Posts by JedRothwell

    Reading most LENR papers is not informative for me.

    Sure. As you say, you get information from Washington Post reporters. (Who get information from me, and then garble it.)

    If this is a real phenomenon, after all these years, we should expect much more in the way of proof and workable demonstrations.

    Absolutely. Just because Nature and the Washington Post and the rest of the mass media accuse scientists of being lunatics, criminals and frauds; and just because scientists have been harassed and fired for even talking about cold fusion; and there is no funding, we should expect much more in proof. Peer reviewed replications at high sigma from 180 labs is not enough. We should have 1,800 labs. Maybe if we had that many, you would read a paper? Naa! Just kidding. Of course you wouldn't. It is too confusing.

    Are these prone to the same calibration errors?

    No.

    If not, have any credible results been obtained supporting LENR with these?

    Yes. Many times.


    Rather than ask questions like this, why don't you read the literature? Oh, wait, I forgot. You and Axil don't read anything or know anything. Your job is to pontificate in perfect ignorance. He believes every claim -- including stuff he makes up -- and you believe nothing.

    I would question the ability of a second floor being able to handle that kind of load. Also, the second floor is listed as having only one ladder to enter or exit from the second floor in one deposition. (I forget which). OSHA regulations require at least two exits in any operating unit.

    See:


    EXPERT REPORT OF RICK A. SMITH, P.E., Document 235-1

    SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT OF RICK A. SMITH, P.E., Document 235-10


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0235.10_Exhibit_10.pdf


    "The only access to the mezzanine is a rickety wooden stairs, which the attorneys made this author climb first (load test) before they would use it."


    FULL QUOTE:


    Plaintiffs are now claiming that the heat rejection was not done in the black box, but by a heat exchanger
    located in the mezzanine at the west side of the facility. To date, there has been no evidence presented
    that such a heat exchanger existed. No photos, drawings, calculations, purchase orders, construction
    documents, etc. have been provided to the author. When Mr. Murray and the author inspected the Doral
    site on 02 Mar 2017, we found absolutely no physical evidence that there had been a heat exchanger in the mezzanine.

    There was no lighting, other than the windows, no electrical power (save two small junction boxes and
    some small conduit), no holes or patches where conduit and power boxes would have been mounted, no
    holes or patches where piping would have been supported, no hole patches in the floor or the drywall wall
    – in short, nothing. The only access to the mezzanine is a rickety wooden stairs, which the attorneys
    made this author climb first (load test) before they would use it.

    The door to the mezzanine is about 22-1/2” wide by about 79” high. It would be extremely difficult to get
    equipment, piping, conduit, duct work, and the other items for such an installation up the narrow, rickety
    stairs and through that narrow door into the mezzanine. The other alternative would have been to remove
    one of the window assemblies and rig the equipment from the west parking lot up into the mezzanine.
    The building owner may have records of this being done, or the rigging company surely would have
    purchase orders and invoices for that work.

    Plaintiffs are also now claiming that their heat exchanger vented through one of the windows on the west
    side of the mezzanine, facing the street (NW 79th Avenue). The picture below was taken by an
    investigator during October, 2015.


    [Photo showing glass in window]

    What data from real experinents distinguishes between LENR and CCS?


    There is excess heat. It is a calorimetric result. It can either be explained as LENR or as the CCS effect. The data set of evidence is exactly the same for both. * The question is, which explanation fits conventional textbook calorimetry better. The answer is LENR. It fulfills every expectation for calorimetry, albeit NOT for nuclear physics. In the 1990s, hundreds of leading experts on calorimetry -- including many people from outside the field and outside of electrochemistry and nuclear physics -- reviewed the calorimetry. They found no errors in the major experiments. In contrast, if the CCS theory were true, calorimetry would not work. It would be meaningless. All discoveries based on it going back to around 1840 would have to be thrown out, including the laws of thermodynamics. The CCS is equivalent to discovering that Ohm's law does not work.


