Just one hint: If the spectrum is correct it shows several maxima around 310nm. (around 4eV) They are in good agreement with Ag I first states...
Rossi ECat SK Demo Discussion


Just one hint: If the spectrum is correct it shows several maxima around 310nm. (around 4eV) They are in good agreement with Ag I first states...
Unfortunately, about 330 nm is as short a wavelength as is shown.

Just like in the Sun ; a larger volume will mean a higher photon flux through the surface. This will be a major reason why the Ballerina requires 14 shade protection ; same type that is required for looking at an eclipse.
Right. So all the power radiates from the surface area, not the volume.

I'm definitely not an expert either.
But how do you know how small the angle of the sample is? And without knowing how small the angle is, what good does integrating the spectrum do?
Let's suppose that this was not a spectrophotometer in use at all .... just something that measured the intensity of the light across some radiation band. That would basically give you the same information as integrating the spectrum given by a spectrophotometer. Yet you still would not be able to calculate power unless you knew what proportion of the overall energy of the SK was entering the aperture of the device.
Does it really matter? I mean, at all?
Say you find that is a Rossi animation,
then what? You’re not going to convince a single person on Planet Rossi, not one.
The acolytes will squirm in their chairs, wring their hands, gnash the teeth until some intrepid soul comes up with another steaming raft of turd excuse to pile on the already Mt. Vesuvius like growth.
Then they will all convince themselves that this is what their master truly intended.
Akland I can understand, he’s like a professional wrestling promoter, he has a vested interest in people believing the Ecat and Rossi are real, but all of the other lemmings, I just cannot comprehend.

And yet there are posts and endless analyses of a nondescript bright light because the fraudmeister says it is a magnificent gadget. Somewhere along the way Darwin did not prevail.


Somewhere along the way Darwin did not prevail.
Well,
in the words of the immortal Judge Smales,
“The world needs ditch diggers too”.

Akland I can understand, he’s like a professional wrestling promoter, he has a vested interest in people believing the Ecat and Rossi are real, but all of the other lemmings, I just cannot comprehend.
Frank has ran his blog almost every
day for eight years by himself.
I admire his endurance.

I think this will be the pattern for the next year:
Dear Dr Rossi,I don’t understand your answers, probably because I don’t know which answer applies to you which question.
I will rephrase them numbering the questions:
1. Who is imposing the NDA, a) your company or b) the customers?
2. In case the answer to 1. Is b). Can a customer disclose they are using your product if they decide so?
3. What are the terms of the NDA? (In general)
4. Is the total COP of the apparatus part of the NDA?
5. If the answer to 4. Is yes, why has this inclosed in the NDA? (not being the COP intellectual property)
6. From your statement I understand that you have been contacted from America, EUrope, Cina, Russia and Africa after the presentation. Can you tell us how many contracts are currently being discussed?
Kind Regards,
Lib
Andrea Rossi
February 6, 2019 at 12:37 PMLib:
1 a+b
2 yes
3 confidential
4 confidential
5 n.a.
6 enough
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Frank has ran his blog almost every
day for eight years by himself.
Frank was a good choice to cohost the SK presentation. Tom Florek, of the comedy team: "Tom and Doug Radio Show", probably did not help add a sense of gravitas to the occasion though. The duo did a Rossi interview years ago, and wrote a song about it. Rossi likes to work with those he feels comfortable with, but come on...this was supposedly the introduction to a world changing technology.
I would imagine even Tom, was wondering why the hell he was invited there.

Frank has ran his blog almost every
day for eight years by himself.
I admire his endurance.
So do I, and I have told him so, but,
If he wasn’t making $, would he still run it?
Not sure.


Right. So all the power radiates from the surface area, not the volume.
Nice try, but no. The power radiates from the volume, then through the surface area.
On another note ; I just discovered that the video gives the dimensions of the cylinder that contains the plasma: 10cm tall by 10cm across.
But this is incompatible with my measurement of the Ballerina on a sixteen inch diagonal video screen, where I measured the Ballerina to be 16cm tall. How can the Ballerina be taller than the cylinder that contains the plasma? So something is amiss methinks. Yet by happy coincidence, my ad hoc Ballerina dimensions of 8cm by 4cm fit inside the cylinder. The true size of the Ballerina is now somewhat of a mystery. Perhaps it is indeed around 8cm by 4cm, and I'm psychic.

Nice try, but no. The power radiates from the volume, then through the surface area.
On another note ; I just discovered that the video gives the dimensions of the cylinder that contains the plasma: 10cm tall by 10cm across.
But this is incompatible with my measurement of the Ballerina on a sixteen inch diagonal video screen, where I measured the Ballerina to be 16cm tall. How can the Ballerina be taller than the cylinder that contains the plasma? So something is amiss methinks. Yet by happy coincidence, my ad hoc Ballerina dimensions of 8cm by 4cm fit inside the cylinder. The true size of the Ballerina is now somewhat of a mystery. Perhaps it is indeed around 8cm by 4cm, and I'm psychic.
I see what has happened; the narration would be referring to the size of the Ballerina when the video screen has 6 different images on it, not when the Ballerina is full screen. (It happened to be full screen when the narrator described the dimensions, so that fooled me.) So, measuring the Ballerina as one of 6 different images on a 16 inch diagonal screen, the Ballerina is about 8.5 cm tall, so my ad hoc Ballerina dimensions are about correct.

