torsdag 23 oktober 2014

The Pomp factor in Cold Fusion - a reply to the open letter by Patrik Wiksten

I have been honored with an open letter by Patrik Wiksten titled “The Pomp factor in Cold Fusion, an open letter to Stephan Pomp” on lenr-forum.com. Of course this well formulated letter deserves an answer so I’ll give it a try. 

The fact that Wiksten has dedicated his reflections about the question of the E-Cat and the continued testing to me probably means that I have touched on a sensitive issue for cold fusion [1] and the understanding of how science progresses in my recent blog-post “The Cat is dead” [2].

Let me start with stating that I think I have an obligation to take part in the E-Cat discussion. I am employed by Uppsala University – and thereby in a sense by the Swedish tax-payers – as professor in applied nuclear physics and as such I teach nuclear physics on various levels. In addition, I also give lectures on the topic of “Science and Pseudoscience” in schools, to students, and on the PhD student level. 

Given the additional fact that the E-Cat-story, since it began to come to public attention in January 2011, involves people from Uppsala University, it is clear that it would be wrong for me not to honor a university teacher’s duty within the so-called 3rd task. This 3rd task means that I should not only teach and do research within the walls of the university, but also actively spread scientific knowledge to society. The latter very much includes to take part in discussions about science and scientific reasoning in general and to defend science.   

All this does, of course, not mean that I am failure free [3]. Far from that! And I think that I am very much aware of this quite normal human trait [4]. Actually, the ability to be self-critical and discard ones opinion/belief/previously acquired knowledge when confronted with new evidence is, arguably, at the very heart of what it means to be a scientist. This is a very hard thing to do and it is all too human to defend ones position despite facing contradictory facts.   

Now, how does our work as experimental nuclear physicists look like? When experiments are designed and run, data are analyzed and interpreted, many mistakes are made. This comes almost as a necessity. What we scientists do is supposed to be difficult since we try to extend the realm of knowledge and find out things that no one has reported before. Hopefully though, my colleagues and I manage to get rid of these mistakes by the time we publish the results. We look over and over what we have done, discuss if we think everything was done correctly, whether there might be any mistakes left, and whether there might be alternative explanations for our findings than the ones we propose. What we finally publish represents as complete information as possible for anyone to redo the experiment and/or at least check our analysis routines and judge if the presented conclusions can be drawn from the experimental findings.

A lot of the analysis work is devoted to this tedious and sometimes annoying thing called uncertainty estimation or error analysis. All to allow to challenge the reported results and possibly falsify them.

Because this is what we scientist generally strive for: to either improve older results or falsify them, providing new input as a challenge for theoretical physicists to explain our experimental findings. How boring it would be to just replicate what is already known and has already been done! I mean: where would the fun in science be if we could not challenge the results of the previous generations? Progress is made by identifying mistakes.

Now, Patrik, the mistake you seem to make is to believe that everything that challenges our current knowledge is correct just because it goes beyond “the current paradigm”. Well, we certainly wish for new knowledge but we have to test claims against the facts and things we know. There is a fitting saying: “You have to be open but not so open that your brain falls out!”

It seems obvious to me that the mistake of Levi et al. and, likely, of many people working on “LENR” is the confirmation and publication bias; when some measurement seems to confirm your believe (“excess heat”) it is assumed to be true and factual, and it gets published (or, rather, spread as news on the internet).

When, on the other hand, an experiment fails to produce the result one is looking for (i.e., everything looks as if it fits the current “paradigm”), nothing is published and one looks for a mistake in the setup.

You see the problem, Patrik? An observed excess heat (within LENR research) is an extraordinary claim and one should put in a lot of effort to check and double-check if everything was done correctly, can be reproduced, etc. In the E-Cat case, e.g., one seems, among other things, to have forgotten to check some cabling …

So what is the point of this long post? It simply is that what Levi et al. do is not well-performed research. One can even ask if it is justified to label these reports as “research” (see especially the Appendix, p. 11ff, here).

In addition, the findings reported by Levi et al. - surprisingly and most embarrassingly supported by Elforsk - do not call for an extension of nuclear physics. They outright contradict what we have learned the past 100+ years; no radioactive products, no radiation in the process, yet complete conversion of all nickel isotopes into just one (Ni-62 content being raised from 3.6% to about 99%). This cannot (!) be explained by some new reaction alone if you not also claim that previous fundamental knowledge is plain wrong!

So maybe I am just being lazy but I prefer to use Occam's razor and assume that someone has played a simple trick and switched the samples (already before or after the test). And while E-Cat-fans try to figure out how to reproduce the results without using Joe Labero I grab a beer, try to explain in blog posts how real science works, or just watch a good movie.

Cheers!

Footnotes:
[1] That is if you claim (and some do) that E-Cat = LENR. If that is true (not impossible) than I am afraid to say that LENR is a dead Cat.
[2] See also the follow-up “Mr. Rossi, I admire you
[3] At least according to my wife and kids. But, of course, they might be wrong :-)
[4] My presentations about “Science and pseudoscience” contain quite a bit of material on this issue and psychological aspects on why we sometimes believe strange things.

