Jed, if Dr. Swartz is correct about your propensity for anaphylactic
shock, you either should not read this or you should have an epi-pen handy.
At 06:31 PM 9/30/2009, Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Rothwell: "Actually, he sent a CD-ROM which I could not read. Later
I got electronic copies of all ICCF-10 papers from Peter
Hagelstein. I have printed copies of Swartz's papers in books, and
I could always scan them."
Well at last, Rothwell finally admits he did receive those copies
from me. Seems his previous story, based on falsehoods, is eroding
little by little.
Rothwell "admitted" nothing indicating any prior falsehood. I've
decided to reveal that I had a very odd exchange with Swartz. He
didn't threaten me, it is more like he was vaguely threatening Storms
based on something I wrote about a comment Storms had made to me,
calling it "libel," and when I noted that Storms wasn't responsible
for what I wrote, he went on a similar apparent quest to demonstrate
that I was deceptive, seemingly trying to prove to me that I'd
contradicted myself. I write "apparent" and "seemingly" because it
all really made no sense to me, what Swartz was about; I have a
sense, though, of great displaced anger about something.
I was going to suggest that both Swartz and Rothwell essentially shut
up about this, but the things that Rothwell brought up, if accurate,
would certainly represent a need to disclose. To Dr. Swartz, I'd
suggest that he become clear about what he wishes to accomplish here,
what's the purpose of this exchange?
Now, as to the "real dispute."
=============================================
Rothwell: "However, this has nothing to do with our dispute."
Ah yes. The indelible dispute.
The real dispute is that a number of years ago
I exposed Rothwell's scientific error
on flow measurements, along with several others on spf.
I was not aware that Rothwell was an experimental scientist. He's a
writer and editor.
He was running an experiment claiming "kilowatts".
How about some links or pointers to sources, Dr. Swartz?
Some noted
that kilowatts of power dissipation produce a lot of damage
to the materials. Others noted he was measuring without a
pressure head, and I noted that he failed to account for
Bernard instability. Basically, by failing to calibrate,
and by using a bad paradigm involving flow in a vertical path,
Rothwell got a phoney 1 kilowatt, a false positive,
henceforth "kilowatt". Now, when Dr. Patterson's cell
was used in a correct configuration it appears to have
gotten a very respectable 0.8 watts excess heat, which
is impressive if done for a long amount of time, and with
calibrations.
No sources or references.
Note that the reason Jed does not like my papers is that
we demonstrated that Bernard instability was giving
over-estimations of excess heat in vertically positioned flow calorimeters.
I find this rather unlikely. But I'd love to see the papers. Where
can I see them?
I published a series of papers on how flow calorimetry was
susceptible to vertical flow in the flow calorimetry system,
and all hell broke loose by Jed. Rothwell has periodically
decompensated (like now).
Can you show a connection between your publication of papers and how
"hell broke loose"? I wasn't aware that Jed had supernatural powers.
Jed can be caustic, sure. But I haven't seen him lie, though his
inferences about people's motives I don't necessarily trust. On the
other hand, Dr. Swartz, you have succeeded in convincing me, through
this exchange, that you might not be trustworthy. It wasn't Rothwell
who accomplished that, it was you.
But phoney "calibrations" like Rothwell's need to be
examined, studied, and revealed. The sooner the better.
Rothwell isn't an experimental scientist, though perhaps he did some
dabbling that I'm unaware of. If he did do experiments and
calorimetry, I wouldn't be surprised to see him making some mistakes. So?
Furthermore, this is important because it is a large error,
and the error could be correctable.
Since I've never heard of this "work," it isn't likely to be
*terribly* important. It's not mentioned in any of the reviews I've seen.
Okay, this must be what Swartz is talking about; he's welcome to
correct me if I'm wrong:
Rothwell, J., CETI's 1 kilowatt cold fusion device denonstrated.
Infinite Energy, 1996. 1(5&6): p. 18.
That wasn't his work, it was CETI's work. He's a writer. That was
13-effing-years ago. I searched for information about what was
actually in the article. I finally found
http://www.padrak.com/ine/ROTHWELLCF.html. Now, what's the problem?
Rothwell reports some measurements he made, he does not appear to
make any firm conclusions, and uses conditional language. And where
are Patterson cells now? Now, if someone were to follow up on this,
it might be of great interest, but until and unless someone does, it
is of no practical importance. If those cells worked, well, that
would certainly be interesting, but was this a one-time event? We
already know that some CF cells produce extraordinary heat, on rare
occasions, and, yes, it produces some "damage" to materials....
Experimentally, the "kilowatts" would always disappear when
horizontal flow was used (which avoids the Bernard instability).
Calorimetry is important, very important, when it's done by true
experts. To me, the details are boring. I'm sure they are very
important in the right context. But here, now? So, worst case,
Rothwell made some mistake 13 years ago, a mistake outside his
expertise. Rothwell has repeatedly told me that calorimetry is
extremely difficult.
Analyzing the data, the false positive effect is correctable,
by simple consideration of the continuum electromechanics.
And this is worth this feud?
I wrote a paper on it (1), and without the correction,
fractions of a watt of excess power were shown where they could
appear as a "kilowatt" [which is what made Jed infamous on
spf at the time.(2)
NOTA BENE:
The problem is that false positive amplification hurt cold fusion for
more than decade because the "kilowatts" were not kilowatts,
and therefore excuses were made.
1. Swartz, M, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release
Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy,
1, 3, 219-221 (1996)
2. Swartz, M, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow
Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996)
Dr. Swartz published a lot in JNE.
