Posts by Ascoli65

@ Shane D.,

Quote from Shane D.

I think UOB has survived Rossi with their reputation intact.

Yes, fortunately. For many years, UniBo has occupied one of the top 3 positions in all rankings of Italian universities, and is often the first ever. The Department of Physics also enjoys a great position among all the other departments. In world rankings they are usually between 150° and 250°. Not bad. However, there is ample room for improvement for the oldest university in the western world.

I believe that the admission of any errors by scientific institutions can help to improve their reputation. As an example, we can consider another glaring case like that of superluminal neutrinos in which the authors took into account the objections raised about their first results, which they then corrected, explaining also the reasons that led to the error. I believe this behavior has increased the public's confidence in those institutions, because scientists are not required not to make any mistake, but to recognize and correct their mistakes as soon as possible.

There is another advantage. The firm request of universities to their members to promptly correct their own mistakes would discourage those people who intend to use their names for inappropriate purposes.

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

Well, you have not pointed out any errors in that report. It has been a long times since I read it. I do not recall any, but perhaps I have forgotten. Anyway, if these errors you refer to are so readily apparent, please point out a few of them.

Perhaps you have forgotten, or maybe you are training your rhetorical abilities.

In any case, you can see (again) in the following link the three major errors (probe, pump, and duration) in the report describing the calorimetry results of the demo of January 14, 2011:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=25650#post25650

The pump issue should be updated as explained in this other link:

Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

Quote from JedRothwell

As you see above, Paradigmnoia found a 6% error in another report. You need to point to a similar technical error is this paper if you wish to back up your claim.

As explained in the first link, the combined error in the Bologna report is, as a minimum, 1500% for the power, and 3000% for the energy.

@ bocijn, Hi

Quote from bocijn

Well you might as a member of the proletariat start by checking through paper 4391

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf

Sorry, I can't. No extra documentation is available on internet allowing to detect any errors on the calorimetry contained in the Mizuno's paper, just as it was possible for the Levi's report (n. 2179 of the Rothwell's list: http://lenr-canr.org/DetailOnly.htm ).

In addition, Mizuno is a private researcher, employed by a private Japanese company, so I have little reasons to spend my time in checking his work. He is free to write and publish whatever he likes.

The only thing I can make you notice is that his paper starts making reference to a couple of Focardi works, and ends by thanking Rothwell for his support. The last time I saw these two names supporting the same calorimetric results was for the demo held on January 14, 2011, whose calorimetric results are reported in the above paper n. 2179. That's not encouraging at all.

Add to this that JR does not yet recognize the blatant errors contained in that same Levi's report:

Quote from JedRothwell

Did you find any calorimetry errors in this paper? What are they? I see some errors in the Lugano report, but I don't recall any in this paper.

Back after the 2 weeks ... ehm, vacation.

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

When I say I am "familiar" with the literature I mean that I have 4,391 cold fusion papers on my disk. [omissis]

(You can see most of the items in the EndNote database here: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1081)

There are many papers that say the results were theoretically impossible. But as far as I know, there are no papers that show errors in the calorimetry.

Sorry for my intrusion. Your database also contains this paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

So, I think that a more careful presentation of these papers should have been:

- among the 4,391 cold fusion papers on the disk, there is at least one paper, written by reputable scientists and reviewed by many experts in the field, that is full of calorimetry errors, thanks to which it was stated that a tabletop device produced 12 kW of excess heat for 40 minutes;

- but for all the other 4,390 cold fusion papers, written and reviewed by as much reputable scientists and experts, there are not, on the web, as many extra documents (videos, pictures, emails, interviews, etc.) that allow ordinary people to check on their own, and decide with enough certainty, whether the excess heat (usually much more exiguous) reported in these papers was correctly measured or not.

@ Alan Smith,

my long and documented comment has been substituted by this words of yours.

