Jones, lets give Rossi an opportunity to clean up the messy numbers. Of course we all want to get our hands upon the actual data collected during the test and I hope that this will happen before too much time and damage has been done.
Would it suit us better if we did not have any inputs at all for another few months? A little taste of poor quality food is better than starvation. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sat, Oct 13, 2012 12:20 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another Rossi error? Well, it’s too badthat Physics Today is giving abit 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 includethis warning at the top of the document (ironically labeled as “data”): DATA Pleasetake note of the data format: a period “.” is used toindicate the decimals and a comma “,” to indicate the thousands,not vice versa as in many countries; for instance, 2,000.00 means “twothousand point zero hundredths”. So … although Rossi proclaimsprominently in the same document that a comma represents thousands, but thereis a period at this important place - so that it is clearly 3 point 268 (3.268) and not3 thousand +268… yet… [best Jon Stewart smirk]… we are askednot to think that this period means what it says, but instead give Rossibenefit of doubt? Why? … because he has been so forthcoming with the dataJ Wouldn’t it be a biteasier to give benefit of the doubt if he had included the data itself alongwith the calibration runs? As it stands now, AR isgrabbing 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 numbershould be a comma. Rossi is mixing up numbering conventions. From:David It looks as though he usedthe conversion factor of .0001 to convert the square centimeters to squaremeters which is a valid calculation. I wonder why he does not include thearea of the end caps in his calculation? Do you suppose he wants to beconservative on this one? Error!Filename not specified. The data is hard tointerpret 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 pointseven)” That is “accordingto Rossi”… or is this too a translation error, or in need of aconversion factor ? Can Rossi really be thisbig 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 Author, TheSecret Power Beneath
