Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[McFate]

Has the "18 hour test" been discussed in a separate thread here?

bit.ly/fASqWa (won't let me post full URLs, that goes to nyteknik.se; article was supposedly posted today 2/23).

Claims:
* Ran for 18 hours
* Produced at least 15kw for those hours
* Raised water temp (instead of boiling it) to reduce potential source of error

Previously I thought there were three possibilities:
a) genuine article,
b) honest albeit amateurish mistakes by researchers (bad calculations, poor instrumentation, etc.), and
c) outright fraud.

I think the middle possibility has been eliminated.

Everything to me screams fraud. (If legit, why make a fake web site that is supposed to confusingly look like a journal? If legit, why make up a bogus list of "advisors" for the web site? Those things alone would generally send me looking elsewhere.) But it will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

The useful part of the article:

“This time I opened the control unit (and examined the interior), as someone said that it could contain a hidden battery. And I can swear in court that the box was empty, except for the control electronics – five very simple PLCs – and it weighed about seven kilograms,” said Levi.

“I have also seen inside the unit itself – most of the volume is isolation, and most of the weight of about 30 kg is due to lead.”

He confirmed that the reactor supposedly containing nickel powder, the secret catalysts and hydrogen gas, had a volume of around one liter. The reactor was the only part he could not inspect.

Levi is now planning more tests and a thorough analysis, before and after operation, of the nickel powder that the energy catalyst is loaded with.

“If I then, using the most accurate methods possible, really see changes in the nuclei, then we have new physics. There is nothing you can say about it,” he stated.

Giuseppe Levi has worked with Sergio Focardi, emeritus professor at the University of Bologna and Rossi’s scientific adviser since four years.

NYT: What would you tell those who doubt your independence?

“If I were an old professor with his career already done, then I would not have anything to risk. But any attempt at fraud on my part would be a terrible personal goal. What could I hope for? To have a title for ten days, and then be thrown from my own department. Because (the matter of) fraud comes up sooner or later. There is no hope for it. So if I ... well, I would be really stupid. Honestly, I would be really stupid!” said Levi.

 

[catsmate]

Interestingly even Stephen E. Jones, not usually slow to jump on any passing bandwagon, doesn't accept it:

“Where are the quantitative descriptions of these copper radioisotopes? What detectors were used? Have the results been replicated by independent researchers? Pardon my skepticism as I await real data.”

 

[Emet]

Has the "18 hour test" been discussed in a separate thread here?

Here's your link, in case someone doesn't want to copy/paste, and wants to see it in its entirety:

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

 

[dlorde]

There is an interesting follow-up link to a Swedish interview with Professor Emeritus Sven Kullander at Uppsala University, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Energy Committee, and Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Royal Institute of Technology and chairman of the Society for Research and Popular Education. They seem to be giving the benefit of the doubt until more evidence is forthcoming, but are puzzled by the lack of gamma radiation.

If, like me, you can't read Swedish, the Google translator does a reasonable job.

 

[Yevgen Barsukov]

Here's your link, in case someone doesn't want to copy/paste, and wants to see it in its entirety:

While 18 hr test with 15kW output from a 30kg device would almost
certainly exclude any chemical sources including NiMH battery self-discharge,
we must be careful to verify the validity of the power numbers.
Low power over long period of time can also be easily explained by chemical
sources, so it comes down to "how high was the power".

Power numbers are coming from measurements of water flow and temperature, that was done off-site from university (e.g. using equipment provided by Rossi). To exclude possibility of foul play, all metrology needs to be done by equipment provided and calibrated by University or company
that specializes in device calibration.
To give example how easy it is to be "mistaken" in the favorable direction,
in this particular case it takes only +2.5oC error in input temperature of 15C
and -2.5 oC error in output temperature of 20C to make a difference between
15kW and 0kW power. 2.5oC is typical error range for off-the shelf thermometers. It takes a scientific grade calibrated thermocouples to get to 0.1oC accuracy.
Also water flow measurement can be similarly mis-calibrated and it is difficult
to intuitively estimate its correctness (300 l/h or 30 l/h??) unless you have lots of experience measuring such things.
The bottom line is - if we are dealing with black box demonstration, we should
treat it with complete mistrust and assure that _nothing_ is left open
to possible manipulations. Metrology is the first place to require 100%
independent external control.

