Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

  • Zeus46

    I don't think this would really be much different for a novel process taking place in a sealed chamber containing metals and pressurized hydrogen at a few bar, rising several hundreds °C over room temperature and producing therein at least several kW of excess heat. I think some skeptics actually used to call some of these devices pipe bombs.

  • Your analysis throws away the possibility of chemical heating and input power mismeasurements which as a skeptical explanation are far more likely than the large-scale scientific fraud-collusion-conspiracy that you've been suggesting since 2011.


    First, I'm not skeptic. Skepticism entails doubts, and I have no doubts that the Ecat, as any other LENR device, never produced any excess heat. Sorry. Second, I don't understand the connection between the shutting off of a water tap in the middle of a test and a "large-scale scientific fraud-collusion-conspiracy".


    We are discussing now - since a week - a well precise and much more limited argument, that is how to interpret the few experimental evidences available for the December 16, 2011 test, known as "Test 1". This topic was introduced by you (1), and you expressed your lack of understanding about what went on (2).


    I provided you a possible explanation based on this evidence:



    Thanks to your nice othogonalization of the original photo, everybody can see that at about 17:46, after having reached an almost stationary level, Tout (yellow line) starts to sharply increase again. Contemporary, also Tin (blue line) starts to increase, approaching asymptotically Tamb (red line). This behavior can be easily explained with a stopping of the water flow.


    I already asked you if you have other hypotheses that could explain these trends. Now you are talking about "chemical heating and input power mismeasurements". Fine, I'm curious. Can you tell me, please, how they could have determined the Tin increase?


    Quote

    Chemical reactions can also be ignited and self-sustain; I'm not sure why you find these terms funny.


    I didn't say they are funny, and I was not referring to alleged "chemical reactions". They were excluded, as any other already known energy source, by the conclusions of the calorimetric report:

    From http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf :


    Conclusions

    The amount of power and energy produced during both tests is indeed impressive and, together with the self sustaining state reached during [Test 1] could be an indication that the system is working as a new type of energy source of unknown origin. The short duration of the tests suggests that is important to make more long and complete experiments. An appropriate scientific program will be draw.



    (1) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

    (2) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

  • McKubre said in his ICCF21 speech, the LENR community does *not* collaborate, coordinate, and communicate now, nor have they ever.


    In the occasion of the ICCF19 held in Padua, he wrote a series of 5 posts dedicated to the history of ICCFs (http://www.iccf19.com/history1.html ). Very interesting. Unfortunately they are no longer available on internet, I hope you have saved a copy. Text and photos gave the impression of a very well integrated and solid group of people. So, I don't know what he was referring to at ICCF21.


    Quote

    Yet you are saying they did exactly that in 2010/2011 to turn a failed Ecat test, into a "success".


    Not exactly. Let me clarify a couple of things.


    First, about the "failed Ecat tests", I didn't say they had failed, I'd rather say they were faked. It's different. You have a failed test when you expect a positive outcome, which doesn't occur. This was not the case with the Ecat tests. Consider, for example, the Test 1 I'm discussing with *can*. If the water flow was stopped in the middle of the test, but it was reported that it flowed until the end, it means that it was well known in advance that the tested device was not able to work as claimed.


    Second, about the role of the LENR community in the Ecat affair. It's clear that only a few of them have actively participated in the organization and promotion this initiative, not the entire community. But after the Bologna demo, and for a long time later, it was very difficult to hear a voice of skepticism or disagreement coming from the LENR community that denounced the inconsistencies of those incredible proclaimed data.


    The support of some, and the silence of the others, helped the Ecat initiative in getting the financial success that now provides the major economic help to the LENR community.

  • Second, about the role of the LENR community in the Ecat affair. It's clear that only a few of them have actively participated in the organization and promotion this initiative, not the entire community. But after the Bologna demo, and for a long time later, it was very difficult to hear a voice of skepticism or disagreement coming from the LENR community that denounced the inconsistencies of those incredible proclaimed data.


    The support of some, and the silence of the others, helped the Ecat initiative in getting the financial success that now provides the major economic help to the LENR community.


    Ascoli,


    There are many innocent reasons the *few* within the field would not express their skepticism after the demos. Jed explained that too you before, and maybe when he comes back from vacation he will explain again. Conspiracies are very hard to accomplish. The more involved, the harder it gets. Especially so when you are talking about, in most cases, older, well established scientists with little to gain, and everything to lose.


    There was no conspiracy, plan, coordination, or organized attempt by the UOB scientists, and the select few leaders in LENR to cover up, or ignore these test results, in order to attract funding for the field.

