Seriously? Addressing that request to Rossi? Is this directed at the same old Rossi we know from the past 9 years or did Bob invent a new one?
This thread moved to the Rossi & IH Forum
@SOT No - Rossi has re-invented himself (and Bob does seem rather gullible in believing anything Rossi says!) 
I'm unable to watch the video right now. Can I kindly ask someone to summarize it very shortly? Thanks
@SOT No - Rossi has re-invented himself (and Bob does seem rather gullible in believing anything Rossi says!)
I think that by saying that Bob Greenyer is gullible you simply have not taken time to know him better, and don’t really listen at what he is saying.
Bob is clearly skeptic of Il dottore, but he prefers to harbor hope that Rossi really has something and if that is the case, due to the Potential implications, he is trying to convince Rossi of disclosing his “secret sauce” to others for protecting the know how (assuming its real) and avoiding it being suppressed. You must remember The MFMP tried to replicate Rossi claims without any clear results. He is asking Rossi to let the MFMP have the chance of validating and assessing whatever he has, but more important than anything, to know if it’s true or not.
In case anyone still think Bob Greenyer believes anything Rossi says:
“This addresses an open question of Bob Greenyer . . . "was the test 'closed loop' ?"
===================================================
Frank Acland
November 25, 2019 at 8:15 AM
Dear Andrea,
In your test this Saturday, was the E-Cat SK Leonardo operating without being connected to any external power source? In other words, was it operating in a closed loop (producing enough power to sustain itself)?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
_____________________________________________
Andrea Rossi
November 25, 2019 at 10:41 PM
Frank Acland:
Yes, the Ecat SK Leonardo works in closed loop, producing enough electric energy to sustain itself, plus electric energy to power for example an engine, or whatever you want, reaching any power just assembling ,ore modules to put in series and parallels. Here stays the revolution.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Reply
Frank, your question was a good attempt at getting the answer needed, however, Andreas' answer again falls short, which it must not be permitted to do as it is using peoples life/mind time and it permits him some 'lost in translation' get outs.
He says it "works in closed loop" - which is bordering on assumption and ambiguous enough to be a re-statement of his previous statement "we got more electric energy that the electric energy necessary to make the Cat work" which could merely be evidence of a miss-calculation of input, output or both. He did not say "worked" or "was working"... "in closed loop".
The question needs to be answered in this way.
"On 23rd of November 2019, we connected the generated electrical power from the output of the E-Cat SKL to the input of its control system and it operated for x hours, independently of any external power supply"
Even then it would be devoid of any proof, even rudimentary proof.
Depending on the weight of the device and any potential accumulator, capacitor, battery or other energy storage device, the net energy yield would need to exceed what would be possible from any chemical means, leaving only nuclear or other higher energy sources as possible (say nuclear alpha/beta voltaic cell or LENR etc.).
I really, really want this to be true, it is unimaginably easy to give a clear and unambiguous statement on this. In the absence of such a statement, one could say
"I have a 170g torch, it lights a 1000 lm bulb for over 700 hours straight without any external power supply, the output from the bulb is connected to its input power source and I'll sell it to anyone for $10m"
This statement has more clarity than Rossi's it give facts about the weight of the device, its run time, light output and external power source status. One can also buy it for $100.
https://www.alza.cz/sport/n...
We are asking to accept what is at least an EXTRAORDINARY claim (one can debate what constitutes the required proof) on the basis of nothing more than words. Moreover, people are being asked to wait months for proof of something that could be settled in hours.
I am happy to purchase this torch for the test in January, place it alongside the E-Cat SKL and see which device outperforms the other in 'closed loop'. I don't expect the test will last 700hours and I don't expect the E-Cat SKL with all its electronics is lighter than 170g, so the load needs to be much higher. I would suggest an inductive and a resistive load where the outputs can be known that you bring yourself and a power meter to put in line, since I have lights for my camera that have their own internal power source and are just switched on by the camera.
Furthermore, I would ask if the test in January will be conducted in closed loop mode, as otherwise, it will just be another case of "here is the calculations you are allowed to make and here are the points you are allowed to make them" and the test will be a waste of life for all that are using their mind time waiting and debating on it.
