Posts by JedRothwell

    He [Gates] was given a presentation at ENEA several years ago. He supposedly funded Duncan's research. Why has he not done more? Spent more money?


    I have no idea. You would have to ask him. As I said, that is like asking why Ken Olsen did nothing to stop IBM and Comaq from putting DEC out of business. DEC was the second largest computer company in the world. Obviously Olsen was a gifted leader and a world-class expert in computers. Yet he did not respond until it was too late.


    People are inexplicable. Read history and you will see countless examples of behavior that seems self destructive or inexplicable, in which people were paralyzed and unable to do what the situation called for. When Gen. Grant took over the siege of Chattanooga, Rosecrans, the general he relieved, briefed him on the situation and gave him a list of actions that were needed. Grant wrote that these were good ideas and should be done. So he did them, promptly. He wondered why Rosecrans did not do them. People are sometimes paralyzed with indecision. Cold fusion is a great risk, after all. I am sure it is real, but I do not know how to make progress in it or which experiment to pursue. A person could easily lose millions backing the wrong experiment.


    Gates and the others at Microsoft made some terrible decisions in the past, handing over much of their business to Apple and later Google. He is not always rational. No one is. This is speculation, but I would not rule out the possibility that Gates is partly infected by the kind of irrational denial of reality that afflicts you and many others here, where you deny 18th and 19th century physics to justify your refusal to face facts. If cold fusion ever succeeds, people will look back at what you wrote, and what the Scientific American wrote, and they will wonder how anyone could be so deluded. Just as we look back at what the Scientific American wrote to deny that the Wright brothers flew.

    There was another earthquake in Sapporo yesterday. Mizuno reports that the building was damaged more. The elevator is not working and the water is cut off. However, there was no major damage in the lab, because after the last earthquake he took steps to secure the shelves and other equipment. So it is okay.

    As insistently asked by Rothwell (1), I looked at the F&P documents and found serious errors which invalidate both the conclusions of their major paper.

    No, you did not. You are mistaken. I am sure you honestly believe you did, but so did Morrison and Shanahan. As you see from their papers, they were mistaken. Or perhaps you don't see it. Anyway, Morrison does not understand the difference between power and energy, and he got the arithmetic wrong by 5 orders of magnitude. Those are the worst mistakes I have ever seen in a journal paper.

    That would only be the case if the entrepreneurs read the literature and understood it. If they read the DoE or Scientific American version instead, they will not understand, and they will not be all over it. I have spoken with some of them, and that is the problem.


    If Seven_of_twenty has any doubt about that, and he is in contact with an entrepreneur, he can easily test my assertion. Just administer my three-question examination:


    1. What instruments are used?

    2. What sort of nuclear evidence has been found?

    3. Why do researchers think this is a nuclear effect?


    In a few minutes you will discover whether this person has any knowledge of cold fusion. In most cases, you will see they do not. Obviously, someone who does not know that cold fusion is studied with calorimeters is incapable of evaluating it. Imagine a typical entrepreneur in 1977. This person had never seen a microcomputer, never used a minicomputer, or even a Wang word processor. This person has never written a single line of code. He (and it was alway a guy) would be incapable of judging whether microcomputers had a future or whether this "Apple" computer in the news was anything other than a weird fad, like a pet rock. Without hands-on technical knowledge and experience, you cannot judge nascent technology. Once it takes off and starts selling like hotcakes, anyone can see it is promising.


    It wasn't the fault of the entrepreneurs in 1977 that they knew nothing about computers. Most entrepreneurs and most ordinary people in 1977 had never used a computer, because computers were rare, expensive and difficult to use. Bill Gates and I had spent hundreds of hours using them with ASR-33 terminals and paper tape. That's why we knew they were a hot item, and the wave of the future. We were lucky to know that. I am 100% sure that if cold fusion ever comes out of the cold, and overcomes academic politics, it too will be a hot item. I am confident that my skills at technical prognostication are no worse than they were in 1977, because this particular prognostic is about as difficult as hitting the ground after you jump off the Empire State Building. Unfortunately for me, there is no telling whether cold fusion will overcome, or when. I am cursed with the gift of Cassandra.


    When I encounter someone who fails my three question examination, I never get upset. Why should I? 99.9999% of people would fail it. I politely suggest he should see my video and read the McKubre paper. It only upsets me when people refuse to read anything, and they go on claiming that cold fusion is bogus. When technically accomplished people read the literature but insist it is wrong, I am bemused, not upset. They are nitwits. Certified A-1 idiots. There were many nitwits in 1977 who knew computers as well as I did, yet who thought microcomputers had no future. That is why DEC, Data General and the others went out of business. In 1977, DEC founder Ken Olsen supposedly said, "there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." Some historians say this is a legend and he never said that. Legend or real, it hardly matters. I heard similar statements from many executives at other computer companies (where I worked, or did business with). Olsen must have thought that, because he rolled over and played dead instead of competing. He and the others stood by and did nothing while IBM and Compaq ate their lunch. I expect the fossil fuel and wind turbine companies will react the same way to cold fusion if it ever emerges. History shows that's human nature.

