onsdag 8 oktober 2014

The Cat is dead

You all know about Schrödinger’s cat. It is dead as soon as you take a look at it. A similar thing can finally be said about the E-Cat after having read the essential parts in the new report by Levi et al1. 

The title of the report, though, heralds quite differently “Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel”. So what is going on? 

Yet another version of the E-Cat2 has been tested. This time the tests have been performed in Lugano3.

As in previous reports, some measurements and technical details are reported in great detail. One may, however, wonder why so much information, irrelevant for the core question, is reported while the really interesting claim is dealt with on only about two pages.  

So if you do not manage to read through all the tables and numbers, just turn to page 27 ff, read section 8 “Fuel analysis”, and check out table 1 in Appendix 3. That should do. Why? Because none of the measurements presented on the previous 26 pages matter, if what is written in this section is true; i.e., that the reported dramatic changes in the isotopic composition of the “fuel” are really due to a nuclear reaction in the E-Cat.

Levi et al. write that the “fuel” initially consists of a mixture of nickel powder and lithium in natural isotopic compositions. However, after the run, the “ash” is radically different in the isotopic composition! Practically all Li-7 has turned into Li-6 and all the 4 other naturally occurring nickel isotopes have practically vanished and turned into Ni-62. The latter has a natural abundance of 3.6 % but in the “ash” the abundance is about 99 %! Yes, you have read correctly. This is what is claimed. Nobelprize? If true: definitely. Imagine: You run the E-Cat and all the Ni-58 (68 % natural abundance), Ni-60 (26 %), Ni-61 (1 %) and Ni-64 (1 %) nuclei have turned into Ni-62.

Yes, you may read this again and try to digest it. The authors really claim that some of the nickel isotopes get some neutrons added while others have some removed and everything just becomes one single isotope. 

And this miracle happens without any radiation being emitted when the E-Cat is run, without traces of copper or other elements, and without changes in the effectiveness of the E-Cat while it is run4.

Levi et al. draw the conclusion that “nuclear reactions have taken place” and that one “can speculate about the nature of such reactions.” However, they “refrain from such discussions.” While the latter seems wise it is totally inexplicable to me, how the authors cannot see the most obvious and by far most likely conclusion of the fuel analysis; that they simply have been fooled. Just realize that obtaining an enriched Li-6 or Ni-62 sample is not too difficult (see, e.g., here, here and here). And yes, the available enrichments in Li-6 do match what is reported …
 
So for my part the Cat is dead. How others accomplish not to see and obviously are able to keep the Cat alive in their wishful thinking, that is the real mystery.


Footnotes: 
1) The current report is said to have been submitted to arXiv again but has been put on hold there. In addition it seems to even have been submitted to a real physics journal. I would be very surprised if it got published. When taking a look at the quoted references what sticks out to me is the lack of a reference to the critique of the earlier report by Levi et al. However, references to, e.g., Wikipedia are made. This is quite unusual for a paper submitted to a scientific journal.
2) I have lost count on how many different versions there are as it seems never to be the same that is tested twice.
3) It is noteworthy that TSL is no longer involved and several authors of the previous report are not among the authors any longer. The only connection to Uppsala University is now through three retired researchers. The extensively reported measurements of the radiated power have been carried out in southern Switzerland. 
4) Think about it: the E-Cat is run for what seems to be an arbitrary amount of time under what is reported as stable condition and in the end all the “fuel” has turned into “ash”.

112 kommentarer:

  1. and the heat...

    who cares of the isotopic shift if there is heat? except the theoretician...

    who will doubt on the isotopic shift if there is heat ?

    It seems that when something cannot be explained, not even refuted, by what you know, you cannot accept the experiment decide.

    that is the basic of science however.
    you react like huizenga... if it face theory, it have to be erroneous, no need of any evidence.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Well, you know there is an old saying: you should be open to new things but not so open that your brains fall out.

      Radera
    2. it seems that you cannot even see evidence when they face your beliefs.
      it is a cmmon disease.

      you don't even understand when you make critics that you assume a theory which is not necessarily true.
      for example when you assume the Ni62 is consumes, and not simply a parasitic reaction, or something you don't know ...

      this is a general problem today as many people are educated to reject the unknown.

      my brain is not falling, but I cannot accept conspiracy theory involving thousands of scientist , dozens of labs, just because you cannot understand the subtleties material science,

      how it is funny...congratulation to have flee the telescope that Levi was proposing you to look at it

      you should read the page 139+ of Beaudette excess heat of those who flee the lab not to challenge their theory.

      all that is fascinating...

      the capacity to ignore fact is fascinating.

      don't worry you are not alone.

      Radera
    3. Stephan Pomp & co have no knowledge of what has progressed within cold fusion and LENR science since the start in1989. They evaluate LENR within the thought processes of hot fusion. But LENR is not hot fusion. So what? If nature tells us that LENR may occur with the right conditions, are we not to investigating further? When experiemental result disagree with theory we have an interesting mystery to be solved. Most scientists will leave the problem concluding flawed experiement. That's what they did with Professors Martin Fleischmann and Pons in 1989.
      But when many later independently confirmed similar results, then what?

      I agree with Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT, who states;
      "we have experiments confirming the basic effect, we have experiments showing that energy is produced, that the energetic reaction products aren’t there, and the question is what to do about it. Actually, we should be very interested in these experiments. We should be interested, because we have experimental results which by now have been confirmed a great number of times. We learned about nature from doing experiments. So, here are experimental results. Can we, should we pay attention to them? Follow them up, see, where they lead? Today, sadly, the experiments in the cold fusion business are nor considered to be part of science. And that’s the resolution that we have come to as the scientific community. From my perspective, having been in labs, having seen the results, having talked to experimentalists, having looked at the data, having spent great time on it, it looks like pretty much these experiments are real. They need to be taken seriously."

      The science of LENR have continued with small recourses since 1989, but hopefully SKINR at the University of Missouri will find some clues to what is going on.

      Therefore: GO FOR IT ELFORSK!!!!

      Regards
      Lande

      Radera
  2. To be honest, it is good that the cat is dead to you, because I think you would be unable to contribute constructive criticism as you already are so heavily invested in this being a fraud.

    You are complaining about the abundance analysis in the ash as compared to the initial fuel. Well guess what? You are not expected to explain it readily. Had you been able to, the authors would have been able to that for them selves.

    The machine has been running for a month - it is not an arbitrary amount of time -even if it was, what would that matter? It has produced excess heat in excess of three times the amount of energy going in. It has done using an exceedingly small amount of fuel, in an equally exceedingly small ŕeactor chamber. It has produced the ash as it has been analyzed.

    Deal with it. While so doing, try to avoid having your brans fall out.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Well, it is a good point to ask about how heavily someone has invested in a certain believe. This is a key question for a scientist. Is it the evidence or my believe that guides me? To what extend on the other hand have Levi et al invested? I think there is much more at stake for them ... If (!) the E-Cat proves to work I promise to line up to buy one! Sure! I want to find out about the mechanism! Want to do research about this fantastic new physics! Sure I want! But please: first convince me that the tester had full control and could in no way have been tricked. Since, I am sorry to say and sorry to have to repeat that again and again: the latter would be a very very simple explanation for a lot ...

      Radera
  3. At this point there is not third option. You either outright accuse the involved scientists for fraud or the device works

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. I agree, incompetence is ruled out. It is either a fraud or a miracle. Id like to hear from Stephan, are you accusing Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér and Hanno Essén, of research fraud?
      Stephan, do you really think it is possible that all these scientists have been fooled all this time, is that option even worth considering?
      To me it is clear that either the cat works or we are witnessing the biggest scientific conspiracy in history.
      There is lot of unmapped territory in the subatomic world of plasmas, crystals and weird quantum models. I for one will not rule out the possibility of the device working without proof it is impossible, that would make me fundamentalistic believer.

      Radera
    2. Björn: No, I do not accuse Levi et al of fraud. I believe they are naive and are being fooled.

      Radera
    3. Of course it is fraud. Whether the mentioned people have been fooled or participated in the fraud themselves is not immediately knowable. But that it's fraud is obvious.

      Radera
    4. "I do not accuse Levi et al of fraud"

      I find it almost impossible to envision the level of incompetence that would be required to pass these tests of as merely naive. The problems with all "ITPRs" so far are glaringly obvious even to a layman - the first being that a definitive independent demonstration would not involve the same names that are associated with earlier botched experiments.

