Ascoli65 Member
  • from Italy
  • Member since May 28th 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Ascoli65

  • Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    As I have mentioned, few outside of Planet Rossi think that the January 14, 2011 demonstration was a useful test, because of the failure to confirm various important aspects of the calorimetry, the lack of control experiments, and the lack of independence.


    The demonstration held on January 14, 2011, was not a useful test for demonstrating the performances of the Ecat, but it can be a very useful test for verifying the credibility of the testers of the Ecat.


    The credibility of the testers is the first prerequisite of a test. Usually, it is taken for granted by their title and by their being a member of a prominent Institute, as argued by JR in many of his comments (Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”), for instance: "This tells us that various professors at the university have been involved for some time, and they designed and implemented the calorimetry. I do not think there is any way Rossi could "fool" these people. I think that would be physically impossible."


    This is common sense, but did Rossi needed to fool them?


    Quote

    Yes, it was an historic event, but it was not the first demonstration, merely the first public one.


    The earlier demonstrations don't count, they were private facts. The January 14, 2011 demo, on the contrary, signs the beginning of the LENR+ phase of the CF/LENR saga. It's a mediatic event, as the March 23, 1989, press conference. Its target was not primarily the scientific community, but the public opinion. An article issued in October 2012 on Popular Science (a magazine translated into over 30 languages and distributed to at least 45 countries, with more than one million readers worldwide), begins with a big "ON JANUARY 14, 2011 ...". (see http://pesn.com/2012/10/16/960…-Box--by_Popular-Science/).


    This event has been the changing point for the LENR field, as recently recalled by Rossi himself: "Before the event of January 2011, when we introduced our E-Cat prototype together with Prof Focardi of the University of Bologna, the LENR people was confined in a village of zombies and the LENR were globally considered less than zero. No one was financing any serious R&D in the field. After my work LENR got a tremendous momentum that initiated serious R&D by concerns like Volvo, Elforsk, Mitsubishi, NASA, MIT etc etc etc. in all the world, obtaining the attention of the highest echelons of the DOE and the DOD in the United States of America, …" (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=144#comment-1209814)


    So, let's see in what this event consisted.


    Quote

    What is given here does not at all establish what Ascoli45 claimed. He has a photo showing what appears to be a high temperature probe, inserted into the E-Cat but not plugged in to a meter. It does not show the HP474AC dual function probe (temperature and humidity). That is his evidence that the Delta Ohm meter and that probe were not used. A photo that does not show it.


    The photo you refer is not mine, its source is indicated in the above jpeg: "B – Detail of photo140111rossifocardi1652b.jpg from http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…naca-test-fusione_14.html (Daniele Passerini)". Therefore it is not a "my" evidence, it is an evidence given by the photo 1652b (ie the second photo (b) taken at 16:52) shown in the cited post on 22passi, which contains many other photos showing the same probe.


    Quote

    I do not know where I got the impression, but I had the idea that Galantini needed to remove one probe and put in another to do the "steam quality" test. Maybe there is a description of something like that somewhere. But this is obvious: that the probe is not shown in one photo does not demonstrate that it was not used!


    OK, it's a possible explanation, even if it would be quite weird. Anyway, let's see if your hypothesis is plausible.

    Look at this other old jpeg (http://i.imgur.com/hQdNIim.jpg)

    This is the English translation of the scripts:


    The 3 arrowed red curves connect the 3 photos to the corresponding time points on the PC diagram, which shows the 3 temperature curves monitored during the demo. The upper one refers to the fluid temperature at the outlet. You can see that the duration of the boiling period is about 20 minutes (the half of what reported by Levi), and the second photo has been taken just in the middle of this period. Its image (horizontally flipped with respect to the reality) comes from one of the monitors placed in the large saloon, from where the invited people followed what was happening in the lab. In that moment (at 17:09) the probe with the yellow wire was plugged into its portable instrument, hold by a person, presumabily Galantini. This portable instrument couldn't have been a Delta Ohm HD37AB1347, because no one of its probes has a bipolar plug like the one you can see at the end of the yellow wire (http://www.otm.sg/blogs/post/F…ment-probes/#.V6CFYmOP9co).


    So, the Delta Ohm HP474AC probe and the correspondent portable instrument HD37AB1347, cited in the Levi's report were not there, and their presence has been invented by someone. The major problem is that this incongruence has not been detected and denounced by Levi, nor by anyone of his many colleagues involved in the Ecat project.


    Quote

    Against this claim by Ascoli45 we have statements from two scientists, and while I have serious problems about their competence in certain ways, they are scientists and we will not suspect that they will lie.


    These claims are not mine. I don't make claims, I only suggest to look at documents available on internet. I don't ask anybody to trust me. People should normally trust the professors and the other scientists which are paid by public Institutes to search, tell and defend the scientific truth, and who are not expected to lie, for any reason. But in this case, you have to chose to believe the statements from the scientists OR your own eyes, NOT me.

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

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    By eliminating the intermediate text, Ascoli65 makes it appear ...


    Sorry, but you should understand that if I had considered the whole your comment, I would have replied to you next Christmas.


    Quote

    The test cannot be trusted.


    I fear that they are the testers to be not trustable.


    Quote

    it being a managed demonstration, not an independent test


    It was announced to the press (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…1-Levi-PressRelease.shtml) with these words: "[…] The test will be held by a researcher of the Physics Department of the University of Bologna, and will take place before a selected public of researchers and professors of the same Department. […] The Jan. 14th test is the first to be carried out by outside investigators."


    Quote

    me: - NO Air Quality meter has been ever used to measure the quality steam during the January 14, 2011, demo!


