Posts by THHuxleynew

    I think Rossi saw this coming, and shifted the January demonstration out of state. A FYI for our newcomers; Rossi has already been reported to the Fl. BRC twice (2X's)...first by Gary Wright, and then again by IH at Doral. They (BRC) know him well. And both times (3x's if you count North Carolina) they visited the premises, found no radiation, a factory, or anything actually.


    But this time may be different...you never know.


    Rossi just needs to tell them he's a scammer and they will go away.

    So you are not sufficiently certain the SK doesn't work to bet on it either . But you did manage to get in your obligatory insult to Rossi.


    AA: i'm happy to bet, but last time:


    (1) You would not agree a satisfactory verifiable endpoints

    (2) You seemed to think it 90% certain Rossi was in fact a scammer, and therefore wanted odds of 10:1 in your favour. That made it not worth the hassle given the need top put up a 10X stake for some considerable period of time: there being no near-term satisfactory verifiable endpoint.


    I'm happy to take money off people on the internet through best in areas where I believe my judgement more accurate than theirs. So, on this matter, are many other people. Do you want to try again to find mutually acceptable terms? I'm not unreasonable.

    Thanks, but it doesn't look like even SOT has the courage of his conviction

    You deserve a medal for wading through all this trash.


    Adrian,


    it requires no courage, but some degree of intellectual dishonesty, to spend time on a thread extolling the possible virtues, and ignoring the deceits, of an eccentric inventor/ scammer where, when asked pointed questions, you reiterate that you can't draw any conclusions but are not prepared to look at historic negative evidence.

    Axil, nobody hopes Rossi fails. Seriously. Yes, it would be bitterly ironic if the solution to the world’s energy problems came from a dishonest nutcase, but I am sure we all could swallow that bitter pill in exchange for its benefits. What we can’t swallow is Rossi selling the same pack of outrageous lies over and over again and people like you eagerly falling for it.


    It is Rossi's genius that he convinces so many people he is trying to make novel nuclear power production devices when in fact any long-term reading of his actions would support only that his aim is in creating a band of followers and convincing whoever can be to give him money.


    Notice that even in your post above you are implicitly crediting him with a desire to have working technology! Anyone paying attention to his actions and statements knows that not only has he no engineering or scientific competence, but he has no respect for or interest in either engineering or science. He enjoys persuading people he is a genius, and puts all of his energies into PR.


    And in any case a negative result for ATER would never disprove the hypothesis. ATER, like LENR, could be dependent on unknown difficult to reproduce surface conditions at the electrode.


    So ATER enthusiasts can continue to point to the few results that ATER explains and ignore any negatives.

    Kirk has one ATER paper AFAIK. LENR has thousands., but proof is in the eye of the beholder.


    The issue, not addressed by LENR researchers, is how many of those thousands papers provide support for ATER?


    Phenomenologically it and LENR are very similar. Skeptics would however argue that most of those papers provide support for neitehr ATER nor LENR (and I think a good many LENR researchers would agree).


    The key distinction showing LENR not ATER would be your lovely gammas, if those prove to be the result of unexpected metal hydride-induced nuclear reactions rather than something else...


    Or, of course, a working Rossi reactor. If that is not an oxymoron.

    Well Kirk, so ATER is another ghostly phenomenon you propose, or do you have a paper proving the effect?


    Well oystla, so LENR is anotehr ghostly phenomenon you propose, or do you have a paper proving the effect?


    Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.


    No-one needs to prove ATER for it to be a possibility, just as no-one needs to prove LENR for it to be a possibility. Both are unexpected, both in principle possible.


    I'd like you to be objective in your judgements here.

    No, it isn't. Researchers check for things like that. Solid state detectors and other devices are also not susceptible to such problems.


    Jed, there are I'm sure devices not susceptible to hydrogen permeation. But many devices are susceptible for example like standard metal oxide thermocouples which unless properly encapsulated are highly sensitive to reducing atmospheres. Even proper encapsulation is relative. The whole point about H (and to a lesser extent D) is that it can get through pretty well all solids - you need something pretty good like a thick metal container to reduce contamination from exposure for long periods.

    By analyzing the higher temperature region but still below boiling conditions, we conclude that there is a clear trend to higher excess heat at higher temperatures.


    Why does that make me think of Lugano?


