Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from kirkshanahan

It is a part of being a scientist to participate in the technical assessments of ongoing research in areas of interest.

Agreed. Which is why it is all the more appalling that your buddies went before congress to stop any funding being diverted to the area of ongoing research of a phenomena, that if shown to work, would literally save the world.

Quote

In science, 'critical review' is a required part of the process, and that means 'critics' and 'criticisms' are present, expected, and needed.

Again, agreed. But don't you think that criticism should be genuine and not self-interested? I'm not referring to your criticism, per se, but to criticisms and subterfuge carried out by the larger plasma fusion community.

AA, every “fact” you state about the E-Cat QX is simply parroting whatever Rossi says. There is not a single bit of corroboration for any of it from any other source. Thus, your quote about you waiting for facts is absurd. You are entirely faith-based when it comes to Rossi. Admit it; the truth will set you free!

Quote from IH Fanboy

But don't you think that criticism should be genuine and not self-interested?

Sure. But I also note that that is an ideal, and people rarely meet ideals on a consistent basis, so a little self-interest creeping in is to be expected and accounted for.

Also, self-interest is not necessarily bad. It engenders a higher level of participation. Isn't that the basis of why people think capitalism is superior to socialism for example?

Quote from IH Fanboy

all the more appalling that your buddies went before congress to stop any funding being diverted to the area of ongoing research of a phenomena

A.) Not my buddies, don't know any of 'em. B.) Wouldn't you do the exactly the same in reverse? Don't you think LENR will 'save the world' and 'hot fusion' is a rat hole? Wouldn't you go before Congress given the chance to say just that? Would your behavior be 'appalling' or 'expected'?

Isn't the *real* issue whether or not the CFers had a reasonable case for what they claimed? Did they or did they not have convincing evidence, which is usually obtained by reproduction? After all, the DOE review conclusions (both of them) were to allow funding for well-thought out proposals...

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

That does not really cut it. You have stated, definitely, it will be a farce, for weeks before the actual experiment. You don't know that. It has been pointed out to you this is unfair and it is too late to say you will correct it after the facts are known.

You consistently get my position wrong. I have stated that it is most likely to be a dog and pony show. I have acknowledged that there is a small possibility that it will not be a dog and pony show, although I'm not holding my breath. Whether it is a dog and pony show bears only indirectly on whether it is a farce. If it ends up being a dog and pony show, we will not be able to know for sure. This is actually not a hard position to understand.

Quote from kirkshanahan

A.) Not my buddies, don't know any of 'em. B.) Wouldn't you do the exactly the same in reverse? Don't you think LENR will 'save the world' and 'hot fusion' is a rat hole? Wouldn't you go before Congress given the chance to say just that? Would your behavior be 'appalling' or 'expected'?

A.) Well, you did say that you have several friends involved with the ITER project. So maybe in your mind "friends" are not "buddies." Those are the same people (in general) that attempted and attempt to obstruct funding for LENR research. They are the same people (in general) that appear on news shows to hurl insults at cold fusion researchers. They are the same people that would rather the LENR phenomena to just go away so that they can continue to collect what they feel they are entitled to. B.) The difference is that the ITER project and similar multi-billion dollar deliver-nothing projects are boondoggles from start to finish. So yes, I'd advocate that no further taxpayer money be wasted on such nonsense. If the LENR researchers were given even a rounding error amount of that money, we could have known by now whether it was worth pursuing further.

Quote

Isn't the *real* issue whether or not the CFers had a reasonable case for what they claimed? Did they or did they not have convincing evidence, which is usually obtained by reproduction? After all, the DOE review conclusions (both of them) were to allow funding for well-thought out proposals...

Well, if you cut off all funding for them, it's kinda hard to have the resources to produce convincing evidence, is it not? Thankfully, we have some instances such as the SPAWAR research that shines through despite the obstacles. And yes, the reports produced for the DOE recommended more funding. And what happened? The DOE refused to do so. When questioned about proposals, the DOE made clear that they were not interested in receiving cold fusion research proposals. We're not stupid. We know what happened.

I would label it a dog and pony show since it is not exactly a demo if there is no public access.

For those interested in the science associated to the QuarkX (yes there may be some real physics beyond the QuarkX!), the QuarkX shares interesting characteristics with so-called Z-pinch fusion experiments and more particularly with those associated to capillary fusion (also called filament fusion by some). An evident one is the size of the « reactor », a filament of a few centimeters and a diameter of less than 1 mm. Back in the 1950-1970s, it was shown that filaments containing deuterium in which intense currents were passed through to create a plasma were generating large bursts of neutrons.

