Thursday, May 30, 2013

LENR FRONTLINE REPORT: undecided battle, the war continues.

LENR FRONTLINE REPORT: undecided battle, the war continues.

"To be intelligent means to NOT mix (confuse) the points of view" (Mihail Ralea)

Lack of intelligence has a somewhat broader extent however it surely comprises mixing of incompatible, immiscible things.
The recently published Report re. Rossi’s Hot Cat has caused a battle of such immiscible ideas – more precisely memes. It was written a lot about it and all I want is to answer the fundamental questions: What war was this? Who were the combatants? How will be this war finished?
The battle per se had no clear winners and no clear losers –except reason, logic and common sense. Applying two stages of radical euphemization I can tell that this paper: is the worst I have seen in 24+ years of Cold Fusion history, a blasphemy against taxonomy. It mixes 5 things in the most unprofessional mode- a real monster bred by the sleep of reason.
Otherwise the Big Four Rossi killers – Joshua Cude, Steven Krivit, Gary Wright and Mary Yugo have reacted as this was expected from them. (Mary was the fastest, congrats!) Many other new kids on the block have reacted similarly. An old rule: if you have no arguments, no facts you manufacture them and add them to the reality. I think they have read my analysis saying my 20 problem solving rules were able to solve >99% of the real problems but less than 80% of the imaginary ones.
Rule 17 says it clearly:  “NOT always the existent, real problems, but many times the fictive, imaginary ones are the most difficult to be solved.”
Using this weapon is easy- you add imaginary problems to the real ones regarding the Report and then claim that those new problems are insoluble- that means the report is flawed. By reading a few ten thousands of comments you could easily earn a diploma in distorted logic. The confusion is total and even good and honest people will write self-contradictory open end papers like this.

The Hundred Years War had duration of 116 years (1337-1453); the Cold Fusion War will be known as the Twenty Five Years LENR War and will last roughly 25 years. That means that the coming months will bring decisive events on more fronts.
Just watch the news and especially this blog, Ego Out.
But the battle of Ferrara is not simply a continuation of the war between the LENR believers and the Cold Fusion skeptics. No, actually it was a battle between LENR+ Rossi style and
his personal enemies (Rossi is very effective in creating enmity) The rest is just context.
The classic LENR people and their traditional adversaries have mixed in naturally but it was not more their battle. It was a LENR+ battle on an other frontline...
\The relationship between LENR (Pd based, smart static nanostructures, etc.- weak, sporadic heat effect) and LENR+- much enhanced excess heat) is approximately similar to that of a caterpillar and butterfly. LENR to LENR+ is a radical metamorphosis. To speak about fixed active sites/NAE and dynamic active sites/NAE is the core of the difference but still a simplification.
Again about mixing: LENR and LENR+ systems have to be considered separately, they represent different levels, stages and directions of development. We have to treat them separately; do not mix cherries and pumpkins. (idiotic metaphor, take it only dimensionally)
The final battles will take place very probably between a LENR+ technology smarter than Rossi’s and the last place will be the market.
Some of enemies of the coming LENR+ technology are so obsessed with their unbelief that they will look with suspicion even to their own new LENR+ based central heater.
The decisive technical Armageddons will come soon and the enemies of progress will learn that they are no more confronting LENR a poor myriapode with a lot of Achilles heels, but LENR+ the invincible technology.



  1. Hi Peter,

    For what it's worth, here is what bothers me the most about this whole Rossi story.

    Levi described a really good, simple and direct experimental design in February 2011. If someone doesn't remember it, I will be happy to find a reference.

    The problem with that one test was that it had no blank run and no controls and that Levi did not properly record the data.

    That would have been so easy to fix. Why hasn't it been fixed in the more than two years since? Instead, we've had many additional tests, each one more convoluted and controversial than the last. I don't get it. If Rossi's ecat were real, he and Levi could prove it convincingly in less than a week. Who cares about "hot cats" when it's so much easier and clearer to work with the old steam ones? Do you think maybe Rossi doesn't care about clarity, simplicity... and credibility?

