Posts by Ascoli65

Quote from JedRothwell

Asami's analysis is physically impossible. It shows the cell is endothermic, swallowing up energy for weeks during calibrations. See pages 3, 4, 16 and 17, especially Fig. 4 on p. 17:

I gave a look to these pages and the other documents you cited, but they don't answer my point. I was referring to Naoto Asami not as a researcher, but as the "program manager" of the NHE team. In this specific role, he reported the findings and the opinions of the entire research team.

The Infinite-Energy article coauthored by you (1) reports the opinion of Elliot Kennel, an American researcher at NHE, who became convinced that the F&P cells didn't produced excess heat at all due to entrainment. He said: “In the case of boiling cells, we were able to verify that the electrolyte is entrained in the vapor column by measuring the pH of the condensate. Whenever excess heat was calculated, it was always due to overestimating the vapor mass transport."

Kennel arrived at the right conclusion on the basis of a wrong argument. The true big problem was not the droplet entrainment, but the formation of foam.

Your article quotes the "Melvin Miles comments on the problems of foam: “. . . four experiments were all hindered by unusually large fluctuations in the cell voltages (±0.5 V) that were traced to a foaming problem in the D2O-LiOD solutions. This foam would collect in the coils of the anode and then release. These four experiments all used D2O supplied by NRL (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Lot No. PSO EH-283) and lithium foil supplied also by NRL (Alfa/Aesar Stock No. 10769). This shows that the D2O can be an important uncontrolled variable in these experiments.”"

The article continues, recognizing that "Foaming and entrainment are well-known problems. They must be checked for and prevented." However, it adds that "They cannot explain IMRA Europeʼs results because Pons and Fleischmann did check for them and found no significant problem." Well, this is not true, at least not entirely true. F&P could have checked for the entrainment, not for foaming. We have plenty of visual documents showing that F&P cells did actually produce a lot of foam (*).

Anyway, you were absolutely right in remarking that "On the other hand, as far as is known, entrainment has never been observed to cause more than a minor error, no more than a few percent. We cannot imagine how it could carry off most of the water and cause 50% to 300% apparent excess, like that measured using boil-off calorimetry at IMRA …"- True, but only because the real cause of the 300% apparent excess heat was foaming (**).

Kennel was aware that their "positive results are due to flaws in the calorimetry, rather than to real excess heat.” But when you "asked him whether he meant they have replicated the 300% excess heat and proved that it is an artifact. He did not respond." So, the NHE people failed in identifying the real cause of the artifact which caused the 300% excess heat. Maybe, they were not in possession of the videos recorded during the "1992 boil-off experiment". Now, those video are public (***) and everyone can see and understand the artifact caused by foaming.

If Team Google is really intentioned to solve the "CF cold case" they have just to complete the NHE work by reproducing the "1992 boil-off experiment" and showing how foaming can lead to a wrong estimation of the residual content of water inside the cell which can lead to a wrong estimation of apparent excess heat up to 300%.

(1) http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf

(*) FP's experiments discussion

(**) FP's experiments discussion

(***) FP's experiments discussion

Quote from THHuxleynew

So can we put to rest the contentions from some here that F&P open cell boiling excess heat results (and replications thereof) indicated nuclear levels of excess heat? Personally i've never thought this strong evidence for exactly the reason that under these uncontrolled conditions entrainment cannot be ruled out and must be variable. [...]

I agree with the analysis contained in your comment, with one major difference: entrainment is not the only cause for the "false positive" claimed for the F&P open cell boiling tests. Entrainment can only account for a small percentage of error, which is negligible compared to the 300% excess heat claimed by F&P, as correctly pointed out at the end of the Infinite-Energy article (1):

"[…] The NHE and other establishment labs do “science by press conference.” […] The problem they cite is orders of magnitude too small to explain anything, so they refuse to do a quantitative analysis. They pretend that a 3% error can explain away a 300% result. […]"

However, the 300% excess heat claimed by F&P in the PLA article describing the "1992 boil-off experiment" (2) can be easily explained by considering the effect on the apparent level of the electrolyte caused by vapor bubbles and foam build-up that occurred in the last phase of the boil-off transient, as shown in this LENR forum about a year ago (*). Foaming is the real cause of the erroneous estimation of a 300% excess heat, claimed by F&P in 1992 and supported for almost 3 decades by their fans.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Anyway, the elephant in the room here for those who think that historic experiments show undeniable excess heat beyond chemical is why TG have not validated this, and no-one seems able to make recommendations to them that would likely allow them to do this. [...]