      Radera
  4. Stephan, I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that you think the researchers were not able to accurately measure the isotopes? How could they have been "fooled"? Fooled by whom? A ghost? An act of God? Why do you find it so difficult to accept the fact that physicists don't have everything figured out yet and that there are phenomenon that can take place that we do not yet fully understand? There is nothing unusual about that, it has always been the case, throughout history. And sometimes discoveries can be made experimentally before the theoretical explanation is known. There is no reason to be in a state of denial about this. Regarding your comment about the Nobel Prize, merely carrying out this test would certainly not be worthy of a Nobel Prize, but the individual(s) who discovered and engineered the device probably ought to get one, and the theoretical physicists who are able to come up with correct explanations for why it works may also be worthy of one, although it may be some time before it can be determined with any certainty what the correct explanation is. My understanding is that currently there are multiple potential explanations for this so-called "LENR" phenomenon, so it remains to be seen what the correct explanation is.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Stephan, there is another thing that I also do not understand about your analysis: if you don't believe that there was an actual transmutation of elements, then what type of process do you think created all the excess heat? The device being tested was too small to be able to produce so much excess heat through chemical means. Since lithium and nickel were the fuel for the reactor, allowing it to produce heat, doesn't it make sense that there would be changes to the lithium and nickel?

      Radera
    2. Well, it is possible the device never produced excess heat and everything is a hoax, a joke, a fraud. I think that is Stephans assesment. And I agree that is as possible as the macine working.

      Radera
    3. Björn,

      could you perhaps elaborate on those probabilities?

      How can you now have two reports in front of you saying that this is working, but we don't know why, and yet say that a fraud is equally possible as that the machine works?

      Do you find any error in the two reports treating the ecat as a black box, showing over unity output and an exceptional energy density in the fuel? I am not talking about confabulations about possible frauds - I 'm talking evidence.

      Stephan has locked himself into this position, and he has no way out but admitting defeat, and that will be no fun for him.

      Are you locked in too, I wonder?

      Radera
    4. I need to monitor the machine myself, I trust noone else.
      But I dont rule out the possibility of the machine working. I think Stephans mind is welded shut to the possibility that the ecat works. If the ecat does not work, and it is a fraud, then I believe the scientists, at least some of them, are in on the fraud. I do not believe, as Stephan does, that it is possible to fool them for years. I would love to have a debate between one of the authors, Höistad perhaps and Pomp. I would pay money for that, great entertainment and great live peer reviewing.

      Radera
    5. Björn, Rossi changes setup and internal workings of his machine radically each time to make sure observers can't patch measurement holes and reveal any tricks that have been hypothesised by critical people regarding the previous demo.

      Each time, the naive researchers are challenged by a techno-magician that have been thinking for a year or two on new ways to exploit that said researchers are not multidisciplinary enough to, by themselves, find all tricks that might exaggerate output and underreport input.

      Radera
  5. LOL

    Now to let AlainCo understand how really a masterpiece that paper is, you will have to let believers explain him a couple of things - even if it seems they will not enter the COP discussion taking in a bit of math that would let everybody know it would be better not to bet anymore on E Cat.

    As believers will not, I too will keep the math outside, but will point him to one of the stronger believers in Rossi words about this parer:
    C'mon, AlainCo, pass these to Mats Lewan and get it correctly translated for you:

    http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?reply_id=123566036#123566036

    http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?reply_id=123566055#123566055

    I find amusing he was writing quite your same stuff, AlainCo, without the final LOL you used around your signature on Vortex...

    SvaraRadera
  6. The believers are amazingly stupid. Even by things one immediately sees, the paper is clearly written by folks who have no clue what they are talking about. Equations involving dimensionful variables, e.g. equation (7), are written with units such as "[W]" even though there is absolutely no reason to pick one unit or another. Also, units after numerical values are sometimes written in the square brackets, too.

    Concerning the real content, the conversion of isotopes without radiation is funny, of course, but one could believe it if he has no idea about nuclear physics. But I actually maximally liked your final comment which is so funny and should be comprehrensible even for children who have no clue about nuclear physics. They run the device for some time, it produces energy almost uniformly, and they stop it at a random moment - nevertheless, it just happens to be the moment when exactly 99% of the original fuel is converted to the "ash", the other isotope. Funny. If they added 1% to the time of running, would the device stop? If they subtracted 10% from the time of running, would the ash isotope be just 90%? How did they manage to stop it exactly at the right moment? ;-) I think that these are ideas I would be able to comprehend when I was 8 years old and they completely settle the question. The fact that so many people can't see through this scam for so many years is just scary.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Yes, yes, yes, you are a very clever guy...

      Yet you begin by criticizing this paper for its form. Not cool.

      Then you continue to bash the ash. Allow me a :)

      You see - if you actually read the paper - that is the whole point. It show heat excess, with a fuel energy density widely surpassing any conventional source, and it is stated, as the content of the ash is presented, that it is not understood as how this works.

      Yet you, the clever guy, have no problem rejecting it all, based on form and not fact, and on things that baffle the authors and everyone else as much as yourself.

      Do you find any REAL complaint on the measurements, the computations, the results, the external analysis themselves?

      Or is it simply a FRAUD to you?

      Radera
    2. Regarding the fuel, it seems quite possible that either:
      1) They knew in advance how long they were going to be operating the device for, the inventor told them how much fuel to use, and they used exactly the right amount of fuel, or
      2) 98% of the fuel may be used just for starting up the device (and/or perhaps for shutting it down), and very little fuel may be used while it is in operation, so it may not matter very much how long it is operating for.
      Regarding the possibility that it is a scam, what possible motivation would all of these scientists have to partake in such a thing and risk ruining their careers? The idea that all of these scientists are trying to fool us seems to be the most ludicrous idea of all. The idea that they themselves were fooled is almost as ludicrous because surely they would have been able to make reasonably accurate measurements of energy input and output, and even if their measurements were not 100% accurate (ie even if energy output were slightly lower or input slightly higher), the results are still quite remarkable.
      Can you be more specific in explaining how this could be a scam, who the collaborators in the scam might be, what their motivations are? Wouldn't everyone in such a scam ultimately get caught?

      Radera
    3. You forget one thing: the team of researchers do not have to be a part of the scam. At least not all of them. They can be fooled and be naive and un-critical enough not to look for the most likely explanation. Just imagine: they are given a sample that is said to represent the fuel. And they are told that the same kind of fuel is now put into the "reactor". Just imagine that this fuel is the enriched fuel that yuo can buy over the internet. Simple. Easy. Ask James Randi! And simply the most likely compared to the miracle that is claimed in the report and half-hidden in two pages ....

      Radera
    4. Stephan, you are basically proposing that this team of scientists was not able to correctly measure the heat input and heat output of the device, and that they got it wrong not just slightly but by several orders of magnitude - and for 32 days. And you are also arguing that for some reason they chose not to observe the insertion of the fuel and removal of spent fuel carefully enough to make sure there was no switch-and-bait going on. Your argument lacks credibility. To be honest, it seems more likely that you have some sort of personal bias or vested interest in the "e-cat" not working, and that this bias is effecting your ability to be objective in considering this report and the other evidence (such as statements by NASA scientists, etc) that LENR is a real effect. Keep in mind that before this test, we already knew, from prior tests and statements by various scientists (including ones affiliated with NASA) that there was a real excess-energy phenomenon that was being called "LENR", so it was only a matter or time before someone figured out how to harness it effectively. It appears that someone has figured that out, at least to the point of producing energy for 32 days in approximately the amount measured by this study. Of course, commercializing the technology will still most likely be a very major endeavor with lots of potential engineering stumbling blocks along the way. I am sorry if your career is somehow dependent on the continuation and expansion of existing nuclear technology and nuclear reactors; they will not be made immediately redundant by this technology, since it will take a long time to refine it, so don't worry, you will have plenty of time to adjust, but in the meantime, there is no point in trying to deny reality.

      Radera
    5. Martin T, please have a look at GoatGuys explanations on NextBigFuture: http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/third-party-report-on-32-day-continuous.html

      He explains plausible and non-trivial ways to perform this particular hoax. The researchers were obviously not multi-disciplinary enough to recognize the problems with the test setup.

