Controversial energy-generating system lacking credibility (w/ video)

Aug 11, 2011 by Lisa Zyga weblog
One of the biggest concerns with the device is if all the water entering the system has vaporized into pure dry steam. Image from video below. Credit: New Energy Times

(PhysOrg.com) -- It's been seven months since Italian physicists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi publicly demonstrated a device that they claimed could generate large amounts of excess heat through some kind of low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR). (Previous descriptions of the process as “cold fusion” are incorrect; although the process is not completely understood, it is likely a weak interaction involving neutrons, without fusion.) The physicists call this device the Energy Catalyzer, or E-Cat. Due to the major potential impact such a device could have for energy production, the scientists have received visits and inquiries from all over the world, but so far the claims seem to be lacking credibility.

One of the visitors to Rossi’s lab was Steven Krivit, editor of the online magazine New Times. Krivit has been following LENR news for more than 10 years, and recently published a 200-page issue devoted exclusively to examining the Rossi claim. Based on his investigation, Krivit has concluded that the Rossi group’s energy claim of extraordinarily large amounts of excess heat has no scientific support, and that he “can't help but wonder whether Rossi is pulling a scam.” Some highlights of his comprehensive report, which is freely available here, are highlighted below.

Steam or water

Rossi based his assertions of excess heat on the nearly complete vaporization of room-temperature water (26.5 °C [79.7 °F]) into dry steam (100.1 °C [212.2 °F]). Rossi assumed that all of the water that enters the device leaves the device as dry steam. If this were true, the device would produce lots of energy since a large amount of energy is required to vaporize water into dry steam. (In his 2010 paper, Rossi originally claimed to produce 213 times more energy going out of the device than the energy coming in. Since then he has lowered his estimates several times, and now claims a maximum energy gain of 6 times.)

However, if the steam contains any liquid water droplets - even tiny ones - it would significantly reduce the amount of heat being produced. During his visit, Krivit found that Rossi did not check for complete vaporization. The hose through which the output steam flows was inserted into a sink drain, and there was no way to know if liquid water is going down the drain. According to Krivit, Rossi did not use any valid devices that were capable of measuring the steam quality.

Further, three scientists calculated that, based on the diameter of the hose, the steam should have an exit velocity of 67, 76, or 137 mph. When Krivit visited Rossi, he took a video of the steam exiting the hose, which he said appears to be flowing at around 10 mph - the expected velocity due to the amount of electrical input energy.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Rossi shows Krivit the steam from the hose at 10:54. Video credit: New Energy Times

Unscientific method

In addition to not correctly analyzing the output steam, Rossi's group also neglected several other practices that would have given their work credibility. For example, they did not measure the heat output directly, but simply measured the temperature inside the device itself. Also, they did not run control experiments and ignored suggestions given to them by experts in the LENR field. They also have said that they’ve lost some data, and refused to show Krivit the data they had. When Krivit asked Giuseppe Levi, a physics professor at the University of Bologna who has been checking Rossi’s work, for data, he had a surprising response:

“People will start to make any kind of funny analysis on it, and then I will have to answer this funny analysis…If you don't want to trust these numbers, don't trust them! It's very simple.”

When Krivit asked about the credibility of data that Levi had previously reported to the Swedish newspaper Ny Teknik, Levi said the following:

"There is no credibility as scientific paper credibility. If you trust me, this is what I have seen with my best effort. Also, I was really conservative."

Moving forward

Despite these flaws, Rossi thinks there still seems to be a future for the system. He has claimed that he has devices operating in the US and Italy, but has not shown them to Krivit or others interested in his work. He claims that he has 300 devices working in his factory in Miami, Florida, but the registered principal place of business is a fifth floor apartment. Rossi has also claimed that he has been heating a factory in Bondeno, Italy, with one of his devices, but has not shown it to anyone.

For the past several months, Rossi has been highly promoting the demonstration of a 1 MW device scheduled for this October at Defkalion Green Technologies in Greece. However, on August 7 he canceled that contract when Defkalion failed to make its first progress payment a week earlier.

Although Rossi has repeatedly said that he is not asking anybody for money until the devices are operating successfully, according to Krivit, Rossi is asking for $15 million from anybody who wishes to independently test his device. The money would be held in an escrow account contingent on the successful validation.

On July 14, Rossi met with NASA researchers at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. The meeting organizer, Michael A. Nelson, is a systems engineer who has worked at NASA for 30 years in the main propulsion group for the space shuttle as well as with the launch monitoring systems. Nelson told Krivit that he was interested in the possibility of LENR research at NASA, and that NASA would be willing to perform validation tests for Rossi if Rossi pays for the tests. NASA is interested in LENR for potential space applications.

"LENR is another avenue. It's not just about Rossi," Nelson told Krivit. "If the Rossi thing doesn't happen, then maybe something else will. Rossi has brought a lot of attention to the field. Any researchers who have a legitimate claim are going to benefit from this."

Explore further: The hemihelix: Scientists discover a new shape using rubber bands (w/ video)

More information: New Energy Times 37th issue and Rossi's Scientific Failure in Seven Steps

Related Stories

Worldwide hunt to solve the mystery of gamma-ray bursts

Feb 16, 2008

UK space scientist Emeritus Professor Alan Wells is to speak at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Boston in February on International Cooperation in Developing Swift and its Scientific Achievements.

Recommended for you

Using antineutrinos to monitor nuclear reactors

35 minutes ago

When monitoring nuclear reactors, the International Atomic Energy Agency has to rely on input given by the operators. In the future, antineutrino detectors may provide an additional option for monitoring. ...

Imaging turns a corner

4 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Scientists have developed a new microscope which enables a dramatically improved view of biological cells.

Mapping the road to quantum gravity

18 hours ago

The road uniting quantum field theory and general relativity – the two great theories of modern physics – has been impassable for 80 years. Could a tool from condensed matter physics finally help map ...

User comments : 161

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

iPan
3.9 / 5 (19) Aug 11, 2011
It really sucks when shit like this happens.

LENR is a valid science, but asshats like this make it hard.
Gawad
3.2 / 5 (20) Aug 11, 2011
Sorry, but I have to say it: I TOLD YA SO! (And I wasn't the only one!)
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (22) Aug 11, 2011
This isn't the first Rossi Scam.

There have been a host of people on this forum referring to the Rossi device and how it will benefit mankind in one way or another.

They were fooled and hence should regard themselves as fools.
Star_Gazer
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2011
I was wondering about that.. the testing was done inside the room of a relatively small size. 12kW of energy spent on converting water to steam should have turned that room into sauna, I wasn't sure if they had exhaust to outside. I do remember someone mentioned that steam quality was measured, proving the steam not to contain liquid water, but I can't imagine that putting the exhaust hose into "drain" would gotten rid of the steam... Sucks. I really had high hopes on this tech.
Techno1
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2011
In his 2010 paper, Rossi originally claimed to produce 213 times more energy going out of the device than the energy coming in. Since then he has lowered his estimates several times, and now claims a maximum energy gain of 6 times


Not quite.

He actually claims they are able to cut the input power and make the reaction self-sustaining.

this claim was made several times by Rossi in just about the past month alone.

Another thing I'd say is you can't really make a judgement about the velocity or density of steam in that video, because of the background and the quality of the video isnt very good, and the camera is moving around, etc.

One other thing, vaporizing 7kg of water per hour actually requires, based on heat of vaporization of 2260 J/g, and specific heat of 4.2J/g, an energy of:

7000g * 2260J/g = 15820000J

plus
7000g * 4.2j/g = 29400J

Neglecting heat loss from poor insulation...

Continued...
Techno1
2.4 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2011
Now if you sum that you get: 15849400J per hour.

But for the sake of argument, let's ignore the starting temperature and the final temperature of steam, and look only at the heat of vaporization.

If you divide the heat of vaporization by seconds, you get POWER.

15820000J / 3600s per hour = 4394.444Watts.

If you divide that by 740Watts input, that is indeed a gain of 5.938, even ignoring the specific heat of the water between 26.5C and 100C.

this means that even if some of the steam is "wet" the device is still producing a significant gain, because it has a factor of 6 to play with...

He could not vaporize the water with only 740Watts input, unless a legitimate reaction was happening.
Eikka
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2011
12kW of energy spent on converting water to steam should have turned that room into sauna, I wasn't sure if they had exhaust to outside.


Even if they had an open window, the heat inside the room would become intolerable very quickly.

The difference to a sauna is that saunas don't use steam to heat the room. There's a 6-10 kW heater that heats the room over a period of an hour or so, and then a cup of water is thrown on the stones occasionally.

This thing allegedly puts out 12 kW in steam, which would equal having a faucet flowing on the stones constantly, and under those conditions people usually leave the sauna very quickly unless they want to suffer second degree burns.
Dane
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2011
@iPan.
This "valid science" of yours, has yet to deliver a single experimental verification of the therories constructed.

Great if it works, but until then it's a mere fantasy.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2011

He could not vaporize the water with only 740Watts input, unless a legitimate reaction was happening.


Unless he was using an ultrasound device to atomize it, in which case he can get rid of quite a lot of water without actually having to heat it up.

But the simples method of cheating is simply a sleight of hand: he may have some chemical reaction going on, maybe phase change salts etc. that accumulate heat and then make it seem like he's putting in less energy during the demonstrations than he really is. Maybe he just turns it up a notch when nobody is watching to keep the illusion.
Techno1
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2011
See here:

http://www.nytekn...Y/Letter fr Prof Christos Stremmenos %28pdf%29

This guy is basicly swearing on his career that it's real.

If this is a hoax, a lot more than just Rossi are involved...

http://www.journa...comments

On July 31, 5:36p.m. Rossi made a direct statement that they are able to turn off the input power and make steam from 100.1C to 101C.
Techno1
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2011
I was wondering about that.. the testing was done inside the room of a relatively small size. 12kW of energy spent on converting water to steam should have turned that room into sauna, I wasn't sure if they had exhaust to outside. I do remember someone mentioned that steam quality was measured, proving the steam not to contain liquid water, but I can't imagine that putting the exhaust hose into "drain" would gotten rid of the steam... Sucks. I really had high hopes on this tech.


Actually, you're wrong.

since the device is insulated, and since the majority of energy would go to overcome heat of vaporization, NOT increase temperature, then MOST of the energy is in the steam when it goes through the pipe.

There would be very little heating of the room, particularly if the steam actually was going down the drain and condensing in the sewer system...
jjoensuu
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2011
Interesting because just yesterday I read about how Hanno Essén (associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and member of the board (chairman until April 2) of the Swedish Skeptics Society) and Sven Kullander (Professor Emeritus at Uppsala University and chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Energy Committee) had both participated on 29 March as observers at a new trial in Bologna of the Rossi device.

