Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • The SK most likely is not a nuclear reactor. How will you prove that it is?

    Assuming it is real --


    If it is not a nuclear reactor, then it is something totally unknown to science. It is an apparent violation of the conservation of energy. Since no one has the slightest idea how that could be, or how the thing works, and since Rossi says that his previous reactors were nuclear, they were dangerous, and one of them irradiated him, we must assume this one is also dangerous.


    When you have a totally unknown novel effect that can produce 40 MW from a relatively small machine (high power density), it is prudent to first study it, learn how it works, and to test it for safety before deploying it on a 40 MW scale. In the past, people ignored this commonsense rule, and they caused great harm. For example, when radium was discovered, people assumed it was safe, and they sold it as a health drink. See:


    https://www.popsci.com/scitech…lthy-glow-drink-radiation


    Nowadays, safety standards are much higher. Society demands you do extensive testing to be sure the product is safe and cannot go out of control. "Extensive testing" does not mean: "some guy named Rossi has a theory so it must be okay." Or "an anonymous person named Axil tells us this isn't nuclear so there's nothing to worry about." Extensive testing is what they are doing with self-driving cars. Billions of dollars and millions of hours of driving. When they accidentally killed one person, all hell broke lose.

  • 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.

    Little is known about the failures of LENR experiments except that the fuel/equipment was orders of magnitude larger than the SK and they melted down. They didn't destroy everything in a 100 mile radius as you apparently fear. The SK relies on a plasma contained in a tiny tube which can't be more than a few mg of non radioactive elements. Sounds like you are having a nightmare.


    Rossi has tested plasma reactors like the SK for a couple of years and obviously knows how to control them now.

    "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.


    So hot fusion plants like ITER can never be certified according to you.

    All chemically fueled reactors and engines require an external fuel source to keep working.

    A LENR reactor is not like a chemical reaction that continues by itself until all the fuel has reacted (like gun powder) The SK requires a more or less continuous stimulation to continue operating.

    Beats me why you can't understand such a simple concept.

    the Rossi reactor requires external stimulation, it may be that the stimulation produces different power levels, unpredictably.

    Rossi has tested it for a couple of years. He knows better than you.

    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.

    It just requires that an engineer will have to certify any parts under pressure and the installation/manufacture was done by competent people.


    As an aside, the government inspectors were totally disinterested in the new furnace we were building in our Wallaceburg plant (they knew nothing about glass furnaces) but wouldn't allow us to take water from the river for cooling a compressor and feed it back to the river without cleaning it up, because the river water didn't meet their standards. Jed maintains they are essential for our safety!

  • 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.


    You are quite right about the 'no sense' bit. but also totally wrong about that being possible. Because bombs are illegal as is making them, but there has to be provable intent. But there is no law against electrically-powered heaters. CE rules apply. l

  • The reversed clamp may apply to one of the e-cat tests preceding Lugano. There was an analysis done of the triac shapes displayed on the PCE 830. If I recall correctly it was in “An Indication of..”, wiping out the COP 2.9 .... or something like that.

  • Claiming radiation release from the SK is surely just another way of AR attracting attention to himself and increasing his self-advertising profile-throw in a bit of pathology and then you have maybe some of his critics feeling sorry for him! All just psychology in action, he certainly knows how to manipulate his audience. Or maybe he read about the gamma release from Russ George's reactors and saw this as very positive evidence for fusion reactions occurring against a possible mounting investor scepticism. Who knows, time will tell.

  • The SK most likely is not a nuclear reactor. How will you prove that it is?

    Recall that Rossi claimed that the Ni was transmuted into Cu. (at one time even claiming 30% was transmuted. That is the nucleus changed- by definition that is nuclear. So Rossi himself has claimed it is nuclear. In short, Rossi says it is nuclear. Do you believe him or did he lie about the Cu?

  • Claiming radiation release from the SK is surely just another way of AR attracting attention to himself

    What a load of psycho babble. As you can't even get it right about which E-Cat Rossi was looking at when he got a dose of radiation, you are too casual with the facts - like psychologists are. (80% of their papers were not reproducible in one study)

    I suppose adding Dr. to your moniker is not trying to draw attention to yourself. But it works with Shane who likes your comment.

  • European regulation


    In Europe you can certify equipmen for use in industry to EU regulations yourself.

    (This in contrast to consumer products and some special area's)

    No certification institute needs to be involved.

    Only partially true. There are many cases where a so called „notified body“ needs to be involved.

    Best you start reading here:

    https://ec.europa.eu/growth/si…-marking/manufacturers_en


    Quote

    You only need to conform to the current regulations and put the CE mark on your product.

    Yes, but all the particular regulations you „only“ need to confirm can be quite nasty.

    In particular the EU - Directive 2014/68/EU for pressure equipment is a quite tricky one.


    And I would assume that also Rossi‘s latest gadget, the e-cat SK, falls under this directive, because of:

    (b) fired or otherwise heated pressure equipment with the risk of overheating intended for generation of steam or super- heated water at temperatures higher than 110 °C having a volume greater than 2 L, and all pressure cookers (Annex II, table 5);


    Quote

    You don't even have to report your findings.

