Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

  • @Dewey


    As far as I know, Cimpy is a shared nick with a troll-team behind it. As he has repeadltely attacked and slandered me [and also many others obviously] in every possible way, often on a personal level, I constantly ban or ignore him. Have a look here: http://22passi.blogspot.it/201…roll-incatenati-alla.html


    As for the Levi-Fabiani pinball connection, it was well known to all italian readers, because those contracts are public here by law. As far as I know [I've funded similar contracts with Universities], that money is usually used to pay students, buy equipment, etc and every expense has to be approved by a collegial team within University.


    Let me say that if you want to get a few bucks for an "anomalous" activity, that method would be the last to be used.

  • Peter Ekstrom wrote:


    Quote

    Yes, there is a lot of bad science and fraud out there in the LENR world. But there may be a gem among the pebbles.


    Maybe, but the support should be commensurate with the likelihood of the existence of the gem, as it is for other phenomena. I'm just arguing that Darden and company are not well-suited to make that sort of judgement, as evidenced by their colossal goof with Rossi.


    Quote

    Also with the proliferation of LENR activities there is lots of space for fraudsters to hide. Maybe IH could help cleaning up the dirty pond.


    That's the problem. What we've seen so far is the opposite. They have *enabled* the fraudsters, and thus dirtied the pond. Of course, they're free to put their money where they like, but my prediction is that they will support more fraudsters than legitimate researchers. Certainly, if they are supporting Brillouin, it is nearly certain they are on the wrong track. Godes is almost certainly a less flamboyant version of Rossi.


    Sidney Kimmel started out supporting Dardik, another one with a background in fraud instead of physics, but now at least his money is supporting an academic institute. Academics can be fraudulent too, but filtering it through an institute at least makes fraud more difficult. Presumably the disbursal of the money will be based on merit judged by people with relevant qualifications.


    Quote

    In order to make progress the emphasis should be less on COP and more on radiation and isotope shifts. The latter is really the fundamental parameter: without changes in the nuclide composition there are no nuclear reactions and no excess energy. Of course with a complete knowledge of nuclide changes the released energy can be calculated. I think I remember that MFMP had ideas in that direction.


    Well, they've come to that position lately, but they are excited by neutrons you can count on one hand. THat's at least a trillion times too low to produce measurable excess heat. It means that whatever they're seeing, has virtually no chance of being associated with the claims of excess heat, and without the excess heat claims, this would not be a topic.

  • I just wanted to let everyone know that Frank did allow a response from nckhawk on ECW last night for which I was grateful. He has since deleted two follow-up postings in response to Sifferkoll and Curbina.(although he may repost them after the thread has quieted down) I asked Sifferkoll to admit his financial conflict of interest on ECW and guess Frank didn't like that. I asked Curbina why the sudden lack of interest in the "ERV" report and I guess that crossed the line as well.


    It is becoming easier to see how so many folks have become programed to follow Rossi so vociferously. Squelch discension, slander the "enemy" and put up a fusalade of content that doesn't require facts to gain a life if its own. .


    We also need to keep in mind that any downturn in ECW traffic will also effect Frank's ad income

  • Hermano - thank you for the link and addtional observations. The flow meter issue is a big one. Everyone who is interested in that is going to need to be patient but please know that useful information should help resolve the remaining questions once that specs and supporting data are released for review.


    - Dewey

  • I don't understand the Oct 2011 pump flow rate issue. Let's suppose it is a sloppy decimal error and the rate is 1.76 kg/h instead of 17.6 kg/h. This value is at the lower end of the capacity of that model pump. It also equates to a COP > 3. Where did the other 800+ W of heat come from? The flow rate seems necessary but not sufficient to fully disprove LENR occurred.

  • Well, they've come to that position lately, but they are excited by neutrons you can count on one hand. THat's at least a trillion times too low to produce measurable excess heat. It means that whatever they're seeing, has virtually no chance of being associated with the claims of excess heat, and without the excess heat claims, this would not be a topic.


    Yes, I agree. The radiation has to compatible with the excess energy. 10 kW is a lot of radiation. If the detected radiation is not compatible one has to explain why and how the energy is transported from the transforming nucleus.


    Yes, there are some neutrons around all the time. Mostly from cosmic radiation.

  • Hank - apparently private messaging doesn't work.


    You may email me at [email protected]


    You'll soon have plenty to chew on with the "ERV" and supporting data. Remember to process "soon" in the relative light of the present situation.


    Do you wonder where all the chatter, expectation and excitement went around the ERV over on ECW?


    Thx,
    Dewey

  • @Dewey Weaver


    I'm looking forward to study the info in the ERV, and I think that my friends at GSVIT will be more than eager to dwelve into the issue with test and experiments. Anyway, I fear that the outcome of the discussion will be the usual one: that is you can neither prove nor rule out with absolute certainity possible errors / deceptions, so we'll be back to the start.


    In the case of Defkalion, the flowmeter issue was discovered by a techincian who cross checked measurement and setup while the test was ongoing.


