Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

Quote from Eric Walker

In cases of controversy, there's invariably a tug-of-war behind the scenes, and the group with the largest presence will prevail. Nonetheless I am sympathetic to its summary of the two DoE reports quoted above; if it gets anything wrong, it is through its unequivocal wording, painting the question in a light that makes the DoE position crystal clear, when maybe it's not so clear cut.

OK, I know there was a tug-of-war behind the present position of Wikipedia on CF (maybe there was a similar war behind the sphericity of the Hearth), anyway one position prevailed, and Wikipedia registered the clear DoE position which negates reality and usefulness of CF/LENR tech. Such negative position has also been denounced from many LENR supporters, and someone of them reported first hand information about it on Vortex (1): "THE government expertise in energy is supposed to reside in the Dept of Energy. I have had an extended discussions with them about LENR and can confirm that the universal consensus there is that LENR is impossible because there is now [no?] way of overcoming the Coulomb barrier at low temperature."

The above cited Vortex mail quotes also a letter sent to the Secretary of Energy on July 2015, in order to invoke some attention to the field. It's really interesting to see the used arguments: "The game changed after Andrea Rossi contacted Prof Focardi in 2007 and he demonstrated a reactor called the E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) in 2011 that was capable of generating kW of heat."

So, less than one year ago, the game changer for some supporters in the field was still the January 2011 demo. Now, look, please, at the first of the 3 flaws of that demo described in a previous comment (2), search "HP474AC" on Google Image and see how long it would be taken to realize that the sole and most important instrument cited in the calorimetric report was not at its supposed place. Then, speaking about biased opinions, consider how much enthusiasm has been aroused by that only LENR test. I'd remember you that the Lewan's book begins with that episode, and it also introduces the long article on Popular Mechanics (3): "On January 14, 2011, a 61-years old ...".

At that time, the official reports signed by the UniBo professors were issued in the JoNP, after the approval by its Board of Advisers, a member of which was a DoD functionary, which also wrote one of the first preliminary report on the calorimetry of the January demo.

Quote from Eric Walker

Do the DoD leadership think that LENR is an impossibility?

For sure, as documented by the previous comments, some single units and some single persons from DoD have provided a big support to the CF/LENR field since its appearance, and have endorsed nearly all the Ecat claims, at least until last September.

Did this support reflects the official position of the (present) DoD leadership? I don't know. Maybe they will say us, the next September.

(1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg106241.html"
(2) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”
(3) http://pesn.com/2012/10/16/960…-Box--by_Popular-Science/

Quote from Ascoli65

Did this support reflect the official position of the (present) DoD leadership? I don't know. Maybe they will say us, the next September.

Hello Ascoli. You should not draw any conclusions from Rossi's fairy tales to the LENR field in general. The Ni-claims (Despite Jed who somehow tried to down it...) were substantiated by Mizuno, who is now running his own company.
The answer of any (September) hearing about LENR will be clear. If You miss the opportunity, than you will lag behind. There will be public bucks in the field after September and hopefully they shut down all hot D/T fusion projects. The D/T approach is far more desperate than any Rossi trials... and they really suck to much research money!

PS: Do You really believe that Rossi has never had something?

@Ascoli65

I don't consider Ashfield a neutral source of information. He is unbalanced and puts a spin on things. But quoting him, he says:

Quote

Likewise, THE government expertise in energy is supposed to reside in the Dept of Energy. I have had an extended discussions with them about LENR and can confirm that the universal consensus there is that LENR is impossible because there is now way of overcoming the Coulomb barrier at low temperature. I have a friend there that tries to bring up the subject, but he is told to shut up as LENR is pseudo science. Experts are not immune from group-think.

Presumably the universal consensus is a consensus that does not include Ashfield's friend, who is also in the DoE. What other DoD staff are not included in the universal consensus, one wonders. If the Coulomb barrier is what is standing in the way, then the dam breaks open as soon as a non-Coulombic phenomenon is demonstrated. The DoE may have physicists who disagree with the possibility of LENR because of the Coulomb barrier problem. But they may come around if it can be shown that there's a faulty assumption involved, and the Coulomb barrier is irrelevant or not relevant in the way they had been led to believe.

