Jacques Ruer - The Rossi Letter

So who is right ?

JPR April 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM

Dr Rossi,

Probably you did not see the comment made by Jacques Ruer, president of the SFSNMC.

He substantially says that the Wien equation can only be used on Maxwellian plasma and that the graph shown on the video http://www.ecatskdemo.com is not Maxwellian.

What do you answer?

Jean Paul Renoir

1. Andrea Rossi April 27, 2019 at 11:34 AM

   JPR:

   I am perfectly aware of the fact that the equation of Wien can be considered precise only in presence of a Maxwellian plasma, a theoretical entity. The use of the Wien equation, though, is normally adopted also for plasma of the kind we have, as I learnt from the engineer, specialist of the field, that works in our Team. The result cannot be considered precise, but acceptable in good approximation, that we compensate as well explained in the video http://www.ecatskdemo.com. In the same video-presentation we also gave a comparative analysis between the results we obtained by means of the Wien/Boltzmann measuring system and the calorimetric measurements: as clearly shown in the video of the presentation, the results are not equal, but they are relatively close.

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

Quote from F. Maillard

So who is right ?

No doubt there will be ECW adherents (a few) who trust the word of a "specialist engineer" as reported by Rossi over both common sense (high school area under graph stuff) and a competent physicist.

Although for the recent (plasma that looks pretty) demos the fact Rossi has an incorrect way to measure output is irrelevant - he has demonstrated that his way to measure the input is completely wrong or nonexistent.

Remember Bert Abbing and his Total Normal Emissivity rant?

Or Rossi’s mostly-capital-letters rant about the C2 cable power splitting, wrongly invoking Kirchhoff’s law for a delta wiring arrangement?

JPR (formerly JCR) is of course a Rossi sock puppet

Rossi will fight for his wrong position on the applicability of Wein’s Displacement Law on a non-blackbody and the resultant abuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with all the tools at his disposal because to do otherwise undermines the masterpieces of both the QX and SK demos, as well as gaslighting the Lugano emissivity problem from which the T⁴ abuse was learned and taken to the absurd level for the QX and SK.

Rossi wrote:

Quote

"...as I learnt from the engineer, specialist of the field, that works in our Team. "

I believe that this is a reference to a frog which Rossi carries in his pocket.

Jean Paul Renoir, are you a Rossi sock puppet ?

Frédéric

Paris, France

Update?

This hole Rossi story is not good for our efforts in developing a revolutionary energy source. Can't we just ignore him and focus on our work?

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Rossi wrote:

I believe that this is a reference to a frog which Rossi carries in his pocket.

This one, it seems.

And right on cue, Prof declares that Rossi is so right with his abysmally wrong plasma measurements...

The stupid thing is that a blackbody is not a secret spectrum, so all AR ever had to do was show one. The stupid spectrum in the SK demo, and stories of potent VUV radiation with the QX makes me and should make everyone wonder where the blackbody (or greybody) is. So now if Rossi suddenly comes up with a blackbody it will only be because he ‘forgot’ to show one earlier than this very moment, Saturday April 28 2019.

Quote from hunter

Another coincidence... also the sockpuppet "Prof" uses the definition "is very conservative", a typical Rossi's expression.

Many hands makes light work.

What percent of of JoNP is Rossi posting, not including Proper Replies (simply defined) by Rossi to questions asked?

A) Rossi never posts as anyone other than himself

B) <2%

C) <5%

D) <20%

E) <50%

F) He means well. You know, to keep conversation flowing...

Don’t answer, just consider.

Just for fun. Rather like doing an easy crossword.

I looked at Rossi's "Rossi-body" spectrum. The peak is (deliberately) removed so you cannot see how sharp is the spectral line at approx 415nm. However, you can make a decent upper bound approximation to the area under the graph when compared with a black body that has the same peak as follows.

Planck function calculator

3dB (50% on power) is at 400nm and 430nm. Approximate by rectangular waveform with limits these 3dB points - that is a fairly good first attempt approximation. We Need to convert to frequency sinve power is an integral over frequency:

400nm -> 25000 cm^-1

433nm -> 23255 cm^-1

Hence we have a rectangular equivalent width of 1745 cm^-1

For the shown 415nm peak a black body temperature of 7000K fits nicely.

