Clearance Items

Quote from Ascoli65

Add to this that JR does not yet recognize the blatant errors contained in that same Levi's report:

Well, you have not pointed out any errors in that report. It has been a long times since I read it. I do not recall any, but perhaps I have forgotten. Anyway, if these errors you refer to are so readily apparent, please point out a few of them.

As you see above, Paradigmnoia found a 6% error in another report. You need to point to a similar technical error is this paper if you wish to back up your claim.

Quote from JedRothwell

Ah, ha. That's a technical error. * On p. 10 they calculated 1,609 W. You are saying it should be 1,505 W, a 6% error. That is significant, but I do not think it is close to negating their conclusion.

Have you found other technical errors?

* I mean, that is the kind of error I keep asking Mary Yugo and others to point to, rather than saying, for example, "this paper is wrong because I do not trust the author." A paper may be dubious or unbelievable because the author is untrustworthy, but that is not a technical error. It is a judgement call. It may be valid, but it ain't technical.

Display More

Other than questions regarding the electrical measurements, that's about it.

The COP goes back to 5.6 or so from around 5, (when adjusted as above and the related daughter calculations are all accounted for), when experiment 1 is re-calculated using the same emissivity as determined (properly) in experiment 2.

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

Well, you have not pointed out any errors in that report. It has been a long times since I read it. I do not recall any, but perhaps I have forgotten. Anyway, if these errors you refer to are so readily apparent, please point out a few of them.

Perhaps you have forgotten, or maybe you are training your rhetorical abilities.

In any case, you can see (again) in the following link the three major errors (probe, pump, and duration) in the report describing the calorimetry results of the demo of January 14, 2011:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=25650#post25650

The pump issue should be updated as explained in this other link:

Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

Quote from JedRothwell

As you see above, Paradigmnoia found a 6% error in another report. You need to point to a similar technical error is this paper if you wish to back up your claim.

As explained in the first link, the combined error in the Bologna report is, as a minimum, 1500% for the power, and 3000% for the energy.

Quote from Ascoli65

Perhaps you have forgotten, or maybe you are training your rhetorical abilities.

In any case, you can see (again) in the following link the three major errors (probe, pump, and duration) in the report describing the calorimetry results of the demo of January 14, 2011:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=25650#post25650

I have forgotten, or I never read that. I am not familiar with this. I shall study the message and the claims.

I do not recall much about this paper, so perhaps you are right. I have studied this other paper more recently and with greater care:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

Have you found any significant errors in it?

@ Shane D.,

Quote from Shane D.

I think UOB has survived Rossi with their reputation intact.

Yes, fortunately. For many years, UniBo has occupied one of the top 3 positions in all rankings of Italian universities, and is often the first ever. The Department of Physics also enjoys a great position among all the other departments. In world rankings they are usually between 150° and 250°. Not bad. However, there is ample room for improvement for the oldest university in the western world.

I believe that the admission of any errors by scientific institutions can help to improve their reputation. As an example, we can consider another glaring case like that of superluminal neutrinos in which the authors took into account the objections raised about their first results, which they then corrected, explaining also the reasons that led to the error. I believe this behavior has increased the public's confidence in those institutions, because scientists are not required not to make any mistake, but to recognize and correct their mistakes as soon as possible.

There is another advantage. The firm request of universities to their members to promptly correct their own mistakes would discourage those people who intend to use their names for inappropriate purposes.

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

I have forgotten, or I never read that.

I don't know. For sure you had already quoted it.

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

Quote

I have studied this other paper more recently and with greater care:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

Have you found any significant errors in it?

I can't say, sorry. I have already explained you many times the reason why I never took into consideration the Ferrara and the Lugano reports. For example here:

Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

It's impossible to evaluate the correctness of a scientific report having doubts about the reliability of every single data or statement written in there.

"having doubts about the reliability of every single data or statement written in there"

Sounds very much like prior bias to me. did you actually read it?

Quote from Ascoli65

I don't know. For sure you had already quoted it.

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

The fact that I am quoted in a document is no indication that I read that document.

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

The fact that I am quoted in a document is no indication that I read that document.

Which document are you talking about?

The subject of your previous reply (*) was a comment of mine (1), which was the last thing quoted by you. Immediately thereafter you did write "I have forgotten, or I never read that."

I just reminded you that for sure you did read my comment (1), because you quoted it in your reply (2).

Unless you are implying that you are able to reply a comment, without reading its contents!

(*) Clearance Items

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

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

@ bocijn,

Quote from bocijn

Sounds very much like prior bias to me. did you actually read it?

If you refer to one of the two hot-cat reports signed by Levi, the Ferrara's and the Lugano's reports, yes, I read them both, just one time, immediately after their respective release. In doing that I had for sure a strong prior bias, a negative one, with respect to their leading author, due to the prior examination of his 2011 report on the calorimetry of the Bologna's demo.

What mostly struck me in the hot-cat reports was the adoption of a calorimetry technique based on the Stefan-Boltzmann's law. This method was already used by Celani and, after he presented his results in mid 2012, I already had the opportunity to see how it allows to exponentially multiply the effect of any mismeasurement.

So, I decided not to waste my time any more in examining those reports.

Maybe you can listen to this music. I love Grieg so much.

Quote from Ascoli65

@ bocijn,

If you refer to one of the two hot-cat reports signed by Levi, the Ferrara's and the Lugano's reports, yes, I read them both, just one time, immediately after their respective release. In doing that I had for sure a strong prior bias, a negative one, with respect to their leading author, due to the prior examination of his 2011 report on the calorimetry of the Bologna's demo.

What mostly struck me in the hot-cat reports was the adoption of a calorimetry technique based on the Stefan-Boltzmann's law. This method was already used by Celani and, after he presented his results in mid 2012, I already had the opportunity to see how it allows to exponentially multiply the effect of any mismeasurement.

So, I decided not to waste my time any more in examining those reports.

Display More

Interesting that Celani used this same method. it is in fact perfectly good when used with surfaces that approximate grey bodies, or when properly calibrated at temperature. It is just that alumina is unusually (strikingly) temperature dependent in its total emissivity and has strongly non-grey-body characteristics that hit IR temperature measurement particularly badly.

If Celani followed good practice IR measurement protocol, calibrating surface temperature against camera reading at all the temperatures used, I see no problem using this method.

You could say that because it is indirect it requires a bit more care to get right than many other techniques, especially because the effective radiant surface area requires some care when estimating, with proper accounting for self-absorption and re-radiation. That estimate again needs at temperature control, or very great care.

@ THHuxleynew,

Quote from THHuxleynew

Interesting that Celani used this same method.

That's probably where the idea of switching from the LT Ecat to the HotCat came from.

Quote

it is in fact perfectly good when used with surfaces that approximate grey bodies, or when properly calibrated at temperature.

A method that gives you an estimation of the heat flux proportional to the 4th power of temperature is only good for mixing up the results. Just the switching from a LT device and a mass flow calorimetry, to a HT device and such an indirect method, is quite suspicious.

Quote

If Celani followed good practice IR measurement protocol, calibrating surface temperature against camera reading at all the temperatures used, I see no problem using this method.

Celani used a few thermocouples placed on the glass tube of his cell. His method was even more simple and direct than using an IR camera. Notwithstanding, MFMP got a lot of problems when they tried for a couple of years to replicate the Celani's results using his method. At the end they decided to build a mass flow calorimeter.

Good deal for the experimentalist... Rated to 1600 C

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Non-co…1feb0e:g:VQ8AAOSwNmxZsDX~