Ethan Siegel on Why he Thinks Lugano test is Suspect

Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel has published an article on the Medium.com web site titled “The E-cat: cold fusion or scientific fraud?” in which he give his own critique of the Lugano test report, and comes to his own conclusions about the validity of the test, and the E-Cat itself.

Siegel is upfront about the fact that he is suspicious of the results of this test, and is clearly trying to caution his readers regarding taking the E-Cat report at face value. He warns them not to be the “mark” — i.e. the ones to fall for the trickery of a charlatan. In his conclusion he writes:

I don’t want any of you to be the “mark”, fleeced out of your money by a charlatan, and so in the absence of anyone else exposing Rossi, I will stand up as “the one to knock ‘em”, meaning I will hold up the torch of what scrupulous science would look like, and challenge the participants to live up to it.

He sums up his suspicions about the test with five major objections

1. The E-Cat was plugged into an external power source throughout the test. That would be necessary to verify that the E-Cat was producing its own energy.
2. The test used an ‘open’ rather than a ‘closed’ calorimetry measurement system, leaving heat measurements questionable.
3. No gamma radiation was measured coming from the E-Cat, which would be expected if a nuclear reaction was taking place.
4. If nuclear fusion of nickel is occurring, there is no copper reported in the ash, which should be expected according to known reactions.
5. The test was not independent. Rossi participated, and the team was known to him, and friendly.

Ethan Siegel posted an article on the science blog following the first independent test, and his response was widely circulated. Siegel is seen as quite an expert when it comes to physics, especially astrophysics, and his thoughts here I think will carry some weight with his readers.

Siegel is not willing to take the report at face value, and he is urging that we should not either. In order to reject the paper, we have to believe that it was a deliberate attempt at smoke and mirrors — and that Rossi was somehow involved in some kind of sleight of hand in tampering with the powder.

As we know, this is not an untypical response when it comes to things connected with the E–Cat. The fraud label, I think, will be around for a while. It’s a comfortable belief for those who are not able to accept that something like the E-Cat could be possible. And some people do have genuine concerns and questions regarding this and other tests. For now the mystery of the E-Cat is still unresolved for many and more information will need to be forthcoming for widespread acceptance to take place.

  • Hi all

    Let Ethan Siegel put or shut up, and offer to conduct the tests himself.

  • Hi all

    Let Ethan Siegel put or shut up, and offer to conduct the tests himself.

    I threw down the Gauntlet in reply on The Medium site.

    Put or Shut up Ethan Siegel!
    Prove you are not a scientific fraud Ethan Siegel. Offer to Industrial Heat to be a part of the team that verifies whether the E-Cat works.

  • JM

    The ITP report, and any other tests, reports will be critized, using more or less valid arguments, until the ecat can be replicated and the theory behind it explained.
    I trust more in the customer test(s) but the longer it takes to showcase them the more it seem that the ecat is not yet an economical alternative.

  • JM

    The ITP report, and any other tests, reports will be critized, using more or less valid arguments, until the ecat can be replicated and the theory behind it explained.
    I trust more in the customer test(s) but the longer it takes to showcase them the more it seem that the ecat is not yet an economical alternative.

  • timycelyn

    That’s the best he can do? None of this is exactly news, and I find myself totally underwhelmed by his input. Going down the points in order:

    1. Oh, not this hoary old chestnut again! That power feed has been analysed to death, and I’m afraid I’m highly sceptcal of magical sleight of hand here, time after time, demo after demo, and never caught out by those on site (as opposed to the ‘Experts’ in the comfort of their remote armchairs).

    2. OK, out of my depth on this one other than to note there was a lot of griping on this issue in the past, and as I understand it a lot of effort has gone inot getting this as accurate as possible. It confirms my suspicion he has done the usual sceptics ‘Superfical scan and fire’ type thing, rather than thinking seriously about it and going into the detail.

    3. These have been found in burts in the past, IIRC, just not in these tests as the reactor was underdriven.

    4. I get the impression that even Rossi struggles to keep up with the theory of what might be in the ash – hence his surprise about the nickel isotope changes – so why this character seems to think he has this all worked out and it cannot be possible without copper formation is a little unclear to me. Is he still stuck in 2010?

    5. OK, at this point I really lose patience with him. This is a circular argument – until the IP issue is resolved IH cannot give them a full blueprint of the cells and a full DIY – Coldfusionists Manual. He has to be there at some level.

    This guy is out and out implying that either:

    A) Rossi and the Profs colluded in a completely fabricated trial or
    B) The profs were so incompetent they let him do a Marvo the Magician thing on them with the ash, whilst they were bumbling around failing to take readings correctly.

    I’m sorry, I don’t buy this at all. I find it much more likely that:

    1. This is a real effect, and these results are largely correct.
    2. That a wrinkle – rather than a whole breast bashing and textbook tearing – in the area where chemistry and physics meet will in time be understood to underly this new area of LENR. (I think the Fusion word causes too much tunnel vision and gas-phase thinking.)
    3. That this is more priesthood thinking going on…. another recruit to the ‘Order of No’.

    ps Schoolboy moment: When I hear ‘Expert’ in this context I am forced to think of an old UK joke: Expert – pronounced Ex-spurt. ‘Ex’ is something that has been and ‘spurt’ is a drip under pressure. Sums these guys up nicely.

    Tim

    • jousterusa

      I realized reading this post and the earlier ones that the five scientists who conducted this validation study were very, very brave men who probably knew they would be attacked throughout the world for their work. It took a lot of real courage, and they should be honored everywhere for it.

  • timycelyn

    That’s the best he can do? None of this is exactly news, and I find myself totally underwhelmed by his input. Going down the points in order:

    1. Oh, not this hoary old chestnut again! That power feed has been analysed to death, and I’m afraid I’m highly sceptcal of magical sleight of hand here, time after time, demo after demo, and never caught out by those on site (as opposed to the ‘Experts’ in the comfort of their remote armchairs).

    2. OK, out of my depth on this one other than to note there was a lot of griping on this issue in the past, and as I understand it a lot of effort has gone inot getting this as accurate as possible. It confirms my suspicion he has done the usual sceptics ‘Superfical scan and fire’ type thing, rather than thinking seriously about it and going into the detail.

    3. These have been found in burts in the past, IIRC, just not in these tests as the reactor was underdriven.

    4. I get the impression that even Rossi struggles to keep up with the theory of what might be in the ash – hence his surprise about the nickel isotope changes – so why this character seems to think he has this all worked out and it cannot be possible without copper formation is a little unclear to me. Is he still stuck in 2010?

    5. OK, at this point I really lose patience with him. This is a circular argument – until the IP issue is resolved IH cannot give them a full blueprint of the cells and a full DIY – Coldfusionists Manual. He has to be there at some level.

    This guy is out and out implying that either:

    A) Rossi and the Profs colluded in a completely fabricated trial or
    B) The profs were so incompetent they let him do a Marvo the Magician thing on them with the ash, whilst they were bumbling around failing to take readings correctly.

    I’m sorry, I don’t buy this at all. I find it much more likely that:

    1. This is a real effect, and these results are largely correct.
    2. That a wrinkle – rather than a whole breast bashing and textbook tearing – in the area where chemistry and physics meet will in time be understood to underly this new area of LENR. (I think the Fusion word causes too much tunnel vision and gas-phase thinking.)
    3. That this is more priesthood thinking going on…. another recruit to the ‘Order of No’.

    ps Schoolboy moment: When I hear ‘Expert’ in this context I am forced to think of an old UK joke: Expert – pronounced Ex-spurt. ‘Ex’ is something that has been and ‘spurt’ is a drip under pressure. Sums these guys up nicely.

    Tim

    • mike

      on #4, I remember Rossi saying about copper, and others, multiple others. I was anxious specifically about that copper transmutation. You know, I think gold is 2 electrons short of lead, so I was let down when I saw no copper in there. But I am also thinking that Mr Rossi knows what is different about these reactors the testers used. Or if he doesn’t, he had better figure it out, because if it isn’t the same on all reactors, it can’t be used, no?

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        We have so little information. For all we know, Rossi may have altered the fuel slightly to not reveal his most guarded secret. The reactor may still have been functional, but not optimal with sub-optimal fuel. I don’t think he did that; we just don’t know.

    • jousterusa

      I realized reading this post and the earlier ones that the five scientists who conducted this validation study were very, very brave men who probably knew they would be attacked throughout the world for their work. It took a lot of real courage, and they should be honored everywhere for it.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    In 1931 hydrogen was fused with lithium. No gamma rays were formed. Were Cockcroft and Walton frauds?

    Li(7) + H(1) > 2He(4) 17.3 MeV

    • Mike

      Not only that he said they knew rossi and they were friendly towards him. What about those fusion leeches. They have friends in all of science, why no conflict with them? And the funding is for millions of tax payer money. So anyone who likes them is a liar? Why do people who want to solve the worlds energy problems with private money get so much grief from the people with no answers to our energy problem? Not only that, anyone in the present energy field or study have a DIRECT conflict of interest and should be suspect. We should give bios of every critic to this technology and show them for the rats they really are. Hope you approve my post Frank, that the calmest I can be. 🙂

  • Alan DeAngelis

    In 1931 hydrogen was fused with lithium. No gamma rays were formed. Were Cockcroft and Walton frauds?

    Li(7) + H(1) > 2He(4) 17.3 MeV

    • Mike

      Not only that he said they knew rossi and they were friendly towards him. What about those fusion leeches. They have friends in all of science, why no conflict with them? And the funding is for millions of tax payer money. So anyone who likes them is a liar? Why do people who want to solve the worlds energy problems with private money get so much grief from the people with no answers to our energy problem? Not only that, anyone in the present energy field or study have a DIRECT conflict of interest and should be suspect. We should give bios of every critic to this technology and show them for the rats they really are. Hope you approve my post Frank, that the calmest I can be. 🙂

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Oh what bravery. Does he have the courage to address the issues Eugene Mallove brought up?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y98YwJ2GEE

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Oh what bravery. Does he have the courage to address the issues Eugene Mallove brought up?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y98YwJ2GEE

  • bob

    Great post re Cockcroft and Walton does this mean alpha particles would be detected can our astrophysicist enlighten us on the lack of li7 in the universe

  • Dave Lawton

    Never heard of this guy.He is most likely trying to make a name for himself.The physicist`s whom I worked with in the past would not bother theselves with these kind of attacks they just get on with their own reseach.I suggest he does the same.Also one must remember like myself Andrea Rossi is a engineer and sadly it hacks off some academics.

