Tests find Rossi's E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times higher than any conventional energy source

May 23, 2013 by Lisa Zyga report
(Left) The ceramic cylinder visibly heats up in an experiment performed in November 2012. In this test, the device got so hot that the internal steel cylinder housing the fuel overheated and melted. The trials in the current study were performed at lower temperatures. (Right) Thermal data of the cylinder taken from a high-res thermal camera. Credit: Levi, et al.

(Phys.org) —In the ongoing saga of Andrea Rossi's energy catalyzer (E-Cat) that promises clean, cheap power for the world, the latest events continue to bring as many questions as answers. Several scientists have performed supposedly independent tests of two E-Cat prototypes under controlled conditions and using high-precision instrumentation. In a paper posted at arXiv.org, the researchers write that, even by the most conservative of measurements, the E-Cat produces excess heat with a resulting energy density that is at least 1 order of magnitude—and possibly several—higher than any other conventional energy source, including gasoline.

Of the seven scientists who authored the paper, two are from Italy (Giuseppe Levi at Bologna University and Evelyn Foschi of Bologna, Italy) and five are from Sweden (Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér at Uppsala University; and Hanno Essén at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm).

Essén, who submitted the paper, is an associate professor of at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.

"I have followed the Rossi E-Cats for a couple of years now and participated in two experiments (including the present one) and read, and heard, about several other more or less independent ones," Essén told Phys.org. "My overall impression is that there must be something there, but scientists must always be cautious until everything has been checked and rechecked."

Essén said that there are plans to submit the paper to a peer-reviewed journal, although they understand that it may be difficult. Even though the subject is controversial, he explained that he thinks the cost of involvement is worth it.

"I got involved since, for the first time, an inventor of a new source was willing to allow meaningful observation and measurement," he said. "There is always a risk that career and reputation is damaged, but for me scientific curiosity always has higher priority."

Ragone plot of the energy density and power density of various sources. The plot has been expanded to show conservative estimates of the E-Cat from the March tests, as well as known values of Pu-238. Credit: Prepared for Forbes by Alan Fletcher based on the original figure by Ahmed F. Ghoniem. "Needs, resources and climate change: clean and efficient conversion technologies," Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 37 (2011), 15-51, fig. 38

Rossi himself was not part of the study. However, the tests were performed on E-Cat prototypes constructed by Rossi and located in Rossi's facilities in Ferrara, Italy.

The paper presents the results of two separate tests on two different prototypes, called E-Cat HT and E-Cat HT2. The first test was carried out by Levi and Foschi in December 2012, while the second was carried out by all seven authors in March 2013. Although the E-Cat HT2 had several improvements over the E-Cat HT, both tests revealed the same important result: more heat was produced by the device than would be expected from any known chemical source of energy.

According to the researcher's conservative measurements and calculations, the E-Cat HT and E-Cat HT2 have energy densities of 680,000 Wh/kg and 61,000,000 Wh/kg, respectively. Even with a "blind" evaluation that probably underestimates the energy production significantly, the researchers still get a value that is an order of magnitude higher than all other conventional energy sources. Considering that gasoline has an of 12,000 Wh/kg, these values are extraordinary and would blow all other energy technologies out of the water.

With that being said, exactly what kind of reaction is producing the large amount of heat energy remains unknown. While the reaction was originally touted as cold fusion when Rossi first unveiled the device a few years ago, most analysts now suspect that the mechanism is more likely a low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) that is not fusion. If the reaction involves the conversion of nickel into copper, as it seems, then it would be considered a transmutation.

Somewhat frustratingly, the seven scientists were not allowed to look inside the steel cylinder that houses the fuel, which is a combination of nickel powder, hydrogen gas, and—most mysteriously—a catalyst composed of unknown additives. This catalyst is an industrial trade secret, and the secrecy makes it impossible for independent scientists to understand exactly how the device works.

"It is frustrating to observe a mysterious phenomenon but not be allowed to investigate it fully, yes," Essén said. "I understand, however, that inventors are mainly interested in commercial applications and that this requires the keeping of industrial secrets."

What the scientists could do was to operate the device, measure the heat energy it produced, and compare that to the input energy to calculate the impressive values stated above. They could also assess the prototypes for any potential radioactive emissions, of which they found none.

The basic design of the E-Cat (both versions) consists of three cylinders: an outer ceramic cylinder (33 cm long and 10 cm in diameter, or roughly the dimensions of a bowling pin), a smaller ceramic cylinder located within the outer one and containing wire coils, and finally the steel cylinder that contains the fuel. At just 3 mm thick and 33 mm in diameter, the steel cylinder is not much bigger than a quarter. By comparing the weights of the steel cylinder when containing fuel and when empty, the researchers estimated the weight of the fuel in the March test to be about 0.3 grams.

When power (here, no more than 360 W) is fed to the wire coils inside the middle cylinder, the coils heat up and cause the steel cylinder and its powder to heat up as well. The scientists used a thermal camera to measure the E-Cat's surface temperature for the entire duration of the two tests, which were 96 hours and 116 hours, respectively. They also continuously monitored the electrical power input that was supplied to the coils. In the first test, the power input was constant, while in the second test, the scientists experimented with turning the power on and off to test the self-sustaining mode. In the self-sustaining mode, they observed a periodic heating and cooling cycle that warrants further study.

To investigate whether there really is something special about the powder fuel in the small cylinder, the researchers performed a "dummy" test with an empty cylinder. They ran the test in March on the E-Cat HT2 for about 6 hours, taking measurements exactly as they did when the cylinder was loaded. They found that no extra heat was generated beyond that expected from the electric input. Whatever kind of catalyst is in the fuel seems to be indispensable for generating the excess energy.

Whether this paper gains the approval or disdain of other scientists working in related areas remains to be seen, but the seven authors of the current paper seemed to have taken pains to take all the precautions that they could, given the circumstances, to perform a valid investigation. At nearly every step of their measurements and calculations, the scientists repeatedly emphasized that they adopted the most conservative methods in order to not overestimate the device's energy generation.

The paper has so far received a mixed response on the web, with Steven B. Krivit of New Energy Times arguing that Rossi has manipulated the scientists to create the illusion of an independent test, while articles at Pure Energy Systems and Forbes are more supportive.

At the end of their paper, the researchers added that another test is planned to begin this summer. This test will last six months in order to monitor the long-term performance of the E-Cat HT2, and may help the scientists get a better understanding of the origins of the excess heat energy.

Explore further: Fukushima accepts 'temporary' radioactive waste storage

More information: Giuseppe Levi, et al. "Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device." arXiv:1305.3913 [physics.gen-ph]

Related Stories

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

Nov 08, 2011

(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 o ...

Innovative self-cooling, thermoelectric system developed

Apr 11, 2013

Spanish researchers at the UPNA/NUP-Public University of Navarre have produced a prototype of a self-cooling thermoelectric device that achieves "free" cooling of over 30ºC in devices that give off heat. It is a piece of ...

Recommended for you

Future solar panels

14 hours ago

Conventional photovoltaic technology uses large, heavy, opaque, dark silicon panels, but this could soon change. The IK4-Ikerlan research centre is working with the UPV/EHU-University of the Basque Country ...

Storing solar energy

Sep 01, 2014

A research project conducted by Leclanché S.A., the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL), Romande Energie and with the financial support of the Canton of Vaud could bring a real added value in ...

Scientists get set for simulated nuclear inspection

Sep 01, 2014

Some 40 scientists and technicians from around the world will descend on Jordan in November to take part in a simulated on-site inspection of a suspected nuclear test site on the banks of the Dead Sea.

User comments : 417

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kochevnik
2.8 / 5 (48) May 23, 2013
Not science just a press release for Rossi because the ECat was developed with pseudoscience, at best. Fraud, more likely. Another day == Another scam. The e-cat has nice styling and a high price tag. From Italy no less.
tadchem
3.1 / 5 (15) May 23, 2013
This sounds remarkably like the claims of Black Light Power for their 'hydrino' system that utilizes 'fractional Rydberg States'. Basically hydrogen atoms are supposedly dissolved in a nickel-based Fermi sea that permits electronic transitions from the conventional 'ground state' hydrogen atom (N=1) to an even lower energy state with N = the reciprocal of an integer. The presence of the Fermi sea negates the need for conservation of angular momentum, so the energy emission comes as thermal motion rather than photon emission.
Look up www.blacklightpower.com
shavera
3.9 / 5 (28) May 23, 2013
This isn't science. This is a magic show. The magician has his tricks and won't let people look behind the curtain or up his sleeves. ArXiv is not peer-reviewed science, even if it's meant to be a pre-publication site for papers that will eventually be peer-reviewed science.
fmfbrestel
4.4 / 5 (25) May 23, 2013
Rossi can't have his cake and eat it too. Either drop the veil surrounding the "secret sauce" catalyst, or quit trying to get scientific validation and just sell the damned things. Replace the natural gas heating element of a gas turbine with an E-cat and generate electricity. Simple.

But Rossi is either unable or unwilling to sell the devices, while also being unable or unwilling to allow a true scientific validation.
aroc91
4.4 / 5 (19) May 23, 2013
Even the "third-party" paper that they put on arxiv (aka, not peer-reviewed in the slightest, they directly cited Wikipedia for fuck's sake which in itself is probably enough to fail peer review) says that they still don't have access to the internals of the device and that the catalyst is still a trade secret. The "independent" researchers have all had previous ties to Rossi. The Talk page about this on Wikipedia is really interesting and reveals a lot.

http://en.wikiped...atalyzer
fmfbrestel
3.1 / 5 (10) May 23, 2013
Maybe Rossi should reach out to Steorn for some marketing advice. Could have a demonstration on the waterfront. lol
Telekinetic
2.4 / 5 (30) May 23, 2013
I believe in this invention, and I'm going to get an E-Cat as soon as it's available. Why is it so hard to understand Rossi's secrecy? Every company in the world, including Kentucky Fried Chicken, won't divulge its secret recipe It's both proprietary and patentable, and no one but those who defy the status quo are lambasted for it. It would be idiotic to throw the doors wide open to a lifetime of work so you can watch the wolves devour it. There are too many indications that the work is real, and Rossi will succeed.
Claudius
2.7 / 5 (24) May 23, 2013
This reminds me of "The Turk", a chess playing machine that was later revealed to be a hoax. Any time you can't look inside the box, it raises suspicion. If Rossi has a trade secret, he should patent it, so others can study it.
fmfbrestel
3.8 / 5 (20) May 23, 2013
@Telekinetic: because KFC isn't seeking independent scientific validation for the deliciosity of their original recipe. you don't get to seek scientific validation while holding back the secret sauce. Period. You can, however, be just like KFC, forgo validation, and let the marketplace decide how good your product is. But just like you said, its not commercially available, otherwise you would have already bought one.

If you're a believer, I recommend writing Rossi a check equal to your life savings to help him commercialize the E-cat. Cant lose right??? put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.
SolidRecovery
2.5 / 5 (28) May 23, 2013
I think everyone will call BS on this.
shavera
3.3 / 5 (19) May 23, 2013
I believe in this invention, and I'm going to get an E-Cat as soon as it's available. Why is it so hard to understand Rossi's secrecy? ...


Because every piece of modern technology has well-known scientific principles underneath it. We know how transistors and radio waves and LCDs all work, and that doesn't stop companies from making a huge profit on putting them together into a cell-phone. But Rossi is claiming something that is LITERALLY impossible, scientifically speaking. It's a black box we "can't" know. We always know about the underlying science behind technology.

Otherwise he's a charlatan and scam artist, preying off of people who don't understand nuclear physics (most people, no doubt) to get them to "invest" in his magic device that will cure the world's woes. That's why I'm so pissed about this.
aroc91
4.1 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
There are too many indications that the work is real


Such as?
Ceon
2.8 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
It is almost impossible to get an patent on something Cold Fusion related. The only alternative Rossi has is to keep his catalyser as trade secret. Rossi is already selling his 1 MW eCat plants now that he has got SGS safety certifications, but getting certifications for eCats for home use is obviously a more complicated matter, and sales of that type will not begin before 2014.

Of all the many people who have observed the several different demonstrations of the eCat, NOT ONE has claimed that this is a fraud.

Steven B. Krivit who has been very vocal in his attacks on Rossi(most likely due to the fact that he is involved in competing projects), did NOT attend any demonstration, but simply did an interview with Rossi where he filmed one of the eCats. He does not have the qualifications to be the judge of Rossi's technology, besides having a conflict of interests.

This report is signed by 7 highly respected scientists and is certainly no "scam".
wealthychef
2.7 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
Damning comment: "there are plans to submit the paper to a peer-reviewed journal, although they understand that it may be difficult." Now why exactly would that be difficult? Could it be because they are not doing good work, or some other reason, perhaps a conspiracy?
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (31) May 23, 2013
they directly cited Wikipedia for fuck's sake which in itself is probably enough to fail peer review

Correct. Wikipedia is not cite-worthy (as its content can be altered after your paper is published - potentially rendering the cite false).

OK, here's where it gets bizarre:
I'm staring to look up the authors:

Giuseppe Levi is in an institue for nuclear and subnuclear physisc (sounds good!)...BUT: his publication list is (just) 11 papers long,. Here's my 4 favorites:

- "Macchina da caffè di tipo perfezionato" (improved type coffee machine)
- "Macchina di tipo perfezionato. " (improved type machine)
- "Procedimento per la produzione di una bevanda a base di caffè e macchina da caffè che attua il procedimento" (process for the production of a drink based on coffee and coffee machine which implements the method)
- "Method for producing a coffee-based beverage and a coffee machine for implementing the method thereof. "

antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (32) May 23, 2013
... the rest of Guiseppes paper are on cellular automata for traffic simulations and one (1!) on
"Cosmic-ray positron fraction measurement from 1-GeV to 30-GeV with AMS-01"
where he shares autorship with - hold on to your hats - 183 others (no, that is not a typo. One hundred and eighty three. Lemme guess - he was one of the data typists?)

on to the next:
Evelyn Foschi
She was hard to find because she has no publications at all (besides this one). Accordnig to her LinkedIn page she's a medical techician (Xray/CT).

Erm. It gets better:
Torbjörn Hartman...he's a friggin' vet.

Bo Höistad: Finally someone relevant. He's a professor from the department of (astro)physics with work in high energy particles.

Sean_W
2.6 / 5 (22) May 23, 2013
If he wants to keep the details secret then tell him to shut up about it and develop it himself. If he wants to be credited with the science let him publish so others can replicate it. If he isn't going to do either of these he's an entertainer selling a spectacle.
aroc91
4.4 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
Not to mention that Rossi never explained why the copper "fusion by-product" from his previous test had the same isotopic ratio as natural copper. Just another nail in the coffin.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (22) May 23, 2013
Roland Pettersson: (retired) professor of chemical analytics (sounds relevant)
He's been at a demonstration of Rossi's in 2012
http://www.e-catw...at-demo/

But when I read quotes by him like this:
"Roland Pettersson told Ny Teknik that the system was now much more stable. A new set of control electronics was used and the system was started just pushing a button. However, no energy measurement was performed."

Erm...Ok, doesn't sound like someone too interested in what actually is relevant. Impressed by a one-push-button contraption? Riiiiight.

Lars Tegner: Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Electricity (also retired)
Only paper I could ind by him was
"Flash photolysis experiments in the vapour phase at elevated temperatures I: spectra of azobenzene and the kinetics of its thermal cis-trans isomerization" (co-authored with Roland Petterson)

Telekinetic
1.5 / 5 (21) May 23, 2013
@Telekinetic: because KFC isn't seeking independent scientific validation for the deliciosity of their original recipe. you don't get to seek scientific validation while holding back the secret sauce. Period. You can, however, be just like KFC, forgo validation, and let the marketplace decide how good your product is. But just like you said, its not commercially available, otherwise you would have already bought one.

If you're a believer, I recommend writing Rossi a check equal to your life savings to help him commercialize the E-cat. Cant lose right??? put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.

I'm on a waiting list of people who want to buy the E-Cat. Rossi struggled for years to finance his research, and borrowed against his own house, which is unlikely a ploy. By reserving a machine, I have "put up", therefore you, fmfBrestel, can shut up.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (20) May 23, 2013
Hanno Essén: He seems actually legit. Department of Mechanics but with a publications in the electrodanymic sector and quantum chemistry (and he's still actively employed by the Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden)

The authors of this paper are a rather mixed bag.
Ville
1.9 / 5 (12) May 23, 2013
I have been following this saga since January 2011. After several years of hard research and development work, the invention starts to be quite close for commercial success. If you want to check the origins of the finding this Ni-H LENR phenomena, read professor Sergio Fodardi publications, starting from 1994.

Main stream science or most of the commentators here do not believe much on LENR phenomenas existence yet. Anyway, whatever you think, you don't need to guess for long time anymore. 6 months continuous test will start soon. It will be very difficult to cheat with such a small device, when continuos measurement devices and video recording are all the time on for 6 months, and the little device need to produce around 10 kW heat power all that time, without interruptions. Just calculate how much for example gasoline you would need for that !

After the 6 months test, there starts to be change for Rossi to get worldwide patents for E-Cat: before that he will not reveal the catalyst.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (19) May 23, 2013
It will be very difficult to cheat with such a small device, when continuos measurement devices and video recording

It would be convincing if they actually started measuring radiation...you know...because it's supposedly fusion?
Either during the test or at the very least afterwards after breaking open the container and comparing to measurements on the individual components beforehand.

I wonder why they never try that.
SincerelyTwo
3.7 / 5 (18) May 23, 2013
I consider myself to be a logical person. This leads me to a series of thoughts:

A black-box can't break the laws of physics.

Whether or not the exact mechanics of the device is revealed is not important, not objectively.

Just because we don't understand what's happening doesn't mean the laws of physics are being broken.

I support Rossi's attempts to validate his claims. If his device works in practice, and the promise is met, then what's there to complain about, If it doesn't work, then so be it, whatever.

This isn't complicated at all, it doesn't even warrant all this debate.

This device either works or it does not, and the world will know the truth when people put it to work.

That's about all there is to it. Someone presents blackbox fx = y, and fx is not defined for us, but y is the output and y is the promise. What else do you really need? And don't give any of that 'keeping secrets isn't fair' BS, it's called economics, business, etc.
jalmy
1.2 / 5 (25) May 23, 2013
Ok, so the fundamental problem has nothing to do with if it works or not. The problem is...if it does work, it is basically some new science or physics or just misunderstood old science. So if it does work this douche is basically trying to patent something unpatentable. This would be like Einstein saying "hey fellow scientists I came up with this really cool formula but I haven't figured out how to make money or patent it because it is basically new science." He did not "invent" relativity or gravity or energy. Just happened to notice a relationship. So even if it does work this guy is a just a douchebag trying to patent something mother nature invented, he just lucked out and stumbled accross it. Like most other scientific knowledge. There is no invention here. And if it doesn't work, well he is still a douchebag, committing flat out fraud.
SincerelyTwo
2.6 / 5 (7) May 23, 2013
It will be very difficult to cheat with such a small device, when continuos measurement devices and video recording

It would be convincing if they actually started measuring radiation...you know...because it's supposedly fusion?
Either during the test or at the very least afterwards after breaking open the container and comparing to measurements on the individual components beforehand.

I wonder why they never try that.


It's obviously not fusion, or some kind of special case. We know what our instruments measure, a machine generating heat and not much else, use that information to infer on what it may be.

The nature of the device is being kept secret, that's a fact we have to live with. If it's a process taking place in the natural world it's obviously not breaking any laws of physics.
freethinker
2.1 / 5 (22) May 23, 2013
Its hard to think outside the box. Fine, but when you mock people involved its really to much. Torbjörn Hartman a "friggin vet"? Yeah, rigtht. He is MD vet med yes, he also holds a master in engineering. Checked out his workplace? Do that, please. In a team doing scientific work - I find I need to inform you, usually you have different roles, competences, ages etc. Not all can be department icons, author/coauthor of 500 papers. You need to have doers and thinkers of the right mix. In this case you must also find those accepting the academic risque involved. Read the paper and and evaluate its content. You can bank on that the people who authored this piece is credible.
muddy
4.1 / 5 (10) May 23, 2013
There seems to be some confusion here between trade secrets and patents. Perhaps Mr. Rossi feels the underlying technology is either unpatentable or cannot be protected well enough from patents; if so, then keeping it trade secret is the only means of protecting his substantial investment and providing a means for sole proprietorship going forward.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (11) May 23, 2013
aroc91:
Not to mention that Rossi never explained why the copper "fusion by-product" from his previous test had the same isotopic ratio as natural copper. Just another nail in the coffin.


this is not just "another" nail in the coffin. This is _the_ nail. If there's any kind of nuclear reaction taking place, it will be perfectly evident in isotopic ratios of the feedstock and the waste product. If we don't see such an effect, then no nuclear reaction is taking place.

Furthermore, we also know that a photon of one energy (say a gamma ray released in a nuclear process) is not at all the same as many photons of lower energy that sum to the initial energy (the heat claimed to be generated by this device). Most quantum processes prefer to emit energy in a single discrete jump, radiating a high energy photon, rather than many little photons along the way (if such photons are physically allowed at all).

The claim simply does not match any other observation ever made.
freethinker
2 / 5 (23) May 23, 2013
I find the real douchbags to be those who were instrumental in making research into this phonomenon synonymous with pathological science. They are right now in a crap storm themselves explaining to their financiers why nothing have happened in 50 years time (and multiple billion of dollars later). Poetic justice.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (6) May 23, 2013

"Cosmic-ray positron fraction measurement from 1-GeV to 30-GeV with AMS-01"
where he shares autorship with - hold on to your hats - 183 others (no, that is not a typo. One hundred and eighty three. Lemme guess - he was one of the data typists?)


Actually, Antialias, this isn't too surprising. For many large institutions, the entire collaboration is listed as authors, as they've all contributed to the paper's result in some way, even just in data collection. I think I'm on a few in just such a manner.
hemitite
2.8 / 5 (17) May 23, 2013
It is easy to say that something was faked, but how, in this case, was it done? Either the thing actually worked somehow, or the investigating scientist are in on the scam to the ultimate doom of their careers and reputations - does Rossi have that kind of money?

How do you fake something with a simple electrical input so that it appears to generate vastly more power than that input provides for an extended period? It may be a black box in regards to its internal mechanism, but if it works, it works.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (30) May 23, 2013
Because every piece of modern technology has well-known scientific principles underneath it. We know how transistors and radio waves and LCDs all work
Much of 20th century tech was developed and applied without the science to support it. Aeronautics for example. Humans were using fire for millenia before the principles of combustion were understood. In fact tech has more often than not preceded the science which explains it.
But Rossi is claiming something that is LITERALLY impossible
Well if you were familiar with the latest developments re widom larsen theory, including NASA and the US navy support, you would be saying 'presumably improbable' rather than 'LITERALLY impossible!!!' If you were unbiased that is.

Here is some reasonable discussion on how rossi could be hoaxing people.
http://www.e-catw...testers/

-It would seem difficult to supply that much power by any other means, surreptitiously or not.
El_Nose
3.5 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
@ "it's not science"

did you read the paper the scientists wrote up in evaluating the e-cat.

It is science. Science is about observation and measurement. That is what happened. No theories could be presented because well the catalyst was not evaluated. What was evaluated was whether this 'scientist' was making fraudulent claims. And it seems he was not making fraudulent claims. The e-cat actually seems to make energy. And it does so in a fashion that current science does not have an answer for.

That means this is a discovery. It is not cold fusion - but it is a some kind of nuclear reaction.

Now if the catalyst ends up being weapons grade plutonium all bets are off :-)

And let it also be repeated Rossi has stated many time - he has no idea why it works. None, not even a really good testable theory. He suspects it is LENR but that is just speculation.

But he doesn't need to know why it works to sell it. IT JUST HAS TO WORK --- that's all that's need for this to not be fraud
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (25) May 23, 2013
Now if the catalyst ends up being weapons grade plutonium all bets are off :-)
This much power could indeed be weaponized.
But Rossi is claiming something that is LITERALLY impossible
We already know of other methods of initiating LENR and people are looking to develop these as well.
http://www.starsc...-fusion/

-And there may be additional methods we are not yet aware of.
Sanescience
2.2 / 5 (17) May 23, 2013
This fails to impress me simply because the trend in our hyper promoting society is there is very little substance behind all the media hype 99% percent of the time. Yes the 1% is possible, just not probably.

Here is a great post in a more obvious energy hype fail:

http://metabunk.o...uot-scam

"There's a type of scam out there that's being going on for at least 100 years."..."claims to have invented or discovered something that will make a lot of money."..."They will get people to invest in their company. The technology will go nowhere slowly, and eventually the principals will withdraw, and the investors will end up with nothing."
RealScience2
1.7 / 5 (17) May 23, 2013
Shavera: "But Rossi is claiming something that is LITERALLY impossible, scientifically speaking."

It is obviously no longer impossible. And if you study the work done in LENR over the last 23 years you will begin to understand why. You might want to read the two dozen peer reviewed papers done at SPAWAR Pam Mosier Boss, PhD et al. Or work at University Missouri SKINR center. Or NASA Chief Scientist Dr. Dennis Bushnell, or Dr. Yeong Kim at Purdue, or Michael McKubre at SRI, Peter Hagelstein at MIT...

[
shavera
3.5 / 5 (11) May 23, 2013
Otto, it's not just that we "don't know" like with fire. It's that we have decades and piles of research that all very definitively points away from the claim Rossi is trying to make. He has to overturn a lot of very well established observations in order for his initial claim to be valid at all. And he's simply not making the effort to make that happen. That smells of charlatan to me.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (11) May 23, 2013
RealScience: none of the telltale signs of any form of "nuclear reaction," low-energy or not, are present here. The isotopes are wrong, the radiation signature is wrong. A nucleus, as far as this research goes at least, is a pretty well understood thing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (26) May 23, 2013
It's that we have decades and piles of research that all very definitively points away from the claim Rossi is trying to make
Funny you dont sound like the NASA scientists along with widom and larsen who are much more familiar with this research than you, and who seem to be somewhat more optimistic.

In fact you dont sound like most any scientist who accepts that we still have a great deal to learn.

Like I say we already know of ways to initiate LENR. We KNOW it is possible.
none of the telltale signs of any form of "nuclear reaction," low-energy or not, are present here. The isotopes are wrong, the radiation signature is wrong. A nucleus, as far as this research goes at least, is a pretty well understood thing
NOT according to widom-larsen theory which you are obviously not familiar with.

Take some time and look it up.
megmaltese
2.5 / 5 (19) May 23, 2013
He is just a liar.
I am italian and I swear any italian psychologist could say he is faking while he talks all the time.
He's just ridiculous.
And the fact that he didn't register patents about his stuff proves that he's just a scammer looking for fame and some money.
RealScience2
1 / 5 (12) May 23, 2013
It will be very difficult to cheat with such a small device, when continuos measurement devices and video recording

It would be convincing if they actually started measuring radiation...you know...because it's supposedly fusion?
Either during the test or at the very least afterwards after breaking open the container and comparing to measurements on the individual components beforehand.

