Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified)

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
One aspect of that work (on heat/helium) had escaped notice

That's not true. It was widely noted by McKubre and others. Miles is usually given credit for doing groundbreaking research in this. I wrote about his work in 1997.

You have done some good work on helium, but don't give yourself credit for rediscovering something that no one forgot, or downplayed.

Thanks. First of all, Miles deserves a Nobel Prize. Secondly, McKubre was doing his job, and did it well. Third, I was not talking about the discovery of heat/helium. However, it is true that I found it was not being given adequate attention. So I started talking with Storms about it, and he wrote a paper and submitted it to Naturwissenschaften. The original paper was on heat/helium. They asked him for a review of the whole field. Hence his 2010 paper.

I wasn't writing about that. I was writing about the recovery, in electrochemical experiments, of all the generated helium, by running reverse electrolysis. I have not talked with Violante for some time, but it appears that both Violante and McKubre did not realize what they had done. Violante showed the Laser-3 result, "on the money," and was criticized by Krivit for that. In a later presentation (but before Krivit attacked), Violante added a note: anodic erosion (I forget the exact words). Eventually, I asked him about it. Yes, he had run reverse electrolysis for an hour at full current. McKubre had also run reverse electrolysis as part of his effort to "flush" helium from the cathode (at lower current). Those were the only two results that showed close to the 23.8 MeV theoretical number.

But reverse electrolysis was used to accelerate deloading and to clean the cathode, in an attempt to stimulate more heat. The Laser-3 result had the lowest heat findings. What I did was to notice the obvious, that had not been noticed. Both McKubre and Violante are working on the Texas Tech/ENEA heat/helium project, and I'm told I'll get credit.

As you might remember, when I started suggesting more work on heat/helium, there were some who thought it unnecessary. I saw it as fundamental work, never done with adequate precision and the benefit of the full history. I pointed out that heat/helium is the only direct evidence of not only a heat anomaly, but if its nuclear nature. Yes, there is tritium, but it is a million times down from helium, and not consistently reported, and never well-correlated with heat. (It should be, but that's a detail). And there are even some neutrons -- about a million times down from tritium.

Look, my point is only that someone can come into the field, with little related experience, and through extensive work, in a few years, make a difference.

You, by the way, have also made a difference, over a longer period of time, with your translation and editing work, and with your hosting of lenr-canr.org, Without an archive like that, my own work would have been much more difficult. And you were generous with me, as were Storms, McKubre and others. It takes a community. So congratulations and thanks...

Quote from Shane D.

Abd,

My point was that the qualification for being an insider should not require knowing a secret, or being on an NDA.

It seems as if more in the field (as McKubre lectured on) are interested in advancing themselves, and their place in the LENR hierarchy by collecting, and holding secrets, than advancing the science.

If one does the work, to become knowledgeable, and starts to make contributions to the field, and is noticed, one may be offered information, and some of this information will confidential. I was offered an NDA by Defkalion. The terms were too strong, unnecessarily so, so I declined. I have signed no NDAs. However, people are telling me things, expecting confidence.

Honestly, it's difficult to not disclose them. It runs against my grain. I talk about *everything*, in my life, if not for one fact, there would be none at all. Or almost none. That one fact is that others are involved, who do want certain things to not be discussed.

Because I want them to be free to talk with me -- my daughter, for example -- I need to be careful and not ... her word is "blab."

My opinion is that excessive secrecy has harmed and continues to harm the field. So I'll be working on that. However, the players are free. They have the right to secrets. How to negotiate this, then, is a task, to discover what is possible, given the conditions of the real world. My training is that anything is possible.

Most involved with the field think that nothing can be done about this, they are resigned to "that's the way it is." That's understandable, that is very ordinary thinking.

My training is to be extraordinary. And anyone is welcome to join me, this is not a contest, and "extraordinary" does not mean being superior.

However, it does bring great joy.

So, in the work I do, which might as well be called "play," I will be looking for common benefit. The question will not be whether secrets are good or bad, but what can be gained by sharing information? How can this be done, without giving away the farm, so to speak?

Quote from IH Fanboy

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Now, who wants to be a part of the future? I am talking real science, not fuzzy and vague results that can be debated ad nauseum.

