Need the scientifically literate to review, Andrea Rossi, E-cat/cold fision energy machine.

NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Need the scientifically literate to review, Andrea Rossi, E-cat/cold fision energy machine.

   I will be making a few posts like this from time to time, I very much look forward to some knowledgeable feedback as grown I trust the no bullshit opinions of the skeptics on this site.  No rush on this one the interview is on April 18th.    My business partner who by day lines up my jobs anuses phones and runs the cont ruction website, by night runs a another website (westcoasttruth.com) where he posts article about current event/politics etc..., busts con men and scams, exposes nonsense bullshit, makes people aware of laws and things the government and business' are up to most aren't aware of, basically just puts on the site what he is interested in and what pisses him off and concerns him, he is particularly concerned and angry about how far down the slippery slope we have traveled when it comes to government control over your life.  He also has a weekly radio show where he interviews influential people like Jacque Fresco with the Venus project and many many many others.  He keeps me updated on who is coming on his show every month so I can dig in to them, their claims, and give him some feed back on my opinion and what difficult questions I would suggest asking them in the interview.  Some of these guys are into things I don't fully understand enough to form a genuine opinion so in those cases I will post here for all to review and comment.

  Next week he is scheduled to interview Andrea Rossi, a man who claims to have successfully invented and built this E-cat/cold fusion energy machine which (WARNING fantastically layman description ahead) pumps out energy in an extremely efficient way...something like free energy but not quite...something like that.  As a layman I can't form too much of an educated opinion on whether this is genuine science, or bullshit I can find info on both sides.  So I'll leave it to the more scientifically literate folk here to investigate if you have some time and are interested in putting pseudo-scientific, and genuine advanced peer reviewed science in their proper categories.

 

Claim made by the people behind this E-cat/Cold fusion ma chin:

 

"The Energy Catalyst, also known as E-Cat, is a device that will change energy as we know it on this planet. Demonstrated for the first time in January of this year at an Italian press conference, the E-Cat is able to produce up to 15,000 watts of electricity with only 400 watts coming into it."
 

 

A video of Andrea Rossi explaining the math behind his energy machine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA&feature=related

 

A video of Andrea Rossi's E-cat machine in use

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNhQIufkdL4&feature=related

 

Andrea Rossi official E-cat website

http://ecat.com/

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   On an unrelated side note, if your looking for a laugh and to be entertained by fantastically epic levels of bullshit only rivaled by religious myth, take a little look into a man named Alfred Webre (tons of videos on youtube) and his cult of Exo-politics.  Keep in mind Alfred has a fairly impressive education, he worked for NASA, this is no fool, it really makes me wonder if he believes his own bullshit after repetition and delusions of grandeur, or if he is just a truly deceptive conman snake who knows exactly what he is doing, scamming people.  A  few weeks ago my partner was scheduled to interview this guy.  He was referred to him by one of  his "followers," (cult members), who is apparently a very nice girl who has simply been sucked into this, my partner of course sniffed this conman out in minutes.  And after myself and him did a little digging into his claims, he had no choice but to cancel the interview and instead write and post an article on his site exposing the this con artist.  I hate guys like Alfred Weber, quite intelligent and incredibly talented bullshitters (much like L.Ron Hubbard) who prey on the average minded by making them feel special with fantastic claims.  He builds an entire business (religion/cult) around his nonsense, charges money for people to hear him speak, claims ridiculous things supported by no evidence at all other than whistle blowers which most find so ridiculous they don't even pay attention, stays far away from intellectual circles, while these followers of his do his dirty work and get taken for a ride.  You wouldn't believe how serious people take this guy it's scary.  I'd like to punch the guy in the nose whether or not he's being knowingly deceptive or just plain delusion.

Claims made by Alfred Webre, a royal tool:

 

-Their is life on mars, and the governement is well aware

-We share a common heritage with life on mars, we split from them 12000 years ago when a fragment from a supernova collided with mars ruining its environment.

-The surface of mars if covered  in predators, no herbivores because vegetation cannot survive

-Our Hominid cousins from mars live under the surface, they moved under the surfaced when mars' environment changed.

-These humanoid: The men are shorter than us in general, stalkier and more muscular and talk in a very high pitch voice like children because of mars' atmosphere, the women have bright red hair.

-We have bases on mars, and the have bases here.

-We have teleportation and time travel devices which allow us to travel to and from mars instantly.

-This universe, our reality is a hologram of sorts, created by the minds of incredibly advanced entities.

-Obama and other president are pre-chosen by the powers that be, obama teleported to and from mars, (for some reason I don't remember)

 

 

  That's just the beginning.  Told ya you wouldn't believe how crazy this shit is he reminds me alot of L Ron Hubbard and his nonsense, but what is so hard to understand and what is truly disturbing, is how many followers this guy has.  They are very cult like, we met one here, the young girl who refer ed my partner to Alfred for an interview.   She has basically isolated herself from all her friends and family because they all think she's nuts and are sick of hearing her preach about hominid martians, and teleportation and how ignorant they all are of the truth.  When asked "what evidence do you or Alfred have for any of these claims" she replied with "have you ever heard Alfred speak, that is enough evidence."

How terrible and sickening it is he can pull this shit off, suck in the naive, get them to donate money, recruit others and basically worship him.  What a turd burglar.  Didn't need to be very scientifically literate to form an opinion and send my feedback on this douchebag and his nonsense, damn these guys piss me off.

 

If you want to see this snake work his con, take a look its fascinating, he just goes on and on and on claiming crazy shit, and provides zero evidence for any of it, and people bite, amazing...  Their is some REAL money in the gullible and stupid, if I had no morals I would start up my own cult and have morons make me rich and kiss my ass all day.

