Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

  • can


    Your movie of the screen grabs is brilliant. I hit the "Bruce likes this" button about 20 times in quick succession hoping it would turn into a "Bruce loves this" button!


    I note that there are a number of frames in which 437.5 nm seems to be absent. I wonder what that means adn I wonder how that correlates with the control signal shown in the oscilloscope trace at the top left.

  • There is also a reason for multiple "types" of devices. If Rossi had continued with the same devices, people would have asked more and more and better targeted questions.

    Seven, there is another possibility and that is that AR knew how to make heat early on, then attempted to scale it up, but couldn't. Then he re-designs to make it work again, and then tries to control the reaction as it scales, but can't. The re-design could be the result of trying to engineer by trial-and-error, which pretty much everybody else is doing, too.

  • One has to wonder how Frank Acland stumbled into his unique position in life. I can only guess that the job of president of the Bernie Madoff Fan Club was already taken.

    E-Cat World started in 2011 after the January AR demo. All the chip bodies on the Network wanted to chat, all the trolls wanted to fight, and Cold Fusion Now! rebuked the nastiness - deleting pseudo-skeptics and their attacks - we would have none of it. (I'm not one to chat much - cept now that I'm laid off!) Frank filled a real need and succeeded in making a place for AR news and discussion. He provided a valuable service.

  • I note that there are a number of frames in which 437.5 nm seems to be absent. I wonder what that means and I wonder how that correlates with the control signal shown in the oscilloscope trace at the top left.


    I haven't checked that, but since there is a suggestion on another thread that there could be some similarities with what is described in a IH patent application (attached there), then the peak appearing-disappearing might speculatively be due to this:



    I haven't scanned the entire patent application yet, though.

    Also, in the SK spectrometer view most of the signal above 450 nm seems to be cut off/filtered or absent.

  • Bob : I think it is tribalism at its most self-defeating.

    As you implied, having Rossi as the most visible face of cold fusion does incredible damage to the field.

    Consider that many of the people that came to awareness because of AR, and are still learning about the whole range of researchers, and the solutions that are currently in development elsewhere. Many people on this forum, I imagine, are here because of Rossi.


    Nothing is ever all good, or all bad.

  • But what these people say has no bearing on what cold fusion researchers say, or believe. If the amateurs are wrong, that does not mean the researchers are. For that matter, if Researcher A wrong, that does not draw into question results reported by Researcher B, unless B cites A as proof of the claim.


    II don't follow these other claims. I know little about them. I don't see what that has to do with cold fusion. It does not detract from the claims, although many skeptics who lump cold fusion in with these other claims seem to think it does. I guess it is understandable that people would feel this way...Cold fusion does appear to violate the known laws of physics, so it is reasonable that experts are wary of it and don't believe it. But it not so logical to say that magnetic motors don't work so that means cold fusion does not work.

    You are absolutely correct in the above comments. But what happens is a case of guilt by association. When somebody tells me that the evidence for cold fusion is compelling, I am far more likely to be persuaded if that person is not also telling me that some magnetic motor actually works and that cars can run on water. It is a matter of source credibility. It does not detract from the claims but it buries them in a noisy background. Of course, as you will be quick to point out, that is why one should go to the original sources rather than listening to the peanut gallery. But you have to believe it is worth the effort.


    And this is why it seems to me that Rossi is so harmful to the LENR field in general. If the loudest signals are really noise, people are just not going want to tune in.

  • Consider that many of the people that came to awareness because of AR, and are still learning about the whole range of researchers, and the solutions that are currently in development elsewhere. Many people on this forum, I imagine, are here because of Rossi.


    Nothing is ever all good, or all bad.

    Unfortunately, Rossi has cultivated a following that indiscriminately accepts outlandish claims which makes them a dubiously valuable audience for any legitimate research. Something doesn’t have to be all bad to be bad enough.

  • @ interested observer.


    So let me try a little logic here. If the credibility of LENR is damaged by the willingness of some of the internet's people who have no serious scientific education but offer enthusiastic support for it to also believe in UFO's, ghosts, speaking in tongues and that the Cleveland Browns could win the Superbowl, how is the credibility (or otherwise) of cold fusion enhanced by the willingness of those who also don't have a serious scientific education but might well believe in (for example) capital punishment, the mystery of transubstantiation and wife-beaqting (all topics banned in this forum) to comment on the topic and it's proponents?

  • Here is a different version of a similarly processed video, perhaps any possible correlation could be clearer here:



    Careful. There is no way to determine if those 7 views are actually simultaneous.


    Note that the “ballerina“ shifts a lot due to camera movement (watch background). I almost suspect that the glow view repeats, but haven’t spent any time seriously checking that out.

