I’ve been cleaning up the blog, creating structure, having fun, and, today, mostly, I wrote for the private CMNS list. Then I looked at lenr-forum, and saw some Stuff. This is miscellany and I don’t know yet what I’ll call this, it’s just what hit me.
A new thread yesterday was started by SelfSustain, a Rossi supporter, generally. May 2017 be for LENR what 2016 wasn’t.
I saw this yesterday and thought I might comment, but then didn’t get a Round Tuit. MrSelfSustain wrote:
When it comes to LENR, 2016 really sucked. Yes, it’s true.
I’m blowing the whistle for the Ontology Police. Years don’t suck. People judge and react, and label things, but these labels are not reality, so … it’s not “true,” unless qualified. “I hated 2016” would be closer, but, really, did everything taste bad? That would suck!
The lawsuit between Industrial Heat and Andrea Rossi polluted the whole community with toxicity and hostility from both sides, the number of public and openly disclosed replications of what some people refer to as LENR+ declined, and the noise level from feuding parties rose to sickening heights.
“LENR+ is Peter Gluck’s trope” meaning nothing, scientifically. Most “replications” failed, perhaps because some original reports, ah, sucked. What looked like progress may have been premature announcement, overheated excitement, with not enough gravitas, with people working in areas not familiar to them. Nothing wrong with that, in itself, it’s a fast way to learn, but, don’t forget: the fastest learning is when we make mistakes and admit them. Stonewalling is a Bad Idea. We are afraid, perhaps, that if we admit mistakes, people won’t trust us. The reverse is more likely! MFMP is learning. Isn’t that great? So, okay, they announced a biological LENR replication project, and the announcement was a bit … overheated. But it’s not a bad idea. I wish them luck, replication can be quite tricky. Without a population interested in replication, though, progress will be quite limited. Soon, I predict, the normal population will arise, i.e., graduate students. That’s been dead for a long time, because of the politics. That is dissipating, and we saw progress on this in 2016. There are grad students working on LENR at SKINR, at Texas Tech, and with David Nagel at George Washington University. Isn’t that great? Expect more, much more.
The events of this past year were the opposite of what I’d hoped for. Although there were a few brighter spots and some progress (a little in the open but most behind closed doors), the world still does not accept the Rossi Effect and LENR as a whole as an absolute rock solid reality.
What defines “the world”? First of all, the Rossi Effect was probably deception. From my point of view, finding more truth about Rossi, instead of Rossi Says and appearances manipulated by Rossi, is also good news about 2016. Truth does not hurt, it heals, if accepted. If denied and rejected, loss is almost certain. This is true for all of us — including Andrea. The sooner that Reality is accepted, the more possibilities there are to enjoy what is left of life, and, in fact, there may be more beyond that, but not for the People of Denial.
That gets into religion, and I’m not about to insist on that, I’m just mentioning it; the harmful effects of denial are fully visible in life.
What started in 2015 and has continued through this year is an effort to confirm with increased precision the only truly confirmed and direct evidence we have that LENR is a reality, the heat/helium correlation in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. This year, I learned that it was fully funded (actually at the end of 2014!). Being a project of a major academic physicist (Robert Duncan), with Michael McKubre, retired from SRI, funded to be involved, with Vittorio Violante and ENEA involved, this is not going to fail.
The claim that cold fusion is “pathological science” is directly impeached by this, if it works. One of the characteristics of “pathological science” is that a claim disappears with increased precision of measurement. That was never actually a trait of cold fusion, but it was believably claimed. (The effect would disappear, sometimes, with no apparent change in experimental conditions other than the material itself, which shifts with time. However, the effect was not close to noise, it was highly visible, both its appearance and its disappearance. Describing SRI P13/14 in a talk at MIT, I called this the “Chimera” of cold fusion, that walked into Mike’s lab and licked him in the face, then walked out. What was that? Was it real? Those who saw the Chimera no longer doubted much! I think I’ll put up a page here on P13/P14, I have my talk someplace.
