Huffington Post Covers E-Cat — Authors Concede that Rossi Could Have Made a ‘Very Important Discovery’

In the Huffington Post Blog today, contributors David H. Bailey of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (retired) and University of California, and Jonathan M. Borwein, Laureate Professor of Mathematics, University of Newcastle, Australia cover the latest news in the world of nuclear fusion in a post titled “Fusion Energy: Hope or Hype?

They first talk about the latest IPPC’s warnings about the threats of climate-related disasters if we don’t cut carbon emissions drastically, and mention that current alternative energy technologies, while promising, are not able to provide the power the world needs to function. Then they look at the prospects for fusion energy technology to help us with clean and abundant energy.

They admit that the major fusion research projects that have been carried out over recent decateds do not provide us with any near-term prospects for energy production, saying, “The bottom line is that while significant progress has been made in both approaches [tokamak and ITER], even the leaders of these projects acknowledge that we are decades away from commercial realization.”

They cover the recent announcement by Lockheed Martin about ‘compact fusion’ reactors but say, “Sadly, no technical details are yet available, so the scientific community has no way of assessing the merits of their approach.”

Then they move onto the E-Cat, and go into quite a lot of detail regarding the results of the latest Lugano test including the measurements of excess heat and the changes in the isotopic composition of the fuel during the testing.

In terms of this E-Cat test they state they face “three stark and perplexing choices” which are: 1) Rossi and the testers are involved in fraud; 2) Rossi and the team have made ‘multiple, serious, experimental or data-analysis errors; 3) Rossi and the team have made “a very important discovery that may revolutionize the production of energy worldwide. (But how can we square these results with known nuclear physics?)”

The present bloggers are as concerned as anyone that the Italian-Swedish experiment does not have any solid theoretical foundation, has no detectable radiation, and in fact seemingly contravenes conventional physics. We also caution against anyone taking these results too seriously until they can be replicated by completely independent research teams. We are aware that Rossi has a somewhat checkered past, although so did the mathematician Louis de Brange until he proved the Bieberbach conjecture in 1985.

But, on the other hand, we see no point in rejecting, much less vilifying, a new research result simply because it departs from mainstream thinking, provided that 1) it is performed by well-qualified researchers using reasonably sound methodologies and up-to-date equipment, 2) it is documented in sufficient detail to permit third parties to reproduce the results, and 3) the researchers have at least submitted their work for proper peer review.

So we will continue to monitor both of these developments. At the very least, they are certain to make an interesting chapter in the sociology of science.

I find this to be quite a fair-minded assessment of the E-Cat test — something that I hope will cause people to take it more seriously. Drs. Bailey and Borwein should be commended, I think, for maintaining an open mind and allowing for the possibility at least that ‘cold fusion’ could be the answer to many of our most critical energy problems.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Yes, it could be a crack in the first major media coverage of the E-Cat. Good reporting, Frank.

  • Buck

    Wow . . . I couldn’t be more pleased with Bailey and Borwein’s assessment of ITPR2 and LENR in the Huffington Post. Very open and even handed, even including McKubre’s critique of ITPR2

    And, I especially enjoyed the quick witted quote from Ben Franklin “Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead”, essentially dismissing the charges of fraud.

    Very nice. Excellent job Frank

    • GreenWin

      It was fairly even handed. And the HufPost has a decent readership. It may also be that the report which has nearly 100k downloads is starting to sink in. After a while people cannot avoid the elephant size stack of papers and studies in the room. Which is just fine.

      • Buck

        People have to adjust their “Reality” . . . it takes time & patience. This is good day.

    • Ophelia Rump

      It reads more like a disclaimer for any relationship to negative sentiments.
      Luke warm non-support, or tepid tolerance.

      The centering of chromosomes before cell division.

      • Bernie777

        Right, but I will take it!

  • Buck

    Wow . . . I couldn’t be more pleased with Bailey and Borwein’s assessment of ITPR2 and LENR in the Huffington Post. Very open and even handed, even including McKubre’s critique of ITPR2

    And, I especially enjoyed the quick witted quote from Ben Franklin “Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead”, essentially dismissing the charges of fraud.

    Very nice. Excellent job Frank

    • GreenWin

      It was fairly even handed. And the HufPost has a decent readership. It may also be that the report which has nearly 100k downloads is starting to sink in. After a while people cannot avoid the elephant size stack of papers and studies in the room. Which is just fine.

      • Buck

        People have to adjust “Reality” . . . it takes time, patience. This is a good day.

  • Gerard McEk

    This is exactly how real scientists should react on a development like this. Let’s try to replicate and make some money available for it. Rossi/IH should be acknoledged for the IP rights, but get it out of the speudo-science corner!

  • Ophelia Rump

    It reads more like a disclaimer for any relationship to negative sentiments.
    Luke warm non-support, or tepid tolerance.

    The centering of chromosomes before cell division.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Right, but I will take it!

  • Avatar Polymorph

    Finally, a balanced reportage, that respects the testing scientists. But which is the breakthrough date? The first report or the second? My vote is the first. Or is the date the date of the first demonstration in Bologna? Will there be a statue of Rossi and Focardi erected in Bologna? Mad of nickel?

  • Dave Lawton

    I don`t know why they would not give Rossi a patent.I know Harold Aspden had a patent granted.Maybe he should point that out.

  • thirdpartyanimal

    If anyone wish to understand who these two guys are, please read this:

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math.symbolic/a3kVKVYJhgc/tgyuQs5iflsJ

    How interesting that these 2 “credible” scientists who give some support to Rossi’s “work” seem to be total dishonest and greedy *********. How interesting, indeed.

    • GreenWin

      Looks like just another mathematician with a bunch of sour grapes.

  • Christina

    I hope the article in the HufPost encourages the rich to seriously finance IH because if the government gets involved it’ll just be as skewered as everything else touched by Uncle Sam.

    • Christina

      I’m talking about rich people who have principle, not those willing to exploit the technology for war.

      Christina

      • Alain Samoun

        “rich people who have principle”
        ???

        • bachcole

          You are very blinded by your ideology. Are not Darden, Rossi, and your beloved George Soros rich people?

          • psi2u2

            Yes, and with principles, I would suggest, in each case. Ergo, I concur, there are rich people with principles. Just not enough of them, imho.

          • Alain Samoun

            “Just not enough of them, imho.
            Or too many without…


            Reply

            Share › ”

            Or

          • psi2u2

            Both.

          • bachcole

            Yes, and there aren’t enough human beings with principles. I would suggest that everyone can have principles and their lives would be so much better. My wife’s family was desperately more poor than any Westerner can imagine, and they lived principles, and they were happy.

        • hempenearth

          They are like camels that can get through the eye of a needle

          • bachcole

            Only hearts get into heaven, and we don’t know what their hearts are.

          • Charles

            Hey hemp, how about telling us exactly what “needle” Jesus was speaking of when he used that expression. I’m betting you don’t know. Surprise me.

          • drobertson

            If you are thinking that the “Eye of a needle” reference in the bible refers to the small gate in Jerusalem that supposedly camels could only get through by shuffling on their knees. This is a common urban myth and one based on a single comment by a person in the 9th century, but it has no historical, archaeological or other evidence to back it up in any way. There isn’t even a second instance of anyone stating that idea.

            It most commonly is used as a way of diluting the statement Jesus made about rich people having little chance of getting into heaven. Then again it is based on a comment made 900 years after the fact about something someone said that was only written down by an editorial board of Romans 300 years after the fact based on a set of stories that had been told for many thousands of years. Anything could be true.

            I am going to choose to believe that the “Eye of the Needle” was a belly dancing club that would kick you out if you brought your camel inside. Perhaps it is meant to infer that you could get into heaven if you are rich enough to bribe the bouncer.