 

Alfred Webre interviewed by bimbo simpleton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTvoNUxMz7Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af2TsrYV62M

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
"The Energy Catalyst, also

"The Energy Catalyst, also known as E-Cat, is a device that will change energy as we know it on this planet. Demonstrated for the first time in January of this year at an Italian press conference, the E-Cat is able to produce up to 15,000 watts of electricity with only 400 watts coming into it."

 

That is called a "perpetual motion machine" and the US patent office will no longer accept applications for same.  It's the First Law of Thermodynamics - "You can't win."  You can not get more energy out than you put in.  I didn't bother to look at his videos or website.  I'll stick with 1LOT.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey NMCP, I hope I can

Hey NMCP, I hope I can provide some valid feedback. Let me know if you use anything of this.

It is quite possible for a machine to produce more energy that it receives. It requires only a small detail, that it is not a closed system. Such an energy input then only serves to facilitate harnessing a larger energy source. I find it short-sighted to decline patent applications just because the author says it produces more energy than it receives. This is just a playing with words. The inventor may focus on engineering issues and not be aware of the laws of thermodynamics or currently favored scientific expressions. So theoretically equipped, we may proceed.

Some my trusted sources say, that cold fusion is a valid technologic direction, that in Fleischmann and Pons we should trust and that after due spending of time, energy, money, expertise and manhours this will be a solution to energy crisis. This Ecat may or may not be example of such a technology, that I can't tell. Anyway, to understand the broader implications, we should learn something about the free energy.

 

From time to time there appear certain companies which offer certain industrial devices which do exactly that, you plug them in and they somehow "multiply" the energy on the output. I have observed some people's interest in such a company. They are extremely secretive and only talk seriously to people if they can prove they have a million euro or so, and sell devices for 20 million euro at least. They of course change the company name and so on, from time to time, so there's no use in posting the link. The negotiations were not pursued, because our people got suspicious that these devices are not yet debugged and after months of use they might lose their advertised parameters. The point is, such devices don't use cold fusion or any input materials like water, nickel, platinum and so on. If they exist and work, there must be some other principle, some other energy source that they harness.

Let's go back to ether. Ether is a frequent term in the free energy research field. Nowhere I had seen it used as the old idea of "luminoferous ether", not at all. Tesla saw it as an all-pervasive ocean of energy, with phenomena like "longitudal waves" and uncanny connection with electro-static phenomena. Wilhelm Reich saw it similarly, also with electro-static connection, but he focused more on its biologic and atmospheric effects. Contemporary science sees only "dark matter", the inert, irrelevant stuff of outer space, ignoring that it must be most concentrated around such objects as our planet.

In many free enery works we see a different understanding of electricity. Commonly we see electricity as a flow of electrons. Free energy understanding considers the flow of electrons merely as a side-effect - and a highly undesirable one, if we try to create a "free energy device". Instead, electric flow is actually a flow of energy on etheric level, compressed within the conductor. The reason why electron flow is bad, is in the nature of ether. Ether is not seen as a field with a source, but as an ocean. Ocean has waves, highs and lows. If we turn around a generator or dynamo, we create a place of low potential in local "vacuum". And immediately from the surrounding "vacuum" (ether) the energy rushes in to fill the low state and restore the balance. The surge of energy moves the electrons in the device. The movement of electrons allows the vacuum to restore the low. What happened?

1) We expended energy to turn the generator and to create a low in the local ether.
2) We allowed the etheric flow in conductors to move the electrons. (amperage)
3) The electron flow which we think is our desirable electricity caused the local energetic low in ether to be re-balance, thus the energy expended in the point 1 was wasted and we have to expend more energy to turn the generator once again.
4) If we would use some technical solution that avoids the flow of electrons, the energetic low potential in local ether would not be restored and it would constantly leak energy in attempts to restore it. 

I saw several free energy concepts that tried to avoid the movement of electrons, the amperage itself. They were somewhat unwieldy and highly dependent on materials and devices with quite unusual parameters - like a capacitor capable of high and fast charge in mere one milisecond. (In fact, I wrote my high school graduation thesis about them, and still got my graduation certificate Smiling Probably because nobody understood what it was about )

Sometimes when we see free energy claims, there are claims of "original Maxwell's equations". Reputedly, our "mainstream science" does not use the original equations. In Maxwell's A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field he defined 8 equations with 20 sub-equations, as components. Later Oliver Heaviside reduced these 20 equations to mere 4, in a simplier form of mathemathics. In original equations there are possibilities of "ether" and "longitudal waves". 

 

Tesla believed in ether, understood it and constructed devices to harness its energy. Some of his systems used high-frequency, high-voltage discharges of capacitors to create "waves" (disturbances, ruptures) in ether. In his works he called these "excitations" of ether "impulses", because he could feel their radiant effects. Typically he had a "primary" coil with several windings that directed these impulses to a "secondary" coil. The secondary coil was a flat one, like a pancake, with many windings, placed inside the primary coil. During the process the secondary coil increased its so-called "voltage" to millions of volts. Not a real voltage, Tesla used the term "tension" instead of voltage. 

The whole system worked without electric current or magnetism. It worked by an electro-static induction mechanism, which multiplied the voltage in the system. In such a way he created radiant shock waves, which had originally 10 kV and multiplied them to 240 kV! All this with a 24 inch axial coil. Such a device was extremely simple and efficient. If Tesla really achieved an over-unity wattage output without use of electron flow (amperage), then there is something wrong with our understanding of electricity.

I believe Tesla was also distrusted, because he ran into a language barrier. He talked of the "primary and secondary" coils, but he did not mean a transformer with E-M induction. He talked about "tension" not exactly identic with voltage, yet measurable in volts. (for example in my language tension and voltage are homonymes) He talked about a special form of energy, called "radiant energy" that can only be observed in his devices based on electro-static principles. From what I have read, most of all it resembles a white fire of atmospheric plasma, yet it creates a cool breeze in the room (negative ionts, perhaps???). I'd say it is related to electrostatic phenomena and to Wilhelm Reich's concentrated orgone, which gives a blue glow in vacuum tubes and on metallic objects.

