Energy Catalyzer Test in Italy is a Success!

[Quantum Windbag]

To make the Italians look less kooky, really what there is to claim here is that hydrogen, electricity and nickel powder can constitute a source of energy. It's pointless to point out that less energy is put in than taken out because combustion motors do that all the time… were you not to count the fuel source.

The bottom line is if these scientists want to be taken seriously, they'll have to isolate their electrodes from any copper or iron, and run their test long enough to determine a consumption rate or a conversion rate if they are claiming to have a nuclear reaction at play.

It doesn't seem plausible. You would think someone would've discovered this dealing with hydrogen already.

I don't think the Italians are kooky, I think the reporters are kooky, just like the reporters that said a giant kraken killed ichthyosaurs and used their bones as art were kooky.

The giant, prehistoric squid that ate common sense

 

[JimBowie1958]

You know, it's not that significant that the electricity put into the reaction is less then what was abstracted.

Of course it is. The question is whether there is energy that is extractable from the Nickel. Of course all matter is a store of energy int he abstract, but being able to tap into that energy is a limitation of technology and how we currently understand the universe. As we come to understand it better, we will be able to do more manipulating the universe around us to suit our needs and desires.

But yes, being able to get more of the energy out of Nickel than what was used to get it is very significant.

Again, the motor in your car achieves that.

But we know how to extract energy from gasoline. The important thing here is that Rossi seems to have demonstrated a method for extracting it from Nickel, like you extract energy from the fuel that you use to drive your automobile.

What is significant is if the energy put into obtaining the fuel then putting that into play in the reaction leaves a balance that's worth going through all of the trouble to take nickel out of the ground and isolate hydrogen.

Nickel is in abundant supply. There are known and suspected reserves whose quantity has not even been fully estimated yet.

One estimate of potential energy from Nickel based on its current supply factored by the yeild Rossi seems to be getting with his contraption is, in total, 155 times the total energy we get out of all petroleum products globally per year.

That would, in my estimation, be worth all the trouble of taking the nickel out of the ground.

Very specific ratios of the products of fusion should be discernible. Instead of stopping the experiment because you had seen an electrical surplus, these scientists probably know that they should have established that a fusion reaction happened.

In prior experimaents/demonstrationsradiation has been detected, nuclear by-products of copper and iron have been found, and the amount of energy coming out such a small volume as compared to any other plausible alternative confirm this is a nuclear reaction. Slowly more and more people are starting to realize this.

There's something very fishy about how cockeyed this is being done. There's no reason to conduct science like that in this day and age. Money is not an object.

Yes, if you are expecting a scientist that does things in a tightly regimented way like one might in a university, then you will find plenty out of ordinary.

But then Rossi is not a scientist. This would appear to be one of those rare cases when experimentation and observation got ahead of the theory of the field, like Schlechtman and his quasi-crystaline state was, and for which he was shunned and ridiculed for.

But now he has a Nobel prize and the acknowledgement that he was right all along.

Consensus is not science, nor is some notion that things in science are ever 'settled'.

We do know this though about science; whatever we think we know is either dreadfully wrong or is a bit off of the reality that we try to model but never manage to do so perfectly.

A real scientist would not be so dismissive of what Rossi has done until he knows what Rossi's little black frequency box is and does. Till that point its all speculation except for the measurement of the energy released and the energy that went in.

Pretty simple.

 

[JimBowie1958]

To make the Italians look less kooky, really what there is to claim here is that hydrogen, electricity and nickel powder can constitute a source of energy. It's pointless to point out that less energy is put in than taken out because combustion motors do that all the time… were you not to count the fuel source.

The bottom line is if these scientists want to be taken seriously, they'll have to isolate their electrodes from any copper or iron, and run their test long enough to determine a consumption rate or a conversion rate if they are claiming to have a nuclear reaction at play.

It doesn't seem plausible. You would think someone would've discovered this dealing with hydrogen already.

