Cold Fusion Back In The Limelight - Guest Speaker Dr. Brian Josephson

[Ivan Seeking]

over the next few months everyone will have to accept this.

Hello Dr. Josephson, and thank you for joining the discussion.

I think the point still stands that there is no need for us to guess. If this is real, everyone will know before long. Speculation is pointless. The proof is in the pudding.

Were we to entertain all claims of discovery that can't get published, this would be a crackpot forum in the extreme. There are probably thousands of claims like this floating around that are either shams, or bogus.

 

[bjosephson]

Hello Dr. Josephson, and thank you for joining the discussion.

I think the point still stands that there is no need for us to guess. If this is real, everyone will know before long. Speculation is pointless. The proof is in the pudding.

But what is the pudding? Elsewhere there has been discussion of this point, along these lines: Will the sceptics accept it when the 1MW generator is demonstrated? No, that is no different in principle from 15kW. When a few firms are using it? No that hardly proves anything. When 50 firms are using it? No, that just shows there are gullible people around.

Were we to entertain all claims of discovery that can't get published, this would be a crackpot forum in the extreme. There are probably thousands of claims like this floating around that are either shams, or bogus.

Yes. But how many of these have been checked out by university depts. as Rossi's has (and he is willing to allow further investigations)? And what kind of evidence is there in most of these cases? With the Rossi expts. the methodology is trivially simple since the effects are so large, even schoolchildren could do it (and incidentally there have been schools where the children have been set checking out cold fusion devices as an exercise, I believe this was organised by someone called John Dash). All that has to be done is to measure the temperature of the incoming and outgoing water and the flow rate, and you can compute the amount of heat generated. Of course you have to consider carefully what errors there might be. Our HoG, bless his heart, pointed out that it is possible to load hydrogen into a substrate and store a great deal of energy that way, but when I asked him whether that mechanism could explain the 1 gigajoule observed in the 2nd. U. of Bologna expt. he fell silent.

But experience shows that it is not possible to reason with 'deniers', and for that reason I'm probably not going to stay in this discussion for much longer.

Thank y'all for listening!

Brian J.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But experience shows that it is not possible to reason with 'deniers', and for that reason I'm probably not going to stay in this discussion for much longer.

Know that I have spent eight years here fighting closed minds. However, it is terribly difficult to strike the proper balance between open minds and the potential for nonsense.

We are honored to have you here. If any offending posts are seen, please ignore as they will be deleted before too long. We do our best to run a respectable program here and place great value on your input. Also, if you have any specific suggestions for the forum, we are all ears.

 

[nismaratwork]

But what is the pudding? Elsewhere there has been discussion of this point, along these lines: Will the sceptics accept it when the 1MW generator is demonstrated? No, that is no different in principle from 15kW. When a few firms are using it? No that hardly proves anything. When 50 firms are using it? No, that just shows there are gullible people around.

Yes. But how many of these have been checked out by university depts. as Rossi's has (and he is willing to allow further investigations)? And what kind of evidence is there in most of these cases? With the Rossi expts. the methodology is trivially simple since the effects are so large, even schoolchildren could do it (and incidentally there have been schools where the children have been set checking out cold fusion devices as an exercise, I believe this was organised by someone called John Dash). All that has to be done is to measure the temperature of the incoming and outgoing water and the flow rate, and you can compute the amount of heat generated. Of course you have to consider carefully what errors there might be. Our HoG, bless his heart, pointed out that it is possible to load hydrogen into a substrate and store a great deal of energy that way, but when I asked him whether that mechanism could explain the 1 gigajoule observed in the 2nd. U. of Bologna expt. he fell silent.

But experience shows that it is not possible to reason with 'deniers', and for that reason I'm probably not going to stay in this discussion for much longer.

Thank y'all for listening!

Brian J.

Dr. Josephson, please accept my apology for my hasty and unwarranted post. I can't say that I agree with your view, which strikes me as overly cynical, and from me that's quite the statement. I for one do not require multiple uses, but just the ability to repeat results; one reactor would be just fine if it can be fully examined and repeat its results. If it produces a kw or a GW, the mechanism is what strikes me as the issue.

I admit that I don't understand why secrecy would need to be part of such a breakthrough, but perhaps you can help to shed some light on the matter? I for one would truly enjoy it if you chose to press the bounds here a bit and share your views and experiences. This is hardly something I don't WANT to believe, I just... well... I'm a skeptic. Not a cynic... a skeptic, and while I may not be convinced, I am open to anything you have to say.

I don't care if it's a fallacy or not, I respect your authority and credentials, and would dearly love to know more of your thoughts on the matter. I for one promise to be respectful and honest, and while I can't promise belief, I promise to listen and read anything you recommend.

Again, I hope you accept my apology, but if not please don't let my previous callous and thoughtless comment (or those of any other) deter you. I for one would be happy to dig through a mountain of noise for any signal you care to offer.

 

[bjosephson]

Dr. Josephson, please accept my apology for my hasty and unwarranted post. I can't say that I agree with your view, which strikes me as overly cynical, and from me that's quite the statement. I for one do not require multiple uses, but just the ability to repeat results; one reactor would be just fine if it can be fully examined and repeat its results. If it produces a kw or a GW, the mechanism is what strikes me as the issue.

I admit that I don't understand why secrecy would need to be part of such a breakthrough, but perhaps you can help to shed some light on the matter? I for one would truly enjoy it if you chose to press the bounds here a bit and share your views and experiences. This is hardly something I don't WANT to believe, I just... well... I'm a skeptic. Not a cynic... a skeptic, and while I may not be convinced, I am open to anything you have to say..

Thanks for your comments. My remarks about 'deniers' are well founded on past experience with various issues, but I'm prepared to accept that this forum may be more thoughtful than most.