Radiant energy is also called "cold electricity", due to its safe, amperage-free nature (it may power lightbulbs underwater) and "cold" feeling. Frederick D. Tombes writes: "Electric current starts as a pure compressed current in ether. It may or may not include a current of electrons as a side effect. Positive particles may be dragged by the flow of ether and negative particles may move along the etheric flow to the source, but the original cause is the flow of ether under pressure. This is why when we switch on an electric circuit, there will be an injection of electric charge into the circuit from the energy source. The compressed ether will circulate in the closed circuit and will expand and inflate, until it distributes itself in the circuit. Conductors serve as veins for the compressed ether."

Such is my take on the free energy paradigm. It is extremely amateurish, but I think it gives you some idea. It is also frequently adopted by crackpots, who take any article, as long as it sounds fantastic enough. We must be always ready to skip the bullshit or authors' pet theories, when going through such sources. On the other side, the engineers may not have enough public relations skills to answer skeptical questions. I hate to see when skeptics dismiss claims by running into language barrier of their misunderstanding of "1st law of thermodynamics". Nobody's violating the law of physics, only discovering new ones.

Sources:

Frederick David Tombes (Maxwell's Original Equations)
Nikolai Levasov
Gerry Vassilatos (Cold War Technology: Project HAARP and Beyond)
Eric Dollard (The Fallacy of Conductors)
Hank Mills (Pure Energy Systems)

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
There is an old saying, "If

There is an old saying, "If it is too good to be true, then it isn't true".

99.99% of the time this saying is true.

 

I learned a long time ago that people who claim to have these devices are bullshit artists or they really don't have a clue about science.

The laws of thermodynamics are tested and true. You can not get more energy out of what you put in. It is almost always a loss of substantial proportions.

 

I will say this about the E-cat machine which I grabbed from Wikipedia. It sums every thing up in one simple statement.

The device was demonstrated to an invited audience several times, and commented on by various academics and others, but was not independently tested. Mark Gibbs of Forbes commented: "until a verifiably objective analysis is conducted by an independent third party that confirms the results match the claims there’s no real news".

Peter Ekström, lecturer at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Lund University in Sweden, concluded in May 2011, "I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year." He cites the unlikelihood of a chemical reaction being strong enough to overcome Coulomb barrier, the lack of gamma rays, the lack of explanation for the origin of the extra energy, the lack of the expected radioactivity after fusing a proton with Ni, the unexplained occurrence of 11% iron in the spent fuel, the 10% copper in the spent fuel strangely having the same isotopic ratios as natural copper, and the lack of any unstable copper isotope in the spent fuel as if the reactor only produced stable isotopes. 

Kjell Aleklett, physics professor at Uppsala University, said the percentage of copper was too high for any known reaction of nickel, and the copper had the same isotopic ratio as natural copper. He also stated, "Known chemical reactions cannot explain the amount of energy measured. A nuclear reaction can explain the amount of energy, but the knowledge we have today says that this reaction cannot take place.

According to PhysOrg 11 August 2011), the demonstrations held from January to April 2011 had several flaws that compromised their credibility and Rossi had refused to perform several tests that could verify his claims.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
This has been floating

This has been floating around for years... and people keep believing it. It's an endless cycle of bullshit which the uneducated continue to believe.

I give you the Browns Gas Generator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilz7zWISfd8

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: There

digitalbeachbum wrote:

There is an old saying, "If it is too good to be true, then it isn't true".

99.99% of the time this saying is true.

 

I learned a long time ago that people who claim to have these devices are bullshit artists or they really don't have a clue about science.

The laws of thermodynamics are tested and true. You can not get more energy out of what you put in. It is almost always a loss of substantial proportions.

I'll tell you what machines violate this so-called law: windmills, sailboats, heat pumps, even the damn oil drills... There is nothing wrong with that. The free energy is based on spending some energy to collect a greater amount of energy from the outside. I can't imagine anyone right in their mind to claim that their machine produces the energy in a closed system. However, I can imagine someone who incorrectly names his energy-collecting machine and then skeptics will give him bullshit that it violates the laws of thermodynamics. 

 

But, I am curious about something. I had read about decomposition of water on H2 and O2, not through DC electrolysis, but through Meyer cell or something like that. Reputedly, it's a method that uses resonance frequency of water to bring it apart, a method that requires much less energy than DC electrolysis. Is it possible to make a molecule of water resonate by an alternating electric field, that it gets decomposed?

We could describe it as hacking. The DC current is a brute force method, that requires lots of energy. The resonance method, similar to breaking a glass with a singer's voice, is about finding the right frequency to break down the connections of H2O. It is true that an alternating field will heat up the molecules (like in microwave, by stretching the electron shells back and forth) but we don't want heating up. We want to make the molecules themselves shake and break apart. With much less energy, than we gain by burning the hydrogen back on water. That would get you more energy than you put in. Many skeptics will jump up, saying that it violates the laws of thermodynamics, but it doesn't. (and they're more like natural lawyers) 

If you look at this video, you'll see that the actual Meyer cell is much more ingenious than just breaking down the water with electricity. Sounds like a genius to me. But what it says is, there is no cosmic currency exchange office that says how much energy of one type you get for expending of energy of another type, if an open system is involved. We are free to cheat the nature, crack the code and convert external energy into more available form.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

The website does not contain sufficient material to evaluate the claims.

The absence of independent corroboration is telling. Deliver one to a lab, turn it on and walk away for a few weeks. If it stays hot then it is real. Considering the offer to deliver a megawatt unit in three months and from the images of it, a single unit is sufficient for testing. Independent testing is a trivial exercise. Yet there is none presented.

