Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • This was all news to me and ...


    The experiments you mention don't have multiple heat sources inside the calorimeter. That's the unique and different feature about F&P calorimetry experiments. That recombination heat (closed cells, exit gases in open cells) can move (show up) if recombination starts up elsewhere, like at an electrode. It's the shift n steady state that causes the CCS.


    (And I knew you could do it Mary! Congrats on rereading it and getting it.)

  • Quote

    you should either learn about him or defer to my judgement


    That McKubre publicly says he finds some of Papp's "work" interesting tells me all I need to know about McKubre. That he seems to support the claims from Brillouin tells me even more. Brillouin has always smelled like a scam but unlike Rossi, they never write enough or do enough in public for anyone to make a determination. But I would be shocked if they or McKubre ever produces significant energy from their method.

  • Quote

    If you didn't notice that, you must have read it pretty quickly the "first" time...


    When Kirk linked his original paper, it was the first time I had seen it. I'm not sure which document spooked me to begin with but it was not that one.


    As for reading Dr. Celini's "paper" (slides?) I am still thinking about it. Since it has something to do with a Zener effect (which I care nothing about) and especially since his planned future use of 8 additional wires makes the current work moot, I am not sure I will study it enough to comment intelligently about it. But I might if i find the time. I know how anxious you are, Zeus, to read and absorb my astute commentaries. But you will simply have to scrounge about in your psyche for some additional patience.

  • Quote

    I do know about his education and experience with calorimetry. Since I know this, and you don't, you should either learn about him or defer to my judgement. You have no business disagreeing with me when you have no information on the topic at hand.


    I've listened to some of his lectures on video and his gullibility is quite astonishing. If he believes what he says, that is.

  • I like how you included a link that those who are interested could click on in order to further the discussion of your theory. You have your own thread for discussing your own theory, so perhaps you could include your rebuttals on your own thread and then post the link here? Then those who are interested can click on it, those who aren't can move on to the next post relevant to Rossi vs. Darden which your theory isn't really all that relevant... If you could do that,



    https://www.google.com/search?…64.img..5.0.0.9FRDyNltV88

  • An unbecoming appeal to authority- a classic logical fallacy. I don't know about McKubre's education and experience with calorimetry.

    When you're talking about electrochemistry it makes sense to cite the experts in electrochemistry. The first hundred or so replications of the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Event was by the "who's who of electrochemistry" and you are not one of them. You may have some expertise in calorimeters but it is not a classical logical fallacy to juxtapose your expertise to those hundred or so top electrochemists. Here you are trying to take down just one expert in electrochemistry, so you only have 99 or so more to go to complete your supposedly nonfallacious task.

  • That McKubre publicly says he finds some of Papp's "work" interesting tells me all I need to know about McKubre.

    No, it doesn't. First because you probably do not know much about Papp. You claim you do, but you tend to be opinionated and quick to judge things you have little knowledge of. I don't know much about Papp either, but for that reason, I do not jump to conclusions. I think it is better to say "I don't know" and to reserve judgement.


    More to the point, you cannot judge McKubre or any other person based on a single opinion. People are sometimes right about one thing and wrong about another. Even when the subject is something they know a lot about. For example, in 1901 Wilbur Wright said that "man would not fly for fifty years." He was feeling discouraged. In the 1920s Orville said it was impossible to fly across the Atlantic because motors were not reliable enough. Needless to say, the Wrights were preeminent experts in both aviation and motors, but they were wrong in these instances.


    To take another famous example, Ken Olsen, founder of DEC said in 1977, "there is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." He was an expert in marketing computers. One of the most successful in history up to that time, but he was utterly wrong about that.


    The fact that experts are sometimes wrong should not be confused the above-mentioned "fallacious appeal to authority." If you were a journalist writing an article about the nascent market for personal computers in 1977, it would be reasonable for you to cite Ken Olsen as an expert on the subject. His opinion deserved a measure of respect. He was an expert -- but he happened to be wrong. It turned out that a scruffy young Harvard drop-out in Albuquerque named Bill Gates was the go-to expert on that subject. It would be difficult for a non-expert journalist to know that in 1977.


    If you had cited Olsen's opinion about the future of wind turbines or economic policy, that would be a fallacious appeal to authority, because he was not an authority on those subjects.

  • When you're talking about electrochemistry it makes sense to cite the experts in electrochemistry. The first hundred or so replications of the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Event was by the "who's who of electrochemistry" and you are not one of them. You may have some expertise in calorimeters but it is not a classical logical fallacy to juxtapose your expertise to those hundred or so top electrochemists. Here you are trying to take down just one expert in electrochemistry, so you only have 99 or so more to go to complete your supposedly nonfallacious task.


