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

Looks like the ad homs have subsided quite considerably and we have a healthy exchange, I'm pleased to say. We have a flash of light shining through every now and then including yours Hermano, very interesting @ http://www.jovion.com/

"A clear infrared signal has been measured for gases flowing through polycarbonate Casimir cavity nanotubes, both when uncoated and when coated with gold. The signal was obtained for all gases tested, N2, Ar, Xe and He. In an attempt to explain the results in terms of conventional thermodynamics, we analyzed them to see if Joule-Thomson cooling, frictional heating, adsorption/absorption heating, or turbulence could account for the results. None of these clearly fit the data, but it is possible that a combination of effects could. At this point it appears that ZP energy extraction from the quantum vacuum remains a possible explanation for the observed radiation. More experimental work will be required to determine if this is the correct explanation".

Best regards
Frank

Quote from Dewey Weaver

I know CF is real - I've witnessed multiple working experiments. The key is characterization and verification that will withstand all scrutiny.

Can you tell us more about these experiments? Have they been published in some way, or were they made behind closed doors?

Quote

Looks like the ad homs have subsided quite considerably and we have a healthy exchange

I was not aware of ad homs on this thread, unless you count my comments about Rossi and Levi. Those are directly relevant, factual, and therefore not ad homs.

For example, when I say that I'm not certain Rossi will behave rationally re the court case that is a possible inference from his unprofessional behaviour over the Krivit, and many other incidents, calling people who disagree with him snakes and saying they are out to get him, refusing to take advise over safe test methodology even when this is very clear. These things are all regrettable and I would not bring them up except in the context of Krivit calling Darden et al liars and threatening legal action. In this case I cannot be confident that he will act wisely on legal advice, and this means his actions must, to us on the outside, be less predictable than if he did not have this history.

Tom

You and I draw the line in different places, your comments above I would say are bordering on 'ad homs' because they are "An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion".

From urban dictionary - "Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence". I don't place you in this category but you can see the dangers of using such tactics, as you wisely instructed me some time ago 'ad homs do your case no good'.

I know we disagree on many things but I have always thought you would use logic, intelligence and science to further your point, all be it from your own perspective. But considering 'human relationships' and 'cherry picking' personal events to predict future 'confidence' in wise actions is not remotely science (unless you include the treatment Pons and Fleishmann received as 'science).

Best regards
Frank

Quote

An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion

With respect frank, I think you are mistaken. What in my comments is "an attack"? I'm not making more of these facts than is relevant to the issue, and drawing inferences from facts is not aggressive. Further, I'm not viewing as unreliable arguments or opinions, I'm viewing as unreliable ability to process test data correctly.

If, for example, I had argued that Rossi was known irrational and therefore not likely to be a successful inventor that would be an ad hom. There is no monopoly of creativity for rational people, indeed you could argue that creativity is more likely to be found when people are irrational. The point is that the fact (rational behaviour) is not directly linked to the outcome (successful invention).

Whereas in this case it is.

You will see that with the issues over Levi's accuracy in reporting results I am similarly careful. I use the facts where they are directly relevant. Also, over the issue of large payments to Levi from a Rossi-related company again I do not go beyond the direct consequence, that such a connection disqualifies Levi as an independent tester. I do not from that assume that he has done anything wrong. There are quite a number of people here who from all the public facts over Rossi would assume fraud. I do not do that partly because I see the situation as more complex so would not jump to that conclusion, and partly because it is really more a value judgement of the people than a conclusion from facts. Personally I dislike the Rossi tests intensely because they are highly deceptive, such a pattern of bad tests is for me a bad thing. I can do that without worrying over the motives, or even considering whether the test issues are deliberate or not.

Of course it is possible to ignore historic facts about tester accuracy entirely, in which case you would need to view every statement by every person as equally relevant, regardless of qualifications or known sympathies. That is more or less what I do when replying to posts here because the content is explicit, if there is bias it can be deduced from the content, similarly if there is a lack of competence.

In evaluating the test evidence that Levi brings to the table it is slightly different. He has a privileged position with direct personal access to facts we do not have. Therefore his accuracy in processing those facts and reaching conclusions based on them is highly relevant and any information that pertains to that is also relevant.

