https://pocketmags.com/us/skep…89787/why-e-cat-is-a-hoax
If anyone wants to know why the Ecat is a hoax, you can pay $3 and find out.
you can stop after reading this "unquestionable" "very strong" argument:
"As cold fusion was notoriously debunked by the scientific community in the 1990s..."
Adrian doesn’t answer questions.
But he sure knows how to hurl insults. He said logic was not one of my strong suits, so I may be wrong again. I just don't understand why insults of everyone else are ok but insults of Rossi are off limits. I guess they are sacrilegious.
you can stop after reading this "unquestionable" "very strong" argument:
"As cold fusion was notoriously debunked by the scientific community in the 1990s..."
Gio,
Not saying it can’t happen, just saying Rossi isn’t going to do it.
A customer like Adrian, one that will believe what he is told to believe and simply pay For something that doesn’t work.
Another blatant lie from a babbler that hasn't a shred of evidence to back it up.
As he just makes things up just to be insulting I wonder if anyone believes what he writes about Rossi. He doesn't believe what he writes himself or he would have taken my bet..
I can't recall that he has ever written anything worth reading.
Another blatant lie from a babbler that hasn't a shred of evidence to back it up.
As he just makes things up just to be insulting I wonder if anyone believes what he writes about Rossi. He doesn't believe what he writes himself or he would have taken my bet..
I can't recall that he has ever written anything worth reading.
Babble on, Adrian. Meet me here on 1. of April 2019. Ich bin mir sicher, das wir dann neue Infos über Rossi und seine bahnbrechende Erfindung haben werden. F8.
Another blatant lie from a babbler that hasn't a shred of evidence to back it up.
Adrian, if you applied the principle that you need a shred of evidence in order to make the assertions you constantly litter this place with, you would never post here again.
On Planet Rossi, Rossisays is evidence.
Rossisays® , Rossifarcial®, Rossifiction®, Rossicomedy®, Rossifusion®, Rossian®, Rossicated®, irrealistic® and "not indipendent"® are registered trademarks of moletrap.co.uk.
Some interesting comment on this thread from ECat World and a couple
of them from Mats Lewan.
Thx Sam for the link. I never read that ECW 
,and it is nice when our members keep us abreast of what is going on over there at our sister forum. Lewan said this, which I found interesting:
"As I understand the SK/QX model (essentially the same) according to Rossi's claims and to other testimonials, the fundamental difference from earlier E-Cat systems is that the reaction is triggered by electric/electromagnetic means instead of heating"
I believe there are some who believe that the earlier Ecats (LT's) used some EM trigger also? Could be wrong on that. I do recall a photo from Doral that showed something like that in the overhead, that someone pointed to as proof.
Triggering has always been part of Rossi's method. This is a much-enlarged image of a doodle on a notepad that was left on the workbench in Bondeno-Ferrara a long time ago, showing a sinusoidal wave 'chopped' to produce something like square-wave AC
.
Thank goodness Rossi was so foolish to leave his secret waveform drawn out for the photo....
LOL
Have they seen this in the Rossi Beleibers thread? They will want to add this waveform to their precise replication.
Thank goodness Rossi was so foolish to leave his secret waveform drawn out for the photo....
LOL
Good point. Reminds me of the Oct 28 2011 "Military Acceptance Test", where he left a copy of the agreement laying somewhere. Had the name crossed out, but easily read beneath was the NATO Colonel "Domeninco Favioranti". Do I have that right? You know this better than me. Funny how he does that though.
Good point. Reminds me of the Oct 28 2011 "Military Acceptance Test", where he left a copy of the agreement laying somewhere. Had the name crossed out, but easily read beneath was the NATO Colonel "Domeninco Favioranti". Do I have that right? You know this better than me. Funny how he does that though.
The question is, is the real waveform that we are being misdirected from, the opposite somehow, or is it orthogonal somehow? What relation (if any) does it have to do with the Stockholm waveform(s)?
The question is, is the real waveform that we are being misdirected from, the opposite somehow, or is it orthogonal somehow? What relation (if any) does it have to do with the Stockholm waveform(s)?
Para,
Sounds like SOP smoke and mirrors show from Rossi.
Typical ac running running thru some switch mode power supply’s making dc resulting in chopped up waveforms?
Is it simply due to harmonic content, or
What is he suggesting?
I think I recall at some point Rossi suggested that Brillouin's IP was stolen from him. Brillouin claim intellectual property over what they refer to as "Q Pulse", which could be produced with a chopped sine wave as presumably shown in the photo above.
http://brillouinenergy.com/documents/SRI_ProgressReport.pdf
Triggering has always been part of Rossi's method. This is a much-enlarged image of a doodle on a notepad that was left on the workbench in Bondeno-Ferrara a long time ago, showing a sinusoidal wave 'chopped' to produce something like square-wave AC
.
Yes. Doing this with the input waveform will allow Rossi to obtain clear positive results, and he used it for a long time, only resorting to additional methods when (eventually) he had proper RMS input measurement with the clamps all the right way round (another issue he is on record as getting wrong, which gives a X3 COP when using 3 phase power meters)!
Rossi is on record as stating that average-RMS (non-true RMS) ammeters and voltmeters are good to measure his chopped input power with. True only when waveforms are simusoidal. The error between true-RMS and average measurements means that with a highly chopped waveform the (real power) will be significantly higher than the power as calculated from RMS measurements. The more spiky the waveform, the higher the apparent COP. A factor is 2 is easy with any chopping. By having small duty cycles you can get up to a factor of 5-10 without much difficulty.
Whether you believe Rossi knew this was an error (and deliberately deceived his audience) or was just technically incompetent you can see that we have here proof that Rossi would have operated - for all the time he was measuring chopped input waveforms with average meters - an inbuilt guaranteed COP of > 2. It must have been an exciting time, lasting from his first experiments with "stimulus" till his Hydrofusion test debacle with Mats. And perhaps longer - Rossi did not accept at that time that Mats was right and he wrong.
Alan - you must admit that regardless of the situation now, when Rossi first used chopped input he would have been measuring with average meters and getting an in-built COP increase due to the chopping. There can therefore be no hint from his using this that there was some real COP increase at the same time: the pseudo-COP is compellingly large.
It's stimulus, Spock - but not stimulus as we know it...
Regards, THH
Have they seen this in the Rossi Beleibers thread? They will want to add this waveform to their precise replication.
If they replicate properly (including Rossi's original instrumentation and analysis) they will surely be able to get COP > 1. I could do it myself...
Why do you jeep repeating the same tired elementary story?
It doesn't explain early results like Levi seeing > 30 kW.
It doesn't explain how Rossi can make a profit selling heat from SK reactors for which a COP > 25 is required to make a profit.
