Rossi: The final chapter


  • I'll assume that Merry Yogurt has a sense of humour and is deriving some fun from the name Mary Yugo. :)


  • Navid, as far as I know the reaction vessel is sealed, and the hydrogen is derived from a hydride powder in the sealed vessel. This of course is unlike MIlls' SunCelll which needs to be fed hydrogen constantly from an external source.


    About MHD, I haven't heard that Rossi is using that. It would be strange indeed if Rossi looked at Mills' patent and put it to proper use before Mills did. Besides, Mills' plasma is a powerful, noisy maelstrom, while Rossi's plasma looks like a serene hypnotic dancer. If I were to guess, Rossi is somehow harnessing the voltage difference in the plasma layers, a spatially consistent charge separation which occurs naturally in near stable plasma phenomena. MHD on the other hand uses magnetism to accelerate charges. It would look very different imo, but I could be very wrong.


    Good eye that Rossi references Thermacore, so he obviously does follow Mills. I get the impression that Rossi reads voraciously. He certainly has taken to the view of a spatially extended electron, but not sure how that would compare to Mills' extended electron in the specifics.

  • 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.


    Sorry, I'm not very familiar with Rossi's previously published papers. The 'given equipment" in the January 2019 paper reads thusly:



    I'm no electrical engineer, but surely that setup would not require a sense resistor, unless he needed to restrict the current or some such thing.

  • To be more clear, in the Gullstrom paper photo there were two digital multimeters and an oscilloscope. A DC power supply was also in the Gullstrom photo. The same oscilloscope and maybe one of the multimeters was also used in Stockholm. As far as we were shown, the multimeters were both in DC mode, and were measuring the voltage (drop) across the 1 ohm resistor in the Gullstrom photo. (I don’t think anyone has strong doubts that the 1 ohm resistor was exactly that). The oscilloscope was shown measuring high frequency AC voltage across the 1 ohm resistor in Stockholm, with a small DC offset. The AC component cannot be measured across the 1 ohm sense resistor with a DC multimeter setting. A True RMS AC voltmeter is required to measure AC voltage properly. And yet only the DC component was used to calculate power (dissipated by the sense resistor, not the plasma circuit) for the Gullstrom papers, while the AC part (if any) was ignored. In Stockholm, both the AC and DC parts of the sense resistor voltage were displayed. In both cases the voltage (drop) across the sense resistor was used (wrongly) as if it were the plasma circuit voltage, and also measured the current (as the sense resistor is intended). This means that the heat power output of the resistor, not the power of the plasma circuit (ignoring the controller circuit) was calculated.


    This can easily be tested by anyone with rudimentary electrical knowledge, a ohmic load of greater than 1 ohm, a 1 ohm resistor, and a decent digital multimeter. Mizuno properly used a sense resistor. If he used it the Rossi way, his blower fan would show a COP of about 6.


    OK, I see you are referencing some older paper. Googling it, I see it is regarding the Quark X. I wish you had said so to start with. Will investigate it as time permits.

  • Good eye that Rossi references Thermacore, so he obviously does follow Mills. I get the impression that Rossi reads voraciously. He certainly has taken to the view of a spatially extended electron, but not sure how that would compare to Mills' extended electron in the specifics.


    I'm sure you wouldn't last 5 minutes around Rossi without realizing he's spouting gobblygook.


    There is no physicist who has gotten close to Mills who's been able to even throw him off his game on any subject in physics and chemistry. I included some leaders in the LENR field. But more relevant are people like Johannes Conrads who was the founder of an institute for Plasma Physics in Germany. It is like having a James Maxwell type alive while the world is sitting there smoking bongs talking about the interpretations of quantum mechanics from confused gurus like Bohr. Einstein would have immediately paid attention. Mills had an interview in 1997 to which I guess only a few people alive even understand what the real problems are AND are willing to consider the possibility, that there is a possibility, that Mills was on track:


    AR: So, you were working at inventions having to do with medicine and healing and you came upon…you started working on the mathematics…..

    RM: Of atomic theory…

    AR: Of atomic theory, and finding that the theory was evidently wrong.

