Looking forward, do we now apply the lessons of Rossi to Russ George?
-
-
Display More
We can use the entire Rossi episode as a test case. What would have caught him out earlier?
1) Insisting on a complete and replicable description of materials and methods
2) Insisting on completely independent replication
3) Insisting on publication (of both original work and replications) in peer-reviewed journals
I note that the third requirement may have prevented the "Swedish professors" from publishing their work. Not because they wouldn't have been able to find a place to publish, but because they would then feel that their reputations are more on the line that they apparently do with the Arxiv preprint they released. As it is, they have slunk away from this flawed paper hoping that no one would notice. It is squalid, infamous, behaviour. If this were a real journal, such behaviour could even jeopardize their jobs.
Arxiv refused the Lugano paper.
-
Arxiv refused the Lugano paper.
There is one paper by Levi et al that presently exists on Arxiv.org. Originally posted in May 2013. https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
I was thinking of this one. I think it is the one that IH relied on when solidifying their relationship with Rossi. Is it not the "Lugano" paper?
-
I wish they had published the power consumption for the November "melt down".
-
There is one paper by Levi et al that presently exists on Arxiv.org. Originally posted in May 2013. https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
I was thinking of this one. I think it is the one that IH relied on when solidifying their relationship with Rossi. Is it not the "Lugano" paper?
No, this is the paper often short-formed to “An Indication of” or simply “Indication of”.
It is before the Lugano demo.
The “Indication of” test is partly skewered by the photo taken by Adolph Schneider, the Swiss Leonardo licensee at the time, in the middle of the December part of the test. The photo shows that the PCE-830 was connected wrong, and the ecat producing something like 1100 Watts, complete with negative power factor.The watch used to confirm the time (for the video camera, noted in the report and in report photos) is in the Schneider photo, with the date visible.
-
Hmmm....
Even if power factor was a negative #,
Power would still be correct, no?
Negative power factor could be explained by current transformer (+ & -), wires crossed at inputs, (assuming the CT’s were 5 a output)
Possible even to input incorrect phase rotation
And get - power factor?
Wouldn’t read to much into that.
However, everything from Rossi is suspect, everything, so you’re probably correct, it’s bogus.
-
Both are interesting. It is also interesting to look back on these now that a number of years have passed and we can be in broad agreement that Rossi was a faker after all.
Well, Rossi took inspiration from F&P. Any retrospective analysis should start with those who initiated this bizarre field of research in which experimental artifacts are misinterpreted as exotic nuclear phenomena that generate excess heat and are ultimately funded or sold for millions of dollars.
And the artifacts of F&P are also much more evident than those of Rossi:
-
Well, Rossi took inspiration from F&P. Any retrospective analysis should start with those who initiated this bizarre field of research in which experimental artifacts are misinterpreted as exotic nuclear phenomena that generate excess heat and are ultimately funded or sold for millions of dollars.
And the artifacts of F&P are also much more evident than those of Rossi:
You sound like a broken record Ascoli65 . Are you even aware that there have been research teams that have confirmed the FPE, even with higher excess heat, but have alternative chemical hypothesis of where the heat comes from? Are they also seeing foam?
Not saying that I or anyone else in the LENR field agrees with those chemical hypothesis discussed ad nauseam, but even those research teams agree the FPE is real, and worthy of further research. -
No, this is the paper often short-formed to “An Indication of” or simply “Indication of”.
It is before the Lugano demo.
The “Indication of” test is partly skewered by the photo taken by Adolph Schneider, the Swiss Leonardo licensee at the time, in the middle of the December part of the test. The photo shows that the PCE-830 was connected wrong, and the ecat producing something like 1100 Watts, complete with negative power factor.The watch used to confirm the time (for the video camera, noted in the report and in report photos) is in the Schneider photo, with the date visible.
Thanks for putting me right there. The "paper" on Arxiv is the one that IH relied on in 2013 to solidify their relationship with Rossi. The Lugano paper is from 2014 and occupies some sort of released-but-not-released publishing netherworld. Ready made for the use of scammers!
What is the significance of the date showing on the watch?
-
You sound like a broken record Ascoli65 .
Everyone talking about events that happened 30 years ago sounds like a broken record.
QuoteAre you even aware that there have been research teams that have confirmed the FPE, even with higher excess heat, but have alternative chemical hypothesis of where the heat comes from? Are they also seeing foam?
The foam in the 1992 boil-off experiment is only the most evident and best documented artifact which caused the most important FPE in the history of CF. People believing that F&P produced excess heat and HAD phenomena in their experiments, despite the contrary overwhelming evidence provided by their own video, can also believe any extraordinary claim caused by any other artifact, not just foam.
FPE is a socio-psychological phenomenon, not nuclear, nor chemical. Rossi exploited this anthropological phenomenon.
QuoteNot saying that I or anyone else in the LENR field agrees with those chemical hypothesis discussed ad nauseam, but even those research teams agree the FPE is real, and worthy of further research.
