JedRothwell
QuoteI wasn't aware that Focardi did not speak English well.
He used Rossi as interpreter.
He used Rossi as interpreter.
So what. He perhaps felt shy that day, or that Rossi should be the spokesman, or that Rossi's English was better. Take it from me Focardi understood and spoke reasonable English and wrote it pretty well, in fact he wrote the first draft of the English language version of Rossi's very first Italian patent application.
Alan Smith
QuoteHe perhaps felt shy that day
Shy that day?! Perhaps...
Let me say that the Italian show was pitiful. Krivit ridiculed both. You should compare the Italian and its translation into English.
Not so- Focardi's written English was pretty good, and his 'technical conversation' English quite good enough to hold a social conversation about his work.
For what I saw (1-2), I didn't get the impression that Focardi could have held, at that age, a phone call in English about his work.
For the written documents, assuming he was the only author of their text, I'm not the most suitable to evaluate the quality of his English.
(1) Jun14,2011 - http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Transcript-Excerpts.shtml
(2) Oct6,2011 -
I'm not the most suitable to evaluate the quality of his English.
No, but I probably am a good judge. There are a few grammatical errors in the patent but no so many. As for telephone calls, these are always difficult especially when you get old as he and I am- I speak pretty good French but telephone calls are much harder than face-to-face for me.
Ascoli65
QuoteWhy a scammer?
Because he perfectly knows that E-Cat doesn't work.
Der Spiegel 25.11.2013:
Auch Ulrich Samm, Leiter der Kernfusionsforschung am Forschungszentrum Jülich, sieht keinen Grund, sich damit auseinanderzusetzen: "Was Herr Rossi macht, gehört in die Kategorie Scharlatanerie."
Der Spiegel 20.11.2014:
Genie oder Scharlatan?
...
Die Methode von Herrn Rossi erinnert sehr an Zaubertricks.
Italian translation of scammer: truffatore, ciarlatano.
Also Mary Yugo has used the words scam, scammer.
So, I wouldn't be so fussy.
Ich auch siehe keinen Grund, uns damit auseinanderzusetzen.
Otherwise propose yourself the English word describing the thing and be happy.
POST REMOVED - CONTAINS INSULTING CONTENT ONLY. Alan
POST REMOVED - CONTAINS INSULTING CONTENT ONLY. Alan
If you wish to know whether the DoD benefited from the Ecat affair, I don't know. This is a good question to be submitted to the Secretary of Defense at the next briefing to the US House Committee on Armed Service to be held on September 22.
Ascoli, you insist so much on this involvement that you must have an opinion.
I made an example already, which many LENR enthusiasts like (in short: cold fusion is real and secreted by DoD, and Rossi is used to misdirect).
Other possibilities: free energy scams - Rossi included - are part of a counterinformation strategy of the DoD, in parallel to suspect declarations of huge tight oil reserves, to influence oil prices and/or confuse the "enemy". How is that? At least you should appreciate my efforts to think twisted. Not a very successful contribution from the Ecat though. Only ECW and a few here still hope.
First, the rods are heated somewhat by the leads.
Paradigmoia ..... still working in summer !
Dear boy Rods ware mainly heated by Thermal Conduction from the reactor body. So the heat you see in the rods is mainly to attribute to the reactor and is a nonsense to subtract it to the electrical input power.
You are arificially augmentig the reactor COP factor by doing this, but I think you have not even realized that !
I suggest you to not mess up with numbers just to arrive to erroneous conclusions.
Is summer ! take a vacation !
@randombit0,
Nice of you to join us again. You may be correct, but I would like to see if what you posit is consistent with the available report data and competing alternate hypotheses.
The report claims that the leads exiting the caps were heated by conduction from the reactor. I'm not quite sure I'm ready to follow that supposition just yet. I can see clearly in a photo (Figure 12a, page 25) that the glow inside the rods stops sharply, probably where the leads meet the C2 cables.
If the COP goes up (or down), then that's what it does.
I am more interested now in why the caps do not seem to be heated as well as the rods from the reactor, since they are in the middle. (This is preliminary, of course). But since the caps must be hot in order to heat the rods (the lead wires passing through the caps "conducting" heat from the reactor to there as well, one might presume. Or maybe just heated by normal Joule heating of the coil+leads (not including the C2 cables)?
I just finished doing the first batch of W/cm^2 heating plots, breaking the reactor into Main, Caps, and Rods sections. This can be compared to the % of total coil length in each of these same sections. I have only just got the Dummy part done in multiple different analyses, and am now adding Active Run comparison data. Which is a nuisance since the Caps and Main body are combined in the report. Luckily there are dimensions of each, and the set of full calculations in the report that can be used to separate these parts.