45 kommentarer:

  1. Thank you for a good answer.

    First of all I don't believe anything. And I never stated that the cat works. I see hope and I am open but my brain is still there.

    I understand very well that you have an obligation and you being sceptical is as it should. But in your post "The cat is dead" you are more than sceptical. You accuse Rossi and the scientists responsible for the report with fraud. Including your swedish colleagues. You dismiss the report and ridicule it. Why is that so important? The excess heat (if it's there) is hard to explain, if not impossible using a hundred years of documented previuos knowledge, but what if there IS excess heat? You could instead choose to say "I don't think it's probable, but if you guys think there's something there - go for it!"

    I have four children and I will promote new energy initiatives to the day I leave this realm. Not because I am a "believer", I am not, but because I owe it to my children to turn every stone available in search for non-polluting energy. I chose long ago not to participate in the "dismissing business". There are enough people there already. And I am certain there still are stuff in nuclear science to be discovered. And certainly within the field of quantum physics.

    If Rossi succeeds with his "baby" the 1MW plant, and he gets a happy customer, then the market will embrace the technology and science becomes secondary. I hope he succeeds, but I am not at all certain. And if it turns out that the e-cat doesn't work, I will still hope for other players working with cold fusion/LENR to succeed.

    Again, thanks for your reply and enjoy the beer and movie!

    //patrik

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. It is hard to make anything real out of pseudoscientific trickery. No matter how hard you wish for it to be true.

      For the sake of our children, I think it would be better to concentrate on facts.

      In that realm, there is a lot we can do.

      Radera
    2. I believe we all live in the same realm.

      "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein

      And what good will come for our children by concentrating on facts? No matter how hard you concentrate.

      You call it pseudoscientific trickery, others don't. I honestly don't know, but I do have hope.

      Radera
    3. I generally fail to distinguish between reality and facts. Well, I suppose you can if you want to.

      Anyhow, facts help us not to waste our time. That's how it will benefit our children. If we want to solve the energy problems of this world, we will want to concentrate into something that actually can be implemented as a useable energy source.

      Cold fusion is extremely unlikely to be that and there are very, very good reasons to believe so. And even better reasons to believe, that Rossi's cat is not honest technology.

      I cannot tell you not to waste your time in dreams and wishfull thinking. I just want to say, that I have hope too. We have hope. But only if we concentrate on things that we know are doable, because we are running out of time while dreaming.

      Radera
    4. Patrik: it is the hope and the wishful thinking people like Rossi use. And it is you and I that via our electricity bill pay for this (Elforsk).
      I'd rather see that money were spend on things that are sound.
      And, what is - at least to me - equally important is the question of how we do science and how we judge what makes sense or might be real and what is trickery and/or propagada. The story around the E-Cat helps to undermine science. It is like yuo say: "You call it pseudoscientific trickery, others don't." As if any judgement is ok. This is what defenders of "intelligent design" or the "climate skeptics" use. There is always someone who supports the other side; no matter how wrong that side is ...

      Radera
  2. Pretty sure that we won't get any further with this oterhwise relevant discussion. I could drop some respected names and organisations, but that won't make any difference.

    The report is out. It's done. You have your opinion, I respect that. I have respect for others who have a different opinion. Who is right? Time will tell. And the small amount swedish taxpayers might have payed for this is nothing, nothing, nothing compared to what has been put in "conventional" research regarding hot fusion.

    Have a great weekend!

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. You are right that this discussion is very relevant and that much much more money is spend on other research, e.g. hot fusion. This money, however, does - no matter if we ever get hot fusion reactor - lead to development of new technology and educate, e.g., a large number of students on how to do scientific research. We learn new things along the road and results are reported reliably and can be repeated.

      The question "How do we do science?" is for me the real interesting one here (and why I react in this case but not in others is the connection to UU), i.e. the problem that science is undermined by spreading the believe of "anything goes". As if we had no means to judge results and reliability.

      We now have a clear case of fraud which is shown both by the isotope analysis results and also from analyzing the electric coupling schemes, the measurement methods etc. I have focused on the former because nuclear physics is what I know best. Others have pointed out several severe issues with coupling schemes that seem to be plain wrong in the report.

      The picture that emerges very very clearly is that this report is far below any reasonable scientific standard. It is not the least bit consistent. Any piece of inconsistency would already by itself mean that the report (which is not necessary the same as the E-Cat) should be discarded. But now there are many such pieces!

      And still people do not realize this. That is the problem. Believe and wishful thinking remain stronger than a cool analysis of the provided facts.

      Anyway, have a great weekend you too!

      Radera
  3. "Who is right? Time will tell"
    That's the dream of any scammer: to have time till someone could really tell. Possibly in another life, as happened in the case of Keely (ever heard of him? A lot of scientists of the time believed in his vibrational theory, and a big amount of money has been moved by his demos and promises of a new type of motor...A pity he had to make everybody wait for 6 months more till his death, more than 25 years later...)

