Rossi: The final chapter


  • The only sensible response is "Oh, that's nice , dear. And will your imaginary friends be coming to tea this afternoon?"

  • Raffaele Bongo

    November 24, 2019 at 3:30 PM

    Hello A. Rossi

    Congratulations for the success of your hard work. This performance is the culmination of a dream for you and an immense gift for humanity.

    If you have any strength left, can you tell us what percentage of electricity is produced?

    Do not overdo the Don Pérignon, other challenges await you. I am thinking in particular of your tennis.

    Happy festivities to the whole team

    Best regards

    Raffaele

    _______________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi

    November 25, 2019 at 12:54 AM

    Raffaele Bongo:

    Yeah, the Dom Perignon could cause issues with the antidoping. Better restrain.

    Most of the production is electricity. 70-80%.

    Warm Regards,


  • A lightlike vector would be one on the null cone (neither spacelike nor timelike). The separation between charges in Minkowski spacetime can be spacelike, timelike, of (highly unlikely) on the null cone, if you view charges as points in spacetime perhaps a virtual charge that is in existence for a very short amount of time.


    As normally defined, charges are identified with particles that have a (by definition timelike) worldline in Minkowski space. Then the four-distance between charges does not make any sense since it is asking the distance between two lines, unless they are parallel. if they are parallel then the distance is spacelike (assuming you take the perpendicular) and could never be on the null cone.


    Not just word salad - about 80% word salad (meaningless) but what meaning it might have is definitively wrong.


    However, looking at section 2 the actual statement is to require that multiple electron worldlines can intersect a null-cone, which is trivially true. It is just Rossi has summarised this in an incorrect way.


    Leave aside the electron condensate issue which would seem to be contrary to both the Fermionic nature of electrons (no explanation given) and the Coulomb repulsion.


    The section of the paper detailing the E-cat SK shows how Rossi's delusions/lies work.


    (1) he mismeasures the power in to the ecat via the well know Rossi "calculate power across a sense resistor" method claiming this is 0.8mW when compared with the control panel 380W power. That is a factor of > 10^6 inflation.


    (2) He assumes that the Wien law can be applied to a plasma which is not true because:

    (a) electrically driven plasmas are not in thermal equilibrium

    (b) the highest amplitude emmission in a plasma can be very different from what is expected of a black body due to spectral line emmission.


    That accounts for the remaining 60X or so inflation he claims.


    THH

  • THHuxleynew


    "As normally defined, charges are identified with particles that have a (by definition timelike) worldline in Minkowski space. Then the four-distance between charges does not make any sense since it is asking the distance between two lines, unless they are parallel. if they are parallel then the distance is spacelike (assuming you take the perpendicular) and could never be on the null cone."

    "Leave aside the electron condensate issue which would seem to be contrary to both the Fermionic nature of electrons (no explanation given) and the Coulomb repulsion."


    What you write is true only ignoring, in first place, the Zitterbewegung electron model cited in Rossi paper.

  • My opinion: Rossi doesn't have a "team" any more than he has robotic factories or a megawatt "plant." All he has are lies and frauds. And he relies on gullible people like... well, you know ... to promote and agree to his scams.


    The only team he has is a frog in his pocket.


    Splendid-Tree-Frog-Magnificent-JEP-2210-1024x819.jpg

  • IMHO, I predict that Rossi will announce, in a few months, that he has provided the "independent experts" with his widgets and that said independent experts (none of whom shall be named) have agreed that his widgets are the real deal. The reason that the independent experts cannot be named is because Rossi's detractors, along with the deep state and entrenched energy providers and Rossi's competitors, would hunt down such experts and harass them. Therefore, they must be kept anonymous.


    Then, as others have postulated above, Rossi will go into a new cycle of excuses, e.g., need to scale up now or the customers want to be kept anonymous, thereby avoiding actually releasing any real evidence to actual independent review.


    Soap, lather, rinse and repeat.

  • I allow for some possibility that Rossi has something, but what seems most likely to me is that he's trying to whip up a frenzy so as to sell another tranche of worthless IP to someone. His last presentation didn't do the job, so he's escalating his claims.

  • Hi All,


    Tests will take place and presentation will take place. Just like previous times. And yes, there will be delays and probably the events will not live up to everyone’s expectations, but that is how things go when single inventors make world changing inventions.


    Cheers,


    JB

  • I did not know anything about Rossi. I've since learned he has the heart of a promoter, and has been able to push this far on the basis of his scheming.


    Upon research I found they claimed they were making nuclear energy because the ecat only weighed 1g less than they started with. A lot of energy/weight of ecat == very high density == must be nuclear!


    Weighed the engine but not the input gases (and anything from environment) and did not measure the gas output. Imagine weighing your car after a long trip and saying "wow the engine weighs 299.01kg but it started at 299.02kg. Thus ENERGY/WEIGHT is so high - you must have a nuclear reactor! Guys, you didn't measure the fuel tank or the exhaust

  • It can't be nuclear (and linked to ionizing radiation), otherwise the authorities would have shut down his business, labs and condo-tinkering long time ago. And Rossi himself denied that it is fission or fusion....so what? Of course energy out of nothing, it seems - or in Rossi's own words: a new unknown unexlpoited energy. I am still waiting for the big news media to cover this story....and try to hunt Rossi down for every little news they can get for this emerging energy revolution. He will become a new Einstein for sure....


  • Well, yes, pony show tests that show absolutely nothing will be shown, and Rossi will use incorrect analysis to claim he has a miracle: which no sensible and technically competent person will agree with.


    Just as before, and before, and before...


    And this is very different from inventors with world-changing inventions, where with each test things get more convincing and more people get on board.

  • I did not know anything about Rossi. I've since learned he has the heart of a promoter, and has been able to push this far on the basis of his scheming.


    Upon research I found they claimed they were making nuclear energy because the ecat only weighed 1g less than they started with. A lot of energy/weight of ecat == very high density == must be nuclear!


    Weighed the engine but not the input gases (and anything from environment) and did not measure the gas output. Imagine weighing your car after a long trip and saying "wow the engine weighs 299.01kg but it started at 299.02kg. Thus ENERGY/WEIGHT is so high - you must have a nuclear reactor! Guys, you didn't measure the fuel tank or the exhaust

    Which ecat was weighed 1 g less?

  • The ecat they test at Uppsala University - hunt down their 2014 report

    Did they test an ecat at Uppsala University in 2014?

    If you mean the Lugano (Switzerland) report, the device was weighed after the test. A before weighing would have been heavier by at least 9 grams, as I explained in my reply to you on ECW.


    (I may have edited the other reply after you read it.)

  • Upon research I found they claimed they were making nuclear energy because the ecat only weighed 1g less than they started with. A lot of energy/weight of ecat == very high density == must be nuclear!


    That's ridiculous. First of all, most weight scales cannot measure 1 g per kilogram accurately. Second, it might have lost a gram because someone polished it and removed dirt, or chipped it. Third, if it generated enough energy to annihilate 1 g, that would be as much as a nuclear bomb. 1 g of matter converts to 90,000,000 MJ. That would be 30 MW continuously for a year.


    https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q388.html