Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • 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:


    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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • (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.

  • 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.

  • 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 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.





    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?

  • 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.

  • 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.


    The demonstration held on January 14, 2011, was not a useful test for demonstrating the performances of the Ecat, but it can be a very useful test for verifying the credibility of the testers of the Ecat.


    The credibility of the testers is the first prerequisite of a test. Usually, it is taken for granted by their title and by their being a member of a prominent Institute, as argued by JR in many of his comments (Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”), for instance: "This tells us that various professors at the university have been involved for some time, and they designed and implemented the calorimetry. I do not think there is any way Rossi could "fool" these people. I think that would be physically impossible."


    This is common sense, but did Rossi needed to fool them?


    Quote

    Yes, it was an historic event, but it was not the first demonstration, merely the first public one.


    The earlier demonstrations don't count, they were private facts. The January 14, 2011 demo, on the contrary, signs the beginning of the LENR+ phase of the CF/LENR saga. It's a mediatic event, as the March 23, 1989, press conference. Its target was not primarily the scientific community, but the public opinion. An article issued in October 2012 on Popular Science (a magazine translated into over 30 languages and distributed to at least 45 countries, with more than one million readers worldwide), begins with a big "ON JANUARY 14, 2011 ...". (see http://pesn.com/2012/10/16/960…-Box--by_Popular-Science/).


    This event has been the changing point for the LENR field, as recently recalled by Rossi himself: "Before the event of January 2011, when we introduced our E-Cat prototype together with Prof Focardi of the University of Bologna, the LENR people was confined in a village of zombies and the LENR were globally considered less than zero. No one was financing any serious R&D in the field. After my work LENR got a tremendous momentum that initiated serious R&D by concerns like Volvo, Elforsk, Mitsubishi, NASA, MIT etc etc etc. in all the world, obtaining the attention of the highest echelons of the DOE and the DOD in the United States of America, …" (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=144#comment-1209814)


    So, let's see in what this event consisted.


    Quote

    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.


    The photo you refer is not mine, its source is indicated in the above jpeg: "B – Detail of photo140111rossifocardi1652b.jpg from http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…naca-test-fusione_14.html (Daniele Passerini)". Therefore it is not a "my" evidence, it is an evidence given by the photo 1652b (ie the second photo (b) taken at 16:52) shown in the cited post on 22passi, which contains many other photos showing the same probe.


    Quote

    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!


    OK, it's a possible explanation, even if it would be quite weird. Anyway, let's see if your hypothesis is plausible.
     
    Look at this other old jpeg (http://i.imgur.com/hQdNIim.jpg)

    This is the English translation of the scripts:


    The 3 arrowed red curves connect the 3 photos to the corresponding time points on the PC diagram, which shows the 3 temperature curves monitored during the demo. The upper one refers to the fluid temperature at the outlet. You can see that the duration of the boiling period is about 20 minutes (the half of what reported by Levi), and the second photo has been taken just in the middle of this period. Its image (horizontally flipped with respect to the reality) comes from one of the monitors placed in the large saloon, from where the invited people followed what was happening in the lab. In that moment (at 17:09) the probe with the yellow wire was plugged into its portable instrument, hold by a person, presumabily Galantini. This portable instrument couldn't have been a Delta Ohm HD37AB1347, because no one of its probes has a bipolar plug like the one you can see at the end of the yellow wire (http://www.otm.sg/blogs/post/F…ment-probes/#.V6CFYmOP9co).


    So, the Delta Ohm HP474AC probe and the correspondent portable instrument HD37AB1347, cited in the Levi's report were not there, and their presence has been invented by someone. The major problem is that this incongruence has not been detected and denounced by Levi, nor by anyone of his many colleagues involved in the Ecat project.


    Quote

    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.


    These claims are not mine. I don't make claims, I only suggest to look at documents available on internet. I don't ask anybody to trust me. People should normally trust the professors and the other scientists which are paid by public Institutes to search, tell and defend the scientific truth, and who are not expected to lie, for any reason. But in this case, you have to chose to believe the statements from the scientists OR your own eyes, NOT me.


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


    No problem for that. I just hope that he is not going to accuse me to be part of a gang of trolls …45 …65 …85 ... :)


    I've instead been more interested by his addressing to me in third person singular. I don't know how to interpret it. I'm in doubt between a kindly tentative of him to mimic our Italian courtesy mode, or an astute expedient for keeping talk with me without renouncing to his intention to not speaking to unknown people. :)


  • 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?


    That statement is not true. There has been a decision made by the gatekeepers of these databases to exclude nuclear reactions that are theoretically possible and not yet encountered in mainstream experimentation. These reactions involve anapole magnetic interaction with the nucleus and the nuclear reactions, both fusion and fission, catalyzed by mesons which specifically involve pions, muons, and tau subatomic particles.


    This decision to exclude is based on the assumption that these particles and field cannot be produced in large enough volumes that would make these associated reactions apparent in experimentation.


    What this decision does not cover is the possibility that these nuclear active particles and forces can be produced by technologies that might be invented now and in the future that generate these nuclear active agents in massive quantities.


