Bob#2 Member
  • Member since May 27th 2019
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Bob#2

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    See inserted...


  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from sam12

    Bob


    Can you say with 100 percent

    certainty that Rossi does not

    have technology he says he has?


    Sam12,


    Can I say with 100% certainty that I will not win the lottery? No.

    What are odds that I will win with one ticket? 1 in 289 million. Should I make firm, life decisions based upon winning the lottery? I do not think so.


    Can I say with 100% certainty that there are not extraterrestrial UFO's? No.

    Should I latch on and state that I am a UFO believer? No. The evidence that there is, dramatically points to no, there is not. I.E. Why do aliens always make contact with hillbilly's wearing torn t-shirts? !) ^^


    Can I say with 100% certainty that Rossi is a liar and fraud? Absolutely. His own under oath testimony states that he lied, deceived and cheated.


    Can I say his demo's are shoddy, poor quality and very suspect to being meaningless? Absolutely. His demos all have shown serious breaches of merit and some have been out and out ridiculous.


    Can I say Rossi has not shown confirmation from any reliable source? Absolutely! There is no evidence confirmed by dependable parties that Rossi has a working reactor, customers (other than himself) or any of his claims.


    So lets say that I can say with 99.999% certainty that Rossi does NOT have what he states he has, based upon sworn depositions, 11 years of his own lying, 11 years of his own demos and 11 years lack of any supporting customer evidence.


    Is that 99.99% good enough for you? Absolutes in this world are rare. Yet we should be able to make clear and GOOD decisions based upon 99.999% certainty!


    What about you?


    P.S. You still have not replied why you think Rossi has working reactors. I am truly interested in understanding your thoughts. Are you stating that because you cannot be 100% sure he does not have working reactors, that you will base your actions that he does? I can claim to be clairvoyant! Can you prove 100% that I am not? Will you support this claim? Yet you really have more damning evidence against Rossi than you do against me not being clairvoyant.


    My clairvoyant powers tell me that you will respond by giving Rossi more time and will remain positive towards him in the future! This public demonstration, I will have proved my clairvoyance works and is real! It made a prediction that will be proven correct. :) Does this make it true? :/


    In seriousness, thank you. The above is partially humor! I appreciate your polite manners and do not mean to belittle, but show like comparisons.

    I really do want to know why you remain positive towards Rossi. Is it because you cannot 100% disprove him, you will believe in him?

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from Cydonia

    Probably first time i'm lost here because I didn't think I had ocean of skills required.

    However Storms suggested here recently that Rossi's earlier ecat should run by a water shift reaction around CO + CO2 + H2O.

    Maybe he added both lithium to increase XH ?

    As explanation i suggest this process is close to Groszek's paper shared by Alan Smith.

    Here i shared some pictures for your understanding :


    Cydonia,

    I sometimes wonder how there could be such a wide gap in understanding the Rossi drama between certain people.

    You are clearly intelligent, educated and very capable of understanding complicated subjects.


    So am I. So are others. Yet we have this impasse here that you, Alan Smith and a very few others seem to think Rossi had a working reactor.

    Some think that he is a liar and cheat and never had anything that worked.

    Some think a combination... that he originally had a working reactor, but he is a liar and cheat and for some reason abandoned it.


    I find this extremely interesting how there can be such a difference in views from smart, intelligent people. I have come to the conclusion,

    that the base reason is that some people have looked very deep into the Rossi drama while others only gathered second hand data or did not take the time to look closely to the mountains of facts available. Some second hand "data", coming from a respected voice, seemingly must be true! Or is it that they too are fooled or have not looked closely?


    First on the premise that Rossi had a working reactor....

    There are NO verifiable tests that EVER showed Rossi had a working reactor. He INTENTIONALLY kept any kind of outside action that would confirm his data.

    Later "demos", got worse and culminated in the ridiculous! His tests either had known serious faults, or if Jed is correct, one demo had no glaring errors, but now that we know Rossi's mode of operendi, it is apparent that this demo was not to be trusted either.


    I and others have closely followed the Rossi drama. We have seen zero, confirmed or believable facts that Rossi had anything. There are mountains of proved fact that he lies, frauds and deceives. And has done so his entire career.


