Rossi: Theory has ‘Acceptable Level of Experimental Confirmation’

Here’s another comment from Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics in response to more questions about his theory. There has been some more probing there from readers trying to understand how his theory ties in with astronomical observations. It sounds like he his chomping at the bit to get it out there.

Adelheid J. Bohm:
Wishing the best to you also, the theory behind our effect I think has reached an acceptable level of experimental confirmation ( should we adopt the sigma evaluation, we are around 5); we are still working very hard, though, on the validation and R&D regarding the LENR we are dealing with. I can’t wait to publish the theory, as you can understand, but I can’t, for obvious IP related industrial issues. When such issues will be resolved we will publish all the results, even if negative. About the legacy of the pioneers: nothing in common, but the dream and the hope it is true.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

I’m not able to figure out what he means about the score of 5 on the sigma evaluation — can anyone help with that?

  • John Bull

    ….Free water to create steam…..and “By and Large” could be read as “By Andrea & GL (Google).

  • John Bull

    A massive E-Cat in the secret Google barges is actually not that far fetched…..By and Large…

  • LENR G

    There is of course the diminishing chance that Rossi has been lying from the beginning.

    Setting aside that vanishingly small possibility though, this claim of 5 sigma is stunning. Until now we had good reason to believe that with hard work and serendipity Rossi had discovered the “Rossi Effect’ and been able to harness it. But his claims to know what was going on inside the reactor were vague.

    They seemed all the weaker because Defkalion/Dr. Kim and Brillouin were also trumpeting their competing theories. He was Edison with an economical working light bulb, but he was seemingly out of his depth when it came to really understanding the physics.

    Then a US Partner entered the scene and along with it likely a lot of resources and expertise to help him out.

    To throw a number out like 5 sigma means that he and his US partner *have nailed it* and have the experimental data to back it up. They may not have it perfected in all its many subtleties and permutations but they certainly have the main driver of the effect in lock down.

    This is exceptionally good news.

    It means that when the LENR era dawns we’ll already be moving on to the engineering stage where products for different purposes can be designed and the Rossi effect optimized for vertical markets. LENR plants, LENR home generators, LENR vehicles, LENR batteries, LENR carbon capture, LENR desalinization and more will all be possible — and possible in one or two typical prototype to product engineering cycles (say 1-10 years).

    It means that we may be able to avoid the patent wars that would result if all the commercial LENR entities and patent fishers had equal claim to some mysterious effect. With precise knowledge of the ‘Rossi Effect’ it should be possible for the US Partner and Rossi to craft a patent that will let them proceed at full speed.

    It means easier safety and product certifications. It means natural enemies of this new technology cannot use uncertainty in the science to block its progress.

    It means an economic boom that may dwarf all previous booms is just around the corner. The ‘roaring teens?’

    It means that the 2015 Nobel prize for Physics will likely belong to Rossi and whoever helped him.

    It means Rossi has been as shrewd business-wise as he has been determined engineering-wise. He knew exactly when to partner up and the organization to partner up with.

    It means quite simply that we have a new ideal energy source and we know how it works.

    • bachcole

      Great comment, well written, well thought out, except for one small “mistake”. When we discover that AGW was NOT TRUE, and we regain our senses about the carbon cycle, we might want to use some LENR energy for carbon release. Plants love CO2. (:->)

      • Omega Z

        Roger
        Likewise on your concerns.

        Aside from the Fact that they neglect telling us that CO2 levels have been at Historic Lows for Eons-.

        Actual Levels have increased less then 30% or 75PPM
        Results= Increased Crop production. Not just a correlation but a known fact.
        Plants require water for CO2 absorption. Less CO2 requires substantially more water.
        Shown by NASA pix’s, Deserts are shrinking at the fringes due to more CO2 & less water needed.

        Had CO2 levels dropped 75PPM, The Opposite would have happened. Deserts expand, Water shortage increase. Major portions of world crops would likely not mature within the given growing seasons or grow at all. Massive food shortages & the inevitable Massive famines.
        Due to Human Tendencies & the actions that would follow, One could conclude this ending in Massive extinctions of all species.
        The few survivors basking in that Radioactive Glow…

        • US_Citizen71

          Everyone seems to ignore the fact the fossil fuels were once alive. When all of that carbon was active in the environment and not sequestered under the ground, the planet was capable of keeping the largest animals to ever walk/swim/fly alive and fed. Without carbon available for use in the natural cycle there is nothing to build life out of on this planet.

