Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • Ascoli65

    Quote

    JR, which for sure is one of the most attentive and informed persons on these arguments


    I fully disagree; JR is only interested in cold fusion, not in its academic counterpart. If cold fusion is rejected by GANS it is no worth a dime. Has JR ever quoted Stefan Pomp, for example? I hope so. I don't know. I don't want to be naughty, but I'm afraid JR only cares the bibliography "pro". His work is partisan.

  • If cold fusion is rejected by GANS it is no worth a dime.


    Are nuclear reactions cause by low energy muons covered by GANS? If not, why not? I told you a dozen times that muons are causative in LENR. Did you look into this reaction? Have you told GANS to include this reaction in this List?

  • When I said, earlier, I agree with Ascoli, it was about the immediately previous post he made. In general, I rarely *understand* what Ascoli is saying and of course, I believe Rossi's ecat and everything surrounding it, to be not just a scam (Rossi's scam) but an extremely obvious and classical scam highly similar in origination and development to scams by Steorn, Carl Tilley, Dennis Lee, Otto, Bedini, and many many other magnetic motor, free energy, so-called HOH, Brown's Gas and similar scams. So far, of the list, Carl Tilley (on the run when last seen) and Dennis Lee, were convicted and sentenced for those scams. One can only hope that Rossi will be next to taste a trial for fraud.

  • I believe Rossi's ecat and everything surrounding it, to be not just a scam (Rossi's scam) but an extremely obvious and classical scam highly similar in origination and development to scams by Steorn, Carl Tilley, Dennis Lee, Otto, Bedini, and many many other magnetic motor, free energy, so-called HOH, Brown's Gas and similar scams


    Ascoli65's contention seems to be that focusing on Rossi and on his being a scammer is misguided at best. If one really wants to know where the action is, one should look to the University of Bologna, to the DoD and to other agencies and institutions, some of which may be orchestrating LENR fandom behind the scene, through some kind of black ops. Ascoli please correct me if I have misstated your position.

  • Looks like the wye to delta hypothesis will survive. It does put a sort of limit on heat transfer from adjacent areas of the reactor assembly, when compared to the alternatives.
    There is not enough heat, or too much heat in other scenarios it seems.
    Nifty.


    I worked around Your problem by assuming that the heat-conduction did change a bit (+50%, just speculation..) at higher T. The reason is that the Cu - cables are ideal heatconductors and that the delta T for the cable is larger than for the rest. A made this assumption to satisfy TC, to avoid a complete disgrace of his arguing. Thus I proposed the COP 2 argument.., alltough the caps/rods seem to prove the validty of the Lugano report...

  • Quote

    Ascoli65's contention seems to be that focusing on Rossi and on his being a scammer is misguided at best. If one really wants to know where the action is, one should look to the University of Bologna, to the DoD and to other agencies and institutions, some of which may be orchestrating LENR fandom behind the scene, through some kind of black ops. Ascoli please correct me if I have misstated your position.


    Yikes! That would be absolutely impossible and anyone thinking that it could be done and that there was a motive for it (one that would work) would be totally deluded. That hypothesis attributed to Ascoli, is so far out, no wonder I didn't even grasp it. U of B orchestrating LENR fandom for reasons of black ops? Completely hilarious. Even Levi has other things to do like studying intensively and writing about the brewing of coffee.

  • Ascoli65's contention seems to be that focusing on Rossi and on his being a scammer is misguided at best. If one really wants to know where the action is, one should look to the University of Bologna, to the DoD and to other agencies and institutions, some of which may be orchestrating LENR fandom behind the scene, through some kind of black ops. Ascoli please correct me if I have misstated your position.


    Eric, you nearly got it, with some warnings.


    First, I would change the order of priority between UniBo and DoD, and fully differentiate their possible aims.


    Second, these are only hypotheses. They deserve to be taken into consideration, but have to be carefully verified, and hopefully confirmed by the proper level, in the proper site. The next briefing at the US House would be the best occasion. Until then, talking about the Ecat affair as a possible Rossi's scam is not only unfair, due to the fact that whichever crime should be discussed only in a court, but ìt could be intentionally spread in order to divert from the real causes.


