No fakery as far as I can tell...
If I were doing it, I would have avoided going the Wein and Boltzmann route and just done the calorimetry.
If you were doing it, would you consider measuring the input power to the device during the test, or is that just extraneous information since Rossi never used fakery?
Display MoreNo fakery as far as I can tell. Rossi's mind and energy seemed remarkably good to me, especially given that he was in recovery.
The alleged 437 nm line (little peak) has nothing to do with the alleged 357 nm peak. The former is a proposed signature for a proposed emission from a proposed electron and proton interaction as described in Rossi's paper. The latter (357 nm) has to do with an attempt to derive the temperature of the plasma.
An odd thing is that the 437 little peak is often not even there. Only occasionally does it appear in the live spectrum feed. That may spell trouble for the mechanism proposed in the paper. Or not. It may be dependent on the particular signal the plasma is receiving from the controller box.
Another odd thing is there is no mention of how the 357 nm peak power was determined. I assume the power spectrum was somehow averaged to 357nm, but this was not mentioned.
You are right, it is not a blackbody spectrum, although Rossi restricting the spectral feed to come from the densest inner part of the ballerina makes it closer, at least, to a blackbody.
Assuming blackbody he could then use the Wein equation to determine temperature, which is then used in the Boltzmann equation to determine power. If I were doing it, I would have avoided going the Wein and Boltzmann route and just done the calorimetry. No biggie though. The important thing is that the calorimetry - involving temperature change of cooling air flow using two different setups - has the SK producing about 20kW, which happily is close to the spectrum power calculation. All calculations were significant underestimates too. (Rossi is that modest.)
It's clear that Rossi has used the Wein equation only as a practical (simple and fast because avoids the drawbacks of thermal inertia) way to monitor the heat produced by the e-cat after he found an empirical reasonable correlation with other measures.
Rossi paper has definitely much weaker points, where the incompatibility with generally accepted science (GAS) is crystalline clear, as is the case of electrons with spin 1 that move at speed of light!
What I mean is that to attack Rossi paper in the only quite reasonable point does not make sense, in my opinion.
If you were doing it, would you consider measuring the input power to the device during the test, or is that just extraneous information since Rossi never used fakery?
Not sure if that was a serious question, but of course I would measure the input power to the device, just as Rossi did. The control box was consuming nearly 400 Watts and the E-cat itself nearly nothing (strangely). Skeptics, I suppose, can't believe Rossi's figures because they are coming from ... Rossi. Me, I'll roll with his figures.
It's clear that Rossi has used the Wein equation only as a practical (simple and fast because avoids the drawbacks of thermal inertia) way to monitor the heat produced by the e-cat after he found an empirical reasonable correlation with other measures.
Rossi paper has definitely much weaker points, where the incompatibility with generally accepted science (GAS) is crystalline clear, as is the case of electrons with spin 1 that move at speed of light!
What I mean is that to attack Rossi paper in the only quite reasonable point does not make sense, in my opinion.
The really quick and practical way would be to simply look at the colour of the 'flame' to estimate the temperature. Wein's equation by sight. For instance the inner part of a candle flame is blue and it also has the highest temperature. Not a blackbody, but certainly closer to it than (say) a florescent light.
Yes Rossi's paper is controversial, but at least there are touch stones that can be empirically tested. About the electron rotating at light speed, yes that does seem problematic. But lots of things in physics are problematic, like point particles or the magical intrinsic spin of an electron or photon, without anything really spinning. If that is 'generally accepted', it is only because the herd has acquiesced before the mystery.
Not sure if that was a serious question, but of course I would measure the input power to the device, just as Rossi did. The control box was consuming nearly 400 Watts and the E-cat itself nearly nothing (strangely). Skeptics, I suppose, can't believe Rossi's figures because they are coming from ... Rossi. Me, I'll roll with his figures.
Rossi calculated the power dissipated by the current sense resistor, not the input power to the device.
The really quick and practical way would be to simply look at the colour of the 'flame' to estimate the temperature. Wein's equation by sight. For instance the inner part of a candle flame is blue and it also has the highest temperature. Not a blackbody, but certainly closer to it than (say) a florescent light.
Yes Rossi's paper is controversial, but at least there are touch stones that can be empirically tested. About the electron rotating at light speed, yes that does seem problematic. But lots of things in physics are problematic, like point particles or the magical intrinsic spin of an electron or photon, without anything really spinning. If that is 'generally accepted', it is only because the herd has acquiesced before the mystery.
A candle flame makes a near blackbody spectrum due to incandescent carbon particles, but is still somewhat transparent, so it is closer to a grey body for photometry purposes.
An optically thin plasma is not anywhere near a blackbody. Wien’s law only applies to blackbody and true greybody spectra.
Rossi calculated the power dissipated by the current sense resistor, not the input power to the device.
Correct. He used the resistance (and voltage) of the circuit to ultimately calculate the input power to the E-cat. I'm gathering that you think that is a problem. Is it a huge problem? I don't see it.
Correct. He used the resistance (and voltage) of the circuit to ultimately calculate the input power to the E-cat. I'm gathering that you think that is a problem. Is it a huge problem? I don't see it.
He calculated the power of the sense resistor only, not the input power for the whole circuit.
Huge difference.
The sense resistor power is a small electrical load in addition to the rest of the circuit, which was not measured.
