Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • how clever do you think it is to ask the very same authorities involved in its dismissal (in order to keep it in the black military projects) for scientific help and confirmation ?


    Apart the "dismissal" of an alleged LENR working tech, this is a good point! But you should submit it to the House Committee on Armed Services who asked the DoD to provide them with a briefing on the LENR.


    This is how the democracy works. The Representatives of the US people are aware of the concerns of their voters about energy and of the popular hopes induced by some announcements relative to the LENR, so they ask the Department mostly involved in the field to inform them, and the voters, to this respect. Of course, the DoD, due to its special nature, can choose to disclose all, part, or nothing of what they know, and maybe (I don't know the specific rules) to forbid the divulging of the briefing. We will see. In any case, what we can say since now is that the DoD knows the truth on the whole CF/LENR story, Ecat included, and that this briefing is the only possibility for the common people to be properly informed about the backgrounds of this affair.

  • @Jed


    I just want to clarify that if we were to actually bet on whether or not Rossi delivered a "plant" to the military, it would be a test of his claims that the megawatt plant worked (the "military customer" could certainly verify that by now) and that the "NATO colonel" really represented them, and the "plant" was still in their possession and the transaction was satisfactory.


    Anyone can deliver non working junk and get away with millions as Rossi amply proved with the thermoelectric fiasco: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…ThermoelectricDevices.pdf Obviously, I would not bet that Rossi had not achieved the same scam again!

  • I just want to clarify that if we were to actually bet on whether or not Rossi delivered a "plant" to the military . . .


    He didn't as far as I know.


    Anyway, I was kidding about the bet. I don't do bets. But he did demonstrate a kilowatt scale gadget to the military. It leaked. It did not work. They were pretty upset with him by the time it was all over.

  • The US military may or may not be doing classified LENR research, but they certainly have been sponsoring organizations that report publicly. Frank Gordon's group at SPAWAR in San Diego has done a lot of experiments and published a lot of papers. Melvin Miles did his work at the Navy's China Lake laboratories in the California desert and Louis DeChiaro of the Naval Research lab is currently working on theoretical aspects. Then, there was DARPA sponsoring McKubre at SRI International, which is a commercial lab being paid with military money. I think I can safely say that the US Military has done good things toward advancing LENR research. Certainly more than the Department of Energy, the civilian agency that is *supposed* to be doing this research. About the only DoE related research that I can think of was Ed Storms at Los Alamos, but as I understand it, there was never an officially funded effort. I'm sure there are folks on this forum who can name more.

  • The US military may or may not be doing classified LENR research, but they certainly have been sponsoring organizations that report publicly.


    Yes, this comes out from the examples you have cited, and from many others. Since F&P, they have provided a big support to sustain the research on CF/LENR, as also confirmed in these slides presented in 2013 at ICCF18 (1).


    Another presentation, held on September 2015 (2), shows also that, among all the LENR initiatives worldwide, the Ecat one was the best known, including all the most recent developments. However, it doesn't cite any of the negative outcomes noticed by the DoD experts present at some initial Ecat tests, as previously reported in this thread. Maybe there is some difficulty in sharing the information among the various DoD units involved in this field.


    So, the next September briefing to the US House Committee can also be a good occasion for the Secretary of Defense to recap and put together all the information available from the various DoD units that have worked or have closely followed these initiatives, in order to present to the US Representatives a clear and complete status of the CF/LENR field.


    I think I can safely say that the US Military has done good things toward advancing LENR research. Certainly more than the Department of Energy, the civilian agency that is *supposed* to be doing this research.


    The different attitudes of the two major technical US Departments with respect to the CF/LENR is one of the biggest mysteries in the history of this field.


    FWIK, this is the third time that a US Government Authority is asked to pronounce on the reality of the CF/LENR, the previous being the two negative DoE's assessments, in 1989 and 2004. IMO the correct view is the one of the civilian agency. Anyway, being these two Departments nearly equivalent about their technical knowledge and skill, and being both well aware of the crucial importance, for taking the right political decision, of the public being correctly informed about the reality of the various energy options on the table, I really hope that the next briefing will clarify the deep reasons of this divergence of opinions between the DoE and the DoD, and will provide the decision-makers with a common view on the most wise choices to be taken to handle the upcoming energy transition.


    (1) https://mospace.umsystem.edu/x…eOverviewPresentation.pdf
    (2) http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-co…brief-DeChiaro-9-2015.pdf

  • the two negative DoE's assessments,

    The 1989 assessment was radically premature, and was quite correct as of its time (though it was already obsolete, to some degree, when issued). The 2004 review was much more shallow, but overwhelmed with data and no time allowed to fully grasp it, and was not "negative." It was mixed. Both reviews recommended further research, and both recommended against a major federal program (a conclusion with which I agree, it's premature, though that could change, depending on what the recommended research finds.)

  • The 1989 assessment was radically premature, [...] The 2004 review [...] was not "negative.


    The present "Cold Fusion" article on Wikipedia says: "In 1989 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported results of excess heat did not present convincing evidence of a useful source of energy and decided against allocating funding specifically for cold fusion. A second DOE review in 2004, which looked at new research, reached similar conclusions and did not result in DOE funding of cold fusion."


    This means that the DoE assessments were clearly negative with respect of the possibility of having a "useful source of energy".


    On the same time, it is also undisputable that the DoD has been, since the 1989, the main promoter of the CF/LENR field in a way so wide, open and public, which is totally unexpected for a strategic technology capable of having "strong national security implications". There is an evident contrast between the positions of the two major US Departments, so, from a purely scientific point of view, one of them has been badly wrong for almost 30 years.