I have nothing against the idea of cold fusion per se. There have been reports of something like it going back to the late 1940s. The problem has always been repeatability. While the phenomenon appears to be real no one has been able to make it happen twice except in cases where electrical energy has to be input and the "excess" heat cannot be readily distinguished from measurement error. Pons and Fleichmann had both problems. The excess heat after electriicty was trivial and most people could not duplicate the experiment.

Even if real and the effect is small then it would be comparable to static electricity. Electric power could be generated by rubbing things together but it would be incredibly inefficient. While it would a new page for the physics books it would not have much practical use. 

Now if you follow the youtube stuff enough to find the one on brillouin energy there is enough science to be interesting. However it is nothing but talk until there is experimental verification. From what I know, and this is far, far from my field, nothing is said that is impossible. Note that is not saying very much.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I'll tell you

Luminon wrote:

I'll tell you what machines violate this so-called law: windmills, sailboats, heat pumps, even the damn oil drills... There is nothing wrong with that. The free energy is based on spending some energy to collect a greater amount of energy from the outside. I can't imagine anyone right in their mind to claim that their machine produces the energy in a closed system. However, I can imagine someone who incorrectly names his energy-collecting machine and then skeptics will give him bullshit that it violates the laws of thermodynamics. 

But, I am curious about something. I had read about decomposition of water on H2 and O2, not through DC electrolysis, but through Meyer cell or something like that. Reputedly, it's a method that uses resonance frequency of water to bring it apart, a method that requires much less energy than DC electrolysis. Is it possible to make a molecule of water resonate by an alternating electric field, that it gets decomposed?

We could describe it as hacking. The DC current is a brute force method, that requires lots of energy. The resonance method, similar to breaking a glass with a singer's voice, is about finding the right frequency to break down the connections of H2O. It is true that an alternating field will heat up the molecules (like in microwave, by stretching the electron shells back and forth) but we don't want heating up. We want to make the molecules themselves shake and break apart. With much less energy, than we gain by burning the hydrogen back on water. That would get you more energy than you put in. Many skeptics will jump up, saying that it violates the laws of thermodynamics, but it doesn't. (and they're more like natural lawyers) 

If you look at this video, you'll see that the actual Meyer cell is much more ingenious than just breaking down the water with electricity. Sounds like a genius to me. But what it says is, there is no cosmic currency exchange office that says how much energy of one type you get for expending of energy of another type, if an open system is involved. We are free to cheat the nature, crack the code and convert external energy into more available form.

1) Windmills do not violate any laws. Neither do the others you mentioned.

2) Meyer's was a con man. I'd heard about it decades ago. He didn't invent any thing special.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:1)

digitalbeachbum wrote:

1) Windmills do not violate any laws. Neither do the others you mentioned.

2) Meyer's was a con man. I'd heard about it decades ago. He didn't invent any thing special.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell 

1) Yes, that's what I say all along. I think the fallacy of closed system is a distraction that might prevent many interesting claims from being examined. It's more like a language barrier, a word after which skeptics will start to see all red.

2) I googled around a little and got a part of the answer. Apparently, Meyer's design is impossible, because the frequency of water (in vapor) is 22 GHz, which is orders of magnitude below what he used. But it seems his engine didn't work on electrolysis only, if you look at the second video, that's some clever engineering in there. I looks like he used elements of electrolysis, expansion of produced gas, hydrogen combustion, "heat laser" and steam engine, all together, to get the energy out of water. So it's all even weirder than I imagined. I suppose he wouldn't have to invent such a system if he had the secret of splitting the water easily.

Theoretically, if we could construct a device projecting electric field of 22 GHz frequency and then apply it to lots of water vapor, would it produce hydrogen and oxygen cheaply as Meyer intended?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:...oxygen

Luminon wrote:

...oxygen cheaply as Meyer intended?

The issue is this, you need to expend energy to get any results. In order to get more results, you need to expend more energy.

The reason why oil works in this society is because of profit. It's the law of supply and demand (economics), not the laws of science.

Oil has X amount of stored energy in it. The companies expend Y amount of energy to convert the oil in to gasoline. Gasoline gives Z energy to use in a combustion engine.

Oil which has a cost per barrel that makes it profitable because if it costs X amount of energy to produce one barrel of oil which they then sell on the market for Y profit, it allows the company to employ people. In return, pumping stations increase the cost per gallon to make Z profit. In the end, we the consumers end up providing the demand.

Meyer's machine was a lie because he wanted to break the laws of science, which all good scientists know you can't break (at least not in this time or space). If he could have created a demand for the hydrogen (back in the 70's) then it would have been an awesome deal. I believe however that the cost of making his supply was more expensive than the demand would have given profit. Therefore it would not work.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 "The Energy Catalyst, also

 

"The Energy Catalyst, also known as E-Cat, is a device that will change energy as we know it on this planet. Demonstrated for the first time in January of this year at an Italian press conference, the E-Cat is able to produce up to 15,000 watts of electricity with only 400 watts coming into it."

I've been following Rossi's E-cat claims for a while. I was a power systems design engineer for a computer company for about 20 years.

Rossi has a history of marginal claims, development and had encounters with the Italian legal system over toxic chemicals.

The E-cat has not been independently verified by outsiders in a manner that is sufficient to establish it is credible.

A simple way to verify the E-cat does what Rossi claims is for him to turn over to independent scientists and engineers one of his devices along with his lab notebooks, design specs and plans.

Rossi has resisted this because he fears his idea will be stolen.

Since Rossi's idea goes against basic physics, it is on him to prove to the world he really has found new principles that enable his device.

His reluctance indicates to me all is not as he indicates. Time will tell. I'm not holding my breath.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The issue is this, you need to expend energy to get any results. In order to get more results, you need to expend more energy.

The reason why oil works in this society is because of profit. It's the law of supply and demand (economics), not the laws of science.

Oil has X amount of stored energy in it. The companies expend Y amount of energy to convert the oil in to gasoline. Gasoline gives Z energy to use in a combustion engine.

