(This blog post was originally posted on Animpossibleinvention.com)
The scientific newsroom of Sveriges Radio, the national Swedish Radio, has dedicated four months of research and a whole week of its air time to the story of Andrea Rossi, the E-Cat and cold fusion (part 1, 2, 3, 4), and I’m honored that it has made me one of its main targets.
The result, however, is not impressive.
Ulrika Björkstén, head of the scientific editorial staff, has chosen freelance journalist Marcus Hansson to do the investigation.
Hansson apparently likes easy solutions. Black or white. I won’t go into detail of his analysis of Rossi’s background since I have no reason to defend Rossi. I’m just noting that Hansson believes he can sort out the truth in the twinkling of an eye in Italy, which is known as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe where the mix of powerful interests, politics and the judiciary is not always easy to penetrate.
I’m also noting tendentious conclusions such as being sentenced to prison implies being an imposter, and non-proven claims such as storing toxic waste in leaking cisterns equals the Mafia’s way of dumping such waste in secret pits.
After his analysis of Rossi, Hansson adds a group of Swedish researchers and the Swedish power industry’s research entity Elforsk, depicting them all as a bunch of gullible fools being used by Rossi for his purposes, and pointing at me as the one who got them involved in the first place. I’m flattered.
Hanson considers all this obvious, basing large parts of his report on the testimonials and opinions of Italian-French writer Sylvie Coyaud, scientific blogger for the weekly Italian style magazine D-La Repubblica.
But all this is only half of the problem.
Hansson starts his reportage by stating that the famous claim by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, of excess heat compatible with a nuclear reaction, was wrong and later explained by erroneous measurements.
I believe he’ll find that hard to prove, given that there in 2009 were 153 peer-reviewed papers describing excess heat in experimental set-ups such as the one used by Fleischmann and Pons. And that’s only one of many reasons.
I discuss this in the beginning of my book. Hansson says he read the book and found it to be a tribute to Rossi. Coyaud says it’s a story where Rossi is Messiah and I am the Prophet. That’s poetic, but it’s an opinion.
Among those hundreds who have read it, about fifty persons have written reviews, most of them giving it the highest vote. A series of highly competent people with insight in the story thought it was well balanced.
I do discuss Rossi’s problematic background in the book, and when that’s done I discuss his problematic personality.
But the main focus I have chosen is another, reflecting the title of the book, discussing what is considered to be impossible and asking why more resources aren’t dedicated to investigating this strange phenomenon that could possibly change the world, providing clean water and clean air, saving millions of lives and solve the climate crisis.
Not because I wish this to be true, but because there are abundant scientific results indicating that the phenomenon might be real.
It’s insane that curious researchers are hesitating to enter this field for fear of ruining their careers (yes Björkstén, this is why most of them are old), and it’s insane that poorly researched media reports like this help scientific critics to continue attacking those researchers.
Marcus Hansson says he has read my book, but maybe he hasn’t understood what he read. In fact I’m worried that neither he nor Coyaud have the competence to evaluate this complex story from a scientific perspective. I might be wrong, but from Hansson’s reportage I’m not convinced.
What I find more problematic though is the position of Ulrika Björkstén, head of the scientific editorial staff at Sveriges Radio, holding a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. I agree with most observers that it’s not proven whether Rossi’s E-Cat works or not, and Björkstén might of course be convinced that it’s not working.
But in a concluding comment Björkstén discards the whole area of cold fusion/LENR as pseudo-science, stating that it is based on belief and group thinking, and that university researchers should discern such research from real science and stay away from it.
I find this alarming both from a journalistic and a scientific point of view. Such opinions have often been expressed regarding disruptive discoveries, and if we took advice only from people like Björkstén we would probably not have any airplanes or semiconductors today.
I welcome serious critic of my reports and of my book, but this reportage does not qualify. I’m not impressed, and I hope that the next scientific news team that decides to evaluate this story and my book will set the bar higher.
You might agree with me or not. If you have an opinion, I would suggest that you write an email to Ulrika Björkstén who oversaw the production of this reportage. Marcus Hansson probably just did his best.
– – – –
N.B. This is my personal opinion and not a statement from Ny Teknik. UPDATE: Here’s an official op-ed by Ny Teknik’s chief-editor Susanna Baltscheffsky. And here’s a piece by the Swedish researchers who have been involved in tests.
Mats Lewan: The Biggest Shift Ever. 
YouSvedish cant distinguish from a warm or cold boiler..& annotate the elec.amount in the bill meter ?
hope you arnt payed to disinformate public
I congratulate with everyone here that thinks it is a scam/fraud, the fact that they don’t allow an independent “calorimetric test” is enough to label this as a scam. I’m italian, i know italians like Rossi. Have a nice day
It is always a pleasure to hear about “Italian style”, even from same skeptic side.
“the fact that they don’t allow an independent “calorimetry test” is enough to label this as a scam” was enough, don’t you think? And you could also add ” the fact Prometeon has not sold a single device”, for example. Or “the fact all is based on reliability of people instead of machine”, or “the fact that documents are taken as bible” or “the fact that “soon” in 2010 is still “soon” in 2014, and so on.
By the way, you should not forget that, even if some and the Entrepreneur are from Italy, there are also people from other Countries involved in this story.
Regards, paisa’.
Amazing that so many LENR patents have popped up? Amazing that so many floor have popped up, too, on Rossi side? C’mon, let’s wait for TPR2 to pop up and even for Lewan return: I do believe they will, sooner or later, both bringing new water to LENR – whoopss! Meant “QUARS” – mill
Amazing that so many LENR patents have popped up within the three years or so since Rossi’s appearance with the E-Cat. They are developed by people and organizations with more resources and technical know how than any of us commenting here on this blog.
Unbelievers/Believers is a bunch of malarkey… it does not exist except in one’s imagination.
Obvious to most of us, rather there are the groups developing advanced LENR technology (in the know) and those of us outside those circles (not in the know) That is real certainly not based on belief and is the true divide.
To the idiots who think LENR is not science at its finest, or that it’s a bunch of quacks that do not follow scientific protocol or respect the laws of physics, or that the works are made up realities (con-fusion).
SILENCE I have nothing to say to you.
Discovery
It’s of great use to wonder
Why our minds wander
In awe of it all
Being forever true
Seeking the new
We are just now discovering
That which has always been
Impatiently awaiting us
Craving our keen attention
Hoping for deeper understanding
Awesome is
The wonder of discovery
And the power
Of awe
gbgoble2009
This is an example of being crystal clear in communication and providing supportive reasoning.
Do you really believe that these folks at STMicroelectronics are willing to adopt made up realities? My opinion is that they are discovering a reality that just happens to be new to our ways of thinking. We still cannot choose our own laws of nature, yet do you really believe that all laws of nature are fully understood?
Ubaldo Mastromatteo
Technical Staff – Fellow
STMicroelectronics · IMS R&D
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ubaldo_Mastromatteo/publications
Article: Deuteron Electromigration in Thin Pd Wires Coated With Nano-Particles: Evidence for Ultra-Fast Deuterium Loading and Anomalous, Large Thermal Effects
Francesco Celani, P Marini, V Di Stefano, A Spallone, M Nakamura, E Purchi, O M Calamai, V Andreassi, E Righi, G Trenta, [……], U Mastromatteo, A Mancini, F Falcioni, M Marchesini, P Di Biagio, U Martini, P G Sona, F Fontana, L Gamberale, D Garbelli
ABSTRACT: Large excess heat is measured in a Pd wire coated with nano-particles. A long (65 cm) and thin (50 m) Pd wire is coated with thin layers of Pd nano-particles, stabilized against self-sintering by the addition of selected chemical elements: the coating is adhered to the wire surface by heating it in air up to over 800°C. The wire is then heated with up to 1 A of direct current in a pressurized D 2 gas atmosphere. The D + deuterons in the Pd lattice are forced to move toward the cathodic end of the wire because of the voltage drop along the wire (the Cöhn effect). Large excess power density (about over 400 W/g of Pd), at high temperatures (up to 400-500°C), is then measured using isoperibolic calorimetry. The reference experiment is made, in situ and without opening the cell, using a Pt wire of same dimensions as the Pd wire, to which was applied the same electrical power. The onset of excess heat occurs in during a phase change from an + combined phase of the Pd-D to the phase, and is proportional to the current density, and to the corresponding voltage drop or input power applied, i.e. the Pd temperature. In the range of temperatures explored up to now, the excess power has exhibited “positive feedback” behaviour versus temperature. This may prove useful to developing future self-sustaining devices for practical applications. No anomalous effects were found using 4 He (or Ar, or dry-air) gases.
So, it seems as if points are:
They say the in was about 900W, but the picture show around 100W
The pictures in appendix were meant to disprove DC hypothesis, thus they should have been taken during ON phase, thus showing us around 900W
Conclusion: pictures have not (as claimed by those who signed the TPR, third revision) been taken during test. Someone produced false data to shut-up skeptics.
@Andrea S.
first, there was a misunderstanding. I was tired and too enthusiastic for your job, but I was not joking at all, except for “For further details, please ask mr. Cimpy”
I want it to be very clear.
You wrote:
“mw, when you say “This is what SW are for” I think you mean that I am a computer geek using some sophisticated simulator for a trivial task. Well, the sophisticated simulator is ms-excel, and believe it or not the computation on top of my head while driving home was off by a mere 10%”
You are wrong.
I meant that sw (any kind of) is to be used when dealing with non sinusoidal currents, as you did.
Somebody uses simulation sw for sinusoids, for whom sw is useless.
I love excel, because it’s easy and powerful. It was a compliment. Is it clear?
BTW, congratulation for your great mind.
The other italian guy didn’t write about cheating.
Of course you did not write it, but I want to be clear about this. He clearly wrote he was only trying to explain the otherwise unexplainable, and still unexplained, behavior of I1. I read that he proposed that circuit, but he underlined that it had a problem with power measurement, and he clearly wrote it was the only circuit he could imagine, but maybe not the only possible. He also clearly asked for help, to solve the problem.
You integrated his analisys, solved one doubt, and created another one.This is the frame, and not another. Nobody says somebody else is a cheater. But please keep in you great mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No room for guessing or even a little doubt, and of course, testers knew it.
Everybody try to destroy an extraordinary claim, ‘cos this is the right thing to do.
But if you want really talk about proven lies and incompetence, just take a look at 2011 demos, and the vapour saga. No doubt about it. Maybe you are new.
Pictures where added to TPR in order to prove there was no DC component to the resistor, and IMO it means they were taken when the device was in steady state running, with about 900W input power. Otherwise they are useless.
You proved that pictures are related to an about 100W input power. Then, pictures are not taken during the test. This is not an extraordinary evidence.
Next time I won’t be so enthusiastic wit your job, OK?
PS: I1 can’t be asynchronous with I1, despite the time in which the picture was taken.
About mr. Carta Igienica, I mean this:
https://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/swedish-national-radio-paints-it-black/#comment-2856
Best regards.
Another issue I would like to take upp is the usage of 10% as an error. It was deduced from looking at the errors at the different spectral components. Is it safe to assume 10%?
The direction of the power is not indicated in the spectral decomposition no?
Power can go back and forth, generally speaking (not if there is only a resistive load). But say that we transport 1 unit of power according to
P = (1 -1) +(1 – 1) … + 1 = 1 (this is what is measured no?)
Assume that the 10% error has the same sign in all meassurements e.g.
P = (0.1 + 0.1) + (0.1 + 0.1) + … + 0.1
Then we would get a power error of
2*0.1*n + 0.1
Then you can get huge errors in the meassurements.
This is a professional instrument, so correct error bounds should be available, did they sum the 10% of the absolute power of each component or did they take 10% of the meassured power?
mw :
I don’t see your point, of course the photos are a sample measurement, they were taken in one condition among the many possible. This condition happened to be 5A peak. This does not mean 5A peak is the constant condition throughout the test, and nobody said that.
On the contrary, the authors declared 910-930W which corresponds roughly to 11A peak.
What I showed is that with the circuit of Cosmonauta (is that you?) posted by Wally there is no TRIAC regulation that would exceed the energy consumption declared by the authors, not to mention consuming four times as much.
Unless you invoke “other” scams, but then you are changing the hypotheses.
On another note I must apologize to Franco, he never said the authors cheated, he just complained about the sequence of V1, V2, which is however irrelevant in the calculations.
mw, when you say “This is what SW are for” I think you mean that I am a computer geek using some sophisticated simulator for a trivial task. Well, the sophisticated simulator is ms-excel, and believe it or not the computation on top of my head while driving home was off by a mere 10%.
Whow, you’re good at maths even while driving, thus E Cat must work as claimed, even with a false appendix.
Lol.
@Andrea S.
Great job! This is what SW are for.
I really appreciate people reading what I write in my survival-english, not like yours, with interest and respect. I also appreciated the time it took you. Your analysis is a different world, in comparison to the one of mr. Carta Igienica (see below). You just did a litte mistake underlining current shapes in the pictures, but it was unimportant and unintentional.
I don’have so much time and I’m tired (it’s 5 a.m.) so I’ll be short.
Maybe the italian guy who proposed the circuit, only considered the strange shape of I1 (still to be explained) and he didn’t carry out energy and power calculations.
But you considered his circuit giving the same I-V-t relationship of the pictures in TPR, and you did it!
“Resulting power consumption over the period is 55W. Accounting for two active phases, consumption is 110W.
This is too low to be the average condition during the 116h test: the declared consumption during ON time intervals was declared by the authors to be 910W to 930W.”
110W instead of 910W.
You proved that the pictures don’t deal at all with the test.
I don’t know when they were taken.
Many many thanks, Andrea.
We need engineers like you, not like Mr. Carta Igienica.
I don’t know and I don’care what are you going to think about TPR and e-cat story.
But you have my true respect.
For further details, please ask mr. Cimpy.
Best regards.
Cimpy
I am curious about the videos, but your request is annoying.
I don’t know when the photos were taken, but the reflex suggests they were taken with the camera handheld, so likely at the beginning of the test, after which the camera was fixed on the pedestal for the long-term monitoring. Consider one has to push buttons on the PCE-830 (not a sophisticated computer-controlled setup) and may risk (or fear) losing data, so likely this was not during the monitoring. Then my little story goes : “Oops where is I1’s photo ? I am sure we inspected it before the monitoring” . “Sure we did, ok let’s retake one now”. “Oh but I just disconnected all clamps”. “Allright just clamp I1, why do we need the others, we measured total power the whole week already”. This does not classify as a lie.
And, by the way: few minutes of a video could shut our mouth immediately and for long time. Or open wildly some other mouth. Don’t you believe?
Dear Cimpy,
I didn’t say they lied about the I1 photo. They never wrote it was a collection of photos synchronous with V1, so where is the lie ? I have no affiliation with these guys, Cimpy, but I dislike prejudices.
Can you instead not pre-judge but judge my reasoning, I mean technically ? If not I will wait for Wally, he will “feel free to disagree” in mutual respect
Nice. You know, those pictures were meant as evidence of a non DC trick. They should have been taken during TPR. When did you say they took them?
In any case, I will let Wally disagree with you.
“the plot of I1 was missing for whatever reason, and it was retrieved in another instance, not synchronous with V1, and added to the report. The authors declaredly only meant to illustrate that they checked for any significant harmonic content (and found none)”
So, you’re stating they lied about the fact they checked: they did not, they added pictures taken later, at experiment already ended. Very nice. Of course, that is the only lie, for sure, who does not think so? When someone is so respectable, no doubt he could not lie at all. Less one time, of course. Well, might be even two – for example, finding a most valuable formula with an inverted sign and saying nothing about it…
Wally:
while we wait for the Independent Third Party Second Report, hopefully First Class this time, here is some food for thought.
It buzzed in my mind driving home tonight, and I spent some spare time on this instead of watching the World Cup, so please let me know what you think.
I will recapitulate our respective positions.
You and other nicks (e.g. Cosmonauta and Franco on Cobraf) argue that the PCE-830 plots show I2 in phase with V2n (i.e. a resistive load) and that the fact that I1 appears about in phase with I2 is proof (or a strong case in favor) of scam, since this can only happen with I1 clamp on L2 instead of L1 which will result in reading one quarter of the actual average power consumption.
I prefer an explanation less offensive to the authors, like: the plot of I1 was missing for whatever reason, and it was retrieved in another instance, not synchronous with V1, and added to the report. The authors declaredly only meant to illustrate that they checked for any significant harmonic content (and found none) so phase was not significant.
Now the new part.
You posted a link to a circuit diagram
[ http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/thumbs/R_123555574_1.jpg ]
that shows L1 and L2 connected via TRIACs to a single resistive load, with TRIACs regulated so that short circuit never occurs, and a diagram of currents vs. time . I think it makes sense, except I don’t believe the I1 clamp was misplaced.
I will now show that your circuit diagram cannot consume more than declared by the authors.
The I2 plot (which you trust) shows a current peak around 5A (4.79 to 5.12 A on the display) at the closing of the TRIAC. The effective current is 1.47A on the display.
Neglecting TRIAC drop, this is well modeled by a 25 ohm resistive load and a TRIAC regulated to be closed at 150 degrees delay from each zero-crossing, and overlapping the plots one can see a good agreement on I2 (and on I1 in magnitude).
[ http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/thumbs/R_123556197_1.jpg ]
Resulting power consumption over the period is 55W. Accounting for two active phases, consumption is 110W.
This is too low to be the average condition during the 116h test: the declared consumption during ON time intervals was declared by the authors to be 910W to 930W.
We must thus assume that TRIAC (automatic) regulation during the ON intervals was allowing much more power. However, to prevent shortcircuit between V1 and V2, at most TRIACs can be closed at 120 degrees delay from each zero-crossing. In this limit condition, with the same 25 ohm load, the power consumption becomes 830W as sum of the two phases, slightly below the one declared by the authors.
[ http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/thumbs/R_123556197_2.jpg ]
In a 116 hour test with 35% duty cycle, the circuit you have posted cannot consume more than 34 kWh, to be compared to 37.6 kWh declared by the authors. Thus the report is consistent, and there are no grounds to argue that actual consumed energy was four times higher.
Don’t get me wrong, I won’t deny there are plenty of possibilities to cheat elsewhere. But allow me to retain some interest in this story and some trust in the people involved in the testing.
@Cimpy,
I strongly agree with you. The need for guess is a mistake itself.
@Andrea
Hallo,
Sorry, I didn’t understand your question.