    Rossi was convicted via the PetroDragon scam. He was convicted of money laundering via gold exchange. He ran a very suspect deal with the military that ended with his "lab burning down" and then he ran away immediately afterwards, never resuming the project. When you look at all the known facts...

    "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck.... it IS a duck! " Rossi's entire LENR story looks like scam, sounds like a scam and walks like a scam. It was proven a scam during the court depositions.


    So why do people still cling that Rossi had "something"? Because they want it to be true very badly! Several of us have asked repetitively, what facts does one have that Rossi had a working reactor. All that is ever given is "he worked with Focardi", or person "X" thinks Rossi was real, or most importantly.... "his NI / H story is close to my own research and so that lends credence to his work'. Sorry, but it does not.


    Some even defend Rossi because his "enemy" was a capital investment firm. The enemy of my enemy is my friend! That is indeed sad. It is without scientific merit.


    Rossi is a very black eye to the LENR field. The faster he is disassociated with, the better. If a legitimate researcher defends Rossi, his own credibility is greatly damaged. It is no wonder why mainstream does not take many LENR researchers seriously. Would I go to an investment counselor that stated he admired and thought Bernie Madoff's dealings were significant and to be considered valid? Certainly not. This is no different.


    You have posted some calculations that are indeed mathematically and physic's based correct. However, they have little to no correlation to Rossi because it is almost certain that Rossi has lied about everything he has demo'ed and that he cannot be trusted! Just because "Rossi says" he used nickel and hydrogen, probably obtained from his association with Focardi's work, does not mean he ever used anything. Rossi himself once reported elemental transmutation. Some people jumped on that as hard evidence and used it to support their own theories. The problem..... Rossi himself admitted that it was completely faked.


    So again, if any out there, such as yourself, Alan S, Wyttenback, etc. have any hard factual evidence that Rossi had a working reactor... great! Can you share it?

    Otherwise, supporting him is absolutely certain to be a dead albatross hanging around your neck as far as credibility goes! Judging Rossi as legitimate casts a great shadow on one's ability to judge other LENR events without bias.


    Wanting something to be true does not make it so. Rossi's own actions speak for themselves!

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Please see inserted below...

    • IH being able to kickstart their LENR efforts during and after Rossi cooperation (Brillioun, Mizuno, patents, etc.);

    IH was started before their association with Rossi. You are simply wrong about this. Also, IH has no connection with Brillioun... please show your facts.

    Your concept here about IH is simply clouded by your view and acceptance of what Rossi has spewed.


    • IH not being able to legally label him as a fraud.

    Again, you are completely incorrect here. IH did NOT start the lawsuit. They were NOT filing a lawsuit to show Rossi a fraud. Rossi started the lawsuit and then walked away right before experts were ready to take the stand. IH new that the 10 million would not be reclaimed from Rossi as he put his fraudulently obtained 10 million into Condos (not LENR research!), So again, you are not seeing clearly. IH never started the lawsuit, but they sure stopped it. There was no need to continue paying large legal fees to "discredit or prove a fraud" of Rossi, as he had already did that via his depositions. Care to talk about fake customer, fake invoices, fake engineer, fake production, fake everything? How about him dropping his 1MW plant immediately to never talk about it again? A plant he stated had a COP over 80 and that ran for a year... HE stated (by the lawsuit) that it was worth 89 million MORE dollars. REALLY?


    • IH (still) going to great lengths in discrediting Rossi (Uzi, APCO, sock-puppets, etc.);

    Great lengths? Rossi does this by himself! Please show ANY facts that APCO is discrediting Rossi. Seriously, any facts at all.

    Please show any sock-puppets. List any names please. Rossi on the other hand has many socket puppets on his JONP.

    Rossi needs NO assistance in discrediting himself.... he does a fine job by himself.


    • No team members that leave and discredit Rossi;

    Uh... cannot prove a negative! Who are the members? Well, there were none other than Fabiovini (sp), Penon and Bass. Bass was a fake engineer who clearly is not with Rossi any more as far as we know. Fabiovin(sp) is a long time family friend and part of the charade. There have been several "associations" such as Clark, mysterious aero-engineers, etc. who have never supported Rossi after their dealings with him. (If they even existed) Even his latest, aspiring student Gulstrom, seems to have abandoned ship. Only Lewan remains loyal and he is kept at arms length.