Good post Abd. I can identify with your optimism. And I actually somewhat agree with this last sentence (which clearly refers to Rossi).

Thanks.

Nope. That was not written as a Rossi reference!

Rossi generated results that were, on the face, not vague at all. Until one looked at details, unaddressed issues. What Rossi was doing was not science. It was something else. Key to science is independent confirmation, and "independent" has a strong meaning. There are exceptions, but only with strong reasons, i.e., if you need the Large Hadron Collider to do some experiment, not just anyone can do it! But these are collaborations involving hundreds of researchers.

Fraud is not normally, in science, on the table as an option for consideration, because fraud with professional scientists is very rare. Fraud can be tempting. With just a little fudging of results, one has a paper that may be accepted! Nobody will know, this is obscure, who will find out? And there goes a career, years of work, toast. Error is something else, very common. Many original papers are never confirmed, which may indicate error, or may simply be that nobody took enough interest, or if they did, they found nothing interesting yet did not publish. That creates the file-drawer effect, by the way, and is one of the afflictions of the LENR field.

For an entrepreneur, however, exaggeration is more or less normal. Notice how ready Planet Rossi is to assume that, with an $89 million motivation, IH would lie and cheat. Turn that around!

At this point, Rossi is claiming fraud in a lawsuit, asking for triple damages. Fraud is very much on the table. For most people, and for a long time, Fraud has been an Occam's Razor explanation for Rossi's behavior. It is not such for IH behavior, and the only fraud alleged in the suit was a claimed statement of Darden and Vaughn, in 2012, that Cherokee Partners would pay the $89 million.

(Do people know that such a statement is not enforceable by the Statute of Frauds? Did Rossi know? Did he consult an attorney? My guess is that Rossi does not trust attorneys, but only himself. He wrote the Agreement, almost entirely, my sense, how could there be anything wrong with it?)

Occam's Razor is not a logical argument, it is a heuristic. Simplicity of explanation is subjective. However, we all use Occam's Razor, routinely. The problem arises when we think that what is consistent with our personal world-view is "simpler," and for us, it is. The cold fusion results were not consistent -- it appeared at the time -- with known physics. Therefore "they must be doing something wrong" (Garwin, 60 Minutes, 2009). That is ordinary thinking, Garwin is not stupid. Just not practicing science at that point, and not self-aware, or, if he is, not disclosing it. I like Garwin. I also like Rossi. People who think I hate Rossi are projecting.

And I know that I will never build the world I see as possible with hatred.

Quote from Wyttenbach

(together with your alias user Cole)

Okay, sysadmin here should have access to server logs and IP/user agent string information, for anyone even just reading the site. But that's a mountain of data, looking for posts would be easier. I consent to release of any such information for me. These accusations of "paid FUD" and "sock puppetry" are highly offensive, and should not be tolerated without deliberated necessity. I am a known person, long-term, with a reputation for integrity. I created one sock puppet on Wikipedia, as a test, but never as a "sock" in the normal sense, i.e., to create an illusion of independent support for me, it was a test of defenses, and it revealed the conditions present on Wikipedia. Arbitrators were not neutral, they were involved and willing to use their tools selectively, and contrary to policy. That activity was entirely disclosed on Wikiversity in the study I was running, and that is still there.

There are a number of users here whose entire activity seems to be to make accusations like this. Most sites would ban them in a flash. The activity of these users makes this a site that, contrary to the tagline, cannot be trusted.

Quote from Wyttenbach

To my best guess: IH will fade away soon, as nobody will be willing to invest anymore money in a company, whose credibility is sole based on a few, well paid, bloggers...

Well paid? Well, in satisfaction, perhaps. In cash? So far, I have received, and some years ago, about $350, in small donations of not more than $100 each, as toward my expenses for attending ICCF-18 in Missouri. Last year, I received a substantial sum offered in appreciation for my writing. About cold fusion? No. About Wikipedia. The payment had nothing to do with cold fusion but I was asked to review a web site, but that was not ready yet. And there has been no follow-up. It was basically an excuse to give me money -- but this reminds me to check with the donor. This was about what I'd written in private email, in a correspondence including a Nobel Prize winner. One of the benefits of working in this field is that I get to meet -- and be trusted by -- such people, I am asked for advice. What is that worth?

