Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    • Official Post

    Ascoli,


    Gosh, I agree with most of what you say. The one exception is the "arrangement of JONP's BOD's not being in chronological order", and your assigning some significance to that. I doubt there is any meaning there, other than Rossi is as sloppy creating a website, as he is in his demos. And I surely do not think any on JONP's BODs had anything to do with Rossi's scam. Or the fact that some are affiliated with the government, means there is some conspiracy. In fact, as you already know, Melich's (JONP BOD, and government affiliated scientist) wife wrote that article in her Infinite Energy Magazine when the lawsuit story broke, that "Rossi, enjoyed your company, nice guy, but you are not good for LENR and do not let the door hit you in the ass on your way out".


    Another minor note: I agree with what you said about Levi being the author of the first HT report in Ferrara. Although Ferrara has survived scrutiny so far as I said, that does not in my mind dismiss the fact that Levi was it's main author, and his role in this affair is still very much in the air.

  • @ShaneD


    Nothing happened with Focardi except that the poor, elderly, kindly gentleman with an illustrious past of teaching and research was roundly bamboozled, flummoxed and deceived by Rossi. Rossi is a conscienceless sociopath but perhaps that is the nastiest thing he did. I hope Focardi believed in Rossi to the end and died happy at least, thinking that Ni-H fusion was real.

  • @ShaneD


    Nothing happened with Focardi except that the poor, elderly, kindly gentleman with an illustrious past of teaching and research was roundly bamboozled, flummoxed and deceived by Rossi. Rossi is a conscienceless sociopath but perhaps that is the nastiest thing he did. I hope Focardi believed in Rossi to the end and died happy at least, thinking that Ni-H fusion was real.

    Hey Mary: Can you please compile a list of all the people that Rossi bamboozled, especially the highly trained scientists? All those people with reality distortion fields is going to make such an amazing accomplishment for the most ingenius scam artist, ever.

  • That was a tally by Britz, not me. It was made in the mid to late 1980s.


    What on earth are you talking about? You can't tally replications before the experiment being replicated has been performed.


    I was referring to a paper dated 2009, entitled "Tally of Cold Fusion Papers", for which you (Jed Rothwell) are listed as the only author. Britz's database is one of the sources, but so is your lenr-canr database. In that paper, there is a topic "Positive, peer-reviewed excess heat papers culled from both databases", which is presumably a superset of refereed replications of P&F. The description says "The titles are culled from both [databases]", so it was you doing the tallying, not Britz, even if you used his database. And the complete list of 153 papers is given in an appendix, and it includes a paper by Arata in 2008, so it clearly post-dates Storms' table 2, published in 2004, which you claimed represents 180 "highly reputable university and government labs" that replicated P&F.


    Furthermore, according to your own paper, the list of 153 refereed papers represents only 51 different affiliations, and not all of those are universities or government labs, since they include e.g. BlackLight Power, Toyota's IMRA, and Swartz's JET Energy.


    Quote

    Not all of the 180 institutions published papers in the peer-reviewed literature.


    Yes, that's what I argued, and that's what doesn't make sense. A highly reputable university or government lab that claims replication of cold fusion would not be reputable if it didn't publish.


    Quote

    There were 180 institutions in Table 2. I counted them long ago.


    You may have counted them, but I don't believe you got to 180:


    1. There are only about 180 entries, and Miles accounts for 9 of them, Zhang and Arata another 9, Eagleton and Bush for 7. There are at least 7 other authors (or author groups) with 5 or more entries, and 28 others with 2 to 5. Now some entries may represent more than one affiliation, but there is no way to make up for the multiple entries from many institutions. This is obvious when you consider the following...


    2. All but about 45 of the authors listed in Storms table are accounted for in your list of principal authors responsible for the excess heat papers you tallied. The overlap is probably even stronger since Storms lists first author (and 2nd if there are only 2), and not necessarily principal author. And your list corresponds to 51 affiliations. So, that means the remaining 45 authors would have to account for 129 additional affiliations.


    So, it's clear from your own writing that 180 affiliations is not justifiable, let alone 180 highly reputable university and government institutions.


    Such a cavalier misrepresentation of the contents of your own paper kind of destroys your credibility with respect to the rest of the cold fusion literature. Of course, in the Trump era, dishonesty seems to win a loyal following.