          • rudy

            focus on the eye, not the needle. Jesus has a sense of humor and loved to play with words. Don’t believe me read the bible.

  • Andrew

    A little off topic but maybe the DoE has heard some news… Strangely it’s a similar 10 year time frame that LM announced.

    Excerpt:

    The report was commissioned by the US Department of Energy (DOE), which asked its Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) to come up with a 10-year plan under several very constrained budget scenarios.

    And

    The make up of the committee itself has also come under fire as the DOE stipulated that it should not contain any members from the major fusion labs.

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/oct/21/critics-attack-new-10-year-us-fusion-plan

    • Buck

      It was good to see a bit of justice, when MIT was slated to lose all the fusion funding. It was only due to fevered politicking by their elected state representatives that the money was saved.

      • Curbina

        At least they refrained to put it in the “weird news” section where I was thinking they might have put it. That alone speaks volumes.

        • BroKeeper

          The comment “MIT’s own Alcator C-Mod Tokamak device had been earmarked for closure in the 2013 budget and was only saved by Congress following aggressive lobbying by Massachusetts politicians”

          and

          “The FESAC subcommittee was told to devise a plan that assumes the US remains a member of ITER, with funding ranging from a flat budget to modest growth of about 2% above inflation…….and for C-Mod to be axed” is telling. The sifting from costly US nuclear fusion programs is following ‘the wake of several years of belt-tightening for the US fusion community.’ This is very good news for IH.

          These news whispers, with the current world’s woes of water borne diseases, toxic fossil fuel emissions, oil resource battlefields, economic disequilibrium, and lack of opportunities provides accumulated winds of opportunity and hope the E-Cat can offer and magnify for the MSM sails.

      • psi2u2

        Yes, and with principles, I would suggest, in each case.

        • Alain Samoun

          “Just not enough of them, imho.
          Or too many without…


          Reply

          Share › ”

          Or

          • psi2u2

            Both.

        • bachcole

          Yes, and there aren’t enough human beings with principles. I would suggest that everyone can have principles and their lives would be so much better. My wife’s family was desperately more poor than any Westerner can imagine, and they lived principles, and they were happy.

    • Omega Z

      And this is where the major resistance comes from towards LENR.
      It’s all about the money.

      • Omega Z

        “and science should not depend on trust”

        And yet, it does & always has. Which is why they came up with peer review. Trust but Verify. However, So many papers are published today that many are not peer reviewed & many inadequately or by those without the expertize to do so when they are.

        As to the ITP test, Those performing the test have a much higher obligation to Elforsk then any other. They were the primary funders of this test & the holders of all the test data.

        IH/Darden did provide funding. The cost of the product, Rossi’s multiple trips, room, & eats. And They paid for the Radiation detection/monitoring of the test. Not for those conducting the test itself. That would be a strike against their own self interest.

        Those conducting the test are not going to throw away their reputations for a few thousand dollars. And with the IH Marketing plan, there is no financial gain to be had unless it works. If the E-cat doesn’t work, the customer doesn’t pay.

        Those who complain it is not a valid test, because it can’t be independently replicated by any University, Get Over It. It was never intended to be. This is a little Science with the Priority of the E-cat being taken to market.

        People can’t Grasp why Rossi would be present for the Loading & Removal of the Fuel/Charge. Must be up to no good.

        Try a different Scenario for a Minute. The E-cat Technology Works.
        WHAT Is this Technology Worth??? Who would be interested.
        Now, Tell Me you wouldn’t be present for the loading/unloading of the Fuel/Ash.

  • Andrew

    A little off topic but maybe the DoE has heard some news… Strangely it’s a similar 10 year time frame that LM announced.

    Excerpt:

    The report was commissioned by the US Department of Energy (DOE), which asked its Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) to come up with a 10-year plan under several very constrained budget scenarios.

    And

    The make up of the committee itself has also come under fire as the DOE stipulated that it should not contain any members from the major fusion labs.

