Posts by THHuxleynew

    This is an interesting point. The first thing I'd say is that the difference, as you point out, as not at all in the grand scheme of things significant. As such perhaps TC would have been well advised to make no correction at all, and not open up this can of worms.

    The second thing is that I think TC was at least partly correct on this one matter: although it is not simple to see why.

    The camera sofware will (true) compensate so that black bodies have the correct temperature. However the only thing they have to go by is the integrated response from the bolometer (it is a single frequency detector - unlike some IR cameras that measure two distinct frequencies - using different filters, or different sensors - and therefore can do better).

    So the integral of the bolometer reponse and the material grey-body response is needed: it gives the camera output. This is then compared with the bolometer response integrated over a BB spectrum curve _at the estimated temperature_. So, in fact, TC is partly correct, but to be more precise an extra correction is needed where the bolometer output is interpreted as a BB signal of a given temperature integrated over the bolometer response and the temperature adjusted to match the output. It is not (I think) correct that this second correction is correctly made simply by leaving out the BB component of the bolometer response - even though it might be approximated by that. It would be interesting to see.

    Paradigmnoia's suggestion will give a close approximation to the actual response, because the two effects cancel. But, maybe, it will still be significantly incorrect. What I will give to P however is that given the two simple options, I think on balance I'd choose not to do the BB weighting at all than to do it just once, as TC does.

    One additional reason why over-elaboration here does not much help is that TC only had available a guessed approximation to the bolometer response. Specific sensors are likely to depart from this a bit, and Optris do not (AFAIK) give precise info. Aty least if they do, TC does not reference this, but rather he references Bob Higgins's generic IR bolometer response curve.

    Just one thing. Anyone sensible would view nuclear physicists as completely unqualified to determine whether Rossi had anything or not. Like asking a plumber to do roofing work. Notable that Rossi chooses nuclear physicists as validators.

    Well, I suppose I hypothetically might consider the humans involved (forum members or not) being of some importance to such an discussion, while you and the mods do not, or? I also take it from your example that you consider it ok to present judgments on fellow members as long as those are presented in a hypothetical manner and as an example of what not to do... I keep that in mind, although I consider it a pretty boorish way to argue...

    Tony: it is not that people, and their integrity, are unimportant. It is that arguing about who has integrity is death to any substantive argument about issues, since it will never be agreed, and is corrosive to any proper examination of the facts.

    If somone here is lying through their teeth you can point out factual errors. Can't you? If not, and they make valid points, the fact that they have signed a pact with the devil is not relevant to those points.

    Good advice. But I won't forget. It is clear Walker is reluctant to provide examples so there is no point in continuing this discussion.

    Adrian. That comment is a good example of how to annoy people. Eric has provided examples on many occasions to many people - enough that most understand what is not tolerated and why. By summarising him in this way you make it sound as though his examples would somehow discredit him. You are also saying something that is pure (and probably incorrect) speculation. How do you know it is reluctance, rather than lack of time and feeling that no number of new examples, to you, will help?

    I'm not sure if you realise that it sounds as though you suspect Eric and the other mods are covering up inconsistency, when you use that language? You are allowed to express strong views different from anyone else, the line is drawn when you spend your time commenting on the behaviour of mods or forum participants.

    If you believe the mods here are inconsistent you can just say that, with evidence. It won't get you very far, but better than than indirect slurs.

    I sort of got the idea that questioning the behavior of any member of this forum was a terminal sin... ;)

    Tony: the mods here have this (naive you will think) idea that the point of this forum is discussion of LENR-related facts and their interpretation, not speculating on the private lives, motives, sanity, etc of participants here. I know it is easier to do the latter, but all that provokes is more of the same and a low signal to noise ratio. For example, you may think I'm in the pay of big oil, out to defame LENR, with the morals of a cuttlefish, and I may think you are a loathsome apologist contributing nothing but snide inuendo and smears. But, neither of those thoughts advance the discussion one whit except to inflame participants.

