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

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by flexy123
I have doubts that the report they will release today will be conclusive..it simply would take some time to analyze such data (IMO)...but..well i hope anyway.

I think the AP report will be conclusive enough. They will either report that it works and is not a scam or they will report that it isn't. That will be enough to change the world (or not).

If it is an elaborate hoax and the RUMORS (!) are true as in

I have heard that observers of today's tests are only being allowed to look at the equipment for a few minutes at a time, and they are not being introduced to the engineers who are taking the data.

They are not being given a chance to establish the bona fides of these engineers, or to confirm that they are fully independent from Rossi.

an AP press person will hardly be competent to make a scientific evaluation whether such an experiment was "successful"...such an evaluation can only be made by independent scientists!

(Which, IMO, was the purpose of this test in the first place!)

As said..those are *very vague rumors* i just picked up on the net...alongside with positive things like that the device sustained 470kw and the sale was made (aka: the test was successful)

This whole secrecy and those games slowly start to irritate me...really, really hope there will be some substantial info out in 2hrs and not some blah blah and vague assumptions....

reply to post by flexy123

There have been prior tests which didn't convince the skeptics. So I'm not sure if this one will.

But if he made the sale, and they build the power plant and start selling power, that should convince the skeptics.

Even Enron couldn't maintain their hoax forever, eventually a commercial enterprise has to make a profit or it won't stay in business.

Originally posted by flexy123
This whole secrecy and those games slowly start to irritate me...really, really hope there will be some substantial info out in 2hrs and not some blah blah and vague assumptions....

The reason behind the secrecy is two-fold. I know from Rossi's end, he wants the actual mechanics behind it to remain secret as his patents are not fully fleshed out on an international level. From the client's end, they want complete confidentiality as to who they are.

The "scam" angle doesn't make sense because he hasn't duped anybody into investing and has put himself in a situation where he will not gain anything by a failed product. The secrecy is annoying but not all that suspicious to me.

Originally posted by Cuervo
The "scam" angle doesn't make sense because he hasn't duped anybody into investing and has put himself in a situation where he will not gain anything by a failed product. The secrecy is annoying but not all that suspicious to me.

I agree with that completely. If this is a scam, there seems to be no logic at all to the way he's approaching it.

So I do experience a symptom known as "cognitive dissonance" when I state that I still think it's a hoax of some sort. I can't defend that statement by pointing out the logic in the hoax because I don't see any logic in it.

But as I've said before, this is one case where I'll be happy to be proven wrong, and I learn that it's not a hoax after all. I would expect I'll eventually get a lower electric bill if it actually works, so that will be nice.

This actually looks very real. I had high hopes fornthe Orbos device but realised the scam the moment they were selling test kits....

This looks genuine... Half of one hour to wait until the results are said to be released. I'll be online for this...

Fingers crossed people....

I wouldn't be suprised if the customer is the english government... The uk is up the creek power wise.

All the best,

Korg.

O.k. Here it is... The report....

db.tt...

Fill your boots...

Korg.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
O.k. Here it is... The report....

db.tt...

Fill your boots...

Korg.

Amazing, what's your source?

Here we go:

Look at picture #2

"Ratio between Energy produced and Energy consumed: 2635:0"

(which is based on the claim the device produced 2635kWh)

This is horse**** since we know the device needs energy input (to charge or whatever they call it)...so the claim of ZERO energy consumed is utterly ridiculous!

As i posted on some other place..this is as idiotic as me making a claim that *after i turn off my stove* with a pot of water (after i brought it to a boil)..."the water heated itself without any needed energy"

Originally posted by flexy123

Amazing, what's your source?

The source?? Here... www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com...

"Ratio between Energy produced and Energy consumed: 2635:0"
[\quote]

The reaction needs an initial input value, but is self sustaining after a threshold is met. Your analogy is flawed as your kettle doesn't have a transmuting catalyst in the pot...

Do you follow?

Korg.

Originally posted by flexy123


Is it just me or is this absurd?

edit on 28-10-2011 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)

Absurd? Absolutely. So was the combustion engine, electricity, and the whole field of nuclear physics. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Don't be that guy who stands in the corner with his arms crossed saying "harumph!" only to look like an ass at the end of the movie. Instead, be that guy who starts that slow clap at the end and everybody picks up on it while the inventor wipes a tear from his eye. That guy rocks.

You notice they refer to "time when the reactor was turned on" until "when it was turned off", which was from 12:30 til 18:00 ---> this is where they claim the device produced 2635kWh - but totally skip over the part (see the curve on the excel file!!) that it took from 10:00 am to 12:30 to heat up the steam/device initially.