    "I have four children and I will promote new energy initiatives to the day I leave this realm"
    Now, if you follow the wrong stones, you are likely to lose the correct one. You're about to tell your children you promoted a scam, which means you did not promote something serious for their future. And for the future of every child - you guessed on the wrong horse, and this despite long ears, small body, long face -it was a donkey, in fact, and you simply ignored the signs as you could never say if near the sun there is a small flying teapot

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

    SvaraRadera
  5. The reason I don’t dismiss Rossi just yet is the following story;

    It is a Known fact that Sergio Focardi did nickel-hydrogen reactor experiments in the early 1990’s at the University of Bologna.

    Focardi was a rather prominent physicist in Italy, heading some important positions, and was Professor of physics and mathematics at the University of Bologna.

    Focardi further published a few papers in the 1990’s on the subject in a scientific Journal (peer-reviewed ;-)… )

    Focardi S, Habel R, Piantelli F (January 1994): "Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems". Il Nuovo Cimento A, Volume 107 A, Number 1, 163–167

    Focardi S, Gabbani V, Montalbano V, Piantelli F, Veronesi S (November 1998). "Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems". Il Nuovo Cimento A, 111 (11): 1233–1242. OCLC 204819206.

    Neutron emission in Ni-H systems. Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996), Volume 112, Number 9, 921–931.
    Authors: Battaglia, Daddi, Focardi, Gabbani, Montalbano, Piantelli, Sona, Veronesi.

    So there were real Italian physists at it…getting some real heat results….. before mr.Rossi….

    Focardi said some time back about his research in the 90’s : (And I don’t agree with Focardi on his deuterium-palladium statement below)

    “So there were two parallel lines of research: on one side, the deuterium and palladium people, who never got anything: there’s a quite a few of them, and they believe they are the guys with results. [On the other side] we, using hydrogen and nickel, did get, at a
    certain point, some small effects ... not important ones. For instance, we built several devices .. we input some (electrical) energy in them, and in the end the system put out twice that amount of thermal energy. We had therefore doubled our energy. However, if we reconverted that thermal energy into electrical energy, we were right back were we
    started from. So this was ... a game, not a system. But this is the result we got in Siena ....and there were physical effects as well … we published them …”

    Focardi continues:
    “After that, at a certain point ... I was running the risk of dying of a tumor. I was lucky, I found a good doctor who saved my life, and so I retired, I stopped working (as a professor, obviously), but kept on … then I did quit for a while … until Rossi looked me up……. and I could see that he had some innovative ideas; for instance, he immediately thought of using powder. Powder increases the surfaces involved……”

    So the reason I got interested in Rossi, and is not dismissing him yet, is more related to where Ni-H research started, than the conclusions from our dear Swedish scientists ;-)

    regards
    Lande

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. There is one thing one can say about the "conclusions from our dear Swedish scientist" though: the so-called TPR2 helps us - although it is, strangely, not the conclusion presented by the authors - to be confident in concluding that the E-Cat is based on trickery.

      The Ni-62 business is entirely sufficient proof for me. When it comes to the electrical coupling many people are investigating. A recent one is here: http://lenr.fysik.org/eCat/COP=1_or_3.pdf

      Radera
    2. Delar Pomp,

      I looked at the report you referred to above.

      I hate to do this, since I don't think I have not enough information to do a proper analysis myself.

      But my only comment is:

      As Your report says : For a sinusoidal three phase power source with a resistive delta load, the phase currents (through the resistors) would be down by the square =root of three from the line currents (as measured in the line to the AC source).

      BUT: if the triac triggering is delayed minimum 120 degrees, i.e. It's conducting 60 degrees or less phase angel, then phases will never overlap, i.e the line current will spilt in half for the two branches of resistors.

      So then the test team would be right. Resistor current =0,5 * line current

      So what conducting phase angel has been used? The report does not say.

      Radera
    3. Hej! Good that you read this report with a critical attitude! Hope you do the same with the "TPR" and ask them critical question!

      I have to admit that I have not gone through the linked document in depth yet. And I am sure there a quite few questions left to be answered by the TPR people. One question is: why don't they write this information?

      And: stay tuned since there is more to come about the electrical side. I have, e.g., seen a proof (!) that Fig 4 is not compatible with the currents reported in the TPR (that I1 is 2 times I2). Not possible if Kirchhoff is still valid. But maybe the Rossi effect changes everything in a) nuclear physics, b) chemistry, c) material physics, and d) electrical engineering?

      My solution to these problems is much simpler ... :-)

      Radera
    4. @Øystein Lande
      You wrote:
      "if the triac triggering is delayed minimum 120 degrees, i.e. It's conducting 60 degrees or less phase angle, then phases will never overlap"

      ..and then the line current (and power) would be zero since an electrical circuit needs to be closed with a return path in order for current to flow. Hence, at least two phases need to be active simultaneously and the report is definitely wrong that I2=I1/2. It is a human mistake and I didn´t spot the error either when I first read the article.

      However, this error can´t explain the large 330% difference in the ratio Joule heating/(total power) between the dummy run and active run that Giancarlo discovered. The most realistic explanation for this is that it reflects a measurement error in the active input power which - if corrected - would give a COP of around 1 also in active test. I wish the research group could release all the raw data of power, voltage and current sampled every 2 seconds. That would probably settle this question once and for all.

      I think the reason why Stephan and other nuclear scientists have a hard time to believe that the E-Cat works is because they have knowledge and experience of nuclear physics. It is the same reason why children believe in ghosts while adults wouldn´t believe their eyes even if they saw one.

