Posts by THHuxleynew

    Alan, it probably will give cheer to AA, which is pretty easy.

    But, is says nothing as to whether any of Rossi's devices have ever worked. He played the HAD trick with the original "Samovar" demo - which confused many including Jed here, but doing the calculations a hot metal core, thermally isolated from the surrounding cooling water, would nicely explain the 6 hours or so HAD observed there, as well as Rossi's sudden termination of the experiment (when the core temperature had dropped too much, to prevent that from showing).

    In this case we have a much less spectacular, and also imprecisely observed, result. Like the rest of Rossi's circus it can provide hope to those who want hope, but proves nothing.

    More blather. Where have I written what Rossi says are facts? You need actual quotes to back up what you claim, not just you interpretation of what I said.


    Rossi was prepared to take government money for a warehouse, but that wasn't on the table.

    Whoever wrote that Rossi has enough money to continue without financial help is wrong too. You fail to consider the cost of the factory and financing the reactors, that are not going to be sold to his customers. He is proposing to just sell heat

    I'm sure small facts like the above will not deter the babblers who will invent some way for Rossi to make money fraudulently.

    I can't see how you know these things, other than based on what Rossi has said? Fact-free zone.

    Well if there is to be a paper I will indeed wait for that.

    I can understand that if you accept all the excess heat results as (effectively) necessarily due to a new phenomenon, and know that significant error is very highly unlikely, a talk like that is appropriate, though the lack of a little extra detail is still unfortunate. But few people outside the LENR community would be in that position..

    Uploaded slides from Miles:

    Miles, M. Excess power measurements for palladium-boron cathodes (PowerPoint slides). in The 21st International Conference for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science ICCF-21. 2018. Fort Collins, CO

    This material is highly unsatisfactory. Perhaps I am missing some context that all at ICCF21 would have, but here is why I say this:

    (1) The presentation is about excess power measurements

    (2) The precise amount of excess power is headlined and discussed as though it indicates something important about the system

    (3) These are (presumably) electrolysis experiments in which (presumably) input power is non-zero and >> excess power.

    (4) We are asked to compare results across experiments longitudinally in time and with different electrodes

    (5) The slides discuss significance, because some excess power measurements are claimed insignificant.

    Yes, I cannot find the input power anywhere, nor any analysis of the calorimetry errors. This is crucial because this type of calorimetry could have

    various errors that match the form of the results, at low levels, and the many different calorimeters will all have different errors. The only error stated (3mW) does not indicate how calibration to active errors are bounded (the error in this would not be a fixed value). So we don't know how to evaluate this because we do not know the level of excess as fraction of input power. And it applies to only one calorimeter.

    We cannot even compare results across experiments unless we know the input power stays the same (not stated), or we know how fraction of input power artifacts and systematic errors are bounded.

    What I can't understand is how experimental results can be presented in this way? Anyway, perhaps somone who was there can enlighten us as to the crucial missing data.

    It is precisely this type of looseness that allows many outside the field to dismiss LENR.

    From my POV it would be easier to take LENR seriously if, at conferences, there was some minimum standard of rigor required.


    I find it interesting that A.R. sent

    the Email to T.D about how he got out of the agreement.Why he just didn’t say I am

    free to go with you now.One time Rossi

    was to honest for his own good.

    It is interesting, and revealing. Rossi is somone who boasts about his own dishonesty - in the e-mail he is clearly proud of it and expecting IH to be similarly impressed.

    This unusual psychology should be considered by anyone trying to work out from what Rossi does and says what are the (in AA's terminology) real facts.

    THHuxleynew I think Allen was referring to Hydrofusion (because that was the previous potential investor that I believe you were referring to where Rossi fraudulently got out of a contract).

    For new readers, in an email to IH that was made public during discovery of the Rossi vs. IH lawsuit, Rossi boasted to IH that his fraudulent statements to Hydrofusion releasing him from a contract he alleges he had with them was a "masterpiece" (Rossi's words) of deception.

    I haven't heard much from Hydrofusion. Alan, do you have anything you can share as an update?

    Yes, agreed. My post was perhaps cryptic but referring implicitly to HF as one of the investors who keep faith with Rossi (AR says) while being well aware of his propensity for lying.

    Some here might see this as clear evidence of some secret knowledge of success so exciting it overrules all normal instincts of caution. I however see it as some combination of don't see or don't care: and i know nothing of HF so won't speculate why.

    AA: In answer to a question, today Rossi invited readers of the JONP to attend the presentation, he now expects to be between the end of Dec and Jan 2019. So he is still sounding optimistic.

