Clearance Items

Quote from damn_right _man

Let me list my things at hand:

- Is it imagination, that he cancelled the latest presentation BUT in the same sentence told the world, that the device works ? If so, why not delay the
presentation instead of cancelling ?

The demo will be made in October, it could not be done before because Rossi had to deal with the litigation. It's a thing that takes time and resources, as everyone with some sense knows, so it was not possible to do it at that time.

Quote from damn_right _man

- Is it imagination, that we saw nothing but a silly pixeled violet glow coming from whatever bad smartphone cam where he wanted to "proof", that
he is still workoing on "something" ?

Rossi decided on a date for the demo, and on that occasion he will show his new device. There is no reason to show it in advance in detail, so the photo that he posted was just an information given in his blog for anyone interested in his work. He did not advertise on television, did not call journalists, he only updated those who followed him. If it did not satisfy you, you could write to Rossi and ask him more photos ... maybe a dear person like you would deserve a gift like this

Quote from damn_right _man

- Is it imagination, that ,let's say, two or three years before new years eve / christmas Rossi told the world, he has "major announcement" for the new year,

what simply resulted in telling us nonsense about "how nice it would be if all lanterns in a city are powered by ecats ? "

QuarkX is a revolutionary device: when Rossi discovered it, he was definitely very excited about his results, and any hint at that device was an important announcement.

Quote from damn_right _man

- Is it imagination, that this guy still continues to blate us all with something, he needs to prove since about at least 10 years now ?

Rossi has demonstrated that his technology works, so many tests have been done that confirmed it, starting with the words of Focardi until to the last test in Lugano. You've never seen an E-cat close up and yet you're sure it doesn't work because you want it to be so, and it's not enough 20 more tests to make you change your mind. If it is not imagination it is bad faith... call it how you want!

Original quote:

New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry)

Ele: Exactly my dear little girl, so it is useless to say that they are not making any replication, right?

Ele recent comment (a long way away from original):

Ele: OH MY GOD! Sexist?? Her name is Mary and I'm a sexist if I turn to her saying "girl"?! As for the insult, you never complained when so many people in this forum insulted Rossi very harshly, but you are indignant if I call someone "little girl". This thing says a lot about your objectivity and your ability to judge. That's why I don't care about your thoughts.

That comment shows the not so subtle twisting facts that is also found in your comments about Rossi here. Made without reference to the original quote that would show it up (also typical).

My dear little girl is patronising and sexist. Clearly. I'm not a fan of Political Correctness. For example I abhorred the acceptance of Prof Tim Hunt's resignation from Honourary Professorship at UCL, and the media storm condemnation of him, in spite of the fact that his remarks (about women in labs) were very silly and sexist. He was socially and psychologically gauche, and said the wrong thing betraying his own social inexperience. He apologised very fully, and his lacks thereof have nothing to do with his quality as a physicist. Only in a world swayed by transitory social media gossip would this have been a resigning matter.

Still your attitude is betrayed by your words, which are inappropriate, and belong 100 years in the past.

EDIT: substitute SSC for Ele in the above (I find it difficult to remember the difference)

Quote from THHuxleynew

Ele: Exactly my dear little girl, so it is useless to say that they are not making any replication, right?

Ele recent comment (a long way away from original):

Ele: OH MY GOD! Sexist?? Her name is Mary and I'm a sexist if I turn to her saying "girl"?! As for the insult, you never complained when so many people in this forum insulted Rossi very harshly, but you are indignant if I call someone "little girl". This thing says a lot about your objectivity and your ability to judge. That's why I don't care about your thoughts.

That comment shows the not so subtle twisting facts that is also found in your comments about Rossi here. Made without reference to the original quote that would show it up (also typical).

My dear little girl is patronising and sexist. Clearly.

TTH, put your mind at rest. First of all, the comment that shocked you so much was mine and not Ele's one. I also don't understand why you insist so much on this idea of the sexist comment ..... I wrote "little girl" and since you read it you find no more peace. If you really are such a sensitive spirit, you can begin to denounce all the real insults you read in this forum .... they are so many, but as they are told by some friends of yours they do not disturb you.

When someone have distributed the hypocrisy, you've put yourself in line twice, right?

Quote from damn_right _man

Do You know anybody, who saw some reliable results ?

And, btw, what is with the presentation, which was cancelled ?

All the authors of the articles that describe the various tests performed on the E-Cat (in Bologna, Ferrara, Lugano). You have chosen to ignore them because they deny your vision of things, but those words have been written, signed, and never denied. Regarding the presentation, it was canceled due to the litigation, and will now be done at the end of October. What is it that disturbs you so much?

Quote from maryyugo

No, SSC. The articles you cite all contain severe errors of method and none are truly independent of Rossi.

Where are the severe errors in this paper?

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

Be specific. List them.

You keep saying this, but you never give any specifics. I do not know of any severe errors in this paper. You don't either, or you would have listed them years ago.

