Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • But then, it is hard to understand why he would go along with a completely stupid and unnecessary one year test of a collection of silly subunits which would be much more easily and better tested individually.

    He and the others at I.H. were not happy with this test. They did not want it.


    Dewey may wish to say more about that. It is not for me to say more.


    I think you can learn about that in the trial depositions. As I recall, the depositions say that by the time the 1-year test was launched, other tests had failed, and I.H. had little hope of success. I did not read the depositions carefully, but Abd did, and I think he told me that.


    (Abd recently uploaded the opening statements from the trial in his blog. I just skimmed over them. I did not read them carefully. But what I did read filled me with a sense of horror, and I felt very glad the suit was settled. I can well imagine that a jury might have been bamboozled by Rossi's lawyer.)

  • Quote

    The cathodes were much smaller so the heat after death did not last as long, but the power levels were about the same.


    The reason you often cite this "test" is to impress about the energy, not the power. So it should have been redone with the same size cathodes and everything else the same except the instrumentation should have been suitable and the results should have been recorded. And by the way, it would not be too late to do this now.
     

  • The cathodes were much smaller so the heat after death did not last as long, but the power levels were about the same.

    Do you have a problem with that? Have you seen data that contradicts it?


    The power output from Mizuno's cell was difficult to determine because it was over the calibration, and the cell was disconnected from the pen recorder during most of the event. The Tc was measured periodically with a voltmeter. Power was approximately 100 W, gradually decreasing during the event. F&P's cells produced varying levels ranging from 50 to 150 W, for a duration ranging from a few hours to a day or so.


    The power level of heat after death is clearly not a function of the mass of Pd, but the duration of the reaction probably is. It is probably a function of the total amount of gas released from the bulk to near-surface levels, and the time it takes the gas to evolve. Fleischmann thought it was a bulk effect, but I think the evidence from heat after death and from other experiments points to a surface effect. Not the whole surface either. Only parts of it are activated.

  • @ Alan Smith,

    my long and documented comment has been substituted by this words of yours.


    The content of this post has been removed, since it contains nothing but thinly veiled attacks on Levi and UniBo, despite your assertions to the contrary. Do ir again and you may well be sanctioned or even banned.

    I'm very surprised of your decision to completely cancel my comment. Not greened, not moved in the Playground or Clearance Items threads, but immediately deleted. I think, it's the first time this happen in this abrupt way, and I don't see any reason for such a reaction. I didn't used offensive words, and I only reported documented facts.


    My comment was not a "thinly veiled attack", it was just a "open plain evaluation" of the apparent behavior of a public researcher at a public university which publicly claimed on many public media of having measured 12 kW of alleged excess heat generated by a table top device during the public demo held in Bologna on January 14, 2011. This conclusion of him was based on a couple of presumed data that I can't explain otherwise, except for an intentional misrepresentation of experimental data. If you have any other explanation, why don't you provide it?


    My comment was in theme. THH had just accused Levi of practicing "bad science" following a mistake in the emissivity used in the Lugano report. This aspect seems to be quite controversial and has given rise to hundreds, perhaps thousands of comments in recent years.


    On the contrary, the inconsistency between the pump capacity and the flow rate reported in the UniBo document issued on January 2011 is much more apparent and incontestable. In fact, Levi claimed to have calibrated the pump for 2 weeks, but on the front panel of that pump was clearly indicated a max output of 12 L/h, a value much lower than that one he claimed in his report (equivalent to 17.6 L/h).


    I can't understand why these considerations are not allowed in this forum. Which specific rules do they break?


    Your comment above breaks the rules of civilised behaviour just for a start. As -despite your denial- so did almost every line in your deleted post which actually contained a criminal libel (in some jurisdictions). Accusing somebody who is not a member here of (effectively) deliberate scientific fraud from behind your avatar is certainly worthy of a 2 week ban. And you just got it. Alan.

  • Jed, given that this is supposedly a nuclear reaction which consumes little fuel and produces negligible ash, any idea why it ("HAD") doesn't continue indefinitely?

    I assume this is because HAD it is caused by gas evolving from the bulk and collecting at surface and near surface areas. Evidence from HAD, x-rays, helium, tritium and from other experiments point to the surface as the site of the reaction. Helium is particularly good evidence of this. Most of it comes out in the effluent gas. It would be stuck inside the bulk if Fleischmann had been correct, and the reaction was in the bulk. (Way below the surface.) It is difficult to get helium out from the bulk.