    $10 million is not a gain for you? You must be very rich indeed!


    So how about you answering:


    Rossi has stated since 2011 that he has sold at least 11 eCats to various customers. Is this true or a lie?


    If true, did he simply abandon these customers? Is he still supporting them? Via who and how? NONE have came forward.


    Rossi has announced partnerships with various industrial companies. ALL are no longer in play IF they ever were! No announcements from them were made.

    Such as Seimens, ABB, NI and a couple of others. Zilch.


    But one of the biggest and blatent clues is his repetitive lies. He is in a stuck loop. Makes announcements, demos, demos are bad, has customers, none ever come to fruitiion, makes claims such as SSM, electricity production, Sigma, etc. etc. then starts the entire loop over again. All without one piece of evidence that anything is real.


    So you may say you look at the facts, but what you listed simply is not correct. If you take Rossi's word as fact, then you can believe almost anything. But when you look at facts outside "Rossi says", you have zero, zilch, nothing. Especially damning is Rossi's own depositions during the trial and his own 8 years of lying since 2011!

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The problem in this case is that no one actually knows whether the directions are complete, or whether they work.


    But remember, the original post was in response to Dr. Storm's question of how to get people to consider his theory(s). The reply was to "design an experiment to validate the theory". It somehow turned into "performing experiments in condensed matter nuclear science". Yes, it may be experiments in CMNS, but that does not mean that the tester has to be a CMNS theorist or expert in quantum mechanics or necessarily understand every minute detail of the theory to be tested. They simply need to be qualified to carry out the test presented to them.


    Molecular vacuum testing is not the sole domain of CMNS. It actually is not uncommon. Certainly not high school material, but the fact that one can purchase turbomolecular pumps on ebay is indicative they are in wide spread use! And in other areas of testing, as Jed has stated many times, calorimetry has been done since the 1800's.


    Also note.... that the experiment that Dr. Storms might design may have nothing to do with excess heat or such. It might be Helium detection. It might be elemental transformation. It may be something unrelated to normal "LENR" demos at all! He might be simply looking at NAE environments via electron microscope.

    I do not known what test he would design to give credence to his theory.


    THAT is the big question and only the person who fully understands the theory can develop the test for the theory.... or at least the shell of the test and let someone fill in the blanks.... which does not have to be the technician conducting the test.


    To put it bluntly, if a theory cannot be tested, the theory will not be accepted by many. Some theories can only be tested mathematically. That gives the theory credibility, but perhaps not total acceptance until it is proved empirically. The often maligned (here anyway) Higgs boson was only a mathematical theory until it was confirmed by CERN. Even then, much of that proof is mathematical and some here still do not agree with it. Yet it was a theory that had predictions, those predictions where mathematical and were confirmed empirically.


    I think that is the path Dr. Storms will need to take if possible.

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from oldguy

    It takes a theory, someone who understands it enough to conduct a proper experiment, and someone to finance and support the work. The problem is that is no theory out that is "understandable". Most avoid the conservation of spin, or momentum, or why there is no detectable radiation, or other important physical points. They are not self consistent.


    It certainly would be expeditious for the tester to understand the theory, but if an experiment is well designed, the tester only needs the knowledge/experience of equipment and procedure to carry out the instructions. I do not think that the experimenter has to be completely versed in quantum mechanics, etc.


    I suppose it depends somewhat on the experiment design. I did testing in the automotive industry for projecting corrosion life of particular components. Some of which where treated with novel and exotic treatments. I am not an expert in chemistry or even some of the metallurgy that was involved, but I was more than capable of conducting expedited corrosion tests to simulate 10 years of normal automotive environment exposure, condensed to about 30 days.


    So, I agree it would be helpful, but not absolutely necessary. Depending on the experiment design.


    Quote from oldguy

    The problem is that is no theory out that is "understandable". Most avoid the conservation of spin, or momentum, or why there is no detectable radiation, or other important physical points. They are not self consistent.


