I moderate my opinion on however. Rossi isn't stupid and probably has some objective evidence to back up most of what he asserts in that last blog post that Axil put out above.
This lawsuit is the best development yet in this silly saga

The video is of very poor quality. Maybe it will be interesting for you.For this post I have returned to my older thread where I have tried to replicate work of Parkhomov.
While I have changed some parameters I think that it could be still marked as e-cat replication.
Today I have tried to verify my latest findings - to find if I can get excess heat with 1 year old stuff that was used/designed for Parkhomov replication. Result: Yes, it is.
Fuel was completely prepared today in a few minutes.
Now I am able to turn the excess heat on and off on will. This is something that allows me perfect verification and comparison.
Achieved COP was only around 1.5, yet I didn't expected to be high as with my other reactors.
Please check attached photos.
One photo was taken while excess heat was On, second one while excess heat was Off (just 3 minutes later).
Can any skeptic explain me, how this can be achieved (other than with some source of heat) if you have no heater inside? And to maintain this for at least few minutes...?
Note that the glow was even 2 times further from the heater during the highest COP. Normally glow ends just under heater due to thermal conductivity.
Also note, that temperatures of the heater are very same in both cases.
Power was also very same.
I can just say, that the fuel ends approx. 4cm far from the heater.
Images
You have found a Solution of the massive, long term Excess heat by LENR Problem.
What has contributed Science (as Nuclear Physics) and what has contributed Technology (as engineering, empirical trials) to the solution?
Andrea
Good question.
I started from the inspiration given to us all from the Fleischmann-Pons work. This has been their merit.
This means that I started assuming their theory was good and tried to replicate, but this was unsuccessful.
After that I studied theoretically the matter and at the same time made many different experiments with the available technology, therefore it is very difficult to answer, albeit your question is intriguing. Theoretical intuition and experimental error and trial process developed together like brain and heart in the development of a human being. Theoretical study has supplied ideas, for example the book of Norman Cook for me has been a gold mine; technology has been the fundamental base to make experiments.
Edison said that an invention is made 10% by inspiration, 90 % by perspiration: I think that good part of the perspiration is made by inspiration, I mean they grow up together within an inscindible dialectic process of synthesis.
I hope it settles it once and for all. Although, the truly religious Rossibots will continue on, eventually to place their special sneakers upon their feet, and drink of the magic potion that will carry them to Rossiworld.JoeP wrote:ladajo, I was thinking the same thing.
I moderate my opinion on however. Rossi isn't stupid and probably has some objective evidence to back up most of what he asserts in that last blog post that Axil put out above.
This lawsuit is the best development yet in this silly saga
Once again, Italy University system has three levels:Axil wrote:Soky
April 11, 2016 at 10:30 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi
Can we have the following information about the ERV that made the report:
1- education
– doctorate in nuclear engineering, obtained with 110/110 csumma cum laude in the Alma Mater of Bologna (Italy).
Penon is believed to be the individual providing the ERV report. His credentials are shaky as there's little supporting documentation of them.KitemanSA wrote:Sorry, what is the connection between "the ERV that made the report" and Penon?
Rossi was talking about "the ERV that made the report", no? What is the issue with Penon?