The current for the whole circuit can be determined by use of a sense resistor in series, but not the voltage of the whole circuit, even or part of it (except for the voltage drop across the sense resistor). There could be (for example) a million volts or maybe only 5 volts applied between the controller and the contraption, with the resistor in series, but only the tiny voltage across the resistor was measured, so the rest of the circuit voltage remains unknown.
He calculated the power of the sense resistor only, not the input power for the whole circuit.
Huge difference.
The sense resistor power is a small electrical load in addition to the rest of the circuit, which was not measured.
The current for the whole circuit can be determined by use of a sense resistor in series, but not the voltage of the whole circuit, even or part of it (except for the voltage drop across the sense resistor). There could be (for example) a million volts or maybe only 5 volts applied between the controller and the contraption, with the resistor in series, but only the tiny voltage across the resistor was measured, so the rest of the circuit voltage remains unknown.
Lol, I can only assume you're joking. The Ecat SK setup employs among other things a voltage generator and modulator, two oscilloscopes, and an ohm meter. And you're saying with confidence that Rossi is not only using a sense resistor but using it like he doesn't know what he's doing? Pardon me if I can't take your post seriously. 
Lol, I can only assume you're joking. The Ecat SK setup employs among other things a voltage generator and modulator, two oscilloscopes, and an ohm meter. And you're saying with confidence that Rossi is not only using a sense resistor but using it like he doesn't know what he's doing? Pardon me if I can't take your post seriously.
An ohmmeter? Two oscilloscopes?
Excuse me, if I cannot take your post seriously.
The final chapter
Das Quecksilber fällt, die Zeichen stehen auf Sturm
Nur blödes Kichern und Keifen vom Kommandoturm
Und ein dumpfes Mahlen grollt aus der Maschine
Und Rollen und Stampfen und schwere See
Die Bordkapelle spielt: Humbatätärä
Und ein irres Lachen dringt aus der Latrine
Die Ladung ist faul, die Papiere fingiert
Die Lenzpumpen leck und die Schotten blockiert
Die Luken weit offen und alle Alarmglocken läuten
Die Seen schlagen mannshoch in den Laderaum
Und Elmsfeuer züngeln vom Ladebaum
Doch keiner an Bord vermag die Zeichen zu deuten
Der Steuermann lügt, der Kapitän ist betrunken
Und der Maschinist in dumpfe Lethargie versunken
Die Mannschaft, lauter meineidige Halunken
Der Funker zu feig um SOS zu funken
Klabautermann führt das Narrenschiff
Ne ahle Mann steht vür der Wirtschafftsdür,
der su jern ens ene drinken däät,
doch he hätt vill zu wennisch Jeld,
sulang he uch zällt.
In der Wirtschaff is die Stimmung jrus,
äver keiner sück der ahle Mann, doch do kütt ene mit enem Bier,
und sprisch en enfach an.
Refrain:
Drink doch ene met,
stell dich nit esu ann,
du stehs he die janze Zick erüm.
Hässt du och kei Jeld,
dat is janz ejal,
drink doch met unn kümmer disch net drümm.
Su mansche sitz vielleisch allen zu Huss,
der su jern ens widda lachen dät.
Janz heimlisch, da wat hä nur darup,
dat ene zu imm säht
2x Refrain:
Drink doch ene mit...
https://www.songtexte.com/song…och-eine-met-bc7e96e.html
@administrators
Why not combine this and any other Rossi threads rather than banning discussion of Rossi entirely?
@administrators
Why not combine this and any other Rossi threads rather than banning discussion of Rossi entirely?
It's a tough call, and everyone seems to have a different opinion as to whether allowing Rossi talk, hurts/helps the forum, or makes no difference. Up until now, the behind the scenes consensus was that he brought the customers in, but that has changed to believing he is running them off. That is a guess of course, so we could be wrong. If so, we could always reverse course. Or if Rossi were to do something scientifically credible for once, we could immediately put him back on the agenda.
And, as always, we do listen to the membership, which is why Alan/Curbina floated the idea. The decision is not yet final so if anyone objects, then have your say. So far the feedback seems like a wash, and if that does not change then we will definitely move forward sans Rossi.
As I said on the other thread: censorship is not good even short-term, and very dangerous long-term. Keep a Rossi thread.
Lol, I can only assume you're joking. The Ecat SK setup employs among other things a voltage generator and modulator, two oscilloscopes, and an ohm meter. And you're saying with confidence that Rossi is not only using a sense resistor but using it like he doesn't know what he's doing? Pardon me if I can't take your post seriously.
Mark not sure how you conclude this:
(1) Rossi has described his setup in published papers, it is as P has said - and the wrong calculation (also published) clear.
(2) The given equipment can only measure current (and hence power) if a sense resistor is included - that also makes sense of the ohm-meter.
(3) Paradigmnoia is not always right - who is - but he should always be taken seriously.
So far the feedback seems like a wash, and if that does not change then we will definitely move forward sans Rossi.
Hi Shane D.,
Show to the community that you have a pair! No more Rossi. Make this beautiful forum finally believable. It would save you guys some time as well. All the BS posts on Rossi's BS science. What are you waiting for? You guys should have done this eight years ago. Sans rancune.
However, only do it if you guys ban the topic for good. No backtracking, No half-baked measures. Rossi. Gone. For. Good.
Own it.
Cheers,
JB
What a bunch of disingenuous babble. Anything to prevent criticism of Rossi.
What a bunch of disingenuous babble. Anything to prevent criticism of Rossi.
Yes, but you should also consider that criticism is a two-edge sword.
You cannot criticize without at the same time increasing the argument popularity.