  • First, I'm not skeptic. Skepticism entails doubts, and I have no doubts that the Ecat, as any other LENR device, never produced any excess heat. Sorry.


    That's fine. I'm not trying to convince you that the E-Cat worked EDIT: produced LENR.


    Second, I don't understand the connection between the shutting off of a water tap in the middle of a test and a "large-scale scientific fraud-collusion-conspiracy".


    If Levi intentionally shut off the water tap to produce falsified data, that would be scientific fraud.


    If several key people at UniBo (or perhaps most of those who attended the January demo) were aware of this yet had nothing to say against it, that means they colluded with Levi and Rossi towards producing and disseminating false results.


    If people high up in various international governmental departments instructed Rossi—and by extension all other people involved directly or indirectly with these tests—in acting up in order to draw in or pull away public opinion from/to *something* (what exactly it's not clear, but I think you've suggested something along these lines in the past), that would become a full-fledged conspiracy.


    I already asked you if you have other hypotheses that could explain these trends. Now you are talking about "chemical heating and input power mismeasurements". Fine, I'm curious. Can you tell me, please, how they could have determined the Tin increase?


    The Tin sensor was located in the vicinity of a metallic inlet tube located close to the portion of the device where the apparently anomalous reaction supposedly occurred (where the H2 inlet ends in). I would expect the sudden additional heat (reported ~10 kW vs 1.1 kW of the heaters) to be conducted to surrounding parts of the setup. See attached images.


    I didn't say they are funny, and I was not referring to alleged "chemical reactions". They were excluded, as any other already known energy source, by the conclusions of the calorimetric report:


    He could have been wrong in his judgement.


    Is this less likely than him and people at UniBo intentionally putting out false data?

  • In the occasion of the ICCF19 held in Padua, he wrote a series of 5 posts dedicated to the history of ICCFs (http://www.iccf19.com/history1.html ). Very interesting. Unfortunately they are no longer available on internet, I hope you have saved a copy. Text and photos gave the impression of a very well integrated and solid group of people. So, I don't know what he was referring to at ICCF21.


    Available here:


    https://web.archive.org/web/20160311140204/http://www.iccf19.com/history.html

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160328215504/http://www.iccf19.com/history1.html

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160328205121/http://iccf19.com/history2.html

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160311141411/http://www.iccf19.com/history3.html

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160310222551/http://iccf19.com/history4.html

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160309152944/http://www.iccf19.com/history5.html

  • I don't think this would really be much different for a novel process taking place in a sealed chamber containing metals and pressurized hydrogen at a few bar, rising several hundreds °C over room temperature and producing therein at least several kW

    Well, depends on whether the rate of the reaction behind this ‘novel process’ exponentially increases with pressure/temp?


    Fine milled flour or sugar blown into air will do it too...

    Could never get that to work myself, unfortunately.

  • Jed explained that too you before, and maybe when he comes back from vacation he will explain again.

    Back, with sunburn to show for it.

    There was no conspiracy, plan, coordination, or organized attempt by the UOB scientists, and the select few leaders in LENR to cover up, or ignore these test results, in order to attract funding for the field.

    Cold fusion researchers cannot even organize a walk in the park without someone wandering off, causing a commotion and precipitating a National Park Service search and rescue operation. I mean that literally. (Name omitted to protect the guilty.) Even by the low, low standards of academic professors, these people are disorganized and socially and politically inept. There is no plan. There is no conspiracy. They could not conspire their way out of a paper bag. I wish they were capable of such legerdemain!


    Unfortunately, the main opponents such as Robert Park, John Huizenga and the editors at Sci. Am. were politically skilled and well connected. They easily destroyed the reputations of the researchers. It was like taking candy from a baby. The researchers seldom responded. When they did respond, their methods resembled the worst military tactics of World War I. They attacked the enemy strongholds with inadequate preparation. It was like walking into machine gun fire instead of using tanks, surprise and infiltration. I have in mind things like the 2004 DoE review. Ed Storms and others warned them against this.


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455

  • If Levi intentionally shut off the water tap to produce falsified data, that would be scientific fraud.


    You are going too far. For the moment, we are discussing whether the water flux halted, or not.


    Quote

    The Tin sensor was located in the vicinity of a metallic inlet tube located close to the portion of the device where the apparently anomalous reaction supposedly occurred (where the H2 inlet ends in). I would expect the sudden additional heat (reported ~10 kW vs 1.1 kW of the heaters) to be conducted to surrounding parts of the setup. See attached images.


