Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

Quote from Ascoli65

I insist that his 2013 work, as well his 2014 work, should have been rejected on the basis of what Levi wrote in 2011, two years in advance. This makes sense, to me.

I don't recall the 2011 document. I do not think he was in charge of the experiment; he was just reporting on Rossi, in a summary fashion. In any case he had many co-authors for the 2013 work; the method and instruments were far better than previous studies; and the paper taken on its own has merit. Or at least, it seemed to have merit. You have not given a technical reason to doubt that.

As I said, I communicated with Levi and with some of his co-authors in 2013. They seemed capable to me. Subsequent events make me doubt that, but in any case my view of the paper was partly based on direct communication with the authors, which I think is a better way to judge than looking at one summary paper by one of the authors.

He must be a true genius, I admit - not only he has managed to design, produce and sell working LENR Ecats, but also invented and uses unbelievable new exotic materials that did not exist on Earth so far, but can resist easily 2700°C while still producing electricity, light and heat and remain controllable...We will see how he is going to interprete the new physics and thermodynamics required for his QX...

Quote from Alan Smith

The leaks coming my way from NASA suggest they already have a large LENR reactor but are battling with what are currently inadequate control procedures.

That would be really exciting to see what their LENR device is based on. To beat todays available RTGs it really has to be something more benefical, and be it that they get rid of any radioactive materials to reach the same longterm power output - this would be a great win and a game changer for space applications and of course on Earth as well anyway. Since this did not make its way to commercial applications it seems to be technically more than challenging...

Quote from Alan Smith

The leaks coming my way from NASA suggest they already have a large LENR reactor but are battling with what are currently inadequate control procedures.

While this may be how whomever is doing some LENR experiments at NASA interprets matters it seems to me to be weird.

If (anyone) has a small working LENR reactor that would be very very big news, and NASA has no wish to keep such things quiet - nor has it with other way-out ideas. LENR is not like ITER and I see no reason why anyone would do anything with a large reactor until small reactors were working reliably.

So I expect this snippet to have got garbled in its travel from whatever kernel of truth it represents to this forum (I'm not impugning Alan, just pointing out how this happens).

Alan may not be too far off the mark - there is some good progress and interesting activity taking place in that neighborhood.

Shane - I believe that the good news is coming. I've seen a snapshot of a related reaction - its encouraging and is being conducted by accountable grown-ups. The small reactor works well enough for next steps.

Expecting broader progress in the coming months.

Alan/Dewey many thanks for the nod that something maybe forthcoming ))

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Shane - I believe that the good news is coming. I've seen a snapshot of a related reaction - its encouraging and is being conducted by accountable grown-ups. The small reactor works well enough for next steps.

Expecting broader progress in the coming months.

Dewey Weaver,

Maybe start a new thread?

You do not want to give the impression that Mr. Rossi has anything to do with these developments, right? I mean, you think he is just a conman, a scammer and you confirming Alan Smith remarks, while just settling a USD 250 million LENR lawsuit is all a coincidence..Right?

Cheers,

JB

NASA

The RUMOR I heard is that their work is Pd electrolysis based and NOT nickel based

Is this NASA reactor too poised for an October release?

Quote from THHuxleynew

LENR is not like ITER and I see no reason why anyone would do anything with a large reactor until small reactors were working reliably.

I agree. I guess it depends on what you call "large" but anyway, I would prefer a reactor that produces 1 to 100 W. Compared to a kilowatt reactor that is easier to measure, and safer.

It is difficult to do calorimetry with a physically large reactor. You have to put the whole reactor in an envelope of some sort, such as an insulated box, and that box will leak a lot of heat, making the calorimetry inaccurate.

The first fission reactor, the Chicago Pile 1, produced about 0.5 W.

The ITER reactor has to be large for reasons relating to physics and engineering. THH's point is that there is no similar need to make a cold fusion reactor large.

Quote from maryyugo

As for the 2013 "work" nobody really know what actually happened, how much control the other authors had, what Rossi did or contributed,

Perhaps, but that become apparent after the paper was published. As I said, it would be difficult to judge a paper published in 2013 based on a future paper that was not written or published yet. When this paper was published, on its own, it had merit. Despite all of your blather here I do not think you have not pointed to a serious technical problem in the paper.

Quote from maryyugo

Yikes and you have the temerity to upbraid others for not reading enough? How many times do I need to link this?

https://www.nyteknik.se/energi…cludes-combustion-6421304

This describes an 18-hour test. There are few technical details. This is a test done by Rossi with some assistance from Levi. None of the other co-authors of the 2013 paper participated. I communicated mainly with them, and they seemed competent to me. I had second thoughts about them after the second (Lugano) paper.

This is a summary, as I said, and you cannot draw many conclusions from it. The 2013 Levi paper has far more technical details:

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

Quote from maryyugo

Krivit tried to extract from Levi, during an in person interview in Italy, how his experiment was recorded and Levi simply took umbrage and refused to say (series of 5 Youtube videos, I will link them if you like). Levi was challenged in 2013 or 2014 to repeat the experiment properly documented and calibrated/controlled -- this time he was asked by Dr. Brian Josephson at my urging. Levi didn't even reply to the email. I urged Josephson to shame him . . .

That sounds bad. It sounds like academic misconduct. However, since I was completely unaware of any of that until just now, you will forgive me for not taking it into account in my evaluation of the paper.

In general, I try to evaluate papers on their own merits, without regard for bad behavior or academic misconduct on the part of one of the authors. You cannot ignore that kind of behavior, but if the other co-authors do not conduct themselves that way, you might discount it. I think I would discount it in the case of the 2013 paper, were it not for the subsequent Lugano paper.

Your description makes me think Levi is a stuck up, egotistical academic professor. I have met many professors who fit that description, in cold fusion and in other fields such as Japanese literature and linguistics. Despite those personality faults, some of these profs have done good work. You should not throw out their work just because they are jerks.

Quote from oldguy

NASA

The RUMOR I heard is that their work is Pd electrolysis based and NOT nickel based

I have not heard this rumor. But let me point out that I know of several cathodes going back to the early 1990s that were both Pd and Ni. Usually Pd plated onto Ni, or a multi-layer sandwich. So it might be both. Pd has been plated onto various substrates or alloyed with Ag and other metals. So if you hear a confused rumor that seems to imply both Pd and Ni, it might be both.

Pure Pd does not works well as far as I know.