Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Letts Patent 2015


    "

    To trigger an exothermic reaction in the hydrogen infused metal, a triggering condition is applied.

    [035] In some embodiments, the triggering condition includes applying a voltage differential between the cathode 105 and the anode 104. The voltage differential may be set to a resonant RP voltage as described above. The resonant voltage is dependent on a geometric dimension or dimensions of the reaction chamber. In some embodiments, the power supply used to provide the resonant voltage may include a DC component only. In some embodiments, the power supply may include both a DC component and an RF signal.

    [036] In some embodiments, the triggering condition further includes applying a magnetic field in the reaction chamber. The magnitude of the magnetic field is preferably set to be above a pre-determined threshold. The magnetic field may be supplied through the magnets 112 or through currents using Helmholtz coils (not shown). "


    Interesting

  • Yikes Shane! If it had been successful, why in the world would they not say so immediately and do a preliminary publication? It might even have affected Rossi's lawsuit favorably. Probably would have.


    The only credible reason they have said nothing is that they have nothing and they are terminally embarrassed. Perhaps in fear regarding the future of their careers.

    sadly, Mary,

    You are correct.


    The “Swedes” are trying desperately to distance themselves from all things Rossi.


    They are smart enough to know they were hoodwinked, are embarrassed by the entire experience and want nothing more for the entire charade to go away.

  • They are smart enough to know they were hoodwinked, are embarrassed by the entire experience and want nothing more for the entire charade to go away.

    If they wish to make it go away, why don't they issue a statement disavowing the work? I do not see how saying nothing makes it go away.


    (I have no idea what they are thinking.)

  • Shane, I must congratulate you on the openness of your mind and I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically. But really? Don't you realize it? There is nothing to replicate. There never was.

    When this paper was published, I think it was reasonable to conclude there might be something to the claims:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf


    I have repeatedly asked whether you found any technical errors in this paper. You keep saying you don't believe it because you don't trust the authors. That is a reasonable reason to reject the paper, but it is not a technical reason. I conclude you do not know of a technical reason. Neither do I. So, a person who does trust the authors (or did trust them when this was published) would have a legitimate reason to think there was something to replicate.

  • When this paper was published, I think it was reasonable to conclude there might be something to the claims:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf


    I have repeatedly asked whether you found any technical errors in this paper. You keep saying you don't believe it because you don't trust the authors. That is a reasonable reason to reject the paper, but it is not a technical reason. I conclude you do not know of a technical reason. Neither do I. So, a person who does trust the authors (or did trust them when this was published) would have a legitimate reason to think there was something to replicate.


    I will replicate this device next. The majority of it is off the shelf components.

  • I will replicate this device next. The majority of it is off the shelf components.

    Wow. I would appreciate a replication, but I don't think it is worth doing. There are too many unknowns such as what was in the powder.


    If you do this, you need to consult with the authors of the paper.


    The next two tests after this were disasters, so I no longer believe these results are credible. I am judging by the people, not by the technical merit of the paper. In other words, I am doing the same thing Mary Yugo does in this instance. The difference is, I know I am doing this, and I say I am, whereas she does not understand the difference between a technical reason to doubt a paper versus an evaluation of the author's credibility.

  • Wow. I would appreciate a replication, but I don't think it is worth doing. There are too many unknowns such as what was in the powder.


    If you do this, you need to consult with the authors of the paper.


    The next two tests after this were disasters, so I no longer believe these results are credible. I am judging by the people, not by the technical merit of the paper. In other words, I am doing the same thing Mary Yugo does in this instance. The difference is, I know I am doing this, and I say I am, whereas she does not understand the difference between a technical reason to doubt a paper versus an evaluation of the author's credibility.

    I won't install any powders. I just want to see how hot it gets without any special reaction.


    http://www.thermcraftinc.com/w…loads/2014/11/RL180Pr.jpg

  • People who still thnk Rossi is legit explain his behavior by saying he has bigly secrets to protect. Yet they are excited by the claims of various people that they are replicating Rossi’s results. Do they think they miraculously guessed all of the secrets? Just what does it mean to replicate a mystery box? I think Paradigmnoia is spot on. Build something that looks like an e-cat and measure similar results using the same flawed techniques. Voila! A replication!

