Slashdot Mirror


Independent Researchers Test Rossi's Alleged Cold Fusion Device For 32 Days

WheezyJoe (1168567) writes The E-Cat (or "Energy Catalyzer") is an alleged cold fusion device that produces heat from a low-energy nuclear reaction where nickel and hydrogen fuse into copper. Previous reports have tended to suggest the technology is a hoax, and the inventor Andrea Rossi's reluctance to share details of the device haven't helped the situation. ExtremeTech now reports that "six (reputable) researchers from Italy and Sweden" have "observed a small E-Cat over 32 days, where it produced net energy of 1.5 megawatt-hours, "far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume."... "The researchers, analyzing the fuel before and after the 32-day burn, note that there is an isotope shift from a "natural" mix of Nickel-58/Nickel-60 to almost entirely Nickel-62 — a reaction that, the researchers say, cannot occur without nuclear reactions (i.e. fusion)." The paper (PDF) linked in the article concludes that the E-cat is "a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding. Moreover, the E-Cat results are too conspicuous not to be followed up in detail. In addition, if proven sustainable in further tests the E-Cat invention has a large potential to become an important energy source." The observers understandably hedge a bit, though: The researchers are very careful about not actually saying that cold fusion/LENR is the source of the E-Cat’s energy, instead merely saying that an “unknown reaction” is at work. In serious scientific circles, LENR is still a bit of a joke/taboo topic. The paper is actually somewhat comical in this regard: The researchers really try to work out how the E-Cat produces so much darn energy — and they conclude that fusion is the only answer — but then they reel it all back in by adding: “The reaction speculation above should only be considered as an example of reasoning and not a serious conjecture.”

24 of 986 comments (clear)

  1. Not so much, maybe. by luna69 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Please see: http://www.science20.com/a_qua...

    Not quite as clean a confirmation as one would like: " It would be like if I asked you to believe that by putting a dollar bill in a special laundry machine and spinning it for half an hour with some special detergent the dollar turns into a $1000 note. You are allowed to watch the machine as it does its work, but it is me who opens it and extracts the bill when it has finished its magic conversion. I doubt you would buy it."

    If it sounds too good to be true...

    --
    No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
    1. Re:Not so much, maybe. by radtea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can't measure quantitative thermal output of anything with a thermal camera suspended in a room

      The whole thing is terrible. If you designed a system to produce incorrect energy balance results it would be hard to improve on this set-up.

      Resting the device under test on metal rails?

      Your input power is some weird three-phase thing with additional pulses? Why not DC, since the primary purpose of the input appears to be heating the thing up?

      Your "unfueled" test runs at half the input power of your fueled test, and your "calorimetry" depends on some theoretical estimation of temperature-dependent convection losses?

      Then there's the temperature-dependent emissivity.

      And there's the running for 32 days when you claim to be producing kilo-watts of "excess power"! If that was the case, the world's simplest bomb calorimeter would demonstrate the effect in seconds. So why didn't they build one?

      The list goes on.

      If a student at a science fair did a project like this as an attempt to create an "open" calorimeter set-up for some legitimate experimental reason I'd give them great credit. If they claimed they used the system and it demonstrated that energy was not conserved... not so much.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  2. Re:Hoax by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Everyone that says they have a box that makes energy from nothing, I say, phase match your box to the line current from the local utility, roll your meter backwards, and cash the ensuing checks. Then talk to me.

    But that's the thing. That sort of stunt would be chump change compared to inventing cold fusion. If the inventor really has figured something out, and I'll grant you that's unlikely, it would behoove him to keep a tight lid on it until he has pretty much the entire eastern seaboards worth of lawyers under his belt. History is littered with scientists and inventors that have ended up living in a gutter after discovering some of the most life altering technologies. If he really does have something, he'll be the target of every shifty technology company on the planet, who will steal it, and will patent it on their own.

  3. He tried patenting it... by trims · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He's tried patenting it in three different jurisdictions:

    Italy, the EU, and the US.

    The latter two rejected the claim outright, with choice phrases like "seems to violate the understanding of basic physical processes" and "fails to provided enough of a concrete implementation to judge for patentablity", and "application does not describe a workable device".

    It got the Italian one, simply because he applied for a non-technical patent, and it was reviewed by someone who merely looked at the form, and didn't analyze the device. It's well-known in Italy that this form of patent is called "God's Gifts", because they're pretty much indistinguishable from miracles in terms of reproducability.

    Relying on Trade Secrets for this kind of invention is the #1 indicator of fraud. A proper patent would make him rich beyond his imagination. A Trade Secret is only good for fleecing investors.