PS you I think implied above that I was a scientist. I have in fact never been a scientist, though I have worked as an engineer in a number of different ways and I have a decent mathematical training (better than most engineers) which includes a good deal of Physics. As regards the matters here my claim is to be a technically competent amateur.

Urban - With apologies, these experiments are not disclosed and will not become eligible for disclosure until after a rigorous characterization and verification cycle (or two) has been completed.

Quote from Alan Smith

I am not sure. You see some weird stuff- for instance a simple demo I have done for myself. Microwave some carbon grains- they become magnetic -hard to explain that one. But I do know that anybody setting up to create permanent ferromagnetism using AC coils is heading for disappointment. AC is used for de-magnetising

Why not make the simple difficult? Yes you can demagnetize with AC but then you don't switch off abruptly:

"Placing the magnet in an alternating magnetic field with intensity above the material's coercivity and then either slowly drawing the magnet out or slowly decreasing the magnetic field to zero."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…emagnetizing_ferromagnets

Quote from me356

I
am really satisfied with the current development. With this reactor
there is potential for COP 5-10. We will see soon!

Quote from Thomas <br>Clarke

An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion

Apart from 'attack' (which is too strong) this is exactly what is
needed. Criticism and peer review is a very important part of the
scientific method. This criticism should of course be civil and
objective and without personal attacks. The purpose is, of course, 'to
discredit the opponents argument or opinion'. That is called discussion
and is a widely spread human pastime.

As long as the LENR community does not accepts and takes advantage from criticism it will stay a fringe science or worse, a pseudoscience. I have been to many conferences, and the physics discussions can sometimes be quite fierce without being personal.

There are, however, some problems with LENR compared to other "classical" sciences.

1 The discussion is to a large extent on the internet with anonymous
participants. This means that the personal attacks you have in political
and religious discussions creep into the scientific discussion.

2 There is potentially a lot of money in LENR. That means secrecy which
is completely foreign in the scientific method.

3 Obvious lies, fraud and statements without backing in reality will
make science-based discussion asymmetric and meaningless. I think most people in the
LENR community would admit that there are cases of fraud. The problem is
there is no consensus on which are cases of bad science and which are not.

Take Tom's criticism of the radiation calculations of the Lugano test. Ideally Levi et al should have published at document showing either that Tom is wrong or to thank Tom for caring and correcting the result. In both cases we are further forward than before.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The simple perception that a single H reacts e.g. with Ni, Cu etc. is not compelling. From hundreds of papers we know that mass increases may happen in junks 2,4,6,8 often followed by a beta decay.
For a better understanding of the process I can only recommend to read through the Randell Mills stuff. He has a clear model, which elements may help to increase the outcome of LENR.

The other fact: LENR is mostly a surface effect and heavily dependent on the size of the nano-particles used, which points to a resonance.

Mills' theory is built upon many previous works, including the important one "Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum Theory" (G. H. Goedecke, Physical Review, 13-July-1964, pp B281-B288). Mills believes that the AHE comes from the exothermic evanescent transition to the sub-ground states his equations predict to exist (as does the work of Dirac according to Naudts, Maly-Vavra, Muelenberg, Palliet, etc). The problem with this is that these transitions provide less than 100eV per event according to Mills. Mills does not believe in LENR as a nuclear effect. In fact, if the AHE is proved to be a nuclear effect, it invalidates some of Mills' patents. That doesn't mean that these exothermic evanescent sub-ground state transitions don't exist, only that they may not be able to explain the AHE.

As Ed Storms points out in his books, there have been good experiments showing the Heat/He ratio in PdD work that support a >10 MeV per event. At this energy, and with associated He production, the AHE cannot be non-nuclear. Additionally, radiation has been detected as well (probably not commensurate with excess heat) that show that higher energy events are occurring than exothermic evanescent sub-ground state transitions can explain. For example, in the recent radiation measurements made by MFMP (GS5.2), the gamma was a spectrum that suggested Bremsstrahlung radiation from a distribution of high energy electrons. By the fact that the gamma tail extended to over 1 MeV, the electrons causing the Bremsstrahlung must have had energies over 1 MeV is some portion of the distribution. Such energies cannot reasonably be supplied to a single particle without a nuclear deficit in mass to supply the energy to the particle - again suggesting a nuclear effect. Even if the bulk of the excess heat is not commensurate with the measured radiation, the fact that this radiation is produced says that nuclear effects are happening at least in some peripheral way around the reaction that is producing the heat.