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/oct/21/critics-attack-new-10-year-us-fusion-plan

    • Buck

      It was good to see a bit of justice, when MIT was slated to lose all the fusion funding. It was only due to fevered politicking by their elected state representatives that the money was saved.

    • Omega Z

      And this is where the major resistance comes from towards LENR.
      It’s all about the money.

  • bachcole

    I feel that so many of us made the same mistake with regard to time as we have made with regard to space. “The Powers that Be know all about LENR and are trying to suppress it.”; “Big Company X is secretly working on LENR but is keeping it a secret.”; etc. etc. The same could be said with regard to timing. I saw people 18 hours after the announcement of the latest test complain that none of the major news media had not picked up the story. I thought: are we so close to our story that we expect everyone else to know what is going on as soon as we do. This latest test may yet make the big time news outlets. The Huffington Post is not yet the big time, but it is close.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      I disagree, it is the big time, read by many progressive thoughtful people.

      • bachcole

        I am happy to be corrected. It is a little difficult to gauge everything. (:->) I read the Huffington Post, and I am not even a “progressive” person. Do you find me to be a thoughtful person?

  • Curbina

    At least they refrained to put it in the “weird news” section where I was thinking they might have put it. That alone speaks volumes.

    • bachcole

      Good thought.

  • Brokeeper

    The comment “MIT’s own Alcator C-Mod Tokamak device had been earmarked for closure in the 2013 budget and was only saved by Congress following aggressive lobbying by Massachusetts politicians”

    and

    “The FESAC subcommittee was told to devise a plan that assumes the US remains a member of ITER, with funding ranging from a flat budget to modest growth of about 2% above inflation…….and for C-Mod to be axed” is telling. The sifting from costly US nuclear fusion programs are following ‘the wake of several years of belt-tightening for the US fusion community.’ This is very good news for IH.

    These news whispers, with the current world’s woes of water borne diseases, toxic fossil fuel emissions, oil resource battlefields, economic disequilibrium, and lack of opportunities provides accumulated winds of opportunity and hope the E-Cat can offer and magnify for the MSM sails.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    „3) the researchers have at least submitted their work for proper peer review”.

    This is a very important point, since it implies that having passed the selection process is not an indispensible precondition for a scientific study to be taken seriously. A really heretical thought! These authors seem to be clever in every respect. They are surfing on the Climate Change and Lockheed waves to speed up before they touch on the Rossi story. Publishing SIMS data in a popular magazine would normally be a taboo since it will certainly scare off many readers. But the numbers they provide should electrify those who know at least a little about the subject.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    „3) the researchers have at least submitted their work for proper peer review”.

    This is a very important point, since it implies that having passed the selection process is not an indispensible precondition for a scientific study to be taken seriously. A really heretical thought! These authors seem to be clever in every respect. They are surfing on the Climate Change and Lockheed waves to speed up before they touch on the Rossi story. Publishing SIMS data in a popular magazine would normally be a taboo since it will certainly scare off many readers. But the numbers they provide should electrify those who know at least a little about the subject.

  • ecatworld

    This article is still not good enough for Wikipedia, where they still have not allowed any mention of the Lugano test. I tried to make a note on WP using this article as a reference, but it didn’t last a couple of minutes.

    • Dods

      All one can conclude is if Wikipedia was a real world print you would be reading it off the roll next to your toilet.

    • psi2u2

      In my own field of Shakespeare studies, wikipedia thought police led by Mr. Tom Reedy, “Nishidani” and Paul Barlowe, have (among other censorious acts) removed with impunity references to articles in a number of peer reviewed journals simply because the conclusions of those articles ran contrary to their protected beliefs.

      • Bernie777

        I disagree, it is the big time, read by many progressive thoughtful people.

