Posts by Jack Cole

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Again and again, there are people who take Rossi's conclusory claims in the Complaint as if they were fact. Dewey has claimed that IH identified a customer in Raleigh, which would have been very convenient to IH, and Rossi refused to accept, giving essentially a bullshit answer. I would guess that at that point, IH gave up on arranging the test. These are things that can be established with testimony, if this goes to trial, and if there is conflict in testimony, the jury will decide what is fact, if it is relevant. I would guess that multiple people knew about that offer (including the prospective customer), so establishing this with testimony might not be difficult.

Right. People so easily accept his explanations for things. For example, "he sold his house to finance building his reactors." Anybody can give any reason they want to for the things they do. It could be true or not. We can safely say that the explanation that he sold his house to finance his business is the explanation that casts him in a good light. It naturally leads to the thought, "nobody would sell their house to finance a non-working technology." The question that it is false doesn't so easily arise since the explanation is presented as fact.

Quote

Shane D wrote:
In addition, Rossi also allowed almost unfettered access with the Ferrara test, Lugano, and even the 6 Oct 2011, which lends some validity to the earlier reports that he allowed equally generous, unsupervised access. If you have a fake product, you do not willingly hand it over to experts to examine, but it appears he has done so many times in the past. Why would he do that if he was a scammer?

Shane,
We're back to the question of "where are the lies and how far do they extend?" If he could make it work, why doesn't the patent formula work? Why didn't he transfer full knowledge of how to make it work to IH? Did he only lie to IH and in the patent (smaller scam)? Does it work very well sometimes because he has lied about an important parameter?

As a converse to your question, is this the behavior of someone acting in good faith?

Quizzical,

McCubre reports being involved in designing experiments for Brillouin and suggestions for doing calibration correctly. He notes that his suggestions were "pretty much" followed. Regardless of the qualification, he seemed impressed by Godes and his methods. That is a plus. Tanzella appeared more directly involved with the HHT. It is still not clear that SRI has done an independent verification like McCubre reported they have done in other cases. If Brian Ahern is correct that Godes has not measured input power at the wall, my objections stand.

I feel pretty confident about the output power measurements after seeing the vids.

Again, the evidence for Brillouin having something real is much better than the other guy. The data are lacking and concerns remain to be addressed. Time will tell.

Alan, good idea for moderation technique. People can highlight the text by selecting it if they want to read it.

Quote from Keieueue

Now why would anyone go the bother of making experiments the supposed results they deny, with the stated intent to disprove them, if they're not trying to force opinion?
Normal people don't spend their time studying flat earth, building mercury antigrav devices in their garden, or trying to channel the Galactic Ishtar Fleet, when they think it's complete bullshit. They do stuff that they believe in.
Also, as you said, incompetence is clearly not a proof of non-existence. "Look! I tuned it, plugged it, amp is on, and yet I can't play guitar. So, neither could Jimi Hendrix, and moreover nobody can. This is all wishful thinking!"
However, willful incompetence can pass for a lofty all-encompassing scientific knowledge, for the public. Long, pro-looking experiments filled with snide comments and, yes, filibuster-like avalanche of muddling details, will tend to have that effect.

As for Jack Cole his forum activity also gives a pretty clear image of what he's up to -consciously or not, always the same issue with groupthink: people pick up trends they are unaware of-

If you would actually read the presentation or my comments here without making snap judgments and immediately flinging poo you would probably come to a different conclusion. My intention was to find a working formula for LENR. I failed to do so. Does this mean LENR doesn't exist? No it doesn't. Does it mean I'm incompetent? Maybe. That's for others to decide. Willfully incompetent--not a chance. I have supported LENR for many years with hard work, sweat, money, and most of all time. Do I demand a lot in terms of proof of claims of LENR? Absolutely. Read the presentation and you will understand why. I have been down the road of excitement and false positives time and time again. So far, there has always been an alternative explanation proven through experimentation. Experience with this type of research reveals the need for caution and objectivity, which is a difficult internal battle. You should try it, it is unpleasant.