    It is enough to keep your test results somewhere.

    And if they ask you for a report then you may make up such a report afterwards from the recorded test results and you are given time to do that.

    It is thus even possible to put a CE mark on your product, whithout having done any test and nobody knowing about it.

    Normally manufacturer have to follow this six steps to affix a CE marking to your product:

    1. Identify the applicable directive(s) and harmonised standards
    2. Verify product specific requirements
    3. Identify whether an independent conformity assessment (by a notified body) is necessary
    4. Test the product and check its conformity
    5. Draw up and keep available the required technical documentation
    6. Affix the CE marking and draw up the EU Declaration of Conformity

    Of course, someone could just download an image from a CE mark from the internet, and stick it on his equipment - but this obviously violates the six steps above.


    Quote

    And as far as I know there are no current EU regulations which can be applied to a LENR process.

    But they will probably come after a while into place after LENR heating hits the market.

    But since the regulation process is slow in the EU, that may take quite a while.

    And untill then there will be no regulations in place.

    Rossi says on JONP that the e-cat is based on low energy nuclear reactions.

    So, I would say someone who wants to put a CE mark on an e-cat needs at least also to check if the e-cat (and the certification process) complies with all the directives listed here under the topics “nuclear safety” and “radiation protection”.

    https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/nuclear-energy


    In brief: By attaching an CE mark on an equipment, a manufacturer confirms that this equipment complies with all in the EU relevant codes and standards.

    Depending on risk categories for such an equipment, this codes and standards quite often requires the involvement of third parties (“notified bodies”).

    You can not just certify (“CE-mark”) each and every equipment on your own.

  • Forty-Two  


    Thank you for this more general comprehensive overview of the CE certification process


    I always have found that indentifying the applicable standards is often difficult, especially when different disciplines are involved in a product.


    The second problem I often had was how to interpret the text of the standards, since the text was not always without ambiguity.


    As far as notified bodies is concerned, some standards may require them while in other cases you can choose to use a notified body or do the tests yourself or use a non certified testlab


  • Yes, but all the particular regulations you „only“ need to confirm can be quite nasty.


    In particular the EU - Directive 2014/68/EU for pressure equipment is a quite tricky one.


    Section 4 might be a problem for Rossi. He does not welcome visitors:


    4. Surveillance under the responsibility of the notified body
    4.1. The purpose of surveillance is to make sure that the manufacturer duly fulfils the obligations arising out of the
    approved quality system.
    4.2. The manufacturer shall, for assessment purposes, allow the notified body access to the design, manufacture,
    inspection, testing and storage sites and shall provide it with all necessary information, in particular:
    — the quality system documentation,
    — the quality records provided for by the design part of the quality system, such as results of analyses, calculations,
    tests, etc.,
    — the quality records provided for by the manufacturing part of the quality system, such as inspection reports and
    test data, calibration data, qualification reports on the personnel concerned, etc.
    4.3. The notified body shall carry out periodic audits to make sure that the manufacturer maintains and applies the
    quality system and shall provide the manufacturer with an audit report. The frequency of periodic audits shall be
    such that a full reassessment is carried out every three years.
    4.4. In addition, the notified body may pay unexpected visits to the manufacturer. . . .



    Also, all the other sections would be a problem for Rossi.

  • Jed,

    Once Rossi has a number of SK reactors working satisfactorily in an industrial situation for a couple of years, it will be much easier to get whatever certifications he needs, including for domestic use.

    Large manufacturing companies have a lot more leeway than you suppose.


    His main problem will likely be busybodies like you trying to stop him. At least you seem to be backing away from your previous position that the SK doesn't exist or why would you keep on about regulations?


    Rossi says he has all the necessary approvals to run the SK. Only another 29 days to go. Why not wait and see? Oh. I forgot your theory that anything Rossi says is proof of the opposite.

  • Sig,



    Any relatively newer power meter, has the capability to develop phaser diagrams from voltage and current inputs.

    Many of these meters will actually show you pictorially, the individual phaser with its voltage and current overlaid onto a 360° plot including phase rotation.


    If your ct’s are on backward, if their polarity is reversed, or they are even connected to the wrong phase input on the meter,

    (b phase ct connected to c phase input), It will be blatantly obvious to an electrical engineer what is wrong and what needs to be done to correct the problem.


    Rossi either did it on purpose or is not very smart.

    1. January 2, 2019 at 6:46 PM

      Are you in contact with military concerns interested to your technology?

    2. Andrea Rossi January 3, 2019 at 8:54 AM

      Adrian Hereford:

      The cases are two: either yes, or not.

      Since in the first case there should be obviously a robust NDA, in both cases the answer would necessarily be “no”, with 50% of probability to be a “true” lie.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

    3. Translate RR January 3, 2019 at 4:17 AM

      Dr Andrea Rossi,

      Is the temperature of the plasma in the Ecat uniform, or are there different temperatures?