    Evidence for this?


    OK, here we are!


    Three months ago, in my first message here on L-F, I linked to you the web address of a jpeg (http://i.imgur.com/YC4W0Ax.jpg). Now, I put it directly here below one more time. Please, pay attention to it.


    In the detail C you see the HP474AC probe, the one that should have been connected to the HD37AB1347 portable instrument. From the Fig.2 (detail A), extracted from the Levi's report, you see that that probe should be placed on the top of the vertical branch of the Ecat. I hope that you will agree with me that the actual probe inserted on the top of the Ecat (detail B) is not an HP474AC (or ACR) probe. It is only a normal temperature probe (detail D) which remains unplugged for most part of the test.


    If you want to be more certain about this, give a look to all the many pictures posted on 22passi (http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…naca-test-fusione_14.html - versione 21gen10) and to the first part of the second video of the demo:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Are you able to localize the HP474HC probe? Consider also that the other probe inserted halfway in the vertical branch is the normal TC which measures the output temperature shown on the PC screen.


    Quote

    You have vastly exaggerated the importance of this test.


    You did publish an article on the peer reviewed journal Current Science, look please at the Preface (www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0491.pdf): "It is precisely at this juncture that there comes the latest twist in the LENR story. An unknown ‘outsider’, an engineer–inventor from Italy, Andrea Rossi surprised us all by announcing that he has invented a working, industrial-grade Ni–H LENR reactor. On 14 January 2011, he gave a semi-public demo of the same in the presence of an invited audience and later in the year he followed it up with a demo of a 1 MWth (Megawatt thermal) reactor (composed of over a hundred of the basic 10 KWth modules connected in a series/parallel fashion). Now this ‘development’ (some would say that, in the absence of a peer reviewed publication, we should treat it merely as an ‘unproven’ claim) has revived immense worldwide interest in the whole field of LENR."


    Quote

    Well, if you claim it was invented, we would look at the sources.


    Well, it is exactly what this troll (me) is trying to do since his coming here on L-F.

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

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Why is that hard to believe?


    Simply because I deem nearly impossible to forget the name of the "people in the project" who was so kind to phone call you within hours from an event that you expected as "the biggest sensation in cold fusion since 1989" in order to reveal to you all the calorimetric data. But this is only a my personal evaluation, don't feel obliged to share it.


    Quote

    There were 50 people there! I know many of them. I heard from many of them. I quoted Celani directly in various messages, but I heard from others.


    Yes, it was indeed a big event. The largest public event in the history of CF/LENR tests. A lot of high level witnesses, but not all of them were involved in the calorimetry measurements: (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Levi-PressRelease.shtml): "The test will be held by a researcher of the Physics Department of the University of Bologna, and will take place before a selected public of researchers and professors of the same Department. A confirmation of the amount of energy produced and of its origin would imply that we are dealing with new source of energy."


    Celani was present, but he is not of the Physics Department of the University of Bologna, so he was not entitled to release officially any data.


    Quote

    I don't understand why you care about this, but I don't care about it, so that's that.


    Because I don't like to be cheated by those who are paid with public money to make good research and, when required, to unmask the cheaters.


    Quote

    I do not give a damn whether you give any credit to the my library or me. I don't care at all.


    Don't be upset. I have nothing against you. You owe nothing to me. You make your own legit work. Your library is a useful tool. IMO, it will be even more precious in the future, when the historians will try to understand some of the myths which brought their ancestors to accelerate the collapse of their super technological civilization, the same way as the present historians try to interpret the Moai in order to figure out the reasons of the nearly extiction of Rapa Nui.


    Quote

    I do not respond to rude people who demand information from my e-mail, especially when it would be annoying for me to dig up that information and when I think the information is unimportant.


    I don't want to be rude. My poor English obliges me to be as direct as possible to avoid misinterpretations, and I don't know how the resulting wording sounds to a native English speaker. Maybe it sounds rude. Sorry, for that.


    Anyway, I don't ask you anything, especially the content of your e-mail. But, be sure, all of your information are important, and IMO the sources are as important as the information themselves, especially when the information are wrong.


    Quote

    Insinuations and absurd statement that I am the one and only source of information on cold fusion will get you nowhere.


    I didn't say that. I only said, that you were the reference point of all the contributors to the BTD on the calorimetry of the January 2011 demo, as you wrote in your mail to Vortex.


    Quote

    If you want information on cold fusion, I suggest you go to a university library.


    I don't need for the moment. I'm giving the priority to the most important document, reporting the most important data, measured during the most important cold fusion demonstration. It is a university report published 10 days after the January 14, 2011, demo, and, thanks to your library, it is easily accessible.


    After having well evaluated the reliability of the data reported in that report, I will decide if it is worth examining other documents on cold fusion.

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


    Fine, you made a clever and thorough lesson on how an Air Quality meter works, and why it can't be used to measure the steam quality. This instrument, the Delta Ohm HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality Monitor, is mentioned in the document you quoted (assembled by JR) and in the final Levi's report (issued with the UniBo's logo) describing the calorimetric data of the demo held on January 14, 2011. You talked about the inappropriateness of this instrument a lot of times, one of the more recent has been the reason of my coming here on L-F (1). The dryness on the steam at the outlet of the Ecat was by far the most important datum of the demo, because an error on its measure could have caused an overestimation of at least a factor 6 of the enthalpy of the outlet fluid, and hence of the output power. You know it very well and you are absolutely right in saying that "an Air Quality meter cannot measure the quality steam".


    But the real problem is that:


    - NO Air Quality meter has been ever used to measure the quality steam during the January 14, 2011, demo!


