Slashdot Mirror
A Cold Look at Cold Fusion Claims: Why E-Cat Looks Like a Hoax
In the past few days, several readers have submitted word of a paper published on Arxiv allegedly confirming the efficacy of Andrea Rossi's "E-Cat," a device Rossi says transmutes nickel into copper, producing cheap energy in the process. (Mentioned before on Slashdot.) Ethan Siegel of ScienceBlogs takes a skeptical look at the buzz surrounding this paper, and asks some seemingly obvious questions, pointing out various ways in which the cold-fusion / cheap-energy claims could be either confirmed or debunked. First time accepted submitter CdXiminez writes with a capsule of Siegel's points: "What would it take to convince a reasonable observer that you've got a controlled nuclear reaction going on here? Things not shown in the earlier report: Show that nuclear transmutation has in fact taken place; Start the device operating by whatever means you want, then disconnect all external power to it, and allow it to run; Place a gamma-ray detector around the device; Accurately monitor the power drawn from all sources to the device at all times, while also monitoring the energy output from the device at all times."
Why would I want to turn my nickels into pennies? They just got rid of them here in Canada!
That quote is P.T. Barnum. If you are looking for a W.C. Fields quote for this article, I suggest "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."
Don't conflate a charlatan with the science. NASA is still looking at this.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I stand corrected, however, the principals regarding both suckers and bafflement remain sound.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
What I feel sorry for is any researcher who wants to do some genuine research into cold fusion. To me it would cause rate up there with inventions such as fire/math/smelting ore/cooking food/clothing.
If cold fusion were invented tomorrow everything changes, world politics, anything involving oil or energy production, the environment, space travel, food production, basically everything. So while it attracts cranks by the boatload I would be happy to see huge amounts of funding going to CF. Yet I suspect that if you are a legitimate researcher and you mention cold fusion that there is stunned silence in the room. You might as well bookend it with paranormal research.
It would be bad for business if his marks knew that they were suckers. Of course he would deny it.
Actually it's not PT Barnum either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_minute
EOM
If they want to know if the E-Cat works, why don't they just measure it with an E-meter?
Ezekiel 23:20
Principals? Principles.
It sounds like the poor sap just "invented" thermal hysteresis - the fact that things take some time to cool off, and therefore it's possible to keep them hot after shutting down the power. In the article, it says that 360 Watts were applied continuously with interspersed periods of 930 W, if I understood it correctly.
My E-meter measured it! Measured evidence, isn't that what every scientician respects?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
What would it take to convince a reasonable observer that you've got a controlled nuclear reaction going on here?
Simple scientific methodology; reproducibility. Pick another, unassociated lab, and have them do it.
This is an interesting read. Informed opinions tend to be more useful. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
But it's not on the internet, it's in Italy. I'd be genuinely surprised if cold fusion happened on the internet...
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
Still too low. 1 sucker born per second would result in only about 24% of people being suckers.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
This either works or it doesn't, it exist or it doesn't and can be proven or not. Why is it so hard to just get the facts? It is supposed to be a process and actual equipment. Seems like there is a lot of bull fertilizer going around from every party involved. Proof shouldn't be so hard to get. This has been going on since 2011.
What I feel sorry for is any researcher who wants to do some genuine research into cold fusion.
The trick is that you don't put your conclusion before your hypothesis. "Cold fusion" is the conclusion, or the result, of the whole process that would result in your utopian revolutions (again, something that is post conclusion or desired symptoms of the result of this sort of research). When your research begins by you working backwards, that's when the red flags should go up because there is no logical way to work backwards. Sometimes a sci-fi author will imagine something but it takes a very talented scientist/research/inventor/engineer/whatever to go from hypothesis to that end construct -- even then there's often a slight catch or permutation of nonfiction idea.
... which is great (any more transparency is always welcomed). But it's also curious, wouldn't you say? We've been hearing about this for years now and no one can tell me what, exactly, is going on in this solution filled chamber. The critics are rightly asking questions about why the next steps aren't being taken (like getting real world measurements on its power draw versus its power emission). And are suspicious not of the data that is provided by this paper but of the data that aren't provided and would be obviously interesting.
