Posts by PhysicsForDummies

Quote from Curbina

I hope someone manages to record it tho, to be able to watch it later.

Ditto. I will be recorded, right?

Quote from RobertBryant

Is there a youth group?

Yes, the YMCRS (Young Men's Church of Rossi Skeptics)

You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal,

You can do whatever you feel.

Oh Rossi didn't say 500 thousand connections? Sorry, I take it back. That was my previous version of the calculations

Since Sam has already indicated he is 50/50, and Mark is feeling a little flustered too, I prepared this advertisement for us to display on ECW to try to get more Rossi supporters.

I am sure Frank will appreciate any additional funds, I will contribute to the ad.

.

Quote from Mark U

To be nitpicky:

Roughly half the connections are in the controller, which is about 4 litres in volume.

The other half are in the Ecat proper, which including the outer shell is about 8 litres in volume.

Also, not all the connection are soldered.

What had seemed unlikely to me was not the number of connections but the (tentatively provided) power density of the reactor core: 5kW in 100cm^3. But this is 50 watts per cubic centimetre, which is in the ballpark of a candle flame. The much more amazing thing would be that 80 percent of this power is in the form of electricity (if Rossi has done the measurements correctly).

Display More

So this cube size is 1.82677165 inches on each side.

In order to have electrodes in the plasma to extract this electricity, these must all be connected to the reactor, not "the ecat proper". Rossi says the shell is just for heat dissipation.

So for the 500,000 reactor side connections, that equals 62,500 connections for each cube face. This means a grid of 250 x 250 connections. The pitch of this grid spacing is then 0.0072" = 7.2 mils, in old fashioned english units lingo.

A typical surface mount pitch is around 50 mils, which is too small to solder by hand.

Maybe I made a mistake somewhere in these calcs but as you can see, anywhere near this density is an absolute pipe dream and Rossi is a ****** liar.

You should try doing some sanity check calculations some time. I assume you can calculate cube volumes and temperature conversions better than Rossi.

Quote from Mark U

Too much golfing in the sun and perhaps imbibing some denatured alcohol!

Rossi made is clear to someone who asked, that the reactor volume is indeed 100 cm^3 and not 1000 cm^3. The size has been reduced.

Paradigmnoia himself mentioned this, and you done gone and ignored him!

100 pushups, now!

Rossi's 100cm^3 = ~4.64x4.64x4.64

Rossi never said he reduced the size of the reactor to less than 5 cm cubed.

He is just too stupid to calculate the volume. It is tricky like converting Kelvin to Celsius.

Since the device isn't real, when confronted with his stupid error, he just went ahead and said 100cm^3 is correct with no explanation.

No way in hell he shrank the reactor by a factor of 10 in volume suddenly, after being confronted with his error.

Rossi's uncanny ability to calculate 10 cubed = 100 is on full blown display on JONP.

Last time when he was calculating degrees C higher than degrees K, I corrected him then he finally fixed it.

This time I want to let this 100 cubic cm fiasco ride.

Can anyone seriously believe that a physicist is unable to calculate the volume of a cube?

I wonder how he can handle integrating over 4 pi steradians?

Perhaps for Rossi the universe is 2D with the third spatial dimension being extremely tiny, string theory style.

Quote from Toffoli

This is an interesting point that should be more deeply investigated

Before it is investigated I would like to understand what the point is. "Cheerleader patents" and AR ribs? Sounds like a high school barbeque party.

Quote from sam12

I think a negative result or third

party testing that is not legitimate

will effect me enough to finally

quit following Rossi.

Barty please ban me from

LENR Forum if this is the case.

Display More

I bet once you come to your senses and disavow Rossi, you will post about the same amount.

Very few quit "following" Rossi, they just follow in a different way, with a clearer mind.

It is just that we will need some new cult followers to replace you and Mark.

Maybe LENR forum can place ads on ECW.

Unbelievable! Rossi can't even multiply 10×10×10. He was corrected and still insists it is 100 instead of 1000. I thought the Celsius vs Kelvin calculation was bad enough. This guy is a complete moron.

1. Gerard McEk August 1, 2020 at 2:53 AM

   Dear Andrea,

   some questions if I may:

   1. Is the mentioned 100 cm^3 indeed the volume of the reactor or is it 1000 cm^3 (10x10x10 cm) being 1 liter?

   2. Based on your assumption that the Zero point energy may be used, there should be no ‘fuel’ (something that’s being used) needed. So the E-cat can run theoretically forever without refueling? Obviously I understand that some parts may deteriorate.

   3. Did’n even your wife witnessed the ECat in operation? (That’s something you can beat her with).

   4. What did you use to dissipate the electrical energy?

   Thank you, kind regards, Gerard

2. Andrea Rossi August 1, 2020 at 8:59 AM

   Gerard McEk:

   1. it is 100 cm^3; 10 x 10 x 10 was the former configuration, while 20 x 20 x 20 cm is the volume of the heat dissipator containing the reactor.

   2. we still need the charge

   3. he,he,he

   4. a resistance

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

I was out golfing. Did I miss Alan's response about Rossi's 10000 solder joints?

Thanks.

Quote from Bob#2

"“Rossi-ma-Bob”" Hey! I take exception to this phrase!

His next even "higher energy density" version will be named "Rossi-ma-Bob#2".

Quote from Alan Smith

Your ignorance is showing badly. This is basic plasma physics.

Bob's retort is a fair question. What is your take on Rossi's claim of 10000 hand soldered connections in a 10 cm cube volume which also contains a plasma chamber? Or does Rossi just get a pass on this one (and other ones like his lawyers filings vs JONP statements)?

Quote from sam12

But would it not be better if you

ask him yourself.