    Depending on the mass of Pd and the level of loading, most of the gas evolves out in a few hours with a small cathode, or a week or 10 days for a huge, 100 g cathode like the one Mizuno used. After it comes to the surface, it soon comes right out into the cell. It does not stay in the near surface. After some time, it seems the concentration falls below some level and the reaction gradually stops. In other words, even though the fuel produces ~10 million times more heat than chemical fuel, it has to be at a certain concentration, and after a few hours or days there isn't any more fuel left at that concentration in the parts of the metal that produce the reaction.


    If you keep pushing the deuterium back into the cathode, with ongoing electrolysis in a closed cell, the reaction lasts for as long as you like, with just a tiny amount of heavy water. That would be what you describe here, "a nuclear reaction that consumes little fuel." Such cells with a few grams of heavy water have produced far more energy than you could get if you burned all of the furniture and books in the lab. About as much as 7 kg of gasoline. They only ran for a few months. They probably have enough fuel to run for years, although I expect contamination would prevent that.


    IR cameras, x-ray detectors, and post-experimental examination of the cathodes show that only a fraction of the metal takes part in the reaction. The rest of the metal is inert. Even if there is gas left in the surface, most of it will do nothing. The parts of the surface that get hot producing cold fusion may drive out the gas sooner than the inert parts.


    The rate at which gas evolves from Pd and other hydrides is complicated. I do not know much about it. However, metal hydride storage for hydrogen fuel cell automobiles and other applications has been developed, as an alternative to compressed gas. Bockris and others who were developing this told me that hydride storage and release can be controlled quite well -- as well as compressed gas can be. There is zero chance of a sudden, explosive release, like you get from a punctured high-pressure tank. In other words, hydride de-gassing is inherently limited in speed, and it occurs in a regular, predictable fashion. It goes faster when you heat up the metal, but the rate is still limited. That would explain why HAD is often remarkably stable, and why it keeps coming back to the same power level, and why it gradually declines.

  • The reason you often cite this "test" is to impress about the energy, not the power.

    That is incorrect. The power of HAD is usually quite impressive. Not just the energy. Measurable HAD does not happen unless conditions are excellent, a larger fraction of the metal surface than normal participates, and power is high.


    To be more exact, it might happen, but it would be difficult to detect. There is no doubt that in any electrolysis cold fusion experiment that produces excess heat, the heat lingers after electrolysis stops. If you want to call that HAD, then it is nearly always present. Usually, the term is used to mean a cathode that boils away the electrolyte and gradually de-gasses while producing high, easily measured power. Or, in one case, when the cathode got so hot it vaporized.

    So it should have been redone with the same size cathodes and everything else the same except the instrumentation should have been suitable and the results should have been recorded.

    This was done hundreds of times, as I said.

  • The first one from competitor: METHODS FOR IMPROVING LOADING RATIO OF HYDROGEN GAS

    Applicant for all designated states:

    IH IP Holdings Limited

    PCT/US17/14558_A

    PCT/US17/14558_B

    WO2017127800 / EP17742100


    Declared inventor Darren R. Burgess has patent US9381588 (B2), too: MULTI-METAL PARTICLE GENERATOR AND METHOD

  • I suspect, after another 3-4 years of supposed tests/demos/fake customers etc

    and a grand total of zero sales, factories, customers, replications Rossi will take whatever money he has scammed from whoever and just go away.

    If that was the intention of Rossi why to sue IH ? What you are writing is nonsense.

    Your desire that no Rossi follower will be in this forum is only a dream- Sleep well.

  • Now I'm not saying everyone does this, a good scientist will try hard not to, and we can see signs of that in the multiple Lugano checks. But here we know that Levi - who of these profs is the one responsible for the emissivity mistake that provides the inflated COP > 1, has been so not careful. When he was asked to check the error he still claimed there was none. And, as TC and others have shown, that one error is not detected by any of the Lugano checks, because of the various poor methodologies that prevented the dummy test from acting as a control, or even as a test of the emissivity method. This is fact, and I'll lead you through the technical details if you like. If you think otherwise i'd request that you back up your comments with technical detail.


    So, prof from a prestigious European university or no, whether it fits your world-view or no, Levi in this specific matter suffers this specific (human) problem. He is too wedded to his own ideas and therefore does not critique them or engage with critiques from others. It is bad science.

    As usual, an insult to Levi every day keeps the Scientist away.