Their verdict on that was the device is producing a nuclear reaction.

Article on that is here (in english):
http://www.nytekn...4827.ece
Techno1
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2011
A Sauna is an unfair comparison, since the steam moves around the room freely and comes from a non-insulated source, whereas the demonstration is an insulated source and an insulated hose.

In a Sauna, you "feel" the heat when the water vapor CONDENSES on your cooler body, releasing the Heat of Vaporization back into the environment, which much of it probably goes into your skin.

So that is a very, very ridiculous and unfair comparison.
jjoensuu
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2011
Besides that, after reading above I looked at a related article (titled "Energy catalyzer gets U.S. partner") which discusses how a newly formed U.S. company, Ampenergo, has a contract on distributing the devices in USA. This second article is here: http://www.nytekn...019.ece)

After reading the article I was wondering whether Ampenergo's involvement would actually end up benefiting the power companies rather than the general populace.

Nevertheless I can see that if that does not put a stop on the device (if it seems to work as the Swedish professors claim) then perhaps media like PhysOrg will manage to accomplish that.
tblakeslee
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 11, 2011
Krivit has been pretty irrational in his vendetta against Rossi. For example, the statement "(In his 2010 paper, Rossi originally claimed to produce 213 times more energy going out of the device than the energy coming in. Since then he has lowered his estimates several times, and now claims a maximum energy gain of 6 times." is a total distortion. The gain has been limited to 6 times for the product for safety reasons. The reaction can have a thermal runaway if the temperature is allowed to get too high. This is one reason the module size is limited to 4 kW because ultimately the reaction ends safely when the nickel particles melt. The small size means that no serious damage is done if this happens.
Krivit's objections are all about steam measurements yet he never mentions the 18-hour non-steam test that was done on February 10th by Dr Guiseppi Levi to answer those objections.
He measured water temperature rise and calculated 15 kW average output over 18 hours.
Techno1
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2011
Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron


The copper isotope concentrations are consistent with that explained in his paper, based on the assumption of a natural abundance Nickel fuel source, and "stepping" through that chain till you get coppers 63 and 65.

The 11% iron isotope could be easily explained by ABLATION of the inside surface of the iron reaction chamber; perhaps through the particle collisions that may occur through various stages of the beta decays and/or fusion.

http://www.nytekn...4827.ece

So that's basicly exactly what you would expect if nuclear reaction was actually occuring...
Rockinghorse
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2011
Although demonstrations were poorly conducted and method was not best possible for energy calculations, but rather demonstration for steam production to industry. Krivit's criticism, however is not against Rossi, but those independent scientist who made their measurements and calculations. They did not do very good work, because they neglected basic laboratory methods such as they did not check calibration of thermometer until April by Mats Lewan (was off the mark by 0.3°C).

There was possible method for observers to calculate steam production accurately, because steam generation inside E-Cat causes increased pressure and this can be observed accurately with thermometer, because steam temperature is always at local boiling point. Then we need to only know, what is the diameter of orifice where the hose is attached and we can calculate the total amount of steam generated. By using this method, roughly 40-80% of water was evaporated. (...)
Techno1
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2011
This thing allegedly puts out 12 kW in steam, which would equal having a faucet flowing on the stones constantly, and under those conditions people usually leave the sauna very quickly unless they want to suffer second degree burns.


The model demonstrated in this video is only around 4.4kw to 4.7kw, not 12kw.

If you want to see what 12kw worth of steam looks like, see here:

http://www.youtub...AL7ty53M

See about 4 minutes mark.

Now that is 12kw of steam on double-exhaust system.

However, not that the steam engine's exhaust is restricted by "nozzles" and that the entire flow of the width of the pipes is not open. This is why the steam comes out as very high velocity in this solar demonstration.

in Rossi's demonstration, the steam was not restricted by a nozzle.

Seeing as how Rossi's demonstration was single exhaust and 4.4KW, it would only be around 2/3rds of the flow rate of just one of the pipes in this Youtube video.
Rockinghorse
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2011
(... continued) In Mats Lewan demonstration steam production was close to 80% and Kullander&Essén demonstration close to 40%. In January demonstration it was probably around 60% steam and 40% hot water.

What Rossi, showed for Steven Krivit was probably just a dummy E-Cat since it run only 20mins or so and was just to show Steven the journalist what are the working principles of E-Cat. Therefore his concern was justified, but his criticism was out of proportions.

Personally I think that there is just winds and sloppy science. Let's wait little longer before calling this off!
tblakeslee
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2011
Bose-einstein condensation is usually demonstrated near absolute zero but inside a metal lattice gasses act differently. Dr Yeong Kim at Purdue has written several papers suggesting that this is the basis of LENR reactions. His latest paper specifically references Rossi's device. The www link:
journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501
Look also at his first two references.
dobermanmacleod
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 11, 2011
I laugh at this article, and people's psychological responses to this revolutionary energy technology. Here is a video of Dr. Brian Josephson, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics explaining: http://pesn.com/2..._fusion/
By the way, for those who have a limited attention span, right in the beginning Dr Josephson says TEAMS OF EXPERTS have examined the Rossi E-Cat and the amount of heat it generates can't be explained by chemical reaction (i.e. it isn't producing a little heat explained away by experimental error).
My friend says he won't believe it until all his neighbors have one - are you in that "skeptical" (i.e. obtuse) crowd?
By the way, using the E-Cat, one gram of nickel is 10,000 times more energy dense than oil or coal (i.e. one gram of nickel yields about 1.7 billion calories). Nickel is 3% of the mass of the Earth. It will produce energy for ten times less than dirty coal.
tblakeslee
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2011
The 18 hour test by Levi measured temperature increase with no boiling. 18 kW was the average power. Levi was alone all night with the device and reported at one point he measured 130 kW while he was adjusting it. Immediately after that Rossi got more conservative and decided to run the production units at 6X power gain. Here is the www link:
nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
dobermanmacleod
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2011
By the way, I have two government reports:

DIA-08-0911-003 Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance),

and another (sorry, I promised my source secrecy) detailing experiments using a Ni-H reaction that clearly got over unity energy (but they thought it was the hydrogen turning to hydrino state, not the nickel turning to copper).

Finally, here is the formula with the "secret catalyst": Ni H KCO3(heated above 70C at 22 bars)=Cu lots of heat. For results as good as Rossi you have to specially prepare the nickel.

When my wife and I visited Alaska, the tour guide described how the early explorers died from a vitamin deficiency, when they could have saved themselves by simply eating a local plant that proliferated in the area. If only the explorers had known.

Unbelievable, but here we have been oxidizing carbon fuel for energy and polluting our air with carbon dioxide big time when all along nickel could be used in a LENR
Techno1
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2011
Finally, here is the formula with the "secret catalyst": Ni H KCO3(heated above 70C at 22 bars)=Cu lots of heat. For results as good as Rossi you have to specially prepare the nickel.


Where did you get this? I don't believe Rossi has ever published what his Catalyst was, as that would clearly be the most important thing involved in his patent applicatons. It was even a major point of contention in the original application.

I suppose that if this technolgoy does work, he won't be able to protect it for long, with or without a patent.

Any good chemist will tear one apart and put the stuff in a spectrometer and figure out what it is.

If this does work, you can expect anyone with any relevant skills to attempt to reverse engineer it and improve upon the technology independently.

Just look at how many governments developed nuclear independently once they realize it was possible...
Burnerjack
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2011
Is it possible that the steam produced is due to some mechanism which destroys the surface tension or some other mechanism other than exothermic?
If it IS exothermic, does over unity gain become worthless because it's not understood? I suspect fire was valuable for a variety of reasons long before someone actually arrived at a working theory to explain it.
My question is simple:"Can independent researchers replicate this device and it's alledged results?" Yay or nay. Just that simple.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 11, 2011
Can independent researchers replicate this device and it's alledged results?
Well, this is just the strangest point of the whole story. Foccardi & Piantelli experiments are twenty years old, they're described in details and their replication would cost few dollars literally.

http://www.lenr-c...xces.pdf

The Rossi's e-Cat version is apparently just scaled-up version of it. The question is, if people are spending billions of dollars in search of useless Higgs boson and pumping of oil from the bottom of oceans - why nobody attempted for replication of these experiments so far? Are we really full of money and energy to ignore such luxury? Doesn't our civilization exhibit its final catatonia with such ignorant approach?
Techno1
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2011
The question is, if people are spending billions of dollars in search of useless Higgs boson and pumping of oil from the bottom of oceans - why nobody attempted for replication of these experiments so far?


Have you ever seen the movie "Chain Reaction"?

The existing energy industry represents around 20% of the world economy. The energy giants who hold everyone else by the nuts have no motivation to make energy cheap, abundant, and affordable, nor do governments, particularly since they use tax revenues and other mechanisms from the existing expensive energy as a form of control over the populace, and particularly since a significant portion of politicians own significant shares in oil and coal companies...

the E-cat is not just a scaled up version of Fleischman and Pons' device. It uses totally different metal, totally different Hydrogen Isotope, and a totally different mechanism...
Techno1
3 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2011
I suspect fire was valuable for a variety of reasons long before someone actually arrived at a working theory to explain it.


The mechanism of how fire works, usually by combining oxygen with the elements of the fuel source in exothermic reaction, along with basic chemistry, was not understood until a shockingly short while ago, sometime around when Mendelev began to compose a table of elements.

to my knowledge, there is no evidence that anyone in the ancient world understood fire or basic chemistry in any regards. What little an early alchemist, metallurgist, or apothacary might have known was purely coincidental, and largely based on superstition...

There is one exception, there may have been someone in egypt or middle east who inventd a primitive steam engine much earlier, because of some evidence from the library of alexandria...

So your point is extremely viable and relevant, in that an energy source need not be understood entirely in order to be useful
Techno1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2011
In addition to at least one very early steam engine, there were some early siphon pumps and screw pumps invented in the middle east, but it seems they were not generally known to be useful to do real work. As I understood it, most of them seem to have been used for parlour tricks or in some novelty, such as a decorative water fountain, and I think also a water clock. Whoever built this stuff knew a LOT about air pressure.

At any rate, I'm digressing and getting on an unrelatd topic.

The point is, I agree, knowing every detail about a reaction is not needed to get extraordinary good results and usefulness out of it.
that_guy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2011
(previous descriptions of the process as "cold fusion" are incorrect; although the process is not completely understood, it is likely a weak interaction involving neutrons, without fusion.)

This article has everything for the quacks, the rossi e-cat, and a picture caption that takes this thing entirely too seriously by suggesting a neutron interaction, perfect for the picking for the next quack, mt oliver k manuel, lead investigator for the apollo missions.