    I think that the first and simplest questions to be answered are those posed by Krivit in March 2010, when the JoNP appeared on the web:
    "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg38052.html"
    "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg38061.html"


    IMO, a confirmation of the Krivit's innuendos would be incompatible with any scam hypothesis.

  • Ascoli, say again the motivation for this black ops.... in simple language please. Krivit says to discredit Ni-H work. If the work is valid, how could that be done? All that is needed to refute it are a few clear and incontrovertible experiments. So, Ascoli, you think Ni-H fusion works? Whose?

  • Ascoli, say again the motivation for this black ops.... in simple language please.


    Again? I can't say "again" any motivation, because I never said IT IS a black ops, so I never gave any motivation for it. I just said that it is an hypothesis which deserve to be taken into consideration, contrary to you that consider it absolutely impossible.


    To be more simple, I just consider possible, what you deem impossible. I'm talking about possibility, not ascertain reality.


    Even Krivit, which is an American journalist and has first hand information on the CF/LENR world, takes into consideration the possibility of "false flags" in this field. I just rely on his words (for this specific respect).


    Quote

    Krivit says to discredit Ni-H work. If the work is valid, how could that be done? All that is needed to refute it are a few clear and incontrovertible experiments. So, Ascoli, you think Ni-H fusion works? Whose?


    No, I think that no CF/LENR approach works. I hoped to have been clear to this respect.


    So I really don't understand your objection. Would you, please, explain better what you mean?

  • I worked around Your problem by assuming that the heat-conduction did change a bit (+50%, just speculation..)


    I apologize for my earlier rant (moments ago, on another thread, and in advance of your scathing reply to be expected there).
    I guess you have been number juggling.


    I will post some summaries once I get the Active Runs organized, and then re-do the aspects with TC-like temperatures and then we shall see how that hangs together. I will post it whether it supports a positive COP or not. But I want to decompress from a hectic schedule for a day or two, now that I am back home. I am a bit more short tempered than I am normally, and not at all focused at the moment.


    Edit: I have decided, based on all simulations/comparisons I have done that heat transfer from adjacent areas does comprise a substantial contribution of the total heat from any given, adjacent, lower temperature area. (Main to caps, caps to rods). There was no version which could support solely electrical heating in either the caps or the rods for means of modelling. This is why I mentioned the Wye-Delta thing again. In some versions, there is too much of a theoretical-hypothetical contribution by only Joule heat (caps and rods only being discussed), and in others there is far too little. By which I mean that the main body must conform to being the primary heater in the whole device, and supply enough heat to actually get the required power overall. This essentially eliminates some scenarios, while adding confidence to others.

  • Hi Ascoli65 and Mary Yugo.


    Just so I understand, so please help me.


    I think that MY said the below in brackets. I want to ensure I am not mixing quotes and authors.


    {No, I think that no CF/LENR approach works. I hoped to have been clear to this respect.


    So I really don't understand your objection. Would you, please, explain better what you mean? }

    I think its MY but the answer changes my argument. if one believes that CF is a farce.
    Thanks!

  • Sorry Ascoli, the question is too complex for the time I have to read the details of your hypothesis. What I do know is that all the evidence I have ever seen about Rossi points to a classical free-energy style scam and Rossi would need no external help to perpetrate such a scam. All he would need would be luck in finding marks and as I have already noted, that seems to be his best talent. That is not PROOF of a classic scam and does not exclude other explanations but it's my firm opinion based on long, if distant, observation of the development of Rossi's claims and tests and demos.


    Rigel, the question you cite was from Ascoli, not me. I also doubt LENR although I have no firm basis to discredit the lower power claims. For those, I simply don't know. As for Rossi, once more, I doubt that there needs to be any other explanation other than fraud-- no black ops or secret agents at all, no need to discredit high power cold fusion which plentifully discredits itself (ie: Miley, Celani (if that is high power), Defkalion, Rossi, and Nanospire). And Brillouin seems rapidly headed in the same direction though there is not enough real evidence yet to evaluate.