    I agree with this, if you insert the work apparent. The trouble is that pretty well any of the possible error mechanisms are also plausible (perhaps exponentially) dependent on temperature: take for example ATER and entrained D2O.

    Another fatal error in the Ascoli analysis:


    Of the input electrical energy he assumes 10 watt lost as heat, which is approximately correct, BUT then he assumes the remaining is available for vaporization.


    However, this is not correct, a large portion (60% + increasing with temperature) goes into splitting of the water molecules to H2 and O2, and therefore less available to heat.



    The assumption that recombination is not possible in these open cells is of course just that. Based on experience of non-FPHE-active cells in which it does not seem to happen


    If recombination happens - for example in some electrode-surface dependent ATER process - then that water splitting energy remains in the cell.


    One of the reasons why F&P style open cells are just not a reliable way to demonstrate possible LENR effects. Such an effect would create exactly the type of heat anomaly (between inactive control and active) documented in the Longchampt replication.


    When speculating there is some new and not understood physical effect at work to explain these results we have a choice: ATER or LENR. I now look forward to a chorus of dismissal, without seriously considering the evidence, from ATER-deniers unwilling to imagine novel physics (except of their own preferred sort) in these experiments.


    :)

    From Lonchanpt et al:


    Excess heat = A + L – D
    Where “A”, “D” and “L” have the same definition as above. It is difficult to follow accurately the level of
    water during this period because of the formation of foam, so it is only at the end of the experiment, when the cell is
    dry that the excess heat can be calculated with precision


    Agreed.


    The boiling temperature is only progressively reached as the bubbles, here initiated by electrolysis
    incorporate more and more water vapor. In this region, the full calculation using equation (1) gives wrong positive
    excess heat measurements, and therefore cannot be applied. This is probably due to an erroneous estimation of “B”
    which is very sensitive to pressure and temperature measurements. Up until now we have not been able to get a good
    blank experiment with platinum in this region using the full equation. Therefore, instead, we use the measurement of
    the enthalpy produced to evaporate the total amount of water contained in the cell, as described in section 3.2.


    Note no control here, to keep things honest.


    - below 70°C, between 0 and 5%
    - between 70°C and 99°C, about 10%
    - at boiling, up to 150% especially in the final phase which appears as the best condition to
    get a large amount of excess heat.


    The keynote results here are lower (nearer balance) than those of F. They also get larger for the regimes in which you'd expect key assumptions to be less correct.


    Concerning condensation on the inner surface of the plug, again our platinum runs indicate that it is
    negligible.


    Indeed, but note no equivalent control runs for the boiling condition.



    The boiling results (inferred from the above equation) are valid only if the gasses exiting are dry. As you know, this is not shown by F and equally not shown by Longchampt et al.


    In fact this same issue applies also (at a lower level) for the 70%-99% regime.


    More generally, this replication follows F closely, as do people here, making the same assumptions (e.g. dry steam).





    Put it this way. That video, and equally a visual inspection of the videoed experiment, provides zero evidence for high energy production during the boil-off period.


    Those claiming that although it is not clear, we must believe F's interpretation because he was expert and could judge better than us are on a sticky wicket, for many reasons.


    OTOH, if there is other good evidence of very large excess enthalpy during boil-off those foamy test-tube pics are not needed, and for the same reason it is difficult to be sure that the white stuff is low D2O density foam.


    Perhaps a more pertinent question is why was F are offering such poor and ambiguous evidence of high power production? The obvious reason: because he did not have more convincing evidence.

    Shanahan's claims were shown to incorrect by experts. See:


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


    Just because someone, somewhere makes a claim, that does not mean it is a valid claim. You might as well say relativity might be wrong because hundreds of wannabe physicists on the internet claim they can disprove it. (Einstein has long been the target of crackpots.) Shahanan is trying to show the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, that calorimetry does not work, and that he is better at calorimetry than Bob Duncan and dozens of other world class experts who have done cold fusion experiments. The data does not show what he claims. Control experiments do not show what he claims. Why do you believe him?


    Jed: just to answer this (and the other one about controls).


    I don't "believe" Shanahan. In fact I don't think Shanahan believes Shanahan in the way you mean.


    But equaly, when you say "Shahanan is trying to show the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, that calorimetry does not work, and that he is better at calorimetry than Bob Duncan and dozens of other world class experts who have done cold fusion experiments" I don't think you have a good argument.


