Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • many of whose members continue to cling to belief in Rossi's "technology" despite the fact that it increasingly bears little or no resemblance to any other LENR systems.

    The initial versions were similar to other cold fusion claims such as Arata's, which is why they seemed plausible to me and others. The latest ones are powered by Dancing Puppets, I'm told. As you say, they bear little or no resemblance to LENR, or anything else. They are sui generis.

  • There is evidence that he himself is convinced. He works very hard, for long hours. I know people who have spent a lot time with him, and that is what they say. It does not seem to be for show. If he were nothing but a scam artist, he could make a fake reactor with much less effort.


    Okay, that isn't proof, but I think it indicates he believes some of his own claims.

    Really??????????



    You personally DO KNOW ( REALLY KNOWING, NOT MEETING ONCE) people, who KNOW Rossi (REALLY KNOWING, NOT MEETING ONCE)...

  • THH, you left out (6) He has hitched his wagon to a pre-existing, passionate support group for LENR, many of whose members continue to cling to belief in Rossi's "technology" despite the fact that it increasingly bears little or no resemblance to any other LENR systems. If Rossi had started out right away claiming to have a new energy source based on "the Rossi effect" rather than LENR, he would have attracted no more attention than any of the hundreds of other free energy hucksters out there.


    Agreed IO. I did however not really leave it out, it comes under (1) He is very good at choosing a pitch, and choosing his audience.


    Slight correction: Alan here claims to have systems that look like what Rossi used in the Lugano tests doing extraordinary (= LENR, in the field's "anything inexplicable can be explained by LENR" way) things. So that is a resemblance between what are called LENR systems and Rossi's stuff and one that might incline people like Alan, who (AFAIK) thinks his system exhibit profoundly anomalous behaviour indicative of some nuclear reaction, to give credence to Rossi's stuff.


    Personally, I'd prefer a much narrower definition of LENR (which would not include Rossi's stuff) but that is irrelevant.

  • The initial versions were similar to other cold fusion claims such as Arata's, which is why they seemed plausible to me and others. The latest ones are powered by Dancing Puppets, I'm told. As you say, they bear little or no resemblance to LENR, or anything else. They are sui generis.


    I can't say that his current systems work or not: there's no proof one way or the other. And I'm every bit as fed up with his puppets as everyone else. But if his current systems do work, they utilize the negative resistance regime of an electrical discharge (between the regular glow discharge and positive resistance arc discharge) which produces ion acoustic oscillations. These oscillations were present on the oscilloscope during the presentation of the QX in Stockholm. Of course just because the oscillations were present it doesn't mean the system was necessarily doing anything anomalous. However, so many different systems claiming exotic effects (excess electricity, excess heat, weird emissions) utilize this zone - including Black Light Power's Suncell - that I think there's a chance the device was producing some level of anomalous heat. But we'll never know because his presentation of the QX was so bad and now he's turned the E-Cat saga (which already had a sleazy side) to a pathetic cartoon.


    I'll also say that it does seem like the basic concept of the QX does roughly resemble some other devices that utilized the negative resistance zone to produce anomalous effects including some of Alexander Chernetsky's devices. If Rossi was using a sharp tip or hollow cathode, I'd say the setup could resemble an extreme modification of a Kenneth Shoulder's style EVO generator. Interestingly, I don't think Kenneth Shoulders ever attempted to produce a resonant system with a power supply that could be tuned to allow a complex space charge construct or "macro EVO" to self sustain.


    If Rossi has anything with the QX and SK, he's done a great job of screwing over the entire community so that devices that take advantage of the negative resistance regime will look kooky and won't likely be replicated. Once again, he puts his wish for absolute and total control over his technology before the entire field and the entire planet.

  • However, so many different systems claiming exotic effects (excess electricity, excess heat, weird emissions) utilize this zone - including Black Light Power's Suncell - that I think there's a chance the device was producing some level of anomalous heat.


    An alternate explanation for such a suspicious set of anomalous results (taking your observation as correct) is that the plasma oscillations, which cause large EMI, interfere with measuring equipment to make false positive results common.

  • An alternate explanation for such a suspicious set of anomalous results (taking your observation as correct) is that the plasma oscillations, which cause large EMI, interfere with measuring equipment to make false positive results common.

    I had postulated something like that several weeks ago, and no one commented on it. It seems possible that simple thermometers would be less susceptible to EMI corruption. It's astonishing that folks who are saying there's an ongoing error taking place are pointing to the equipment generating errors of more than 500degrees Farenheit.




