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

  • ele

    I agree a perfect plasma is a good conductor, however we are talking here of the Quarkx which by all accounts creates a plasma from a arc passing through a gas. Such a plasma relies on sustained imperfect conductivity to produce the required heat to form the plasma, hence the observation of dynamic negative resistance.
    Rossi however wants it both ways, the heat and light generated from a relatively high resistance of a sustained arc and the good conductivity of a near perfect plasma.
    If Gullstrom ever reads this forum, I hope he ignores any pressure from Rossi and measures what really matters, i.e. the input voltage.

  • ele

    I agree a perfect plasma is a good conductor, however we are talking here of the Quarkx which by all accounts creates a plasma from a arc passing through a gas. Such a plasma relies on sustained poor conductivity to produce the required heat to form the plasma, hence the observation of dynamic negative resistance.
    Rossi however wants it both ways, the heat and light generated from a relatively poor resistance of a sustained arc and the good conductivity of a near perfect plasma.
    If Gullstrom ever reads this forum, I hope he ignores any pressure from Rossi and measures what really matters, i.e. the input voltage.

    Just to remember: we still do not have any other information on Rossi's new toy dimensions (or maybe I have missed it): a little ca. 30mm long and 1mm diameter reactor stick, made of a revolutionary new material composition (no problem to run constantly at 2700°C), powered by...? How the hell can he ignite and control an arc, a hydrogen gas flow and a plasma reaction within this volume? I guess no one from the "external 3rd party experts" who will perform or be part of his independent test, won't be allowed to have a closer look at his "core technology" (my guess: covered by aluminum foil again) so his QuarkX reactor will remain a mystery and Rossisayz....until we see a product on the market ;-).

    No one of his followers seem to be interested in details or is asking him questions, all what matters is what he says and promises. Time will tell (btw: time tells since years, Dr. Rossi is now 67 and not so many years are left in order to celebrate, so he needs to hurry up with his product for mankind)

  • Levi is a mediocre and obscure faculty member at UniBo who is still an assistant professor, the lowest rank, after decades.

    Obscure? I think you've spent too much time on role-playing! It is clear that you do not know the Italian university system at all. Do you really think that all the assistants succeed in becoming professors? Do you think it takes only a few years for an advancement in Italian universities? You are talking about a world completly unknown for you (something that happens to you often) and you make insulting conclusions that show just how ignorant you are. But this no longer surprise anybody ......

  • Thus, there is no logical connection between hopes (what you would like to happen) and expectation (what you think likely to happen). I may hope to win a lottery first prize. I don't expect this.

    Given however you seem to think that Rossi's (much to be hoped for if real) claims are likely real, perhaps you confuse the two there as you have done in the above post.

    I know very well the difference between hopes and expectation, and in the case of Rossi they coincide perfectly. I hope his technology can be successful and I also expect this to happen. Obviously if you have prejudices against Rossi, you will do nothing but negatively interpret any news that concerns him. In this case you are unlikely to hope for his success while you foresee his fall. You hope Rossi will not be successful for not having to eat your words against him, so even in your case the hopes and expectation coincide.

  • As is wrote 7 years ago, I'll believe it when I see it, not before, and for the last 7 years I have seen nothing but sleight of hand crackpott, fake science and engineering.

    For seven years you've seen what you wanted to see. Rossi made several prototypes of his invention, made them be tested by experts who confirmed the good performance of his technology, lost time because of IH, which promised him money without ever really intending to give it to him, and now he is again on his own way that goes toward the presentation of an improved version of his E-Cat. Seven years are nothing if you think about how difficult it was to run it all, relying almost exclusively on his own strength. Anyway it's hard to believe you've been following this story for seven years if you think it's just "fake science": if it was really so, you would be disinterested to Rossi much earlier. When QuarkX will be a business reality, you will probably use a different nickname to write that you've always believed in Rossi.

  • Quote

    You are talking about a world completly unknown for you (something that happens to you often) and you make insulting conclusions that show just how ignorant you are. But this no longer surprise anybody ......