If you get all line currents and you get the potential of all lines and neutral, by mean of a network analyzer as PCE, you can manage any load, so why do differently?
Of course, analyzing this kind of devices, must start thinking that the device is a scam, because most of them are scam (maybe all). Nothing personal. Just method.
Therefore, if scam can’t be excluded, we can’t consider the device as working.
Scam is what we have to exclude, IMO.
Don’t forget lots of lies an incompetence evidences in 2011.
Waiting for your opinion, feel free of disagreeing 🙂
Wally:
can you exclude that PCE-830 can be used as a clamp ammeter using just one current probe? Can it not do an FFT even if V1 is not monitored ?
Why should anyone guess while videos are there? A quick view could stop any discussion forever.
Hallo Andrea,
I could agree, but please consider that PCE830 uses V1 as reference, and V1, V2, V3 are constant and given by energy provider. Then, the shape of V1 on the screen is always the same, and the same, as well, shoul be the shape of I1, even if the picture was taken minutes after the picture of V1,because the control is the same, and the same is the load.
Can you agree? Feel free of disagreeing 🙂
I link an interesting picture taken and translated from an italian forum.
I strongly agree with your suggestion about checking videos.
Best regards.
“reinspect the video any time” sounds good.
😀
@wally
yes of course admitting all pictures synchronous and I2 roughly in phase with V2n then I agree.
When inspecting the images, they all show a similar reflex (a balding forehead quite familiar to spectators of the ecat saga) except for I1 where this reflex is missing.
So I guess all except I1 are likely synchronous with the V1 trigger (and yes in this case the load on L2 looks resistive).
But the I1 picture was likely taken in another instance, and we can’t really comment on the relative phases.
Quite for sure photos were taken during setup (or critics will say, weeks later), certainly they are not snapshots of the 116h test, and declaredly the pictures are only there to illustrate harmonic content.
On the other hand the filmed display was quite for sure the summary table showing all 3P4W parameters. Had I1 probe been clamped to the L2 line during the 116h test, power P1 would have been negative on the display which shows both individual powers P1,P2,P3 and their algebraic sum. I guess one of the 7 authors would have noticed (and could reinspect the video any time).
@giancarlo,
You are probably right, there is a protective ground and a zero ground, else you would expect the current to be 180 degrees difference between i1 and i2.
@wally
ah now you think about my hypotheis.
if you put the second clamp on the first wire too, you get exactly whay I say by inverting one of the two clamp :
you get a power turned by 90degrees, divided by sqrt(3).
if you turn the second clamp on the first wire, but reversed, then you get the good power, as i1-i2.
did you imagine simply the question is about your assumption.
those photo are illustration , not evidence of a fact.
if they wanted you to believe from the photo, they would simply have used a radiator, put a perfect wiring, measured it as expected..
you behave like 9/11 truthers…
you simply have no evidence.
the evidence is simply that if all the physicist (some said he rewired himself to check) are corrupted ther is no evidence.
in fact this is not only improbable because those scientist are numerous, from various labs, and have produced a report with missing that looks like they measured a real thinks and forgot details, than that they organized a perfect dummy demo, took charts, took photo, and leave.
this conspiracy theory is not coherent.
I agree that in a previous demo, when Rossi jumped on a curious tester to prevent him to check it was very sebious (it seems that everybody else Rossi was aware the reactor was broke)… this is why this recent test is a dood evidence. Rossi was not there to prevent anything.
You can say that Levi is accomplice with Rossi, but what about those 6 others scientist who visibly where quite skeptical too, I mean seriously skeptic… not sure of their skepticism.
you don’t get evidence from photo taken in seldom known conditions…
moreover your hypothesis are humanly incoherent. Use Occam rasor even for a fraud.
@Andrea S.
you shoud look at the pictures in page 30 and 31, where you can see that I2 and V2 are in phase.
So, no passive components can help you into making I1 and I2 in phase.
best regards.
@Stefan Israelsson Tampe
The ground was not used, only two phases with a load between, surly you then get the same current in i1 and -i2 and the system is essentally a one phase system no? If you swap one of the current clamps you get zero measured effect no?
You are almost right, but you can not exclude that inside the box you have loads between phases and neutral. In this case, if you, by mistake, reverse one of the clamp, you will measure 0 W for the load (neglecting the TRIAC) and a fraction of the internal load. To exclude this, since in your link the author says he got a number of photos taken during the measurement, you yourself could ask him to mail them to check. I trust you and you can provide us with your conclusions.
However, the TPR is not well written if we are still discussing about after one year.
@giancarlo
I’m confused, see
See http://ecatnews.com/?p=2528
The ground was not used, only two phases with a load between, surly you then get the same current in i1 and -i2 and the system is essentally a one phase system no? If you swap one of the current clamps you get zero measured effect no?
@Andrea S.
Did you read really the Appendix in TPR1? Are you sure that your wiring is consistent with a load feeded by a couple of wires? I would rather think that you should simulate a resistive load feeded by a line-to-line voltage (400 V) and show how, at the input, the wattmeter can measure two equal currents I1 & I2.
Please note that the wattmeter can be connected 3P4W and produce good measurements altough you are going yo use only one line-to-line voltage.
@Stefan Israelsson Tampe
I can suggest you this setup. Only two phases as in TPR1, one 100 W lamp between each phase and neutral and two 100 W lamps between the two phases (two of them to avoid they burn under 400 V). Better would be to have directly a 400 V lamp to be able to predict the consumed power.
A few switches to have different configuration.
The real load will be somewhere between 200 W and 400 W .
Now you can mess with the probes and obtain the COP you like more.
I was able in my lab to pass from 7,5 kW reading to 0,49 kW reading (COP=15) just reversing a probe. You don’t know which insertion method and which algorithm the instrument uses so results are unpredictable. Just try.
Would be interesting to see exactly how giancarlo’s setup looks like
Or, you could take a look at videos.
@Wally
You stated:
“I’m very worried about page 31 of TPR, where I1 e I2 are both in phase with V2.
They seem to be the same current. But this is impossible.
According to the Authors these currents are given by the same load (resistive).
The only difference is the voltage.
As you can easily see, Merlian, V1 e V2 are translated one respect to the other on the screen. (page 30) I1 and I2 should be translated as well, but they are not. (page 31)
You dont’ need to be an engineer to agree.
They put two different current probes on the same conductor.
It’ very hard to believe such rough error as unintentional, but, of course, it can be.
IMO, it’s a big lack in professionalism and reliability of testers.”
We have no clue as to the content of the control box, nor do the authors of the paper.
You state it’s impossible that I1 and I2 are equal and in phase if the voltages V1 and V2 are 120 degrees apart, and that this is proof of a misplaced probe.
Well : try a 70uF capacitor in series with 20ohms on V1 to neutral; and a 160mH inductor in series to a 20 ohm load from V2 to neutral, and leave V3 to neutral open.
Then compute your time-domain currents. You should get the currents nicely overlapping: no magic needed.
Sorry but your evidence here is very weak.
@franco your reference is correct, they are using it in the wrong order. The effect consumed is essentially gotten from V1 and V2 and I1 and I2, Hence if you reverse the order you would expect the instrument to get the wrong sign of the power transport. But instruments can do whatever they like if you plug it in the wrong way. Would be interesting to see exactly how giancarlos setup looks like.
@Cess
Good evening Cess, nice see you again.
I’m only Giancarlo, believe it or not.
30°: I can’t see it, sorry, to me it looks like the typical current on a Triac, in phase with his source,
you’re perfectly right; since you put the load between V1 and V2, the current is in phase with (V1-V2), that is the current is 30° ahead of V1 and 30° behind V2. If you do not understand is your problem. Try to find a consultant, you can share the lessons with AlainCo to save a few euros.
Or invest a few cents in a sheet of paper and a pencil and draw the vectors. It should be your job, I suppose, when the iceshop does not reclaim you.
“We spent a lot of time analyzing all the possibilities”: I didn’t, unfortunately I fight poverty, I work. By the way it’s my humble opinion that you indeed failed, until now, to prove anything else than your disagreable conceit, including concerning the December tests.
As far as it is your opinion I do not care. You proved to be confused about phases just above. We can address again the matter after you take a few basic lessons.
I aint read the manual (sorry Franco) but I do believe that it is quite difficult to wrongly connect that meter unless you have some sort of vision deficiency, and I fail to see any global international machination, so I prefer to BELIEVE that you are wrong.
I didn’t know about an international machination, do tell me more. You can believe whatever you like. We were born to be free.
The result of my observations may prove positive or negative, I will survive anyway. That’s a bias indeed, like yours, and probably caused by your “team” nice attitue: I mostly tend to stand by the underprivileged, and, as you really love to point out, you are not.
I do really think that you are smart enough to stand by Rossi: remember he is the owner of 10 or 15 flats in Miami Beach. You could export Italia icecreams as well. With the secret ingredient.
You seem unaware of a Levi’s famously wrong connections, but then you BELIEVE and faith implies a severe “vision deficiency”.
I plan to visit my good friend Graziano very soon; I’ll pay a visit to your iceshop.
Turing test going on.
@ Chess
I aint read the manual (sorry Franco) but I do believe that it is quite difficult to wrongly connect that meter unless you have some sort of vision deficiency…
You have mentioned me in your comment and therefore I answer. I strongly suggest you to read well the PCE-830 manual.
V1 V2 and V3 voltages, showed in figure 30 of Appendix of TPR, are a Three Phase sequence called “inverted”.
To explain in detail, taking V1 the first as reference (V1 phase = 0°):
a) in TPR, V2 voltage is not delayed of 120° respect to V1 (in common three phase sequence V2 phase is -120° with respect to V1) but in Appendix, figure number two, showed V2 is delayed of 240° respect to V1
b) in TPR, V3 voltage is delayed of 120° (instead of -240° with respect to V1, as per common three phase sequence)
As consequence of above phases relation the voltage vectors of three phase sequence are set as:
V1 then V3 and as last V2, that is “inverted three phase sequence” (vectors rotation CCW).
If you agree on this, reading the PCE-830 manual at para III.11 and III.12 you will discover that the instrument considers this sequence as not correct connections (L1-L3-L2 is called incorrect phase sequence) and alert the operator by means of an alarm sound (a “Beep”) writing also it on top-right of the display.
In addition to “deficitary vision” (as per your definition) do you think that they didn’t heard not even the instrument sound alarm due incorrect phase sequence connection or whatelse?
Let me know.
Listen on the conversation it is obvious, you have a line and there is either at any time point effect going from A to B and vice verse. So mixing up the direction could create such a high cancelation that it can explain the effect. A simple inspection of some photos is hopeful enough to rule this out and it is advisable that the new test should produce such a documentation. Also a validation of the measurement strategy e.g. using the same setup of a similar known circuit would help. Finally if there is a long run test and we assume that the output energy at COP 1 at the end, can also validate that wrongly applied probes have not been done.
It is interesting to try figure out a scam scenario that explain the story so far (i’m not saying it is a true story)
How would one perform such a magic?
First of all, it has to be false magic and a scam, or work, it is not ignorance because Levi say that the setup melted and you just don’t do that with an electric heater inside a cylinder. It was a run away the power was cut.
So they knew that there would be a new independent test, and to perform that in positive manner you need to rely on sloppiness from the testers.
How would a cold scammer do that? Well by getting a false behavior into the spine. As an example
1. demand that the same instrument are used all the time
2. Make use of two instrument, one with a false probe that does the reverse than what is marked
3. Do a validation test with the false instrument e.g. and show that by installing it following the arrows in the wrong way, you do indeed get the correct measurement.
4. Perform the test with the correct instrument applied the wrong way, make sure that the group get that method into the spine.
5. Let them do the test by themselves and pray to the dark lord.
6. cash in.
I don’t think that this is a true scenario, but it interesting to contemplate, and certainly we can
rule it out quite simple, let’s do that.
@Alain:
I see that you haven’t read what I wrote and to whom. Here’s a summary:
Somebody asked me a question. I answered.
Inverted clamps were mentioned neither in the question nor in my answer.
You said that in the case of the question, the power should be zero, a noticeable mistake.
Then you kept talking about inverted clamps, and carried out a calculation assuming that a clamp was inverted.
Don’t mind us, go ahead with your monologue but please do not address it to me.
@Giancarlo
Bro, why the hell is my nick so challenging for you?
You can call me as you like as long as it doesn’t make you mad with your obsession on machinations!
Cess is ok, but also Filippo, or Luca, Luigi or Mario or whatever makes you confortable, hoping that this time I aint got one of your relatives.
I’m sorry if it is taking such a long time to answer your comments, unfortunately Sunday is heavily critical to my business. I do not owe a boat but instead an icecream shop, on monday morning we refill the stocks. But believe me, I couldn’t wait to answer you as soon as out of my workshop. Before we move on, are you another nick of Wally/mW/Dummy/Cimpy? I don’t have any objection to a college professor that uses multiple nick on forums in between a publication and the other, that certainly does not affect the quality of such (as neither does it making one per month). I’m just asking because talking with Cimpy made me feel so lonely…I would be disappointed to discover that you are just another nick of the same pseudoskeptic troll. On the contrary I would be very worried to know why you are so proud to be in the same team with trolls.
By the way, lets go back to my sheer incompetence. I believe you wont be surprised if, honestly, I didnt understand your comments.
SCR 1 and 2: I don’t know how to represent a triac so I wrote SCR1-2 to represent two antiparallel SCR. What’s the symbol for TRIAC? Does this make me part of the conspiracy? ok, fine then… but you are really weird.
30°: I can’t see it, sorry, to me it looks like the typical current on a Triac, in phase with his source, and with the peak value that of course can move, but they are in phase on the right zerocrossing. However I certainly did not spent so much time as you did with that picture, I normally choose other kind of pictures during my free time. Life is short, relax bro! You clearly have plenty of free time, I don’t, sorry…
180°: you are partially right, I’m partially wrong (thats the only comment I understood). I was focused on demonstrating that the current on ph1 is EXACTLY the same than ph2, I forgot that the instrument will invert it on the display because it is going into one clamp and getting out from the other (negative). I claim that it is not “impossible” to have the same current on phase 1 and 2, and that’s the point. But it is true that with my example the 2 currents will be shown as opposites on the scope. It is NOT true that there is a 180° phase shift, you would easily see it if you introduce an asymmetrical noice, or better if you use an halfwave bridge instead of the triac. So you are wrong too I guess, but don’t worry I’m SURE this would not be the first time and neither the last. And Dummy was wrong when thinking that the currents would have to be necessarily in phase with the voltages and shifted 120° between each other. I wont come out with any other circuit coz I don’t want you to choke and feel responsible for it… or maybe I will!
“We spent a lot of time analyzing all the possibilities”: I didn’t, unfortunately I fight poverty, I work. By the way it’s my humble opinion that you indeed failed, until now, to prove anything else than your disagreable conceit, including concerning the December tests.
I aint read the manual (sorry Franco) but I do believe that it is quite difficult to wrongly connect that meter unless you have some sort of vision deficiency, and I fail to see any global international machination, so I prefer to BELIEVE that you are wrong. The result of my observations may prove positive or negative, I will survive anyway. That’s a bias indeed, like yours, and probably caused by your “team” nice attitude: I mostly tend to stand by the underprivileged, and, as you really love to point out, you are not.
Bye Gianpy, Shift+Return
@wally
sorry finally, re reading I definitively don’t understand what is your hypothesis.
connecting two phase is not at all a problem for a wattmeter if you don’t invert one of the clamp.
in fact inside the electric blackbox you can do what you want, provided no current exit beside the neutral, and the voltage is AC in the wattmeter bandwidth.
what a serious skeptic should do in such a test is simply check the input voltage to see if it is in the supported bandwidth (pure sinus is not even required, just no DC or HF).
HF is not credible at this power, but DC should have been checked. Indirectly you can rule it out because there was instruments (the video cam I thing ,and another instrument) on the same plug, which should have suffered. More tha not exploding, the conspirator would have prevented testers to put instrument on the tweaked plug, and basically prevented them to work alone.
HF or DC current is not a problem, once there is no DC or AC voltage.
@wally
after quick computation it seems that using a reactive load between two phases, when you invert a clamp, you simply turn the complex power of 90degrees (and divide by sqrt(3))
so yes to trick an incompetent and non curious electrician, who can work on cold fusion without getting more suspiscious, just invert a clamp, hide the wiring in case he notice it by mistake, and present him a pure reactive load that will look like a pure active load.
I just found the english name of the notation i use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor
to be honest I’m more used with Laplace transform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_transform
but this is old like thermodynamics.
Today I ‘me more practicing information theory, groupthink, weak signal detection,…
When i compare the probability of a above college professional not to detect a pathological phase balance with the chance of a skeptic to be wrong while he have no evidence, … the choice is really difficult.
anyway i find that even for a physicist, not looking at phase balance and phased shift is hard to swallow. So I require evidence.
Do you have any?
@wally
my assumption are the same.
a simple load between phase 1 and 2, with wattmeter in Y mode (4 wires 3 clamps).
current is proportional to the voltage between phase 1 and 2 (1-rot)…
if someone can check the computation… it seems that reverting a clamp (in Y mode), on a 380V mono-delta resistive load, zeroes the observed power.
If the load is reactive, I did not check…
anyway, i would rather trust a competent professional making the measurement and checking the phase balance… a phase with negative power is funny.
@ALAIN
“I agree that inverting a clamp trun current by 180°…” STOP HERE PLEASE.
Nobody told about inverting a current clamp.
We assume current clamp are correctly connected, according to the arrows printed on the clamps.
Arrows must be all directed to the load or from the load.
Somebody asked what happens if, inside the load, I only connect a resistor between L1 and L2.
I answered that I1 and I2 are in phase oppositions.
I1 gets in, I2 gets out, same magnitude.
Sorry, I won’t consider your calculations, because they are based on uncorrect assumption.
More, you don’t need any calculation. An electrician only needs a pencil and a ruler.
If testers are not stupid, they used the same dIsplay mode for all phases.
In this display mode, V2 and I2 are perfect for a TRIAC, unlike V1 and I1.
Therefore this is not a display mode problem.
@gioj
good reminding about computer and freedom laws as we have in france, fighting with transparency laws as in UK/US (sweden seems to add both).
so waht could be exchanged between Levi and Rossi… I have no data but I can imagine.
that Levi believe in Rossi device… why ? because he have seen it…
Ok that is impossible to accept for you ?
