[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/21/jed-rothwell-on-an-unpublished-e-cat-test-report-that-looks-like-it-worked/']Thanks to Alan Smith for posting this quote from Jed Rothwell on the LENR Forum, which suggests that there has been an E-Cat test, presumably by Industrial Heat, or on their behalf, when Rossi was not present. On the LENR Forum, Abd Lomax makes this statement: “What there has been, over and over, is “demonstration,” […][/feedquote]
Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”
-
presumably by Industrial Heat,
It wasn't by I.H.People should not presume too much.
Sorry I cannot provide any details.
-
mr Rothwell, is it the same positive test by Ampenergo that they didn't allow to publish or is it another one? Thanks
-
mr Rothwell, is it the same positive test by Ampenergo that they didn't allow to publish or is it another one? Thanks
Sorry, I cannot discuss it. -
Would this report be 'discoverable' to the court?
Does Rossi have a copy?
Best regards
Frank -
Are you saying you still hold some hope that low temperature Ni-H or Ni-Li-Al-H fusion actually works? In Rossi's hands? (Wow if so!)
Jed, sorry to be cynical about this, but was it like the test that you thought you had that proved the ecat worked on "first principles"? Or the time, IIRC, when some of your friends reported that they had proven that Defkalion's claims were the real thing?
-
Here we go again - who is saying what about a working E-Cat test at IH?
-
Dewey, settle down, you are getting upset. Go on holiday, wait for the court to decide.
Best regards
Frank -
Frank - have you flipped your leaf so soon?
-
Are you saying you still hold some hope that low temperature Ni-H or Ni-Li-Al-H fusion actually works? In Rossi's hands? (Wow if so!)
As I have said, the first set of tests by Levi et al. seem positive to me, but it is hard to judge. The second tests, as Lugano, were disappointing. Instead of improving their technique they made it worse. The reactor at the EON factory seemed to work according to several people who examined it, and the test referred to this discussion seemed to work, but the reports are far from definitive.Wow yourself. Have you discovered an error in the first set of tests by Levi? Kindly do not tell me you are sure that Levi et al. are corrupt or in cahoots with Rossi, if that is mere speculation. I am interested in facts, not speculation. Don't say that Rossi magically changed the instruments by sleight of hand. Rossi has shown no ability to do sleight of hand tricks so far. His methods are cruder.
-
Dewey
Frank - have you flipped your leaf so soon?
Thanks for the further upgrade, we are making progress.
Shalom
Frank -
Quote
Have you discovered an error in the first set of tests by Levi?
*
Well, nobody can do that with certainty because Levi failed to provide his data to Krivit or anyone else. But here are some simple yet powerful facts -- yes, FACTS!
*
1. It is very simple to falsify the results Levi got, simply by placing the output temperature thermocouple too close to the gargantuan heaters in the original ecats. Note, incidentally, that the outer heater does nothing but heat... you guessed it... the COOLING WATER! I pointed this out in 2011! Others have since noted that irregularities in the flow meter measurement could also account for erroneous positive results.2. Levi failed to perform the very simple calibration step, using the built in gargantuan heaters to check the output power measurement method.
3. Levi never repeated the experiment despite multiple requests to do so, including one by email from Dr. Brian Josephson. Levi never even replied to that email (check with Josephson if you doubt that).
4. Levi and Rossi never pursued the original ecat design even though it made more power and a better "COP" than the best hot cat result... by more than a full order of magnitude (10X).
Now that isn't the discovery of an error in the test, which Levi made impossible by complete and incomprehensible failure to cooperate with anybody anywhere about doing the test correctly and making documentation available. But it is an error in methodology: no blank, no calibration! And several easy ways to cheat. Those features are true for each and every one of Rossi's tests and remain true to this day despite having been explained to Rossi and Levi by at least a dozen people, some rock solid reliable and using their true names, starting back in 2011.
