Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
At 02:26 PM 7/20/2007 -0400, disingenous Jed Rothwell wrote:
Swartz I do not understand, except for his comments about flow
calorimetry, which are wrong.
Continuum electromechanics and engineering may be foreign to Jed Rothwell,
but they are not wrong.
Our papers demonstrated that Rothwell was frankly inept in his
calorimetry of the Patterson
beads, to wit: by him falsely and deliberately claiming a "kilowatt",
through the use of vertical
flow calorimetry while simultaneously refusing to use a thermal control.
In fact, as was discussed at the time on spf, the evidence was that
there was nothing
like a kilowatt of excess heat. Result: The field was hurt by
Rothwell's uncalibrated nonsense.
Patterson got a half watt of excess heat which was remarkable, and there
was no need
for Rothwell to purport it was a 'kilowatt'. In the end, people looked
for a kilowatt, and
walked away when it was not there, thus ending Patterson and Motorola's
input.
This systematic error was a result of the vertical flow calorimetry, and
has to do with Bernard instability, which like other concepts, Rothwell
is oblivious to.
Rothwell ignored the correction, downplayed the result, impugned the work,
and has kept the papers which demonstrate how to do correct flow
calorimetry off the LENR site.
The second paragraph above is the real reason for the censorship and
Jed's putdowns of
of a semiquantitive technique which would have led to a more accurate
result.
For those who are interested in science, rather than Rothwell's
uncalibrated nonsense, the papers are:
Swartz, M, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a
Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221
(1996), and
Swartz, M, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric
Systems",
Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996), and
Swartz. M.., "Patterns of Failure in Cold Fusion Experiments",
Proceedings of the 33RD Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy
Conversion,
IECEC-98-I229, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6, (1998) .
As to the rest of his crap and continual put downs, I will not respond
except to say
that when Rothwell was given the papers in pdf form of images (so that
he could
not misedit them), he and Storms elected (to this day) to censor them.
In fact, they would not even list the papers were delivered at ICCF10
orally
(including an open demonstation for a week) until more than a year later,
after Dr. Mallove was murdered.
Swartz has repeatedly accursed me of censoring his work. This is simply
not true. In fact, several weeks ago, Mitchell called me and during this
conversation I assured him that if he sent me his papers in a useable
format, I would see that they were placed on the website. In addition,
Jed and I both have made this promise several times in the past.
Nevertheless, as yet, I have not received the papers even though various
people on Vortex have also suggested Swartz provide the papers. I can
only conclude that Swartz gets some satisfaction by accusing Jed and I
of censorship and does not wish to end this false accusation. Hopefully,
this subject will not waste any more time.
Ed
We have said before that it their right to keep the misnamed LENR site
censored
and to pick whatever papers they want, but in the end as regards flow
calorimetry
and the science involved, it is Jed Rothwell who was, and is, wrong.
