Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • [feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/21/jed-rothwell-on-an-unpublished-e-cat-test-report-that-looks-like-it-worked/']Thanks to Alan Smith for posting this quote from Jed Rothwell on the LENR Forum, which suggests that there has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]
  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.pdf


    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.


    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.

  • 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.


    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.

  • Jed: 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.


    Jed sure has a burr under the saddle of his high horse. My my my.

  • @ Mary Yugo, you wrote:
    - "So no, I did not "find an error" as such."


    Sorry, you didn't find an error just because you have not looked at the documents with the necessary attention. In the calorimeter report (1) of the demo held on January 14, 2011, there are 3 errors, each as big as an elephant!


    1 - The most important instrument of all the experimental setup, the one with which the dryness of the outlet steam should have been assessed, it just was ... absent, as the first jpeg shows: http://i.imgur.com/YC4W0Ax.jpg


    So we can assume not only that the steam was not dry, but also that, as easily deductible from other considerations, that the outflow was almost completely in the liquid state. This leads to an overestimation of the heat produced by a factor of six, at least.


    2 - The maximum deliverable flowrate of the dosimetric pump used to inject the coolant was only about 40% of that stated in the report, as shown in the second jpeg: [url]http://i.imgur.com/vu0bW93.jpg[/url]


    This results in an overestimate by a factor of 2.5 of the thermal power produced.


    3 - The duration of the boiling period was doubled compared to the real one, as evidenced by this third and final jpeg: http://i.imgur.com/kaHK3GV.jpg


    This last error leads to an overestimate by a factor of 2 of the total energy generated during the test.


    In total, the heat output during the Bologna first demo was overestimated by a factor of 15 for the power and by a factor of 30 for energy!


    Moreover, as shown by the above jpegs, these are not errors of which any PhD in physics may not be aware!


    And, please, stop with the issue of the missing calibrations. This complaint holds only if you can trust the testers.


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

  • There have been many reports of "successful" Ecat tests going back to at least 2009. None though have been corroborated with an official report. They are more like urban legend, or better yet...Rossisays. Rossi actually included his own Rossisays into his early patent applications to "prove" his Ecat's utility. This recent Gary Wright article documents it well:


    http://freeenergyscams.com/and…nd-misleading-statements/


    There have been others too. In the early days Stremmenos recounted his own successful, and impressive, Ecat DD he arranged with Rossi for a group of investors (later to form Defkalion). To this day he is still a believer. In fact, his son is, or was last year, working with the former Italian licensee (Aldo Proia) to develop their own LENR product, after Rossi bought them out.


    Ironically, the only real, legitimate test performed on an Ecat failed miserably, and quickly, and that test was commissioned by Hydrofusion...the only licensee left I believe, and a Rossi loyalist to this day. Yes, even after their tester from ST walked out after quickly discovering Rossi's ruse (triple input), Hydrofusion stuck with Rossi.


    Go figure. Nothing ever seems to add up with this story. When fed tidbits, I guess it seldom does.

  • Well, Lewan says just now on ECW that he knows of another "success":


    "BTW, I was told about another E-Cat test, outside of the US, made without Rossi's knowing or participating, on a real E-Cat, that apparently was positive."

    Mixed emotions. Another unconfirmed success, nothing official. Yet more gossip of how Rossi actually did submit his Ecat to scrutiny. Again, we don't know for sure Lewan, or the others, are right, but there have been so many accounts/scuttlebutt like this, it is hard to believe they are all figments of the imagination, or made up.


    In addition, Rossi also allowed almost unfettered access with the Ferrara test, Lugano, and even the 6 Oct 2011, which lends some validity to the earlier reports that he allowed equally generous, unsupervised access. If you have a fake product, you do not willingly hand it over to experts to examine, but it appears he has done so many times in the past. Why would he do that if he was a scammer?


    I think we need someone who has read a psychology book to put this all together...Abd! :)

  • Mary Yugo, you wrote:
    - "So no, I did not "find an error" as such."


    Sorry, you didn't find an error just because you have not looked at the documents with the necessary attention. In the calorimeter report (1) of the demo held on January 14, 2011, there are 3 errors, each as big as an elephant!


    That is a different test, with a different reactor, and a different report.

  • Quote

    Shane D wrote: 
    In addition, Rossi also allowed almost unfettered access with the Ferrara test, Lugano, and even the 6 Oct 2011, which lends some validity to the earlier reports that he allowed equally generous, unsupervised access. If you have a fake product, you do not willingly hand it over to experts to examine, but it appears he has done so many times in the past. Why would he do that if he was a scammer?


    Shane,
    We're back to the question of "where are the lies and how far do they extend?" If he could make it work, why doesn't the patent formula work? Why didn't he transfer full knowledge of how to make it work to IH? Did he only lie to IH and in the patent (smaller scam)? Does it work very well sometimes because he has lied about an important parameter?


    As a converse to your question, is this the behavior of someone acting in good faith?

  • Dewey, settle down, you are getting upset. Go on holiday, wait for the court to decide.

    It is fascinating to see who upvotes useless comments like this. I look and it is never a surprise. We could all wait for the court to decide, and, in fact, it is only the court that actually decides anything, this is discussion, kibbitzing. So why are some welcome to kibbitz, and one, in particular, with more actual information to provide when he chooses to, is not? So, the voting patterns are interesting.


    Dewey is perfectly welcome to go on holiday. I hope he enjoys his summer. I hope that he swims or does whatever like likes in waters cleaner than this environment. I once worked at a sewage treatment plant (a great one, a demonstration model for generating clean water and harmless ash, though this would not be a present-day solution, probably too power intensive, it was still fun). Somebody has to do it.

  • Would this report be 'discoverable' to the court?

    Maybe, but who would ask for it. This was not IH, it was, I thnk, before the IH Agreement. Jed has not said who it was.


    Quote

    Does Rossi have a copy?

    I would guess that he does. He had to allow the test, obviously. The E-Cat World report is an example of how people get excited by what they read and run off with it as if it is a Big Deal. ooo! lookie what we found! Anyone reading carefully would not make the assumptions they made.