    • georgehants

      CRAIG WEILER SHOWS HOW CLOSED MINDED SKEPTICS HIJACKED WIKIPEDIA:
      Dean Radin writes about Craig’s book: ” It describes a world where the most widely accessed factual encyclopedia is actually a work of fantasy written
      by anonymous amateurs; where organizations that purport
      to support scientific inquiry in fact do the complete
      opposite; where a celebrated science prize is actually
      an impossible-to-win publicity stunt; and where an entertainment
      outlet with a mission for sharing ideas instead acts
      to censor them. And this is just the beginning.”
      ‘PSI Wars: TED, Wikipedia and the Battle for the Internet’.
      http://www.amazon.com.au/PSI-W

      • where di you get that BS ?
        they are paid by their university, and funded by Elforsk, Royal University of Sweden and few similar “client”…

        not by rossi…

        moreover it is no more rossi story, but Tom Darden baby.

        it is easy to find problem in a test protocol if you modify the reality.

      • LCD

        In what way is it not met?

        • fact police

          It is not “documented in sufficient detail to permit 3rd parties to reproduce the results”.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yes it’s “argumentum ab auctoritate”.

    • psi2u2

      That’s interesting that they won’t let you even mention the test. Typical Wikipedia. We don’t like the results (we, after all, have to keep Wikipedia safe from the taint of the unconventional), so we will not allow anyone to talk about them. Its strange how it never occurs to them that maybe the best way to handle this sort of thing is to let each side have a say?

  • Frank Acland

    This article is still not good enough for Wikipedia, where they still have not allowed any mention of the Lugano test. I tried to make a note on WP using this article as a reference, but it didn’t last a couple of minutes.

    • Dods

      All one can conclude is if Wikipedia was a real world print you would be reading it off the roll next to your toilet.

    • psi2u2

      In my own field of Shakespeare studies, wikipedia thought police led by Mr. Tom Reedy, “Nishidani” and Paul Barlowe, have (among other censorious acts) removed with impunity references to articles in a number of peer reviewed journals simply because the conclusions of those articles ran contrary to their protected beliefs.

    • georgehants

      CRAIG WEILER SHOWS HOW CLOSED MINDED SKEPTICS HIJACKED WIKIPEDIA:
      Dean Radin writes about Craig’s book: ” It describes a world where the most widely accessed factual encyclopedia is actually a work of fantasy written
      by anonymous amateurs; where organizations that purport
      to support scientific inquiry in fact do the complete
      opposite; where a celebrated science prize is actually
      an impossible-to-win publicity stunt; and where an entertainment
      outlet with a mission for sharing ideas instead acts
      to censor them. And this is just the beginning.”
      ‘PSI Wars: TED, Wikipedia and the Battle for the Internet’.
      http://www.amazon.com.au/PSI-W

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yes it’s “argumentum ab auctoritate”.

    • fact police

      I think the goal of Wikipedia is to represent mainstream thought, whether it is right or wrong. So, revolutionary ideas have to be vetted by the mainstream before they are admitted to wikipedia. These results have not yet been so vetted.

      That seems appropriate to me. When I look something up in wikipedia, I really want to know what the mainstream thought is. I wouldn’t trust the amateurs at Wikipedia who write the articles to make judgements between ideas of various small groups with differing ideas. Anyone interested in that should not be looking in Wikipedia.

      If the views of minority groups were admitted, the articles would change depending on which group last edited it. Really, for this sort of reference, the only objective and consistent criterion can be that it represent plain old boring mainstream vetted view.

      Cold fusion’s battle should be first with the reviewers and editors of science journals. if that is won, there won’t be a battle with Wikipedia.

      • Marcel Baumann

        I totally agree, when we are talking about the ‘Cold Fusion’ Wikipedia page, but the ‘Andrea Rossi’ page is also guarded by a group of wiseacre. Why should Rossis page not contain the fact, that he is still working on the e-cat and that there exists a 3rd party test?

        • fact police

          Because it’s not a 3rd party test as that is normally understood. It’s a claim made by people selected and vetted and possibly compensated by the very person who stands to get rich on an endorsement, and who they admit took part in the experiment. It depends on trust; a 3rd party test should not.

