Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[Horatius]

Andrea Rossi Says He Has Signed “A Contract of Tremendous Importance” in the USA
http://www.freeenergytimes.com/2011...contract-of-tremendous-importance-in-the-usa/

So, absolutely nothing, then?


Oh, wait - BLP is actually being less mysterious about who they're dealing with. Is that what you meant?

 

[Crawdaddy]

What has Rossi done that is qualitatively different from Blacklight Power?

Well qualitatively?

1. It doesn't rely on an entirely new model of physics.

2. thousands of researchers have not studied black light power's devices. There are literally thousands of published papers in the field of cold fusion

3. Black light power is not paying a university to study the mechanism of his device.

4. Black light power (BP) has not demonstrated his device to several italian professors, a former chairman of the swedish skeptics society, and the president of the physics association that decides on who will receive the Nobel prize.

5. BP has been around for many years and has not delivered a working device.

6. Also this announcement comes after the other and benefits slightly form a "never cry wolf" effect. I mean how many times will people fall for frauds of this kind. I am sure that any serious investor would learn from the past.

I gotta go to a dinner party here in Vancouver. You should immediately head to the royal oak on bank st. and get some wings!

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Oooh, oooh, I've got another one.

As you know (from reading the patent application, of course), the 2 cm lead shield around the reactor is what actually extracts heat from the radiation produced by the nickel-hydrogen fusion. As a side note, think about what this says about the radiation - it can't be alpha or beta particles, since those would get stopped by the copper tubing, and it can't be neutrons since there is no induced radioactivity, so it must be gamma radiation; and really low energy at that, to be stopped by a mere 2 cm of lead. But I digress.

The shielding for the demonstration unit is never described, but let's model it as a cylinder with a 50 mm bore and a 150 mm length (6 inches). With a step down at each end to a 25 mm dia hole to let the pipe through, this will capture about 85% of the emitted radiation. The interior area of the lead is about .085 sq meter. The pictures in the Swedish report clearly show no signs of contact with the copper tubing, so heat transfer must be radiative. Assuming black-body radiation and a net power production of 4.39 KW, the radiant flux level from the lead must be 4.39 KW / .085, or about 50 KW per sq meter. For an emissivity of 1, this implies a temperature of just about 700 C. For grey lead, the emissivity is about .28, and that implies a temperature of about 2700 C. Note that, for instance, if you make the shield twice as long, and accept an emissivity twice as great, the resulting temperature is about 450 C.

The end result of these calculations is clear: for any reasonable assumption about the radiation shield used in Rossi's demonstration unit, the radiation shield is molten.

That's a pretty good trick, don't you think? How do you suppose he keeps it in place?

 

[Horatius]

Well qualitatively?

1. It doesn't rely on an entirely new model of physics.

Actually, yes it does. It's clear from all I've read that there's no way any alleged "cold fusion" can follow the well-known rules of hot fusion. If we accept as true everything they tell us, it produces different energies, radiations, and daughter nuclei. That's why they've tried to change the name to "LENR" or "CANR", after all.

2. thousands of researchers have not studied black light power's devices. There are literally thousands of published papers in the field of cold fusion

And there's thousands of people testing homoeopathy, chiropractic, and any number of alt-med concepts. Numbers mean nothing, results do.

3. Black light power is not paying a university to study the mechanism of his device.

Google "Rowan University". I'm not sure if BLP has paid them anything, but that's actually a point in BLP's favour. Whatever else you might say, at least Rowan isn't in it just for the money.

4. Black light power (BP) has not demonstrated his device to several italian professors, a former chairman of the swedish skeptics society, and the president of the physics association that decides on who will receive the Nobel prize.

No, not these spcific people, but he's claimed to demonstrate it to a similar array of "scientists", so again, nothing so different. What is so special about this group? The reports they've produced are no better than anything I've see from BLP supporters.

5. BP has been around for many years and has not delivered a working device.

Rossi claims to have been doing this since 2007. How many more years does he get?

6. Also this announcement comes after the other and benefits slightly form a "never cry wolf" effect. I mean how many times will people fall for frauds of this kind. I am sure that any serious investor would learn from the past.

And so do the most recent of BLP's claims. What they're saying now is quite different from what they said 10 or 20 years ago, and as I pointed out previously, is actually quite similar to what Rossi has claimed. Why believe there's a wolf at Rossi's door, and not at BLP's?

