Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Hmmm. The same 1 lux, but on 1cm^2, amounts to 1/10000 lumens on that 1cm^2.

    The same 1 lumen, but on 1cm^2, amounts to 100000 lux on that 1cm^2.

    Rossi is just trying to get our minds engaged. Genius.

    Quote from Mark U

    Hmmm. The same 1 lux, but on 1cm^2, amounts to 1/10000 lumens on that 1cm^2.

    You are wrong, the question is: "If the same luminous flux is focused on 1 square centimeter, how many Lumens do we obtain ?"

    Being the luminous flux quoted in this question equal to 1 lumen, when it will be focused on 1 cm^2 it will give 10000 Lux and not 10000 Lumens as he foolishly wrote.

    Luminous flux is still the same and equal to 1 Lumen.


    Quote from Mark U

    The same 1 lumen, but on 1cm^2, amounts to 100000 lux on that 1cm^2.

    Your are wrong again, the result is 10000 Lux not 100000 Lux you wrote.


    Quote from Mark U

    Rossi is just trying to get our minds engaged. Genius.

    :D The believers minds never more engaged at least from a decade. Yours defence is pathetic like someone climbing on mirrors.

    Quote from truth

    Your are wrong again, the result is 10000 Lux not 100000 Lux you wrote.

    You got that right, I sloppily put in one zero too many.


    Today on Rossi's blog:


    2021-09-13 13:43 Anonymous

    I am sure before December you will find an excuse to skip the presentation


    2021-09-14 02:52 Andrea Rossi

    Anonymous:

    Thankyou for your opinion,

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.


    I would like a prediction from Truth. Will Rossi have the presentation this December?

    (My prediction : He will. I think that even most skeptics are quite looking forward to it.)

    Quote from miles

    lenr-forum.com/attachment/18505/

    Graphic: Snake Oil .. Too Good to be True"


    "Snake Oil" is being denigrated here, but it has a legitimate medical history, in China, Britain and the USA.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil

    It only became de-legitimized when "travelling medicine men" over-sold FAKE snake oil.


    The question here is - does Rossi have Real Snake Oil, or Fake.


    As I've said before, I have not seen a conclusive DIS-proof of the eCat and successors.


    I have an order in for two SKLed's, and have an open reservation for a few-kW SKL.


    Rossi has never failed to produce SOMETHING, so I await the December presentation.

    Quote from Mark U

    I would like a prediction from Truth. Will Rossi have the presentation this December?

    (My prediction : He will. I think that even most skeptics are quite looking forward to it.)

    I think that it's quite possible, being this kind of magician's presentation just farce like all the previous.

    I'm not so interested to the December presentation except to see the next hoax to which all believers-fishes will bite chattering of nothing for months and months up to the next hoax.

    A case good for an experiment on psychiatric field.

    Rossi is confident in the SKLed.

    If it’s as good a product as he says

    and it gets Safety Certification any

    decent salesman will sell the product.

    Then we will know whether it is a

    Hoax or not.


    When quantum physics met psychiatry
    Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli bounced ideas off each other, Paul Halpern’s book shows.
    www.nature.com


    Entanglement gets hot and messy – Physics World
    Contrary to expectations, this fragile quantum-mechanical phenomenon can survive at high temperatures and in a very chaotic environment
    physicsworld.com

    Quote from interested observer

    “ I have not seen a conclusive DIS-proof of the eCat and successors.”


    You also have not seen a conclusive disproof of unicorns, Bigfoot, and the tooth fairy. Furthermore, you never will.


    Perhaps you should consider taking a course in logic.

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    OK, OK ... I have not seen a convincing refutation of EVERY claimed ecat test.


    (In my own analyses I have disqualified at least two).


    Want one that has not been refuted? The 24-hour IH "validation" test.


    ERV report : http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0207.11_Exhibit_11.pdf


    Dewey comments on the test setup http://coldfusioncommunity.net…loads/2017/01/0214.12.pdf


    I can't find the exhibit but my comments at the time were:

    Post
    RE: Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
    Woodford are risk-takers : 51% of their portfolio is in "early stage" and 34% in "early growth".

    May 23 : right now not enough "undisputed facts" for MSJ's.

    Rossi's -- unfair! unfair! : not a chance
    IH -- spoilation. High chance of over-ruling magistrate judge O'Sullivan. If allowed, their MSJ becomes likely (at least in part).
    3rd Party -- minor players, only real issue is spoilation.