      Radera
    6. Jeppen, regardless of what "GoatGuy" has to say, I find it rather implausible that this team of scientists, running this test for the 2nd time, would not have taken into account all of the possibilities and would not have been aware of this. I also find it implausible that Industrial Heat LLC and Andrea Rossi would attempt to fool the team of researchers, as they would have no incentive to do so. Of course, I recognize that others may have a different viewpoint and that "anything is possible," but at this point I think it is rather naive to actually believe that this technology is a fraud. Of course, everyone is free to believe whatever they like, but people should be aware that their personal biases and psychology might color their beliefs. I am not a physicist and have no stake in this, I am just an independent observer expressing my surprise that otherwise intelligent people seem to have become conspiracy theorists all of a sudden, so I felt compelled to chime in and suggest that people consider psychological factors before potentially embarrassing themselves by concocting elaborate conspiracy schemes, accusing established scientists and/or well-regarded business-people and venture capitalists of fraud, or accusing scientists of being easily fooled. Of course, I could be wrong myself, but since I am not a scientist and am not in this field, I have nothing to be embarrassed about if I am wrong, but I am shocked at how willing scientists are to go out on a limb and accuse each other of fraud or stupidity; that willingness seems rather rash and unwise to me. I am concerned that some people may be saying things that they will later come to regret; I suppose that is their problem, but being half-Swedish myself, I prefer not to see other Swedes embarrass themselves and accuse their countrymen of fraud or stupidity.

      Radera
    7. The team of scientist you refer to is all the time testing a different "E-Cat". Last report was extensively criticized: http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6364 No mention or answer to our critique was ever received from Levi et al. Instead a new even more fantastic claim is made, i.e. the change of five Ni istopes into just one without radiation. If Levi et al "buy that" I would guess it is easy to fool them with power input ... Btw: do you still remember the story with the "dry steam" in the first version of the Cat?

      Radera
    8. Martin T: Implausible? What is implausible is nuclear reactions without gamma, not that a well-prepared magician can trick a fairly competent but less prepared audience. (There is no second time, btw - this was a new setup. Again.)

      And why wouldn't Rossi have incentives to fool people? I thought that was his livelihood!? This report will yield him new investors.

      Conspiracy theories are implausible because too many have to be in on it. Here, not many needs to be in on it. Rossis thing is implausible because it has been seven years and he hasn't been able to commercialize, despite apparent simplicity. I've blogged about this aspect here, in Swedish:
      http://nejdetkanviinte.se/2014/10/10/e-cat-hoaxen/

      Radera
  7. This is legendary. Thank you, Stephan :-)

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. It is truly legendary.... I have a screen dump of it in my archive.

      Radera
    2. I sure you, will cherish it with your family album.

      Radera
    3. Thanks tyy! And "Freethinker Lenr": hope you pin the screenshot somewhere you can see it every day and think about it.

      Radera
  8. So first of all, they showed energy production that implicate a nuclear regime. That is the proof, then considering it being nuclear we can be assured that the sample measurement is not twixed. The oddities and speculations and accusations using the sample is pointless. It has no value because we don't know how it works, the possible way's it can work means that any objections can have an explanation. The sample measurements is useful only in the context to try to search for an explanation and it is a good contribution. So the main point is, was the energy balance correctly done. For sure I would not expect a deviation of 3.4 when they did validate the test. It would be a huge surprise that convection would spoil that, most energy is transported via radiation anyway. What remains in being fouled are that the PCE by some reason measured wrongly only when the reaction is ongoing, highly unlikely. So it looks like there is no room for misstakes. That leaves options for scams. But not any new attack vector for a scam have come forward yet. And for sure the testers should be alerted to all of them, high freq, DC, cheese etc making that attack vector very unlikely. The skeptical part of me would wait for the people to explain how that made sure nothing was tampered with, like checking cables, video monitoring marking of cables etc. It would be really nice to see such a discussion from Hanno etc. But I don't expect it is possible to fool the party for 30 days straight and get away with it during these circumstances. Therefore you cannot win and are forced to believe in unicorns, ecat unicorns, or a big party of crook unicorns.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. " But I don't expect it is possible to fool the party for 30 days straight" why not? You would, e.g., simple have to add a different fuel to the "reactor" than what the team believes. That there are plenty of ways to trick about the COP has been discussed many times earlier and never been disproved. One question in this connection: why is never the same kind of E-Cat tested twice? Think about it: THE E-Cat does not exist. The device tested is each time a different thing. Not just THE E-Cat. Cold, hot, hot2, with "dry steam", without, at 300 degree now at 1300 degrees ...

      Radera
    2. You seam to believe the testers being unimaginable stupid, they know perfectly well all objections from the last report, and you don't propose any other possibility of fraud, and no one else does that as well. You just say it is a fraud. I know that running that thing knowing all discussions makes all those attack vectors impossible, well at least unicorn impossible. But there is an opening for an explanation that GoatGuy is proposing over at extremeTech, try to argue with that info in stead then spreading myths about the testers gullibility and stupidity because transparancy effects could indeed, at least theoretically cause the measurement to be too positive, the question is 3.5times positive, maybe, maybe not.

      Radera
    3. "they know perfectly well all objections from the last report"
      Maybe. But we never got an answer. And the present report does not even cite our earlier critique. And do not forget: this is AGAIN another version of some kind of dead Cat.

      Radera
    4. A new version, so what, the method of testing is the same. It is not as new and different that it support your claim. It is very much the same procedure again. But I give you this, the alumina being translucent at high temperatures probably mean that they measure a slightly higher COP without it being true and might be something that got in there because of the developers team trying to optimize their camera output. Anyhow I also agree it is your job to be critical and pose the questions such as, did you check the cables, did you mark the cables, did you verify that it was not a one man show etc. Of cause we need those answers but until they are gotten it is really premature to claim a fake or dead cat, because really they should have checked the cables, contemplating high freq and make sure no one worked by their own. That's very much more likely than sitting like blind mice beside the dead cat celebrating it's resurrection.

      Radera
    5. It is never the same method and it is never the same claim. Please read up on E-Cat history and previous claims about e.g. isotope changes or not changes, copper being there or not, etc.

      Radera
    6. The copper was gotten from the container, check out old ECAT pictures and you see that there is plenty of copper that couled contaminate the sample,also Rossi has said that he has been playing a bit with people to protect his invention also Rossi speaks a lot, some are tru and some are not. He has choosen that path, and he speculates and assumes, of cause you will find that things changes as time goes and people learn more. You have to see what evidences are and the originalty of the last sample is really really string compared to the old statements. The reason is of cause that the cat run for 30 days in nuclear regime, why would he then fool the sample?

      Radera
    7. Well, you can twist your mind in many ways and find excuses for all the actions Rossi has chosen thus far. Also that "he has been playing a bit with people" ... isn't that alarming? How trustworthy is that? How can you, if you acknowledge that still defend him?
      About the "nuclear regime". They run for 32 days. At constant power. Take out the sample. And all Ni has changed into Ni-62. What a coincidence. And: why was the power constant? No decrease? Why did all the neutrons chose to build up Ni-62 only? Where do all the neutrons come from by the way? So many questions and one simple answer ...

      Radera
    8. 1.
      That is true that you can twist things your way but that works both ways, given a test under a microscope you may find quite a lot of issues and blow them up as glaring and troublesome facts although it is just a coincidence, it is the same phenomena that causes people to believe that something magic has happened to them e.g. the number of magic events is so large that although they individually are rare, they still happens sometimes. It is bloody difficult to judge in such a mess and the best we can do is to have people on both side arguing for their sake.

      2. GoatGuy showed an interesting picture of different grains that have different morphology, a special morphology is known according to Rossi to be better then others, if the testers knew this they could have cherry picked a sample that have been saturated and burned out and hence most of the fuel consumed (why wouldn't they do such a selection) But in reality the morphology varies gradually and hence there might be more fuel left in other morphs. The best way is to sample randomly and I assume that this was not the case, that's why Rossi is surprised of the result, they probably take a random samples.

      3.
      The system was under active control, that can fool your senses, think like this. Take a point in the cycle, at the beginning the grains is att say 2% effectivety at that point. But at the end 50% of the active grains have been burned out and at the same point in the cycle they are burning 4%, and then the system is let go untill the cap is on so in the first scenario it goes up 1000% to 20% effectivity and for the other case 10000% to 40% effectivity essentially creating the same heat output. So to make it short it is well known that active control can stear the heat production to constant levels although the fuel get's partially burnt out.

