Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

  • “You cannot tell from a video whether the central heating is on.”


    True enough. Of course, from all you can tell from the slick video, the magnificent blue box could easily be in a bathroom in one of Rossi’s condos. Can you prove otherwise?

    Coincidentally, the (very ordinary) floor tiles visible in the e-catSK live-stream look pretty much the same as the ones from a picture which Fabiani has on his Google+ profile site (and which was most most likely taken in a Rossi owned Miami Beach condo).

    https://plus.google.com/114854150822705215905

  • One of them is performing right now promoting this idea that Rossi purposely made a dreadful presentation: see Atom-Ecology (post #1777)


    As I said above, I think he might have purposely made a dreadful presentation because this is the internet Nigerian scammer technique. It filters out false positives.


    There may be other reasons to put on a dreadful presentation. Here are two:


    1. Before the internet became popular, Jim Patterson put on a dreadful presentation because he wanted to filter out everyone but Motorola. He wanted to keep the development small and unknown to the general public, so that he could get a 100% market share. That's what he later told me. That did not work. That demo was in a hotel next to Disneyland, an appropropriate venue.


    2. It may be that Rossi is incompetent and he cannot even use PowerPoint. Or he sees no reason to use PowerPoint. Some elderly scientists did not use it even into the 21st century. They insisted on writing things on a blackboard or display screen. As I said, years ago some academic scientists felt that a real professor does not use PowerPoint.

  • So let's replicate his precious SK and build a robot factory to knock them out and sell 'em to anyone who wants to save the planet by halving their heating bills........all the patents on this are a bunch of crap anyway (repitition, repitition, repitition) so nothing would stand up in court even if any of the patent-holders tried to sue. We need a more revolutionary attitude to boot this LENR technology into public use.

    why don't you start with say Papp, Mayers, Shoulders, Chernetskiy, D.Smith and whatever urban myth replication first? Is it the fact Rossi is still alive that makes it more credible for you? That might change any time.

  • Perhaps this composite image or the resultant from showing the average could show something different for those with more knowledge in the subject on plasma emission lines.


    It's hard to make out, but the mean of (almost) all photospectrometer screengrabs from the video looks like this, after some visual enhancement (scaled-only version also attached):





    Commands used:


    Shell-Script
    1. [email protected]:~/Videos> ffmpeg -i Ecat\ SK\ demonstration-ckWuUdgqG3w.mp4 -filter:v "crop=391:253:7:200" -an -r 1/5 ./skdemo/out%05d.jpg
    2. [email protected]:~/Videos> convert out*.jpg -evaluate-sequence mean resultant-mean.png


    Resources:

  • One of them is performing right now promoting this idea that Rossi purposely made a dreadful presentation: see Atom-Ecology (post #1777)


    Where does it say that?


    Rossi's recent revelations were very adroit with regard to gifting some quite useful hints and direction to his peers who are practicioners in the art. At the same time the form of his revelations were sure to frustrate and perplex his peanut gallery or is that just his 'nut' gallery. I believe he provided more than sufficient detail for one 'skilled in the art' to recreate his SK 'plasma discharge' reactor design. It derives from and builds upon a good body of related experimental evidence from the decades of cold fusion. I expect to have some atom-ecology apparatus and fuels ready to test in a similar fashion in short order. Stay tuned.

  • Yes I agree there are specific instances of high COP's but there must be some average consensus of what is practically possible - and that can only come from studying all the work that has been done over the last 30 yrs or so - barring the obvious frauds of course.


    As I said, that is incorrect because those COPs have no diagnostic or scientific significance. What you call a COP can easily be increased, or decreased. It is the ratio of input to output power. Researchers make no effort to reduce input power. They could easily do that, by turning down electrolysis power, moving the electrodes closer together, or insulating the cell. They don't do that because it serves no purpose. On the contrary, these steps would interfere with the experiment, reducing the quality and precision of the data. Input power is stable and easy to measure with precision, down to the milliwatt, so you can subtract it. Results with 500 mW of input electrolysis have no more noise than gas loaded experiments with zero input power.