I don't think the Italians are kooky, I think the reporters are kooky, just like the reporters that said a giant kraken killed ichthyosaurs and used their bones as art were kooky.

The giant, prehistoric squid that ate common sense

You mean kooky like posing as though you know something cant be true BEFORE it has been thoroughly tested?

Here is a url to the positive side of that story:
Giant 'kraken' lair discovered: Cunning sea monster that preyed on ichthyosaurs


I have no idea if the claims are true or not, but who knows? I tend to doubt it, but not for the churlish 'reasons' your author gives, which was basically nothing more than 'Arent these stupid people morons to think something that big could have done what they suppose it did, when I have never heard of such a thing?'

At this point it would appear to be merely an interesting theory, with not much way of knowing either way, much like the 'Out of Africa' theory was supposed to be solid and Neanderthals wiped out in some massive genocide by modern man. Now we know that many of us still have Neanderthal DNA, lol. Science, when properly done, always surprizes the older generation, by and large, because it has a way of introducing Truth where it is least comfortable.

You have no idea if this Giant Kraken theory is kooky or not. It is merely something that you are not used to and therefore 'it must be wrong'. But far more significant progress has been made when far less provoked curiosity in someone, from observations of Easterly winds along certain latitudes, to noticing how some flies reproduce, to listening to patterns in radio back-ground static, to noticing that the speed of light is the same whether it approaches Earth toward the Earth as it moves around the sun or away from the Earth's direction.

People like you have been naysaying scientific exploration and discovery for millenia.

Thank God not everyone listened and the risk-takers like Columbus, Tesla, Einstein, Darwin and others managed to get past the degreed and tenured idiots and get their work done anyway.

Maybe Rossi is a fraud. I dont know if he is or is not.

But I see good reason to keep an open mind on the subject till he tries a larger long term supply of the electrical grid somewhere that is indisputably something generating energy.

Till then I know enough to rule nothing out.

 

[Money]

A real scientist would not be so dismissive of what Rossi has done until he knows what Rossi's little black frequency box is and does. Till that point its all speculation except for the measurement of the energy released and the energy that went in.

Pretty simple.

I don't think that a real scientist can conclude that anything spectacular has happened at all. The experiment was not set up to demonstrate that anything definitive had even transpired. How much fuel was used? "Barely any... about *a gram* of hydrogen... at an undisclosed pressure. Couldn't account for the catylist.. I do know we found some of the nuclear byproducts that we anticipated... although we didn't take any time to calc ratios or isolate for contaminants... we still haven't." Well, how much energy was produced? "We used a 'flux' as one of the most complicated aspects of our experiment, instead of a certain mass of standing water or anything common... so we don't know... AT ALL. We have reason to believe that it was enough and called it a day."

This is kook methodology. There is no reason to have structured the experiment in this way, except to make an implausible claim garner the interest of folks like yourself, preferably with a big investment budget.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A real scientist would not be so dismissive of what Rossi has done until he knows what Rossi's little black frequency box is and does. Till that point its all speculation except for the measurement of the energy released and the energy that went in.

Pretty simple.

I don't think that a real scientist can conclude that anything spectacular has happened at all. The experiment was not set up to demonstrate that anything definitive had even transpired.

Nothing definitive? X amount of electricity went in, and 3X came out, the last 2X of which was with almost no input at all for nearly 4 hours.

Maybe you have a different definition of definitive than I do.

How much fuel was used?

A fractional amount of Nickel and some hydrogen.

"Barely any... about *a gram* of hydrogen... at an undisclosed pressure.

And that would produce, in a chemical reaction, 3.5 kW?

Couldn't account for the catylist.. I do know we found some of the nuclear byproducts that we anticipated... although we didn't take any time to calc ratios or isolate for contaminants... we still haven't."

The observers could in fact account for all this except for the catalyst, which is a proprietary product waiting for patents. Rossi didnt let anyone inspect it; OMG, it must be fraud! /sarcasm

Well, how much energy was produced? "We used a 'flux' as one of the most complicated aspects of our experiment, instead of a certain mass of standing water or anything common... so we don't know... AT ALL. We have reason to believe that it was enough and called it a day."

