Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

Quote

You are a third rate hate monger who, like most here, are totally clueless about what is going on, but that doesn't stop you from fabricating opinions out of thin air.

Let's parce this crappola a bit. How can a third rate anything hurt Rossi if he actually has a fusion reactor that works to make lots of energy from tiny bits of Ni and H₂? Makes zero sense.

Most here are clueless? How about those like you, @Adrian Ashfield , who ignore Rossi's long history of criminality and fraud and total lack of provable accomplishment for his entire career?

Fabrications out of thin air? How about conclusions from clear evidence in reams of records from the pretrial materials in Rossi vs IH?

Adrian, if you really believe Rossi, you should be amassing evidence for him and his devices, not striking out against skeptics. If Rossi is real, skeptics can't touch him. And just think, all those children with cancer will benefit from Rossi's largess, right?

Shane D. Thanks for a good laugh. Camillo's rant is hilarious. Do you think people like this have to make a big effort to be so wrong or maybe it comes to them naturally?

Quote from [email protected]

2) for the whole thing to be fake Mr Rossi would have to be selling heat at an enormous loss (tens of millions of dollars?) which I don't think he would do.

***Let's say this is a Ponzi scheme like Enron. They had plenty of happy customers and clients, and the corruption extended throughout their entire organization and even corrupted the 4th largest accounting firm in America, Arthur Anderson. Eventually it would break down.

As a society we rely upon certain watchdogs. When those watchdogs like Arthur Anderson are corrupted, we are deeply screwed. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes,”is a Latin phrase translated as "Who watches the watchmen". In this Rossi story, the failure of the watchmen would be that group of Swedes. It's not even Industrial Heat, because that is not their duty. But it IS the duty of professors who feed at the public trough.

When the watchmen say that they tested a device according to their abilities, it is our guardians at the gate. If they let in a horse filled with enemy soldiers, our city will be lost before the night is over.

In that context, even Rossi losing tens of $millions might make it to the next level of corruption. The Hot Fusion boys sure have taken it to that next level. And sure enough, those hot fusion boys with their corrupt $Zillion losses are all squawking the loudest about this latest usurper to their throne.

Display More

Well, no. If the whole thing were fake - as Doral - then the heat measurement would be fake and Rossi would lose not much, while gaining the PR he must have to net more "convinced-by-puppets" investors. According to Rossi this strategy is successful. Who can tell: I see nothing extraordinary about Rossi persuading people into parting with their money for non-working technology. He has (very) long and consistent history in that area.

And thus far we do not know he has even one pretend customer. Rossi has learnt - such pretence is not needed since no evidence of the customer is provided.

There are multiple weirdnesses about Rossi's January presentation of the SK, but the weirdest of all involves his treatment of the SK spectrum. Of course lots of people have noted that the spectrum doesn't look very blackbody - ish, but probably many don't understand how out-of-bound it is.

So ... below I show a plot comparing the SK spectrum that Rossi showed in his presentation (blue) and a the theoretical spectrum (orange) for a blackbody at 8111 degrees K (note: the SK spectrum is based on a compilation of 17 screen grabs provided at http://www.electric-sailing.fi/other/EcatSK/ by Pekka Janhunen and the theoretiical curve is from a nice online calculator available athttps://astrogeology.usgs.gov/tools/thermal-radiance-calculator/ ).

I have done my best to fit the theoretical curve to the measured SK spectral data. Given a temperature of 8111 K, the only parameter available for fitting is the overall magnitude of the orange calculated spectrum -- the location of its peak and the existence of the long tail on the right are invariant. So I might be a little off with my fitting but I am confident that this is pretty much the best fit achievable as long as you ignore the isolated peaks at short wavelengths that appear to be individual emission lines.

What is glaringly obvious in the plot is that the SK spectrum is missing a huge amount of power at wavelengths longer than about 420. Here is a closeup of the region where the SK spectrum just gives out bu the theoretical blackbody spectrum just keeps on rolling.

Rossi claims he sees a peak in the SK spectrum at 357 nm. I don't really see that in the SK spectrum here although I guess you could argue that the data are at least sort of consistent with this. But the sudden collapse of the SK spectrum above about 415 nm is remarkable when compared with an actual blackbody curve. I originally wondered if this was due to a limitation of the response of the spectrometer or due to filtering of the light, but why would Rossi introduce these limitations when at the same time he is so intent on showing people the 437.2 nm peak he predicted in his recent paper.

Perhaps we should ask Mr Rossi about all this! Well thank goodness someone has done just that. Of the more than 400 messages on Rossi's blog in the last 3 weeks since the SK production, 3 have asked where the longer wavelength have gone. The first time he was asked, by Steven Karels at 8:24 on Feb 9, Rossi's full response is ...