Quote from Ascoli65

The content of this post has been removed, since it contains nothing but thinly veiled attacks on Levi and UniBo, despite your assertions to the contrary. Do ir again and you may well be sanctioned or even banned.

I'm very surprised of your decision to completely cancel my comment. Not greened, not moved in the Playground or Clearance Items threads, but immediately deleted. I think, it's the first time this happen in this abrupt way, and I don't see any reason for such a reaction. I didn't used offensive words, and I only reported documented facts.

My comment was not a "thinly veiled attack", it was just a "open plain evaluation" of the apparent behavior of a public researcher at a public university which publicly claimed on many public media of having measured 12 kW of alleged excess heat generated by a table top device during the public demo held in Bologna on January 14, 2011. This conclusion of him was based on a couple of presumed data that I can't explain otherwise, except for an intentional misrepresentation of experimental data. If you have any other explanation, why don't you provide it?

My comment was in theme. THH had just accused Levi of practicing "bad science" following a mistake in the emissivity used in the Lugano report. This aspect seems to be quite controversial and has given rise to hundreds, perhaps thousands of comments in recent years.

On the contrary, the inconsistency between the pump capacity and the flow rate reported in the UniBo document issued on January 2011 is much more apparent and incontestable. In fact, Levi claimed to have calibrated the pump for 2 weeks, but on the front panel of that pump was clearly indicated a max output of 12 L/h, a value much lower than that one he claimed in his report (equivalent to 17.6 L/h).

I can't understand why these considerations are not allowed in this forum. Which specific rules do they break?

Your comment above breaks the rules of civilised behaviour just for a start. As -despite your denial- so did almost every line in your deleted post which actually contained a criminal libel (in some jurisdictions). Accusing somebody who is not a member here of (effectively) deliberate scientific fraud from behind your avatar is certainly worthy of a 2 week ban. And you just got it. Alan.

@ Alan Smith,

Quote from Alan Smith

You have zero idea about Levi or his problems or the academic politics involved. I think it very unlikely he would engage with an anonymous poster on any of these matters. Kindly refrain from further slurs on a very upright man.

The content of this post has been removed, since it contains nothing but thinly veiled attacks on Levi and UniBo, despite your assertions to the contrary. Do ir again and you may well be sanctioned or even banned.

@ interested observer,

Quote from interested observer

Whether the 7+ billion other people on the planet are paying attention to what they should is an entirely different question, but if they are distracted, it ain't by Rossi.

Exactly. As he is used to say: "All energy sources must be integrated, if we want to survive… and multiplicate. Warm Regards."

The media sources are already at work since long.

How many people could have given a look to this cover?

http://worldofmagazines.net/wp…azine_November-2-2015.jpg

And how many of them did read the internal article?

@ can,

Quote from can

He might have not used these exact words, but I think that's more or less what he's often suggested. Did I get it right Ascoli65?

Not exactly. That's only one of the many possible and concurrent explanations, and not directly suggested by me, but insistently attributed to me by some readers on ecatnews.com on the basis of the facts that I put at their attention in order to confute the "Rossi's scam" theory. Now that blog is no more available on internet, but, for what it's worth, an echo of that debate is present in some comments (1-3) posted last year on L-F, and which still reflect my position. Nothing to add about. Let's stick now to the plain facts.

(1) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

(2) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

(3) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

@ maryyugo,

Quote from maryyugo

Ok... thanks to explanation by others I sort of understand Aescoli's theme a bit better. This is all a conspiracy. To do what, exactly, I don't get. Discredit cold fusion? Promote hot fusion? What?

Please, let's leave apart this kind of speculation. I'm talking about facts only, experimental and mediatic facts.

Quote

Anyway, I do think Levi could be so incompetent as to claim a flow rate beyond a pump's capability.

Come on, you are talking about the Ecat, without knowing the basic facts of the test that triggered all the interest for this incredible story. There is no incompetence that can explain the misrepresentation of the flow rate in the calorimetric report of the January 2011 test. The max output rate is written on the label placed on the front panel of the pump (1), and Levi declared (2) that he, and others (he said "we"), calibrated the pump for 2 weeks before the demo.