    You and others die for the TC "report" and pretend that only you are such an Elite of scientist to have understood that all others in the world, not only Levi, but all people that have replicated Lugano have done errors.


    If you are such an Elite why aren't you all working at MIT, Stanford, Cambridge or some other great University ?

    I know that Bologna and Uppsala are not sufficiently prestigious for people like you.

    Or why not a private company, Alphabet or SpaceX may be ok for you ?

    This seems somehow a Madness, or most probably you are following an agenda.

  • In fact, Levi claimed to have calibrated

    Another Insult ..... to Levi....

    We have repeated here again and again..... Levi has done a measure. And a measure in much better then a label on a box.

    Probably the pump used was tempered or modified. .... but who cares the only important thing is the actual measured value of the flux.

  • I disagree. McKubre, I and others were careful in our evaluations. We did not dismiss them. I have said repeatedly that the second set of experiments were not bad, and no major error has been found in them as far as I know. However, we raised many questions about Lugano. Legitimate, important, scientific questions, such as "what color was the reactor incandescence?" They never answered these questions. They darn well should have. An academic scientist has an obligation to answer such questions from people like McKubre, and even from me.


    I didn't mean by people inside the field Jed, They will discuss and take it on its merits. It's elsewhere that the problem lies, as you know.

  • Headline: "Dennis patents his balls!"


    Wrong Dennis. You are thinking of Dennis "Craven's" balls. You are forgiven...yet again BTW, because senility is a disease.


    Thx Ahlfor. Good to see IH kicking in, although most of this transpired before the trial that was not a trial. Off hand, I do not remember this "Burgess", although his looks like a provisional from 2013 that IH bought into...like Miley's IP they bought into.


    Interesting the Dennis (no balls :) ) Letts patent. Joe Murray of IH fame...or "infamy" for the 2 remaining Rossi supporters, is on there. Dewey, can we now say that Murray is an LENR believer?

  • I didn't mean by people inside the field Jed, They will discuss and take it on its merits. It's elsewhere that the problem lies, as you know.

    The Lugano authors did not answer McKubre, me, or anyone else, inside the field or outside it. In my opinion, this violates the ethics of academic science. It is also a dumb thing to do. It makes them look bad. We have to assume the answers would all be bad news; i.e., the color what orange, as shown in the photos.


  • Nice try. I suggest everyone that can to test it. Don't take my word alone. But I have made many tests.

    A pure alumina tile (easily purchased) placed on a hot plate is a fine test. Use the table from the Lugano report, reiterate away, and wonder why the tile is so much hotter than the hot plate by IR, when using the Lugano Total - Spectral Conflation Protocol...

    Visible light transparency IS NOT equivalent to IR transparency. It only takes about 1.5 mm of alumina ceramic to be totally opaque to IR transmission, depending on pore size and grain size characteristics.

    3 to 4 "COP" depends primarily on the temperature of the ceramic. The hotter, the higher the IR baloney "COP" will be.


    Good day.

  • Ahi - you're confusing and stretching matters again. We've invested in several companies who have helped us along the way and have many patents moving thru the system. Some may even turn out to be useful. The patented Burgess invention that you reference is assigned to an unrelated party. Keep searching though and hope that the R'ster doesn't stumble back into the crosshairs.

  • The Lugano authors did not answer McKubre, me, or anyone else, inside the field or outside it. In my opinion, this violates the ethics of academic science. It is also a dumb thing to do. It makes them look bad. We have to assume the answers would all be bad news; i.e., the color what orange, as shown in the photos.


    Hi Jed. My interaction with the now banned (for 2 weeks) 'Ascoli' had nothing to do with a debate on scientific ethics. The deleted post contained what could be considered - in almost any jurisdiction outside the USA - to be a criminal libel, repeated twice in the thin disguise of a question. If you had been the target of it- or indeed MY or Kirk I would have taken precisely the same action. Since Ascoli hides behind a screen-name libelling somebody on the web takes zero courage on the part of the poster, but does carry risks for other parties involved in publishing this forum.


  • ele I can appreciate that you have strong feelings in this matter. Still, where I work is not relevant to the facts here, nor am I commenting on Levi's qualifications - it was you who raised them. I offered to justify all the technical detail in my comments, including a full explanation of any aspects of TC's paper you disagree with, as well as pointing out the many others who corroborated this reading of the Lugano data. My offer to explain any detail remains open.


    I wonder if you understand that replying to factual and substantive, directly relevant comment, with personal remarks, shows only the weakness of your argument?