    The nub of CCS/ATER is that some difficult to reproduce active environment on electrodes in certain Pd/D experiments induces ATER - normally considered impossible. That hypothesis is similar in nature, but less radical than, the LENR hypothesis to exaplin the same thing.


    Then, he notes that some type of CF cell would have a calibration constant shift due to changing in-cell temperature gradients from ATER.


    Obviously, controls do not help this, because they will not show ATER and therefore the corresponding shift.


    I agree, there are calorimetric experiments that can quite easily be shown not susceptible to this, but many of the experiments cited by you (including F&P) do not show this.


    You don't need CCS/ATER to see that LENR "controls" are not necessarily controls. D vs H (and Pt vs Pd) make major physical changes that can affect system operation.


    The reaction of CF researchers in your Marwan reference above is basically to deny this can ever happen on theoretical (or other) grounds. That is similar to main-stream scientists denying LENR can ever happen on theoretical (or other) grounds and just as dangerous.


    Your comparators do not hold. For example, relativity was denied for many years before a vast amount of reproducible evidence existed in its favour. More importantly, relativity made precise unexpected predictions which were (long after the prediction) experimentally validated. LENR theory has no such predictions yet. If there were a consistent LENR theory that made precise unexpected and measurable predictions, even if it were a long shot, it would get investigated.


    In fact the various modified GR theories are all contenders. But they need to make distinct predictions, and those need to be shown correct. Last I heard the most interesting such contender was looking like its predictions were not being found. But it is early days.

    Robert: I was referring to Alan and not you as a Brit.


    Re cults: I have not claimed the existence of cults related to LENR, rather stated that some behaviour is cult-like and should be avoided. I don't see this is a war, or a negotiation, merely me and you saying what we can to further understanding of these matters.


    I have viewed Rossi followers as in some ways a cult, but then I don't see that has any relationship to LENR.


    Cults, of course, (and ECW shares some elements with this) have a strong tribal element where those with different views are scorned and free discussion is prohibited.


    Will I promise not to mention cults here? No. And I cannot see why you should object to that. Were I calling some group of people a cult, who were not that, you could call me out. You may wish to do that in the case of Rossi followers. Where I point to cult-like behaviour, as on ECW, again you can disagree with me. You see I've given my reasons which do hold for ECW.


    I also think that any group of people interacting socially with strongly-held views different from the majority has the potential to be cult-like (that is a general comment) and therefore when I find myself within such a group, even virtually, I take special care to avoid this.


    This site is admirably uncult-like in its moderation. Thanks to Alan and many others. Which is why I don't expect this post to be moderated.


    :)

    Don't worry Robert, THH has produced a poorly documented response which you need not take as proof of anything.


    Alan, please read my replies above, then, while of course as a fellow Brit I find your dryer than Martian surface humour entertaining, it might mislead some here, please be specific and explicit yourself.

    THH which documents are badly documented ?


    The F&P paper very badly documents the experimental results that it discusses.


    And your quote:


    "Personally I find it somewhat cult-like that the flakiest part of a very badly documented experiment ."


    is misleading in that it leaves out the thing that I find cult-like, replacing that by a full stop! Having a very badly documented experiment has nothing to do with cults, and what you have quoted is clearly missing the second part of the sentence.


    I'm summarising here a point I made and various people including I think at the time McKubre agreed with that the F&P paper cited here as strong evidence (from simplicity to complications back to ....) is in fact very poorly documented if viewed as an authoritative account of important experimental results showing an anomaly not accepted to date by the scientific community. Rather, that paper is a discussion of calorimetry illustrated by offhand reference to a whole set of experiments, with a few poorly documented specific results, and a lot of generalisation. There is nothing wrong with that approach in a summary paper, nor in a paper whose intent is to discuss calorimetry. The problem is if its content is taken as a report of definitive experimental results, as many have done.

    Could you provide your statistical analysis of the PdD2 CF results from1989- 2014, that justify this rather general statement THH?


    Robert: I think you are making assumptions here. My general statement does not refer to any specific results, so could not be justified by reference to them.


    However, your comment here provokes another general statement.


    A statistical analysis of a set of results using differing methodologies, equipment, etc would not serve to determine whether a claimed effect was sporadic, because it might be perfectly replicable but only appear under particular (known) conditions.


