Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote

Andrea Rossi
July 20, 2018 at 10:06 AM

Rupert:

Magicians or magic things have nothing to do with Nuclear Physics.

Right, they have to do only with Journal of Nuclear Physics.

Quote from woodworker

AA:

I have just read the DelcoTimes letter you wrote and I have a few comments and questions:

1. For someone who professes to have not actually decided that Rossi’s widgets work, instead claiming that you are keeping an open mind and giving him the benefit of the doubt, that letter was as close to a tongue bath as I have ever seen.

2. Unless the letter contained, in very, very small type, qualifying language, e.g., “apparently,” “it appears,” “it suggests,” etc., that letter is a complete statement of faith in Rossi’s widgets.

3. You have attacked, and yes I use that word deliberately, many posters here for not quoting your exact language when they disagree with you. You have also attacked many posters as babblers because they get something wrong. So, here is your exact language from that letter:

“. . . but IH refused to pay the $900 million called for by the contract.”

My question to you is very simple, WHERE IN HELL DOES THE CONTRACT CALL FOR A PAYMENT OF $900 MILLION? I can’t find that, and I looked. But I am confident that, with your extensive experience in building and supervising the building of large plants, and your expert knowledge of how these types of agreements are structured, and the fact that I am a mere babbler, that you will immediately solve this mystery for me. All you have to do is provide a page number, or cut and paste the section from the contract.

4. But continuing with the DelcoTimes letter, you said:

“This tiny reactor, about 1 cm long by 0.6 cm in diameter, was shown to produce 20 Watts of heat from a negligible input of power. The Coefficient of Performance (COP) was over 500. That is to say it produced more than 500 times the power required to run it. It can also be switched on and off instantaneously, something no other reactor has been capable of, and can operate at a temperature of 2300 C.”

There are a number of factual assertions made by you, none of which are qualified in any way. First, you assert that the “tiny reactor” is about 1 cm long by 0.6 cm in diameter (which coincidentally is about ½ the size of my kidney stones). Did you measure the size yourself or is this a case of “Rossi Says?”

Second, you assert that it was “shown to produce 20 Watts of heat from a negligible input of power.” Now, I have made it clear that I don’t understand the physics, or any of the science, relating to this. But after watching the videos from Stockholm, and reading pretty much everything said by you, Axil and Sam12 on this thread, I don’t recall anyone explaining how that 20 watts of heat was measured. If I am wrong, please cite to the relevant section or post or whatever and I will read, and if wrong, will apologize. However, if I am not wrong, what is your basis for making this factual assertion. You also state in this clause, as a unqualified factual assertion, that this 20 watts of heat was derived from a “negligible input of power.” What is your basis, your empirical evidence if you will, for this factual assertion? Did you personally examine or measure the amount of power input to the “reactor?” Did anyone than Rossi or a member of his team, say one of the “crowd of 70 professors, scientists and business people” measure the power input to the reactor, or for that matter, the amount of heat generated? Is the only evidentiary basis for your factual assertion “Rossi Says?”

5. Next up we have “[T]he Coefficient of Performance (COP) was over 500. That is to say it produced more than 500 times the power required to run it.” Same questions as above, what is/are the bases for your unqualified factual assertions?

6. “It can also be switched on and off instantaneously, something no other reactor has been capable of, and can operate at a temperature of 2300 C.” Three unqualified factual assertions, (a) it can be turned on and off instantaneously, (b) something no other reactor has been capable of, and (c) can operate at 2300 C.

As to the ability to turn on and off instantaneously, how do you know? I doubt that you tried as it is pretty clear from the video that Rossi doesn’t like anyone else to have contact with his widget if he can avoid it, and I didn’t see you, or anyone else, attempting to go through several successful cycles of on/off operation. So I am assuming that is a “Rossi Says.”

As to other reactors being capable of instant on/off, I cannot see how you can make this assertion. Have you personally seen/tested ALL of the other reactors out there? I don’t think so, which means this is either a “Rossi Says” or an “Adrian Claims,” neither of which however is supported by any empirical evidence.

And lastly, how do you know Rossi’s widget can operate at 2300 C? Same questions as above, did you see it personally, did you measure or is this another case of “Rossi Says?”

Now, I am sure you will respond to this, in part, by saying, look at what I said later in the letter, where I said:

“It is important to recognize the Nov. 24 demonstration was to provide people with the characteristics of the E-Cat QX and was not a scientific experiment whose results would allow others to replicate it.

