cam. 'signed some documents' is way too vague to deserve a detailed answer, but in general there is a distinction between a third party document produced as evidence (of something) and a sworn affidavit. A report or a scientific paper that is wrong would expect to be no more then either rejected out of hand by a court as 'not useful or misleading' or be criticised in court by other experts and thus become the source of professional embarrassment and subsequent loss of credibility for the authors. No prison terms loom unless something beyond simply 'being wrong' was the issue, and would in any case require a separate court process to be initiated by an aggrieved party.
Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”
-
-
Nope. The wires are twisted 15 Ga AWG Kanthal A1.
Don't defend You modell... Simply explain us how 350Watts moved by heat conduction can be produced and moved to the rods...
Now You have committed that there was only a slight joule heating effect and thus heat conduction must be the main source. I believe that You overloooked that also the E-cat caps were not directly heated...There You find your 6cm cable... Caps are not the rods...
-
Wyttenbach: you are concentrating on a marginal aspect to state a minimal COP of 2 and yet you tend to dismiss the Lugano report and hotcat as no big deal. It is no big deal because the COP is one, and will remain such until a proper test (or better, credible data) shows otherwise. As for the alleged anomalously high heat dissipation on the sides of the bone, consider the contact resistance when connecting the dissimilar metals.
-
....consider the contact resistance when connecting the dissimilar metals.
Whatever anyone thinks of the Lugano report this comment is a 'red herring'. I know from experience that a properly made connection between copper and Kanthal wires seldom (if ever) give rise to any problem. If not proper it very soon becomes obvious that the joint is not a good one because you can see local arc/sparks in the joint which are very visible, followed by rapid failure of the poor connection due to overheating.
-
you are concentrating on a marginal aspect to state a minimal COP of 2 and yet you tend to dismiss the Lugano report and hotcat as no big deal. It is no big deal because the COP is one, and will remain such until a proper test (or better, credible data) shows otherwise.
No, Andrea, the Lugano test is no big deal because Levi, the main author of the relative report, had already reported wrong data in his first (January 2011) report which allowed him to overestimate the actual COP of a factor 15 at least (*), so that whichever Lugano datum is not credible until Levi will not explain the reasons why he divulged wrong data for the previous tests held in Bologna.Until then, every Ecat test results (which is in contrast with the known physics) has no credibility, and there is no reason for asking any further better test.
Does it have any sense taking consideration a report which claims a COP of 3-4, when you know for sure that his author has calculated and supported for years a wrong COP of 12?
(*) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”
-
@oytla
QuoteAnd since you are so LAZY, I will give you the last one I know of
So good for S.Olafsson, but L. Holmlid is an "Atmospheric Science" expert, Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, Goteborg. A very odd couple. What do they have in common?
I'll read the paper, thank you very much. -
Wyttenbach: you are concentrating on a marginal aspect to state a minimal COP of 2 and yet you tend to dismiss the Lugano report and hotcat as no big deal. It is no big deal because the COP is one, and will remain such until a proper test (or better, credible data) shows otherwise. As for the alleged anomalously high heat dissipation on the sides of the bone, consider the contact resistance when connecting the dissimilar metals.
In that case my thinking is one of political correctness. The problem is that "dumb investors" like IH start to believe your lies and base their reasoning on a COP of 1.
I don't know what game You are playing... @p started to cite the wrong report, thats definitely a dead end now.
-
Ascoli you may be right but I am passionate about the hotcat because I wasn't following closely in 2011.
Alan I trust your hands-on experience, I am not too willing to dig into Wyttenbach's objection since in other occasions he wasn't willing to listen and reason, but I'll perhaps give another look.
-
CAM,
Cooperation between a physisist (Olafsson) and a physical chemist (Holmlid) is probably what the field of LENR needs
-
Now You have committed that there was only a slight joule heating effect and thus heat conduction must be the main source. I believe that You overloooked that also the E-cat caps were not directly heated...There You find your 6cm cable... Caps are not the rods...
The caps (2) and rods (6) have the calibrated resistance heater wire actively heating them. The rods only for a short distance (x 3 each side) , but for at least as long as the caps (4 cm minimum section, each side, each cap and each rod). The caps 3 x 4 cm (12 cm heater wire total each). The rods bundled 12-15 cm each total length heater wire, each side.
-
Ascoli you may be right but I am passionate about the hotcat because I wasn't following closely in 2011.
Yes, I know, but the hotcat is OT with respect to the title of this thread. Moreover, as you can easily see, its results are raised into the debate mainly by those who want to support, against any evidence, that the Ecat could work. In fact, they tend to shift the discussion toward the more complicated and less documented tests, such as the hotcat's ones, because there are more disputable aspects to deal with and they can more easily find some arguments, which allows them to keep a minimum level of doubt about the generation of some excess heat.On the contrary, this thread deals with the low temperature Ecat, more precisely with an unpublished test that JR considers the only one whose positive results (ie presumed excess heat) could be believed. I think, it is interesting to know something more about this test. The hotcat results have already been lengthily discussed in other threads, which are still available if someone wishes to continue the debate on them.
I would extend this appeal also to Paradigmnoia.
-
Ascoli you may be right but I am passionate about the hotcat because I wasn't following closely in 2011.
