Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Roseland67

Observer,

Sure you have an agenda, exposing Andrea Rossi as a charlatan and a fraud and anyone who believes his drivel as a gullible fool.

Your agenda is clear.

IMHO this is a way more respectable agenda than Rossi's (frauding all out there and esp his gullible believers and potential investors, who are lazy in looking behind his curtains...)

Quote from interested observer

How boring. My agenda is belaboring the obvious.

Agreed,

Quote from axil

Also MFMP, not only references Hutchinson in the video, he also shows results from one of the two LION experiments and also results produced by Keith Fredericks. Critics of experimental results should be as rigorous, consistent, and comprehensive as those who present the results.

LION himself is not rigorous, consistent, or comprehensive in his experiments or in conveying their results. So the bar is not high here. Nonetheless, I am glad to say that I meet your criteria since I analyzed all of LION's heating experiments that I could find. In doing so it became clear to me that LION never really understood the equipment he was using (loaned or given to him by Alan Smith). He didn't understand the inputs nor how the data were recorded. Also, the notes he took during the experiments and his explanations afterwards were never quite enough for either of us to determine exactly what procedures were happening during certain parts of the experiments, so interpretation was difficult. I can say, however, that for the most part his data were consistent with ohmic heating and that no part of his recorded data ever showed any excess heat (see, for instance, this ECW thread: https://e-catworld.com/2018/11…oxing-video-bob-greenyer/). Moreover, replication attempts by MPFP failed. At one point LION said he would construct reactors to senf out for independent tesing (that was about 1 1/2 years ago) but that never happened.

So where does this put all of Bob Greenyer's analyses of LION's materials? Nowhere, that's where. For all anyone knows, all these amazing tracks and witness marks Bob sees are just things that you see when you hugely magnify ordinary materials. Indeed, at one point I tried to prove to Bob that you could find all these phenomena in ordinary samples by googling images for "metal micrographs" and showing that you could find the same range of circles etc there. Bob ignored that (see http://disq.us/p/1qfrhtm). I have also asked him time and time again to try to analyze some sort of controls to eliminate the possibility that he is just seeing ordinary phenomena, but he is always too busy. Well I would not call that too busy ... I would call that sloppy and careless. Needless to say -- no controls from Hutchison either.

Hutchison and LION are completely different. Hutchison is an out and out con man (like Rossi) whereas I think that LION is just a very inexperienced researcher who, in his enthusiasm, has gotten way out in front of his results. The effect is the same though, the more often Bob finds signs of LENR/EVOs/material-eating toroids in the samples coming from these two, the more he demonstrates that his claims are wrong.

Ironically, despite Bob's refusal to institute adequate controls in his investigations, the LION and Hutchison samples themselves act like controls. Bob should not be finding evidence of LENR activity in these samples because they have never undergone any such process. And yet he finds signs of his EVOs everywhere. Bob is a hard worker, but in this case the he works the more he disproves his case.

Quote from Bruce__H

LION himself is not rigorous, consistent, or comprehensive in his experiments or in conveying their results. So the bar is not high here. Nonetheless, I am glad to say that I meet your criteria since I analyzed all of LION's heating experiments that I could find. In doing so it became clear to me that LION never really understood the equipment he was using (loaned or given to him by Alan Smith). He didn't understand the inputs nor how the data were recorded. Also, the notes he took during the experiments and his explanations afterwards were never quite enough for either of us to determine exactly what procedures were happening during certain parts of the experiments, so interpretation was difficult. I can say, however, that for the most part his data were consistent with ohmic heating and that no part of his recorded data ever showed any excess heat (see, for instance, this ECW thread: https://e-catworld.com/2018/11…oxing-video-bob-greenyer/). Moreover, replication attempts by MPFP failed. At one point LION said he would construct reactors to senf out for independent tesing (that was about 1 1/2 years ago) but that never happened.

