Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • We better be careful about this NASA rumor. It has the hallmarks of the "Telephone/Chinese Whisper" game. We have someone saying NASA is trying to replicate another government lab with Pd/electrolysis cells, and towards the end of the whisper rumor line is Alan, with his "large LENR reactor".


    I think we need better confirmation before I start yelling at passer-bys from the street corner. So anyone holding out? If so, step forward and tell us what you have heard. If there is something, we can not let it just slip back into the darkness as so much of this does. Got to get some light on it, and keep it there.

  • Because, as I said, I do not invoke your name EVERY SINGLE TIME I make the assertion. Everyone knows that you and Morrison are exceptions to what I said. So give it a rest.


    No Jed, everyone obviously does not know that, and your failing to mention that I have proposed a non-nuclear explanation for the large bulk of excess heat results is an unethical practice, meant to deceive the uninformed and promote the CF field. You don't listen or learn from anyone unless you first determine that they are 'true believers'.


    Also, as you know, I believe your theories cannot be tested or falsified, and if true they would overthrow thermodynamics, calorimetry and electrochemistry going back to Faraday. So I do not consider these theories "mainstream." They have all the hallmarks of crackpot science. If you were not attacking cold fusion, no editor would have published you. You were given a free pass because editors want a reason to denigrate cold fusion. Papers attacking it sail through peer review. The paper from Morrison was garbage.


    And as you know and unethically fail to report, I have proposed, in this very forum as well as elsewhere, tests of my theories. Many of which can be accomplished by simply reviewing the old data and publishing more details that were omitted in the original reports. Others would require some experimental work to test. And my theories do not rock the world and rewrite textbooks as you keep insisting (also unethically) like LENRs, if proven out, would. What I point out is singularly unexciting, unless you are a true believer, in which case it threatens your very world structure, which is why your basic response is denial, followed by personal attacks, as others here and elsewhere have noted. Grow up Jed, the world doesn't always work the way you want it to.



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


    Your papers are not as bad, but Marwan et al. blew you out of the water.



    So if I say "Jed Rothwell does NOT believe CF or LENR is real and laughs at those who do', I have accurately represented your point of view, right? Of course not. And likewise Marwan, et al, did NOT accurately represent my point of view when they tried to rebut it. Therefore...they certainly didn't 'blow me out of the water', EXCEPT in that world kinda like Planet Rossi where whatever a true believer says is automatically absolutely and totally true (which is obviously where you live).


    Unlike you, if someone ACTUALLY did something to show an error with what I say, I would immediately change my tune. It has happened many times before, and probably will in the future. Just show me the correcting words, and not some garbage strawman argument.


    (BTW, you quoted the wrong paper above. I think you want the Marwan one you always quote, the one that I wasn't allowed to rebutt. The stuff you referenced above come from 1993, which is 2 years before I became involved and 9 years before my 1st publication. As such it isn't too relevant.)

  • The fcat that Marwan et al dismiss Shanahan's critique without fully addressing his questions is unfortunate.

    I disagree with your characterization of Marwan, and so do the authors. I have discussed this with them at length. In my opinion, they fully addressed his questions. They gave him more attention than he deserves.


    I do not know why you disagree. You have said this several times, but I have not seen you describe specific reasons why and where Marwan et al. failed to address the issues. Perhaps you wrote this out but I missed it. Okay, I invite you to write a paper on this subject. If you wish, I will upload it to LENR-CANR.org. I will also suggest that Marwan et al. review it. If they do, I expect they will eviscerate it. In that event, I hope you will pay attention to what they say. Shanahan never listens. He makes the same mistakes again and again. That makes him look bad. I advise you not to do that. Don't imagine that you know more about calorimetry than someone like McKubre. You don't.

  • I heard from some of Levi's co-authors that Rossi played less of a role in Lugano. I don't know what to make of that, or whether to believe it now, after all that has happened.

    What Rossi did in Lugano is described in the report that the Professors who conducted the test wrote:

    "The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration."

    The authors clearly say that they have monitored his interventions and have also decided at least some of them ("... power level requested by us"), maybe all of them. Rossi's presence during the test is understandable, considering that he had to protect his discovery and legitimate secrets. No one would ever lose sight of an object that may be worth a fortune, especially if it is placed in a room that is not necessarily safe (they were in a Swiss premises .... not quite a safe deposit box). As for his interventions, it seems that they are limited to essential things, according to the Professors, who agreed to make that kind of test and signed the article. I think they would never have done it if they had felt themselves at the mercy of Rossi.