I wonder why they never try that.


Actually, had you read and comprehended the paper you would realize the study team did exactly that. The radiation report is available on request. The abstract states there was no significant radiation above background detected.
sstritt
1.8 / 5 (15) May 23, 2013
Skepticism is in order here. However, if this is a fraud, what is his endgame?
El_Nose
1.9 / 5 (9) May 23, 2013
The media said fusion -- Rossi makes no such claim --if eh did he no longer says fusion out loud...

the media hypes up fusion -- and cold fusion --- read the darned paper -- not eh article above the paper that is linked here I will make it easy for you

http://arxiv.org/...13v1.pdf

read it -- it is science
shavera
4.4 / 5 (7) May 23, 2013
Otto: where exactly is this Widom Larsen theory published? Just because someone has worked at NASA does not make them an expert on nuclear physics. The nuclear physicists I've studied with (as I am a PhD in Nuclear Physics myself) find cold fusion claims to be pretty ridiculous on the whole
Sanescience
1.9 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
@RealScience2:
I understand your dislike of skepticism. It might even be "easier" in this case to be skeptical. But the adage "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." is well founded through the history of human greed.

I believe in consistency of human behavior as much as the scientific process. Both in the dark under currents of sociopaths to fabricate their intricate schemes and in the self delusions of optimists and needful people to deliver them from ordinary existence or from some kind of certain fate.

Your best coarse is to abstain from forming opinions for a long as you can. Longer than what your emotions tell you. Longer than what reason tells you. Longer than it takes others to form their opinions.
Sanescience
1.9 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
@sstritt
"Skepticism is in order here. However, if this is a fraud, what is his endgame?"

See my link above. Or below :-P

http://metabunk.o...uot-scam
RealScience2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 23, 2013
@RealScience2:

Your best coarse is to abstain from forming opinions for a long as you can. Longer than what your emotions tell you. Longer than what reason tells you. Longer than it takes others to form their opinions.

My best course is to keep an open mind and read and absorb the data. The data from this group of qualified scientists and technicians is the indication of anomalous heat energy in a reactor device at energy densities far above conventional. It's really very simple. This will help: http://iccf18.res...ndex.php
antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
I find I need to inform you, usually you have different roles, competences, ages etc.

Certainly. But If you read scientific papers you may notice that invariably ALL the authors and co-authors have specialties relevant to the subject...And I'm wondering why that isn't the case here.

Yes: You occasionally have someone who contributed - and whose specialty is maybe only marginally relevant. But here we have a paper where people basically watched someone else set up a system (without giving them insight into the details) and then write about what they saw.

I'm not sure what you call that - but I don't call that a scientific paper.

I'll agree: Skepticism is in order here
Yevgen
4.6 / 5 (11) May 23, 2013
Here is how Rossi has fooled the bunch of physicist this time:

He has given them the thick insulated cables to measure with a
"clamp ammeters". This type of measurement uses magnetic field created by the current flowing trough a wire. The calculation of the current has an assumption of a single, non-wound and non-shielded wire. However, internal structure of the cables used in this setup were not exposed. It can be seen that they are thick enough to hide things like shielding, winding, or even ferrite rings that could completely distort the magnetic fields and so the validity of the measurement.
It looks like while focusing a lot on temperature measurement, they got fooled by simple electric measurement distortion. Cables are definitely thick enough to deliver
several kW of power while apparent "measured" current would be much less if magnetic field that is being measured is partly shielded. Input power underestimated - "unexplained energy" appears... Rossi did it again!
shavera
4.5 / 5 (8) May 23, 2013
is the indication of anomalous heat energy in a reactor device at energy densities far above conventional


And that's all you really can say though. There's insufficient evidence to discount chicanery. What if the feedstock isn't what he says it is? What if there's an additional source of energy that's hidden somehow in the apparatus? Or some chemical reaction occurring? There's not enough investigation into the entire setup to definitively say that this isn't a hoax. Thus the burden of proof still falls upon the claimant (Rossi) to show he's not giving the world a hoax.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
It is easy to say that something was faked, but how, in this case, was it done?

The simplest way I can think of is in that he turned up the juice on the coils in the cylinder.
Quote from the article
. The charge sets off the production of thermal energy after having been activated by heat
produced by a set of resistor coils located inside the reactor.


With those you could keep a lump of metal glowing indefinitely as long as you keep the juice running, easily. And faking the output of a power-meter is not exactly rocket science (you need all of one resistor for that - which will cost you a few cents)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (29) May 23, 2013
Otto: where exactly is this Widom Larsen theory published? Just because someone has worked at NASA does not make them an expert on nuclear physics. The nuclear physicists I've studied with (as I am a PhD in Nuclear Physics myself) find cold fusion claims to be pretty ridiculous on the whole
Let me be polite. Look it the fuck up. Try GOOGLE.
The simplest way I can think of is in that he turned up the juice on the coils in the cylinder
Od course if AA would really want to know, instead of just pretending, he would try the link I posted where people are discussing real possibilities.

AA has never educated hisself re widom-larsen either, have you AA? Much more fun to make stuff up-
megmaltese
1.9 / 5 (17) May 23, 2013
Just think for a moment:

WHY THE HELL IS HE NOT PATENTING HIS STUFF AND REVEAL THE BIG SECRET?

That's the only answer you need.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (25) May 23, 2013
With those you could keep a lump of metal glowing indefinitely as long as you keep the juice running, easily
Well, per the discussion over at ecat world;

"We have also seen pictures of the E-cat glowing. The surface temp likely needs to be at least 525C for this to happen, much higher if you consider this to be more of an orange color. 800K for this size reactor would be over 2800W of output with emissivity of 1, 1175W even if you take e down to 0.3."

-Now how can you get that sort of power to this thing through a wall outlet and conventional power cord?
The nuclear physicists I've studied with (as I am a PhD in Nuclear Physics myself) find cold fusion claims to be pretty ridiculous on the whole
Sure you are. Dont most nooklear physmatists know how to educate themselves? Dont they teach you how to use GOOGLE at hogwarts?
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
he would try the link I posted where people are discussing real possibilities.

You do know that I skip most of your posts - I seem to have told you that on occasion.

I like to maximize my time reading stuff from people who post interesting things. The others...meh.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (25) May 23, 2013
he would try the link I posted where people are discussing real possibilities.

You do know that I skip most of your posts - I seem to have told you that on occasion.

I like to maximize my time reading stuff from people who post interesting things. The others...meh.
So then why then do you comment on things youre not familiar with? Why waste peoples time and space?
WHY THE HELL IS HE NOT PATENTING HIS STUFF AND REVEAL THE BIG SECRET?
He has a patent. He is busy producing units and delivering units.

His tech is apparently easy to copy as others are doing so at this moment. He wants to make as much money as he can as quickly as he can.

And he doesnt much care what you think. And neither would you if you were in his place.
shavera
4 / 5 (8) May 23, 2013
Believe it or not, Otto, the internet has lies on it. I mean where, as in what real-world scientific prestigious journal, is this paper published? I don't see it in any of the big names I'm familiar with.
jalmy
1.3 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
Otto: where exactly is this Widom Larsen theory published? Just because someone has worked at NASA does not make them an expert on nuclear physics. The nuclear physicists I've studied with (as I am a PhD in Nuclear Physics myself) find cold fusion claims to be pretty ridiculous on the whole


Electricians think powering things with stored compressed air is rediculous too. That doesn't mean it's impossible or impractical to everyone else.
RealScience2
1.9 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
is the indication of anomalous heat energy in a reactor device at energy densities far above conventional

What if there's an additional source of energy that's hidden somehow in the apparatus? Or some chemical reaction occurring?

This study DEFINITIVELY rules out any kind of chemical reaction producing this much heat. Any "hidden" would have been discovered during the 5 months taken by the 22 scientists and techs that worked on the study. LENR research for 23 years provides a perfectly good foundation for the anomalous heat effect.

"Even from the standpoint of a "blind" evaluation of volumetric energy density, if we consider the whole volume of the reactor core and the most conservative figures on energy production we still get a value of (7.93 ± 0.8) 10^2 MJ/Liter that is one order of magnitude higher than any conventional source."

Fairly simple.
jalmy
1.5 / 5 (15) May 23, 2013
he would try the link I posted where people are discussing real possibilities.

You do know that I skip most of your posts - I seem to have told you that on occasion.

I like to maximize my time reading stuff from people who post interesting things. The others...meh.
So then why then do you comment on things youre not familiar with? Why waste peoples time and space?
WHY THE HELL IS HE NOT PATENTING HIS STUFF AND REVEAL THE BIG SECRET?
He has a patent. He is busy producing units and delivering units.

His tech is apparently easy to copy as others are doing so at this moment. He wants to make as much money as he can as quickly as he can.

And he doesnt much care what you think. And neither would you if you were in his place.


If I found that eating ants made me immortal. I would not try putting them into blacked out pills and selling them to people for obsurd amounts of money. I would just tell and show people, benefiting all of mankind.
Claudius
2.4 / 5 (20) May 23, 2013
He has a patent. He is busy producing units and delivering units.


An application in 2008 to patent the device internationally had received an unfavorable preliminary report on patentability at the World Intellectual Property Organization from the European Patent Office, noting that the description of the device was based on "general statements and speculations" and citing "numerous deficiencies in both the description and in the evidence provided to support its feasibility" as well as incompatibilities with "generally accepted laws of physics and established theories." The patent application was published on 15 October 2009.

On 6 April 2011 an application was approved by the Italian Patent and Trademark Office, ..., valid only in Italy. Under then-current Italian law, the examination of the application was more formal and less technical than for the corresponding PCT application.International, European, and U.S. patent applications are still pending.

freethinker
1.2 / 5 (17) May 23, 2013
@antialias_physorg, : And how is not their backgrounds relevant to this study? Care to admit that you barked at the wrong tree about the "friggin vet" yet?

Reading you comments it becomes clear: you don't go in for any factual comment or question on the actual content in the paper, but you spend a lot of time mocking the authors, people making factual comments and in general spreading your wisdom on how "real" science is done.

May there be things to question? Yes there are. That is what I meant by thinking outside the box. Take a look outside, you might find in invigorating.

@kochevnik, megmaltese et.al : With your line of commenting, I seriously doubt you even bothered to read the paper. You should also take a step outside and smell the fresh air.
It is a black box test. More goes out than goes in. By a great deal. Conservatively speaking. The paper show that to a satisfactory level.

mvg
2.3 / 5 (12) May 23, 2013
I certainly cannot pass judgment on whether or not this device works as claimed—

However, the overall tenor of this discussion (and so many more like it) should tell us something about the character of the participants and the fractious nature of academia in general..

Is it against "scientific method' to disagree WITHOUT becoming disagreeable?

Is it possible to appraise someone's work WITHOUT the judging someone negatively out of hand on the basis of their number of (or lack of) degrees/and/or papers?

Is it possible to conduct a discussion WITHOUT imputing evil motives?

Does it weaken your argument to be civil?

Is it just my imagination—or do these discussions all to frequently devolve into forums of pettiness?
megmaltese
2.4 / 5 (20) May 23, 2013
Any guy who invents such an energy source is going to become the richest man on Earth in a year.
This guy is selling crap to the poor ones who believe him or want to test his stuff.
He is producing a very small number of units and they all are just prototypes.
If his stuff worked he would have found a funder by now. Or watch, he could open a project on Kickstarter but he is so ignorant he can't even do that.

Otto, we all want "free energy", but science is not dreaming, it's imagination and realization.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (29) May 23, 2013
Believe it or not, Otto, the internet has lies on it. I mean where, as in what real-world scientific prestigious journal, is this paper published? I don't see it in any of the big names I'm familiar with.
And physmatists know at least a little about sorting truth from lies yes? You didnt see because you didnt look.
http://newenergyt...l#papers
megmaltese
2.1 / 5 (18) May 23, 2013
Freethinker, this is not a judgement court.
You are not "innocent until proved guilty".
It's a science bench. If you don't show your stuff, it is legitimate to suspect and doubt.
That's ALL science is about.
And 99% of cases, when a "scientist" doesn't give proper informations, keeps all in misterious wraps, it's because he is just teasing the world.
This happened countless times in the past and statistically this is one of those times.
And fun is, there's always somebody ready to believe on the word :)
And no, I didn't read the paper, no time to waste.
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (22) May 23, 2013
Any guy who invents such an energy source is going to become the richest man on Earth in a year.


Remember what J. P. Morgan said when Tesla tried to get him interested in his wireless energy project: "If anyone can draw on the power, where do we put the meter?" After which, he would not fund Tesla's research. If this thing actually works, it won't be the J. P. Morgans of the world who profit.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (26) May 23, 2013
If his stuff worked he would have found a funder by now
In rossis words:

"Q. Many LENR researchers are having funding problems. Are you and your research and/or your E-Cat development program being hindered in any way because of lack of funding?

A. We never worked upon funding, our strategy has always been based upon making working plants with our own money and get the funding from the payments of the Customers. This has always been our policy, because I believe in my work.

Q. In my previous question I was referring to available money from any source. Is your research or E-Cat development hindered in any way because of the lack of money?

A. No, it is not."

-And the 3rd party report was funded by the testers:

"ELFORSK AB, the Swedish energy R&D organization established by utilities and manufacturers in the country has issued a statement on its website commenting on the 3rd party Report which it funded, along with the Alba Langenskiöld Foundation."
PoppaJ
2.3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2013
"In the self-sustaining mode, they observed a periodic heating and cooling cycle that warrants further study."

Yea I am stupid. Sounds like a jumper wire to me. Snake oil. Good snake oil.
El_Nose
2.7 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
@Yevgen

. However, internal structure of the cables used in this setup were not exposed.


but they measured the power put into the device from the power source itself -- so the input wires being shielded is a red herring

@antialias

i shouldn't have to do this -- but since you as a troll got some many people to believe you -- without offering proof

in responce to your claim that the authors of the paper are from unrelated fields of study i present the authors of the paper to phys.org peer review -- may God help us all

1)Lars Tegnér - Professor at Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Electricity

2) Torbjörn Hartman - Senior research engineer

3) Bo Höistad - Professor at Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics

4) Roland Pettersson - Senior lecturer at Department of Chemistry - BMC, Analytical Chemistry

5) Hanno Essén - associate professor of theoretical physics -- && -- former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society
El_Nose
2.8 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
if the electrical engineer -- the research engineer -- the nuclear physicist - the analytical chemist -- and the theoretical physicist who used to chair the SKEPTICS SOCIETY OF SWEDEN -- all say that this thing is producing energy then why are we arguing against -- just because the test wasn't done in the USA???? what is the argument here people --- they went into this to prove it was fake -- and evidence shows otherwise ---

and for Antialias to say they were from fields that weren't capable of evaluating the machine -- then Antialias -- i humbly conject that perhaps you should keep your thoughts to yourself

@PoppaJ

In the self-sustaining mode, they observed a periodic heating and cooling cycle that warrants further study.


you didn't read the paper either - and the author of the article i can not give an excuse for - what they are referring to is in self sustaing mode to prevent constant energy going in they set an upper bound on the temp -- and the coils were turned off
tacit
3.6 / 5 (5) May 23, 2013
And 99% of cases, when a "scientist" doesn't give proper informations, keeps all in misterious wraps, it's because he is just teasing the world.


I am not going to disagree with your general point, but I feel I should mention a couple things:

Rossi is basically a hack engineer and businessman, not a scientist in the accepted sense of the word. As such, he admits he does not understand the physics behind his device (more importantly he cannot patent the device because of this, at least as an internationally recognized patent). So as a businessman, he must protect his process from scrutiny and possible replication because he has no legal protection. In other words, if everyone suddenly knows how his device works, he just lost all potential revenue. Hence the secrecy.

I make no claims as to the validity of this device, but you seem to be discounting it outright without even reading up on it (as you say, due to limited time). Leave the comments for a bit and check it out?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (26) May 23, 2013
Here is a nice and very accessible presentation by j m zawodny of NASA on widom-larsen theory and its potential ramifications
http://newenergyt...2010.pdf

And hey -shakira- it has pictures
megmaltese
1.9 / 5 (17) May 23, 2013
A. We never worked upon funding, our strategy has always been based upon making working plants with our own money and get the funding from the payments of the Customers. This has always been our policy, because I believe in my work.

HUGE BULLSHIT.
Setting up a project in Kickstarter requires NOTHING and would launch the invention to stars in no time.
It is not a question of believing in own work (and after all he is a businessman, right? not a scientist, so what EXACTLY is he believing in?).
It's just finding a system to speed up things. If he can't understand this he is stupid.
Otherwise he is in bad faith.

But I see: you guys WANT to believe, so you believe.
Keep believing.
I wonder how many others bullshit you believe in. Area 51? Some magnetic machine for free energy? Ghosts? ;D
shavera
4.4 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
oh yes otto, how could I have overlooked the very prestigious "New Energy Times." All the cool professors read that one.
no fate
3 / 5 (5) May 23, 2013

How do you fake something with a simple electrical input so that it appears to generate vastly more power than that input provides for an extended period?


Artificial firelogs burn for 4-6 hours from the heat of just one match. A forest can burn alot longer from the input of one match.

Either Rossi's machine works as he claims or it doesn't, his life will unfold accordingly. As will ours.
MandoZink
3.8 / 5 (10) May 23, 2013
An excellent discussion of the recent demonstration and it's problems are on physicist Ethan Siegel's "Starts With A BANG" site:

"The E-Cat is back, and people are still falling for it!"
http://scienceblo...-for-it/
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (31) May 23, 2013
oh yes otto, how could I have overlooked the very prestigious "New Energy Times." All the cool professors read that one.
Ahaahaaa just click on the link, see the list of prestigious papers with hotlinks, and click on them to see copies of many papers from presitigious journals.

Heres one
Srivastava, Yogendra. N., Widom, Allan and Larsen, Lewis, "A Primer for Electro-Weak Induced Low Energy Nuclear Reactions," Pramana - Journal of Physics, 75(4) 617-637 (Oct. 2010)
http://newenergyt...Weak.pdf

-Ah youre just a troll arent you?

indio007
1.6 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
Who cares whats inside? Either it does what it says it does when you buy it , or it's fraud plain and simple. Scientific validation has no bearing on the market.

You buy something.
It does what the seller says or it doesn't.
If it does what is advertised we have a deal.
If it doesn't we have fraud.

There is no need for any peer review other than a jury.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (28) May 23, 2013
An excellent discussion of the recent demonstration and it's problems are on physicist Ethan Siegel's "Starts With A BANG" site:

"The E-Cat is back, and people are still falling for it!"
http://scienceblo...-for-it/
Not as excellent as this article in Forbes
http://www.forbes...ter-all/

-Nor as well-read, nor as well-regarded.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (28) May 23, 2013
I think everyone will call BS on this.
Well if you scan the thread you will see that many people think it is real. Perhaps english is not in your repertoire? Sind Sie sichtlos vielleicht?

Oh hey AA I just read one of your posts
Giuseppe Levi is in an institue for nuclear and subnuclear physisc (sounds good!)...BUT: his publication list is (just) 11 papers long,. Here's my 4 favorites:

- "Macchina da caffè di tipo perfezionato" (improved type coffee machine)
-Well coffee machinas use heat dont they? Is there some reason why you think a person who has analysed coffee machinas is unqualified to measure heat generated from rossis gadget, as well as being familiar with other ways of generating said heat?
freethinker
1.5 / 5 (17) May 23, 2013
@megmaltese: You are such a lost cause. You haven't read the paper - by own admittance in previous comments, yet you claim others who have are believers. What are you then, if not the greatest believer of them all. You are uninformed, loud and obnoxious. Read the paper. Pose informed question. If this is a scam, you will shoot it down right away.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (20) May 23, 2013
What's all this diversion with "patenting" and "commercial in confidence" claptrap? It's all a scam. It must be, because whatever "the invention" is, as soon as it is "released commercially" it can be reversed engineered and made public domain technology. So the whole thing must be a scam if he resists the patenting route which could give him at least some revenue from licensing, even if only in Italy. Either it's a scam or...it's a scam. The signs are all there. One possible way of inputing energy into the "apparatus" would be to make the "container" out of Microwave absorbing material and put the device in a specially designed room "microwave reflective box" which would direct MW energy eventually into the apparatus, just like your dinner in your home microwave "box". The MW generator could be outside and the "witnesses" outside that room would be none the wiser that external source of energy is involved. Get a life, suckers. I man that in the nicest possible way! :-)
EyeNStein
1.7 / 5 (16) May 23, 2013
Now if only he had a quantum physicist to explain how it works, a geiger counter to monitor any reaction (Beta decay or neutrons?), a nuclear chemist to analyse the product isotopes, or a patent agent paid to see it: He could be a very, very rich man!
But that's a curiosity, he doesn't have any of those..
zorro6204
2 / 5 (8) May 23, 2013
Another group of . . . scientists, duped. As Tuco said, "when you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." If this thing works, then build it and plug it in. It's the same old dog and pony show setup.
paul42
1 / 5 (7) May 23, 2013
Megmaltese wrote - "Setting up a project in Kickstarter requires NOTHING and would launch the invention to stars in no time."
-
Despite what you might think, money is not the answer to all problems.
-
This is the same type of thinking as "If one woman can have a baby in nine months, then nine women should be able to have a baby in one month".
-
Sometimes the right answer is a small group of scientists and engineers. Adding more employees will just slow down the process.
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (16) May 23, 2013
they directly cited Wikipedia for fuck's sake which in itself is probably enough to fail peer review


OK, here's where it gets bizarre:
I'm staring to look up the authors:

Giuseppe Levi is in an institue for nuclear and subnuclear physisc (sounds good!)...BUT: his publication list is (just) 11 papers long,. Here's my 4 favorites:

- "Macchina da caffè di tipo perfezionato" (improved type coffee machine)
- "Macchina di tipo perfezionato. " (improved type machine)
- "Procedimento per la produzione di una bevanda a base di caffè e macchina da caffè che attua il procedimento" (process for the production of a drink based on coffee and coffee machine which implements the method). "-antialias


You see, antialias, your prejudice and propensity for dyslexia has made you read "Giuseppe Levi" as the coffee machine inventor, when it is Levi Giuseppe who is the coffee machine inventor. With that, I leave you all to your creepy circle jerk of skepticism.
tothestars
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2013
@EyeNStein: From where do you know that he has none of them? Stay with the facts.
xX_GT_Xx
3.7 / 5 (7) May 23, 2013
Favorite misdirection of the illusionist - get people arguing about *how* it works so they forget that you haven't actually demonstrated *that* it works.

I'm with a lot of others here. If it's real, use it to generate power. Take your whole lab off the grid. Surely the inventor of a new power source knows how a steam turbine works.
vjman
3.9 / 5 (7) May 23, 2013

Because every piece of modern technology has well-known scientific principles underneath it.


You are seriously out of touch with modern technology. We still don't know how high temperature superconductors work. Yet they work, and are manufactured and sold. And it has been decades since they have been invented.
When Nakamura invented the blue laser the physics behind it were unclear. I haven't heard if that has changed but that doesn't stop people from buying Blue Ray.
megmaltese
2.2 / 5 (23) May 23, 2013
Watch Freethinker: I admit I didn't read the paper.
But I also say that my judgement on the question is based on statistics.
We have here all the "symptoms" of a scientific scam.
So, it's 99.9% scam for me.
But it's not only that.
It's also the way this person talks, his gestures and behaviour that brings me into this direction.
He is not professional at all.
He doesn't look professional.
He doesn't talk professional.
He doesn't ACT professional.
He says bullshits and contradicts himself: "I don't get funds because I believe in my work" (but for his admission he is not a scientist, but a "businessman", so in what type of work exactly he believes, if he can't patent his stuff because he doesn't know how it works exactly?).

Man, just face it: you have ALL the symptoms of huge bullshit here.
I don't say you should be sure like me about his scamming, but I think that the right starting point here is a sane skepticism, but for you and Otto it looks like you are on the other side.
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (17) May 23, 2013
You can believe, the cold fusion is as real, as the dense aether theory is valid. In the late 1920s, two Austrian born scientists, Friedrich Paneth and Kurt Peters, reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen was absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature. In 1927, Swedish scientist J. Tandberg stated that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an electrolytic cell with palladium electrodes. On the basis of his work, he applied for a Swedish patent for "a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy". After deuterium was discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued his experiments with heavy water. His application for a patent in 1927 was denied again, as he could not explain the physical process. The final experiments made by Tandberg with heavy water were similar to the original experiment by Fleischmann and Pons. Fleischmann and Pons were allegedly not aware of Tandberg's work.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (16) May 23, 2013
In 1959 R.J.Kokes and P.H. Anderson were studying adsorption of hydrogen on Raney nickel and observed "strange feature of exothermic reaction". What they observed predated the Piantelli work by 30 years, and the Rossi catalyst by over 50 years... Neither 1959's findings were attempted to replicate, neither Piantelli&Rossi experiments from 1992...

So, if the physicists wouldn't behave like the ignorant imbeciles living in their ivory towers, we could have cold fusion developed seventy years already. Lets face the reality: the contemporary energetic and subsequent financial crisis is just their job - and they should pay for it.
Telekinetic
2 / 5 (16) May 23, 2013
One of the chief scientists at NASA, Dennis Bushnell recently recognized the potential of the Andrea Rossi energy catalyzer to positively impact the energy field. Although there have already been many demonstrations and the opening of Defkalion Green Technology's 1 megawatt facility in Greece in October 2011, the scientific community and major media is just beginning to acknowledge the light of E-cat.

"I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now."

"This is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geopolitics of solving quite a bit of [the] energy [problem.] – Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley.

Interview of: Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley
YawningDog
3 / 5 (10) May 23, 2013
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.... Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."
- Albert. A. Michelson, speech at the dedication of Ryerson Physics Lab, U. of Chicago 1894

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement" - Lord Kelvin ca. 1900

A bit earlier...

"So many centuries after the Creation, it is unlikely that anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value." - Spanish Royal Commission, rejecting Christopher Columbus' proposal to sail west.

And before that...

'Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not' -- Jeremiah 5:21

In summation - Best to keep the mouth shut and eyes and ears open.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (28) May 23, 2013
He is not professional at all.
He doesn't look professional.
He doesn't talk professional.
He doesn't ACT professional
You mean like this?
http://en.wikiped...ngue.jpg
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (15) May 23, 2013
He is not professional at all. He doesn't look professional. He doesn't talk professional. He doesn't ACT professional.
This is not the professional argument based on matter of fact arguments - but the application of formal objections to subject of critique similar to medieval Malleus Maleficarum. But you ignored the fact, twenty years before Andrea Rossi a duo of professional physicists - Francesco Piantelli and Sergio Focardi claimed the same result (just with COP ~ 3 instead of COP ~ 6 of Andrea Rossi). Their experiments were described in details in official journal of Italian Academy of Science - and did happen? They were ignored as well, despite they were professionals. They were actually dismissed from the same reason, like the Andrea Rossi was dismissed: it brings the unwanted competition for the rest of physics. The cold fusion is direct competition for all researchers involved in alternative energy research.
megmaltese
2.1 / 5 (18) May 23, 2013
LOL Otto, you really can't catch it.

