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."

Comments

Re:W.C Fields was an optimist

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Sad legitimate researchers

[EmperorOfCanada]

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.

Re:Sad legitimate researchers

[lxs]

If cold fusion were invented tomorrow everything changes...

True. I for one would be worried about getting hit by one of those flying pigs.

Re:Sad legitimate researchers

[Sockatume]

There's plenty of reseach into legitimate low-temperature, low-pressure fusion, going under names like muon-catalysed and antimatter-catalysed fusion. It's very well accepted work. The trouble is that most research going under the name "cold fusion" would better be described as "I have invented a machine that makes energy from nowhere and am postulating fusion as its mechanism of operation".

Re:Sad legitimate researchers

[Teancum]

If cold fusion were invented tomorrow everything changes, world politics, anything involving oil or energy production, the environment, space travel, food production, basically everything.

and how would that work ?

Assume for a minute you can head down to your local Home Depot and pick up a portable "Mr. Fusion" 1 MW reactor powered by a single box of Borax laundry detergent (that is a 100 year supply of Boron I should note too). How do you think that would change the world?

First of all, you would no longer be dependent upon utility companies for heating or cooling your home, and even worrying about things like insulation or energy efficiency would go out the window. People living in cold weather climates could put either wires or warm water under their driveways and sidewalks to melt snow and ice and not give a damn about how much that costs. As a side note.... you thought global warming was bad with coal plants and such, just wait until everybody is turning out gigawatts of energy on a personal basis and wondering where all of that heat is going after it has been used for something else!

It would change international relations as oil would no longer be nearly so important except as a lubrication fluid, and even that can be mostly done with renewable resources like corn oil or other vegetable stock sources. Most of the recent wars would become irrelevant as control of petroleum resources would be insignificant.

Transportation costs are largely dependent upon energy costs, thus building locomotives, ships, and even automobiles with these fusion devices would render most transportation costs to trivial levels except for the cost of vehicle construction and paying professional operators (like an airline pilot) or other crew related costs.

Food production is largely a logistical issue as well, where trivial transportation costs would significantly lower food prices as well.

As for space travel is concerned, fusion energy sources for spaceflight would ensure that you could travel to Mars in just a couple of weeks, and even trips to other stars might take just a few dozen years. Certainly interplanetary spaceflight would be a common to the point that even poor people of 3rd world nations could become "astronauts" and go anywhere in the solar system if they cared.

The big question is if such a future could ever happen? It is an interesting promise that has captivated the imagination since the idea of nuclear fusion reactors was even conceived as a remote possibility. Cold Fusion reactors may be a way to get one of those "Mr. Fusion" reactors built, but you would have to prove that they really work as promised. Unfortunately there is more reason to think Andreas Rossi is full of BS and is being intentionally deceptive.

Re:Sad legitimate researchers

[joe_frisch]

Muon and antimatter catalyzed fusion are based on well understood physics (the rate at which muons catalyze fusion can be calculated by any graduate physics student). So far though these schemes have insurmountable "technical" issues: The muons stick to the helium and can't be re-used, and the anti-protons require too much energy to produce (and probably anhillate too often).

The research is legitimate because it is possible that there is a way around these problems. I think its unlikely, but the value if you succeed is so high that it is worth some effort.

The other style of cold-fusion is really a form of : we have this gadget that gets hot due to some "new" physics. That would be OK, except it us usually coupled with "it is a secret process, so we won't give you full access to the machine"

Re:Sad legitimate researchers

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry, your attempt to explain this is unfortunately not really close to correct.

You don't need to put energy into a fusion process to get more energy out. There is no scientific reason for that. However: in praxis we humans who build nuclear fusion reactors need to work that way. We have to heat up a plasma with lots of energy to get a little bit of fusion going on. But this is not natural law, it is just how our fusion reactors work.

E.g. no one or nothing puts energy into the sun to make fusion possible. The pressure alone is enough. If we want to do that we needed to create that pressure and for that *we* would need energy.