Rossi is asking for $15 million from anybody who wishes to independantly test his device

He said he wanted no money, because he was playing coy, trying to play confident - but now that his bluff is essentially called (he wanted someone to swoop in and buy the patent from him with an offer he 'couldn't refuse'), he's putting out feelers for money in a different way. People will be going to jail when this finally falls through. Mark. My. Words.
Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2011
the E-cat is not just a scaled up version of Fleischman and Pons' device.

This is why I'm talking about Foccardi & Piantelli experiments in this connection. Try to read more carefully next time.
Techno1
1.8 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2011
People will be going to jail when this finally falls through. Mark. My. Words


You might be right, if it is a hoax, but why the hell would a Nobel winner be involved now, if he thought it was a hoax?

if people are spending billions of dollars in search of useless Higgs boson and pumping of oil from the bottom of oceans - why nobody attempted for replication of these experiments so far?


that's a very good question.

Compared to the annual budget on hot fusion, having NASA, NIST, or JPL test and refine this with Rossi's supervision would cost peanuts.

Look how much was spent on the ISS...

Rossi's setup allgedly costs about $1000 per KW of power, which is about what he has said he will sell it for...WITH a 20 years warranty!! So the materials, assembly, and preparation of the fuel must be cheaper than that...

A few days ago, he said 6 months worth of fuel will be sold for $30, which would still be a substantial profit on the part of the company...
Burnerjack
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2011
While the "Energy Mongers" might not want it, I can't imagine any utility not having an interest in a WILD jump in operating profits. As far as Exxon, et.al. killing this, wouldn't they also just shift gears,as it were, investing in EVs etc.? Business is business. I suspect they really don't care where profit comes from as long as it comes.
I also suspect MANY entities would like nothing more than a game changer of a magnitude which disables OPEC and it's corolaries.
FrankZnidarsic
2 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2011
My papers on cold fusion if you like.

academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/7519801.aspx

Frank Znidarsic
Techno1
2.7 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2011
Burnerjack:

The hope of this technology is to try to get as many people "off grid" as possible, so they can quit being abused by the manipulative energy companies.

People in the south are still paying for "Katrina" on their energy bills, literally with a surcharge...it's a BS excuse for over-charging people, and everyone knows it...It'll probably be on the bill forever.

If Rossi's device is $4000 for a 4kw unit, and fuel will cost $30 for 6 months, then theoretically, it should cost a total of $5200 for 20 years operation that he has alleged it will be warrented. That's 0.74 CENTS per KWH, which is less than one penny.

If you bought your power from the grid, then even if they used giant e-cats and replaced coal or conventional nuclear, you would still pay at least 7 or 8 cents per KWH, due to the "costs" of maintaining the grid, and of course the "cost" of the companies lucrative profits...
Free Energy TRUTH
1.7 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2011
I have to say, this is a very predictable and one-sided article which appears to hold a definite bias.

There seems to be no mention of the fact that Prof Hanno Essen and Prof Sven Kullander have both endorsed this technology having took part in one of the tests themselves.

There is no mention of the fact that Rossi has signed an agreement with the University of Bologna where he will pay THEM 500,000 Euros to commence tests and research on this new technology.

There is also no mention of the fact that there have been 4 successful public demos so far.

Why have you chose to cite only ONE side of the story. Steven B Krivit has been openly hostile to the story since before he even visited Rossi.

A report should not be judged as right or wrong just on the sheer page count of the author.

I wonder if Physorg will take the same biased stance when the working 1MW plant opens later this year.
evropej
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2011
I hope physorg keeps this kind of junk out or it will lose credibility. Its like NASA posting articles about crop circles. Like the Brits would say, rubbish mate!
Free Energy TRUTH
1 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2011
I hope physorg keeps this kind of junk out or it will lose credibility. Its like NASA posting articles about crop circles. Like the Brits would say, rubbish mate!


Is it junk because it upsets the establishment paradigm? Are the knee-jerk condemnations just coming from closed minded pseudosceptics?

I think so.
Tyrant
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2011
Krivit was even making fun of Rossi's plumber and his tool bag.

Ecats are made out of a lot of piping, so it would seem appropriate to have a plumber has a laborer to help you build and maintain them. Then there is the need to pipe the steam out from testing, and that could involve needing a plumber for additional pipe work.
Byagam_Gokulden
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2011
Low Energy Neutron Repulsion? :)
Tyrant
1 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2011
As far as the iron / nickel / copper isotopes.

I think Rossi has said that:

The iron isn't important, and is due to the nickel being scraped out. The nickel powder is theorized to coat the inside of the vessel, the iron is from the vessel.

There is no Cu isotope stepping process, the reaction is almost all from Ni62 & Ni64 forming only stable Cu. Ni58 doesn't work or work well.

Rossi enriches the Nickel somehow, probably separating the lighter isotopes from the heavier so that this powder has more Ni62 & Ni64. In natural Nickel, Ni62 & 64 make up about 5%, maybe just boosting it to 15% is enough? Should be much, much simpler than separating U235 fro U238.
krwhite
5 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2011
@Free Energy TRUTH -- looks to me like he isn't making this energy [Free] to the public, there isn't any excess [Energy], and, most importantly, he's not telling the [TRUTH].. ;-)
Free Energy TRUTH
1 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2011
@Free Energy TRUTH -- looks to me like he isn't making this energy [Free] to the public, there isn't any excess [Energy], and, most importantly, he's not telling the [TRUTH].. ;-)


From reading this article it's Physorg that are being economical with the truth. Why else have they JUST focused solely on Steven Krivit's view of this?

33 times the output power to input is FREE ENOUGH. That's called overunity my friend. The fuel is powdered nickel which is so cheap it's funny. You want more Fukoshimas in the world? That what you want?
barakn
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 12, 2011
Quite a funny thread. The usual cock and bull about some sort of global conspiracy, almost-free energy, etc.. E-Cat is a scam.
Quasi_Intellectual
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2011
I just imagined Captain Alberto Bertorelli from 'Allo 'Allo on their team.
If it is revealed as a scam, he'd be like:
"What a mistake-a to make-a!"
ScienceLust
3 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2011
Free energy machines are fun to build.They all suffer from the Newton curse after they are built.That's how I learned to really understand Newtons law.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2011
Rossi enriches the Nickel somehow, probably separating the lighter isotopes from the heavier so that this powder has more Ni62 & Ni64.
Well, I seriously doubt it. This guy is an apparent nut, it's clearly visible from video. IMO his catalyst doesn't differ from commercially available nickel powder and everyone of you could do the same. He is just the very first person, who is willing to invest own money into this project and he indeed deserves credit (and potential reward) for it.
Koen
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2011
To Rossi: "ah shut up'a' in your face'a' "
Techno1
1 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2011
This is Rossi's answer this morning in response to whether they've ever tested for Gamma radiation WITHOUT the lead shielding:

Andrea Rossi
August 12th, 2011 at 3:00 AM
Dear S. Woosnam:
Yes, we measured gamma rays inside the E-Cats: are such gamma rays to heat the water.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


Any other questions for skeptics?

Tyrant:

He says many times in the paper and other places that it uses natural abundance Nickel.

The sample that was tested also used natural abundance Nickel.

http://www.nytekn...4827.ece

See the part where Kullander says the Isotopic Analysis diddn't deviate from natural abundance Nickel and Copper. Rossi didn't use copper as a catalyst, and Nickel 58, and all other isotopes, are combining with proton to make copper.

the 3rd through 5th questions in the Q&A section of that article.

to get to Copper 63 from Nickel 58 requires going through the entire chain: 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63

out
rab96
1 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2011
"Krivit has concluded that the Rossi groups energy claim of extraordinarily large amounts of excess heat has no scientific support, and that he can't help but wonder whether Rossi is pulling a scam"

The fact that it is not supported by mainstream science does not mean it is a scam. A true scientist is not biased but studies any new phenomena, esp. if it concerns a potentially new source of energy.

There is an explanation. Protons can enter the Ni nucleus because of quantum effects. For the full article, see
http://www.journa...m/?p=497
Techno1
1 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2011
There is an explanation. Protons can enter the Ni nucleus because of quantum effects. For the full article, see
http://www.journa...m/?p=497


It's kind of funny. I was joking about it in another thread day before yesterday, but if the universe actually does have higher dimensions, you can explain cold fusion easily, and it doesn't even require "much" energy at all to accomplish.

Imagine if you had a wall in a circle, representing Nucleus of atom.

If you could not climb, there would be no way to get inside, the wall is impenatrable in 2-d, and it would take ridiculous energy to break down the wall. But since you can climb, you can get over the wall at spending a much lower energy.

If there is a 5th dimension in the universe, it would be the same way at the scale of the nuclear forces. You would be able to get "inside" the force-field of the strong and weak nuclear forces without actually passing "through" the force-field itself...
Techno1
2 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2011
So assuming the strong and weak nuclear forces are only in the 3 dimensions of ordinary space plust 1 dimension of time, then if you could move in the 5th dimension, it would not be restricted by the force fields at all.

The only cost of moving would be the ordinary energy cost of moving matter along any dimension in space, namely increasing the kinetic energy to move the proton 1 atomic radii distance through the 5th dimension so that it is inside the nucleus, having never passed "through" the barriers.

While this is purely conjecture, it gives a perfectly valid geometric interpretation of quantum tunneling and quantum entanglement, AND it explains Rossi's E-Cat LENR process.

As I said, I doubt it's falsifiable...
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2011
C'mon - they guy is demanding 15 million dollars up front so that you can test his contraption. This has 'scam' written all over it in mile-high day-glo letters.

No legit researcher would do something like this.
Techno1
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2011
C'mon - they guy is demanding 15 million dollars up front so that you can test his contraption. This has 'scam' written all over it in mile-high day-glo letters.

No legit researcher would do something like this.


No "Legit" researcher has ever claimed to discover anything valuable at multi-trillion dollars, virtually priceless technology either.

Honestly, I don't know what he should do to prove it, because it seems he's going to get screwed either way.

Realistically, he needs to realize he's not going to be able to develop this technology much further by himself, even if it is legit.

Realistically, he's going to have to sell rights to somebody with the funds and know-how to further develop this, and he knows it.

What about one of these mega-corporations who make so much money they had 10 billion in profits last year? Intel, Google, IBM, Apple, Microsoft, jeez...

A few million is peanuts to them. Why doesn't he deal with them?
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2011
This is Rossi's answer this morning in response to whether they've ever tested for Gamma radiation WITHOUT the lead shielding:

Andrea Rossi
August 12th, 2011 at 3:00 AM
Dear S. Woosnam:
Yes, we measured gamma rays inside the E-Cats: are such gamma rays to heat the water.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Any other questions for skeptics?