What this paper appears to do is formalize observations
The fear is that Rossi stumbled upon a neat trick that is just not sustainable but he realizes that if he controls the parameters on the experiments, he can make it look like this thing works. Then he rakes in billions and walks away from any involvement in it. It is suspicious because it's being conducted at a university that should be making obvious logical steps forward. Yet we continually only see "demonstrations" like his "public displays" and "observations" like this paper.
My charges are still borderline character assassination/ad hominem and this could very well work. But I've had enough talk of what is "perceived to happen" and I'm afraid that someone has a really neat trick that they've already thoroughly investigated and figured out why it works. And maybe it even fooled them in the beginning. But truly there is no good way to monetize this trick. So they give everyone else only enough information to make them think that it works. Then they capitalize on this public interest and walk away from it just before the reveal.
If not, I apologize but I also wouldn't be buying into this idea until we start with a hypothesis and tests are reproduced around the world and the true reason behind this anomaly is well understood and indeed a good energy answer. It's totally possible he doesn't know yet and his greed is the reason we only get tastes of this device. If that's true, however, we still don't know if it's a good answer to our energy addiction.
I only hope there are enough details in this paper for other researchers around the world to better reproduce and analyze these results. I'm sorry if this is just a matter of an ill-equipped laboratory at Bologna University but with all the interest this has generated, I would be surprised if that was reason.
In conclusion, start with a hypothesis, openly publish your methods and results. Wait for others to reproduce. Your rigor and its results will be your vindication if you fear being attacked for doing research. Just don't start your research by saying, "I'm going to make cold fusion and cheap energy is just ten years away." That's when you're openly attacked for good reason -- that's not science, those are words that you spout to get money.
My work here is dung.
It may seem wasteful, but it is in the best interest of scientific literacy in general to debunk this sort of thing. If cold fusion is real (highly unlikely) it will stand up to all the scrutiny that science can throw at it. If it is not, then scientists will debunk it rather quickly and we can move on to the next snake oil crackpot idea.
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
Actually it's not PT Barnum either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_minute
Your URL makes it sound like the quote is "There's 27 suckers born every minute."
Must be due to inflation.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Well, Barnum & Fields were the principals.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
goes out of his way to make it look like it's a hoax.
The population has increase quite substantially since the late 1800s.
My D-Wave tells me the E-Cat will work.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I've read papers that "prove" the existence of Big Foot, Nessie, "pyramid power" and little green men at Roswell. That someone put dreck to paper doesn't make it true.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The first person to encourage independent confirmation of a published cold-fusion device becomes the person who has made the greatest contribution to the betterment of the human condition in all of history.
People who think they can make more money by preventing a section of humanity from using a cold-fusion device are too small minded and petty to stand any chance of having inventing one.
Rossi is almost certainly faking it.
The residue is part of the scam or he would let people look at it. There would be no secret in the waste if he was not lying about how this works.
Good thing that we can easily turn heat back into electricity then!
Just use it to run a thermoelectric effect device or stirling engine. Once that device makes enough electricity you can unplug it and run it until the fuel runs out. He won't do that, because he is a conman.
I love articles like this one, where the author sits down and clearly shows how science is supposed to work and what to look for if the topic isn't really science.
But the problem is that the big lab's claims about fusion are just as bogus. The science isn't, that's all real, but the reactors don't work, and likely never will.
So when the press fawns over one bogus project that's bogus from end to end, why aren't we as upset when the fawn over another that's only half bogus?
I mean, they're still reporting that NIF is some sort of power source. It's not, and likely can't be developed into one:
http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/fusion-the-power-of-wishful-thinking/
over 250 people are born every minute (only about 100 die). I'd say they are all suckers - either the teat or the bottle.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The guy is calling himself Andrea Rossi. And he says he gets free energy by transmuting nickel into copper. Everyone knows free energy comes from Atmospheric engine. And the inventor's name should be John Galt. In about a decade all the Atlases who are holding up the Earth are going to shrug and move to gold currency in Galt's Gulch. All because all these Atlases and genii could not build themselves a stupid railway track to some stupid copper mine after the railroad company refused to build one. Makes one wonder were they really the Atlases holding up the world? Or some stupid self important sanctimonious a holes.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Or, much more likely, that they're simply measuring the current incorrectly.
