The Playground

  • @Kirkshahan


    ... "If you hold a lit match about 2 inches from your hand, will you feel any heat?"


    Too easy. X-rays from triboemission are a better bet. Electrostatics and dielectrics are a neglected world with apparently no link to electrochemistry cauldrons.


    Round about the cauldron go;

    In the poison'd entrails throw.

    Toad, that under cold stone

    Days and nights has thirty-one

    Swelter'd venom sleeping got,

    Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.


    Double, double toil and trouble;

    Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.


    Fillet of a fenny snake,

    In the cauldron boil and bake;

    Eye of newt and toe of frog,

    Wool of bat and tongue of dog,

    Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,

    Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,

    For a charm of powerful trouble,

    Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.


    Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

    Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
    Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
    Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
    Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
    Liver of blaspheming Jew,
    Gall of goat, and slips of yew
    Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
    Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
    Finger of birth-strangled babe
    Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
    Make the gruel thick and slab:
    Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
    For the ingredients of our cauldron.


    Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire burn and cauldron bubble.


    Cool it with a baboon's blood,

    Then the charm is firm and good.

  • I haven't read Sifferkoll's blog post and don't really plan to read it. Let me know if there's anything I should be aware of.


    It's difficult to express it in English for me:

    It's everything he wrote here, but to a absolute under zero maximum ...Sifferkoll³


    Der Kerl hat total einen an der Waffel, das ist mit seinem letzen Blog-Eintrag für mich völlig klar.

    Und er ist ein schlechter Verlierer und nachtragend.


    Sorry for the German writing/wording, whatever...

    • Official Post


    Thx Frst. I lost count of the number of conspiracies Siffer spun into this. The way I read it...Eric is part of a world wide political/religious conspiracy to stymie Rossi and LENR in general. Honestly, I did not think Eric had it in him! He acts so normal, and here we find out he is one of the men manipulating the world.


    Ryan Hunt (MFMP) made a comment to Siffer's piece, that I think sums it up well. Siffer's reply shows there will never be an end to his endless conspiracies...even with a true black box test to resolve the matter:


    Ryan Hunt on 2017/07/17 at 14:09 said:

    This is a lot of stupid drama when a live, open, irrefutable, independent test could settle the uncertainty once and for all. It could be done black box style.

    Reply ↓

    • d76ae672667d37d1e08d55083bb59baf?s=39&d=blank&r=gsifferkollon 2017/07/17 at 20:38 said:

      Unfortunately I do not think so. There is always n+1 fraud scenarios that can be invented to produce FUD. This is the truth about any so called irrefutable independent test as well. There is always the ad-hom aspect on any tester. No one is immune. Basically anyone that even hints of LENR working can be called a fraudster or deceived and will be attacked on ad-hom basis. This has been shown numerous times. Rossi knows this.

  • They didn't? What was it they tested? From their report:

    Quote

    Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260 ºC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half.


    Seems pretty hot to me! http://www.elforsk.se/Global/O…er/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

    Why even do this test when earlier tests, much easier to evaluate and control, had been found deficient and needed BADLY to be repeated with proper calibrations, controls, and independent replication?

    If the point of increasing operating temperature is not better efficiency (COP and output) what, in your estimation could it be? It was much easier to control and use power from the "Ottoman" ecat with the heat exchanger than the silly kludges Rossi gave the Swedes which did not even have a forced flow cooling system!


    The reactor that was tested in Ferrara was called Hot-Cat, as stated in the report of that test, while Lugano's was a very different model. The fact that even the Lugano reactor could reach high temperatures has nothing to do with the name of the models.


    Scientists were called to test a reactor and they performed the task on what was presented to them. I don't see how they could have asked Rossi to provide them with a different model of E-Cat, as they probably discovered directly in Lugano that the reactor to be tested was different from the previous one. As for Rossi, I find nothing strange about the fact that he wanted the Swedes to analyze his most recent prototype: obviously at that time it was the reactor on which he was rely on.

  • Quote

    As for Rossi, I find nothing strange about the fact that he wanted the Swedes to analyze his most recent prototype: obviously at that time it was the reactor on which he was rely on.


    No, the device switching is to avoid or make less certain the detection of deception. See my discussion of this in the other thread.


  • Shane D.,


    What if sifferkoll is right? His predictions are better than for example sigmoidal. IH Fanboy wins the first prize in regards to settlement predictions, but sifferkoll is certainly second.


