I dont understand why people are even in doubt about Rossi.
There are replications of his ecat and not only this. But much more LENR based devices, that are really working.
It is mindblowing how it is possible to manipulate people over a mass media. IH replied with just few words and now everything is over. No LENR, no evidence, nothing?
Please, wake up!
me356 You are in a privileged position. You can watch the war from your island and wonder when you hold such a prize gem in the palm of your hand, why they have to destroy everything. In every war there are spy's, subversion and propaganda and those who are swept away to the front line by rhetoric in support of one side or the other. The first casualty is the 'truth'.
People with millions of dollars and an infinite appetite for a long haul court case do not do this when there is nothing to fight for. IH are not doing it for Rossi's money, he will not have any left soon. Rossi is not doing it as a bluff, he is up against the big boys and could not win, so even the participants know there is 'something' to fight for. Its the interested lobbyists who keep 'injecting their venom' for some other reasons.
Best regards
Frank
Hank
If you don't have the will power, how do you expect me356 to step up to the plate, give him a break, I'm sure he would prefer to spend his time on R&D rather than sparing with Mary Yugo clones.
me356
Take your time, Pons and Fleishmann were encouraged to go public before they published a peer reviewed paper and look what happened to them.
Best regards
Frank
"Why are ye fearful, O ye of little F8h ?
As regards new technology. Peer review and public exposure is post hoc or unnecessary
Lets's look at the electric motor.
https://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php
Faraday's electric motor was developed in 1822
In 1896 the first AC transmission system was built by Westinghouse/Tesla in NY
Plenty of patents, controversy along the way. no peer review . most of the public had no clue.
Faraday did not live to the see the publication of Thompson's peer reviewed electron paper in 1897, 75 years later.
Peer review was very post hoc.
There was plenty of will power between 1822 and 1896.
And Parkhomov, MFMP etc have plenty of will power now.
.
Hank
If you don't have the will power, how do you expect me356 to step up to the plate, give him a break, I'm sure he would prefer to spend his time on R&D rather than sparing with Mary Yugo clones.
Frank,
I am with Hank on this. I have followed all the replicators, including ME356. We all hope they are right, encourage them, give them plenty of "likes", but all seem to get shy, or tight lipped, once they go public with positive results.
The only replicators that have truly followed the open source philosophy, are MFMP, and we have all seen what so often happens after good results are announced, only to be retracted after further inspection reveals otherwise.
Quote from me356I dont understand why people are even in doubt about Rossi. There are replications of his ecat and not only this. But much more LENR based devices, that are really working.It is mindblowing how it is possible to manipulate people over a mass media. IH replied with just few words and now everything is over. No LENR, no evidence, nothing?Please, wake up!
me356. You believe you have this evidence yourself, and so it is very proper for you to have this view.
However it is not proper for you to criticise others for not having it, because you have not provided the data on which you base your views. Hank Mills will agree with you - he sees of evidence of LENR on many experiments (for example - I'd guess even in the Lugano test) where I and other people don't.
It does not profit either side to make claims about the integrity of the thought processes of the other. We all tend to view our own position as well thought-out, and therefore contrary positions as likely wrong.
This gets resolved only be careful and forensic examination of specific evidence.
For example, MFMP's "signal" is a real anomaly. It could be an artifact (software or hardware) related to the unexplained power glitch in the data segment that contained the artifact. It could be some other artifact. Or it could be evidence of "interior bremmstrahlung" from excited nuclei. The only thing that will give more evidence is replication - if it is replicated the cause, with better instrumnetation, can be pinned down. If it is never replicated it will remain, as the Marie Celeste, an isolated mystery.
Where mysteries remain there will always be different interpretations of what they mean. Those convinced LENR is sort of plausible will see every mystery as more evidence, and become more convinced. Those not convinced LENR is plausible will see mysteries as having many possible causes (as they do) and not view LENR as a higher likelihood cause than the others.
You can see where I'm going with this I hope. No resolution will come from adding new different mysteries. Resolution can come from replicating mysteries with enough extra instrumentation to understand them. MFMP have shown themselves capable of this so in spite of some whacky and premature comments I'm hopeful they will continue.
PS - the evidence you posted here - your bistable inner rod glowing - has as you know a non-LENR explanation based on a "heat pipe" type reaction or phase change that is switched on or off by local temperature and modulates inner rod thermal conduction. And, as I've also posted here, the way you disambiguate that is by accurate calorimetry to determine total heat variation - various ways suggested by various people.
