Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • Professionals rely only on EXFOR, the IAEA and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) experimental nuclear reaction data. You can find anything related to nuclear reactions in that huge data bank. For example you can find the excitation function for any nuclear reaction.


    Benvenuto Dott. Cam,


    I think I have read these words somewhere already.
    You don't expect your views to be too welcome in a Forum devoted to proving cold fusion do you?
    I hope theorists and experimentalists here will appreciate some fact-checking. We've had a lot of "excess heat" lately.


    Un saluto


    Andrea S.

  • You call it a scam, fraud and deception on the part of the perpetrator (Rossi)


    As you well know, my position about the F-issues (and scam is an F-subspecies) is totally different from yours (see for example: http://ecatnews.com/?p=2686&cpage=6#comment-143913). IMO, it is unfair, and probably not legit, calling someone a fraudster in public, unless there is a sentence of a judge. Secondly, in the specific case of the Ecat affair, I don't see how it is possible that someone has been defrauded, but even if it was, the above point prevails. Anyway, we can still talk about a lot of details of this story, without alleging any crime hypothesis.


    As for the rest of your comment, we already had some confrontations on those issues on ecn. So, if you don't mind, and in consideration that that site has been abandoned to its fate, I'd transcript here below one of the latest comment I addressed you and that answers most of your points:



    I hope this also gives JR an opportunity to provide us some more clues in order to better understand the real genesis of the calorimetric data reported for the January 14, 2011, demo.

  • This behavior can only be explained in two ways: either he is extremely gullible, or he is extremely cunning. Taking into account his analytical skills, demonstrated in thousands of long and brillant pieces, I would tend to exclude the first hypothesis.


    I was there on Vortex when Jed defended the conclusions of people he was in contact with who thought that at least one E-Cat test had merit. He will staunchly defend a possibility if there is someone he trusts providing him his data. To suggest that he has been operating from a place of cunning (i.e., deceit) stretches credibility.

  • I was there on Vortex when Jed defended the conclusions of people he was in contact with who thought that at least one E-Cat test had merit.


    Eric, I didn't mean "at least one E-Cat test", but I wrote "the demo of January 14, 2011", a WELL SPECIFIC test, on a well specific device.


    That demo was not a generic Ecat test, it was THE launch of the Ecat in the world. If you was on Vortex on that time it was due probably for THAT test. If you look back at the archived mails, you will see that JR not only did vehemently defend the conclusions of that test, but he was among the firsts to report publicly the extraordinary energetic results, many days in advance with respect to the UniBo official reports.


    Those results were based on large flaws, the biggest of which was the missing of the most important instrument, an absence that everyone could have been able to detect by simply observing for a few minutes any of the dozens of photo and video frames available for that test.


    Quote

    He will staunchly defend a possibility if there is someone he trusts providing him his data.


    I know, he is very determined to defend his position, but in the case of the January 2011 demo there was no need to trust anyone. He could have checked in short time the compliance of all the data that he was gathering. In a couple of weeks he could have had at his disposition, from the open web, 3 videos, dozens of pictures, some preliminary technical descriptions and calculations, 3 reports issued by a University Department of Physics, uncountable declarations and interviews of the witnesses, journal articles, TV reports, hundreds of comments on tens of blogs, and so on.


    For any physics professor or for anyone who has a minimum of experience with calorimetry, it should have been quite easy to realize that the most important instrument was not used. And this should have been even easier, for anyone privy of firsthand information, as JR was.


    Quote

    To suggest that he has been operating from a place of cunning (i.e., deceit) stretches credibility.


    I didn't mean "deceit". The first Italian translation of "cunning" on a web dictionary (http://it.bab.la/dizionario/inglese-italiano/cunning) is "astuzia" and the first example cites Machiavelli, of which JR is an esteemer.


    And finally, sorry, I don't understand what do you mean with the last two words, which credibility would be stretched?

