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

[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.

 

[bjosephson]

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.

It is agreed that theoretically Rossi, Levi, and Forcadi could all be in some deception together, but what would be the point? I gather Rossi's preference was to keep quiet until the 1MW reactor had been completed, but Forcadi leaked the news to the local press.

I've been discussing with Jed Rothwell the issue of Rossi saying 'if the 1MW reactor is completed in October' or words to that effect. He comments that scaling the process up by combining 100 reactors into 1 unit might encounter unanticipated problems that it would take time to resolve, hence the tentative nature of the statement.

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.

Check your figures!

 

[bjosephson]

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

There has been discussion of this paper in the condensed matter nuclear reactions (CMNS) discussion group. The conclusion is that if the catalyst acts selectively on the isotopes of Ni the apparent discrepancy can be resolved, though uncertainties remain.

 

[AJGPitchford]

If Rossi wanted instant credibility

Who said Rossi wanted instant credibility? Perhaps he wants something more noble, like to do something great for mankind. Perhaps he wants to get rich. If one is convinced that one's technology works, then time will out, credibility will arrive.

What you are asking for instant satisfaction for your curiosity - which Rossi is not duty bound to provide. If you want a satisfying demonstration, then why not try it yourself? It seems like this may be the only way you could be satisfied that there are no 'tricks'

 

[AJGPitchford]

@bjosephson: I believe that your post #64 indicates that you are actually going to make an attempt to replicate this effect. I think this is the true reponse of a scientist to the situation that presents itself. With the rewards being so high, this possibly being the most important challenge that has ever presented itself to the scientific community, i.e. how to solve the world energy crisis before half the world starves or freezes, then anyone with the resources to do so should be attempting to replicate, then extend the development of, this potential break through.

I have failed to convince my Unversity Dept to also make an attempt to replicate the effect. They do appear to have a valid reason in that we do not have the necessary resources.

As for all those in the "let's sit on the fence and not risk our reputation" camp, then shame on you. Where I have great respect for the scientific method (including peer reviewed journals), we should remember what came first, science or peer reviewed journals? Most of the great, paradigm changing scientific discoveries had to battle with the establishment before they were accepted. This is following exactly the same pattern, I think history will prove this to be so.

Dr Josephson's arguments (that the effect is real and cannot be explained by chemical reactions) in this thread are comphrensive. I did not need convincing, as I have been following the Rossi story for many months, however if you still do, then I suggest you read post 41 and attempt to counter the science.

 

[AJGPitchford]

Prehaps the deniers amongst you should consider why you are so resistent, possibly there is some subconscious reaction... think who are the big losers if this break through is allowed to develop - mainly the oil giants, who probably control PR companies, who possibly control your mind (to some degree).

 

[Phrak]

There has been discussion of this paper in the condensed matter nuclear reactions (CMNS) discussion group. The conclusion is that if the catalyst acts selectively on the isotopes of Ni the apparent discrepancy can be resolved, though uncertainties remain.

I notice that the web page in question does not consider the 1.4% Ni-61 nor the 3.6% Ni-62 of naturally occurring Ni as candidate reactants to Ni+H-->NN-XX + energy. Why these were discounted is not clarified.

 

[AlephZero]

It is agreed that theoretically Rossi, Levi, and Forcadi could all be in some deception together, but what would be the point?

Oh, please ... can you really not see any possible ways they could make personal financial gains from this sort of deception?

Not that I am accusing either them or you of either dishonesty or naivety. I have no evidence either way. But I don't assume that because I don't have any hard evidence somebody is a sinner, then it follows they must be a saint.

 

[joshua cude]

It is agreed that theoretically Rossi, Levi, and Forcadi could all be in some deception together, but what would be the point?

I have no idea. They may be sincere and mistaken, or sincere and right, or they may be individually deceptive for different reasons or collectively deceptive for the same reasons.

But I am reluctant to accept a revolutionary discovery based on my failure to understand their motivation. If they can meet ordinary standards of independent verification, they deserve an audience. Otherwise, I remain skeptical.

Check your figures!

Which figures are you questioning? A flow rate of 4.9 g/s water, and a temperature increase of 88 degreesC corresponds to 1.8 kW. Evidence for conversion of more than a percent or so to steam was not presented. The 1 kW average input power was quoted by Levi.

 

[joshua cude]

Most of the great, paradigm changing scientific discoveries had to battle with the establishment before they were accepted. This is following exactly the same pattern, I think history will prove this to be so.

Newton's laws were immediately accepted, as was Einstein's relativity, at least on the scale of a few years. Quantum mechanics ideas and theories were devoured as quickly as people could put them forward; de Broglie's matter waves won him a Nobel prize a mere 6 years after he proposed them. Apart from debates about philosophical implications, the methods and predictions of quantum mechanics met with very little serious opposition. High temperature superconductivity was immediately accepted, even in the absence of a theory to explain it.

You are probably thinking of Galileo and Darwin, but objections to their ideas were religious, not scientific.

Cold fusion itself provides a contradiction to your statement. When it was announced in 1989, and people had no reason to be skeptical, Pons & Fleischmann, like Einstein before them, became international celebrities. Physics and chemistry labs all over the world suspended their current research, and started doing electrolysis with Pd and D2O. Everyone wanted in on the revolution. Everyone was trying to get their slice of the glory that was sure to follow. The ACS meeting that followed shortly after was packed with scientists mocking the high-energy physicists who had apparently been pwned by two humble chemists. Everyone was giddy with anticipation of free and clean energy. Everyone, including me, was open to the idea and wanted it to be true. The subsequent skepticism can therefore not be attributed to resistance to new ideas.

 

[joshua cude]

I did not need convincing, as I have been following the Rossi story for many months, however if you still do, then I suggest you read post 41 and attempt to counter the science.

Post 41 does not address the most important objection to Rossi's claims, that they have not been subject to independent verification. The post merely accepts the data obtained in a private experiment as claimed by Rossi and Levi. If we're prepared to accept whatever Rossi and Levi say, without verification, then what's the point of examining their data; we can just accept their claim that they have produced a radiationless, 15 kW H-Ni fusion reactor, and get in line to buy one.

It seems rather pointless to argue about the details of an experiment no one else is in a position to perform, or even observe.

 

[joshua cude]

If you want a satisfying demonstration, then why not try it yourself? It seems like this may be the only way you could be satisfied that there are no 'tricks'

Would you like to approach Rossi about getting one of his proprietary reactors to me for testing? I have a hunch he's not prepared to supply one.

 

[Crawdaddy]

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.

You claim that the events in January were not public or a demonstration. Why does it matter if this one is claimed to be a public demonstration or not?

Which of your claims was not addressed in the second demonstration. The only claim that can be made against the validity of the second result is fraud. There is no possibility of experimental error that large.

Since the same experimenters performed both "demonstrations" if the explanation for the second result is fraud, the first one must be fraud as well.

The claim of fraud is weak.

Why would someone, having learned from experience, announce an even more incredible cold fusion result in a press conference in almost the same fashion as Pons and Fleischmann? Certainly not to gain credibility. That is absurd.

Do you think there is a single con man in the world that would try to pass off a cold fusion breakthrough fraud scheme in this fashion. Why choose cold fusion which is universally reviled by the very lay-people a con man would target?

Have you considered another alternative?

Perhaps the inventors of this device, who have toiled for 2 decades under in obscurity, ostracized by their peers, are deliberately introducing their work in this way so that all the self interested detritus of the scientific community can be drawn into pile their derision on the phenomenon. Then when a more complete set of observations are presented, the ignorance, lazyness, and corruption that allowed cold fusion to be falsely relegated to the status of "junk science" will be revealed.

Are you prepared to stand up and proclaim your faults should this device be genuine? I, for one, intend to crow about my gullibility and foolishness should a fraud be revealed (though it will not shake my belief in cold fusion, for which much more credible evidence already exists).

 

[Ascoli65]

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.

Dr. Josephson, following the debates on some Italian forums on the this subject I picked up 3 major incongruities among what is stated in the Dr. Levi’s calorimetric report on the January 14th test and what can be seen in others documents available on the web, such as photos and movies.

Being the images more meaningful than words, I prepared the attached pictures that explains these 3 apparent incongruities:

1 - HP474AC probe mentioned in the calorimetric report does not correspond to the probe used during the test (please see attached probe.jpg). This would heavily affect the sentence regarding the dry condition of the steam;

2 - Dosimetric pump is very similar to LMI J5 pump whose maximum flow is only 40% of the water flow written in the calorimetric report (pump.jpg). This is the same comment raised by Joshua Cude;

3 - In calorimetric report, a duration of 40 min for boiling condition is assumed, but it lasted only the half (duration.jpg).

What do you think about these incongruities? Are they solid flaws that can justify some doubts about the conclusions claimed in the report?

Thanks

 

[christopherV]

Einstein was heavy persecuted by the Nazis his work called "Jewish trash" and public burnings of his books, doesn't sound like acceptance to me.

Would you like to approach Rossi about getting one of his proprietary reactors to me for testing? I have a hunch he's not prepared to supply one.

what are your qualifications to make an examination?

 

[bjosephson]

Dr. Josephson, following the debates on some Italian forums on the this subject I picked up 3 major incongruities among what is stated in the Dr. Levi’s calorimetric report on the January 14th test and what can be seen in others documents available on the web, such as photos and movies.

Thanks

I wonder why (some) people are putting so much effort into criticising the preliminary investigation, which all agree was imperfect, and ignoring the second, which dealt with these criticisms?

 

[ZapperZ]

Closed, pending moderation.

Please note that, per your agreement to join this forum, you agreed to abide by the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380".