Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    Well why does Jed keep writing about the need for regulation then?


    To go on about that so often when you don't believe the SK exists is insane. Likewise to invent great potential dangers from such a tiny device is nuts. It must be NUCLEAR! .... GASP!

    Kinda been wondering that about you Adrian?


    How is it possible for a relatively intelligent man to continue to believe 1 bit of this ridiculous nonsense that Rossi spews about and Energy out > Energy In device?


    Jed is simply trying to relate the stage of “ridiculousness” that this charade has risen to.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    It is purely hypothetical. I am saying that IF the thing exists and IF a customer will use it, THEN it must be inspected and approved. Like any other industrial heater. Rossi does not get an exception from rules that have been in place since the 19th century.


    I am also commenting on cold fusion in general. Many people, including some researchers, imagine that if they find a way to control cold fusion it will soon be commercialized. That is not true. It will have to be thoroughly vetted first. That will cost money and it will take time, but it will have to be done.

    1. Frank Acland January 1, 2019 at 12:34 PM

      Dear Andrea,

      Happy New Year! I hope it is a good one for you and your family.

      For the E-Cat currently operating in an undisclosed location, have all the necessary legal authorizations to operate it been obtained?

      Best wishes,

      Frank Acland

    2. Andrea Rossi January 1, 2019 at 4:13 PM

      Frank Acland:

      Happy New Year to you and all the Readers of Ecat World.

      The answer is yes.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Because we have waited for more than 7 years for hard evidence

    I don't know if you were out of school yet, but but Prof. Focardi saw that it worked more than 7 years ago.


    Or does the Royal we refer to you not seeing evidence? Or if you had been there you would have showed it to be fake because you are so much brighter than a famous expert in the subject? Hard to tell with an anonymous blogger.


    Rossi doesn't owe you anything.

    JedRothwell


    You have that completely backward! Nothing can "hit the market" until AFTER regulations are written.

    Then take a look at several EU directives and and look at the dates when they where first issued.

    Then see if the products they apply to where already on the market before the directive became into effect.

    They where ! Even for items where personal safety was involved, such as for example cable ways.



    No doubt there will be similar opposition to cold fusion, if it is ever developed.

    On that I fully agree


    LDM you have this exactly backward, and the criticism of 3-fold power error is both repeatable and verifiable, and stands as a highly likely explanation of bogus COP calculation. Also, the the inadequate and contradictory defense provided in the link you gave demonstrates ignorance by the author of this defense.


    First, your argument that "the body surface temperature of the E-Cat would be much higher" makes no sense whatsoever. The point is that with a reversed clamp, the input power would be underestimated by 1/3. This is not related to any argument about the output power measured by the Optris, and trying to state that some different ouput would be expected indicates your confusion on this. A mistaken estimate of input power is independent of the observed output power. This input power error does directly impact the estimated COP, however, based on the incorrect assumption of what the input power was as measured by the PCE830. The statement made in the link that you provided, that the clamp "would measure the current negatively" is not a relevant answer. A device using a clamp cannot "know" what position the clamp is placed in. Current direction is relative to the detector (clamp) orientation. This is obvious from both a theoretical and empirical standpoint, but if you have any doubts, here is a video demonstrating the exact power error measured empirically with an PCE-830:


    PCE-830 Clamp Reversal Effect on Estimated Power


    In addition, the defense provided in the link you provided has nothing to do with a system "put in overload" nor is the fact that the "wave is perfectly described by the instrument" at all relevant to the criticism. So this indicates that the author of the statement either does not understand the clamp reversal problem or chose to answer it with an irrelevant response:


    Quote

    for this reason , as surely have understood the experts and the reviewers to whom the Professors have given the report before the publication, the photo shows the wave also when the system has been put in overload; you can understand it from the acronym “OL” that you can read on the display, while the wave is perfectly described by the instrument.


    That Rossi did not understand basic AC current is obvious from his many ignorant statements. And as I have shown in a previous post, a person not understanding 3-phase power measurement and applying clamps randomly will, on average, have a 75% chance of applying the clamps in a way that underestimates power by 1/3 (also, there are only two possibilities - correct measurement 25% of the time and 1/3 75% of the time).


