I just don's see any credible evidence that pure NiH has ever produced LENR.
In terms of experiments (not theory), Piantelli seems credible. I would not be surprised if he's using NiH along with something else instead of pure NiH. I recall other things mentioned in his patents.
I feel fooled if it is confirmed [that Rossi and Fabiani were present at the Lugano facility the entire time, and the professors showed up intermittently] as I defended the test based on the limited presence of Rossi's team...
It have to be confirmed, because it is a huge, not only about the independence of the test, but even more on the ethic of the test team.
I also think this is an important point. The Lugano test was so interesting because it appeared to be independent, and the writeup makes it out as such, describing the minimal intervention of Rossi at the beginning and end of the test, and saying that he stepped back from it for the remainder of it. But if Rossi and Fabiani were there every day, and the professors were not, this means that once more we will have had to place trust in Rossi not to interfere. Trust that we would not have afforded him at the time the report came out. Was the Lugano test for us in the peanut gallery, and do our feelings about it matter? Presumably not. But one wonders why, at any rate, it was released to the public.
The professors were operating in the mode of researchers collaborating with other researchers on an experiment, where a great amount of trust is placed in all of the parties to be forthright. But they were dealing with a wily inventor who had up to then gone to great efforts to control the circumstances of his demos in the manner of a showman. The professors, then, if the new detail is correct, lent their name to a report that assumes the best in people, relying on the honor system when it was not warranted. That was poor judgment on their part. There were the video cameras that were running, so maybe that's something.
Speculation: we now have Levi, seeing the Lugano test and what followed it primarily through the lense of a battle between Rossi and his erstwhile funders, strongly attached to the report's conclusions and unwilling to revisit them, and reassured in their soundness by immediate colleagues; and the Swedes, on the fence about the whole thing and hoping not to become party to a lawsuit worth millions of dollars. I know the feeling of not wanting to step into a lawsuit and can sympathize with them if this is what is going on in their heads. People I know have sued or threatened to sue one another and wanted me to do something for them, and on those occasions I have very much not wanted to get involved. This could potentially explain their silence on the report as much as anything (e.g., NDAs).
Keep in mind that for IH even to bring on a technical guy with any kind of qualifications to help them out will have been extremely threatening to Rossi, knowing what we know, so IH will have had to proceed carefully in order not to alienate Rossi. Darden and Vaughn were not technical and so had little basis for pushing back when something felt fishy, and there were Levi and eventually the Swedish team corroborating Rossi's account of things. I would not be surprised if hints that a technical guy was coming onboard provided some of the motivation for Rossi to leave for Florida. Rossi started out as IH's "chief scientist." Then there was this subtle evolution in the relationship, after which he was no longer their chief scientist.
If you do not have direct technical expertise and your network is mostly in something else (e.g., venture capital and remediation of brownfield land), you're jumping into the deep end of the pool to attempt to invest in a controversial technical field such as LENR. Darden and Vaughn may not have been wise in some key decisions they made early on, but I sympathize with them in the many difficulties they will have faced in trying to set out into a completely new field, one with which qualified professionals they might have approached will surely have been sensitive about associating their names too closely.
A. Rossi should be invited at some university with isolated and guarded laboratory, during one or two days the experiments with his heater could be done and once the overunity would be proved with no doubt, then the research of nickel fusion should be established with all seriousness. It's as easy/cheap as it is. Every other attitude is just a better or worse masked attempt for cold fusion dismissal.
There is exactly zero chance that Andrea Rossi will allow a test that would prove without doubt that his devices work. How do I know this? He's had six years of demos and tests with plenty of flaws and for whatever reason has not been bothered to remedy them. I am surprised that there is not overwhelming consensus on this detail, whatever people feel about Rossi.
I'm having trouble even opening the Google Drive listing on an older iPad, both in Safari and in Chrome. I just see the loading spinner. I wonder whether it's the iPad or the browsers.
Forty-Two, I assume you have access to a desktop or laptop computer? If so, that might be the most straightforward way to access these documents for now.
Before I go to the effort, does the following approach make it easier to get to the latest documents?