    * That is to say, the data sets pointed to by Shanahan are exactly the same. However, there are many cold fusion experiments that flat out prove he is wrong. He will not discuss these or acknowledge that they exist. The CCS theory would only apply to a narrow range of experiments with one particular type of calorimeter. It cannot apply to Miles' calorimeter with the copper sheath, or a Seebeck calorimeter because even if you could move the source of heat within the cell that would not affect the result. Shanahan may claim that it would, but that goes beyond his other claims.


    In other words, in a closed cell where heat is measured in the cell, the CCS is at least plausible. The source of heat might move, affecting the calorimetry. Actual experiments prove that never happens, but it is conceivable that it might. However, when you measure the heat with a copper sheath, or in a location far outside the cell, the hypothesis is no longer plausible.

    Jed. I ignore the personal comment about Shanahan - except to note that it does not in my book constitute any argument for disbelief.

    This is not a personal comment. Shanahan made various claims. Scientists responded to his claims in the paper I pointed to, and in various other papers. They showed that his arguments violate theory and there is no experimental evidence for them. That, to me, constitutes a crackpot view. This is not about him; it is about his theories and claims.


    That's all there is to it. The authors of that paper and I have said nothing about his personality or any other aspect of his person. I know nothing about him.

    Of course, in websites of fringe beliefs (and sorry guys, LENR is still a fringe belief), the term simply means anybody who doesn't agree with your view of the world. Another perfectly good term turned into a meaningless epithet.

    I do not use the term to mean that. In the case of Shanahan, I mean someone who proposes theories or hypotheses that violate elementary laws of physics, are physically impossible & absurd, and that experiments have shown are completely wrong. As you see from the rebuttal to Shanahan, his claims fit all of these categories.


    Another thing that makes him a crackpot is the fact that he does not realize his claims have no basis in theory or experiment. A non-crackpot person might make a wild claim that violates the textbook laws, but he will point out that his claim violates these laws. Fleischmann and Pons, for example, claimed that they saw nuclear fusion at ~1 W that did not produce a fatal level of neutron radiation. They understood this violates the known laws of physics. They agreed with that, but they showed experimental evidence that supports their claims and appears to violate the textbook. Obviously, they were old-fashioned scientists who feel that when theory and experiment conflict, the experiment must be right, and the theory must be revised. Younger, modern scientists treat the textbooks as holy writ that cannot be questioned and cannot be wrong, so they throw out experiments instead. Fleischmann, Pons and I regard this as the extreme opposite of science. It is a weird form of religion instead. What Shanahan practices is neither old-fashioned experiment-based science nor the modern textbook based holy writ version, because his claims violate both. I don't know what to call it, but I think crackpot is a good description.

    I am an attorney who has practiced for over 25 years, including opposing Jones Day

    Wow. Thank you for your expert input. I cannot make head or tail of the legal issues, so I appreciate it.

    Lastly, for real this time, Jones Day is going to have a field day with the Rossi witnesses. And no, I am not affiliated with any of the parties, their lawyers or anyone else in this fight, just a very amused observer.


    I predict a bloodbath at trial.

    I hope you are right.



    You should contact Abd. He plans to attend the trial. I am sure he would appreciate your expert info. See:


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net/

    The latter seems less intuitive until you realise that in calorimetry a lot of the errors are proportional to total power in, which in LENR experiments tends to be a lot larger than the excess heat.

    That is untrue. With electrochemical cold fusion, input power is usually simple direct current, which is easy to measure with precision. There is little noise in it. Just a little from bubbles, which are predictable and never exceeds a certain low level. (Because the size and number of bubbles does not vary much, as you can actually see, if the cathode is visible.)


    With the Dardik "superwave" technique or glow discharge, input power can be noisy and more difficult to measure.


    Noise is not usually a function of input power. It can increase with sporadic anomalous output power. It is also not a function of the ratio of input to anomalous output power.

    No. It is transparently obvious that you do not answer my questions

    I will not bother to answer your technical questions either, for the same reason. You have said, again and again, that you have no interest in reading the papers I recommend. You don't want to know anything about what you call "low powered" cold fusion.


    (Your definition of "low power" might mystify readers. Let me explain how it works. You define "low power" as the highest power level you happen to know about. So if I inform you there is a result 50 W hotter, you will add 50 W to the definition of "low power" so that you can continue to dismiss all results.)


    You said you have no interest in the literature and you will not read it. You said that here, explicitly, and you were quoted by Zeus46. That's okay. Neither he nor I care whether you read these things or not. It is a free country. HOWEVER, it is annoying when you demand that we tell you this or that detail, you arrogantly refuse to look at what we recommend, and then you kvetch that we don't bother to recommend anything.


    You can't have it both ways. If you are going to dismiss the evidence without reading it, you cannot expect us to politely point you to it again and again. You are not the only one who does this, needless to say. The editors of the Scientific American and Nature have been doing it since 1989.

    I am not familiar with what may have slowed down NMR (I assume you mean nuclear magnetic resonance).

    Yes. See Warren and others.

    But h. pylori as a cause of gastric and duodenal ulcers was rapidly adopted by many. Sure, there were some ignorant holdouts.

    The entire medical establishment was a holdout for 15 years, despite overwhelming evidence.


    There are many other examples, such as the laser. See Townes autobiography. Other examples include Arrhenius, and Barbara McClintock who faced opposition and ridicule for 32 years.

    Regardless, researchers at SKINR demonstrated through some very well done studies using Celani provided wires that it didn't work.

    Those people have done an excellent job of knocking down other people's claims. That's a valuable contribution but . . . kinda depressing. Depressing for them, too, I think.


    OTOH, I heard a rumor that they once again got significant excess heat lately. I hope that is true. I have not heard from them directly.

    This is awfully wrong. Celani is at COP 2 Parkhomov slightly higher, both with no special tuning because they do fundamental work.

    I do not think so. In my opinion, both are making errors in calorimetry, and they have not observed excess heat.


    You should not accept all claims at face value.

    Try to imagine, how the world would look like, if every profession (lawyers, programmers, street cleaners) would organize such a conferences.

    In the U.S. they all do. There are conferences for every profession, and every political party, cause, religion and hobby. Alexis de Tocqueville noted this. Programmers have live conferences constantly, even though no other profession is on line so intensively. The Street Cleaner's Association holds regular meetings. See:


    http://www.powersweeping.org/

    Does anybody ACTUALLY think that a mega corp like Mitsubishi or Toyota will pass on a trillion dollar business? Really?

    Yes, they would, if -- like you -- they do not believe the business is real. Things like this have often happened in the past, so you should not be surprised. Here are two examples, but there are thousands more:


    In the 1980s, DEC, Data General and nearly every major computer and minicomputer maker went out of business because they did not believe microcomputers were the wave of the future. IBM sold the PC, but by the late 1980s they were on the verge of bankruptcy for the same reason. In 1900, the Pennsylvania Railroad was the wealthiest and most powerful company in the U.S. By the 1920s, Henry Ford and other car makers were driving it out of business. It lingered until the 1970s but it was doomed. Why? The railroads might have invested in automobiles and airlines, but they did not.


    Generally speaking, when established businesses and other established institutions are confronted by radical change, instead of adapting to it, they fail. That is why most corporations go out of business in less than a century.


    If you want to understand the mindset of the top management at Mitsubishi and elsewhere, you need only look in the mirror. Like you, these people have not read the technical literature. The scientific experts advising them have not read the literature either. They too know nothing about the subject, and they have no idea what they are talking about. Yet the managers and experts speak with great assurance -- just as you do -- saying, "if this were true, I would know about it." They have the notion that they can judge an experiment without reading about it, as if by some sort of ESP. You, too, have that idea, so you should not be surprised they do.

    Mega corporations are sitting on a trillion dollars business because of internal disputes?

    They do not think there is a dispute. People in upper management agree with Nature and the DoE that cold fusion does not exist. I wish there were a dispute! But there isn't. Obviously, if they thought it was real, they would pursue it.


    You have to realize, these people know nothing about cold fusion. They have read nothing, and their version of cold fusion is distorted nonsense, straight out of Wikipedia. (I mean that literally; in some cases I can recognize nonsense from Wikipedia in what they say.) If I thought cold fusion resembled what is described in Wikipedia, I would not be in favor of spending money on it. These people don't listen to their own researchers. I know this because I have spoken with the top managers, especially in Japan.

