MFMP: Guess the scientist of new bulletproof experiment


    LENR reactions, in general, increase with temperature. Ice might be too cold. I'm not sure what "nanor wire" is being mentioned here. Reference?

    Quote from THHuxley

    PS - Mats is on record as not believing the TC report, nor others here who broadly agreed with it. He said he would not do so until he had reports from experts who compared TC's report with The Lugano report (and Levi - who supported the Lugano Report saying colleagues had also agreed with this). Since then (many months ago) he has been silent, so I wonder what his experts concluded? I'm still hoping he will deliver this information for the guys on ECW who view LENR Forum as contaminated by Satan and therefore not as reliable as (to stretch a bad analogy) God's own journalist.


    Mats fell into a rabbit hole, it's a shame. My guess is that he is too busy to actually come up to speed. Hence the fiasco with his blog comments. Mats did not realize he could get help.


    The Lugano test, in addition to the critiques which have been published -- by many -- has a major problem. IH built that reactor and was unable to confirm anything like those heat results with other reactors like it, in spite of Rossi support at that time, but presumably using more bulletrproof calorimetry. In fact, they say "no measurable heat," which really means that any possible heat was within possible measurement error. This creates a weight toward the Lugano heat results being artifactual.


    And then this creates, ah, "interesting" implications about the isotopic results, which were, mirable dieux, the same as those from the sample Rossi gave to Bo Hoistad in May. There is an obvious common factor in those results, then.


    None of this is "proof." It's circumstantial evidence. Those who are looking for proof should take up some other hobby. Knitting?

    Quote from BobHiggins

    quizzical wrote:
    Can you tell us the estimate - based on the analysis - of the range of excess heat in the Lugano experiment? 7%, 15% 30% ? Thanks.
    Analysis indicated the XH was 10x-20x lower (5-10%) of what was originally reported.


    For the higher power input, the claim was COP 3.6, which is XH 2.6.
    5% - 10% is then an indication of COP 1.13 - 1.26.
    Significant.

    • Official Post

    Any excess heat would be a success, but what i don't forgive is not recognizing the errors, not correcting the temperature mistake.


    If I design a 1 liter car diesel engine, and the test lab told me that the engine generate 20000HP with a piston speed ot 30000rpm, i would wall them they screw up something, or at least if someone explain me there is an unmissable measurement error in the report, i would call everybody and ask to wait for correction or improved report justifying why the report is good.


    What happened, not even accounting for 1 year test, claimed bad calorimetry and fake client, cannot be forgiven. Whatever is the reality, the procedure is unforgivable. Fruit of a rotten tree.


    if E-cat works, if LiAlH4/Ni technology works, what was done cannot be forgiven anyway.

    AlainCo wrote: "Any excess heat would be a success, but what i don't forgive is not recognizing the errors, not correcting the temperature mistake."


    One possibility is that the Lugano testers are still convinced that their estimates were correct.
    A more likely possibility is that while they realized that their analysis had errors, they still felt that there was excess heat, and so avoided making comments - especially since the heat transfer analysis is quite complex and they were unable to redo the experiment.


    In any case, it appears that their claim of excess heat - though the amount is much less than their estimates but IS in line with recent claims of Parkhomov and others - is also in agreement with the recent analysis of MFMP. This suggests that the "Rossi effect" does exist!


    Also, one point that seems to be forgotten in all of this is that the Lugano experiment also had a "switch" for self-sustained mode, which they did not use. Presumably, the use of this mode would have significantly increased the COP beyond the MFMP estimated value of 1.17 - 1.26.

    Quote from quizzical

    Presumably, the use of this mode would have significantly increased the COP beyond the MFMP estimated value of 1.17 - 1.26.


    Given all the problems that have been raised and the lack of adequate calibration in these tests, I would not trust a value of 1.26. Normally that would be a high enough ratio to be confident of the results, but with all the problems in this test I doubt it is significant. It is likely there was no excess heat at all.


    An "adequate calibration" would be a test of several power levels across the full range of the expected output power. Testing only up to 800 W and then outputting what you think is 1.2 kW is not adequate. You gotta go something like: 0 W, 500 W, 1000 W, 1500 W if you want to show the output is 1200 W. Perhaps they were not expecting anything higher than 800 W, so they only calibrated up to that level. In that case, the calibration was inadequate, but it wasn't their fault. They just have to do the whole test over again. That sort of thing often happens with experimental science. You end up having to do things over and over again.


    I do not think Parkamov had produced significant results, although his latest tests seem to be an improvement over the first ones.

    @Bob,
    Does the paper consider the power output from the Rods, and if so, has the omission in the Lugano report of the reduction of the combined Rods power by 1/3 in the Active (as was done for the dummy) runs been considered?


    I suppose waiting for the actual paper would be appropriate...

    Quote from Abd

    For the higher power input, the claim was COP 3.6, which is XH 2.6.5% - 10% is then an indication of COP 1.13 - 1.26.Significant.


    That depends what this means. If it is a statement that the error bounds (2 sigma?) are 1.136-1.26 then this is significant. However, given the various issues here in any reanalysis I think those bounds would only be possible making some unsafe assumptions.


    If those figures merely indicate the COP for different tests, and do not imply error bounds, then no guess can be made as to the significance.


    Personally, I would not view this data as indicating anything significant until I'd seen a very robust error analysis and checked it did not leave any of the known potential errors out. As a ball park figure (before detailed analysis) you would never expect this type of uncontrolled calorimetry to have low error tolerances.


    Tom


    I was not ratifying the analysis, but only translating it into more understandable terms. That level of COP, if precision is adequate, is generally considered "significant" in the field. 5% XE is considered significant (5% XP may not, because transient effects and artifacts may show more than 5% anomalous power; but with XE, I presume sustained XP over enough time to be, itself, significant. In the McKubre ENEA/SRI Energetics Technologies replication, anything below 5% XE was not considered significant.


    There are many ways in which the Lugano experiment could stilll have no measurable XE. And, in the end, this is one experiment. This does not show reproducibility. It shows some kind of stability, but that could simply mean a stable artifact (such as the emissivity issues).


    Rossi never understood the scientific method, that was obvious by 2011. The "Lugano professors" showed phenomenal naivete. Cold fusion work -- any cold fusion work -- at this time -- is going to be picked over and analyzed six ways till Sunday. If the authors have not done that themselves before publishing, they are laying their necks down on the chopping block, trusting that, as "official scientists," they will be treated with normal respect.


    That can happen sometimes within the field, and a "result of interest" may be presented when not fully nailed down. But when one is attempting to show something to the mainstream and the general public, no.

    Quote from THHuxley


    TC gave broad tolerances for the reasons he stated (one of which was transparency) so he was certainly not wrong on this matter.


    Are we pretending to the majestic plural or are we suffering from a split personality? Either way, why should the authors of a peer-reviewed paper respond to criticism by 1) someone(?) who obviously lost their marbles, and more importantly, 2) stated before reading even a single paragraph of the not-yet-published paper?

    • Official Post

    I have said many times that a response to criticisms of Lugano has been ruled out by all those closely involved - at least for the forseeable future. Maybe MFMP's promised critique in Sendai will provoke a formal response, but I doubt it very much. Grumbling in here will definitely achieve diddly-squat by way of a rebuttal -in fact it probably makes it less likely.

    Quote

    Are we pretending to the majestic plural or are we suffering from a split personality? Either way, why should the authors of a peer-reviewed paper respond to criticism by 1) someone(?) who obviously lost their marbles, and more importantly, 2) stated before reading even a single paragraph of the not-yet-published paper?


    We are reading TC's paper carefully and with some interest in its contents which I'd guess you are not.


    I was not aware that the Lugano Report had been peer-reviewed?


    As for the MFMP paper, they chose to summarise its contents before openly publishing it, as is their right, even though given arxiv this is now unusual practice. Presumably, in putting this partial information into the public domain, they wanted partial critique and discussion (as I have with some courtesy given them)? I've also explicitly said that my comments are very provisional until such time as I can see the full paper.


    I'm going to put down the marbles comment as you having a momentary attack of cognitive dissonance. There seems a lot of it around the IH/Rossi legal actions...

    Quote from Alan

    I have said many times that a response to criticisms of Lugano has been ruled out by all those closely involved - at least for the forseeable future. Maybe MFMP's promised critique in Sendai will provoke a formal response, but I doubt it very much. Grumbling in here will definitely achieve diddly-squat by way of a rebuttal -in fact it probably makes it less likely.