Thank you!! Eric: Maybe you should add this [ERV data] to the filename?
Done.
My document uploading skills have not been so good today, and I missed several documents:
Document 163 says:
Note that doc. 163 has a discussion that precedes the numbered points as well.
Is 167-01 something the judge has ordered, or that Rossi is asking for?
This was a proposed order for the judge to consider.
(Trying again ...) Several new documents added to the docket:
Note that there are some documents that are cropped out of the thumbnail. (Haven't caught up with the thread; my apologies if this was already pointed out.)
I predict 160, and 160-1 will send the few remaining Rossi supporters, and conspiracy buffs, into an orgasmic frenzy.
Maybe the mysterious Boeing connection?
Docs. 159 and 160 and its attachment added to the docket:
(Sorry if this has already been mentioned.)
I mean, if he said something like "sadly, photovoltaic solar has no role in the future mix of energy," I would guess about 80% of folks here would believe him without questioning.
Perhaps we can come back to this suggestion the next time you suggest that Jed has lost all credibility.
I don't think the Ni in NiH does anything. And we've seen many people fiddle around with pure Ni and H and not get even a single promising result. I suspect that whenever NiH has worked (e.g., Piantelli) it is because there is something heavier in the system as well. My own hunch is that LENR does not involve fusion of any kind as a first order process.
In my suggestion, H does not overcome Coulombic forces. The electron bound to it screens the Coulomb barrier inside the heavy nucleus, causing it to become unstable against fission or alpha decay, as the Gamow theory of alpha decay suggests it will. (There are also possibilities with regard to surplus electron charge and weak decay pathways.)
(We should probably continue this in another thread; the playground, perhaps?)
Under the teachings of the present invention a thorough cleaning of the fusion elements and of the system components eliminates harmful activity or deposition of impurities from the system.
This conclusion about impurities being a problem is either something the author of the patent will have discovered through some kind of investigation or is an article of faith that has no empirical basis, as is usually the case.
I know that some like Ed S. and Brillouin think that H2 may be made to work but I just don't see the nuclear pathways.
How about stimulated radioactive decay and fissioning of heavier elements under the influence of H adsorbed onto the surface of the substrate. Here we would expect to see an isotope effect for H in comparison to D due differences in their masses and other attributes, but not a fundamentally different process.
Imagine there is a team with an exciting new invention that can make a big difference. They are approached by funders, accept a round of initial funding and put in hard, unromantic work to establish the validity and promise of their technology for the next round of funding. They operate in stealth mode, applying for patents for every novel process their technology introduces. They proceed systematically to apply solid science to measure and refine the technology, using careful protocols, controls, and state of the art measurement techniques. The data they collect are numerous, impressive and unimpeachable.
The people on the team have street addresses, and you see them in cafes. They have profiles on LinkedIn demonstrating some amount of relevant experience, whether direct or indirect, and connections to others in related fields.
This description of how innovation starts out and of the people behind it is not a rarity; it happens many times a year in Silicon Valley and other parts of the world. Some groups are successful and many are not. But in either case the description is very different in important respects from the approach of Rossi and co. over the past few years. What we are witnessing is better a study in the psychology the people watching him from a distance, who hold onto a hope in a set of claims without requiring much in the way of evidence, and their willingness to enable and explain away bad behavior as a result, come hell or high water. Hope trumps every last shred of common sense, and we are left with an endless series of arguments to the effect that "well, you don't know for sure that such and such [insert implausible claim] isn't true." This episode tells us nothing about LENR but everything about the psychology of ungrounded hope.
Another detail that came up during a long exploration of that video here sometime back was that the white is at the limit of the camera's range of operation, which seems like a less-than-optimal situation to have.
Those "hot spots" are transitions from red to white, which is a discontinuous color change for a smooth gradation of temperatures. At XºC you have red, and at X + 0.1ºC you have white. It could also be that there were transients, as Pamela Mosier-Boss has assured me the group had reason to believe existed. But the SPAWAR video itself seems consistent with there being no transients and just small shifts at the threshold temperature. From the video alone it is hard to draw a conclusion of hot spots.