I'll try to be more clear.

When Einstein was talking about physics, he KNEW what he was talking about, and you could spot it when he talked.
This guy talks bullshit all the time, that's all.

But, you want to believe? Believe, I don't give a f*ck honestly. There are a lot of new age guys like you, so nothing strange.
YawningDog
3 / 5 (8) May 23, 2013
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells
RealScience2
1 / 5 (12) May 23, 2013
He is not professional at all.
He doesn't look professional.
He doesn't talk professional.
He doesn't ACT professional
You mean like this?
http://en.wikiped...ngue.jpg


LOL!
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (18) May 23, 2013
The cold fusion is direct competition for all researchers involved in alternative energy research.


Sorry, ValeriaT. But if that is so, then he could put them all out of business immediately, and so make himself the most famous and wealthy human being that ever lived, by just releasing his invention for other researchers to "develop" in efficiency and commercial robustness. Why doesn't he? No more whining about patenting woes and commercial in confidence "difficulties". It's a scam unless he immediately puts all those "competitors" you mention out of business asap and prevent global warming/climate change catastrophe NOW rather than stringing out this coy "cat and mouse" scam exercise which does no one any good. That is my honest asessment and opinion on him and his scamming activities and diversions. :-)
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
This isn't science. This is a magic show.
I do agree - but Andrea Rossi is private subject, he isn't obliged to reveal absolutely anything about his know-how. If you want the serious demonstration of cold fusion, why don't you ask the mainstream physicists for replication of twenty years old experiments of Piantelli and Rossi? Why just the entrepreneur like Rossi (who never did publish anything about cold fusion) should be the only arbiter and guaranteer of cold fusion viability? Aren't we paying the mainstream scientists for the replications of their own findings from our taxes for years? Is such situation normal for you?
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (18) May 23, 2013


When Einstein was talking about physics, he KNEW what he was talking about, and you could spot it when he talked.


Well, consider his cosmological constant in that context. How sure of that one was he?
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (15) May 23, 2013
and so make himself the most famous and wealthy human being that ever lived, by just releasing his invention for other researchers to "develop" in efficiency and commercial robustness
How? How the releasing the know-how for free could make you rich? Andrea Rossi even didn't got the patent for his technology in the USA (despite USA granted many similar patents of cold fusion like the the application of Zawodny from NASA during this time). The Americans apparently doesn't want to allow the commercialization of cold fusion for inventors outside of USA. How Andrea Rossi could become rich under such a situation, when everyone else patents the cold fusion technologies freely without single working device in accordance to silly first-to-file act? The strict guarding his know-how is his only chance, how he could get his investments returned at least a bit.
Alan Fletcher
4.3 / 5 (11) May 23, 2013
That's a might fine Ragone diagram you've got up there.

http:// cdn.physorg.com / newman/gfx/ news/2013/ rossitests2.jpg

You can see the original at

http:/ /b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files /2013/05/130520_ragone_04-1024x624.png

I don't mind your cropping some of my captions from the image. And I'm glad that you took the time to type out MY acknowledgement of the original in your caption.

But I do object to your cutting off MY NAME from your image, or failing that, acknowledging that it's my work product, and that you got it from Forbes.

You can credit it to "Prepared for Forbes by Alan Fletcher, based on ... etc etc"
Or just replace it with a copy (or link to) the original.

Alan

ps : I'm working on updating my "fake" papers to include this test.

pps : Images have a funny way of getting separated from their captions on the web. That's why I always put them on my images. And why I never crop of the originator's names.
EyeNStein
1.3 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
@tothestars
staying with the facts:-.
The 'facts' as available are published on the web: Google them yourself. But none of them were peer reviewed journals (because there weren't any) so I won't quote them.
Choose what you want to believe. One of them even claimed that the 'new made' copper had an unaccountably normal isotope mix. (Feel free to look up 'Energy Catalyzer' on Wikipedia and chase the refernces as far as they go.)
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (15) May 23, 2013
Cables are definitely thick enough to deliver several kW of power while apparent "measured" current would be much less if magnetic field that is being measured is partly shielded
This is nonsense, as the experimental device has been calibrated just with using these wires without any hydrogen introduced during blind run. If "clamp ammeters" would be somehow insensitive to the actual current inside of reactor heaters, then this blind experiment would reveal it immediately. Of course, whole this technology can be still somehow faked, but why the hell Andrea Rossi should do it? He cannot sell any his device without explicit functionality warranty given anyway: he would be even jailed immediately for fraud, if he would even attempt for it.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (21) May 23, 2013
Why doesn't he?


Why indeed.

No more whining about patenting woes and commercial in confidence "difficulties".


But Sir, the continued existence of our daily jollification & drollery depends on a good conspiracy theory or two.

It's a scam unless he immediately puts all those "competitors" you mention out of business asap


I can't say for certain it's a scam. But I can say it is a thing that is not being presented as science. It should not be bandied about on science sites until the "promoters" start acting as scientists do.

and prevent global warming/climate change catastrophe NOW


I'm with ya on that one. And he should take note, in Italy they can put ya in gaol for withholding your scientific wisdom, a la, the geophysicists who refused to issue an earthquake warning....

By the By: I gave ya the 5 vote, good to see ya back.
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (19) May 23, 2013
Of course, whole this technology can be still somehow faked, but why the hell Andrea Rossi should do it? He cannot sell any his device without explicit functionality warranty given anyway: he would be even jailed immediately for fraud, if he would even attempt for it.


Maybe ya answered your own question while stating it. It's the answer I would have given to your "why Rossi should do it" (playing shenanigans with the "testing"). He can't/won't sell it. He hasn't delivered a working model to anyone. Why is that? The "functionality warranty" thing? Or the going to gaol "immediately for fraud" thing?
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
Who the cheater is actually the Joseph Zawodny from NASA, who already patented cold fusion without having single working device available. But in this case its tolerated without problem, because NASA could use the cold fusion for military devices. For me whole the NASA engagement in cold fusion research is just a fake, the only purpose is to have the patenting of cold fusion under control of USA government and to clean their hands of past suppression. The obstinate effort to rename the cold fusion to LENR is just another attempt to reset the twenty if not seventy years old history of ignorance of cold fusion research in the eyes of layman publics. They just want to tell us: the suppression of cold fusion is indeed right, because it doesn't work - but the LENR - this is different stuff! The renaming of well known phenomena is usual praxis of claiming the false priority.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
He hasn't delivered a working model to anyone. Why is that?
This is another widespread lie of cold fusion deniers - Andrea Rossi already delivered two 1 MW E-Cat units for USA and he's preparing the shipment of third one for Swedish company. The "functionality warranty" is the real thing at the case of E-Cat, as Rossi guarantees the COP > 6 for all his device shipped under full money return warranty. He wouldn't make a single dollar, if his device wouldn't work.
NigelBurke
1 / 5 (9) May 23, 2013
This >>
Who cares whats inside? Either it does what it says it does when you buy it , or it's fraud plain and simple. Scientific validation has no bearing on the market.

You buy something.
It does what the seller says or it doesn't.
If it does what is advertised we have a deal.
If it doesn't we have fraud.

There is no need for any peer review other than a jury.

EyeNStein
1 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
@tothestars
My Correction: look up 'Sergio Focardi' and an Italian peer review journal called "Nuovo Cimento" there are certainly some reputable folk who believe this is more than snake oil.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
We should realize, that A. Rossi is not selling licenses for his technology or access to development kit and similar stuffs, like many know-how consultants and similar cheaters. He just sells the physical devices, where the cheating is virtually impossible due the strong protection of customers by international business laws. In addition, his device is producing an energy, not some esoteric unmeasurable effects, i.e. cheating is virtually impossible there without serious penalties. BTW Why all people in this thread are downvoted with open account (former lite voting troll) with striking exception of Q-Star account?
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (7) May 23, 2013
The electric wiring that powers the internal heater of course.

"It is easy to say that something was faked, but how, in this case, was it done? " - Foofie

Current flow was only measured by a clip over ammeter rather than a clip through ammeter.

There are a variety of methods that Rossi could have used to fake the results.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (22) May 23, 2013
Andrea Rossi already delivered two 1 MW E-Cat units for USA


And just where are these two 1 MW E-Cat units" operating in the USA? I would like to go see it for me own self.

The "functionality warranty" is the real thing at the case of E-Cat, as Rossi guarantees the COP > 6 for all his device shipped under full money return warranty.


Guaranteeing something ya haven't sold is not a thing I find very impressive. But then, I'm the silly miscreant who gives free advice with a double your money back guarantee if ya don't like it.

He wouldn't make a single dollar, if his device wouldn't work.


The entire subject of today's long comment section, he isn't making a single dollar because his devices aren't out there working.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
Current flow was only measured by a clip over ammeter rather than a clip through ammeter.
In this case during blind calibration the heater would get a much higher temperature than it corresponds the Lamber-Beer law. You didn't understand my point at all. After all, it has no meaning to dispute it. All doubters have twenty years of Piantelli/Rossi experiments with COP > 3 thoroughly described in peer-reviewed press. If they don't believe the cold fusion, they should start to prove it experimentally with attempt for replication of just these experiments. We aren't required to bother with Andrea Rossi E-Cat cryptic device at all: we have this technology described in details elsewhere at many places already.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (27) May 23, 2013
LOL Otto, you really can't catch it.

I'll try to be more clear.

When Einstein was talking about physics, he KNEW what he was talking about, and you could spot it when he talked.
This guy talks bullshit all the time, that's all

But, you want to believe? Believe, I don't give a f*ck honestly. There are a lot of new age guys like you, so nothing strange
Yeah I prefer to let the evidence speak for itself and I dont much care where it comes from. Evidence is pretty overwhelming that LENR is real and that it is only a matter of time until someone like rossi or NASA or the US military makes it work.

But, you dont want to trust evidence? So dont. I don't give a f*ck honestly. There are a lot of old age geezers like you, so nothing strange.
NickFun
1.7 / 5 (6) May 23, 2013
This may go the way of Tesla if the energy companies latch onto the patent of the 'secret ingredients'.
EyeNStein
1.3 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
where the cheating is virtually impossible

Good point, so there should be lots of success stories like "Google datacentre powered by LENR" but where are they? Hey, even "off grid house powered by e-cat" would do.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (3) May 23, 2013
Current flow was only measured by a clip over ammeter rather than a clip through ammeter.
There are a variety of methods that Rossi could have used to fake the results.

Such as:
http://scienceblo...c-1.jpeg

This is from a more complete analysis of the demonstration at:
http://scienceblo...-for-it/
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (19) May 23, 2013
BTW Why all people in this thread are downvoted with open account (former lite voting troll) with striking exception of Q-Star account??


I hardly ever down vote ya Zephyr. But I do vote ya the 5 from time to time. I'm actually rather fond of ya.
NickFun
2 / 5 (8) May 23, 2013
Also, I do understand the secrecy behind the secret concoction. I would want international patent rights before I revealed something as Earth-shattering as this. Assuming it's real.
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (19) May 23, 2013
Yeah I prefer to let the evidence speak for itself and I dont much care where it comes from. Evidence is pretty overwhelming that LENR is real and that it is only a matter of time until someone like rossi or NASA or the US military makes it work.

But, you dont want to trust evidence? So dont. I don't give a f*ck honestly. There are a lot of old age geezers like you, so nothing strange.


LENR is a legitimize area for research. We should never say never, the best we can say is "not yet" or "not soon".

By the By: Ya are one of the one of the last people I would think of with the words "new age". I often agree with some of your comments, and sometimes disagree, but calling ya "new age" is not fair. (Any one who has read your comments on philosophy and spirit-stuff gobbledegook would know that.)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) May 23, 2013
There are a variety of methods that Rossi could have used to fake the results.
Why just Rossi, Rossi, Rossi all the time? Couldn't Piantelli fake his results too for last twenty years? But I see - I know where the problem with Piantelli for all cold fusion deniers is - his experiments are easily replicable, so that every could ask, why they weren't attempted to replicate during last twenty years and who is even responsible for it. Such a questions could be never allowed, so that Rossi is much easier target from this perspective, because he demonstratively hides details of his technology.

Lets make things perfectly clear: every person, which doubts the Andrea Rossi without doubting of Piantelli (the original founder of this type of cold fusion) is a CLEAR DENIER of cold fusion, who is trying to detract the attention from the original source of problem, which is the negativist attitude of physicists. I'm not so stupid for being fooled with focusing the attention to Rossi.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) May 23, 2013
We should never say never, the best we can say is "not yet" or "not soon".
How long we could say it? The first successful experiments with cold fusion are 90 years old already and they were never attempted to replicate! Lets talk about open pluralistic ignorance, spiral of silence, negativism, dismissal and pathological skepticism and incompetence of mainstream physicists - nothing else. I'm not taking any other explanations and excuses here. If we won't absolutely clearly say, what actually happened there, then we will never learn from history and the same situation will repeat again and again for any other fundamental finding in future.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (21) May 23, 2013
I know where the problem with Piantelli for all cold fusion deniers is - his experiments are easily replicable,,,,,,,,


Then why aren't ya out replicating them?

Lets make things perfectly clear: every person, which doubts the Andrea Rossi without mention of Piantelli (the original founder of this type of cold fusion) is a CLEAR DENIER of cold fusion,


They are not deniers of cold fusion. They are denying that the people who claimed to do have in fact done it. There is a subtle difference Zeph. It's not enough to say "I can do it". That means nothing until till ya can explain "how ya do it" AND can "do it again" with someone watching over your shoulder.

It's like anything else in the pursuit of science and understanding nature. YOUR OWN experiment is meaningless and useless unless SOMEONE ELSE can "do it - using your methodology".

Reproducibility is what separates true science from sociological-statistical-pontificating..

Mannstein
3 / 5 (8) May 23, 2013
Prof. Hagelstein and Dr, Swartz of MIT gave a one week seminar this year on the anomalous heat effect they have observed in LENR experiments. Prof Hagelstein is developing a theory to explain the effect. They demonstrated a device to the public last year which substantiates their observations.

Question to the Nay Sayers on this forum. Are they also scam artists? If so what is their motive?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
Then why aren't ya out replicating them?
Didn't I explained it here many times? Nearly every physicist is somehow engaged in alternative research of alternative methods of energy production/transform/transport and storage, which would become useless and nonsensical at the case of cold fusion acceptation. It's clear economical motivation following from conflict of interest. These guys are interested about their jobs, grants and salaries - not about actual progress and they're supported in it with substantial portion of layman society, which is of the same opportunism and moral credibility.
They are not deniers of cold fusion.
Yes, they are - the Rossi is substitute problem in this regard. The rationally thinking people cannot ask, what's problem with Andrea Rossi, when the twenty years old Piantelli, Focardi, Fleischmann and Pons etc. claim the very same results.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (23) May 23, 2013
We should never say never, the best we can say is "not yet" or "not soon".
How long we could say it? The first successful experiments with cold fusion are are 90 years old already and they were never attempted to replicate!


Zeph, no matter how many times ya repeat that MISCONCEPTION/PERCEPTION/LIE,,, it will always remain false.

They were not replicated, because everyone who tried failed. And moved on. One person can claim to do something, then over the course of 10 or 20 or 50 years no one else can make it work. At what point do ya realize, that that 1st guy LIED/GOT-SOMETHING-WRONG?

NO ONE HAS REPLICATED IT, BECAUSE THAT 1st GUY "CLAIMED" HE DID SOMETHING THAT NO ONE ELSE COULD GET TO WORK.

Pssst, By the By: That's why there is only one person working on the "Aether Wave Theory" today. He's the only one who can get it to work. No one else can get the theory to work.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
They were not replicated, because everyone who tried failed. And moved on
Nope, nope nope... ;-) You have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for it - so you're willfull liar and clear denier of cold fusion - despite you're realizing it or not. Nobody attempted to push the hydrogen ions into palladium anode under vacuum after Paneth & Peters in 1926, to publish it in scientific press the less, in peer-reviwed press the less. Despite these experiments are cheap and easy to replicate. This is a fact. Are you surprised? You shouldn't be.

I'm perfectly aware of the fact, that absolute majority of people has absolutely no idea how the community of scientists is actually working. I'm possibly the only man on the world, who can see many such a things clearly in this moment. It's not just about dense aether model, but about many other things, which you don't realize by now.
Mannstein
3.4 / 5 (7) May 23, 2013
Obtaining a patent for an invention from the Patent Office does not guarantee protection against infringement by a long shot. If there is an infringement it needs to be challenged in court which is a very lengthy and costly process. Alexander Graham Bell found out the hard way. It took ten years for Polaroid and a bevy of legal counsel to win its suit against Kodak for infringement before the case was settled. Also certain industrial manufacturing processes are never patented and kept as trade secrets for fear of competition. The recipe for Coca Cola is a good example.

Incidentally, eminent scientists claimed heavier than air flight to be impossible several years after the Wright brothers demonstrated it to be the case. Even Scientific American claimed it was all an illusion and fraud.
MaiioBihzon
2.8 / 5 (22) May 23, 2013
How much gamma radiation was measured? Some interesting copper isotopes should also be produced. There are easy ways to check whether this device is really working. My main question, though: Who will invest in this?

I really hope this thing works. As a boon to humanity, it sounds too good to be true. Which is my principle concern, that this sounds to good to be true.
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (19) May 23, 2013
Then why aren't ya out replicating them?
Didn't I explained it here many times? Nearly every physicist is somehow engaged in alternative research of alternative methods of energy production/transform/transport and storage, which would become useless and nonsensical at the case of cold fusion acceptation.


Zephyr, nice try (not really, it was actually a lame try, but as I say, I am fond of ya) but the question I asked was. IF IT IS SO EASY TO DO why aren't YA out there replicating the thing?

Out of the hundreds of thousand of physicists in the world, why can't ya find a single one who is honest enough to come out and reproduce this thing that is so easily replicable in a straightforward public open way?
Mannstein
3.3 / 5 (7) May 23, 2013
@ Q-Star:

"They were not replicated, because everyone who tried failed."

Wrong! The anomalous heat effect has been replicated at MIT, SRI, a group in Israel, Italy and Japan. Several Corporations have also been doing research in the field and reported positive results ie Mitsubishi and Toyota for instance. Educate yourself before making wild unsubstantiated statements.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (15) May 23, 2013
IF IT IS SO EASY TO DO why aren't YA out there replicating the thing?
Why I should do it? I'm not payed for it from public taxes. We are educating and paying the physicists for doing research from public taxes - yes, even for my own money. BTW I'm replicating the dense aether model of Oliver Lodge instead, I'm not obliged to save whole world at the moment, when mainstream physicists are drowning public money in "duh" science and solely useless research. After all, the cold fusion has been replicated successful by so many times with alternative physicists, that I couldn't contribute significantly to it. The problem isn't lack of successful replications of cold fusion - but their ignorance with mainstream physics.
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (21) May 23, 2013
Nobody attempted to push the hydrogen ions into palladium anode under vacuum after Paneth & Peters in 1926, to publish it in scientific press the less, in peer-reviwed press the less. Despite these experiments are cheap and easy to replicate. This is a fact. Are you surprised? You shouldn't be.


People don't publish failures as a general rule, unless it is particularly noteworthy. Ya keep saying that the "experiments are cheap and easy to replicate",,, but Zephyr, coming from ya that means little. Because to everyone else it begs the question: WHY HAS NO ONE DONE IT? NOT ONE PERSON?

I'm possibly the only man on the world, who can see many such a things clearly in this moment.


It would be to easy to work with that one, I'll give ya a pass.

It's not just about dense aether model, but about many other things, which you don't realize by now.


But Zeph, ya seem to be the only person in the world who does "realize by now".
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (21) May 23, 2013
@ Q-Star:

"They were not replicated, because everyone who tried failed."

Wrong! The anomalous heat effect has been replicated at MIT, SRI, a group in Israel, Italy and Japan. Several Corporations have also been doing research in the field and reported positive results ie Mitsubishi and Toyota for instance. Educate yourself before making wild unsubstantiated statements.


I'm pretty well educated thank ya. I stated that LENR is a legitimate area of research. But replicating a heating anomaly is not the same thing as performing "cold fusion".

So maybe ya should try educating yourself instead of reading an article or two and thinking that ya know all about science.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
People don't publish failures as a general rule, unless it is particularly noteworthy.
This is unacceptable at the case of so important strategical and important research, as the cold fusion research is. Every experimental route should be documented clearly here - if nothing else, then just because every other approach is data fishing and unscientific by its very nature. The people hiding negative results aren't scientists in my eyes. But the actual problem is, these attempts for replication were never done and you're lying again in effort to cover the previous lie. I'm not buying your speculations about it at all.
But replicating a heating anomaly is not the same thing as performing "cold fusion"
This is just a word-splitting. After all, at the case of fusion of hydrogen at nickel wasn't replicated the both for twenty years.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
After all, why just two years after first extempore of Rossi still only Franceso Cellani is who is performing the cold fusion at nickel wire officially - i.e. in similar way, like the Piantelli did before twenty years? I'm the only guy, who can see it again? The general unwillingness to replicate anything, which is known to work at the case of cold fusion is the undeniable sign of pathological skepticism again. From the same reason the opponents of Galileo refused to take look at his telescope. Not because they didn't believe, it works - but just because they knew it already!
Q-Star
2.4 / 5 (20) May 23, 2013
I'm not buying your speculations about it at all.


I'm used to that Zephyr, we've known each other a long time. But anyhoo, I've got to go do some of that tax payer funded fraud and roguery for the evening.

While I'm away, I'll ponder:

1) Do cold fusion, make more money than Bill Gates.

Or 2) Continue to be greedy and get rich at the rate of $90,000 a year (at the tax payer's expense).

It's a hard choice I know, to give that $90K, why would anyone consider doing that for the paltry billions they'd make in cold fusion (even if it is "cheap and easy" to do.)
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (15) May 23, 2013
Do cold fusion, make more money than Bill Gates
Mr. Gates technology didn't threat the jobs, salaries and social credit of anybody in his time. But if you would attempt for cold fusion in the time of 60's (the last oil boom), you would be killed with FBI instead. Even Rossi by now, in the time of apparent energetically crisis must judge his steps very carefully - or his results would be closed in treasure for ever. The human society doesn't accept the findings, which "advance their time". i.e. threats the existence of powerfull people instead of helping it. Your problem is, you're naive troll, who has absolutely no idea, how the contemporary civilization is actually working.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (19) May 23, 2013
Your problem is, you're naive troll, who has no idea how the contemporary world is actually working.


But I am content with life Zephyr. I don't have to fight demons, phantoms, banshees, or the men in black.

Psst, this is me whispering to ya.(Though I do occasionally worry that the Illuminati might send out the Templars to deprive me of the vast wealth I am receiving by the tax payer funded fraud I do. That's the real reason I am anti-cold fusion.)

Got to sign off now, I'll catch ya later.
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
Okay, dummies, we now have two competing entities to "defraud" the world:
" It is interesting to note that Defkalion no longer uses any chemical catalyst to break H2 gas into H1 because their "plasma ignition" method does it all. Unlike Andrea Rossi's design, resistance heating elements are only required during the initial start-up phase of the reaction. Defkalion uses timing of the frequency of high voltage bursts to control reactor core temperature within safe limits. Their system is highly energy efficient, allowing a COP of over 20, meaning their reactors output over twenty times energy input. Andrea Rossi's latest Hot Cat high temperature reactor has a claimed COP of 11.7, and he now claims energy input is provided by burning natural gas instead of using electricity. A COP of over 10 using natural gas as energy input makes Rossi's invention cost competitive with Defkalion's device, which uses more expensive electrical input power."
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 23, 2013
Defkalion no longer uses any chemical catalyst to break H2 gas into H1 because their "plasma ignition" method does it all
It doesn't use physical ignition only. And it doesn't use a plasma, but a radiowaves. You apparently don't know everything about it. You shouldn't rewrite the dumb posts from anonymous forums about it.
Telekinetic
1.3 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
@ValeriaT:
I agree with you about the murderous shenanigans of the oil barons, like John D. Rockefeller, but Gates fought allegations of monopolistic maneuvers in the courts spending millions in legal counsel and won. He was a criminal at heart, as was Steve Jobs, the tax fraud.
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (14) May 23, 2013
Defkalion no longer uses any chemical catalyst to break H2 gas into H1 because their "plasma ignition" method does it all
It doesn't use physical ignition only. And it doesn't use a plasma, but a radiowaves. You apparently don't know everything about it. You shouldn't rewrite the dumb posts from anonymous forums about it.

"A report on the Italian web site NextME cites a communique released by Defkalion Green Technologies announcing the formation of a joint venture between DGT and Milan-based MOSE s.r.l.
The article explains that the partnership, to be known as 'Defkalion Europe' will be a research and development venture which will focus on developing the Hyperion reactor. According to Defkalion's announcement, they are able to produce a stable reaction using a PLASMA DISCHARGE mechanism, and can safely produce temperatures of 600 C. They say their product, unlike Andrea Rossi's E-Cat, does not need recharging every six months."
malapropism
not rated yet May 23, 2013
Why is it so hard to understand Rossi's secrecy? Every company in the world, including Kentucky Fried Chicken, won't divulge its secret recipe It's both proprietary and patentable, and no one but those who defy the status quo are lambasted for it.

The reason it's so had to understand the secrecy is because the protection of trade secrets (amongst other things) for the purpose of commercial exploitation is precisely what Patents are for.
It would be idiotic to throw the doors wide open to a lifetime of work so you can watch the wolves devour it.

Indeed it would - and the (presumed) $squillions he'll make if it's real - so the best thing for him to do would be to take Patent protection on the invention's trade secret because otherwise, as soon as the thing gets out "in the wild" how long do you think it'll take for someone to pull one apart and replicate it? At least with a Patent he'd have legal protection while also the scientific community can study the thing.
Telekinetic
1.3 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
I'll quote the succinct explanation by the poster Mannstein:

"Obtaining a patent for an invention from the Patent Office does not guarantee protection against infringement by a long shot. If there is an infringement it needs to be challenged in court which is a very lengthy and costly process. Alexander Graham Bell found out the hard way. It took ten years for Polaroid and a bevy of legal counsel to win its suit against Kodak for infringement before the case was settled. Also certain industrial manufacturing processes are never patented and kept as trade secrets for fear of competition. The recipe for Coca Cola is a good example."
I also have been burned by corporations when I divulged product ideas believing I could trust them. Live and learn.
malapropism
not rated yet May 23, 2013
Also, I do understand the secrecy behind the secret concoction. I would want international patent rights before I revealed something as Earth-shattering as this. Assuming it's real.

Yes, the secrecy before applying for or obtaining a Patent is understandable. However, protection is provided as soon as a Patent is "pending" (i.e. on submission of the Patent specification). So he really has no excuse to not apply if this invention is really what he claims.

Also, a Patent can only be applied for while the invention is not in the public domain (discussed with or shown to anyone outside of a non-disclosure agreement). As far as I know his "trade secret" is still secret but with every demonstration, successful or not, he risks un-Patentability. He is a fool if he thinks his invention will stay secret, and remain solely his for commercial product development and sale, if he doesn't protect it legally but still produces the devices commercially.
malapropism
not rated yet May 23, 2013
@Telekinetic
That's quite true and if one takes out a Patent (or indeed any other IP protection) it's only worth the paper it's written on if you're also prepared to defend it. But my point is that he otherwise has absolutely no protection and something is better than nothing.

And actually, an infringement doesn't *have* to go to Court; sometimes a "cease & desist" letter is quite sufficient, especially if a big corp is the infringing party because their damages payable can be substantial. And double-especially if a proposal to license the Patented invention comes along with the Cease & desist.
Telekinetic
1.3 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
You obviously don't have any experience in this area. The world is crawling with industrial spies,
corrupt officials that do the bidding of corporate interests, government agencies that decide what would be disruptive to the social order, and countries like China that laugh at patent protection. Corporations lie, steal, and when necessary to their interests- murder.
malapropism
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2013
Also certain industrial manufacturing processes are never patented and kept as trade secrets for fear of competition. The recipe for Coca Cola is a good example."

But I don't think this was a very good example by Mannstein. Ever heard of Pepsi-Cola? Competition, no?
malapropism
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2013
You obviously don't have any experience in this area.

You shouldn't make assumptions. Not so.

However, besides that, you seem to be saying that not Patenting is better than Patenting because there's always someone who'll rip you off regardless?

I respectfully disagree. Even given all the industrial spying, the possibility of some Chinese, or other nationalistic dis-respecter of IP rights, company starting up in competition, corrupt officials, etc, that you mention, isn't it better to have at least some way to legally enforce your rights than to have nothing to fall back on except trying to keep it secret? Because that strategy seems almost certain to ultimately fail.
eric96
1 / 5 (7) May 23, 2013
"Here is how Rossi has fooled the same bunch of academic physicists this time:

He has given them the thick insulated wires to measure with a "clamp ammeters." This type of measurement uses magnetic field created by the current flowing trough a wire. The calculation of the current has an assumption of a single, non-wound and non-shielded wire. However, internal structure of the cables used in this setup were not exposed. It can be seen that they are thick enough to hide things like shielding, winding, or even ferrite rings that could completely distort the magnetic fields and so the validity of the measurement.

It looks like while focusing a lot on temperature measurement, they got fooled by simple electric measurement distortion. Cables are definitely thick enough to deliver several kW of power while actual measured current would be much less if magnetic field that is being measured is partly shielded. So while there was no mistake in heat calculation, the electric power measuremen"
typicalguy
4.1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2013
As much as I'd love to believe this is true, it's clearly a scam. Rossi is a convicted criminal.
I'm quite disappointed with this site. The author didn't even know that LENR is the new term people use for cold fusion and the author doesn't know that conversion of Nickel to Copper is a fusion reaction. Go write stories somewhere else.
typicalguy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 24, 2013
I can't go through every comment above so let me just reply to all the people that think this is real. HE WON'T LET PEOPLE LOOK INSIDE!! Don't you see that as a problem? He's one of the following:

1. A great genius that's figured out cold fusion and he can share it with everyone and help the ENTIRE PLANET and 6 BILLION PEOPLE.

2. He's a great genius and figured out cold fusion but he's an absolute monster of a human being that cares more about making a few million euros for himself than helping billions of people on the planet by simply releasing the way his reaction works. The fact that he's not doing this means that he's probably one of the worst 10 people on the entire planet right there with mass murderers and war criminals given that people die every day that could be saved if he just released the info.

3. He's a fraud.

Which is it?
rogue_ish
1.4 / 5 (11) May 24, 2013
Wow-- an amazing number of people crying "foul" without ever even reading the paper. I bet 90% of the people raising a ruckus here never even read the published paper on arXiv.

So many people claiming it's against "known" science when HALF the papers summarized on Phys.Org alone around nanotechnology aggrandize the fact the physics of nano-chemistry are completely obscure.

We don't even understand the physics of light and couldn't describe the equation that explains a single atom of more than three elementary particles-- yet are willing to denounce this as fraud.

Everyone on the internet, hiding behind a pseudonym, appears to be a loud mouthed expert. Whatever happened to "Hmm, that's interesting... I wonder if I should read the data?"
rogue_ish
2 / 5 (12) May 24, 2013
People claim there's no patent. Yet did you know the US patent office, by law, immediately denies any claims of cold fusion. Ever ask yourself the reason why?

People claim Rossi will not give up his secret sauce... yet fail to understand if he can't patent it (see above) there's no advantage.

Micro-minds immediately claim current science doesn't allow for what he claims... yet fail to explain why half the physics papers in Nature and Science are all about NEW things people never understood or saw before. And... technology advances are about using new understandings of the world to enable new inventions.

When did we suddenly realize we understood everything worth understanding?

The vitriol in some of these comments is astounding. No wonder we can barely advance beyond the caves.

Urgelt
3.3 / 5 (12) May 24, 2013
Obvious: Rossi does not actually seek scientific, peer-reviewed validation of his method. He keeps his method secret.

Obvious: Rossi never-the-less produces a deluge of press announcements and supposed scientific 'validations' which avoid peering into his black box. None are peer-reviewed.

Now, if the guy had something useful, and just wanted to take it to market without messing around with peer review, that's understandable. Develop it quietly, begin production, make sales.

Or if the guy wanted scientific cred, then he'd develop it openly, and let people know what he's doing in that black box and obtain peer-reviewed validation of the principles involved.

He's not doing either. Instead, he's behaving exactly like a hoaxer seeking attention and proving he's smarter than everyone else by fooling them.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
SongDog
1 / 5 (1) May 24, 2013
When is Phys.org going to start adding some value to these stories instead of just aggregating them and claiming copyright? They could start with some basic fact checking...
DonGateley
1.7 / 5 (11) May 24, 2013
There seems to be some confusion here between trade secrets and patents. Perhaps Mr. Rossi feels the underlying technology is either unpatentable or cannot be protected well enough from patents; if so, then keeping it trade secret is the only means of protecting his substantial investment and providing a means for sole proprietorship going forward.


People hugely misunderstand patents. All they do is give the holder a more or less solid basis for spending very large sums of money to defend them against infringement. No enforcement protection whatsoever comes with the high cost. Small resource inventors should avoid them like the plague and spend the money instead on development and security. Keeping the secret is a far better way of protecting your idea unless and until you have the deep pockets of an IBM behind you.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (9) May 24, 2013
You do know that I skip most of your posts - I seem to have told you that on occasion.
So then why then do you comment on things youre not familiar with? Why waste peoples time and space?

Because I expect others to do the same? Duh.
neversaidit
1.8 / 5 (5) May 24, 2013
i really don't get it. it works, or it doesn't. you measure energy input, fuel used, and energy output. is it really that hard? honest question, physics/engineering is not my area.
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (9) May 24, 2013
Ah Lisa Zyga, bravo! back at it again, I see...This is now transmutation of the energy density. Wow! Even better than Madame Blavatsky Theosophy, Orgone energy, ye John Dee's Monas Hieroglyphica, Dr Dulcamara's Elixir and the Wonderful Wizard of Oz! I must let the Chairman of AIG know to get in now and create a new esoteric derivative security for E-cats!
Kedas
2.7 / 5 (7) May 24, 2013
If he dies from radiation soon I will take another look :)
stanny_demesmaker
1.4 / 5 (9) May 24, 2013
For the more ignorant people : Here is the CEO of National instruments, James Truchard in his keynote of 2012 confirming Cold fusion and Rossi (which he doesn't specify by name) watch it from 14:00
tinyurl.com/ox7mjwo
megmaltese
2.1 / 5 (14) May 24, 2013
UrgeIt is so goddamn right.

And to say it all, he could also do all this just for the heck of it, just to show how the scientific community is easy to fool.
It wouldn't be the first time somebody has this target, happened in the past.

As UrgeIt wrote: you are afraid somebody steals your invention before you make money out of it?
You start production as soon as possible and SELL.
You don't keep sending around prototypes to show off what you can do, increasing the danger that somebody steals your idea/process/machine.

You don't believe in patenting because there's court and stuff?
Go back to point 1 and start selling as soon as possible.

You don't have money to fund your production?
Start a project on some crowdfunding site and get money to start mass production.

The problem in all this affair is not how scientifical is the stuff Rossi says he based his machine or principle on, but that his behaviour is so damn laughably contradictory and stupid.
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (8) May 24, 2013
This arxiv paper is even better than Signore Martini and Rossi: Felinic principle and measurement of the Hubble parameter http://arxiv.org/...82v1.pdf Reviews are in: Bow Wow or Meow? The jury is still out on this...Tune in next time.
Egleton
1 / 5 (11) May 24, 2013
I am not at all surprised that Big Carbon are wetting themselves in fear right now. This rent-a-crowd of pseudo-skeptics is evidence of their overwhelming dread.

Wail, Big Carbon, you fat prick. Your screams of agony are music to my ears.
megmaltese
1 / 5 (9) May 24, 2013
For the more ignorant people : Here is the CEO of National instruments, James Truchard in his keynote of 2012 confirming Cold fusion and Rossi (which he doesn't specify by name) watch it from 14:00
tinyurl.com/ox7mjwo


Nice impressive video with great "technological music" and sound effects.
You should have been really impressed by all this dramatic stuff.
antialias_physorg
3.1 / 5 (15) May 24, 2013
but that his behaviour is so damn laughably contradictory and stupid.

Exactly. you have to decide:

Publish (in which case you can't patent anymore)
or
Patent (in which case you shouldn't publish)

But this arxiv article is a weird mixture of both (and effectively is neither a sceintific article nor something that is useful for patenting). It looks scientific but contains 'secret recipies'.

What it is is more akin to people in lab coats walking around in the background of dishwasher commercials.
bobalony
1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2013
But this [physorg] article is a weird mixture of both (and effectively is neither a sceintific article nor something that is useful... It looks scientific but contains 'secret recipies'.

What it is is more akin to people in lab coats walking around in the background of dishwasher commercials.


Couldn't help but update this quote to be more fitting to this site. It's only missing something about screaming children to cover how the comments on here work.
antialias_physorg
2.2 / 5 (10) May 24, 2013
Couldn't help but update this quote to be more fitting to this site.

Physorg is an aggergation of press releases and abstracts ABOUT science related subjects - not an aggregation of scientific papers themselves.

A scientific paper is something you find in peer reviewed journals/peer reviewed conference proceedings

And here is where arxiv gets iffy, since there is no peer review. It's a preprint server and OK to use IF the paper goes on to peer review and publication. If the paper's lifecycle stops at arxiv then that means nothing.

Citing arxiv papers is also one of these iffy things. It really depends on what you cite it for at that point (e.g. whether it's for the state-of-the-art section or the methodology section of your paper) but usually it's better to go on looking for a peer reviewed cite if available.
EyeNStein
1 / 5 (12) May 24, 2013
If Rossi wants anyone to take this "product" seriously he needs to shut up and back off and let someone like his physicist "colleague" Sergio Focardi handle the demo's if they are real.
When someone like Rossi who has a degree in philosophy (not physics) and a criminal record claims to be the inventor, people are bound to smell a rat. Especially when he refuses to unplug the mains and uncouple the "earth" current path. And his claims seem to change from day to day. (e.g. gamma emmissions??) Otherwise you are buying a power device from Harry Houdini or PT Barnum.
Egleton
1 / 5 (10) May 24, 2013
The conditions of Cold Fusion are not the same as hot fusion.
What are you going to believe? Your model of how the Universe works or the empirical evidence?
The lack of neutrons is not evidence that your eyes are lying to you. It is evidence that your theory needs a lot of work. Prof. Peter Hagelstein has been on the search for the last 20 years. In Daejeon Korea he told us how he had just cracked the problem. And he used his hypothesis to predict the production of collimated x-rays from the surface of the metal mercury.
A True skeptic wants the evidence. A pseudo-skeptic has his eyes screwed shut and his fingers in his ears and sings "La, La La La, I can't hear you."
Do you believe that Black Swans exist? Why?
Egleton
1 / 5 (11) May 24, 2013
ad hominems by the hundred. if you can't play the ball, play the man.
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (11) May 24, 2013
The lack of neutrons is not evidence that your eyes are lying to you.

But the lack of gammas is. If, for some reason, this fusion is miraculously neutron-less it should still produce copious amounts of gammas (especially in such an unshielded contraption as the one depicted in the paper)

The thing is: Your eyes can easily deceive you (ask any illusionist, con-artist, scammer or even second-hand car salesman). Eye-witness reports are the most uselsee type of evidence in science.
So you should NOT trust your eyes - but only cold, hard facts obtained by the most meticulous, and independent measurements possible.

If a person refuses to let their contraptions be subjected to such scrutiny (and I'm not even talking about opening up the cannister and examining his 'secret catalyst'but merely such stuff as unplugging and replugging the powerline with a power-meter in between) then it smells.
ccr5Delta32
1 / 5 (10) May 24, 2013
EEStor comes to mind ! What ever happened to EEStor ? I would hope such questions as " works or not , feasible ? practical ? profitable ? consequences ? are all parts of the investors dilemma or conscience even if the last one there is an arbitragable compromise and accordingly to some comments the secret magic box strategy is a more prudent position . In the light of resent and not too so recent patonic judicial quagmire ,it is an understandable stance ,but don't forget " They're asking for money "
akka69
1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2013
It may be a scam, it may be for real.

We don't actually need scientists to explain HOW it works, but just to asse IF it works.
Even if it's a "magician" trick, if scientist can mesure that this device outputs more energy than any conventionnal energy storing device of the same mass, it's still interesting...

After all that's how scientists discovered plenty useful drugs from plants: They were not searching for any explanation but for an actual effect.
jalmy
1 / 5 (11) May 24, 2013
People claim there's no patent. Yet did you know the US patent office, by law, immediately denies any claims of cold fusion. Ever ask yourself the reason why?



It has been stated that these patents are rejected on the grounds that the invention has to be "usefull" and these inventors have not been able to prove usefullness. This determination has been upheld by federal court. If in fact they were able to prove it's usefullness a.k.a power generation, then they would have received patents. Of course this only pertains to U.S. Europe has granted some cold fusion patents.

Again this guys problem is he has nothing to patent. If he did luck out and find the alchemical magic sauce for cold fusion/LENR. Then it is basicaly Nickle+electricity+oxyclean => copper+Heat how the F can he patent it? There is no way. Like I said before if it's real this guy is just a f'ing douchebag for simply not helping mankind. Release the sauce, get your name in all the history books.
El_Nose
1 / 5 (3) May 24, 2013
Good god people -- this is not cold fusion -- cold fusion is supposed to be room temperature -- this happens at like 500 C --- i think there is a difference
jalmy
1.3 / 5 (12) May 24, 2013
Good god people -- this is not cold fusion -- cold fusion is supposed to be room temperature -- this happens at like 500 C --- i think there is a difference


Who said cold fusion has to be room temperature? Any kind of transmutation giving off energy other than radioactive decay would inherantly have to be fusion. If it occurs at less than the pressure and temperature of a f'ing star (50 million degrees or so.) then it is "cold" relatively.
tothestars
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2013
@El_Nose: even the Pons and Fleischmann experiment creates a plasma which is hotter than room temparature. It was called "cold" because it was much colder than temperatures at which fusion normaly occours.
BUT: The media called it "cold fusion" P&F called it anomalous heat. It is not said that it is fusion. It could be for example triggerd beta decay though weak interaction.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (12) May 24, 2013
much higher if you consider this to be more of an orange color. 800K for this size reactor would be over 2800W of output with emissivity of 1, 1175W even if you take e down to 0.3."

-Now how can you get that sort of power to this thing through a wall outlet and conventional power cord?

Do you have a dish washer?
Do you own a clothes dryer?
Do you own a washing machine?
Do you own a table grill?
Do you own a space heater?
...

Any one of these can draw 2kW easily (dryers up to 4kW) - especially if you have an older model.
None of these needs a special outlet or special power cords.
tothestars
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2013
@natello: yes. I ment it is not the same process like hot fusion. It is a multibody reaction.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (3) May 24, 2013

I'm on a waiting list of people who want to buy the E-Cat. Rossi struggled for years to finance his research, and borrowed against his own house, which is unlikely a ploy. By reserving a machine, I have "put up", therefore you, fmfBrestel, can shut up.


waiting list. heh. been waiting a while? get used to it. So how much did you have to pay to reserve your e-cat?

Lots of people borrow against their homes. its called a mortgage, and sometimes second mortgages. lots of people who end up declaring bankruptcy get mortgages.

Going into personal debt is not a sign of legitimacy, just the opposite. If the invention were real he could go to an angel investor, sign an NDA, show him the secret sauce and get all the financing he wants. There are TONS of investors willing to plunk down major $$$ to get in on the ground floor of a new energy tech.

Oh wait, but the secret sauce is a lie, so he cant do that. Possible excuses for not going to an Angel investor:
1 paranoia
2 lies
tothestars
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2013
@fmfbrestel: he did something like that. He is now only the chef scientist (or engineer) and has a board of directors above him
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (28) May 24, 2013
WHY HAS NO ONE DONE IT? NOT ONE PERSON?
THEY_HAVE. Many times.

Heres one example
http://www.youtub...VK82Mngc
replicating a heating anomaly is not the same thing as performing "cold fusion"
LENR is not cold fusion.
Any one of these can draw 2kW easily
And how big would the wire have to be to supply the current necessary to make the cylinder in the pic above glow white-hot? Assuming its just not shooped that is.
But the lack of gammas is. If, for some reason, this fusion is miraculously neutron-less
Its not neutron-less
it should still produce copious amounts of gammas
In widom-larsen, the reaction provides its own gamma shielding
http://newenergyt...ry.shtml
Your eyes can easily deceive you
-And when you refuse to use them to investigate evidence, you are deceiving yourself.
http://newenergyt...#summary
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (27) May 24, 2013
waiting list. heh. been waiting a while? get used to it. So how much did you have to pay to reserve your e-cat?
You can indeed pre-order an ecat
http://ecat.com/e...-an-ecat

You can also fly into space with leo dicaprio
http://www.eonlin...far-gala

-See nothing is impossible.
alan_mindbender
1.3 / 5 (12) May 24, 2013
I think it quite possible this guy is not committing fraud of any kind, but simply stumbled onto something he truly doesn't understand. As a result he is afraid to let anyone know how it ticks for fear of losing his current monopoly on whatever technology it is through a fully technical analysis. Problem is, he wants to use scientific validation for marketing purposes while withholding facts, which simply should not be allowed.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (17) May 24, 2013
It seems to me that Rossi could have avoided a lot of criticism by providing the "black box" to the scientists, then let them hook it up to their own power supplies according to his directions, doing the demonstration without any other of Rossi's equipment. This way, he could protect his trade secret, and demonstrate that it indeed is putting out more energy than is being supplied. Unfortunately, all the connections to the box were using Rossi's equipment, and it was already running when the scientists arrived. This creates a lot of suspicion, and I wonder why the scientists involved did not insist on more control.
SolidRecovery
2 / 5 (16) May 24, 2013
You can indeed pre-order an ecat
http://ecat.com/e...-an-ecat

-See nothing is impossible.


You bring nothing to the table in this or any discussion. You only uses non peer reviewed, highly opinionated sources, and choose to ignore facts despite being proven wrong in every possible way by multiple users.
Each post you make is exceedingly more childish than the last and proves nothing. I hope you are trolling this forum as I find it hard to believe a human being out there exists that is as blunt and illogical as you.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (27) May 24, 2013
You bring nothing to the table in this or any discussion. You only uses non peer reviewed, highly opinionated sources
But the widom-larsen list I linked for instance is full of peer-reviewed papers, yes?
and choose to ignore facts despite being proven wrong in every possible way by multiple users
Im sorry youll have to be a bit more specific.
Each post you make is exceedingly more childish than the last and proves nothing. I hope you are trolling this forum as I find it hard to believe a human being out there exists that is as blunt and illogical as you
Naw youre just upset because you tend to post crap and I tend to expose crap-posters. And I will not stop.

For instance
I think everyone will call BS on this
What is the purpose of this post? Why would you think that EVERYONE would call BS on such a contentious issue? Again sorry but its worthless crap. Just like zero growth requires zero births. Was that silly or what?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (27) May 24, 2013
Problem is, he wants to use scientific validation for marketing purposes while withholding facts, which simply should not be allowed
But it is done all the time in product development. And he was as factual as he needed to be to satisfy the 3rd party investigators.
Telekinetic
1.9 / 5 (14) May 24, 2013
How is providing a link to pre-ordering the device not helpful? You'd have to do the same if you wanted to buy a Tesla Model S. We're in a renaissance of innovation in medicine and alternative energy production, i.e., stem cells, solar, wind, cold fusion, etc. thanks to the end of the Bush stranglehold on progress. We will bear witness to events equivalent to what people must have experienced when the Wright brothers first got off the ground. Only a nincompoop believes that nothing new will come to pass.
DavidW
1.3 / 5 (16) May 24, 2013
Really? All this on this? I've got to hand it to some of you on this. Withholding the truth smells bad. The comments to wake people up and the time taken explain it properly as, "not science", are respectable and appreciated. Such are our responsibilities. The truth matters. If he's withholding the truth then he is not trying to do the most good. That's all we need to know for now. His mind is not in line with reality and will only bare the real world truthful results in the area of truthfully lying.
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (14) May 24, 2013
What kind of pollyanna-ish jive is that, DavidW? Do you hold Apple, Microsoft, or any other producer of goods accountable for not pre-releasing information? Rossi is under no obligation to the "world" to
be forthcoming with any information except perhaps to an investor, if that's in a contract. Do you ask a pharmaceutical company with a cure for an epidemic to release it before it's thoroughly tested? You're being childish.
DavidW
1 / 5 (15) May 24, 2013
What kind of pollyanna-ish jive is that, DavidW? Do you hold Apple, Microsoft, or any other producer of goods accountable for not pre-releasing information?


If it's something like this where the truth matters? Yes, I do.

You're being childish.

I am going to be who I am, so long as I am alive, important.
You have attempted to falsely defined me. That's called lying. A lie doesn't support a position.

The way you have attempted to place yourself above the truth indicates that you probably think I am calling you a liar. I'm NOT calling you a liar. Although, you have lied. The truth says life is most important.
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) May 24, 2013
Do you ask a pharmaceutical company with a cure for an epidemic to release it before it's thoroughly tested?

Yes - which is why we have special programs that allow people access to experimental drugs when they show a great deal of promise for a particular condition - but have not yet been thoroughly vetted.
Estevan57
3.1 / 5 (27) May 25, 2013
I contacted the "company" about a preorder. Lets see how this plays out...
The site says 3 months out. We'll see. Time for Rossi to walk the walk.


fmfbrestel
2.5 / 5 (6) May 25, 2013
Why Rossi will never actually sell one:

One of the first buyers will immediately crack it open, extract the secret sauce, and have it analyzed for composition. If Rossi were even slightly OK with that happening, these "independent" testers would have been allowed access to the secret sauce.

Anyone remember the story not long ago about the Iranian inventory who claimed to have a machine that could predict the future 7 years out? He refused to sell the device because the chinese would just reverse engineer it and flood the market with copies.

The reason everyone immediately knew that guy was nuts, is the same reason why everyone should know that Rossi is nuts. If the invention is real, there is no need for the paranoia. Copy cats and pirates hurt a company's margins, but is not a reason to completely avoid taking a valid product to the marketplace.
JRi
5 / 5 (1) May 25, 2013
And how big would the wire have to be to supply the current necessary to make the cylinder in the pic above glow white-hot? Assuming its just not shooped that is.


They calculated the power emitted by the tube being around 1600W. Assuming Italy has 230V and the fuse is a common 16A, one can drain 3600W from a power socket. Enough to make even two tubes glow like that.
Egleton
1 / 5 (10) May 25, 2013
Wow it is sooo cool being a pseudo-skeptic. You get sound off without having to do any homework.
You can just throw assertions around like confetti.
Don't quit your day job.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (7) May 25, 2013
Assuming Italy has 230V

Correct. You can also hook it up in a three phase setup (which gives you 400V or 3x230V fed through 3 fuses...the usual setup that is used for cooking ranges/baking ovens, which also doesn't use a noticeably different cable)
DavidW
1.3 / 5 (15) May 25, 2013
Assuming Italy has 230V


Or, as previously stated, it may be a red herring. Invisible laser, focused magnetics, who knows?

He's not telling the truth. I ignored someone that I caught lying once. I thought to myself, if they ever lie to me lie that I'll get screwed. Sure enough, that's exactly what happened. Don't ignore it when someone is clearly lying. It never goes anywhere in the end.

Some people believe that they have power when they deceive others and actually seek enjoyment by deceiving others.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 25, 2013
He's not telling the truth
Andrea Rossi is just claiming COP = 6. The Piantelli is claiming the COP = 3 with the same nickel - hydrogen system for twenty years. Piantelli documented his experiments thoroughly and he published them in peer-reviewed press. Do you believe him instead? If yes, why not Rossi? If not, what's your objection against Piantelli?
djr
5 / 5 (2) May 25, 2013
Technical question. Here is an interesting interview with Rossi recently (with embedded audio). http://oilprice.c...Cat.html Rossi stated that "these plants consume only 1 gram of Nickel for every 23 gigawatt-hours of heat they produce." I am not an engineer - but it would seem to me that the only way to get 23 gw/hours out of a gram of nickel would be with a nuclear process. But I understood that Rossi had told the U.S. government that it was not a nuclear process - because the feds wanted to know what he was doing - and to regulate his factory if it involved nuclear processes (understandably). Can this be reconciled?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (25) May 25, 2013
Lets address one of the more trollish lies posted above:
Erm. It gets better:
Torbjörn Hartman...he's a friggin' vet.

"One myth that arose and still seems to persist was the one of the testers was a veterinarian … this simply wasn't true and seems to be due to people misinterpreting the qualifications of one of the team, Hartman, which are listed as "Dr.Med.vet., civ.ing." One commentator wrote "I guess that means Veterinarian Medicine and Civil Engineering." This was, of course, a wild and very wrong guess. Apparently this abbreviation is Swedish and in full is : "Doktor i Medicinsk Vetenskap, Civilingenjör""

-More facts for the honest:
"The E-Cat Testing Team, Real or Ringers?"
http://www.forbes...ringers/

-Its kind of informative that FORBES no less is interested in dispelling lies for rossi isnt it AA?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) May 25, 2013
Rossi stated that "these plants consume only 1 gram of Nickel for every 23 gigawatt-hours of heat they produce."
This is just a blind estimation based on cold fusion mechanism involving strong nuclear force. The LENR based on weak nuclear force could bring only megawatt-hours per gram of Nickel, which is still very interesting option for home users, but way less interesting for central producers and distributors of energy.

