Mitchell Swartz <[email protected]> wrote:
The water was not flowing vertically or in any other direction. It was in a cup. I diverted the flow into the cup, stirred it with the thermometer and measured the temperature. While I diverted it, I measured the flow rate with a stopwatch. Then I measured the temperature in the reservoir. There is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY no way the Swartz theory regarding vertical flows can apply to this method. I repeat: the water was IN A CUP. NOT FLOWING.
- For those seriously interested, two papers explain WHY and HOW
- Jed Rothwell erroneously measured his "kilowatt" levels of
- pseudoexcess heat with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow
- calorimetric system . . .
I realize that Swarz will repeat this ad nauseum. I am sorry to trigger this, but I wanted to set the record straight. I do this because it has been some time since this topic came up, and I am sure that people will raise equally idiotic objections to Rossi's calorimetry.
- Jed
So many untruths.
However, the actual record will set the proverbial "record straight.
Rothwell: "(The water) was in a cup .... NOT FLOWING".
Rothwell is mistaken.
First, the setup WAS a flow calorimetric system.
And the direction was vertical through the bead.
All of the nonsense of Rothwell will not change those facts.
Rothwell previously agreed with this:
========= Vortex mail from 1998 ================================
"At 11:41 PM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>The entire stream running through the cell is diverted into the cup. The
>outlet hose from the cell is diverted into the cup instead of going back
>into the reservoir. This is also done to measure the flow rate (Galileo's
>method).
So the removal was done to measure flow rate by decoupling flow from
the circuit which would have otherwise demonstrated some resistance to
the flow. The flow was powered by a 85 watt impellor pump, is that correct?
> If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system?
>Yes.
Making it subject to Bernard instability"
========= End of Vortex mail from 1998 ================================
Second, as usual Rothwell's latest description is at variance
with all his previous descriptions.
Here are two groups of differences
I. First Rothwell took samples from the return path only:
At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Mitchell Swartz asks:
>How many times did you remove 250cc from the electrolytic cell to test
>the temperature?
>
>Rothwell: "I never remove fluid from the cell.
>I remove it from the return hose after
>it exits the cell, before it goes back into the reservoir. I would have to
>turn off the flow and drain the cell to remove fluid from the cell. Why
>would I do that?"
II. Then Rothwell, when convenient, stated he took the sample from the cell:
Rothwell: "This cannot be a problem. I repeat, with emphasis,
THIS CANNOT BE A PROBLEM, because I took 250 ml of the water out
of the cell, mixed it in a cup, and measured it externally with a
thermistor, a thermocouple, and a thermometer."
[Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: JET Energy Technology's CF electric generator
Resent-Message-Id: <"xtaGp3.0.4K2.LgtKs"@mx2>]
III. Finally, Rothwell when convenient stated he took the sample from the cell
AND the return path.
MS: "Out of the electrolytic cell?"
Rothwell: "I am not sure what this means,
but I think the question is: Did I test a
sample of water from out of the electrolytic cell.
Answer: yes, and I tested another sample taken
from the reservoir too, for comparison."
[18 Nov 1998 20:45:36 [email protected]
Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>
Resent-Message-Id: <"adNN92.0.rV5.l9wKs"@mx1>]
Also, when Rothwell first published he stated the sample was removed to measure 'flow'.
Later, Rothwell claimed it was to measure 'temperature', proof of output power, and
to dismiss Bernard instability.
Rick Monteverde wrote:
"There remains this sticking point between you and Jed regarding
measurement errors presumably due to Barnard instability. I take this to
mean that small quantities of locally heated fluids rise up or get
entrained into output plumbing and trick thermo probes into reporting
that the overall mass of fluid is at a certain temperature when it
really isn't."
Rothwell:
This cannot be a problem. I repeat, with emphasis,
THIS CANNOT BE A PROBLEM, because I took 250 ml of the water out
of the cell, mixed it in a cup, and measured it externally with a
thermistor, a thermocouple, and a thermometer.
Therefore the thermo probes in the output plumbing
HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. I compared the temperature of the
outlet fluid sample in the cup to the fluid
in the reservoir."
[Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: JET Energy Technology's CF electric generator
Resent-Message-Id: <"xtaGp3.0.4K2.LgtKs"@mx2>]
=============================================
Third, in summary, scientific error making a ~500-1500 milliwatt
signal appear to be a "kilowatt" probably did not help the field
in retrospect.
The magnification of "excess heat" was done by an important
experimental pattern of failure which generates large false positives
that can be avoided.
Q.E.D.
Mitchell Swartz
