The Pomp factor in Cold Fusion, an open letter to Stephan Pomp

Pomp lacks both the curiousity and the humility that takes to be a great scientist. If he would not have rejected the invitation to form part of the team I would have a different opinion, but by doing so, he proved he is not worth the time spent writing this otherwise very well thought leter. You will probably, if any, get a very arrogant response from him.

Let us know how that goes. Cold beer fusion.

the beginning of your article on scientific method make me suddenly understand the problem.
At first sight, scientific method, is not the only way of science that I support. But in fact it is, provided the notion of "hypothesis" and theory is more realist, and that realism is what differentiate a citizen, an engineer and a nuclear physicist.

so scientific method is making hypothesis, and using tools (observation, experiments, statistics, peer review, publications, conference) to check if it is confirmed or not...
First I am shocked that in that vision the work of observation, induction, curiosity, serendipity, is not so valued... that is the first symptom that this framework is not the best, but it can work with good minds.

The pitfall we found on cold fusion is that what is evident for an engineer, that it is real and strongly confirmed across many kind of experiments and human groups, is denied because there is no "theory".

So, me, poor engineer , I have no theory, no hypothesis ?

this is not true, but we as physicist and engineer have a different idea of what is a theory.

The first theory that for me is confirmed is :

• in some context like PdD2O electrolysis, gas permeation, NiH,... some heat is produced that cannot be of chemical source as we know it... it is hard to reproduce, but sometime it works...

this theory is very weak, but you can refute it. for example by finding no example of any case where such heat is produced, without reasonable doubt based on calorimetry, chemistry...
If like here the calorimetry seems good according to current standards, you can refute it by finding credible artifact respecting current knowledge, or you can propose another coherent theory about the source, that can be tested itself...

This is a theory of existence.

For most nuclear physicists, strongly educated with hard theory, this have no value.

for a curious mind, it is ok.

Now there is another family of theory, the phenomenological theory. You can propose a theory like this :

• When you plug an e-cat as provided by industrial heat, it produce 3.2 times more heat than the electric energy fed in.
• this can last for a month without exploding
• more energy in produce more energy out, until a point where the reactor is destroyed
• speed of temperature increase is limited to 10%/6minute

This can be tested by engineer method, like IR cam and powermeter. You can refute it by finding credible artifact in the protocol, or by making a theory, even a conspiracy theory, explaining with good arguments the motives for such a manipulation. like before you propose an alternative theory.

now the physicist can come and say they cannot build a theory... so what, they just shut up and look!

they can say it is impossible. ok, but they have to propose a better theory than the one of engineers.
there is laws of physics, but it is more changing in history than psychology and the law of conspiracies.

moreover if the say it is impossible according to their model they have to explain not that they found no way, but that no way can exist. for cold fusion this is simply wrong. Quantum physic is simply too complex, especially in material science, for any HONEST physicist to say LENR is impossible...

it is as absurd as saying that there cannot be any dead frog on Himalayan summit, or any cows in the air. (short answer, it is possible, I have a theory)

the problem of physicists with LENR is that they CANNOT use lower kind of theory, like phenomenological models, like exist or not...

you can see for example that some physicist and their fan use the fallacious argument that you cannot make science on something unknown, on blackbox... Of course you can, but you do a phenomenological theory, not a QM theory... you can be sure "it work", even if you don't know "how"... so what ? you cannot imagine how absurd is that argument for me ? I have no idea how the inkjet cartridge in my printer works, but i can say it works, and that it is reliable... is that science... I agree no, it is REALITY.

I just made a comment very similar to a guy in FB that insists the test is not scientific and that the researchers are not independent. As I am also of engineering background, I totally relate to the logic that you can get an entirely phenomenological theory. In fact, we used fire for milennia, with very good efficacy, before having any clue of what it really is. So the whole insistence on invalidity can only come form people that has never observed a phenomena for later trying to explain it. I'd say that the e-cat report is entirely on the observation phase:

A phenomena is found, but we are not sure of it. Hence, Let's observe it carefully to see if we are really observing it and not fooling ourselves.
Now, the phenomena is confirmed. We still don't have the heck of an idea of what it's happening. But we sure do, beyond any reasonable doubt, that something very important, and potentially world changing, is happening. Now we have a long way ahead to find what's exactly happening.

The critics are making the huge mistake of denying the value of observation.

The main problem with the whole discussion around this report is the mix-up of legitimate criticism of the design of this experiment and the subsequent development of the scientific reports of Levi et.al, with the personal story of Andrea Rossi and the always assumed conspiratorial intent to defraud.