  • Quote

    I have repeatedly asked whether you found any technical errors in this paper. You keep saying you don't believe it because you don't trust the authors. That is a reasonable reason to reject the paper, but it is not a technical reason. I conclude you do not know of a technical reason. Neither do I. So, a person who does trust the authors (or did trust them when this was published) would have a legitimate reason to think there was something to replicate


    You keep saying that. I don't recall ever claiming there were technical errors IN THE PAPER. There are huge holes in the knowledge of what was actually done, whether the power supply was genuine and really delivered the power Rossi/Levi claimed, and yes, whether the output power was correctly measured. Of COURSE I do not trust Rossi and by extension, Levi, Penon or any of Rossi's associates (I use the polite word in deference to our hosts). The circumstances of the experiment do not allow evaluation of the technology at all. I believe in addition that technical errors were found by others but by now, I've lost track of which experiment was reviewed and by who and I am not excited about the prospect of reviewing all that crap. Suffice it to say, Rossi, Levi and the Swedes have never done a clean, unequivocal experiment and one which an interested and supposedly capable party like IH could replicate. "Technical errors in the paper?" Do you mean like improperly written equations? Errors in schematics? Bad constants? Stuff like that? I am not even sure what, exactly that phrase means in this context.

  • When this paper was published, I think it was reasonable to conclude there might be something to the claims:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf


    I have repeatedly asked whether you found any technical errors in this paper. You keep saying you don't believe it because you don't trust the authors. That is a reasonable reason to reject the paper, but it is not a technical reason. I conclude you do not know of a technical reason. Neither do I. So, a person who does trust the authors (or did trust them when this was published) would have a legitimate reason to think there was something to replicate.



    There are no overt technical errors in the results, it is true, merely indication from what was not checked that there is much room for much possible error.


    But, there is what could properly be called a technical error (of interpretation) in the paper. Remarks on the test, pp 25-27, is obviously thought significant by the authors since they spend significant time on it. They are looking at the shape of the temperature vs time waveforms and noting that these are not exponential, as would be expected from a resistor heating or cooling. The interpretation in this section is flawed. It could never be made by somone with a sophisticated understanding of temperature dynamics. Basically, they assume that the system they measure is characterised by a single time constant when it is actually a distributed system with multiple time constants.


    This error does not affect the results, it is just wrong. But, it does show a combination of lack of physical insight and partiality on the part of the report authors, making claims on the basis of wrong assumptions, which speaks to their lack of independent and critical attitude. Those who can see something extraordinary in normal heating curves on the basis of mathematics incorrectly applied are not a safe pair of hands as validators for LENR.

  • Yes, totally agree THHuxley. I also fell into that rather naive trap of assuming the single time constant. I was surprised it was questioned in the paper when a little thought and searching gave the real and in retrospect obvious reason for the observed change in temperature. Having said that, there is still an issue with slight misalignment in the graph between temperature and power applied.

    For me though the most striking observation is that the temperature curve is exactly what you would expect from a heated lump of metal, there is no indication of a abnormal increase indicating the start of some sort of reaction. That would suggest to me there is either no reaction with mismeasurement or a reaction that's proportional in a linear way to temperature. The later would suggest the possibility of a continuous fuel reaction even at room temperature albeit at a very low level.

  • "(Snip endless quibbles which have been addressed hundreds of times)"


    NOT addressed by the authors of the report, which is the point.


    The point is: they didn't address them because they fully know what this is all about: pathoskepticism. It's not worth an answer. However, it's worth social engineering contracts, because LENR are real and very disturbing for some industrial and financial interests who really wish their implementation into public tech to go very, very slowly... skeptopathy is a very useful tool.
    Hence the thousands of posts bashing Rossi and endlessly quibbling about points easy to quibble about.


  • The point is: they didn't address them because they fully know what this is all about: pathoskepticism. It's not worth an answer. However, it's worth social engineering contracts, because LENR are real and very disturbing for some industrial and financial interests who really wish their implementation into public tech goes very, very slowly... skeptopathy is a very useful tool.
    Hence the thousands of posts bashing Rossi and endlessly quibbling about points easy to quibble about.

    Unfortunately, the problems I listed are almost all demonstrably wrong, not pathosceptic quibbles.


    Rossi nearly blew a gasket over the lack of using the proper delta configuration math, posting a JoNP diatribe on how much idiots we were for pointing that out, and how correct the formula in the report was. But he is still wrong. (The overall impact is relatively insignificant in the report, but using the wrong formula in the report helps obfuscate the math for figuring what was going on electrically). He did not understand that current flows through the C2 cables from other phases even if it does not "enter" or "exit" the respective connected C1 cable, which means the current from the C1 cable cannot be simply divided in two for the attached C1 cable to get a correct answer for the current in the connected C2 cables.


