DNI Member
• Member since Feb 24th 2016
• Last Activity:

# Posts by DNI

• ## ​New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry)​

DNI,

The point is that you can calculate a conservative input power value of the entire circuit, including the 1 Ohm brown resistor and the reactor, with the information that we have. And in determining the COP of the system, it is the conservative input power value that is used.

This is only true if the measured volatge, 100mV, is the voltage across both resistor and reactor. So to be abel to calculate the conservative input power value with the information we have from the report we must assume that the report is wrong about what voltage is measured.

Since the report say "In the left in the figure there is two voltmeters that measure the mV of the current passing through the 1 Ohm brown resistance" not through the 1 ohm brown resitance and the reactor.

• ## ​New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry)​

You can know it. Because it is the same current that flows through the brown ceramic resistor.

It's correct that it is the same current but you can't calculate the power to the reactor without either the resistivity of the reactor or the voltage across the reactor.

I agree that if the voltage 100mV used to calculate the power in the report is the voltage across both reactor and resistor. Then 10mW can be used as a concervative value. But that's not how it is described in the report. And not how it seems to be conected in the picture. As Malcom describes above "the meters negative leads are connected to the junction of the reactor and resistor"

• ## ​New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry)​

IH Fanboy:

"If you look at the photo, you will see that the two voltmeters are measuring the same thing: the voltage drop across the reactor."

Malcom Lear:

"Looking carefully at the photo, its clear both meters are reading the 100mV across the resistor and not the reactor."

Seems like you both see what you want to see. A bit like when the disussion was about frames or no frames in the window. In my opinon it is not possible to see in the picture if the voltage is measured across the resistor or reactor. The green connector seems to be connected to both the resistor and the reactor. And the red connector disapear behind the box. Can any of you explain how you come to your conclusion?

To me it really doesn't matter what can be seen in the picture or not. It is clearly described in the report Page 18:

"In the left in the figure there is two voltmeters that measure the mV of the current passing through the 1 Ohm brown resistance."

• ## ​New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry)​

In my mind, it is all very simple. I'm confused as to why there is so much confusion, although the description of the experiment in the paper could use some polishing.

If you look at the photo, you will see that the two voltmeters are measuring the same thing: the voltage drop across the reactor. The resistance path through the reactor is known. Therefore power can be easily calculated.

The brown resistor is not connected to either voltmeter in the photo. It is there and available as a sanity check. It is probably connected in series with the reactor. In other words, the voltage drop across the brown resistor can be measured to determine current through the reactor.

I think it's quite clear in the report that it is the voltage across the resistor that is measured.

Page 18 in the report:

"In the left in the figure there is two voltmeters that measure the mV of the current passing through the 1 Ohm brown resistance."

But lets say the report is wrong and you are right. That the voltage measured is the voltage across the reactor. Then it's is correct to calculated the power as they have done in the report only if the resistance in the reactor is always 1 ohm. But how do we know this? Because Rossi say so? This would be as as stupid as when Rossi on previous occasions claimed that all water was vaporized without measuring it. It would have been so simple to measure both the voltage across the resistor in series and the voltage across the reactor. And with those two values it would have been simple to calculate the power in to the reactor without the need to trust any "Rossi say" about the resistance in the reactor.

It seems like we have two different possibilities. Either it is the voltage across the resistor that is measured (as it is described in the report) and then the calculation of power is wrong. Or it is the voltage across the reactor that is measured as you think. And then Rossi once again has made a stupid test set-up that has to trust "Rossi say". When it would have been very simple to also measure the voltage across the resistor and eliminate "Rossi say" from the calculations.

I said some years ago that there is only three possible alternatives:

1. The e-cat works and Rossi wants to prove that it works. But Rossi is extremely incompetent and refuse to listen to advice.

2. The e-cat works but Rossi don't want to prove this without doubt.

3. The e-cat doesn't work as Rossi claims.

I think this is still valid and my guess is still number 3.

• ## ​New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry)​

That is your misunderstanding, which is the same misunderstanding that THH has, in my opinion. There is a single resistive path. The two voltmeters are being used in a redundant fashion. They are measuring the voltage drop across a known resistance, then determining the power using one of the most basic and well-known laws. I don't even want to name it here, it is that well-known. THH is smug because he thinks I don't know what law it is, or how it is used. THH has no idea what my background is nor my education. He takes cheap shots and capitalizes on typos.

My success rate is quite high with my predictions. And I predict that the two voltmeters are measuring the same voltage drop across the total resistance of the single resistive path through the reactor. Let's see whether THH or I turn out to be right. My guess is--probably me again.

I think maybe we misunderstand each other.