    • GreenWin

      LENR G, nice thoughts. One stick in the mud: “…but they
      certainly have the main driver of the effect in lock down.”

      Evidence indicates Rossi’s is only one LENR process. Piantelli has
      another. Mills has another. NASA lays claim to polaritons. SPAWAR has
      LENR induced particles; DGT nano-plasmonics. ENEA, Brillouin, STMicro, Toyota, Mitsubishi… Belief the main driver is
      in lock down is a pipe dream. One cannot lock down conscious expansion
      or its energetic manifestations.

      • AlainCo

        Look at an elephant with a telescope from many angles…
        it seems differents landscape.. one day you will understand it is simply an elephant.

        Acros their various vision, if you take only theire experience, not their theory, you see many commonalities..
        superconduction, proton lattice in metralic lattice… defects in crystal…multi stage… soft gamma, e-uv.. triggering byexcited stated

    • Omega Z

      Rossi presented some clarity in a follow up 1 post.
      The 5 Sigma is up to the point of present tests.
      Continued longer term operation/tests will be need to as you say, Nailed it or locked it down.
      Not going to give you a hard time about “locking it down” as you are likely talking about Rossi’s process, Not what others are doing.
      I leave room for different theories in different processes as they appear to produce different Data results Ash Etc.

      The Rossi Effect. that goes to Rossi…
      The Theory itself, Much Credit likely goes to Focardi. Rossi has stated that Focardi was his teacher in this realm. At the very list, Focardi was the Major contributor in the Theory.
      Sadly, There will be no Nobel Prize for Focardi. This is given to the Living.

  • Omega Z

    Maybe this helps.

    At “Physics.org”
    http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=103

    At “physicscentral”
    http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=5248358123737529836

    2-sigma: 95.5 percent

    3-sigma: 99.73 percent

    4-sigma: 99.993 percent

    5-sigma: 99.99994 percent

    When physicists announce that they have a 5-sigma result, that means that there’s a 1 in 3.5 million chance that it was the result of a statistical fluctuation over the spectrum of experiments they performed.

    SIGMA 5=GOOD

    I believe Scientists don’t like to give statements of certainty until at least Sigma 3.x has been reached & then are still iffy.

    • Omega Z

      From WIKI-
      Particle physics uses a standard of “5 sigma” for the declaration of a discovery.

      This level of certainty prompted the announcement that a particle consistent with the Higgs boson.

      So this is the level of Confidence Rossi is proposing.

    • Buck

      Scientists are always iffy due to the nature of science and the scientific process.

    • AlainCo

      Right, but we should be very carfeuf with any sigma.
      3 Sigma is really gaussian is already good.

      the problem is systematic errors, non gaussian errors, modelisation errors, biases…

      another proble is also the protocol. if you search one measurement, 3 sigma is good.
      but if you measure 100 parameter and cherrypick one which is funny, it is not an evidence.

      many 5 sigma, like 95% sure you find in some political science, are in fact founded on many assumption which are far bellow the 90%…

      independence of factors for example if not respected can make fat tail event appear.
      finance is full of that. that is the most easy to find blackswan (there are other species of blackswan)…

  • invient

    Well… I really dislike his use of “even if negative” with a sigma 5 confidence interval… I mean were not going for the higgs boson here are we?

    Remaining hopeful!

    • US_Citizen71

      He has been advised by consul, be it a lawyer, a publicist or both on what he can say and how best to say it. He is very confident but is neither confirming or deigning that the outcome will be positive or negative.

      • Gerrit

        yes

        and also “even if negative” most likely means that the ecat might not perform as expected over a long duration regarding stability and energy output.

        I do not think that Rossi is speculating about the Rossi effect being non-existent.

        • jonnyb

          Rossi is just saying that he will accept any outcome, good or bad. If he was to say that he would accept only a positive outcome then the tests would be pointless and have no credibility. Just common sense, even though he knows they will be positive if done correctly.

          • Omega Z

            Also, Rossi’s English as a 2nd language.
            May be a poor choice of words. It does/can be seen as a Negative.

            Maybe stating the Results will be published regardless of results would sound a little better. Or some other variation.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Yes. Also has to remember that Rossi’s original education was in philosophy. Logic consistency is important to him.

  • bachcole
    • Daniel Maris

      Interesting. It is a good fit for the E Cat isn’t it? Maybe the yacht pulled up to recharge its onboard batteries in a test?

    • US_Citizen71

      This whole thing is either an extremely clever marketing scheme or a product along the line of an E-Cat for profit potential and world changing possibilities. The money to get and enforce all of the NDAs makes me believe it is more than just a party barge. With one being built on each coast it is definitely something. I could see Sergey Brin or Larry Paige loading the core and flipping the switch to start the long term test.

      • Daniel Maris

        Well it’s obviously not a marketing scheme. So… it would be great if Google was Rossi’s partner! not holding out too much hope on that but you never know…

        • Daniel Maris

          I say not a marketing scheme, because that’s not Google’s style.

    • Andrew

      If just one or two of the containers are Ecat megawatt plants, a long enough run time would eliminate and doubts about it being a viable power source seeing how it’s floating and absolutely not connected to any type of outside power.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker
  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I especially liked this revealing exchange:

    Greg Leonard

    November 4th, 2013 at 3:41 AM

    Dear AR and Koen Vandevalle

    I am no Astrophysicist, but I query the underlying assumptions for proposing dark matter and dark energy as the reasons for the observed astronomical data.

    It seems to me that the assumption of the value for c to be constant in time and space is flawed.

    We know that the speed of light varies with the material being traversed – otherwise my spectacles would not work.

    We already know that space is not empty, and then to introduce dark matter without questioning its effect on the speed of light is a little unfortunate.

    regards,

    Greg Leonard

    Andrea Rossi

    November 4th, 2013 at 7:58 AM

    Greg Leonard:

    To put in discussion the value of c is quite audacious. It is like to take off the keystone from an arc.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • Fortyniner

      I’m with Greg Leonard on this one. As AR says, if c is not constant, the whole edifice (standard model) falls – but he doesn’t say he disagrees with the proposition.

      • Buck

        49r, I think you might enjoy Prof. Rupert Sheldrake’s banned TED Talk on just this issue: that the Laws of Nature, including the constants, are not fixed.

        In the YouTube presentation below, you will find the specific topic at the following minute marks:
        3:00 – Initial argument presented
        6:00 – Further assertion about the Fixed Laws
        9:50 – Further assertion about the Fixed Constants
        10:40 – Focus on the variability of the Speed of Light constant ‘c’

        LINK >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

        • Fortyniner

          Thanks, I’ll take a look – I’m always open to Sheldrake’s ideas. TED has been off my Christmas list since they banned him.

        • invient

          He scares me… I bought his book, we shall see if my world view gets torn down yet again.

          • Buck

            Invient,

            just a word of affirmation . . . I don’t think you should fear his theories as they are just that, theories. We have evolved over millions of years, with about the last 300,000 as Homo Sapiens. Our bodies, our consciousness evolved within the unknown rules of Nature and we have excelled. So, if his theories hold truth about the variability of the Laws and Constants of Nature, then we are already fully evolved to survive and flourish.

            I believe that is called Faith in the Eternal; we exist though we only can guess on the Why and How.

            • Omega Z

              Buck

              I’ve wondered many times if the Originators of said constants such as the Planck constant were actually aware that they may not be “Constant”. Yet couldn’t be published if they admitted this fact.

              And this fact would be lost on Researchers & Generations who follow being unaware of this fact.

              Problem is many Calculations would be very problematic if possible at all without a few constants. A Fixed point is necessary.
              Not being a true fixed Constant would be forgivable “IF” this were acknowledged. It could then be allowed for in possible error.
              This could change all concepts of what is or isn’t possible.

              • Buck

                OZ, we can only guess. However, I’m inclined to think that the development of the metaphor of Quantum Mechanics (QM) opened the door, from the perspective of Science, to that understanding of variability. If I remember correctly, Einstein was so upset with the implications of QM that he is remembered for “God doesn’t play with dice”.

                Further, the scientific philosophy of material causation was undermined at that time with the famous experiment where, with the inclusion/exclusion of a detector, a quantum of energy flipped back and forth between a wave and particle form, and with the effect not being bound by the assumption of time always moving towards the future. The notion of causation at a distance, in both space and time, without a material intermediary was ‘creepy’ at best.

                Again, IMO, we evolved with a divergent need and capability. We need a constant to move through our lives. And, we also have the capability to recognize that we constitute our perceptual universe with that functional structure, which belies the truth of how reality actually is structured.

                I think Daniel Wolpert’s TED Talk does a very good job of describing a neurological structure and decision making process which requires the creation of a standard or ‘constant’.
                LINK>> http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_wolpert_the_real_reason_for_brains.html

                Other neuroscientists/psychologists such as Dan Siegel point to a similar neurological network which act as a ‘constant’, but for empathic purposes, ie, enabling us to respond to our perception of what another appears to be feeling at the moment.

                The tough part is recognizing and functioning in light of the fiction of our perceptual reality so well described by Plato’s metaphor of the Cave or Mencius’s proposition that the “Waking World is but a Dream”. To my limited understanding, Siddhartha Gautama was the first who described the repeatable process of Mindful Meditation which enables the proficient to exercise the capability of ‘seeing’ through the fiction and responding more appropriately.

                So, Yes I think this could change all concepts of what is or isn’t possible.

                • Omega Z

                  And we may find we are nothing but a virtual Reality in someone’s very sophisticated SimWorld. 🙂

                  Wait, I want a reset with the caveat that My Character retains all current knowledge. 🙂

                • Buck

                  +1 🙂

                • Fortyniner

                  You are all figments of My imagination. And I am a figment of Yours. It’s all relative.

              • bachcole

                Homeopathy and flower remedies are clearly and distinctly transcendental, and this is the real reason why skeptopaths hate them.

                • dickyaesta

                  Homeopathy and flower remedies are NOT transcendental. It is only medicine doesn’t accept manipulation of illnesses on atomic or even subatomic level.

                  If your body can synthesize whatever. It is using molecule, atomic or subatomic manipulation, so it should be able to get cures from a flower be it on molecule, atomic or subatomic level!

                  How can one atom have the power to change anything….. and we are back to the E-cat etc.

                  Look for example at our ‘friends’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin or google ‘insulin synthesis in body’

                  How can one atom have the power to change anything….. and we are back to our beloved Rossi and his E-cat etc.

                  Maybe we should rename this age as the age of awakening to the power of atoms (apart from the nuclear) and therefore begin to change our world from that level of awareness.

                • bachcole

                  “Homeopathy and flower remedies are NOT transcendental.”

                  Are too.
                  Roger

                  Subject: Re: New comment posted on Rossi: Theory has ‘ Acceptable Level of Experimental Confirmation’

                • dickyaesta

                  Roger in all the 44 years of experience you say you have, you never

                  came up with the idea homeopathy might not be transcendental? I am

                  not talking about if in 40c or 200c still are atoms or not. I am talking

                  about on a atomic, sub atomic or sub sub atomic level there is a ‘gene’

                  (info) that your body needs to begin synthesizing whatever remedie

                  your body needs and this goes for homeopathy, placebo effects etc..

                  I am not saying you have not found remedies in homeopathy, good for

                  you, I am only saying it isn’t transcendental, we only don’t know the

                  underlying ‘science’. I for one am looking for a way how my body

                  synthesizes insulin as a diabetes 2 patient I would like to know and I am

                  a strong believer one can program (meditate) one’s body to do almost

                  anything. It is only the time that I donot have and/or the encouragement

                  from within or from outside, that leaves me stranded on far way shores,

                  without really come up with a cure. But calling it transcendental would

                  make me stop looking at it and beyond…..

                  Saludos from a still self-destroying Spain

                • bachcole

                  Dear dickyaesta, I do not understand why “transcendental” should scare you off. But many, many homeopaths and homeopathic customers believe that it is as you suggest, purely physical. And it still works for them.