Now, IH already may be effectively shut down. Its only substantial asset, the Rossi License, was assigned to a Dutch company formed by the same people (which is named in the lawsuit.) IH also owns the 1 MW reactor, and all information generated from it, and the fuel and the ash, something which Rossi may have forgotten when he -- we suspect -- took ash, we think without permission, and gave it to someone to analyze, who arranged the analysis, and who wrote a report on it that was then leaked.

Or it wasn't ash provided, but salt.

Darden and Vaughn, when Woodford offered $50 million, arranged for it to be placed in a new partnership designed for that, located in the UK, where Woodford is. I.e., it's easily accessible to legal process from Woodford, if they want. But not touchable by Rossi. This is quite clear to me: IH and Woodford knew exactly what they were doing. IH fully informed Woodford of what was happening with Rossi, and what was later revealed publicly in the press release on the lawsuit and in the Note to the Motion for Dismissal. For them not to do so would expose them to civil liability, at least.

Hence Woodford has knowingly invested in a very risky field. Back in 2012, I was told by an industrialist, very credible, that if there were sound proposals, there was plenty of money for research and development. When Darden and Vaughn assured Rossi of payment, if he delivered on the Agreement, they were not exaggerating, this was not puffery.

If I were asked by an investor about this field, I would suggest that to even begin to get commercially interesting results might take $1 billion. To start. However, that's premature. I would suggest investing, if it can be afforded, in pure science, at this time, and a reason would be a multiplier effect. As there is solid, nail-down confirmation work, published in the journal system, funding floodgates will open. My worry, in fact, is that much of this will be wasted if this comes too soon.

There is more money than that $50 million, waiting for demonstrated need. My work is moving toward identifying what is most needed, from a scientific point of view. I found a "target" and wrote about it, and that work is being done and is, I've been told, fully funded. They have what they need, so it's a matter of doing the work -- which is not trivial, cold fusion has always been difficult, but ... there are people involved who have done it many times, so I fully expect useful results. This is not speculative work, it's not only confirmation, but confirmation with increased precision, by design, over what has already been independently confirmed with less precision.

So, then, what's next? And that's what I'm working on. Rossi has been a huge distraction. If he has something real, he has two paths to acceptance, should acceptance be what he wants (he may not want it, which would be part of an explanation for his behavior). He can release a product that anyone can test (his "the market will decide" claim), or he can provide prototypes for fully independent verification, and yes, those can be under a careful NDA -- which should be public, not itself concealed and hidden. The NDA should be written so that any trade secrets are protected, but nothing other than that. The reactor can be a "black box." but ... Rossi should not be allowed to touch the reactor, or even to be present where it is operating. He could watch by video, he could answer questions, but ... no touch. This is actually standard independent confirmation, which can take place in stages, as McKubre has outlined. In the first steps, the original claimant can be fully present, guiding the replicator in every detail, including those not previously covered in writing (and such are often a factor, perhaps unrecognized even by the originator). All that gets documented, then the replicator does the work, now fully independent, and the originator stays away, other than by, properly, formal communication, in writing or with phone transcript.

Otherwise it's not science, it's privately controlled demonstration. And I'm writing beyond my own intention, here, but I'm not deleting this. Why bother? If there is damage, it is in wasted time, which isn't much for a post like this, being entirely written without further research. Consider the posts here on Rossi's Memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Those took days to write, with, then, complaints from Planet Rossi that they were too long: Okay, executive summary, a prediction (which is not really a summary of the research, which goes into points of law and fact from the Complaint, rather this is a prediction from what I found).

The judge will dismiss all counts but Count 1, and Rossi will be allowed to amend the Complaint to allege estoppel on the matter of signature and other defects. It then becomes an issue of fact (about behavior of IH), not law (the formal defects pointed out by IH).

You saw it here. I will be right or wrong, and either way, I win, because I learn.

An attorney is aware of the work that I did, and told me it was sound and that, were I the Judge's clerk (you don't think that judges do that work by themselves do you?) she might listen. But I'm not the judge's clerk. I'm told that judges hate to be reversed on appeal, so the judge will be extremely careful, in both directions. My sense is that if she rules and advises as noted, neither side will appeal, and if they do, the judge's decision will be upheld. I am certain about one thing: I will not be cited as an authority!