A “Black Body” is a hypothetical absorber and radiator of energy, with no reflecting power. It radiates at all frequencies with a spectral energy distribution dependent on its temperature in Kelvin. Our calculation is focused only in 1 cm^2 where the plasma has the max density, while the plasma has a surface of about 330 cm^2, so to measure the power we consider only 1/330 of the plasma surface focusing conservatively only where there is the max density and the max absolute temperature. As you can see, the spectrum is more complex.

Obviously it radiates only at the frequencies with a spectral energy distribution corresponding to the temperature in K.

Only the final sentence of this attempts to answer Karel's question and that is not very satisfactory.

Other answers on the same topic are ...

- To Lotr Milekosky at 2:10AM on Feb 20 who asks if the lack of long wavelength is due to a filter ...

No. The absence of lambda>500 nm is due to the fact that we pointed the focus only where the plasma had the highest density, in coherence with the theoretical hypothesis wrote in https://researchgate.net/publi…nge_particle_interactions"

- To Stephen at 5:22 on Feb 20 ...

We want not to compute also the energy of longer waves, to be conservative and focus only where the density of the plasma is highest: in https://www.researchgate.net/p…nge_particle_interactions

In sum, Rossi's answers on this topic are either just plain wrong, or vague or misleading. The whole thing is a mess even though the spectral stuff is one of his main arguments for COP > 1

.

Quote from Bruce__H

So. What is your number?

Five. That's also the number of replications I like to see before I am convinced that a claim is correct. Five quality replications, not half-assed, mostly unreported ones.

Five is an arbitrary number, but I'm sticking to it. Three is not enough, and 10 would be too many.

If I had a lot of inside information, I would settle for one company. That is, if I personally went there and spent a day or two measuring things and talking to people.

Quote from Bruce__H

Note that I am talking about clients who are not anonymous ... my question is not even interesting if it is all just Rossisays.

I argue that the number is more than 1. This is because of Rossi's history of creating a fake company with a "representative" willing to do and say what Rossi wanted. Even Mr Rossi's talents in this direction would be tested, however, by having to create multiple false fronts like this. If I were to see 1000 companies self-identify and express satisfaction after 1 year's operation then I would definitely have to revise my opinion of Rossi's activities because 1) it is a large number of companies, and 2) for the whole thing to be fake Mr Rossi would have to be selling heat at an enormous loss (tens of millions of dollars?) which I don't think he would do. I suspect that even 100 companies would be enough for me.

So. What is your number?

Two, but the companies have to be decent-sized real companies with substantial track records, visibility, and that announce their involvement and results directly and not via Rossi. One such customer should really suffice but one cannot entirely rule out the possibility that some suitable real company has completely lost its mind and/or is being run by morons.

Quote from Bruce__H

There are multiple weirdnesses about Rossi's January presentation of the SK, but the weirdest of all involves his treatment of the SK spectrum. Of course lots of people have noted that the spectrum doesn't look very blackbody - ish, but probably many don't understand how out-of-bound it is.

If the medium is optically thick, radiation generated is only moving a short distance within the medium (relative to its size) before being absorbed again - the
shape of the spectrum is set by the balance of both emission and absorption processes. In an optically thick region, this amounts to constraining the
spectrum to be not more efficient than a black body.

Consequently, the spectrum turns over at low frequency a drops with a power-law dependence identical to the drop-off in intensity at low frequency seen in the
Raleigh-Jeans part of the blackbody spectrum (figure 3.4)

Figure 3.4

Effect of optical thickness on the Bremsstrahlung spectrum. At low frequencies self-absorption modifies the spectrum to follow the Raleigh-Jeans
part of the blackbody curve. This spectrum is typical of dense ionised gas such as found in star formation regions.

LDM ,

If we consider the Miami 1 cm² “core” of the 4x4 inch (~330 cm²) to be the optically thick part and ignore the larger part, are we correctly measuring the bulk of the radiant power using Wien et al.?

Like measuring a glowing tungsten filament through the frosted glass of a bulb. If we compare the spectra shown to a blackbody, is there a reasonable place to put a BB peak, with the information provided so far?

Quote from seven_of_twenty

[Me: Suppose you were to visit a forum devoted to Italian Opera. Imagine you express strong opinions about a performance of La Traviata. Following that, you say: "By the way, I have never seen this performance. Actually, I have never seen any Italian opera I don't speak a word of Italian; and I have no interest in music." . . .]

What is stupid and inappropriate is the inane analogy. There is no need to see Rossi or his moronic performances to know he is a crook. There is no need to test an ecat personally to know it doesn't work. The evidence is all over the internet and has been since October of 2011.

That was my analogy. I was quoted. You are right that there is evidence that Rossi is a crook, but you miss the point of this analogy. The kinds of evidence you can point to is, for example, the court docket papers, or the puppet show. You can say that many experts such as Smith have found errors, and experts at this forum have pointed to problems. You can even cite non-experts such as me, when I point out that people would be cooked if Rossi's claims were true.

