Posts by quizzical

AlainCo wrote: "Any excess heat would be a success, but what i don't forgive is not recognizing the errors, not correcting the temperature mistake."

One possibility is that the Lugano testers are still convinced that their estimates were correct.
A more likely possibility is that while they realized that their analysis had errors, they still felt that there was excess heat, and so avoided making comments - especially since the heat transfer analysis is quite complex and they were unable to redo the experiment.

In any case, it appears that their claim of excess heat - though the amount is much less than their estimates but IS in line with recent claims of Parkhomov and others - is also in agreement with the recent analysis of MFMP. This suggests that the "Rossi effect" does exist!

Also, one point that seems to be forgotten in all of this is that the Lugano experiment also had a "switch" for self-sustained mode, which they did not use. Presumably, the use of this mode would have significantly increased the COP beyond the MFMP estimated value of 1.17 - 1.26.

Bob,
Can you tell us the estimate - based on the analysis - of the range of excess heat in the Lugano experiment? 7%, 15% 30% ? Thanks.

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from quizzical: “Sorry Jed, still wrong. Many papers are submitted as preprints to arxiv before being accepted (for date priority reasons at the very least) and then the revised, updated version submitted to arxiv once they are accepted.”
Yes.…

Jed,
It's useless to argue with someone who can't read. This is what you said: "I said papers are peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being uploaded arXiv."
This is what I said (paraphrasing): "No, often they are submitted to arXiv before being peer-reviewed and accepted."

Do you understand the difference?

In any case the main point is that MFMP would not suffer any penalty if they submitted a paper to a regular scientific journal even though they provided live data via the web.

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from quizzical: “Jed and others, this is completely incorrect. Papers are routinely submitted to arxiv before being published.”
I said papers are peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being uploaded arXiv. I did not say they are published first, before uploading. The scientists I know who publish in peer-reviewed journals wait for the paper to be accepted before uploading it.

Sorry Jed, still wrong. Many papers are submitted as preprints to arxiv before being accepted (for date priority reasons at the very least) and then the revised, updated version submitted to arxiv once they are accepted. In fact, when you submit, some journals (Physical Review and Physical Review Letters among them) will ask if you have previously posted a preprint on arxiv, and if you have, they ask you to provide the arxiv number, so that this can be included. So these journals, e.g. Physical Review A,B,C,D, and E, and Physical Review Letters do not penalize authors for submitting a preprint to arxiv.

Here are some relevant quotes (May 25, 2013) from the following link: https://www.physicsforums.com/…physical-review-b.693698/

"It is common to upload a paper to arXiv at the same time as submitting it - that's the idea behind a preprint server. Still, as the author you should of course have read the contract you are about to engage in with the publisher. They more often than not explicitly state their policy towards preprint servers. I used to keep a list of journals and their policies on my homepage."

"Uploading a preprint to the arXiv is not a problem with PRB (I always do that). Just make sure you update the submission with the correct reference etc. if/when your manuscript gets published in PRB."

This being said, there are some journals which are more picky about these things, e.g. Nature and probably also Science. But there are many top-quality journals such as Physical Review B where this is not an issue and people routinely upload their "preprints" to a "preprint server" (e.g. arxiv) at the same time as they submit to the journal.

P.S. Some scientists may be cautious and choose to wait until their paper has been accepted before posting, but this is entirely their choice and is not necessary.
P.P.S. As I mentioned, Nature (and possibly Science) may penalize authors for posting on a preprint server, or at least excessively publicizing their preprint before publication. See the following link from 2012:https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201211/preprint.cfm

Here is a rather choice quote from this article:"As the arXiv has become more influential, journals have adapted. Physical Review Letters and other APS journals don’t have embargo policies, and APS permits authors to post preprints of submitted articles (see this month’s Back Page for a comprehensive explication of APS policies). Embargo policies at Nature and Science explicitly allow authors to post preprints of submitted articles without penalty, provided the authors don’t actively pursue press coverage."

Note that in the case mentioned in the 2012 link above, the article was eventually rejected by Nature, not because the author had previously submitted it to the arxiv, but because the author then posted another article on the arxiv which appeared to weaken the arguments of the first article.

Quote from Alan Smith

You are being suspicious. A peer-reviewed journal would not touch an article previously published on the web.

