Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    By eliminating the intermediate text, Ascoli65 makes it appear ...


    Sorry, but you should understand that if I had considered the whole your comment, I would have replied to you next Christmas.


    Quote

    The test cannot be trusted.


    I fear that they are the testers to be not trustable.


    Quote

    it being a managed demonstration, not an independent test


    It was announced to the press (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…1-Levi-PressRelease.shtml) with these words: "[…] 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. […] The Jan. 14th test is the first to be carried out by outside investigators."


    Quote

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


    Evidence for this?


    OK, here we are!


    Three months ago, in my first message here on L-F, I linked to you the web address of a jpeg (http://i.imgur.com/YC4W0Ax.jpg). Now, I put it directly here below one more time. Please, pay attention to it.


    In the detail C you see the HP474AC probe, the one that should have been connected to the HD37AB1347 portable instrument. From the Fig.2 (detail A), extracted from the Levi's report, you see that that probe should be placed on the top of the vertical branch of the Ecat. I hope that you will agree with me that the actual probe inserted on the top of the Ecat (detail B) is not an HP474AC (or ACR) probe. It is only a normal temperature probe (detail D) which remains unplugged for most part of the test.


    If you want to be more certain about this, give a look to all the many pictures posted on 22passi (http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…naca-test-fusione_14.html - versione 21gen10) and to the first part of the second video of the demo:

    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.


    Are you able to localize the HP474HC probe? Consider also that the other probe inserted halfway in the vertical branch is the normal TC which measures the output temperature shown on the PC screen.


    Quote

    You have vastly exaggerated the importance of this test.


    You did publish an article on the peer reviewed journal Current Science, look please at the Preface (www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0491.pdf): "It is precisely at this juncture that there comes the latest twist in the LENR story. An unknown ‘outsider’, an engineer–inventor from Italy, Andrea Rossi surprised us all by announcing that he has invented a working, industrial-grade Ni–H LENR reactor. On 14 January 2011, he gave a semi-public demo of the same in the presence of an invited audience and later in the year he followed it up with a demo of a 1 MWth (Megawatt thermal) reactor (composed of over a hundred of the basic 10 KWth modules connected in a series/parallel fashion). Now this ‘development’ (some would say that, in the absence of a peer reviewed publication, we should treat it merely as an ‘unproven’ claim) has revived immense worldwide interest in the whole field of LENR."


    Quote

    Well, if you claim it was invented, we would look at the sources.


    Well, it is exactly what this troll (me) is trying to do since his coming here on L-F.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    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)


    It works pretty well by itself, thankfully. I think the Dummy can be made slightly better. I am not quite satisfied with it. The Dummy T sits right on the Plot 1 slope so it is very finicky. See how it jumps around from ε of 0.69 to 0.71 with a minimal T change (Table 3). I suspect that the fins are more important in the Dummy as well.


    The rods have to be worked out with a bunch of assumptions, but using these values averaged, I think we can work out something there. I am more interested in the Caps to Main Body relationships, since they are less ... um ...complicated and prone to errors. I will give the Rods a try, though.


    The outside Cap ends might need to be dealt with. I am thinking of lumping it into feeding the rods, with maybe 1/3 escaping. Maybe half gets away. I don't know. There is a lot of convection space there, but the radiation should get mostly captured by the rods.


    I am going to reverse the report math, extract the ε used for Caps and Main body, determine the equivalent radiance, insert TC type ε for the parts, and recalculate T, followed by power by doing the formulas forward again. And then compare. More fun than Sudoku.

    JedRothwell

    Quote

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


    I appreciate that the acronyms LENR and CANR are more and more substituted by the historical "cold fusion".
    Cold fusion does not belong to GANS as well perpetual motion doesn't belong to Technical Physics. So you can't find papers on cold fusion in university libraries. You can only find them in the ICCF or in your library.

    Alan Smith


    http://www.riken.jp/~/media/ri…/ral/ral2010-report-e.pdf


    3.3. Muon Catalysed Fusion
    The committee reiterates that the next step in this programme will involve challenging technological developments and would require considerable resources and theoretical support, none of which are foreseen at the moment.



