Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test

Quote from stephenrenzz

We have no repeatable tests that could be used to move towards a viable device, and all we have from Rossi is tales of amazing devices shrouded in secrecy. It blows my mind that critical thinkers can't see this

Setting aside for the moment an incorrect assumption, there are plenty of critical thinkers who can see the issues here. They write, sometimes. Sometimes they are shouted down. Sometimes they already know that is' like arguments on Youtube. Essentially, so what? It's fluff, of little value, like the endless arguments on moletrap. In the end, it's a bar brawl. And most sensible people stay out of bars like that.

Now, the assumption: "we have no repeatable tests that could be used to move forward." This was said generally about LENR. It may be true with regard to NiH reactions. More accurately, there may be repeatable tests, but if they exist, they are largely hidden in commercial secrecy. What is secret is only repeatable to those in on the secret. By definition, this is not public science. It may exist, or not.

Looking back, I'm fascinated to remember all the commentary that there was no one-year test, this was all a Rossi deception. Well, there was a test. That actually happened. He was not lying about that, though he may have lied about details, and, remember, Rossi has acknowledged that he releases misleading information to confuse competition. What that means is that nothing he says can be trusted without confirmation. But ... hope springs eternal, we want Rossi to save us, so .... we forget that it is all *intrinsically unreliable.*

Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio

I wrote this paper because the claim that there is no replicable experiment is very common in media reports. Even people in the field will sometimes say it (then making excuses for the difficulty). This is about a misunderstand of what a replicable experiment is. A specific protocol with specifcially and quantitatively repeatable heat, yes. The situation has improved with some approaches so such that heat is statistically replicable. However, that's much weaker than a different approach: looking for a correlated ash from the reaction. That was found in 1991, and has been confirmed, with measurements of the ratio being tightened. There is still a lot of room for questioning the exact ratio, but the correlation itself is strong and, by the preponderance of the evidence, conclusive that there is anomalous heat and that there is a nuclear origin for it, in transmutation ending up with at least roughly commensurate helium.

This is the state of science on this. The mechanism remains a mystery, and it remains difficult to set up the effect. Obviously, to test the heat/helium ratio, one must set up the effect, or the ratio will be 0/0. That result, however, null for both, is part of a confirmation of the correlation. All that is needed, then, are a few experiments that generate enough heat to create measurable helium. That takes an experimental series, not just one experiment. The "dead cells" become controls, as much alike the "experimental cells" as possible. This is basic science!

There is another paper in that issue of Current Science:

Highly reproducible LENR experiments using dual laser stimulation by Dennis Letts.

He calls his approach "highly reproducible." What he knows is that the result is, in his experiment, reliable. He can predict results in some series, quantitatively. He can turn the effect on and off. But this has not been confirmed. I mention this work in my own paper as an area where further investigation could bear fruit.

Ed Storms has recently published some extremely interesting results that, if confirmed, could radically change some ideas about the conditions for cold fusion, from an appearance to a deeper reality. He found what looks like quite good evidence that the reaction rate does not depend on loading in PdD. WDF? Isn't there lots of data correlating loading ratio with heat?

Yes. There is. However, what he has shown is that this is very likely a product of whatever sets up the conditions for nuclear active environment (NAE) to be created. Once NAE exists, high loading is not needed any more.

And this points to a whole family of approaches to be explored. It may be possible to create engineered surface that will be NAE immediately, ready to burn as soon as some fuel is supplied. It's exciting. He showed steady heat production, no decline, even though this was an electrolytic experiment, when the electrolysis was shut down. There was still input power, maintaining the experiment's temperature.

So this wasn't so-called "self sustain mode." An experiment could be designed where the reaction power sustained the temperature, it simply requires insulation, possibly in a Dewar flask. But it complicates the experiment, and Ed is expert at calorimetry. I don't think he has a calorimetric artifact. What I'm hoping for and will encourage is independent replication. Ed is claiming that he can make cathodes that show XP, pull them from the experiment and store them, then reinstall them and reload them and they generate XP immediately. That, then, could allow the manufacture of "activated cathodes" which then could be independently confirmed far more easily than if every worker has to go through the very complex process of creating an activated cathode.

Work in this field was depressed after the Rossi announcement in 2011. After all, why work on a few watts of power (if that!) when someone is generating kilowatts? It had a depressing psychological effect, but also, it's reported, obtaining funding became more difficult. (And quite a few workers rushed to try to see XP with NiH, with many failures, apparently -- or inconclusive results.)

Delay in the development of commercial LENR -- which may be many years away -- represents a lost opportunity cost I estimate at a trillion dollars per year, for every year that application is delayed (times the probability that practical application is possible, which I estimate at about 90%, ultimately). Whatever slows down the research beyond an effective rate, then, has an enormous social cost. My analysis does not suggest throwing billions of dollars at LENR. Not yet. We don't yet know how and where to spend that kind of money efficiently. However, it does suggest that funding for basic research is crucial, and we are talking millions of dollars a year, not billions. It's not clear to me how much could fruitfully be spent at this time on solid research. It could be tens of millions, though.

Relying on commercial actors for this is hazardous, which is not to deprecate commercial efforts. We still need science. Public science, common property.

It's happening, at least to some degree. The Center to study Anomalous Heat Effects at Texas Tech. University

For me, this means years of study and work are paying off.

Quote from Hank Mills

Sifferkol,

I sincerely disagree with your assessment.

In the absolute worse case scenerio -- which I declare I'm not suggesting is true but simply a possibility I'm considering -- Industrial Heat may be seeking to dominate the LENR landscape by…

Unfortunately. It is much more simple. At this point in time the only thing IH worries about is if they will have to pay $89M or not. They will simply do anything that they can do in their favour. And since this right now is to go all in on LENR being totally non-existent, they will do it.

