One Mega Watt E-Cat Cold Fusion Device Test Successful!

a reply to: yampa

there are 2 threads operating on this topic - try this one: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am not here to guess - either this thing produces "free energy" somehow....or it does not.

Until the source of any excess energy is identified I am perfectly comfortable with saying I don't know - I have no need to blindly accept that this discovery breaks a long held axiom of science, nor am I firmly convinced that it is fraud despite Rossi's inability to conclusively demonstrate his claims.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

ok, I just read all of those. There is not a single technological critique of the experiment there either. What I see is ad-hominem attacks and slander and some support for the concept of a nickel hydrogen heat engine. Not a single critic even mentions the word "nickel".

Please quote for me from that thread a post which postulates how Andrea Rossi was able to insert 2300W of continuous extra energy into this experiment?

If you don't understand the experiment and can't discuss the physical parameters of the paper, you really should not be chiming in on this.

a reply to: yampa

Poor choice of words on my part as usual.

a reply to: yampa

I didn't say anything about Rossi "inserting" anything - for someone who claims to be looking for specific words you are very cavalier with putting your own into my mouth.

I also notice that you have changed your objection - now you say there is not a single "technological critique" (something I never claimed there was) - whereas previously you asked me "which aspect was not adequately controlled? "

The FACT is that there are critiques of the procedure in this and the other thread - I guess you just don't' want to see them.

So here are some specific posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com... - notes that Rossi hasn't allowed anyone to examine the workings of his devices.

www.abovetopsecret.com... - notes that Rossi has point blank refused to allow NASA to inspect his device

www.abovetopsecret.com... - points out that Rossi set the device up - thus undermining any claim that the test was independent - and is a specific aspect that shows inadequate control.

www.abovetopsecret.com... - also points out that Rossi was present. You countered this by saying that Rossi then went away for 32 hours (as far as we can tell) and how would he have "fooled the scientists"? the point is that we don't know how he would have "fooled eth scientists" if that is what he did.

the whole doubt is because we do not know where that extra heat came from.

"the supposed reaction"
"supposed 'successful test'"
"supposed factory – in Florida"
"Rossi supposedly set the reactor up in a lab"
"Supposedly it produced an anomalous amount of heat"
"The supposed explanation to the origin of the extra heat"

This is not science where all we have after several years is "supposed" and "supposedly". This frequent necessary repetition of those words simply means that SOMEONE is HIDING something, otherwise we wouldn't need to use words like "supposed" and "supposedly".

And the only reason WHY someone would be hiding something and would leave the rest of the world using words like "supposedly"...is to conceal the fact it's a SCAM. Any *real* scientist would do anything to get rid of doubts, there IS no room for "supposed". This is why real scientists publish findings in scientific journals so that they can be duplicated, verified or corrected by others.

Scientists do not intentionally shroud their findings and theories for the world to guess. But scammers do because they need to keep their scams alive as long as possible. They need to protect their schemes/hoaxes/lies from being exposed as what they really are.

I am following that E-Cat Rossi stuff for some years....NOW it has about the credibility of a mail from Publisher's Clearing House "Congratulations Mr. you won $10,000,000!" --- everyone KNOWS it's a scam, everything points to that it's a scam...but it's just too nice to entirely let go of the illusion DESPITE what common sense tells you. (Yes, my neighbor also just got a mail by PCH he won $10,000,000 and so did everyone else in my block....etc..) : )

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: yampa


www.abovetopsecret.com... - also points out that Rossi was present. You countered this by saying that Rossi then went away for 32 hours (as far as we can tell) and how would he have "fooled the scientists"? the point is that we don't know how he would have "fooled eth scientists" if that is what he did.

the whole doubt is because we do not know where that extra heat came from.

It's 32 DAYS. You don't understand anything scientific about the experiment at all, do you? You wouldn't know the difference between a 3 phase power supply and a 3 cheese pizza.

Every previous test has suffered from the flaw that Rossi had access to the main power supply. Even in the test where he was evaporating 675 litres of water an hour (the big blue container that someone here referred to sceptically recently), you could simply say "maybe he was just feeding more power in via another way".

This test is different because he apparently does not have control over the main power supply. The scientists performing the experiment have total oversight of the amount of power being fed into the device - for 32 DAYS.

a reply to: yampa

The scientists performing the experiment have total oversight of the amount of power being fed into the device - for 32 DAYS.

Aren't those scientists friends with Rossi?

Is there any evidence from truly independent sources the input is actually what is claimed?

Can we buy one at Home Depot yet?

a reply to: yampa

there's no need to be insulting over a typo.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
"the supposed reaction"
"supposed 'successful test'"
"supposed factory – in Florida"
"Rossi supposedly set the reactor up in a lab"
"Supposedly it produced an anomalous amount of heat"
"The supposed explanation to the origin of the extra heat"

This is not science where all we have after several years is "supposed" and "supposedly". This frequent necessary repetition of those words simply means that SOMEONE is HIDING something, otherwise we wouldn't need to use words like "supposed" and "supposedly".