    General comment : IH is splitting legal hairs in a couple of areas.

    1. Validation Test : half-hour short (with…
    Alan Fletcher


    General comment : IH is splitting legal hairs in a couple of areas.

    1. Validation Test : half-hour short (with their engineer and managers present) .. and location of flow meter. Not a chance.

    18-reactors. Marginal ... but they can't prove the matter of Italian law, so Rossi prevails. He keeps the $11.5M

    Again with this Safety Certification... an obtuse guy were more smart in comparing.


    The SC does not matter, it’s stuff for birds. The magician wrote that at presentation he will able to show the Performance Certification and this document can issued only by a qualified and authorized Lab, no more tricks.


    The magician does not know the difference between Kelvin and Celsius degrees and ignore also the difference between Lumen and Lux so, in any case and before all, his stuff absolutely needs a qualified and reliable independent Lab verification about the real Performance.


    I doubt that you want to understand, maybe because close to an accomplice.

    Quote from sam12

    it gets Safety Certification

    Sam12,


    As stated often here before. Certification is a daily occurrence and there is no mystery about it. There is NO "safety" certification. There are certifications to industry or government standards for specific functions., which can include "safety". These standards are normally drawn up by industry organizations and then CERTIFIED by an agency such as UL. These standards take a long time to develop and require review and approval from bodies such as SAE (automotive) or NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) to name just two.


    So what is Rossi getting certified too? A novel nuclear device? Hardly... there are no standards for such. An LED light? Should be no problem and certainly not a secret. What would the "IF' be concerned here? Except that if it is to a standard LED certification, then the SKLED is NOT a novel LENR or "other" powered device as the standard would not apply to it!


    So once again, I must ask you.. what standard is Rossi getting his device certified too? "Safety" is meaningless in certification terms. Surely you can ask him this! Providing the certification standard will not disclose any IP and these standards are MEANT to be published, so no agency is going to "complain".


    On the other hand, if you are afraid to ask him, that shows you acknowledge that he is deceptive in this. If he does not answer the question, it shows he is deceptive. If he is deceptive in something as open and honest as a certification, it is a big flag that he is a liar and cheat.


    Your logic is completely in error here. There is NOTHING hinging on a "Safety" certificate. There never has been. Just like his previous "certificates", they turned out to be 1) deceptive and 2) certainly did not prove Rossi had anything.


    Please provide any logic as to why the above reasoning is not sound and refutes the certificate argument. If you cannot, then I suggest you should really evaluate your continued support for such a scam...... not that I care anything about Rossi anymore... it is just that he scammed $10,000,000 that could have went to legitimate LENR research, CONTINUES to give LENR a very bad name and I dislike seeing such obvious and blatant scam artists openly and publicly prance around while some people openly praise him and certain people refuse to call him out.....especially those who have personally seen his crap presentations..... X/


    Oh well... P.T. Barnum was certainly correct about some people.

    Rossi says the Certification is on

    Course for Presentation..


    2021-07-12 09:50 GEORGE PRAZAK 

    what is delaying certification of the SKL?

    1.Reliability?

    2.Safety issues?

    3.Other

    4.If other-can you explain?

    When do expect acceptance by the certification body?

    1.Before Nov.25?

    2 Never?

    2021-07-12 10:42 Andrea Rossi 

    George Prazak:

    Nothing is delaying the certification process: it just takes its time.

    Surely it will be completed before November 25th.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    2021-08-27 07:49 Sam 

    Hello DR Rossi

    Are you still confident that the

    SKLed will be Safety Certified

    by Nov 25/21?

    Regards

    Sam

    2021-08-27 08:32 Andrea Rossi 

    Sam:

    Yes,

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    Industrial Heat crawled over the 1MW for almost a day (23 1/2 hrs) , and signed off for $10M dollars on the basis of a test they controlled. They made no substantial objection to the results in the depositions to the court case.


    The 1MW was delivered to Raleigh.

    Alan,


    You must know that IH were, at the time, not competent to judge Rossi-controlled tests (look at Lugano), and how then and for previous tests they relied on a science team provably over-influenced by Rossi and not used to such testing - nor technically competent at least in the case of Lugano.


    And you must equally know that if they had challenged the results in the court case depositions:

    (1) It would have confused the jury - as any tech argument would have done

    (2) It was not relevant to the court case itself.


    These two points you make, while true, do constitute evidence that anyone has seen his stuff working. What always surprises me is that you continue to make them...