    Therefore:


    - the presence of the "Delta Ohm HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality Monitor" (cited in the document assembled by JR) and of the correspondent "HP474AC probe" (cited in the Levi's report) has been INVENTED!


    Can you see the problem?


    I would just like to know who, and why, decided to invent the presence of the most important instrument in the most important and celebrated public demo of the CF/LENR history, which, together with other blatant errors, allowed to write, in a report issued with the UniBo logo, that a tabletop device produced more than 12 kW of heat in output by using only 1 kW of electricity in input, allowing in this way to the Ecat's fairy tale to take off and rise high up to reaching the sites of the political decision makers, inducing them to wrongly believe that such a technology can solve all the major problems which the humankind is facing.


    Should I be considered a troll for this?


    (1) Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test

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

    Quote from andrea.s

    Ascoli, if I may: are you sure Jed fits as the covert agent in your DoD/ecat spy story?


    You might not. You shouldn't attribute to me something I didn't say. There is a lot of your imagination in your question. If you want to ask me about what I say, please, quote me and use as far as possible my words. It will help in understanding each other.


    Quote

    Wouldn't he rather be the "useful idiot"?


    I don't think so. He is an esteemer of Machiavelli, so I presume that he is well aware of the real background in which the CF/LENR field developed, whatever it is.


    Quote

    The same applies to the Bologna professors, and later to the Uppsala professors. You certainly don't think the DoD can bribe University professors abroad.


    No, of course, I don't think so, and I don't know the real reasons of the academic involvement in the Ecat affair. Anyway, as already put at your attention (1), I consider that those who contacted Rossi at the beginning of this story were much more impressed by his ability as PR manager, than by his presumed scientific skill.


    Quote

    As to the "historical importance" of UniBo presence at the demo: I am not impressed by the fact that a handful of physicists accepted an invitation out of curiosity or deference to their ex Dean of Faculty.


    It wasn't "a handful of physicists". At least nine professors were present at that demo, including the new director of the Physics Department. They let the name of their university be widely used for at least one year to convince the world opinion of the soundness of the calorimetric performances of the Ecat. Among the various consequences, many Italian Representatives urged our Government to increase the funding on LENR research. All this can't happen only for "curiosity and deference" to an ex Dean of Faculty. The Italian people expects that the curiosity of the public researchers be devoted to make good science, and their deference to the scientific reputations of their institutes and to the Italian taxpayers.


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

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

    Jed, I finally found the time to complete the answer to your previous comment.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I did not define it as anything. That's Marianne's title.


    The word "interview" never appear in her document, whose title is "Specifics of Andrea Rossi’s “Energy Catalyzer” Test, University of Bologna, 1/14/2001", and is uploaded it in your lenr-canr library with the name "MacyMspecificso" (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf).


    Quote

    Well I know a lot about the technical aspects of experiments, but nothing about Rossi's business arrangements or his personal life. If you want to know about those things, read Mats Lewan's book. […] about some guy in England who supposedly invested $50 million in I.H. I don't recall the name. […] The only thing I know about their business is what was revealed in the lawsuit, and I never bothered to read the lawsuit documents carefully. Legal documents give me a headache.


    I didn't ask you anything about these arguments. And I never talked about them. You are complaining with the wrong person.


    Quote

    I am interested in the technical aspects of cold fusion. I don't waste time on gossip, rumors, speculation, etc.


    Fine, now I agree with you.


    In fact, I am talking with you about the technical aspects of the Ecat demo held on January 14, 2011, which is most important, witnessed, documented, celebrated public demonstration in the history of CF/LENR, the field of which you are the first and sole librarian since a quarter of century.


    In particular, it would be of the utmost importance to know the source of the wrong data used to highly overestimate the excess heat reported in the Levi's report.


    These data appeared for the first time on the web in some of your mails to vortex. In particular, just 3 days after the Bologna demo, you issued the first comprehensive calorimetric report, the Brief Technical Description (BTD), with these mail to vortex ("https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg41484.html"):


    You wrote that you were the editor of the BTD, and you gathered the contributions from various people, hence you were the reference point of all of them. Now, you are trying to convince me that you have forgotten the names of the people you were in touch with. Sorry, but I can't believe it. Of course, you are not obliged to reveal their names. But it's clear to me, by your same words, that as coordinator of the BTD editing, you know all the people that contributed to it, and the exact circumstances in which they provided their contributions.


    There is also another delicate point regarding the same BTD. The names of the "University of Bologna" and "INFN" appear in its title and in the text. In the above mail to vortex, you wrote that you got the okey's. So, I presume that you also got the official authorizations from these two scientific institutions, who allowed you to cite their names in your BTD in such a prominent position, the title. I also assume that you kept these authorizations very meticulously.


    In the same BTD, we can read "Dr. Levi quoted from his post experiment interview". FWIK, this is the first time that the "Levi's interview" is mentioned in the web, and you announced the publication of the BTD one day before your announcement of the so-called Macy's interview. Moreover, it is specified that it was a "post experiment" interview, that is an interview released shortly after the conclusion of the experiment, just around the same time of the phone call you had with a "people in the project" ("http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41364.html").


    But you said, in your last comments here on L-F, that your interlocutor was not Levi, nor Focardi, nor Rossi. So, you understand that the identity of this "people in the project" is a very intriguing mystery, which IMO should be solved for the following reason.


    The BTD is one of the thousands of documents included in your LENR-CANR library, it refers to the widest documented experiment of the whole CF/LENR history, and you were the coordinator of all the information it contains. Well, if we are not able to understand from where these data come from, how is it possible to give any credit to the contents of the other documents in your library?