However, unless you yourself understand the science, and unless you can explain and defend your assertions based on textbook laws, you cannot say your arguments are scientific. They are legalistic. They are based on what experts say. Such arguments are valid. If I were to argue that global warming is real, or that a certain cancer therapy is effective, I would have to depend on experts and the consensus of expert opinion, such I know nothing about these subjects.

As I have pointed out many times, this is not a fallacious appeal to authority. It would only be that if the people you cite are not actually experts.

Suppose you are the proverbial tone-deaf person who speaks no Italian visiting an Italian Opera discussion group. You can say: "the New York Times music reviewer panned this performance. She said the tenor was off-key . . ." Presumably, the New York Times reviewer is an expert so her review has merit, and many of the people in the group would agree. You are giving useful information. You are not claiming to know the details. What you cannot say is: "in my opinion this was a lousy performance because the tenor was off-key." You can't have an opinion, because you are tone deaf and you wouldn't know a tenor from an alto, a bassoon, or a barn door. (Which is my case.) In this forum you cannot say: "I am sure Rossi's demonstrations were fake for thus and such technical reasons" unless you can explain the technical reasons, such as the fact that the flow meter was in a half empty pipe, and we know that because it was in a gravity return pipe going to a tank that was not air-tight. While you can't say that, you can say: "qualified people who looked closely listed many reasons why the test was invalid, for example, Murray showed that the flow meter was in a half empty pipe. See Murray: http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0207.65_Exhibit_65.pdf." That is a perfectly legitimate argument, and it is similar to what I would say in support of the global warming hypothesis. I myself don't know enough to support the hypothesis, but I can point to authoritative sources.

Quote from LDM

If the medium is optically thick, radiation generated is only moving a short distance within the medium (relative to its size) before being absorbed again - the
shape of the spectrum is set by the balance of both emission and absorption processes. In an optically thick region, this amounts to constraining the
spectrum to be not more efficient than a black body.

Right. Blackbody radiation assumes thermal equilibrium and I think this is saying that an optically thick plasma approximates blackbody behaviour.

Quote from LDM

Consequently, the spectrum turns over at low frequency a drops with a power-law dependence identical to the drop-off in intensity at low frequency seen in the Raleigh-Jeans part of the blackbody spectrum (figure 3.4)

Figure 3.4

Effect of optical thickness on the Bremsstrahlung spectrum. At low frequencies self-absorption modifies the spectrum to follow the Raleigh-Jeans part of the blackbody curve. This spectrum is typical of dense ionised gas such as found in star formation regions.

Display More

The right-hand tail of the theoretical blackbody spectrum I showed before follows the Raleigh-Jeans law. It looks like it falls off faster in your Figure 3.4 because wavelengths and intensities are shown on log scales there, but it is the same curve as I show. Rossi's SK spectrum falls off much faster.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

LOL. What "intel" has ever been posted here that is not from Rossi's blog?

Tons of stuff from the court docket, especially the reports from Murray, Smith and Penon. This information is far more relevant and definitive than anything from Rossi's blog.

Quote from [email protected]

If the whole thing were fake then IH would have seen it from the get-go, wouldn't they?

They did see it from the get-go. While the test was underway, they told me it wasn't working.

They didn't tell me it was fake; just that it wasn't working. I did not realize it was fake until I saw Penon's data. As you see from Murray, they knew it was fake.

Quote from [email protected]

They proceeded forth on the basis of a demo, they paid $10M on the basis of a demo. How stupid did they have to be to pay $10M for a year-long fake demo? Pretty damned stupid.

You are mixed up about the sequence of events. They paid $10 million based on previous tests performed by other people, such as Levi. The one-year demo was done after they paid the $10 million, and after Rossi handed over reactors that did not work. It was a last ditch effort. By the time it started, I.H. realized that the claims were false and the devices did not work. They thought there was a slight chance the 1-year test would reveal that the devices actually did work.

This is described in the lawsuit docket.

There is no record that indicates that Rossi's fraudulent bankruptcy, precious metals trafficking and money-laundering convictions were overturned. He several years in jail for those crimes.

I understand that the authorities in FL are hunting for him now and that he has advised them directly that he is out of the country.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

LDM ,

If we consider the Miami 1 cm² “core” of the 4x4 inch (~330 cm²) to be the optically thick part and ignore the larger part, are we correctly measuring the bulk of the radiant power using Wien et al.?

Like measuring a glowing tungsten filament through the frosted glass of a bulb. If we compare the spectra shown to a blackbody, is there a reasonable place to put a BB peak, with the information provided so far?

I did not yet investigate methods used to determine the correct temperature for a dense plasma.

So as you I am also curious how you can do that.

This plasma thing is something I am doing on the sidelines since I also still are doing some research/simulation on the Lugano test.

So I am not deep into it yet.

But as you I am also wondering if for the SK the calculations are valid.