    -----------------------------------------------------


    Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

    Post

    (Quote from JedRothwell)***Is it possible that whatever tools are used to measure heat are disrupted by Strange Radiation or some other thing emitted by these LENR devices? So, a person walking into a room where 1MW of heat is supposedly being generated, he doesn't feel nearly that much heat. But his readings are showing all kinds of heat. That would explain why there is an opening for a wily con artist, why Arata's demo was unconvincing, and that this "pseudo-heat" generated can barely run a si…



  • You need to clarify what Your position is...

  • (1) demo, where it was claimed - thanks to the misrepresentation of the steam dryness, the water flow and the test duration


    1a : Although the meter used was not qualified for steam, the fact that water was NOT overflowing indicates that steam quality was at least 80% (and probably 85%)
    http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_frames_v410H.php

    1b : Water flow : the diaphragm pump used has the same properties as the Prominent -- at very low head the actual output is much greater than the rated output. They measured the ACTUAL flow.

    (I'm not sure about the test duration ... )

  • I agree that the first Levi paper was mistaken. I think the second Levi paper might have merit, but the third one went back to being wrong.


    Hallelujah! Finally, after many years (1), you have listed the three Levi's reports in the correct order:

    1 - 2011 (LT Ecat, Bologna),

    2 - 2013 (HotCat, Ferrara) and

    3 - 2014 (HotCat, Lugano).


    Quote

    An author can be wrong the first time, and right the second time.


    Yes, it can happen and it's much more likely than the other way round, but in science it's not enough. On the contrary, it is expected that before or during the issuance of the second (hopefully) right paper, the authors recognize that the first paper was wrong and explain the reasons in a way so convincing as to dispel any doubts about a possible intentionality of the misrepresentations contained in the first report. In the absence of this recognition and explanation, no further report issued by the persons involved in a first wrong paper should have been taken into consideration.


    (1) Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • Quote

    The initial versions were similar to other cold fusion claims

    Rossi's original ecats were rusty junk, the most prominent feature of which were two relatively huge heaters, including one that heated only the coolant fluid. Wonderful design. And then there was one easily misplaced thermocouple and an exhaust hose claimed to put out a lot of dry steam but which obviously didn't. That is really how other cold fusion claims went?


    Quote

    Rossi's considerable appetite for hard work at the lab bench is well known. Jed is quite right about that.

    First, it's something he could falsify and second who know what he was doing at the "lab bench" (originally more like empty and cold rooms in a mostly empty Italian wharehouse.)

  • 1a : Although the meter used was not qualified for steam, the fact that water was NOT overflowing indicates that steam quality was at least 80% (and probably 85%)


    In the January 14, 2011 demo, the most serious issue concerning the first flaw (1) is that the experimenters reported on the calorimetric paper that they had used an instrument that actually was not there!


    As for the absence of water overflow, how can you say so? I would make you notice that, contrary to the previous test held on December 2010, when the water hoses were transparent, the outflow water hose used in the January 2011 demo was a black opaque one (1a). Wonder why.


    Quote

    1b : Water flow : the diaphragm pump used has the same properties as the Prominent -- at very low head the actual output is much greater than the rated output. They measured the ACTUAL flow.


    The main issue, for this second flaw (2), is that the value of the maximum flow rate of the pump was not specified in the calorimetric report. This is absolutely not correct for a scientific document and it is highly suspicious.


    As already explained (2a), the testers were well aware that the water flow declared in the report (17.6 L/h) was higher than the maximum capacity of the pump (12 L/h).


    Quote

    (I'm not sure about the test duration ... )


    Just look at the jpeg (3) and the mentioned video (3a).


    (1) http://i.imgur.com/YC4W0Ax.jpg

    (1a) https://i.imgur.com/TTyZLdi.jpg

    (2) http://i.imgur.com/vu0bW93.jpg

    (2a) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

    (3) http://i.imgur.com/kaHK3GV.jpg

    (3a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjdXpSUDRlw

  • First, it's something he could falsify and second who know what he was doing at the "lab bench"


    He could not falsify it because other people who were with him reported it. Those people know what he was doing at the lab bench. He was making reactor after reactor, often destroying the old ones to reuse the parts, which was a dumb idea.

  • Personally, I'd prefer a much narrower definition of LENR (which would not include Rossi's stuff) but that is irrelevant.

    One approach would be to only include LENR efforts which have been replicated in peer reviewed journals with an impact factor of __x_______fill-in-the-blank______________.

    That would throw out a few efforts, especially those that are only business oriented or "in mercato veritas".