Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • I would be in favor of such a committee as long as it wasn't populated with scientists having clear conflicts of interest, as unfortunately was the case with the first and second DoE reports.

    I've studied the reports. These reports have often been misunderstood and misrepresented -- on all sides.


    The biggest problem with the first DoE review was that it was hastily convened, before there was adequate evidence to come to any conclusion at all. That first DoE review is often considered a rejection, and it's fair in some ways to say that it was; however it recommended further research "under existing programs" to resolve open questions. And then the DoE proceeded to ignore that. They never funded any more research in cold fusion.


    In 2004, the report has often been presented as having come up with "similar conclusions" as to the first, and, in fact, I think the report actually says this. But "similar conclusions" was "further research." Anyone who knows what the environment was like in 1989-1990 -- where only a few voices on the ERAB panel prevented a much more negative report -- and compares it with the 2004 panel, will see a sea change,. In 2004, the panel was split evenly, with half the panel oonsidering the evidence for anomalous heat "compelling." And then a third of the panel thought htat evidence that this heat was nuclear in nature was "convincing or somewhat convincing." Now, the 1989 review was a massive affair, they visited labs, etc. In 2004, they panelists received a pile of papers, and some attended a one-day meeting in Washington. That is nowhere near enough to introduce someone to LENR. Now, one could do a great deal in one way with focused presentation. There was no back-and-forth, with opportunities to correct misudnerstandings, and the reviewer reports, which we have -- on lenr-canr.org -- show this. The crucial heat-helium evidence, the only *direct evidence* that the heat is nuclear in nature, was very much misread, to the point that what was a clear correlation, if the data were understood, became an anticorrelation.


    At this point, it is, in my mind, premature to go for a major review. Rather, the basic research that was called for in 1989 and 2004 is being done. Some of it is moot, i.e., we now know that the phenomenon doesn't produce neutrons and, at least with palladium deuteride experiments, produces helium and heat and very little else is seen. That correlation wasn't known until 1991, when Miles first reported it; it's been widely confirmed, but increased precision will generate increased certainty.


    There still is not full agreement in the field on the site of the reaction. There are some holdouts for it being a bulk reaction, i.e., occurring in bulk palaldium at high loading. However, the helium evidence strongly suggests it is a surface reaction. Which would be good news if we are interested in energy production! (At least for the palladium approach!)


    Nickel-hydrogen reactions are not well enough established to warrant a major review, yet. To move in that direction, much more confirmation work must be done, controlled experiments with one variable, being repeated among multiple independent groups, so that data is commensurable. And it will be a major step if the reaction ash can be identified, in addition to confirming heat.


    Major reviews are in order when it is proposed to massively fund a field. Right now, large amounts of money going into LENR research would, my opinion, mostly be wasted. Rather, the field badly needs to develop focus, on basic issues, and as this is done, then more and more research avenues, crying out for funding, will develop.

  • That's a neat idea,


    Yes, indeed. The US Representatives have posed the right questions to the proper authority. Their scope was different from what I think it would have been the right one, but doesn't matter, as long as they will get a truly and complete briefing, and they will be authorized to make public its entire content.


    especially since LENR has already been militarized for some time


    If we stand on the words of Rothwell, who is well informed about the history of CF/LENR, the military involvement has been present since the beginning (1): "Government has also been nearly the only source of funding for cold fusion since 1989. Fleischmann, Pons, Miles, McKubre and nearly all others were funded by the British and U.S. governments, mainly from DARPA and other military sources."


    (edit: and this has nothing to do with Rossi)!


    For what we can read from the web, there have been many rumors about the involvement of military in the Ecat affair. Axil was among the firsts to report them (2): "There has been a rumor floated that the US Navy is Rossi’s customer in this week’s upcoming E-Cat trial. This rumor is entirely believable. [...] the US Navy would be the obvious US government point organization and primary customer for the E-Cat."


    Let's ask the authorities what they think about it


    In the case of the DoD, it's not only a matter of "thinking", but a matter of "knowing". They know for sure if the above rumors had some real basis. They can easily verify at which title one functionary of theirs was in the Board of Advisers of the JoNP since the March 2010 (3). They can immediately check if the same functionary registered the web domain which hosts since then the JoNP (4). And so on.