Oil which has a cost per barrel that makes it profitable because if it costs X amount of energy to produce one barrel of oil which they then sell on the market for Y profit, it allows the company to employ people. In return, pumping stations increase the cost per gallon to make Z profit. In the end, we the consumers end up providing the demand.

Meyer's machine was a lie because he wanted to break the laws of science, which all good scientists know you can't break (at least not in this time or space). If he could have created a demand for the hydrogen (back in the 70's) then it would have been an awesome deal. I believe however that the cost of making his supply was more expensive than the demand would have given profit. Therefore it would not work.

You actually mix two topics together. Let's say that water, like oil has X, the cost that it takes to make a fuel out of it. But let's say there are two costs, X1 - the cost of standard DC electrolysis and X2, the cost of splitting water by an electric field alternating at the exact frequency of water, 22 GHz. X1 is the cost of brute force, X2 involves the self-reinforcing resonance effect, I suppose. Purely theoretically, would X2 require so little energy, that the energy of burning it back will give us more energy than X2? I suppose, that if we hit the water molecule with its resonance frequency, the energy we put into it will not dissipate, it will accumulate in it through resonance and eventually break the molecule apart. I suppose there is no natural law, saying that nothing can be more efficient than DC electrolysis.

As for the laws of market, people say it works by supply and demand, but it doesn't. There are almost no free markets today, it's mostly oligopoly, a couple of big companies who set the prices (so-called speculation) and a "hem" of small companies that follow. That's what my economy classes taught me. Therefore, if the big companies for some reason decide not to support some market trend, it has almost no chance of success. Specially because both Y and Z cost and profit of water are very low. Doesn't that raise your suspicion at all?

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon

Luminon wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The issue is this, you need to expend energy to get any results. In order to get more results, you need to expend more energy.

The reason why oil works in this society is because of profit. It's the law of supply and demand (economics), not the laws of science.

Oil has X amount of stored energy in it. The companies expend Y amount of energy to convert the oil in to gasoline. Gasoline gives Z energy to use in a combustion engine.

Oil which has a cost per barrel that makes it profitable because if it costs X amount of energy to produce one barrel of oil which they then sell on the market for Y profit, it allows the company to employ people. In return, pumping stations increase the cost per gallon to make Z profit. In the end, we the consumers end up providing the demand.

Meyer's machine was a lie because he wanted to break the laws of science, which all good scientists know you can't break (at least not in this time or space). If he could have created a demand for the hydrogen (back in the 70's) then it would have been an awesome deal. I believe however that the cost of making his supply was more expensive than the demand would have given profit. Therefore it would not work.

You actually mix two topics together. Let's say that water, like oil has X, the cost that it takes to make a fuel out of it. But let's say there are two costs, X1 - the cost of standard DC electrolysis and X2, the cost of splitting water by an electric field alternating at the exact frequency of water, 22 GHz. X1 is the cost of brute force, X2 involves the self-reinforcing resonance effect, I suppose. Purely theoretically, would X2 require so little energy, that the energy of burning it back will give us more energy than X2? I suppose, that if we hit the water molecule with its resonance frequency, the energy we put into it will not dissipate, it will accumulate in it through resonance and eventually break the molecule apart. I suppose there is no natural law, saying that nothing can be more efficient than DC electrolysis.

As for the laws of market, people say it works by supply and demand, but it doesn't. There are almost no free markets today, it's mostly oligopoly, a couple of big companies who set the prices (so-called speculation) and a "hem" of small companies that follow. That's what my economy classes taught me. Therefore, if the big companies for some reason decide not to support some market trend, it has almost no chance of success. Specially because both Y and Z cost and profit of water are very low. Doesn't that raise your suspicion at all?

 

 

I might have posted poorly to get my point across.

My point was that oil only makes a profit because of the demand. 

 

It always costs energy to convert materials in to a usable substance.

Every thing from oil to the plutonium of a reactor costs money to convert, refine or package. No one makes money off "just making the product". There MUST BE A DEMAND. I don't care if large corporations are manipulating the show. Demand comes from the common people.

No it doesn't raise any suspicion. Big markets do have power, but if the common person decided not to use a product then it ceases to exist.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:As for the

Luminon wrote:

As for the laws of market, people say it works by supply and demand, but it doesn't. There are almost no free markets today, it's mostly oligopoly, a couple of big companies who set the prices (so-called speculation) and a "hem" of small companies that follow. That's what my economy classes taught me. Therefore, if the big companies for some reason decide not to support some market trend, it has almost no chance of success. Specially because both Y and Z cost and profit of water are very low. Doesn't that raise your suspicion at all?

 

That's a bunch of bullshit. How would you explain google or facebook? Neither was supported by large companies early on, both took new ideas and made them extraordinarily profitable. If such an energy source was possible to make it would be very easy to bring it to market and make decent profits, once it was profitable you would almost certainly be offered millions by a large company to sell out. Most mega corps don't ever really start projects themselves, they wait until a company has shown profitability on a small scale then buy them and promote them on a larger scale. 

 

You would be surprised at how profitable water can be. Water sells for a much larger profit margin than gasoline. Even for the "cheap" water the profit margin is around 20-30% for bottled water it is often over 500%. Gasoline only has a profit margin of 6-8%. If a car engine could actually run on water businesses would be clamoring to get the rights to produce and sell it, and people would be clamoring to buy it. You would be a billionaire almost overnight. The reality is that the technology to replace oil with water doesn't exist yet and is likely not possible any time in the near future. If anyone had such a revolutionary technology they wouldn't need the support of a large corporation, but they wouldn't have any trouble finding it if they wanted.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Luminon

Beyond Saving wrote:

Luminon wrote:

As for the laws of market, people say it works by supply and demand, but it doesn't. There are almost no free markets today, it's mostly oligopoly, a couple of big companies who set the prices (so-called speculation) and a "hem" of small companies that follow. That's what my economy classes taught me. Therefore, if the big companies for some reason decide not to support some market trend, it has almost no chance of success. Specially because both Y and Z cost and profit of water are very low. Doesn't that raise your suspicion at all?