Imagine the exchange:
Levi,
Hi andrea, I prepare for the test to prove those incompetent guys around Sylvie Coyaud that think you are a crook more than they.
I’m so sorry to have imagined at the beginning, that you may be a crook… you know I know cold fusion is real because I am competent and I can read calorimetry papers unlike they, but i admit your look Weird
Rossi:
Hi
guisepe, I won’t blame you, I know I am not the most consensual man on earth, and don’t tell my fan, I have made big mistakes (not only on plumbing, and tax laws)… anyway as you have observed it works.
not as nicely as i hope, but sure I will fix it soon
Levi
Andrea, be careful with your “I will fix it”, I have a reputation and the bastard in APS and INFN wait to toast me at your first mistake.
You know they won’t trust their mother if it was supporting cold fusion. If one of your kitten refuse to cry, I’m dead.
Rossi,
Ok I will try to be more … I don’t know exactly, I will ask my boss.
so Giuseppe what is you plan for the test, I really tried to make it nice for the skeptics.
Hopefully Vaughn was happy with you test, even if he send people to check again… He behaved as if it was his own money… by the way it was his money too.
Levi
first I’m toasted and best would be to let the colleagues make the test… they won’t trust me even If I prove the earth is round.
Second we will try to take all their remarks, and maybe hire one of those arch skeptics like Pomp& Ericsson
PS: Pomp just refused because he have better things to do meanwhile.
Rossi
Ok Guisepe , I wait. Wish you the best.
PS: Darnen explained me what are corporate practice about test.. he seems on the same lane as Jed Rothwell… i feel like a young interne learning corporate culture. Anyway funny.
…
so we will see an awful conspiracy between an inventor that want to prove his reactor, and a scientist who observed it was working…
CONSPIRACY
of simply normal people who want to help us solve our energy problems?
@cimpy
I agree thatinverting a clamp trun current by 180, and that the inverted current should be integrated relatively to his phase
but doing so I get a fully reactive power measured
can a living clock check that hypothesis?
I’m getting old and playing with complex numbers is not so easy today.
basically, assuming power is 3W, U=1V, I is 1 on 2 phase
take rot=e^j2pi/3 the 120deg rotator
u1=1 u2=rot u3=1/rot
i1=1-rot i2=rot-1 i3=0
p1=1-rot p2=(rot – 1)/rot P3=0
this makes
P=1-rot+1-1/rot=3
for an inverted clamp
p2’=-p2
P’=1-rot-1+1/rot=1/rot-rot=j.sqr(3)
a pure reactive power
if someone can check
anyway the rest still hold, display mode is key to understand a curva, and competent electriciian check the phase balance, which is really strange if you invert a clamp.
On that point my human competence developped.
@Cesare Imperiali
You have a challenging name, those who bring fear and intimidate people, so let me shorten it: I’ll just call you Cess (Chess for English speakers).
So, Chess, sorry for replying late but usually on summer weekends I take a ride on my motorboat to the islands near Rome.
I appreciated very much your simple schematics with a resistive load between phases. It’s really a pity it is completely wrong and does not work at all, as wally has already pointed out. If I may add something to show all your ingenuity and sheer incompetence, I would say that, besides being 180° phase shifted between them, I1 is 30° ahead of V1 and I2 is 30° behind V2. Could you show me where in the pictures of the TPR this can be seen?
Next time be careful otherwise you’ll take away AlainCo from his long lasting first position.
It’s enough to start from Wikipedia, since it is not so difficult to understand.
We spent a lot of time analyzing all the possibilities, including three unequal loads: in general it can be said that if the instrument, by someone’s mistake, is wrongly wired you can get the reading you like. This is not definitely good, because the TPR2 risk to be useless before being published.
I hope to read you soon with a new stimulating circuit.
By the way I really appreciated that you called the triac SCR1-2: it is a clear indication that you are very close to Rossi’s team (it was a secret before) so that when the going gets tough the tough get going.
Bye Cess, Ctrl+Alt+Del.
Reveal your true name and organisation, Cimpy and Yugo so History will record your “greatness” of defending the truth and enlightening the no brainers
At least Alain face is pictured on the other side. Can’t hang out here all day and be faceless that is not heroic at all. Even 5-10-100 years from now he will be marked. You guys gotta be out to be glorious, when the truth is finally revealed so you and even your next generations will be judged for greatness. .
“The limitations can be imposed only by the judicial authorities motivated with the guarantees established by law”
That is to say there are no laws in Italy that impose those “limitations with the guarantees established”?
“The Freedom of the Press Act lists the interests That may be protected by keeping secret official documents:
1. Sweden’s national security or relations with a foreign state or an international organization;”
So, you do believe that Rossi and Levi are States? Or do you believe they are Internationals Organizations? Or do you think the wonderful Rossi invention is a matter of Swedish National Security? Well, this last one, might be, depending on how much heavy is considered being involved in a fraud..could it be National Security?
Let me know, I am interested in your expert opinion…
And I repeat my opinion : in this story seems as if point is not to let discover the truth.
Are you worried about mails or about something inside could prove something was not as it should have been?
Have you read something of private about one of them that could have come from those mails? Anything not related to this fusion story?
@ Cimpy
>So, gioj, which is your point?
THE FACTS:
The swedish-national-radio, in the person of his reporter Marcus Hansson, asked for and obtained from the KTH-Royal Institute of Technology, the emails that prof. Essén exchanged with Andrea Rossi and Giuseppe Levi of the University of Bologna.
The swedish-national-radio sends e-mail to the science journalist Sylvie Coyaud, in Italy.
THE LAW:
The Laws that govern the facts as described, are two:
• The Freedom Press Act
• The Italian Constitution
The Italian Constitution-the fundamental law of the Italian State-considers the right to secrecy of correspondence, an inviolable right of the Italian citizen and in fact, Article 15 states that:
“The freedom and confidentiality of correspondence and all other forms of communication are inviolable. The limitations can be imposed only by the judicial authorities motivated with the guarantees established by law. ”
The Press Freedom Act gives to every swedish citizen the right of free access to official documents; Therefore, according to the Press Freedom Act,” every swedish citizen is entitled to contact a public authority or agency in Sweden and request access to an official document”.
Marcus Hansson, reporter swedish-national-radio asks for and obtains e-mails,from KTH, through the Freedom of the Press Act.
Marcus Hanson sends e-mails obtained by KTH, to the science journalist Sylvie Coyaud in Italy: e-mails that concern two Italian citizens, Andrea Rossi and Giuseppe Levi, whose right to secrecy of correspondence is enshrined in ‘Article 15 of the Italian Constitution.
At first glance, it would appear that Marcus Hanson has sent emails to Italy, in full respect of the law-Swedish Press Freedom Act-, unfortunately it is not.
In fact, we can read-Chapter 2. On the public nature of official documents- in Article 2, paragraph number 1 of the Press Freedom Act:
“The Freedom of the Press Act lists the interests That may be protected by keeping secret official documents:
1. Sweden’s national security or relations with a foreign state or an international organization; ”
CONCLUSIONS
So Marcus Hansson, sending e-mail to Italy, does not comply with the Article 2 of the Press Freedom Act, does not comply the right to privacy of correspondence of two Italian citizens (Andrea Rossi and Giuseppe Levi) and consequently the relations with the Italian state (foreign state ), not respecting the Italian constitution.
Not having any interest in any administrative consequences, the behavior of the swedish-national-radio is certainly ethically reprehensible .
@Alain
“note that in that case the power would be zero. quite noticeable”
The power won’t be zero, because the two currents have different potential respect to the neutral, where the second contacts of voltmetric wirings are connected.
The first contacts are connected to the lines.
If I were you I wouldn’be ironic in stating such things.
Here is your favorite clock, AlainCo: Wally tells you there is a severe matter with the Team of Testers. Especially as they were not all from the Country you like most.
Are you going to listen, this time? Ask for videos of first (and second as you are there) TPR, instead of new tests or of spending time reading the bible book
If you ignore disply and synchronization mode, read the instrument manual.
all depend on the display mode and the synchronization mode.
assuming stupidity of the testers all can be proven as a fraud.
assuming they cannot see that is a bit risky.
note that in that case the power would be zero. quite noticeable
“In this case, is it impossible that the current measured on ph1 is the same than ph2?”
Yes, it’s impossible.
In this case, I1 and I2 should be in phase opposition. It means that the two current shapes should differ in phase by 180 degrees. But they don’t. They are in phase.
You stated there have been false claims, but it seems that the only false claim is yours.
Best Regards.
@Slabadang
you poisition, quite hot, joint the position of Sifferkoll in thos articles
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=314
He critics agains Sylvie coyaud as an extreme left fan (as a French for me green are the real children of extreme left, and Coyaud is partly french at least as political culture)
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=320
Those article resonate with my conviction and my fears that the worst enemy of that cornucopian technology , is not first the industrialist (who will defend their economic rent, but will also embrace and extend, and whose staff will leave like rats in a sinking boat), but first the dogmatic physicist and then the idealist Malthusians and Luddites, like what you describe for that media green lord.
see my positions
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/376-Opinion-on-Swedish-Radio-An-Enemy-of-LENR-and-Clean-Energy-%E2%80%93-the-Misguided-Envir/
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/379-Sifferkol-Sylvie-Coyaud-reveal-location-of-E-Cat-3rd-party-Test-Who-wasted-most-/?postID=778#post778
Well man, you should know how it worked and you should know videos are there. It will be funny to see what happened and how the wires were connected.
I am waiting for the ministerial commitee on cold fusion at Politecnico to appear and take care of all this story – by the way: seems as if you were inside the party – so you already know how nicely it was realized the nickel fusion.
I wonder if you understand it will not be all that easy to tell around it was only a small mistake. At least, it might work in our Country, not abroad.
The game is almost over, and the last chapter will be about fishes fished and fishermen fishing. It will be a happy ending.
Warm regards.
dear Cimpy
I honestly appreciate your witty, qualified and brief comments. Your clear and astonishing english is a godsend, as it is having such experienced professors as Mr mW.
Impossible…
As he is an experienced professor at Politecnico (Bari?) I would like to have his advice on a complex circuit which I invented few seconds ago to perform Impossible cold fusion. Its a 3phase+neutral 4 wire supplied circuit, which i’m accidentally monitoring with a PCE830 positioned strictly following the user manual. Inside my blackbox I don’t use at all phase ph3 and the neutral, while I connect only a heater between V1 and V2. On V2 side of the resistor I have a triac to control the current.
So a very simple one line circuit: CT1,V1,R,SCR1-2,V2,CT2.
In this case, is it impossible that the current measured on ph1 is the same than ph2?
wouldn’t I have the exact same pictures than in the tpr?
Will the Politecnico be inspected by the ministerial commitee on cold fusion because of your false claims of impossible measures? Are you at risk of being punished in some way for using the politecnico name for your false claims? In that case I would be very sorry for you, for Politecnico and also for its students.
kind regads
Dear Mats
I’m very impressed by Sylvie Coyaud’s consultant Giancarlo de Marchis: 400 scientific publications!! as he mentioned it is one per month, he writes articles during the day and work for Sylvie at night. We call him the “engineer of huge currents”. He is certainly an eminent scientist whose opinion we should consider accurately.
In one of his latest posts on 22passi he claims to be able to demonstrate Rossi’s scam, and which are the errors of Swedish scientists. In particular he can prove that the COP of the Hotcat is certainly considerably <1.
Did you ask the Swedish professors if they considered using the Hotcat as energy storage?
In case that electric energy is not fully transformed in heat, do you think that proving energy conservation wrong would be a minor success for Rossi?
kind regards
Another one who has strange ideas, it seems.
What do you mean by “proving energy conservation wrong would be a minor success for Rossi”?
It makes no sense at all – there is NOT a matter of “energy conservation” and for sure you cannot speak of “a minor success for Rossi”(??) when a clear fraud took place, actively perpetrated by someone in the group.
This is not simply a “voice”, this is a fact that is visible in the last pictures of the third revision of TPR and as long as video are in the hands of Swedish people there, it can be seen by anyone who has right to see like University authority, for example.
As you can see in the appendix of the TPR, third revision, someone has not been honest.
But I do believe most were honest – or even at least one: the first who speaks, might be getting for this a lower penalty…who knows? In this story, one is enough, even if I am confident there will be more than one who will tell who checked the wires.
I am sure Swedish are serious people and will ensure the guilties an appropriate punishment; I do believe we will discover very soon.
By the way, are you Italian? In case, do not mind if AlainCo (whenever will he be back with his nice book full of answers) will start saying you are the criminal – I am sure you’re not, but AlainCo will assume it simply because you are from Italy.
Do not mind in any case (Alainco does not even deserve an answer for that) as long as you did not touch wires.
See you around, but let me suggest to take a look at those pictures before you start again to write of “minor success”. In this case “success” is if you are still a free man tomorrow.
Bye
So, gioj, which is your point? No personal private stuff is going to be spread out, but if there are evidence of something wrong they will be timely released. Are you trying to find a way to hide something?
By the way, wrong defense:
Italy laws are not in the business while wee are speaking of Swedish affairs – a pity those might also reveal something on Hot Cat or on Hot Cat Tests, don’t you think?
And you would not be able to stop disclosure of any evidences claiming “inside trading” affairs .
And, most important, suggesting a way to opposite, you are suggesting there actually is something to hide.
While, to tell the truth, I do believe no evidence at all will be revealed from those mails.
Don’t you believe the same, gioj?
Those are wonderful people, they were not there to cheat. But a couple, of course, or it might be even three, but from the whole team, including people from my Country (and I am sure if AlainCo would have been here, for sure he could have had proved some crime somewhere in my Country to show how easily it should have been happened even in Switzerland… 😀 )
I do believe you (and everyone) should pay attention to the real problem, which is not there but it sounds as if it is around here.
No interest in personal stuff that does not account in the Cold Fusion story. I am sure Mats could agree at least on this last thought. And, with AlainCo, that, in case, only Italians ate to blame…
O_O
Björkstens tactics on her political motivated caracter assasinations!
Björksten is a green politruk and gatekeeper appointed by the idological korrupted gouvernment of Swedish public service. Why she choosed Hansson was because he is deeply involved in the most fanatic branch of the enviromental movement and by hiring a freelancer Björkstens responsability is reduced in a perfect way at the same time. She becomes able to order what the assasination of caracter message must look like and then have the choice to blame Hansson or choose to let the responsability on impartiality and balance slip between the chairs.
Hansson is playing his role as the willingful useful idiot as Björkstens hired torpedo on the caracters she wants assasinated very clumsy but as a man on a mission. A more biased project is hard to imagine. For you who hasnt notised the extreme bias of swedish public service in general and Björlstens as the most extreme and obvious example have to notice the destiny of Lennart Bengtsson who is Swedens most respected and established climate scientist who came out as a sceptic a week ago.
All over the world the story of the bullying and herassment of Bengtsson made front page news in USA Kina Australia England Denmark Finland Norway Indonesia France India and many more countries. But in Bengtssons pwn country where Ulrika Björksten Anna Schytt and Eva Sandahl operates and controls the swedish climate propaganda they didnt produce or publish anything on the remarkelbe event that Bengtsson left thier “97%” konsensus. They see the swedish public as a mushroom farmers “Keep em in the dark and feed them with pure bullshit!”
So whats the ambition and motive behind this hit job? The ambition is to scare any journalist or scientist that dare to challange the intrests of the big green lobby that placed Ulrika on her job as its gatekeeper.She wants to send a message that she is prepered to caracter assasinate anyone who interfer with the intrest of the big green plan and she has been given the mandate to act on behalf of that interets.
So why is Rossi seem so dangerous from Björkstens angle? Its simply because any option or candidates who compete with the big greens appointed alternatives as biofules vindfarms and solar panels are dangerous to both thier economical and ideological intrests. When people realize that there can be other options and the old dream of cheap energi in abundance could be both rewoken feasable and even just around the corner, is seen like antrax spread ower the people profiting from the big greeen machine. Thats why she ordered this caracter assasination job.
But she is isolated as som many gatekeepers working for public service and MSM.More citizens read blogs on the internet and is increasingly fed up with the pure bullshit they are spreading. Im am an free and independent citizen Björksten cant controll the desinformation she wants to throw at me or you any more. We can laugh ar them from our new independant internet plattform where you have to earn trust while the biased media is ruining theirs.
So Mats … I hope you are not afraid of Björksten she is just a pathetic figure nd sad exuse as an journalist with her future behind her.
@ Matt Lewans
In Sweden to balance the Freedom of the Press Act, I’ve found the that there is “The Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act”, which entered into force on 30 June 2009, contains provisions that supplement the provisions contained in the Freedom of the Press Act on the right to obtain official documents.
http://www.government.se/sb/d/11929/a/131397
At pag.23 in the link here above , we can read:
“3.5.3 PROHIBITION iN OTHER LEGISLATION ON DISCLOSING
OR USING INFORMATION
One of the principles underlying the rules contained in the Public Access to
Information and Secrecy Act is that all duties of confidentiality within public
activities shall be stated by the Act, either directly or through reference to
another Act. Set against this background, the Public Access to Information
and Secrecy Act has included references to restrictions to the possibilities
of using or disclosing information according to other Acts. For example,
mention may be made of the limitations that, according to the Act on
Penalties for Abuse of the Market when Trading with Financial Instruments
(2005:377), apply to persons in possession of insider information.”
In Italian law, the secrecy of the mail is a sacred and inviolable right, guaranteed by the Constitution .
Maybe the Swedish National Radio has missed this point?????????
Legal regards
Cimpy,
You pointed out the core of the matter, in a way that anybody can understand.
I liked it.
@Merlian,
electrical measurement and power electronics are my research and teaching field at “Politecnico”.
I’m very worried about page 31 of TPR, where I1 e I2 are both in phase with V2.
They seem to be the same current.
But this is impossible.
According to the Authors these currents are given by the same load (resistive).
The only difference is the voltage.
As you can easily see, Merlian, V1 e V2 are translated one respect to the other on the screen. (page 30)
I1 and I2 should be translated as well, but they are not. (page 31)
You dont’ need to be an engineer to agree.
They put two different current probes on the same conductor.
It’ very hard to believe such rough error as unintentional, but, of course, it can be.
IMO, it’s a big lack in professionalism and reliability of testers.
I would like to know your opinion about it.
I’ll wait for your opinion, and in the meantime, you can ask Giancarlo about.
Best regards.