  • You can choose to argue about capital punishment on a legal forum or on Yahoo.com. Those will be two very different discussions with very different levels of credibility. It is up to you folks whether the discussion of LENR here is a legal forum-level discussion or a Yahoo-level discussion. Both have their uses but it is pretty difficult to do both at once. I guess careful thread management is the best one can do.

  • You can choose to argue about capital punishment on a legal forum or on Yahoo.com. Those will be two very different discussions with very different levels of credibility. It is up to you folks whether the discussion of LENR here is a legal forum-level discussion or a Yahoo-level discussion. Both have their uses but it is pretty difficult to do both at once. I guess careful thread management is the best one can do.


    You miss my point. All of the extraneous topics I mentioned are pretty much totally OT here, so we do (attempt to) manage threads. However, what I was asking was -put more simply - of what consequence are the opinions of people with little scientific training at all, whether believers or skeptics? Arguing about Rossi has nothing to do with LENR science after all, but more like discussion of a fabled gold mine. And you know what Mark Twain said about gold mines? 'A hole in the ground with a liar at the top'.

  • E-Cat World started in 2011 after the January AR demo. All the chip bodies on the Network wanted to chat, all the trolls wanted to fight, and Cold Fusion Now! rebuked the nastiness - deleting pseudo-skeptics and their attacks - we would have none of it. (I'm not one to chat much - cept now that I'm laid off!) Frank filled a real need and succeeded in making a place for AR news and discussion. He provided a valuable service.


    Ruby,


    Sorry, I missed IO's low blow to Acland. Will go find it, and put in Clearance. We accept skeptical views here, but with Rossi being the lone exception, we expect they treat others with a little more respect than this.


    As to Seven of Twenty, outing is when you put a person's real name to an avatar. In his case it is not when I tell you his old avatar was the infamous Mary Yugo avatar, who has stalked the field since Rossi emerged. I think he serves some purpose here, although I could not tell you off hand what that purpose is. Some people respond to his stock diatribes, and some do not. Your choice.

  • I also tried graphing the µSv/h readings from the raw video, before the recording loops.



    At this level and over this short period of time without more context it could be due to anything, though, including background variation.

  • Now you need to tell me why the scientists gather for the annual conferences and workshops? Do they all have something commercial already?

  • It is also significant that Jed says it's weird that Rossi would work so hard, if he's a fake. Rossi came down hard on Celani during a demo when he brought in a Geiger Counter and there was enough Gamma Rays being emitted to start getting worried. An insider such as yourself would know how to use that detector to narrow down exactly what kinds of radiation is being emitted and also perhaps even what elements are being used in the reactor. Rossi was reacting more like someone who doesn't want others to know what is being used in a nuclear reactor than someone who's simply a fraudster.

    Quote


    https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg42665.html

    [ Jed reporting on Celani ]

  • Shane, my comment about Acland was a “low blow” only if you think enabling, cheering for, and banning any real criticism of an obvious con man is providing a valuable service. Ruby and apparently you seem to think so. In most places, that “valuable service” is called being a shill. But I will endeavor not to tarnish his name further.


    How is it that you you feel entitled to push your personal opinion about Rossi so aggressively, and at the same time seem so reluctant to allow differing opinions from others even though much less aggressive?

  • rubycarat

    Quote

    Seven, there is another possibility and that is that AR knew how to make heat early on, then attempted to scale it up, but couldn't. Then he re-designs to make it work again, and then tries to control the reaction as it scales, but can't. The re-design could be the result of trying to engineer by trial-and-error, which pretty much everybody else is doing, too.


    If you have carefully followed the claims and what Rossi passed off as demos, that's impossible. His early ecats had extremely high performance. There was no need to scale them up. They would have been dynamite space and process heaters as they were claimed to be -- 10-20kW out from a tennis ball sized reactor chamber and dry steam temperatures. Supposedly, Dr. Levi measured up to 135kW peak which "scared Rossi." But then,


    Quote

    “Minimum power was 15 kilowatts, and that’s a conservative value. I calculated it several times. At night we did a measurement and the device then worked very stable and produced 20 kilowatts.” ... It then worked for 18 hours with the bottle closed. Quite impressive.”

    https://www.nyteknik.se/energi…cludes-combustion-6421304


    It's world-shaking without scaling up. It's worth billions without scaling up. You have to consider history! It's what Rossi and Levi said. Had they said, yes, we can make a few milliwatts or Watts but we can't scale it up, then I would think you have a point. But how can you say there is a scaling problem when Rossi said in 2011 that he sold multiple megawatt "plants" to military "customers?" Nor did Rossi ever claim a control problem. I am afraid you are putting (very lame) excuses in his mouth. So to speak.


    Quote

    Yes, the key is "experts making their own measurements".

