It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

If Rossi device is similar to Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion experiment it might be using an unknown low energy nuclear reaction that creates the excess heat (Fleischmann and Pons found traces of tritium on their palladium electrodes after running the experiment). It took 157 years after the discovery of uranium to create the first nuclear reactor so I keep an open mind on cold fusion, if it is real and can replace fossil fuels, war in the middle east would end.




posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
I am quite frustrated by eth inability (or unwillingness??) of Rossi to have this thing properly analysed and tested, and fraud remains my mostly likely explanation.


If it did exactly what Rossi claims he would have had it independently tested by now.... the fact that we still have not had a independent test shows his claims are doubtful.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Maxmars


Caution there, I respect you and your opinions deeply.... opting to call what I wrote as BS - as opposed to simply disagreeing and claiming I am mistaken seem obtusely provocative.

In the NASA case they insisted on disclosure to which Rossi objected... NASA refused to restrict its request to observe operational performance, and demanded full access to the devices inner workings... you may call it BS but many independent inventors purport this to be EXACTLY how many patents are STOLEN. I don't enjoy believing that this is how people lose their inventions; but I am far from naive enough to think one should not worry about that kind of loss of control over one's creations.



Im not trying to be procovative, Im saying you're apologizing for Rossi's behaviour, which anyone who has supported him has done. He can get NDAs, he can get lawyers, he can do about a hundred things he hasn't tried to find a method of acceptable means to prove his device but he balks at all of them, while claiming NASA or others have supported him, so he balks at their actual offerings yet tries to use their name to push his device. That is beyond deceitful. Thats why I say apologizing for him is BS.

Because he actions are BS.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Maxmars

The bottom line is if Rossi's eCat worked the way he claims, he could go public tomorrow. The fact that it was him that went public, even if it was stolen by every energy company in the world, he would not only have a good legal case, he would also publicly, be the person that invented whatever process it is he claims to have.

This means:

1. Nobel prize.
2. Licensing, (legal battles with pro bono lawyers on his side to push for some kind of ownership somewhere)
3. Fame and fortune. $$$

3 things his actions are pushing. All relatively the same thing. He seeks media attention and money. All of his actions in the last 5 years show as much. He tries to solicit funding to the tune of 1 million and when that didn't fly he somehow had a smaller eCat he tried to raise money on. And he spent more time answering his blog than he did working in his shop, with dozens and dozens of SEO blogs all ramped up on "eCat" and "free energy" and every other word you can think of to make sure his face comes up when you search the subject.

If his eCat works, he could achieve the same thing by giving it away, because there will be a waterfall of opportunities that follow, including the nobel, movie rights, lawyers pushing for his ownership of the process, etc.

The fact that he doesn't want anyone to see inside of his black box puts him and his actions in line with every fraudster we've had in the past in the said industry. In fact, even the "selling dealership" method is a old, over used ploy to raise funds, which was his first initial attempt.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

I agree that if nobility of character were to rule the day this device and it's inner workings should be ... open source, so to speak. I care nothing for the motivations of accolades and economic prosperity either.

You need not labor to make me see how this very well can be a hoax. My hope is that the obverse is true, and that the benefits of such breakthroughs; even if accidental, or misunderstood; will actually be something people can reasonably expect.

I'm sure the point behind the matter is that the effect of the device is not understood. The allegation is made that it can't be validated without full disclosure of all aspects of the device. Reasonable. I would think also that a confidentiality agreement should be a solution to the matter.

But instead it seems that metaphorical sabres rattle and the meme that a "he says you can't have it" stands isolated.

I wonder if it's because he (Rossi) can't properly explain the theory behind it's effective operation?"

Clearly the consensus stands against the legitimacy of Rossi's E-Cat claims.... it is also clear that it's because of a secret Rossi's holding on to... go figure. Until that is secret matter is resolved, instead of being optimistic and inquisitive... we should speak words of charlatanry and evil. It is a relatively small matter, in fact to most people I know; just a curiosity, nothing to get steamed about.