    Moreover, considering that the civilian agency, whose mission is "to advance energy technology and promote related innovation", has very little room for maneuver to depart from the truth in his public assessments, the only way to reconcile this apparent contradiction is to recognize that the DoE is, and has always been, right about the scientific aspects and possibilities of CF/LENR, while the DoD has maybe acted outside the actual scientific scope.


    If this is the case, and it seems to me that the opposite would be much more improbable, the CF/LENR initiative has been since the beginning an impossible dream, added to the other charming myths grew around the big hope, divulged by some visionary people (1) and instinctively welcomed by almost all of us, to be capable of harnessing the almost unlimited fusion energy.


    At DoD, they know for sure which case is the right one, so the next appointment in September is a unique and historical opportunity for the Secretary of Defense, on behalf of the expiring US Administration, to spend a word of wisdom on the real possibilities for the humankind to reach that dream. Maybe we are still on time to schedule a not so painful exit strategy from the no-where lane that we took a few generations ago.


    (1) http://rolandanderson.se/Winst…ill/Fifty_Years_Hence.php

  • Moreover, considering that the civilian agency, whose mission is "to advance energy technology and promote related innovation", has very little room for maneuver to depart from the truth in his public assessments, the only way to reconcile this apparent contradiction is to recognize that the DoE is, and has always been, right about the scientific aspects and possibilities of CF/LENR, while the DoD has maybe acted outside the actual scientific scope.


    I think you're reading too much into Wikipedia and into the actions of both of the DoE and of the DoD. Wikipedia is not a neutral source of information on controversial matters. 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. The first DoE panel, with Norman Ramsey insisting on the wording in his position of co-chair, acknowledged that "even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary." In addition the panel did not recommend against funding and research; it recommended against funding and research outside of the normal channels, i.e., against treating cold fusion as a special case. That can surely be read as a skeptical position, and even as a crypto denialist position clothed in politesse. But the Wikipedia summary you quote loses any subtlety that may be there and is inaccurate in doing so.


    The DoE is a large bureaucracy, with administrators who face pressures typical of a large bureaucracy. To the extent that it has a position on something, it will be the position delegated to a committee such as those convened for the examination of the question of cold fusion, and whatever documents remain after they leave. Apart from that, the DoE is no doubt a big squirming bag with a lot of people in it each with their own views and opinions. Recall that Los Alamos, where Ed Storms spent his career, is under the DoE.


    The DoD is surely a similar story. But beyond the DoE they seem to have a mandate to look into long-shot possibilities, giving additional weight in some of their efforts to what is distantly possible over what is obviously practicable, as part of a calculated risk that such agencies as DARPA intentionally take. Do the DoD leadership think that LENR is an impossibility? I'm guessing that they remain neutral on such questions, with a bias for exploration.

  • 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.


    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-l@eskimo.com/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/

  • 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.


    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.

  • 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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

  • 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.

  • 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?


    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?


    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?

  • 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.

  • @Ascoli65


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


    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.


    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.

  • I agree Axil. Here is a quote from a scientist working in Ukraine -I'm not saying his name because this is from a private mail. I had sent him this link btw...https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WX0ZreS1UbEJKd1k/view


    "....impressive process is going on in Russia. Alas, situation is different here. Yesterday I talked to people at my institute who have technology of producing any quasi-equilibrium state of metals and alloys – from QCs to amorphous – by rapid quenching from high T (1000000 K per second). And they can load them with H at controlled pressure. Dream team!
    Some time ago, they even observed a “strange” abnormal heating under hydrating some amorphous alloy. The effect was reproducible, and they could not explain it. But at present, they have to study hydrogen embrittlement in Zr alloys (routine work) in order to get money and would agree to collaborate only if granted some funding. Usual story, but I will try to know more about the ‘strange’ effect and hopefully - make the replication..."

  • @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.

  • @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  :D 

  • @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.

  • 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

  • CAM:

    Quote

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

    Quote

    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


    Absolutely! They relied on work mainly by Chris Munson who worked for Leonardo if memory service. Or rather Parsons at the time and later was hired by Leonardo. He apparently took Rossi's word at face value that the prototype had been "tested at the University of New Hampshire" and had given the test results showing 20% efficiency at up to 1 kW per square foot (again from memory). Like Levi, either he was in on the scam or he was so dumb that he never bothered to check the impossibly optimistic data. CERL no longer exists nor does their web site and neither does the appx $9 Million that went up in smoke-- again from memory, more than $2M just for Rossi to produce 27 pieces of junk and the rest for CERL work including setting up extensive and complex "test facilities." Everyone who studies free energy and high tech scams should check out this one yet it is rarely reviewed except for Krivit, Wright, and little old me.

  • Ascoli:

    Quote

    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?

    You call it a scam, fraud and deception on the part of the perpetrator (Rossi) and ineptness, incompetence, negligence, and gullibility, on the part of those like Lewan and the Swedish scientists who are almost certainly honest but did not consider adequately, the possibility that Rossi, a convicted felon with no accomplishments to speak of, could be fooling them like he did. The continuing silence of Levi and the professors is also disappointing. Note I left Jed out of that... courtesy to a current participant in the discussion but I have to admit that I was disappointed that it took him so long to doubt Rossi in a meaningful way. Same considerations apply to those who praised and supported that rank liar, Hadjichristos, and Defkalion. And what do you call the people who stalked, harassed, insulted, banned, censored and threatened critics and skeptics-- many of whom still do, on moronic web sites like Frank Acland's, Ruby Carat's and Sarah Vaughter's. the Vortex email list and many others?


    I have to wonder if even Darden would have exposed Rossi had not Rossi's unearned payment of $89M come due and the law suit resulted.