Now after waiting many years, personally conducting experiments, reading and learning everything I could, and working to be objective about your leader all this time, I came to certain conclusions about him. You will find that is clear in my posts rather than a war on LENR, which you seem to imagine. Thankfully, most people who continue to support him are not like you, and just wish for a better world. I don't fault them at all, but I do fault him for taking advantage of people.

Quote from Jack Cole

Eric,

I looked at my spreadsheet. I never posted the updated one with 62 experiments and 217 slides (yes I was really obsessed with trying to make something work). It really shows how the process can go on for a long time with thinking there is excess…

Here is the updated spreadsheet. There are a couple slides missing.
https://drive.google.com/file/…wYlhGVE0/view?usp=sharing

Eric,

I looked at my spreadsheet. I never posted the updated one with 62 experiments and 217 slides (yes I was really obsessed with trying to make something work). It really shows how the process can go on for a long time with thinking there is excess heat only to painstakingly discover another explanation. I can post the full thing if there is interest.

Jack

Eric,

First, I'm amazed that you actually red all that!

Quote from Eric Walker

I was quite excited when I read that you had run experiments with thoriated tungsten. But then I read that these rods were placed next to cell (Experiment 21), presumably in contrast to within the cell, with electricity running through them. Have I misunderstood? Did you try any experiments in which you ran significant electricity through the thoriated tungsten rods?

Yes, I did many experiments with the TT rod serving as the cathode. Actually, many experiments involved a TT rod going through a stack of standard 5 cent nickels as the cathode.

Quote from Eric Walker

I see that you were using currents between 0.4 and 0.8 amps. Do you have an estimate of the current density?

I don't have an estimate of current density. With the lateral AC current (not sure it is described in those experiments), I had 2-10 amps (high frequency square waves). There were experiments that I ran close to 5 amps on the DC electrolysis side.

Quote from Eric Walker

Your claim for experiment 25 was quite strong: "Experiment 25 puts to rest the notion of AHE [anomalous heat effect] with alternating between DC and AC ... It will be fruitless to pursue the method further." What convinced you that your difficulty in getting anything working with this setup was the basis for a general conclusion about all such setups?

I think I meant conventional AC levels and / or the low voltage AC that I had used. I continued to try to develop something that would be closer to what Godes was using. I got close, but ended up giving up on it to pursue gas loaded experiments (my initial ones were using nickel, KOH, and aluminum). This was pre-Lugano.

Quote from Eric Walker

Why should we assume, apart from claims going back to Godes about specific Q pulse waveforms that he's been using, that AC should be more effective than DC in triggering the AHE? Also, can one draw a conclusion about all AC stimulation from the effects of specific AC stimulation (i.e., whatever it was that you were doing)?

Apart from Godes, I would consider the disequilibrium notion with LENR. Some stimulation or change seemed to be necessary in past electrolysis experiments (laser, ultrasound, power level, pulsing, heat changes, etc...)

All good questions.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

I met Rossi in Raleigh on multiple occasions, found him very interesting and, at times, delightful. He is a driven man and ended up not wanting me around as a result of my questions and actions. I attended one of the initial demonstrations to WIF and Rossi spotted me with an IR temp gun. He made a couple of adjustments to the controls and stated that the system may be getting dangerous and for everyone to step away while he attempts to get the system back under control. He was claiming 450C at the time and the temp gun said much lower. After that, he told T Barker not to let me into the lab stating "keep those lawyers away from here". I'm not a lawyer but was glad to stay out of the way after hearing that and did not visit the lab again until 1MW system shipped to Florida.

Dewey,

I have some opinions about what you observed. His exclusion of you is consistent with a hypothesis of deliberate deception by a skilled artist. Some people are very skilled at profiling. In this case, he just profiles those who are likely to question him or be skeptical and removes them by throwing them out. IMO, he has likely developed a large repertoire of these types of behaviors that he can use when someone gets too close to the truth. People will just think he is eccentric or paranoid, but there is a logical goal. Currently, he seems to be working at rehabbing his scientific creds by mentioning that scientists will be involved in tests, feigning tentativeness, and referencing 5 sigmas. He appears to closely watch the general mood and works constantly to manage the perception of others. It is sad that he wastes his intellect and skills in these ways.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Who has mixed in this discussion the problem of religion
its ethical aspect? You had.