In fact, later SRI replication work, such as the Energetics Technologies work, had relatively high rates of trials with significant excess heat. It is obvious that the reaction is still poorly controlled. This is what stood out with Rossi’s claims. Not that he might get excess heat, but that it seemed to be under control. Yet he never allowed reliability data to be collected. (And his Doral “test” didn’t allow it, because he could mix and match reactors, perhaps, the “ERV” did not track individual reactor performance, only, allegedly, collective performance, and, apparently, not very well even that.)
As to “toxicity and hostility,” Industrial Heat said nothing remotely hostile to Rossi until after Rossi sued them, not merely for nonpayment, but for fraud as well, going after Darden and Vaughn personally, and with his blog dripping with sarcasm and contempt. They then defended themselves in court. What did he expect, flowers?
Yes, some people, possibly heavily disappointed — such as, perhaps, Jed Rothwell — turned to bitter or hostile comment, and Rossi supporters and Rossi himself attacked these as “paid FUD,” which was preposterous, particularly with someone like Rothwell.
There is hostility within the LENR community, among the scientists, but it never got like this. The scientists still cooperate in projects, even after personal relationships have broken down. That’s more like science, the public LENR community is more like mob reaction.
In 2017, I expect the Nickel-Hydrogen and Nickel-Hydrogen-Lithium LENR systems will be replicated repeatedly, and at some point a group will provide a set of guidelines that will allow it to be replicated with a high success rate by anyone around the globe. I’m not talking about systems with lower power densities (a few watts per gram) or low COPs (1.2), but high power densities (1000 watts per gram or higher) and high COPs (including self sustaining reactions). Once some basic techniques are mastered, anyone on the planet will be able to show reactors glowing at 1000C or higher for hours with minimal input. These systems will prove that the Rossi Effect and LENR in general is an absolute reality.
The Texas Tech work has heat/helium as the major focus, but a secondary project is “exploding wires,” as a method of researching materials for LENR effects, and that explicitly includes NiH. NiH work, though, is nowhere near as established as PdD, in terms of what has been confirmed. Once we set aside Rossi, there is no reason to expect a major breakthrough with NiH. So SelfSustain is making a prediction here, I assume, based on what he wants to see, rather than what has actually been happening. Most NiH “replication” efforts have failed, none have shown high heat, convincingly. In my view, focus on “high heat” is an error. Focus on reliability, focus on exploring the experiment and the materials. Focus on controlling conditions. That is quite enough for now.
Of course there is no telling what will happen with the Doral case, but I expect once replications start commencing it will become far less important to most people in the community. After the guidelines for a successful Ni-H-Li replication are published, there will be hundreds of people posting videos on YouTube. We’ll go from a handful of “players” to potentially thousands of “players” over night. IH and Andrea Rossi will both go from being major names to just individuals in the crowd.
So far, the Doral case, the documents coming out, have shown that nothing from Rossi can be trusted. So hopes for high heat are premature. Parkhomov announced his recent results, quiet prematurely, in December, 2014. There has been intense work on his line since then, and his claims of high heat were evanescent. Two years later, there is no such “guideline.” There are, however, more people with experience, more who understand the pitfalls, and more people looking where there had been little looking before. That’s hopeful. Someone may find something, but I urge all those who involve themselves to be careful. Be diligent. Follow the scientific method, attempt to show your results are artifact, don’t follow the antiscientific method of attempting to prove yourself right.
MFMP does “open science,” which I’m not convinced is the best. Yes, “open” is better than “secret,” but there is also a certain reserve in science, that exercises high caution before releasing results that can cause others to waste much time if they were not careful enough. Sharing data early may be great, but it would properly come with strong reservations until results are fully confirmed. The problems arise in data analysis, not so much in the data itself.
LENR will start being utilized in thousands of products faster than we can imagine. The power grid will fade away, traditional renewable energy technologies like solar will die a quick death, fossil fuels will become almost instantly obsolete, and humanity will start colonizing the solar system.
Aw, c’mon, SelfSustain. Not in 2017! We are going to colonize the solar system anyway. Have I ever mentioned that I was the Administrator of the L-5 Society in 1976-1977? I put together this issue of the L5 News. This issue mentions when I was hired, at the end of July, 1976, when I was known as Daniel.
