Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

I heard Rossi is working on a cloud based solution for the grammer check portion of his blog due to the high cpu load. The AI inference engine is already stressed.

Seriously. IRRC, they are over 3 million words.

If I forget to turn off Spelling/Grammar Check, the CPU fans go to full blast and it takes serious amounts of time to stop the process. But it does eventually chew through it if I let it go, after greenlighting an “ignore” response to a warning at “too many errors” (or somesuch), probably at 65535 instances or something...

A comment on Rossi paper on Financial Times article

"It seems to be a collection of phrases and equations from vaguely-related branches of physics, Once one gets to where it says "a charge traveling at the speed of light" one realises that Rossi doesn't understand Special Relativity, which rather scuppers the idea that he might know anything about nuclear reactions."

Even high-school students know that a mass at light-speed would have an infinite value

m = m₀/(1-v²/c²)^1/2

Quote from Walter Pegeto

Even high-school students know that a mass at light-speed would have an infinite value

This is SM argumentation that does not hold for dense matter. This logic was the base of the total SM fail. Already Randall Mills found the true metric for charge/mass in 4D space. But this was just a first step.

In dense matter/space charge is generated dynamically by magnetic flux and aka it's a matter of taste whether we say charge is traveling at light speed or not. Every student learns in electrodynamics that mass =EM mass travels at light speed.

Thus, what students learn is, that only gravitational mass cannot travel at light speed...(but GM mass is irelavant for modelling dense matter/ space).

Wyttenbach

Standard Model is the only one widely accepted by scientific community! All mainstream journals promptly reject all papers even vaguely related to Mills theories. Rossi paper has however many chances to be accepted on snarxiv.org (not to be confused with Cornell U. archive!).

arxiv vs snarxiv

Like the earth around the sun, the moon around the earth with no tech needed to make a happy mother ~

Standard Model may need updating.

Quote from Walter Pegeto

Standard Model is the only one widely accepted by scientific community!

SM doomsday is close. If blind mice rule the world then the cat's soon will get ton's of food. Once you understand that any metric related to gravity is outraging nonsense to describe dense matter, you also understand why I already yet call large parts of SM fringe science.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Seriously. IRRC, they are over 3 million words

For real? That's six War & Peace's. An embarrasing amount, really... With or without Rossi writing half of it himself.

But no need too feel to superior - It would seem that with ~25,000 posts on this forum devoted to repetitively jabbering about Rossi, the true extent of the madness is much worse, by many multiples.

Quote from Wyttenbach

SM doomsday is close. If blind mice rule the world then the cat's soon will get ton's of food. Once you understand that any metric related to gravity is outraging nonsense to describe dense matter, you also understand why I already yet call large parts of SM fringe science

In 30 years Mills and other alternative world views have never seriously challenged SM or traditional QM. These "alternative" theories are viewed by the average person as irrelevant, no more credible than Alex Jones fake news

All news is Alex Jones is more the point.

Rossi test stopped and back to the drawing board.

• Gerard McEk
  June 15, 2019 at 7:02 AM

  Dear Andrea,

  1. Are you happy about the progress in testing your E-cat SKe?

  2. Has the reliability of the heat supply to your customers already improved?

  3. Are you already satisfied with that heat supply?

  4. Do you already accept and deliver new orders for heat supply?

  I hope things are developing well!

  Kind regards, Gerard McEk

  _________________________________________________________

  Andrea Rossi

  June 15, 2019 at 9:22 AM

  Gerard MkEk:

  1. Partly: some parts of the Ecat SK-Leonardo worked very well, better than expected, but some worked poorly. We had to suspend the test and return to remanufacture some parts differently. Much work still to do. Never give up.

  2. yes

  3. yes

  4. yes

  Warm Regards,

  A.R.

• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
• 
  

− sam Buck • a few seconds ago

Frank Acland

June 16, 2019 at 8:12 AM

Dear Andrea,

You said that you stopped the E-Cat SK Leonardo test because of certain components failing.

1. Do you know yet what corrections need to be made?

2. What is the timetable for retesting?

3. How serious is do you feel this setback for the prospects of direct electricity production from the E-Cat SK?

Many thanks,

Frank Acland

Andrea Rossi

June 16, 2019 at 12:23 PM

Frank Acland:

1- yes

2- 1 month

3- we will never give up

Warm Regards

A.R.

Quote from Walter Pegeto

In 30 years Mills and other alternative world views have never seriously challenged SM or traditional QM. These "alternative" theories are viewed by the average person as irrelevant, no more credible than Alex Jones fake news

There is no need to challenge SM as SM is unable to calculate anything of real value. SM can only balance potentials in the far region, what works fine for electronics (10e-7 eV range) and Chemistry where magnetic effects don't play "any" role.

With SO(4) based physics we are able to calculate most properties of particles and it is easy to show how LENR works. Not fringe Gamov logic...

Mills approach is also far more deep than SM, but mostly restricted to classical arguments of 3D,t. At least you can learn how magnetism works in dense space.

Thus if you never studied Mills I would not repeat blind mice arguments.

Quote

it is easy to show how LENR works.

Apparently it is easier to show how it works than that it works.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Every student learns in electrodynamics that mass =EM

Not many here have learned electrodynamics..

But Professor Errede has some lectures here.

http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/serrede/P436/P436_Lectures.html

Perhaps in these lectures somewhere one can find that

" in electrodynamics that mass =EM mass travels at light speed.""

Quote from Walter Pegeto

In 30 years Mills and other alternative world views have never seriously challenged SM

Physics is not about worldviews.. that is more philosophy.

Philosophers make such things as the Newtonian worldview

which Newton never viewed.

SM via QED/QCD is seriously challenged at the nuclear level

For example QED/QCD cannot predict the neutron-proton mass difference to more than two figure's precision.

Durr et al 2014 tried hard with SM QED/QCD for seven years with supercomputers.

Here is the result- https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088

Other theories .. Mills, Magnitskii predict the nuclear quantities better .

zitterbewegung is very old stuff. Seems to me that user "Truth" is not aware that we are in 2019 and not in the thirties of the last century!

A comment from user "Truth" comments on FT article

"charge traveling at the speed of light" does not means "particle traveling at the speed of light".

In the zitterbewegung models electrons are modeled by charges that move at light speed.

You do not know what you are talking about!

Electron zitterbewegung models are discussed in many papers cited by Rossi:

"The zitterbewegung interpretation of quantum mechanics" https://www.researchgate.net/p…tion_of_quantum_mechanics

"Electron Structure, Ultra-dense Hydrogen and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" https://www.researchgate.net/p…_Energy_Nuclear_Reactions

"Helical Model of the Electron" http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0203

It's unfortunate so many fell for a charged capacitor discharging with low voltage in a plastic tube and letting it get this far.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Apparently it is easier to show how it works than that it works.

Apparently it is easier to say that LENR may not work

than read that LENR does work.

only a click away... SOT

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…F21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf