Where is the Gamma Radiation? (Profchuck)

Thought the point was the process is unknown. Not a rewrite of physics, just the start of a new chapter on the new and as of now not understood Rossi Effect. Rossi has stated there is no new physics needed to explain how it works.

Superconductivity is good example of new to old physics effect that took a long time to develop theory of how it worked.

Yet even with very significant and wide spread replications of excess heat, transmutations, He & Tritium production, main stream physics fights to deny the evidence. Claiming as this is outside known physics, it must be fraud. Fraud it is but not by the LENR researchers. The fraud is committed by those who deny the validity of the evidence and refuse to allow LENR researchers to be accepted as valid research and part of the growing understanding and evolution of physics.

Their crime is beyond fraud. It go to the denial of the progress of the human understanding of our universe and the advancement of the rights of all humans to a sustainable way of life.

Despite the clear denier fraud committed by Pomp and other who dare to call themselves physists & scientists, this test adds to the already impressive data base of successful LENR results, each of which helps to point the way to the development of "Why it is so".

In the meantime IH continues to develop the capability to add ECat rods into the boilers of existing thermoelectric power plants, which I'm sure care little about what Pomp, etc think or not.

Just to put the other side. The Lugano report describes quite extraordinary measurements of nuclear transmutation that defeat any known scientific hypothesis (including LENR ideas) to explain.

However the claimed COP of > 3 is I'm afraid not justified by the report's own measurements. These, inconsistently, show the active test COP at around either 1 or >3 according to which of the reported measurements you use to determine power in. Since these measurements should match there is a clear measurement inconsistency that needs to be resolved before any conclusion can be made from the power measurements. I'm hoping the report authors will be able to resolve this.

Also, previous measurements of what was stated as ash from Rossi have shown contamination by Cu which Rossi has afterwards said could be due to his handling techniques. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Rossi will indicate that the surprising 62Ni results have some such similar explanation and are not in fact difficult to explain evidence of LENR transmutation inside the reactor. After all, it is not easy to see how that 99% pure 62Ni comes from LENR given the apparent constant power out over the period of the test.

History is full of lone inventors convinced they have discovered some new physical effect. Often they are wrong. It is no disgrace for Rossi to be one of this band.

Quote

Yet even with very significant and wide spread replications of excess heat, transmutations, He & Tritium production, main stream physics fights to deny the evidence. Claiming as this is outside known physics, it must be fraud. Fraud it is but not by the LENR researchers. The fraud is committed by those who deny the validity of the evidence and refuse to allow LENR researchers to be accepted as valid research and part of the growing understanding and evolution of physics.

There are not many claims that those working in LENR are fraudulent. A very few perhaps, people are imperfect and fraud happens. The issue is that, at least for all of the cases I've looked at, careful examination of the experiments that have been replicated shows that they have very significant possible systematic errors. others, that seem to provide strong evidence, cannot be replicated. Further more the LENR hypothesis does not yet have strong status as a scientific theory. Alain quotes Kuhn but his co-irrationalist Popper makes the strong point that hypotheses that cannot be disproved do not have a strong position. To my knowledge Kim had an LENR hypothesis that made clear experimental predictions (BEC collapse at higher temperatures makes LENR more likely at lower temperatures). He set about to validate these with new experiments and discovered that they were worng. I believe he has since modified his ideas. For scientists, the epistemological strength of a hypothesis which makes correct predictions about unknown phenomena has a power I think many LENR researchers do not acknowledge.

On the other hand, to dismiss those arguing that the evidence for LENR is not strong enough to bear the weight of new physics, with no scientifically disprovable hypothesis to back it, as fraudulent in behaviour or motives, is unsubstantiated and in my view most improper.

Quote from AlainCo

if it is not fraud, lenr science is thus real...
all argument on extraordinary claims are thus void, it is proven phenomenon.

If you reckon Rossi switching samples, as he has done before, is fraud, yes.

Quote

huge systematic errors of 3.6 are not easy to obtain ...

I disagree. For example misreading a 3 phase power analyser (easy to do) gives systematic error of 3. You need a decent EE person to get it right.