                  I have been “spiritual” AND have been awash in the “spiritual”, so it is very easy for me to understand that transcendental reality can be attached to the physical. Transcendental reality is often attached to the physical, as in your consciousness. It is so attached that you don’t even suspect that you are really a spiritual being having a human experience, for a while.

                • dickyaesta

                  Hi Roger, transcendental doesn’t scare me off. I want to define it better: Transcendental is everything that happens between first body and second body (by lack of better words all others are very religious tainted) and maybe the soul(?!), although I would name that meta-transcendental, because between body and soul the orientation changes from the I to the all.

                  Flower therapy or homeopathy do not leave first body, therefore are entire material on what level we can disagree atomic, subatomic or whatever
                  If you however talk about OOBE (out of body experience) you are in an entire different ballgame, your second body leaves your first body, does his thing and usually comes back. In sleep this can happen.

                  In drugs related or accident related OOBE this might be much more violent and the comeback might be partial accompaning with chronic pains which seem not to have a cure, only temporary relief (homeopathy).

                  One has to find a very strong and honest Shaman to get rid of it or treat it by yourself by fixing your first body mentally in space and then try to wobble your second body in and out of your first body till your second body is comfortable in your first body, depending on how long your second body has been uncomfortable in you first (normal) body you have to repeat this process when the cronic pain resurfaces. If you have difficulty to picture this. Think of a very gifted dancer or sports person it seems the body follows and goes beyond its normal boundaries e.j a basketballplayer who seems to extend his arm or fly longer to get the ball in.

                  Roger sorry for the intrusion in your private affairs, but I remember you mentioned these excrusiating pains, which seem to have no cure and the other day when we started this discussion about transcendental, I was reminded that I wanted to suggest to you at the time that this falling back in your first body might be the cause of your pains.
                  I did have once this experience it was like I was located upside down in my normal body, but it cured itself being not drugs related or caused by an accident, it was easier more natural ,like “…oh so sorry I located you wrongly,,,”

                  I hope this might be of value to you.
                  Going back to normal mode.
                  Saludos from Spain

                • bachcole

                  Dear dickyaesta, surely you realize that the nomenclature in spiritual “studies” is very messed up. When I say “transcendental”, I mean anything out there that is not physical. And I suspect that when you say “physical”, you include chi and parts of the “etheric” body. But I hear what you are saying about the bodies not fitting properly sometimes when one wakes up from sleep. I suppose that it does not help any for me to have no will power and a messed-up sleep schedule, no work demands, and a love for the computer and TV.

                  I thank you for your insight. I am not sure what I can do about what you describe. I am using homeopathy and have an appointment with my homeopathy on Monday. In my town, shaman would be burned at the stake. (:->)

                  Boy oh boy!!! Is this off topic!!!

                  Sincerely,

                  Roger Bird

                • dickyaesta

                  Dear Roger, you are right, very, very off topic, sorry to all of you and I will stop now. I got carried away, I am a very normal man normally 😉

                  I have these ideas that I like to share with other people outside my immediate circle of friends and family just to hear the echo, not always the words. By the way I meant Shaman more like Heal-master, than an idiot dancing around me scaring the hell out of me, but then again that might just do the job, who knows. Roger, over and out (sorry for this pun, but I couldn’t resist) 🙂

                • bachcole

                  I have just developed a deeper admiration for the Spanish nation. (:->)

      • Jonnyb

        C is constant in a vacuum, but is space a true vacuum? is there a true vacuum? I doubt it, is space filled with something, maybe the missing dark matter a type of aether.

      • GreenWin

        Gents, after reading / watching Dr. Sheldrake, take a look at Doc Lanza’s theory on Biocentrism. This fellow is smack in the middle of Mainstream Science – and Biocentrism sounds a lot like Sheldrake’s “morphic resonance.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_F4nOKDSM

        If a keystone fails – pick up the blocks and build a new arch.

        • Buck

          Very nice . . . I’ve not heard of Dr. Lanza before. His book is now on my Amazon wish list.

          What do you think the consequences might be with this different perspective of consciousness?

          Makes me wonder how Morality and Ethics might change if humanity recognizes itself as an active participant in the web of life at a much ‘deeper’ consequential level.