    What is "practically possible" has no connection to what you are calling the COP. Which, incidentally, is a misnomer. This is not a COP. That term only applies to heat pumps and refrigerators. In a heat pump the input power produces the temperature difference and determines the efficiency at a given temperature difference. The input power in cold fusion does not trigger the effect, or control it. Most researchers think that output is not a function of input, the way it is with a heat pump, amplifier or transistor. Except insofar as input power raises the temperature and this in turn might trigger the effect. You can accomplish the same thing with a resistance heater or laser, and you can change it anytime, improving the COP, by adding insulation. Some researchers think that in some circumstances, current density can trigger or regulate output. If that is true then input power does have a controlling effect, but even so it could easily be reduced, which would increase the COP to any arbitrary number you like.


    Along the same lines, a cell with no input power, and an infinite COP, is no indication that the effect might be made practical. It is not promising. On the contrary, it may mean there is no clear way to control the effect, or modulate it. That's a bad thing.

  • Note that Director, who desperately wants to have endless discussions about things on his terms, completely ignores direct questions about what he actually saw in the Rossi charade and continues with his imaginary world diatribes. Figures.

    This is SOP for Rossi acolytes.


    On ECW they are now discussing the positive effect the Ecat will have on vertical farming.

    They absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that even tho there is and has never been a product or a customer,

    the supposed “inventor”, is a con man,

    every demo has failed, that the Ecat will save humanity.


    It is beyond amazing to me that people can be this gullible as to believe this drivel.

  • [One of them is performing right now promoting this idea that Rossi purposely made a dreadful presentation:]


    Where does it say that?


    The part where Russ says, "At the same time the form of his revelations were sure to frustrate and perplex his peanut gallery or is that just his 'nut' gallery. " I take that to mean something like: this was a dreadful presentation because Rossi wants to frustrate and perplex his opponents. He does not want to be believed, except by a small number of people.


    If that is the case, and Rossi is putting on an unconvincing, unprofessional presentation to frustrate and perplex people, then his strategy resembles Patterson's. I can't rule that out. I can't rule it in either; I don't know what to make of Rossi. I know that was Patterson's strategy because he told me it was.


    I am surprised that Russ believes Rossi's demonstration has merit. He apparently thinks Rossi's claims may be true. Or maybe he is sure the claims are true? If I were you, I would lose faith in Russ for that reason. I think it shows that his technical judgement and his knowledge of science is deficient.

  • every demo has failed, that the Ecat will save humanity.

    It is beyond amazing to me that people can be this gullible as to believe this drivel.


    I agree. It is depressing. I quibble with "every demo" because -- as I have often said -- the first Levi tests appeared to work. But the subsequent tests were so bad, I think those results are now buried in lies, confusion and incompetence. You cannot draw any conclusions from them.

  • I have also posted this at e-catworld.com

    Like many of you, I was terribly disappointed by the demo. It was an amateurish bad joke. I feel it may have hurt, not helped Rossi’s cause.


    A good thing I can say about it is that it seems we are gleaning a little good info from it. Most importantly the plasma similarities with SAFIRE and SunCell that Axil has
    pointed out.


    As an experimental approach, I suggest using standard, off-the-shelf laboratory equipment and glassware (even a standard bell jar) to
    contain/control a mounted anode and cathode. Pump down and then flush/fill the chamber with argon to slightly positive pressure. Experiment with power supply
    and control to establish a steady state plasma that looks/behaves similar to what we have seen in the SK. Up to this point no LENR, SR or excessive heat is
    expected. Add SR shielding and detection and add eye protection (welder’s glass). Start introducing small/trace amounts of hydrogen (I suggest in the
    form of water as dusty plasma experimenters have done in the past). Look for changes, adjust power/control, search for natural self-oscillation operating points
    and encourage, add more H, etc… If/when LENR occurs, it will be obvious with increased light/heat levels. Until we can get it to that point, there is no need
    to worry about thermalization or heat extraction.