But they do know how much energy was produced.

This is kook methodology.

Well, that is not a surprizing conclusion given the simple fact that you seem to come to the table with your mind already made up and have not even bothered to read ANYTHING about what happened on Oct 6th.

You expect kookery and wow, you see kookery! Go figure.

There is no reason to have structured the experiment in this way, except to make an implausible claim garner the interest of folks like yourself, preferably with a big investment budget.

So how would YOU have set it up, without requiring Rossi to reveal his proprietary invention?


And what is so implausible about his claim? You KNOW that there cannot be any other methods for obtaining fusion without requiring high temperatures and pressures?

How do you know that?

You dont, but for whatever reason, you prefer to not wait for the final demonstration (going online with a 1 MW unit) and would instead dismiss what DARPA and NASA scientists have called a very promising new technology.

Why is that?

 

[Money]

I know over-unity folks like to claim that there's this wall of close-mindedness, but if you half-ass that's what you should expect. What if science was based on excitement instead of standardization? This is the world which you are operating in. You should specify moles to determine the hydrogen fuel contribution, otherwise you don't know. Simple... take some measurements, account for well-regulated pressure into the system, do some math... undergrad shit.
They didn't measure the power input, they used a heater claiming operating wattages, turned it down, not off, then declared the show was over because it was blowing steam for *long enough*.

Why let the water undergo enthalpy if you are going to have a shot at determining the energy entailed... particularly in a flux (powered (pumped) flux?... or was this also not remotely standardized)?

If you can picture a scientific community with entrenched close-mindedness and some kind of disdain for amateur(?) science, endeavor to picture an enclave of witch-doctors who have been claiming supernatural alchemy well before modern science. This is the way David Copperfield sets up his 'experiments'. Why not distance one's experiment from a trick? <---- this is what experimental science is... vacuums, certainty, isolation, projections and outcomes. It is not merely awe. Science 'covers itself' from looking like slight of hand, so I question, 'why, other than for your adoration, would any 'inventor' make any claims on the basis of the above experiment?'

 

[Old Rocks]

First rule in science is skepticism. You must prove what you state in an open way. Prove it in a manner in which the experiment or observation can be repeated. A 'black box' demonstration does not qualify. And certainly would not induce me to put any money at all into the project.

 

[flacaltenn]

Extracting electrical energy from metals destructively doesn't need a press conference. It's called a primary battery. About $.35 at WalMart. In fact if we tally up all the Zn and Mn in the world and propose to make a lot of them --- it would also look like an impressive percentage of annual oil supply. No "nuclear" chemistry required. We don't really know MORE than that -- do we?

Hmmm

Nickel ---- check
Hydrogen --- check
Undisclosed Metal (platinum) for 2nd electrode -- check

Think that was the solar charged power source for Voyager wasn't it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Nobody wishes for a cheap source of energy more than I do. Especially one that is scalable to the level of single family homes. But wishing does not create such a source, all it creates is the mental climate in which scam artists work in.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Extracting electrical energy from metals destructively doesn't need a press conference. It's called a primary battery. About $.35 at WalMart. In fact if we tally up all the Zn and Mn in the world and propose to make a lot of them --- it would also look like an impressive percentage of annual oil supply. No "nuclear" chemistry required. We don't really know MORE than that -- do we?

Hmmm

Nickel ---- check
Hydrogen --- check
Undisclosed Metal (platinum) for 2nd electrode -- check

Think that was the solar charged power source for Voyager wasn't it?

So put all that in a one foot cube box in any mix you want, and will it produce 3.5 kW for nearly 4 hours?

Nah, didnt think so.

 

[JimBowie1958]

First rule in science is skepticism. You must prove what you state in an open way. Prove it in a manner in which the experiment or observation can be repeated. A 'black box' demonstration does not qualify. And certainly would not induce me to put any money at all into the project.

