Thank you. Works for me.

I started a new thread :

Testing the Rossi Ecat SKLed - Technical Discussions Only

Testing the Rossi Ecat SKLed - Technical Discussions Only

Rossi-mockers -- carry on here.

The input power is 4 watts. Supposing a maximum COP of 10, the system would have to handle 40 watts without over-heating.

I see three main avenues:

Optical -

Measure the flux, compare it to a known lamp

Here's the testing procedure for LED Fixtures

https://www.lisungroup.com/wp-…tandard-Free-Download.pdf
That's beyond my capability.

Edit: Photovoltaic. (Suggested by Truth)

Air Calorimetry: Wrap it in a black plastic bag / put it in a black box and see how much heat it generates.

Water Calorimetry: Ditto, but dunk it in water.
I have a Prominent Gamma pump which could handle this.
(Assuming 40W and a convenient temperature rise of 10C the required flow would be about 5 l/hr ... well within Gamma's range)
As an alternative, keep the lamp outside the "tank" and shine the light into the tank. That's the main avenue I'm investigating.

(Note : Calle H on ecat world suggested using it as a heat generator : https://e-catworld.com/2021/10…heater-ever-made-calle-h/ )

The landing page for the Ecat SKLed is at

Leonardo Corporation | Order Ecat Products

The specification is at
https://ecatorders.com/specifications/

• Size: Length 15 cm, diameter 10 cm (6” x 4”)
• Weight: 200 grams
• Operational Lifetime: up to 100,000 hours
• Lamp type: LED
• Luminous Flux: >10,000 lm [ Edit : not certified ]
• Luminous efficacy: 2,500 lm/watt
• Light color: 5,000 K (cold white) [Spectrum not stated]
• Beam angle: 60 degrees
• CRI (color rendering index): 90
• Power supply: 110–240V AC, 50/60 Hz, or 12 V [+- 3V] DC
  [ Select AC/DC at the time of ordering.
  I'll order one of each. ]

• Power consumption: 3.9 W (+/- 10%)
• Recyclable: Yes
• Protection: IP65 (outdoor use)
• Warranty: 3 years
  
  Note: I'm updating the spec in this post based on rossisez comments.

This topic is for technical discussions only.
Moderators : please delete any Rossi-Dissing posts.

Suppose that Rossi actually delivers the SKLed.

I have pre-ordered two. How should I test them?

Quote from Alan Smith

On Sunday 14th of November this thread will be merged with the 'Playground' thread. That means Covid discussions can carry on there, no posts will be lost. The merged thread will still be called the Playground.

Why not just move the entire thread/topic to "Off-Topic Talk" ?

Off-Topic Talk

Edit : I see it's already there. Always has been and always will be off-topic.

Quote from Fm1

The Oregon Health Authority produces a weekly report covering not only total number of COVID-19 cases but also breakthrough cases—those individual’s that despite vaccination continue to get infected.

They provide breakthrough data by age .. but NOT the population by age, or vaccination status by age.

Pfizer 1281/100K and Moderna 1072/100K have similar numbers .. J&J at 2021/100K is much worse (but still better than unvaxed).

I'm glad I got Moderna (and booster).

Yes, I also have a years-old pre-order for a domestic SKL.

Quote from sam12

2021-11-03 13:44 Sam 

Hello DR Rossi

Congratulations on receiving

SKLed Certification.

Can you say the type of

mark will be on the Product?

https://www.agcled.com/blog/le…ons-you-need-to-know.html

Regards

Sam

2021-11-03 17:45 Andrea Rossi 

Sam:

In due time,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

Here's the testing procedure for LED Fixtures
https://www.lisungroup.com/wp-…tandard-Free-Download.pdf

(There's a new version changed mainly to clarify the details)

I have two ecatSKL's on order,

One of two things will happen:

a) Nothing is shipped

Nothing to do, so move along, folks

b) Something is shipped

I'm starting to think how I would test them. Optically? Thermally?
I'll resurrect my old calorimetry thread in a coupla/few weeks/months.

The paper has a very interesting line:

The asymptomatic fractions of infection by age group were 52%, 50%, 45%, and 12% among individuals aged 0 to 4 years, 5 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years, and 18 years or older, respectively.

That's a huge fall-off to 18+ : I wish they'd stratified the 18+ into decades.

Quote from Fm1

Alexander Andrée, PhD, Latin and Medieval Studies

Unless he specializes in The Plague I'm not sure about his relevance.

Quote from Fm1

X1 solar flare with a major CME

A minor S1 solar radiation storm commenced and is currently in progress. Strong radio interference (R3) expected.

Not a Carrington event!

The "large british study" (link above) is summarized in the NIH Director's blog:

Breakthrough Infections in Vaccinated People Less Likely to Cause ‘Long COVID’

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/…kely-to-cause-long-covid/

While accounting for differences in age, sex, and other risk factors, the researchers found that fully vaccinated individuals who developed breakthrough infections were about half (49 percent) as likely as unvaccinated people to report symptoms of Long COVID Syndrome lasting at least four weeks after infection.

Quote from Mark U

The vaccine doesn't protect against long Covid? Must be a typo, or something.

I haven't seen any other data about long covid from breakthrough cases ... but since you can die from it, I don't see why you can't get long covid from it.

This seems to be the underlying paper : https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/152346/pdf

Edit: I see nothing about vaccine status in the paper.

