Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

Quote from Mary Yugo

he said Dardyk was able to get high power from LENR 8 years or so ago and has not been able to do it again, not once, ever since. That's a hallmark of junk science (or high tech fraud).

It is also the hallmark of ordinary science. It happens all the time in physics and especially in biology and pharmacology. Roughly 80 to 90% of discoveries are not reproducible. See:

http://www.jove.com/blog/2012/…ducible-what-is-happening

Quote:

Quote

Studies show only 10% of published science articles are reproducible. What is happening?

Studies show a very low reproducibility for articles published in scientific journals, often as low as 10-30%. Here is a partial list:

The biotech company Amgen had a team of about 100 scientists trying to reproduce the findings of 53 “landmark” articles in cancer research published by reputable labs in top journals.
Only 6 of the 53 studies were reproduced (about 10%).

Scientists at the pharmaceutical company, Bayer, examined 67 target-validation projects in oncology, women’s health, and cardiovascular medicine. Published results were reproduced in only
14 out of 67 projects (about 21%). . . .

Display More

This is normal, and it always has been. When cold fusion began, someone pointed out that F&P were wrong about the neutrons. They were right about the heat though. Pons said something like: in our line of work, being half right is an excellent batting average.

What you are exhibiting is the hallmark of pathological skepticism. You ignore history. You take a normal situation, and you read into it imaginary suspicious signs of fraud.

@Yugo
On one level, it is obvious that we can all agree that there is currently no practical (COP>5) LENR device of over 100 watts working anywhere on planet earth that we know of.
We also know that such devices have been "shown to work" sufficiently to convince people who control millions of dollars and that millions of dollars have been paid to a con artist who makes a low COP look like 50 or more.

Questions:
1. Will Rossi win his lawsuit based on the fact that he met the contract even though his device never really worked nor will he have any such devices to "show the jury" in June of 2017?
2. Will the publicity of the trial end up making LENR an even more "lost cause" than it looks now?

d

@Rothwell

Quote

Krivit did not make any effort to measure temperatures or the flow rate.

No nuclear expert would have done it. Krivit was right. I myself wrote the article for the CICAP just a month later the test in Bologna, without considering the calorimetry or the water flow rate.
“A la guerre comme à la guerre” may be paraphrased “au nucléaire comme au nucléaire”.
You only need to look at the attached diagram.
You understand immediately that the reaction first suggested by Focardi is fantasy.
Anyway Krivit was subtle enough to understand the matter was slippery much sooner than many others. Praise where praise is due!

Quote from Mary Yugo

frauds of which the LENR community seemed to be completely unaware and even now does not give enough weight to.

Possibly because Rossi was acquitted of all of the charges but two (tax issues), and even served significant time on allegations for which he was eventually acquitted. Fair, huh? And I don't think it is very kosher for folks like you to then smear him as if he was some lifelong criminal.

IH Fanboy

Quote from IH Fanboy

Possibly because Rossi was acquitted of all of the charges but two (tax issues), and even served significant time on allegations for which he was eventually acquitted. Fair, huh? And I don't think it is very kosher for folks like you to then smear him as if he was some lifelong criminal.

This sums up Mary Yugo's approach very well in my opinion, lacking objectivity and balance and laced with ad homs, it is quite difficult to filter the fact (and there is some) from the garbage, but she is not on her own here.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from guest731

I'm a specialist in criminal psychology.
Very interesting.

As a specialist of psychology You should know the rules of covered spin. MY – as I spell the entity writing behind the pseudonym, is an artificial person to address the unconscious reflexes of the undecided readers. Unluckily this forum has been floated by a spin-tank working for the US-authorities. The best known representative was abd.
Your occurrence is rarely coincidental. Most knowledgeable people are now aware that a group of (spin-) writers is fooling them. You just showed up at the point, where everybody hast lost the interest to follow the spin doctor's/”nurses”.

I call this a very rare coincidence ...

