New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

[Mn_Mark]

The long-awaited report of the scientists testing Andrea Rossi's 'E-Cat' device has been released today.

Here is a link to a story about it, including a link to the report:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08...port-released/

Here is the abstract of the report:

New results are presented from an extended experimental investigation of anomalous heat production in a special type of
reactor tube operating at high temperatures. The reactor, named E-Cat, is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded
nickel powder plus some additives, mainly Lithium. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils around the
reactor tube. Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging
cameras. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer.
Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260 ºC in the
first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat
yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained
during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known
chemical sources in the small reactor volume.
A sample of the fuel was carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before the run and after the run, using
several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was
found to agree with the natural composition before the run, while after the run it was found to have changed substantially.
Nuclear reactions are therefore indicated to be present in the run process, which however is hard to reconcile with the fact that no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run.

It appears the device is for real. This seems to confirm we are on the cusp of a revolution in world energy, and thus a revolution in civilization (if that's not being too hyperbolic).

[Fiat Currency]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

It appears the device is for real. This seems to confirm we are on the cusp of a revolution in world energy, and thus a revolution in civilization (if that's not being too hyperbolic).

Thanks for posting this. Most interesting. If this is reconfirmed by others (etc) and advances to the next phase - some companies could be getting a hard lesson in Schumpeterian economics.

[radon]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

At least he's no longer calming to produce copper. A year or so ago it was reduced to very little copper, now it is a shift in the ratio of Ni isotopes as described by that "paper" in the link. No real details, just a circus show with eye witnesses saying they are convinced. All invented by a known snake-oil salesmen with a history of fraud.Barnum would be pleased, but why stop there? Here is a link to some better ones: http://www.jir.com/

[LorenS]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

The isotopes shift of the fuel is interesting. The test procedure seems overly error prone to me and I cannot understand why the dummy device could not be driven with as much energy as the fuel charged device. It should be the other way around. The dummy device won't generate any extra heat, so it should be able to take much more energy than the device that is generating energy.

BTW: If I wanted to sneak energy past a watt meter I would use a proprietary waveform. I just don't see this test being well controlled for either the energy input or the energy radiated out.

[DSpencer]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

I wish there was a way to make money by shorting this. So many believers and yet year after year there is nothing but more claims that it works without viable products to back it up.

[Chris Coles]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

I wish there was a way to make money by shorting this. So many believers and yet year after year there is nothing but more claims that it works without viable products to back it up.

Then why not get iTulipers together to run their own tests under agreed conditions?

[DSpencer]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

Then why not get iTulipers together to run their own tests under agreed conditions?

I was thinking more along the lines of: Everyone who is convinced this is real can send me a dollar. When they drive their e-cat powered car to my house, I will give them back two.

Getting together and trying to build one has several flaws:

1. If the skeptics are right, all that will be accomplished is losing time and money.
2. Most of the people who would be qualified to attempt it (a group which does not include me) seem to be on the skeptic side.
3. I'm not sure if sufficient information on how to build it is even public. And it sort of feels like getting together to test a perpetual motion machine.

My big issue with the believers in this case is that I read comments about how science has been wrong before and nobody believed scientist X when they made important discovery Y. That is all fine and well, but to me that's like saying that I should be trying every brand of snake oil I can find, because how else will I know that they don't work?

[Mn_Mark]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

I was thinking more along the lines of: Everyone who is convinced this is real can send me a dollar. When they drive their e-cat powered car to my house, I will give them back two.

So you're sure this is a hoax, but all you're willing to offer are even odds? Why not 10,000-1?

And not for production of an E-Cat-powered car. Just production of an actual E-Cat-powered energy device, that goes on the market and sells and is confirmed as the real thing.

Agree to that and I'll send you a buck.

[jiimbergin]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

So you're sure this is a hoax, but all you're willing to offer are even odds? Why not 10,000-1?

And not for production of an E-Cat-powered car. Just production of an actual E-Cat-powered energy device, that goes on the market and sells and is confirmed as the real thing.

Agree to that and I'll send you a buck.

