Quote
- Andrea Rossi July 25, 2018 at 3:01 AM
Debbie:
No, it is impossible to get the authorization to light up a reactor in a conference room. We will show a video of it in operation and, of course, will show the product, like a “sleeping beauty”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
So he admitted that the “reactor” shown in the conference room at Stockholm was a fake.
So he admitted that the “reactor” shown in the conference room at Stockholm was a fake.
...
..
.
I do not want to be the one, who wishes bad things may happen to others, but for Rossi: Some authority should punish him by law, so strong, that he either will start acting properly or will quit this kind of fraud forever.
QuoteHe [Lewan] witnessed some tests in 2011, and described them in as many reports that were quite well documented, even if their conclusions were completely wrong.
Lewan not only documented but helped to design, instrument and perform the tests. While they were, as you say, well documented, they were very poorly designed to resist or reveal subterfuge and sleight of hand. Lewan failed to retain control over power input and wiring and most egregious of all, he, along with Kullander and Essen, failed to insist on using unfueled reactors and their own methods and instruments to calibrate the output heat measurement which was almost certainly wrong by up to an order of magnitude in favor of Rossi. This is all documented and has been discussed many times before.
It is also wrong that Lewan had little influence in the early acceptance of the ecats. His articles in NyTechnik were widely read, especially in Scandinavia and the rest of Europe.
Quotepublicized by UniBo professors, as well as to the fourth test witnessed and documented by Essen and Kullander.
Not that it matters, but how did these folks widely publicize anything? Most people had no idea who they were including many if not most, "mainline" scientists and science reporters.
QuoteHow do you suppose the current was determined then? Talk about babble.
I don't recall. What I remember is that it takes two parameters to determine power and Rossi only measured one of them. Or he didn't pin down what the load was. In any case, his experiment did not determine the power output of the so-called reactor and it would have been very easy to do it in that simple circuit without revealing IP. Rossi always does stuff like that to hide the fact that his reactors make no power beyond that which is input from their power source.
QuoteIf Rossi had a functioning ecal, he wins the case easily. No one would have cared about past failures or anything else. All he had to do was show a functioning unit and he wins. His failure to do so tells me that he did not have the goods.
This has always been the crux of the matter about Rossi. He has never produced a device which could be properly tested independent of himself except for rare isolated instances in which it always, without exception, failed to work.
Glad to see now that in addition to his skills and knowledge as a thermal engineer/heat flux specialist, a nuclear physicist and a mechanical engineer, @Adrian Ashfield is also a qualified and certified attorney who understands the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" under civil law, better than someone who graduated from law school and practiced the law for decades.
So he admitted that the “reactor” shown in the conference room at Stockholm was a fake.
You don't know what reactor Rossi was talking about. Obviously he could not show a large commercial unit working at a demo.
What I wrote on ECW was:
"If Rossi can show a prototype of the QX working Stockholm, I see no reason why he couldn't show an industrial QX as a black box, withe input power and heat output measured.
The SK is another matter and possibly too dangerous to show working at a demo."
You are grasping at straws, making smoke.
Which reactor? Rossi’s famous reactor! his nuclear industrialized version, he said many times already ready, he promised that industrialized version will be shown (to the entire world) during next presentation in January 2019. He claims that even a plant is in construction.
SK absolutely premature, on jonp he “says” is still ”inventing” hw.
What you wrote on ECW (an ultra-biased blog of supporters, based on blind faith of followers) who cares?
Display More"the remaining 450 W" ???
What???
Para, after his radiant spectography: "believe me the final result will be about 70, 71W"
Video 2:27:36
External Content youtu.beContent 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.
I think/hope you know what half kilowatt means.
It looks to me like the peak wavelength is around 500 nm (0.5 um). That's about twice as hot as in the Gullstrom report.
Para if you heard the video after the spectrometry he declared a peak wavelength of about 1 micrometer.
When the peak is at 1um, T corresponds to 2500 C, not 20000 C the hypothesis you wrote.
Para if you heard the video after the spectrometry he declared a peak wavelength of about 1 micrometer.
When the peak is at 1um, T corresponds to 2500 C, not 20000 C the hypothesis you wrote.
The 20000 C was sarcastic. It was based on a 500 W output, but it seems that the spectrometer never worked, so the 70-71 W reported is simply made up, and based on the Gullstrom experiment report somewhat.
Funny thing is that Rossi is talking about peaks at 1100 nm, but those are little blips, nothing at all like the peak of a blackbody Planck curve.
That means that the background illumination is several times more powerful than the Quark X spectrum, as received by the spectrometer detector head...
Para I agree.
I would like to add that below 1um wavelength peak (IR) around 750nm approx a dark red predominant color should be visible, looking the reactor where light was visible I never saw this.
Moreover the value of the area for SB power calculation is still a Rossi’s says.
Para I agree.
I would like to add that below 1um wavelength peak (IR) around 750nm approx a dark red predominant color should be visible, looking the reactor where light was visible I never saw this.
Moreover the dimension of the area for power calculation is still a Rossi’s says.
Rossi as has been his habit takes an excessively complex way to calculate output power and makes it go wrong in his favour.
Let me re-phrase that, for AA. Rossi's output power measurement for the Qx (original version) and after makes a whole load of assumptions, based on partial measurements from the wrong equipment, that are not true. Therefore it is impossible to know what is the real output power.
This time (the original and published Qx measurements) the most obvious issue, not often addressed, is that he assumes black-body spectrum from a (fluorescent) clearly non-black-body source.
Of course he has the non-measured input power as well, but this is a tour de force. With both not correctly measured, Rossi can conjure very high out/in power ratios.
