Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • Correction: Leslie Case


    http://www.infinite-energy.com…issue23/deviceupdate.html


    https://www.wired.com/1998/11/coldfusion/



    LENR Researcher Les Case Dies


    From SeacoastOnline

    NEWFIELDS, [N.H.] - Leslie C. Case, 79, died Thursday, July 15, 2010, at his home in Newfields. He was born Sept. 11, 1930, in Tulsa, Okla., the son of Leslie and Julia (Catron) Case. Mr. Case received his doctorate of science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Private services were provided by the Kent & Pelczar Funeral Home, Newmarket.

    • Official Post

    Here's a link to one key paper about calorimetry error:


    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j100058a038


    I have a few more. I'm not saying this paper applies to every experiment. Each has to be looked at individually as always. I have a few more papers that show calorimetry error.


    LINR,


    Did you notice that the lead author of that report on how to avoid calorimetry errors is Melvin Miles? He was one of the first to replicate FPs, and an LENR proponent to this day. So you cite an LENR calorimetry expert's paper, to make your point about the many ways to err in LENR experiments. Funny. Like McKubre said: We know what we are doing!


    KS is not going to like this BTW! MIles does not believe his CCS/ATER theory.

    • Official Post

    Did you notice that the lead author of that report on how to avoid calorimetry errors is Melvin Miles?

    As I referred ironically one of the best book on electrochemistry is

    https://www.amazon.com/1-Moder…stry-Ionics/dp/0306455544


    To be honest I discovered recently than Nathan Lewis was judged competent in electochemistry

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Lewis

    Quote


    Lewis obtained his B.S. and M.S. degrees at Caltech under Harry B. Gray in 1977 studying the redox reactions of inorganic rhodium complexes.[1][2] After that, he moved to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his Ph.D. in 1981 under Mark S. Wrighton studying semiconductor electrochemistry.[3]

    So when he sabotaged Caltech experiment, he was just 4 year old in chemistry, and just beginner in semiconductor electrochemistry.


    No surprise he did basic mistakes like recalibrating while reaction is happening... as Miles reportedly said, (Jed's funny quote I remember) "standing on the balance while zeroing it'.


    A newbie like Lewis can do such basic mistake, but who taught him this huge ego to insult people with 10 times his experience in experimental science, and a thousand time more in electrochemistry?

    Who allowed this newbie rush the most important experiment in 1989?


    The answer is probably in the administration and community who named him to sabotage that annoying fact, and taught him he was the best guy to do the job as he is from Caltech...

    Or was he just the "Idiot Utile", the sockpuppet of hot fusionists who in fact taught him all he had to do while he was unable to understand (like Swedish physicist with IR cam emissivity) the error he was doing ? I don't know, just that his CV is ridiculous, and his final performance pathetic.


    PS: maybe we should move else where...

    • Official Post

    To be honest I discovered recently t Oddly though, han Nathan Lewis was judged competent in electochemistry


    Alain,


    He (Lewis) also accompanied Richard Garwin to SRI in Oct,. 1993, as representative of the mainstream scientific community, to take a look at SRI's Cold Fusion work. Afterwards they wrote what one can conclude is a fairly positive report of their visit. You would think that after that, they would become a little more neutral, and less negative in their public criticisms of LENR, but they did not. Kept right on slamming the field.


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/r…rwin-Lewis-SRI-Report.pdf

  • LINR,


    Did you notice that the lead author of that report on how to avoid calorimetry errors is Melvin Miles? He was one of the first to replicate FPs, and an LENR proponent to this day. So you cite an LENR calorimetry expert's paper, to make your point about the many ways to err in LENR experiments. Funny. Like McKubre said: We know what we are doing!


    KS is not going to like this BTW! MIles does not believe his CCS/ATER theory.

    Of course I'm aware of that. Not all experiments are done the same. This work seems to eliminate the results of many experiments. And, since it's from a respected LENR person, I feel it gives more weight to my argument: LENR researchers are acknowledging possible errors in the work of other LENR researchers.


    As I said, I have more papers which deal with errors that I'll post as I have a chance to look over them in detail.

    • Official Post

    LINR,


    Good then. Shows that LENR is a healthy, vibrant, self-policing field. Many, if not most, working in the institutions know their stuff, and their results are professional, and can be trusted. If some do not, do it right, then there are always some like Miles or McKubre to show them the errors of their ways.