I second that!

[nedtheguy]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

My big issue with the believers in this case is that I read comments about how science has been wrong before and nobody believed scientist X when they made important discovery Y.

It happens so often, they gave it a name: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

[Southernguy]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

It happens so often, they gave it a name: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

Had never heard of it (Galileo gambit) before. Thanks for the link.

[radon]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

Then why not get iTulipers together to run their own tests under agreed conditions?

If it works I'll be one of the first to buy one.

That being said, why shouldn't we skeptical? He is making an outrageous claim and won't publish details so it cannot be independently verified. This should be a huge red flag for anyone. That, combined with his history of ripping off a municipality with petroldragon should us pause as to the veracity of his claims. Sure, he invited a few people over to measure a black box, but until someone else reproduces his results the smart thing to do is not to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

This leads us to the problem of convincing an experimentalist that building and testing an e-cat is worthwhile. After being burned a few times a their reluctance is understandable. You see, they have seen enough of this sort of thing to know how it plays out.

My suspicion is that this has everything in common with his previous invention: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...=GetTRDoc.pdf1

1) it claimed something miraculous - in this case a huge increase in efficiency
2) there were all sorts of implementation problems blamed on everything from training issues to manufacturing flaws
3) it did not work

The heroic amount of ass covering in section 4 "Lessons learned" is especially comic. Nobody wants to admit they were ripped off. This is what gives charlatans the ability to ply their trade.

[Chris Coles]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

If it works I'll be one of the first to buy one.

That being said, why shouldn't we skeptical? He is making an outrageous claim and won't publish details so it cannot be independently verified. This should be a huge red flag for anyone. That, combined with his history of ripping off a municipality with petroldragon should us pause as to the veracity of his claims. Sure, he invited a few people over to measure a black box, but until someone else reproduces his results the smart thing to do is not to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

This leads us to the problem of convincing an experimentalist that building and testing an e-cat is worthwhile. After being burned a few times a their reluctance is understandable. You see, they have seen enough of this sort of thing to know how it plays out.

My suspicion is that this has everything in common with his previous invention: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...=GetTRDoc.pdf1

1) it claimed something miraculous - in this case a huge increase in efficiency
2) there were all sorts of implementation problems blamed on everything from training issues to manufacturing flaws
3) it did not work

The heroic amount of ass covering in section 4 "Lessons learned" is especially comic. Nobody wants to admit they were ripped off. This is what gives charlatans the ability to ply their trade.

From one viewpoint, your scepticism is admirable; however, I take an opposite view for a number of reasons. Yes, it is true, the demonstrations seem to be deeply flawed, but is it at all possible that he thinks he is on to something but unable to fully implement the result he seeks and as such, is constantly setting up demonstrations to raise funding, rather than show a final result? That until he succeeds in finalising his own design, he dare not show where he has yet to finalise his own, for fear that another will then hold the rights to the final, successful design?

Yes, that statement makes me sound as though I am hooked, line and sinker; I am most certainly not.

We are all of us faced with a desperate need to find a new source of energy; yet, as here, any new and admittedly unconventional concept is deeply suspect. That is a quite natural aspect of the human mind, to not accept a new idea without seeing proof that it does work. In which case, as I see it, we need to create a new group that takes every off the wall idea and check each and every one out. That will require a quite different set up to a conventional research laboratory. The best example I can think of being the original AT&T lab where the remit was that all conventional scientists could work on whatever they wished but with one proviso, their door had to be open to look at anything; that they were not permitted to refuse to look at other thinking stemming from the rest of the team.

On my part, I am stuck hard between a rock and a hard place, having written, (and continuing to write), a book about gravity that no one will review and as such, cannot be funded; where every scientist is deeply confronted by my new thinking. Rather than keep shoving my ideas into the face of others, I have instead changed direction to concentrate upon my new thinking about job creation and have made great progress with The Capital Spillway Trust now a part of the OECD Long Term Investment initiative.

Yet, in the background, I believe that there must be at least one way forward into new energy generation; mine being a better understanding of the permanent magnet at the molecular level.