    You would be surprised at how many LENR people I meet who say 'give my best wishes to Russ' and really mean it.


    I have said that, and I really mean it. I have given him money and support, and recommended him to others. I do not regret it. He is self-destructive and his ventures often end in a shambles, but that was also true of William Shockley, and others.


    His insults directed at me are water off a duck's back. He is just being silly. It has nothing to do with me. As I said, he eventually gets around to insulting everyone he has worked with, and everyone who has done him a good turn. You, Alan Smith, are next in line. A person at war with everyone is actually fighting his own internal demons.



    He has enemies for sure (another thing we share) but he has many friends too, and never hesitates to heap praise on many people in the field whose work, brains and skills he admires.



    So I have heard, but he has seldom published anything, so I cannot judge.


    No one admires his work, brains or skills more than he himself. That's the problem. It makes it awkward to work with him. He often takes credit for his co-worker's accomplishments, which upsets them. Since I have no technical accomplishments, it wouldn't upset me.


    I don't see why it matters to you whether he is a nice fellow or a jerk. You are working with him to accomplish a technical task. You are not married to him. So what difference does would it make if he rubs you the wrong way? Or if he takes credit for your work. Why would you care, as long as your name is also on the patent application? You would collaborate with William Shockley, I am sure. There is nothing wrong with collaborating with people you dislike, or making use of them. You should only be careful of people you do not trust.

    if the evidence pointed to a likelihood of a new source of plentiful and cheap energy, entrepreneurs would be all over it like... well, you know.


    That would only be the case if the entrepreneurs read the literature and understood it. If they read the DoE or Scientific American version instead, they will not understand, and they will not be all over it. I have spoken with some of them, and that is the problem. (Some of them contact me when they do due diligence to learn something about the field, but not enough due diligence.)


    Similar situations have often arisen in history. In the 1850s, Theodore Judah could not get anyone in San Francisco to invest in a Transcontinental Railroad, even though it was the richest city in the world with many goldrush millionaires (people who would have hundreds of millions today). His plans were later implemented, and they resulted in the most profitable venture in history, albeit one underwritten by Uncle Sam. In the 1970s, many people set about developing microcomputer hardware and software, including me. Very few of us were able to attract interest from venture capitalists. They did not understand the technology, and they had no idea there would be a broad market for such things. Fortunately, it was cheap to develop products, so we did not need them. In the 1980s it became apparent that microcomputers (by then called "PCs") were the hottest thing in decades. Venture capitalists fell over themselves giving out money, but by that time we didn't need them. As Mark Twain said of bankers, they are happy to lend you money when you don't need it. The point is, they tend to be blind to opportunity in the early stages when capital is needed. They only throw money at ventures when everyone already knows the technology is promising, and when others have already invested. Or when everyone thinks the technology is promising, even though it isn't.


    That is why the recent $8 million investment by Mitsubishi in Clean Planet might shake loose other venture capital. I am uneasy about Clean Planet. I know little about them but based on what I know, I would hesitate to invest in them. I would have to learn a lot more. But some venture capitalists may see "Mitsubishi" and "$8 million" and jump to the conclusion this is a hot deal they better get into now, before it is too late. Some of them throw money at stupid ideas, such as Juicero and Theranos:


    https://www.theguardian.com/te…icon-valley-shutting-down


    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078VW3VM7


    To summarize, if you look at venture capitalists to judge the viability of a technology, or the likelihood that it is real, in 1975 you would have concluded that microcomputers have no future, and in 2013 you would have concluded that Theranos was the next Apple Computer.

    There is broad agreement that their results are sound.


    As always, with the caveat: there is broad agreement among people who have read the literature and who understand the experiments. There is no broad agreement in the larger scientific community, but their views do not count, because they have not read the literature.


    That is true of all scientific claims, but in other fields you don't have to add this caveat. People take it for granted that a particle physicist cannot write a professional critique of neural network artificial intelligence, or vice versa. I do not understand why the DoE and Scientific American assume that plasma physicists are qualified to critique calorimetry and electrochemistry. I get that the claim is fusion, and plasma physicists do fusion. But it is not the same kind of fusion, with the same rules, investigated with the same instruments.

    I don't know what Celani and the Swedes now have to say about Rossi.


    Celani's only involvement was to measure a burst of radiation just before a test, with two meters. Rossi was upset with him for doing this. I do not think he took part in any other test, or said anything more about it. I asked him about the burst years ago. He shrugged and said he does not know what to make of it.

    This is my last post here on Lenr Forum.


    I once heard someone say, "I have been in five car accidents in the last year, and not a single one was my fault!" I thought, "that's statistically impossible."


    When your business arrangements end in a shambles; you leave discussion groups in a huff; and when your friends become enemies, it is probably your fault, not theirs.

