Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • It was a demo to show the properties of the QX. Whether it was correct relies on believing what Rossi said. A short plasma probably is of low resistance and the current was measured. You have no more proof that he lied than there is that he didn't. When in doubt waiting for confirmation is better than jumping to a conclusions that fit your bias.

    Pons & Fleischmann have been replicated (>100 times according to Jed), yet academia still does not accept LENR as real. The critics are good at making up ways that show any test could be fraudulent.

    mercy,

    For the 1billionth time.


    Running a PF like experiment and

    Getting some amount of excess heat is NOT replication.


    Running the SAME experiment time after time and getting the SAME results is replication.

  • For the 1billionth time.


    Running a PF like experiment and

    Getting some amount of excess heat is NOT replication.

    Many of the replications of Fleischmann and Pons were very close replications. They were as alike as expert electrochemists could make them. The best ones used material from the same sources. In some cases, materials provided by Fleischmann himself. I think in some cases they used materials that had been successfully used in other labs.


    Yes, there were hundreds like this. Experiments that deviated from these procedures seldom worked.


    Running the SAME experiment time after time and getting the SAME results is replication.

    No, it isn't. If that were true, we would say that cloning experiments are not replications, because they often fail (producing no result). A replication is running a very similar experiment and getting a similar range of results as the original, with roughly the same success rate. In the case of cloning sheep, the success rate of the first one was about 1 per thousand attempts. If a replication had achieved 1 per hundred it would still be a replication, although everyone would assume there must be important differences that enhanced the success rate. That would not happen by chance or by luck.


    Your definition, and your idea of what happens in research, are over-simplified.

  • Jed,


    “IF”,


    You run “the same” experiment and get different results, something MUST have changed in your experiment.

    This difference must be identified, isolated

    And corrected, otherwise you’re not running the same experiment.

    This isn’t a high school debate class, this isn’t politics, religion or philosophy, it is science, there is an answer, find it.

    I believe it will be found thru tedious painstaking experimentation until the errors you cite above are found.


    See my previous post above.

    The replication must be bulletproof,

    Then and only then will it be accepted, it cannot be ignored, if Jed, roseland67, ascoli, Adrian etc and multiple disparate sources

    All run the “same” experiment and all get the same results.

  • You run “the same” experiment and get different results, something MUST have changed in your experiment.

    This difference must be identified, isolated

    Yes, obviously. That is the purpose of experimental science. That is the end point, when the problem has been solved. You can't expect that when the process is beginning. You cannot expect all sheep cloning experiments to work. In 1955, you could not expect all transistors to work with very similar behavior.


    You seem to be saying that science in the early stages of discovery is not science. We would never get to the later stages without it.


    And corrected, otherwise you’re not running the same experiment.

    You are running the closest version anyone is capable of, given the incomplete knowledge of the moment.


    In the late 1950s and early 60's, many U.S. rockets failed to launch, exploded or went out of control. Rockets were extremely difficult to replicate. Are you suggesting those were not rockets in some sense, or there was something wrong with the R&D that failed so often? That's a strange way to look at it. How would you expect them to improve the rockets, come to grips with the problems, and make them better except by experimenting, failing, and learning from mistakes?


    Would you have demanded they stop, because rockets were so difficult? Would you demand that of cold fusion researchers today?


    When you launch 3 rockets and two of them fail, that is a low reproducibilty rate. That is difficult replication. When two different labs try to do the same cold fusion experiment, and one gets 3 W while the other gets only 0.4 W, that is a difficult replication. It is a broad range of results. It does NOT meant they have not replicated any more than exploding rockets meant rockets don't exist or the U.S. was incapable of making them. It meant that cold fusion is not well understood and difficult to replicate. Every researcher would agree with that. Do you have a problem with that? Any suggestions? Are you suggesting we should quit, or we should redefine the rules and insist that anything short of a perfect replication is no replication at all? No one applies that rule to any other kind of experimental science or engineering. Why are you so anxious to make that the rule for cold fusion -- and only cold fusion? I think you are trying to marginalize the field or downplay the success, by making up onerous new rules and goals that no other research has to meet.


  • The question of what makes a useful replication is interesting, and highly relevant to LENR.


    I think the most useful replication of some unexpected and therefore "need to be certain before trusting" result is one in which the experimental conditions and procedure are as close as possible to the original, but the instrumentation and methodology are as different as possible.


    Why? If you change conditions or procedure you are introducing additional variables. (It is of course Ok to add runs with different conditions/procedure as long as for comparison you also have the "as same as can be done" ones).