I fully agree with this proposal. The only way to spot the "elephant in the room", or to solve the "CF cold case" as announced on Nature last May, is to estimate the amount of "wishful thinking" which animated F&P and all their epigones during the last three decades. The best way to do this is to replicate the "1992 boil-off experiment" for the reasons already explained in the previous thread on suggestions for the next Team Google activity on CF (**).

(1) http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf

(2) https://www.sciencedirect.com/…icle/pii/037596019390327V

(*) FP's experiments discussion

(**) Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

Quote from JedRothwell

For once you are right! I fully agree with the authors of this paper. This is a convincing explanation.

Yes, I'm right, thanks, but I don't agree with the authors of the Infinite-Energy paper. I'm just confident they have correctly quoted the statements of Naoto Asami, the NHE program manager, which clearly show that the real explanation for the closure of both the Japanese funded initiatives (those carried out in France by Toyota-IMRA and in Japan by MITI-NEDO-NHE), was that - after many years of inconclusive attempts and several dozens of M$ spent on these studies - researchers and managers became convinced that the F&P cells didn't produce any excess heat at all, despite the direct involvement and support of the two fathers of Cold Fusion.

Quote from JedRothwell

Martin told me it was discontinued because Toyota got into a dispute with Johnson Matthey.

This is a much more convincing explanation for the F&P fiascos:

Quote from JedRothwell

There are dozens of experiments that fit that description. No one has found any significant potential errors in any of the major experiments. Chiang has not found any errors. There are no papers in the literature describing any errors, except the imaginary errors described by Morrison and Shanahan.

Quote from JedRothwell

If Chiang knows of a problem with the calorimetry in papers by Fleischmann, Storms, McKubre or Miles, he should say what that problem is. Better yet, he should publish a peer-reviewed paper describing the error, so that we can judge whether he is right. If he cannot give a specific, falsifiable, technical reason for his assertion, the assertion is invalid.

I am confident he cannot give any reason. No one has come with any reason to doubt any of the authors I listed, or ~100 others. After 30 years, if any of the so-called skeptics had a reason, they would have given it by now. I think the statute of limitations has run out. You cannot let a scientific debate go on year after year where one side presents hundreds of irrefutable experimental results grounded in thermodynamics and other 18th and 19th century laws of physics, while the other side says only "I don't think so." That's not a debate.

As extensively explained in this forum (*), the major article of F&P reporting the astounding calorimetric results of their "1992 boil-off experiment" was full of errors and the conclusions were completely wrong, despite the fact that it was published on PLA (1), a peer-reviewed and well renowned scientific journal.

If Google people really want to solve the CF cold case, they should just ask their experts to replicate that old and fundamental experiment and submit an article to Nature, explaining how F&P erroneously calculated a huge, but completely imaginary, excess heat.

(*) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

(1) https://www.sciencedirect.com/…icle/pii/037596019390327V

Quote from Shane D.

As smart as you are, you need to learn politics. That rules the world more so than science...unfortunately my friend.

I fully agree, my friend: http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg73665.html

Quote from Shane D.

I was awaiting 1 more from the other Mods to wrap this one up, but it's late in Europe so will use Ascoli's post as an opportunity to "unofficially" close this thread. This topic has been beaten to death, going around in circles, and other than create disharmony accomplishing nothing. Jed not only deserves a break, but kudos for being so open and honest. This peer review stuff is tough...especially so when one of the reviewers sees shades of conspiracy in almost everything, so my hat is off to him for being so tolerant.

Until further developments warrant looking into this in more detail, we shall now take a wait and see attitude. Jed can have the last word if he likes, then I ask everyone to voluntarily refrain from comment.

The solution found by LENR Calender just removes one argument out of the many that were risen about the inconsistency and incompleteness of the data contained in the spreadsheets. All the factual problems remain opens. Why the active reactor was heated internally and not externally? Which kind of heating was used, resistor or glow discharge? How the power was measured in both the active and control runs? And, above all, what happened to the readings of the Yokogawa analyzer?

It's not my intention to chase JR. However, IMO, the discussion can continue in a fair and respectful way by addressing the specific issues on the table and proposing understandable solutions, shareable by everyone, as LENR Calender did with the format of the numbers in the spreadsheets.