I am also told that the elapsed time -- it's been about three weeks since the interchange of formal arguments -- is not excessive. At about four weeks, the parties will start to get antsy! Do they prepare for discovery? On what claims? Discovery is expensive.

Quote from JedRothwell

I do not think reverse electrolysis was overlooked. I remember Mike talking about it, and pointing out that it was a method of driving out the remaining helium. Other more drastic methods include melting the metal or dissolving it in acid.

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I wasn't writing about that. I was writing about the recovery, in electrochemical experiments, of all the generated helium, by running reverse electrolysis. I have not talked with Violante for some time, but it appears that both Violante and McKubre did not realize what they had done.

Ah. You mean that the reverse electrolysis was an overlooked aspect of the helium studies. Not that helium itself was overlooked.

I do not think reverse electrolysis was overlooked. I remember Mike talking about it, and pointing out that it was a method of driving out the remaining helium. Other more drastic methods include melting the metal or dissolving it in acid.

Jed, you are actually showing the thinking that overlooked the effect. McKubre was thinking of "driving out" the helium by flushing the helium, he used the term "sloshing." However, that doesn't work. Helium is not moved by deuterium loading/deloading. Apparently not at all.

What worked was removing the surface layer, thus exposing the grain boundaries where helium is trapped, so it is released.

Jed, I have it from McKubre that this was a new thought.

Anodic reversal was thought of as a method of accelerating deloading (which it will do). "driving the helium out." It is not driven out. The cage is dismantled. The bird flies away. All the whooshing with a bellows had no effect, the bird could not fly if she wanted to, until the cage was taken apart, then she simply did what was natural.

I'm saying that it is obvious, but that is obvious in hindsight. I did not "get it" on first reading. Krivit certainly was clueless, thought of it all as part of the "fusion" conspiracy, which is a great demonstration of how fixed conclusions blind us.

The use of anodic erosion in the Violante work (Apicella et al, 2005) was not documented at first, and was only a cryptic reference, two words as I recall, appended on a slide at a talk. To my knowledge, nobody had connected this with SRI M4.

Krivit had not asked Violante about it, rather, by the time I think he noticed this, he had thoroughly alienated Violante, accusing him of data alteration, when it was Krivit who had misread the data, with a total bonehead error. In fact, Krivit's entire analysis was based on many errors, such as not realizing that the Violante data included background, atmospheric helium was not excluded, so this was all elevation above background. (Which was brilliant, by the way.)

In a way, I don't blame him. It was easy to overlook details. I had to read the report many times to understand it. However, jumping from an appearance to accusations of data fraud was way, way premature. But Krivit wants his Story. And, we think, if you want to look for someone paid to present bias, look there. He shut down his nonprofit, I can speculate, because it was becoming too obvious, from the reports, that he was supported by a single large source, and it's quite obvious who that might be.

This, however, probably has nothing to do with his attacks on Rossi. That's his personality. His funding source may or may not agree with that, it seems unclear to me. Hey, if I were hired by IH to attack Rossi, I'd not give a penny to Krivit. He adds nothing, though he did a bit of decent work back in 2011. After that, it's all flag-waving, sometimes beating a dead horse.

I do expect to develop a relationship with IH, which should be obvious from my declared goals: to identify worthwhile research projects and support them. This is the irony here: I might be told by my board that I'm wasting time writing for the blogs. And I might tell them to fuck off, I'm not being paid enough to require that kind of control over my free time. And then we would have a conversation, and we would come to an agreement. That's how the real world operates, with intelligent, self-expressed people.

"Not being paid enough." What I will actually be paid is unclear, it might be, legally, nothing. Only expenses, and that is enough for me. My reward is with reality, itself. Thanks, Reality! You are the Best Boss Ever!!!

Quote from Shane D.

Well, is their anything to be gained by LENR researchers not sharing information? I doubt it. Coordinating is always better from a scientific standpoint.

This opinion is not necessarily 'scientific." Scientists are also motivated like other humans by "looking good" and "avoiding looking bad."

I know, for example, of planned research where the researcher doesn't want it revealed. It's an interesting idea he has. Why doesn't he want it revealed? I haven't asked, but this is very common. If he announces it, perhaps someone else would do it first. For "science" that should be good news, we think. But this ignores the social aspects of science. Or perhaps he fears some retaliation, he's at a university, and his work might come under attack. Summary: he would rather be in control.

There is a researcher who has published some results on his own web site. They are of high interest. I asked for some details, and he would not provide them, he was still investigating, he wrote. In other words, he does not want to reveal the details, what he already knows. Why? Well, again, he hasn't said explicitly. There are possible commercial implications, and I do know that in the past he has done work that was never published because his funding didn't want it published, or the results were not considered "interesting." (Which then sets up the file-drawer effect, my position is to encourage publication of all results, even if only on the internet, and no conclusory claims are necessary, just actual results. We did X and we saw Y.)

As well, suppose that his result was artifact. He'd rather discover that himself, than have artifact in his own work be found by someone else first. Again, very understandable, this is all what is called, in my training, the realm of survival.

... and the world of survival is utterly inadequate to generate transformation. But we do not create transformation by attacking survival responses as bad and wrong. That would be, in fact, a hidden survival agenda, our own. Hey, if the world does not transform, we are all gonna die! So all those people out there better straighten up and fly right!

No. It starts right here in River City. First of all, we are all going to die anyway. Big deal! Get over it! Secondly, survival is necessary for there to be anything to transform. It's a foundation. And I could go on and on.... but won't.

Quote from Hermes

With the greatest respect Abd perhaps you would explain why you are reluctant to join others yet you expect others to join you? What exactly are your qualifications? You claim to be a coach and a writer? What scientific papers have you published? Do you have any scientific experience experience? Why do you not attend more LENR meetings?

Well, I was writing an answer, but the browser crashed, which happens fairly often on lenr-forum, the software is buggy. Right now, it's asking me to log in again, but ... I'm obviously logged in. It knows who I am. The "login again" message has no link, and the sdcreen displays who I am, and if I got to a new page, it still displays that. Buggy. I'll stand with that. And it has been this way for a long time. So, some Rossi-style answers, only Rossi would probably delete the questions.

1. Why are you reluctant, Hermes, to open your mind and consider that I might possibly be joining with others, routinely, daily, profusely? it's part of my approach. I am actually inviting people (not "expecting") to join with me in this joining. I.e., join with the scientific and human community.

2. I am a recognized coach, invited to serve as such by masters of it. My success has been measured by the success of my participants, which is little short of awesome. Naw, not short of it at all. I am a writer, isn't that obvious?

3. I've been published many times, but in a scientific journal, the first piece that approached that was published in Byte Magazine, in 1977. The title reveals much about me and what was attracting me then. Then I was published last year, first time in a peer-reviewed journal. You can find the reference on lenr-canr.org and the pdf is available from the journal, Current Science.

4. I did the Mossbauer experiment at Cal Tech in 1962-63 sometime, my physics professor was Feynman, a major inspiration for me. However, I do not present myself as a scientist, but as a writer and sometimes a coach. I'm also a very successful parent, proud of my children. Though I'm 72, with 7 children and 6 grandchildren, I'm currently living with a 14-year-old highly self-expressed teenage girl, call her #6, so, why not? I sometimes talk like her. She is having fun, why shouldn't I? (If I talked to her like these self-important stuffed shirts write about me, she'd become, ah ... "difficult" is the world. She doesn't take shit from anyone. Not even me. My daughter! -- buttons pop off of my shirt! Anyway, the real scientists in LENR often refer to me as "Dr. Lomax" until I thank them and correct them, as I have no degree.

5. Funding. Offering any? I was supported to attend ICCF-18, but it still cost me, personally, about half, with costs being reduced to a minimum. ICCF-19, I could not travel unless there was funding for my daughter to travel with me. And I didn't go for it. As to this year in Japan, it's quite expensive. I've discussed it with my advisors and the conclusions is that the value is not enough to be worth the cost and time. Instead, I will be travelling this year to meet people, probably only in the U.S. I also went to one or two MIT Colloquia, I forget. I also attended an international meeting at SRI in California in 2012, at McKubre's invitation. That was well worth what it took. My expense, but Mike bought me dinner.

Now that you have answers, Hermes, you are welcome to suck eggs or whatever gets you off. I was an undergrad at Cal Tech, and most people have no clue how those who are on that level talk to each other. These kids have to be trained to be polite, because "polite speech" is not the norm.