I gotta go to a dinner party here in Vancouver. You should immediately head to the royal oak on bank st. and get some wings!

Two things: Which one on Bank? They've got three or four along there now! And the one on Blair Road is closer anyways, and has just as good wings!

 

[Crawdaddy]

Whatroughbeast

Generally, when one makes an error in a calculation or an invalid assumption it is polite to acknowledge that fact before changing the subject.

Personally, I have made plenty of errors in my day and may have made another in this case as I have put a lot of my personal credibility on the line with my academic colleagues by indicating that I give the Rossi experiments a good chance of being for real.

I didn't create an account here today to make anyone feel like they lost an argument with me or conversely to feel like I lost an argument with someone else. I simply wanted to point out that there is a large amount of information about cold fusion that is being given short shrift and reinforce that point by pointing out a couple of unreasonable (in my opinion) assumptions in the arguments presented in the forum. I wish you all the best with your future endeavors.

Horatius

Thank you for the discussion. It is unlikely that I will post here in the future but if you happen to be out in Ottawa during the holidays (when I visit my parents) and you happen to see a prematurely bald fellow ranting about rydberg matter, or Julian Schwinger, or Brian Josephson feel free to stop by and slap that fellow in the face. Hard.

 

[Aepervius]

Crawdaddy you did not clearly indicate where the error is in the water heat calculation, or even less with the lead shielding calculation.

As for you saying "we did not look at the most recent paper".... That is a big assumption on your part. Especially if you search for cold fusion thread in this forum.

ETA: and about endorsing a claim , why would you do that unless you are doing the experimentn yourself ? Endorsing a claim without doing the experiment is like doing an argument by authority, or similar : you have no way of checking the veracity of it, therefor endorsing it is a bit shaky.

 

[Horatius]

Horatius

Thank you for the discussion. It is unlikely that I will post here in the future but if you happen to be out in Ottawa during the holidays (when I visit my parents) and you happen to see a prematurely bald fellow ranting about rydberg matter, or Julian Schwinger, or Brian Josephson feel free to stop by and slap that fellow in the face. Hard.

Friend of yours, is he?

 

[Cuddles]

"given how little the skeptic guy bothered to check I have to wonder why he bothered turning up at all."

Assuming you're referring to one of the swedes who wrote the report, the answer is that he wasn't a skeptic - he's a physicist. And the difference is important.

He's also the chairman of the Swedish skeptics' society, so presumably some people consider him a skeptic.

Randi often mentioned that professional scientists are not very good at detecting fraud. The problem is that, since science is constantly building on the results of others, and the need for reproduceability makes fraud unprofitable in the long run, scientists are (in the short run) easily bamboozled. Their first instinct is to trust other researchers, and to try to explain data as it is presented to them. There have been any number of otherwise competent scientists who went public with support for paranormals of various sorts, and who regretted the experience.

Randi often says that, and I completely disagree with him. The problem is not that scientists aren't good at detecting fraud, it's that people tend to expect scientists to be good at every area of science. This case is actually a perfect example. Hanno Essen is a theoretical physicist. What they actually needed was a scientists with experience in calorimetry, or electrical engineering, or fluid flow, or something at least vaguely relevant to the actual experiment. There's nothing wrong with scientists, and I have quite a problem with Randi's constant dismissal of them, it's simply that the wrong kind of scientist is not necessarily better than no scientist at all.

The thing is, in this case it's not even a question of fraud. It doesn't matter why you think there might be problems, there was no serious attempt to measure the most basic variables at all. Neither the water flow or heating were actually measured at all, let alone monitored during the experiment. That's not a problem with having scientists involved, it's a problem with the scientists apparently not knowing what they should be doing. Note that I'm not saying they're bad scientists in their fields, but they're clearly not the people who should be doing experimental calorimetry.

A cursory examination of the topic of cold fusion will inform you of the fact that it is impossible to patent cold fusion based devices. The patent office rejects them without examination (similar to perpetual motion machines).

Firstly, as already noted by others this claim is clearly wrong. Secondly, which patent office are you referring to, exactly? You do realise that each country has their own office, and the rules are not identical for all of them.

Any argument about patents is pointless.

Argument about patents is clearly not pointless because of one little detail - Rossi has applied for a patent. Even if everything you said about patents were correct, they're still relevant to the case at hand because they can tell us about Rossi's motivations etc., as well as giving actual technical information.

