Rossi: We received ERV’s Report - Very pleased with results!

Quote

How is it that a maverick with a philosophy degree knows how to test for heat better than 7 distinguished Professors? Clearly one should defer to the lettered experts.

I follow H-G in finding this comment strange. However, my view is always to read the literature and come to my own view. Anyone who trusted authority would of course not believe in LENR simply because that is the very strong majority opinion of (real) authorities.

Quote

Perhaps Rossi is the expert, then we should defer to his pronouncements about his products, and ignore the words of lettered persons who think they know better how it works.

Do you think it is a good idea to take the word of a secretive inventor who claims he has a miracle, calls those who challenge this asking for evidence snakes, and has given 15+ demos or tests most of which have known and obvious errors that explain the apparent miracle, and none of which provide solid evidence for the miracle?

If you do then I'd say you are the right sort of person for ECW...

The speculation on Rossi and professors in the Lugano test, seems pointless,
but it will probably transmute into extended speculation on
ERV-independence-[lexicon]IH[/lexicon]-Rossi for the Carolina test especially if the results are positive.

Speculation on the mechanism at work in the E-cat is much more productive and interesting .. like here
and gives pointers to more things on heaven and earth than
are dreamt of in current nuclear philosophy.. thanks to Bob Greenyer

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntgj0_CUo2U9Ic0lgoHEFgezpXZq6vIcbkD1LP2zLuk/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1904317063

@Thomas Clarke
How would the crowds respond to a (hypothetical) statement in the report that Rossi told the Professors how to measure properly, because the professors were doing it all wrong? I think that the skeptics would cry foul immediately, as probably they should.

And then if Rossi does not tell the a Professors how to measure properly, and they continue to screw it up right to the end, what is he to do? Seven Professors peer reviewing each other, with a month of sitting and watching, and they don't work out thier errors? And what is Rossi to say, since almost nobody believes him anyway?

Rossi vs the Professors, Rossi with the Professors, Rossi independent of the Professors... He is screwed no matter which way.
No wonder Rossi doesn't trust anyone.

robert bryant

The two matters, as presented by you, are linked more than you'd think.

Quote from Bob's spreadsheet

This is not a hypothesis focussing on the mode of transmutation of Ni isotopes, such as that based on 7Li neutron transfer, it is one focussing on the Rossi/Parkhomov/MFMP results

Bob' speculation consists of:
(1) electron screening might be significant
(2) a whole load of speculation that assumes the e-cat data is correct and meaningful. If Rossi has never had working devices, as seems most likely (to put it more mildly than Brian Ahern did) then this further speculation is off beam.

Electron screening has been looked at both theoretically and experimentally by many people, some of whom Bob references. It does (as you'd expect) alter cross sections. But not by a large amount. The reaction energy for any Ni-H system are much higher (by more than a factor of 10) than for a Pd-D system, so if this work is relevant as Bob claims it says that Pd-D LENR should be much much easier than Ni-H LENR. But many scientists have looked at it, and the numbers do not add up in any case.

But, as a viable mechanism, electron screening can be considered and further elaborated. Bob's other speculations are dependent on your view of Rossi's claims.

Quote

How would the crowds respond to a (hypothetical) statement in the report that Rossi told the Professors how to measure properly, because the professors were doing it all wrong?

That is an inapplicable argument. The Profs made a self-evident mistake which they would (assuming they are as capable of learning thermography as me) naturally correct themselves once alerted to a possible error. And it would not be in the report, in the same way that when you present a new maths theorem you do not present the various approaches you tried that did not work.

Quote

I think that the skeptics would cry foul immediately, as probably they should.

Actually, no. Because the wrong calculations are provably wrong and the correction provably correct. Skeptics might be surprosed that Rossi was on the side of the angels, or suspect that this was PR, but could not fault the correction.

Quote

And then if Rossi does not tell the a Professors how to measure properly, and they continue to screw it up right to the end, what is he to do? Seven Professors peer reviewing each other, with a month of sitting and watching, and they don't work out thier errors? And what is Rossi to say, since almost nobody believes him anyway?Rossi vs the Professors, Rossi with the Professors, Rossi independent of the Professors... He is screwed no matter which way.No wonder Rossi doesn't trust anyone.

The problem happens because Rossi refused professional independent testing from e.g. NASA. The profs are limited in equipment, resources, and they are mostly working as amateurs. None are calorimetry experts. None are thermography experts.