Parts of the reactor are secret so it was difficult to display everything. The measurements made were adequate to show the properties of the E-Cat QX. To ensure there was no trickery some other proprietary measurements must be made. This would be simple for a potential investor to do, so there is no logical reason to doubt the results The QX still needs some engineering development to make it commercial and an automated factory to mass produce them will take another year.”

And I would answer, so what? Nothing in those two paragraphs qualifies all of your previous assertions, rather instead you double down by saying “. . . so there is no logical reason to doubt the results.” Your letter was, IMHO, an amazing piece propaganda, tailor made for Rossi to use to show to potential marks – “see, here is an accomplished scientist, engineer, etc., and he states that not only have I discovered the holy grail, but it would sacrilege to doubt my claims.”

And despite this letter you still profess and claim that you are not biased, you are keeping an open mind, you have no desire to review the history and past work of this modern day Da Vinci, but instead you merely claim that you are giving him the benefit of the doubt.

If you can do all that with a straight face and no qualms, then I salute you Gunga Din, you are a better man than I.

Display More

Well stated and quite true!

However do not expect AA to answer in any civil or professional manner.

Like almost all the Rossi faithful, when faced with facts, they either ignore and remain silent or spout insult.

IHFanBoy used to at least present a defense, even if it stretched the imagination. Missing windows and all. But AA

has become completely obstinate. He will not discuss fact or logic, but only defend his "Rossi-ship".

At least Sam12 is truthful on his position. But like IHFanBoy, Adrian "claims" to be unbiased but just like his hero,

Adrian's OWN words speak more clearly to his true position. Unfortunate.

Then there is Alan. Capable, experienced, educated and knows good data, tests and logic. Yet he somehow seems

to ignore the mountains of evidence against Rossi's claims and yet defends him. But again, as with all other Rossi believers,

presents no facts, no data, no reasonable peer defense. When directly questioned, likewise, he avoids answering

logical and reasonable questions, which is not very academic. Yet he often throw out the occasional veiled support

of Rossi or the not so sublime diss at IH. Remarkable.

I truly hope he and Mr. George has something. But their story is starting to follow the likes of some known before. Like

LION and ME356, big but mysterious claims.. followed by some tidbits of info... but when valid and logical questions

arise, Mr. George gets defensive and a little insulting. Then less is being told yet the claims are not modified. Then

the move from solid data to "poetic" revelations such as "lovely gammas". Then less is heard.

Will the "lovely gammas" disappear the same as ME356 or LION? The drama is starting to follow the same script.

But hope remains and time will tell. I just do not understand why the curtain of mystery! IP is easily protected.

Test data could be revealed and the peer review could be very helpful. The photos Alan show are appreciated,

but they are not data.

No, I am afraid the "Androcles" WILL go the way of the LION. I hope I am wrong.

Bu

Mainly skillful in repeated promises and tales inventor.

Quote from woodworker

I have just read the DelcoTimes letter you wrote and I have a few comments and questions:

AA, The first thing you should understand was that my letter was a news piece, written for a lay audience, who would be put off by a scientific paper.

“1. For someone who professes to have not actually decided that Rossi’s widgets work, instead claiming that you are keeping an open mind and giving him the benefit of the doubt, that letter as as close to a tongue bath as I have ever seen.

AA. Babbler type incorrect ad hominem. I have repeatedly stated that I don't think they work has been proven 100% I consider the QX x closest to being proven.

2. Unless the letter contained, in very, very small type, qualifying language, e.g., “apparently,” “it appears,” “it suggests,” etc., that letter is a complete statement of faith in Rossi’s widgets.

AA. As stated, the news piece was not a scientific paper.

3. You have attacked, and yes I use that word deliberately, many posters here for not quoting your exact language when they disagree with you. You have also attacked many posters as babblers because they get something wrong. So, here is your exact language from that letter:

AA. When people attack me by misquoting what I wrote, of course I want them to show my actual words. That is not “attacking” anybody. Yes, babblers make mistakes, but what I really object to is their endless babble.

“. . . but IH refused to pay the $900 million called for by the contract.”

My question to you is very simple, WHERE IN HELL DOES THE CONTRACT CALL FOR A PAYMENT OF $900 MILLION? I can’t find that, and I looked. But I am confident that, with your extensive experience in building and supervising the building of large plants, and your expert knowledge of how these types of agreements are structured, and the fact that I am a mere babbler, that you will immediately solve this mystery for me. All you have to do is provide a page number, or cut and paste the section from the contract.

