Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • B. the important scene where the well measured part was done for the output power.


    Here is the important scene where it is obvious that the radiant intensity of the QX is much less than that from the reflection off of the projector screen, even when the light sensor is pointed away from it.

    The QX blackbody with a peak at around 1100 nm is nowhere to be seen. The near blackbody halogen light spectra is well-captured on several occasions, and is especially clear when the lights are turned back on. (The lights are not boiling the audience with their Wiens Law ~5600 C glare)


  • Thank you Para,


    2:30:45 is where the switch slight of hand happens. Never noticed this before, but look how Rossi glances at Lewan. He then moves a few steps towards him, then turns his body so as to block Lewan's view of him lifting the PSU cover. Very purposeful. Then there is Fabiani positioned to block the audiences view. Good team work!

  • Is that really the best you can do? You and the babblers write pages about Rossi not having proof, but it is apparently OK for you and the babblers to state things with certainty about which you have no proof


    It's not like UFOs when a Nobel prize winner and many well known scientists support it. You are confused. taking the words of anonymous babblers here as meaning something.


    Adrian: details please?


    What things do I state with certainty about which I have no proof?


    and which NPW and WKSs currently (since the Doral exposee) support Rossi?

  • Here is the important scene where it is obvious that the radiant intensity of the QX is much less than that from the reflection off of the projector screen, even when the light sensor is pointed away from it

    Rossi wrote about it later. he said when they got back to the lab they discovered that the heat exchanger was blocking the view.

    You know better?

  • I think AR is indeed a man of uncertain temperament, but 2 others present at Krivit's visit to Bologna have told me that Krivit behaved very badly right from the first moment,

    Krivit can be annoying. But Rossi has mistreated many people I know who visited him, even though they were polite, helpful and professional. Especially Jim Dunn and the group from NASA, which was there to confirm the claims. If they had been able to do this, Rossi might have gotten millions. When they showed him the reactor was plugged up and threatening to explode, he also fled from the room. So he believed them. However, when they asked to see another demonstration later, he shouted, cursed and carried on like a madman, threatening them and driving them from the premises. He did similar things to many other people. I think his temper is staged. He turns it on and off as needed to aid in his frauds and get out of awkward situations.

  • I think AR is indeed a man of uncertain temperament, but 2 others present at Krivit's visit to Bologna have told me that Krivit behaved very badly right from the first moment, it was abvious from the start that he was only interested in doing a hatchet job, as he has done to others in the field who will not do exactly as he requests.


    I have read the entirety of Krivit's report on that visit and it is not a hatchet job. Krivit asked some qwkward questions and I expect that was perceived as impolite and outside the degree of implicit trust and collegiality usually expected when visiting a lab, but "hatchet job" is the wrong term. Krivit's video of Rossi's ecat system in operation very plainly shows much much less steam is being emitted than should be the case if Rossi's claims about it are true. So Krivit was entirely correct to be skeptical and to push for clear answers from all the scientists involved. That is not a hatchet job.


    Alan, I don't think I have every heard your direct opinion on the video that Krivit took in Rossi's lab. Do you have one? I think it is extremely clear evidence that Rossi's information regarding the functioning of his ecat on that day is out and out untrue.

  • Alan, I don't think I have every heard your direct opinion on the video that Krivit took in Rossi's lab


    I barely remember the video, but I stand by my remarks about Krivit's behaviour that day, relayed directly to me by the guy who picked him up from the airport and acted as translator - who is not actually seen on screen and is not a scientist. I consider him to be 100% honest, and he did say even in the car on the way to the demo Krivit seemed like a bear with a sore head. And that phone conversation was (from memory) the day after Krivit's visit.

  • ... I stand by my remarks about Krivit's behaviour that day, relayed directly to me ....


    Well I agree with all of that. I'm sure it is unsettling to be asked direct questions by someone who is plainly skeptical of what you are saying. But so what? The report itself is a good one. I've read the entire thing and it is not a hatchet job. And I repeat ... the video contains extremely clear evidence that what Rossi is saying at the time is simply untrue. You could verify this easily yourself by looking at the video and doing some simple calorimetric calculations regarding the amount of steam that should be coming out of the hose Rossi holds up. These are calculations you could do standing on your head.


    Put beside this, Krivit's frame of mind at the time is a side issue.