Chimpy,
I can accept statements build up and based on professional experience and know-how (i.g. Giancarlo, Massa, Morici and a few others) assuming that they ignore something that mainstream science doesn’t know or can’t explain yet (see Giancarlo, Massa, Morici and a few others), not simply based on syllogism, what seems to be the basic unit of your reasoning! Your arguments are assumptions, deductions and conclusions based on what? You could argue that I’m building up my opinion on syllogism too, but I’m conscious about that and I don’t want to convince anybody that I’m right; I’m not entering a mosque and trying to convert Muslims to Catholicism! This is what you and others are doing when entering a blog or a discussion about cold fusion. You said that no special talents are needed to understand that CF is not possible: sorry, but as I’m convinced that it is, it seems that my capacities and those of several thousand other people are far below your level!
As I have nothing else to say about the subject, this will my last contribution and leave the comments to technically prepared people. I suggest you to do the same.
Merlian,
No special talent is required to understand Rossi is a scammer.
No special talent is required to understand demos were a fraud.
All you need is to use your eyes, as for example Ascoli65 explained about 2011 demos, when we had the ghost probe, the pump matter, the time of boiling water and the vapor matter. To see those matters you do not need special ability. Once you understand someone lied you can choose to say “it was a show, not a serious test” following Nevanlinna (and facing a lot of other matters, as all professors then lied) or you should accept the fact it did not work. Now take in account what I am telling you: as for the Hyperion stuff, even for the Hot Cat the trick has been seen. The fact you still can believe there was not is the same as it was for Hyperion.
Some talent is required if you want to say Cold Fusion shouldbe impossible – that is: if what is on books of physic is true, what you can read on one of them for children is enough.
If you start claim books (or better, physic as known so far) could be rewrote as something is missing, I could recognize it might be true, but it is not up to me to prove that, it is up to the one who claims it and we are still a lot far from this point. I stick with classic physic waiting for better evidences matter is different from how we know it.
But if you’re saying Rossi is making it, consider:
He does not explain the new physic (and even later stated there was no need at all !) and
he hides everything under NDA and
He (and someone around) cheated in demos.
Merlian, why the devil should I believe a single word or frame from Rossi?
leave if you want, but let me suggest you to open your eyes.
By the way, you decided I am not skilled enough to talk. Might be you would say I should also stay at home when the sun go down and do not move on Saturday. Your opinion. I will not follow your suggestment and , of course, I do not expect you will follow mine.
Happy dreaming,
Bye
@Giancarlo
Hi, although you think I’m wrong, I respect your qualified opinion and hope you’re wrong because you ignore something that official science ignores! In any case, soon we’ll know and that will be the end of the quarrel.
open OT
You have my number or private mail (if not tell me, I’ve yours!), we can meet for a pizza at your best convenience.
close OT
@Merlian
OT
Hi Merlian, it is a pleasure to find you here although I think you are wrong.
I’m coming to Brussels on June 15th and I’ll stay all the week along at Rogier. Can we meet for a pizza?
End OT
Dear Wally, Finally you understood: how can I consider Chimpy if I intentionally ignore all the engineers saying that cold fusion is a scam? This is the power of web: everybody can build up his own opinion about nearly everything; at the end, for unqualified persons like Chimpy, you and me it is just a matter of trust. Trusting in Rossi or other scientists doesn’t cost us anything, except if you have to spend your time trolling around in order to convince people that you’re smarter than them. There is taxpayer money wasted on a multitude of projects and you don’t complain, why are you wasting your time on this?
“why are you wasting your time on this?”
So your answer is “believe the scam or turn your back and go away”
Guess what? You are out of luck, I am here around to stay, as this is the power of web: I can tell what I see, I can remember all the lies Rossi said.
If you cannot stand your dream has never become more real thanks to Rossi (on the contrary: he even sunk cold fusion even more), that is a matter you have, and you should follow Caggia sugestment there on 22 Passi when he told you not to look outside that garden, where Rossi effect might be dreamt as almost true (even if Mahler told you and all believers something exactly yesterday…)
Dear Mr. Merlian,
you said
“How credible are you and why should you be more credible than Mats or Levi, or other scientists?”
In 2011, many italian and foreign engineers debunked datas, videos, pictures and reports of public demos of ecat. They found evidences of lies and incompetence in energy measurement, just using basic and well estabilished engineering knowledge. Nothing exotic. If you followed e-cat in 2011 you should know the names of some of these engineers.
The only difference between you and Cimpy is that it seems that you intentionally ignore all these engineers. It’s a kind of psychological displacement
Why do you? Is something about your ego, or traumatic areas, or lack in job?
As you can see, anybody can easily use this kind of arguments.
It was an example, I don’t want to hurt.
As usual, when no arguments can stand the point is switched.
Can skeptics show evidences of a hidden fraud? We could if we can get a couple of photos of measurements already done.
Should we need high physic or chemistry competence to reveal the trick?
To tell the truth, some basic competence is more than enough and in this specific case being an electrician should be just fine.
You state you have no competence (or not high ones) while asking me and others if we have as if this could make the Cat do real fusion. Seems as if you do not get the point: you do not need to be a professional runner and a high experienced mechanic to state a human runner at his max speed is far far far slower than a race car at its maximum speed – you need only a good pair of eyes and (of course) you need to use them. Also a clock, a camera and a bit of memory could help, like in avoiding forget the past to point exclusively to the nearer future (like when saying :”oh yes, there have been frauds, but this time it will be different, this tine Rossi is not lying and soon it will be proved”…).
I can assure you my competences and my skills are enough for this game, as I have a good pair of eyes and even more than a single bit of memory (and yes, even a clock and camera); and btw I am on the same side of Pomp’s and Bardi’s school (do you know them?) which suggest playing this game speaking slowly and avoiding entering technical stuff, so that even non skilled people (like you said you are) could understand – if only they dare to listen. And in any case, would it make any difference if I were (and I am not) a Professor from some Marvelous University -says Bologna, I like that one! – as long as we have seen quoted Professors said nothing about wrong ghost probes, low pressures, strange ways of measure,…?
High skilled people already spoke and, despite what you might believe, most of scientist still keep the old judgment: “incompetence and delusion”. There are few (250 in the whole world, Merlian?) who strongly believe and strongly hope to see the magic on earth. Guess what? None of them built such a machine like Rossi’s one.
Rossi, through his own hands built E Cat having no more than a degree in philosophy. The Rossi degree per se to me is not a mater as matters are in what he declared and showed. Should it be a matter for you?
Or, speaking of how a man spends his time, if you were sure you are looking at a fraud, would have you said it as loud as you could or would you have turn your back the other side and walked away?
Dear Wally, I wrote in my previous comment that I have no competences in this field, so I’m wondering if you wrote your comment just to let us know that you and Chimpy have them, otherwise your statement: “I’m sure none, otherwise you would be sure of evidences of LIES and INCOMPETENCE in the e-cat hystory since 2011” wouldn’t be logic as you also wouldn’t be sure! Can I assume that I’m writing to a scientist who can demonstrate that other scientists are wrong?
Would you also be so kind to admit that you have no competences to affirm what you wrote?
Dear Mr. Merlian,
as you asked Cimpy, I ask you: what is your scientific background on cold fusion, physics or chemistry?
I’m sure none, otherwise you would be sure of evidences of LIES and INCOMPETENCE in the e-cat hystory since 2011.
Dear Mr. C(h)impy, what is your scientific background on cold fusion, physics or chemistry? Why are you insisting in defining CF and/or Rossi’s E-cat as a scam and, this is much more interesting to me: why are you insisting in trying to prove people that you’re right? Is it for your ego? Couldn’t you waste less time in spamming and trolling around the web? Don’t you have a job, or is this your job?
Merlian,
thank you for proving once more that Rossi’s defenders have nothing left but insults and arguments ad hominem, but it was not necessary: just look at this thread.
Am I insulting you because of the (h) I introduced in your nickname or because I asked for your competences on the subject? I’m not an expert in this field, as a consequence I’m not discussing about technical aspects, but, considering your interventions on the web, you seem to be very informed and about the latter, so I’ll ask you again: what are your professional experience in physics or chemistry in order that I can evaluate your statements concerning Rossi’s E-cat and cold fusion? How credible are you and why should you be more credible than Mats or Levi, or other scientists?
page 30 of TPR not 31
@ Stefan Israelsson Tampe
…I just interpreted their unwillingness to give away the move now, by a lack of interest, due to the new test…
“… lack of interest”
One year ago I asked directly to AA for some clarification and flagged to them the lacking of video, picture, technical data relevant to instruments and electrical measures and so on, and the need to testify properly their tests performed.
The only result was that they added just a couple of pages (the Appendix).
In Appendix, they wrote at page 31 this sentence:
“As far as voltage is concerned, the figures, considering that peak values are shown, clearly show that the waveform was sinusoidal and symmetrical, and that there were no levels of DC voltage – having it been already established that there were no other electrical connections.”
Clearly? How did they write this if the PCE-830 can’t measure any DC (voltage or current) as stated by the PCE representative at which we asked in order to verify their assumption?
Is it lack of interest of us? or maybe their low interest to give data that any technician should include in a Report in order to testify in an acceptable way his measures?
@ Stefan Israelsson Tampe
I didn’t talk about SR radio show, therefore I don’t understand you answer.
“…And you wan’t me to consult her? lol.”
No. Maybe you are answering to another post, not mine, or you took reading lesson from HT.
“Also, if the test is conclusive and well done…” done by them?
Now you have a second chance to answer to my post, but be sure you’re answering to mine, and please avoid blablah
Wally
@Giancarlo,
Yes I support you fully, they should support us with movies/pictures of the setup of the new test. I took that for granted, I just interpreted their unwillingness to give away the move now, by a lack of interest, due to the new test, and a lack of will/manpower to go through the movie and make sure nothing sensitive was captured. But maybe if you ask for a few still frames of the movie that describes the cabling they can find time to do the job.
@Stefan Israelsson Tampe
But this discussion and examination should have been done before money for the next set of tests have been spent, it’s too late now, and if you are right, we will have a negative result in about two weeks, else you are simply most certainly wrong.
I think that we can do it for the next TPR as well. Together with the report, they will deliver the full set of video so that we can check if the wiring, this time, was the wright one. Since the test in Lugano is over, they do not have any other obligation implying money, just showing pictures and videos.
Actually, I think you didn’t catch the point when you distinguish between positive and negative results. Just swapping a couple of probes, I was able in another blog to decrease the measured electrical power on the load from 7,55 kW down to 0,45 kW, so my personal COP is around 15 (there are links to pictures nearby) . You are saying, instead, that if the COP will prove high enough, I will be wrong.
Could you please reconsider your statement?
“I would really support your wish to find out this through examination of the video. But this discussion and examination should have been done before money for the next set of tests have been spent, it’s too late now, and if you are right, we will have a negative result in about two weeks, else you are simply most certainly wrong”
Please, do NOT look at video. Start a new test with a totally new brand trick. And this time, be sure no pictures with any sensible piece of infos fly away from the window.
Thanks, we enjoy this film
do not miss the right questions
@wally,
Sorry SR’s radio show is a laugh, we had a ball this lunch when I met a few friends at lunch. One of them, spotted that show as a very lame attempt as an obvious manipulating piece. For your information I was pretty careful to make sure they would not think that the opposite is true and explain that really it is a difficult question and show pro’s and cons that the fine people here and elsewhere produce. And you wan’t me to consult her? lol.
Also, if the test is conclusive and well done, I think that there will be no shortage of sane people that would take this story seriously and start acting. IH would not have a problem to fund further research and big companies throughout the world would start their own investigations. Of cause to ,show science, you would need another test with new people just as Lewan and you say. But things develop in steps, have patience.
@Giancarlo
We don’t know how you served information, you have probably done your job, and if the journalists had done their job, we would probably have had a good piece critic that makes sure that people doesn’t take hasty conclusions. Instead you get the opposite, a pity.
For me, the professors did a hasty job, that’s clear from the setup, first do a cheap preparational test get the interest and funding, then the real expensive test. Sure they should have used semi-independent in stead of independent, semi third party etc. Also these professors are not super professors that is expert at writing a lot of articles, the article was not presented in a paper and so on so the quality is not perfect. But as a starting point for the next series it’s good enough. If you present as much as you can openly then wrongly chosen words can essentially correct themselves and as far as I know that’s also what have happened. Levi was shown to be behind most of the tests, the swedes where just controlling. You are also claiming that the power was measured with the wrong phase of 120 degrees and in isolation I would really support your wish to find out this through examination of the video. But this discussion and examination should have been done before money for the next set of tests have been spent, it’s too late now, and if you are right, we will have a negative result in about two weeks, else you are simply most certainly wrong. There might be a result of COP 1.1 or such, then we should take up your question again, certainly. For the sample question, anything can happen, was it really a sample, was rossi trying to rig it in order to foul competition, well all this is philosophy. A positive test will indicate that it work, whatever happened with that powder tests, the test has priority, that’s simply the logic
@ Matt Lewans
Sorrry but maybe i didn’t explain myself clearly or someone missed the point; i was talking about disclosure !!!
reading( pag 24):
Click to access 0ea2c0eb.pdf
we can find: “The issue of whether the level of protection in a country is adequate shall be assessed taking into account ali the circumstances related to the transfer. Particular importance shall be attached to the nature of the data, the purpose of the processing, the length of time the processing will take, the country of origin, the final country requesting the data and the rules applicable for pro-cessing in the third country”
So the Swedish National Radio made an assessment about it ( having a legal advice about it or anything else) and if did it why it did non tell us in the reportage!!!???
@H. T.: Swedish public radio is not financed by taxes.
@gioj
unless the third country has an adequate level of protection for personal data.
We have a law, which is highly restrictive:
Decreto legislativo 30 giugno 2003, n. 196
CODICE IN MATERIA DI PROTEZIONE DEI DATI PERSONALI
(Pubblicato sulla GU n.174 del 29-7-2003 – Suppl. Ordinario n.123)
So, nobody will publish the mails unless she gets permission from the authority; you can be reassured.
@ Mats Lewan
Reading the transcripts of the transmission of the Swedish national radio regarding the Marcus Hansson on Andrea Rossi and E-cat, I knew that in Sweden thanks to the The Freedom of the Press Act, with simple motivated request, public authorities deliver reporters the documents relating to their work.
But I asked myself a question:
The journalist Marcus Hansson took advantage of The Freedom of the Press Act, but the reporter has been equally loyal to respect another important rule : “The Personal Data Act”( http://www.datainspektionen.se/in-english/legislation/the-personal-data-act/), especially the part that refers to the “Transfer of personal data to a third country (italy in this case)?
I have not found any disclosure about it , on the national Swedish radio!
I think it is correct to clarify.
Warm regards
Transfer of personal data to a third country
Section 33
It is prohibited to transfer to a third country personal data that is undergoing processing unless
the third country has an adequate level of protection for personal data. The provision also
applies to transfer of personal data for processing in a third country.
The adequacy of the level of protection afforded by a third country shall be assessed in the
light of all the circumstances surrounding the transfer. Particular consideration shall be given
to the nature of the data, the purpose of the processing, the duration of the processing, the
country of origin, the country of final destination and the rules that exist for the processing in
the third country.
@Hermano Tobia
I’ll be very glad to answer your interesting questions just 1 attosecond after you will answer mine that are chasing you since a few weeks.
Promise.
If you are not able to answer my questions I will reply within one day.
Promise.
@Stefan Israelsson Tampe, Mats Lewan, Cimpy and anybody cares.
Stefan wrote to Cimpy:
“There are tons of evidences against a working ECAT, there is clear indications that it works”
But we’d better write:
From 2008 to now, there are many evidences of INCOMPETENCE*, and, what is worse, LIES*,
by those who carried out public demo of e-cat, and wrote repots and “papers”.
I’d prefer they stay very far away from any further test.
Those people are, IMO, at least, totally unreliable.
You said:
“now people seam to do the only sane thing”
IMO, the only sane thing is to carry out a test where anybody who carried out tests in 2011 are non present, and very far away (and, of course, Rossi too).
You don’t need professors and phisychan to carry out such test. You just need some technichan to carry out standard energy measurement.
*didn’HT told you anything about?
WHY the swedish taxpayer shouldn’t know it???????
Stefan, if you need more details, just ask.
Sylvie Coyaud is professional enough to choose Giancarlo and not HT as scientific consultant.
This is what a scientific journalist is.
Best regards.
@Giancarlo
As you seem so concerned about swedish taxpayers money (even if the TPR was paid by Elfsork, which is a company, and whose CEO refers to stakeholders), I have a question for you:
Do you think that swedish taxpayer has done a good deal paying (it would be interesting to know how much) for a radio reportage that:
– accuses (without proof) Rossi to be a “dangerous scam artist” and to “lie all the time”
– finds that the professors forgot to measure ambient temperature (you too said that is irrelevant)
– finds that one of the professors got one airplane ticket refunded by Rossi
– finds that some of them did not attend all phases of experiments (but had all the means to check and review data)
?
I see only the proverbial mountain that gave birth to the mouse ..
PS: I guess you should explain to your “science reporter” friend that, besides the second law and energy density, another extraordinary invention exists, and is called “district heating” (1).
(1) http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2014/06/03/kall-fusion-iv-versione-inglese/comment-page-1/#comment-567748
@Stefan Israelsson Tampe, Mats Lewan, Cimpy and anybody cares.
Stefan wrote to Cimpy:
“There are tons of evidences against a working ECAT, there is clear indications that it works”
But we’d better write:
From 2008 to now, there are many evidences of INCOMPETENCE*, and, what is worse, LIES*,
by those who carried out public demo of e-cat, and wrote repots and “papers”.
I’d prefer they stay very far away from any further test.
Those people are, IMO, at least, totally unreliable.
You said:
“now people seam to do the only sane thing”
IMO, the only sane thing is to carry out a test where anybody who carried out tests in 2011 are non present, and very far away (and, of course, Rossi too).
You don’t need professors and phisychan to carry out such test. You just need some technichan to carry out standard energy measurement.
*didn’HT told you anything about?
Stefan, if you need more details, just ask.
Sylvie Coyaud is professional enough to choose Giancarlo and not HT as scientific consultant.
This is what a scientific journalist is.
Best regards.
@Stefan Israelsson Tampe
There are tons of evidences against a working ECAT, there is clear indications that it works, those indications might be wrong, and now people seam to do the only sane thing, test it and do that thoroughly.