  • Quote

    You don't expect your views to be too welcome in a Forum devoted to proving cold fusion


    I don't think so. In this Forum people are sincerely devoted to science. I think that everybody is aware that nuclear science is collected in some important nuclear data base; the most important among them are surely BNL and IAEA I have recently quoted, but there are many others:


    Japan Charged Particle Nuclear Reaction Data Group, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
    Center of Nuclear Physics Data, Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia
    China Nuclear Data Center, Beijing, China
    OECD/NEA Nuclear Data Bank, Issy Les-Moulineaux, France
    Nuclear Data Centre, Obninsk, Russia
    KAERI Nuclear Data Evaluation Group, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
    Indian Compilation Group: BARC and others, India


    All these data bases are accurately kept updated. In fact it is needless looking elsewhere for getting information on a particular nuclear reaction.
    Queries are easy for those who belong a normal competence in nuclear field. They can be deceiving for amateur scientists.
    In most cases getting the excitation function for a reaction is all we need.
    Saluti

  • Ascoli65, addressing to MaryYugo:


    it is unfair, and probably not legit, calling someone a fraudster in public, unless there is a sentence of a judge.

    I understand your position: Rossi is so much used to suing anybody crosses his road, that you are afraid of using direct words.
    Instead of "scam" you can use a lighter expression such as "as nobody has never seen one of his reactors, one could doubt they exist". Same meaning, other words.

  • IMHO, Jed is very optimistic, overly so, and therefore gullible.


    I don't like at all name calling the people. I find it absolutely useless and irritating. And anyway, no, I don't think he is gullible, not for sure on the matter we are talking to.


    He catalogued thousands of documents on CF/LENR, most of which deals with the calorimetric techniques or excess heat measurements. For his words, he has some personal experience with calorimetry, owns his personal instruments, and spent weeks in labs with world-class scientists, as Fleischman and Nobel laureates. It is absolutely not possible that it didn't look for the position of the few instruments used for measuring the input and output powers during the demo of January 14, 2011. It was the first public demo in the CF/LENR history in which the production of an industrial amount of excess heat was claimed. I find absolutely impossible to believe that someone with his experience did not realize that the probe with the yellow cable, shown on top of the Ecat in dozens of pictures and video-frames, was completely different with respect to the "HP474AC" probe, cited in the calorimetric report and shown to be on top of the Ecat in Fig.2 of the same report.


    Even a kid could do it. It is not rocket science. It is as simple as to distinguish a banana from a potato.

  • The phrase is "stretches credulity," not "stretches credibility" (I wrote it incorrectly). It refers to something that is very hard to believe.


    So, your previous statement, leaving apart the "deceit", would sound as:
    it is very hard to believe, that he has been operating from a place of cunning.
    Wouldn't it?


    I don't know from which standpoint he operated in the Ecat affair, but look for instance at this phrase of him (1):
    "One of the cardinal rules of being a good military leader or a good politician is to make do with what you have, and to find a way to win by subterfuge if you do not have a material or strategic advantage. Cold fusion is very much a political fight, so we should take lessons from these disciplines."


    or at this other one (2):
    "Also you cannot make something a crime after the fact. In the U.S. that violates the Constitution. There is no law against lying about cold fusion, or any other physics or chemistry. People do it all the time, in every major newspaper! Also any such law would violate freedom of the press."


    If I have correctly understood the sense of these phrases (he can correct me), it seems to me that, in order to support the LENR field, he would have welcomed the adoption of some, how to say, machiavellisms?


    Now, the big question is, how many machiavellisms have been adopted since F&P?


    And again. This thread deals with an E-cat test for which no public information is available. Does it also belong to the above set of tests?


    (1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73665.html"
    (2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg64649.html"

  • @Ascoli65,


    You seem smart. But even Jed's opponents here will perhaps agree with me that you're on the wrong track in thinking Jed Rothwell is operating from a place of Machiavellian cunning. You're surely overanalyzing the situation. Jed does not give me the impression of being one to lie about anything. As one example, he has made embarrassing admissions after the fact, as was seen with the mistaken Mizuno results.