    (BTW, I am an electrical engineer, but it does not take much expertise to understand the basis for this error.)

    LDM,


    If Jed can’t, can I?


    LDM


    I don't claim (obviously) that every method applies to every test. The Lugano measurements seem well explained by just the IR issue, although there is some circumstantial evidence from the report that there might also originally have been a clamp reversal issue detected and corrected early on.


    If this "undisclosed" system exists, and is a commercial boiler, I'd expect that Rossi just ignores the need for nuclear regulatory permisson. Fair given that he does not really have a nuclear reactor.


    It would however be fascinating to get the gen on this. If anyone knew for sure where this hypothetical device was they could sick an inspection onto Rossi with the result:


    (1) Rossi admits he was lying when he said he had an operational over-unity device based on nuclear reactions

    or

    (2) Rossi gets closed down.


    Perhaps Rossi's game is to go for (2) and use the fact of the closure as additional evidence his stuff works? I'm sure ECW would see it that way.


    Thank you Sigmoidal. I did not bother with this since I don't think it that likely reverse clamp was used in Lugano, but you are of course right the Lugano report does not itself remove that possibility based on what they say they checked.


    The report as a whole is a wonderful but rather depressing example of how scientists can get experiments very wrong when chasing dreams.

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    I don't know if you were out of school yet, but but Prof. Focardi saw that it worked more than 7 years ago.


    Or does the Royal we refer to you not seeing evidence? Or if you had been there you would have showed it to be fake because you are so much brighter than a famous expert in the subject? Hard to tell with an anonymous blogger.


    Rossi doesn't owe you anything.

    "Rossi doesn't owe you anything."


    Not me and not he forum, but the cancer suffering children ...


    (I'm aware, that this post is EVIL)

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If the Rossi device were real, it too might cause catastrophic accidents.

    So you keep repeating, but you can't suggest any mechanism how that might happen.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    There can be no assurance that a large scale cold fusion device will not go out of control and cause catastrophic damage.

    There you go again. How about some proof?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    neither he nor you have the slightest idea how it works or where the energy is coming from, so neither of you can offer any assurance that the machine is safe

    Rossi claims to have a theory and there are at least half a dozen others. None suggest catastrophic failures.

    The key difference is that the SK requires an external stimulation to keep working. But you ignore that

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Rossi has repeatedly claimed the machine irradiated him and made him sick. He is saying it isn't safe.

    That was the earlier quite different model and that was with the shielding removed. Don't be so silly.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You believe everything else he says,

    Another lie. As I have said many tines I wait fir proof. You don;t, you just claim he is wrong.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If it does not use radioactive materials, what makes it work? Why do you claim it is safer than a fission reactor

    Rossi has a theory. You know it is wrong? With your crystal ball that tells you what others are thinking I would have thought you had his whole IP by now.

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    Rossi has a theory. You know it is wrong? With your crystal ball that tells you what others are thinking I would have thought you had his whole IP by now.


    Difficult to test a hypothesis that makes no testable predictions. Therefore difficult to know such is wrong.


    Like my hypothesis "unicorns visit my garden approximately once a decade on a random night."


    I'd hope you give me the same generous wait and see attitude you have for Rossi? After all I've never publicly lied nor been sent to gaol - or do those two attributes just make Rossi nobler in your view?

    Quote from interested observer

    The real point of all of the preceding discussion is that if Rossi is actually operating a 40 MW heat engine

    Wrong. Rossi has stated he will be providing heat to the 40 MW customer in small stages, probably at different plants. It is not a huge machine but mad up of many small SK modules.

    Quote from interested observer

    it is a flagrant and dangerous violation of numerous laws



    Show me the relevant laws. I have not had to do that for most new equipment in many years of industrial experience. You don't know what you are talking about

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    There you go again. How about some proof? [of danger]

    1. Assuming it is cold fusion, the proof is that other cold fusion reactors have gone out of control and exploded.


    2. No other cold fusion reaction can be controlled well enough to scale up safely.


    3. Rossi repeatedly said his devices are dangerous. He often said they might explode, and he said that one model irradiated him and made him sick. You say that was an earlier model, but he said it about all of his previous models, often shutting down demonstrations because he claimed the machine was going out of control. How could he know this model is safe? How would you know? Because he said so? What he says is not reliable, to say the least.