Ah, organizational politics. It got heavy.
So, then Henry wrote a series of posts that got him green-inked and then a 2-day ban. Following is his last post, after Alan said he was banning him for two days and apparently the ban didn’t work:
Henry: this is a warning. Please adopt a more constructive attitude. This place is our forum, and you’re a guest here.
Your forum? Are you the owner?
You are not a guest here like me?
I am a lot constructive about the truth.
It’s late and I’m going to save this as-is, maybe I’ll add more tomorrow, there is more conversation of interest there. The Henry sequence shows the too-common behavior of confusing personal knee-jerk opinion with “truth.” What is generally ironic is that people like this imagine that their thinking is “scientific.”
Eric is not the owner, but serves the owner, as do all the moderators and administrators. Henry was, indeed, contributing nothing useful.
Eric fixed the broken ban.
So then actual conversation proceeded.
The replicator community doesn’t have a guaranteed, proven to work 95% of the time “recipe” for a high powered nickel-hydrogen reactor.
None of the recipes or patents work, as far as I know. I have heard from the MFMP and others who have tried to replicate. They say nothing works. I am sorry to report this, but facts are facts.
Jed is abrupt, opinionated, blunt. And highly knowledgeable, as an editor and lenr-canr.org “librarian” who has been familiar with the literature for, what, 25 years? The “fact” here is what people are telling him and what he has read. It’s a rough summary, but there are, indeed, facts behind it. There is a gap here. MrSelfSustain made a negative statement which is true (and which is vastly different from Rossi’s claims). Jed extended that, and implying that the “not working 95% of the time” may be “not working at all.” Which is possible, because of the file drawer effect, which must be understood, or else confusion reigns.
However, I’m convinced that we are understanding more and more of what is required to clean the nickel, degas the nickel,
You are convinced based on what? What experimental evidence can you point to? Messages posted here by anonymous people such as ME-whoever-it-is don’t count.
If you put any stock at all in Rossi’s claims then either you do not understand Exhibit 5, or you think it is a lie. I know for a fact that it is an accurate description of Rossi’s data. I have heard from other people he gave that same data to. I am surprised he did not realize how bad it makes him look. On the other hand, perhaps he understands his supporters. Some of them look at Exhibit 5, agree that it is real, but still believe him. I find that mind-boggling.
MrSelfSustain will point out that Exhibit 5 is about a single test by a single person (Rossi). Exhibit 5 reveals some of the Penon data from his preliminary reports, and Murray, the author of Exhibit 5, asks questions about that data and about the test. Jed is correct. What is seen of the data — which Jed is verifying that he saw before Exhibit 5 was revealed, coming from Rossi himself through an intermediary, does impeach the test. Something is very, very off. The import here is that if the conviction that NiH “works” is rooted in a trust in Rossi’s work, it’s founded in quicksand. And, in fact, the flurry of NiH attempts are based on Rossi claims, starting especially with Parkhomov, who called his reactor a “Lugano replication.”
Jed,
None of the recipes or patents work as all, as far as I know. I have heard from the MFMP and others who have tried to replicate. They say nothing works. I am sorry to report this, but facts are facts.
These are not facts. This is the new theme being pushed by the most vocal of Industrial Heat’s supporters. Nickel-hydrogen reactions do indeed work, but they are tricky — primarily because hydrogenation and creation of the internal reaction sites is not an easy process.
MrSelfSustain began this thread with what appeared to be some regret over the infighting and vituperation, but now, as soon as he sees something that he really doesn’t like, he dives right into it. It is not simply that Jed is mistaken, it is that this is a “theme pushed by the most vocal of Industrial Heat’s supporters.” Yet this has nothing to do with Industrial Heat, it is about NiH work, and Industrial Heat is not an opponent of NiH, as far as anything we have seen.
The problem of reliability, of the exact condition of the material is a classic problem in LENR, and it may be rooted in the lack of understanding of the mechanism, but it is possible that even if the mechanism comes to be understood — I don’t expect this in 2017! — it will still be difficult. However, if there were a “recipe” — a protocol — that worked “95% of the time”, or, say, 80 or 90 percent, this would be spectacular!
It is common in cold fusion papers to claim reproducibility, which means that, in the work of the author, an effect appeared reliable. Then others attempt it, and they find … nothing. No effect. What’s going on? Bottom line: nobody knows for sure. It’s clear that some reports are artifact. Artifact can be reproducible! In fact, artifact is demonstrated when it is reproduced with controls that show the nature of the artifact. (It is not demonstrated by replication failure, that simply creates some level of doubt, which could resolve either way.)
And, just to prove to everyone here that I’m not afraid to speak critically of *any* party, I’m more than willing to openly say that if anyone from the MFMP has told you that Ni-H doesn’t work, that individual needs to shut his or her mouth or get back into the lab.
WTF is MrSelfSustain to assert this? MFMP is about open science. Science, not political advocacy, and MrSS is taking a political position here, asserting that those involved with LENR should only speak the party line that he wants to be promulgated.
If someone from MFMP has said that they have proven that NiH doesn’t work, they should wash their mouth out with soap, because the work they have done could not possibly prove that, as MrSS points out:
The MFMP has some very smart people who are very technical. Bob Greenyer is also to be commended for his dedication, commitment to open source, and push for live science. However, the MFMP has done very, very little testing. A one off test perhaps once every other month will contribute little to figuring out the “recipe” I talk about. I’ve suggested to the MFMP before that they need to focus on more tests, in rapid sequence, changing individual parameters. But, like most replication teams, even more so than money, they lack the manpower and labor to do so.
I have pointed out the same, that far more testing needs to be done, exploring the parameter space. However, an opinion that none of the known protocols — or patents — works, in a practical sense, is pretty ordinary at this point. I have many times pointed out that evidence for NiH effects is far weaker than with PdD, confirmations are rare and definitely not established. There is enough evidence to suspect NiH reactions, but the ash is not known (i.e, correlated with heat), which is a major problem with any “nuclear” claim. Overwhelming heat, like Rossi claimed, if confirmed, would overwhelm that, but this has not been seen.
Me356 is an example of someone who I’m convinced figured out how to produce massive excess heat via continual, ongoing testing. I’ve been told he would work each day at his business, go home, and immediately prepare to perform tests. So literally, every day was a new test. Like Rossi, he ran these tests — changing parameters and gaining experience – obsessive compulsively. It was from these countless tests (he is probably in the top one percent for number of tests ran) he gained the experience and knowledge of what’s important to produce excess heat — with the materials and metals and powders he was using.
MrSelfSustain is “convinced” by Me356, an anonymous writer who wrote like he knew what he was talking about, at least I have that by rumor — I have not studied Me356’s posts. If Me356 can produce massive heat, he has a trillion dollar invention. Even if it stands on Rossi, it’s worth billions. So what happened with Me356?
Rossi, by the way, made the same claim, of having run many tests to find his secret formula. This would basically be ordinary engineering, all it takes is a lot of time, it is not necessarily expensive. It can take years, however, this is not a quick road to riches.
The world will not be convinced by anonymous claims on an obscure web site, nor will I. But apparently MrSS is, which is his privilege. However, he, himself, is anonymous, so his being convinced is nearly meaningless.
I am hopeful that in 2017 we will see more testing take place. Already there are teams ramping up to do longer series of tests instead of one offs like the MFMP and several others.
I predict such testing in 2017. However, this does not indicate nor relate to the idea that none of the published (formally or informally) NiH protocols work. (i.e, generate significant XE, reliably).
And, finally, exhibit five doesn’t prove anything whatsoever about the Rossi technology as a whole. Doral doesn’t prove anything one way or the other about the Rossi technology as whole. If Rossi is thrown in prison for fraud — which I don’t think will be probable to happen because you know my opinions on the matter — that still doesn’t prove anything about the technology as a whole.