What did he mean by that? Is he suggesting that the gamma rays are heating the water and that's how they're detected? Or were they detected with some kind of dosimeter?

I know English is his second language which is why I'm wondering what he actually meant by that statement.
Techno1
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2011
Javinator:

he is responding to this question on the previous page of the forum:

Well crap, formatting won't allow it this time. Check page 10:

http://www.journa...comments

August 11, 5:57pm... S Woosnam.

I believe it was also shown in some of the older articles, when he was using a thinner lead shielding, that the gamma rays outside the e-cat were in fact "slightly" elevated above ambient.

That was even discussed in the videos associated with the original demonstrations back in January and at other times.

Now the devices use a 2cm lead shielding.

There is a lot of MISINFORMATION from people who did not read Rossi's paper, and who mis-quote some of Rossi's statements.

For example, they take something like, "No Gamma escapes" and then like an idiot run with it and say, "Well, it doesn't make Gamma so it can't be a NiH reaction."
italba
1 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2011
@antialias: Where have you seen this 15 million dollars offer? What Rossi write, in http://www.journa...cs.com/, is: "Let's wait November, after my 1Mw e-cat system starts, then we can talk about money".
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2011
Where have you seen this 15 million dollars offer?


From the article:
"Although Rossi has repeatedly said that he is not asking anybody for money until the devices are operating successfully, according to Krivit, Rossi is asking for $15 million from anybody who wishes to independently test his device. The money would be held in an escrow account contingent on the successful validation."

With 15 million dollars he'll just hop on over to Argentina (or some other non-extradition country) and damn the results.
Techno1
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2011
An example of a smart person, who nevertheless doesn't know what he's talking about. He has mis-quoted Rossi.

http://quantumtan...cat.html

Two paragraphs below the periodic table, he concludes it can't be a NiH reaction, because, according to him, no Gamma is emitted.

he is misquoting the fact that, because of the SHIELDING no gamma escapes.

But clearly, we have from Rossi's own site, from Rossi himself that the reaction definitely produces Gamma, and from even the video that the Gammas are produced, but they do not "escape" because they are trapped by the metals, particularly the lead, and "thermalized"...

He mentioned that in the movie above... see 6,40 to 7,30 above in the movie...

Also notice, when he holds the dosimeter a few feet away from the device, it reads 0.13mS/hr. When it is adjacent to the machine, both before and after, it appears to fluctuate between 0.15 and 0.16, suggesting there may be a ridiculously tiny leakage.
Prospero
not rated yet Aug 12, 2011
Techno1

I rather like your image of the eCat using the 5th dimension, after all M-Theory states that that there are 11.

How about some kind of stochastic resonance inside the crystalline structure of the prepard nano-nickel energizing the protons to jump over the wall and fusing with the nucleus releasing a high-speed neutron. The neutron is trapped in the crystalline structure so its kinetic energy is absorbed by the nickel whch gets hot.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2011
IMO it could be explained in a much more convenient way. At the case of fusion of pair hydrogen atoms the electrons (which are surrounding them) pose no shielding from repulsive Coulombic force of protons (i.e. hydrogen atom nuclei). But when atom nuclei are surrounded with hole crowd of electrons (like at the case of nickel nuclei), then the electrons form an effective shield of Coulombic barrier, just because there is many of them. You cannot push one electron from nuclei so easily in such a situation - the other electrons are moving collectively and they must but pushed too like single body. The ionization energy of electrons inside of hydrogen atom is just a few eV, but at the case of electrons at the bottom of nickel orbitals it's in order of MeV, so it forms an energetic continuum with nickel nuclei. In such case, the nickel nuclei is surrounded with rigid crust of many electrons, which are itself attractive to protons and they're shielding their Coulomb barrier effectively.
PinkElephant
3.6 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2011
@antialias_physorg,
With 15 million dollars he'll just hop on over to Argentina (or some other non-extradition country) and damn the results.
That's not how escrow accounts work. I imagine the money wouldn't actually be released to Rossi until the testers have concluded the testing to their satisfaction, and found positive results.

I agree that the guy's tactics and behavior are highly suspicious. If not an outright scammer, then he's pretty unprofessional. Personally, I've been on the fence about this ever since the initial pronouncements, and I still am today.
toyo
3.5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2011
Forget the hypotheses, the quality of the video etc.
This is a SCAM!
If it were real, the scientific method would have been applied. The scientists would have done the research, built the model and then taken all the measurements and RELEASED ALL THE DATA for public scrutiny in such a way that it can be experimentally verified by anyone via replication.
This HAS NOT been done, ergo THIS IS A SCAM!

NO EXCEPTIONS! Release all the data and let others verify your work. Otherwise don't be surprised if it's dismissed as a scam.

Shades of the CRU...
Egleton
1 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2011
Toyo I am covered with your spittle. Please dont shout. This is not a scientific experiment. It is an engineering demonstration.

Thanks for doing the very simple arithmetic Techno. It was easy for me to understand.

I shall mention this article in dispatches.
I wonder if this might be first evidence for M theory. Is there any evidence of extra dimensions other than the 4 that we know and love? That would upset supersymetry a bit. (Not that I am partisan)

I would dearly love to get a handle on mass and gravity. We have got to get out of this well.
Tyrant
not rated yet Aug 12, 2011
@Techno1 "He says many times in the paper and other places that it uses natural abundance Nickel.
The sample that was tested also used natural abundance Nickel."

Rossi enriches the nickel to heavier isotopes, Google Did you enrich for heavier nickel isotopes to make the nickel fuel?

Kullander is theorizing that the Ni goes through a multi-step process through various Cu isotopes, but I am fairly certain I read a Rossi comment stating the reaction almost only occurs with just the heavier isotopes.
italba
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2011
@antialias Why do you thrust Krivit when he say what Rossi want to do and do not thrust Rossi when he speaks for himself? Anyway, just wait for November. If the 1 MW system will start, (I can't say it will, I HOPE it will, so you should do), read again your comments and think.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
I trust scientists when they act like scientists. Rossi doesn't. He's a fraud. I'd bet large sums of money on that.
Egleton
2 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2011
Rossi is not a scientist, and as far as I know has never claimed to be one. He is an entrepreneur and he is demonstrating an engineering device.
The criteria for science and engineering success are different.
Engineering asks "Does it work?"
Science asks "Can I disprove it?"
Engineering requires nothing to be disproved.
Techno1
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2011
NO EXCEPTIONS! Release all the data and let others verify your work. Otherwise don't be surprised if it's dismissed as a scam.


People invent things and discover things all the time,a nd don't go around publishing "all of their data". Computer companies have lots of patents, but that doesn't mean they tell everyone everything.

I wonder if you've ever worked in any job whatsoever that actually did anything besides sit around and talk?

You don't seem to know much about real world discovery, production, or engineering.
Techno1
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2011
Kullander is theorizing that the Ni goes through a multi-step process through various Cu isotopes, but I am fairly certain I read a Rossi comment stating the reaction almost only occurs with just the heavier isotopes.


You misread something.

Kullander isn't "theorizing". They put spent and un-spent fuel through spectrometer and found it was in natural abundance, with the spent fuel being transmuted to copper.

This was explained in Rossi's paper as well.

It's possible he may have experimented with enriching to different isotopes to see which works best, but honestly, I doubt it.

You want to know why? Because enriching a METAL by it's specific isotope would be like the Manhattan project, it would cost millions of dollars to set up the equipment to actually pull out, say, all of the Nickel 59, or whatever specific isotope, only from a sample of natural abundance, etc, especially for the 300-something modules 1MW reactor he is allegedly building.
Techno1
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
By mass, 10% of the spent fuel sample was Copper, and 70% of this copper was Copper 63, with 30% being copper 65.

http://www.nytekn...4827.ece

Ni58 is 68% natural abundance
Ni60 is 26%
Ni61 is 0.01%
Ni62 is 0.03.6%

That's the first segment of the chain, and it represents 94.04% of natural abundance, moreover, only 4.6% comes from the "heavy" end of the chain.

So even if all of the Ni61 and Ni62 was fused, it would only make 4 HUNDREDTHS of 1 percent Copper 63...

Clearly, to get 10% Copper 63 when starting with a 0% copper 63 fuel source would definitely require fusion to be occuring along the entire chain from at LEAST Ni60, since that is the lightest isotope with 10% or more abundance.

See the last sentence in Kullander's 4th paragraph...clearly, neither the clean fuel source nor spent source differed from natural abundance.

I can explain that probabilistically, but the 1000 character limit will make it tedious...
Techno1
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
So, above, 70% of Cu63 from 10% of total mass being copper is then 7% of the spent fuel source was Cu63.

Since KULLANDER says the Nickel was in natural abundance, then this cannot be explained by the fusion of Ni61 or Ni62, and REQUIRES fusion of at least Ni60 going through the chain:

Ni60->Cu61->Ni61->Cu62->Ni62->Cu63

Because natural abundance does not have enough Ni61 or 62 to explain those data.

If the reaction was happening nearly linearly, then the concentrations of Ni would remain near natural abundance in terms of percentages, even as the absolute amount of Nickel decreases, until all of the Ni58 was consumed.

Once all the Ni58 is consumed, Ni59 and Ni60 would not longer be getting replaced, so they would disappear from the chain.
Techno1
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
Additionally, in order to get 30% as Cu65 from among the 10% copper in the spent sample, there would need to be something else going on as well.

That's 0.3 * 0.1 = 0.03 or 3%...

Because the proposed mechanism of fusion "should" hit a dead end at Cu 63, and there is nowhere near enough abundance of Ni64 to explain 3% of Cu65.

Therefore, the reaction is somehow "jumping" the "hole" in the chain at Cu63 about half of the time, to produce more Ni64...

There is another wrinkle, because the other Copper isotopes in the reaction chain are unstable, and only have a half-life of a few seconds,minutes, or hours, from 81 seconds to 3.3 hours, they would have decayed before the sample reached the spectrometer, which therefore "skews" the results, showing "only" 10% copper as 70% Cu63 and 30% Cu65.

So the other coppers decay too quickly to detect by simply pulling the sample and shipping it to a laboratory for analysis hours or days later...
italba
1 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2011
Betting is not for scientists, either... Just wait and see.
italba
1 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2011
@techno01: To enrich uranium you need to separate two isotopes whose difference in weight is 3/238, for nickel the difference is 3/64 (or 3/62), much easier.
Techno1
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2011
@techno01: To enrich uranium you need to separate two isotopes whose difference in weight is 3/238, for nickel the difference is 3/64 (or 3/62), much easier.


It doesn't matter. The claim was either false or a misunderstanding. We have a direct quote from Kullander, who did the isotopic analysis, and it was natural abundance metals.