  • @Wyttenbach
    Before I get into a few Manhattans, and self-censor, I will explain a bit more about where the Wye-Delta comes back into this Rod discussion.
    The numbers I will give here are rounded, and from memory, but are close enough for basic discussion. Even the ε problem does not really enter much into the Caps and Rods discussion, since the T is low enough for each that the potentially large logarithmic increases due to T4 don't have a huge impact on power results compared to the small multiples of power (x 3 or /3) increases/decreases based on hypothetical Delta or Wye configurations.


    So, for the dummy, using ~0.4Ω for each resistor in a delta, the overall power for the reactor would be about 165 A, too low. Using 0.4Ω in a Wye gives the right amount of total power, while a 1.23Ω each resistor in a Wye gives 3 times more power than reported for the dummy (about 1450 W).


    If we calculate the power produced by the leads exiting the Caps and into the Rods (I am using 4.7 cm each, x 6, for a few reasons, but this is negotiable), we can see in what sort of ballpark these leads might be adding power. The Caps have similar leads, but limited to 4 cm (x 6), and we could used 4 cm for the rod part to simplify further... (Resistors will be discussed as single units for naming, although there are always three of them).


    Anyways, regarding the Dummy, for a 0.4Ω set up, in a delta, these Rod leads would only contribute ~20A. Too little, since the Caps would be less, plus the reactor contribution, which is only 165 W total. Not going to get the reported ~ 129 W for all the Rods there.
    In the 0.4Ω Wye, the result is about 60 W for the Rod leads. I gave this figure earlier, as about 1/2 of what the Rods were supposed to have made. I am at peace with it now. It is reasonable to consider that the Rods are not entirely heated by the wires inside them. At least by the amount I will elaborate on a bit more, just below.


    In the 1.23Ω Delta, the leads are also making about 60W at the Rods, but the Reactor is making three times more total power than reported in the Active Run, even though in the Dummy it works out almost perfectly. (1.23Ω each resistor makes the COP =1 for the Active Run, before chopping away at the emissivity, and could potentially mean a calculated COP of ~ 0.33).
    So the 0.4Ω Wye looks pretty good in this scenario. This means that about 70W heat is contributed to the Rods from the Caps (in one way or another) using this assumption.


    The Active Runs seem to go the same route, except that the 0.4Ω version (each resistor) must be in a Delta configuration to look reasonable compared to all other power measurements recorded and/or reported in the Lugano report. (By this I mean electrical measurements).

  • Ascoli65

    Quote

    Second, these are only hypotheses. They deserve to be taken into consideration, but have to be carefully verified, and hopefully confirmed by the proper level, in the proper site.


    They are not widespread hypotheses, they are only yours. Why should fandom take them into consideration? Do you think that in the University of Bologna still exist physicists working on cold fusion, but Levi whose career has probably been killed?

  • Sorry Ascoli, the question is too complex for the time I have to read the details of your hypothesis.


    My previous question to you was not about "my" hypothesis, but it was about your objection to my appeal to get at first the answers to the questions that Krivit posed in his 2 mails to vortex in March 2010. I know, those mails contain many questions, some alluding to a hypothetical tentative to discredit the Ni-H approach. I'm not referring, and I don't give any credit, to this specific suspect of him.


    I believed to have clearly specified in some previous comments (1), which ones of the Krivit's questions I'm referring to. Anyway I repeat here below:


    March 13, 2010 – "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg38052.html" :
    “… why the good Dr. Melich, allegedly representing the entire “DoD”, is involved with this?”


    March 14, 2010 - "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg38061.html"
    “Whoever registered the name is probably an American because of the California registration. […] I wonder which of the people involved in journal-of-nuclear-physics.com are familiar with the Russian science scene and which of them might be conversant in Russian and who has been a frequent co-author on Russian LENR papers?” (I guess, Krivit was clearly alluding to Melich, again.)


    These are not "my hypotheses", these are questions posed by Krivit which, independently from whichever his motivation, did clearly allude at the possibility that the JoNP has been put at disposition of Rossi by a functionary of the DoD, who allegedly represented (in the JoNP's Board of Advisers) the entire DoD-USA.


    These are two very simple questions. For sure the US Secretary of Defense knows, or may easily know, the answers, and, if he will be asked about during the next briefing at the US House, he can, if he wants, reveal them to the US Representatives. Is it so complex what I meant?


