Peter Gluck, Blogger-Advocate for Rossi Technology

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Quote from Jed: “Per a suggestion from Peter Gluck, I should reword this a little: Since 2011, Rossi has caused more harm to cold fusion than…


    I would phrase this differently, since 2011 Rossi has caused MORE interest in cold fusion than cold-fusion supporters such as JCMNS, McKubre, Rothwell, and Abd. Storms (the leading researcher in PdD) has indicated (at least until recently) that he thought that Rossi's claims may well be real. Piantelli came out of retirement and founded NICHenergy as a result of Rossi's claims. My guess is that Etiam Oy and Mizuno and others have been inspired by Rossi's claims. Godes has probably gained credibility and support in the "early" years as a result of Rossi's claims. I've already mentioned Rossi's use of micron-sized Ni powders, which has stimulated many researchers - including Godes! - to move in that direction.


    I forgot to mention Celani (the Celani constantan wires etc.). But perhaps Celani has nothing either?

    Peter and supporters of Rossi - I'd like to ask that you think about the impact of the following regarding LENR research funding. Every single legal dollar that IH has to spend the Rossi litigation is one dollar removed from the LENR research cause. Rossi is on his 5th 1MW ruse since 2011 and has $11.5M in his bank account from IH while attempting to move to his next act. Knowing that, would you rather see the $5 to $7M in estimated legal expenses for a full-blown trial go to experts and lawyers or would that money be better utilized by LENR researchers?


    Real dollars - in your opinion, what is the best way to spend them?

    Quote from quizzical

    JedRothwell wrote:


    I would phrase this differently, since 2011 Rossi has caused MORE interest in cold fusion than cold-fusion supporters such as JCMNS, McKubre, Rothwell, and Abd.

    There is no doubt that more interest was created. But then what? Interest can backfire. Consider how much interest was caused by the 1989 Pons and Fleischmann press conference! It was premature, and it backfired very badly.


    The Rossi Effect was not considered impossible by LENR researchers. The report presented to the DoE in 2004 was titled, as I recall, Anomalous effects in metal hydrides. However, NiH was not well-explored. Little had been confirmed. The ash was unknown (and still is). I very quickly noticed that there was no information from Rossi on reliability. This persisted, and still persists. For a time, there was expert opinion that seemed convinced that Rossi's demonstrations were valid. At the peak, I considered it likely that Rossi had something real. But Jed probably remembers what I was warning the CMNS list at the time: that a fraud could fool any expert, if the fraud has control of the demonstration, and that we could not rely on demonstrations that were unverifiable independently as scientific evidence. The big problem with cold fusion, from the beginning, was unreliability. Experiments would generate no heat and with no apparent change, would be generating heat apparently beyond chemistry, and then none again, with no visible change. Later, the best protocols might be generating heat --- off the top of my head, 80% of the time at COP 1.05 or higher (which is scientifically significant) -- sometimes much higher. There is some work where 100% control is shown, but it's not confirmed.


    So there is a great deal of interest in 2011. And then the years passed. What happened? Many, many who were interested then faded away. Meanwhile, as has been repeatedly pointed out here, it became more difficult to continue with PdD research. People were claiming that PdD was useless, we needed LENR+, real heat, at amazing levels. It became more difficult to get funding, except for work with NiH, which appears to have mostly gone nowhere.
    Cosnider
    It is not that NiH is dead. There have long been reports, and I fully expect that those reports will eventually be re-investigated. Consider http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcalorimetra.pdf from 2012 showing "experimental support for
    the work and claims of Piantelli, Rossi, Defkalion and Brillouin." I.e., excess heat from NiH, though not as high as heat from PdD. Notice Defkalion. At this point, nobody mentions Defkalion, because Defkalion's work was heavily discredited when a pump artifact was exposed and, instead of defending their work -- and fixing it -- they disappeared. Just because NiH is possible does not mean that a claim is real.


    So there are several effects to be understood and balanced. Yes, lots of interest. However, if the work is not then confirmed, and reasonably quickly, that interest fades and can burn out the audience. It's the boy who cried wolf. Then there is the effect on existing research. The researchers report that it was devastating. Then, here, those with no knowledge of the actual ongoing research pooh-pooh that, because their interest was raised! The jury is isn't even out yet on the reality of the Rossi claims. What will happen to that interest? Has it caused these people to investigate cold fusion -- the real science -- and to go into it or support it? Or will they leave in disgust?


    Quote

    Storms (the leading researcher in PdD) has indicated (at least until recently) that he thought that Rossi's claims may well be real.

    Yes. and he still thinks that. But this is meaningless. The point here is not whether the results are real in some way, but how this will play out in the public arena. The Pons and Fleischmann results -- on heat -- were real, but what happened?