    Nuclear transmutation by muon beam
    The Committee has severe concerns on the practicality of the method and recommends that this activity should not continue.


    As I am interested in muon assisted cold fusion, I will continue digging the Riken-Ral Muon Facility. I am looking for real papers, not for news about MACF. Finding peer reviewed papers is not so easy. Perhaps Axil is so kind to help us.

    Quote from cam

    So you can't find papers on cold fusion in university libraries. You can only find them in the ICCF or in your library.

    cam has been posting this nonsense repeatedly. Many LENR papers are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that are routinely found in university libraries. Some papers are only published as conference papers and in the Journal for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. Many papers on cold fusion are not available through lenr-canr.org because Jed has not received permission from authors, and some publishers will not allow it.


    In 2009, Jed did a tally of papers. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf. That shows as of 2008, 1,390 peer-reviewed (refereed) journal papers. These papers would commnly be found in university libraries.

    JedRothwell

    Quote

    You are making a fool of yourself by disputing a matter of fact that anyone can confirm by looking up journals and papers in a university library.


    IAEA and BNL databases are the only reference I rely on, outside the treatises. I am aware that, say, Iwamura has published on JJAP and that the JJAP can be found in a university library, but none of Iwamura's works comes out when I query a database. I think that we must be very strict when we ourselves have not the time or the competence for a review. There are lots of Ni-H nuclear reactions archived, but none is cold. Being strict saves us from being fooled.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    (i wrote:)


    You did publish an article on the peer reviewed journal Current Science, look please at the Preface (currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0491.pdf): "It is precisely at this juncture that there comes the latest twist in the LENR story. An unknown ‘outsider’, an engineer–inventor from Italy, Andrea Rossi surprised us all by announcing that he has invented a working, industrial-grade Ni–H LENR reactor. On 14 January 2011, he gave a semi-public demo of the same in the presence of an invited audience and later in the year he followed it up with a demo of a 1 MWth (Megawatt thermal) reactor (composed of over a hundred of the basic 10 KWth modules connected in a series/parallel fashion). Now this ‘development’ (some would say that, in the absence of a peer reviewed publication, we should treat it merely as an ‘unproven’ claim) has revived immense worldwide interest in the whole field of LENR."

    That is a expert from a review. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0491.pdf .... notice the reservations. The date of that test is given, but no details. As I have mentioned, few outside of Planet Rossi think that the January 14, 2011 demonstration was a useful test, because of the failure to confirm various important aspects of the calorimetry, the lack of control experiments, and the lack of independence. Yes, it was an historic event, but it was not the first demonstration, merely the first public one. At the time that review was written, the 1 year test had begun. It was known that Rossi was working with Industrial heat, and this was lending credence to his claims. Rossi's tests were always inconclusive, rarely "failures," i.e,. proof of non-performance. Usually they would appear successful, until examined in detail.


    This is why Industrial Heat needed to become involved, to resolve the ongoing doubt and uncertainty. Now, to the alleged "invention" of the use of the Air Quality Meter.


    Quote


    Well, it is exactly what this troll (me) is trying to do since his coming here on L-F.

    What is given here does not at all establish what Ascoli45 claimed. He has a photo showing what appears to be a high temperature probe, inserted into the E-Cat but not plugged in to a meter. It does not show the HP474AC dual function probe (temperature and humidity). That is his evidence that the Delta Ohm meter and that probe were not used. A photo that does not show it.


    I do not know where I got the impression, but I had the idea that Galantini needed to remove one probe and put in another to do the "steam quality" test. Maybe there is a description of something like that somewhere. But this is obvious: that the probe is not shown in one photo does not demonstrate that it was not used!


    Here is a better presentation of the Krivit report on the Galantini measurement:
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…1/37/3717appendixc1.shtml


    Against this claim by Ascoli45 we have statements from two scientists, and while I have serious problems about their competence in certain ways, they are scientists and we will not suspect that they will lie.


    And this is all moot, because the meter used, and Galantini's explanation, as reached Krivit, shows that he didn't know what he was doing. He had apparently not studied steam quality and how to measure it. It's actually a difficult topic and difficult quality to measure.