    Finally, if (IF) the two above specified KRIVIT's innuendos will be confirmed at an authoritative level, there is no space, for my common sense, to consider the Ecat affair as a scam, more specifically a "Rossi's scam", because it would mean that a worldwide scam of dozen millions dollars would have been perpetrated along 6+ years, by using as a propagandistic tool a web Journal put at disposition of the presumed scammer by the DoD, which was also officially represented in its Board of Advisers.


    Therefore, due to the fact that IMO there is no reasons to believe that the Ecat did ever behave contrary to what established by the mainstream science, ie there is no reason to believe that it did produce any excess heat, and it is also unbelievable that a controversial philosopher could have convinced so many physics professors to be able to subvert in such an extraordinary way the well established laws of the physics, there should necessarily be some other reasons for such DoD involvement in the Ecat affair. Which ones? I don't know. Ask somebody else. Maybe JR knows more.


    Is it clear now?


    (1) http://ecatnews.com/?p=2686&cpage=6#comment-143697


    Hi Ascoli65 and Mary Yugo.
    Just so I understand, so please help me.
    ...


    Hi Rigel, as already said to you by MY, the words you put in brakets are mine. I hope you resolved meanwhile your doubts.

  • Jed, I finally found the time to complete the answer to your previous comment.

    I did not define it as anything. That's Marianne's title.


    The word "interview" never appear in her document, whose title is "Specifics of Andrea Rossi’s “Energy Catalyzer” Test, University of Bologna, 1/14/2001", and is uploaded it in your lenr-canr library with the name "MacyMspecificso" (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf).


    Quote

    Well I know a lot about the technical aspects of experiments, but nothing about Rossi's business arrangements or his personal life. If you want to know about those things, read Mats Lewan's book. […] about some guy in England who supposedly invested $50 million in I.H. I don't recall the name. […] The only thing I know about their business is what was revealed in the lawsuit, and I never bothered to read the lawsuit documents carefully. Legal documents give me a headache.


    I didn't ask you anything about these arguments. And I never talked about them. You are complaining with the wrong person.


    Quote

    I am interested in the technical aspects of cold fusion. I don't waste time on gossip, rumors, speculation, etc.


    Fine, now I agree with you.


    In fact, I am talking with you about the technical aspects of the Ecat demo held on January 14, 2011, which is most important, witnessed, documented, celebrated public demonstration in the history of CF/LENR, the field of which you are the first and sole librarian since a quarter of century.


    In particular, it would be of the utmost importance to know the source of the wrong data used to highly overestimate the excess heat reported in the Levi's report.


    These data appeared for the first time on the web in some of your mails to vortex. In particular, just 3 days after the Bologna demo, you issued the first comprehensive calorimetric report, the Brief Technical Description (BTD), with these mail to vortex ("https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg41484.html"):


    You wrote that you were the editor of the BTD, and you gathered the contributions from various people, hence you were the reference point of all of them. Now, you are trying to convince me that you have forgotten the names of the people you were in touch with. Sorry, but I can't believe it. Of course, you are not obliged to reveal their names. But it's clear to me, by your same words, that as coordinator of the BTD editing, you know all the people that contributed to it, and the exact circumstances in which they provided their contributions.


    There is also another delicate point regarding the same BTD. The names of the "University of Bologna" and "INFN" appear in its title and in the text. In the above mail to vortex, you wrote that you got the okey's. So, I presume that you also got the official authorizations from these two scientific institutions, who allowed you to cite their names in your BTD in such a prominent position, the title. I also assume that you kept these authorizations very meticulously.


    In the same BTD, we can read "Dr. Levi quoted from his post experiment interview". FWIK, this is the first time that the "Levi's interview" is mentioned in the web, and you announced the publication of the BTD one day before your announcement of the so-called Macy's interview. Moreover, it is specified that it was a "post experiment" interview, that is an interview released shortly after the conclusion of the experiment, just around the same time of the phone call you had with a "people in the project" ("http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41364.html").


    But you said, in your last comments here on L-F, that your interlocutor was not Levi, nor Focardi, nor Rossi. So, you understand that the identity of this "people in the project" is a very intriguing mystery, which IMO should be solved for the following reason.