    Not that this is new, as if you read the early ICCF's as I have, they talk often of improving calorimetry as the signals were quite low. That was the only way they said they could get their colleagues in the mainstream science community to take interest. At least one time they were successful in attracting that attention, as the Garwin/Lewis SRI report I linked to shows.


    Unfortunately, their efforts were for naught, as however stringent, and tight the CF researchers made, or make, their instrumentation, and controls, the mainstream to this day snubs them. With the Rossi debacle, I do not expect that to change any time soon. At this point, it would take a literal slap in the face to get their attention, and the most effective way to do that is produce a replicable experiment, with signal well above noise...which the LENR researchers appear no where near achieving.

  • Regarding discussions on Mizuno's evaporating bucket, I read this:


    Lots of details that were posted to spf are not included, like the posts describing the broken windows and the use of a lab hood in an abandoned building...


    Does anyone care to elaborate on what this means? With particular interest in the fume hood... ta.


    Also, Jed, do I remember reading you have a photo of this bucket? Any chance of posting it please?

  • OK, so I looked this over. Nothing in it to contradict anything important in my description. Lots of details that were posted to spf are not included, like the posts describing the broken windows and the use of a lab hood in an abandoned building...

    That is nonsense.

    But the key point is that Jed writes: "A bucket left by itself for 10 days in a university laboratory will not lose any measurable level of water to evaporation. "


    That is nothing but an assumption based on wishful thinking.

    No, it isn't. Try leaving a bucket in a laboratory for 10 days and you will see it is true. That would be a test. Here's the thing: instead of making up stuff, if you run tests and try things in the real world, you will see that you are wrong. That's called "science." What you do is called "fantasy."

    Does anyone care to elaborate on what this means? With particular interest in the fume hood... ta.

    It does not mean anything. Here is an account of the event:


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

    Also, Jed, do I remember reading you have a photo of this bucket? Any chance of posting it please?

    I probably cannot find that easily. There were two buckets, 15 L and 20 L as described in the link. They are ordinary plastic buckets, marked in liters, like any bucket in Japan.

  • Why does a 'lab hood' merit a mention, Kirk?


    From Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions


    When this was initially posted to sci.physics.fusion, I looked up water evaporation from swimming pools and got the equations to preduict water loss. It involves time, temperature, humidity, wind, etc. My scribbling around with the equations suggested the water loss noted might well be to evaporation, and I posted that. Jed rejected the idea without thought.


    So, lab hood = ventilation flow, but 'abandoned building' means unquantified flow, and unquantified humidity, temperature, and even visits from local denizens...


    typical anecdote situation - lack of significant information that would allow serious consideration.

  • So when he sabotaged Caltech experiment,


    (referring to Nate Lewis)


    Alain, do realize how libelous this statement is???


    Looking at your link I see the first big problem - it is written by the know CF fanatic Jed Rothwell.


    So, as expected, we see a warped explanation of how Nate Lewis didn't know what he was doing.


    From http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf


    “He [Nate Lewis] thought the heating coefficient (the calibration constant) was changing as the experiment proceeded. “


    (Amazing! Nate Lewis thought he had a calibration constant shift (CCS)! He must be a crackpot!)


    “He thought that at the beginning of the test, 1 watt of electrochemical power caused the temperature to rise 14.0°C, and later that same power caused the temperature to rise 15.9°C, 14% higher. While it is conceivable that happened, that would mean the instruments were malfunctioning or the cell was configured wrong, so the experiment should have been done over. It is more likely that the instruments were working correctly, and the higher temperature was caused by 14% anomalous excess heat added to the electrochemical power.”


    The statement “that would mean the instruments were malfunctioning or…” is incorrect, as I have demonstrated in print and expounded upon endlessly here.


    Later Miles is quoted as saying: “The most disturbing aspect of the Caltech report concerns the heating coefficient in a Pd/D2O+0.1 M LiOD experiment that was allowed to increase with time”


    So Rothwell’s prior statement is driven by Miles comment. But Miles hadn’t heard of my CCS/ATER explanation at that point, and still doesn’t understand it today. Nate Lewis on the other hand understood the basic concept I invoke with the ‘CCS’. He just didn’t have the ATER mechanism in mind.


    So the primary criticism of Lewis by the CF community is the typical "CCS's can't occur" even though I have shown how trivial it is to get one.


    Alain, you need to read and understand my work and realize that all papers/comments/reports prior to my 2002 publication would necessarily not recognize this. And you need to realize the meaning of the fact that post-2002, the CF community has deliberately misrepresented my work.