  • Rossi wrote about it later. he said when they got back to the lab they discovered that the heat exchanger was blocking the view.

    You know better?

    Very convincing.


    So, if the probe would have seen the proper QX glow, how convinced might one be that a peak near 1100 nm was in fact a peak of a black body curve, if the majority of the curve cannot be seen or measured, since the long wave capability of the probe was limited to 1150 nm? In other words, the peak that is reported to occur would be on the very tight hand edge of the plot, and cut off there due to technical constraints. There could be other, (maybe even bigger) peaks at 1400 nm, (for example), and they would be undetectable.




    https://www.stellarnet.us/spec…e-low-cost-spectrometers/



  • I think the most useful replication of some unexpected and therefore "need to be certain before trusting" result is one in which the experimental conditions and procedure are as close as possible to the original, but the instrumentation and methodology are as different as possible.

    You sound like me http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheimporta.pdf :)

    It wasn't until CF that I ever really attempted to replicate anything - which I found almost impossible to do in electrochemistry (and often teased my fellow electrochemists friends with that). Too much is hair trigger on microscopic details of the interface (which electrochemists well understood - hence dropping mercury electrodes) ... and in Pd, the bulk.

    That having been said replication of effect (if not detail) is possible and the only people to ever replicate F&P in engineering detail (Lonchampt et al http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf) did so with amazing success. The FPHE does replicate (with the precautions noted by Lonchampt). But we still do not have mastery over the phenomenon. Important details are missing.

  • Rends


    Acknowledged. But it puzzles me. You would think that if Rossi had set out to fool people in this way he would have installed a switch that could be thrown in a much more covert manner.


    Perhaps this is evidence that Fabiani (who I think made the box and much of the workings) is not in on the scam?

  • You would think that if Rossi had set out to fool people


    Sam
    November 26, 2017 at 9:17 AM
    Hello DR Rossi

    I seen this comment from E48 on ECat World
    Blog.
    Engineer48
    11 hours ago
    Just before Mats starts the tests with different resistor values, Rossi lifts the cover on the White control box and apparently switches a switch or two:

    E cat QX presentation 24 November 2017 — disq.us
    Which to this observer casts a big shadow over the validity of the tests Mats conducted.

    Apparently Mats did not see this occur as he was looking at the data from Hurley.

    As Rossi did not explain what he did nor why he did it, to me this killed any credibility on the input power claims.

    Could you comment on it?
    Enjoyed your QX demonstration.
    Regards
    Sam

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Andrea Rossi November 26, 2017 at 9:45 AM

    Sam:
    I checked what you say, it is between the time 2h 30′ and 2h 31′.
    I opened an air window to help the air circulation since when the E-Cat has been tiurned off the cooling system was disconnected. After 2 hours of work and after the operation of the spectrometer without cooling circulation in the heat exchanger I wanted to help the hot air out.
    This has nothing to do with the measurements we were making.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.


    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…cpage=287#comment-1300354


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    "air window" :rolleyes:

  • Krivit asked some qwkward questions and I expect that was perceived as impolite and outside the degree of implicit trust and collegiality usually expected when visiting a lab

    I complained to Krivit that he did not ask enough questions. I told he should have asked to see the flow measurement technique, the temperatures and various other quantitative, specific measurements. I expect Rossi would have refused to show him any of this, but he should have asked and then reported that Rossi refused. Before Krivit went, Rossi invited me. When I told him I would bring a hand-held thermocouple, a liter test tube and other equipment to confirm the measurements, he immediately uninvited me.


    Let me add: If I had been there, I would have said, "let's sparge this steam to see how much heat it has in it." Again, I expect Rossi would refuse to do that, but I would suggest it and then report that he refused. Perhaps Krivit did not know about this technique.


    My other complaint to Krivit -- along the same lines -- was that he did not make a list of the instruments and techniques Rossi used. The make and model of the thermocouples, power meter and so on. Specifics.

  • He is doing it again! I think he is messing with us: 8o


    Jalisa
    September 1, 2018 at 12:12 AM

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
    I too want to congratulate for the convincing test of the Ecat QX made in November 24 in Stockholm

    10 day test on SK starts Monday.