The paper clearly states that power was delivered to the system in surges, or pulses. Clamp-on ammeters *deliberately* smooth out measurements. Small pulses of power are simply not reported by the device, so if their is a shorter-duty-cycle delivery to the E-Cat, then this will disappear from the measurement. I believe this can explain 100% of the phenomenon being reported.
This problem with power measurement is extremely well known, and is the same basis of "proof" that many similar devices have put forth in the past. Newmann's machine was perhaps the most celebrated example, where simply hooking it up to an oscilloscope demonstrated the total area under the curve was less on the output than the input. The same is true of Naudin's version of the MEG, but in this case Naudin *did* capture the pulses on an oscilloscope, but then applied incorrect math to extract the resulting power figure. Once again, simply applying the correct formula demonstrated that the output was less than the input.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's razor
Remember the herbal petrol guy?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I have one bone to pick with Siegel's critique. I agree that the paper is very iffy because there's too many 'secrets'. I hadn't seen the trick with making a circuit look dead when it was still hot before. That is a big dealbreaker if no one is allowed to disassemble the electronics.
But the criticism is too focused on DIRECT proton->Ni fusion. Rossi's claim is that it is a neutron->Ni reaction, which is NOT the same thing.
So... this annoys me. I got my nuclear physics textbook out to look at the Ni reaction chain.
First, abundances of Ni in nature are (source: Introductory Nuclear Physics by Krane):
Ni-58: 68%
Ni-60: 26%
Ni-61: 1%
Ni-62: 4%
Ni-64: 1%
These isotopes of Nickel have pretty good cross-sections for absorbing "thermal" (read: slow) neutrons. (Source: http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/resources/n-lengths/list.html)
If any of these absorb a neutron, they go up one atomic number. So, from Krane again, they become (in order):
Ni-58->Ni-59: unstable, half-life of 75,000 years, decays by electron capture -> Co-59 (stable)
Ni-60->Ni-61: stable isotope, probably emits a photon to get to ground state after neutron capture
Ni-61->Ni-62: stable isotope, probably emits a photon to get to ground state after neutron capture
Ni-62->Ni-63: unstable, half-life of 100 years, decays by electron emission (negative beta) -> Cu-63 (stable)
Ni-64->Ni-65: unstable, half-life of 2.52 hours, decays by electron emission (negative beta) -> Cu-65 (stable)
Since the 'secret sauce' and 'catalysts' are not revealed (ignoring for the moment how fishy that seems) we don't know exactly what ratio the various Nickel isotopes are in the powder. But for Ni-62 and Ni-64, there would be no gamma ray, and the emitted electron (negative beta particle) would not escape the metal cylinders. For the most abundant Nickel isotopes (Ni-58 and Ni-60) the reactions lead to more neutron-rich isotopes of Nickel, which can last long enough to subsequently absorb more neutrons and end up as copper. There's a valid question here of whether the photon emitted in the Ni-60 and Ni-61 neutron absorption cases is at gamma-ray levels. Sometimes these are fairly weak (X-ray) and wouldn't penetrate a steel cylinder or cause any harm.
I'm too lazy to work out the energy levels to compute the photon energies for those two, but the actual reaction chain from Ni to Cu without gamma rays is entirely feasible. IF you have a source of slow thermal neutrons. The problem is that Rossi is acting REALLY fishy about his "secret ingredients" and until it's commercially validated or the formula for the powder is known, until the electronics can be taken apart and analyzed, it's still unproven. That's the real problem here, not the nuclear physics of what he's claiming to do.
The physics question that I do wonder about, is the claim that a loose proton in a Nickel crystal mesh will just annihilate with an electron that's wandering around in the Nickel powder, making a slow neutron. I haven't heard of that being easy to do, but that is the crux of the claim that Rossi is making, that he can catalyze that exact step either with his input waveform or the elements in the powder.
He doesn't have to do any of this other showmanship to prove that one important step scientifically. That's what's so fishy to me, not the rest of the reaction chain.
