Jed Rothwell: Industrial Heat Don’t Believe ERV Report

    I'm just wondering, if IH has some evidence that the e-cat actually does not work, then are they withdrawing their patents that claim it has a COP of 10 or better?


    IT would seem that if it genuinely does not work then they must withdraw the patent claim, but if they dont, then it sounds like legal maneuvering to me, not something driven by testing results.


    And what exactly did IH fail to confirm? a COP of 50? That there was a COP over 1?



    These rumors and idiotic hyper-skepticism of everything from the Lugano report to now the ERV report that Darden himslef paid for, is just silly stuff.l

    frankwtu wrote: "Yes, 'more than 50 positive cold fusion tests' sounds good, but would they pass the 'sceptic' test I wonder."


    Why wonder? Read the papers and judge for yourself.


    But to answer your question: Yes, these papers passed the most rigorous real-world skeptic tests ever devised. Some were published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. Others were published by national labs such as Los Alamos, China Lake and BARC, where the institutional standards are even higher than those of the journals. I say "real-world" meaning science based standards, not those of Wikipedia-style "skeptics." These are people who have read nothing and know nothing. No experiment could pass their "test." Years ago when I last checked, every assertion in the Wikipedia cold fusion article was factually wrong.

    Thomas Clarke has showed that the authors of the Lugno report used the wrong emissivity when calculating the temperature. And when the correct value for the emissivity is used the COP turns out to be 1. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf. This is not rumors or hyper-skepticism it's fact.

    Jed: "Some were published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals."


    I attended ICCF-18 and was struck by the fact that:
    A. Rossi was not there but people attending said that Rossi "raised their consciousness" and was the reason that they were there (attendees, no presenters).
    B. There was a "live demonstration of DGT" and it was obviously a fraud but nobody objected.
    C. There were many presentations with significant veracity.
    My conclusion was different than my anticipation going in. At first, I expected that there would be a few different approaches which would be discussed and teams of collaborators would come out of the meeting. What I found was a bunch of independent thinkers each with a different approach and dedicated to bring their approach to fruition.


    In other words, the problem with LENR was TOO MANY different examples of it working and NOT ENOUGH concentration on stopping the science and starting the engineering and development that would lead to production.


    Meanwhile Rossi was back home chugging away on making a Functioning Practical Heat generator.


    d

    @DNI
    Actually, what Thomas showed was the maximum temperature that could have been measured by the IR camera, not the maximum output. He then showed the maximum power that could be calculated based on the total hemispherical emissivity of alumina and the temperature that was re-calculated, but not the maximum possible output. Since he arrived at a COP answer between 1 and 1.07, and ignored power (for the good reason that it was not measured) that was emitted transparently, the COP is therefore higher than 1. However, using a blackbody total hemispherical emissivity, I have continued his calculations (with which I agree to high degree and have corroborated). The maximum power that could have been made is 1.93 times higher than what Thomas calculated. So this leaves a probable COP between 1.0 and 1.93. Since the alumina cannot be a blackbody, and the amount of power leaking past in the transparent bandwidth is unknown, the real COP is probably between 1.07 and maybe 1.5 (the latter a guess and a I suggest that is a high end of range, even guessing).

    dartin wrote:


    "B. There was a "live demonstration of DGT" and it was obviously a fraud but nobody objected."


    I do not think it was that obvious. The flow rate was screwy, but that might have been an honest mistake. I was not paying much attention but I got the impression it was poorly done rather than obvious fraud. McKubre and others pointed out the flow rate was screwy, which meant the results were meaningless. It turned out to be fraud, according to Gamberale.


    I had a low opinion of Defalion by that time. I was ready to believe the worst about them, mainly because they stiffed me for two grand. Yeah, it's subjective, but two grand is two grand! But I do not recall thinking "that has to be fraud."


    Most of the high quality academic scientific work on cold fusion was done in the 1990s. Most of the researchers are now dead. They were the crème de la crème of twentieth century electrochemists. People such as Bockris, who wrote the book on modern electrochemistry *; Yeager, for whom they named the institute after he died **; and Martin Fleischmann FRS. Most leading electrochemists tried the experiment, and they all succeeded. They tried it because they all knew Martin Fleischmann personally. Electrochemistry is a small world.


    People who were not electrochemists, and who did not include electrochemists in their research teams, failed to replicate. For example, 20 of the big-name particle physics labs and plasma fusion labs failed for that reason. In one case they confused the anode and the cathode. That precludes success -- to say the least. Expecting a plasma fusion researcher to succeed in cold fusion is like expecting an electrochemist to build a tokamak reactor.


    * "Modern Electrochemistry," Vols. 1 and 2.
    http://www.amazon.com/Modern-E…2nd-Edition/dp/0306455552


    ** Ernest B. Yeager Center for Electrochemical Sciences
    http://chemistry.case.edu/department/research/yces/

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1390-DNI/">@DNI</a>
    Actually, what Thomas showed was the maximum temperature that could have been measured by the IR camera, not the maximum output. He then showed the maximum power that could be calculated based on the total hemispherical emissivity of alumina and the…


    Well I have to disagree with that. First of all my analysis came with unquantified errors built in (in both directions). I just showed that making best guess assumptions the COP was close to 1 and of course there is +/1 20% uncertainty.


    There are then a whole load of other errors I noted that are unknown and make the result even more uncertain.


    Paradigmnoia makes assumptions and sees only positive errors (and amplifies those a little), but there are both. So the real range is both sides of 1.


    But really beyond what I did, quantifying the errors is not possible.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.