    If Jed is worked up, he can debate just about anything into the ground, sometimes drawing upon arguments that are tenuous or that go back to personal opinion, and he doesn't seem to like to back down from a position he's committed to. These are different matters.


    If I have correctly understood the sense of these phrases (he can correct me), it seems to me that, in order to support the LENR field, he would have welcomed the adoption of some, how to say, machiavellisms?


    My suggestion, one that you are free to disagree with, is that Jed Rothwell is not making use of Machiavelian tactics now, and hasn't in the past.

  • And anyway, no, I don't think he [Jed Rothwell] is gullible, not for sure on the matter we are talking to. 
    JR has been overthinking for five years before admitting:
     2011, when Rossi came on the scene, he has caused more harm to cold fusion than the DoE, Nature magazine, and the other mainstream opponents combined.
    He trashed the reputation of cold fusion.
    Steve "snake" Krivit has been the smartest among the science jounalists involved in the Focardi/Levi/Rossi affair. Most of them have only been able to wait for good news.

  • Cam:

    Quote

    Steve "snake" Krivit has been the smartest among the science jounalists involved in the Focardi/Levi/Rossi affair. Most of them have only been able to wait for good news.


    Agreed. Krivit travelled at his own expense to visit Rossi and examine the ecat back in 2011. He came away smelling skunk after discussions with Rossi and Levi (and possibly Focardi, I don't recall that detail). Instead of correcting the obvious measurement errors accepted by Kullander, Essen and Lewan and exposed by Krivit, Rossi vilified Krivit as a "snake and a clown". That sealed the deal for me. Rossi was obviously the crook. Nobody with a working device would have reacted that way to honest, conservative and proper criticism. Krivit also dug out and exposed all of Rossi's unsavory scammy fraudulent criminal past and documented it with news articles and interviews. And remember that like Jed Rothwell, Krivit is/was an LENR enthusiast who *wanted* LENR to work! Any form of LENR.

  • And remember that like Jed Rothwell, Krivit is/was an LENR enthusiast who *wanted* LENR to work! Any form of LENR.


    While you are remembering, you might remember that Rossi invited me first. I told him I would measure the temperatures and flow rate myself, with my own instruments. He immediately uninvited me, and called Krivit instead. Krivit did not make any effort to measure temperatures or the flow rate. He did not even write down the make and model of the instruments Rossi used. When I asked him about this, he could not recall any technical details. If he had done a modicum of checking he could have learned more about this test. So I do not think he did a good job. Just finding out about Rossi's checkered past is not enough. You need to tell the reader what instruments were used. (Probably, the wrong ones.)

  • But even Jed's opponents here will perhaps agree with me that you're on the wrong track in thinking Jed Rothwell is operating from a place of Machiavellian cunning.


    I'm not an opponent of anybody. I'm only interested in clarifying the facts we are talking about, and absolutely not with the intent to raise any accusation, but just because it is the only way to fully understand what exactly is the CF/LENR phenomenon (I mean the socio-mediatic one). This is overwhelmingly important. In the "What is LENR?" page of this site you read: "This can be one of the most important steps in the history of mankind", ... if it were real. But if it is false, how denounced by the mainstream science since the 1989, this is the most absurd case of self-deceiving of the humankind. This is the real risk. When a caravan is in the middle of a desert with a half of the initial resources remaining, there is nothing worse and less wise than running after a mirage.


    Quote

    Jed does not give me the impression of being one to lie about anything. As one example, he has made embarrassing admissions after the fact, as was seen with the mistaken Mizuno results.


    In a your previous comment you cited two words: "credibility" and "credulity". These words should be extraneous to any proper scientific initiative, but they are at the core of any propagandistic scheme. Science is based on "demonstrations by experts", propaganda is based on "public perception". Speaking in general, the admission of errors on a few marginal cases, increases the perception of reliability on all the others more important issues. That's a sort of trade-off. But, anyway, I won't say that this applies to JR. I'm only interested to the facts, and, since he is one of the main protagonist of the CF/LENR field, he is inevitably involved in this effort to understand the facts.