    OK, so why has not Rossi done this? With world-renown testing institutes like UL or Sandia Labs or even as suggested many times in 2011, Puthoff's and Little's Earthtech which is very friendly to new technology ideas? Some say there would be a risk to Rossi's IP but that would not be true if Rossi monitored the tests in person and provided only a black boxed ecat with input wires and an output steam hose. No risk at all. All the rationalization for why Rossi has behaved as he has makes no sense at all and has not made sense from the start in 2011.

  • His early ecats had extremely high performance. There was no need to scale them up. They would have been dynamite space and process heaters as they were claimed to be -- 10-20kW out from a tennis ball sized reactor chamber and dry steam temperatures.


    Assuming the performance was real, he did seem to have problems controlling them. They would not be suitable for commercial use as is. They needed more work. But the (apparent) performance was good enough to attract billions of dollars in funding for R&D.

  • Alan Smith

    Quote

    So let me try a little logic here. If the credibility of LENR is damaged by the willingness of some of the internet's people...

    A misunderstanding methinks. The credibility of LENR is not damaged by people who believe in it as well as in rectal probes from UFO aliens. But the credibility of those people is damaged by their nonsense beliefs. Joseph Papp, a raving lunatic from decades ago with an impossible story. Approval of Rossi after the initial demos and tests were mostly debunked by Krivit and others also leads to loss of credibility. Same with all the discredited free energy schemes, magnet motors, water fueled cars, etc., as IO pointed out.


    LENR is difficult to "believe" because of Coulomb's observations. It is difficult (at least for me and for many others) to follow all the low level heat generation, questionable tritium generation, and wobbly radiation generation reports thus far. The credibility of LENR will not be established by anyone's opinion but by solid, reliable, replicable experiments with strong results. Hopefully, like those you and your team will provide.

  • Now you need to tell me why the scientists gather for the annual conferences and workshops? Do they all have something commercial already?

    This question is non sequitur - or very far off the point that I and Peter were making. Very few issues of science are decided directly in the commercial marketplace. Rossi's current offering will be, and I am suggesting that all we need do is wait a little. If this new device creates market demand, then the product is producing heat more cheaply than the local utility price of electricity. An economic calorimeter with unambiguous results! Rossi has set a course with binary outcome: he fails (and draws as few of us as possible down); he succeeds and drags all of us up.


    I have been doing this long enough to recall that interest in Rossi provided a very significant boost to the LENR community (I think Jed's download statistics support this). But now we are in "fool me twice" territory. The offer (cheap heat) and claim (machines being made for sale) is unambiguous. No room for wiggling. I am also old enough to know that it is (or seems) far wiser to be able to explain the results of an experiment afterwards, than to predict it in advance. Experiments have a way of pricking our hubris (otherwise there would be little point - or fun - in doing them). Rossi's experiment has begun. If it fails it will be his last, at least in public.


    I (obviously) am not going to predict a result but (equally obviously) hope Rossi succeeds. His success would do us all a lot of good, politically, although I have learned very little of real technical value from the Rossi experience. If he fails it will do us very little harm.


    PS thanks to the folks who put together sequenced videos of the plasma spectrum. Very illuminating. A black body this is not.

  • Hi can


    Actually, having the SK video loop once seems OK. We always knew that the video from the customer site was supposed to be prerecorded and I expect this means a video was made that turned out to be shorter than the duration of the live presentation ... so it was looped.


    Can you give the times of the 2 frames you show? -- I mean the times on the "enhanced audio" video that I assume you are working from

  • JedRothwell

    Quote

    Assuming the performance was real, he did seem to have problems controlling them. They would not be suitable for commercial use as is. They needed more work. But the (apparent) performance was good enough to attract billions of dollars in funding for R&D.

    How in the world would you know that? Rossi certainly never complained of it. And because he had no real customers ever, none of those did either. Rossi was claiming to be selling megawatt plants for nearly a decade. You'd think any control problems would have been settled between his supposed (and fictitious) contracts with National Instruments and Siemens and his fantasmagoric robotic factories!


    There would be enough value in a working but not commercially sellable ecat making kilowatts from trivial amounts of fuel to make an army rich for life. Commercial use would be worked out by investors' companies and entrepreneurs. Like with everything else!

  • It is difficult (at least for me and for many others) to follow all the low level heat generation, questionable tritium generation


    Which questionable tritium results do you have in mind? Who reported them?


    Assuming you did not make that up, and there actually are such results, let me suggest you follow the high heat generation and rock solid, irrefutable tritium generation instead. Such as results from Bockris, Storms or Fritz Will. If you don't wish to follow them, you should at least stop misrepresenting the field by imputing there are only "low level" or "questionable" results.