 

That's a bunch of bullshit. How would you explain google or facebook? Neither was supported by large companies early on, both took new ideas and made them extraordinarily profitable. If such an energy source was possible to make it would be very easy to bring it to market and make decent profits, once it was profitable you would almost certainly be offered millions by a large company to sell out. Most mega corps don't ever really start projects themselves, they wait until a company has shown profitability on a small scale then buy them and promote them on a larger scale. 

 

You would be surprised at how profitable water can be. Water sells for a much larger profit margin than gasoline. Even for the "cheap" water the profit margin is around 20-30% for bottled water it is often over 500%. Gasoline only has a profit margin of 6-8%. If a car engine could actually run on water businesses would be clamoring to get the rights to produce and sell it, and people would be clamoring to buy it. You would be a billionaire almost overnight. The reality is that the technology to replace oil with water doesn't exist yet and is likely not possible any time in the near future. If anyone had such a revolutionary technology they wouldn't need the support of a large corporation, but they wouldn't have any trouble finding it if they wanted.

Yeah I forgot about water. Geeez, what a fucking rip off it is.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: That's

Beyond Saving wrote:
That's a bunch of bullshit. How would you explain google or facebook? Neither was supported by large companies early on, both took new ideas and made them extraordinarily profitable. If such an energy source was possible to make it would be very easy to bring it to market and make decent profits, once it was profitable you would almost certainly be offered millions by a large company to sell out. Most mega corps don't ever really start projects themselves, they wait until a company has shown profitability on a small scale then buy them and promote them on a larger scale.
I'd explain Google or Facebook by the nature of the net, which is a very free and expanding medium and it costs relatively little to put up a website, you can write code out of nothing and so on. It's impossible to do the same with companies like General Motors or General Electric, becaus you just can't program out of nothing a power plant or car parts and so on. Industry like that involves strong ties with busines partners like providers of materials, technology and so on.They may influence the company's decisions or they may be even in a cartel or all owned by a shadow company.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
You would be surprised at how profitable water can be. Water sells for a much larger profit margin than gasoline. Even for the "cheap" water the profit margin is around 20-30% for bottled water it is often over 500%. Gasoline only has a profit margin of 6-8%. If a car engine could actually run on water businesses would be clamoring to get the rights to produce and sell it, and people would be clamoring to buy it. You would be a billionaire almost overnight. The reality is that the technology to replace oil with water doesn't exist yet and is likely not possible any time in the near future. If anyone had such a revolutionary technology they wouldn't need the support of a large corporation, but they wouldn't have any trouble finding it if they wanted.

I believe that the bigger a business is, the less free it becomes. As I suggested, there may be more business partners having a say in the decision than just the final product company. Switching to water fuel would mean lots of profit for one company, but most of companies are in cartels. (as I was taught in my economy classes) And the rest of cartel wouldn't like that, I suppose, to drop most of what it has in favor of one new project. At the very least, people may argue by lots of employees in oil industry losing their jobs all at once, which would be unethical and it would endanger the state economy. Hence, such a great technological invention might be even seen by some sides as a threat to national security. I can see how some important people might come to such a conclusion.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I might have posted poorly to get my point across.

My point was that oil only makes a profit because of the demand. 

It always costs energy to convert materials in to a usable substance.

Every thing from oil to the plutonium of a reactor costs money to convert, refine or package. No one makes money off "just making the product". There MUST BE A DEMAND. I don't care if large corporations are manipulating the show. Demand comes from the common people.

No it doesn't raise any suspicion. Big markets do have power, but if the common person decided not to use a product then it ceases to exist.


Here's why I disagree. What kind of demand do you mean? The common people's demand is the demand to be able to move from the point A to the point B, they and their luggage or materials. That's it.

If that pure demand assumes the shape of Hyundai, Ford, Fiat or Renault, that is a fake, artificial demand, created not by people but companies and their advertising. Nowadays we don't make money by satisfying demand, we make money by CREATING THE DEMAND. The fact that companies make cars running on petrol determines the people's demand, because there are so few alternatives. Cars not running on petrol aren't a viable competition because their infrastructure is not yet in place, the technology to produce them, repair them and most importantly, refill or recharge them anywhere. To do that, the oil companies would have to include means of refueling the competition's cars, which is unlikely.

My point is, oil makes profit, because of the demand, that is created by a prevalent offer and advertising of oil-burning vehicles.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Here's why I

Luminon wrote:

Here's why I disagree. What kind of demand do you mean? The common people's demand is the demand to be able to move from the point A to the point B, they and their luggage or materials. That's it.

If that pure demand assumes the shape of Hyundai, Ford, Fiat or Renault, that is a fake, artificial demand, created not by people but companies and their advertising. Nowadays we don't make money by satisfying demand, we make money by CREATING THE DEMAND. The fact that companies make cars running on petrol determines the people's demand, because there are so few alternatives. Cars not running on petrol aren't a viable competition because their infrastructure is not yet in place, the technology to produce them, repair them and most importantly, refill or recharge them anywhere. To do that, the oil companies would have to include means of refueling the competition's cars, which is unlikely.

My point is, oil makes profit, because of the demand, that is created by a prevalent offer and advertising of oil-burning vehicles.

Ah, creating demand is a different story. Creating demand and manipulation of the market is no different than oil companies or water bottling companies. One makes a demand by advertisement, popular opinion and the other makes demand by controlling the market.

People create the demand for oil because we all want big expensive gas guzzlers which are a status symbol. Who created those big vehicles? The motor companies. Why? because we wanted them. Oil companies had nothing to do with that demand. They do however use oil as a bargining chip for political purposes. Industry would stop working if there was no oil. This means no ships. No trucks. No trains. No planes. Not to forget the auto.