Edit 2 :

What We Know About Breakthrough Infections And Long COVID
https://www.npr.org/sections/h…infections-and-long-covid

..

A small Israeli study recently provided the first evidence that breakthrough infections could lead to long COVID symptoms, although the numbers are small. Out of about 1,500 vaccinated health care workers, 39 got infected, and seven reported symptoms that lasted more than six weeks.

And a large British study subsequently found about 5% of people who got infected — even though they were fully vaccinated — experienced persistent symptoms, although the study also found that the odds of having symptoms for 28 days or more were halved by having two vaccine doses.

..

But the experts don't all agree
... various opinions ...

Tesla just got a 100,000-car order form Hertz (thru 2022) putting its valuation over $1T

There's a treatment plan I can support :

In healthy volunteers administered ivermectin orally (150 μg/kg), plasma levels were significantly higher when coadministered with 750 ml of beer than with 750 ml of water; the plasma concentrations were significantly higher in patients who drank beer (66.3, 109, and 97.2 ng/ml at 1, 3 and 4 h, respectively) vs. those who drank water (44.0, 67.5, and 58.7 ng/ml, respectively, P < 0.01 at each time point) (36).

Maybe we need to correlate the death rates of all those countries with beer-drinking rates.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Alan - it is reversed if you remove Elgazzar and Niaee

I'm not going to recalculate Bryant .. but it's not reversed in ivmmeta, see Fig 17. still at 27% for mortality.

How can a booka-bux company like Pfizer screw up a simple Press Release?

PFIZER AND BIONTECH ANNOUNCE PHASE 3 TRIAL DATA SHOWING HIGH EFFICACY OF A BOOSTER DOSE OF THEIR COVID-19 VACCINE

Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Phase 3 Trial Data Showing High Efficacy of a Booster Dose of Their COVID-19 Vaccine | Pfizer

Thursday, October 21, 2021 - 06:45am

First results from any randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine booster trial demonstrate a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% against disease during a period when Delta was the prevalent strain

They get it right later:

In the trial, a booster dose administered to individuals who previously received the Pfizer-BioNTech primary two-dose series restored vaccine protection against COVID-19 to the high levels achieved after the second dose, showing a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% when compared to those who did not receive a booster

But the "95.6%" figure is already getting publicized. (Still good news ... )

What IS the protection against disease?

From the CDC data above,

I converted their "Risk Rate" to Risk Ratio, multiplied the two risks CDC vaxed-to-disease, Pfizer boosted-to-vaxed, and converted back to Efficacy) - CDC data at the peak of the Delta wave (Oct 8, 2021)

-- Overall Pfizer Efficacy 81.7% (Moderna 89.0%, J&J 76.2%)

-- Booster relative to Vaxed 95.6%

-- Combined Pfizer Efficacy 99.2% against disease

(Minor inaccuracy .. the CDC ages 12+ and Pfizer 18+ don't quite match. CDC is at a point in time vs Pfizer trial period)

Moderna hasn't submitted a case study - just a seriological study, but it's likely to be even better.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Bryant et al should have redone (or just withdrawn) their meta-analysis. Not difficult to do it.

They did .. in a letter to Am Jn of Therapeutics.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Response-to-Elgazzar.pdf

Original: https://journals.lww.com/ameri…n_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx

Removing Elgazzar the death risk ratio went from 0.38 to 0.51 -- with the 95% CI within the "favors IVM" side.

As they point out :

The claim that conclusions are “entirely reversed” [Guardian] cannot be sustained on the evidence.

Quote from THHuxleynew

it includes (and refused to remove) Elgazzar now withdrawn

"it" being ivmmeta.com

That is simply not true.

They say :

7/15: Elgazzar et al. was retracted and has been removed.

7/9: We added [Hazan].

And

Elgazzar.
This study was withdrawn and was removed from this analysis on the same day. There was no significant change (excluding 1 of 66 studies has very little effect, and the exclusion actually improves the treatment delay-response relationship)

This is confirmed by the wayback machine
7/15/21 https://web.archive.org/web/20…0325/https://ivmmeta.com/

7/16/21 Elgazzar Removed https://web.archive.org/web/20…0109/https://ivmmeta.com/

A couple of notes : before the removal of Elgazar and Niaee the overall mortality RCT (Mostly double-blind) was 57% improvement, and firmly in the "Favors IVM" column. After, the removal (plus adding another study) it's down to 27% (and the 95% CI overlapping into the "favors control" -- I could argue for a 1-tailed 82% CI)
(Jul 9 : Fig 16 Oct 20: Fig 17)

As an example of their "bias" in extracting the "most severe" result from a paper. Shahbaznejad didn't even report deaths in their primary results. They do comment on ONE death in the treatment arm:

> In the ivermectin group, a 78-year-old woman with a history of diabetes mellitus and heart failure died. She was critically ill at the time of admission and died within the first 24 hours.

IVMmeta took that death as the most severe outcome.
(I wonder if she even got her Ivermectin!)

Most severe : Test < Symptom < Hospitalization < ICU < death ?
https://www.clinicaltherapeuti…-2918(21)00201-0/fulltext

Edit: Based on the results of the current study, we found significant effects of ivermectin on parameters including hospital stay, dyspnea (as an easily assessed symptom), cough, and lymphopenia.

Note to THH: I endorse your vax analysis, but not your meta-meta-study analysis. But I don't have time to debate that right now.