    The point sifferkoll makes is a valid one. Whether he is right or not does not matter. Eric Walker would have been a "great" moderator to allow a set of diverse opinions. But he is not.


    He bans people that bring interesting opinions to the table, just because how they bring it. It is a personal thing and Eric Walker is a "little" man that finds his own ego more important than a healthy discussion.


    Cheers,


    JB



  • ecg,


    Right about what? Siffer said a lot of things, and I am not sure which right is right?


    And your flaming Eric, after doing the same to Sig is not going to get you anywhere here. Better go back to being one of those polite trolls, or I will simply block you. Will be the first time for me.


    Shane D.,


    Look at the snippet from his site in my post. He was far more accurate in his predictions than most of us. Your "blocking" remark is exceptionally funny. I hope you can find out how the feature works, because as of late you have shown having a hard time in understanding how stuff works.


    Cheers,


    JB

  • ecg,


    Right about what? Siffer said a lot of things, and I am not sure which right is right?


    And your flaming Eric, after doing the same to Sig is not going to get you anywhere here. Better go back to being one of those polite trolls, or I will simply block you. Will be the first time for me.



    Ouch, blocked by Shane D., the "good cop" of the arguments. That sure would be humiliating!

  • Ryan Hunt (MFMP) made a comment to Siffer's piece, that I think sums it up well. Siffer's reply shows there will never be an end to his endless conspiracies...even with a true black box test to resolve the matter

    How can you do a black box test on an object that is covered by industrial secret? If the part that is to remain secret is, for example, the power of the system, or how to modulate the trigger, it is obvious that without this information nobody can operate the object. This idea that the E-Cat could be tested by a third party without the presence of Rossi and without him having to reveal his secrets is completely out of reality.

  • How can you do a black box test on an object that is covered by industrial secret? If the part that is to remain secret is, for example, the power of the system, or how to modulate the trigger, it is obvious that without this information nobody can operate the object. This idea that the E-Cat could be tested by a third party without the presence of Rossi and without him having to reveal his secrets is completely out of reality.


    SSC


    Well, normally, as people with real IP to protect have explained on here, the details that consititute valuable IP are inside the black box. That is why it is called a black box!. For example, in Rossi's case, if the controller incorporates valuable IP - then it would not be accessible, nor would its output be accessible. Rossi's evices (for example Lugano) seem to operate happily as electric heaters where the power is only altered when a third party gets suspicious and wants to check something like how much steam is emitted. Furthermore, Rossi claims he has sold these things to customers, they must be operatable without continuous expert supervision for that to be possible - even in theory. (We know that in reality there have been no such sales).


    This would present no obstacle for testing where the (flitered, to ensure measuremnets are accurate) mains input is accurately monitored for power, and the heat outpiut is accurately monitored by any number of possible calorimetric methods - all outside the black box.


    Because Rossi's stuff is so simple - electricity in and heat out - with a single turn up the power control - it is much easier to black box than most things.


    So: SSC - please stop posting things that are just untrue:


    (1) Black box testing - indeed black box selling of equipment to end users - is commonly used to protect IP.

    (2) Rossi's device is eminently suitable for such black-boxing

    (3) If this were done it could be tested by anyone.

    (4) It could of course be tested by third party test labs under confidentiality agreements - even without a black box.

  • (1) Black box testing - indeed black box selling of equipment to end users - is commonly used to protect IP.

    (2) Rossi's device is eminently suitable for such black-boxing

    (3) If this were done it could be tested by anyone.

    (4) It could of course be tested by third party test labs under confidentiality agreements - even without a black box.

    If you read Rossi's patent (Fluid heater) you realize there are some aspects that are a little more complicated than the simplistic way you see things. For example, you can read about a voltage modulation at claim 19:

    [...] wherein said controller is configured to monitor a temperature from said temperature sensor, and, based at least in part on said temperature, to reinvigorate a reaction in said fuel mixture, wherein reinvigorating said reaction comprises varying a voltage of said voltage source.

    A third party might not be able to get the desired effect from the E-Cat if it does not know how it should work. Moreover, if it were such a banal object, they would have replicated it everyone with the same results as Rossi. As for point 4, if you had a revolutionary discovery, would you really trust in an NDA? I believe that, like Rossi, you would like to show your invention personally or at least to be present during the test.