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

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Sorry Ascoli, the question is too complex for the time I have to read the details of your hypothesis.


    My previous question to you was not about "my" hypothesis, but it was about your objection to my appeal to get at first the answers to the questions that Krivit posed in his 2 mails to vortex in March 2010. I know, those mails contain many questions, some alluding to a hypothetical tentative to discredit the Ni-H approach. I'm not referring, and I don't give any credit, to this specific suspect of him.


    I believed to have clearly specified in some previous comments (1), which ones of the Krivit's questions I'm referring to. Anyway I repeat here below:


    March 13, 2010 – "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg38052.html" :
    “… why the good Dr. Melich, allegedly representing the entire “DoD”, is involved with this?”


    March 14, 2010 - "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg38061.html"
    “Whoever registered the name is probably an American because of the California registration. […] I wonder which of the people involved in journal-of-nuclear-physics.com are familiar with the Russian science scene and which of them might be conversant in Russian and who has been a frequent co-author on Russian LENR papers?” (I guess, Krivit was clearly alluding to Melich, again.)


    These are not "my hypotheses", these are questions posed by Krivit which, independently from whichever his motivation, did clearly allude at the possibility that the JoNP has been put at disposition of Rossi by a functionary of the DoD, who allegedly represented (in the JoNP's Board of Advisers) the entire DoD-USA.


    These are two very simple questions. For sure the US Secretary of Defense knows, or may easily know, the answers, and, if he will be asked about during the next briefing at the US House, he can, if he wants, reveal them to the US Representatives. Is it so complex what I meant?


    Finally, if (IF) the two above specified KRIVIT's innuendos will be confirmed at an authoritative level, there is no space, for my common sense, to consider the Ecat affair as a scam, more specifically a "Rossi's scam", because it would mean that a worldwide scam of dozen millions dollars would have been perpetrated along 6+ years, by using as a propagandistic tool a web Journal put at disposition of the presumed scammer by the DoD, which was also officially represented in its Board of Advisers.


    Therefore, due to the fact that IMO there is no reasons to believe that the Ecat did ever behave contrary to what established by the mainstream science, ie there is no reason to believe that it did produce any excess heat, and it is also unbelievable that a controversial philosopher could have convinced so many physics professors to be able to subvert in such an extraordinary way the well established laws of the physics, there should necessarily be some other reasons for such DoD involvement in the Ecat affair. Which ones? I don't know. Ask somebody else. Maybe JR knows more.


    Is it clear now?


    (1) http://ecatnews.com/?p=2686&cpage=6#comment-143697


    Quote from Rigel

    Hi Ascoli65 and Mary Yugo.
    Just so I understand, so please help me.
    ...


    Hi Rigel, as already said to you by MY, the words you put in brakets are mine. I hope you resolved meanwhile your doubts.

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

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Ascoli, say again the motivation for this black ops.... in simple language please.


    Again? I can't say "again" any motivation, because I never said IT IS a black ops, so I never gave any motivation for it. I just said that it is an hypothesis which deserve to be taken into consideration, contrary to you that consider it absolutely impossible.


    To be more simple, I just consider possible, what you deem impossible. I'm talking about possibility, not ascertain reality.


    Even Krivit, which is an American journalist and has first hand information on the CF/LENR world, takes into consideration the possibility of "false flags" in this field. I just rely on his words (for this specific respect).


    Quote

    Krivit says to discredit Ni-H work. If the work is valid, how could that be done? All that is needed to refute it are a few clear and incontrovertible experiments. So, Ascoli, you think Ni-H fusion works? Whose?


    No, I think that no CF/LENR approach works. I hoped to have been clear to this respect.


    So I really don't understand your objection. Would you, please, explain better what you mean?

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

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Ascoli65's contention seems to be that focusing on Rossi and on his being a scammer is misguided at best. If one really wants to know where the action is, one should look to the University of Bologna, to the DoD and to other agencies and institutions, some of which may be orchestrating LENR fandom behind the scene, through some kind of black ops. Ascoli please correct me if I have misstated your position.


    Eric, you nearly got it, with some warnings.


    First, I would change the order of priority between UniBo and DoD, and fully differentiate their possible aims.


    Second, these are only hypotheses. They deserve to be taken into consideration, but have to be carefully verified, and hopefully confirmed by the proper level, in the proper site. The next briefing at the US House would be the best occasion. Until then, talking about the Ecat affair as a possible Rossi's scam is not only unfair, due to the fact that whichever crime should be discussed only in a court, but ìt could be intentionally spread in order to divert from the real causes.


    I think that the first and simplest questions to be answered are those posed by Krivit in March 2010, when the JoNP appeared on the web:
    "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg38052.html"
    "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg38061.html"


    IMO, a confirmation of the Krivit's innuendos would be incompatible with any scam hypothesis.

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

    Quote from andrea.s

    I will take your reply as a yes to my second example.


    Your second example begins with "Other possibilities:" and what follows (provided to change scams with myths) belongs to the realm of possibilities.


    But you should keep attention not to confuse possibilities with realities and, above all, not to stop at the first possibility you meet.


    Anyway, if you want to know more about that, you shouldn't ask me: I can provide you only second hand info gathered from the web, and that you can find by yourself.


    Instead, you could take advantage by the presence in this thread of JR, which for sure is one of the most attentive and informed persons on these arguments, and knows many other people even more informed, as you can see in the following exemplificative short list of his mails to Vortex.


    (1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg07241.html"
    (2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg45587.html"
    (3) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg60675.html"
    (4) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg64637.html"
    (5) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg70567.html"
    (6) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg83637.html"
    (7) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg90155.html"
    (8) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg103252.html"

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

    Quote from andrea.s

    Ascoli, you insist so much on this involvement that you must have an opinion.


    I often talk about the DoD involvement in the CF/LENR and in the Ecat because it is evident. I don't say anything secret, and it's not a my guess, it's written in many documents you can find on the web. They are the same facts which lead the Committee of Armed Services of the US House to ask the Secretary of Defense to brief them about these subjects.


    I find much more strange that so many people, almost all the so called skeptics, insist to say, against any clear evidence, that the Ecat affair is a Rossi's scam.


    It's also strange that most of the people who believe in the reality of the Ecat, is waiting so anxiously the decision of a judge that, maybe, will decide next year on some formal aspects of a legal controversy, and don't pay any attention to the next briefing of the Secretary of the US Department most involved in this story.


    Quote

    I made an example already, which many LENR enthusiasts like (in short: cold fusion is real and secreted by DoD, and Rossi is used to misdirect).


    Other possibilities: free energy scams - Rossi included - are part of a counterinformation strategy of the DoD, in parallel to suspect declarations of huge tight oil reserves, to influence oil prices and/or confuse the "enemy". How is that?


    First of all, in this labyrinth full of mirrors, let's fixate a firm point. The cold fusion is not possible (beyond the undetectable amounts allowed by the quantum tunneling effect). This has been clearly established and declared by the mainstream physicists 27 years ago and is confirmed by the nuclear data bases cited by cam. This is also well known to everybody, including those political, economic, industrial (especially those sector, as automotive and aerospace, based on liquid fuel) and scientific entities that in these years have sustained with hundreds of millions the survival of the F&P legend and the appearance of other more popular myths, as the Ecat.


    That said, it is straightforward to deduce that there should have been, and there still is, a series of anthropological, geopolitical, economical and financial reasons for this to happen. IMO, these reasons are many, because they vary according to the supporting entity, and have changed throughout the decades. So it's very hard to say which they have been in the past or are at present. But you can find many articles or comments on the web which provide you a lot of possible interconnections between the free energy myths (not scams) and very concrete aspects of our daily reality, just look in the web asking to Google with the appropriate entry words. What I can say is that, in general, the free energy myths favor at short term almost every living human being, me included, so that almost no one has an immediate and material interest to negate them.


    Anyway, discussing about the possible past reasons doesn't make much sense in this moment, at less than 2 months from the mentioned briefing. I think that the priority should be taking the occasion to ask for a clarification of the real extent of the DoD support to these initiatives, especially to the Ecat one, in the light of the effects that such myths could have on the present global energy policy and on the future of the humankind.


    Quote

    At least you should appreciate my efforts to think twisted.


    I mostly appreciate your shift from the technical details of the HotCat toward a wider vision of the background context. Anyway, before any twisted thought, we should look at what is right in front of us, as suggested by the aphorism of Marshall McLuhan which AlainCo put below his messages: "Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity."

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

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I don't know what you mean by saying I "presented" the document.


    Sorry, I used a false friend between the two languages: "presentare" means "to introduce". I would mean that you announced the Macy's document and you defined it "an interview". The problem is that this document hasn't the classical structure of an interview, with alternating Q&A, that she used in other occasion, for instance with Darden (1). She also uses to describe at the beginning the exact circumstances of the interview. On the contrary, in the so-called interview with Levi, that she titled instead "Specifics of Andrea Rossi’s “Energy Catalyzer” Test, University of Bologna, 1/14/2001", we read after a while:


    Quote

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf
    ...
    Giuseppe Levi, PhD in nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and who works at INFN, offers exclusive comments on the test, which he deemed “an open experiment for physicists. …"


    There is no specific mention to the circumstances of the interview. So, I asked myself the reasons of these apparent anomalies and I guessed that the quotes attributed to Levi (7 in total) could have come from the phone call that you mentioned on January 15 mail to Vortex. But if you say that Levi wasn't your direct interlocutor in that occasion, I take it for true. No problem. I have just to imagine who else could have been in possession of all the calorimetric data and why he phone called you within a few hours from the end of the demo.


    By the way, there is also another problem, but it's not about you. In her specifics, Macy wrote "Levi … offers exclusive comments on the test". That's quite strange. Levi is a member of a public institute, the Physics Department of UniBo, which publicly took the responsibility to check the performances of the device and allowed him to perform and check the measurements on its behalf. I ask myself how it is possible that the same researcher did offer "in exclusive" to an American journalist his comments on the test, and he did it at least one week before of the releasing of the calorimetric report with the logo of his University.


    Quote

    I have no knowledge of this interview. Perhaps it was done by e-mail? That's easier than a phone call.


    So we don't even know if such an interview has happened! But at least we know that it exists a document which reports some alleged Levi's quotes, that you called such a document "a short interview", and that Macy talked to Levi. It's better than nothing.


    Quote

    If you wish to know more about it, I suggest you contact the authors.


    I'm already talking with you. You are one of the 3 authors of one of the preliminary reports which divulged world wide the calorimetric data of the January 2011 demo, well in advance of the Levi's report.


    Quote

    As a librarian I might be able to find out some more by looking through my notes. If you ask nicely, I might. I am not trying to hide anything but I do not give a fart about this business, so I am not going to make an effort on your behalf unless you ask nicely.


    I don't think it's a matter of nicety. I try to be as polite and respectful as possible with you, as with everybody else. If my Engrish could sometime sound nasty or offensive, I apologize in advance. It's not my intention. But let me use a little bit of irony in replying to what I see as a tentative of pulling my leg.


