Posts by THHuxleynew

    I was getting things wrong (OOM issue!). So I've deleted my posts.

    This looks interesting, but not much like LENR.

    No one outside Rossi's group knows for sure but the indications were that he couldn't control the early E-Cats well enough. Like many inventors he kept trying to develop a better reactor. Consider the range in sizes and designs that he has come up with. It is natural that he hoped each one was the answer but even the reactors in the later 1 MW trial gave problems and on inspection afterwards were found to be in poor shape.

    I don't know where you people get the idea that it doesn't take a longtime to develop a new technology, particularly if it is not well understood.

    Consider how long it has taken hundreds of well funded scientists and engineers o come up with a hot fusion design.

    It is rather the opposite. Most here think it is taking Rossi an infinite time to develop his new technology, since there is (taking the public evidence as a whole) no evidence that his ecats have ever generated excess heat.

    See Mats Lewan's updated "Reflections on the Nov 24 E-Cat QX demo in Stockholm"

    He concludes Rossi's explanations were believable and as an engineer actually present at the demo his voice is far more believable than the distant, anonymous critics here.


    Mats is not an engineer. However he is a journalist and has been a remarkably good PR advocate for Rossi in the past.

    Mats saying this now, when the (not disputed) facts of the demo are different, makes him far less believable, not far more believable.

    Since the QX and fluorescent lights are both plasma based systems, they might share the same lifetime shortening behavior of turning the systems off and on frequently. The QX life expectancy might be maximised is the QX is kept active continually without interruption.

    In light of this possible operational constraint, a stand alone cryptocurrency generation system can be supplied with the QX home power system whereby the homeowner could produce the QX user's own crypto-money when the power produced by the QX system was not night or when the QX user was at work. But do people need to work when they can produce their own money?

    This is more tangential than usual even for Axil.

    Perhaps, Axil, you could indicate how an quark-x, even as claimed by Rossi with no evidence and significant circumstantial evidence against, to be a device that generates heat and possibly electricity and multi-coloured light, could also mine cryptocurrency?

    I realise that the moderators here do not consider your posts OT on this thread, but I beg to disagree, and cite this as a prime example.

    What is the point of making assertions wildly at odds with the facts?

    Jed, that statements applies to your assertion. My 1st statement is a counterfactual:

    Since no repeatable, well-instrumented, and carefully controlled CF experiments show COP of > 1.3

    No amount of facts can prove what I say. However you can try to disprove it with factual evidence (which however I may interpret differently from you). You are, ironically, guilty of what you accuse me!

    My second statement:

    the input power varies over a wide range

    does require proof, if you dispute it, but I thought it was uncontentious. Do I need to do this?

    No, you tried to explain it in various ways, but the papers show that your explanations are ruled out.

    No, they are not. There is no correlation at all. Input power is a function of electrolysis, and it can always be explained by conventional electrochemical factors such as the distance between the anode and cathode, and the concentration of the electrolyte.

    You just made that up, out of whole cloth, without a shred of evidence. Just the way you pretend you can explain heat after death, even though your explanations (at Abd's site) are easily shown to be wrong.

    Jed, I won't attmpt to change your mind, but will answer your points:

    (1) re papers show my explanations are ruled out. That is no doubt your bald summary of a long technical debate we could have (perhaps have had). It is not mine. To advance further we would need to return to the debate, best on a dedicated thread. I am aware, as is everyone here except perhaps some new people, that your views and mine are different. And I stand by my views especially on the paper that we have looked at most, Fleishmann's from simplicity to complexity....

    (2) Since no repeatable, well-instrumented, and carefully controlled CF experiments show COP of > 1.3 and the input power varies over a wide range my point is made.

    The only Ecats that rusted were the LT's, and now they, along with the HT, are obsolete. So hardly worth a debate now, as to whether it was the secret catalyst. Rossi is leaving those rusty days behind, as he moves on to smaller and Sigma 5 things. Smart of him, as his customers do not want those old rust buckets anymore, and instead await the coming of the QX that outputs what it's controller inputs. Plasma does not rust thank goodness....or does it?

    I can't see why this is clearance. The technical notion of plasma rusting is at least as plausible as any of Rossi's technical ideas. Clear scientific contribution. Axil would perhaps be able ingeniously to find some way in which polaritons could mediate this.

    Research funds are generally tight. So, you can't expect them to be invested in an area that has had at least two and possibly three independent boards of expert scientists conclude the claims in that field are questionable.