Which is why it was not science, and no one is saying it is a strict scientific experiment, but only a demonstration of what his units can do. The guy is a businessman, not a scientist.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I know over-unity folks like to claim that there's this wall of close-mindedness, but if you half-ass that's what you should expect. What if science was based on excitement instead of standardization? This is the world which you are operating in. You should specify moles to determine the hydrogen fuel contribution, otherwise you don't know. Simple... take some measurements, account for well-regulated pressure into the system, do some math... undergrad shit.
They didn't measure the power input, they used a heater claiming operating wattages, turned it down, not off, then declared the show was over because it was blowing steam for *long enough*.

Why let the water undergo enthalpy if you are going to have a shot at determining the energy entailed... particularly in a flux (powered (pumped) flux?... or was this also not remotely standardized)?

If you can picture a scientific community with entrenched close-mindedness and some kind of disdain for amateur(?) science, endeavor to picture an enclave of witch-doctors who have been claiming supernatural alchemy well before modern science. This is the way David Copperfield sets up his 'experiments'. Why not distance one's experiment from a trick? <---- this is what experimental science is... vacuums, certainty, isolation, projections and outcomes. It is not merely awe. Science 'covers itself' from looking like slight of hand, so I question, 'why, other than for your adoration, would any 'inventor' make any claims on the basis of the above experiment?'

This demonstration was not science, but engineering.

He was saying, 'look how this makes enrgy. Dont know how, but it does.' But the presence of radiation and the production of copper and iron in the previously pure Nickel does suggest it was a nuclear reaction of some sort.

He is much like other businessmen/inventors for whom the science underlying the discovery is a small matter somenone else can get to later.

Meanwhile, I am going to wait and see if he puts a MW unit online and how long it runs.

Wont cost me a dime.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Forbes linked article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/


Cheap power: An overnight revolution

It is in this netherworld of physics that Rossi's system has appeared and, no surprise, along with it, a three-ring circus of media, science and speculation. At the center of the show is the E-Cat device which has been demonstrated a number of times and appears to be very simple.

One of the demonstration attendees, Bologna physics professor Giuseppe Levi, described as "an expert on nuclear physics, energy physics and sub-nuclear physics," has publicly defended Rossi and Focardi as well as the project.

There's now quite a furor over how the E-Cat might really work (or not), with some critics predicting that eventually the system will not perform as claimed and accusing the inventors of being deluded, or worse, frauds.

Explanation of how the E-Cat might work.
How can 30% of nickel in Rossi&rsquo;s reactor be transmuted into copper? « Journal of Nuclear Physics

Nebraska Engineer

From the Forbes article:

If this device works as claimed, the world will change and not just a little but hugely and at every level of how we&#8217;re organized, how we make stuff, how we travel, and how wealth is distributed. And those changes won&#8217;t just impact the US or the Western hemisphere; they well transform the entire world because incredibly cheap energy is the ultimate game changer.

CONCLUSIONS TO DATE:

In regard to the question of whether the &#8220;device works as claimed&#8221;, there have been a couple of reviews of the data recorded by NyTeknik on the Oct 6 test. A couple of the most important summaries:

Jed Rothwell, referring to e-cat&#8217;s self-sustaining mode provided this response to an unsatisfied skeptic on the vortex-l@eskimo.com mail list:

When the power went off, the reactor was boiling inside and the surface was
around 80 deg C.

Nearly 4 hours later, the reactor was still boiling inside. The surface was
still 80 deg C. &#8230; This was after 2.4 tons of cooling water went through the heat exchanger.

Deal with that! Explain it.

