Rossi's Knot Untangled

  • I recall there being a section where the temperature-heat transfer seems to amazingly bypass a thermocouple in between two others. Then fails to transfer any temperature-heat from one area to the next at all.

  • Rossi himself cannot produce the effect. Ni-H cold fusion might be real, but Rossi's version is either fake or he has forgotten how to produce it. His 1-year test was completely fake and produced no heat at all, as you see in Exhibit 5.


    How many times can you lie and keep a straight face? this, is becoming unreal


    No Doxxing please. /AlainCo/



    It is clearly an instrument artifact.



    Well, you are clearly nothing more than a FUD artifact yourself
    But you're not the only one!


    I would like to remind you that there are no liars here, only differences of opinion. Alan.

  • Hello Jed,


    "Indeed, it shoots up too fast, and the others never catch up or even reflect the same heat pulse later. It is clearly an instrument artifact."


    There is no reason to think that since this happens in some cases before the temperature of the thermocouple ever reached 1370C. The fact is that in one of the tests both thermocouples (the one inside the reactor chamber and the one near the resistors) follow each other very closely for an extended period of time before self sustain takes place. For them to follow so closely makes it likely they were both working appropriately. I will say there is a chance (although slim) that the readings after the two diverge and the innermost thermocouple exceeds 1370C could be an artifact. This is why I would like Songsheng to repeat the test another ten times. However, I think it is more likely this is the result of electromagnetic stimulation of the fuel.


    "I think the TC is damaged and it is producing a spurious signal."


    In some cases before self sustain the TC is going up (yet below 1370C) while the power is off. I think the liklihood of a spurious signal is very low. You have a different option. The answer is testing of the Rossi Effect. Personally, I think with proper fuel preparation we can produce an even stronger effect than Songsheng's.


    "Rossi himself cannot produce the effect. Ni-H cold fusion might be real, but Rossi's version is either fake or he has forgotten how to produce it. His 1-year test was completely fake and produced no heat at all, as you see in Exhibit 5. "


    Rossi's version is absolutely real and he has not forgotten how to produce it. I don't know the truth about what happened in Doral. But it was just one specific test. I think it is highly likely excess heat was produced. But even if it wasn't, that doesn't mean that Rossi didn't produce excess heat in other tests before or afterwards. Hypothetically, if it was a total scam, it would mean that Rossi spent many hours every single day sitting in a container he knew wasn't producing excess heat. This is totally against his psychological make up. Andrea Rossi may be many things, but he is a work-a-holic and totally obsessed with his technology. There is no way he would spend so long on a test that wasn't working at all. I'm willing to entertain many possibilities of him being far less than honest or engaging in very deceptive behavior. Obviously, by him not letting I.H. enter the plant whenever they wanted he violated his contract with them. But I do not accept the possibility of the plant producing zero excess heat. It is plausible there were breakdowns or malfunctions that reduced the output far below what he claims, but he wouldn't have let the plant keep running if he knew NOTHING was happening. Also, why would he extract fuel at the end of the test if he knew no excess heat had been produced?


    I see ZERO reason to think he has forgotten how to produce excess heat. If you are right about the Doral test, it might mean that Rossi has forgotten basic ethics, honesty, and integrity. But it wouldn't mean he had forgotten how to produce excess heat.

  • The Rossi Effect is very simple, in my opinion. It really isn't something someone can forget once they have mastered it. In my opinion, 90% of the Rossi Effect is about getting hydrogen into the nickel. If an adequate amount is not loaded into intersitial sites, defects, cracks, and pores then the amount of excess heat produced by thermal shocking will be minimal or near zero. Everything Rossi has done to his fuel has been about maximizing the absorption of hydrogen. He has used a multitude of techniques to do this.


    -- Mixing reverse spillover catalysts into the fuel.


    -- Adding electropositive hydrogenation promotors like potassium and lithium.


    -- Eventually using high surface area nickel (although not required this is one way of increasing the amount of hydrogen that is absorbed).


    -- Utilizing a voltage through fuel or glow discharge (this produces atomic hydrogen and enhances absorption).


    My conclusion is that if you can get adequate hydrogen in, producing high excess heat is EASY. Focardi and Piantelli discovered this and performed countless tests confirming that if they could get nickel to absorb enough hydrogen, they could thermal shock it into producing emissions and excess heat.


    The addition of lithium just happens to provide EXTRA output. The emissions from the nickel interact with the lithium to produce alpha particles.

  • For them to follow so closely makes it likely they were both working appropriately.


    No, after it exceeds the limits for that TC type, the results are erratic and the other TCs never agree. As I recall, all of the heat after death was in this pattern.


    Rossi's version is absolutely real and he has not forgotten how to produce it.


    It is not real.


    I don't know the truth about what happened in Doral.