Re the points you have raised, the secrecy issue can be readily explained. The situations of the scientist and of the entrepreneur are rather different. On the whole, secrecy is not so important for scientists, though even there esteem, funding and promotions etc. are to a large extend dependent upon being the first to publish so it helps if your competitors don't know exactly what you are doing. The situation of the entrepreneur is that he wants to make money (and Rossi says he has sold his assets to fund his development himself so he will not be controlled by others, which he has had problems with in the past, so he definitely needs to sell his reactors to get his personal finances in good shape), and if he has discovered some trick, e.g. a special catalyst in the Rossi case, he does not want other people to know the secret so that they can duplicate his invention.

Actually Rossi has indicated he will divulge all the details at some future date, which I assume means he is only interested in recovering his financial situation and then he does not mind so much what happens.

I disagree with your statement that the mechanism is what counts. Take for example aspirin. This was used as a drug long before the mechanism was understood -- what mattered was that it cured your headache or whatever. Similarly with the Rossi reactor, as long as it produces cheap energy, that is what is primarily important.

As regards repeatability, Levy has commented that he is impressed by the fact that he has done 3 tests and it has worked every time. But presumably Rossi thinks it is reliable or he would not be planning to sell reactors. He has said that payment doesn't have to be made till the buyer is satisfied that the reactor works, and he would bear the losses if it did not work.

A point needs to be emphasised re the tests. It is not necessary to look at the innards of the device because all that is involved is the conservation of energy -- if cold water goes in and it comes out say 5 deg. hotter, its energy has been increased and must come from somewhere. The question then is whether there can be an internal energy supply. People studied the data of the first investigation and concluded that just possibly, if Rossi were cheating, he could have had some kind of burner inside to produce that energy. Modifications were suggested to deal with this issue. The second test included these modifications and the situation now seems satisfactory. You can see the details in Jed Rothwell's bulletin at http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm (I trust the moderators will allow this link to be posted), which gives a number of other links for details. There is a Wikipedia page 'Rossi reactor' which gives many other references.

Re the 'denier' issue, I wonder how many of the sceptics here have read up the details of the Rossi reactor. Do they, à la Weinberg in regard to ESP, 'know' that low energy nuclear reactions are impossible and so they need not study the purported evidence? Have they heard that the Pons-Fleischmann expt. was flawed and take that to be gospel truth? Do they take the fact that the papers on LENR are published in journals other than the esteemed Nature and Science as proof that there is no good work in the field? etc. etc.

For those who are interested in looking below the surface re LENR, I can recommend http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oHXy1knGrM".

 

[bjosephson]

Here is Jed Rothwell's analysis:

After the 18-hour test, Prof. Levi said "In my opinion, all chemical sources are now excluded." See:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece

I agree with him. The reasons are a little complicated and take some time to explain. If you will bear with me --

Before the first test, Levi looked around the outside of the device. In the photo you can see the machine is mounted on a wooden stand, which was placed on a table at an odd angle. The mounting gives you clear access to the bottom. You can see there are no wires or pipes going into it. The odd angle of the stand also happens to ensure that. The stand can be moved around and pushed back and forth, so you could not secretly mate a wire or pipe to it.

The control box wires are ordinary household wiring. Above 3 kW they will burn [comment: that is for US electricity supply I assume, but even at 240V ordinary wiring would be pressed to carry 10kW without getting rather hot]. That excludes electricity as the source of the heat, even if we do not trust the power meter. (The power meter was an ordinary, off-the-shelf watt-meter, placed between the wall socket and the control box, so there is no way odd power forms might fool it. It resembles a Kill-a-watt: http://www.p3international.com/products/special/P4400/P4400-CE.html)

Before the second test, Levi was more careful. He opened up the control box and confirmed there was no hidden source of fuel, he looked around the outside of the machine, and he also looked inside it. He looked everywhere but inside the cell itself, which is about 1 L in volume. (He now plans to open the cell and examine the Ni catalyst with mass spectroscopy, but that has not happened yet. More about that below.)

So, we know there is not external electricity of fuel. If there is a chemical source of energy secreted in the cell, it has to fit into 1 L. It would have to produce as much energy as 26 kg of gasoline, which takes up about 35 L. I do not think that any chemical fuel is as energy-dense as this. If Rossi has discovered one, it is nearly as extraordinary and important as cold fusion.

Needless to say, no battery could come anywhere near this. Batteries are far less energy dense in volume and mass than liquid fuel.

Furthermore, as a practical matter, all types of liquid fuel require some sort of tank, regulator and burner. Solid fuel such a coal or solid rocket fuel can be ignited and it may burn at a constant rate, although it is difficult to control. Liquid or gas requires hardware, especially a burner, like this one:

http://www.ecvv.com/product/1067963.html

To produce a 15 kW flame, you could never fit the burner part into 1 L, never mind the fuel. This is more heat than a large 50-gallon gas water heater produces. Look under a water heater and you will see a burner and flame take up many liters of space.

Another problem is that the 1 L cell is gas tight. The hydrogen tank did not lose pressure or outgas, and the weight of it did not change. There are no visible holes in the cell. So you have to supply both fuel and oxygen. So it would have to be not 35 times better than gasoline (by volume) but ~100 times better. Add in the equipment you need to regulate the flame and it would have to be thousands of times better.

Finally, as a practical matter, any liquid, gas or even solid fuel placed in a such a small container, and ignited to produce 15 kW, would explode. It would be a bomb.

Let me get back to Levi's future plans. As I mentioned above, he plans to run the machine for a while, and then open the cell and examine the nickel catalyst, which he will compare to an unused sample. Rossi has reportedly given the university a €1 million grant for this project, and Levi plans to cooperate with CERN for the mass spectroscopy. (Rossi is wealthy from his previous business ventures. He has spent at least another €1 million on his research.)