So where does this put all of Bob Greenyer's analyses of LION's materials? Nowhere, that's where. For all anyone knows, all these amazing tracks and witness marks Bob sees are just things that you see when you hugely magnify ordinary materials. Indeed, at one point I tried to prove to Bob that you could find all these phenomena in ordinary samples by googling images for "metal micrographs" and showing that you could find the same range of circles etc there. Bob ignored that (see http://disq.us/p/1qfrhtm). I have also asked him time and time again to try to analyze some sort of controls to eliminate the possibility that he is just seeing ordinary phenomena, but he is always too busy. Well I would not call that too busy ... I would call that sloppy and careless. Needless to say -- no controls from Hutchison either.

Hutchison and LION are completely different. Hutchison is an out and out con man (like Rossi) whereas I think that LION is just a very inexperienced researcher who, in his enthusiasm, has gotten way out in front of his results. The effect is the same though, the more often Bob finds signs of LENR/EVOs/material-eating toroids in the samples coming from these two, the more he demonstrates that his claims are wrong.

Ironically, despite Bob's refusal to institute adequate controls in his investigations, the LION and Hutchison samples themselves act like controls. Bob should not be finding evidence of LENR activity in these samples because they have never undergone any such process. And yet he finds signs of his EVOs everywhere. Bob is a hard worker, but in this case the he works the more he disproves his case.

Display More

I like Mr Greenyer, his creative mind and his passion. This is a good point though about some observations seeming wanting. Founding the entirety of exothermic hydrogen experiments on EVOs and such is not the best aproach to me. A plasmoid that self ionizes/perpetuates while burning and utilizing constructs of exotic states of matter to more efficiently catalyze interesting reactions is all good. Just not the most scientific approach to assume changing the vacuum and endothermic genuine nuclear transmutations that are supposed to be exothermic are the simplest and most logical conclusions in all settings.

Using the measurement of excess heat is an unreliable indicator for an active LENR reaction. A more reliable indicator is the detection of transmutation. MFMP has shown the production of transmutation in LION material. In one case, The SEM data shows the production of extensive and all pervasive transmuted material in diamond which starts out as pure carbon. In another view of LION reactor material, Quartz is shown to be transmuted. In these cases, the hallmark of the EVO is apparent in these observations. Transmutation provides a stable record of the LENR reaction that is fixed in time. For example, a solid ball of mixed transmuted elements are found inside and at one end of an enclosed and empty tunnel of diamond and in other cases inside an empty tunnel of quartz. This record of transmutation is static and not susceptible to changing conditions. Experimental control is provided by the purity of the material in which the transmutation took place and the spherical form that the completely enclosed and encapsulated transmuted materia assumed. It is just not one tunnel or a few, but hundreds or thousands of them.

The LION experimental diamond evidence as follows:

Quote from axil

Using the measurement of excess heat is an unreliable indicator for an active LENR reaction. A more reliable indicator is the detection of transmutation. MFMP has shown the production of transmutation in LION material. In one case, The SEM data shows the production of extensive and all pervasive transmuted material in diamond which starts out as pure carbon. In another view of LION reactor material, Quartz is shown to be transmuted. In these cases, the hallmark of the EVO is apparent in these observations. Transmutation provides a stable record of the LENR reaction that is fixed in time. For example, a solid ball of mixed transmuted elements are found inside and at one end of an enclosed and empty tunnel of diamond and in other cases inside an empty tunnel of quartz. This record of transmutation is static and not susceptible to changing conditions. Experimental control is provided by the purity of the material in which the transmutation took place and the spherical form that the completely enclosed and encapsulated transmuted materia assumed.

Then they should make a pail of transmutation diamond and a pail of transmutation quartz, sell it for a billion dollars as incontrovertible proof of whatever and fund whatever they want forever.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Then they should make a pail of transmutation diamond and a pail of transmutation quartz, sell it for a billion dollars as incontrovertible proof of whatever and fund whatever they want forever.