I agree that the early tests by Rossi have generated a lot of attention. I have no issue with your characterization of them. It seems only distantly relevant to the point I was making.

Quote from Ascoli65

Eric Walker wrote:
Do the DoD leadership think that LENR is an impossibility?

For sure, as documented by the previous comments, some single units and some single persons from DoD have provided a big support to the CF/LENR field since its appearance, and have endorsed nearly all the Ecat claims, at least until last September.

Did this support reflects the official position of the (present) DoD leadership? I don't know. Maybe they will say us, the next September.

I was unable to find previous comments that document that the DoD leadership think that LENR is an impossibility — can you link to them so that I can take a second look? Keep in mind that LENR as a field is quite separate from the E-Cat thing, and from the DoD's view of the E-Cat spectacle.

I'm also interested in knowing what the official position of the present DoD leadership ends up being, if they come to some opinion. Given that the DoD has sponsored research into ESP, I suspect they'll continue to keep an open mind about LENR.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The Ni-claims (Despite Jed who somehow tried to down it...) were substantiated by Mizuno, who is now running his own company.

Some questions arise:

How might I go about "drowning" Ni-CF? What steps would I take to erase the memory of Mills, Piantelli and others who have reported Ni-CF?

Why haven't I deleted papers on this subject from LENR-CANR.org?

Who translated and reported on Mizuno?

Hallo Wyttenbach. Sorry for the delay, but it takes a lot of time to me to write in English, and I want to check what I say, before posting.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You should not draw any conclusions from Rossi's fairy tales to the LENR field in general.

I never drew any conclusions from the Rossi's says. As I already said in this thread (Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”), I think that people are too focused on Rossi. Instead, most of us are here not because a controversial philosopher did claim to have succeeded where thousands of physicists did fail, but because many people belonging to some renowned and estimated scientific and technical institutions have continuously and publicly assessed, since the beginning of 2011, that the Ecat is capable to generate industrial quantity of excess heat.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The Ni-claims (Despite Jed who somehow tried to down it...) were substantiated by Mizuno, who is now running his own company.

I have no time to follow the dozens of CF/LENR initiatives around the world. I put most of my attention on the by far famous and celebrated one, the Ecat. This initiative got the attention and the support of nearly all the experts and commentators in the field, so that all the other initiatives are even less probable, and, just to answer your PS, I have no reason to believe that any of the Rossi's devices has produced any excess heat.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The answer of any (September) hearing about LENR will be clear. If You miss the opportunity, than you will lag behind. There will be public bucks in the field after September and hopefully they shut down all hot D/T fusion projects. The D/T approach is far more desperate than any Rossi trials... and they really suck to much research money!

I really hope that the September briefing will be clear, and, first of all, truthful.

The inquiry doesn't address the T/D, or any other hot fusion approach, but it represents anyway a good opportunity to assess the status of all the fusion technologies. It is an historical opportunity to draw a final balance of the heroic, but vain, endeavor to implement the energetic dreams outlined 85 years ago by Churchill: "There is no doubt that this evolution will continue at an increasing rate. We know enough to be sure that the scientific achievements of the next fifty years will be far greater, more rapid and more surprising, than those we have already experienced. [...] If the hydrogen atoms in a pound of water could be prevailed upon to combine together and form helium, they would suffice to drive a thousandhorsepower engine for a whole year."

We allowed 35 more years to this dream to become a reality. On that dream, we have pushed the growth of the individual consumptions and of the consumers (the World popolation has increased since then more than 3 times). It has been an unwise hazard. The US Secretary of Defense is the most suitable authority in the world that can assume the responsibility to publicly recognize that the bet is lost. In more than one respect, he can be considered a successor of Churchill, and for sure he knows that longer this illusion, sooner and deeper the next global crisis. The military know this sad truth much better than politics, because they will be called to rush in first line to cope with the consequenses of the crisis.

So, I really hope that Mr. Ashton B. Carter will take this occasion to warn the politics of all the world that there is no more time to indulge with the amazing Churchill's dream, and that the residual energy resources, and the margins on climate alteration, and environmental damages, should be spent to allow the humankind to reach in no more than 2-3 generations a new equilibrium with His own single and only possible Home.