Quote

It could have been a typographical error that worked its way into his calculations unnoticed or just plain negligence and incompetence.

Could you explain which type of "typographical error" could have lead to attribute to a dosimetric pump a flow rate much larger than its capacity? Flow calorimetry is indeed very simple: just multiply the flow rate by the specific enthalpy increase. Those experimental data have been revised by many physicist in Italy, and US. Do you really think that none of them did care to verify the soundness of a couple of parameters, on which the astounding announcement of a tabletop device capable of producing 12 kW of excess heat was based?

Quote

But IIRC, Levi's experiment written up in NY Teknik in early 2011 where he got 135kW …

Please, let's give the priority to the January 2011 demo. This early test is much better documented that any other Ecat test. Later, if you want, we could reexamine the February 2011 test, which is also very interesting. But it is successive, and in order to understand a test you need first to better figure out the role played by the protagonists in the previous ones.

Quote

I don't think we'll ever know unless we get a confession from Rossi or Levi.

For the January 2011 demo, no confession is required. There is a plenty of documentation provided by the testers themselves, and by those who contributed to write and revise the reports. This test can be considered a test on the reliability of the Ecat people, rather than on the performances of the Ecat device.

(1) Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test (see detail C on the jpegs)

(2) Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

@ THHuxley,

Quote from THHuxleynew

Personally I'm unwilling to substitute deliberate malfeasance for incompetence when we are at such a distance, since incompetence is a powerful thing when combined with a charismatic figure leading one in the wrong direction. But it remains possible. those who know Levi seem to think not, but that again I cannot vouch for, and appearances can be deceptive.

That's a laudable scruple. I'd like to see it applied also when every possible responsibility in the Ecat affair are imputed to only one and the same charismatic figure.

However, we are now talking about public personae that, under the name of their scientific prestigious institutions, announced to the world that they did measure many kW of excess heat. In doing this, they did put themselves in the position to be scrutinized about their reliability by the same people that have been solicited to believe their claims. The estimation of the possible intentionality of their misrepresentations is preparatory for establishing how much credit should be given to any other thing they wrote or said. Doing some mistakes is human and acceptable even for the greatest scientists, but the scientific ethic requires to recognize them and to correct the wrong conclusions as soon as possible.

Now, let's first solve your doubt about Levi: deliberate malfeasance or incompetence? Let's consider the most easily recognizable incongruence in his reported data: the claimed flow rate during the January 2011 demo (17.6 L/h) vs. the capacity of the yellow pump (max. output 12 L/h, but at 60% speed: no more than 7.2 L/h). Can you, please, explain me how this incongruence could depend upon incompetence?

@ maryyugo,

Quote from maryyugo

I think I followed Rossi and Levi pretty closely in 2011 and 2012 and I have no idea what that post means. Not even what the topic is. HELP!

The topic is in the comment of yours, that I quoted before. You were speculating on who could have designed the October 6, 2011, test. I gave you the answer in accordance to a post published by a Levi's friend on the blog "22passi": "… this is exactly the experimental setting that Giuseppe Levi, already in February, explained to me that he had thought about official E-Cat testings programmed at Unibo …" (Google translation).

Quote

I don't want to "guess why" -- EXPLAIN PLEASE.

As you know, since the first demo in January 2011, many people on internet suggested the testers (I mean the academicians who did the measurements and reported the results) how to setting up a much more significant test. The main suggestion was to regulate the coolant flow rate, in such a way to maximize the delta T, but avoiding any phase change. The above excerpt from "22passi" shows that the testers did never had any intention to follow this simple suggestion. I think there is only one reason for this behavior.

Quote

What does this MEAN please? I don't know-- does being extrasupercryptic somehow help?

I don't find it so cryptic. Did you read the linked email? Did you see its title?

