Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • Ascoli65 - Thank you for the response, If you don't mind, can you please provide the link to the Bologna University system where stipends and contract payments are publically reported? The Levi's payments from Fabiani are posted there. Also, do you know who dug up that Levi tweet looking for a student assistant for pinball software development last Oct? Fabiani made payments to Levi from Italian and US banks - all of that is out in the open and just trying to track down the Italian website links.

  • Alan - what are you implying? I'm simply searching for the Italian website links - it's all in the public domain and it appears that Levi reported the payments from FF properly and as he should have. Just don't tell Gluck - he's convinced that FF was an IH employee at the time and was working only for IH, at IH instructions, under IH control and obeying all IH commands. In exchange for money of course.

  • Difficulty in replication might be an intensional IP protection mechanism. Rossi said that he has discovered a configuration whereby his IP is very difficult to replicate. This could be involved with startup.

    "Difficulty in replication" could be a sign of incomplete understanding of a process. It also could be a really convenient excuse. However, Rossi, if Dewey is correct, refused to assist IH, saying he was busy with the 1 MW reactor test, which was useless to them without them being able to make working devices.

  • You don't sell a production thermal generation, 1 megawatt plant to the military (in 2011!) for >$1 million, if you have problems in "replication". Or maybe Rossi was lying about that sale and all other sales except to IH and his own lawyer? Ya think?

  • Jack - the 1MW test unit that IH owns is padlocked in FL. The unit that Rossi shipped from Italy to Raleigh is locked up at a secure site. The Raleigh unit appears to be the one from many pictures in the Rossi saga over the years. Not sure how many times it was sold but it is sitting here. The amazing thing is that Rossi shipped that thing fully loaded via ocean freight. Reactor boxes were stacked on top out in the open - thru customs and everything. He didn't appear to have any concern about the fuel getting sampled along the way - that always surprised us and now we have figured out why. We have the 6 cylinder unit as well along with a bunch of different E-Cat reactors and control units. They are all packed up and in storage.

  • can you please provide the link to the Bologna University system where stipends and contract payments are publically reported?


    Sorry, as already said these aspects are outside the scope of my presence here on this forum.


    What I can suggest you, in case you deem that the name of the Bologna University has in some way influenced the decision to invest in the IP of the Ecat, is to ask them these information.


    The contacts are available on the web.

  • You don't sell a production thermal generation, 1 megawatt plant to the military (in 2011!) for >$1 million, if you have problems in "replication".


    Well, you might, the military being what it is. In the early 1950s, AT&T was selling loads of transistors to the Los Alamos and other National Laboratories. They were using them to make computers and guided missiles. Those transistors were terribly unreliable by modern standards, and even compared to vacuum tubes. Some cost $16 each, compared to tubes that sold for 10 cents as I recall. The military wanted them to get a head start in developing semiconductor-based technology. They understood these were expensive and unreliable.

  • I'm sure it's fun to be the devil's advocate. But do you really think Rossi sold anything to anyone other than IH? And do you really think IH has a lab or production facility that actually assembled an entire reactor from scratch? And if so, to both questions, why?

  • I'm sure it's fun to be the devil's advocate. But do you really think Rossi sold anything to anyone other than IH?


    No, I don't. I was merely pointing out that the normal rules of commerce do not apply in the early phases of revolutionary technology, such as transistors in the 1952.


    And do you really think IH has a lab or production facility that actually assembled an entire reactor from scratch?


    I wouldn't put it past them. They have lots of money, and very sharp people.

  • I was not referring to either report Jed mentions nor to the one Ascoli cited. I was referring to this: http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…cludes-combustion-6421304


    I know you meant the one held on February 10-11, 2011, the most incredible and daring test in the history of CF/LENR.


    This test had already been anticipated in the conclusions of the calorimeter report of the January test: "The short duration of the tests suggests that is important to make more long and complete experiments."


    Though it was presented as a "technical internal test", the February test was welcomed on the web as an extraordinary confirmation of the January results, so it had a very important role in increasing the fame of the Ecat. In fact, it was the test cited by Josephson in his resounding public support of the Ecat (1).


    That ecat has a single thermocouple, placed entirely by Rossi, in the output stream, to measure output water temperature. Simply moving it close to the large heater ("gargantuan" because it is the largest feature in the device) would cause wild overestimation of the output power.


    No, too complicated. You should keep it as simple as possible.


    Rothwell (2-3) reported that the delta T was 5°C only, but he does not say what were the I/O values. These ones have been revealed by Passerini in a comment on 22passi (4): "Durante le quasi 10 ore in cui sono stato presente la temperatura dell'acqua in ingresso era attorno ai 7,5°C, quella dell'acqua in uscita sui 14°C." So, the inlet temperature (it: ingresso) was only 7.5°C, a value in line with the water supply temperature in winter. The alleged outlet temperature (it: uscita) was around 14°C, ie about that of the air in the lab room (5). Therefore, in order to obtain this last temperature it was not necessary moving the TC close to the heater, on the contrary, it was necessary to keep it sufficiently detached from the metal pipe, so that it was mostly affected by the ambient temperature.


