Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • @Jed,


    You might be right that IH has irrefutable tests showing that the e-Cat doesn't work. But as you acknowledge, they're not on the record. And I happen to suspect that if they really had them, they would have put them on the record in this case. Instead, we get lots of confirmation from IH on the record that the e-Cat in fact does work, upwards of COP of 9.

  • Adrian Ashfield


    Quote

    For me, the bottom line is that it was Rossi who took the matter to court, where he must think the truth will emerge. I don’t think the E-Cat has ever been stable enough to make it commercial and we don’t know if he has solved the problem with the QuarkX until that information is presented.


    Gosh, where to start? Rossi took the matter to court, not to make truth emerge, but because he mistakenly thought that IH would settle and he could get several million more dollars with which to retire. Or he's gone completely whacko and that is why he brought the suit.


    That old stability nonsense again? The ecats in various forms have been around for six+ years and have been tested dozens of times, albeit by idiotic methods. In no case was instability an issue for one of these tests and in no instance has Rossi or anyone else complained of instability as an issue. Of course, I am not certain what you mean by instability. You do know what that is, right? E-cats do nothing except pass on heat from huge electrical heaters in each and every one of them. Properly designed electrical heaters are completely stable if provisions are made for the Joule heat to escape. The only time they are unstable is, as happened with Rossi's contraptions, when their active cooling systems are so badly made (or absent as in the case of the hot cats) that the whole piece of junk melts down. And junk those are. The first ones were rusty pipes assembled with a toilet plumber's tools.

  • But more importantly, please answer the rest of my posted question...

    Why is Rossi not selling the eCat and making billions in Europe? He stated the unit ran for 350 days out of 400 with a COP of > 80! The invention of the century!


    Why is Rossi completely dropping the 1MW eCat for the QuarkX? A device he is suing for $89 million dollars and yet he himself does not think it is worth pursuing? He claims it ran 350 days out of 400

    with COP > 80! Yet he is dropping it for a 20watt device that there is no evidence that it even exists, much less runs for 350 days? Come now?


    Rossi cannot have it both ways... suing for $89 million for a device that he himself does not think worth pursuing? Your thoughts please?

    I do not think it's a big idea to sell a facility that is being debated in court and is currently closed with a chain according to the will on both sides ... In addition, Rossi has written several times (during a one-year test) that he had problems with various leaks and with the maintenance. The test has been useful also for that: reactors can work well, but they may have shown shortages or that they are a little not practical for an industry. Rossi has certainly learned many things from this test and has made the best of this experience by creating QuarkX, which is an object with great potentiality and which probably requires less maintenance. In any case, Rossi has never said he has abandoned the 1MW plant project. I think the target for these two objects is different.

    Again, tearing down IH to try to defend Rossi because his own actions do not merit is a very flimsy defense. Why is Rossi's own actions casting doubt on the 1MW eCat?

    That's not the point. Rossi will defend himself in court, he does not need that anyone do it for him on a forum. But personally I can not bear to see Rossi's past repeatedly shown here as if this was somehow important in today's dispute. If someone really wants to play this way (and they are in many to do it) then I fit and do the same. IH has a very dark past and I do not see why nobody is scandalized when talking about Rossi's, and instead protests if it's about IH's. This is my point of view .... even if I think that also Ele thinks so.

  • Quote

    You may be referring to the time I tried to give Robert Park a paper by McKubre. He refused to touch it, letting it fall to the floor. He was with the APS, not the DoE. He wanted "plausible deniability."


    I don't know Parks but maybe, by discarding the paper, he was simply expressing his opinion of McKubre's work, based on reading prior examples of it.

  • Quote

    But personally I can not bear to see Rossi's past repeatedly shown here as if this was somehow important in today's dispute.


    Oh but it is. I doubt that the jury would appreciate it and maybe the judge would not allow it but the ecat is simply the culmination of Rossi's career of failed high tech scams. His methods with his current scam is not unlike Petroldragon and his writings and other elements about the ecat are much the same as his thermoelectric scam of around the year 2000. He also described upcoming robotic factories in that scam. He also had a spectacularly well working prototype which had been tested at the University of New Hampshire except that there is no documentation of such tests, nobody from U of NH who can be interviewed or emailed ever saw it and the contractor, DOD/CERL, also never reported seeing the prototype. This is similar to the ecat that supposedly heated the Italian factory by replacing an entire boiler in 2007 (see early patent apps by Rossi). Like the working ecat, th thermoelectric device was... well Rossifiction! His past is identical to the present. Not one provable invention or accomplishment and a succession of expensive and harmful lies and scams. It's very relevant, whether it gets into the trial or not.


    Other than what I wrote above, I agree with essentially everything Bob wrote and opined. Good job, Bob.

  • You do not know anything about the tests performed by I.H. and Boeing. I do know about them, and I know for a fact they failed.

    Jed as usual you repeat just the Voice of IH. You pretend to know something but you don't tell us the details apart claiming that nothing worked.

    Now Jed which documents you really have ?

    Which facts you really know ?

  • the same as his thermoelectric scam of around the year 2000

    It was NOT a scam.

    Is normal for companies to participate to invitation to tender and in many case lose. Just one company will win a contract .

    So Rossi in that case had not won. So What ? That's normal business.

    Interesting to note that you apply a double standard nicely ignoring the long list of possibly criminal acts and scams done by Cherokee.

    Just for a list look e.g.:

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…d-the-tax-payer-investor/


    Is quite interesting the number of official documents and orders against Cherokee that can be easily found !


    But of course Mary you are not interested on that.