At some point in the very near future, we will see an even more convincing demo using flow calorimetry-- essentially heating water-- with an even more isolated electrical input (for instance, a UPS outputting a perfectly clean sine wave AC.) And then what? Eventually the skeptics are going to have to come around and admit that they were wrong. I'm looking forward to that day.
Several of the points he makes were actually old arguments that were specifically addressed in the report. He appears to have missed that they measured power directly before the device, and that they did in fact have several types of radiation detection equipment.
Phys.org has a less skeptical article: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html
Didn't someone find the shipping container Rossi built his million dollar MW cold fusion plant supposedly delivered to the undisclosed super secret millitary customer actually collecting dust in the back of his brothers tire shop?
And years prior didn't Rossi get in trouble and nearly go to jail for a waste to oil scam that didn't work and ended with his lab burning to the ground?
Now we have lockheed claiming to bring a cheap shipping container sized hot fusion reactor online within the next decade. It is very sad to see such little real money going into commercially viable fusion energy research compared with enormous sums spent on defense dept end-runs around NPT obligations (e.g. NIF)
assume for a minute you could head down to your local supermarket and pick up a portable flying pig ....
BAH!
All the real investment these days is in on-demand bacon home delivery by quadcopter drone. And quite rightly, too.
The future is looking quite utopian to those with true vision.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
i can haz cold fusion?
Or, much more likely, that they're simply measuring the current incorrectly.
Mod parent up. Bear in mind how this thing works. There's a resistance heater inside, and it is never completely off for long periods. The claim is that the heat given off by the device is greater than that being pumped in by the resistance heater. The heater is fed with a "proprietary waveform" from a control box the watchers were not allowed to examine. All they could do was put clamp-around current sensors on the leads to the device, voltage probes on the inputs, and feed those to a current meter. I strongly suspect problems with the current measurement.
I mean, they're still reporting that NIF is some sort of power source. It's not, and likely can't be developed into one.
Right. It's part of the "stockpile stewardship" program, or the Livermore Senior Activity Center for Retired Physicists. Nobody in the US has built a nuclear weapon in decades, and everybody who knew how is dying off. DoD/DoE is trying to hang onto the expertise and recruit some new people to at least maintain the ones already built. So they have to have something for them to do.
It looks like Mr. Rossi has found a reliable method to transmute a questionable amount of brilliance into a large amount of bull, with a byproduct of career-entropy.
I wonder why. It looks like a hoax. It smells like a hoax and even tastes like a hoax. I personally think it is. But what about the scientific world? Why don't they publish and spread their official answer?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
The "secret sauce" alone invalidates the experiment. I suspect it enabled an exothermic reaction. Also they should have run the experiment with an empty chamber to test the calibration of the measurement equipment, then once with nickel but no sauce, and finally one with the sauce. Without a baseline on the energy use, you can't make any valid claims about energy output.
Another thing- they found copper in the output (might have been mixed in the sauce) but did they measure the amount of nickel left after the experiment? It's easy to sneak material in (sauce) but not easy to sneak material out. If there was the same amount of nickel at the conclusion of the experiment, that would also disprove it.
How do you discredit something that works but threatens the energy industry?
It would be bad for business if his marks knew that they were suckers.
But they weren't suckers. Everyone knows that circus acts are tricks. Clowns don't really have red noses, and rabbits don't really appear out of thin air. People go to a circus for entertainment, not education, and P.T. delivered plenty of entertainment. His customers got what they paid for. He didn't "sucker" anyone out of anything.
Technically, this is claiming to be an atomic reaction, so it isn't free. And our understanding of quantum mechanics could be wrong and need adjusting. But this Rossi guy is keeping too many "secrets" for anyone to independently verify his work, making his device nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Total solar energy hitting earth per year is about 274 million gigawatt-years. Now, assuming a mere 1GW per person and you have 7 billion gigawatt hours (and 100% electric conversion efficiency), so year, the earth is going to heat up by quite a bit. Given that radiation is a 4th power function and assuming 300C for avg temperature. 300 * x**4 = (7.274/.274) and x is just almost 2.27 so the new avg temp would be about 2.27 * 300C = 680C -- I think this would be a problem, Even Al Gore was not expecting that kind of temperature rise.