    4. Andrea Rossi January 3, 2019 at 8:47 AM

      RR:

      There are different temperatures in different zones. When applying the Boltzmann formula we consider only the surface of the core, that in an Ecat SK is about 0.5 cm^2 and is where all the energy id produced.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

    5. Antoine January 3, 2019 at 7:51 AM

      Dear Andrea,

      1-Do you always constantly measure the radiations emitted from the Ecats when they operate?

      2- if yes, which kind of instrumentation do you use?

      Thank you if you can answer,

      Antoine

    6. Andrea Rossi January 3, 2019 at 8:41 AM

      Antoine:

      1- Always

      2- every Ecat is supplied with a Sievert-meter and a bubble column

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

  • RR:

    There are different temperatures in different zones. When applying the Boltzmann formula we consider only the surface of the core, that in an Ecat SK is about 0.5 cm^2 and is where all the energy id produced.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.


    Just for AA, who does not bother with the tech stuff.


    This is a "friendly" question, in the sense that it does not address the key issue with estimating power out as Rossi does with the QX. That issue is Rossi's assuming that his plasma radiation is thermally in equilibrium and therefore obeys Planck (S-B) law.


    I'm sure AA, with his engineering experience, will be able to understand that radiation from fluorescent bulbs is forced (not equilibrium) and therefore not thermal in distribution. Its spectral content is very variable.


    Here are already several good answers, but one thing hasn't been addressed, which might be what your friend refers to. The Sun and an incandescent bulb both emit (close-to) Planck spectra (as shown in Tomi's and Cort Ammon's answers). In contrast, fluorescent bulbs, or tubes, emit spectra that have multiple spectral lines. Depending on which gas is used in the tube, or what material the tube is coated with, various spectra can be achieved.


    from:

    https://physics.stackexchange.…-as-the-light-from-a-bulb


    Here is a better example; the spectrum from mercury plasma. If measured as rossi does, eyeballing those peaks, it would give an COP multiplier of about 100X!


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…and_parameters_estimation


    I'm just here emphasising the final error class in my table, which the QX seems particularly suitable to generating. Rossi has discovered that Lugano-style optical measurement is capable of large inaccuracy and false positives. He has, felicitously, discovered a system where naive optical power measurement gives much more inaccurate results!


    Perhaps, AA, you understand why I'm not inclined to believe anything Rossi says?

  • Jed,

    Rossi says "he surface of the core, that in an Ecat SK is about 0.5 cm^2"


    This tiny core contains non radioactive material, yet you say there is a risk it could destroy everything in a 50 or 100 mile radius! LOL.


    AA - just FYI: how do you know the ecat core is not radioactive? if it is as Rossi says, and generates energy from nuclear transformation, then BY DEFINITION it contains radiologically active material. Since no-one has a clear theory for how all this works, who is to say under what conditions the reactions could runaway and generate vast amounts of energy?

    0.5cm^2 is say 3g, which with 100% m-e conversion gives us 10^14J = 100ktonnes of TNT. OK - not a 50 mile radius - although i guess n such an uncontrolled case there might be radioactive products, which could spread a long distance.


    What you don't get is that if an LENR reactor works then we still know very little about its operation or failure modes - but we know it is a system capable of nuclear activity. That is why unregulated use would be completely impossible (except illegally).

  • Quote

    This tiny core contains non radioactive material, yet you say there is a risk it could destroy everything in a 50 or 100 mile radius! LOL.

    Yes, well, true if it works. So the risk is indeed vanishingly small.


    Quote

    Rossi either did it on purpose or is not very smart.

    These two considerations are not mutually exclusive. Rossi's scam has been an unusually stupid one, which has been obviously so since at least the first so-called demo of the so-called megawatt plant to the so-called NATO colonel in late 2011. When someone comes to realize that everything Rossi does is BS and that he brings by the same dumb cons again and again depends on their BS threshold. Evidently, this has varied widely.


    Quote

    Once Rossi has a number of SK reactors working satisfactorily in an industrial situation for a couple of years, it will be much easier to get whatever certifications he needs, including for domestic use.

    This is sort of like "Once my flying pig has been working for an airline for a couple of years, it will be much easier to get FAA certifications to carry passengers."


    Quote

    Large manufacturing companies have a lot more leeway than you suppose.

    Rossi has never been involved with a large manufacturing company and I can safely predict, he never will. Closest he ever got was when he bamboozled IH and we saw how that ended.



    Quote

    His main problem will likely be busybodies like you trying to stop him.

    For sure. The main thing inventors of extremely useful technologies which will revolutionize the world have to worry about is internet busybodies on obscure forums. If it weren't for them, we'd be awash in cheap energy already.


    Quote

    At least you seem to be backing away from your previous position that the SK doesn't exist or why would you keep on about regulations?

    Of course Rossi;s "SK" or whatever he calls the current flummox machine probably exists. But so far, all Rossi has shown us is a haphazard collection of parts, most cheap plastic ones, available from the garden department at Home Depot. Not sure if that was an SK or a S-CAT.