And the only reason WHY someone would be hiding something and would leave the rest of the world using words like "supposedly"...is to conceal the fact it's a SCAM. Any *real* scientist would do anything to get rid of doubts, there IS no room for "supposed". This is why real scientists publish findings in scientific journals so that they can be duplicated, verified or corrected by others.

Rossi isn't a scientist, Rossi is someone attempting to enrich himself via speculating on a new technology. Apparently he's done pretty well with that so far, because he's "scammed" people like Tom Darden, CEO of Cherokee Investment Partners - a long term successful scientific venture capitalist.

The "supposedly" I keep writing is because I obviously do not have full access to the data surrounding this experiment. It could be that Giuseppe Levi, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér and Hanno Essén are lying in their report - but I don't have any evidence of that, so I will give their scientific method presented in the paper a respectful approach until I have evidence otherwise (many others here seem to be happy to slander without evidence).

So how about you, NoRulesAllowed, giving the authors of this paper the respect they are currently due - how do you think Rossi inserted the anomolous 2000W of extra energy into this experiment? The extra energy was measured via scientific method, so where did it come from?

originally posted by: yampa
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Please quote for me from that thread a post which postulates how Andrea Rossi was able to insert 2300W of continuous extra energy into this experiment?

I didn't see this in the ATS comments, but if you follow the link in the OP to the source and read those comments, there are a couple that define "technological critique of the experiment", for example:

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

They didn't TEST anything... (4, Informative)
trims (10010) | 3 days ago | (#48126645)

No, they didn't. (Measure all the inputs).

They looked at the instruments set up by Rossi. One of the biggest suspicions is that the Ampmeter is measuring only the current between hot and neutral leads on the input cable, and that the "earth" line is actually being used to supply power.

Re:Any suffiently advanced tech... (2)
radtea (464814) | 2 days ago | (#48126685)

The data on isotopic abundances were a result of tampering with the "fuel" at some point in the process, which is pretty simple to do. The fact that the "inventor" was present during "fueling" is a huge red flag.

For the rest: the work is of extremely low quality. The excess heat production is huge, and any simple closed calorimeter would have shown it in a matter of minutes. They instead built this bizarre "open calorimeter" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) and didn't even calibrate it at the operating temperature! This is particularly important when you consider the functional form of the Stephan-Boltzmann law: radiated power goes as T^4, so at half power they were "calibrating" at a temperature far below the one they operated at. And yet their energy-balance calculations require a whole raft of temperature-dependent corrections.

The experimental design is so bad--and I am saying this as an experimental and computational physicist--that I can't help wondering if it was deliberately designed to gull the gullible.

I'd say those are two of the biggest holes, though there are many other holes in the experiment:
1. There is an obvious potential source for the excess power which has not been excluded...the "earth" line.
2. The experimental design is extremely poor as explained by the experimental physicist. The flaws of bad calorimetry were apparent in Pons and Fleischmann's work, so you'd think that subsequent calorimetry experiments in LENR would use even more care as a result, but the opposite is true in this case, the calorimetry is far worse.

Another hole making it not so independent is Rossi's involvement in the experiment and his potential for substituting material with different isotopic composition during the test

originally posted by: yampa
The extra energy was measured via scientific method, so where did it come from?

Nobody knows, but the "earth line" is as good a guess as any. Also the experimental physicist explained why the test is not scientifically sound due to extremely poor experimental design.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: yampa

there's no need to be insulting over a typo.

You act like it doesn't matter if you said 32 days or 32 hours?

I'm asking you to tell us where the extra heat came from. You are the one saying that there are reasons to believe that Rossi being present at the start or end of this experiment is reason to disbelieve the results of the experiment.

Explain how someone not anywhere near a device for 32 days can make it output thousands of watts of anomalous power?

You are the one saying something is wrong or uncertain. Please specify exactly what is uncertain? Specifically, physically, what is wrong with this experiment?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: yampa

The scientists performing the experiment have total oversight of the amount of power being fed into the device - for 32 DAYS.

Aren't those scientists friends with Rossi?

Is there any evidence from truly independent sources the input is actually what is claimed?

Can we buy one at Home Depot yet?

So you are accusing one or all of Giuseppe Levi, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér or Hanno Essén of direct fraud? That's a pretty bold statement. What is it about this experiment that leads you to believe their methodology is flawed or corrupt?

You also realise that Rossi has already sold the rights for his company to a wealthy venture capital firm headed by mainstream investors and management? There is no one to scam with this report aside from these already rich and convinced people.

a reply to: yampa

more putting words into people's mouths - why don't you just come out with your own conclusion - where do YOU think the purported extra energy is coming from??

a reply to: yampa

So you are accusing one or all of Giuseppe Levi, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér or Hanno Essén of direct fraud?

