Posts by seven_of_twenty


    Good to know you care about how Darden spends a small part of his fortune. Even with his initial $10 million "out of pocket" gamble, he will leave tens on millions in inheritance. Certainly, it will be put to better use there.

    Darden can spend his claimed fortune on Vegas gambling or sex for hire for all I care. I do hate to see a criminal benefit from a profitable scam while fooling legitimate workers in a difficult field and taking away money that they could have used in a much better way for real research. Don't you hate that too Shane D. ?


    Rossi is an example... it is SOT's life thesis LENR =Rossi

    Rossi is a prime example of how easy it is to scam desirous enthusiasts about a fictitious high tech claim. And how high quality testing could have prevented the scam. There are many other examples of similar scams involving such things as magnetic motors, explosive detectors, super high mileage engines, long distance rapid transmission of broadband signals through "ordinary" wires or narrow band radios, paranormal phenomena, etc. etc. It should make you curious about how many other claims for LENR and related observations are wrong, either from faking or from unappreciated errors.

    If you want to know what my life thesis is about, whatever that means, you can contact me privately. Helping to expose scams is a spare time hobby. And it's been fun and fruitful.


    Darden knew all about Rossi's history before approaching him. He and Vaughn went in knowing who they were dealing with.

    Were it not for the positive first HotCat report in Ferrara, chances are he would have backed out of the deal. Were it not for the second "Lugano" report, they probably would not have agreed to Doral

    That speaks poorly for Darden. And here's the thing I and others have been saying since summer 2011 - almost 8 f'n years by now! There was never any need to do what Rossi proposed which was to link together 50+ lame pieces of junk he called reactors. Darden should have asked the price of making one of those units, a single ecat, work properly under independent testing unrelated to anyone who had already tested Rossi. You have to remember that those who tested Rossi, sadly including Kullander and Essen, never required any number of things which would have revealed the flagrant scam. These include testing by others as a black box with calorimetry of the type we already discussed. It would have included testing with blank runs and calibrations. It would have included adequate isolation of the input power to preclude shenanigans with that. Those and other valid suggestions for avoiding being scammed were laid out in great detail in several easy to find forums and email lists.

    Of course, Rossi would have refused any safeguards which might have revealed his duplicity but the refusal should have been the answer. Instead, it required a year or more and $11 million to Rossi plus an estimated $5 million more to lawyers to get to the right conclusions. It was a thoroughgoing and completely preventable f'up by Darden and anyone who advised him how to deal with the criminal, Rossi, the way he did. Rossi only got away with his scam as much and as long as he did because of the gross incompetence and appalling gullibility of the people who evaluated him and gave him money, publicity and other support.


    Time to get back on topic, this is not a thread about 'the bomb'.

    I think the issue was that Wyttenbach was saying that H-H fusion (or in Ivy Mike, D-D and D-T fusion) doesn't occur. Or at least can't make a bomb. I think that is what he was saying. Anyway, it's what I responded to. And just to finish off the topic, robert bryant , there was in fact a flyable bomb design based on Ivy Mike.


    Due to its physical size and fusion fuel type (cryogenic liquid deuterium), the Mike device was not suitable for use as a deliverable weapon; it was intended as an extremely conservative proof of concept experiment to validate the concepts used for multi-megaton detonations. A simplified and lightened bomb version (the EC-16) was prepared and scheduled to be tested in operation Castle Yankee, as a backup in case the non-cryogenic "Shrimp" fusion device (tested in Castle Bravo) failed to work; that test was cancelled when the Bravo device was tested successfully, making the cryogenic designs obsolete.

    (Wikipedia on Operation Ivy Mike)

    My point was that if you are going to invest, you have to vet the inventor and also the claims. That starts with the CV and work history. Rossi, for example, flunks that 100% off the bat unless you believe what he writes about himself and nothing else. I don't expect investors to know how to test LENR, I expect them to know how to hire someone who does know. And that would be someone who is not part of the "usual suspects." Someone who knows how to require truly independent and effective testing. Surely, at least a cursory search of the internet is a reasonable part of vetting. If Woodford's people did that and still gave credence to Rossi, well, you know what that makes them.


    SOT in French is a good descritption... The above mentionned nuclear process is the so called Lithium fusion/fission bomb. Has nothing to do with hydrogen fusion. As a consequence of this long time hidden knowledge the US still controlls all nuclear data related to LIthium. They also force IAEA to publish wrong data about e.g. Lithium nuclear radius. Thanks to Sachrow we know most details about the Lithium (aka hydrogen) bomb.

    And people accuse me of not reading. By the way I think where you wrote "Sachrow," it's Sakharov you're thinking of. Great man. Nobel Peace Prize in 1975. .

