Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

So if I can paraphrase, you believe it because you want you believe it, correct? Rossi never said the things Mark said about extracting electricity from layers. It was made up by somebody. That is my point and the big problem with Rossi and his cult. Rossi says "yes" and his cult just make sh*t up.

Just because I refuse to jump on the character defamation of Rossi boat doesn't mean I believe in his blog posts like gospel. I'm just above it and I wont emphatically state anyone is a liar or fraud untill their claims contradict the most basic tested assumtions of physics. Why would I even be on this forum if I weren't enamoured or convinced of the possibility of a new fire?

Quote from LeBob

I'm just above it and I wont emphatically state anyone is a liar or fraud untill their claims contradict the most basic tested assumtions of physics.

Did we not just go over a few of the contradicted laws of physics four days ago?

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Now I really wonder where you got this understanding. From Axil? Or other speculation from the other Rocket Scientists on ECW like Buck and Roland? And how exactly does one extract from the layers? Some kind of self positioning anodes and cathodes? And where does Rossi mention this in his paper that explains everything?

Rossi doesn't mention it in his paper, and afaik he hasn't articulated this anywhere. It's from my own deduction of what it could be. When asked, Rossi has denied that the electricity was from photovoltaics. When asked at another time he has also denied that the electricity was from magnetohydrodynamics. When that happened, I immediately suspected he was harvesting electricity from the voltage differences between plasma layers of his ballerina. Later, when somebody asked him if that (if effect) was how he generated electricity, Rossi did not deny it. That's my memory of it. So I'm confident this is what is going on. There really aren't any more options, especially given Rossi says it is about 70 percent efficient. How exactly does he do it? Yeah I think it would involve special placement of the electrodes, and perhaps there are many. Given the plasma ball is a consistent size they wouldn't need to move.

I'm aware it's like discussing the placement of markings on unicorns. But I'm giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt and assuming he isn't grossly mismeasuring the electrical energy input and output.

Quote from Mark U

But I'm giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt and assuming he isn't grossly mismeasuring the electrical energy input and output.

Of course he is!

Did you not try this 1 ohm simulator? It does a COP of 10000 Rossi style. Just add abuse of Wien's Law and bump it to 22000 COP Rossi style.

http://tinyurl.com/quva6f8

.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Of course he is!

Did you not try this 1 ohm simulator? It does a COP of 10000 Rossi style. Just add abuse of Wien's Law and bump it to 22000 COP Rossi style.

http://tinyurl.com/quva6f8

.

COP comes from knowing the output of the individual claimed liter sized apparatus as well as input.

Quote from Mark U

Rossi did not deny it. That's my memory of it. So I'm confident this is what is going on.

How could anyone argue with that flawless logic? Add in the rigorous process of elimination (since we know all possible sources), trusting a single individual on a blog, and Rossi's unimpeachable reputation, there you have it. I feel empowered to believe lots of things now. Thanks for freeing my skeptopathic mind. I do believe Elvis is still alive. Where do I send my money for an ecat?

Quote from LeBob

COP comes from knowing the output of the individual claimed liter sized apparatus as well as input.

And we know of this from....?

I said what I said because we don't know the output of SKL. People just assume it's the same as the SK which it most likely is less than when something like it finally materialised. (whether from Rossi or someone else later)

Quote from LeBob

I said what I said because we don't know the output. People just assume its the same as the SK which it most likely is less than.

We don't know the input, and don't know the output.

What a revolutionary device!

Quote from Paradigmnoia

We don't know the input, and don't know the output.

What a revolutionary device!

Supposedly 38w input, since we are in this thread might as well work with what you have.

Quote from LeBob

Supposedly 38w input, since we are in this thread might as well work with what you have.

Supposedly is not a measurement.

This image shows what is supposedly ~360 W input.

Instead it shows the ecat producing over 1 kW, and was totally ignored by the Professors. They have no comment since 10 years.

.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Of course he is!

Did you not try this 1 ohm simulator? It does a COP of 10000 Rossi style. Just add abuse of Wien's Law and bump it to 22000 COP Rossi style.

http://tinyurl.com/quva6f8

.

Yeah I believe Wien's law was misused and abused, made to fit the calorimetry result. As long as the calorimetry was OK, I'll take it.

About your 1 ohm simulator. You have it in parallel with the load. That would defeat the purpose. Or is that your point, that this is what you think Rossi was actually doing?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Supposedly is not a measurement.

This image shows what is supposedly ~360 W input.

Instead it shows the ecat producing over 1 kW, and was totally ignored by the Professors. They have no comment since 10 years.

.

I'm refering to the most recent thing but interesting. I'm working with what's here that's all. Don't invest in what seems dodgy to you, I would invest in or work for a paradigm shifting new energy company just has to be an inspired choice. I might as well talk about possibilities with optimism either way!

Quote from Mark U

Yeah I believe Wien's law was misused and abused, made to fit the calorimetry result. As long as the calorimetry was OK, I'll take it.

About your 1 ohm simulator. You have it in parallel with the load. That would defeat the purpose. Or is that your point, that this is what you think Rossi was actually doing?

The 1 ohm is in series with the load (10k ohm here). Change whatever you like, just leave the 1 ohm resistance as your measurement location for all electrical measurements.

Feel free to remove the voltmeter and just hover the mouse over the 1 ohm for information.

Here:

http://tinyurl.com/ughe3xe

.

And also the spectrometer Rossi uses is fully capable of integrating the radiant power received.

No need to abuse Wien's Law or make Planck roll in his grave.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The 1 ohm is in series with the load (10k ohm here). Change whatever you like, just leave the 1 ohm resistance as your measurement location for all electrical measurements.

Feel free to remove the voltmeter and just hover the mouse over the 1 ohm for information.

Here:

http://tinyurl.com/ughe3xe

.

Display More

OK, I understand now. But I'm not seeing a problem. The electrical measurement of voltage drop across the 1 ohm resistor leads one to calculate the current in the circuit, which of course will be the same everywhere, including the load. If you're seeing a problem, please be explicit.

Quote from Mark U

OK, I understand now. But I'm not seeing a problem. The electrical measurement of voltage drop across the 1 ohm resistor leads one to calculate the current in the circuit, which of course will be the same everywhere, including the load. If you're seeing a problem, please be explicit.

Right. The current is correct.

The problem is that Rossi also uses the the voltage from the 1 ohm resistor as the entire circuit voltage, as well as for calculating the total circuit current.

What he is actually doing is calculating the power dissipated in the 1 ohm resistor. Then he uses that as the entire circuit power.

So you're saying that Rossi is taking the voltage drop across a one ohm resistor, and pretending that's the voltage drop across the entire circuit.

Sorry, that's something (even) I find very hard to believe!

Quote from Mark U

So you're saying that Rossi is taking the voltage drop across a one ohm resistor, and pretending that's the voltage drop across the entire circuit.

Sorry, that's something (even) I find very hard to believe!

And yet that is exactly it.
Practiced in Doral with the whiteboard, published in two Gullstrom-with-a-hint-of-Rossi papers, signed off by Hurley, and placidly ignored by dozens of scientists in Stockholm.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

And yet that is exactly it.
Practiced in Doral with the whiteboard, published in two Gullstrom-with-a-hint-of-Rossi papers, signed off by Hurley, and placidly ignored by dozens of scientists in Stockholm.

Thanks for paying attention to the details, the little things that slip past are many times the clincher or key.