    The issue is that 99% of the physicists have not done their homework and only preconceived ideas remain.

    Yes. You can easily confirm this by asking them a few questions. Such as:


    1. What instruments are used? A: Calorimeters, mainly.

    2. What sort of nuclear evidence has been found? A: Tritium and helium.

    3. Why do researchers think this is a nuclear effect? A: Because there are no chemical changes, no chemical fuel, and the energy would far exceed the limits of chemistry if the whole cell was filled with fuel.


    Most skeptics I have encountered are unaware of these things, and much else. Or they read the wrong answers in Scientific American or Wikipedia.

    The US government can hide patents they deem useful to or threatening to national security.

    I have heard they rarely do that. I think it is unlikely they would hide a cold fusion patent, because the scientific establishment and the DoE think that cold fusion does not exist. By the time they realize it does exist, it will be too late to hide the patent. Copies will be everywhere.

    I don't doubt his results, I doubt his interpretation of the results. I see two artifact sources:

    I have some concerns about the calorimetry. If I understand correctly, there is a large thermal mass of water and the temperature change is small. This could lead to artifacts from thermal gradients if the water is not stirred enough. I do not know whether it is stirred enough.


    I have some other concerns, but I do not understand the details well enough, so I will not comment. They may be my misunderstandings.

    Nikkei BP (business publication) reports that Mitsubishi has invested $8 million in Clean Planet. Article in Japanese which you can Google translate:


    https://tech.nikkeibp.co.jp/dm…64/?ST=msb&n_cid=nbptec_f


    (I think this was discussed here previously. Anyway, here are some details.)


    This article also mentions the NEDO project that ran from 2015 to 2017. It does not say the project is continuing. I have not heard that it is.


    Discussed here Hideki Yoshino (CleanPlanet) will talk on LENR at Nikkei BP company event called "Future Creation Square in Marunouchi"

    I would like you to answer again after I have done my best to create conditions in which fair comparisons can be made.


    He will not answer. He has no answer. He doesn't do technical questions. However, I appreciate your efforts to clarify this situation.


    I do not think you queued up the second video.



    By the way, I strongly recommend the sparging technique shown in the first video. I recommended it to Rossi. He ignored me and he ignored all other recommendations from all other people.

    [Expressing an opinion that someone is guilty]


    Good to see you're softening up Jed. We're making progress...


    Let me rephrase. Expressing certainty that a person is guilty is not a crime. Especially in Rossi's case when anyone who understands the technical issues will agree he is guilty. This is not controversial. Rossi himself admitted he was guilty of fraud in many ways, such as pretending he had a customer. He made many other technical assertions in the Penon report and elsewhere that are obviously fraudulent. The heat exchanger claim is perhaps the most extravagant lie -- the most blatant and outrageous lie -- but I am 100% certain the others are also lies.

    It is fair to assume that the heat exchanger might have been real.


    O-O-O-kay. Thanks for going on record with that. I think you have demonstrated that you have no common sense and no technical knowledge.


    The Smith report had all kinds of flaws and misdirection.


    No, it did not. I won't ask you for any examples, since it is clear you do not understand these issues.

    That does not change anything. It has nothing to do with me agreeing or not. You are the one accusing Rossi of criminal behaviour. You should prove it.


    His own words prove it, far above my poor power to add or detract, as Mr. Lincoln put it.



    Otherwise you are the criminal one.


    Expressing an opinion that someone is guilty of a crime is not, in any sense, a crime. It is not libel. When a sensational criminal case is tried, such as the O. J. Simpson case, half the public thinks the person is guilty. You seem to think half the public is thereby criminal. You have some strange notions.

    I apologize to all for my intemperate language, both on this thread and the others.


    Just remove the "fucking" and you are in the temperate zone. I see nothing intemperate about the rest.



    (I do not like that word, and I wish people would stop using it. I especially don't like it in the original sense of "sexual intercourse," because it derives from the German meaning "hit." I don't like that nuance. The word has a harsh Teutonic metallic crashing sound, a bit like "Hitler.")

    That is a very serious accusation. Libelous?


    No, Rossi made the statements, not me. You might say he libeled himself.


    If you do not agree that the statements about the heat exchanger were lies, then you do not have much technical knowledge, and you apparently believe anything Rossi says, no matter how impossible or outrageous.



    If true it would be a slam dunk for IH to prove it and put Rossi in jail


    IH is not a law enforcement agency. They cannot put anyone in jail. They could inform the authorities, but it is extremely unlikely the authorities would charge Rossi with lying (perjury) in a civil case. That is what lawyers told me. People are sometimes jailed for lying in a criminal case.

    OMFG! People lie for many reasons, good or bad ones, stupid ones. Logical ones even totally incomprehensible ones. I know that.


    Do you know that? Okay, give us an example of someone who deliberately threw away millions in a court case by lying.


    Does Rossi strike you as the kind of person who would give up millions of dollars for no reason?