HI guys, The Real Roger Barker here. I promise I will be on best behavior so please don't ban me.

I have much to discuss now that I'm back. We're all excited about Rossi's QuarkX coming up no doubt.

Quote from maryyugo

No, SSC. The articles you cite all contain severe errors of method and none are truly independent of Rossi. And Levi. THAT is why they are rejected... by most of the world's entire scientific establishment that thought they were even worth a quick look.

"most of the world's entire scientific establishment" ..... wow !! Maybe I missed a few comments .... Did NASA criticize Lugano's work? The smartest minds of MIT have released press releases in which they show their disdain for that TPR? Nature has dedicated the first page to that terrible Italian-Swedish article? Mary, you're climbing the mirrors ....... Lugano's article has been downloaded by so many people, that's true, but it has been posted on the internet, it has not had a world resonance, as you would like to believe, so it can not be rejected as you say. Many people spend a good part of their time criticizing Rossi and everything that had been written and said about his devices, but the truth is that people who have been able to test the E-Cat have expressed very positive opinions while those who criticize it have not never seen it and spits judgments on the internet. It is easy to understand who is more credible .....

Quote from JedRothwell

Where are the severe errors in this paper?

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

Be specific. List them.

You keep saying this, but you never give any specifics. I do not know of any severe errors in this paper. You don't either, or you would have listed them years ago.

Display More

Jed, I'll comment briefly on this. If you want more it should be on a proper thread.

The March test is to be considered an improvement over the one performed in December, in that
various problems encountered in the first experiment were addressed and solved in the second
one. In the next test experiment which is expected to start in the summer of 2013, and will last about
six months, the long term performance of the E-Cat HT2 will be tested. This test will be crucial
for further attempts to unveil the origin of the heat phenomenon observed so far.

[report p28]

Therefore I'll restrict my comments to the March test, since this was considered less problematic by the authors. The COP here is lower (3 vs 8). Unexpected for a later iteration of new technology. Expected if the original COP was inflated due to errors at least partially corrected by the efforts alluded to in the above para.

The March test has one (obvious) interpretive error and one unchecked measurement that would neatly explain the data.

• The interpretative error comes from plot 8 and the comment previous to it about the temperature not following a typical exponential decay curve. That is based on the assumption that there is a single thermal time constant between the heater and the temperature measurement. In a more realistic distributed heat capacity system you would expect exactly the form of curve seen, as material in between the heat source and the sensor heats and cools.
• The unchecked measurement comes form the input power measurement. 3 phase power is susceptible to mis-measurement in a number of simple ways. For example, from having a single clamp reversed, or a conflation of phase power with total power. Both these errors deliver X1/3 error on input side that would nicely generate the COP=3 found in the March test.

Some indirect evidence that the report authors considered this error mode possible can be found from the subsequent Lugano test, where power was measured on both input and output of the control box. And the conditions of the March test, unchecked, make such errors very possible.

Also worth noting that the 6 month test considered crucial has been comprehensively shown to deliver COP ~ 1 by multiple followups both theoretical (TC) and experimental (MFMP). The slightly qualified nature of the MFMP comment is explained by an erroneous assumption they made that I documented on a previous thread (they broke the Optris device and then assumed that emissivity/temp relationship was always exponent 3 when in fact as I showed from the Optris software - which incorporates the affect of emissivity on the camera-given radiances - it varies as expected theoretically according to Planck curve). The data from their actual experiment supports COP ~ 1 and is very close to the theoretical results from TC.

Looked at as a whole this sequence of apparently better validated tests (two Ferrara + Lugano) from Rossi + Fabioni + the Swedes has a resoundingly negative result, with the additional information that the Swedes are shown to be susceptible to interpretative errors that inflate COP.

Quote from damn_right _man

WOW, You are no halfgod, You are god and one half....

.... following Your logic, I COULD admit:

I believe in the flat earth, which is ruled by reptilioid-humanoid-hybrids, because thousands of people, which I never met, says so and present a lot of evidence in the www.

... guess, why I do not...

You're talking about stupid sites on the internet, I was referring to articles written by university professors. But you think they are the same thing, and that says a lot about you .....

Quote from damn_right _man

... No, only You.

BTW, who is any "not real Roger Barker" ???

There have been people impersonating me on forums hence why I call myself "The Real Roger Barker"

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

There have been people impersonating me on forums hence why I call myself "The Real Roger Barker"

How does that help? An impersonator could just as easily call himself "The Real Roger Barker" as anything else.

I suppose the only way to avoid impersonation is to establish an unquestionable identity in the real world that anyone can confirm. For example, you can create a web and put your name, address and telephone number at the bottom of each page, like this:

http://lenr-canr.org/

Various high tech proposals for establishing a fool-proof online identity have been proposed, based on trapdoor mathematical functions, but I do not think they have been widely implemented.