Lewan not only documented but helped to design, instrument and perform the tests. While they were, as you say, well documented, they were very poorly designed to resist or reveal subterfuge and sleight of hand.
No, I'm sorry, he didn't help to design the 2011 tests. This image may help you to remember:
In 2011, Lewan has documented 4 tests. The setting of the two tests held in April was identical to that of March 29, documented by Essen and Kullander (1): "The device used was the smaller version of the energy catalyzer, which was first shown at a test March 29, 2011."
The September 7 setting was designed before July 2011 in collaboration with UniBo professors. And the outer liquid loop, added in the October 6 test, was said to be an old idea by Levi, as reported by Passerini (2): "Mi sembra giusto sottolineare che trattasi esattamente del setting sperimentale che Giuseppe Levi, già a febbraio, mi spiegò di avere pensato per i test ufficiali sull'E-Cat programmati all'UniBO, setting in seguito convalidato assieme ai professori dell'Università di Uppsala." (please, translate yourself)
QuoteLewan failed to retain control over power input and wiring and most egregious of all, he, along with Kullander and Essen, failed to insist on using unfueled reactors and their own methods and instruments to calibrate the output heat measurement which was almost certainly wrong by up to an order of magnitude in favor of Rossi.
In the first two tests, he only failed in assuming that the outflow was dry steam and in adopting the corresponding specific entalphy in evaluating the output power, thereby increasing the real output by a factor of 6+. This same wrong assumption was made by all the competent and respectable people (the American LENR experts and the European physics professors) who documented the exceptional excess heat produced in the initial four tests: from December 2010 to March 2011.
In the other two tests, carried out on the so-called FatCat, he neglected the energy absorbed during the first period of electric heating, which was stored by an heavy mass of metal contained inside the device. But in doing so, he has simply adopted the same methodology already used by the UniBo professors (3).
So, the scientific responsibilities of Lewan, a simple journalist, are quite low.
QuoteIt is also wrong that Lewan had little influence in the early acceptance of the ecats. His articles in NyTechnik were widely read, especially in Scandinavia and the rest of Europe.
Yes, you are right about this. But he was only a messenger of such influence, not the source of the public credulity. In his first article in English he wrote (4): "The demonstration of the ‘energy catalyzer,’ as Rossi prefers to call it, was made in Bologna on the 14th of January, 2011, under the supervision of independent scientific representatives of Bologna University."
QuoteNot that it matters, but how did these folks widely publicize anything? Most people had no idea who they were including many if not most, "mainline" scientists and science reporters.
It wasn't necessary for them to be known personally. It was enough to mention their affiliations, as the plaintiff's attorney did at the opening day of the Rossi vs. Darden trial (5): "... representatives of the Bologna University, Uppsala University, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden conducted independent tests …".
(1) https://www.nyteknik.se/energi…-energy-catalyzer-6421310
(2) http://22passi.blogspot.it/201…l-brian-josephson-il.html
(3) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…-e-cat-7-luglio-2011.html
(4) https://www.nyteknik.se/energi…egawatt-in-athens-6421301
FWIW, I have been trying to get a screen capture of the spectrum while the reactor was glowing, and the room dark. Levi is in the path of the reactor for quite some time, so it is hard to tell when the reactor is on. It seems that the best viewing angle and detector position also has the display of the laptop screen washed out with brightness.
Fiddling with a few frames in that portion to see if the contrast/brightness adjustments can recover the spectrum. Otherwise, it seems that the ambient light is washing out the QX glow.
Let me re-phrase that, for AA. Rossi's output power measurement for the Qx (original version) and after makes a whole load of assumptions, based on partial measurements from the wrong equipment, that are not true. Therefore it is impossible to know what is the real output power.
As usual you have not been following what Rossi later stated so come up with erroneous opinions.
Rossi said he was not able to take the spectrum properly because, as he found out later, the cooling system got in the way. That was back in last November. Since then, he stated that he has taken the spectrum with better instrumentation. I will wait for this to be reported before jumping to conclusions.
He now has other people helping him. I also hope his new partner is providing more technical help and oversight than IH was able to.
THH, sorry but I think that a Rossi’s follower can not understand what a non-black-body spectrum means, he is focused and attracted only by imaginary new partners like Siemens, National Instruments, ABB, ... and other balderdash.
THH, sorry but I think that a Rossi’s follower can not understand what a non-black-body spectrum means, he is focused and attracted only by imaginary new partners like Siemens, National Instruments, ABB, ... and other balderdash.
More ignorant babble. I was measuring non black body spectra in the 1970s. What am I not supposed to understand?
So you can easily draw the spectrum of the QX and calculate the power (because it's non-black-body, very familiar to you).
Debbie:
No, it is impossible to get the authorization to light up a reactor in a conference room. We will show a video of it in operation and, of course, will show the product, like a “sleeping beauty”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
This must be a big disappointment for the Rossi supporters. The demo has been in the planning for months now, with another 6 months at least until showtime. The anticipation had been building, with almost endless talk of how good, or revealing it would be. Maybe get to see a factory, possibly even a customer. There was speculation fueled by Rossi, as to how soon after that it would hit the markets. Now...poof, just a video instead that will resolve, or reveal nothing.
Well, better having your hopes dashed now, than 6 months from now. How long you fans going to stay loyal to the man? This could go on for years, at the end of which there is no certainty of any reward for your patience.
impossible to get the authorization to light up a reactor in a conference room.
I can see it coming. AR will use the excuse of no reactor in a conference room to go back on the promise of an open demo. My question is why does it have to be in a conference room instead of some other venue.... say even a parking lot or soccer field and a single metered extension cord.
