Dear ECW

Dear ECW,

From:

http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/

Quote

10. The Lugano E-Cat Report The
same team of testers who published the 2013 report (see point 8 above)
carried out new testing in Lugano, Switzerland, of an E-Cat device
supplied by Andrea Rossi and [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon]. They ran the E-Cat for 32
days, nonstop, and measured an energy balance between input and output
heat which yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 (when the reactor was
heated to 1260ºC), and COP of 3.6 (1400ºC). The total net energy
obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5MWh.

Display More

I note that you have not yet corrected this section of your site, which
now from material published at LENR-CANR or discussion on LENR Forum,
where several initially doubtful and expert reviewers have agreed - you
surely know to be inaccurate?

I know of no serious reviewer - and
several have gone through the argument - who disputes the downwards
temperature correction - or the fact that the "acceleration" in COP is
an artifact - or the fact that the dummy calculations are correct
because as stated the incorrect "book" emissivity used was changed by
the authors to match the temperatures independently measured.
Unfortunately this was not done for the higher "active test"
temperatures.

Details sumarised below:

(1) The Lugano test figures came from inaccurate temperature calculation
(calculated figures were nearly 2X what actually was measured).

This is not a matter of opinion, but of thermographic fact. Although
there are many uncertainties about the calorimetry the Al2O3 (at the
band measured by the IR cameras) shows an emissivity of 0.95 - with very
little variability - not as supposed by the testers 0.4.

(2) The testers used total emissivity figures, contrary to normal
thermographic practice, when they should have used band emissivity figures. For high
temperature Al2O3 the difference is very large - 0.95 vs 0.4.

(3) Following through the consequences of this one error explains everything
unusual about the report findings, including the "acceleration", under
simplest assumption that Rossi's device is no more than an electric
heater.

(4)You can find the detailed calculations - replicable by anyone
with a PC who can download (free) python 2.7 - published on LENR-CANR.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf

I'm sure you would not wish to mislead your readers on this one matter.

Best wishes for the new year,

Tom Clarke

Quote

The strategy that the science community uses to undercut LENR is by just ignoring whatever attention that the LENR folks want to raise in the science community. They will expel the LENR believers from their websites and restrict their comments from publication in their magazines and preprint sites: the strategy is simply to ignore anything that the LENR community produces. Even a nobel laureate can be shunned for offences against the status quo.The same will work in the other direction where whatever the naysayers produce will be ignored by the LENR community. In this current state of affairs, it is best to keep from wasting energy and keep quite until the monied interests make their decisions about the way the future will roll.

This accusation of censorship is shocking. Please give me precise details: (which open website, what form the expulsion took, what were the claimed reasons, have you contacted the website for thse, not just the people claiming unreasonable expulsion?), I will investigate further.

However - two wrongs do not make a right. the censorship on ECW is blatent and harmful to any hope of accurate discussion there.

I don't mind ECW comments being selected according to their editorial policy. Nor that being whacky.

I mean censorship of comment on comments that has no relationship to politeness and simply eliminates non-approved strands of argument, banning (polite) people with such views. So a casual reader can see a discussion not knowing that it is forced to be one-sided.

For example, I can see no way developments in the criticism of the Lugano report, as can be considered here, could be put on ECW because it is a tenet there that Rossi's statements are always correct. That makes for some weird rationalisations.

Mats:

Everyone has a right on the internet to post whatever they like on their own site.

I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that Frank would not want to mislead his readers, and he maybe lives in a bubble where there is stuff he does not know about - that is always the danger of censorship.

If, however, he does want to mislead readers that is his prerogative.

Maybe his readers want to be misled.

I think there is currently an emphasis on Ni-H LENR that is unhelpful. It duplicates the learning process with Pd-D LENR. Rossi contributes to this and has arguably provoked a whole rash of little LENR startups hoping to make Ni-H LENR work.

Of course, if Ni-H LENR does work then I'm wrong.

"Lundin and Lidgren submitted their paper to the open preprint website Arxiv.org and to the peer-reviewed journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, PPCF, but both declined to even let reviewers have a look at it, the latter arguing “that the content of the article is not within the scope of the journal”. Arxiv.org even blocked Lundin from submitting further papers during July and August.

This is a typical bit of mats reporting - onesided.

It may be true, but we would need to look at the article and whether it was in fact within the scope of these two journals.

As a matter of technical judgement I would say that LENR at the moment (90% of it) is in the area of "metal hydrate thermal anomalies". The attribution of these to a nuclear mechanism is hypothetical, and thus far there is not even a working theory, so we have a collection of phenomena.

There are journals for everything, but not all work, even if it is good, can be published in all journals.

Looking at the paper myself it contains some theoretical speculation and the experimental evidence on which this speculation rests. the cited evidence is the Lugano test, and their report.

It is not fair to ask these theory guys to check the calorimetry - but they should have done a proper LS. They did not reference the material showing Lugano report calculations to be wrong and effectively eviscerating this work as experimental evidence. (It is published on lenr canr with the other critiques of the report - so not too difficult to find).

So, personally, if asked to review I'd reject because they have not done their homework. They could always rewrite with a properly referenced evaluation of the Lugano report or by excluding this entirely and using different experimental evidence. It would be reject, not make changes, because without knowing what is the experimental data on which the theoretical speculation rests it is impossible to evaluate its merit - it does not seem to stand alone. Different data would then change the theoretical content.

perhaps it is a shame that they did not get such feedbackP

I imagine if they want feedback of the sort I could provide they would (as most people do) submit their paper to a variety of journals till they find one that likes it. Perhaps they are doing this? Anyway, I'd think they would get to hear about the Lugano report issues?

Tom

colwyn - that was a generalisation, but not an ad hom. The topic here is Mats's reporting, and I'm pointing out that this is typical of the rest.

In otehr words, I'm commenting on the content of his relevant output, not his character.

I guess I should note that this is restricted to his LENR reporting. I've nothing to say about his other stuff.