          • where di you get that BS ?
            they are paid by their university, and funded by Elforsk, Royal University of Sweden and few similar “client”…

            not by rossi…

            moreover it is no more rossi story, but Tom Darden baby.

            it is easy to find problem in a test protocol if you modify the reality.

          • fact police

            alainco wrote:

            >they are paid by their university, and funded by Elforsk, Royal University of Sweden and few similar “client”…

            That does not exclude compensation from Rossi/IH.

            >moreover it is no more rossi story, but Tom Darden baby.

            Rossi is chief scientist for IH, so he is certainly part of the story. And he remains the inventor.

            >it is easy to find problem in a test protocol if you modify the reality.

            It is even easier if the protocol is full of problems, as even McKubre enumerated. But the chief problem is that it requires trust to accept the claims, and science should not depend on trust, the way religion does. I suspect that’s why arXiv hesitates to publish.

          • Omega Z

            “and science should not depend on trust”

            And yet, it does & always has. Which is why they came up with peer review. Trust but Verify. However, So many papers are published today that many are not peer reviewed & many inadequately or by those without the expertize to do so when they are.

            As to the ITP test, Those performing the test have a much higher obligation to Elforsk then any other. They were the primary funders of this test & the holders of all the test data.

            IH/Darden did provide funding. The cost of the product, Rossi’s multiple trips, room, & eats. And They paid for the Radiation detection/monitoring of the test. Not for those conducting the test itself. That would be a strike against their own self interest.

            Those conducting the test are not going to throw away their reputations for a few thousand dollars. And with the IH Marketing plan, there is no financial gain to be had unless it works. If the E-cat doesn’t work, the customer doesn’t pay.

            Those who complain it is not a valid test, because it can’t be independently replicated by any University, Get Over It. It was never intended to be. This is a little Science with the Priority of the E-cat being taken to market.

            People can’t Grasp why Rossi would be present for the Loading & Removal of the Fuel/Charge. Must be up to no good.

            Try a different Scenario for a Minute. The E-cat Technology Works.
            WHAT Is this Technology Worth??? Who would be interested.
            Now, Tell Me you wouldn’t be present for the loading/unloading of the Fuel/Ash.

          • fact police

            Omega Z wrote:
            “and science should not depend on trust”
            And yet, it does & always has. Which is why they came up with peer review. Trust but Verify.

            I completely agree that trust and integrity are an important part of the scientific process. They greatly expedite discovery. It’s because of trust that P&F were given such an enthusiastic reception in 1989, even though it didn’t last very long.

            But as you say, trust is not enough. That is, science can’t depend on trust alone. Scientific claims have to be verifiable. If they’re not, anything can be claimed.


            Omega Z> As to the ITP test, Those performing the test have a much higher obligation to Elforsk then any other. They were the primary funders of this test & the holders of all the test data.

            I have not seen any evidence that that is the case. The report simply acknowledges support from Elforsk. They do not say anything about the extent of the support.


            Omega Z> IH/Darden did provide funding. The cost of the product, Rossi’s multiple trips, room, & eats. And They paid for the Radiation detection/monitoring of the test. Not for those conducting the test itself. That would be a strike against their own self interest.

            You seem to have a lot of information about this that I have not seen. Can you reveal the source?


            Omega Z> Those conducting the test are not going to throw away their reputations for a few thousand dollars.

            Again, I have not seen any information that they were paid at all, let alone the amount. I have no way of knowing that it’s not much more.

            And all the authors have a history working on cold fusion experiments, so success is vindication to them. Plus they claimed “indications” of success last year, so they have their pride to protect. They are open to be fooled, or at least highly susceptible to confirmation bias, and not inclined to look too carefully if the results are looking good.

            I don’t see being fooled by Rossi as a big risk to their reputations. If the ecat is bogus, they know it will never be released in the wild, and therefore, no one will be able to prove their claims wrong. So, they can save face, and let the story die a gradual death, without ever having to admit they were fooled.

