Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Bruce__H

"Pro-LENR agenda"? I don't think so. But then I do not have an anti-LENR agenda either. I am more just pro-knowledge. I want some clarity on whether LENR is real or not.

I would love it if LENR turned out to be real. But so far I just don't see it. And I am flummoxed that I run into such opposition for insisting that the LENR field expect the same standards of proof and disproof as the rest of science.

I hate the thumbs up, but I will use the clappy hands emoji👏. and add there are some who believe any constantly scream it from the mountaintops that these “scientific standards” have in fact been met but I’m just not smart enough to see it.

Maybe, maybe not

Quote from Curbina

I think you greatly misunderstood me, I learnt a great deal, just the lesson from Rossi is over

The essence of what I said is that we should play things forward and apply the lessons of Rossi to issues currently on the plate. I then brought up Russ Georges claims as an issue currently on the plate.

You say that you learnt a great deal from the Rossi fiasco. Is there anything you learnt that would shape the way you respond to George's claims?

If there is something to be learned from the Rossi fiasco and even more from the world at large, it is that it is very difficult for people to be skeptical about something they strongly want to be true and it is almost impossible for people to be skeptical about something they already decided is true.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

In the 1yr test, the output sometimes dropped with units offline, but often the remaining ones just increased COP to make up for disconnected reactors. The highest COP was associated with a cascade of reactor failures and repairs

[ Again ... not going back to search the old threads .. ]

I think that the "bad big frankies" were under-performing, and dragging down the average COP. When they were taken offline the overall output dropped. The remaining "good" big frankies operated at the same level as before, so the average COP went up.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

[ Again ... not going back to search the old threads .. ]

I think that the "bad big frankies" were under-performing, and dragging down the average COP. When they were taken offline the overall output dropped. The remaining "good" big frankies operated at the same level as before, so the average COP went up.

One of them might never have been used until the last couple of months. Penon had one BF as a spare, right from the start.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The Schneider photo again..

.

I couldn't find a discussion of what those figures mean. Searches here and on the web gave no relevant hits for Schneider. (I am NOT a 3-phase expert).

Quote from Bruce__H

Alan Fletcher actually obtained a Prominent pump of the sort Rossi used and measured output under different backpressure conditions. He was unable to obtain the 83L/hr pumping capacity needed to explain the plant operation claimed by Rossi on many days during the 1 year run at Doral.

I was asked if 83L/hr could be produced by a limited (18?) number of pumps. My answer was No. I did determine that the total (or per-unit) number of pumps were capable of producing the stated output at low back-pressure.

But in my own analysis of the logs (power levels, flowmeter,# of big frankies..) I didn't spot any period where the number of active pumps were dis-proportional to the number of big frankies running etc etc. When a big frankie was taken off line its pumps were stopped. I do remember a few inconsistencies due to a unit being turned off mid-day.

Bottom left corner is the wiring configuration: 3 phase 3 wire, 3 phase 4 wire, single phase.

Here it shows 3 phase 3 wire, but 4 wires go to the ecat.

PΣ is the total sum of power input for three phases. Negative means power is going out of the device.

PFΣ is the total sum of power factors for three phases. (The PCE-830 is not to be used on devices with a power factor less than 50%, from operating instructions). Power factor is only negative when the connections are backwards or the device outputs more power than input, confirming the negative total power reading. (A purely resistive heater coil should have a power factor of positive 1.)

The manual is available online.

Borderlands.de photo link http://www.borderlands.de/net_pdf/NET0113S13-15.pdf

Quote from Alan Fletcher

I think that the "bad big frankies" were under-performing, and dragging down the average COP. When they were taken offline the overall output dropped. The remaining "good" big frankies operated at the same level as before, so the average COP went up.

