Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • No Jed, I am not reading Ed's book. If you know of a 120W experiment which meets criteria for replication, reliability and proper methods, it's up to YOU to provide the cite.


    If You like to read only one paper, I recommend the following very fundamental work of Stringham:


    http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol15.pdf#page=62


    It will annoy You as it proves the 1:1 match of DD He and only gives 64 Watts...


    Tell us the COP to verify that You really did read it.

  • You "niers" have no prove (in the physical way..) as we have none too.., thus we walk on.


    No, the situation is not as balanced as you say. For the Ecat tests there is a plenty of evidences that the experimental data were wrong, deliberately wrong. If you want to see them, please, go to Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”, follow the links and look at the pictures. No rocket science needed.


    Quote

    Physics is a path of error and correction.


    I agree, but the Ecat's testers did stop halfway.


    Quote

    Of Lugano we know that ...


    The only thing we know of this test is that each datum contained in its report can be wrong. The lead author of the Lugano report was Levi, who also signed the January 2011 report, with all the wrong data mentioned above. Until he doesn't explain the reasons of these wrong data, there is no reason to give credit to any value contained in the Lugano report.


    Quote

    We all know and agree about the fact that there is , up to now, no certified prove of a claimend COP for any Ecat!


    Yes, we all agree, but I don't expect that this situation will change.


  • See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618


    I went to the trouble to clean up the my video production notes and post them, right there. So read them! I already pointed you to this page. What's the matter with you, anyway? I tell where to find something and instead of reading it, you whine and kvetch and moan that I never help. Are you five years old?


    I get a feeling you don't really want to know, and this is all an act. You are looking for "plausible deniability."

  • me: Therefore the LENR subject affects everyone's life, including the future generations.
    you: Do you think I am unfair if I consider this phrase bombastic, considering that LENR doesn't belong to GANS?


    More or less bombastic than this phrase (1)?


    FUSION: UNLIMITED ENERGY, FOR EVERYONE, FOREVER.


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


    -------------------
    Edited, after the following JR comment:
    - corrected FOR EVER, thank you Jed,
    - of course Jed Rothwell has nothing to do with the phrase. It appears on the TIME Magazine cover shown in the linked comment (1) of this same thread, whose title contains his name.

  • More or less bombastic than this phrase (1)?


    FUSION: UNLIMITED ENERGY, FOR EVERYONE, FOR EVER.


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


    That wasn't me. I would never write "for ever." It should be "forever." I am a copy editor, so I am a fanatic about things like that.

  • Jed wrote:


    Quote

    kirkshanahan wrote:Upshot is Hagelstein and McK and Storms and the rest MISREPRESENTED my position in that paper.


    So you say, but I disagree. They disagree too. Just repeating yourself like this does not advance the argument. You have to address the issues they raised, such as the fact that your proposed effect would cause negative heat (an apparent endothermic reaction) as often it causes excess heat. That has not been observed, so you are wrong. This is not complicated. Your hypothesis predicts various things, but these things are not observed, so you are wrong. That's how science works.


    hmmm....you disagree and so do they do they...OK...let's Google it..."Thermochimica Acta Shanahan 2002"....hit #2 is:


    A systematic error in mass flow calorimetry demonstrated on ResearchGate, ... K.L.Shanahan/Thermochimica...


    Note the title....see the 'systematic'? So what is it you disagree with???


    I hope you understand the difference between systematic and random...it's like if I said "Jed believes strongly that cold fusion is a farce." instead of 'fact'. But, i know your emotional commitment will not allow you to understand what I write, so I quit with you now.


    To the rest of you...do you see how it works now? No matter what I say, according to the CFers, I am wrong, even when it agrees with them...amusing isn't it.


    "such as the fact that your proposed effect would cause negative heat (an apparent endothermic reaction) as often it causes excess heat."


    My CSS proposal never said that at all. My CSS proposal is entirely consistent with multiple types of data reported by CFers. Now this "CSSH" thing, I don't know, maybe it does. But it is mistakenly attributed to me. Should probably be attributed to Storms, McK, Miles, Hagelstein, etc. I don't have a clue what the "CSSH" says or doesn't say.

