Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

  • AndreaS examined the waveforms shown in the report, and found them wanting.

    There was even supplied a phase angle spreadsheet that the inverted clamp theory could be tested in.


    I do not recall that, but you know more about that sort of thing than I do. As I said, I do not see how the calibrations could produce a zero heat balance if that were the case.

  • Jed: “There is evidence that Levi and the others are competent scientists. See the first Levi report:”


    I said absolutely nothing about whether Levi and the others are competent scientists. All I said is that they have negligible visibility apart from their involvement with Rossi. I did not challenge their results so don’t ask me what is wrong with those results.


    It seems to me that people here are really itching for specific fights and if nobody tries to have that fight with them, they pretend otherwise. How about presenting counter-arguments only when somebody makes an argument in the first place?

  • Quote

    You claimed they did not calibrate, so I doubt you read it in the first place. In any case, if you are not going to read it, I suggest you refrain from commenting on it. How can you even tell if there are lies or any indication of criminality if you don't even read it? When there are lies in a report of this nature, such as the Penon report, they are usually obvious.


    I was and I assumed others were talking about the multitude of Rossidemos with the steam ecats that Lewad, Levi, Kullander and Essen endorsed. Other "demos" had other infelicities. Rossi is mostly but not entirely an idiot.



    Quote

    seven_of_twenty wrote:

    However what I recall from discussions is that the errors in that experiment involved the input power rather than the output.


    JedRothwell wrote I doubt that. High bandwidth three-phase power analyzers are pretty reliable in my experience. The on-off cycles were not extreme and could easily be measured with this kind of instrument. I do not see how the heat balance would have been zero if the input power was measured incorrectly.


    You doubt it because you emphasize reading and rereading Rossi and Levi while neglecting to read the critiques on the internet. Of course you don't see because you never question enough. Best I recall, one phase of the supposed "y" configuration was misconnected or unconnected but the calculations assumed it was correct. Your take on reading papers from improbable claimants and claims is what continues to make many people not believe you.


    Quote

    You cannot challenge me on this, because you refuse to read the paper. You will have to take my word for it, won't you? That's the disadvantage of your strategy toward cold fusion evidence, which is to cover your ears and yell out "Nanny-nanny boo boo! I can't hear you!!!" That does not convince other people.


    What a crock! I read the paper when it came out, that was quite enough. Yes, I refuse to waste another hour or two on rereading Rossi's effluvia. Your continuous challenge of skeptics on the basis they don't read is laughable.

  • I said absolutely nothing about whether Levi and the others are competent scientists.


    You most certainly did say that! You said they signed off on the Levi paper, which you said was "an incompetent and negligent experiment." That makes them incompetent and negligent. You probably think that Rossi designed the experiment. That is not what Levi told me, but even if it were true, Levi is still responsible for endorsing the experiment, and for writing the paper. Just because someone else designed the experiment, it would still be Levi's claim and his fault.


    The Lugano experiment was incompetent. Levi signed off on that one too, so he is incompetent. Sometimes, anyway. (We all make mistakes.) People have claimed that Rossi designed Lugano, and he was in control. I wouldn't know about that, but it makes no difference. Levi wrote the paper, so he gets the blame.

  • What a crock! I read the paper when it came out, that was quite enough.


    Quite enough for what? You have not shown any errors or reached any conclusions about it. Your only statement about it so far is that they did not calibrate, where the paper says they did. How can that be "enough'? It isn't anything.


    If you are saying you assume Levi is a liar and incompetent, and the paper must be a fraud, I suppose that is a reason to ignore it. But you have not shown any evidence for that assumption. Granted, the Lugano paper is evidence for it. It would make sense for you to say, "subsequent work brought this paper into question." That's what I say. But when you claim there are errors but you don't actually cite any, you are making an unfalsifiable claim. What are these? Invisible, undetected errors that do not show up in writing, like Rossi's heat exchanger?

  • Well, there was Focardi and Celani. They had high reps in the LENR community. Levi was a relatively undistinguished physics professor, which is probably a status attained higher than most of us inquiring into this field. At least one of the Swedes had a good reputation in the Swedish Skeptics Society, and the others seemed pretty legit.


