Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Ascoli65

I don't think that the scientists mentioned by Alan "believe Rossi", because he is clearly not believable. At most they believe in the Ecat. It's very different.

The believing on the Ecat is based on the declarations of scientists and experts who over the past ten years have publicly stated that for various Rossi's devices - which they personally tested or measured - energy-out were greater than energy-in. These are the direct witnesses of these alleged results, and they are the only source of credibility for the Ecat. These scientists and experts are very few, just some DoD/LENR experts in USA and some academics in Europe. All the other scientists, who might sincerely believe in the Ecat, actually believe – it would be better to say "want to believe" - in the reliability of their colleagues, the direct witnesses. This is a chain of trust, starting from the declarations of very few experts and academics. But we know that these same people has misrepresented the experimental results of the Ecat tests, therefore any belief in the Ecat capability to generate excess heat is deprived of any credibility since its very origin.

Speaking of the Ecat, there is nothing and no one to believe in.

Shane,

When “They personally measured and tested”, was Rossi in attendance?

I wasn’t there so I don’t know, but experiences and observations reviewing his last 7 years of no. Scientific BS, lead me to question your statement.

IF, they were allowed to do it then, why are they not allowed to do it now?

sorry amigo, Rossi, Ecat, quark etc are simply smoke and mirrors for another con.

Quote from Alan Smith

Around them is a group of less familiar but still public names working on Ni/H all the time.

Quote from Roseland67

sorry amigo, Rossi, Ecat, quark etc are simply smoke and mirrors for another con.

I guess the troll like comments here are born inside their chronic ignorance of the reality.

"public names working on Ni/H" does not mean that there is any connection to Rossi!!

Quote from Roseland67

sorry amigo, Rossi, Ecat, quark etc are simply smoke and mirrors for another con.

The ECat QX and SK are for real.

...says Rossi. If not it would be great if you could share some facts or data (other than Rossi says) to shed light on these technological miracles...

Quote

Of those trying, many seem to think they have had some success.

"Seem to think they have had some success" is analogous to "seem to think they are a little bit pregnant." Thermal measurements are very advanced with modern equipment. If one uses proper calibration and controls, there should be no doubt about whether they produce excess heat or not. There should not be "seem to think" as opposed to "know for sure." And as has been said many times, the final frontier is simply an indefinitely self-running device with no energy input at all. Of course, one has to observe that Mills and Rossi never seem to perform experiments with properly blanked and calibrated devices, anyway not the type that can be replicated by anyone with the skills and the reputation to be convincing. And none of their devices can operate for long periods without energy input -- in both cases, lots and lots and lots of electricity, configured for heavy current at large voltages and obtained from Your Local Power Company. Do you think that this is all a coincidence Shane D. ?

Quote from Shane D.

Bob and Ascoli make some very good points. Points I myself have made many times. Keep in mind I am not defending Rossi, nor do I believe him. I still think he is a compulsive liar. Actually I know he is, as the court documents leave no doubt. I am merely stating the facts of the field as I see them. Rossi no longer officially exists (persona non grata), yet unofficially many try to replicate him. Of those trying, many seem to think they have had some success.

But I was not talking about the people trying to replicate the Ecat devices. They may have some interest in stating that they got some interesting results, or it may just be a matter of hallucinations. I don't care about them, I never did.

I was talking about the only people who gave some credibility to the original Ecat devices. When AA says:

and

he is speaking of the direct witnesses and most authoritative supporters of the original Ecats, the devices supplied by Rossi.

Similarly, when Alan Smith says "there are many scientists who still believe Rossi, but won't admit that publicly", I understand that he means the direct witnesses mentioned above, as well as some colleagues of them who believe in their reliability.

My point is that all this chain of trust is deprived of any credibility by the fact that the direct witnesses have misrepresented the experimental data of the Ecat tests whose measurements were made under their public responsibility. Therefore there is nothing to believe in.

Quote

Of those, this Andro appears to be gaining traction, ...

What does it mean "Andro" in this case?

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

The QX was demonstrated last November, and that trial has not been shot down. Suggestions have been made how it could have been faked but no proof that it was. It has been developed and tested for over a year and was apparently convincing enough that Rossi has new investors. We won't know how good it actually is until next year.

Adrian, I'm sorry but, from somone who claims to be an engineer, that really is not good enough.

(1) The input power was never measured during operation

(2) The PSU was much larger than needed for the claimed low input power, with fans etc indicative of likely high sustained power drive.

