Posts by candide89

According to Mr Mondaini that was the signal of De. He then made experiments in de- deuterated water, to ensure he was not just exciting the De already present in the water and he concluded that he might be generating De

Quote from Mary Yugo

As for LENR research support, watch it reverse and wane when Rossi bites the dust for good and Brillouin turns out to be hot air (not LENR hot, just BS hot) along with Miley, Swartz, Celani and Nanospire. Ni-H work will be defunct as it probably should be, and unfortunately, Pd-D work which might possibly show at least a possibility (albeit small) of merit, will suffer as well. In the long term, Rossi, Defkalion and Darden will be a nightmare for the legitimate researchers in LENR.

Let me allow to differ on a few points here.

• Rossi did not steal work from Piantelli or Focardi, as there are deep differences in the setup. He just seems to have started meddling with H and Ni with Focardi's help, taking a completely different way from Piantelli's.
• Ni-H remains IMHO a legitimate LENR filed, as well as Pd-De, because both have real scientists working on them that produced interesting results, albeit short on energy output in comparison with the claims of the Rossis and Brillouins of this world (I'm not agreeing that they are scams, only I don't fully like the style).

If you have ever taken the time to read Piantelli's peer reviewed papers and patents, you would have seen proof of both points, seeing how different the approaches are, and how Piantelli describes plenty of interesting phenomena that bear all the hallmarks of LENR, only he is much, much more prudent and reserved on his claims than most of the remaining circus. This does not mean (in my view just the opposite) that his results are less worth of credit.

So Ni-H, in a nutshell, to me is as legitimate as Pd-De, no matter what you think.

Having seen your name in so many fora in my reading of this (for me) new and fascinating field, on the other hand, I only wonder about these quite strong positions of yours: if I were so sceptic, I would not spend all the time you seem to be spending on the subject, what's the mobile, then?
It's a unicorn? Let others run after it, and get a life.

What is true in your statements, on the other hand, is that the noise on some other phenomena might be relegating serious researchers in both fields to also-run in the quest for funding, while they would instead deserve more. They're a nightmare already now, probably.

There are now so many replications now that I find it difficult to believe that they all, having in some cases been inspired by one another, are questionable since they all lead to similar results even with different devices. And one of these is the MFMP you mention, that thanks Parkhomov for some input, so lends him additional credibility IMHO. Of course, the more the merrier, and I know of several other groups in my neighbourhood working on that that will surely take the recipe and cook it.

As far as Rossi is concerned, I shared the doubts expressed by Shane D. and more, but I now try to explain them in other ways, since I no longer believe in a scam.

Giving a wrong address for the place where work was supposed to be done, might be justified by the risk that the N in LENR might attract unwanted attention, even though the phenomena are not those intended by nuclear safety as we' know it, and he's been verifying emissions in public tests and therefore being sure of the safety of it. Other contradicting declarations might just be due to spreading wrong information to put followers off the scent.

Sorry for intervening on an apparently long story of which I obviously don't know all the details, but may I ask, as a newcomer in this forum, why is this relevant to LENR (which is more or less the gist of a couple of comments above?)

Having participated in many similar research projects (one of which on thermoelectrics for automotive heat recuperation, which did not lead to the expected breakthrough), I can say that an unsuccessful outcome of such a project (as it seems to be implied by the phrase " nothing to suggest any high efficiency prototype ever worked") is difficult to prove to be a scam, let alone after so many years. These projects are not paid "by achievement of results", but by "best effort", so not reaching high efficiency or a sufficient durability is not enough grounds for defining such a project a scam, otherwise this would be true for 60-80% of them. For instance, if these were the metrics, how would any manager of defence programs like the F35 or the Boeing tanker still be at large ?

Of course this issue might be raised because somebody still deems Mr Rossi's eCat a scam and wants to establish a link. If so, may I ask on which grounds?

In fact, after reading some of the abundant material on this site, in particular the very recent replication announcements, I came up with the following "reductio ad absurdum":

1 Assumption: Rossi is a scammer
2 He has manipulated all his tests (including the ones where the device was handled by third parties, which are obviously colluded.)
3 He swapped the fuel from the Lugano tests with one having an altered isotopic composition
4 This fake material was analysed with a mass spectrometer and the results published
5 Mr Parkhomov, Songshen Jiang et al deduced from these fake data a composition of the fuel (that happens to be the one in the awarded patent) and build a replica eCat
6 These replications, and other, seem to work, including the one by MFMF that has been conducted in a quite transparent way. Yesterday announcement by Mr Jiang even shows self sustaining operation for a relatively long time.

My (simplistic, I admit) deduction is that either it's not a scam, as multiple scientists cannot develop different working devices from fraudulent data, or one must look into a wide conspiracy where all the replicators are in fact accomplices of Mr Rossi.

Am I missing something?

Thanks for any clarifications