Regards,
Yevgen

 

[Teemu]

Power numbers are coming from measurements of water flow and temperature, that was done off-site from university (e.g. using equipment provided by Rossi). To exclude possibility of foul play, all metrology needs to be done by equipment provided and calibrated by University or company
that specializes in device calibration.

And in addition that test was done by the same people who couldn't differentiate between relative humidity of air and steam "dryness" in the previous test. If Rossi wanted, he could take the device to credible laboratory and they could figure in less than a day whether it is real or not. If you have device which you can get to run with huge input/output ratios for up to 2 years like Rossi claims, you should give proper demonstration, not weak ones like Rossi does.

 

[catsmate]

While 18 hr test with 15kW output from a 30kg device would almost
certainly exclude any chemical sources including NiMH battery self-discharge,
we must be careful to verify the validity of the power numbers.
Low power over long period of time can also be easily explained by chemical
sources, so it comes down to "how high was the power".

Power numbers are coming from measurements of water flow and temperature, that was done off-site from university (e.g. using equipment provided by Rossi). To exclude possibility of foul play, all metrology needs to be done by equipment provided and calibrated by University or company
that specializes in device calibration.
To give example how easy it is to be "mistaken" in the favorable direction,
in this particular case it takes only +2.5oC error in input temperature of 15C
and -2.5 oC error in output temperature of 20C to make a difference between
15kW and 0kW power. 2.5oC is typical error range for off-the shelf thermometers. It takes a scientific grade calibrated thermocouples to get to 0.1oC accuracy.
Also water flow measurement can be similarly mis-calibrated and it is difficult
to intuitively estimate its correctness (300 l/h or 30 l/h??) unless you have lots of experience measuring such things.
The bottom line is - if we are dealing with black box demonstration, we should
treat it with complete mistrust and assure that _nothing_ is left open
to possible manipulations. Metrology is the first place to require 100%
independent external control.

Regards,
Yevgen

So no comment on Rossi's history of paranoid and self-aggrandising claims? The fake "journal"? The physical implausibility of his proposed mechanism? The dead/non-existent journal advisor?
Oh, and Noceti and LTI also deny any involvement with this scam.

 

[Yevgen Barsukov]

So no comment on Rossi's history of paranoid and self-aggrandising claims? The fake "journal"? The physical implausibility of his proposed mechanism? The dead/non-existent journal advisor?
Oh, and Noceti and LTI also deny any involvement with this scam.

These are all valid considerations, but since I am a researcher, and not psychiatrist, I prefer to stick to what I can give a qualified opinion about (in this particular case it is that from "black-box" standpoint this demostration can be explained as thermal run-away of NiMH batteries).
Regarding physical implausibility, yes it would require a new physics to work
from kinetics standpoint, but that by itself is not impossible, just improbable. If all experimental data would comply with contemporary theories, then inventions would never happen.

On a purely intuitive side the tone of Rossi's communications does rise
a red flag, it is not the way researchers or even engineers normally talk or
act. Normal researcher would disclose what is exactly in the black box, in
a paper or at least in a patent application.
But than again, some of the other famous inventors were eccentric.
Technology is not a popularity contest. But business propositions (like this one) can be fraudulent and therefore investor have to watch out and require to comply with good practices in testing, such as externally controlled metrology.

Regards,
Yevgen

 

[Merko]

This Friday (March 11), the Swedish magazin Ny Teknik ('New Technology') will have an interview with Rossi, and they are inviting questions.

I must say I'm rather disappointed in Ny Teknik for giving Rossi much more publicity than he has deserved so far, and this is not the first time their technical competence has been questionable (recently they published a nonsensical op-ed by some climate revisionists). However, the publication has a wide audience in Sweden and I suppose this might be a chance to confront Rossi with some questions that should already have been asked.

