Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • As mentioned, there are persistent reports of NiH reactions. So far, this cannot be considered confirmed, there isn't a single, repeatable protocol that has been independently verified.


    That's the reason they pay Your spin-tank (a so called University xy Institute) you still are enganged in. To make people claim that NiH is a dead end.


    Your advise is poor, in the sense that You invent Your own nonsense!


    There exist may 100% repeatable (high COP) NiH protocols, like the Mizonu PtNiZrCaO -H or the newer PtNiH (D) Nanor protocol...


    Knowledge can not be suppressed by FUD! Tell it your patriot Uncle SAM.

  • Ascoli, if I may: are you sure Jed fits as the covert agent in your DoD/ecat spy story?


    You might not. You shouldn't attribute to me something I didn't say. There is a lot of your imagination in your question. If you want to ask me about what I say, please, quote me and use as far as possible my words. It will help in understanding each other.


    Quote

    Wouldn't he rather be the "useful idiot"?


    I don't think so. He is an esteemer of Machiavelli, so I presume that he is well aware of the real background in which the CF/LENR field developed, whatever it is.


    Quote

    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.


    No, of course, I don't think so, and I don't know the real reasons of the academic involvement in the Ecat affair. Anyway, as already put at your attention (1), I consider that those who contacted Rossi at the beginning of this story were much more impressed by his ability as PR manager, than by his presumed scientific skill.


    Quote

    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.


    It wasn't "a handful of physicists". At least nine professors were present at that demo, including the new director of the Physics Department. They let the name of their university be widely used for at least one year to convince the world opinion of the soundness of the calorimetric performances of the Ecat. Among the various consequences, many Italian Representatives urged our Government to increase the funding on LENR research. All this can't happen only for "curiosity and deference" to an ex Dean of Faculty. The Italian people expects that the curiosity of the public researchers be devoted to make good science, and their deference to the scientific reputations of their institutes and to the Italian taxpayers.


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

  • There exist may 100% repeatable (high COP) NiH protocols, like the Mizonu PtNiZrCaO -H or the newer PtNiH (D) Nanor protocol...


    Perhaps you mean Takahashi or Arata, not Mizuno. That experiment is not 100% repeatable as far as I know. I don't know anyone who has replicated it. Takahashi uses different material from Arata, because Arata is uncooperative, so it is not what I consider a replication.

  • Alan Smith

    Quote

    All total nobodies of course, working in the back room of a pornographic magazine shop.


    Have you got a link to a scientific paper on this matter written by Teiichiro Matsuzaki?
    Muon catalyzed cold fusion could be interesting. At present I can't find anything but optimistic previsions. We'll wait and see.


  • Thanks, Alan, that's an excellent article on muon-catalyzed fusion.


    Now, something that is worth noticing, both in response to what Axil wrote as quoted and to cam: "muon-assisted reactions" are not listed in the database because they are normal fusion reactions. They have the same fuel, the same branching ratio, the only difference is that they are muon-catalyzed rather than, say, heat catalyzed. The reactions are in the database, but not called "muon-catalyzed" because there is no known difference.


    And that is why we think that muons are not responsible for the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, because this effect does not generate the products known to arise from MCF. MCF in the FP environment is not only highly expected because muons are very difficult to generate, but also because they would not produce the known effects. They would be the same as other "hot fusion" proposals, such as an idea that the very high density of deuterium in palladium deuteride can catalyze deuterium fusion, eliminated by the lack of ordinary deuterium fusion products, and the same is true for other ideas, such as fractofusion, a real process -- it actually happens! -- or other ideas based on simply overcoming the Coulomb barrier.


    Fractofusion is hot fusion, literally, that it happens in a cold material merely shows how very local conditions can be very different from the bulk. A crack opens and causes a high electrostatic potential that creates a plasma and accelerates deuterons so that they can fuse. Or pyroelectric fusion, similarly. An actual commercial neutron-generating device uses that.


    Cam has shown again and again that he is completely clueless on the topic, while rejecting others as "unscientific" or something. Axil is also anonymous, but knowledgeable -- more or less, he misses stuff sometimes -- , and highly opinionated, routinely states his own Rube Goldberg theory as if true. He's entertaining. Maybe once in a while he has a point.


    I have not been following Holmlid's work, for a basic reason: it is complex and diffiicult to understand, and ... it is devoid of confirmation, paper after paper, Holmlid has built a pile of them over the years, is Holmlid citing his own prior work as a foundation, as if it were all established. He is rushing ahead, to do the latest and greatest work. That's his right, I wish him success, but ... this is what might be called "private science." He is not waiting to make sure that his basic findings can be confirmed, or if there are artifacts to be examined and resolved. He really doesn't care about confirmation or what anyone else is doing. So ... maybe he will pull a rabbit out of the hat, or not. I'm not holding my breath, standing any conclusions of importance on "Holmlid found...."


