Rossi's E-Cat gets first customers, but questions remain

Nov 08, 2011 by Lisa Zyga weblog

(PhysOrg.com) -- Italian scientist Andrea Rossi has spent the past year giving demonstrations of a device that he claims can generate large amounts of energy due to a little-understood nuclear process. His latest demonstration, performed on October 28th, has attracted some of the most mainstream media attention yet, with coverage by outlets including Fox News, Forbes, and MSNBC, among others. But the big question still seems to be whether Rossi’s E-Cat (energy catalyzer) device is a huge breakthrough or a huge scam. What’s making the answer so difficult to determine is the lack of a clear, scientific explanation of what exactly is going on.

On October 28th, Rossi invited a few dozen people, including a group of engineers from an unnamed potential US customer, as well as a handful of journalists. For the demonstration, Rossi connected dozens of modules in parallel. Inside of each module, a nuclear reaction between hydrogen nuclei and nickel nuclei occurs, releasing heat that is used to turn water into steam. According to Rossi, each module received an initial input of 400 watts and produced a self-sustaining, continuous output of 10 kilowatts for the next few hours. Altogether, he claims that the device produced an average of 470 kilowatts in the form of steam for more than five hours.

Impressed with these results, the unknown US customer accepted delivery of a commercial E-Cat device. In the days since then - and likely due in part to all the media attention - Rossi has reported on his blog that he has sold “more than two” devices to other customers, which are also unnamed. The devices are being sold through Rossi’s company, Leonardo Corporation, and he says that the customers will reveal their identities when they choose.

While the news of the first customers is exciting, there is still a lot of confusion surrounding the device itself. Rossi continues to face criticism for not carrying out an experiment for a long period of time, not performing tests that would help clarify where the excess heat is coming from, and not publishing the results of any of his tests in a peer-reviewed journal, other than his own (Journal of Nuclear Physics), among other things.

Without knowing further details, it seems that onlookers are having a difficult time knowing what to make of Rossi. There’s not enough information to fully discredit the E-Cat device, nor to fully support it. The AP Technology Writer Peter Svensson was among the spectators at the October 28th demonstration, but so far the AP has not published any coverage of the event. (In response to a query on a possible story via Twitter, Svensson responded, “Stay tuned.”) Meanwhile, other journalists have been criticizing each other’s coverage for being too accepting or too harsh of Rossi’s claims.

One piece of evidence that suggests Rossi sincerely believes in the E-Cat is that he reportedly sold his house two months ago in order to fund the ongoing development. He has been working around the clock on the technology, and says, as he has previously said, that the final word will come from the customers who use the devices to generate electricity, not from his critics.

As for the critics, they only hope the customers know what they're paying for.


From now on, you can follow Physorg.com on Google+ too!

Explore further: Self-cooling solar cells boost power, last longer

Related Stories

Proposed gamma-ray laser could emit 'nuclear light'

May 02, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Building a nuclear gamma-ray laser has been a challenge for scientists for a long time, but a new proposal for such a device has overcome some of the most difficult problems. In the new study, Eugene Tkalya ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 402

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

StevenBKrivit
3.4 / 5 (46) Nov 08, 2011
Lisa,
Some journalists - including yourself - are being careless about how they are reporting this story and in doing so, are inadvertently contributing to this grand scam. The most obvious evidence for the scam is the exit velocity I showed on videotape and Rossi's claim five minutes later that he had just shown me proof of kilowatts of heat. Please read my report #3, there is no ambiguity about this matter unless you suggest that Rossi intended to deceive me.

Correction: The experiment did not take place at the University of Bologna. The first media outlet to report that was Fox News. Perhaps Fox is not the best source?

The experiment took place at a virtually empty commercial suite that Rossi has been using to demonstrate his device since December.

Another example of how some journalists have helped to perpetuate potentially false information is your text "Impressed with these results, the unknown US customer accepted delivery."

There is no evidence for the existence of any cu
StevenBKrivit
3.6 / 5 (42) Nov 08, 2011
[continued]

There is no evidence for the existence of any customer. But your readers may not know this. They assume that you have based this statement on facts. And that is a disservice to the public and it is poor journalism.

Take care,

Steven B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times

kaypee
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
I'm guessing there's a mandatory service contract necessary, a clause in the contract saying that opening the black box up comes with a costly penalty and possibly threats that it's a violation of laws (e.g, just insert a radioactive source inside), and that during such visits a technician will change what's essentially a battery passing itself off as whatchamathingit.
stan_lippmann
3 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2011
"As for the critics, they only hope the customers know what they're paying for." You mean that the critics hope the customers DON'T know what they are paying for.
that_guy
5 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2011
So....If there is in fact, a running commercial e-cat out there...can't you just ask to borrow it for a bit, put it in front of some scientists...and go from there.

Seems fishy...
stan_lippmann
2.8 / 5 (22) Nov 08, 2011
Steve, your reputation is for publicizing the reality of cold fusion and the cover-up by the hot fusion and other academic mafia, which I agree with. It could all be a psy-op. But since there is such a thing as cold fusion, why are you so skeptical that he has found something useful? I see you have your own pet theories about the theory behind the process, so I would say that undermines your credibility. Just looking at Rossi and Focardi makes it seem to me that they are being honest. I have a Ph.D. and worked at PLT, TEXT,Tore Supra and DIII-D. I suspect that you are not the best judge of reality, since I don't see any depth to your education.
Silverhill
4.1 / 5 (18) Nov 08, 2011
from the article:
According to Rossi, each module received an initial energy input of 400 watts
You mean, received energy at the rate of 400 W? Or received 400 Wh of energy? Or...? (Get your units straight.)

stan lippmann:
But since there is such a thing as cold fusion,
Indeed? How many kWh have been produced so far, and--especially important--at what efficiency? Enough to take the researchers' houses, or labs, off the grid? Enough to be worth selling? (Parapharasing the old question, "If they're so smart, why ain't they rich?")
StevenBKrivit
3.4 / 5 (25) Nov 08, 2011
Hi Lisa,

Thanks for your e-mail. So you got some information from the MSNBC site either as well or instead of the Fox site. Fine. But where did Natalie Wolchover of MSNBC get her information from? Or the incorrect information that Rossi is a physicist? She didn't go to Bologna. She has never done any firsthand reporting on the subject. Wolchover's story appeared one day after the Fox story. Fox got their story from Sterling Allen. Do you see the problem with how you and Wolchover are doing journalism?

I don't care if you come off optimistic or pessimistic. That's not my point. You didn't get some of your facts correct, but that is secondary. The primary issue is that you omitted to report that your crucial "facts" on this story originate
maryyugo
4.1 / 5 (22) Nov 08, 2011
This is getting to be a long and shaggy story. OK, not much room! Rossi has been doing inadequate demonstrations for nine months. None has had proper calibration and a blank run to verify the measuring equipment. He mostly used evaporation of steam for the output energy estimate -- this can result in an 8:1 error in favor of ... ROSSI. Rossi has never demonstrated radiation, neutrons or new isotopes. No long runs!

Nobody knows who his client is for the megawatt device. During its final test, no visiting reporter or scientist was allowed to witness the instrument readings and a huge diesel generator connected to the device ran for the entire time. Rossi says that somehow, this generator provided "safety".

Rossi could resolve all doubt with a single credible independent test by a university or government lab and he could choose one that does classified research so his secrets would not be jeopardized. That he doesn't do this tells us that this is probably a hoax and a scam.
StevenBKrivit
2.8 / 5 (19) Nov 08, 2011
[continued]

from what *Rossi says* rather than any kind of journalistic process which would normally include identifying sources and/or your attempts to perform any fact-checking. You owe your readers better than this.

You cannot call Rossi a fraud and neither can I because we will never know Rossi's true intentions and we will never be able to prove a negative. But we can identify whether the facts he presents are consistent with the physical laws of the universe. I and two dozen contributors have done this in Report 3. Rossi's claims are inconsistent with the scientific evidence he has attempted to sell to the public, not for its money, but for their support to help him advertise his claim.



MrVibrating
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2011
@SBK - Exit velocity of what, steam? But steam's invisible - evidently you know the difference between wet and dry steam so how can we infer the total vapour output from video of the condensation clouds alone?

Hoist by your own petard..?
maryyugo
3.8 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2011
Fox got their story from Sterling Allen.


Oh, that's hilarious if true. Sterling Allen reports as facts anything fanciful virtually anyone claims. At times, he's supported fraudsters and convicted felons like Carl Tilley and Dennis Lee. He supported jokesters like "Mylow" who made a magnetic motor work with a hidden conventional motor linked to his device with a clear nylon fishing line!

Sterling and his coworker Hank Mills currently promote cars that run on water as their only fuel and water heaters that Hank labels as "overunity" (free energy) from a company called Steorn that took 21 million Euros from investors five years ago and has produced not one single working device ever.

As I said elsewhere, with friends like those, Rossi doesn't need enemies.
Nerdyguy
4.1 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2011
There is one piece of good news here. If Rossi is claiming that these units are "for sale" and, as he has previously stated, the costs are quite reasonable, I can think of no reason whatsoever that Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cal Tech, and JPL couldn't buy one -- hell, they can pitch in since times are tight -- and provide some decent testing on the eCat.

If five major research institutions test the device and receive similar results, this whole thing could be put to bed and we could potentially move on to understanding the science behind the phenomenon. Assuming it exists at all.
Nerdyguy
3.8 / 5 (17) Nov 08, 2011
Steve, your reputation is for publicizing the reality of cold fusion and the cover-up by the hot fusion and other academic mafia, which I agree with. It could all be a psy-op. But since there is such a thing as cold fusion, why are you so skeptical that he has found something useful? I see you have your own pet theories about the theory behind the process, so I would say that undermines your credibility. Just looking at Rossi and Focardi makes it seem to me that they are being honest. I have a Ph.D. and worked at PLT, TEXT,Tore Supra and DIII-D. I suspect that you are not the best judge of reality, since I don't see any depth to your education.


Quite amusing. So, "just looking" at Rossi allows you to tell that he is being honest? And you claim to be highly educated? Do you also claim to be a human lie detector?
italba
2.6 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2011
@Silverhilll: How rich was Bill Gates the day after he sold his first copy of software?

@StevenBKrivit: Please explain me what kind of scam is Rossi planning. Rossi is not selling patents or ideas or shares of his company, does not ask for money to bring on his research. He sells 470 kW (or 1 MW maximum) heat generators. When he will install the first generator, the customer will see immediately if it works or not. And if it does not works, as nobody pays 2 millions dollars cash, the customer will block the money and Rossi will be in big troubles. Maybe you think Rossi is the dumbest scammer ever?
maryyugo
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2011
Hi Steven,

I agree with what you said except this:

You cannot call Rossi a fraud and neither can I because we will never know Rossi's true intentions and we will never be able to prove a negative.


Some frauds are exposed later, others not. If Rossi ever actually delivers a machine to anyone for any reason, it might be properly tested and examined. If it doesn't deliver, it stands to reason that Rossi is a fraud. Nobody could be exposed to detailed suggestions and critiques like he has for nine months and not know how to properly test his device. It's easy, quick and cheap. He claims to have been working with these machines for at least three years. He says he made a 35 kW heater based on his principle which worked continuously for two years! He claims thousands of successful tests, some of them long and powerful.

That can't be an error -- either it's true or he's a scammer.
maryyugo
3.8 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2011
Please explain me what kind of scam is Rossi planning. Rossi is not selling patents or ideas or shares of his company, does not ask for money to bring on his research. He sells 470 kW (or 1 MW maximum) heat generators.

May I respond to that? You're relying on what Rossi says. Past investment scams have taken money only early in the game and only in secret. Steorn seems to operate that way -- to the tune of 21 million Euros so far. And nothing produced at all ever.

Nobody knows for sure that Rossi didn't take money. Ampenergo says they gave him some. (NyTeknik article in May)

Nobody knows if Rossi actually sold anything or if it was entirely a sham to fool some investors. Maybe the customer is himself. How would you know? How would you know how much money Rossi has already collected and put away? Enough people volunteer money for him every day on blogs!

Look at how easy it is to prove the device is real and Rossi has not done it. That should tell you something!
Nerdyguy
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2011
Rossi has said for some time that his "peer review" would equate to a working 1MW plant. Other than the customer test, which Rossi says performed at around 500 kW, I'm curious about the status of his self-styled "peer review".

Does he feel that it came off as planned and was successful? If so, why, as it performed for only one daily test and failed to reach half of the promised output. And, does he feel that, at this point, there's nothing more to prove? I'm really curious about those missing kWs.
Isaacsname
not rated yet Nov 08, 2011
Silly question..lol

Is this possibly some sort of equivalent to the carryover effect ?

http://en.wikiped..._cooking
Lester 042
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2011
Here's a conspiracy theory for ya..
Big oil is the "customer". They are paying Rossi to stage all this $#!t to keep everything else under the radar.
(it's got a good beat...and, I can dance to it)
The only "fact" is, none of these so called "mainstream news" stories has any "facts" in them....sigh...
italba
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
@maryyugo: As nobody could say for sure you're not a serial killer... Seriously, many people offer money to Rossi on his blog, but Rossi does not accept. He keep saying he want to sell his own products. Anyway, maybe (as you said) the first customer does not exist, or just want to keep secret, but for sure in a short time Rossi will explain why does not sell his generators or will deliver some real generator to somebody who will make it works. And if it does not works the customer will surely make everybody knows.
Nerdyguy
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2011
Please explain me what kind of scam is Rossi planning... Maybe you think Rossi is the dumbest scammer ever?


By all accounts, Rossi has leveraged himself to the hilt, including selling his principal residence. This isn't terribly clear either, as he had apparently opened up a corporate office in Florida -- and relocated there -- as well and the status of that is uncertain.

At this point, it appears that the man is out on the "proverbial limb" and potentially near bankruptcy. Admission of failure at this point would ruin him financially, destroy any remaining credibility he may have, and make it virtually impossible to do any future fundraising in order to pursue his goals.

As the local D.A. would say, that's all the motivation you need to do something foolish.
exploderator
2.4 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2011
Excuse me, are we all just going to ignore Rossi's research arrangement with the University of Bologne? That he's paying something like $500K for, out of pocket?

Unless you think the U of B is in on this scam, then I can't see how they continue to support his work. I don't hear them saying Rossi is a scammer, and they have hosted some of his tests. I don't hear them saying he's a scammer, and they are about to begin two years of research to try to pin down the underlying fundamental physics, and refine the technology.

And the University of Upsalla is next in line.

These research plans are clearly public knowledge, yet both universities say nothing against Rossi.

What have I missed?
Lester 042
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
And yet.... (despite the valiant efforts of Maryyugo) the story refuses to die.
In the next couple of months, one of two things will happen
Mr. Rossi will...
A; Take the money and run
B; Profoundly change the world as we know it.
Time will tell, I just hope someone is keeping a close eye on him.
italba
2.3 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
@Nerdyguy : If you're right, in a very short time Rossi will start selling shares or the whole patent. Just wait and see.
Nerdyguy
2 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2011
And if it does not works the customer will surely make everybody knows.


Possibly. Unless that customer happens to be part of a military organization, government agency -- some more than others (e.g., China) -- or anyone at all that might feel embarrassed by the resulting bad press.
SincerelyTwo
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2011
If you give people enough doubt to _believe_ they will, and ruthlessly, because it's a creation they want more than anything to be real.

It's true, Rossi has the means to actually prove this is real and does not, period.

Steorn is an amazing example, I followed them for years, kept tabs to see where they would end up, to this day have nothing to show for all of it and there is nothing on the horizon.

We're talking about actual instances of elaborate lies, and they're 'innocent lies', everything is made for you to believe that they are sincere in their own beliefs and that if things ultimately didn't work they can get out of it with an "OK, I guess I was wrong, but good science was done! *walks away with millions*."

Steorn and Rossi can execute this money making pattern and end it with 'it was real science, we have proof, we believed it was real' and it can never be proven otherwise.

That is the reason why you should believe in actual science, it removes all of the bullshit.
italba
2.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
@Nerdyguy : The first customer is probably, as I had read somewhere, a research lab of US Navy. But ok for the first, or the second, but you think Rossi can live long and happily by frauding such a kind of customers?
Nerdyguy
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2011
Excuse me, are we all just going to ignore Rossi's research arrangement with the University of Bologne? That he's paying something like $500K for, out of pocket?

Unless you think the U of B is in on this scam, then I can't see how they continue to support his work. I don't hear them saying Rossi is a scammer, and they have hosted some of his tests. I don't hear them saying he's a scammer, and they are about to begin two years of research to try to pin down the underlying fundamental physics, and refine the technology.

And the University of Upsalla is next in line.

These research plans are clearly public knowledge, yet both universities say nothing against Rossi.

What have I missed?


Has the relationship w/ UB been confirmed? I know Rossi has spoken of it publicly, but has the university ever acknowledged?
SincerelyTwo
5 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2011
we should be allowed to delete our own posts. :|
that_guy
not rated yet Nov 08, 2011
@Nerdyguy : The first customer is probably, as I had read somewhere, a research lab of US Navy. But ok for the first, or the second, but you think Rossi can live long and happily by frauding such a kind of customers?


mmm, history says sometimes yes - however, given the circumstances, I'd say he might still have a few years, but not much longer, hopefully much sooner.
Nerdyguy
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
@Nerdyguy : The first customer is probably, as I had read somewhere, a research lab of US Navy. But ok for the first, or the second, but you think Rossi can live long and happily by frauding such a kind of customers?


"Long and happily"? No. If it's a fraud, it will certainly come out. But these things can go on for quite a few years. Ask Bernie Madoff.
Lester 042
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
UB has apparently had representatives at the demos. But They have publicly stated there is no official relationship between Mr. Rossi and them..as of yet.

(2nd hand info from some blog)
Nerdyguy
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2011
UB has apparently had representatives at the demos. But They have publicly stated there is no official relationship between Mr. Rossi and them..as of yet.

(2nd hand info from some blog)


Exactly. One of the reasons this thing screams "hoax" is the lack of consistent details.

I've repeatedly heard various universities and researchers mentioned in connection with Rossi. Yet, the source documents for these (that I can find anyway) are always from Rossi himself. Reported and re-reported on a hundred different blogs.

Does anyone know if he actually has a signed piece of paper with any university?
italba
1.8 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
@SincerelyTwo : Ok, Rossi is not a scientist. He only want to build his products and sell, or to fraud everybody as you think. He only have to give proofs to his customers. You don't aspect Apple to allow independent tests of his next phone, don't you? When enough generators will be sold, (and if Rossi will not be convicted in jail) real scientists will come in and do all the tests you want. Just have to wait same more time.
MrVibrating
1 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2011
@sincerelyTwo - i also followed Steorn from the start and have now seen multiple proofs of OU. The gains are a direct and inevitable consequence of the effects first described by Rutherford in 1896. Asymmetric magnetic interactions are an incontrovertible fact of nature - the output vs input force-displacement integrals can sum to positive or negative values depending on comparative rates of change. This is implicit just from first principles of BH dynamics.

It may seem that too much time has passed to sustain your interest, but application of this technology is still very much in its infancy. It is coming to fruition and there's no millions to walk away with until it does so...
exploderator
1.3 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2011
^ @ Nerdyguy

"Has the relationship w/ UB been confirmed? I know Rossi has spoken of it publicly, but has the university ever acknowledged?"

I honestly don't know. Reasons I suspect it's true:

- Rossi keeps frequent company with them
- the arrangement seems to have been in the works for months
- it's been mentioned publicly for months
- it's a pretty hot topic / hot publicity (even if not widely reported)

So, they have had a lot of time to publicly DENY or DENOUNCE the existence of the research agreement, and considering the controversy, it seems all the more unlikely they would stand mute for so long if Rossi was lying about it. You can bet any other university would speak up about such a lie, because Rossi isn't just some random schitzo babbling on the street that can be easily ignored.

What's more, it seems that the researchers at the U of B have an inside story because of their association with Rossi. I suspect they have more reason to have faith in his work.
StevenBKrivit
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2011
There are at least three reasons this story got its legs. The first is because Rossi is a master at appealing to people. He adorns his fans with praise but makes (e)catcalls at his critics. Very early on, when I knew less, he told me, "You help me now, I will help you forever."

A second thing Rossi had going for him is that he was able to capitalize on the dreams and hopes of good people who have good intentions for a better world. They are frustrated with the lack of viable options for clean energy and by domination from the petrocacy. Some of the cold fusion believers, who can't seem to understand the difference between the strong force and the weak force also fit into this category. They have been waiting a long time for big news that is real. Waiting for their cold fusion messiah. My experience in telling them that Rossi is not it has been like telling children that Santa Claus is not real.

[continued next message]
italba
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
Nerdyguy : As I remember, Bernie Madoff worked with money, that is, numbers. Virtual things, not real generators. This is very different. As I said, if Rossi is a scammer, he will only fraud the first customer.
maryyugo
4 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
The U of B contract has been confirmed by the university however it has not been funded and is inactive. Rossi has said on his blog he would keep results of tests secret (why?) but he will allow the universities to say *when* they receive a device if they ever do. So far they have not. Why? Rossi says he has hundreds of them!

Did Rossi sell his house? Is he on the edge of bankruptcy? Who knows? We have only Rossi as an information source about such matters. And his past record of truthfulness and accomplishments is checkered at best.

@Vibrator Steorn demonstrated an overunity motor? How's that possible? Where is the independent test and confirmation? Where are the products? Show us the beef! Steorn closed its formerly rather censored forum. They have never shipped anything to anyone. Show us something and not just the empty flatulence from Sean McCarthy!
xeikon
3 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
I think Rossi is doing this because, even when he has a PATENT in Italy, USA has not give him a Patent. That said, I think Rossi is doing all he can do to protect his invention (even when it sounds and smells like a scam). I will do exactly the same. Scam ??? yeaaahhh... WHO he is stealing money from???? Did Steven Krivit put any money on it ???? Tell me ONE person that is losing money on the Ecat or that Rossi is stealing money from. NOBODY. The only one who will loose all his money and house will be Rossi. Also, if the "supposed" customers don´t get what they were promised and also TESTED from the Ecat machine, the only one who will get the blame is Rossi. So, I don´t have enough evidence to call the Ecat REAL, but I don´t any evidence to call it a scam and just because I don´t have all the data I want to call it real, I am not going to call it a scam. I will wait, if Rossi is a scam, he will be the only loser that will loose everything he has in life, but if he is real... WOW !
Deesky
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2011
I applaud Steven B. Krivit's comments, especially about the lack of reporting integrity and skepticism, especially when dealing with grand claims made in the scientific arena. Bravo.

The first customer is probably, as I had read somewhere, a research lab of US Navy. But ok for the first, or the second, but you think Rossi can live long and happily by frauding such a kind of customers?

He won't make his scam money by selling products to customers, but by attracting investment capital from rubes before any products are legitimately delivered (if ever).
Supermike1661
3.2 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
As a professional test lab manager, I have had quite enough of Steven and the other, rather lazy journalists.

Where is the story now? A big part of it is where our heroic journos need to be... at NRL,where they have built a huge test rig for LENR devices... to no known purpose, and at SPAWAR, and at NASA where there are people who recently visited Rossi but who are suspiciously quiet, etc. etc.

Steven, and others.. quit crabbing and start investigating!

Mike Cahill
MrVibrating
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
Nerdyguy : As I remember, Bernie Madoff worked with money, that is, numbers. Virtual things, not real generators. This is very different. As I said, if Rossi is a scammer, he will only fraud the first customer.


Can you say "Enron"? One silly little playout scenario i considered was Rossi reselling grid power at loss, offset by the resultant snowballing contracts (cos that's the deal AFAIK, leasing the units and selling the juice). Falls thru when smaller clients start getting their power cut off for Leonardo Corp's unpaid utility bills... which could take years...

But that's a little paranoid for me, prefer to remain patiently optimistic...
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2011
You don't aspect Apple to allow independent tests of his next phone, don't you?

Damn right we do. What if the antenna still doesn't work? But that isn't the point. The iPhone doesn't claim to work on magic - it doesn't use an over unity battery for example. It's all standard stuff.
Urgelt
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
I admit, I'm tempted to toss a rotten fruit at Lisa for vague third- or fourth-hand reporting. It's the internet echo chamber with a vengeance, something I'd prefer not to see at PhysOrg.

But perhaps we ought to cut her some slack. There *are* no facts worth reporting. Nobody knows what's in the black boxes Rossi has made. There are no theories, no peer reviewed science, not even thorough measurements over respectable time periods. Lisa's choice is to ignore the whole subject or to report to PhysOrg readers that something fishy and vague is still going on and remains unresolved. I suppose the latter is worth knowing.