  • Gosh, where to start? Rossi took the matter to court, not to make truth emerge, but because he mistakenly thought that IH would settle and he could get several million more dollars with which to retire. Or he's gone completely whacko and that is why he brought the suit.

    Are you sure of what you are writing ?


    I'm quite sure that what Rossi wants is just the Truth. Part of the real an true nature of Cherokee is emerging already !

  • If you Google the subject, the first thing that comes up is an authoritative looking article in Wikipedia. It paints a very negative picture and ignores the fact that Pons & Fleischmann have since been replicated. Also, the traditional scientific consensus is very negative. I recall a scientist in DOE, when handed a peer reviewed paper on LENR, let it drop to the floor rather than touch it. So the jury will get a one sided story should they try to look it up.


    Jed Rothwell used to be an editor on that LENR Wikipedia page. Here is one of the articles he wrote about that experience:


    http://pages.csam.montclair.ed…lski/cf/293wikipedia.html

    This website contains other cold fusion items.
    Click to see the list of links

    293) Jed Rothwell comments on some accusations

    Ludwik Kowalski; 4/19/2006


    Department of Mathematical Sciences


    Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043


    Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where anyone can delete, add or replace anything. The following message, from Jed Rothwell, just appeared on the restricted discussion list for CMNS researchers:

    The cold fusion article at Wikipedia has grown too large, so it must be split up. Someone asked me to assist with the sub-article "cold fusion controversy." I should not waste my time on this sort of thing, but I did. The skeptics will soon trash this and erase it, but I had a lot of fun writing it. Have a look before it is gone:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion_controversy (The article was deleted in 2006)

    I have a copy on my desk, preserved for posterity. I did not set out to make this humorous, although I can never resist. I doubt the skeptics will see it as funny. But I trust the readers here will see the humor in parts such as my deadpan rebuttal of the claim that cold fusion researchers are insane; my description of Hoffman's masterpiece; and the juicy quote from Happer and its source (Taubes).

    - Jed

    I think that what Jed wrote is worth preserving. Knowing that others will modify his text I pasted it below. It will be interesting to compare the current version with future versions. Be aware that what appears as a link in Wikipedia is nothing but a blue word below.

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


    Cold Fusion Controversy

    Originally published in Wikipedia, April 2006, updated 4/20/2007

    Ever since the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in March of 1989, the existence of chemically catalyzed cold fusion has remained a controversial issue. This article discusses the major skeptical arguments in the controversy. Experimental evidence for cold fusion can be found in the main article, cold fusion.

    ==Cold fusion as a violation of theory==

    Most leading skeptics dismissed cold fusion because it appeared to violate the laws that govern high energy plasma physics. In a plasma reaction, copious neutrons "commensurate" with helium are produced, whereas with cold fusion the number of neutrons per helium atom is roughly 11 million times smaller. Skeptics say this means cold fusion is impossible. As Prof. H. Feshbach (MIT) put it in 1991: "I have had 50 years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what's possible and what's not. . . . I don't want to see any more evidence! I think it's a bunch of junk and I don't want to have anything further to do with it." [1]

    The books by F. Close [2] and J. Huizenga [3] are mainly devoted to proving that cold fusion violates theory and is therefore impossible. Huizenga, who was the head of the DoE ERAB panel that dismissed cold fusion in 1989, concluded his book with a 6-point summation. Point number six states that we know a priori that all positive cold fusion excess heat results must be wrong:

    "Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."

    Cold Fusion researchers feel that they subscribe to the traditional view, that experiments are the standard by which all claims must be judged. [4] [25] They believe this is fundamental to the scientific method. When a phenomenon has been replicated many times at a high signal to noise ratio, that proves it does exist, and if theory predicts it cannot exist, the theory must be wrong. Cold fusion theorists believe that cold fusion does not violate conventional theory. The number of neutrons produced by cold fusion is much smaller than plasma fusion because a metal lattice at room temperature is very different from the center of the sun. As cold fusion theorist Julian Schwinger put it, "The defense [of cold fusion] is simply stated: The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion". [5]

    ==Explicit rejection of the experimental method==

    Several leading skeptics have stated that cold fusion proves the experimental method itself does not work. In other words, when dozens or hundreds of laboratories report they have replicated a phenomenon, they might all be wrong, and the only way to be sure a finding is correct is to show that it conforms to established theory. [Close, Huizenga ibid.] [6]

    A variation of this idea was expressed by R. Ballinger (MIT) and B. Kevles (Yale). They say that Fleischmann and Pons were definitely wrong, but those who later replicated them may be right. Ballinger wrote:

    "It would not matter to me if a thousand other investigations were to subsequently perform experiments that see excess heat. These results may all be correct, but it would be an insult to these investigators to connect them with Pons and Fleischmann. . . . Putting the 'Cold Fusion' issue on the same page with Wien, Rayleigh-Jeans, Davison Germer, Einstein, and Planck is analogous to comparing a Dick Tracy comic book story with the Bible." [7]

    Kevles [8] accused Fleischmann and Pons of misconduct (fraud) and "scientific misdeeds,", and she said that the later replications of their work prove nothing to the contrary: [9]

    "Eventually, [Fleischmann and Pons] particular claims were refuted as theoretically unfounded and without experimental support. This is the incident I referred to in my article and it has altogether nothing to do with research since in this field." [10]

    In all of the "research since" researchers used similar materials and reported similar results, and they cited the original paper by Fleischmann and Pons, so it is difficult to judge what Kevles has in mind.