But Rossi could easily have told the Profs that the color of the reactor was (obviously) not compatible with the temperatures they claimed to have found. they would have then done what any normal scientists would do (and what MFMP do) and got some at tempoerature controls for the thermography which would have resolved the problem immediately.

@Paradigmnoia - while I admire your creative attempts here to find some plausible positive explanation of the Lugano test fiasco I can't say any of your arguments hold water. How about taking a step back and re-examining your assumptions?

Best wishes, Tom

Thomas, what I am trying to show is that the test was supposed to be independent. By interfering in measurements in any way, Rossi cannot claim it is independent. The ruckus over putting the fuel in and ash out is clear enough proof of that.

If the thing made high a COP, the calculations made sense, and Rossi had anything to do with the measurements, I think you would be claiming that he spoofed the IR camera, or messed with the surface characteristics, or whatever was good enough to claim a COP of 1.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The problem happens because Rossi refused professional independent testing from e.g. NASA. The profs are limited in equipment, resources, and they are mostly working as amateurs. None are calorimetry experts. None are thermography experts.

As You well know NASA is neither independent nor interested to help a person that is not following the rules of the US establishment. If they would verify Rossi then they would fall them self into the (other) reputation trap.
Obviously NASA has their own officially denied projects. Ask the other (Mills) closed out person, which they have no chance to blame, because otherwise they would end up as fools.

Everybody who passed an examen knows how tough it is to wait 10 days until the results are published. Thus I suggest the following:

For LENR deniers or skeptics: Fetch some six packs an calm down Your brain.

For LENR believers: Also fetch some six packs in case You need them later...

But all please, stop making pink/purple (rainbow-) press small talk. (((color is country dependent)))

Quote

Thomas, what I am trying to show is that the test was supposed to be independent. By interfering in measurements in any way, Rossi cannot claim it is independent. The ruckus over putting the fuel in and ash out is clear enough proof of that.

Right. But Rossi is not, we know, very concerned about that, since he was present for 1 week of the test and himself handled fuel/ash.

So this does not wash as an explanation for Rossi not alerting the testers to their major error.

Neither morally, nor in terms of possible external information, would Rossi doing this break test independence in the slightest. And he had 1 week working with the testers to do this.

Quote

As You well know NASA is neither independent nor interested to help a person that is not following the rules of the US establishment. If they would verify Rossi then they would fall them self into the (other) reputation trap.Obviously NASA has their own officially denied projects. Ask the other (Mills) closed out person, which they have no chance to blame, because otherwise they would end up as fools.

(1) NASA offered to test this. They have one person there (Bushnell) in favour of LENR and with enough resources to do the test.

(2) Bushnell would of course be interested in doing this. And if there is a reputation trap he is already in it from many well-publicised statements and reports.

(3) Conspiracy theories are seldom correct, and in this case directly contradicted by the evidence.

While I'm sympathetic with the "no point speculating till report is out" suggestion this thread is full of speculations that just ignore the known historical facts - hence my comments here.

Wyttenbach said " You well know NASA is neither independent ..".

This article shows how bias can cause empirical evidence to be ignored.

http://business.financialpost.…-bias-over-climate-change

The problem is it is that very difficult to find independence and competence together.
Much of the LENR work is hampered by the expense of isotope assays and proper radiation detection.

These costs are minimal for large organisations like NASA, CERN which already have these testing instruments in place, courtesy of taxpayer funding.
These large organisations inevitably have their bias against non-organisation research.
The problem is that there is no unbiased scientist

I believe that Parkhomov is more independent. His replications of the nickel-lithium aluminium hydride effect were performed in Russia
one of the big petroeconomies of the world and a country with a lotof roubles to lose if LENR takes over as the main human energy source.
But he had to scrounge around to get instruments for his research, so his competence is compromised.
And in fact Parkhomov has bias, he believes that LENR works, otherwise why he do theses experients.

At the moment he is trying to get more heat out of his dogbone... but is five years behind the Italians like Rossi and Piantelli in the learning curve.
His latest results are that the Gallium -69 Isotope has increased by 60 times in the dogbone. Intriguing.. If we examine
Bob Greenyer's spreadheet Ga-69 is produced.. from Zn... how does the Zn come about from the Nickel?... and how much gamma radiation is emitted
along the multiple nuclear reaction steps. So interesting!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntgj0_CUo2U9Ic0lgoHEFgezpXZq6vIcbkD1LP2zLuk/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1904317063

Entschuldigen for the smalltalk while we wait for the examen results.. but I don't drink beer.