Peter,

I think you and many others have misunderstood what Dewey was expressing. Dewey seemed to be testifying to the nature of the men, Darden and Vaughn. Their faith was one thing mentioned, but not the only thing. It would probably serve you to drop it unless you just can't resist and want to take a stand of moral superiority. This probably could blow up into endless debates about who has committed more atrocities in the past (religious vs. irreligous), who has done more good, who is more hypocritical, and on ad infinitum. My unsolicited advice, just take away from it that Dewey approves of the character of Darden and Vaughn and go back to the issue you are here to discuss.

Quote from Longview

This is interesting. Did you look for any neutrons or monitor with a GM counter? What was the cathode material in this case? Were the square waves bi-polar, by any chance?

Much higher lateral voltages at suitably low currents might be of interest here, isolated from the high current circuits of course. Many possibilities to look at in such efforts.

I tried nickel wire, constantan, nitinol, and thoriated tungsten as cathode material. I didn't look for neutrons or radiation. I was looking for heat only. I developed a lot of automated methods for running the experiments and determing excess heating. For example, Godes could demonstrate excess heating in his system using some of the methods that I used.

Here is an example: run the lateral power only for a specified amount of time, run the electrolysis only for a specific amount of time, and third, alternate between the two on a specific duty cycle. The cell temp will reach a predicted value in between the two curves in the first two conditions. You can generate the predicted curve based on the two observed curves. If excess heating is present, it will be higher than the predicted curve. See slide 36 in this post for the best example. I think the presentation is also useful to see the process of working through eliminating artifacts and systematic error. I did probably another 75 experiments, but stopped writing each one up.

me356,

I would recommend having someone you trust replicate the results first and agree to not share the secrets. You want to make sure you have something real before you waste your own (and everyone else's) time with worrying about IP issues. I know you are convinced, but I urge you to allow someone else to try to replicate before getting too excited.

Even if you could do it black box style and have MFMP do the testing, it would be wise. Then you could spend a lot of money consulting with attorneys on the best way to protect it. First, be sure it works by relying on some trusted others.

Quote from quizzical

I detected a negative bias in your statements, especially since you again state that "probably" Brian is right. That's fine, but I didn't see any specific reason - other than your somewhat unfounded "doubts" about their ability to measure input power - for this bias. I don't know if you looked at the article in JCMNS Vol. 13 (2014) published by Godes, George, Tanzella, and McKubre in which they mention that they ran 150 experiments with two different cell/calorimeter designs and always saw excess heat, typically 100% or more. In section 2.2 they discuss how they conservatively measured both the input power and the output power and included inductive and logic circuit losses. The fact that they saw more excess heat in a higher-temperature "boiler cell" than at "room temperature" suggests to me that this may not be an artefact.

Since you have now brought up the issue of comparing electrolysis results with a control (which from my point-of-view is at least partially related to output power rather than input power) I agree that a comparison with respect to electrolysis with an inactive cathode would make the results more definitive. However, I also believe that McKubre is probably one of the world's experts in calorimetry. So, if you are challenging their results for the output power, then I would argue that you are challenging McKubre's ability to do calorimetry. If that is the case, then I have to assume that you also question all of his earlier electrolysis (P&F) results as well as those of P&F. Is that the case?

P.S. You haven't said anything about Claytor's tritium results (using the Godes' protocol). Is that just "chopped liver"?

P.P.S. While I still have some doubts, based on these considerations (and also what is perhaps an overestimate of the capabilities of SRI) my bias is more positive than yours.

Display More

I do naturally have a bit more negative than positive outlook, which I think is healthy in considering these experiments. I can be swayed by positive results, but I first try to think of any possible way it can be wrong. I stick by saying that probably Brian is right (he was right about Rossi before most others IMHO). There is still a possibility that Godes is correct. I have not seen any evidence that SRI has conducted an independent evaluation of Godes' devices.