    Cold fusion researchers also assert that incomplete understanding of the process does not invalidate it, often citing the 1898 report by Marie and Pierre Curie that radium was permanently warmer than its surroundings. This report was accepted even though the source of the warmth was not known to science [Beaudette, ibid. p. 3]. Indeed, Nobel laureate Schwinger pointed out that discoveries of processes such as high temperature superconducting are "a prime example of embracing the concept without having to understand the mechanism." [ibid] The comparison is debatable, however. J. Piel, late editor of Scientific American, likened this "incomplete knowledge" claim to Langmuir's criteria for pathological science. [11]

    ==Cold fusion as pathological science==

    Many have dismissed cold fusion as an example of pathological science: in such a science, a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation.

    While there are no rigorous criteria for defining a pathological science, the following characteristics were listed by Irving Langmuir when he invented the term:

    * The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.


    * The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.


    * There are claims of great accuracy.


    * Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.


    * Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.


    * The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

    ===The causative agent is almost undetectable===

    The causative agent of excess heat in cold fusion experiment, if any, is not certain, but most cold fusion researchers think it is nuclear fusion. Nuclear reactions can only be detected by their effects. Some nuclear reactions have effects that can be easily measured (such as the production of tritium), while others are more difficult to detect (such as the production of helium-4).

    Showing a correlation between excess heat and the amount of helium produced is challenging, but cold fusion researchers say it has been done at China Lake, the Italian national laboratories and elsewhere. [12] [13]

    Other nuclear evidence, such as tritium, neutrons and gamma rays are far easier to measure. Cold fusion researchers say that these products have been confirmed in thousands of experiments in dozens of different laboratories, at levels far above the limits of detection, in some cases thousands of times above those limits. [14] For example, at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) the reactor safety experts have been measuring tritium for decades with accuracy and confidence. When several experiments at BARC experiment produced tritium, at levels up to 20,000 times above the initial concentration, they had no difficulty whatever detecting or confirming this, and they used several different methods. [15] [16] [17] [18]

    ===The effect is almost undetectable===

    The excess heat has been measured by several different types of calorimeters often at a level that is easily detected, and sometimes impossible to miss. Tritium has been measured at levels ranging from 100 to several million times background. Gamma rays have also been measured far above background. Helium from cold fusion reactions is often close to the limits of detection but in at least one case it exceeded atmospheric concentration. Transmutations have in some cases converted milligram levels of materials, making them easy to detect. [19] [20] [21]

    ===The causative agent is not commensurate with the effect===

    The causative agent of excess heat in cold fusion experiment, if any, is not certain, but every indication is that if they exist it is nuclear fusion. Nuclear reactions can only be detected by their effects. Some nuclear reactions have effects that can be easily measured (eg. neutron emission), while others are more difficult to detect (eg. Helium-4).

    Showing a correlation between excess heat and the amount of helium is challenging, but as noted above, researchers at China Lake, the Italian National Nuclear Laboratories, Los Alamos, SRI and other laboratories report success. Tritium and neutrons, which are much easier to detect, have been measured at levels far above the limits of detection in hundreds of laboratories.

    ===There are claims of great accuracy in the measurement===

    Cold fusion researchers do not claim great accuracy. They often use standard, off the shelf instruments within the manufacturer's certified levels of accuracy. Great accuracy is often not called for in any case, since, as noted above, the signal is often quite strong (far above background).

    ===Proposed explanations===

    Critics of cold fusion say there are currently no satisfactory theories of cold fusion. Many cold fusion researchers agree with them. They consider cold fusion an experimental observation that is not derived from or supported by theory at this stage.

    Many theories have been proposed to explain cold fusion, and some of these would generally be considered fantastic or fringe theories. However, other theories have been proposed by mainstream physicists such as Julian Schwinger and Peter Hagelstein. Schwinger and Hagelstein believe their theories are valid, and that that they do not conflict with the canon of established physics.

    ===Initial interest in the topic does not last===

    Skeptics say that interest in cold fusion faded rapidly, and that the "vast majority" of scientists do not believe it exists. They do not cite public opinion polls or other hard data to back up this assertion. A poll published in Japan in 1994 indicated that most scientists there believe cold fusion is real, and nearly all support continued research. [22]

    The majority of newspapers and news magazine reports on cold fusion published in the U.S. are negative. They usually say that the research was "debunked" and that it was fradulent and/or incompetent. (See below.)

    Skeptics [Piel, ibid.] also say that no peer-reviewed journal papers on cold fusion have been published, but this is incorrect. Approximately 1000 have been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, [http://lenr-canr.org/DetailOnly.htm] and they continue to be published despite the hostility and opposition to the research expressed by APS officials, the Washington Post, some MIT professors and others. (See below)

    ==Doubts on the quality of the cold fusion scientists==

    Cold fusion scientists have been often criticized for lacking credentials. However, many of them were previously considered to be world class experts in their fields. Distinguished Prof. John O'M Bockris, for example, wrote an authoritative and widely used textbook, Modern Electochemistry. He is a Fellow of the International Society of Electrochemistry [http://www.ise-online.org/geninfo/fellows_details.php]

    Heinz Gerischer was considered a leading electrochemist. He was the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin, and a prize was established in his memory. He concluded that "there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys." [24] Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger was considered a leading theoretical physicist and was respected by most scientists, but he reported being denigrated and attacked after he began writing theoretical papers about cold fusion. [ibid.] Dr. P. K. Iyengar conducted and directed cold fusion research while he was director of BARC. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IyengarPKprefaceand.pdf] He later became the chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission

    Profs. Miles, Oriani and Huggins have published textbooks and hundreds of articles, are designated Distinguished Professors and Fellows by universities and the U.S. Navy, and have been honored by the Electrochemical Society, NATO and other prestigious organizations. Other cold fusion researchers include three editors of major plasma fusion and physics journals, a retired member of the French Atomic Energy Commission, and many top researchers from U.S. national laboratories.