As I read the report there is a resistor (R = 1 ohm) connected in series with the reactor. Then the voltage across the resistor is measured (V = 100mV) (with two voltmeters). And the power is calculated as:

Pin= V^2/R = 0,01W

But this is the power to the resistor not the power to the reactor.

To calculate the power to the reactor we would need to know the voltage across the reactor as well.

What am I misunderstanding?

• ## ​New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry)​

Then THH can't resist speculating in his usual negative way, that one can't determine the power by measuring the voltage drop across a known resistor in series with the reactor, to get the current, and measure the output voltage pf the power supply. As it it supposed to be DC it should be fairly simple.

That would be a possible way to do it. But that is not how it seems to be done in the report. The power in is calculated from "Energy input: V=0.1 R=1 Ohm → W=0.01" where V is the voltage over the 1 ohm resistor. Hence what seems to be calculated is the power in to the resistor. Not the power in to the QuarkX.

• ## Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

According to Bruce_H at http://e-catworld.com/2017/07/…ssi-gets-back-all-rights/ it seems like Rossi now claims that there is a recirculator that "pushed water into the inlet side of the Prominent pumps attached to the E-Cat devices. This supposedly helped each one deliver the 75 l/hour of water into the system".

I guess this will be the explanation used if it turns out in Allans testing that the pump doesn't deliver Edit: 5975l/h (corected after coments from IH Fanboy and Jimmy).

• ## Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Try reading what I wrote: "(unless in the undisclosed settlement)"

I did read it. And read it again now. But I still don't get your resoning. What's the point of claiming that Rossi "given up or walked away from a possible \$89" when we have no idea if it's true or not.

• ## Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

How in the world do you get Rossi won? He brought a \$89M suit against IH. The settlement was to drop the suits. So IH would owe nothing (unless in the undisclosed settlement) which is the same results as if IH won the suit outright. The bottom line Rossi has not proven any wrong doing by IH and has given up or walked away from a possible \$89.

How do you know Rossi walked away from 89 million? As far as I know anything could be included in the undisclosed settlement.

• ## Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Shane, I don't see the AR loyalists having much. After all Rossi vacating the suit that could have him winning \$89M if he had something says a lot. How many people would walk away from a "sure" \$89M if he knew that he was correct and his invention worked as claimed.

I would not doubt however that we will see him again in Europe trying to entice people to give him money for the Quark X but never allow for a fully independent (AR hands off) evaluation by knowledgeable scientists.

Again, think of the likelihood of someone walking away from \$89M after already paying lawyers if he knew it worked as claimed. IH's lawyers had it right in their intro- the ecat produced no excess and was filled only with lies.

I see no problem for the Rossi believers to be convinced that Rossi must have got at least 89 millions in the settlement.

• ## Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

That is evidence, and it can be brought up in court. The judge can rather forcefully get these 2 sides to take this trial off the books just by focusing on this offer supposedly that only exists in Rossi's mind.

That should satisfy most of the Anti-Rossi activists, shouldn't it? Rossi gets to keep his worthless IP, IH gets their money back.

I'm sorry to be this frank. But that sounds stupid in my ear. What make you think the judge could do such a thing?

And even if the judge could and would. What if Rossi then say. That offer isn't valid any more. Now I want to continue with this trial to get damages.

• ## Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

None of these guys thought to bring their own thermometer. Jed Rothwell was invited to a Rossi demo, and when Rossi saw that he was going to bring his own tools he uninvited Jed. I find it incredible that over these last 8 years not one of these guys brought their own thermometer to the party.

Maybe it's a just selective selection. The one who wanted to bring their one tools where not invited again. The ones left where the one that didn't think about bringing a thermometer.

I bit more seriously. You make it a bit to easy. It's not enough to bring a thermometer. If I remember correctly Mats actually brought a thermometer to the October 6 test. There are other unclear issues. What is the input power, how much of the steam is vaporized, an with the hotcat it was not possible to measure with an ordinary thermometer. My conclusion is that to make a convincing test Rossi can't be involved in any way when it comes to the test set-up.

It might have been enough with a thermometer, a timer, a bucket of known size and true RMS meter measuring the input if Rossi would have allowed sparging. But he never did.

• ## Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

So your answer to the question of why no one thought to bring a thermometer was that Rossi wouldn't allow it. I find it amazing he got away with this much chicanery over 8 years. Mats Lewan is selling hundreds of thousands of his books. You should write your own counter-argument book and make money off this. Rossi truly is a fantastic magician if what y'all are saying is true.

Well I guess we have different view about this. I don't find Rossi such a fantastic magician. As I explained above I think all of his tricks has been busted. But I think he is a very skilled con man.