It's a pretty ridiculous concept- that it would make several times the input heat without any way to moderate output. Why wouldn't the reaction just run away and melt/explode? Why would you need to continue to heat it?
love is just extroverted narcissism
Cold Fusion does exist: Muon-catalyzed fusion
But until the researcher shows me the low energy source of muons or get's better than 1% bonding, they know were they can shove their BS.
The "secrets" are what make it BS. Rossi needs to reveal what he's doing or he's nothing more than an illusionist putting on a show. (Might as well take the act to Vegas.) If it can't be independently reproduced, then it can't be considered valid. That's a basic rule of scientific research. Take out that requirement and you might as well be sacrificing goats on a full moon.
no one or nothing puts energy into the sun to make fusion possible
The energy that drives the sun's fusion is the gravitational potential energy of its spread-out mass being converted into kinetic energy as it collapses in on itself. It's little different than if there were a huge endorheic lake high atop a mountain somewhere, then we let the water escape downhill to power a hydroelectic generator that we used to ignite a fusion reaction.
In both cases, the hydroelectric fusion reactor and the sun, there was potential energy sitting somewhere in the form of mass separated from other mass, then that potential was collapsed and the energy used to convert some mass into even more energy, which could then be fed back into the system.
In the sun's case, a lot of the energy output naturally goes to lifting the mass back up the gravitational potential, from which point it continues falling and driving the reaction more. Our hypothetical hydroelectric fusion reactor could likewise store its energy output by pumping water back up into the lake, where it could be fed back into the fusion reactor again.
In both cases, the output is higher than the input, so some energy output can go to something other than just continuing the reaction, such as shining light down on Earth and powering all light here (in the case of the sun), or keeping the lights on in our homes at night (in the case of our fusion reactor).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
For the more ignorant people here: Here is CEO of National instruments, James Truchard in his keynote of 2012 confirming Cold fusion and Rossi (which he doesn't specify by name) http://bit.ly/Mfi7Zn at 14:00 It's so great to read all the comments of people who have no clue where they are talking about.
If I go to the bank I can already convert 1 nickle into 5 copper.
Just ignore all news about this, do not argue about it, just wait.
Because IF this should work it will change the world and you won't be able to not notice it. Oil, gas and coal will become nearly worthless, geopolitics will totally change, everything will change.
If it not works, things will continue as they do.
So just don't bother. If this isn't a fake there will be no need to follow the news or to convince anyone.
That's all.
Correction, 7 billion GW-Years (1 gw x 7 billion people).
Instead of all this babbling and opining on the manâ(TM)s write-up, apply the Scientific Method and REPEAT the experiment per the writing. And until youâ(TM)ve done that, shut up about it.
Leave the debate to the fields of politics and journalism where they belong. Science is about LOOKING! If you look and you find it to be false, THEN share your results. Until then, you've lowered yourself to the level of a TV Talking Head. That's a very low place for a Scientist to sink to.
We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
over 250 people are born every minute (only about 100 die). I'd say they are all suckers - either the teat or the bottle.
Actually all of them die...eventually.
But with unlimited energy we could just build enormous refrigerators to cool things back down! Problem solved!
If some one has to point out to you who the sucker is, it's probably you. You'd think you'd be used to that by now.
I got here through a series of tubes
Never said it was claiming to be "free" energy..
I'm saying that getting fusion to happen at low temperatures and pressures is not likely possible because of the physics involved. Fusing two nuclei at low energies is simply not likely due to the laws of physics. Getting measurable energy out if it is even less likely. Getting industrial levels of energy?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and so far I'm not seeing any kind of reliable proof.
These guys are snake oil sales men and those who accept what they say are rubes.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
My skepticism is limited to Rossi, whose behavior is that of a classic con man. As for LENR, who knows? Nobody had come up with anything consistent after 20 years. I'm skeptical, but as with so many issues surrounding energy (e.g. peak oil), I would be more than delighted to be proven wrong.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
because it runs on sadness
You just need a box, some poison, and an E-Cat.... then maybe. :)
For such SFBs Theory rules over Experiment.
Clue: If the Enlightenment has anything at all to offer, it is that Experiment rules over Theory.
The question isn't whether nuclear products are present.
