I can't exclude those involved in this willfully not reporting errors they recognised: indeed my statement implicitly includes that as a possibility.
So why do you keep saying that it was Rossi who misused instruments in order to deliberately spoof the profs? It didn't happen for the 1st academic report (Bologna) and there is no reason to think that it happened for the 2nd (Ferrara) or 3rd (Lugano) reports.
It was readily apparent. I mean visible. Anyone could see the problems in a few minutes.
As shown in some of the photos posted here, the return tank was made of IBC transparent plastic. You could see inside it. You could see it wasn't working the way the instrument indicated.
Those tanks cannot be airtight as far as I know. This one wasn't. So the return pipe could not have been full at the reported flow rate. The flow rates for full, gravity return pipes of this diameter is listed in online engineering guides. That rate is much higher than the one shown by the meter. Therefore, the pipe was not full, and the rate reported by the meter was too high. This was confirmed by other methods as well.
https://www.gaia.com/article/t…d-fusion-run-hot-and-cold
New article about the Ecat, and the replication attempts it spawned. The information is about 2 years old though. GAIA is one of those sites for far-out topics, so it won't attract much attention.
QuoteYou know the old saying: "if you dish it out, you have to be able to take it". He was much more subtle than you.
Dish out what? Take what? This was so subtle. Yup. Real subtle. More like meaningless. Typical too.
As shown in some of the photos posted here, the return tank was made of IBC transparent plastic. You could see inside it. You could see it wasn't working the way the instrument indicated.
Was there meant to be a hyperlink in this passage somewhere? I'd like to see the photos you mention.
Was there meant to be a hyperlink in this passage somewhere? I'd like to see the photos you mention.
Sorry, no links. I have no idea where the photos might be. I have difficulty finding anything in this forum. Anyway, as recall, it was a plastic box with a metal frame and an ill-fitted top. Those were common years ago. Sorta like this:
https://www.ntotank.com/275gal…ed-ibc-tote-tank-x7738445
The plastic is semi-transparent, semi-translucent, and dirty, but you can see inside it.
Everything in that place was filthy, from what I have heard.
Update from JONP :
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
As far as I can see on http://www.ecatskdemo.com your plasma seems to be a gas plasma, am I correct? In this case its temperature is well known to be 2eV = 23 400 K
In your calculations of the paper published on Researchgate you have been very, very conservative, considering that you have taken in consideration only the surface of a cylinder with l=1 cm and d=0.3
Godspeed,
John Marenco
It is entirely possible to have a plasma electron temperature of 1 to 5 eV, and still only have a gas temperature of 1500 to 3500 C.
What Rossi’s plasma measurement hypothesis fails at is explaining why 1 m long fluorescent “black light” bulbs aren’t grossly over unity.
