Rossi's documented utter lack of ability to measure electrical power correctly is well known. What type of experience do you think that implies?
"utter lack of ability" Really? Better than average ad hominem for an ignorant audience.
You are confused, or deliberately misleading, because Rossi won't give details that he thinks might help his competitors.
Do you really think that they are all wrong?
Yes. Do you want me to explain why again?
Rossi's company EON, as far as I can tell, retrofitted a custom injection system to an existing Mann diesel engine in order for it to run on biofuel.
This is not inventing a Diesel engine.
It isn't a piece of cake, either.
It isn't a piece of cake, either.
No. Because you have to reprogram the engine management system too.
Adrian, you are the master of the straw man argument. I did not say that I have never said negative things about anyone - especially Rossi. I have no shortage of negative things to say about him and if that upsets you, I suggest not reading them. The statement you are attacking was with respect to my previous comment about replications. You seem to be reasonably literate, so I assume you are capable of understanding what is written. Obviously, like every other comment you make, it reflects willful ignorance, deflection, and pointless belligerance. Presumably, this behavior gives you some form of gratification. At least, I hope it does.
I'm not alone in thinking your questions are a transparent cover for implying faults in others. If you were really interested you would read up the subject and not just display your ignorance.
You are not an interested observer.
A note to perpetually dyspeptic contributors: consider other participants when you post, who will have to read or choose to skip over your comments. Ideally there will be something of interest for a group of readers beyond an unedifying fight between you and another person whose views you disagree with.
A note to perpetually dyspeptic contributors: consider other participants when you post, who will have to read or choose to skip over your comments. Ideally there will be something of interest for a group of readers beyond an unedifying fight between you and another person whose views you disagree with.
It would make a pleasant change if you would go after the original inssulters not just those trying to defend themselves.
You are in no wise a victim, Adrian. It does not require a network analysis from graph theory to ascertain who the recurring sources of conflict are. The people whose views you disagree with do not get into unedifying conflicts with the majority of people here. Mostly you at this time.
Rossi's company EON, as far as I can tell, retrofitted a custom injection system to an existing Mann diesel engine in order for it to run on biofuel.
This is not inventing a Diesel engine.
It isn't a piece of cake, either.
The first Diesel engines ran on Peanut oil.
The results are always the same. I ask for a single example of a specific experiment that was replicated in the sense you described and am immediately sent to a compendum of various research projects and lists of institutions.
I pointed you to the video and the video data, which includes several examples of specific experiments that were replicated.
Obviously, you did not look. I have often pointed you to other specific papers answering your questions. Not compendiums. Obviously, you never looked at them, either.
The first Diesel engines ran on Peanut oil.
That is interesting, but it tells us nothing about modern Diesel engines. I wouldn't know, but it may be that organic oil is difficult to use at the temperatures and pressures of modern engines, or the efficiency is low, or pollution is high. Perhaps it is difficult to engineer a modern engine for this kind of fuel, even though the first engines a century ago used it. Anyway, I have heard that Rossi's accomplishment was noteworthy, and the fact that primitive versions of such engines existed a century ago probably does not detract from his accomplishment.
The first jet aircraft engines made by Frank Whittle burned gasoline. They soon used kerosene instead, and they still do. It works better. It would be difficult to engineer a jet engine to work with gasoline. I am sure it would be extremely difficult to make one work with hydrogen or organic oil.
Can you point me to actual data, information of what Rossi did with biofuel and what its status is now? What actually did he do?
My understanding is that you can simple add most vegetable oils to diesel oil at low percentages (peanut and soy are normally used) but it is not very cost effective without a subsidy.
Can you point me to actual data, information of what Rossi did with biofuel and what its status is now? What actually did he do?
I only brought this up because someone stated Rossi had never designed , built and sold anything. He sold the company for ~$1 million. Otherwise the story is off topic.
Jed, just because I don't immediately become a faithful follower as soon as you provide a link, that does not mean I don't read (or watch) them. Yes, I watched the YouTube video and I read the links. Perhaps the most interesting thing among the various sources cited are those Toyota results. They naturally make one very curious why Toyota is not busy doing cold fusion instead of Camrys. I'm sure you have reasons that are anything but technical in nature. And I suppose you have excuses why nobody else has done exactly what Toyota did and got similar results. There is something very puzzling about the overall story that says (1) CF definitely exists, (2) It can only be seen under very specific (and tricky) conditions, (3) we've known what those conditions are for quite some time, but (4) there has been no progress for a decade or more. Your response is that everyone is dead, blacklisted, broke or fired. I guess there just isn't enough potential reward for making this work for anyone competent to get the job done. Anyway, if your go-to answer to any critic that they don't actually look at anything makes you feel good, have at it.
"Deja Vue all over again!"
http://e-catworld.com/2018/05/…ts-q-a-with-andrea-rossi/
Rossi is now back to selling heat not actual plants! (I.E. this is what he done at Doral! 
)
He is proclaiming 1MW plants again! (Same as Doral 
)
He will control them REMOTELY! The customer will have NO interaction with the plant! Imagine! A 1NW plant at your facility that you have no control over! REALLY?
(He controlled them at Doral alright! 
No one was allowed behind "the wall". Same now! )
What is the COP going to be? He states "enough"! (COP at Doral was enough indeed! Where DID the 1MW of heat go to? 
)
"Leonardo Corp" will build, ship, install AND maintain the plants and "dedicated servers" for these plants! (Fabio is certainly going to be BUSY! Do you think he might talk the "Chief Engineer" into coming back? 