Personally, I believe such radiation measurements provide the best possible probe of what may be going on in LENR experiments. The more radiation data obtained, the more information we will have to form a theory. And, as in the case of Mills, high energy radiations, if proven to exist, can set aside a class of theories as not being capable of explaining the measured radiations. Of course, as Ed Storms says, a theory must explain all of the observed data, not just cherry picked portions.

Quote

Ideally Levi et al should have published at document showing either that Tom is wrong or to thank Tom for caring and correcting the result.

It was my naive view that one or other - perhaps in an attenuated form, would be the case. But alas now, to bastardise and misuse an advert in the UK for Marks and Spencers:

"This is not just an independent test - it is a Rossi independent test!"

Quote

The problem is there is no consensus on which are cases of bad science and which are not.

That, within the LENR community, is a valid cause of concern. Personally the whole "save us from the pathoskeptics - don't discourage the poor doughty researchers by pointing out why their stuff maybe does not work" meme is poisonous.

It really does not matter whether a commentor is critiquing from one viewpoint or another - if the critique is valid it must be addressed, if invalid it can be answered specifically. And for LENR to have a sound scientific basis it needs much more curiosity from within about what could be the cause of results instead of a lazy assumption that anything unusual must be a manifestation of new physics.

Perhaps it is confused because many of those participating believe themselves to be not scientists but inventors? In which case "optimising the effect" is all important. Of course, we see from Rossi the dangers of that approach unless the science is securely done as well.

Quote from BobHiggins

As Ed Storms points out in his books, there have been good experiments showing the Heat/He ratio in PdD work that support a >10 MeV per event.

In the context of the present thread, the heat-helium correlation in PdD, considered together with the amount of helium, provides intriguing evidence of a nuclear source. There are many other parallel lines of evidence, of course, including keV and MeV charged particles seen in some experiments and hard-to-pin-down evidence of transmutation.

Concerning Ed Storms's claims about the heat-helium ratio in PdD work, and the proposition that it is >10 MeV per event—my assessment is that this whole set of conclusions is highly speculative at this point and rests on a number of assumptions and generalizations from disparate experiments and patchy data sets and could use a whole lot of tightening up. I would not generalize the >10 MeV part into a general observation, for example, and I certainly wouldn't assume that the ratio is a constant one or that it centers around 24 MeV, as Storms does. Much more rigor must be brought to bear upon the question of the heat-helium correlation. Until then people are racing ahead of the evidence when they assert strong claims in this area.

Quote from BobHiggins

Personally, I believe such radiation measurements provide the best possible probe of what may be going on in LENR experiments. The more radiation data obtained, the more information we will have to form a theory. And, as in the case of Mills, high energy radiations, if proven to exist, can set aside a class of theories as not being capable of explaining the measured radiations. Of course, as Ed Storms says, a theory must explain all of the observed data, not just cherry picked portions.

Thanks BobHiggins! The assumption (of Randell Mills) that the blacklight process does not lead to LENR is wired.

If we look at some recent spectrums of mfp, then we see a perfect match with the black light process emissions!
May be somebody should pay attention to the dihydrino ion, which has the right size and charge to attract two nuclei. I do not postulate that this particle is stable and long living, but in the right context pico seconds are more than enough to cause fusion to happen.
And one more thing. This particle has not enough energy for certain processes to happen! This may be the reason why we see jumps in steps of 2.

Quote from Eric Walker

Concerning Ed Storms's claims about the heat-helium ratio in PdD work, and the proposition that it is >10 MeV per event—my assessment is that this whole set of conclusions is highly speculative at this point and rests on a number of assumptions and generalizations from disparate experiments and patchy data sets and could use a whole lot of tightening up. I would not generalize the >10 MeV part into a general observation, for example, and I certainly wouldn't assume that the ratio is a constant one or that it centers around 24 MeV, as Storms does. Much more rigor must be brought to bear upon the question of the heat-helium correlation. Until then people are racing ahead of the evidence when they assert strong claims in this area.

