Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

You said the output power measurement was wrong. It wasn't. You were wrong.

I noted the problem with the input power measurement the day after the demo, noting that the missing measurement was easy to do and any customer would make it..

It is you who is being dense.

Since you have a real problem with facts:

Fact: I never said the ouput power measurement was "wrong".

Fact: You cannot show that I did say that the output power measurement was "wrong".

Fact: We do not know and cannot know if the output water calorimetry was done properly from the demo, because Rossi did not allow anyone to independently verify that.

Fact: It is not a "fact", as you mistakenly assert, that the "QX was measured properly with water calorimetry". This is merely your speculation.

Fact: Whether or not the output power measurement was done properly is irrelevant to whether the QX or SX works, because there was no proper measurement of input power.

Fact: You often make declarative statements that the SX works while elsewhere stating that you do not know if it works or not.

Fact: Rossi has a history of intentional deception. One obvious example is when via email he bragged to IH about his "masterpiece" in deceiving Hydrofusion (Rossi vs Darden).

Fact: If you qualified your declarative statements with "if proven" or "if true" (etc.) your statements would be far more credible.

Fact: When you get your facts straight, then you will no longer be babbling.

(I'm not holding my breath on that happening, however).

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

You also mentioned 100 miles in another comment.

Wasn't me.

I did say 50 miles. That is a typical distance for testing large, dangerous objects such as the fission reactors Ed Storms used to work on. The White Sands Missile Range, for example, is 3,200 sq. mi. (56 mi. squared - but it isn't exactly square).

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I pointed out Jed's typical exaggeration that there had NEVER been a time without regulations

Since the founding of Roman Empire, there has never been a time in the literate nations of Europe without regulations. Even in the dark ages following the fall of Roman Empire, there were copious regulations covering things like working hours, the purity of beer, the amount of smoke that a forge or fireplace could emit, building codes, building materials specifying the kinds of lumber and rock that should be used for various purposes, and so on. Without such regulations, the cathedrals and other large buildings in Europe would have collapsed centuries ago.

In America, during the colonial period, in some ways there were more regulations and restrictions than there are now. Not only were there building codes, but there were regulations covering the types of meals that hotels had to serve, and many other things that are not regulated today.

There were also many laws that would be considered a violation of civil rights today. The state had far more intrusive power over individuals and families in the past. We are now living the golden age of autonomy and personal freedom. See, for example the Massachusetts Bay School Law (1642). Under this law, when parents did not teach their children how to read by age 6, and when they did not discipline children, take them to church, and keep the out of trouble, the state was authorized to take the children away and put them under foster parents. It was up to parents to ensure that children and servants did not become "rude, stubborn & unruly." See:

http://www.constitution.org/pr…ources/schoollaw1642.html

Quote from Shane D.

Then I stand corrected. My point remains though, that Rossi could keep this customer/client/partner's identity (if real) secret for years. I guess each of us individually, will have to decide when enough time has elapsed, to write this off as another Doral.

I hope Doral will become known as

the place Rossi invented the ECatQX

and not the test fiasco.

I also hope after January 31 things

move fast with the ECat.

Quote from bang99

He does not have a reactor, that can do a full "annihilation" -> mass to energy...

Nobody has that. Even nuclear bombs only convert a fraction of matter to energy.

Yes, I know that - and didn’t say otherwise.

But when the Dottore claims to have a reactor in which a fraction of the fuel-mass gets converted in energy, then he should be able to calculate E=mc2 correctly.

(1 g mass-defect corresponds to about 25000MWh, not to 25MWh, as Rossi repeadly said)

What would you say when the designers of nuclear bombs would calculate E=mc2 same as Rossi?

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Rossi wanted to show the characteristics of the QX. H e had two problems. He didn't want to give away the the input waveform he used and the power pack was very inefficient.

He gave away the waveform anyways.

The oscilloscope showed a modulated sine wave pattern. That was the current across the 1 ohm resistor, displayed as a voltage (the voltage drop across the 1 ohm resistor).

However, the actual voltage pattern would be very similar to the current pattern, since the current flows due to voltage.

The DC voltage offset displayed on the oscilloscope shows that some current always flows in the same direction, so we know there is a DC voltage bias, and the AC voltage waveform rides on that at more than the half-width of the pure AC voltage amplitude. (Roughly twice the AC voltage amplitude, from memory).

We know the frequency of the AC component from the oscilloscope trace and the divisions displayed on the screen.

We know from the laissez faire approach to connecting the oscilloscope probe ground reference (swapped around even) that the control box output is well-isolated or the oscilloscope was (dangerously, yeah I know a bunch of you out there do it all the time, but at a public demo?) floated from earth ground.

1. Chung January 5, 2019 at 7:15 AM

   Mr Rossi:

   Is there a possibility that the presentation of January 31st will be delayed?

2. Andrea Rossi January 5, 2019 at 8:46 AM

   Chung:

   No. The presentation of the industrialized Ecat SK will be made on January 31st at 09.00 A.M. Miami Time

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

3. Tamekia January 5, 2019 at 7:15 AM

   Who will be present at the presentation in the room where the streaming will be made on January 31st? Will be present third party inspectors?

4. Andrea Rossi January 5, 2019 at 8:44 AM

   Tamekia:

   Only members of our Team and the IT guys that will make the broadcast will be present.

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

Doesn't sound like a believable video. No independent verification. I keep on thinking of all the video "magic" in Forest Gump. A video alone, these days, are not to be taken a any kind of proof.

Quote from sam12

Quote from sam12

1. Tamekia:

   Only members of our Team and the IT guys that will make the broadcast will be present.

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

...poor Frank Acland from ECW...didn‘t he claim a few times that he has been invited to a „surprising“ location for this video presentation?

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

You said the output power measurement was wrong. It wasn't. You were wrong.

I noted the problem with the input power measurement the day after the demo, noting that the missing measurement was easy to do and any customer would make it..

It is you who is being dense.

Any normal customer - yes.

Any Rossi customer? No.

Look at the Doral "customer" for the most recent and obvious example...

And also note that IH went a long time without being sure Rossi was not worth backing, due to those faked Lugano-style tests. Why suppose a customer unwise enough to hook up with Rossi now will be more savvy than IH?

An awful lot of conjecture and arguing on this topic could be cleared up if we just recognise that 1) there is something to LENR/cold fusion but 2) its very difficult to commercialise so 3) maybe we do need someone like AR to break all the rules and plough on ahead regardless. I certainly respect the progress (even if it is partly fictitious) he has made in promoting LENR and attracting funding by convincing at least some investors that this is not a completely dead subject (as other mainstream physicists would like to have us believe!). You don't have to believe what he is going to demonstrate on 31 Jan is going to be the God's honest truth but I say let's just go along with it, let's give him our support in promoting LENR, then let other big enterprises like IH and BEC follow along in his trailblazing footsteps as they have always done up to now. LENR per se has everything to gain but nothing to lose by supporting good ol' AR!

5. The babblers will claim any measurement done by Rossi or made while he is in the same building will be false.

But, in this case, you assume contrary historical evidence that a measurement Rossi claims will some time be made made, and no-one else substantiates, is good evidence.

That is weird.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Sure it is, The SK only produces two magnitudes more power and is being manufactured.

How do you know that? Oh right, your infallible genius hero said it in his onanistic blog.

Quote

The company where it is installed will not be released.

Just like the fake military customer from November 2011 was never identified. Here we are 7 years and hundreds of lies later and Rossi's advocates are not one bit smarter.

What better way would there be to sell whatever it is that Rossi currently is claiming he sells than to have a well known company endorse it? None of course. The only possible reason Rossi is not revealing his client is because, as always, there is none.

I learned the hard way that never take anything at face value, people can have the best intention, but do unintentionally miss things, and what they say is still wrong.

As a computer developer I am therefore constantly mistrusting. Not of the person, but of the facts. And this mean that I mistrust myself as well and always test

and verify code that I produce.

This would mean that if I designed a revolutionary heat generator I would over measure it, I would not trust good values but try to see if there is a bug behind it

and most importantly I would document everything carefully. And automate as much tasks as possible in order to get consistency and remove sources of human

error. (notice that this is what seam to happen in the ATOM ECOLOGY thread)

It's fine though in stages in the development process to move faster, with less stringency. A good strategy is to set up gates where one verify that the idea

holds.

Maybe you can get away not doing that, but my intuition scream to me a big no no many times in this history due to this.

And then it's that email popping up in the court where Rossi is bragging about lying to hydrofusion.

So no face value and money from me. But let's hope it's all true, that would be one hell of a fun and good thing.