Only: The steam doesn't heat up by itself (they say they "turned on" the reactor at 12:30)..the energy to put in to get this whole thing going is totally ignored? It's not even mentioned! What if they needed to put in 3000kWh in that time to get the reactor started initially? This is significant!

The reaction needs an initial input value, but is self sustaining after a threshold is met.

Your analogy is flawed as your kettle doesn't have a transmuting catalyst in the pot... Do you follow? Korg.

Yes of course i follow. But i cannot make a report like this and measure the energy "after the initial phase" and totally leave out the fact i needed to put energy IN first?

Look....if you own a battery charger....to charge a battery energy needs to go in, the actual energy which is used to charge the battery, right? You don't unplug the charger, measure the battery and totally disregard the fact it took you 6 hrs to charge the battery? (Heck, of course the battery didn't charge "itself" by magic!)

But this is what this report is...it leaves out the most important equation..so how much energy was needed in the 2,5 hrs in the inital phase??

Without this value measured and verified this is no proof for anything - that guy can make as many claims as he wants and it is still no proof.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


That's a blog, not a journal. More importantly, it's one owned and run by Rossi. So we have absolutely no dependent lab data? Why?

reply to post by flexy123


Well, page 2 does show 66kWh input but I'm not sure what time period that covers and if it covers everything.

But it still seems odd they would show the ratio of power out to power in as 2635:0 when their own report shows at least 66kWh input so that would make it 2635:66.

That's about 4000% efficient, if it's true.

The part that surprised me is the report concluded that this test was sufficient for the customer to accept delivery. What? They don't even need to see it run for 24 hours before accepting delivery?

That surprises me.

I also thought they might reveal the customer today, but I guess not. I'm not sure why it's such a big secret now.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by flexy123


Is it just me or is this absurd?

edit on 28-10-2011 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)

Absurd? Absolutely. So was the combustion engine, electricity, and the whole field of nuclear physics. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Don't be that guy who stands in the corner with his arms crossed saying "harumph!" only to look like an ass at the end of the movie. Instead, be that guy who starts that slow clap at the end and everybody picks up on it while the inventor wipes a tear from his eye. That guy rocks.

Yeah, well lets wait for the evidence before anyone starts clapping, eh?

>>
Well, page 2 does show 66kWh input but I'm not sure what time period that covers and if it covers everything.
>>

"Energy consumed from 12:30 to 18:00" (see pic!)

It's a joke. Anybody with a couple brain cells can see that the withholding of data and the resistance to independent tests is damning. There should be no CONfusion.

The scientific community, right now, is not even batting an eye.

Trust me. They have REAL work to do. THIS is a circus. Don't be a clown.

The Freakin' Report... FINALLY

reply to post by Cuervo


A report authored by Rossi himself (and already posted in this thread). Unless the data was obtained through independent testing, it's meaningless.

Here is the deal:

The "believers" argue that the initial energy needed to "heat up" the reactor is not relevant, since this initial heat-up would only be required every SIX MONTHS.

They also argue that this initial energy needed gets "less relevant" the longer the reactor runs and the more energy it produces.

In theory, this sounds all nice and great....the problem is only we don't have a reactor which already ran days or weeks or months.

At todays test, something else was observed:

While the reactor was in "sustained mode" allegedly producing the 470kWh ("out of nothing")...it was still connected (!) by wires to a 500kW biodiesel generator which was STILL RUNNING during the duration of the test!

Of course, they say it doesn't matter since all what matters is that the customer did their tests, the customer knew the generator was CONNECTED but (allegedly) knew/checked it didnt participate in generating the energy etc..etc...

HOWEVER - for me personally this does look fishy...in fact if this whole thing is legit i don't understand why they kept the generator running? (Even if they claim it didn't supply power).

On a public relations level...i think Rossi kind of fails..or he simply doesn't have any interest to convince people. Such are stupid mistakes which could have been avoided...but they didn't.

Now every skeptic can simply say there is a chance that the generator was supplying energy...and until proven WRONG, also *todays* test is not proof, for anything.

reply to post by Cuervo

The "scam" angle doesn't make sense because he hasn't duped anybody into investing and has put himself in a situation where he will not gain anything by a failed product. The secrecy is annoying but not all that suspicious to me.

He admitted receiving money from the original American interest, which I highlighted on these boards before. From his mouth I believe, in an interview with NyTeknik