    Of course, the issue is in calorimetry, so the 99+ electrochemists have no bearing on this at all...by your logic.

  • Quote

    McKubre's views on the matter should be given more than a cavalier treatment. A link to the video where McKubre discusses the Papp engine:


    OK, let's. Take for instance the nonsense at time index 5:55 of that Youtube video in your post. According to McKubre, and according to tests he set up and witnessed (with the Rohner brothers, ROTFWL!) Papp's machine made MORE THAN ten times more energy out than came in throught THE ELECTRICITY INPUT. Huge red flag! But not to McKubre. See, this is not a delicate electrochemical cell. It is not some razzle dazzle sun cell or Rossi hot cat. It is simply what looks like a car engine and it's output is from an ordinary shaft. So, pray tell, why not simply connect a generator to the shaft and reroute the electricity it needs back to wherever in the machine it is needed. Why does something making 10X input and outputting it via a shaft-- how could such a device conceivably require continuing power in after it's been started? That, of course, was Feynman's point when he insisted that Papp remove the cord from the wall socket. Somehow, Papp made the machine explode with an unfortunate fatality and injuries but that does not change anything. Papp's engine could easily have run on its own without external power had McKubre's account been correct. He obviously was bamboozled just as he was, for the most part, fooled by Rossi and Defkalion. McKubre is extremely gullible, however capable and educated he may be.



    McKubre: "It0's clearly a nuclear process" ... "Bob is making good progress." Absurd! Oh... and where is Bob Rohner now and what is he doing? I can guess what his brother is up to: This was a year ago: http://freeenergyscams.com/arr…issued-for-john-p-rohner/ Previously in contempt of court about an SEC civil fraud case.

  • Quote

    No, it doesn't. First because you probably do not know much about Papp. You claim you do, but you tend to be opinionated and quick to judge things you have little knowledge of. I don't know much about Papp either, but for that reason, I do not jump to conclusions. I think it is better to say "I don't know" and to reserve judgement.


    BS, Jed. Maybe you missed and I won't repeat the whole story but I once spoke to an elderly Hungarian doctor who had treated Papp, talked with him at length in his native language (Hungarian) and had decided he was a flaming nut case. Now watch Zeus get all bent out of shape again. And of course, I rely on plenty more than that. I read about Papp's claims to a submarine (he showed some hardware that turned out to be junk) and his "Fascination" automobile (a friend of mine saw one at Denver airport-- nonworking of course). And much more I don't need to go into at the moment. I do know quite a bit about Papp and his colorful history. I am not "quick to judge."

  • That, of course, was Feynman's point when he insisted that Papp remove the cord from the wall socket. Somehow, Papp made the machine explode with an unfortunate fatality and injuries but that does not change anything. Papp's engine could easily have run on its own without external power had McKubre's account been correct.

    I believe you are speculating here without detailed knowledge of the machine. You are making unwarranted assumptions. I do not know the facts either, but let me suggest an alternative hypothesis based on what I know about engines and machines in general.


    I believe you are assuming the electric power supply that Feynmann unplugged was the motive power for the machine. It was making the machine go. Suppose you and Feynmann were wrong. Suppose that it was instead the power to a set of control electronics. They would probably be analog at that time, but analog controls often needed electric power to operate. Suppose that by unplugging it, Feynmann inadvertently caused the machine to run faster and faster, out of control. Granted, many engines will stop dead without controls, but some will go out of control, like a fission reactor with the control rods fully removed. My father saw an automated factory self-destruct by overheating when the analog controls were not properly installed. (This was during WWII in Russia. They shot the factory manager.)


    Your other statement is a gross over-simplification. "Papp's engine could easily have run on its own without external power had McKubre's account been correct." This is not easy at all. It would require the addition of a generator, batteries, additional control electronics, and much else. It would add complexity and cost to the tests. And even if the person doing the experiment were to go to this trouble, I am sure that you would find reason after reason to dismiss it. So it would be pointless.


    In cold fusion, Arata once demonstrated a thermoelectric chip running a small motor, as a way of showing the heat was real. This was a gas loaded cell with no input power, so it would be absurd to argue this was an error in calorimetry. It would have been stone cold if there was no excess heat; all of the heat was excess. Despite that, I am sure that you, Shanahan and others would come up with dozens of reasons to dismiss this. There is no point to doing a proof-of-principle demonstration for people who do not understand the principle being proved.