    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    Rossi claims to have a theory and there are at least half a dozen others. None suggest catastrophic failures.

    "Having a theory" counts for nothing in commerce. You have to have certified engineering proof from millions of hours of independent testing by world-class experts. Just waving a theory will not satisfy anyone. Imaging you test your own homemade self-driving car on a public road because you say you have a new AI theory and this car is perfectly safe. You would be arrested.


    Furthermore, catastrophic failures have occurred, and Rossi often said his devices were on the verge of catastrophic failures. So, if none of the theories predict this, they must all be wrong.


    Just about any reaction -- nuclear, chemical or mechanical -- can be catastrophic, and all conventional theories explain how this can be. A theory that says cold fusion cannot be catastrophic means cold fusion is different from all other reactions in some mysteriously unprecedented way.


    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    The key difference is that the SK requires an external stimulation to keep working. But you ignore that

    All chemically fueled reactors and engines require an external fuel source to keep working. When you cut off the flow of fuel, the reactors stop. Despite this, they can go out of control and explode. If the Rossi reactor requires external stimulation, it may be that the stimulation produces different power levels, unpredictably. This is true of all other stimulated cold fusion reactions. None is safe enough to scale up.

    Quote from LDM

    You have that completely backward! Nothing can "hit the market" until AFTER regulations are written.


    Then take a look at several EU directives and and look at the dates when they where first issued.

    There are always new and revised regulations. They come out after the product is first sold. But no product is sold in any first-world country that has not already been tested and approved. As I said, if you could sell products before they were approved and before regulations were written, you could get away with murder. You would sell unsafe automobiles or drugs that have not been tested and kill the patients. When the police arrive, you would tell them: "there is no regulation governing my Deathtrap 4000 automobile, so I can sell as many as I want."

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    Show me the relevant laws. I have not had to do that for most new equipment in many years of industrial experience. You don't know what you are talking about

    See:


    https://www.myfloridacfo.com/D…tWEBEffective04102016.pdf


    Granted, there is no mention here of nuclear reactors that work by unknown principles and that irradiate the inventor. There are no specific procedures for certifying them. But, as I said, just because your new gadget is not yet covered, that does not mean you are allowed to install it and maybe irradiate people or cause explosions without a penalty.


    Many of the general procedures and standards described here would apply to Rossi, and he would fail every one of them.

    • Official Post
    Quote from JedRothwell

    No, he did not. He has no idea what the CE mark is, or what it means, or who is legally authorized to use it.


    Jed, in this instance you only have a superficial understanding of the CE rules and how they work. Rossi could CE mark it himself under (for example) under the EU Low Voltage Appliance Directive with no problems. You might not think they apply, but conformity with the rules in this instance is not arduous and it would be up to somebody to object or there to be a problem before anybody made enquiries. In some ways the USA is not as free of rules as the EU, and this is one of them.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Jed, in this instance you only have a superficial understanding of the CE rules and how they work.

    Indeed, I just read them. But they resemble U.S. and Japanese standards that I am familiar with. They definitely do not cover the operation of novel, untested nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles. If you are allowed put a CE sticker on that, the sticker is meaningless.


    Quote from Alan Smith

    Rossi could CE mark it himself under (for example) under the EU Low Voltage Appliance Directive with no problems. You might not think they apply, but conformity with the rules in this instance is not arduous and it would be up to somebody to object or there to be a problem before anybody made enquiries.

    As I said, this is like saying you can build a ammonium nitrate/fuel oil bomb in your basement, and as long as the components meet code, you are good to go. You can even put a CE sticker on it. After all, blasting caps meet safety codes. The ammonium nitrate and Diesel fuel are certified safe for their approved uses, in the hands of trained professionals. So, anyone can make a bomb? Anyone can make a nuclear reactor, as long as the components are off the shelf?


    That makes no sense.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.