      4)
      Why all the neutrons choose Ni-62 only and where they come from, That I can't answer but you can perhaps create neutrons out of e.g. hydrogen or some other multi body reaction why only Ni-62, can we really debunk this for sure I would try to first carefully discuss with the testers about how the test was performed and make sure they could not have been fooled by the energy measurment setup and then if you can't for certain debunk it imediatly put som serious research effort on that. Of cause Rossi could have tried to cheet people again, but that would have been a stupid risk to take if the energy balance is ok.

      Radera
    9. Just a short one: "why all the neutrons choose Ni-62..." well, that IS the very point! Even if a new reaction WOULD exist you can't just disregard from all previous very-well documented experimental facts! Put simply: If there is a bunch of neutrons around, some hit this nucleus, some another! You cannot suddenly avoid e.g. the "normal" capture reaction because, maybe, by some "catalyst" one allows for a new previously unknown type of reaction!

      Radera
    10. Well, you are right of cause that this is strange, everybody agrees on that. I just argue from the other side. If we assume that you squeeze an electron matter field that is somewhat flat and connects to the grid of the solid states and the hit of the this plain you would get a very strange environment for a reaction, does anything of our knowledge apply to that environment? no? so unless you sit down and setup that kind of reaction using the standard model deriving suitable approximations I would just say no? you can't use any experience from beforehand for that environment. It would reduce the number of constraint because the electron matter field could transport momenta and energy to the grid. I can't answer how this works because nobody has studied it. What you would expect from thermo dynamics is that because of the less number of constraints on the system, that the number of products would be less than in normal nuclear reactions because there the local quantum invariant's need to be preserved. If this was the only environment that could support a nuclear reaction you would not get any normal reactions, the usual reasons for this is of cause that just because you manage to create this absurdly magical environment, you would not be able to brake the Colomb barrier that is applicable in the normal reactions. In a sense this discussion is purely philosophy, but it contains logic, so it is fun to contemplate. But anyhow there are other reasons for the result. For example the analysis that showed such high concentration of Ni-62, is from a thin surface of the granula at least wikipedia said so when I checked. If you consider that Rossi enriched the fuel with a low concentration of granula with high volume concentration of Ni-62 you would not have a high concentration in the analysis that analyses the composition of the granulate surfaces. If then these high on Ni-62 melt and get''s sputtered all over the other particles you would get this strange result. Also theoretizing of the fuel is very dangerous because the sampling of the ash and fuel is unknown there are so many possible natural explanation for what we see that we need more info from the testers and Rossi himself to start making rigid conclusions.

      Radera
  9. Hi all

    Stephan how was the fuel changed in the thirty days that it was running when a camera and infra red cameras as well as the scientists were watching it 24 hours a day?

    Kind Regards walker

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. It does not cease to amaze me that people seem to have enough imagination to accept a COMPLETE revsion of what we know from 100 years of nuclear physics research but cannot imagine who someone tricked with the sample.

      Radera
    2. Check out mills theory and tell me that our mainstream physical understanding is not as good as you say. His story tell me that physics of to day is full of it and I don't trust the theoreticians a second to do their work correctly. It's dead simple to check that he calculates correctly and no one have pinpointed a correct error in his math for 24 years, (but there is some of bogus arguments). Please download his book, don't read it but go to the chapter calculating the g-factor, then move backwards through the references and you see that it all is deduced and well documented all the way from his basic assumptions, it will take you 30 minutes or less to do that. Then come back and tell me why we have total understanding on our lovely nuclear environment.

      Radera
    3. Stefan: I am the last to deny that we lack knowledge in a lot of open questions. This is my everyday bread and butter! We are not "done with" nuclear physics! Absolutely not.
      But thet claim of this change in isotopic composition to just ONE isotope, without any radiation, with lack of neutrons in the balance, without creation of other isotopes around, etc etc is like you were saying: We do not understand some detail in the application of general relativity to cosmology, therefore it is ok to believe that there is no graviation on earth ...
      My point: no need to read Mills. Read up on nuclear physics and try to understand the implications of the claims put forth by Levi et al.

      Radera
    4. I don't think that you should give up your stand point. It is healthy to debate. But my view is that all our experience of nuclear physics is built around basically two body problems and without much of interesting interactions that might be there, basically. I am not sure that we can extrapolate from our current knowledge to cases where more interesting but perhaps rare interaction take place. Of cause it is not my bread and butter, but when I see the simplicity of Mill's model and how easy he can calculate some quantities and at the same time seam to be a different theory than QM (well the last word is not said yet there might be an approximate isomorphism) I just don't believe that we can handle the more interesting cases (perhaps because the math from QM first principles are so clumsy that it is virtually impossible to use them but and in stead lean on aproximations that again can't extrapolate). So in my view I can imagine for example shielding electrons to get trapped between an incoming proton and a nuclei and form a combined cluster that is not a new particle but in essence means that the collision is at very low energy and at the same time the electrostatic shielding act as a key to avoid the fierce repelling potential. We do know that there is a form of shielding taking place at low energy collisions, that is known. We also have tried very hard to increase that rate in an enourmous amount of trials and failed to get a deeper understanding of this mechanism. I've asked about how that shielding works but basically get's the answer that the math (QM) does it so it is real, so no physical understanding of why. This is where Mills theory is so interesting. It has the potential to make the difficulties in QM less of a burden and allow physists to understand more of mother nature. Also having an electron introduced as a third particle in the collision also mean that it can carry momentum or kinetic energy that else was taken out through the neutron. As I said it's not my bread and butter but I surely see a system problem in theoretical physics that avoid Mills theory like the plague. It's not fair to him, humanity and, for that matter me, that has been called a stupid moron just because I know some math and can see that Mills does a lot of thing the correct way. Also if this process catalyses nuclear transformations , it will probably cathalyse a huge set of nuclear reaction, possibly enabling the nuclei to quickly reach a stable state and endpoint in the nuclear chains. After all all we have the thermo dynamical laws.

      Radera
  10. Hi all

    Who is being scammed?

    Kind Regards walker

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Elforsk? You? NyTeknik? Investors? The E-Cat community? The team of researchers?
      How long a list do you want?

      Radera
    2. MIT, NASA, Toyota, Mitsubishi, National Instrument, US Navy, DARPA, Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize winner), Julian Schwinger (Nobel Prize winner), SRI, ST Microelectronic !

      Radera
    3. I guess you want to say that, e.g., NASA and MIT officially believe in the E-Cat?
      I can assure you that UU in no way supports E-Cat and LENR and that this affair is due to a few individuals. I guess similar things can be said about, e.g., MIT.

      Radera
    4. You will not find any of these institutions officily deny or believe in anything. I just doesn't work that way.

      Radera
    5. Hi all

      In reply to stephen

      Since Elforsk paid for the scientist to test the system and employed senior scientists to do the tests.

      I assume you are not denying Elforsk did this, please tell me if this is not the case.

      Are you implying the Elforsk are defrauding them selves?

      Sorry I am breaking up the questions like this, I just want to get it clear what you mean.

      Kind Regards walker

      Radera
    6. I do not deny that Elforsk believes in LENR and the E-Cat. They have made this pretty clear.

      Radera
    7. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/IPAG12_Presentation.pdf

      Radera
    8. Google it: https://www.google.se/#q=+lenr+site:nasa.gov

      Radera
    9. So, a number of people at a number of institutions have agreed to witness incomplete and non-repeated testing regimens and have been tricked. Some of them prefer to believe the magic is real instead of being a trick. So how many has NOT fallen for these tricks? A majority, I'd guess.

      Why isn't the energy market in convulsions? Why isn't Exxon Mobil's stock market value close to zero? And if NASA thinks this is true, how come space flight isn't being revolutionized as we speak? If DARPA or the US Navy or any other significant military believe this, how come Rossi hasn't been kidnapped?

      Radera
  11. Dear Ian: ask professional magicians how such things are done. You may ask yourself if it was really completely impossible that the "ash" was put into the "reactor" in the first place ...

    SvaraRadera
  12. And btw: I just got a hint by a careful reader about the last sentence on page 53 of the report. Read and digest what this means: "Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash."

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Any chemical reason for this? the stuff was burning hot, could they have been released to the environment?

      Radera
    2. Again: twist your mind to avoid to accept the obvious conclusion ...