My suggestions:
- On your blog (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2), you list as part of your 'Board of advisors' a Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire – USA). The University of New Hampshire does not know of any such professor. How do you explain this?

- Would you allow a team of neutral examinators to monitor your invention using their own measurement equipment, including power meters, flow meters and temperature sensors?

 

[Merko]

On the subject of 'how is it done', what methods do you people suspect?

I can think of these methods at the moment:

1. Flawed power meter. The device really consumes much more energy than the crude meter displays. It is really just a simple electric heater with a broken power meter.

2. Chemical reaction of some sort. For example, a gallium-aluminium alloy could be used to produce hydrogen that could be burned to heat the water. I'm no expert but it seems plausible as far as I can tell, although the gallium would be expensive (but can be re-sold later).

3. Shifting methods - eg the first demonstration could have used a battery, while the second may have used wrongly calibrated thermometers.

4. The allegedly neutral observer is in on the trick, or is sufficiently mislead to have provided seriously flawed reports of his observation.

 

[Chronopolitan]

I'm still not entirely convinced by the "demonstrations". Although it could be some unknown reaction or method to lower the Coulomb barrier, I am puzzled by those false people on the "board".

Only the fact that Rossi's "catalyst" is disclosed can be explained: in case of a patent application, the catalyst would be the only part of the invention that could be patented. It would indeed be wise to keep it a secret for now.

I hope there will be a really independent examination...

 

[Horatius]

On the subject of 'how is it done', what methods do you people suspect?

I can think of these methods at the moment:

1. Flawed power meter. The device really consumes much more energy than the crude meter displays. It is really just a simple electric heater with a broken power meter.

2. Chemical reaction of some sort. For example, a gallium-aluminium alloy could be used to produce hydrogen that could be burned to heat the water. I'm no expert but it seems plausible as far as I can tell, although the gallium would be expensive (but can be re-sold later).

3. Shifting methods - eg the first demonstration could have used a battery, while the second may have used wrongly calibrated thermometers.

4. The allegedly neutral observer is in on the trick, or is sufficiently mislead to have provided seriously flawed reports of his observation.

I'd say, "Probably some combination of all of the above".

Only the fact that Rossi's "catalyst" is disclosed can be explained: in case of a patent application, the catalyst would be the only part of the invention that could be patented. It would indeed be wise to keep it a secret for now.

Except that he claims he's already applied for the patent, which means he has all the protection he needs. There is a reason for keeping it secret prior to filing, but anyone who says they have to keep it secret after filing is just ********ting.

Another option is that his application doesn't list what is in the catalyst, in which case, he's trying to pull a scam on the patent office, which still doesn't fill me with confidence in his honesty and integrity.

 

[Chronopolitan]

I'd say, "Probably some combination of all of the above".







Except that he claims he's already applied for the patent, which means he has all the protection he needs. There is a reason for keeping it secret prior to filing, but anyone who says they have to keep it secret after filing is just ********ting.

Another option is that his application doesn't list what is in the catalyst, in which case, he's trying to pull a scam on the patent office, which still doesn't fill me with confidence in his honesty and integrity.

I'm not an expert on patents, but is an application sufficient to protect an invention? He doesn't have a theory...

 

[Horatius]

I'm not an expert on patents, but is an application sufficient to protect an invention? He doesn't have a theory...

On the second point, you don't need a theory to get a patent. That's been well-established by jurisprudence in all of the jurisdictions I'm aware of. In fact, if the claimed invention works, even a theory of operation that can be shown to be wrong still doesn't prevent you from getting a patent. Patent law is very pragmatic that way, because we expect to see something completely new every now and then, and completely new things are often misunderstood at first.