The reason for this being their best action from a business PoV is that it enables the establishment support, ie. well funded media credible hot fusion physisists from well known institutions, like MIT in 89. This process will be covered in MSM according to the established view. Simple really. The AGW/alternative energy etc. will of course also chime in to curse an Italian fraudster. They will make it as ugly as they can, because this is what lawyers do. Other LENR research will be collateral damage.

And if IH wins the way they dream, they will come out with most of the IP, a killed inventor, a couple of years delay, but then, maybe, they can restart doing 100W reactors and eventuall fullfull the 10y Bill Gates prophecy.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Sifferkoll - the chief character assassin for Team Rossi thinks that little ole moi is a "hitman" for IH then somehow extrudes and introduces the "V" word into the conversation. What is a better than "priceless". We need new words to describe this guy…

Legal "V" is also "V". Doesn't really matter does it. (especially if the "L" is broken...) And maybe you could enlighten me on who you consider the "overlord". Is that a Star Wars thing or?

Quote from stephenrenzz

ME356 has coincidentally fallen ill so he cannot provide any info of his experiment.

Nickel powder is an extremely dangerous material and has made some researchers very, very ill, with long-term consequences. This should be thoroughly appreciated by anyone who decides to explore the NiH territory, and major precautions are in order. And some have followed precautions, but a bit of inattention .... I'm willing to do small-scale PdD electrolytic experiments (codep) in my apartment. Not NiH.

WOW!

This really turned out being more spot on than I could ever imagine. Only arguments left for Weaver and the Renzzie shadow is that I lost it ... Well, meditate on that for a while. If that is not a confirmation, what is?

BTW Renzzie, "kill the inventor" is standard VC business talk, which you obviously failed to grasp in your temporary? psychosis. lack of focus

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Here come the simple-minded numbnut circular arguments again. Good thing that Abd has shown up. He's capable of grinding numbnuts to dust.

Thanks for your confidence, Dewey. However, please keep in mind that this is an internet forum where the product is mostly noise and flame wars. What is normal in flame wars is that both sides claim total and complete victory, because the other side is obviously stupid, vicious, dumb, or fat and ugly. Q.E.D.

If people want sober analysis, some can be found by reading through these posts. The S/N ratio is low, but with patience, people can learn. It's necessary to develop some discrimination between confirmed fact, alleged fact, and interpretation, and then, between sober interpretation and cloud-cuckoo-land interpretation.

It's necessary to be aware that all interpretation is subject to major error, and that what is often presented as fact is actually interpretation. There is also cherry-picking. In the real world, there is always evidence on every side of a question. If we only look at evidence that confirms what we are thinking, we become more and more convinced that we are right. But "right" is an interpretation, it is never a fact.

Dewey, please stop accusing others of lying. Truth will out, and that day is not hastened by accusations.

Mostly, what you might call lying would be faulty interpretation, such as -- perhaps -- the claim that IH necessarily trusted Penon and Rossi, and that therefore IH behavior now (what behavior?) is suspicious. IH may have trusted Penon or not. You know, I assume, but cannot provide any verifiable fact. So I take whatever you say as a claim, presently unverifiable. Interesting, but not more than that.

Providing us with "alleged fact" I consider quite useful. We must toss it in a hopper with all that we know about this complex affair, including that some actors are known to present misleading information. Certainly that is true for Rossi, because he has acknowledged it, and his supporters "excuse" it by saying its a commercial necessity for him. In my training, around integrity, we don't care about "reasons" or "excuses." What happened, and what will happen in the future? Is there a commitment to integrity, or is there a commitment to something else? This is not a claim that everyone *should be* committed to integrity. Rossi's history simply shows that what he says cannot be trusted without confirmation. That is not the same thing as a claim that he is lying. Maybe he is. Maybe not!

It is totally to be expected that some among the fans of Rossi will attack anyone who "insults" Rossi. I suggest avoiding unnecessary insult. Some level of criticism may be necessary, but all the personal attacks against, not only Rossi, but his fans, is harmful. You are ridiculing a large number of people. Why? What's the benefit?

I invite you to back off, and to join the community of those who will provide whatever information they can, to the community, as a public service. This has nothing to do with "winning arguments" here.

There are major public issues. I would hope that IH will consider the public interest and not only their own economic interests. This is more or less what I'd expect from the business they are in. As the public, we do have a major interest in knowing fact, here. I have not signed the petition to ask Rossi and IH to release the ERV, but ... I do support that request. That Gamberale violated an NDA, to release fact about the Defkalion demo of 2013, took a risk, but served the public. There are times when higher considerations require setting aside lower ones.

There is much more involved here than the ERV report. The entire history of LENR is a major object lesson in how science is conducted and how the process can break down.

And thanks again for your confidence. It's appreciated.

Quote from Hank Mills

Sifferkol,

I don't think this is about not wanting to pay Rossi. Tom Darden has connections to very wealthy billionairs. I think he could raise a hundred million dollars to pay Rossi over a game of golf.

If IH wanted to pay Rossi, I'm very certain…

You're right. It's not ONLY about not wanting to pay Rossi. It is also about controlling the IP, which was a huge problem when raising meny. IH had to lie about the IP to get Woodford in (and start working on patent short cuts and bringing in Brillouin etc to hedge). To me it seems like it was not that easy at all getting the funding they wanted, so not paying might actually be triggered by not having the money. I do think that they were not planning to pay though and use the payment as leverage in negotiations still under NDA and with the license agreement IP transfer still valid, when the MW test ended. The complaint came as a suprise for IH, especially the openness to the public was really bad news...