    ===Martin Fleischmann===

    Martin Fleischmann is widely considered one of the top electrochemistry|electrochemists in the world. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and past president of the International Society of Electrochemistry, and he was awarded a medal by the Society. He has published numerous papers in leading journals. On the other hand, he has no credentials in nuclear physics, and his first paper on cold fusion was shown to contain errors in this subject, in neutron detection. However, subsequent research was performed by leading experts in neutrons at Los Alamos, BARC and many other institutions, and these studies confirmed that cold fusion experiments produce neutrons. [Srinivasan, ibid.]

    ==Claims that experiments have been debunked or that they are fraudulent==

    Most newspaper and magazine articles attacking cold fusion say it was debunked, or that it is fraud.

    Debunked. The term "debunked" is not defined exactly, but it is usually taken to mean that replications were attempted but they failed. Cold fusion researchers believe these replications failed because the researchers performing them were not skilled in the art and because the experiment is inherently difficult to perform. The most famous three negative experiments performed in 1989 were at MIT, Caltech and Harwell. All three were subsequently shown to be positive. [25] [26] [27] [28]

    Some articles have said that cold fusion was debunked because it was shown to be theoretically impossible. As noted above, cold fusion researchers believe this is a violation of the scientific method.

    Many skeptics feel that cold fusion should be attacked, ridiculed and actively suppressed. In March 1990, D. Lindley, editor at Nature, wrote: "All cold fusion theories can be demolished one way or another, but it takes some effort.... Would a measure of unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation have speeded cold fusion's demise?" [28] Cold fusion researchers feel this is a violation of academic freedom. Schwinger felt that such intemperate views will lead to the "death of science" [Schwinger, ibid.]

    Fraud. Dozens of articles have said this. Writers in the Washington Post have been notably vehement. In 2006 Prof. B. Kevles (Yale) described cold fusion a "scientific misdeed." [Kevles, ibid.] In 1991 Robert Park, [30] wrote the following in a Washington Post review of the book by Frank Close:

    ". . . Close asks in the first chapter, 'Was this a delusion, an error, or a fraud?' By the end of the book, it is clear that cold fusion progressed through all three. What began as wishful interpretations of sloppy and incomplete experiments ended with altered data, suppression of contradictory evidence and deliberate obfuscations.

    Fleischmann and Pons were no longer alone. Inept scientists whose reputations would be tarnished, greedy administrators who had involved their institutions, gullible politicians who had squandered the taxpayers' dollars, lazy journalists who had accepted every press release at face value -- all now had an interest in making it appear that the issue had not been settled. Their easy corruption was one of the most chilling aspects of this sad comedy.

    To be sure, there are true believers among the cold-fusion acolytes, just as there are sincere scientists who believe in psychokinesis, flying saucers, creationism and the Chicago Cubs. The lesson from Too Hot to Handle is that a PhD in science is not an inoculation against foolishness -- or mendacity."

    The on-line database at LENR-CANR.org lists 3,400 papers on cold fusion written by 4,688 authors and co-authors, as of April 2006. Most of these papers have been positive, and none of the authors has benefited financially or otherwise. On the contrary, many of them have seen their careers stalled or ruined because they pursue this research. [Beaudette, ibid.] So there does not appear to be any motive to commit fraud, and it would be difficult for roughly 4,000 people to commit fraud and keep this fact secret.

    ==Claims that all cold fusion researchers are deluded or incompetent==

    Articles in the press and in major scientific magazines have often said that all cold fusion scientists are practicing pathological science and all are deluded or incompetent. Robert Park made that assertion in the Washington Post article quoted above, in his weekly column, and in e-mail letters to cold fusion researchers. One of the members of the 1989 DoE ERAB panel, Prof. W. Happer, said that: "Just by looking at Fleischmann and Pons on television you could tell they were incompetent boobs." [Taubes, ibid.] F. Slakey, the Science Policy Administrator of the American Physical Society, said that cold fusion scientists are "a cult of fervent half-wits" "While every result and conclusion they publish meets with overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, they resolutely pursue their illusion of fusing hydrogen in a mason jar. . . . And a few scientists, captivated by [Fleischmann and Pons'] fantasy . . . pursue cold fusion with Branch Davidian intensity." [31] S. Koonin said in May 1989 at an APS meeting, "My conclusion is that the experiments are just wrong and that we are suffering from the incompetence and delusion of Doctors Pons and Fleischmann." [32]Skeptics sometimes say they have not made such intemperate comments, but there are hundreds of well-documented examples from major establishment scientists, publishers and officials. [Mallove, Beaudette, ibid.]

    The people making these comments repeated them often, and they have never retracted or apologized. They say they are not exaggerating and they honestly believe that Fleischmann, Pons and all other cold fusion researchers are severely deluded and grossly incompetent. The people listed above were assigned a direct role in establishing U.S. policy toward cold fusion, in the ERAB panel and elsewhere, and their views have had great influence.

    As noted above, leading cold fusion researchers and theoreticians include many prominent experts in electrochemistry and physics. It is unlikely that such people are deluded or incapable of performing experiments in their own fields.

