Report: E-Cat Plant Isotope Analysis Data Came From Uppsala University

  • [feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/19/report-e-cat-plant-isotope-analysis-data-came-from-uppsala-university/']On the Yahoo group New Vortex, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax has posted a document that he says contains the original fuel analysis of the 1 year E-Cat that was posted on this site earlier this month (see this thread). Lomax writes: I now have permission to upload the original file I received. The PDF shows the […][/feedquote]
  • The title of the Pettersson analysis is "Isotope composition of a fuel sample obtained from Rossi May 11, 2016". Unless there has been a mistranslation, this is presumably what goes into a reactor. As the analysis notes, it's qualitatively similar to what came out of the Lugano reactor (i.e., the ash).


    We still lack context as to what this fuel sample (assuming it's a fuel sample and not an ash sample) will be relevant to — the Lugano test, the 6-unit HotCat, the 1MW reactor, the QuarkX, etc. Lots of scope for speculation, few details necessary to pin things down.


    There is this statement from the PDF, which leaves room for doubt about whether it's the fuel or ash that is being shown: "The ICP-MS is an integrating method giving the average isotopic
    composition of the whole fuel/ash sample being analyzed."

  • first about this one analysis, nothing says it cames from the 1MW reactor (it can came from a research synchrotron, or cooked in a lab)


    anyway, both for Lugano and this "Florida" test, assuming total veracity of the claims as it was described in Lugano report, the huge uncertainty is if we are comparing isotopic ration of apple and apple-marmelade.


    take Lugano report.

    • first you take a reactor of 500g minimum, with don't know what inside.
    • then you add a powder from which you took an random sample (if well mixed few mg of ashes on µm grains are representatives - I don't challenge that yet)
    • then you cook that for a long period, with known corrosive fluid (lithium alloys) at vaporization temperature (I don't buy it, I think it was <800C as the color says).
    • then you scratch the core with all molten, condensed/solidified and get a mix of grains...
    • then you take some samples, that if well mixed is representative (not so sure, but that is not the main problem)

    I will translate that in barbecue :
    How I can prove my barbecue is nuclear :

    • I put one spoon of water in my barbecue. under supervision of a referree, keeping a drop for later analysis.
    • water is analysed as H2O, trace of HDO, THO, and few minerals in ionized states
    • I put fire to it and wait for 1 day
    • after it is cool, I take a sample of one spoon of ashes, under supervision of a referree
    • Analysis done by a serious lab and it is full of mineral ashes and traces of carbon, proving hydrogen and oxygen have fused to be carbon and heavy elements.

    As you can see all is clear, and labs as referee do their job.

  • The title of the Pettersson analysis is "Isotope composition of a fuel sample obtained from Rossi May 11, 2016". Unless there has been a mistranslation, this is presumably what goes into a reactor. As the analysis notes, it's qualitatively similar to what came out of the Lugano reactor (i.e., the ash).


    We still lack context as to what this fuel sample (assuming it's a fuel sample and not an ash sample) will be relevant to — the Lugano test, the 6-unit HotCat, the 1MW reactor, the QuarkX, etc. Lots of scope for speculation, few details necessary to pin things down.


    There is this statement from the PDF, which leaves room for doubt about whether it's the fuel or ash that is being shown: "The ICP-MS is an integrating method giving the average isotopic
    composition of the whole fuel/ash sample being analyzed."



    July 20, 2016 at 8:35 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    I have just a simple question: I know that the standard E-cat plant can produce steam just over 100 C, but can you indicate to what maximum temperature steam can be produced if the steam system would be suitable for it? Obviously I am not talking about the EcatX or the QuarkX.
    Thanks for answering our questions.
    Kind regards, Gerard


    Andrea Rossi
    July 20, 2016 at 8:45 AM
    Gerard McEk:
    The E-Cat of the type that has been operated during the 1 year test is designed for low temperature steam. To get higher temperatures it is necessary the design used in the high temperature reactors.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.