      None can be 100% sure if the E-Cat is a real "ghost" or not, but it is easier to be a believer if you are ignorant of the current theory of nuclear physics. This is natural and very human.

      Radera
    5. @DickeFix Thanks for you clarifications

      I would like to add and point out once more: the report does not extend "current theory of nuclear physics". It outright contradicts our knowledge!

      Let me try to explain with two comparisons
      On a deep philosophical ground you could claim that general relativity is revolution. But please realize: Newton is still 99.9% correct. That is why we still teach it in universities. The "nuclear physics" that the report would need is not compatible in this way. It contradicts.

      Other excample: the earth is not flat but spherical. However, for daily life purposes, the assumption that the earth is flat is still pretty good. The spherical earth is an extension to our knowledge not a contradiction that would falsify our daily experience when we look out of the window.

      We constantly extend our knowledge in nuclear physics (yes, we do, that's why we are still around) but statistics, neutron capture, binding energies, etc will always be around. We learn more but build on previous results.

      Not sure if it helps but maybe you can see my point.

      And btw: please note the second last sentence in my posting above. It is not just nuclear physics that is contradicted ....

      Radera
    6. Stephan,

      I agree with you that new theories are most often only minor corrections to older theories. The differences are only important under very special circumstances.

      However, even with a well established theory, it can be difficult to deduce what is really possible or not. If fire was unknown, I think it would be hard for even the best physicist to predict, using well established theory, that matter could behave in such a strange way and probably even harder to convince the rest of scientific community about it. If we look back at history, it is most often the experimental discovery that comes first and the theory to explain it that comes later.

      Let us take another example. Electrons in a semiconductor crystal behave very differently from electrons in an atom. In an atom the electrons are bound to the nucleus whereas in a hot semiconductor crystal, the outer electrons becomes disassociated from the atoms and can move freely in the crystal so it conducts electrical current. The same thing can happen at much lower temperature if you contaminate the crystal with minute concentrations of other atoms, dopants.

      This is an example where you have a radically different behaviour of the elementary particles (in this case the electrons) when the atoms are arranged in a crystal. Moreover, the observed conductivity at low temperature will depend critically on the quality and purity of the crystal. Unless different laboratories have a very well controlled environment to grow the semiconductor crystal, the experimental repeatability of the semiconductor conductance will be low.

      I think therefore one should be open minded towards the idea that low energy nuclear reactions in crystals may exist. I also think the many positive reports of transmutation and excess heat in LENR experiments (despite their poor repeatability) is enough promising to merit further funding. It would be, in my opinion, unresponsible to NOT explore this possibility further since the potential gain for the society is so large.

      That said, I am afraid that regarding the E-cat you are correct. There are just too many contradictions in this affair that don´t add up. If one needs miracles to explain miracles I agree that a simple solution is to prefer even if it is a bit boring. :)

      Radera
    7. DickeFix

      I also think the many positive reports of transmutation and excess heat in LENR experiments (despite their poor repeatability) is enough promising to merit further funding.

      There are no records of positive reports on cold fusion in Exfor.
      20465 experiments recorded in Exfor; last update October 13, 2014.
      Exfor is updated every two or three months.
      If you ask for funding, we must rely on peer reviewed literature on cold fusion.

      http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/exfor/exfor.htm

      Radera
    8. Dear DickeFix

      Thank’s for the comment. Of course, a Triac is closed both ways when it is closed, yes.

      But could it be SCR configured as hybrid, and not pure TRIAC. Looking at the picture the control box looks like something from Control Concepts (CCIPOWER.com), which delivers SCR controllers. The testers possibly used a CCI Fusion 3 Phase power SCR (from the picture may be a Compact Fusion SCR power controller), and phase angle control, either with in-line or hybrid configuration.

      Joule heating calculation for the copper wires may well be wrongly calculated for both dummy and active run.

      Possibly more wrongly calculated for one of them? - Which results in the strange total power/Joule heating ratio difference between dummy & active?

      But the power consumption is anyhow measured with the two PCE 830’s for dummy and active. And the report says that nothing was changed inbetween dummy and active, other than the fuel…….And the assumption is then that both PCE’s have one clamp switched the wrong way going from the dummy to the active mode….

      BUT: In addition they could (and did I presume) also get data acquisition from the control box, assuming they are using a control box from Control Concepts. That one would definitely tell them delivered power.

      So Please, to get to the bottom of this: let’s get the datafile.

      Radera
    9. Dear Fusionefredda,

      You keep bringing up EXFOR...but you completely miss the point.

      The EXFOR is a library containing an extensive compilation of EXPERIMENTAL NUCLEAR REACTION DATA.

      Do we know the NUCLEAR REACTION DATA related to Cold Fusion / LENR ? NO - Not yet

      And there lies the mystery that is yet to be solved.

      Have EXFOR any reaction data on terrestrial Gamma bursts? Or Dark Matter reaction data? or Dark energy reaction data? Think not, since reactions are yet to be determined...

      Radera
    10. Dear DickeFix & Pomp

      Please note that my interest in Rossi is based upon what was done by Professor Sergio Focardi in the early 1990’s at the University of Bologna.

