Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

Quote from JedRothwell

They were replicated by several others. However some skeptics feel anyone who replicates must be a true believer and not a reputable 3rd party, so the skeptics keep demanding that someone else replicate it, and then someone else, and then someone else. Anyone who replicates cold fusion loses his reputation and is no longer a 3rd party. It is a Catch 22.

It is a little difficult to imagine how a "calibration error" could give the illusion that water is boiling away or that a cell remains too hot to touch for hours. Those are first principle manifestations of heat. You have a vivid imagination, but I doubt you can offer a rigorous description of this supposed error.

Without specifics you have nothing. "There may be a calibration error" is not falsifiable. You have to show specifically what calibration error may have occurred, and you have to show that the methods and data do not rule out that error. Waving your hands and saying "there might be an error" is meaningless because, as I said, that applies equally well to every experiment going back to Newton. There might be a way to hold a prism such that it shows white light is NOT actually composed other colors. That experiment has been done millions of times, but it is possible there is an error in it that has not been discovered yet. But if that is your hypothesis you have to be specific and show us how to hold the prism. Or, in the case of the Fleischmann experiment, you have to show that the heat of vaporization that was established in the 18th century by Joseph Black has been wrong all along, and you are the first to realize this. You will win a Nobel for this revelation, so do not hide your light under a bushel. Tell Us What You Know.

Note that Shanahan points to a specific error -- a moving heat source. Anyone can see this is ruled out by the data. The calibration constant does not change when the source of the heat is deliberately moved. In that respect, that aspect of his claim is falsifiable.

Display More

Well, my criteria for believing this has always been the same: if at least two or three highly reputable universities or government agencies replicate any of these effects with zero involvement by anyone associated with the LENR/CF field and with no failures, then I will believe it is real, too. When you look at how quickly IH disproved so many of the claims that people on boards like this point to as "real scientific evidence", it's clear that expert independent testing is the only way to verify this.

LINR (that is pretty funny in and of itself) - with one exception, we have found math errors, some unintentional self-deception, some see what you want to see

and / or orders of magnitude measurement issues in the projects we have parked. The remaining projects have survived that level of scrutiny and we have brought in world class outside expertise to help us sort through balance of the portfolio. We don't plan to continue with any project that doesn't pass the muster of an external qualified 3rd party verification. For the record, the 3rd party standard is very high.

Obviously AR and DW are BOTH liars, But AR belongs to active type, DW to omissive one. So standard must be set lower for the latter, not higher.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

LINR (that is pretty funny in and of itself) - with one exception, we have found math errors, some unintentional self-deception, some see what you want to see

and / or orders of magnitude measurement issues in the projects we have parked. The remaining projects have survived that level of scrutiny and we have brought in world class outside expertise to help us sort through balance of the portfolio. We don't plan to continue with any project that doesn't pass the muster of an external qualified 3rd party verification. For the record, the 3rd party standard is very high.

Heh, what does LINR stand for? Laugh Inducing (non) Nuclear Reactions?

MY - I was not involved with R at all outside of studying the broader IP landscape to determine an IP map, sector status, some IP strategy development as well as determining whether or not there was anything blocking already in the mix. I had some expert help at that and we did a decent job in our assessment. TD said that he was going to make a crazy bet (a splash) that would create other possibilities (ripples) and we eventually determined that I should follow the ripples and see what was out there. The rest of the story is pretty incredible. While the three ring circus was running, I was able to meet some of the most amazing people that I have ever known and proceeded to engage them on their own terms. Most had given up important, high paying positions in what turned out to be a substantial sacrifice to chase CF. Without exception, these were very fine and credible folks. I've developed what is turning out to be some life long friendships in the process and believe that at least one has a real chance at grabbing the brass ring. Lots of mistakes have been made and the education / adventure continues. For the privilege of seeing what I have seen and knowing what I know, I consider myself to be one of the luckiest guys on planet earth.

The every cryptic Ahi has not demonstrated that he can tell the difference between a truth or a lie but at least he got part of his statement right.