    Bob was wrong as usual. Rossi was prepared to take government money for a warehouse, but that wasn't on the table.

    Whoever wrote that Rossi has enough money to continue without financial help is wrong too. You fail to consider the cost of the factory and financing the reactors, that are not going to be sold to his customers. He is proposing to just sell heat

    I'm sure small facts like the above will not deter the babblers who will invent some way for Rossi to make money fraudulently.

    THH: RossiSays are not facts

    AA: I suppose you KNOW the real facts? I don't think so.

    Your position here would be stronger (and therefore more entertaining for those of us who like arguing a case) if you provided support for your position.

    For example, in this case I am pointing out that nothing Rossi says can be relied on as fact, particularly because his statements have been so clearly shown to be complete fabrications in the Court discovery testimony.

    You could provide evidence for your strong and unsubstantiated comments here, other than RossiSays.

    Stating that I don't know the real facts is merely stating the obvious. None of us claim to be God and therefore have such all-knowing ability. But I do claim to know some facts, ones that you can look up fro yourself. Some of us are willing to read the Court transcripts and reckon that sworn testimony from all parties there has evidential weight. Not 100% - Rossi could be forswearing himself. Luckily (for the cause of truth) Rossi directly contradicts himself in sworn testimony so the one thing we can be sure about is that he is a liar and since his lies are directly related to his attempt to obtain money from IH that seems strong evidence for at least attempted fraud. He also claims to have fraudulently got out of a contract with a previous investor - though whether his actions there are actually, as he boasts, fraud, is less clear-cut.

    RossiSays are not facts

    So where are the trolls, ne're do wells, cynics, outright haters, and henchmen of Rossi's competitors with regard to Parkhomov's apparently astonishing replication of Rossi's hot dry cat experiments. One old but skilled in the art retired Russian scientist working in his kitchen sink seems to deliver the truth that exposes the usual armchair miscreants and what they are worth. What say ye.

    Russ - it would help if you were to provide evidence (details, experiment writeups, critique of same) to support these claims. Then you might get some discussion here. This place is actually relatively well focussed on technical details, and does not much rate bald claims without these.

    In absence of a good new writeup let me remind you of Parkhomov's two previous published experiments:

    (1) Phase change calorimetry. Should be bomb-proof. But, his eqpt was later found to be fast boiling without proper lid and splashing liquid out that explained the results.

    (2) Temperature graph with cal. The critical published sections of data that showed excess heat were later found to be photoshopped, because, P said, his laptop that took readings needed a new battery during this period. This shows an extraordinary disregard for experimental accuracy and must therefore cast doubt on his future results unless very well attested by others.

    Well I do have some evidence. Also, logically Rossi needs money to continue and I find it hard to believe that anyone would invest in Leonardo Corp without doing due diligence, given the history.

    Logically, Rossi needs no money to continue. He was given $10M by IH and will not have spent too much of that on (family connected) lawyers. We know he has money because of the multiple Florida condos that he owns.

    No doubt he's hoping for more money. How does he get that? By saying the right things, doing the right demos, even perhaps organising some sort of pseudo-factory (just as Doral was not a Johnson Matthey industrial plant, although billed as that, don't expect Rossi "factories" looked at close to be real factories).

    I don't know if it is because you are stupid or are technically illiterate.

    It would be dead easy for a potential investor to measure the real performance of the QX set up in a similar fashion as in Stockholm. One would just have to measure the things that weren't measured at the demo. The power into the power pack and the volts & amps across the QX itself. Also look at the waveform with a 'scope to see if anything else would be required.

    Just because IH failed to do proper due diligence, or blew it afterwards, has no bearing on the matter.

    That would only be easy if Rossi let it happen. Rossi, however, will have some reason why it can't be measured directly. He will say, of the power supply input, that the PSU is not efficient and therefore measurements prove nothing. And he will at this stage only attract invetsors who think a gamble on a paranoid inventor who appears to have something, without all the correct measurements, is OK.

    Those who accept this gamble will probably, like IH was, be BOTH risk tolerant and technologically naive. After the Rossi debacle IH greatly tightened up their evaluation - you remember their PR saying they needed to do that well before the Court Case but after they discovered Rossi's stuff did not work.

    It is a sign of naivety about people if you do not understand this. Rossi can perhaps still attract investment because there are people like you around who also have money to play with. But, we don't actually have any evidence he has attracted new investment. He has not even said this to my knowledge.