Do you have any suggestions as to how the rods might have calculated in the Active Run? As you may have read above, I am not certain that the 2/3 adjustment was made. It may not affect things too much, or it might. If the report is mostly accurate, this minor issue may indeed raise the reported COP.
Best regards,
P
I don't know what you mean by saying I "presented" the document.
Sorry, I used a false friend between the two languages: "presentare" means "to introduce". I would mean that you announced the Macy's document and you defined it "an interview". The problem is that this document hasn't the classical structure of an interview, with alternating Q&A, that she used in other occasion, for instance with Darden (1). She also uses to describe at the beginning the exact circumstances of the interview. On the contrary, in the so-called interview with Levi, that she titled instead "Specifics of Andrea Rossi’s “Energy Catalyzer” Test, University of Bologna, 1/14/2001", we read after a while:
Quotehttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf
...
Giuseppe Levi, PhD in nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and who works at INFN, offers exclusive comments on the test, which he deemed “an open experiment for physicists. …"
There is no specific mention to the circumstances of the interview. So, I asked myself the reasons of these apparent anomalies and I guessed that the quotes attributed to Levi (7 in total) could have come from the phone call that you mentioned on January 15 mail to Vortex. But if you say that Levi wasn't your direct interlocutor in that occasion, I take it for true. No problem. I have just to imagine who else could have been in possession of all the calorimetric data and why he phone called you within a few hours from the end of the demo.
By the way, there is also another problem, but it's not about you. In her specifics, Macy wrote "Levi … offers exclusive comments on the test". That's quite strange. Levi is a member of a public institute, the Physics Department of UniBo, which publicly took the responsibility to check the performances of the device and allowed him to perform and check the measurements on its behalf. I ask myself how it is possible that the same researcher did offer "in exclusive" to an American journalist his comments on the test, and he did it at least one week before of the releasing of the calorimetric report with the logo of his University.
QuoteI have no knowledge of this interview. Perhaps it was done by e-mail? That's easier than a phone call.
So we don't even know if such an interview has happened! But at least we know that it exists a document which reports some alleged Levi's quotes, that you called such a document "a short interview", and that Macy talked to Levi. It's better than nothing.
QuoteIf you wish to know more about it, I suggest you contact the authors.
I'm already talking with you. You are one of the 3 authors of one of the preliminary reports which divulged world wide the calorimetric data of the January 2011 demo, well in advance of the Levi's report.
QuoteAs a librarian I might be able to find out some more by looking through my notes. If you ask nicely, I might. I am not trying to hide anything but I do not give a fart about this business, so I am not going to make an effort on your behalf unless you ask nicely.
I don't think it's a matter of nicety. I try to be as polite and respectful as possible with you, as with everybody else. If my Engrish could sometime sound nasty or offensive, I apologize in advance. It's not my intention. But let me use a little bit of irony in replying to what I see as a tentative of pulling my leg.
I understand, that you are not willing to reveal all you know, and I think that you, as the first and sole librarian of this field, know a lot of things, especially on the Ecat's story. So, I don't ask you nothing. I just keep on reading your comments, letting my common sense decide case by case if each single sentence is true, untrue or doubtful.
I give you an example. When, as in your last comment, I read "Rossi is not particularly important to me. I make no special effort to keep track of papers relating to him.", I can't avoid to remember that at beginning of 2012 you wrote (2): "Lots of businessmen are like him. Lots of inventors too, notably Edison. They are not saints. Rossi has made tremendous contributions to humanity, ..." You see? These sentences are in blatant contradiction. I'd like to believe all you say, but, in this case, I have necessarily to choose only one, at most, of your positions, and my common sense suggests me to believe that you attributed for years a lot of importance to the Ecat initiative, and, consequently, that you kept track meticulously all the relative documentation.
Let's apply the same method to this phrase of you.
Okay, the only messages I find from Levi to me are ones where he acknowledged a few minor copy-edit corrections to a paper. I suggested they change "a" to "the" in one sentence, and a few other things. He said thanks.
It would seem that the only mail exchange with Levi was for a couple of articles and a thx. But, in the already cited mail you sent to Vortex the day after the demo, you wrote:
Quotehttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41364.html
Will report on Rossi soon
Jed Rothwell Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:19:49 -0800
Okay, 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.
...