I fully agree with you. Heavy tests are needed in a case this important. If no public institutions were involved (Universities paid by the tax-payer) nobody (I myself for sure) would care about Rossi’s strategy until the ecat reaches the market. Only a few will buy a device that proves not to work.
Since UniBo and then Uppsala accepted to be part of the trials, I think the best to do is what is usually done during the development of secret codes and algorithms. The algorithm is open and sent to scientist that will try to break it. The secret is confined to the key. If nobody is able to find a weakness or a back-door, the algorithm will be approved.
If we follow this reasoning, it is enough to put in the public domain by the Professor who tested the ecat their results (includind videos and pictures) so that any person can contribute on the way to the truth.
I do not see any problem with this. The measurements have been done and the video are owned by the Professors.
As an alternative, it would be enough to stop to call it “Third Party Report”. It is simply a report made in the Rossi’s interest that is not bad in se.
@Hermano Tobia
Actually the analysis was performed on several spectra. I think Mats got them; you can ask him to send them by email.
This gives everyone an idea of the overall “zero kelvin” level of the radio reportage. I think that any further comment is superfluos.
I do not think that radio was the best place to discuss into details why one of the current in TPR1 is 120° out of phase with the voltage. The mean listener is not a technician and can not understand that this was due, very likely, to an unobserved faulty wiring of the wattmeter. Nor, she can understand why this is a heavy weakness in the COP evaluation that will turn to be about 1, as it should in the absence of any extra heat..
Maybe (I’m not the producer) the aim was to show that the Swedish Professors were not very cautious to accept to sign a report whose measurements they did not fully witness. They were not there in December, they were not there in April either. Some values that should have been measured, were agreed by email: I’ve been a researcher for 25 years; it doesn’t look very professional, sorry. This was the intention of the reportage maybe. Can you provide us with a definite opinion on that instead of trying to divert the discussion on Ocasapiens’ blog?
1) Was the behavior of the Swedish Professor professional enough?
2) Was it an independent measurement, since Rossi decided what to measure and when?
3) Why the measurement videos are not put in the public domain? Weren’t they paid by the Sweedish tax-payer via Elforsk?
@Giancarlo
I was considering the analysis where the Nickel was completely absent: It is not in the public domain.
You should coordinate better with your fellows (1):
L’analisi molto accurata dimostra che nel nichel non era implicato in alcun processo nucleare come aveva affermato invece Rossi.
The very accurate analisys shows that Nickel was not involved in any nuclear process, contrary to what previously stated by Rossi
Besides, many people (including myself) has been showed reserved reports regarding LENR, but it is pointless to discuss them if they remain secret.
As for PCE 830, in my previous comment I’ve asked Mats if he can show some pics of it while it was in operation; a video would be also good.
Ocasapiens, probably on the verge of a nervous breakdown, “answered” my quiz, but instead of clarifying her embrassing statements about chemical source energy evaluation, she called me a “compulsive liar” (2).
Well, let’s take her sentence about e-cat:
The E-cat has been sold as a thermo-electric plant (Rossi dixit) while no electric output had ever been certified by independent or “third party” experts. That’ what I call a scam.
Everyone who follows ecat story knows perfectly that Rossi has never sold any e-cat as an electric generator, and that he has repeatedly stated that e-cat is not yet ready for that.
But even if it were true, and it was a secret sale, where is the fooled customer ? Has she talked to him and verified that he has been cheated and that no assessment was made ?
This gives everyone an idea of the overall “zero kelvin” level of the radio reportage. I think that any further comment is superfluos.
(1) http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2014/05/28/kall-fusion-le-scorrettezze-misconduct/
(2) http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2014/06/03/kall-fusion-iv-versione-inglese/
The very accurate analisys shows that Nickel was not involved in any nuclear process, contrary to what previously stated by Rossi ù
This gives an idea of the overall “zero kelvin” level of your understanding, as Sylvie was pointing out that there was no nuclear process at all.
This is why she said “no nickel involved” – it is like saying: “no neurons involved by your side while reading from her”…
Shoot again, HT: it seems to me you still have some healthy zones.
“As for PCE 830, in my previous comment I’ve asked Mats if he can show some pics of it while it was in operation; a video would be also good.”
Oh yes, you really did – I could not believe, but you really did it.
“Friends fire”, it is usually called.
😀
It will be really amusing. I wonder if they are already working to a polite answer (like: we would but we did not pay videos fee, so Swedish Performing Rights Society kept them all) a classical excuse (that Cat ate those tasty videos) or to a totally new one with all the frames in the right places (the “forget the past, look at the future, we will prove everything in next test” theme). Let’s see, I am curious. Quite sure they will thank you a lot, HT.
Let me join this request: give those videos to the world. We will guarantee a fast car and some money (small bills) in exchange…
@Cimpy, I I really don’t think that Levi’s trick is ease detectable. He controlled the equipment and tests, that means that he could easy hide the trick. He is clever chap you know. Therefore I don’t think that the swedes are dishonest, hiding things, that would be really really strange. They trusted Levi, any missing information can very well be a result from simply missing the fact in the proof reading. We need to remember that if you have the option to, in detail, investigate any test as such, you will find quirks, statistically there was quite many possibilities for quirks in the test. I really don’t hold this against them. It is for me a bit strange that you critizise people like in the SR radio show for wanting to do a proper test of the device. There are tons of evidences against a working ECAT, there is clear indications that it works, those indications might be wrong, and now people seam to do the only sane thing, test it and do that thoroughly.
“forget the past. Look at the future”.
Of course. Like Gulck is saying all the time.
I quote this:
And you and Mats could join me in asking the Professors to put in the public domain the video they have. It was an independent test, wasn’t it? So they should be allowed to write what they want and to show what they want.
@Hermano Tobia
I was considering the analysis where the Nickel was completely absent: It is not in the public domain. You can ask the Professors, via Mats, to provide you a copy.
And you and Mats could join me in asking the Professors to put in the public domain the video they have. It was an independent test, wasn’t it? So they should be allowed to write what they want and to show what they want.
Do you remember? It was on early 2011…
Nice job, I am sure HT can explain how much everything there is surely true. True, like TPR measurements.
@Giancarlo
Hi ! You also abroad ?
As for transmutations, I think you all missed an important point. It is known that Rossi uses (sometimes ?) enriched Nickel, which can be bought also on the internet. So one single analisys proves nothing. Even the discovery of an anomalous isotopic composition would have proved nothing: you need two checks on the same charge, before and after reaction.
Anyway the only interesting doubt on the TPR was raised by you ( I can confirm Giancarlo is really skilled and competent, even if he joins bad fellowships … ): in the last page of tpr v1 and i1 seem not to be phase aligned as they should be: Mats, could you ask the professors a clarification, and possibly some pics of PCE 830 while in operation ?
Giancarlo, you know I judge someone else compentence from what he/she says. And someone who ignores the second law and energy density , for example, is an scientific incompetent IMHO.
As for journalism skills, my opinion about oca sapiens is even worse: read for example why she thinks ecat is a scam and judge yourself.
@Alainco,
That is not a statistical test, you need to have the test and protocol ready from the beginning of the experiments, doing things in retrospect is very difficult and error prone and usually lead to false statistics. The reason is that we discuss here 200+ experiments, and the number of pairwise compars is n(n-1), you need in principle adjust the P-value in a bonferoni adjustment to something like 0.05 / (n(n-1) or something like that. But then you have the mess that not all compars are valid. Etc. So I still stress that it is a good idea to do such a test.
Cheers
Giancarlo,
Concerning her professional career, I invite you to visit http://www.worldcat.org/ and put her name in the search box. You will find some 89 science books
let us help them, it might be as difficult as seeing which probe was there back in the past when one was there…
“As for transmutations, I think you all missed an important point. It is known that Rossi uses (sometimes ?) enriched Nickel, which can be bought also on the internet. So one single analisys proves nothing. Even the discovery of an anomalous isotopic composition would have proved nothing: you need two checks on the same charge, before and after reaction”
Hi, HT. Some bad fellows (among others) are here.
So, one single analysis proves nothing? Of course, you are right. A pity Rossi did not dare to try for some more, don’t you think?
I am quite sure you are on the track to say “the fact that December data are bullshit, as per March data you are not allowed to think the same as all proves had been hidden better, account for nothing”.
As all professors of the HT school here and there are accustomed to include trickery data among others (about which you can not say if a cheat was there or not -guess if…) in all *truly scientific-independent-third-party* test report…The Uppsala geniuses that signed that report are blessing you for this nice defense.
That is: to find one is cheating once (or twice, or…), as long as he is smart enough to hide at least a trick should be taken as a proof of honesty. And of the fact that, despite cheating every now and then, the machine does work as expected. All the time no skeptic is around and there even are no photos clean enough to reveal the trick,
Really a pity a photo flied on the web showing a trick was there. But,yes, you can keep on saying that it does not apply to the whole TPR.
How lucky, you can shoot to Levi and friends again.
Come on, tell us another of those stories, we like them all: the stronger you hold on to them, the funnier it is.
@Mats
I was a consultant to both Marcus and Sylvie Coyaud for technical aspects. I told Marcus about Defkalion, in details, before your interview with Gamberale. I must say that I was not the only one consultant; among those I know, there is a Nobel Laureate that gave his advice concerning the nuclear spectra that were sent to him after our doubts: no evidence of nuclear transmutation. So I would be a little bit more cautious when saying that no technical aspect was addressed: maybe the saga has not yet finished. Hermano Tobia has crossed the national borders to attack Ocasapiens (Sylvie) also abroad, saying again and again the same stuff: she’s not a journalist, she has no scientific background. She’s id definitely a journalist, she’s not a regular Italian journalist: I do not see the problem, since she’s a French woman living in Italy.
Concerning her professional career, I invite you to visit http://www.worldcat.org/ and put her name in the search box. You will find some 89 science books, partly authored, partly co-authored, partly translated. Including a couple of books by Feynman: did you ever have the chance to meet Feynman, Mats? I would like to have done. Is this your only book Mats or did you write something else? I myself, authored 5 books (see J. Wiley & Sons for details) and some 400 peer review papers; do you think my track record is enough to be a consultant to Sylvie or should I take some classes? In power electronics, maybe? To show how you can mess with a power meter to show thre times the real power? Or a negative active power?
More questions: do you think it is ethical to sign a report without attending the dummy test and without telling the readers about this fact? Is “independent” a report where Levi has to convince Rossi to perform the dummy test?
Am I wrong?
My compliments for the caption you put in today article on NyTeknik: now it is clear to everybody that the September hot cat was working with a COP=1. So now we have hot cats that work only during independent Swedish&Italian tests.
@Filosofen, magic or amgic, that keyboards like to write it sometimes, was used because it is magic if it works, like the magic of life, like the magic of electricity. Everything is physics hence true magic must follow physical laws. I use magic as a placeholder of an unbelievable object or phenomena, and throughout history a lot of commodities we take for granted today have been attributed as magic. I don’t think we should drop it, life get’s so much more lovely if we dare to say that it is magic.
@Stefan Israelsson Tampe
for the studies of reproducibility, ENEA, replicated by SRI and NRL have tested the various parameters , and found that crystallography structure of the surface is very important, as is the presence of some impurities at quantities that looks like semiconductors doping.
start here, and look for similar works before
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf?sequence=1
for the idea of double blind, it was done by Miles with Bush.
Miles measured heat, and Bush of texas AM was measuring he4 in effluent gas, not knowing each others results.
they found a clear correlation at a quantity coherent with a D+D->He4+24MeV reaction
@mW
I’m am a bit unsure what you are after,
The Pd substrate is a very complex material, and all factors that affected the process was not controlled, as a result the internal properties of the substrate the CF scientists worked on varied from sample to sample. You may say random, but that’s an unfair description of the problem, it was much worse. It is just recently, from what I understand, that the production process of the substrate is starting to get more scientific control and hence the probability or the success rate, if you like, have started to increase. Note that the history of semiconductors speaks the same story of having this nasty effect of controlling the quality and properties of the substrate. Anyway getting low reproduction rate in experiments can in a simplistic explanation today be at about 5%, the true story in the history is a bit more complex.
To test this story we should not just continue as before, if you really want to mute cold fusion do this:
Perform about 400 experiments with a top notch CF specialist.
Let her perform the classic P&F experiment with a random chosen water: normal or heavy.
The tester should not know what kind of water there is.
If cold fusion is bogus the success experiments (around 10) should be about 50% normal water and 50% heavy water.
Do a statistical test with a non parametric rank test e.g. you order the results in the amount of measured excess heat and then compare to total randomness.
I think that this test is fair on both the proponents as well as opponents and if the test is positive, cold fusion is proper science, e.g. there is no measurement error, if not, it should be rejected.
The chemical properties of heavy and normal water I assume the same, and the heavy water is have a slightly higher density.
Of cause the test need to be developed further but this is the basics.
Proponents will argue that you don’t need this test, but if you are an opponent that test is what you should do. Else we should continue to support cold fusion results to try just as with semiconductors increase the reproducabillity of the CF experiments.
Cheers!
– do you think that Mrs Ulrika is aware of the scientific competence level of the authors of the report ?
I meant of course the authors of the radio reportage.
@Stefan I. T. : You described such a device as “amgic”. I just wanted to make the point that such a device could be very real, without breaking any known physics.
@Filosofen,
Theoretically yes, but typically real technologies takes time to develop, I think that there must be quite a lot of room of improvements if you let experts, like experts in control theory and their application, loose on the ECAT (if it works). But at the moment the technology, (if it works) are more comparable to heat pumps if you consider the COP figures presented, meaning that it is quite possibly you don’t gain anything by translating to electricity.
@mats lewan
You can read ocasapiens (S.C.) reply to professors statements on Ny Teknik here (1). As usual, her post is a hoax mine.
Just to begin, she repeatedly states that it is impossibile to exclude chemical energy sources for the excess heat measured in Hot Cat test without opening and looking into it.
I have a quiz for readers:
1) she has never read TPR
2) she has read it, but understood nothing
3) she is unaware of an “invention” called energy density
4) she thinks that maybe Rossi has discovered kryptonite
Now I have two questions for Mats:
– do you think that professors would be so kind to answer and give her a class in chemistry 101 ?
– do you think that Mrs Ulrika is aware of the scientific competence level of the authors of the report ?
(1) http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2014/06/03/kall-fusion-iv-versione-inglese/
“New Technology chooses not to condemn those who are curious about something that is almost unbelievable. Our approach is to await more independent and scientifically reproducible test that clarifies what happens in Rossi’s reactor .
But Rossi has much left to prove before he can claim that his energy reactor works. One obvious problem is that he refuses to let any outsiders party open device to look inside .”
*
Susanna Baltscheffsky misses a very important issue. Rossi’s ecat has NEVER been properly tested. Every early test suffered from a lack of calibration — something easily done and which Rossi vociferously resisted. Why was he never pressed on this point by all the news reporters and scientists involved in those demonstrations? That’s a crucial question which calls into doubt the competence of everyone involved in these tests. The people involved did not have a high enough index of suspicion that Rossi might be fooling them. It is now virtually assured that he was. And maybe he still is in the current testing. Or that testing will be, as Rossi himself suggests, “negative”.
@Stefan I. T. : The E-cat is comparable to a nuclear power plant, in that it produces energy from a nuclear process (LENR), according to the inventor. So it is much more omparable to that than to a heat pump. And then it should, ideally, be able to produce more electric energy than it consumes, exactly as a nuclear power plant does.
@Filosofen
With previous TPR COP (3) conversion of heat to electricity is nowhere near overunity. Besides we are still in assessment and measurement phase, so it makes absolutely no sense to add conversion uncertainity.
@Stefan Israelsson Tampe
I’m not interested into proving I know what SLT mean.
I did it when it was mandatory.
I found your post interesting.
According to your statements, an experiment in wich you observe LENR phenomenon is a totally random one, because condensed matter is completely out of our control.
Therefore, how many random experiments we need, just to see one LENR phenomenon, one time?
How many labs and how many million years just to see one, once?
It’s like you say that 200 labs on Heart have won the Lottery Of The Universe in the past 20 years.
Sorry for my kindergarten shit.
Best regards.
@Filosofen,
Do we use employ that on heat pumps? No you compare COP and there is a reason for it. Direct electrical heating is one unit electrical => one unit heat. heat pumps maybe one unit electrical => 3 units of heat? Rossis old warm Cat (assuming it works) one unit electrical => 6 unit heat. It is useful. But if you try to translate back to electrical energy you might loose and produce less electrical energy, simple as that. Fission works because you introduce 1 unit of nuclear energy and get out maybe 0.3 unit of electrical energi. Why you get 0.3 is that the steam is hot, for cold 100+ degree steam the conversion rate not at all as good. On the other hand I have not calculated the conversion factor for Rossis case, maybe he could get on + with the old warm ECAT, Anybody who knows? Anyway if you get 1.5 times electricty out as in you put in you can refeed the ECAT and show a magical object that only produces energi, it’s not stupid thing to do, the question if it is possible even if it’s working.
@HT: A classic nuclear power plant requires electricity to run, boils water to steam and generates electricity. When we compare input and output power we, luckily, find an “efficiency” of more than one, as power is generated from fission. Where should LENR in theory differ from this?
@wally
I can’t neither find any statement about SLT, in the Ocasapiens (S.C.) post you linked.
It was just a question.
You are sustaining the unsustainable. Put it in this way: can someone who knows the Second Law ask such a question, that is suggesting to “convert steam to electricity” and then “compare power meter readings” ?
You don’t need to be an engineer to know that efficiency conversion is much smaller than 1, it’s basic physics from school. A “science reporter” is supposed to know the basics of what she reports.
HT, you should really stop shooting at Rossi claims: he was the one who said “electricity from Cat”. You should have told him two years ago he could not -where were you then, HT? Do you remember?
@Stefan Israelsson Tampe
right.
just some quote of pauli that apply to LENR and semiconductors:
http://blog.disorderedmatter.eu/2009/03/16/wolfgang-pauli-speaking/
“One shouldn’t work on semiconductors, that is a filthy mess; who knows if they really exist!” (dedicated to Cimpy)
“God created the solids, the devil their surfaces.” (dedicated to LENR researchers)
“I don’t mind your thinking slowly; I mind your publishing faster than you think.” (dedicated to Morrison/Lewis/Hansen/Huizenga/parks/Taubes)
“This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.” (dedicated to Morrison)
I add this one of the heroic Kelvin
http://www.weboffate.com/prediction/X-Rays-will-prove-to-be-a-hoax/7375/
“X-Rays will prove to be a hoax”
@wally
it seems you ignore that PN junction were observed in germanium rods, as incredible variation of resistance, in the 1920s, and the result were rejected, put in drawers,like HTSC later.
