Faster than light: GL is wrong. Very good. And, incidentally, the oldest campus in the world has been strong governed ever.
Ivan Pavlov - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Faster than light: GL is wrong. Very good. And, incidentally, the oldest campus in the world has been strong governed ever.
It should be possible to image the entire room, ray tracing all those lens reflections…
OK - I've checked Levi's figures.
Maximum Lux 244 (at border)
Distance 200 cm = 2m, Illuminated area diameter 150 cm = 1.5 mArea 1.77 m^2
Angle 41 degrees
Lumens from https://www.rapidtables.com/ca…-to-lumen-calculator.html givingMax Lumens = 432
or in other words….
This means just 77Lumens/W like a low efficiency common LED.
…give or take a bit.
i.o. portends to psychoanalyze the "true believers" -- his presence here being a sort of social experiment of the mind. He and others are 100% certain that Rossi has nothing. Yet, the only rational position by any measure at this stage is one of uncertainty until a device is in one's possession and measured by one's own measurement tools. Dismissal out-of-hand is the bane of modern science, and the cardinal sin of hot fusion scientists and their sympathizers toward the entire LENR field.
From the video :
SKled 167 lux / 3.8W
LED: 900 lux / 98W
Sounds like he is under-driving a large LED, in order to get a crappy efficiency, and then claiming his SKled is exceptionally efficient in comparison?
The "live Q&A" is at the ecatworld forum :
https://e-catworld.com/2021/12…ecat-presentation-thread/
I've only started to read it, but so far nobody's happy.
I saw (so far) only one answer apparently posted by Rossi
Mats Lewan:
…give or take a bit.
If the SKled MAXIMUM results were anywhere close to interesting I'd do a multi-zone lux/area/lumens calculation for "center/middle/border".
or in other words….
…give or take a bit.
Yes, the LED technology gone beyond 77lumens/W.
If the SKled MAXIMUM results were anywhere close to interesting I'd do a multi-zone lux/area/lumens calculation for "center/middle/border".
I refuse to waste my time by performing any kind of real calculation (or indeed watch the video… i’m only interested in the freakshow), but, the ‘maximum’ result at the edge of the circle seems roughly the same as a normal LED.
See Truths comment:
This means just 77Lumens/W like a low efficiency common LED.
Edit: Am I confusing something Truth?
Display MoreOK - I've checked Levi's figures.
Maximum Lux 244 (at border)
Distance 200 cm = 2m, Illuminated area diameter 150 cm = 1.5 mArea 1.77 m^2
Angle 41 degrees
Lumens from https://www.rapidtables.com/ca…-to-lumen-calculator.html givingMax Lumens = 432
From the video :
SKled 167 lux / 3.8W
LED: 900 lux / 98W
The distance for the two lamps seems different. The LED looks to be further away (since we can't see it).
Since we don't have the actual distance/area it's inconclusive at best.
Not inconclusive, being distances been declared in the report.
I hope you start to understand that a Lux value showed on his video means nothing when all the geometry is not clearly known.
Due to this reason LED spec have meaning in Lumens, not in Lux.
This is simply a "fake miracle" due to an ingnorant.
i.o. portends to psychoanalyze the "true believers" -- his presence here being a sort of social experiment of the mind. He and others are 100% certain that Rossi has nothing. Yet, the only rational position by any measure at this stage is one of uncertainty until a device is in one's possession and measured by one's own measurement tools. Dismissal out-of-hand is the bane of modern science, and the cardinal sin of hot fusion scientists and their sympathizers toward the entire LENR field.
Hi! Its been awhile. Nice to see that you haven’t dropped off the map altogether.
We know the ultimate test, no?
Let’s ask a child if it is probably a scam.
Display MoreI refuse to waste my time by performing any kind of real calculation (or indeed watch the video… i’m only interested in the freakshow), but, the ‘maximum’ result at the edge of the circle seems roughly the same as a normal LED.
See Truths comment:
Edit: Am I confusing something Truth?
Yes, it's nothing more of a common LED luminous flux. Nothing to do with the alleged spec published on his site.
Hi! Its been awhile. Nice to see that you haven’t dropped off the map altogether.
We know the ultimate test, no?
Let’s ask a child if it is probably a scam.
Yes, quite awhile. Most children possess much common sense. Do you fear the ultimate test? Have you ordered an ep?
Not inconclusive, being distances been declared in the report.
Levi's report is OK.
I was referring to the results reported in the video.
Measurement at a single point, No distance available, Illuminated area dodgy = inconclusive.
I have no fundamental objection to Levi's SKled report, except that he should have done the Lumens calculation, and should have measured a "standard" LED as a comparison.
With the amount of money at stake Rossi should have sprung for a full calibration. (Measuring the spectrum over a full sphere).
I don't know what that costs. Surely under $100K.
Yes, quite awhile. Most children possess much common sense. Do you fear the ultimate test? Have you ordered an ep?
LOL.
No I am not adding my name to the ultimate prize, Rossi’s sucker list.
Do the SKleds look a little smaller than the one on the end table in Rome? Perspective?
Yes, it's nothing more of a common LED luminous flux. Nothing to do with the alleged spec published on his site.
Well at least Levi managed to measure it correctly this time round.
Pinballerers across Italy will be very disappointed.
I agree.
"Solid verification of the Ecat is still missing... "
To all concerned
Please let us know when one arrives in the mail. -gbgoble
LOL.
No I am not adding my name to the ultimate prize, Rossi’s sucker list.
Do the SKleds look a little smaller than the one on the end table in Rome? Perspective?
LOL.
So for 250 bucks, you refuse to prove your conviction. Hundreds of hours spent disproving Rossi by words and reproductions, but can't dig deep enough for a single ep order? You could even claim that you were scammed when you don't receive it. What do you have to lose?