Posts by andrea.s

    If patrons fund the works of an great artist or a composer to encourage the completion of their work, is that fraud? When Lorenzo the Great took Michelangelo into his house to train him in his great art, was Lorenzo defrauded? Is allowing the completion of an immortal work a crime? How great is the legacy of Lorenzo for his generosity and foresight. Such generosity eventually made possible the completion of a legacy of great works of art that has yet to be surpassed, the Papal Basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican, and the immortal decoration of the Sistine chapel.

    this amazing flattery deserves a first row invitation to the next DPS in 2020.

    P.s. " la gente non sta bene"

    Prove it...

    Some of us do enjoy proving that demos are no proof - it happened for all of Rossi's demos and likely easy on these Golden Balls - nomen omen. No one in their right mind will engage in trying to prove that the Balls don't work, for the epistemological reasons repeated a thousand times.

    @Admins I wish you had not suspended ele

    I agree and think ele deserves at least the same leeway granted to Dewey. I won't say more for risk of being banned myself but his/her participation is most entertaining.

    I take that back. We have Randombit0 again!


    I would like to see Rossi stopped.

    Ever since Hollywood decided in the seventies that it was no longer obligatory for the bad guy to go to jail or die, we have all become accustomed to freely take part for the most appealing character, not necessarily being honest nor gentle.

    So in spite of agreeing on THH's conclusions most of the time, I am unable to have bitter feelings toward this lunatic inventor who bamboozled so many.

    After all, noone of us has hard feelings against the religious leaders, in spite of them being -at best- all wrong except one (whoever it is).

    Mary wrote "@Admins I wish you had not suspended ele "

    I agree and think ele deserves at least the same leeway granted to Dewey. I won't say more for risk of being banned myself but his/her participation is most entertaining.

    Moved from the "believers" thread. Eric


    Did he end up losing the funding? I remember the head of his department trying to defund him, but Celani made an appeal to a politician I think, to keep it going. Never heard anything after that. Celani still is very active and works with a team, so I guessed he had won the funding battle.

    Celani is very honest. When he makes a mistake like he did at NI LENR, he admits it and moves on. In his ICCF20 presentation he laid everything on the line, and does not appear to care about making money...only making LENR reliable and scaleable. It would have been nice had he explained why SKINR (ICCF18) was unable to replicate though.

    I have no reason to think he is dishonest and I share your impression of a person without personal greed. As usual I fear however confirmation bias, and the tendency to publish anecdotic positive findings and to insufficiently report on the many nulls.

    I don't really know how the funding story ended but he himself mentions a severe budget cut in 2013 in the paper published in Asti*.

    [Edit: * page 36 in this link

    Celani F., Spallone A., et al. Observation of Macroscopic Current and Thermal Anomalies, at High Temperature, by Hetero-structures in Thin and Long Constantan Wires Under H2 Gas, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 19, (2016), p 29

    I voted 5 and 6. Now 6 includes Ferrara and Lugano TPRs, and also ENEA's Rapporto41. I find some respectable researchers in the field that make me still suspend a definitive judgment. But I don't share the view of an evil mainstream science aiming at suffocating novelty. When I see that extraordinary claims such as those I quoted in the celani thread are ignored by mainstream science and I see Celani's funding zeroed by INFN, I am inclined to think that his peers have identified flaws (even though they may have not engaged in a public critique).

    Otherwise his research -proving a repeatible tabletop nuclear reaction- would be worth the Nobel prize (physics and not peace please) or it should be proof that this was unjustly denied to F&P.


    From your reference, page 36:

    "We note that nearly all of the chemical reactions produce at most 4.5 eV of energy. In our experiment, the effect lasted for several weeks and its integrated value is very much higher than the product of chemical energy times the amount

    of material involved. "

    Well. I can't deny this is exactly what I was asking for. What is puzzling is that Celani openly said he started investigating these materials because he suspected they were used by Rossi in early collaboration with Ahern. Now if Rossi is simply and plainly a charlatan then something is wrong.

    In turn if nothing substantial is wrong in Celani's claim, then one should rethink part of the judgement on Rossi.

    I say "part" because the deceptions are there, but could be part of a scheme aiming at a greater good, which could explain some help he received from people one would never suspect to play a scam.

    Big IF.


    The problem is, if he doesn't bother to write a couple lines of summary, like:

    • the anomaly produced X joules of heat in excess of the input electrical energy;
    • the loss of mass of wires, glass etc was Y grams
    • X/Y kJ/kg energy density is way more than expected from chemical reactions

    then it is hard to decide if it is interesting, all the more if it is a summary of years of work.

    Edit: I haven't followed Celani's work so it may be that he takes it for granted (being Asti a LENR conference) that the energy densities are closer to nuclear than anything chemical, albeit on a smaller scale than Rossi's infamous claims. If you or others know of and could provide a link to a reference where this type of result is claimed I will appreciate it.


    Celani shows gains of 2 in the scale of tens of watts. 70W anomalous excess power is not nothing. But do you understand what the anomaly is? when integrated over time does it result in an energy gain? If so is the mass of the materials involved sufficiently small to say that this cannot simply be a chemical effect, in which case the excess heat is there but not the anomaly?

    the vast majority of critics against Rossi was triggered by economic interest and had not any scientific ground.

    The critiques I submitted were triggered by the embarrassment of having entertained for some time the idea there could be something real. The benefit of doubt was due to Focardi's endorsement. Rossi was never credible but I did fantasize that with the guidance of a serious physicist and a good deal of hands-on practice this lunatic character had stumbled upon a boosted F&P effect.

    My critiques had engineering grounds. Science is for explaining a phenomenon. Engineering knowledge is enough to understand basic measurements and assess if there is a phenomenon to be studied.

    On second thought the phenomenon to be studied is there, but pertains to sociology and or psychology only.

    [...] "all parties shall bear their own fees and costs". [...]

    Yes but under the confidential settlement money likely changed hands. I wish I had half the quatloos Alan has, but no, just a handful - I bet all of mine that the money - peanuts for them, a few millyuns - went from TD to AR and/or to his lawyers.

    I wonder whether tax declarations are open enough that we will find out in some months. And certainly AR will abide by the tax laws: we all learned from the Al Capone story.

    But I can relax: if the info exists on the internet, Ahlfors will post it, hopefully along with a good riddle to exercise our minds.

    Using the recursive emissivity method suggested in the Lugano report, and the matching total emissivity value for alumina for the final temperature from Plot 1 in the Lugano report as the Optris emissivity user function, the MFMP April 2017 test would have produced a convection + radiative power COP of 3.8,

    OK, my computation was 4.3 but I did simplify to one average temperature throughout the dogbone. Maybe you split (the hairs and) the cylinder into sections as in Lugano and this explains some difference. Glad that we are substantially in agreement.