    There are some people in this sordid story who had strong reputations. That kinda knocks down your argument.

    Kev,


    Never confuse activity with accomplishment.


    In the field under discussion, their reputations mean less than 2 dead flies, what are their accomplishments?

    Same as Rossi’s,

    Squadush!

  • You most certainly did say that! You said they signed off on the Levi paper, which you said was "an incompetent and negligent experiment." That makes them incompetent and negligent. You probably think that Rossi designed the experiment.

    I would love to see where I said these things. Methinks you are confusing me with someone else. Otherwise, show me the quote.

  • I would love to see where I said these things. Methinks you are confusing me with someone else. Otherwise, show me the quote.

    You'll just ignore Jed. You said such things and worse on a scientific thread about replications but you act like none of it applies. Lurkers are invited to see for themselves.


    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

  • You'll just ignore Jed. You said such things and worse on a scientific thread about replications but you act like none of it applies. Lurkers are invited to see for themselves.


    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

    Well kev, I guess you recently awoke from a coma you went into in August 2017 and are reliving those glory days. So apparently I repeatedly told you that I don’t know enough about LENR to have an educated opinion and that was unacceptable to you. Why are you obsessed with trying to discount my non-opinion. I repeatedly have said that I have zero interest in convincing anybody about any aspect of LENR and of course nobody should listen to my opinion about LENR because I haven’t expressed one. Meanwhile with respect the quote that Jed incorrectly attributed to me, you offered that I “said such things and worse.” It was supposedly a quote, so either I said it or not.


    So you are picking up right where you left off. Desperate to pick a fight and prove some mysterious point that is irrelevant. Don’t you have something better to do?


    I do thank you for finding that old thread. My comment several posts down to Adrian about how things would shake out over the the next year was spot on.

  • IH Fanboy


    You partially bankrolled Alan Fletcher's experiments with the same model of pump that Rossi used at Doral. What do you make of his results?


    I think Alan's results speak for themselves. 4 BF theoretically @ ~41k l/d, and 3BF @ ~31k l/d. Far more than what was claimed here and by IH's expert, and not entirely incongruous with the record (although I believe the record not to be flawless).

  • Jed: “There is evidence that Levi and the others are competent scientists. See the first Levi report:”


    I said absolutely nothing about whether Levi and the others are competent scientists. All I said is that they have negligible visibility apart from their involvement with Rossi. I did not challenge their results so don’t ask me what is wrong with those results.


    It seems to me that people here are really itching for specific fights and if nobody tries to have that fight with them, they pretend otherwise. How about presenting counter-arguments only when somebody makes an argument in the first place?

    "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.

  • As a non-engineer/scientist, let me see if I understand correctly what you are saying: There were four widgets, one, representing 25% of the total capacity of the widgets, was removed/deactivated, and the output from the three was essentially the same as the output from the four? Wow, what a marvelous, in fact I should say magnificent, demonstration of the widgets - take one away with no reduction in output. What would happen if we took away another one, and then another one, and then, in the ultimate test, the last one --- according the Penon report, there would likely be no reduction in output. That would truly be a magnificence, producing something from absolutely nothing -- I thought only bond traders did that (that is not a political comment).

  • Well kev, I guess you recently awoke from a coma you went into in August 2017 and are reliving those glory days. So apparently I repeatedly told you that I don’t know enough about LENR to have an educated opinion and that was unacceptable to you. Why are you obsessed with trying to discount my non-opinion. I repeatedly have said that I have zero interest in convincing anybody about any aspect of LENR and of course nobody should listen to my opinion about LENR because I haven’t expressed one. Meanwhile with respect the quote that Jed incorrectly attributed to me, you offered that I “said such things and worse.” It was supposedly a quote, so either I said it or not.


    So you are picking up right where you left off. Desperate to pick a fight and prove some mysterious point that is irrelevant. Don’t you have something better to do?


    I do thank you for finding that old thread. My comment several posts down to Adrian about how things would shake out over the the next year was spot on.

    Dude, you basically disqualified yourself on this entire subject matter. Anyone can click on the link to see for themselves.