Whole this discussions about relevance of Rossi measurement is attempt for distraction of publics, because Piantelli and Celani generate the heat of the same order (with COP > 2) in systems, which are perfectly documented and described, but no one wants to test & replicate them in similar way, like the opponents of Galileo refused to take look into his telescope. For cold fusion deniers it's therefore way easier and simpler to simply doubt A. Rossi, because they know, he will never publish his know-how from good reasons, so there is nothing to replicate.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) May 25, 2013
So I can just repeat: everyone, who is willingly ignoring the twenty years old history of cold fusion research of Piantelli and he just wants to doubt the E-Cat of A.Rossi, is just an open enemy of cold fusion - i.e. not scientific skeptic. Because the scientific skeptics always ask: how I could replicate that finding? Well, Piantelli - not Rossi - has shown us. If nothing else, the people who are ignoring the priority and published experiments of Piantelli on behalf of undisclosed technology of A. Rossi are just demonstrating, how the pathological skeptics actually value the work of real scientists in this field.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (24) May 25, 2013
Time for Rossi to walk the walk
Oh esai are you going to bring him down all by yourself? How brave.

"Your pre-order has been accepted. By the way: so far we received about 50,000 pre-orders and counting, which is not bad, for a product that has still to be described in details. Our 10,000 target has been burnt rapidly.' -rossi January 23, 2012

-Maybe if you are tall enough or loud enough you will stand out in line.

Ever hear the term 'egomaniac with an inferiority complex'? I bet you think you are the only one ahaahaaaa
DonGateley
2.4 / 5 (14) May 25, 2013
Time for Rossi to walk the walk
Oh esai are you going to bring him down all by yourself? How brave.

"Your pre-order has been accepted. By the way: so far we received about 50,000 pre-orders and counting, which is not bad, for a product that has still to be described in details. Our 10,000 target has been burnt rapidly.' -rossi January 23, 2012

-Maybe if you are tall enough or loud enough you will stand out in line.

Ever hear the term 'egomaniac with an inferiority complex'? I bet you think you are the only one ahaahaaaa


You, sir, are merely a troll who craves negative attention. Whatever the truth about Rossi's claim he doesn't need addicts like you.
djr
5 / 5 (3) May 25, 2013
Valeria: "This is just a blind estimation based on cold fusion mechanism"

Does this mean that Rossi is not able to measure the actual workings of his secret machine - but has to depend on blind estimation to report on how it functions? Seems odd right?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 25, 2013
IMO is he isn't even sure with alleged reaction Ni + H = Cu. He isn't professional nuclear physicist and he even has no equipment for it.
DavidW
1 / 5 (14) May 25, 2013
He's not telling the truth
Andrea Rossi is just claiming COP = 6. The Piantelli is claiming the COP = 3 with the same nickel - hydrogen system for twenty years. Piantelli documented his experiments thoroughly and he published them in peer-reviewed press. Do you believe him instead? If yes, why not Rossi? If not, what's your objection against Piantelli?


Something as important as this requires complete truthfulness. Even if he were to actually have something... he's still lying... and out of touch with reality... and unworthy of serious consideration regarding this device.

It seems more likely that some here want to waste the time of others that have pissed them off and really don't believe it anyway, and that it is sometimes easier to deceive people with more education.
DavidW
1 / 5 (14) May 25, 2013
You, sir, are merely a troll who craves negative attention. Whatever the truth about Rossi's claim he doesn't need addicts like you.


When you have made enough mistakes and been through enough pain, if you live that long, you will understand that the statement you made above only reflects your view of yourself and others. If that person is those things you say, then we all are. More likely is that we are not our actions and the attempt to define us human animals as actions is a lie. The reason we do and say what we do that is wrong and hurtful is that we are in the presence of one or more lies. The problem is the lie. Please don't make more. You can all out the improper words and actions all you want, but please try to state it truthfully if you really want to do the right thing.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (13) May 25, 2013
Something as important as this requires complete truthfulness.
So why scientists aren't replicating it again and again? If the cold fusion is so important, why everyone waits just for Rossi with his garage equipment and zero investments (he sold his house for doing research of cold fusion)?

This is pathological and unmoral behavior. We are paying the scientists for doing such research - not Andrea Rossi. We all should be thankful for it and jail the mainstream physics parasites for their ignorance.
Estevan57
3 / 5 (26) May 25, 2013
Otto, Otto, Otto. Why do you attribute such cynicism and hate to others?
If actually trying to order what he is selling "trying to take him down" what does that say about what he is selling?

Yes Otto, I believe I am the only one that want to buy one of these.
What a stupid thing to say.

Here is the response to my preorder request. -

Thank you for visiting ECAT.com and registering your interest in Andrea Rossi's ECAT 1 MW plant.

ECAT.com is now qualifying potential customers on behalf of Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation. Due to the overwhelming number of inquiries, we need to authenticate all customer related information to obtain a better understanding of the outstanding demand - this will enable us to provide you with a quote for the ECAT 1 MW plant.
We kindly ask you to provide us with the following information:
1. Company name: 2. VAT-number /Organization number 3. Country of Origin...etc.

The estimated delivery time for the ECAT 1 MW plant is currently four months.

Estevan57
3 / 5 (26) May 25, 2013
Continued. -
- Yours sincerely,

Peter La Terra
Sales Director, ECAT.com

So I sent him my company info and await yet another response.

I just love the ever out of reach production date.
No customers willing to be public about a sale yet. Hmmmm.
At least he has millions in escrow to burn through trying to produce the first working model for sale. I wonder how long it will take before he is exposed as a scam? Again.

As much as I truly want this product to be a reality, the fact that noone will admit to actually buying and using one, and the lack of a truly reputable demonstration lead me to believe he is selling a space heater with a core of nickel and snakeoil.

Try not to take it personally, Otto.
DavidW
1.5 / 5 (17) May 25, 2013
Something as important as this requires complete truthfulness.
So why scientists aren't replicating it again and again? If the cold fusion is so important, why everyone waits just for Rossi with his garage equipment and zero investments (he sold his house for doing research of cold fusion)?

This is pathological and unmoral behavior. We are paying the scientists for doing such research - not Andrea Rossi. We all should be thankful for it and jail the mainstream physics parasites for their ignorance.


I answered your question. Anyone making such claims that is hiding what is going on, given the state of this world, is the one exercising unmoral behavior. This is a magic show at the expense of wasting more time on something other than doing the most good.
DavidW
1.5 / 5 (16) May 25, 2013
So I can just repeat: everyone, who is willingly ignoring the twenty years old history ....


Well, then make one already and show it off.

Even nuclear power, something understood and explained by physics that actually works, that promised us unlimited energy, did not pan out as promised. Instead we have destroyed the earth clearing the land that we use to breed and grow the 50+ billion animals we kill a year for the sole purpose of gratification alone. It doesn't matter what he has. If it's not ending the needless and preventable suffering and protecting life then it's useless.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (13) May 25, 2013
Anyone making such claims that is hiding what is going on, given the state of this world, is the one exercising unmoral behavior.
At first, Rossi doesn't own his company anymore - so he is obliged to keep secrecy for to protect the investments of its owners in the same way, like every other employee of Leonardo Corp (and every employee of every other private company on the world). Ask the owners for details, not Rossi. BTW Every research of breakthrough technology in history was secret. Do you think, that the development of nuclear weapons would be more moral, if it would be publicly open? Do you think, that the research of viruses or GMO or cancer cure is open for everyone, until the researchers aren't willing to publish the final results? Which planet are you coming from?
ValeriaT
1.1 / 5 (13) May 25, 2013
Even nuclear power, something understood and explained by physics that actually works, that promised us unlimited energy, did not pan out as promised
Of course, from reasons which are easy to foresee. The nuclear fission releases deadly radiation and it leaves the deadly waste and uranium reserves are limited and environmentally unfriendly to mine. What did you expect? Cold fusion has just these disadvantages removed. And what the killing of animals for food has to do with it? With sufficient fusion energy we could fabricate all food in plants and leave the surface of Earth free in virgin state for recreational purposes.
DonGateley
2.1 / 5 (14) May 25, 2013

When you have made enough mistakes and been through enough pain, if you live that long, you will understand that the statement you made above only reflects your view of yourself and others. If that person is those things you say, then we all are. More likely is that we are not our actions and the attempt to define us human animals as actions is a lie. The reason we do and say what we do that is wrong and hurtful is that we are in the presence of one or more lies. The problem is the lie. Please don't make more. You can all out the improper words and actions all you want, but please try to state it truthfully if you really want to do the right thing.


LOL! I think my 70 years with at least it's share of mistakes and pain more than qualifies my observations and opinions on human nature and my 25 years on the internet qualifies me to spot attention seeking trolls.

Your preaching sounds like unseasoned youth to me. And your obsession with lies is very strange indeed.
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (13) May 25, 2013
Yeah, DonG., those espousing "Truth" with a capital "T" are evangelists in good company with the "Good versus Evil" crowd. I personally liked "Good&Plenty"myself. Choo Choo Charlie was an engineer...
DavidW
1 / 5 (15) May 25, 2013

Your preaching sounds like unseasoned youth to me.


You didn't address your lie. You specifically attempted to define a human animal as an action.

We are not our actions. It's a shame you have not learned that yet, but most people haven't either. That's why we have the problems we have. It's always the lies that mislead us.

If your aim is to mislead people then please sit down. If the truth doesn't matter to you then please sit and remain quiet or defend the truth if it does.
DavidW
1 / 5 (14) May 25, 2013
Of course, from reasons which are easy to foresee.


Exactly. We can't foresee anything with someone hiding the facts and lying to us.

And what the killing of animals for food has to do with it?


Killing animals and eating them is not for food when plant based food is also available. That is killing animals for enjoyment. One may be necessary and the other is an excuse to cause needless harm for personal enjoyment. Having plenty of energy does not address what it may be used for. Given the current state of the worls and the choices made it is probably just fuel for the fire at this point.
Egleton
1.3 / 5 (14) May 26, 2013
Good god- what a waste of time that was. I read through all the posts.
There are people who want to control Rossi, as though he were their own personal puppet.
He has the goods-you don't. Get over it.
Rossi will do as Rossi does.
You are not his master.
Go find your own life.
DonGateley
1.9 / 5 (13) May 26, 2013
Of course, from reasons which are easy to foresee.


Exactly. We can't foresee anything with someone hiding the facts and lying to us.

And what the killing of animals for food has to do with it?


Killing animals and eating them is not for food when plant based food is also available. That is killing animals for enjoyment. One may be necessary and the other is an excuse to cause needless harm for personal enjoyment. Having plenty of energy does not address what it may be used for. Given the current state of the worls and the choices made it is probably just fuel for the fire at this point.


Oops. I should have got it a while back that you are stark raving nuts. Sorry if I wasted anybody's time.
DavidW
1 / 5 (14) May 26, 2013
Seems to me that:
A: You couldn't address the lie you told to reasonable conclusion and so you avoided the issue.
B. You have not put forth one single word on the importance of the truth, because you don't think that the truth is important enough to uphold.
C. You have continued to resort to personal attacks of "ARE" this or that, which are attempts to falsely define another animal as an action, continuing the same lie you started with.

People are not actions. We are not doctors. We practice medicine. John is not a bad boy. John did a bad thing.

Yeah, Yeah. I've heard it all 1,000 more times. The very reason we have preventable problems looming over us because we as people don't generally acknowledge through word and action the real importance of the truth.
Howhot
1.8 / 5 (5) May 26, 2013
I find it interesting that after these many years, skeptics are as ferocious as ever and here is another astounding claim of excess heat. These claims can't be all wrong; the odd just don't work; not given the scientists involved or the quality of their work. I've read "Too Hot to Handle" and lost interest in CF after that. Now, I really wonder if these guys have really hit it out of the ball park.

What will happen to the solar and wind industry if Rossi did knock it out of the ball park? Oil and gas companies will have to lay off millions.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (11) May 26, 2013
I find it interesting that after these many years, skeptics are as ferocious as ever and here is another astounding claim of excess heat. These claims can't be all wrong; the odd just don't work; not given the scientists involved or the quality of their work. I've read "Too Hot to Handle" and lost interest in CF after that. Now, I really wonder if these guys have really hit it out of the ball park.
The greater the number of incidents where claims are false, the higher the probability of subsequent identical claims also being false. At some point the probability becomes too vanishingly small for most people. WhatIF games are fun, but outcomes have to be separated from the improbable unless the goal is a work of fiction
rah
1.3 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
At least his invention doesn't disappear every time you try to test it, like my time-shifting gravipod does. I'm close to solving the return issue and will then open it up for questions. If you would like to invest, call me.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
What will happen to the solar and wind industry if Rossi did knock it out of the ball park? Oil and gas companies will have to lay off millions
The fossil fuel lobby has been a real opponent of cold fusion before twenty years, but now just the scientists working in alternative areas of research of energy production/conversion/transport and storage are the main culprit.
The greater the number of incidents where claims are false, the higher the probability of subsequent identical claims also being false.
Yep, this effect is known in social psychology under the names pluralistic ignorance and spiral of silence effects. The physicists usually have contempt for social sciences, but sometimes they cold really learn from it. After all, many theories like the string theory are about sociology more than about physic
sams2013
1 / 5 (8) May 26, 2013
As we stand at the dawn of new power producing technologies that at some point in the near future become real and feasible, the biggest problem we all have, is the world wide economic shift that would occur at a rate that can not be stabilized, rupturing markets and industries, creating a world wide economic collapse far greater than we can ever prepare for. We thought the GFC was bad. Not to say this is the device that will make this happen, but if any technology were created that could provide several magnitudes of improvement over our best energy sources, you do the math on the other side of the economic equation.
Egleton
1 / 5 (11) May 26, 2013
"What will happen to the solar and wind industry if Rossi did knock it out of the ball park? Oil and gas companies will have to lay off millions."
Spare a thought for the whalers that the oil industry put out of a job.

Dogjaw
1.2 / 5 (6) May 26, 2013
So does anybody know a different website where I can get decent science news? The fact that this snake-oil horsecrap is the third article down and full of CF yes-men trying to defend it is really, really disappointing to me.
dedereu
1 / 5 (10) May 26, 2013
Their experimental proof is not free of basic errors, (not using a calorimeter but complex estimate of radiating infrared) and thus remains similar to many of cold fusion experiments, unable to convince and make relable systems, with strange results, not easy to reproduce freely..
It is very strange, that this system giving quite more heat than put on it, does not run away very hot and explode like a bomb, escaping the external heating control ??? ??? like typical of explosive and nuclear reactors, which cannot be controled by simple external heating !!

Why Rossi does not use his system to heat his own house for nothing ??? before working for megawatts ?????
If I had his system, I would use it simply for heating my house, like a simple calorimeter on several months and reduces by 10 my heating expenses,, without any more discussions.

For this reason, I am not convinced, like many others.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2013
Dogjaw - your point is well made. I read other sites like MIT Technology review - but for a free site - and looking at the breadth and depth of material covered - I don't think you can beat Physorg (love to hear from others if it is out there). The comments section can be frustrating - and can give you the sense that the inmates have taken over the asylum. I actually find the political idealogues like Rygg more frustrating than the cold fusion crazies. I think that I have finally learned that arguing is just an exercise in futility - it is certainly odd that there is so much anti science on a science site - I think there are a lot of religionists out there who are seeing their relevance eroded - so they are trying to scream - as their heads disappear under the quick sand.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (13) May 26, 2013
The fact that this snake-oil horsecrap is the third article down and full of CF yes-men trying to defend it is really, really disappointing to me
You didn't prove it's a crap. The cold fusion has a broad experimental background of many serious publications. The simple labeling it a "crap" from some anonymous hater just demonstrates, how the pluralistic ignorance works.
I think there are a lot of religionists out there who are seeing their relevance eroded
Just bellow this article? You probably missed the topic. I do appreciate the PhysOrg, he doesn't censor the information and discussions in recent time. Is this freedom an evidence of anti-science? Or rather the proponents of so-called "true science" have problem with free access of publics to informations?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (25) May 26, 2013
You, sir, are merely a troll who craves negative attention
Hi noob.

If you check estevans profile page and my activity page you will get a good idea of who the greasy troll really is (estevan). Note how his many comments are all love letters to otto. You yourself seem to be pretty prolific for a noob eh?
Yes Otto, I believe I am the only one that want to buy one of these.
What a stupid thing to say
Well you believe this because youre an egomaniac with an inferiority complex. I think I said this already.

They have been taking pre-orders for the commercial unit for over a year now. Y wouldnt you think there would be others in the world who would have done what you did? You know, people who were genuinely interested and not just wanting to make rossi walk around back and forth for them?

Just curious.

By the way according to MFMP you will need a deposit of 1/3 the price of $1.5M. You must dance for rossi first yes? We will need to see the receipt of course-
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (25) May 26, 2013
LOL! I think my 70 years with at least it's share of mistakes and pain more than qualifies my observations and opinions on human nature and my 25 years on the internet qualifies me to spot attention seeking trolls
I heard billy graham say this very thing once. Alas science has exposed his willful ignorance. Wisdom is optional; senility is mandatory.
So does anybody know a different website where I can get decent science news? ..snake-oil horsecrap
Have you tried this one?
http://www.billygraham.org/

You will note that most of the posters here who express support for LENR have taken the time to examine the most recent evidence for it, while detractors like antialiens choose to stick with opinions formed 10 or 20 years ago.

In other words those who respect evidence will seek it out and make decisions based upon what they find. This is the way of science no? But sometimes it is just enjoyable to be obstinate. I think the word is 'cantankerous'.
djr
4 / 5 (4) May 26, 2013
Valeria: " Is this freedom an evidence of anti-science?"

Not at all - why would you even ask that? I would say it is evidence of a particular style of web site management - where the site host chooses to moderate very cautiously, and for the most part to let commenters have a free and unmoderated forum. Of course there are pros and cons to such an approach. The ideologues, and the crazies get to play in the sand box too. Free speech does come at a price. The real difficulty for me comes with the borderline issues. I can dismiss the contrail folks pretty well. Steorn - that is open and shut. Cold fusion is a more grey area. As Otto advocates - demand the evidence - which so far has not been forthcoming - all you contribute to is the conspiracy theories - and that goes in the crazy box for me.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) May 26, 2013
Free speech does come at a price. The real difficulty for me comes with the borderline issues.
You see, Einstein had absolutely no problem with this difficulty at all:
I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right.
So, what could we lose, if it turns out, that the cold fusion simply doesn't work? Absolutely nothing, in the same way, like at the case of negative results of research of gravitational waves or string theory. We will simply learn, such a ways aren't feasible. But with compare to the dull research of useless mainstream theories, at the case of cold fusion validity we could achieve a huge reward. For me it's a win-win strategy.
Telekinetic
1.3 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
Despite the evidence; endorsements from NASA, LENR research by the U.S. Navy, and continuing research based on the original work of Pons&Fleischmann, the mob of know-it-alls here still can't discern a genuine effort by a researcher immersed in his work for years, ignoring the din of doubters, who've understandably earned his DIStrust, from an obvious mountebank who would have thrown in the towel long ago.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 26, 2013
Look, the negative results of gravitational waves or WIMPs detectors are published routinely in mainstream press, whereas at the case of cold fusion research - despite the "genuine effort by a researcher immersed in his work for years" - we can met only with garage studies of underground science.

In my conviction the mainstream science doesn't research the cold fusion responsibly, which corresponds the situation, no official budget is dedicated for it with department of energy with compare to many other research projects. From my perspective (which follows the lack of official funding and the lack of official peer-reviewed publications) the official cold fusion research simply DOESN'T EXIST. And the results are corresponding: whereas we can observe the steady state progress in cold fusion research, this progress is still very slow.

The cold fusion research simply needs it's official budget and publishing platform like any other research.
megmaltese
1.7 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
This creates a lot of suspicion, and I wonder why the scientists involved did not insist on more control.


It's exactly THIS type of behaviour I talk about when I say that he doesn't "look" professional.
All these "coincidences" are simply too many to be coincidences.
It's simply statistically impossible (or almost impossible) that this guy is not just teasing (or trying to) the world.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 26, 2013
All these "coincidences" are simply too many to be coincidences.
For me the coincidence is, nobody wants to replicate the simple cheap experiments of Piantelli and Focardi, wheres everyone is trying to doubt the cryptic experiments of Andrea Rossi. If the mainstream scientists are in doubt about cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel, why the hell didn't check it itself? I'd welcome every publication about it presented in peer-reviewed mainstream press is rigorous way. But current situation is way too much similar to the stance of opponents of Galileo, who just refused to look into his telescope not from fear, they would blame itself and they would see anything - but from the exactly the opposite reason.
megmaltese
1.7 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
We are not our actions.


Funny. I really believe that we ARE our actions.
If we are not our actions, then what are we?
Our WORDS? I hope not eh...
Telekinetic
1.3 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
ValeriaT:
You and I and millions of others know that this is not the only threatening research that goes unfunded. Tesla, for example, left behind a huge inventory of experiments that will never see the light of day, if the result is "free energy".
djr
5 / 5 (2) May 26, 2013
Tele: "You and I and millions of others know that this is not the only threatening research that goes unfunded."

So set up a web site - solicit $5 or more from each of those millions of others - and you got your funding. Complete the research - and you become the richest dude in the world - and then you can fund all of that research for us. In other words - put your money where your mouth is - no it is easier to spend your day spreading conspiracy theories on the internet.
antialias_physorg
1.8 / 5 (5) May 26, 2013
So set up a web site - solicit $5 or more from each of those millions of others - and you got your funding

Isn't kickstarter such a site? Why doesn't any of these mythical 'snubbed' scientists go there?
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (19) May 26, 2013
So set up a web site - solicit $5 or more from each of those millions of others - and you got your funding

Isn't kickstarter such a site? Why doesn't any of these mythical 'snubbed' scientists go there?


I suspect that many of them do, and still can't find any takers.... Which leads them to come to sites like phys.org to take out their frustration on "mainstream" science.
djr
5 / 5 (3) May 26, 2013
Q-star: "I suspect that many of them do, and still can't find any takers..." Mmmmm - so where is the problem here - millions of people know about a secret energy source - that will produce fee energy for the world - and as such will be the catalyst that pulls billions out of poverty - and advances the human race a quantum leap - but they wont give $5 to make it happen??? I am confused....
freeiam
1.3 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
... electric measurement distortion. Cables are definitely thick enough to deliver
several kW of power while apparent "measured" current would be much less if magnetic field that is being measured is partly shielded. Input power underestimated - "unexplained energy" appears... Rossi did it again!


I agree. A simple look at the electricity meter would suffice.
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (14) May 26, 2013
Tele: "You and I and millions of others know that this is not the only threatening research that goes unfunded."

So set up a web site - solicit $5 or more from each of those millions of others - and you got your funding. Complete the research - and you become the richest dude in the world - and then you can fund all of that research for us. In other words - put your money where your mouth is - no it is easier to spend your day spreading conspiracy theories on the internet.

Oh, I see, there's a conspiracy of people who spread conspiracy theories on the internet. You're an idiot, and I'll explain why. J.P. Morgan, the banker, gave Tesla the financial backing he needed until he, Tesla, began to suggest he was close to generating "free energy". At that point, Morgan pulled his support completely. It's history, which when read and understood, will silence blowhards like yourself.
antialias_physorg
1.8 / 5 (5) May 26, 2013
Oh, I see, there's a conspiracy of people who spread conspiracy theories on the internet.

Why would there need to be something as complicated as a conspiracy? Gullible people will tend to believe what other gullible people say. It would work by itself (much as - and for very much the same reason as - religion)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 26, 2013
The gullible people willing to believe reports about nonexistence of some phenomena are called pathological skeptics or disbelievers. The gullibility doesn't recognize sign - it's just a gullibility.
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (13) May 26, 2013
@antialias:
"Princeton University's John Wheeler and Richard Feynman valued the zero point energy for the first time. They calculated that a cup of zero point energy is enough to bring all the oceans of the world to a boiling point."- Telekinetic 4/27/13

"Yes,there is energy there-but no: you can't use it to do any work. So no ZPE powerplants"- antialias 4/27/13

What if the world depended on your expert opinion, antialias?
Ober
1.4 / 5 (9) May 26, 2013
Edison was on to the light bulb. How many experiments did he have to do to find the right filament material? I think thousands of attempts!!! HE did have experimental bulbs, but they would burn out to quickly. Rossi COULD be in this same situation. A machine that "works", but not yet as he would like. Hence the secret "sauce". However, I'm going with the idea that Rossi's device is to good to be true. Thus MY opinion is that this machine may show promise, but will never function as we would like. As for people losing jobs in the oil industry, well oil is used for a lot more than FUEL. The business of chemistry relies on it, and burning oil as fuel seems a waste in comparison. Also I.T. was once feared for putting people out of work, as computers can replace thousands right??? Nope, they simply replaced one industry with another.
So while my opinion changes like the wind on this subject, my overall thoughts are to simply wait and see. I shall not purchase until these devices are common.
djr
5 / 5 (3) May 26, 2013
The gullible people willing to believe reports about nonexistence of some phenomena are called pathological skeptics or disbelievers. The gullibility doesn't recognize sign - it's just a gullibility.

Why don't you just answer the question Valeria - if there truly is this new energy source - and millions of people know about it - then put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is - and develop it. You can become the richest dude in the world - and fund all the zero point energy science you want. Stop arguing around in circles - and put up - or shut up.

Telekinetic - I am not an idiot - I am actually pretty smart - and I ask something that I think is very reasonable - and a sign of a smart person. I ask for evidence. Not reference to some papers - but actual evidence. Let me show you what I mean. Gasoline burns - and produces energy - that can be used to power a car. I can put gasoline in my car - and then drive the car. That is evidence. There is to date no evidence for cold fusion.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 26, 2013
I'm going with the idea that Rossi's device is to good to be true
Why do you think so? Piantelli and Focardi claimed the COP > 3 before twenty years already - so why Rossi couldn't get some progress during this time and to claim the COP ~ 6. The only problem is, nobody did seriously test the Piantelli finding from this time (with exception of Cellani and few nonmainstream physicists). The mainstream physics simply avoids all replications. For example, before three years we could read about cold fusion evidence during co-deposition of Palladium in trivial arrangement, which was claimed to be quite reproducible. Did someone repeated it during from this time? Nope, nobody bothered with it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) May 26, 2013
This is not just about cold fusion, but about any other finding, which somehow violates the established paradigms of mainstream physics. Before some time M. Tajmar anounced gravitomagnetic effect Did someone attempted to replicate it? Nope. The EM-drive has been anounced before some time - recently Chinese replicated it successfully. It looks like cheap and easy business for mainstream physicists - but nope, nobody other still replicated it. The Woodward drive is the stuff of the similar category, it was recently replicated with NASA. But mainstream peer-reviewed physics? No way, these guys simply will never bother with it, they've apparently way more interesting jobs.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 26, 2013
And I'm not talking about unofficial research of scalar waves (K. Meyl, Eric Dollard), magnetic motors, antigravity beams, water clusters and another stuffs, which are ignored completely. The solid state and quantum physics are the most active branch of physics today thanks to graphene and topological insulator findings - yet they're just confirming the phenomena predicted before many years - the physicists just got the nanotechnologies for their realization, but they're not forced to move outside of quantum physics at least a bit. In this way the physics has transformed into surviving dinosaur, which cannot cross its shadow. It's because the physicists have learned to work only with the research, which is supported with existing theories. The high impacted mainstream journals even don't accept any experimental works, which they have no theoretical support. If the physicists have no theory, they simply cannot publish - so they have no motivation for further research.
megmaltese
1.7 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
I will come back to this article when the story will be over.
It will be fun.
djr
5 / 5 (5) May 26, 2013
so they have no motivation for further research.

