Remember Rossi is no longer selling reactors. That neatly bypasses a lot of regulations. No need for CE marking.
If his customer was in the UK the main problem he would have is probably the Health and Safety at work Act and possibly the Ionising Radiation Regulations (IRR 17).
Shane, you do realize that Adrian is completely devoid of a sense of humor?
Observer
If you said something funny that was funny for skeptics and believers we could all have a laugh.
Display MoreLDM 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:
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.)
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.
Are you in contact with military concerns interested to your technology?
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.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Is the temperature of the plasma in the Ecat uniform, or are there different temperatures?
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.
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
Antoine:
1- Always
2- every Ecat is supplied with a Sievert-meter and a bubble column
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Shane, you do realize that Adrian is completely devoid of a sense of humor?
Wrong (again). I find many of the babbler commemts hilarious, hence the LOLs.
Perhaps you didn't know what LOL stood for?
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.
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).
QuoteThis 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.
QuoteRossi 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.
QuoteOnce 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."
QuoteLarge 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.
QuoteHis 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.
QuoteAt 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.
Sense of humor - n. Ability to type “LOL”
Display MoreRR:
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?
Scrolling down the screen, below the “Modelling Emission Spectra... “ paper on Research Gate, one finds this little gem:
Rossi either did it on purpose or is not very smart.
These two considerations are not mutually exclusive.
This is one thing that fascinates me. How much of Rossi's apparent extreme technical stupidity is natural, and how much is artifice? He seems smart in some other ways.
Whichever, it seems to have served him well over the years. Which i guess shows that the world contains a great variety of people some of who admire, or ignore, that quality.
Just for AA, who does not bother with the tech stuff
It is tedious to wade through your lies and pointless BS.
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
As it is straight forward to measure things in an engineering way, such as heating the water with the QX or measuring the 27 kW of factory heating with the SK, this is too simple for your esoteric mind to grasp.
Ut doesn't allow you to write a page of convoluted prose to supposedly prove the SK doesn't work
Just a fascinating reminder from Feb 2012.
https://e-catworld.com/2012/02…t-electricity-generation/
This really shows the great progress Rossi has made since these early days.
Back then he was working with buffoons like Siemens and National Instruments, and the mass production was starting in 2 weeks.
Now his unnamed client is of the highest echelons, and the demonstration will only show the "industrialization" of the e-cat as he no longer even needs to prove it works.
He had already designed a tiny unit along with stylish packaging to be shipped around the world, that would just attach to your heater.
And interesting to see the comments of the Rocket Scientists/old-school Adrians of the time talking about e-cat and LENR as a PROVEN FACT.
Frank Aclands forum is a real treasure box! He has cemented basically all of Rossi’ dreams and lies... it is out of my mind that people like Adrian closing ears and eyes and cannot see the writing on the wall...
An interesting detail seems that back then you cannot find any of today’s advocates of Rossi. Maybe all of them are gone? Or did change their nick names? Or a new genearation of blind believers who wait for the Big Bang like AA?
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.
I never said anything like that. Rossi said that it irradiated him and made him sick. He also claimed his devices often go out of control and need to be shut down in an emergency. So obviously it is not ready to be scaled up. I never said anything about a 100 mile radius. If the machine only irradiates people in the next building, that would bad enough. If it exploded with the force of an ordinary boiler accident, for conventional reasons, that would be bad. I think it may well explode, because Rossi's engineering is abominable. His machines do not meet minimal safety standards, according to the people from NASA and others who have seen his devices.
But you are missing the point. Assume the gadget works. If, as you say, there is no radioactive material in the device, then no one has the slightest idea where the energy is coming from. When you have no idea what the source of energy is, it is extremely foolhardy to begin building large devices. There is no way to predict whether a large energy release might occur, or what effects the energy might have, or whether it could suddenly produce a burst of radiation. Scaling up and selling the gadget now would be like selling radium drinks.
No sane person in authority would allow such a machine to be operated within 50 miles of an inhabited area.
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.
never said anything like that.
You also mentioned 100 miles in another comment. Are you suffering from Alzheimer's or is it ust another lie?
Jed,
I came across another of your comments when searching for a quotation.
QuoteAny industrial company in the U.S. or Japan large enough to purchase megawatt-hour quantities of heat would instantly refuse such an offer, for the reasons I spelled out above. Even if Rossi gave away the heat for free they would have nothing to do with it. I have worked for such companies, and worked with them. They take no unnessary risks. They are very careful to follow regulations and safety standards, because in our litigious era they may end up paying millions or billions of they fail to do this. To take a risk like this just to save 20% on the cost of heat would be insane. Any manager who suggested such a think would be fired in a week. It is simply unthinkable.
Your faith in government regulations is touching. A good engineer with common sense wold never have dreamed of placing the stand-by generators in the basement at Fukushima, no matter what the regulations specified.
QuoteThere has never been a time in Europe, the U.S. or Japan when the world worked the way you imagine, and anyone could endanger the public with untested technology.
LOL. I'd love to see the regulations for a caveman's cave and fire. or a Hawaiian canoe used before Westerners arrived, or Viking ships. Etc. I just don't know how man survived before writing...
Frank Aclands forum is a real treasure box! He has cemented basically all of Rossi’ dreams and lies... it is out of my mind that people like Adrian closing ears and eyes and cannot see the writing on the wall...
An interesting detail seems that back then you cannot find any of today’s advocates of Rossi. Maybe all of them are gone? Or did change their nick names? Or a new genearation of blind believers who wait for the Big Bang like AA?
If Rossi is succesful Franks Blog will
be a treasure.Interesting that Iggy Dairyinple and Clovis Ray two original commenters on Franks blog
still believe in Rossi.Recently Iggy entered a name in name the Ecat SK
software contest.Clovis said recently
he is having the time of his life following Rossi.