Obviously, if there is some sort of extraordinary chemical fuel in the cell, or if Rossi managed to hide wires or a fuel pipe despite the despite the outward appearance of the machine, the fake nature of the machine will be obvious the moment they look inside the cell.

If there is no nuclear reaction going on inside the cell, the mass spec analysis will reveal that fact. As far as I know, all cold fusion cathodes that produced large amounts of heat had transmuted elements in them, with unnatural isotopic ratios. So, if they run the machine for a few months, and produce several thousand megajoules per gram of nickel, even if it is the hydrogen which is reacting (fusing) I am pretty sure there will be transmuted byproducts of the reaction in the metal, and this will be indisputable proof that the machine is a nuclear reactor, not a chemical cell.

The point is, Rossi himself is not only allowing this test, he is paying for it! If he were a faker or scammer, the last thing he would do is allow experts from a university and CERN to open up his cell, look inside, and take samples of the material for analysis. There is no conceivable "fake" cell that would not be detected by these methods.

So:

1. Based on the physical size of the cell, the fact that it is gas-tight, and the intensity of the heat, we can rule out any chemical source of fuel.

2. Based on common sense, we can conclude that Rossi is not a scammer. He would not take steps that will reveal his own scam, especially not at a cost of €1 million to himself.

Let me add that the calorimetry is so simple and the heat measured is so hight that I do not think any method of faking it is possible. People have said that Rossi might be a sleight of hand stage magician who fools people. A stage magician fools the human senses, especially sight, by distraction and various other methods. No stage magician in history has ever fooled a thermocouple or flowmeter. Instruments are totally immune to the kinds of tricks they use. If Rossi has supplied the instruments we might imagine he changed them, but Levi brought them from the university. In any case, the heat was palpable, and with the input electricity it would not have been.

Finally, getting back to point #2 above, if Rossi were a stage magician, why would he now be taking steps that ensure his trick will be revealed, he will be disgraced, and he will forfeit €1 million? What stage magician would do such a thing? Why?!? It makes absolutely no sense.

I think we can decisively rule out the chemical fuel hypothesis.

- Jed

 

[JaredJames]

Can I confirm this thread is still running on opinion?

A published paper is always required.

And based on said opinion links given it seems they're not sure it is actually cold fusion?

The point is, Rossi himself is not only allowing this test, he is paying for it! If he were a faker or scammer, the last thing he would do is allow experts from a university and CERN to open up his cell, look inside, and take samples of the material for analysis. There is no conceivable "fake" cell that would not be detected by these methods.

2. Based on common sense, we can conclude that Rossi is not a scammer. He would not take steps that will reveal his own scam, especially not at a cost of €1 million to himself.

I don't think I've ever seen a crackpot not request someone 'disprove' what they're doing. Followed swiftly by them proclaiming any evidence against as irrelevant.

He may be genuine, he may not be. He may simply be mistaken (doesn't have to mean he's a fraud if he's wrong). Personally, I haven't seen anything here that confirms cold fusion outside of people saying "well we can't see how it could do it otherwise, it must be".

So far, common sense puts me on guard - the links show he wants to produce 300,000 reactors a year, so is he already planning to go ahead without knowing if he is truly mistaken or not?

 

[bjosephson]

@jarednjames: Rossi has presumably done enough tests (and has also had his conclusions checked by independent researchers) to be convinced that it is OK to go ahead. What more should he do, wait till the cows come home? And there has been no evidence against so far.

The observation that Cu is produced indicates a nuclear reaction is involved. Some people object to the specific word 'fusion', which has led to a general preference for the less committal 'low energy nuclear reaction' (LENR).

 

[JaredJames]

@jarednjames: Rossi has presumably done enough tests

OK, so we're assuming that the tests have been done (along with implications regarding the conduct of said tests)?

(and has also had his conclusions checked by independent researchers) to be convinced that it is OK to go ahead.

This does help the above, it indicates something has been done - somewhat - but are the tests done independently as well or are they simply relying on his data?

Observing a demonstration =/= a test being done independently and scrutinized. Your above post does show some scrutiny of the device, so it is something of a plus.

What more should he do, wait till the cows come home? And there has been no evidence against so far.

Well, as above, if they don't release the tech/knowledge/required materials etc for others to duplicate the experiment, chances are there'll never be any evidence against.

The observation that Cu is produced indicates a nuclear reaction is involved. Some people object to the specific word 'fusion', which has led to a general preference for the less committal 'low energy nuclear reaction' (LENR).

So it appears we're swaying from 'cold fusion' then (as a term or otherwise). Fair enough.

So far, no matter where I search I'm always finding the same stories / details, nothing that appears remarkably independent (everything revolves around news stories). The fact they're also keeping other details so secret (despite it being so widly publicised they created it) simply makes me suspicious. Why? Credit is guaranteed if it works so let others test it. If they are genuine and it really works, independent study will only serve to boost its status and increase the chances of it being published.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Can I confirm this thread is still running on opinion?

As we have done from time to time, due to his unique and esteemed position in the world of physics, Dr. Josephson is being treated as a guest speaker.

And based on said opinion links given it seems they're not sure it is actually cold fusion?

Correct. A good number of reviewers felt there was evidence for a mystery, but not necessarily cold fusion. [This refers to the 2004 APS conference link cited on the first page of this thread]

 

[bjosephson]

OK, so we're assuming that the tests have been done (along with implications regarding the conduct of said tests)?


This does help the above, it indicates something has been done - somewhat - but are the tests done independently as well or are they simply relying on his data?

Observing a demonstration =/= a test being done independently and scrutinized. Your above post does show some scrutiny of the device, so it is something of a plus.


Well, as above, if they don't release the tech/knowledge/required materials etc for others to duplicate the experiment, chances are there'll never be any evidence against.


So it appears we're swaying from 'cold fusion' then (as a term or otherwise). Fair enough.


That's my signature, not a post.