The motivation for further research is at minimum 2 fold. First the curious pursuit of truth - the endeavor to push forward the knowledge of our species. Second - financial gain. There is every motivation for scientists to develop cold fusion - it will bring the scientists wealth and fame. So again and again and again we ask the same question - that you refuse to answer. If scientists have already developed this new, limitless energy source - why have they (and you) not put their money where their mouths are - and put it into production. The world is waiting - you have a moral obligation - answer the question - why have you not developed it already?
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (13) May 26, 2013
"Telekinetic - I am not an idiot - I am actually pretty smart - and I ask something that I think is very reasonable - and a sign of a smart person. I ask for evidence. Not reference to some papers - but actual evidence. Let me show you what I mean. Gasoline burns - and produces energy - that can be used to power a car. I can put gasoline in my car - and then drive the car. That is evidence. There is to date no evidence for cold fusion."- dir

The evidence that you want, "not reference to some papers", would require that you be invited to a demonstration, which won't happen because you lack the credentials. If you'll believe it only when it becomes available to the public, then why do you speculate about it at all? In your reference to gasoline, would you have believed ten years ago that you could drive on compressed air? Your bratty arrogance in demanding proof while research is carried out by scientists who are more than "pretty smart", means that you don't understand the process.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
My question is way more primitive. Why the most important experiments weren't even attempted to replicate? Such an experiments are: 1) the direct fusion of hydrogen plasma inside the palladium (Panneth, Peters 1926). 2) The heat effect of hydrogen in Raney nickel (Kokes and Anderson 1959) 3) The direct observation of cold fusion with thermocamera at palladium electrode. 4) The evolution of heat at the nickel wire heated in the hydrogen atmosphere (Piantelli 1992). 5) The formation of tracks behind electrode during codeposition of palladium (2006). I just want to read about it somewhere else than just in original articles. Until I cannot, then I simply don't believe in fairy tales about scientific inquisitiveness.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
If scientists have already developed this new, limitless energy source - why have they (and you) not put their money ... and put it into production
It's like to say, I'll will not believe in general relativity until I cannot buy a working product, which is using it. The application of double standards to the subject of doubt belongs into signs of pathological skepticism. Everyone knows, there is long way from observation of phenomena to its commercialization - so you shouldn't ask for more evidence, than you can get at the case of another physical findings. I just want to see a peer-reviewed attempts for replications - until I cannot read about it in Nature or Science, then the joker resides on the side of mainstream physicists, not researched phenomena. Because until we will not attempt for replication at all, we cannot observe any effect - no matter how well it's actually running.
djr
5 / 5 (6) May 26, 2013
Your bratty arrogance in demanding proof while research is carried out by scientists who are more than "pretty smart", means that you don't understand the process.

Your childish insults don't bother me - been on physorg too long for that. It is neither bratty or arrogant to simply state that in order to believe in something - I require evidence. Otherwise I am at the mercy of every snake oil salesmen in the universe who wants to convince me of this or that. Steorn energy is still making claims about their orbo thingy. It is very reasonable to require evidence. You can invest your hard earned money in what ever scheme you choose - with or without evidence. It seems to me that you are good at arguing around in circles - but pretty short on an understanding of how you understand the universe - I know a great homeopothist who would love to take your money...
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
Steorn energy is still making claims about their orbo thingy.
This is the same story, again and again. Steorn effect is routinely replicated at YouTube. Why no attempts for replications are published in peer-reviewed journal, after then? Aren't we paying scientists enough for it? I just want to read in Nature journal, that the device was constructed in accordance to Steorn kit and it doesn't run. Until I cannot read about it, it just means, nobody of scientists has attempted for it. Work, finish, publish. No publication means, no work has been done about it. Is it so difficult to understand it?
djr
5 / 5 (5) May 26, 2013
It's like to say, I'll will not believe in general relativity until I cannot buy a working product, which is using it. The application of double standards to the subject of doubt belongs into signs or pathological skepticism.

Not a double standard at all - and very revealing of your infantile understanding of science. Einstein was not claiming to have developed a new energy source that was going to radically alter the economies of the world. Rossi is. Therefore - it is apples and oranges. However - as I understand science - Einstein's theory remains a theory - even though there is a great deal of experimental evidence that supports his theory. I understand there is still disagreement over the issue of relativity, and some recently claim to exceed the speed of light, that theoretically contradicts Einstein. Oh - but in your world the 'main stream science' does not entertain disagreement! You still did not answer the question.
djr
5 / 5 (5) May 26, 2013
Steorn effect is routinely replicated at YouTube. - Are you for real????? Steorn has never produced a working model. When they did their big press event at a London museum a few years ago - the thing did not work - and they claimed the lights were too bright - and affected the energy balance. Ummm hello - just turn the lights off. If you believe that Steorn is legitimate - you are a bigger head banger than I ever imagined.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
Einstein was not claiming to have developed a new energy source that was going to radically alter the economies of the world
But Piantelli didn't claim it too. It were different people who did it. Piantelli just published heat effects, no less no more. No apples and oranges are there. You can replace the Einstein with nuclear fission, if you want. Just after six years we got the first nuclear bomb, which is complex and expensive technology. Just compare it with speed of replication of trivial cold fusion experiments - even after twenty years we have none published in peer-reviewed journal. Replications, replications, replications. I know exactly what I'm asking and why I'm asking it. Just the published attempt for replication is what distinguishes the inquisitive skeptic from negativist denier.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
If you believe that Steorn is legitimate - you are a bigger head banger than I ever imagined.
Of course I do, the Yildiz motor and MEG work on the same principle - it's quite evident, that the magnetic viscosity is behind all these technologies. But this is different story, than the cold fusion (of course, its dismissal without further investigation is the same shame for mainstream physics, like the case of cold fusion). You even cannot imagine the complete depth of shit, in which the mainstream physics resides by now. It denies whole century of alternative research.
djr
5 / 5 (5) May 26, 2013
"If you believe that Steorn is legitimate - you are a bigger head banger than I ever imagined."

"Of course I do,"

Case closed.....

For others on the list that may still be reading at this stage of comments - here is the wiki page on Steorn - sums it up pretty well.

http://en.wikiped...i/Steorn
Estevan57
3 / 5 (26) May 26, 2013
Otto, Otto, Otto. You are the ultimate troll. You put forth what you would have others think I believe, then ask me why I would believe this. And why would I assume I would be the only one in line? Dumbass.

What's wrong with trying to buy what he is selling?
Is buying a head of lettuce from a grocer "making him dance"?
Is buying a car from a dealer "making him dance"? Is getting a loan for a car a "dance".
Use your own metaphor at least ! Unimaginative troll.

If he has the goods, why not try to buy it? Its deductable anyway. Business expense and all. Oregon is very supportive of energy saving investments. Accelerated depreciation, tax incentives, etc. I have paid that much for machinery recently, so it isn't really a problem.

The hard part is getting a banker to hold money in Escrow for an unproven device.

I mean, if only SOMEONE would admit to actually owning one...

Maybe in in 3 months, make that 4 months, er, make that 7 months. Do I hear a year?
Ober
2.1 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
Wow, this thread has gone to sh_t. We, the readers of physorg, have almost had a civil war here. Seems unexplained phenomena and one eyed opinions cause quite a stir!!!! Though I suppose it's good for the sites advertising revenue. So keep it up folks, this site has bills to pay!!
I see the person who gives people 1 star has been busy. Why don't you announce yourself sir, or do you prefer to hide?

So has the above debate been fruitful?
Has anyones opinion been changed?

I doubt it.
69quest
1.4 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
I can't seem to understand why uninformed people both with and without a physics PhD are casting a witch hunt. What's the matter? too sad you don't understand how it works. Anyone who quickly casts this man as a charlatan should be ashamed of how low they've stooped
megmaltese
1.6 / 5 (13) May 27, 2013
Steorn energy is still making claims about their orbo thingy.
This is the same story, again and again. http://www.youtub...rt6p_dyY at YouTube. Why no attempts for replications are published in peer-reviewed journal, after then? Aren't we paying scientists enough for it?


ahahhaahhahahahahahhhaahhahahahahahhaahhahahahahahhhaahhahahahahahhaahhahahahahahhhaahhahahahahahhaahhahahahahahhhaahhahahahahahhaahhahahahahahhhaahhahahahahahhaahhahahahahahhhaahhahahahahahhaahhahahahahahhhaahhahahahahahhaahhahahahahahh

http://en.wikiped...i/Steorn

Why aren't we buying anything from them yet?
BECAUSE THEY SELL CRAP, THAT'S WHY.

Otherwise, guess what, if they sold FREE ENERGY, after somebody bought it, his friends would buy it immediately as well, and in one week all the world would buy their stuff because the propagation would be immense.

AND YOU BELIEVE THIS SHIT!

You are simply a conspiracy believer.
And waste words with you... what a waste of time.
megmaltese
1.7 / 5 (12) May 27, 2013
Lets make things clear: until there is at least theoretical possibility that the cold fusion works, we should research it, because we can only profit from it as a whole. And I'm pretty sure, that at least one of five thousands of publications published at http://lenr-canr.org works. If we can research the useless Higgs boson and/or gravitational waves, why not just the effect, which can bring the progress? The only people who can dismiss such an attitude are those, who would appear like ignorant idiots at the case of its success, because they denied the cold fusion for whole century.


We are not denying cold fusion here.
We are exposing the quirky behaviour of a guy who didn't discover anything (he does not know how his stuff "works"), he is not selling anything or allowing anybody to check what the heck he is claiming about, and despite this he makes claims and shows.
EXACTLY like all scammers in the past did.
EVERYTHING is shady here, but no, you WANT to believe.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (9) May 27, 2013
Lets make things clear: until there is at least theoretical possibility that the cold fusion works, we should research it

Funds for research are limited. Research funds should be allocated to promising research (i.e. stuff that has a good basis in solid theories).
Some speculative research should be funded if it looks like it could give great gains. That is why cold fusion research WAS funded (much more so than any other speculative research in the past).
But at some point you have to pull the plug on research (or any other enterprise) that goes nowhere. That CF claimed to have gone somewhere and couldn't show the results didn't help.

So it's better to take the funds available and go on to do some other research where people are honest about the results.
If you don't agree with that then go to kickstarter and try to raise funds for it. Or go to universities which always have some speculative research going on.
djr
5 / 5 (4) May 27, 2013
natello: "Lets make things clear: until there is at least theoretical possibility that the cold fusion works, we should research it"

I don't believe anyone is trying to control what is, and is not researched. There are limited research funds - so of course there will have to be choices made about where to spend those funds. I don't get to make those decisions - but I hope that those who do are trying to get a balance between practical research that has tangible short term benefit (graphene for example), and more abstract theoretical stuff like string theory. I don't think anyone is trying to tell Rossi what he can and cannot study - just asking him to support the claims he makes - which so far he has not - and is a very reasonable request. It is really not that complex.

Telekinetic
1.3 / 5 (12) May 27, 2013
natello: "Lets make things clear: until there is at least theoretical possibility that the cold fusion works, we should research it"

I don't think anyone is trying to tell Rossi what he can and cannot study - just asking him to support the claims he makes - which so far he has not - and is a very reasonable request. It is really not that complex.



Your new tone of reasonableness is bullshit. What you're saying is "You've had all the time I'm going to allow you to prove your claims, therefore time's up and you're a fraud". And you're still an idiot.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (8) May 27, 2013
He said that they plan to have a live webcam running during the duration of the pending 6-month continuous run test of the Hot-Cat.

And this is supposed to be better than the questionable 'evidence' gathered by thermal imaging as described in the above article exactly....how?
djr
5 / 5 (6) May 27, 2013
Tele: "Your new tone of reasonableness is bullshit. - And your still an idiot"

Such sophisticated responses - been on physorg way too long to let you provoke me. My position is very consistent - I wont believe in something without there being evidence - hence I am an atheist. You believe what ever you wish - I have a homeopothist friend who would love to take your money and cure all of what ails you with microscopic doses of spider venom - and I hope you are invested in Steorn's orbo thingy. Rossi should take all the time he wants to play with his e-cat - but he should not expect recognition for discovering a new source of energy that is going to revolutionize the world - until he proves it. How hard is that to understand? Perhaps too hard for you. Wonder who the idiot is!!!!
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (13) May 27, 2013
"Andrea will not part from his device. Tests in Sweden is a possibility
but then he or his coworkers would be present. There are many who wish
to steal his e-cats. So the 6 month test will be in Ferrara. It will
however be continuously monitored by cameras so as not to be
manipulated."- Hanno Essen, former chairman Swedish Skeptical Society

This quote speaks volumes about the real situation. This third party observer points out that "there are many who wish to steal his e-cats",
NOT "Rossi is a paranoid type". Essen confirms that the wolves are waiting in the wings, and Rossi's distrust of outsiders is justified.
Telekinetic
1.3 / 5 (12) May 27, 2013
"Tele: "Your new tone of reasonableness is bullshit. - And your still an idiot"- dir

So you've quoted my opening and ending lines. Did you miss what I said in between them? And you already used the stupid homeopathist joke earlier in the thread- you're running out of material. Now you're allowing Rossi more time to prove his claims- how generous of you. A bit different from your earlier "put up or shut up" remarks. VERY sophisticated.

djr
4.4 / 5 (7) May 27, 2013
Tele - what you are saying in the above post is this - Rossi has discovered a new energy source - that will revolutionize the world. This energy source has the potential to lift billions of people out of poverty - to save the lives of countless millions who would otherwise die of starvation - and poverty related disease. This device will also end the need to burn fossil fuels - and thus allow us to mitigate global warming - with all the benefits to humanity for that one change. For personal gain - Rossi refuses to release details of this discovery to the world - and is thus comfortable withholding this incredible revolution from the human race. I would put that person on a moral equivalency with Hitler.
Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (16) May 27, 2013
To find a moral equivalence between Rossi and Hitler is dumb, desperate, and disgusting. You're even more of an idiot than I realized.
djr
5 / 5 (8) May 27, 2013
Why the people like you are even allowed to log at PhysOrg?

Because it is an open forum - and I think I presented my case very well. If someone has a discovery that has the potential to save millions lives - to move humanity forward a quantum leap - and they keep their discovery a secret for reasons of personal gain - that is morally abhorrent, in my view on a level with the worst evil. Of course it is possible that Rossi does not really have such a discovery. Either way - he is not a very nice person. Perhaps you should spend more time addressing this issue - and less trying to censor who is allowed to log on to a web site. Would you be the arbiter of said censorship?
italba
2 / 5 (8) May 27, 2013
@djr: Writing that people are starving because of energy costs confirms that you are a idiot.

@all: I advise you all to download and store those comments: Will Rossi be right or wrong, it will be a great humor book!
djr
5 / 5 (4) May 27, 2013
Tele: " And you already used the stupid homeopathist joke earlier in the thread" I use the example often - because I see it as making a very important point. I feel it is important to have a framework for thinking - I way of deciding what I consider truth, what I consider not truth, and what I put in the middle as unknown. I put cold fusion in the middle as unknown. So Tele - from looking at your post - and say for example this quote "you're running out of material." I see that you and I have fundamentally different motives for posting. I am interested in getting at truth - and sorting through the mass of information we are overloaded with - and helping myself, and perhaps others to figure out this strange universe - through dialogue. You appear to see it as a pissing match - a childish little game - 'na na - you have run out of material. And I see the stakes as VERY high - which is why someone like Rossi makes me angry.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
Rossi does not really have such a discovery. Either way - he is not a very nice person
This is not a scientific argument neither. Maybe he is just the right person for such way of breakthrough. It's not job for conformists and down-to-earth personalities. Actually we all need him, the actual progress of cold fusion research driven with scientists only for twenty - seventy years wasn't satisfactory for me.
antialias_physorg
2.1 / 5 (7) May 27, 2013
Will Rossi be right or wrong, it will be a great humor book!

Can we set a date by which time he either has a commercially available product or we declare this a fraud?
Right now it seems like the never ending story of ever delayed 'demonstrations' and roll-outs. Rossi is a bit like these 'the end is near' guys. Every time he sets a date his announcements somehow fail to materialize.

(and if you look at his enterpreneurial history re. Petroldragon and re. "Electricity from waste heat" he has yet to show ANYTHING in ANY sector that actually works - not just in the cold fusion game)
How about January 2014 (or 2015 or whatever you want)? Then we can finally put this behind us (either way).
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) May 27, 2013
Can we set a date by which time he either has a commercially available product or we declare this a fraud?
Of course not, this is a sociological criterion, not the physical one. In science we don't use the commercialization of effect, artifact or phenomena as the meaningful criterion of existence at all. If you would allow such a criterion, then I would insist instead, that all research must have some practical application in real time, or it would be not only useless, but de-facto fraud. So when you call for such a criterion at the case of Rossi and you're proponent of useless basic research at the same moment, then you're residing in deep hypocrisy. The same applies to another sociological and economical criterions of physical reality.

After all, what will change, if it turns out, that the E-Cat device doesn't work as announced? Are dozens of another physicists who observed the similar effects but with somewhat lower COP or lower temperature a swindlers too?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
For me the arguments of various deniers against Rossi are the demonstration of supersymmetric character of scientific community: its proponents are willing to deny the principles of the whole existence of science just from fear of lost of their jobs, social credit and informational monopoly. From when in science the private interpreters served as the criterion of scientific relevance? Why the deniers of cold fusion ignore the patient extensive work and thousands of articles of many scientists working on this field on behalf of Andrea Rossi who never published anything? We can see, how the blind proponents of science are willing to deny the basic principles of scientific method at the moment, when it could threat their own position.
italba
1.7 / 5 (6) May 27, 2013

Can we set a date by which time he either has a commercially available product or we declare this a fraud?

How many years took Edison to build a stupid light bulb? How many years took Wright brothers from the first sketches to the Flyer? And about Marconi, do you think he invented radio in a day? I will believe Rossi when he will show a self running off the grid apparatus capable to run, start and stop at will, and I will believe that Rossi is a scammer when somebody will sue him (and win) for a not working e-cat.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
It's just about money: the USA developed working nuclear bomb just five and half year after initial finding of nuclear fission. But the Manhattan project represented immense effort, concentration of people and money spending. IMO the dynamics of cold fusion research rather faithfully corresponds the actual volume of money thrown into it. IMO this research isn't extraordinarily complex, expensive or difficult. It just proceeds normally under the situation, nearly nobody of mainstream science takes it seriously. Under such an ignorant situation even the complete laymen like A. Rossi can achieve some partial success without problem.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (10) May 27, 2013
How many years took Edison to build a stupid light bulb?

At least he didn't organize a show every half year at which he just showed an empty bulb.

Rossi seems confident enough to have people look at it - so it must be done (i.e. WORKING), right? So how much longer do YOU think we should wait? A year? Two? Ten?
Just pick a date already - any date will do. Then we can just stop talking about CF alltogether on this site and simply wait till that date rolls around.

Evereybody will be happy.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (12) May 27, 2013

Can we set a date by which time he either has a commercially available product or we declare this a fraud?

How many years took Edison to build a stupid light bulb? How many years took Wright brothers from the first sketches to the Flyer? And about Marconi, do you think he invented radio in a day? I will believe Rossi when he will show a self running off the grid apparatus capable to run, start and stop at will, and I will believe that Rossi is a scammer when somebody will sue him (and win) for a not working e-cat.
Tesla was first to invent radio. Not Marconi. Gustave Whitehead, a German-born inventor flew two years before the Wright brothers, who were known for their self-promotion
UberGoober
2.6 / 5 (8) May 27, 2013
Well this is interesting. Count my on the side of the skeptics, but this piqued my interest enough that I've essentially wasted a day reading up on this. On the one hand, Rossi's track record and the assessments of previous tests paint a picture of deception. But the report and public statement from Elforsk paint a different picture- even if you question the constraints placed on the participants or believe they unknowingly became participants in the delusion.

But read Elforsk's public statement again. It is carefully worded. I think they know exactly what they're doing. They have smothered Rossi with good will, but have set the bar for him. The coming 6 month test is sink or swim for Rossi and his invention. If he backs out, we'll know what that means. If he doesn't and the test fails, we'll know what that means. If it pans out and he was really just a paranoid capitalist this whole time, then, Eureka!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
At least he didn't organize a show every half year at which he just showed an empty bulb
Rossi actually doesn't organize any public shows from public demo in January 2011 - you know, the light bulb know-how cannot be stolen so easily like the composition of his catalyst. He must sell his know-how in very clever way, because it would be otherwise stolen and exploited under different label. Don't forget, he even hasn't USA patent (while Zawodny from NASA got it immediately and he published exactly the same technology).
julianpenrod
1.5 / 5 (17) May 27, 2013
If the refusal to allow others to see the workings of a claim are evidence if not proof of fraud, the "evolution", "relativity", the "war on 'terror'" are all lies, too. I have pointed out many times that "scientists" provide declarations based on "evidence" that stays behind laboratory doors. No member of the "rank and file" has ever been allowed really to examine a "fossil" to see if it's real or a resin cast. And not revealing any of the "facts" behind the "war on 'terror'" is described as crucial to the "war " succeeding. Shills say that "scientists" allow people to see the "proof", but only if they obtain it for themselves, using equipment they don't have the money to buy! The attacks on "cold fusion" here only demonstrate that "science" is lies and those who protect "science" are defenders of patent lies.
Job001
1 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
Closed minded book thumpers unite, your funding bias and false interpretations are being challenged! As if, physics old guys now know it all, except for what causes or explains gravity, virtual particles, tunneling, plasmons, dark energy, dark mass, Non-equilibrium Hamiltonians, quantum states, hot fusion, transmutation, beta energy release, complex phase thermodynamics, nanotechnology effects, where antimatter is, how much of the universe was there before the big bang, complex many waveform interactions, and on, and on, and on.
That's why experimental science exists you know, so research can be funded to find out. Yet, the funding must done before we research to find out, it works best that way, not the other way around as some falsely suggest.
Job001
1 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
Closed minded book thumpers unite, your funding bias and false interpretations are being challenged! As if, physics old guys now know it all, except for what causes or explains gravity, virtual particles, tunneling, plasmons, dark energy, dark mass, Non-equilibrium Hamiltonians, quantum states, hot fusion, transmutation, beta energy release, complex phase thermodynamics, nanotechnology effects, where antimatter is, how much of the universe was there before the big bang, complex many waveform interactions, and on, and on, and on.
That's why experimental science exists you know, so research can be funded to find out. Yet, the funding must done before we research to find out, it works best that way, not the other way around as some falsely suggest.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
The attacks on "cold fusion" here only demonstrate that "science" is lies and those who protect "science" are defenders of patent lies
Yep. IMO such a public attitude is not normal at all. What could we lost if Rossi will be proven wrong? We are losing a much larger amount of money in research of non-existing strings, gravitational waves, etc - not to say about fossil fuel wars and environmental consequences of fossil fuel burning.
italba
1.1 / 5 (8) May 27, 2013
@antialias_physorg: Did Rossi ever asked you a single dollar? He doesn't. So you have no right to ask anything to him! If you are interested in what he's doing, or claiming, just wait and see. Otherwise, why are you posting here? When Rossi will be ready, and willing to, give a public demonstration of his work, you'll know. In the meantime, don't came boring us with your unasked opinions.

@kochevnik: If you're not just trolling I beat you're training for the Guinnes's book of record title "the most ignorant man"
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
When Rossi will be ready, and willing to, give a public demonstration of his work, you'll know.

Isn't that what the article was about? He invited a couple of people to witness his work and they write about it.

I really don't know what he has or doesn't have.

What I do know is:
- that his track record is fraudulent and a no-show in all businesses he's had up until now regarding 'inventions' (right down to KNOWN outrageously overestimations of capabilities).
- that the method he's used for this demonstration is extremely questionable (especially the limitations he's set on people observing it and what they may observe it with)
- that he doesn't have any kind of explanation for what he claims to be capable of doing
- that he has repeatedly, in the past made grandiose announcement and then failed to deliver
- that he wanted money for demonstrations in the past

Color me crazy, but if anyone were to perpetrate any ONE of these in science my fraud-o-meter would melt.
italba
1.7 / 5 (11) May 27, 2013
@antialias_physorg: As I just wrote before, don't came boring us with your unasked opinions. And please stop this stupid downrate-everyone game.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (10) May 27, 2013
@kochevnik: If you're not just trolling I beat you're training for the Guinnes's book of record title "the most ignorant man"
If by that you mean I'm not making myself an easy mark for a slimy Italian grease-ball con-artist then I plead guilty

If you wish to pursue a deeper investigation, begin by watching GoodFellas. If you wish to employ science, try successful Italian brands like Ferrari, Ducati or Fiat
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 28, 2013
Isn't that what the article was about? He invited a couple of people to witness his work and they write about it.
This is indeed NOT a public demonstration. The number of commies who are expecting, that Rossi should be forced to reveal his private know-how (while the scientists payed from public money are fucking its development) is striking.
that he wanted money for demonstrations in the past
Nope, he didn't - it's a lie.
his track record is fraudulent and a no-show in all businesses
Look, the mainstream science has a one hundred years of track record of ignorance if not open dismissal of the cold fusion research. If you want to find how the E-Cat is working, just ask the Piantelli, who published the COP ~ 3 before twenty years. Rossi is as private company as DARPA, Lockheed or Boston Dynamics (and he even has no governmental contracts). He is not obliged to publish absolutely anything about his research.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (12) May 28, 2013
Color me crazy, but if anyone were to perpetrate any ONE of these in science my fraud-o-meter would melt
My fraud-o-meter is already melted in the light of twenty years standing cold fusion suppression at MIT. The mainstream science is asking for public money, whereas it inhibits the work on publicly useful projects for years. It openly embezzles the public money in this way with compare to Rossi, who never asked the tax payers for anything.
italba
1 / 5 (5) May 28, 2013
@kochevnik: Can you read at last your own posts? I was answering to your ludicrous statement that Tesla invented the radio (he doesn't ever tried to, he spent many years trying to transmit energy, not signals!) and that Gustave Whitehead was the first man to build an aeroplane (only an article on a local journal states that, all subsequent investigations gave no proof). BTW, your calling "science" what Ferrari, Ducati and Fiat do scores another point for you in the "most ignorant" championship. At last, what problem do you have with Italy and Italians? Was your mother fuc#ed by an Italian, maybe?
LCD
not rated yet May 28, 2013
interesting follow up on Guglielmi's blog

>>The only response for which Prof. Essén authorises publication is the following:

"In the intervju I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc (since the clamps could not detec such). This was a bit hasty. In future I will not answer such technical questions without conferring with all coautors. After analysing what we checked and measured (which were many more variables that those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude dc-current. (This is what comes from being nice to journalists.)"<<

So the testers are quite confident that if they have been had by Rossi, it is most likely not due a secret DC current.
antialias_physorg
2.9 / 5 (13) May 28, 2013
As I just wrote before, don't came boring us with your unasked opinions.