    "Understandable" is a bit subjective. To me, it might be totally confusing but to others, reasonable. Thus the key is to have the originator design the experiment and then discuss the expected results with the testing party. If the originator can then provide the maths and/or schematics to the theory logic, the obtained data should / could confirm it.


    Again, I think it would largely depend on the design and clarity of the experimental test.


    All of this is easier said than done, I am sure!

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from Storms

    , I'm at a loss to know how to get the understanding I have acquired accepted and applied. Can anyone suggest an approach that might succeed in having the huge knowledge based now available be used to create an effective explanation of LENR?


    First, thank you for our participation here.

    Secondly, I am not a physicist nor particularly equipped to make comments about deeply technical matters.


    However, as an experienced engineer and having gone through the basic training that almost all scientist have, I would offer the following thought, however simplistic it might be.


    If you have developed a theory, that theory should have predictive qualities. Predictions should be able to have definitive tests constructed to confirm or disprove them. (Albeit, perhaps with significant difficulty)


    If that test can be performed and results confirmed, that should validate the theory.


    I realize this is very basic and simplistic sounding, but it probably is what is going to be needed. Just as Einstein developed a test using a Solar eclipse for his theory, can you design a test that others can conduct to validate yours?


    While this might not contain the total knowledge-base you describe, by proving a novel physics theory, it will almost certainly raise the interest and credibility by others to all your published works and papers.


    Sincerely,

    Bob

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from sam12

    As usual good points Bob.


    Sam12,


    I am not attempting to persuade you against Rossi.... I am unsure that is possible.

    I am truly interested in attempting to understand your logic or thought process.


    Again, would you please respond as to why you still believe Rossi?


    Is it based upon hard evidence, if so can you provide some examples?


    Is it based purely on a strong desire for a working CF device to become real and thus, anyone claiming such will have your support regardless of hard facts? Similar to those who "know" the next lottery will be the numbers they picked. Regardless of the statistics, their desire to win overcomes the common sense. This is commonly seen here. ME356 makes claims and several jump on board. Orbo had their supporters. BLP still has supporters. All regardless of the known facts..... and so on.


    Are you inclined to believe that people simply do not lie and defraud to the extent Rossi has been accused of? So therefore, if he says something is true, it must be as no one would be that audacious to tell such blatant lies? ('Even though this has been proven by his own words that he does this very thing)


    Early on, I supported Rossi and posted on the old ECN site that support. Part of my belief was a bit of a mixture of all three above. Being new to the story, I did not think someone likely to be so bold to tell such major lies, so there must be some credence. There were others posting support and a few demos, while very weak, added some factual support..... and I REALLY hoped that a CF reactor was in the near future!


    However, those beliefs could only hold water for so long. Soon, Rossi's own lying proved he was a liar and a major one! That removed that line of thinking.

    As the demos were looked at, they quickly became seen for what they were. Bad and each one getting worse! That removed the evidence.


    I still want there to be a reactor, but a desire should not cloud my eyes to truth. For me, hanging onto false promises actually does far more damage than good. It soon became clear what my thoughts toward Rossi were.


    You have been supporting Rossi for some time now and have seen the same fraudulent actions everyone has seen..... I am very curious as to why you still support.


    Thank you.

  • Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from sam12

    From what Rossi says about the tests it boils down to this.


    If at first you don’t succeed try, try again.


    But Sam, Rossi himself stated he had achieved "Sigma 5" reliability! That means he states that his reactor works 99.99999% of the time!


    I am truly interested in your logic of how you selectively list Rossi's "positive" posts but seem to simply forget the myriad of posts in which he not only contradicts himself, but effectively proves he lies.


    Such as:

    1) The many satisfied customers, all to be replaced by a "new" customer with the "new" reactor. Yet none are never made known. (Except the one where Rossi was the customer, caught in a big lie)

    2) Tests all come to a point where everyone is very satisfied, but then a "new" reactor design pops up and never is mentioned again, the previous working reactor installations. Does Rossi simply abandon these installations?

