Posts by Ascoli65

Quote from Rigel

This is why I do not feel that someone who has more knowledge is a threat to me.

To me too. Anyway what I'm talking about it's not secret, it comes from the web, and I always indicate the links to the pages where I find the information. The only difference between us is that we probably are more attentive to different aspects, so we tend to remember different details of this story.

Quote

Who or what do you refer to? What director or producers?

I'll tell you. The Ecat saga is too long and too complex to be attributed to a single person. As in a movie, the protagonist doesn't coincide usually with the director and the producers. However, I don't know who they are, but I think it's necessary to figure out who they could be in order to understand the many obscure points of this story.

In order to do that, a good starting point has been recently provided by Krivit:

Quote

Krivit, on November 2, 2016 (1):

"That is precisely the analysis of potential investor Brian Scanlan, who met Rossi and Darden at a meeting arranged by Michael Melich and Marianne Macy. (PDF) The husband-and-wife team of Melich and Macy was the first Rossi promoter in the LENR community. They strongly encouraged members of the LENR community to support Rossi and the E-Cat idea; Melich compared Rossi to inventor Nikola Tesla. Scanlan eventually saw through the smoke."

This only excerpt lists the main protagonists of this story. Krivit talks of a single meeting. In reality there have been at least 2 meetings in different times and with different people, as explained in the mail linked in the Krivit's article:

Quote

From Scanlan to CMNS on April 11, 2016 (2):

"In June 2011 I met Rossi in Miami along with his partners from Leonardo. Mike Melich and Maryanne Macy were also present. Prior to the meeting I had constructed a consortium committed to funding $15mil [...omissis...] Rossi is a character sprung from Hollywood central casting.

I met with Tom Darden only once, in February 2014 in NYC for several hours. [...]"

These quotes give rise to some other questions. Let's just consider a pair. It seems that Melich had a proactive role in finding some financing for the Ecat back in June 2011, before the breaking of the agreement with Defkalion. This attempt didn't succeed, but I wonder: did he also the same with the IH investors? In particular, is there some relationship with the following comment?

Quote

Dewey Weaver on L-F, June 26, 2016 (3):

"I spoke with another of the US Navy researchers who were involved with the Rossi investigation years back. They reached the same conclusion as IH. Rossi's mysterious sale to the US military did not go to Navy and his test / demos did not work to the satisfaction of the most respected hard science scientist in the mix."

(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Investigation-Index.shtml

(2) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…/20160411ScanlanBrian.pdf

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

Quote from Rigel

Based on your CF comment can I assume you do not believe in Pd CF also?

Correct, I don't believe in any CF/LENR claim.

I believe in the opposed opinions expressed by the physicists community a few weeks after the F&P announcement, confirmed one year later on Nature, and reasserted many times thereafter. These mainstream opinions have been disputed by the CF/LENR community on the basis of the presumed positive results claimed in a number of experiments carried out by a few scientists throughout the world, some of which come from very respectable seat of scientific culture. That may cause a little confusion about which of these positions is the true one. But the Ecat story, especially the astonishing results of the first demo held in Bologna under the supervision of an ancient Physics Department, and the almost unanimously endorsement of the CF/LENR community to those results provide a clear evidence about which is the true position. They also enlightened the mechanisms that fed, for nearly 30 years, all these claims about the incredible effects from impossible nuclear phenomena.

Quote

And I will focus on Rossi touching and salting Lugano.

I don't know what he did there. I'm not interested in any show subsequent to the official disengagement from the Ecat story of the Bologna University, the only entity that provided him with a valuable and influential support. Anyway, considering what happened during the 2011, I don't think that he needed to do anything in the secrecy during the Lugano test.

Quote

Rossi is an actor in this, and has diverted thousands of man hours and somehow convinced IH to part with 10 million.

OK, he is an actor, a good one. But, who were the director and the producers of the movie? Do you really think that anyone in the world can pay dozens of millions, believing that he was buying a device, or a method, really capable of multiplying the electrical power poured in?

Quote from Rigel

I have not been able to find a study of NiH that is above noise.