  • nickec

    No disrespect meant toward Mr. Siegel, however, how many reactors of similar configuration has he personally designed, constructed and thoroughly investigated in a lab setting?

    Before giving weight to his opinion it seems prudent to measure his experience rather than his credentials and notoriety. I freely admit that credentials and fame form part of a person’s experience, yet I still see a need to know about hardware hands-on track record.

  • peter gluck
  • fritz194

    Too much fun.
    Its a pleasure watching people ride dead horses. Especially if its a Schroedinger horse.

  • fritz194

    Too much fun.
    Its a pleasure watching people ride dead horses. Especially if its a Schroedinger horse.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Dear Mr. Siegel

    1. The E-Cat was plugged into an external power source throughout the test. That would be necessary to verify that the E-Cat was producing its own energy.

    Response: If you test a light bulb, you also plug it in. Failing to do so would invalidate the test.

    2. The test used an ‘open’ rather than a ‘closed’ calorimetry measurement system, leaving heat measurements questionable.

    Response: All methods of measurement have their parameters. This method is well known and accepted, the margins of error are calculable.

    3. No gamma radiation was measured coming from the E-Cat, which would be expected if a nuclear reaction was taking place.

    Response: When you have no theory to explain a reaction, what do you base any expectation upon?

    4. If nuclear fusion of nickel is occurring, there is no copper reported in the ash, which should be expected according to know reactions.

    Response: What accepted and comparable cold fusion reactions are you comparing this to?

    5. The test was not independent. Rossi participated, and the team was known to him, and friendly.

    Response: You seem to be suggesting that the testing team must be made up of hostile strangers. What methodology requires that? I would like to read the manual.

  • Sanjeev

    He seems to be almost 25 years behind an average ECW reader when it comes to the knowledge of LENR. He is stuck in a hot fusion text book written hundred years ago and it seems has never touched a modern lenr paper till date.

    May be he should restrict himself to astrophysics, a very interesting field indeed, because you can make up things like big bang and dark matter without taking the pain of experiments to actually prove them.

    He is assuming the role of a hero by “protecting” the innocent people from the bad science, but can’t actually find any evidence of even a penny that was stolen by cold fusion researchers. Perhaps he should look towards military and hot fusion, he may find a few pennies there.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      A lot of physicists are stuck in solving the LENR problem with hot fusion knowledge. That is simply not possible as all observations of the effect collide with the hot fusion solution. They seem stuck in trying to explain the effect from theory, where they should explain the effect from observation.

      Edmund Storms latest book describes the right approach beautifully “The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: An Examination of the Relationship Between Observation and Explanation”
      (http://coldfusionnow.org/store/newbooks/)

  • Sanjeev

    He seems to be almost 25 years behind an average ECW reader when it comes to the knowledge of LENR. He is stuck in a hot fusion text book written hundred years ago and it seems has never touched a modern lenr paper till date.

    May be he should restrict himself to astrophysics, a very interesting field indeed, because you can make up things like big bang and dark matter without taking the pain of experiments to actually prove them.

    He is assuming the role of a hero by “protecting” the innocent people from the bad science, but can’t actually find any evidence of even a penny that was stolen by cold fusion researchers. Perhaps he should look towards military and hot fusion, he may find a few pennies there.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      A lot of physicists are stuck in solving the LENR problem with hot fusion knowledge. That is simply not possible as all observations of the effect collide with the hot fusion solution. They seem stuck in trying to explain the effect from theory, where they should explain the effect from observation.

      Edmund Storms latest book describes the right approach beautifully “The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: An Examination of the Relationship Between Observation and Explanation”
      (http://coldfusionnow.org/store/newbooks/)

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    For what it’s worth: I don’t think Siegels arguments are the strongest. Argument 1 about the power has been done to death; I personally don’t believe the professors made a mistake though they were possibly careless with the photo of the PCE830. Actually, only argument 2 makes some sense as a critique of the report. Argument 3 and 4 are based on current knowledge about hot fusion, though we don’t know what the LENR process is exactly. Therefore you cannot predict with certainty what should have happened until you understand the process. Also, gamma may well have been produced, but only in the reactor; not outside. I do not think they measured radiation inside the reactor. I don’t even wanna go into argument 5.

    I fear we will keep on hearing these attacks from more or less known and
    more or less competent experts until there is a real reactor. Rossi has
    it right when he states that only a working selling reactor can
    convince the skeptics of the truth. I only hope a working reactor finds
    it’s way to the public sooner rather than later. MFMP may be the faster way to
    go so my hopes ride with them for the moment. Imagine them having
    success in say a month 🙂 Now that would make life interesting…

    • not only they cannot have made that mistake without noticing, but Rossi could not expect that to happen, and would not have launched an independent test if he had nothing.

      this theory is full bunk

    • Pipmon

      By saying that your hopes lie with MFMP replicating Rossi’s results. i.e. in a truly independent fashion (my words) then you are simply acknowledging what any reasonable scientist demands: proof by replication. And until then nothing is proven incontrovertibly.

      By the way I find it strange that you don’t want to approach criticism #5, because after all it really goes into the crux of the matter. It would be proof definitive if not falsified, and that non-falsification is in doubt exactly because Rossi was very prominent in that stage of the demonstration. So why not examine why in heaven’s name they let that happen?

      And by the way, the side hurling the most ad hominems is usually the one in the wrong, or at least grasping at straws. Right now I’d say it’s pretty clear which side that is.

  • Mark Szl

    He is not an expert in these measures. He gives no evidence to his fraud theory. His criticisms of the test are lame at best. Fred Flintstone or Barney Rubble could have done a better job.

    • conspiracy theory, but as you see with Truthers and with MH17 anti russian theory, it works even at the highest level when it support attack on someone you hate above all.

      the test is dead for academic, media and masses … only industrials en engineers can accept it, but they were aware of that since long. I’m sad

      • DB

        Cold Fusion is being held to unreasonable standards
        I am not speaking about one test specifically but the whole area in general

        Whenever anyone claims Cold Fusion to be real then that person becomes either incompetent, delusional or trying to make a quick buck.

        A good example is that of Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist of NASA
        Bring him up and they`ll say:”Dennis never said that”
        Provide Dennis “said that” and they`ll say that NASA is not about real science- its just about proving that space aliens are real on the cost of tax payers.

        Ethan does not apply the standards of his own area of science on Cold Fusion because he does not believe in Cold Fusion.
        “When we have the observations your theory does not really matter”

        Stephan Pomp – for example was invited to participated with the testings to see that everything was made according to the book but he turned that offer down because:

        A: Its inconvenient for him if it turned out Cold Fusion was true
        B: He would look like an idiot if he signed under a paper for Cold Fusion

        There is not really a carrot for Ethan nor Stephan at this point so maybe just better to move along with REAL SCIENCE without them

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    We have so little information. For all we know, Rossi may have altered the fuel slightly to not reveal his most guarded secret. The reactor may still have been functional, but not optimal with sub-optimal fuel. I don’t think he did that; we just don’t know.

  • Gerrit

    Is there something interesting at all in his piece, because I am not going to waste my time reading the whole thing after he writes “3. Successful detection of gamma-rays coming from the device, a telltale signal that’s a by-product of all known nuclear reactions.”

    “all known” as in “this is impossible, because we know it’s impossible”

  • Sandy

    Rossi participated in the E-Cat test knowing that if he did so people would scream “fraud; fraud; fraud; fraud” ad infinitum. The people who are screaming “fraud” are doing Rossi (and Industrial Heat) a big favor. The screams of “fraud” will deter potential competitors from entering the LENR technologies industry and that result will work to the advantage of Industrial Heat.

    • Philip James

      Interesting idea…

    • IH’s lack of official comment, and Darden’s downplaying of their interest seem to confirm that the renewed spasm of ritual abuse from skeptics is not of any concern to them. It may even be welcome for the reasons you suggest. Certainly, publicity resulting in increased general awareness wouldn’t serve any useful purpose for IH just now.

      As far as the investigating team is concerned, I feel sympathy for their position, but I imagine that it was not unexpected. I predict that more detailed papers are yet to come from these scientists, which may even address some of the vulnerabilities in the current paper that closed-minded scientists like Siegel are exploiting – but probably only after the pilot plant and 6 months worth of operational data are unveiled.

  • Freethinker

    There are many good comments on Siegels piece, but I cannot help myself.

    I feel the need to write one too 🙂 So sorry for any repetition.

    It is the same kind of stuff we saw from Siegel after the previous report and the different demos that was made by Rossi. He does not really serve up any real criticism on the test, but rather a chain of conjectures and some unrelated odd bits from elsewhere that to him tell a tale.

    Simply by starting the piece with the quote
    “There’s a mark born every minute, and one to trim ‘em and one to knock ‘em.”

    he set the frame, that here we go again with these fraudsters, and now I’m gonna show you all how he did it. Well he does not really show anything.

    Further, one can read,
    “One of the reasons behavior like this is so prevalent is that even the most scientifically literate among us — even those of us who are scientists ourselves — often don’t recognize what differentiates solid, valid science (and scientific conclusions) from studies that are biased,
    incomplete or wholly invalid.”

    So what he means that some scientists are more equal than others – likely he counts himself to the
    part that is the more equal – and basically he say that science that ECAT in the extension depends on is LENR, is biased, incomplete of wholly invalid. Well no surprise here Ethan Siegel, physicist extraordinaire, more equal than others. You have no clue at all.

    He also states
    “But the onus is not on me to prove fraud; the onus is on the device and those performing the test to rule out that fraud is happening. And that is clearly not the case. ”

    That is a commonly used argument used by skeptics, and essentially they are right. But, as the report has taken a number of steps to secure viable data out to be analyzed, it is up to those criticizing their methodology to also point out what is considered wrong and how that would effect the result. If they fail, the result stands.

    Siegel is not really doing that, but he manages in several places project that this is fake and a fraud. Especially amusing is the completely out of context picture of the Piltdown Man session in the Geographic Society 1953.

    This is simply the same-old-same hit piece. In the grander scope of things, LENR especially, Ethan Siegel is a nobody, nothing more than a fly in the soup.

    • jousterusa

      I think the last laugh is going to belong to the Chinese. As their production facilities ramp up and begin to provide cheap heat and perhaps electricity from thermal converters to factories across China, and the cost of production sinks quickly as a result, we’ll still be arguing about whether the anomalous heat effect is real. They will make it available around the world while the US economy suffers as a result.

    • LCD

      Yeah Freethinker they justify this by reasoning that if they actually provided unbiased feedback it would be an endorsement to the “obvious” fraud.

      You found some good comments on Siegel’s piece?

  • Freethinker

    There are many good comments on Siegels piece, but I cannot help myself.