Quote from JedRothwell

How might I go about "drowning" Ni-CF?

Jed: I said "down" not drown... But I noticed since a long time that You act under lot of pressure and I don't want to guess why. It's Your personal problem.

Luckily Mills can anymore be stopped by bad rumors. He can only stop himself, by not delivering in time and that's not so far away.

The same holds for Rossi. Either he delivers - very soon - or there will be a nice funeral somewhere in the states... The wired thing is: Rossi wont even notice it.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Jed: I said "down" not drown...

That does not sound grammatical either. Down or drown would mean approximately the same thing in this sentence. In any case, I suggest you address the questions I raised, which were:

What steps would I take to erase the memory of Mills, Piantelli and others who have reported Ni-CF?

Why haven't I deleted papers on this subject from LENR-CANR.org?

Who translated and reported on Mizuno?

Quote from Wyttenbach

The same holds for Rossi. Either he delivers - very soon - or there will be a nice funeral somewhere in the states...

A funeral for who, or what?

Quote from Wyttenbach

The wired thing is: Rossi wont even notice it.

Do you mean the "weird" thing, or the "wired" thing? What would a wired thing be?

Quote from Eric Walker

I don't consider Ashfield a neutral source of information.

He seemed to me a strong LENR supporter, and that's exactly the reason I quoted him.

Quote

Presumably the universal consensus is a consensus that does not include Ashfield's friend, who is also in the DoE.

The presence at DoE of his friend, and the likes, indicates that the two official DoE positions have resulted to be negative, notwithstanding all the voices are represented there.

Quote

What other DoD staff are not included in the universal consensus, one wonders.

Yes, this is exactly the point: somebody was wrong, badly wrong, or has played outside the scientific scope.

Quote

If the Coulomb barrier ...

Unfortunately, the big problems are in the "if", as usual.

Quote

I agree that the early tests by Rossi have generated a lot of attention. I have no issue with your characterization of them. It seems only distantly relevant to the point I was making.

I don't think so. The Ecat tests are the most evident and impressing demonstration that the DoE was right, but most of the LENR supporters have claimed for long that they are the most evident and impressive evidence of the contrary.

Quote

I was unable to find previous comments that document that the DoD leadership think that LENR is an impossibility — can you link to them so that I can take a second look?

I didn't say that. Please, read again my statement.

Quote

Keep in mind that LENR as a field is quite separate from the E-Cat thing, and from the DoD's view of the E-Cat spectacle.

I think that we all should keep in mind that the "Ecat spectacle" has been mostly played on a web site called JoNP, which has a Board of Advisers, one member of which is a DoD functionary, the same that, as alleged by Krivit, could have registered the relative web domain.

Since 2011, the Ecat became for the world public opinion nearly a synonym of CF/LENR. It's not just a coincidence that the web article on Popular Mechanics about the House Committee inquiry begins with a picture of the 1 MW plant. The US people want to know the true about the reality of the Ecat, and their Representatives have asked the appropriate Institution

Quote

Given that the DoD has sponsored research into ESP, I suspect they'll continue to keep an open mind about LENR.

The big difference is that LENR has been proposed to the public as the possible, and often the only one, solution to the present major problems of the humankind.

Quote from JedRothwell

weird

(wired..) Its not as close as down and drown. But with a little phantasy and some electrical input the result will be the same... (Typo!)

Quote from JedRothwell

drown:

To drown somebody is a final act. Where as to down something is try to block/hold it back.

@Ascoli65

I see what you meant about my misunderstanding what you said about the position of the DoD — yes, you said something quite different.

Quote from Ascoli65

The US people want to know the true about the reality of the Ecat, and their Representatives have asked the appropriate Institution

Indeed. Hopefully any DoD review will touch on this significant development. I think you're correct to put importance on the role that Rossi has played over the last five years in bringing attention to the matter. But it should not be blown out of proportion or taken to be representative of the field as a whole. There's been lots of work on LENR apart from Rossi by people with skill and integrity. I think the field deserves attention, and I'm delighted that there is investment going into it. Perhaps the American people will agree with me once they get the full story.