As time moves along, we will move to a non-oil based economy. Yes, there will be companies which manipulate the market by controlling the raw materials to make batteries or hydrogen, etc.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Ah,

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Ah, creating demand is a different story. Creating demand and manipulation of the market is no different than oil companies or water bottling companies. One makes a demand by advertisement, popular opinion and the other makes demand by controlling the market.

People create the demand for oil because we all want big expensive gas guzzlers which are a status symbol. Who created those big vehicles? The motor companies. Why? because we wanted them. Oil companies had nothing to do with that demand. They do however use oil as a bargining chip for political purposes. Industry would stop working if there was no oil. This means no ships. No trucks. No trains. No planes. Not to forget the auto.

As time moves along, we will move to a non-oil based economy. Yes, there will be companies which manipulate the market by controlling the raw materials to make batteries or hydrogen, etc. 

I hope so, but I actually doubt that. This kind of trust in the market reminds me of an alcoholic's promises to start abstaining after one more beer. 

Status symbol or not, I believe people don't care what they pour into their car. For example, Arnold Schwarznegger drives a humvee, but it runs on hydrogen, so I heard. People don't decide that "I hate this planet so much that I just want to waste an irreplaceable natural resource to destroy all life on this damn piece of rock." People don't choose their fuel. People choose from the available cars, but companies decide which cars are available. It's not like people can collectively order a new type of car and have it produced by a company. In fact, most of cars are slight variations with the same function, companies produce them in excess and try to sell them to each other. To sell more, the cars are made from cheap materials, so wear down quickly and get scrapped. There's a reason why there are today still "classy" cars from the 60's, but a Hyundai is dead in 10 years.

Really, such marketing strategies and empty promises make me disbelieve that the markets can be trusted with "doing the right thing". Actually, thanks to globalization markets do not ever have to solve any problems, they just move the problems elsewhere geographically. I would trust markets that work locally and stay local, stay responsible to local people. You might be right in believing in the market,  but what we have today is not a market. It is a global economic warfare. You might be blind to that, because you're on the winning side.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
 I think that this link

 I think that this link might be helpful. 

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8140


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Will the U.S. Navy save the

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Will the U.S.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
just got back from a week

just got back from a week working in whistler.  Thanks for all the responses I hope to get through them all later tonight when I have some time, and please... I invite anyone else interested to investigate the claims of Andrea Rossi and the e-cat cold fusion energy machine and post your conclusions.  If you have any specific questions you would like asked to Rossi I can try to get them in the interview and post the awnsers and the link here.

Thanks again.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 I have a couple of

 I have a couple of questions. 

Is it true that the reaction in E-cat can get started in real time, as opposed to the Fleischmann-Pons experiment where the Pd cathode had to be first charged for a month? Why?

What is your take on the missing radiation from the fusion reaction? Is it possible for all that radiation to somehow occur as alpha particles only, which won't penetrate the heavy water far enough to be measured?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
How many rads does the E-Cat

How many rads does the E-Cat unit emit?


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Thanks lumi and ax, I have

Thanks lumi and ax, I have passed on the quesitons and he said he would work them in as best as he can, he did ask my questions to a few of his guests in the past when they fit.  I'll post the link to the interview with the specific time your questions are asked if they are asked directly so you dont have to spend to much time if you dont have it finding your awnser, his interviews are usually around 45 minutes+, but if you have the time they can be quite interesting he has surprisingly well known and interesting guests for being such a small operation.

 

Thanks again for your time, thoughts, and contribution to the content of the show.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Thanks lumi and ax, I have passed on the quesitons and he said he would work them in as best as he can, he did ask my questions to a few of his guests in the past when they fit.  I'll post the link to the interview with the specific time your questions are asked if they are asked directly so you dont have to spend to much time if you dont have it finding your awnser, his interviews are usually around 45 minutes+, but if you have the time they can be quite interesting he has surprisingly well known and interesting guests for being such a small operation.

No problem, I usually convert videos to mp3 and listen to them whole.

 

I just found something to the topic. Some new inventions are kept secret. And lists of what is a secret are a secret too.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18691-uk-keeps-three-times-as-many-patents-secret-as-the-us.html

Federation of American Scientists once managed to get one such a list de-classified through a court order - and was shocked. If you check it out, it's mostly obvious stuff like torpedoes or missiles. But look deeper. (Ctrl+F) Among the classified there are things like this. 

Item  8.  Solar photovoltaic generators  (AM C)- i f  >  20% efficient  (NASA) (AF)  

Item 9.  Energy conversion systems with conversion efficiencies in excess  of  70-80%  (AF)  (NAVY)(AMC)  817

Item 5.  A  device which will convert heat energy  directly (statically) into electrical energy by means  of  two dissimilar metals or  semi-conductors  formed  into a  closed circuit and maintained at different temperatures (AF)(AMC)8178(NAVY)  (AEC - only i f  Radioactive Material  is us ed)  

According to this list, NASA suggested that solar panels more effective than 20% should be classified. (and probably used only by NASA) This suggests possible corruption or conflict of interests. Scarcity makes the providers powerful. If such relatively small inventions get classified, I would not be surprised if there was about a dozen of free energy inventions since the 1920's and all were assessed as a threat to national security or economic stability.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3354
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon

Luminon wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Thanks lumi and ax, I have passed on the quesitons and he said he would work them in as best as he can, he did ask my questions to a few of his guests in the past when they fit.  I'll post the link to the interview with the specific time your questions are asked if they are asked directly so you dont have to spend to much time if you dont have it finding your awnser, his interviews are usually around 45 minutes+, but if you have the time they can be quite interesting he has surprisingly well known and interesting guests for being such a small operation.