Alan,
As I wrote in another reply to Jed's comment, this is completely incorrect. Peer-reviewed journals routinely publish articles (usually referred to as "preprints") which are submitted to arxiv. (Before arxiv people mailed paper copies or posted them on their own website.) The peer-reviewing process often necessitates changes, and as a result authors will often post the updated accepted "published" version on arxiv after it has been published.

Jed Rothwell wrote: "I believe they are usually accepted for publication and peer reviewed before being uploaded to arXiv. I doubt any major journal would accept a paper verbatim that started life as an arXiv contribution. They would ask the author to rewrite it as a formality."

Jed and others, this is completely incorrect. Papers are routinely submitted to arxiv before being published. I completely agree with and support the idea that if MFMP thinks they have found something, e.g. an interesting effect, then it could be worthwhile for them to submit for publication. JCMNS is a journal devoted to this, and so would be very suitable. While it may take extra time, the value of such a publication would (or should be if it is properly refereed) that it would contain in a concise manner the key information needed to reproduce the effect (although at the moment I don't think they know how to guarantee 100% reproducibility) but perhaps more importantly would force the authors to do the necessary checks to make sure that their result is not an artefact, and has been well characterized etc. On the other hand, I don't think that this is really the purpose of MFMP's work. It is perhaps more fruitful for them to focus on carrying out LOS experiments, and stimulating and assisting further work by others, which might LATER be carried out more formally by a respected scientific group.

Quote from gameover

It appears that MFMP is planning some sort of stunt that will "will prove inside 2 weeks the reality of LENR indisputably and live". I have collected information from that thread. Can you guess whose claims will be tested?

The discussion was held in the…

My guess, or at least one possibility which I think satisfies all of the descriptions given is Mitchell Swartz. He has published many articles in JCMNS, has done demonstrations (with Hagelstein) at MIT, has a company "Nanortech" (http://world.std.com/~mica/nanortech.html) with a COP of 80 (although very low power), and has given numerous talks on his work at ICCF meetings and is I believe scheduled to speak at ICCF20.

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from axil: “I dislike the hate filled recriminations heaped upon Rossi as an act of jealous barbarism that despoils and discredits the people who do it more than the objects of the hate.”
What if the accusations are true? Has it occurred to you…

Jed wrote: "He [Rossi] stole $11 million, and you blame I.H. for getting upset with him!"

Last I heard, Rossi is the one suing IH - not the other way around. As you should know from reading the license agreement, IH paid Rossi $1.5M for the 1 MW plant which was delivered, and an additional $10M (put in Escrow in case the validation test failed and/or the IP was not "validated") once the 24-hour validation test was carried out. This was in 2012 and it is now July 2016.

Even though the 24-hour validation test was clearly successful at least as far as IH was concerned, otherwise they wouldn't have paid Rossi the $10M, if the IP was not properly transferred and they were never able to make a working reactor, is there some reason that IH did not sue Rossi over the past 4 years for the IP?

Is it because they were bound by the contract deadlines, and were "snookered" on the validation test?

And didn't mention this because they were hoping against hope that eventually they might get working IP, and were also embarrassed and/or didn't want to hurt the positive efforts in LENR with bad publicity?

I agree that this is possible, even though it seems a little bit surprising given some of the comments of Dewey Weaver. Especially, the ones in which Dewey discussed suing Rossi for the IP.

There's another problem regarding the IP. The license agreement reads as follows:

"3.1 The total price for the grant of the License and the purchase of the plant is One Hundred Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,500,000)."

So this is in contrast to the claim that $10M is sufficient for all of the IP and the license agreement. Regarding the combined IP and license agreement it certainly does not make sense that if the technology works (and is worth billions) that it would be fair for IH to have access to it, along with rights for most of the world for only $10M. In fact, the claim has been made that if the technology works and the IP has been properly transferred then IH would have been eager to pay an additional $89M for something which is worth billions. There seems to be a contradiction here since a careful reading of the contract suggests to me that it is $10M for the IP only (if properly transferred and validated) but this does not include the exclusive licenses/territories. However, this does not make sense unless one assumes that the $10M only allows non-exclusive use of the non-European territories.