So far, no matter where I search I'm always finding the same stories / details, nothing that appears remarkably independent (everything revolves around news stories). The fact they're also keeping other details so secret (despite it being so widly publicised they created it) simply makes me suspicious. Why? Credit is guaranteed if it works so let others test it. If they are genuine and it really works, independent study will only serve to boost its status and increase the chances of it being published.

In response to the above:

1) I've deleted my response to your signature

2) Levy is independent. His report of his first investigation can be found at
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3076881.ece/BINARY/Levis+and+Bianchinis+rapport+%28pdf%29 .

and here are comments by him on the second test:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece. This may not be a report as such, but at least it is a clear statement by the person who did the test.

3) I am getting tired of explaining to people why the secrecy is not suspicious (does nobody take note of what I say?)

4) if a flaw were discovered in the way the excess heat is measured, that would be evidence against the claim. If you can't find a flaw then the claim stands.

 

[JaredJames]

2) Levy is independent. His report of his first investigation can be found at
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3076881.ece/BINARY/Levis+and+Bianchinis+rapport+%28pdf%29 .

and here are comments by Levy on the second test:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece. This may not be a report as such, but at least it is a clear statement by the person who did the test.

I'll have a read through.

3) I am getting tired of explaining to people why the secrecy is not suspicious (does nobody take in what I say?)

4) if a flaw were discovered in the way the excess heat is measured, that would be evidence against the claim. If you can't think of a flaw then the claim stands.

These two go hand in hand for me.

I completely understand why people want secrecy, but you can't have secrecy and have acceptance of your claims without a lot more legwork. Hopefully to come (skeptical I may be, but I'd really like this to be true).

If you don't allow other people to setup and do the experiments, independently, then you drastically reduce the chances of finding a flaw.

What I'm seeing (as with a lot of claims such as this), is "I have done X. To do X you need a, b and c, but I'm keeping c secret. Now prove there's a flaw." - which any reasonable person would point out is virtually impossible without knowing what's happening.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

3) I am getting tired of explaining to people why the secrecy is not suspicious (does nobody take in what I say?)

I do a lot of work that involves proprietary information - the intellectual property of large companies. I have also pursued the inventing game for most of my life. There is no doubt that secrecy is a big issue in industry. An unfortunate example, perhaps, but this is why Pons and Fleishman first went to PBS instead of going through the normal publication process. They were worried that they had what could have been the most important discovery of the century and they were afraid of losing control of it. Another example would be a high-precision resistor company here in Oregon named Caddock Industries, that makes some of the world's highest precision resistors. Only a few people know their secret and it has never been patented for fear of losing control.

There is definitely a big difference between the worlds of industry and academia. Secrecy is always a concern in industry. That much I can say for certain.

It is also true that patents are often only as good as the lawyers hired to defend them. Patents can be all but useless.

 

[nismaratwork]

Thanks for your comments. My remarks about 'deniers' are well founded on past experience with various issues, but I'm prepared to accept that this forum may be more thoughtful than most.

Re the points you have raised, the secrecy issue can be readily explained. The situations of the scientist and of the entrepreneur are rather different. On the whole, secrecy is not so important for scientists, though even there esteem, funding and promotions etc. are to a large extend dependent upon being the first to publish so it helps if your competitors don't know exactly what you are doing. The situation of the entrepreneur is that he wants to make money (and Rossi says he has sold his assets to fund his development himself so he will not be controlled by others, which he has had problems with in the past, so he definitely needs to sell his reactors to get his personal finances in good shape), and if he has discovered some trick, e.g. a special catalyst in the Rossi case, he does not want other people to know the secret so that they can duplicate his invention.

OK, I can understand that, but it puts those of us without the ability to directly examine the results in a controlled fashion in the position of wondering if there is a "man behind the curtain." It's not a blanket distrust of Rossi, you, or the field, but a concern I'd have for ANYTHING. In a way, I can see the reverse logic as well... patent and publish; claim this in a way that makes imitators obvious before they can find an 'in' and copy anyway.

I wouldn't need to examine the catalyst, just isolate the entire device, isolate total input, and total sustained output. That would be a very good start, and from my simple point of view, it's what you're arguing HAS happened. I gather the other side is that without looking at the guts of this thing, maybe it isn't what it appears to be. I can't say, only read what you have to say and consider it as I would any other claim.

I admit, if I were Rossi I'd have found a major government and contracted with them, demo'ed this on television, and to a select few. With something this enormous, I don't know that individual secrecy is an option, even if it is reasonable.

Actually Rossi has indicated he will divulge all the details at some future date, which I assume means he is only interested in recovering his financial situation and then he does not mind so much what happens.

I certainly hope that you're right, because it would change the world.

I disagree with your statement that the mechanism is what counts. Take for example aspirin. This was used as a drug long before the mechanism was understood -- what mattered was that it cured your headache or whatever. Similarly with the Rossi reactor, as long as it produces cheap energy, that is what is primarily important.

I think I expressed myself poorly; I mean to say that when you stick some willow bark into hot water (aspirin tea basically) and drink it, you may have no idea what's going on, but you know that it's willow bark... something about JUST willow bark works. Take an onion and slap it on a wound, and you don't need to believe in germs, but you still need to see and have the onion.

This to me, is more like being handed a closed box that does what is advertised. Each time I see the box, even though it works, I have no idea if it's willow bark or an onion each time, or if it's just box covering a huge vat of neosporin. Has Rossi created a generator... you've convinced me that he has. Has Rossi created cold fusion?... I don't know, because it's still a closed box... could be a mix of capacitors, batteries... or magic for all I know! He's produced Soylent Green, but why is it so nutritious and tasty?... I'd like to know if it's a special new concoction, or if it's people.

As regards repeatability, Levy has commented that he is impressed by the fact that he has done 3 tests and it has worked every time. But presumably Rossi thinks it is reliable or he would not be planning to sell reactors. He has said that payment doesn't have to be made till the buyer is satisfied that the reactor works, and he would bear the losses if it did not work.