      Radera
    3. Dear Stephan,

      My comment is related to ELFORSK wanting to do LENR research. They do not mention E-cat as a focus for further research in their press release “Nu går vi vidare med forskning om LENR” . They can easily free themselves from Rossi and continue with some of the many other scientists, like Mitchell Swartz and Peter Hagelstein I mentioned. We need more basic LENR research, and I am sure Hagelstein have many proposals of research that can be done.

      Rossi is an inventor and engineer, not a phycisist. We need more physicists onboard.

      And wrt assumptions
      - You said “try to learn a little about physics”. So you assume I did not know the success story of our present paradigm of physics.
      - You said LENR will “disable all previous knowledge”. So you assume no new theory can be found that embrace old and new knowledge. That’s a BIG assumption

      Having seen so many reports on transmutation, transmutations is at least part of the LENR picture. The Japanese have done their own research, both Toyota and Mitsubishi. One paper example (from American Nuclear Society, Vol 107): http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ANS2012W/2012Iwamura-ANS-LENR-Paper.pdf

      Radera
  13. Perhaps in this case, the "heavy duty folks" who could easily disprove the device aren't interested in associating themselves with the device or aren't allowed to examine the device in a way which a thorough examination would require?

    SvaraRadera
  14. Couldn't uneven distribution of the impurities, C, Ca etc. combined with the uneven sampling explain why impurities are found in the fuel but not in the ash? I think the overall uncertainty regarding the composition levels are discussed on page 28.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. There is always a way to explain away what should be a clear warning sign for, to say that again, there very easy and very obvious explanation.
      Again, as I wrote above:
      "It does not cease to amaze me that people seem to have enough imagination to accept a COMPLETE revsion of what we know from 100 years of nuclear physics research but cannot imagine who someone tricked with the sample."

      Radera
    2. Yes, that this truly amazing, is it not.

      As I understand it, also the history of physics clearly shows a gradual evolution of models of reality, rather than complete revisions of what we know.

      Radera
  15. This is just another confirmation that LENR's are real, and that we have not reached the end of science.

    The 19th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ICCF-19) will be held on dates April 13-17, 2015 in Padua, Italy. This is the yearly conference covering the LENR phenomenon. Likely the SKINR Institute at the University of Missouri will present some of it's ongoing research. And possibly Mitsubishi Heavy Industry that filed it's LENR based patent earlier this year....

    SvaraRadera
  16. And to add on the general issue of LENR phenomenon: When experiemental result disagrees with theory we have an interesting mystery to be solved. Most scientists will leave the problem concluding flawed experiement. That's what they did with Professors Martin Fleischmann and Pons. But when many later have independently confirmed similar results, then what?

    I agree with Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT, which states;
    "we have experiments confirming the basic effect, we have experiments showing that energy is produced, that the energetic reaction products aren’t there, and the question is what to do about it. Actually, we should be very interested in these experiments. We should be interested, because we have experimental results which by now have been confirmed a great number of times. We learned about nature from doing experiments. So, here are experimental results. Can we, should we pay attention to them? Follow them up, see, where they lead? Today, sadly, the experiments in the cold fusion business are nor considered to be part of science. And that’s the resolution that we have come to as the scientific community. From my perspective, having been in labs, having seen the results, having talked to experimentalists, having looked at the data, having spent great time on it, it looks like pretty much these experiments are real. They need to be taken seriously."

    The science of LENR have continued with small recourses since 1989, but hopefully SKINR at the University of Missouri will find some clues to what is going on.

    Regards
    Lande

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

      If experiments showing LENR are readily reproducible they'll be subject of great interest within the broader academic community rather quickly. But they aren't, AFAIK.

      If there are serious LENR guys out there, they should hate frauds like Rossi giving the field an even worse reputation.

      Radera
    2. You mention the issue of reproducability. This haunted the early days of Cold Fusion, and why many scientists discarded it as measurement errors.

      So; if an effect only occur in say one out of ten experiments, it is not science? And not worth investigating, and let's move on for the easier stuff? Good reproducability depends either on a good theory, or you stumble upon an experimental reproducible setup where all the right conditions are met.

      You claim that science will show "great interest within the broader academic community rather quickly" if reproducible experiments are presented. History shows that it's not that easy. The progress of science is much harder, Especially if new discoveries goes against paradigms of its time.

      But Those scientists who possess an exceptional ability to recognize a theory's potential will be the first whose preference is likely to shift in favour of the challenging paradigm. There typically follows a period in which there are adherents of both paradigms. In time, if the challenging paradigm is solidified and unified, it will replace the old paradigm, and a paradigm shift will have occurred.

      Back to LENR's. What conditions needs to be made for heat bursts to occur in say deuterium loaded Palladium? which was the setup used by Fleischmann and Pons.

      F&P managed to get bursts of heat in may be one of eight electrolytic cells back in 1989. They increased the reproducability in the nineties, but the field was then no longer part of maintsream science. And the power and energy densities during the heat bursts was far out on the Ragone chart similar to this swedish report.

      Anyhow; one condition to be met was found in the early nineties; you need at least 92% loading of deuterium in Palladium to have any hope of seeing heat bursts. The trials at Caltech,MIT and other laboratories in 1989 where nowhere close to 90%. So There where no hope for them to see anything similar to Fleischman and Pons.

      More money and Scientists Are needed to Solve the mystery. so Go For it Elforsk!

      Radera
    3. I'll just comment on the time aspect here. There are more researchers nowadays , so research moves faster. Also, paradigm shifts/adjustments can often be fairly quick. For instance, if the particle accelerators give experimental proof of certain particles and mass ranges, some theories are discarded quickly and other gain prominence. If Rossi is right, he could create new reputable fields of research within a month or two by handing out dozen ecats to good research labs. Instead he does these silly one-shot magician shows.

      Btw, do you know Rossis dissertation was the relationship between the theory of relativity and phenomenology? Look up phenomenology and then think about it for a while...

      Radera
  17. Btw, please note that the Hagelstein comment was not related to e-cat, but other LENR experiments.

    SvaraRadera
  18. Hi Stephan,
    I understand you're not happy with that Levi et al. has not responded to your written objections on their previous report. However, here you can find an response with at least some interesting objections to your critisism.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sr-MSsjlf5DsMPkPsd4bwvmgVUiNfE-flc_2-RU4QS8/mobilebasic?pli=1

    SvaraRadera
  19. One thing I haven't seen discussed is that the caption on Figure 12 is completely wrong. It is clear that the bright lines have to be from the heater wire, and cannot be shadows. Why? Because if there was extra energy inside the 'reactor' (especially by factors of 3), they would heat up the wires even more than they would be outside the reactor, where there is no reaction. The alumina cannot cool down the wires, as the sideways neighbouring alumina must be hot (due to the reaction, and no shadowing), so only the outer neighbouring part of the alumina can cool the wires (by radiation). But by geometry, this must be less area than the external wires (which can radiate in all directions), so again the wires in the reactor must be hotter than the wires outside the reactor, if there is a reaction present. But looking at Fig 12, one sees that the bright orange glow is rather similar both in the main reactor and outside in the protective tubes, and that between the bright lines in the reactor it is rather dark (where the 'reaction' should be!). Hence there is no extra heat in the 'reactor', and *all* the glow comes from the heater wire.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. A commenter at
      http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/e-cat-cold-fusion-claims-ar...
      says:

      # daedalus2uon 11 Oct 2014 at 11:53 am
      It is bogus. From the image shown, it is obvious that they used wrong values for emissivity.
      They are assuming the radiation from the object is only due to thermal radiation from alumina at the emissivity of alumina. That internal glowing resistors are visible through the alumina in the picture demonstrates that this assumption is not valid. Alumina is not a black-body. Alumina is transparent to some of the radiation produced by the hot resistors. That radiation is radiated by the hot resistors, but they assume that all the radiation observed is only coming from the alumina (which has a lower emissivity). To get the amount of radiation from emitting alumina, the alumina has to be hotter, which is what they assume.
      It is exactly like “measuring” the temperature of a lightbulb by looking at how much radiation it emits, and then using the size and emissivity of the outer glass envelope as the radiating area. If you used this type of analysis on a light bulb, you would find that it emits many times more energy than you are putting into it.
      ...
      They never take the “dummy” reactor up to either the same temperature, or the same power density as they take the “active” reactor. If they did, then they could measure the emissivity of the alumina, instead of using a value from a table and assuming it applies.