    I understand, that you are not willing to reveal all you know, and I think that you, as the first and sole librarian of this field, know a lot of things, especially on the Ecat's story. So, I don't ask you nothing. I just keep on reading your comments, letting my common sense decide case by case if each single sentence is true, untrue or doubtful.


    I give you an example. When, as in your last comment, I read "Rossi is not particularly important to me. I make no special effort to keep track of papers relating to him.", I can't avoid to remember that at beginning of 2012 you wrote (2): "Lots of businessmen are like him. Lots of inventors too, notably Edison. They are not saints. Rossi has made tremendous contributions to humanity, ..." You see? These sentences are in blatant contradiction. I'd like to believe all you say, but, in this case, I have necessarily to choose only one, at most, of your positions, and my common sense suggests me to believe that you attributed for years a lot of importance to the Ecat initiative, and, consequently, that you kept track meticulously all the relative documentation.


    Let's apply the same method to this phrase of you.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    Okay, the only messages I find from Levi to me are ones where he acknowledged a few minor copy-edit corrections to a paper. I suggested they change "a" to "the" in one sentence, and a few other things. He said thanks.


    It would seem that the only mail exchange with Levi was for a couple of articles and a thx. But, in the already cited mail you sent to Vortex the day after the demo, you wrote:


    Quote

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41364.html


    Will report on Rossi soon
    Jed Rothwell Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:19:49 -0800


    Okay, I spoke with one of the people in the project about the calorimetry. Then I typed up the notes from our conversation as a brief report (400 words). I e-mailed the report to the researchers so they can confirm I got the numbers and other details correct, and also add the name and model numbers of some of the instruments.
    ...


    After a couple of days, you released, in a mail to Vortex (3), the first Brief Description of the Calorimetry. Two more hours later, you wrote the following:


    So, it seems to me that there have been at least one mail exchange between you and the "researchers" involved in the calorimetry measurements devoted to confirm the numbers of your Brief Description. But the people in charge of the calorimetric measurements was Levi, so whoever was your e-mail contact in Bologna he was just a channel between you two. Otherwise the only other option is that you wrote and published your brief report with all the final calorimetric data without consulting the main responsible of the measurements.


    My common sense suggests me that you were in touch, directly or indirectly, with Levi. The other option would be worse, much worse.


    (1) http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf
    (2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg61968.html"
    (3) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41442.html"

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

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Not so- Focardi's written English was pretty good, and his 'technical conversation' English quite good enough to hold a social conversation about his work.


    For what I saw (1-2), I didn't get the impression that Focardi could have held, at that age, a phone call in English about his work.


    For the written documents, assuming he was the only author of their text, I'm not the most suitable to evaluate the quality of his English.


    (1) Jun14,2011 - http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Transcript-Excerpts.shtml
    (2) Oct6,2011 -

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

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

    Quote from andrea.s

    @Ascoli why would the DoD benefit from encouraging and backing a scammer?


    Why a scammer? Did you see any scam? I recall to you that a scam is a "an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence", ie a fraud, a crime, something that can be determined only by a court.


    If you wish to know whether the DoD benefited from the Ecat affair, I don't know. This is a good question to be submitted to the Secretary of Defense at the next briefing to the US House Committee on Armed Service to be held on September 22.


    Quote

    Do you mean the DoD secretly knows all about Cold fusion, perhaps Pd-D, and drove the show from behind the scenes to misdirect others?


    This is another good question for Mr. Carter.

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

    Quote from JedRothwell


    I don't recall who it was, but it wasn't Levi. I would say if I remembered. It is no big deal. I wasn't trying to keep it secret.


    I do not think it was Focardi. He was a nice fellow, but he was old and did not play a big role, as I recall.


    Jed, you seem to be affected by selective amnesia. Let me try to help you in recalling something more.


    You was well aware of the importance of the Bologna demo, as you wrote the day before:


    As librarian, you know that the contour data of a document (author, date, circumstances, etc.) are as important as its content. A phone call with a "people in the project", who after a few hours did reveal to you all the most important data of the energy balance which confirmed your expectation, is an exceptional vocal document, whose details have probably been meticulously annotated and kept by you. I'd also expected, that you had a vocal record of such a conversation. I'd find quite difficult to transcript by hand and in real time a conversation like that, with all its critical technical details.


    Anyway, if your interlocutor was Levi (Focardi, of course, was out of question, due to his low familiarity with English), we can also suppose that your conversation with him has been the basis for the preparation of the document that you presented as a "short interview with Levi" (1) and which was written by Marianne Macy (2). Otherwise we should necessarily assume that Levi phone called Macy (or vice versa) to release that interview.


    In any case, we can be sure that Levi, who performed the measurements on behalf of the Department of Physics of the University of Bologna, did reveal within a short time all the calorimetric data to someone in the USA, and, as well documented by Krivit (3), these data have been widely used to prepare some preliminary reports which appeared on internet much earlier than the UniBo calorimetric report (4). I think, this is out of any academic ethic.


    In conclusion, at least FOUR people contributed to the definition of the final calorimetric report of the test held on January 14, 2011, ONE in Italy and THREE in the USA, but all the credibility of its astonishing results, the 12 kW of excess heat calculated on the bases of blatantly wrong data, is based exclusively on the reputation of the professors of the Physics Department of UniBo.


    It's really a big, big deal.


    (1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg41543.html"
    (2) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf
    (3) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…6/3625rf-melichmacy.shtml
    (4) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41453.html"

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

    Quote from JedRothwell


    That's absurd. I got the papers the same time everyone else did. I have never met him or spoken to him. I have one or two e-mails from him with a few sentences granting permission to upload files. He probably does not even know who I am.