    Some here have stated, without proof, that many of the questions on Rossi's JoNP are from Rossi acting as a sock puppet. Of course that is an insult to me, suggesting that I am not a real person. But don't worry, the moderators will not admonish you unless you are supporting or defending Rossi.


    The matter has been discussed in some depth here, and while you will not remember this, and alas I have no patience to find the thread, the evidence (from tricks of language, spelling, names, etc) for Rossi talking to himself on his blog on some occasions at least was very strong.

    He uses the blog, and Q&A there, to promote whatever message he wants. This was particularly obvious during the Court case where he used questions to leak info that was supposed to be confidential. It was quite funny.

    The research group sees that it is possible to generate 1 kilowatt of heat which is two orders of magnitude larger than the present by improving the structure of the sample, increasing the amount, devising the temperature condition and so on. Cold fusion, which was once said to be "fake science" because the experiment could not be reproduced, is still distrusted by many researchers. Professor Emeritus Takahashi says: "I would like to demonstrate results that will convince anyone, and to ask the world to once again evaluate the significance of this research."

    Those who see the Japanese results as indicating LENR should agree with this: if you have replicable LENR, it can be optimised and indisputable output power (if maybe not 1kW) obtained. The failure or success of serious well-funded projects to replicate and optimise LENR can be taken as an indication of whether what was originally seen was LENR or measurment error.

    On evidence now from Lugano, here is what I think. Levi (not et al) installed his equipment (of type recommended by Rossi) as Rossi suggested in a Rossi-designed setup. The test methodology was all determined by Rossi. With those parameters I would not trust the results. Et al turned up (I think only for the second experiment) and probably looked at what there was asking a few questions that would have been satisfactorily fielded.

    There is no mechanism here to examine or prevent Rossi having a setup that contains errors, as was the case at Lugano. They just have to be subtler errors than if it is a live demo with Rossi at the controls.


    This is kind of interesting "We’ve seen a number of tests and we’ve had a lot of people looking at tests.".

    Does not really correlate with the "blame the swedes" narrative used today, does it?

    Well it does, for an at the time naive IH. Not as naive, obviously, as the centre of opinion at ECW, but still not aware of how in Rossi's hands, using multiple different mechanisms, large false positives can reliably be generated in Rossi-controlled tests. Neither seeing the tests, nor other people looking at them helps, as those who have watched this from the start (like me) realise. You need skeptics looking to see these errors because if you buy the "Rossi is very clever, and honest enough not to falsify tests" you tend to believe his test setups when the errors in them are not immediately detected by apparently qualified observers. This happened time and time again. And the evidence from the Swedes appeared independent and from decent scientists. it was very credible.

    You might parse the above paragraph to mean i'm saying Rossi consciously falsifies tests; that would be incorrect. I'm merely saying that his tests have all had unchecked error mechanisms that could account for the results (the Ferrara tests are the nearest to ones where the actual likely error mechanism cannot be determined from close analysis of public data). Of course Rossi is not the one to do checking: his famous comment that control experiments are unnecessary says it all.

    So, Darden was naive then. Is not so now. You can sort of tell when things changed from the "we will be very cautious" PR during the 1 year test.

    I hear your words about Rossi.

    Did you ever meet him or work with him? Do you have first hand infomation about him?

    Never: but, if I had this, I would reckon I might be unduly influenced by somone who is from other accounts a very charismatic individual. He is obviously not as powerful as a cult leader, but shares some of the same characteristics. The egregious technical mistakes and ongoing misconceptions he has made, and his reaction when challenged, are public record. They do not change if you know him more closely.

    I am still wondering why IH bothered with this ridiculous 1 year test.

    I think Rossis motivation for this was to win time. Maybe for R&D. Maybe for something else.

    But why did IH take part this charade?

    TTM - surely a simpler motivation for Rossi was to win money? He would hope that under threat of court action IH would cave and pay him some part of the $100M.