      Radera
  20. The more I read about the setup, the more skeptical I become. It's not like the case where NASA was testing the new propulsion system where the inventor went "here are the blueprints, built it and test it any way you want". This is more like walking into a room where a magic show is being performed. Probably they have just managed to hide away some extra power input or something. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. what is the problem?
      or is it just a fuzzy claim to hid the void of serious critic?

      critic on the electricity are laughable.
      about IR cam the alumina transmissivity is finally negligible above 7um of wavelength, where the IR cam come, and as Jed noticed if that was the case the IR cam would find the bright zone hotter than the darker place on the tube.

      the rest is theory and have no value on experimental question.

      you follow the fallacy of early cold fusion cargo cult skeptics who interpret their ignorance in theory as an evidence of impossibility.

      if someone does not find that this sentence is shameful for any scientists
      "Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."

      he should change job.

      Radera
    2. First of all this is not my field so if you're looking for a rebuttal in forms of formulas or isotopes etc, I'm sorry but I'll have to disappoint you.

      I truly hope I would be shown wrong in this matter. If so I'll gladly show up to be mocked. I am also sure most of the scientific community would like to be proven wrong as it would revolutionize their fields.

      The problem I'm having is how the inventor approaches this whole thing. A person stumbles on an invention that would make him immortal in the history of humanity. What does he do? Show it to the world, let them try to understand it? Or does he stage demonstrations that only increase the skepticism and the risk that he will be forgotten even if he was right? Hell, if he's in it for the money, he would become a millionaire just from the Nobel prize, interviews and movie rights.

      So if I understand your claim correctly you say that if an expert in the field would be given the blueprints of the device and free hands to test it, it would function according to specifications?

      How about a friendly bet? If this (or a later version of his) can be proved working by the scientific community (suggest some definition on how this should be determined) by 31.12.2015 (OK with you?), I will post a video (once the date has been reached or upon reminded, once the claim has been proved/disproved) on YouTube where I publicly apologize to the inventor and you how short-sighted I was. Will you take the bet with an similar, appropriated video directed at the skeptics of the world and me? ;-)

      They laughed at the Wright brothers but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

      Radera
    3. Sooo, is the bet on? I'd love to be wrong - what is a small dose of humiliation for the possibility of unlimited clean energy for the children of the future?

      Radera
    4. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

      Radera
    5. Good one Nicklas! Transparency needed and I would join you for the video! My kids would love it (for at least two reasons :-)

      Radera
    6. Oops, just wanted to edit my post, and ended up deleting it! Must brush up on my Swedish :)

      What I was saying is that the spectral dependence of alumina emissivity will certainly overestimate the power out, even taking emissivity with temperature into account. As the IR cameras are only sensitive between 7.5-13 um, they can only directly measure power up to a few 100 C (Wien's law). At higher T, they have to extrapolate to shorter wavelength. As the spectral dependence of alumina shows it emits significantly below a BB at shorter wavelengths, then that extrapolation is wrong. Plugging in a greybody value will make it worse! This is because the calculation will then overestimate the temperature (as the emissivity at long wavelengths where the camera can sense is high), which would imply even more emission at shorter wavelength, not less. So this is even more wrong!

      Radera
    7. If think that the arguments by Stephan et al. about the very inconsistent modifications of the nuclear composition of the fuel with regard to the "ash" are very valid.

      For those who still believe that the heat is a clear proof, I want to question the employed methodology as some of the previous commenters already did.

      As mentioned previously, measuring the power only from this very indirect and model depending radiation and convection approach is not the optimal way since it is prone to a lot of systematic uncertainties.

      There are so-called high-temperature calorimeters which measure measure the heat flow directly in various ways and therefore this should be a prefered method providing more accurate values.

      Furthermore, a simple double-bind test should be done with a couple of loaded and dummy samples.
      As done in the medical sciences (or in particle physics aswell) neither the operator nor the Rossi himself must know whether the current sample in the test setup is now a loaded or a dummy one.
      a) After unblinding one should clearly see whether different heat production can be related to loaded and dummy samples in a consistent way.
      b) Half of the samples will then be tested in the calorimeter and opened afterwards and the others will be opened unburned. In case unburned loaded cylinders show different isotopic composition, already a manipulation can be assumed. On the other hand burned and unburned isotopic compositions should be different.

      If this test follows the true rules of a double-blind test then no one of us "narrow minded" scientist would doubt the positive results of this E-Cat.

      However, until now the tests were performed in a way where manipulation was possible.

      So why do the inventors of those "technologies" fear these kind of tests, while it could proof there claims for the complete scientific community?

      Radera
  21. probably they have just managed to hide away some extra power input or something

    There is no need for hidden sources when you could simply underestimate the normal input and make professors do their calculation over a mistake from start (remember Defkalion lesson? No extra sources, there, only a small mistake) - exactly as there is no need to put Ni62 in the ash at the end of game, it could have been always there, since the first day.

    Point however is, as Pomp already remembered, what is more likely to be happened: a big miracle or a small trick?

    In any case, I find amusing that a philosopher can give nuclear, physic and electrical lessons to everybody, European experts included. How lucky we are… :D

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. stop trying to defend what cannot be.
      the powermetter cannot be fooled easily, especially because Rossi never installed them.

      note also that since Industrial Heat clearly state that they build the reactor and send them to switzerland, you are accusing tom darden to be a fraudster too.

      you start to be ridiculous...

      note that you are a dead clock.
      on defkalion you have said that all was fraud, water, electricity, complicity of gamberale...

      in fact you were only true on the water and gamerae himself confirmed that the electricity was OK.

      you have no competence as your only answer is "fraud", to any question.

      that is the problem that beaudette raised, that deniers don't make science advance because their don't help to spot the fraud... their critics are emotional and not based on reality.

      the only serious critic was the question of alumina transparency, and it is solved by theory (alumina not transparent for the IR cam) and by measurement (IRcam don't see the bright zone as hotter).

      anyway GG don't understand that power meter can manage much more complex waveforms than triacs... it can fool a cargo cult skeptic, but not an electrician.

      the simple fact is that some people don't understand that if they cannot explain something immediately, it can anyway be real.

      if you are interested if theory, you can read the book of edmund Storms
      http://lenrexplained.com/

      you will understand that a theory is possible, and lenr is not incompatible with quantum physics... the QM of serious guys, like for semiconductors, superconductors, nanotech... not particle physics and the billiard vision.

      Radera
  22. "note that you are a dead clock."

    Already heard. Do not forget a dead clock is right twice a day. Better you believe me this time, as seats on lifeboat are limited by time...

    Nice you do remember the wrong one on Hyperion story was me, not you...
    :D
    I am sure you will soon say the same about E Cat.

    SvaraRadera
  23. I try to be openminded about the E-Cat despite that I fully agree with Stephan Pomp that the most realistic explanation for the E-Cat results, especially the isotope results, is deliberate fraud.

    However, I also agree with Rossi that a skilled "magician" that managed to give an illusion of such high anomalous heat generation for such a long time and fool so many competent and I hope very sceptical researchers, would not do such a stupid mistake to deliberately replace the fuel or ash with almost pure Ni-62. I therefore try to find a possible explanation that saves Rossis E-Cat. As so many others here I of course wish it is "fantastic but true"; it would be a revolution when it comes to energy production and it would open up a very exciting research field in nuclear physics.

    Rossi has stated in his patent application 15 december 2010 that Ni-62 is important for the reaction:


    http://www.google.com.au/patents/EP2259998A1?cl=en

    He writes: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having a mass number of 62, to allow it to transform into a stable copper isotope 62."

    Rossi now writes: "I HAVE NO DIFFICULTY TO SAY, AS I DID WHEN I DELIVERED IT, THAT I HAD TAKEN OFF FROM IT THE PARTS THAT I WANTED NOT TO DISCLOSE."

    Maybe Rossi did the same thing this time and that the "fuel" he presented to the experimenters was without the "secret catalyst" which may be enriched Ni-62 attached to e.g. the walls of the reactor, and that the small ash sample taken was by coincidence almost pure "catalyst".

    The same could of course happen if Rossi added the Ni-62 to the reactor not as a catalyst but to fool the researchers that an isotope shift occured. However, then one needs also to explain how Rossi made the very convincing illusion of anomalous heat production during 32 days.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. So Rossi _now_ admits to have tricked people earlier. Only to protect his interest. Well, what more of a confession do people need?
      What does this say about the relation he has to the people he want to test his apparatus?
      And why should he be trusted now?
      The whole story is really mind-boggling....