Some day we may find this technology at our disposal... I have to wonder if it will have such a tumultuous start as this? (Rhetorically, of course.)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I can only imagine the difficulty one would have in attempting to patent something that doesn't obey the conventional laws of physics, and that is the reason the patent has been denied for this device. And if he cannot patent it, then I completely understand not divulging how it operates. It is too risky to allow the invention to fall into the wrong hands. If this is a hoax, it is elegantly contrived. It has been under constant observation for a period of time that would have allowed most hoaxes of this nature to be discovered, and that is saying a lot in my opinion. There has been a lot of criticism, even from academics, and they all say the same things...that it could not possibly work. But this line of reasoning only works if we knew it to be impossible, which we do not. We think it should not be possible, but nobody really knows. Scientific certainty is a tricky thing, as evidenced by science for decades.

Now one of the biggest criticisms was that the device was receiving external power, and Rossi would not agree to a truly scientific test, and this was touted as evidence that he is hoaxing. This might be the case, but having submitted to observations of this nature does a little bit to give some credibility back to the guy. Although I will say it is highly unusual that he refused to demonstrate that his device worked earlier, when he was offered 1 million dollars for such proof. So I am not convinced of his claims, but I do not believe it is an outright hoax at this point either. It must be one or the other, and I am on the fence.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I can only imagine the difficulty one would have in attempting to patent something that doesn't obey the conventional laws of physics, and that is the reason the patent has been denied for this device.


If it could be demonstrated to work it would change the laws of physics as understood - not defy them.

but for some.....reason...it cannot be demonstrated to work.....go figure.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Sorry but the independent test was NOT spelled out as what really happened and who ran what and if the inventor was allowed to touch anything during the test.

The report does not show where the meters came from as they should be supplied by the testers and the make and modal along with the collaboration dates recorded.

It does not show a line drawing of how and where the meters were connected.

Years ago some inventor tried to pull a fast one and changed the meter face from a milliamp meter to a amp meter.

He was claiming that his invention increased power by 100%.

Using the inventors meters it looked like the input was 10 milliamp and the output was 10 amps.
When in fact the power through the invention was the same 10 milliamp in and 10 milliamp out. with 0 power gain.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED
Sorry but the independent test was NOT spelled out as what really happened and who ran what and if the inventor was allowed to touch anything during the test.

The report does not show where the meters came from as they should be supplied by the testers and the make and modal along with the collaboration dates recorded.

It does not show a line drawing of how and where the meters were connected.

Years ago some inventor tried to pull a fast one and changed the meter face from a milliamp meter to a amp meter.

He was claiming that his invention increased power by 100%.

Using the inventors meters it looked like the input was 10 milliamp and the output was 10 amps.
When in fact the power through the invention was the same 10 milliamp in and 10 milliamp out. with 0 power gain.



That is certainly not what the supposed academic research paper says. (fah!) I misread the text. I never heard this allegation myself before, but do you know if this group were confronted?

edit on 14-10-2014 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: boncho

What some have forgotten is:



1. He made a so called "scientific journal", that was a blog, he claimed that it was peer reviewed, it even had a dead reviewer on its board.

2. He never had a real engineering degree it was from a diploma mill.

3. He claimed he would never ask for money for the eCat but did so from industrial private investment shortly after making that statement.

4. He has never let any independent verification of his system happen. He has claimed as much a number of times, it has never been validated, tested or anything of the like by an independent/unbiased body of scientific/engineering examiners.


I have no scientific dog in this fight, because I wouldn't be able to ascertain whether his device is real--I have no training to do so. But that aside, your "forgotten" points don't really mean a whole lot, because:

1. This may or may not be an issue (the dead reviewer), but a blog is nothing less than a public electronic journal, so if you're trying to demean his journal just because it's a blog, I'm missing the logic there.
2. So what? Diplomas are not a reflection of one's intelligence, regardless of what modern western society says.
3. Again, so what? This is not necessarily indicative of someone being willfully dishonest--maybe he just got hard-up for cash and didn't want his dream to die because of some arbitrary 'promise' not to ask for money.
4. If you had something that you claimed could change the world--something that people have been seeking for generations--would you let some people poke and prod at it before you owned the rights to the technology? I sure as hell wouldn't. He'd be a damn fool to do that. So, again, I see this as smart business--the bigger question is why he hasn't been granted the patent(s) that he seeks when crap like this gets through.