    I've noticed that Rossi is not totally rational in evaluating his own work. As an engineer, where self-evaluation is essential, both against project aims and competition, Rossi would fail badly. Of course his lack of ability to perform even the simplest of measurements correctly would also fail him as an engineer.

    He always acts as though the twisted over-optimistic versions of the truth he tells (it is the contracted test etc) are true. And to be fair it seems his acolytes often believe him, so perhaps this strategy works? He is careful to reduce the number of outright lies so there is sense in his apparent irrationality.

    (all the above can be shown from Court documents and JONP).

    IH were unwise. Why the allowed it has been explained many times. Having allowed this test, at a time when they were sure Rossi's stuff did not work, it must have been difficult for them to stop it. How do you propose they should do that, given the existence of a year-long contract?

    I quibble with that. As I said above, I think the 2013 Levi test was not operated by Rossi. I do not know who designed it, but I thought it was good. It included a thermocouple to confirm the IR camera. That was much better than Lugano. Not a 100% slam-dunk but pretty good.

    All of Rossi's other tests were lousy. They ranged from lousy to outrageous fraud.

    Jed. You may be correct, but I doubt this. it was operated by Levi, in Rossi's factory. You think Rossi was not there as well? In which case how much input Rossi had is something we cannot know, especially after the revelations that Rossi (or Fulvio) was present throughout the Lugano test when the Profs were not present!

    My view is that, especially for tests on which money hinges, Rossi would want as close control as he could possibly get. That is just based on his character and past known actions. And my view is also that Levi would not say to what extent Rossi had this type of control, given that it was not mentioned in the Lugano report.

    I can't prove this. Maybe Rossi at that time allowed a fully independent test? If you view Levi as truly independent of Rossi. I'd only say in that case that Rossi still was the person who controlled the test setup and protocol.

    THH, if someone could explain in suitably dumbed-down terms (with links to the necessary programs/libraries, ta) how I can edit/compile/run TC’s python script (I have tried and failed already) I’d probably find the time to make the alterations at some point.

    OK. Well, I know Python. The main issue if I remember is that you need Python 2.9. Download the official version. The given code should just run under 2.9 official distribution windows. If it contains graphics stuff you could delete that because it is a bit more work to get the libraries sorted out and the command line printout is enough. It is not wonderful code, with some slightly approx hacked numerical integration. You could do the whole thing better with matlab.

    Given the IH ordeal by RossiSpin and Court action, and the enormous interference with their mission, as well as loss of money, so caused, I'd be a bit miffed in Dewey's position. Wouldn't you be?

    It was a costly way to learn a lesson.

    Dewey's comments here, it seems to me, are directed to those (mainly new on the scene) who come here ignorant of facts and continue to traduce his friends. It is something that would annoy anyone because morally there is just no comparison between the proper behaviour of IH and the slimy antics of Rossi as evidenced in open documents and repeated ad nauseam on his web site. (Take the latest totally bankrupt QX demo for example).

    IH gets tarred with this brush, just because they took a brave but in retrospect monumentally foolish decision. Everything I've heard about Darden (Shane's excellent to the blog comment from Marcia adds much color) leads me to believe his motives in starting IH were altruistic, and he has given LENR so much that for LENR guys to be saying bad things about him is hypocrisy of the highest order.

    And if your kind would have made what they are paid for (due dilligence, proper testing, risk management) I dont want to start thinking about what would have happened then. And in contrast to me (who is not actively involved in the whole IH vs. Rossi saga) you really could have made the difference Dewey! Think about it ;)

    The world would be such a good place with all the ifs and could haves...

    Karma is a bitch apparently.

    And what do u mean by "set the CF research back one decade". Is that your actual timeframe for something marketable?! One decade?!?! Ouch!!!!


    While I'm all for due diligence, proper testing, it is a bit rich anyone supporting Rossi, as it seems you do, calling for this!

    (1) Rossi has never in his life allowed proper testing to be done. All tests were with Rossi operating the Rossi-designed test setup until IH paid up. In fact they remained that, look at the Rossi redesign of the long-term test schematic, mysterious extra pumps, valves, etc. Look at the Lugano test which it turns out had Rossi or his henchperson there all the time, with flying visits from the Swedes. (That was a surprise to me!).