Dear Hank, our team is working on an "Open Business" environment to develop LENR . In some words, , Open source says "Open for all" but as you know, anyone can break the rule, while Open business is about to make inefficient for any business to break the rule. No open source without the freedom to say how to use what we own, No Open Business without a business to build new way to do business. I would like to talk with you. My email is [email protected]
Thanks
Michel.
I dont understand why people are even in doubt about Rossi.
There are replications of his ecat and not only this. But much more LENR based devices, that are really working.
Hello Me: The comments of Mr. Clark seem always somehow possible like: Irrational phase change energy of nearly fluid Nickel, that causes runaways... Or his other favorite: Sparky B-fields of more than 1 Tesla coming out of a flat wire...
These Clark -claims are even more irrational than his claims about LENR believers do have.
It's a fact: LENR has been proven by NASA and SPAWAR. (For both systems the Pd D and Ni H)
My claim is, that the Thomas Clarks main task is to produce a negative spin momentum in the LENR research community. He is just a bit more clever than MY.
LENR is far more than proven: After studying far more than 100 recent an old papers it is clear that mainstream physics has stranded. (Read Homlid/SPAWAR experiment papers)
For more than 100 years mainstream physics was not able to produce any working qualitative /exact) theory that handles the space below 1fm!
For the US-Administration and other warheads such a situation is per se dangerous, because new knowledge (e.g. patent for an active radiation shield – also mentioned by NASA - of less than a micro meter!) can compromise your strategies.
On the other side LENR is a large business opportunity. I recall the immovable law (of silly old physics...) that radioactive decay can not be change be exterior forces (B/E Fields etc.) ... This claim has been laid in ashes by the LENR transmutation research. Converting all radioactive waste to harmless isotopes is at least a 500 Billion business.
Where mysteries remain there will always be different interpretations of what they mean. Those convinced LENR is sort of plausible will see every mystery as more evidence, and become more convinced. Those not convinced LENR is plausible will see mysteries as having many possible causes (as they do) and not view LENR as a higher likelihood cause than the others.
It would be highly professional, if Thomas, in future, would exactly explain which (point to literature) well known phase change he sees coming into play. Also I'm eager to get his knowledge about how a >1 Tesla B-field (in fact produced by the new spp state) can be produced by a simple wire...
QuoteIrrational phase change energy of nearly fluid Nickel, that causes runaways... Or his other favorite: Sparky B-fields of more than 1 Tesla coming out of a flat wire...
Quotewould exactly explain which (point to literature) well known phase change he sees coming into play. Also I'm eager to get his knowledge about how a >1 Tesla B-field (in fact produced by the new spp state) can be produced by a simple wire...
I think the key point you miss is that the evidence here is equally explained by variable excess heat generation, or by variable heat transfer (from the hot rod outward).
I don't claim to be a chemist with access to all possible reactions and phase changes of the fuel here, so I have to say I don't know. One of the fundamental differences in this debate is that skeptics tend to be a lot less certain that those who see evidence of LENR, and a lot more open to imaginative possibilities.
I have no idea what magnetic field has to do with my comment. Phase change could be any (physical) phase change of any fuel constituent or chemical reaction product.
Reaction could be any chemical change.
Either of these could directly alter the thermal conductivity of the inner pipe. Also (more interestingly) there could be some heat pipe effect where a gas/liquid transition, or just a liquid, transfers heat.
I don't claim to know what is possible in Physics and Chemistry for these reactants at this high temperature - but it seems to me that if you want to rule out any such mechanism you are claiming that. LENR is a far less likely cause of this differential heating than any of the above. Also differential heating is a very indirect sign of nuclear-level excess heat, which surely if it exists would be detected directly.
If you look at me356's pictures you can see that the reflection of the outer material looks slightly dimmer where the inner rod is glowing, as would be expected if the more usual explanation of heat transfer was responsible for this observation - but obviously without accurate calorimetry that cannot be checked, just as the claim of extra heat generation cannot be checked.
It is proper to look at this anomaly and say - well - maybe there could be heat production. In that case your hypothesis could be tested further. Seeing this as likely evidence of LENR is only appropriate if you already view LENR as likely to happen. That will be your position, but not mine. You can see how confirmation bias acts here. You can also see that this observation does not provide any ab initio evidence for LENR.
Anyway, I'm burnt out on all this. To be honest, I don't have the will power to endure six more months, a year, or two years of this ongoing sleazy soap opera of a saga that's at a deeper level a horrible tragedy: because while we watch IH and Leonardo Corp swap blows on blogs and in court the world remains in ignorance of a technology that could do a LOT of good -- if used properly.
That's exactly what some spin-doctors (also in this forum) like to see!
If Rossi was a success then IH people are feeling some hard steel in their neck.. and they have to listen what dady cool is telling them...