    1. Frank Acland September 1, 2018 at 12:20 PM

      Dear Andrea,

      You said that on Monday you will start the testing of the SK reactor.

      1) How long will the test be?

      2) How many reactors are you testing?

      3) What will be required in order for you to make a decision in favor of the SK?

      Many thanks,

      Frank Acland

    2. Translate Andrea Rossi September 1, 2018 at 2:39 PM

      Frank Acland:

      1- 10 days

      2- two

      3- sorry, too complex to be explained. Too many parameters and confidential issues.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

  • We do have proof. Rossi own report proves he is a liar, and his own test shows that he did not measure input. There is no better proof than Rossi's own words and actions. You refuse to look at the report, but that does not make it go away. It just means you cannot face facts and admit you are wrong.

    Jed,


    You can bring an Adrian to water,

    but you can’t make him read data.


    Adrians’s heels are so firmly dug in now there is absolutely nothing that will convince him Rossi and his Ecat are frauds.


    This would be tantamount to him admitting he was conned and wasn’t smart enough to see thru the conn.

    And that is impossible, he is smarter than all of us, just ask him.


    His retorts are funny though

  • I complained to Krivit that he did not ask enough questions.


    I agree with this view. Krivit, however, quite openly paints himself as someone who was a bit over his head at the time regarding calorimetry. He realized that and says he consulted with some technically knowledgeable people before he visited Rossi so he would have an idea what to ask and what to look for but still I think he was at the edge of his knowledge base during the visit.


    Nevertheless I think that Krivit was equipped with something essential during his visit -- a reporter's instinct to go after a story and dig dig dig. In science you usually don't meet informed skepticism until the peer-review stage of publication. But even this layer of criticism proceeds on the presumption that the author is honestly portraying his or her results. The whole apparatus of science starts to fall apart in the face of the efforts of a scam artist. That is why Krivit is useful here and why his behaviour in Rossi's lab doesnèt really matter.


    Alan Smith's attitude to this whole thing should worry people. He seems to want to avoid addressing excellent and readily available physical evidence (i.e., Krivit's video) and relies instead on other's opinions and feelings. Evidence by authority is OK for a nontechnical person lacking experience in a field, but for someone overseeing a lab that attitude is a potential disaster.

  • Quote

    Krivit asked some qwkward questions and I expect that was perceived as impolite and outside the degree of implicit trust and collegiality usually expected when visiting a lab

    Maybe not so awkward when the claim is so huge and the proof is so lacking.


    Quote

    I complained to Krivit that he did not ask enough questions. I told he should have asked to see the flow measurement technique, the temperatures and various other quantitative, specific measurements. I expect Rossi would have refused to show him any of this, but he should have asked and then reported that Rossi refused. Before Krivit went, Rossi invited me. When I told him I would bring a hand-held thermocouple, a liter test tube and other equipment to confirm the measurements, he immediately uninvited me.

    Yes. And your sparging (condensing) the steam also. That would have taken care of the output end but not spoofing at the input end and not any other sleight of hand. What would have helped with those would have been the visitors bringing their own equipment for both input power and power out and performing blank runs for calibration, something none of the supposedly esteemed experts who visited Rossi over the years thought necessary. Many people wrote this up on various forums within months of Rossi's initial claims yet the august scientists and journalists who examined his claims never bothered to do any of it. Of course, Rossi rarely allowed correct measurement and each and every time he did, the ecat did not work.


    Quote

    Nevertheless I think that Krivit was equipped with something essential during his visit -- a reporter's instinct to go after a story and dig dig dig.

    Indeed and let us not forget that Krivit unearthed all the facts about Petroldragon and Rossi's environmental crimes and lack of performance. Also his criminal history. That Rossi denies it is irrelevant. Newspaper accounts of the time confirm it. And then, Gary Wright, whoever that is, exposed the crooked dealings in which Rossi stole millions from the US Army pretending that he could make highly efficient thermoelectric converters. Rossi's ridiculous excuses for that debacle are basically that the dog ate his homework. He had a fire and of course it wasn't worth bothering to rebuild the devices which could have made him billions if they were real. Right.


    Some of us repeat this sh*t ad nauseam because Rossi supporters keep recycling Rossi's lying version all the time. New people arrive and believe Rossi, or in the past they did. Probably not so much after the Rossi vs IH case (or non-case).