In any case, if the mods decide to suspend this argument, I will comply with this decision, but It should be clear that the reason of such decision is not that the results of the 120 W tests have been fully understood and accepted as valid.

Quote from LENR Calender

I'm gonna try to conclude this V*I discussion, at the risk of getting shot:

I finally looked at the actual data.

Active dataset comes from here:

Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

https://drive.google.com/open?…r0UahtG1ZPAJmAJmejB6EMipY

Calibration dataset comes from here:

Mizuno reports increased excess heat

I believe this is where Ascoli got his data from since I followed the links from this image. Annoyingly, the calibration dataset isn't in a google spreadsheet, so it was a pain to copy it from that thread post. I don't know exactly where RobertBryant got it (from another thread it seems)

OK now for the juicy part:

In the calibration data posted on the forum, U and I are rounded to two decimals e.g. 67.68 and 1.77.

In the active data that is on google docs, data appears like it is rounded the same way. However, it turns out that data isn't rounded, but formatted. If you click on a cell and look at the actual value in the formula bar, it turns out values are, for example, 49.815 and 2.41983. Rounded to 3 decimals for U and 5 for I.

I submit that this explains the remarks about wattmeter data by Ascoli. There is no discrepancy in power measurement method, there is a discrepancy in how the data was presented to the forum and thus a discrepancy in how many significant digits we have for U and I.

Display More

Thank you very much. You finally provided a plausible explanation. I didn't notice the difference in the way the data were presented in the two spreadsheets. I asked for such an explanation since my first post on this specific issue (1), without getting an adequate answer.

The two spreadsheets were uploaded by JR in the first week of September 2017: the active spreadsheet on September 1 (2) and the calibration one on September 4 (3), (I found the latter post only after seeing the copy posted by RB, last June (4)). Both spreadsheets were uploaded on a Google site, hard to imagine why they were formatted differently.

Anyway, good to know NOW that the values reported in the "Input power" column of both the active and control spreadsheets are compatible with the V*I product.

It remains a mystery the reason why the upper note reports that the "Input power" was "probably measured with a wattmeter". How is it possible that the source of one of the most important experimental data was not known with certainty?

In any case, we don't know......Edited out for "insinuating". Shane

(1) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(2) Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

(3) Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

(4) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(5) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf

Quote from Ascoli65

In my experience, the only remarks which seriously challenge the CF claims are those relating to contradictions internal to the experimental documentation. It hasn't yet found a miracle capable to explain two contradictory statements or data, unless appealing to some multiverse theory.

Here we are! Just a few hours after my post (what a cosmic coincidence!), in the thread "Fact Check, debunking obviously false information", axil - the most prolific creator of ad-hoc theories able to explain any CF experimental result, whatever its weirdness – informed us (1) about a new book which deals with "the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics", where it is affirmed that "it's the universe branching off into multiple parallel copies of itself."

Now we have the scientific basis to justify any internal contradiction within the experimental documents as entaglements (incursions) of the other branches of the Multiverse into the Universe we are embedded in.

(1) Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

Quote from Robert Horst

You may be right the the cause is related to the turbulent air, but realize that the data points in the spreadsheet are 25 seconds apart. It is hard to imagine a vortex that lasts 25 seconds or longer and makes the average 2 deg C hotter or colder than the previous 25 sec.

Maybe the problem is the way this spreadsheet was derived from the raw HP data logger measurements. The logger probably sampled much more frequently than once per 25 seconds. I was assuming that each 25 second spreadsheet row is an average of the last 25 seconds, but maybe the spreadsheet just takes one raw measurements from each 25 second period. That may show the large variation we see, while averaging them (integrating over the entire period) would smooth everything out.

I agree on the smoothing effect due to averaging. JR said (1) that all channels were sampled 20,000 times a second and averaged every 5 seconds. Maybe it is true, maybe not. Who knows.

Anyway, air calorimeters are subject to large temperature excursions and inhomogeneities also due to temperature stratifications caused by buoyancy effects. A similar problem was just described yesterday in a paper presented at ICCF22 in Assisi (2).

Surely the 25 s time scale is much shorter of any time scale due to anything happening inside the reactor.

(1) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

(2) ICCF-22 (Sept. 8-13) News/reports/opinions

Quote from THHuxleynew

PS - is the active run plasma heated in the 2016 data?

