@Mary Yugo
QuotePost removed - contains merely insults. Alan.
Here you can read my post, which doesn't contain insults at all.
Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”
-
-
Ascoli65
QuoteSo, let me suggest you not to judge the other people on something on which you don't have a sufficient knowledge.
The result of their expertise was "yes, E-Cat works"; you needn't be an expert in Technical Physics to infer that their expertise was sloppy.
We must judge the tree by its fruits. -
Therefore, short-term demonstration of the installation of E-Cat has been successful, but it is cheating, and heat is generated by an additional chemical reaction of nickel with hydrogen and energy spent on compression of hydrogen to high pressure in the tank for storage.
Nice try...
I would patent Your idea how to produce some kWh of energy out of some few grams of Nickel...
And one hint: Avoid the term LENR somebody could have the idea that, You only measured adsorption, expansion energy of H2, which is usually delivered in steel (Chrom-Molybdenum) bottles...
-
It wasn't my report! I just edited it. I have edited over 100 papers for the ICCF proceedings. If you start holding me responsible for the content of everything I edit, I will be guilty, guilty, guilty of bad science for life.
I well know that you are only the editor of the BTD report, as you already explained to me and as confirmed by the small "ed." placed after your name at the top of the document (1). But one of the major problem with the BTD is in its title, which explicitly cites two prominent scientific institutes "University of Bologna, and INFN". It is the only case in the 28 documents archived in your library for which you are (apparently) the first author (2). Most of the others are historical evaluations about the CF/LENR opportunities and problems (something in line with your role of librarian). Only few documents look like technical reports, but their titles always include the names of the specific researchers involved in the test (for instance Mizuno), so that the responsibility of their content is clearly attributable to well identifiable LENR researchers.In the case of the BTD on the January 2011 test, the title attributes all the scientific responsibility to 2 impersonal entities, so we cannot know the specific source of the wrong or invented data contained in it. Only you know the source of those information. So you are the only responsible for those data, in the sense that you are the only person who can be asked about them.
QuoteYou saw I left a blank space in the report, hoping to get specific information on the instruments. It never came.
Really? Yes, I saw the blank space at the bottom of the first page, but I also saw that the upper photo in the second page is too high to be placed at the bottom of the first page.If you really was waiting for the specific info on the instruments, you should have put a warning for that, or, even better, don't publish the BTD until all these data were in your possession.
QuoteAssuming their conclusions were wrong, and there was no heat, that kind of sloppiness is probably one of the reasons they were wrong.
It's much more probable the inverse: assuming it was well known that the data, and hence the conclusions, were wrong, nobody had any interest in revealing and publishing the make and model of the instruments.QuoteI checked and the people asked me to keep their names off the record, so I will do that.
Thank you for your check. This info is very interesting, probably more than the name itself.This is a quite weird situation. Someone, whose name is known only to you, gave you the presumed calorimetric data of the January 14, 2011 demo (the most important test in the history of CF/LENR), but said to you (since then) that he didn't like to be mentioned. You reported those data in the BTD attributing all the responsibilities to two scientific institutes, and published those data only 3 days after the demo, one week before the issuing of the UniBo report on calorimetry. It is really a very strange way to divulge science, to say the least.
Now the problem is who was this people which provided you the invented and wrong data. At this point, you can't reveal anymore his identity, unless he authorized you to do that. So let's speculate on the basis of what is already known.
It's known that he is a "people in the project" (PiP). Not so much, but the word "project" can help us a little bit: it is unusual in the Ecat affair, and unexpected. One would have expected a word as "a people in the demo(nstration)", "… test", "… event", "… experimental team", something more close to the specific scientific happening. On the contrary, the word "project" refers to a much longer and structured activity (for instance the ITER project), moreover it is not peculiar of science or technology, you can have as well projects in economy, finance, politics, and so on. I wonder if there was, and still is, an "Ecat project", and which kind of project it is.
So, the PiP can be involved in any of the possible aspects of the Ecat affair. You already negated that he was Levi, or Focardi, or Rossi, hence he wasn't a person with firsthand knowledge of the real calorimetric results. Before calling you, he should have received the information from a "people in the demo", presumably Levi, the only responsible of the calorimetric measurements. But this is not the only possibility.
Considering how surreal the situation is at this point, we could also imagine that the PiP, which could have been everywhere (in Italy, as well in the USA), decided by himself which should have to be the final calorimetric data, told them to you, who prepared the first BD (Brief Description) of 400 words, to be e-mailed to the "researchers", in order to be corrected and used for their final report. Sorry, I know, this last hypothesis is highly improbable and looks like science fiction, but your secretive (and often hard to believe) statements don't provide any limit to the fantasy.
(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf
(2) http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1081 – Index with search function -
It is really a very strange way to divulge science, to say the least.