    ==Claims that experimental errors have been made==

    Since cold fusion is an experimental claim, cold fusion researchers feel that the only way to prove it is wrong is to demonstrate there is an error in the experimental technique or instruments. However, only a few skeptical authors have searched for such errors. Skeptics have written one book, at least five papers, and one magazine article citing errors, but cold fusion researchers feel the skeptics have failed to make their case. Some well-known examples include:

    * D. Morrison versus M. Fleischmann debate [33] Morrison accused Fleischmann of employing "a complicated non-linear regression analysis" . . . "to allow a claim of excess enthalpy to be made." Fleischmann pointed out that they did not use that analysis. Morrison estimated that recombination might have produced 1.1 MJ at 145 W maximum power; Fleischmann pointed out that chemistry textbooks prove it could only produce 600 J at 5 mW maximum power. Several other points are disputed.

    * N. Hoffman, A Dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects [23] Much of this book is devoted to the hypothesis that all tritium results in cold fusion were caused by contaminated heavy water. This heavy water was contaminated, the author says, because the Ontario Hydro Company sold used moderator water from Candu fission reactors through chemical supply houses, to members of the public. There are two problems with this hypothesis. First, tritium levels are always measured before the experiment begins, so if the heavy water was already contaminated this would be noted. Second, upon learning about the book, Ontario Hydro vehemently denied selling used moderator water. They pointed out this would be illegal because this water contains roughly 100 million times more radioactive contamination than allowed by law, and it would cost tremendous amounts of money to remove this contamination and make the water safe. (Other sections of the book dealing with the Joule-Thompson effect and helium studies do not dispute the published results.) Cold fusion researchers at SRI pointed out that this book does not mention any experiment showing excess heat even though most experiments in the field have been done to look for heat.

    * W. B. Clarke and Mass Spectrometry. Clarke published several articles with coworkers examining various aspects of helium detection in cold fusion-related samples. One study [42] has led to suggestions that some of the cold fusion researchers have not adequately handled the analytical chemistry technique of mass spectrometry.

    * K. L. Shanahan and Calibration Constant Shifts. K. L. Shanahan has published 3 articles proposing a non-nuclear means to obtain apparent excess heat signals in cold fusion cells. In the first[34], Shanahan proposed that the system heat distribution and/or heat flow pathways might change and that this would induce a change in the calibration constants for the cell. He reanalyzed some actual cold fusion data published by E. Storms[37], under an assumption of zero excess heat, and found a variation in calibration constants of +/- 3% would explain the results, which is within typical error bounds of a fairly high quality scientific study. Subsequently, Szpak, Mossier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann questioned the proposal[39], and Shanahan replied [35] with an expanded explanation and applied it to explain the authors results. E. Storms rebutted Shanahan [38] by pointing out that the data does not fit his model.

    * A Scientific American article in 2006 with a sidebar that said there are four weaknesses in the cold fusion experiments. [40] (The article is here [http://www.sciam.com/article.c…1C&ref=sciam&chanID=sa006], but the sidebar is missing. It is quoted here: [http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#SciAmSlam].) These statements are not in evidence in the experimental literature. In a letter to J. Rothwell, the editors said they have not read any of the experimental literature on cold fusion, because, they say, this literature does not exist: no papers have been published "in major peer-reviewed journals." [Piel, ibid.] Presumably this explains why the editors made these four errors.

    ==Burden of proof argument==

    Many skeptics have said that the burden of proof is on cold fusion researchers to prove their point. As the editor of the Scientific American put it: "But it is not up to mainstream physicists to disprove LENR-CANR [cold fusion]; it is up to LENR-CANR's physicists to come up with convincing proofs. The burden of evidence is on those who wish to establish a new proposition." [Piel, ibid.]

    Cold fusion researchers feel they have met this burden. Cold fusion experiments are based upon traditional instruments and techniques, such as calorimeters (most of them developed between the 1780 and 1840), autoradiographs (circa 1890), and conventional tritium detection and mass spectroscopy. Calorimetry is based upon the laws of thermodynamics. Since most skeptics agree that autoradiographs, the laws of thermodynamics and so on are valid, cold fusion advocates argue that the skeptics should agree that cold fusion experiments are valid, and that the burden of proof is on those who say these techniques and laws are inoperative.

    ==Other skeptical arguments==

    Some skeptics say they do not believe the results because there may be an error in the experiments which has not yet been discovered. This argument is invalid because it cannot be falsified, and because the same can be said for any experiment.

    Skeptics quote Carl Sagan's axiom that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Cold fusion researchers disagree. They feel that extraordinary claims are best supported with ordinary evidence from off-the-shelf instruments and standard techniques, and this is the kind of evidence they have published. They also feel that all claims, and all arguments (including skeptical assertions that attempt to disprove cold fusion) must be held to the same standards of rigor.

    Hagelstein has encountered skeptics who say "a commercial product is the next hurdle to be jumped through before any significant funding can be justified." He responded, "This is simply not right." He explained:

    "Scientists in the field have gone to extremes in attempts to satisfy skeptics. Cells were stirred, blanks were done, extremely elaborate closed cell calorimeters have been developed (in which the effect has been demonstrated), the signal to noise ratio has been improved so that positive results can now be claimed at the 50 sigma level, the reproducibility issue has been laid to rest; but still it is not enough." [41]

    Hagelstein and others point out that plasma fusion has failed to produce a practical power reactor despite 60 years of research and over $100 billion in funding, yet no one questions the existence of plasma fusion for that reason. They also point out that countless other natural phenomena have no practical application, but are not disputed.

    Lindley [ibid.] and many other skeptics have said that before they believe the experimental results, cold fusion researchers must first provide a complete theory to explain the phenomenon. This also violates a fundamental tenet of the scientific method, since there are and always have been countless unexplained phenomena which are unquestionably real (such as high temperature superconductivity and radium fission, as noted above). Cold fusion researchers feel that it is the job of science to explain anomalies rather than to dismiss them.