) Who are all these people! Rossi has / had no employees other than Fabio and J. Bass.
and..... Rossi has invented another NEW term that I am sure his faithful will catch on to.... "ERS"! Remember "ERV", expert responsible for verification? Now he as "ERS".... expert responsible for SAFETY! 
This is exactly the same old, same old rehashed again. How anyone can take him seriously is beyond me! I can kind of understand Adrian swallowing the story, but for the life of me, I cannot see how Russ George or Alan Smith continue to support Rossi. He is doing far more harm than they imagine! (Mr. George publicly acknowledged on ECW that we owe MUCH to Rossi and his eCat story!) This is simply amazing.
Oh well. I have certainly been wrong in the past. I thought for sure once the lawsuit that Rossi brought on was over with, that he would be exposed and his story ended. Well......
Rossi was CERTAINLY exposed, but the faithful have not fainted and continue to eagerly lap up every word he espouses! His story continues.... Again... amazing.
Jed, just because I don't immediately become a faithful follower as soon as you provide a link, that does not mean I don't read (or watch) them. Yes, I watched the YouTube video and I read the links.
I do not think you looked, but if you did, you failed to note the graph from SRI and ENEA, and the graph from SRI and IMRA. That is what you demanded. That was one of the main points of the video. It has nothing to do with Toyota. Although, as it happens, Toyota's results were also replicated, by a commissioner on the French Atomic Energy Commission who designed the fission power reactors in France, someone you will dismiss as having no knowledge of science, no doubt.
As I said, you can also find this data in the script and notes:
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618
Here are zoomed up versions of the graphs, from that page. See how easy I make it?
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress…loads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress…ngexponentialincrease.jpg
Conversations with Mary Yugo and you remind me of badly written BASIC programs in 1968, with infinite loops:
BEGIN LOOP
You: "I demand to see specific information on X!"
Me: "See paper Y."
You (without having glanced at Y): "Y is a compendium! It does not answer my question!"
GO TO BEGIN LOOP
Perhaps the most interesting thing among the various sources cited are those Toyota results. They naturally make one very curious why Toyota is not busy doing cold fusion instead of Camrys.
See p. 4:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf
Oh, but you won't see it. It is a compendium! It does not answer my question! You refuse to tell me anything! Thus, the cycle continues, never-ending.
I do not think you [Interested Observer] looked, but if you did, you failed to note the graph from SRI and ENEA, and the graph from SRI and IMRA. That is what you demanded. That was one of the main points of the video.
See also Fig. 3, which I also directed you to:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
Which you will also refuse to look at. It is compendium! I can't skip to Fig. 3! It is too haaaard! Spoon fee-e-e-e-d me! That's the Mary Yugo two-step exception. First you demand information, then, if you make the mistake of actually looking, you say: "I don't understand it and that's your fault, and it must mean the information is bogus!"
Learn from Master Yugo. You too can do this. Actually, you may have done this. If you actually watched the video or read the script (which I doubt), you managed to look right past the part that answers your question. Now you might look at Fig. 3 and say, "I don't get it." Willful ignorance in action! Not bad for an amateur, but the so-called "science journalists" at the Scientific American and elsewhere run rings around you. If you really want to know how to get something wrong, in details large and small, look and learn from the masters:
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294
They set some kind of world record for misinformation per line of reporting. Like Wikipedia.
"utter lack of ability" Really? Better than average ad hominem for an ignorant audience.
You are confused, or deliberately misleading, because Rossi won't give details that he thinks might help his competitors.
Yes, really. And I am neither confused nor misleading.
I suggest you read Mats's book for the "average measurement of spiky waveform for Hydrofusion" saga? A X2 -X3 COP amplification mistake. Or go through the Lugano emissivity stuff, a X3 COP amplification mistake. We know Rossi used that same flawed method for his own tests - the demo was set up for it.
I hardly think that correct power measurement an EE student could do will help his competitors?
I only brought this up because someone stated Rossi had never designed , built and sold anything. He sold the company for ~$1 million. Otherwise the story is off topic.
Perhaps somone else said this, or perhaps you are misquoting those who like me said he has never designed, built, or sold working product. He has sold many things with fictitious value such as e-cat licenses.
@IO
W.r.t the excess power vs. Pd loading graphs JR pointed to, the problem with these is they hide the time dependencies. These plots are two columns of a data file plotted against each other. I've looked at this in the past and found that if you could color code the various time segments you would find they were all clustered and within those segments they essentially follow a linear relationship. IOW, they show the CCS effect clearly (the changed cal constant producing the different sub-parts of the overall graph). Now to actually prove that I would need the actual data, which I don't have, and am not likely to get.
Further, the idea that there is a critical H/M (or D/Pd) level that must be obtained applies strictly for Pd. People have reported CF from Ni-based electrodes and Ni is much more difficult to load than Pd, so it is unlikely that those loading levels were ever reached. Further, the Storms data I reanalyzed for my 2002 publication was obtained for Pt (platinum). Pt does NOT hydride at all. You might get some marginal solubility, but you'd never, ever reach H/M = 1.0, or even 0.1, yet is showed an excess heat signal. So generically, H/M ratio is immaterial.
What is likely very material is the surface condition, esp. roughness. Loading Pd with H creates dislocation loops on the surface, i.e. ridges and bumps. That is likely why H/M ratio seems to be important in Pd CF. These dislocations mostly disappear when the Pd is unloaded by the way.
W.r.t. the massive Fleischmann-Miles document, the data shown on p. 4 were obtained in 1996, before I published and alerted people to the possibility of CCS/ATER. Note also that they were using the F&P calorimetric method, which I didn't directly address until my whitepaper. The point is that the excess heat signals are likely artifacts.
Didn't look at the video. Sorry.
