I was wrong about Rossi, but what I fear most is that I might be partly right

  • Of course, owners of private forums have the right to delete anything they chose. But, in this case, Alan, it's a cowardly act worthy of a bully that you choose to edit a post out of existence rather than reply to it. That type of moderation makes this board a puppet [to use Rossi's hilarious take on this word] of believers such as the ones who continually brownnose Rossi.


    Mary it could be worse. When I was expelled from a nuclear energy site for my support of LENR, my 1000s of brilliant posts were all removed and the total sum of my accumulated wisdom was erased from history. So Sad. Yes, I have scarified much for LENR. Any yet I feel that these shared sorrows are drawing us closer together.

  • Quote

    Mary it could be worse. When I was expelled from a nuclear energy site for my support of LENR, my 1000s of brilliant posts were all removed and the total sum of my accumulated wisdom was erased from history. So Sad. Yes, I have scarified much for LENR. Any yet I feel that these shared sorrows are drawing us closer together.


    Axil, I disagree with almost all you write in forums but in this case, I sympathize. Such an act was completely unconscionable and reflects terribly badly on the owners of that forum. To repeat what I said before, it's both cowardly and bullying to do that sort of thing. Also unconscionable.

  • @Dan21 thank you for summarizing the problems with the report. Yes I have said from the beginning that there is no such thing like real trueRMS meter. When you have nonsymmetric or spiky signal, some meters gets closer to than others.


    Also this IR measurements with translucent alumina is questionable and discussed to death by TC and ranombit0 already. Thing they even missed was that you in my guess get more sources of error if reaction itself emits some energy as IR-light trough alumina (but then Rossi effect would be real, wouldn't it).


    As response to Jed, I tend to agree that measurements were at least not very carefully performed, maybe being hastly set up knowing Rossis difficult temper.


    Second question is what is maximum error for meters used with this waveform? I think I read few months back in Cobra forum about one simulation, which could prove remarkable error maybe factor of two even to be conservative (if we consider misplaced ammeter wires also).


    What I learned from IR-measurements during debate mentioned translucency makes measurements more difficult and there is room for error if you use book values of emissivity instead of values from calibration run. I also saw concrete problems by following MFMP clowstick video stream. But all in all IR-measurements in this setup, could be broblematic and requires good care and calibration to get them more accurate. Still the error margins are limited as long as you look carefully where you point the IR-meter. I can't recall the exact figures from the debate mentioned.


    So yes I still conclude (just my layman conclusions from top of my memory):
    - Some reports can not guarantee COP>1, while at least one report cannot be explained by errors in measurements (Even all errors included COP would be >1)
    - Early tests were not made following best practices and authors should not be proud to sign them. As I have said many times I don't give too much emphasis on what was demonstrated/tested/said by Rossi in earlier phases since he had rather big urgency to scare competition away and keep them unfunded to play more time for his own E-cat development. Remember low temp e-cats, poor controllability and slow activation etc. Does this test show Penon to be 'certified idiot' as Jed says? To me no, the nature of the tests was so different compared to 1 year test.
    - If ERV is to be trusted and it shows COP ~50 you can forget about max TrueRMS errors, flowmeter installation positions etc, unless IH can prove that something fraudent was done by purpose (tampered or swapped flowmeters or Clearly fabricated numbers etc.)


    I hope this clarfies why I still keep 'open mind leaning on LENR is real' on this, and as you see I didn't even mention recent leaked fuel analysis since anyone knowledgeable enough can invent those so that they seem to reflect real reactions.

  • Complete nonsense. The main cost of hot fusion projects is the complex and giant hardware and supporting infrastructure. The approach is far from ridiculous in that it is absolutely known to work in theory and within stars (Longview's emphasis, to Mary's disclaimer with respect to our Sun). LENR on the other hand, is arguably unproven and except for claims for small energy levels which are at best indeterminate, there is no convincing evidence that anyone has obtained any energy or made it work. I know many of you disagree and I won't debate the small (and useless) levels claimed. It's too unclear and difficult. But I can tell you that sustained, replicable power production by LENR at the kilowatt level has never been proven to exist. Power production at high level by hot fusion is a reality.


    So the danger of assembling a larger device such as Swartz has shown, may well be in the ability to dissipate the heat produced so that no portion of such a device should exceed the optimal operating point ("OOP", here generally a COP of 6 up to perhaps 2 to 3X that). The OOP also likely corresponds to power levels likely to destroy the device.