I very much doubt he's sold any boxes. A buyer would be sure to tear it apart and find out what's inside, which is something Rossi does not seem to want to permit.

Sorry folks, it sure smells like a scam from where I sit. I expect he'll suck up millions from foolish investors, declare bankruptcy, flee to Bolivia and marry a girl half his age.
MrVibrating
1 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2011
Hey Mary, yu awite darlin? As ever, all you'll allow yourself to admit is the circumstantial stuff, and WRT Rossi's i'm in the same boat - that's all i've got to go on too. In Steorn's case however i know the secret sauce, the mechanism... and six ways from Sunday. Objective, empirical facts, gospel physics, straight down the line, no muckin' about... not much else to say 'cept join the spudclub if you really want in... you know the coo.. ;P xx
Supermike1661
2.7 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2011
Take this to the bank: the reason that AP is not reporting is that they are still chasing the story. When AP reports it will be much more than this bluster-muster that we see from the Specialty Press. And AP will NOT be seen on Physorg defending itself... ever... they will be out chasing the NEXT step in the story.
goodtoknow
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2011
Here is what Jed Rothwell, on the Vortex-I website, reported about Rossi's relationship with the University of Bologna:

"The University of Bologna is not involved on E-Cat experiments conducted by Leonardo Corp., the company owned by Andrea Rossi. The University of Bologna states also that: 1) none of the experiments made with E-Cat(including that of 28th October 2011) has been carried out at the University of Bologna or by any of its scientists; 2) the University of
Bologna (Department of Physics) is ready to carry out direct experiments on the E-Cat as soon as the contract signed with EFA Srl (Andrea Rossi's Italian company) will be put in effect: this is the only reason why the University of Bologna researchers attended as observers to E-Cat experiments. The University of Bologna is carefully following the situation
development.

- University of Bologna Press Office, Bologna, Italy, 5/11/2011 5:20
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
There is no evidence for the existence of any customer. But your readers may not know this.
The cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel has already twenty years of research behind it. It's actually as old stuff as Microsoft Windows 3.0, for example.

http://www.rexres...elli.htm
http://www.newene...eg.shtml

exit velocity I showed on videotape and Rossi's claim five minutes later that he had just shown me proof of kilowatts of heat
Videotaping of experiments is not the best replication path. If you're really interested whether this fusion is working, why not to replicate the twenty years old experiments of profs. Piantelli and Foccardi, which are perfectly documented in standard scientific way? If these experiments are real, then there is no reason to doubt A. Rossi experiments.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2011
@italba:
How rich was Bill Gates the day after he sold his first copy of software?
The (somewhat ill-timed) announcement that the University of Utah urged Fleischmann and Pons to make was 22 years ago. "No incontestable results in 22 years" is categorically different from "No real income the day after a software release".
Arkaleus
3 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2011
Mr. Krivit I don't understand why you consider this such a pressing crisis. If Rossi is a liar and his device is inert, we have nothing to lose. There is no public money committed to the E-Cat. Why should we care if it is a fake? It would be quickly discovered upon its first sales to the public and the matter would be over and done in the first month.

Your need to defame Rossi as a dangerous fraud does not match the level of risk to the public this product represents. I say let him sell it openly, let the public determine its usefulness, and let the matter be resolved in the open.

I fear the mysterious customers may be malevolent agencies and if they find the device poses a threat to the ruling oil-energy paradigm the E-Cat will vanish and the public will lose a valuable invention. That is the risk we all should fear, not the exposure of a harmless man with a fanciful dream.
Callippo
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
Whats making the answer so difficult to determine is the lack of a clear, scientific explanation of what exactly is going on.
This is nonsense. For example, so far we have no clear, scientific explanation of high temperature superconductivity (the mine one is ignored). But no one attempts to doubt it. On the contrary, the long-standing existence of scientific theory doesn't mean, that phenomena is real (Higgs boson, gravitational waves as an example). The physics is an experimental science and the only criterion of validity of some phenomena were, are and will be just an experiments.
Callippo
2 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
Mr. Krivit I don't understand why you consider this such a pressing crisis.
I don't understand a much more things at the case of Krivit person. For example, he was presenting the Foccardi and Piantelli research at public many years (see my links above) - and now he's trying to doubt the very same technology obstinately.

What happened to Mr. Krivit? Was his brain irradiated during some cold fusion experiment?
StevenBKrivit
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2011
[continued]

A third thing Rossi had going for him is the atrocious journalism done by Mats Lewan; turning a blind eye to lack of control experiments, to perpetually overly-complicated experiments, to the lack of steam exit velocity and volume, to Rossi's hand on the controls when it shouldn't have been, writing Rossi's reports for him and then writing news stories based on his own technical reports, writing scientific-sounding news stories about Levi's 18-hour test without a single piece of documented evidence. Mats is an experienced journalist. He should have known better.

As the POC@NASA Marshall told me, he had a difficult time believing Rossi, but Rossi's claim was so big and so bold that he couldn't believe that Rossi would have the audacity to run a scam of this magnitude.

Lisa, try to find any credible data that supports Rossi's claim. Trace it to source and identify source. It's all about the data. Not belief. Not fantasy. What can you do for your readers?

abhishekbt
4.5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2011
Does it have anything to do with the Bloom Box? I remember very very similar circumstances surrounding the unveiling of the Bloom Box.
Callippo
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
Andrea Rossi is not scientist. He actually never wrote a single line about cold fusion research. He is interpreter and a private person, who is doing an applied research for his private money. Being private person, he is absolutely not obliged to provide any details about his technology, until he and his customers are comfortable with it. Everything else would be a violation of private intellectual property of Mr. Rossi.

So if physicists are interested whether the cold fusion is really working, they had twenty years for replication of perfectly documented experiments of Piantelli and Foccardi. They wasted this time in doing BS, so now they shouldn't be very surprised, if private investors don't require them for any validations of cold fusion technology.

Every ignorance comes with it's own price. The price which mainstream physicists are paying right now is the lost of credibility and competency for judgment and validation of important findings.
MrVibrating
1 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2011
Take this to the bank: the reason that AP is not reporting is that they are still chasing the story. When AP reports it will be much more than this bluster-muster that we see from the Specialty Press. And AP will NOT be seen on Physorg defending itself... ever... they will be out chasing the NEXT step in the story.
I thought exactly the same - this guy's the only pro at the party, he's taken a look round and said to himself "feck me - if there's a scoop here it's mine!" and they'll not go to print till he's got something substantive... one way or the other.. which he undoubtedly will...
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
try to find any credible data that supports Rossi's claim
Huh?? It's just you, who collected the data about cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel whole years? Who wrote this article in 2008?

http://www.newene...eg.shtml

What did you expected from it? If you don't believe in this technology, why are you adoring it all the time? Don't you know, Mr. Focardi is a technical advisor of A. Rossi? He is present at all public demonstrations of E-cat.

http://coldfusion..._300.jpg
MrVibrating
1 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
I fear the mysterious customers may be malevolent agencies and if they find the device poses a threat to the ruling oil-energy paradigm the E-Cat will vanish and the public will lose a valuable invention. That is the risk we all should fear, not the exposure of a harmless man with a fanciful dream.


I expect we all bit our lips when it turned out the chief engineer of the first customer is some kind of colonel..!

lol "here we go.." ;)
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2011
I expect we all bit our lips when it turned out the chief engineer of the first customer is some kind of colonel..! "here we go.." ;)
Why? The army was a first customer of wast majority of advanced technologies. Don't you remember, how Internet originally emerged from Arpanet? We all are using a military technology by now.
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2011
I admit, I'm tempted to toss a rotten fruit at Lisa for vague third- or fourth-hand reporting. It's the internet echo chamber with a vengeance, something I'd prefer not to see at PhysOrg.

But perhaps we ought to cut her some slack. There *are* no facts worth reporting. Nobody knows what's in the black boxes Rossi has made. There are no theories, no peer reviewed science, not even thorough measurements over respectable time periods. Lisa's choice is to ignore the whole subject or to report to PhysOrg readers that something fishy and vague is still going on and remains unresolved. I suppose the latter is worth knowing.

I very much doubt he's sold any boxes. A buyer would be sure to tear one apart and find out what's inside, which is something Rossi does not seem to want to permit.

Sorry folks, it sure smells like a scam from where I sit. I expect he'll suck up millions from foolish investors, declare bankruptcy, flee to Bolivia and marry a girl half his age.
MrVibrating
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2011
I expect we all bit our lips when it turned out the chief engineer of the first customer is some kind of colonel..! "here we go.." ;)
Why? The army was a first customer of wast majority of advanced technologies. Don't you remember, how Internet originally emerged from Arpanet? We all are using a military technology by now.
just kidding, i'm sure they're a perfectly benevolent, if soon-to-be-omnipotent organisation...
Callippo
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2011
Nobody knows what's in the black boxes Rossi has made. There are no theories, no peer reviewed science, not even thorough measurements over respectable time periods.
There are many theories of cold fusion already. And who is responsible for the lack of peer-review at the case of cold fusion at nickel? Andrea Rossi? Or just the mainstream physicists, who ignored Foccardi and Piantelli experiments for twenty years?

And why do you think, these experiments weren't thorough enough? And what do you consider a "respectable time period"? Piantelli and Foccardi managed to keep their cells in generation of heat whole months. These experiments were all described throughly and published in official journals of Italian Academy of Science. Even S. Krivit was reporting about it repeatedly.

You're just trying to cover the ignorance of mainstream physics with your lies, face it. I'm not so stupid - and even if yes, I've still a perfect memory.
Callippo
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
The sweet secret of cold fusion is, it doesn't require any secret catalyst. It even doesn't require a gaseous hydrogen or even nickel dust. It works simply with electrolytic co-deposition of nickel and hydrogen from hot carbonate solution. You can replicate it with washing soda in your potty.

http://newenergyt...ions.pdf
http://www.focus....7167.pdf
http://www.spawar...vol1.pdf
http://newenergyt...ts-w.pdf

And yes, A. Rossi's customers did these experiments too.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2011
Heh. Callippo, you don't even know who his customers are. Rossi isn't telling.

I get that you're sold on cold fusion. But even if - a big if - you're right about it, you don't know what's in Rossi's boxes either. Nobody knows but Rossi.

It's not lying to say that Rossi isn't forthcoming with details about his black boxes. The rest of what I said is cynical speculation - which is fine, because speculation is all anyone can do until Rossi tells us what's in those boxes.

Let's not pretend that belief without evidence is science, hmm?
Callippo
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
Let's not pretend that belief without evidence is science
The disbelief without evidence is science neither... It's simply belief in negative hypothesis - that's all. No less, no more.
you don't even know who his customers are
You cannot even know, what I know. Look, the people like you are ignoring both "vague third- or fourth-hand reporting", both "first-hand" reports, which I'm studying instead. Such people cannot be convinced with any evidence - they just waiting what the majority of people will do. Their way of belief is completely intersubjective.
Julian Londono
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
Mr. Krivit: in my opinion, you should clarify if you have business interests that benefit you if inventions such as the E-cat are not successful.

I say the above because Mr. Rossi wrote in the JoNP, November 2nd, the following:

"... Before or later I will publish the story of our relationship with this guy, as well as tapes in which he and his fellows have been videotaped while trying to steal samples of powder in my factory during a visit, as well as a draft of a contract which was a fraud."

Personally, I think it would be good if you get me out of doubt, to take you seriously.
extinct
2 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
New technology goes through three stages:

1) First it is ridiculed by those ignorant of its potential;
2) Next it is subverted by those threatened by its potential;
3) Finally it is considered self-evident.
StevenBKrivit
2.4 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2011
Thanks again for your e-mail Lisa.

Your statement "most scientists whose work I cover would be appalled to say something even slightly misleading" is absolutely crucial.

You assume that scientists or people making scientific-sounding claims maitain such a level of ethical behavior. This is what I expect and hope too. And this assumption makes some unsuspecting journalists easy prey for sources who operate under different ethics.

Talk about slightly misleading just look at Rossis own statements for the best example. In his 2010 self-published paper, he claimed an energy gain of 213 times. Yet, in January 2011, Rossi downgraded the claim to a 30 times energy gain. In April, he downgraded his claim again, to 6 times.

[continued]
Moose Dr_
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2011
Steven Krivit, "There is no evidence for the existence of any customer."

That's just plain wrong! While it is not impossible for Rossi to have faked a customer, there is evidence (evidence is not absolute proof) of a customer.

First, there is a signed contract that has been published on the net. That is evidence.

Second, the contract was signed by one Domenico Fioravanti. A bit of research on him shows that he has the necessary expertise and experience to do the evaluation. He has quite an illustrious and honorable history. I have not seen Mr. Fioravanti suggest that it was not he that signed the document. I have not seen anyone suggest he was paid the millions of euros that it would take for a man of his stature to soil his reputation (likely no sum would be sufficient).

Absolute proof that there is a customer? No. Proof that a man qualified to do the analysis signed off on it? Yes! Proof that this man was somehow bought? Well Steve, we're expecting you to provide that.
Cynical1
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2011
Wow! This thread has all the makings of a 1st class Clancy novel! What was that movie with Val Kilmer a few years ago? The Saint?
Mr. Londono - I think you are correct in your assessment of the vitriolic tone of Mr. K.'s commentary It seems so - contrived, given his past advocation of the "technology".
IF I, as a guy who discovered something outside of my field, (which was also something real scientists chose to ignore), I'd be pretty closed- mouth about it too.
All in all, I'm with Supermike's team on this one. If he has a customer that is not satisfied -- this'll be a wash. Or, he gets lots of hush money for an invention that mysteriously melts into the "don't ask" zone...:-) THEN watch the conspiracy theories start up!

Anyway, give it a month or 2. Hell, society has waited a hundred years, what's another couple gonna do?
Cynical1
2.5 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2011
One more thing.
NOT a patent attorney, so I can say THIS with surety - I don't know what intellectual property protection Mr. Rossi really has. He may not either, so maybe he is right in being cautious and less than forthcoming.
And - can't someone just look up the Italian Patent? Or is it a secret organization not accessable to anyone except government leaders and uber rich, malevolently evil corporations? (Notice how I cleverly tied those 2 entities together...:-)
Shoot! Hope I'm not giving away the plot to my novel...
Howhot
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2011
Steven Krivit; while there Rossi/Focardi and crew have been purposefully vague in details, they clearly have a made a tremendous discovery and created an invention from it. This will be transformative science. Its real.

TS1
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2011
You are so correct, Cynical1. I do not understand the emotional effort people put into, mostly, attempting to discredit Rossi.

After all they themselves have lost money on him (but maybe they are afraid they eventually will, who knows). Besides the devices are not cheap, so the most vulnerable people in society cannot even afford them. And the ones who can afford them likely will check them out well before they spend their money (and if they do not, a fool and his money are quickly parted)

Besides that, in my opinion the tone of physorg articles about the Rossi device are not even particularly supportive but more like sceptical. But perhaps some people do not want this device to get any attention at all. At least that is what it looks like.
jimbo92107
3 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
Rossi's elusive behavior makes me suspicious. I will not invest in his claimed technology.
Howhot
3 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
Just as Steven Krivit editorialized all against BEC cold fusion theory in one of his editorial rants, he has been crapping on this Rossi similarly. I think Rossi/Focardi will be shown to be a result of BEC fusion, but then NiH fusion is pretty awesome if it happens.

Capracus
3 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
That's just plain wrong! While it is not impossible for Rossi to have faked a customer, there is evidence (evidence is not absolute proof) of a customer.

First, there is a signed contract that has been published on the net. That is evidence.

Second, the contract was signed by one Domenico Fioravanti. A bit of research on him shows that he has the necessary expertise and experience to do the evaluation. He has quite an illustrious and honorable history.


My bit of research can find no details on this Colonel Fioravanti. Please post a link to your source.
dobermanmacleod
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2011
Nonsense, Rossi is obviously legitimate. Here is a PowerPoint presentation by George Miley of the University of Illinois who has successfully replicated the LENR "cold fusion" reaction: https://netfiles....als.pptx

By the way, Ni H K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu lots of heat. Here is a detailed description of a device and formula from a US government contract: www.lenr-canr.org...thyd.pdf Just so you're not confused, they then thought the over unity heat was from the hydrogen atom shrinking (i.e. "hydrino"), not the nickel turning into copper.

I mean, years ago the Defense Intelligence Agency was reporting teams getting over unity results from LENR: http://coldfusion...d-fusion
Mondeo
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2011

In his 2010 self-published paper, he claimed an energy gain of 213 times. Yet, in January 2011, Rossi downgraded the claim to a 30 times energy gain. In April, he downgraded his claim again, to 6 times.

This is NOT true. In his final test he achived actualy selfsustained mode, so the efficiency is INFINITE!
In nonselfsustained mode the minimum COP is 6.

So dont twist the words!

StevenBKrivit
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2011
[continued]

You wrote "Wouldn't it be nice if a team of mainstream scientists could dissect this and write a real paper? Or has critiquing science in such detail become the journalists job now?"

That would be nice, but it will never happen. No mainstream science journalist will even waste their time on this (and for good reason,) though some mainstream technology journalists will and have.

I'm putting the question back to you: Using this case as an example, what can you do to help elevate the quality, or at least the awareness of quality science journalism?
dobermanmacleod
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2011
I'm putting the question back to you: Using this case as an example, what can you do to help elevate the quality, or at least the awareness of quality science journalism?


How about reality based reporting, rather than slanderous sophism masquerading as such. Skepticism ought not be used as an excuse for acting like a snake.
nima558
4 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
#
Andrea Rossi
November 8th, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Dear Matthew Waters:
As I always said, I want not to play foot-ball with the bones of People. My company at the moment is a warship in stormy weather, during a hard battle. To invest in it is premature. So far we just sell industrial plants of 1 MW and our Customers are financing us.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

#
Matthew Waters
November 8th, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Mr. Rossi,

Ive heard rumors that you may start selling shares of your corporation. If this is true could you confirm, and if so, where would this information be announced? Further more, when would you be planning to do this?
Mondeo
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2011
"Scammer" doesnt want money.
Cynical1
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2011
Doberman - excellent links (specially the PDF)
Jimbo - He isn't asking you to. He's doing it all on his own.

I won't invest in it either, but a different set of reasons...
nima558
3 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
Andrea Rossi
November 8th, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Dear Matthew Waters:
As I always said, I want not to play foot-ball with the bones of People. My company at the moment is a warship in stormy weather, during a hard battle. To invest in it is premature. So far we just sell industrial plants of 1 MW and our Customers are financing us.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Matthew Waters
November 8th, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Mr. Rossi,

Ive heard rumors that you may start selling shares of your corporation. If this is true could you confirm, and if so, where would this information be announced? Further more, when would you be planning to do this?
dobermanmacleod
3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2011
How can a person with intellectual honesty grant that other teams are getting over unity results using a LENR Ni-H exothermic reaction, then turn around and imply Rossi is a fraud?

"Sorry, but convoluted frauds involving lots of parties is the least likely. So are 3 groups [now more] of science observers too stupid to recognize an obvious fraud. Also, there are enough other NiH results which suggest a LENR reaction."

By the way, here is link to another repeatable LENR Ni-H experiment similar to Rossi's: http://www.facebo...67008023
Tyrant
5 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2011
I just wish Rossi would provide some details on the radiation generated when the ecat is running. I hear he claims that gamma ray spectrometry would reveal too many secrets but I'd like to at least hear the clocks from a Geiger counter.
dobermanmacleod
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2011
"I just wish Rossi would provide some details on the radiation generated when the ecat is running. I hear he claims that gamma ray spectrometry would reveal too many secrets but I'd like to at least hear the clocks from a Geiger counter."

http://quantumtan...cat.html

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.
Cynical1
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2011
Been doing a few searches around the net and - this seems to be building up some (here it comes)- steam!
Obviously Mr. Rossi will need to make licensing arrangements in order make this go global with any speed, tho. There is obviously no way to meet the massive potential demand by building his own manufacturing org. Ramp up costs would be too exorbitant. And the ROI would just take too long (for a lender to handle).
That said - I hope this doesn't get swept under a rug because of factors like that (among others). I sincerely hope the "too good to be true" paradigm - isn't. and I wish Mr. Rossi all the luck he can handle.
dobermanmacleod
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2011
I just wish Rossi would provide some details on the radiation generated when the ecat is running. I hear he claims that gamma ray spectrometry would reveal too many secrets but I'd like to at least hear the clocks from a Geiger counter.


"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...[sorry, but my notes don't contain link to movie nor to specific comment -DM]

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."

BTW Some are having trouble reproducing the experiment with radiation.
Phandaal
3.6 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2011
I think Arkaleus hit the nail on the head:

"Mr. Krivit I don't understand why you consider this such a pressing crisis. If Rossi is a liar and his device is inert, we have nothing to lose. There is no public money committed to the E-Cat. Why should we care if it is a fake? It would be quickly discovered upon its first sales to the public and the matter would be over and done in the first month.

Your need to defame Rossi as a dangerous fraud does not match the level of risk to the public this product represents. I say let him sell it openly, let the public determine its usefulness, and let the matter be resolved in the open.

I fear the mysterious customers may be malevolent agencies and if they find the device poses a threat to the ruling oil-energy paradigm the E-Cat will vanish and the public will lose a valuable invention. That is the risk we all should fear, not the exposure of a harmless man with a fanciful dream."

Krivit is coming off shrill and not objective.
Free Energy TRUTH
2.4 / 5 (14) Nov 09, 2011
There are two sides to every story my friends.

Steven B Krivit travelled to Bologna and then had a fall out with Rossi and since then Rossi can do nothing right in his eyes - hence the 7 Billion comments left in this thread. Additionally Rossi says that Krivit is against him because Krivit is friendly with Piantelli (one of Rossi's competitors).

MaryYugo (a pseudonym) on the other hand is a professional debunker who has a career in establishment defending. Pseudosceptics like her have no interest in the truth - simply to debunk and defend the establishment dogma.

I salute you Lisa for having the courage to cover the story when the establishment would rather this was kept quiet.
Free Energy TRUTH
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2011
MaryYugo is a fully paid up member of moletrap - a forum haven for pseudosceptics where the only game in town is James Randi, Richard (dogma) Dawkins, Penn and Teller (the less said the better), and any other establishment defenders you can think of.

While I think it's important to be sceptical, mindless pseudoscepticism is what we are being subjected to. Pseudoscepticism is defined as thinking that CLAIMS to be sceptical, but is actually faith-based disbelief. Pseudoscepticism may also be described as making pseudoscientific arguments in pursuit of a sceptical agenda.
Capracus
not rated yet Nov 09, 2011
I fear the mysterious customers may be malevolent agencies and if they find the device poses a threat to the ruling oil-energy paradigm the E-Cat will vanish and the public will lose a valuable invention. That is the risk we all should fear, not the exposure of a harmless man with a fanciful dream.
If malevolent agencies thought that The Mr. Rossi Brewing System was in fact the energy miracle Rossi and his gullible minions portray it to be, then it undoubtedly wouldve been lifted months ago from his high security research facility.

peterw
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2011
Three comments on this.
First, an Italian patent application - or any in the E.C. - can be followed up by other European applications within a 12 month delay. Then, as U.S. Law currently gives priority to the date of the idea rather than of the application, there is no hurry for that.
Secondly, U.S. Law in particular permits the buyer of a device covered by patent protection to do what he likes - apart from copy it for resale. This is apparently why Xerox copiers were initially leased rather than sold.
Finally, commenting in Dobermanmcloud's mention of hydrinos a couple of hours ago:
Early work back in 1933 did this trick with lithium and hydrogen. Hydrogen is easier as the atom is small. This makes me suspect that hydrinos would be even better, as smaller, so the Hydrino process might be a participant in the overall e-cat effect. The requirement to heat the stuff for a while, and then one sees a much fast temperature rise when the reaction starts, is also reported by Blacklight P
rawa1
3 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2011
so the Hydrino process might be a participant in the overall e-cat effect
IMO it cannot from simple reason: the hydrino process is based on alleged half integer quantum state of hydrogen. Such hypothetical state, even if it could exist, cannot trap as many energy, as most of experiments of Piantelli/Focardi (and A. Rossi, after all) are requiring. The hydrino process is still classical chemical process and if cold fusion can produce such energy gain, then it's evident, the nuclear process must be involved, not just chemical one.