    ==References==

    1.^ Feshbach, H., Interview with E. Mallove, May 1991


    2.^ Close, F., Too Hot to Handle. The Race for Cold Fusion. 1992, New York: Penguin, paperback.


    3.^ Huizenga, J.R., Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century. second ed. 1993, New York: Oxford University Press.


    4.^ Beaudette, C.G., Excess Heat. Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed. 2000, Concord, NH: Oak Grove Press (Infinite Energy, Distributor).


    5.^ Schwinger, J., Cold fusion: Does it have a future? Evol. Trends Phys. Sci., Proc. Yoshio Nishina Centen. Symp., Tokyo 1990, 1991. 57: p. 171. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJcoldfusiona.pdf]


    6.^ Taubes, G., Bad science. The short life and weird times of cold fusion. 1993, NY: Random House.


    7.^ Ballinger, R., The Gordon Institute News, March/April 1991


    8.^ Kevles, B, Barely a Drop of Fraud, Washington Post, January 2006


    9.^ Kevles, B., letter to E. Storms, January 2006


    10.^ Kevles, B., Professor's mention of cold fusion intended as reference to incident, Yale Daily News, January 2006 [http://yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=31289][http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#WaPostSlam]


    11.^ Piel, J. letter to J. Rothwell, 1991. [http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf]


    12.^ Miles, M., et al., Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993. 346: p. 99. [http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf]


    13.^ Miles, M. Correlation Of Excess Enthalpy And Helium-4 Production: A Review. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA [http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatioa.pdf]


    14.^ Chien, C.C., et al., On an electrode producing massive quantities of tritium and helium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1992. 338: p. 189. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChienCConanelectr.pdf]


    15.^ Radhakrishnan, T.P., et al., Tritium Generation during Electrolysis Experiment, in BARC Studies in Cold Fusion, P.K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasan, Editors. 1989, Atomic Energy Commission: Bombay. p. A 6. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Radhakrishtritiumgen.pdf]


    16.^ Srinivasan, M., Nuclear fusion in an atomic lattice: An update on the international status of cold fusion research. Curr. Sci., 1991. 60: p. 417. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Srinivasannuclearfus.pdf]


    17.^ Krishnan, M.S., et al., Evidence for Production of Tritium via Cold Fusion Reactions in Deuterium Gas Loaded Palladium, in BARC Studies in Cold Fusion, P.K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasan, Editors. 1989, Atomic Energy Commission: Bombay. p. B 4. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrishnanMSevidencefo.pdf]


    18.^ Iyengar, P.K., et al., Bhabha Atomic Research Centre studies on cold fusion. Fusion Technol., 1990. 18: p. 32. See also: [http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IyengarPKoverviewof.pdf]


    19.^ Iwamura, Y., M. Sakano, and T. Itoh, Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2002. 41: p. 4642. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYelementalaa.pdf]


    20.^ Iwamura, Y. Observation of Nuclear Transmutation Reactions induced by D2 Gas Permeation through Pd Complexes. in Eleventh International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2004. Marseille, France. [http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf]


    21.^ Higashiyama, Y., et al. Replication of MHI transmutation experiment by D2 gas permeation through Pd complex. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA [http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Higashiyamreplicatio.pdf]


    22.^ Inoguchi, S., Jyouon kakuyouugou no ankeito wo bunseki, Trigger, June 1993


    23.^ Hoffman, N., A Dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects. A Guide for the Perplexed about Cold Fusion. 1995, La Grange Park, Ill: American Nuclear Society.


    24.^ Gerischer, H., Memorandum on the present state of knowledge on cold fusion. 1991, Fritz Harber Institute Der Max Planck: Berlin. [http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf]


    25.^ Mallove, E., MIT Special Report. Infinite Energy, 1999. 4(24): p. 64. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEmitspecial.pdf]


    26.^ Miles, M. and B.F. Bush. Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Pd-D2O Electrolysis. in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion". 1992. Nagoya Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcalorimetr.pdf]


    27.^ Hansen, W.N. and M.E. Melich, Pd/D Calorimetry- The Key to the F/P Effect and a Challenge to Science. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 355. [http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HansenWNpddcalorim.pdf]


    28.^ Melich, M.E. and W.N. Hansen. Back to the Future, The Fleischmann-Pons Effect in 1994. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. [http://www.lenr-canr.org//acrobat/MelichMEbacktothef.pdf]


    29.^ Lindley, D., The Embarrassment of Cold Fusion. Nature (London), 1990. 344: p. 375.


    30.^ Park, R., The Fizzle in the Fusion, in Washington Post. 1991. p. B4.


    31.^ Slakey, F., When the lights of reason go out - Francis Slakey ponders the faces of fantasy and New Age scientists. New Scientist, 1993. 139(1890): p. 49.


    32.^ Mallove, E., Fire From Ice. 1991, NY: John Wiley.


    33.^ Debate between Douglas Morrison and Stanley Pons & Martin Fleischmann. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf]


    34.^ Shanahan, K., A Systematic Error in Mass Flow Calorimetry Demonstrated, Thermochimica Acta, 387(2) (2002) 95-110 [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf]


    35.^ Shanahan, K., Comments on "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition, Thermochimica Acta, 428(1-2) (2005) 207


    36.^ Shanahan, K., Reply to 'Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat geneated by cold fusion', E. Storms, Thermochim. ActaThermochimica Acta, 441 (2006) 210-214


    37.^ Storms, E., Excess Power Production from Platinum Cathodes Using the Pons-Fleischmann Effect, in F. Scaramuzzi (Ed.), ICCF8 - Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Lerici (La Spezia), Italy 21-26 May 2000, Societ‡ Italiana di Fisica 2001, 55-61


    38.^ Storms, E., Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion. Thermochim. Acta, 2006. 441: p. 207-209. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcommentonp.pdf].