    -Erik

    --
    There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
    1. Re:He tried patenting it... by geoskd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The reason he didn't describe how it works is almost certainly because IT DOESN'T WORK.

      Funny but FTFA:

      The researchers observed a small E-Cat over 32 days, where it produced net energy of 1.5 megawatt-hours, or âoefar more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume.â

      That pretty much puts an end to the "doesnt work" crap. As they stated, if it is a hoax, the guy has developed a device that can store and regurgitate energy with a far greater energy density than gasoline. If all it is, is a battery, then by itself it would be worth almost as much as cold fusion, as it can store and produce 600+ horsepower for an hour (1.5MW hours). Thats enough to move a typical passenger vehicle 300+ miles on a power supply the size of a stick of dynamite. If the guy had created a device, of any kind, that can do this, then he has no reason to try to swindle investors in a cold fusion scam, he going to be Elon Musks new best friend for life.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    2. Re:He tried patenting it... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So someone who is behaving like a fraud, claims to be able to violate the known laws of physics. If anyone wants to bet that this is real, I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that it is not.

      That's what people said about 2 years ago when this device was first announced. It's later now, and things have changed.

      I have read the paper. The methodology seems sound. If the researchers themselves check out for reputation, I would say this is astoundingly good news.

      NOBODY here is claiming "to violate the known laws of physics". Nobody. There is nothing here that violates any known physical laws. It's just that nobody had quite managed to make it work yet. It has been known to be theoretically possible for a long time now.

      The U.S. Navy has been researching ways to achieve LENR using nickel for many years now. Do you think the Navy is crazy? Do you think it's crazy that a university professor might have discovered a way to do it?

    3. Re:He tried patenting it... by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

      NONE of those explain the change in isotope species described in the article. Unless you mean he is somehow beaming concentrated neutrons through some unknown means into the device somehow, or that he is able to somehow completely replace the device with progressively more concentrated populations of heavier isotopes miraculously every time the researchers check.

      Occam's razor sometimes shows that the seemingly improbable is actually the most likely explanation.

      The actual definition of that particular by-rule, is that the explanation with the least complications (read, elaborate conjectures and weasel wording) is the most likely to be correct.

      This device appears to produce power with an energy density many times greater than dynamite, and produces a change in isotope species of the test sample.

      At this point, the test for fraud is to determine if the calculated energy released is congruent with the change in the mass energy potential of the sample before and after the experiment. Conservation of energy says that if this device used fusion, or any other nuclear power based reaction to achieve its outcome, then that energy came from mass.

      They measured the energy released. Measure the difference in the mass of the sample after the 32day observation period, and compare it against the mass of the sample before the observation period. If the calculated mass value for the energy released + current mass == mass of sample before observation, we have a very difficult thing to account for, because it means the device is plausible.

      If they dont match, it means the man is a fraud.

      This is a testable point of data that would make fraud detection very easy, and would make people that are quick to point the fraud finger very uncomfortable if found to be true.

      If the researchers did not collect this measurement, KNOWING that this device was 'supposed' to produce power via a nuclear energy process, then you have a very good grounds to seriously torpedo their published paper, and recommend additional experiment due to improper testing process. Especially since they have the equipment to measure statistical isotope species in the sample, and knew to test for it.

      Granted, the difference in weight for a 140mwh value would be in the picograms or less. That just means that smaller samples with the same reaction process need to be studied so that tinier and more sensitive aparatus can measure any changes-- which would also make the "he switched the samples!" argument more convoluted in such latter experiments.

      Of course, the NOT SCIENTIFIC AT ALL approach is to just say "There is no need to conduct that experiment, because it is clearly a fraud!"-- That's the not-science-at-all version of begging the question in a wrapper of appeal to authority fallacy, DRESSED as science.

      Science is about observation, and recording data about observation, and making hypotheses that predict future observation. In science, REALITY IS KING. If the experiment has shown that energy was generated, and specific features were measured, but the experiment itself is in question-- the proper course of action is to repeat the experimental protocol in additional laboratories to eliminate the conjectured disqualifying uncontrolled variables cited.

      In this case:

      Were there any spurrious or anomalous EM readings near the device? (Any "beamed" energy delivered to the device would have to be of this type to interact reliably with electrical energy metering equipment.)

      Was the sample ever tampered with? (Repeating the protocol simultaneously in multiple labs around the world to verify the results would exclude this, discounting some brilliantly absurd conspiracy.)

      Were the researchers involved in any lucrative scam tactics with the inventor? (again, more independent testing would reveal this.)