On the first point, the application establishes your "filing date" or "claim date", that is, the date that determines what "prior art" may be applied against your application (in most cases, the US can get a bit funny with first-to-invent conflicts). That means that any publications or disclosures that come after that date are out of bounds for consideration by the examiner, so the applicant is free to say anything they want to say, as it can't be used against their application. For them to claim they can't discuss it "because the patent is still pending" is a load of rubbish.

Of course, any patent protection you get will be contingent on the application for patent actually being issued as a patent, and the scope of the protection sought may change during the examination process. But anything that may eventually be protected will be in the originally filed application.

 

[Chronopolitan]

If his "secret ingredient catalyst" is something not "patentable" (if it's not new), and the rest is just a huge gas cooker, there will be no chance to protect his invention.
So everybody could build one. Even if it works, there will be no chance to get money just from the invention.

 

[Cuddles]

If his "secret ingredient catalyst" is something not "patentable" (if it's not new), and the rest is just a huge gas cooker, there will be no chance to protect his invention.
So everybody could build one. Even if it works, there will be no chance to get money just from the invention.

If that's the case then he shouldn't have tried patenting it, since you're required to reveal enough information to allow anyone to build one. If his invention is not patentable, he needed to keep the whole thing a trade secret from the start. As it is, he's trying to have it both ways - protection and credibility from a patent, but still keeping it completely secret. Doesn't work like that.

Still, as always the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It doesn't matter how much he messes around with patents and secrets and press releases, until he can demonstrate generation of power that can't be easily explained without fusion, he has nothing.

 

[Yevgen Barsukov]

If that's the case then he shouldn't have tried patenting it, since you're required to reveal enough information to allow anyone to build one. If his invention is not patentable, he needed to keep the whole thing a trade secret from the start. As it is, he's trying to have it both ways - protection and credibility from a patent, but still keeping it completely secret. Doesn't work like that.

Still, as always the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It doesn't matter how much he messes around with patents and secrets and press releases, until he can demonstrate generation of power that can't be easily explained without fusion, he has nothing.

There is no invention that is "not patentable". It is just that Rossi has chosen
to write his application in such form that does not allow to build a working apparatus by reading this application (since it includes not disclosed "secret catalyst"). So it is an invalid application, and it is rejected correctly.

If he is serious about protection, he should write an application that actually
discloses what he has, then he will have no problem to get a patent.
But than he would have to show "the meat" and allow everybody to replicate
it and test it (and possibly find that it does not work). The fact that he did not do such "workable" disclosure is an indication of fraud.

Regards,
Yevgen

 

[Cuddles]

There is no invention that is "not patentable".

Nonsense. Of course there are non-patentable inventions. If that weren't the case we wouldn't need a patent office, we could just let people announce that they've invented something and rubber-stamp them a patent. The whole reason for requiring applications and lengthy investigation is that many inventions are not patentable, for a wide variety of reasons.

If he is serious about protection, he should write an application that actually discloses what he has, then he will have no problem to get a patent.

Unless what he has is not patentable, in this case most likely because it isn't anything new. It could well be that he's not trying to hide the designs because people will find out he's a fraud, since most people will never actually look at the patent anyway, but simply that he knows he couldn't get a patent for it if it was described properly.

 

[Yevgen Barsukov]

Nonsense. Of course there are non-patentable inventions. If that weren't the case we wouldn't need a patent office, we could just let people announce that they've invented something and rubber-stamp them a patent. The whole reason for requiring applications and lengthy investigation is that many inventions are not patentable, for a wide variety of reasons.

If it is not patentable, it is not an invention. Patent law is specifically designed
in such way as to allow patenting of all inventions, and the process you are talking about is to separate inventions from "non-inventions" e.g. from prior knowledge that just happened to be not known to the inventor-to-be (including the prior knowledge that certain things like perpetum mobile's don't work).

Regards,
Yevgen

 

[Tubbythin]

Nonsense. Of course there are non-patentable inventions. If that weren't the case we wouldn't need a patent office, we could just let people announce that they've invented something and rubber-stamp them a patent.

No we couldn't, else I could patent the wheel and fire.