It's just an example of what I already told you in another thread (1-2). But you keep on saying: "Misplacement of thermocouples seems to be a trademark Rossi move and is probably how he originally fooled Focardi and Levi with the first ecats."

Hard to say who fooled who. The trademark of the Ecat affair, as well as of other CF/LENR initiatives, is the combination of academic (or equivalent) authoritative declarations, followed by opinion campaigns carried on especially in the blogosphere. Rossi by his own couldn't fool anyone. He was not credible since the beginning.

(1) Is there evidence for LENR power generation of 100W for days without input power?

(2) Is there evidence for LENR power generation of 100W for days without input power?

@ maryyugo,

Quote from maryyugo

And to create all new issues with carefully and purposefully misplaced thermocouples. Or one could speculate that it was designed by a moron. I guess you get your choice.

No need to speculate. Announcing the imminent October 6, 2011 test, a privileged source revealed who, since February, thought about the setting, and who subsequently validated it:

Quote

From: http://22passi.blogspot.it/201…l-brian-josephson-il.html

Mi sembra giusto sottolineare che trattasi esattamente del setting sperimentale che Giuseppe Levi, già a febbraio, mi spiegò di avere pensato per i test ufficiali sull'E-Cat programmati all'UniBO, setting in seguito convalidato assieme ai professori dell'Università di Uppsala.

Google translation:

It seems to me right to point out that this is exactly the experimental setting that Giuseppe Levi, already in February, explained to me that he had thought about official E-Cat testings programmed at Unibo, subsequently validated with the professors at Uppsala University.

Display More

So, the intricate setting of this test is the answer of the academicians to all the critics and suggestions arisen after the first Ecat tests. Guess why.

Now, let's give a "Look at the BIG PICTURE …":

- Before the test, the academic boost: Levi > Josephson > CMNS > 22passi > blogosphere;

- After the test, opinion makers at work: "… and you will see this is irrefutable proof" (1).

(1) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg52546.html

@ Alan Fletcher,

Quote from Alan Fletcher

The entire cavity would have to be filled with LEAD to prove it Fake. Iron is marginal.

Nearly 40 kg of iron (about 5 dm3, less than the volume of the inner box) added to the mass of container and fins, are sufficient to store all the heat necessary to explain the actual behavior of the Ecat test held on October 6, 2011.

See: https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…t/?postID=22374#post22374

@ maryyugo,

Quote from maryyugo

Sorry but, as usual, I am not sure what you're getting at. Are we rehashing all the possible methods Rossi could have cheated? He probably used a lot of different ones at different times. Unless he eventually confesses the details, we are never going to know exactly how he made the ecat appear to produce power.

[Emphasis added]

My point is that it's impossible to attribute all the responsibility to only one "HE".

The method used to try to convince the public about the reality of the excess heat generated by the Ecat has not been some material tricks (hidden wires, stored fuel, etc.), but the bold misrepresentation of experimental data. The public confidence on these data relied exclusively on the credibility of the academicians who participated in the tests. These academicians chose some direct, and non orthodox, channels (usually by internet) to release their reports and/or declarations, where they stated and confirmed the production of huge quantities of excess heat. However, they always avoided the direct confrontation with the common people, because at this point they claimed to be questioned only by their peers. The task of providing the blogosphere with the interpretation of their astonishngly results has been carried on by some opinion makers, that obstinately defended the absolute reliability of the academicians involved in the Ecat tests, and the credibility of their statements. Can all this be caused by only one HE?

For example, consider, please, the incongruity between the nominal output of the yellow pump in the January 2011 demo (max output: 12 L/h, effective output: no more than 7.2 L/h) and the value declared in the calorimetric report (17.6 L/h), which was used for calculating the excess heat. Do you really think it's possible, that the only person who was aware of this incongruity was Rossi (1)?