So again one of the key questions is who wrote and/or modified the license agreement? If it was IH it seems very one-sided against Leonardo Corporation. If it was Rossi, then some might believe it was a very clever "bait" by a "fraud artist" to legal trap a greedy corporation which thinks that it can acquire the IP for only $10M along with the exclusive territories in all of the world except for Europe.

Regarding whether or not Rossi's technology works, it would appear to still be an open question. (I know that you, Jed, will continue to focus on the failure of the one-year test, assuming that was the case, but as far as I'm concerned what's more important is whether or not Rossi's technology is real.) There are many reasons to think that it might be real - the testimony of Focardi, a large number of public and/or private tests in the past 5 years, including some positive ones, the 24-hour validation test for IH, the detection of a brief burst of radiation by Celani at the beginning of the Bologna demo in 2011, a rather large number of apparently successful replications using information from the patent and Lugano (Parkhomov and many others) involving Ni/LiAlH, claims by Mats Lewan about the ERV report, Rossi's recent claims about the QuarkX and that he is close to commercialization. There are also reasons to suspect that it might not work (failed tests such as the poorly conducted Lugano test), the claims of IH and (based on information supplied by IH) the claims of Jed Rothwell.

In any case, as far as I'm concerned this is the most important question (e.g. whether or not Rossi's technology works) not some "internal" dispute between Rossi and IH. If Rossi can go ahead and manufacture working E-cats and/or QuarkX's within the next 6-12 months then this should answer any questions about the technology.

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from IH Fanboy: “That was so in 1989, it was so in 2009, it was so in 2011, and it is so in 2016. And it will be so irrespective of whether Rossi is a fraud or has the goods.”

Jed wrote: If he is a fraud, and that becomes generally known, it will make the situation FAR WORSE for every legitimate researcher. No, not irrespective. This is will have a direct negative impact on funding and funding discussions now underway, all over the world.…

Jed,
There's a bit of logical inconsistency here. On one hand you claim that making it generally known that Rossi IS a fraud will hurt LENR research funding but at the same time you are doing everything you can to make it known.

On the other hand, the earlier claim was that it was difficult to get funding when people thought Rossi was NOT a fraud (because he appeared to be so far ahead of other researchers).

So, either way, it is difficult to get research funding for LENR!!!

P.S. Someone pointed out earlier that even before Rossi, and even though P&F were not frauds, they were still accused of being frauds which also hurt research funding.

Estoppel means that IH's motion to dismiss (based on lack of signatures etc.) will be dismissed because they participated in the 1-year test including approving and paying the ERV.

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from I Inventzilla: “why cant other groups reproduce Rossi's results?”
Because they are fake.

Quote from I Inventzilla: “but nobody has run an experiment in self sustain mode for months.”
I do not know of any documented examples of…

Jed wrote: "I do not know of any documented examples of self-sustaining reaction (heat after death) with Ni-H. At least, not without at least heat input."

Take a look at Fig. 2B on Piantelli's Nichenergy webpage which is related to his Ni-H experiments at: http://www.nichenergy.com/results.html

This Figure seems very clear !!! (Black squares show calibration curve of temperature above ambient versus input power, Reddish hexagons show temperature above ambient in active cell as function of input power. Notice that as the input power in the active cell approaches zero the temperature approaches a value (280 C) which corresponds to an input power on the calibration curve of around 60 W, e.g. "heat-after-death".)

Also, notice the following statement on the same webpage under the heading 'Major achievements in over a hundred experiments':

"Fig. A shows the calibration curves (Temperature vs. Power input) and displays subsequent activations
Fig. B shows the step-by-step reduction of the input power following a series of activations until the total elimination of power. The reactor (sealed) has been remaining at a T above 280°C for over 6 months without adding H2 and without interior H accumulations. Finally it was deliberately turned off."

P.S. The same webpage also includes pictures and graphs showing evidence for neutrons, beta+ particles, energetic protons, and alpha particles.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Quote from nobody: “Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:Quote: “Rossi claims that the contingency came to pass and the $89 million fell due and was not paid. However, that is simply a debt, and there is no provision in the contract for termination for failure…

Abd,
This is a point of legal contention, especially since the agreement is confusing on this issue. Here's a quote from the license agreement:

"3. Price and Payments

3.1 The total price for the grant of the License and the purchase of the plant is One Hundred Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,500,000)."