Quote from Wyttenbach

Your occurrence is rarely coincidental.

Wyttenbach, you are indeed experiencing the work of a spin master. I'm surprised you haven't worked out the master behind the spin in this case, however. Your instinct is close, but your focus is wrong, IMO.

guest731 I hope you don't leave us too soon. You can be our Sherlock. You say MY is a pseudonym. And he has a real name George.
Fascinating I have never heard that. With your background can you find Dewey? I am still looking for Dory.
Thanks !

Quote from JedRothwell

A brief, 400 word report is not what I would call "well informed."

Why not. Your report was longer than the 360 words (captions included) used by Levi in his calorimetric report for describing the results of the January 14 demo (indicated in the report as [Test 2], while [Test 1] was the one held on December 16, 2010). Anyway, you were in touch with people who gave you first hand the calorimetric data, and you have been the first to divulge on the web a "Brief Description of the Calorimetry" (1).

Your description raised almost immediately a lot of criticisms on Vortex. Within few hours, the two weakest points of the energy balance were already highlighted, though not using the right objections. Jones Beene raised the issue of the pump and of the error in the flow rate measurement (2), and Driscoll the issue of the inadequacy of the instrument used to confirm the dryness of the steam (3). In both cases, you answered opposing the argument of the scientific authority and personal credibility of the testers (4-5).

Now, you also admit that those measurements were badly wrong. But, until recently, you gave credit to a group of academicians, which claimed some highly extraordinary results which were contrary to the common opinion affirmed by the vast majority of their peers. They, and all the other scientists, technicians and academicians who confirmed the excess heat from the Ecat tests, were not all deceived by Rossi. A single and controversial philosopher can't convince dozens of physicists, that a tabletop device is capable of producing more than 12 kW from only 1 kW in input. There should be some other deep and diverse reasons, so that the most incredible myth in the LENR history got so many exceptional supporters and was so widely reported in some major media.

But the big, big trouble is that the wrong expectation of an almost inexhaustible nuclear energy, prophesied by Churchill 85 years ago, and that you have reminded on Vortex (6), has for sure contributed to the build-up of the present monster of a global society of 7.5 billion people, thirsty for energy. We are already out of 35 years, with respect to Churchill schedule, how long can still last this bluff?

The political and economic sectors who have urged the US House of Representatives for submitting the inquiry on the LENR, still evidently believe in the fairy tales. Let's hope that the response of the Secretary of Defense be wiser than the inquiry.

(1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41442.html"
(2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41482.html"
(3) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41492.html"
(4) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41487.html"
(5) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41495.html"
(6) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg106340.html"

Ascoli wrote:

Quote

But, until recently, you gave credit to a group of academicians, which claimed some highly extraordinary results which were contrary to the common opinion affirmed by the vast majority of their peers. They, and all the other scientists, technicians and academicians who confirmed the excess heat from the Ecat tests, were not all deceived by Rossi.

The alternative that you hint at -- that Rothwell and all these scientists, technicians and academicians conspired together to lie to the public for some unspoken purpose -- is far far less plausible. In fact, it's not implausible at all that the Rossi sympathizers were either fooled or complicit in a simple fraud.

Quote

A single and controversial philosopher can't convince dozens of physicists, that a tabletop device is capable of producing more than 12 kW from only 1 kW in input.

Dozens? Come now. Levi and Focardi expressed near certainty, but Focardi, as a cold fusion lifer, was desperate for vindication.

Essen and Kullander were sympathetic, but were careful to say more measurements were needed.

Who else?

(As an aside, there is nothing remarkable about a tabletop device producing 12 kW out without any input at all. What you are referring to is a device that produces it from nuclear reactions, and therefore with a high energy density.)

ETA:

Quote

There should be some other deep and diverse reasons, so that the most incredible myth in the LENR history got so many exceptional supporters and was so widely reported in some major media.

Widely reported in some major media? The vast majority of people (at least outside Italy and Sweden) have not even heard of the story. That's not widely reported.

You exaggerate to support your whacky theory in the same way true believers exaggerate to support their belief that the ecat claims are valid. It didn't work for them, and it doesn't work for you.

POST EDITED TO REMOVE ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER BEHAVIOUR BY THIRD PARTIES. Alan.

--
jc response:

Allegation: a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong

Suggestion: an idea or plan put forward for consideration

Suggesting someone *may* be complicit is not an allegation. Nevertheless, I have left off the offending *suggestion*, but restored essential content.

I also submit that Alan Smith himself has *suggested* improper behaviour by IH and the Koch brothers when he "mused" about them being complicit in a conspiracy to suppress cold fusion:

Alan Smith:

Quote

Well, let us just imagine that IH are fronting a conspiracy to surpress - or at least delay the introduction of LENR. For a mere 50 million or so of other people's money they delayed Rossi for 2 years, then came up with another year of testing, recruited as much talent as they can and set up a lab (which means more disruption and delayed projects), and set Brillouin off on a new track which may or may not work. And now they are ensuring everything Rossi-like gets tied up in a new legal battle. While looking like saints and supporters of LENR research.

I think personally that this is more cock-up than conspiracy - but at the same time you can see how well these years of delay might suit some with vested interests like the Koch brothers just down the road from Rayleigh NC.

@Rothwell
While we are waiting for the answer of the Secretary of Defense in September or later, you could let us have some LENR that, in your opinion, are interesting for practical or theoretical purposes. I can plot their excitation functions for the followers of this Forum. Progress in scientific knowledge must be based on deep and severe knowledge of the Generally Accepted Science.
Thank you

Mary

Quote from Mary Yugo

But IH can and should claim that the contract was obtained by fraud in that Rossi knew that the test he used to get the original $10M and the contract was faked and fraudulent. if IH can prove that, the $89M contract is void.

We have been here before. If Rossi's invention is either fraudulent or otherwise 'does not work' then it is 'illusory'. If a contract is based on an 'illusion' then it is worthless. So are the patents and the IP. So why would IH not want to pursue this line of yours, Well the most obvious one is that they think you are wrong. They may also believe the IP and patents have 'value'. If we can believe what they say they have never said, as you have, that Rossi's invention does not work, only that their efforts to substantiate his claims have been without success.

Well, what they do in their own labs is of no interest to the courts although it is obviously of interest to IH. No, what the courts will be interested in is what the contract says, and it says IH to pay Rossi following positive ERV report which documents the criteria.

For any of your claims to have 'influence' over a judge and jury the ERV report must show the invention did not work. Alternatively, expert witnesses must prove 'on the balance of probabilities' that the ERV report is worthless. This of course will bring IH's 'due diligence' into question and expose IH to legal challenge.

But I will agree with you on one thing, that the case in isolation may not be the final word on LENR or even Rossi's invention.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from joshua cude

The alternative that you hint at -- that Rothwell and all these scientists, technicians and academicians conspired together to lie to the public for some unspoken purpose -- [...] or complicit in a simple fraud.

I didn't say that, and wouldn't hint at that: no conspiracy, no complicity, and no fraud. Maybe someone, a minority, has been fooled, but not by Rossi, possibly by other more credible sources. I wrote, instead, "some other deep and diverse reasons".

Deep reasons, because they could reside in some remote, and even unconscious, corner of the individual and collective psychology. At the individual level, there is, for instance, the professional vindication desire, you have also cited, and many others personal stimuli. At collective level, our western societies have developed over the last 2-3 centuries a sort of fideism with respect to the limitless capability of our intellect. We have lost the contact with our physical limits, building up a perverse mechanism that needs incessantly to grow. The situation is the same well described 85 years ago by Churchill: "... if it stopped or were reversed, there would be the catastrophe of unimaginable horror. Mankind has gone too far to go back, and is moving too fast to stop. There are too many people maintained, not merely in comfort but in existence, by processes unknown a century ago, for us to afford even a temporary check, still less a general setback, without experiencing calamity in its most frightful form." Consider that at that time the world population was less than one third of the present one.

