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 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)

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

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.

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?

"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 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.

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

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 think that this link might be helpful. 

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

No

 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?

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.

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

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?"

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.