      He did nickel-hydrogen reactor experiments, and got Heat out larger than what could be explained by any chemical reactions.

      Focardi further published a few papers in the 1990’s on the subject in a scientific Journal (peer-reviewed ;-)… )

      Focardi S, Habel R, Piantelli F (January 1994): "Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems". Il Nuovo Cimento A, Volume 107 A, Number 1, 163–167
      Focardi S, Gabbani V, Montalbano V, Piantelli F, Veronesi S (November 1998). "Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems". Il Nuovo Cimento A, 111 (11): 1233–1242. OCLC 204819206.
      Neutron emission in Ni-H systems. Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996), Volume 112, Number 9, 921–931.
      Authors: Battaglia, Daddi, Focardi, Gabbani, Montalbano, Piantelli, Sona, Veronesi. Retrieved on SpringerLink.
      Later Rossi contacted Focardi with some creative ideas to possible increase power levels….

      So I’m still hopeful ;-)


      Radera
  6. Patrik Wiksten
    You call it pseudoscientific trickery, others don't.
    It is not a democratic confrontation where “one person one vote” applies. In science things work in a different way, competence and incompetence are not trusty the same way. If you make a query to Exfor (Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data) of IAEA, whose database is periodically updated (at present October 7th, 2014), you can find none of the cold fusion people, least of all Andrea Rossi. In all nuclear databanks, cold fusion experiments simply do not exist.
    I think you should always compare surprising new findings with Generally Accepted Science if you want your Country to spare money and time. GAS is not jealous, on the contrary it fosters scientific and technical progress. One should be confident.

    SvaraRadera

  7. Patrik Wiksten
    Focardi was a rather prominent physicist in Italy,
    May be, but in
    "Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems" you quote you can read:
    No penetrating radiation (neutrons, γ-rays) was detected above the back-ground level during the process.
    Well, it is well-known that nuclear reactions are always accompanied by gamma emissions.
    One or the other: Focardi's claims are incorrect or he discovered a gamma-free nuclear reaction. Quite strangely, he didn't remark the anomaly of his findings.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Dear fusionefredda,

      Why do you think Cold fusion was name 'pathological science' from May 1989?

      But it's clear you don't know the history of cold fusion.

      The CF announcement was made in March 1989 by Professors Martin Fleischmann and Pons. And the first question Physicists asked was; why is not F&P dead? Surely the radiation should have killed them a few times over if they where right.

      And some 38 days later cold fusion was decleared dead and buried by the American Physical Society. From May 1989 cold fusion was no longer part of science.

      10 years ago, I noticed that CF was still alive and well, and that good replications had been performed just too many times by too many good scientists in too many good places. And still it was not part of mainstream science. Why? Because experimental results would not comply to our precious theory of physics.

      So theory rules over experiment? In the 1930's it was the other way around.

      The whole issue is pure insanity. And in 2014 LENR is more "alive" than ever, with or without mr.Rossi. And yes, next to no Gamma's.

      I'm convinced F&P discovered a new branch of nuclear reactions happening in deuterated condensed matter. Many theories have been suggested that would embrace both new and "old" physics.

      Radera
    2. Of course theory would not rule over experiments, provided they are done the right way.
      As long as you have experiments that do not work outside the circle of believers, you can not claim you proved anything, expecially when they should involve a totally new discovery that does not simpy feet in what is known but would change the physic as we know it, while there are plenty indications of incompetence and even clear signs of fraud in nowadays cases.

      By the way, F&P experiments have nothing to do with E Cat, as many other experiments share only the label "cold fusion" but are completely different among each other. Strangely, they all work for their inventors but not for the others...

      Radera
    3. Dear Cimpy;

      Think I have to start with your last statement; “F&P experiment have nothing to do with E-cat”

      Let’s analyze what we know;

      1. Professor Sergio Focardi did nickel-hydrogen reactor experiments in the early 1990’s at the University of Bologna. So A hydrogen isotope interacting with a metallic lattice, same as F&P
      2. Professor Sergio Focardi measured excess heat in the experiments, same as F&P. But Focardi got larger Power density & Energy density
      3. Professor Sergio Focardi found no Gamma’s, same as F&P.
      4. The analysis of E-cat shows presence of Lithium in Fuel. F&P used LiOH as the electrolyte in their experiment. So both have presence of Lithium.
      5. F&P used electricity as part of inducing the reaction. The e-cat have currents induced in the lattice by the control system

      So we have, hydrogen isotope, metallic lattice, no gamma radiaton, Lithium, electricity and claimed excess heat.

      I would therefore say that if the measured excess heat in E-cat is correct, it must be the same new nuclear process at play in E-cat as in Fleischmann & Pons experiment.

      Radera
    4. That would be as if finding equals sand and (to be polite) rocks. I am sure for you they are. But I am also sure you would have some regrets if someone try to let you take sunshine lying over a seashore of rocks instead of one of sand...

      In any case, the fact you stated F&P were doing same kind of Cold Fusion as Rossi claims to do, show how much you care of physic and how much technical details do care for you.