      Radera
  24. Note that this is not a pure Rossi Discovery. He build upon what was discovered by Professor Martin Fleischmann, Pons, Piantelli, Celani, Focardi, Mcubre and others, to engineer an improved version of the LENR effect. Rossi started his own research shortly after the Fleischmann and Pons announcement in 1989.

    There are other scientists that predates Rossi on gas loaded metals producing LENR. But Rossi have obivously discovered a component that enhance LENR above and beyond what others achieved.

    Nice to see that what started with Professor Martin Fleischmann and Pons in March in 1989, did not end with science saying NO by consensus and hand shaking. It has continued with small economic means, but it's time to step up and Solve the mystery. The SKINR Institute at the University of Missouri was formed a few years back to look into LENR. But more is needed to Solve one of the biggest mysteries of science. And the Nobel price is waiting....

    Therefore, Go for it ELFORSK !!

    SvaraRadera
  25. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

    SvaraRadera
  26. Stephan, may I ask what you have to say about this technology for transmuting particles that can be licensed from US Navy?

    Webpage:
    http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/pacific/techtransfer/productsservices/Pages/Technologies.aspx

    Technology:
    http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8419919.PN.&OS=PN/8419919&RS=PN/8419919


    Thanks / Dr Bob

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Exactly!

      Stephan Pomp & co have no knowledge of what has progressed within cold fusion and LENR science since the start in1989. They evaluate LENR within the thought processes of hot fusion. But LENR is not hot fusion. So what? If nature tells us that LENR may occur with the right conditions, are we not to investigating further? When experiemental result disagree with theory we have an interesting mystery to be solved. Most scientists will leave the problem concluding flawed experiement. That's what they did with Professors Martin Fleischmann and Pons in 1989.
      But when many later independently confirmed similar results, then what?

      I agree with Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT, who states;
      "we have experiments confirming the basic effect, we have experiments showing that energy is produced, that the energetic reaction products aren’t there, and the question is what to do about it. Actually, we should be very interested in these experiments. We should be interested, because we have experimental results which by now have been confirmed a great number of times. We learned about nature from doing experiments. So, here are experimental results. Can we, should we pay attention to them? Follow them up, see, where they lead? Today, sadly, the experiments in the cold fusion business are nor considered to be part of science. And that’s the resolution that we have come to as the scientific community. From my perspective, having been in labs, having seen the results, having talked to experimentalists, having looked at the data, having spent great time on it, it looks like pretty much these experiments are real. They need to be taken seriously."

      The science of LENR have continued with small recourses since 1989, but hopefully SKINR at the University of Missouri will find some clues to what is going on.

      Therefore: GO FOR IT ELFORSK!!!!

      Regards
      Lande

      Radera
    2. All I can say is what I have written above in the blog. It seems pretty obvious to me what is going on. If people again and again fall trickery and keep up their believe it is bad for science and critical thinking. That is why I get involved into this issue.

      Radera
    3. "It seems pretty obvious to me" - is not a scientific argument

      Radera
    4. Pomp, I know what you wrote, and I know what you believe. But believing you can do in Church, not here.

      We want facts. ELFORSK suggested LENR research, and did not mention Specifically e-cat as the focus for further investigating. They don't need Rossi to do LENR research. They can go to another LENR researcher to do that. Like Dr. Mitchell Swartz as just one candidate.

      The original Discovery was made by Professor Martin Fleischmann and Pons. Other added to the Discovery like Piantelli, Celani, Focardi, Mcubre and many more. Rossi claims he started his research shortly after Fleischmann announcement in 1989, so he has been at it for 25 years.

      There are other scientists that predates Rossi on gas loaded metals producing LENR. But Rossi have obivously discovered a component that enhance LENR above and beyond what others achieved.

      ELFORSK don't need to research more on the E-cat as such.

      What ELFORSK need to do is to do research on LENR on broader terms. Others have also achieved Excess heat phenomenon on LENR based systems. Japanese, Italian, American and researchers from other countries.

      So start with the reports from the LENR science community (Celani, Piantelli, Mckubre, Miles, Peterson, Hagelstein, Swartz...there a hundreds of physisicts and chemists that have done research on this issue)

      One recent candidate could be Dr Mitchell Swartz and his Nanor using preloaded nanocomposite ZrO2-PdNiD producing LENR based excess heat. An open demonstration was shown at MIT in 2012.

      Swartz and Hagelstein is at least physicists that may shed some light on what is going on if they had enough resources to do adequate research.

      And that's the issue; more money is needed to do good research to find out what is happening in these deuterium loaded metals.

      Nice to see that what started with Professor Martin Fleischmann and Pons in March in 1989, did not end with science saying NO by consensus and hand shaking. It has continued with small economic means, but it's time to step up and Solve the mystery. The SKINR Institute at the University of Missouri was formed a few years back to look into LENR. But more is needed to Solve one of the biggest mysteries of science. And the Nobel price is waiting....

      Therefore, Go for it ELFORSK !!

      Radera
    5. Well, maybe you should try to understand a bit on nuclear physics. To say it once more (and again and again ..) it is simply NOT POSSIBLE that a claimed new reaction (LENR or whatever) disables all other previously known nuclear reactions! These reactions (like the capture reaction) are known since a long time! This is one of the reasons why you can simple transform in a nuclear reaction a complete gram of natural nickel powder into a sample of pure Ni-62!
      Please understand: even if there were a new type of previously unknown nuclear reaction our, if you like, "old knowledge" is still there. That is what is meant by stating (in a rhetorical way) one would have to re-write all nuclear physics textbooks.
      Hence the only (!) reasonable (!) explanation for the reported results is that someone has fiddled with the "fuel" sample. Either after or even already at the insertion ...
      And note: Rossi now even admits/claims he has done something like that earlier ... Strange that noone really reacts to this surprising (?) confession.

      Radera
    6. This will not change the books , it will just ad a chapter on multi-body reaction...
      like Ohm law was corrected by observation of superconductivity, then BCS, then by observation hidden in footnotes in papers, then after much hidden work where replication was hard, shared and replicated with an easier material...

      don't panic physics laws are not broken.
      http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf
      http://lenrexplained.com/

      you know LASER... it is impossible at first sight.

      Radera
    7. oops I forgot to say I talk of HTSC
      http://www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org/pdf/m18_03_87_04.pdf

      Radera
    8. Wow .. so you really can reconcile these extreme new fidnings, Alain?
      And it doesn't bother you that there was a change from no effect on the isotopes (2011) to a _complete_ change in 2014? My take on this is that Mr. Rossi gradually learns from the critique he is receiving. First there was Cu in there and no other changes in the isotopic composition (and no radioactivity) and critiques complain. Now there is a complete change and critiques complain again. Rossi will learn that he went to far to the other extreme.
      So my guess: the next test (in 2015 or 2016 ...) will produce a slight change in the isotopic composition and there will be some residual radioactivity ...
      And then you will say: See! We knew it! Now it works! :-)

      Radera
    9. drboblog.com13 oktober 2014 22:09
      "It seems pretty obvious to me" - is not a scientific argument
      It is part of the scientific process to critically judge the trustworthyness of the source.

      Radera
    10. Dear Stephan,

      You assume too much ;-)

      Which part of the "mystery" word I used did you not understand? But let me make it very clear then, or using your own words - "let me try once more":
      I am fully aware that cold fusion / LENR is IMPOSSIBLE and just CAN NOT HAPPEN within the framework of our 100 previous years of nuclear science. And I do not need to explain why to you.

      And when Nature teases us and say "see what I can do", we should of course close our eyes for the evidence and protect our paradigm we live inside.

      Let me assure you: Present Nuclear science theory have proven its success. We should therefore invent LENR theories that fit within the present framework. Likely result is a new branch of nuclear reactions that must be added to the present knowledge, that occur ONLY at very certain conditions in or on the surface of lattices.

      Then, What theories could be invented?
      Professor Peter Hagelstein at MIT have been chewing on one candidate since 1989 - "Spin-Boson oscillator theory".
      Molecular D2 and nuclear lattice-based He4 form two-level systems that contain large transition energy. They become coupled with other D2-He4 systems via resonant phonon excitations (aka low-energy harmonic oscillators) throughout the lattice (aka Spin-Boson Model). Phonon modes are initiated by flux through the near-surface of the cathode. Increased phonon excitation and energy transfer rate is achieved by reduction of interference augmented through a "loss process". This rapid, distributed, small energy quanta exchange is what allows for D-D fusion to occur at lattice sites without correlated radiative effects

      But another one that has become popular is the Widom Larsen theory. Which proposes that "heavy electrons" formed at the surface of palladium hydride react with a proton in the palladium nucleus in an inverse beta decay process (e- + p+ -> n + neutrino). The required electron mass enhancement is proposed to be the result of very high electromagnetic fields produced by surface plasmon polariton resonance. The neutron produced would have "ultra low momentum," and thus very high capture cross-section. These neutrons can then cause transmutation and energy release.

