Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    Quote from Eric Walker

    But by all means give it a try. He can defend himself on the specifics of his statements pertaining to the 2011 demo.


    I'd like to understand better by his own words his position about the 2011 demo and the other first tests documented by Levi at the beginning of 2011. I already asked him (1), but in vain, to specify which tests he means with "first set of tests by Levi". Of course, he is not obliged to answer. Then, you came up to justify in some way his position, so I explained you the reasons why I think he should give to the LENR community some more clarifications about those tests and about the role he possibly played in defining the calorimetric data of the 2011 demo.


    This particular L-F thread deals with a non public E-cat test, which, on JR words, “looked like it worked”, even if he can't be sure. Probably, it was the AmpEnerco Run II test, held on September 25, 2009, one of the Ecat tests whose results have been discussed by McKubre at his October 11, 2011, public presentation (2).


    If you go at t=5:59 of the YouTube video, this test is the first of a list of three Ecat test. The last two are the Bologna tests, which turned out to be completely flawed as shown in the previous comments (3-4) of this thread. Also the results of the last Ecat test discussed by McKubre in the video (since t=9:08) can be explained in a very mundane way (5).


    So the only Ecat results that cannot be explained are those of the US test shown on the top of the McKubre slide, for which we have no public data to examine. In this case, we can rely only on the downward credibility chain expressed by his words ("ex program manager at DARPA, very, very intelligent man" or "a very smart guy") and on our upward credulity chain, as have to do the persons seated in front of the worldwide maximum expert of CF/LENR. In this case the two chains met in a room with a few dozen old people. In other cases the same two chains met on the colorful pages of popular scientific and political magazines directed to millions of readers, mostly young.


    The next meeting between the two chains is scheduled for the next September 22, at the US House of Representative between the bottom-up representatives of the US people, and the top-down representative of the US Gov. Let's see what will be said.


    (1) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”
    (2)

    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.

    (3) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”
    (4) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”
    (5) Mats Lewan's Test Report

    Quote

    If it was a hoax, it was inexplicable.


    Hoaxes are only explicable if one has all the facts. Without knowing exactly how the test was performed and what data were obtained, one does not have the facts. I surmise it's a hoax since every Rossi demo or test has left room for hoaxing during the more than five years of tests (9 years if you really believe Rossi heated a factory with an ecat in 2007, ROTFWL). If one is not hoaxing, one closes the gaps and fixes the tests. Instead, Rossi goes on to even more fantastic tests with even more gaps for hoaxing. If ecats worked, the history of their development would be entirely different. And Rossi's claims to have customers and orders and robotic factories would be true. But so far, no independent customer at all known to the public, no publicly available reports of working ecats not associated in some way directly with Rossi, and nobody has publicly announced seeing a factory, much less a robotic factory. And those are facts.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    I surmise it's a hoax since every Rossi demo or test has left room for hoaxing during the more than five years of tests


    But not this one, as far as I know. Or if it was a hoax, it was someone else who did it. Rossi did not supply the instruments or set up the test, and it was not at his facility. This set of tests has more credibility than other ones. They would have to be repeated before they are convincing, but they are not easily explained as a hoax performed by Rossi.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    This particular L-F thread deals with a non public E-cat test, which, on JR words, “looked like it worked”, even if he can't be sure.


    That was not the 2011 test. To be honest, I don't recall much about the individual tests and I am too lazy to look them up. I do not think I was paying close attention in 2011, and I did not get much information.

    Quote

    No he didn't. That was done by journalists of the Italian papers.

    Of course, yes... but that is sort of hair splitting. To be precise then, Krivit neatly collected and summarized decades of news reports and interviews about frauds and criminality on the part of Ross -- frauds of which the LENR community seemed to be completely unaware and even now does not give enough weight to. Better? And yes, Jed, I know your view that Rossi could be a criminal and still have made a discovery. Possible but extremely improbable. The criminal history speaks to the veracity of his inconsistent and unlikely reports and comments on the misnamed idiotic blog of his, JONP. If he lied and defrauded an Italian province and the DOD/CERL, it is likely he is lying and defrauding still. Or did he suddenly get religion and decide to help all those poor children with cancer? How is that going by the way, now that Rossi has money and condos? Sorry for diverging like that but the more you know about Rossi's claims, the less likely they get.


