Posts by Bruce__H

    What is the philosophy regarding the release of raw data from Looking For Heat experiments? Is the idea to eventually be in a position to live stream it like MFMP? Or to release it after a pause? Or is it just to do as much as possible whenever possible given that everyone has a lot on their plates?

    ETA. Actually, raw data from the first 'Androcles' experiment (electrolytically deuterium loaded diamond pads) has been checked and re-checked by two knowledgeable colleagues, and it shows the Netto Geiger rad count definitely higher than an equal temperature control Netto Geiger throughout the experiment.

    By "throughout the experiment" do you mean that the higher radiation counts are not locked to a particular part of the temperature cycle? Or do you mean that throughout the experiment the counts go up and down in step with the temperature forcing?


    Hi Can. I seem to see a discrepancy in the two sets of data you plotted earlier

    LION-AG Experiment

    In particular, when you show cumulative He neutron counts for the longer dataset ,at 00:00 on 4/12 there is about a 50 count difference between the two halves of the temperature cycle. But when you show cumulative for the shorter dataset the 00:00 4/12 timepoint shows no difference at all.

    It is my understanding that the shorter dataset is just a subset of the larger one, so these plots should agree at identical timepoints shouldn't they?

    Rossi still looks real with the EcatQX.

    Mr Rossi is doing exactly the same things with the EcatQX as he did when he introduced the ECat. He is undertaking demos, talking about collaborations with unnamed large commercial partners, saying he has to wait for certification, claiming roboticized manufacturing plants are being built, and maintaining strict secrecy

    However Rossi looks, it is exactly as he looked with the ECat.


    Our analyses are complimentary.

    The numbers on your charts are too small for me to read. What is the time stamp associated with the biggest difference in the He3 signal in your top plot? I will have a look at the corresponding stretch f data using my analysis technique.

    Hi. AFAIK The Netto geiger timebase (1 sec) actually provides the time signal for the whole system. Data is collected every 10 secs and for the Netto is it's own rolling average over 1 minute periods - it shows you CPM at any given time. I am just investigating major system upgrades, so this may change. I will pass your comments on. Thank you.

    To be clear, a rolling average is magnificent if you are interested in slow changes in average behaviour. But it is like a low-pass filter and smudges out the time characteristics of signals. If you have a suspicion that faster events (i.e., bursts) or events that are locked to particular time-features of your stimulus input are important, then a rolling average is your enemy and triggered averaging across different data segments is what you want. It is an extremely useful technique and can be set up on an oscilloscope or in DAQ software for use when an experiment is ongoing. The power of real-time analysis during an experiment is that you can wait for the signal you are looking for to emerge as the random noise is averaged away. You then know when you can stop the experiment because you know when you have collected enough data.


    I noticed a bit of jitter in the starting times of the cycles and also a handful of occasions when here was an delay that went beyond jitter. I dealt with this by aligning things by hand in a spreadsheet but obviously the effort involved in this this technique doesn't scale up well.

    Does the data analysis package you are using have the capability of triggered selection of data segments? If it does then I suggest event triggered averaging based on your "pstate" variable going from low to high. That would get around all issued of jitter etc.

    Alan Smith

    Averaging your data will help your analysis immensely. It will definitely solve your radiation analyis problems.

    You can make life easier for your data guy if you add some sort of sync signal to your system i.e., a pulse coincident with the beginning of some interesting input. If this is not available, however, I am finding with Alan G's data that event-triggered averaging is pretty straightforward if you use sudden changes in the current input as the trigger.

    I have taken a look at some of Alan G's data. In particular, here are radiation data from the 4 different counters that Alan's group uses, shown during during one of the ~32 minute cycles that have been going on for the past day or two. Using Alan G's labeling the traces are: grey - GM; yellow - gamma 500-520; orange - Li6l neutrons; blue - He3 neutrons

    And here are the concurrent temperature and input current traces

    Because there are many repetitions of exactly the same input waveform it is possible to average different the radiation responses together. This drastically reduces the standard deviation of the time series of the radiation counts. Below is an average of radiation responses to 20 identical input waveforms. The vertical scale is the same as in the top figure


    The averaging has decreased the noise by a factor of 1/root(20). I see no differential radiation signal associated with any part of the input.

    It is possible to add more sweeps to the average. The data are available. Conceptually, no matter how small a radiation signal is that you want to spot, you can do so by adding in more sweeps. As data sweeps are averaged in with the others the noise will be go down and down until, eventually, even the tiniest coherent signal should become obvious.

    [Data for averaging taken from Exp1-2-TC.xlsx between timepoints Apr 10, 5:45:55 and Apr 11, 3:39:40AM.]