Like I said, I'm not qualified to disect his claims and determine veracity, but I can tell you that the things you listed--without me having intimate knowledge of all the details--does not a fraudulent claim make. This is one of those cases where waiting to see how things unfold is the best policy, IMO. Making assumptions based on unverified deductions is an unnecessary waste of energy at this point...no pun intended.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I can only imagine the difficulty one would have in attempting to patent something that doesn't obey the conventional laws of physics, and that is the reason the patent has been denied for this device. And if he cannot patent it, then I completely understand not divulging how it operates.


Pardon me, but if you cannot document how it operates then you cannot have a patent - can you? That doesn't make sense. Did you ever see the Laurel and Hardy film where if memory serves me correctly a conman fools the pair into thinking a little gizmo will turn a dollar bill into a ten dollar bill. Based on what you have put then it should get a patent without showing it's just a scam - what's the difference?



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


1. This may or may not be an issue (the dead reviewer), but a blog is nothing less than a public electronic journal, so if you're trying to demean his journal just because it's a blog, I'm missing the logic there.


He was claiming his blog was a peer reviewed journal. One of the original reviewers was dead. Others had no scientific background. First understand the peer review process, then understand this was nothing like it, suggesting otherwise is fraud. And a very critical type of dishonesty as millions of dollars are given in investment funds solely based on peer reviewed research.



2. So what? Diplomas are not a reflection of one's intelligence, regardless of what modern western society says.


Maybe not, but what are fake ones?



3. Again, so what? This is not necessarily indicative of someone being willfully dishonest--maybe he just got hard-up for cash and didn't want his dream to die because of some arbitrary 'promise' not to ask for money.


What dream, the one of making money? He declared "NO I WILL NOT ASK FOR ANY MONEY" and claimed a whole bunch of other things, but it was obvious in his actions it was all planned from day 1. That along with his history of fraud does not bode well. There is a reason people still tell the boy who cried wolf story.

He had a company that did millions in environmental damage claiming to have a process that turned garbage into oil. It was fake. The government had to clean up his mess.

He had a thermocouple device that was supposed to deliver 20x the power put in, it showed to deliver something minuscule like 5%, given a US DOE grant for that and a purchasing order, it was fake (he claims bad craftsmanship from a contract company)

He was caught crossing the border in some weird scheme with bars of gold.

He made a number of claims, outright lies about the eCat for the first 2-3 years and then just vanished from making public claims as they were all torn apart. There was no question of him being "intentionally dishonest", even his biggest supporters like Jed Rothwell et al on Vortex all called him out on that. They just made apologies for him. At one point wrote him off, eventually leaning back to hoping (probably because of their own work, not wanting the dream to die)

You know, patterns begin to develop and it's simple as that. I give anyone a second chance but he's had his, he's on his 99th chance and he will blow it next time as well. Its called being a pathological liar. And with him, money is always involved. They have another name for that too...




If you had something that you claimed could change the world--something that people have been seeking for generations--would you let some people poke and prod at it before you owned the rights to the technology?


Yes, its called an NDA. And with public press there is no way its going to be stolen. With something this revolutionary it doesn't matter though as I already explained. Its an instant nobel prize. And no matter what it can be monetized, even if someone stole the idea.




He'd be a damn fool to do that. So, again, I see this as smart business-


Because you don't know anything about business. Sorry to be crass but simple as that. There are billion dollar ideas that go to production everyday, and its not by someone hiding them in their basement. A normal persons idea of business is really absurd, you either have people who think they came up with an idea, no design, prototype, production, sales plan, anything, and think that is worth millions of dollars, or people on the opposite side who think after they have patents and royalty checks they would still lose their idea/product.

I own a dozen trademarks, I have another company under development of one of the largest consulting firms for that industry in the US. I would not make a cent or move forward in any way if I hid everything I have in my garage. It doesn't work like that.