I admit, Randall Mills was a true original founder of cold fusion at nickel, but his hydrino "explanation" brings more questions than answers. He simply forgot to conside nuclear process and so he invented such an ad-hoced explanation.
rawa1
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2011
Try to imagine, whole the hydrino stuff is real and the energy is released under formation of hydrino as an "ash". What will happen, if you dissolve the exhausted catalyst for example in acid? The hydrino will somehow recombine into original hydrogen and such reaction will suck an energy from outside, just because the hydrino is so endothermic product. Whereas R. Mills claimed both energy gain, both hydrino content in reaction products (without description of analysis provided) - he never demonstrated, whether and how such cooling occurs. Apparently, none of critics of hydrino theory considered this simple consequence too. Briefly speaking, whole the hydrino theory is just a huge desperate nonsense, which is spread with people, who cannot use their brain.
paul42
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2011
Krivit sees clear signs of fraud.

I see clear signs of somebody going to great lengths to prevent thermal runaway. That and the fact that he has invited too many very intelligent people to his demonstrations have convinced me that this is not a fraud.
Nerdyguy
2 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
Take this to the bank: the reason that AP is not reporting is that they are still chasing the story. When AP reports it will be much more than this bluster-muster that we see from the Specialty Press. And AP will NOT be seen on Physorg defending itself... ever... they will be out chasing the NEXT step in the story.


Yes, perhaps even chasing it (him) all the way to the local jailhouse.
Nerdyguy
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2011
Andrea Rossi is not scientist. He actually never wrote a single line about cold fusion research. He is interpreter and a private person, who is doing an applied research for his private money. Being private person, he is absolutely not obliged to provide any details about his technology, until he and his customers are comfortable with it. Everything else would be a violation of private intellectual property of Mr. Rossi.

So if physicists are interested whether the cold fusion is really working, they had twenty years for replication of perfectly documented experiments of Piantelli and Foccardi. They wasted this time in doing BS, so now they shouldn't be very surprised, if private investors don't require them for any validations of cold fusion technology.

Every ignorance comes with it's own price. The price which mainstream physicists are paying right now is the lost of credibility and competency for judgment and validation of important findings.


OK Mr. Rossi, I mean Callipo.
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2011
Steven Krivit; while there Rossi/Focardi and crew have been purposefully vague in details, they clearly have a made a tremendous discovery and created an invention from it. This will be transformative science. Its real.


"It's real." Really? How the hell do you know? Have you seen it/touched it/tested it? Until you have, it's called "wishful thinking".

Is it possible it's real? Of course, anything is possible. Is it real? Not one of us on this forum has a clue.

However, what we do know is, in the aftermath of the Madoff affair, a whole lot of naive people walked around scratching their heads while thinking "why did no one tell me"? Didn't anyone know it was a scam?
paul42
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2011

"It's real." Really? How the hell do you know? Have you seen it/touched it/tested it? Until you have, it's called "wishful thinking".
I have not seen, touched, or tasted a black hole either. Regardless, I am quite convinced that they are real.
Ryan1981
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
Maybe Rossi is a phsychologist studying the responses to his claims.
Nerdyguy
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2011
MaryYugo is a fully paid up member of moletrap - a forum haven for pseudosceptics where the only game in town is James Randi, Richard (dogma) Dawkins, Penn and Teller (the less said the better), and any other establishment defenders you can think of.

While I think it's important to be sceptical, mindless pseudoscepticism is what we are being subjected to. Pseudoscepticism is defined as thinking that CLAIMS to be sceptical, but is actually faith-based disbelief. Pseudoscepticism may also be described as making pseudoscientific arguments in pursuit of a sceptical agenda.


"Faith-based" disbelief? Hmmmm...

And "FreeEnergy Truth" claims to be something more than just faith-based in its outright worship of Andrea Rossi and the eCat? Or is that "pure" science?

LMAO. Nice try Mr. Rossi.
Nerdyguy
3 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2011

"It's real." Really? How the hell do you know? Have you seen it/touched it/tested it? Until you have, it's called "wishful thinking".
I have not seen, touched, or tasted a black hole either. Regardless, I am quite convinced that they are real.

Not sure why I'm bothering to reply to you. Maybe I feel there is hope for you yet.

You see, the difference between the black hole and the eCat is:

Unlike the eCat, the black hole has been studied by hundreds (thousands?) of scientific minds for generations. Millions (billions?) of dollars have been spent on equipment and research to provide us with even the rudimentary understanding we have today. So, despite the fact that you have not "seen" a black hole, you have certainly benefited from the scientific rigor that has proven its existence.

The eCat has none of this backing. So, while there's nothing wrong with optimism, claiming that "it's real" is just wishful thinking.
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2011
Been doing a few searches around the net and - this seems to be building up some (here it comes)- steam!
Obviously Mr. Rossi will need to make licensing arrangements in order make this go global with any speed, tho. There is obviously no way to meet the massive potential demand by building his own manufacturing org. Ramp up costs would be too exorbitant. And the ROI would just take too long (for a lender to handle).
That said - I hope this doesn't get swept under a rug because of factors like that (among others). I sincerely hope the "too good to be true" paradigm - isn't. and I wish Mr. Rossi all the luck he can handle.


Good points. Although, in terms of the manufacturing capability, if Rossi attracts the type of clients that one would expect -- military, heavy industry, governments -- their pre-existing relationships in rapid development and high tech manufacturing would make it a cinch. That part, at least, would work in his favor.
hush1
1 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2011
You feel the need to exploit ideas or tangibles.
The criterion that tangibles or ideas are real or not plays no role.

Exploitation will judge you.
hush1
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2011
Orac exploits ratings. :)
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
I see the mysterious Mr. Orac has been at it already today. I've been "1"ed by him 3 times today, in this thread alone...
hush1
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2011
Feel flattered. That you are worthy of Orac's time and attention. The motivation behind Orac is of questionable nature.
paul42
2 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
Physicists have been wrong many times.
I grew up learning that ray-gus were immposible due to the inverse square law, and then along came coherent radiation.
Castle Bravo, a test of a hydrogen bomb, had a yield three times the predicted value - the physicists were wrong again. It is not hard to find example after example.

There is convincing evidence that the ECAT is doing what Rossi claims. There is no proof, but the preponderance of evidence is definitely in his favor. Too many physicists have come away convinced that this is not a fraud and that it must be a chemical reaction. I see all the evidence of a design and experiments that have the primary goal of avoiding thermal runaway, which is not something you would expect to see in a case of fraud.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2011
There is no proof, but the preponderance of evidence

Could you specify what the difference between evidence and proof is as relating to Rossi's E-Cat?
Nerdyguy
3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2011
There is no proof, but the preponderance of evidence is definitely in his favor. Too many physicists have come away convinced that this is not a fraud and that it must be a chemical reaction.


This is not a court, so "preponderance of evidence" isn't really important. But, I am curious as to what you think this "preponderance" may be. If you are referring to Rossi making claims on websites, blogs, and Youtube videos, that is neither evidence nor does it amount to a preponderance.

Nerdyguy
3 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2011
Too many physicists have come away convinced ...


Here's the list of witnesses to the Oct. 6th event:

Prof. Petterson Roland Uppsala University
Prof. Campari Enrico (Univ. Bologna)
Prof. Bonetti Ennio (Univ. Bologna)
Prof. Levi Giuseppe (Univ. Bologna)
Prof. Clauzon Pierre (CNAM-CEA Paris)
Dott. Bianchini David (Univ. Bologna)
Ing. Swanson Paul D. (Space and Naval Warfare Systems- US Navy)
Prof. Focardi Sergio (Univ. Bologna)
Prof. Stremmenos Christos (Univ. Atene)
Prof. Jobson Edward (Univ. Goteborg)
Ing. Vandevalle Koen (Belgio)
Dr Enrico Billi (Fisico, Ricercatore, CINA)

Now, how many of these have publicly stated that they are convinced? Beyond this list, how many others, in total? Finally, how many have been on-site in the past, and have come away distrustful? So, what we have is a very small handful of unknowns, most of whom are presumably friends of Rossi from Bologna, and even they aren't talking. Does that sound like "too many physicists" coming away convinced?
Turritopsis
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2011
Strong nuclear forces cause nuclei to attract. This seen in classical mechanics as gravity. In quantum mechanics quarks attract. This attraction between these little particles is nuclei glue, gluons. This is strong nuclear force.

Protons have two positive quarks (up) and one negative (down). In order to balance out the cog like wheels (two quarks spinning in one direction and one in another) of atomic nuclei neutrons are acquired. Neutrons have two negative (down) and one positive (up) quarks.

An equal number of up & down quarks = good mechanics. When an imbalance is present one of two balancing mechanical processes occur. Fusion or fission.

Large atoms will drop out neutrons and protons (and photons and leptons) until they are balanced to having equal number of up and down quarks (cog wheels).

Small atoms at an either up OR down quark deficit (unbalanced mechanical cogs) will attract cogs to complete their mechanical structure.

There is no such thing as cold fusion same as there
Turritopsis
1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2011
is no such thing as cold matter. When matter is cold it doesnt exist.

A Bose Einstein condensate is matter approaching absolute zero. It is seen that particles come as one at near zero. When energy is zero particles are gone. No energy no particles.

However,

Fusion at all temperatures above absolute zero is possible given the right conditions. When you have an atom of 20 neutrons and 10 protons which are energetically held in place (either through use of vacuum or electromagnetism) and you inject 10 atoms with 1 proton each what takes place is fusion. The unbalanced atoms nuclei draws in protons which brings balance of up and down quarks. The unstable atom becomes stable and gives off instability.

I am certain that Rossi doesn't have a cold fusion reactor (no such thing) but I'm not sure that he doesn't have a cyclic reactor. Weak force to Strong force cyclic machine where fission starts fusion and then the fused atom fissess which once again starts fusion, and so on.
Turritopsis
1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2011
You can get any atom to disintegrate by blasting it with energy. All atoms are subject to getting blasted apart. Gamma radiation can destroy any formed particle.

Turn a switch and the nuclear fission/fusion reaction begins. 1 process causes the other and you have perpetual mechanics as long as the fuel source is present.

I'm not saying Rossi has, but such a machine is not only possible but such a machine has been already built, in a destructive form albeit, but the main thing is that the processes required for a such a generator have been done. Anyone know how an h-bomb works? It is a fission fusion process. The purpose of an h bomb is decontained destruction. The only difference is here the reaction is contained and used for cyclical power generation.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2011
Interresting and quite logical points, Turitop. However, I am not quite convinced...
Turritopsis
2.4 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2011
But, with all the secrecy abound his work this may all be just a chemical reactor. Hence, catalyzer. The machine could be producing heat by molecule formation and deformation. The heat exchange could be harnessed as energy.

Maybe his machine is just a chemical reactor.

Maybe he built the machine by accident.

Maybe someone should rip it open and take the veil off the mystery.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
IMO for understanding of cold fusion the following experiment is important. In 2007 radio-engineer John Kanzius developed an apparatus for cancer treatment with polarized radiowaves in 13 MHz frequency range. During desalination tests of his device with tube filled by marine water (~ 3% solution of NaCl) he observed an evolution of hydrogen, which can be ignited by lighter.

http://www.youtub...lIm5a1Lc

What we are facing here is the splitting of hydrogen-oxygen bond in water with energy, which is roughly 10E 8 times lower, then it correspond the binding energy of -H-O- bonds. Just because this splitting occurs at much lower energy density than the cold fusion, it evaded the attention of mainstream science - but with respect to activation/actual energy ratio is as mysterious, like the cold fusion itself. During cold fusion the electrolysis of nickel or palladium is able to induce nuclear reactions, the activation energy of which is roughly 10E 8 times higher, too.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
If we can admit, that the water molecule requiring the activation energy at least 1.65 eV is able to split with radiowaves with energy density 5.10E-8 eV (which is corresponding the energy density of 13 MHz radiowaves by E=hf formula) - then we shouldn't be surprised, when the nuclear fusion requiring ~10 MeV of activation energy becomes initiated with electrolysis or chemical reaction at 1 eV range. The ratio of energy density required and supplied remains the same in both cases and the Nature apparently allows it at the former case. It could indicate, we are facing deeper scale invariant effect here, which may repeat even at the smaller and larger scales under proper circumstances.
paul42
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2011
These professors have a reputation to protect and their reputation is very important and valuable to them. To allow their name to be broadcast and used in association with a fraud would be unthinkable. The fact that they have NOT spoken out speaks volumes.

Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2011
To allow their name to be broadcast and used in association with a fraud would be unthinkable
A whole range of less or more objective reasons exists, why mainstream ignores the important findings - the more, the more groundbreaking these findings are. In dense aether model it's an analogy of surface tension effects: the less pronounced gradients can dissolve and merge with their environment easily, but the more pronounced they're, the more difficult is such spontaneous mixing. The more compact the sectarian society is, the more it behaves like boson condensate and black hole with respect to its environment. Which is why the mainstream science can absorb the new insights only slowly - or the total reflection will occur and new informations are simply ignored if not ridiculed whole generations. It means, the conservative approach of the mainstream physics is kinda physical phenomena independent to the well minded stance of isolated individuals and it should be handled so.
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2011
These professors have a reputation to protect and their reputation is very important and valuable to them. To allow their name to be broadcast and used in association with a fraud would be unthinkable. The fact that they have NOT spoken out speaks volumes.



Perhaps in your fantasy world. Beyond that, they are as likely as anyone else in the world to offer an opinion if asked by someone from the press. If Rossi has asked them not to speak -- and an NDA is possible -- then we're back to Rossi's word alone. So, you can't discount the legal ramifications of an NDA.

But, if that's not the case, and these people are genuinely satisfied, then why not come out and say so?

Finally, you appear to be unfamiliar with the multiple scientists over the last couple of years who have walked away from Rossi's performances and said publicly that something wasn't right. These are well documented.
Objectivist
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2011
The disbelief without evidence is science neither... It's simply belief in negative hypothesis - that's all. No less, no more.

You're absolutely right. That's why we have to keep an open mind about Santa Claus' existence. I mean nobody has as of yet proven that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Yevgen
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2011
@Nerdyguy : The first customer is probably, as I had read somewhere, a research lab of US Navy. But ok for the first, or the second, but you think Rossi can live long and happily by frauding such a kind of customers?


That would not be for the first time. He conned DOD for years with his "super high efficient" thermoelectrics (with similar
scheme - public demonstrations, apparent presence of University people etc) until finally efficiency claims were
completely disproved when third party got samples. What was done to Rossi - nothing. He claimed that burned down factory
was able to make high efficiency material, but alas it is gone... See official report here:
http://oai.dtic.m...DA432046
Generally if you want a reasonable picture about Rossi,
check wikipedia article. It has all the facts and references.
http://en.wikiped...eneur%29

Free Energy TRUTH
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2011
The pseudosceptics in this thread seem to forget that for this to be a fraud, Rossi would now have to have conducted more than 5 public demos without anything being spotted, be the world's greatest actor, and that at least 30 other people and companies would need to be in on the scam.

And to what end? A scammer who refusese to accept any investment? Don't make me laugh. Your scam accusations have no basis in fact and are even MORE outrageous than cold fusion being real.

Pfft..
kaasinees
2 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2011
The pseudosceptics in this thread seem to forget that for this to be a fraud, Rossi would now have to have conducted more than 5 public demos without anything being spotted, be the world's greatest actor, and that at least 30 other people and companies would need to be in on the scam.

And to what end? A scammer who refusese to accept any investment? Don't make me laugh. Your scam accusations have no basis in fact and are even MORE outrageous than cold fusion being real.

Pfft..


You are posting on the wrong website sir. Nobody here is stupid enough to fall for your scams. Free energy? Seriously... i cant believe people fall for that.
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2011
That's why we have to keep an open mind about Santa Claus' existence
IMO roughly 30.000 publications supporting the evidence of anomalous effects connected with LENR exist already.

LENR

Mr. Claus or string theorists would be happy if they would have collected such huge a range of indicia supporting their existence.
Free Energy TRUTH
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2011
kaasinees: You said

"You are posting on the wrong website sir. Nobody here is stupid enough to fall for your scams. Free energy? Seriously... i cant believe people fall for that"

You are grossly mistaken. Fusion is not free energy, Rossi has NEVER claimed free energy. YOU are the one talking about free energy.

If Rossi is not accepting investment then please explain the alleged "scam" you are talking about. Does he hope to get some free lattes or cappuchinos out of this...maybe a sandwich or two? Certainly not any money. In fact he's spent millions of his OWN money so far.

Your "theories" are leakier than a sieve.
aroc91
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2011
[continued]

from what *Rossi says* rather than any kind of journalistic process which would normally include identifying sources and/or your attempts to perform any fact-checking. You owe your readers better than this.

You cannot call Rossi a fraud and neither can I because we will never know Rossi's true intentions and we will never be able to prove a negative. But we can identify whether the facts he presents are consistent with the physical laws of the universe. I and two dozen contributors have done this in Report 3. Rossi's claims are inconsistent with the scientific evidence he has attempted to sell to the public, not for its money, but for their support to help him advertise his claim.


But does it really matter whether he's in it for the support or the money? Either way, he's deceiving people and making false claims.
Nerdyguy
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2011
The pseudosceptics in this thread seem to forget that for this to be a fraud, Rossi would now have to have conducted more than 5 public demos without anything being spotted, be the world's greatest actor, and that at least 30 other people and companies would need to be in on the scam.

And to what end? A scammer who refusese to accept any investment? Don't make me laugh. Your scam accusations have no basis in fact and are even MORE outrageous than cold fusion being real.

Pfft..


Random thoughts not by Jack Handy:

1) Can one not be an actual skeptic? Without the pseudo part I mean? And how would you differentiate?

2) Rossi has conducted ZERO public demos.

3) "30 other people and companies" is vague. You may be correct on the number of individuals, but even Rossi only claims one company representative. Yes?

4) Accepting development funds is not the only type of scam.

5) There are other reasons, beyond "scams", to falsify info.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2011
@Kaasinees & others:

FYI - Free Energy TRUTH is the name of a blog. Maybe related to the individual posting here, maybe not. He didn't say.
Lester 042
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2011

ou're absolutely right. That's why we have to keep an open mind about Santa Claus' existence. I mean nobody has as of yet proven that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Exactly correct sir!
No one has ever "proved" Santa to exist...or not..
But this is how science works. First you propose a theory, then you test. If the test backs the theory, then you proceed. However, positive results on your test does not necessarily "prove" your theory. It only shows that this particular test did not show the theory to be incorrect. NOTHING is ever "proven" 100%.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
For a mostly fact free article this sure did in bring in new people. Physorg must be thrilled.

Why yes there are facts.

On October 28th, Rossi invited a few dozen people,
That appears to be true.

including a group of engineers from an unnamed potential US customer,
That is Rossi's Word = RW.

For the demonstration, Rossi connected dozens of modules
True assuming the reporters were actually there.

a nuclear reaction between hydrogen nuclei and nickel nuclei occurs,
RW

releasing heat that is used to turn water into steam.
Fact.

According to Rossi, each module received an initial energy input of 400 watts and produced a self-sustaining
RW

Altogether, he claims that the device produced an average of 470 kilowatts in the form of steam for more than five hours.
It produced steam is a fact. How much wasn't measured thus is not a fact just RW.>>

Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
Impressed with these results, the unknown US customer accepted delivery of a commercial E-Cat device.
RW

Rossi has reported on his blog that he has sold more than two devices to other customers, which are also unnamed
RW

he says that the customers will reveal their identities when they choose.
RW.

there is still a lot of confusion surrounding the device itself.
Hey a fact.

Theres not enough information to fully discredit the E-Cat device, nor to fully support it.
Not quite a fact. FULLY didn't belong there. No support at all would fit the evidence.

The AP Technology Writer Peter Svensson was among the spectators at the October 28th demonstration, but so far the AP has not published any coverage of the event.
So why not?

Svensson responded, Stay tuned.)
My, that was helpful.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2011
One piece of evidence that suggests Rossi sincerely believes in the E-Cat is that he reportedly sold his house two months ago in order to fund the ongoing development.
That is only evidence if there are records that confirm the sale and records of how the money was spent. Otherwise Rossi's word. Same for the claims of him spending millions of his money.RW

He has been working around the clock on the technology,
RW.

as he has previously said, that the final word will come from the customers who use the devices to generate electricity, not from his critics.
True. What customers? Any? RW

If he has customers, is there evidence to support that or just RW, has he been paid?

Ethelred
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
You have my permission to toss Rossi.

Do not, I repeat, do not doubt the existence of Santa Claus.
At least 20 million peer reviewed (children) published works in over 25 countries have dealt extensively with Santa Claus.
No scientific or chance discovery in all of history comes even close to being as credible, plausible, verifiable, published or substantiated as Santa Claus.

Montgomery Ward sold almost two and a half million copies of the story in 1939. When it was reissued in 1946, the book sold over three and half million copies. Several years later, one of May's friends, Johnny Marks, wrote a short song based on Rudolph's story (1949). It was recorded by Gene Autry and sold over two million copies. Since then, the story has been translated into 25 languages and been made into a television movie, narrated by Burl Ives, which has charmed audiences every year since 1964.

http://www.histor...ta-claus

Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2011
The true history of Rudolph and Santa. Its on the net so you know it's true. And it has Italians of questionable repute so it is relevant to this discussion.

Raging Rudolph
http://www.youtub...h6wGUUfE

Ethelred
Howhot
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
Yet in-spite of the skeptical tone I read in the comments here; what I see is an impressive self funded engineering project that pushed the experimental lab-work in to a product with just a minimal amount of theory to back up the results. The theory(s) could be totally off base, but something is going on. These very smart guys have been working on this since 1995 and have been publishing their work. Why fake it in 2011? NiH is a strange metal system. You will enjoy the background research. It's real.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
what I see is an impressive self funded engineering project
You only have Rossi's word for that. And considering that the funds came from a previous fraud I am not going to call it self funded. It was funded by previous victims.

The theory(s) could be totally off base, but something is going on.
Everything seen so far can be covered by chemistry or a simple heating element running on electricity.

These very smart guys have been working on this since 1995 and have been publishing their work.
Rossi's word and published in HIS journal.

It's real.
Except that he goes out of his way to avoid proving that. Let me know when there is actual evidence from a neutral source or even from someone RELIABLE that has bought the device and tested it for a reasonable length of time.

Ethelred

Supermike1661
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
To Mr. Rossi I tend toward charitability. Yet as a test engineer something has always bothered me about the MW plant, and I first mentioned it a few weeks ago here on Physorg. NOW, I put this question to the assembled "experts":

Running several dozen steam generators into a header is no small control engineering problem. The back pressure differentials can be considerable.. even causing steam to flow in reverse, eventually leading to dangerous instability and explosion. I pointed out a few weeks ago that when the first videos and pictures of the MW plant were released, the space on the freight container wall for the control system was empty. Did this space ever get filled?

If Rossi did not solve this pressure differential nightmare, how did he get a few dozen parallel steam generators to operate in his lab?
maryyugo
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
MaryYugo is a fully paid up member of moletrap - a forum haven for pseudosceptics where the only game in town is James Randi, Richard (dogma) Dawkins, Penn and Teller (the less said the better), and any other establishment defenders you can think of.


Moletrap dues are about as much as the number of brain cells you used to write that -- zero.

While I think it's important to be sceptical, mindless pseudoscepticism is what we are being subjected to. Pseudoscepticism is defined as thinking that CLAIMS to be sceptical, but is actually faith-based disbelief. Pseudoscepticism may also be described as making pseudoscientific arguments in pursuit of a sceptical agenda.


I guess it's a lot easier to write meaningless garbage like that than it is to try refuting the rational view that Rossi could easily prove his device real and has always refused to do so.

I am amused by claims that he's not taken money. How would anyone know? Do you have the codes to his bank account? LOL!
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2011
The Rossi's experiments are apparently based on the previous experiments of Piantelli and Focardi. Even Krivit himself admits and accepts it.

http://blog.newen...antelli/

The whole point is, there exists a tension between Rossi and Piantelli, which probably dates from the 2008 year, when Rossi attempted to get independent patent to the Piantelli's (i.e. foreign) technology without any value added. Krivit supports Piantelli in this controversy probably because he is engaged in Piantelli's independent development of this technology. I've no great illusions about Rossi, but currently Andrea Rossi is the only person, who is willing to risk and able to invest his money into realization of cold fusion. Without him the cold fusion implementation would be delayed just another twenty years without problem. Which would be a great problem for whole human civilization. (downvoted with Joshua Cude)
italba
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2011
@maryyugo : If YOU say Rossi is a scammer YOU must prove it! Otherwise, just wait and see!
JimGraham
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
I, for one, would like to get some real information about this device, and I'm willing to pay for that information. I'll donate $20 to the cause. Does someone want to organize this? Let's get 100,000 other interested people to make such a donation, and offer to buy an e-cat. We will define the testing procedure. As long as the test is not expensive, Rossi should be willing to provide us a machine. If it does not pass the test, we don't accept delivery. In that case we donate the money to a worthy cause, like public schools. If the device works, we can donate it to a school for heating purposes. I'm sure MIT would love to have a working Rossi reactor on their campus. I think both skeptics and believers could back this plan.
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
The whole point is, there exists a tension between Rossi and Piantelli, which probably dates from the 2008 year, when Rossi attempted to get...