But the Levi's study on the January 14, 2011 demo held in Bologna is well above noise! A lot of heat, more than 12 kW, has been stated to have been produced by a table-top device fed with only 1 kW of electric power, for 40 minutes. It is one of the best documented test in the CF/LENR hystory: dozens of witnesses, videos, photos, reports, a lot of analyses on the web. Nearly the entire CF/LENR community has accepted this result as true. Many people posted thousands of messages to defend the reliability of those data against every criticism. You can consider this as a study on the credibility of these members of the CF/LENR community. And the result of this social experiment is well above noise.

How can you believe any other excess heat claim coming from this world, if they failed to identify the so evident manipulations carried out on the above demo?

Quote

I did not believe the 2011 demo, but I must admit I deferred to Lugano and had some hope.

Sorry, but this is a nonsense. This first and more celebrated test in the Ecat saga, the one cited at the beginning of each book and newspaper article which reported this story, has been conducted and described by the same person who was the leading author of the Lugano report. How can you trust, even for a minute, this last results if you don't find a suitable explanation for all the misinformation he gave in his 2011 report? The Lugano report did not deserve any attention, until its leading author had not fully explained how he measured the huge excess heat in the much more simple tests he performed and documented at the beginning of 2011.

Quote

But as soon as I found out Rossi touched ...

Don't be too focused on his role. He is only the main character of this movie. He probably wasn't in Italy during the setup of the January 2011 demo. He said, he was abroad until the day before the demo.

Quote

It's bluff.

Yes, it is. Not only the Ecat, not only the NiH, and, probably, not only the COLD fusion.

Which was at stake? A "working device" or a "working bluff"?

Hi, Rigel,

Quote from Rigel

But want to understand. Really those are real questions.

Really good questions! Let me give you a hint.

If we start from the hypotheses that all the story involving the Ecat (and other similar devices) is for providing a "working device", ie a device (or a method) capable to generate excess heat by whichever effect based on CF or LENR phenomenon, your questions are not very easy to be answered. But most of them, and many others arisen in these last months, could find a straightforward answer if you substitute "working device" with "working bluff", ie a device (or a method) capable to convince as many people as possible (up to the whole worldwide public opinion) of its ability to generate excess heat.

Consider this mental exercise. Rethink at the whole Ecat saga just substituting "working device" with "working bluff". Suppose only few people, but in key roles, were aware of this perspective. Consider, also, the sudden and disappointed metamorphosis of some important members of the CF/LENR community, which did completely reverse their opinion and engagement with respect to a device, that they stubbornly promoted and defended for years on each and every website.

Doesn't it sound less inexplicable?

Since 10 years ...

... starting from 2007.

Two years later in Rome (1):

Quote

Rossi was working with a private company who had requested such discretion. Therefore, in Rome, where I was covering the cold fusion conference for Infinite Energy magazine, the work day was coming to an end when Michael told me that we had to meet someone for dinner.

“Who?” I asked.

“An inventor. ” he said.

“You’ve met with him before?” I asked. “When? Where?”

“I can’t tell you.”

[... omissis ...]

I heard how Mike became involved in starting to explore what he was doing. Rossi claimed to be closing in on producing a working LENR technology. He had American partners who had worked with the U.S. Navy and were familiar with the continuing interest of the Navy in energy technology. In late 2007 the company requested someone with technical interest and competence to view a demonstration. It took until summer 2009 before the promised demonstration was nearly ready.

Display More

A few months ago, Dewey Weaver on L-F (2):

Quote

I spoke with another of the US Navy researchers who were involved with the Rossi investigation years back. They reached the same conclusion as IH. Rossi's mysterious sale to the US military did not go to Navy and his test / demos did not work to the satisfaction of the most respected hard science scientist in the mix.

Any connections?

(1) http://www.infinite-energy.com…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html

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

"Hollywood Movies, Governments, and LENR technologies"

Nice finding.

There is a lot of Free Energy mythology in Hollywood, and viceversa.

This is Hollywood: https://ourmasterslavejourney.…backtothefuture.jpg?w=660

This looks like Hollywood: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/…n-quotepanel-engineer.jpg

This is Hollywoodian narrative: http://animpossibleinvention.c…u-people-wouldnt-believe/

And they all come from the Golden State!