    3) These "new" and "better" reactors, never have a definitive advantage over the previous ones? Can you give specific information on how the SK is better than the QuarkX? The SK Leonardo is better than the SK? Yet his believers swallow this without question. I am truly interested on what these "improvements" are specifically. Actual data to show that a customer is willing to give up a "Sigma 5" certified reactor (ha!) for one that is not reliable.

    4) His "fabulous team" is touted, but proven to be non-existent. During the Doral fiasco, we saw tax records and the people involved. Rossi had two people working with him... a long time family associate and a puppet, acting as "Chief Engineer" but actually doing nothing but repeating words dictated to him by Rossi.


    ... and the list could go on much longer...


    Seriously... what logic do you (or any other Rossi believing posters here) use to turn a blind eye to the above (and much more) yet still cling to the belief he is truthful and has a working reactor? I am not being pretentious here. You often post support of Rossi, so you are publicly showing your belief in him, so I am not trying to paint an erroneous picture of you (or others). I really want to know what logic or data you have to erase the mountains of proven lies, deceit and fraud to keep holding on to his repetitive standard operating procedure...... make big claims, milk it for a while, announce tests, perform horrible tests, then start all over again and again and again... I do not understand your thinking and am truly interested in it.


    It reminds me a bit of a certain people and the lottery. They purchase lottery tickets because they are sure they are going to win. When in reality, they almost certainly will not.... yet they are convinced the "next" drawing will be theirs! It appears to some, their belief in Rossi is similar.... the "next" big eCAt reactor announcement will be the "Real One"!


    (Reference Charlie Brown and Lucy holding the football)


  • Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

    Quote from JedRothwell

    First, no one can "supervise" a scientist. They never listen, and they never follow directions.


    Thank you for your response, it cleared up several points for me.


    For some reason, I was thinking reactors before R19 were heated externally and that something significantly different was done between R19 (lower watts) versus R20, (hundreds of watts0. While these would not be technically replications as there were differences (significant?), if they all showed excess heat, then I would think anyone would accept the base reactor as replicated.


    However, as far as supervising, I have little experience with researchers in this field. However, I did work in R&D in the automotive field. On new products, either a third party testing company tested the product , with MUCH instruction from us, the automotive engineering department tested the product themselves, again with much input, or most often, we would conduct the testing and the automotive engineering department would witness the testing, the protocols, the data collection and then determine final approval results. Result, a verified product or a rejection by their engineers as to why the data was not acceptable.


    I would think that any major corporation is going to do one of the above. Either replicate themselves, thus need MUCH direction from Mizuno or have Mizuno conduct the tests in the presence/witness of their engineers. Even IH did this. They first tried to replicate via their own staff, then tried to monitor Doral.


    I still propose that LENR / CF has went 30+ years in a quagmire.... people arguing whether it is even a real phenomena or not!

    We need to get past that. If Mizuno cannot "supervise" a replication, then I would think it certainly possible and well worth the project for a team to monitor Mizuno running a successful test, checking procedures, equipment and data collection. This would certainly give them a BIG advantage in conducting their own replication.


    It has been stated that Mizuno's design is much simpler than F&P. Not easy, but much simpler. Surely he can demonstrate this to another group of competent engineers. You stated that no one can supervise a scientist.... well I am unsure of that... However.... I know you can supervise a group of top notch engineers. I have done it personally. This needs to be done!


    It is a bit contradictory to publish Mizuno's procedures, admonish a group for "not following the procedure" and then tell me that you "cannot supervise scientists as they never follow procedures" !:?::)


    Looks like we need to get some high quality engineers on the project! :thumbup: Otherwise, I fear it will be more of the same old, same old.... 30 years of it still being argued whether LENR is even real, all because it cannot be readily replicated by instructions to others.


    Thanks again.

  • Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If you are talking about Mizuno you will need to wait 3 years to never. That is how long it took him to make it work. Anyone who thinks this is likely to be replicated by Christmas has an unrealistic notion of how difficult scientific research is, and how difficult this particular experiment is. If someone manages to replicate Mizuno's ICCF21 results a year from now, seeing 100 W input and 112 W output, I will be thrilled. That will be proof his claims are real. People will probably have a long road ahead of them before they can achieve hundreds of watts.