No problem, I usually convert videos to mp3 and listen to them whole.

 

I just found something to the topic. Some new inventions are kept secret. And lists of what is a secret are a secret too.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18691-uk-keeps-three-times-as-many-patents-secret-as-the-us.html

Federation of American Scientists once managed to get one such a list de-classified through a court order - and was shocked. If you check it out, it's mostly obvious stuff like torpedoes or missiles. But look deeper. (Ctrl+F) Among the classified there are things like this. 

Item  8.  Solar photovoltaic generators  (AM C)- i f  >  20% efficient  (NASA) (AF)  

 

Item 9.  Energy conversion systems with conversion efficiencies in excess  of  70-80%  (AF)  (NAVY)(AMC)  817

 

Item 5.  A  device which will convert heat energy  directly (statically) into electrical energy by means  of  two dissimilar metals or  semi-conductors  formed  into a  closed circuit and maintained at different temperatures (AF)(AMC)8178(NAVY)  (AEC - only i f  Radioactive Material  is us ed)  

According to this list, NASA suggested that solar panels more effective than 20% should be classified. (and probably used only by NASA) This suggests possible corruption or conflict of interests. Scarcity makes the providers powerful. If such relatively small inventions get classified, I would not be surprised if there was about a dozen of free energy inventions since the 1920's and all were assessed as a threat to national security or economic stability.

 

 

Converting heat in to electric isn't so difficult.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-06/new-alloy-can-convert-heat-directly-electricity

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111109093555.htm

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/thermoelectric.html

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

I didn't say it is diffcult, only that according to that document in the 80's the NAVY suggested to keep this technology secret/for its exclusive use. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Lumi, he said the interview

Lumi, he said the interview went great and he felt priveledged and it was a little surreal to speak with a brilliant physicist like Andrea Rossi.  He said that he asked your 2 questions specifically and that andrea has a go at awnsering them.  He aslo asked my question below, which rossi apparently went on about for a while.  I had no choice but to ask a non technical question due to my lack of real understanding on the technology behind this and how/if it works, but apparently this is question he really dug into...go figure lol.  The full interview will be up on youtube sooin, and i'll post the link as soon as I have a listen.  My partner hooked up Rossi and Jacque fresco for some forward outside of the box thinking chat, i would love to be a fly on the wall when those 2 talk the future...

My personal question for Andrea Rossi:

"Assuming your e-cat machine works exactly as described, what then is your most rational and still cautious plan of action to introduce it to world in the most efficient way to benefit humanity while not letting the hole effort to be corrupted?  How is the patenting system, funding, profit and co-orporate structure being arranged for this machine as it makes it's debut?"

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Lumi, he said the interview went great and he felt priveledged and it was a little surreal to speak with a brilliant physicist like Andrea Rossi.  He said that he asked your 2 questions specifically and that andrea has a go at awnsering them.  He aslo asked my question below, which rossi apparently went on about for a while.  I had no choice but to ask a non technical question due to my lack of real understanding on the technology behind this and how/if it works, but apparently this is question he really dug into...go figure lol.  The full interview will be up on youtube sooin, and i'll post the link as soon as I have a listen.  My partner hooked up Rossi and Jacque fresco for some forward outside of the box thinking chat, i would love to be a fly on the wall when those 2 talk the future...

So your impression is, that Andrea Rossi is a qualified man, a brilliant physicist. Therefore we can exclude the possibility of a trivial mistake, scam, attention seeking and so on. We can safely assume that his invention isn't a disguised electric pressure cooker, because such a man would not waste time with one. That would be very nice.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
 My personal question for Andrea Rossi:

"Assuming your e-cat machine works exactly as described, what then is your most rational and still cautious plan of action to introduce it to world in the most efficient way to benefit humanity while not letting the hole effort to be corrupted?  How is the patenting system, funding, profit and co-orporate structure being arranged for this machine as it makes it's debut?"

That's a really good question. I assumed he doesn't have a plan or that he doesn't want to tell it in advance. But if he gets hooked with Jacque Fresco, then probably:
 - He might get some support.
 - All American media will ignore him also.
 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:So your

Luminon wrote:

So your impression is, that Andrea Rossi is a qualified man, a brilliant physicist. Therefore we can exclude the possibility of a trivial mistake, scam, attention seeking and so on. We can safely assume that his invention isn't a disguised electric pressure cooker, because such a man would not waste time with one. That would be very nice.

That was his impression I haven't heard the interview but while diggin into him and more importantly observing his behavior and manerisms in his videos (which I think is my specialty, sniffing out dishonesty by instinct) my bullshit detector is not going off like with many others.  I'd like to think he is atleast genuine in his efforts, but you just never know and I have been so disapointed in the past to find out some people I thought were great and looked up to were just scammers after a buck and some praise from followers.  It is still too early to exclude the possibility he is just another fraud with some pipes, ductape, and equasions looking for a quick path to 15 minutes of fame and fortune.  I certainly hope he is not, but we'll just have to wait as the technology becomes more public and peer reviewed I guess.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
A possible explanation

http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/news/dick-smith-slams-cold-fusion-claims/

 

Dick Smith, patron of Australian Skeptics, says, “It would be great if it’s true, but it’s more likely just a misconnection of the power lead.”

Smith was approached in December to invest $200,000 in this scheme to provide almost free energy and thus save the planet from climate change. He sent aerospace engineer Ian Bryce of Australian Skeptics to an investors’ meeting on the NSW North Coast on January 13 to investigate.

Smith says, “If one of the wires in the three-core power lead was accidentally misconnected, the actual measurements of current witnessed by two Swedish scientists would not be the total power going into the reactor, and there would be an apparent power gain. One of the scientists who observed an earlier test has now agreed this could be so.”

 

 The full press release on this topic can be found here. A release covering the technical issues can be found here.

 

More detail:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Skeptics-Rossi-cold-fusion.pdf