    Oh yes, me too. In case of a sudden onset of genuine or fake additional 10 kW, the external surface of the Ecat should have become much hotter, so I would have expected a quite rapid and evident increase of Tamb, but it didn't happen, it remained nearly flat.


    On the contrary, I wouldn't have expected any increase of the temperature measured by a sensor inserted in a rubber hose many cm upstream from the closest metallic part of the Ecat, and immersed in the coolant flowing at few cm/s.


    In any case, the experimental evidence shows that Tin was asymptotically approaching Tamb. There is no possibility at all that this very specific trend can be induced by a heat flux emanating from the Ecat. It is the clear sign that the temperature of the water inside the tube is going to equalize the temperature of the surrounding ambient, and this can happen only if the water is still. This is the more simple, straightforward and congruent explanation.


    I haven't still understood if you exclude it, and, in case, why, and which specific alternative explanation you propose.

  • Shane,


    Conspiracies are very hard to accomplish. The more involved, the harder it gets. Especially so when you are talking about, in most cases, older, well established scientists with little to gain, and everything to lose.


    I agree, and I never talked in terms of conspiracy. Many others here like to use this word, improperly.


    Quote

    There was no conspiracy, plan, coordination, or organized attempt by the UOB scientists, and the select few leaders in LENR to cover up, or ignore these test results, in order to attract funding for the field.


    You have mixed too many words in a single sentence: too many alternative definitions, for different groups of protagonists, combined with too many common objectives. This sentence is not appraisable. You should deal with a few aspects at a time, starting from simpler facts, and avoiding challenging words like "conspiracy". A simpler word as "initiative" could help to better understand the possible relationships among facts and people.


    Let's take for example the facts from December 2010 to February 2011, which we are discussing now.


    EVENTS - In this period there have been some important events:

    - on December 16, the private test on the Ecat, documented as Test 1 in the UniBo calorimetric report;

    - on January 14, the public demo in Bologna, where an Ecat was tested in the presence of many experts and journalists, and whose results were reported as Test 2 in the UniBo calorimetric report;

    - on January 23, the publication on internet of the UniBo calorimetric report, which reported 9810 kW of output with an input of 1120 W (or even zero) for Test 1, and an output of 12886 W with an average input of 1022 W for Test 2;

    - on February 6 to 11, at ICCF16 in Chennai (India) the attention was focused on the Ecat tests and the calorimetric results reported on the UniBo document..


    PROTAGONISTS – The main protagonists of the above events belongs to two main groups.


    - Group A (as Americans), formed by the "select few leaders in LENR" that contributed to the preparation, verification, and review of the UniBo calorimetric report, and who strongly supported on internet and inside the LENR community the results reported on it, and the competence and reliability of the people of Group B;


    - Group B (as Bologna), formed by "UNIBO scientists" who publicly assumed the responsibility for the Bologna demo, performed the measurements, got the experimental data, wrote the calorimetric report in collaboration with the Group A, allowed the issue of this report, and finally, in the subsequent months, always confirmed the reported calorimetric results in tens of occasions: interviews broadcasted by radio and TV stations or diffused by videos on internet, letters addressed to major newspapers, participation in public conferences, etc.


    The two groups collaborated between January 14 and 23 in order to reach a common but limited objective, the issue of a calorimetric report which stated that, in two tests carried out under the scientific supervision of physicists of a prestigious University, a table top device was capable of producing 10 kW of heat, with an input power of 1 kW.


    The above are documented facts. Aren't they?


    As for speculations, there is no reason to believe that Groups A and B have acted on the basis of the same broad and mutually shared plan. It's probable that the final objectives of the two groups were different, but that the issue of the aforementioned report was functional to the achievement of both their separate objectives.


    Isn't it simpler this way?

  • - on February 6 to 11, at ICCF16 in Chennai (India) the attention was focused on the Ecat tests and the calorimetric results reported on the UniBo document..


    . . .


    The above are documented facts. Aren't they?

    No they are not documented facts. They are mainly imaginary facts dreamed up by you, or exaggerations. I was at ICCF16, and the proceedings are here:


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


    One paper mentions Rossi. The word Ecat does not appear anywhere in the proceedings. There was no discussion of Rossi at the conference. As far as I know, most of the people there never heard of him.

  • The above are documented facts. Aren't they?


