Posts by JedRothwell

Please do not ascribe this view to me. I did not depend on any inside sources. I.H. made it clear they do not agree with Rossi's ERV report in their March 10 announcement and in their response to his lawsuit. Look at the two press releases:

Rossi claimed the machine "often generat[ed] energy exceeding fifty (50) times the amount of energy consumed during the same period."

I.H. came back and said, "Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success."

Whatever meaning you ascribe to "substantiate," surely that sentence rules out a machine that produces 50 times input!

Either Rossi is making a big mistake, or I.H. is. You cannot judge who is right until you read their reports. But you can guess. I suppose Rossi is mistaken, because he has made big mistakes in the past, whereas the people at I.H. seem competent to me.

That's all there is to it.

You wrote: "Surprisingly, the ERV concluded the test and showed a continual COP greater than 6 and occasionally higher than 50. So it's simple, [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] must pay."

That is surprising. However, I.H. disputes the finding. In their latest press release they say there was no heat. If that is true, they do not have to pay. We will have to see the ERV report before we can judge which side is correct.

Yes, Penon is the author of a previous report, from 2012. See:

http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-co…09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

Google translate is here:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-forum.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%2FAttachment%2F527-20160302062724813-pdf%2F%3Fs%3D6ece1266061942ef254cd4b092cfeddd9c90227b&edit-text=

I have to say, at first glance this looks better than Jiang in some ways. The internal thermocouple is cooler than the wall thermocouple at first, as it should be. After time 1400 it gets significantly hotter, as you see in Fig. 8. That would indicate anomalous heat.

Google does not translate the text in Fig. 8 because it is an image. As Google more or less said, the Fig. 8 caption is "changes in relation between heating power and temperature." The text in this figure is similar to Japanese so let me just translate it:

Y-axis: temperature °C / pressure bar / power, W
X-axis: time, 30 minute [segments]

In the graph, from top to bottom:

Top left:
2016 January 18-19
Dat 0149
reactor #4 (2)

Top right:
Anomalous heat: ~100 W, 1295°C

150 minutes

Text box:

Red dots: [Some sort of??] reactor: reactor internal temperature thermocouple
Blue dots: [Some sort of??] reactor: reactor wall temperature thermocouple [As Google notes, this is between the container and the furnace]
Green dots: Pressure x 10
Purple dots: Power x 0.1

[The only words I cannot read describe the reactor.]

Here is a rough translation of Fig. 8. I am reading it in Japanese but words like this are pretty much the same in both languages:

https://drive.google.com/file/…BMjYtS1U/view?usp=sharing

Let me try inserting the image here:

Hmmm . . . I don't see it, but anyway, click on the link to see it.

The abstract is in English, and Google translate does a pretty good job of translating the whole paper. Go to:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-forum.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%2FAttachment%2F520-20160301-125433238-pdf%2F%3Fs%3D3a03aad919292f429f6fa5106e356d459314aa42&edit-text=

Shanahan wrote:""Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (to unsophisticated observers)."

The calorimetry in the experiments described by Miles was developed by J. P. Joule in the 1840s. It is not advanced. It is well understood. When calibrations are performed daily, and they show no significant deviation from the calibration constant over many months, it is not possible the instrument is deviating only when it shows excess heat. That is Shanahan's hypothesis. It could not be more unscientific.

Oystla quoted a paper: "To explain the excess heat in these experiments, Shanahan invokes what he calls a Calibration Constant Shift (CCS). This CCS is nothing more than a hypothesis and should be stated as such (CCSH). . . ."

This is quoted from:

Marwan, J., et al., A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research: a response to Shanahan. J. Environ. Monit., 2010. 12(9): p. 1765-1770Y

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf

When you quote a paper, I recommend you include the title and web address.

Shanahan's response to this and to other critiques are nonsense. His CCS hypothesis is irrational and without a shred of scientific validity. It boils down to: "magic happens when instruments proven to work magically stop working, and then during the hours when they are recalibrated daily, they work again."

Ignore the trolls. They are harmless. If anything, they provide a useful window on the world, because their views are widespread.

Thomas Clarke wrote: "F&P's open cell results were subject to the artifacts that you well know, which is why replication led to most of the claimed excess disappearing . . ."

That is incorrect. There are no examples of that in the peer-reviewed published literature as far as I know. Which papers do you have in mind? What artifacts? An open cell would only cause a problem if recombination were not measured or accounted for. It was measured carefully, and in any case, the excess heat greatly exceeded limits of recombination in many tests.

"100 labs worldwide did not find any evidence of inexplicable heat or reaction at the time would have been different."

92 labs replicated by September 1990. F. W. Will, the director of the National Cold Fusion Institute compiled a list, which is here:

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

180 labs replicated by the mid-1990s. See the list in Storms' first book.

Majorana wrote: "THAT was the reason why P&F and others lost their reputation."

That is incorrect. Fleischmann and Pons had been doing these experiments for many years. They were quite certain of the results, and indeed these results were soon replicated by over 100 laboratories worldwide. They were experts in calorimetry. They did make a mistake measuring neutrons, but that had little to do with the claims.

Fleischmann and Pons lost their reputation because they were attacked by Nature and by many scientists. These attacks were scurrilous and totally without basis.

Quote from Pathoskeptic

Actually, as far as I know, Bill Gates never, ever has mentioned lenr anywhere.

He definitely talked about it when he visited the Italian National Agency for New Technologies (ENEA) cold fusion laboratory. The people there told me he spent all day talking about it. You can see photos of him talking with various experts during that meeting here:

http://foto.ilmessaggero.it/bi…ea_di_frascati-90096.html

Here is description of the visit in English:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014…-does-he-know-about-lenr/

Figures 12a and 12b show the reactor is incandescent. It looks to me like the wrong color for a surface temperature as high as claimed. I would say this is about 900°C. See this color chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…e:Incandescence_Color.jpg

If this reactor surface is at 1400°C it should be white. Are there other photos of the reactor showing white incandescence?

Figures 12a and b show the reactor was incandescent at times. Dark portions towards the end of the reactor and at the caps were at a lower temperature, and were not incandescent. Figure 10 shows that the IR camera reading were split into 10 zones for the cylinder, and additional zone for the caps.

At the time the photos in Fig. 12 were taken, what temperatures were recorded by the IR camera for the 10 zones and the caps? Was there a very large difference between these temperatures?

I ask this because questions have been raised about the source of the incandescence, and the transmissivity of alumina. It seems to me that if the incandescent light is coming from inside the reactor, and the temperature reading on the surface is an instrument error, then the real temperature must be roughly 750 deg C, and the false temperature reading in the incandescent portion must be on the order of 1300 to 1500 deg C. Such large temperature differences are not possible, because alumina is a good thermal conductor.

By the way, a correspondent wrote to me with another reason to doubt this hypothesis. This is not an exact quote, but he wrote:

A quick look a the literature shows transmissivity of alumina quickly drops to zero past ~7 micron wavelength. Much of the data seems to be in relation to the crystalline variant (e.g sapphire) vs non-crystalline.

http://www.janis.com/Libraries…nCurveDataSheet.sflb.ashx

Notice the Ecat report clearly states on page 4 “The spectral range for both cameras is from 7.5 to 13 μm.” That seems to indicate that any transmitted IR through the alumina wouldn’t be detected by the IR cameras.

During the test, is the cell filled with hydrogen, or air?

The report says, "A thermocouple probe, inserted into one of the caps, allows the control system to manage power supply to the resistors by measuring the internal temperature of the reactor."

Did you view and record the readings from this thermocouple?