    I feel the need to write one too 🙂 So sorry for any repetition.

    It is the same kind of stuff we saw from Siegel after the previous report and the different demos that was made by Rossi. He does not really serve up any real criticism on the test, but rather a chain of conjectures and some unrelated odd bits from elsewhere that to him tell a tale.

    Simply by starting the piece with the quote
    “There’s a mark born every minute, and one to trim ‘em and one to knock ‘em.”

    he set the frame, that here we go again with these fraudsters, and now I’m gonna show you all how he did it. Well he does not really show anything.

    Further, one can read,
    “One of the reasons behavior like this is so prevalent is that even the most scientifically literate among us — even those of us who are scientists ourselves — often don’t recognize what differentiates solid, valid science (and scientific conclusions) from studies that are biased,
    incomplete or wholly invalid.”

    So what he means that some scientists are more equal than others – likely he counts himself to the part that is the more equal – and basically he says that science in the ECAT, in the extension depending on LENR, is biased, incomplete of wholly invalid. Well no surprise here Ethan Siegel, physicist extraordinaire, more equal than others. You have no clue at all.

    He also states
    “But the onus is not on me to prove fraud; the onus is on the device and those performing the test to rule out that fraud is happening. And that is clearly not the case. ”

    That is a commonly used argument used by skeptics, and essentially they are right. But, as the report has taken a number of steps to secure viable data out to be analyzed, it is up to those criticizing their methodology to also point out what is considered wrong and how that would effect the result. If they fail, the result stands.

    Siegel is not really doing that, but he manages in several places project that this is fake and a fraud. Especially amusing is the completely out of context picture of the Piltdown Man session in the Geographic Society 1953.

    This is simply the same-old-same hit piece. In the grander scope of things, LENR especially, Ethan Siegel is a nobody, nothing more than a fly in the soup.

    • jousterusa

      I think the last laugh is going to belong to the Chinese. As their production facilities ramp up and begin to provide cheap heat and perhaps electricity from thermal converters to factories across China, and the cost of production sinks quickly as a result, we’ll still be arguing about whether the anomalous heat effect is real. They will make it available around the world while the US economy suffers as a result.

    • LCD

      Yeah Freethinker they justify this by reasoning that if they actually provided unbiased feedback it would be an endorsement to the “obvious” fraud.

      You found some good comments on Siegel’s piece?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Does he have any thoughts about the Mitsubishi transmutations that he’d like to share with the world?
    http://coldfusionnow.org/mitsubishi-cold-fusion-lenr-patent-granted-transmutes-nuclear-waste/

    • Daniel Maris

      I suppose the real issue here is why Frank feels the need to give prominence to this…is there something Frank knows that we don’t? I think Frank has a duty to let us know if he has any specific doubts.

      Otherwise I await the MFMP results with interest.

      • ecatworld

        No, Daniel — no secret knowledge, and nothing’s changed from my point of view. This was just an article that I had seen widely circulated and thought I’d bring it to the attention of readers here, and give people a chance to respond to it.

        • Robyn Wyrick

          Frank,

          A few days ago I specifically asked for exactly this sort of a synopsis of the criticisms being leveled against the report.

          It is *very* interesting to me then to immediately see that two of Mr. Siegel’s critiques (numbers 3&4) are so insubstantial – because they don’t deal with the actual methods or measurements. The authors of the test do reach the conclusion that the heat density can only be nuclear in nature, but that’s really beside the point: the authors don’t know what’s happening in the e-cat, and neither does Mr. Siegel. They can argue for whether or not it fits the signature of a nuclear reaction, but that doesn’t change the measurements.

          As so many have noted in these pages: the phenomenon is not the same as its explanation.

          I still don’t know enough about the Open calorimetry issue. But I appreciate Job001’s arguments above.

        • Mike

          Darn right. And when we have a commercial unit, articles like that will be a sledge hammer against the people who wrote them. Either putting them in the unemployment line or even better, prison for what they’ve done.

      • Billy Jackson

        I have to agree with frank on this.. If we only publish articles that agree with us we ourselves will be just as guilty of closing our minds to alternate possibilities.

      • ecatworld

        No, nothing of this kind has been shared with me.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Does he have any thoughts about the Mitsubishi transmutations that he’d like to share with the world?
    http://coldfusionnow.org/mitsubishi-cold-fusion-lenr-patent-granted-transmutes-nuclear-waste/

  • Daniel Maris

    Objection 5 may be valid, potentially, but it has nothing to do with scienitific method. In most scientific papers someone who has a thesis offers experimental evidence that proves the thesis. In other words, the person most biased with respect to the thesis is the one who judges how valid it is!

    Objection 3 can only be provisional…we don’t really know if this is LENR or something like an interaction between the sub-atomic world and the macro world.

  • adriano

    I still don’t understand. We all are here because we belive in science and in a flourishing future. This test were expected to be a milestone in e-cat history and maybe even more.
    That is because Rossi himself was stating about a Third Party team of scientists. Onestly, what we had? This is clearly not a Third Indipendent Party team and the factory where the test took place were not an indipendent structure.
    If somone tell me that he will assigne a job to a third indipendent party i expect that the people who are involved are completly unknown to him, and the place where it took place would be neutral structure, not a private factory in southern Sitzerland. I will expect a university or at least a public institution. Otherwise it is simply not a Third Indipendent Party. And remember, we are not talking about a simple controversy between two people, we are talking about what is claimed to be the greatest invention of all time.
    Looking at the past 3-4 years, the only thing that i feel to share with you is to be carefull with the e-cat and Rossi. Until the day other scientis will be able to reproduce this, Rossi is just a man who is claiming for somethig that is just impossible. Why he is doing that? I have no idea. He could be wrong, or maybe he is just cheating a lot of people to collect money. To me, looking at the past and at the present, this is the only objective opinion that you can have about Rossi and the e-cat.

    • jdituro

      Good luck finding any University or Government test facility that would accept to take on publicly the testing of this device in a fair and honest manner. Not one would be willing to take on the big banks or Big oils strangle hold on “charitable” donations or political pressure. I only way that Rossi’s device has seen the light of day, was due to him spending millions of his own money and not accepting a dime from anyone. I know what is like to go up against the establishment with new technology, and its not easy. Hats off to Rossi, I hope he stays the course. Millions of people all over the world are behind him.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah, a quarter of a century ago, the independent parties that replicated F&P’s work were ignored.

        • Mike

          Well we all know now that the brilliant minds at MIT were not evident as the lattice had not enough charge for the reaction to occur to cause the heat.
          So they were half ass and incompetent. We and the world are still paying for it.

          • towerofbabel

            There are real, brilliant minds working on it now at MIT like Peter Hagelstein.

      • Charles

        The last test facility on earth that I would trust would be one under the control of the government. Whichever way the test went the test facility would say it went the other. The government lies and then lies about the lies. Bonuses are based on the believability of the lie.

      • adriano

        I’m not here to hate or something. Like i said before, i belive in science. The Lugano Test simply is not a Third Indipendent Party test. This is fact. You can say, belive and support evrything you want, i’m just stating facts. The report are interesting? Of course it is. The report is made by indipendent scientist? Absolutely not, and on this point and i hope you agree with me.

        My point is not about lenr, is not about energy revolution and is even not about the e-cat. My point is about Rossi, claiming for months something that he already knows was not true. So ask to yourself why he act in that way. There could be no opinion and no speculation about that. He is free to decide how to act to protect is invention but the way he choose simply not allow people to understand if what he claims is true or not.

        • LCD

          Every scientist that touches cold fusion is somehow no longer independent. I never understood that.

        • towerofbabel

          Is there an independent scientist? Now that’s an existential question for you. Science is subject to human behavior so everything will take some time to verify. And of course, it will be questioned again–hopefully. Dogma is the death of science.

          • adriano

            That is why we approach physic with the scientific method, to avoid the issue deriving from human behaviour. Scientific method is not already applied to the e-cat device.

  • DB

    Ethan have more at stake than Rossi –
    “If Cold Fusion proves to be real I will personally help to rewrite every book in the world on physics”.

    At this point I do not think discussions can persuade Ethan towards another belief

    Ethan would have been a very good candidate for the team of the testers – however he would probably not take up on such an offer because:

    A: He probably does not think its worth his time
    B: If he can not find any proof for criminal activities, his career could be damaged by signing under on the report- making him seem like someone who has been duped, bribed or fooled.
    C: A positive result would mean that he will spend the rest of his life rewriting books in physics

    • LCD

      spend the rest of his life helping re-write physics books. Ooh that is cruel and unusual punishment. Please not that.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        There is also the other guy, Tommaso Dorigo, whose job from now on is to prove his assertion “There are tricks to get more power from the electrical outlet than what one may detect.”

        • LCD

          Oh yeah there is that guy

  • jdituro

    Good luck finding any University or Government test facility that would accept to take on publicly the testing of this device in a fair and honest manner. Not one would be willing to take on the big banks or Big oils strangle hold on “charitable” donations or political pressure. I only way that Rossi’s device has seen the light of day, was due to him spending millions of his own money and not accepting a dime from anyone. I know what is like to go up against the establishment with new technology, and its not easy. Hats off to Rossi, I hope he stays the course. Millions of people all over the world are behind him.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah, a quarter of a century ago, the independent parties that replicated F&P’s work were ignored.

    • Charles

      The last test facility on earth that I would trust would be one under the control of the government. Whichever way the test went the test facility would say it went the other. The government lies and then lies about the lies. Bonuses are based on the believability of the lie.

  • Axil Axil

    It was not too long ago as marked by the painfully slow march of science that Steven Chu won himself a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997 for his ground breaking research at Bell Labs in cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light. His fame in this supreme accomplishment afforded him the privilege to serve as the 12th United States Secretary of Energy from 2009 to 2013. This Chu experiment produced a Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC): a state of matter of a dilute gas of bosons cooled to temperatures very close to absolute zero (that is, very near 0 K or −273.15 °C).

    Under such conditions, a large fraction of the bosons occupy the lowest quantum
    state, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale. But
    these days progress in science is moving so very fast that science cannot keep
    track of all the advances it is making by the hour.

    There is huge resistance from the scientific community being deluded in a religious fervor that a BEC is a state of matter that can only exist at extreme temperatures very near
    absolute zero. However what is little known among the rank and file among
    science is that polariton condensates have been experimentally demonstrated to persist
    at room temperatures as recent quantum nanoplasmonic experiments have shown.
    Unlike atoms, polaritons are malleable forms of the Electromagnetic force shaped
    and combined as a composite waveform of infrared photons and electrons involved
    in dipole motion.