AA. You try to make out this is a big deal in all caps no less. It was a typo that I corrected in tn a comment immediate after I saw it. I suffer from macular deterioration such that I have a hole about 4” dia in the center of vision in one eye and with the other, if I look at two adjacent figures or letters I can only see one. So I missed it when proof reading the piece. It’s likely I won’t be able to read at all for much longer.

4. But continuing with the DelcoTimes letter, you said:

“This tiny reactor, about 1 cm long by 0.6 cm in diameter, was shown to produce 20 Watts of heat from a negligible input of power. The Coefficient of Performance (COP) was over 500. That is to say it produced more than 500 times the power required to run it. It can also be switched on and off instantaneously, something no other reactor has been capable of, and can operate at a temperature of 2300 C.”

There are a number of factual assertions made by you, none of which are qualified in any way. First, you assert that the “tiny reactor” is about 1 cm long by 0.6 cm in diameter (which coincidentally is about ½ the size of my kidney stones). Did you measure the size yourself or is this a case of “Rossi Says?”

AA. Ah, a real question at last. Rossi stated the size and it was obviously about right from looking the the small water jacket on the displayed model that contained it. The production version is probably slightly different. So what? It is still tiny.

Second, you assert that it was “shown to produce 20 Watts of heat from a negligible input of power.” Now, I have made it clear that I don’t understand the physics, or any of the science, relating to this. But after watching the videos from Stockholm, and reading pretty much everything said by you, Axil and Sam12 on this thread, I don’t recall anyone explaining how that 20 watts of heat was measured. If I am wrong, please cite to the relevant section or post or whatever and I will read, and if wrong, will apologize. However, if I am not wrong, what is your basis for making this factual assertion. You also state in this clause, as a unqualified factual assertion, that this 20 watts of heat was derived from a “negligible input of power.” What is your basis, your empirical evidence if you will, for this factual assertion? Did you personally examine or measure the amount of power input to the “reactor?” Did anyone than Rossi or a member of his team, say one of the “crowd of 70 professors, scientists and business people” measure the power input to the reactor, or for that matter, the amount of heat generated? Is the only evidentiary basis for your factual assertion “Rossi Says?

AA. Hard to believe you watched the video as the calorimetry was shown in detail. Water was pumped into the heat exchanger through a plastic tube, where the water was heated. It exited through another plastic tube into a large transparent container that was weighed to determine the amount after an hour. The increase in temperature for the volume of of water gives the heat output. The pump was even cut in half afterwards to show it didn’t contain a heater. I haven’t seen anyone doubt this fool proof method.

The measurement of power was taken by a senior scientist, not Rossi. Are you sure you watched the video? Basically the input power was determined by the voltage drop across a 1 ohm resistor in series with the reactor. This gave the current flowing though the circuit. The power used by rector is effected by its resistance and it was assumed to be low (~1 ohm). This is what one would expect from plasma. Rossi didn’t want to allow the voltage across the reactor itself as it would give away his proprietary waveform. So this is the only thing missing to prove certainty of the performance of the QX. I could easily measure this myself and, as I said, any investor thinking of providing funding would do that as part of their due diligence. So it seems unlikely that Rossi is faking this.

5. Next up we have “[T]he Coefficient of Performance (COP) was over 500. That is to say it produced more than 500 times the power required to run it.” Same questions as above, what is/are the bases for your unqualified factual assertions?

AA. The COP was calculated fy the same scientist that took the measurements. This based on the calorimetry described and the voltage drop across the 1 ohm resistor. It looked like the power pack used was not efficient, otherwise it would nave been simpler to measure the input power to that. If that had been used the COP would have been lower It is worth noting that Rossi said he was running the reactor at 1/3 power to avoid problems in the demo and soon after the rating was increased to 100 W. During the R&D to industrialize the QX (and probably as a result of work on the SK) Rossi stated the rated power has been increased to 1 kW.

6. “It can also be switched on and off instantaneously, something no other reactor has been capable of, and can operate at a temperature of 2300 C.” Three unqualified factual assertions, (a) it can be turned on and off instantaneously, (b) something no other reactor has been capable of, and (c) can operate at 2300 C.

As to the ability to turn on and off instantaneously, how do you know? I doubt that you tried as it is pretty clear from the video that Rossi doesn’t like anyone else to have contact with his widget if he can avoid it, and I didn’t see you, or anyone else, attempting to go through several successful cycles of on/off operation. So I am assuming that is a “Rossi Says.”