    The only way this tech gets to the public is with the help of the market's invisible hand.


    First of all, it should be real.


    (1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg103252.html"
    (2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg53540.html"
    (3) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg38052.html"
    (4) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg38061.html"

  • Ascioi65 - I spoke with another of the US Navy researchers who were involved with the Rossi investigation years back. They reached the same conclusion as IH. Rossi's mysterious sale to the US military did not go to Navy and his test / demos did not work to the satisfaction of the most respected hard science scientist in the mix.

  • "MadDog Dewey" wrote:

    to the US military


    First, Rossi did not say US military, but "military" (more likely Italian) so you are making that up. Secondly even if it was US military, they would certainly not tell XXXXXXXXXXXXXX about it...



    Avian reference removed. Alan

  • I spoke with another of the US Navy researchers who were involved with the Rossi investigation years back.


    Sorry, I'm not sure to have well understood. Does it mean that the US Navy was officially, though secretly, involved with more than one researcher in the first years of the Ecat development?


    They reached the same conclusion as IH. Rossi's mysterious sale to the US military did not go to Navy and his test / demos did not work to the satisfaction of the most respected hard science scientist in the mix.


    Are you also confirming, for what you know, that the "secret Entity" cited on the JoNP (1) was really the US Navy, but the sale didn't go through because they were unsatisfied with the test results?


    Did "the mix" include also the "Customer's consultant" mentioned in the JoNP (2)?


    If he was referring to the October 28, 2011 demo, was your source aware that a substantially different story was told to the world (3)?


    Is it possible to know, when you got these infos?


    Thank you.


    (1) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=23#comment-99764
    (2) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=22#comment-97993
    (3) http://www.foxnews.com/scitech…-fusion-plant/?test=faces

  • Ascioi65 - I spoke with another of the US Navy researchers who were involved with the Rossi investigation years back. They reached the same conclusion as IH. Rossi's mysterious sale to the US military did not go to Navy and his test / demos did not work…


    It's great to hear that IH/DRV is now finally beginning to engage in some due dilligence, three years after signing the $100.5 million contract with Rossi and almost one year after collecting $50 million from Woodford and presumabley even more from Chinese investors with Rossi's IP and 1MW plant as the main asset and incentive. I'm affraid I have to say that if I had some spare millions lying around, I would make sure to invest them somewhere where I could be certain that nobody involved with IH/DRV/Cherokee could ever possibly be in any position to decide what do with even a single dollar of my money...

  • Ascoli, I had already edited: the militarization of LENR has nothing to do with Rossi, because it's probably been done before him. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear, I'm sure your quote business could have been put to better use elsewhere.


    So, as the military (for the sake of simplicity, let's say the western Military-Industrial Complex) might have had a working LENR tech for probably more than a decade (after all, it's been a century since the effect is known, and its study suppressed), 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 ?



    Quote

    First of all, it should be real.


    Thank you for your service

  • Rossi did not say US military, but "military" (more likely Italian)


    I too don't remember he ever said exactly "US military", but on this respect, there are many controversial information on the web, for instance:


    A few days before the October 28, 2011 demo, Rossi said that the "Entity" came from USA (1).


    After few months, on April 2012, he wrote (2): "The 1 MW plant is for military purpose, it cannot be seen".


    The same month, Axil wrote on Vortex (3): "According to Rossi, uniformed US Naval officers witnessed Rossi’s early demos". I don't know where he got this info, maybe he can tell us.


    On May 2012, Rossi wrote (4): "The 1 MW plant has been delivered and is working in a military concern. It has been made in the USA, after the October test of the prototype made in Italy".


    In that period, some other web sites, very supportive of the Ecat, posted many articles talking about the US military as being the customer of one or more 1 MW plants. So this was, and still is today, the most common opinion in the public.


    (1) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=24#comment-101620
    (2) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=614&cpage=1#comment-215365
    (3) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg65136.html"
    (4) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=53#comment-231959

  • 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.