After a couple of days, you released, in a mail to Vortex (3), the first Brief Description of the Calorimetry. Two more hours later, you wrote the following:
QuoteDisplay Morehttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41453.html
Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011
Jed Rothwell Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:21:08 -0800
I revised the H2 flow measurement part already.
The first report I will upload today is by Melich. This week or next we should have one by Prof. Levi.
These people are busy, which is why it took so long for them to give my report the once-over, and even they overlooked the part about weighing the H2 bottle. That is what they told me -- I have the handwritten notes, but it is clearly wrong.
...
So, it seems to me that there have been at least one mail exchange between you and the "researchers" involved in the calorimetry measurements devoted to confirm the numbers of your Brief Description. But the people in charge of the calorimetric measurements was Levi, so whoever was your e-mail contact in Bologna he was just a channel between you two. Otherwise the only other option is that you wrote and published your brief report with all the final calorimetric data without consulting the main responsible of the measurements.
My common sense suggests me that you were in touch, directly or indirectly, with Levi. The other option would be worse, much worse.
(1) http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf
(2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg61968.html"
(3) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41442.html"
I would mean that you announced the Macy's document and you defined it "an interview".
I did not define it as anything. That's Marianne's title.
There is no specific mention to the circumstances of the interview.
As I said, I do not know a thing about the interview. If you wish to know you will have to ask her.
I understand, that you are not willing to reveal all you know, and I think that you, as the first and sole librarian of this field, know a lot of things, especially on the Ecat's story.
Well I know a lot about the technical aspects of experiments, but nothing about Rossi's business arrangements or his personal life. If you want to know about those things, read Mats Lewan's book. There was a lot of blather here and at e-catworld about some guy in England who supposedly invested $50 million in I.H. I don't recall the name. Anyway, I told some of the Planet Rossi people at e-catworld I have never heard of that guy and his $50 million, I don't know anything about it, and frankly I do not care about it or consider it any of my business. They accused me of lying! They seem to think I should know all about this gossip and the fake inside information regarding I.H. As if it were some kind of obligation. The only thing I know about their business is what was revealed in the lawsuit, and I never bothered to read the lawsuit documents carefully. Legal documents give me a headache.
I am interested in the technical aspects of cold fusion. I don't waste time on gossip, rumors, speculation, etc. In my experience that sort of thing usually turns out to be wrong.
It would seem that the only mail exchange with Levi was for a couple of articles and a thx. But, in the already cited mail you sent to Vortex the day after the demo, you wrote:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41364.html
Will report on Rossi soon
Jed Rothwell Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:19:49 -0800
Well I don't recall who I talked to, but it wasn't Levi. I am sure it wasn't Rossi either. Why does it matter? Who gives a damn?
JedRothwell
QuoteI am interested in the technical aspects of cold fusion. I don't waste time on gossip, rumors, speculation, etc.
Technical aspects of cold fusion are well outside your field of competence. As a journalist you can only spend time on reporting the deeds of the cold fusionists.
Sutor, ne ultra crepidam!
Technical aspects of cold fusion are well outside your field of competence. As a journalist you can only spend time on reporting the deeds of the cold fusionists.
I am not a journalist, and I know nothing about the "deeds" of plasma fusion researchers. (I assume that is who you mean by "fusionists.") People can judge whether I know about cold fusion by reading the papers I have written on the subject. People cannot judge what you know, or read any of your papers (if you wrote any) because your name is not actually "Cam."
I think that people who post anonymous messages should think twice about criticizing those of us who stand by our work. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
On that note, about throwing stones anonymously, I will briefly describe what I did with the Lugano report data regarding the main reactor body, the caps, and the rods. I then will make a prediction based on the work so far.
I normalized each area, after averaging all the sections in each area to arrive at homogenized areas ( the Main Body, the Caps, and the Rods ) to W/cm^2 for each area. Then I used the area of one cap multiplied by the W/cm^2 for each area to compare the heat power in a Cap-sized units. This may be superfluous, but makes the point more clear. Using Active Run file 5 (to start) and the dummy data I am able to show that the Caps and Rods normalized to the same area (as one Cap), gave the same ratio in both the dummy and for file 5, of Cap to Rods. Approximately 3:1 .
For the Dummy, the Main Body however, has slightly less than a 2:1 ratio to the Cap, (normalized as before to one Cap), while file 5 has nearly a 6:1 ratio of Main Body to Cap, while simultaneously the 3:1 ratio of normalized Cap to Rods remains constant.
So the Rods and Caps move together, but the reactor Main Body moves independent from the pair of Cap and Rods. (Apparently not affecting the Caps in the middle as one might expect).
