​New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry)​

  • Anyway, it is a kind of inverse science or reverse science to take tidbits of information from a sparsely written experimental writeup and attempt to construct a fuller account that shows why the conclusions might be true assuming the existence of LENR. In the usual way that things are done, even in LENR research, the people doing the experiment make a case to a critical audience that what they're describing is real and not a figment of their own imagination. And so the authors provide an extended description, going through hoops to anticipate and rule out all of the possible criticisms that might be brought up. What we have here is different from that, where part of the readership have taken it upon themselves to go through hoops on the authors' behalf. Some of the audience have somehow been persuaded to assume the burden of evidence. (Thinking back, it occurs to me that I've done this myself with the experiments by Mosier-Boss, et al. It does seem like a useful thing to do sometimes.)


    This paper from Gullstrom that made it onto Arxiv brings to mind Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics. Here we have an initial theoretical discussion, and as a kind of non sequitur in the (JONP) comments section, some minimally described claims from Rossi written up as an experimental section (in Gullstrom's paper). The difference between JONP and Arxiv is that Arxiv is widely followed, and many draft papers that make it onto there are taken seriously, and the site has a pretty good reputation. I feel like this is somehow a leveling up of a previous accomplishment.


    An important difference between the people who find this story exciting and the ones who are skeptical or who write it off seems to be a different understanding of the role of science and experiment. There is a deep cultural divide, and not one that I'm hopeful will be bridged. We do hear of Swedish scientists who are following the QuarkX stuff closely, but we do not know what they know that has kept them engaged, and they are not sharing.

  • What would you imagine a control for this experiment to consist of? And btw, I believe that he has recently stated elsewhere that he has performed control experiments on the QuarkX.


    Alan, Rossi's problems come from basic measurement issues: rms vs average, IR confusion, etc. So, in this case, an electric heater (resistance the same as that of the plasma tube under the equilibrium circuit conditions) replacing it. Then, all input-side measurements could be checked as identical and outputs compared.


    But this is a joke. Rossi could never do such a careful test: as Humpty-Dumpty with words, so he with physical measurements: measurements mean what I want them to mean. With such an approach he is lost.

  • Anyway, it is a kind of inverse science or reverse science to take tidbits of information from a sparsely written experimental writeup and attempt to construct a fuller account that shows why the conclusions might be true assuming the existence of LENR. In the usual way that things are done, even in LENR research, the people doing the experiment make a case to a critical audience that what they're describing is real and not a figment of their own imagination. And so the authors provide an extended description, going through hoops to anticipate and rule out all of the possible criticisms that might be brought up. What we have here is different from that, where part of the readership have taken it upon themselves to go through hoops on the authors' behalf. Some of the audience have somehow been persuaded to assume the burden of evidence.


    This paper from Gullstrom that made it onto Arxiv brings to mind Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics. Here we have an initial theoretical discussion, and as a kind of non sequitur in the (JONP) comments section, some minimally described claims from Rossi written up as an experimental section (in Gullstrom's paper). The difference between JONP and Arxiv is that Arxiv is widely followed, and many draft papers that make it onto there are taken seriously, and the site has a pretty good reputation. I feel like this is somehow a leveling up of a previous accomplishment.


    An important difference between the people who find this story exciting and the ones who are skeptical or who write it off seems to be a different understanding of the role of science and experiment. There is a deep cultural divide, and not one that I'm hopeful will be bridged. We do hear of Swedish scientists who are following the QuarkX stuff closely, but we do not know what they know that has kept them engaged, and they are not sharing.



    So you're saying that guessing and making up different (always )negative scenarios is science? Is this a defensive speech on the forum moderation? And BTW, you probably explained pretty well why the Swedish scientists do not share... I guess they simply do not want all the attacks that they would experience if they did; Israeli suggestions, career history examined in detail, etc. Smart move I would say.

  • So you're saying that guessing and making up different (always )negative scenarios is science? Is this a defensive speech on the forum moderation? And BTW, you probably explained pretty well why the Swedish scientists do not share... I guess they simply do not want all the attacks that they would experience if they did; Israeli suggestions, career history examined in detail, etc. Smart move I would say.


    Yes, it is science. Critics try to find out where the weak points in the experiment are, and then for the plausible ones the experimenters must explain why those criticisms are not valid. This is not at all an "attack" in the sense of personalizing things. It is just scientific criticism, and in normal circumstances authors claim to welcome it, as it results in a more robust investigation in the end. There is an ongoing personalization of the Swedish scientists themselves which I think is unfortunate. But that is gossip and not scientific criticism.


    So the technical criticism is not at all bad and is to be welcomed. One piece that is different here is that there is no publication involved (I'm pessimistic that Gullstrom's paper will be submitted for publication or accepted), and so it is hobbyists looking for the defects on a forum, and there is no publication feedback loop. But the excercise is still valuable and worthwhile.

  • LENR Calender

    I was only pointing out that there appears to be a standard low cost, China-made variable linear DC power supply in the photo and not implying that it's actually being used in the QuarkX setup depicted. Assuming it was, it would likely only be powering the control box (which could output anything) and therefore looking at the display would not be equivalent to measuring the voltage across both the resistor and the reactor.


    However, it would define an upper limit on how much power the entire circuit can draw. Linear DC power supplies of this size don't generally go over 150W at full load (30V, 5A).

  • So you're saying that guessing and making up different (always )negative scenarios is science?


    Yes, Tony. Not the only part of science, but the thing that distinguishes scientific theories from religious dogma, and absolutely central.


    As Popper usefully pointed out, scientific theories have merit only when they make predictions that can be refuted. The process of trying as hard as possible to refute those predictions is what either disproves a hypotheses or gives it credibility, or more commonly allows one to see which bits are correct and develop a more accurate hypothesis.

  • LENR Calender

    I was only pointing out that there appears to be a standard low cost, China-made variable linear DC power supply in the photo and not implying that it's actually being used in the QuarkX setup depicted. Assuming it was, it would likely only be powering the control box (which could output anything) and therefore looking at the display would not be equivalent to measuring the voltage across both the resistor and the reactor.


    However, it would define an upper limit on how much power the entire circuit can draw. Linear DC power supplies of this size don't generally go over 150W at full load (30V, 5A).


    For this experiment it is likely that a bench PSU figures would give you a decent approximation of power in - no resistor needed. If being careful (and for greater accuracy) you would so some checks:

    (1) add an LC filter between PSU and ckt to check spiky current waveforms were not mucking anything up.

    (2) check current with bench ammeter

    (3) check voltage with bench voltmeter


    If as is likely Rossi uses a voltage converter first to achieve 100s of volts the plasma input power will be overestimated by the inverse of the efficiency of the voltage converter. That is a conservative issue so if looking for evidence of COP >> 1 it could be ignored.


    The fact that Rossi uses this weird indirect resistor measurement protocol should alert you to the possibility of weirdness. Its actuality has been explained enough over these pages I think.

  • Yes, it is science. Critics try to find out where the weak points in the experiment are, and then for the plausible ones the experimenters must explain why those criticisms are not valid.

    Yes, Tony. Not the only part of science, but the thing that distinguishes scientific theories from religious dogma, and absolutely central.


    So it doesn't even occur to you, that you are examining what is mainly a marketing document as if it was science? Well, of course Gullstrom/Rossi is testing the waters on the theory, but that is not really discussed, is it? You're discussing the minor part of the experiment... Well, actually your mostly marketing it, or trying furiously to discredit it. Same thing I guess :) (You always seem to forget Rossi is doing business, not science)


    Swedish scientists are probably doing real science and will publish when they fell timing is right.

  • So it doesn't even occur to you, that you are examining what is mainly a marketing document as if it was science?


    To the contrary; it very much occurred to me that this could be a marketing effort (or something like that). But that is a shame, because I don't think that was Gullstrom's intention at all.

  • Yes, that model can supply up to 150W. I assume Rossi is using a voltage converter to supply a typical 2-5kV plasma voltage and that 150W supply would just suffice. The fact is we really know nothing about the supply, although Rossi's request to Fulvio for a very high voltage converter supports the idea high voltage is involved.

    If Rossi really has made a fundamental schoolboy error it would lead him to think that just increasing the voltage would increase the COP, thus the request to Fulvio for an unrealistic megavolt source could in his mind power an entire city.

    I still can't figure Rossi out, at first I thought he was a con man, then later as someone with the goods but a bit crazy, but now I wonder if he really is just deluded.

  • So it doesn't even occur to you, that you are examining what is mainly a marketing document as if it was science? Well, of course Gullstrom/Rossi is testing the waters on the theory, but that is not really discussed, is it? You're discussing the minor part of the experiment... Well, actually your mostly marketing it, or trying furiously to discredit it. Same thing I guess :) (You always seem to forget Rossi is doing business, not science)


    Swedish scientists are probably doing real science and will publish when they fell timing is right.