Tyrant doesn't know what he's talking about.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
. The scientists would have done the research, built the model and then taken all the measurements and RELEASED ALL THE DATA for public scrutiny in such a way that it can be experimentally verified by anyone via replication. This HAS NOT been done, ergo THIS IS A SCAM!
The question only is, why nobody ATTEMPTED to replicate twenty years old experiments of Focardi & Piantelli. They're simple, cheap and well documented in terms of standard scientific study.

http://www.lenr-c...xces.pdf

What the physicists are affraiding of? In 1939 it took just six years to develop working nuclear bomb for Americans and three years to replicate it for Russians. And this development consumed a couple billions of dollars.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
One of unofficial confirmations of Rossi e-Cat's system (well, sort of it) from some free-lance physicist from Romania.

http://www.mail-a...437.html

That's nice - but why we still haven't official, peer-reviewed report of it? Why the physicists with their million dollars equipment remain ignorant and silent? This is, what is actually conspicuous and strange here.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
Science asks "Can I disprove it?"
This is just a theory, because scientists apparently don't ask so. After twenty years the only attempt for refusal of low energy nuclear reaction hydrogen at nickel (or whatever else it really is) is based on the accidental observation of steam pipe from camera. We have dozens of theories already, but no other experiment about it.

Sorry, but this is simply ridiculous and funny. What Rossi is saying about his e-Cat catalyst is irrelevant and frankly, I don't care about it at all. Physicists have twenty years old experiments from Italian university documented in standard scientific way - and they still did nothing.

The only question, which the publics should ask by now is: WHY? Is the ignorance, what we are paying our scientists for? It's just the layman people, who should stop behave like manipulated silly trolls, which don't understand, what happens here.
Techno1
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
but why we still haven't official, peer-reviewed report of it? Why the physicists with their million dollars equipment remain ignorant and silent? This is, what is actually conspicuous and strange here.


I think I know the answer, but I don't know if it's appropriate to post here.

I have a hunch that the Ni-H reaction, if real, could be too easy to weaponize.

It doesn't matter whether you can get a critical mass to make a bomb with it (in the sense of a mushroom cloud or something,) if it's making gamma rays, a terrorist could weaponize it simply by removing the Lead shielding, either completely or on one side.

This would allow a very, very cheap "Gamma bomb," perhaps the size of a truck, to be deployed in a populated area in a town, or at a sporting event.

If Rossi can build this device to SALE for $4000 for a 4.4KW reactor, then terrorists who are willing to spend millions to do harm would easily have the funds to spend on a truck-sized gamma bomb...
Techno1
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
Imagine a truck the size of a Fedex truck packed with something the size of Rossi's alleged 1MW reactor, AND having removed enough Lead shielding to allow thermalization enough to sustain the reaction, BUT allow most of the Gammas escape.

The Bastard suicide bombing terrorist could drive around downtown delivering lethal dose of GAMMA AND POSITRONS to everyone, or park it at a sporting event, or airport, and let it kill everyone...slowly...
Techno1
1 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2011
If the world was rational and civilized and good and decent, etc, etc, we wouldn't need be concerned with the nightmare scenario above.

However, because we have Muslims and other evil people, especially terrorists and organized criminals, then the scenario is a serious concern.

Our history lessons show that terrorists will used as a weapon anything and everything available, especially Muslim terrorists.

But not just Muslims, there's also the false christian suicide cult lunatics, like Jim Jones with "People's Temple," and "Heaven's Gate," forget the guy's name, and such, who would use something like this to harm thousands or mllions if they could get their evil hands on it.

Unfortunately, even if this is real, it may need to be regulated and remain top-secret for decades or generations, till something can be done to better our social and moral development.

you might think nobody would do this, but just look at Jarrod Loughner and also 9/11...

So sad and shameful...
Techno1
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2011
This might be like the indiana jones movie, where they found the Ark of the Covenant, and then when he "rescues" it they hide it away in a warehouse, because it was too dangerous.

Ok, bad theology, but similar concept.

Maybe this is what happened to Flieschmann and Pons?

Maybe the experiment really worked, and they had to cover it up, because it would be too easy to weaponize it...
jjoensuu
1 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2011
Maybe the experiment really worked, and they had to cover it up, because it would be too easy to weaponize it...


If we put it as "because it would be too easy for others than USA (or its chosen partners) to weaponize it", then I would in fact be inclined to believe that. The discreditation campaign against cold fusion has been very similar to the discreditation against those who question the official story of 9-11.

Anyway. As to the Rossi device, the fact that the U.S. company Ampenergo (which has ties to U.S. DOD and DOE) has signed a contract with Rossi about being the sole distributor of the device in USA, is in itself implicit acceptance that the device works.

You can find Ampernergo's press release here:

E-Cat Commercialization in the Americas
http://ampenergo.com/?cat=3
Techno1
1 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2011
I've never even heard of that company, and you say they have ties to DOD and DOE?

That website looks like something I coded on the weekend or something.

How do you know that's a legit site?

That could be someone else trying to sell knock-offs...

Anyway, the next few months should be hilarious.

If/When Rossi proves his device for real, it's going to make virtually everyone in the mainstream physics community look like complete fools and nutjobs...
lostcauses10x
5 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2011
Truly amusing comments to this artificial.
So far all I have read on this shows no true input to output, so no valid results of claims can be made.
So far no papers have any validation of equipment used for so called measurements. So far equipment said to be used, is extremely questionable; as well as the methods of measurement. All these so called scientist putting there names in the pot with out doing such are also questionable no matter there credentials.

Until such is properly measured, and shown: it is just nothing more than an electrical heater boiling water, with a bunch of claims to being some thing else.

No proper methods, and verification of measurement: keep your hopes and money to your self.
Egleton
1 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2011
Lost cause, I like your style.
Just write down a long list of statements as though they are the truth.
Classic rationalisation of a threatened left hemisphere, in which the model of reality is confuseed with reality itself.
Relax, reality is not threatened. Just your model of it.
italba
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2011
@techno1 Imagine a truck tank LPG filled exploding in a big city... Every technology can be used for good or for evil.
italba
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2011
One independent confirmation on Rossi - Focardi NI-H reaction was made by Brian Ahern on May-30-2011: see http://www.facebo...67008023
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2011
because we have Muslims and other evil people


Sounds like Nazi hate speech after s/Jews/Muslims/ .
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2011
I have a hunch that the Ni-H reaction, if real, could be too easy to weaponize.
The common point of all fundamental finding is, the physicists refused to replicate them. Recently we discussed Tajmar's gyromagnetic moment experiments here - theorists already have dozen theories about it, but these experiments itself weren't replicated yet. Why? Podkletnov antigravity beam experiments are highly interesting too, but they weren't replicated even after twenty years. Why? J.F.Prins experiments with room temperature superconductors weren't replicated yet after ten years. Why? Not to say about Bedini motor and dozens of various ZPE and overunity devices, which are ignored heartily. I doubt, these findings could be weaponized in real time.

IMO it's not conspiracy at all - the mainstream science has no mechanisms, how to check it's errors and findings, which would violate well established paradigms. It's problem of system.

http://www.nytime...deas.htm
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2011
This ignorance stance is supported with many artifical rules, which are driving the mainstream scientific community. For example, the scientists are refuting to perform original research, because they cannot get so many citations for it.

http://www.nature...406.html

Mainstream journal are refusing to publish negative results, especially those, which are violating existing theories

http://www.ploson....0010271

In many cases these high impact journals even refusing to publish results, which have no underlying theory developed (which is just the case of cold fusion). Because scientists are payed for impact of citations, these results aren't published at all.

In many cases the scientists are living more comfortably within these rules, because they enable them to continue in their own research, as the R. Wilson, a former president of APS denominated clearly:

http://home.ipoli...ghts.htm
Egleton
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2011
Right on, Callippo.

This sounds like the dark ages again.
Plato said that it is better to ignore the stars when doing astronomy, because the underlying "forms" were more real than reality itself.

This is the Left hemisphere, which creates models of reality,and has no insight and so thinks the model IS reality.
And so we have the Standard Model set in stone. An alter before which all high priests, (pardon scientists) must genuflect.
Remind you of Devine Revelation?
Nothing Devine about it at all.
On your knees, Christian, for you have sinned.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2011
Scientists these days are slaved to funding and peer-reviewed system lords. No-one is going to put his head on the chooping block by trying to replicate outlandish ideas. It is much safer career wise. Heck, metallurgists still haven't replicated damacus steel exactly, despite all their learned theories after working with steel for the last 3000 years...Keep the good oil flowing and the military-industry cabals happy,don't mess up the established world order, or your sanity, integrity and reputation will be dragged through the mud, nailed to a cross and burned at the stake!
LLL
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2011
Krivit is desperate because of Rossi snubbed him in his visit in Bologna.

Whereas Krivit hoped for the one-in-a-century scoop probably Rossi showed him only a staged demo.

I understand krivit's rage but his report is nothing more an empty faida.
tblakeslee
3 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2011
I talked to Krivit on the phone once and he hung up on me very inappropriatly as I was very calmly disagreeing with him. He seems to be very emotional and very hung up on the Widom Larson theory.
Krivit was warming up to Rossi after being very negative at first but then Rossi dismissed the Widom-Larson theory on his blog. That seems to be what triggered the Krivit's current vendetta. This is a clash of personalities and Krivit hates to be called an "imbicile"
Here is a recent reply by Rossi on his blog: "The tests we made have been made by University prefessors whose specific preparation is several orders of magnitude superior to the preparation of the blogger you referred to, and they are perfectly able to distinguish between steam and hor water.
As for the speed calculated in that blog, it is so ridiculous a calculation, that puts in evidence the lack of basic knowledge of this imbecile."
This will make Krivit redouble his efforts because his emotions have made him obsessed.
tblakeslee
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2011
Skeptics should look at the Leonardo Technology website. www link: lti-global.com
Click on "More Information" for a list of clients of this parent company of Ampenergo who will be selling the E-Cat.
Also look at the calender for what Robert Gentile, now running Ampenergo has been up to. Glad to see that he will now be busy doing more constructive things.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2011
He seems to be very emotional and very hung up on the Widom Larson theory.
If Krivit is hung up on the Widom Larson theory so much, why he fights against its first experimental evidence? Maybe he is really an "imbecile". Anyway, the most meaningful is the Frank Znidarsic's theory for me. It can be combined easily with my explanation above presented.
Egleton
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2011
A catastrophic thing has happened to our minds. It started 800BC.
Aristotle could drop any idea if it was wrong. His pupil, Plato said that ideas were superior to reality, and that reality had to conform to theory.
So we confuse our models with reality itself.
Our very worlds are shattered if our models are wrong.