    (2) IH did due diligence. They were well aware that Rossi was Rossi. They were willing to pay for his stuff on the say so of the Swedes, not realising how wrong they are now known to have been. They got it wrong. (Which you will note Dewey handsomely admits).

    Ironically, you I'm sure would have been the first person to applaud the brave (but foolish) decision that IH made at that time. Even I, as a skeptic, don't blame IH for this. It was a high risk gamble I would not personally have made. Darden had the balls to put his own money up for this. Had Rossi's stuff worked, it would have been worth it.

    Rossi was given every possible advantage, in spite of his impossible behaviour. So why are you so bitter now?

    I note with interest that TC - much like the Swedes - hasn’t yet responded to the pointing out of certain errors/clarifications to his paper (ie. improvements to the view factor).

    It’s a shame that TC hasn’t been seen for a while, so perhaps someone else with a good understanding of his python script could add in the revised VF numbers, and see what it spits out. Might be interesting.

    Zeuss - such (small) adjustments do not in any way validate his conclusions nor methodology. However, it remains possible for others to publish additional work on this topic (as TC did). Personally, I'd welcome that: if rigorous and significant. Go for it.

    Here are my reasons for not commenting much on this additional analysis.

    • Both the Lugano guys (and therefore TC, who followed them) took the wrong diameter for the reactor
    • This does make a significant difference to the power equation, but not such as to take it outside the broad bounds of uncertainty cited by TC
    • There are uncertainties in trying to decode exact results from the info given in the paper in any case
    • The key feature that the claimed "acceleration in COP" indicating some temperature dependent reaction and not easily explained by other (large) errors goes away is unaffected by this analysis.
    • Once we get to the area of trying to estimate heat lost by rods more precisely I'm unwilling to go there, because I don't trust the data enough, there are too many uncertainties for example with convection.
    • Generally, I'd go with Paradigmnoia, who seems to have the bit between his teeth re this.

    Regards, THH

    Yeah Tony.

    This forum is focusing on the wrongdoings of Rossi! Please stick to this dictum.

    Over at ECW there is a space for you if you don't support this narrative.

    That is right. Factless propaganda and contrafactual speculation that IH are the evil stepmother will fit right in to the narrative there: with the very mild admonitions when the are logical discontinuities drowned by a chorus of approval.

    Whereas here your statements get challenged if not consistent with Court documents released over the last 24 months (at the very least, some have much longer memories).

    Try constructing a pro-Rossi narrative out of the external facts? It is now pretty difficult - even Shane has come over to the dark side, that should tell you something.

    Your best bet is to adopt Alan's approach. Ignore the external evidence and hold fast to a contrary view hinting that it relates to private information others do not posses. That remains a tenable, if infuriating to others, stance.

    There is a one fundamental and huge difference between the swedes first hand experience and your anonymous rantings. They have "skin in the game" (as of the excellent book by N Taleb). As far as I know, you do not. Which makes it possible for you to write anything without accountability and taking any consequence of it. This fact influence the weight that should be put on your (or TCs or anyone else, except Dewey - we know where his skin is...) arguments and for my analysis of the situation it is obvious whom to trust.

    Don't you think trusting those with a personal interest in the outcome, above those analysing it more objectively, cuts both ways?

    Normally that would matter. In Rossiworld where no-one is allowed any information except those personally interested and fully on board with Rossi the dangers are glaring...

    IH were the only people to break this magic circle, and look what happened to them.

    Of course they do. Otherwise the house of cards you built will fall apart...

    Also you need some excuse that makes your distant second hand opinion on the matter seem more valuable to your audience than the first hand experience of the swedes, right?

    No excuse needed. Sometimes dispassionate reflection and analysis can lead to a better perspective on matters. Many here have paid attention to the pages of detailed quantitative work (before your time) in challenge that make the watertight case against their conclusions being correct. You could start by reading and understanding (no more than high school math + physics enough to understand power spectrums) TC's paper?

