Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Too be nitpicky, 100% of the “information” about this thing comes from Rossi, who is among the least credible people on the planet. But analyze away...

Quote from interested observer

“Direct evidence for Rossi's Ecat truly working is indeed far from conclusive, imo.”

Direct evidence for flying pigs is about the same distance from conclusive, imo.

Wait a while now, wait a while.

Quote from Mark U

To be nitpicky:

Roughly half the connections are in the controller, which is about 4 litres in volume.

The other half are in the Ecat proper, which including the outer shell is about 8 litres in volume.

Also, not all the connection are soldered.

What had seemed unlikely to me was not the number of connections but the (tentatively provided) power density of the reactor core: 5kW in 100cm^3. But this is 50 watts per cubic centimetre, which is in the ballpark of a candle flame. The much more amazing thing would be that 80 percent of this power is in the form of electricity (if Rossi has done the measurements correctly).

Display More

So this cube size is 1.82677165 inches on each side.

In order to have electrodes in the plasma to extract this electricity, these must all be connected to the reactor, not "the ecat proper". Rossi says the shell is just for heat dissipation.

So for the 500,000 reactor side connections, that equals 62,500 connections for each cube face. This means a grid of 250 x 250 connections. The pitch of this grid spacing is then 0.0072" = 7.2 mils, in old fashioned english units lingo.

A typical surface mount pitch is around 50 mils, which is too small to solder by hand.

Maybe I made a mistake somewhere in these calcs but as you can see, anywhere near this density is an absolute pipe dream and Rossi is a ****** liar.

You should try doing some sanity check calculations some time. I assume you can calculate cube volumes and temperature conversions better than Rossi.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Rossi is a filthy xxxx

I am sure that as an elderly middle class Italian he is very clean and tidy with tiled floors.. tiled gardens and a bidet

Since Sam has already indicated he is 50/50, and Mark is feeling a little flustered too, I prepared this advertisement for us to display on ECW to try to get more Rossi supporters.

I am sure Frank will appreciate any additional funds, I will contribute to the ad.

.

Oh Rossi didn't say 500 thousand connections? Sorry, I take it back. That was my previous version of the calculations

PFM I suggest to modify the slogan of the advertisement you prepared:

E-CAT THE NEW FIRE LIE

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Oh Rossi didn't say 500 thousand connections? Sorry, I take it back. That was my previous version of the calculations

Yeah, you had Rossi making one million connections rather than ten thousand. Also, your calculation gave the cube eight sides rather than six. And it seems you made the assumption that each filament going radially into the reactor core's plasma had only one connection, at the surface of the 100cm^3 reaction chamber. Other than that, your calculations seemed fine!

Quote from miles

So in other words, you mean that if no one has ever experienced a flying carpet, that doesn't mean there are no flying carpets that really work. Do I understand your point?

You'd need some evidence for flying carpets.

Like, say, a flying carpet seller who knew nothing about carpets or how they fly but with an internet blog recounting the robotic carpet-making factories he was equipping, and the ability to hold an audience entranced with his passionate and motivational accounts of Persian textile history.

Daily lick, lap by one of the most active sock puppets of the illusionist.

• Prof August 3, 2020 at 10:19 PM

  Dear Andrea:

  Here are the new stats of your publications on researchgate I found on

  http://www.researchgate.net/pu…nge_particle_interactions:

  Full Readings: 50007

  Reccomandations: 2632

  Total Research Interest Index: 767.6

  Citations: 21

  Your paper is one of the Physics publication most read among the 15 millions publications on Researchgate

  Congratulations !

  Prof

Quote from miles

(Old Fart Rossi's Skeptics Church)

Is there a youth group?

Quote from RobertBryant

Is there a youth group?

Yes, the YMCRS (Young Men's Church of Rossi Skeptics)

You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal,

You can do whatever you feel.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal,

Commandments of the OFRSC an dYMCRS

1. Thou shalt not love Rossi

2. Thou shalt not lust after the Ecat...the bidet or any of Rossi's chattels

3. Thou shalt get down and dirty.. but not filthy

Excellent paper@miles thank you for sharing then recognize by the same way Doctor Rossi's great talent.

Quote from miles

Aside note

After the paper https://www.researchgate.net/p…nge_particle_interactions got over than 50.000 views on youtube mouse clicks/ finger taps on researchgate, who can still deny it's really working?

Quote from miles

https://e-catworld.com/2020/08…physics-behind-the-e-cat/

please note the fancy clock on the front face.

lenr-forum.com/attachment/13453/

That's not a clock. It is actually a display of the power output, 12.43 kWh/h

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

That's not a clock. It is actually a display of the power output, 12.43 kWh/h

Maybe not, I believe it’s the electrical COP of the masterpiece... the ratio between 12 kWh of electric energy as output over 43 kWh input from the grid.

31 kWh turned in heat to increase entropy of the ambient.

Quote from sam12

This is the Race that is hard to believe but it happened.

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

How about this one:

The Badwater Ultramarathon describes itself as "the world's toughest foot race". It is a 135-mile (217 km) course starting at 279 feet (85 m) below sea level^[1] in the Badwater Basin, in California's Death Valley, and ending at an elevation of 8360 feet (2548 m) at Whitney Portal, the trailhead to Mount Whitney. It takes place annually in mid-July, when the weather conditions are most extreme and temperatures can reach 130 °F (54 °C). Consequently, very few people—even among ultramarathoners—are capable of finishing this grueling race.