It is even stranger to disseminate information on Vortex, an email list whose original purpose was to explore water vortex energy (if I remember correctly). Strangest of all would be for someone to take anything sent to that list as more than an enthusiast's amateur report of something they found to be exciting, as you appear to be trying to do. -
Considering how surreal the situation is at this point, we could also imagine that the PiP, which could have been everywhere (in Italy, as well in the USA), decided by himself which should have to be the final calorimetric data, told them to you, who prepared the first BD (Brief Description) of 400 words, to be e-mailed to the "researchers", in order to be corrected and used for their final report. Sorry, I know, this last hypothesis is highly improbable and looks like science fiction, but your secretive (and often hard to believe) statements don't provide any limit to the fantasy.
@Ascoli: Do You know about this site ? It could be Your footprint! (Or MY's source of information...)
-
Cam:
QuoteMary Yugo
I mean that Levi wasn't competent in Technical Physics nor in Nuclear Science. If he had been, he would have immediately recognized that the E-Cat didn't work.
I have often wondered about the reason for Levi's closeness to Rossi and about why he never talks to reporters or allows interviews or answers even the most polite questions. I have my own thoughts about it but if I wrote them down, Alan would delete them so why bother?
-
As I noted before, Levi's bio in translation, best I can tell, says he is an assistant professor-- after what now, 15 years? That might be OK in Italy but it would be a failure in the US. And his published papers either involve a dozen or more co-authors (and he is not the principal author) or they have nothing to do with nuclear physics or nuclear engineering. Most are about coffee brewing IIRC. Academically speaking, Levi is not impressive in the slightest.
The site you linked is very old and has apparently not been updated since what? 2012?. I don't recall ever citing or using it even though, now that I look at it again briefly, it seems quite thorough and repudiates Rossi's early claims.
-
Becoming a full Professor is not too difficult in many Italian institutions. It means (in many cases) grasping the shitty end of a stick. I have no idea if Prof. Levi (as he would be addressed by students and colleagues both) has ever been offered a full Professorship, but it would possibly not be to his advantage to accept it if offered. Quite a few people do refuse the offer, for the reason explained below.
I know an Italian academic who has remained 'assistant Professor' throughout a long and very successful career by US standards (many published papers, conference presentations etc.( The reason as he explained it to me was simple. When you get to be a full Professor, the 'clock' of your service years is stopped an re-started at zero. The amount of retirement pension you get paid is heavily dependent on years of tenured service - the pension percentage curve is heavily geared toward the '30years of service+' figure. So if you become a professor when you are past 35 years old, you will never get the full pension when you retire. In other words, you can have increased earnings as a full Professor now and a miserable pension, or earn a little less now and get a generous pension.
-
I have often wondered about the reason for Levi's closeness to Rossi and about why he never talks to reporters or allows interviews or answers even the most polite questions. I have my own thoughts about it but if I wrote them down, Alan would delete them so why bother?
You bet I would. The same goes for comments that might be made here about other people who Rossi has met or worked with.
-
Re: the shitty end of a stick. Warning; short history lesson. I doubt it was exclusive to the Romans, however.
-
Think, Ascoli. You can redeem your reputation by coming up with a way. Suppose you have this problem, you want to be able to quickly change probes into a steam chamber. How would you do it?
I don't know. For sure I wouldn't like to unscrew the upper dice which keep in place a probe fitted into an electric boiler (in this case considered a presumed nuclear reactor) which is producing 16 kW (or even much less) of hot dry steam.Please, tell me how you would have done it.
QuoteHow many probes are inserted into the E-Cat in the photos?
The photos show only TWO temperature probes inserted into the Ecat. The one with the yellow wire, which is inserted in the top of the vertical branch (where there should have been the Delta Ohm HP474AC probe) and another much shorter probe, with a black/gray handle, which is slant inserted at halfway of the vertical branch. This last is a TC probe measuring the output temperature and is connected to the white portable instrument laid over the blue control box (1). To the same white instrument, it is connected a second identical TC probe inserted in the water reservoir under the yellow pump (2). The white instrument had a third TC inside it, for measuring the ambient air temperature. The trends of these 3 temperatures were shown on the PC screen, on which you can read (3) the maker (Testo) of this instrumentation (white portable instrument, plus the 2 external probes).Do you see any other probe?
QuoteScientists are professionally obligated to be truthful.
Apart magicians and actors, all the workers would be professionally obligated to be truthful.(1) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_852S…40111rossifocardi1653.jpg
(2) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_852S…40111rossifocardi1814.jpg
(3) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_852S…40111rossifocardi1709.jpg -
Nice try...
I would patent Your idea how to produce some kWh of energy out of some few grams of Nickel...
And one hint: Avoid the term LENR somebody could have the idea that, You only measured adsorption, expansion energy of H2, which is usually delivered in steel (Chrom-Molybdenum) bottles...