    Ascoli,


    For the most part your facts are correct. I take exception with your description of "Group A"; the American select few leaders who you claim strongly supported the tests results on the internet. You have referenced some posts in the past, from the obscure website Vortexmail. I do not think that qualifies as "supported on the internet". Almost no one reads that site. Seems to me instead a better description would be that a couple people on Vortex, said those doing the testing (Group B...UOB scientists) were well respected, and qualified, so they trusted their findings.


    I thought the same thing at the time. When the Kullander/Essen jumped on board a few months later, it looked to many around the world, that this Rossi guy had something real. When did you start getting suspicious?

  • Quote

    There was no conspiracy, plan, coordination, or organized attempt by the UOB scientists, and the select few leaders in LENR to cover up, or ignore these test results, in order to attract funding for the field


    No conspiracy was necessary. An incomprehensible lack of appetite for holding Rossi's feet to the fire about calibrating with blank reactors was all that was necessary. In some cases, the visiting or observing scientists also failed to perform their own measurements of the input power supplies which Rossi needlessly complicated and obfuscated by making some three phase and then in some instances, using only two of the wires, leaving the third one open. This last detail is from memory so if it's wrong, I am sure someone will chime in.


    It may be worthwhile to note that Kullander and Essen (again from memory of 2011-2012) did not ever say that Rossi had a new power source. They said he had demonstrated an unknown phenomenon (not their words exactly) which needed further investigation.


    Rossi was extremely fortunate (more than $10 Million fortunate) that so many accomplished scientists and observers were so astoundingly careless about such obvious things. Another factor was Rossi's irascible behavior. Most of the people who endorsed his work were afraid to be too critical lest Rossi bar them from future participation and observation. Those who asked for good testing methods were rapidly ostracized by Rossi. It ended up being a typical high tech energy scam. What you don't get got you.

  • Quote

    Almost no one reads that site. Seems to me instead a better description would be that a couple people on Vortex, said those doing the testing (Group B...UOB scientists) were well respected, and qualified, so they trusted their findings.

    Maybe trusting in people you respect works in law (expert opinions). In science, if the experiment is bad, it doesn't matter who did it.


    All the experiments involving Rossi were badly designed and/or loosely or sloppily performed. It was enough to discredit several supposedly independent tests that Rossi was constantly involved at multiple steps. It's never about "trusting the findings". That's a non-scientist's typical misconception. It's about examining the methods, the calculations and the results and conclusions. Yes, the experiments have to be done by trusted people but far as I know, nobody who did experiments actually did them under UOB auspices. Later on, UOB explicitly disavowed that it had tested Rossi's reactors as did National Instruments and essentially anyone Rossi claimed he was involved with except for Levi, Lewan and the Swedish scientists who tested hot tube reactors (badly).


    BTW, Levi and the Swedish scientists were said to be doing replications of Rossi's reactors. Anyone know how that's going? Are they still even working on it?

  • BTW, Levi and the Swedish scientists were said to be doing replications of Rossi's reactors. Anyone know how that's going? Are they still even working on it?


    SOT,


    The Aftenposten article written about the Stockholm QX DPS is under a pay cover, but I recall in it Hoistad saying Rossi needs to make public all his secrets so it could be replicated. I interpreted that as they had not been successful. Could be wrong though. It has been a long time since word got out they were going to try their own replication. With no announcement yet...that alone says something.

  • BTW, Levi and the Swedish scientists were said to be doing replications of Rossi's reactors. Anyone know how that's going? Are they still even working on it?

    There is a photo of Levi holding a hot tube device (Padua ICCF?) Who's device was that?


    I built a simple Lugano-esque dummy device in 5 days, most of which were curing time for the mold and cement, and tested it in a couple of hours. How long does it take well-connected Professors to build an adequate dummy to sort out the Lugano IR issue, if nothing else? Certainly not years.

  • No they are not documented facts. They are mainly imaginary facts dreamed up by you, or exaggerations. I was at ICCF16, and the proceedings are here:
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedi.pdf

    One paper mentions Rossi.


    You looked at the wrong document. Of course the proceedings of a conference started on February 6 couldn't have mentioned the results of a public demo carried out on January 14. The only paper mentioning Rossi was from Jacques Dufour, who was in touch with Rossi since at least April 2010 (1). There you can really find a lot a "imaginary" and "dreamed up" facts, as well as the usual "exaggerations".


    Quote

    The word Ecat does not appear anywhere in the proceedings.


    It couldn't have been there, not even in the Dufour's paper, because the name Ecat was announced for the first time during the Bologna demo.


    Quote

    There was no discussion of Rossi at the conference. As far as I know, most of the people there never heard of him.