This indicates that, assuming the one-year test was successful, if IH does not pay Leonardo $100,500,000 then they lose the license.

Since the contract is somewhat confusingly written (and so yes, you Abd can pick the portion you want to make the case that you want) I am sure that the lawyers will
have a field-day discussing this. That is the whole point of the lawsuit (assuming that Rossi believes that the one-year test was successful).

Quote from AlainCo

Some commentators claims there is was an escrow system nogociated about the 10Mn$, so payment would be done only when IP transferred.No such system is discussed in <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1580-Dewey-Weaver/">@Dewey Weaver</a> &quot;testimonies&quot;, nor in IH or LC exchanges.

Can someone comment about that?…

After all this discussion about Rossi vs IH you still haven't read the license agreement?

Here is a link to the original license agreement: https://animpossibleinvention.…sdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf

Here is a link to the "First Amendment" to the License Agreement (regarding the 24h-hour validation test):

https://animpossibleinvention.…sdce-16-21199__0001-3.pdf

Here is a link to the "Second Amendment" to the License agreement, regarding the 350 day test:

https://animpossibleinvention.…sdce-16-21199__0001-4.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from zorud: “Maybe the most active &quot;confusers&quot; (on both sides) should be temporarily banned”
The difficulty is that the two sides cannot agree who is acting as a &quot;confuser&quot; and who is telling the truth. That is why there is a controversy. For…

Jed wrote: "For example, Peter Gluck is convinced that I am lying and that the timing of events is crucial."

I don't think that anyone has stated that you are lying, although you have "misquoted" some of the relevant texts and given incorrect figures several times in the past, and also used very strong language such as "idiot" etc, which might indicate to some that you are lying. However, given that all of the documents you have looked at were apparently provided by IH there is still the possibility that you have been misinformed or incompletely informed. This is obviously the issue, since if we automatically believe IH then we should believe you as well. However, if we distrust IH, or at least expect them to release full documentation (including the ERV report) before making a final opinion, then there is no particular reason to trust any information they have given you either. As clearly pointed out by Peter Gluck, three reasons to distrust IH are their public behavior up until the dispute, which includes paying Rossi $11.5 M after the validation test and receipt of IP (as specified in the license agreement) as well as Mats Lewan's statement that those who have seen the ERV report do not see any indication of large mistakes, as well as the belief by some (including myself) that it is difficult for an expert in certification and nuclear engineering to make an error by a factor of 50 unless there is deliberate fraud.

Quote from Timar

Another implication (assuming this offer has indeed been made, so far it is only &quot;Rossi says&quot;): Contrary to the FUD spread by Dewey, IH knows that Rossi has valid IP. If they were convinced that Rossi is a scammer and none of his technology works, such…

Actually, I doubt that any offer has been made. Rossi was, I assume, just responding publicly to a suggestion by a poster on his blog.

Quote from Jack Cole

Quote from quizzical: “I detected a negative bias in your statements, especially since you again state that &quot;probably&quot; Brian is right. That's fine, but I didn't see any specific reason - other than your somewhat unfounded &quot;doubts&quot; about their ability…

Jack Cole wrote: "It is not clear to me that McKubre actually participated in the experimental runs that Godes executed. Do you know if he did or if he just was involved in part of the write-up and included as a co-author?"

Jack,
Look, the article has 4 authors - 2 from SRI (McKubre and Tanzella) and 2 from Brillouin (Godes and George). Tanzella has given several talks on this work and subsequent work with Godes. As I understand it, the tests were conducted at SRI. I've seen photos/videos showing Godes' equipment being tested at SRI. Here are some links to some interesting and perhaps revealing videos regarding the experiments carried out at SRI in collaboration with Godes:

P.S. Interestingly, the first half of the round-table discussion relates to the topic of this thread.

P.P.S. The person in the solid blue shirt is Robert George and with white hair in the black shirt with "white" checks is McKubre. Tanzella is the one with the mustache.

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from Jack Cole: “It is pretty weak evidence to say, &quot;I can't say he wasn't seeing something...&quot;”
When I asked Claytor about this study, he made noncommittal remarks similar to what he told Marianne. He did not dismiss the work, but he did not…

Here's a link (http://www.infinite-energy.com…s/pdfs/BrillouinIE123.pdf) to an actual article in Infinite Energy, by Marianne Macy in which both Godes and Claytor are interviewed. Note that the table on p. 14 specifically indicates that the Tritium level was more than double the background level (and also more than 5 sigma larger) for the electrodes treated by Godes and tested by Claytor.