    You are a data plotting wizard! Do you think you can come up with an event-triggered averaging of Alan G's radiation ouput? Given the number of cycles he has so far, I think that the standard error of the signal would go way down and you will be able to see any input-bound signal very clearly.

    My skepticism about LENR, in spite of the good-sounding theoretical stories from Hagelstein etc, is that the reported effects don't seem to optimise or become much more easily measured when positive results are followed up.

    I think you nailed it here.

    In a successful science, discoveries are not just replicated ,,, they are adopted, worked into the fabric of normal lab operations, and become the springboard for a new wave of research. The initial findings are therefore replicated over and over as researchers use them to explore other things. This is exactly what is missing in LENR research. I see people here producing lists of results that have been replicated, but these replications never seem to go anywhere. They are threads of research that always seem to putter out.

    This shallowness of replication doesn't seem to disturb many in the field of LENR. But it certainly lends a different feel to this branch of science than the one I am used to. And I am with you in that I think it might be the feel of pathological science.

    Thanks for running the experiments everyone. I have one question. What is the evidence that the original LION experiments showed excess heat or LENR in the first place? I read that Bob G says it was because "Strange Radiation" trails were found in both samples. However is "Strange Radiation" considered a real phenomena, even among the more open minded physicists? Is there a general understanding of what strange radiation might be (ex photons with a certain strange wavelength range, Strange Quarks, bubbles from Strange Brew, etc.)? I think it is great to run these experiments, I just wonder about the initial justification and what is so strange about the radiation.

    Bob found some unusual markings on the carcasses of the LION 1 and 2 reactors and interpreted these as the effects of "strange radiation". I am completely unimpressed with this interpretation. Those marks could be due to all sorts of things. To single this out as "proof" of LENR activity is silly. Only when a number of successful LION replications show these markings in the active reactors but not the controls will I be convinced ... not before.

    Alan Smith

    Alan. Can you comment on the nature of the moment-to-moment current waveform used to drive the heater coil in the setup that LION used? On information from Engineer48, there appears to be a possibility that it is a 35KHz square wave going between 0 AMP and some non-zero instantaneous peak current. I imagine that with this scheme the average power would depend on a combination of duty cycle and the peak current. This type of input should generate a very different sequence of electromagnetic field oscillations in the reactor core than a scheme whereby most of the average power is accounted for by a dc input with superimposed small-amplitude current changes.

    It would also be useful to know how similar or dissimilar the current waveform used in your own replication attempts is to LION's.

    I admit that because of digitization and averaging issues I am still a little foggy on the current input being used in the AG replication.

    I note that the "Average Power" trace on the streaming coverage of the replication is currently (Tuesday Apr 10, showing temperature cycling between 500C and 800C) much smoother and more in line with my expectations of a 5 minute moving average than it was previously during the ramp. Not sure why.

    The underlying assumption with that graph is that there is a direct relationship with input power, which might not necessarily be the case over long periods. So for long term graphs it would probably be best to revert to temperatures and power against time.

    I partially disagree. If the relationship between input power and the rest of the system changes over a long time period then one would hope that the same change would occur in the control chamber too and these change would cancel out when you plot the temperature difference

    It looks like PID control is based on Tactive, so with anomalous power production Tactive would remain constant while Tnull decreases. With a sudden excess power release Tactive might increase above the setpoint before this occurred, though.

    I asked and had it confirmed that the PID control is based on T_active. You are correct that with anomalous power generation T_active should remain relatively constant while T_null decreases, but don't forget that input power will also decrease. That is why I think a plot of T_diff vs Power should look like a lower-case letter r that has been rotated 90 degrees clockwise.

    I've used data as it came from the xls file and haven't tried yet to compute average power values on my own.

    I tried out a 300 sec trailing average on the xls data and found that my calculations generally agree with the results in the "Average Power" column of the spreadsheet. I think that plotly has some bugs that was producing some odd appearances for the average power trace in the streaming data.


    Interesting choice to show not temperature versus power but temperature differential versus power!

    If there is no anomalous power generation in the system, I would expect this plot to be a straight horizontal line ... and that is basically what we see for the primary thermocouples.

    What would you expect to see if there is anomalous power generated in the core? I would expect a straight horizontal line that droops at the right hand side and then possibly turns back on itself.

    The Average Power is a 300 second trailing average, so it will not be perfectly centered in the messy Watts graph. It is calculated from the Watt-Hours integration of the Tektronix PA1000, read once per second into a Python array and the delta then divided by elapsed seconds. Because the sampling is asynchronous with the PA1000 integration, there will be measurement jitter of one part in 300 using this technique, so the average power plot is not perfectly smooth, but it's close enough.