Re:Sad legitimate researchers

[tragedy]

There isn't much legitimate research because cold fusion violates some very well-established laws regarding energy requirements: You need to put energy into fusion to get more energy out, and that energy in is rather a lot.

If you could actually be a bit more specific about exactly what laws are being violated, we might be able to take you a bit more seriously. Just waving around the idea that large energies are involved doesn't tell us anything. Let's use tritium-deuterium fusion as an example. You need something like .1 MeV to break through the Coulumb barrier and release about 170 times that much energy. .1 Mev is about 1.6 X 10^-14 joules. In other words 1 watt of power could, at some close to perfect level of fusion efficiency, produce over 170 watts in return by fusing tritium to deuterium something like 62.5 trillion times a second. Hmm, the numbers don't seem intuitively correct there. I was expecting the energies involved to be quite small, but that seems too small. It works out to about 327 gigajoules per gram of tritium-deuterium fuel which is very close to the published numbers I can find, however, so I guess they're correct.

So, one joule of energy is, in principle, enough energy to produce fusion 62.5 trillion times (admittedly in the easiest two atoms to fuse). In practice it isn't since you'd have to have some Heisenberg principle violating particle cannon to actually produce those collisions. To actually produce fusion, you have to find ways to confine that energy so that you can try over and over again to produce those collisions, really really fast before the energy leaks away. That's why high-energy also tends to mean _lots_ of energy and massive equipment but it doesn't necessarily have to. It can also mean really high energy intensity, but not a whole lot of actual energy. For example, a really, really brief, but really intense laser pulse. In practical engineering, that still tends to equal lots of energy and equipment. I don't think there are any physical laws that anyone has proven that say that has to be the case, however. You certainly haven't cited any.

There are plenty of things we don't really know about physics. We don't even have a very good idea about what really is or isn't knowable yet. As such, we really are not yet able to discount the idea that a particular arrangement of matter might promote fusion (or other nuclear reactions we don't properly understand) inside itself. It might come down to some particular way of concentrating energy really intensely at certain points in the structure of the material. Or it might come down to somehow promoting quantum tunnelling, or some other quantum effect that somehow railroads particles into the collisions you want. We don't know enough about physics yet to really discount such possibilities.

Re:Need to Be Careful

[Peter Simpson]

NASA is "looking into this": don't misinterpret investigation as validation. If it's not reproducible, more work needs to be done. If the process appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics, your first reaction should be "scam", not "how do I get in on this?". Your second reaction should be "how do they do it"? It's been many years since cold fusion and while there have been tantalizing hints that there may be something to it, nobody has been able to reliably reproduce the phenomenon for objective observers.

Re:Need to Be Careful

[Teancum]

NASA looks into all sorts of silly things from time to time on the off chance that perhaps one of those wacky ideas might pan out... and because some congressman or senator has made a gentle inquiry wondering if it is bullshit or not. That has nothing to do with the validity of what it is that may be claimed and sadly tax dollars are still being wasted on utter garbage that has nothing to do with science.

Besides, even this crazy theory you are quoting here doesn't seem to have anything to do with the e-Cat other than it is what Ross claims the device is doing without any real proof that anything is happening at all. That isn't happening, and no real 3rd party investigations into the device have happened. Heck, the guy can't even get patents accepted much less prove that anything is going on.

Rossi even claims to have a factory making these things somewhere in Florida, but when the State of Florida decided to go in and check out what was going on (after a "concerned citizen" made a complaint about a nuclear reactor being built in the state without permits and such) Rossi and his agents had to back off and assert that no manufacturing was even taking place in the state. Yeah, funny how that works out when your bluff is called.

I've made my own private inquiries about the device, and the more I push the more I am firmly convinced this is a hoax of the worst possible kind. I don't know what Rossi's end game is, but he doesn't even merit being a good charlatan as well.

An easy solution

[K. S. Kyosuke]

If they want to know if the E-Cat works, why don't they just measure it with an E-meter?