      NASA is now looking into the Widom-Larsen theory at their Langley research center.

      And there are dusins of other candidate theories.

      And again: Rossi did not invent anything from scratch here. He is standing on the shoulder of giants that boldly went where others didn't.

      At the moment we have two paradigms; The mainstream science protecting their precious house of nuclear science, and a growing number of bold scientists that look at the evidence and try figure out the house (theory) of the competing paradigm, that will eventually take over, and WILL INCLUDE all "old knowledge".

      You being an experimental phycisist should be able to relate to Dr. Mitchell Swartz, also an experimental physisist. He has worked together with Hagelstein and produced a number of papers on the issue. Study them and try to learn something new and exciting ;-)

      Radera
    11. I assume to much? The whole (!) problem in this issue is actually that E-Cat lovers assume too much! And I talk about E-Cat here, not LENR!
      What is it that is assumed? Simply one thing: that Rossi is completely trustworthy and is playing by the same rules as scientists. Well ...

      Radera
    12. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

      Radera
    13. Dear Stephan,

      My comment is related to ELFORSK wanting to do LENR research. They do not mention E-cat as a focus for further research in their press release “Nu går vi vidare med forskning om LENR” . They can easily free themselves from Rossi and continue with some of the many other scientists, like Mitchell Swartz and Peter Hagelstein I mentioned. We need more basic LENR research, and I am sure Hagelstein have many proposals of research that can be done.

      Rossi is an inventor and engineer, not a phycisist. We need more physicists onboard.

      And wrt assumptions
      - You said “try to learn a little about physics”. So you assume I did not know the success story of our present paradigm of physics.
      - You said LENR will “disable all previous knowledge”. So you assume no new theory can be found that embrace old and new knowledge. That’s a BIG assumption

      Having seen so many reports on transmutation, transmutations is at least part of the LENR picture. The Japanese have done their own research, both Toyota and Mitsubishi. One paper example (from American Nuclear Society, Vol 107): http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ANS2012W/2012Iwamura-ANS-LENR-Paper.pdf

      Radera
  27. "AS THESE SCIENTISTS CORRECTLY SAY, I SUPPLIED THOSE SAMPLES, IN 2011 (TO PROF. SVEN KULLANDER), AND I GAVE A SAMPLE FROM WHICH THE COMPONENTS, THAT AT THOSE TIMES WERE NOT DISCLOSABLE, HAD BEEN EXTRACTED, BECAUSE NOT YET PATENTED. I CLEARLY WARNED PROF. KULLANDER OF THAT. SO WE ALL KNEW THAT TOSE ANALYSIS COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS COMPLETE, BUT JUST AS A FIRST APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM. THE COPPER FOUND WAS PROBABLY AN IMPURITY AND I MADE CLEAR THIS SUSPECT OF MINE . IN THAT CASE THE SAMPLE HAD NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM A REACTOR BY A THIRD PARTY AND I HAVE NO DIFFICULTY TO SAY, AS I DID WHEN I DELIVERED IT, THAT I HAD TAKEN OFF FROM IT THE PARTS THAT I WANTED NOT TO DISCLOSE.

    ANDREA ROSSI"

    hmm ... what more needs to be said?

    SvaraRadera
  28. Stephan Pomp:


    Levi et al. draw the conclusion that “nuclear reactions have taken place” and that one “can speculate about the nature of such reactions.” However, they “refrain from such discussions.” While the latter seems wise it is totally inexplicable to me, how the authors cannot see the most obvious and by far most likely conclusion of the fuel analysis; that they simply have been fooled. Just realize that obtaining an enriched Li-6 or Ni-62 sample is not too difficult (see, e.g., here, here and here). And yes, the available enrichments in Li-6 do match what is reported …
     
    So for my part the Cat is dead. How others accomplish not to see and obviously are able to keep the Cat alive in their wishful thinking, that is the real mystery.


    After 23 hours’
    operation, the
    dummy reactor was switched off
    and disconnected from
    the power cables
    To allow for one of the caps to be opened and the powder to be inserted.
    The powder had been previously placed in a small envelope.

    May be some one put a Rossi Mix of pre determined residuals at this stage......

    Bengt Sundlöf

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. and the motive?

      and the heat...

      oh you don't trust heat... maybe you don't trust the laws of thermodynamic... or you don't master it enough compared to the 2-body free space laws of billiard.

      Marie Curie did trust it for radium.

      Sorry but as my domain of competence include semiconductors, seeing people baffled for QM inside a lattice is not a surprise.
      Seeing people absolutely deluded and sure of their own competence while clearly wrong, is also in my domain of expertise...
      Just see Enron, IMF facing Roubini...

      http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf

      so funny...

      "color blind in a sea of red flags..."

      and it is so frequent in science... and so quickly erased...
      I am baffled by the mass of scientist who don't know the real history of transistor, fission, HTSC, DNA,quasicristal...
      and that this rewriting is documented by Kuhn...

      I was too optimistic, like for Wright brother planes, it will never be accepted by academic until it is commercial...
      pigs will take plane before.

      Radera
    2. You keep repeating yourself and I can't but repeat my arguments....
      What about the heat? Well what about it? If I can, based on the reported extreme and radiation-free isotopic changes that contradict (!) nuclear physics knowledge (not add but contradict!) draw the conclusion that something fiushy is going on then I do not need to try to read the 25 pages of uninteresting information about the strange method of using a camera (why would you do tahat?) to find out if more is coming out then in. There are many ways one can go wrong here and many option for trickery (also here). Many options about the later have been pointed out by others that are more knowledgeable in this issues than I will ever be.
      What I know is al lot (but by far not all!) on how nuclear physics works. And to say it again: the reported results would not mean that one adds knowledge, they contradict the research results of the past 100 years. E.g. what we now about induced radioactivity, the capture reaction, the neutron balance etc etc. Please read some nuclear physics 101 and understand!

      Radera
  29. Dear Stephan,

    Let me give you another example of nature is telling us "look at what I can do", and "Now you tell me how I do it!"

    And you may answer, " No, I don't have to look at this. It's not according to present theory, so it must be wrong - a measurement error - a magic trick... - by someone....Aliens maybe?”

    And my example here is gamma rays inside our own atmosphere.

    Theoretically speaking, ordinary lightning should be at least an order of magnitude too weak to produce a gamma ray burst

    And - surprise, surprise - something associated with supernova and solar flares taking place in a COLD atmosphere.

    About 500 of the 4.3 million daily lightning strokes have an associated terrestrial gamma-ray flash.

    That is 1 out of 8600 lightning strokes, what a joke of “repeatability”!

    (And by the way, this is far worse than the F&P repeatability. They achieved heat bursts in some 1 of 8 electrolytic cells in 1989, without knowing most of the required conditions)

    You get antimatter created in the Earth's atmosphere during this interaction, you get energetic neutrons that basically you never see in the quiet atmosphere, that you only associate with nuclear reactions, that are happening in our atmosphere whenever these things go off. That's one of the first fundamental science reasons to study this phenomenon; we don't understand it; we want to understand it.

    And the last sentence above is just what Martin Fleischmann said of their “cold fusion” experiments.

    And there you have it. Something nuclear we DON'T understand - at the moment.
    Probably it's these FU#%&*NG! alien tourists again. The interstellar traffic laws say very specifically they're not supposed to come out of dimensional jumps anywhere near Earth atmosphere. But you try enforcing traffic laws on damned interstellar tourists putting about in their singularity drive Recreational Vehicles ;-)

    Regards
    Lande

    SvaraRadera
  30. I think the scientific community would be all over the e-cat trying to understand how it works *if they would be allowed to*. Do you seriously think everybody would go "can't work, won't even bother testing it" if they would be given free hands?

    SvaraRadera
  31. By the way: even an ex(?) hoper found something wrong inside lies of TPR2

    SvaraRadera
  32. ...And for those unable to understand what it means, the author explains it here

    SvaraRadera