(1) Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

@ maryyugo,

Quote from maryyugo

After the complete failure of Industrial Heat to confirm that the ecat makes power in the course of having the full rights to it for a year and Rossi's assistance as per contracts, what in the world leads you to think that Rossi's claims have the slightest whiff of credibility?

Where did I say such a nonsense? In my previous comment, I wasn't talking about my credence. I was just referring to the credibility which JR did attribute to the results of the February 2011 test, as expressed in the letter he sent to Josephson and which was posted on physicsforum (1).

Did you read it? In this letter to Josephson, JR excluded the possibility that the Ecat tests could have been magic shows carried out by Rossi, because Levi and his colleagues would have been capable of unmasking whichever trick. But we know that in reality the magician apprentice was Levi, not Rossi. Did JR ignore this hobby of Levi?

On the basis of the above JR's letter, the Ecat testimonials can be subdivided in these 3 levels:

1) The main protagonist, who, however, is considered unreliable: "People have said that Rossi might be a sleight of hand stage magician who fools people.";

2) The academicians, who, on the contrary, are considered indisputably reliable: "No stage magician in history has ever fooled a thermocouple or flowmeter. Instruments are totally immune to the kinds of tricks they use. If Rossi has supplied the instruments we might imagine he changed them, but Levi brought them from the university.";

3) The opinion makers, who suggest to the public how to interpret the claims made by the academicians, as well as their silences, and propose the final conclusions: "What stage magician would do such a thing? Why?!? It makes absolutely no sense. I think we can decisively rule out the chemical fuel hypothesis."

Now, nearly all agree that the chemical fuel hypothesis, along with the batteries one, was wrong, but many of us know that there are other much more reasonable and mundane explanations for those Ecat test results. We could deduce that what has been described in the JR letter is typical of magic shows, in which (n) possible explanations are proposed to the public, and then (n-1) of them are shown to be false, in order to let the people believe in the validity of the last remaining possible explanation, which in reality is even more impossible than the others. The base trick consists in not including the right explanation among the proposed ones.

In conclusion, whoever is interesting in understanding the Ecat events should first reflect upon the roles and reliability of people included in the lowest two supporting levels, avoiding to be too much focused on the main protagonist.

(1) https://www.physicsforums.com/…n-josephson.484427/page-3

@ maryyugo,

Quote from maryyugo

Jed Rothwell has repeatedly asserted that there is significant and credible evidence for an LENR device which sustains a 100W output for days without any input power. If the device runs at 100W for 10 days (240 hours), the energy it would output would be 86.4 Mega Joules or 8.64 * 107J.

[…] I would appreciate it if anyone can help me find either the paper I misplaced or a paper or report which describes a device that purports to do what Jed claims.

[…] Note: 8.64 * 107J seems like a lot but by comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains a bit over 108J.

If you are looking for a document describing a long lasting, high power LENR test, with nearly no input power (ie in the so called self sustaining mode) the most significant, as you well know, is the one published on LENR-CANR (1) which summarizes the experimental data of the 18-hours test held in Bologna on February 10-11, 2011. That document reports that the Ecat device produced 16 kW for 18 hours, with no energy in input except a few tens of W for the control box. The resulting output energy (1,037 MJ) was equivalent to more than 9 gallons (26 liters) of gasoline. An absolute record for a CF/LENR test (except the 1 MW tests).

If you need to be assured on the significance and credibility attributed by JR to these data, you can read what Josephson posted on March 2011 (2). Did you ever see it? It seems a private email by JR, which reveals several inedited details about the 3 tests held up to then by Levi and others.

So, from the point of view of energy output, the February 2011 test still represents the absolute record for any other test carried on along the entire CF/LENR history, and, moreover, it was documented, analyzed, recommended, and strenuously defended (for years) by JR himself.

I really can't understand which better evidence are you looking for. The Ecat tests had been carried out in order to demonstrate the industrial exploitability of LENR, but they only demonstated the lack of reliability of many people involved for whichever reason in them.