Andrea Rossi - On Her Majesty's Secret Service?

The most meaningful piece of information coming from the published private emails could be the signature on the last one (1): Rossi, Andrea Rossi.

Presumably a narcissistic slip, which though by itself would be able to explain most of the weirdest and unresolved issues of the Ecat story, and maybe some others in the whole CF/LENR saga.

In such a case, the main open question to be answered would be now: who is "Her Majesty"?

(1) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=45847#post45847

Quote from Wyttenbach

Why doesn't he feel the danger? Can any body tell us, when he personally saw/met Rossi? ..

Could it be because, as suggested in (and after) a comment on JoNP (1) appeared two months ago under the name "Mason", it's lock'd in their memory that they all are engaged in an "important work for the Great Architect"?

(1) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=181#comment-1244071

Quote from THHuxley

Obviously cooling water, and indeed other losses, mean that some of the input energy will be lost. But unless you can put a bound on it, for example by measuring temperature delta and flowrate of the cooling water, you cannot know how large is this loss. In that case the only sensible thing to do is what this "virulent naysayer" did - which is to ignore the unquantifiable and possibly very small losses.

Just in case the "virulent naysayer" is me, no heat loss has been ignored in the numerical model of the Ecat test held on October 6th, 2011, and described here: Mats Lewan's Test Report

The heat loss due to ALL the cooling water exiting the internal reservoir was taken into account since the beginning of the test at 11:00. In particular, the model calculated an outflow of dry steam starting from 16:10 ca, well in advance with respect of the time (15:53) from which "the E-cat was considered to be completely operating" after having reached the so called SSM.

Moreover, the model estimated the heat exchange between every pair of elements in the model, including the heat loss (C1) from the outer wall of the external case (C) toward the surrounding air (1).

Quote from Angelo V.

The aim of these "third part room sized calorimeters" is simply is to establish, beyond all doubt, a heat generation not justified by chemical reactions.

Ciao Angelo,
I understand your anxiety to see the main doubt on LENR, its capability to generate excess heat, be resolved once forever. But the answer has been already given long ago by the scientific community, and is negative. Unfortunately a tiny minority of such community, I'm referring to a few public employees, is allowed to keep on deceiving the public, and they are the main responsible of the residual doubts which still survive.

Anyway, whoever is well aware that his device is unable to produce any excess heat, will never accept to submit it to a real independent test. The only way you can get a confirmation of how it works is looking at data which have been inadvertently released to the public.

With this respect, and with reference to your proposal, I think you can find interesting to give a look to the data, coming from a very rudimental and unintentional room sized calorimeter.

The data come from the test on the so called fat-cat held in Bologna on October 6, 2011, and they are shown in the following jpeg.
http://i.imgur.com/U9T2tsO.jpg

As an Italian, you can take advantage also from the description given in the original comment where the jpeg was first posted (1). For the others, I put here below the edited Google translation of the scripts on the jpeg.

Quote

October 6, 2011 - Analysis of the ambient temperature (T1)

Hypothetical simplified diagram of the internal structure of E-cat

Purple curve: room temperature (T1) measured by the instrument placed in the position shown in the picture.
Blue curve: ambient cooling asymptotic trend.
Red curve: hypothetical and qualitative asymptotic behavior expected in the case where the heat dissipation from the hot surfaces towards the environment had continued, even after switching off the heater, to levels comparable to those preceding the shutdown.
Note: the 30' delay CD (also replicated in EF) could be explained by the thermal inertia of the system.