I think the rest of your post establishes that the reason the patent has been rejected

Perhaps I've missed something, but when did we learn his patent has been rejected? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere, and a look at the link Horaitus gave doesn't seem to indicate that. Surely all your ranting about patents being meaningless here wasn't based on your assumption that it had been rejected? After all, that's basic information about the topic, and it took me less than 5 minutes to come up with it...

 

[Dancing David]

Crawdaddy,
Andrea Rossi inaugurated a New Era in cold fusion research. Earlier Rossi, cold fusion was based on palladium and deuteron (heavy water).

Rossi's technology is new. He uses niquel-hidrogen.
He discovered it accidentally. He was not trying to get cold fusion. His research was concerning the improvement of some oil fossils. But accidentally he noticed the production of excess heat in his experiences.

What is also new in this technology is its big amount of excess energy, which enables it to be market.

At once he starts to sell his E-Cat reactor, and it starts to work in many countries, any theoretical controversy will be over.

Once...

 

[Crawdaddy]

Aepervius

I did explain exactly why the calculation was flawed. Whatroughbeast eventually understood what I was talking about by doing the bear minimum of research of clicking on the links in PESN blogspam article (linking to a crackpot website is an excellent starting point for any discussion).

Upon understanding what I was talking about he promptly changed the subject. In a discussion with me I expect a person to display a willingness to change their position not move the goalposts when they are in danger of actually having to examine ideas that might conflict with the easy answers they have constructed for themselves. This tendency is something seen in religious zealots not scientists.

I have lost interest in this discussion because it is clear to me that there is basically no way of progressing towards a consensus because not enough information is available and there is no willingness to really investigate the intricate details of the subject (or even very basic details like auxiliary heating elements).

Your statement:

ETA: and about endorsing a claim , why would you do that unless you are doing the experimentn yourself ? Endorsing a claim without doing the experiment is like doing an argument by authority, or similar : you have no way of checking the veracity of it, therefor endorsing it is a bit shaky.

Is an excellent example of what I am talking about. I am a professional scientist with a wealth of experience. I can read a literature report and, using my training, judge the scientific merit of a report based on the variables measured and the discussion of the results, I can also evaluate that report in the context of the rest of the body of scientific research. Every scientist does this every day. The statement you made essentially argues that I should never endorse a claim unless I observe it first hand! This statement reduces the discussion to absurdity and demonstrates an extreme lack of willingness to communicate with an open mind. It is setting the bar of the discussion at an absurd level so that no agreement can ever be reached. If your requirement for proof is first hand observation, something that I or you will never do then you have essentially demanded something so unlikely that it is practically impossible.

Religious people are doing something similar when they say things like "you can't prove that god doesn't exist!".

It is for this reason that I no longer wish to discuss the issue here.

All the best,
Crawdaddy

 

[RobDegraves]

Randi often says that, and I completely disagree with him. The problem is not that scientists aren't good at detecting fraud, it's that people tend to expect scientists to be good at every area of science. This case is actually a perfect example. Hanno Essen is a theoretical physicist. What they actually needed was a scientists with experience in calorimetry, or electrical engineering, or fluid flow, or something at least vaguely relevant to the actual experiment. There's nothing wrong with scientists, and I have quite a problem with Randi's constant dismissal of them, it's simply that the wrong kind of scientist is not necessarily better than no scientist at all.

Though I agree with most of what you said there, I will say that I tend to agree with Randi on that specific statement for what I think is one good reason.

You correctly point out that they should have had a scientist trained in the proper field for that test. I agree.

However, how many scientists are trained in fraud?

Much like magicians, frauds have specific skill sets (well, the good ones) that you need to know if you intend on being good at detecting fraud or trickery. You see very smart people being conned all the time, it's not a question of intelligence or the correct scientific background, it's a question of not being trained in the specifics of that trade.


I guess it would be more accurate to say that scientists are not more gullible than most people... but that they are just as vulnerable to trickery as most people.


However... in this case there is so much that is obviously fraudulent, it's sad that any scientist would be taken.

 

[Horatius]

Perhaps I've missed something, but when did we learn his patent has been rejected? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere, and a look at the link Horatius gave doesn't seem to indicate that. Surely all your ranting about patents being meaningless here wasn't based on your assumption that it had been rejected? After all, that's basic information about the topic, and it took me less than 5 minutes to come up with it...

