Quote from Alan Smith

As I have said before, the Levi test was done at UniBo, the provenance of the pictures included is not known to me.

How do you know? Were you present?

If the test was indeed performed at Unibo, then why isn't that reported?

Quote from stefan

I noticed that my calculation lead to a different equation than the solving Dirac classically. It's even more exact !!

Interesting work Stefan - though I must admit it's not my area of expertise at all.

I think your work might benefit from adding more context so it becomes a standalone article, for example along the lines of the abstract that you posted on this thread. Also, it would be interesting to show how you obtain the same analytical solution as Mills (not just the numerical comparison).

Quote from Alan Smith

You are wrong. The testing was done at UNIBO's Pysics/Astrophysics lab

That's an interesting snippet Alan - could you elaborate on this? The table on the pictures in the report resemble the one that is visible in the video, which doesn't look like it was shot in a physics lab...

Summary of the written report* about prototype B :

+ On the positive side, Mr. Rossi did get a third party to test the device & write a technical report

However :

- Dr. Levi's independence / credibility is not unquestionable given previous involvement

- It is unclear where the test took place, presumably in a space controlled by Mr. Rossi and in his presence

- It is unclear whose instruments were used, presumably Mr. Rossi's

- A significant part of the electronics were not weighed, it cannot be excluded that the auxiliary electronics contained a battery or similar.

Conclusions :

1. The report is far from conclusive with important omissions, as with a previous Rossi-related publication by Levi et al. in 2013, which was criticised by Ericsson and Pomp for lack of rigour.

2. Dr. Levi, and by extension the University of Bologna, may be faulted for a level of naïveté. They should know by now that Mr. Rossi will use their report to lure investors and/or customers. It cannot have escaped their attention that Mr. Rossi was sued for fraud in a US court over the very same technology a few years back. This in itself does not invalidate his claims, but it should have inspired extra caution and stricter conditions by Unibo.

3. If Mr. Rossi cannot even at this stage trust Dr. Levi enough to let him do a truly independent test in Dr. Levi's own lab, then the chances that he will ever deliver anything to anyone may be reasonably assessed as being vanishingly small.

*Measurement of SK-Ecat performance in a series of sessions from October 20 to November 19 2021 - by Giuseppe Levi

Quote from Cydonia

Nice to learn recent evolvements in this way but what 's about links between Lenr and Muons ??

1. Future muon g-2 measurements could provide an important confirmation of Mills' GUT-CP (as per Stefan's post).

2. Muons in general are an important element of Holmlid's work, who aims to efficiently produce muons for true cold fusion.

This whole muon g/2 business becomes pretty hard to follow, with publications having dozens of co-authors ordered alphabetically, with the unintended result that the two major muon g/2 experiments are now by "Abi et al" (Fermi) and "Abe et al" (Japan)...

Abi : Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm (April 2021)

Abe : A new approach for measuring the muon anomalous magnetic moment and electric dipole moment (results in 2026)

Then, hundreds of theoreticians get together to publish the definitive theoretical prediction for this value, only to see a rival group astutely timing a Nature article with a competing prediction, claiming everything can be explained with their theory...

Aoyama : The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model

Borsanyi : Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD

In the meantime, all these models are built upon a "ramshackle structure" that was never meant to last, according to its co-inventor, Freeman Dyson. A most insightful summary of this space is by Consa : Something is Rotten in the state of QED, where the author expertly dissects the myth that the theory has ever had any true predictive power.

This other article, based on a paper appearing in Nature today, seems to give a slightly different spin to the story...

Not sure how to put that into perspective, especially given the rather definite theoretical predictions over the past years preceding this new measurement.

The muon's magnetic moment fits just fine
A new estimate of the strength of the sub-atomic particle's magnetic field aligns with the standard model of particle physics

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2021/04/210407114159.htm

(The underlying publication : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03418-1)