Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Declaring things impossible when multiple means of attaining the specs have been proposed seems premature. Just saying, it may not be him, but saying a portable device with more energy density than standard chemical sources, outputting electricity and heat, is impossible is closed minded. This is irrigardless of if anyone has it or not.

  • Declaring things impossible when multiple means of attaining the specs have been proposed seems premature. Just saying, it may not be him, but saying a portable device with more energy density than standard chemical sources, outputting electricity and heat, is impossible is closed minded. This is irrigardless of if anyone has it or not.

    No, nothing at all like that.


    It is impossible for Wien’s Law to be used without a blackbody or greybody. It simply does not work with a few scattered spectral peaks. That’s just a fact. It does not matter what the source of light is.


    Then pretending that the few spectral peaks can be treated as a blackbody or greybody is also wrong. Whether the spectra comes from a star, a hair drier, or an axilon enforcer makes no difference.


    Etcetera for the Kirchhoff circuit laws. One cannot calculate the correct total circuit power only from measuring a sense resistor. I made a handy circuit on Circuit Simulator to demonstrate this quite clearly.


    Combine these ingredients badly, and a COP (Rossi Style) of 22000 is easy, even if one is ‘conservative’ and rounds a few things here and there.

  • Thanks! So even with shoddy measurements it's still possible to have a more reasonable COP of 14 or 200 plugging along even if the optimistic false calculations said 2200. Reminds me of Mills who got extremely high COPs in explosive, short runs or runs with certain components. When he changed components/elements/designs to make the reactor more stable or longer running, according to his theory, the COP dropped to around 5 over long runs. The phenomina isn't fake due to early optimistic and hasty measurements not adding up. Theory determines how most approach realty, but the engineer is more concerned about making it work in desired parameters whether it breaks a schema or not.

  • Thanks! So even with shoddy measurements it's still possible to have a more reasonable COP of 14 or 200 plugging along even if the optimistic false calculations said 2200.

    If the person measuring does such a bad job that a COP of 14 can’t be told from one of 22000, then what makes 14 more likely than 1.00001 ?

  • If the person measuring does such a bad job that a COP of 14 can’t be told from one of 22000, then what makes 14 more likely than 1.00001 ?

    The absolute best case scenario and the absolute worst case scenario are rarely the ones that occur statistically. You make a fair point, but if they produce a COP of 22000 and intuitively find that acceptable from observing the machine running producing power then there probably is a memorable significant COP.

  • The absolute best case scenario and the absolute worst case scenario are rarely the ones that occur statistically. You make a fair point, but if they produce a COP of 22000 and intuitively find that acceptable from observing the machine running producing power then there probably is a memorable significant COP.

    The case that statistically occurs most often is COP 1, within the uncertainty of the method used (correctly).

    That same case is also used, correctly, to make sure that the measurement method being used is actually working properly.


    This is the case that statistically does not occur in Rossi demonstrations and reports. Sometimes it looks like it was done, but somehow the same conditions as the ‘miracle’ are not realized when looked at more closely.

  • The case that statistically occurs most often is COP 1, within the uncertainty of the method used (correctly).

    That same case is also used, correctly, to make sure that the measurement method being used is actually working properly.


    This is the case that statically does not occur in Rossi demonstrations and reports. Sometimes it looks like it was done, but somehow the same conditions as the ‘miracle’ are not realized when looked at more closely.

    I am happy to find out the truth either way! As long as we have an energy revolution of some sort.

  • Idk the exact example you are refering too?

    There is a difference in describing the frequency emission of a reaction and the actual visible heat exchanger's frequency or temperature. The reaction materials would be mixed with catalysts and what have you, idk, have down conversion and such. There is also people expecting nuclear energy spectra and not seeing it because the phenomina is different. Surface area?

    LeBob,


    are the heat exchangers real or imaginary?


    Surface area affect should be linear

  • Hypothetically what laws of physics are being broken in a device with stats like his claim?


    LeBob,


    If you have followed this saga you (you could go back to archive material) you will know that Rossi specialises in obtaining false positive results from demos by misusing laws of physics. Of course the physics is Ok, it is just Rossi's interpretation that is broken.


    Paradigmnoia has pointed out the recent plasma device issues: Wien's law used to estimate temperature of non-BB spectrum, Input power measured as power dissipated in a small series resistor (rather than power going to the device), Plank's law used to estimate power of non-BB spectrum.


    In addition Lugano has some complex issues about 3 phase input measurement (most cleared up) and the key a-physical notion that total and band emissivity must be identical.


    The earlier experiments had:

    Claims that to create wet steam requires the full vaporaisation enthalpy of the water (breaks thermodynamics)

    Claims that average RMS meters can be used to measure non-sinusoid electrical power (breaks ohms law)

    Claims that phase does not matter when measuring 3-phase power because "it is ac so polarity irrelevant". Breaks reactive power law.

  • Feels like this is designed to discredit distract away from potencial real energy sources. I think dispite the errors him or whomever is funding him knows something important and maybe putting on a circus to distract or for other nonscientific reasons. I hope that isn't the case. That's why I've stated that I find Mills and Dufours interesting in their own merit whether quoted by Rossi or not.

  • I think dispite the errors him or whomever is funding him knows something important and maybe putting on a circus to distract or for other nonscientific reasons.