    That's really difficult to believe. I wonder who else but Levi could have been the "people in the project" which talked with you about the calorimetry.


    These are your words again (1):

    Quote

    Jed Rothwell Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:19:49 -0800
    Okay, I spoke with one of the people in the project about the calorimetry. Then I typed up the notes from our conversation as a brief report (400 words). I e-mailed the report to the researchers so they can confirm I got the numbers and other details correct, and also add the name and model numbers of some of the instruments.


    They are exhausted so I do not expect to hear back before tomorrow. I will post the information as soon as they clear it. I do not want to circulate dumb mistakes that I made writing down a phone conversation. Most of what I learned you already know. I confirm the blogger's description, that the calorimetry is mainly based on the heat of vaporization of water. Here are a few other details: ...


    It is clear from the context of your mail to vorticians that your interlocutor participated at the demo and spoke with you in the same day (otherwise why he should have been so exhausted?). When you wrote the above mail, you had already prepared a report and sent it back to Italy "to the researchers", but the only researcher from UniBo involved in the demo was Levi, all the other were professors.


    Levi was the "researcher of the Physics Department of the University of Bologna" (2) which had the responsibility to prepare the setup, perform the measurements, and gather and check all the calorimetric data. I wonder who else could have been your interlocutor. Unless you mean that all the calorimetric data had been phoned to you by Rossi, or by some unknown collaborator of him! This would be really absurd. Someone of the part under verification "by outside investigators", which knows within hours all the calorimetric data, reports them to someone else in the USA, who in turn prepares a report to be submitted for confirmation to the "researchers" (presumably the people of the Physics Department), who finally, after ten days, wrote the same (wrong) data in the calorimetric report issued with the UniBo logo. Wow! In this last case, it would have been the most funny tale in the history of the physics since Galileo


    In any case, you are now telling us that you got the papers, presumably all the 3 official reports by UniBo, included the calorimetric one, at the same time of everyone else, that is about ten day after the demo, but this means nothing. You did get all the information about the most significant part of the test, the calorimetry, a few hours after the demo, and you prepared a preliminary report for the testers, and in this way you became an active part in the process of documentation of the calorimetric data.


    Sorry to say that, but this story of you hardly comply with all the other information available on the web, starting from your cited mail to Vortex. I know, you are a fan of Machiavelli, but not even the great Florentine philosopher and politicians would have dared to put together a story like this, certainly not in the present Internet era, when everything you write is stored in some public archive, easy to access.


    (1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41364.html"
    (2) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…1-Levi-PressRelease.shtml

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

    Quote from cam

    What are worrying about? It is only a gloomy story of "incompetence and delusion" as always happens with cold fusion.


    Cold fusion it's only partially a story of "incompetence and delusion", it looks more, at best, like a story of "Tooth Fairy Syndrome", a human behavior explained in a recent article written by Louis Arnoux for the Ugo Bardi's blog (1): "... we are in this situation fundamentally because of what I call the “Tooth Fairy Syndrome”, [...] the prevalence of a fair amount of magical thinking at the heart of decision-making within both the GEI [Global Energy Industry] and the GIW [Globalised Industrialized World], aka economics as a perpetual motion machine fantasy. Unquestioned delusional beliefs lead to wrong conclusions."


    Arnoux also reports the thinking of an anthropologist which fits quite well with what we see: "Nader had observed that prevailing decision-making in the industrialised world she was living in was also the outcome of a weird mix of “Magic, Science, and Religion” with magical and mythical, quasi religious, thinking predominating among people who were viewed and who viewed themselves as rational and making scientifically grounded decisions."

    Maybe, the Cold Fusion saga will be recorded in the future books, which will explain to the survivors (if any) the reasons of the collapse of our civilizations, as the most paradigmatic and incredible example of Tooth Fairy Syndrome, which had affected a large part of the decision makers, and their voters.


    In the third and last part of the article (2), there is also a useful advice, particularly suited for you: "In terms of epistemology and methods, this requires what in anthropology is called the “hermeneutic circle”: moving repeatedly from the particulars, the details, to the whole system, improving our understanding of the whole and from this going back to the particulars, improving our understanding of them, going back to considering the whole, and so on."


    Did you see? In order to understand better what we are looking at, we should repeatedly move from the particular, in your case the nuclear data bases, to the whole system. This article of Arnoux provides you a good occasion to do that.


    (1) http://cassandralegacy.blogspo…ilight-of-oil-age_15.html
    (2) http://cassandralegacy.blogspo…ilight-of-oil-age_88.html

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

    Quote from andrea.s

    Ascoli I tend to think simple.


    I too, but for me it means to think as simple as possible. If the simplest hypothesis doesn't match the evidences, it should be replaced by the next simpler one.


    Quote

    Rossi started working on trying to reproduce patents on CF.


    Who said this, Rossi? Only a few people in the world know how and why he has been involved in this field. I guess one of these is Marianne Macy, the wife of Michael Melich, a physics PhD, professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, who appears since the beginning in the Advisory Board of JoNP, as a member of DoD-USA.


    A few months ago, she wrote a long article (1), which, among many other things, provided very interesting information about the first contacts among them three. In particular she wrote: "Rossi not only didn’t wait for the ICCFs; he didn’t attend them. He gave demonstrations of his technology, put videos on the internet, ran his own website, and worked ceaselessly to get what he was doing out there. He knew PR. At one point when he was just starting to get up a head of steam and his ECat technology had not yet been named, I attended a meeting with him in the offices of a major public relations firm in offices above Grand Central Station."


    Could you provide, for example, a simple explanation why they met in a PR office, and not in a scientific lab? And why she stressed his PR abilities, much more than the scientific ones?