  • I wrote: Instead, the number of groups actively investigating cold fusion now is a small fraction of 180, which means most of those labs have abandoned the field, many without publishing, and for a phenomenon with the importance of cold fusion, that is inconceivable unless the scientists came to realize the effect was not real.No, the funding dried up and scientists moved on to other projects where they could get paid.


    No, the funding dried up and scientists moved on to other projects where they could get paid.



    Funding from respectable sources (like DOE) dried up because the claims did not withstand scrutiny. The claims did not fail to persuade the world because funding dried up.


    Indeed, funding did not dry up. Storms estimates $500M has been spent on the field. P&F got something like $50M from Toyota, about 500 times what they claimed was needed to make the claim in the first place. EPRI funded McKubre, and governments in India, Italy, and Japan continued to fund cold fusion for a long time. Moreover, the incredible potential of cold fusion, were it real, has attracted private funding from the likes of Sidney Kimmel, and lately Bill Gates (allegedly), Karl Page, and Darden and co. The truth is, it is far easier to attract funds in cold fusion (or hydrinos) than in most fields considered legitimate in mainstream science. The likes of Godes, Dardik, Mills, and Rossi would have no chance with peer reviewed funding agencies, and all have attracted millions from private investment.


    No, the statement stands: It is inconceivable that reputable institutes would abandon a field like cold fusion unless the scientists believed the likelihood that the phenomenon was real was vanishingly small.



    I wrote: Surely, if this claim of 180 (or 90) reputable university labs having replicated cold fusion held water, there would have been no need for the formation of the MFMP whose first aim is to identify an experiment that can be replicated by university labs.


    Quote

    Kevmo: MFMP is aiming to identify an experiment that almost anyone can replicate, not just university labs.


    According to their web site, their "goal is to facilitate the wide-spread replication and validation of New Fire experiments, such as Francesco Celani's, at reputable research institutions around the world."


    So, I repeat, if 180 reputable institutes had replicated in a credible way, MFMP would be superfluous.


    Quote

    Kevmo: Because people like you don't think that the top hundred electrochemists in the world are acceptable.


    I don't even know who the top 100 electrochemists are, but if you provide a list, and they all claim cold fusion is real, I'll consider it.


    But you're probably right. I base my evaluation of the field on the quality of the published claims, and they fail to persuade.


    But if I were to base my view of the field on authority, I would put more weight on the thousands of top nuclear physicists who are all but certain it's bunk, than on 100 unnamed electrochemists.

  • I'm going to respond at my original thread on this topic


    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

  • LENR is the only science subjected to such high and exacting standards.


    No, you have it upside down. The scientific mainstream bent over backwards to accommodate LENR.

    Science and Nature were prepared to accept almost anything from P&F after their dramatic press conference, but they could not meet even the lowered standards, and ended up publishing a paper in J Electroanal. Chem. that was so sloppy, it needed several pages of corrections, and the withdrawal of a central claim in the paper. It took that journal a decade to realize their folly, and then they stopped publishing in the field too.


    If it weren't for the huge upside to cold fusion, were it real, P&F probably couldn't have published in a respectable journal, or if they had, it would have been ignored, and soon forgotten.


    There has not been any progress in the field to speak of, in spite of significant effort and spending. Even marginally credible claims have become more modest and far more scarce in the refereed literature. There is still no credible evidence for reaction products, no reliable recipe, and no observations that are not much more plausibly attributable to artifact, experimental error, and wishful thinking.


    No self-respecting field of science would need a bunch of amateurs in the form of MFMP to come riding in to save them, only to end up 5 years later making the same lame, marginal claims that have characterized the field from the beginning.


    Quote

    Kevmo: If those standards were applied to High Temperature Superconductors we'd only be 2 degrees above absolute zero.


    Oh please. The first claim was above 30 K, and soon after it was being demonstrated unequivocally in classrooms.


    Quote

    Kevmo: If it were applied to Dolly the sheep, all you guys would be calling for those clone claimants to be in jail.


    Cloning has low statistical probability (like the probability an alpha is deflected 180 degrees by gold foil), but the statistics are reproducible, and the success is unequivocal. Not so for cold fusion.