Quote

Finally, it does strike me as strange that Jed, for whose good intentions and work ethic I have considerable respect, makes this claim and won't tell us where it came from.

I does strike me, that it strikes you. His way of doing is evident since long.

(1) http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=640

(2) https://www.physicsforums.com/…n-josephson.484427/page-3

@ Shane D.

Quote from Shane D.

I agree with most of what you say. The one exception is the "arrangement of JONP's BOD's not being in chronological order", and your assigning some significance to that.

I've been misunderstood. I meant the order in the Ecat "Hall of Fame" compiled by Krivit (1). That order doesn't reflect anymore the true order, after the publishing of the following statement in April 2016:

Quote

From http://www.infinite-energy.com…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html :

"I heard how Mike became involved in starting to explore what he was doing. Rossi claimed to be closing in on producing a working LENR technology. He had American partners who had worked with the U.S. Navy and were familiar with the continuing interest of the Navy in energy technology. In late 2007 the company requested someone with technical interest and competence to view a demonstration."

After this revelation, the Krivit's list should also includes somewhere the above cited "American partners". The previous excerpt mentions the 3 personae that should occupy the 3 top positions in that list, but we don't know in which order.

Quote

I doubt there is any meaning there, other than Rossi is as sloppy creating a website, as he is in his demos.

Whom, do you think, did Krivit allude, when he wrote about the registration of that website in March 2010 (2)?

Quote

And I surely do not think any on JONP's BODs had anything to do with Rossi's scam.

I never said that it is a "Rossi's scam". Can we, please, call it just the "Ecat affair", or something equivalent?

Quote

Or the fact that some are affiliated with the government, means there is some conspiracy.

I never talked about conspiracies, either. Please, I'd prefer to stick on documented facts.

Quote

In fact, as you already know, Melich's (JONP BOD, and government affiliated scientist) wife wrote that article in her Infinite Energy Magazine when the lawsuit story broke, that "Rossi, enjoyed your company, nice guy, but you are not good for LENR and do not let the door hit you in the ass on your way out".

I don't kwon why she wrote that article. It surprised me a lot, even if I always attributed a big importance to the JoNP's Board. Anyway, whichever was its purpose, that article is much more interesting for what it says about the "way in", rather than the "way out".

Quote

I agree with what you said about Levi being the author of the first HT report in Ferrara. Although Ferrara has survived scrutiny so far as I said, that does not in my mind dismiss the fact that Levi was it's main author, and his role in this affair is still very much in the air.

It's obvious that Levi is the lead author of the Ferrara report, that's not what I meant.

I wanted to stress that the first requisite for a report to be scrutinized is that the authors, especially the lead one, be all credible with respect to the subject treated by the report. In order to be considered a credible author on LENR, Levi should first explain why he used invented data to calculate the alleged excess heat reported in his January 2011 document. Until then, any scrutiny on his Ferrara's test report, as well on the Lugano's, has no meaning at all.

(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…sis-Confidence-Game.shtml

(2) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg38061.html

@ Shane D.

Quote from Shane D.

However, try as we may to put Rossi behind us, I think he is going to be the center of attention for a long time to come.

That's will be true for the common people as long as will last the public debate on LENR. But what I meant is that, in order to understand the essence of this story, the Ecat should be kept distinguished from Rossi, and that addressing his oldest initiatives, as well as the last RvD litigation, is not very helpful, and sometimes it appears intentionally misleading. The Ecat has been the natural outcome of the CF history, not of Rossi's.

Quote

Not because of Doral, as that was an obvious ruse, but because questions still remain as to his early years with Focardi.

Yes, exactly, many questions remain about the early years of this last CF adventure, even before the involvement of Focardi. But, are we sure that all this Ecat affair started with Rossi? Krivit keeps on his site a very interesting page titled: Chronology and Dramatis Personae in Andrea Rossi's Confidence Game. The first 4 personae are the JoNP spokesman and 3 members of its Board of Advisers, but, in accordance to the more recent revelations, they are not listed in the right chronological order. First question: what should be the right sequence?

