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.

 

E-Cat -The Greatest Invention of All Time?!

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Funny how the true believers pick up their ball and go home when pressed to justify their belief with solid evidence.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I hate to drag out this thread any longer, but I have some real questions to ask.

john_b, please tell us, how are we supposed to prove a technology that we don't have access to?

It hasn't occured to you that maybe your demands are a bit unreasonable here?

I would honestly, seriously love to answer your demands and provide you with real evidence, but we don't have access to the E-Cat.

There are other technologies that are open-source that we might try out instead. But, obviously, getting the lowly janitor boy who's not an engineer to try out the tech isn't going to prove anything.

We would need a real, credible, engineering team, and a lab.

That is the ONLY way anyone around here is ever going to prove anything - with a lab, an engineering team, an experiment, data, and a corresponding Thread stickied to the top of the Science and Tech forum.

I have tried to explain this several times, and I notice you ignore me every single time and just respond with "quit posting wild baseless claims". Why?

You say you want proof, and yet you seem to have no interest in setting up the actual experiments that would get us the proof. Why?

Isn't that what Science is all about? Doing experiments, and analyzing the resulting data?

How is anyone at ATS ever supposed to prove any of these technologies for us, without an Experiment?

Please answer all my questions john_b. Thanks



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


You said: "the evidence keeps coming in". Show us then. Or do you admit you're talking hogwash?



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


AGAIN you ignore all of my questions and everything I'm saying, so you have made your position clear.

Obviously you have no real interest in proving anything; you are simply here to badger and bully the "true believers" and try to make them look bad.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 

You're back tracking. Here's some examples of you claiming that there is evidence, yet when pressed, you dodge the issue and make excuses:


You choose not to believe the evidence that's already been presented, well that's your choice.


You don't agree with me, you don't agree with the evidence, that's your choice.


As I already said john_b, a third-party company running a power plant with the technology is sufficient enough independent testing and evidence for me; patents or no patents.


Sterling Allan specifically stated that the customer was happy with the results, and paid up.


...and so on. So, again: where is this evidence? But, like a true believer, you have faith and speak of self-evident truths, yet cannot substantiate a single one of your beliefs with evidence. This whole thread and line of questioning could end right now and refute the sceptics if you simply provide evidence.

Trust me, you don't need me "badgering" and "bullying" (code: pressing you to substantiate your claims) to make you look bad, your endless conjecture and dodging the requests to provide this evidence that you speak of does that for you.
edit on 4-11-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Whats up boys, do you realize you are
agreeing on the same subject only making
different statements....
STFU, and come to a conclusion...

NOTHING have been proven. And to prove anything
we need more from Rossi...To be honest, we need
something he either cant or want to provide.

What has been said by them and in this thread
doesent PROVE anything...



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


No, john_b, it is you that keeps backtracking, while I'm trying to go forward here.

The only way anyone at ATS could ever really prove one of these technologies, is by doing our own experiment, with our own engineers, and our own lab.

Do you agree, or not?

We can't set up our own experiment with the E-Cat, because it's not open-source. We don't have access to it. Rossi is only granting access to people he chooses.

Correct?

So none of us here can prove the E-Cat, because we don't have access to it. All of your demands for me to show evidence are pointless.

Understand?

We could however attempt to prove one of the open-source technologies. IF we had a credible engineering team, and a lab.

Do you agree, or not?

Now ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, john_b. Or are you going to try to backtrack and weasel your way out of having to answer these questions yet another time?



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


It really is quite simple: you claim that I'm ignoring/disagreeing the "evidence", well then show me the evidence.
edit on 4-11-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I have no evidence to show other than what Rossi and Sterling Allan and PESN have already posted.

I don't know what the magic ingredient to the catalyzer is, I don't know who the secret "customer" is.

There, I have answered your question, john_b, now you answer ALL of my questions. Or are you going to weasel out AGAIN?



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
*) I am aware there exists thread about this, but i thought it would legitimate a new thread.

In particular, i would like to hear how such a tech would change our world - assuming that the e-cat device is real and turns out working.

How do you think would that invention change our world? What effect would it have on the middle-east, on America? Would our economy FIRST collapse before it enters a new area where energy literally has become too cheap to even meter anymore?


It would change the balance of power in the energy market. But the cost to the customer would be the same if not higher.

Supply and demand, how bad do you want electricity and how much will you pay for it?



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Again, there is no such thing as " free energy " or energy out of nothing. It can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change it's state. In order to make energy you have to use work from another energy source. What you put in it is what you get out. E-cat like all the other so called free energy devices do not produce any energy in excess of the amount put in unless that energy is stored such as gas, oil, wood, coal, etc.





edit on 4-11-2011 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Well, john_b, you have had all kinds of time to respond, but still no intelligent response to all the points I made and the questions I asked in this post

You have now proven beyond any doubt that you have no real interest in seeing any of these advanced energy technologies proven. If you really are sincerely interested - you would have responded.

When confronted with an actual plan, the actual real steps and actions that we might take in order to really prove something - you refuse to even respond! You ignore my questions, you try to change the subject; in the end you just turn tail and run, you refuse to even answer my questions.