Almost all of the research teams conclude their reports stating that their findings are worthy of further research. But what matters is that neither you nor anyone else in the LENR field, except Robert Horst (1), has yet admitted that the FPE claimed by F&P in their 1992 boil-off experiment were artifacts caused by foam.
-
I wish they had published the power consumption for the November "melt down".
I'd love to see that too. I like meltdowns. I think they can be enormously informative. Of relevance to the argument I have been making here, however, I'd like to see the meltdown replicated by an independent party whose only connection with Rossi is that they have read an informative paper published by him.
-
Display More
Everyone talking about events that happened 30 years ago sounds like a broken record.
The foam in the 1992 boil-off experiment is only the most evident and best documented artifact which caused the most important FPE in the history of CF. People believing that F&P produced excess heat and HAD phenomena in their experiments, despite the contrary overwhelming evidence provided by their own video, can also believe any extraordinary claim caused by any other artifact, not just foam.
FPE is a socio-psychological phenomenon, not nuclear, nor chemical. Rossi exploited this anthropological phenomenon.
Almost all of the research teams conclude their reports stating that their findings are worthy of further research. But what matters is that neither you nor anyone else in the LENR field, except Robert Horst (1), has yet admitted that the FPE claimed by F&P in their 1992 boil-off experiment were artifacts caused by foam.
I should know better than retort once again to your circular argument.
You are completely ignoring every single other evidence that disproves your fallacious premise, and attempting once again to apply a failed reductio ab absurdum argument that you believe can’t be disproven, by linking all the information that disproves it as a consequence of an alleged “original sin” of Fleischmann and Pons that you are the only person that seems to be able to realize (I am aware that Robert Horst has agreed with you but only in the context of that picture, he never agreed with you in anything else). Good luck living in your parallel reality. We will keep ignoring you as you keep ignoring everything that disproves your fallacious argument.
-
Display More
"Schwinger was a pioneering theorist in cold fusion. He felt that the bias of the physics community against cold fusion was based on inferences from hot fusion that are not valid in this new regime. He argued that the defense of cold fusion can be simply stated, "The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion." He first submitted the results of his theoretical analysis of cold fusion to journals of the American Physical Society. He received such harsh treatment in the denial of publication of this work that as a symbolic gesture, he resigned his membership from the American Physical Society. This was no small step for someone who had been a leading member for over 50 years. In doing so he said, "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."
Undaunted, Schwinger did publish papers on cold fusion in other forums. He was the sole author of the following 8 papers on this subject:
1. "Nuclear Energy in an Atomic Lattice," Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion (Salt Lake City) pp. 130 - 136, March 28 -31 (1990).
2. "Nuclear Energy in an Atomic Lattice.1," Zeitschrift fur Physik D 15, pp. 221-225 (1990).
3. "Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis," Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung 45a, p. 756 (1990).
4. "Cold Fusion: Does It Have a Future?" in Evolutional Trends of Physical Sciences. Germany: Springer Verlag 1991. (From a talk delivered in Tokyo, 1990)
5. "Phonon Representations," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 87, pp. 6983 - 6984 (1990).
- 4 -
6. "Phonon Dynamics," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 87, pp. 8370 - 8372 (1990).
7. "Nuclear Energy in an Atomic Lattice - Causal Order," Progress in Theoretical Physics 85, pp. 711 - 712 (1991).
8. "Cold Fusion Theory: A Brief History of Mine," Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (Maui, 1993) ICCF-4 Transactions of Fusion Technology pp. ? - ? (1994).
He also presented a colloquium at MIT and the University of Pennsylvania entitled, "A Progress Report: Energy Transfer in Cold Fusion and Sonoluminescence."
When I first read Schwinger's papers on cold fusion, I thought that I may have spotted some errors in them. So I wrote him a letter on September 24, 1990, respectfully raising a couple of questions. I did not hear from him directly, but did speak with his devoted wife, Clarise. Because of my great admiration for Professor Schwinger, in co-authoring two reviews of cold fusion (International Journal of Theoretical Physics 33, pp. 617 - 670, 1994; and in Trans. Fusion Technol. 26, 3 (1994)) I felt badly about writing a critical review of his work. I wrote, "We hope that Schwinger will address the issues raised and clarify the situation." In hopes that he would resolve the questions that we raised, I again wrote to him in early 1994 sending him a copy of our paper. Perhaps because he was ill, he neither responded privately nor publicly. It would not have troubled me if he had proven me wrong."
Coming back to the issue of the publication, neither Alan Smith nor me have claimed publication to be impossible (neither did Julian Schwinger) but that the publications are rejected without even a look nor an explanation, or even an attempt of argumentation, of why they would not be accepted, sometimes not even a plain no, just silence.
I have had publications declined in my conventional field, but the rejection always came with an analysis of the reasons and recommendations of how to further proceed (either enhancements or a recommendation of other better suited journal).
