Pweet speaks and Gluck responds ..

1st Official Post

    PweetNovember 28, 2016



    Quote from point 1 above; - http://egooutpeters.blogspot.r…st-three-comments-at.html


    "They had valuable ideas.


    The famous Gamberale Report describes a possibility of error (reverse flow in the flowmeter) but this is an error and only the enemies of the NiH system, are equating a negative, uncontrollable error with a positive, controlled constructive scam- showing positive fake results. "


    Everyone accepts that errors can be made in all sorts of research to produce incorrect results. What they don't accept is that when the errors are pointed out, the so called scientists steadfastly refuse to modify the test or re-work the test procedure to eliminate the point of error. They bat on with the same dubious results, quoting them as if they were proven truths when they are not, until such time as they have either exhausted everyone's tolerance for such stupidity or have distracted them with something new. If none of these options are available they simply pack up and disappear.
    So, if they hadn't surrounded the announcements of the supposed good ideas with so many rash and unproven claims, their supposed good ideas may have been taken more seriously.


    In the case of Defkalion, they really did try to establish their 'good ideas' on a very shaky basis, and that was on the basis of Mr Rossi's e-cat, which by the time of end 2011 had been reasonably well shown in a number of videos to be almost certainly inoperable.
    That was not a good basis to establish any new science or device and then expect it to be wholeheartedly accepted, or even halfheartedly accepted, without very close scrutiny as to whether it actually worked or not.


    Unfortunately for Defkalion, their device worked to a similar level as all of Mr Rossi's , both current and historical, and so were treated accordingly.
    If they or anyone else wants their similar brilliant ideas to be taken seriously they would be well advised to arrange their tests and demonstrations to be conducted in such a manner as to eliminate all areas of possible error before they proclaim to the world that they have the holy grail in their back pocket and expect that we take them at their word.
    Words are cheap and anyone can produce them.
    Working revolutionary ideas and devices are much more rare and difficult to produce.


    ------------


    Peter Gluck - November 28, 2016


    dear Peter,


    this time I dare to think you are not well documented. - But let's focus now on the Rossi stuff.
    Can you predict what will happen during the trial?


    Are you sure?

    Do you have constructive ideas - forget Rossi and tell what has the LENR researcher to do?


    Are you one of them, or just an amateur?


    peter


    Reply

    Problems of LENR forum:


    1. Dilutitis- mixing few relevant and important things with increasing amounts of insignicant trivia.
    2. Detailitis- losing the vision of the whole and inflating the sense of small details
    3. Dispersitis- starting and organizing too many uncorrelated decisions in the same time- a damaging waste of times and ideas.
    4. Disfocusitis focusing the discussions on invented , false or improper subjects
    5. Defrostitis- the method by which the past sabotages the future and poisons the present
    6. Disputitis- the gradual conversion of the Forum in battlefields, making conflicts as the standard state
    7. Dictatoritis- the last, deadeliest one: organized groups trying to divide, dominate and conquer the forum


    This is trivial consequence of the fact, that the LENR scene has currently nothing very much to twaddle about. With compare to NASA forum and similar ones, the LENR forum community is formed with few senior members, who aren't active in research by itself but they used to talk each other every day - no matter whether they have some interesting topic to discuss or not. At the moment, when they have nothing new to discuss, they turn their frustration against each other.


    But I would-like to point to corrosive effect of few notorious skeptics, who are allowed to post at this forum from some reason (probably due to lack of better entertaiment) - despite they're openly hostile against the subject of this forum. They act here like some Kremlin agents and they unobtrusively but systematically poison the atmosphere of forum. From my personal experience it has absolutely no meaning to attempt for arguing with such people, as they have their own agenda and their only intention is to initiate flamewars.