    1. Dear Mary,
      I have criticized Rossi's rhapsodic experimental program
      for 2011 by correspondence and on my blog. As a lab leader I would not have tolerated such a disorganized, bad research activity (no plan, no program, no leading idea could be observed.
      The explanation is this: he has obtained indeed excess heat,however less than he has planned and he had troubles with control. He wanted to improve the results. OK, the essence is he has discovered the LENR+ effect and if his Partner is really good in engineering, they will make progress. The problems are really difficult.I will ask
      you better think than answer me with some standard ideas.

  2. Peter, you give these Chip Bodies too much credit. Only Steven Krivit has had any Chemical Body physical effect on bringing out new energy technology.

    The others are mere AI representations of a meme long gone, now seen as a phantom limb earlier amputated, but still itching.

    1. You are right and the metaphor is bright. However as you know I as a veteran Cold Fusionist belong to the CMNS and Vortex groups If the groups take seriously Cude, Yougo and Wight- automatically I am also doing so.
      We are beyond the nice exchanges as Mary saying my brain is not a sharp tool and I calling her the Nagaina of the field.
      The case of Steve Krivit, once my dear friend is a tragedy.

  3. There are two distinct approaches being used by folks who seek to analyze the credibility of the latest demonstrations. One group concerns itself with the properties of the device itself, and the other takes a black box approach and focuses on the integrity of the measurement problem.

    It should be noted that a failure of the first group to divine a physical mechanism, be it LENR or something else, does not render the demonstrations invalid, but simply points to a possible lack of knowledge and/or inventiveness with what may be new physical chemistry.

    However, a successful analysis by the second (measurement) group indicating that there is no over-unity COP present would render any speculation by the first group moot, in this particular context.

    It therefore seems appropriate to focus all resources on analyzing the measurement process for this experiment in the first instance, and possible ways this could have been manipulated to fool the experimenters. It is rich territory, containing as it does several points of ambiguity:

    - Neither cable (mains to control, control to device) was thoroughly examined for hidden conductors which could fool a clamp-on ammeter. Neither did the testers provide their own cables to be sure there was no cheating.

    - No oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer was used by the testers to seek sources of power input outside the range of the probes - that is, either DC or RF power.

    - Levi, a close collaborator of Rossi, was present at all times. The ostensible excuse for this was to protect the IP (operation of the control box and contents of the powder in the charge). However, this is a double-edged sword and his actual role during the experiments is undocumented by the other researchers.

    It would behove these researchers to publish an Appendix to their report, wherein all these issues, and more, were laid out in a lot more detail. As matters stand, the entire issue of measurement integrity stands on extremely shaky ground.

    1. Two more issues I neglected to mention are

      - The widespread assumption that the device enters a state of thermal runaway appears to be on shaky ground. The "leaked" picture of the glowing device is of an experimental condition whereby constant and excessive power was continually pumped in. Heating elements exhibit the same behaviour.

      - The calibration protocol is seriously flawed. The applied power (constant) was in no way identical to that used in the actual experiment (pulsed), but should have been for a true calibration to have been undertaken. Since the calibration is used in calculating the COP of the system, this is a grave oversight.

    2. The last point is exact opposite to the reality - in this type of indirect power measurement (where power is evaluated with integration over one side of Planck's curve) it is actually preferred to have the same output power/temperature in both tests, because the possible errors then have the same direction and magnitude. Input measurement is so much easier and different duty factors do not make it considerably more difficult.
      I guess this kind of "criticism" comes from people who do not have much experience with real life metrology.

    3. Ah, another ad hominem chap hoping that will add cogency to his argument (it doesn't, and simply makes you sound silly).

      Well, you miss the point that apples need to be compared with apples. I strongly suspect that when the control box is placed in pulsed mode, what looks like "pulse OFF" 65% of the time is in fact not that at all. If such a trick were being pulled, what better way to expose it than to repeat that run, except this time with no charge in the cylinder.

      I don't expect you to understand that line of reasoning, because you're just a metrologist.