    But Axil will seize on it and interpret it to death, as he did Rossi's work -- and is still doing.

  • Quote

    No, of course, I don't think so, and I don't know the real reasons of the academic involvement in the Ecat affair...

    How about simple gullibility and a lack of the ability to think critically. Scientists are not normally alert to and don't expect trickery and deliberate deceptions! Many scientific hoaxes and scams succeeded for just this reason -- most scientists are honest and expect the same of others. There also may be a genetic predilection to critical thinking as opposed to blind acceptance of what others tell you. I know I got a strong dose. I became skeptical of religious indoctrination as early as age 9 and that did not come from my family.

  • "Abd the great FUDer" wrote:

    What we have in front of us is a company, IH, that invested over $12 million attempting to confirm exactly that, and it appears at this point that they failed


    No. What it does confirm is that IH failed miserably in executing their business plan, which was to pocket Rossi IP without paying according to the license agreement. It confirms that Darden, Weaver et all are scumbags who wants to be viewed as worldsavers and good christians (fundamentalistic "hand on the bible" morons like Weaver) I suppose in their community while being simple hypochrites. And you Abd (and Jed) are playing their game. Why? Well, I guess it pays (indirectly at least) ... The strategy to buy loyalty from parts of the LENR community with peanut funding is very revealing ...

  • Alan Smith

    Quote

    I can't waste valuable drinking time digging them out for you.


    You have not to dig for me; I can do it myself.
    Thanks for the link.
    As muon assisted cold fusion is reported in nuclear chemistry treatises, in my opinion it already belongs to GANS. Of course it is only an humble opinion and a big hope.
    Perhaps axil knows some other links about MACF.

  • Cam & Alan


    Have you seen this patent application report from Florida A&M University Division of Research?


    http://www.famu.edu/DOR_division_of_research/Weatherford - Laser Assisted Mu-Catalyzed Fusion.pdf


    Extract:
    The present proposal is to use the X-ray laser to enhance the tunneling of the muon into the continuum by Quantum Control, as
    well as to control the quantum states of collision products in a way, which will increase the fusion rate. The core idea is to use X-ray lasers in a quantum control mode to catalyze the fusion of a deuterium nucleus and a tritium nucleus, having started with dt and to eject a muon for a subsequent molecule formation (reduced sticking fraction) and fusion.


    Commercialization Status:
    The feasibility and reactor design are under study.


    Maybe they could drop in and provide expert testimony for Rossi/IH.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • there are persistent reports of NiH reactions. So far, this cannot be considered confirmed, there isn't a single, repeatable protocol that has been independently verified.


    See http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CammarotaGaflowcalor.pdf
    This was the first totally independent and successful verification of the Piantelli Ni/H protocol in 1997. Cammarota et al. recovered more heat in the flowing water than was used for heating eliminating any artifacts due to other heat losses.


  • Fine, you made a clever and thorough lesson on how an Air Quality meter works, and why it can't be used to measure the steam quality. This instrument, the Delta Ohm HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality Monitor, is mentioned in the document you quoted (assembled by JR) and in the final Levi's report (issued with the UniBo's logo) describing the calorimetric data of the demo held on January 14, 2011. You talked about the inappropriateness of this instrument a lot of times, one of the more recent has been the reason of my coming here on L-F (1). The dryness on the steam at the outlet of the Ecat was by far the most important datum of the demo, because an error on its measure could have caused an overestimation of at least a factor 6 of the enthalpy of the outlet fluid, and hence of the output power. You know it very well and you are absolutely right in saying that "an Air Quality meter cannot measure the quality steam".


    But the real problem is that:


    - NO Air Quality meter has been ever used to measure the quality steam during the January 14, 2011, demo!


    Therefore:


    - the presence of the "Delta Ohm HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality Monitor" (cited in the document assembled by JR) and of the correspondent "HP474AC probe" (cited in the Levi's report) has been INVENTED!


    Can you see the problem?


    I would just like to know who, and why, decided to invent the presence of the most important instrument in the most important and celebrated public demo of the CF/LENR history, which, together with other blatant errors, allowed to write, in a report issued with the UniBo logo, that a tabletop device produced more than 12 kW of heat in output by using only 1 kW of electricity in input, allowing in this way to the Ecat's fairy tale to take off and rise high up to reaching the sites of the political decision makers, inducing them to wrongly believe that such a technology can solve all the major problems which the humankind is facing.


    Should I be considered a troll for this?