      So, in all cased, the prescribed course of action to verify definitively that this device is a fraud IS TO DO THE DAMN EXPERIMENT, REPEATEDLY.

      THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT KILLED THE ORIG

    4. Re:He tried patenting it... by Randle_Revar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The independent reviewers may not be that independent. It is basically the same group that reviewed it back in 2013, and they produced a paper that was promptly ripped apart. I also seem to recall at least one of them is a friend of the inventor...

    5. Re:He tried patenting it... by delt0r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's what people said about 2 years ago when this device was first announced. It's later now, and things have changed.

      No it hasn't. These "reputable" scientist are the same scientist that were claiming it works 2 years ago. And they still didn't do anything to improve the experiment. They didn't do any calorimetry, this is not published and would not last an hour in peer review, and its almost exactly what they said last time. Which is "look its hot, its more energy than we put in".

      They are soo sloppy in the experimental approach i would give this a fail at high school level. Errors are stated at .01, with no justification or calculation, its just made up! I didn't find details of the power supply, but i guess its a special one from the inventor, another black box if you will, and no mention of checking things like power factor, balance and perhaps a choke or two in case some higher frequency energy is pumped in.

      I am going to call it. They are party to the fraud.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    6. Re:He tried patenting it... by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's how I think it was done:

      Looking at Figure 4 in the report, we see that input power (current) was measured independently in two places. PCE 830 A meaures current going in to the control system, and PCE 830 B measures current going from the control system to the E-Cat. (Thease mesurements are in agreement, and both show less than 1 kW going in while other measurements show more than 2 kW of heat being generated.)

      The placements both PCE 830 units are strange. PCE 830 A doesn't sit directly on the 380 V input from the lab, but instead sits between the control system and a "switch" (dentoted "SW"). Similarly, PCE 830 B doesn't sit directly on the three cables going into the E-Cat. Instead it sits between the control system and "connection boxes" (denoted "C").

      Anybody who has used a current clamp knows that you must measure around a single conductor. If you measure around two conductors you get the sum, which can be zero even when a large amount of power is tranferred through the cable. So if any of the wires going from the control system to the "switch" contains two conductors instead of just one, then it is possible to feed current through without it regestering on PCE 830 A. Similarly, if any of the cables going from the control system to a "connection box" contains two conductors, it is possible to send power through without it registering on PCE 830 B. (The cables that come after the connection boxes would be much harder to fake, because they connect to high-temperature Inconel conductors at the end.)

      So my guess is that the "control system" contains two separate units. One works exactly as advertised. The other is powered using an extra conductor in one of the cables to the "switch". Its ouput corrent is similarly hidden using extra conductors in the wires coning to the connection boxes.

      This second unit is designed to only output power under specific circumstances. (Which is why Rossi himself was controling the experiment.) For example, I found it strange that the temperature of the "dummy" reactor was always much lower than the temperature of the "working" reactor. Maybe that is the trigger.

    7. Re:He tried patenting it... by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh, hey, just looked it up. Seems that there's wide belief among the skeptics that it works based on a really simple trick: a rigged plug. Inside the plug he's got the ground wire swapped with a live wire. So inside the box he can at will make the power draw seem to disappear, because they're not measuring the ground wire. He's actually refused a million dollar prize from a skeptic who wanted to test his device in a way that would include measuring current from the ground wire. Funny, that. ;)

      Also looks like in all of his previous incarnations there were no unusual isotopic concentrations measured in the ash. So funny that all of the sudden after facing that criticism his reactor changes how it works and starts outputting extremely enriched stuff in the "ash". Funny how that works. ;)

      --
      You people make me envy the deaf and the blind!
  4. Re:Hoax by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But that's the thing. That sort of stunt would be chump change compared to inventing cold fusion. If the inventor really has figured something out, and I'll grant you that's unlikely, it would behoove him to keep a tight lid on it until he has pretty much the entire eastern seaboards worth of lawyers under his belt.

    That's the classic paradox, and it has plagued REAL inventions and inventors since the dawn of time.

    The Wright brothers were so afraid that the secrets of their invention would get out before they could profit from it, that they only gave staged, pre-arranged demonstrations to limited audiences. So much so that Scientific American claimed they were fraudsters, and credited manned flight to somebody else, for something like 8 years after the Wright brothers' first announcement.

    It wasn't until a later demonstration (in France, IIRC) which was widely witnessed and written about that SciAm retracted their recognition of the other guy and admitted that they were wrong about the Wrights (no pun intended).

  5. Re:Hoax by Beck_Neard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > This, a thousand times over. Having a "free energy" machine, if it existed, would be like owning a machine that printed money.

