I'm unable to watch the video right now. Can I kindly ask someone to summarize it very shortly? Thanks
Pascal Marchetti
Member
- Member since Apr 11th 2017
- Last Activity:
Posts by Pascal Marchetti
-
-
Is the plan to use your analyzed meshes in an actual replication of Mizuno R20 test? As a side comment, it's a bit strange to me that Mizuno/Rothwell strongly recommend accurate analytical procedure for gas evacuation and don't similarly suggest rigorous analysis of the prepared meshes as well (at least it's not part of the original paper).
-
That's why rossi allowed Mats to do that test.
In #1163 you cited me but I never wrote that phrase and in fact the cite point to another post of mines where I'm saying different things. Please fix your post.
-
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
It would interested me what Fabiani says in Italian to Rossi at 00:48 sec in this clip?
"Andrea, you did it all by yourself. Get mad with yourself".
It seems he did some kind of mistake.
-
The report was submitted to arXiv. The intent for that submission was to subject the paper to peer review comments. In fact. a revised paper was subsequently published to address some questions that were submitted in the initial gogo around. I wonder if these new questions about the paper regarding the COP calculations would generate changes to explicate the thinking behind the calculations. Is it too late to submit questions?
Why it should be too late? It's quite obvious to me that at the current state they are not aiming for publishing in any journal. arXiv is just a public directory that is used for early release of articles, and moderators of the site are not required to do peer review before accepting a paper: the only requirements seem to be proper classification and not being manifestly anti-scientific. It's quite sad the site doesn't provide any tool for commenting the article and leaving public feedback. Apparently the only way to ask for new revisions of the paper is by contacting the authors directly through their emails.
-
Thank you very much.
-
Alan Smith has reported first hand observation of light produced by the Quark.
I can't find this report. Link?
-
* First question is: who endorsed such paper for repository, according to the written rules of arXiv organization?
It is a Scientific repository, not a Patent office.
Dear Dr. Celani,
I think the problem here is how arXiv works since, as you also states, it's just a repository/registry and there are no other services offered by the site to publicly aid the peer review process. arXiv appears to be popular and respected since a lot of respected people published their article drafts there (and historically many of these drafts were remarkably useful) but there's no rule that this should true for all articles published on arXiv. Because the only form of moderation appears to be the rejection of the article, using principles like the article being undoubtedly wrong or manifestly anti-scientific, I think it's not immediate for moderators to drop the article that, at least, got a second iteration that provided more details and corrections and new iterations with more details could follow. The fact that you had to write to a forum that has no connection to arXiv to express your concerns about Gullstrom-Rossi's article should make you wonder that, in the current state, arXiv is mostly a free to use directory service and many people with enough math and physics education will be able to publish and archive their drafts there. Also, because the article is mostly theoretical and physics is still a field where theories can still be discussed on mathemical terms without providing verifiable experimental evidence, the only ground for serious rework of the article should be 1) asking Gullstrom-Rossi for the information you think is missing and could be disclosed instead OR 2) asking Gullstrom-Rossi to just drop the experimental part of the article and keep the theoretical one.
-
I am quite disappointed the case resolved in a settlement. While the US civil practice wouldn't have set in stone the validity of the Doral test (because of lack of court 3rd party ordered tests on the plant), I would have been interested in reading the transcript of the deposition of the following people:
- De Giovanni: who is? What is this American Platinum Trust? What are his interests in the matter?
- Penon: are him still convinced of the validity of the test? Why the report is not taking into account the dissipation of the heat?
- Levi and Hoistad: are them still convinced of the vality of the Lugano Report?
If Rossi instead has something (and, as much as it sounds strange, fake Doral test would actually be no proof he hasn't), then he did a wonderful job of being payed for R&D for more than 2 years and still keep the IP intact. As usual, time will tell. If Levi and Hoistad, listed as plaintiff witnesses, were to leave some positive depositions in the trial (we will never know for sure), we could have predicted that something had to happen within a reasonable time frame, let say 2 years. If in two years from now Rossi will still be talking about sigma, then I will be 6-sigma certain that he had nothing from the beginning.
I appear to live 15 minutes away from Penon's company location. At some point I may decide to collect some fair/answerable questions (I am open to suggestions) about the matter and handle them by hand.
-
This is not the case with Penon - he has made himself unavailable, not just inconvenient to reach.
Where did you read or deduce this? Penon is "expected to present" at the trial for both plaintiff and third party defendants.
[280]
-
After the recent rebuttal of Wong opinions on effective results achieved by the Doral factory, many external viewers (including me) may think that the Rossi's case is crying for third party experts opinions that aren't Penon's ones. After reading the judge's order [308] and Wong's document [197.01] it's clear to me (and hopefully it was clear to Rossi's legal team as well, unless they are totally incompetent) that the chances of rebuttal were very high: the expert simply wasn't provided with enough factual data to express conclusive opinions with regard of performance of the Doral factory. Of course those who believe Rossi is a scammer may conclude that no data has ever existed or the existing one is so fake that no expert would ever support its validity. We'll see if Rossi's lawyers will appeal on this decision: so far they haven't, preferring asking for reconsideration on Murray admissibility as an expert first.
Now, trial is approaching and it's my understanding of the american civil practice that little to none more evidence will appear during the trial: no magically reappearing pictures of the heat exchanger, no military expert testifying having taken measurements on the Quarkx, nothing so clamorous. Penon's raw data may finally appear, and Lugano's report authors may testify that the e-cat worked for them, though they won't be allowed to produce a written expert disclosure other than the Lugano's report, which is not a document that can be read by any audience (except maybe for the conclusions). Both could be possible, but unconfirmed at this point. This is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Even with some little more evidence appearing during the trial, at this point I think that Rossi's strategy is just: "Believe me because we decided together that Penon is the ERV (NOTE: this is disputed by IH) and him only should be allowed to judge on Doral factory performance". Citing Lugano's report authors he will state "Believe me because e-cat worked for them". If they will testify during the trial it will be a plus for Rossi, but this is not a requirement. They won't ask for more measurements taken directly on the 1MW plant, nor there will be any real experts fight. Those who hoped for truth to be eviscerated will be highly disappointed . Do you agree (that this is the strategy)? Do you think this is a strategy at all?
-
It has no smell at all. You must be thinking of one of its compounds, like H2S. To make hydrogen you would need to use electricity, or a lot of chemistry and create a lot of dirty chemical waste. Using a 30% efficient turbine or other generator system, Rossi might hope to use his entire MW to produce around 300kW continuous of electricity, which at the accepted 50% efficiency of the best electrolysers would produce approximately 4.5 Kg hydrogen per hour. This has an energy content of close to 150kW/h.
So this process only loses 150 kWh continuous, leaving 850kW to be dumped as waste heat.
AND BTW, Welcome to LENR Forum!
Yes, for sure I remember burning hydrogen sulfide during high school chemistry lab experiments, that's why I thought hydrogen was smelly. Thanks for estimating entropy of the process. Thanks for the welcome
-
... the first time, anyone told, that hydrogen would smell... strange people on this forum...
I'm sorry. I don't recall correctly lab experiments during high school, it has passed several years. That's why I always ask for corrections.
-
This is pure speculation but has it ever been suggested that the endothermic process is actually a thermal based splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen (catalyzed by platinum) or a high temperature hydrolysis? The reaction products could be turned back to water by combustion (if not vented away). This, I believe, would be very endothermic and very useless. To be clear, I firmly believe Rossi's representation of JMP as Johnson Matthey subsidiary was a lie, but if the endothermic process actually existed it would just be a marketing lie.
Please correct me if the proposed reactions are unpractical, even with state of the art techniques.