    The BTD is one of the thousands of documents included in your LENR-CANR library, it refers to the widest documented experiment of the whole CF/LENR history, and you were the coordinator of all the information it contains. Well, if we are not able to understand from where these data come from, how is it possible to give any credit to the contents of the other documents in your library?

  • Ascoli, if I may: are you sure Jed fits as the covert agent in your DoD/ecat spy story? Wouldn't he rather be the "useful idiot"? (Sorry Jed, just a figure of speech).
    The same applies to the Bologna professors, and later to the Uppsala professors. You certainly don't think the DoD can bribe University professors abroad.
    As to the "historical importance" of UniBo presence at the demo: I am not impressed by the fact that a handful of physicists accepted an invitation out of curiosity or deference to their ex Dean of Faculty. The fact that there was no public stand of the Department against Rossi's endorsement by Focardi and Levi may be embarassing to you if you graduated from UniBo. But it may be a choice of low profile, since -after all- UniBo invested close to nothing in the affair. And Levi's time was rewarded with research grants for pinball-related theses.

  • You wrote that you were the editor of the BTD, and you gathered the contributions from various people, hence you were the reference point of all of them. Now, you are trying to convince me that you have forgotten the names of the people you were in touch with. Sorry, but I can't believe it.


    Why is that hard to believe? There were 50 people there! I know many of them. I heard from many of them. I quoted Celani directly in various messages, but I heard from others. I don't recall who said what. I could review my old e-mail to find out, but it is archived and I am not going to go to the trouble just to satisfy your curiosity.


    I don't understand why you care about this, but I don't care about it, so that's that.

    Well, if we are not able to understand from where these data come from, how is it possible to give any credit to the contents of the other documents in your library?


    Let me explain something: I do not give a damn whether you give any credit to the my library or me. I don't care at all. If you never read another document there, that's fine with me. I do not respond to rude people who demand information from my e-mail, especially when it would be annoying for me to dig up that information and when I think the information is unimportant. People sometimes ask me technical questions, or they ask for copies of the papers listed in the bibliography which are not uploaded. I am happy to help them because that contributes to the progress of science. What you want to know is useless gossip, trivial information I forgot years ago, and stuff that is none of your business. I will not lift a finger to give it to you.


    Here is a suggestion: when you want someone to do a favor, next time try asking nicely. Insinuations and absurd statement that I am the one and only source of information on cold fusion will get you nowhere. If you want information on cold fusion, I suggest you go to a university library.

  • JedRothwell

    Quote

    I know many Italian scientists in other universities and in the ENEA working on cold fusion.


    Vittorio Violante, yes. He has never manufactured a cold fusion reactor, so he is promptly dropped out. Perhaps Antonella De Ninno and Francesco Scaramuzzi are still cold fusionists, but after 27 years it is difficult to think they have a cf reactor to show us.
    As far as I know, Italian Universities do not practice cold fusion at present. Perhaps American or Japanese Universities do.

    Quote

    Well I don't recall who I talked to, but it wasn't Levi. I am sure it wasn't Rossi either. Why does it matter? Who gives a damn?


    Sorry, I don't believe you. It is only a matter of five years ago, and in America you are considered an alert historian of cold fusion. An alert historian should have good memory.
    Ascoli and I give a damn.

  • Cam (And Ascoli)


    Quit harassing Jed, it is just a waste of pixels. If he can't remember he can't remember. And he isn't going to guess just to please you. And if he knows but doesn't want to tell you (which I think is VERY unlikely) then he won't tell you no matter how much you whine. And as he says, 'who gives a damn?'

  • They will be asking for your glove size and inside leg next.


    Let 'em try. The only people I will tell my inside leg size is the British Police Department.


    Fun fact: the British Police recommend that a bicycle saddle be set at 106% of the inside leg length, measured from the saddle to the fully extended crank. In other words, your ankle should be extended at the bottom of the stroke, and you should pedal with the ball of your foot. So if they ask, it is a legitimate concern. They want you to pedal with maximum efficiency. They care!

  • Jed


    I think you do a great service keeping a LENR library as you do. I don't always agree with you but I do respect you for your historical and varied knowledge on the subject. If you have the time, I would be grateful if you could validate the source of the information you have.


    Very best regards
    Frank