Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

My questions are will with total input power be measure and how does he measure the "completely recovered" power of the controller.

Quote from interested observer

Not for one moment implying that the SK performs any sort of matter-to-energy conversion (or any other meaningful process)

All energy production converts mass to energy. Mechanical, chemical or nuclear, it always reduces mass. So, if Rossi's gadget does produce energy, it also annihilates mass.

Quote from JedRothwell

All energy production converts mass to energy. Mechanical, chemical or nuclear, it always reduces mass. So, if Rossi's gadget does produce energy, it also annihilates mass.

Congratulations for the pedantic comment of the week.

Quote from oldguy

My questions are will with total input power be measure and how does he measure the "completely recovered" power of the controller.

Old guy,

He’ll measure neither,

it will all be calculated using “Rossi math”

Quote from JedRothwell

All energy production converts mass to energy. Mechanical, chemical or nuclear, it always reduces mass. So, if Rossi's gadget does produce energy, it also annihilates mass.

Solar?

Does light have mass? ... Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.

Its very easy for Rossi to recover the heat from his control panel. I recover all the heat my PC generates. Even the heat from the keyboard and mouse, every last mW. Surprised you lot don't do the same at this time of year. Its actually easier to use the heat than not to. My problem is how to get rid of the unwanted heat in summer. If its really hot I have to turn on the air co. and dump it outside.

I'll tell you how I do it in return for a donation to a charity or your choice.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Rossi needs an overall COP of 25 (including the controller) to compete against gas heating, as I showed earlier.

It is easy enough to pick up the heat from the controller by passing the coolant over the controller first.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Well my bet is now closed. As forecast not a single taker.

It shows the babblers don't really believe what the write but just want to write insults about Rossi. You see this kind of nonsense from anonymous posters on most media comments, analogous to the "breakers: in Paris.

We have a pretty sick society these days.

Adrian,

You are a real piece of work.

Quote from Roseland67

[All energy production converts mass to energy.]

Solar?

Does light have mass?

You misunderstand. The production of solar energy causes the sun to lose mass. It loses roughly 4 million tons per second. The mass does not transfer to the light; it vanishes.

All energy production systems convert mass to energy. When your car drives or your alarm clock rings, they get a little lighter.

(The sun also loses mass as solar wind, but that is a different story.)

Quote from interested observer

Congratulations for the pedantic comment of the week.

It is not pedantic. It is basic relativity, but many people appear to be unaware of it.

Some of the people here are confused about this. As you see, Roseland67 thought that mass-energy conversion adds mass to light. InterestedObserver thought that "mass conversion for conventional energetic processes is trivial" whereas it is somehow significant for nuclear processes. That is incorrect. It is exactly the same for both.

In not so dense space ..it is basic relativity..

but in dense space the concept of mass/energy is a bit different

Key for understanding the new model of physics is the fact, that in dense space there is no independent time dimension.

time dimension. There is also no gravitating mass. All mass is given by rotating magnetic-flux or stored energy in fields.

Wyttenbach-Mills

https://www.researchgate.net/p…r-and-particle-physics-20

Quote from JedRothwell

It is not pedantic. It is basic relativity, but many people appear to be unaware of it.

It is pedantic because the mass conversion for conventional energetic processes is trivial whereas for nuclear processes it is an essential characteristic. But enjoy your relativity brownie points.

conventional energetic processes is trivial

the division of nuclear and conventional processes is blurred at the atomic level

For example gold is gold because of relativity and is said to increase its outer electron mass m rather than exceed c.

https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/…l-properties-of-gold.html

1. Italo R. December 10, 2018 at 3:34 PM

   Dear Dr. Rossi,

   I have written a summary of some information about the E-cat that I’ve collected so far, and I’ve put it on this page:

   https://www.facebook.com/group…rmalink/2531247996891089/

   All I have written reflects only my opinions that don’t necessarily coincide with the reality. But it is only a fruit of my enthusiasm.

   I hope I have been sufficiently precise and impartial and did not say too much “cavolate”.

   If you do not want to post this link on JONP, please ignore this message, thank you.

   Kind Regards,

   Italo R.

2. Andrea Rossi December 10, 2018 at 6:49 PM

   Italo R.:

   Thank you for your enthusiasm and for your kind attention to the work of our team,

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

Quote from interested observer

It is pedantic because the mass conversion for conventional energetic processes is trivial whereas for nuclear processes it is an essential characteristic.

No, it is an essential characteristic of all energy producing systems. The amount of energy lost per joule is the same for all systems. Furthermore, there is no aspect of engineering a nuclear system that calls for attention to the mass-energy balance. Even the largest nuclear reactor or nuclear bomb loses only a tiny amount of mass, and that loss has no impact on the performance of the device.

In other words, a 1 GW gas fired electric generator loses exactly as much mass as a 1 GW nuclear reactor. The lost mass from both is so tiny, it cannot be measured and it has no impact on the reactor performance.

Here is a good description of what Jed and IO are talking about.

http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mo…ed-in-chemical-reactions/

“In nuclear reactions (changes to the nucleus of atoms), there is enough energy released or absorbed that the change in mass is significant and must be accounted for. In contrast, chemical reactions (changes to only the electrons in atoms) release or absorb very little energy compared to nuclear reactions, so the change in mass of the system is often so small that it can be ignored.”

What I said.