    Arxiv rejected the Lugano paper because it was riddled with problems, not because the PTB, MIB, or The Man are blocking progress to save the oil/electric companies (or whatever).


    Social engineering, and various conspiracy-like theories are irrelevant to the list I posted: These issues can be tested. Just like Rossi's magic Gamma 0232 metering pumps that pump (for him) far more than they can pump for anyone else (not to mention defeating the purpose of using a metering pump in the first place, if he could get the pumps pumping at twice their specification).


    I did not bother with the ash-fuel part of the report in my list since issues there were in part addressed by Mr. Hoistad, and theories there rely on conjecture more than demonstrable facts.

  • Unfortunately, the problems I listed are almost all demonstrably wrong, not pathosceptic quibbles.


    Rossi nearly blew a gasket over the lack of using the proper delta configuration math, posting a JoNP diatribe on how much idiots we were for pointing that out, and how correct the formula in the report was. But he is still wrong. (The overall impact is relatively insignificant in the report, but using the wrong formula in the report helps obfuscate the math for figuring what was going on electrically). He did not understand that current flows through the C2 cables from other phases even if it does not "enter" or "exit" the respective connected C1 cable, which means the current from the C1 cable cannot be simply divided in two for the attached C1 cable to get a correct answer for the current in the connected C2 cables.


    In the Levi report you refer to, you can see from figure 3 in the Appendix, that the ECAT-HT was operated in two phase mode.
    My hypothesis is that at the Lugano test the ECAT during the dummy run was operated in three phase mode, while at the actual runs it was operated in two phase mode.
    That also explains that Rossi was right about the divisions of the currents (If he was referring to the actual runs). It also explains why people , assuming three phase operation at the actual run, but with real operation in two phase mode calculated the large negative resistance drop of the heater wires.


    And yes, the professors where confused about this too seeing some of the assumptions they made in the report.




  • Arxiv rejected the Lugano paper because it was riddled with problems, not because the PTB, MIB, or The Man are blocking progress to save the oil/electric companies (or whatever).


    Baah!!! Arxiv didn't even bother to read it, only put in on hold, covering their eyes going bah bah bah - hoping it would disappear... :) The reason for this was hardly MIBs or whatever, but simply critique from their bosses (since they allowed the first report) at the coffee machine and mild threats of reduced funding next year... As it always goes in academics. Nothing new, simple logic. No need to bring on the PTB arguments here.



  • All the problems you listed are pathoskeptic quibbles, in the true and tried tradition of pathoskepticism, which exploits whatever uncertainty about whatever exploitable issue to cast doubt upon the general picture (80 COP in that case)

    Social engineering is completely relevant to whatever has been, and is happening with "cold fusion" / LENR : we know it's real, we know labs lied about not being able to replicate P&F experiments just so they could stay in good business terms with "hot fusion" subsidizers, we know Eugene Mallove was murdered because he was irritating some people/interests, we know big industrial players are more than interested in this tech, study it and keep it hush-hush...

    And we also know quite a few posters here have written thousands of posts about Rossi, who in their analysis is a master conman hypnotist, able to mentally dominate investors and scientists alike for nearly 10 years, even though dutiful citizens like Maryyugo and others have contacted congressmen, senators, cult watchlists etc to warn them about the dangers of this sorcerous scammer

    From conspiracy theorist to conspiracy theorist, your theory makes no sense, while mine merely describes standard practices from industrial/financial interests when the technologies they profit upon, are threatened by a scientific breakthrough that will usher in a new paradigm and sweeping technological changes.

    This won't come as a surprise to you as you're fully aware of what's going on

  • From conspiracy theorist to conspiracy theorist, your theory makes no sense, while mine merely describes standard practices from industrial/financial interests when the technologies they profit upon, are threatened by a scientific breakthrough that will usher in a new paradigm and sweeping technological changes.


    Paradigmnoia is sticking to concrete details, some of which he himself has investigated empirically. You keep yourself limited to vague generalizations. I appreciate that the difference in persuasiveness in these two approaches may not be apparent to you. But I think you and others would benefit from understanding how wide is the chasm between them. Arguments addressing concrete details and based on empirical investigations are infinitely more persuasive than vague generalizations. Paradigmnoia is not pushing a theory that makes no sense — he's discussing concrete details that, taken individually, make a lot of sense.