As I discussed earlier, what WIPO has published is the International Preliminary Report on Patentability, which did give it a negative review. However, that's not binding on any national Patent Office, and can be rebutted by the Applicant during any National Phase examination.

 

[Teemu]

If I remember correctly, even in United States people have gotten "cold fusion" patents, as long as they didn't mention cold fusion and they gave enough details that fulfill the novelty requirement, the basic requirement for getting patent. They didn't have to proove that it worked. Rossi's one patent got thrown out because the patent application didn't contain anything novel, it gave out no details of the composition of the catalyst. You can try to keep some aspects of your invention as trade secrets and try to patent some sub systems of your invention, but if you don't show any novelty in the patent application, no patent for you.

 

[Aepervius]

Aepervius

I did explain exactly why the calculation was flawed. Whatroughbeast eventually understood what I was talking about by doing the bear minimum of research of clicking on the links in PESN blogspam article (linking to a crackpot website is an excellent starting point for any discussion).

Upon understanding what I was talking about he promptly changed the subject. In a discussion with me I expect a person to display a willingness to change their position not move the goalposts when they are in danger of actually having to examine ideas that might conflict with the easy answers they have constructed for themselves. This tendency is something seen in religious zealots not scientists.

I have lost interest in this discussion because it is clear to me that there is basically no way of progressing towards a consensus because not enough information is available and there is no willingness to really investigate the intricate details of the subject (or even very basic details like auxiliary heating elements).

Your statement:



Is an excellent example of what I am talking about. I am a professional scientist with a wealth of experience. I can read a literature report and, using my training, judge the scientific merit of a report based on the variables measured and the discussion of the results, I can also evaluate that report in the context of the rest of the body of scientific research. Every scientist does this every day. The statement you made essentially argues that I should never endorse a claim unless I observe it first hand! This statement reduces the discussion to absurdity and demonstrates an extreme lack of willingness to communicate with an open mind. It is setting the bar of the discussion at an absurd level so that no agreement can ever be reached. If your requirement for proof is first hand observation, something that I or you will never do then you have essentially demanded something so unlikely that it is practically impossible.

Religious people are doing something similar when they say things like "you can't prove that god doesn't exist!".

It is for this reason that I no longer wish to discuss the issue here.

All the best,
Crawdaddy

I am a scientist (was) and I would *NEVER* endorse a claim on something "newish" and controversial I did not check, that is unprofessional. I would always say "from our current knowledge blahblahlbha" or say how probable I think it is from the article and measurement. And from what I know from Rossi's stuff, there is no way scientifically to say what has been done up to now is kosher. ENDORSING a claim is much much more than having an open mind. It is akin to say "yeah it is so" and staking one's credility on it. And unless you checked it, you are doing it on TRUST.

A scientific has to have an open mind, but you are letting yours leak out, sorry.

 

[Horatius]

If I remember correctly, even in United States people have gotten "cold fusion" patents, as long as they didn't mention cold fusion and they gave enough details that fulfill the novelty requirement, the basic requirement for getting patent. They didn't have to proove that it worked. Rossi's one patent got thrown out because the patent application didn't contain anything novel, it gave out no details of the composition of the catalyst. You can try to keep some aspects of your invention as trade secrets and try to patent some sub systems of your invention, but if you don't show any novelty in the patent application, no patent for you.

This was the topic of my talk at TAM 5 - how people get patents on things they're not supposed to. There are many tricks that can be used to bamboozle the patent office, and some applicants use every one of them.


That's one thing I'll say in Rossi's favour: his application, as compared to some I've seen, is pretty straight forward about what he's doing. There's a bit of tomfoolery in his claims, and how the application is classified, but not much.

His international application has two classifications:

C01B 3/00

Hydrogen; Gaseous mixtures containing hydrogen; Separation of hydrogen from mixtures containing it; Purification of hydrogen

C01B 6/02

· Hydrides of transition elements; Addition complexes thereof

And the US equivalent is classed as:

F24J 1/00

Apparatus or devices using heat produced by exothermal chemical reactions other than by combustion

These classes were assigned because his first claim is very broad, and doesn't refer to fusion or nuclear processes:


International application:

1. A method for carrying out an isothermal reaction of nickel and hydrogen, characterized in -that said method comprises injecting hydrogen into a metal tube filled by a nickel powder, even of nanometric dimensions, or nickel granules or bars, in a high temperature and pressurized hydrogen gas saturated environment, thereby generating energy.