      Radera
    5. Øystein Lande

      The reactions Ni(p,γ) considered by Focardi/Rossi are well-known. I have extracted for you the cross sections of three of them, those related to the most common natural nuclides of Nickel, i.e, 58Ni, 60Ni, 62Ni.
      As you can see, they are tiny even with protons of high energy; negligible with low-energy protons. In his articles Focardi, who was a physicist, should have discussed the contrast between the unfavourable cross sections and the alleged nuclear reactions. He never did. Should we consider his behaviour only a venial omission? I can't be so indulgent.

      https://www.scribd.com/doc/244631688/Cross-sections-of-three-Ni-p-%CE%B3-nuclear-reactions

      Radera
    6. Fuisionefredda,

      The ASH analysis is based on a sample representing 0,2% of total ASH weight.

      In my opinion we cannot base any types of conclusions on a 0,2% sample.

      Other than that “this 0,2% sample show high concentration of 62Ni.”

      Most likely this is NOT representative of the total.

      We may speculate that there has been some separation happening at 1400 degC.

      Radera
    7. Øystein Lande,

      I agree with your comment that the sample may not be representative. However, the problem is that we need now explanations to so many "mysteries" regarding the E-Cat to make the stated heat generation credible:

      1. An explanation how nuclear reactions can occur at low temperature
      2. An explanation how nuclear reactions can occur without any radiation
      3. An explanation how all Ni isotopes and most other metals in the fuel can be converted to almost pure Ni62 in the ash
      4. An explanation why the generated power didn´t decrease with time despite the fuel was almost burnt out at the end
      5 An explanation why the fuel consisted of natural Ni while Rossi repeatadly stated that enriched Ni-62 was an essential ingredient in the fuel
      6. An explanation for the completely different ash compositions in ITP test 1 and 2
      7. An explanation why the electrical Joule heating increased 6 times when the stated input power only increased 2 times (Giancarlo)
      8. An explanation of the unexpected measured current shapes which indicate a reversed current clamp (Andrea S.)
      9. An explanation why the Ni didn´t melt if the power was generated by a reaction in the fuel (Dr. Mike)
      10. An explanation why the E-Cat gave COP=1 when SP Technical Research Institute (the swedish measurement calibration authority) tested it.

      All mysteries 1-10 are solved or circumvented if something happened during the loading of the E-cat so that the fuel inserted had the same composition as the ash and one of the three current clamps of both power meters were reversed. That would also explain the results of first independent test. The COP would then be about unity in all three tests (including SP) and all points 1-10 are solved.

      Do you have a simpler and more likely explanation to ALL the ten mysteries without assuming more than one natural miracle; that LENR works?

      I am NOT a sceptopath! I don´t rule out that LENR is impossible; it would be a fantastic gift to mankind. When I initially saw the results of the recent E-cat test I was excited and believed that maybe LENR was possible. That is why I have followed the E-Cat story. However, now after more careful analysis, the recent test has created more new questions (points 3-9) than it answered. It is no longer sufficient that LENR works to explain all mysteries regarding the E-cat. And I can not accept more natural miracles, apart from LENR, as an explanation. Explanations with heating coils made of semiconductors,
      mysterious magnetic fields or fantastic superconduction at temperatures far above the present record (138K) are just not realistic. Then I much rather accept the disappointing conclusion that my dream was just an illusion...

      Radera
  8. To me, the most amazing error made by Kullander, Essen and Lewan is that they never required Rossi to run two reactors in parallel, one with fuel, one without, and both with their own accurate power input metering ahead (upstream) of Rossi's equipment. This is SO OBVIOUS! How could they witness more than four demonstrations in which they ACTIVELY participated with data collection and analysis and not require a proper calibration, not even once. And this with a large obvious built in electrical heater in the center of each ecat -- perfect to do the calibration.

    So, even with the current tests, we are left to argue about difficult, complicated assumptions about such thing as emissivity values and fourth power functions to get at temperature and heat flow when what would have put ALL OF IT to rest permanently would have been some simple, direct calibrations, parallel experiments (blank and active) and proper input power metering.

    This is not in any way an issue which is unique with these experimenters. I see this sort of problem all the time. People simply do not know how easily they can fooled or fool themselves. They don't know what they don't know. And in the hands of an accomplished crook like Rossi, they are easily bamboozled (deceived).

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Maryyugo;
      Just a tiny remark: The report states “ All the instruments used during the test are property of the authors of the present paper, and were calibrated in their respective manufacturers’ laboratories”

      Radera
  9. Øystein Lande

    Dear Øystein

    From May 1989 cold fusion was no longer part of science.
    I think you should postpone this event to some month later, say november 1989, when the Panel ERAB, set up by DoE to evaluate cold fusion, made public the results of its survey. The experts stated:

    Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process.

    You write:

    Because experimental results would not comply to our precious theory of physics.

    No experiments on cold fusion have ever been recorded in Exfor (Experimentali Nuclear Reactions), the experimental databank of IAEA and Brookhaven National Laboratory. You can only find experimental results in the lectures given in the various ICCF and in self-referential journals. Cold fusion is still rejected by Generally Accepted Science. After more than 25 years there is no more hope left.