- The paper says yes
- Jed initially said yes (perhaps with some uncertainty)
- Jed more recently has said no.

The paper (1) says (implicitly) NO! It mentions plasma only in Section 2.5 "Preparation of reacting material". This phase is not (should not have been) the active run. It only serves to activate the internal Ni mesh by depositing some Pd on it.

Section 2.6 "Air flow measurement for heat calibration" states:"The same type of reactor is used in the calibration, and is installed as a control for calibration of the heat balance in the enclosure described below. The design, size, weight, and shape of this calibration reactor are exactly the same as the reactor used for testing. The internal reactants are the same nickel, of the same weight, size, dimensions and position. Both are washed and wound the same way. However, excess heat is not produced by the calibration electrode even though deuterium gas is added to the cell, because the nickel material is not processed as described in Section 2.5"

Therefore, having pointed out that the only difference between the active and the calibration reactors is the processing of nickel, it was implicit that the active and calibration runs differ (should have been different) only for this aspect. That is, the heating of the internal meshes, both in the active and in the control reactors, should have been provided only by the "Reactor heater" described at Section 2.4, whose "purpose was to heat the nickel mesh in the reactor".

But figures 27 and 28 reveal that, contrary to what was implicit in the paper, the active reactor was heated internally. When this fact was made noticed more than one month ago, JR refuted it, by confirming that (2) "both the active and control reactors were heated with an external resistance heater", as it was implied by the paper. One month later (3), he admitted that "The excess heat run was heated inside, mainly with glow discharge". And, finally, after three more days (4), he made half step back to the first version, by saying "In this series of experiments, the input is to electrical resistance heaters, not plasma", without specifying where the heaters was.

(1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf

(2) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(3) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

(4) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

Quote from Shane D.

I believe they were asking everyone to try and replicate their newest R20 experiment, and not the May 2016? If so, what they did, or did not do, with the old data from the "original test", is up to them. Regarding the R20 ; what more do you think could have done to help others replicate?

It appears to me they have been as upfront as possible. A recipe, with pictures was published. Rothwell has been here most days tirelessly answering questions. Mizuno is hosting visitors to check his work, and feeding Jed answers to our questions here. All this only a short time after Mizuno saw these remarkable results.

No, sorry, IMO it doesn't work this way.

The main problem raised by the spreadsheet issue is not about the May 2016 tests, it rather concerns the May 2016 testers and the 2017 JCMNS Vol.25 (1), 2018 ICCF21 (2), 2019 JCMNS Vol.29 (3) authors. The same people who asked to replicate the R20 experiment. Why anybody should believe they are really interested in verifying the reality of their claims, when any trace of the only reliable power data, those measured by the Yokogawa analyzer, collected during the May 2016 run - such a rare successful event that it was presented for 3 years as the state of the art of the Mizuno approach to LENR – were "not preserved" (ie were deleted)?

Quote

No matter how this ends, maybe we should give them credit for getting this out to the community as quickly as they did? If it turns out to be an error, then at least we will not have gone through the all too familiar process; make a big claim, then disappear to leave us wondering what happened.

One thing good about LF, is that we can take these experiments, and ideas and vet them in a matter of weeks, so we do not waste much time. Not the years it takes via the conferences. As proof, we are now only a few months into the R20 vetting, and we are near the truth.

Please, do it. I have already made my proposal (4). Google can spend a few thousand dollars to encourage as many of possible of their HVAC suppliers to send a couple of their expert technicians to Sapporo, equipped only with a plug-in wattmeter, to feel directly on their hands the 3 kW of heat produced by the R20 reactor when it is powered with 300 W in input.

(1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf

(2) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf

(3) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf

(4) Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

Quote from Cipolla

i am on the same side of Ascoli65 for 2 reasons: one is the input data power of the active run e the other is the shape of the curves where i am not able to find a point where the "LENR" reaction start.

I can't believe that the excess energy follows a path equal to a normal electric heater, there must be a clear inflection point in the curve where the "LENR" start.
same for the stop.

Hi Cipolla, thanks for your support.

You are totally right about the second reason: in any other scientific or technical context the shape of the curves would have been sufficient to exclude at a first glance any other exotic energy source, ie LENR, beside the electricity fed into the device. But, here, we are in a totally different context.