    39.^ S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier-Boss, M. H. Miles, M. Fleischmann, Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition, Thermochimica Acta, 2004, 410, 101-107


    40.^ Choi, C., News Scan: Back to Square One, in Scientific American. 2005. p. 21.


    41.^ Hagelstein, P.L., Summary of ICCF3 in Nagoya, MIT, 1993. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinsummaryofi.pdf]


    42.^ W. Brian Clarke, Stanley J. Bos, Brian M. Oliver, Production of 4He in D2-Loaded Palladium-Carbon Catalyst II, Fusion Science and Technology, 43(2)(2003

    Additional input from Jed. (4/23/06):

    Writing this Wikipeida article has been an education for me. It has revealed aspects of the skeptical imagination and thought processes I was unaware of. One thing that shocked me is how many skeptics are livid with anger because I am quoting verbatim Huizenga and other leading skeptics. Several times they have erased these quotes. They do not want to hear their own side!

    Here is an example of what I have learned. This is kind of trivial yet thought provoking. The skeptical argument that all researchers are incompetent or frauds is weak. It has to apply to 100% of researchers. If a skeptic admits that 1% or 2% are competent and honest, that makes cold fusion real. There are very roughly 3,000 to 4,000 authors of the positive papers at LENR-CANR. So 1% would be ~40 researchers in ~10 institutions. Most researchers worked ~10 years. (Most are now retired or dead.) So that would be 10 or more independent replications repeated dozens of times. I have never heard of anyone publishing a claim that only one cell in run produced heat, or tritium, or transmutations. Bockris used to run 100 cells at at time.

    Anyway, in normal science, that many replications would be considered conclusive proof that an effect is real. Some people want to see 3 or 4 replications, others hold out for 10. But dozens of repeated experiments at 10 labs would surely meet anyone's standard of proof. I guess this is why some skeptics are so adamant. Their claim must be airtight or it fails. Cold fusion has been replicated hundreds if not thousands of times. Of course most skeptics are unaware of this. They think there were only a dozen experiments. But take a skeptic who is vaguely aware of the facts -- one who has glanced at the list of papers at LENR-CANR, and shivered inwardly. He has to force himself to believe that every single one of these tests was a mistake, or fraud. It must a terrible mental burden, forcing yourself to believe such crazy ideas, in violation of all your professional training and common sense.

    That is why so many skeptics suffer from cognitive dissonance. They shout to drown out their own inner doubts. They insist that I have distorted their views in this article, when in fact I have reproduced their views faithfully and completely, with verbatim quotes from the best sources available. If a skeptic were to write what Huizenga wrote, 'we know a priori all excess heat results are wrong,' his fellow skeptics would clap him on the back and say 'right on bro, Amen to that.' When I quote Huizenga, and source it, and compare that to Schwinger's rebuttal, they become hysterical and they accuse me of "POV violations" (expressing a point of view). One of them came in and immediately erased all of the rebuttals. He wanted to see skeptical claims in isolation, and he had no sense that they represent a "point of view" (POV). But when they were paired with the CF researchers point of view, he felt it was an abomination.

    This website contains other cold fusion items.


    Click to see the list of links

  • I don't know Parks but maybe, by discarding the paper, he was simply expressing his opinion of McKubre's work, based on reading prior examples of it.

    Indeed, you do not even know his name, which is Park, not Parks. So it is unlikely you can judge his motivation or state of knowledge. If you had read what he wrote, and what McKubre wrote, you would see that Park knows nothing about McKubre. Either he did not read any prior examples, or he lied about them.


    Why do you write "maybe this" and "maybe that" about a person when you do not even know his name and -- by your own admission -- you know nothing about the McKubre paper that he categorically refused to look at? You make yourself look foolish with such empty speculation.


    Your method of critiquing this field is to reject everything. Since most claims in science turn out to be wrong, your method gives you a good batting average, but it takes no more skill or thought on your part than it would to use a Magic 8 Ball, selecting only:


    ● Don't count on it

    ● My reply is no

    ● My sources say no

    ● Outlook not so good

    ● Very doubtful


    Or, as Groucho Marx put it:


    I don't know what they have to say
    It makes no difference anyway
    Whatever it is, I'm against it
    No matter what it is
    Or who commenced it
    I'm against it

    Your proposition may be good
    But let's have one thing understood
    Whatever it is, I'm against it
    And even when you've changed it
    Or condensed it
    I'm against it

    I'm opposed to it
    On general principles
    I'm opposed to it
    (He's opposed to it)
    (In fact, he says he's opposed to it)



  • IH has a very dark past and I do not see why nobody is scandalized when talking about Rossi's, and instead protests if it's about IH's. This is my point of view ....

    The reason why nobody is scandalized is because IH does not, in fact, have a very dark past. This dark past is a figment of your imagination. It resembles the missing panes of glass in the mezzanine window in front of Rossi's factory. They are not actually missing, and even if they were, they would be irrelevant because there was no heat exchanger, and even if there were one, two panes of glass could not possibly be wide enough to release 1 MW of hot air.


    This is not just your point of view. It is your own private fantasy. You conjure up imaginary problems and then you are scandalized that other people do not share in your fantasies. How can they even know what you are thinking, since it has no basis in reality? It is as if you expect other people to be frightened by a nightmare you had last night.

  • If you are capable of middle-school level science, you will see that the test was blatant fraud and the data is bullshit.