Sexual tension? Could explain some of the hush-hush.
tkjtkj
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
... -- and provide some decent testing on the eCat.

If five major research institutions test the device and receive similar results, this whole thing could be put to bed and we could potentially move on to understanding the science behind the phenomenon. Assuming it exists at all.

Can you explain or support your requirement of the number "5" ?
Just which orifice produced that alleged standard??

Nerdyguy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2011
... -- and provide some decent testing on the eCat.

If five major research institutions test the device and receive similar results, t...

Can you explain or support your requirement of the number "5" ?
Just which orifice produced that alleged standard??



Sure. It was the number I could count using the digits on one hand.

I could have used any random number between 1 and 10, but I wanted to show how smart I was by using a number bigger than 3.

OK, seriously now, who gives a flying freak what number it is? At this point the number is ZERO.

So, I'd go for any combination of the list below testing this thing:

1) Oxford
2) Cambridge
3) Harvard
4) MIT
5) Stanford
6) Cal Tech
7) Rush Limbaugh's climate lab (haha, that one isn't real. I think)
8) Tokyo University of Science
9) University of Michigan
10) ETH Zurich

OK, pretty much out of room. Test on.
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2011
I'm sure MIT would love to have a working Rossi reactor on their campus.
If they would, why they didn't attempted to replicate Piantelli and Focardi cells, described in standard scientific journals, which are claiming the heat yield in range of 50 W/ccm of cell during last twenty years? The Rossi reactor is just scaled up version of the same cell.

My simple question is, why everyone is interested about undocumented device of Rossi and no one is interested about perfectly documented device described in scientific publications?

The interest about Rossi just demonstrates, how people actually trust in scientific publications, until they're not materialized in real device.
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2011
Funnily enough, at the moment, when this device is really constructed, the very same people are objecting instead, it's not documented in standard scientific way. But when they get this documentation printed at glossy paper of journal of Italian Academy of Science, they're simply ignoring it.

It's the same situation, like with 60 percent of Americans, who still don't believe in evolution despite of any evidence. Has some meaning to bother with such religious people? Of course not - and A. Rossi knows about it as well. The persuading of sceptics is as meaningful activity, as the persuading every second American about evolution. It's simply contra-productive waste of time - the more the people will be tried to persuade, the more they will remain convinced about their truth.
Nerdyguy
2.8 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2011
But when they get this documentation printed at glossy paper of journal of Italian Academy of Science, they're simply ignoring it.


Please clarify - which journal?

It's the same situation, like with 60 percent of Americans, who still don't believe in evolution despite of any evidence.


Totally off-topic, but interesting. I've heard this nonsense all my life. I wouldn't say there's any kind of scientific proof that 60% of Americans don't believe in evolution. It is, for example, taught in every school in America. On a personal note, I've known precisely two people in my entire life who have espoused such a view. An Aunt and Uncle in an ultra-orthodox religious sect. The whole "6,000 years" thing. Even their kids think they're nuts.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
We don't know that is really constructed Zephir. Neither do you. All you have is Rossi's word about what the device is.

Now if you are so sure what it is and how it made AND you claim it is based on previous research THEN you could build your own. Well I suppose you could as I don't know about Czech patent laws but in the US that device is not patentable if it is just a scaled up version of previous stuff.

And the journal in question is Rossi's so it has no value in determining whether it has anything to do with reality. You are showing a remarkable lack of skepticism on this. Very non-scientific.

We MAY see what is going on here. Eventually but the previous bit of tech that Rossi pushed still looks like a scam and has never been properly tested either. And the money Rossi has spent on this came from that scam.

My question is

Why are so sure about it with absolutely NO verifiable evidence that it works?

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2011
Totally off-topic, but interesting. I've heard this nonsense all my life. I wouldn't say there's any kind of scientific proof that 60% of Americans don't believe in evolution.
The number is questionable as the usual claim is 55 percent and that may be due to badly written questions. However various religions are quite clear about it. including Southern Baptists, which 25 percent of Americans. There are MAJOR colleges in the South where the official stand is the world is 6000 years old.

I have had seen quite a few people that look at me as if I am an alien from another planet when I say there was no Great Flood. If you only know two people that think that way you live in a very unusual place.

Ethelred
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2011
However various religions are quite clear about it. including Southern Baptists, which 25 percent of Americans. There are MAJOR colleges in the South where the official stand is the world is 6000 years old.

I have had seen quite a few people that look at me as if I am an alien from another planet when I say there was no Great Flood. If you only know two people that think that way you live in a very unusual place.

Ethelred


I've lived and traveled all over the U.S. and Canada. For many years, I had to travel 5 days a week and, as a result of various "wine and dine" events, met a truly staggering number of people. It was awful. But, I digress.

From NYC to L.A., to the Midwest and my current home in Charlotte, NC -- home to some of the Bible Belt's biggest churches and most famous preachers -- I've never met anyone who believed this nonsense. On the other hand, most everyone I know is college educated and bright, or I tend to ignore them completely. lol
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
There are MAJOR colleges in the South where the official stand is the world is 6000 years old.

I have had seen quite a few people that look at me as if I am an alien from another planet when I say there was no Great Flood. If you only know two people that think that way you live in a very unusual place.

Ethelred


Now you're just blatantly making up things. There are no major colleges of any kind that espouse this belief.

There are indeed religious-specific colleges, like Bob Jones University, that hold this view. But no one would consider these to be "major" universities.

Not that I doubt that there are many people who hold this belief. Probably quite a few, in fact, who know enough to hold their tongue in public but don't mind filling out surveys showing their true feelings.
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2011
Why are so sure about it with absolutely NO verifiable evidence that it works
Because I've read thousands (..well, hundreds actually..) of articles about cold fusion - so I can see their common points, which cannot be faked intentionally. You cannot see it, if you did read (nearly) nothing about it.
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
Why are so sure about it with absolutely NO verifiable evidence that it works
Because I've read thousands (..well, hundreds actually..) of articles about cold fusion - so I can see their common points, which cannot be faked intentionally. You cannot see it, if you did read (nearly) nothing about it.


Yes, but you're not sticking to the point. He's not asking if you believe cold fusion is a possibility. He's asking what makes you think that Rossi's device works.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
Now you're just blatantly making up things. There are no major colleges of any kind that espouse this belief.
Depends on your definition of major. I did NOT make it up.

http://www.nwcrea...ges.html

That least does not cover a number of colleges that prefer a Creationist view such as Wheaton College which insists all professors sign a statement that there was an Adam and Eve. Oddly enough there a lot of people that manage to believe the world is old and there is SOME evoluttion but they still believe in that Great Flood which is pretty darn fundamentalist.

Probably quite a few, in fact, who know enough to hold their tongue in public
No they speak right up. Maybe you aren't listening. It isn't like Sara Palin, George W. Bush and many other major politicians chose to be clear on this because it is anathema in public.

I only make things up for jokes.

Ethelred
italba
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
@Nerdyguy : Despite reports, witnesses, pictures, movies, let's say that nobody (but Rossi himself) can be sure it works, as nobody can be sure it doesn't. But "it is possible that it is a scam" does not prove a scam!
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2011
- so I can see their common points, which cannot be faked intentionally.
Never claimed that were all faked. They usually have very little actual evidence of fusion going on.

My own personal discovery of the Internet was via Cold Fusion. A local Amiga bulletin board was copying alt.cold.fusion, or whatever the news group was, during the initial period. This was before the Web. Very exciting but nothing ever came of it except for more stuff that had no compelling evidence.

As Nerdyguy pointed out that was evasion and you are fond of that sort maneuver. Why do you think Rossi has the real thing?

Ethelred
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
Rossi has in my opinion created a power generator. If he hasn't all this publicity will turn around and bite him in the arse. How humiliating would it be for him to be found out as a fraud after multiple presentations of his device in action. He can't claim innocence by a fluke freak quantum fluctuation that allowed his unit to perform as he showcased it in numerous occasions.

This amounts to one of two: 1. His device works or 2. The whole thing is a hoax.

If hoax the truth will come out.

If it works we are left to decipher the processes that are taking place to cause power generation. On possibility is chemical fusing (molecular bonding), another is nuclear fusion (nuclei merging).

In my opinion this is not a hoax. His device is probably working. It wouldnt make any sense otherwise unless he is sick and twisted and unafraid of ridicule.

The device works IMO but I'm unsure whether it is chemical combustion or nuclear fusion power generation.
italba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
@Ethelred : There are two possibilities: Rossi has the real thing or he hasn't. In the second case, Rossi is a scammer. If somebody think Rossi is a scammer, should explain what strange kind of scam is he planning.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2011
Nickel is magnetic which aids in molecular bonding but also in nuclear fusion. By rarifying charge of hydrogen (as in deuterium and tritium) you create a heavier atom (more strong force) while retaining the same nuclear charge (em repulsion of nucleus).

Nickel draws heavy hydrogen gravitationally and magnetically. When sharing valence nuclear forces act to hold hydrogen and nickel together. This lowers the amount of energy required to produce fusion. The magnetism and added mass of deuterium and tritium do half of the work to acquire fusion. A little force added in results in a lot of energy out.

Energy in < is less than < energy out and you have power generation.
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2011

"The device works IMO but I'm unsure whether it is chemical combustion or nuclear fusion power generation." - Turritopsis.

That said, if he has a system that produces more energy than it consumes, who CARES how it does it - let's just get it scaled up for planet wide distribution and implemetation!

5 years is all we have left, according to the IEA...
Nerdyguy
1.8 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2011
Now you're just blatantly making up things. There are no major colleges of any kind that espouse this belief.
Depends on your definition of major. I did NOT make it up.

http://www.nwcrea...ges.html

Ethelred


That was a list of both a) seminaries and bible schools, and b) schools that include creationist philosophy in some classes. Of course they would have some religious viewpoints.

NONE are major colleges.

MOST are colleges that are completely unfamiliar to most people, as seminaries tend to be.

GEOGRAPHICALLY, all areas of the U.S. were represented.

Major fail. I expected more from a self-professed genius like you.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
No they speak right up. Maybe you aren't listening. It isn't like Sara Palin, George W. Bush and many other major politicians chose to be clear on this because it is anathema in public.

Ethelred


More opinion. No facts, no figures. You support your dubious assertion with more dubious assertions. Nice try.

Now, it's not entirely clear, were you trying to say Bush claims that the earth is 6,000 years old?
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
@Nerdyguy : Despite reports, witnesses, pictures, movies, let's say that nobody (but Rossi himself) can be sure it works, as nobody can be sure it doesn't. But "it is possible that it is a scam" does not prove a scam!


True.
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2011
@Ethelred : There are two possibilities: Rossi has the real thing or he hasn't. In the second case, Rossi is a scammer. If somebody think Rossi is a scammer, should explain what strange kind of scam is he planning.


As they say in the courts, "Asked and Answered"!

I've seen multiple posts, one by me, explaining this. Please go back and re-read them.

But, again, I would stress a point I made earlier. A "scam" or a "hoax" are not the only reasons why humans engage in falsehoods. For example, it's quite possible he's backed himself into a corner at this point. Admission of guilt would be ugly. Moving forward may be the only possible action, regardless of legitimacy.

Or, he may be telling the truth. I wish he'd help us figure that out.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
There is no longer a need to pay attention to this man.
If you want to provide attention you are free to do so.
Cynical1
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
Hush - who?
Rossi or Nerdyguy (since his was the last post before yours)?
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
Rossi
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2011
He's not asking if you believe cold fusion is a possibility. He's asking what makes you think that Rossi's device works.
If you believe, the cold fusion developed with prof. Focardi works, why the Rossi's device cannot work? prof. Focardi was present at most public demonstrations as a technical expert.

http://newenergya...2011.jpg

Whereas cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel has been found with Piantelli accidentally, just Mr. Focardi was, who carried out most of systematic experiments with it.
hush1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
Nerdguy's greatest assert is humor. He can disarm an entire thread commentary with one sentence:

http://www.physor...use.html

"Sure, then explain the photo above."

Someone down-rated the humor with his other comments in mind.
Identifying the independent humor with past track record.
Objectivist
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2011
@Ethelred : There are two possibilities: Rossi has the real thing or he hasn't. In the second case, Rossi is a scammer. If somebody think Rossi is a scammer, should explain what strange kind of scam is he planning.

Exactly! Now give me $100 and I will tell you where to find Santa Claus. And remember, if you don't you owe me an explanation!
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
Just in time for Christmas. I envision angry mobs of children in front of you for withholding SC's whereabouts.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
NONE are major colleges.
Wheaton is a major college.

Of course they would have some religious viewpoints
Which is my point. They were not all Bible schools.

all areas of the U.S. were represented.
Yep. Right here in Southern California.

Major fail
Just because you think Wheaton isn't major does not that so. It is in the top 50.

I expected more from a self-professed genius like you
I never claimed that so that is crap just the rest of the post.

More opinion
If you don't know that Palin is a Creationist you are pretty ignorant about politics. Not a tragedy but you shouldn't discuss them in that case.

You support your dubious assertion with more dubious assertions. Nice try
Indeed it was perfect. Not my fault you don't know those things.

trying to say Bush claims that the earth is 6,000 years old?
Palin does. He supports Creationism in schools. Most of the Republicans running for President are also Creationist.

Ethelred
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2011
Indeed it was perfect. - Ethelred

Ah, ah, ah. Not so fast. Remember the quantum universe we live in - so such thing as perfect...:-)
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
Temple of shared knowledge. Templar. Old order conservation of the bible and god. Conservative. Republicans are the "new" world order of the old Templar. The church vision is to unidirectionally guide human beings, such as a shepherd. When sheep go their own way it is chaos for the shepherd.

Capitalism has morphed republicanism (the old Templars) into a society that doesn't need so much governance (shepherding) because everyone has the same goal anyways. Money. The new warriors of the church are still church goers, their way to happiness has changed from blood for the church to money for the church.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
-Illumination. Eureka. Moment of pure free thought. The liberals are the free thinking illuminati (the illuminated ones). The illuminati come in many religious forms. Gnostics (believe a creator is probable), Agnostics (believe god is improbable), and those who never considered the notion. the illuminati do not believe in the churches writings and believe the temple (and the Templar) are fighting, (not for a wrong cause), unity is great in its unforced pure form, but the illuminati are concerned with the "literal" word of god as presented in the bible, which is a text written by man. The end is ok, the means aren't.

The temple wants everyone to think the same because it brings about peace. They're correct. No differences means no war.

The illuminati want peace to arise because we collaboratively bring in our individualized input. No forced thought.

Free thought and morality is the cure for humanity.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
Nerdguy's greatest assert is humor. He can disarm an entire thread commentary with one sentence:

http://www.physor...use.html

"Sure, then explain the photo above."

Someone down-rated the humor with his other comments in mind.
Identifying the independent humor with past track record.


LOL. Made me laugh again at an old silly joke.
Nerdyguy
1.8 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2011
NONE are major colleges.
Wheaton is a major college.

Of course they would have some religious viewpoints
Which is my point. They were not all Bible schools.

You support your dubious assertion with more dubious assertions. Nice try
Indeed it was perfect. Not my fault you don't know those things.

trying to say Bush claims that the earth is 6,000 years old?
Palin does. He supports Creationism in schools. Most of the Republicans running for President are also Creationist.


Lighten up Frances!

You take yourself waaayyyy too seriously! And you have this pathological need to be right all the time. Maybe you should consider getting the chip off your shoulder?

Or, getting the 2x4 out from your nether regions? :)
italba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
@Objectivist : Sorry, Rossi didn't ask me anything and (maybe) can give me something WAY MORE important than Santa's address. Much more convenient than you.

p.s. You seems to still belive in Santa Klaus, I quit at age of 3. And I don't belive blindly in Rossi's E-cat, I HOPE it works, so you'll better do.

@Nerdyguy : Do you really think that "how you can say that Rossi has not already got money from some investor" or "he's backed himself into a corner at this point... Moving forward may be the only possible action" are valid reasons? If I had got money for something I know does not works, I would have leaved ASAP for another continent! And why do you think Rossi should go on on a dead way? To get where???
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
@Nerdyguy : Do you really think that "how you can say that Rossi has not already got money from some investor" or "he's backed himself into a corner.....If I had got money for something I know does not works, I would have leaved ASAP for another continent! And why do you think Rossi should go on on a dead way? To get where???


I never said he took money of any kind. I don't know any of the details. You asked why he might fabricate evidence. I gave you lots of reasons. You may be a very logical person, and live your life in a fashion that would make the motives of a criminal mind hard for you to understand.

But, the motivations that I and others mentioned above have all been real-life reasons people in academia (and outside it) have gotten in trouble over the years.

Anyway, we've been round and round on this. I already said I just don't know. I hope he's got something great. If he does, I'll celebrate. If he doesn't I'll say "told you".
italba
1 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
@Nerdyguy : Ok, I don't understand the Rossi's (supposed) criminal way of thinking. I cannot understand, either, how could he fraud an university professor like Focardi who studied this kind of devices for all his life. Maybe you found the bigger scammer of the century, and you'll deserve a gold medal and a promotion. What I think is: very unlikely. I agree with your last consideration: If I am right, Rossi's e-cat works for real and we will resolve at once all our problems of energy shortage and pollution, and the world will be a better place. If you are right Rossi is a scammer, the e-cat is an hoax and the world will be as bad as today, or slightly worse. I'll prefer, while I can (and as I payed nothing for) to hope for the best.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2011
Lighten up Frances!
Quit being a Richard.

You take yourself waaayyyy too seriously!
Nonsense I was taking YOU too seriously. Perhaps.

And you have this pathological need to be right all the time.
Also nonsense. But it is favorite claim of people that are wrong a lot.

Maybe you should consider getting the chip off your shoulder?
Maybe you should stop imagining things.

Or, getting the 2x4 out from your nether regions? :)
Lets see, you

Called me Frances for no discernable reason.
You accused me of not having a sense of humor. Which is also rubbish most liley due to highly selective perceptions carefully masking out my many joke posts.

You claim I have a chip my shoulder apparently based on my negative response to your being a prick.

Or, getting the 2x4 out from your nether regions? :)
And then that. All while pretending there is somehow humor in this.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2011
I have noticed that assholes, after insulting people, tend to LIE that it was just a joke. When is was nothing of the sort.

I thank you for making your lack of manners so clear in that post.

I once tried to help you and you attacked me for it. You are just a load of ill humor masquerading as a joke.

Ethelred
CHollman82
1 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2011
from the article:
According to Rossi, each module received an initial energy input of 400 watts
You mean, received energy at the rate of 400 W? Or received 400 Wh of energy? Or...? (Get your units straight.)


1 watt = 1 joule / second...
Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2011
I feel something is a little odd here... (I posted this last night and PHYSORG went down - for me at least - until today)
Anyway... One article written about a guy that MAY have come up with something that's been theorized and played with for 20 years or more(in his garage, essentually) - "cold" fusion. The article tone was sceptical and most of the commentary has been as well.
2 days later, no less than FIVE articles on "hot" fusion. All positively referencing all the new tools and discoveries of something we KNOW doesn't work yet, or when it ever will - at the cost of billions of dollars, along with millions of man hours.
This smell "Apple"y to anyobe else? (Jobs and Woz were initially pooh-pooh-ed)
Besides that - who cares HOW it works. If it does let's get cracking and build MILLIONS of 'em...
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2011
@Ehtelred:

First, you make a blanket statement that is ludicrous, opinionated, and based on no facts whatsoever.

I called you on it, and proved that you were clearly off-base.

But, you just can't let it go, can you? You have a bizarre, twisted, diseased little mind combined with an ego so fragile that you believe anyone with an opinion different from yours is a threat that must be squashed.

I would recommend heavy doses of lithium, and perhaps some counseling. It will help you with your anger, the chip on your shoulder, and your obvious oedipal complex.

You should also try using these public forums as an opportunity to hold rational, sane discourse which sticks to the topic at hand.

BTW, "Lighten up Frances" is a line from a movie. It was funny then, and exponentially more so in light of your little tantrum.

Good luck, I wish you success!
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
Anyone see the news release from Rossi re: the contract with National Instruments?

Interesting stuff.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2011
the contract with National Instruments?
Apparently the managers at NI don't share the opinion of silly internet trolls.
who cares HOW it works. If it does let's get cracking and build MILLIONS of 'em
This is very scientific approach to the cold fusion effect.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2011
Where do I go to invest in his company. While fools dance with pathoskeptics while the world burns,...I will make a tons of mooolaah and live like a king. Maybe become an Islamic and marry a harem of women to sooth the pain of looking out from my palace in some Magic Kingdom and seeing idiots in Europe cook themselves to death on imported petrol while dancing to the political tunes of their pushers.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2011
First, you make a blanket statement that is ludicrous, opinionated, and based on no facts whatsoever.
I made a statement that fits the US. Of course its an opinion. Its based on facts.

I called you on it, and proved that you were clearly off-base.
No. You only think you did. As I pointed out Wheaton is a major college.

But, you just can't let it go, can you? You have a bizarre, twisted
Let nonsense go. Let that lie about me go. No. But you can't seem to stop trying to insult me instead of support yourself.

believe anyone with an opinion different from yours is a threat that must be squashed.
Why do you keep lying like that? What is your problem?

I would recommend heavy doses of lithium, and perhaps some counseling.
I would recommend a course in manners.

It will help you with your anger
Funny how angry irrational people make that accusation. I don't get angry about silly asses online. I gave that up a long time ago.
>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2011
and your obvious oedipal complex.
You clearly don't know the meaning of the word. But you do know how to lash out in an exceedingly irrational manner.

You should also try using these public forums as an opportunity to hold rational, sane discourse which sticks to the topic at hand.
I am not the one that took this off topic.

BTW, "Lighten up Frances" is a line from a movie.
It was intended to be annoying and to trivialize what I said.

It was funny then, and exponentially more so in light of your little tantrum.
You are the one that is throwing a tantrum. This is second one you have directed at me. As I pointed out already the first time was for trying to help. You have got some serious ego issues.

Good luck, I wish you success!
That is right up there with Oliver signing 'with kind regards' after he calls people commies or, my favorite, NASA shills.

Ethelred
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
"This is very scientific approach to the cold fusion effect" - rawa
I get your sarcastic tone, But, sheesh... lighten up Francis.:-) We're talking a potentially (very) bankable product, here, that is a win-win for all parties involved(Rossi and - all the rest of us)

Osirus - you don't need to become a Muslim(you couldn't have a drink, then) - just have the money and you'll have the harem...:-). However, don't throw caution to the wind - that's what a scam(if it is one) will cause...
Osiris1
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2011
One of the best stocked liquor cabinets that I ever saw in my life belonged to an Afghan Mujahedeen son of a Warlord general...and yes he was a Muslim. Anybody that thinks they really obey their holy book any more than we Christians often do just oughta look at some middle eastern students away from 'Daddy' at an American university...drink like fish, carouse like Romans at a orgy...more 'money than you know who', and that buys all kinds of women who should know better but have eyes blinded by money. Ain't prejudiced, just personal observation over years at several campuses. Took twelve years to get my Bachelors cuz had to work my own way through...no 'Daddy' to pay my way. Think I learned more that way, so even if I sometimes talk like a hick to make a point, I am not. On another tack(y), Rick Perry shows in his 'debate' why he wants to get rid of the 'deportment of Eddikation'. But of course that might be 'defecation of character' 4 da french cuff cowboy.
Cynical1
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2011
I'm witchya, O...
I know is off topic, but - If enough American voters WERE dumb enough to vote him into office - they'd be certainly deserving of what they get.
Foolish1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011

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"...

How is it being shielded? We have pictures of the array in his shipping container. Where is the gamma shield?
Silverhill
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
from the article:
According to Rossi, each module received an initial energy input of 400 watts
You mean, received energy at the rate of 400 W? Or received 400 Wh of energy? Or...? (Get your units straight.)
1 watt = 1 joule / second...
Yes, this is quite well known -- except, apparently, to the writer of the article. Re-read the phrase I quoted.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2011
I have noticed that assholes, after insulting people, tend to LIE that it was just a joke. When is was nothing of the sort.

I thank you for making your lack of manners so clear in that post.

I once tried to help you and you attacked me for it. You are just a load of ill humor masquerading as a joke.