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/J/JNE1N1.PDF - p.
126-130 is (2) above.
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/J/JNE1N3.PDF - p. 219-221 is (1).
To this day, Rothwell gets an immunologic anaphylactic
reaction to these papers which is characterized by his
conveniently forgetting about this.
Well, there are the links. Jed, how are you feeling? I'm not sure
what it is that you supposedly have forgotten about. I haven't read
the papers in detail. I'd be surprised if, after the crap you
regularly receive, this was very high on the scale of emotional impact....
Rothwell: "You have to understand that Swartz uses this and other
forums to ran an extortion and intimidation racket. He has been
doing this for years. He tried to nail me twice, and he nailed some
other people who contacted me. I don't know if this is a hobby or a
business. You can see half of his scheme in the messages he posted
here. It works like this:
I never did this.
Jed, you've warned us. Given that you survived, I'd say any possible
threat is toothless. From my own experience with Dr. Swartz, I don't
wonder that it might appear he was trying to extort hapless
"violators," but do you know of anyone from whom he actually
collected? Or made specific payments demands? And, if so, can you
document that? Otherwise we may be dealing with something quite
different from extortion here.
Rothwell is frothing at the mouth again.
I see at least as much frothing here, indeed more.
I have contributed to cold fusion
education through the COLD FUSION TIMES and have
lost money doing it for two decades. We even hosted
a free seminar, the LANR Colloquium at MIT this year.
Wish I'd known about it. You'd have known me because I'd have had bells on.
Where was the extortion? What the hell is Rothwell
talking about?
Well, if there were any demands for payments, that would be the
source. If not, I do have my suspicions about certain possible
misinterpretations.
Rothwell is challenged to prove it, or admit he is a screwball,
afflicted with paranoia.
You can't make demands like that of people, Dr. Swartz. Has it ever
worked? I rather doubt it. And if it never worked, why do you repeat
the behavior?
=============================================
Rothwell: "1. He goads the mark, as he has done here with me. Or he
makes nice."
When I gave Rothwell a ride from Gene Mallove's funeral in NH to Boston
Newbury Street (and handed him a CD which he never admitted
until the above) he exited the car and did not even say "thank you".
Being nice to him has always been a waste of time, generated
out of goodness of heart, not because anything was wanted.
My, my. Rude. So someone didn't thank you, and this means that being
nice was a waste of time? Are you nice to people so that they will
thank you? While that's not a bad thing, in itself, I wouldn't
exactly call it nice. Rather, it's an attempted purchase. As to the
CD, lots of things could have happened. CDs often turn out to be
unreadable, particularly when written on a different drive than they
are being read from.
Extort money? It is a lie.
Not necessarily. If he believes it, it may be false, but it's not a
lie. Are you claiming that he is being deliberately deceptive? I
could find fault with Rothwell's comments, for sure. But is that one of them?
I never did this. Nor would I ever.
I would hope not. Seems to me it would be rather stupid. But, Dr.
Swartz, is it possible that you did something that was interpreted
that way? Or were all your communications sweetness and light?
Rothwell fabricates because I once invoked Bernard
instability, and noted Gene Mallove's correct observation
that the LENR/CANR website is censored.
I rather doubt it. Indeed, your "censorship" comment is itself
discredited, unless you use the term with a mindless literalism.
Which does seem to be the case.
[Though I disagree with Jed and Gene that it is
'politically' censored. It is censored for self-serving reasons).
Ah, mindreading. Tell us how you do it, Dr. Swartz, that's a useful
skill. Can it be taught?
Rothwell fabricates because we simply cannot allow him to edit
our work because he has made errors over the years,
such as confusing "anode" and "cathode".
Rothwell made a mistake? Should I call the press? He confused an
anode with a cathode? Well, at least they are both electrodes. What
could we say about someone who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground?
Note that Rothwell's paranoia and paranoic behavior allows him
to make claims on one line ..... but they are immediately contradicted
by the next -- such as before on editing, or here where
he says he "erased the records"; so convenient.
Rothwell is challenged to prove it.
Dr. Swartz, your obsession is showing. You will convince nobody
continuing as you are. Nobody. It looks like you have done a lot of
valuable work. How about continuing that? You will gain nothing, zero
value, feuding with Rothwell, and you have more to lose than he does.
He's just a writer, and writers get to be as kooky as they come; what
are you? What is your role here, your purpose?
Did you want your papers on lenr-canr.org? Well, there they are,
hosted on New Energy Times. Write Rothwell here, giving him explicit
permission, and that's as much of a challenge as I'd recommend
issuing. Be nice.
At the end of the day, what because this thread is that I noted that
Prof. Dash and I were not included in the table of papers that went
to the DOE in 2004 --- even though Dash and I were the only ones who
had open cold fusion demonstrations in the USA at a national meeting.
Lots of stuff wasn't included, but you pay your dues, you get to make
your choice. They got the panel opportunity, and there was no broadly
organized CF community to do anything else. That could be fixed, if
anyone cares.
Rothwell's screwball behavior does not help cold fusion's image. Never has.
Mitchell Swartz
He's not the only one. But I've been watching the work that Rothwell
does publicizing cold fusion. It's mostly excellent work. He had some
trouble on Wikipedia, but so does just about anyone who is expert or
even reasonably knowledgeable, unless they happen to be
well-connected with one of the "cabals" which functionally exercise
power there. He spoke truth to power there, and got to observe that
power doesn't like it.