What any electrical engineer can conclude from this is that:

(1) The test does not show the claimed output power > input power device

(2) It does not even indicate that. In fact it indicates a system that requires much higher input power than that claimed.

However, since sustained output power > input power from any device would be an extraordinary and desirable outcome which many, many people have tried to get, with so far no significant success, it would be strange indeed to accept such a claim - in this case of quite extraordinary and unmistakable, if measured properly, characteristics, without clear evidence. Had Rossi made NO test of the QX the evidence for his claim would be larger than it is now.

Your paragraph above is only correct if interpreted in a twisty way - indeed you seem to share with Rossi himself an ability to twist English sentences.

The QX test - like most (though not all) of the many Rossi tests, strongly indicates an non-working device tested in a way to make it look as though it works. (for those wondering some of the tests allow for a non-working device, but do not strongly show that this is the case. Rather like no test at all which does not "shoot down" claims that a device is over-unity).

If you do not acknowledge that I'd suggest that your engineering common sense must be far far away from electrical engineering.

If you think what I say above is technically wrong i'm happy to expand.

Regards, THH

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Nobody knows if the SK is viable yet, not even Rossi.

strange since Rossi sure sounded like he had the SK at >1 and even retrofitting them with gas turbines. Should we believe you or what "Rossi says"\

Raffaele Bongo

June 22, 2018 at 3:22 PM

Hello A. Rossi

The coupling of a reactor with a turbine seems very promising for the electric propulsion of land vehicles

Can you tell us how many Quark SK 100s have you installed in this reactor that you are testing and have you ever reached a COP greater than 1?

Thank you for your answers

All my support for your team

Best regards

Andrea Rossi

June 22, 2018 at 4:27 PM

Raffaele Bongo:

We have installed one reactor and the COP has been >1.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

and:

Chuck Davis
July 14, 2018 at 7:01 PM

Dr Rossi:

1- do you already have a gas turbine operating?

2- if yes, which dimensions vs power?

Regards,

Chuck Davis

Andrea Rossi
July 15, 2018 at 2:39 AM

Chuck Davis:

1- yes

2- the power density is the highest I ever reached. Premature to give numbers.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

and then there are his claims in JONP of

Rossi: Maximum Temperature from the E-Cat SK is 20,000°C

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

What do you think the max resistance of a short plasma arc is?

I can make no assumptions about this since it depends on many things, particularly the pressure and composition of the gasses through which the arc is made, and in all cases will be variable, exhibiting higher resistance at lower currents.

I'd also note that Rossi's device while looking like a discharge tube could have additional elements - though I'm not particularly expecting this.

Perhaps we can make progress if you tell me what you suppose (and reasons for this)?

THH

Adrian: some help for you courtesy google. if we consider normal discharge tubes (dimensions and type unspecified in this link):

http://g3ynh.info/disch_tube/misc/typ_V-I_curve.gif

You can see that an appropriate resistance to deliver the claimed output power on input is squarely in the middle of typical values. Rossi's tube is short, but also small cross sectional area - it is the ratio that matters and this is pretty typical.

But exact calculation is just not possible without much more information: all we can say is that Rossi's claim that such tubes have very low resistance is bunk, as anyone would know from the many tubes that operate direct off mains voltage.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Actually you made the assumption that everything Rossi does is fake, so spend your time trying to justify that opinion.

I don't know what the resistance is, which is why I said further measurements are required to confirm it. But I think it likely the resistance of a plasma inside a container only 8 mm long is likely to be < 1 ohm, as Rossi states.

There are other things apparently going on in the reactor too that are unknown. Hence it is necessary to wait for more information to understand it. We should know more in Jan 2019.

Babbling pages about Rossi's supposed faults does nothing to clarify this.

Display More

Adrian: you will not find an assumption that Rossi is fake in my posts here, nor have you provided evidence of this. Proof by assertion is the only way you are sustaining your world view but it does not work well.

Whereas I have given a hand wavy argument why the resistance should be relatively high, you have given no reason at all for thinking is 1 ohm. Nor has Rossi given us any evidence for this.

If your position is that you want to believe Rossi regardless of evidence that is fine. You mislead readers when you post:

The QX was demonstrated last November, and that trial has not been shot down. Suggestions have been made how it could have been faked but no proof that it was.

That implies that the QX demo somehow provides evidence of it working. You have not been able to produce such evidence, whereas I have given significant circumstantial evidence:

• Typical resistance of discharge tubes
• design of PSU => high continuous power out

That it does not work. But, even without this negative evidence, an absence of evidence for the device working is badly misrepresented by your summary above.