Ethelred
I am surprised oral roberts u is not on your list. They teach evolution do they?
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2011
We have pictures of the array in his shipping container. Where is the gamma shield?
The reactors itself have volume just about 50 ccm. The substantial volume of reactors represents the fiberglass insulation and encasing composed of 2 cm lead plate.
powerup1
not rated yet Nov 11, 2011
Even if this E-Cat turns out to be real, it is bad science.
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2011
I guess the same could be said of the internal combustion engine...
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2011
Even if this E-Cat turns out to be real, it is bad science.
E-Cat is no science, it's solely (result of) applied research. The science is what the rest of physicists should do about cold fusion, but what they aren't doing it, because many of them would lost their useless jobs.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2011
BTW Cold fusion is not the only basic research, which scientists are ignoring heartily. Many overunity phenomena are effects of the same category. For example, recently Steorn revealed his new HephaHeat overunity technology:

http://pesn.com/2...hnology/

Now the question is, who of mainstream physicists will take care about this effect? If none, who will be responsible for it? A conspiracy of free-masoners hidden at the secret castle in south Bavaria? And how to avoid this situation again? And again?
Yamali
5 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2011
>> Now the question is, who of mainstream physicists will take care about this effect?

Nobody, of course. Educating the public in basic thermodynamics is a task for schools when the kids are 10 years old or so. If you're grown up and still believe in things like "HephaHeat", another branch of science deals with it. Not physicists.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2011
Every new fundamental finding essentially violates the existing laws in certain extent - this is why we are calling it fundamental. The cold fusion is thermodynamically feasible, but it violates the Coulombic barrier instead. If you want to study only phenomena, which are confirming existing laws, then you should become a historician and use a religious scolastic for explanation of your findings. But the Popper's methodology of science is based on falsification of existing theories.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2011
The approach of dense aether theory is based on insight, the matter is metastable, until it's not composed of particles of certain size. The smaller droplets of matter tend to coalesce, the larger ones tend to fall into smaller pieces instead.

At the case of hot fusion such process appears natural for physicists, because it occurs at hight temperatures in reversible way, but under normal conditions this process is metastable and it requires high activation energy. But there are various trick, how to decrease the activation energy at least momentarily. In chemistry such tricks are called a catalysts.

Briefly speaking, if you don't know, which transmutation occurs during cold fusion or HeptaHeat technology, then you simply cannot talk about thermodynamics - only about problem with activation energy and overcoming of potential barriers. But these phenomena may not violate anything, what we actually know about thermodynamics.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2011
For example, if you shake mercury inside of test tube, it will form a tiny droplets, which are merging spontaneously. Nothing actually strange is about it, huh?

But if you shake it pretty well, then you will get a black dust, composed of very tiny mercury droplets of nanometer size. Such dust will behave like any other dust of solid matter and it will become prone against spontaneous coalesce of mercury droplets, so you can consider it as analogy of observable matter, which is considered stable, despite it contains a huge amount of intrinsic energy stored inside it.

Now the question is - we have a mercury dust in test tube and we know, its formation required a lotta energy, which may be released back again during merging of droplets.

Hot to get such an energy back? It's not a philosophical or metaphysical question - it's solely a practical physical problem - which just requires the certain way of thinking, which doesn't depend on the knowledge of pile of math.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2011
I can give you a hint.
For example, the formation of mayonnaise is based on the formation of such tiny droplets too. It just requires to add the substance, which decreases the surface tension of oil. The cholesterol inside of egg yolk serves here as a soap and it promotes the formation of stable emulsion.

If you want to release the energy from mayonnaise back again, you'll just need to add another chemical, which will increase the surface tension of oil surface again. For example, you can add an alcohol to the mayonnaise, which will displace the cholesterol molecules from the surface of oil droplets. And the mayonnaise will separate into mixture of oil and watter again.
tkjtkj
not rated yet Nov 12, 2011
Sorry if this might duplicate a previous item here, but here is the NI-related article:
http://pesn.com/2...ontrols/
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2011
Sorry if this might duplicate a previous item here, but here is the NI-related article
Why not to search for National Instruments words in this page first? This is just a problem with many physicists - they're willing to repeat the same research again and again, because they're not bothering to read existing information about it - and they can even get some money for their ignorance, because they're doing something individually. It's estimated, more than sixty percent of scientific research is redundant, simply because the physicists cannot manage the informational explosion. They do prefer to introduce another redundancy into it instead, until money of tax payers are going.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2011
There is a slight problem with the claims of National Instruments BUYING and e-cat device:
Today, Andrea Rossi signed an agreement with National Instruments to have them make all of the instrumentation for the E-Cat cold fusion plants, which began to be sold commercially on October 28 with the first 1 MW plant successfully tested in Bologna.
I don't see anything on that page that says NI is buying anything for Rossi. It says ROSSI is buying from NI.

So why the woop and hollering as if Rossi has a client in NI?

And Zephir the reason to look on the web is find out what actually happened as opposed to getting more hype that doesn't match the reality.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2011
I don't see anything on that page that says NI is buying anything for Rossi. It says ROSSI is buying from NI.
Just on the contrary. If Rossi invests into his technology in such generous way, it just serves as an indicia, he is not developing a scam, or he would just decrease his profit at the case of fraud. In addition, he's hiring employee around Miami (Fl), Boston (Ma) and Manchester (N.H.). Would a real fraud invest into people in this way? At the case of failure he just would increase the risk of legal action from the side of these people.

You apparently never think in such way, do you?
wellgroundedengineer
5 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2011
The National Instuments trope seems to have been well and truly skewered. First, they've gone one the record that Rossi/Leonardo are no more than a "over the counter" customer for instruments

" There are thousands of researchers and engineers in the world trying to solve alternative energy challenges and National Instruments provides tools to many of these scientists. One example is the Leonardo Corporation who intends to use NI tools for various applications. Specific details are still in development"

Second, they've denied absolutely being a purchaser of an e-cat.

This sort of thing seems too frequent for comfort around Rossi - overblown claims of collaborators and contracts which then turn out to be unsubstantiated. It inevitably rings alarm bells

Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2011
There is a slight problem with the claims of National Instruments...


Correct, Rossi has signed an agreement with NI to build instrumentation for his products. NI -- being the reputable company they are -- made sure that the wording of the PESN press release said that the agreement is not an acknowledgement of the product's capabilities.

Anyone who has ever had to set up mfg. or distribution channels knows that, in modern industrial nations, there's a whole slew of "turnkey solution" companies out there to make the process pretty smooth if you are a startup.

So, It can be taken solely as yet another indication that Rossi is confident he will be moving forward.

That said, it is interesting to note that NI is a big player in their niche, the kind of company that someone who is both serious and receiving excellent professional advice on the business front would choose to work with.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2011
Would a real fraud invest into people in this way?
Yes. It is SOP for fraud artists to spend money on looking like they are successful.

At the case of failure he just would increase the risk of legal action from the side of these people.
Or the plant could just happen to burn down again. He got away with one fraud why do you think he doesn't expect to get away with two.

You apparently never think in such way, do you?
I prefer to think realistically instead of going on the pure fantasy idea that a fraud artist worries about spending money they got from the previous fraud they managed to not be jailed for.

Go read about how Ponzi artists work. Most of them even manage to convince themselves they were just about to succeed. And when they get out of jail they do it again.

Fraud artists consistently spend money to make it look like they aren't worried about failure.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2011
It is SOP for fraud artists to spend money on looking like they are successful.
Yes, but to spend money into their representation (i.e. in private consumption) - not into their factories and products. After all, what you would get from your scam, if you would spend all profit in contracts with your partners?

If you believe, such money spending can serve as an indicia of fraud, then every honest investor would behave like fraudster too and you cannot use such behavior as a criterion of fraud anymore. So it has no meaning to judge scientific relevance of E-Cat device by business model of its producer.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2011
how Ponzi artists work
Ponzi model is based on opportune transfer of business into another peers of the hiearchy. But A. Rossi exhibits no villingness to transfer his activities into another subjects - on the contrary.

Briefly speaking, if two people are doing the same thing, it may not be the same thing, until they're doing other things differently. For example, the fact we are both posting to the same thread doesn't mean, we share the same motivations for it.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2011
not into their factories and products.
Let me know when he does that. A contract to spend is not the same as actual expenditure.

After all, what you would get from your scam, if you would spend all profit in contracts with your partners?
He has not spent that kind of money. Now he did have a factory in the previous scam but how much hardware was in it?

Ponzi model is based on opportune transfer of business into another peers of the hiearchy.
I was referring to the behavior not the technical issues. Ponzis are very popular in the US. Ponzi ran his scam in Boston.

Rossi exhibits no villingness to transfer his activities into another subjects - on the contrary.
This is he second round of dubious business practices. Scam artist do dumb stuff all the time.

Briefly speaking, if two people are doing the same thing, it may not be the same thing, until they're doing other things differently.
You might want read that again. Its garbled. A skill I also have.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2011
If a person refuses proper testing and talks about sales but doesn't actually have any they are likely a scam artist.

For example, the fact we are both posting to the same thread doesn't mean, we share the same motivations for it.
We are not doing the same thing. I am discussing science, you are pushing a silly theory, and in your effort to do that you like to support people in their attacks on normal science.

And that 'HephaHeat' is a complete con. If you think that company is legit you not competent to discuss industry, technology or science. Here in interesting IRISH discussion of that Irish company that is taking government funds to gull the foolish.

http://www.politi...ted.html

They have produce nothing except a negative cash flow for their victims.

Ethelred
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2011
Nuclear Fusion (or merging of atomic nuclei) is resisted by the electromagnetic barriers of the atoms involved.

Valence electrons are electrons that atoms share, they keep the atoms molecularly bonded. This brings the nuclei of the atoms closer together.

The further into the electron orbitals the atomic nuclei get the less energy is required to get the nuclei to fuse.

Chemical bonds allow for fusion to take place at sub-fusion temperatures.

The closer two atomic nuclei are to each other the easier it is to get them to fuse.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2011
The theory of cold fusion of Piantelli explains this effect with hydride formation. Hydride ion is of negative charge, so it's actually attracted to atom nuclei, instead of repulsed. IMO this effect is definitely working at the case of cold fusion, because all elements which are exhibiting cold fusion (Nickel, Palladium, Zirconium) tend to form hydrides too. But it may not be sufficient for complete explanation of cold fusion itself. Fortunately, there are another mechanisms in the game. Probably the best idea comes from Frank Znidarsic and it's based on the Mossbauer resonance of surface waves of electrons with longitudinal waves of atom nuclei. It explains, why the cold fusion is accelerated with oscillating electromagnetic field, which A. Rossi E-Cat unit is probably using too.

http://www.scribd...-Gravity
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2011
Hydride ion is of negative charge, so it's actually attracted to atom nuclei, instead of repulsed.
Ionized molecules don't fuse. Nuclei fuse and the hydrogen nucleus is positive. Handwaving isn't going to give that proton a negative charge.

which are exhibiting cold fusion (Nickel, Palladium, Zirconium) tend to form hydrides too
No. IF there is any cold fusion going its due to the close packing from adsorption. For this to occur the hydrogen needs be forced into close proximity by a really strong lattice. It is the adsorption of hydrogen ions not hydride ions that would have that effect as the oxygen in the hydride would just get in the way. The creation of hydride ions simply means that there should be hydrogen ions around.

But it may not be sufficient for complete explanation of cold fusion itself.
Isn't even part of it. It would STOP fusion. You have the physics here, assuming there is any fusion going on, backwards.>>
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2011
An extension of this work would universally swap Plancks constant and V t
V is velocity thee. That is silly. This paper includes claims about anti-gravity. Its a crank paper. Nothing in it can be considered even remotely of any scientific value. He thinks you can get anti-gravity by playing with electrical fields. Can't be done. Gravity is NOT a real force. It is a result of the curvature of space by matter-energy. To curve space the opposite way that matter-energy does will require negative energy-matter. The only known negative energy is gravity. A negative charge is still positive energy. Electricity, whether it is a being being manipulated as a 3 megahertz field or not is still positive energy.

Ethelred
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2011
Etelred, the simple negation of my posts is not an argument. You know, I'm not wasting my time with recognized internet trolls. So you should consult your problems with founders of cold fusion, i.e. prof. Piantelli and F. Znidarsic, not with me. They wrote many publications about their models, so you can write some as well. And we will see..
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2011
Etelred, the simple negation of my posts is not an argument
Since that wasn't what I did then this post of yours is not an argument. I showed what was wrong not a simple negation.

You know, I'm not wasting my time with recognized internet trolls.
Since you are considered exactly that on every forum you post on that is just bit hypocritical. And false as I am not trolling.

So you should consult your problems with founders of cold fusion, i.e. prof. Piantelli and F. Znidarsic, not with me
They did not start cold fusion. Nor are the one posting here. I am dealing with what YOU posted. It was wrong. If they are responsible for that then perhaps you should give up using their ideas.

It was the science that was wrong. I don't if it came from them or you. You were the one posted it.

They wrote many publications about their models, so you can write some as well.
Why would I write up stuff about a technology that has no real evidence of working?

Ethelred
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2011
It was the science that was wrong.


Sometimes errors arise when theory is experimentally applied. Sometimes the right parameters are not set and the experiment apparatus shows a false negative relationship of theory to experiment (the theory is correct but the incorrect apparatus assembly shows the theory as false when in reality it hasn't even been properly tested).

Cold (I have a problem with this label, when matter is "cold" it is energyless and doesn't exist) fusion is possible within today's physical models. Either the physical laws are FALSE or 'cold' fusion is TRUE.

The total external input energy (force we physically have to add to the system) required to fuse two atoms can be lowered by adjusting and playing with the internal energy (the acting forces between the atoms).

The total energy required for fusion remains the same. What is lowered is the amount of external force required, because, the atoms themselves are already STRONGLY attracting each other.
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2011
Callipo is correct. There are physical cheats that allow for fusion at colder temperatures than those found in stars. It is all about setting the right conditions. When two atoms are already on the verge of merger just a little nudge will complete the job.

Same result with less force applied.
Turritopsis
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2011
Nickel produces electromagnetic field lines that allow for hydrogen to fall directly onto the nickel. This is fusion, two atoms sharing all electrons. In a molecule an electron will go around both nuclei, in a fused molecule all the electrons encompass the two nuclei. The nuclei burn as one.

Nickel polarizes so the electromagnetic energy of the nickel atoms the chunk of matter comprises have two exit routes (north and south), the individual atoms aren't as resistive as all of their energy is already invested into the em field.

If hydrogen is injected inside the generated field it simply fuses. Its electron turns into the generated electromagnetic field.

Cheat to fusion through quantum em field calculations. If you inject hydrogen inside of the em field the nickel creates the way to fusion is possible at a cost much less than normally required. Big piece of nickel creating the polarized field hydrogen is injected within (within the field of nickel) the pressurized reactor
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2011
Martini and Rossi will be back in jail for fraud within 3 years.

What will Callipo say then?

Probably that the trial was all a conspiracy by the hot fusion people and the Illuminati to prevent further research on hot fusion.

Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
is in constant flux. The nickel enclosure is bombarded with its own energy. Fusion is nuclear burn. Chemical burn is matter forming molecules. Nuclear burn is matter forming elements. The nuclear fire (electrons, positrons, photons (gamma and lower), neutrons, quantum fluctuations allow for any particle really at any time so you could technically say that during fusion you are creating every type of radiation possible).

Point being the nuclear burn produces pressure in the reactor, the pressure produced causes fusion. Chicken egg, chicken egg. The fusion cause pressure spike which causes fusion.

I used nickel as an example to stay on topic of the article. Nickel is not the only matterial that can be used to generate these field lines that favor molecularization which in turn favors nuclear fusion.

By manipulating the em field you can do whatever you want with matter you can even create it out of pure energy (light).

Personally I think Frank Znidarsic is a genius.
Skepticus
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
All scientists who found some anomalous energy generation methods that are outside of our peer-reviewed scientific knowledge base are incompetent, fraudsters who will always peddle their scams to the public for money and fame. As objective scientists, is is beneath us to even bother to replicate EXACTLY what they did, because we KNOW that it is all bullshit. Our existing peer-reviewed knowledge is authoritative and sufficient, we have no need to investigate the questionable, because our theories are facts that could never be improved upon-our countless peer-reviewed works left nothing questionable to exist.
Ethelred
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
I take it that was intended as over the top sarcasm.

Still anyone pushing a over-unity motor is conning someone. Usually they start by conning themselves.

Cold fusion may be possible but Rossi has gone out of his way to avoid giving proof, to make it LOOK like something is happening without allowing any actual evidence to be obtained. He has hyped alleged business partners, clients, and even now a source, yet not once is there any evidence that anyone reliable has the actual device to test.

This smoke and mirrors business is standard for fraud. The illusion of actual business going on instead of clear evidence of actual business is not giving me any confidence in this guy.

It would be really nice if it was real. But the only reason we don't know if it real is he won't let anyone find out.

Some of you guy need to learn what I learned as a child. Magic, its the illusion reality without the substance. Fun to learn. Real magicians really do use mirrors.

Ethelred
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
Cold fusion may be possible but Rossi has gone out of his way to avoid giving proof
This is just a conjecture of yours. I'm perfectly sure, if cold fusion requires some secret ingredient, you would choose exactly the same secretive approach, or your advance would become virtual: everyone would start with copying of your technology. After all, many technologies which we are using on daily basis are covered with technological secrecy: from Cola to microprocessors. And no one is questioning these things.
Callippo
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2011
The frustrating thing about Piantelli is that he has been able to produce this reaction for 17 years without much consideration by the scientific world. Shockingly, the ubiquitous wikipedia doesn't even have an entry on him.

http://nickelpowe...antelli/

It demonstrates the true respect of public to scientists and scientists to founders.
Callippo
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2011
Cold fusion may be possible but Rossi has gone out of his way to avoid giving proof
If you aren't suspicious to research of Piantelli, who is claiming COP=3, I don't know, what's your problem with A. Rossi, who is claiming the COP=6. If nothing else, it's logical evolution of twenty years standing research of phenomena, which theoretically enables COP over million. We should ask instead, if it's nuclear process, why its COP is not a much higher already.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
"The frustrating thing about Piantelli is that he has been able to produce this reaction for 17 years" - Callipo

You just have no proof that he can do it.

"Shockingly, the ubiquitous wikipedia doesn't even have an entry on him." - Callipo

Have you looked under the heading "FRAUD ARTISTS"
Callippo
2.2 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
Unfortunately, your skepticism will not help anybody, even not to mainstream physics. Even mainstream physicists are starting to suffer with lack of money, which is the consequence of the price of oil raising, which is the consequence of their ignorance of cold fusion. In another words, the mainstream physicists are becoming the victims of their own ignorance and they've no other option, than to deal with cold fusion too - or to die out as an ignorants and useless parasites of human society.
Skepticus
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2011
So, according to the last few posts, the SOP of science these days is "guilty until proved innocent." All I see is a bunch of scientists peered over their glasses, looking shocked and indignant, and said "It's a scam! We can't get our hands on his data, his X-43 model to test and prove to ourselves that it reached M10! Until he turns everything to us to look at, a scam it is!". I suppose if you give the latest thermonuclear warhead to Zimbabwean scientists (sorry, Zimbabweans) to play with, they will make head or tail of hows every component of thing EXACTLY works and HOW, in very short order.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
..can't resist..
Still anyone pushing alleged WMD is conning someone. Usually they start by conning themselves. The Vatican allegedly is making WMD but it has avoided giving proof away, so to the "international community" it LOOKS like something is happening without allowing any actual evidence to be obtained. There was Russian help, test hardware, and even now a computer simulation, yet not once is there any evidence that anyone reliable has the actual smoking gun.
This smoke and mirrors business is standard for politics. The illusion of something going on instead of clear evidence of actual facts is not giving me any confidence in this "intel".
It would be really bad if it was real. But the only reason we don't know if it's real is the intel sources won't let anyone to accept any except their version.
Some of you guy need to learn what I learned as a child. Commie Propaganda, it's the illusion of reality without the substance. Fun to listen. Real propagandists do use smoke and mirror
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
After all, many technologies which we are using on daily basis are covered with technological secrecy; from Coca Cola to microprocessors. And no one is questioning these things.

A pretty darn good point...
Ethelred
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
This is just a conjecture of yours.
It is a conclusion that MANY have come to. Nothing is stopping him from doing a proper test.

I'm perfectly sure, if cold fusion requires some secret ingredient, you would choose exactly the same secretive approach,
No. Not unless I was running a scam. Take the thing to a University. Get a non-disclosure agreement on details of the gizmo. Run the bloody thing for a few days on the Universities table with the Universities power to initiate it unless it need continuous power at a low level. This is not that hard to do.

from Cola to microprocessors. And no one is questioning these things.
No one is claiming to produce more power than they put in. They are making money on the products and anyone can see that they work. This is not the case with Rossi.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2011
If you aren't suspicious to research of Piantelli, who is claiming COP=3,
Who said that? I didn't. Don't even care about him. 17 years and he can't convince people. That means he doesn't have anything to convince them with.

I don't know, what's your problem with A. Rossi, who is claiming the COP=6
Look again at my first post on this. There is hype in the article BUT no reality. Its all Rossi's word. That is my problem. SHOW EVIDENCE that it works.

We should ask instead, if it's nuclear process
No one has any evidence that it is. Rossi has produced none. He has not produced evidence of more power out than in.

What is so hard to get here? You are taking his word without a bit of evidence to support it.

While there is no Wiki for Piantelli there is for Ecat.
http://en.wikiped...atalyzer

And Rossi
http://en.wikiped...eneur%29
>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2011
Rossi claims to have orders from customers in the US and Europe for thirteen more 1 MW units in addition to the undisclosed customer from the October 28 test. He offers these for sale at a rate of $2000/kilowatt, making the price for a 1 MW unit $2 million
So there is the money you have claimed isn't involved, assuming anyone has paid or even signed a contract. We only have Rossi's word at this point that anyone has.

Ethelred
Skepticus
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
No one is claiming to produce more power than they put in.

Riight. So all the hydro power plants are bullshit, because they only used scant power to open the floodgates to generate gigawatts of power. And the few hundred pounds of explosives couldn't have liberated the fission bombs' power. The designers and operators should be all lined up against the wall and shot pronto.
Cynical1
2.8 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
Anyway, further conjecture is pretty pointless.

A few of you think it can work. I hope it does. However, I don't have enough data to say yea or nay.

A large number of you speak confidently that it's a fraud. Again, I don't have enough data. Altho, it makes me think of Shakespeare"s "Me thinks thou does protest to much..."

Heres the data I DO have; This article has generated a LARGE amount of controversy, so it is evident that you ALL are excited, overtly or secretly, over the possibility it COULD be a reality, but express it in different ways.

To all, I say - we haven't yet heard the fat lady sing. None of you has lost more than 2 cents (the going cost of un- substantiated opinion, these days)on this, so -
"Lighten up, Francis(s)."
Skepticus
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
@Cynical1

I think you are deliberately trying to be nice and calm down the differences in opinions. Nothing wrong with that. However, IMHO, the mega-industrialists and their ilk do not get where they are and stay there by being reactive, but proactive. That's means planning ahead for every contingencies that may topple their empires and take away their bread and butter. That means passive means, active counter offensives to eliminate the threat, legally, illegally, overt or covert, and more. Why do you think the US stationed strategic bases in Japan, Qatar, Thailand...and elsewhere?
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
"No. Not unless I was running a scam. Take the thing to a University. Get a non-disclosure agreement on details of the gizmo. Run the bloody thing for a few days on the Universities table with the Universities power to initiate it unless it need continuous power at a low level. This is not that hard to do."

I'm not a lawyer, but as an inventor I would be a little reticent in doing that in as much as I have seen what people will do with your invention once they see it (and the dollar signs associated).
NO amount of legal protection is gonna stop them from copying your stuff, cuz it will take YEARS to sort out. And you'd better have a shitload of money to get that sorting done, as well. All the while they will be making money from YOUR invention.
Hell, look at all the current patent suits going on with Apple and the like. It's the lawyers who will be laughing all the way to the bank, not you. I think Rossi understands the legal system better than you realize...
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
Asnd Universities - think about where THEY'RE funding comes from. A hint - It ain't from little guys who invent crap in their garages.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2011
Riight. So all the hydro power plants are bullshit, because they only used scant power to open the floodgates to generate gigawatts of power.
Wroong. I never said anything about power plants. Please learn how to read.

And the few hundred pounds of explosives couldn't have liberated the fission bombs' power.
Didn't mention that either.

