Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Just because - for obvious reasons - you cannot directly couple a LENR reactor with a gas turbine. Please lookup concrete LENR turbine design in the Airbus/Boing/NASA papers

    What are the obvious reasons? A heat source is a heat source... There might be problems with an aircraft engine, but a land-based turbine can be better optimised as high thrust values are unnecessary.

  • So - called by-pass air from the compressor is blown past the outer walls of the combustion chamber(s) to cool them. It is them mingled with the exhaust stream.

    Allan, that is not quite right. The by-pass air (a later development) is much lower pressure than the air from the compressor and doesn't cool the combustion chambers much.. The combustion chamber is often double walled with the high pressure air from the compressor inside, that goes through holes in the inner wall to form a layer of cooler gas to protect the metal, before entering the combustion process. The high pressure is reduced going through the power turbine section.

  • Quote

    Rossi and his technology will be hard to ignore when he is succesful in the market

    place with it.

    So will flying pig technology. A remaining problem is bypassing the hot intestinal gas.


    What are the obvious reasons [why you can't direct couple, etc.]?

    Most obvious reason: none exists. Neither does anything functioning claimed by Rossi.

  • Because many competent scientists think Rossi has discovered something useful and discussing that possibility is better than pages of babble saying that he hasn't.

    If you have nothing to add why do you post at all?

    I generally think that competent scientists understand the purpose of control runs, how to properly measure steam enthalpy, how to calculate electrical power using Kirchoffs/Ohms law (and that 10L of bucket water doesn't evaporate overnight). How that tallies with thinking Rossi is for real is beyond me.

    And what exactly do you bring to the discussion Adrian? If I wanted to read the latest "Rossi says", I'd go on the JONP. But as I'm mostly interested in laughing at the necessary mental contortions of his dupes/white-knights, I'll carry on posting in this thread, ta...

    As the first post says: "Notice: this is unfair, cherry-picked funny lines from recent Rossi blog comments."

  • Thank you.

    The babblers' technical incompetence has been on display the last page or so. No wonder they prefer to write nonsense opinions than discuss the technical issues.

    It's getting tedious to reply to them.

    There are no relevant technical issues to discuss. Rossi's demos do not make technical sense. He is a serial liar, whose statements about what he is doing have proved false. So the conversation here can only get technical in a most outrageously speculative way.

    Perhaps I'm wrong: let's have some significant technical question relating to Rossi?

  • @ lobseRvable, hi!

    and those persons are ?

    Here is some of them:



    MR. CHAIKEN: Your Honor, […]


    To create fusion, to create fusion energy, you have to

    break the bonds in atoms, and that takes a tremendous amount of

    force. That's why the big government fusion projects have to

    use massive lasers or extreme heat, millions of degrees

    Centigrade to break the bonds. Breaking those bonds at much

    lower temperatures is inconsistent with the laws of physics as

    they're now known.

    However, the E-Cat, that's the device that Dr. Rossi

    has created, has been tested extensively by an independent

    committee of Swedish and Italian scientists. Published reports

    of such tests place its coefficient of performance -- that's a

    term you are going to hear throughout this case. Coefficient

    of performance, COP, and I will explain what that means.

    The COP, the published reports state that COP had been

    between 2.6 and 5.6.

    Now, a COP is a very simple mathematical equation.

    Simply power out divided by power in. So if the power in was

    one unit of energy and the power out was 5 units of energy, you

    would have the COP of five. Five times as much energy produced

    than went in.

    In December 2012 and March 2013, representatives of

    the Bologna University, Uppsala University, and the Royal

    Institute of Technology in Sweden conducted independent tests

    of high temperature E-Cats. The published report of the tests

    concluded that E-Cat has an energy density beyond any known

    battery, fuel or chemical. The E-Cats created excess energy

    three to five times as much. In a published report of the

    March 2014 test, indicates the E-Cat produced a COP over 3X

    over the 32-day period.


    AA is right in saying that discussing about the reasons why so many scientists did publicly support the capability of the Ecat to produce excess heat is better than babbling against Rossi and his web supporters.

  • There are no relevant technical issues to discuss. Rossi's demos do not make technical sense. He is a serial liar, whose statements about what he is doing have proved false. So the conversation here can only get technical in a most outrageously speculative way.

    We have been through this many times already. Why do you bring it up again?

    Rossi worked on the QX reactor for a long time and (as many times before) said he would demonstrate it , and then did so. There were two measurements he didn't show at Stockholm, that he aid were proprietary, and as I pointed out, would be easy for an investor to do. His new partner would have to be more foolish than IH not to make those measurements and remove all possible doubt.

    So there is considerable proof that he has a working reactor and only unproven speculation that he cheated. You prefer to go with speculation. I don't. Wait and see what happens.

  • You can't seem to remember what my views are, and keep making things up about them that are not true. Next time quote my actual words.

    Oh, it is "not true" that you think that Rossi claims to have "something great" and a "commercial product" sometime in the future: example Jan 19. Is that what you are saying now? You offer no data, no facts- it sure seems like babble to me.