    Quote

    Piantelli came out of retirement and founded NICHenergy as a result of Rossi's claims. My guess is that Etiam Oy and Mizuno and others have been inspired by Rossi's claims. Godes has probably gained credibility and support in the "early" years as a result of Rossi's claims. I've already mentioned Rossi's use of micron-sized Ni powders, which has stimulated many researchers - including Godes! - to move in that direction.

    Again, the jury is out on that. It can happen that a false report can stimulate investigation that actually finds something. But more often, it confuses. Claiming a negative effect does not require that there be no positive ones. The black-and-white thinking heavily confuses.


    Quote

    I forgot to mention Celani (the Celani constantan wires etc.). But perhaps Celani has nothing either?

    We don't know. Confirmation? Did MFMP give up? Were their results inconclusive?


    Inconclusive results are very common in LENR. Basically, there may be some effect, but the level is low enough that it is difficult to distinguish it from noise. Skeptics properly suspect that the file-drawer effect may be involved. So serious work in LENR needs to report all data, not just "success," and needs to consist of extensive tests, not just one result.

    Quote from padam73


    @axil do you have evidence of this? Thanks.


    There was a discussion somewhere on this site on how the 1000 micron 13 milligram ash particle from the Lugano test could have only formed by melting and aggregation of N numbers of smaller sized fuel nickel particles.


    I beleive that Rossi used this evidence to create a new nickel based reactor with a much higher operating temperature called the Quark.


    Rossi states the the Quark is covered under his patent, and yet it operates north of 1500C.


    See


    The Playground

    Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The ERV has not been "demonized." Assuming he reported this data and he configured the instruments, I.H., I and other have looked carefully at his work and we have concluded that he is incompetent and that his conclusions rely on ". . .


    So! You are one of the lucky, who had access to the ERV report and can tell us first hand...


    Please show us some report details, we would like to see them...


    Or is your opinion based on the same crap all the others tell since months?? To whom did you talk face to face?

    Quote from JedRothwell


    I have accused Rossi of one act of blatant dishonesty: refusing to allow the I.H. experts into the customer site.


    An "act of blatant dishosnestly" that both sides mutually and explicitly agreed upon in the contract they signed prior to the test. Come on Jed, does it get any more childish? I'm probably as annoyed as you are that the "customer" remains shrouded in mystery, but it would never occur to me to accuse someone of "blatant dishonesty" for acting according to contractually defined conditions.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Quote from JedRothwell: “The ERV has not been &quot;demonized.&quot; Assuming he reported this data and he configured the instruments, <span style="color: #FF0000"><i><b>I.H., I and other have looked carefully </b></i></span>at his work and we have concluded that he is incompetent and that his conclusions rely on…


    They looked so carefully that they seem unable even to come up with anything consistent: even the "suspiciously constant" temperature reading varies wildly. First it is 100.1, then 103.9, then "~103", or rather 102.8. Honestly, I'm fed up with people claiming to have access to vague inside information on which their base their overconfidence and arrogance towards the "unenlightened" while being, ridiculously enough, unable even to give any consistent representation of their purported information. They should either publicly share whatever data they have or STFU.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    So! You are one of the lucky, who had access to the ERV report and can tell us first hand...


    Please show us some report details, we would like to see them...


    Dewey Weaver and I have already shown you many details about Rossi's test. You do not believe us. Therefore, you must ask Rossi for these details.


    We have given you much more than Rossi himself gave you. Why should you believe him? He has given you no information.


    If I were to post a table of numbers from Rossi's data, you would accuse me of making up the numbers myself. You would not believe it actually came from Rossi. There is no way I could prove it does. Therefore you must ask Rossi himself for this data.

    Quote from Timar

    They looked so carefully that they seem unable even to come up with anything consistent: even the "suspiciously constant" temperature reading varies wildly. First it is 100.1, then 103.9, then "~103", or rather 102.8.


    The temperature does, in fact, vary. All temperatures do. Those are not wild variations. They are minor. It is likely that Dewey and I are looking at data sets from different days.


    The number ~103 with a tilde means "approximately 103." 102.8 is approximately 103 when rounded up. Perhaps you are not familiar with the use of the tilde. The difference between a temperature of 102.8 and 103.0 with a system of this size and nature is insignificant. In point of fact, I believe these temperatures are several degrees too high.

