Why met Rossi with the Lugano professors in sweden?

Quote from Timar

They "are working to understand the Lugano test errors"?

Come on... for how long has the emissivity issue been known by now? Certainly for more than a year. And it doesn't need much work to insert another emissivity value into the calculations. Besides, it has already been done by you and others.

One of the frustrating characteristics of the "independent experts" who have validated Rossi claims in some way is that errors in their reports have gone without any public response, even where it has been years lapsed. This indicates that these reports are outside the normal process of science. They all had the severe flaw of lack of adequate independence, and there is little sign that these scientists understood the problem.

What I would hope for is that they do one of two things: simply admit the errors and shortcomings of the Lugano test, there are many such, and they are obvious once seen, or do new work that is actually independent. That would require one of two things:

A reactor provided by Rossi or IH, or independent construction, say from patent material.

And they might have, shall we say, some "difficulties." Asking Rossi for help would actually be completely in order. What would not be in order would be allowing him to touch the thing. Or, for that matter, Levi, who was long way too close to Rossi to be considered fully independent. That's not an accusation against Levi, it is just an obvious fact. So this initiative in Sweden, if it is under way, may be only among "Swedish scientists," which is great.

Quote from DNI

animpossibleinvention.com/2016…uth-on-rossi-ih-affair-2/
Search for "I have now been in contact with Levi"

Here is what Mats wrote there, together with my comments.

Quote

Ok Thomas, so I have now been in contact with Levi regarding Lugano. Here’s the situation:
– He disputes your analysis and he says that he has shown the report to several colleagues with different expertise and they have endorsed it. This is supported by the fact that the report is still online at Bologna U.

Translation. "i have not looked at the criticism because it is obviously wrong because my colleagues endorsed my report. Possibly that's unfair for me to say, but ... there could have been a thousand endorsements that overlooked something. It's meaningless.

Levi has lost the process of science, where the researcher looks diligently for his or her own errors. That the report is on-line at U Bologna is essentially meaningless. My sense is that only some formal process that censures Levi could result in take-down. Mats has become a defender, marshalling evidence for the defense, instead of being a reporter and cautious neutral analyst. He obviously wants to be neutral, I trust that. He failed.

Quote

– He also says that the simplest way to dispute your analysis is putting the emissivity to one (1), which according to Levi still gives COP clearly above 1. I have not controlled that calculation, but the logic seems reasonable to me. Emissivity cannot be higher than one, and putting it to one should give the lowest possible temperature calculation, and lowest possible COP. Or?

That would address the emissivity problem. Did Levi do what he suggested? One problem at a time! There are many other problems with the Lugano report, emissivity is only one, but if we cannot address even one, there is no hope of objectivity.

Quote

– I don’t consider my competence to be enough to assess possible errors in your analysis so I couldn’t make a claim on who is right. I don’t have the time either (I don’t know where you get the time from). But either you accuse Levi for being incompetent, or for making errors on purpose. The second is serious of course, and would need more evidence. But even so, it seems unlikely, as you often say, that several people with different expertise at Bologna U would make the same mistake as Levi in that case.
So – what about emissivity=1?
Next step would be an external peer reviewer, not involved with anyone in this story.
Now I need some sleep.
Ordinary work + moderation of overflowing blog + fact checking/phone calling + answering questions and comments + family=…

A reporter should never make himself the final judge, but a good reporter will present evidence, and a good investigative reporter will seek to actively find all evidence and even uncover what would otherwise be hidden. Mats was worried, writing An Impossible Invention, that he was becoming too involved. Here is a basic problem: If someone confronts Rossi with fact or possible artifact, even someone sympathetic who would want Rossi to have positive results -- someone like Jed Rothwell, for example --, that person is very likely to lose access to Rossi.

What could Mats do here? How about actually consulting experts on the specific points? Mats has good access to the CMNS community, whcih includes experts in calorimetry. I'll say that he hasn't asked, at least not visibly. Maybe he has asked privately, but there is no sign of that. Clarke is not necessarily popular in the CMNS community, but he's accepted as a good-faith student and his conclusions about Lugano have not been attacked and have some level of expressed approval.

I wrote about Clarke's critique on the private CMNS list almost a year ago. That's a private list, and I was responding to a comment from a LENR researcher who obviously took the critique very, very seriously. I am not copying that part of my mail, because that list is confidential and I do not break confidence. However, I can present what I wrote.

Quote

We already knew much of what was in the Clarke critique, though Clarke has done it definitively and with precision. It may have been [elided for privacy] who first pointed out what should have been face-palm obvious, that this reactor did not have an external temperature of 1400 C. It was glowing dull red in places, and not at all in other places, indicating a much lower temperature.

The Lugano authors did not use common-sense reality checks, instead relying on theory and complex calculations, thus easily introducing errors. Simply doing a real calibration would have avoided all this, which Clarke also points out.

Clarke has experienced the stonewalling of the Lugano authors.

I'm not sure what is going on with them, but it's not science.

It's a circus.

If one had confidence in Rossi, I'd say, one was not paying attention. Rossi is fairly transparent; he is not a scientist and has no obligations to the scientific community. He has commercial interests which may conflict with being open and straight-forward.

Clarke notes that the Lugano authors had no access to the internal thermocouple data. Rossi certainly knew that their measurements and calculations were far from accurate, but he remained silent, allowing them to look like complete idiots.

Did he manipulate the sampling for isotopic analysis? It's not impossible, and not illegal in any way, unless he misleads his investors (who are under nondisclosure agreements, I'm sure).

Rossi has been playing this game since 2011. Does he have a megawatt reactor? Possibly. As pointed out, the thing may not be reliably generating a megawatt, but it could generate less and still be remarkable.

I have, since 2011, stated that I thought it likely that Rossi had *something,* but that it wasn't yet reliable.

We want to jump ahead, to know before we have enough information. Barring a whistle-blower, we aren't going to know until Rossi unveils the real thing, if he ever does.

Display More

The best opinion of Lugano by top experts in the field is that the test was "poor." Nobody knowledgeable is defending it, for a long time. So why is Lewan so clueless?

These are not pseudoskeptics! Many of them had high hopes that Rossi had found a way to generate reliable heat. They are not expressing that any more.

If Mats is paying attention, he'd know the problem. I suspect that Mats hasn't been paying attention for a long time.