THE ROSSI COP SAGA

Rossi changed the design of the e-cat between his last demonstration
before and the 1MW demonstration in last part of October.

Before October he used the input electrical energy to guarantee
that the reaction would not continue i.e. it would die out if the
input energy was terminated. - A fail safe method. The exact COP
between this input energy and output heat energy was a matter
of his design and was not fixed to any particular value. But the
value was important to those trying to decide how it worked and
if it worked.

Rossi apparently knew his stuff (be it real or fake) because in the
middle of this development cycle he changed his design so that input
energy was only required to start the reaction. And other stuff
(like this RF oscillator thingy) would be use to propagate the
reaction. Very little electrical power would be used in this
oscillator. So Measured COP integrated over a long time could
then become extremely large. So large as to exclude Chemical
Mechanical storage etc.

I liked none of it. He changed his design in midstream so that something
that was fairly important before became unimportant. And something
like "stopping the reaction" at will, became problematic.

These where poor choices for me, and for others studying the reaction
but not for him. With power gain it was almost impossible for the
reaction to continue unwanted. Now we could only believe *what he
said* about the stability of shutdown. Just like believing *what he said*
about nearly everything else concerning the e-cat reaction.

So why didn't COP concerns go away?

Rossi brought these back himself because of his ever so short experimental
demonstration test times. Rather then let the test run for a while and
the COP build up to become unimportantly large. He cut the test off
where the total COP was still in the reasonable range when compared to
the integrated startup time energy! So now people started comparing
these two again!

Rossi never really showed unequivocally large COP at any time
when he should have been able to do that at any time given that
he had something that worked.

Rossi demonstrations are fortunately over. All we have to do
now is keep others like Defkalion from repeating this same
unacceptable cr*p simply because we accepted it from Rossi.

Rossi has now moved on proof based in production and sales
...and so the proof saga continues.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Hello S. Mark Coffman,

How interesting that you should be around to debunk Rossi's evidence.  I fondly recall your efforts in this regard related to a circuit that I'm rather more familiar with.  I seem to recall your promotion of your interests in the light of a potential investor?  Is that your interest here?  In which case I wouldn't bother.  I'm satisfied that Rossi has all the investment he needs to take this technology further.  With added benefit, I might add, from significant and real investment interests and funding.  So I'm not sure that he'll be unduly concerned if you prefer to withhold the promise of this.  And, with or without respect, it is my considered opinion his technology would be best served without any involvement from you - at all.

Quote from: mscoffman on February 11, 2012, 04:23:53 PMTHE ROSSI COP SAGARossi changed the design of the e-cat between his last demonstration before and the 1MW demonstration in last part of October.

A circuit variation has never discounted proof of anything at all.  Merely what it is.  A variation. Thank God for this.  What would we all have done without some variation to Faraday's applications compared to Tesla's promotion of AC supplies?  For instance? 

Quote from: mscoffman on February 11, 2012, 04:23:53 PMBefore October he used the input electrical energy to guarantee that the reaction would not continue i.e. it would die out if the input energy was terminated. - A fail safe method. The exact COP between this input energy and output heat energy was a matter of his design and was not fixed to any particular value. But the value was important to those trying to decide how it worked and if it worked.

Nope.  There's absolutely no logical sequence or sense to anything you've written here.  I've given it my best shot.  It lacks clarity - sense - and reason.  On the whole it reads like a shoddy piece of propagandising - rendered ineffective as it leaves the reader confused.  You need to do better.

Quote from: mscoffman on February 11, 2012, 04:23:53 PMRossi apparently knew his stuff (be it real or fake) because in the middle of this development cycle he changed his design so that input energy was only required to start the reaction. And other stuff (like this RF oscillator thingy) would be use to propagate the reaction. Very little electrical power would be used in this oscillator. So. Measured COP integrated over a long time could then become extremely large. So large as to exclude Chemical Mechanical storage etc.

More of the same.  Just a confused mishmash of illogical nonsense.  No idea what you're referring to.  No idea what your complaint is.  No idea what you're on about.  Try using sense when you use the English language.  It's meant to be a tool to advance understanding.  Not to diminish it.

Quote from: mscoffman on February 11, 2012, 04:23:53 PMI liked none of it. He changed his design in midstream so that something that was fairly important before became unimportant. And something like "stopping the reaction" at will, became problematic. These where poor choices for me, and for others studying the reaction but not for him. With power gain it was almost impossible for thereaction to continue unwanted. Now we could only believe *what he said* about the stability of shutdown. Just like believing *what he said* about nearly everything else concerning the e-cat reaction.

And yet more strange allusions to bad explanations that have no intrinsic sense.  Except for one thing - which, conversely - I do approve of.  Which is that you 'liked none of it'.  Else I'd certainly be less inclined to 'like it' as much as I do. In the same way that I'd like  Democracy all the more -  in the face of Idi Amin.   Or I'd like science all the more - in the face of the Spanish Inquisition. 