The designers and operators should be all lined up against the wall and shot pronto.
I knew you had issues but full a full blown psychosis seems a bit beyond the norm for you.

from Cola to microprocessors. And no one is questioning these things.
What I copied from Zephir and replied to has nothing to do the crap you tried to pretend I said.

Stick to what I said and quit trying to make up shit and then claim I said it.

Ethelred
Cynical1
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
and another thing - look at the Apple or inket model. I believe I read Rossi's machine needs periodic "re-charging".
The REAL money is not in the main device - it's in the services provided to make that device work (and it's gonna take a large corporation to provide that kind of infra structure)
And remember the very powerful industrialist (Westinghouse, I think) who shut down Tesla's broadcast power research - "Can't meter it to charge for it to make me more money, so - shut it down..."
By bad-rapping Rossi and his machine, you may be HELPING the Westinghouses of the world. Those who would rather see it not exist then to not be making mega bucks with it (historical observation has shown this to be the case more often than not).

Making US - Unwitting shills in someone elses game...
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2011
Asnd Universities - think about where THEY'RE funding comes from.
Apologies for spelling and incorrect grammar -

And universities - think about where THEIR funding comes from...
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2011
A large number of you speak confidently that it's a fraud. Again, I don't have enough data. Altho, it makes me think of Shakespeare"s "Me thinks thou does protest to much..."
I would like it be true but the behavior has been almost a perfect example of what scam artists do.

I'm not a lawyer, but as an inventor I would be a little reticent in doing that in as much as I have seen what people will do with your invention once they see it
Patents. Rossi has one. I never said he had to take apart and show the details. Just let someone test the black box. Check the inputs and the outputs. He has given people what he claimed was metal that was the same as what went in and another sample he claimed was from a used cell. Only the used stuff had iron in it and there is nothing about iron in Rossi's writings and it had standard copper isotope ratios which doesn't seem right for transmutation of nickel. It should all have been the same isotope or at least different from the norm.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2011
Oh sorry I missed something above. Rossi's patent might be based on prior work. Zephir claims it is the same as Piantelli's. In which case Rossi is the one that is stealing intellectual property.

NO amount of legal protection is gonna stop them from copying your stuff, cuz it will take YEARS to sort out.
Triple damages. Ask Ford about that. Or Kodak.

All the while they will be making money from YOUR invention.
And have to pay triple.

Hell, look at all the current patent suits going on with Apple and the like.
Those are crap patents. Software patents aren't even legal in Europe.

I think Rossi understands the legal system better than you realize...
I think he understands it better than YOU realize. Again there is no need to give away the details. Just the power in vs the power out.

A hint - It ain't from little guys who invent crap in their garages.
Tell that to Apple. They will laugh.

Ethelred
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
Assuming none of us is a mega-industrialist or corporate giant, I just think we all aught to be rooting for the little guy, not knocking him.
And Red - psternts don't mean a thing. It'll be years before a decision is ever made. Again, the lawyers will be the ones laughing all the way to the bank...(Now THAT's a scam)
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2011
patents, Not psternts
Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2011
A hint - It ain't from little guys who invent crap in their garages.
Tell that to Apple. They will laugh.

You took that comment completely away from within its context (about university funding).

And - perhaps they've been seduced by the dark side. money and success do evil things....
prokaryote
5 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2011
Anyone else find it a bit odd that the claimed output of the E-cat = 470kW while a running diesel generator rated at 500kW was connected to the E-cat for the duration? How long could that generator run at ~ 500kW output given it's limited fuel supply and how long was the test again? Just saying...
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
Who said that? I didn't. Don't even care about him. 17 years and he can't convince people
This is just what I'm saying here all the time. The scientific publications don't count for the people like you. So you cannot get any better evidence. Because whole the existence of quarks, Big Bang and evolution is based just on scientific publications. No one ever saw these things personally. The people like you would deny the cold fusion from the same reason, like the sixty percent of Americans are denying the evolution by now.

The only question remains: so what? Why I should care about them? Why I should care about you?
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
Assuming none of us is a mega-industrialist or corporate giant, I just think we all aught to be rooting for the little guy, not knocking him.
Ponzi was a little guy. I am not going to root for him.

http://en.wikiped...ki/Ponzi

And Red - psternts don't mean a thing.
No I don't suppose psternts do mean a thing. Patents do though.

Again, the lawyers will be the ones laughing all the way to the bank...(Now THAT's a scam)
The lawyers really don't get as much as people think in this sort of thing. They do rather well in the US of course but Rossi isn't in the US. Neither is the patent.

patents, Not psternts
Either way it really isn't relevant since there is not need for Rossi to give the details. Again all that is needed is audit of the power in vs power out. You are ignoring this.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2011
You took that comment completely away from within its context (about university funding).
George Lucas AND Steven Spielberg(who went to Long Beach State) give money to USC. The context wasn't relevant because the concept wasn't relevant. The key here is that Rossi is evading testing in a way that is classic.

And - perhaps they've been seduced by the dark side. money and success do evil things....
Perhaps the horse will sing. But I have my doubts.

Look my point in posting on this thread was to point out the reality of the situation. ALL the information that implies success has come from one man.

Keep an open mind but not so far open your brains fall out.

Or you can wind up like the people of Boston did with Ponzi. Or Ireland with HephaHeat which has failed every time.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2011
That's means planning ahead for every contingencies that may topple their empires and take away their bread and butter.
I wonder why people tend to fall for the greed angle and fail to consider the social and economic disruption that new tech such as this could cause?

An energy source such as this would cause the west to lose its influence on events in the middle east. Oil-based economies would collapse throwing millions out of work and crashing stocks, commodities, and currencies. Military tech could become obsolete in a short time leading to dangerous vulnerabilities.

These are the things which truly scare wealthy and powerful people. They fear that the money they already have will become worthless because the govts which back it collapse. They fear for instance what happened in cuba as weallth and business were nationalized.

New tech has the potential to do these things. Which is why no Power Structure would allow it to be introduced at the wrong Time. It is about Survival.
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
The scientific publications don't count for the people like you.
What publications? Evidence doesn't count for people like you. Wishful thinking is more important.

Because whole the existence of quarks, Big Bang and evolution is based just on scientific publications.
And evidence that is in those publications. Solid evidence that can be checked. Quarks or something like them are fit the evidence. BB theory fits the evidence as well or better than any alternatives but it may be wrong. Evolution is as real as GR.

No one ever saw these things personally.
Sorry but that is false. Perhaps you would be wiser to leave out evolution next time you want to disparage real science to support nonsense. The evidence for quarks is quite strong. I have never seen an atom either. Heck I have never seen you. Well there is that photo on the one web site but I am not 100% positive it is you.>>
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
The people like you would deny the cold fusion from the same reason, like the sixty percent of Americans are denying the evolution by now.
Uh no. They deny megatons of evidence. I am pointing out that the little evidence there is for cold fusion is for VERY small amounts of it going on. There was absolutely none for the original cold fusion and almost none for anything since. In every case it has turned out be either at exceedingly low levels or dubious measurements.

Why I should care about them?
I have no idea why you would care about anything. You don't seem to care about evidence or reason.

Why I should care about you?
I don't know but you sure keep responding.

Ethelred
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
In every case it has turned out be either at exceedingly low levels or dubious measurements.
Evidence of quarks is even weaker, whereas we have thousands of publications about cold fusion effects. We are facing double standards here: existence of quarks can feed theorists, the existence of cold fusion will doubt them. The consequence is undeniable: the mainstream physics has no interest about cold fusion research. The problem isn't, that we haven't peer-reviewed evidence of cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel, but the complete lack of any peer-reviewed attempts for their replications.

Whereas we have thousands of peer-revived attempts for gravitational wave detection. Despite to these waves aren't real more, than any other phenomena discussed here. And what's worse - we have no usage for them with compare to cold fusion. How is it possible, the mainstream physics is wasting money of tax payers in verification of useless phenomena and ignores the research of these useful ones?
Skepticus
1 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
Riight. So all the hydro power plants are bullshit, because they only used scant power to open the floodgates to generate gigawatts of power.
Wroong. I never said anything about power plants. Please learn how to read.

And the few hundred pounds of explosives couldn't have liberated the fission bombs' power.
Didn't mention that either.

So, you don't deny that by using a relative small amount of energy input, large amount of energy can be released, with suitable physical gizmo? All your objections are based on the lack of accepted theory explaining Rossi's device, while glossing over the floodgate principle implicit in my post.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2011
So, you don't deny that by using a relative small amount of energy input, large amount of energy can be released, with suitable physical gizmo
And when did you stop beating your wife Mr. Skepticus.

Quit trying to make up my position.

All your objections are based on the lack of accepted theory explaining Rossi's device, while glossing over the floodgate principle implicit in my post.
My objections are the there is no evidence to support the E-cat.

You don't have principles as long you keep trying to put words in my mouth.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
My objections are the there is no evidence to support the E-cat
And my objections are, there is no evidence of the lack of evidence supporting the E-Cat. Where's the problem?
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
Evidence of quarks is even weaker, whereas we have thousands of publications about cold fusion effects
The evidence for quarks is strong. Thousands of publications most which came up negative for evidence, many of which were retractions of bad measurements, and of course a lot of stuff that was peer reviewed only by people that Believed.

Crap evidence is worthless.

We are facing double standards here
Yes. You demand to hold a quark in hand but take Rossi's word.

existence of quarks can feed theorists
And scams feed fraud artists. But neutrons decay into protons which is pretty strong evidence for quarks.

The consequence is undeniable: the mainstream physics has no interest about cold fusion research.
Not after all the failures and false positives.

The problem isn't, that we haven't peer-reviewed evidence of cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel,
The problem is that the evidence is reviewed by people that want to believe. A whole industry of X-Files.>>
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
Whereas we have thousands of peer-revived attempts for gravitational wave detection.
I don't there are that many. And none of the efforts have had any expectation of finding the waves. Now if the next level of experimentation doesn't find it there is a problem.

Despite to these waves aren't real more, than any other phenomena discussed here.
They actually fit a theory that works. GR is about as solid as theories get.

And what's worse - we have no usage for them with compare to cold fusion.
Wishful thinking is not a valid reason to believe something is real.

ow is it possible, the mainstream physics is wasting money of tax payers in verification of useless phenomena
They aren't. The money is going to learn how the Universe works and it isn't that much money.

ignores the research of these useful ones?
The lack of evidence to support the claims.>>
Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
The problem is that the evidence is reviewed by people that want to believe
Of course, the mainstream physicists don't want to believe it and they demonstrated it twenty years with their ignorance. So that only believers remain by now.
And none of the efforts have had any expectation of finding the waves
LOL, are you trying to say, none of publications about GW predicted their finding? Isn't it apparent, you're spreading whatever BS, which you can invent right in this moment?

I admit, it's a serious problem - but is it really just a problem of believers?
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
The problem is that the evidence is reviewed by people that want to believe
Why the people who don't believe in LHC safety and/or gravitational waves aren't allowed to judge the investments into LHC or gravitational waves detectors? Why just the believers are always involved? You got a good point, but if you want to reform the science, you should start right here. With respect to the zero usefulness of LHC or gravitational waves the parity criterion should be even more strict, than at the case of cold fusion judging.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2011
And my objections are, there is no evidence of the lack of evidence supporting the E-Cat. Where's the problem?
Gosh that means so much. What evidence is there? None. Just his word.

What customers? What tests? What measurments that didn't come from Rossi?

The only evidence I seeing is that people that want to believe don't care about evidence. Kind of like Kevin.

Of course, the mainstream physicists don't want to believe it and they demonstrated it twenty years with their ignorance.
Utter horseshit. The stuff was tested up the wazoo for several years starting 1989.

So that only believers remain by now.
Yep. People that just don't like evidence.

but is it a problem of believers?
Yes. Much like Kevin, deny the evidence and accept the excuses for that lack of evidence.

Wish in one hand and do something else in the other and see which one comes true first - Roger Zelazny.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
People that just don't like evidence.
Nope, the people, who don't like the evidence stayed at home and they never bothered to check Piantelli and Foccardi publications. Just the people who do like the evidence both checked these publications, both visited the public demonstrations of Rossi.

Much like Kevin, deny the evidence and accept the excuses for that lack of evidence.
Well, this is a good example of pathological skeptic, who had support of whole mainstream physics and who failed in skeptical judging of most important findings of his era (radiowaves, X-rays, flight of planes). He was distinguished troll in this point in the same way, like you - unfortunately for you you're not even a recognized authority of mainstream science.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2011
Why the people who don't believe in LHC safety and/or gravitational waves aren't allowed to judge the investments into LHC or gravitational waves detectors?
You don't get to vote on the US budget. Its not yours. You get to scream at the Czech government. Ubavontube can bug his representatives all he want but the US doesn't control LHC either.

The LHC can only do one thing that cosmic rays don't already do. Run the collisions where the sensors are. So Uva is just silly on this and if you agreed with him you were too.

Japan pissed away 20 megabucks on cold fusion research. They don't waste the money anymore.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2011
Neverthelles, the case of prof. Kelvin can serve as an example, how the mainstream science can be wrong regarding the relevance of important findings up to level, when it becomes a brake of further evolution, instead of catalyst of it. It happened with Kelvin and it happened many times later. It should be pointed out, Mr. Kelvin was convinced aetherist. Now the situation is exactly the same, just reversed. It illustrates, how the cyclic model of Universe is working.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
Japan pissed away 20 megabucks on cold fusion research. They don't waste the money anymore.
Because they got the results of Piantelli's research...;-)
The LHC can only do one thing that cosmic rays don't already do.
Cosmic rays cannot collide the protons with zero momentum toward Earth. They cannot collide them with spatial density of many billions of protons per square centimeter. They cannot colide the protons with matter outside of sparse atmosphere. They don't drag and collide lead or gold nuclei during this. There is lotta things, which the cosmic rays cannot do with compare to LHC..

http://www.techno...v/27319/
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
Nope, the people, who don't like the evidence stayed at home and they never bothered to check Piantelli and Foccardi publications.
Fantasy. That isn't evidence that is religion.

Well, this is a good example of pathological skeptic, who had support of whole mainstream physics
Uhg. KEVIN as Kevin that posts religious nonsense here. He has no support in physics. Doesn't understand it at all.

He was distinguished troll in this point in the same way, like you
That word does not mean what you think it means.

Now YOU are a troll. Confirmed on site after site. Banned on site after site, including this one.

unfortunately for you you're not even a recognized authority of mainstream science.
Neither are you. You sure do pack in the hypocrisy.>>
Cynical1
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2011
You said this - you must be stupid.
I didn't say that - Don't call me stupid.
Yada, Yada, yada...

Grow up. Maybe even get jobs. I don't care.
All this arguin bout who said what and what was said is this or that. sheesh...
It's a wait n see game at this point, all the relevant comments have been made and the rest is just inter personal bickering. (altho I did find relevance in Otto's most recent post).
"The funny thing about 'the big picture' is that there always turns out to be a bigger picture..."
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2011
Neverthelles, the case of prof. Kelvin can serve as an example
No. Don't know who the hell you are talking about and considering its coming from I don't much care either.

Oh I see its that reading problem you have again. KEVIN not Lord Kelvin. I would have said Lord Kelvin if I had meant him. Funny how you like to use obsolete science.

It should be pointed out, Mr. Kelvin was convinced aetherist.
A lot of people had that problem. Many of them got over it.

t illustrates, how the cyclic model of Universe is working.
Sorry but Acceleration makes that unlikely. And since you don't like red shift and there is no blue shift outside the Local Group why the hell would you like a cyclic Universe anyway?

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2011
Grow up. Maybe even get jobs. I don't care.
All this arguin bout who said what and what was said is this or that. sheesh...
If a person has to make up both sides of an argument they are incompetent.

It's a wait n see game at this point,
Yes. I was clear about that. The catch is Rossi is acting like someone that doesn't anyone to see.

http://en.wikiped...The_Turk

That fake wasn't uncovered for decades. I don't think anyone was really defrauded by it though as it was entertainment.

Ethelred
ChemE
5 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
I am a career Chemical Engineer working in industry. I really want to believe in this technology since it would change the world and create alot of work for everyone retrofitting existing infrastructure. What troubles me is that it would be very easy and relatively inexpensive to add the proper instrumentation and monitor this thing for a few days and close up a simple energy balance. All i seem to see is very short spurts of data with instruments in the wrong place and a general lack of data. At first glance i also wonder why the 1 MW system required either a 500 kW or 300 kW (680 hp or 408 hp) genset connected to it. Based upon water/steam flows i see that system should require nothing close to that hp to drive the heating elements and water pumps... Engineers don't necessarily care what is in the black box but how it integrates into the plant. If these things run continuosly for days/months they should hook it up to a pc and log the data for review by the world.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
As a former chemical engineer you would probably understand it. The cold fusion is apparently reaction, the speed of which strongly depends on the temperature and exhibits the hysteresis. Actually it's similar situation, like at the case of nuclear reactors which are using fission and which are unstable at low energy density regime too. As such the E-Cat requires the external source of heat, which keeps the nickel catalyst in the stable regime prone to overheating. IMO The risk of accidental explosions is the reason, why A. Rossi doesn't prefer the self-sustained regime of E-Cat units.
they should hook it up to a pc and log the data for review by the world
Why they should do it? Such data can be faked so easily, that the skeptics wouldn't belive it anyway. It would just a waste of money and precious time of A. Rossi team.
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
A. All this arguin bout who said what and what was said is this or that. sheesh...
If a person has to make up both sides of an argument they are incompetent.

B. It's a wait n see game at this point,
Yes. I was clear about that. The catch is Rossi is acting like someone that doesn't anyone to see.

Per A - What?!?!? I wasn't talkin bout a single commentator - I was talkin bout several.

Per B - So, stop trying to catch him at something - and wait n see!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2011
It's a wait n see game at this point, all the relevant comments have been made and the rest is just inter personal bickering. (altho I did find relevance in Otto's most recent post)
THANKyou. All pundits and pissants please take note. You know who you are.

So what about the navy research which found neutrons? I would think that's encouraging, yes?
ChemE
5 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2011
Performing a simple energy balance around a steady state operation would not require "precious time". He should use a co- op student from the University to it, do they would probably work for free. He ought to be able to plug one of those reactors into a wall socket to run those heating elements (the reactor is insulated right?) and a couple of small pumps. Use the genset as an emergency backup. If those reactors cannot achieve steady state and Rossi cannot provide a specification sheet for the unit they do not yet belong in industry.
ChemE
Nov 13, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2011
"So what about the navy research which found neutrons? I would think that's encouraging, yes?" - Otto

Neutrons are hard to detect and false positives are common.

I am in favor of some gubderment funding - a little - to resolve these issues, and either confirm or deny what is going on.

What we have now are researchers holding up bits of plastic against the reaction chambers and then looking for little tracks left in the plastic as a means of identifying what is being emitted - if anything.

Not tremendously precise a method that leaves open the means of production of the pits in the plastic as well as their interpretation.

All Martini And Rossi have to do is build a small prototype - something they have already done apparently - and allow some real scientists access to it to verify that it works.

They have refused to do so after years of claims.

Their last event was also closed so that the witnesses to it's operation could verify none of the claims.

Clearly they are Frauds.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2011
"Thermal Output Power - 1 MW" - ChemE

No independent verification of any power output.

Didn't even claim to operate at 1 MW, although a 1 MW generator was connected to it during the entire time it was supposedly generating it's own power.

Wouldn't grant anyone enough access to verify that it was working.

S.C.A.M.
Steve Robb
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2011
I have created a We The People Petition for the review by the White House that you can sign.

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
investigate the usefulness of the Energy Catalyzer, a creation of the Italian inventor Andrea Rossi.

The inventor claims to have created a cold-fusion device capable of producing prodigious amounts of energy by way of the fusion of nickel and hydrogen at very low cost and with no radioactive by-products and no greenhouse gas emissions. Other agencies or agents of the Federal Government including NASA, Department of Navy, DARPA have investigated these devices and believe they have great potential but they have kept as silent as possible on their findings. It is time that we bring that research into the open, hopefully by the purchase of an Energy Catalyzer and allowing for its testing in a intellectually open manner without the bias that has in the past been applied by the conventional physics community. The economic benefits should be obvious.
MrPhysOrg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
I wonder if I can sell some irenew bracelets to the navy?
savvys84
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
Hi Lisa,
Good luk to Rossi and his existing and potential customers. Though Iam not yet convinced of this tech and from my own Exp. if its legit, you can bet that, the military industrial complex will be watching him very closely.
unknownorgin
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
I do not know anything about rossi and until just now did not know about this device. I watched the video and while the accent may be hard to understand It appears that the measurements made by the instuments do tell somthing about the energy output and the system is not connected to feedback or be self sustaining in order to get an idea the ratio of amplification of input energy. energy input was 710 watts. energy output is 7 kilograms of water per hour at 30c raised to 100.1c. One gram of hydrogen powers the device for 24 hours. It is all in the video and apart from not telling exactly what is in the reactor there appears to be no effort to hide anything except intelectual property.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
Was just reading on wikipedia...
Andrea defrauded no one with his 1st product/invention - apparently, it worked as he claimed. He was jailed for illegal toxic dumping and tax fraud. And - acquitted 10 years later. (by the way, acquittal means NOT guilty of the charges).
His second device was bought by no one - it was SUBMITTED for evaluation, NOT sold - ergo, not a scam. When he scaled up a limited number of devices for evaluation, it didn't work as he had predicted, which happens to a LOT of entrpreneurs/inventors. (even me). A part if experimenting.
No millions made,BTW.
I don't see a scammer here. I see a guy who maybe let his excitement for an idea get a little ahead of his whole experiment process. Maybe he's learned from that.
Put, yourself in his shoes - How exactly would YOU feel if you thought you had a handle on such a game-changer?
No chills? no bumps? No accidental missing of a step or 2 because of the immense pressure?
Be honest - REALLY honest when you DO think bout it
Cynical1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
Red, you either don't do your research to any depth - just read the top tagline - or are counting on the rest of us not to.
I stick by my statement in an earlier thread, that you pull out only the PART of a story or statement in attempting to argue a point. That makes you contextually challenged. Your "tone" gives the appearance of a self-inflated ego (as evidenced by the fact that you "sign" every one of your comments, even when it is already there on the side) and I would hope that's not the real you.
And what was that crap about beating his wife, to another commentator, earlier? What a shitty way to treat someone.
It goes over the line of "friendly cajolery" and detracts from the whole "comment" concept. Instead of off-topic ranting diatribe why don't you try a little acceptance of others lesser knowledge?
Maybe civivility is the word I'm after. You know, like people use in the real world.
But, no - you'll prob'ly just 'context shred' this post, too.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:investigate the usefulness of the Energy Catalyzer, a creation of the Italian inventor Andrea Rossi.
I fully agree with this step. This action should be done in all countries by now. It's a matter of your safer future, not just living standard.
rawa1
1.8 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
Clearly they are frauds
Rossi doesn't work alone, he is surrounded with professors of Bologna University, prof. Focardi, who has published thirty publications about cold fusion during last twenty years, prof. Giuseppe Levy and many others. I'd recommend to consider a common sense, if nothing else.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
"How exactly would YOU feel if you thought you had a handle on such a game-changer?" - Cynicl1

I would make several of the devices turn key and then deposit them at several universities all over the world without any qualifications as to what could be looked at or how.

If the device works as indicated, he will want for nothing for the rest of his life - patent or no patent.

But it doesn't work. Hence the secrecy.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
"Focardi, who has published thirty publications about cold fusion during last twenty years." - Rawa

None taken seriously by main stream science, and none appearing in reputable scientific journals.
rawa1
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2011
But it doesn't work. Hence the secrecy.
This secrecy is simply because at the moment, when you publish the details, millions of Chinese will start to produce E-Cat a way cheaper, then Mr. Rossi ever can. The patents simply doesn't apply in China. Although the cold fusion appears as a good business, it's actually quite risky business at the moment, when everyone could implement it too. It's like production of personal computers - they indeed work perfectly, but you can make money with it just until the Asians will create the clones.
None taken seriously by main stream science, and none appearing in reputable scientific journals
Scientific journals don't accept the finding, until you have no theory for it. and vice-versa: at the moment when you have such a theory, nobody cares if the thing works or not (Higgs boson, gravitational waves, string theory..). This is simply the way, in which mainstream physics driven with bunch of theorists is working.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
Martini and Rossi sentenced to jail time within 3 years.

"millions of Chinese will start to produce E-Cat a way cheaper, then Mr. Rossi ever can." - Rawa

So you will only be hailed as the greatest man since Jesus rather than the greatest man since Jesus. And you will only live a life of luxury for that reason rather than living a life of luxury for that reason.