    Quote

    Kevmo: And applying such standards to semiconductors would have pushed us back to the days where we could only fit a hundred onto a square inch.


    All these fields easily met standard scientific standards that cold fusion has never met. Transistors were finicky, but when one worked, anyone could make it work, and the demonstration of amplification was unequivocal.


    Maybe preparing the Pd or Ni is finicky, but when an electrode (or whatever) works, it should be similarly unequivocal. But there are no remotely credible experiments that generate enough power to power themselves. If there were, a demonstration would be undeniable.


    Quote

    Kevmo: When the top hundred electrochemists replicated the PF Anomalous Heat Event, it became established science but skeptopaths simply don't like it.


    This makes no sense. Established science is recognized by the establishment. Cold fusion is not. And if you read up on the world's reaction to P&F in 1989, you will see that nearly everyone really *liked* it, when they thought it might be real. And what's not to like about cheap and clean and abundant energy? So, if what one likes influences one's belief, then the influence is strongly in cold fusion's favor.


    It's far more plausible that believers believe cold fusion because they simply like it, than that skeptics are skeptical because they don't like it.

  • No self-respecting field of science would need a bunch of amateurs......

    All of your historical or more precisely "quasi historical" examples have substantial and quite well known counter examples and/or convincing rejoinders. The notion of "self respect" here, even if a "figure of speech" is definitive in its error-- that is, it is completely wrong:


    You cannot be referring to the LENR researcher community itself. Many of the often courageous leading LENR researchers must surely have immense SELF respect. And in fact it appears that many, if not all, LENR researchers are capable of conducting falsifiable hypothesis testing.


    The science, or if you wish "science", of LENR (and related other CF acronyms) clearly also has SELF respect, that is it has its own literature, it has experts and "peers", it has international meetings, it has developed a substantial body of peer-reviewed research, and in spite of sustained efforts against it, and the continuing efforts in popular media against it, it refuses to die.


    LENR is strongly driven by empirical evidence. A necessary (that is a sine qua non) for science and scientific inquiry. Unifying principles are still awaiting more widespread understanding (among scientists and lay public) of the complexities of condensed matter theory, molecular physics and even catalysis.


    "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves"

  • but when an electrode (or whatever) works, it should be similarly unequivocal.


    Actually that is true. Ed Storms demonstrated it with his Pt cathode that produced the data I reanalyzed in 2000. He did two blocks of runs (a run being an upwards input power sweep followed by a downward sweep back to zero, 10 runs per block) but the first block had a negative feedback ground loop in it. So he redid the first block a second time after redoing his grounding scheme, That data set clearly showed systematic effects (as I argued here long and hard) but his first block did too if you subtract the feedback problem. Very reproducible and controllable. So of course once that was clear all work on Pt was abandoned...

  • Kev quoted Louis: "No, you have it upside down. The scientific mainstream bent over backwards to accommodate LENR. "


    Kev replied: " Bullshit. They had the Cold Fusion is Dead party even before they were done testing their cells."


    Louis Reed wrote:

    Science and Nature were prepared to accept almost anything from P&F after their dramatic press conference, but they could not meet even the lowered standards, and ended up publishing a paper in J Electroanal. Chem. that was so sloppy, it needed several pages of corrections, and the withdrawal of a central claim in the paper. It took that journal a decade to realize their folly, and then they stopped publishing in the field too.


    Kev replied: "This stuff is news to me. My understanding was that Nature in particular got spooked."


    The scientific ‘establishment’, i.e. the scientific journals, suspended normal publication rules duiring the 1990-1992 timeframe. Numerous negative articles were published in that time, negative meaning ‘no results or replication’. They did so because of the great potential impact of CF is real, and the world-wide scientific interest in reproducing the phenomenon. Normally, one doesn’t publish null results. Normal publication rules require that _something_ be demonstrated, and that the publication be novel and have value to ‘science’ at large.


    Yes, the ‘establishment’ did bend over backwards to try to see if LENR (or CF) was real.


    After two years of that with no visible progress, the 'hot topic' journals like Nature and Science dropped publishing on the subject, leaving it to other journals to continue on, which a few did, such as Fusion Technology (later Fusion Science and Technology) and J. Electroanalytical Chemistry for example.


