Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • Quote

    Even the 1 MW plant makes sense for a deluded inventor who thinks his reactors work "at times" but in an uncontrolled manner. If the COP obtained is 200 once every twenty failed runs, one may think that the one good test is flawed, or one may cherry-pick the good result and attribute the failures to the random nature of the phenomenon. Without a grasp on the phenomenon, and relying on statistics, one may assemble 100 reactors in series and parallel and hope to get an average COP of 10.


    Even if you are deluded, you don't refuse improvements suggested by experts including the need to calibrate the measurement systems and to do the same experiment multiple times and have it replicated by others as a black box at no risk to IP. Rossi consistently refused those suggestions and insulted and name called those who made them. Snakes, clowns, and so on. When you consider self delusion vs straightforward fraud, you0 have to consider the back ground which means considering Petroldragon and the Thermoelectric converter nonsense. I let you draw your own concludions. I'm with much of Ascoli says. Also, what Jed Rothwell says now. Obviously, I don't think much of what Jed used to write.


    To be as deluded as Rossi would have to be for the above scenario of self delusion to work, he'd have to be a stark raving lunatic and there is no evidence that he is. Apart from his claims for his inventions, he seems quite rational in his every day life.

  • Ascoli65

    Quote

    Cold Fusion saga


    Saga? It is only a meaningless episode in the history of science, involving very few people and without exhibition of an operating cold fusion reactor.
    I still remember the real saga concerning maser/laser. In a few years (five?) everything went under control. With the Ecat the progress is locked in Bondeno laboratories where in 2010 heating was produced by an Ecat. After that?
    It isn't a saga, it is a comedy.


  • That's absurd. I got the papers the same time everyone else did. I have never met him or…


    So Jed had no privileged access to the data. I have nothing to object.



    @Ascoli why would the DoD benefit from encouraging and backing a scammer? Do you mean the DoD secretly knows all about Cold fusion, perhaps Pd-D, and drove the show from behind the scenes to misdirect others? Intriguing plot but too cool to be true in my view. But good for a movie, Daniel Craig could play a fascinating Rossi.

  • External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


  • That's absurd. I got the papers the same time everyone else did. I have never met him or spoken to him. I have one or two e-mails from him with a few sentences granting permission to upload files. He probably does not even know who I am.


    That's really difficult to believe. I wonder who else but Levi could have been the "people in the project" which talked with you about the calorimetry.


    These are your words again (1):

    Quote

    Jed Rothwell Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:19:49 -0800
    Okay, I spoke with one of the people in the project about the calorimetry. Then I typed up the notes from our conversation as a brief report (400 words). I e-mailed the report to the researchers so they can confirm I got the numbers and other details correct, and also add the name and model numbers of some of the instruments.


    They are exhausted so I do not expect to hear back before tomorrow. I will post the information as soon as they clear it. I do not want to circulate dumb mistakes that I made writing down a phone conversation. Most of what I learned you already know. I confirm the blogger's description, that the calorimetry is mainly based on the heat of vaporization of water. Here are a few other details: ...


    It is clear from the context of your mail to vorticians that your interlocutor participated at the demo and spoke with you in the same day (otherwise why he should have been so exhausted?). When you wrote the above mail, you had already prepared a report and sent it back to Italy "to the researchers", but the only researcher from UniBo involved in the demo was Levi, all the other were professors.


    Levi was the "researcher of the Physics Department of the University of Bologna" (2) which had the responsibility to prepare the setup, perform the measurements, and gather and check all the calorimetric data. I wonder who else could have been your interlocutor. Unless you mean that all the calorimetric data had been phoned to you by Rossi, or by some unknown collaborator of him! This would be really absurd. Someone of the part under verification "by outside investigators", which knows within hours all the calorimetric data, reports them to someone else in the USA, who in turn prepares a report to be submitted for confirmation to the "researchers" (presumably the people of the Physics Department), who finally, after ten days, wrote the same (wrong) data in the calorimetric report issued with the UniBo logo. Wow! In this last case, it would have been the most funny tale in the history of the physics since Galileo


    In any case, you are now telling us that you got the papers, presumably all the 3 official reports by UniBo, included the calorimetric one, at the same time of everyone else, that is about ten day after the demo, but this means nothing. You did get all the information about the most significant part of the test, the calorimetry, a few hours after the demo, and you prepared a preliminary report for the testers, and in this way you became an active part in the process of documentation of the calorimetric data.


    Sorry to say that, but this story of you hardly comply with all the other information available on the web, starting from your cited mail to Vortex. I know, you are a fan of Machiavelli, but not even the great Florentine philosopher and politicians would have dared to put together a story like this, certainly not in the present Internet era, when everything you write is stored in some public archive, easy to access.


    (1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41364.html"
    (2) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…1-Levi-PressRelease.shtml

  • I wonder who else but Levi could have been the "people in the project" which talked with you about the calorimetry.