    No doubt that most people there never heard of him until the beginning of the conference, but I guess that after the conference they knew even his shoe number!


    In the "Overview of ICCF16 in India" written by M.Macy (2), Rossi is cited 30 times versus the 16 times of an old glory of LENR as McKubre (including the caption under the first photo).


    There have been even a special section dedicated to Rossi (3).


    (1) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…p=168&cpage=1#comment-209

    (2) http://www.infinite-energy.com…s/pdfs/MacyICCF16IE96.pdf

    (3) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg42263.html

  • No doubt that most people there never heard of him until the beginning of the conference, but I guess that after the conference they knew even his shoe number!


    In the "Overview of ICCF16 in India" written by M.Macy (2), Rossi is cited 30 times versus the 16 times of an old glory of LENR as McKubre (including the caption under the first photo).

    Well, that's Macy's perspective. There was nothing in the proceedings.

  • Levi didn't attend.

    The photo was in Parkhomov's report from his trip to the Padua ICCF (time period of the photo) but was taken at Unibo. The device had large diameter twisted leads, similar to the Lugano device, but was simpler in design, yet not as small as Parkhomov's devices at the time.

    (For some reason, I have the vague impression that you took that photo.)

  • Well, that's Macy's perspective.


    Not only Macy's.


    http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg42336.html

    Comments by Duncan, Celani at ICCF16

    Jed Rothwell
    Mon, 07 Feb 2011 05:59:42 -0800

    Rob Duncan was supposed to give one of the keynote addresses. Unfortunately, the blizzard in the U.S. shut down Chicago and he was unable to come. He e-mailed his comments and they were read by Melich. They were excellent. I hope to get a copy soon. Anyway, one thing he said was that the heat in many of these experiments is "definitely real." I think he also said it is definitely not chemical.


    Rossi's work was discussed by Celani and then Melich.


    Celani's description of the demo was more critical than his discussion with me, yesterday. He was quite upset that they did not let him make nuclear measurements, and I suspect that has colored his thinking. Rossi told him "we can't let you take a gamma spectrum because that will tell you exactly what reactions are going on, and we cannot reveal that information until we can get a patent." That remark alone is revealing, isn't it!


    I am not good at taking notes while listening to a lecture, but here are some of my notes from Celani's talk.


    This was not a typical cold fusion experiment, especially in the choice of materials, which was nickel plus two other unnamed mystery elements. It is "conceptually mistaken" to call this Ni cold fusion. Celani believes these other elements are the active ingredient and the Ni assists the reaction in the other elements. [I have the opposite impression; that the other elements are dopants which enhance the Ni reaction that Piantelli and Focardi discovered years ago.]


    There were many problems with the demonstration. The device was working a lot better on January 13. Unfortunately, on the day the people assembled, the A/C heater failed "catastrophically" and then some other parts were acting flaky. The audience become restless and upset. When they finally got it going, they were only able to reduce control power down to 400 W, and it was not as steady as it had been in recent tests at U. Bologna. On Jan. 13 and in some previous tests they could bring it down closer to 100 W, which is more impressive, with a "gain" of 30 - 40. [I quibble with use of the term "gain" in this context.] Celani referred to the 100 W level as the "self-sustaining level." In other words, almost heat after death.


    The hygrometric probe [RH meter] was not reliable and the readings were not continuous.


    There was the sound of steam but it was not loud. There was a lot of noise in the crowded room.


    The data acquisition system failed, as noted by Levi in his report, which is why they had to use a photo of the screen.


    Celani thinks there were "questionable assumptions" about the dry steam. He showed a graph of the estimates made here about 1% of the steam by volume reducing the enthalpy by a large margin. (Storms says that estimate is wrong -- the reduction is much too big.)


    Celani thinks the outlet temperature probe was too close to the body of the machine.


    Celani reiterated what he told me yesterday, that calorimetry by vaporization is problematic, and it would be better to increase the flow rate and use water below 90 deg C instead.


    Levi and Rossi are preparing a more detailed report about the recent set of tests. (The Levi report now uploaded is a rush job, as I think anyone can see.)


    After the talk, Celani mentioned that he held his hand over the exit pipe, which I think is rubber. Someone asked if he touched it. He said it was too hot. That would put it at about 50 deg C, as the person pointed out. That's very hot.


    Melich, Storms and I feel that some of this is nitpicking. Celani did not address the most important issue, which is that even if there was a only a tiny bit of steam, that means the water temperature was close to 100 deg C, so there must have been massive excess heat, on the order of 400 W in, 1,800 out. You can ignore the steam altogether. In most cold fusion experiments this much excess heat would be considered a definitive triumph.