    SvaraRadera
  10. @Pomp
    Hello Dr.Pomp. Would be possible for you to comment on this?
    “Low radiation fusion through bound neutron tunneling.”
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/244393652/Low-radiation-fusion-through-bound-neutron-tunneling

    I would be very interesting on your opinion. Thank you very much.

    SvaraRadera
  11. @Stefanop Thanks for the question. The reason I have not written about this yet is that I can't take this the least bit serious (at best it is an exercise in doing some simple quantum mechanics). Let me explain why.

    First: tunneling is a well-known and well-understood phenomenon since the beginning of quantum mechanics. It is, e.g. the basis for explaining alpha decay (see, e.g., here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_decay under history).

    Second: The conditions that are assumed in this very crude attempt to explain something that isn’t even there to begin with are, furthermore, very much like hot fusion. High energies are needed and it is assumed that nuclei come close like in a plasma. The electron cloud that is present at even in the “hot Cat” makes sure that distances are not 10 fermi but rather on the order of 1 million Fermi. It is worth noting that tunneling matters in the sun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction . Again, this is pretty hot fusion were nuclei have a chance to get that close ...

    And, finally, I am not even discussing if it would be possible to in this way a) discuss away the absence of radiation and b) the claim that everything goes to ONE isotope (short: it's not ...)

    Hence to claim that this explains the E-Cat is, hmmm, pretty far-fetched to use a slight understatement.

    The paper is an example of an ad-hoc hypothesis produced to explain some specific detail but disregards from other nuclear physics knowledge that is still there and also needs to fit the picture!

    E-Cat lovers of course jump on it without even being able to make an own judgment of the physics that is actually suggested. Cherry-picking at its best.

    SvaraRadera
  12. Dear Fusionefredda,

    The EXFOR is a library containing an extensive compilation of EXPERIMENTAL NUCLEAR REACTION DATA.

    Do we know the NUCLEAR REACTION DATA related to Cold Fusion / LENR ? NO - Not yet

    And there lies the mystery that is yet to be solved.

    Anyhow:
    The deciding moment in time for Cold Fusion was the MAY 1989 APS meeting in Baltimore.

    A frenzy of tests had been performed between 23. March 23. and May 1989. Tests at Caltech , MIT and in other labs. Tests based on data from “news articles” and “TV pictures”, since Fleischmann and Pons did not reveal any exact lab data. These were very far from “scientific” replication efforts.

    On May 1-2, 1989, a series of three “cold fusion” press conferences took place in Baltimore, MD at the American Physical Society meeting, the world’s largest yearly gathering of physicists. And Cold Fusion was pronounced dead and buried.

    As The press after reported: NYT: "….the scientists on a panel at the American Physical Society meeting Tuesday voted 8-1 that they were 95 percent confident the excess heat was not produced by nuclear fusion."
    Associated Press: "A panel of nine scientists on Tuesday disparaged Utah researchers' claim of achieving fusion in a jar, suggesting they were fooled by faulty measurements."

    The November report was only confirming the decition made by APS in May 1989.

    And the panel ERAB team was headed by Jon Huizenga. He was a strong opponent of cold fusion from day one. There are several analysis reasons to question the objectivity of the team and its effort to give the discovery an open and objective analysis. But funny enough the ERAB report do say in the beginning of conclusions “…it is not possible at this time to state categorically that all the claims for cold fusion have been convincingly either proved or disproved”

    But the main criticism from the report (And which Huizenga repeated time after time) was: “In no case is the yield of fusion products commensurate with the claimed excessHeat”.. SO they discarded possibilities of any new physics occuring in deuterated condensed matter. All physics is known. Subject closed. Or to quote the report “it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process.

    Though they do add “the Panel concludes that the present evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process termed cold fusion is not persuasive.”

    And they did support some funding for further research, not thanks to John Huizenga, but to Normann Ramsey who was co-chairman and more convinced that we had NOT reached the “end of science” and “all physics is known”.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Dear Øystein Lande

      Do we know the NUCLEAR REACTION DATA related to Cold Fusion / LENR ? NO - Not yet
      Not yet? when then?
      Please note that Exfor stands for
      Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data
      A part from any theoretical consideration, there are no experimental data recorded in the most important Data Bank in the world.

      IAEA Nuclear Data Section, Vienna, Austria
      US National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven, USA
      China Nuclear Data Center, Beijing, China
      OECD/NEA Nuclear Data Bank, Issy Les-Moulineaux, France
      Japan Charged Particle Nuclear Reaction Data Group, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
      Center of Nuclear Physics Data, Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia
      Nuclear Data Centre, Obninsk, Russia
      Indian Compilation Group: BARC and others, India

      Research on cold fusion began in early 1989. In more than 25 years we got no meaningful results worthy of recording in nuclear archives. Generally Accepted Science does not care for cold fusion.
      How long should we wait to get recordable results? I think that 25 years are more than enough.
      Cold fusion has to cope with the standard science, otherwise it is only a virtual event.