    This is a common argument, and has been from near the beginning, in the Rossi saga.


    It normally presents as the idea that Rossi deliberately appears like a charlatan so that he can continue his development in secret while discouraging possible competitors.


    The problems is that all Rossi's actions (not just appearances) are consistent if he is a charlatan, and inconsistent if he is for real.

    • IH : walked away after seeing all. Why, if it was good?
    • Rossi: walked away from what he gave IH, that was productionised for a 1 year large-scale test.
    • Rossi: spends time on fripperies (light to electricity conversion, internet control, selling power, etc) when he has enough money to do real R&D make a heat producing e-cat of the type he claims to have had for 10 years work well enough for solid black box external testing. After that the sky is the limit.


    It is this collection of actions, over a long time, that convince most here he is, in fact a charlatan (possibly a self-deluding one).

  • I see well I thank him along with others for peaking my interest in certain interpretations of the data. Charlatan or not!


  • Regarding point one: I doubt that IH saw all. On the contrary I think they suspected Rossi was holding back from them what might be considered the secret sauce, and this may have been the beginning of bad blood between the two parties.


    Regarding point two: Rossi did not walk away from what he gave IH. He insisted on getting his IP back from IH, which he did, as a condition for settlement iirc.


    Regarding point three: Rossi is not converting light to electricity. As I understand it, he is harvesting the electric potential differentials - from the different plasma layers of his ballerina plasma ball - into DC electricity.

  • Regarding point one: I doubt that IH saw all. On the contrary I think they suspected Rossi was holding back from them what might be considered the secret sauce, and this may have been the beginning of bad blood between the two parties.


    Regarding point two: Rossi did not walk away from what he gave IH. He insisted on getting his IP back from IH, which he did, as a condition for settlement iirc.


    Regarding point three: Rossi is not converting light to electricity. As I understand it, he is harvesting the electric potential differentials - from the different plasma layers of his ballerina plasma ball - into DC electricity.

    Two sides to the coin, optimism is only a flaw when there is zero basis in logic or objectivity. Being pessimistic, overly skeptical and conservative about everything will negatively impact our psychology more than being proved wrong while being optimistic with a healthy approach.

  • Regarding point one: I doubt that IH saw all. On the contrary I think they suspected Rossi was holding back from them what might be considered the secret sauce, and this may have been the beginning of bad blood between the two parties.


    Regarding point two: Rossi did not walk away from what he gave IH. He insisted on getting his IP back from IH, which he did, as a condition for settlement iirc.


    Regarding point three: Rossi is not converting light to electricity. As I understand it, he is harvesting the electric potential differentials - from the different plasma layers of his ballerina plasma ball - into DC electricity.


    1. Seems he is still holding back? Anyway your thought here has no evidence from the mountains of discovery documents.


    2. So Why is Rossi not using that oh so valuable Ip? Or selling it? Or something? He walked away.


    3. Point taken. But my point is just as valid redefined, it is a frippery trying to get electricity from plasma if he has power generation as claimed, or even 1/100 of what is claimed.

  • Regarding point two: Rossi did not walk away from what he gave IH. He insisted on getting his IP back from IH, which he did, as a condition for settlement iirc.


    Yes, he did get his Ecat LT (low temp) IP back, then promptly announced there was no longer a demand for it, because his customers wanted to wait for his newer version...the QX I believe it was? The same model the secret customers (still under NDA) have been using for over a year now, that he controls from his portable headquarters. It has a neutron detector on top of it.


    Anyway, I believe we had some debate back then if there was any IP to get back from IH? The only approved patent Rossi has is the "Fluid Heater". That patent described one of the many fuels it could run off of, was the "Energy Catalyzer" -which is the real meaning of Ecat. The only other approved LENR patent Rossi had, was his Italian one. I believe he let that one lapse a few years back.


    Is it IP, if there is no patent?

  • Yes, he did get his Ecat LT (low temp) IP back, then promptly announced there was no longer a demand for it, because his customers wanted to wait for his newer version...the QX I believe it was? The same model the secret customers (still under NDA) have been using for over a year now, that he controls from his portable headquarters. It has a neutron detector on top of it.


    Anyway, I believe we had some debate back then if there was any IP to get back from IH? The only approved patent Rossi has is the "Fluid Heater". That patent described one of the many fuels it could run off of, was the "Energy Catalyzer" -which is the real meaning of Ecat. The only other approved LENR patent Rossi had, was his Italian one. I believe he let that one lapse a few years back.


    Is it IP, if there is no patent?

    Why have not hundreds of people been busy replicating the Fluid Heater patent?

    It is supposed to work, isn’t it?

  • If you have followed this saga you (you could go back to archive material) you will know that Rossi specialises in obtaining false positive results from demos by misusing laws of physics. Of course the physics is Ok, it is just Rossi's interpretation that is broken.


    Actually the false positive results from the Ecat tests were measured and publicly claimed by other people, usually academicians or notorious LENR experts. Rossi is only specialized in exploiting these claims in his campaign to make the people believe that he developed functioning CF devìces.


    The misuse of the laws of physics for interpreting as excess heat any possible mundane error or artifact is not a prerogative of the Ecat saga. This way of doing has accompanied for 30 years the whole CF history, from the pioneering experiments of F&P, the Rossi's inspirers by his own admission, up to the most recent tests of Takahashi and his coworkers.