Mitchell Swartz <[email protected]> wrote:
At 05:23 PM 1/15/2011, you wrote: > > Mitchell Swartz <[email protected]> wrote: > > First, the setup WAS a flow calorimetric system. > > Not the way I used it. I changed the configuration for my tests. I diverted > the flow into a cup. > 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 . . .* > The flow rate would have to change by a factor of 50 to 100 (at different times during the run). We could see and hear the water falling back into the reservoir. The flow did not change by a factor of 50. We would have noticed that. When say "we" I mean myself and the others who watched me do the tests, including Patterson, Cravens, George Miley and others. These other people agreed that the method works, and that it confirmed Cravens' flow calorimetry. Swartz is not only calling me incompetent, he is saying that George Miley et al. are incompetent. I am sorry to keep harping on this, but it is a prime example of the way some cold fusion researchers attack research by others in this field, for irrational reasons. Swartz, Arata and others are often as bad as the worst skeptics. I expect that many cold fusion researchers will soon be attacking Rossi for similar irrational reasons. Swartz may attack Rossi for the same reason he attacks Patterson & Cravens: because Rossi also uses vertical flow calorimetry during the the liquid phase. For that matter, so do the people at SRI, Energetics Technologies and elsewhere. I have not noted that Swartz attacks McKubre, but I wouldn't put it past him. In any case, I am in good company with the likes of Miley and McKubre. I am confident that they are right, and Swartz is wrong. I shall say no more about this. - Jed
