Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

  • OK ... I think this is my most serious complaint about Smith's report (Supplemental)
    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/01/252-05-Exhibit-E.pdf


    One little detail : how do you explain water, at 0 barg (atmospheric), reaching a temperature of 104F ?

    In my opinion, 104F is by definition super-heated steam.

    Maybe you mean 104degCelsius rather than 104degFahrenheit?

  • "How about presenting counter-arguments only when somebody makes an argument in the first place?" Wait, that would destroy Kev's, JThomas, and Sifferkoll's raison d'etre. Next you will be asking for evidence to support their, and Rossi's, claims -- you are so unreasonable.

    Oh sure, because Interested Observer did such a magnificence when he said his comments aren't intended to further science on that replications thread, among other things./s Of course it comes to no surprise that you would be defending him. Did you defend him like this when he started blowing chunks on that other thread?

  • Plasma radiation


    There is a difference in opinion if you can treat the plasma as a black body or not.

    So I want to address this subject in this post.


    Basically a plasma can be considered to be a thin plasma or a thick plasma.

    In a thin plasma radiation from the inside of a plasma can (almost) without obstruction radiate out of the plasma.

    For a thick plasma almost all radiation in the inside is blocked (By the particles in the plasma) to flow to the outside.

    From a plasma spectrum you can see which part of the frequency range must be considered "thin: and which must be considered "thick".

    See the following figure :





    In the part of the spectrum where you see the high discrete lines the plasma is thin for those frequencies, where the spectrum is more continuous the plasma can be considered as being thick.

    If we now look at the spectrum during the SK demonstration, we can see that the plasma can be considered thick in the range of 350 - 425 nm. Outside this range we see on the left side the high single peaks where the plasma is thin for the radiation.


    The temperature of a plasma is due to the movement (speed) of the particles in the plasma.

    The speed distribution can be considered to have a Maxwellian distribution.

    Based on this a representatative equivalent temperature can be measured.

    (The plasma temperature)


    In case almost all radiated energy is coming from the thick part of the plasma and if one assumes the radiation from the thick plasma to be uniform from the surface of the plasma then integrating the radiation over all frequencies and all directions of the hemisphere yields the following formula for the total radiation from the thick plasma :


    J = σ T4


    This is equal to the Stefan-Boltzmann law of a black body.

    The conclusion is then that in order to calculate the energy flow from a thick plasma you can consider that plasma as being a black body.


    See for the theory the book "Plasma Physics and Engineering" by Alexander Fridman and Lawrence A.Kennedy from which i gathered the above information.


  • LDM


    Absolutely - in fact it has been said before here. If Rossi's plasma were optically opaque at all frequencies then it could be treated (from the outside) as a black body and Rossi's calculations make sense. But it looks like, and behaves like, an electric discharge system, as used to drive the fluorescence in CFLs, and that is not in thermal equilibrium and very very different. We cannot actually determine which it is, since that (surprise, surprise) depends on details like the internal bulb operating pressure and composition that we do not know. I doubt there is enough evidence from the demos even to guess this, but someone more expert and/or with more energy than me might try.

  • Oh sure, because Interested Observer did such a magnificence when he said his comments aren't intended to further science on that replications thread, among other things./s Of course it comes to no surprise that you would be defending him. Did you defend him like this when he started blowing chunks on that other thread?

    Meanwhile, we are all incredibly impressed by your hundreds of recent posts that are furthering science at a dizzying clip. Why would I even try to do that when you have it covered? Besides, in your capacity as self-appointed attack dog, you have disqualified me from doing something I have zero interest in doing. Woe is me.

  • What blackbody spectrum to these data? What temperature?


    P.S. Your diagram is schematic. Here is Bob Greenyer's superposition of 17 data grabs (supplied by can of this forum and Pekka Janhunnen: see http://disq.us/p/1zgv87d). What blackbody spectrum would you attach to this data set?


    The answer is simple.


    A thick plasma does not have a black body spectrum.

    From that the formula for calculating the energy of a thick plasma is the same as that for a black body you can not conlude that it has the same physical properties as that of a black body and thus that you can match a black body spectrum to that of a plasma.