You got problems. I asked a couple of questions to try to rule it out. I thought you might know things about the 'test' that could rule out fraud. Apparently you don't.

Can we buy one at Home Depot yet?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


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

They didn't TEST anything... (4, Informative)
trims (10010) | 3 days ago | (#48126645)

No, they didn't. (Measure all the inputs).

They looked at the instruments set up by Rossi. One of the biggest suspicions is that the Ampmeter is measuring only the current between hot and neutral leads on the input cable, and that the "earth" line is actually being used to supply power.

That's just a joke critique and so are the posts following. For a start, Rossi did not "set up the instruments" - the instruments were supplied by the authors.

All the instruments used during the test are property of the authors of the present paper, and were calibrated
in their respective manufacturers’ laboratories.

Rossi did not have any access to the power supplies. He didn't fix the wall sockets, he didn't feed in any secret power lines from the building - because this isn't his building. He apparently has no control over the main 3 phase power supply given to him for this experiment.

Special attention was given to measuring the current and voltage input to the system: the absence of any DC
component in the power supply was verified in various occasions in the course of the test, by means of
digital multimeters and supplementary clamp ammeters. We also verified that all the harmonics of the
waveforms input to the system were amply included in the range measurable by the PCEs (Figure 5). The
three-phase current line supplying all the energy used for the test came from an electrical panel belonging to
the establishment hosting our laboratory, to which further unrelated three-phase current equipment was
connected.

All diagrams and descriptions indicate 3 power lines. There is no neutral line. All 3 power lines were monitored via 3 phase power analysers and regularly repositioned clamp meters (not just ammeters). Which power line going into the reactor are you suggesting is being overpowered? Please indicate using any of the photos or diagrams supplied with the report.

As for the doping of the fuel - what exactly did he gain from the reported fuel analysis? What are you saying here? The fuel was switched/doped to prove what, exactly?

The other comments about the failures of the calorimetry are pointless to review here. The person on slashdog who claimed there was a problem didn't specify what any problem was - so unless you're going to break down the calorimetric analysis for us, I will assume you are also just blowing hot air. That's another stock argument I've noticed from the sceptics during this embroglio - "oh oh, wattle wattle, the standards are just TERRIBLE here, terrible terrible science, I mean, I'm not going to specify what's wrong with the calorimetry specifically, but believe me (I'm a real scientist, guv), it's TERRIBLE"

originally posted by: yampa
That's just a joke critique and so are the posts following. For a start, Rossi did not "set up the instruments" - the instruments were supplied by the authors.

Indeed he did not set up the instruments according to the study - but if you do not understand that "setting up" and "supplying" are 2 completely different things then you really have no case to argue that anyone else doesn't understand any part of this.

What Rossi did do was, apparently:

The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction.

So he actually operated the supposed "dummy", and he effectively set up the "real" one.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

What Rossi did do was, apparently:

The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction.

So he actually operated the supposed "dummy", and he effectively set up the "real" one.

You are just rambling and have no scientific judgements to offer, do you?

Rossi set the ecat going for the main experiment. He started the experiment. It's his device. He put the fuel in it, he set up the reactor.

Then he went away for 32 days, and this device, apparently only using nickel, hydrogen, lithium and some EM fields was able to continually output 2300W of unaccounted for energy - I am prepared to believe that is possible. I don't need to suggest any other sources for that heat unless someone tells me something convincing about how that heat got there otherwise.

So far, the best we've heard is "it came from a neutral line that wasn't monitored". Except there wasn't a neutral line that wasn't monitored?

What's your suggestion, Aloysius the Gaul? Why are you even continuing to type if you don't have any scientific judgement to offer?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: yampa

So you are accusing one or all of Giuseppe Levi, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér or Hanno Essén of direct fraud?

You got problems. I asked a couple of questions to try to rule it out. I thought you might know things about the 'test' that could rule out fraud. Apparently you don't.

Can we buy one at Home Depot yet?

How would you or I know for sure whether those men are involved in fraud? I have no evidence either way. Neither do you.

I'm basing my analysis on the paper we have been presented, and based on the assumption that the paper was written by qualified scientists from accredited institutions that ensure some form in scientific integrity in their staff. Do you have any specific technical or factual reasons to disbelieve their paper?

a reply to: yampa

1) Rossi was part of the experiment
2) Rossi's buddies performed the experiment

About as non-independent as you can get.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: yampa

1) Rossi was part of the experiment
2) Rossi's buddies performed the experiment

About as non-independent as you can get.

You have no interest in nickel hydrogen heat engines, or any ability to address the scientific claims in this paper, do you?

Your job here is to attack the credibility of the people involved instead of analyzing the substance of the argument - the very definition of ad hominem.