    A great scientific breakthrough was demonstrated in the latest third party test of
    Rossi’s E-Cat. A polariton BEC was established for days at 1400C protecting the
    structure of the reactor from meltdown.

    This demonstration alone is worth a Nobel Prize. And yet science is ignoring this technical
    breakthrough. When science ignores this experimental feat, they are shooting themselves in the foot; they are also tossing away a paradigm changing demonstration of quantum mechanics, and worst of all they are showing how smart people can be the worst kinds of fools.

    In this new form of light/matter environment, a new quantum mechanical environment is
    created in which radiation is evenly distributed throughout the entire
    structure of the Rossi reactor. With science failing to pick up the ball here,
    it is now up to the engineers to make proper use of this new wonder.

    When the full extent of this dereliction of duty by the
    scientific community is finally realized by ordinary people, and you can be
    assured that it will be, there will be hell to pay among those who should have
    known better.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      What’s the rush?

      “Special Report: Japan’s homeless recruited for murky Fukushima clean-up”
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/30/us-fukushima-workers-idUSBRE9BT00520131230

      • Alan DeAngelis

        PS
        Perhaps we wouldn’t be worrying about Fukushima now if Prof. Miley didn’t have his funding cut for the “Scientific Feasibility Study of Low Energy Reactions for Nuclear Waste Amelioration” in 1999. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue28/criticskill.html

        • Fortyniner

          Sadly, pumping the entire Pacific Ocean (and now part of the northern Atlantic, too) through Miley’s LENR decontaminators may present some technical difficulties.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Not now of course. His funding was cut in 1999. What I was thinking of was that those full rods could have been transmuted into nonradioactive isotopes long before 2011.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            FUEL rods.
            And not only Fukushima but all the fuel rods on the planet.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes, and nickel-62 is not only the most stable nucleus there is, it’s also a boson. So, it makes sense (to feeble minded me) that this is what would precipitate out of the BEC soup.
      Thank for bring this up. It’s fun to thing about.

    • jousterusa

      Is that Brian Josephson speaking? I didn’t know we had people quite that bright among us!

    • LCD

      What do the POLARITONS do to protect the structure?

      • Axil Axil

        Because with a surface temperature of over 1400C, the internal reactor temperature should be about 1600C, if the nickel particles are producing the heat. An yet nickel particles are coming out of the reactor with a surface covered with tubercles that should have melted at 1000C. The reactor should have failed because the particles should have melted but they didn’t. A boson condensate protected the nickel particles and/or the heat came form another source somewhere else in the reactor. I believe that the primary source of the heat at those high temperatures came from lithium hydride nanoparticle arrogations that form inside the alumina. These lithium hydride particles are driven by the an EMF field carried to the lithium hydride particles by the polariton condensate that were being emitted by the nickel particles which stay cool or at least at a temperature under the melting point of nickel. A condensate keeps the entire reactor at the same 1400C isothermal temperature. But those tubercles on the surface of nickel particles still should have melted at 1400C. Why those tubercles did not melt or at least become ineffective is a true and utter mystery. It is almost as if these particles were shielded from the intense heat. This is the melting mystery. We own the testers a debt of gratitude because they drove the test reactor to such a high temperature to expose this strange behavior of the Rossi reaction.

        • LCD

          I like the energy and enthusiasm and where you are going. Let me throw some questions and comments at you.

          I still don’t understand how the SPP actually protects the Ni from melting. Could you elaborate?

          1) Alumina is 80% transparent from 200nm to about 6um then rapidly drops of at 7um to opaque.
          2) The visual camera sees only between 400nm and 800nm (usually because of a NIR filter)
          3) The thermal camera sees only between 7.4 and 13um
          4) 1400C has a 2-3 orders of mag difference between the red and blue wavelengths where the photon flux for the red is higher. This means that visually a camera WILL NOT see white hot. And likely neither will your eye. Does that not seem correct?

          Its true that a spectrum would have helped and would have been great information. I am myself stumped on the Ni not melting part but here is the problem I have with the surface plasmon polaritons (please correct me if I’m wrong)

          1) The Ni geometry is certainly correct for the creation and annihilation of SPPs. However it is hard for me to imagine the longevity of SPPs and or the complete coverage of an Ni particle with SPPs. Reason is that SPPs propagate until they are absorbed by the underlying surface or they radiate/scatter away. This happens more rapidly when the surface is not smooth (in fact you can’t create them if you have a smooth surface the way the reactor is set up but that also means they probably don’t last long)
          2) SPPs seem to impart energy to the bulk, which means they should actually help melt the Ni not protect it. That part seems to blow up any theory along those lines. No?

          3) Also SPPs which have the mass mostly of electrons can form a strong BEC at higher temperatures mostly due to their low mass so that plays well and that very well may be a very important part of what happens. But the “effective mass” of SPPs plays tricks with the BEC equations that I don’t quite understand

          4) This SPP effect
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localized_surface_plasmon
          could be an important branch for what Rossi is doing. 1400C peaks at 2um and his particles typically have micron sized features.

          If a localized SPP BEC becomes intense enough it may be able to mimic a very heavy electron the way photons can create higher energy photons as in two photon absorption. Your thoughts?

          • Axil Axil

            LCD says: “I still don’t understand how the SPP actually protects the Ni from melting. Could you elaborate?”

            A boson condensate keeps all its members at the same temperature through “Superabsorbtion”. This means that all the dipoles vibrate at the same frequency and all the infrared photons have the same wavelength. There are no hot spots and there is no temperature difference between the center of the reactor out to the edge. Any nuclear energy that is absorbed by the BEC is equally shared between the dipoles
            and the photons. Because of this, the temperature goes up in small steps all across the entire reactor. If the edge of the reactor is 1420C, so too is the central core.

            LCD says: “The Ni geometry is certainly correct for the creation and
            annihilation of SPPs. However it is hard for me to imagine the longevity of SPPs and or the complete coverage of an Ni particle with SPPs. Reason is that SPPs propagate until they are absorbed by the underlying surface or they radiate/scatter away. This happens more rapidly when the surface is not smooth (in fact you can’t create them if you have a smooth surface the way the reactor is set up but that also means they probably don’t last long)”

            The SPP lifetime is a few picoseconds due to dispersion. But the energy is trapped in a “Dark Mode” by nickel and the SPP is constantly rebuilt. This short lifetime is why SPPs need intense pumping to keep on going. In self sustain mode, the pumping come from induced nuclear reactions. Energy in the form of magnetic beams escapes from the tips, the points, and ridges of the tubercles. This nanostructure is where the intense amplification of the EMF field strength comes from. It’s like a parabolic reflector of light. Strong magnetism induces meson and pions to appear out of the vacuum. These vacuum induced particles play havoc
            on the protons and neutrons in the elements that these beams shine upon. There are ten million ways in which elements can recombine in clusters after such disruptions occur as a function of the magnetic field strength.

            LCD says: “SPPs seem to impart energy to the bulk, which means they should actually help melt the Ni not protect it. That part seems to blow up any theory along those lines. No?”

            The lithium hydride produces nanoparticles when the reactor gets hot enough and these particles float around inside the reactor and inside the porous alumina. These nanoparticles clump together and take over from the nickel particles to produce SPPs. These new SPP solitons join the global BEC and act just like the nickel particles. In the new Rossi reactor design, most of the nuclear energy comes from the alumina.

            LCD says: “Also SPPs which have the mass mostly of electrons can form a strong BEC at higher temperatures mostly due to their low mass so that plays well and that very well may be a very important part of what happens. But the “effective mass” of SPPs plays tricks with the BEC equations that I don’t quite understand”

            I believe that the effective mass of the SPPs become smaller into the milli electron volts, as their density increases. This means that the temperature of the SPP BEC can be sustained at extreme temperatures.

            Lithium hydride nanoparticles aggregate and produce SPPs, There are trillions of these aggregations and many of them are resonant energetically as determined by the temperature that the reactor is running at any given instant. Because there total number is almost countless, any small fraction of this total number can carry the BEC
            forward. This is how the Rossi reactor can meltdown far beyond the vaporization point of both nickel and alumina. Even at these extreme temperatures, there still is no gamma radiation. This means that the BEC is still in place.

          • LCD

            are you saying the lithium hydride never disassociates into hydrogen and li?

          • Axil Axil

            LiH dissociation starts at 1000C but that dissociation temperature is increased as its vapor pressure in increase, I don’t known how the LiH the vapor pressure behaves when LiH is incorporated into the alumina crystal structure.

  • Axil Axil

    It was not too long ago as marked by the painfully slow march of science that Steven Chu won himself a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997 for his ground breaking research at Bell Labs in cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light. His fame in this supreme accomplishment afforded him the privilege to serve as the 12th United States Secretary of Energy from 2009 to 2013. This Chu experiment produced a Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC): a state of matter of a dilute gas of bosons cooled to temperatures very close to absolute zero (that is, very near 0 K or −273.15 °C).

    Under such conditions, a large fraction of the bosons occupy the lowest quantum
    state, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale. But
    these days progress in science is moving so very fast that science cannot keep
    track of all the advances it is making by the hour.

    There is huge resistance from the scientific community being deluded in a religious fervor that a BEC is a state of matter that can only exist at extreme temperatures very near
    absolute zero. However what is little known among the rank and file among
    science is that polariton condensates have been experimentally demonstrated to persist
    at room temperatures as recent quantum nanoplasmonic experiments have shown.
    Unlike atoms, polaritons are malleable forms of the Electromagnetic force shaped
    and combined as a composite waveform of infrared photons and electrons involved
    in dipole motion.

    A great scientific breakthrough was demonstrated in the latest third party test of
    Rossi’s E-Cat. A polariton BEC was established for days at 1400C protecting the
    structure of the reactor from meltdown.

    This demonstration alone is worth a Nobel Prize. And yet science is ignoring this technical
    breakthrough. When science ignores this experimental feat, they are shooting themselves in the foot; they are also tossing away a paradigm changing demonstration of quantum mechanics, and worst of all they are showing how smart people can be the worst kinds of fools.

    In this new form of light/matter environment, a new quantum mechanical environment is
    created in which radiation is evenly distributed throughout the entire
    structure of the Rossi reactor. With science failing to pick up the ball here,
    it is now up to the engineers to make proper use of this new wonder.

    When the full extent of this dereliction of duty by the
    scientific community is finally realized by ordinary people, and you can be
    assured that it will be, there will be hell to pay among those who should have
    known better.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      What’s the rush?