Of course not. However, for this statement to have some cogency, the word “prove” must be glossed as “demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt.” It is possible that the Doral test was a complete fraud, set up by Rossi in order to get out of the License Agreement, is one possibility that has been proposed. However, MrSS is ignoring the elephant in the living room: Rossi is deceptive, lies about his work, and is quite willing to put on a fake demonstration. He has never admitted faking positive results, but he faked negative results for Hydro Fusion, see Exhibit 12 and Exhibit 13.
Or he lied to Industrial Heat in those emails, which is what we get by comparing his story to them with Mats Lewan’s account of the Hydro Fusion fiasco. He not only failed the test, but claimed incorrect input power, demonstrating his phenomenal ignorance for someone in his position.
Rossi has been lying for years, but his followers excuse it. After all, think of the rosy future! Mats Lewan’s comments took the cake:
Even if we consider the probability very low for LENR to be possible, I urge that you honestly consider two things:
In case it really works, would you like a possible transition to LENR based energy in the world to be governed mostly by the work and actions of lawyers and lobbyists at APCO Worldwide and Jones Day?
Admitting that there might be at least a minor possibility that the E-Cat and LENR is valid, on which side would you prefer to be—those who fight for it to be used to get away from fossil fuels and provide cheap and clean energy to everyone on Earth as soon as possible, or those who are trying to stop it, referring to the possibility that Rossi is a fraudster, or at least slow down the transition in order to protect some powerful people’s interests?
Lewan is betraying his own paranoia, believing that APCO has a major involvement in an “attack” on Rossi. There is no evidence for that. We know a bit more now, there is a claim — by Rossi, unconfirmed by IH — that there was a visit to the Doral Plant attempted with Darden and McLaughlin, who used to work at APCO and who is now an independent consultant (and we do not know if APCO was actually involved, what Lewan is basing the APCO connection on is the cc of the “lukewarm” IH email to McLaughlin at an APCO email address, which is very thin.)
Then, Jones Day was advising IH in legal matters, certainly by February, possibly well before that.
Is there is a problem with IH being thoroughly professional, retaining the best lawyers? Even the best lawyers cannot manufacture evidence, they can only present it with skill, and my sense is that Mats has not been following the case and is not familiar with the evidence. He wrote the above in April, when Rossi v. Darden was fresh. Rossi was suing Industrial Heat, Cherokee Investment Partners, and Darden and Vaughn personally, for $89 million and triple damages for fraud, and apparently Lewan wants us to support Rossi in this? Suing a major supporter of LENR research? Why?
IH already provided $11.5 million for Rossi’s approach, to Rossi, probably spent about $8 million attempting to confirm it, including paying Ampenergo, apparently, “millions of dollars” to fulfill Rossi’s obligations there. And then IH raised, from Woodford, $50 million, based on what? Rossi claims (and Lewan seems to accept) that this was based on representing that they owned the Rossi technology, and that this was clearly valuable — Woodford representatives visited the Doral plant twice, once before the “GPT” began, and once in August — the only visit after Rossi cancelled all visits except for persons already approved.
Woodford invested in IH Holdings International, Ltd, which owns Industrial Heat, but the $50 million, where it was placed, is safe from Rossi claims, and is being invested in LENR research, which is apparently what Woodford wanted, and obviously Darden is trusted. What does Woodford know that Lewan doesn’t?
Continuing with MrSS:
You tout that exhibit like a Pentecostal preacher thumps a Bible on the pulpit. Well, I like that kind of hell fire and brimstone.
Well, Jed is from the U.S. South.
But the problem is that you’re thumping the wrong book — a twisted watchtower version.
That’s a cult version, and Jed is not a member of any cult. The idea that this is some sort of official IH line is one of the Planet Rossi delusions. It’s just Jed’s opinion, knowledgeable and possibly fallible. How about MrSS’s opinion? Jed’s is based on fact and personal testimony of others (Jed often does not name these, but it is what it is). MrSS’s opinion is based on, apparently, emotional reaction to various unconfirmable claims.
There is a ton of evidence that the Rossi Effect works: the tests of Focardi-Piantelli before him, his own tests, the tests of replicators.