    OK. It is not the lag produced by the trailing average that I am wondering about. But if what I am seeing is a discretation error of some sort then I think I understand.

    The Live Doc summary is fabulous!

    The question was why IH didn't do a good check of Rossi's reactor before giving him so much money. My understanding is that only after there was a transfer of money did Rossi give Darden the secret of the fuel.

    I agree. I think it was because they viewed Rossi as temperamental and they didn't want to upset him. They thought he would take his information elsewhere.

    I wouldn't want to play poker against Rossi. I think he would win.


    I'm having my doubts about the average power trace. I recall seeing that it is supposed to be a 300 sec moving average but it doesn't look like that to me.

    Also, not temperature vs average power (although that would be a pretty interesting plot!). You are showing temperature and average power vs time

    I'm going to guess that Rossi would not have provided the fuel, for (presumed) fear of losing his IP through reverse engineering.

    Rossi supposedly did transfer to Thomas Darden the secret of the fuel. In fact, Darden himself prepared the fuel for most of the reactor cores at the Doral location. These were the cores sitting in all the small blue boxes in the shipping container.

    In the end Rossi refused to use these Darden-fuelled reactors. He said it was because they leaked and because there were problems with the grounding. From that point on, the entire Doral test was carried out using the remaining reactor cores in the 4 "Big Frankies" -- cores which Rossi himself had personally fueled. I assume that Rossi engineered the leaks and grounding problems as a pretext to do away the Darden-fueled cores because he was concerned that Darden/IH had secretly loaded some of them with dummy charges.

    Not sealed:


    This strikes me as Rossi trying to get Johnson Matthey to send him paperwork that will make it look as though they are doing business on an industrial scale (at least $1Million given today's prices). Rossi certainly has lots of nerve asking Johnson Matthey to send the paperwork to "JM Products"!

    How would this have worked though? The appearance that Rossi was trying to create for IH was that JM Products was manufacturing platinum sponge. So how would this paperwork help in the deception?

    Rossi testified in depostion that he ended up buying only grams of platinum sponge. Not kilograms.

    I'm sure that the reservoirs are joined so as to transfer water between then but I don't know what that means. Do we know what kind of heat exchangers these are? Are they equipped with pumps on their outlets?

    By the way. In the old post containing still images that you linked to earlier, there is a diagram from one of Rick Smith's reports showing a schematic of the setup at Doral. That diagram has superimposed on it text containing an argument about water levels on the JMP and Leonardo sides. I hope you realize that the "vent pipe" that the argument depends on is not really a vent pipe.

    OK- thank you.

    Here, btw is the inspiration for working on this.

    One of Bertrand Russell’s lesser-known pro-secular works is a 1951 piece for New York Times Magazine called “The Best Answer to Fanaticism: Liberalism.” In this, he wrote a “Liberal Decalogue,” what might be better called today a “Secular 10 Commandments”:

    1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
    2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
    3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
    4. When you meet with opposition, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
    5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
    6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
    7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
    8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
    9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
    10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.

    Three observations.

    First. ... Right on!

    Second ... The biggest mistake I see among the online followers of the LENR story is failing to realize that being open-minded isn't just confined to coming up with imaginative and iconoclastic new ideas. Instead, open-mindedness also lies in putting aside your ideas if the evidence runs against them. It is this quality of self-iconoclasm that separates fanatics from truth-seekers.

    Third ... As a social enterprise, modern science, particularly pure research, actually does a pretty good job of following Russell's 10 commandments. Nothing is perfect of course but, to paraphrase Churchill, organized science as it is presently constituted is the worst way to seek empirical truth except for all the other ways that have been tried out. I know that the LENR community regards itself as the victim of mainstream science, but this is merely because it (LENR research) has not yet come up with the goods.In this regard, mainstream scientists are doing exactly what they are supposed to do -- putting aside ideas that cannot seem to acquire strong empirical support.

    Do we know what LION's score is when testing his own reactors? I know of 2 reactors that are claimed to have produced excess heat and whose remains are now in the possession of Bob Greenyer. These are being called LION 1 and LION 2. I seem to recall talk of another reactor that LION tested after these two but I'm not sure what the result was. Let's call that LION 3. Are there others? Did they produce excess heat too?

    SPargbo## hits another trip wire and exposes his origins with his question.

    These are all from the same person or handful of SPs/paid trolls.

    I hate the use of "paid troll" unless it is backed up with rock solid proof.