I fail to see the difference.

But I do not fail to see the F.R.A.U.D.

rawa1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
But I do not fail to see the F.R.A.U.D.
You have no direct evidence for it. You can be only unsure with legitimacy of E-Cat, which works well, only if you ignore all other indicia. You're simply focused to some details, which are fulfilling your hypothesis - while ignoring tons of others.
So you will only be hailed as the greatest man since Jesus rather than the greatest man since Jesus.
Being hailed as a Jesus is not a good business model, if we consider, you'll make no money with it and you should be crucified first. I'm sure, Mr. Rossi has a quite different intentions with his E-Cat product.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
@Ethelred:

You don't get to vote on the US budget. Its not yours. You get to scream at the Czech government. Ubavontube can bug his representatives all he want but the US doesn't control LHC either.
Why are you dragging me into this? I certainly do not support Rossi's E-Cat.

Why don't you give us more of your fear-mongering on Antarctic ice melt and 200 foot walls of water?

How's your ark coming along?

The LHC can only do one thing that cosmic rays don't already do. Run the collisions where the sensors are. So Uva is just silly on this and if you agreed with him you were too.
That's simply false, and you know this. Even CERN admitted this in the 2008 LSAG report (safety analysis). They subsequently provided a buffer to ensure safety.

But then, you never did understand the principles of the conservation of momentum, nor the distinctions between momentum and kinetic energy, did you?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
...continued...

Japan pissed away 20 megabucks on cold fusion research. They don't waste the money anymore.
A mere pittance to the gobs of money wasted on sustainable hot fusion energy research - the only difference between the two being sustainable hot fusion energy research has yeilded positive ...uh, some ...uh, I mean no net results either.

Egleton
2 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
Please stop protecting Muggins.
He is a big boy now. He can look after himself. You are not his protector. If he wants to spend his money on an eCat, let him. It is his call.

If you don't want to spend your money on an eCat, don't. It is no skin off my nose. Why should I care less?

I am suspicious of your paternalism.
Let events unfold as they will.
Mr Darwin is always right.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2011
the only difference between the two being sustainable hot fusion energy research has yeilded positive ...uh, some ...uh, I mean no net results either.

Hot fusion research has produced results: fusion events have been created and now can be created demonstrably, predictably and repeatedly. The whole thing rests on very solid theortical foundations (and simulations). No 'black box' or handwaving required.

The Q factor isn't, yet, high enough for self sustained operation - but that's about all that is missing.

But to say that this research hasn't produced any results is a complete lie.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
the only difference between the two being sustainable hot fusion energy research has yeilded positive ...uh, some ...uh, I mean no net results either.

Hot fusion research has produced results: fusion events have been created and now can be created demonstrably, predictably and repeatedly.
Sure, fusion "events" have been produced, but never with sustainable net energy production.

The whole thing rests on very solid theortical foundations (and simulations). No 'black box' or handwaving required.
Theoretical and practicable do not always agree.

The Q factor isn't, yet, high enough for self sustained operation - but that's about all that is missing.
It's the only thing that matters!

But to say that this research hasn't produced any results is a complete lie.
I can produce more net energy than sustainable fusion energy research has ever produced, simply by lighting a match. Would you pay me billions of dollars for that?

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Sure, fusion "events" have been produced, but never with sustainable net energy production.

One step at a time. Get fusion right, then up the Q-factor. Slow and steady, that is how science works. The 'miracle inventions' are few and far between. Even such seemingly revolutionary changes as Relativity or Quantum mechanics didn't happen over night but are the result of years of dilligent work based on previous knowledge.
- Start fusion
- Simulate the plasma
- Control the containment
- Work out the kinks in the system
- ...

Energy from fusion requires a lot of steps. It's not all one thing.

I can produce more net energy than sustainable fusion energy research has ever produced, simply by lighting a match. Would you pay me billions of dollars for that?

No, because you cannot, _sustainably_ , scale up lighting matches to produce a lot of energy. ITER is designed to actually start producing more than it needs (not on a continual basis, though.)
rawa1
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2011
ITER still doesn't exist, it will cost 16billions at least (and we can expect even twice as more based on experience with similar projects) and it will not finished before 2040 (btw ITER project was originally launched in 1985 and still doesn't exist even the building).

Many of you will not live enough to experience the launch of this project. Hole in the Earth is the current status of this project.

http://www.iter.o...5420.jpg
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
Many of you will not live enough to experience the launch of this project.

So? Is this a prerequisite? What has my (or your) lifetime to do with the advancement of science or whether a project is worthwhile or not?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
...continued...

Japan pissed away 20 megabucks on cold fusion research. They don't waste the money anymore.
A mere pittance to the gobs of money wasted on sustainable hot fusion energy research - the only difference between the two being sustainable hot fusion energy research has yeilded positive ...uh, some ...uh, I mean no net results either.
Not wasted. Toroidal magnetic confinement is the only known method of storing plasma in bulk. Tokamak and related programs have generated much essential knowledge on how to do this which we will need to store things like antimatter.

Whether it ever proves to be a viable way of producing energy is incidental to developing this capability. It just makes it easier to sell to the general public. It also is generating valuable knowledge in materials, cryogenic superconductors, etc.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
What has my (or your) lifetime to do with the advancement of science or whether a project is worthwhile or not?
Of course, it's one of feasibility criterions. There are many criterions of which basic research should be favored and which one not. From scientific perspective the basic research of thermonuclear fusion is less perspective, because:

1) It's based on relativelly known phenomena - cold fusion not
2) It doesn't provides positive results (COP > 1) - cold fusion does
3) It's price is much higher, than at the case of cold fusion - it will serve as a drain of money for another basic research projects
4) It will not finished before 2040, whereas the cold fusion is essentially ready for production
5) The usage scope of thermonuclear fusion is much more narrow, this process will not be scalable, not to say about production of neutrons and radioactive waste.

Under such a situation only idiot would want to invest into hot fusion, when the cold fusion is already available...
rawa1
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2011
Tokamak and related programs have generated much essential knowledge on how to do this which we will need to store things like antimatter.
I explained you already, it's nonsense to store antimatter in neutral state, when the storage of antimatter in charged state is solved already and you can manipulate it in a much more easier way. You people just generating problems instead of their solving. We don't need the tokamak for anything feasible, because it's obsolete technology already. If you still need it, you should pay it for yourself in the same way, like the steam engine.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
It doesn't provides positive results (COP > 1) - cold fusion does

Proof?

It's price is much higher, than at the case of cold fusion - it will serve as a drain of money for another basic research projects

Since cold fusion doesn't seem to work (or at least has not been shown to credibly work) that's a bit of a lie. Something that doesn't work - even if less expensive - is still more of a waste than something that does, albeit more expensive.

It will not finished before 2040, whereas the cold fusion is essentially ready for production

You should be buying stocks in cold fusion energy companies. Got any? Why not?

The usage scope of thermonuclear fusion is much more narrow, this process will not be scalable, not to say about production of neutrons and radioactive waste.

Why would it not be scalable? And what waste? Except for the containment vessel (a waste that would also occur with cold fusion if it were real, BTW)
JIMBO
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
The only thing funny will be the smirk on the critics faces.
Just today, the prestigious instrumentation company, National Instruments (Austin, TX), has inked a deal with Rossi's firm, in which NI SW will control & monitor E-Cats going to customers, with the NI logo displayed on each system.
Its getting `Realer' every day, while the naysayers remain in denial, more interested in refereed journal articles, than running their toasters !
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
I would make several of the devices turn key and then deposit them at several universities all over the world without any qualifications as to what could be looked at or how.

I just read another article on SA inferring that people SAY morally correct responses, but for whatever reasons, don't DO them...
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
Something that doesn't work - even if less expensive - is still more of a waste than something that does
At the case of tokamak fusion we are perfectly sure, we have to invest 16 billions of Euro and we should wait to 2040. Even after then we cannot be sure with success or economical feasibility of that process.
Whereas at the case of cold fusion the situation is diametrally different. We have COP > 3 for twenty years already and we got five public demonstrations of COP > 6, validated with skeptics from mainstream physics. We just don't know, what happens inside - that's all.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
I believe there was also some skepticism surrounding the work of a couple of bicycle makers around the turn of the LAST century...
just a couple of guys tinkering in their "garage"...
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
If the device works as indicated, he will want for nothing for the rest of his life - patent or no patent.

Tell THAT to Nic Tesla...

rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
Such public skepticism is essentially normal.
But the situation with cold fusion in phenomenologically different, because the bicycle makers weren't doubted with so many proponents of official science. People should realize, the mainstream physics is essentially as silly and shortseeing, as every layman skeptic here in this point.
We just can ask, what else the mainstream physics covers before public and which fundamental findings is still refusing to admit. I know about at least four findings of recent era, which are of (nearly) the same importance, like the cold fusion. Therefore the cold fusion ignorance is not exceptional case in any way. The mainstream physics is really harmful for the rest of human society and it should be handled so. The cold fusion case will be the beginning of the deep reform of mainstream science and philosophy of so-called scientific method.

The skeptics here are probably realizing too, which is why they're so obstinate in their refusal.
Foolish1
2 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
Anyone else find it a bit odd that the claimed output of the E-cat = 470kW while a running diesel generator rated at 500kW was connected to the E-cat for the duration? How long could that generator run at ~ 500kW output given it's limited fuel supply and how long was the test again? Just saying...

If I understand the reaction requires a certain temperature and RF energy to work..plus whatever monitoring electronics and pumps are needed.

The device itself does not generate electricty.. only heat.

The "self sustaining" mode I believe regulates the flow rate to maintain a temperature that is not hot enough to melt the nickle but not cold enough to prevent the reaction from working.

You still need power to run everything else. Assuming the whole thing is not an outright scam if I were the buyer input current would be the FIRST thing I'd check.
Yevgen
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
This is hilarious, as is the recent media noise that went completely uncritical. The first articles still mentioned that most scientists think this is a hoax and Krivits critique, now more recent articles mixed everything up,
lost any critical elements and sound more like "great, the awesome new world is coming".
Looking at it and knowing for sure that it is a hoax (who would not after observing the comedy for half a year and taking apart every test in details) is like watching a crowd running to the edge of the cliff and not being able to stop
them, since nobody is listening. Well, at least in this case
they will just lose their money, not their life...

Regards,
Yevgen
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2011
Yevgen: we are facing Higgs or gravitational waves hoaxes from mainstream physics whole decades - do you know, how many billions of dollars this research consumed already? And the understanding, why these stuffs cannot work is much easier, than the explanation of why the cold fusion can work.
Yevgen
not rated yet Nov 14, 2011
There is a difference between testing scientific theories (even very expensive testing) but using scientific method and through cooperation of all world scientists (with complete openness and detailed documentation to every step) and what Rossi is doing, which is a premeditated and well designed media theater.
Tests of scientific hypotheses will always be successful because they are designed to give a clear "yes" or
"no". Hypotheses itself will be proven or disproven by the test. But the test is a success either way. At the other
hand, hoaxters demos are designed to be unclear
and not to prove or disprove anything, but create an impression that "there is something out there".
If you had a self-sustaining 12kW energy generator (as Rossi claimed from March), how much would it take to
make a simple and convincing test? And yet, after 12 tests,
not one of them is convincing, as has been covered in detail by Krivit. This "persistent failure" itself is a proof that it is a hoax.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
Hypotheses itself will be proven or disproven by the test.
For example, my hypothesis is, the gravitational waves searched are CMBR noise and here is absolutely no reason to spend another billions of euro in their searching...

http://physicswor...ws/46027

Such hypothesis will be considered and tested just at the very end, when all other possibilities will fail, because too many physicists need to keep their jobs. The science is not prepared to situation, when is searches for something, which has been recognized already.

Which test would you recommend in such case? Here is nothing to test: You just understand the subject, or not.
Tests of scientific hypotheses will always be successful because they are designed to give a clear "yes" or "no".
Does it apply to string theory landscapes with 10E 500 solutions or multiverse theory? You're overly idealistic - the era of distinct predictions is already gone. We are just looking at the fuzzy boundary of universe.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
Not to say, the physicists can evade the tests of uncomfortable hypothesis whole decades because there is no collective responsibility (the dense aether model of Oliver Lodge or the cold fusion finding as an example). The scientific method cannot be applied to such cases at all, after then - because there is nothing to test, until some physicists are willing to do so.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
rawa1: "the gravitational waves searched are CMBR noise"

OK, just prove it. The "expensive" scientific search will cease, in a reasonable horizon, the day you'll do so.
rawa1
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2011
It has been proved already before many years.

As Eddington pointed out already in 1929, the speed of the gravitational waves is coordinate dependent. A different set of coordinates yields a different speed of propagation and such alleged waves would propagate like noise. Relativists use linearized form of Einstein field equations to derive gravitational waves, which are based on the Einstein's pseudo-tensor. They do this because Einstein's field equations are implicit actually and impossible to solve analytically. So they use the linearised form, simply assuming that they can do so. However Hermann Weyl proved in 1944 already, that linearisation of the field equations implies the existence of a Einstein's pseudo-tensor that does not otherwise exist:

http://www.jstor..../2371768

If scientists can ignore publications about experiments, why they couldn't ignore the publications about their theory? There is much more theoretical publications, than those experimental ones.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
not rated yet Nov 14, 2011
pointed out != proven hypothesis

also

A => B where B is true, therefore A is true is invalid argument.

where

A = gravitational waves searched are CMBR noise
B = whatever Eddington "pointed out"

So even, if Eddington was right, it doesn't imply you're right.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
So even, if Eddington was right, it doesn't imply you're right
Eddington didn't knew about CMBR noise, he died in 1944. But if he was right, then this hypothesis simply must be tested first, because there is no other noise, than the CMBR noise in the vaccum. Of course, I can still be wrong, if you could point to some other noise. But you can't.

The question is quite simple: providing the Eddington was correct (which can recognize everyone, who understands the reference frame subject of general relativity at least a bit), how would you falsify the connection of his noise to gravitational waves? It's negative hypothesis - to disprove him, you should prove, that CMBR noise IS NOT formed with gravitational waves.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
not rated yet Nov 14, 2011
Note: Basically, what you need is a proof. Because L.I.G.O. (for example) is one step ahead of you. They already are searching for a proof. While both you and them have their "pet" hypotheses.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
not rated yet Nov 14, 2011
"But if he was right, then this hypothesis simply must be tested first"

Is another logical fallacy. This is not an argument, but a conditional statement. Your role here is to prove, that this condition equals exactly to TRUE. Come on, now.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
They already are searching for a proof. While both you and them have their "pet" hypotheses.
This is just what I'm saying here. The mainstream physics has many tools, how to bring the evidence for some theory. But it has no mechanisms, how to bring the evidence against it, until some alternative theory is not presented.

Try to forget me, Weyl and/or Eddington for a moment - because the particular names aren't really important here.

Just try to imagine the possibility, that alleged gravitational waves would be formed with notoriously known CMBR noise. How would you falsify such a hypothesis? You cannot find anything new in your experiments, because the CMBR noise is known already. So you cannot propose any new experiment, which would prove it. The mainstream physics is stalemated in this case.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
explained you already, it's nonsense to store antimatter in neutral state, when the storage of antimatter in charged state is solved already and you can manipulate it in a much more easier way.
Neutral state? You suggested an ion trap for storing plasma which is nonsense.

Sooner or later we will want to store antimatter and other materials in large quantities, in plasma form, for considerable periods of time. The only way to do this is to form a magnetic bottle into a torus so as to prevent leakage.

Tokamaks and related configurations are studying how to contain, manipulate, heat, and refine plasma. This alone is adequate to explain why we are spending the time and effort on this science. Selling it as a potential power source is the only way the public would accept the cost.

It is also another Reason that alternative methods of producing fusion power seem to have been suppressed by the establishment, which you should appreciate. This research would not otherwise get done.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Your role here is to prove, that this condition equals exactly to TRUE.
You cannot do it, because the logic becomes singular in this case. The speed of gravitational wave is defined with its distance from some curvature of space-time. But the only curvature of space-time here is the gravitational wave itself. I.e. you're using a circular reasoning based on tautology in your derivation. And the tautology is self-referencing truth - you cannot prove it wrong.

Briefly speaking - at the moment when the formal physics becomes stalled into tautology, you cannot help it with the same logics, which brought it into this situation. You're trapped into inconsistent logics in accordance to first Gödel's theorem. You can help it only with more general axiomatic theory, which cannot be derived from relativity theory.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
not rated yet Nov 14, 2011
"the possibility, that alleged gravitational waves would be formed with notoriously known CMBR noise. How would you falsify such a hypothesis?"

You either will do, or you won't. Until you prove it, it's just a hypothesis. It doesn't predict anything (because if it did, it would be testable). You cannot say it is more then a testable hypothesis. So science is not in a stalemate. It will proceed with a testable hypothesis of course. With any testable hypothesis, until it hits gold.

You saying a particular hypothesis is correct without being proven (falsified/repeated) won't, and principally cannot stop science from testing other testable! hypotheses. Do you understand now ?

unfalsifiable hypothesis (aka idea) < falsifiable hypothesis (hypothesis)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
Plasma use in the production of novel materials is increasing:
http://www.iupac....0369.pdf

Plasma chemistry and plasma processing:
http://ieeexplore...r=125031
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
It doesn't predict anything (because if it did, it would be testable).
The Eddington's theory of gravitational waves is testable just with existence of CMBR noise. If he would live longer, he could predict the CMBR noise without problem. Now he cannot do it, because he is dead and I cannot do it, because the CMBR noise was already found in independent way - but it's the only problem here.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
This problem goes somewhat deeper, because every pair of theories is different, just because these theories are using an inconsistent postulate set. Why?

When two theories are using the different postulate sets, it just means, these two postulate sets are mutually inconsistent - if they wouldn't, you could substitute one postulate set with another ones and you would get the single theory.

So, formal logics has no tools how to prove, some theories which are using the inconsistent postulate sets can describe the same stuff. And because contemporary physics is strictly formal, it suffers with this problem too. Dense aether theory is not strictly formal, so it can overcome the limits of formal logics. It's based on fuzzy logics.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Neutral state? You suggested an ion trap for storing plasma which is nonsense.
Currently Penning traps are used in many laboratories worldwide. For example, they are used at CERN to store antiprotons.

http://en.wikiped...ing_trap
NeutronicallyRepulsive
not rated yet Nov 14, 2011
"if he would live longer, he could predict the CMBR noise without problem"

Science is not in a stalemate even in this scenario. Any existing hypothesis should agree to observed evidence. It is better to predict the existence of such evidence in advance, it is considered more valuable, simply because it brings new knowledge, but it doesn't influence the validity in either direction. Hypothesis can predict some new evidence (proven empirically), and still be wrong in other aspects, or except that one evidence completely.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
Lately all persons with a brainwave is going for the discovery-publicity-prototype-funding-customers-money&fame& route. However-without exception-with no peer reviews, expect peers to pee on your light bulb. Chances are somewhere, someone without greed who have had enough, will f@ck it all with a new discovery and make it available to everyone, democratics, theocratics, fanatics, anarchists, terrorists, the lot, and sit back and see if humans will tear themselves apart. If they do, there' no great loss in the big scheme of things. There is still a few billion years left before the Earth is unlivable. Somewhere, somehow, another species will take up the character test.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
not rated yet Nov 14, 2011
Oh, some more on sequence of hypothesis/evidence.

If hypothesis is falsifiable, and for some reason an evidence for its falsifiability comes from somewhere else, before the hypothesis is published, then it's in a situation like any other hypothesis that will come after that evidence. It doesn't matter how long after it's published.

Anyway, even if you've a theory (very well established/proven/repeatable hypothesis) it won't stop other falsifiable! hypotheses to be tested. Some of them can see the picture (a bit) more completely. They should again explain some more phenomena than the prevalent theory, but it's not necessary. There can be even two (or more) well proven theories explaining all the same phenomena differently, even though it's not that common.
Nerdyguy
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2011
Am I the only one who finds it amusing that people are vehemently debating the science & technology of this?

We actually have no idea what Rossi has in his little box. He's not saying. He's made a few comments here and there over the last few years. But, even some of the people close to him (like PESN) have shared various theories over time. Lots of debate about cold fusion, and whether this is a) really possible, b) really happening here, etc. Maybe it's nothing of the sort. Assuming of course, that he doesn't just have some truck batteries hooked up in the next building.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
Hypothesis can predict some new evidence
Hypothesis can predict the new connection between two existing phenomena too.
We actually have no idea what Rossi has in his little box. He's not saying
Many people have such an idea, me too.
Nerdyguy
2.8 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
"An energy source such as this would cause the west to lose its influence on events in the middle east. Oil-based economies would collapse throwing millions out of work and crashing stocks, commodities... " -Ghost

Some truth to what you say, though there have been plenty of examples of new tech that's flown "under the radar" long enough to get established. It's why we have "New Money" families/neighborhoods/country clubs. Old sometimes loses out.

But, it does give one pause. If this thing is as groundbreaking as Rossi would have us believe, especially now that it is "for sale", one would think that he would have no time to discuss new business as his schedule for the next 6 months would be booked trying to accommodate the elite business, govt., and military organizations worldwide, all of whom would gladly pay him exorbitant fees for exclusivity with the product. Rather, he's talking about selling "ones and twos" and creating contracts with vendors to help him build out.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Currently Penning traps are used in many laboratories worldwide. For example, they are used at CERN to store antiprotons.
Right you are. This is a form of magnetic bottle. They tend to leak. The only way to prevent leakage in storing plasmas in bulk for extended periods of time, is to form the bottle into a doughnut.

Traps also use cooling to retain ions for study:

"Buffer gas cooling, resistive cooling, and laser cooling are techniques to remove energy from ions in a Penning trap."
http://en.wikiped...ing_trap

-Which may not be compatible with whatever you may want to use plasmas manufactured and stored in bulk for.

A clue as to what tokamaks are really for can be found in the names of the sites where they are located; PPPL not Princeton Fusion Research Lab. They are for studying anything and everything about plasmas which will be a very useful form of matter in the future indeed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
Chances are somewhere, someone without greed who have had enough, will f@ck it all with a new discovery and make it available to everyone, democratics, theocratics, fanatics, anarchists, terrorists
And if by chance it threatens to get that far, he and all his colleagues will be killed. Or at least shamed, discredited, defunded, and laughed out of the profession. As if that never happened before.

This is why it behooves Those in Power to develop cutting edge science and technology in secret. It is often more important to know what is possible than it is to actually develop it.

This is why vast projects like SDI can be undertaken with no ostensible results. It is important to ensure that some overlooked or unnoticed science cannot be developed cheaply and quickly by antagonists which could destabilize economies and power structures.
ChemE
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
"Just today, the prestigious instrumentation company, National Instruments (Austin, TX), has inked a deal with Rossi's firm, in which NI SW will control & monitor E-Cats going to customers, with the NI logo displayed on each system."

Anybody can buy instruments from NI. This means nothing. If I buy the best running shoes from Nike it does make me an Olympic gold medalist.
Skepticus
2 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
Hi Ghost,
Hypothetically speaking, if I developed such and such power generator, and with no fuss, no comment, no fanfare whatsoever, flood the Net with explicit and exactingly detailed instructions of how to built one, how do you stop me?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Hi Ghost,
Hypothetically speaking, if I developed such and such power generator, and with no fuss, no comment, no fanfare whatsoever, flood the Net with explicit and exactingly detailed instructions of how to built one, how do you stop me?
Hypothetically speaking, what are your chances of doing so? And what makes you think the science exists to do so? And if for instance something like cold fusion was possible, dont you think it may have been sat upon until the world was ready for it, which could very well explain the state of cold fusion research today?

And do you really think you are captain nemo?
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
Hi Ghost,
Hypothetically speaking, if I developed such and such power generator, and with no fuss, no comment, no fanfare whatsoever, flood the Net with explicit and exactingly detailed instructions of how to built one, how do you stop me?
Hypothetically speaking, what are your chances of doing so? And what makes you think the science exists to do so? And if for instance something like cold fusion was possible, dont you think it may have been sat upon until the world was ready for it, which could very well explain the state of cold fusion research today?

And do you really think you are captain nemo?


Ah, the irony. He actually thinks that the scenario he describes would be impossible for a world-class military/intelligence organization to stop.

Sadly, the technology exists to detect him and -- even if he were successful in posting his miracle -- hunt him down, make him and everyone he ever met disappear, and remove all traces of his miracle posting.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Hi Ghost,
Hypothetically speaking, if I developed such and such power generator, and with no fuss, no comment, no fanfare whatsoever, flood the Net with explicit and exactingly detailed instructions of how to built one, how do you stop me?
Hypothetically speaking, what are your chances of doing so? And what makes you think the science exists to do so? And if for instance something like cold fusion was possible, dont you think it may have been sat upon until the world was ready for it, which could very well explain the state of cold fusion research today?