Nothing is shattered. The sun continues its indifferent passage accross the sky.
Somehow we must develop detachment. If my precious Idea is wrong, I must instantaneously drop it.
It is only a model. It is not me.

Please read http://en.wikiped...Emissary
lostcauses10x
not rated yet Aug 14, 2011
"The common point of all fundamental finding is, the physicists refused to replicate them."

Amusing. claims of the things folks seem to desire replicated by others, really have no PROOF.

It is not others jobs, to prove or disprove such claims: but it is the persons job making the claim to prove it.
When such is done then others may or may not desire to reproduce such claims.

I apologize to the poster whose quote I used. They are just a few who make such statements and I intend no damage to them. It is just a convenient example to use for the time.

As for the claims of when shut off it still continues to work, Hmm a mass of maybe nickle that had been heated to so temp will take time to cool.

So far again noting is new about measuring steam. It may not be used to day like it was in the past: but books are still available.
As for professionals of today, most do not and have not encountered steam; and the measurements of it.

Again the whole thing is a farce.
dobermanmacleod
1 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2011
Isn't a simpler explanation that of Dr. Brian Josephson, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics: http://pesn.com/2..._fusion/
He says you just treat the nickel (i.e. grind it up real small, and other more esoteric treatments) and pack it under pressure with hydrogen and a catalyst then heat - the hydrogen is absorbed by the nickel in a fusion reaction that produces copper?

I have a government paper guessing it is hydrogen getting it's electron orbit shrunk, and some think it is the hydrogen atoms getting pushed together by the nickel lattice. It is like Yellow Fever being spread by mosquito - people just couldn't wrap their heads around it until it was proven by experimentation.

Ni H KCO3(heated above 70C at 22 bars)=Cu lots of heat. Who would've thunk it? Nickel turning to copper when heated under pressure in the presence of hydrogen and a catalyst. Sort of like wood heated up oxidizes and yields heat and ash. Thanks Prometheus.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2011
Isn't a simpler explanation that of Dr. Brian Josephson, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics .. He says you just treat the nickel (i.e. grind it up real small, and other more esoteric treatments) and pack it under pressure with hydrogen and a catalyst then heat - the hydrogen is absorbed by the nickel in a fusion reaction that produces copper?
This "explanation" doesn't explain, why the other elements doesn't produce the heat in the same mechanism.

From article quoted:

"However, while he gives support for the idea that the E-Cat could work, Josephson doesn't offer his own hypothesis detailing how he believes it does work."

Albert Einstein: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."
dobermanmacleod
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2011
Q: "This "explanation" doesn't explain, why the other elements doesn't produce the heat in the same mechanism."

A: It doesn't have to, and it also implies they might.

Q: "However, while he gives support for the idea that the E-Cat could work, Josephson doesn't offer his own hypothesis detailing how he believes it does work."

A: 'Something is happening in the solid (i.e. the nickel).' 'Many protons in the gas cooperate somehow.' In other words, the nickel absorbs the hydrogen protons.

So while it is literally true that Dr J didn't offer his own hypothesis detailing how he believes it works, he did offer a general outline which I thought I characterized fairly.

For instance, while it is correct that fuel plus air plus heat equals fire, that is not a specific hypothesis but a general outline. I am trying to communicate, not write a scientific paper that can withstand uncharitable scrutiny:)
dobermanmacleod
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2011
Sorry, I tried to edit it, but was too late. I was trying to be general, and I got too specific. I meant the nickel absorbs the hydrogen (i.e. some/all of the hydrogen is being absorbed by the nickel so it jumps to the next higher atomic weight of copper).

In way of analogy, I stated that heat air and fuel equals fire, you could attack that statement on a number of grounds if you were uncharitable, and say it isn't an explanation at all.

To reiterate, all I'm saying is that the specially treated nickel surrounded by hydrogen and accompanied by a catalyst (KCO3 is one example, not specifically Rossi's "secret catalyst") could very well achieve fusion because the hydrogen is being absorbed by the nickel because the Coulomb barrier is being breached occasionally due to the unique heat and pressure combination (just like fire is a "unique" combination of fuel, air, and heat).

Am I being clear?
rawa1
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2011
Why not - but you shouldn't claim, Mr. Josephson offers an explanation (of cold fusion) under the situation, when even your source claims the opposite. Cold fusion apparently occurs just in materials, which are already able to interact with hydrogen strongly via chemical bonds (nickel is forming hydrides, palladium too), which is not result of "collective behaviour of protons", rather the special character of H-Me bonds in these materials.
Egleton
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2011
Good lord. PROOF it screamed into my face.

What are the two proofs?
1)Inductive proof and 2)deductive proof.
1)Inductive proof goes like this "This swan is white, that swan is white. I have seen a thousand swans and they are all white. Therefore all swans are white." Garbage.
2)Deductive proof. "Men build airships. I am a man, therefore I build airships." More garbage.
If you think that the scientific method proves anything, you are deluded.
The scientific method only DISproves unsound hypotheses. No hypothesis was offered.

But again, this is not a scientific experiment. It is an engineering demonstration. We are not interested in proving or disproving anything. Only in answering the question "Does it work?"

But I think I am talking to a machine. It will be back.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2011
..The scientific method only DISproves unsound hypotheses..
It implies, all hypothesis are nonscientifical, until they're not disproved with scientific method. Only crackpots therefore providing a new hypothesis, the scientists are only here for their disproval...
jjoensuu
not rated yet Aug 15, 2011
Below is from:
http://nextbigfut...ers.html

The founders of Ampenergo are Karl Norwood, Richard Noceti, Robert H Gentile and Craig Cassarino.

Two of them also founded the consulting firm LTI Leonardo Technologies Inc. which for 10 years has been working on contracts amounting to several millions of dollars for the U.S. Defense and Energy departments, and with a recent contract with DOE amounting to 95 million dollars.

Robert H Gentile was also Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy during the early 1990s (02/26/90 - 06/29/91).
Egleton
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2011
That about it.
It is every scientists dream to disprove Einstein's theories. Lots of luck with that.
Mainsteam science is the source of crackpot ideas. It is the function of the scientific method to root them out.

The ether was not considered a crackpot idea. Michaelson and Morley showed that the ether does not exist. Einstein resolved the issue by showing that time was the crackpot idea.

Even reality itself seems to have crackpot ideas. What on earth are we to make of an electron with a spin of half?

"Common sense is a collection of prejudices aquired by age eithteen."Einstein
retrosurf
5 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2011

I wonder if Physorg will take the same biased stance when the working 1MW plant opens later this year.


I bet you a beverage or collection of beverages whose total value is not to exceed 60 US dollars that a megawatt pilot plant utilizing this principle will not be producing more power than it uses by the end of 2011.

PM me through physorg, and we'll set it up.

LCD
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2011
I will take that bet retrosurf but I want odds since you are so convinced that it won't work based on history no doubt and real skeptics simply don't have enough information to say one way or the other. 10 to 1 sound fair?
tblakeslee
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2011
Here is a quote from p2 of Kullander and Essen's report
"It is worth noting that at this point in time and temperature, 10:36 and 60°C, the 300 W from the heater is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the flowing water from the inlet temperature of 17.6 °C to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. Instead the temperature increases faster after 10:36, as can be seen as a kink occurring at 60 °C in the temperature-time relation. (Figure 6). A temperature of 97.5 °C is reached at 10:40. The time taken to bring the water from 60 to 97.5 °C is 4 minutes. The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the water is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney."
www.nyteknik.se/i...28pdf%29
Krivit ignores this
tblakeslee
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2011
Here is a quote from p2 of Kullander and Essen's report:
"It is worth noting that at this point in time and temperature, 10:36 and 60°C, the 300 W from the heater is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the flowing water from the inlet temperature of 17.6 °C to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. Instead the temperature increases faster after 10:36, as can be seen as a kink occurring at 60 °C in the temperature-time relation. (Figure 6). A temperature of 97.5 °C is reached at 10:40. The time taken to bring the water from 60 to 97.5 °C is 4 minutes. The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the water is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney." www link:
nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29
LCD
not rated yet Aug 16, 2011
Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Entanglement, Extra-Galactic Gamma Ray Bursters, Accelerated expansion of the universe,...

that's just off the top of my head, but the list goes on and on of things we refused to believe even with empirical evidence suggesting it was true because it did not fit in with our reality, and had "loopholes" that needed to be addressed.

We believe in all these things now but it takes time folks. Don't be one of those people that pass judgement one way or the other before the time is right.
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2011
Here is a quote from p2 of Kullander and Essen's report
Krivit's conditions aren't the same as Rossi's set up. Because Rossi has a flowing system, he's constantly heating the water from room temperature to the boiling point and then evaporating it, rather than simply evaporating it (as Krivit considers). So that Rossi gets smaller steam flow at the outlet.
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2011
Roy Virgilio releases more details on Piantellis research
http://coldfusion...esearch/
No catalyst is necessary. The trick is in the preparation of the nickel. Piantelli has a theory that doesn't require exotic reactions, but can be explained using known physics and mathematics. A semi-complete theory has been provided to the University of Siena and will be published shortly. The complete theory will probably be disclosed after the first commercial units have been sold. Piantelli owns three patent for technology, but his group doesn't need money: the aim is protect the technology by putting it under the control of a multitude of stakeholders and enthusiasts, but there is no guarantee the shares will make a profit.
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2011
It should be pointed out, biophysicist Francesco Piantelli is the original founder of hydrogen fusion at nickel, not Andrea Rossi.
During experiments with a piece of nickel material Piantelli observed the temperature went up when pressure went down. According to Boyle's law, this should not occur. The temperature went up near 160 C, 433 K. It happened on August 16, 1989.

http://www.lenr-c...xces.pdf
Arkaleus
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2011
Skeptics and advocates of this technology should put their money where their mouth is and begin attempting to duplicate this seemingly easily reproduced technology.

We have enough information to attempt a recreation of the reactor. H2 enriched Ni micron sized powder some other material. Could it be Potassium Carbonate? Why so much Fe (11%) in sample provided by Rossi? Is he using Fe and Ni together as the catalyst for breaking H2 into atomic H?

Like many others, I'm a bit concerned that the ramifications of this invention are beyond profits for a few, and Rossi should know this.

Let's face it, we're never going to see this technology in the hands of individuals unless we do it ourselves. It's too big to let go or allow an individual to profit from this.