Mary....."I hope it isn't world class Swedish mice, obscure assistant professors from Italian universities, or world class McKubre's and Swartz's and Hagelstein or Miles. Or for that matter Storms. I don't know him but from his work and what his students have said, he seems immensely likeable and trustworthy but in the end, he is also a believer. While of all of them, I would trust him the most,"

I was not aware that Storm had students. Hagelstein does but Storms is not a teacher/prof.

Quote from maryyugo

Can someone show me 100W heat output sustained for days with no electrical power supplied, in the paper Jed linked: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf ? Do you see it, Kirk Shanahan? TTH? Alan Smith?

And what is the purpose and meaning of the video of a "boiloff"?

It is RIGHT THERE in the paper! Read it. A copy of the video still is in the paper too.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

The emails are shocking and clear

Are they? apparently not enough to win a court case by proving a fraud that should be blatant, according to you and THH

Quote from [email protected]

To follow up on your snarky response, it actually was an error in measurement that led to the discovery of Buckeyb alls and fullerenes.

Do you seriously believe the heat of vaporization of water is not 2260 J/g? Is that really your argument?

I hope you understand that is the calibration constant in this experiment.

Have you read the paper?

Quote from THHuxleynew

That was not an "early test".

The issue there is simply that the tester was Levi (with Rossi) and no-one else actually doing the testing. Levi has shown himself both before and after this test to be profoundly unreliable as a tester. The documented issues are:

Recording impossible flowrates in early tests
Getting IR calorimetry wrong in a way that gives a false positive result in Lugano and when asked to check maintaining that his erroneous method is correct . . .

I didn't say it was an early test.

So anyway, you did not find any errors in the paper I cited. I'll take your non-answer to mean "no."

You addressed many other important issues in your response, but -- as I said -- I did not find any errors in this paper and evidently neither did you. Taken as a stand-along paper it has not been disproved.

I am just speculating here, but perhaps most of work in this paper was done by someone else on the team, not Levi or Rossi. Perhaps that is why this is good work with a positive result and the other papers are lousy. I don't think that is the case, but it is plausible.

Quote from lenrisnotreal

Well, my criteria for believing this has always been the same: if at least two or three highly reputable universities or government agencies replicate any of these effects with zero involvement by anyone associated with the LENR/CF field and with no failures,

That makes no sense, for two reasons:

1. Over 180 highly reputable universities and government labs replicated, as shown in Storms Table 2. They all had zero involvement before 1989, when no one knew about cold fusion. No one anywhere was associated with cold fusion except Paneth and Peters in 1927, and Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. What you are saying is that as soon as someone at Los Alamos, China Lake or BARC replicates, that makes the institution tainted and we can no longer trust them. So, no institution will ever be able to replicate to your satisfaction.

2. If you insist on "no failures" you will never accept the reality of any physical effect or experiment. Experiments always fail. Even industrial production fails at times. Up until the mid-1950s, with many transistor types, nearly every device in a batch failed. Rockets have been in intense development since 1945, and they often carry payloads worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, yet they still often explode.

Quote from Roger

Are they? apparently not enough to win a court case by proving a fraud that should be blatant, according to you and THH

I wouldn't put it that way. They were not willing run the risk of losing a court case to a stupid jury, because even if they had won Rossi would probably not have paid. He would have fled the country. If he had any money left, he would have hidden it. I.H. would have to pay their lawyers for weeks more in the court, and in the end they would get nothing even if they won. It would be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

As I said, it resembled asymmetrical warfare. I.H. could lose, but they could not win the trial. So from their point of view it was best to call it off.

Criminal fraud is an entirely different matter. That is not subject to a civil case. It would not be I.H. pursuing it. That would be the police. I.H. would not have to pay anything. Whether the government finds it cost effective to pursue this I cannot say, but I am sure it is fraud. The government cannot possibly go after every lawbreaker and every white-collar criminal. It does not have the resources.

RIP David Jones who died a few days ago and had fun showing how gullible scientists can be.

https://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0117/011707.html