    Dmitri Chukichev from Ukraine has an original theory - he thinks that the modification of the crystalline structure of nickel is the key to the performances of the Rossi generator. Compare this with what Defkalion has claimed in their last publication: We introduced a method to turn the Ni Face Centered Cubic crystals close to a C4 or a Pm3m structure, removing all of the face atoms and some Ni atoms in the edges, using a proprietary technique and take advantage of FCC -> BCC transitions in situ
    In my theory the cold fusion is the result of multiple circumstances, which are missing in hot tokamak or laser plasma - but the most dominant mechanism is the massive Astroblaster effect, in which long lines of atoms mutually collide each other like the pistons in head-to-head collisions. This is enabled with high order of atoms within crystal lattice with compare to random chaotic arrangement in plasma. The inertia of long lines of atoms and the multiplication of their momentum during it is the main driving force leading to overcomming of Coulombic barrier.


    In this regard I consider significant, that Francesco Piantelli invested quite a lot into apparatus for growing of nickel whiskers. The whiskers are linear crystals surrounding one spiral dislocation, which could trap the absorbed hydrogen. Their linear arrangement would promote the above mechanism, but the cracks and another low-dimensional defects of crystal lattice would have similar effect too. Note also that quasicrystals and similar hypedimensional lattices also support the linear arrangement of atoms in their defects. The only problem is, they're metastable by their very nature in similar way like the whiskers and at high temperatures all these anomalous structures would have a tendency to recrystallize and to transform itself into a most common refgular FCC structure. Therefore the continuous formation of metastable lattices and their renewal could have its significance during so-called codeposition electrolysis. The insight of Piantelli, according to which surface adsorption has detrimental effect to cold fusion would have its meaning too, because the adsorbed compounds eliminate both the surface saturation with hydrogen, both the formation of whiskers and metastable crystal surfaces in general. For electrolytic production of whiskers the solution must be free of adsorbing and chelating agents, which otherwise lead to smooth and finished surfaces free of defects during galvanoplasty.


    Not only the precipitation of metals together with hydrogen ensures the continuous cleaning of surface from contaminants. It also greatly increases the speed of saturation of metal with hydrogen, which is key parameter for cold fusion in many systems. But it also enforces the precipitation of thermodynamically metastable lattices with many structural defects, including whiskers. At the case of palladium the codeposition helps to save the precious metal, because only the newly precipitated layer of palladium is the active component of nuclear reaction, all the rest of electrode can consist of less expensive material.


    Therefore I consider the co-deposition as an important factor, which could improve the existing electrolytic methods of cold fusion. In this extent it may be significant, that the highest yield of heat during cold fusion electrolysis has been observed in pulsed systems, i.e. these ones, which alternated fast dissolving of anode with its cathodic polarization, thus periodically rebuilding the metal surface from scratch. The codeposition is currently the most reproducible way of cold fusion in palladium system (and actually the only one which passed the peer-review in mainstream press). The pulsed systems were used with Randell Mills from the very beginning of nickel electrolysis in 90's and Briloulion Energy Corp. still utilizes it in its Q-pulse technology.


    There is at this point a reply:


    Quote


    brian Ahern
    November 28, 2016 at 3:55 AM
    Predicting the trial outcome:


    During deposition Rossi will have trouble producing people and he will seek extensions throughout 2017. No ERV report will be released due to non-disclosures.


    People who object to the Rssi show are herein villified due to the hypnotic effect the impressario has over his minions.


    Brian Ahern is no amateur. His commentary has become acidic, but he paid his dues, even damaging his health, I understand, from exposure to nanopowder nickel, attempting to confirm Rossi results.


    My answers to those questions:


    Can you predict what will happen during the trial?


    Short answer: Yes.


    For a more complete answer, I will make some predictions. Peter did not ask, "Can you correctly predict?" but only about an ability to make a prediction. Lawyers will generally avoid making predictions, but they will talk about possibilities and probabilities, which is really what I'm doing here, based on the preponderance of the evidence at this moment (and this might change, it is possible, though not terribly likely).


    The trial, Peter must really mean "the lawsuit," because it is not at all certain that there will be a trial, and it is more likely, my opinion, that there will not.


    There are two basic roads the lawsuit might take. The most likely is that the Rossi case is dismissed for lack of crucial evidence showing that the Doral plant was a GPT with Penon as ERV, based on an agreement (in writing or by clear estoppel) between all the parties, but especially between Rossi and IH, without going to trial. The IH counterclaim will continue. There is a bifurcation there, as well.