    If you keep the same instrumentation and methodology you gain no additional insight into possible errors.


    In addition to different instrumentation, it helps to have more data, for example, a set of runs to see how some result varies with a previously unchanged condition could confirm or deny some error mechanism based on changes in that condition.


    An effect which is stochastic (only works one time in 4, for example) does not change this. The experimental description would then include running 10 copies of the system to capture this variability.


    An effect which is usually not present and depends on some uncontrolled and unknown variable is problematic until that variable is nailed. The problem is that occasional errors in procedure will always exist, and it is difficult to disambiguate a real effect dependent on an uncontrolled variable from such random errors.

  • The question of what makes a useful replication is interesting, and highly relevant to LENR.


    The only relevant question to LENR is how it has been possible that a controversial man like Rossi climbed in a few years at its top, eventually ending being almost identified with the whole field.


    The answer is very simple, and has been unequivocally revealed by the Ecat affair. Being LENR inexistent, the only achievable target is convincing as many people as possible for as long as possible that there could exists such an ephemeral phenomenon. It is not possible to get more, in particular it is not possible to have a replicable LENR method or device. This is the reason why a philosopher and marathon runner like Rossi has become the champion of this field. The only winning strategy for LENR is wait&see, change horse and wait&see, change again and wait&see, and so on. AR on JoNP - and his supporters on the other websites - are just applying this strategy, month after month, year after year.


    This strategy lasted for almost 30 years thanks to the credibility provided by academics who have been allowed to produce and disseminate erroneous and even misrepresented experimental data without any effective scrutiny and adequate criticism by their peers (except during the first few months), also benefitting from the protection of their scientific institutions, and from the patronage of some political apparatuses.


    CF/LENR is a big bluff. A bluff is not replicable, but it can only be raised again, and again, and again, …

  • Ascoli65


    Rossi finds people that are either gullible, or naïve, or perhaps they just give him the benefit of the doubt.


    Some of those people are scientists, who provide useful cover for Rossi.

    Scientists can be gullible or naïve just like anyone.

    Or perhaps their curiosity hooks them.

    Or perhaps they are arrogant enough to think they cannot be fooled.


    Anyhow; it is Rossi who has banked the millions of dollars. The scientists who have supported, or been used by Rossi, have had little to show from it other than criticism and a risk to their reputation.

    Perhaps this is the reason they are less than open.


    It seems that you are trying to whip up some kind of a backlash against those scientists.

    That might then be perceived as increasing the risk for any scientist who might be inclined to take a look at LENR. We have already had too much treatment of LENR as a toxic area and certainly the Rossi fiasco has not helped things.

    I do not support your attacks. Better to have more curiosity and try to encourage openness. Sure some scientists might be made to look foolish but we need more scientists to be willing to come forward not less.

  • You and the people who agree with you are doing Rossi an invaluable service. You are keeping his real enemies in a state of confused inaction. If the likes of the Koch brothers, the king of Saudi Arabia, and the President of Russia were to finally realize what Rossi could do to them, Rossi would be sucking in some form of exotic nerve agent by now.


    Keep up the good work, Rossi is depending on you to keep him going. Let us hope that your efforts among others can keep Rossi going until LENR commercialization is unstoppable.

  • I think the most useful replication of some unexpected and therefore "need to be certain before trusting" result is one in which the experimental conditions and procedure are as close as possible to the original, but the instrumentation and methodology are as different as possible.

    Yes. Researchers know this, and that is why they used a wide variety of calorimeter types, including isoperibolic, boil-off, mass flow and Seebeck calorimeters to confirm the excess heat. The only problem is that some of these types suppress the reaction by keeping the temperature from rising. Still, the effect was confirmed with all of them, many times.


    Making conditions and procedures "as close as possible" is the goal, but the conditions are not well understood so they cannot be as close as we would like. As I said, the whole purpose of research is to discover what the conditions are. If you knew in the first place, the job would be finished before you start.

  • You and the people who agree with you are doing Rossi an invaluable service. You are keeping his real enemies in a state of confused inaction. If the likes of the Koch brothers, the king of Saudi Arabia, and the President of Russia were to finally realize what Rossi could do to them, Rossi would be sucking in some form of exotic nerve agent by now.


    Keep up the good work, Rossi is depending on you to keep him going. Let us hope that your efforts among others can keep Rossi going until LENR commercialization is unstoppable.



    Just doing my bit ;)

  • I would say a ton of carefully and very objectively analyzed FACTS everybody can find here, on JONP, other publice websites and in the published court documents, which confirm that Rossi is a con man and liar. This is a way more substance than your "Rossisays"...