    RM: Yes.

    AR: And it’s not only your discovery but other people have seen so many inconsistencies.

    RM: That’s correct.

    AR: That you had to say there must be something wrong with this whole mess. Einstein saw that.

    RM: Yes, Einstein saw right through that at the very beginning.

    AR: And he said that his theory was, at least, not complete.

    RM: He was correct though. His part of it was correct and his intuition was correct, but he couldn’t finish it. I think I’ve finished what Einstein’s dream was.


    (1997)

  • Sorry, I'm not very familiar with Rossi's previously published papers. The 'given equipment" in the January 2019 paper reads thusly:



    I'm no electrical engineer, but surely that setup would not require a sense resistor, unless he needed to restrict the current or some such thing.


    Since no ammeter is specified, and power in measurement requires both current and voltage, a sense resistor is needed. But Rossi seems as confused as you - he is not an electrical engineer either - and he measures power dissipated in the sense resistor as power in, when obviously that is not true.


    You should read the papers, those describing the experimental results use the equation V^2/R to determine input power, and show the sense resistor. There is only one voltage, and that is why this particular Rossi error was very easy to spot. Rossi repeated this error many times, thoroughly confusing acolytes on ECW, who tried to push him towards some way in which such a measurement could be meaningful.


    You might also want to consider the circumstantial evidence. The control box needs a large power, with fans etc. It would be strange indeed if the actual output was a few mW.

  • Since no ammeter is specified, and power in measurement requires both current and voltage, a sense resistor is needed. But Rossi seems as confused as you - he is not an electrical engineer either - and he measures power dissipated in the sense resistor as power in, when obviously that is not true.


    You should read the papers, those describing the experimental results use the equation V^2/R to determine input power, and show the sense resistor. There is only one voltage, and that is why this particular Rossi error was very easy to spot. Rossi repeated this error many times, thoroughly confusing acolytes on ECW, who tried to push him towards some way in which such a measurement could be meaningful.


    You might also want to consider the circumstantial evidence. The control box needs a large power, with fans etc. It would be strange indeed if the actual output was a few mW.

    Hi THHuxleynew ,


    I am so glad you can correct, teach and belittle the dumber ones on this beautiful forum. The tremendous treasure trove of knowledge and sheer wisdom in your head is shared and tapped-in to by the gullible and lost minds that sometimes, against the odds of evolution, try to mingle in discussions far too complex for them. Thank you for this great and selfless gesture, this priceless gift to many.


    Only on the topic of finance your impeccable and almost flawless brain showed slight signs of hesitation. I am sure it was just a hick-up after a for example sub-optimal night’s rest. And not related to the pedantic nature of anonymous posters that frequently join fora as beautiful as this one, to see themselves orate. That have so much time on their hands, nobody wants to listen to them any longer, that they have made their own eyes the ones who they most like to talk with. To read their own posts again and again, sometimes briefly interrupted by some dumb digital passerby, but quickly realising how fulfilling it feels to not only be smart, but to own the complete, very intelligent conversation. I am sure that it was not that.


    Cheers,


    JB

  • Since no ammeter is specified, and power in measurement requires both current and voltage, a sense resistor is needed. But Rossi seems as confused as you - he is not an electrical engineer either - and he measures power dissipated in the sense resistor as power in, when obviously that is not true.


    You should read the papers, those describing the experimental results use the equation V^2/R to determine input power, and show the sense resistor. There is only one voltage, and that is why this particular Rossi error was very easy to spot. Rossi repeated this error many times, thoroughly confusing acolytes on ECW, who tried to push him towards some way in which such a measurement could be meaningful.


    You might also want to consider the circumstantial evidence. The control box needs a large power, with fans etc. It would be strange indeed if the actual output was a few mW.

    But if we believe what Rossi says (of course we believe in him ...) then this method is OK. He proposes that the plasma resistance ≈ 0.

    The situation is even more exotic if the resistance is negative: P = U2/ (Rs+Rp), (S: sensing, P: plasma) what would happen now if Rp ⟶ -Rs ?