    IMHO, to settle the issue once and for all, it is necessary a test performed by a court appointed HVAC engineer, with both parties present.

  • @Peter Ekstrom
    Are you describing the sample that was analyzed in 2012-04-12 by Anderson & Schoberg, in which the 11% Fe, 9.6% Cu, 0.4% Zn, and 0.4% Li were reported in the "used nickel"? The authors said that the samples had been obtained from Sven Kullander. The method of analysis was ICP-MS.


    I always wondered why in the text that the ash was described to have "substantial amount of Cu, Fe, and Zn", but the Li was not mentioned, though the concentration they measured for Li was the same as for the Zn.


    If you are measuring the same ash sample, and just to test my understanding, are you saying that you believe the 9.6% Cu to be a particulate contamination and the Li to be a contamination in the Cu?


    SEM/EDS analysis of what I presume to be the same powders was done by Edstrom and Nowacki and reported in a paper dated 2013-01-17. The EDS analysis seemed to show both Fe and Cu on the surface of a predominantly Ni particle. This would suggest that the Cu was not a particulate contamination of the ash, but was actually a part of the surface composition of the Ni particle. Interestingly, in this same paper, analysis was done for a "wire structure" particle in the ash that appeared to have been created as a hollow body (from the image of the section). This particle was predominantly an iron oxide and is highly suggestive of a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst. It would be desirable to test such a particle for a possible alkali dopant.

  • Quote

    I don't understand the Oct 2011 pump flow rate issue. Let's suppose it is a sloppy decimal error and the rate is 1.76 kg/h instead of 17.6 kg/h. This value is at the lower end of the capacity of that model pump. It also equates to a COP > 3. Where did the other 800+ W of heat come from? The flow rate seems necessary but not sufficient to fully disprove LENR occurred.


    You'll find detailed comment from Ascoli on mats site about the flow rate - but it is not the 6 Oct 2011 issue where the problem is too fast flow rate and hence the small TC measured difference can come from wrongly sited TCs, not water being heated, which completely destroys the output power calcs.


    The other flow rate issue is that Levi reported a flow rate some 40% higher than the pump maximum, and 100% (ish) higher than the expected rate given the pump stroke rate. Therefore his reported rate - for a test that he did alone - must be in error. The pump is dosimetric and highly accurate, it was fed from a bucket therefore no issue about mains pressure making it innaccurate.


    Since Levi knew the pump maximum rate this is a difficult error to understand.

  • If you are measuring the same ash sample, and just to test my understanding, are you saying that you believe the 9.6% Cu to be a particulate contamination and the Li to be a contamination in the Cu?


    Possibly, yes. No Li in fuel and some in the ash. That is consistent with Anderssons 0, 0.4. Our method is very sensitive to 7Li because p+7Li --> 2 alpha has a very high Q-value. The Li structure in the ash has a size of approximately 100 microns, which is roughly the size of Edströms Cu particles.


    So my safe conclusion is:
    fuel: no Li, not magnetized
    ash: some Li in clumps, magnetized

  • So my safe conclusion is:
    fuel: no Li, not magnetized
    ash: some Li in clumps, magnetized


    My impression of the reading of those reports at the time was that Rossi had supplied a sample of the starting Ni powder he used to prepare his fuel, but not the actual fuel itself. So, it would not be surprising to find that there is no Li in this material. Rossi is well known to use Vale T255 Ni powder in that era. I believe a jar of that powder could be seen in one of his videos.


    When you say that the Li in the ash is in clumps and is magnetized, could it be that the Li is in the FexOy particles as the alkali metal dopant for a catalyst? Or, have you specifically isolated the Li to coincidence with the Cu particles?


    In case it hasn't been said, thank you for joining the discussions!

  • [quote][...Vale T255 Ni powder in that era. I believe a jar of that powder could be seen in one of his videos./quote]


    I would take that with a pinch of salt Bob. I am sure that a lot of the 'early' Focardi era Ni was made in the chem lab in Bologna.Not to say Rossi never used V255 -and when he went to the USA he left a kilo bag of Ni behind. I doubt the chem guy ever made that much.

  • Peter Ekstrom wrote: "ash: some Li in clumps, magnetized"


    You've mentioned this magnetization several times. But isn't the heating current ac, which would not magnetize the fuel? And even if it were dc, would the field from that sparse helix be strong enough to cause magnetization?

  • David Fojt wrote:


    Quote

    Cold fusion exists, by the most pure and genuine demonstration of Fralick's work from NASA,


    If you're referring to the NASA technical memo 102430 of Dec 1989, and their 2009 repeat, it is no demonstration of LENR at all.


    The experiment produced a negative result for the nuclear reaction they were expecting, but they claimed heat production, based on a difference in temperature profile during the removal of H2 or D2.


    This was not a heat anomaly, although they call it that. It's a difference in temperature profile between two gases with different thermal properties. In the 2009 experiment, they show the temperature profiles and both H2 and D2 show a temperature increase as pressure is reduced, and that has a simple explanation, since the mechanism for heat dissipation is removed. The fact that the profiles are different should not be unexpected, since D2 and H2 have different thermal properties as gases and Pd's thermal properties are different depending which gas is absorbed.