Hydrogen gas is stored in bottles at ambient temperature. container walls have a thickness of 6-7 millimeters multilayer specialized steel. If hydrogen is heated to 400-500 ° C, then through the wall of an ordinary iron pipe, hydrogen gas passes 2-3 millimeters thick like a knife in butter.
Energy is select the area in the adsorption of hydrogen gas with nickel equal to 140 - 160 kJ / mol, the standard container capacity of 40 liters, a capacity of 0.54 kg of hydrogen and 270 moles. Thus one of the hydrogen cylinder capacity of 40 liters is possible to obtain about 43 MJ of heat.In the experiments, after cooling the pipe, they embrittling hydrogen and crumble like sand.
-
Strangest of all would be for someone to take anything sent to that list as more than an enthusiast's amateur report of something they found to be exciting, as you appear to be trying to do.
I'm not criticizing Vortex, nor the enthusiasts who write there. They can write what they want. The same for JR and his library. These are private initiatives. When I talk about science, I talk about scientists which are paid by public money to find, verify, and divulge the scientific truth. The problem with the January 14, 2011 demo is the role of the people from UniBo and INFN-Bologna, especially in the preparation of the calorimetric report issued with the logo of UniBo.The problem is that it contains wrong data and invented instrument. Due to the crucial importance of that demo, I think that it would be very important to know who and why provided those data.
But, in order to give an answer to the above questions, the only possible way is to analyze the reports that JR edited and his messages to Vortex, because they are the first documents that divulged those data (a week before the UniBo report). This is not an accusation with respect to JR or any other LENR enthusiasts. If there have been some leaks about these data or if some of the final data were wrong, the responsibility is primarily of those who assumed publicly the responsibility to measure, check and report the true results of the demo.
There is also another problem, and it is related to the use of the UniBo and INFN names in the BTD edited by JR. I would like to know how this aspect has been handled. I presume that these two Institutions gave a formal permission to JR to publish a report with their names, but I don't know who gave him this permission, and if these persons were entitled to do that.
But the more disconcerting aspect is the conclusive paragraph of the BTD called "Comments" (1), where we can read: "The INFN/U Bologna Technical Report should correct errors in the data used here and offer insight into the errors in the measurements themselves. This synopsis is based upon the data made public by the experimental team and Leonardo Corporation."
It sounds to me as an invitation to INFN and UniBo to implement in their report, with only minor modifications, the data provided by a not well specified "experimental team" and by the society subjected to the verification. It is absolutely unusual and inappropriate.
-
But, in order to give an answer to the above questions, the only possible way is to analyze the reports that JR edited and his messages to Vortex, because they are the first documents that divulged those data (a week before the UniBo report).
Why do you say this is the "only way"? That's silly. Ask the people who did the experiment. If they don't want to tell you, it will do you no good to learn who sent me the data. You will need the cooperation of the people who did the experiment either way.You are making a mountain out a molehill. Just forget about it. The history of cold fusion and all other science is filled with mistakes and failed experiments. When people explore new phenomena, they make mistakes. It is nothing to get upset about.
-
It sounds to me as an invitation to INFN and UniBo to implement in their report, with only minor modifications, the data provided by a not well specified "experimental team" and by the society subjected to the verification. It is absolutely unusual and inappropriate.
Here an other skeptical source for the "Ascoli problem". I believe it documents the event reliably - much better than Ascoli.
-
But they are the same old arguments, Wyttenbach. They go around and around, and like 'Chinese Whispers' they grow and change with time. Personally I think we have extracted quite enough nourishment (or lack of nourishment) from the whole Rossi affair, and would like to see it either finished or established as a real system once and for all. Sadly I don't think the court case will help to resolve anything. More replications (good or bad) are what we need.
-
Alan Smith
QuoteMore replications (good or bad) are what we need.
Again? After so many years we only need to close this ridiculous affair which only brings discredit to Italian nuclear science. It's easy for you to forget that Piantelli, Focardi, Levi, Rossi, Celani are Italians. Bologna does not represent Italian universities where nobody has ever taken cold fusion seriously. -
If what Jed and Dewey is true, I expect the trial will give us data to confirm or refute our positions.
about discredit, i think it only discredit LENR science and all LENR actors.
What will discredit physicist is when F&P affair will be cleared. It will be later than what I expected thanks to that Italian affair. -
Again? After so many years we only need to close this ridiculous affair which only brings discredit to Italian nuclear science. It's easy for you to forget that Piantelli, Focardi, Levi, Rossi, Celani are Italians. Bologna does not represent Italian universities where nobody has ever taken seriously cold fusion.
@cam That is a silly thing to say. For a start, you are not required to protect the honour of Italy here. And secondly there is cold fusion work still going on in other Universities in Italy (but they don't and won't publish because they do not want to be mocked by the press) and at ENEA. And while ENEA is not a university it is certainly a serious institution.