If it’s Focardi and Piantelli, it is not the “Rossi Effect,” and their work — generally unconfirmed, by the way, I’ll say a few words about “confirmation” and how this is often abused — it is their work, not Rossi’s. The “Rossi Effect” is massive heat, using secret ingredients, which cannot actually be confirmed, except that Rossi supposedly disclosed the Secret to IH. I have been following, to various degrees, the “replicators,” who are generally not replicators, generally they do not perform the same experiments, they change them. Parkhomov himself did not replicate his first work, he kept changing it. He improved his calorimetry, but his Rossi-like focus on “COP” concealed the fact that his reported energy results decreased. He never nailed down each protocol, testing it for obvious possible artifacts, and he did not respond to polite inquiries based on careful study of his work.
I was quite impressed with Parkhomov at first. Then I looked more closely, and saw what had been pointed out by other CMNS researchers. Something was quite off about the results. The energy claims, based on evaporative calorimetry in a primitive calorimeter, conflicted with his temperature record. As input power was increased, temperature increased, but only an amount expected from increased input power. The temperature record showed no excess heat, while the evaporation measured showed massively increasing heat. So the reactor is putting out more heat without getting hotter? This made no sense. Rather, more likely, there was liquid water lost from the water bath, splashing out from bumpy boiling, easy with his design. That water was seen by the MFMP visitor….
Jiang’s work in China was a mess, with obvious multiple thermocouple failures — the wrong thermocouples were used for the application — and, then, uncontrolled cooling conditions (Jiang turned on a cooling fan in the middle of the experiment, time-correlated with the onset of what he thinks was heat, very sloppy. Many of the NiH workers don’t understand the importance of multiple measures and maintaining constant conditions.
You disagree. That’s fine. But as far as I’m concerned, that exhibit doesn’t suggest ANYTHING outside of what happened in that specific facility during that period of time. And, even then, it doesn’t mean that no excess heat was produced or that *certain* individuals reactors were not producing high levels of excess heat even if the total output was exaggerated.
This is an extreme view. From this point of view, nothing can ever be proven, because evidence might only pertain to a particular incident (and real evidence is always that, a “pattern of behavior” is always inferred from evidence, not exactly proven)
Exhibit 5 is only the tip of an iceberg, IH has not revealed, in their Answer, all that they have, and that’s obvious. They already have a far more extensive answer than might be legally necessary. If Rossi “exaggerated” results in one case, that is an indication about his behavior in other cases.
Parkhomov faked some data, to make a plot look better. When this was discovered, his reputation suffered a massive hit. I don’t think his intention was to deceive, my own opinion about it was that he was embarrassed by the data gap … which was meaningless, and he could have simply said the truth: I needed to turn off the data collection computer to recharge its batteries. However, that would then have revealed that he needed to run that computer on battery. Why? He never answered that. I think it was because of massive noise, that I’d expect from his design, his heat windings, powered by chopped AC, making a nice transformer with his thermocouple, inducing extensive noise, which he reduced by floating the data collection system. Not a good solution, hazardous, and pointing out one of the problems of using AC power to heat. DC is easier to measure and will not be noisy, if properly filtered. But it’s more expensive to set up, though not by much.
Rossi faked the Doral test, the evidence for that is quite substantial. He probably faked the Validation Test, and, yes, this required a conspiracy with Penon (something that Mats Lewan apparently thought preposterous). Penon, on the other hand, could have been fooled by Rossi. Maybe he was as stupid as his preliminary reports made him look.
If Rossi faked one test, and there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that he faked many, then nothing from him is reliable unless independently confirmed. There has only been one clear and thorough independent testing of Rossi technology, by Industrial Heat. So, then, to continue belief in Rossi requires accusing IH of lying. There is some alternative theory that IH was merely incompetent, but this is a fact-free accusation, and Rossi was there to assist, and did not complain about how they followed his instructions, ever (unless there have been some noises on his blog. He has not asserted this in the lawsuit. In fact, he ignores the technology transfer requirement, for the most part.)