    Further in the article: "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."


    So we know that in the same period when Rossi was approaching Focardi, his company, which was close to the US Navy, asked a professor of the US Navy to view a demonstration of his devices.


    Another quote: "Michael Melich and I probably spent more time with Andrea Rossi than most people in the LENR field, certainly in the U.S. He stayed at our home. We traveled with him. We got to know his inner circle, wife, even his mother-in-law (adorable.) We were with him in Rome, Washington, Greece, New York, and many other places. If Andrea Rossi had a working LENR technology, a lot of people were trying to help him get it out there."


    Here we have a DoD functionary which knows perfectly Rossi, having spent a lot of time with him, and accompanying him around the world in searching for help to his technology.


    And finally the last excerpt: "Michael Melich is on record in two public tutorials saying that Rossi’s 2009 demonstrations seemed to show that he was producing about 10 KW for a period of 4-5 hours."


    Do you really believe that an experienced PhD in physics, which followed the CF/LENR field since the beginning, could have been fooled on this subject by a philosopher with a well known controversial past?


    Quote

    Levi worked with Focardi and hoped for recognition as one of the guys who found the new fire.


    For what concerns UniBo, it's not a matter of Levi and Focardi, but of the whole Department of Physics. The January 2011 demo has been conducted in front of both the directors of the 2 major physics institutes in Bologna. Levi publicly recognized their support during the presentation (see the first video (2) at 5:32). After 3 months, a biannual research program on the Ecat, a device which apparently behaves like a normal electric heater, has been approved by the Council of Department (3), on behalf of all its members. Why they allowed such an affront to the physics, to the credibility of their university and to the common sense? Why, till now, nobody of that Department has corrected the numerous categorical assessments, made by many of their members, in which they undoubtedly confirmed the generation of a lot of kW in the tests they witnessed?


    Quote

    Jed was and is the recognized LENR librarian, [...]. Jed is not a scientist, and of course was positively biased. So it is straightforward why Levi released the news of extraordinary results to Jed even before consulting his colleagues in Bologna. Many of his colleagues would be criticizing and demanding, and an endorsement coming from overseas would help in rejecting objections.


    Are you kidding? As Levi told Krivit (4), at that time he was already collaborating with his colleagues of the future research group on the Ecat (5 in total), plus he had the support of his 2 directors, plus Focardi and Stremmenos. In total 9 academicians, of the most important Physics Department in Italy, at disposition to evaluate the soundness of a couple of calorimetric measurements, essentially a flow rate and a temperature! Why the hell, Levi, who until then proclaimed himself as a skeptic, should have looked for an endorsement from a biased LENR librarian, which is not even a scientist? Do you really think that his fellow physicists have been convinced by an expert in Japanese literature to give credit that a tabletop device could have produced 12 kW of excess heat?


    In any case, even if you believe at such an absurd hypothesis, how is it possible that JR got the permission to publicly reveal all the calorimetric data, ten days before the issuing of the UniBo report? Wasn't it unfair with respect to the Department, which publicly had taken the responsibility to publish those historical data?


    Quote

    Now the question is, were the alleged mistakes intentional, and if so who are the intentional deceivers?


    Exactly, these are the questions, but if you look carefully to the January 2011 data and setup, the mistakes are not alleged, nor they could be unintentional.


    Quote

    I think this is a mix of
    1.initial delusion due to flawed measurements, ...


    Come on, Andrea. An "initial" delusion lasted for more than 3 years, from October 2007 to January 2011, how could it be?


    Quote

    ... , followed by
    2. the desperate attempt to reproduce results, only happening at times (when the flaws were reproduced), and
    3. the setting up of demos (to state a priority of invention and to raise funding) where failure was not an option and leading to "backup strategies" so to speak.


    Hey, are you speaking about a reputable ancient scientific institution, or a bunch of unscrupulous adventurers?


    Quote

    Even the 1 MW plant makes sense for a deluded inventor who thinks his reactors work "at times" but in an uncontrolled manner.


    The 1 MW plant makes sense only if you want to confuse the ideas and make more difficult to identify with certainty the mundane explanation of the apparent results. Exactly as in the HotCat case.


    Quote

    Then if you have had success with backup strategies for three times, you may be tempted to try again. And the obsession for success once you have invested your life in a delusion may lead to weird behaviours.


    You keep on making the usual error, trying to explain the Ecat saga on the basis of the Rossi's bio. It's wrong. You should find a reason why the Ecat got such an impressive number of endorsements from dozens of experts belonging to so many reputable scientific and technological institutions, in the order of appearance: DoD, UniBo, UniCambridge, UniUppsala, KTH, NASA, Elforsk, and others.


    Do you really think that a philosopher with his controversial past could have convinced so many people that he had been able to find by chance a miraculous substance suitable to extract many kW of heat from a few grams of nickel powder?


    You know, being passionate of some technical details, in your case the HotCat, doesn't mean that you should ignore what is around those details. At least, if you want understand the deep reasons of what you are looking at.


    (1) http://www.infinite-energy.com…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html
    (2) Poll: Should we ban Rossi-related discussions?
    (3) http://22passi.blogspot.it/2011/06/accadde-il-21-aprile.html
    (4)

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

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

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The answer is simple and contains only three letters...


    Do you mean "NDA"? A sort of agreement, for which JR could, or should, publish and support all the positive claims about the Ecat tests, but with the prohibition to highlight any errors, even the most evident? And, moreover, with a mandate to contradict and oppose anyone who highlighted them?


    If this is what you mean, why he should have signed such an agreement? And with whom?