  • In cold fusion, Arata once demonstrated a thermoelectric chip running a small motor, as a way of showing the heat was real. This was a gas loaded cell with no input power, so it would be absurd to argue this was an error in calorimetry. It would have been stone cold if there was no excess heat; all of the heat was excess. Despite that, I am sure that you, Shanahan and others would come up with dozens of reasons to dismiss this. There is no point to doing a proof-of-principle demonstration for people who do not understand the principle being proved.


    No, only one...


    Another anecdote like the whole Rossi thing or the Mizuno bucket thing? References to something with enough details to actually evaluate the claims? Until then, I will *guess* (as with all anecdotes) that the heat to run the cold fusion cell was adequate to run the motor too, since that is the conservative, nonrevolutionary way to assess the claims. Need details to get further...

  • I once spoke to an elderly Hungarian doctor who had treated Papp, talked with him at length in his native language (Hungarian) and had decided he was a flaming nut case.

    I have heard that Papp was crazy. However, being crazy does not necessarily preclude being right about something, or being competent in your job. As it happens, I used to know several crazy people because my late aunt ran a halfway house. See:


    https://www.amazon.com/Psychia…ell-Doniger/dp/B06XQ6ZS9X


    As you see in these case studies, many of these people were smart, capable, gainfully employed, and reliable experts in what they did. You should never assume that mental illness precludes competence or the ability to contribute to society. Yes, sometimes it does, but sometimes it does not.


    I have spoken to several flaming nutcases who believe in cold fusion. The fact that some number of crazy people believe something is not evidence that it is wrong. Many crazy people believe in the conservation of energy, Special Relativity, and much else that I am confident is true.


    I suggest you have jumped to conclusions and you are judging the issue based on personality and people rather than technical details.

  • Another anecdote like the whole Rossi thing or the Mizuno bucket thing?

    I wouldn't call Mizuno's claim an anecdote. I have the analog pen recorder trace, photos of the bucket, the cell and much else. It is still sitting in Mizuno's lab, except for the cathode, which was lost to destructive testing. That is much more hard evidence than Rossi supplied up until the Penon report.

    References to something with enough details to actually evaluate the claims?

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


    As you see, we question the claim.

    Until then, I will *guess* (as with all anecdotes) that the heat to run the cold fusion cell was adequate to run the motor too

    As I said, there was no external heat input. But as you see there was some chemical heat.

  • Oh... and where is Bob Rohner now and what is he doing? I can guess what his brother is up to: This was a year ago: http://freeenergyscams.com/arr…issued-for-john-p-rohner/ Previously in contempt of court about an SEC civil fraud case.


    Important clarification for those who are not up on the history -- John and Bob Rohner are brothers who had both collaborated with Papp on a rebuilt version of his engine. John Rohner's business, Inteligentry, was raided by the FBI in 2013. As I understand it (but don't have time to double-check), Bob and John had parted ways well before that time as a result of differences between them. John Rohner's apparent misconduct cannot be an occasion for casting aspersions on Bob Rohner.

  • I do know quite a bit about Papp and his colorful history. I am not "quick to judge."

    Perhaps you do know about Papp, but neither you nor Feynmann has any idea what the electric power going to the machine was for, or whether it was motive power or for the control electronics. If it was for the control electronics then Feynmann jumped to a false conclusion, made a terrible mistake, and killed someone.


    Has it never occurred to you it might have been for control? Have you never questioned your own assumptions here?


    Knowing a lot about Papp does not mean you know anything about his machine. Granted, it is a valid reason to question the validity of the claims. His other stories about a submarine and so on were lies. But, to evaluate the machine, you have to know about the machine itself, and you have to see data you can trust. You do not trust the data -- and neither do I, in this case. But that is not a valid reason to dismiss it. Not having data means we don't know. That is all we can say for sure. Plus, as McKubre pointed out, we know the claims are impossible on the face of it, according to conventional physics. For most people that alone is enough to dismiss the whole story. This is pretty much what I have done, but since I am not God and I do not know everything, I leave open the slight possibility there is something to it. Anyway, I do not assume I know for sure what the power cord was for. That is arrogant.


    I know better than trying to judge reality by looking at who believes what, and whether crazy people do or do not believe in X, Y or Z. That metric is so bad you might as well throw darts instead. Many sane people believe in things that I consider preposterous. History is full of examples.

  • I wouldn't call Mizuno's claim an anecdote. I have the analog pen recorder trace, photos of the bucket, the cell and much else. It is still sitting in Mizuno's lab, except for the cathode, which was lost to destructive testing.