    As one example among many, Leif Holmlid has shown that these nuclear active particles can be produced in massive volumes with a relatively small investment in input energy. These reactions are economic and prolific under the purview of their specific production technologies. This fact confounds and invalidates the basic assumptions that underlie nuclear databases worldwide. Furthermore, these experimental results also invalidate the opinions and teachings of the people who compile and use these databases.


    If science runs true to form, it may take decades before prolific meson and magnetic nuclear reaction causation is generally recognized as valid, but until that time of insight occurs, we will all live in a time of continued ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity.

  • I've instead been more interested by his addressing to me in third person singular. I don't know how to interpret it. I'm in doubt between a kindly tentative of him to mimic our Italian courtesy mode, or an astute expedient for keeping talk with me without renouncing to his intention to not speaking to unknown people.


    When I want to have a personal conversation, I prefer in person, by phone ,or text, or email, in that order. I have about thirty years of experience with participation in online "conferencing." As with mailing lists, in a forum like this, I normally address the group. I may make chatty exceptions. Notice, here, that Ascoli65 uses the third person writing about me. That's fine with me. It is not discourteous.

  • The demonstration held on January 14, 2011, was not a useful test for demonstrating the performances of the Ecat, but it can be a very useful test for verifying the credibility of the testers of the Ecat.


    No, because this was a demonstration under the control of Rossi. This was not a group of experts testing; rather, they observed a demonstration. One thing that has definitely been demonstrated, over and over, is that experts operating outside their familiar realm can easily fall into major errors.


    In general, Rossi excluded people expert in, say, calorimetry. Rather, any physicist or anyone with certain science training may know enough to understand calorimetry, but not have the experience to know where it can go wrong or can be fooled. They would not be familiar with possible artifacts. Galantini apparently had no experience with steam engineering. His meter error is an incredible blunder, but it's understandable, because his actual expertise was not relevant.


    Someone like Jed Rothwell, though not formally a scientist, would know about these problems. And he was uninvited when he said he'd bring his own instruments. Steve Krivit would also be familiar with the issues, but was allowed to witness a demonstration. He was not fooled. Kirivit is off-the-wall, a yellow journalist, but he did do his job in reporting the problems he saw. Where he went off the rails was in repeating with every report "convicted felon" or "convicted fraud" which were irrelevant and possibly misleading. Or not. Krivit is always, however, looking for the dramatic story.


    Aside from Krivit, who is marginal as an expert, Rossi never allowed observation of his tests by experts in cold fusion, which has had to deal with the possibility of calorimetric error for decades. Focardi would be an exception, and Focardi was not sophisticated as to the possibilities of fraud, and Rossi has a personal presentation that is apparently endearing (there are many reports, even from people who later concluded something was very off.)


    Asocli65, you are beating a dead horse here. Those tests have been thoroughly discredited. None of the Rossi "testers" have any positive reputation in the field of LENR. I cannot think of one. There is a scientist, an expert on nuclear theory, author of a text on it, who has cooperated with Rossi in presenting a theory, Norman Cook. Cook has no experimental experience with cold fusion and has apparently accepted Rossi's claims without question.

  • He was not fooled. Kirivit is off-the-wall, a yellow journalist, but he did do his job in reporting the problems he saw.


    I was a little disappointed in his report. I recall I asked him if he had photos of the flowmeter, power supply and other equipment. It would have been easy to take a photo or jot down the make and models. He did not. There were no such details in the report. I asked whether he made any independent measurements of the flow and temperature. Or whether he at least tried to make measurements. He did not.


    Granted, Rossi might have interfered if he had started taking pictures or jotting down the make and model numbers. A few weeks before Krivit went there, Rossi invited me and then abruptly uninvited me when I said I would bring a camera, thermometers, etc. He said he would not allow anyone to make independent measurements. So I said "no thank you" and he called Krivit instead.


    Not allowing people to check the temperature and flow is kinda suspicious, wouldn't you say? At least, it would be suspicious anywhere other than Planet Rossi.

  • The credibility of the testers is the first prerequisite of a test. Usually, it is taken for granted by their title and by their being a member of a prominent Institute, as argued by JR in many of his comments (Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”), for instance: "This tells us that various professors at the university have been involved for some time, and they designed and implemented the calorimetry. I do not think there is any way Rossi could "fool" these people. I think that would be physically impossible."


    This is common sense, but did Rossi needed to fool them?

    It was not common sense, this sounds like Jed Rothwell, who is highly opinionated and who writes stuff like that and later realizes it was dumb. What was the context? Ascoli65 does not provide a link, but the title of an ECW blog post. What he quotes is not there.