    Rossi seems to have pulled the wool over the eyes of PhD level scientists, not middle schoolers. If he's a fraud, he's one of the greatest ever. I remember you saying once in response to some skeptic that claimed he was tweaking the results in real time: How could he, he wasn't even on the same CONTINENT. Your perspective changed and that's worthy of an article all by itself. Did you post one on LENR-CANR.org?

  •  

    @Jed,


    You might be right that IH has irrefutable tests showing that the e-Cat doesn't work. But as you acknowledge, they're not on the record. And I happen to suspect that if they really had them, they would have put them on the record in this case. Instead, we get lots of confirmation from IH on the record that the e-Cat in fact does work, upwards of COP of 9.

     


    I'm not sure how relevant tests showing that the e-Cat doesn't work would be to this case, so I'm not sure I would expect to find such tests in the record in this case, or necessarily see them produced during the trial. 1


    There are a few bells and whistles (like the fraudulent inducement claims) thrown in, but the core of this dispute is a contract dispute.2 If you want to win a contract dispute, there are four things you have to prove:


    1: Formation. You and the other guy had a contract. 3

    2: Performance. You did what you were supposed to do under the contract.

    3: Breach. The other guy didn't do what he was supposed to. 4

    4: Damage. You were hurt because of the breach.


    If you prove all four of those things, you win. If you fail to prove any of them, you lose. 5 I'm not sure that any independent test IH did (or did not do) would be relevant to prove any of those four elements. The license made no provisions for testing outside the two specified tests. If the e-Cat worked in those two tests, IH probably has to pay Rossi - no matter how many other times it failed. Independent tests might be relevant as additional proof that Rossi faked results, but that's about the only reason I can think of that they'd come in. There are possible reasons (like preserving trade secrets, not opening people up to cross-examination, etc) that IH might want to leave them out. And there's a substantial amount of other evidence that there was something hinky going on with the testing.


    So I don't think it's reasonable to assume that such test results would definitely be part of the record if they existed.



    1: I'm taking no position on whether or not I think there were tests.

    2: The contract in this case is the IP license; all licenses are contracts.

    3: This is the element where the dueling fraud claims come in. If you can prove that you only agreed to the deal because of the other guy's fraudulent inducements, you might have the option to void the contract.

    4: The failure has to be substantial, not merely technical. So I don't think IH necessarily wins just because the 24-hour test was actually run for only 23.5 hours.

    5: Technically, you could be awarded "nominal damages" if you show that you were harmed but can't prove an actual amount of harm, but you still have to show harm.

  • We finally get some details on the Boeing test, and wouldn't you know, IH didn't even test the unit themselves before sending it to Boeing, according to Boeing's test engineer.


    326, pp. 67-68


    Q. (By Mr. Bell) Why did you have that

    24 instruction or understanding?

    25 A. Because time is ‐‐ is money at Boeing, as ‐‐

    Page 68

    1 as it is everywhere, and so we had already conducted a

    2 test which showed that, you know, there was no excess

    3 heat from the first unit, so we did not want to spend

    4 additional time testing something that they themselves

    5 had not tested.

    6 So, you know, we wanted to verify something

    7 that they already knew the answer, not try and

    8 discover the answer, right? I mean, you know,

    9 we're ‐‐ we were not interested in testing units

    10 that ‐‐ that they hadn't already shown to work, right?

    11 Q. And did that ever that happen? Did ‐‐

    12 A. It did not.


  • Instead, we get lots of confirmation from IH on the record that the e-Cat in fact does work, upwards of COP of 9.

    No. Your statement is false. Either you do not understand the "record;" or you are deceived by the double-talk and nonsense from Rossi and his lawyers; or you are lying. In any case, what you say is completely wrong. There was never any COP of 9. There were some mistakes which looked like that, but as I.H. soon showed, they got the same apparent high COP from an empty cell.


    Repeat this as many times as you like, it will still be wrong.


    When you repeat statements which are wrong, and you ignore the Penon report, which is irrefutable proof of fraud, you do not make a credible case, and you do not make yourself look good.

  • There was never any COP of 9. There were some mistakes which looked like that, but as I.H. soon showed, they got the same apparent high COP from an empty cell.


    Please provide a cite to something that supports this statement. Darden never claimed that the dummy produced a COP of 9. Darden recounts the dummy test story occurred in January or 2014. He went on to secure tens of millions of funding from Woodford, with the e-Cat tech being core to those investments. The readers here can ably determine whether there is an inconsistency in Darden's dummy reactor story and his later actions.

    • Quote

      When you repeat statements which are wrong, and you ignore the Penon report, which is irrefutable proof of fraud, you do not make a credible case, and you do not make yourself look good.

      This may be right but when Jed starts throwing around "irrefutable," I start to worry that maybe Rossi can indeed make a credible case... well, not really.

  • No. Your statement is false. Either you do not understand the "record;" or you are deceived by the double-talk and nonsense from Rossi and his lawyers; or you are lying. In any case, what you say is completely wrong. There was never any COP of 9. There were some mistakes which looked like that, but as I.H. soon showed, they got the same apparent high COP from an empty cell.


    Repeat this as many times as you like, it will still be wrong.


    When you repeat statements which are wrong, and you ignore the Penon report, which is irrefutable proof of fraud, you do not make a credible case, and you do not make yourself look good.

    There are 2 things that I do not understand about this inquiry.


    1) How do you get a COP of 9 out of an empty cell? If this is the case then we can explain away so much of LENR as a miscalculation artifiact, apparently even with seasoned scientists.


    2) If the Penon report is so irrefutable proof of fraud and it has been entered as evidence in the case, why wasn't the case summarily dismissed in the motion for summary judgement?