Exquise me? Do I need your permission to post? Are you a moderator?
I think you VASTLY overestimate your personal importance on this forum.

And please stop this stupid downrate-everyone game.

Which I don't do. I have no sockpuppets. In contrast to others I do believe in democracy and think that 'ballot stuffing' is as low and as undemocratic as you can get.

Also I try to refrain from downrating people I'm in discussion with (however much I would occasionally love to). I really only downrate people who post seriously stupid stuff that could have been figured out by a 5 second google or just reading the article before posting (i.e. lazy people)...or those who use hypocritical standards (e.g. by demanding proof against their professed, an unproven, belief)
DavidW
1 / 5 (15) May 28, 2013


....I really only downrate people who post seriously stupid stuff that could have been figured out by a 5 second google or just reading the article before posting (i.e. lazy people)...or those who use hypocritical standards (e.g. by demanding proof against their professed, an unproven, belief)


BS. You know damn well that you ALSO have voted down that which was truthful, incorrectly. Yet, it's BS because you failed to mention that (quoted above) and tried to leave the appearance you have not done voting wrongs. Hearing the truth when we have been influenced by deception can be difficult to absorb. This is a commonly observed reaction, of which you behaved commonly. We have most all been there making mistakes and trying to make up stuff that our poop doesn't stink. Sure, this device is fraud. Yet, here you are behaving fraudulently. It's the truth that matters.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (10) May 28, 2013
You know damn well that you ALSO have voted down that which was truthful,

I have donwvoted you before EXACTLY for the reason I stated - and I quote myself:
"demanding proof against their professed, an unproven, belief"

You keep making statements about 'truth' and 'truthfulness' but never back it up with anything - and then go into a hissy fitt when someone points it out to you.

You wish reasons when you don't give any yourself. That is the very definition of a hypocritical standard. And I quote myself again:
"...or those who use hypocritical standards"

If you have a problem with showing up hypocrits, like yourself, then please explain why one shouldn't.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (9) May 28, 2013
@kochevnik: Can you read at last your own posts? I was answering to your ludicrous statement that Tesla invented the radio (he doesn't ever tried to, he spent many years trying to transmit energy, not signals!)
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tesla's radio patent number 645,576, you greaseball
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (22) May 28, 2013
Sure, this device is fraud
It indeed isn't - this device has its own independent replications already..


It's not had any independent replications. Not a single one. How can ya independently replicate a secret contained in a black box.

We can just ask, why nobody from mainstream physics didn't attempted to replicate it -


Well Zeph, that is silly even for ya. How many posts have ya made defending Rossi's prerogative to keep his "thing" secret so no one can replicate it and deprive him of his rights as the inventor??? A hundred? A thousand?

Now, in the very same comment board, ya are lamenting the fact the mainstream physicists are refusing to replicate his work? It would be easier for them to do that if they could be told what to replicate.

Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (19) May 28, 2013
if it could be achieved reliably.


Since no one is doing it, I suspect it's either reliably unachievable or achieved unreliably.
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (19) May 28, 2013
Since no one of mainstream physicists is attempting for it - this is indeed a difference. http://e-catsite....funding/ - or the cold fusion will not start at all, if the concentration of hydrogen in metal is too low - or it will destroy the catalyst with excessive heat, if the content of hydrogen in metal rises too high.


Zeph, ya might want to take a rest from this particular article's comment. I don't know about ya, but ya are confusing me. How ya ask me? I'll tell.

Ya tell us it is a justified secret & ya tell us that everyone knows the secret & won't replicate this thing,, tell it is easy and cheap to do for 70 years but that it's hard to replicate & tell us that not one physicist is willing to replicate the cold fusion done 90 years ago even though 90 years ago no one knew what fusion was or that there was any such thing as a neutron.

The endless rebuttals are all self contradictory. Try for consistency or take a nap/meds.
italba
1.4 / 5 (7) May 28, 2013
@kochevnik: Can you read at last your own posts? I was answering to your ludicrous statement that Tesla invented the radio (he doesn't ever tried to, he spent many years trying to transmit energy, not signals!)
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tesla's radio patent number 645,576, you greaseball

Exactly, read the Tesla's patent title: "System of transmission of electrical energy"! BTW, the patent was granted in 1900, Marconi's patent in 1897! You scored more!!!
italba
1 / 5 (6) May 28, 2013
@antialias_physorg: I am not a moderator and I couldn't care less about this forum, the ranking system or its posters, but please consider that 20 posts of your opinions (you where not present at Rossi's experiments, you apparently know nothing about e-cat or lern, haven't ever read the paper this thread talks about) could be enough! But, if the mission of your life is just to increase entropy, go on like that.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (12) May 28, 2013
This reminds me of "The Turk", a chess playing machine that was later revealed to be a hoax. Any time you can't look inside the box, it raises suspicion. If Rossi has a trade secret, he should patent it, so others can study it.


He tried to patent it, and the patent clerk rejected it without even reading the paper, claiming that it was a, "... perpetual motion machine, and perpetual motion machines don't work".

How much proof do you want?

He can't just sell the device without a patent because then someone else woudl copy it and he wouldn't have protection.

If it's true that the fuel source is that energy dense, then obviously it is not a hoax or some chemical energy hidden in the device. This is no different than the discovery of any other prior energy technology; everyone disbelieves, mocks it, calls it magic, etc, etc.

The horse and buggy people mocked the steam engine, the steam engine people mocked the diesel, the diesel mocked the nuclear...see a pattern? All wrong...
Lurker2358
1.3 / 5 (13) May 28, 2013
A_P:

Rossi Refused money when it was offered.

Where did you come up with that one?

I can't wait for this thing to be proven true, so "peer review mafia" people like you will have egg on your faces. After all, if "We" don't agree with it, then it must not be true...evar!

Von Braun disagreed with the multi-stage proposal for the lunar mission. Guess what? He was wrong, dead wrong, and he later agreed with it.

The premier expert can still be wrong. Pride isn't a virtue, you know.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 28, 2013
If Rossi has a trade secret, he should patent it, so others can study it.
This is not the purpose of patents at all. After all, if you believe so, why not to check the cold fusion patent of Zawodny from NASA? You can study if as long as you wish...;-) BTW Rossi asked for patent in the USA but the patent wasn't granted, because Rossi is not USA citizen - despite Rossi has a device for demonstration, whereas Zawodny not. Or rather just because of it. I hope, it will give you insight, what the patents are really about.
Anteaus
1.7 / 5 (6) May 28, 2013
If as Yevgen says clamp meters were used on sheathed cable, then that is not a very good setup from a validation point of view.

In fact, a clamp meter can be fooled into misreading by the simple expedient of using a two core sheathed cable for both feed and return, nothing more complex than that is needed. For example, one core with +18A flowing, the other with -15A, meter reads 3A but heating power is provided by the sum of the two, eleven times that expected.

It would be useful to know if the investigators were allowed to inspect the cable terminations for multiple cores. Not saying the experiment WAS fabricated, but IF it was, then likely this is how it was done.

Ideally the current should be measured with a shunt visibly inserted into the cable, or by clamping an identifiable single core. The power source should also be checked for any anomalous waveform or frequency issues which might cause meter misreading.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 28, 2013
Not saying the experiment WAS fabricated, but IF it was, then likely this is how it was done
Jeez why to fabricate it in this way? Even if these guys would invent all numbers in their study from scratch, nobody has a chance to check it. But Piantelli published essentially the same numbers, just at much lower temperatures and before twenty years in peer-reviewed journal. Why nobody is trying to doubt it? I see, because it would be forced to attempt for replication, which is something, which the mainstream physicists avoid in the same way, like the looking into telescope of Galileo before fife hundreds years. Rossi is therefore a much easier target for cold fusion deniers, because he simply cannot be replicated.
Anteaus
1.5 / 5 (8) May 28, 2013
@ValeriaT: The standard of good science is that you eliminate all possible sources of error. Using a clamp meter on a cable which might be multicore is one such source of error. Ask any electrician. Not a question of doubting the man, just one of being methodical.
Soylent_Grin
5 / 5 (1) May 28, 2013
What's the possibility that the catalyst is a highly ionized powder or somesuch that requires a great deal of energy to make in the first place, and then releases the energy in a slow sintering process that results in heat and, if one of the materials is copper to begin with, ordinary copper at the end.
I'm thinking like slow motion thermite, with some copper based mix instead of aluminum.
It would explain why he doesn't want to release the formula, because it would be useless as an "energy source", requiring more energy to make than what it gives.
It might have some nifty uses as energy storage, but not energy sourcing.
Maybe he's trying to make enough money from selling the units before they realize that they will end up costing even more to keep making the "fuel",
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (24) May 28, 2013
stuff that could have been figured out by a 5 second google ..(i.e. lazy people)...or those who use hypocritical standards (e.g. by demanding proof
Lets see... in the last few days you said:
Torbjörn Hartman...he's a friggin' vet
No hes not.
ALL the authors and co-authors have specialties relevant to the subject...And I'm wondering why that isn't the case here
They do.
as long as you keep the juice running, easily
Not enough to melt steel.
this arxiv article is a weird mixture of both (and effectively is neither a sceintific article nor something that is useful for patenting)
You would have to actually read it to know this.
But the lack of gammas is
Per widom-larsen, no its not.
You keep making statements about 'truth' and 'truthfulness' but never back it up with anything
You havent sourced your info. You refuse to visit links and educate yourself. You repeat disproven info.

So whos the hypocrite? Do you want to participate meaningfully or not?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (24) May 28, 2013
This is pretty outrageous
Rossi seems confident enough to have people look at it - so it must be done (i.e. WORKING), right? So how much longer do YOU think we should wait? A year? Two? Ten?
Just pick a date already - any date will do. Then we can just stop talking about CF alltogether on this site and simply wait till that date rolls around
You dont want to wait? You want to stop talking about it? What is preventing you from doing these things?

You have offered nothing here but old disproven info and invective. You refuse to educate yourself. You bring nothing of value to the discussion. Mach 'ne Fliege.
DavidW
1.3 / 5 (15) May 28, 2013
You know damn well that you ALSO have voted down that which was truthful,

I have donwvoted you before EXACTLY for the reason I stated - and I quote myself:
"demanding proof against their professed, an unproven, belief"

You keep making statements about 'truth' and 'truthfulness' but never back it up with anything - and then go into a hissy fitt when someone points it out to you.

You wish reasons when you don't give any yourself. That is the very definition of a hypocritical standard. And I quote myself again:
"...or those who use hypocritical standards"

If you have a problem with showing up hypocrits, like yourself, then please explain why one shouldn't.


I say:
The most important thing in life is life
We are alive.
We can't change our past.
We are equal.
The truth does exist and is where we derive our very importance.

You denied truth, then said it is relative as an excuse to dismiss the importance of the truth itself lying about what other people are.

DavidW
1 / 5 (15) May 28, 2013
I see no hypocrisy in the truths mentioned above. Yes, there can be more than one most important. The truth itself is on that level to us. Life is a truth and without truth there is no life.

I use these FOUNDATIONS of reality to start with. Anything that does not agree is nonsensical and hypocritical (lying). You just don't like that someone else has thought it through further (ego).

What pisses you off is that you can't lie about stuff or falsely lead others in thoughts that do not agree with these truths, and so you attack me to avoid thinking in reality. Very typical.

When someone says the truth is important, then what they say is most important because it's the truth. That's the power of the truth. I am equal to you, but the truth is above us.
Ober
1.9 / 5 (9) May 28, 2013
I advise people to look up "N-Rays". A history of a brilliant french physicist who believed his work to such an extent that he published about a non-existent phenomenon. Only when foreign scientists were allowed to see his work, was the truth revealed. Self Delusion.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) May 28, 2013
Using a clamp meter on a cable which might be multicore is one such source of error
The heater cables aren't multicore, as they've porcelain insulator rings for to withstand high temperatures.
I'm thinking like slow motion thermite, with some copper based mix instead of aluminum
In the article title the energy density achieved was at least 10 times higher than any conventional energy source, i.e including termite..
when foreign scientists were allowed to see his work, was the truth revealed
Many other scientists did observe thermal effects under quite different circumstances too. I would be very suspicious collective delusion. But some effects cannot be faked so easily - here you can see the nuclear reaction in thermocamera. Each spark is the individual fusion (this observation was never attempted to replicate, because it represents too apparent evidence of cold fusion too).
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (9) May 28, 2013
You denied truth, then said it is relative as an excuse to dismiss the importance of the truth itself lying about what other people are.

There you go again with unfounded 'importance' of truth (and unfounded 'truth' for that matter).

Why is it true? Why is it important? Just because you say so? That ain't good enough. Not in science. Not by a long shot.

And yes. I dismiss stuff that even the proponents (like you) can't seem to argue for. Statements are not arguments. Make an argument and we can talk. But as it stands your posts are just filled with baseless, vapid statements.

When someone says the truth is important, then what they say is most important because it's the truth.

Erm...You are aware that that is circular reasoning? And that such 'reasoning' is the most idiotic form of (not) making an argument?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) May 28, 2013
I advise people to look up "N-Rays". A history of a brilliant french physicist who believed his work to such an extent that he published about a non-existent phenomenon.
From wiki:
He had perceived changes in the brightness of an electric spark in a spark gap placed in an X-ray beam which he photographed, and he later attributed to the novel form of radiation, naming this the N-rays for the University of Nancy
It looks like quite real effect for me: the X-rays are making air conductive, which may indeed affect the size or even shape of sparks at the case of soft voltage source with high internal impedance.
DavidW
1 / 5 (13) May 28, 2013

There you go again with unfounded 'importance' of truth (and unfounded 'truth' for that matter).


YOU CAN'T SAY OR TYPE THESE THINGS THAT YOU DO WITHOUT LIFE!!!!

THAT IS CALLED: A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH

The most important thing in life is life. And every time you try to disagree with this self-evident truth you disprove your own position because you MUST use life to do it with.

But that's just all made up???!!! Huh???

It is your words that are representing nonsense.

We have been through this before. You believe that when a parent looses their child to death that their pain is not real because the truth doesn't exist. That is truthful pain.

It's our collective observation of our reality that I speak of. It's not circular reasoning. The truth cannot be reasoned with. It tells us what is reasonable. We are never above the truth.

The truth is always important. If you have a problem with that, too bad,we will never change it.
italba
1 / 5 (5) May 28, 2013
I said to download and store these comments to publish as an humour book! Now we have also the crazy preacher! Maybe we can sell the screenplay to a Hollywood major, too.
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (18) May 28, 2013
I advise people to look up "N-Rays". A history of a brilliant french physicist who believed his work to such an extent that he published about a non-existent phenomenon.
From http://en.wikiped...History:
He had perceived changes in the brightness of an electric spark in a spark gap placed in an X-ray beam which he photographed, and he later attributed to the novel form of radiation, naming this the N-rays for the University of Nancy
It looks like quite real effect for me: the X-rays are making air conductive, which may indeed affect the size or even shape of sparks at the case of soft voltage source with high internal impedance.


How does the AWT model N-rays? Got any pictures?
DavidW
1 / 5 (13) May 28, 2013
It's all theory if we don't start with a define point. All I am doing is stating and starting with some of the universally observed defined points of our reality and calling that what it is, the truth.

From there I compare all other things in these discussions. You call that circular reasoning; going from one defined point and comparing it to an action another takes to determine if that action is truthful.
It's going back and forth and your mind is about to just pop. Is that it? It is all one thing. It is you that sees the curves. If we lie, we truthfully lie. We ARE truth and we all are important and equal.

^^ if we cant stick to that then it's BS, no matter who speaks it.
The truth is important and matters. Rossi is not doing this for the truth. That's all we need to realize.
DavidW
1 / 5 (13) May 28, 2013
I said to download and store these comments to publish as an humour book! Now we have also the crazy preacher! Maybe we can sell the screenplay to a Hollywood major, too.


What you call crazy is that which you can't seem to reason with. So, if one is crazy, then we all are. We are equal. Taking the blood and sacrifices of the ages: freedom, liberty, education, among others, where some did terrible things, but still tried to make the environment better for future people and gave to that cause is what you read presented before you. Putting basics words to the real truth is indeed possible and understandable, thanks to all that gave.

Do not take these words lightly. Your importance is limitless, provided you don't attempt to place yourself above the truth. For when you did, you judged yourself as crazy and showed the world you dismissed their shared observation of reality as crazy.

If each person refuses the importance of the truth now, in this dangerous world... ouch
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (19) May 28, 2013
What you call crazy is that which you can't seem to reason with.


Boyo, now THAT is a self evident truth if ya ever posted one.
italba
1 / 5 (6) May 28, 2013
@Q-Star: I never thought I could agree with you!

@DavidW-the-crazy-preacher: I bet you surely know what the truth is! Did you saw the light, brother?
CuriousMan
3.7 / 5 (3) May 28, 2013
@telekinetic and others who compare this secrecy to Kentucky Fried Chicken secret recipe - go read the US laws on patents. Cooking recipes and math formulae cannot be patented. Trade secrecy is no excuse with modern IP laws. This is fraud.
DavidW
1 / 5 (14) May 28, 2013
@Q-Star: I never thought I could agree with you!

@DavidW-the-crazy-preacher: I bet you surely know what the truth is! Did you saw the light, brother?


People are not their actions. We are human animals. You seem to think that you can just change what the truth is to us all, and you can't. You can say I am preaching, but calling me a preacher would be a lie. The same thing goes for crazy. Even if my thoughts were crazy, I wouldn't be crazy. I would still be me, regardless of your false lying labels. You own that one.

If you agree that the truth is real and important, please state so.
If you believe all the pain the world is not truthfully real, please state so.

And the condescending, I am better than you, "Ya" of Qstar shows how grown up the lot of these comments are.

Not a one of you has even admitted the truth is a real thing. Fear of Logical Conviction. (FLC) abounds.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (11) May 28, 2013
@kochevnik: Can you read at last your own posts? I was answering to your ludicrous statement that Tesla invented the radio (he doesn't ever tried to, he spent many years trying to transmit energy, not signals!)
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tesla's radio patent number 645,576, you greaseball

Exactly, read the Tesla's patent title: "System of transmission of electrical energy"! BTW, the patent was granted in 1900, Marconi's patent in 1897! You scored more!!!
Yes it invalidated your greaseball patents so you had to fall back on burying toxic industrial waste in family residences and looking the other way while half of Italy was molested by your Vatican pederasts
Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (14) May 29, 2013
I'm curious, man, how is it that you can't read? "It's both proprietary and patentable, and no one but those who defy the status quo are lambasted for it." Was I referring to KFC as "those who defy the status quo?" And anyway, how you jump from Rossi's decision not to patent as proof of fraud recuses you from judgement- about anything.
I believe in this invention, and I'm going to get an E-Cat as soon as it's available. Why is it so hard to understand Rossi's secrecy? Every company in the world, including Kentucky Fried Chicken, won't divulge its secret recipe It's both proprietary and patentable, and no one but those who defy the status quo are lambasted for it.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 29, 2013
how you jump from Rossi's decision not to patent as proof of fraud recuses you from judgement- about anything
Rossi asked for patent in USA repetitively, but his patent application wasn't granted, because he is an USA citizen and the USA government doesn't want to give such a great business potential to persons outside of USA.
italba
1.7 / 5 (6) May 29, 2013
@kochevnik: Marconi patented his invention in England, Tesla in U.S. There was not automatic foreign patent recognition in 1900, but for sure Marconi was the first! Most important, the Tesla patent was about transmitting ENERGY, the Marconi's one about SIGNALS. Can you see the difference or do you need a sketch? Second question: Probably you don't know, but Vatican is not Italy. Catholic priests (at least some of them) molested child in every country of the world so... Now I understand why you are so angry, poor baby!

I reported your racist insults to moderators.

@DavidW And reported your pseudo philosophical-religious spam too.
DavidW
1 / 5 (12) May 29, 2013


@DavidW And reported your pseudo philosophical-religious spam too.


Knock yourself out. It is your comments that are fanning the flames of hate.

The truth is important. Now normally, we shouldn't even have to say that. Yet, the majority of the people posting here have tossed the very fact of the truth being important aside, have lied by labeling others falsely, and then wish to pretend that their words are more important than the truth itself.

italba
1 / 5 (4) May 29, 2013
Dear DavidW, (people like you have to be treated kindly), I surely don't hate you, I think you're very funny indeed. Anyway, in an internet forum there are some self-evident, and clearly written, rules. One of the most important is not to go off-topic. This is a scientific forum, right? People posting here are supposed to write about scientific arguments, better if coherent to the tread. When I come here I want to read about Rossi, e-cat, lenr, something like that. Did you like if I came here posting about soccer or baroque music? So, please, choose a better forum for your delirious ramblings. Or take a walk to the nearest asylum. They'll take care of you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (21) May 29, 2013
YOU CAN'T SAY OR TYPE THESE THINGS THAT YOU DO WITHOUT LIFE!!!!
Life invented god and god is a lie because life went into the desert and dug around for 100 years and found only things which convinced life that those bible stories never happened.

Obviously, life in part is full of bullshit. Which part are you dave?
Q-Star
2.4 / 5 (20) May 29, 2013
Did you like if I came here posting about soccer or baroque music? So, please, choose a better forum for your delirious ramblings. Or take a walk to the nearest asylum. They'll take care of you.


I don't know about Dave, but for me? Soccer, not so much,,,, but I would much prefer discussing baroque music to, say, truth with a person who has always refused to define this thing he is obsessed with.

He wonders why no one wants to talk about truth with him. I suggest it's because after being asked a nonillion times what his definition of truth is, he has nonillion times refused to give one.

The point? He is a troll who measures his worth by the number of times he can goad someone into responding to him. (Another self evident truth.)
Q-Star
2.2 / 5 (17) May 29, 2013
I don't know about Dave, but for me? Soccer, not so much,,,, but I would much prefer discussing baroque music to, say, truth with a person who has always refused to define this thing he is obsessed with.

He wonders why no one wants to talk about truth with him. I suggest it's because after being asked a nonillion times what his definition of truth is, he has nonillion times refused to give one.

The point? He is a troll who measures his worth by the number of times he can goad someone into responding to him. (Another self evident truth.)


Well Zephyr, if ya don't like that comment,,,, why don't ya try to discuss the TRUTH with Dave? Are ya scared to take him on?

@ Everyone. I'm starting a petition to get Zephyr and DavieW to conduct a one on one debate on the TRUTH. (Or just a free flowing tit-a-tat on any other subject.) Who's with me?

Pssst, bets on the winner must be kept under the table, by PM or Email only.
DavidW
1 / 5 (13) May 29, 2013
hahhah Q-Star, funny.

Seriously, I'll do it in real life with you Q.

You get your 5 closest family members and 5 closest friends and 5 people you respect on top of that.

I talk for one hour and present my side. Then you go for an hour. Put your money where your mouth is. Your participants must stay for the complete hour. They can cry if they want, but they have to look and listen as to why the truth is important::: the evidence.

Time is paused when the crying, screaming, vomiting or other outward discomfort from witnessing the evidence disrupts others from pay attention and resumed only after such "issues" with seeing truthful reality are done without such disturbances.

We will let them tell you how serious this is.
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (11) May 30, 2013
@italba Most important, the Tesla patent was about transmitting ENERGY, the Marconi's one about SIGNALS....I reported your racist insults to moderators.
LOL so now who have the wrong people flying airplanes two years too late, and your greaseball Marconi claiming invention of the radio because he filed the papers being a glorified clerk, instead as Tesla being too preoccupied inventing half the things you now use today. Moreover SIGNALS are transmitted using ENERGY, you crazy Italian. And now you claim Italians are a RACE. Sorry Mexicans claim they are a race. Mexican strategy is all you have since your glorious empire was overrun with stupid xtian fanatics in 325AD and all your country has now are second-rate fraudsters a dollar short and two weeks late. Don't blame yourself. It is the Italian climate. Nobody can develop an unbreakable constitution when they simply can raise their hands and pick lunch off a tree
DavidW
1 / 5 (13) May 30, 2013
The are lessons in life more painful than death. The count of such lessons is more than a mind can count in a lifetime, let alone remember. We must do things for the correct base reason or we will be without guidance in unknown areas of danger.

Rossi is not behaving honestly and truthfully. The truth does matter and always does to protect us from scams like this.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) May 30, 2013
Heh..as predicted David went on a voting hissy-fit

Way to go - you're certainly not bery mature. Certainly not mature enough to know anything about 'truth'.

Must be sorta sad to be confronted with your own pettyness - in a form that you can't even deny?
italba
1 / 5 (6) May 30, 2013
@kochevnik: My compliments, you won the "most ignorant" championship hands down.
1) Wright brothers spent some ten years perfecting their plane (dozen of prototypes built) the engine, wings (they built a wind tunnel), control system (about the same as today's), propeller (nobody knew how to build an aerial propeller before). And they did no advertising at all about their work! For many years in France Santos-Dumont was believed to be the first, until Wrights came in Europe with their plane and shown the PROOF of their fly. Nothing like that from Gustave Whitehead, only an article on a local journal. If you don't believe on Rossi's e-cat, how can you thrust Whitehead?
italba
1 / 5 (6) May 30, 2013
@kochevnik:
2) Marconi (BTW, he was Italian as much as English), started his work on radio in 1894, by studying Hertz and Righi's researches. He was the first to believe that wireless waves could be used to transmit signals further than the view sight (in 1895 he transmitted to the other side of a nearby hill). He ever used already invented pieces for his apparatuses, the oscillator was very similar to the Hertz's one, the metallic powder coherer (receiver detector) was perfected by Calzecchi-Onesti, the spark generator by Rumkorff, and so on. Tesla said (many years after) he used some of its patents also. But the radio invention was not in these building blocks, was in the results Marconi obtained with them. Nobody before him could ever though about transmitting signals in open sea (1897) or between America and Europe (1901-1902). BTW, if you think that energy and signals are the same, try to plug your earphones in the 230V socket...
italba
1 / 5 (8) May 30, 2013
@kochevnik: Despite this, I still regards Tesla as one of the most brilliant minds of the modern era.
3) Maybe a too difficult concept for you, but racism needs no race at all! Modern science doesn't even uses races any more for humans, but ethnic groups. Racists can find their motivations on anything, skin colour, country, sexual habits, religion, social group, sport team. They think they can improve their individual nullity by joining to a "superior" tribe. Racism is based on ignorance, (that's why you won the championship) that leads to simplify reality in a coarse bunch of stupid stereotypes: In Italy there's always the sun, they have spaghetti trees and wine rivers, anybody sings and plays mandolino, Jews are all hooked nose usurers, and so on. Please try to understand what abject fruits gave and can give this subculture, study, grown up! There is nothing good in trying to look like a beast, if you go on like that you will only appear as a subhuman idiot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (24) May 30, 2013
The are lessons in life more painful than death
How would you know? Have you ever died? Your statement is not true.
Rossi is not behaving honestly and truthfully...scams like this
You have no way of knowing this. You havent even examined the existing evidence, which those who have done so will tell you is inconclusive. Your declaration is therefore a falsehood ie a lie.
I talk for one hour and present my side
David, you are a preacher and as such, you crave a pulpit. You havent mentioned it in this thread but prople do know that you are a religionist and that your version of 'truth' is derived in your belief in some book god or other.