    Frankly, by now I think any response short of additional experimental results from the original authors would be redundant and certainly is completely unnecessary. The matter is well enough understood, by those who bother to read the available literature.


    As a matter of PR Mats lack of response is however lamentable. He insults those (anyone following all the detailed critique here) whose views are more authoritative than his, and justifies this by saying he will get second opinions from experts (fair enough), but then clams up and does not produce said opinions: I'd guess because they are damning to his case.

    I don't know if the Lugano report was ever peer reviewed or even formally released. I only recall that it was "leaked". Does anyone know the final status of the report?


    In the case of the MFMP paper, it is a report of data taken by MFMP experimenters over the last 18 months. It is good to get it formally logged into the literature. It is an experimental data paper, and not meant to "prove" anything [as if anything could be "proved"]. It adds to the body of data/evidence for XH and nuclear effects in Ni-LAH systems.

    • Official Post
    Quote from BobHiggins

    I don't know if the Lugano report was ever peer reviewed or even formally released. I only recall that it was "leaked". Does anyone know the final status of the report?



    Bob,


    I think as far as it got was the UOB Library, and Elforsk then published, or leaked maybe, it on their site.


    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014…ams-acta-digital-library/


    The following June (2015) Bo Hoistad (co-author) confirmed that his Lugano report had not been published in a scientific journal.


    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…plication-by-lugano-team/

    How many possible Watts of excess heat, after the MFMP re-analysis, are we talking about?


    Edit: Maybe I should elaborate:
    Looking at the highest COP in the report (3.75), File 15, we have 905.01 total watts consumption.
    Subtract 41.46 W for the cable Joule heat (ignoring for now that this number is wrong, due to incorrect formula used to derive the Joule heat, so it should be ~44.8 W).
    We then have 863.55 watts input heat for the reactor, including rods.
    With a COP of 1.2, we have 1036.26 W output.
    However, the rods were not adjusted to 2/3 of their heat production in the Active Runs, to compensate for the internal-facing 1/3 of each rod.
    So we must subtract 117.61 W (assuming that the rods were calculated correctly with correct ε. Even with some errors, this amount is not likely too much different, based on variance tests I have done).
    Now we have 1036.26 W - 117.61 W = 918.65 W
    This is a COP of 1.06, or 51.81 W "excess". With power consumption having an estimated uncertainty of 5% (page 21), which is 43.2 W, there is basically nothing left (about 7W, [minus the ~3.3 W unaccounted for, from the Joule heat above]) outside of the estimated uncertainty. (Ignoring 3% uncertainty associated with heat output calculations).
    With a lower Lugano reported COP, this will obviously end up even closer to zero excess, or even in the negative COP range.
    A slightly higher re-calculated COP (say 1.26) won't help much.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I have said many times that a response to criticisms of Lugano has been ruled out by all those closely involved - at least for the forseeable future. Maybe MFMP's promised critique in Sendai will provoke a formal response, but I doubt it very much. Grumbling in here will definitely achieve diddly-squat by way of a rebuttal -in fact it probably makes it less likely.


    Lugano is still being cited by some as some sort of proof that the Rossi Effect is real. And many things are said about it that are simply not true. Sometimes when we simply say what we know or see about something, it's called "grumbllng" by those inclined to judge the contributions of others that way. For myself, I do not write here in an attempt to force anyone to do anything.


    This was not a paper published under peer review or any independent editorial authority. It was essentially a draft, it could be called. So, a draft paper is a piece of junk. So what? The authors are not obligated to respond, strictly speaking. If it were published in a journal, the journal editors would handle critiques and might publish them, with the authors having an opportunity to respond. Sometimes a critique of a paper is published elsewhere, and we have seen even unpublished papers receive such review, and even in a peer-reviewed journal.


    But it was not a journal-published paper. The "independent professors" published their first paper on arXiv because they could do that either based on a single endorser, or one of them had the reputation to do that. That didn't work for the second (Lugano), it was apparently rejected.


    The lack of response sets up a default, long-term pubic response. The paper may be ignored or, where considered, set aside as in error.

    Abd wrote:

    Quote

    The lack of response sets up a default, long-term pubic response.

    (my emphasis)


    Abd must be wearing a Freudian slip.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.