    I have stated that all current functional LENR reactors are not protecting the user from subatomic particle emissions which increase background radiation exposure levels .

    Yes, you have, but there is absolutely no experimental evidence for this. You have also stated that the e-cat works, but you have not read the Penon report, so you know nothing about it and you have no basis for this assertion either. You say all kinds of things about subjects you know nothing about. You have zero credibility.


    It is as if you said: "I have stated that pink elephants have taken over the U.S. Senate, and leprechauns are in charge of the Treasury." Yes, okay, but that is nonsense. Anyone familiar with the literature can see that your statement about particle emissions is nonsense, and anyone who has read the Penon report can see that your statements about the e-cat are nonsense. Why do you bother saying things when anyone can fact-check you and see that you are wrong? What is the point? Are you trying to make yourself look ridiculous?

    I have stated that the low temperature E-Cat was not sellable.

    That is nonsense. A large fraction of the heat used in the world is low-grade, low temperature heat used for space heating. The U.S. residential market alone is worth $73 billion per year. (https://www.epa.gov/rhc/renewable-space-heating) A device that produces warm air at 40 deg C would be worth approximately $500 billion per year.


    Furthermore, there is no evidence that the e-cat is limited to low temperatures. Actually, there is no evidence that it works at all, but if it does, it might well go up to several hundred degrees, in which case it could supply nearly all useful energy, excluding only aviation and few other applications.

    You can't blame Rossi for turning a few bucks at IH's expense.

    Yes, you can. What he did is a clear violation of civil law and contract law, and probably criminal law as well. If you try doing what he did, you will find people do blame you.

    It seems natural to me that the money he gets from the IH case money award will be used to bring the QuarkX to the production stage.

    He got $10 million from I.H. previously. He used it to buy Florida real estate, instead of bringing anything to market. He had a machine which he claims produces 50 times input, and he had half the world to sell it to. If he had successfully demonstrated it to any industrial company, they would have given him billions of dollars for it. He could have done that demonstration for a small fraction of the $10 million. So why didn't he do that?


    You can see the answer in the Penon report. The gadget does not work. It is a crude fraud, that would not convince anyone. You will not even read the report, because you are afraid to face facts and see the proof that Rossi has lied to you. I am sure the QuarkX is also fake. If it were real, he would have showed it to investors and corporations, and he would be front page news worldwide.

    True: Only the experiment = proven COP/scaleable process/save/cheap.. counts.

    So, all of nuclear physics up to 1945 did not count. Everything discovered by the Curies and discoveries of Frisch and Meitner was inconsequential. The Chicago Pile-1 was inconsequential and unimportant because it produced less than a watt.


    Only practical devices are important, and they spring to life like Athena from the forehead of Zeus, out of nowhere, without any previous fundamental research or effort by anyone.

    Why would scientists ignore results that could lead to limitless power, tons of money, and even Nobel prizes? That will be hard to explain.

    It is not a bit hard to explain. Look at the way the scientific establishment reacted to other breakthroughs that hit them in the pocketbook, such as the NMR or the discovery that helicobacter pylori causes ulcers. It is all about money and power.

    After all, they rushed to duplicate and study F&P's research when it first came out.

    Very few scientists tried to duplicate. ~130 groups did, worldwide. 92 of them were led by qualified electrochemists. They replicated within a year. The other ~40 groups did not include electrochemists, and they all failed to replicate, for obvious reasons. There was never the slightest chance most of them would succeed. They made ridiculous mistakes, such as confusing the anode with the cathode. As I described it, they were trying to tune a piano with a sledgehammer. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf


    Unfortunately, the groups that failed to replicate were led by influential physicists at important universities and national labs. They were published in places like Nature, and the electrochemists were shut out and attacked by Nature and Washington Post.