    I don't recall who it was, but it wasn't Levi. I would say if I remembered. It is no big deal. I wasn't trying to keep it secret.


    I do not think it was Focardi. He was a nice fellow, but he was old and did not play a big role, as I recall.

  • See anything funny with these plots?
    I forgot to add up all the rods earlier, so now I've added both caps together in one, plus all 6 of the rods (divided by 2/3, with 2 tops and 4 bottoms accordingly).


    Then a simple area contribution (bottom plot) where there is the average of each of the 3 cap sections to make one standardized cap, and the averaged and totaled power from one set of three rods (using two bottoms and a top) also divided by 2/3 for the "correct" heat output. All direct from the Lugano data.


    Edit: Sorry about the little mistakes here and there. The bottom one has the wrong area numbers, but they are the same as the others (once I fix the labels). Also the y axis is watts... (fixed)


    Edit2: Now the basic 2/3 power idea/assumption used in the report seems wrong. (I'll re-do this and see how much it actually affects things). This 2/3 idea assumes that the tubes are radiating out in a 360° pattern, then multiplies the final total power of the three rods by 2/3. But the outer temperature is higher because the inner part of the rod cluster cannot radiate the heat. This means that the area must be reduced by ~1/3, before calculating radiant power. Lets see how that goes...
    Edit3: Almost no difference. Not enough to bother with. Maybe 4 W difference in a area section if a rod area section were to get to 450°C.

  • Just explain the world, how You nearly can triple (120W --> 350W) the heat output by doubling the input wattage -- and that in an unheated part (rods) of the E-cat...


    Well. Now we are getting somewhere.
    First, the rods are heated somewhat by the leads. That is established. How much is not quite clear, but soon will be.


    Second, doubling the current can quadruple the heat output. That is normal.
    1 Ω at 10A = 100 W (in a normal circuit)
    1Ω at 20 A = 400 W
    The voltage will be whatever it needs to be if you are forcing a certain current flow through a constant resistance. In the above example, it is a simple calculation.
    However, increasing the temperature by double (or more) by doubling the current through a constant resistance is a wholly different thing.


    But could a bunch of the confusion just be caused by the Lugano professors not doing the 2/3 adjustment thing to the rods for the active run?
    There is no solid proof, however they did something different for the 2 selected active runs compared to the dummy rod calculations in the paper. They show the convection and radiation totals for the rods, combine them, then double them. No mention of the 2/3 adjustment for the active run. And the convection and radiation totals adds up exactly to the total figures for the set of rods, before doubling. Did they decide to do something different, and do separate 2/3 adjustments to each the convection and radiation but not mention this? Or did they forget to do the 2/3 adjustment? See Table 5, page 20, Lugano report. Then note that these are the rod heat values used in Table 7, page 22.


    So then we might have for Active Run part 1, 203.32 W, and for Active Run part 2, 235.21 W Rod heat (using the Lugano calculations otherwise).
    Then 203.32/129.86 = 1.566 (2/3 reported Active Run 1 rods/dummy rods) = Rods Active Run 1 ratio to dummy rods
    and 235.21/129.86 = 1.811 (2/3 reported Active Run 2 rods/dummy rods) = Rods Active Run 2 ratio to dummy rods


    and Run 5: 785.79 - 307.98 - 36.13 = 441.68 (watts in minus rods and C2+C1 Joule heat ) : 441.68 / 316.5 (dummy w/o rods) = 1.39
    and Run 16: 906.31 - 358.82 - 41.25 = 506.24 ................................................. : 506.24 /316.5 ...................... = 1.599


    Showing that, within reason, the ratio of rod heat is proportional to the electrical input for main reactor body in both the Dummy and the Active Runs.
    And that the ratio of power increase difference from rods in the dummy to the rods in the Active Run part 1 and Active Run part 2, is almost exactly the same as from the Dummy reactor body to the Active reactor body by:


    1.566/1.39 = 1.1266
    1.811/1.599 = 1.1326


    ...But only IF the rod heat power for the Active Runs were not adjusted in the report.

  • I'm with much of Ascoli says.


    One of Ascoli's theses seems to be that Jed Rothwell intentionally spread misinformation about an E-Cat test in 2011. As far as I can tell, Ascoli attributes a motive of drawing in investment money to the field, but it's hard to be sure what the alleged motivation was.


    @Ascoli why would the DoD benefit from encouraging and backing a scammer? Do you mean the DoD secretly knows all about Cold fusion, perhaps Pd-D, and drove the show from behind the scenes to misdirect others? Intriguing plot but too cool to be true in my view. But good for a movie, Daniel Craig could play a fascinating Rossi.


    Yes, Ascoli's suggestion comes across as being that fringe when you try to follow the details.

