Mitchell Swartz <[email protected]> wrote:
Not the way I used it. I changed the configuration for my tests. I diverted the flow into a cup.
- First, the setup WAS a flow calorimetric system.
It was being used as a flow calorimeter by Patterson et al., in the data reported by them. But my data came from another, non-flow configuration. My readings agreed with theirs.
I was careful to hold the cut at the same height as the reservoir, to keep the flow rate from changing. I removed the hose from the reservoir, moved it to the cup until I collected 1 liter, and then put the hose back. Then I stirred the water and measured the temperature in the cup, and then in the reservoir. Anyone who thinks that method does not work has no grasp of basic physics, and no common sense.
- Jed
1. It is not about physics and "common sense",
it is about truth.
The record, even on vortex, shows Rothwell is
disingenuous, substituting ad hominem for truth.
Rothwell's "non-flow configuration" appears to be confabulated
ad hoc - since this WAS previously reported as
a flow calorimetric system.
Rothwell previous agreed, over and over.
At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Swartz: "If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system?"
>
>Rothwell: "Me: "Yes."
Corroborating this, only a desperate sophomore
would honestly think they could claim to have sampled
the cell, applied the FLOW EQUATION (which itself
is an approximation) and have it as a "non-flow configuration".
In this case, Rothwell knew it was a flow system.
===========================================
2A. The Pressure Head Fell
When Rothwell "diverted the flow into a cup"
two more errors appeared. First, the pressure head
was decreased, as Mitchell Jones correctly previously pointed
out, when the line was disconnected to get the sample.
Rothwell's flow "measurement" cannot be trusted unless
the connection remained or a flow meter was used.
There was previously reported to be NO flowmeter at that time
in THAT experiment. The equations used were thus
probably inaccurate, demonstrating again the need for a control.
===========================================
2B. Second, the volume of the system was decreased.
Both effects may have also contributed to falsely
increase of the derived "signal".
But then anyone who professes that ignoring joule controls
is a virtue like Rothwell, probably would not care.
===========================================
3. What Kind of Sampling Rate is This?
One of the little secrets kept here quiet is that
Rothwell reported a sampling rate of only 2 to 4 times per day!!!
At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
>
>Rothwell: With the large CETI cell, about a dozen times over three days. With our
>cells, twice a day
Real experimentalists use at least a Hertz
for reasons of Nyquist and commonsense.
And use joule controls.
===========================================
Summary:
Rothwell's alleged "kilowatt" is similar to
the Drs. Pons and Fleischmann's inference that CF is "easy".
In the first case, sole reliance on uncorrected
vertical flow calorimetry can lead to the amplification of the
small CF/LANR effect. This amplification effect,
like driving below the noise level, produces inaccuracy,
which can also give rise to large expectations from an
otherwise real CF/LANR effect which might be smaller
in magnitude, and is generally quite difficult to achieve.
Mitchell Swartz