  • I disagree with your characterization of Marwan, and so do the authors. I have discussed this with them at length. In my opinion, they fully addressed his questions. They gave him more attention than he deserves.


    I do not know why you disagree. You have said this several times, but I have not seen you describe specific reasons why and where Marwan et al. failed to address the issues. Perhaps you wrote this out but I missed it. Okay, I invite you to write a paper on this subject. If you wish, I will upload it to LENR-CANR.org. I will also suggest that Marwan et al. review it. If they do, I expect they will eviscerate it. In that event, I hope you will pay attention to what they say. Shanahan never listens. He makes the same mistakes again and again. That makes him look bad. I advise you not to do that. Don't imagine that you know more about calorimetry than someone like McKubre. You don't.


    I probably will do this - but it is not a thing to do lightly. Writing papers (for me) takes a long time especially in a field I am not very familiar with. I still hope the matter will be moot, if high quality new evidence emerges from the Austin guys, for example.


    It is not enough to listen to others and be convinced by what they say. No doubt Marwan et al have strong reasons for their views. They make those clear. The issue is whether those strong reasons are valid. For that you have to understand the reasons, and the arguments on the other side. I have not seen you exhibit that understanding here, nor Marwan et al.


    To take just one example. Marwan et al point out correctly that CCS becomes irrelevant when you have very low loss calorimetry. If the observed excess heat is significantly higher than the total heat losses, and the calorimetry is absolute, then a variation in those losses cannot explain the excess.


    That is true - but they do not then go on to show which of the high quality datasets in this area obey this criterion. Hence their argument remains a straw man until they do this. This is just one example of where their arguments are not sufficient, and it alone shows a lack of engagement with the debate - because if they were engaged they would look to see how widely it applies, quoting the various important datasets, something that is still as far as I know an open question. I'm interesting in looking to see which datasets could be explained by CCS/ATER, or even CCS/?, and which not.

  • After the first test and during the second test at Lugano I heard from some of the participants from time to time. They were friendly. But, after the Lugano report was published, I never heard another word from anyone.

    It is very likely that the Professors were asked to keep the confidentiality about what they had seen. All they could say was definitely written in the report, the rest (if any) had to keep it for themselves, so it was not the case to issue interviews or answer specific questions. In fact, they are now making an E-Cat replication in Sweden: what they learned on that occasion they put it into practice instead of spreading it. I believe that as soon as they are ready they will describe their current work in an article where they will describe in detail the outcome of their experiments, as scientists usually do.

  • So if Rossi's hand-made ECAT technology would really work as he and his followers claim, Boeing and Airbus would have found out long time ago...but they are still investigating...

    What would be odd? No one can know and understand better a technology than an inventor that has turned his own intuition into a real object. Boeing had a Rossi reactor in the hands that was wrongly charged and therefore unable to work, but now (according to Alan: "I hear the Boeing are carrying on with LENR research anyway") also them are working on a LENR reactor. Maybe with time their back engineering will give good results, but if this happens after Rossi's success, it will not be surprising because he is the inventor of that reactor!

  • And as you know and unethically fail to report, I have proposed, in this very forum as well as elsewhere, tests of my theories.

    What an absurd statement! When and where have I "failed to report" your theories?? I have addressed them time after time. And what ethical obligation do I have to "report" you or any other author? What is that supposed to mean? There are 4,907 authors in my database. I have never mentioned more than small fraction of them. Do you think I should be forced to list them alphabetically every time I discuss cold fusion?

    (BTW, you quoted the wrong paper above. I think you want the Marwan one you always quote, the one that I wasn't allowed to rebutt.

    No, I was pointing to Morrison, who makes you look good in comparison. You should be thankful.


    I have no idea who prohibited you from rebutting, but you should be thankful you were allowed to publish in the first place. If I were the editor of a journal I would not have published your crackpot theories in the first place.


    Since I am a librarian, not an editor, I never refuse to upload a paper that I have a low opinion of. As long as the the authors are professional scientists, any paper is fine with me. So if you have a rebuttal you would like me to upload, zap it to me and up it will go. More people will read it at LENR-CANR.org than they would if you publish it in a journal.


    NOTE


    Normally, I ask the author to publish a paper in a proceedings or journal before I upload it. I will make an exception for you because you have published in journals already. That's good enough. My standards are flexible. I have a few original papers not published elsewhere. They are listed with "LENR-CANR" as the publisher. Just above, I offered to make an exception for THHuxleynew. If he wants to write a critique of Marwan, I'll upload it, even if it is not published elsewhere.