The whole "big oil showed up and stole my invention" was part of a list of scams used to target gullible people in the 60s, and it still carries on today. Some of them even date back further. There was the water is fuel scam, drop a tablet in gas tank so it runs for a month scam, the cold fusion in a box scam, the list goes on and on and on.

These "inventors" rake up small time investor money (thats a red flag right there, everyday institutional investor throw wads of cash on new technologies) and when the money is spent, the bank accounts are dry and the poor saps ask where their returns are the "inventors" tell them of this harrowing tale where men in suits from big oil showed up, (sometime with guns) and took all their inventions.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
there has been a continuing test of LENR at MIT, Schwarz and Hagelstein, responsible, and here is a link :
sci.tech-archive.net...
so boncho, poo pooing Rossi may work, but you need to separate Rossis device from the one tested continuously at MIT...



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to boncho, hellobruce...
here you go, two hour lecture by peter hagelstein of MIT...
watch how he shows how energy summation may be performed in the nickel hydrogen matrix allowing for Coulomb barrier jumping. my math is not up to critiquing the physics he outlines. to disprove LENR, you must show how the MIT experimental results are false AND why the math and physics hagelstein outlines are false.
go for it. citing conspiracies by rossi focardi, levi, foschi, essen et al to push Ecat may even be true but runs aground against actual physical theory and result
www.youtube.com...
i have seen only part...to the point that i could see my math and physics were not adequate to critique.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I'm tired and going to bed after a hard but triumphant evening's work. But I did read through the paper.

My God, what an awful experimental setup. That has to be the biggest Rube Goldberg device ever seen. I know it looks all sciency, but there are just so many things wrong with it that it's hard to know where to start.

No control, no blinding, the guy you don't trust is dicking with it, and the methodology is primitive to the max.

This wouldn't qualify for a validation test bed, much less a replication.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: SlapMonkey
He was claiming his blog was a peer reviewed journal. One of the original reviewers was dead. Others had no scientific background. First understand the peer review process, then understand this was nothing like it, suggesting otherwise is fraud. And a very critical type of dishonesty as millions of dollars are given in investment funds solely based on peer reviewed research.


Ah, gotcha...it was unclear when I read your comment that he was claiming the blog was a peer-reviewed journal. My misunderstanding. I fully understand what you're saying--even some peer-reviewed journals that are widely accepted are full of dishonesty at time, IMO.




Maybe not, but what are fake ones?


Don't know...an attempt to prove to people that you are smart when they only rely on diplomas as their deductive proof?




What dream, the one of making money? He declared "NO I WILL NOT ASK FOR ANY MONEY" and claimed a whole bunch of other things, but it was obvious in his actions it was all planned from day 1. That along with his history of fraud does not bode well. There is a reason people still tell the boy who cried wolf story.


Like I said, I'm not disregarding that this guy could be a snake oil salesman, but just asking for money to build/promote an invention--even if you said you would not--does not a fraudster make. If he has a history of fraud, that does change things, but like I mentioned, I'm no expert on this guy.




He had a company that did millions in environmental damage claiming to have a process that turned garbage into oil. It was fake. The government had to clean up his mess.

He had a thermocouple device that was supposed to deliver 20x the power put in, it showed to deliver something minuscule like 5%, given a US DOE grant for that and a purchasing order, it was fake (he claims bad craftsmanship from a contract company)

He was caught crossing the border in some weird scheme with bars of gold.

He made a number of claims, outright lies about the eCat for the first 2-3 years and then just vanished from making public claims as they were all torn apart. There was no question of him being "intentionally dishonest", even his biggest supporters like Jed Rothwell et al on Vortex all called him out on that. They just made apologies for him. At one point wrote him off, eventually leaning back to hoping (probably because of their own work, not wanting the dream to die).

You know, patterns begin to develop and it's simple as that. I give anyone a second chance but he's had his, he's on his 99th chance and he will blow it next time as well. Its called being a pathological liar. And with him, money is always involved. They have another name for that too...