    This is quite clear to anyone who is familiar with the history of science: Being a "member of a prominent institute," unfortunately, can be synonymous with "doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground" on the topic, if it is not his specialty. Endorsement by "scientists" is a common refuge of fringe lunatics and charlatans. And, yes, I am aware of the irony. I do not consider cold fusion real because it has been "validated" by "prominent scientists." Prominent scientists can make huge mistakes, even within what seems to e their field. Cold fusion is, by the name, assumed to be in the realm of nuclear physics, but was, from the beginning, recognized -- by Pons and Fleischmann, as being an "unknown reaction." The important experimental evidence, however, wasn't "nuclear measurements." It was heat, and that was the expertise of Pons and Fleischmann. So, by the customs of science, their report, within their expertise, would properly be accepted. Their conclusion would be dicta, because they were not qualified. And then what amounts to a mystery would simply have been investigated, without all the hysteria.


    Science looks for independent confirmation before leaping. Independent confirmation is essential, and this is precisely what was missing from all those Rossi reports, and it is still missing.


    I was unable to find the original for the Rothwell quote. However, probably in 2011, I wrote that a skilled con could fool any expert, if the con has control of a demonstration. As I recall, Rothwell argued against this. He had the idea that true experts couldn't be fooled. You can see similar ideas being expressed by him recently, talking about HVAC experts in calorimetry. They couldl be fooled. Unless they can run truly independent tests. This concept of independent confirmation of experimental work is fundamental to science. To the naive, "independent confirmation" comes to mean a likely independent person who witnesses a demonstration. In fact, in science, it means that the report is independent, the experimental work is not only observed by an independent person, but that person puts it all together and manages it, not the original claimant.


    There are degrees, and McKubre has gone over this in his comments on replications. In a fully-independent replication everything is done without any participation from the original claimant. However, there could be independent confirmation of a product's performance, for example. One would want to obtain the product as a standard model, such that more than one independent investigator can confirm. Rossi could easily have arranged all this, it could have been fully protected as to his secrets ... but he did not. That's telling.


    The *testing* would be using a written protocol. With a minor departure, Rossi could have been consulted over the phone. However, that would all be documented.

  • So we know CAM knows of the words Cold Fusion, LENR, IAEA, BNL, EXFOR, GANS, NEA, OECD, ...


    BUT: He is yet to tell us If he actually KNOWS something.


    Like something about cold fusion science, CF papers, CF experiments, CF experimental results and possible consequences of CF on our current knowledge of matter and physics.


    "You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
    ― Richard Feynman

  • axil

    Quote

    This decision to exclude is based on the assumption that these particles and field cannot be produced in large enough volumes that would make these associated reactions apparent in experimentation.


    While we are waiting for experimentation on weak force, let me ask you: do you believe that actually cold fusion reactions exist, but they are all rejected by all databases?

  • [I wrote:]


    The photo you refer is not mine,


    You used it, it's yours. Yes, you took it from somewhere. I described it. I assumed the photo was valid. And then pointed out that it did not show what was claimed, an a single photo could not possibly do that.


    Quote

    its source is indicated in the above jpeg: "B – Detail of photo140111rossifocardi1652b.jpg from http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…naca-test-fusione_14.html (Daniele Passerini)". Therefore it is not a "my" evidence, it is an evidence given by the photo 1652b (ie the second photo (b) taken at 16:52) shown in the cited post on 22passi, which contains many other photos showing the same probe.


    You have not source-attributed the marked up jpg. What you are showing, and what I already saw, before responding, was a number of photos that do not show the subject temperature/humidity probe.


    Quote

    [i wrote:]


    OK, it's a possible explanation, even if it would be quite weird. Anyway, let's see if your hypothesis is plausible.


    Thanks. Now, Galantini's comment could be true if he made a single measurement. How long would that take him? Mostly, temperature was being monitored. Galantini was not recording data with his meter, as far as we know. When it was used, the probe we see was used to record "steam temperature." Galantini also needed to measure pressure. I don't know how he did it, but I think his meter might have had a probe for that, I forget.



    That the Delta Ohm instrument was not present at some point during the test is not shown. What is shown is that a different probe was plugged in to a different instrument (at 17:90). However, that other instrument had no means for measuring humidity, or what Galantini thought would tell him steam quality, water grams per cubic meter. So at some point, it's not clear, and assuming his statements are true and Levi's as well, he insterted Delta Ohn probe and used the meter to read off grams per cubic meter. He only had to do it once, there is no claim it was done more than once.


    I attempted to find the video reference in that image. using test in image is a very poor way to present information. It cannot be readily copied and links don't work. The youtube video link shown in the image doesn't exist. That the probe is not seen in those photos is not evidence -- at all -- that the device and its probe were not there, yet Ascoli65 seems to consider it proof such that he can claim that their presence has been "invented by someone." Galantini surely knew if it was used or not. Levi, probably.


    I do not trust the expertise on these issues of those scientists, but trying to make them into frauds on the basis of such thin evidence is beyond the pale. Sure, you could ask the question, but you have done much more than that.


    And for what? It's moot. What you are doing is to try to add discredit, reprehensibility, to what is bad enough, their foolishness. My chagrin, on behalf of science and scientists, is that they never admitted the errors, even though they are blatant and they must have become aware of them. Something is drastically off. But it's quite human to try to evade responsibility, just not what we expect of scientists.