Let us go a bit further into the dimensions argument you use. What might we expect from an 8mm tube? we need to know the cross-sectional area - I take interior dimensions from a best guess write-up:

The ecat is supposed to be 0.8mm diameter X 6mm from https://e-catworld.com/2017/12…-density-of-the-e-cat-qx/

This is a D/A of 12 /mm or 120 /cm. An 18W 2 foot T8 flourescent tube has D/A approx 50/0.8^2 = 100/cm . Almost identical. Since resistance scales as D/A this measurement tells us that Rossi's tube (if filled with plasma of the same resistivity) would work roughly the same as an 18W T8. That has a resistance on the order of R = V^2/P = 3200 ohm.

In fact Rossi's device fits the bill well for a scaled down T8 discharge tube very nicely, even though obviously it could be filled differently. Still, the end result (lots of pretty light) is similar so it is not surprising if we end up with broadly similar plasma.

You are suggesting that magically the resistivity of his discharge tube plasma is some 3000 X lower than the known resistivity of plasma in discharge tubes. Why?

AA: Babbling pages about Rossi's supposed faults does nothing to clarify this.

You will notice that my replies to you on this issue of the QX demo have said nothing about Rossi's faults. I've merely taken the public evidence from the demo, assuming all is as it seems, and looked to see what is the likely value of the unmeasured quantity needed to determine input power.

Regards, THH

Thanks, THH. Nice compiltation.

I would also like to be interested how Rossi is measuring and managing his claimed temperature of ca. 20.000K in his little tiny tube filled with his secret recipe. To me another scientific mircale, as well as his newly invented high-tech materials that can withstand such a plasma temperature. The energy density must be enormous looking the volume and temperature, assuming that the reactor is not a high-pressurized closed cylinder, since he need to manage the secret sauce consumption.

Quote from Shane D.

Me: Similarly, when Alan Smith says "there are many scientists who still believe Rossi, but won't admit that publicly", I understand that he means the direct witnesses mentioned above, as well as some colleagues of them who believe in their reliability.

You: Maybe yes, but I think there are others not linked to that group.

Sorry, Shane, I still don't understand your point. You mention only one group (of scientists, I guess), while I mentioned 2 groups of scientists:

(a) direct witnesses, and

(b) some colleagues of them (i.e. of the first group, and where the word "colleagues" is used in the broadest way, that is anyone is a real scientist in the world) who believe in their reliability (the reliability of the scientists of the first group).

Every scientist who supports the effectiveness of the Ecat is either a direct witness or an endorser of some witnesses.

So, the "many scientists" cited by Alan Smith, can only belong to the first or second group. There is no room for "others".

Let me give you an example. AS explains in this way the "silence" of these supporting scientists:

Quote from Alan Smith

They are afraid of the reputation trap and the peanut gallery, particularly because some of them are very well known in the field.

The "reputation trap" meme was proposed by Huw Price, a professor in Cambridge, at the end of 2015, in an article titled "The cold fusion horizon" (1), in which he exposes his believe that the Ecat is able of "producing commercially useful amounts of heat".

This long article deals with the concept of "scientific credentials". Price was aware about the lack of scientific respectability of Rossi because of his "somewhat chequered past", but he compensates for this by saying:

"There were two reports (in 2013 and 2014) on tests of Rossi’s device by teams of Swedish and Italian physicists whose scientific credentials are not in doubt, and who had access to one of his devices for extended periods (a month for the second test). Both reports claimed levels of excess heat far beyond anything explicable in chemical terms, in the testers’ view. (The second report also claimed isotopic shifts in the composition of the fuel.)" [bold added]

Therefore the "scientific credentials" of the "Swedish and Italian physicists" are the only elements on which Price bases his whole philosophical building about the concept of reputation trap. But this building is based on rotten foundation, because part of those physicists belongs to the group (b) of scientists that simply endorses the opinion of the direct witnesses, and the others are these same direct witnesses (a) that are no longer credible after they had misrepresented the experimental data of the 2011 tests.

Price himself belongs to the second group. He is just an endorser of scientists who - with respect to the Ecat issues - are no more reliable.

In conclusion, there are no "scientific credentials" at all for the Ecat, and the whole Price's article – probably the most authoritative philosophical support to the hypothesis that the Ecat could produce some excess heat - is founded on an initial wrong statement. It is a bronze giant on clay feet.

(1) https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-…ossibility-of-cold-fusion