      “Special Report: Japan’s homeless recruited for murky Fukushima clean-up”
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/30/us-fukushima-workers-idUSBRE9BT00520131230

      • Alan DeAngelis

        PS
        Perhaps we wouldn’t be worrying about Fukushima now if Prof. Miley didn’t have his funding cut for the “Scientific Feasibility Study of Low Energy Reactions for Nuclear Waste Amelioration” in 1999. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue28/criticskill.html

        • Sadly, pumping the entire Pacific Ocean (and now part of the northern Atlantic, too) through Miley’s LENR decontaminators may present some technical difficulties.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Not now of course. His funding was cut in 1999. What I was thinking of was that those full rods could have been transmuted into nonradioactive isotopes long before 2011.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            FUEL rods.
            And not only Fukushima but all the fuel rods on the planet.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes, and nickel-62 is not only the most stable nucleus there is, it’s also a boson. So, it makes sense (to feeble minded me) that this is what would precipitate out of the BEC soup.
      Thank for bring this up. It’s fun to thing about.

    • jousterusa

      Is that Brian Josephson speaking? I didn’t know we had people quite that bright among us!

    • Mike

      Hmm, this sounds like what Dr Mills is talking about. He says he can move the electron closer to make it go below the ground state, making it more stable. But he uses the light from the reaction. Mills has invented a few things like Magnetic susceptibility imaging, a sort of high definition MRI. I believe what he says. That is why I think you’ve got something significant in your post. Thanks for the info.

    • LCD

      What do the POLARITONS do to protect the structure?

      • Axil Axil

        Because with a surface temperature of over 1400C, the internal reactor temperature should be about 1600C, if the nickel particles are producing the heat. An yet nickel particles are coming out of the reactor with a surface covered with tubercles that should have melted at 1000C. The reactor should have failed because the particles should have melted but they didn’t. A boson condensate protected the nickel particles and/or the heat came form another source somewhere else in the reactor. I believe that the primary source of the heat at those high temperatures came from lithium hydride nanoparticle arrogations that form inside the alumina. These lithium hydride particles are driven by the an EMF field carried to the lithium hydride particles by the polariton condensate that were being emitted by the nickel particles which stay cool or at least at a temperature under the melting point of nickel. A condensate keeps the entire reactor at the same 1400C isothermal temperature. But those tubercles on the surface of nickel particles still should have melted at 1400C. Why those tubercles did not melt or at least become ineffective is a true and utter mystery. It is almost as if these particles were shielded from the intense heat. This is the melting mystery. We own the testers a debt of gratitude because they drove the test reactor to such a high temperature to expose this strange behavior of the Rossi reaction.

        Furthermore, if the heat produced by the reactor was blackbody radiation the reactor should have glowed white hot at 1400C.

        It could be that the nature of the light is very unusual as produced by the reactor. If only infrared photons were monochromatically emitted (like a laser) that all corresponded to the exact temperature of 1400C. and no other photon energy wavelengths was produced, then the light would not be blackbody radiation. The testers should have taken a spectrum of the light emitted from the reactor to see what wavelengths of light comprised the light that came from the reactor.

        This spectrum would be proof that the reactor operates under a boson condensate.This fits with the theory that the boson condensate would have kept all photon energy equal and isothermal.

        • LCD

          I like the energy and enthusiasm and where you are going. Let me throw some questions and comments at you.

          I still don’t understand how the SPP actually protects the Ni from melting. Could you elaborate?

          1) Alumina is 80% transparent from 200nm to about 6um then rapidly drops of at 7um to opaque.
          2) The visual camera sees only between 400nm and 800nm (usually because of a NIR filter)
          3) The thermal camera sees only between 7.4 and 13um
          4) 1400C has a 2-3 orders of mag difference between the red and blue wavelengths where the photon flux for the red is higher. This means that visually a camera WILL NOT see white hot. And likely neither will your eye. Does that not seem correct?

          Its true that a spectrum would have helped and would have been great information. I am myself stumped on the Ni not melting part but here is the problem I have with the surface plasmon polaritons (please correct me if I’m wrong)

          1) The Ni geometry is certainly correct for the creation and annihilation of SPPs. However it is hard for me to imagine the longevity of SPPs and or the complete coverage of an Ni particle with SPPs. Reason is that SPPs propagate until they are absorbed by the underlying surface or they radiate/scatter away. This happens more rapidly when the surface is not smooth (in fact you can’t create them if you have a smooth surface the way the reactor is set up but that also means they probably don’t last long)
          2) SPPs seem to impart energy to the bulk, which means they should actually help melt the Ni not protect it. That part seems to blow up any theory along those lines. No?

          3) Also SPPs which have the mass mostly of electrons can form a strong BEC at higher temperatures mostly due to their low mass so that plays well and that very well may be a very important part of what happens. But the “effective mass” of SPPs plays tricks with the BEC equations that I don’t quite understand

          4) This SPP effect
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localized_surface_plasmon
          could be an important branch for what Rossi is doing. 1400C peaks at 2um and his particles typically have micron sized features.

          If a localized SPP BEC becomes intense enough it may be able to mimic a very heavy electron the way photons can create higher energy photons as in two photon absorption. Your thoughts?

          • Axil Axil

            LCD says: “I still don’t understand how the SPP actually protects the Ni from melting. Could you elaborate?”

            A boson condensate keeps all its members at the same temperature through “Superabsorbtion”. This means that all the dipoles vibrate at the same frequency and all the infrared photons have the same wavelength. There are no hot spots and there is no temperature difference between the center of the reactor out to the edge. Any nuclear energy that is absorbed by the BEC is equally shared between the dipoles
            and the photons. Because of this, the temperature goes up in small steps all across the entire reactor. If the edge of the reactor is 1420C, so too is the central core.

            LCD says: “The Ni geometry is certainly correct for the creation and
            annihilation of SPPs. However it is hard for me to imagine the longevity of SPPs and or the complete coverage of an Ni particle with SPPs. Reason is that SPPs propagate until they are absorbed by the underlying surface or they radiate/scatter away. This happens more rapidly when the surface is not smooth (in fact you can’t create them if you have a smooth surface the way the reactor is set up but that also means they probably don’t last long)”

            The SPP lifetime is a few picoseconds due to dispersion. But the energy is trapped in a “Dark Mode” by nickel and the SPP is constantly rebuilt. This short lifetime is why SPPs need intense pumping to keep on going. In self sustain mode, the pumping come from induced nuclear reactions. Energy in the form of magnetic beams escapes from the tips, the points, and ridges of the tubercles. This nanostructure is where the intense amplification of the EMF field strength comes from. It’s like a parabolic reflector of light. Strong magnetism induces meson and pions to appear out of the vacuum. These vacuum induced particles play havoc
            on the protons and neutrons in the elements that these beams shine upon. There are ten million ways in which elements can recombine in clusters after such disruptions occur as a function of the magnetic field strength.

            LCD says: “SPPs seem to impart energy to the bulk, which means they should actually help melt the Ni not protect it. That part seems to blow up any theory along those lines. No?”

            The lithium hydride produces nanoparticles when the reactor gets hot enough and these particles float around inside the reactor and inside the porous alumina. These nanoparticles clump together and take over from the nickel particles to produce SPPs. These new SPP solitons join the global BEC and act just like the nickel particles. In the new Rossi reactor design, most of the nuclear energy comes from the alumina.

            LCD says: “Also SPPs which have the mass mostly of electrons can form a strong BEC at higher temperatures mostly due to their low mass so that plays well and that very well may be a very important part of what happens. But the “effective mass” of SPPs plays tricks with the BEC equations that I don’t quite understand”

            I believe that the effective mass of the SPPs become smaller into the milli electron volts, as their density increases. This means that the temperature of the SPP BEC can be sustained at extreme temperatures.

            Lithium hydride nanoparticles aggregate and produce SPPs, There are trillions of these aggregations and many of them are resonant energetically as determined by the temperature that the reactor is running at any given instant. Because there total number is almost countless, any small fraction of this total number can carry the BEC
            forward. This is how the Rossi reactor can meltdown far beyond the vaporization point of both nickel and alumina. Even at these extreme temperatures, there still is no gamma radiation. This means that the BEC is still in place.

          • LCD

            are you saying the lithium hydride never disassociates into hydrogen and li?

          • Axil Axil

            LiH dissociation starts at 1000C but that dissociation temperature is increased as its vapor pressure is increased, I don’t known how the vapor pressure of LiH behaves when LiH is incorporated into the alumina crystal structure.

  • Oceans2014

    Everyone is looking everywhere but no one has asked Defkalion, they are the team that had access to Rossis reactor in Greece and stole his IP – yet everyone acts like Defkalion were an independent research team and the stumbled onto LENR by themselves, point blank they robbed Rossi but have not figured out how the reaction works exactly.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Much of the views IMO from critics about LENR seem to me comparable to religion in the sense that it is a belief, not a fact system that rules the emotions of people. And you cannot argue with facts against a belief system.

    It is very difficult when you believe in something, to accept that you can be wrong when the facts say so. It’s also very human to have difficulties like that. For the LENR community it would probably be very difficult to accept the fact that LENR could be non-existent. I know it would be for me since I believe in LENR. Still one has to be critical of oneself and the world and facts that surround one and my ideas about LENR have certainly changed. The world is not black and white so convictions can and should change with added knowledge. Therefore it is good to hear from critics because it forces you to re-examine your own values and convictions. We should treasure that, though the critics certainly have a tendency to use tedious arguments.

    For scientists who believe the standard model should predict LENR, it is very difficult to consider an alternative model for LENR/CF. It goes against their belief system, even though facts say otherwise. I think this is part of why LENR has so much difficulty earning the acceptance of
    conventional scientists. Siegel due to his argument 3 and 4 is in my opinion a scientist of this category.

    What makes me sad is the idea that so little scientists go against the grain; to do what is right because the facts say so. That is what science should be about and what I really want to say with this rambling: use facts, not believe when it comes to LENR. That is also what I believe MFMP is about and why I admire those guys.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Much of the views IMO from critics about LENR seem to me comparable to religion in the sense that it is a belief, not a fact system that rules the emotions of people. And you cannot argue with facts against a belief system.

    It is very difficult when you believe in something, to accept that you can be wrong when the facts say so. It’s also very human to have difficulties like that. For the LENR community it would probably be very difficult to accept the fact that LENR could be non-existent. I know it would be for me since I believe in LENR. Still one has to be critical of oneself and the world and facts that surround one and my ideas about LENR have certainly changed. The world is not black and white so convictions can and should change with added knowledge. Therefore it is good to hear from critics because it forces you to re-examine your own values and convictions. We should treasure that, though the critics certainly have a tendency to use tedious arguments.