A - 12:02 - Heater ON
B - 13:46 - T2 = 100 °C
C - 15:53 - Heater OFF
D - 16:22 - Max at 30.3 °C
E - 19:08 - Removing H2 and increased capacity pump
F - [hypothetical start point of ambient cooling in the case of a working Ecat]

Display More

The temperature data come from the spreadsheet (2) published by Lewan the day after the test (3). In his report (4), published the same day, all the attention was devoted to the primary and the secondary cooling loops, both with flowing water. The last graph in this report shows the last 4 hours of the input (Series 2) and output (Series 3) temperatures of the primary loop. The same graph includes the room temperature (Series 3) which appears nearly constant. But if you consider only this last signal and expand the vertical axis, you get the clear trend of a third cooling loop, the ambient air, whose curve is shown in the jpeg's graph for the entire duration of the test. The blue curves (thick: test data, thin: average trend) show that the room begins to cool down not much later than the shutting off of the auxiliary electric heater placed inside the fat-cat. But if the Ecat was really able to produce 2-3 kW after that time, as claimed in the conclusions of the Lewan's report, the room temperature should have followed a trend similar to the thin red line, with a much more delayed cooling phase.

So, that test allows us to see a rudimental but quite meaningful room sized calorimetry, based on inadvertently released data, the only ones you can get about a device that is known to be unable to override the laws of the physics.

(1) http://www.energeticambiente.i…la-151.html#post119267184
(2) https://animpossibleinvention.…emp-data-ecat_6_10_11.xls
(3) http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…ces-proof-of-heat-6419717
(4) https://animpossibleinvention.…st-of-e-cat-october-6.pdf

Quote from THHuxley

Levi: when challenged persisting in incorrect science re Lugano. Also reported on an impossible flow rate in one of the early experiments given the pump specification (though I rely on Ascoli for that, it seemed correct when I checked, but I admit myself to some vagueness as to which of those early tests reported only by Levi was which).

The early Ecat experiments documented by Levi are the three tests shown in the first line of the synopsis of the tests held in 2010-11 (1).

The test whose declared flow rate was impossible, due to the pump specification, was the second one: the first public demo held on January 14, 2011. In that test the flow rate was overestimated of at least a factor of 2.5 (2).

In the subsequent, and third, test, there was no pump, the cooling water was coming directly from the tap. But there are visual evidences that the declared flow rate (1 L/s) was overestimated by at least one order of magnitude (3).

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

Quote from JedRothwell

Why do you say this is the "only way"? That's silly. Ask the people who did the experiment. If they don't want to tell you, it will do you no good to learn who sent me the data. You will need the cooperation of the people who did the experiment either way.

Do you mean the physicists of UniBo? That's would be really silly. The Director of the Department of Physics, after a couple of months from the demo, let everybody know (1) that "The Department does not intend to respond to any of these disputes and will not give any other answer than this." [Google translation]

The Vortex mails and the BTD, as well as the other early reports edited by you, contain all the needed information for reconstructing the phases of the invention of the presence of the Delta Ohm probe. Knowing exactly who sent you the calorimetric info is not essential at this point. You already gave many useful information: after excluding Levi, Focardi, and Rossi, there remain not so many possibilities. The info that they asked you to keep their names off the record, is also really meaningful.

Quote

You are making a mountain out a molehill. Just forget about it. The history of cold fusion and all other science is filled with mistakes and failed experiments.

… and smoke and mirrors shows, that, after their unmasking, become insignificant as a molehill, but, before that, were announced to the public (2) as events that "certainly would be worth the Nobel Prize immediately."

Look, please. The day after the demo, a newspaper presented all the 4 main protagonists of that historical event in this famous and beautiful photo (3):
http://bologna.repubblica.it/i…b2b-9324-08bd64c66836.jpg

On the right, we can see the two apparent protagonists who were celebrated as the authors of the extraordinary scientific enterprise worthing the Nobel Prize: the edisonian private inventor, now considered by many no more than a F-er, even by those who wrote hundreds of comments exalting his geniality, and the emeritus professor, whose academic prestige assured the public opinion about the scientific correctness of the measurements.

On the left, both in bright yellow, we see the two real, but mostly ignored, miracle makers: a dosimetric pump which has been believed to have miraculously delivered at least 2 times and half more water than his actual capacity, and, above all (literally), the champion of the demo, a long thermometric probe, which has been passed off as a hygrometric probe (first miracle) capable to measure the steam quality (second miracle).