LENR is the science of miracles. Researchers in the field are aware of the fact that CF would require the "happyning" of 3 miracles (1): "… These are the three miracles: Coulomb barrier, no neutrons, no gamma rays that prevented Cold Fusion to enter mainstream science." But they also proclaim that: "Cold Fusion has been demonstrated experimentally without any doubt by many experimentalists using lots of different techniques that eliminate the idea of systematic errors." And even if they admit that "On the other hand, the theoretical aspect is still missing. Many (too many) theories have been developed, but none is capable of explaining all the aspects of Cold Fusion.", CF theorists were (2), and are, able to develop any new complex quantum theory to explain any single weird behavior observed during the supposedly successful experiments.

Therefore, LENR supporters - trained in solving this kind of miracles by means of powerful quanto-tools - will surely find an excuse to overcome your reason: for instance an instant activation of an anomalous nuclear effect triggered by the electromagnetic field generated by the current. Wyttembach has just proposed one of these remedies (3).

In my experience, the only remarks which seriously challenge the CF claims are those relating to contradictions internal to the experimental documentation. It hasn't yet found a miracle capable to explain two contradictory statements or data, unless appealing to some multiverse theory.

This is the reason why the question about the input power data in the two spreadsheets causes such nervous reactions in those who support the reality of Mizuno's claims. This remark is based on numbers, many numbers with a high statistical significance. It's impossible to refute it.

It's rare to have access to this type of data for an important CF experiment. Fortunately, the two 120 W spreadsheets are already out of the bag. I doubt we will see other spreadsheets with the same kind of information. For sure, JedRothwell will ignore the many requests to provide a plausible explanation for the different "Input power" quantities listed in the two spreadsheets.

Please, consider also that, in this moment, any other remark relating to any other Mizuno's reactor (R19, R20, etc.) or any other aspects of the Mizuno's experiment (for example, the fan and the air flow rate) is heart welcomed by JR, because it reduces the urgence to answer the questions about the spreadsheet issue.

(1) http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-331/aflb331m629.pdf

(2) https://books.google.it/books?…ree%20miracles%22&f=false

(3) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

Quote from THHuxleynew

Dear all, in the interests of communication, can anyone other than RB understand how his point relates to the heater issue? He has not actually yet made any logical point. If he (or somone else capable of more clarity) were to make a precise logical point, I could explain why it was wrong, or agree with it.

Don't be surprised. RB is acting as any rational supporter of LENR should react to our analysis in accordance to the "cardinal rule" recommended by JR (1).

Fortunately, his behavior is also an exceptionally effective hint for any other rational readers to understand the tactic used in promoting or defending the reality of CF/LENR.

Quote

If there is additional data on the heater power that would be very helpful. Let us see it (link please).

You will get no more data on the 120 W experiments.

JR said that the Yokogawa outputs were deleted, not preserved (2). Think about it. They were trying since year to obtain some excess heat. Suddenly, in May 2016, 3 tests in a row gave sensational levels of energy outputs. The active reactor was internally heated by glow discharge and the Yokogawa analyzer, purchased specifically for this rapidly changing power load, were connected to the data logging system and the PC. Does it make sense deleting the data measured by the Yokogawa analyzer? Any normal researcher would have treasured that data dearly.

In the meanwhile, it was asked tous le monde to replicate these experiments. Why, on earth, someone should do so, if the authors of the original test deleted the more reliable data recorded during the original tests?

(1) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

(2) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

Quote from Robert Horst

On a slightly different subject, I have been wondering why there is large variation in the output temperatures while the heater is on, but not when it is off. Here is a graph I produced from the Mizono spreadsheet:

The temperature varies +- 2 degC while the heater is on, but then less than +- 0.1 degC after it has cooled.

[...]

I am at a loss to think of a cause for the output temperature variations.

Your graph is interesting.

IMO, the cause of Delta Tair variations is the noise due to the turbulent rising of the cooling air inside the acrylic box. This air flows over areas of the reactor surface which are at different temperatures, so its vorticity can cause the air to heat not uniformly. The Delta Tsurf is roughly proportional to the Tmax of the reactor body whose heating and cooling trends are substantially delayed by the large mass of the reactor metal. You can see in your first graph that amplitude increases at the power-on and decreases at the power-off following trends very similar to the heating and cooling phases of the reactor.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'm not claiming that. Nor is Ascoli.