As to other reactors being capable of instant on/off, I cannot see how you can make this assertion. Have you personally seen/tested ALL of the other reactors out there? I don’t think so, which means this is either a “Rossi Says” or an “Adrian Claims,” neither of which however is supported by any empirical evidence.

AA. That is the nature of a plasma. Consider a fluorescent lamp. The earlier E-Cats required relatively slow heating to start and once hot may continue output as “life after death.”

And lastly, how do you know Rossi’s widget can operate at 2300 C? Same questions as above, did you see it personally, did you measure or is this another case of “Rossi Says?”

AA. The max temperature on the wall of the QX depends on the material. The inside temperature of the plasma is reported to be ~20,000 C.

Now, I am sure you will respond to this, in part, by saying, look at what I said later in the letter, where I said:

“It is important to recognize the Nov. 24 demonstration was to provide people with the characteristics of the E-Cat QX and was not a scientific experiment whose results would allow others to replicate it.

Parts of the reactor are secret so it was difficult to display everything. The measurements made were adequate to show the properties of the E-Cat QX. To ensure there was no trickery some other proprietary measurements must be made. This would be simple for a potential investor to do, so there is no logical reason to doubt the results The QX still needs some engineering development to make it commercial and an automated factory to mass produce them will take another year.”

And I would answer, so what? Nothing in those two paragraphs qualifies all of your previous assertions, rather instead you double down by saying “. . . so there is no logical reason to doubt the results.” Your letter was, IMHO, an amazing piece propaganda, tailor made for Rossi to use to show to potential marks – “see, here is an accomplished scientist, engineer, etc., and he states that not only have I discovered the holy grail, but it would sacrilege to doubt my claims.”

AA. It seems clear enough to me. As you don’t understand how things work it is no surprise you don’t understand that paragraph.

And despite this letter you still profess and claim that you are not biased, you are keeping an open mind, you have no desire to review the history and past work of this modern day Da Vinci, but instead you merely claim that you are giving him the benefit of the doubt.

AA. As I have stated the QX has not been proven to work with certainty but I think there is a good chance that it does. A babbler is not a skeptic: a babbler is 100% certain the it doesn't work.

If you can do all that with a straight face and no qualms, then I salute you Gunga Din, you are a better man than I.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

AA, The first thing you should understand was that my letter was a news piece, written for a lay audience, who would be put off by a scientific paper.

“1. For someone who professes to have not actually decided that Rossi’s widgets work, instead claiming that you are keeping an open mind and giving him the benefit of the doubt, that letter as as close to a tongue bath as I have ever seen.

AA. Babbler type incorrect ad hominem. I have repeatedly stated that I don't think they work has been proven 100% I consider the QX x closest to being proven.

2. Unless the letter contained, in very, very small type, qualifying language, e.g., “apparently,” “it appears,” “it suggests,” etc., that letter is a complete statement of faith in Rossi’s widgets.

AA. As stated, the news piece was not a scientific paper.

3. You have attacked, and yes I use that word deliberately, many posters here for not quoting your exact language when they disagree with you. You have also attacked many posters as babblers because they get something wrong. So, here is your exact language from that letter:

AA. When people attack me by misquoting what I wrote, of course I want them to show my actual words. That is not “attacking” anybody. Yes, babblers make mistakes, but what I really object to is their endless babble.

“. . . but IH refused to pay the $900 million called for by the contract.”

My question to you is very simple, WHERE IN HELL DOES THE CONTRACT CALL FOR A PAYMENT OF $900 MILLION? I can’t find that, and I looked. But I am confident that, with your extensive experience in building and supervising the building of large plants, and your expert knowledge of how these types of agreements are structured, and the fact that I am a mere babbler, that you will immediately solve this mystery for me. All you have to do is provide a page number, or cut and paste the section from the contract.

AA. You try to make out this is a big deal in all caps no less. It was a typo that I corrected in tn a comment immediate after I saw it. I suffer from macular deterioration such that I have a hole about 4” dia in the center of vision in one eye and with the other, if I look at two adjacent figures or letters I can only see one. So I missed it when proof reading the piece. It’s likely I won’t be able to read at all for much longer.

4. But continuing with the DelcoTimes letter, you said:

“This tiny reactor, about 1 cm long by 0.6 cm in diameter, was shown to produce 20 Watts of heat from a negligible input of power. The Coefficient of Performance (COP) was over 500. That is to say it produced more than 500 times the power required to run it. It can also be switched on and off instantaneously, something no other reactor has been capable of, and can operate at a temperature of 2300 C.”