    This has been the simplest imaginable experimental setup: no need at all of any heater, just take the Delta T between the temperature of the water coming from the aqueduct and the air in the environment, and multiply the corresponding specific heat power to a sufficiently high flow rate.


    Here comes the second brainware. The flowrate was simply assumed equal to the maximum value measurable by the flowmeter: a rounded up 1 L/s in the Levi's declarations, and an absolutely exact 0.833 L/s (= 3 m3/h) in the Rothwell reports. This high flow rate was needed to reach the fateful quota of 1 GJ of total produced energy, as reported in Rothwell report, and emphasized by Josephson. But ...


    But, more likely, the real flowrate was at least one order of magnitude lower. The strong probability of this discrepancy arose a few months later, after the test held on October 6. In fact, in that test, the second in which liquid water was used to estimate the output heat, it was used a flowmeter identical to the one used in Febuary, as shown by the images in the following jpeg (http://i.imgur.com/bMaQaQq.jpg).


    In the above jpeg, the image (A) shows the flowmeter model, which features a maximum limit of 3 m3/h (6). The images (B) refer to the February test, during which, if the flow rate had been the declared, the total amount of water flown would have been between 54 and 65 m3. The images (C), referring to the October test, show, however, that at the beginning of the day the total flow recorded on the dial was only 7.26 m3, an order of magnitude less of the previous figure.


    Was the flowmeter used in October, the same used in Febuary? I guess it was.


    In my opinion, none of these "errors" are accidental but each and every one was done by intent by Rossi with the purpose of deception. This of course is an opinion.


    I substantially agree, but not on the "who deceives who" issue. The picture could be much more complex, therefore I would suggest to just stick to the facts, and to leave the conclusions to the appropriate authorities.


    (1) https://www.physicsforums.com/…84427/page-2#post-3213610
    (2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg42873.html"
    (3) http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=640
    (4) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…9326#c4452087894338263612
    (5) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wZXv…3g/s1600/E-Cat110211c.jpg
    (6) http://www.maddalena.it/prodotti_cert.php?cat=1&prod=8

  • You are probably right, Ascoli. You analyzed it much deeper than I did. Absent a proper calibration, which Levi incomprehensibly failed to get originally and he also failed to repeat the experiment to achieve one, we'll never know for sure where the deception was. But I am afraid there may not be appropriate authorities. There might be but in the US, it is hard to get authorities involved when investors are simply deceived. Too hard to prove and to prosecute. It does happen from time to time. Dennis Lee, Sniffex and Carl Tilley were successfully prosecuted and convicted of you-know-what-which-starts-with-F so maybe Rossi's luck will run out. One can only hope so.


    Hey Alan, if you need references to the convictions I mentioned above, let me know. They're all over the internet.

  • You are probably right, Ascoli. You analyzed it much deeper than I did.


    In this case, it's not matter of a much deeper analysis, it's just a matter of language. The most revealing information on the February test has been disclosed in a remote comment popped up in an Italian blog. I think that if you were aware of the actual I/O temperatures, you had easily come to the same conclusion.


    This fact says a lot about how the information about the Ecat was publicly handled since the beginning, so that, as for the others tests, it is not sufficient catching the experimental inconsistencies, but you must follow how they grew up over time on the web. I'll try to do that. Sorry if it is boring.


    The announcement of a third test had been given in advance by Levi on February 2 (1): "But what I want to do now is an experiment with continuous operation for at least one or more days. Since there are very specific limits on how much energy you can generate from a given amount of mass, Thus I can rule out a chemical reaction as the energy source".


    The first results were released through 22passi on February 21 (2), ten days after the test. Levi authorized the issuing of very few data: among them, the generation of minimum 15 kW throughout 18 hours, and the flowrate of 1 L/s.


    The day after, 22passi published a mail from Celani, informing the colleagues on his mailing list about the results of the test (3). He also emphasized the declaration of a very high water flow: "l'elevatissimo flusso di acqua "dichiarato" (un litro al secondo!!!)".


    After one more day, on February 23, appears on NyTeknik the interview with Levi, the same you have cited before (4). This interview contains a little more information, such as the power range from 15 to 20 kW and the famous peak at 130 kW. This latter was associated with a water "flow rate of about one liter per second". For the rest of the test, he specified that: "the flow was not constant, but by regularly noting the time and reading the input volume on a counter, he [Levi] controlled the flow". Therefore, during the day time, Levi has personally carried out the readings and took note of the water flow, but at night "the counter information was recorded with a camera". This is the microcamera shown on the previous jpeg. In June 2011, these records were still in his possession, as he told Krivit (6, at 11:30): "I have the raw data".


