SSC Member
  • Member since Nov 8th 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by SSC

    I have no more any hope on Rossi, and sadly I'm pessimistic with all the courageous experimenters who try to replicate him. It is not fair. Anyway at least there is hope with NiH in general, especially from Didier Grass, Miley, Piantelli, Celani, Focardi. back to the basics!


    Didier Grass, Miley, Piantelli, Celani......their reactors are already on the market? Why do you deem them more credible?

    I already said many times that anonymous results are worthless, especially when it comes to Rossi. He already bamboozled Lewan, Kullander, Essen and the professors and probably Levi and Focardi too. Why couldn't he just hornswoggle some other people, especially since you won't say who they are or what they did.


    So it is easier thinking that everyone in your list above has been bamboozled by Rossi instead of thinking that they saw something really working? Rossi must be a snake charmer!! LOL :)


    I don't see how anyone can read Exhibit 5 and not conclude that either Rossi or I.H. is lying.


    This is a reasonable doubt. Who is the lair? Rossi or IH? This is the reason why I don't bother with Exhibit 5.


    From my understanding the ones with Darden where business types (Peter and Henry) not scientists.


    I think that scientists should have visited the plant before business men did it. Darden asked for money having no guarantee about the real performance of the plant...... A carelessness which is not above suspicion.

    While I don't always agree with Abd, I do not think he, nor any of us for that matter, should be ashamed, or accused of, because of our time here in pursuit of knowledge. If one disagrees, then perhaps they could give us a better outlet for our passions?



    Sure, this is the point.... I think that everyone can spend his own time here talking about what he wants, it's a free space in an (almost) free world. So I don't like when a person, who chooses to do it, is suspicious about other persons doing the same but in another place.

    Abd did not claim anyone was paid to post. What was pointed out was that this has been alleged, over and over, for many months, from the Planet Rossi side, when, if it were to happen, it would actually make more sense for Rossi, if his internet buzz is important to his economic future. I was internet buzz that largely created the big fuss, starting in 2011.


    Even IH has an economic future in the LENR Universe...... IH keeps on investing in this technology and is supporting research and researchers. So, if you deem important for Rossi to preserve his own public image for future investors, the same must be for IH. Thoughts like yours about this argument are the things make me think this forum is not so nonpartisan as you say.....

    I am not "complaining" about e-catworld, I describe it. It is an openly pro-Rossi site, like some others. Lenr-forum is generally neutral, overall. Of course, Rossi has attacked lenr-forum on his blog....


    Generally neutral?!? LOL! Abd, you have cited Mr. Weaver, who posted 806 times in three months of activity, and you left 1750 posts so far, just to mention two persons "just a little bit" impartial and very, very active. Where do you see neutrality?
    Jed Rothwell wrote: "What a strange thing to do. Someone has too much time on his hands, and nothing important to do."
    Jed, are you saying this thing to Abd (one who truly lives in this forum) talking about someone else? Really?? I'm having so much fun...... ;) :thumbup:

    Sorry Abd, but I find this thread quite ridiculous.....
    If a person chooses to leave a message in Rossi blog, it is quite probable that he is a Rossi-fan, just like people who frequently visit a football team official site. So I find pretty normal that most of the comments on Rossi blog could be very partisan. I'm much more unclear about the fact you are spending such a lot of time in stuff like this!
    You wrote: "There is no evidence anywhere of "IH service" for anyone writing on the blogs. I'll set aside Dewey Weaver, where he is actually an investor, not someone paid to write on blogs! Blog commentary is of practically no benefit to Industrial Heat, they would be crazy to pay for it, and they aren't crazy. There is, however, someone who has, in the past, benefited from blog positings. Who would that be? If someone is creating FUD, who would have a motive, and particularly a financial one? It's not rocket science to guess!".So, if you fill hundreds of forum pages with your ideas against Rossi, we should think that you are just a free-thinker and a verbose writer, whereas if a person leaves just one positive/partisan comment on Rossi blog he certainly is a paid puppet? Come on, be more impartial!And to Jed you wrote: "Just because you are not paid to create FUD doesn't mean that someone else isn't."
    Friends of yours are independent and unbiased writers, but who thinks in a different way (even if he is obviously partial) is just creating FUD? I don't think so......

    Thank you for the explanation, Mr. Lomax, but I still doubt that the emissivity which has to be insert in the IR camera could be the spectral one. So you are telling me that the user should insert... what.....the mean spectral emissivity in the camera’s sensitivity range? For alumina this mean value is the same for the range 7.5 - 12 μm and the range 7.5 - 13 μm, so it seems to me that this can not be the right choice. Maybe the user should insert the function ε(λ) in the IR camera, but I think that Optris camera let you insert just a number (not a function) for the emissivity value. So I wonder how you could use the spectral emissivity when this value is not constant in the range of interest....

    Just like Grafiker, I am another curious onlooker, interested in the understanding of thermography.
    In the Optris manual "Basic principles of non-contact temperature measurement" one finds the formula utilized by IR cameras to deduce the temperature of an object on the basis of the radiation received by the sensors. It would seem that camera software is capable of adjusting readings in order to account for the wavelength range which the camera is capable of detecting. This correction takes place by modifying exponent "n" in the " Tobj" formula.Page 8 in the manual states:"As infrared thermometers do not cover the wavelength range as a whole, the exponent n depends on the wavelength λ. At wavelengths ranging from 1 to 14 μm n is between 17 and 2 (at long wavelengths between 2 and 3 and at short wavelengths between 15 and 17)."So we do not measure all the time at the max wavelength with the IR camera, but it is not necessary if the radiation is enough to get an accurate temperature reading. The radiation maximum (Wien’s Law) could be outside the camera’s sensitivity range but maybe the camera is still receiving a lot of radiation within this range. The exponent "n" in the formula is probably a function of wavelengths and the actual adjustment of the exponent is programmed into the camera EEPROM. So it seems to me that epsilon could be the total emissivity (the manual does not clarify which kind of emissivity we have to insert in the formula....)