    For scientists who believe the standard model should predict LENR, it is very difficult to consider an alternative model for LENR/CF. It goes against their belief system, even though facts say otherwise. I think this is part of why LENR has so much difficulty earning the acceptance of
    conventional scientists. Siegel due to his argument 3 and 4 is in my opinion a scientist of this category.

    What makes me sad is the idea that so little scientists go against the grain; to do what is right because the facts say so. That is what science should be about and what I really want to say with this rambling: use facts, not believe when it comes to LENR. That is also what I believe MFMP is about and why I admire those guys.

  • Job001

    Dear Mr Siegel,

    Response to Ethan Siegel’s five objections.

    1.It is not required to unplug the E-Cat because the open calorimetry is very accurate and was tested against null and equal power input with and without reactive mass. A small amount of power gave a very large excess energy. Read and study the report, several orders of magnitude more excess energy than possible expected error was found.

    2.Open calorimetry is vastly more accurate than required for detection of 250% excess heat. ZERO hot fusion calorimetry has been done because it is not sufficiently accurate to detect less then 0.001% excess heat. LENR heat yields for this study were;

    250%/0.001% = 250,000 times the best hot fusion yields. Calorimetry is much more difficult then the average person suspects.

    3.No gamma radiation was measured. Fantastic! Neither was X-radiation, alpha, beta, or neutron yet copious amounts of easily measured thermal and visible radiation was found. Only a biased skeptic could not see the visible or feel the thermal difference between the blank and the active charge reactor results for the same energy input and deny the observations.

    4.Nuclear fusion is one explanation, many others exist and no theory is required for this performance test. You use gravity HOW equations with no accepted understanding of why gravity works because no acceptable WHY explaination exists even after 327 years since Newton published “Principia” in 1687. Although besides the point, many new Ni isotopes were found and copper is not required if the reaction were not sustained sufficiently to achieve copper. Repeat, This was a performance test, no proven theory is required or even desired at this point.

    5.The test was independent, Rossi did not conduct the test, and the professors were from prestigious colleges with excellent reputations to protect. Slandering excellent scientists is NOT science. We can understand your funding and other biases and inability to comprehend fundamental observational science results, since this is not your field. Your major objections are invalid in the face of over 2000 published CF and LENR results that show positive net energy yield, and many competing theories yet to be honestly funded, researched and vetted. Your objections appear to rank at the amateur science level because they show a large void in understanding calorimetry, CF and LENR research knowledge.

    • jousterusa

      Every instance of “then” in your excellent and very helpful post should read “than.” Please do not take offense.

      • Job001

        Corrected, thanks.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Did the Wright brothers actually fly?

    Did anyone check to see if there were any thin wires that were suspending it from a hot air balloon?

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      He’s picking gnat crap out of pepper. I’ve had enough. I’m going to bed.
      Goodnight.

    • Gerrit

      The mere fact that the Wright brothers themselves were operating their machines during flight completely invalidates the result.

      • Mike

        lol. good one. It also invalidates because they knew and liked one another.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Did the Wright brothers actually fly?

    Did anyone check to see if there were any thin wires that were suspending it from a hot air balloon?

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      He’s picking gnat crap out of pepper. I’ve had enough. I’m going to bed.
      Goodnight.

    • Gerrit

      The mere fact that the Wright brothers themselves were operating their machines during flight completely invalidates the result.

      • Mike

        lol. good one. It also invalidates because they knew and liked one another.

  • jousterusa

    I wonder if he will say the same thing about the MFMP Foundation replication project’s eventual report? Did he know that one of the distinguished scientists who studied the E-Cat sits on the the chemistry committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which will award the Nobel Prize in Chemistry? Does he think people like that commit deliberate fraud, as he implies? I think Siegel is a highly-paid operative of the portion of the scientific establishment that relies on billions in funding for hot fusion projects that never have and probably never will work. How do you suppose the E-Cat fooled all the top physicists who vetted the E-Cat for Chinese Premier Xi Jinping when the country set up an industrial park to manufacture it? I think the world of refineries and utilities is looking on with horror at its own demise, even as oil prices have sunk $16 a barrel or more since the day the E-Cat study was published. Siegel is the real fraud.

    • fact police

      According to their web site, the Nobel Committee for Chemistry does not include any of the authors of Levi2014. See
      http://www.kva.se/en/contact/Committees/Nobel-Committee-for-Chemistry/

      • psi2u2

        According to many other sites, Sven Kullander is the chair of the energy committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and a prof emeritus in Particle Physics. Kullander died in Jan. 2014, but before that time was closely involved in the monitoring of the e-cat tests and was a “believer” in the technology.

        Welcome to e-cat world, “Fact police.” Interesting moniker you have.

        • fact police

          Just keeping the facts straight. The energy committee is not the chemistry committee, and doesn’t award Nobel prizes. And the present tense was used (“sits”). And while Kullander was sympathetic, from what I saw, he was usually cautious, saying more investigation was needed.

          • psi2u2

            Your clarification is appreciated.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I guess that we will sooner or later see a reaction to the numerous criticisms. Some of the points that have been raised by various persons are undoubtedly absurd, but a few of them require clarification. Initially, I did not expect that there would be further tests in the near future. But at the moment, both Elforsk’s and the tester’s reputations are at stake, and carrying out an additional experiment would be the best answer. Rossi’s latest post on JoNP dates from October 18th. Did the testers convince him to fly to Europe and to bring them another reactor? It is also possible that the reviewers of Journal of Physics D have demanded supplementary measurements. So we will likely have to wait again, as usual…

    To the members of LENR forum: Did you already send the questions to the testers? If not so, when do you think you will submit them?

    • Bernie777

      Please, not another test, bring on the customers!!

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I guess that we will sooner or later see a reaction to the numerous criticisms. Some of the points that have been raised by various persons are undoubtedly absurd, but a few of them require clarification. Initially, I did not expect that there would be further tests in the near future. But at the moment, both Elforsk’s and the tester’s reputations are at stake, and carrying out an additional experiment would be the best answer. Rossi’s latest post on JoNP dates from October 18th. Did the testers convince him to fly to Europe and to bring them another reactor? It is also possible that the reviewers of Journal of Physics D have demanded supplementary measurements. So we will likely have to wait again, as usual…

    To the members of LENR forum: Did you already send the questions to the testers? If not so, when do you think you will submit them?

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Please, not another test, bring on the customers!!

  • psi2u2

    According to many other sites, Sven Kullander is the chair of the energy committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and a prof emeritus in Particle Physics. Kullander died in Jan. 2014, but before that time was closely involved in the monitoring of the e-cat tests and was a “believer” in the technology.

    Welcome to e-cat world, “Fact police.” Interesting moniker you have.

  • M.Fisher

    I know this wont make for a popular post here but the well respected scientist poses very good observations. I think that Rossi’s team should satisfy the questions raised. Time will eventually tell, certainly, but why wait that long? For the record, I’m a fan and have been following the E-cat since 2011 but, in my enthusiasm, I haven’t thrown my brain out of the window. A healthy skepticism is a good thing; “Healthy” skepticism…Not stubborn.

    • Zavod

      Is he a “well respected” scientist? I frankly don’t know him but from his criticisms of the Ecat and I am not impressed by what I hear. He seems a little thick at times as he does not understand the value of data. I’ve said it before and will repeat: Data is king and theory is its obedient slave. If the data is good then the theory must accommodate the data by changing not the other way around. When you reject data because it does not fit theory you are then acting like a priest rather than a scientist.

      • Oystein Lande

        Ethan, Stephan Pomp and likes 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 wrt cold fusion /LENR :
        “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.

    • Thomas Clarke

      (1) When claims are extravagant, as here, evidence needs to be strong.

      (2) scientists require replication not because those claiming are typically dishonest, but because they can deceive themselves, and because dishonesty exists and people – especially scientists – are not good at spotting it.

      (3) The issue about the calorimetry here is the factor or 2.5 on IR (and maybe more – I have not done the calculations – on inferred total power out) gained from the assumption that the unit emissivity is 0.4. From the info in the report itself Al2O3 emissivity depends on wavelength, therefore control data, at a different temperature and using a different wavelength filter on the cameras, do not help. There is no evidence of whether the Al2O3 coating is thick enough to be fully opaque at the higher temp IR measurement wavelength, making the whole highly indirect measurement suspect, with a likelihood of high over-reading since MOST insulators have emissivity close to 1. Note that Al2O3 becomes transparent at lower wavelengths, making it entirely possible that it is opaque for the control and transparent for the real measurement if, as seems plausible, different camera filters are used in the two cases to allow measurement at different frequencies.

      (4) It is a valid point that the analysis of the “ash”, if correct, implies isotopic change and hence proves Rossi is for real. However it is equally valid to note the alternates:
      (a) Rossi swapped the powder on insertion
      (b) Rossi swapped the powder on removal
      (c) The testing was wrong (I put this very low probability)
      It is also valid to point out that while mechanisms for 99% fuel depletion on this test without loss of any power can be constructed they are all highly improbable. So you add another improbability to the inherent difficulty of nuclear transformation with none of the expected alternate pathways.

      (5) It is a valid criticism to ask why testing with so little like-to-like comparison between the control case and the active case was done. Testing of the control at higher temperatures would rule out the most obvious calorimetry objections. Even if there was concern about breaking the reactor this higher temperature testing (using the same camera as the active tests) could have been done after the active test.

      (6) It is also a valid criticism to ask why in an independent test Rossi needs to switch the device on and off. That seems weird, and give ammunition to critics like me.

      • LCD

        okay this one didn’t show up until I refrenshed so according to you 4) is basically fraud. No it is not equally likely because you don’t have the full probabilities for all the choices i.e. we don’t know what we don’t know.

        For instance when we get more clarification from the testers on the powder handling we may reduce the probability for a) or b). And I’m sorry but when we get more clarification on c) we may also change our probability.

        And your last statement I find completely hilarious to the point of ridiculous (with all due respect)

        “It is also valid to point out that while mechanisms for 99% fuel depletion on this test without loss of any power can be constructed they are all highly improbable. So you add another improbability to the inherent difficulty of nuclear transformation with none of the expected alternate pathways.”

        So now you can be referred to as a believer because by faith you have already decided that 99% of the fuel was depleted on the test. What are the expected pathways? Please elaborate?

      • LCD

        6) is only weird when you don’t value the work it takes to run a company and develop IP.

        And that says a lot about you.