Re:What would it take?

[Sockatume]

I'll settle for less: let the same people perform the experiment again, but don't have Rossi setting up the experiments in his lab on his terms. You don't invite Yuri Geller into the lab then let him set up the spoon-bending experiment.

Re:Need to Be Careful

[dmbasso]

If it's not reproducible, more work needs to be done.

It is reproducible, that's the whole point they're still "looking into this".

If the process appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics [...]

Can you explain how fusion (of any kind) appears to violate any thermodynamics' law?

It's been many years since cold fusion and while there have been tantalizing hints that there may be something to it, nobody has been able to reliably reproduce the phenomenon for objective observers.

Actually there were several successful experiments, it doesn't take much work to look for their results. You may start with Dr. Peter Hagelstein, from MIT.

But usually people prefer to just dismiss without much thought, since the topic became taboo. Group-thinking is surely a fucked-up human characteristic.

Re:Thermal Hysteresis

[Sockatume]

There were two experiments. In one, 360W was applied continuously, and in the other, 930W was applied on a 35% duty cycle. Of course, that's assuming there's no trick wiring. The other assumption is that their baffling method of estimating the power output was working properly. It certainly looks fine (assuming the IR camera didn't go over 50C, which is all it's rated to without active cooling) but Rossi doesn't like people to do actual calorimetry and I can't help but read that as an indication that the positive results would immediatley disappear.

Re:W.C Fields was an optimist

[compro01]

Still too low. 1 sucker born per second would result in only about 24% of people being suckers.

To me,

[houbou]

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.

Define "Legitimate"

[eldavojohn]

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.

What this paper appears to do is formalize observations ... 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.

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.

Re:Need to Be Careful

[gstoddart]

But usually people prefer to just dismiss without much thought, since the topic became taboo.

Largely because it's all been demonstrated to be either fake, a gross misunderstanding of what's happening, or so totally un-repeatable by anyone else as to be suspect.

Group-thinking is surely a fucked-up human characteristic.

Right, all those people who still think we live on a flat earth or that the world is only 6000 years old are the victim of groupthink.

Or, you know, if you make an extraordinary claim, you're gonna need proof.

Re:W.C Fields was an optimist

[nitehawk214]

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.

Re:W.C Fields was an optimist

[NatasRevol]

Well, Barnum & Fields were the principals.

If the E-Cat is real, then it seems Andrea Rossi

[Alejux]

goes out of his way to make it look like it's a hoax.

Re:Need to Be Careful

[VortexCortex]

When you've attended enough UFO Churches, you can pretty much tell how things are going to turn out by the first sermon.

It's not foolish to dismiss this outright. Dismissal is the only sane thing to do to save our resources. If it is a breakthrough, it doesn't matter if nearly everyone ignores it: It will quickly become widely known on the merit of the advancement. Not because pundits sing its praises, or expound on the possible endless benefits of infinite rectal probing.

Not a hoax

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

My D-Wave tells me the E-Cat will work.

Re:Wrong approach

[Maury Markowitz]

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

Re:Need to Be Careful

[sycodon]

If you are speaking E-Cat. Yes.

If you are speaking LENR, then we should just let the research take it's course and not kill it out of some prejudice of some kind

just hold out your hand for food of the gods

[Thud457]

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.

Re:Wrong approach

[Animats]

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.

Re:Currency conversion

[Anonymous Coward]

you can also tell by the date stamped on them :)

Re:Need to Be Careful

[Anonymous Coward]

And mass is energy, in the amount of mass times the speed of light squared. This is what all nuclear science is based upon and why fission plants, nuclear warheads, and fusion bombs work. The system energy is not being increased, because the mass defect in the nuclear reaction is converting mass to energy.

When I read the original E-Cat stuff is sounded like total bullshit. The process I saw NASA examine and the new Rossi reactor that has been independently verified by half a dozen scientists from across Europe is actually pretty sound science wise.

In this case, the experiment puts hydrogen atoms into a tight nickle lattice, with hydrogen in the interstitial positions, then radiates it with terrahertz radiation, which forces inverse beta decay of the hydrogen due to the lattice pressures and radiation, the neutrons are then forced into the nickle atoms, which then beta decay to become copper. The beauty of this is that you don't have to overcome the coulomb barrier, but still have a nuclear reaction taking place. In fact, the reverse beta decay of hydrogen is much lower energy than the beta decay of nickle.

A while back I, as a total noob, looked at fusion and said "well, how would I get around the coulomb barrier?" instead of trying to get through it. I calculated that radiation in a swath of Terahertz range that is difficult to produce would make it possible to induce reverse beta decay in hydrogen. If this guy got it to work, the only surprising development is that he was able to produce the right kind of radiation easily. There is literally no other surprise.

Re:I actually believe Rossi

[sl3xd]

You obviously have no experience in the realm of charlatans.

In every single case of too-good-to-be-true power sources, there is a gimmick to make the results seem legitimate to the untrained.

It's little more than an magician's trick of misdirection, and ignorance of the audience. There's no real magic in a magician's act; misdirection and suspension of disbelief are their breadwinners.

There's a reason charlatans won't allow people who know what they're doing to examine their apparatus. It has nothing to do with "trade secrets", and everything to do with the fact that experienced chemists, engineers, and physicists generally find the gimmick and expose their fraud in minutes.

There are a lot of ways to heat up the reactor chemically. If you honestly believe that "it can't be done conventionally," then you've utterly failed chemistry.

Simply heating a lithium-ion battery pack over 185 C starts an unstoppable chain-reaction that quickly reaches a couple thousand degrees. Surround a LiPo battery with a chunk of steel, short circuit it, and it it will reach a temp over 185 C. Now you just wait for the steel to slowly heat up. Create an array of a few of these, add copper to equalize the heat in your bank of LiPo batteries, and voila, you've got a heat source of well over 500 watts that can last for hours - days even, if you set it up right.

As much as the /. crowd hates to admit it, there are reasons for most intellectual property law, NDA's, patents, and so forth: one of them is to protect a in inventor - so he can have outside experts verify his apparatus, and can publish how it works for expert scrutiny, yet still retain the rights to profit from his work.

I'd like to believe that Rossi has somehow found out how to generate abundant, clean, and cheap energy. His actions, however, are identical to a garden-variety charlatan. Activities such as grandstanding before customers or the press, "demonstrations", and refusal to let experienced and external experts examine his device.

Rossi does none of this. The smell of charlatan coming from the guy is overpowering. His behavior is identical to a classic con/charlatan. As the saying goes, you don't have to eat the whole turd to know it isn't chocolate.

Re:W.C Fields was an optimist

[Reverand Dave]

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.

Re:Need to Be Careful

[TFAFalcon]

What's more unlikely? That the universe happened by random, or that a being capable of creating the universe happened by random?

Re:I actually believe Rossi

[sl3xd]

Read the actual report and see if you really think a few chemicals could really do what you suggest -- keep the temperature steady and glowing hot for 100 hours. If so, that would be amazing.. especially since the weight of the reactor did not change!

I don't only think a few chemical could really do what I'm suggesting, I know they can.

The "Glowing hot" reaction was, by their own admission, a very short term reaction, to "prove' that it can generate a lot of heat - in fact, enough to melt the steel and ceramic device. This was an earlier test, and had no part in either of the tests that lasted around 100 hours. In fact, there's no indication in the paper of the duration of the "glowing hot" test at all.

The 100 hour "long term" test in their report is an entirely different device, "purposely" running the device cooler. There's no evidence it's even the same design.

Chemical reactions can easily be used to melt the steel and ceramics used in the E-Cat. Thermite will melt through steel, concrete, and a few feet of dirt underneath. Thermite is self-oxidizing, the reaction is Fe2O3 + 2 Al 2 Fe + Al2O3 -- note that the resulting compounds aren't gaseous and therefore won't exhaust into the atmosphere - so the weight before and after the reaction is the same. That's only one of many reactions that can produce the same effect.