    The three most influential groups that reported failure actually succeeded, which is some of the best early proof that the effect is real. Harwell replicated nicely. They cooperated and gave the data to Fleischmann, who showed there was excess heat. Caltech replicated and then made a stupid mistake, hiding the excess heat. MIT held a party celebrating the death of cold fusion, then they replicated and found it worked, so they published a fraudulent version of the data erasing the heat. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMisoperibol.pdf These were the archenemies of cold fusion. They would have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in funding if cold fusion had been accepted. They did all they could to destroy it, yet even they succeeded in replicating -- inadvertently, of course.

    I propose a better reason: most mainstream scientists who are properly qualified and have looked at LENR are convinced from the available results that LENR has never been properly demonstrated and may, in fact, not even exist.

    You are incorrect. You need to read the experimental literature, the history of cold fusion, and the opinions of the mainstream scientists. You will see from this that the mainstream scientists know nothing about cold fusion. Like you, they have read nothing and they have no idea how the experiments were done, what instruments were used, or what results were obtained. Their assertions about the experiments are ignorant nonsense.


    The results were properly demonstrated. No one has discovered any errors in any of the major experiments, which were published by scientists in 180 mainstream laboratories, in peer-reviewed literature. (They were published eventually, despite tremendous opposition.) If the opponents could have found errors, they would have published papers pointing them out. The only paper like that was by Morrison. I think it has no merit. Read it and judge for yourself:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf


    The only other "objections" were published by Shanahan, who is a member of tin-foil-hat school of cloud-cuckoo-land physics, where anything goes, and anything might be true. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf

    Young researcher?

    I said there are no young researchers, except at U. Missouri. The others cannot get funded.

    Do you actually believe that these mega corporations are NOT winning the Nobel Prize and NOT making billions of dollars off LENR to...what?... be a part of an Illuminati conspiracy or something?

    I know what is happening at these corporations. I have visited them, attended conferences with the researchers, and translated their papers. They face a lot of opposition, both external and internal. They are barely funded by the company, and many people in the company -- especially at upper levels -- oppose the research because they know nothing about it and they think it is pathological science. They do not want to see the company associated with cold fusion.


    The mass media, the DoE, and the Japanese government agencies similar to the DoE also think it is pathological science, although some people in the Japanese NEDO agency disagree. They pushed through a small program in cold fusion for hundreds of thousands of dollars to be shared by several research organizations. In Japanese this level of funding is called "sparrow's tears." They barely have enough money to attend meetings in Tokyo, never mind buying the kinds of instruments they need.


    You seem to have the notion that publishing excellent research with replicated, positive, peer-reviewed, high sigma results will bring the scientific establishment around, and eventually win the Nobel Prize. That is not how it works. Read history. Academic politics prevent that, and they always have.


    This is real life. When there is money involved, and your results might lead to other people losing funding if you are recognized, you run into a wall of opposition. In this case plasma fusion research would suffer, and many mainstream physicists who claimed that cold fusion is garbage and fraud would lose face. They don't give you a Nobel; they destroy your reputation, gut your funding, and fire you if they can. Most cold fusion researchers were forced into early retirement. Their reputations were dragged through the mud. They were accused of criminal fraud in the pages of the Washington Post, the New York Times, Nature magazine, Scientific American, the New Scientist and others. They were never allowed to respond. When that happens to a professional person, her career is over.


    If anyone publishes a positive result today, the same thing will happen to them.


    See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEclassicnas.pdf


    See p. 5:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf

    The number of words by unbelievers' is 10 times higher than that of the 'LENR-believers'!

    Only here, and only with regard to Rossi's claims.

    That makes sense only if there is something in the story!

    No, this makes sense only because Rossi is lying. Anyone can see that in Penon's report.

    Right. And all those people have decided to hide results that would win them the Nobel Prize and billions of dollars?

    They have never hidden their results. I have 4,387 papers on file. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/DetailOnly.htm


    They do not win the Nobel prize because of academic politics. That is to say, because most other scientists ignore the results, and a few organizations such as the DoE and Nature magazine attack and ridicule the research.


    Publishing results does not bring you the Nobel Prize or billions of dollars. If you are a young researcher without tenure, and you publish a positive result, you will be fired. Your academic career will be over.