    McKubre remarked that Rossi presence in the room during the test "weakens" the claim. I don't think anyone would argue with that.


    Melich followed with a shorter discussion, without viewgraphs. He was more circumspect because some of the work he based his discussion has not been published yet so he cannot reveal full details. He is confident that it will be published. He agreed that Rossi's results are still somewhat "fuzzy" but warned people not to judge a project by a one-off test on one day, especially a test with 50 impatient people in the room. That is bound to be somewhat chaotic.


    Levi remarked somewhere that he felt confident in the machine after the Dec. 16 test [Test 1] and also when he saw it run with no input, in heat after death. Levi's judgement does not rest entirely on the Jan. 14 demonstration [Test 2]. People such as Melich and Levi, who know the most about this machine, seem to have the highest confidence that it is real. That is a good sign.


    - Jed



    How do you explain this?

    There was no discussion of Rossi at the conference.

  • Ship_Frequency,ItemMinLevel,ItemMaxLevel,ItemReOrderQty,HighWeek,LowWeek,MRPActive

    BTW, Levi and the Swedish scientists were said to be doing replications of Rossi's reactors. Anyone know how that's going? Are they still even working on it?


    SOT,


    The Aftenposten article written about the Stockholm QX DPS is under a pay cover, but I recall in it Hoistad saying Rossi needs to make public all his secrets so it could be replicated. I interpreted that as they had not been successful. Could be wrong though. It has been a long time since word got out they were going to try their own replication. With no announcement yet...that alone says something.


    Alan should know.... he posts statements that would indicate he has inside knowledge of their activities. What is the latest Alan?


    May 16th 2017   #7,960

    And meanwhile, those poor deluded Professors in Upsalla carry on working with Rossi. Amazing is it not?


    Aug 24th 2016

    #56
    ....... ETA. It is the Upsalla guys who continue their involvement. They were there too.
  • For the most part your facts are correct.


    Fine, that's a good starting point.


    Quote

    I take exception with your description of "Group A"; the American select few leaders who you claim strongly supported the tests results on the internet. You have referenced some posts in the past, from the obscure website Vortexmail. I do not think that qualifies as "supported on the internet". Almost no one reads that site.


    Not only Vortex. This site was the main gatherer of these supports, but in almost every site on internet where the Ecat tests were criticized there was an almost immediate intervention to defend the reliability of the results (1).


    Moreover you should not forget the JoNP, the main propagandistic tool of the Ecat initiative. Krivit suggested that its domain had been registered by an American, and provided the hints to identify him (2).


    Finally, an incredible number of supporting sites appeared on the web in a few months (3). Were all of them spontaneous initiatives?


    (1) https://aleklett.wordpress.com…new-physics/#comment-5745

    (2) https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg38061.html

    (3) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…is-Internet-Network.shtml

  • I did. At Unibo.

    So, since mid April, 2015, Levi had something that looks like a reasonable Lugano-like device, sufficient (even if empty) for testing the IR vs thermocouple to see if anything is amiss. A year later he tells Mats that there is no problem (suggesting that he has not tested it using IR and a thermocouple since it was built).


    Meanwhile the other Professors are supposedly doing something that they won't say is a successfull or otherwise replication (Hoistad comment regarding a reported successful replication, which was a language mixup between the possible Professors' work and Parkhomov's work).


    Then Dewey stirs the pot in or around the time of the discovery period of the Rossi vs IH trial, and still nobody owns up to anything odd about the IR anomaly, even though angry letters were exchanged about insinuations of blame, and all of the Professors should have had plenty of time to test out dummy devices by then. Dewey was also tossing around the spectre of an IH sponsored IR report using one of the left over Lugano-type devices, and that report also seems to be as MIA as the comments from the Professors regarding the IR issue.



  • ... Seems to me instead a better description would be that a couple people on Vortex, said those doing the testing (Group B...UOB scientists) were well respected, and qualified, so they trusted their findings.

    I thought the same thing at the time. When the Kullander/Essen jumped on board a few months later, it looked to many around the world, that this Rossi guy had something real. When did you start getting suspicious?


    Quite soon: http://www.energeticambiente.i…ala-11.html#post119167978


    The meaning of the above comment is the same as summarized in the first jpeg submitted to Brian Josephson a couple of month later: http://www.physicsforums.com/s…hp?p=3219628&postcount=83