    1. Rossi and IH and the others (or some of the others) will settle. The terms of the settlement might not be public. Or there might be something public, but that could be less likely. It depends on certain strategic decisions IH would make, and I don't find it easy to predict, it could go either way.


    2. The counterclaim goes to trial and IH wins judgments against Rossi and at least some of the third party counterclaim defendants, for fraud. The issue of the "Rossi effect" is a subsidiary issue; the effect could be real and still there was fraud. This case does not exist to satisfy our curiosity, nor even our fervent hopes and wishes, if we have those.


    The other road is that the Rossi case is considered to have enough evidence to go to trial. Unless Rossi pulls out a Wabbit, the outcome remains either the first or the second, only it is more expensive to get there. IH may win legal fees, so Rossi might be paying for this whole show. Whether or not IH retains the License depends on details. It is possible that if IH wins a judgment, IH would retain the License as security against sums due from Rossi. If Rossi pays the judgment, then IH might have to give up the license -- or negotiate a revised fee.


    In theory, IH and Rossi could then agree on a new GPT, with reasonable conditions and true independent assessment. Or they could agree on anything that they are willing to compromise on.


    And the next question:


    Are you sure?

    Reasonably so. There may be new evidence to consider within a few days, I expect to examine the matter anew at that point. I don't really believe in "sure" about the future. The sun might blow up today. Lawsuits are even more unstable, there can be surprises. But they will be surprises, essentially new evidence.


    My prediction is based on the preponderance of the evidence at this point, and what Peter seems to love to focus on, IH Exhibit 5, is only a piece of the IH case, and not the centerpiece at all, because it is simply the testimony (or will be) of one man. However, legal principle: testimony is presumed true unless controverted. (In which case a jury would consider and compare and assess). Exhibit 5 does not, by itself, prove anything other than a report of Murray's experience, in examining the Plant after the "test" ended, and his reading of the preliminary reports, and his questions. To contradict Murray's possible testimony, Penon would be needed, probably. Under some circumstances, the final Report might be admitted without becoming expert testimony, but a relevant "business document." That would not serve to contradict Murray, and, in fact, could serve to show a persistent fraud on Penon's part. It is not at all surprising that he has elected to stay away, far away, possibly in hiding.


    Even if there was real heat. Peter has never understood this, it apparently fries his brain. However, as to real heat, the elephant in the living room is the requirement that most of a megawatt be dissipated in that warehouse, with no visible duct work or major heat movement facility visible, and ... the space was comfortable. So there could be XE, but not a megawatt. And then this is supported by quite a few demonstrable details.


    Do you have constructive ideas - forget Rossi and tell what has the LENR researcher to do?


    I wrote a paper that was published under peer review, in February, 2015, that suggested research; it was not aimed at "LENR researchers," who already know what that paper was designed to communicate. It was aimed at those who might fund research. In fact, the proposed research was funded in December, 2014, though this was not public at that time. I am in communication with one or more of the researchers themselves, and this work is proceeding and appears to be on track, but they will not announce anything until they have nailed it, and after substantial review. My paper, and the research effort. The research was already fully funded by the time of that effort announcement. The goal is to end the era of "maybe" and proceed into established reality, and it has the potential to do that.


    See McKubre's presentation at ICCF-19, April, 2015. He lays out the same program as I would lay out, which is not surprising, since we have been in very good communication since before he invited me to visit SRI in 2012. He strongly encouraged the work I have been doing. He also mentioned my paper in his address to ICCF-20 this year. (My reaction to this was, more or less, "Okay, I can die now, it's been Good." But I'm not dead yet, so maybe there is more to do. We are having fun.)


    This is happening. It's reality, not fluff. Industrial Heat appears to be aligned with this, though proceeding along more traditional commercial lines -- which are not incompatible if collaboration and cooperation is established, as appears to be the case.


    Rossi is mentioned in the presentation, showing how the "Rossi effect" appeared in 2015. McKubre maintains neutrality, only commenting on what was obvious at that point.


    So, the final question:


    Are you one of them, or just an amateur?