    The fluid flow is also extremely and impossibly consistent, not to mention that it was measured on the wrong side of the system per the validation and GPT terms. We'll get to the flowmeter swap and specs in front of the judge should Rossi manage to make it far enough with his selection of the courts to resolve this matter.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Peter and supporters of Rossi - I'd like to ask that you think about the impact of the following regarding LENR research funding. Every single legal dollar that IH has to spend the Rossi litigation is one dollar removed from the LENR research cause. Rossi is on his 5th 1MW ruse since 2011 and has $11.5M in his bank account from IH while attempting to move to his next act. Knowing that, would you rather see the $5 to $7M in estimated legal expenses for a full-blown trial go to experts and lawyers or would that money be better utilized by LENR researchers?


    Real dollars - in your opinion, what is the best way to spend them?


    So very well said Dewey!!! I would also ask Peter (who I find deeply biased) and supporters of Rossi to consider how much collective brainpower and attention Rossi has stolen from the community that could have been redirected without this circus. While some good may have come from all the discussions regarding the circus, I believe the return versus what has been spent is definitely not warranted. When you go to a site like E-Scat World, you see an amazing amount of very intelligent people clinging on to a hope and a dream often with a charged anger at this point. You get the same sense of fear and anger that you do when talking to someone who has gone over the deep end speaking of things such as chemtrails and flat earth. While I believe this court case will most likely continue on for years. I do hope this circus will end one way or another sooner than later so we can at least get back to talking about reality than fantasy.

    Quote from Timar


    They looked so carefully that they seem unable even to come up with anything consistent: even the "suspiciously constant" temperature reading varies wildly. First it is 100.1, then 103.9, then "~103", or rather 102.8. Honestly, I'm fed up with people claiming to have access to vague inside information on which their base their overconfidence and arrogance towards the "unenlightened" while being, ridiculously enough, unable even to give any consistent representation of their purported information. They should either publicly share whatever data they have or STFU.


    You may want to do some self reflection on your last sentence there....

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If I were to post a table of numbers from Rossi's data, you would accuse me of making up the numbers myself. You would not believe it actually came from Rossi. There is no way I could prove it does. Therefore you must ask Rossi himself for this data


    According the contract the ERV was the only instance which matters...


    Therefor I can' following your reasoning. It's just unqualified vaporware! (As Rossi's is too!)

    The Miley 2015 paper showed how sintering of the nanoparticles reduced the power by an order of magnitude.
    http://cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123597739_1.pdf


    "Both suffered a significant reduction in performance, e.g. gains reduce roughly an order of magnitude. This is attributed to sintering effects caused in the initial run, even though it was fairly short. However, results from run three suggest that the sintering problem seems solvable. In this run, particles from run 2 were treated by reheating in the air for two hours. When these particles were run they were able to release energy of 426 J/gram, only 3% less than that achieved by the fresh particles in run #1. This is very encouraging, plus we are continuing studies of ways to treat (added coatings, etc.) the nanoparticles to achieve longer initial runs prior to their re-treatment. "


    Figure 7 of the paper shows before and after SEM images of the nanoparticles. He speculates that "the sintering of the layer may be blocking the deuterium gas from effectively going further into nanoparticles below the top layer."


    I wonder if this effect could be an important factor in reproducabiltiy problems in many other experiments.

    Quote from Robert Horst

    The Miley 2015 paper showed how sintering of the nanoparticles reduced the power by an order of magnitude.


    Yup. Arata and the people at Toyota found that with Pd nanoparticle materials. Sintering is a problem. It happens well before the melting point. No cold fusion device will work if it melts, but in this case it stops working long before it gets that hot.


    Mizuno's technique of making in situ nanoparticles attached to a substrate should solve this problem. It seems to.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    My data is the same as the ERV's according to Rossi. He quoted the ERV in the Lewan interview and it has the same numbers in the sample of his data that I have, such as a flow rate of 32,000 liters per day.


    So you have half (physically = nothing) the data... And the steam temperature is your fantasy?


    Please stop this spin! Either you know the facts - otherwise keep quiet...


    To repeat it again: Rossi's words have no weight! They are spin too and as a honorable science clown he has the right to speak...

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Please stop this spin! Either you know the facts - otherwise keep quiet...


    I do know the facts, and I have provided them. Some people do not believe me, and they accuse me of making things up, but they are wrong.


    Rossi, on the other hand, has provided many fewer facts than I have. Practically nothing. You should ask him for data.


    Quote from Wyttenbach

    To repeat it again: Rossi's words have no weight!


    On the contrary, Rossi's data and the ERV report have a lot of weight. They prove that his claims are false, and there is no excess heat. That is why he refuses to publish his data or the ERV.

    Jed is right. The "ERV" sinks Rossi in more ways than one. You'd think that for $89M, he would have least tried to follow the GPT and the Validation guidelines but no, he put it in the ditch early and doesn't have a prayer of winning any of those arguments.


    Why has Mats been so quiet lately? Did he see the light after reviewing the "ERV" data? Is he hoping for new life with the QuackX results?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.