It's impossible to believe that so many academic physicists teaching physics at university didn't catch these two blatantly incongruities, not very difficult to detect, in our internet era where any information is attainable with a click, even for normal people. How it is possible that the two more evident instruments of the experiment setup didn't attract the due attention from anybody? Easy to answer, because the established science guaranteed that all was in order (4): "There is no way you could fool the professors involved in this, and I am sure they are not all engaged in a conspiracy to fool the rest of us." (Btw, nice wording, Jed, very accurate: "there is no way", "not all".)

Quote

It is nothing to get upset about.

Are you sure? The above cited article ends with these words by Focardi: "I miei colleghi non ci credono, sono scettici. Non so come un protone di idrogeno possa entrare nel nucleo di nichel, ma avviene. Ed è la strada dell'energia per l'umanità" ([edited] Google translation: "My colleagues do not believe, [they are] skeptical. I do not know how a hydrogen proton can enter the nickel core, but it happens. And it is the energy path for humanity")

Not at all "the energy path for humanity", I would say. That's the path which leads to the energetic apocalypse, and which the humanity is following since too long, hypnotized by such false energy myths (5).

It is something to be very worried (and upset) about.

(1) http://www.queryonline.it/2011…ment-page-7/#comment-2172
(2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41235.html"
(3) http://bologna.repubblica.it/c…_siamo_riusciti-11237521/
(4) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41364.html"
(5) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

Quote from Eric Walker

Strangest of all would be for someone to take anything sent to that list as more than an enthusiast's amateur report of something they found to be exciting, as you appear to be trying to do.

I'm not criticizing Vortex, nor the enthusiasts who write there. They can write what they want. The same for JR and his library. These are private initiatives. When I talk about science, I talk about scientists which are paid by public money to find, verify, and divulge the scientific truth. The problem with the January 14, 2011 demo is the role of the people from UniBo and INFN-Bologna, especially in the preparation of the calorimetric report issued with the logo of UniBo.

The problem is that it contains wrong data and invented instrument. Due to the crucial importance of that demo, I think that it would be very important to know who and why provided those data.

But, in order to give an answer to the above questions, the only possible way is to analyze the reports that JR edited and his messages to Vortex, because they are the first documents that divulged those data (a week before the UniBo report). This is not an accusation with respect to JR or any other LENR enthusiasts. If there have been some leaks about these data or if some of the final data were wrong, the responsibility is primarily of those who assumed publicly the responsibility to measure, check and report the true results of the demo.

There is also another problem, and it is related to the use of the UniBo and INFN names in the BTD edited by JR. I would like to know how this aspect has been handled. I presume that these two Institutions gave a formal permission to JR to publish a report with their names, but I don't know who gave him this permission, and if these persons were entitled to do that.

But the more disconcerting aspect is the conclusive paragraph of the BTD called "Comments" (1), where we can read: "The INFN/U Bologna Technical Report should correct errors in the data used here and offer insight into the errors in the measurements themselves. This synopsis is based upon the data made public by the experimental team and Leonardo Corporation."

It sounds to me as an invitation to INFN and UniBo to implement in their report, with only minor modifications, the data provided by a not well specified "experimental team" and by the society subjected to the verification. It is absolutely unusual and inappropriate.

(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Think, Ascoli. You can redeem your reputation by coming up with a way. Suppose you have this problem, you want to be able to quickly change probes into a steam chamber. How would you do it?

I don't know. For sure I wouldn't like to unscrew the upper dice which keep in place a probe fitted into an electric boiler (in this case considered a presumed nuclear reactor) which is producing 16 kW (or even much less) of hot dry steam.

Please, tell me how you would have done it.

Quote

How many probes are inserted into the E-Cat in the photos?

The photos show only TWO temperature probes inserted into the Ecat. The one with the yellow wire, which is inserted in the top of the vertical branch (where there should have been the Delta Ohm HP474AC probe) and another much shorter probe, with a black/gray handle, which is slant inserted at halfway of the vertical branch. This last is a TC probe measuring the output temperature and is connected to the white portable instrument laid over the blue control box (1). To the same white instrument, it is connected a second identical TC probe inserted in the water reservoir under the yellow pump (2). The white instrument had a third TC inside it, for measuring the ambient air temperature. The trends of these 3 temperatures were shown on the PC screen, on which you can read (3) the maker (Testo) of this instrumentation (white portable instrument, plus the 2 external probes).