A factual substantive, rudimentary scientific discussion is simply not possible on this basis. The insinuation of conspiratorial intent to defraud is a killer argument and it is irrelevant and makes no difference whether this assumption due to Rossi's history as inventors and entrepreneurs are justified or not. Who's ever ridden on the never-becoming-finished 500km long highway construction site from Naples to Reggio Calabria and has lived a few months on Sicily, can understand Rossi's version of his story.

But what a role plays Rossi's history in this case?
We have measurements that are unique!

Every scientist who has doubts of this measurements is invoked to propose a test-design for further scientific reviews of the measurements. And as I wrote here Sifferkoll: Why are Pomp, Eriksson, Ekström and Håkansson Making Fools out of Themselves in Ny Teknik? , of course it is all about to protect the intellectual property of the invention, we need to understand Rossi and his investors and it is more than logical, that they did not disclose all the design features of the reactor, as long as it is not absolutely necessary for the collection of measurement, in other words, it would be very stupid if they did not protect the core of the invention.

The only important question now is if WIPO and the EPO accept this experimental evidence as sufficient to grant the patent, or not. If the answer is yes, it would allow Rossi and his investors(behind those are already considerable financial resources, so why further fraud?), the immediate possibility to enter the production, then anyone can buy a E_Cat and scientifically test it up to the end. And the insinuation that all investors and commercial supporters, such as Elforsk, are involved in the suspected fraud, or are all unprofessional or/and to stupid, is simply not credible.

I am only wondering how weak the ability for a differential culture of debate is among many scientists and how little those are able to see the big picture, but, to the detriment of all, instead immediately bite, in a totally irrational manner, in each calf, that is stalled them.

I would hope that there would be a clear separation, which enables us to discuss the scientific facts on the one side and the sociological factors and if necessary, also the persons and companies involved on one other side.

Think it out on a large scale, what if the LENR effect is actually working with a COP 3-4 or more? (I have already found this one text, unfortunately only in German, so an automatic translation):

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-forum.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%2FThread%2F692-ECAT-Report-2014-und-die-m%25C3%25B6glichen-Auswirkungen-auf-die-Welt-Teil-1%2F&edit-text=

When it was all a big scam, some will wake up with a large hangover, a few rich people have lost a bit of money, but the earth continues to rotate either way.

But we are very likely at the beginning of a new era of mankind, that in my opinion would deserve a bit more civilized behavior and dignity.

Giuseppe Levi Bologna University, Bologna, Italy
http://www.unibo.it/Faculty/default.aspx?UPN=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it&View=CV

Curriculum Vitae
1990: Graduates with full marks (110/110) at the University of Perugia. Dissertation title: Muon spectrometer project and development of a new detector for the study of fundamental interactions up to the TeV scale.
1991: Awarded one of 25 “National Institute for Nuclear Physics” (INFN) scholarships for recent graduates; second highest score on a national basis.
Contributes for about six months to the “Borexino” project for the development of a solar neutrino detector at the Gran Sasso National Laboratories.
1992-95: Ph.D. student at the University of Bologna. Visiting Student at the Hamburg DESY Laboratories in view of his dissertation; contributes to the ZEUS experiment.
1995: Awarded Ph.D. Dissertation title: “Installing the ‘Wall' detector and identification of forward J/psy's at ZEUS”.
1996: Affiliated to the Bologna chapter of the INFN where he joins the AMS experiment group for an orbital space spectrometer, working both in R & D and as a systems analyst. Teaches lab classes (Laboratorio 2) to 4th-year students and is part of the examination board.
1997-98: Awarded 2-year post-doctoral fellowship by the U. of Bologna.
1999: As of Oct. 1st, 1999, Assistant Prof. in Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics (tenure track position awarded by public contest) at the U. of Bologna.
2000-06 Assistant Prof. ( Ricercatore ) at the U. of Bologna; takes part in the AMS2 experiment, and teaches classes as part of the “Experimentation in Physics 1” and “Laboratory 4” courses.
2001: Holds exercise classes in “Physics II” at the Cesena campus, Degree Course in Information Sciences.
2002-07: permanent tenure as Assistant Professor conferred.
Courses & classes taught:
- Full course: Complex Systems Physics (Cesena Campus course in Information Science) for Academic Years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005.
- Lab course (Esercitazioni di Laboratorio III), Degree Course in Physics (Bologna Campus).
- Classes in Nuclear and Sub-Nuclear Physics, Advanced School for Health Physics, 1st year.
Co-referee to various dissertations, and referee for one dissertation in the Degree Course in Information Sciences.
2007 to present: Continues his research within the AMS while also pursuing other lines of fundamental and applied research in Physics.
In charge of the AMS02 Montecarlo production for Bologna.
In charge of the DASIPM Bologna group for the development of silicon photo-multipliers (position held up to 2009 under the DASIPM2 program).
In 2010 he initiates his collaboration with Prof. Casali's group, porting the tomographic reconstruction algorithm to parallel processing on a Microsoft HPC cluster. The case was selected by Microsoft and published on the MS site. Results were published.
Using a cluster installed by himself in Bologna, he works at a genetic classification project with Prof. Daniel Remondini.
In the course of Academic Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 he has been teaching Parallel Programming and Distributed Systems for the Degree Course in Information Sciences and Technology in Cesena.
In 2011 he has also been working in the field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