    4. No "ad hominem" here, at least not intentionally. I'm sure you have your virtues elsewhere, not in a practical metrology.
      My point was simple, this way the output measurement is much *less* error-prone than other way, and you had to counter it with fantasies about pulling the tricks (for what there is no single shred of evidence).

    5. OK, excused and pax. I still don't think you understand the point. If they are capable of making an output power and COP estimate in pulsed mode with a charge in the cylinder, how come they cannot make one with the charge removed? Are you saying that we should disregard the entire experiment because it's too "error-prone"? Look, the whole point of calibration is to change as little as possible. One variable only should have been changed, and that's the removal of the charge. But instead they chose what in fact is a far more error-prone route, and chose a totally different protocol for the dummy test.

    6. Pulsed mode is not implemented with 555 type timer (or microcontroller, whatever), where you just choose the capacitor for required duty-factor, instead I guess the heater power is turned off depending on time derivative of temperature (the researchers discuss about anomalous temperature dynamics in the paper). Without the core, there is no anomalous acceleration on the temperature rise and the working algorithm never reaches the turn-off rule and so the power remains on. There was no easy way to force some duty-cycle and this is not a big problem anyway.

      I hope they find a way to perform such forced duty-cycle dummy test next time, because comparison of the temperature dynamics of dummy and active reactor is very interesting indeed.

    7. Now, that's very interesting, because it's new information to me. Did you deduce that yourself, or get it from someone in the know? I ask because it isn't in the report. I think, because you use the word "guess", that you're actually guessing that and don't actually know.

      In order to know for sure that the pulsing uses a dT/dt trigger which won't work without the magic powder charge, one would actually have to try it without the charge. I don't believe that this has been done.

      I am also guessing that it was Levi who suggested this particular dummy calibration protocol. I further suggest that, had the pulsed protocol been used, that one would have concluded from measurement that a simple resistor had a COP of about 3.

    8. Yes, I did deduce it myself and this was an easy guess, because there is absolutely no other way to control the process which has strong positive temperature feedback, or can you propose one?

    9. There is zero evidence for thermal runaway in the Rossi device from either December or March tests. Again, repeating my 4th point (of 5) above:

      - The widespread assumption that the device enters a state of thermal runaway appears to be on shaky ground. The "leaked" picture of the glowing device is of an experimental condition whereby constant and excessive power was continually pumped in. Heating elements exhibit the same behaviour.

      The Vorts love to talk about this being true (and apparently so do you) simply because it gives them an excuse to "justify" keeping the device plugged in at all times.

    10. @Allen Kiik

      Can you propose how they got a temperature feedback? As far as I know there was no probes.

  4. I think the test satisfied the immediate requirements of Dr. Rossi, which was to show prospective clients that his E-Cats are making energy as claimed. Getting the support of various University Physics Professors would be nice, but their approval is not needed to spur interest in purchasing Rossi's LENR technology.
    He states that he is ready to produce hardware for sale to qualified parties, so his next step is to secure contracts with specialized industries that rely upon large amounts of heat in their processes. So far Dr Rossi has delivered what he said he would, and he is promising much more in the coming months. With DGT planning to show working reactors this year, and other benchmarks promised to be seen soon, the need to satisfy the various data doubting dunderheads will become futile and superfluous.

  5. "...which was to show prospective clients that his E-Cats are making energy as claimed."

    My whole point is that he has not. You're welcome to address my points, though.

    1. The need to satisfy the various data doubting dunderheads IS futile and superfluous.

    2. Ad hominem suits you. It means you've run out of cogent things to say, and makes you look foolish. Too late now.

    3. It is hopeless,
      And the reason why it is hopeless is documented.
      Sorry not personal.

    4. Just to clarify - is the "it" in that statement LENR, or some aspect of the dialogue here, or something else?

  6. Hi Andrew, in case "Alsetalokin" AKA "Tinsel Koala" failed to mention it, you may want to look at this forum:

    Membership is needed but all you have to do is ask and make an initial post.

    This is not only for Andrew. Everyone is welcome. There is no censorship. A few things can get you in trouble there but they are pretty extreme. Believers tend to be treated a bit harshly unless they support their views skillfully. But they're welcome as well.

