control of 100 X E-Cats...no! For it to be capable to monitor and keep track of that system would need at least a proportion to have feedback etc and if it was your test run would you not incorporate a data recording system...I would have thought that data reduction would be more of a problem, if it were me I'd be waiting for the day when the year was up as I'd have had a year of results garnered by sitting up every night with my experiment so I'd know exactly what was going on... but ok, as you say, I should be patient... I am actually a very forgiving person of alternative
    theories and experiments being a reader of Infinite-Energy since issue 1, yours hopefully but cautiously

  • For 5 years at least, every time Rossi seems ready to go public, complete a sale, or in this case, complete a comprehensive test, another fly shows up in the ointment. It becomes clearer and clearer that the ecat isn't ready for prime time or commercialization. IH after three years of witnessing claimed improvements and breakthroughs seems to have come to the conclusion that, being unable to substantiate, Rossi's claims, it is time to stop financing the genie in the bottle. It makes no claims about about LENR. It simply states that it can't make LENR do what Rossi claims he can. His total lack of transparency, and failure to provide working models outside of a highly controlled 'test' situation reminds me of years of following John Papp's noble gas engines. I'm not saying there's nothing there, just saying that IH, after three years of careful study and review is in a much better position to determine the value of Rossi's claims than anyone else and that even 89 million would be short money if anyone else could reproduce controlled COP's of 6 to 50 for any length of time. Let's move on until the dust settles or Rossi demonstrates, unequivocally, his product with impartial observers.

  • One characteristic of LENR is that it is multi-competences, inter-sciences, inter-technologies...
    You need many competences, in your own mind, but also from many minds and experiences.


    If someone refuse to share, to trust, to cooperate, to codevelop, and simply use the others competence one-way, like you make an order , then it cannot work.


    Someone tried this bad method, and the outcome is what we see.


    One tried to exploit the other, and refused to trust or share his assets sincerely. it cannot work.
    the other who feel screwed should simply get alone and find sincere partners.


    I have my opinion, based on what is reported from both camp. I may be wrong.

  • Alain,


    I agree with you that evaluating these reports is not simple and requires many competences. it took me about 6 months to work out Lugano (and even then I still had a few things to learn). Someone specialised would do it quicker - the problem is that you need multiple specialties, and an expert spending only a day on the evaluation must come fully armed.


    However - evaluating the competence of the testers is a lot simpler and can be done by anyone familiar with standard "safe testing" protocols.


    Both the Swedes, in their Lugano test, and Penon, in all his tests, grossly violated standard practice.


    So you can say that all Rossi's tests have been done by unqualified testers. And that this is what Rossi decided. Penon came from UoB and was presumably found via Rossi. The Swedes were colleagues or friends of Rossi previously convinced his stuff works.


    It is not rocket science to see that you need a tester who is:
    (a) familiar with standard test methods (standard because they help prevent mistakes)
    (b) independent of Rossi


    Tom