Dep. of Physics University of Bologna, Italy
Dr. Evelyn Foschi - Fields of Research - Physical Sciences, Engineering and Technology, Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Bo Höistad, Professor at Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics
Roland Pettersson, Senior lecturer at Department of Chemistry - BMC, Analytical Chemistry
Lars Tegnér, Professor at Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Electricity

Hanno Essén Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Hanno Essén received his Ph.D; at Stockholm University in 1979. The thesis was titled Topics in Molecular Mechanics and touched the approximate separations of nuclear and electron motion and the vibrational and rotational motion of molecules. He continued his research as a postdoc at Oxford University, England, for one year, and then two years at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. After some years as a temporary lecturer at the Physics Department at Stockholm University and at the Quantum Chemistry, Uppsala University, Essen got permanent employment as a lecturer at the Mechanics dept at the Royal Institute of Technology in 1988. Since 1990 he has been Director of undergraduate studies (Studierektor) at the Department of Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology. He is member of the Editorial Board of European Journal of Physics since September 2006 and was Chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society for three years (from 19 April 2008 to 2 April 2011).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_Ess%C3%A9n

Those scientist and specialist on their field are in charge for this report http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/

... And 'Mary Yugo' who are you, what is your scientific background, that enables you to judge these persons?

Quote from Mary Yugo

Actually, two articles by Mats Lewan tell the story. First, this experiment should have been repeated but done properly with a dummy blank run and a calibration. It never was:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3108242.ece

The results if confirmed would have shown a power output 5X that of the current experiment and so-called COP 10X larger. So in three years, the performance of the ecat has shrunk by 5X and 10X? Some credible improvement!

And then, there was this test which caught Rossi cheating with the power input:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3535258.ece

It's in Swedish but translates fine in Google Translate. It show that the correct power input to Rossi's ecat was just the right amount to account for all the output. No gain. No ecat.

The current test is highly deficient. Despite earlier critique, the scientists again failed to control the power input to the test, allowing Rossi to furnish it. They should have used their own power cord and their own power supply AHEAD (UPSTREAM) of the experiment. They didn't. Even worse, the so-called dummy test (blank run) was worthless. It did not cover the temperature range and the excuse given for this was idiotic. The scientists should have insisted on a proper blank run to verify that the output temperature measurement was correct. Now, we're left arguing all sorts of different ways that it wasn't. These faults, along with the scientists' description of Rossi's multiple and active interactions with the experiment and with the sample ash, make the entire experiment non-scientific and worthless.

Finally, no two experiments have ever been the same. Rather than fixing the flaws in earlier tests, flaws Rossi and Levi are told about again and again, they forge on to newer, even more flawed tests.

Sorry but these are not the actions of honest scientists. They are the classic maneuverings usually done by high tech investment scammers.

Display More

"Mary Yugo", whoever you might be, you are one of the most recalcitrant pseudoskeptics ever known to man, but you also have no restraints in doing dramatic and outlandish accusations of fraud. If you would care to provide any indication of your real identity and/or achievements other than being a rabid and stubborn defendant of the status quo, I'd be more inclined to pay any attention to your diatribes. Meanwhile, I will continue to ignore them as the bile ladden diatribes they are. Have a nice day.

which facts ?

what mary set as fact is that experiment should be that way, that something is missing...

I can show you a fraud, by MIT team, when they bend the curve. O

by Gary taubes, when he removed some visit of DoE to make a tweaked corelation between tritium and DoE visit.

I can add the test of Storms who simulated a simila fraud and observed how the numbers were evolving...

I can add the fact that Stephan Pomp was invited to the test and refused.

Finally I can add that after incresing injected power by 12%, absolute temperature increased by 8% instead of 2.5% as it should. whereve is the emissivity, there is a problem for the COP=1 theory...

add to that that apparent temperature did not change much while power in get reduced.

this componet is not a dummy. sur one will says again that energy is hidden in some magic heat storage component. of ourse nobody will notice that this will be a revolution in heat engineering, with many applications...

what make me most furious as an electronician, sure less than Evelyn Foshi, is that clearly most skeptic are either incompetent or not using any critical intelligence to silent their dumb fan.

