Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    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title and by their being a member of a prominent Institute, as argued by JR in many of his comments (Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”), for instance: "This tells us that various professors at the university have been involved for some time, and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.

    Quote from andrea.s


    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. :)

    Quote from cam


    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.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    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.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    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.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    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.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    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?

    Quote from Ascoli65

    [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.

    Quote from cam

    axil


    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 provided the list of reactions to you, did you look at it? If you did, you can answer that question for yourself. Do you lead or are you a follower? A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus. If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader. Do you want to add to those databases or be imprisoned by them?

    axil

    Quote

    I provided the list of reactions to you, did you look at it?


    You only provided me with this list of reactions made at Super-Kamiokande:
    http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.…publications/index-e.html
    I can't find anything else.
    I hope you do not consider weak reactions useful in this context, where people are looking for useful energy. At Super-Kamokande a nuclear event/day is a great success.
    In my opinion we should stay linked at the thread, which is cold fusion. Super-Kamiokande has nothing to do with us.
    Are you interested in a particular cold reaction? Write it down and I'll give you all the information I can get from BNL database. Are you American? BNL is American, I hope you rely on it.


    The connection between Super-Kamiokande and LENR is the GUT theory of LENR where the nucleon decays as a result of EMF force screening. Super-Kamiokande is looking for nucleon decay.


    See for background


    A simplified theory of LENR

    Progress, not baloney. I'll sign up for that.
    In a blind taste test, can the average person tell the difference between baloney and Spam?
    Well, what a watered down abyss is average these days.
    Spam is a treat, not a pejorative, to many.
    Do you want Cheeze Whiz with that?
    Bologna and baloney. The same thing to most. They can't spell either anyways, so WTF? Cheeze Whiz is a treat, so baloney is, like, a super treat.

    Paradigmnoia

    Quote

    Bologna and baloney. The same thing to most.


    Joking is easy for you, not for an Italian. Piantelli, Focardi, Levi, Rossi, Celani, Violante are all Italians. Somebody said that cold fusion speaks Italian and Japanese. Not a relished compliment indeed. Italians can do better. The present general manager of CERN is an Italian woman, Fabiola Gianotti.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    No, because this was a demonstration under the control of Rossi. This was not a group of experts testing; rather, they observed a demonstration.


    No, it wasn't. As written in the press release (1), the January 14, 2011 test was announced to be "held by a researcher of the Physics Department of the University of Bologna".


    It has been confirmed the same day of the demo by Focardi in his welcome speech to the invited public (2): "There are some colleagues of the Department of Physics which are providing the calibration of different instruments that are used for measurement".


    It have been fully confirmed after the demo in the Brief Technical Description (BTD) (3), where we can read: "The experiment was organized by Dr. Giuseppi Levi to establish the ECat’s performance as a “black box”. That is, Dr. Levi’s instruments measured the electrical power and hydrogen supplied to and consumed by the ECat and measured the amount and temperature of the water to be heated to steam by the ECat, which was operated by Dr. Rossi." And further: "There is another probe without its electronics that measures the dryness of the exiting steam. The instrument used was a Delta Ohm HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality Monitor that was operated by a specialist on the faculty of the University of Bologna."


    You see? It was a "black box" test. Rossi was only operating the Ecat. All the calorimetric instruments were under the control of the physicists of UniBo, even those for checking the dryness of the steam.


    We can be sure of this, because the title of the BTD includes the name of "University of Bologna, and INFN" and, in announcing its loading in his library, JR said that he got all the okay's (4). So we should presume that JR sent the BTD draft to the proper representatives of those scientific Institutions, some people there thoroughly verified its content, and finally gave the okay to let the BTD be published. Unless someone (not Rossi) reported untrue information.


    Quote

    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.


    Whom are you talking about? Levi? No, sorry, you are wrong.


    He teaches physics in the most prestigious Italian Department of Physics, this fact alone excludes that he could have been fooled by a philosopher with a controversial past. Moreover, he has patents on coffee machines, so he has some extra reasons to be informed about steam and heat balance, and, above all, he was a member of a Skeptic Society and also a passionate of magic (5).


    In conclusion, Levi had by far all the scientific knowledge to understand the simple flow calorimetry used in the demo and all the required suspiciousness and skills to detect any possible artifact or trick. It's absolutely impossible that Rossi could have fooled him.


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    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.


    Let me understand. You admit that at 17:09 (in the middle of the presumed maximum power period) a temperature probe (let's call it T), different from the Delta Ohm probe (let's call it RH) cited in the report, was present on the top of the Ecat and was used by Galantini. Fine, up to here we agree.


    But you say that, at some point, the T probe could have been substituted by the RH probe. Don't you?


    Well, look, please, at the following photo of Passerini which shows the image of the lab as appeared on a monitor in the main saloon crowded of people (6):

    There was at least six people in the lab. Four were around the Ecat, a device which, in that moment, was expected to generate 16 kW of heat from an unknown nuclear source, which was cooled by means of a flow of hot dry steam at about 100 °C. Have you an idea of the velocity of a jet of steam escaping from the hole of 14 mm of diameter at the top of the Ecat? It would have been around 70 m/s, assuming the hole was fully free from obstacles. You can imagine by yourself (or maybe not) what would happen during the removing and the introduction of a probe in that hole, placed at the same level of the people heads.


    Consider that in order to support your hypothesis, there should have been a double switching of probes (T-RH-T) in only a few minutes, before (13 minutes) or after (7 minutes) the photo. That's absurd. The photo shows that the man(Galantini?) holding the portable instrument doesn't seem to be in hurry. He is relaxed, one hand in the pocket. There is nothing that allows us to suppose that he just switched twice, or was going to switch, the probes inside a nuclear reactor producing 16 kW of hot steam: no gloves for touching the stem of the probes, no safety mask (or helmet) to protect his face and those of the other people from the unavoidable steam jets.


    Your hypothesis is not realistic, it’s a vain tentative to provide a consistency to the statements about the use of the Delta Ohm instruments cited in the Rothwell's BTD and in the Levi's report. Those instruments have not been used for checking the dryness of the steam in the January 14, 2011 demo, and, therefore, someone has invented their presence in the test.


    (1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…1-Levi-PressRelease.shtml
    (2) "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0ysNSN9Ng" Video 1/3
    (3) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf
    (4) "https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41484.html"
    (5) http://www.youtube.com/user/gbblevi
    (6) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_852S…0111rossifocardi1709b.jpg

    • Official Post


    Well said. Time someone spoke up for Bologna University and Professor Levi in particular.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Bologna and baloney. The same thing to most.


    Watch this video of top pathoskeptic, and wizened fool, James Randi:


    youtu.be/3BemTGkjl6U?t=336


    It's apparent that he's never heard of the world's oldest university (Bologna), describing it as "crap" not worth mentioning. Then he goes on to pronounce his views, as if he is some kind of physics professor, and not a former circus performer.

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.