  • @ LINR and ShaneD


    One point to keep in mind about the 1994 Miles paper on errors...that kind of publication is useful to the scientific community because it details such errors, but it also means that the authors are usually handling these things adequately in their work.


    What is not included in that paper is a discussion of how non-homogeneous heat distributions in a cell/calorimeter need to be modeled with equations such that shifts in those heat distributions produce computational results that accurately mimic real-world behavior. (IOW using a lumped parameter approach at too coarse a level generates error.) This mistake is still the status quo of the CF community, since they refuse to accept the CCS part of my work.

  • Sometimes it helps to read what people said much earlier. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml#sputnik


    For example, Rothwell about Arata in 2006!

    Quote

    "The high operating temperature, instant response and reliability of this device make it the most practical form of LENR yet developed," Rothwell wrote. "The small amount of palladium is also a major advantage. As far as I know, all of the tests with Zr-Pd targets and D2 have produced heat immediately and predictably. It may not be possible to turn off the reaction instantly, but this is no impediment to practical applications; it is not possible to turn off the heat from burning coal or uranium fission, either."


    Really? Where is all the power from this work now, 11 years later? Where is the Stirling engine that ran without input power (for a short time)? Why isn't there one that runs indefinitely without input if the source of energy is really nuclear?


    And then, there was Russ George... remember him?


    Quote

    Josephson had invited George to give a lecture at Cambridge University on Oct. 21, 2005, about his company, D2Fusion. George had been offering to sell shares of stock. Josephson wrote that D2Fusion was going to be selling 1-kilowatt fusion-powered heaters commercially within a few months.

    Josephson wrote to Krivit, "I might invest a little in shares" in George's company. On Dec. 16, 2005, in an e-mail to Krivit, Josephson wrote that he thought "$1 could turn rapidly into $10" and asked Krivit for advice. Josephson made no request for privacy in the letter and there was no agreement between them that messages were to be off the record.

    A month earlier, Krivit had heard that the best results obtained by scientists working for George were not 1,000 watts but 1/4 of a watt. Instead of giving advice to Josephson, Krivit began a news investigation into the highly unlikely claims.


    Yet, Josephson learned nothing from this and ended up vigorously endorsing Rossi!


    And then, there was Piantelli.... way way back then... where is all that power now?


    Quote

    Over in Tuscany, Italy, 19 years ago, when something strange occurred in the laboratory of biophysicist Francesco Piantelli, he might not have given it a second thought. But because Fleischmann and Pons had made their excess heat claim publicly known several months earlier, Piantelli did not dismiss as an artifact what he saw before him.

    Piantelli's discovery would lead to perhaps some of the most astounding low-energy nuclear reaction excess heat results in the CMNS field: one cell producing 900 MJ of excess heat for 278 days and another cell producing 600 MJ for 319 days. One of Piantelli et al.'s papers, published in Il Nuovo Cimento, states a conservative power rate of 38.9 +/-1.5 Watt excess heat; by another calculation, the authors state, it could be as high as 68 Watts. Regardless of the discrepancy, which they explain, it is very difficult to dismiss this data on account of poor calorimetry. The also reported nuclear particles and emissions.


    And of course, there is Mills;



    Quote

    Introducing Randell Mills
    Few people in energy science are more controversial than Dr. Randell Mills. He is a “renaissance man” and hero inventor to his supporters but regarded with vocal skepticism by most of mainstream physics. Regardless, some of his critics concede that he has an astounding intellect and level of accomplishment in both medicine and physics.

    Mills' company, BlackLight Power Inc., attracted a fair amount of publicity on May 28 (2009, IIRC) for its bold claim that "the company has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand." This claim appears questionable considering that the best that Mills has presented to the public thus far is 41 Watts from an experiment performed 15 years ago at another company, Thermacore.


    Was Mills lying about the power plant? Is he still lying about power plants and "sun cells?"


    And I could continue because there are many more like, for example, good old Defkalion. I will mercifully not detail how Rossi fooled so many people so easily that he richly deserves a Pigasus award. (For the performer who fools the greatest number of people with the least effort). And where are we now? We are still attending to baseless claims, incomplete or sloppy or impossible to decipher experiments, and complaining that mainline science is conspiring to repress the evidence. In fact, LENR researchers are their own worst enemies. IMHO, of course. And they seem to have learned little since 1989 about either public relation or backing up improbable claims with truly irrefutable and cleanly presented evidence.