Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

Jed, somehow I can’t seem to communicate my actual question posed long ago and repeated on occasion without triggering your standard defense of the history of cold fusion. Let me be as specific as possible. As a casual observer if this field, I see frequent reference to all sorts of experimental results that are labeled by some people as LENR but that seem far afield from the observations of F&P and various replications. These include neutrons, gamma rays, significant transmutations, and various other effects - even biological processes. In some cases one or more of these things are observed without any excess heat. I am not casting aspersions on any of these experiments. As you point out at every opportunity, I have not studied the literature and therefore am not qualified to judge them. Fair enough. Nonetheless, my question is more basic and more fundamental. Given the diverse and inconsistent nature of these various experimental results, how can they all be manifestations of the same phenomenon? Is that considered to be the nature of LENR that it has very different effects at different times? Or is it possible that some reported results are not actually manifestations of LENR? That is not intended as a trigger. The possibility that some results might be wrong is not an attack on all results and hell if I know which if any results might be wrongly interpreted. I am just trying to find a coherent picture in the midst of an awful lot of noise.

Is it possible not to consider this question to be an attack on cold fusion? It genuinely isn’t and if you can’t grasp that, perhaps someone else knowledgeable about the field can express an opinion.

Quote from interested observer

I see frequent reference to all sorts of experimental results that are labeled by some people as LENR but that seem far afield from the observations of F&P and various replications.

I wouldn't call those other things cold fusion. My definition is limited to the Fleischmann-Pons effect which is:

1. Excess heat, tritium and helium produced by highly loaded palladium deuteride (Pd-D). The heat exceeds the limits of chemistry.

2. There is also evidence for excess heat from highly loaded nickel hydride (Ni-H), but it has been less widely replicated. There are various hybrid systems with Ni, Pd and other metals.

When I say the definition of cold fusion is clear, well defined, and limited, I have in mind these these two systems: Pd-D and Ni-H.

I suggest you ignore the claims that seem to be far afield. Concentrate on the widely replicated results, mainly Pd-D. The others are listed under cold fusion because they are described by some papers and posters at ICCF conferences, not because they have any physics connections. Assuming they exist.

Quote from interested observer

These include neutrons, gamma rays, significant transmutations, and various other effects - even biological processes.

Neutrons are sometimes produced by Pd-D. Storms believes they are caused by fractofusion or some other prosaic mechanism. I have not heard of gamma rays except from Smith and George, and I have no idea what materials they use, how they load it, or how much heat they get, so maybe that is not what I would deem cold fusion. Transmutations have been observed from time to time, but not often. I do not know what to make of biological processes

Quote from interested observer

Given the diverse and inconsistent nature of these various experimental results, how can they all be manifestations of the same phenomenon?

I doubt they are manifestations of the same phenomenon. Several of them may not even exist. As I said, they are part of cold fusion because the authors show up at ICCF conferences. They are welcome! I find the results interesting. But I doubt they are connected to cold fusion.

Quote from [email protected]

@KevMo. Perhaps I'm being unfair. Do you have another science comment we could review?

***To be candid, after looking through the first few pages of that thread it is obvious by your long-winded sidling up to Shanahan's crackpot theory that you belong alongside him. So, that's fine. It was a pure science thread that I posted and seagulls such as yourself polluted it. You're so concerned about the "tone" of this forum, but I invite lurkers to look over there and see for themselves.

Or perhaps I'm being unfair, since your comments are now locked...

That would be good. They'd see other examples as well as the poor Dolly the Sheep argument.

But it is a very long thread - are you sure you could not direct us to your most cogent science argument there? We could then compare it with my selection of my most cogent science argument on the same thread.

Jed, perhaps I did a poor job of expressing my questions way back when. In any case, had you answered as you did just now, we would never had gotten into our little dustup. Your answers above are totally reasonable and completely in line with what I might have guessed based on my limited knowledge. Thanks. No doubt, kevmo will regurgitate our ancient exchange once again to prove his point (whatever that might be.)