  • If you feel so strongly about it, just post your papers here. End of story.

  • NASA

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


    As it is the most replicated line of experiments, it would be rational.

    (NB as said Jed, and Ed Storms, PdAg is best, and Pd don't work... I've read of PdB too, PdPb...)


    goal today is to understand. once understood, making NiH if it can work, will be easier than just blind testing anything.

  • It is very likely that the Professors were asked to keep the confidentiality about what they had seen. All they could say was definitely written in the report, the rest (if any) had to keep it for themselves

    That does seem likely. But it was unbecoming of academic scientists. It was bad behavior. The study and the report were both terrible. Filled with holes that many people pointed out, including me. The researchers should have either answered the critics or retracted the paper. When academic scientists make a glaring error, they should always retract.

  • The authors clearly say that they have monitored his interventions and have also decided at least some of them ("... power level requested by us"), maybe all of them. Rossi's presence during the test is understandable, considering that he had to protect his discovery and legitimate secrets. No one would ever lose sight of an object that may be worth a fortune, especially if it is placed in a room that is not necessarily safe (they were in a Swiss premises .... not quite a safe deposit box). As for his interventions, it seems that they are limited to essential things, according to the Professors, who agreed to make that kind of test and signed the article. I think they would never have done it if they had felt themselves at the mercy of Rossi.


    SSC,


    Why are we still talking about Rossi, when rumor has it that NASA secretly built a station on the dark side of the moon using LENR tech? :)


    Just joking, and about your comment: If one reads the Lugano report, and compare it with the court documents, they tell different stories as to Rossi's, and the Swede's involvement. In his report, Levi describes Rossi as an occasional participant, never mentions Fabiani, and never addresses how often the Swedes were there, leaving us to assume all the time. The documents paint a much different picture, with Rossi AND Fabiani there most, if not all the time, while the Swedes flew in on occasion.


    Levi clearly understood Rossi's role would be under the microscope, and negatively affect the acceptance of the results were he to be too involved. It is not a good reflection on him IMO, that he then downplayed Rossi's presence, never mentioned Fabiani, nor the Swedes.

  • I have not seen you exhibit that understanding here, nor Marwan et al.

    Do you expect me to write a full-blown review of crackpot science? Here? Why would I do that? You yourself just said it takes a lot of effort to write a paper. It takes me weeks. I am not going to throw out some unorganized reasons why I agree with Marwan. I spent hours with those people and I agree with them. If you want to know about Marwan, read the paper. Always go to original sources. Not to me or any other secondary source.


    I will not summarize papers that speak for themselves. Papers that I have uploaded and given everyone an opportunity to read. If it were a paper I cannot upload, I might summarize it or quote the abstract.

    To take just one example. Marwan et al point out correctly that CCS becomes irrelevant when you have very low loss calorimetry. If the observed excess heat is significantly higher than the total heat losses, and the calorimetry is absolute, then a variation in those losses cannot explain the excess.


    That is true - but they do not then go on to show which of the high quality datasets in this area obey this criterion.

    Oh give me a break. Every one of those people has published results with excess heat far about heat "losses." Unless you count heat removed from a flow calorimeter by the cooling fluid as a "loss." (That's a joke.)


    Their recovery rates are very high. Meaning their heat unaccounted for is very low -- which is not the case with every calorimeter. People like McKubre, Miles and the ENEA got 300% to 500% excess over input, with calorimeters that recover 95% to 98% of the heat.


    Seriously, why should they state something that every person who has read their papers already knows? Do they have to rebut every single argument that pops into Shanahan's head? He -- or anyone -- can come up with objection after objection until the cows come home. An objection is only valid when the research you are critiquing does not already address it. When the research already rules it out, you should not raise the issue. Except to assure your reader that it is ruled out, so let's go to the next topic.


    (That reminds me of Hoffman's favorite tactic. He wrote whole damn chapters about non-existent errors and physically impossible errors, and then -- having filled the reader's mind with doubt -- he would close with a few sentences saying, in effect: "but of course there is no evidence for that, so let's consider the next imaginary problem.")

  • I don't care a flying F*** whether the results support Rossi or IH or LENR in general or ...

    I just want to KNOW. (But I guess science is too old fashioned.)

    Here's an idea. If anybody has contacts with Rossi, ask him to send me one of the 24 Gamma/L's from the 1MW. Preferably the one Smith photographed. Shipping address in my profile.


    You must care ! We are peaking about Industrial research and any result could have consequences eventually causing a legal litigation.