Quote

there is a long road between some % of systematic errors, and 260% of error.

see above

Quote

the trick is often just to say "there is errors" and not to measure them.

I think you have the burden of proof the wrong way round. What Rossi claims is extraordinary, and many sole inventors have such wild ideas with devices that apparently break some physical law. It is Rossi's job to prove that he is really breaking physical laws if he wants others to believe. Without such solid proof a rational person would disbelieve. They don't have to work out precisely what combination of experimental error, misunderstanding, or possibly fraud causes this.

That may seem tough but the claims Rossi makes are actually very easily proved.

Quote

another trick is to me unclear whether one support reality of LENR (if no one deny science), or support general fraud (which is impossible if the reactor was tested without rossi and with PCE380 set up independently of him)...

For this current experiment there is clear evidence, documented elsewhere on this site, that the power in was mismeasured by a factor of 3.
For the first "independent" test there was the (easy) possibility of "loopback spoofing" to make the supply power seem smaller. The (equally easy0 test to eliminate that was not done. Generally however these tests from Rossi's friends with him present and intervening are not independent and therefore cannot be trusted. That is what scientists would say of any new and surprising phenomena. You need independent replication.

Quote

in fact all claim or "error" are either tiny and without impact (realist but not important), or on the myth of lenr then e-cat fraud (conspiracy of evil), or on incredibly improbable mistakes (conspiracy of errors). a mix of the 3 is made to fool the innocent, some real imprecisions, some innuendo of fraud and presenting incredible fraud as incredible errors.

There are a number of explanations of the apparent anomalies. Rossi being prepared to lie to testers (perhaps in what he considers a good cause, to get enough money to continue development) covers all of them. Some, like the wet steam calculated as dry, are obvious from external evidence. In principle you would not expect such things always to emerge.

Quote

about theory, I don't see why it have any impact on whether LENR is real or not. current theories are weak, unproven, and sometime even disproven by experiments. independent work in progress.

Nuclear theory is on the contrary very strong, making a vast number of spot on predictions. That is why it is held. LENR could be random magic obeying no simple physical laws, but if so it would be a first such phenomena in our experience. Other claimed random phenomena, miracles, paranormal stuff, etc, have turned out to have mundane explanations.

Rossi has proved himself inaccurate in information he gives independent testers. For example, the Cu mixed in with the ash in an early experiment was thought to be a nuclear transmutation product until more subtle analysis showed it could not be. During the initial period when there were speculations about nuclear origin Rossi remained silent about the fact that his handling had introduced Cu to the ash after it left the reactor. Certainly he did not make the possibility of such major contamination clear to the testers.

I'm happy to advance deliberate deception (which might or might nor be technically fraudulent) as the reson for some of these test results because the Ni-62 result shows either Rossi does this or there is LENR. If not for that I would leave open the psosibility of other errors since they remain.

The main difficulty (other than lack of independence) with the current and previous independent test is a lack of cross-checking and control that would eliminate potential possibly large error sources. That is the stuff of experimental science. You never trust your first results. In this case the second test is actually less well controlled than the first one was!

Quote

your factor of of 3 error is very easy to spot by an electrician. and among the testers there is Mrs Foschi who is electrical engineer among others..the cross checking was done by the 7 co-testers.

That is your assumption. It is contradicted by facts - that is - the figures in the report are inconsistent by a factor of 3.3.

I would like to hear how any qualified electrical engineer tries to defend those figures. I am one such, and I could not do so.

They might need to also consult a material scientist who would say that all strongly metallic materials (e.g. normal metals) have resistivity at high temperatures which increases slightly and linearly with temperature. That is observed in the 1% change in the 1250C and 1400C active experiment ratios of Total input power to Joule heating power (since these ratios are a proxy for the heating element resistivity changte). It is broken by a phenomenal factor of 3 in the dummy versus the active measurements, with a 3X reduction in ratio from 500C to 1250C.

So either the currents are mis-measured, or the powers are mis-measured. All measurements come from the PCE-830 - the currents are actually used to determine the powers.

This is a certain error.