    To bring this to LENR specifics, Abd said a while ago that there was money for some guys to redo Pd/D2 work looking for correlation between excess heat and He. That set of experiments is to the point of your question, because if some controllable and replicable effect can be identified they could use it reliably in their experiments.


    Quite apart from the correlation, their work would serve as an additional check on whether or not some replicable Pd/D effect exists, and analysis of their results would help determine the degree of replicability.


    We are still not out of the woods on that, because as Shanahan has argued there could easily be a replicable effect based on some unexpected (by F&P. Jed, and those in the CF field) mechanism for ATER or another experimental lacuna that would in some experiments create apparent XSH anomalies that are in fact experimental anomalies.


    The merit of new experimental work is that any such possibility, since it has been suggested, can relatively easily be checked and prevented in the new experiments. That would require them to read Shanahan's published work and explicitly guard against that possibility using better experimental design, rather than arguing on theoretical grounds that it could not happen as others have done. I'd expect that, from any competent group replicating the work, because Shanahan's CCS can be detected or evaded quite easily once you admit it as a possibility.


    I have not heard the results of these experiments, but perhaps they now exist?


    THH


    That is a good question Jed.


    I mean difficult to produce and therefore difficult to detect.


    While I agree that a replicable controllable effect could easily be detected, once you have an effect that cannot be controlled, that can switch off at any time for reasons not understood, you then cannot easily distinguish sporadic effect from sporadic experimental error. After all, the way we detect experimental errors is by noticing anomalies. But now there is no telling whether the anomaly is the real effect, or something intermittently wrong with the experiment.


    That is why science demands replicability before declaring anomalous results a sure sign of new physics.


    THH

    Sounds a lot like some ghostly XSH 😏......that suddenly appear .....and suddenly disappear....,somewhere.....sometimes.....we never know....where and when..... just like....ghosts....and can not be proven . 🤓



    And that is exactly the point. Were the claimed XSH effect easily replicable, rather than mysterious and difficult to find, it would by now be agreed by all, or diagnosed as an understood error.


    The same applies to AS et als "lovely gammas". If the effect is replicable and deterministic, it can be further understood and who knows, maybe our very own Alan can get a Nobel. If it stays tantalising, not capable of being precisely pinned down, not simply controllable, then the most likely cause ifs some experimental effect not understood. As elusive as LENR, but more prosaic.


    Oystla's comment above misrepresents the situation. Suppose we have some unclear and unreplicable may be there or may be not experimental results. The two possibilities are novel nuclear reactions of an unclear sort (no-one to my knowledge has found a precise LENR theory which predicts more than a small part of the claimed observations) or undetected experimental issues of an unknown (to the experimenter and anyone looking at partial write-ups) sort.


    Which of these two hypotheses is more likely?

    Dear Oystla,


    A word of advice. Ascoli is quite precise in what he is saying. You do yourself, and your cause (if you consider showing F&P's paper to be good science your cause) no favours by replying away from the point.


    "The only experimenter, that is considered to have been successful in replicating the F&P boil-off test was Lonchampt."


    Really? I mean - REALLY?


    Until 2009 there was 152 Peer-Reviewed papers with successful Excess Heat Events.


    That is a non-sequitur. Ascoli is considering one aspect of the historically significant paper quoted by many here, and has shown in much more detail than I've seen before some issues in the calculation of open cell boil-off enthalpy therein. He is then addressing the matter of whether that phase of the experiment, with very large positive claimed results, has been replicated elsewhere. Other than Longchampt none of those papers are an F&P boil-off replication, or anything like.


    Please direct your arguments towards his criticism of F&P boil-off.


    Personally I find it somewhat cult-like that the flakiest part of a very badly documented (and, if Ascoli's arguments are correct, wrongly analysed) experiment should be defended with such tenacity, rather than, as scientists do, admit that the same stuff has been done with better documentation and under more controlled conditions by others, e.g. Mckubre.


    The lack of precise documentation of results in the F&P paper would make its contents of limited value even were there not question marks raised over its accuracy.