    I'm presenting my opinion as to why claims of low power/ energy LENR can't be scaled up: the low level measurement error does not scale up. Also, when more accurate measurement is done, these low level measurement errors decrease along with the magnitude of the claimed COP. This is pure speculation on my part and not to be considered fact: perhaps certain CF/LENR techs are scaling down to lower powers and not up to higher powers because they are making more accurate measurements and have to go lower to find positive COP.

    If anyone has their own opinion as to why these claims never scale up, feel free to post them.

    Scaling up is not the main issue. It is that an exothermic nuclear reaction, to be sustained, seems always to require significant power input (in well instrumented cases large compared with the output). It is very difficult to see why this should be. Temperature can be regulated in many ways without significant power input.

    Jed would point to so-called heat -after-death observations. But I've not seen quality reporting of that other than could be otherwise explained.

    The vast majority of excess heat results are suspiciously strongly related to input power. MFMP for example noted this and decided to make a well insulated device that should deliver clearer results. A great idea. And what happened? I have not heard anything, which I think means that results were not clearer - pretty well a proof that the apparent excess heat was an artifact. If I'm wrong and there were better results, let me know. If this better device has not been tested yet also let me know, but I vaguely remember initial tests being done?

    Sorry - no comment, since knowing more would be of little use to you beyond satisfying your curiosity for a moment. I gave a technical response to a technical question about scale, and nothing more.

    You quoted a possibly authoritative insider. But, for others to evaluate that authority, it would be helpful to know who that person was. Unqualified they sound authoritative but with more information we might agree or disagree with that.

    Blanket statements without qualification are (EDIT almost - qualification inserted) never helpful. But, in this case, MY's statement could be interpreted half true (unless you have a counterexample) in a more nuanced fashion:

    Mizuno has never had replication using independent methodology by his peers.

    The other half - the "peer review" part, is a moveable feast. I can't see that the paper you quote adds much to Mizuno's writeup in terms of critiquing the methodology? it might be interesting, if it did, to look at the work and the other authors replicating it in more detail on a separate thread.

    MY's fake persona. I'm not familiar with this terminology. MY is (avowedly) an alias, one used consistently for many years and therefore with a substantial (non-fake) reputation - whether you like it or not. I don't think the use of the word fake here is at all helpful.

    Just, in the spirit of harmony and good will, to resolve some of these apparently contradictory points:

    Alain: Rossi will do what he wants whatever other people think

    MY: Rossi cares about what others think - look at JONP!

    I believe both statements are true. Rossi appears narcissistic (using the word informally) in a world of his own, convinced he is right, unable to accept contrary views. He also seems motivated by the love of his internet fans which he certainly puts great effort into cultivating. The two statements are only contradictory if you think that Rossi behaves rationally in all respects. That has been shown to be false.

    Mizuno: experiments peer reviewed. First, no-one I think is saying Mizuno is other than a genuine researcher. That does not mean that he is correct. He has a few times made claims that turned out wrong due to later discovered and acknowledged calorimetry mistakes. Therefore if others follow his methodology and obtain the same anomalous results it is not surprising. Whether he (and those following) have correct calorimetry is a matter for debate. The good thing is that these things come out in the wash. Replicable experiments showing something anomalous get repeated and simplified until the anomalous issue is very clear, or, in the case that the anomaly was an experimental lacuna associated with a particular setup, attempts to clarify it fail.

    I've heard some people here say that peer review guarantees correctness. Far from it. Peer review increases confidence. How much depends on many things. In this case replication with similar setup eliminates one set of issues, including the improbably possibility that Mizuno is not honest, and one-off artifacts, but leaves on the table others. Working out what is true is not a yes/no Damascene process. It is a matter of probability in which evidence accumulates (or not). That applies in both directions, but where the claims are extraordinary, and do not correspond to any coherent explanation, it is natural and proper to be skeptical.

    Mizuno: large reactors with names. If the claims are that these large reactors generate significant excess power that might be significant. But the figure of 1kW, or even larger though that was not claimed here, most be put into context. If from 100W in then the possibilities of calorimetry error are small and require Rossiesque ignorance. If 10kW goes in, then we are back in territory where it is difficult to be sure the results mean anything, because there are many different possible sources of 10% anomalies. I don't see the scientific value of large reactors with weird names unless they generate more compelling scientific data. Presumably if they did in this case we would be discussing them. But, equally, Mizuno might properly think that they could generate such better data, so the motivation to make them exists, and I don't see that naming reactors counts either for or against scientific merit. I suppose it might point towards a possible slack of objectivity - but such a mild and usual fashion that no-one could seriously give it any weight.