The talk is not impressive, but if Rossi does this I will be VERY impressed. Anyone can say they'll do something, but if he sells first and asks for money after proof... well... that's a whole new realm, and his credibility soars through the roof. He has to actually DO it first though, the promise alone depends on personal trust, a quality I lack in this case. You understand, it's not a distrust of you, or even Rossi... it could be an honest error, a source of energy that is NOT cold fusion, but just as amazing, or it could be precisely what you say and Rossi claims. Until he sells these puppies and has satisfied customers, it's intriguing, but not satisfactory as a Skeptic. A cynic of course would just "poo poo" the whole thing, note that I'm not doing that.

My state is conditional; no particular distrust, just a reaction to evidence as it's provided.

A point needs to be emphasised re the tests. It is not necessary to look at the innards of the device because all that is involved is the conservation of energy -- if cold water goes in and it comes out say 5 deg. hotter, its energy has been increased and must come from somewhere. The question then is whether there can be an internal energy supply. People studied the data of the first investigation and concluded that just possibly, if Rossi were cheating, he could have had some kind of burner inside to produce that energy. Modifications were suggested to deal with this issue. The second test included these modifications and the situation now seems satisfactory. You can see the details in Jed Rothwell's bulletin at http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm (I trust the moderators will allow this link to be posted), which gives a number of other links for details. There is a Wikipedia page 'Rossi reactor' which gives many other references.

This would be my concern of course, but I think your argument boils down to: 'Don't assume, don't believe, don't doubt; here's a man who's going to prove himself, wait and see.' I'm more impressed by that than I would be by a claim with no plan to go forward. Still, until this all plays out in the next stage (happy consumers without an ability to self-cheat) it's an exciting notion to me. I would be lying if I said I believed this, but I'd be an arrogant fool if I said I believed it had to be a hoax.

Rather, this is a mystery to me, and may remain so. When Rossi begins to make sales, then unlike your fear that people like me would say "one more kW or I won't believe you," I'd be impressed. It's the essential public proof of concept that matters most in my view, even if it can't be scaled. Nobody is whining that the NIF only fuses a tiny hohlraum of Deuterium and Tritium, the concept is there.

Re the 'denier' issue, I wonder how many of the sceptics here have read up the details of the Rossi reactor. Do they, à la Weinberg in regard to ESP, 'know' that low energy nuclear reactions are impossible and so they need not study the purported evidence? Have they heard that the Pons-Fleischmann expt. was flawed and take that to be gospel truth? Do they take the fact that the papers on LENR are published in journals other than the esteemed Nature and Science as proof that there is no good work in the field? etc. etc.

For those who are interested in looking below the surface re LENR, I can recommend http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oHXy1knGrM".

I'm reading and watching everything you're providing, but I'm not sure it's within the realm of anything less than either exposing the inner workings of this device/catalyst, or as you've said... sell these sans money-up-front and let the thing speak for itself, like aspirin.

 

[bjosephson]

Some quick points in response: whether the energy is nuclear or not doesn't matter from the practical point of view. What matters is that if the device continues to work (and it has been known in the past that something like a change in supplier makes a process suddenly stop working) then, when you put the numbers in, this is very cheap energy using small amounts of fuel that is plentiful and non-polluting, just what we need.

That sounds too good to be true of course, but if you study the details you are pretty well compelled to this conclusion. It must be pointed out that people in the field are every bit as critical as you guys, and there were initial doubts, but these were resolved by the 2nd. expt. I see a lot of you pulling problems out of the air but these do not fit with the facts.

 

[bjosephson]

I'll just add that Rossi does have a buyer, Defkalion Green Technologies of Athens (where there is less red tape than in most places it seems), and the 1MW reactor will go to them after it has been demonstrated in the US. Presumably there is a contract which does have this clause about money not being handed over until the customer is satisfied that it works.

Also, there have been occasional reports of large energy releases in LENR expts. (including the Mizuno expt. where water unexpectedly rose rapidly in temperature till it boiled and there was an explosion, with the recording apparatus recording what happened right up to the explosive event). So what Rossi has done is not completely new, just a matter of finding the right conditions. Also, I have to point out that while this development has not been published in the journals, earlier work by Rossi and Forcardi has been.

 

[JaredJames]

Some quick points in response: whether the energy is nuclear or not doesn't matter from the practical point of view. What matters is that if the device continues to work (and it has been known in the past that something like a change in supplier makes a process suddenly stop working) then, when you put the numbers in, this is very cheap energy using small amounts of fuel that is plentiful and non-polluting, just what we need.

Agreed.

That sounds too good to be true of course, but if you study the details you are pretty well compelled to this conclusion. It must be pointed out that people in the field are every bit as critical as you guys, and there were initial doubts, but these were resolved by the 2nd. expt.

The details all come from opinion at the moment. Which is all well and good, but I'm not seeing hard facts. Hopefully something new will turn up soon.

I see a lot of you pulling problems out of the air but these do not fit with the facts.

Which facts? Again, as I mentioned before, I have done a bit of digging and it's turned up nothing amazing. Only a lot of almost identical copies of reports and news stories.

I'll just add that Rossi does have a buyer, Defkalion Green Technologies of Athens

Have you seen their website?

From their website (well the one page that is it):

Defkalion Green Technologies S.A. is a legal entity operating under Greek Law

with sole purpose to sell, license, and manufacture industrialized commercially

applicable products using the Andrea Rossi Energy Catalyzer with global exclusivity

rights; except the Americas.

First impression is it's a company set up specifically to sell this product. So it's hardly proof it works and certainly doesn't back anything up. I can 'invent' a PMM and make a company to sell it (as are all over the web), it doesn't prove it works.

