# Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

• This sentence is somewhat eratic! What did You calculate? A new COP ?

For the "COP 5.6" I reduced it to very close to COP 5.0
There is a T4 multiplication error, and a poor heat transfer coefficient approximation. (The one used for Lugano seem OK).
There isn't enough information to assess the input power quality, and probably using an ε 0.8 (or whatever the later test found), the COP could go back up again. I posted all this earlier, in another who-knows-where-it-is-now comment.

Back to the earlier discussion: Since using the calculator I linked to, I can duplicate the Lugano results with their provided figures, I deem the calculator to be effective, or at least the math is compatible or equivalent with what was done in the report. Slightly increasing the radius of the main Lugano tube in the calculator effectively deals with the ridges for a decent approximation without a lot of fuss. (I think by 2 mm, maybe 3 mm ; I forget. Try it out). You can add the lengths of the caps, and rod sections together from each side to simplify things also (8 cm long by 4 cm diameter for the caps, for example). Don't forget to do the 2/3 area adjustment for the tubes after calculating their heat output, since they are bundled. I have no problem with that assumption, since the real calculation would be a nightmare, and probably make almost no difference.

• Just don't believe in a COP of 1, this is baby logik. I do also not say that is was any higher than 2

Why is it so easy to park a big fat COP 1 using the results? I came up with a COP of 2,if the thing was a blackbody. But it isn't.
The rods cannot be the source of the "missing" COP heat. They contribute little compared to the main coil. The caps have the same amount of heater wire in them, per cm, and are bigger around and closer to the main coil.

I can see that about 24% of the total heat capacity of the heater wire is lost to the straight part of the leads (using a heater coil calculator). They are about 10 cm long each, on each end of the coil, minus where they are clamped (maybe 1 cm each end). So 9 cm then, minus 4 that go through the caps, on each end. Leaving about (5 cm x 3 leads) x two ends out of about (85 cm x 3) total wire in the coils including leads. Without any "reactor" chamber helping the end leads, since they are so far away, and partly insulated by the caps. So the effective leads sticking out of the coil assembly are about 30 cm out of 255 cm total length, and they are not directly insulated, but they are inside the rods.

So, exclusive of any reaction, the lead wires should contribute about 8.5% of the heat of the total coil assembly plus rods, not including any contribution from the heat escaping from the caps. Using the Lugano report heat W figures, we see only about 7.7 to 7.9 % in the Active Run part 1, and about 8.9 to 9.2 % in Active Run part 2 being contributed by the rods. So the rods' heat does scale fairly closely to the main reactor roughly with the right rate (at least in the right ballpark), even using the "probably wrong" higher temperature setting, but for a simple electric heater. Strangely (not unusual in this report) the rods contribute a greater percentage of the heat as the reactor "performs better", even though the reaction is supposedly supplying the bulk of the heat output in total.

So even here, something doesn't add up. Or it does add up. To 1.

For fun, we can take the rate of change of the (highest COP / lowest COP) from the report : 3.74/3.13 = 1.1948
and the the "COP" of the rods (highest % of total heat / lowest % of total heat) : 9.2/7.7 = 1.1948
So the rods increase in COP compared the reactor body exactly as much as the overall COP increases, almost like they were part of the reaction.
Or like they were just part of an elaborate Joule heater contraption.

The post was edited 6 times, last by Paradigmnoia ().

• Quote

As we can see from LENR-canr.org papers have been published many places, like in American Physical Society meetings.

Really interesting. Can you give us an example where lenr-canr, lanr are introduce during an APS meeting?

• Quote

The problem is, they don't look because there is no radiation

You remind me of Sean P. Burke, expert of USPTO.
Naughty men say: no radiation, no nuclear reaction.

## Images

• Quote

Does your databases include only the work of Italian science, or is it include science from everybody? In your science,

I was only joking. The serious answer is: perhaps Holmlid's works have some faults.

• @Lomax

Quote

For LENR, there is no specific known and identified and demonstrated reaction.

I agree with you. This is the state of the art after 27 years from F&P' outing. We only have matter for JR's library.

• So the rods increase in COP compared the reactor body exactly as much as the overall COP increases, almost like they were part of the reaction.
Or like they were just part of an elaborate Joule heater contraption.

Sorry: You work the wrong way around: You must take the rod heat dissipation as the base source because this measurement is the only one which TC accepted to be OK in both situations.

Rods Test heat dissipated 98 W Rods productive run 350 W. The rods were not heated by the coil - see patent - only three wires passed through...

Heat conduction is based on T2-T1 which also increases but much less the T2-T1 in the center of the E-cat.

Thus please work outside in and assume strictly that the heatconduction module (k value) is constant and given by the test run.