The critic on triac able to fool a powermeter , that you can fool an electronic engineer smuggling 2kW of energy via cable of microwave, while he is free to choose his instruments. You can fool an engineer with rigid protocols, pony show, but not face to face with the wires, free to use any instruments below 10k$...

I can let calorimetry question open for others to comment, but please about power electronic, let us be serious.

for data on TPR1

Torbjörn Hartman on the test

http://ecatnews.com/?p=2528

Bo hoistad on Pomp&ericsson pamphlet

http://ecatnews.com/?p=2620

The error of Rossi, Indistrial Heat, Elforsk, is they did not imagine the height of denial of some people... and their power of annoyance. see how truthers on 9/11 have convinced part of the planet with similar arguments.

3.6<3 is that math error or just bias?

you forgot Rossi building incineration factories, being defended by his clients, hired by his boss, and kept as a worker after jail...

I agree Rossi, like many statup boss, exagerate much, launch redherring, ...
part of what you interpret are lies are probably simply things you ignore... you just assume that all you ignore is as you like it, a fraud.

anyway whatever you say, the recent test put you in a corner of unreality.

you have to call fraudster more and mor people, from the boss of LTI who hired Rossi, Levi , and some of the old and recent testers, Darden and some of his employees...

you are a conspiracy theorist, and don't feel shy, it is the basic of the anti-cold fusion belief.

your conspiracy theory start by very experience top electrochemist who do fraud, followed by other top electrochemist like bockris, by Indian BARC scientist, by LANL scientists, ... by hundreds of others, paid by NASA, DoD, Shell, Amoco, by varipus goverment fund, by Japanese corps, whos career was ruined, but not the fraudsters of MIT, neither the fraudster writer Taubes... then rossi , his clients, the judge , (but not the camora), then Lewan, Levi, Fioravanti....

and I forget a hundred more people that sure have prevented the easy truth to be spotted.

or else you are wrong and F&P were more competent than incompetent newcomers, as were experienced scientists who took few years, compared to physicist who hurried experiments in less time than the time to run one at the required loading....

all your disbelief is based on an error, that LENR is not real because it cannot be real according to what unimaginative twobody physicist estimate from physics. The rest is somatoparaphrenia delusion... desperate rationalization of evidence wich dissent with belief, that put you in that corner.
Some question were acceptable until we have TPR1 and IH investment, until Elforsk moves.

the report is not perfect , but it rules out fraud, except the international conspiracy you defend, which is nonetheless ruled out by common sense.
if there is no fraud, then there is huge isotopic shift, huge heat... question is only precision.
don't forget that even COP>1.1 proven strongly, is a nuclear bomb.

you can laugh of a COP of 3, but it is a bomb.

you will still gain the consensus in media and academic circle, who is a sheep race, but you already lose in engineering and corporate circles (a wolf race).
Elforsk is only the top of the iceberg...

Dear Dr. George Lawrence Hody MD, I wanted actually engage in a substantive discussion with you, but what I've found in a quick search about you as a person, does not permit it.

I have no problem if someone choose to hide his identity and is therefor using pseudonyms like you, Al Potenza, Mary Yugo, maryyugo, etc,. But what I do not respect, is when someone steals the identity of another person, like you did it with this Facebook account https://www.facebook.com/maryyugo . Not only that you missused the name of that Spanish women, you additionaly added some of her family members as friends and joint her spanisch school group to cover your trace. (By the way, that violates the terms and conditions of Facebook, which you accepted, so you commit a breach of law)

But how sick is this behavior for an educated and more than 70 years old man like you?

And you really think, that you are the right person to discredit the personal integrity and reputation of those scientist?

What I dont understand is, why a medical doctor and 'a vice president of a company which has made and sold advanced and sophisticated thermal instrumentation of many types for decades', a person that claims to be very credible, act in this case like an incompetent 12 year old child with fantasies of omnipotence playing secret agent?

What you are doing has nothing to do with credibility!

Do you have a mental desease, or other problems with your identity or gender, or is your life as a pensioner so boring and the sail boat is also no fun anymore, that you spend your whole time in role playing the secret defender of the faith and truth, a saint on a crusade against all evil in the world named Sniffex, Ecat, Rossi and so on?

It is at least very questionable, why a man like you behave so silly and dishonest? With me you have lost all credibility, I'll just ignore you in the future.