      Radera
    2. Dear Øystein Lande
      My name is Camillo Franchini, administrator of the Italian blog
      fusionefredda.wordpress.com
      Best regards

      Radera
    3. and by the way "Do we know the NUCLEAR REACTION DATA related to Cold Fusion / LENR ? NO - Not yet
      "

      if that is all, we even know nothing of the Magic TeaPotter that fly high in space.
      It is still the claimer that should give eidences of claims, and here we have one that do his best to be believed on behalf that the phenomena is "of unknown origin", even if he claimed he sold it in 2012 to a happy secret customer and even in 2013 to the great Darden and the twelve Hidden Knight...C'mon, are not around five year enough?
      How long would you keep on justify every incongruity with the "mystery of the phenomena"? Have not you yet realizedthe trick of COP 3 of TPR2 is around to be completely revealed after so few time?

      And how about all the lies of earlier shows and papers, from Cu to infinite COP, stepping through the *soon on the market* since 2010?
      You know, also UFO are mysterious. Do you believe in that stuff, too?

      Radera
    4. Dear Fusionefredda;

      Obviously, 25 years is NOT enough for any new scientific discovery when serious funds are not spent to reveal the phenomenon and test any possible theories.

      And when theoretical physicists don’t dare to venture into fields like cold fusion, because of fear of ridicule and damage to career, then the necessary theoretical work is not done to reveal theoretical explanations.

      And that’s the short story of how Cold Fusion got little progress in 25 years.

      And to repeat what the Nobel Price winner (in physics) Julian Seymour Schwinger said of his attempt to publish papers on Cold fusion :
      "What I had not expected was the venomous criticism, the contempt, the enormous pressure to conform. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?" he wondered.

      And again;
      The EXFOR will of course have no data until the theory is first revealed, understood and accepted.

      Radera
  13. By the way, take a look: some of the supporters start understand. Also comment there are worth a reading - expecially about the last (surely not least) try from Rossi to get something that could sound like a theory to have people discuss upon and forget you cannot have that Ni62 produced by the hotbone and that he and retired professors crunched numbers again - and that is a fact,not an opinion, you know?

    SvaraRadera
  14. "The ASH analysis is based on a sample representing 0,2% of total ASH weight.

    In my opinion we cannot base any types of conclusions on a 0,2% sample."


    Thus, in your opinion, Rossi and the six have given to lab an insufficient sample.

    Can you tell us also why? Same excuse of ever-to protect the discovery ? Don't you feel a bir gullible?

    In any case, do not expect us to accept it:
    the ASH analysis isbased on the sample Rossi and the couple in the private room kept. That's the point.
    And if you do really believe the sample was insufficient, you *should* at least ask to yourself why the devil Rossi gave to lab an insufficient sample . Might it ever be because of it was a trick? And even one a bit expensive, it seems - you know, this philosophical stone is producing a substance that is evaluate around 5.000 euro (or could it be 5000 dollars?) each gram...
    Not that with some millions he cannot afford a gram of it, but you know: he is not on the scene simply for fun...

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. And, btw: it would be interesting to find out where the Li6 enriched sample came from and how it was transported to Switzerland. This substance relies under some export control it seems ...
      (see e.g. http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/585514.pdf)

      Radera
  15. Professor Pomp,

    In my opinion, the most surprising scientific misconception in Rossi's cold fusion is the catalysis. Apart from muonic cold fusion, which is not properly a catalytic one, as the a single muon can only promote around a hundred reactions, nuclear chemistry ignores the concept of catalysis.
    As a physicist, how can you conceive a catalytic nuclear raction? I can't even imagine a conceptual model of such an event.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. I guess you are right. There are many strange claims, especially when it comes to Rossi and the E-Cat. Concepts and ideas are thrown around and used to confuse people.

      What many have said and what we have written last year as reply to the arXiv report by Levi et al. (see here for our answer: http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6364) is that firswt of all a real independent measurement would be needed to establish IF THERE IS ANY EFFECT AT ALL to even start discussing. Nothing like that has been done in all these years. Despite that it would be easy ...

      Well, actually not really nothing. SP was called in and found that Rossi measured wrongly. Hence they were thrown out ...

      Radera
    2. Dear FussioneFredda & Pomp,

      And this is the difference between a real creative, open and bold scientist and the average one:

      From “The Scientist” 1989:
      “Teller, who attended the three-day workshop at NSF headquarters but not the press conference, hypothesizes “an as-yet undiscovered neutral particle” as the catalytic agent for the cold fusion reaction. But in front of the press, one scientist after another declined to read the statement. One of the sponsors of the workshop, NSF’s Paul Werbos, says, “I didn’t want to appear on TV saying what Teller had written.” Why? Because it was considered a “discredited field” - “It seems unfortunate that an NSF office is now appearing to encourage such discredited work,” wrote Marcel Bardon, director of NSF’s physics division

      Teller in 1992:
      Around 1992, McKubre says, he was summoned for an audience with legendary physicist Edward Teller. "He asked probing questions, in better depth, I think, than anyone else on the planet. You could see what a giant intellect he must have been in his time. I was subjected to this interrogation for four hours. At the end of it Teller said that he did not think that cold fusion was a reality, but if it were, he could account for it with a very small change in the laws of physics as he understood them, and it would prove to be an example of nuclear catalysis at an interface. I still don't understand what he meant by that, but I'm quite willing to believe that it's correct."

      “nuclear Catalysis”? – hmmmm, reminds me of something, just can’t remember what….

      Radera