    It should have been obvious but I will spell it out. My criteria for high power LENR are >100W continuous output (or continuous average output) at a "COP" (power ratio out/in) >6 sustained for an order of magnitude longer than required to prove without a doubt that the energy produced was neither stored nor made with a battery or chemicals. Of course, larger numbers are even better. I don't give a flea's fart for peak power during brief periods or for "power density".


    So now we only have to show >100 watts, but suddenly there appears other added criteria .... One can easily imagine that George / Mary can change his/her prescription of what is necessary "proof" almost as easily as the change of gender. And from such an authoritative source!


    Hot Fusion, another measure of its "efficiency" might well be facility lifetime kilowatt hours per dollar of invested capital... but since we don't have any operating breakeven examples the numbers there are likely infinitesimal--- or more precisely are "in the hole", negative value, that is every dollar spent loses energy. But, let's give it (say NIF, but ITER may be similar) a trial output of one gigawatt over a single NIF firing of 20 nanoseconds.... that's 20 watt-seconds or 5.55 mW hours. And what did that cost for a "lifetime" of shots? Generously assuming a billion (10^9) shots before a complete overhaul is necessary, at a generously low cost estimate of one million dollars. Excluding all the 10s of billions of dollars and decades of "preliminary" capital expenses--- just looking at the recurring and overhaul cost, that is mainly (I guess) refurbishing all the silicon carbide tiles lining the reactor and storing or otherwise decaying them out as hazardous rad-waste over the various isotopic product half-lives. For those billion "shots" that is 5550 kW hours for a recurring expense of a million $US.... or about $180 per kW-hour. So that is quite a deal for someone, isn't it? But not the consumer / ratepayer, I suspect.


    Hopefully we can get some real numbers to plug in for my guesses above. Such as an NIF "shot" time, the lifetime of the reactor wall, the cost of the tiling on those walls, the decay times for the "hot" tiles, the duration and peak output powers of an NIF firing as it is projected. And finally the amortized present value of the capital invested in a projected working HF facility, irrespective of the maintenance and renovation costs.

  • Quote

    So the danger of assembling a larger device such as Swartz has shown, may well be in the ability to dissipate the heat produced so that no portion of such a device should exceed the optimal operating point ("OOP", here generally a COP of 6 up to perhaps 2 to 3X that). The OOP also likely corresponds to power levels likely to destroy the device.


    Well, first of all, one can dissipate huge amounts of heat with proper heat transfer design of forced cooling systems. Cars do it all the time as do nuclear fission reactors, on a huge scale. Second, Rossi has never shown a properly designed cooling system on a hot cat. In fact, his designs use only radiation and convection of ambient air for cooling-- not very effective compared to cooling by fast flowing fluids, for example liquid metals. Finally, destroying the device in a nice fat explosion would be good evidence that LENR worked. Just measure the yield and do it out in the desert so nobody is hurt. You don't see anybody doing that, do you? It's just claims and guesses that the device would be destroyed by a fusion reaction.


    As to hot fusion, I have no idea about your critique but even if it's valid, it doesn't say anything at all about cold fusion/LENR. Does it?


    OK, Longview, so you don't like my criteria for demonstrating high power LENR. What are yours?

  • Krivit at New Energy Times called it in 2011 and he deserves much credit for this.


    I think a lesson here should be to not trust a convicted criminal with a long history of lies and fraudulent scientific claims, and no scientific education/credentials.


    I decided rossi was a fraud back in 2009 or 2010, on the basis of his pathetic life story, garbage patent application and refusal to publish scentific articles on his device.


    The

  • Finally, destroying the device in a nice fat explosion would be good evidence that LENR worked.


    Not really Mary. Very hard to estimate the yield from a bang. Anyway, I can do a bang no problem using Nickel Oxide and Alumimium/Lithium. The general effect is like the picture below - the Ash even contains the correct ingredients- but not the right isotope mix. But it's just 1 gram of chemicals.


    ETA. The evolved heat/temperature profiles look NOTHING like LENR.

  • The rossi scam was easily detectable. The LENR community should be embarrassed that they fell for it for so long.


    Makes me wonder how many others in this field are also selling a bullshit story. brillouin comes to mind.


