Can you "un-ban" people?
Why would I burn down the hospital?
Can you "un-ban" people?
Why would I burn down the hospital?
would I burn down the hospital?
I thought we follow a healthy science...
I thought we follow a healthy science...
It's a new world where threats and innuendo run science, but maybe not much longer.
I thought we follow a healthy science...
Here we do, but that talk was about ECW.
When Rossi is finally brought to justice for his scams, his enablers will not escape Karma.
If you post on ECW and are not subsequently banned, that means you are not posting honestly or you are delusional.
Take your pick.
Strangely my recent posts were approved....and then I got banned (without further posts). I have noticed a couple of new very verbal acolytes recently....which are probably sock puppets.
Also posted on ECW :
I'm abandoning my attempt to reverse-engineer the COP of the miniSKlep trial.
Just too many unknowns, even with the information that Rossi has leaked (0.0004 amps, 300 lux somewhere in a beam of unknown pattern).
Plus too many opportunities of fraud, eg drawing current in spikes that the ammeter/voltmeter can't keep up with.
It needs a voltmeter, ammeter and oscilloscope on both sides of the ecat. If there are no spikes, a $30 ammeter/voltmeter will do.
Maybe it has a COP > 1 and a probability of shipping > 0.
But, I deem it a demo doomed to fail.
Maybe it has a COP > 1 and a probability of shipping > 0.
Bit, I deem it a demo doomed to fail.
You are like 4 demos late to that conclusion.
You are like 4 demos late to that conclusion.
4 Demos and a Funeral
You are like 4 demos late to that conclusion.
I think you mis-understand me. I can't PROVE this demo, nor DIS-PROVE it.
I have only DISQUALIFIED it (as I have with others.)
I think you mis-understand me. I can't PROVE this demo, nor DIS-PROVE it.
I have only DISQUALIFIED it (as I have with others.)
Thanks for your efforts.
For a long time, I wondered how to explain the Lugano results. Someone told me it was misreading of emissivity. I thought about appending a note to the copy of the Lugano report at LENR-CANR.org describing this. I decided not to. I do not know enough about emissivity to comment. If someone would like to write a short paper describing the problem, I could upload it and perhaps put a link from the Lugano report to the paper describing the problem (and vice versa).
Generally speaking, I do not change papers or link them to critiques. Occasionally I do correct spelling errors and things like that, especially OCR errors that I myself overlooked.
Bo knows about emissivity
Bo knows about emissivity
When Chuck Norris wants popcorn, he uses his emissivity on Nebraska to pop it.
Display MoreAlso posted on ECW :
I'm abandoning my attempt to reverse-engineer the COP of the miniSKlep trial.
Just too many unknowns, even with the information that Rossi has leaked (0.0004 amps, 300 lux somewhere in a beam of unknown pattern).
Plus too many opportunities of fraud, eg drawing current in spikes that the ammeter/voltmeter can't keep up with.
It needs a voltmeter, ammeter and oscilloscope on both sides of the ecat. If there are no spikes, a $30 ammeter/voltmeter will do.
Maybe it has a COP > 1 and a probability of shipping > 0.
But, I deem it a demo doomed to fail.
And the fact that we have to take Rossi's word for it when the livestream goes down every few weeks that "the miniSKlep continued working uninterrupted"....which is being obfuscated a bit by both Frank and Rossi by providing direct embeds into their pages, so that they can update the link quietly).
Thanks for your efforts Alan.
Bo knows about emissivity
If I remember well he is not the only one.
I think you mis-understand me. I can't PROVE this demo, nor DIS-PROVE it.
I have only DISQUALIFIED it (as I have with others.)
It should be quite simple to understand that if one organizes this staging (a "demo", yet another) that is unable to prove anything, either he is a great unable or he enjoys making fun of his gullible guys.
If I remember well he is not the only one.
I’m sure Lars gets it, but I haven’t asked him directly.
QuoteIn 2022 the US Department of Defense’s Homeland Defense & Security Information Analysis Center (HDIAC) reviewed Andrea Rossi’s paper and wrote a report titled “Concepts Behind the E-Cat SK“.
A new magician's website but again the usual liar, that's old stuff and it was 2020, not 2022.
Moreover "reviewed" (the magician claim) is a big fake, as wrote in the Post it was just a very short 4 hours analysis and information regarding the concepts of “electron aggregates,” “virtual particle reactions,” the “Aharonov-Bohm Effect,” and “Zitterbewegung.” Nothing more.
This is the usual attempt by a deceiver who plays in the scam field to gain some credit through the distorting handling of facts.
I find it dubious that Rossi even wrote most of the ResearchGate paper. He undoubtedly did write section 7 of the paper which describes, in his usual slightly fractured English, how the ecat is supposedly heating a room in Tennessee. However the other parts of the paper are on another level entirely ... both in terms of stylish English prose as well as in sophistication of ideas.
In my opinion, most of the paper sounds like the work of Rossi's sometime collaborator Norman Cook.
In my opinion, most of the paper sounds like the work of Rossi's sometime collaborator Norman Cook.
Norman Cook died in 2019. Perhaps this paper was published posthumously.
Norman Cook died in 2019. Perhaps this paper was published posthumously.
The paper was posted in January 2019. Cook died 5 months later, in June of that year, after a long battle with cancer. I have no knowledge of whether Cook ever knew that this paper had been posted.