Yes, this stuff does change things--dude probably is a swindler and fraud, but we don't know on this particular 'invention' yet (I'm starting to use the term "invention" more lightly). I know of a few LEOs that would be more than happy to kick in his door, shoot him, and take it...they're all over the ATS forums.



Yes, its called an NDA. And with public press there is no way its going to be stolen. With something this revolutionary it doesn't matter though as I already explained. Its an instant nobel prize. And no matter what it can be monetized, even if someone stole the idea.


Non-Disclosure Agreements are not perfect--and at this point, what would that do to further your seeking of information? Nothing, because no one could tell you about the machine unless he did. And for the record, the Nobel Prize is starting to look like a fake diploma these days...



Because you don't know anything about business. Sorry to be crass but simple as that. There are billion dollar ideas that go to production everyday, and its not by someone hiding them in their basement. A normal persons idea of business is really absurd, you either have people who think they came up with an idea, no design, prototype, production, sales plan, anything, and think that is worth millions of dollars, or people on the opposite side who think after they have patents and royalty checks they would still lose their idea/product.

I own a dozen trademarks, I have another company under development of one of the largest consulting firms for that industry in the US. I would not make a cent or move forward in any way if I hid everything I have in my garage. It doesn't work like that.

The whole "big oil showed up and stole my invention" was part of a list of scams used to target gullible people in the 60s, and it still carries on today...


Your assumption of what I do or do not know about business aside (you don't know anything about me, mind you, or what I do for a living), I fully comprehend that his actions are of a very paranoid nature, and possibly indicate a scam or fraud, but as I keep saying--we don't know for sure. Deductions are all well and good, but to pretend that they are fact is a terrible practice. Nor, as a businessman, can you pretend that your business timelines and practices should be adopted by everyone else or that they work in every situation.

I highly doubt that your trademarks and developing company are of the world-changing level of discovering a cold-fusion process. I mean no offense, but anyone can register a trademark. Hell, I've come up with many in use today myself, just trademarked by companies and not me (that's part of the nature of my profession). But that really means nothing in the grand scheme of things, and I certainly wouldn't try to call out someone and tell them they have no knowledge of business because of it--that's just disingenuous and presumptuous at best, ignorant and asinine more likely.

Look, I appreciate you expanding on Rossi's history a bit for me, but don't take it upon yourself to belittle me out of ignorance on your end--it reflects poorly on yourself and, quite honestly, disproportionately aggrandizes your accomplishments.
edit on 14-10-2014 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

ETA: In your opinion, what would be the best way to get this tech out to the public without falling prey to those that may want to suppress it?


Make it public domain. If its to save humanity from the oil barons then yes, public knowledge.

Im assuming this is his big payday though, I would think he aims to get very rich. So I doubt that making it public domain will ever happen.

If it proves not to be a hoax then Im sure it will be suppressed into obscurity like all the other inventions that do without oil.
In this New Order we live in, if Money is God, then Oil is surely Jesus.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I apologize for the comment and how it came off, it was a little presumptuous of me. I do not know what position you are in, your content led me to rushed conclusions so I will retract that.

Cheers.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 03:46 AM
link   
NASA seems to be studying LERN:

The nuclear reactor in your basement



At a meeting of the American Nuclear Society in November 2012, the theory’s co-developer, Lewis Larsen, speculated that LENR may occur naturally in lightning—not only on present-day Earth, but also in the primordial cloud of gas and dust that became our solar system. If true, LENR might solve a mystery uncovered by NASA’s Genesis mission, that the pattern of oxygen isotopes on the sun differs greatly from that of Earth.

The theoretical underpinnings of LENR are complex, but the basics are pretty easy to understand. Instead of splitting an atomic nucleus apart or ramming two mutually repelling nuclei together, Widom-Larsen’s LENR simply offers a very slow-moving neutron to a nucleus. According to Zawodny, nuclei presented with sluggish neutrons slurp them up like a hungry Texan with a bowl of firehouse chili. But like many a chili consumer, the nuclei can find that their indulgence makes them, shall we say, unstable. And while I am too polite to continue the chili metaphor past this point, the nuclei do find that emissions relieve their distress.





posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho




new topics




 
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join