Do you see any other probe?

Quote

Scientists are professionally obligated to be truthful.

Apart magicians and actors, all the workers would be professionally obligated to be truthful.

(1) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_852S…40111rossifocardi1653.jpg
(2) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_852S…40111rossifocardi1814.jpg
(3) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_852S…40111rossifocardi1709.jpg

Quote from JedRothwell

It wasn't my report! I just edited it. I have edited over 100 papers for the ICCF proceedings. If you start holding me responsible for the content of everything I edit, I will be guilty, guilty, guilty of bad science for life.

I well know that you are only the editor of the BTD report, as you already explained to me and as confirmed by the small "ed." placed after your name at the top of the document (1). But one of the major problem with the BTD is in its title, which explicitly cites two prominent scientific institutes "University of Bologna, and INFN". It is the only case in the 28 documents archived in your library for which you are (apparently) the first author (2). Most of the others are historical evaluations about the CF/LENR opportunities and problems (something in line with your role of librarian). Only few documents look like technical reports, but their titles always include the names of the specific researchers involved in the test (for instance Mizuno), so that the responsibility of their content is clearly attributable to well identifiable LENR researchers.

In the case of the BTD on the January 2011 test, the title attributes all the scientific responsibility to 2 impersonal entities, so we cannot know the specific source of the wrong or invented data contained in it. Only you know the source of those information. So you are the only responsible for those data, in the sense that you are the only person who can be asked about them.

Quote

You saw I left a blank space in the report, hoping to get specific information on the instruments. It never came.

Really? Yes, I saw the blank space at the bottom of the first page, but I also saw that the upper photo in the second page is too high to be placed at the bottom of the first page.

If you really was waiting for the specific info on the instruments, you should have put a warning for that, or, even better, don't publish the BTD until all these data were in your possession.

Quote

Assuming their conclusions were wrong, and there was no heat, that kind of sloppiness is probably one of the reasons they were wrong.

It's much more probable the inverse: assuming it was well known that the data, and hence the conclusions, were wrong, nobody had any interest in revealing and publishing the make and model of the instruments.

Quote

I checked and the people asked me to keep their names off the record, so I will do that.

Thank you for your check. This info is very interesting, probably more than the name itself.

This is a quite weird situation. Someone, whose name is known only to you, gave you the presumed calorimetric data of the January 14, 2011 demo (the most important test in the history of CF/LENR), but said to you (since then) that he didn't like to be mentioned. You reported those data in the BTD attributing all the responsibilities to two scientific institutes, and published those data only 3 days after the demo, one week before the issuing of the UniBo report on calorimetry. It is really a very strange way to divulge science, to say the least.

Now the problem is who was this people which provided you the invented and wrong data. At this point, you can't reveal anymore his identity, unless he authorized you to do that. So let's speculate on the basis of what is already known.

It's known that he is a "people in the project" (PiP). Not so much, but the word "project" can help us a little bit: it is unusual in the Ecat affair, and unexpected. One would have expected a word as "a people in the demo(nstration)", "… test", "… event", "… experimental team", something more close to the specific scientific happening. On the contrary, the word "project" refers to a much longer and structured activity (for instance the ITER project), moreover it is not peculiar of science or technology, you can have as well projects in economy, finance, politics, and so on. I wonder if there was, and still is, an "Ecat project", and which kind of project it is.

So, the PiP can be involved in any of the possible aspects of the Ecat affair. You already negated that he was Levi, or Focardi, or Rossi, hence he wasn't a person with firsthand knowledge of the real calorimetric results. Before calling you, he should have received the information from a "people in the demo", presumably Levi, the only responsible of the calorimetric measurements. But this is not the only possibility.

Considering how surreal the situation is at this point, we could also imagine that the PiP, which could have been everywhere (in Italy, as well in the USA), decided by himself which should have to be the final calorimetric data, told them to you, who prepared the first BD (Brief Description) of 400 words, to be e-mailed to the "researchers", in order to be corrected and used for their final report. Sorry, I know, this last hypothesis is highly improbable and looks like science fiction, but your secretive (and often hard to believe) statements don't provide any limit to the fantasy.