    Given a choice between making $400k a year (minus operating and maintenance expenses, which we have no idea of) and potentially making billions off an invention, which would you choose?

    I'm not saying that this crazy e-cat device works. Based on what we know from physics, it's far more likely that it's a hoax (until they can produce evidence otherwise). I'm just saying that there is no reason to think he's a hoax just based on his business strategy. James Watt sold steam engines, not power.

    --
    A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
  6. Re:Any suffiently advanced tech... by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Before, he used an AC-only amp-meter and added DC heating current. As to "standard power supply", it is really easy to rip out all that is in there and replace it, I have done it. He might even have repeated the earlier trick with a manipulated wall-socket, that gives AC _and_ DC. As everybody expects it giving only AC, the DC would be imperceptible unless specifically looked for. And with a little controller over Bluetooth, ZigBee or the like, he could even switch the DC part on and off to hide it better. Or he could put 380V on that socket on demand. Also not hard to do.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  7. Re:Hoax by alexgieg · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yeah, and they both stole geometry from Euclides, and numbers from India. Also, General Relativity, thousands of times more important (and difficult) that E=mc2, didn't happen. It was all a dream.

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  8. Re:Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The device has to be plugged in to run the "fans" and "pumps". Since nobody was allowed to look inside or analyse the wire, it's pretty obvious there was a hidden wire inside that was providing the juice. They didn't even check it with a Kill O Watt, just some shitty little tool run over the line that is easily fooled into thinking the device was receiving less power than it really was.

    Andrea Rossi is notorious for his scams. He once founded a company that was going to convert industrial waste into oil, yet in all of the years that company was a around, they didn't produce anything. Instead, he got busted for dumping 70,000 tonnes of toxic waste and tax fraud, for which he spent 4 years in prison. Following that, he founded another company that was supposed to generate 1000 watts each. Out of 27 devices, 19 didn't do anything and the rest couldn't even manage to put out 1 watt.

    The E-Cat is just his latest scam.

  9. Lack of understanding, but so what. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding.

    Men don't really understand woman and women don't really understand men, but we still want to date each other and the results are not always unsatisfying. For fuck's sake, people didn't know how aspirin worked for (how long?) but still took it for pain and headaches simply because it worked (well).

    Build one of these things for small-scale production. If it generates net energy, back-date a patent for this guy. I'd rather see some tax dollars going toward trying something that may fail, than paying Congress' to jerk-off for another year playing piss-ant politics.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  10. Re:Hoax by arth1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The size of the element alone precludes it having stored 1.5 megawatt-hours by chemical or other known means.

    Why do you presume it was stored, and not provided through one of the various tubes connected to the device?

    Further, they did analysis on the metal isotopes (maybe you missed that part). Start reading the PDF on page 27.

    Why do you presume that the materials tested afterwards was the same as what was inserted?

    This shouts "fraud" with capital F, R, A, U and D.
    And that's before considering that Mr. Rossi has a history of fraud, and has spent several years in prison over previous frauds.

    The device's main mode of operation is to extract money from gullible venture capitalists. The scientists are just useful tools here, not adept at spotting fraud, but used to work with people who may be wrong, not outright deceitful.

  11. Re:Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    *Puts on tinfoil hat*

    This may sound paranoid but if anyone actually did make such a device that works, his best bet would be to sound like a crackpot at first till he generates enough publicity that when it comes to light, there is enough to see it that it can't be hidden.

    Think of it this way, he would upset a LOT of powerful players both inside and outside of the government (even the government doesn't want citizens to make power cheaply for themselves as it is one avenue of lost control in a big area). If someone to come out legitimately with a working prototype being demonstrated openly, before hardly anyone knew about him he would probably be bought out and the invention mothballed or found dead from an apparent accident or suicide.

    As for this guy, no clue, most likely he is a scam artist or majorly flawed in his experiment but if his thing does work, then a decent amount of science would have to be revised and he would have a huge uphill battle for his invention to be allowed to see the light off day and hopefully it does't end up getting screwed over by incumbents like the electric car was for over a decade thanks to GM and Cheveron buying out the battery technology and banning it from use in cars.

  12. Re:Hoax by narcc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    are you saying that Randi fails because other cranks continue to peddle their crap to credulous public?

    No. Read it again. I'm saying that Randi fails because every one of his high-profile "debunking" efforts have been failures. You'll find not a single success among them.

    Then again, it's possible that he doesn't actually care if his "efforts" are fruitful. He could just be putting on a show for his followers. He is a performer, after all.

    Isn't that exactly what Randi claims happened in the "Carlos Hoax"?