    I can't believe that you don't understand that.

    Just imagine that because of your result IH sues Rossi again and then Rossi is be able to prove that he is right. Who would pay the millions $$$$ of legal expenses ?


    Why Rossi have to give a pump to you ? Are you a qualified expert ? Can you certify any measure/value/apparatus ?


    Also Remember that Cherokee has a long and bad history...... they are far far far away to be interested in Science !

    look at that

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12…on-a-statewide-blitz.html

    "At the same time, agents and prosecutors from the United States attorney's office were said to be looking into public officials' roles in awarding several large contracts to Cherokee Investment Partners, a North Carolina company that cleans up contaminated sites for redevelopment projects, including billion-dollar plans for Pennsauken and Camden."


    or that

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.s…bpoenas_are_issued_f.html

    "

    Federal authorities have issued subpoenas seeking documents from the N.J. Senate Democratic office. Federal investigators have subpoenaed documents from the Senate Democratic Office and Pennsauken Township seeking records and communications concerning the developer of two failed Camden County redevelopment projects.

    The probe is focusing on Cherokee Investment Partners of Raleigh, N.C., according to two officials with knowledge of the subpeonas. The firm was also behind the defunct plan to build homes and a golf course atop landfills in the Meadowlands.

    "

  • That does seem likely. But it was unbecoming of academic scientists. It was bad behavior. The study and the report were both terrible. Filled with holes that many people pointed out, including me.

    JED the bare reality is that the papers were correct !

    Who think you are that the Professors have to give an answer to you.

    They stopped saying anything when they have seen that every lay man speaking with them was becoming a Giant of Science in blogs and forums.

    You were not interested on what they had to say but just to have your little 5 minutes of Glory.

  • One reference will do. Show a reference that claims that all results have been tiny. Would that be Wikipedia? Or the Scientific American? I have those.

    That is incorrect.

    Nope. Equipment error has nothing to do with it. The effect cannot be commercialized because it cannot be controlled sufficiently. Because the reaction cannot be controlled well, if you were to build a large Pd-D reactor, it might produce 1 kW, or it might momentarily produce ~100 kW and explode. Several reactors have exploded. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/?page_id=187#PhotosAccidents

    Where are the replications performed by 3rd party experts? I've searched the CF/LENR literature and found close to 0 replications for any of it. And, in one of the explosive cases, one explosive event out of many runs doesn't prove anything. Quoting one the papers you posted:

    Unexplained Explosion During an Electrolysis Experiment in an Open Cell Mass Flow Calorimeter
    by Jean-Paul Biberian

    "

    It seems that there are two regimes in Cold Fusion, one is steady at low level of excess heat, and the other one is fast and energetic.

    "


    This proves my point that CF/LENR results are normally very low energy at steady state. The only "high power" LENR events are explosions which are likely chemical in nature.



  • @ JedRothwell,

    I don't recall the 2011 document.



    Come on, you can't have forgotten the document for which most of the people here in this forum are following the Ecat saga since the beginning of 2011. This document is included since then in your library ( http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf ), and you contributed to its content.


    Quote

    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.


    Levi was the researcher who prepared the test, calibrated the pump for two weeks, assumed publicly the responsibility of the calorimetric measurements, and, eventually, issued the calorimetric report, whose results triggered all this circus. He reported all the data by which he computed an astonishingly excess heat, but these data resulted to have been invented. I don't know who invented these data, but at least one of them has been suggested by you. It seems that the 2011 report has actually been a team work at which many people contributed. Not only in Italy.


    Quote


    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.


    The merit of a document is based essentially on the credibility of its authors. If you can't believe what they write, the best methods or instruments of the world are not sufficient to give you the necessary confidence in their results. Levi was the lead author of the 2013 report, and his credibility on the Ecat subject was already harmed by the report he issued in 2011.


    Quote


    You have not given a technical reason to doubt that.


    You can't give any technical reason until you don't get enough confidence in the credibility of who signed the report.


    Quote


    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, …


    The reasons for doubting the authors of the 2013 report were precedent and not subsequent to that report.


    Quote


    … 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.


    Direct communication with the authors of a technical report from someone external to the team responsible for the measurements can be considered as a serious interference in the work when this communication happens before the publication of results. It's also heavily disrespectful toward the universities whose prestige is exploited to give credibility to the report. Unfortunately this is exactly what happened in occasion of the January 2011 demo, when you had contacts with the members of the team of the testers well in advance of the issuing of the report which exhibited on its first page the logo of the University of Bologna.