    No hydrogen fusion in fusion bombs? That would be news to the people who worked on Project Ivy in the 1950's and more particularly, Ivy Mike which used pure liquid deuterium as fusion fuel and yielded >10 megatons. In retrospect, a good part of that yield was fission occurring in the 5 ton natural uranium "tamper" and additional fission in the plutonium "sparkplug" at the center. But about 1/3 of the yield was deuterium-deuterium fusion, chosen for its comparative ease of analysis.

    When I was younger the story of the Teller-Ulam weapons fascinated me. So much power in so little volume. And large amounts of cryogenic temperature liquid deuterium, no expense spared, in Ivy Mike. In fact. there is a fascinating, personal, stark, and beautifully written one page story about "Mike." It's written by the person responsible for maintaining and pumping the huge quantity of liquid deteurium required for "Mike" and what the very unique machine that did the job was like. The story is found here and I recommend it highly:

    If you don't want to be an object of ridicule, Wyttenbach , get your facts together before you insult someone. And I am sure I will be the one to be regularly be accused of never reading anything.


    The calorimetry in CF experiments is not bomb-proof. You think this, but it depends on assumptions about constancy of conditions between calibration and active which you point out have been known true for 100s of years. But they are not provably always true. It can be (and has been argued) that these assumptions may fail in specific systems, sometimes. Difficult to prove or disprove that.

    Calorimetry which depends on a single or very few point temperature measurements is inherently error prone, especially if the points are monitored by thermocouples or RTD's. One reason is that the path(s) for heat flow may change in the course of the experiment. A second issue is with any low level electrical measurement - EM interference with instruments as has been discussed here many times. Many LENR tests involve power sources with "spikey" waveforms which makes EM interference worse.

    Mass flow or Seebeck calorimeters should be more accurate and reproducible in theory. I don't know if they can be used with Pd-D systems and have not seen any experiments in which they were used with Ni-H. I recall that Storms used Seebeck effect calorimeters but I think he no longer does. Oops... ETA: as of 2015, this writeup:…/08/PROGRESS-REPORT-2.pdf


    I hope this is the case. It was the case with Andrea Rossi. Andrea Rossi brought so many people to awareness. Would this forum exist without Andrea Rossi?

    Someone else can tell you if the forum antedates Rossi's late 2010-early 2011 "demos." But while Rossi piqued a lot of people's curiosity about LENR, it also reinforced the idea that it is very easy to fool enthusiasts of LENR and that many do not know how to require proper testing. Now that it is crystal clear to most people that Rossi is pure fraud, I think his "work" hinders LENR rather than promoting it.


    Nevertheless, it's still a tough sell to skeptic academics who have the Nature pile-on to confirm their erroneous belief about cold fusion. Out of all the skeptics, only a small percentage will change their mind because of data, or papers. It is my belief that the majority of skeptics are NEVER going to accept this until the commercial product is sold. Their skepticism is not from lack of knowledge, but it is a social and political stance. No amount of data will change their perspective. Hopefully, the few percent who are curious and jump in will be worth all the trouble.

    I don't blame you, rubycarat , for not grasping this because you are not a scientist or a skeptic. But your premise is completely false. Take for example the existence of black holes or of neutrinos, both accepted concepts by the general scientific and physics communities. They are believed entirely because of data and papers. Nobody has personally experienced either in any way, shape or form. And I do not think you can buy them at Home Depot yet.

    The problem with LENR is that, for all of JedRothwell 's protestations, the evidence is not solid, high quality and consistent enough. Hopefully, recent investments by "moguls" will change that but perhaps it won't. Certainly enthusiast proclamations don't do much.


    OK, I am trying to figure out what to say to scientists who are skeptics and whose feelings that cold fusion is a fraud have just been confirmed by Nature's recent articles. Here is the start of my "script"

    While you can't argue with feelings very much, there is nothing in the article suggesting any sort of fraud, is there? I don't recall the entire article by memory but I'm pretty sure fraud was not an allegation. They simply did not find evidence for LENR and CF, right? That is not proof that it doesn't exist. It's only evidence that what they did failed to uncover it.


    Oh do give us a break. The original Fleischmann Pons experiment was replicated and confirmed at over 180 labs, including many of the best in the world, such as Los Alamos, China Lake and BARC. But you don't believe a word of it. You trot out this imaginary standard for experiments that have not been replicated at places like BARC, and then when you are confronted by data showing other experiments were replicated, you suddenly forget what you said. Your standard vanishes. This is all hot air and excuses.

    You would not believe this experiment for one second even if it were confirmed by a major test lab. Not by 180 major test labs. 18,000 would not convince you. You would say they are all incompetent, or all in cahoots in a scam, or you wouldn't say anything at all.