Yes, it would. However I asked him about his lawyers statements that he is quarantined in Milan. He cursed me out, the blocked me from JONP, like anyone else who shows him facts.

This whole Rossi approach has given me a great new idea. So Rossi has a controller/power supply that runs the ecat, which generates electricity to run the power supply.

Suppose you took a motor, geared it to another motor shaft that acted like a generator, geared such that the second motor created more power than the first consumed? You would have to first briefly plug the first motor into the mains to get it kick started of course. You would need to cool these and the excess electrical power could be harvested, with perhaps 2 solder connections as opposed to 10000. I wonder if anyone on the internet has ever tried this?

(Before someone humor challenged starts lambasting me, yes this is sarcasm)

I will suspend disbelief for one moment and assume the SKL-HED exists at all (SKL Higher Energy Density).

So Rossi claims 4 kW power output (if you assume his 4kWh/h is just a stupid way of writing it).

Do you notice Rossi mentions the power to cool the "reactor" but not to run the external "control unit" which is so very, very complex. Are you sure this external power supply, er, control unit I mean, was running from electricity generated from the ecat? He is able to condition the ouput of the skl sufficiently to run this controller? For the qx test it was running off the mains, hence the moronic 1 ohm resistor/flip switching fiasco.

Perhaps his controller is like the one off the shelf version linked below, capable of 4 kW.

https://www.powerandtest.com/p…power-supplies/dlm-3-4-kw.

Sam, as our official conduit to Rossi, can you ask him if (he claims) this controller runs directly from power from the ecat, and not plugged into the mains? And even if it was running "closed loop" for some period, how much of that 4 kW was it using for that time? If it was around 4kW, that would make sense.

More appropriate for this news:

Quote from Mark U

Rossi says:

Obviously when this job will be made by robots it will be easier, but robots can be programmed only after a prototype model has been perfectioned; robots can reproduce an artificial intelligence as you teach them to make it:

Total BS. You don't show the robots a prototype model, then they look at it with their robot eyes and learn to make it with "AI", duplicating the errors in your prototype. You design it with CAD programs, then software can use those models, or you manually train the robots with a pendant. Rossi may have read somewhere about research into this, thought it sounded cool and knows he can fool his cult who don't understand what the buzzword AI really means. Sure some other BS company may claim something like this, but it doesn't mean it works. The whole field of AI has basically overpromised and under delivered, and I have basicically working in this field for 34 years. We called it "AI" back in the 80's, and that buzzword has had yet another resurgence. But now it is "Deep" learning. To match Rossi's "Deep BS".

Quote from sam12

1. Translate Andrea Rossi July 30, 2020 at 5:44 PM

   Sam:

   Yes, I am finishing the connections now, then go to sleep. The test will start in 5 hours and 17 minutes from now.

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

Still thousands of connections to solder, then he will sleep less than 5 hours. Please don't let Andria oversleep. The world counts on him for it's survival!

Because he's the hero the world deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dotore Knight.

Quote from axil

Aleksei Savchenko:

Thank you for your insight.

I think we must make a distinction between the R&D funded by the taxpayer for objectives purely scientific, whose projection in the timeframe for an industrial and profitable application is vague and undefined, and the R&D funded with private funds that for obvious reasons must reach a profitable product within a timeframe limited by financial issues. In the first case your insight is correct. In the second case, which is the one I am fighting through, your insight is not applicable. In fact:

1- the possibility of collaboration are limited by IP protection issues

2- the cash flow must necessary recover the expenses before the lack of money forbids to proceed

3- if you seat peacefully while your enemies try to destroy your work, you will be eliminated

I am telling this to you based on my personal bloody experience of half century of very, very hard work ( and life ). Unfortunately this is a war, a succession of battles: I cited two typical battles from a paradigmatic point of view, but this was only an example: obviously Waterloo for Russia and their allies has been a victory, while Austerlitz has been a defeat, we can change the points of view, but under a phylosophical point of view the issue is the same: competition is war and we have competition, whatever we do. The Ecat has been fought against from many sides from the first day it has been presented .

Here is another paradigmatic example of the first type, the type that fits with your insight: the ITER ( or Eater, if you want this concern has got billions and billions and billions of funds from the Taxpayer since the fifties and every 10 years they say that in the next 20 years or so we will have the nuclear fusion…everybody is happy, nobody fights against because everybody eats ( that’s why it has been dubbed Eater ), the Taxpayer has not the cultural preparation to understand that it will never work, the competition knows that it will never work, so everybody is happy, the IP is generously shared with everybody, because it will never make money, and the environment is perfect to be peaceful: why fight against a thing that will never work, but rains easy money from the Taxpayer on all the involved governments ? It is also the paradise of the managers there: no liabilities, no timeframes to show real results and a lot of publications that nobody reads, but are so intensely intelligent ! When they talk of it in the TV they say ludicrous things, like nuclear fusion is not dangerous because uses hydrogen and makes helium, both innocuous ( somebody could have thought that nuclear bombs are a bluff ). Nobody has the honesty to say that it is impossible to stabilize a magnetic field at a temperature over 100 millions K, and everybody is happy like an Easter.

On one point I totally agree with you: my citation of Waterloo as an example of defeat and of Austerlitz as an example of victory is stupid, because I forgot that what is a victory for one side is a defeat for the other side: this remark is as much intelligent from you, as it has been stupid for me not to get this point. So I make a correction, rephrasing as follows: I HOPE NEXT FRIDAY WILL BE A VICTORY, NOT A DEFEAT FOR OUR GREAT TEAM.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

AR forgot to add:

"Now excuse me while I straighten my Batman cape, and get back to soldering.

Only 99978 more connections to finish, and each of them are different, you know.

Plus my Researchgate "Full Read Ping Bot" has crashed. Got to restart that first. "