(where there is less red tape than in most places it seems)

Is it really a good thing they've gone to a country because there's less red tape? Or does it mean they're simply trying to avoid issues? I also note the countries they are selling it to don't include any major players (well the big boys - US, Europe etc).

Also, there have been occasional reports of large energy releases in LENR expts. (including the Mizuno expt. where water unexpectedly rose rapidly in temperature till it boiled and there was an explosion, with the recording apparatus recording what happened right up to the explosive event). So what Rossi has done is not completely new, just a matter of finding the right conditions.

I'll take your word for this, but any further on this matter may require sources (wouldn't be right not to check these things, rules are rules).

 

[nismaratwork]

I'll just add that Rossi does have a buyer, Defkalion Green Technologies of Athens (where there is less red tape than in most places it seems), and the 1MW reactor will go to them after it has been demonstrated in the US. Presumably there is a contract which does have this clause about money not being handed over until the customer is satisfied that it works.

Also, there have been occasional reports of large energy releases in LENR expts. (including the Mizuno expt. where water unexpectedly rose rapidly in temperature till it boiled and there was an explosion, with the recording apparatus recording what happened right up to the explosive event). So what Rossi has done is not completely new, just a matter of finding the right conditions. Also, I have to point out that while this development has not been published in the journals, earlier work by Rossi and Forcardi has been.

OK, I have more reading to do, that's clear. One thing that strike me about the boil-over incident... could that be the result of something simpler than a burner, like using a reactive metal to evenly heat the water? I truly don't know if that could replicate the effects seen.

That there is a buyer is very interesting, and the red tape I assume would be related to safety, not efficacy, so it probably has no bearing on the validity of the device. Thank you very much for sharing this information, and I'd say more, but I really do have to read more of what you mentioned, including previously published results. Certainly cold fusion is nothing I've studied in depth beyond its use as an object lesson, a bit like the boogyman. As I'm willing to research even such topics as religion, this is surely no less deserving of exploration, and unlike religion, seems likely to yield SOME answer within our lifetimes. (bit of dry humor on my part, sorry)

After all, should this work, we'll be in a fairly brave new world, and shold it fail it would be dissapointing, but still an answer for the time being.

 

[JaredJames]

That there is a buyer is very interesting,

Please note my above on this matter. It really isn't as good as it sounds.

Their website: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/

 

[nismaratwork]

Agreed.


The details all come from opinion at the moment. Which is all well and good, but I'm not seeing hard facts. Hopefully something new will turn up soon.


Which facts? Again, as I mentioned before, I have done a bit of digging and it's turned up nothing amazing. Only a lot of almost identical copies of reports and news stories.


Have you seen their website?

From their website (well the one page that is it):


First impression is it's a company set up specifically to sell this product. So it's hardly proof it works and certainly doesn't back anything up. I can 'invent' a PMM and make a company to sell it (as are all over the web), it doesn't prove it works.


Is it really a good thing they've gone to a country because there's less red tape? Or does it mean they're simply trying to avoid issues? I also note the countries they are selling it to don't include any major players (well the big boys - US, Europe etc).


I'll take your word for this, but any further on this matter may require sources (wouldn't be right not to check these things, rules are rules).

Well, if they use this reactor to produce energy and it doesn't work, it could be part of an elaborate scam, but the "why" would be rather large. If it doesn't work, they'll be producing energy through usual means, and forced to sell at a loss. If it's meant to increase funding, that could be pernicious.

The red tape end, I would guess, is to do with safety more than proof of concept... after all you can buy 'x-ray specs' on the back of a comic book... if they were truly radioactive, you might have to go to another country. The one upside I will say, is that as a guest speaker we don't' have to be concerned about the rules of evidence in the same way. This is more along the lines of information sharing from a highly respectable source (appeal to authority or not) than it is about a conclusion.

Even if this is a dummy company, once they move from posing to operating, they'd be under enormous scrutiny. Such a company would find it very difficult to resist attempts at industrial espionage in Greece I think, so one way or another the guts of this thing will likely be spilled. Whether that turns out to be a case of fraud, an honest error, or a new and cheap means of generating power would, as you say, take time to prove.

I would say we're in the rare case where, proof or not, we're essentially talking to a RADAR operator describing their personal experience within the rubric of their expertise. This is a rare chance, and it costs nothing to explore something fully. As claims go, this is a big one, but as scams go it would be equally large, and involve finance... not something you want to be doing in Greece... they wouldn't just laugh it off.

In short, this isn't quite "too good to be true", nor is it obviously real... it's a black box. When it comes to this issue, and when nobody is asking me for cash... I'd like to keep an eye on the box. It's this rare combination of factors; the source, the topic, and its more demonstrable and physically consistent nature that intrigues me.

If this was a black box that claimed to cure all illness, I'd laugh. A black box that claims to produce energy without violating local conservation, through previously unproven means is not claiming to break the laws of physics. In short, to me, this is more like sighting a UFO, than it is like claiming to have been abducted by aliens. The former is still an incredible claim, requiring evidence... the latter requires something concrete or bust.

In this case, time will confirm or bust the notion, and given the speaker, I'm inclined to just listen and learn, wit holding all judgment. Remember, this is not a claim to a PMM, it's a claim to reactions at lower temperatures than we currently expect and believe they could occur at. In some ways, it's the very lack of pretension to PMM that makes this intriguing, rather than amusing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'll take your word for this, but any further on this matter may require sources (wouldn't be right not to check these things, rules are rules).

As a guest speaker, Dr. Josephson is not bound by the standard rules. You are free to ask questions, but I will take care of the moderation.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'd just say, this is a case where I think it's worth the care to ignore the "free energy" crowd; their excitement may drown out the genuine research and discussion; Rossi is not pulling a 'Sarah Palin' and avoiding all contact, just limiting exploration of a potentially high value technology.