  7. Bottom line, the critics really don't matter if Rossi continues to prove the technology those who are attacking him will fade into history as imbeciles trying to look important. If Rossi is a fraud, as they say he is, he will be seen as the greatest Magician who ever lived.

    One thing is certain the behavior of Rossi's critics such as Mary Yugo is ridiculously juvenile and should be given no quarter to comment as they have proved themselves by their own words.

    1. Rossi isn't "continuing to prove his technology". He has never properly demonstrated that he *has* any technology. Unless you consider various forms of electrical heaters powered from the mains or from a huge diesel generator to be technology.

      Apparently, it doesn't take a master magician to fool Levi and a few Swedish scientists. It takes never doing the same trick twice, never allowing *proper* blank and calibration runs, and never allowing a truly independent test.

      Rossi is clever at fooling people and I also think he's been unusually lucky that nobody smarter, more suspicious, and less polite than Kullander, Essen, Lewan and Levi has had a go at testing him.

      Of course, Rossi is also good at screening out people who could discover his scam. He didn't allow a group from NASA to test his ecat nor a group from Quantum/Australia, both in 2011. It seems the ecat was shy and didn't want to work when those people were there. Similarly, Krivit was never shown a complete test. Those failures were probably because the scientists in those cases brought all their own test instruments and they could have discovered Rossi's current bag of tricks.

    2. The critics really don't matter if PigsCanFly continue to prove the technology; those who are attacking them will fade into history as imbeciles trying to look important, and will look wonderingly up at the sky as the little piggies fly by.

      Oink Oink.

  8. Are we to understand that the heaters apply a pulse of heat that triggers the reaction, and that the reaction continues for awhile before the process has to be repeated?

    If so then do the light and dark stripes on the hotcat change at the heater pulse rate? If the thermal mmass/time constant is long enough to prevent these pulses being observed then how exactly do they deliver _pulses_ of heat to the core?

    If the dark stripes are shadows of the heaters then the reaction is hotter than the heaters so why doesn't the heat produced by the reaction retrigger the reaction?

    1. Video was taken of the entire March test at 1 fps. Therefore there exists data to examine this claim.

  9. Jed Rothwell is saying on Vortex that "[to claim that] engineer (Rossi) is doing something to make a fake test I do not understand and cannot describe, but I am sure he is doing it. This is empty speculation. It cannot be tested or falsified so it is not scientific."
    But that is silly. Of course it can be tested or falsified by having an truly independent evaluation. The problem isn't that Rossi's method of cheating can't be found out. It's that he won't allow the proper *independent* tests to do it. If those could be done, they would either find the method or falsify the claim that there was a method. What Rossi, Levi and the Swedish scientists just did most emphatically does not rule out fraud by some unspecified method.

    When a magician moves the Status of Liberty, you may not know the method but you can be certain it's an illusion.

  10. I truly feel sorry for Jed. I sense that he has genuine affection and respect for Rossi. His heart is going to be broken when the ordure strikes the rotating object.

    1. You seem to excel at unspecific ambiguous little utterances. Very nice.

    2. Dear Visitors

      First of all would you please cease to discuss
      ad hominem and talk ad felinem?
      I have stated my point of view very clearly,YES
      the Hot Cat has demonstrated EXCESS HEAT finita la
      discussione. I will let the facts speak and judge
      the words are exhausted and only useleee parallel
      monologs are possible.

    3. Ad felinem - bene dixit!

      I guess it's time anyway to jump over to the Defkalion page. Hopefully lurks there not a single rapscallion. At Defkalion.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. OK, Andrew-DGT is serious professionalism and
      orientation toward science. But this does not mean
      Rossi has no excess heat and is just juggling with
      Cold Cats presented as Warm or Hot. Reality is in
      many colors not only black and white

  11. I don't know if its been reported here before. But there is a new form of LENR

    We no longer need fancy shmancy nickel and hydrogen. Aged Cheese does the trick.

    Check out the proof of concept videos. Make sure you watch both

    Of course his power measurements are legitimate.

    Many thanks to tinselkoala for this great and enlightening video.