    Jed,

    Can you answer if Mizuno can / has reproduced his R19 or R20 reactions successfully himself? By reproduced, I mean by a second reactor or a complete tear down and setup of the same reactor, with new fuel/meshes invovled?


    There has been much guessing here on the forum. There has been some test results given, but it appears this was from a single run.

    If Mizuno has indeed, replicated himself (per the above) then it should not be 3 years to see 100's of watts. He should be able to supervise a third party replication such as Google, which in my opinion is the #1 event the whole Cold Fusion field needs.


    You yourself have said it will take hundreds of millions of dollars to commercialize LENR. This is not going to be done by a garage tinkerer, regardless of how smart or talented they are. A mega corporation is not going to get involved, unless there is reproducible tests available. Therefore, the #1 thing Mizuno probably should do, is supervise a 3rd party replication. If he supervises, I cannot think it would take 3 years.


    However, if he cannot reproduce himself, then this whole thread is a bit premature. The track Rossi takes, who we all criticize "moving on to the next and greatest design" when in reality, never proves the existing eCat works, is not what Mizuno should copy! My understanding is that he is working on improvements? Should he not be assisting replications?


    Can you confirm if Mizuno can reproduce successful R19 or R20 reactions at will, or at least a high percentage of success?


    Thank you.

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from Robert Horst

    In other words, failure to reach over unity might be correlated with contamination but not caused by it.


    Very interesting thoughts!

    Sometimes "one cannot see the forest for the trees".


    If a complete procedure log was built for all tested reactors, one might be able to start developing theories to better direct future testing and thus success.

    In your case above, if tests were logged showing the number of cleaning cycles needed, the mass spec results and then whether the reactor worked, one might see a pattern where only reactors needing multiple cleaning worked. Ones that cleaned the first cycle did not. This would indicate that it may not be the lack of certain gases, but the number of heating / cleaning cycles.


    I realize that there could be "X" number of issues. But the only way to determine these is to log every single step, every time and then analyse the results. I have used Taguchi Statistical methods in the past for evaluating multiple parameter effects to results, which gives a percentage impact of the final result of each parameter along with the level of confidence.


    This does require a very significant level of detailed logging, not just of reactor data, but of procedural steps. Length of heat cycles, ramp up / cool down speed, number of cycles, mechanical burnishing details (number of strokes, pressure applied, etc) and probably many, many more.


    If one has a anomalous event that is extremely hard to reproduce and there is no existing theory, it will likely take exceptional scrutiny to find the parameters that will allow replication with a high level of success. Since this field has been "struggling" for decades without finding common replication success, it is likely that brute force number of tests will not succeed. It may take a concentrated effort to analyse every step in close detail to develop a theory that can be tested. It may be boring data collection, but possibly necessary.


    While there have been a few technologies developed before a working theory was developed, I suspect there have been many more that a theory came first that guided refinement of the process. The more complex the technology, probably the more needed is the theory.

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from JedRothwell

    However, especially if Ed Storms is correct, the individual cold fusion devices will have to be manufactured to microscopic specifications and microscopic levels of purity,......


    As stated before, I think it fruitful to consider theory at the same time as replication and this is possibly a good example.


    Is there existing knowledge or anyone's theory on why the reactor has to be so completely degassed? How does minute amounts of nitrogen or some other element stop all LENR reactions in the reactor? In chemical applications, it is quite somewhat easy to calculate the chemical reactions... the amount of moles of various gas and construct a theory on "X" amount of oxygen will oxidize "Y" amount of PD etc.


    However, this appears not to be a chemical reaction but a nuclear one. Why then we should ask, would some very trace elements squash a reaction? I would not think ionic or valence shell based. It is not too early to start theorizing on this. As replicators start recording mass spec readings, log the results and the compare with reaction results. It might be possible to see not only which elements are negative to success, but what proportions. This could all be very useful in both developing theory and making replications more consistent.


    Jed has stated that not having a mass spec is working completely blind. Not starting to develop a theory on why minute amounts of "contamination" is also somewhat working blind. I.E. If one simply states that "ALL" elemental "contamination" must be removed, this thinking could result in removing an element that is really indeed needed!