  • LCD

    Let me rephrase
    Point 1: we don’t believe you
    Point 2: We don’t believe you
    Point 3: If isotope shifts did occur it wouldn’t happen like this because, well, we know everything
    Point 4: Same as three
    Point 5: We don’t believe you

  • LCD

    Let me rephrase
    Point 1: we don’t believe you
    Point 2: We don’t believe you
    Point 3: If isotope shifts did occur it wouldn’t happen like this because, well, we know everything
    Point 4: Same as three
    Point 5: We don’t believe you

    • Thomas Clarke

      Let me rephrase:
      1) means that there is possibility for error and/or deliberate fraud that could otherwise be ruled out. That does not imply such error and/or fraud exists, but it makes the results less clear.

      2) means that the output power is not measured, but inferred. I’ve explained why that inference is probably wrong, and certainly cannot be assumed correct, below. It is not about belief, unless you reckon whether the matter of e-cats working is one of faith.

      4) – the point here is that what has been measured – or not measured – is difficult to explain. Even more difficult to explain than vanilla LENR. It is most common, when results are all weird with no explanation, that this is error. It is also a chnace for people to work out some new physics explanation. The point here is that none of the proposed LENR theories adequately explain this collection of results. So even by LENR standards it is weird.

      3) This is the one that indicates either LENR is happening here or Rossi is substituting bought 62Ni or there is something most surprisingly wrong with the isotopic measurements (the last option is IMHO very unlikely). It is so unfortunate that the powder insertion and ash removal was done by Rossi, and not independent, or we could be clearer about this.

    • Thomas Clarke

      The censors here seemed not to like my previous comment. Let me try again. I’m commenting because the post above is too approximate, and implies the OP attests lack of integrity when he does no such thing.

      1) attests to the fact that there is room for error in the input measurements/calculations. Not a necessary attack on integrity.(which I think is implied by the post above).

      2) can be amplified, and has been, below. The assumptions made to get the calorimetry result are distinctly unsafe. Again, no attack on integrity

      3) This is indeed a measurement which implies real LENR, or some lack of intergity on the part of Rossi (handling the samples), or an unlikely error from two distinct isotopic measuremnt techniques. So, practically, either these results show certain LENR or there is strong evidence of fraud from Rossi. No middle ground.

      4) Is different from 3). It means that the isotopic results seem extraordinary even if we accept that LENR is occuring. I’ll let everyone work out the logic of this for themselves in order to avoid censorship.

      5) Again, as 1) this does not imply an attack on integrity. Lack of independence means that the same (possibly erroneous) assumptions, techniques, measurement protocols are more likely. That is why you always ask somone else to find possible bugs in code you have written if this is possible. You know they will likely make different mistakes from the original.

      • LCD

        Okay so there are several problems with your statements. And I’ll try to pretend your not Popeye or somebody else from IECN.

        1) There were two signal analyzers downstream from an independent mains outlet. We can argue until we’re blue in the face but even if a team of totally independent nobel prize winning physicists and engineers were there, it wouldn’t make a difference as far as skeptics go. That is a fact that Rossi and everybody else understands. The problem here is that the first assumption by the OP is that there is deliberate fraud rather than a systematic error, and a real observation is a side note. So in summary “we don’t believe you”

        2) Thermal camera based calorimetry is done with good enough accuracy, specially for something like this which has a cop greater than 1.2. But don’t believe me, ask Dr. McKubre. I did not read your comments below because I could not find them. Again here the clear implication is nothing less than fraud or incompetence.

        3) It’s a lack of a measurement and we’ve discussed the possibility of fraud so unless we want to continue to drive that point as our thesis why bring it up again. Nothing here suggests that we should expect anything since we don’t know why anything is happening. Need more info.

        4) It’s the same as three because there is not enough information to exclude any possibility as far as physics goes and whatsmore nobody is claiming classical proton/neutron capture as something that MUST be happening only as something that MIGHT be happening. “If you want to understand a new phenomenon you must first unlearn everything you need to unlearn” – Leonard Susskind

        5) Most tests in physics are rarely perfectly independent and we ALL know that. Yet here it is used as some exacting weapon that is suppose to shred all this into tiny pieces. Everybody knows that we need to do more public tests but that shouldn’t be used as an excuse to bash this test. It’s silly.

        Look bottom line is that people have seen these types of phenomena for years
        http://www.lenr_canr.org
        Yet when this happens it’s like, wow, we’ve never seen or heard of this before it must be fraud. And no reference by any other skeptic is made to any other experiment. Doesn’t that seem silly?

  • LCD

    Every scientist that touches cold fusion is somehow no longer independent. I never understood that.

  • Zavod

    Is he a “well respected” scientist? I frankly don’t know him but from his criticisms of the Ecat and I am not impressed by what I hear. He seems a little thick at times as he does not understand the value of data. I’ve said it before and will repeat: Data is king and theory is its obedient slave. If the data is good then the theory must accommodate the data by changing not the other way around. When you reject data because it does not fit theory you are then acting like a priest rather than a scientist.

    • Oystein Lande

      Ethan, Stephan Pomp and likes 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 wrt cold fusion /LENR :
      “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.

  • Oystein Lande

    I have tried to make a comment on Ethan Siegels blog, but I don’t get through, so I gather he does not like what I want to say.

    And my comment is regarding the pictures he use on top of the e-cat blog “…cold fusion or Scientific fraud” – with some glow discharge pictures “credit to” to a French “HOAX” experimenter.

    Talk about Scientific dishonesty and dogmatism.

    The Six pictures at the top of his blog has nothing to do with E-cat. And not only is he misspelling Naudins name, but also somehow think it is connected to some sort of “HOAX” as he call the pictures.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Jean-Louis Naudin (a French experimenter) perfomed NO HOAX but replicated a Japanese scientists Cold Fusion experiment from 2000:
    Mizuno, T., et al., Production of Heat During Plasma Electrolysis. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2000. 39: p. 6055.
    Mizuno, T., T. Akimoto, and T. Ohmori. Confirmation of anomalous hydrogengeneration by plasma electrolysis. in 4th Meeting of Japan CF Research Society. 2003. Iwate, Japan: Iwate University.

    http://jjap.ipap.jp/journal/pdf/JJAP-39-10R/6055.pdf

    Naudin never claimed anything, but reported objectively only what he found, positive or negative. He was pure and simply interested in doing experiements, not selling any claims.

    So I will repeat,

    The world needs dreamers and the world needs doers. But above all, the world needs dreamers who do.

    Professors Martin Fleischmann and Pons said it started with an idea, a dream.

    And we noted then and now the theoretical physicists that likes to talk.

    Unfortunately, talkers are usually more articulate than doers, since talk is their specialty.

    But talkers have never been good doers. It’s the doers that change this world.

  • RetiredEE

    If these researches were given the task to determine the number of trees in the forest, they would count the number of leaves in the forest, then divide by the number of leaves on an average tree. An ordinary person would just count the trees.

    1. The best way to run this experiment is to keep the reactor tube at a constant temperature, using a simple feedback control circuit. The temperature transducer would be attached to the outside of the tube, in the middle, in plain sight.
    2. Why not do two 24 hour dummy runs (no fuel in the reactor) at 1200 and at 1400 degrees? These runs would provide baseline data and verify the correct operation of the temperature control circuitry.
    3. With the tube at a constant temperature and the ambient room temperature constant, the heat loss mechanism simply DOES NOT matter.
    4. With the tube at a constant temperature, there is absolutely no need for the pages and pages of heat loss calculations provided in their report.
    5. With the tube at a constant temperature, a reduction in the heater power would be a direct measurement of the heat (power) produced by the reaction.

    With the constant temperature regime, it would be instantly, unambiguously obvious if the fuel generated heat. The temperature feedback would reduce the heater power in order to maintain the set point temperature.
    I find it difficult to understand why the investigators chose this complex method, unless, of course, they hope that pages of bafflegab about emissivity and convection losses would deter any detailed verification.
    I can’t help but wonder, what was the purpose of the experiment?

    • Barry Kort

      If you are a retired Electrical Engineer, I’d love to have you check my work on another CF story, involving Mike McKubre’s work at SRI. There is a controversy about the way he calculated the electrical power going into his cells. He assumed there was only DC power going in, and no AC power. Hence he only measured and reported DC power. There is good reason to believe the omitted AC power term precisely accounts for his otherwise unexplained excess heat. Would you be interested in checking my work?

  • Frankie

    Physicists have always been late to the party. The modern initiator of the science Newton, (who, as an alchemist would today have been shamed and humiliated out of his title by his peers for practicing in such pseudoscience), was successful at using maths to model a fairly simple phenomenon like gravity. Physicists have since had very good luck using theories and maths to explain and model existing phenomenon, but their god-like status did not really come until the end of WWII and the invention of a phenomenon not observed before it was created -the atom bomb. Since then the public has placed them on a pedestal they neither deserve nor need, So now you have a situation where a previously unobserved phenomenon not predicted by maths and theories could give mankind a definite survival advantage and the majority of physicists, only because the general public reveres them, denigrate valid scientific results because no readily available accepted theory can explain them. For me, I don’t need physicists to tell me whether this e-cat thing has a good chance of being real. A simple look at Rossi’s history of using catalysts like nickel and Lithium Aluminum Hydride to break down complex hydrocarbons and yield simple ones, and a simple acceptance that a conviction by magistrates of a country that jails geologists for not predicting earthquakes may not be a good indicator of fraud, is enough to indicate to me that Rossi might have something.

    • psi2u2

      Hear, hear!

  • Frankie

    Physicists have always been late to the party. The modern initiator of the science Newton, (who, as an alchemist would today have been shamed and humiliated out of his title by his peers for practicing in such pseudoscience), was successful at using maths to model a fairly simple phenomenon like gravity. Physicists have since had very good luck using theories and maths to explain and model existing phenomenon, but their god-like status did not really come until the end of WWII and the invention of a phenomenon not observed before it was created -the atom bomb. Since then the public has placed them on a pedestal they neither deserve nor need, So now you have a situation where a previously unobserved phenomenon not predicted by maths and theories could give mankind a definite survival advantage and the majority of physicists, only because the general public reveres them, denigrate valid scientific results because no readily available accepted theory can explain them. For me, I don’t need physicists to tell me whether this e-cat thing has a good chance of being real. A simple look at Rossi’s history of using catalysts like nickel and Lithium Aluminum Hydride to break down complex hydrocarbons and yield simple ones, and a simple acceptance that a conviction by magistrates of a country that jails geologists for not predicting earthquakes may not be a good indicator of fraud, is enough to indicate to me that Rossi might have something.

    • psi2u2

      Hear, hear!

