Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Rossi is Controversial


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

  • Leaving the snark aside, and as you know, he claims to have the ability to produce heat, light, and electricity using approaches not acknowledged by mainstream physics. Not unlike just about everyone in the LENR field.

    Rossi does not claim to be working with LENR and I doubt that LENR researchers consider Rossi to be a colleague. Leaving the snark aside, as you say, whatever it is that Rossi claims to be doing, it is not LENR.

  • For the SKLed, Rossi has not even said how it works. Does the "reactor" generate electricity to run the LED? Does the ecat generate light itself? He won't say, when asked directly. This does not bother his followers. We are not supposed to care how it works.

    Question for PFD or anyone else in

    the NO.

    If we find out that information will

    that tell us that he has the technology Rossi says he has?

    What proof is needed?

    Thanks

  • Oh really magician?

    And after more of two years from presentation to the entire world where is this alleged energy miracle named Ecat SK?

    Give a verifiable proof if you are able.


    (better name: Ecat SKam)

  • Rossi does not claim to be working with LENR and I doubt that LENR researchers consider Rossi to be a colleague. Leaving the snark aside, as you say, whatever it is that Rossi claims to be doing, it is not LENR.

    Rossi, like LENR/CECR/ZPE/ElectricSun/WhateverYouLike researchers, believes (or pretends) that he has observations that are not accepted by the mainstream physics community. I leave it to those with FAR more understanding of modern physics than I possess to sort the acronyms out. It does seem clear that there is a spectrum, with many researchers honestly convinced of their observations while others may simply have learned how to part people from their money. Certainly old allegations of fraud are relevant. But the particular acronym assigned to a project is barely relevant in a situation where there is no firm theoretical foundation that reliably and successfully explains the observations asserted.

  • mjtrac: Setting aside the issue of the validity of various claims that transcend the bounds of mainstream physics, it is not appropriate to lump them all together and describe distinguishing among them as “sorting out algorithms”. There is no theoretical foundation required, for example, to understand that an LENR reactor is not the same thing as a Papp motor, regardless of what you believe about either of these things. On the other hand, it is fair to note that the description of Rossi’s efforts have descended to the level of such word salad that it is pretty difficult to say anything meaningful about what sort of “technology“ he is pursuing.

  • I was not aware that physics had any bounds except those imposed by the universe - and even then there may be places with different physics beyond that. so It embraces both the probable and the improbable

    Let’s not get tangled up in semantics. Surely you know that what I meant were claims that cannot be accounted for by mainstream physics. That is not intended to imply that mainstream physics is complete or correct. Touchy touchy.

  • I was not aware that physics had any bounds except those imposed by the universe - and even then there may be places with different physics beyond that. so It embraces both the probable and the improbable

    But the job of physics is to supply bounds (or, more accurately, predict bounds).

    If it does not, physics doesn't supply much useful information.

    Of course mainstream physics can be wrong.

    But more often then not, there are new domains where new bounds apply that were not predicted before.(ex speeds near light speed, dimensions near subatomic sizes, etc)

    Well established bounds that have been tested over centuries (for example "no free energy from the vacuum") are typically not broken by Italian philosophers with a criminal record and a penchant for lying about sock puppets.

  • Rossi, like LENR/CECR/ZPE/ElectricSun/WhateverYouLike researchers, believes (or pretends) that he has observations that are not accepted by the mainstream physics community. I leave it to those with FAR more understanding of modern physics than I possess to sort the acronyms out. It does seem clear that there is a spectrum, with many researchers honestly convinced of their observations while others may simply have learned how to part people from their money. Certainly old allegations of fraud are relevant. But the particular acronym assigned to a project is barely relevant in a situation where there is no firm theoretical foundation that reliably and successfully explains the observations asserted.

    Rossi’s observations are the problem. If he does know how to measure stuff, he does it wrong on purpose.

    Lugano: Emissivity setting error, Kirchhoff circuit law infraction


    Quark: Spectrometer abuse, Wien’s law abuse, Stefan-Boltzmann law abuse, Kirchhoff circuit law abuse

    SKL: same as above

  • Quote

    CC
    September 13, 2021 at 1:42 PM

    Dr Rossi:

    1 Lux = 1 Lumen/square meter. If the same luminous flux is focused on 1 square centimeter, how many Lumens do we obtain ?

    CC

    Quote

    Andrea Rossi
    September 14, 2021 at 2:53 AM

    CC:

    10000 Lumens, since 1 m^2 = 10000 cm^2

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


    Luminous flux (the flow of light emitted by a source) has as unit the Lumen (lm).


    Being the luminous flux stated by the question equal to 1 Lumen, it gives as result again 1 Lumen even if concentrated on 1 cm2, what it changes is the illuminance (the concentration of luminous flux) that groves to 10000 Lux.


    Poor believers that support the magician thinking he's a geniuos, he's just simply an uneducated.

    This wrong knowledge explains the energy miracle named Ecat SKLed (he claims to be able to generate 10000 lm, that is a luminous flux, with a power consumption of less of 4W) because he does not know and not understand the huge difference existing between the Luminous flux (unit Lumen) and the Illuminance (unit Lux).