    THH

    The Enthalpy Input calculation says:

    "By electrolysis = (Ecell - 1.54) × Cell Current ~ 22,500J"


    It should not be hard to measure power to an accuracy of 1 mW and to take samples every 1 mS. That means it should have been easy to measure input energy to an accuracy of 1 uJ. Why did they throw away 8 orders of magnitude and estimate input power to the nearest 100J? Did they round up or down? It is not even clear which of the 4 experiments they are talking about. Why do they not show calculations for all 4?


    Some weirdness here from you or them, since VXI gives power (W) not energy(J). I guess we are multiplying by some known time. But input energy accuracy will depend on the precision of Ecell and 1.54 so since they are subtracted will certainly be no better than 2 sig figures and likely a lot less. 22500 is fair enough given the precision of 1.57 on the other side.

    A language researcher would have real fun to browse through Rossi‘s blog analyzing syntax, semantics and style of the posts. Except for a few well known folks like Frank Acland and some others who have a significant different style of writing you will see the same old and obvious pattern of Rossi-style in the rest...I am not native, but I am sure Allan, Shane, and even Adrian will notice this.

    Rossi seem to spend more time reading, asking a and answering himself in front of his computer than “performing scientific work” to get his new product to market.


    Rossi's genius is in getting a whole site of people (ECW) and one thread here to pore over his self-publicising blog + sock puppets as though there was some important truth to be found therein. And you can see (I think) his character craves this virtual importance, though I also have to say he seems to be quite highly motivated by money - otherwise why have all those condos?

    Bob . A report about what exactly? The things you can see in great detail on the videos in circulation? Scientifically it wasn't proof of anything except that it wasn't proof of anything. The videos in particular make it pointless of me to spend time writing about my own impression of what the pictures show in great detai. what I did write about was the people I met there, and their approach to Rossi, and the general tenor of the crowd. That I thought was interesting.


    I have no idea about any Rossi devices after the the tests in Ferrara, Lugano, and NC. After that it gets weird.


    Alan, in your case it is mostly implication. You imply that the Lugano tested device was not weird . Really? With that test so minutely adjusted to deliver false positives? And Levi still swearing to Mats two years later that Optris cameras deliver temperatures based on total not band emissivity, even though they are single spectrum instruments with an IR band limited bolometer. you do not have to say anything personally offensive to note that such statements are plain wrong and that the Lugano reactor, as far as can be determined from those not very accurate detailed measurements, was an electric heater.


    Rossi's QX test proves nothing except that it proves nothing? Really? It shows that Rossi's demos are grossly incompetent, in specific ways that are guaranteed to allow false positives. That is surely more than just "not proving anything".


    Instead, you highlighted your subjective impression that guys around rossi seemed very interested in his stuff. I believe you. i do not however follow your apparent conclusions (that Rossi's stuff sort-of or partly works). I conclude that Rossi has charisma and is still capable of leading many different people way down the garden path: as it has been documented he has done before.


    THH

    Bob,


    Th European LENR science circle believes the older Ecats worked, but are reserving judgement on the QX/SK. Clarification for the new members and guests...Stockholm was Rossi's demonstration of the QX.


    Shane - clear to clarify what is meant by "European science circle"?


    Belief is indeed a strange thing. I'd hope no-one believes that Lugano tested device was working. And I'd hope no-one is influenced by Levi, whose stated views on the science of the Lugano test (when challenged 2 years later) remained steadfastly 100% wong as stated by Mats.

    Wyttenbach


    Bob here has been entirely honourable for a long time. Nor do I believe him influenced in this matter by fake news (what fake news?).


    He, I, woodworker (I think) have a similar view of these things:


    (1) We all believe Alan to be honourable

    (2) We do not however take Alan's judgement as authoritative over these Rossi-related matters, because of the issues we have commented here many times. Based on publicly revealed information his judgements about Rossi's demos do not make sense, and when challenged he is unable or unwilling to substantiate them. Therefore statements he makes about Rossi will not be believed by us unless it is made clear they are from definite personal information rather than possibly flawed inference.

    A significant CCS effect does not exist, so in that sense all calorimetry is equally "susceptible" to it, just as all calorimetry is susceptible to the effects of invisible unicorn farts. In this case, however, calibrations show it is not susceptible to this imaginary effect or to actual effects. That's the whole point of calibrations!


    Jed: do you have any evidence for such a sweeping negative statement? When anomalous results exist we must check and recheck all old -school assumptions. And how about the TC contamination effect, which certainly does exist...