    Quote

    Rossi did not supply the instruments or set up the test, and it was not at his facility.

    Of course, absent the protocol and the data. and, as you note, replication, the test is worthless and meaningless. Rossi certainly supplied the ecat and probably as a black box. And, as you know, my favorite theory about Rossi's earliest cheating methods is misplacing the output temp thermocouple right on top of the comparatively giant heater that dominates the construction of all ecats and hot cats. That ruse would be revealed by proper calibration using the same heater and the same output power measuring methods as are used in the live run. But we don't know if such calibration was done. Since no Rossi experiment has EVER had proper calibration, it is a reasonable assumption that this one did not either. But of course we don't know. So the report is, as I said earlier, without any "probative" value.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Of course, absent the protocol and the data. and, as you note, replication, the test is worthless and meaningless.


    I do not see your point. The people who did the tests know the protocol and they have the data. They used conventional HVAC techniques.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Rossi certainly supplied the ecat and probably as a black box.


    Yes. As if it were an ordinary boiler. You do not need to look inside a boiler, or disassemble it, to test efficiency.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    And, as you know, my favorite theory about Rossi's earliest cheating methods is misplacing the output temp thermocouple right on top of the comparatively giant heater that dominates the construction of all ecats and hot cats.


    The people who set up the test placed the thermocouples and other instruments. Rossi did not. As long as the TC is placed properly, some distance from the reactor, and the water is properly stirred, the method of cheating you describe cannot work. It is very easy to confirm the water is stirred. You just dump some into a bucket, stir it, and see if the temperature is the same as it registers in the pipe. State regulations and ASME boiler standards both specify that thermometers must be mounted on a straight pipe a certain distance away from a boiler. This is to avoid an effect like the one you describe.


    I am talking about the tests that gave rise to this thread and the one observed Tether, which I believe is part of the same series. I was not aware of this particular test but it is from about the same date.


    The people who did the test might have cheated but I do not think Rossi had the opportunity to do so in this situation.

    • Official Post
    Quote from JedRothwell

    But not this one, as far as I know. Or if it was a hoax, it was someone else who did it. Rossi did not supply the instruments or set up the test, and it was not at his facility. This set of tests has more credibility than other ones.



    Jed,


    Such an independent test would be very important. Do you know why they decided to keep it quiet, or why they will not allow you to speak up?


    Seems to me this: "I have a secret and you don't...hahaha" :) has plagued the industry for some time. Or at least it has the LENR+ side. Getting harder to take this whole thing seriously.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Do you know why they decided to keep it quiet, or why they will not allow you to speak up?


    I have no idea why they keep it quiet. Probably they will never release the data. I have tons of unpublished cold fusion information. Most of it is worthless. This might be of value. I never publish without permission.

    • Official Post

    Jed,


    What a coincidence reading of your inexplicably having your hands tied from reporting on a successful, and independent verification of the Ecat, as I just read in the official ICCF19 proceedings McKubre's summary, where he criticized the field for keeping secrets from each other. Said in so many words that doing so had held LENR back for 26 years, and that it is time everyone stop with the "I have a secret, and you don't...hahaha"...OK I made that part up :) ,but he did say that for the good of all, all involved needed to cut the crap and get their best experiment out to others to study and replicate.


    Curious, do you also think this secrecy game has held LENR back?

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    The continuing silence of Levi and the professors is also disappointing.



    Excuse me if I enter in the discussion but I have a question. I'm a specialist in criminal psychology.
    Very interesting. "Mary". (We know who you are George)
    We have noted that there is a high level of hate in your word. Have you ever planned scale from words to facts ?
    Probably the huge amount of hate writing is a substitution for a real killing.
    And also. How did you think that is ever possible that Levi (the designed "victim" of the group) or others answer to you ?
    Are disappointed because you receive no attentions ?

    Quote from Shane D.

    Curious, do you also think this secrecy game has held LENR back?


    I think so. On the other hand, most secret results I know about are worthless. I suppose most published results are too.