If you refer to Dr Richard question "Furthermore, if someone was intending to fool everyone (eg like Rossi), surely they would any not leave evidence of data having been modified as you are suggesting, they wouldn't be that stupid would they?", I agree with you: those who modified and released the spreadsheets are not stupid at all. They just think others are stupid!

They didn't care to leave a detectable imprint of modification of data, because they knew that none of their usual readers would have questioned the genuineness of this data

Quote

My position: bad methodology (clearly) that makes the results less safe. The methodology was (obviously) deliberate, but I'm not claiming it was deliberately done to make the results not safe, maybe it was just to save time or whatever.

Ascoli: as me, but he thinks that maybe the Yoko power data was known to be inconsistent (as it might be with an oscillating plasma) and rather than investigate this the V*I data was used (at least I think he thinks that).

The basic difference between our positions is that you assume that LENR only deals with physics, chemistry and other scientific factors, so sometimes you struggle to find a coherence in what you are told. On the contrary, I'm convinced that human factors prevail on the scientific ones, therefore I preliminarily filter the information in order to figure out what might be true, half-true or false.

In particular, I systematically apply this filter to everything is reported by JedRothwell. In doing this, I assume that he is always coherent with his commitment to promoting the CF/LENR field at any cost, following the cardinal rule that he himself urged his fellows in the field to follow (1): "One of the cardinal rules of being a good military leader or a good politician is to make do with what you have, and to find a way to win by subterfuge if you do not have a material or strategic advantage. Cold fusion is very much a political fight, so we should take lessons from these disciplines." (emphasis added)

I have verified that he is fully coherent in the application of this rule. It follows that the truthfulness of the information provided is subject to the accomplishment of his task.

Quote

Either way, this is not comparable with Rossi, and counts as mistake not fraud.

Dr Richard complained that someone (probably you or me) is considering the Mizuno's results as "another Rossiesque fiddle". Well, at least for me, it's not true. IMO, it is the Ecat affair that has to be considered "another Rothwellian attempt", the most successful so far, to realize his committment.

Quote

The evidence of modification is subtle and was not noticed by anyone except ascoli, it takes about 10 pages of argument for such evidence to be accepted. And the column heading is ambiguous, so both types of data fit it. It is just very bad practice.

Actually, most L-F members will continue to refute or ignore this evidence. It has been accepted only by you and a few other readers, but it is more than enough. This is and will remain a pro-LENR site and we are only tolerated residential skeptics.

Quote

FYI - there is still some doubt about whether the active test used plasma heating. The 2017 paper says it did, as did Jed at one point (I think I remember this). Jed now says it did not, but maybe he will change his statement on reflection. Watch this space.

He has already changed his statement more than once, but don't expect him to admit he was wrong.

On August 7, he stated (2): "In all previous tests with this technique, both the active and control reactors were heated with an external resistance heater."

Exactly one month later, on September 7, he provided a different version (3): "The calibration was performed with the heater wrapped around the outside of the reactor, and the reactor did not get very hot inside. The excess heat run was heated inside, mainly with glow discharge."

Yesterday, September 12, he changed his version once again and vehemently affirmed (4): "There is no plasma discharge results in the present series of experiments (ICCF21 and ICC22, Pd on Ni). If there were, we would have noted them in the papers. I am sure I told you this time after time after time. THERE ARE NO PLASMA DISCHARGE RESULTS. I will say that again: THERE ARE NO PLASMA DISCHARGE RESULTS. I could say it a hundred times, but you and Ascoli will continue to say there were such results."

For someone who is not familiar with the field and who expects to evaluate the information on their apparent scientific coherence, it would seem that the above statements are totally contradictory. But, taking into account also the human factor and the peculiar attitudes of the protagonists, we can see that all these statements are fully consistent with the aforementioned "cardinal rule" of being a CF leader.

You know, CF/LENR is one of the most fascinating themes of our times, but it is mainly an anthropological phenomenon, rather than a physical one. To fully appreciate its intriguing charm, you should add more keys of lecture on top of the purely scientific ones.

(1) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg73665.html

(2) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(3) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

(4) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

Quote from THHuxleynew

OK ascoli, so bear with my slowness, we have confirmed for 2016 test (2017 paper):

Control from external resistive heater - measured with Yokogawa power analyser

Active from internal plasma heater - measured with V*I, V and I averaged over 5s (or so).

