whatever it is that Rossi claims to be doing, it is not LENR.
I think to a different acronym definition like: Lies Evasions Nothing Real.
-
-
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.
-
For the SKLed, Rossi has not even said how it works.
As any lamp it works using the grid or an external electric energy source.
The hoax of the alleged energy miracle comes from the magician's claims told to his gullible fans.
-
Your “truth” is just the bullishit talked on jonp or on ecw, forgotting ten and more years of lies, fakes and bombastic announces followed by nothing.
No
I include the Skeptics BS also.
-
No
I include the Skeptics BS also.
I think not because you never asked uncomfortable questions, demonstrating to be only a loyal courtier of the magician.
-
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
-
What proof is needed?
Thanks
Some. That's what's missing.
-
QuoteDisplay More
Andrea Rossi
September 13, 2021 at 2:59 AMJoys Del Sol:
Please go to
to fond the order form of the Ecat SKLed.
The SK is only leased for industrial facilities ( see http://www.ecatskdemo.com ), while for the SKL we foresee the commercialization for the next year.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
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.
-
Setting aside the issue of the validity of various claims that transcend the bounds of mainstream physics,
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
-
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.
-
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.
Physics predicts the possibility there are infinite bounds. In some circumstances that could be very useful information.
-
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
-
I even predicted the inevitable equivalent of the Lugano emissivity error problem progression to absurdum before the SK came to be. It was low hanging fruit. Voila: COP 22000!
LOL
-
Quote
CC
September 13, 2021 at 1:42 PMDr 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
QuoteAndrea Rossi
September 14, 2021 at 2:53 AMCC:
10000 Lumens, since 1 m^2 = 10000 cm^2
Warm Regards,
A.R.
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).
-
Hmmm. The same 1 lux, but on 1cm^2, amounts to 1/10000 lumens on that 1cm^2.
The same 1 lumen, but on 1cm^2, amounts to 100000 lux on that 1cm^2.
Rossi is just trying to get our minds engaged. Genius.
-
Hmmm. The same 1 lux, but on 1cm^2, amounts to 1/10000 lumens on that 1cm^2.
You are wrong, the question is: "If the same luminous flux is focused on 1 square centimeter, how many Lumens do we obtain ?"
Being the luminous flux quoted in this question equal to 1 lumen, when it will be focused on 1 cm^2 it will give 10000 Lux and not 10000 Lumens as he foolishly wrote.
Luminous flux is still the same and equal to 1 Lumen.
The same 1 lumen, but on 1cm^2, amounts to 100000 lux on that 1cm^2.
Your are wrong again, the result is 10000 Lux not 100000 Lux you wrote.
Rossi is just trying to get our minds engaged. Genius.
The believers minds never more engaged at least from a decade. Yours defence is pathetic like someone climbing on mirrors. -
Your are wrong again, the result is 10000 Lux not 100000 Lux you wrote.
You got that right, I sloppily put in one zero too many.
Today on Rossi's blog:
2021-09-13 13:43 Anonymous
I am sure before December you will find an excuse to skip the presentation
2021-09-14 02:52 Andrea Rossi
Anonymous:
Thankyou for your opinion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I would like a prediction from Truth. Will Rossi have the presentation this December?
(My prediction : He will. I think that even most skeptics are quite looking forward to it.)