When the test is prepared beforehand, and/or you're not allowed to monitor the whole process, it's quite easy for a charlatan to adulterate the test.

Generating a lower level of heat for 100 hours isn't particularly difficult either, though not necessarily by chemical means this time.

Notable is the fact that Rossi would not let anyone disconnect the power cables, instead demanding they use an ammeter to "prove' the cables weren't drawing any power.

I've seen such a demonstration by an EE professor - the working meter read zero current. The purpose was to demonstrate that you really should understand how the meters work before infer anything from their readings. Otherwise, you end up with a meter reading zero on a circuit with enough electricity flowing to kill. Rossi could easily be using one of several methods to deliver power through the wire such that an ammeter still shows zero.

Putting too much trust in a measuring instrument you don't understand has been the source of a lot of scientific embarrassment over the centuries.

Similarly, Rossi will not allow any chemical analysis after the fact that would prove his claims (such as analysis for the type of copper isotopes that would result from the proposed reaction). Trying to claim that it would give away his "trade secret" catalyst is a joke: If he ever plans on selling this thing commercially, he will be required by law to provide an MSDS which details exactly what is in the catalyst.

Even Coca-Cola has to list its ingredients on the can. The difference is the laws are a bit more lenient towards "natural and artificial flavorings" in foods than they are towards industrial reagents.

Re:Need to Be Careful

[ultranova]

I think it would be just as foolish to dismiss this outright, considering the " tantalizing hints that there may be something to it" and the developing theories as it would be to start dumping your life savings into Rossi's company.

No, not really. It's the "tantalizing hints that there may be something to it" part which pretty much screams bullshit. Fusion is not exactly subtle; if it's going on, it's not hard to detect, and hasn't been. Furthermore, according to the Wikipedia link, the device was covered up during demonstrations, actively hindering any kind of measurements. Add those together and shave with Occam's razor, and you get "conman".

Also, fusion is not really all that hard to achieve. For example, a fusor is simple enough for a hobbyist project. What's hard is a fusion device with a net energy output; we don't even know if Rossi's device is doing fusion at all, so why would we even begin to assume it's not only doing so but generating more power than it consumes?

So yeah, with the information we have, this seems like exactly the kind of thing that should be dismissed outright.

Re:Need to Be Careful

[Immerman]

Have fun. May I recommend a Farnsworth Fusor? It doesn't get anywhere close to break-even energy production, but it's cheap and easy to build, and much safer than any DIY fission reactor is likely to be, assuming you could even get your hands on the fissile material in the first place. Just remember that it *is* a good source of fast neutrons and gamma radiation, so don't stand too close and be sure there's nobody standing over it upstairs either.

Also, let me congratulate you and having the foresight to build it in your basement where the surrounding dirt can provide decent shielding. *Much* more responsible than in the garage where an unsuspecting neighbor could get a lethal radiation dose as they walk past.

Re:Need to Be Careful

[timholman]

The first time I read about this thing, I thought, "Why not just set it up at work? Get it running, throw the breakers coming from the power lines, and let this little "reactor" run the plant?"

One of the sure signs of pseudoscience is that the "inventor" cannot do anything useful with his creation, no matter how long he "refines" it.

If I could build a free energy generator, I wouldn't need to prove anything to anyone. If nothing else, I would unplug myself from the grid, and stop buying gasoline. On a larger scale, I could (for example) perform electrolysis of water and sell hydrogen in bulk quantities at a price no one else could touch. I wouldn't need true believers to worship me as a genius. I wouldn't need to put on ridiculous demonstrations. I would just make money, and lots of it.

That fact that Rossi and others of his ilk seem incapable of doing anything practical with their devices except try to solicit money from victims ... er, investors, should tell you everything you need to know about their validity.