    And as Jed loves to point out. The chief editor at nature, Maddox, then expressed a highly negative opinion on the subject in an editorial.



    Kev wrote:

    • They were very well known electrochemists in their field.    They jumped the gun because they were convinced someone was trying to steal their thunder, and also they were told to do so.

    Yes, this is perhaps the most important lesson to us scientists - Don’t let the University presidents and lawyers push you into something that violates standard scientific protocol. They held their press conference because Steven Jones was making a ‘similar’ presentation at an upcoming APS meeting in a few days, and they were all worried about IP rights. Jed has said that Fleishmann said that if he’d been allowed to, he wouldn’t have publicized his work for another 18 months. (Jed, please correct my paraphrasing and memory if needed.) Their biggest problem is one that still haunts the field. They mistakenly believed they had ‘the recipe’ for Pd/D anomalous heat effects on demand. Turned out they didn’t. And to make things worse, when everybody in the world tried to replicate their claims, failed, and came back at F&P for ‘all the info’, F&P clammed up (or were forced to) to protect that supposed IP. That really killed their rep in the science community.


    Kev wrote: “153 peer reviewed replications”


    Are you a sock puppet of Jed? What is it about the fact that 148 of those were published _before_ my 2002 paper came out and thus can’t have dealt with the CCS/ATER issue that you can’t grasp? What is it about my pointing out that the remaining 5 likewise don’t deal with it, even though they might have, that you can’t grasp? Those ‘153 replications’ mean next to nothing Kev.

  • They mistakenly believed they had ‘the recipe’ for Pd/D anomalous heat effects on demand. Turned out they didn’t. And to make things worse, when everybody in the world tried to replicate their claims, failed, and came back at F&P for ‘all the info’, F&P clammed up (or were forced to) to protect that supposed IP. That really killed their rep in the science community.


    kirkshanahan : Luckily it was not everybody! The lucky ones with the right Pd-Alloy were successful as P&F later were again with a better batch of Pd!


    But, you being a member of military research, we can apologize your comments, as acting along the orders...

  • kirkshanahan: Luckily it was not everybody! The lucky ones with the right Pd-Alloy were successful as P&F later were again with a better batch of Pd!


    But, you being a member of military research, we can apologize your comments, as acting along the orders...


    Point of Interest...Did anyone who obtained positive results with F&P cells in the first, oh, let's say 6 months, NOT contact F&P for more info on how to do it? I actually don't know if there was such a group, but I admit maybe not 'everybody' failed in the attempts.


    'Military' - technically that means under DOD control. I work for a subcontracter to DOE, but what we make is delivered to DOD, after being assembled elsewhere. The contact with DOD however happens way above my pay grade...

    • Official Post

    A friend copied me into this list of unpublished Rossi patents that was posted elsewhere. Thanks to whomsoever compiled it - probably worth a dedicated thread.


    http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…eskimo.com/msg115049.html


    A large list of mostly unpublished

    patent applications and other musings by Rossi. The titles might be interesting to some

    and probably deserve a dedicated thread.


    https://drive.google.com/drive…Ktdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk


    12/736,193 September 16, 2010 Method and Apparatus for Carrying Out Nickel and Hydrogen Exothermal Reaction