    I had many occasions of speaking about his role in some blogs. However I had a sole opportunity to have a short exchange with him (1), but it remained incomplete due to some difficulties in visualizing the pictures I addressed to him (2). Here on L-F, the site allows a comfortable managing of the attachments, and he can intervene at his will for correcting, commenting or confuting my assertions and hypotheses.


    Quote

    My suggestion, one that you are free to disagree with, is that Jed Rothwell is not making use of Machiavelian tactics now, and hasn't in the past.


    I too have a suggestion for you: look with your eyes, at least up to the point they can see. Set aside your credulity and the credibility of the others.


    I already invited you to look carefully at the first of the flaws, the ghost probe, of the 2011 demo (3). You answered: "I have no issue with your characterization of them". That's not exactly what I expected. You should have had some issues. Anyone looking at that flaw should ask himself:
    - Who decided to cite an absent instrument in the calorimetric report?
    - Why has been chosen that specific probe?
    - When has been decided?


    If you ask yourself the right questions and try to rebuild step by step the story of this minimum detail, you will probably get a much better idea of the whole picture.


    (1) http://cassandralegacy.blogspo…3012#c3444273872031988150
    (2) http://cassandralegacy.blogspo…2028#c4374687688654994971
    (3) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • Krivit has posted an email exchange with the former director of DARPA, who witnessed an early e-Cat test in 2009. This could be the beginning of a mea culpa, or perhaps a nice fallback position for Krivit to say "Hey, not everything I posted about Rossi was hostile." The email exchange extends to spring of 2016.


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Tether-Krivit-E-mails.pdf


    Perhaps Jed's unpublished E-Cat test report that “looks like it worked” refers to this early test?

  • Perhaps Jed's unpublished E-Cat test report that “looks like it worked” refers to this early test?


    Same year, different month, Rossi was not in attendance. There were several tests. I don't recall hearing about this one.


    "If it was a hoax, it was a damn good one," is not what I could call a ringing endorsement. A lot of people reacted this way. They thought it was interesting but more tests were needed to confirm it. That is a sensible conclusion, in my opinion.

  • Quote

    "If it was a hoax, it was a damn good one," is not what I could call a ringing endorsement. A lot of people reacted this way. They thought it was interesting but more tests were needed to confirm it. That is a sensible conclusion, in my opinion.


    Indeed. It was a lame hoax and a rather obvious one, once Rossi started to refuse proper testing in a consistent manner. In another string, I noted that the hoax could take anyone of several forms at the input end or the output end and that was only the half dozen or so ways to cheat and deceive that I could think of. With Rossi's experience with conning, for example Petroldragon and the thermoelectric hoax, I bet he could think of many more ways and he did.


    @Jed: Sorry, I was not aware that you offered testing to Rossi before Krivit went to Italy. IIRC, our email exchanges about what could be offered to Rossi for test methods were after that event. I still have the emails so I could make sure but it's not very important at this point when we have the wondrous QuarkX (ROTFWL) and $89 million contracts to consider and discuss.

  • It was a lame hoax and a rather obvious one, once Rossi started to refuse proper testing in a consistent manner.


    That is incorrect. These tests were done using other people's equipment, set up by those people, at locations owned by the other people. Rossi was apparently present in the test observed by Tether, but in other tests Rossi was in Italy. So it was not a "lame hoax." If it was a hoax, it was inexplicable.


    @Jed: Sorry, I was not aware that you offered testing to Rossi before Krivit went to Italy.


    How would you know? It is ancient history.

  • I already invited you to look carefully at the first of the flaws, the ghost probe, of the 2011 demo (3). You answered: "I have no issue with your characterization of them". That's not exactly what I expected. You should have had some issues. Anyone looking at that flaw should ask himself:


    My not having issues with your characterization means there was nothing in your presentation of previous details that I objected to, although there are gaps in my understanding that prevent me from agreeing with all of your conclusions. There is nothing in my response for you to object to, although others with positions different than yours may take issue with it.