    40-2: Everybody here knows that Adrian is reluctant to read or ignore publicly available information about Rossi's past, doesn't matter if it is well documented in the Doral court case or even written by the master himself on his own JONP blog. Rissi simply seems to lose track on what he wrote there, or he doesn't care at all what he said yesterday... It's just another lie...

    Rossi has a creative attitude towards the truth. He, like Humpty Dumpty, believes words should mean what he wants them to mean. It is documented that he, in the past, has twisted things to the limit of misdirection by creative redefinition (often) and into outright lies (occasionally). I so wish we had had a chance to hear his cross-examination on this in Court.

    Has he been tarnished by this history of keeping truth at arm's length length? Absolutely no in the eyes of believers: look at our very own Adrian here who continues to attach evidential weight to twistable RossiSays!

    Adrian: I know your stance is that of uncommitted but positive "wait and see". But, given the plentiful negative evidence, that can only be held with a strong dose of underlying belief.

    RussGeorge: Rossi was a perfect gentleman with regard to my offer and wrote a very kind letter/email declining the loan of my 4He mass spec. He noted that "I of all people must understand why he could not invite a person like myself into his lab." He noted that, "I would instantly deduce most of his secrets." We remained congenial colleagues. (He was right about how anyone skilled in the art could readily deduce most of the secrets of this craft in a heart beat.


    Perhaps, given the comments above from Shane etc, you can understand now why Rossi was so clear he would never allow anyone near his demos who was armed with better instrumentation? As is often the case Rossi tells the exact truth in a way that makes other people misinterpret it!

    After going through the Lugano Style vs real external alumina temperature curve exercise, there is little doubt to me that Rossi experimentally determined the ranges in which he would like the device to be tested in: where the peak dummy temperature should be, the minimum reported dummy temperature, the high 'COP' range, the maximum temperature the Optris could deal with and probably the best material to inflate the IR temperature with.

    Although it is possible that the Lugano demo accidentally ended up being tested in the way most likely to get a good contrast from dummy to active using IR, it is unlikely this was left to chance, and more likely that it was intentionally designed and encouraged to be that way.

    (The Optris cannot report more than 1524.7 C, no matter what emissivity setting is used.)

    Agreeed. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. There has never been doubt that Rossi's demos are bankrupt, but he has too much of genius for them being optimally bankrupt for that to be just luck.

    The observations and their interpretations that Bob Greenyer will make on his analysis of the inner workings of a number of open source LENR systems are antithetical to anything that you can beleive. Yes, I doubt that you will accept it. I know that Bob has the courage to buck main stream thought and I know that the price that he will pay will be high.

    My only interest is pursuing truth and I know that Bob is only interested in that too. With this upcoming highly sensitive situation close at hand, I am super sensitive to any gate keeping and ridicule that might prejudiced the Truth as I see it. That being said, I regret any overreaction that I might have made.

    Axil: may I suggest that if you are interested in getting to the truth you tone down the "I know" count and stop treating everyone else with contempt? Sometimes other people are right...

    7of20 - not quite. After the empty reactor with a COP of 8 incident, R was allowed to run enough rope out during that one year to effectively end his career as a cold-fusioneer. We didn't think that he would actually litigate with all the data and facts stacked against him but the guy's audacity is beyond compare. He is quite good at what he does.

    Yes, Rossi is proficient at what he does and he has been practicing with success (a blip in Italy where things went wrong) for many years. He has made a good living from it.

    The IH episode and resulting exposure has the merit of making it very clear to everyone (a few diehards on ECW excepted) what precisely is his area of expertise. I know there was technical evidence before: the court discovery adds to that a lot of black and white deceit.

    I'm not sure whether Rossi is actually getting more money now from investors. I think most will be very cautious, however well he talks. Rossi himself has enough money to keep the show on the road for a long time. Along with Bob I think Rossi, while definitely liking money, and good at getting it, also likes adulation. He might well self-fund the show for a long time in the hope of future funding and the present reality of keeping a core group of fans.

    There is similarity between Rossi's behaviour and that of a cult leader. Not identical: I don't think Rossi takes over the lives of his adherents to the same extent, though I remember from posts here that he has broken a few hearts. Similar because he is charismatic and while being deceitful and making money from his victims, he also believes his own nonsense. I know we have argued here whether that can be true but it is the power of a truly charismatic leader is that they have absolute faith in their own views no matter how many deceits go along with them. Some people have a unique ability to believe their own lies: Rossi does this more flagrantly than most.