It is not clear to me that McKubre actually participated in the experimental runs that Godes executed. Do you know if he did or if he just was involved in part of the write-up and included as a co-author? Given the complexity of Godes input power system, I don't trust a comparison with an ohmic control even in 150 experiments. The number of experiments would not remove a systematic bias. In my experiments, electrolysis produced more heat than ohmic controls almost every time. But this is due to systematic differences (e.g., you dissipate more power in the connective leads with the ohmic control because the heating coil has a lower resistance than the electrolysis condition).

I have not read the third-party reviewed report regarding the claimed 4x gain with the gas system. Perhaps that would change my mind. There is more evidence so far in favor of Godes work being accurate than Rossi's.

Regarding the Claytor tritium work, Claytor says the following in an interview with infinite energy.

Quote

What is the level? “The biggest sample had 31 dpm. The next biggest one had 22 dpm and then one other was 14 dpm and the rest were at the 1 sigma level but they were positives above zero but not to the 2 sigma level. There were a couple that were null that he sent later. So I can’t say he wasn’t seeing something in his electrolytic system or wasn’t doing anything. I’m not interested in writing up a paper with him because I don’t know what the preparation was, what the metal is, how long he ran them. I don’t know anything about the system he used, so in my viewpoint it is not possible for someone to replicate what he did without all those other details. I basically was doing a blind analysis of unknown samples.”

It is pretty weak evidence to say, "I can't say he wasn't seeing something..."

Quote from quizzical

Jack,
These are a lot of negative statements for someone who has no actual information. Also, Brian has made a number of absurd comments in the recent past, which were clearly wrong.

However, regarding the question of input power in BLP's experiments, as well as your comment about the input power in Godes' machines, I think that these are certainly good points to raise - although it doesn't make them correct.

In fact, regarding Godes' experiments I raised it with McKubre several years ago (since SRI has been participating in the testing of Brillouin Energy's device). However, he assured me that measuring the input power accurately was not a problem. I might add that Claytor has used Godes' "prescription" and produced tritium, which is a clear sign of LENR.

Getting back to the input power issue, I certainly don't know if either BLP or Brillouin Energy have been measuring it correctly (and/or using "wall-plug power" to make sure) but I would guess that since (a) BLP claims multiple different confirmations and/or evaluations (and also since they are claiming energy gains of 1000 which seems unlikely to be due entirely to measurement error) and (b) since SRI has worked with Brillouin and tested their devices for several years with top scientists and engineers, then there is a reasonable possibility that their results are not entirely due to errors in measuring the input power. However - unlike many on this forum - and Brian Ahern - I retain an open mind, and am waiting to hear more evidence either way.

Display More

I don't think I express that many negative statements. I express doubt. The evidence must force the opinion of LENR after every other reasonable explanation is ruled out. McKubre's saying that Godes did it right is anecdotal and doesn't relate to Godes' gas loading system. Godes past electrolysis experiments utilized a joule heating control vs. an electrolysis control. He needed to do electrolysis vs. electrolysis with an inactive cathode. I could believe the results better if he did that. His input power system is quite complex as I studied it extensively. You might need to be an EE or at least very competent with electronics to replicate his setup.¹ I'm not saying Ahern is correct, but that I think he will probably end up being correct. BLP is barely worth talking about.

I really want to be wrong about this. Until there is a verifiably repeatable experiment, the doubt will and should continue.

¹Note: the system requires ~200V high frequency AC with ~2A, pulse widths of ~60 to 100ns, simultaneously running standard electrolysis with the afformentioned pulses going laterally across the cathode to the center tap of a transformer. I never tried a complete replication because of the expenses involved in the power supply system. I did try high current lower voltage laterally across the cathode while simultaneously running electrolisys with null results (11V, ~90khz, AC square waves).

Quote from Shane D.

May I ask, is there a reason for me to follow LENR anymore? Any possibility this may come to something significant? Been following it for 5 1/2 years now, and all I see is exactly what the skeptics have claimed all along...it has all the hallmarks of a "pseudoscience"? Bunch of garage tinkerers, dreamers, and retirees chasing artifacts it seems.

Want to believe, trust me...but starting to wonder.