    We certainly need replication, but just as seen in F&P's case, if it cannot be replicated somewhat at will or with truly known parameters, then it will probably remain very suspect in mainstream circles. If millions of dollars are needed to develop it, it is going to have to become accepted to a great extent. This will require some theory.

  • Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    Quote from JedRothwell

    ......

    Mizuno and I are working with some top-notch scientists. He is providing prepared screens for them. ....

    What is it with this field and all the "secret" scientist! First Rossi was always bringing in "experts" that were never revealed. Then it is reported that important and respected "visitors" who were impressed were working on the AE project and yet a year later not a peep from any of them.


    Now this project has clandestine top notch secret scientist? Even Jed himself slightly criticized this approach a while back.


    What gives?

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Ok then, how about the party that confirmed it working?


    Will they not write up their findings and procedure to assist others here? It seems this would be of great assistance to others as they evidently followed a working procedure. What are the chances of them coming forward?


    They evidently had a mass spectrometer if it is a preemptive requirement. According to your posts above, it seems that none of the researchers posting here will have a chance of replicating. Even the likes of MagicSound, of whom I am very impressed with, does not seem to have the qualifications. While I understand that this is likely beyond almost all "garage based" hobbyist, unfortunately, there are only a couple of people in the world with "PHD's in Cold Fusion". Dr. Storms already said he was not interested in performing replications and Dr. McKubre has not reported in and is seemingly retired.


    Who else is there? This seems like it is being prepped for failure.

  • Mizuno reports increased excess heat


    Thank you. This is an interesting point and certainly does support Mizuno's statement.


    What is more, if higher IR does kick up the reaction, I would think it feasible to conduct a reactor test with a high level of IR injected into the reactor, possibly via selected heating elements or even possibly external via using a transparent tube.


    I am not suggesting that people jump to this step right away, but these insights kept in a log so that once a reaction has been confirmed, then further development would be assisted.


    In the meantime, these insights that are founded on known parameters such as Mr. Horst provided, adds weight for other replicators to follow these specific parameters and or insight on how to better create the conditions.

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from JedRothwell

    As I mentioned, I know about 3 of them. One person reported it works. One is no longer able to test anything. The third had not started yet when I last heard from him a few months ago, after about ten months. I do not know anything about the other reactors.


    It would seem that Party #2 above would be an ideal candidate to forward his reactor to Deneum as they are unable to perform tests.


    Secondly, the first party who reported it worked... would they publish results and possibly talk to Deneum on their replication process?

    Better yet, would they forward their reactor? What better to have two independent parties confirm the same working reactor!


    It seems there are two very logical and possibly fruitful opportunities where that could advance the field of LENR greatly!


    How would Deneum go about possibly pursuing these two reactors? Since Mizuno has been so public about this, I would not think

    there would be any NDA's or secrets with these?


    Thanks,

  • Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    Quote from LENR Calender

    My understanding is that they did run it at low pressure (300 Pa), except at the very end where they injected 30, then 100mbar. So they worked outside the low pressure range but only after getting a null result.


    What is the theory on why too much pressure would negate a positive reaction?

    I would think it the opposite. If the a triggering mechanism (or NAE creation) is to embed D2 into cracks / crevices in the PD /NI mesh, then a higher pressure would apparently be better.


    But then absolute triggering parameters are not known, otherwise there would be no problem in getting a reaction to occur! I cannot think of any particular scenario where the slightly higher pressures seen would hinder the embedding, so I am curious as to thoughts of others.


    MagicSound indicated the silver solder might be an issue, but I assume he was indicating that it might not be a tight seal to the very high vacuum. It would think it unlikely that silver solder, some distance from the mesh would stop all reactions? If so, what is the proposed mechanism? I understand we might not know, but there should at least be some logical mechanism.


    The cooling issue with liquid calorimetry has been discussed and a theory as to why it is detrimental to successful reactions has been given. It is a logical function and somewhat predictive. As others have mentioned, it probably can be resolved by various means, however, it could also prove to be very difficult to accomplish.


    I think it might be useful to combine Dr. Storms quest for theory at the same time as a push for actual replication. If theories can be developed as to why high pressure cancels a reaction, then a researcher can modify the test parameters to check. The resulting data can assist not only in a successful replication but also build a case for theory.