I believe, from checking on this Greek Entity, that they plan on installing the 1MW generator in October of this year, and how that pans out, or not, will be very interesting. Still, this is the murky end of Skepticism... if an alien ever did make human contact, the first and loudest voices would be the nuts... still wouldn't mean an alien didn't land. It's the wait for a second "thermal bloom" of academic and industrial interest that we need to wait for, and watch, to see if this was a "launch event", or just a flash in the pan.

Yes, I did just mix several metaphors there.

 

[christopherV]

@bjosephson Thank you for your thoughts on thoughts on the matter. I saw the Rossi work maybe a year ago but i have read very few valuable opinions about it.


@everyone else While skepticism is valuable it seems to have reached the levels of religious fervor in the western world, and no one seems to want to make skeptical inquires anymore, only dismiss things as silly without examining them first (thank you Descarte).

 

[bjosephson]

One thing that strike me about the boil-over incident... could that be the result of something simpler than a burner, like using a reactive metal to evenly heat the water? I truly don't know if that could replicate the effects seen.

Re the request for sources, here is the reference; it is clear that the 'reactive metal' theory (or a hydrogen explosion) can't explain what happened; as noted, the entire 700 ml volume of water was heated from 25 deg. C to at least 70 deg. C in 20 seconds or so:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalouse.pdf

By the way, we sceptics do like to check up on things , and here is the relevant correspondence:

Dear Brian

I can answer to your questions:

>(i) was any power supplied to the system before the period shown in the
>graphs? [but even if there were it is unclear how the energy could be stored]

No, I have never supplied before the period in the graph.
Only the period, I supplied input power shown in the graph.

>(ii) the water heating would demand at least 10 kW power for the period
>concerned. Can we rule out any possibility that the power supply acted
>anomalously? It would have to have done so without being registered, but
>I suspect that your power supply could not have produced this, or fuses
>would have blown, etc. etc.

Power supply worked properly, there were no anomalous behavior during the experiment.

If you have any questions, please send me them.




Tadahiko

 

[bjosephson]

I see a lot of typical 'denier' behaviour here, though some are responding more thoughtfully.* People are saying this is just opinion, newspaper reports, etc. But published papers usually describe what was done and finish with 'conclusions', where the experimenter's opinion as to what the experiment shows is stated. In the same way. Levi has provided the details of his investigation and concluded with his opinion as to what is demonstrated by the results (in the case of the 2nd expt., that chemical sources are excluded). In the first case there was a formal report. I'm not sure if there is a similar report for the second expt., but the http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece" does contain direct quotes so it is not just the reporter's opinion of the significance of the expt.

*I fully understand the difficulty in adapting when one's fundamental beliefs turn out to be misconceived. I myself accepted the story 'it was all an error', until someone gave me a copy of the video 'Fire from Water' in which various experimenters who had been successful described their investigations (if anyone is interested, you can now see it on http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6426393169641611451#" ).

 

[christopherV]

the skeptic comment was in no way directed at you dr josephson.

I have read some of your papers and i wouldn't even begin to put you in the category of noisy negativism. I have always put your work more in the realm of Kary Mullis or Noam Chomsky (ie inventive, creative and outside the box)

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[christopherV]

what ever happened with you and the journal nature over the horrible article they wrote on Taleyarkhan? saw the article and thought it was being moved to a ts compartmentalized thing so down play it in the media.

 

[bjosephson]

what ever happened with you and the journal nature over the horrible article they wrote on Taleyarkhan? saw the article and thought it was being moved to a ts compartmentalized thing so down play it in the media.

That's an interesting situation. Certainly Nature acted disgracefully, refusing to correct what were quite definitely errors and misleading statements. But then I got the feeling that the people I was dealing with were 'intellectually challenged' and not up to understanding the issues, which were a little complicated.

Contrary to your characterization, Nature has not attacked Professor
Taleyarkhan in our article of 20th July, nor have we taken a dislike to
anybody. We do not say that Seth Putterman believes that funds have been
misused, and neither do we say that *we* believe that.

We do give good reason for raising the question (which we describe as a
technicality, but an important one) whether particular funds were used
for these particular experiments

We have reported a matter of public interest including the reasons why
Seth Putterman holds the views that he does. We also report what we were
told in response via you, including a statement that Professor
Putterman's views about the funding are wrong. It is very regrettable
that Professor Taleyarkhan declined to talk to us himself. Contrary to
your accusation in your e-mail to Sarah Greaves, we have libelled
nobody.

I believe that we have nothing to apologise for, and nothing to correct,
but if anyone writes to us pointing out what they believe to be specific
and substantive errors, I will certainly be willing to consider
publishing a correction.

Thanks for your e-mails of 10 and 11 September. I am afraid that I do
not agree that either of the points you raise amount to factual errors
in what we published. Therefore I do not agree that they require Nature
to issue a correction.

My memories are a little hazy at this time, but as far as I can recall my conclusion was that T observed a real effect and was shot down by the attacks (he has a mild disposition and is not really a fighter, and refused to talk with Nature (as mentioned above) because he did not consider he would be treated fairly), which might have had a racial element as well as involving professional rivalry (the latter applies also in the case of Pons and Fleischmann; indeed, assuming Rossi pans out, the people working on the ITER project and also laser fusion are going to be out of a job pretty soon). The problem is that his process (bubbles collapsing and therefore getting very hot so if one is lucky nuclear processes occur) depends on how small the bubbles get and that may be very dependent on getting the conditions right. Some may have had vested interests in doing an expt. and faiiing to replicate the claim, but I can imagine that replication could be very difficult anyway.

What happens in many cases is that people spend years investigating and finding out precisely the optimal conditions for something (and you can't necessarily explain all the experimental skills in a paper), and then someone comes along with a quick expt., doesn't have good conditions, and announces that the claim was in error. Not to mention a famous journal that investigated a controversial claim as to biological activity in high dilution and sent along a team with no experience of biological experiments!