    A low temperature reactor does not run hot enough to use lithium. It must therefore use potassium. Any ash sample that has lithium in it comes from a high temperature reactor. The ash that is analyzed by Uppsala University came from a high temperature reactor because it contained lithium and not the one year test reactor.

  • From E-Cat World...


    Engineer48 • 9 hours ago Hi Abd,


    "Are my sources correct that you posted and outed the author of the analysis document, Bo Hoistad, but did not have his permission to do so?


    As Bo didn't give you permission to post his document nor permission to expose him as the author, who did give you that permission and why Abd, if that person was not Bo did you post the document?"

  • From E-Cat World...

    Wow, they are now talking to me on E-Cat world though I don't post there? Cool!


    Quote

    As Bo didn't give you permission to post his document nor permission to expose him as the author, who did give you that permission and why Abd, if that person was not Bo did you post the document?"

    Alan Smith, you confirmed that you had received the information in the document. You have not stated if you received the full file showing source authorship. And when asked a question relating to provenance, you declined to comment. And that was proper.


    You should expect from what I have written before that I will not provide any information about provenance, including denying that it was X, Y, Z, or anyone else, obviously, because if I will answer who it was not, then by elimination it could possibly reveal who it was, if they are known, and they might become known even if they are not now known. The only fact that I will reveal is that I received the document and will not testify to its authenticity. It is the document I received, period.


    However, there is an ethical and legal issue here. Bo Hoistad is the apparent owner of that document, as apparent author, by copyright law. However, I am in the United States, where Fair Use is allowed, and I do claim fair use, for nonprofit purpose. If Bo Hoistad wants the document taken down, I will honor the request. However, I would also reveal the existence of that request.


    It looks like Bo Hoistad provided a copy to someone, eh? And he or someone passed it on. People on E-Cat world are running with speculations that this is an IH plot to ... ah, it's getting way too complicated. Legally, if this matters at all, and I've said it is probably moot, the document and its provenance would be addressed through testimony, which can be legally compelled. This document would merely show where to ask questions.


    There is also a possibility that the document was spoofed, and cleverly dated to be when Rossi visited Bo. If Bo denies that the document is his, I would leave it up with a note to that effect.


    This is a mystery movie, serialized. Shall we start selling advertising? All for a good cause, of course.


    I've said that the movie rights could be worth more than $100 million even if Rossi is a lying crook. Mary Yugo will get so upset that she will drop her disguise as a woman.


    I once told Mary Yugo that I was going to buy 50 Power Balance bracelets from China (cheap knockoffs, but they looked really cool!) and give them to my athletic daughter. I think "Mary" wanted to report me to the Department of Children and Families for child abuse. I did show my other daughter how to "demonstrate" that the bracelets work. It's quite clever, and I want my daughters to know about magic. And how it works. The other daughter thought it was way cool. I just haven't gotten around to making the order.

  • So you didn't have Bo Hoistadt's [sic]permission then. Naughty, naughty. I call that 'unfair use'.

    I did not say I did not have Hoistad's permission. I said that I would not disclose any information that could reveal or narrow an inquiry into the identity of whomever provided me with the document. Necessarily, then, that includes Hoistad, and a whole list of people who could be a source.


    I do not know how you derived that I didn't have Hoistad's permission. Did I say that? Consider this all an exercise in clear thinking about what is stated. You really need to be able to do that to parse Rossi statements. However, it is also a useful life skill.


    I pointed out an obvious conclusion from an assumption that the paper is genuine. Hoistad wrote it and gave it to someone and it ended up being public. Unless, of course, I'm Hoistad, Except I don't have that funny o with the two dots on my keyboard, so I guess we can rule me out as the source.


    Yeah, I have openly acknowledged that I did not create that file, and that is as far as I will go. One person out of seven billion has been eliminated, unless, of course, I'm lying.


    Sifferkoll has it that I'm an APCO "op" and such lie constantly. Right? So is the file genuine? How about asking Bo Hoistad? There are people who know him.