What's wrong - are you afraid that such a plan of action might actually succeed? It sure seems that way....

Are you going to just ignore this post and refuse to respond too?



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 

I'm only going to say this one more time: you made claims of evidence, so provide the evidence. Don't back peddle by saying "how are we supposed to prove a technology that we don't have access to?" or trying your usual tactic of changing topic and pushing the burden of proof onto me. You made specific claims of evidence, so either post up the evidence to support your claims or retract them and stop reiterating them. I will again post the specific claims of evidence you have made:


You choose not to believe the evidence that's already been presented, well that's your choice.


You don't agree with me, you don't agree with the evidence, that's your choice.


As I already said john_b, a third-party company running a power plant with the technology is sufficient enough independent testing and evidence for me; patents or no patents.


Sterling Allan specifically stated that the customer was happy with the results, and paid up.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
I'm only going to say this one more time: you made claims of evidence, so provide the evidence.


I already said, I have no additional evidence other than what Rossi and PESN have already posted.




Don't back peddle by saying "how are we supposed to prove a technology that we don't have access to?"


It's not back peddling, it's a very legitimate question.

How do you expect me, or anyone, to prove a technology that we don't have access to?

It's a legitimate question, so ANSWER THE QUESTION.

How am I supposed to prove a technology without having access to that technology?

Now are you going to actually answer my questions, or are you going to back peddle and try to change the subject again?


I answer every single one of your questions, john_b, so why do you consistently refuse to answer any of mine?




or trying your usual tactic of changing topic and pushing the burden of proof onto me.


Obviously, you are the one who keeps changing the subject, not me.

And john_b, I am not putting the burden of proof on you; I am showing you a plan of action that could actually succeed and help us to actually prove something.

Why is it that as soon as I start talking about a real plan that could actually work, you ignore me, you refuse to respond, you try to change the subject back to "show me the evidence!", and you refuse to answer ANY of my questions?

It's almost like you don't want such a plan to succeed....... is that the case, john_b?



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee


How am I supposed to prove a technology without having access to that technology?


 


Start by looking for peer reviewed material that shows how people came to their conclusions...


You won't find it with Rossi's work though.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
I already said, I have no additional evidence other than what Rossi and PESN have already posted.


I think the point that people are trying to make is that there is a difference between 'claiming' something and providing 'evidence'. You keep refering to 'evidence', as if you know for a fact that it exists, when in fact it is merely a 'claim'. The word 'evidence' implies a higher standard than 'claim' and thus a burden of proof that has not yet been delivered.

In this thread you have furthered many of the 'claims' that Rossi has made, but you seem completely unable to critically consider that simply 'claiming' that the device works, or that there is a buyer, doesn't mean that it is true. You accept a 'claim' that is not just 'evolutionary' but quite simply 'revolutionary'(It essentially redefines physics) at face value because, as you say yourself, you have been waiting for this for a long time.

When this is pointed out to you, you get defensive and won't admit to this, even though it is plain to see by reading your posts in this thread. The proper response from you would be that you have been promoting these claims because you hope that they are true and based on that hope you have decided to simply suspend your critical thinking skills.

Oh, and the old 'If you don't accept my position then you must be an oil industry shill' line get's old real fast and paints you as an unreasonable person... Someone that can not be reasoned with.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaa2500
I think the point that people are trying to make is that there is a difference between 'claiming' something and providing 'evidence'. You keep refering to 'evidence', as if you know for a fact that it exists, when in fact it is merely a 'claim'. The word 'evidence' implies a higher standard than 'claim' and thus a burden of proof that has not yet been delivered.


Mere semantics. When I see a video of real people walking around a power plant, with equipment and technology everywhere, I call that "evidence". You call it "a claim". But what the hell difference does it make?




In this thread you have furthered many of the 'claims' that Rossi has made, but you seem completely unable to critically consider that simply 'claiming' that the device works, or that there is a buyer, doesn't mean that it is true. You accept a 'claim' that is not just 'evolutionary' but quite simply 'revolutionary'(It essentially redefines physics) at face value because, as you say yourself, you have been waiting for this for a long time.


I have "furthered" nothing.

And the first thing I said was that arguing back and forth about whether it's true or not is pointless - since Rossi is keeping the catalyst a proprietary secret anyway.




Oh, and the old 'If you don't accept my position then you must be an oil industry shill' line get's old real fast and paints you as an unreasonable person... Someone that can not be reasoned with.


The oil industry shills out themselves - by attacking and attacking and attacking and backing you into a corner, but when you present them with a plan of action that might actually work, suddenly they have nothing at all to say. All they can do is squawk "show me the evidence! show me the evidence!" over and over again like a parrot.

Now look, I'm the only one with a real plan, my plan would work, the shills know it would work, and that's why I get ganged up on.

Yes, I said it, and no, I don't have to "substantiate that statement with evidence"



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
Mere semantics. When I see a video of real people walking around a power plant, with equipment and technology everywhere, I call that "evidence". You call it "a claim". But what the hell difference does it make?