But we know that these book gods do not exist because ALL the evidence tells us so. And so your 'truths' are intrinsically LIES. There is no way of getting around this except by self-deception.
cont>
italba
1.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2013
@all: Sorry for the long post(s), but he deserved it.

@DavidW: You keep spitting out your home-baked philosophy and try to hide it behind the fig leaf of a little phrase about Rossi. What a hypocrite! And what is the game you propose? To stay an hour listening to you without vomiting??? Nobody could tolerate that!

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (23) May 30, 2013
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (23) May 30, 2013
Yah I lost a post. Should I try to recreate it?

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (23) May 30, 2013
Well I just lost 2 very good posts. Fine. I give up.
DavidW
1 / 5 (15) May 30, 2013
Oh, it's not a hissy fit.

Sometimes we must put differences aside to work on the greater good.

This does not make sense in the case of a conversation with others where the basic observed foundations of all perceived reality are tossed aside.

I am yet to get a, "Yeah, we are alive, we can't change our past, we are equal, we are important, comments are all true", from ANY of you.

As a result, you shouldn't be commenting beyond asking questions and practicing and applying the truthful answer provided within your own lives. This includes commenting honestly and respectfully towards others, and considering the factual true state of unnecessary suffering in this world when stating leadership and guidance in an area concerning others. Hence, the 1 stars. You haven't said what you need to say the establish accepted logical thought and your actions are harmful to others.
italba
2 / 5 (8) May 30, 2013
@TheGostOfOtto1923: Where you cursed by DavidW, maybe?

@DavidW: Sorry I couldn't give you a zero star, I keep reporting, maybe some moderator will wake up eventually... Do you want respect? Start by respecting the netiquette and the terms of use of this forum.
DavidW
1 / 5 (14) May 30, 2013
Rossi is not behaving honestly and truthfully.
This is like to say the USA government during development of nuclear bomb, it doesn't play truthfully. Is it secret technology or not? Does it mean, the nuclear bomb is scam, because it has been developed under classification?


No, its not. E=MC^2 was disclosed and that's real science building something from math and understood observations. Rossi has not disclosed the math (admitting he doesn't know how it works) and controls the observations. But that's not how we stay clear of the lies. Every new thing presented to us (that we have never seen before)requires that we look for the truth to steer clear of the lies. The shear fact that this magic show has gotten as much light of day that it has seems to indicate something extraordinary (additional deception). The actual fraud may just be part of it.
DavidW
1 / 5 (15) May 30, 2013
Start by respecting the netiquette and the terms of use of this forum.


You have false defined people, lied, and have attempted to incite a flame war.

Like I said, knock yourself out. Truth is relevant in all commenting. If people can't uphold that then they are ones that should be removed after being asked to comment honestly.

If physorg wants to intentionally foster the environment where comments have no basis in factually reality by moderating out those that do speak honestly and respectfully towards the greater good of everyone, then they are free to attempt do that.

Q-Star
1.9 / 5 (18) May 30, 2013
This article is NOT a philosophical study about truth,


Turned over a new leaf have ya Zeph? Every comment section, of every article that ya have ever commented on during the last eight or so years has be turned into a philosophical study,,, yeppers, BY NONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF.

(Or were ya just making a joke?)
italba
1.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2013
@DavidW: I defined you a crazy preacher. You say you're not? Well, THAT'S a lie! Your truth definition is relevant only for yourself. In my opinion you are not the truth, you don't know what the truth is and nobody could ever affirm that there is one and only one absolute truth. Anyway, if you want to discuss about the truth you can go to a philosophical forum, or a religious one. Here you can, at last, talk about the truth definition in a quantized world. That will be interesting!
Q-Star
2.2 / 5 (20) May 30, 2013
@all: Sorry for the long post(s), but he deserved it.

@DavidW: You keep spitting out your home-baked philosophy and try to hide it behind the fig leaf of a little phrase about Rossi. What a hypocrite! And what is the game you propose? To stay an hour listening to you without vomiting??? Nobody could tolerate that!


I beg to differ on one slight point. "half-baked philosophy" is what ya should have said. He has no home to do any baking in, and that's the truth. Or "home-baked sophistry" if he borrowed an oven.
italba
1 / 5 (7) May 30, 2013
@Q-Star: I heard something about wandering preachers... Is DavidW one of them? A crazy wandering preacher? What an honour! Maybe in some thousands years he will be saint, and will have churches and cathedrals sacred to Him! We'll better stop joking, I want to earn my hell from a more serious reason! I think you're right again, Dave's posts are so indigestible they must be really half-baked!
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (16) May 30, 2013
As for real world cold fusion experiments, it is clear that some people have demonstrated a phenomenon they are calling LENR, for lack of a better term. All of the setups I can find reference to are very small, and it requires extremely sensitive calorometers to measure the output (because both the output and input are so small). Additionally, they all seem to require exotic input materials, such a deuterium, laboratory pure hydrogen, SR 707 alloy, laborator pure nickel in nano powder form, etc. Many of these materials are dangerous to handle, such as powered metals and pressurized hydrogen gas. There are very reputable groups reporting a gain in output energy versus input energy, and some of them have elaborate experimental controls to guarantee comparison against a null result.

BTW, Dr Storm doesn't seem to think much of Widom Larsen. Every serious review of their work I can find is negative.
DavidW
1 / 5 (13) May 30, 2013
@DavidW: I defined you a crazy preacher. You say you're not? Well, THAT'S a lie!


Defining others as actions is a lie. You haven't learned that yet, and you can't say you weren't reminded of reality. This is your choice to ignore truthful reality.

I have said, we are alive by common observation and this is truth and that we are equal in truth, and that we are important in truth and that we can't change our past in truth.

You, italba, might actually want to reread these comments. I said the truth is one. Not that we do not have multiple common truths between us. That's the oneness.

By the frame of your comments, you are arguing that we are not alive and that isn't a truth you agree with. I get it. No one had ever reminded you of these things, Well, now someone has, and you already know it leads to a complete change of your lifestyle, the way you talk, think and how you must treat others to not behave against the logic of the sharpest blade that we all must pass.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) May 30, 2013
All of the setups I can find reference to are very small, and it requires extremely sensitive calorimeters to measure the output (because both the output and input are so small).
It's not true, the cold fusion effects usually exceed ten percents of input energy. At the moment, when cold fusion starts, it runs in well pronounced way.
Additionally, they all seem to require exotic input materials, such a deuterium, laboratory pure hydrogen, SR 707 alloy, laboratory pure nickel in nano powder form, etc.
Such a materials are used in chemical labs routinely, for example the Raney nickel saturated with hydrogen is used in tons for vegetable oil hydrogenation. Andrea Rossi originally studied the industrial hydrogenations, which is why he's close to cold fusion research by now. IMO E-Cat is based on Raney nickel, prepared just with small modification. BTW Who is Dr Storm and why should be care about his opinion?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 30, 2013
Every serious review of their work I can find is negative.
Because every serious nuclear physicist claimed the cold fusion is impossible for twenty years - so why should be accept some explanation of it by now? It's social and psychological, not factual stuff. This doesn't mean, I'm taking W-L theory very seriously too - it has few useful points (Mossbauer lattice effects, for example) - but it still uses way too much ad-hoced concepts (ultra-heavy electrons, ultra-slow neutrons: what is it supposed to be?!) IMO the cold fusion has a much more natural explanation based on well known effects, which just weren't considered with mainstream physics so far.
italba
1.9 / 5 (9) May 30, 2013
@DavidW: Enough is enough: I said you everything I have to say, and I have no time to waste with a ########## ############# like you. Goodbye, go preaching to the desert.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (18) May 30, 2013
The problem I see with all the LENR demonstrations I can find is that although they seem to be demonstrating an increase in electrical output power versus activation power, they aren't talking about the energy required to process the fuels. I suppose the devices are still usefull as a type of battery, but this is a lot different than some free and limitless source of energy to save the planet. For example, the e-cat device supposedly uses nickel powder. I know quite a bit about that industry, and it takes a LOT of electricy to produce pure nickel powder. Electrolosys to produce H2 takes a lot of electricity and expensive (usually platinum) electrodes as well. I have no idea what it takes to make a bottle pressurized H3, but I bet it's not something you find at Walmart (lol).

Just because something is possible, that doesn't make it practical. So, yeah, it looks like you get extra energy through production of He4, but the total of fuel and activation energy isn't beneficial yet.
GSwift7
2.2 / 5 (17) May 30, 2013
It's not true, the cold fusion effects usually exceed ten percents of input energy. At the moment, when cold fusion starts, it runs in well pronounced way


Yes, they are getting large gains, but the input is very small. Dr Storm uses two car batteries to run his, and his fuel is only about a gram. If you start with a small input, 1000% gain is still a small output. Nobody is working with large power input as far as I can find. If you can find anyone aside from the Rossi who claims large power input/output, please provide a link.

BTW Who is Dr Storm


According to all of Otto's cold fusion web sites, he is one of the top cold fusion researchers. Sorry, I spelled his name wrong; there's an s at the end.

Bio of Dr Edmund Storms:

http://e-catsite....-storms/
GSwift7
2.2 / 5 (17) May 30, 2013
Because every serious nuclear physicist claimed the cold fusion is impossible for twenty years - so why should be accept some explanation of it by now?


The above mentioned Dr Storms is an expert who supports the field of cold fusion, and laid out a very good explaination of why Widom was wrong on one of the sites Otto linked to above. There was a very good negative review from the cold fusion guy at MIT as well, though I can't remember his name now. It's at one of Otto's links, so it came from one of the cold fusion advocacy web sites. When you get all the pro-cold fusion people saying that Widom is wrong, you can't claim it is just a mainstream conspiracy against him. Try looking up references before you jump in front of the conspiracy train next time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (22) May 30, 2013
When you get all the pro-cold fusion people saying that Widom is wrong
Uh except for the NASA guys and the guys who granted their patents based on WL, and of course widom and larsen, and all of those peer reviewers of their papers per one of MY links above to one of MY sites. Its nice to see someone here who is interested in doing a little research anyway.

WL is a working theory without much evidence at present.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 30, 2013
If you start with a small input, 1000% gain is still a small output.
It's just a matter of scale, after then. The cold fusion isn't supposed to run inside of test tubes only for ever.
If you can find anyone aside from the Rossi who claims large power input/output
A. Rossi is claiming COP > 6, but Piantelli & Focardi published the COP ~ 3 before twenty years already. From this perspective the progress of Rossi is not so substantial - it's rather evolution than the revolution. But the COP = 3 is significant milestone with respect to practical feasibility and utilization of this process at the industrial scale, because the efficiency of conversion of heat into electricity is about 33%. So until you have lower COP than 4 - 5, then your process is not economically feasible when you're forced to use the electricity for input heating. So that Rossi is experimenting outside of test tubes simply because he's finally allowed to do so.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (22) May 30, 2013
Heres another forbes article (not MINE) which supports the 3rd party study.
http://www.forbes...=twitter
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (12) May 30, 2013
WL is a working theory without much evidence at present.. Dr Storms is an expert who supports the field of cold fusion, and laid out a very good explaination of why Widom was wrong on one of the sites
W-L theory allegedly predicts the mass spectrum of radioisotopes formed during transmutations with high degree of accuracy. Due the complexity of such spectrum the random coincidence would be quite improbable here. But I didn't reviewed the W-L theory personally, so it's always a bit dangerous to argue with mediated interpretations without their deeper understanding. Anyway, if W-L theory would help to raise the interest of mainstream scientists about cold fusion, it would be more than enough for me. What I'm still lacking there is the systematical research presented in peer-reviewed journals regularly. We need to give the cold fusion/LENR the status of official nuclear science.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (21) May 30, 2013
But I didn't reviewed the W-L theory personally
?? Why the hell not? I thought you were interested in these things. This is at present the most plausible explanation and the one that NASA bases their patents on.

Try GOOGLE.
DavidW
1.3 / 5 (14) May 30, 2013
@DavidW: Enough is enough: I said you everything I have to say, and I have no time to waste with a ########## ############# like you. Goodbye, go preaching to the desert.


Well, so far you have only provided personal insults and actually nothing to the actual topic.

It's called being in denial. Look it up and please don't say anything more until you are ready to behave as you are, equal.
italba
1.5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2013
Well, so far you have only provided personal insults and actually nothing to the actual topic.

YOU talk about the ACTUAL TOPIC!!!!! Is your "truth" delirium the topic of this tread? Please, post a photo of you, we'll print it on the front cover of the "Rossi's tread humour book"!
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (19) May 31, 2013
?? Why the hell not? I thought you were interested in these things.


I know that was for valeria, but it applies to all of us. I don't have enough knowledge of nuclear chemistry to even try to evaluate it on my own, though I did go read their paper, and a few other things. I have spent the majority of three days on it now, not thirty years.

From what I gather, I agree with natello's answer above. There are a bunch of theories, some more complete than others. I've seen two criticisms of widom from experts in the field who point out two different show-stoppers for the widom theory. I don't know if they are right, but their explanations sounded very logical.

The other reason to think widom isn't right is because nobody is having consistent success yet. The people who have had success have had on and off success, where the procedure workes one time and then not the next time. Nobody can just do it whenever they want. That means something is missing. They don't know why it works.
GSwift7
2.4 / 5 (20) May 31, 2013
Heres another forbes article (not MINE) which supports the 3rd party study


Look, Otto, one thing I did learn from reading through all your references and cross-referencing them with other sites, is that the original story here, about this 3rd party study, wasn't very scientific. It seems obvious that you can't just point an infrared thermometer at it to figure out how much energy it is creating. For example, can you do the same thing with a car engine, or a coal boiler, or a steam engine? The kind of reading they took only measures the heat directly radiated towards the sensor. Then you have to extrapolate the rest of the sphere. To accurately get the energy output, you need to isolate the cell inside of a calibrated calorimeter and you should have a control device running in parallel right next to it without fuel in it. I'd also like to see if the reaction works with a load on it. Some reactions stall when you place a load on them. It may take increased input to get output.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) May 31, 2013
I've seen two criticisms of widom from experts in the field who point out two different show-stoppers for the widom theory. I don't know if they are right, but their explanations sounded very logical
I do consider the W-L theory as a Ptolemy epicycle model of cold fusion. It gives surprisingly exact quantitative predictions, but its qualitative premises are strongly adhoced, fitted to the results expected and as such nonsensical (ultra-heavy electrons, ultra-slow neutrons). We never observed epicycles elsewhere in nature in the same way, like we never observed ultraheavy electrons. The lack of working analogies should serve as a first warning for us, because our world is scale invariant and everything should have a better or worse working analogy somewhere else.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (18) May 31, 2013
One more thing:

I've been thinking about the pulsing they describe above. That kind of reaction sounds a lot like combustion. They mentioned that the containment vesel melted. If it breached, they could have gotten good old fashioned oxygen in there and burned the nickel-hydrogen in simple combustion. It would consume the oxygen, and the combustion would stop, this would cool it down, which would draw in more oxygen and reignite the fuel (rinse and repeat). I know that's jut speculation, but nobody else is throwing out any ideas.
Q-Star
2.4 / 5 (18) May 31, 2013
I do consider the W-L theory as a Ptolemy epicycle model of cold fusion.


I had no idea that Ptolemy had applied his epicycles to cold fusion. I guess I'll have to rethink his works. Never would have guessed it sure.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (7) May 31, 2013
about the pulsing they describe above

Or they're just intermittently turning off the heating coils via a thermosensor (and because they forgot to have any kind of control/feedback the last time they simply applied too much juice and the thing melted)

...because that's exactly what it looks like if you try that out on a stove with and without built in heat protection.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (18) May 31, 2013
I don't have enough knowledge of nuclear chemistry to even try to evaluate it on my own

Widom-Larsen Theory
"The plasmon modes in hydrated metals (think of them as surface electrons that all act together) get energized (many ways to do this) and get absorbed by protons. This produces a very low energy neutron (reverse neutron decay due to the weak nuclear force). Low-energy neutrons get absorbed quite easily by anything. This starts a cascade of creating unstable isotopes which beta decay. During the beta decay, gamma ray photons are released, but when they hit that metal plasmon they get shifted into mostly IR (heat) with a soft X-ray tail."

-Even antialias could understand this.
...because that's exactly what it looks like if you try that out on a stove with and without built in heat protection
Uh how do you melt steel on a stove?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (19) May 31, 2013
The other reason to think widom isn't right is because nobody is having consistent success yet
People have had consistent success with LENR as has been indicated many times above.
Look, Otto, one thing I did learn from reading through all your references and cross-referencing them with other sites, is that the original story here, about this 3rd party study, wasn't very scientific
That is an opinion, not a fact. According to the forbes author, it is an erroneous opinion which he refutes.
It seems obvious that you can't just point an infrared thermometer at it to figure out how much energy it is creating
Without reviewing the paper, I can say that the EXPERTS who were qualified to do the tests, used methods adequate in their estimation to guage the performance. Forbes EXPLAINS this.
The kind of reading they took only measures the heat directly radiated towards the sensor. Then you have to extrapolate the rest of the sphere
And how do you know this is what they did??
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) May 31, 2013
Low-energy neutrons get absorbed quite easily by anything. This starts a cascade of creating unstable isotopes which beta decay. During the beta decay, gamma ray photons are released
The unstable isotopes would produce all forms of radiation thinkable. After all, the activation of metals with slow neutrons is nothing new - and the metals are always getting quite radioactive during this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (20) May 31, 2013
The unstable isotopes would produce all forms of radiation thinkable
Im guessing that beta decay is well-understood?
After all, the activation of metals with slow neutrons is nothing new - and the metals are always getting quite radioactive during this
I thought you said that slow neutrons and heavy electrons were nonsensical -?
http://en.wikiped..._fermion
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) May 31, 2013
Im guessing that beta decay is well-understood
Yes and it emanates the beta rays.
heavy electrons were nonsensical
Such a heavy electrons were never observed in nickel. W-L theory considers heavy "surface plasmon polariton" (SPP) electrons, which have nothing to do with heavy fermion materials. BTW Didn't you "forget" to address my remark about radioactivity?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) May 31, 2013
BTW The character of radiation escaping during cold fusion is surprisingly complex, but its intensity never corresponded the released heat - it's way lower. During co-deposition of palladium the neutron and alpha particle tracks were observed, but the nickel fusion doesn't release any neutrons until the E-Cat it's not overheated - it releases the gamma rays instead. The palladium fusion releases tritium, which has never been observed during nickel fusion, etc. It just indicates, the tendency of physicists to describe all LENR phenomena with single universal mechanism may be rather futile effort.
antialias_physorg
2.1 / 5 (7) May 31, 2013
Uh how do you melt steel on a stove?

You ever forget to turn off a stove (one of the old kind with the iron/steel plates)? It gets red/orange hot after a short while.

It's simple physics, really - pour in more energy than can radiate away and the thing heats up until eqilibrium is reached.
Stove platters are desigend to convert electricity to heat very efficiently (they're basically a big resistor coil) .
Conduction, convection and radiation. Without a pot/pan you're just left with the two (inefficient) heat transfer methods of convection and radiation. And these aren't enough to offset the heat dumped in there through the resistor until you have what basically amounts to a an old fashioned lightbulb of the same power.
(Stoves can draw about 10-11kW)

That would be more than ample power to do what they show in the picture.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (21) Jun 01, 2013
It's simple physics, really
Well simple physics can contain a lot of variables.

"[Ecat Reactor]...Outer shell made of silicon nitrate 33 x 10 cm. Inner shell made of corundum (ceramic material)...Inside the cylinder...was a sealed AISI steel cylinder 33 x 3 cm inside which were the powder charges. The outermost cylinder was coated by a black paint capable of withstanding temperatures of up to 1200 C."

Melting point of a typical AISI grade steel is 1416°C, 2580°F. So we would need to ascertain how much heat could the ceramic jacket radiate, how long it had to do this, how much energy could be applied to the system to generate the melting temps, and whether this energy could be delivered in sufficient quantities during the timeframe of the test, to melt that particular quantity of steel.

I say no.

By the way this is the sort of gadget you would need to melt steel in your kitchen.
http://sykopages....ttf-100d

-It does not look like a stove to me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (21) Jun 01, 2013
Here is a nice vid of a Homemade induction furnace melting iron
http://www.youtub...aQdgPRmA

Per the author it uses 2 kw and melts 3 kgs of cast iron (mp 1482 - 1593C, 2700 - 2900F). You will note it is not glowing red/white as is rossis reactor, which would require much more electricity to retain sufficient internal heat.

Again it does not look much like a cookstove.
http://etc.usf.ed...ve_1.htm
Estevan57
2.8 / 5 (24) Jun 01, 2013
Rossi's device doesn't look like a stove either, but at least you can buy a stove.
ALL steels can be considered AISI or SAE grade.

AISI turned over the steel standards to SAE in 1995, get with the program.
GSwift7
2.9 / 5 (21) Jun 03, 2013
Otto, why are you so emotionally attached to the Waton paper? Why does that paper HAVE to be the way cold fusion works? As has been pointed out by numerous experts, the Waton theory cannot be correct without some kind of new process that we have never seen anywhere else, which prevents the production of broad spectrum radiation.

When did Forbes become an expert on physics? It's obvious they didn't know enough to ask the right questions, so they just reported it as it was given to them.

Above you state that people are able to produce cold fusion consistently. Provide an example please. All of the cold fusion advocacy sites say that nobody has been able to get it work very often, if at all.

Another thing to consider: Powdered nickel is very dangerous, especially under high heat, since it is explosive. If this is what Rossi is using, you'll never see a consumer application. Perhaps commercial use, but not in cars or homes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (19) Jun 03, 2013
emotionally attached to the Waton paper?
The what?
Why does that paper HAVE to be the way cold fusion works?
Who says it does...whatever it is?
When did Forbes become an expert on physics?
Why do you think 'forbes' is claiming expertise?
It's obvious they didn't know enough to ask the right questions, so they just reported it as it was given to them.
No its not. You should read them first before commenting I think.
Above you state that people are able to produce cold fusion consistently. Provide an example please
Many examples farther up in the thread. Try reading it before commenting.
All of the cold fusion advocacy sites say that nobody has been able to get it work very often, if at all
Uh have you read all of them? Some of them?
Powdered nickel is very dangerous, especially under high heat, since it is explosive
So is thermite. So what?
not in cars or homes
Petrol makes nice bombs. Electricity can kill. Youre an idiot.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 03, 2013
Powdered nickel is very dangerous, especially under high heat, since it is explosive.
Nickel is not explosive, it's only pyrophoric. BTW The amount of nickel in 500 W reactor is very low, some 30g or so. The lithium or hydrogen powered car is way more dangerous: lithium is way more pyrophoric, hydrogen mixture with air is explosive - and the average lithium or hydrogen powered car contains many kilos of them..

What the "Waton article" is supposed to be?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (20) Jun 04, 2013
Speaking of explosive, look at what natural gas can do

"'Violent explosion' rocks Nyack College academic building, injures 7
Windows were blown out of one of the college's academic buildings during a "violent explosion" that occurred at approximately 9:35 a.m., according to a fire official."

"West Virginia natural gas explosion wipes out homes and I-77
West Virginia explosion of a natural gas line wiped out a wide swath of Interstate 77 and flattened homes."

-I think Id rather have a few ozs of nickel powder in my basement-
gbgoble
1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2013
Beyond the Standard Model - Just one of many possible directions to go

Some of these comments are from those in physics who have stopped learning and who think that what they were once taught is all there is to know. I suggest that you go back to your studies and shatter your narrow frame of thinking. For instance, once taught that the electron was an elementary particle not comprised of smaller particles... no longer so. Google "Not So Elementary.. My dear Electron" and then open your mind to a little deeper study and google this...

International Journal of Applied Science and Technology
Vol. 1 No. 5; September 2011, 1

"Approximation Equations with Oscillating Charge in Unitary Quantum Theory and
its Applications to the Analysis of Some Quantum Problems."
L.G. Sapogin
Department of Physics, Technical University (MADI)
Leningradsky pr.64, A-319
Moscow, Russia
Yu. A. Ryabov
Department of Mathematics
Technical University (MADI)
Leningradsky pr.64, A-319
Moscow, Russia

NO TALK-STUDY
Ober
1 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2013
@gbgoble... Interesting stuff, but quasi-particles are just that!! They are not fundamental, they typically are a combination of other particles that carry information about a fund. particle. They are analogues, not fundamental.

Anyway, here's an idea of mine. Nothing more, just an idea. Stealing from String Theory, I suggest there are indeed small curled up dimensions. I suspect that every quantum property of a fundamental particle exists in one dimension respectively. So an electrons spin exists in one dimension, it's electric property in another, magnetism in another etc. etc. So in condensed matter physics, I suspect that a curled up dimension is relaxing into an unfurled dim. and therefore its property can be projected onto other particles, thus carrying away the quantum info. However if you disrupt the condensed state, then the dimension re-curls up, and hence the quantum property returns to the original particle.

Again, it is just a story. But perhaps close to the truth!!
gbgoble
1 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2013
@ober About 8,970 results (0.33 seconds)
Search Results
Tests find Rossi's E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times ...
phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html‎
May 23, 2013 – Tests find Rossi's E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times higher than any conventional energy source. May 23, 2013 by Lisa Zyga report.
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 6/7/13
Tests find Rossi's E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times ...
newswithtags.com/Energy%20density/phys-tests-find-rossis-ecat-has-an-...‎
(Phys.org) —In the ongoing saga of Andrea Rossi's energy catalyzer (E-Cat) that promises clean, cheap power for the world, the latest events continue to bring ...
Tests find Rossi's E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times ...
www.i4u.com/.../e...it...‎
Tests find Rossi's E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times higher than any conventional energy source. Read the Latest Trending News and Topics