PN junction was understood better in the 1940s but that is the officials story, like the one when HTSC was discovered officially.
for HTSC the real history is still surviving… not for long.
Click to access m18_03_87_04.pdf
Taleb judge that it is a systematic behavior of academic historians to hide the invention by practitioners done much before there is any theory, and ignored, rejected, harassed by consensus.
@cimpy
as usual, first you mix Rossi with science. Science as proven by scientific method is established, LENR is observed, and have no theory.
About Rossi, and more generally business you take all as Black or White…
Rossi is a businessman, not good in English, on a blog, with a character that Mats describe well in his book, and which you can compare with Edison, Elon musk… I agree we should be careful with what they say… It can be problem of translation, of interpretation, of mistakes, of dreamed plan, of exaggeration, of plan that changed later…
not only it is bad (and you could critic it reasonably) to trust all that Rossi says, but it is even more absurd to blame him of not delivering what could be many kind of errors and manipulations…
anyway if a clown make a A-Bomb detonate and vitrify Hiroshima, you can believe the clown had something real, even if no other clown can replicate it. Judging the people is someone you need only when you cannot check the rest.
This was the error in trusting Defkalion from their profile in 2011 (tycoon, engineers), without a solid test, and not updating. As you know I learned it painfully. It is your time to learn painfully.
@Cimpy, Technology development take time, A first step is to produce enough high temperature, Rossi is doing this, nothing in his actions shows that he stept away from this goal. On the other hand he might have underestimated the difficulty to achieve this, that’s very common amongst humans in general. I can’t hold that against him. Also if you would let any boss in industry blog about their thinkings on public you would have a hell of a time to point fingers against companies all over the world. You would have a ball, Cimpy, trust me. You could then cherry pick statements at an amazing scale.
Stefan Israelsson Tampe,
there has never been a matter of “electrical production” but in “Rossi’s says” two years and a half ago.
Seems as if everybody memory has beem cleared – I suggest you all to watch again Rossi videos of those years (2011/2012) and compare what he said with what we have.
Or you could show me the 1 MW plant and the happy customer, for example. ..
@wally
As I said, it was an exaggeration. But the theory angle is an interesting issue. You often hear that it is theoretically impossible, which is not true, there are no fundamental objections from science, there is no fundamental law’s broken such as the attempt to compare cold fusion with time travel in the SR radio show. What we have is experience from hot fusion, where all physics is plasma physics. But cold fusion is not happening in a plasma, plasma is basically a “gas” where atoms without electrons are moving around at very high speeds, and all interactions is essentially a two body interaction. In solid state they are bound and you have interactions from n-bodies. Our problem with this is that as far as I know we (humans, I don’t know about the aliens) are pretty bad at simulating these systems. When we do this we typically use QM. But even with QM we can’t do many body’es unless we simplify the systems and use approximations, are these approximations valid? for cold fusion. But not only this. In order to setup QM correctly you must invent a correct formula out of your imagination and intuition, the reason is that we QM is not fundamental but deduced from QED, but as far as I know QED is insanely difficult to setup and yield the correct QM for n-body systems, we can only do this for two body systems, where we an amazingly good match with reality. QED is basically QM where you add Einsteins special relativity theory, it is a beautiful theory. As an example of the difficulties, in this theory you can find mathematical solutions for the hydrogen atom which are 100:s of times smaller than original hydrogen and with much less energy bound. Now we know that it is a mathematical solution because it has unphysical properties. What happens with this mathematics if you introduce multi body interactions, it will certainly disturb the math and properties of these solutions, will the unpysical properties disappear or would they prevail QM can’t show a shit in this question. My last point is: Have we validated QED on e.g. Helium. Before doing anything please do that. Finally a lack of radiation in cold fusion can very well be attributed to the system being situated in solid state material, in plasma, atoms are by themselves and cannot distribute excess energy with more then radiate, in solid state they can output the energy to the solid structure and thereby excess energy is not necessary radiated, that’s obvious.
So @wally, there is work to do, cold fusion has a story to tell. Maybe you know why 200+ labs has measured wrongly, then tell them. You can do 400+ experiments and mute the whole cold fusion scene in one blow if you can make use of ingenious statistical methodology, you can start investigating how the hell we could simulate n-bodies by turning every stone e.g. examining Randi Mills theory of the atom physics. There is many constructive way’s to oppose cold fusion. In a sense my message is PUT UP OR SHUT UP. But you don’t do that, in stead we need to experience this kindergarten shit from SR.
@HT,
Please explain technical terms like the Carnot cycle so that straw men understands. (I will probably do the same, but please then correct me as well)
To make electricity of 100+ degrees at Cop 6 and compare with input is like asking heat pump
producers to do the same. It is probably really hard. The reason is that energy has attached notion how well ordered the energy is. The thermodynamic law means basically that systems moves from ordered to un ordered states and it cost quite a lot of energy to get ordered out of un-ordered energy. Electricity is very ordered and is a high quality source of energy, and basic heat is the most smeared out energy kind at the bottom rank. Also when you make electricity out of heat the efficiency you can reach depends basically on the temperature difference and is pretty bad at 100+ degrees steam. This may very well be the reason you have not yet seen electricity from Rossi, I don’t think this is a good point against him.
@Stefan Israelsson Tampe
Now let’s talk seriously.
“In the very early days the performance of a transistor was apt to change if someone slammed a door.” In the mid-1950s transistors cost $16 apiece compared to the $3 vacuum tubes they were designed to replace.”
This is the truth.
Mass produced transistors still have wide tolerance respect rated performances. We could say the same for nowadays photovoltaic modules. But even in the early days, we had a theory for junctions, and nobody doubted about their properties. Nobody doubted about the fact that these properties were really observed and, even hardly, reproduced.
It was just a matter of technology and time.
Did we really ever observe LENR?
This is, in my opinion, the real difference between LENR and semiconductors.
@HT
“So I must conclude that you too think that heat can be converted with 100% efficiency to electricity”
Me too? No. And I’m still looking where somebody else stated it.
“…as ocasapiens stated.”
Once for all, she didn’t state anything about SLT. She only asked. She is not an engineer and she knows it. I gave her an answer right in this page, assuming 25% TMC efficiency.
“Plz read further discussion on italian forum to clarify your doubts.”
So you post in an international forum, and ask people from the whole world to read discussion in italian language???
And what about the Gazzettino Certosino?
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
exciting Cat fight
LOL
If HT keeps on, you will see the fight of this cat…
usually I tell him that I am about to put off boxing-gloves, before. Or to remember to keep his mouth guard.
He always forget.
😉
@Cimpy
>>Bad you, I put you in the same corner as Rossi for that
>Not a matter, as long as you can see Rossi device does not work as claimed.
>Once E-Cat, Hot-Cat and the Enterpreneur are in the corner of scammer
I was not expecting you to exchange credentials, I was planning to buy some popcorn and
watch an exciting Cat fight, (sorry ladies I could not resist)
@bertil..
As I understand the development of the semiconductors and transistors is relevant
See http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue25/transistors.html
”
One of the myths spread by opponents of cold fusion is that soon after things are discovered, they become easy to reproduce. Transistors were extremely difficult to reproduce for many years. One scientist recollected, “In the very early days the performance of a transistor was apt to change if someone slammed a door.” In the mid-1950s transistors cost $16 apiece compared to the $3 vacuum tubes they were designed to replace. Integrated circuits were even worse
”
If this discovery took place today you would get a sect of semiconductor fanatics that was banned from getting any features from the research socitety they would be ridiculed and you would get radio shows that would shout out kindergarten sandpile crap arguments, just to be able, at the end, to point a fat finger at the universities and say with a thunder,
”
You shall not develop the semiconductor
”
(Exaggerating a little)
Cimpy write:
“AlainCo, are you joking? Better read this slow, you might even understand:
‘positive results only’, Rothwell? The fact AlainCo follows, should ring a bell…
it is called cherry-picking, nothing to be proud of, according to Feynman. . . .”
This statement makes no sense. As I pointed out, my report also includes a list of negative results. It also includes a full tally of positive, negative and neutral results compiled by Britz.
Either you suffer from reading comprehension problems, or you have have not read my report and you are criticizing it without knowing what it says.
I should also point out that negative results have no bearing on the reality of a claim. In the late 1950s, Russia and the U.S. were building and launching rockets to reach orbit. Several of these rockets failed. Finally, in 1957 the Russians reached orbit with the Sputnik I. This proved beyond question that it is possible to reach orbit. All of the previous and subsequent failures did not disprove that. They only proved that the technology is difficult to master, and unreliable. In physics, once an effect has been widely replicated at a high signal to noise ratio, that effect is real by definition. There is no other definition of “real” in physics. There is no basis for you to disagree. The cold fusion effect is difficult to reproduce. Many research groups failed to reproduce it, and they published negative results. That does not prove cold fusion does not exist any more than the failed U.S. Vanguard rocket launches of 1957 and 1958 proved that rockets cannot reach orbit.
Some groups reported that they could not replicate cold fusion. No group, and no individual, has ever pointed out a mistake in a published cold fusion study. That is the only thing which might invalidate the findings. There is not the slightest chance anyone will find mistakes in reports from all 200+ laboratories that confirmed the effect. If that could happen, the experimental method and the scientific method would not work, and we would still be living in caves.
HT, while AlainCo is amusing, you’re really deluding (in all three main meanings)
Here, let’s take a coupole of small flash-back
Interview with Andrea Rossi on location in Bologna on the 12th of January 2012
Rossi states “no more than a couple of years” from Janauary 2012, the time of the interview “to produce electricity”
That is Rossi speaking, not Coyaud nor Cimpy nor anybody else.
By the way:
September 2012
Again (and since 48 sec from video start) Rossi is speaking about producing electricity, this time adding (among others) the “from High temperatures” disclaimer while speaking of the “new” (for that time) Hot Cat device.
So, in May 2014, after Hot Cat has been judged working by those wonderful third party team named Levi, Sylvie was ironically asking to match the miracle.
Of course it is not possible, but we do not need any special physic or chemistry knowledge to discover out this simply truth: he clearly cheated, lied and defrauded repeatedly, while you are one of those who spread those lies around the world in the name of Carnot (!!)
Really, man you could prove I am completely wrong showing the factory that in 2012 was producing thousands of Cat (as Rossi stated in one of those two interview) or, even better, letting one of those magic machine be tested by same team that tested Hyperion and explained the trick to Gamberale.
Guess what? You can not none of the two, as the automated factory assembling “thousands cats” never existed, while Rossi would never accept a truly competent, qualified third party test on his machine.
Of course.
Better luck speaking of Trolls and SLT, HT
@wally
So I must conclude that you too think that heat can be converted with 100% efficiency to electricity and to measure e-cat COP you have only to compare in and out power meters, as ocasapiens stated.
Besides do you think, like ocasapiens, that “at the end of the day” you should compare kW readings ? Power and energy are not the same thing.
Plz read further discussion on italian forum to clarify your doubts.
@HT,
sorry, but I can’t find anything about SLT in Cimpy’s post you linked.
It’s something confused between you and Cimpy, but sure not dealing with SLT.
I can’t neither find any statement about SLT, in the Ocasapiens (S.C.) post you linked.
It was just a question.
In this discussion I tried to give my answer to her question.
For sure my answer is about SLT, and, of course, it can be wrong!
You can say I ignore SLT, if you think.
But you can’t say the same about the above statements by Cimpy and Sylvie Coyaud.
Why do you care so much about?
More, I don’t understand your post in answer to S.C.
Can you please translate and explain it for foreign readers?
I mean this:
S.C….E’ complicato attaccare all’e-cat un po’ di cavi portati da casa, una turbina che converte il vapore in elettricità, stare a guardare due contatori …
H.T. Ma che idea intelligente ! Peccato che si scontri con delle oscure invenzioni chiamate “Leggi della Termodinamica”, in particolare la legge di Carnot, senza contare attriti, turbolenze, ecc.
S.C. e alla fine della giornata sottrarre i chilowatt consumati da quelli messi in rete
H.T.Bingo ! Ecco la soluzione ! Però … accidenti … qui sono i fondamenti dell’aritmetica a mettersi di traverso … pare sia un po’ difficile sottrarre due grandezze che cambiano in continuazione nel tempo, e che a fine giornata varranno entrambe zero.
Thank you in advance.
Airplanes and semi-conductors were not made possible by journalists and others who supported the idea by thinking they might work. Not at all. That would have made no difference at all. Fact is it was obvious that airplanes and semi-conductors worked as their inventors could show that they did. Rossi has shown nothing like that so far. We are still waiting. He makes gigantic claims without reliable evidence. It is deeply immoral. It is most likely a lie.
@wally
If you can read italian, you can follow the discussion about SLT here (1), where heat to electricity conversion efficiency is not taken in any account. Cimpy simply does not realize what my critic is about, thus confirming that SLT is unknown to him.
(1) http://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/1859/#comment-38426
@HT,
I’m very interested to the second law of thermodynamics.
So please can you please point us the Cimpy’s statement disaccording with the SLT?
Wally
@Cimpy
First of all thank you for confirming that you also are completely unaware of an obscure invention called “Carnot cycle” ( italian readers can follow the discussion linked in my previous comment to see he is not alone).
As for Mizuno, original words by ocasapiens were only these:
l’anomalia sta comodamente entro il margine dei consueti errori di misura;
Which is a simple italian sentence that means: “the anomaly fits entirely in usual measurement error margins.” Point.
But maybe you have mind reading capabilities …
@HT, Mats
– she asks why the hell Rossi does not convert heat into elecricity and compares it directly to input Power
If the device could product electrical energy as several times stated by Rossi, the comparison between electrical input and electrical output would mean a thermal COP about 4 or more, therefore her question was not stupid.
Generally speaking, as a science journalist, Sylvie Coyaud tries to explain science to everybody,
as many journalist do. She worked for “Radio Tre” (the national radio station mainly focused on cultural subjects) and several important italian newspapers. The last is “Il Sole 24 Ore”, never getting fired because of bad job.
On “Radio Tre” she conducted “Le Oche di Lorenz”, one of the most valued italian radio shows about science.
Mats, you can check about “Le Oche di Lorenz” with google.
As a science journalist, she knows she’s not specialized in the most (maybe all) field she talks about, so she always asks to scientists, in order to make them explain their job to everybody.
Somebody asks, conscious of his ignorance.
Somebody states.
HT, why don’t you send your CV to Radio Tre?
@wally
When you have finished rolling, could you please help the “worldwide known” science reporter explaining some of her latest gems:
– according to her, latest Mizuno results cannot be trusted because the measure of COP 1,9 with 75W of continous excess Power “falls entirely in normal measurement error margins”
– she asks why the hell Rossi does not convert heat into elecricity and compares it directly to input Power
– she stated that Toyota did not replicate Iwamura results
All references from the link in my previous comment.
So we can start rolling in the floor too…
according to her, latest Mizuno results cannot be trusted because the measure of COP 1,9 with 75W of continous excess Power “falls entirely in normal measurement error margins”
You fogot to add: “margins of error of that author”. Which seems a bit error prone. You are the only one who did not caught the sense.
“- she asks why the hell Rossi does not convert heat into elecricity and compares it directly to input Power”
This was what Rossi claimed in 2010 – when he said (among other lies) he would have build devices to porduce electric power; and now that since long is clear he will not, we are laughing also for that,
Why I am not surprised you do not even understand?
“she stated that Toyota did not replicate Iwamura results”
Or we can say they perfectly replicate all the no cold fusion ones. And also the no result cold fusion ones. Expecially the latter.
@Cimpy
Please stop attacking a strawman. You were caught wrong, please don’t try to hide that by desperate attacks. You only victory was to repeat the finding of Luca Gamberale (without sourcing), all the rest is proven wrong or unproven.
try to read what I say instead. and more than all, try to read the book of Beaudette.
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35
Unlike the conspiracy books of Taubes, Huizenga, based on biased interview and clear incompetence,
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4
Beaudette have gathered thousands of articles and documents that are currently donated for studies.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue75/beaudette.html
Now if you don’t trust the scientific method, you can joint 9/11 truthers.
And when you will be caught totally wrong on LENR and E-cat, don’t pretend you were not handling good evidences. You have it, open your eyes. You are informed.
Hermano Tobia is very appreciated on 22Passi italian blog,
and tolerated anywhere else.
Sylvie Coyaud is very appreciated worldwide but not on 22Passi.
Cimpy is banned on 22Passi only, and a funny and appreciated guest anywhere else.
If you care about italian sellings of your book, I don’t know if a positive review by HT may help you.
In the meantime, after reading the post from HT, please add me to the list of people rolling on the floor laughing.
With my personal respect
Wally
@Cimpy,
having been proven wrong by jed make you ballistic.
I don’t support H-cat. Once agains you invent facts, you lie…
please instead of inventing stories, read the real data ! Read charles Beaudette and if you don’t trust, read the citations.
note that all your imagination about fraud on Defkalion Hyperion electric part have been proven wrong, and I guess that the only reason why you were right about the water flow problem is because you asked Luca.
Giancarlo theory is based on the Nathan Lewis method : think that others are more stupid than oneself, and ignore any evidence of the opposite.
inverting one clamp or all camp is something easily spotted when you simply check the balancing of phase… a gesture any electrician do. moreover it is spotted visually.
other hypothesis are ruled out but report that testers have inspected plugs and socket for this kind of tricks.
the more you are proven wrong, the more you attack.
having been proven wrong by jed make you ballistic
You are really amusing, AlainCo.
Keep on repeating it, I am sure you will convince everyone R6 does work, E Cat does work, Hot Cat does work and Fleishmann and Pons were so right that Toyota sells you cold fusion machines, only that they say you to fill normal fuel in the more common gasoline engine they put over the Cold Fusion one so that you do not steal the secret…
You can twist as you like and believe what you do really want. Fact is there are no proven excess heat, not to speak of overunity Aladdin’s lamp(s) almost ready for the market since 2010.
You are not even able to understand last Rossi trick, even if an expert explained to you. I do not expect you to understand next TPR will obviously account for that trick, and hide a new one. Or are you of same opinion as Peter Gulck that goes around ranting the past means nothing at all, you must look at the future and forget the fraud you have discovered a minute ago, as the *inventors* are ready to account for it and will show you the new device will works gracely (exactly as the previous one did till the trick has been found)?