These are not facts. This is the new theme being pushed by the most vocal of Industrial Heat’s supporters.
No, this has nothing to do with I.H. This is what I have heard from researchers such as the MFMP, including researchers who have no connection with I.H. I am in contact with many people because I collect papers, I attend ICCF conferences, and I copy edit the JCMNS.
Have you heard any different? Do you know of any successful replications? At the ICCF conference I talked to several groups who spent months replicating, and came up with nothing. These people are far more skillful than Parkhamov and the other researchers who made the claims in the first place.
Please do not presume to tell me what my sources are, and do not tell me that I am in thrall of I.H. I have little to do with them. My information from Rossi comes from him, and has been confirmed by sources outside of I.H. including people who do not like I.H., and who support Rossi, such as Lewan. They quoted the same numbers Rossi gave me, only instead of seeing that these numbers show he is a fraud, they think the numbers show that his claims are real. It is beyond me how they can believe that his warehouse is a vacuum or that his pumps produce exactly the same flow when half of them are turned off (as the log book shows) or when all of them are turned off. But they do believe it.
This is a problem with discussion fora like lenr-forum. Jed Rothwell is a real person, with a real reputation at stake if he lies or makes gross errors. Anonymous commenters have no such risk, generally. Jed’s testimony about something carries some weight, because of his experience and record. Yes, he makes mistakes, but he also admits them and I have never seen Jed lie, in years of interaction between him and many. He was banned from Wikipedia for telling the truth to power. He’s paid his dues.
Jed is, in part, reporting hearsay. Hearsay evidence is not allowed in court, generally, though there is some limited allowance where it is necessary; courts want original, personal testimony based on personal experience. It is not only the text, the court wants to see the people testifying, there is a belief that probity can be judged by demeanor.
The dependability of hearsay depends, in part, on the ability of the reporter to vet what is said. Much news reporting is hearsay, and, since I’ve been in high school, I’ve noticed that whenever I have personal knowledge of a situation, news reports are defective, errors are common. Usually they don’t matter that much, but sometimes they do.
I assure you, all of the problems described in Exhibit 5 are real. I saw these same problems, and other saw them in data which I am certain came from Rossi, since he also gave it to his supporters who later contacted me. If you read Exhibit 5 and say to yourself “these are not problems” then you are a lost cause. If, like Peter Gluck, you say to yourself “these are lies” and “no pipe can be half full of water” then you are sadly mistaken and deluded by wishful thinking.
This is personal testimony as to his opinion and assessment, both of the original results he saw before Exhibit 5 came out, and then of Exhibit 5. Peter Gluck is insane on this point. Jed may portray what Gluck claims in stark terms, but he is basically correct. Gluck has written some amazingly dumb things.
Murray did not actually say that the pipe was half-full. From Exhibit 5.
The flow meter requires that the entire pipe volume be full of liquid to function properly, as described in the Apator PoWoGaz Operating Instructions [section 6.6 in document I-EN-2- 003/2013, Operating Instructions, Flange water meters DN40 – 500]. The visible iron stain waterline marks on the static vanes indicate that the pipe was not continuously full of liquid, as required by the manufacturer’s specifications, but rather had a substantial portion free of liquid. See Exhibit A. How can the measurements of the flow meter be valid when the pipe volume was far less than full?
What Murray wrote has three aspects: the reporting of fact about the meter, the reporting of a personal observation, the iron stain, an “indication” from that, which is reasonable, and a question.
It is possible that the question could be answered. “That happened during X time, when the system was not operating.” Peter Gluck is outraged that the obvious question, given the observation — which will become, I assume, testimony under oath in depositions or in trial, if it comes to that — was even asked. Observations contrary to what Gluck fervently wants to be true are disgustingly reprehensible, lies, and part of a conspiracy to suppress “LENR+”
To continue what Jed wrote in response to MrSS:
But as far as I’m concerned, that exhibit doesn’t suggest ANYTHING outside of what happened in that specific facility during that period of time.