Can we get back to talking about the Magnificence demo? Those puppets were so cute, weren't they? And the ballerina, she turns me on. I believe in the E Cat SK! Did everyone hear that momentous events have happened after the presentation, and that it is now time to reframe the entire debate on climate change! Kevmo, can you go down to Bevmo and get us some champagne please? I'm sure you get a discount.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Can we get back to talking about the Magnificence demo?

Yes!

Please!

Have a look to the scope screen!

What do you see?

Quote from bang99

Yes!

Please!

Have a look to the scope screen!

What do you see?

Somone who does not know how to use a scope trigger circuit? No excuse for that now - non-repetitive signals can be held so you can see what they are... In this case we don't know what periodicity there might be.

THH, Rossi (aehm, Thomas) is explaining that this is controll signal for the Skat ...

Isn't it?!

IO one easy accessible list of F and P style experiments is : https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf

It lists many of them (160+) and various characteristics that were similar or different from FP.

From my view, the point is that "replication attempts" that were closer to the original are more

likely to yield positive results and those that missed some criteria were less likely to see excess heat.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

And the ballerina, she turns me on.

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC

In Japanese what she does to you is described as "tokimeku" (causes your heart to skip a beat; turns you on). (https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q…3%81%8D%E3%82%81%E3%81%8F) I mention this because this word is used by author Mari Kondo, and translated as "spark joy." Which is all the rage in the U.S. So, the ballerina sparks joy in you. This nuance meaning "turn on" in the sexual sense puts things in a different perspective. The author's name is becoming a word in English -- maybe even the Word of the Year: KonMari (meaning "clean up"). Japanese authors have seldom had such influence in the U.S. It is fun for me to watch.

If you are wondering about Ms. Kondo's seemingly mystical side, yes it is mystical. She spent five years working as a Shinto shrine priestess (miko).

My favorite KonMari comment:

"Marie Kondō’s method really has been magical. I’m ridding my home of anything that doesn’t 'spark joy.'

So far I’m down one washing machine, one vacuum, and a husband."

OH by the way, I view the "demo from the condo" to be very very poor (laughable). A good one should use multiply redundant measures of all critical data and use separate physical methods to do so. It should also use a control working at the same level as the claimed effect and all raw data should be made available. “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE- Carl Sagan)

oldguy

Carl Sagan - Science and scientific methods

Andreas Rossi - hmm .. BELIEVE in the ECAT!

Sing it! Every day!

Quote from interested observer

In any case, had you answered as you did just now, we would never had gotten into our little dustup.

I did answer as I just did. I always do. I always refer people to the video. Because it cost me thousands of bucks and months of effort, so I make use of it. Plus I refer people to the McKubre paper the video is based on. (https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf). The whole purpose of the video is to provide a succinct definition and introduction to cold fusion. That is, to answer the kinds of questions you ask, such as: What is cold fusion? Has it been replicated? In what sense has it been replicated? Are there indications it can be made into a practical source of energy?

My guess is that you have the impression I have not answered because you did not see the video or read the paper. It seems you just now noted that the video addresses your questions. I am sure I must have referred you to it many times. I published it in 2015.

If I end up giving different answers, sarcastic answers, or non-answers, it is because I have decided the person asking is not serious and will not look at the video or paper. That's annoying. People asking questions is not annoying. You seem to think I am annoyed by questions and I am not inclined to answer them. On the contrary, nobody has answered more questions or distributed more information about cold fusion than I have. The whole point of the video and LENR-CANR.org is to answer questions.

Quote from oldguy

From my view, the point is that "replication attempts" that were closer to the original are more

likely to yield positive results and those that missed some criteria were less likely to see excess heat.

Yes! They have to be close. Plus you have to use the right materials. "Right" as defined by both Cravens and Storms. I referenced Cravens and Storms on replication here:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

See their other papers, listed in the references. (Which I now see I did not make hyperlinks, for some reason. Odd . . .)