  • I suppose the basic problem is that we have no basic consensus of how well any LENR device is likely to perform - all we have to go on is all that has been published over the years at ICCF meetings, all the literature and come up with some kind of scientific overview - IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ACCEPTANCE OF ANY OF IT BY THE MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY! All I can figure is that an energy out/energy in of 2 sounds reasonable based on all recent work - the basic lower limit of what can be expected if you like. All I am saying, like Director, is that if we can replicate AR's E-cat, show that it does indeed have a COP of around 2 as we expect to find, then we can go to the next level - CONVINCE THE MAINSTREAM that LENR WORKS! IE PUBLISH the data in a mainstream journal AND ESTABLISH THE FACT ONCE AND FOR ALL.

  • Dr Richard: the real basic problem is that whatever LENR actually is, there is NO REASON to believe that Rossi's charade has anything whatsoever to do with it. If you want to replicate the E-cat, build yourself a blue box and put doodads on the top. You will have then succeeded in accomplishing as much as Rossi.

  • You are probably right - maybe leave the E-cat and his blue box of tricks to Rossi - the reactor design is just not appropriate for generating the optimum performance in terms of plasma double-layers etc anyway. There are much better designs to test.

  • I am confused at how a "peak" in the spectrum of a non blackbody thing can be used to calculate its thermal output.


    oldguy

    the Plank function describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a BlackBody when it is in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature.

    Just in this case (BB) the area under the curve (the integral, in dλ) is proportional to σ*T4 and a calculation based on SB has sense.


    The spectrum of Can's picture (spectrum like that of selective emitter, that means absolutely a non-BB) is not a Plank function, it needs to be integrate in λ as is in order to get his real radiant emittance, a calculation based on SB is a completely meaningless.

  • IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ACCEPTANCE OF ANY OF IT BY THE MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY!


    All of the major cold fusion researchers were distinguished members of the mainstream scientific community, such as the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and so on. If they had not been mainstream, they never would have been funded. All of the papers in mainstream journals went through rigorous peer-review. More rigorous than usual, according the editors, reviewers and authors I have heard from. Cold fusion is entirely mainstream physics. So is the rejection of it, unfortunately. The people who reject it know nothing about it, so I would not call that physics. It is academic politics.


    All I can figure is that an energy out/energy in of 2 sounds reasonable based on all recent work - the basic lower limit of what can be expected if you like.


    It is not reasonable. The ratio is not a valid criterion. You might as well select based on for the color of the glassware or the number of stories in the laboratory building. The ratio has no effect on any of the conventional parameters used to establish the validity of an experimental claim, such as signal to noise ratio, or the number of independent replications. If you are going to judge by this ratio, then you would have to say experiments with heat after death and gas loading with no input power have an infinite ratio, so they are infinitely persuasive. They cannot be doubted or disproved. That is absurd.


    Also, I have no idea where you got the number 2 from recent work, or what makes you think it sounds reasonable, given that a lot of recent work has no input power. You should say "infinity is a reasonable number." No, it isn't. It means nothing.


    IE PUBLISH the data in a mainstream journal AND ESTABLISH THE FACT ONCE AND FOR ALL.


    This was done hundreds of times. It did convince many people, but not others. The ones who are not convinced have never published any critiques describing why they are not convinced. I do not think they have any rational reasons, but I cannot read minds, so I don't know for sure.


    Here are two papers that establish the fact once and for all. I suggest you read them and see if you agree. If you do not agree, why do you think they are deficient? Do you know of any paper by a skeptic that shows errors or doubts about these papers? If you do not know of any critiques, and you yourself find no errors, then you have no basis to challenge my assertion that these papers "establish the fact once and for all."


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf