Which bit of "DOE and the Patent Office still reject LENR." do you not
understand?
I have been through Jed's arguments and found they didn't stand
scrutiny. I have no desire to repeat them all once again. If you have
a specific problem show it and I will answer.
On 6/4/2016 5:50 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> 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