    It seems to me that in business, secret development projects tend to be overrated. Excessive secrecy is not conducive to good product development. In the 1980s, IBM was famous for keeping things secret, whereas Microsoft and others more often discussed what they were hoping to do. They solicited customer input. That worked out better.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    That was not the 2011 test.


    That's exactly what I said. The test that gave rise to this thread is the one called AmpEnerco Run II in the McKubre's speech, whose video is linked above, and it was held on September 25, 2009, about two months before the test revealed by the Krivit's mails.


    BUT ... in the same list shown by McKubre, the AmpEnerco test was followed by the two tests held in Bologna at beginning of 2011. These are three apples in the same basket. In the same video, McKubre discussed also a fourth apple outside the basket, the test held on October 6, 2011. We have public data only for the 3 tests held in 2011, and from these data we can easily deduce that 3 out of 4 apples were poisoned. What about the fourth apple (the 2009 test), that we can't analyze in any way? I fear, it is the same of the other apples.


    Quote

    I do not think I was paying close attention in 2011


    The demo held on January 14, 2011, was the first public test of the LENR+ era. It is the most celebrated event of this era. Sorry, but it's very hard to believe that you didn't pay close attention to it. Who wrote the nearly ten mails per day that bear your name as author on the Vortex mailing list, in the weeks immediately following the demo (1)?


    Quote

    I did not get much information.


    One of the above email (2), sent to Vortex the day after the demo, says: "I spoke with one of the people in the project about the calorimetry. Then I typed up the notes from our conversation as a brief report (400 words). I e-mailed the report to the researchers so they can confirm I got the numbers and other details correct, and also add the name and model numbers of some of the instruments."


    And another email (3), sent the next day, resumes publicly, for the first time in absolute on the web, the calorimetric data of the test, but, unfortunately, without reporting the name and model numbers of the instruments!


    If you really were the author of the above two mails, you were the most informed man in the world, apart the members of the test team.


    (1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/search?a=1&l=vortex-l%40eskimo.com&haswords=&x=6&y=14&from=Rothwell&subject=&datewithin=1w&date=2011-01-20&notwords=&o=relevance"
    (2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41364.html"
    (3) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg41410.html"

    Quote

    I do not see your point.

    My point is a bit obvious-- that we can't evaluate that secret study you mentioned because we do not have the protocol and the data. So, while a mention may be of passing interest, it really has no particular value to the public regarding the issue of Rossi's device working or not. Unknown people did unknown things to some device provided by Rossi and they said it was interesting. Oh... OK. I've read better evidence than that that pigs fly. That's my point. I think if they saw excess heat in anything made by Rossi, they screwed the pooch with the measurements. That's also my point. I can't prove it but it's a reasonable inference from everything else that people around Rossi have done -- all of, 100% of it, incompetent except for the very few experiments in which the results were entirely negative, for example in Sweden.

    @Wyttenbach:Page 30 is certainly impressive. It is my impression, however, that Dardyk's work (isn't that one of the ones featured in 2009 in the 60 Minutes piece?) has been discredited by experts. Jed probabky knows more about it but if it were valid, I would expect much more development in 12 years!

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    most secret results I know about are worthless. I suppose most published results are too.



    For Jed/MY: Here one worthless "paper" with a huge COP.. look at page 30!!


    What is your point? I did not say that all published results are worthless. I said "most." Do you think I would be working on cold fusion if I thought all published results are worthless?


    You say strange & pointless things.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    It is my impression, however, that Dardyk's work (isn't that one of the ones featured in 2009 in the 60 Minutes piece?) has been discredited by experts.


    Not as far as I know. Perhaps you are thinking of his medical claims. Some people claim they are discredited. I wouldn't know about that.


    I do not think he has been able to reproduce the high power results in recent years.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    One of the above email (2), sent to Vortex the day after the demo, says: "I spoke with one of the people in the project about the calorimetry. Then I typed up the notes from our conversation as a brief report (400 words).


    A brief, 400 word report is not what I would call "well informed." Well informed would be something like a spreadsheet with every instrument reading for the entire run.


    Quote from Ascoli65

    If you really were the author of the above two mails, you were the most informed man in the world, apart the members of the test team.


    In that case the most informed person outside the team knew practically nothing. There was not much additional information forthcoming, as I recall.

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.