3dB points are 0.25um- 0.75um

250nm -> 40,000cm^-1

750nm -> 13,333cm^-1

rectangular equivalent width of 26,667cm^-1

From which we get a Rossi false positive of X15 overestimating power.

This was a very rough calculation so let us make that X10, giving him the benefit of the doubt., thus validating the genuine Zatelepin's comment, as opposed to the Rossi sock Prof.

But there is a twist, as always with Rossi.

That X10 false positive would be fair if the spectrum peaked at the top of the screenshot. But it goes off the screen at its peak and if you compare the two peaks it looks likely that the real peak - not shown, will be a sharp line at 415nm or so double or more the power of that at the top of the screen. Which makes Rossi's calculated BB power double this estimate, for a more realistic power addition of something very small (because the peak is so narrow).

Therefore my estimate of the Rossi Wien's Law used wrong power inflation is X30 (lower bound), and realistically anything in range X30 - X100. Technically the error could lie well outside this range on the high side, due to the cropped graph, but that seems a decent approximation.

Anyone who has not yet lost the will to live on this thread could take the graph shown by Rossi, digitise it, and get a more accurate figure - comparing that with a more accurate Planck Law integrated BB power (the T^4 one) although still this would be approximate since Rossi does not disclose the actual height of his chopped off peak from which he will base his bogus power calculation, and the larger it is, the more bogus the calculated power.

NB - remember that it is frequency that matters here not wavelength when you integrate for power. Not much difference for narrow band, but once you go say -50% and +50% on wavelength you should note that the +50% counts as (1-1/1.5) = 0.333 and the -50% counts (1/0.5 - 1) = 1.0 e.g 3 X as much.

What was Rossi's calculated COP for this system?

THH

So I looked again at ECW. As Shane says, the level of support on ECW is certainly less strong than it used to be.

https://e-catworld.com/2019/04…y-2019-valeriy-zatelepin/

georgehants • 10 days ago

Very interesting but there does not seem to be any clear conclusions of their observations, I look forward to the comments of those with more understanding of these things.

Poor georgehants - such a reasonable question and yet no-one answers it except our Bruce_H with you can imagine a not flattering to Rossi summary.

However Axil offers the light relief and distraction of a large number of long and totally OT posts.

George not happy at the end:

georgehants • 9 days ago

Come on guys, in English, does this report support Cold Fusion, does it support Rossi etc.

To which he gets a whole load of replies musing about transmutation of elements, the thread having gone completely OT.

Quote

Rossi wrote:

I believe that this is a reference to a frog which Rossi carries in his pocket.

This one, it seems.

Rossi's frog doesn't say "Ribet!" like other frogs. It always complains, "Krivit! Krivit!"

Quote from THHuxleynew

Poor georgehants - such a reasonable question and yet no-one answers it

But what do you expect? I mean, it called e-cat world.... they’re fully committed to the whole Rossi-as-saviour narrative, which at this stage (and plenty previously) involves a pathological belief - and that won’t change because someone managed to post an elliptical doubting comment...

Quote from Shane D.

He seems to be fading away after the last demo. That was just too much, even for many of his most ardent supporters.

I noticed that Rossi lost adherents on ECat World after the Nov 2017 QX demo in Sweden too.

It seems to me his efforts have lost a lot of vitality and coherence in the past year. I mean, why not even bother to fake up an SK spectrum that half fits his claims.

We are seeing Rossi in decline. I suspect it is because of his health challenges. He deserves no pity or consideration though. He is a con man who delights in victimizing both friends and business partners.

Quote from Shane D.

I am curious....why do you think he keeps on with this? Seems like a waste of time at this point, but on he goes. Only a handful with a solid science background take him seriously anymore, yet he and his sockpuppets keep on making fools of themselves on JONP.

He has enough money to retire comfortably, and a growing real estate portfolio to attend to, so why bother?

It is pretty clear that he craves adulation, he wants to be thought of as the brilliant inventor who will save the world. Look at his Novel Prize delusions...

That is entirely consistent with his continual deceit. People are complex.