I've never been able to figure out Levi. He is an undistinguished assistant professor who should be at least an associate by now. He has never written a single paper on his own which meant anything. Most of his publications are about brewing coffee. How come he has not published a properly done ecat experiment with calibrations, in a peer reviewed journal, even if it were simply a cold fusion journal? I can't decide if this man is incredibly negligent and incompetent or whether he is crooked. I'd ask him which it is but I doubt that he'd answer me. I see no other possible reason for his behavior but maybe you do. Certainly, it isn't secrecy. If Rossi and Levi wanted secrecy, they would not have done public demonstrations and given interviews, for example to Krivit. And Rossi would not be posting an incredibly tedious and inane set of Q&A's on his misnamed blog, JONP, every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year!So no, I did not "find an error" as such.
Note also that were the original ecat real (never mind the hot cat and the QuarkX [ROTFLW!]), Rossi and Levi could have been rich beyond their wildest dreams by now by simply marketing a small heater to the world at large or by licensing the technology to anyone of a large number of major industries and companies. It has been almost six years since Rossi's fun and games began. Or do you really believe that Rossi has "certificators" [sic] working on safety certificates for the small ecat for five years and in that time, looking at the greatest invention of the last two centuries, they have been unable to come to a positive decision? That's what Rossi uses as the lamest imaginable excuse for not making small ecats available to the public. Even if that were true, why could the small modules not be available to industry? So even on Rossi's own extremely suspicious terms, it makes absolutely no sense. None of it.
ONE FROM THE GREEN INK PARTY. Alan Smith
-
ONE FROM THE GREEN INK PARTY. Alan Smith
Please stop doing that. It makes the message hard to read. -
>Reading a Mary Yugo message
yourfavoritereactionimage.jpg
-
Well, nobody can do that with certainty because Levi failed to provide his data to Krivit or anyone else.
That is incorrect. There is a lot of data in the report:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf1. It is very simple to falsify the results Levi got, simply by placing the output temperature thermocouple too close to the gargantuan heaters in the original ecats.
This test did not involve the gargantuan original e-cats. It was with the smaller units. They used both thermocouples and an IR sensor. Both instruments reported the same temperature, to within 1 deg C. It is not possible to fool both instruments at the same time with the same technique.More to the point, as I said, I am not looking speculation but fact. If you know for a fact Levi did something untoward, tell me what he did. Your saying "it is very simple to falsify the results" is not a fact -- it is speculation, or your opinion. It is also wrong, as far as I know. It is not easy to falsify results by a method that would fool a scientist or an HVAC engineer. To take an example, the 1-year, 1-MW test is clearly wrong, but the reasons it is wrong are clear. It would not fool anyone. Any experienced person who looks at the choice of instruments, their positions and so on (the configuration) will conclude that the results are wrong. I do not think you have offered similar proof that the first Levi report is wrong, but I may have overlooked something you said.
2. Levi failed to perform the very simple calibration step,
That is incorrect. See p. 17 and references to the initial calibration test. -
Please stop doing that. It makes the message hard to read.
Just highlight it Jed. You can read it easily then.
-
Just highlight it Jed. You can read it easily then.
Why put me to the trouble? What is the point of making it hard to read in the first place? There is nothing objectionable about this text, and no reason for you to draw attention to it. And no reason for you to annoy people by making it hard to read. This is stupid. -
So you say. None of is immune from stupid. Anyway, you need the excercise.
-
So you say. None of is immune from stupid. Anyway, you need the excercise.
No, actually I do not need the exercise. As a matter of fact, I suffer from mild neurological difficulties, * such that putting a cursor around text and changing the format can be a damn nuisance for me. That is also why I use voice input. So you are annoying me for a real reason, and I don't appreciate your snide comments.I suggest you cut the crap.
* Small motor difficulties. At the risk of being accused of terrorism by Peter Gluck let me say that I am handy with an ax.
-
Sorry Jed.It is an experiment suggested by the other mods. Colour it green instead of editing it. Some people like it. As for snide comments, you are pretty liberal with them yourself. At least mine are funnier than yours. (positional bias) I could make it purple if you like.