Not quite right. One of the 4 "Big Frankies" (the bottom one) was constantly leaking water. By August it was taken offline and the output of the plant dropped by 25%. The power absorbed from the grid likewise dropped by about 25% too at the same time. So the reactors in that unit were working fine until then and not dragging down the average COP. The 1/4-disabled state was recorded by Penon in his October visit. The service of the problem Big Frankie was never restored, and in a photo taken by IH personnel on the final day of the 1-year test you can see that it has been disconnected from its plumbing, its sight glass (showing internal fluid level) is clean and dry, and the Prominent pumps devoted to feeding it are inactive. Despite this, from mid November on, the power output of the plant as a whole was restored to about 1 MW and 36,000L/day of water was said to be circulating through the plant (requiring the 18 remaining pumps to each be delivering 83L/hour, which is outside their demonstrated capacity). Although the overall energy output of the plant was restored to its full 1 MW rating the energy absorbed from the grid remained permanently disabled by a factor of about 25% (a little more actually because about 10-15% of the individual reactors in the remaining 2 Big Frankies had shorted out). Thus, original output (1MW) but reduced power input means higher COP per reactor. In its countersuit, IH complained that no explanation was offered as to how the COP could go up as the number of reactors online went down. They offered this as evidence of fraudulent activity.

Quote from Curbina

I already said that I consider Russ an interesting and thought provocative blogger, he doesn’t ask for money nor offers licenses, so I wish him well and hope he eventually allows that what he claims becomes a commercial reality.

What a careful nonanswer! With your avoidance of the issues here, I think you are part of the problem.

Russ George has says he has steady, reliable, high-density heat in a system that he claims is way beyond the experimental stage (and that Alan says he is off seeking funding for). But he won't divulge the recipe even to his collaborators. Nor does he publish. So right now, George is looking much as Rossi must have looked to many in the early days when he first encountered Focardi. But knowing that Rossi's results eventually collapsed, should we not try and separate Rossi and George? Should we not say "Look, just back up your claims and allow replication"? Or, if you refuse to do that, will a lack of curiosity and a surfeit of credulity lead you down the garden path again?

Quote from interested observer

If there is something to be learned from the Rossi fiasco and even more from the world at large, it is that it is very difficult for people to be skeptical about something they strongly want to be true and it is almost impossible for people to be skeptical about something they already decided is true.

For me, the truer finding from the whole CF activity is condensed in what was said by Stan Szpak: "scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe".

These are some of the more interesting interpretations and corollaries of this dictum, appeared on the internet in the last 10 years, since the first Ecat demos:

From https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg59095.html:

"Most scientists […] care about one thing, and one thing only:

FUNDING. Money. Status. Power."

From https://www.mail-archive.com/v…eskimo.com/msg106309.html:

"This is also what Upton Sinclair had in mind when he said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!""

From http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg97821.html:

"If word gets out that cold fusion is now attracting tens of millions in research funding, then most of the academic opposition will vanish overnight."

From RE: Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified) :

"If funding becomes available, overnight hundreds of major scientists will say they believed in cold fusion all along."

.

Quote from Ascoli65

"Most scientists […] care about one thing, and one thing only:

FUNDING. Money. Status. Power."

That's 3 things. Reminds me of Monty Python, Spanish Inquisition:

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."

(You didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition, did you?)

Ihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtP6inWOKRw&list=RD7BBHJMPK4U8&index=34

Quote from Toffoli

"Scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe!"

Even worse: The are only payed because they e.g. believe in (mostly fringe) standard model physics.

Quote from Toffoli

"Scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe!"

Absolutely right, we should remark however that the percentage of these money-driven "scientists" in Big-Science projects is far higher than in fringe/non mainstream researches.

It's hard to establish the percentages within these two groups. I'd say in a first approximation that the absolute number of (exclusively) money-driven scientists is proportional to the funding available for the respective projects, so I agree that they are much more numerous in Big-Science projects.

Anyway, JedRothwell interpretation of the Szpak dictum ("If wor[l]d gets out that cold fusion is now attracting tens of millions in research funding, then most of the academic opposition will vanish overnight.") is clear and has been confirmed by the recent funding of the two EU projects on cold fusion: there have been no academic opposition.