  • There is no need to warm this thing up again. TC never answered the findings about the rods in relation to the mfp trial reactor. It's as kirkshanahan said: Nobody likes to admit an error - especially when he worked that long to suport his faith that LENR is fake...


    It's simple: TC made one massive error, but most of his reasoning was correct.


    When you find some time, perhaps you can link to that. I don't recall a massive error or an errorthat had any real effect on TC's criticism. The rods contribute little to the total power. Certainly the rods cannot be responsible for doubling the power out.

  • @Rends
    I am not sure that is what Wyttenbach was referring to.
    I have already solved the problem you linked to exactly. At least mathematically, since there is almost no way to actually test it. Not only the 3x, but the precise difference ( which is not 3.3, but is similar).


    I did not realize that an inverted clamp (not my solution) also can make fractional errors (not simply a pure 3x error), so there may be two possible solutions. I am not certain, but I don't think that the inverted clamp would maintain the error ratIo so well as my solution from Active lower power to Active higher power. But I defer to Andrea S. expertise on this latter point.

  • For traditional nuclear data i have a summary of links on our Nuclear Physics (yes! Physics) web site:
    nuclear.lu.se/english/about-nuclear-physics/nuclear-data/


    Those links look quite useful. I've personally found EXFOR and this file very helpful as well (wish the data were in a modern format, though).


    For non-professionals I recommend evaluated data


    Is that so nobody gets any crazy ideas when looking at data that haven't been vetted? :)

  • @Jed Rothwell
    Jan15, 2011 - "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41364.html"


    The person who designed and implemented the calorimetry is a distinguished expert on that subject, and former president of the Italian Chem. Soc.
    Several other professors took part in the test.


    As far as I can remember, no Italian chemists have ever been involved in Focardi/Rossi's affair nor in cold fusion. It typically involved physicists.

  • @Eric Walker

    Quote

    Is that so nobody gets any crazy ideas when looking at data that haven't been vetted?


    Nobody should begin a scientific research without scanning all vetted data contained in reliable databases, like the one reported by Peter Ekstrom. It spares time and money. First study, then laboratory. BNL con offer you anything you need on nuclear science.

  • Ascoli:

    Quote

    Oh, I know, you are a master in wrapping your comments with some doubts, especially on the personal credibility of Rossi, just in case, but you didn't at all make any appeal to academic deniability. On the contrary, you supported without any doubt the generation of many kW of excess heat, just appealing to the academic credibility. At the end of this comment, you find a long list of quotes extracted from a very tiny fraction of your posts in supporting to the credibility of the Ecat results. Basing on my English knowledge, I highlighted in bold the most assertive wordings. It doesn't seem to me that you used precautionary wording with respect of the results claimed by professors and other experts from reputable scientific institutions.

    ...etc.


    THANKS, Ascoli! You saved me the trouble and time with the links to Jed's old, arrogant and very wrong posts, and there is of course much more in the same vein.


    @Jed, I will look at your high power result link.
    As for forgetting about the field, I'd be happy to. I have minimal interest in low level results and I've followed the arguments over the years, about "cold fusion", with no participation. What got me engaged was the extravagant claims, first by Rossi and then by Defkalion and that arrogant and duplicitous ass Hadjichristos. Rossi was interesting because he had supposedly successfully demonstrated 10 or so kW on the tabletop to no less than Kullander, Essen and of course Lewan, who at that time, I thought knew what he was doing. How things change. Anyway, that is why I was interested in this whole mess as of 2011.


    Same with Steorn in 2006-- they claimed testing of their magnetic power source by 6 universities with uniformly excellent positive results. So when they had supposedly invitation only sessions at the Kinetica museum, I arranged to have them covertly video'd and the videos posted. They strongly suggested that Steorn has nothing and never did. Again: how things change.


    Same with Sniffex in 2006. They claimed that their explosive detector had been tested at the University of New Mexico. Interestingly, it had, but incompetently and with results different from what Sniffex claimed. When the U of NM people refused to respond to my inquiries and when the opportunity arose, I set up a test myself. And things changed.