It was the same for the entire year. The problems in Exhibit 5 apply to the entire data set. Again, I heard that from Rossi (indirectly) and he told that to his supporters, directly.
It is possible earlier tests worked, but this one did not. Therefore, I.H. does not owe him $89 million. He has not transferred any technology to them. Perhaps he managed to make something work in the past, but at present he cannot make any machine produce any excess heat. Not one watt. I have seen the data and you have not, so you have no business disputing that, or telling me I am wrong. If you don’t believe it, ask Rossi for data.
There are more implications. Rossi is not going to get $89 million from IH. He may suffer a judgment for more money than he is worth; one of the aspects of the case is that Johnson may have significant assets, I don’t know, but real estate attorneys often accumulate property, because they have easy access to opportunities. Because he filed the suit, Rossi will have a devil of a time raising money from any company, because the investors in and officers of the company may reasonably fear that Rossi will go after them, personally, if something goes south with an agreement.
That is in addition to the risk of criminal prosecution. Pace, the lead IH attorney, was a federal prosecutor, I think. Proving criminal fraud is much more difficult than proving civil fraud. But there is a risk. IH won’t be making that decision. Were I a federal attorney, at this point I’d be watching the case to see what evidence is developed.
There is a ton of evidence that the Rossi Effect works: the tests of Focardi-Piantelli before him,
Piantelli EMPHATICALLY disagrees!
I have disagreed with Jed about various aspects of LENR history, my analysis differs from his, perhaps. I do so with trepidation, because he effing was there! He knows or knew the people, met them and talked with them in person, etc. I have been gaining experience, but I will never have as much as he.
He doesn’t say here what Piantelli would disagree about, but I think it is obvious: Piantelli would not consider that his work was evidence that the Rossi Effect works.
Dosn’t Mitchell Schwartz, Jet Energy have a have a working Nickel system or is his work not creditable?
Ah, the freaking naivete! Mitchell Swartz has run demonstrations and tests, his own. His work cannot be confirmed because it’s secret, proprietary. Perhaps it is the Nanor being mentioned. What’s in the Nanor? Here is a paper by Swartz et al. The abstract:
Dry, preloaded NANOR® -type technology makes LANR reactions more accessible. These self-contained, two-terminal nanocomposite ZrO2–PdNiD CF/LANR components have at their core ZrO2–PdD nanostructured material. The excess energy gain compared to driving input energy is up to 20 times the input; characterized by reasonable reproducibility and controllability. The CF/LANR/CF activation is separated from its loading. Although small in size, the LANR excess power density is more than 19,500 W/kg of nanostructured material, with zero carbon footprint.
That reads more like a press release than a scientific paper abstract. Notice the claim: “more accessible.” More accessible to whom? In any case, this is not NiH. It is apparently PdNiD. “Zero carbon footprint?” Is there any data on that in the paper. C’mon, guess!
The demonstration described was in 2012. This paper was published three years later. If this was a product, there would be many independent tests by now. Is there a product?
I have elsewhere written that COP is a confusing measure. If there is any energy production, and if it only depends on temperature (i.e., input power is used to heat the fuel), infinite COP would be easy to create, by using a very well-insulated oven, which would require low power to maintain. Environmental temperature is not actual input power, it only looks that way when the variables are not controlled. Perhaps there is input power to the Nanor other than internal heating. I don’t see the necessary data in that paper to understand what is going on. However, one chart makes possible an estimate of average XP for the run, it is about 20 mW.
He mentions a 2003 “demonstration” with lower COP. There is no reference to it.
If he actually has a manufactured product, far more work could easily be done, by him and by others. I don’t think he has that.
Axil showed with his muon rap. No more credible today than before. Nobody has reported muons from LENR except Holmlid reports them from his own work, which does not resemble known LENR. Holmlid is completely unconfirmed, which is very strange, given how long he has been working and being published.
The discussion also went into what has become common on lenr-forum, Mills’ claims. I’m sufficiently uninterested, having watched Mills for many years, to stop here. I will only say that Mills knows how to create impressive demonstration videos. “OMG! Turn it off!” as the screen goes white, is a classic!