…Amusing, AlainCo
Bad you, I put you in the same corner as Rossi for that
Not a matter, as long as you can see Rossi device does not work as claimed.
Once E-Cat, Hot-Cat and the Enterpreneur are in the corner of scammer, I will seek next one in the list that pops out – I could guess a name, but I do prefer to wait and see who will be next magician with an overunity machine that needs only a couple of millions of dollars (they will probably be euro) every 3/6/18 months for (in his dreams) next 25 years.
That is what I am mostly amused of. After reading from AlainCo, of course.
Well, Roger. I still deduct, that I, or anybody else for that matter, won’t see any working LENR gizmo in the near future.
You see? Even my head up my ass, I am correct.
“If there is a scam we will find out”
I do not remember, might be you did -mean did you spot anything on Hyperion?
Or did you already spot anything on E Cat? And on Hot Cat? How may tricks do you need to find out to accept the fact you have been fished for -say- 4 years on this specific story? And this – I suspect – only because you were not aware of Te Device, or you would have been fished since more. Not to speak of Petroldragon – you would have believed even if not a single liter of “petrol from waste” has been sold anywhere in the world.
But once a trick is revealed and described in details so that even AlainCo can understand it, it appears easy to spot, and 90% of people who did not see it for days, months and even- in some cases, if any of the entourage might be honest – for years thinks they would have spotted it in few seconds if they were in the right chair.
Guess what? It is not (only) a matter of chair.
Look at H-Cat trick shown by Giancarlo: AlainCo still has not understand, and even some believers in Italy keep on saying that, as it seems for what is written on a paper by those who used (or were defrauded by) it, it could not be applied on march test series, As to say: there was a fraud on December, but as people of “December fraud” (=were defrauded, probably quite all less a couple) wrote they changed setup, so the machine must be real, no matter the fraud has been seen…
You should really explain why there must have been necessity of a fraud if the machine is a working device.
Then you should explain why someone that defrauded (or has been defrauded for a month) should be trusted when he describes a situation in which he is supposed not to defraud or be defrauded the same way
Then you should explain why there are no relevant photos at all of march test as per exclude that trick.
Then you should ask yourself if you have understood and if you really think you will find out the trick “if there will be one next time”: you are facing a professionist (of scam and fraud), you know?
But quite all those who, later understood what Giancarlo said, immediately stated it was easy to spot (provided they had look in the right direction) and it coul dnot have stand in march. Surprisingly it stood fine for a moth in december, and data from that setup has been included in TPR and not ha word has been written to say there was something wrong in the way the in energy has been measured. But after two revisions, Levi wrote an appenix to tell the world there was not a hidden DC. A pity last photo from it shows the trick is there… Oh and let me repeat for everyone -AFTER- it is an easy one to spot, it could not have stand in front of normal people, you can imagine in front of the sum of professors there…
By the way:
“If there is a scam we will find out” do you mean you are phisically going to test it? If not, do remember that the main trick is always the same: to trust wrong people
errata:
if not, do remember that the main trick is always the same: to trust wrong people
should be:
if so (or even if not so), do remember that the main trick is always the same: to trust wrong people
“Sylvie Coyaud aka ocasapiens is not a journalist ( in Italy journalists have to pass an exam and register themselves at Ordine dei Giornalisti ), she seems not to be even graduated and she admitted to have zero technical competence on LENR related topics”
“Cimpy is an ignorant and serial troll banned or ignored by most Italian blogs, answering to his nonsense comments is a waste of time”
Hi, HT, nice to see you here.
I am sure it is not necessary that I tell you who Sylvie Coyaud is and how much he could and can add to the knowledge not only of Rossi present and past scams, but also on Cold Fusion and many other stories. In any case, if you have any doubt, you could ask to the men who defeated Hyperion, to the man who found (among other stuff) the trick in H-Cat and (as it seems you like them a lot) to many university professors from many faculties – and do believe not only in Italy.
Of course, if you do not respect people like, say, Pomp or DeMarchis (to name two) and even are not interested in look a what she may know, and instead prefer to follow Hermano Tobia claims that if you are not signed into a book is because you are not trustable, that is your choice.
But the friendship between me and Hermano is a strong one, so even if I do believe I should simply ignore him, I do prefer to tell something to my dear friend (AlainCo, he is pure Italian like I am 😀 ) :
Tobia, I am quite sure you mean, speaking of “most Italian blogs”, 22 Passi, which is one of the rare sites where I have never been to write a sentence, and any post of yours anywhere, as you usually do not answer me anymore since the Cravens Balls affair (still playing with them, HT?), a swear you have repeated after the Tesla 1,8 Hyperion madness that you kept on believing till someone you could not ignore told you were really wrong and you accepted the fact. When…? Two months later?… Or were they three?…
A part you, and your spiritual guide (not for a choose from him) Nevanlinna (which however, being an intelligent one, understood that he has to ignore me in public, but keeps an eye on what I say, as this broken clock twice a day is correct – damnably correct, and he knows well. I am quite sure he is waiting to know from me when someone will start moving fast or, to say, when the game is really over. Might be three months later you too will understand (and another 6/18 months to explain to AlainCo…).
In any case, anyone here can read my sentences (as he can read Sylvie works on OggiScienza) and decide by himself if what I am writing is pure ranting as you state and AlainCo hopes, or if there are reasons in what I write and even some pieces of infos that should be looked at.
Always a pleasure, HT. Will I see also Mistero here around soon? Can he bring some Ralstonia samples while he steps? Or speak here of the piezonuclear reaction inside E Cat, may be…
(yes, usually I greet the two together)
Deduction is not proof. It is only a pointer towards further investigation.
@Cimpy, so we say that we are too gullible for test the shit out of the scammer’s devices. If there is a scam we will find out. We put some effort but so be it. If IH’s Ecat does not work it is well in line with being a rightful scientist we should understand that expected benefit is the product of the probability that it is true times the Benifit it is true, for IH’s Ecat it is way to beneficial for us to test it than to bury it, so we behave a bit gullible and do a proper test. It’s pure reason of people who respect life on earth and can see above the small dit’s and dat’s that is normal life.
@Cimpy,
Any french politician know then when you are deep in a hole, the best way to escape is to dig more.
Did you read, jed.
the experience was replicated roughly, not with the same quality of implementation (not with dewar), not at enough loading sometinme, not with good choice of material, and not with enough time (as Beaudette that you should read explains this chemistry experiment should be done in 1 year for chemist and two for a physicist).
they failed ? so what … I have crashed paper planes without that negating the work of Wright brothers.
the patheic work of the replication cited are described in that paper
Click to access Miles-Examples-Isoperibolic-Calorimetry-ICCF17-ps.pdf
that you refused to read when Jed gave the link to you.
I know that you are selectively illiterate like all skeptics, by definition; it is a key symptom of Groupthink to reject data.
negative experiment are negative experiment.
what could challenge F&P is paper describing and replicating the artifacts to explain the F&P results.
As i repeat since long, as it is written in Beaudette, and as it cannot reach you brain, there was in 1996 ONLY FOUR PAPER THA PROPOSE AN ARTIFACT TO EXPLAIN F&P RESULT, and they are ALL REFUTED.
they mostly show the lack of honesty and competence of their authors, at various level of incompetence and dishonesty (wilson was most competent, the only one. It seems Morrison is the worst of al in incompetence and dishonesty).
meanwhile, there is more that 153 peer-reviewed papers presenting positive results.
there is also meta studies that show that the failures are caused by not respecting key requirements, discovered later.
for those key requirement , the best and latest article to describe the latest requiremens are here
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf?sequence=1
but given your level I advise the student book first
Click to access StormsEastudentsg.pdf
of course start with Beaudette before all.
@Cimpy,
Cherry picking!!, large runs of experiments show that you have an excess for 5% fo the runs, your assumptions that this is an measurment error, well it is a possibility, but likewise there is a possibility that it’s because of the low success rate, that’s obvious. You absolutely need to look at the success cases and point to error true error else cold fusion has a story to tell, to mute it you do a proper statistical test with about 400 cases, else you need to say we don’t know and continue funnel research money to them. We don’t do that, you fail to see that. it’s bloody obvious there is a possibility that it work, and you fail to see the potential and benefit for human kind, instead you blindly support to condemn it and hit on them like the cold fusion people are of a lower rang. Bad you, Iput you in the same corner as Rossi for that.
Got to go, so a quick note only
“the potential and benefit for human kind”has nothing to do with the fact it might (or might not) work.
It is only something that lead people to strongly hope it could have worked since 25 years ago.
It is what help scammers to spread their scam and what help honest people to make some “small” mistakes, not only in checking supposed excess, but also in trusting scammers like DGT. And many others.
See you later.
@Mats Lewan
Sylvie Coyaud aka ocasapiens is not a journalist ( in Italy journalists have to pass an exam and register themselves at Ordine dei Giornalisti ), she seems not to be even graduated and she admitted to have zero technical competence on LENR related topics. All references here (1, sorry but link is in italian).
Cimpy is an ignorant and serial troll banned or ignored by most italian blogs, answering to his nonsense comments is a waste of time.
Please add also me to the list of those who think that your book is balanced and well written.
(1) http://22passi.blogspot.it/2014/05/miracoli-della-meritocrazia-italiana.html
Hi Jed!
You wrote …
“This discussion is rather silly. It is surreal. There is no doubt that cold fusion has been replicated in thousands of experimental runs at over 200 major laboratories, in some cases at very high s/n ratios, for example with 20 to 100 W of output heat and no input power.”
… and I agree, the average lenr_sceptic is not particularly well informed, and “Cimpy” is not an exemption. That said, do you recommend some good paper showing excess heat in the 100W range?
Thomas
AlainCo, are you joking? Better read this slow, you might even understand:
“positive results only”, Rothwell? The fact AlainCo follows, should ring a bell…
itis called cherry-picking, nothing to be proud of, according to Feynman.
And about this story you tell around, that “the skeptics have not published any papers anywhere showing experimental errors in the literature”.
LOL, you have repeated it so often you might even believe it(!)
F&P 1989 experiment was repeated at: Caltech, MIT, Oak Ridge, Rochester, Lawrence Berkeley (and dozens of labs in the US and in Europe). At the APS conference Pons was scheduled to reply to the negative comments he had received, before they were published in Nature, Science, Phys. Rev Letters (etc).
Did you forget? Or is that because you left out all the negative results? Do you understand where your cherry-picking lead you? You simply ignored all what could destroy your believes.
About Pons, you are not still waiting for him or his replies to show up, are you?
Guess what: too late…
The risk of being obsoleted/ left behind by not investigating LENR thoroughly is far more than which ever conclusive results will turn out to be in the near future. .
Talking about scumbags, anyone postulating that a 5% production rate is probably a measurement error of unknown kind for that many experiments where correct error bounds are used and therefore it’s group think pseudo science bla bla bla is a scumbag himself and a politruck. If you want to humiliate them you point out what measurement error they do, where the error bound is miss calculated, that the equation on p. 12 is wrongly stated. No the opponents on the critical side is obviously a free pass to do serious work and just hit good working people on their heads. It is a catastrophe for science. Science of to day is a laugh that set up new fundamental laws like: “you shall not do cold fusion science” through a nice democratic vote process. Goood science. Oh if you really want to cut down the cold fusion community to a small men club, you put yourself to work use a little statistics, spend some 400 experiment and you will have such indisputable proof that they must turn in the towel, but you guys don’t do that, in stead you play coward games of politics by flaming the cold fusion society. No put up or shut up.
Rossis ECAT is no more, It’s Industrial Heat’s ECAT. They bought it and the shoddy history is now gone, the new tests on the ECAT is done by “gullible” scientists that can complain to the management of IH if the want something essential or something they are unhappy with. The scientists know very well how a good test should be done. IH has tested it internally and is a good factual quality stamp that there is something cooking and that someone should test it. IH have not produced any shoddy tests, behaved strange ethically, and we don’t know if they are guillible, They most certainly have done a good due diligence, they know need a public quality stamp to show that it works for outsiders. Rossis ECAT and saga is the post, the history is cut, and now it’s time to discuss IH’s ECAT in stead.
Roger. I would love to see a LENR gizmo in the future. I really hope I will, but from the currently availeble data that seems quite unlikely.
Disproving is something that I do not have to do.
tyy,
It is not the currently available data with which you are coming to your conclusion: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3913.pdf
You have come to your conclusion because you are fixated on theory: http://www.edconrad.com/pics/TightFit.jpg and are probably afraid of change.
@cimpy
please admit you screwed up, and that Jed rothwell fixed your error.
you destroy your credibility.
You would have avoided to be ridiculed, just by reading the article of jed:
“This tally includes positive, peer-reviewed papers describing excess heat experimental results only. It does not include things such as: negative papers describing null results; papers describing tritium or other effects but not heat; theory papers; or non-peer reviewed papers published by national laboratories, corporations and in conference proceedings.”
You repeat the error of stephen pomp who did not read seriously the report and missed key fact.same for huizenga, for taubes, morrison, …
please admit it, and stop trying to save your face , to fool your fan, by ridiculously depending what cannot be defended.
I know it is painful.
OK, Roger. Who has a working LENR gizmo, and where can I see one and learn how it works? Well, we all know the answer to that: Nobody has it and knowbody knows how it is supposed to work.
And yes, I am flattered to be regarded as a skeptopath. I find it very amusing.
Anyway, I am ready to change my opinions in a nanosecond, when credible evidence presents itself
I have done that earlier and I really hope to be able to do that again. It is extremely fascinating to look at reality in the light of new knowledge.
The fact that you cannot see one right now does not disprove it’s existence. It merely shows everyone that you have no faith in your own deductive reasoning.
If there was every a real example of http://www.edconrad.com/pics/TightFit.jpg it is our beloved skeptopaths.
“And to tell the truth, there are no working cold fusion device at all.”
Exactly. If there were, it would be trivial to show it and convince everybody. Yet, nobody can do it.
Ergo, LENR does not exist. But since it is impossible to prove something does not exist (cold fusion, invisible pink unicorn, you name it), the story will keep coming back again, and again, and..
tyy,
And what of http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3913.pdf and so many other reports.
Or are you http://www.edconrad.com/pics/TightFit.jpg
Ps:
Thomas:
there is more than a single board, (and there are others, but you are not invited, and it is really late).
Hope you enjoined the game.
bye
by the way,
“After 25 years, the skeptics can only point to hot air and confusion on the Internet to back up their assertions”
That, if it is, is because after 25 years there are no working cold fusion device to play with in our houses, even if some of them where promised “soon”. And to tell the truth, there are no working cold fusion device at all.
Smile, and learn a new dance – E Cat is round the corner
Cimpy wrote: “I can see ‘Focardi Piantelli, 1994’, but not its debunking by the CERN team in the same journal, so I know your list cannot be trusted without having to check every single item…”
That is not a positive excess heat paper. It is a negative. As I said, this is a list of positive papers only. So you do not know that my list cannot be trusted. Also, it is mainly Britz’s list. As I said in the paper, Britz is a skeptic. He does not believe cold fusion exists. At least, he did not when he compiled that list. So I suppose you should trust his judgement.
I suggest you read my paper a little more carefully. You seem to be having reading comprehension problems here. You keep missing the point, such as when you wrote: “Rothwell, as long as I know, books and meeting presentations are not peer reviewed.” My paper and my statements here make it clear that although there are 3,500 papers in my database, I looked at only the ones which Britz designated “peer-reviewed” and in that set of papers I included only the ones which Britz and I agree report positive heat production.
Don Witcher,
Like it? In the US a LENR promoter also believes in time travellers meeting Barack Obama on Mars when he was 18 . So I borrowed a reporter’s space time-craft and took a picture of Rossi’ refineries a few decades ago .
Rothwell, in your list
n. 55 is a presentation at the “ Anniversary Specialist Conf. on Nucl. Power Eng. in
Space. 1”
n. 79 at Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, “The Science of Cold Fusion”
Chinese, Japanese and Russian journal we can’t access to see if they are special issues of conference presentations, or look for retractions, corrections or devastating comments. Most of the rest is published by a vanity journal where old buddies quote each other. So we’re left with a dozen of results waiting to be confirmed by independent researchers, and underpinning hundreds of ongoing scams.
Why should we bother to check that stuf instead of waiting for the next Deklfalion? We’re not the ones investing in Industrial Heat or buying Hydro-fusion penny stocks, or advertising them in books and blogs
Late now see you another time.
I noted that “Cimpy” had trouble answering Rothwells clarifications. Why is that?
You wrote: “Matter is who is who in this story, expecially as long as all is always working but you get no device at all (less Cat, RNumbered and Cells that you cannot test . . .”
The 153 papers in my tally are about the palladium heavy water electrolysis experiments. My paper and all the papers it lists were published before Rossi came to light. The findings I listed have nothing to do with Rossi. Even if it is shown conclusively that Rossi is a con-man who has bamboozled ELFORSK, that will have no bearing on whether the replications of the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in the peer-reviewed literature are correct or not.
Note that my paper is listed in response to this sentence: “Hansson starts his reportage by stating that the famous claim by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, of excess heat compatible with a nuclear reaction, was wrong and later explained by erroneous measurements.” It is not in response to anything about Rossi.
Cimpy wrote:
“Rothwell, as long as I know, books and meeting presentations are not peer reviewed,””
Yes, that is why I did not include them, as I said. I included only peer-reviewed journals, as judged by Britz.
“Fusion Technology is for members of the CF Club only . . .”
Fusion Technology is a plasma fusion journal. It was established long before cold fusion. It stopped publishing cold fusion papers after Miley retired. Britz did not include ~30 papers from F.T. in a special issue, so I did not include them either.
“. . . and the other journals are not impressive either.”
As I said, you can judge whether they are peer-reviewed enough. I suppose that you will say that any journal with publishes a positive paper is “not impressive.”
The skeptics have not published any papers anywhere showing experimental errors in the literature. It seems to me that “zero papers” is even less impressive than “what Cimpy considers unimpressive.” Some peer-reviewed evidence beats no evidence.
After 25 years, the skeptics can only point to hot air and confusion on the Internet to back up their assertions. Most of them are like you in that they have fake names borrowed from comic books, whereas the people publishing cold fusion papers are distinguished professor and experts at national labs, with ordinary human names. Again, real scientists beat comic-book characters, in my opinion.