-
Here’s a more recent account from the Mossier-Boss / Forsley team, and I think they were lucky because they got at least a fighting chance, which is far more than most LENR researchers experience in the process of publication.
A Tale of Two JournalsPamela A Mosier-Boss, Lawrence P Forsley
JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE, 42
Earlier we discussed the flawed journal review process and how it stifles innovation and the diffusion of knowledge. Recently we tried to publish a paper describing our LENR experiences working with undergraduate chemical engineering students in an education journal. One journal had a word limit for articles as well as a fairly rigid format which prevented us from telling the story the way we wanted to. Although we addressed all the issues of the reviewers, the paper was rejected, after ten months and multiple revisions, on the grounds that independent research projects were outside the scope of the journal. We eventually published the paper in another education journal. In this journal, we were able to tell the narrative the way we originally wanted to, all the while emphasizing the advantages of involving students in verifying new scientific phenomena. This paper describes the events that transpired. c⃝ 2020 ISCMNS. All rights reserved. ISSN 2227-3123 -
Coming back to the issue of the publication, neither Alan Smith nor me have claimed publication to be impossible (neither did Julian Schwinger) but that the publications are rejected without even a look nor an explanation, or even an attempt of argumentation, of why they would not be accepted, sometimes not even a plain no, just silence.
None of this is a reason to stop requiring researchers to publish their findings before they can expect to be treated seriously. That was my original argument.
Everyone here should be expecting researchers with claims of unusual physics to publish their stuff. Yet few do raise that expectation. Current case in point (again) Russ George.
To be fair, I suspect that Alan Smith presses George privately. But in my opinion Smith should be more open about it if only to exhibit some leadership from a moderator regarding community expectations.
-
Display More
Hmmm....
Even if power factor was a negative #,
Power would still be correct, no?
Negative power factor could be explained by current transformer (+ & -), wires crossed at inputs, (assuming the CT’s were 5 a output)
Possible even to input incorrect phase rotation
And get - power factor?
Wouldn’t read to much into that.
However, everything from Rossi is suspect, everything, so you’re probably correct, it’s bogus.
A negative power factor of 0.5
-
None of this is a reason to stop requiring researchers to publish their findings before they can expect to be treated seriously. That was my original argument.
Everyone here should be expecting researchers with claims of unusual physics to publish their stuff. Yet few do raise that expectation. Current case in point (again) Russ George.
To be fair, I suspect that Alan Smith presses George privately. But in my opinion Smith should be more open about it if only to exhibit some leadership from a moderator regarding community expectations.
It is an unwarranted and undeserved hurdle that hinders and discourages efforts, nevertheless.
I have stated that I stopped wasting my life on Rossi says a good while ago.
On the other hand, Russ George has, AFAIK, never asked anyone for money, nor offered licenses to anyone, nor organized public or private demos. For me he is an interesting and insightful blogger and I truly hope him ever gets something published or patented. All I or anyone can do about him is either wishing him well, or ignore him, whatever suits you better.
-
Thanks for putting me right there. The "paper" on Arxiv is the one that IH relied on in 2013 to solidify their relationship with Rossi. The Lugano paper is from 2014 and occupies some sort of released-but-not-released publishing netherworld. Ready made for the use of scammers!
What is the significance of the date showing on the watch?
The date on the watch both confirms the photo as real (I think it was Pettersson’s watch) and confirms the messed up wiring was during the middle of the test, not some random photo from some other time.
-
Coming back to the issue of the publication, neither Alan Smith nor me have claimed publication to be impossible (neither did Julian Schwinger) but that the publications are rejected without even a look nor an explanation, or even an attempt of argumentation, of why they would not be accepted, sometimes not even a plain no, just silence.
I have had publications declined in my conventional field, but the rejection always came with an analysis of the reasons and recommendations of how to further proceed (either enhancements or a recommendation of other better suited journal).
Many journals reject substantial proportion of submissions without referees ever being assigned (Elsevier says 30-50%, https://www.elsevier.com/conne…s-i-rejected-your-article). It's not a reason to stop expecting researchers to publish.
Here’s a more recent account from the Mossier-Boss / Forsley team, and I think they were lucky because they got at least a fighting chance, which is far more than most LENR researchers experience in the process of publication.
Exactly my point. The team submitted to the wrong journal, were rejected, then found a home for their paper.
-
(I am aware that Robert Horst has agreed with you but only in the context of that picture, he never agreed with you in anything else)
I know it. I never claimed he agreed with me in anything else. I just wrote: "But what matters is that neither you nor anyone else in the LENR field, except Robert Horst (1), has yet admitted that the FPE claimed by F&P in their 1992 boil-off experiment were artifacts caused by foam." Do you see? I only referred to the 1992 boil-off experiment.
However, due to the importance of the authors and its inclusion among the 7 most significant CF works submitted to DoE in 2004, it represents the entry level of the awareness path on the essence of cold fusion. Who ignores this particular F&P's experiment, can't consider any other one.