    The chances that the guys who do not really know for sure what is charge and magnetic field and heat build a device to magnetically contain heard charge are about the same as if da vinci built a bomber

    Yes, well, since these guys have done that, perhaps da vinci was a clever guy too! Or perhaps those thousands of hours of field simulations are based on understanding?

    Perhaps you would care to use the 'warn' tab on a post that offends you so that the team can consider your request. However, at first glance Axil's posts are describing the Q-X reactor, which is THE thread topic.

    Alan, I beg to differ. Axil's posts don't offend me. But they make no sense and do distract. There are other places they could be put.

    Looks great. They need to shrink the size of it to doughnut size for better controllability or use palsma inside of cigarette size cylinder or just borrow damn qarkx directly.

    Yes, but if you note the required PSU it is not feasible to mismeasure it's output so as to get apparent power gain from a resistor the way Rossi does. Basically, Rossi's technique does not scale up to this size, so the quarkx is no help here.

    Wow! This is incredible. The breakthroughs in real fusion are starting to happen, just like I've been predicting. Check this out:…r-jar-fusion-reactor.html

    Stellerators are interesting. Incredibly complex topology (which we can now calculate properly, and it seems build properly) with the possibility (no more) of much better cheaper confinement in smaller devices. What's not to like - except the Daily Mail whose science reporting though not too bad here is not to be relied upon!

    So Sorry. Its managed now by I.H. and you can't get at it. It still lives. IH has propagandist far more skillful than you are at their disposal...look at what they did to Rossi.

    Don't you think perhaps that Rossi might have just a little bit of responsibility for behaving like a deceitful fraudster over the Doral test? There is no doubt that his behaviour strongly points to such an interpretation, because he states in Court documents that he misled both Hydrofusion and IH. Such blatant deceit needs no propaganda. rather it is the other way round, to spin Rossi's story thus far positive you need a good propagandist: of which I note Rossi has many.

    That spectrometer Rossi uses is fully capable of directly reporting the measured radiant flux calibrated to W/m2. Just need to shrink that down to the appropriate area, and there is the output power. No need for integrating a wavelength using Wien's Law, etc.

    And, as we know, fluorescent light is not black body but instead has strong spectral lines. Using Wien's Law based on the intensity of one of those lines is therefore bound to overestimate output power.

    All this mis-measurement is Rossi experimental practice101. He's done it before (the original Quark-X paper).

    If Rossi gave some parts to Lewan to examine, it's an easy bet that the trickery, if trickery was even needed for this non-demonstration, was elsewhere.

    No trickery needed since input power was not measured.

    Rossi's argument is based on unmeasured statements (that may or may not be true) and unwarranted assumptions about the behaviour of the PSU. Whether you call this trickery or bad understanding of his setup I guess depends on whether Rossi in some deluded way believed what he was saying. I won't comment on that.

    What? TC is not a scientist. There is nothing that indicates he is. He is an anonymous nobody on the Internet writing something that is supposed to look technical, but the only important information in the article are the ad-hom accusations of Rossi, Levi et al. Those both reveals and are the whole purpose of it. I've been thru this with Eric already who compared with Higgins who is areal scientist and which is shown his presentation of his paper, ie. no ad-homs and not anonymous.

    That would appear to be a non-technical judgement of TC's paper? And based not on its scientific merit but your subjective views of the author? How, in any case, would you define a scientist? Personally I'd go by the quality of the work - and if you cannot judge this yourself you should not throw stones.

    There are, here, a few here who can judge TC's paper. You could, if you had high school maths and were prepared to read it. So you don't have to rely entirely on your own judgement, unless you believe all these are conspirators.

    Comparing Higgins (1st) paper with TC's paper neither has ad homs - perhaps you could point me to them? The postlude in TC's paper is not an ad hom but directly relevant information explaining why it was published - there would have been no need if the original authors has corrected or refuted TC's work. However, Higgins' paper does have one error corrected by TC (he references it, builds on its work, and as often happens in such cases improves). You could ask Higgins here whether he agrees with TC - he has certainly never said he disagrees. The later MFMP/Higgins paper is orthogonal to TC's and broadly in agreement with it. it has experimental not theoretical arguments and where both new experimental and theoretical arguments say the same thing (that Lugano was badly wrong) it is doubly convincing. And many others (GSVIT, Paradigmnoia here, etc, agree, all with well-written cases).