    Re house of cards. Projection?

    You are so thin skinned Dewey.

    If everything is going on like you say for IH you shouldn't have any worries isn't it?

    I wish you all the best and if you you really have something I am happy to be among the last to know. But I have my doubts.

    Doubts are good. How about you apply them to Rossifiction where they are well deserved?

    great news!

    note :

    “The first 30-40 experiments were about perfecting the equipment and the process. We observed power spikes in our 80th and 90th experiments in August and October 2016,” says Shree Varaprasad, a researcher there. “We feel that since the reaction seems to be a surface phenomenon, cleaning all the micro-crevices on nickel’s surface to a high degree may be the key to repeatability,” he adds.

    “In our electrolysis experiments, we have found irrefutable evidence of new elements and isotopes forming that can happen only through nuclear reactions. But heat measurements are tough to verify and peers will deny their veracity,” says Professor K. P. Rajeev of IIT-Kanpur.

    I'd caution that what seems irrefutable evidence of new elements and isotopes is often refuted by specialists in the relevant techniques for trace isotopic analysis, because those less expert often over-interpret results, or neglect to document protocols that rule out contamination. Like much of experimental science getting it right requires skill and experience. I would not assume these guys have that expertise. And i'm not competent myself to determine from their paper whether they are expert, unless there are very obvious mistakes.

    The contractually agreed investment even amounted up to 110 million US dollars, which was in view of the outcome of the adventure after all, a very daring investment.

    Daring only when you know that, with Rossi, all independent validation tests end up not independent, and succeed.

    As a $10M gamble with $100M paid for a system that is replicable and works for some time on a large scale it is the upfront $10M that is hardest. Replicable working and usable LENR on any scale would be worth more than that.

    The error of judgement, in retrospect, was in allowing Rossi his bogus customer and therefore his bogus 1 year test. Too much concern with keeping Rossi happy on the small chance they could find a diamond in the dross of what he had given them IMHO.

    Success, it made it to Next Big Future! That is a start:…t-so-far-a-few-watts.html

    Just for clarity: those COP figures ignore heater power. COP normally indicates the error in calorimetry needed to generate the results without any real excess heat. In this case, including the heater power, you get COP=1.2 or 20% error, not as stated by NBF 1.5 or 50% error.

    To their credit this is the headline COP that SRI are now quoting, NBF just chose to go with the older less helpful version!

    Vessey has this funny, light hearted interview with Rossi his fans may like.

    I especially like:

    A: "I have to wear a special anti-radiation wig after cancer containing material which protects my head from radiation".

    So now its official: Rossi has taken to wearing a tin-foil hat ALL THE TIME!

    Suck that up - all you alien mind-control creatures trying to steal his inventions!

    This is an interesting addition to the laser fusion results. Useful as a small neutron source. 6 OOMs away from break-even for fusion even ignoring the laser losses(1J -> 2E6 neutrons, assuming 2MeV released per neutron as rough ballpark, so 4E12*1.6E-19 =6.4E-7J energy extra out) , so it does not look a great route for exotic fusion power.

    I remain watching the two laser H-B fusion ideas. You never know, they might pan out.…cle/pii/S2468080X16301078

    "especially because nothing about nuclear mechanisms makes the output power directly depend on the input power"

    This is why I am always suspicious of nice plots with the excess heat/power/temperature looking like an inflated lock-step trace of the input. Maybe truth is stranger than fiction, and Nature does whatever she wants anyways, but it seems to me that a triggered nuclear event, in general events that are orders of magnitude more powerful than chemical reactions, should depart from a tidy lock-step relationship with the input heat/power/temperatrature. Certainly the level of control would be remarkable to maintain such complete control of nuclear reactions that no spike in output as the process begins, actually occurs.

    Yes, in fact you could say any obsession with COP as an indicator of technological progress is a sign that what is measured is not a novel exothermic reaction.