    (1) Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    By eliminating the intermediate text, Ascoli65 makes it appear that the "red herring" possibility is evidence for "troll." No. "Red herring" there refers to the steam quality issue, which is an issue. I am not going back over all this, it was discussed extensively in 2011. I will only look up a few things. Wet steam, to have a truly major impact on results, would need to be wetter than could be readily be expected, but the real issue is an assumption that all the wter leaving left as steam, wet or otherwise. The assumption of dry steam was not well supported, but there was no examination for overflow water at all, and one could have completely dry steam above flowing water at the boiling point, it could even be stable, but it would not need to be stable.


    So I had quoted Rothwell's report:


    Quote

    Fine, you made a clever and thorough lesson on how an Air Quality meter works, and why it can't be used to measure the steam quality. This instrument, the Delta Ohm HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality Monitor, is mentioned in the document you quoted (assembled by JR) and in the final Levi's report (issued with the UniBo's logo) describing the calorimetric data of the demo held on January 14, 2011. You talked about the inappropriateness of this instrument a lot of times, one of the more recent has been the reason of my coming here on L-F (1). The dryness on the steam at the outlet of the Ecat was by far the most important datum of the demo, because an error on its measure could have caused an overestimation of at least a factor 6 of the enthalpy of the outlet fluid, and hence of the output power. You know it very well and you are absolutely right in saying that "an Air Quality meter cannot measure the quality steam".


    Yes. We agree on that. However, I do think the possible enthalpy error from steam quality error is overstated. I am not going back to study this, however. That overflow water was not measured makes it all irrelevant. The test cannot be trusted.


    This is in addition to it being a managed demonstration, not an independent test. There never was a followup on the possibility of such an error. Rossi moved to shifting methods and demonstrations.


    Quote

    But the real problem is that:


    - NO Air Quality meter has been ever used to measure the quality steam during the January 14, 2011, demo!


    Evidence for this? Aside from it being impossible, that is! (I.e, was a meter used and the results then assessed as a measure of steam quality, even if this was an error?)



    Yes. How much of an explanation do you want?


    You have vastly exaggerated the importance of this test. "Who decided to invent?" Well, if you claim it was invented, we would look at the sources. I had not read the Rothwell document before, but I was quite aware of the humidity meter issue and wrote about it often.


    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf is dated 1/14/2011, by Marianne Macy. She attributes the information to Levy:

    Quote

    To determine if the steam was coming out dry and at atmospheric pressure, Professor Gallatini, a specialist in Thermochemics and a former head of the Chemical Society of Italy, verified that all the water came out as steam. “There was no water in the steam,” Levi certified. “The outer temperature measured was 101° centigrade at atmospheric pressure.” The instrument he used was a Delta OHM # HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality Monitor. Gallantini inserted the probe inside the exit pipe with the steam.


    What I notice, of course, is the non sequitur. What was the actual pressure? We would want a number, not "atmospheric pressure." Where exactly was the temperature measured? Could the placement of the sensor generate a misleading measurement, i.e,. hotter than the steam? But most of all, overflow water? Overflow water could trivially account for all the reported enthalpy. It would be trivial to rule it out, but this was not done, and that particular error was oft-repeated. The "evidence" went down the drain. Krivit videoed an examination of the outlet pipe. It's worth watching it. Notice that Rossi carefully empties water that might be in the hose into the drain, then it is held up. It would take time to fill. As well, the flow of steam seen appeared completely inadequate for the volume of steam allegedly being generated.


    These tests have long been considered worthless. It is not that they prove there was no heat, but that results were unreliable as a result of major shortcomings.


    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Levi, Bianchini and Villa Reports.pdf is the original report on JONP. It is by Levi.

    Quote

    The main origin of possible errors in [Test1] measure was that the steam was not checked to be completely dry. During [Test2 ] this measure was done by Dr. Galantini a senior chemist who has used an “air quality monitor” instrument HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm with a HP474AC probe .


    It is not only Levi:


    http://news.newenergytimes.net…steam-measurements-today/
    Galantini through Celani: (google translation) [However, all this might have come from Levi, the document is not completely clear.]

    Quote

    (dated January 20, 2011)
    This is to certify that the instrument with which it was carried out the measurement of the free water in the steam during the test which took place in Bologna on 14.01.2011 was the HD37AB1347 instrument of Delta Ohm has mod.HP474AC probe with a resolution range -40; + 150 ° C.Galantini dr.Gilberto *


    and then:

    Quote

    (dated June 20, 2011)
    Good morning, on the request made to me today, as I have repeatedly confirmed to me that many people have requested in the past, I repeat that all the measurements I did, during tens of tests done to measure the amount of not evaporated water (read liquid water, TN) present in the steam produced by “E-Cat” generators, always was made providing results in “% of mass”, since the used device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam.
    I confirm that the measured temperature always was higher than 100,1°C and that the measured pression in the chimney always was equal to the ambient pressure.


    The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 .


    The original info for the instrument is
    Testo 176 H2 codice 0572 1766. This is the Testo: https://www.testo.com/product/…d-temperature-data-logger


    Galantini is confused. The Testo logger does not have a "grams by cubic meter" display. It purely provides humidity and temperature data. He has mixed up the second test with the first.