    No calorimetry was done -- they do not measure input and output heat to determine if there is in fact excess heat in either case. They speculate that something nuclear may be happening because the temperature increases more with deuterium than it does with hydrogen. That requires the assumption that the nuclear reaction somehow prefers deuterium. But in light of modern LENR claims, that's not a valid assumption, since the more impressive claims involve hydrogen, and not deuterium. But even with the old LENR claims, since no one claims to know the reaction, there is no reason to assume deuterium would promote nuclear reactions. The WL theory (a NASA favorite) would suggest hydrogen would work better.


    So, the experiment simply verifies that hydrogen and deuterium have different thermal properties. They don't even try the experiment with other metals or other gasses to see if this sort of temperature increase on pumping the gases out is unique to palladium hydrides or even to metal hydrides.


    Like all other claims of LENR, this one fails to prove nuclear reactions. And that's probably why the 1989 experiment was never published in the refereed literature, and why it was abandoned for 20 years. It seems the 2009 replication was never published either, and although I've seen a reference to a 2011 effort, I have not seen the results, and lately, it seems NASA has gone quiet on the subject. Or have I missed something new from them?

  • Quote

    If Rossi goes to court, is that he knows he will have to prove that its technology works, he knows it !!


    If this is meant to be an argument for Rossi having working technology it is badly wrong:
    (1) Perhaps Rossi thinks his flawed demos will prove this
    (2) It is not perjury for Rossi to present flawed demos - only if he lies about them.
    (3) It is not clear to me that Rossi expects the case to go to Court - he is master of spin and IH may well prefer a queit out of Court settlement
    (4) Rossi seems to me not entirely rational, and certainly does not take advice - so there is no requirement that his legal action against IH was well thought out.


    One thing Rossi, BLP, etc benefit from is that flawed experiments can be interpreted as showing results when in fact they do not. Look at Fralich's work. Expert witnesses can easily show they do not but in that case an experimenter insisting that they do is just wrong, not a perjurer or fraud. Scientific incompetence is no crime (alas) and can be invoked to explain a wide variety of strange statements.

  • From Wikipedia


    "Ave, Imperator, morituri te salutant" ("Hail, Emperor, those who are about to die salute you") is a well-known Latin phrase quoted in Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum ("The Life of the Caesars", or "The Twelve Caesars").[1] It was reportedly used during an event in AD 52 on Lake Fucinus by naumachiarii—captives and criminals fated to die fighting during mock naval encounters—in the presence of the emperor Claudius. Suetonius reports that Claudius replied "Aut non" ("or not").


    Replace Imperator (Emperor) with Alfius Flavus—the precocious pupil of Lucius Cestius Pius and contemporary with Seneca the Elder, who while only a boy was so renowned for his eloquence that crowds flocked to listen to his orations. On the other hand maybe its just a simple reference to 'Alf Stokes'.


    Let battle begin, its clear Dr Rossi sees this as a David (on his own) and Goliath (and his army) type of 'shoot the inventor stage' encounter!!


    This I agree with Dr Rossi about and it is as follows:


    wait to see
    which evidence will be brought in Court


    No more speculation from me!


    Best regards
    Frank

  • When you say that the Li in the ash is in clumps and is magnetized, could it be that the Li is in the FexOy particles as the alkali metal dopant for a catalyst? Or, have you specifically isolated the Li to coincidence with the Cu particles?


    In case it hasn't been said, thank you for joining the discussions!


    Why make it more complicated than it is? Ni is ferromagnetic and if you switch off the heating coil with a switch, the hysteresis will leave some magnetization. I think that all you can deduce from the magnetization is that we haven't swapped the samples.


    I also object against the term catalyst - it sounds like alchemy to me. Catalyst is not a defined process by itself. Catalyst is a physical process (chemical binding, nuclear reaction) that enhances a reaction. What I mean is that it is not enough to say "add a catalyst", but you have to describe the process that is catalysing. I realize that it sometimes can be difficult if the chemical reactions are complicated, but in LENR there is something more than ordinary chemical reaction. The distances and energies of chemistry and nuclear physics do not match.


    There are some interesting threads and technically LENR-forum is way superior to Mats's. ECW is too imbalanced and I would be banned within a few minutes. :-)

  • Quote from BobHiggins: “When you say that the Li in the ash is in clumps and is magnetized, could it be that the Li is in the FexOy particles as the alkali metal dopant for a catalyst? Or, have you specifically isolated the Li to coincidence with the…


    I think it unlikely that heating coil current could induce permanent magnetism into the Ni ash in a Rossi type system. Firstly because he is known to use square-wave polyphase AC to run the heater coils (see Lugano paper page 6) and secondly because of the Ni was above its Curie temperature (327C) whem a potentially magnetising coils is switched off, it will not be magnetic when cool.