  • andrea.s

    Quote

    Ascoli why would the DoD benefit from encouraging and backing a scammer?


    Hagelstein's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was another scam fostered by DoD. In somebody's opinion it accelerated the fall of the Soviet Union, so it was a successful scam, although rather expensive. With cold fusion the scam is too open, as GANS is disinterested. It is very difficult to diffuse a scam against the scientific establishment. Above all, what for? To induce Chinese towards weird science? Fantasy.


  • I don't recall who it was, but it wasn't Levi. I would say if I remembered. It is no big deal. I wasn't trying to keep it secret.


    I do not think it was Focardi. He was a nice fellow, but he was old and did not play a big role, as I recall.


    Jed, you seem to be affected by selective amnesia. Let me try to help you in recalling something more.


    You was well aware of the importance of the Bologna demo, as you wrote the day before:


    As librarian, you know that the contour data of a document (author, date, circumstances, etc.) are as important as its content. A phone call with a "people in the project", who after a few hours did reveal to you all the most important data of the energy balance which confirmed your expectation, is an exceptional vocal document, whose details have probably been meticulously annotated and kept by you. I'd also expected, that you had a vocal record of such a conversation. I'd find quite difficult to transcript by hand and in real time a conversation like that, with all its critical technical details.


    Anyway, if your interlocutor was Levi (Focardi, of course, was out of question, due to his low familiarity with English), we can also suppose that your conversation with him has been the basis for the preparation of the document that you presented as a "short interview with Levi" (1) and which was written by Marianne Macy (2). Otherwise we should necessarily assume that Levi phone called Macy (or vice versa) to release that interview.


    In any case, we can be sure that Levi, who performed the measurements on behalf of the Department of Physics of the University of Bologna, did reveal within a short time all the calorimetric data to someone in the USA, and, as well documented by Krivit (3), these data have been widely used to prepare some preliminary reports which appeared on internet much earlier than the UniBo calorimetric report (4). I think, this is out of any academic ethic.


    In conclusion, at least FOUR people contributed to the definition of the final calorimetric report of the test held on January 14, 2011, ONE in Italy and THREE in the USA, but all the credibility of its astonishing results, the 12 kW of excess heat calculated on the bases of blatantly wrong data, is based exclusively on the reputation of the professors of the Physics Department of UniBo.


    It's really a big, big deal.


    (1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg41543.html"
    (2) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf
    (3) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…6/3625rf-melichmacy.shtml
    (4) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41453.html"

  • Anyway, if your interlocutor was Levi (Focardi, of course, was out of question, due to his low familiarity with English), we can also suppose that your conversation with him has been the basis for the preparation of the document that you presented as a "short interview with Levi" (1) and which was written by Marianne Macy (2).


    I didn't talk to Levi. Marianne Macy did. I don't know what you mean by saying I "presented" the document. She sent it to me, and I uploaded it. You now know as much about it as I do. If you want to know more, contact Macy.


    I wasn't aware that Focardi did not speak English well.


    There are 1,031 documents uploaded to LENR-CANR.org. I have approximately 1,500 others I have not uploaded, mainly because of copyright restrictions. I do not keep track of the details of each paper. Rossi is not particularly important to me. I make no special effort to keep track of papers relating to him. If I were to look through old notes and e-mails I could probably determine who I talked to when various papers came in, but I don't care about that and I will not make the effort.


    Otherwise we should necessarily assume that Levi phone called Macy (or vice versa) to release that interview.


    I have no knowledge of this interview. Perhaps it was done by e-mail? That's easier than a phone call. Ask Marianne Macy if you want to know.


    In conclusion, at least FOUR people contributed to the definition of the final calorimetric report of the test held on January 14, 2011, ONE in Italy and THREE in the USA, but all the credibility of its astonishing results, the 12 kW of excess heat calculated on the bases of blatantly wrong data, is based exclusively on the reputation of the professors of the Physics Department of UniBo.


    It's really a big, big deal.


    To you it's really a big, big deal. To me it is a matter of complete indifference. If you wish to know more about it, I suggest you contact the authors. As a librarian I might be able to find out some more by looking through my notes. If you ask nicely, I might. I am not trying to hide anything but I do not give a fart about this business, so I am not going to make an effort on your behalf unless you ask nicely.

  • @Ascoli why would the DoD benefit from encouraging and backing a scammer?


    Why a scammer? Did you see any scam? I recall to you that a scam is a "an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence", ie a fraud, a crime, something that can be determined only by a court.


    If you wish to know whether the DoD benefited from the Ecat affair, I don't know. This is a good question to be submitted to the Secretary of Defense at the next briefing to the US House Committee on Armed Service to be held on September 22.


    Quote

    Do you mean the DoD secretly knows all about Cold fusion, perhaps Pd-D, and drove the show from behind the scenes to misdirect others?


    This is another good question for Mr. Carter.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.