    The Delta Ohm instrument is far more complex. http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2012/download/HD37AB1347_D_uk.pdf
    The manual is at http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2012/download/HD37AB1347_M_uk.pdf
    The device has a computed display setting for "absolute humidity," of grams per m^2. Glantini clearly does not know how his instrument works. This is purely a value that translates humidity into water content, but which must necessarily ignore liquid water. It has no way of sensing it. It simply displays the weight of water vapor per cubic meter, not total water. So what did he read in the "Swedish" test? It could only have been humidity. So, 100% humidity. How did he get from that his result? Wet steam will have 100% humidity and so will dry.


    I've been all over this before. Ascoli65 here makes a statement contradicting several witnesses, perhaps, or at least Levi. What is the basis for that?

  • Cam


    i.e. true believer. Do you mean that Ascoli65 is a true believer? I would be cautious.


    My understanding is that a pseudo-skeptic is not a 'true believer' or a true 'skeptic' but someone who has mischief in mind and who does more damage to the process of discovery than good. My comment about 'pseudo-skeptic' was based on Abd's admission that he was indeed a self confessed pseudo-skeptic - sometimes. My comments were not aimed at Ascoli65 at all, so if that was the impression I gave I apologise.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Why is that hard to believe?


    Simply because I deem nearly impossible to forget the name of the "people in the project" who was so kind to phone call you within hours from an event that you expected as "the biggest sensation in cold fusion since 1989" in order to reveal to you all the calorimetric data. But this is only a my personal evaluation, don't feel obliged to share it.


    Quote

    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.


    Yes, it was indeed a big event. The largest public event in the history of CF/LENR tests. A lot of high level witnesses, but not all of them were involved in the calorimetry measurements: (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Levi-PressRelease.shtml): "The test will be held by a researcher of the Physics Department of the University of Bologna, and will take place before a selected public of researchers and professors of the same Department. A confirmation of the amount of energy produced and of its origin would imply that we are dealing with new source of energy."


    Celani was present, but he is not of the Physics Department of the University of Bologna, so he was not entitled to release officially any data.


    Quote

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


    Because I don't like to be cheated by those who are paid with public money to make good research and, when required, to unmask the cheaters.


    Quote

    I do not give a damn whether you give any credit to the my library or me. I don't care at all.


    Don't be upset. I have nothing against you. You owe nothing to me. You make your own legit work. Your library is a useful tool. IMO, it will be even more precious in the future, when the historians will try to understand some of the myths which brought their ancestors to accelerate the collapse of their super technological civilization, the same way as the present historians try to interpret the Moai in order to figure out the reasons of the nearly extiction of Rapa Nui.


    Quote

    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.


    I don't want to be rude. My poor English obliges me to be as direct as possible to avoid misinterpretations, and I don't know how the resulting wording sounds to a native English speaker. Maybe it sounds rude. Sorry, for that.


    Anyway, I don't ask you anything, especially the content of your e-mail. But, be sure, all of your information are important, and IMO the sources are as important as the information themselves, especially when the information are wrong.


    Quote

    Insinuations and absurd statement that I am the one and only source of information on cold fusion will get you nowhere.


    I didn't say that. I only said, that you were the reference point of all the contributors to the BTD on the calorimetry of the January 2011 demo, as you wrote in your mail to Vortex.


    Quote

    If you want information on cold fusion, I suggest you go to a university library.


    I don't need for the moment. I'm giving the priority to the most important document, reporting the most important data, measured during the most important cold fusion demonstration. It is a university report published 10 days after the January 14, 2011, demo, and, thanks to your library, it is easily accessible.


    After having well evaluated the reliability of the data reported in that report, I will decide if it is worth examining other documents on cold fusion.

  • @Wyttenbach,
    Below is a image of values I came up for the Main Body and Caps, separated from each other for the Active Runs.
    I might be able to make it a bit tighter, but that would defeat the independent test of the Lugano math part of the plot.


    I think it is close enough. I did not reinvent the wheel for this one.
    That one is coming...


    Since the online calculator is working well enough without any fiddling or fine tuning, it will be easier to see where things get changed when the emissivity adjustments are made, and this is a good basis for fiddling with the Rods. A bit of common ground to work with.
    This is pretty much where the map ends and the wilderness begins.

  • I think it is close enough. I did not reinvent the wheel for this one.
    That one is coming...


    That looks already very well fitted. But where is the connection to the rods ?


    I noticed that they didn't calculate the heat dissipated at the outside (rod-side) of the cap "c".
    It should be equivalent to 3/4 ( minus overlapping/contacting area rods/E-cat-app) of the heat produced by cap "c". (= 3/4*28W - overlap)