There are a number of factual assertions made by you, none of which are qualified in any way. First, you assert that the “tiny reactor” is about 1 cm long by 0.6 cm in diameter (which coincidentally is about ½ the size of my kidney stones). Did you measure the size yourself or is this a case of “Rossi Says?”

AA. Ah, a real question at last. Rossi stated the size and it was obviously about right from looking the the small water jacket on the displayed model that contained it. The production version is probably slightly different. So what? It is still tiny.

Second, you assert that it was “shown to produce 20 Watts of heat from a negligible input of power.” Now, I have made it clear that I don’t understand the physics, or any of the science, relating to this. But after watching the videos from Stockholm, and reading pretty much everything said by you, Axil and Sam12 on this thread, I don’t recall anyone explaining how that 20 watts of heat was measured. If I am wrong, please cite to the relevant section or post or whatever and I will read, and if wrong, will apologize. However, if I am not wrong, what is your basis for making this factual assertion. You also state in this clause, as a unqualified factual assertion, that this 20 watts of heat was derived from a “negligible input of power.” What is your basis, your empirical evidence if you will, for this factual assertion? Did you personally examine or measure the amount of power input to the “reactor?” Did anyone than Rossi or a member of his team, say one of the “crowd of 70 professors, scientists and business people” measure the power input to the reactor, or for that matter, the amount of heat generated? Is the only evidentiary basis for your factual assertion “Rossi Says?

AA. Hard to believe you watched the video as the calorimetry was shown in detail. Water was pumped into the heat exchanger through a plastic tube, where the water was heated. It exited through another plastic tube into a large transparent container that was weighed to determine the amount after an hour. The increase in temperature for the volume of of water gives the heat output. The pump was even cut in half afterwards to show it didn’t contain a heater. I haven’t seen anyone doubt this fool proof method.

The measurement of power was taken by a senior scientist, not Rossi. Are you sure you watched the video? Basically the input power was determined by the voltage drop across a 1 ohm resistor in series with the reactor. This gave the current flowing though the circuit. The power used by rector is effected by its resistance and it was assumed to be low (~1 ohm). This is what one would expect from plasma. Rossi didn’t want to allow the voltage across the reactor itself as it would give away his proprietary waveform. So this is the only thing missing to prove certainty of the performance of the QX. I could easily measure this myself and, as I said, any investor thinking of providing funding would do that as part of their due diligence. So it seems unlikely that Rossi is faking this.

5. Next up we have “[T]he Coefficient of Performance (COP) was over 500. That is to say it produced more than 500 times the power required to run it.” Same questions as above, what is/are the bases for your unqualified factual assertions?

AA. The COP was calculated fy the same scientist that took the measurements. This based on the calorimetry described and the voltage drop across the 1 ohm resistor. It looked like the power pack used was not efficient, otherwise it would nave been simpler to measure the input power to that. If that had been used the COP would have been lower It is worth noting that Rossi said he was running the reactor at 1/3 power to avoid problems in the demo and soon after the rating was increased to 100 W. During the R&D to industrialize the QX (and probably as a result of work on the SK) Rossi stated the rated power has been increased to 1 kW.

6. “It can also be switched on and off instantaneously, something no other reactor has been capable of, and can operate at a temperature of 2300 C.” Three unqualified factual assertions, (a) it can be turned on and off instantaneously, (b) something no other reactor has been capable of, and (c) can operate at 2300 C.

As to the ability to turn on and off instantaneously, how do you know? I doubt that you tried as it is pretty clear from the video that Rossi doesn’t like anyone else to have contact with his widget if he can avoid it, and I didn’t see you, or anyone else, attempting to go through several successful cycles of on/off operation. So I am assuming that is a “Rossi Says.”

As to other reactors being capable of instant on/off, I cannot see how you can make this assertion. Have you personally seen/tested ALL of the other reactors out there? I don’t think so, which means this is either a “Rossi Says” or an “Adrian Claims,” neither of which however is supported by any empirical evidence.

AA. That is the nature of a plasma. Consider a fluorescent lamp. The earlier E-Cats required relatively slow heating to start and once hot may continue output as “life after death.”

And lastly, how do you know Rossi’s widget can operate at 2300 C? Same questions as above, did you see it personally, did you measure or is this another case of “Rossi Says?”

AA. The max temperature on the wall of the QX depends on the material. The inside temperature of the plasma is reported to be ~20,000 C.