This same mechanism automatically rewards whoever proposes any idea to continue this trend, even the most absurd. In many cases, it will find more easily the financing for its research, will be divulged by the media, and will gather many supporters and enthusiasts on internet.

Even a phenomenon like CF/LENR, whose reality has been nearly unanimously denied by mainstream science a few months after its appearance, can find many individuals and private or public organizations ready to support it in a spontaneous way, each one with his specific motivations and purposes. That's what I meant with diverse reasons. They look as being coordinated, but they are just following a stream, as leaves on a river.

Of course such a stream needs to be maintained in some way, but usually it is done by financing the initiatives from the top, nearly all the rest happens spontaneously. If a project is funded with 10 M$ yearly, there will be about 100-500 scientists, depending where they live, willing to work on it. This aphorism from Stan Szpak (1) describes the situation: "scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe." That's of course an exaggeration, and it doesn't apply to the majority of the scientists, but it's true that if you need 100 scientist to work on a certain project, and you have the funds, you will find them. This is less socially acceptable when it involves people, as academicians or other researchers working in other public institutions, whose income is guaranteed for life, so as to make them less economically conditionable.

Quote

Dozens? Come now. Levi and Focardi [...] Who else?

In an answer to a similar question on ecn (2), I counted 14 academicians, considering only the ones who assisted at the tests held in Italy or Sweden. You should add all the other physicists, or equivalent experts, who assisted at the tests held in the USA, including Melich, and those who declared to be anyway convinced of the reality of some unusual phenomena (excess heat or gamma bursts) generated by the Ecat, for instance Josephson, Celani, and some others at NASA and DoD units. You can also add those who declared to have replicated the Rossi effects, at least those who have some scientific degree. And what to say about the people from NASA and other aerospace industries that imagined the future of air transport powered by the Ecat?

Quote

Essen and Kullander were sympathetic, but were careful to say more measurements were needed.

Of course. Nearly all the researchers will say that more researches are needed, as well as those that know that the device doesn't function. You can't distinguish each others only on this base.

Quote

there is nothing remarkable about a tabletop device producing 12 kW out without any input at all.

We are talking about LENR device, and hence of the alleged excess heat with respect to any conventional and identifiable energy source. Of course.

Quote

Widely reported in some major media? The vast majority of people (at least outside Italy and Sweden) have not even heard of the story. That's not widely reported.

The "some major media" include Popular Mechanics, printed in millions of copy in many English speaking countries, Science&Vie pour la francophonie, and many other magazines readable worldwide (Wired, Forbes, ecc). For the other countries, FWIK, there is NyTeknik in Sweden, and Focus and Panorama in Italy, but if you want a more complete picture you can regularly follow the AlainCo scoop site (3).

Finally, the most important contribution for the revival of the popular expectations about fusion energy came recently from TIME Magazine, which, in November 2015, dedicated the cover and a long article to the subject, citing also the Industrial Heat.

Anyway, the mediatic pressure has been sufficient to raise many public and parliamentary petitions and queries to the governments of some countries in order to further support the field, up to the last and most important, the query of the US House of Representatives to the DoD.

Quote

You exaggerate to support your whacky theory ....

Google doesn't provide me a translation of "whacky". Somewhere else I find an assimilation with "stupid". I don't know if that was your intention. Anyway, I hope that you don't keep on using this kind of arguments as you did many times on ecn (4). I think you are able to expose your opinions in a plain and polite English.

(1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg97821.html"
(2) http://ecatnews.com/?p=2686&cpage=9#comment-145860
(3) http://www.scoop.it/t/lenr-revolution-in-process-cold-fusion
(4) http://ecatnews.com/?p=2686&cpage=6#comment-144109