    Yeah, you failed to grasp the limitations back of spf. That's when, instead of trying to batter down your illogic, I just suggested Mizuno hadn't accounted for the mice drinking from the bucket. You of course then calculated how much that might be and decided that the idea wouldn't work. I didn't have the heart then to remind you of the cats that chased the mice, and of the rats, and the dogs chasing the cats (very thirsty after all that running), and the dog catchers chasing the dogs. And then there's the birds coming in through the holes in the windows that you mentioned. And the extra cats you have to add in that were chasing the birds, and the extra dogs, etc. etc.


    For the rest of you, a synopsis. Mizuno is a Japanese prof who did a CF experiment and decided mid-stream it might blow up. So he put it in a bucket of water and carried it across the campus to an abandoned building, where he put it in an abandoned lab hood. he then periodically checked on it and found the water was disappearing. I believe he also measured an elevated temperature for some time on it with the internal TC. He wrote about this in a book.


    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 I then made my silly suggestion about the mice and was amazed to see Jed try to calculate that out. I was really ROFL.


    Morale of the story: Anecdotes aren't science.

  • @ JedRothwell,

    No, it was after they issued the report. They revised it and issued a new version. The gist of it was the same.


    This is completely in contrast with your words:


    It's way clear from your own words, and from the Krivit's article already cited, that you and others were involved in the examination of the data of the demo held on January 14, 2011, and in the preparation of the final report published on JoNP only on January 24.

    So, it seems that you are trying to fabricate a new narrative of those early facts, completely different from the real one.

    I wonder if this applies to everything you are writing here.

  • an elderly Hungarian doctor who had treated Papp, talked with him at length in his native language (Hungarian) and had decided he was a flaming nut case. Now watch Zeus get all bent out of shape again.


    Nope... And I note you've now sanitised your claims enough to ensure you won't have to delete them later.

  • For the rest of you, a synopsis. Mizuno is a Japanese prof who did a CF experiment and decided mid-stream it might blow up. So he put it in a bucket of water and carried it across the campus to an abandoned building, where he put it in an abandoned lab hood. he then periodically checked on it and found the water was disappearing. I believe he also measured an elevated temperature for some time on it with the internal TC.

    That is incorrect, except for the last sentence. The TC was there the whole time. It still is. However, it was disconnected from the pen recorder and read manually when the cell was submerged.


    Here is a description of the event, written by me:


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

  • It's way clear from your own words, and from the Krivit's article already cited, that you and others were involved in the examination of the data of the demo held on January 14, 2011, and in the preparation of the final report published on JoNP only on January 24.

    So, it seems that you are trying to fabricate a new narrative of those early facts, completely different from the real one.

    We are talking about two different tests and two different reports. The one that I was talking about, that was issued and then revised after comments by me and others, was in 2013. It is here:


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


    This is a more complete description of a Rossi test than anything published earlier. Taken on its own, I think it has merit. I have doubts about it because the follow-up report, the so-called Lugano report, had many problems.


    I now think that Rossi is a complete fraud and a criminal based on the Penon report, and the Murray and Smith reports. There is also a lot of evidence that he is a fraud in the court case docket and depositions, but I have not read them carefully and I do not understand legal terminology, so I cannot judge the situation based on them.


    It is conceivable that Rossi actually had something in 2013, described in the above report. I cannot imagine why he would turn his back on a real machine and try to put over a crude fraud such as Penon. That makes no sense. But people do strange things. Who knows what happened? I can't guess and thinking about it gives me a headache. I'll never know and I don't much care. It is a tragic fiasco and a crime and I wish they would throw Rossi in prison for it, but I don't know if that is likely or not.

  • That, and the fact that Rossi was involved in designing and choosing the major portions of the measurement method, makes in a NON-independent measurement.

    yeah, well with the benefit of hindsight, they were entirely at the mercy of Rossi who bamboozled and flummoxed them without mercy.


    As usual you taje just one line of the Lugano report and try to diffuse your FUD and insults.


    It is quite obvious that testing a prototype that it was not their own the Professors needed the Inventor to operate it.

    But that has nothing to do with the measure of it's performances.

    The measurement methods, data collection and analysis were totally under control of the Scientist involved.


    During an F1 Race pilots operate the cars and Judges measure time and velocity.

    No one would say that the measure done by the Judges is not independent !


    I see that as usual you also insult a group of Professors and PhD. For sure you have no arguments at all !