LOL – that sentence from you I surely quote:
“real scientists beat comic-book characters”
Matter is who is who in this story, expecially as long as all is always working but you get no device at all (less Cat, RNumbered and Cells that you cannot test, but RNumbered should be out of games even for AlainCo, Cats are seriously hill and will last for few, while some of those cells has revealed they are too weak even to stand a calorimetry).
In any case, I have something to say to someone else here who wrote a lot of nice things:
AlainCo, you are amusing, as usual…Let me reveal something you demonstrate not to be aware of:
“il fatto non sussiste” means “the fact was not ascertained”, it does not mean “the fact does not happened” or “does not exists”; it may exist, and there might be a criminal, and the court can’t say “l’imputato non ha commesso il fatto” (that is: they could not say “Rossi did not do it” or, “Rossi is innocent”).
Lacchiarella is only of the “refineries”, in Lombardia we are paying for all of them; and Ciociaria is said Camorra’s territory. But I agree, seems as if there are several “eco-mafias”, and PetrolDragon is another story. Ah yes, for sure Rossi was trying to keep his business and not let it to mafia. Now answer this simply question: in the whole world, how many bottles of petrol from PetrolDragon has been received?
A side note: pointing out the fact that some commercial activities like bar or tavern or restaurant (and others) have to pay an insurance to some people that will guarantee they will not set the activities on fire, is another kind of mafia, not eco-mafia – it is the kind that will not stop your business, as long as you pay.
Eco mafia is the one that will ask for money and then reduce expenses by wasting the waste the easiest way: in a river, in a field or the like, without any concern about toxicity and venom.
Said for the clarity, before you come out with some newspaper article speaking of mafia interests in funds for schools in Pisa (so to say something of absurd and mainly not related).
And, as I am in the mood, let me ask you: any criminal act in France? I am quite sure you could state there are a lot of Italians in Paris…Nothing to say about other people from other Countries? Greeks, for example? Do you like the same?
😀
Correction to my message: I would not have included Harwell, MIT or CalTech in my tally of 153 papers, because I only added papers where the authors concluded they had observed significant anomalous heat. The Harwell paper was negative so I did not include it. It was later judged positive by experts, and the people at Harwell agreed with them as far as I know, but that study was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, so it is not among the 153. (It is in the ICCF3 and ICCF4 proceedings.) I did not include MIT or CalTech in the 153, even though the CalTech results were indisputably positive, and the authors came up with preposterous hand-waving reasons to deny that. See:
Click to access RothwellJhownaturer.pdf
My method of tallying papers was not complicated. I went through the papers and tagged all of the ones that I have read which report excess heat, and which Britz included in his list of peer-reviewed journal papers. I may have missed some, because there are 3,000 including non-peer-reviewed ones, and I have not read them all. You can look at the list of papers and decide for yourself whether the journals are “peer-reviewed enough.”
Peer-review is not a reliable method of establishing objectivity in a field as controversial as this. A paper opposed to cold fusion on theoretical grounds will sail through peer-review instantly. A paper featuring preposterous hand waving to deny clear-cut evidence of cold fusion is welcome, as you see from the paper by Morrison I listed in the previous message, or the CalTech paper referenced above.
This discussion is rather silly. It is surreal. There is no doubt that cold fusion has been replicated in thousands of experimental runs at over 200 major laboratories, in some cases at very high s/n ratios, for example with 20 to 100 W of output heat and no input power. For any other experimental finding, 5 replications at places such as Los Alamos, SRI or BARC would convince every scientist on earth that the effect is real. After Storms, McKubre and other top-notch experimentalists published, experts such as Gerischer, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry, reviewed the evidence and concluded “there [are] now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in metal alloys.” As far as I know every expert in electrochemistry or nuclear physics who has reviewed the evidence has reached similar conclusions. There are no papers by skeptics showing errors in any major experiment. So, by the normal standards of science, cold fusion is real. Widespread replication is the only standard of truth in experimental science.
Note: There were some “experts” at the DoE who spent a few hours one morning reviewing the data. Some of them concluded cold fusion is not real, but — like the people at CalTech — their reasons were preposterous handwaving and appeal to theory, in my opinion. You can read what they wrote and judge for yourself:
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455
Rothwell, as long as I know, books and meeting presentations are not peer reviewed – do you know something different on that? – and Fusion Technology is for members of the CF Club only; and the other journals are not impressive either. I can see “Focardi Piantelli, 1994”, but not its debunking by the CERN team in the same journal, so I know your list cannot be trusted without having to check every single item…
Let me restate what I asked to Mats: please, only quote papers whose excess heat has been confirmed in peer-reviewed journals by different and independent researchers, and not reduced to the normal levels expected from chemical reactions.
Until then, we’re not talking about science, we are only showing tv spots of a sci-fi story.
Regarding my paper here:
Click to access RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
Cimpy wrote:
“And speaking of those 153 papers, you should first subtract those that have nothing to do with nuclear fusion, those that are not per-reviewed (look better in what is inside your link, Mats), and whose results haven’t been falsified or reduced by several orders of magnitude by further studies,sometimes even by the same authors (like Celani himself…!!)”
All of these papers are about anomalous heat from palladium deuteride. This heat exceeds the limits of chemistry by many orders of magnitude, and it occurs without producing any chemical changes or consuming any chemical fuel. It produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does. Therefore, researchers assume it is nuclear fusion. That is the hypothesis. If that is true, all of these papers are about nuclear fusion. If it is not true, these papers are about something else, which is presently unknown. It is called “cold fusion” or “LENR” because we have to call it something.
All these papers are peer reviewed and they were published in mainstream journals. There are many other peer-reviewed papers in specialized journals devoted to cold fusion such as J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., and papers published directly by laboratories such as Los Alamos, China Lake and BARC. They are not included in this tally.
There were several hundred other positive, peer-reviewed papers on tritium, neutrons and other nuclear effects. They are not included in this tally, which only covers excess heat.
None of these papers has been retracted, as far as I know. Celani may have retracted his recent claims, but they are not included in this tally, which was done several years ago. None of the positive studies in cold fusion have been falsified or reduced in magnitude. Many peer-reviewed skeptical papers were published showing that cold fusion is theoretically impossible, but to my knowledge only one attempted to find errors in the experiments themselves. I do no think it has merit. You can read it here, and judge for yourself:
Click to access Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf
No positive finding has been falsified, but the three major negative studies of 1989 at Harwell, CalTech and MIT were, later falsified and shown to be positive. In other words, they were false negatives. See:
Click to access MilesMisoperibol.pdf
The researchers at Harwell did a good job and were prepared to do a better job, but their funding was cut. They were completely open and cooperative with experts in calorimetry who re-examined their data and found evidence for excess heat. The authors at CalTech and MIT were opposed to cold fusion, and biased against it. The fact that even they found evidence for the effect shows that objectively the effect exists. When a scientist gets a result that he is biased against, and which is against his interests, you can be confident the result is real. (The obverse is not true; failing to find evidence usually means the researcher made a mistake, rather than reflecting his state of mind.)
There were 20 famous studies of cold fusion in 1989 and 1990 that failed to find evidence for the effect. They are not among the 153 papers listed here because they were not intended to find excess heat. (They are listed on p. 20 of my report.) In retrospect, the reason these studies failed is now well understood, and not surprising. These failures are not “significant” in the sense that they do not teach much. Any electrochemist in 1989 could see why they failed. There were over a hundred positive results in that same time period.
Here is an example of one of the worst failures, at Kamiokande. This was not peer-reviewed, and it did not include calorimetry, so I did not include it in my tally. Any electrochemist knows why it failed, for the reasons I listed here:
Click to access RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
We should not forget that the ECAT is sold to IH. It is safe to assume that IH did due diligence and tested the ECAT and therefore it is IH’s name that guards the ECAT. SR, and folks here is hammering on with arguments that Rossi did bad X,Y,Z, therefore ECAT is not working. But that is not entirely correct (wicked) logic, it is a product of IH. IH is very secretive and we simply have no clue about how involved other personnel at IH are in the development. Therefore the correct (wicked) logic for critics today is to claim IH did bad at X,Y,Z therefore the ECAT is not working, if they want to muddy the water. In a sence the buying of the ECAT cut’s the history because the responsibility is now within the management of IH.
Hi Mats,
I have listened to the three programs and is also not particularly impressed; see my blog for a summary (in Swedish).
I have just one question, and that’s the one implied at the end of my text — assuming my guess that Kullander knew what he was talking about in nov. 2011 (and Hansson did not when he was summarising the april 2012 measurements on Ni in the second program) is correct, how come you, Kullander and Essén continued to have an interest in the E-cat despite this pretty obvious attempt of fraud?
/bosjo
this article report the las sentence of “the crime does not exist “of environmental crimes…
http://laprovinciapavese.gelocal.it/cronaca/2013/08/14/news/lacchiarella-ferma-la-bonifica-all-ex-omar-1.7582703
It is very negative, so you cannot says it is a lie.
about camorra
http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2012/07/04/camorra-sequestrati-beni-per-20-milioni-anche-un-bar-in-centro-a-milano/283129/
Even if rossi was a waste trafficker, he was clearly in competition with camorra whose methods were different.
this article report a sabotage to make the tank leak…
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1998/maggio/12/Ecovandali_Lacchiarella_co_2_980512770.shtml
visibly to justify payment of the costly remediation which cost have exploded…
more data in that thread
http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum/showthread.php?2384-History-of-Rossi-E-cat&p=6153#post6153
anyway none of those information have any impact on the reality of the LENr science, validated in the first half of the 1990s…
neither on the validity of the Elforsk funded test last year… nor next test expected.
by the way what I have done should have been done by a serious journalist
http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2013/08/22/nasty-cimpy-crononauti/comment-page-1/
“Hansson’s claim that Rossi’s activity was the same as when the Mafia bought toxic waste and dumped it into secret pits is new to me. I don’t believe he has any proof for that.
Truly, Mats?
He may have not, but we Italians do have:
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1996/settembre/13/pseudo_greggio_spedito_Ciociaria_finiva_co_9_9609132478.shtml
and they are still paying for it
http://appalti.dgmarket.com/tenders/np-notice.do?noticeId=8060322
Click to access 8819844227_Lacchiarella250314.pdf
And speaking of those 153 papers, you should first subtract those that have nothing to do with nuclear fusion, those that are not per-reviewed (look better in what is inside your link, Mats), and whose results haven’t been falsified or reduced by several orders of magnitude by further studies, sometimes even by the same authors (like Celani himself…!!)
From the dozen or so remaining, please quote the papers whose results have been confirmed a peer-reviewed journals. Then we might start discussing scientific results. If you dare, of course. Mind I will take some consultants on my side, better you do the same, but choose well as some professors of your Country are not very happy of last cold fusion affair…
Neither Marcus Hansson nor Sylvie C. (by the way Mats, do you know she is a science reporter for Il Sole-24 Ore and Oggi Scienza, which are not exactly a “style magazine”…) have the competence to evaluate anything, you said.
Well you are perfectly right here; that is why they have asked scientists and engineers to evaluate.
And the results are not in the direction your hopes and dreams.
“I have myself tried to obtain the original documents with the help of an Italian lawyer, and it’s not easy since sentences from that time don’t seem to be available in centralized and computerized systems. However, out of four sentences regarding environmental crimes, three might have been confirmed and one cancelled in the highest court.”
*
You really need to read some of Gary Wright’s web site, which I admit is neither easy nor fun. However he has the “goods” on Rossi when it comes to his Petroldragon convictions. He quotes reporters who produced news articles at the time. He obtained much of the original documentation. It’s long but it’s very clear:
There is no doubt whatever that Rossi arranged for the drainage of dangerous and highly toxic substances into irrigation canals! Rossi is an absolute scumbag for doing this. There is nothing whatever to suggest that Rossi ever had any industrial process to convert waste to oil. It was all a web of lies exactly like the current misinformation he writes about the ecat.
Rossi has always used similar tactics–
– pretended associations with universities and large companies which are lies
– supposed tests of prototypes which are misleading and wrong
– claims for preposterous products which are going to made “soon” but never are
– false claims to be obtaining certification from government agencies which never comes
(where are Rossi’s famous “certificators” now?)
Rossi did the exact same thing with Petroldragon and with the obvious scamming of the US DOD about thermoelectric devices. Did you ever bother to investigate that, Mats? Did you talk to anyone at the University of New Hampshire who, as Rossi claimed, tested the 20% efficient hand made prototype. I bet you didn’t because it didn’t happen, the prototype never existed or if it did, it did not yield the results Rossi claimed and Rossi, as usual, lied about it.
Gary’s web site: http://freeenergyscams.com/
@Cimpy
I would like to add that Italy has fantastic good culture and one of my best weekends ever was in Rome, just to not focus on all negatives.
But I learned one thing that is a big blow to my faith in the Science culture of today, it has bearings on research in general. The basic issue is that humanity might head straight into a catastophy, people might not agree on details but there are scary results like the hooey stick curve of the mean temperature (I would say it’s controversial, as unsettled, but there is a high risk of it being true) We will probably not solve this politically, I really doubt that. The other option is to let science develop new energy resources and technology, for this we must be open for disruptive new science to realize, but for that to happen historically you absolutely need free research. But today it is very governed and getting close to a majority vote system or even worse, the empowered vote system. Mats Lewan rightly pointed out this problematic above how people in charge obviously postulate what is good science and bad science. To take one example other than Cold fusion, consider Randi Mills theory where he constructs the atom with a photon and a charge distribution that does not radiate. Out of this he deduces thousands of accurate results for chemical properties, that is much more accurate than what can be accomplished with QM. I have asked around and his calculations are really good, he knows his electrodynamics, and nobody can explain how this could be a fake. Obviously we have a new Keppler here. But it took Kepler 10 years? to get it accepted, and Mills theory have been out for more then 20 years. This is majority vote system at it’s play, historians are pointing fingers at how awful people were at the time of Keppler, but really we are worse today.
Over to cold fusion. You can do excellent high quality research on classical cold fusion. To stop when the reproduction rate is about 5% and call it impossible to do sane research are just lazy and ignorant. What you do is randomize a series of tests with either normal water or heavy water. Typically they claim you don’t get much results with normal water. Now if the tester, a cold fusion specialist, can by F&P experiment (not knowing the water) select enough Heavy water cases compared to randomness, you can get your 95%. It is simple as that (almost). It’s a pity that the empowered are so ignorant to see this opportunity – it is much better have good scientific arguments then try to politicize science.
My personal opinion on your personal opinion is that when you state
“Not because I wish this to be true, but because there are abundant scientific results indicating that the phenomenon might be real”, including also *Rossi effect*, you are spreading around a fraud exactly as you were in july 2013 with the Hyperion one, when you went on writing “it might have been working” taking those data as truly. Till the end of few days ago, when finally you had to wrote those data were not true.
And now you are telling to the world your personal opinion: there are hundreds of peer reviewed papers that states there are tons of data that must be true.
Your personal opinion, Mats? Do you want mine? How about looking deeper into those works to see how much serious they are in confirming Rossi effect is true? Or even that Piantelli cell does work. Or even that excess of heat from a nuclear fusion on earth at llow pressure and low heat are real, expecially when people like Rossi make them for everyone
It is round the corner, it will be “soon” – as Rossi used to say.
By the way, I appreciated the way you described my Country as “one of the most corrupt countries in Europe where the mix of powerful interests, politics and the judiciary is not always easy to penetrate”. You forgot to add that from this point of view the Country you’r painting is also a very good place to start a scam, provided you mind to have the right people on your side and avoid to step over the wrong ones. Which was your side, Mats?
Regards from Italy
@Cimpy
When I talk about abundant scientific results I don’t include Rossi’s work.
I’m referring to peer reviewed articles, and if you start to to distrust also those results we can stop discussing scientific research in this forum until you have remade all experiments by yourself and brought back the results. Tell me when you’re done.
Glad you stated clearly Rossi’s work is not included in what you claim it might work.
I take this as a change in the wind you’re following about the Cat story. Let us know when you’re ready to say it works *perfectly* on a trick, and that you could not tell it before due to the fact you are a reporter, like you did on R5 story.
About all the experiments you claim are proves, I am not the one who should make them work: what if I continuously find they do not? Any believer would claim I would never make one working for my will.
It is you, Mats, that should seek one you do believe is working and reliable in respect of your claim for a free energy that could save the world, and find a team of people who do not believe it works but are skilled enough to replicate it. People like GSVIT team, that you should already know and who you should trust. Then follow them while they demonstrate what those “excess” really are. Only a note: choose well as you cannot expect they to replicate every fantasy of every people who do believe they can make physic miracles on earth. That is quite a common game in cold fusion: as soon as one saver of the world is ruled out, there is another one -even from the past- that is ready to become the new flag of the “excess of heat” prophets. By the way, in Italy, judging by 22 Passi site, it is again the time of Celani :
“Da una breve lettura dell’Abstract il risultato ottenuto all’Università del Delaware potrebbe essere compatibile con quello ottenuto da Francesco Celani e collaboratori lavorando sui fili di costantana tra dicembre 2012 e gennaio 2013 ai Laboratori Nazionali INFN di Frascati” want to join that party Mats? I do believe you surely know about Celani and the costantana wires story…
Round the corner, Mats.
By the way, I liked your way to make a step away from Rossi…
😀
Hi!
I agree on your thoughts in general, lenr should be properly evaluated without fear of ridicule, and I personally believe there’s something there.
I have one question regarding Rossi’s history though. Is it true that his convicted of environmental crime? In your book he was convicted only for tax fraud?
Thomas
Hi Thomas,
I based this on information from his lawyer which seems to have been wrong. Ulrika Björkstén said Marcus Hansson had required the sentences but I believe he has only obtained copies that are around. I have myself tried to obtain the original documents with the help of an Italian lawyer, and it’s not easy since sentences from that time don’t seem to be available in centralized and computerized systems. However, out of four sentences regarding environmental crimes, three might have been confirmed and one cancelled in the highest court.
As far as I have understood, the sentences regard toxic substances leaking into the ground at the time Rossi had already been put into arrest (custodia cautelare), or simply the fact of handling such substances without permission, as I explain in the book. Hansson’s claim that Rossi’s activity was the same as when the Mafia bought toxic waste and dumped it into secret pits is new to me. I don’t believe he has any proof for that.
Fortunately, in the end, it won’t matter what all of this hot air means. This is one of those controversies that will have a real, solid conclusion.
Thank you. Finally, a scientific media person with some guts!