The field is invitation-only and limited in size. Demand to participate in the race usually far exceeds available spots. Rules have changed somewhat over the years: afternoon starts have been discontinued; the use of intravenous fluids now disqualifies a runner.

Course support is not provided. Each runner must arrange for his or her own support crew and vehicle. The crew provides their runner with his or her needs, including water, ice, food, gear, pacing, and first aid.

In the past, runners were allowed sixty hours to complete the course,^[3] but this has been changed to a 48-hour course limit and a 28 hours cutoff at Panamint Springs Resort.^[4] Finishers receive a belt buckle and medal but no prize money is awarded.

The record for the 146-mile (235 km) race was set in 1991 by Marshall Ulrich: 33 hours and 54 minutes. Records for the current 135-mile (217 km) course are 21 hours 33 minutes 01 seconds (men), set by Yoshihiko Ishikawa, and 24 hours 13 minutes 24 seconds (women), set by Patryzja Bereznowska.^[5]  In 2002 Pam Reed was the first woman to become the overall winner of the Badwater Ultramarathon. She subsequently repeated as overall winner of the race in 2003. In 2002, her win also set the women's course record at the time.

IMHO, all of these people are NUTS. I used to know an ultra-marathoner and I asked him once, just once, what he did for fun. He said, "go over to the local high school with a few buddies and do a quick 50 [miles]." They are all CRAZY. But I love them, crazy and all.

Quote from axil

Aleksei Savchenko:

Thank you for your insight.

I think we must make a distinction between the R&D funded by the taxpayer for objectives purely scientific, whose projection in the timeframe for an industrial and profitable application is vague and undefined, and the R&D funded with private funds that for obvious reasons must reach a profitable product within a timeframe limited by financial issues. In the first case your insight is correct. In the second case, which is the one I am fighting through, your insight is not applicable. In fact:

1- the possibility of collaboration are limited by IP protection issues

2- the cash flow must necessary recover the expenses before the lack of money forbids to proceed

3- if you seat peacefully while your enemies try to destroy your work, you will be eliminated

I am telling this to you based on my personal bloody experience of half century of very, very hard work ( and life ). Unfortunately this is a war, a succession of battles: I cited two typical battles from a paradigmatic point of view, but this was only an example: obviously Waterloo for Russia and their allies has been a victory, while Austerlitz has been a defeat, we can change the points of view, but under a phylosophical point of view the issue is the same: competition is war and we have competition, whatever we do. The Ecat has been fought against from many sides from the first day it has been presented .

Here is another paradigmatic example of the first type, the type that fits with your insight: the ITER ( or Eater, if you want this concern has got billions and billions and billions of funds from the Taxpayer since the fifties and every 10 years they say that in the next 20 years or so we will have the nuclear fusion…everybody is happy, nobody fights against because everybody eats ( that’s why it has been dubbed Eater ), the Taxpayer has not the cultural preparation to understand that it will never work, the competition knows that it will never work, so everybody is happy, the IP is generously shared with everybody, because it will never make money, and the environment is perfect to be peaceful: why fight against a thing that will never work, but rains easy money from the Taxpayer on all the involved governments ? It is also the paradise of the managers there: no liabilities, no timeframes to show real results and a lot of publications that nobody reads, but are so intensely intelligent ! When they talk of it in the TV they say ludicrous things, like nuclear fusion is not dangerous because uses hydrogen and makes helium, both innocuous ( somebody could have thought that nuclear bombs are a bluff ). Nobody has the honesty to say that it is impossible to stabilize a magnetic field at a temperature over 100 millions K, and everybody is happy like an Easter.

On one point I totally agree with you: my citation of Waterloo as an example of defeat and of Austerlitz as an example of victory is stupid, because I forgot that what is a victory for one side is a defeat for the other side: this remark is as much intelligent from you, as it has been stupid for me not to get this point. So I make a correction, rephrasing as follows: I HOPE NEXT FRIDAY WILL BE A VICTORY, NOT A DEFEAT FOR OUR GREAT TEAM.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

But your analysis is flawed. Waterloo definitely was a victory, but it was not accomplished solely by the British. They also had the Prussians, the Dutch, the Belgians, troops from Hanover, Brunswick and the Duchy of Nassau. Similarly, in both WW I and WW II, it was an alliance of forces that defeated Germany. In fact, I suspect that many, if not most, studies would show that collaboration is much more successful that competition. I recently read a short part of a study of one species of primate (not human) that showed that those male members of the species who were nicer, for lack of a better word, to the other members of the troop were more likely to have their genes carried forward. They lived longer and apparently the ladies appreciated them more. There are numerous game theory studies that conclude that if you approach someone else with courtesy and open hands they are more likely to respond that way, and if they don't, then it is appropriate to respond on their level. Those studies also seem to show that open hands, etc. result in a better outcome for all the parties, while being an asshole usually results in a lower or lesser result for the parties.

As an attorney, I can attest to that. I have always encouraged my clients to start off negotiations fairly and see how the other side responds. If the other side is an asshole, well, I can be a bigger asshole than anyone if I need to. The result of the first approach is less fighting, less mistrust, quicker negotiations and lower attorneys' fees. If the sides want to fight, the only real winner is the lawyers.