    First, we are talking about Brillouin about which I have expressed serious doubts. I don't recall ever opining about F&P. If Brillouin's newest claim of Pout>Pin by a factor of 2 or better were confirmed by Sandia or ORNL, I would be very impressed. Confirmation by proper testing and calibration by Tesla or GE or GM would also be convincing. I would seriously consider even Earth Tech. Brillouin was essentially adopted (in the sense of family) by McKubre and SRI so no, I am not confident about unreplicated results from there.

    Please stop telling me what I would or would not believe. It's positively creepy.


    His "further investigation" was hefty: Woodford Patient Capital Trust marked up the estimated value of its stake by more than 350% to $113 million last year, valuing Industrial Heat at $918 million, the Financial Times said

    Some say based on what people were willing to pay. I say based on pure fantasy.

    whatever, Jed. You miss the point completely. My opinion is irrelevant. What I had been saying about Rossi since 2011 was point on in virtually every detail and that didn't stop people from giving him millions. My opinion is only relevant to the few people over the years who asked me about LENR and also about a few other tech claims... and just for the record, with respect to LENR proposals, I never told them not to invest, even in Rossi. What I contributed was what to insist upon for testing. So your rant, as it applies to me, is entirely useless.

    I don't disagree that scientific research incorporates lots of corrupt and questionable practices. But the claims for cold fusion are that it can yield useful energy on cheap fuel and produces no radiation, Were it possible to demonstrate the claims credibly to reasonable well educated scientists and entrepreneurs, there would be no problem getting funding. Much of the distaste for cold fusion and LENR in the scientific community arises from grandiose claims which never came to anything approaching fruition. You can count most of the honest "usual suspects" as well as crooks like Rossi among those responsible. There is no way that a credible project would not find funding in the likes of Gates, Buffet, Musk, and Bezos not to mention many "lesser" multi-billionaire investors.

    LENR proponents claim Gates has invested. What more do you want? If his original investment bears fruit according to his hopefully unbiased in house talent, the sky will be the limit, just from that one billionaire and his altruistic foundation. You can't have it both ways.

    BTW, here's a thought. Have Godes from Brillouin and Tanzella from SRI go on Shark Tank. Their application should be accepted eagerly and there are always at least two technologically well versed investors on the Tank. And all they care about is making money. Start here:


    I don't know if the failings you find in the standard model of physics, whatever exactly that is, are real but if so, they do not justify rote belief in outlying ideas. There is a lot we don't know, maybe starting with dark matter and energy for an example. Our ignorance of the cosmos doesn't justify belief in improbable alternative theories. For example UFO's do not equal "aliens."

    And while there is much missing, we have learned a lot, especially with the advent of supercomputers, very powerful particle accelerators and of course, the wondrous Hubble telescope.

    rubycarat wrote:


    TRANSLATE: Research would have disqualified Rossi.

    google had research, and they failed. Why?

    Not sure what you mean by that. Woodford's error was trusting Darden. Darden is the one who failed to vet Rossi properly. Darden should have consulted first and foremost with Krivit. Then, he would have known of Rossi's extensive record of criminality and failures. Darden should have contacted a DOD representative involved in the thermoelectric project with Rossi -- the one that cost them upwards of $9M and resulted in junk.

    But Darden's worst failure was to not adequately test the old ecats. As even JedRothwell and other variously rabid Rossi critics said from the start in 2011, this is not all that difficult to do but it requires independent experts in calorimetry. Any proper test of the original ecats involving sparging of the output steam or careful mass flow calorimetry would have revealed that they did not work. Rossi's specific methods of cheating, which IMO changed at times, would have been revealed. The other essentials for the tests would have been blanks and calibration which Rossi steadfastly refused to allow. Nobody involved in any way with Rossi should have been relied upon for testing his claims. This was especially true because of his

    obvious and well documented record.

    ETA: Rossi would have most likely refused truly independent and competent testing but of course, that also would have revealed that the ecat did not work.

    So in summary, the original screwup was entirely Darden's and IH's advisers, whoever they were. Woodford's errors were blindly trusting an improbable claim, not hiring his own capable consultants and then shutting down polite debate about it on the company's own discussion web page back in 2013 or so IIRC. For this, he deserves every bit of failure which comes his way. He and Darden had every opportunity to get it right but they ignored every attempt by capable people to inform them of how. Many acolytes of Rossi's felt free to treat his critics with scorn, censorship, and even doxing, stalking and threats of violence. Do you think these people will now apologize? If you do, get a clue!

    Meanwhile Rossi = happy = condos.