  • Since no ammeter is specified, and power in measurement requires both current and voltage, a sense resistor is needed. But Rossi seems as confused as you - he is not an electrical engineer either - and he measures power dissipated in the sense resistor as power in, when obviously that is not true.


    You should read the papers, those describing the experimental results use the equation V^2/R to determine input power, and show the sense resistor. There is only one voltage, and that is why this particular Rossi error was very easy to spot. Rossi repeated this error many times, thoroughly confusing acolytes on ECW, who tried to push him towards some way in which such a measurement could be meaningful.


    You might also want to consider the circumstantial evidence. The control box needs a large power, with fans etc. It would be strange indeed if the actual output was a few mW.


    Rossi doesn't mention a sense resistor, yet you assume he's using one. At the same time you assume the power supply does not have variable voltage and amperage dials, despite the fact that he has used such in the past.


    Anyway, after looking I'll agree that in the Quark-X paper Rossi does appear to use only the numbers from the voltage across a 1 ohm resistor to calculate the input power. I can think of two possibilities, the second one the far mostly like to me.

    1) He is mistakenly thinking he is underestimating input power, by confusing P = V^2/(r1 + r2) with P = I^2(r1 + r2) . (Even if this was the case, it's still not a deal breaker.)

    2) He figures that the resistance of E-Cat reactor is essentially zero. The reasons for this aren't clear. The circuitry of the Quark-X is unknown. Also, the Quark-X is not simply a resistance, it is an energy generator, and if I recall Rossi said that the Quark-X was capable of generating electricity directly.


    Also, I'll agree that it is strange that the control box requires such large power, while releasing a relative trickle to the E-Cat. Strangeness is not a reason to discount, however. If as Rossi claims recently the loop has been closed and the E-Cat SK Leonardo's electrical output is powering the control box and added resistance, we have ourselves an impossible invention.


  • I'm sorry if you feel I am belittling anyone. Mark said he was not an expert on EE, which is understandable - not everyone is! Certainly not Rossi...


    The difference is that Rossi pretends to be an expert on EE and everything else under the sun.


    For me, I claim some expertise in EE. However that is shared by quite a lot of people here, particularly Paradigmnoia (on this topic). That is one reason why (on here) Rossi is not well thought of because there are enough people who can see the flakiness of his tests. The other reason is those damning IH case Discovery admitted lies.


    There is a modern idea that experts are all rubbish and should not be trusted. But those who are experts (or even half-experts) on pretty well anything know that while experts can't always be trusted, non-experts who claim to be experts on average can be trusted even less! For obvious reasons.

  • Mark:


    Rossi doesn't mention a sense resistor, yet you assume he's using one. At the same time you assume the power supply does not have variable voltage and amperage dials,


    I said it above, and Paradigmnoia independently made the same point with rather more detail. There is no doubt that Rossi QX test setup uses a sense resistor (wrongly). He says so in his paper, he also repeated this in the presentation he gave describing the input power measurement


    You are right that where Rossi does not say what he does, it is not possible to be sure he is doing things wrong. So he is safer giving no info on testing methods, since when he does give it, as with the supply input measurement in the QX, or the optical output power measurement, he is manifestly incorrect. Worth noting though that usually when he does say in detail what he is doing he makes mistakes that invalidate his results, and he never admits to these mistakes, so you'd expect he would go on making them.

  • Has one asked what the power rating is for the base module, 10cm a side version. Personally I'm trying to figure out the company/'s to take serious, who is gonna bring an effective release in 2020?


    Mills is the most realistic intuitively along with Holmid's work and SAFIRE, but Rossi may just have something. I realised Safire researchers may have some agendas due to a connection with Gaia, Hal Putoff's parapsychology background and more spiritualist/paranormal interpretations of scientific results.. These things, I notice, often coincide with the hardcore ZPE over unity crowd. They are hesitant to say ZPE isn't involved in their experiments. Though I was happy to hear Monty define it as more electric nuclear resonance. Mills, Holmid, Wyttenbach, Rossi and others interpret that their results have nothing to do with such debatably metaphysical phenomena (ZPE). Am not saying that every name I mentioned is the eptom of transparent science though.