    I do know the truth. It is described in Exhibit 5. Rossi lied through his teeth. His choice of instruments and configuration were deliberately intended to give the wrong answer, or a meaningless answer. Some of his data is obviously fake. If he had actually accomplished what he claimed, he and other observers would be dead.


    But even if it wasn't, that doesn't mean that Rossi didn't produce excess heat in other tests before or afterwards.


    There have not been any tests afterwards. It is possible there was heat in some of tests before, but there is no solid proof of that, and I doubt it is true.

  • Jed wrote:

    I do know the truth. It is described in Exhibit 5. Rossi lied through his teeth. His choice of instruments and configuration were deliberately intended to give the wrong answer, or a meaningless answer. Some of his data is obviously fake. If he had actually accomplished what he claimed, he and other observers would be dead.


    Jed: the absurdity of Rossi's claims, and crassness of his "magnificence" is apparent to those who look. I also believe that you have additional evidence that convinces you. Here, you do not actually make the point as well as you could because you say what you think.


    Why is that bad? Being so convinced (and with additional evidence) you interpret other highly suspicious things as certain when in fact, looked at individually, there are loopholes. Therefore argument that for you is watertight seems to others questionable.


    It is many, many, individual implausibilities which when put together make objective viewers (I remember there was one such here a while ago who made this point most tellingly) strongly believe that Rossi is a flake.


    And it is a source of eternal wonderment and interest, to me, how people of good will can continue to support Rossi.

  • Quote

    Although he did not perform a calibration or use a "control" I still think the results are stunning.


    That statement, on its own, speaks to how incredibly gullible you are. ANY experiment involving thermal measurements in experimental situations MUST have blanks/controls AND *appropriate* calibration over the full operating range of all parameters. Otherwise, you have no idea what may be creating the temperature rises you see. It can even be spurious signals in the equipment at any level of the measuring system. The best you can say is that "the results would be stunning *if* confirmed by properly conducted calibration and blank runs *and* replicated by a completely independent and fully qualified investigator, preferably a test lab."

  • Quote from THHuxley: “LOL”


    @@THHC: The quality of Your writing has gone down with the disappearance of AR... Your post was contentless, that's the reason why I rated it -1... Contrary to others, which shine up just as quoting stalkers, I sometimes…


    The post you downvoted (now correctly removed) was asking moderators for a doxxing post to be removed. Hardly contentless. You are also highly inconsistent in downvoting contentless posts or you'd -1 every single one of Keieue's... Not that I mind, but the bias shows.

  • @Wyttenberg


    THH wrote:

    Process post to get moderators to remove a doxxing post, which they did


    Which you down-voted.


    THH wrote:

    The post you downvoted (now correctly removed) was asking moderators for a doxxing post to be removed. Hardly contentless. You are also highly inconsistent in downvoting contentless posts or you'd -1 every single one of Keieue's... Not that I mind, but the bias shows.


    Wyttenberg wrote:

    THH: The quality of Your writing has gone down with the disappearance of AR... Your post was contentless, that's the reason why I rated it -1


    Wyttenbach wrote:

    @THH : I call this the "Henry" (a voting only member of this forum..) effect. As long as you bias yourself in "self comments", you have to live with down-votes...


    You manage to be false - because a process request to remove a doxxing post here is obviously not contentless - and inconsistent - because you don't downvote Keieue's posts which are classic (and often offensive) example of lack of content. Also, I suspect, deceitful. You downvoted that post to make a point, not because it was contentless. And I think you know that. You object to my nominal anonymity, without which I would not post here. Like many others here I don't want my personal details recycled and quoted here whenever somone feels like it. That inhibits free speech. It is probably possible, using proxies etc, to post on the internet in an untraceable way. I don't do that, nor do many others, but I'm happy that no casual reader of this site is bombarded with my personal details. I would also like to point out to you that the reason for this care with doxxing came from the reprehensible behaviour of some, which made it clear that no-one was safe from unpleasant (and incorrect) personal references.


    On the more general issue of bias, which you accuse me of...


    I have never claimed to be unbiassed, only to attempt to find this enlightened state. As we all no doubt do. You call others with views different from yours biassed, and down-vote posts that can't possibly be biassed (e.g the post of mine you down-voted on principle, because it was mine, had only process content + the comment that Keieue did not contribute content at all, other than doxxing, which you may disagree with but it does not show bias).


    Now, you complain when I call you biassed! What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. However I do not automatically down-vote you just because we have different views.


    FWIW I believe I fully realise your rationalisation here, which is that many posters on these issues turn speculative reasoning into statements of fact. That is true, both in a reasonable way (people often say what we consider very likely without the "I think it very likely" qualification), and in the way you correctly dislike, where the possibility of alternate view is dismissed from both the argument and the arguer's mind as impossible.


    You think possibly that by being careful in what you say to avoid such jumping to conclusions, you are therefore not biassed.


    Not true.


    For example you have consistently argued (through ridicule or otherrwise) that IH are not to be trusted and their avowed mostly philanthropic intent (to back LENR due to its possible world-saving qualities, and put its advancement above personal profit while also - obviously - hoping to make profits) is rubbish. You have no strong evidence for this highly cynical view, which I believe derives from bias, or dislike of people who post alternate views - also a form of bias. You make weird speculative and absolutely unfounded comments

    Quote

    @JED: May be you didn't notice it. The only guy dealing with oil and possibly drawing profit out of the AR-mess, has gone quiet!


    You can have no idea how many such people there are, and any suggestion of a correlation except in some fantasist's mind is unfounded.


    You argue as fact tendentious attributions of motive that are purely speculative, and could equally be argued the other way:

    Quote

    This half way court story is very welcome to IH, as it will bleed out the 'mental distorted' AR and possibly will take him out of the game...AR should not invest in lawyers: He should pay a good PR company and attack!


    Now, I don't mind your biassed views. Such is the leaven of this site, and one person's bias is another's sensible comment. I find your claims that you comment on other posts neutrally according to their bias hypocritical, when in fact you allow your own (conscious or unconscious) prejudices to govern what you do: as was laid bare when you down-voted a post of mine with procedural content - first claiming it had no content, then claiming it was biassed, and now claiming that I (as I understand it) am biassed and therefore should be downvoted.


    Just admit that you are opinionated and prejudiced, with likes and dislikes, instead of trying to rationalise them. I'm not sure you see your own tendency towards bias, hence this post. The issue is not that I or anyone here is whiter than white. We are all human. It is that you fail to see your own failings in criticising others and claiming you are above that stuff.


    Regards, THH (please get it right!)

  • the post of mine you down-voted on principle, because it was mine, had only process content + the comment that Keieue did not contribute content at all, other than doxxing, which you may disagree with but it does not show bias


    @THH: About spelling my name... I'm not a mountain, albeit my country got many famous ones ...


    If you don't agree with a post, then there is a reporting content button! I don't blame You for showing a very thin skin, but broadcasting Your feelings is against the rules.


    For example you have consistently argued (through ridicule or otherrwise) that IH are not to be trusted and their avowed mostly philanthropic intent (to back LENR due to its possible world-saving qualities, and put its advancement above personal profit while also - obviously - hoping to make profits) is rubbish. You have no strong evidence for this highly cynical view, which I believe derives from bias, or dislike of people who post alternate views - also a form of bias. You make weird speculative and absolutely unfounded comments


    If You believe, what You say, that IH might have a philanthropic intent, then this is OK for You. But if you ever worked in the finance sector, and now detect that IH is just a virtual tag in front of the Cherokee building, then one thing is immediately true:


    IH is only interested in making the most profit out of their investments. This might sometimes be in line with our intentions. But on cache day, investors sell their "friends", no later than one minute after the last friendly hand-shake.


    I will tell it at any occasion: Don't take money of investors like IH, unless you know how to legally cheat them...


    You may call this statement biased: I call it experience...

  • If the methods and instruments improve, and the excess heat goes down or disappears as this happens, what is the most likely explanation?


    This is the pattern of Jiang and Parkhomov. Stepanov et. al. never reported a calibration either. The fact that there have been many attempts to replicate Parkhomov, even using his same materials, is further evidence that his earlier experiments were in error. I wish it was not so.


    This is an extremely common problem with LENR, and in other fields that attract wide attempts to replicate, but where most attempts are not reported.


    The file drawer effect.


    It is a normal skeptical claim that many cold fusion results are coming from the File Drawer Effect. That is reasonable for some results, not for others. Isolated individual experiments -- which is how Parkhomov burst into visibility -- are particularly vulnerable to this. Parkhomov decided to test what he saw as Rossi claims for himself (actually Parkhomov's "Rossi replication" was based on Lugano interpretations). That was, in my view, highly commendable, even though his techniques were primitive. He used what he had, and, in fact, at first, it looked good. Then Storms noticed some anomalies with the data. I investigated and it all unravelled before my eyes. I was horrified, I'd thought that Parkhomov was So Cool!


    It is correct that his original publication included no control. When this was pointed out, he did some "control experiments," but it is not clear that they were the same, and ... his reported results from them were, shall we say, optimistic. He was not being "scientifically prudent, trying to prove himself wrong." He had been, my sense, overwhelmed by the response. He did not respond to my inquiry about details, an inquiry I had carefully vetted with a well-known expert before sending. (He did send me a polite response which was, essentially, "too busy.")


    His controls were totally inadequate, if read carefully. The only control at full power burned out quickly.


    This is what hit me when I studied the data: I first inferred his power steps, it was pretty obvious from his plot, he had increased input power in rational increments, as in using 1, 2.5, 5, 10, I forget the exact details. Then I plotted temperature of the device, as reported by the thermocouple, vs power input. It was a nice smooth curve. With no room for XP at all. This apparently conflicted with the "first-principles" result from water evaporation calorimetry. Yet this would be fundamental. If the cause of the elevated evaporation was XP from the fuel, the temperature of the reactor would increase over that created by input power alone. This increase, from the power curve found, would be drastic, not small. A small increase might easily be hidden, but not the large one required.


    I took flak from Mike McKubre over this, because I was essentially using isoperibolic calorimetry, which is generally inferior to "first-principle" calorimetry. I respect Mike greatly, but ... he screwed up here. Yes, it's inferior, but it is not "wrong," merely quite imprecise. It can and should serve as a rough confirmation of more precise methods. Absent some explanation -- which I could not find and I have not seen alleged -- the temperature data ruled out major XP, as claimed by Parkhomov and then by so many others looking at his work.


    His later work went downhill before it started to climb up again. I have seen recent work that looks much better, but this we really need to understand about LENR calorimetry: artifacts abound, and there is a limited value to single-measure experiments conducted by one person. I don't care who the person is.


    Reproducibility is crucial. In LENR, because of high sensitivity to initial conditions, reproduction cannot necessarily be 'reliable," but this can be overcome statistically, and especially if replication is as exact as possible. Otherwise results may not be commensurable.


    High COP is considered desirable, because it raises results higher above noise, we think, but this can be badly whacked by a systematic error. With Parkhomov, initially, the most likely explanation for his XE is water splashing out of the boiler, which was apparently observed, but which he did not consider. His experimental set-up varied such that heating patterns in the boiler would change. He altered the insulation, creating a drastic effect on the temperature/power ratio.


    Properly, this was exploratory work, to be treated very differently from reliability and confirmation testing.


    And now there are quite a number of replication failures on Parkhomov, and some claimed successes. Does replication failure demonstrate that the original claim was false?


    Actually, no, and this is where I highly recommend that those interested in LENR become familiar with the history. Simple negative replications do not negate an earlier report, but supplement it. Mostly, if results differ substantially, a negative replication indicates that something was not controlled, and was different from the conditions of the original experiment. What is much stronger, and much more devastating to a claim, is an actual reproduction of the original result, with, then, a demonstration, through controls, that it was due to a specific artifact.


    It is possible to overcome that, but, then, much more work is required. Mostly, in this field, all that additional work is not done.


    Back up. Suppose Parkhomov had stuck with his original design, and had run many experiments with it, the exact same design (flaws and all), instead of "fixing it," as he tried to do. I.e., by improving the insulation of the reactor, he lowered the necessary power to reach a given temperature. He reported similarly high COP, and did not mention that the power basis was lower. I.e., XE was going down. Drastically! Parkhomov fell into over-enthusiastic reporting of his results, and the nadir of this was when he fabricated some data to make a plot look better: he actually had missing data, and, my suspicion, he did not want to reveal why, because it might have made him look bad. Human failure. I do not suspect him of any positively deceptive intention, but he was hiding something, which people may do when they see themselves as under attack. Pons and Fleischmann did it with helium -- and this caused enormous damage.


    In any case, suppose Parkhomov showed a consistent result, i.e,. XE behaving in a certain way. Then suppose he changed the way in which he measured evaporation (his method was very crude), and suppose he modified his boiler slightly to prevent splash-out. Everything else the same. If the results disappeared, he would have identified an artifact behind his original claim. We may think that would suck, but, in fact, this is what scientists are trained to do.


    In this field, there came to be an obsession with COP, and More Power! That arises from hopes of commercial applications, but we need to set all that aside to settle the science first, most likely.

  • Quote

    Axil to WizKid: How did you ever think to use pure Li7, or was it just luck?


    LENR Experiment Report from Tom Conover (wizkid) to Axil Axil


    Quote

    Axil, Axil !All results in research require persistence and element of surprise or joy upon unfolding an answer, similar to luck but attributable to hard work, logically determined and pursued. I saw the isotopic analysis story here on ecat world, re-wrote the analysis on a chalkboard with another line to show what I thought was missing, (used or added), and it was obvious to me that Li7 was needed in some way shape or form. I asked the man that knows the answer, Andrea Rossi, and he go so excited and told me that I had replicated his experiment (NOT TRUE, at least at that time) but here are the quotes from his blog to clarify for you.


    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/…76d023fdbb294733f509e.png


    Tom


    Quote

    Andrea Rossi
    July 16, 2016 at 9:10 PM
    Tom Conover:
    Thank you for this very interesting comment, but you did not put the "table below" with the isotopical transmutations obtained in your experiment to replicate, very intelligently, the effect from my patent! Please send it, or write in a comment the isotopes before and after your experiments.


    ----------------------


    ----------------------