I guess You are the one who should listen...
Just explain the world, how You nearly can triple (120W --> 350W) the heat output by doubling the input wattage -- and that in an unheated part (rods) of the E-cat...
I'm wondering how many fool's did believe You and the other Rossi bashers... (P.S: I'am bashing A.R. too, but for other more objective reasons.)
-
If an Italian chemist warrants with the stamp bestowed by Ordine dei Chimici that some water is drinkable, he can be sued if the water is poisonous.
If Levi testifies that the energy balance of E-Cats is positive, can he be sued by someone who has bought an E-cat? In other words is Rossi in the USA the sole legal responsible for his claims? -
Cam. The Lugano test report was the collective responsibility of a whole group of people. It was not offered as an inducement to invest in anything, or to buy shares, and was not a sworn document. It was an account - with data - of an experiment. I am pretty sure that you could try to sue, but only on the advice of a very greedy and optimistic lawyer. Chance of success? IMHO Between 0 and Zero.
-
It is a matter of being "blackballed" or not, I suspect a legacy of Roman Law and now Coda Civile / Napoleonic Code. But, it would be surprising that there is no initiation fee, or annual cost of membership picked up by someone. The $149 at APS hardly covers the cost of administering the member list and its privileges. And that was for Ph.D. physicists, BTW.
I went through the registration process, up to the point of actually paying. I gave no degree or professional affiliation. Looks like they would have accepted my money and I'd have been a member. A "Fellow" of the Society is another matter. These must go through a recognition process. I pointed out two well-known cold fusion researchers who are Fellows, Yeong Kim and Robert Duncan. Julian Schwinger is also listed as a Fellow, even though he resigned from the Society.
The meeting in Baltimore that cam mentions was just that: a meeting, where a kind of crowd fervor took over. To be sure, that had an influence, and still does. But that's not science, it's psychology and this is studied in the sociology of science, and there are a number of sociological studies on the history of cold fusion. There will be more, one can be sure. It is useful to read about Gary Taubes (well-known as the author of the highly skeptical book on cold fusion, Bad Science) on information cascades, he has studied them carefully. See also New York Times articles by Gary Tierney on what Taubes has written. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytime…keeps-rolling-along/?_r=0
Cam simply ignores that he was dead wrong, and keeps up the trolling.
-
and that in an unheated part (rods) of the E-cat...
I'll get to the earlier part of your quote in a bit.
But it seems that you forgot this part, found just one paragraph below the one you mentioned with the 0.4 W contributed by the C2 cables in the rods.
"Note also that part of the power produced by the rods is also due to Joule heat emitted by the short lengths of Inconel resistors connected to the copper cables inside the rods after leaving the caps. All the characteristics of these resistors, however, such as their geometric dimensions and the exact makeup of the alloy they are made of, are covered by trade secret. Though we are unable to furnish an exact calculation of their contribution to the heat emitted by the rods, the short lengths of Inconel cable inside the rods allow us to reasonably consider it as lying within the error percentage associated to the measurements." - page 25, Lugano report (emphasis mine)
So if the resistor wires are entering the rods (and are heating them), then they also heat the caps. I am not exactly sure what they mean by "allow us to reasonably consider it as lying within the error percentage associated to the measurements".
-
Alan
QuoteIt was not offered as an inducement to invest in anything, or to buy shares, and was not a sworn document.
It was offered to convince JR that the E-Cat is an interesting invention. It took 5 years to change his mind.
Ascribing all the responsibility to Rossi sounds unconvincing to me, even if the Lugano report is not sworn.
As you can see, Italian Ordini Professionali are very useful. A stamp on a document is binding. -
Lomax
QuoteBut that's not science, it's psychology and this is studied in the sociology of science
In Baltimore some 1800 people were present. It was the turning point of cold fusion. Nobody but a 200 people in the world have trusted on cold fusion since those exciting days. Cold fusion was rejected by the scientific community and still it is.QuoteI pointed out two well-known cold fusion researchers who are Fellows, Yeong Kim and Robert Duncan.
Are you saying that only Yeong Kim and Robert Duncan are Fellows of APS? -
@Wyttenbach
I see the rod problem now. Very interesting.
Looks like a neat problem to work on. We'll see where it goes. -
I see your point. In short, if the rods trasfer three times as much heat to the environment when comparing experiment to dummy run, then at least the same and actually more must hold for the reactor.
Good point to dispute the skeptics' theory on emissivity since at least the rods were calibrated against dots of known emissivity.Let me remind you (and "the world" as you say, though it is a world of some 25 readers) that my first objection to the Lugano report was power input underestimation by a factor 3. Then when MFMP showed by experiment a large discrepancy on emissiviity I considered it impossible that two errors were cumulated. So I imagined that the power error was corrected prior to the long test. If the emissivity story is disputed then the electric input needs to be explained.
The sixfold increase in joule heating as compared to a twofold increase in reported input power was never explained. It would be explained by a reversed clamp, such that RMS current remains correct (and basis for computing Joule heating) but instanteneous and integrated power would cancel out algebraically and be underestimated by a factor three. Incidentally this would also fit the Fig.5 waveform where by inspection of the pulsewidth the total power is computed to be close to 3 kW.