The question is whether heat beyond that explicable by chemical means is present. If so, we can go ahead and posit a hoax or we can posit that we Just Don't Know what the physical mechanism is for producing the heat but Whatever It Is It Sure Is Interesting. In the latter position, we call this the beginning of scientific research.
For a clue exactly how clueless Mr. SFB is, one can look at Figure 3 of the paper and, using physics 101 application of the Stefan Boltzmann law, calculate the power output during the thermal excursion to be 10kW for 1kW input.
With that kind of power gain, the niceties Mr. SFB posits as essential measurements just don't matter to the importance. Its either a hoax or its a revolution that should receive more resources and attention than middle east politics and American Idol combined.
Seastead this.
They need a Magician on the team analyzing this not just scientists. Scientists are not trained in detecting FRAUD. All of the very strange requirements for the test. Such as requiring it to be done in their lab. Proprietary wave forms. Limited operating time, Secret formulas seem very suspicious to me. Those are exactly the kinds of things you need in order to perpetrate a fraud.
http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/
Last comment.
"Here is how Rossi has fooled the same bunch of academic physicists this time: "
Seems like a good approach.
The number of times the answer is "Rossi" to the questions in main post is pretty damning too.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
People set up their cold energy producers in a fashion similar to this and get measurable current and then think they've found cold fusion. Other people cant reproduce the results because until recently it's been seriously misunderstood what's happening to create this measurable energy.
The Blade Itself
Ah, no. Modern US pennies will not pick up with a magnet.
Modern pennies(post 1982) are 97.5% Zinc with the remaining 2.5% being electrolytically plated copper.
The only pennies you could pick up with a magnet were made during World War II, due to copper shortages. They were zink coated steel.
Yes, you're correct in the common sense of the discussion, but you can have fun with Lenz's law.
Take a strong permanent magnet and a coin made of rather conductive metal (I like to use 90% silver quarters). Place the coin on a wooden table with the magnet on top. Rapidly lift the magnet and you will see that the induced magnetic field in the conductive coin will cause it to lift as well.
Even with powerful rare earth magnets and highly conductive silver the effect is minor. However, you should see it lift off the table if you perform the experiment correctly. My guess is that a pre-1982 penny would work too, though it might be more difficult to execute the technique.
"My skepticism is limited to Rossi, whose behavior is that of a classic con man."
Ahah. Maybe so, BUT... you have to keep in mind that his behavior is ALSO the classic behavior of an inventor who is very suspicious that others might steal his invention before he can profit from it.
This is hardly unusual. The Wright Brothers did exactly the same thing. For a number of years they staged demonstrations only in foreign countries, and didn't let people get close or examine the equipment.
Their behavior was so "paranoid" that Scientific American did not believe their claims, and persisted in giving the credit for sustained powered flight to someone else. It wasn't until something like 6 years later that they decided the preponderance of the evidence was actually in the Wrights' favor.
So don't misunderstand me. I don't disagree that his behavior is suspicious. But there actually exist legitimate reasons for his behavior to be suspicious, and legitimate inventors of the past have behaved the same way. Look at the Wrights. Look at Tesla. (Who had every reason to be paranoid... people really were out to steal his inventions, and succeeded more than once.)
It's a bit premature to say which is which.
"Everything that guy just said is bullshit"!
Don't forget that the original was 'a sucker born every minute, and two to take him'.
So that accounts for 75%.
Here's an excerpt from a letter published over a year ago:
Up until recently, I thought there was a small chance that Mr Rossi could have actually found the “Holy Grail” and invented a unit that was going to change the world as we know it today. That is why I sent him my genuine offer for US$1 Million for a repeat of the demonstration that has given his device the most credibility, i.e. the demonstration on 29 March 2011 with the Swedish scientists, Kullander and Essen.
I said to my friends at the time, “if Mr Rossi is genuine, he will jump at this chance of proving that his equipment works, however I think it’s most likely that he will answer by saying, ‘this is just a joke, I don’t want to be involved in circus activities’”. I predicted this because this is what has happened with other scamsters who have tried to get money from me when I have come up with a very fair offer to check that their claim actually works.