It makes a lot of difference. A 'claim' is unproven, whereas 'evidence' is proven. Proven as in reproduced by other scientists, not just observed in a controlled environment. How is the video that you have seen different from any film-set. In the film 'chain reaction', there are scenes with a working waterpowered generator, complete with a laboratory, technicians, lab equipment and computers showing that the generator put's out massive amounts of energy. Just because you have seen this film with your own eyes, it does not mean that the film crew actually filmed a waterpowered generator generating massive amounts of energy. Do you understand that even though you see it, it still may not be real?



I have "furthered" nothing.


Do these quotes ring a bell...

'Okay, you win. There's nothing really going on here, no world-changing technology being tested, just "smoke and mirrors". Riiiiight....'

'Because I, like many people I'm sure, have been waiting for this moment for many years, and I'm really excited!'

'If you read the articles more carefully, the "customer" did have a team of engineers there to test and take measurements.'

'As I already said john_b, a third-party company running a power plant with the technology is sufficient enough independent testing and evidence for me; patents or no patents.'

'The positive news for Rossi and the E-Cat just keeps coming in. More tests, more support, more recognition, now a 1MW power plant up and running. I don't have to do a thing!'

'Rossi and his supporters already seem to be doing a good enough job proving the technology.'



And the first thing I said was that arguing back and forth about whether it's true or not is pointless - since Rossi is keeping the catalyst a proprietary secret anyway.


Yeah, but then you said all of the above, furthering Rossis claims.



The oil industry shills out themselves - by attacking and attacking and attacking and backing you into a corner,


No, those are sceptics who are hoping to convince you to do some critical thinking.

You are very dificult to debate because you are all over the place. First you imply that the E-Cat is proven, then you admit that you are biased and act out of a desire to really want it to work and then you tell people to wait for testing and results being reproduced... When you are confronted with what you simply dismiss it and tell people that they are oil industry shills.



edit on 5-11-2011 by aaa2500 because: clarification



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaa2500
Do these quotes ring a bell...

'Okay, you win. There's nothing really going on here, no world-changing technology being tested, just "smoke and mirrors". Riiiiight....'

'Because I, like many people I'm sure, have been waiting for this moment for many years, and I'm really excited!'

.....


aaa,

I, personally, happen to like Sterling Allan, I think he does a pretty good job at what he does. I do not think he is a liar, and I don't automatically jump to the conclusion that everything he says is lies and hoaxes, like some people do.

Just because I express some enthusiasm for what he's reporting, does not mean I'm "furthering" Rossi's claims.

I told you already, I don't speak for Rossi, or any of these other people.

And honestly, it's this kind of crap that often makes these forums such an unpleasant place to be. I can't even go "Yay, this is exciting!!" without a small army of skeptics jumping down my throat going "PROVE THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE EXCITED ABOUT OR RETRACT THAT STATEMENT!!"





You are very dificult to debate because you are all over the place. First you imply that the E-Cat is proven, then you admit that you are biased and act out of a desire to really want it to work and then you tell people to wait for testing and results being reproduced... When you are confronted with what you simply dismiss it and tell people that they are oil industry shills.


No, I tell people they are shills when they prove to me with their actions that they are shills. They attack and attack and attack and back me into the corner and do everything they can to try to make me look bad, then when presented with a plan of action that might actually work and really prove something, suddenly they have nothing at all to say.

My plan would work, I'm the only one with a plan that would work, and that's why people like john_b cannot even speak to me when I talk about the plan - because they know it would work.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
I am only going to make one post on this subject. It isn't as if the topic isn't worthy of more than one post it is just that some people have worked hard to drag this discussion down.

Does Rossi's system work? Who knows. Does it matter? Only to his customer. Should Rossi care what anyone on ATS thinks? Absolutely not. Should the customer care what anyone on ATS thinks? Absolutely not. If the system works it will be a great win for everyone. If it doesn't work then the only person that loses is Rossi and maybe his customer if they put up any money in advance. So why are people trying to hard to discredit the product? FYI... the peer review process is not part of the scientific method. Look it up. If something were to become scientific law it will need to tested and verified over and over. But for the sake of this product it really doesn't matter. If the customer is satisfied with the product they will buy it.

Why would Rossi make this up? It is a great attention getter but if you are a scammer the last thing you want is a great deal of publicity. You want to move from one victim to another. If he is a scammer this will be his one shot. After this nobody would give him a dime.

Why would someone try and discredit him or attack his plan if they are so certain it doesn't work? If it doesn't work just move on. Let Rossi be a pain in the side to someone else. The fact that people waste considerable resources and time fighting cold fusion says the method likely works. Why would they fight it? Well this is the easiest question of all to answer. Money. An obscene amount of money. And if you don't think someone would try and discredit someone else in order to protect billions in profits you are living in a fantasy land.

There is a limited reason for Rossi to run this hoax but it comes at great cost to him if he fails. There are billions of dollars at stake if this system is successful and as such billions of reasons for people to try and discredit it. Quit wasting you time arguing about Rossi's machine and let time be the ultimate judge. Either it will work or it won't. Whether it works or not won't hinge one bit on what you or anyone on here thinks.




top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join