For those interested to read more on this subject (ahead of the Nov 24 popcorns...), I suggest to start with the article published by Peter Graneau and his son Neal in Infinite Energy in 1999. This article highlights the similarities between z-pinch fusion and cold fusion. Also, the references given in the article are really good, in particular the paper describing the first experiment in the field (Anderson et al, Neutron Production in Linear Deuterium Pinches, Phys Rev 1958), then the paper written by Lochte-Holtgreven published in 1976 in Plasma Physics and Fusion Technology (which may be the last paper by Lochte-Holtgreven, a name well known by plasma physicists), and finally the paper published by Sethian in PRL in 1987. Capillary fusion is less controversial than cold fusion, however, for both, nuclear reactions happen at low temperature and a good understanding of the underpinning is still lacking.

Quote from IH Fanboy

A.) Well, you did say that you have several friends involved with the ITER project. So maybe in your mind "friends" are not "buddies." Those are the same people (in general) that attempted and attempt to obstruct funding for LENR research. They are the same people (in general) that appear on news shows to hurl insults at cold fusion researchers. They are the same people that would rather the LENR phenomena to just go away so that they can continue to collect what they feel they are entitled to.

My friends, buddies, and colleagues (FBCs) are chemical engineers, chemists, material scientists, mechanical engineers, but no plasma physicists to my knowledge. My FBCs don't even think about CF unless I mention it or they hear about it elsewhere. They certainly have never done any of the activities you mention. I think you're still having trouble realizing that my interest in this field is not easily relatable to the 'hot fusionists'. Your last sentence above gives your bias away again, and it's a strong one.

Quote from IH Fanboy

If the LENR researchers were given even a rounding error amount of that money, we could have known by now whether it was worth pursuing further.

Personally, I think we know quite well the state of affairs in the CF world. It was given away by the incredible use of a strawman argument by the 10 authors who attempted to denigrate my systematic chemical reaction explanation by calling it 'random'. If they really had something, they wouldn't have had to make stuff up. Those 10 were in the top 20 of the CF field's researchers. Their inability to reproduce with any semblance of regularity gives it away too.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Thankfully, we have some instances such as the SPAWAR research that shines through despite the obstacles

Yeah, I liked their IR photography of the chemical reaction between D2 and O2 occurring at the electrode under the electrolyte. And all the little pits in CR39 that came from the mechanical damage from the exploding bubbles. Good evidence for CCS/ATER...

Julian - http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/TanzellaFLtriggerede.pdf

electrical heating of thin PdDx wires resulting in destructive high-speed melting - “exploding

wires”.

Quote from Eric Walker

Whether it is a dog and pony show bears only indirectly on whether it is a farce.

Yes. Legitimate products are sometimes peddled with a dog and pony show approach.

Back in the 1970s, IBM used to hold sales presentations and they would put out 4-color separation glossy press releases that seemed impressive but had little or no useful technical information. Many companies did that at trade shows. People called them dog and pony shows. It means an elaborately produced sales campaign without much substance. Back in the 1920s, it meant actual shows with dogs and ponies, "often fronting for hoochie-coochie shows:"

https://www.waywordradio.org/dog-and-pony-show-origins/

I must say, that sounds like a lot more fun than any IBM presentation I ever attended.

I think D&P presentations happen less often nowadays with the internet. Nowadays, people will say: "That looks impressive, but where are the product specs? I don't see anything on your web page." Or, I guess you might say, the D&P shows happen at YouTube and not in live performances at trade shows. Another tradition washed away by time & tide.

Japanese automotive trade shows are nothing but gigantic D&P shows, judging by the coverage on NHK National TV. They even include a taste of the hoochie-coochie shows of yore, with attractive women posing next to the cars. I'll let the reader explore that topic.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Yeah, I liked their IR photography of the chemical reaction between D2 and O2 occurring at the electrode under the electrolyte.

There is no electrolyte between the camera and the cathode surface, so I don't see how there could be any D2 or O2 reactions. If there were any, they would be on the other side of the cathode, at the surface, and I doubt point-source heat would show up on the IR camera side.

See:

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

Quote from kirkshanahan

And all the little pits in CR39 that came from the mechanical damage from the exploding bubbles.

Those would be the most powerful electrolysis bubbles in history! By orders of magnitude. This is like suggesting that the bubbles from carbonated water will shatter the glass, disintegrate your teeth, and make your tongue fall out. Granted, there is a little more potential energy in bubbles of hydrogen and oxygen than CO2, but not much more. I have seen electrochemical cells that were run for months, with bubbles emerging the whole time. They were intact. Also, by the way, the bubbles in these cells emerge, like any other. You can see that from the geometry. There is no mechanism that would allow the bubbles to hang around the anode or cathode where they might recombine. They go up, not over. A tiny fraction of them might recombine on the cathode, but if they managed to erode it, that would be proof of massive anomalous excess energy.