I predict that Mr Rossi will delay and delay in producing machines or in getting a proper scientific test done, while behind the scenes more and more people will be investing.
In many years to come we will hear from Mr Rossi that he is still trying to have the unit finalised, but “big business” has somehow managed to hijack his efforts. This, or other similar excuses, will be used by him to ‘explain’ why his device doesn’t appear on the market.
In the meantime, it’s likely that people around the world – not just wealthy businesspeople who should know better, but many innocent mums-and-dads – will have lost millions of dollars. This is what I am going to try and prevent.
I recall reading somewhere that you got energy by fusion on atoms lighter than iron, and by fission on atoms heavier than iron. Nickel to copper fusion contradicts that rule. Did I misremember? Or is it more complicated than that?
... whatever the thing really is, comes across as one of the oddest, math challenged inventors imaginable.
Shouldn't that be porcine aviation? (You know, pigs flying and all that.)
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Sorry, but rubbish.
Six reputable scientists? Where? Names, histories, qualifications? The only ones I see involved were from dubious backgrounds and/or part of the scam. To be reputable, you also have to be independent and well-published, not just "Call me Dr" which just takes a few years of study in the chosen area.
Demonstrations? Where? When? Who was present?
Because as far as I can tell, the University of Bologna want nothing to do with him (and that's where his biggest demos supposedly happened / were to happen) and everyone else who's seen it was dubious (though there is talk that there were a couple of stooges in the audience who later went on to write about things that NOBODY ELSE present had seen in the demo).
In a court of law, you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. That hasn't happened, or people wouldn't be calling it a hoax. And if they judge by people who were present and took photos? Well, most of them didn't see a damn thing in any of the demonstrations, and certainly nothing that they'd attest in a court of law was anything but a demonstration under uncontrolled conditions.
It's EASY to prove a positive. It's impossible to prove a negative. Even courts recognise this. Thus, the burden of proof is really on the E-Cat people to prove they can do it, not everyone else that they can't. (i.e. Please prove that I CAN'T turn off all the lights in the world just by blinking - the only way you can get close is to have me co-operate yet "fail" to do so X amount of times, or to admit it - but it still wouldn't be acceptable proof that I *CAN'T*, just that I *DIDN'T*. But to prove I *CAN* do it, all I have to do is do it once, under controlled conditions).
And all the pseudo-physics crap (inverse square laws etc.) you have in your post? Sorry, all bullshit. Every line. Nobody but a moron would think that claims like that were made by reputable scientists in the last 100 years (we invented quantum mechanics over a hundred years ago, so please don't give me this "as a youngster" crap unless you're over 100 years old). You've either been listening to crap nutters, or you've misunderstood.
Next you'll be telling me that scientists "don't know" how bees manage to fly and all that other crap that gets spouted as science rather than just the remainders of popular urban myths that sound cool at the dinner table.
E-Cat is, was and always will be a fraud. I'll lay money on it. Prominent scientists already have (over a million dollars!). At this point, you could make more money by proving these scientists wrong than you ever could by marketing the result of the prototype.
There are two fraction over here: Thos who madly wave flags and throw their hats in hte air, claiming that this has been proven against all doubt, and those who are so patho-sceptic that they sound like the established science of the medieval ages who were sure that the earth is flat and the center of the universe.
So what DO we actually have?
- There is a steel cylinder filled with a "secret sauce" inside the reactor. Rossi considers this a trade secret, and that is his very right.
- There is a box that turns mains power into some modulated power which heats and controls the reactor, also a trade secret.
Acting within the limits that an inventor - whatever he claims - has a right to have trade secrets, how could one test and verify or falsify the claim beyond doubt?
What would need to be done to set up a test for this device that either convinces the pro-faction that it is a fraud or the patho-sceptics that it really works?
It boils down to:
- find a team and location acceptable by both parties, preventing cheating with infrared lasers or whatever is claimed. Faraday cage, maybe?
- measure the input power, maybe even limit the power that can be drawn by using a generator or similar, idiotproof means.
- measure the output power, maybe with different methods, maybe with several different infrared imaging and measuring systems in parallel.
- claculating whatever chemical or electrical power could be stored in the trade-secret parts of the setup and take this into account.