US Application (as amended during the International phase, so it's a bit different):

1. A method for carrying out an hexothermal reaction of nickel and hydrogen, characterized in that said method comprises the steps of providing a metal tube, introducing into said metal tube a nanometric particle nickel powder and injecting into said metal tube a hydrogen gas having a temperature much greater than 150° C. and a pressure much greater than 2 bars.

So, some shenanigans, but not nearly as much as others I've seen.

 

[Yevgen Barsukov]

This was the topic of my talk at TAM 5 - how

That's one thing I'll say in Rossi's favour: his application, as compared to some I've seen, is pretty straight forward about what he's doing. There's a bit of tomfoolery in his claims, and how the application is classified, but not much.

There is only one little caveat. Patent should enable "a person skilled in the art" to replicate the device and observe the claimed behaviour.
In case of Rossi patent, if you build exactly what he described (heated Ni-filled tube filled with H2), it will not do a damn thing! And there is nothing novel in it since such a device has been used in chemistry for last 90 years for hydrogenation of fat and production of Margarine (search for Raney nickel).
It is a hugely massive industry and using exactly the same apparatus - heated Ni / pressurized hydrogen without anything strange happening.

So, he adds a magic word "optional catalysts", which invalidates the whole
requirement of ability to replicate it, because they are _not specified_!
So this patent is rejected completely correctly, regardless of what it is about
because it does not allow a person skilled in the art to build what is claimed
as novel. Plain and simple.

Now that brings up a question - why do I write a patent that is clearly going
to be rejected because it does not meet the most basic requirement? Maybe just to say that "I filed a patent" and fuel a conspiracy theory
how "the establishment" is persecuting an innovator?

Regards,
Yevgen

 

[Horatius]

There is only one little caveat. Patent should enable "a person skilled in the art" to replicate the device and observe the claimed behaviour.
In case of Rossi patent, if you build exactly what he described (heated Ni-filled tube filled with H2), it will not do a damn thing! And there is nothing novel in it since such a device has been used in chemistry for last 90 years for hydrogenation of fat and production of Margarine (search for Raney nickel).
It is a hugely massive industry and using exactly the same apparatus - heated Ni / pressurized hydrogen without anything strange happening.

So, he adds a magic word "optional catalysts", which invalidates the whole
requirement of ability to replicate it, because they are _not specified_!
So this patent is rejected completely correctly, regardless of what it is about
because it does not allow a person skilled in the art to build what is claimed
as novel. Plain and simple.

Absolute agreement on his lack of an enabling disclosure. My point is, if you read it, he doesn't try to hide the fact that he's discussing cold fusion. I've seen some applicants who bend over backwards to avoid saying anything of the sort, and go out of their way to use obfuscating terminology to conceal what it is they really think they're doing.

Now that brings up a question - why do I write a patent that is clearly going
to be rejected because it does not meet the most basic requirement? Maybe just to say that "I filed a patent" and fuel a conspiracy theory
how "the establishment" is persecuting an innovator?

Regards,
Yevgen

That's how I'd bet. First question for anyone who claims a new breakthrough technology like this is, "Have you applied for a patent?" This way, he can truthfully say yes, but still have an excuse for it being rejected.

And as we've seen, his supporters will accept just about any excuse he offers.

 

[summand]

Another tidbit was recently added by esowatch to their coverage of the energy catalyzer:

Apparently Leonardo Technologies, Inc., a Rossi company, had previously claimed to have developed thermoelectric power devices with an efficiency of 20%(normal is 4%). After initial success a fire destroyed Rossi's Manchester, NH location and he returned to Italy...

Several devices were tested by a contractor of the Department of Defense and surprise, surprise, the devices did not work better than standard devices...

Here is the report:
http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf

 

[Teemu]

So a fire, which apparently did not kill anybody, in one factory, caused them to be unable to produce 100 watt devices and only capable of producing 1 watt devices? Too bad that their backup procedures were so poor and all their employees had such a poor memory.

 

[mike3]

I wish I were not honest. I could make a fortune off these chumps, and I know enough about how this SHOULD be measured to fool many people who see through Rossi and others.

What was the way they "SHOULD" have measured it, but failed to do? Where did they bungle their measurements?