    No, it's not. Randi's goal with the "Carlos Hoax" was to show how credulous the media can be toward frauds like "Carlos". The media, as it happens, were universally skeptical of "Carlos" -- a fact that Randi ignores because it runs counter to the story he's trying to sell to his witless fans. Put simply, Randi flat-out lied about the media's response to "Carlos" to further his career. (I'm not surprised that he lied, considering the risks he took. Identity theft, passport fraud, the list goes on. Would you want all of that to be for nothing?)

    So, yes, I think I'll stick to the opinions of actual scientists. I'll continue to give known liars and criminals the credulity they deserve.

  13. Re:Hoax by Solozerk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't see that anybody checked the "reactor" coating materials for rare earth dopants.

    Read the report (specifically page 8 and annex 2) - they actually analyzed the device's coating material. It was made of Al2O3 (and this was taken into account in the calorimetry), with no obvious other compounds.

    While there are possible calorimetry issues here, it's hard to see an obvious one that would explain such a large measurement error; alumina IR transparency has been considered, as well as IR calibration issues (especially given the imperfect dummy test); both do not appear to be valid critics (see my comment here for details).

    Given the extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is obviously required here; and this report definitely isn't that. Its experimental protocol and the results obtained are however more than enough to warrant further investigation; which may be hard given that this isn't like a "classical" experiment, that can be easily replicated - you basically need Rossi/Industrial Heat (the company that acquired Rossi's device and tech) to provide you with his black box and stay the hell away from the test (this is the first time he actually did that; and even here he couldn't help himself being present for the initial "fuel" insertion and the ash extraction at the end of the experiment - which render the isotopic changes inevitably suspicious).

  14. Re:Hoax by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just sell the power

    In which jurisdiction can you "just sell power"? I dare you, try generate and sell electricity and see how long it takes before you're locked in a cell or buried under it.

    I used to live in a little Missouri town that generated its own municipal electricity, economically and without any fuss, since the end of WWII. The energy companies spent the equivalent of 25 years worth of the revenue they would receive from taking over that franchise to get town officers elected who would eventually shut down the facility and contract with them. Eventually, when enough of these captive town officials had been elected, there was a controversial vote to stop self-generating. There was good evidence that the mayor and several town council members had been directly paid by energy PACs. Within 8 months, electricity costs in this town doubled. This was 7 years ago, and it's gone up and up since then. The new electric company uses the same generating facility that the town used to use. Every single town official who had voted to stop self-generating was eventually thrown out of office, but now there are contractual arrangements which prevent them from self-generating again for half a century.

    Energy is one of those things that you are not allowed to produce. Look at the money the Kochs are spending to try to get localities to put taxes and surcharges on the sun, in order to kill solar energy initiatives by individuals. I'm convinced that energy is a major method of controlling people lives. It's economic control, and it's political control, and it's environmental control and it's control over how you live. And by the way,

    http://www.nationaljournal.com...

    and

    http://www.nbcnews.com/busines...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. Re:Hoax by Solozerk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh, he says words which he calls an explanation, but they fly in the face of already-understood theory, and he offers no explanations about why already-understood theory is wrong.

    Agreed on this - it should be noted, though, that Rossi is not the only one that claims excess energy and transmutation using these kinds of mechanisms; look up for example the MIT NANOR devide (a small scale device that put out excess energy for more than one month straight), or the Mitsubishi transmutation claims in similar devices (later replicated by Toshiba). There are also other companies claiming similar things (Brillouin for one).

    If this thing works (and that's obviously a big if), then I'd suspect Rossi discovered this mostly by accident, and that he has no precise idea himself of how it actually produces energy. IIRC, the few initial theories proposed are based on the idea of nano-scale lattices with trapped hydrogen inside; combined with some sort of excitation (EM usually, although not the only one that apparently produced some results) allowing somehow for the Coulomb barrier to be overcome at those scales and for a limited-scale, radiation-less (how ?) fusion to occur.

    This is of course all pretty impossible given our current understanding of physics so if it does work somehow, it's wonderful news, even if it cannot be harnessed for energy; because it might lead to new, exciting physics.

  16. Re:Hoax by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I kinda doubt that Einstein knew about Olinto. But relativistic transformations are called Lorentzian for a reason, and Heaviside discovered the relativistic length compression. However, both of them thought that their results were artifacts of calculations and can be made to disappear with a careful selection of a reference frame and/or aether properties.

    Then why do we Einstein made the mental leap that nobody before him was able to do - he actually said that the relativistic effects are _real_ and that if you consider them all together then they form a consistent theory. A weird theory where clocks run at different speeds and length and mass are not constant, which is why lots of physicists dismissed it at first.