Shane,

The work of many of the garage tinkerers, has actually been open, scientific and objective. Of course there are exceptions. It has not all been a loss since some very impressive methodologies have been developed in garages. Look at what Brian Albiston, Russ Gries, and Jeff Morriss were able to do. MFMP has made tremendous contributions experimentally (as long as certain pronouncements are ignored). Alan Smith and Sam have poured countless hours, skill, and creativity into their efforts with lookingforheat.com. I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

I would keep an eye on the field for developments, but I would probably put more energy into technologies that are developing and known to work (e.g., conventional technologies like solar and wind). I too hope there is something to CF other than artifact and error. I would keep an open mind, but not excessively open.

Quote from Shane D.

Briian Ahern has been ripping into LENR+ recently. It appears he had Rossi pegged for what he is, but yesterday on EGOOUT he also dispatched BLP, and BE in one fell swoop:

Brian AhernJune 17, 2016 at 5:30 AM

Plasma electrolysis is a nice'parlor trick'. I did it thoroughly in 2007. The glowing electrode is asymmetric. It is only sumersed about 5 mm. This amplifies the electrical field to induce breakdown. The plamsa is just a seies of individaul discharges. There is no excess energy.

It is very hard to accurately measure the input power from the wall and it often appears to be over unity.

Brillouin has been making this mistake for over 5 years and they never measure the wall plug power.

Not much, if anything left of commercial value if he is right. Maybe Miley or Piantelli? Sure is not going to look good when the DOD reports to congress this fall, and says the field is filled mostly with charlatans, or incompetents that haven't figured out yet, after their many years existence, that they are measuring wrong.

By the way, those are the same type accusations leveled at the LENR side of the field that Brian represents, going back to 1989. He has stated though, that the skeps are wrong, and that LENR is real...wonder what he is referring to?

Display More

Sadly, Brian is probably right about BLP and Brillouin. I have long suspected that measurement of input power is where Godes could have gone wrong. Probably aided by the fact that being an electrical engineer makes him overly confident about such measures. It is very difficult to correctly measure input power with such a high voltage / high power short pulses (e.g., <100ns). Until Godes measures at the wall socket, it can't be believed. I have never found BLP believable. That doesn't mean they have nothing, but Mills really doesn't seem to understand or deliberately distorts engineering challenges. A frequent thing he does is takes a small measurement and using calculations, scales it up to a massive scale. Then he doesn't figure it will be too hard to scale up and commercialize (or at least continuously presents this absurd evaluation). As it is, they are simply providing anecdotal evidence by saying that there have been these several third party validations. Where is the data and reports?

Maybe there is something left to the field with Storms and basic science, Letts, Cravens, and Miley.

Quote from JedRothwell

With some assumptions on my part. For example, I doubt the pressure was actually 0.0 bar. I did not take all of the data at face value. If I did, I would agree with Rossi's conclusions. His numbers do add up.

Ok, so the problem is the error bars or Penon makes different assumptions?

Quote from Tom Paulsen

I took a picture of my new QuackY reactor.

One can clearly see the white color in the center, which is surrounded by a slight purple halo and a larger blue halo.

This color flow looks very similar to that of a picture which I saw on ECat-World.

Tom,

This is a remarkable device. I could literally see the light coming from it. Amazing piece of technology. It looks like it is emitting a mixture of fire and lightning. Did you try to capture any of the lightning?

Did you try to pass your hand through the blue halo? How hot was it? It looks really hot. Was there smoke too, or was it just really hot?

Could you write up a "preliminar" report of testing results? Just something really really tentative, amazing, impressive, and subjective.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

salting the spent fuel in Lugano
We don't know that he did that, though it is a reasonable surmise. The Lugano professors seem incredibly naive. What were they thinking, allowing that access?

I think unless a valid alternative hypothesis is generated, it is the only one that makes sense. Even if you want to say that there was 20% excess heat, Parkhomov's supposed 100W long-term test did not find isotopic shifts. Therefore, there is no evidence to support the isotopic shifts in Rossi-type experiments.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

and then getting a scientist into writing a theory paper on it,
Well, that was up to Cook. Cold fusion theoreticians are an odd bunch, given to speculating without adequate evidence. Remember Yeong Kim and Defkalion?