    People have asked Rossi and he gave evasive answers, both before and after it was known that the file explicitly said the sample was from Rossi. Hey, Alan, did you know that from what you saw?


    Naughty? I love it. You should have seen me in high school. I liked to make bombs, especially smoke bombs. All through my life, I did things outside of social norms. I had seven children when people thought there were too many people. Just recently, a daughter was not doing well in school. So I took her out. What? Isn't that illegal? No, it's not. There are regulations and if they are followed, a child can become responsible for his or her own education, with theoretical supervision that can be, more or less, cheering whenever she does something great, which is about once a day. Unschool, it's called as a movement.


    She called me the other day and said "Dad, is it okay if I get arrested?"


    14 years old. And she meant it. She lives with me, not her mother, but ... for this one, I told her she would need to get her mother's permission. Her mother is far more conservative.


    She called her mother and got her permission. Part of what I'm supporting her in discovering is how to create what she wants. She did not actually get arrested, as it turned out, but she was ready; she ended up speaking to a rally of about 200 students at U. Mass as to why they were doing a sit-in there, and she was mentioned in the newspaper. http://www.gazettenet.com/News…est-UMass-protest-1540717

  • it is funny to see people worry about permission to publish a document proving their point, which for the part of those who did the job seems correct (question is not if the analysis was good, but what was analysed), who at the same time accuse long time LENR supporters, and a tycoon who fund LENR despire academic opposition, without the least evidence.


    if you like conspiracy, why not wonder if this is not a controlled leak ?
    Or if Abd is paid by Rossi to leak that report ?
    Or that Rossi is an agent of Putin to destroy LENR credibility and make oil more expensive ?
    Ok, I forgot APCO in the theory, but admit involving Putin is much better for the flm?



    Maybe we should better focus on older evidences.


    It is clear that Lugano test is based on an erroneous theory, that full emissivity is used by IR cam instead of band emmisivity. result may be good finally, but theory have to be corrected, and thus some data have to be corrected.


    strangely neither Rossi, not the Swedish testers, not Levi, did admit the theory mistake, nor propose any correction.


    this is enough for me to consider there is a deep problem, an ethical problem, much higher than leaking an unsourced document and it's unverivied origin.


    note that one reason to leak a document is when you are under NDA, and one reason not to publish a correction of a report is when you are under NDA, and your NDA writer refuse to relax you to publish the correction. this refusal tells much more than the mistake.


    I wondered about Defkalion until I see no answer to Luca Gamberale complaints... I was then sure they have nothing to answer.


    There is nothing to answer to Lugano problems. Note that if any of the skeptic theories are uncertain, if measurement may be finally right by accident, what is certain is the erroneous us of total emmisivity for IR cam.


    note also that the skpetics as usual forgot the most obvious, that for isotopic measurement, even assuming Rossi was not a magician(safe bet), nobody knows what was inside the reactor before they inserted the analysed fuel, and thus what was extracted.

  • I have no interest in conspiracies, Alain, I believe more in what we Brits call 'cock-ups', but I do have a lot of interest in ethics. I think that publishing on the web full details of a private document that was in its original form marked 'confidential' and was not intended for publication (and this was not) is very unethical behaviour. An example, if your grocer gives me private correspondence you accidentally left in his shop and I publish it, it is no justification on my part to say 'the grocer said I could'. To say such behaviour is ok or unimportant would be quite wrong.

  • I don't have to 'derive' anything, and neither do I need lessons in English comprehension. I know you didn't have Bo's permission and I think that fact should make anyone think twice about trusting you with a confidence again.


    Alan has not told us his source for what he is claiming here. Did he just pull it out of his butt?


    As to lessons in comprehension, fools need no lessons and assume "lessons," i.e., patronism, from straightforward exposition. Happens all the time. I simply pointed out that I have provided no information about who gave me the file, and, in particular, about who it was not.


    However, I did say that I had permission to post the file from the person who gave it to me. So who trusted me with a confidence who found it betrayed, here? Alan Smith joins Steve Krivit in claiming that Lomax betrays confidences. Enjoy the company, Alan.


    Sit in what you create.

  • I have no interest in conspiracies, Alain, I believe more in what we Brits call 'cock-ups', but I do have a lot of interest in ethics. I think that publishing on the web full details of a private document that was in its original form marked 'confidential' and was not intended for publication (and this was not) is very unethical behaviour. An example, if your grocer gives me private correspondence you accidentally left in his shop and I publish it, it is no justification on my part to say 'the grocer said I could'. To say such behaviour is ok or unimportant would be quite wrong.

    Depends partly on what is in that document. In the example given, the document is marked "confidential," which is a request. I saw no such request in the document or anywhere.


    In the discussion on E-catworld, Engineer48 and Alan Smith, who had received copies, disclosed they would not say who provided the document to them. That did not inform me that the originator of the document wanted confidentiality or that it had been violated. Basically, this was completely unclear as to the situation of the author. I am assuming that I have forgotten who gave me the document, and addressing the situation of ignorance, so assumptions aobut authorship and permissions cannot be made from what I write here.


    If someone wanted information kept in confidence, whether Rossi, Hoistad, or anyone else, they allowed it to leak or actually leaked it, so Alan's comments are simply off. If someone stole the file, they should be found and prosecuted. However, that would take a complaint, wouldn't it?


    In any case, similar to what Alan proposes as an example, there was a situation locally where a fellow, a worker in a church program for children, left his back-pack in a bathroom downtown. It was found and opened and it contained a paper with compiled and printed photos of children in poses or situations that raised suspicion of pedophilia. (It was not actually "child porn.") This was published and he was actually prosecuted, he lost his job, custody of his own children and a lot more.


    The question of publish or not publish can be a morally complex one. I have been given information under a promise of confidentiality, many years ago. I broke it, to save the fellow's life, he was suicidal and told me where the pills he was planning on taking were kept. I called his mother and told her. I lost his confidence, but he might be alive today because of it. Now, with more experience at handling possible suicides, now, I'd have handled it differently. But it's very clear, promises of confidentiality can be broken, for strong reason.


    But none was broken here, by me. So Alan's comments are idiotic.


    He thinks it "unethical." Okay, where is this code of ethics, or is Alan God?


    Who has been harmed? Or has someone been harmed and is hiding behind Alan?


    As AlainCo points out, and I agree, there is concern over the stonewalling by the Lugano team. Maybe it is time they come out and live in the light. They won't die if they do. If they are under such an NDA that they cannot comment, they were truly not independent! So the whole concept of the "independent professors" would be a scam. Levi told Lewan that Clarke was "wrong" but then provided no serious details, just a version of "I'm right and he's wrong." Scientists?


    Not in this affair.

  • The fact that so many persons who might be considered to be "influencers" had this document to me suggests that it was intended as a leak.
    Perhaps it was merely masquerading as a not-intentionally-leaked document, to look better, by suppling plausible deniability to the source of the document leak.


    If it was truly supposed to be confidential, it certainly wasn't being kept that way very well. It made the rounds fairly quickly.
    I suspect it was only a matter of time before the document in its entirety was released by someone.

  • ABD Your arguments are both specious and insulting. Don't do it again. To anybody, it makes you look foolish and childish.

    Apparently it is possible for a moderator of lenr-forum.com to troll. I do pay attention to comments like this, but particularly when they come from friends, not from someone making specious and insulting comments about violations of confidentiality and ethics, while tolerating pages full of garbage, then pointing a finger at me for responding. This is the moderator who deleted a post of mine -- harmless -- "just because I can."


    Yes, he can. And gradually, those who know the field disappear and what is left is drek. It is fascinating to go back and read earlier discussions and compare. And I've been reading the BrLP mailing list. One would think that BrLP is the center of the universe, with a continual chorus of praise for you-know-who. Quite similar to Planet Rossi, just not so many people involved. Any day now, a commercial product, as with any day now, a 1 MW reactor.


    The whole NiH line is suspect, with difficulties replicating and issue after issue. I would not be betting on it.