  • A thick plasma does not have a black body spectrum.

    From that the formula for calculating the energy of a thick plasma is the same as that for a black body you can not conlude that it has the same physical properties as that of a black body and thus that you can match a black body spectrum to that of a plasma.


    I am having trouble following your reasoning. It seems to me to both contradict what you said earlier and even (in the final sentence) be self-contradictory. Could you restate it please?

  • I am having trouble following your reasoning. It seems to me to both contradict what you said earlier and even (in the final sentence) be self-contradictory. Could you restate it please?


    OK, Using the theory for plasma radiation , when calculating the power of a thick plasma, this leads to the formula for the thick plasma power of J = σ T4

    This is the same formula as for the power of a black body, but was not calculated assuming that the plasma was a black body, but is derived in another way


    Since the formula of the thick plasma power is the same as that of a black body, one can incorrectly assume that the thick plasma is a black body.

    But it isn't, only the formula for calculating the power is the same.

    And since the thick plasma doesn't have the properties of a black body. you can't match both temperature curves.




  • And true skeptopaths lack the courage to say what they mean and mean what they say, once they realize the other side is allowed to treat them the same way.

    Kevmo,


    Rossi’s Ecat has not now, or ever, produced more Energy Out than Energy In, he is a fraud and a conman.


    There, I said it, again, and I mean it.


    Now, as a believer, please reciprocate,

    Say it here and now that you believe that Rossi’s Ecat produces Energy Out>Energy In

    Don’t sit in a fence with your holier than thou demander of proof attitude, just

    Man Up, and tell us all what you believe.


    In lieu of an “I believe” I fully expect another psychological diatribe, so have at it.


  • In a thick plasma by definition the inner radiation is in thermal equilibrium with the ions, which themselves are in thermal equilibrium. There is relatively very little radiation from the outer edge, so the radiative characteristics are the same as for a black body. That is borne out by what you say, which is the power calculation equation is the same.


    The way to look at it is that you get direct (non-thermalised, non BB spectrum) radiation from the electrically pumped electron transitions in the ions. Then you get thermalised (BB) radiation from the non-pumped transitions. Nearly all the non-BB radiation gets absorbed and re-emitted as BB in a thick plasma. The radiation is not quite exactly BB since the plasma itself is not in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, but good enough.


    At least that is my understanding, and it shows why for example the sun radiates as a near black body.


  • Thanks for the re-explanation.


    This still leaves open, however, the issue of how you would use the Wien relation for Rossi's SK data. How would you do that?

  • Thanks for the re-explanation.


    This still leaves open, however, the issue of how you would use the Wien relation for Rossi's SK data. How would you do that?


    I wouldn't


    As outlined by others and looking at the spectrum, it is not dense for all frequencies.

    And I realy have no idea how much energy is involved in the thin part and the thick part.

    As such I have no idea if we can apply the Stevan-Boltzmann black body equation to the SK and how well it would fit the situation.

    Also we need the correct plasma temperature and I don't know if that was measured correctly.


    Only if Rossi would have explained why he could use the black body Stefan_Bolzmann law during his sales pitch we might have known more.

    But he is not very good in explaining the technical things he does, wether they work or not.


  • Meanwhile, we are all incredibly impressed by your hundreds of recent posts that are furthering science at a dizzying clip. Why would I even try to do that when you have it covered? Besides, in your capacity as self-appointed attack dog, you have disqualified me from doing something I have zero interest in doing. Woe is me.

    Standard deflection. You take the focus off you and onto someone else. Everyone can see that you disqualified yourself.

  • Why should I put forth a statement I don't believe? You're just trying to push me into a corner.. Y'all can't seem to figure out how to argue away the Fred Flinstone theory.


    When you say, "Rossi’s Ecat has not now, or ever,..." it is a statement of BELIEF. It is a CONCLUSION. If it were an established FACT then we'd all see it accepted as such in the Rossi vs. Darden case and Rossi would be in jail.