    That was quite rude, as Peter has become, unfortunately. Peter is an amateur, even though he was once a scientist, he has not been functioning as one for a long time. I have no idea who Ptweet is, though Peter may know, calling him "Peter." "One of them" would refer to the conspiracy theory, that "attacks on Rossi" are a coordinated conspiracy to suppress Rossi's technology. The duality is set up: amateur, or "one of them." Is "them" the scientific community? Peter would mean "the FUDmeisters," that evil group of monopolists who control everything behind the scenes, etc., etc.


    I am both an amateur in some ways and a professional in some ways. I am an amateur "scientist," having adequate basic education in science and an ability to at least generally understand papers. When it comes to reviewing serious exploration of quantum electrodynamics in condensed matter, no. Forget about it. If I read those papers a few times, I start to get an idea, but that's about it. I have done a little experimental work.


    However, I have, on occasion in my life, been paid for writing. I was a paid editor and author. It was never my core support except for a short time in my 20s. (I became an electronics engineer, and that business is still running, though it is now through a Brazilian designer whose work I sell in the U.S.) I have never been paid, as such, for writing on LENR, but some expenses have been paid, and I could still travel if needed and if my health permits. Meanwhile, I can talk to people on the phone! It is far more effective in communication than writing, though the best communication combines both. Alan Smith suggested that my writing here was so funny that I should be on stage. Yeah, been there, done that. I know how to grab an audience, in person, engage them, inspire them, and, yes, make them laugh and sometimes cry. People are really fun, in person!

    I have the self-imposed task to inform my colleagues re LENR publications and events on my blog.
    Improductive discussions as this.


    It is a rule that exactly the most rude and offensive
    people are the most sensitive.
    Amateur is not offensive I have used it as a nice euphemism for "technology illiterate."


    I will ot write here anymore all you can do for me is to find a combination of words and tsunami


    back to work,
    peter

    Quote from Peter Gluck

    I have the self-imposed task to inform my colleagues re LENR publications and events on my blog.
    Improductive discussions as this.


    Peter, in your comment on the Ptweet post, you asked four questions, I answered each of them, explicitly, above. Where did the discussion become unproductive? I'll answer below.


    Quote

    It is a rule that exactly the most rude and offensive people are the most sensitive. Amateur is not offensive I have used it as a nice euphemism for "technology illiterate."


    Indeed. Your response here certainly looks like "sensitivity." "Amateur," in English, doesn't mean "technology illiterate." But it can be used that way, as in "amateurish" which could mean "incompetent." In the context there, you wrote, as your last question to Ptweet, "Are you one of them [presumably LENR researchers] or are you just an amateur?" Asking of he was an actual researcher wasn't rude. However, "just an amateur," we now know from your acknowledgement that it was a "euphemism," -- which is a supposedly kind or polite way of insulting someone -- was, in fact offensive. I.e., rude, as I wrote.


    Quote

    I will ot [not?] write here anymore all you can do for me is to find a combination of words and tsunami


    My commentary above, per question, wasn't particularly long, a few fairly short paragraphs per question. The answer about the trial was longer, but still little more than a half screen on my monitor. "Tsunami" indicates that you feel overwhelmed. It's easy to see why.


    You had pinned your hopes on "LENR+" which really means "Rossi." That is falling apart, and you think it is due to bad people attacking him. You don't understand the trial that you asked about and you don't understand the documents, and you became truly hostile, caustic, earlier this year, toward Jed Rothwell, and you would not listen to advice (private and then more public and then open) to simmer down. Peter, I predict it will get worse. You have largely trashed your relationship with the CMNS community, maintaining connection with a few who are unaware of the facts in Rossi v. Darden, and who are continuing with old ideas that may have been reasonable a year ago.


    The discussion became unproductive when it became vituperatively personal, instead of focusing on fact or constructive criticism.

    Abd,


    I sense in your words that you have a clear vision of what will happen in 2017 in the field of LENR.
    Why don't you enlighten the forum with that vision?


    This is an extraordinary (to me) slant on things. Who are these notorious skeptics? Me? Kirkshanahan? You reckon debate here would be better banning us?


    There are a whole load of people here whose posts are repetitive and have little content, arguing many points of view. I can't say that skeptics have any monopoly on this. And you should tolerate other people being single-minded and boring. this, after all, is an internet forum: and of higher quality than many.