    Lomax

    Quote

    These papers would commnly be found in university libraries.


    It is not enough at all. To be considered GANS, a paper must be archived in some official database.
    Can you find for a paper on cold fusion archived in exfor? By the way, exfor has been updated: Database Version of 2016-07-01.

    Quote from cam

    I think that we must be very strict when we ourselves have not the time or the competence for a review.


    Yes. God help us if we were to think for ourselves, or read anything Vaunted Authorities have not approved of. We must not look beyond strictly defined boundaries, lest our minds be corrupted by Dark Outside Forces of Corruption.


    Your method of doing science resembles medieval academics, or a fundamentalist religion.

    Quote from cam

    Lomax


    It is not enough at all. To be considered GANS, a paper must be archived in some official database.
    Can you find for a paper on cold fusion archived in exfor? By the way, exfor has been updated: Database Version of 2016-07-01.


    It is my contention that the nuclear reactions that drive LENR are the same that they are looking for in "The Hyper-Kamiokande project"


    http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.…publications/index-e.html


    Even these reactions have not been cleared to be recorded in the GANS database by its gatekeepers even though there is a major effort underway to detect these little know through important reactions. This leads to the suspicion that the GANS database is not a depository of knowledge but an engineering aid to the nuclear engineering community.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    Quote from andrea.s: “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…


    Agreed. I stretched that a bit. Sorry for that.




    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    What is given here does not at all establish what Ascoli45 claimed.
    [...]
    Against this claim by Ascoli45 we have statements


    Careful Ascoli65, Abd is trying to either diminish or make you appear older.

    JedRothwell

    Quote

    Your method of doing science resembles medieval academics, or a fundamentalist religion.


    You:
    To put it another way, if this is true, I guess it is Game Over and We Won. I have difficulty taking that possibility seriously. It could happen though. There is certainly no physical reason why a 16 kW heater cannot be made.
    You are always prone to consider true everything extraordinary you read about cold fusion.
    You have blindly relied on academicians from Bologna or Sweden; I by far prefer recognized databases, where I can always look for excitation functions, whenever I will.
    You read about cold fusion; I write about cold fusionists.
    You have been bitterly deceived by Focardi/Rossi but continue to rely on cold fusion: wasn't that enough for your pride?

    Quote from cam

    You have blindly relied on academicians from Bologna or Sweden; I by far prefer recognized databases, where I can always look for excitation functions, whenever I will.


    So You are a simple story teller who relies on a subset of the universe, which is managed by DOD, IAEA, AREVA, GE, SIEMENS, TOSHIBA......

    Axil

    Quote

    This leads to the suspicion that the GANS database is not a depository of knowledge but an engineering aid to the nuclear engineering community.


    Exfor collects all nuclear reactions, obviously not those run by the weak force. Superkamiokande is not an accelerator, it is something like a big detector of weak events. The detector must be big, as the cross section of weak reactions is very low.
    nuclear engineering community. Nuclear science community in fact. Engineers are not interested in nuclear reactions, as they do not know them. Engineers are only interested in cold fusion (Violante and Hagelstein are engineers). Radiochimica Acta and Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry are not engineering reviews. You only need to browse the titles of the journals.
    Exfor means "Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data". All nuclear reactions are archived there, even those achieved in China, South Korea or Kazakistan. Exfor is international. IAEA is international.
    Do you think that cold fusion is hindered by an international plot?

    alan smith

    Quote

    The blind leading the blind, ever deeper into the abyss.


    Dramatic.
    You are hinting at IAEA, BNL and many others, very demanding objectives:
    Japan Charged Particle Nuclear Reaction Data Group, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
    Center of Nuclear Physics Data, Russian Federal Nuclear Center (VNIIEF), Sarov, Russia
    Nuclear Data Centre, Obninsk, Russia
    China Nuclear Data Center, Beijing, China
    OECD/NEA Nuclear Data Bank, Issy Les-Moulineaux, France
    Nowhere is cold fusion mentioned. You have to trust JR, a specialist in Japanese literature.
    In fact you are alone.

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.