If it can run in closed loop mode, let's see and know it can run in that mode, not take it as an article of faith or wishful thinking that it can.
We are asking to accept what is at least an EXTRAORDINARY claim (one can debate what constitutes the required proof) on the basis of nothing more than words. Moreover, people are being asked to wait months for proof of something that could be settled in hours.
I am happy to purchase this torch for the test in January, place it alongside the E-Cat SKL and see which device outperforms the other in 'closed loop'. I don't expect the test will last 700hours and I don't expect the E-Cat SKL with all its electronics is lighter than 170g, so the load needs to be much higher. I would suggest an inductive and a resistive load where the outputs can be known that you bring yourself and a power meter to put in line, since I have lights for my camera that have their own internal power source and are just switched on by the camera.
Furthermore, I would ask if the test in January will be conducted in closed loop mode, as otherwise, it will just be another case of "here is the calculations you are allowed to make and here are the points you are allowed to make them" and the test will be a waste of life for all that are using their mind time waiting and debating on it.
One of the best comments of Bob Greenyer since Months!
'Not gullible, my mistake for over-enthusiasm maybe. If BG could do an independent testing of Rossi's claims that would certainly be something! Unfortunately because this will never happen this all looks like just more Rossi hype and BS. On another note (bombshell!) I think most of Mills and Holmlid's results on Hydrinos/Ultradense Hydrogen can be accounted for by -muons combining with protons to produce these states.
That is a good post by Bob.
I do wish he would buy a cheap propane-oxygen torch (not a flashlight) to burn/melt some yen coins, titanium, tungsten, etc. with (avoid burning PTFE, though). It might save some time in another subject.
That is a good post by Bob.
I do wish he would buy a cheap propane-oxygen torch (not a flashlight) to burn/melt some yen coins, titanium, tungsten, etc. with (avoid burning PTFE, though). It might save some time in another subject.
I understand your skepticism of the properties of HHO in general, however the experiment performed by Slobodan Stankovic also creates basis for further interest In elucidating if this gas has any LENR capacity or not.
To further clarify, beyond the claims of Brown Gas transmutation capability, Slobodan Stankovic also found potential transmutation. Other HHO advocates have stated similar in the past. Ohmasa provided some lab tests on Titanium heated with Ohmasa gas that hint of transmutation to Carbon.
I agree that other normal phenomena have to be discarded before claiming that the HHO has transmutation capabilities, but we have to design the experiment and the analytical methodology to be able to discard the potential observations before we say that this is a waste of time.
I understand your skepticism of the properties of HHO in general, however the experiment performed by Slobodan Stankovic also creates basis for further interest In elucidating if this gas has any LENR capacity or not.
Maybe, but if a regular flame torch can duplicate the HHO properties in some cases then those cases are not unique to HHO and are most probably not evidence for LENR or anything else amazing.
To summarize earlier tests I did, I measured the oxy-propane temperature by LWIR at 0.95 emissivity and got 80 C, and burned off the end of a pure tungsten welding rod with the same cheap torch.
I used this, but swapped a camping propane cylinder for the MAPP cylinder.
Maybe, but if a regular flame torch can duplicate the HHO properties in some cases then those cases are not unique to HHO and are most probably not evidence for LENR or anything else amazing.
To summarize earlier tests I did, I measured the oxy-propane temperature by LWIR at 0.95 emissivity and got 80 C, and burned off the end of a pure tungsten welding rod with the same cheap torch.
yes I am aware, and Slobodan used other much more complex optic method and got 140 deg C that is in agreement with the more simple optic method.
But beyond the temperature, is the exotic plasma nature of the flame what is interesting, and the things you can do with it.
BTW, did you see the other thread I posted with the huge HHO industrial steel cutting machines? they claim less loss of material and faster cut rates than Oxy propane, that alone is interesting.
Electron temperature, not thermal temperature.
Hydrogen flame cutting is old hat.
Electron temperature, not thermal temperature.
Hydrogen flame cutting is old hat.
I have checked again Stankovic’s report and in no place it talks about electron temperature, but consistently of flame temperature.
I have checked again Stankovic’s report and in no place it talks about electron temperature, but consistently of flame temperature.
Try ECW BG comments regarding Stankovic comments, or decipher the spreadsheet available from RG along with the paper.