If You watch the mfp video you cleary see that the rod's T is much lower than measured in Lugano!! This is a clear indictaion that there in realty was a much higher COP than You wish to see.

• CAM: "Really interesting. Can you give us an example where lenr-canr, lanr are introduce during an APS meeting?"

Are you joiking? You mean you are critisizing LENR and LENR-canr without doing any investigation of the matter ?

Don't be so lazy. Dosome research, and you will find many LENR papers published at APS meetings.

• Quote

You mean you are critisizing LENR and LENR-canr without doing any investigation of the matter ?
Don't be so lazy. Dosome research, and you will find many LENR papers published at APS meetings.

Do you maintain that some APS members are recognized and accepted cold-fusionists? This would be a real scoop. Let us know.

• @Wyttenbach
See the lead length here (image below, traced over from the patent application). Note that the caps are 4 x 4 cm, and the main body 20 cm, for scale.
(compare to original to confirm mine is traced)
Note glowing wires in Figure 2 (Lugano report), these were cut off in Figure 1, (Lugano report).

## Images

The post was edited 1 time, last by Paradigmnoia ().

• Note glowing wires in Figure 2 (Lugano report), these were cut off in Figure 1, (Lugano report).

The original full Lugano report has the following date: October 6, 2014 and has 53 pages...

Figures 7,10,11 are relevant. What you forget is that the wires outside are Cu and inside constantan which has a much higher resistivity, Further the lenght of the cable inside must be multiplied by 2π as its is spiraled around the reactor...
I did account for an increase of ohm heating inside the rods. But dont forgett also the so called caps 1,2a,b,c are transporting heat solely by heat flow...

Here the original Lugano citation for cables/rods:

In the previous paragraph, we have seen that the copper cables running through the rods emit a total of 0.4 W through Joule heating. This value should be subtracted from (24) because, contrary to the power calculated with that equation, it does not derive from heat generated by the reactor and transmitted to the rods by conduction, but from electric power supplied by the mains. However, as it is a very small value, it may be considered part of the error associated to (24).

The post was edited 2 times, last by Wyttenbach ().

• CAM: "Do you maintain that some APS members are recognized and accepted cold-fusionists? This would be a real scoop. Let us know."

Are you joking- again?

CAM, You made a rediculus Claim saying "Don't worry, you can find the acronim lenr only in this string: lenr-canr.org. It is only a ludicrous invention by some cold fusionist. Outside this Forum nobody knows the word lenr."

And I told you that APS have had numerous presentations of papers at their meetings.

And if you would be less LAZY you would find these facts. So stop talking and do some homework!

• Do you maintain that some APS members are recognized and accepted cold-fusionists? This would be a real scoop. Let us know.

This is totally weird. It would cost me \$149 to join the APS. "Cold-fusionist" is a pseudoskeptical term for someone who wears a tin-foil hat and who worships at the Church of Cold Fusion. Further, it is impossible for non-members to determine who is an APS member unless they say so. There are LENR researchers who have presented at APS conferences and I think they have to be members to do that, though I'm not completely certain.

Quote

After 1989 Schwinger took a keen interest in the non-mainstream research of cold fusion. He wrote eight theory papers about it. He resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers.[5] He felt that cold fusion research was being suppressed and academic freedom violated. He wrote: "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."

Here is a recent LENR presentation at an APS conference: http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR16/Session/E9.9. Many LENR researchers and theoreticians (working on theory) are professors of physics and I'd expect that those working in the U.S, especially, to be members of the APS. I can think of many, but have never asked them if they belong to the APS. And that is meaningless. \$149 would be a professional expense for any physicist, tax-deductible.

LENR research is under way at, at least, two U.S. universities, the University of Missouri at Columbia (SKINR) and the Texas Tech, both involving Robert Duncan, a physicist, and ... Robert Duncan is not only a member of the APS, but a Fellow of the Society, which must be earned. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Duncan_(physicist)

So then it occurred to me that the Fellows might be public information and they are. https://www.aps.org/programs/h…llowships/archive-all.cfm

So I quickly found a well known LENR paper author:
Yeong E. Kim http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.html

cam is essentially a troll. Trolls exist to make outrageous statements, to incite outrage. If you are anything else, cam, simple: admit your errors and we can move on. Believe in cold fusion is not required. Skepticism is normal.

I don't much respond to Mary Yugo and Jushua Cude any more because they mostly repeat the same arguments that have been addressed over and over. Kirk Shanahan, the same. But at least Kirk is a real person who has actually been published (he is the last published serious skeptic). Mary has been around so long "she" is kind of a fixture. Call her the resident crank, every bar has one.