    If you ask yourself the right questions and try to rebuild step by step the story of this minimum detail, you will probably get a much better idea of the whole picture.


    Right. And I'm trying to get you to appreciate that in your attempts at reconstructing and understanding the past five years, you're pursuing an unpromising lead in attributing something malicious or cunning to Rothwell. But by all means give it a try. He can defend himself on the specifics of his statements pertaining to the 2011 demo.

  • But by all means give it a try. He can defend himself on the specifics of his statements pertaining to the 2011 demo.


    I'd like to understand better by his own words his position about the 2011 demo and the other first tests documented by Levi at the beginning of 2011. I already asked him (1), but in vain, to specify which tests he means with "first set of tests by Levi". Of course, he is not obliged to answer. Then, you came up to justify in some way his position, so I explained you the reasons why I think he should give to the LENR community some more clarifications about those tests and about the role he possibly played in defining the calorimetric data of the 2011 demo.


    This particular L-F thread deals with a non public E-cat test, which, on JR words, “looked like it worked”, even if he can't be sure. Probably, it was the AmpEnerco Run II test, held on September 25, 2009, one of the Ecat tests whose results have been discussed by McKubre at his October 11, 2011, public presentation (2).


    If you go at t=5:59 of the YouTube video, this test is the first of a list of three Ecat test. The last two are the Bologna tests, which turned out to be completely flawed as shown in the previous comments (3-4) of this thread. Also the results of the last Ecat test discussed by McKubre in the video (since t=9:08) can be explained in a very mundane way (5).


    So the only Ecat results that cannot be explained are those of the US test shown on the top of the McKubre slide, for which we have no public data to examine. In this case, we can rely only on the downward credibility chain expressed by his words ("ex program manager at DARPA, very, very intelligent man" or "a very smart guy") and on our upward credulity chain, as have to do the persons seated in front of the worldwide maximum expert of CF/LENR. In this case the two chains met in a room with a few dozen old people. In other cases the same two chains met on the colorful pages of popular scientific and political magazines directed to millions of readers, mostly young.


    The next meeting between the two chains is scheduled for the next September 22, at the US House of Representative between the bottom-up representatives of the US people, and the top-down representative of the US Gov. Let's see what will be said.


    (1) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”
    (2)


    (3) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”
    (4) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked” 
    (5) Mats Lewan's Test Report

  • Quote

    If it was a hoax, it was inexplicable.


    Hoaxes are only explicable if one has all the facts. Without knowing exactly how the test was performed and what data were obtained, one does not have the facts. I surmise it's a hoax since every Rossi demo or test has left room for hoaxing during the more than five years of tests (9 years if you really believe Rossi heated a factory with an ecat in 2007, ROTFWL). If one is not hoaxing, one closes the gaps and fixes the tests. Instead, Rossi goes on to even more fantastic tests with even more gaps for hoaxing. If ecats worked, the history of their development would be entirely different. And Rossi's claims to have customers and orders and robotic factories would be true. But so far, no independent customer at all known to the public, no publicly available reports of working ecats not associated in some way directly with Rossi, and nobody has publicly announced seeing a factory, much less a robotic factory. And those are facts.

  • I surmise it's a hoax since every Rossi demo or test has left room for hoaxing during the more than five years of tests


    But not this one, as far as I know. Or if it was a hoax, it was someone else who did it. Rossi did not supply the instruments or set up the test, and it was not at his facility. This set of tests has more credibility than other ones. They would have to be repeated before they are convincing, but they are not easily explained as a hoax performed by Rossi.

  • This particular L-F thread deals with a non public E-cat test, which, on JR words, “looked like it worked”, even if he can't be sure.


    That was not the 2011 test. To be honest, I don't recall much about the individual tests and I am too lazy to look them up. I do not think I was paying close attention in 2011, and I did not get much information.

  • Quote

    No he didn't. That was done by journalists of the Italian papers.