Thomas,
Why do you think the high foreheads from NASA are any smarter than the professors out of several prestigious Universities?

https://www.facebook.com/iccf20/

Quote from robert bryant

If we examine Bob Greenyer's spreadheet Ga-69 is produced.. from Zn... how does the Zn come about from the Nickel?...

For Ni to Zn:

• α + 62Ni → 66Zn + ɣ + Q (4580 keV)

For Ni to 69Ga:

• α + 61Ni → 65Zn (syn.) + ɣ + Q (4120 keV)
• 65Zn → 65Cu + ν + Q (electron capture, 1350 keV neutrino)
• α + 65Cu → 69Ga + ɣ + Q (4490 keV)

The alphas are the decay product of an alpha emitter that is present in the fuel in which increased activity is induced. The gammas on the righthand side are replaced by a competing channel akin to internal conversion, with the Q value being dumped into one or more nearby electrons. See this writeup for a discussion. (With the paper being hosted on Vixra, this is my shot at crackpot fame.)

On JONP:

"Will Meier April 2, 2016 at 9:39 PMDr Rossi:Congratulations for the positive report after the one year test of the 1 MW E-Cat.Is it possible that in Sweden you will announce the producton of the E-Cat QuarkX ?Godspeed, Will

AR: Yes"

-----------------------------------------------------------
Some news:

Two seperate production lines.

Deborah Landin

April 2, 2016 at 9:49 PM

Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:

Somebody says that the E-Cat QuarkX is an excuse to delay the production of the E-Cats: is it true ?

Deborah
--------------------------------------------

Andrea Rossi

April 2, 2016 at 10:57 PM

Deborah Landin:
No, because one thing is the production line of the 1 MW E-Cat tested for one year, one thing is the E-Cat QuarkX.They are two different lines of production and the first does not need the second.

Warm Regards,
A.R.

Quote

These costs are minimal for large organisations like NASA, CERN which already have these testing instruments in place, courtesy of taxpayer funding.These large organisations inevitably have their bias against non-organisation research.

I find that generalisations, whomever makes them, are unhelpful when they ignore specifics.

In this case I claim NASA would give LENR testing a fair whack. My evidence for this was alluded to above - I was assuming that most here would have followed the NASA Bushnell "We think Ni-H LENR is very possibly real due" saga. Also the related NASA experimental checking of inertial drive (that is even more extreme fringe science than LENR). Also the NASA offer to test an e-cat and Bushnell's clear interest in testing anything that plausibly claims LENR.

Given the existence of NASA specifically supporting such way out ideas with experimental tests and reports, it is absurd to maintain: These large organisations inevitably have their bias against non-organisation research in the context of the thread here. There are any number of institutions who would happily have independently tested Rossi's device - we know about UoB and NASA.

Quote

Why do you think the high foreheads from NASA are any smarter than the professors out of several prestigious Universities?

"Smart" is a vague word. NASA has engineering and testing expertise that means they can do experimental work with much more safety than a few retired nuclear scientists whose expertise is far from such work. Furthermore, NASA are not closely associated with Rossi as were the lead profs in the testing (specifically Levi, but others had a history of interest in Rossi's demos and were already "convinced"), so the test is much more clearly independent.

Quote

New Energy Times obtained this story as it took place; however, in an agreement with NASA, New Energy Timesagreed to embargo the story until 2012.

On Sept. 5 and 6, a private demonstration of Rossi's device in Bologna, Italy, took place before a group of visitors: Jim Dunn, the former director of the NASA Northeast Regional Technology Transfer Center and a close associate of Dennis Bushnell, the chief scientist at NASA Langley; John Preston, a Boston investor; and at least one technical expert. The objective of this demonstration was to perform basic due diligence that, if passed, would lead to a second chance at a full-fledged test by NASA.

Despite the team's best efforts, its members were not able to confirm any excess heat from Rossi's device. The demonstrations on Sept. 5 and 6 both failed.

A distinctive part of this story is the difference between the attitudes of two key NASA staff members who have been involved - one at Marshall, the other at Langley. Both people have been enthusiastic about LENR and recognize its potential as a game-changer in the areas of energy and technology. Both know the 23-year history of real science that distinguishes LENR from "free energy" and from "cold fusion."

Dennis Bushnell, the chief scientist at Langley, has been a strong believer in Rossi and his "Energy Catalyzer" and has been publicly and uncritically promoting Rossi.

Michael A. Nelson, an engineer at Marshall who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, has been more circumspect. Nelson has publicly identified the key technical concerns about the Rossi device.

Display More

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…est-Fails-to-Launch.shtml