    Correct. December 2017. It is a shame. I was going to report that tomorrow. I talked to Dennis Pease, who worked there. He hopes to continue the work. He says they got positive results last year, but then the results faded away in the last months so they had to close.

    So: if the results were truly positive, but in a long-running system they persist for only a few weeks and then stop, that is no reason to stop. Here by positive I mean unambiguous replicable evidence of some unexpected source of high energy density.

    However, if by "faded away" he means that better controls showed that unclear results were in fact false positives that is different.

    I think it helpful that false positive results be tagged as this - with documented mechanism, since it helps future work.

    Regards, THH

    Yes I do. No need for the later snide comment. Rossi's thesis was on relativity: do you not consider that hard science?

    Well you are not a babbler as you attempted to go after Parkhomov. Not very convincing. Where did Parkhomov fail, or are you referring to him filling in the missing gaps on his graph?

    You should look at the video: it has some interesting data. You could still answer my question on whether you are still certain Ni/H systems can't produce heat. A yes or no would suffice.


    It was on philosophy of science, specifically the relationship of Einstein's relativity to Husserl's phenomenology:

    Edmund Gustav Albrecht Husserl (/ˈhʊsɜːrl/ or /ˈhʊsərəl/; German: ; 8 April 1859 – 27 April 1938) was a German philosopher who established the school of phenomenology. In his early work, he elaborated critiques of historicism and of psychologism in logic based on analyses of intentionality. In his mature work, he sought to develop a systematic foundational science based on the so-called phenomenological reduction. Arguing that transcendental consciousness sets the limits of all possible knowledge, Husserl re-defined phenomenology as a transcendental-idealist philosophy. Husserl's thought profoundly influenced the landscape of twentieth-century philosophy, and he remains a notable figure in contemporary philosophy and beyond.

    If you think that topic - interesting to a philosopher no doubt - is hard science then it explains other posts you have made here. And if you consider this philosophical work from Rossi to be in any way related to competence in hard science you are sadly mistaken.

    Re Parkhomov:

    His first positive results (phase change calorimetry) were explained by splashes - noticed by an observer.

    His second positive results were - umm - during a period when he in fact took no data (he says because his laptop battery failed). this information took a long time to emerge.

    Given such a history my wish to see well-written write-ups of results before taking them seriously is only common sense.

    Re Ni-H systems can't produce heat. Well, trivially, they can. If you mean can they deliver the extraordinary high energy densities claimed then I've not yet seen any good evidence. Surprising if they do, since such strong, stable, and sustained exothermic reactions as are claimed by many would relatively easily be turned into self-sustaining reactions with no input heat and variable cooling. That has never happened, and the good measurements remain stubbornly below 10% of input which is in the range of normal calorimetric errors. Basically, whatever causes these apparent excesses does not scale like an exothermic reaction, therefore it is unlikely to be that on purely phenomenological grounds.

    As somone who at least vaguely understands the nature of science, if asked formally are you sure (of any scientific statement) the answer would be no. Which makes your insistence on the question in that form unhelpful. Most scientists do not go around letting brains fall out just because anything could be possible.

    Well, you will remember that past news from Parkhomov was similarly mouth watering but turned out fallible. So I'll await a decent non-photoshopped writeup before commenting.

    Have you forgotten that PhD stands for Dr of Philosophy?

    After my comment above, are you still certain the you can't get excess heat from NiH?

    As you well know, Adrian, that was from a time when the hard sciences were all Natural Philosophy, not now when Philosophy is a much narrower discipline.

    At least, if you don't know that it would explain a lot of things about your posts here.


    By Bruce Johnston in Rome

    12:08AM GMT 12 Nov 2004

    Italy's passion for personal titles has been formalised with a new law bestowing the title of "dottore" on holders of almost any university degree.

    A ministry of education decree states that holders of an ordinary "quickie" three-year bachelor's degree will now be known as "doctor".

    I understand that, but as a PhD myself (from Cambridge University) I don't think an Italian 1st degree in Philosophy is any way comparable! Translating Dottore as Dr. does not wash.

    Sam- i'm not really sure what is the point of will you join me if I am right about Rossi and QX.

    That is like saying: will you join me in believing in green 3-eyed martians if they land?

    Of course! Who would not. But they ain't landed yet...

    You might be right about the first


    But I am unwavering on the April 1

    2019 or before launch date of the QX.

    Sam - since as has been pointed out Rossi is rowing back from doing anything with the QX you may join us sooner than that. Will you come over to the light side when Rossi makes it clear he has ditched the QX and the SK (or whatever) will take longer than April 2019 to commercialise?