We need to open and proliferate this technology freely, unless you prefer servitude to the oil cartels and a future of artificial scarcity and war.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2011
Thks for the link, R1.
http://www.lenr-c...xces.pdf

So sad. Chemical and/or spectroscopic compositional chemical analysis of the before and after states of the rods had the potential to strengthen an already irrefutable and replicable experiment and data. I can see this being overshadowed by the international events of the times - Reunification of Germany, for example. We Germans were in a killer instinct stupor 45 days before the Fall. Nevertheless, the Piantelle& Co. research being 'lost' until now makes no sense.
rawa1
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2011
I can see this being overshadowed by the international events of the times - Reunification of Germany, for example.
??? From when the physicists do care about international events like the unification of Germany?
..the Piantelli& Co. research being 'lost' until now makes no sense. ..
The people tend to underestimate the subtle emergent attitude of individuals, which prohibit the global acceptance of fundamental findings. When all people in the crowd will make just a tiny single step against the wall, the people near the wall will get crushed with no mercy. The motivations, which lead the physicists into ignorance of cold fusion finding are explained here and there, for example:

http://www.wired...._pr.html

http://www.natura...ine.html

The people should still learn a lot about how their own civilization work before they would be able prevent international conflicts, global ignorance or mass hysteria.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2011
We Germans were in a killer instinct stupor 45 days before the Fall.

We were? Yes, we followed the news and it was all very exciting - but not to the exclusion of everything else.

That said researchers get their 'scintific news' not from public TV broadcasts (or physorg). I hardly think the Journal of Applied Chemistry was in a stupor over the reunification of germany (or whatever). So physicsist and chemist would have gotten this no matter what. It's just bunk - so no one bothered.

Build the apparatus, have it peer reviewed, have it open to examination/duplication - then it'll get accepted.

But playing such murky games as the cold fusion crowd is playing with unsubstantiated claims, bogus adresses for 'working samples' and monetary demands for demonstrations that is no different from selling snake oil.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2011
But playing such murky games as the cold fusion crowd is playing with unsubstantiated claims, bogus adresses for 'working samples' and monetary demands for demonstrations that is no different from selling snake oil
We are facing the same approach during Higgs boson searches, for example. How many false findings of Higgs was already rumoured and reported? How many billions of dollars the physicists already asked and spent in futile search of Higgs boson and/or gravitational waves?

But there is still an substantial difference: the finding of Higgs boson and/or some waves will not save us from global financial crisis, which has its roots in increasing price of energy. Instead of it, the physicists will lose their places in research just because of their own ignorance of most important findings.

The problem is, the physicists don't consider the research of nuclear reactions as a research of highest strategical priority, similar to research of nuclear weapons in the last century.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2011
The common denominator of this ignorance and the whole source of problem is the lack of peer-reviewed attempts for replications. Until we will not have five - ten peer-reviewed negative attempts for cold fusion presented in highest impact journals, I can't believe, the physicists are taking the cold fusion research with full responsibility.

The causal bias in their approach is there quite apparent. Whereas the 30% energy gain is not considered worth of attention if not further research at the case of cold fusion, the same physicists are spending billions of dollars in search of minute events during particle collisions, the probability of which is in range of 0.00001% or less. The finding of top quark took ten years and quadrillions of particle collisions were analysed during this. But the same physicists aren't willing to research the quite apparent heat evolution in palladium and nickel samples.

It's evident, the physicists have quite inverted priorities of research importance.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2011
For example, we can face the following video of cold fusion at the LENR site of US Navy. The whole surface of palladium electrode is covered with sparks, which are clearly visible in infrared camera.

http://www.lenr-c...akIR.wmv

One would expect, at the case of global energetic crisis every research base will attempt to replicate this undeniable evidence of mysterious heat evolution with full caution.

But exactly the opposite happened. Nobody does care about such artefacts. The silly Higgs boson is indeed much more important for theorists, because they've mathematical models for it, which were developed during whole their professional carrier. What these people could get, if some cold fusion would be confirmed? Absolutely nothing - such findings are completely unimportant for them, until their money are going.

But these money will end soon, because the society is getting out of its resources. And just these ignorants will get fired first.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2011
We are facing the same approach during Higgs boson searches, for example.

Did anyone demand money to show their results? Did anyone from the large colliders make a DEFINITE claim an then witheld data? Did any of the refuse to validate their findings or cooperate so that other colliders could set up corroborating tests? I don't think so.

How many billions of dollars the physicists already asked and spent in futile search of Higgs boson and/or gravitational waves?

Some research is futile. That's the nature of resaerch. at least these guys have a good theoretical framework from which to argue WHY they should be given the money to search for such things.

But the same physicists aren't willing to research the quite apparent heat evolution in palladium and nickel samples.

Physicsist have specialities. Some research fusion, some chemical processes, others research exotic particles.

Blaming one group for not looking into the problems of others is weird.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2011
"We were? Yes, we followed the news and it was all very exciting - but not to the exclusion of everything else." - AP

This is a truism:
"...to the exclusion of everything else."
This is not possible. You know this. This is why you chose this wording.

The suggestion I offered as to why S. FOCARDI, V. GABBANI, V. MONTALBANO, F. PIANTELLI and S. VERONESI research paper:
'Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems'

did not give rise or cause others to investigate further or to replicate duly thereafter was due to the - at least for the Germans - a circumstance of the times.
Or if you will - due to the "excitement" of the times.

For the sake of argument, if you assume German researchers did not let this escape their attention at the time and as you assert:
"It's just bunk - so no one bothered." - AP,

alleges a dismissal predisposition that no German scientist East or West is willing to accept from you.

cont...

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2011
did not give rise or cause others to investigate further or to replicate duly thereafter was due to the - at least for the Germans - a circumstance of the times.

Work didn't grind to a halt - even here. Much less anywhere else in the world. The argument that daily catastrophes can overshadow scientific enedavours/releases is bogus.

Heck, even after 9/11 work went on as usual.
I was in Italy at a conference/workshop with american lecturers at the time (and some american PhD students among others).

Though somewhat shocked the lecturers didn't miss a beat the next day.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2011
cont...
The research done at that time met what you state now:

"Build the apparatus, have it peer reviewed, have it open to examination/duplication - then it'll get accepted." - AP

Yet there was no resonance, feedback, dismissal, debunking or talk at all over the research paper and work at that time from the Germans.

"Blaming one group for not looking into the problems of others is weird."

Science, all science, in theory, is one of collaboration and collaborative efforts. Just not here on Earth.

Yes. Weird. Problems? What problems?


antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2011
Science, all science, in theory, is one of collaboration and collaborative efforts. Just not here on Earth.

You're effectively saying (to put it a bit bluntly): Sociologists should peer review particle physicsits' work. And you blame them when they don't.
Specificaly you blame the failure of groups from one country (which has no real fusion research going on other than in international collaborative efforts) from immediately jumping on release by some other group.

Oh...and there seems another slight flaw in your argument:

The paper you cited was published in 1998 (submitted in 1996).

The Berlin wall fell in 1989. (Reunification was in 1990)
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2011
"Heck, even after 9/11 work went on as usual. " - AP

"Though somewhat shocked the lecturers didn't miss a beat the next day." - AP

Yes. Weird. Problems? What problems?

There was no comment for argumentation of "daily catastrophes"
overshadowing scientific endeavors/releases from me.

Unless, of course, Germany's daily catastrophe is being reunited every day.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2011
You read your own words:
"you're effectively saying (to put it a bit bluntly):..."
into my statements. Why? "Should"? (You know better, now.) - AP

"The Berlin wall fell in 1989. (Reunification was in 1990)" - AP
That is correct. The Fall of 1989 made 'official' in 1990.
And Germans need paperwork, regardless of before, during, or after an event.

rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2011
Did anyone demand money to show their results?
Jeez - mainstream physicists are screaming for their money all the time. And they're asking billions for their research every year - not just few millions, as the LENR physicists do.

How is it possible, they can get billions of dollars for building of colliders from government - whereas LENR physicists are forced to seek nearly all money at private sector? Is it normal situation for you? Whether the research of cold fusion physicists is less important for the future of human civilization, than the research of Higgs boson? If the cold fusion physicists will not succeed, then the whole rest of physical community will fall down too because of lack of grant support.

But what will happen, if nobody finds Higgs boson? Absolutely nothing. No one requires such thing actually for living.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2011
..Some research is futile. That's the nature of resaerch...
This is another application of double standard, which is typical for so-called pathological skepticism. The search for Higgs has full rights to remain futile for decades - but the cold fusion is required to bring tangible results immediately, or noone will care about it. This is indeed freeky, selfdestructive stance for human civilization.

I'm not saying, the research of Higgs and vacuum structure isn't interesting - but under the situation, when the physicists are facing the gradual closing of all colliders just because lack of energy and subsequent financial crisis, I'd expect a somewhat more responsible attitude, if not self-preservation instinct from the community of physicists. It's just the mainstream physicists, who have material tools for LENR research, intellectual tools for development of underlying theories and perspective approaches of cold fusion.

What all these guys are waiting for? A Christmas?
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2011
How is it possible, they can get billions of dollars for building of colliders from government - whereas LENR physicists are forced to seek nearly all money at private sector?

Because the one group goes:
"We have a theory. It works well and predicts all sorts of things that is already being used all over the planet (and off it). We need to find out if this theory is so good that it can give us deep insight into the fundamental...well...of everything. Please give us money."

The other group goes:
"We have a theory. We can't show you what it is. We won't show you what it is. It has no demonstrable effect anywhere that we know of. It doesn't work as soon as anyone except us goes near it. Please give us money"

Now which group would you give money to?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2011
Yes. Weird. Problems? What problems?

Point being: What would it have helped if we had run around like headless chickens in Italy back then?

And Germans need paperwork, regardless of before, during, or after an event.

Soooo...to get this straight: You're saying that 9 years of paperwork (of the german government) kept scientific institutions completely out of business...all over the world

Riiiight. Here's your tinfoil hat. I'm dropping out of this...erm...conversation.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2011
The other group goes: "We have a theory. We can't show you what it is. We won't show you what it is. It has no demonstrable effect anywhere that we know of. It doesn't work as soon as anyone except us goes near it. Please give us money"
Are you definitely sure, it applies just to Foccardi & Piantelli, who published cold fusion at nickel before twenty years? These guys a) never claimed, they've theory about it b)never made details of their experiments hidden c) never claimed, their results are conditioned d) never asked for additional money for their research (which is actually why they got nothing).
You're apparently living in some alternative reality. I'm not talking about Rossi, who is not founder of nickel fusion at all, who never wrote article about it and who is known last few months. I'm talking about original Foccardi & Piantelli experiments, which were published in completely standard scientific way and which were ignored with the rest of physicists just because of it
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2011
"...would..." - AP
We talk about certain words already.

"You're saying..." - AP
No. Just what I wrote.
East German science and scientists were out of the loop until
the Fall.

"I'm dropping out of this...erm...conversation." - AP
Bye.
Egleton
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2011
Come clean Antialias. What do you do for a crust?
What do we support?