All of you have to understand that the only way forward is to look deeply at such new thinking. Constantly saying that it is not possible, etc, tells us nothing; solves no problems, produces no answers; whatever!

For the record, during the 1980's, I managed the research that proved the usefulness of PAG fluids, (synthetic oils), as quenchants, lubricants for very large refrigeration compressors, and as textile lubricants. I was forced to abandon what had become a business on the verge of great things because in 1989 the UK economy crashed and my bank pulled my overdraft; leaving me in the most desperate struggle to survive financially. Which is why, ever since, I have kept to my point of view that the underlying problem with new thinking is that we do not have any means to invest equity capital on free enterprise terms into new, very small businesses, such as that which I had then created.

Cold Fusion is an excellent example. Everyone wants to see instant profit before investing; no one wants to invest beforehand. My argument is that we have to find a way past that "negative mindset" road block.

Until we do so, new thinking will remain unresearched and thus never fully implemented and accepted..

[DSpencer]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

...

Cold Fusion is an excellent example. Everyone wants to see instant profit before investing; no one wants to invest beforehand. My argument is that we have to find a way past that "negative mindset" road block.

Until we do so, new thinking will remain unresearched and thus never fully implemented and accepted..

Chris,

Let's be realistic here for a moment:

1. No reasonable investor expects "instant profit before investing".
2. There is an enormous amount of investing done "beforehand".
3. Specifically, there is a huge investment pool for shoot the moon ideas that have a low probability of making money, but a small chance of making a lot of money.

You have to remember the basic principle of economics: resources are scarce and finite. We can choose to invest in unproven claims that seem to violate known laws of physics made by people with a shady past, but to do so we must reduce investment in other areas which are more likely to produce results.

The idea that Rossi has to proceed this way because otherwise his idea will be stolen and he won't profit is absurd. He has been working on this for years. If it's really true and this is the next energy revolution, there are so many ways for him to make money it's not worth listing. He's 64 years old. He's really holding back and depriving the world of his amazing invention and depriving himself of the recognition and fame so that one day he can be an 80 year old billionaire?

Read his wikipedia page! He is peddling Grade A Snake Oil, version 3.0!

All this has been said and this thread is giving me deja vu.

[ASH]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

All this has been said and this thread is giving me deja vu.

+1

The thing that would be hard to spoof with a sleight-of-hand is conjuring up radiation to register on Bianchini's instruments. But Bianchini didn't observe any extra radiation evolved by the reactor during its operation, or any extra activity in the "fuel" following its "transmutation". On the other hand, I can purchase ⁶²Ni in 99% isotopic purity (the concentration measured by the astonishingly gullible independent scientists) from various vendors who serve the scientific community. Do none of the scientists who are supposedly scrutinizing the experiment recognize a catalog chemical product when they see it? Why would a naturally-occurring mixture of nickel isotopes (chiefly ⁵⁸Ni and ⁶⁰Ni) happen to transmute into exactly 99% pure ⁶²Ni? Perhaps because 99% purity is a common standard for laboratory reagents and material samples? And even if some heretofore unknown physics permits you to add neutrons to ⁵⁸Ni and ⁶⁰Ni in a low-temperature reaction, those neutrons are coming from the nuclei of other elements present in the fuel mixture, and these nuclear reactions are going to spit out radiation and leave behind some concentration of activated nuclei. Indeed, if you're generating heat from nuclear transformations of this sort, that heat starts out as ionizing radiation and the kinetic energy of fission fragments. But it's hard to purchase radioactive isotope samples of any substantial activity, and it's hard to surreptitiously generate fluxes of neutrons and gamma-rays for some hapless Italian scientist to measure with his instruments. However, it probably is pretty easy to swap out "fuel" samples over the course of a 32-day experimental run.

As far as I'm concerned, someone is clearly trying to hint at nuclear reactions by demonstrating evidence of nuclear transmutation, but they are using industrially refined isotope samples to do it. This isn't the case of someone who is convinced they have something real, trying to prove that it is... this is intentional fraud.