I admit that I am surprised that some people let him get away with this much chicanery over all those years. The fact that Mats Lewan and presumably also the Swedish scientists still have hopes for Rossi is the main reason I still follow this story. But there has also been people that didn't allowed the chicanery. Like Krivit, Jed and eventually IH.

We should also remember that there are numerous examples in the history of frauds that fooled many intelligent people. It easy to sit as a bystander and say I would never be fooled by this. But the power of a skilled con man is very big. I think mainly because we people often want's to think the best of other people.

• ## Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Okay, let's use your numbers for the time being. He's claiming a COP of 6, others measure it at COP 3. Let's say the output was 1000 deg F. Wouldn't it mean the output should have been off by several hundred degrees F? You can verify that with a thermometer. No one after these 8 long years thought to bring a thermometer and measure the heat? It just doesn't make sense.

In the first version Rossi claimed COP 6 and said all water was vaporized. But there was no way to measure how much of the water that was actually vaporized.

Then Rossi changed to a heat exchanger to avoid the problem with vaporization. That's when Mats Lewan got COP 3 in October 6. But sadly Rossi had but the thermocouple measuring the temperature of the outgoing coaling water on a big metallic piece that was also closely connected to the hot water inlet. So there is no way to know if the measured temperature is correct.

Then Rossi started with the optical measurements of the temperature on the Hot cat. And it has been shown by both Tomas Clarke and MFMP that there was probably a miss measurement of the temperature. At least they have shown that this way of measuring the temperature is very error prone.

There has also been an incident when SP (a big Swedish testing organization) showed that Rossi miss measured the incoming effect with a factor 3 because he did not use a true RMS instrument.

To summarize there has not been any demonstrations without very reasonable explanation of how a miss measurement explaining a COP above 1 could have happened.

With maybe the exception of Lugano Rossi have to my knowledge never allowed anyone to make independent measurements. There has been numerous suggestion about for instance sparging. But for some reason Rossi has never allowed this. When it comes to Lugano there is different opinions about how much freedom the authors had to measure in any way the liked.

So I dont think you comment that no one thought about bringing a thermometer make sense. Rossi wouldn't allow it.

• ## Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

No one can tell Rossi how to do anything. I have met mercurial inventors like that.

Ross is not a scientist. He's a businessman thoroughly acquainted with the fact that people will do their best to steal his IP, and in the past people have stolen his IP. His actions match that of a con man but they also match that of a mercurial & paranoid inventor. Rossi initially didn't even want to do ANY demos unless it was to paying customers. But his friend Focardi was dying of cancer and wanted the recognition.

Here's what I don't understand. He was demonstrating a COP > 10 much of the time. How do you fake that much heat? Surely if it was really COP <1 then the damned thing would barely feel warm. Even the most pedestrian observer would notice such a severe lack of claimed heat.

I don't think Rossi has been demonstrating COP > 10. At least not for a very long time. He said he had COP 30 before 2011 but those models where never demonstrated in public. In april 2011 when he made public demonstrations it was COP = 6 but then Rossi assumed all water was vaporized. When Mats Lewan measured the water not vaporized in september 2011 he got a COP between 1,5 and 3. When Mats measured the FatCat in oktober 2011 he got COP 3. Lugano also got COP around 3.

• ## Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

If he says it in court then the judge will want to know why the offer was declined, because then there's no need for an expensive trial

The timing of the offer would be important. When was the alleged offer made. And for how long was it valid?

• ## Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Since Rossi said it in public he can bring it up in trial. How do you think the judge or jury would respond to a refund offer?

I'm not sure what your point is.

I don't think the refund offer has happened. But that's only my personal guess. None of us know. That's why I think you should stop claiming this as a truth.

• ## Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

If Rossi's IP is nothing but a hot dog cooker then why does IH want to hold onto it, even in the face of an offer of refund by Rossi?

Can you please stop claiming that a refund offer was made by Rossi. The only source for this information is Rossi himself. IH has said nothing in public about it. Dawey Weaver has denied it.

Basing a conclusion on this is pointless since it's just Rossi say.

• ## Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

You don't have to worry about the relativity Rigel None of the professors in the Lugano report are involved in deciding who gets the Nobel prize. That's just more of Rossis BS.

Kulander was in the Swedish Royal Academy of science. And hence he might have been involved in deciding about the Nobel prize. But he was not an author of the Lugano report. None of the authors are members in Swedish Royal Academy of sciences and have nothing to say about the Nobel prize.

• ## Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

My source is my own faulty memory from reading at Vortex and EcatWorld. What is your source that IH rejected the ERV report?

I have never claimed that they rejected it.

But it's quite clear from the court documents that they have a lot of objections about it