This plasma power supply is very similar in functionality to the one in the video.

OK. I just went to the video at http://ecatskdemo.com/vidRaw.html
At about the 17 minute mark the narrator starts talking about the Ballerina dimensions. If the 'screen' is 16 inches the Ballerina will be actual size. My screen is bigger so I made sure the diagonal of the video player screen was 16 inches. I just measured the height of the Ballerina with my ruler and she is 16 cm.
Now let's do a very conservative calculation for the power output of the Ballerina. No spectrometer, no blackbody assumptions, no emissivity assumptions.
Let's say that the Ballerina is only 8cm tall and 4cm across, and is roughly cylindrical.
What is the volume of the Ballerina? The formula for the volume of a cylinder is
πr^2h ; This yields a volume of π*2^2*8 =~ 100cm^3
What is the volume of a candle flame? Let's say such a flame is about 2cm high and 1cm across at the base and is roughly conical in shape. The formula for such a volume is
πr^2*h/3 ; This yields a volume of π*(.5)^2*2/3 =~ .5cm^3.
So the Ballerina has about 200 times the volume of a candle flame.
Most of the energy of light of a candle is in the infrared ; let's assume a candle photon has an average wavelength of 1000nm. Let's assume a Ballerina photon has an average wavelength of 500nm. So the average photon energy of the Ballerina is 2 times that of a candle. Let's assume that the average photon density of the Ballerina to be the same as a candle flame.
A candle flame gives off roughly 50 watts of power. Given the above conservative estimates, the Ballerina is giving off 50 Watts * 200 * 2 = 20kW of power.
Again, the Ballerina is giving off roughly 20kW of power. This is consistent with what Rossi is claiming.
Mark: that fact alone might give you reason to check your assumptions.
(1) comparison with candle is wrong: candles emit a lot of light in infrared and are very inefficient (visible light cf power in) when compared with fluorescent discharge. Your assumption that the same volume density of photons is emitted in the two cases is just wrong.
(2) light output of a flame or plasma scales with surface area not volume if the flame or plasma is opaque (interior emission is in thermal equilibrium with absorption) . So your 200X factor would scale down to 34 (2/3 power).

Wow: I just watched the "demo" video. Why are we even dicussing this?


Wow: I just watched the "demo" video. Why are we even dicussing this?
A warped sense of fun? Nothing else to do? A genuine scientific enquiry into just how much crap some people will believe?
You choose.

Wow: I just watched the "demo" video. Why are we even dicussing this?
Boredom? Tradition? Stupidity? To feel superior?
Pretty sure at least one person is just operating on a Pavlovian level at this stage.

I think this will be the pattern for the next year:
Dear Dr Rossi,I don’t understand your answers, probably because I don’t know which answer applies to you which question.
I will rephrase them numbering the questions:
1. Who is imposing the NDA, a) your company or b) the customers?
2. In case the answer to 1. Is b). Can a customer disclose they are using your product if they decide so?
2 yes
Good to know the customer can
disclose they use the ECat SK.

Wow: I just watched the "demo" video. Why are we even dicussing this?
Didn’t I just say this?

Mark: that fact alone might give you reason to check your assumptions.
(1) comparison with candle is wrong: candles emit a lot of light in infrared and are very inefficient (visible light cf power in) when compared with fluorescent discharge. Your assumption that the same volume density of photons is emitted in the two cases is just wrong.
Non sequitur. While of course it is true that fluorescent tubes are much much better emitters in the visible (and poor in the infrared; about exactly the opposite of a candle), this says nothing about the density of photons in a candle flame vs the ballerina. It's a reasonable assumption that the photon density of the two are comparable. There is no basis for you to say it is "just wrong".
(2) light output of a flame or plasma scales with surface area not volume if the flame or plasma is opaque (interior emission is in thermal equilibrium with absorption) . So your 200X factor would scale down to 34 (2/3 power).
No. It scales with volume, because the volume is where the exothermic combustion reaction occurs for candles. The emission from this volume will equal the emission through the surface, and *this* is the equilibrium you seem to be referring to. I say 'seem' , because your strange use of the term 'absorption' has me wondering you are proposing that a candle emits as much as it absorbs. But that would be ridiculous wouldn't it. Alternatively you may be conflating this with blackbody lingo, where a perfect blackbody is as perfect an absorber as it is an emitter. But of course that doesn't mean a perfect blackbody actually emits the same amount that it absorbs, does it?
So: because your reasoning fails, why not fall back to the normal kind of assumption for skeptics, namely that Rossi is lying. Specifically he would need to be lying or mistaken about at least one of three things:
1) The size of the Ballerina
2) The brightness and emission of the Ballerina, such that one requires shade 14 eye protection.
3) The insubstantial (nearly zero) power going into the ECat SK.
After all is said and done, at this point it comes down to a matter of assumptions. Chose your assumptions carefully.