    Go ahead and SUPPORT your conclusion. It would mean that he faked Focardi, Celani, Levi, the Swedes, IH and others. Some of those scenarios seem plausible, others don't. For instance, it's not so plausible that he faked Focardi, or the Swedes who were involved in the Swedish Skeptics Society. It is not plausible that Levi was in on the fake. So , get your stories straight.


    We had a magnificence of an opportunity for IH to put this to rest one way or the other, and they failed to do so. FAILED. If it turns out that Rossi is a scam artist then the Swedes REALLY:failed us.


    All this Man Up horsehockey is just yet another way of trying to push aside the initial hypothetical. I addressed the hypothetical, y'all didn't and won't do. If ever there was someone who needed to man up, it is the Rossi Derangement Syndrome crowd.

  • When you say, "Rossi’s Ecat has not now, or ever,..." it is a statement of BELIEF. It is a CONCLUSION. If it were an established FACT then we'd all see it accepted as such in the Rossi vs. Darden case and Rossi would be in jail.

    It was a civil suit. No one goes to jail for that. People only go to jail in a criminal case.


    Go ahead and SUPPORT your conclusion.

    The documents from the lawsuit docket is the best proof there can be. If it does not convince you, nothing would. Even if Rossi had lost the trial, you would say it was a miscarriage of justice. Those documents are the only evidence that would have been presented at the trial. Nothing more convincing would have come out. * If you don't believe they show that Rossi is a fraud, and if you had been the jury, you would have decided in his favor.


    I think IH feared that several people like you might end up on the jury, so they settled. I would have settled. Also, because trying to get money out of Rossi would be like squeezing blood from a turnip.




    * As far as I know, judges seldom allow evidence that has not already been filed in the docket before the trial.

  • It was a civil suit. No one goes to jail for that. People only go to jail in a criminal case.

    ***People go to jail for perjury in civil suits. And that is what is being alleged. The burden of proof in a civil case is PREPONDERANCE of evidence, and IH couldn't even meet that burden to prove Rossi's fraud. The burden of proof in criminal cases is BEyond a REAsonable DOUBT. So if there isn't a preponderance of evidence of fraud in the civil case, then there sure as hell isn't a Beyond Reasonable Doubt level of evidence for Rossi's criminal fraud.








    The documents from the lawsuit docket is the best proof

    ***There you go again, using the word proof. Using OJ Simpson's c

    ourt cases as an example, there was legal proof of his crimes when he committed armed robbery but not murder. There was civil proof of him being 'responsible' for 2 deaths. That makes him an acquitted murderer.


    there can be. If it does not convince you, nothing would.

    ***It merely needed to convince a judge or jury. If it was as much of a slamdunk as you keep claiming it was, then IH would never have settled.


    I think IH feared that several people like you might end up on the jury, so they settled.

    ***Then that right there is where the burden of proof had failed. They didn't have a preponderance of evidence, even if you claim that a high schooler could see it. Surely the judge made it past high school and if she saw any evidence of fraud entered into the docket she would have referred it as a criminal matter. Judges are keen on not allowing criminal activity in their courtrooms.


    I would have settled.

    ***Then you need to stop using that word "proof".


    Also, because trying to get money out of Rossi would be like squeezing blood from a turnip.

    ***Then why did they try to squeeze his IP out of him, if it was so worthless?


    Even if Rossi had lost the trial, you would say it was a miscarriage of justice.

    ***No, not at all. In fact, that isn't what I've been saying, even on this forum. I've been saying I wanna know whether he's a fraud or he holds LENR in a box, one way or the other. So stop putting words in my mouth. We had a great opportunity to ferret out the situation one way or the other, between IH and the Swedes but those folks were all feckless.


    Those documents are the only evidence that would have been presented at the trial.

    ***And if they were such a slamdunk then IH would never have settled.

    i is a fraud, and if you had been the jury, you would have decided in his favor.

    ***You obviously haven't been following what I have written. If I were on the jury then I would have been dismissed like all the other jurors.





    Nothing more convincing would have come out.

    ***Then quit saying it is PROOF. If anything, since Rossi has entered information into the docket under oath, there is PROOF that there isn't enough evidence to bring him up on charges of perjury. Legal PROOF.