    61/626,287 September 26, 2011 High Efficiency Heat Generator


    61/629,960 December 2, 2011 High Efficiency Heat Generator of Second Generation


    61/744,570 October 1, 2012 High Efficiency Heat Generator with Rossi-Effect


    61/795,938 October 31, 2012 Process and Apparatus to Make Heat at High

    Temperature with Reactions between Metals and Hydrogen


    61/796,007 November 1, 2012 Control System for a Thermal Power

    Assembly Made by More Modules


    61/796,008 November 1, 2012 High Efficiency Thermal Power Generator System


    61/848,143 December 22, 2012 New Theory Regarding Reactions between

    Nickel, Lithium, Hydrogen: Weak Interaction Energy


    61/855,456 May 16, 2013 System of Activator and Reactor to Improve the

    cop of LENR Reactors


    61/957,873 July 15, 2013 Direct Conversion of Photons into Electric

    Energy During a LEHR Process


    61/958,962 August 12, 2013 Additive for Exothermic Reactions


    61/960,510 September 20, 2013 System to Increase Pressure


    61/960,810 September 27, 2013 Irradiation System to Increase the Rossi-Effect


    Unknown October 1, 2013 (mailing date) Enrichment of 62 and 64 Ni

    Isotoped Process and Apparatus


    61/961,286 October 10, 2013 White Dwarf Derived Theory, Process, Apparatus


    Unknown October 15, 2013 (mailing date) Particular Application with

    Fast Reactions of the Rossi-Effect


    61/961,813 October 24, 2013 Particular Resistive Electric Heater


    61,961,814 October 24, 2013 Gas Operated Energy Catalyzer


    61/961,864 October 25, 2013 High Efficiency Thermal Power Generator System


    Unknown October 26, 2013 (mailing date) Process and Apparatus to Make

    Heat at High Temperature with Metals and Hydrogen


    61/961,994 October 29, 2013 Vacuum Enhanced Reactor


    61/962,001 October 29, 2013 X Rays Transparent Reactor


    Unknown November 5, 2013 (mailing date) Direct Conversion of Photons

    into Electric Energy


    61/962,366 November 6, 2013 Gas Operated Energy Catalyzer


    Unknown November 10, 2013 (mailing date) High Efficiency Heat

    Generator with Rossi-Effect


    61/962,530 November 12, 2013 Control System for a Thermal Power

    Assembly Blade by More Modules


    61/963,594 December 9, 2013 Particular Induction Electric Heater


    Unknown December 20, 2013 (mailing date) New Theory regarding

    Reactions between Nickel, Lithium, Hydrogen: Weak Interaction Energy

    and in a Mirror Effect Reactor


    Unknown January 27, 2014 (mailing date) Electric Oven with Radiating

    External Wall


    61/967,660 March 24, 2014 3D Printing Production System for Energy Catalyzers


    61/967,664 March 24, 2014 X-Ray Transparent Reactor and its

    Application in a Jet Engine


    61/967,781 March 27, 2014 High Pressure Electric Heater with Heat Exchanger


    61,967,784 March 27, 2014 Resistive Electric Heater Made Only by

    Resistive Ceramics


    Unknown April 18, 2014 (mailing date) High Power Density Energy Catalyzer


    61/996,282 May 5, 2014 System of Activator and Reactor to Improve COP

    of LENR Reactors


    61/996,415 May 8, 2014 Gas Energy Catalyzer with Ceramic Honeycat


    61/996,731 May 15, 2014 System to Avoid Catastrophic Effect on Energy Catalyzers


    61/997,244 May 27, 2014 System to Avoid Biased Reactions in an Energy Catalyzer


    Unknown June 4, 2014 (mailing date) Particular Integration of Solar

    Energy with Energy Catalyzers


    62/071,455 September 25, 2014 Nuclear mechanism underlying the “rossi effect”