[And, for ascoli, evidence that both would have been measured with Yokogawa, but the spreadsheets for the active test contain V*I in the power column (in addition to V and I columns) ]

Jed, I'm calling you out on this. ...

In the meanwhile, JR has answered to your call in this way (emphasis added):

Quote from JedRothwell

It is not right because you made it up. The Yokogawa power analyzer was never used to record power with this series of experiments, only to confirm it. As I said.

You should explain to us how to interface a digital instrument to the HP A/D board. As I said, the spreadsheet comes directly from the A/D board. Do you think the Yokogawa has an outlet that converts the measured power level to a voltage? That would be a retro design! A digital instrument that produces an analog voltage. It would greatly reduce accuracy and precision.

Given the utter absurdity of your notion that a digital instrument can be read by an analog to digital interface, I would not call your allegations and calling me out "sinister." "Asinine, idiotic, utter ridiculous" come to mind. This is not effective trolling. You need to up your game.

He is accusing you (and me) of lying and trolling, but everyone here can see who is making things up.

We are talking of the 120W tests reported on figures 27 and 28 of the JCMNS article (1). Figure 13 in the same document shows that a "Power analyzer" was connected to a "Data logger" and to a "PC". The text at page 10 is more explicit (emphasis added):

"The rectangles in the lower left of the figure represent the input power supply, the power input analyzer (Yokogawa, PZ 4000), the data logger (Agilent, 34970A), and the PC for data acquisition. […] Data from six reactor temperatures, electric power to the test reactor that is processed by the power-meter, electric currents and voltages for the power supply of the blower, and the temperatures of the inlet and the outlet air flows were collected by a data logger and recorded to a PC every 5 s."

Do you see? The referenced Mizuno's article and the quoted JR post say two opposite things. It follows that one of these two versions, the red or the blue one, is FALSE.

Considering the prominent role played by the protagonists since 1989, this issue about the 120 W spreadsheets is telling us a lot about the methods used to promote the field in these 30 years of CF history.

(1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf

Quote from RobertBryant

Jed has already stated that the 120W power measurements were made at the time of the expt

and that the special meter was used for plasma expts where the power fluctuated quickly

Yes, exactly. But the "Input power" values measured and recorded by the "special meter" appear on the "control" spreadsheet and don't appear in the "active" spreadsheet. And JedRothwell has not yet explained why.

Quote

Could you perhaps explain why 46.02? is in plain sight.

What's the problem? Those values appear at the beginning of the 120W calibration run, whose control reactor was heated externally by a normal resistor. As JR said (1), at the beginning of the tests the input power was adjusted by a Variac.

At that moment, as better shown in (2), the recorded values in the spreadsheet are:

The V*I product gives 45.88 W, which differs by -0.14 W from the recorded "Input power". Therefore, "Input power" data in the "calibration" spreadsheet come from another instrument, that is the Yokogava special meter.

It follows that this special Yokogawa meter, an expensive tool which was specifically purchased for experiments in which the power fluctuates quickly, was used during the May 2016 tests, but its values have not been included in (or have been removed from) the spreadsheet of the 120 W active run, that is one of those experiments in which power fluctuated quickly!

This suggests that someone somewhere is cheating us.

(1) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

(2) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

Quote from RobertBryant

It seems that Ascoli is continuing in the same loose vein

Now he is suggesting that Jed 'hided'

Ascoli's intentions are not 'hided' but are in plain sight.

No. I'm saying in plain sight since many weeks (1), that in the "excess heat" spreadsheet the "Input power" values measured by the wattmeter, ie the Yokogawa power analyzer, don't appear. Therefore, since JR confirmed that this instrument was specifically purchased for measuring the power in that rapidly changing power condition and that it has its own memory, it means that these values have been measured, recorded, but not included in the released spreadsheet. So they are kept hided by someone. I don't know by who.

Quote

In the end a watt is a watt is a watt ,, whichever way one measures it.

I've already answered to you on this point (2).

(1) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(2) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

Quote from RobertBryant

Google translate of sopprimere= kill.. it could be cancel or abolish.

Ascoli could mean that Jed did any of these three,

A little Italian exercise for you. This is what proposes Google at the beginning of its page:

I've used the word in the first meaning above. Of course.

Anyway, I don't know who removed, canceled, hided, etc. the values of the Yokogawa analyzer from the active run spreadsheet. It happened somewhere between Japan and US, but not on the Pacific Ocean.