As always, you are a fount of imaginative crackpot theories and impossible claims! We'll add this to your DoE swimming pool site that says a bucket of water will evaporate overnight in room temperature conditions, and your assertion that a large metal object that remains hot to the touch is "not a heater" and it is "wishful thinking" to say that it is.

Quote from JulianBianchi

For those interested in the science associated to the QuarkX (yes there may be some real physics beyond the QuarkX!), the QuarkX shares interesting characteristics with so-called Z-pinch fusion experiments and more particularly with those associated to capillary fusion (also called filament fusion by some). An evident one is the size of the « reactor », a filament of a few centimeters and a diameter of less than 1 mm. Back in the 1950-1970s, it was shown that filaments containing deuterium in which intense currents were passed through to create a plasma were generating large bursts of neutrons.

For those interested to read more on this subject (ahead of the Nov 24 popcorns...), I suggest to start with the article published by Peter Graneau and his son Neal in Infinite Energy in 1999. This article highlights the similarities between z-pinch fusion and cold fusion. Also, the references given in the article are really good, in particular the paper describing the first experiment in the field (Anderson et al, Neutron Production in Linear Deuterium Pinches, Phys Rev 1958), then the paper written by Lochte-Holtgreven published in 1976 in Plasma Physics and Fusion Technology (which may be the last paper by Lochte-Holtgreven, a name well known by plasma physicists), and finally the paper published by Sethian in PRL in 1987. Capillary fusion is less controversial than cold fusion, however, for both, nuclear reactions happen at low temperature and a good understanding of the underpinning is still lacking.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Rossi started his Quark development with a reactor size that produced over 100 watts not including power from light generation and electron generation. Rossi then decided to reduce the size of the Quark to as far as it could go to increase controllability. The size that the Quark now is has nothing to do with capillary fusion because the large format quark still acted the same as the small format Quark now acts. The difference is that the smallest Quark just produces less power.

The LENR reaction is a manifestation of the solution to the strong CP problem, through either the axion mechanism (Peccei–Quinn theory) or the Nelson-Barr Mechanism.

LENR has nothing to do with fusion. It is the result of hadron decay (transformation) produced by magnetically induced Quark flavor change.

Adrian, none of what you have quoted says anything other than that I think it will be a dog and pony show. And I continue to give it a high (nearly certain) probability. That is different than saying that it will be a farce, as I have explained.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

2. When you call it a dog and pony show, from earlier comments about Rossi it is quite clear you think it will be a farce. Dog & pony show is a derisive term for a small circus. You clearly don't think it will demonstrate the E-Cat QX will produce excess heat.

This is incorrect. When I call it a dog and pony show, I mean that I think it will be a dog and pony show. I also suspect it will be a farce, but I do not take a strong position on this particular question. Just a hunch, based on incomplete information.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Re the analogy you don't like. The point is not the actual crime but that it is wrong to accuse someone of it, in this case, before it even happens. If you don't think saying what you have would be detrimental to Rossi it s time you woke up.

If you cannot produce a statement that I have made that is analogous to accusing someone of being a pedophile, your analogy does not apply to me. I say what I believe is the truth concerning Rossi, trying to be as moderate as I can in expressing my opinion, although on a handful of occasions I have said stronger things than I wanted to say. Others have gone much further. Your issue is with them, and I suggest you address the factual basis of statements people have made that you disagree with. It is important that people learning about LENR have all the information at their disposal to draw informed conclusions.

Quote from Alan Smith

I think that is rather and eccentric point of view. to be honest. Generally the public pay for admission to Dog or Pony shows, this one is free to an invited audience.

That's OK I am eccentric, as anyone in CF research must be.

Most of the old dog and pony shows that I remember were to get an audience "into the tent" and you didn't pay for those (the DPS) just to get into the tent. But those days are long gone.

JulianBianchi: you are making comments about the physics of the Ecat QX device. As far as I am aware, the entire body of knowledge about this gizmo is an unhelpful photograph of some sort of blue glowing thing and a bunch of outlandish claims about its performance by Rossi without a single scrap of information about what it actually IS. There is nothing whatsoever known (or even mentioned) about what it actually is. So, please share with us some of your insights into this mystery device. I am sure many here would love to hear the details you seem to think are known.