And do you really think you are captain nemo?


Your answer is bounded with constraints that in my hypothetical question alredy put them aside. I await your insight on my question within such bounds.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
And if there were such a thing as zero point energy dont you think it would be of paramount importance for World Govt to do everything it could to suppress it?

Of course they would. But they would first have to know whether it was possible or not, and would expend an enormous amount of effort to find out.

Ever read about die Glocke? An interesting story about the potential of technologies to destroy the world; not directly, but through their potential for disruption.
http://en.wikiped...e_Glocke

-This was also the basic Message in the Jules Verne books. 'No technology before its Time'. Period.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
Ah, the irony. He actually thinks that the scenario he describes would be impossible for a world-class military/intelligence organization to stop.Sadly, the technology exists to detect him and -- even if he were successful in posting his miracle -- .


You must be thinking of the Mossad, the top-notch assassin bunch bar none. If they are so good, why do they still whining about Iran's nuke? It should have been eliminated, hardware, theory, scientist, their children,cats, dogs and chicken and so on. And as we have seen, nobody has a f@ck all clue before a lone wolf starts shooting as in Norway. What do you say about that?
And by the way, according to you, it is a crime to disclose knowledge that will benefit humanity, in your words:" hunt him down, make him and everyone he ever met disappear, and remove all traces of his miracle posting"! Thank you for contemporary "moral" lessons.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Your answer is bounded with constraints that in my hypothetical question alredy put them aside. I await your insight on my question within such bounds.
And your colon is bounded by the excessive roughage in your diet I think.

I am talking about the Real World where, above a certain level, there is only One Side, dedicated to the survival of humanity in its best form.

The collapse of civilization serves no one and yet it has been threatened by collapse since its inception, by the evolving technologies of war. It was always in the best interests of Leaders to ensure that some backwater culture somewhere didnt discover some game-changing technology which would enable them to destroy Order.

And so efforts like alexanders library were founded, to discover everything there was to know in the world. Knowledge is Power. Lack of it can mean ruination.

The People who have the power to control knowledge are the ones who are in the Position to do so. And have been for a very long time.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
No technology before its Time
We shouldn't overestimate the real impact of cold fusion in its current stage. Currently it produces only COP 3 - 6 reliably. It's not enough for self-sustaining electricity generation, for example. It will still need a lotta research, I'm afraid. And the needs of plastic industry will not allow us to eliminate the consumption of oil too much. If we would implement cold fusion too late, we would face the global nuclear war for the rest of fossil fuels anyway.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
I am talking about the Real World where, above a certain level, there is only One Side, dedicated to the survival of humanity in its best form......very long time.

Now i think you are afflicted with bowel obstruction too, by your obfuscated verbiage.

Nerdyguy
2 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
Hypothesis can predict some new evidence
Hypothesis can predict the new connection between two existing phenomena too.
We actually have no idea what Rossi has in his little box. He's not saying
Many people have such an idea, me too.


Well, Calippo, with all due respect, I don't think we can consider your opinions as unbiased. Besides which, the point I made is perfectly correct. You may have a "guess", but a monkey throwing a dart at a list of various energy production sources might have as much chance of being correct. You need to separate what you "wish for" and what you "know to be true".
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
You must be thinking of the Mossad, the top-notch assassin bunch bar none. If they are so good, why do they still whining about Iran's nuke? It should have been eliminated, hardware, theory, scientist, their children,cats, dogs and chicken and so on. And as we have seen, nobody has a f@ck all clue before a lone wolf starts shooting as in Norway. What do you say about that?
And by the way, according to you, it is a crime to disclose knowledge that will benefit humanity, in your words:" hunt him down, make him and everyone he ever met disappear, and remove all traces of his miracle posting"! Thank you for contemporary "moral" lessons.


Hmmm....to the best of my knowledge there are no public records whatsoever of the Mossad "whining". Perhaps you mean Israeli politicians?

As for the rest of your disturbing rant. Please go back, read my post again, and point to the place where I said "it is a crime to disclose knowledge that will benefit humanity."

This should be fun.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
I don't think we can consider your opinions as unbiased
The problem is somewhere else. The Popper's methodology of science is actually completely symmetric. When you're saying: "this phenomena is not possible", you're actually promoting your new private hypothesis - and in this moment the proof is up to you instead.
Many people are saying: "the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". But they forget, with respect to practical importance of cold fusion we should have a pretty solid reasons for its doubting. There is surprisingly rich evidence, the chemical reactions can affect the nuclear reactions - so we should have a very good reasons for excluding the possibility of cold fusion in general.
http://pages.csam...ani.html
For example, the relativity phenomena are as rare in common life, as the cold fusion phenomena. But no one is trying to doubt it with the same vehemency - why? Because they fit the intersubjective religion - thats it
tkjtkj
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
When you're saying: "this phenomena is not possible", you're actually promoting your new private hypothesis - and in this moment the proof is up to you instead.


Dear Callippo :
It is comments such as i've quoted above that cause your ideas, (even your name!) to be held in contempt by so many of us here. Your propensity to feebly attempt to turn a commentator's own words against him is repugnant: it is a lie, a thing from your illogical imagination that has you distort so falsely. It is YOU who say what you cowardly suggest are the words, the ideas, of another person. Such arrogant stealth-attacks are to be abhorred .. rejected.. indeed, to be cause (legitimate cause) for anything you say to be ignored or out-rightly rejected.

Decide if you wish to join the world of responsible discourse, or begone. I fear you've already made the decision.
I doubt that i am alone in this view.

j.a., md
Skepticus
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
Please..point to the place where I said "it is a crime to disclose knowledge that will benefit humanity."

Hi NerdyGuy,
In your own words:"Ah, the irony. He actually thinks that the scenario he describes [energy generator invention given to every man and his dog] would be impossible for a world-class military/intelligence organization to stop. Sadly, the technology exists to detect him and -- even if he were successful in posting his miracle -- HUNT HIM DOWN, MAKE HIM AND EVERYONE HE EVER MET DISAPPEAR, AND REMOVE ALL TRACE OF HIS MIRACLE POSTING (my emphasis)."
You are right. To be a crime, the case have to made, get to courts, with rulings given according to laws. To eliminate a "problem"-as described above by yours truly- then there would be no court case ever made, thus no crime committed to speak of. How convenient and soothing to the soul, and you always come out so white it's disgusting. Does it remind anyone of the same modus operandi is being employed somewhere in ME?
ChemE
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Rossi is going about this all wrong. Now that he has a 1 Mw test unit he needs to take a page from the book of the Concentrated solar power companies in california and become and independent power producer and contract with PG&E to supply a gigawatt of power to them so citizens pay exorbitant rates. Then go and apply for a department of energy loan guarantee for $2 billion so citizens pay for your project. Then have an IPO and bilk investors from a few hundred million more dollars more. Then, 3 years later when the equipment never performs and officers have long since cashed in their stock options declare bankruptcy and do it all again with an antimatter fusion device, the latest technology...
ChemE
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Also, why did rossi paste some dumbass SEC notice on the home page of his new website at leonardo-ecat. His approach is so amaturish from a scientific, engineering and business perspective that whatever hope one has that his technology might work is overshadowed by doubt about his approach.

Cautionary Statement for Purposes of the "Safe Harbor" Provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

Any disclosure and analysis on this website may contain forward-looking information that involves risks and uncertainties. Our forward-looking statements express our current expectations or forecasts of possible future results or events, including projections of future performance, statements of managements plans and objectives, future contracts, and forecasts of trends and other matters. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of their composition, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise such statements to reflect new circumstances or ..."
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
One step at a time. Get fusion right, then up the Q-factor. Slow and steady, that is how science works.
Sure, it's long been considered more of an engineering problem than a theoretical problem. But the theory doesn't have to explain the "how" of containment. This is where the problem lies. No material can withstand direct contact with the plasma, so therefore it takes tremendous amounts of energy to provide magnetic containment - more energy than you might recover.

Energy from fusion requires a lot of steps. It's not all one thing.
Other than building 'em bigger and flashier, no genuine progress has been made in decades.

No, because you cannot, _sustainably_ , scale up lighting matches to produce a lot of energy.
You didn't know most of our generated power comes from combustion? Really?

ITER is designed to actually start producing more than it needs (not on a continual basis, though.)
No, it isn't.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Not wasted. Toroidal magnetic confinement is the only known method of storing plasma in bulk. Tokamak and related programs have generated much essential knowledge on how to do this which we will need to store things like antimatter.

Whether it ever proves to be a viable way of producing energy is incidental to developing this capability. It just makes it easier to sell to the general public.
So you're suggesting scientists are nothing more than scam artists? Why would you trust them at all then?

It also is generating valuable knowledge in materials, cryogenic superconductors, etc.
Sure, but why scam the public? If this research is valuable in it's own right, sell that.
savvys84
not rated yet Nov 15, 2011
Lately all persons with a brainwave is going for the discovery-publicity-prototype-funding-customers-money&fame& route. However-without exception-with no peer reviews, expect peers to pee on your light bulb. Chances are somewhere, someone without greed who have had enough, will f@ck it all with a new discovery and make it available to everyone

F.... it all is easier said than done my friend,
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2011
You didn't know most of our generated power comes from combustion? Really?

That is why I underscored _sustainably_. Power from combustion isn't sustainable. Neither ecologically nor in terms of avaiability of fuels.

ITER is designed to actually start producing more than it needs (not on a continual basis, though.)

No, it isn't.

well, if you go to the mission statements then you'll find these first three which corroborate my statement:

- To momentarily produce ten times more thermal energy from fusion heating than is supplied by auxiliary heating (a Q value of 10)
- To produce a steady-state plasma with a Q value greater than 5
- To maintain a fusion pulse for up to 480 seconds.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2011
Your propensity to feebly attempt to turn a commentator's own words against him is repugnant
It's based on dense aether model, i.e. the philosophy, in which every stance or approach becomes counterproductive even for itself in less or more distant perspective. There are no universally valid laws and rules.

For example, the recent multiverse theory essentially accept the existence of many hidden universes penetrating this one of ours. In this very distant perspective we could say, every combination of parameters is possible, so that every phenomena are actually possible. It's inverted world, where everything is possible in equal way. So that the stance that the proof of existence is up to me is equivalent the stance that the proof of nonexistence is up to you. This is simply property of fuzzy random Universe at the boundary of observable Universe.

So, if physicists are saying, the cold fusion is impossible, it's their turn to prove it so - not mine.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2011
Illustratively speaking, let say, we are floating at the water surface and observing it with its own waves. At the proximity it would be quite easy to decide, whether the signal comes from the water surface or from underwater. But at the very distance most of surface ripples will get dispersed into underwater, therefore the signals from such remote areas aren't so easily distinguishable from noise.

At this very distant perspective the probability, that some particular phenomena is real and the probability, that this phenomena is wrong converge to the 1:1 ratio mutually. It's not so easy to say, all these boundary phenomena are plain wrong and their proof is on the people, who are proposing them, because probability of their existence converges to 50%, not zero. So we should change our philosophy for validations and falsification of such events.
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2011
I don't think we can consider your opinions as unbiased
The problem is somewhere else. The Popper's methodology of science is actually completely symmetric. When you're saying: "this phenomena is not possible",


I never said this.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2011
Sure, but why scam the public?
Perhaps you are being naive on purpose? Why should the public spend billions on research facilities around the world for some obscure science which will not be applicable until after they're dead? Money is not cheap-
How convenient and soothing to the soul, and you always come out so white it's disgusting. Does it remind anyone of the same modus operandi is being employed somewhere in ME?
Again you are assuming that there is some undiscovered science which would allow some guy to invent perpetual motion in his basement. But if there was, and if this guy did not care if he collapsed civilization and caused the deaths of millions by revealing it, then he should be killed yes?

A wondrous tech which causes ruin is evil and so are the people who would unleash it. For instance would you have taught Aztecs and incas how to make gunpowder and bronze cannon and sail their million-man to Europe?
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2011
Many people are saying: "the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". But they forget, with respect to practical importance of cold fusion we should have a pretty solid reasons for its doubting.
- callipo

Yes, as well they should. And, yes, there are many, many reasons to doubt.

Callipo, skepticism and doubt are a healthy mindset when viewing the claims of anyone you don't know. I have no idea of your age, but as a middle-age man I would view such outright shows of fervent optimism in the absence of proof to be very naive in any other aspect of life.

And, while healthy skepticism may serve one well, Rossi has given everyone a long list of reasons to be even more skeptical than normal.

Perhaps he is right and fully above-board. I certainly hope so, as his invention would be useful. But, I can separate my private "hope" from my need for rationality.

In any case, only time will tell.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2011
In any case, only time will tell.
Of course it will, but the question is, if we can learn from this case. Apparently, when 99% of qualified people (a mainstream physics proponents) are doubting the phenomena, which will turn out real, then there is something wrong with their level of qualification and competency to judge similar cases next time.
Nerdyguy
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2011

"You are right. ...How convenient and soothing to the soul, and you always come out so white it's disgusting. Does it remind anyone of the same modus operandi is being employed somewhere in the ME."


Skepticus, your post is very puzzling to me.

Did you assume that because I am able to describe a scenario where technology could be used to achieve a particular objective, that I am then a cheerleader for that particular series of events? If you did assume this, could your perhaps explain why you would make such an asinine assumption?

And, "you always come out so white it's disgusting". What exactly does that mean? Are you suggesting that by describing a scenario that is plausible, that I am clearly telling the world my skin color is white? Again, could you explain why you would make such an asinine assumption?
Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2011
as a middle-age man I would view such outright shows of fervent optimism in the absence of proof to be very naive in any other aspect of life
You see, I'd consider the calling the results of twenty years standing research and thousands of publications about cold fusion as the "absence of proof" very naive instead. Because I'm not judging the case of A. Rossi outside the wider context, as the middle-age men should do...
ObladihObladah
1 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2011
is it not easier to put a satellite in place to mirror the sun when its night? then we have 2 times solar light for the price of one.

After all the sun is not bigger than a 50pence ,seen on earth
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2011
is it not easier to put a satellite in place to mirror the sun when its night? then we have 2 times solar light for the price of one.

After all the sun is not bigger than a 50pence ,seen on earth


Try this:

http://www.physor...bit.html
Skepticus
1 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2011
[
How convenient and soothing to the soul, and you always come out so white it's disgusting. Does it remind anyone of the same modus operandi is being employed somewhere in ME?
Again you are assuming that there is some undiscovered science which would allow some guy to invent perpetual motion in his basement. But if there was, and if this guy did not care if he collapsed civilization and caused the deaths of millions by revealing it, then he should be killed yes?A wondrous tech which causes ruin is evil and so are the people who would unleash it. For instance would you have taught Aztecs and incas how to make gunpowder and bronze cannon and sail their million-man to Europe?


I get it.All "principles", "ideals,"laws", are so much stinking saliva. when someone is a threat to one group's interests (don't start to give the crap about the good to all)the claws,knives, guns and bombs are divinely justified! Time to make lists of enemies..laws certainly do not apply.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2011
Did you assume...such an asinine assumption?
And, "you always come out so white it's disgusting". What exactly does that mean? ...could you explain why you would make such an asinine assumption?

Firstly, It is all about logic, not about your stand on the issue. You asked me to point out the logic linking crime and retribution in your post, so I did. The logic is crime (major disclosure) would be punished (The chain of steps that would be taken by using technology as describe by you). Nowhere did i said you are a cheerleader for it. The sarcasm "..soothing for the soul" is for those who peddle "laws" and then piss right on it.
Secondly, the phrase "you always come out so white it is disgusting" is not about you either. I am expressing my disgust to the general "they" who get away from being caught out, by a technicality, by using the steps you pointed out. Nothing personal, just a way of speaking.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2011
Hi Ghost, another take:
But if there was...he should be killed yes?

Suppose you have machine that can desalinate seawater for 10 cents a megaton, and/or give dirt cheap energy for everyone and make oil a real fossil. Now, YOU-TELL-ME-EXACTLY-HOW that will collapse civilization and kill millions? By civilization, you must mean the establishment who control by, and sell such things? And millions will die because they will start wars to stop it from happening?
A wondrous tech which causes ruin... and sail their million-man to Europe?
Big egocentric view. Again, You ASSUME, that everyone is inherently bad as soon as they get a head start on some new things that you fear the echoes of the past?(like cannons and big ships that went everywhere, Bible thumping on savages' heads, teach them some manners and to speak Spanish only and to serve?)
savvys84
not rated yet Nov 16, 2011
Hi Ghost, another take:
But if there was...he should be killed yes?

Suppose you have machine that can desalinate seawater for 10 cents a megaton, and/or give dirt cheap energy for everyone and make oil a real fossil. Now, YOU-TELL-ME-EXACTLY-HOW that will collapse civilization and kill millions?


Otto may be refering to the nazi bell device, where the germans called every1 associated with it as ' geheimnis traeger ' and subsequently executed all of them, including 62 of their own
scientists.
Howhot
2.8 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2011
Yet in-spite of the skeptical tone I read in the comments here; what I see is an impressive self funded engineering project that pushed the experimental lab-work in to a product with just a minimal amount of theory to back up the results. The theory(s) could be totally off base, but something is going on. These very smart guys have been working on this since 1995 and have been publishing their work. Why fake it in 2011? NiH is a strange metal system. You will enjoy the background research. It's real. As real as it gets.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2011
That is why I underscored _sustainably_. Power from combustion isn't sustainable. Neither ecologically nor in terms of avaiability of fuels.
Sure it is. Even cavemen can do it: ...trees grow - man chop wood, make big fire, cook meat, poop in woods to help trees grow - man chop wood...

well, if you go to the mission statements then you'll find these first three which corroborate my statement:

- To momentarily produce ten times more thermal energy from fusion heating than is supplied by auxiliary heating (a Q value of 10)
- To produce a steady-state plasma with a Q value greater than 5
- To maintain a fusion pulse for up to 480 seconds.
This is a fallacy. They've limited the input energy to only the energy used for "auxillary heating." Do you really think this is all the energy this plant will consume while active?

And, did you notice how they aggrandized a mere 8 minutes by dividing it into seconds?

Did you notice they don't discuss downtime and maintenance?

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2011
Perhaps you are being naive on purpose? Why should the public spend billions on research facilities around the world for some obscure science which will not be applicable until after they're dead? Money is not cheap-
Uh, didn't you notice that fusion researchers readily admit they fully expect "the public to spend billions on research facilities around the world for some obscure science which will not be applicable until after they're dead?"

Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2011
with just a minimal amount of theory to back up the results
High temperature superconductors are used without theory as well. Theory cannot backup anything, only experiments can do.

Richard Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2011
When did global thermonuclear war happen Otto? You seem pretty confident that with sufficient power man will extinct himself. Well, where's your evidence? We can do it now. Why haven't we?

I don't believe a perpetual motion machine will ever be developed, and I highly doubt Rossi's device, but to argue against such a technological advancement should one happen would be inexcusable. If we shouldn't develop "free" energy then we shouldn't have developed nuclear energy, drilled for oil, mined coal, built a boat and crossed the ocean, built a bridge and crossed the river, started the fire, chopped down the tree, or even left the damn cave.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2011
We can do it now. Why haven't we?
So far the countries which developed nuclear weapons risked their own destruction in collective preemptive counter-attack. But this psychological barrier is not for ever. Some countries which can reach to nuclear weapon by now have nothing very much to lose.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2011
They haven't?

Um..Let me explain to you how this works:

There are - even in those countries which have 'nothing to lose' - people in power with a very handom standard of living.

These people are the ones who decide whether that country strives for (or deploys) nuclear weapons.

Most certainly do these people have something to lose. If they started a war using nukes they are fully aware that this would lead to serious reprecussions - one of which being their own country most likely being reduced to a big parking lot and they, themselves, losing their cushy position of power (if not their lives).
(And no, people in power are seldomly mad - whatever the media may say. Mad people don't survive political infighting for long)

That the populace has nothing to lose doesn't play into political decision making. Ever. (And the populace seldomly screams for war, anyhow. they have better things to do and know full well that they wil be used first as cannon fodder)
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2011
Most certainly do these people have something to lose.
For example Kim Jong-il can get asylum in China and organize the nuclear war of his country from there. He has enough money and power for it. Don't say, something is not possible. Everything is possible by now.
Kiljoy616
5 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2011
I can't blame the guy for making money off a scam. Is that not whats its all about now a days.

Callippo your idea of China allow Kim Jong-il to come there and have a nuclear war with the US or another country is beyond paranoid delusion, much easier to kill him and move on since China and the Government there would have to deal with radiation fallout like everyone else. Reality trumps paranoia every time.
Cynical1
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2011
If I win the lottery, I will buy one of these dang things and you are ALL welcome to come and see what makes it tick - if it actually does...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2011
@frank and scepticus
This thread fills my 3G iPhone like Palestinians fill gaza so I can't copy/paste your meaningful insights. So let me paint a picture.

Suppose independent trade with mesoamerica was allowed to happen back when it became possible to do so. Arabs were sailing the Indian ocean and trading up and down the western coast of china hundreds of years before Columbus reconnoitered the Caribbean in advance of the invasion.

Plenty of drugs and gold to be had in return for metallurgy, gunpowder, horses, wardogs, etc. And imagine 50 years later when a fleet of 1000 triremes comes oaring it's way past Gibraltar, bristling with bronze cannon and intent on conquest. For the hell of it.

Greeks, Phoenicians, Vikings had the tech to do this but this info was kept from euros who would have used it innocently, thus destroying western civilization. This is why this info was Purposefully kept from the people until the conquest was complete. Renaissance right on Schedule.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2011
@frank and scepticus
This thread ... Renaissance right on Schedule.

Again, simplistic "We are good at heart, and in our deeds, the rest are treacherous bastards" egocentric view. I won't waste band width here to argue the finer points of your assumptions, it will take forever.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2011
Perhaps you are being naive on purpose? Why should the public spend billions on research facilities around the world for some obscure science which will not be applicable until after they're dead? Money is not cheap-
Uh, didn't you notice that fusion researchers readily admit they fully expect "the public to spend billions on research facilities around the world for some obscure science which will not be applicable until after they're dead?"

Sure. But it's for a payoff they can understand. Its something they all want. And back when they fell for it, they expected to see the results in their lifetimes. As does the current gen who is falling for it now. And hey who knows it might indeed do what they say. But even so we will have developed the ability to do all these other things. So it is definitely not wasted effort.
Turritopsis
1.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2011
Rossi's machine is unsafe. D D = 4He. No excess neutrons which is 1 positive. The fusion burn emission is heat energy. Em energy. Positrons electrons and photons. And the ash is helium.

Palladium allows deuterium to burrow inside of its structural lattice. When charge is applied to palladium its porous nature ends. The D which burrowed inside gets pinched between the atoms in the lattice, 2 D atoms get pinched together and 4He comes out as well as em energy.
Turritopsis
1.6 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2011
Nickel has a lattice which is looser to begin with. This makes it even more porous in nature. Easier still for hydrogen to get in. This is positive. But, big but, the current required to pinch out the porous regions is higher. This is negative.

If the current in is higher than current out it is a fusion machine but not a fusion generator.
savvys84
not rated yet Nov 18, 2011
Rossi's machine is unsafe. D D = 4He. No excess neutrons which is 1 positive. The fusion burn emission is heat energy. Em energy. Positrons electrons and photons. And the ash is helium.

Palladium allows deuterium to burrow inside of its structural lattice. When charge is applied to palladium its porous nature ends. The D which burrowed inside gets pinched between the atoms in the lattice, 2 D atoms get pinched together and 4He comes out as well as em energy.


If his machine does work and the scenario you paint is unsafe, it is still not as if it endagers the whole earth and its civilization, unlike the alleged nazi bell device that apparently did / does.
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2011
There are multiple sites now claiming to be official Rossi sites. Some just sort of imply the relationship. He is now in a battle with a company which he admits he hired (through PESN), but with which he is unsatisfied over the "official" website they created for him. It went up and then he demanded it come back down. I read some of his online comments about it. Or I thought I did. At this point, we really have no idea if he or anyone pretending to be him is who they say there are. Assuming it is him, he claims that the site had lots of bad information. References to individuals doing and saying things that Rossi claims is not true.

I have NEVER seen any legitimate business -- including some really small startups I've helped -- portray themselves in such a manner. Technical issues aside, if you have a product, and claim that it's up for sale, and people can neither locate you consistently nor be assured of your identity, something is wrong.