    If you want just one side of arguments, with skeptical views filtered out, try ECW? surely, given Rossi's circus, a little skepticism (about Rossi's technology, which other than from Rossi has no credible replications with clear positive results, and results going lower the more careful the methodology) is reasonable?

    Quote from monty

    Abd,


    I sense in your words that you have a clear vision of what will happen in 2017 in the field of LENR.
    Why don't you enlighten the forum with that vision?


    I can't say "2017," for sure, and what I know is only part of the picture, but I do expect a major breakthrough in the science of LENR, likely to be published in a major journal. I've written about it many times.... but what I don't know is when. This is ongoing research at this point, and must be done right, and won't be published until it's fully ready. As well, of course, in 2017, Rossi v. Darden is scheduled to go to trial, if it is not settled before trial, the trial is scheduled for June, 2017.


    Many other things may happen, of course.

    Quote

    Only 3 lines?!
    Is there something we should be worried about going on that prevents you from writing more?


    Bullet points are the new thesis.

    Quote

    I can't say "2017," for sure, and what I know is only part of the picture, but I do expect a major breakthrough in the science of LENR, likely to be published in a major journal. I've written about it many times.... but what I don't know is when. This is ongoing research at this point, and must be done right, and won't be published until it's fully ready. As well, of course, in 2017, Rossi v. Darden is scheduled to go to trial, if it is not settled before trial, the trial is scheduled for June, 2017.


    Many other things may happen, of course.


    I hope it reveals a practical, immediately useful technology that is capable of producing massive excess heat at high COPs and temperatures high enough to produce super critical steam. And, of course, that the investors or parties funding the research seek to rapidly commercialize the technology to cause a rapid collapse of the power grid in favor of decentralized power -- home generating systems -- regardless of the consequences to the renewable energy sector (solar and wind primarily). If all of this is truly, undoubtedly the case, I'll support the report and those involved whole heartedly.

    Quote from MrSelfSustain

    I hope it reveals a practical, immediately useful technology that is capable of producing massive excess heat at high COPs and temperatures high enough to produce super critical steam.


    If that happens, it is not what I see coming. If such work exists, it's secret and I don't know about it.


    Quote

    And, of course, that the investors or parties funding the research seek to rapidly commercialize the technology to cause a rapid collapse of the power grid in favor of decentralized power -- home generating systems -- regardless of the consequences to the renewable energy sector (solar and wind primarily). If all of this is truly, undoubtedly the case, I'll support the report and those involved whole heartedly.


    The research was supported, generously, by someone not looking for any commercial benefit or gain, but to advance the science. This focus on practical energy generation is understandable, but heavily misguided. That hopes of energy generation became confused with the establishment of scientific reality is part of what created and intensified the rejection cascade. And consider this: if it actually would cause a "rapid collapse" of any established institutions, would this not create natural enemies, with existing high access to resources, i.e,. political and economic power, thus creating some motivation to suppress the science?


    Never promote a theory that, if true, means you are screwed, blued, and tatooed. It's disempowering. If there are secret forces operating as one might think, the saying is "If you are going to shoot the King, don't miss!" Rather, promote and work for what is possible within existing conditions. It is possible to advocate for basic scientific research, and if there are such secret forces, they risk exposure by attacking this. Such attacks, as we know about, have been minor and feeble, mostly the activity of the APS office in Washington, DC, and only effective because of the disorganization of the CMNS community. That effort has an obvious conflict of interest behind it, we can think, but I can also see the roots of Robert Park's skepticism in mistakes made by Pons and Fleischmann.


    Our stories of Terrible Wrong have been heavily disempowering. Few listen seriously to conspiracy theorists unless they align well with popular opinion (including popular delusions).

    Quote from Abd


    If that happens, it is not what I see coming. If such work exists, it's secret and I don't know about it.


    If low temperature nuclear reactions exist it is likely that they can be commercialised with (effectively infinite) COP and very high power density. High temperatures are less clear since one can imagine effects that require low temperature to work (as Kim did, with BECs, some time ago).


