Well, it's too bad that Physics Today is giving a bit of credence to the field at the same time this Rossi crap comes out .
It could not be called 'crap,' and would be easier to believe if Rossi had included data and did not include this warning at the top of the document (ironically labeled as "data"): DATA Please take note of the data format: a period "." is used to indicate the decimals and a comma "," to indicate the thousands, not vice versa as in many countries; for instance, 2,000.00 means "two thousand point zero hundredths". So . although Rossi proclaims prominently in the same document that a comma represents thousands, but there is a period at this important place - so that it is clearly 3 point 268 (3.268) and not 3 thousand +268. yet. [best Jon Stewart smirk]. we are asked not to think that this period means what it says, but instead give Rossi benefit of doubt? Why? . because he has been so forthcoming with the data :-) Wouldn't it be a bit easier to give benefit of the doubt if he had included the data itself along with the calibration runs? As it stands now, AR is grabbing numbers out of the aether, so to speak - essentially from nowhere. Same old Rossi. Same old BS. From: Frank I am pretty sure the decimal in the first number should be a comma. Rossi is mixing up numbering conventions. From: David It looks as though he used the conversion factor of .0001 to convert the square centimeters to square meters which is a valid calculation. I wonder why he does not include the area of the end caps in his calculation? Do you suppose he wants to be conservative on this one? Error! Filename not specified. The data is hard to interpret as usual for Rossi, but the numbers look pretty good as a start. Dave What about the "COP of 3.268/278.4 = 11.7 (eleven point seven)" That is "according to Rossi". or is this too a translation error, or in need of a conversion factor ? Can Rossi really be this big of a fool ? Or is there a new revision (of the prior revision) that corrects all of this silliness? -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene Amidst all the hoopla over Rossi's recent hot-cat claims, and the first retraction - and the notable lack calibration data, or lack of real data - did Rossi also make a devastating math error? Last night, in the comments - it looks like Ahern suggests that Rossi's own calculations are off by four orders of magnitude. The Stephan-Boltzmann calculation involve multiplying by the surface are in meters squared It should be 0.0891 (m^2) not 891 (cm^2). Someone else then implies Rossi made the correction, but he seems to make a similar error. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/update-andrea-rossi-provides-corrected-por denone-hot-cat-report/ I'm not so sure if there is a real error or not at this stage; since it is far from clear what Rossi is doing in these calculations: can anyone defend Rossi's math and explain what he is doing in the "Energy Produced" calculation ? After all - if he is getting a COP of 11 at 1000 degrees, then it should only take a few weeks to "close the loop" by converting that heat to electricity. -- Frank Acland Publisher, E-Cat World <http://www.e-catworld.com> Author, The <https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/> Secret Power Beneath