Quote from: mscoffman on February 11, 2012, 04:23:53 PMSo why didn't COP concerns go away?

You ask?  I'm not sure that coefficient of performance ever 'goes away'.  It's a REQUIRED benchmark.  Can you think of an alternate measurement parameter?  I'm reasonably sure that the entire scientific community relate to COP as this is the most significant concern related to any energy efficiency evaluations.  You need to brush up on science S. Mark Coffman.  It's an interesting study.

Quote from: mscoffman on February 11, 2012, 04:23:53 PMRossi brought these back himself because of his ever so short experimental demonstration test times. Rather then let the test run for a while and the COP build up to become unimportantly large. He cut the test off where the total COP was still in the reasonable range when compared to the integrated startup time energy! So now people started comparing these two again!

Golly.  What we're witnessing here is the brutal annihilation of all good sense.  Rossi did not himself 'bring back' considerations of COP.  Without this there would be NOTHING to consider.  And what in heaven's name is 'integrated startup time energy'?  Or are you lapsing into these pretentious terms in the hopes of pretending to understand anything at all?

Quote from: mscoffman on February 11, 2012, 04:23:53 PMRossi never really showed unequivocally large COP at any time when he should have been able to do that at any time given that he had something that worked. Rossi demonstrations are fortunately over. All we have to do now is keep others like Defkalion from repeating this same unacceptable cr*p simply because we accepted it from Rossi.

Lol.  FINALLY - I've seen the comic value of your protests.  If this is the measure of the prejudice that we're dealing with - then Rossi has no real problems ahead.  Thank you God.  If Rossi's demonstrations are 'OVER' as you put it - it's because the technology is NOW going into production.  Wake up Mr Coffman.  Or not.  Actually ignore my advice.  Better you keep on those blinkers.  Stay as far away as you possibly can from this technology.  Better that you simply continue with these extraordinary protests.  They're richly amusing.

Quote from: mscoffman on February 11, 2012, 04:23:53 PMRossi has now moved on proof based in production and sales ...and so the proof saga continues.

He has indeed.  LOL.  Again.  Thank you God.

Regards,
A Rosemary A. Ainslie
ESQUIRESS.   

7-th:
You should really to start learning math (as bankers only do good).
"A 10KW e-cat will convert 7 liters of water into 120 degrees Celsius of steam in
one single hour - according to Andrea Rossi this is no fiction."
This is only 0.9 kWh of heat power- this is no fiction too.
7 L x 110 (dT) x 4.200=3.234.000 : 3.600.000=0.898333 kWh
(i think i don't need to clear what dT, 4.200, 3.600.000 values are, em i right folks?)
So when we compare 0.9:1.7 it is 53% effectivity only.
Whats more, it needs working 11 hours to achieve 10 kW of heat power,
by 24/24 run it is 24 kWh only.
Our devices make 16-28/1 H.
So even for new standard 30 kWh home, You will heat only  200 sqm.
By old brick houses it is only 50 sqm to heat daily.
So You need min. 3 such devices for winter conditions, and by this 50-55% effectivity it is better with gas further to heat.
And this is why our DRJ.200 costs now 12-14.000 EUR.
ALL CLEAR GEANTELMEN?
Dr. Adolf Nowak
NSPAP
http://nspap.livejournal.com

Concerning low efficiency of transformation of heat in electricity please check nitinol engines.

@Rosemary:
It's an old strategy reintroduced for a second time.  I noticed this earlier in the thread and it was originally used on Andrea Rossi himself.  This is an old lawyer's trick where you make a demand from the opposing counsel to turn over an ungodly amount of data, evidence or specific records.  It's really a stall tactic usually employed in the discovery phase of a trial in which the side demanding the documentation has no actual interest in the documents requested.  They do this in order to bog down the opposing counsel and use their noncompliance to the request as valid grounds to postpone (or be granted a continuance) a trial. 

But Rossi was much smarter than they originally thought as he saw right through this transparent ploy.  This is why Rossi only verifies the 1 MW units with the actual customers and not the media or demanding outside scientists anymore.  He realizes that they will NEVER be satisfied no matter what he does because they are not genuinely looking for the answers.  They just want him to be so busy jumping through their hoops that he does not have time left over to further his enterprises and thus never puts out a product. 

My stance to this ingenious part of the crowd is for them to just purchase one of Rossi's units when they become publically available and test them for only 94 years.  Then stop the testing and get back to me.  I really am interested in seeing their results after 94 years of their own independent study of Rossi's work just to make sure.  Meanwhile, I'll just be using Rossi's E-Cats in my office and my residence with my sights set on using this technology to power a motor vehicle. I'll have the motor vehicle waiting for them to study upon completion of their original study.  They can take even longer to study the vehicle if they would prefer.


Best regards,

Chess