    This kind of attitude is partly what reinforces the rejection of skeptical comments. It is a shaming and superior position. It is as if you are saying: "I'm not an idiot like all of you. You should feel bad for being so stupid." People read this and quickly reject your criticism because of the tone and lack of factual arguments. Everyone can be fooled. If you don't think you can, just wait. :)

  • MY said [ Finally, destroying the device in a nice fat explosion would be good evidence that LENR worked.]


    Well Mary, it worked for Papp. Just think if he (like Rossi) had a superduper E-Papp-X engine. He would have had the first privately owned nuclear submarine.

  • Jack Cole


    But but but.... nothing was more easily detectable than Rossi's fraud, simply from his background and his demonstrations, his treatment of Krivit, and on and on and indeed most of the LENR community missed it. You take issue with that? The guy was interesting in January 2011 but he had become a clear-cut crook by September. And that includes giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt. Most people are very poor at detecting cons and frauds which is why there are so many. Most network TV and radio ads are fraudulent or at least highly misleading to one degree or another and yet they work. People are easily fooled. The very wishful LENR community all the more so.


    @Rigel LOL. Papp was so obvious, it is as amazing that he fooled anyone as it is that Rossi or Defkalion (or Steorn and the other recent free energy schemes) fooled people.

  • But but but.... nothing was more easily detectable than Rossi's fraud, simply from his background and his demonstrations, his treatment of Krivit, and on and on and indeed most of the LENR community missed it. You take issue with that? The guy was interesting in January 2011 but he had become a clear-cut crook by September. And that includes giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt. Most people are very poor at detecting cons and frauds which is why there are so many. Most network TV and radio ads are fraudulent or at least highly misleading to one degree or another and yet they work. People are easily fooled. The very wishful LENR community all the more so.


    I disagree that it was so easy to detect. It all depends on your view of human nature. It only necessitates that you believe either one of the following: 1) people can change or 2) people can be falsely accused and persecuted. All along the way, it was evidently clear to me that it was possible that either AR was correct, a scammer, or self-deceiving. There were enough experts saying they thought the E-cat worked to make it seem possible. Also, the results of Brillouin and others with NiH made it seem possible. Indeed, AR himself can really seem genuine, philosophically deep, and apparently introspective. Some people are extremely talented and fooling others. I know it was obvious to you, and ordinarily it would have been to me, but there seemed to be additional complexities.


    On the other hand, I personally would have never invested money in Leonardo Corp on the basis of any test done so far. It would not be a bad business policy to follow exactly the approach you advocate. It would eliminate the shenanigans, and force inventors to do a scientifically credible demonstration before receiving funding.

  • Prematurely calling the end of Rossi / Leonardo bears remarkable similarity to those who prematurely called the end to low-power cold fusion. The ending of this story has yet to be written. It could be years before we have any kind of finality.

  • about Rossi, many LENr supporters were uncertain.
    I moved from dubious to fairly confident (because of Darden).
    The error of nay-beleivers is double :
    - first they refuse to admit LENr is just proven and needing a breakthrough to be practica. Rossi's claims are not more suprising than... ok Biofuel from trash, of goot TEG based on BiTe anisotropic structures. For 99% of skeptics, LENR is just the only reason to reject all LENR entrepreneurs.
    - Rossi's story was 100% unclear, letting many rooù for a genuine explanation f his history. he was never condemned for fraud, just for loose job and trying to save money from bankruptcy.


    the errors of the retro-mancist is that they refuse the uncertainty, and that there is some risk that , like Darden did with his money, you have to take (like trying LENR or EmDrive )... as much as there is risk you should not take (like crossing the street at red sign).
    Those who have read Taleb will appreciate.

  • Quote

    the errors of the retro-mancist is that they refuse the uncertainty, and that there is some risk that , like Darden did with his money, you have to take (like trying LENR or EmDrive )... as much as there is risk you should not take (like crossing the street at red sign).



    The reason I keep repeating it is because people like Alain and Abd keep repeating themselves in asserting that Darden acted rationally. It was fine for Darden to show an interest and consider investing in Rossi. But in fact, he could have arranged for a proper test of the ecat technology in a vastly shorter time and at a tiny fraction of the cost he already spent and he could have avoided the extra hassle and cost of legal defense. He did not act rationally. He acted stupidly, negligently, and incompetently. And he did it for the most part with other people's money. And now, he is reaping what he sowed. I imagine there will be significant negative consequences to Cherokee and Woodford funds down the line when the whole idiotic IH and Rossi story is finally sorted out. One could hope so anyway but shareholders as a group are not necessarily a bright light.