Quote from Ascoli65

The presence at DoE of his friend, and the likes, indicates that the two official DoE positions have resulted to be negative, notwithstanding all the voices are represented there.

Sure. This is equivalent to saying that any DoE staff that are optimistic about LENR have had little influence in this instance on the technical opinion of scientists brought onto an ad hoc panel to look at the question of LENR. This is hardly surprising. But we lose the larger point, which is that the Wikipedia article was inaccurate in its unequivocal description. It was a minor point, but here we are.

The places where LENR is progressing the fastest is in Russia and Japan. The CIA is permitted to gather data from these foreign sources. the U.S. is a lagered in the appreciation of LENR and its progress of its R&D. If the CIA has done its job, this progress in LENR research would be properly characterized and reflective of LENR's potential. If the U.S. still has on naysayer blinders, the DOD presenters to the Congress will have no compelling LENR info to convey. This hearing before the Congress is a window and a benchmark to what the DOD actually knows about LENR development and how the U.S. government views LENR generally.

@Jed Rothwell

Quote

Why haven't I deleted papers on this subject from LENR-CANR.org?

Why not indeed. Professionals rely only on EXFOR, the IAEA and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) experimental nuclear reaction data. You can find anything related to nuclear reactions in that huge data bank. For example you can find the excitation function for any nuclear reaction.
http://www-nds.indcentre.org.in/exfor/exfor.htm
EXFOR is updated at least 5 times/year. Last update, 5 may 2016.

@axil

Quote

The places where LENR is progressing the fastest is in Russia and Japan.

If you know the name of some Russian or Japanese scientists working in LENR, please quote their name and I'll look for their contribution in this field. Even better: let us know the nuclear reactions they are working in. IAEA and BNL nuclear data bank can answer any question.

Quote from cam

@axil

If you know the name of some Russian or Japanese scientists working in LENR, please quote their name and I'll look for their contribution in this field. Even better: let us know the nuclear reactions they are working in. can answer any question.

Does the IAEA and BNL nuclear data bank deal with proton decay?

@Mary Yugo

Quote

Anyone can deliver non working junk and get away with millions as Rossi amply proved with the thermoelectric fiasco

It was not only matter of ruse from Rossi, but also of gullibility of DoD.
Based on research indicating energy conversion efficiencies of 20 percent

@Anvil

Quote

Does the IAEA and BNL nuclear data bank deal with proton decay?

As a chemist, I am only interested in nuclear reactions. In fact I am only familiar with EXFOR. Your question can be treated by a physicist. I hope that a physicist in the blog can answer your question.

Quote from Eric Walker

I think you're correct to put importance on the role that Rossi has played over the last five years in bringing attention to the matter. But it should not be blown out of proportion or taken to be representative of the field as a whole.

I'm talking about the social-mediatic aspects of the issue. With this respect, the Ecat story has saturated the public perception of the CF/LENR field. I already cited the long article appeared in the November 2012 issue of Popular Mechanics. Another, out of many others, example comes from France. The popular scientific magazine Science&Vie in the issue of April 2015 has published an article regarding three different approaches anti-ITER to harvest the energy Graal: huge hot fusion (NIF), medium size hot fusion (Lockheed) and cold fusion (guess which (1-2)).

Quote

There's been lots of work on LENR apart from Rossi by people with skill and integrity.

But the Ecat has been supported by many skilled and authoritative people. The above French magazine told its readers that scientists from 3 European Universities did confirm the production of excess energy from nuclear origin. Does it exist any other work on LENR supported by so many scientists from such renowned scientific institutions for so long?

Quote

I think the field deserves attention, and I'm delighted that there is investment going into it.

I'm not worried about the investment in science, whatever the purpose, provided that the scientists and researchers respect the scientific rules, are available to publicly discuss their public claims whit their peers, and are prompt to admit their errors if they result to be evident. But the most famous CF initiatives, and in particular the Ecat one, seems not to belong to the scientific context. It seems to me that their main scope was/is to convince the public opinion about the existence of something that doesn't really exist. How could we call it?

(1) http://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/D…et_33854_30.htm#t41503675
(2) Mainstream French Science Magazine Science et Vie on Cold Fusion/Rossi