Quote

Also, the first Hotcat test in Ferrara has so far stood up against the critiques.

IMO the main critique to that report is that its lead author issued also the calorimetric report on January 2011 demo. That should suffice.

Quote

And one can not help but wonder if IH did get a little something in a few of their attempts. After all, even Dameron told the Boeing guy (Childress) that he saw something interesting.

Something? Uhm ... very similar to "It -- the results were there looked like there was something going on."

Quote

Then there are the possible replications of the Hotcat by AP and Songsheng, […] me356 […] MFMP […]

I guess they are only replications of Ecat-like demonstrations.

Quote

So yeah, we can talk about whether or not LENR is real, but Rossi is not going anywhere. By the time we are done with him, he will be a legend...if not already. Just the way he wants it.

Yes, he is already a legend, and he wants it. Maybe he has been predestined to this role. Who knows? But if you want understand a legend, you have to look at its foundation.

@ Bob,

I answer you here because the subject has nothing to do with the pump issue.

Quote from Bob

When will supporters ever have actual support from Rossi himself, instead of having to defend him with conjecture?

Sorry, but I'm not interested in the debate pro/cons Rossi, especially with respect to IH. The recent RvD litigation led to the polarization of the LENR debate around this diatribe, but it looks to me a pantomime, because both parts are supporting, one way or another, the validity of LENR, whereas, IMO, the real debate should be about the reality of CF/LENR as a whole.

@ IH Fanboy,

Quote from IH Fanboy

You haven't answered my assertion that the pump rate at zero bar back pressure can be much higher than at 3.5 bar back pressure.

I thought I did it in my previous comment. This above assertion of you is similar to those I already answered. The sense of my answer was that I don't care of every possible misfunctioning of the pump. They can be put forward for the Doral test, but not for the Bologna demo, because in this case the pump was calibrated by Levi himself, who said in front of the public that the flow rate was 12 L/h (ie the max output of the pump), but then he wrote in his report that the same flow rate was 17.6 L/h, and in the meanwhile he claimed in an interview that the flow rate remained constant since the end of his calibration up to the end of the test. This is an internal inconsistency.

If you want to know more about this incongruity, I suggest you to ask JR, because he was in contact with the "people in the project", asked them the model and the data of the instruments, and he strenuously defended the competence of the testers and of their results. JR was following the CF since many years, he already knew about flow calorimetry, so I imagine he asked Levi how it was possible that a dosimetric pump delivered nearly 50% more than its capacity, while running at only 60% of its maximum speed.

Quote

Investing public funds into LENR research and development is a much safer and better way to spend tax dollars than to flush it down the toilet on hot fusion research, always 50 years away from anything useful. I suspect you will take great umbrage at this statement because maybe you have some kind of connection. Sometimes the truth hurts, but it still needs to be stated.

This is the usual rhetoric scheme used to explain the failing of CF/LENR, but it doesn't apply to me. And it's not even true (1).

Instead, in this case, I partly agree with you: CF(LENR) is safer than HF, because even if their final results will be the same (no excess heat from CF and no exploitable energy from HF) the research on HF is much more energy and material consuming, and generates a lot of contaminated stuff.

But the millions/billions of public money wasted in these two mirages are not the real problem, there are many other economic sectors in which much larger amounts of taxpayer money are wasted in no-way activities. The real problem is that these chimeras are used to influence the public about the possibility of finding viable alternatives to the already known energy sources. This involves the highest levels of the decision chain, the Parliaments, and the Ministries (Departments), even here in Italy. The misrepresentation of the validity of these technologies risks to mislead the decision makers in taking the wiser decisions in such a delicate issue as the managing of the residual energy sources, with serious consequences for everyone.

(1) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…cpage=190#comment-1253897