  • Axil Axil

    Black-body radiation has a characteristic, continuous frequency spectrum that depends only on the body’s temperature, called the Planck spectrum or Planck’s law. The spectrum is peaked at a characteristic frequency that shifts to higher frequencies with increasing temperature, and at room temperature most of the emission is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. As the temperature increases past about 500 degrees Celsius, black bodies start to emit significant amounts of visible light. Viewed in the dark, the first faint glow appears as a “ghostly” grey. With rising temperature, the glow becomes visible even when there is some background surrounding light: first as a dull red, then yellow, and eventually a “dazzling bluish-white” as the temperature rises.

    This appearance is caused by a distribution of all wavelengths of light more or less based on temperature in blackbody radiation.

    In laser radiation, only a single frequency appears. Light from a infrared laser cannot be seen.

    The Rossi reactor may be acting like an infrared laser since few visible wavelengths are seen at 1400C,

    There is a boatload of assumptions that the 6 professors would naturally make about
    the nature of the E-Cat in a black box type test. One of them is that the heat
    produced by the reactor would come in the form of blackbody radiation. This critical
    assumption should have been verified by spectral analysis of the nature of this
    light to insure that the light was the type of light that one would naturally
    expect in a black box test.

    When one is testing a technology that is completely undefined, if the light emitted from the reactor was some undetermined mixture of light produced from both a coherent and incoherent source, such a situation would add an undetermined error factor into both the calibration of the remote temperature sensors against a true blackbody light source and the remote
    temperature sensor How the nature of this uncharacterized light source would vary
    from what was programed into the remote sensor is undetermined as the
    temperature of the reactor is increased up beyond 1400C.. Since the remote temperature
    sensor is the primary data collection instrument used in this test, and it has not
    been cross checked through the use of any other temperature sensing mechanism,
    then all the data collected by that sensor is placed under suspicion as
    inaccurate.

    • Obvious

      This is why I suggested looking for unusual peaks in the IR spectra emitted from the reactor previously. If there are unusual IR peaks, they may help identify reaction processes or byproducts. Also, alumina can be doped to become a very potent, efficient IR emitter.

  • Axil Axil

    Black-body radiation has a characteristic, continuous frequency spectrum that depends only on the body’s temperature, called the Planck spectrum or Planck’s law. The spectrum is peaked at a characteristic frequency that shifts to higher frequencies with increasing temperature, and at room temperature most of the emission is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. As the temperature increases past about 500 degrees Celsius, black bodies start to emit significant amounts of visible light. Viewed in the dark, the first faint glow appears as a “ghostly” grey. With rising temperature, the glow becomes visible even when there is some background surrounding light: first as a dull red, then yellow, and eventually a “dazzling bluish-white” as the temperature rises.

    This appearance is caused by a distribution of all wavelengths of light more or less based on temperature in blackbody radiation.

    In laser radiation, only a single frequency appears. Light from a infrared laser cannot be seen.

    The Rossi reactor may be acting like an infrared laser since few visible wavelengths are seen at 1400C,

    There is a boatload of assumptions that the 6 professors would naturally make about
    the nature of the E-Cat in a black box type test. One of them is that the heat
    produced by the reactor would come in the form of blackbody radiation. This critical
    assumption should have been verified by spectral analysis of the nature of this
    light to insure that the light was the type of light that one would naturally
    expect in a black box test.

    When one is testing a technology that is completely undefined, if the light emitted from the reactor was some undetermined mixture of light produced from both a coherent and incoherent source, such a situation would add an undetermined error factor into both the calibration of the remote temperature sensors against a true blackbody light source and the remote
    temperature sensor How the nature of this uncharacterized light source would vary
    from what was programed into the remote sensor is undetermined as the
    temperature of the reactor is increased up beyond 1400C.. Since the remote temperature
    sensor is the primary data collection instrument used in this test, and it has not
    been cross checked through the use of any other temperature sensing mechanism,
    then all the data collected by that sensor is placed under suspicion as
    inaccurate.

    • Obvious

      This is why I suggested looking for unusual peaks in the IR spectra emitted from the reactor previously. If there are unusual IR peaks, they may help identify reaction processes or byproducts. Also, alumina can be doped to become a very potent, efficient IR emitter.

  • oarmas

    Appalling response from the ‘scientific community’. The ‘science’ of fusion to date is as follows, over 10 Trillion dollars spent on research with no results AT ALL, to defend a theory that is 100 years old and NOT complete. Cold fusion has been around ALL that time, as well. It has required at LEAST 1 MILLION times LESS FUNDING and PRODUCED RESULTS THAT have beaten the ESTABLISHED SCIENCE by over 1000 times. Maybe Rossi is a charlatan and fraud, BUT WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT Siegel and his community who have defrauded the taxpayers for much more and produced EVEN LESS than Mr Rossi?

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Hot fusion is something that is nice for planet based power generation, but the problems are so big it’s nearly useless other than to gain knowledge. The containment problems for neutrons for example are so huge, that I have a hard time they will ever get it right. Basically, neutrons can’t be contained with known physics. In any case, hot fusion is taking way to much money for the few breakthroughs it generates.

      Now cold fusion on the other hand could be used to power your car, house, swimming pool, garden house, streetlights construction yards, fabrication plants, satellites, IIS, moonbases, etc. It’s small and safe enough to be nearly universally useable. And it costs a fraction to develop and research plus it’s inherently safe.

      It’s a crazy world where we have this wonderful discovery but the science community has this “group angst” for fear it might not be true even though all the evidence points to it being true.

      • oarmas

        Again, the scientific community ‘collects’ 100 billion dollars a year world wide for fusion research. Do they use this money to run M. Rossi’s test? No, they don’t. What would it cost them to ‘do it right’? Under $5M, with all the bells and whistles. Where are you Mr Siegel? Why don’t you run the test. Get the correct radiation output, verify the isotopes prove points 1-5 above. I bet you can’t, I bet the results when run by the ‘establishment’, which to date has produced NOTHING, will be BETTER than M Rossi’s team. Will it be run? Why no, of course not, that would jeopardize a gravy train of billions of dollars of funding for fusion that WON’T work.

  • oarmas

    Appalling response from the ‘scientific community’. The ‘science’ of fusion to date is as follows, over 10 Trillion dollars spent on research with no results AT ALL, to defend a theory that is 100 years old and NOT complete. Cold fusion has been around ALL that time, as well. It has required at LEAST 1 MILLION times LESS FUNDING and PRODUCED RESULTS THAT have beaten the ESTABLISHED SCIENCE by over 1000 times. Maybe Rossi is a charlatan and fraud, BUT WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT Siegel and his community who have defrauded the taxpayers for much more and produced EVEN LESS than Mr Rossi?

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Hot fusion is something that is nice for planet based power generation, but the problems are so big it’s nearly useless other than to gain knowledge. The containment problems for neutrons for example are so huge, that I have a hard time they will ever get it right. Basically, neutrons can’t be contained with known physics. In any case, hot fusion is taking way to much money for the few breakthroughs it generates.

      Now cold fusion on the other hand could be used to power your car, house, swimming pool, garden house, streetlights construction yards, fabrication plants, satellites, IIS, moonbases, etc. It’s small and safe enough to be nearly universally useable. And it costs a fraction to develop and research plus it’s inherently safe.

      It’s a crazy world where we have this wonderful discovery but the science community has this “group angst” for fear it might not be true even though all the evidence points to it being true.

      • oarmas

        Again, the scientific community ‘collects’ 100 billion dollars a year world wide for fusion research. Do they use this money to run M. Rossi’s test? No, they don’t. What would it cost them to ‘do it right’? Under $5M, with all the bells and whistles. Where are you Mr Siegel? Why don’t you run the test. Get the correct radiation output, verify the isotopes prove points 1-5 above. I bet you can’t, I bet the results when run by the ‘establishment’, which to date has produced NOTHING, will be BETTER than M Rossi’s team. Will it be run? Why no, of course not, that would jeopardize a gravy train of billions of dollars of funding for fusion that WON’T work.

  • LCD

    Okay so there are several problems with your statements. And I’ll try to pretend your not Popeye or somebody else from IECN.

    1) There were two signal analyzers downstream from an independent mains outlet. We can argue until we’re blue in the face but even if a team of totally independent nobel prize winning physicists and engineers were there, it wouldn’t make a difference as far as skeptics go. That is a fact that Rossi and everybody else understands. The problem here is that the first assumption by the OP is that there is deliberate fraud rather than a systematic error, and a real observation is a side note. So in summary “we don’t believe you”

    2) Thermal camera based calorimetry is done with good enough accuracy, specially for something like this which has a cop greater than 1.2. But don’t believe me, ask Dr. McKubre. I did not read your comments below because I could not find them. Again here the clear implication is nothing less than fraud or incompetence.

    3) It’s a lack of a measurement and we’ve discussed the possibility of fraud so unless we want to continue to drive that point as our thesis why bring it up again. Nothing here suggests that we should expect anything since we don’t know why anything is happening. Need more info.

    4) It’s the same as three because there is not enough information to exclude any possibility as far as physics goes and whatsmore nobody is claiming classical proton/neutron capture as something that MUST be happening only as something that MIGHT be happening. “If you want to understand a new phenomenon you must first unlearn everything you need to unlearn” – Leonard Susskind

    5) Most tests in physics are rarely perfectly independent and we ALL know that. Yet here it is used as some exacting weapon that is suppose to shred all this into tiny pieces. Everybody knows that we need to do more public tests but that shouldn’t be used as an excuse to bash this test. It’s silly.

    Look bottom line is that people have seen these types of phenomena for years
    http://www.lenr_canr.org
    Yet when this happens it’s like, wow, we’ve never seen or heard of this before it must be fraud. And no reference by any other skeptic is made to any other experiment. Doesn’t that seem silly?

  • LCD

    okay this one didn’t show up until I refrenshed so according to you 4) is basically fraud. No it is not equally likely because you don’t have the full probabilities for all the choices i.e. we don’t know what we don’t know.

    For instance when we get more clarification from the testers on the powder handling we may reduce the probability for a) or b). And I’m sorry but when we get more clarification on c) we may also change our probability.

    And your last statement I find completely hilarious to the point of ridiculous (with all due respect)

    “It is also valid to point out that while mechanisms for 99% fuel depletion on this test without loss of any power can be constructed they are all highly improbable. So you add another improbability to the inherent difficulty of nuclear transformation with none of the expected alternate pathways.”

    So now you can be referred to as a believer because by faith you have already decided that 99% of the fuel was depleted on the test. What are the expected pathways? Please elaborate?

  • LCD

    6) is only weird when you don’t value the work it takes to run a company and develop IP.

    And that says a lot about you.

  • psi2u2

    Your clarification is appreciated.