Now, I am sure you will respond to this, in part, by saying, look at what I said later in the letter, where I said:

“It is important to recognize the Nov. 24 demonstration was to provide people with the characteristics of the E-Cat QX and was not a scientific experiment whose results would allow others to replicate it.

Parts of the reactor are secret so it was difficult to display everything. The measurements made were adequate to show the properties of the E-Cat QX. To ensure there was no trickery some other proprietary measurements must be made. This would be simple for a potential investor to do, so there is no logical reason to doubt the results The QX still needs some engineering development to make it commercial and an automated factory to mass produce them will take another year.”

And I would answer, so what? Nothing in those two paragraphs qualifies all of your previous assertions, rather instead you double down by saying “. . . so there is no logical reason to doubt the results.” Your letter was, IMHO, an amazing piece propaganda, tailor made for Rossi to use to show to potential marks – “see, here is an accomplished scientist, engineer, etc., and he states that not only have I discovered the holy grail, but it would sacrilege to doubt my claims.”

AA. It seems clear enough to me. As you don’t understand how things work it is no surprise you don’t understand that paragraph.

And despite this letter you still profess and claim that you are not biased, you are keeping an open mind, you have no desire to review the history and past work of this modern day Da Vinci, but instead you merely claim that you are giving him the benefit of the doubt.

AA. As I have stated the QX has not been proven to work with certainty but I think there is a good chance that it does. A babbler is not a skeptic: a babbler is 100% certain the it doesn't work.

If you can do all that with a straight face and no qualms, then I salute you Gunga Din, you are a better man than I.

Display More

AA,

I must say I was incorrect. You answered point by point. Well done.

I may not agree with your answers nor your logic in your points, but I will state that you did address them point by point. And you refrained from insults! This is how all discussions should be conducted.

Again, even if I do not agree to some points, a big thumbs up for the response and style.

Perhaps you can explain more why you believe the measurements were accurate. Even with an "independent" judge, whom I doubt to be the case, I saw nothing that indicated accurate measurements were made. Of the output, there is a slight chance. There is NO chance that input was measured either accurately or even theoretically. I am qualified and able to detect proper measurements of that type and there was none with the QuarkX demo.

You state above "I have repeatedly stated that I don't think they work has been proven 100% I consider the QX x closest to being proven." Yes, you state it is not 100% but that the QX is the closest to being proven. As far as I know, the only thing the QX has that any other version of Cat does not is the Stockholm demo. Do you believe the Stockholm demo is truly a via test showing excess heat? I know you are not saying it 100% proves it, but do you believe the test as shown, is remotely able to be a rationally logical test? Including the 1 ohm "test"?

Alan Smith, here on LENR was AT the demo. He personally saw it. Yet even he states that the event proved nothing and refuses to give any peer review on it. I ask why you place such high confidence (not 100%) on this test when Alan's silence confirms the demo was a complete bust? I am asking for specifics in logic, not desire for it to work.

As far as the 20,000 degree heat. Really? That high a temp "inside" the plasma? We all know that energy has to go somewhere and it does not simply disappear. There is no material containment that can withstand that temperature. And Rossi does not have a magnetic bubble.

So far, following this story since 2011 and at one time being a Rossi supporter, I have seen nothing but

"Rossi Says" and "Rossi says" has always turned out to be deceptive or out and out lies. If you discount any "Rossi Says", is there any evidence that the eCat works? I think not. I firmly disagree that "scientists" and "engineers" support him. NONE come out publicly with data, facts or even vigorous verbal support. Even our local Alan Smith will not defend the QuarkX! That really says a lot!

Again, thank you for the content and presentation of your reply.

A rare isotope of Rossionium.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Sorry, I must've been sleeping. Did someone seriously claim that the piece of mostly inert sculpture made of plastic pipe and duct tape, exhibited at the Stockholm Rossi demo, had a region in which the temperature reached 20,000 degrees? Or that a similar Rossi-made device does? That would be pure fantasy. Just how does Rossi prevent the hot region from melting, burning or even exploding the surrounding structure? Has he invented the perfect heat shield made of hydrinos or positrons or what?

Rossi is claiming the Skat Cat has reached 20,000 degrees.

https://e-catworld.com/2018/07…-the-e-cat-sk-is-20-000c/

Andrea Rossi

July 17, 2018 at 11:58 AM

E.Hergen:

The max T we reach is around 20 000 °C.

Even if this is plasma, I believe it is still quite problematic. He does not indicate

it is plasma temperature. But then with everything Rossi, he never is clear.