    So far, no one had talked about T or delta T. FWIK, the first to do so has been Rothwell on Vortex (5), who reported a Tin of 15°C and a Tout of about 20°C. He also added that "15°C is probably tap water temperature". But, a few hours later, Passerini on 22passi said instead that Tin has been only 7.5°C throughout all 10 hours in which he stood close to the Ecat (7).


    I personally believe that the true value was the one inadvertently revealed by Passerini, but if so from where did it jump off the 15°C figure mentioned by Rothwell? In his mail to Vortex and in his subsequent small report dated March 1st (8) he said he obtained the data from a "source close to test".


    So before talking about missed calibrations and replications of the tests, it's better to clarify from where and by whom these data came out.


    (1) http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3083834.ece
    (2) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…-ufficiale-delle-cat.html
    (3) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…ficiale-delle-cat_23.html
    (4) http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3108242.ece
    (5) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg42873.html"
    (6)


    (7) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…9326#c4452087894338263612
    (8) http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=640

  • But I am afraid there may not be appropriate authorities. There might be but in the US, it is hard to get authorities involved when investors are simply deceived. Too hard to prove and to prosecute. [... F-stuff ...] maybe Rossi's luck will run out. One can only hope so.


    MY, you are too focused on Rossi, as I told you many times (1).


    This is not a matter of F-stuff. In the Ecat saga, I don't see any de-F-ed or deceived investor. Those who invested in it were well informed: they knew what they were doing, and they know what they are doing, or going to do. So, I don't see any reason for personal persecution, or sanction, versus anyone. We are not in front of a personal crime, but in front of a huge systemic problem, which extends well beyond the competences of whichever civil or penal court.


    The Ecat story attained the highest levels of the cultural system developed by the humankind in his millenary history: the experimental science, and the nuclear physics in particular. Within few months from the 2011 tests cited in the previous comments, the Ecat got the endorsement from academicians and scientists belonging to 4 renowned European Universities (Bologna, Uppsala, Stockholm, and Cambridge), and from 2 of the major US government institutions (DoD and NASA), and their support lasted many years. I don't think there has ever been any other comparable case in the history of physics, based on similar evident flaws, so well documented, and universally accessible by everyone in the blogosphere. Therefore, apropos the "who deceives who" issue, we are in front of the "mankind who deceived himself", and who probably liked to be deceived. Rossi is just a small wheel in a much wider mechanism.


    Is there an appropriate authority to assess what really happened? I hope so, but it doesn't belong to the judiciary ambit. It should instead involve the same academic and scientific ambit which has been so badly exploited in this affair. I also think that, due to the detrimental effects it provoked in the public perception of the suitable ways to cope with the energy problems, a clear and authoritative scientific pronouncement on this affair should be invoked and promoted at a political level.


    The good occasion for doing so is the briefing on LENR which has been asked to the DoD by the House Committee on Armed Services, and to be provided by September. It's evident to everybody that the Ecat is on the front line in the popular imagination for what concerns the hope that any LENR device, as well as any other free (or easy) energy system, can solve the coming energy problems. So, IMO, the DoD is asked to give to the US Representatives, and, through them, to the world public opinion, a proper answer on this specific initiative. I hope it will be done by promoting a scientific committee, whose scope shouldn't be to assess for the third time the viability of the LENR technology (the DoE already did it twice), but to specifically shed light onto what happened in this field after the last pronouncement of the DoE, including the whole Ecat affair. On their behalf, the DoD could also explain to the House Committee how was it possible that they seemed to play a so big role in this affair, including the role of customer of the first 1 MW plant, the same shown by Popular Mechanics only a few months ago (2).


    (1) http://ecatnews.com/?p=2686&cpage=9#comment-145893
    (2) http://www.popularmechanics.co…874/us-house-cold-fusion/

  • a clear and authoritative scientific pronouncement on this affair should be invoked and promoted at a political level.


    That's a neat idea, especially since LENR has already been militarized for some time (edit: and this has nothing to do with Rossi)! Let's ask the authorities what they think about it so we know whether it's woowoo or it has a cop of 3 :)


    The only way this tech gets to the public is with the help of the market's invisible hand. Libertarians have a lot of truth in their utopia.

  • Quote

    That's a neat idea, especially since LENR has already been militarized for some time! Let's ask the authorities what they think about it so we know whether it's woowoo or it has a cop of 3


    The first step would be for Rossi to reveal who his military client(s) are, don't you think? So they can be contacted? The project can't be all that secret because Rossi has been supposedly, according to Rossi, offering the megawatt plant to industry for going on five years-- the same plant he claimed he sold to the military. Want to ask him about that? JONP is all yours.

  • I hope it will be done by promoting a scientific committee, whose scope shouldn't be to assess for the third time the viability of the LENR technology (the DoE already did it twice), but to specifically shed light onto what happened in this field after the last pronouncement of the DoE, including the whole Ecat affair.


    I would be in favor of such a committee as long as it wasn't populated with scientists having clear conflicts of interest, as unfortunately was the case with the first and second DoE reports.