    BTW - invoking TC as an "anonymous nobody on the internet" is an ad hom in the context of reviewing a scientific paper where the content is relevant, not the identity of the author.


    Don't flatter yourself. I'm most probably a way more practical tech person than you can imagine... (if you want to play the game like that). I know about the "TC" Lugano job. It's exactly what I would call a textbook type of conspiracy theory (even though it carefully tries to look like something "scientific").

    Care to expand on why the TC paper is a conspiracy theory?

    Unless you think that scientists pointing out other scientists have made a technical error is a conspiracy. It is what scientists do. And, most scientists reply to it one way or another. All part of the scientific process that corrects for individual errors.

    OK, so I still want to look at this properly, and that must wait later.


    I expect the calculation with ridges to be comparable with the calculation from a surface area which is the ridges outline multiplied by pi, with emissivity adjusted as per TC paper (but never more than 1.

    Which means in this case that the correction for the ridges is roughly (maybe exactly) 1.23 X more power on top of Tc correction.

    And that may be compatible with your surface area * Fbg or not. It does now look in right ballpark. if compatible all is as it should be, but need still to flow from this consequences re Lugano results.



    This is Rossi's way to tell his faithful flock not to expect him to put anything on the market for a long, long, long time. Of course, most of the planet knows there will never be a product at all, for obvious reasons.

    translation is possible:

    Rossisays: "I'll let the market be my judge, not scientists"

    It means: "I've got enough funds to go on for at least a other 12 months without new investment"

    Rossisays: "I've got a new demo planned for X months time"

    It means: "I'd like to hook some new investment via positive PR"

    Rossisays: "There will be an independent test"

    It means: "These friends of mine with scientific credentials are unwisely letting me advise on and run their test: I think I can make it give positive results, and prevent them from running a valid control"

    Then simply don't make them. How hard can it be?

    From my point of view it sure looks like you're making psychological assessments of Rossi, Fabiani, Levi, Alan etc (more or less everyone supporting Rossi in any way.) It also looks like those people you're creating conspiracy theories about know a whole lot more about Rossi and the experiments than you do (wherever you may roam). Which brings me back to the orignal question. Since you seemingly do not care about actual first hand experience and real facts, but only pseudo-facts and remote analasis of human behaviour - What credentials do you have to back this pseudo arguing up?


    Whenever we accept other people's unsubstantiated evidence we make a psychological judgement as to their reliability to deliver that evidence. It is not exactly brain science. the only time this is not done is in a religious context where certain matters are accepted on faith.

    You have a logical disconnect. You repeat your statement that I am making conspiracy theories without one thread of evidence for this, nor even saying what you think the theory I propagate is.

    Perhaps you are not a tech guy, or have not been following Rossi for many years. The issue with his demos is that the detailed experimental descriptions written by those people who did the experiments do not show Rossi's claims, and in some cases directly contradict his claims.

    My credentials for being more accurate than Levi over analysis of (say) the Lugano data is that as has been argued here for several years now, in detail, against all comers, Levi made an elementary mistake which (last I heard, from Mats, a years ago) he had still not recanted. If you understand spectral emissivity and how Optris thermal cameras work you can validate that for your self, all the info is here. We all make mistakes, but Levi has published a bad mistake and never retracted or corrected, bad form, or great incompetence, given that he was made aware of the mistake in TC's writeup.

    None of Rossi's other strong supporters have shown skill in experimental work for Rossi. You could look for example at the execrable experimental write-up signed by Penon where he does not even state what instruments he uses to measure voltage and current - something that it turns out is highly relevant to the results: RMS AC vs average AC wrong gives a spurious positive result. After much critique the story was that although Rossi released this report signed by Penon, in fact it was not Penon's report. That is sort of worse, since it indicates a lack of concern with professional honesty from Penon to let such misattribution stand, or a bald-faced forgery from Rossi, if Penon was unaware of the false report.

    You probably are at some disadvantage here not having worked through all the technical details of these many reports yourself. But the good news is that all the material still exists - you can do it now.


    You are perhaps not reading the paper. I quoted some relevant parts. There are no such free parameters in the Hylleraas coordinates method. Each coefficient in the expansion is precisely calculated except for one (the high order corrections) which is many OOM below Mills' errors.

    Wyttenbach says this is a polynomial fit with 6 arbitrary values. It is not. Each of the coefficients is calculated from first principles. And the same theory is used to calculate many observables to high precision, not just ionisation energies, but ionisation lifetimes, etc, and for many different atoms. I'd suggest that you read source material first before accepting what posters here summarise. (That goes for me too, of course).

    You should instead ask how Mills' theory can be correct when it is so badly different from experiment but has, it seems, an exact analytical solution.

    Tony . Re #829 above.

    I'm not myself a fan of conspiracy theories. No such conspiracy is needed to explain Rossi. He needs a very few supporters who accept what he (Rossi) claims and not look ask critical questions about the technical stuff. Rossi tends to kep a very small number of very close workers (Fabioni and Levi) perhaps now Bass too. These people appear totally convinced by Rossi's stuff. Given that Rossi is charismatic and passionate about his work (or, as MY would say, good at seeming this) it is easy for people to buy quite honestly into things bit by bit that when looked at objectively as a whole seem like something they could never do.

    So I don't see the necessity for any conspiracy, and myself tend not to go that direction. Equally, should one of Rossi's co-workers be well aware that Rossi's stuff does not work (how BTW could they know that, since you cannot prove a negative?), such a person with a close long-standing relationship would not make a conspiracy.

    I'm thinking you mention conspiracy theories here attacking a straw man when mainly the conspiracies suggested here are from Rossi believers, not skeptics.

    As for Alan's perspective. I think people can get convinced of things and then not let them go, fitting all evidence to a belief. You are at liberty to view the unsubstantiated judgement of Alan as (to you) convincing. For me anything so clearly supported and publicly espoused without substantiating reasons is a warning sign: in that case I reckon the messenger is not open, or intrinsically biased. However I don't see this as a reason to pose conspiracy, perhaps you differ from me there.

    Well THH, since you seem unable to figure out what is happening and what makes other people reason the way they do my suggestion is to pick up a mirror and look into it, and voilà there there you have the problem...

    Perhaps you could expand on this?

    I only find a few people (like Alan) surprising in this respect. For example, I don't find your position difficult to understand. Rossi has always attracted adherents, as do many cults. I'm not saying Rossi is a cult, but the same ability of humans to support a cause strongly and overlook contrary facts applies. And in this case as has been said above even a number of die-hard internet fans, though never all, are finding it difficult to reconcile developments with a positive view. The Rossi critics, who have been in the majority most places since the IH bust-up, would I think agree with me.

    Bob - Well, sorry you feel that way. I have done my best, but in the face of a flood of other reports (Mats, ECW's rep) it seemed unreasonable to write up much of the same things again. I do remain gently skeptical but in general I am positive that Rossi has got something real, and I am not alone in that. If I had no hope, I would not have gone, but as someone there said to me 'This is the hottest ticket in maverick science'.

    Nothing I didn't see has made me change my mind about Rossi's general flakiness, but nothing I saw has made me want to disavow the man. If donors thought they were paying for a Damascene conversion, they are doomed to disappointment, since I am not so easily bought. And anyone who would like their cash back on the grounds that they donated expecting me to rubbish Rossi on my return only has to ask. I should remind you that I never asked for donations, they were volunteered, much to my surprise -they certainly made it easier for me to go, and I did appeal for people to stop donating when it yielded enough to cover my flight and hotel. I remain grateful for the support, as it helps me to continue with my own support of researchers with materials and equipment 'pro bono'. I try to give back at least as much as I receive.

    ps. Sincerely glad the market is looking after you, in 2008 I did a lot of looking after the market. But some things will defy gravity, at least for a while.

    The Rossi skeptics here will find it difficult to reconcile your views as above, entirely consistent and expected, with facts. It seems there is mysterious (to external observers) persuasive evidence which leads you and, as you say and I can believe it, some others, to think that contrary to external evidence Rossi has something that works.

    What I find interesting about this is that apparently honest and thoughtful observers like you fall under the spell of this persuasion, and yet are unable crystallise the evidence in a form that works for others.

    Some here may point to conspiracies as a way to resolve this minor mystery. I don't: but it remains part of the fascination for me of the Rossi case that somone so obviously dishonest in terms of his science and engineering should attract such support. I see it as more a psychological mystery than a scientific one.