Bob Higgins of Motorola Solutions:
[Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

I would agree with everyone else that there was much that could have been improved the experiment, but the real point now it to understand the data we have and determine what information that can be derived from it with confidence.
It is interesting now how the skeptical criticism on the net seems to be switching from “doesn’t work at all” to “doesn’t work with acceptable commercial COP”. Are the skeptics now convinced there was large scale excess energy? In and of itself, this is a physics shattering breakthrough. It is clear from the data that the COP would have been much higher if the test had been run for a longer period. I am personally excited by the results and data from the experiment.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Some recent comments from a neutral physicist who has followed this issue:

Nebraska Engineer on E-cat
ECATS for sale and other LENR investigations at Nebraska Engineer

Non-Rossie LENR devices being developed
LENR / Cold Fusion &#8211; OK, Who DOESN&#8217;T have it working? Is Walmart selling one yet? at Nebraska Engineer

Regarding the claim that Rossi only has a fake degree from a diploma mill:
Rossi degree from U Milan, graduated cum laude in Philosophy of Science
and Engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)

And while the initial blog post on this thread is a bit quick to judge, the discussion among his regular readers is very informational.
Andrea Rossi and the magic coffee pot reactor | Watts Up With That?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ok, what I see is Rossi and others making claims. Now, they have stated that they have sold one of the machines, and have orders for 13 more. If this is not a scam, we will soon be able to apply the old Buick motto to this whole thing. "Ask the man that owns one".

If the answer is positive, then it looks like the whole world is going to undergo a rather rapid change.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ok, what I see is Rossi and others making claims. Now, they have stated that they have sold one of the machines, and have orders for 13 more. If this is not a scam, we will soon be able to apply the old Buick motto to this whole thing. "Ask the man that owns one".

If the answer is positive, then it looks like the whole world is going to undergo a rather rapid change.

If it is a scam, I dont see whereRossi is taking money to aid in his research or taking pre-orders, etc.

He is selling his machines using escrow accounts that the buyer can keep the money in till the buyer is satisfied with the machine. The buyer has to release the funds to Rossi only after he has seen the thing work under the scrutiny of their own experts.

But I agree; the world is going to experience a very rapid change if this is real, and my bet is that it is real since it has been replicated by three other groups and one more claims to be able to. Dr Miles of U Illinois is publishing a paper with his results and they are all affirmative of the potential for LENR.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Cold fusion debate heats up after latest demo - CBS News

Life's Little Mysteries reported on the E-Cat machine back in April, when Rossi and fellow physicist Sergio Focardi successfully demonstrated the device for a group of Swedish physicists. At the time, we explained that the Italian physicists are two of a handful of researchers around the world who have kept the cold fusion fire burning. These cold fusion devotees believe that there is a little-understood physical process occurring in their machines that produces a safe, clean and endlessly renewable form of energy. [5 Everyday Things that Are Radioactive]

The physicists who were invited to the demonstration in April gave the E-Cat a solid thumbs-up. It produced too much excess heat to have been originating from a chemical process, they wrote in their report, adding that, "The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production."

In the intervening months, Rossi has built a large version of his device that combines many smaller cold fusion modules. At the demo in October, after an initial energy input of 400 watts into each module, each one then produced a sustained, continuous output of 10 kilowatts (470 kW altogether) for three to four hours.

Rossi has not published any details about the inner workings of the E-Cat because the device is not patent-protected, but other cold fusion researchers have theories as to how the process works. Peter Hagelstein, an MIT professor of electrical engineering and computer science and one of the most mainstream proponents of cold fusion research, thinks the process may involve vibrational energy in the metal's lattice driving nuclear transitions that lead to fusion.

There are several close connections between the E-Cat and other recent experimental results, Hagelstein said, noting that the excess power seems to respond to lattice spacing in both experiments, vacancies within the lattice (e.g., spots where the nickel atoms are missing) seem to be important in both, the excess power seems to increase with operating temperature in relevant operating regimes and other connections.

"There is not sufficient reliable information available about the E-cat for a rational opinion to be made yet, in my view," Hagelstein told Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site to LiveScience. But because of these consistencies, "I am of the view that Rossi's claims probably should be taken seriously until such time as we have sufficient information that provides confirmation or refutation."

I would agree with the professor from MIT.