    Perhaps you were applying this comment narrowly to Ni-H systems? Or, perhaps you mean that the experimental evidence thus far does not support this: which I'd agree, but that is a (fairly weak, but real) argument against the FPHE being caused by nuclear reactions.

    Abdominable Abd said:

    Quote

    I can't say "2017," for sure, and what I know is only part of the picture, but I do expect a major breakthrough in the science of LENR, likely to be published in a major journal. I've written about it many times.... but what I don't know is when. This is ongoing research at this point, and must be done right, and won't be published until it's fully ready.


    You have written nothing of value about it that I have seen. There has never been a provable demonstration of ANY high power LENR/cold fusion. It is exquisitely unlikely that any will be shown in 2017 or the next 10 years for that matter. Promises like this have been made every year since 1989 and where are we now with those empty claims? With Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, Miley, Swartz and others who can deliver nothing of provable performance. And that includes, of course, Steorn and Mills. Empty promises. Nothing else. Like yours.


    Quote

    As well, of course, in 2017, Rossi v. Darden is scheduled to go to trial, if it is not settled before trial, the trial is scheduled for June, 2017.Many other things may happen, of course.

    Many things can happen. Very insightful. Things seem to happen all the time-- just not high power LENR things. It is unlikely that anything will happen except that Rossi, who is getting as goofy and crazy as a loon, is going to lose, completely and big time.

    Quote from THHuxley

    Abd wrote:


    If low temperature nuclear reactions exist it is likely that they can be commercialised with (effectively infinite) COP and very high power density. High temperatures are less clear since one can imagine effects that require low temperature to work (as Kim did, with BECs, some time ago).


    It is possible that a mechanism would temperature-limit the reaction, and, in fact, it's obvious that reactions requiring condensed matter structures will temperature limited, the damn stuff melts or vaporizes. However, the opinion about BECs implies that BECs require low temperatures. That's an easy to understand impression, but "temperature" refers to the bulk, whereas a BEC requires very low local relative momentum, so if it is with, say, two molecules (as in Takahashi's 4D analysis), the frequency of the necessary arrangement may be high enough to create the very low percentage of deuterium molecules that need to react to create a heat effect. Deuterium doesn't fuse in liquid form, even though the density is higher than in PdD, but PdD confines the deuterons to certain positions. Normally, molecular deuterium does not exist in PdD, but ... could exist in vacancies, defects, and yes, Dr. Storms, surface cracks (his hydroton is actually a linear hydrogen/deuterium molecule). The structures that can be thought of as "freezing" molecules may have an entry cost, so that reaction rate increases with temperature.


    Bottom line, we don't know. We can just invent possibilities, and even if we invent the truth, we don't have a means of recognizing it yet. We need more data. As Kim pointed out, as I recall, we don't know the velocity distribution of deuterium dissolved in palladium.


    BECs at higher temperatures must form, my analysis, but would have very short lifetime and be extraordinarily difficult to detect. It is possible that some technique could be developed to detect them, but that has not been done, to my knowledge. For fusion per Takahashi, the lifetime need only be on the order of a femtosecond.


    Quote

    Perhaps you were applying this comment narrowly to Ni-H systems? Or, perhaps you mean that the experimental evidence thus far does not support this: which I'd agree, but that is a (fairly weak, but real) argument against the FPHE being caused by nuclear reactions.


    It was a general comment. We don't have demonstrated and confirmed systems as described. "practical, immediately useful," were key phrases. "Possible," sure!


    The "no practical device" is a very weak argument, a lazy one, against "nuclear reactions." Muon-catalyzed fusion is real and not practical, and may never be practical, though people have worked on preventing muon-trapping. Storms' theory explains the difficulty and suggests approaches that may create practical applications, but it's not there yet. (For this purpose, "cracks" is enough, his nuclear mechanism is not necessary.)


    "Cracks," of course, means gaps of a particular functional size, and it should be possible to engineer those. All it would take is a few billion dollars, perhaps. Before that much funding is tossed in the hopper, prudence suggests following promising avenues in basic research into the effect, which is happening. Much cheaper, and likely to lead to better understanding and thus less waste when larger sums are dedicated.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.