On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
The fact is academia examined Fleischmann and Pon's results and declared it > pseudo science. DOE and the Patent Office still reject LENR. What more > proof do you need? > You seem to have mistaken another position for my own and are arguing against it rather than mine. At no point have I suggested that Pons and Fleischmann did not run into difficulties. But ultimately there were some capable and fair-minded scientists that came on board and started looking into cold fusion/LENR. Rossi can only expect similar difficulties and a similar result by submitting to rigorous testing before similarly open-minded scientists. > Which of Jed's comments was "cogent"? > Jed's argument is cogent in at least the following ways: - There is not the faintest reason to have denied access to IH's expert to view the customer facility. The claim that the customer had trade secrets to protect does not pass the sniff test. - Once IH's expert saw the test setup, it is quite possible that the only way he could have verified 1MW of output would be to visit the customer's facility, which he was not allowed to do. - Absent IH's expert's sign-off on the testing, IH would have been negligent to move forward. [Eric:] The ERV's report is technical not legal. [AA:] What "absurd" > circumstances for the test? You know what the ERV did? > - We know from Mats Lewan's recent interview that phase change calorimetry was used for the testing, where you have water that undergoes a phase change from liquid to steam, at 100 C. Unless there are careful measurements of additional details like pressure and steam quality, phase change calorimetry is easy to mess up. A straightforward way to tighten things up would be to use a heat exchanger and to measure delta T of the fluid in the secondary circuit. Rossi would have known about all of this, because a heat exchanger was used in the October 6, 2011, test, no doubt for this reason. I am told that anyone who studies calorimetry at the college level will be aware of this kind of difficulty with phase change calorimetry. If Penon was unaware, that would be quite damning of his qualifications. Fascinatingly, Rossi claims there was indeed a heat exchanger that was used to deliver heat to the customer. We can surmise from Mats Lewan's interview that the secondary circuit of this heat exchanger was not what was used for the ERV's calculations. - As Jed has persistently mentioned above your objections, Penon told IH's expert that it would not be necessary to see the customer installation. If the putative arrangement to protect the customer's trade secrets were between IH and Leonardo, it would have been Rossi and not Penon who would have prevented IH's expert from viewing the facility, and Penon would have had no business getting involved. - Penon had a long history of collaborating with Rossi. A few months ago, when I heard Jones Beene speculate that he was the ERV, I realized that Jones was might be right and rolled my eyes in irritation. - Penon was not the first person one would think to call upon to assess the performance of what was essentially a large boiler. - A test of a 1MW boiler is harder to characterize than a 1 kW unit or a 100 W unit, and this can be done over a much shorter period of time. In a word: absurd. There are other hints that have been dropped here and there that, if substantiated, would be even more damning. But we don't need to know whether or not such hints are fact in order to decide that this particular test is other than rigorous. Eric