Large amounts of non energy producing transmutation has occured by the 100s of tons

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…18/08/244_JCMNS-Vol24.pdf

7. Puzzle of the Missing Nuclear Energy

A worth noting feature of the Silcal observations was that there was no dramatic change whatsoever in the energy

dissipation. Using the estimated energy release values of 17.13 MeV/atom of Si or 49.58 MeV per atom of Fe given in

Appendix B, for the postulated nuclear transmutation reactions, it can be shown that corresponding to 4.25 ton of metal

transmutation, the power generated should have been the equivalent of the total thermal power generated by hundreds

of 1000MWe nuclear power stations. However, in our plant there was no evidence of such massive amounts of nuclear

energy being released throughout the 11-week period, giving a handle to the skeptics to question our claims of ton

level elemental transmutations. In this context it is worth noting that nobody in published LENR literature (to the

best of our knowledge) has established a clear correlation between the quantum of transmutation products generated

in carbon arc and the expected nuclear heat release based on atomic mass considerations. On the other hand neither

has any publication claimed that the Carbon Arc experiment violates Einstein’s E = mc2 dictum. Thus if indeed the

Silcal transmutation claims are confirmed it would clearly point to the operation of new Science wherein transmutation

could be occurring without the accompaniment of the expected nuclear energy release.

In the context of these remarks the arguments of Daniel Szumski elaborated in his “Least Action Nuclear Process”

(LANP) Theory appear relevant. We learnt about Szumski’s work through his paper presented at ICCF 20 conference

[13]. Szumski who has taken great pains to analyze in detail the transmutation observations of George Miley (see

www.LeastActionNuclearProcess.com) argues that both endothermic and exothermic nuclear reactions can and do occur

concurrently in LENR experiments, partly or wholly cancelling out net energy release. In fact he has referred to
some experimental observations of Mizuno wherein transmutations have reportedly been observed by him not accompanied
by energy release. Szumski is thus not at all surprised by our observation of “energy neutral” transmutation

reactions.

Quote from axil

The LION experimental diamond evidence as follows:

Everything Bob sees in the video you link to is just the result of regular chemistry. A control LION reactor subjected to the same conditions as this one, but never using heavy water, would show the same things.

To be specific. The right way to do this is to run at least 3 active and 3 control reactors through the same sequence of temperatures then have Bob analyze them blind*. That is a lot of work, but then the claim is that a new branch of physics is being established so I guess lots of effort is justified.

* To be at all convincing, Bob would have to be able to classify all 6 reactors perfectly as either control or non-control. The chance of attaining a perfect score like this simply by accident would then be only 5%, which is a widely accepted standard in science (although a 1% Type I error rate would be even better if one is supposed to be overturning parts of science). Misclassifying even a single reactor would be a fail.

Quote from Bruce__H

Everything Bob sees in the video you link to is just the result of regular chemistry. A control LION reactor subjected to the same conditions as this one, but never using heavy water, would show the same things.

Talk is cheap; Prove it.

Quote from axil

Talk is cheap; Prove it

you’re talking about Rossi and the steaming raft of XXX he’s been selling for 10 straight years right Axil?

Edited by Shane

Quote from axil

Talk is cheap; Prove it.

Talk is cheap but irony is priceless.

Quote from Siccario

but someone told me that Mizuno's lab was th ONLY one

Someone somewhere sometime.. told Siccario..so it says

Can Siccario be specific..

Quote from axil

Talk is cheap; Prove it.

No no. It is up to them to prove their claims by disproving mine. This shows how little you know abut the way empirical science works.

What I am stating is the classic null hypothesis. It says that there is nothing new here compared to controls. It is up to the person making the new claim to incorporate controls in their analysis and show that the null hypothesis is false. LION and Greenyer should be trying to do this. It is what is expected of anyone and everyone in the game. So far, to their shame, L&G have failed to follow this elementary step. It has been about 18 months and ... nothing. Until THEY show otherwise, it is my view that will carry the day.

Quote from Alan Smith

Pollution is in the eye of the beholder. One man's tomato is another man's weed.

If you believe Axil's word salad posts are tomatoes, then you are smoking weed