  • Hi Zeno, thanks for your pertinent and frank comment.


    It seems that you - like most here - embrace the narrative no.2 about Rossi (the narrative no.1 was that he had the good), which gives him all the responsibilities of the Ecat affair in order to save the rest of the LENR field. But if you look with care at the documented facts, you can see that the real responsible are the scientists who gave him all the public credibility he needed.


    Anyway, let me reply to your single points.


    Some of those people are scientists, who provide useful cover for Rossi.

    Scientists can be gullible or naïve just like anyone.


    Yes, but not in the amount we have seen in the Ecat case. A controversial man like Rossi could have briefly fooled a single physicist, provided that he was not well informed about his past, not many members of a Physics Department for years.


    Quote

    Or perhaps their curiosity hooks them.


    Curiosity is an essential stimulus for research, but it doesn't allow the scientists to derogate from the basic rules of scientific correctness.


    Quote

    Or perhaps they are arrogant enough to think they cannot be fooled.


    This is not arrogance. It's normal that a professor in physics can't be fooled on his field by a philosopher, at least not for so long.


    Arrogance is:

    - deliberately misrepresenting the experimental data of the 2011 tests, in order to demonstrate the capability of the Rossi-Focardi method to generate commercial level of excess heat;

    - choose to disseminate these results directly to the public by means of newspapers, TV channels and the internet, and not by submitting a paper to a legitimate scientific journal, thus avoiding any peer review;

    - refusing to provide the explanations required by the same public to which their results have been directly addressed;

    - threaten legal actions against those in the public who were rising criticisms on these results.


    Quote

    Anyhow; it is Rossi who has banked the millions of dollars.


    Nothing compared to the hundreds of millions of public money wasted on CF/LENR since 1989.


    Quote

    The scientists who have supported, or been used by Rossi, have had little to show from it other than criticism and a risk to their reputation.

    Perhaps this is the reason they are less than open.


    No, I don't think this is the reason, as I already explained: Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion .


    Quote

    I do not support your attacks.


    Mine is not an attack. We are here to better understand the facts about the Ecat affair and the LENR field. I'm just proposing my point of view, and I'm interested in knowing yours. Please, tell me, is it acceptable for you that a Physics Department allowed misrepresented experimental data to be release on internet and then threatened legal actions against those who were rising objections on them?


    Quote

    Better to have more curiosity and try to encourage openness. Sure some scientists might be made to look foolish but we need more scientists to be willing to come forward not less.


    Curiosity and openness are good when they are not used to mislead people, as instead happened to LENR.

  • Shane - I can share that we are seeing slow steady and solid progress. Its going to be a while longer but we're getting there.

    Crawl Walk Run!


    " a while longer", is better than the "soon", we have been hearing about. :) I hope the best for IH. As McKubre said today; it is not a matter of who gets there first, let us just get there...or something like that.


    Keep in touch.

  • Ascoli65


    Scientists are human and can be foolish or even fraudulent.

    Science runs on money and reputation, these things distort and corrupt science from its ideals.

    I agree that it was the input from certain scientists that encouraged IH to press on with supporting and funding Rossi, and cost them time and money, but the responsibility is with IH to do the due diligence for their investors.


    So in the specific case of the scientists that gave support to Rossi is it;

    1. They were just taking a look (which is what scientists should be doing).

    2. That they actively provided support for Rossi (but in good faith).

    3. That they are guilty of falsifying or fabricating data.


    If you choose 2. and think they actively provided support to Rossi then boo hoo so did Defkalion, Industrial Heat, Fabiani, Penon, Matts Lewin, Frank Ackland, Sifferkol and many others.

    At some point the scientists must have felt confidence that Rossi had something because it was the science rumour mill that got Huw Price excited enough to write his article.

    In this case I am sure those scientists will have had their reputations questioned by their colleagues.


    It seems to me that the real point is 3. You think the Bologna physicists are guilty of falsifying or fabricating data or some kind of professionaly fraudulant behaviour.

    Now that is a major charge which scientific institutions and funding bodies need to take seriously.

    If what happened was just a demo controlled by Rossi and no scientific papers were produced then it will be difficult for you.

    If scientific papers were produced but they are full of errors and poor measuring then the best you can hope for is to have the authors censured for sloppy science.

    If what happened was a real scientific test and papers were published with falsified data then there is a real case that you should submit to the appropriate institutions and bodies that funded the work.


    Good luck.

    Zeno