I predict that if the emissivity error is taken into consideration, and the W/cm^2 is recalculated, and the new ratios calculated, that the three parts will vary equivalently when normalized as described above.
JedRothwell
QuoteI assume that is who you mean by "fusionists".
I wrote "cold fusionists"
QuotePeople cannot judge what you know, or read any of your papers (if you wrote any) because your name is not actually "Cam."
I would be pleased if you browsed my blog:
https://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/domodry/
I am only interested in scientific claims of cold fusionists. I was the first Italian writing an article on Rossi's demo of January 14, 2011. January 30, 2011.
I hope you know a little Italian.
http://www.queryonline.it/wp-c…oads/2011/01/Demo-FR1.pdf
Ascoli, you insist so much on this involvement that you must have an opinion.
I often talk about the DoD involvement in the CF/LENR and in the Ecat because it is evident. I don't say anything secret, and it's not a my guess, it's written in many documents you can find on the web. They are the same facts which lead the Committee of Armed Services of the US House to ask the Secretary of Defense to brief them about these subjects.
I find much more strange that so many people, almost all the so called skeptics, insist to say, against any clear evidence, that the Ecat affair is a Rossi's scam.
It's also strange that most of the people who believe in the reality of the Ecat, is waiting so anxiously the decision of a judge that, maybe, will decide next year on some formal aspects of a legal controversy, and don't pay any attention to the next briefing of the Secretary of the US Department most involved in this story.
QuoteI made an example already, which many LENR enthusiasts like (in short: cold fusion is real and secreted by DoD, and Rossi is used to misdirect).
Other possibilities: free energy scams - Rossi included - are part of a counterinformation strategy of the DoD, in parallel to suspect declarations of huge tight oil reserves, to influence oil prices and/or confuse the "enemy". How is that?
First of all, in this labyrinth full of mirrors, let's fixate a firm point. The cold fusion is not possible (beyond the undetectable amounts allowed by the quantum tunneling effect). This has been clearly established and declared by the mainstream physicists 27 years ago and is confirmed by the nuclear data bases cited by cam. This is also well known to everybody, including those political, economic, industrial (especially those sector, as automotive and aerospace, based on liquid fuel) and scientific entities that in these years have sustained with hundreds of millions the survival of the F&P legend and the appearance of other more popular myths, as the Ecat.
That said, it is straightforward to deduce that there should have been, and there still is, a series of anthropological, geopolitical, economical and financial reasons for this to happen. IMO, these reasons are many, because they vary according to the supporting entity, and have changed throughout the decades. So it's very hard to say which they have been in the past or are at present. But you can find many articles or comments on the web which provide you a lot of possible interconnections between the free energy myths (not scams) and very concrete aspects of our daily reality, just look in the web asking to Google with the appropriate entry words. What I can say is that, in general, the free energy myths favor at short term almost every living human being, me included, so that almost no one has an immediate and material interest to negate them.
Anyway, discussing about the possible past reasons doesn't make much sense in this moment, at less than 2 months from the mentioned briefing. I think that the priority should be taking the occasion to ask for a clarification of the real extent of the DoD support to these initiatives, especially to the Ecat one, in the light of the effects that such myths could have on the present global energy policy and on the future of the humankind.
QuoteAt least you should appreciate my efforts to think twisted.
I mostly appreciate your shift from the technical details of the HotCat toward a wider vision of the background context. Anyway, before any twisted thought, we should look at what is right in front of us, as suggested by the aphorism of Marshall McLuhan which AlainCo put below his messages: "Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity."
Ascoli you are cryptic. perhaps I understand people less than I understand technical reports. but I will take your reply as a yes to my second example.
Edit: except that I should replace the word scams with myths. use of euphemisms is highly recommended with all these lawsuits around.
I will take your reply as a yes to my second example.
Your second example begins with "Other possibilities:" and what follows (provided to change scams with myths) belongs to the realm of possibilities.
But you should keep attention not to confuse possibilities with realities and, above all, not to stop at the first possibility you meet.
Anyway, if you want to know more about that, you shouldn't ask me: I can provide you only second hand info gathered from the web, and that you can find by yourself.
Instead, you could take advantage by the presence in this thread of JR, which for sure is one of the most attentive and informed persons on these arguments, and knows many other people even more informed, as you can see in the following exemplificative short list of his mails to Vortex.
(1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg07241.html"
(2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg45587.html"
(3) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg60675.html"
(4) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg64637.html"
(5) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg70567.html"
(6) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg83637.html"
(7) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg90155.html"
(8) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg103252.html"