    The only thing that doesn't seem to change with LENR is the gullibility of the proponents and their willingness to accept absurd (year long multi unit test nonsense) and extremely badly done charades Rossi calls experiments and tests.

  • @Jed Rothwell
    Addressing Mary Yugo:

    Quote

    So read them!


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618
    You have just nicely demostrated that CF parallels GANS and has nothing to do with it; EXFOR doesn't report ANY of the people listed in your paper.
    I suppose you don't care for that, but some may do, so I am warning all people here about the difference between lenr-canr.org and EXFOR.
    It's easy, try to find articles by McKubre or Storms in EXFOR. Let us all know.

  • CAM,


    So your insanity continues?


    "....warning all people here about the difference between lenr-canr.org and EXFOR."


    Of course there are a difference, so what?
    Is this a competition in repetition?


    While LENR-canr.org reports on a highly interesting mystery of nature, EXFOR just reports on what is allready known.


    Not mysteries like nuclear interactions in dark energy, dark matter or LENR.


    And I will not be surprised If a connections between LENR and dark matter or dark energy is discovered.


    CAM: "Nobody should begin a scientific research without scanning all vetted data contained in reliable databases....."


    Many Scientific discoveries would have been missed If your "first study, then Experiement" recipe where followed. Like pour some wine on a superconductor and see what happens ;-)
    http://io9.gizmodo.com/5731129…e-an-incredible-discovery


    CAM, you have a lack of understanding how science progress and new knowledge is gained


    And I will repeat : by your arguments it would go like this:
    1. We OBSERVE something mysterious in nature, like the accelerating expansion of the Universe, let's call it "dark energy", since we don't know the excact mechanism.
    2. Now you check your EXFOR database and find nothing of dark energy. But it must have some nuclear interactions if the observation is true.
    3. Therefore you conclude the observation must be wrong, or Else it should be listed in EXFOR.
    4. So your final conclusion is that dark energy is junk science, junk observation. "GANS does not Believe in dark matter and dark energy, since EXFOR don't has it"

  • When you find some time, perhaps you can link to that. I don't recall a massive error or an errorthat had any real effect on TC's criticism. The rods contribute little to the total power. Certainly the rods cannot be responsible for doubling the power out.


    Please study the Lugano report before making any comment! It's obvious!

  • @oystla

    Quote

    While LENR-canr.org reports on a highly interesting mystery of nature, EXFOR just reports on what is allready known.


    EXFOR reports real nuclear reactions, not would-be nuclear reactions.
    Where do you see a mystery of nature if LENR and CANR exist only in JR's library? You look like a cult where Holy Graal is looked for. If you are lacking official recognition for 27 years, you don't even exist. After firing Rossi, who is left? Celani and McKubre?
    By the way, could you let us study five CANR and five LANR reactions?

  • @oystla

    Quote

    1. We OBSERVE something mysterious in nature, like the accelerating expansion of the Universe, let's call it "dark energy", since we don't know the excact mechanism.


    You publish a paper on dark matter with all requirements. Exfor stores the paper in its database.

    Quote

    2. Now you check your EXFOR database and find nothing of dark energy. But it must have some nuclear interactions if the observation is true.


    You check exfor and many other papers convince yourself to look deeper inside the matter.

    Quote

    3. Therefore you conclude the observation must be wrong, or Else it should be listed in EXFOR.


    You have to thank exfor because it has given you important hints to go ahead.

    Quote

    4. So your final conclusion is that dark energy is junk science, junk observation. "GANS does not Believe in dark matter and dark energy, since EXFOR don't has it"


    You tell your wife that exfor is an excellent tool for promoting science.
    Why do you think exfor is committed against cold fusion?
    Only an international conspiracy would hinder cold fusion development. Do you rely on IAEA or not?

  • Please study the Lugano report before making any comment! It's obvious!


    Perhaps you could be more clear. I have studied the Lugano report in extensive detail, and tested almost all information that is reported.
    I have reported extensively on my results, and given links, images, and references so that anyone can confirm my comments, should they so chose.


    Your obtuse answer suggests that you do not have a precise answer, and are just commenting with unsupported noise.