• What you forget is that the wires outside are Cu and inside constantan which has a much higher resistivity, Further the lenght of the cable inside must be multiplied by 2π as its is spiraled around the reactor..

Nope. The wires are twisted 15 Ga AWG Kanthal A1. They form the coil, and are continuous with the coil leads through the caps, heating them, and continuing out of the reactor (glowing, Lugano report Figure 2 and Figure 12a), where they extend beyond the caps about 5-6 cm where they are each clamped to a single large C2 cable which each have a cross section of 12.45 mm^2 (between 6 and 7 AWG). These C2 cables are what were referred to for contributing the 0.4W, an insignificant amount. The extended coil leads contribute something similar to what I proposed. The caps may contribute a fair amount on the rod end closest to the cap, but the rods have as much heater wire in them as the caps for about 5-6 cm, less the clamp attachment length.

The total length of the wire I quoted included the length due to the spiral.
I have made some (using 14 Ga). I posted a picture of one of them some time ago. I used 2 m of wire, fed through an eye hook, and pulled tight at a marked 1 m point. I twisted a small section of the loose ends, about 2 cm, by hand (with Vise Grips) to fit it in to an electric drill chuck without slipping. Then I spun the drill slowly while pulling to twist the wire, measuring carefully the number of wraps per 10 cm when it started to get close to the correct twist rate that made the correct resistance according to the coil calculator ( http://www.steam-engine.org/coil.asp , works great). Once the right number of twists per 10 cm was achieved, I cut the looped end at the eye hook, and formed a coil with 21 mm spacing between coil wraps around a 8 mm dowel with marked intervals, so that the coil springs open to 10 mm id when complete. The whole operation took like 10 minutes, but some practice was needed to get nice coil wraps. The wire wound quite nicely, actually considering its size. The twists probably work nicer than a solid wire of similar cross section. I chopped off the excess, and measured them to confirm the wire length. This allows a bit of room for not quite centering the coil on the twisted wire stock when winding up the main coil, and still having the correct wire lead length.

Happy twisting!

The post was edited 3 times, last by Paradigmnoia ().

• Quote

Mary has been around so long "she" is kind of a fixture. Call her the resident crank, every bar has one.

Call her resident good sense and proper logic. Anyway, your stuff is mostly too lengthy and picayune to read.

• @Lomax

Quote

It would cost me \$149 to join the APS

The point is not if physicists have the money to be enrolled in APS.
oystla is quite clear:
As we can see from LENR-canr.org papers have been published many places, like in American Physical Society meetings. So LENR will be known by many mainstream scientists.
I would like to know: are there APS proceedings where cold fusion is discussed? Julian Schwinger resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers. On 1-4 May in Baltimore the APS members rejected cold fusion sharply. Has their attitude changed since then?
By the way, enrollment in SCI (Società Chimica Italiana) is not so straightforward as the enrollment in APS. Only those who can sign public documents, for example those which can be used in a court, can be enrolled. It is not a matter of money at all.

• By the way, enrollment in SCI (Società Chimica Italiana) is not so straightforward as the enrollment in APS. Only those who can sign public documents, for example those which can be used in a court, can be enrolled. It is not a matter of money at all.

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.

There are some difficulties in paralleling different national standards for professions. For example, in my understanding, at least historically, in France a "Notaire" is much more like an attorney in the US, it is a highly selective profession with honorific connotations. Currently, in most US jurisdictions a "Notary" is simply someone who registered and paid a fee to witness signatures with little or no training at all. The name Notary / Notaire is nearly the same and has the same etymology, but the current training, qualifications, income and prestige are quite different in the two systems.

• Quote

For example, in my understanding, at least historically, in France a "Notaire" is much more like an attorney in the US, it is a highly selective profession with honorific connotations.

The same in Italy.
In Italy chemists who can sign formal documents must be enrolled in the Ordine dei Chimici. It is not a choice, it is law. When I was sent to Kosovo to do some special work for the Army I had to exhibit my enrollment in the Ordine dei Chimici. Quite strangely Italian physicists have not their own Ordine. Ingegneri do have. No ingegnere could work without enrollment in his Order. Roman law, Napoleonic Code? Perhaps, I don't know.
In Italy any degree has a legal value, but this doesn't mean that you are automatically enrolled in your Ordine.

• @Longview

Many years ago I was indirectly asked by a Senate Commission to do some work. I could have been sued by the counterpart, as the document I produced was formal.
I have a doubt: Levi, Bianchini, Villa, who signed some documents on Rossi's behalf, could be sued or, being physicists, are they legally irresponsible? Neither of them is a public official, as in Italy there is no Ordine dei Fisici.
What is the legal weight of a Third Party Report?