Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • 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

    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 ?



    Andrea Rossi
    September 14, 2021 at 2:53 AM


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

    Warm Regards,


    :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).

  • 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.

    :D 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


    Thankyou for your opinion,

    Warm Regards,


    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.)

  • Graphic: Snake Oil .. Too Good to be True"

    "Snake Oil" is being denigrated here, but it has a legitimate medical history, in China, Britain and the USA.

    It only became de-legitimized when "travelling medicine men" over-sold FAKE snake oil.

    The question here is - does Rossi have Real Snake Oil, or Fake.

    As I've said before, I have not seen a conclusive DIS-proof of the eCat and successors.

    I have an order in for two SKLed's, and have an open reservation for a few-kW SKL.

    Rossi has never failed to produce SOMETHING, so I await the December presentation.

  • 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.)

    I think that it's quite possible, being this kind of magician's presentation just farce like all the previous.

    I'm not so interested to the December presentation except to see the next hoax to which all believers-fishes will bite chattering of nothing for months and months up to the next hoax.

    A case good for an experiment on psychiatric field.

  • Rossi is confident in the SKLed.

    If it’s as good a product as he says

    and it gets Safety Certification any

    decent salesman will sell the product.

    Then we will know whether it is a

    Hoax or not.

    When quantum physics met psychiatry
    Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli bounced ideas off each other, Paul Halpern’s book shows.

    Entanglement gets hot and messy – Physics World
    Contrary to expectations, this fragile quantum-mechanical phenomenon can survive at high temperatures and in a very chaotic environment

  • “ I have not seen a conclusive DIS-proof of the eCat and successors.”

    You also have not seen a conclusive disproof of unicorns, Bigfoot, and the tooth fairy. Furthermore, you never will.

    Perhaps you should consider taking a course in logic.

    External Content
    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.

  • OK, OK ... I have not seen a convincing refutation of EVERY claimed ecat test.

    (In my own analyses I have disqualified at least two).

    Want one that has not been refuted? The 24-hour IH "validation" test.

    ERV report :…01/0207.11_Exhibit_11.pdf

    Dewey comments on the test setup…loads/2017/01/0214.12.pdf

    I can't find the exhibit but my comments at the time were:

    General comment : IH is splitting legal hairs in a couple of areas.

    1. Validation Test : half-hour short (with their engineer and managers present) .. and location of flow meter. Not a chance.

    18-reactors. Marginal ... but they can't prove the matter of Italian law, so Rossi prevails. He keeps the $11.5M

  • Again with this Safety Certification... an obtuse guy were more smart in comparing.

    The SC does not matter, it’s stuff for birds. The magician wrote that at presentation he will able to show the Performance Certification and this document can issued only by a qualified and authorized Lab, no more tricks.

    The magician does not know the difference between Kelvin and Celsius degrees and ignore also the difference between Lumen and Lux so, in any case and before all, his stuff absolutely needs a qualified and reliable independent Lab verification about the real Performance.

    I doubt that you want to understand, maybe because close to an accomplice.

  • it gets Safety Certification


    As stated often here before. Certification is a daily occurrence and there is no mystery about it. There is NO "safety" certification. There are certifications to industry or government standards for specific functions., which can include "safety". These standards are normally drawn up by industry organizations and then CERTIFIED by an agency such as UL. These standards take a long time to develop and require review and approval from bodies such as SAE (automotive) or NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) to name just two.

    So what is Rossi getting certified too? A novel nuclear device? Hardly... there are no standards for such. An LED light? Should be no problem and certainly not a secret. What would the "IF' be concerned here? Except that if it is to a standard LED certification, then the SKLED is NOT a novel LENR or "other" powered device as the standard would not apply to it!

    So once again, I must ask you.. what standard is Rossi getting his device certified too? "Safety" is meaningless in certification terms. Surely you can ask him this! Providing the certification standard will not disclose any IP and these standards are MEANT to be published, so no agency is going to "complain".

    On the other hand, if you are afraid to ask him, that shows you acknowledge that he is deceptive in this. If he does not answer the question, it shows he is deceptive. If he is deceptive in something as open and honest as a certification, it is a big flag that he is a liar and cheat.

    Your logic is completely in error here. There is NOTHING hinging on a "Safety" certificate. There never has been. Just like his previous "certificates", they turned out to be 1) deceptive and 2) certainly did not prove Rossi had anything.

    Please provide any logic as to why the above reasoning is not sound and refutes the certificate argument. If you cannot, then I suggest you should really evaluate your continued support for such a scam...... not that I care anything about Rossi anymore... it is just that he scammed $10,000,000 that could have went to legitimate LENR research, CONTINUES to give LENR a very bad name and I dislike seeing such obvious and blatant scam artists openly and publicly prance around while some people openly praise him and certain people refuse to call him out.....especially those who have personally seen his crap presentations..... X/

    Oh well... P.T. Barnum was certainly correct about some people.