            If somehow Rossi is exposed outright, they can claim they were duped. It’s embarrassing, sure, but no more so than admitting now that they were duped last year, and it won’t necessarily happen.

            And of course, if there were something to it, they’d win big. So, their best play is to avoid rigor, and accept and report a positive result.


            Omega Z>And with the IH Marketing plan, there is no financial gain to be had unless it works. If the E-cat doesn’t work, the customer doesn’t pay.

            In an investment scam, the goal is never to make money on sales of products. IH would look for people to invest in the company. That’s the financial gain.


            Omega Z> Those who complain it is not a valid test, because it can’t be independently replicated by any University, Get Over It. It was never intended to be.

            But that’s how it’s being promoted. The claim is that it validates the ecat. And in the present context, that’s how it would be used in a wikipedia article.


            Omega Z> Now, Tell Me you wouldn’t be present for the loading/unloading of the Fuel/Ash.

            The objection was not to Rossi’s participating in a test. The objection is to his participation in what is promoted as an *independent* “validation”.

          • Frank Acland

            In the Acknowledgements at the end of the paper:

            “Lastly, our thanks to Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for providing financial support for the measurements performed for radiation protection purposes.” (p. 31)

          • fact police

            Yes, I’ve seen that. Omega Z claimed much more detail than that.

    • psi2u2

      That’s interesting that they won’t let you even mention the test. Typical Wikipedia. We don’t like the results (we, after all, have to keep Wikipedia safe from the taint of the unconventional), so we will not allow anyone to talk about them. Its strange how it never occurs to them that maybe the best way to handle this sort of thing is to let each side have a say?

  • Buck

    This article shows another interesting upside. The HuffPost comment section does not easily allow for aliases . . . there is no MaryYugo or other anonymous skeptopaths making comment. >90% of the comments are positive.

  • Buck

    This article shows another interesting upside. The HuffPost comment section does not easily allow for aliases . . . there is no MaryYugo or other anonymous skeptopaths making comment. >90% of the comments are positive and civil.

  • deleo77

    I think #2 is the least possible scenario. First, the COP is high enough at 3.5 that even if measurement errors occurred, it is probably too big of a gain to be the result of measurement errors. That wouldn’t be minor error in measurement, it would be a massive one. And it would be a massive error that occurred over a long period of time and with testers who were not new to the process of measuring the reactor. This was their second attempt at this.

    Even less likely would be major errors by the spectroscopists stating that there was a transmutation to Ni62. These scientists are specialists in looking at what is there and what isn’t. Did they completely misread the isotopic ash that came out of the e-cat post reaction? Again, possible, but not likely.

    Measurement error can’t be ruled out completely, but we are most likely looking at the choice between fraud and real. Even most of the hardened skeptics believe that is the choice to make.

  • fact police

    The article says quite reasonably that new research should not be rejected, if it meets 3 specified criteria. They don’t seem to have noticed that their second criterion is not met.

    • LCD

      In what way is it not met?

  • deleo77

    I think #2 is the least possible scenario. First, the COP is high enough at 3.5 that even if measurement errors occurred, it is probably too big of a gain to be the result of measurement errors. That wouldn’t be minor error in measurement, it would be a massive one. And it would be a massive error that occurred over a long period of time and with testers who were not new to the process of measuring the reactor. This was their second attempt at this.

    Even less likely would be major errors by the spectroscopists stating that there was a transmutation to Ni62. These scientists are specialists in looking at what is there and what isn’t. Did they completely misread the isotopic ash that came out of the e-cat post reaction? Again, possible, but not likely.

    Measurement error can’t be ruled out completely, but we are most likely looking at the choice between fraud and real. Even most of the hardened skeptics believe that is the choice to make.

  • ecatworld

    In the Acknowledgements at the end of the paper:

    “Lastly, our thanks to Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for providing financial support for the measurements performed for radiation protection purposes.” (p. 31)

    • fact police

      Yes, I’ve seen that. Omega Z claimed much more detail than that.