    Of course, yes... but that is sort of hair splitting. To be precise then, Krivit neatly collected and summarized decades of news reports and interviews about frauds and criminality on the part of Ross -- frauds of which the LENR community seemed to be completely unaware and even now does not give enough weight to. Better? And yes, Jed, I know your view that Rossi could be a criminal and still have made a discovery. Possible but extremely improbable. The criminal history speaks to the veracity of his inconsistent and unlikely reports and comments on the misnamed idiotic blog of his, JONP. If he lied and defrauded an Italian province and the DOD/CERL, it is likely he is lying and defrauding still. Or did he suddenly get religion and decide to help all those poor children with cancer? How is that going by the way, now that Rossi has money and condos? Sorry for diverging like that but the more you know about Rossi's claims, the less likely they get.


    Quote

    Rossi did not supply the instruments or set up the test, and it was not at his facility.

    Of course, absent the protocol and the data. and, as you note, replication, the test is worthless and meaningless. Rossi certainly supplied the ecat and probably as a black box. And, as you know, my favorite theory about Rossi's earliest cheating methods is misplacing the output temp thermocouple right on top of the comparatively giant heater that dominates the construction of all ecats and hot cats. That ruse would be revealed by proper calibration using the same heater and the same output power measuring methods as are used in the live run. But we don't know if such calibration was done. Since no Rossi experiment has EVER had proper calibration, it is a reasonable assumption that this one did not either. But of course we don't know. So the report is, as I said earlier, without any "probative" value.

  • Of course, absent the protocol and the data. and, as you note, replication, the test is worthless and meaningless.


    I do not see your point. The people who did the tests know the protocol and they have the data. They used conventional HVAC techniques.


    Rossi certainly supplied the ecat and probably as a black box.


    Yes. As if it were an ordinary boiler. You do not need to look inside a boiler, or disassemble it, to test efficiency.


    And, as you know, my favorite theory about Rossi's earliest cheating methods is misplacing the output temp thermocouple right on top of the comparatively giant heater that dominates the construction of all ecats and hot cats.


    The people who set up the test placed the thermocouples and other instruments. Rossi did not. As long as the TC is placed properly, some distance from the reactor, and the water is properly stirred, the method of cheating you describe cannot work. It is very easy to confirm the water is stirred. You just dump some into a bucket, stir it, and see if the temperature is the same as it registers in the pipe. State regulations and ASME boiler standards both specify that thermometers must be mounted on a straight pipe a certain distance away from a boiler. This is to avoid an effect like the one you describe.


    I am talking about the tests that gave rise to this thread and the one observed Tether, which I believe is part of the same series. I was not aware of this particular test but it is from about the same date.


    The people who did the test might have cheated but I do not think Rossi had the opportunity to do so in this situation.

  • But not this one, as far as I know. Or if it was a hoax, it was someone else who did it. Rossi did not supply the instruments or set up the test, and it was not at his facility. This set of tests has more credibility than other ones.



    Jed,


    Such an independent test would be very important. Do you know why they decided to keep it quiet, or why they will not allow you to speak up?


    Seems to me this: "I have a secret and you don't...hahaha" :) has plagued the industry for some time. Or at least it has the LENR+ side. Getting harder to take this whole thing seriously.

  • Do you know why they decided to keep it quiet, or why they will not allow you to speak up?


    I have no idea why they keep it quiet. Probably they will never release the data. I have tons of unpublished cold fusion information. Most of it is worthless. This might be of value. I never publish without permission.

  • Jed,


    What a coincidence reading of your inexplicably having your hands tied from reporting on a successful, and independent verification of the Ecat, as I just read in the official ICCF19 proceedings McKubre's summary, where he criticized the field for keeping secrets from each other. Said in so many words that doing so had held LENR back for 26 years, and that it is time everyone stop with the "I have a secret, and you don't...hahaha"...OK I made that part up :) ,but he did say that for the good of all, all involved needed to cut the crap and get their best experiment out to others to study and replicate.


    Curious, do you also think this secrecy game has held LENR back?