    To blindly state "pressure was too high" could be leading down a rabbit's hole. It may have nothing to do with the reaction.... or it could be absolutely required. However, without developing a theory along with replication, it is a blind chase..... one that might lead to another 30 years of "LENR exists but cannot be reliably replicated".

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from Shane D.

    Report from Deneum:


    "We have gone up to 300C and no excess heat has been detected as of now. Will be pumping out again at this temperature and inject a new, larger portion of Deuterium, ~30mbar or 3000Pa. Will leave it for the night and upon tomorrow results will put all records together and post a video report here."



    What stage of testing are they in? They stated no excess heat... were they expecting it?

    I.E., if they were simply in the "baking stage", they would not be expecting excess heat to my understanding.

    So the comment about no excess heat found would indicate they were at a stage where it was expected.


    Can they provide a testing procedure outline along with what stage they are in? That would assist us in the peanut gallery in understanding where they are at.


    Thanks.

  • Clearance Items

    Quote from Max Nozin

    Bob#2 If you are not happy with some of the users - just block them. Don't waste time trying yourself as psychologist.


    I did block RB as stated earlier. It is not whether I am "happy", it is whether one can have a mature, reasonable debate. Which clearly he cannot. So I did block him.


    I started reading ECW many years back. At the time, I was hoping Rossi was real and considered myself a "supporter". However, it did not take long for Rossi to clearly show himself a fraud. I posted a few questions on ECW about Rossi that were evidently unanswerable in the positive and Frank banned me without warning.


    So I started reading this forum, similarly, I stepped on some toes and got banned here as well. (However, I was eventually pardoned)


    Truthfully, I read this forum now more interested in the psychology of the posters as much as the LENR content. Most of the LENR content is so rehashed and repetitive, it has become quite inane. 90% used to be arguing about Rossi. Then it was rehashing various claims about F&P replications and other history.

    Then about dancing particles, lack of test data, lack of clarity and then those who chided those questioning about the subjects and that there was not room for such heresy. Questions about calorimetry, emissivty,air flow, all which have been rehashed time and time again on various other reactors and or tests. Yet with nothing ever coming of it!


    It has pretty been much the same for a few years now. No real published break through's. Just the Johnny 5's, secret visitors, end of the fossil age and other big proclamations, but nothing coming from them. Yet some, such as RB, vehemently defend "the faith" like a TV evangelist. Trumpeting such as ME356 and yet when he is proven false, they simply move onto the next LENR messiah.


    So yes, I am interested in the psychology of LENR followers... it is part of the package of the field! It is also a bit of a pet peeve, when someone such as THH debates with politeness and seeming sincerity and others respond with slander, ridicule and taunt. I am not bashful about calling those people out..... it is the problem of some of these forums.... rudeness and error are completely acceptable.... as long as one is "on the side of cold fusion"! However, if you are a doubter... then a simple question can be met with taunts, slander and verbal abuse without much check.


    I would like to see civility and maturity in these forum posts. That does not mean one cannot speak clearly or pointedly, but one can do that without juvenile taunts and or personal taunt. I can say "I do not agree... my calculations show xyz which differ from yours... please show where I am incorrect". But some here think that skepticism towards LENR is inherently evil and must be derided. I will challenge that, just like I will challenge assertions that Rossi is a victim of "big capital venture firms" or "powers that be". He is not a victim, he is a proven liar and fraudster as documented in the court dispositions.


    I had originally hoped that this Mizuno event would be a different story! Sadly, it seems to be heading down the path of the others. Murky questions lingering in the shadows about input power, calorimetry, has it really been confirmed by others as rumored, more and more questions arise that are a bit troubling. Not that there is any indication of fraud like Rossi, but other aspects seem odd.


    Hopefully the Mizuno tests will pan out and be the break through we hope for..... but my confidence is fading ... especially when the like of RB is crowing the same as he did with ME356, Rossi and the one not to be named. Been there... done that... several times before..... It does not breed much confidence at all.


    So yes, I am interested in the psychological aspects of this field! :thumbup: