Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I wish we could get Levi et al. to respond to critiques such as yours, but I doubt they will.

    There has been a response by Levi in the court documents :



    On July 27, 2016, I met with Mr. Sha in Rome to have a follow-up discussion about our last meeting. Mr. Sha requested that I keep this meeting secret, but did not ask me to sign any nondisclosure agreement. During the course of this meeting, Mr. Sha told me that he wanted to make business together and that "big earnings" were possible. He then asked me a series of formal questions about the Lugano Report.

    All of the critiques and questions that Mr. Sha raised had been previously raised in blog posts that aim to discredit Dr. Rossi and the Lugano Report;

    none of Mr. Sha's questions had any scientific basis or varied from the unscientific

    attacks made in the blog posts.


    So basically levi states thatMr Sha raised the same questions (critique) which where also made on the blog posts.

    This tells us that Levis is aware of the critique on the Lugano report.

    Nevertheless he states that the critique has no scientific basis.


    On that specific matter: Levi's response to the criticism.


    Both informally (to Mats) and here, Levi denies that he was wrong.


    From Mats we have a bit more detail, since he relayed the emissivity issue to Levi.


    Levi said:

    (1) Even if there were an issue with emissivity (suppose it was actually as high as 1) the lower temperature would be offset by higher power out. He said he had redone the calculations with e = 1 and they still lead to COP = 2.

    (2) He had checked with colleagues, they agreed with him


    Now, this response is 100% scientifically wrong. It is a severe misunderstanding, caused by the erroneous assumption that there is only one emissivity here. In fact there are two: total emissivity (controlling the power out) and band emissivity (controlling the IR temperature reading). The band emissivity can be high (close to 1) when the total emissivity is low (close to 0.4). That is exactly what is needed for a high false positive COP got from a much lower than expected real temperature, and TC showed that the form of this false positive closely modelled the actual Lugano results.


    That was made clear in the paper sent by TC to Levi et al (as he documented here ages ago). You can find a copy on lenr-canr. It is a well-written critique, and no scientist reading and understanding it and the Lugano report would disagree. It is, also, more carefully written than the Lugano report itself. It can be checked, in detail, by anyone who wishes to do so.


    It was argued here 3 years ago, and has been very ably checked experimentally and theoretically by Paradigmnoia here. He has replicated high (>6 I think) experimentally measured "Levi-COP" figures from alumina rods from setups closely duplicating that used in Lugano. That is indisputable, and whereas only an OK mathematician could check the theory, anyone can understand the confirming experimental work.


    So: Levi was wrong. Scientists can sometimes by stubborn and refuse to give up on erroneous views in spite of massive evidence to the contrary. Levi seems to suffer from this problem, and it is why I find Alan's support for Levi here so weird. Alan claims Levi is a good guy. It may be so. But he is a good scientifically wrong guy, who pig-headedly does not re-examine his assumptions when challenged.


    Mats, or anyone else, could get a third party review - based on the Lugano report, TC's paper, and the statements by Levi. It will bear out what is blindingly obvious for anyone able to do integration, understand Planck's Law, understand what is spectral and total emissivity. Not a hard ask.


    Mats actually said he would get such a review, and then went dark.


    It is, from my POV, quite outrageous that such deliberate obtuseness be used in the service of deceit. I'm not saying that Levi himself was lying: there are people who maintain false positions because they are just incapable of understanding their own misconceptions. But Rossi certainly was lying. For anyone else to give any credit to this easily corrected maths error is contra-factual in an egregious way.


    Alan may feel I'm being unfair to Levi in this: I can't see how I could be fairer, except by agreeing out of politeness to overlook a major and indisputable scientific error that still is quoted in some quarters as real. That is one step too far on the politeness front for me.


    THH

    "For anyone else to give any credit to this easily corrected maths error is contra-factual in an egregious way."

    ***

    Egregious enough to file a lawsuit against the perpetrators over losses ensued.... no doubt.

    Quote from [email protected]

    "For anyone else to give any credit to this easily corrected maths error is contra-factual in an egregious way."

    ***

    Egregious enough to file a lawsuit against the perpetrators over losses ensued.... no doubt.


    KevMo:


    You too are guilty of a category error here.


    No-one will file lawsuits against scientists who make mistakes: or there would be no science. Indeed there is nothing discreditable about mistakes and although not correcting them is incompetent, it is not criminal.


    Sensible companies (if you mean IH) do not file lawsuits at all because of the large amount of money lost to lawyers, and the generally bad publicity, unless they are forced to defend themselves against a rogue business partner claiming the owe him $100M for some non-working alumina rods. It is not hard to understand this and while if you have some preconception your innuendo no doubt will seem to make sense for anyone looking from the outside it does not.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    That was made clear in the paper sent by TC to Levi et al (as he documented here ages ago). You can find a copy on lenr-canr. It is a well-written critique, and no scientist reading and understanding it and the Lugano report would disagree. It is, also, more carefully written than the Lugano report itself. It can be checked, in detail, by anyone who wishes to do so.

    There where errors in Thomas Clarke's report which I published after discussions with .............. THHuxleynew


    See :


    Rossi-lugano-early-demo-s-revisited-technical post #90


    Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)


    Since you seem not to remember I wonder if you are the same THHuxleynew

    Nice answer Kevmo, that's what I'm getting at maybe the condensed matter data is already there, in addition to the recent atom ecology observations on gammas. There is something I find very strange about the description of how a fission bomb is used as a starter system for the thermonuclear fusion reaction on wiki - they claim gammas have an effective mass which acts to compress the fusion fuel as it heats up. How can photons have mass, maybe this is a BS explanation concealing maybe that gammas can interact with deuterium (via entanglement?) to induce the fusion into energized Helium 4, which then rapidly breaks down releasing more gammas etc resulting in a chain reaction, self-sustaining and releasing the characteristic power of the H-bomb. interesting some of these bomb tests just fizzled then went out - certainly an avenue for more research.

    Quote from THHuxleynew


    You too are guilty of a category error here.

    ***Fascinating. Because just 2 sentences down you make your own category error here. We're talking about LAWSUITS, not Criminal court cases.


    No-one will file lawsuits against scientists who make mistakes: or there would be no science.

    ***Lawsuits happen all the time. Scientists are not immune to them.


    Indeed there is nothing discreditable about mistakes and although not correcting them is incompetent, it is not criminal.

    ***This is YOUR category error.




    Sensible companies (if you mean IH) do not file lawsuits at all because of the large amount of money lost to lawyers,

    ***Sensible companies file lawsuits ALL The TIME. Just look at the recent Qualcomm vs. Apple imbroglio. Both "sensible" companies.


    and the generally bad publicity, unless they are forced to defend themselves against a rogue business partner claiming the owe him $100M for some non-working alumina rods.

    ***Then bad publicity is really really bad, and someone going around threatening forum participants on behalf of that company would be really really bad publicity, especially since the thing that's being threatened is against the original better interests of the company but was simply a royal screwup. Right?



    It is not hard to understand this

    ***It is not hard to understand that "sensible" companies file lawsuits ALL the TIME.



    and while if you have some preconception your innuendo no doubt will seem to make sense for anyone looking from the outside it does not.

    ***You're downshifting into gobbledegook here.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    It is a well-written critique, and no scientist reading and understanding it and the Lugano report would disagree. It is, also, more carefully written than the Lugano report itself. It can be checked, in detail, by anyone who wishes to do so.

    It WAS checked, by scientists who understood it and disagree. "Five outside experts in mass spectroscopy and related fields contributed four appendixes covering the radiation, materials, SIMS and ICP analyses."?



    https://disqus.com/home/channe…_report_on_rossi_reactor/



    Levi et al. publish a second, extended report on Rossi reactor

    Source
    THHuxley
    new
    Link
    Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion
    Optional: Specify the link to the source.

    Well, you need to read the literature when examining scientific reports. They found what they thought was anomalous heat and what was undisputably found to be a specific and identified calculation error.

    <snip>

    Ref (sorry I no longer have the will to find the references, some are here: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1589)

    Ok, being interested in both sides of the equation I clicked on your link. It says exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're saying.

    Levi et al. publish a second, extended report on Rossi reactor
    October 8, 2014

    The professors who published a report on Andrea Rossi’s high temperature reactor have followed up with second, extended test and a more detailed report:

    Levi, G., et al., Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel. 2014, Bologna University. A copy is here.
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGobservatio.pdf

    Five outside experts in mass spectroscopy and related fields contributed four appendixes covering the radiation, materials, SIMS and ICP analyses. The research was sponsored by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Elforsk AB., Officine Ghidoni SA, and Industrial Heat LLC (USA).

    This test produced 1.5 megawatt-hours of energy continuously, over 32 days. This is 5,825 MJ, or as much energy as you get from burning 139 kg of gasoline. This is a new record for a cold fusion reaction. Previous large reactions produced 50 to 300 MJ.

    Michael McKubre reviewed the paper here.
    http://www.infinite-energy.com…ne/issue118/analysis.html

    Mats Lewan described the paper here.
    http://matslew.wordpress.com/2…heat-and-nuclear-process/

    Thomas Clarke reviewed that paper here, citing a number of errors.
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf

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

    Example of Clarke's skeptopathic approach

    https://e-catworld.com/2015/04…p-and-lenr-thomas-clarke/
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here is the Abstract and part of the conclusion:

    New results are presented from an extended experimental investigation of anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube operating at high temperatures. The reactor, named E-Cat, is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded nickel powder plus some additives, mainly Lithium. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils around the reactor tube. Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260ºC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400°C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260ºC and 1400ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume. A sample of the fuel was carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before the run and after the run, using several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was found to agree with the natural composition before the run, while after the run it was found to have changed substantially. Nuclear reactions are therefore indicated to be present in the run process, which however is hard to reconcile with the fact that no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run.
    In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding. . . .
    Magnus Olofsson, the CEO of Elforsk wrote about this paper in NyTeknik. He said (Google translation):
    http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854541.ece

    Elforsk has in recent years followed the development of what has come to be called nuclear reactions at low energy, LENR – Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Elforsk include published a compilation of knowledge about LENR. Elforsk has also co-funded the current measurements and earlier measurements. While the earlier measurements showed an unexplained excess energy. . . .
    Elforsk takes now the initiative to build a comprehensive Swedish research initiative. More knowledge is needed to understand and explain. Let us engage more researchers in searching [this] phenomenon and then explain how it works.
    Here is the official statement about this paper at Elforsk’s website, in Swedish and English.
    http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-Matrapport-publicerad/

    Quote from Ahlfors

    ...


    Wow. So this is the basis for the new valuation. Another $55+ million raised from the Apple widow? It would be interesting to know if Darden, Weaver et al did tell these new investors everything they know about Rossi tech and what will happen to the IH $4 bn valuation if ... I sense there has been some serious overselling and some serious downplaying of threats going on here ... No wonder Dewey has been acting the way he has here ... ;)

    Quote from Dr Richard

    - they claim gammas have an effective mass which acts to compress the fusion fuel as it heats up.

    ***Something about that sounds ... just wrong. Perhaps they're going from different domains, such as e=mC^2 , looking at the really big energy as a really big mass from a different domain like when we switch to frequency domain in Laplace Transforms?


    I doubt it is Gammas that are doing the compressing. I think Gammas are simply RELEASED when there is a fusion event. However, the branching ratios are probably different in condensed matter fusion versus plasma fusion. And when a gamma is trapped in a condensed matter box, there is a distinct possibility that it gets fractionalized down to X-rays as Hagelstein theorizes.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Now, this response is 100% scientifically wrong. It is a severe misunderstanding, caused by the erroneous assumption that there is only one emissivity here. In fact there are two: total emissivity (controlling the power out) and band emissivity (controlling the IR temperature reading). The band emissivity can be high (close to 1) when the total emissivity is low (close to 0.4). That is exactly what is needed for a high false positive COP got from a much lower than expected real temperature, and TC showed that the form of this false positive closely modelled the actual Lugano results.


    See the thread rossi-lugano-early-demo-s-revisited-technica post #548


    Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)


    It was shown using the Optris software that the iteration with broad band emissivities did not take place on the Optris



    LDM


    You are being obtuse.


    The only significant "error" in that report was that TC used the same criteria as the Lugano professors, which I agree underestimated the reactor diameter.


    His correction, to their work, stands and accounts for the clear excess heat results and, most importantly, the excess heat "acceleration" which so convinced them.


    You have been trying, with infinite precision, to achieve a better estimate. That is admirable, but not necessarily helpful. TC's view was that there was too much uncertainty in this experiment to do that. Given the known mistakes we cannot be sure there is not some other inadvertent misrepresentation, nor can we know the exact emissivities etc. The whole methodology was unsuited to exact measurement: one of the many problems with the report was that having not obtained precise band emissivities empirically their error bounds were very wrong: another problem was that without control measurement at temperature the calculations about radiant and convective power out are not safe. Extreme precision when the input numbers are not known does not add enlightenment.


    If you are saying that the Lugano authors did not do what they said they did: well that is possible. The report is full of anomalies. In which case the results are even less trustworthy! It is proven that what they said they did, and what Levi insisted afterward they did, was wrong.


    Most people, looking at the evidence, would view those results as essentially null, proving nothing. Very different from what was claimed, and is still insisted, by Levi.


    One of the tells, which you will know, is that having corrected the band emissivity issue there is no clear difference in COP between the two high temperature tests: you can get such a difference by choosing the (unknown) band and total emissivities but plausibe values lead to closely similar COPs. That is unaffected by the exact reactor dimensions.


    THH

    Quote from Dr Richard

    Nice answer Kevmo, that's what I'm getting at maybe the condensed matter data is already there, in addition to the recent atom ecology observations on gammas. There is something I find very strange about the description of how a fission bomb is used as a starter system for the thermonuclear fusion reaction on wiki - they claim gammas have an effective mass which acts to compress the fusion fuel as it heats up. How can photons have mass, maybe this is a BS explanation concealing maybe that gammas can interact with deuterium (via entanglement?) to induce the fusion into energized Helium 4, which then rapidly breaks down releasing more gammas etc resulting in a chain reaction, self-sustaining and releasing the characteristic power of the H-bomb. interesting some of these bomb tests just fizzled then went out - certainly an avenue for more research.


    Photons have no rest mass, but they travel at c and do have momentum (equal to hv), and conservation of momentum holds which means that when they hit something they push it.


    Try googling "laser-driven implosion" and you will find many details.


    I'd suggest as a general principle that before suspecting thousands of scientists of being either incompetent or engaged in a global conspiracy you check facts?


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    LDM


    You are being obtuse.


    The only significant "error" in that report was that TC used the same criteria as the Lugano professors, which I agree underestimated the reactor diameter.

    Incorrect,


    Besides the diameter issue, there was also the correction for the value of the view factor.

    This had an implication for the emissivity correction.

    Also the view factor had to be used in combination with the area of the finned tube, not the area of the bare tube.

    After these corrections it was shown that the COP value of 1 in TC's report was not anymore.

    If you are stating that there was too much uncertainty in this experiment, then we can not accept the conclusions of TC's report since it was based on that experiment (with much uncertanty.)

    Quote from Dr Richard

    How can photons have mass, maybe this is a BS explanation concealing maybe that gammas can interact with deuterium (via entanglement?)


    In GUTCP.. mass is related to spin.

    This is a GUTCPesque visualisation

    of a photon interacting with an electron

    Gracias Miguel Vaca . It works on Chrome.. others?

    Slide the position tab with a mouse

    then the wavespeed etc

    Cool!

    https://miguelvaca.github.io/gutcp/GUTCP_PhotonElectron.html

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.