QuoteMy claim is, that the Thomas Clarks main task is to produce a negative spin momentum in the LENR research community. He is just a bit more clever than MY.
Well my main interest here is personal - I am upset at Rossi's blatant ability to induce academics to make miscalculations on experimental write-ups, and more upset that they then seem unable to correct their mistakes. That does not itself reflect on LENR but it does mean for the me356 experiment that it is not a replication of a known working system. I have no particular wish to prevent LENR research, and the money IH has should provide that for a while don't you think now it is not spent on Rossi?
If the LENR research community thought more like me they would be trying harder to get positive evidence that could convince others the effect they claim is real. That would be a good thing, if it is real, and also a good thing if it is not real.
Well my main interest here is personal - I am upset at Rossi's blatant ability to induce academics to make miscalculations on experimental write-ups, and more upset that they then seem unable to correct their mistakes.
We all agree about Rossi! But if You work day and night 350 days a year Your thinking will be damn narrow. So we have to wait until he blows up in his last eruption.
But Your writing is never the less 'spinning', as You always mix up COP > 1 and proof of LENR. Proof of LENR is transmuation not COP! COP>1 may be a consequences of transmuation, hence LENR.
QuoteProof of LENR is transmuation not COP!
I don't think that is fair. I've agreed several times that proof of transmutation would be much more straightforward proof of LENR than proof of COP. I've seen it nowhere, unless you count Rossi's "ash" sample!
Consider the trial by a jury of non-technical people. What information are they to be presented with?
Scenario 1: If there was a factory that needed one-megawatt of heat to produce its products and if the natural gas heating bill was substantially reduced by the use of a Rossi LENR machine; then Rossi wins and IH loses and much publicity is given to Rossi and LENR's success.
Scenario 2:If there was a chemical warehouse in which Rossi set up yet another one of his inconclusive demonstrations with the same judge (ERV) that judged him successful earlier; then I am not so sure that LENR is going to look credible to the jury or to the world.
Scenario 1 gives Rossi the Nobel Prize and Scenario 2 lands Rossi in prison next to Bernie Madoff.
d
"Rossi struck a deal with a U.S. company, Industrial Heat, to carry out a yearlong secret test of a one-megawatt cold fusion device. The installation is a shipping container packed with dozens of E-Cats. The experiment was to be overseen by a third-party "referee" to confirm it really was generating heat. Rossi claims to have spent most of the last year virtually living in the container, overseeing operations for 16 hours a day or more, to prove the E-Cat was commercially viable."
"It would appear from our initial findings that Rossi has exactly what he claims," Bob Greenyer of MFMP told Popular Mechanics.
Greenyer says there now about 20 groups around the world following the MFMP recipe and trying to reproduce Rossi's results. Data should start coming out in the next few weeks. If others start seeing that same tell-tale gamma ray burst, or large amounts of excess energy, it will go some way to vindicating the E-Cat. Any success will encourage many more groups to get involved.
A viable open-source cold fusion recipe would trigger a gigantic energy research gold rush. Alternative methods could be found which avoid the area covered by Rossi's patents and leave him side-lined as a multi-billion-dollar cold fusion industry powers up.
So perhaps Rossi would actually prefer not to be vindicated.
http://www.popularmechanics.co…0-whos-scamming-whom/</a>
This could end up as big news one way or the other.
I don't think that is fair. I've agreed several times that proof of transmutation would be much more straightforward proof of LENR than proof of COP. I've seen it nowhere, unless you count Rossi's "ash" sample!
I hope this is a rather symbolic statement! Otherwise I would have to assume that You are not familiar with LENR literature. Just dig in jcf14.. - proceedings.
Quote: “My claim is, that the Thomas Clarks main task is to produce a negative spin momentum in the LENR research community. He is just a bit more clever than MY.”
Well my main interest here is personal - I am upset at Rossi's blatant ability to…
Who has the best evidence to date in your opinion?
QuoteWho has the best evidence to date in your opinion?
I'll agree with Abd here. If correlated He/excess heat evidence from Pd/D could be found that was controlled for the obvious correlations (time/heat/leakage/diffusion) it would indicate something where a plausible nuclear theory was predictive. That would be better than anything so far. Still, that is only because the evidence so far is remarkably unconvincing and shows no predictivity of the LENR hypothesis.
My disagreement with Abd is I think he is not considering the way that systematic data selection and known time/leakage/heat correlation can generate the apparent good data in Storms' review. So I don't have his optimism that such a correlation would be found from a more rigorous experiment.
QuoteJust dig in jcf14.. - proceedings.
You'd need to be more precise and substantive than that for me to identify which set of results we disagree about.