          • GreenWin

            Interesting question Buck. I think moral and ethical fundamentals (e.g. fruit of spirit, golden rule. do unto others) need not change. However, people engaging in shillery, sham, obfuscatory disinformation – will be outed. Moving from rational materialism to morphic resonance and biocentrism defeats materialistic values. The speed of light may be one.

            • Buck

              GW, I think you highlighted and pushed me to follow where intuition leads me.

              The golden rule is a fundamental expression of the deeper connection with Consciousness (within oneself AND with the universe at large) and the consequential empathetic or compassionate understanding for that which you are perceiving, standing in front of you so to speak. In effect, it is a form of perception, a form of perception which aids us in recognizing the disingenuous.

              However, your point about fruit of spirit (I’m assuming you are referring to Paul’s description of love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control) speaks to an enlightened level of healthy spiritual integration which enables and guides behavior. And, it is a healthy natural consequence of an ongoing active connection with Consciousness.

              The following is where I am guessing Morals and Ethics changes for our Western rational materialism.

              With scientific ‘proof’ of Consciousness and humanity’s presumed evolved capacity to connect with Consciousness from the very first Homo Sapiens 300k-600k years ago, the first enlightened one of our species if you will, it then can become a norm of social behavior to learn, develop, and exercise the inborn capacity to connect with Consciousness. It is a normal physical birthright and not an obscure religious ceremony which may only be mediated by a religious institution.

              Just a guess mind you.

              • GreenWin

                An excellent discussion Buck. And your expansive definition of Consciousness in the spiritual AND physical realms is most welcome. That very intuition tells me we are at the cusp of such enlightenment – of which the “matter” of LENR is a component part. Thanks for the uplifting comment. And yes, I refer to Paul

                • Buck

                  It is a pleasure. And, thank you for sharing the reference to Paul.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The speed of light in vacuum is constant by convention in SI units. As long as we use SI units, we must stick to that convention. For example, particle physicists usually use another unit system where c=1. There is frequent confusion about this issue although it is quite elementary. Even Nature once published an observational paper which claimed that c might have changed. When Michael Duff wrote a response that the idea was nonsensical, his response was rejected. It was a major error made by the journal which still stands officially uncorrected, to my knowledge.

      The so-called fine structure constant alpha is dimensionless and it describes the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. Its value might in principle change and such change would be a true change of natural laws. In SI units, alpha depends on e, h, c and epsilon0. For more, see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093

  • JonnyB

    A standard deviation of 5 Sigma is about 1 in 3.5 million that a spurious result exists, therefore I would assume Rossi is pretty confident in his theory. If it is 5 sigma then we can assume it is likely to be correct.

    • invient

      then he says, “even if negative”…

      not sure if humility

      or
      bragging.

  • Jostein Johansen
  • gbas3 gbas3

    I think that the “sigma” it is refered a standard deviation.
    An estimate of the above expected value.

  • ecatworld

    Thanks for the explanations!

  • Gordon Docherty

    Sigma comes from statistics and probability theory: 1 sigma = 1 standard deviation (on the bell curve). So, 5 sigma = 5 standard deviations, or less than 0.1% uncertainty (that is, > 99.9% certainty). It applies to deviations in large population samples, so that something that is 5- sigma is > 99.9% certain, as opposed to the famous 6 sigma, mentioned below, which is 99.9999998%

  • Facepalm
  • kasom

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Six Sigma is a set of strategies, techniques, and tools for process improvement. It was developed by Motorola in 1986.[1][2] Six Sigma became famous when Jack Welch made it central to his successful business strategy at General Electric in 1995.[3] Today, it is used in many industrial sectors.[4]

    • Ken

      It also states that this strategy is not well suited to a company with fewer than 500 employees. This is an important detail. If they are implementing six sigma it suggests Rossi’s partner is indeed an aircraft carrier of sorts. Very exciting!

      • Chris I

        I suspect you are both off track. Someone else has already given a rough outline.

        The odd thing is him saying “should we adopt” as if there were many other ways about it in physics research.
        The chi-square is a more complicated computation but based on the same
        kind of thing: it too boils down to estimating the probability of the
        result being a mere fluke.