    62/071,456 September 25, 2014 Irradiation system to increase the Rossi effect


    62/071,603 September 29, 2014 Lithium and nickel isotopes enrichment systems


    62/122,050 October 10, 2014 White dwarf derived theory, process, and apparatus


    62/122,154 October 14, 2014 Apparatus to produce heat with nickel and lithium


    Unknown October 15, 2014 (mailing date) Particular Application with

    Fast Reactions of the Rossi Effect


    62/123,147 November 10, 2014 X Rays Transparent Reactor with 1 HEV Excitation


    Unknown October 21, 2014 Gas Operated Energy Catalyzer


    62/122,832 October 23, 2014 High Efficiency Thermal Power Generator System


    Unknown October 26, 2014 Process and Apparatus to Make Heat at High

    Temperature with Metals and Hydrogen


    Unknown October 27, 2014 Particular Resistive Electric Heater


    Unknown October 27, 2014 Vacuum Enhanced Reactor


    Unknown November 1, 2014 Enrichment of 62 and 64 Ni Isotopes Apparatus

    and Process


    62/123,196 November 10, 2014 Gas Operated Energy Catalyzer


    62/123,057 November 6, 2014 Direct Converter of Photons into Electric Energy


    62/123,195 November 10, 2014 Control System for a Thermal Power

    Assembly Made by More Modules


    62/122,978 November 4, 2014 High Efficiency Heat Generator with Rossi-Effect


    62/123,396 November 17, 2014 Resistive Electric Heater Made Conductive

    Ceramics Activated by a Resistance and a High Voltage Generator


    62/124,111 December 9, 2014 Particular resistive electric heater


    62/124,112 December 9, 2014 Electric heater with direct electricity injection


    62/124,113 December 9, 2014 Particular induction electric heater


    62/124,114 December 9, 2014 Theory regarding reaction between nickel,

    lithium, hydrogen weak interaction energy and in a mirror effect

    reactor


    62/124,306 December 15, 2014 Voltage driven heater


    62/124,802 January 5, 2015 Small dimensions energy catalyzer by rossi effect


    62/124,803 January 5, 2015 Electric oven with radiating external wall


    62/176,113 February 10, 2015 Hydryde molecule


    62/176,114 February 10, 2015 Intertwined metal wire to increase the

    amperage of electric heaters


    62/176,213 February 13, 2015 Nuclear structure theory for the energy

    catalyzer (E-Cat)


    62/176,221 February 13, 2015 White dwarf derived pressure system

    combined with casimir effect and van der waals forces


    Unknown February 23, 2015 New Hydride Molecule


    Unknown February 24, 2015 Intertwined Metal Wire to Increase the

    Amperage of Electric Heaters


    Unknown February 24, 2015 White Dwarf Derived Pressure System Combined

    with Casimir Effect and Van der Waals Forces


    62/177,710 March 23, 2015 3D Printing Production System for Energy Catalyzers


    62/177,708 March 23, 2015 X-Rays Transparent Reactor and its

    Application in a Jet Engine


    62/177,707 March 23, 2015 High Pressure Electric Heater with Heat Exchanger


    Unknown March 23, 2015 High Pressure Electric Heater with High Voltage

    Regulation and Heat Exchanger


    Unknown March 23, 2015 Resistive Electric Heater Made only by Resistive Ceramics


    62/178,261 April 6, 2015 Resistive Electric Heater Made only by

    Conductive Ceramics


    62/178,270 April 6, 2015 High Power Density Energy Catalyzer


    62/179,160 April 30, 2015 High pressure electric heater with high

    voltage regulation + heat exchanger


    Unknown May 5, 2015 System of activator and reactor to improve the COP

    of LEHR reactors


    Unknown May 5, 2105 GA energy catalyzer with ceramic honeycat


    62/230,745 June 15, 2015 Particular integration of solar energy with

    energy catalyzers


    62/230,746 June 15, 2015 System to avoid biased reactions in an energy catalyzer


    62/230,747 June 15, 2015 System to avoid catastrophic effect on energy

    catalyzers


    62/231,078 June 25, 2015 Reverse Mossbauer Effect Electricity and Heat Generator


    Unknown July 5, 2015 Additive for Esothermic Reactions with Hydrides,

    Hydrogen, Deuterium and Nickel, in particular, LiARH4


    62/231,454 July 6, 2015 New System Press for Nickel and Lithium

    Powders or Grains


    62/231,457 July 7, 2015 Direct Conversion of Photons into Electrical

    Energy during a LEHR Process with a Gold Lined Reactor


    62/231,456 July 7, 2015 Apparatus to Produce Anomalous Amount of Energy


    62/231,455 July 7, 2015 Rossi Effect and apparatus to produce heat

    with high efficiency


    62/231,671 July 11, 2015 Triangular and Flat Resistances Electric Heater


    62/283,100 August 21, 2015 Lithium depletion process and apparatus


    62/283,283 August 27, 2015 Transformer for very high voltages


    62/283,635 September 8, 2015 System to increase pressure

    62..

  • A friend copied me into this list of unpublished Rossi patents that was posted elsewhere. Thanks to whomsoever compiled it - probably worth a dedicated thread.


    http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…eskimo.com/msg115049.html

    It already HAS its own dedicated thread here on LENR Forum, and that Vortex upload came directly from that thread.


    In 207-29 Exhibit 29 there is a large list of mostly unpublished patent applications by Rossi.


    A large list of Rossi patents