    I think the high caliber contenders are losing

    the LENR race to dark horse Dr Rossi

    Sam, you are free to call Rossi whatever you like, but you do realise that his qualifications do not include the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of a PhD? His highest qualification is an Italian first degree in Philosophy. Which makes sense, he talks well...

    I'd also not call him a dark horse. Rather a self-proclaimed (and believed by many) front runner who has been disqualified due to cheating.

    And it is just not fair on the ICCF guys to bring AR stuff onto their thread.

    On that subject. Jed - you say that there are more than usual high quality experiments, which makes me happy, and is no doubt due largely to IH. Do we expect proper experiment write-ups from all of these, and if so when? It would be noice to have a thread commenting on the detailed writeups when they emerge.


    The Scientific part of LENR does get me confused TH.

    Can you comment on Stephen and Franks




    Hi Frank,

    In an earlier post you described observing an earlier/test version of the E-CatQX.

    Are you able to expand on this or is it still somehow best undisclosed further?

    I’m curious if you or Mats are able to describe the plasma you saw better?

    I don’t want to put you or Andrea Rossi on the spot to divulge more than he is ready for at this time. I could quite understand that Andrea might want to keep these impressions quiet for now but If he is OK with you passing on these impressions I’m quite curious. If not then are there any more general impressions you can give. (Maybe the answer to point 6?)

    1.Was the plasma homogenous in colour across its width and length? Or how did it vary? I recall Mats said he saw a blue ting too was this located in the core or the edges? Was there any hint of the Hydrogen red and blue of Helium yellow tints described by Bob below in parts of the plasma?

    2. Was the plasma basically homogeneous in density (ignoring the bright spots you described) across its width and length? Or how did it vary?

    3. Was there any variability in the over all plasma in time during the periods the device was on.

    4. Was the plasma apparently optically thick or semi transparent?

    5. Could you describe more the bright spots? Were they stationary of moving? In particular positions or distributed? small or large? of the same colour as the plasma but denser? Or different? Were they persistent of intermittent? Deep in the plasma or around it?

    6. Did you also see the spectrum from the plasma? If so did you see the broad Black Body spectrum described? Did you see any particularly strong emission peaks?

    7. When the device was off was the gap between the electrodes apparently completely empty of any material?

    8. Were the ends of the electrodes highly reflective or shiny or dull or dark or otherwise optically affected?

    Just some thoughts. I can understand though and respect if they are still under some level of NDA at the moment.

    Sam - this is just a typical set of questions someone might ask about a plasma induced by an electric arc. There is no necessary or obvious connection with LENR, and no way that being able to set up such a plasma indicates much technical skill. i can't see the answers to these questions revealing much, except it would tell you things like how hard was the vacuum in the tube and what trace gasses did it contain. If you knew that this plasma was doing something to do with LENR (as for some incomprehensible reason some people on ECW seem to believe) you would be highly interested in the questions and answers.

    The only evidence that has been posted here for this having a connection with LENR is RossiSays. So I can't see why this exchange would increase your confidence that Rossi has something that works.

    I think, Sam, you are confusing plasma bulbs with LENR?

    I believe that to remain strong Andrea must only do what he is comfortable with, that way fewer mistakes as he is so thorough anyway.

    Good advice. Unfortunately Rossi is not comfortable with experimental controls (controls are not necessary) or 3-phase electricity (he thinks poles go both ways so phase does not matter) or steam (Rossi disconcerted by lack of steam from his demo) or power measurement (average meters on non-sinmusoid waveform, and in another example attempting to measure power from a single voltage as V2/R).

    Whilst I'm sure Rossi is comfortable talking, and a fluent and superficially impressive speaker, his domain of comfort does not seem to include the skills needed to conduct good experiments.

    Why anyone thinks he might have discovered LENR is beyond me. He certainly lacks the expertise to check whether he has done this!

    I'm going to defend LENR scientists here.

    I've nothing against amateurs doing experiments. Sometimes they can make a very important contribution. And diversity is great. Also, if Lion comes up with well-written research papers I'll be the first to applaud his/her work. But to my knowledge he has not yet done so, and the fact that there are guys out there doing experiments who admire Rossi cannot be generalised to genuine LENR scientists.

    PS - if Lion were to show himself interested in stuff like does he have controls, do controls have similar conditions to active experiments, does instrumentation change during an experiment, then either he is woefully uninformed about Rossi, or he'd know Rossi has a long record of generating false positives and moderate his enthusiasm.