It was his choice, but consider the implications of Rossi collaborating with Cook on a theory that he knows for certain is based on fraudulent data.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

posting comments to himself under various pseudonyms on his blog,
I'm not certain of that. I'll say that RB0 here certainly makes me think of Rossi, but that's far from proof. And besides, this is relatively meaningless. If proven, though, it would impeach Rossi's honesty, since RB0 claims to not be Rossi, my dear. This would be trivial compared to the other stuff.

I don't really want to go into the full analysis here, but there is good evidence for this (IMHO). See comment discussion here. Search for "Jacky." Although I dislike the adolescent attitude at ECN, I don't disagree on the substance of that matter. I noticed the same thing reading the comment by "Jacky." There are numerous examples with Rossi's fingerprints all over them if you are familiar with his punctuation, phrasing, mispellings, and sentence structure.

I think it is non-trivial if seen as a part of a bigger pattern of doing anything to maintain the support and positive perception of his followers. It is just another line of evidence (although you are right that it is not needed).

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Not to mention his past.
Right, we won't mention his past, because that would not be nice, and we are nice. (Donald Trump pulled this trick in his campaign. "I would never call my opponent a complete bumbling incompetent idiot, because that would not be nice", or the like of that.)

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Perhaps we can imagine that this was the mafia's fault, but I have a hard time believing that his family would have also been convinced and left him. I suppose it's not impossible, but I kind of think his family may have known him best. If none of these assertions cause red flags to raise for you then consider only the fact that he has never allowed an adequate calibration run. This should be all you need to discard the current or any previous reports.
Yeah, kinda like that.

I didn't say I wouldn't mention it. I said "not to mention" as a means of emphasis rather than the backhanded way politians "don't mention" things.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

In contrast to Jed, Rossi has millions of dollars to gain by lying. Maybe not from IH, but the lawsuit provided a plausible cover while he bamboozled the next investor with that silly magical QuarkX device (let us not forget that it produces excess light, heat, electricity, and propellantless thrust).
The thrust thing may have been a joke. It was a stupid question to ask him.

It didn't seem like a joke to me, but perhaps I am wrong on that point. But it might as well be added to the list don't you think?

For those who missed the propellantless thrust claim.

Quote from frankwtu

But I have no reason to trust what you say, (just a personal view) I think you cannot back up what you say with facts and evidence, its second hand. To me is JED SAYS and conjures up exactly what some suggest when they speak of ROSSi SAYS, its just the same.Yes I will wait for the court to tell me not you or Dewey, or anyone.

Do you have a reason to mistrust what Jed says? What could Jed possibly have to gain by lying? He has enough data to perform calculations and says it is consistent with values that Rossi has already released. Conversely, there are many reasons to mistrust what Rossi says including throwing people out when he they want to do valid measurements, preventing the IH expert entrance into "the customer" side, salting the spent fuel in Lugano and then getting a scientist into writing a theory paper on it, posting comments to himself under various pseudonyms on his blog, choosing an Italian with whom he has experience for the ERV and knows will be fine doing an invalid evaluation, disallowing Jed and others to do objective tests, setting up a proxy company for some supposed unknown company with his lawyer as the CEO, and other things. Not to mention his past. Perhaps we can imagine that this was the mafia's fault, but I have a hard time believing that his family would have also been convinced and left him. I suppose it's not impossible, but I kind of think his family may have known him best. If none of these assertions cause red flags to raise for you then consider only the fact that he has never allowed an adequate calibration run. This should be all you need to discard the current or any previous reports.

In contrast to Jed, Rossi has millions of dollars to gain by lying. Maybe not from IH, but the lawsuit provided a plausible cover while he bamboozled the next investor with that silly magical QuarkX device (let us not forget that it produces excess light, heat, electricity, and propellantless thrust).

I remember when I found a sign wave pattern to the temperature data like in the Levi et. al. test 1. They spent a significant amount of time and analysis asserting this as proof of an anomaly. It isn't. Not at all. Just plain old normal thermodynamic behavior with a steel tube. It bothered me at the time, but I thought it not enough to invalidate the whole report. There is enough to invalidate that report and all others, which is the failure to perform an adequate calibration.