    OK, SSC. Kindly list Levi's accomplishments in science, not related to Rossi or the ecat or, for that matter, brewing coffee. Papers for example? Discoveries? Honors and awards?

  • him money without ever really intending to give it to him,

    SCC,

    You truthfully cannot say this in earnest! IH paid Rossi $11.5 MILLION dollars! What did IH get for the $11.5 MILLION dollars?

    Fake customer, fake test, fake engineer, fake heat exchanger, fake production, fake invoices. Even Rossi thinks the 1MW plant is not worth pursuing now! He has dropped it completely!


    Very interesting view indeed!

  • Ahlfors


    On the first item, Rossi is sixth author of nine. It's not clear what, if any, research he actually did on this method. As to the second item, it's been thoroughly and roundly discredited by many including IH. So that one is worthless. Also, it is not even published in a real journal! So in all these years, sixth author of nine and a personal and argued about internal technical report is all you come with. Some accomplishments for a learned professor at a major university.

  • And this from the same LHC document.


    • UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA, Physics Dept INFN Section of Bologna, viale Berti Pichat 6/2, 40127 Bologna, ITALY.
      S. Cecchini, (G. Giacomelli), M. Giorgini, G. Levi, A. Margiotta, N. Mauri, L. Pasqualini, L. Patrizii (Deputy Spokesman and Convenor of the NTD subdetector system), M. Pozzato, Z. Sahnoun, G. Sirri, M. Spurio, M. Tenti, V. Togo
  • I've just noticed that last week an updated (v3) version of Gullström-Rossi's paper got uploaded. It has slightly refined grammar and a couple changes in the description of the experiment in the appendix. Try to find the differences:


    https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05249


    No significant change in the relevant parts.


    Earlier experiment:


    Input: 0.105 V of direct current over a 1 Ohm resistance.


    Does not make sense, and does not indicate correct measurement of the voltage across the quarkx device - in fact it indicates the opposite.


    Later experiment:


    In the left in
    the figure there are two voltmeters that measure the mV of the current passing
    through the 1 Ohm brown resistance.


    Energy input: V=0.1 R=1 Ohm → W=0.01

    Again, more words, does not make sense electrically, but the same indication from the words that what is being measured is the power across a 1 ohm resistor, not the power in to the quarkx device.


    I've not been commenting on this paper more because the error in the experiments here was so obvious, and unchanged by all subsequent attempted justification, that to stay involved in a wrangle about it seemed to me a big waste of time. Should Gullstrom and Rossi wish this part of the paper to be taken seriously they could provide a proper description of the experiment, if that were possible. Until then this should be regarded as uninformative except as additional evidence that Rossi likes to publish misleading experimental data, defend this on his blog, and has fans very willing to be misled.

  • No one of his followers seem to be interested in details or is asking him questions, all what matters is what he says and promises.

    His followers know there will be a demo in October and after that there will be a chance to ask questions. What is the point of questioning each single detail of a test (as is often the case here) before the test is done? It is better to spend time in other ways, especially in the summer.

  • OK, SSC. Kindly list Levi's accomplishments in science, not related to Rossi or the ecat or, for that matter, brewing coffee. Papers for example? Discoveries? Honors and awards?

    I just told you that in Italian universities it takes years (and so many aids ...) to make a career and you ask me to quote "honors and awards"? As for the papers, they have been listed several times, but you have always gave them little consideration because you think that not being the sole author of an article means you do not have merit. Other proof that you don't know anything about the academic world.

  • []lost time because of IH, which promised him money without ever really intending to give it to him,

    You truthfully cannot say this

    Bob, Darden argued during the trial of never having considered Doral's test as the GPT. Despite this, he let the test run for the entire duration (which was scheduled for the GPT). Do you think that this attitude could be a proof that he was inclined to pay? Why Darden did not stop the test at the beginning knowing that he would have to pay at the end of it and considering that he did not agree with his performance? It is clear that the intention to pay has never existed.