Wacko theories (String and Supersymmetry) that are going to cost billions for new toys and show us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Or spend a couple of million on energy research that will snatch energy production away from big centralist corporations.

I suggest you examine your soul.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2011
What do you do for a crust?

Huh? What does that mean? (I hought my command of colloquial english was pretty good, but that idiom is unknown to me)

Or spend a couple of million on energy research that will snatch energy production away from big centralist corporations.

I'm sure some venture capitalist will be able to front a couple of million to try it out when you go to them and show them your working prototype (a lot of communities want localized energy production, too. They should be able to fund this stuff easily...IF it works). Nobody forces you to go through the scientific community if you don't want to.

Some claims here seem to suggest that some almighty scientific (global!) cabal can completely suppress commercialization of working engineering solutions. Not so. Found a company. Build your own power plant. If it's as cheap as they suggest then that should be a cinch to do. But they haven't done it. Don't you ever wonder why?
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2011
What do we support?
We can support both easily, but currently the energy research is an apparent priority. Without it everyone of us could expect desperate riots on his garden soon and we can forget to some string theory for ever...
Not so. Found a company.
Why not. If scientists want to search for Higgs boson, they're welcomed to found their companies and build their own colliders, too.

Or we are facing double standards again. You apparently didn't realize, the research of cold fusion is a science like everyone else. Why just the cold fusion research shouldn't be governmentally supported - especially when it is so strategically important for the future of civilization, geopolitical stability and life environment?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2011
the research of cold fusion is a science like everyone else.

No. It's engineering (or that is what teh proponents would have us believe). They say it works - but don't care how.

When they start throwing out theories that make sense and can be tested then they should get funding. That energy is important is not ni debate. Giving money to people who do a lot of nebulous hand waving it is just not sensible.

Rather invest in research for energy sources that make sense: wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, biomass, ...

But you're certainly welcome to invest in Mr. Rossi's 1MW device. shouldn't be too hard to convince him to take your money. And since you are so sure that the payoff will be enormous why don't you go ahead and do it?
LCD
not rated yet Aug 19, 2011
hush, rawa, and AP,
As a disinterested third party let me just make some observations.
I ad admit I didn't read every word.

Hush and Rawa I would just like to say that as a scientist, every scientist dreams of completely turning the scientific establishment on its ear, so the talk of conspiracies against cold fusion doesn't really hold water with mainstream science.

AP. There is no doubt that Fl&Pons showed us that cold fusion with or without theoretical backing can get the nations and the scientific community's attention. What I believe rawa and hush are getting at is that if Snooky can get her own biography video on TV what is up with the U.S. media not fairly covering the eCat. Note I said "fairly".

And that is a fair argument. Phsycologically that influences the scientific community and their lack of say "attention". You see it everyday in the type of work grad students are NOT doing. So what is up with that? The disparity is indefensible.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2011
What do you do for a crust?
Huh? What does that mean? (I hought my command of colloquial english was pretty good, but that idiom is unknown to me)
"Crust" from bread crust. "Bread" for eating. I.e., "what do you do to earn a meal" = "What do you do for a living". He wants your creds. How uncouth.
Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2011
so the talk of conspiracies against cold fusion doesn't really hold water with mainstream science
It's not conspiracy. Conspiracies are driven from up to bottom, but the refusal of cold fusion grows from bottom up. It's simply a pathological skepticism.

http://en.wikiped...epticism

After all, most of posters are demonstrating it clearly: nobody attempted to replicate original experiments, but everyone is sure, they just cannot work. Do you feel yourself as an conspirator?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2011
"Crust" from bread crust. "Bread" for eating. I.e., "what do you do to earn a meal"

I am an electricel engineer (Dipl. Ing. - I guess that would be a 'masters degree' nowadays), currently employed as a software architect and until quite recently a researcher in the areas of biomechanics, haptics/telemanipulation and image processing (that latter being image segmentation and diagnsotics algorithms to be more specific...on which I did my PhD)

So yeah: I have been pubishing and lecturing at a couple of national and international conferences and been active in the scientific community in that area for about the past 10 years (until I switched over last year to doing software architectures for a local company because doing science is just another word for always being poor... though I'm planning to switch back as soon as there's enough of a monetary cushion. Science is way more interesting than 9-to-5 )

That answer your question?
Gawad
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2011
I switched over last year to doing software architectures for a local company because doing science is just another word for always being poor...
Oh, man, I know that feeling! I hope it works out for you, Anti, I really do. I'm probably out of it for the long haul, but I'll be rootin' for ya!
Egleton
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2011
Thank you for telling me what you do for a living.

In return I shall tell you that I am an electrician and an autodidact.
What I have found out is that the Left hemisphere creates models of reality. They are self referential. As a consequence the Left has no insight. Lack of insight is a symptom of schizophrenia. It happens if the Corpus Collosum does its job too well and shuts down communications between the two hemispheres.
http://en.wikiped...Emissary

The greater the investiture in the Model (the greater the study) the harder it is for the Left to admit insight from the Right. The greater the hemispherical apartheid.

Hence the catholic churches refusal to look through Galileo's telescope.
Miksol
1 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2011
Just read the whole blog in one sitting, enjoyed all the thrust and parry, good debate thank you all before me.
Since the advent of the internet there has been a wonderful sharing of information, but we folks have become very lazy.
When was the last time you went in the garage and made something? Instead we scour the internet to look at other peoples attempts, and then criticise when they are inadequate.
While Rossi is no scientist, he did have the motivation to try something for himself, so a little kudos is due. Lets all turn off our laptops, head out to the garage and make something. IF it has Ni and H2 in it, and gets hot unexpectedly please post something on this forum so we can all be motivated by anothers success and acheive something exciting!
Supermike1661
not rated yet Aug 26, 2011
It is squirm-making to contemplate the sitting on hands exhibited by so many of US in this situation! What the HELL...
LCD
not rated yet Aug 26, 2011
What do you do for a crust?
Huh? What does that mean? (I hought my command of colloquial english was pretty good, but that idiom is unknown to me)
"Crust" from bread crust. "Bread" for eating. I.e., "what do you do to earn a meal" = "What do you do for a living". He wants your creds. How uncouth.


Actually Calippo if you reread my post I believe I'm agreeing with you. You are basically answering my "whats up with that?"
LCD
not rated yet Aug 26, 2011
shoot I quoted the wrong person that was meant to quote calippo
Supermike1661
not rated yet Aug 27, 2011
I would like to know what the hell NRL is doing with MY tax money when they built that test rig late last year. Having managed a test Lab, I am certain that they spent at least a $ Mil on the rig AND the protocol development.

NRL has been at the cutting edge of applied science for nearly a hundred years; so their current silence is thunderous, and they are too street-smart to undertake such a project without a specific "to be tested" in mind.

GO NAVY! ... to a microphone.
Thomas_Hoi
not rated yet Sep 14, 2011
what about the way he took out the pipe? it sure looked like he was draining water from the pipe
rawa1
1.8 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2011
Until the mainstream physics will spend the billions for finding of useless (and nonexisting) artifacts like the Higgs and/or gravitational waves, whereas everything what will do for really important research is just a criticizing of amateur videos on the web, we cannot expect huge progress in human civilization. The utilization of new findings is the only way, how to improve our situation regarding financial, energetic and environmental crisis - no exploitable colonies surround us anymore.
Egleton
1 / 5 (1) Sep 14, 2011
Rossi's latest con. He conjures up 1 MW.
His first 1 MW unit is ready for delivery to USA.
http://www.nytekn...4361.ece

Believe it or not. I don't really care.
It is coming.
rawa1
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2011
The situation, when amateur delivers 1 MW device based on phenomena, which the mainstream science denies twenty years says a lot about competence of the contemporary physicists. I'd fire most of them immediately - we don't need such an "experts" for anything useful.

Do you really believe, their competence is higher regarding the Higgs boson and gravitational waves stuff?
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2011
The disappointment will be great if Lisa (author of many of the posted relevant Physorg.articles) is not invited to the launch site taking place in the U.S.
Supermike1661
not rated yet Sep 14, 2011
Lewan's stupefying video raises lots of questions, but the most prominent for me is the apparent lack of an overall flow control system. How do 52 e-cats with 52 different Output Pressures provide unified steam flow without catastrophic back-pressure interactions? Hunh?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2011
The situation, when amateur delivers 1 MW device based on phenomena, which the mainstream science denies twenty years says a lot about competence of the contemporary physicists. I'd fire most of them immediately - we don't need such an "experts" for anything useful.

Do you really believe, their competence is higher regarding the Higgs boson and gravitational waves stuff?

Because those researching the Higgs are somehow the same people with the expertise that suppresses the cold fusion 'miracle' with their nefarious super-powers. Riiiight.

Next you'll fire butchers for farmers' inability to grow 1 kilometer high cornstalks.
retrosurf
5 / 5 (1) Sep 17, 2011
I will take that bet retrosurf but I want odds since you are so convinced that it won't work based on history no doubt and real skeptics simply don't have enough information to say one way or the other. 10 to 1 sound fair?


I'm not a bookmaker or a professional gambler, LCD. If I win, you buy me beverages as described. If you win, I buy you beverages, as described.
retrosurf
5 / 5 (1) Sep 17, 2011
I will take that bet retrosurf but I want odds since you are so convinced that it won't work based on history no doubt and real skeptics simply don't have enough information to say one way or the other. 10 to 1 sound fair?


I'm not a bookmaker or a professional gambler, LCD. If I win, you buy me beverages as described. If you win, I buy you beverages, as described.

More news stories

Using antineutrinos to monitor nuclear reactors

When monitoring nuclear reactors, the International Atomic Energy Agency has to rely on input given by the operators. In the future, antineutrino detectors may provide an additional option for monitoring. ...

When things get glassy, molecules go fractal

Colorful church windows, beads on a necklace and many of our favorite plastics share something in common—they all belong to a state of matter known as glasses. School children learn the difference between ...

Bake your own droplet lens

A droplet of clear liquid can bend light, acting as a lens. Now, by exploiting this well-known phenomenon, researchers have developed a new process to create inexpensive high quality lenses that will cost ...

How do liquid foams block sound?

Liquid foams have a remarkable property: they completely block the transmission of sound over a wide range of frequencies. CNRS physicists working in collaboration with teams from Paris Diderot and Rennes ...

New breast cancer imaging method promising

The new PAMmography method for imaging breast cancer developed by the University of Twente's MIRA research institute and the Medisch Spectrum Twente hospital appears to be a promising new method that could ...

Research proves nanobubbles are superstable

The intense research interest in surface nanobubbles arises from their potential applications in microfluidics and the scientific challenge for controlling their fundamental physical properties. One of the ...