Here's a couple of select quotes by Claytor in the article:

"was just curious as to what he had. I was running the wire samples and gas at the same time but they were not as prolific in terms of tritium production as Robert’s best samples."

"I’m not interested in writing up a paper with him because I don’t know what the preparation was, what the metal is, how long he ran them. I don’t know any -
thing about the system he used, so in my viewpoint it is not possible for someone to replicate what he did without all those other details. I basically was doing a blind analysis of unknown samples.”

Quote from Jack Cole

I don't think I express that many negative statements. I express doubt. The evidence must force the opinion of LENR after every other reasonable explanation is ruled out. McKubre's saying that Godes did it right is anecdotal and doesn't relate to Godes' gas loading system. Godes past electrolysis experiments utilized a joule heating control vs. an electrolysis control. He needed to do electrolysis vs. electrolysis with an inactive cathode. I could believe the results better if he did that. His input power system is quite complex as I studied it extensively. …

Jack,
I detected a negative bias in your statements, especially since you again state that "probably" Brian is right. That's fine, but I didn't see any specific reason - other than your somewhat unfounded "doubts" about their ability to measure input power - for this bias. I don't know if you looked at the article in JCMNS Vol. 13 (2014) published by Godes, George, Tanzella, and McKubre in which they mention that they ran 150 experiments with two different cell/calorimeter designs and always saw excess heat, typically 100% or more. In section 2.2 they discuss how they conservatively measured both the input power and the output power and included inductive and logic circuit losses. The fact that they saw more excess heat in a higher-temperature "boiler cell" than at "room temperature" suggests to me that this may not be an artefact.

Since you have now brought up the issue of comparing electrolysis results with a control (which from my point-of-view is at least partially related to output power rather than input power) I agree that a comparison with respect to electrolysis with an inactive cathode would make the results more definitive. However, I also believe that McKubre is probably one of the world's experts in calorimetry. So, if you are challenging their results for the output power, then I would argue that you are challenging McKubre's ability to do calorimetry. If that is the case, then I have to assume that you also question all of his earlier electrolysis (P&F) results as well as those of P&F. Is that the case?

P.S. You haven't said anything about Claytor's tritium results (using the Godes' protocol). Is that just "chopped liver"?

P.P.S. While I still have some doubts, based on these considerations (and also what is perhaps an overestimate of the capabilities of SRI) my bias is more positive than yours.

Axil wrote: "Back in 2011, I identified lithium as Rossi's catalyst. Does that invalidate Rossi's patent since the use of lithium or any of the alkali metals are the LENR catalysts and therefore are prior art.See post as follows:Patent office dispute between Piantelli and Rossi?"

Hidetsugu Ikegami published a "book" on this in October 2012. In that book he references earlier work he did related to LENR involving hydrogen and lithium which was published in 2001 (H. Ikegami, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 40 (2001) 6092) and 2006 (H. Ikegami, Ultradense Nuclear Fusion in Metallic Li Liquid, No.1, Swedish Energy, Agency ER 2006:42, Revised Ed. Sakaguchi E.H. VOC Co. Tokyo/Sakura, 2007).

Also here is an interesting quote from me356 that suggests that Lithium is not at all necessary: "The only thing I would like to say is that Nickel - Hydrogen reaction (even without lithium) can yield inconsiderable amount of neutrons. From thermal to high energetic. I can create this on demand and it is little bit worrisome. "

.

Quote from me356

I can't tell the details, although I would like to share my excitement.

In some experiments, with a certain materials and in a certain conditions, one can establish a transfer channel. It can be considered as &quot;a black hole&quot;.
This mean, that in just few…

Me356,
This sounds a little bit like Mills' hydrinos (shrunken hydrogen). Do you think this is a possibility, or is it more like a "transfer channel" as you stated (which sounds like a quantum effect)?

P.S. In previous posts you mentioned specific details which other "replicators" were ignoring. I would guess that one of them is related to EM stimulation. Was one of them related to the specific size/dimension so as to establish a resonance condition?