 

[bjosephson]

By the way, I'm now doing an experimental investigation -- which will happen first, pigs flying, or Nature publishing something relating to the Rossi reactor?

 

[christopherV]

well as an opinion i always thought it was fishy that A&M and Georgia Tech confirmed and then retracted Pons and Fleischmanns' findings, but that's like saying I think Einstein was wrong...and I really don't have enough knowledge in the area.


I found the patent appication for Rossi's generator if anyone is interested.
http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/sea...532&queryString=FP:(WO/2009/125444)&maxRec=1"

 

[christopherV]

by the way, I'm now doing an experimental investigation -- which will happen first, pigs flying, or nature publishing something relating to the rossi reactor?

:D lmao

 

[AntonL]

To Dr Josephson

Good day - In my opinion Einstein was let's say 95% correct, the 5% that is incorrect is the reason that theoretical physics stagnated the last 40 years. This 5% is the barrier to fusion techniques that don't use tokomaks or Mega-lasers

What is your opinion to above statement

 

[Phrak]

Dr. Josephson. Some of us have been lurking on this thread to see what you will have next. Thank you, and please continue to keep us posted.

 

[Willowz]

http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0080v2.pdf

 

[joshua cude]

As far as I can see, no independent evidence has been presented to the public to indicate that the Rossi reactor represents a new source of energy. I would be interested to hear Dr. Josephson's response to some of the following obvious, unanswered objections to Rossi's claims.

1. Trust. The main objection to Rossi's claims is that they require trust. Ordinarily a scientific discovery is published, so that others, skilled in the art, can test it independently. Since Rossi wants to keep his recipe secret, this option is not available to him. Instead, he chose a public demonstration, which would be fine, except that the event in January was neither public nor a demonstration.

It wasn't public because it was by invitation only, and the central figure, Levi, is an associate of Rossi's, who is receiving substantial research funding from him. That sort of funding can be useful in applications for promotion, and Levi appears to have a lot of room for promotion.

It wasn't a demonstration because observers -- even those present -- could not actually observe what Rossi was claiming. All we can see from the video of the event is a large device wrapped in tin foil, and some people milling around. How does that demonstrate power from NiH, let alone more than would be available chemically? Only Levi made measurements necessary to evaluate the claims of excess heat, and regardless of Levi's credentials, integrity, or motivations, a discovery of this magnitude will not be taken seriously if it relies on trust, rather than independent verification.

And it's not difficult to imagine independent verification without disclosing the recipe. For example, to demonstrate heat from an alcohol burner, one can simply pass around a beaker of cold water, place it above the burner until it is visibly boiling. All observers will agree that the burner is producing heat. Rossi claims far more power than an alcohol burner provides, and it should be much easier to demonstrate convincingly (without relying on trust) as the following objections will emphasize.

2. Input electricity. Most energy sources can be demonstrated, without ambiguity, to any lay person, because they do not need input energy at all. In cold fusion experiments that use electrolysis, the excuse is always that conversion of output heat to input electricity is too inefficient, or the output is too erratic, or both. Those excuses don't apply here. The input is heat, the output is heat, and it is obviously stable. Why can't the output heat be used to maintain the necessary temperature once the reaction has started? Rossi claims it's about safety, but ducks behind confidentiality instead of explaining why turning the input power *off* is dangerous.

3. Chemical fuel. Why was the device connected to a 13 kg hydrogen bottle? If it were a nuclear reaction, the amount of H2 consumed would be less than one mg. They could have pressurized the cell, and then disconnected the bottle. Removing the large reservoir of *fuel* would remove the need to measure the input hydrogen, which in any case was foiled by a piece of tape.

4. Wet and dry steam. The claim of 12 kW relies on the claim that all the water is converted to steam; i.e. that the steam is dry. However, no data is reported to support this claim; it is simply made on the basis of an undisclosed measurement with an "air quality monitor". However, the fact that the temperature of the output fluid is pinned to the boiling point indicates that there is at least some liquid present (as a mist, presumably). Moreover the temperature profile makes it highly implausible that more than a small fraction of the water is converted to vapour: It takes 30 minutes to bring the system up to the point where about 1.8 kW is transferred to the water (just before boiling); it seems unlikely that during the following 40-minute temperature plateau, the power transfer is suddenly 12 kW, particularly since the temperature actually dips below the boiling point in mid-plateau. Finally, no photograph or description of the output fluid is provided that might offer plausibility of the very high velocity output fluid consistent with the claim of dry steam.

5. Flow rate and volume. For a public demonstration, a single large reservoir of water (like a common 20L drinking water container) could be used for a simple, visible, and obvious indication of how much water has been consumed, rather than relying on someone's measurement of the flow rate. The measurement has raised some suspicion because the pump that appears in the video, according to the manufacturer, has a maximum flow rate of 7.6 L / hour, far less than is claimed.

6. How much excess heat? Even if the temperatures and flow rate presented by Levi are accepted, they provide clear evidence of only about 1.8 kW power out, with 1 kW electrical power in (the average reported by Levi). That leaves only about 800 W for 40 minutes to be accounted for, which is certainly not enough to rule out chemical sources, given the size and weight of the device, not to mention the connection to a 13 kg bottle of hydrogen.

7. A real independent check. If Rossi wanted instant credibility, he could provide his device to real independent skeptics for objective testing, in his absence. He could insist on a few burly guards (in his employ) and video surveillance to ensure there would be no peaking under the hood.

These questions leave aside the equally troubling questions of nuclear byproducts, including radiation, but are sufficient to maintain serious skepticism.

Rossi's February experiment answers some of the above objections (particularly the question of wet and dry steam), but it is not even claimed to be a public demonstration. And there are many reasons to question the plausibility of those claims as well, which I will leave unvoiced for the moment.