- whatever elese can be done to prevent and/or expose potential manipulation.
More Ideas?
Just claiming that "those people survived attending the test -> no fast neutrons -> no fusion -> must be fraud" is a bit short-sighted.
If the sceptics faction is so convinced that this is a fraud, why not offer support for such a neutral test? If there is no surplus energy, you've proven your point. Bang! Nailed another one! If there is surplus energy, well, then try to establish a therory that matches observation.
I am really not sure about Rossi. If this is all a big fraud set up by him, what would he gain? Surely, once exposed as one, the investors would fleece him. So he would only profit from this for a very limited time (as the investors surely want to see results really soon). If it is real, he is cautious to en extend bordering paranoia, while he still wants to brag with his achievments, but so would be most of us in this situation.
While the report might not convince everybody that this is real, it should be convincing enough to warrant further examination, either to prove it beyond doubt, or to expose it as fraud. Just being a big-mouthed sceptic claiming that it does not fit their world view, so it cannot be will not help. Thats just a bit more pathetic than the shouting "Horray! Instant salvation!" from the other side. Over 100 years ago, scientists calculated that the sun, if made from burning coal, would have buned out long ago. Anything else did not fit their world view. We now know better. Always remember that!
The physicists? You mean the biologist whose name is the only one splattered all over it who has now withdrawn from further projects?
If you've seen the credentials, post them. Give us all a good laugh.
I don't need to provide my credentials. I have none in the field of physics (maths, maybe, but not physics). The difference is that I've NEVER claimed to be well-respected scientist whose opinion on an ENTIRELY new technology should just be taken as read.
And it's still a lot easier to prove a positive than a negative, no matter how difficult even proving a positive can be. That's kind of my point.
Just because Joe Bloggs says that something is bunk doesn't automatically make it right or wrong. (So what I say means nothing at all, I've already said I'm not a physicist. If you really want to get into this, what are YOUR credentials?) But, of course, if Joe Bloggs happened to be a world-renowned expert in the chosen field who work is both respected and reproducible by his peers, then it carries infinitely more weight.
So far, the only people to back E-Cat are the owners/investors - i.e. people with a vested interest in misrepresenting the product. And there's no ONE person with any decent reputation who's stood up and said "Woah, that look interesting". Not one. And in order to find someone who DOES do that, you have to allow demonstrations which are useful from a scientific viewpoint.
Again, there's a million pounds that says it's a hoax. And NOTHING that says it isn't. Compare and contrast to the situation about "psychic powers" etc. where - again - scientists have offered a million pounds and NOT ONE PERSON has stepped up and been able to demonstrate them. And 90% of them just won't even agree to take part in a controlled test, let alone sit through one.
You are confusing ignorance with disbelief. The fact you miss is that myriad people, myself included, would be interested in seeing a device that performs as the E-Cat promises. The fact that we can't, because "we're not allowed", "we don't understand", "we don't have the credentials", etc. just means that it's going to be called bullshit from day one.
P.S. I have relatives in Bologna, including those who go to that university. Want to know quite how many of them have ever heard of even the demonstration, let alone the person involved?
That guy is as shady as it gets. http://psiram.com/en/index.php/Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer
I saw Newman's device in person and it rated more of a fascinating light show than energy device. It was also plugged into a wall mains pulling up to 7 amps the amount needed to light a handful of fluorescent tubes. The trick was 20+ standard 40 watt tubes and a huge coil for a solenoid pump that moved about 1 liter every 3 to four second about 12 inches back into the reservoir. You can find many of these devices under overunity and other names that charge big coils of wire and dump the flux voltage back into fluorescent tubes. The tubes normally operate at 60 (US) cycles and most don't notice the flash. Newman took advantage of persistence of vision (a function of neurons). The device flashed the 20+ tubes at 1 cycle every second in unison with the pump. This trick was convincing with the bright flashes but it was on for one cycle and charging the other 59 cycles. It was producing enough voltage to arc the tubes igniting the plasma but not producing over unity. Efficiency was high but lighting was not effective.
High hopes for the E-Cat which I assumed was burning the hydrogen as the energy source but saw no real energy ration. I never saw much on the device and what I did see was very little in the way of proper testing.