    Tony: that paper and the previous one are seized upon by ECW and the like as proof positive that Rossi in fact has working devices, as explanation for his otherwise inexplicable abandonment of a highly commercial 1MW essemtially free energy power plant design, etc.


    Of course it is marketing of the sort those who have watched Rossi have seen repeatedly. And each time there are people (not usually technically astute) who are taken in. I should point out that Nuclear physicists seem particularly prone to this, and that expertise has remarkably little intersection with the two things needed to analyse Rossi experimental results:


    (1) a wide range of engineering expertise - theoretical as well as practical since Rossi tends to use non-standard circuits, components outside normal tolerances, etc

    (2) a willingness not to trust the statements of an enthusiastic and apparently authoritative co-worker.


    The Swedes are a case in point who on the record lack both these characteristics.


    I'll be as fascinated as anyone if they ever publish new results. You'd expect by now there might be some follow-up to Lugano. But their silence and lack of willingness to correct or even acknowledge clear numeric errors highlighted in their published work does not inspire me with any confidence.


    I think Rossi skeptics here are very well aware that Rossi is doing business not science. The disagreement between them and you is about what is the nature of the business. Don't you think that publishing scientific papers (with major errors) is rather deceptive from somone whom as we both agree is not a scientist? You might argue though that the error here was Gullstrom's, but I'll bet Rossi inspired him to make it, as well as providing the erroneous data.

  • Oh... So you're aiming for Gullstrom. Both of you... Wow... (maybe you have the answer to why the other swedish scientist dont share in this exact behaviour of yours... ) BTW, you are not even discussing his theory... Only the measurement of currents/resistance/voltage... On something that shows COP ~20k... This is not even an issue for Gullstrom; COP is a done deal. It's over. And it should be for you as well. Get over it.


    That is an extraordinary comment. I'm not aiming for anyone. I'm very sorry for Gullstrom: who will possibly eventually look back on this episode with some embarrassment. Or maybe not. But at the end of the day I don't think it matters, he had fun speculating what could possibly be a half-reasonable mechanism for weird results under the assumption they were correct when in fact they were unsafe. I'm in no position to say whether his speculation in that direction shows expertise or naivetee.


    I am content to make clear, whenever deceptive Rossi propaganda like this surfaces, what are the issues with it from a scientific (or more properly an engineering) perspective. Rossi makes this very easy because he really does not care about science so most unusually the likely miscalculations or bad experimental setups that give rise to his weird results can often be detected even from the minimal write-ups he provides.


    For motivation: I feel it is virtuous to help promote a better understanding of facts, and I enjoy decoding these weird result type mysteries. I sometimes feel indignant with the way Rossi misleads others, but I'm willing to admit that very possibly he believes all his own lies however contradictory they are. That makes him not my sort of person. But being mistaken, and convincing others to follow, is not a crime.


    Even so:


    Freidrich Schiller (also Arthur C. Clarke): Against stupidity.... the gods themselves contend in vain.


    (Bonhoffer) Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.



  • That is an extraordinary comment. I'm not aiming for anyone. I'm very sorry for Gullstrom: who will possibly eventually look back on this episode with some embarrassment. Or maybe not.


    Exactly. As most people are about their actions... And in this case the "maybe not" alternative is worth it. I'm pretty sure Gullstrom knows about that...


    And, maybe its only me,but it sure looks as if your aiming for Gullstrom here... Calling him gullable "gulled" is kind of a cheap shot. Because, what do you know? He actually did the experiment. You certainly did not.

  • Exactly. As most people are about their actions... And in this case the "maybe not" alternative is worth it. I'm pretty sure Gullstrom knows about that...


    And, maybe its only me,but it sure looks as if your aiming for Gullstrom here... Calling him gullable "gulled" is kind of a cheap shot. Because, what do you know? He actually did the experiment. You certainly did not.


    Tony - you are speculating. He was perhaps present at the experiment (or - more properly - demo). I think it is libellous to say that he did it - I'd expect the setup. measurements, and errors to be all down to Rossi. Would not you?

  • Tony - you are speculating. He was perhaps present at the experiment (or - more properly - demo). I think it is libellous to say that he did it - I'd expect the setup. measurements, and errors to be all down to Rossi. Would not you?


    Well, He obviously felt sure enough about the experiment to sign the doc together with Rossi.