I am, here, representing only myself, and wondering why I bother. Someone tell me if there is any value to this. Mostly, my training tells me to GTFO of Dodge.

Quote from Hermes

In contrast some speculation about science is likely to be much more productive. Nature is not going to reveal her secrets if we wait passively. As you are facilitating access to research funds I wonder what investigations you are recommending? Who is advising you? In your opinion, what scientific questions need answering, and what sort of experiments will answer them?

So, setting aside the crap at the top, some real questions here.

1. Speculation about science, LENR, at this point, is likely to be a waste of time, because the experimental evidence is too shallow, and is also contaminated by error, incomplete work (quite understandable given the funding limitations that developed) and even fraud.

2. Nature reveals what she chooses, when she chooses, and how she chooses. However, she rewards love and attention. And like any woman, she hates it when we tell her how she should be behaving, and loves it when we appreciate her as she is, which will always incorporate a level of mystery.

3. I have put serious effort, so far, into only one investigation, the confirmation of the heat/helium ratio with the FP Heat Effect (which I prefer to narrowly define rather than to extend to, say, gas-loading). That effort having succeeded, it appears (though it is in progress, it appears to be adequately funded), I am now looking for what is next. In my paper I pointed to the dual-laser teraherz beat-frequency stimulation work of Dennis Letts. I suspect that this may already be funded, but that requires inquiry into what is often secret. I'll be looking at that, and it is not impossible I will visit Dennis, that was planned last year but didn't happen, my car's engine blew up.... Stuff Happens, eh? So I have two reasons to visit Texas. Here is an executive decision: I'll go there if the visits are accepted.

There has been recent work announced by Dr. Storms which raises implications of high importance to the basic understanding of the effect, so I will be looking at that. As with Letts' work, there is no independent confirmation yet, so this would not be Phase I work. Phase I work is to confirm what has already been confirmed, with increased precision and publication in the journal system, as recommended by both U.S. DoE reviews. The heat/helium work will probably provide better data on NAE location, because the helium more or less stays put, within less than a micron, unless it is close enough to the surface to escape directly. So with controlled etch, they may get some helium profile information, which will help. NAE location is a fundamental issue, of high import in theory formation.

There would then be work to identify low-energy photon emission, and to the extent of developing a spectrum. This is going to be difficult work. There is already evidence for such emission, say in the fogging of X-ray film. But when is it emitted? How is it correlated with heat? The spectrum may reveal nuclear transitions responsible. And then this has an obvious impact on theory. But this is not the most important work.

The most important work is toward understanding the conditions that allow the reaction. As this is done, as reliability is increased, then the rest of the work becomes easier. So I will be looking at what work has already been done, and what is established by it.

ome of what has been commonly assumed has been challenged by Dr. Storms' recent results. He has shown an indication that high loading is not necessary for the reaction itself, that it only helps set up the necessary condition, which is the formation of NAE (through stressing the palladium); once NAE is created, the reaction continues if the temperature is maintained. That finding, again, represents something that, with hindsight, is almost a no-brainer as something to test. But it had not, to my knowledge, been tested! Then, again, Storms has claimed that, once nuclear-active, a cathode may be removed from the cell, cleaned (I think by washing it with nitric acid), stored, and then, later, replaced in the cell, and loaded to some level, it is immediately active. If so, this has huge implications for further research. (It would create a reliable experiment!) Because these are findings that should be relatively easy to test, this might be a project to be supported, whether through Dr. Storms, or someone else, ... or, better, both.

There is a major "scientific question" that I am not working on, and that is the "explanation," i.e., the actual reaction mechanism. This is where almost everyone goes at first. Cold fusion, WTF?

Rather, my focus is on what has been found, what is known, and what has been allegedly seen that is in doubt, that might be artifact, that can be questioned. And then facilitating research to nail these findings down -- or to identify the artifacts. Basic science, really. What should have been done, and fully supported, from 1989 on. Better late than never.

Not a crash program of research into commercial application, which was way, way premature, and which was properly rejected by both U.S. DoE reviews. Let me put it this way: in both reviews, something was missing from the question asked, the charge to both panels. We will not make that mistake again.