Yes, I agree. If, for example, He is only produced in -some- of the exothermic AHE events, it would inflate the Heat/He ratio. Ed Storms does talk about side reactions occurring (such as transmutations) within his theory. What if the He is only produced 1% of the time, with heat being produced in the other 99% of the AHE events? Wouldn't this tend to inflate the Heat/He ratio by about 100x?

Quote from BobHiggins

What if the He is only produced 1% of the time, with heat being produced in the other 99% of the AHE events? Wouldn't this tend to inflate the Heat/He ratio by about 100x?

Very good observation. There are too many unknowns at this point, and the PdD system is underdetermined with respect to helium. Following are among the steps that are needed to get to the 24 MeV/4He conclusion:

• The amount of helium in the original cathode stock has been properly characterized, and either there are no pockets of helium, or their presence has been taken into account.
• The amount of helium resulting from the live run has been properly measured.
• The amount of helium can and must be adjusted on the assumption that only part of it has been measured, and the rest has either escaped or been embedded in the cathode.
• The ratio of helium to heat is a constant, all else being equal.
• Helium is not being confused for D2.
• Helium is not originating at the anode.
• The integrated heat has been properly measured.
• Excess heat arises at the cathode.
• The integrated heat is accounted for by the helium-generating process in the first order.

There are probably a few more important steps. To my mind, most experiments, generally older ones, that have looked at the heat-helium correlation have scrutinized some but not all of these assumptions. I think before getting to any grand conclusions, it would be good to do a systematic study of each. Until then, the helium work is important and very suggestive, but nothing to build a theory upon.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Quote: “The problem is there is no consensus on which are cases of bad science and which are not.”

That, within the LENR community, is a valid cause of concern. Personally the whole &quot;save us from the pathoskeptics - don't discourage the poor doughty…

I want to echo what Thomas says. I believe that Thomas would be convinced with a valid experiment or set of experiments. So would many other famous skeptics. It is simply excuse making to hide behind the cloak of "being too busy" or being "an inventor" to avoid taking criticism seriously. An experimenter who has demonstrated a real effect need fear no skeptic (whether pathological or otherwise).

I have a little saying that has guided me along the way, "Hope keeps you working, but it doesn't make LENR work." I use this to remind myself not to be blinded by the hope that it will work. We are all prone to being blinded in this way (especially when you have invested a great deal of time, money, and effort). It doesn't just apply to "other people" as we are want to believe. Maintaining objectivity involves some (at least mild) emotional distress and introspection.

Quote from Alan Smith

I am not sure. You see some weird stuff- for instance a simple demo I have done for myself. Microwave some carbon grains- they become magnetic -hard to explain that one. But I do know that anybody setting up to create permanent ferromagnetism using AC coils is heading for disappointment. AC is used for de-magnetising.

The microwaves are being converted through nanoplasmonics to magnetic EMF that are leaving a permanent imprint on the carbon.

I would like to know what the nature of that induced magnetism is? Is it monopole magnetism? this can be tested by the attraction/repulsion of the carbon grains from the poles of a standard magnet. Are some grains repealed and others attracted to a given magnetic pole? This would indicate that monopole magnetism is being produced and imprinted on the carbon grains.

Quote from axil

Is it monopole magnetism?

You are joking?

Thomas

Ad homs......

Quote from Thomas Clarke

As is evidenced on this thread Levi has a record of delivering highly inaccurate results from these tests. Perhaps this is because his real competence is in designing microcontrollers for pinball machines?

Whilst it may be accurate to say Levi has delivered inaccurate results, IMHO it is an 'ad hom' to suggest this is because he designs microcontrollers for pinball machines.

It is like saying Thomas is incapable of making valuable scientific comment on the Lugano tests because he is an engineer not a scientist; which of course would clearly be an 'ad hom. Just to clarify I am not suggesting this by the way.

Best regards
Frank

PS: Your work with Lugano is positive in my opinion and worthy of evaluation.