(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf
(2) http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1081 – Index with search function

Quote from cam

If Levi had had the scientific knowledge to evaluate the E-Cat he wouldn't have reported that the reactor works. He was fooled not by Rossi or Focardi, rather by his cultural inadequacy.

Caro cam-illo, you here have shown your great knowledge about the nuclear aspects which concern the CF/LENR claims, even if they are a little bit OT with respect the title of this thread, but anyway you well know that I consider your nuclear arguments very convincing and correct.

But I was talking about calorimetry, something which you don’t appreciate (Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”), and that maybe you are not able to well evaluate. So, let me suggest you not to judge the other people on something on which you don't have a sufficient knowledge.

Quote from cam

Levi has never been able to consider crap the E-Cat. How can you consider him an accomplished professionist? He had to do a very easy job. Probably he will be Ricercatore forever.

Due to the fact that I started this discussion on some aspects of the January 14, 2011 demo involving necessarily the role of Levi, I feel obliged to invite you (and all the others) to kindly avoid this type of gossip.

I would like to quietly discuss, and only if strictly necessary to better understand the facts, even about the role of the various protagonists of this event, but without feeling me responsible of having triggered any unfair and embarassing personal attacks toward anybody.

Quote from Alan Smith

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

I'm really convinced that Levi, as all his colleagues involved in the Ecat project, had all the required knowledges to perform a correct assessment of the calorimetry of the Ecat during the demo and the subsequent tests (it was not at all rocket science), and that he was also well aware (in this case more than his colleagues) of all the possible tricks usable to manipulate the final results. So, Rossi couldn't be able to fool anyone there at the Physics Department of UniBo, especially Levi.

But I'm also convinced that the main 3 calorimetric data in his report (specific enthalpy, cooling flow rate, and boiling duration) were heavily and blatantly overestimated, in a way which couldn't have been ignored by any physicist which teaches in a University, especially by who was been involved in the setup and calibration of the calorimetric instruments.

Therefore, what you quoted of my comment is not so "up for Bologna University and Professor Levi in particular."

Unfortunately.

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

Yes, you are right (*). Make and model of all the instruments are the first information, which should be provided in a technical report, especially if they have been used to measure an extraordinary (uhm, let's say incredible too) result. But …

But in the Brief Technical Description (BTD) on the January 14, 2011 demo (1), that you edited/assembled/compiled/released (choose your verb) there were no such details. Well, there was just one, the "Delta Ohm HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality Monitor", a portable instrument that needs to be connected to one of its special probes (2), but neither the portable instrument nor any of its probes did appear in any of the many photos (3) and in the videos (4) of the demo available on the web since the first hours from the demo.

You asked "the researchers" whom you e-mailed your Brief Report (BR), a sort of predecessor of the subsequent BDC and BTD, to "add the name and models of some [I wonder why only some!] of the instruments" (5).

Two days later you made public on Vortex the "Brief Description of Calorimetry" (BDC) which, FWIK, mentions for the first time in the open web the Delta Ohm instrument (6): "An HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor (Delta Ohm) to measure the relative humidity of the steam. This is to confirm that it is “dry steam”; that is, steam only, with no water droplets." No other instrument was cited in your BDC.

So, I wonder (don't worry, I just ask to myself) the reasons why the same person, who is now so severe with Krivit for not having mentioned any make and model of the instruments he saw, published in his turn, only 3 days after the January 14, 2011 demo, a report on the calorimetry, announcing the production of 12 kW of excess heat (!), without listing any info on the real instruments used, apart for an IAQ Monitor which was not there.

(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf
(2) http://www.otm.sg/blogs/post/F…ment-probes/#.V6CFYmOP9co
(3) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…naca-test-fusione_14.html - versione 21gen10
(4) "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjdXpSUDRlw" - video 2/3
(5) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41364.html"
(6) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41442.html"

(*) Btw. I'm glad to see that, after more than 5 years, you still recall exactly what you asked to Krivit. Probably, Krivit is much more important for you than the "people in the project" that revealed to you all the calorimetric data of the January 2011 demo.

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

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.