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

The problem is Yampa that many of these things are assumptions. Scientific testing is not about deflection and diversion. True scientific testing is unbiased and is all encompassing and controlling. That is, variables are to be understood and controlled, all aspects of an experiment are open and not influenced from exterior factors (outside those understood variables). A point aside is that when an experiment produces results, and is open about how the measurements are taken, how their instrument works, and opens up data sets for people to look at... people give them a hard time still accepting what they say. Here we have a group and doesn't open up anything, doesn't allow outsiders to touch or do anything independent of the 'owner' and is only there to sign a bit of paper at the end, and yet ask the scientific community to take them serious. Dont you see the issue with this?

Testing which basically amounts to a user dropping off a device, setting it up with all of their own equipment, being present at the beginning and end, probably throughout parts of it too, then taking it away afterwards is not what qualifies as open scientific testing.

It reminds me of the device reported about 4 months ago on ATS that could produce hydrogen from water, only requiring 24 volts, and can run stand alone for a few days. Showed engineers the device worked too... except if you read the notes, the engineers who witnessed the testing said the device was abnormally heavy and un-eavenly loaded. And during no part were they able to take any of the panels off to see inside. Even suggested by them it wouldn't be a surprise if the device contained a compressed gas bottle of hydrogen and rudimentary system for opening a regulator that did only require 24 volts (totally legit actually because solenoids do typically come in 24 volt or regular mains voltage coil sizes)

The same sort of report was produced from that group too. Defenders of it made claims that it is impossible that it was a gas cylinder because its impossible to get them with the volume and composition observed... not only is that not true but it is most definitely the case that the device was a massive scam and for the most part was just a cylinder, a container for the water to go into and some simple control electronics.


While i am sure the E-Cat is dressed up to be more complicated, you should also be aware that the testing presented has problems, and not mentioning any names or any associations to be dubious. The described event and process was performed in a unscientific manner and it is difficult for anyone with an experimentalist background to accept the results.

a reply to: yampawhich part of te concept of :

we expect independant test reports to be published by the alledged independent testers

do you fail to grasp ?????

there is no credible evidence who actually wrote the report currently on offer -

a reply to: yampa

As ever, you have to take Rossi and his pals at their word. This is orthogonal to the idea of independent testing. If me and my buddies publish a report that claims my microwave produces more power than it takes in, it doesn't matter how fancy the report looks, it doesn't matter if they've got all the cute superscript numbers in brackets for references and all the proper looking layout, the claims are not independently verified.

Here's a pretty decent breakdown of the methodological flaws of the so-called independent test by theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel:

medium.com...

This part is of particular poignancy regarding Rossi's defenders:

Some of you will read this and find fault with something I’ve said, I’m sure. But the onus is not on me to prove fraud; the onus is on the device and those performing the test to rule out that fraud is happening. And that is clearly not the case. When the day comes when clean, abundant energy is available, I will happily welcome it. But going all the way back to Maurer’s quote at the very beginning of the piece, I don’t want any of you to be the “mark”, fleeced out of your money by a charlatan, and so in the absence of anyone else exposing Rossi, I will stand up as “the one to knock ‘em”, meaning I will hold up the torch of what scrupulous science would look like, and challenge the participants to live up to it.

a reply to: GetHyped
That's a good writeup, thanks for posting it.

That circuit diagram is clever and would definitely be capable of fooling the measurement equipment used though it shows a one phase setup and it would have to be adapted for a three phase setup, but that could easily be done.

If an independent team had complete control over the device being tested, I think the self-powered requirement would be overkill and adds a lot of variables to the experiment like the efficiency converting the heat output to the needed inputs.

But given that Rossi won't permit independent examination of the device, I think that asking for it to be self powered is probably reasonable. After all if it puts out 3.2 to 3.6 times as much power as it consumes as stated in the latest report, even a relatively inefficient power conversion device for the self-powering would still work, and it would be a lot more convincing to me.

This question comes up on Bedini's devices also, that if output is greater than input, why can't it be self-powered?

The fact that investors allegedly haven't demanded such a rigorous, self-powered demonstration is reminiscent of the Blacklight Power investors who are not well-equipped to assess the scientific validity of their investments, and have invested millions in what seems to the scientific community to be a pretty obvious fraud.

originally posted by: JimTSpock This could change the world and be a new era in energy production.

Rossis e cat aint gonna produce a new era in energy production, in a million years. Even if it works as claimed, you get low quality heat to heat swimming pools. And the demand for heated swimming pools isn't that great.
Rossi would be better off to open some pizzeria or something.
I don't think there is any venture capitalist to buy into rossis scam. I he has already found one, then that venture capitalist may be Yampa.

The whole e cat saga may be a poor attempt as psy ops. Lol

originally posted by: ignorant_ape

there is no credible evidence who actually wrote the report currently on offer -

What does that mean? You are saying that you have no credible evidence that Giuseppe Levi, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér and Hanno Essén authored this paper? You mean, aside from their names written on the front of the paper and their roles in the experiment mentioned throughout?

What you are really saying is that you think these men are liars. Just like you've said all along. And you've said it without evidence or care that you might be slandering people.

Just like this joker:

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: yampa

As ever, you have to take Rossi and his pals at their word.

Again insinuating that "Rossi's pals" (5 members of accredited academic insitutions) might be involved in some kind of conspiracy to defraud readers. No actual crique of the paper from you, just straight in with the ad homs based on no evidence whatsoever.

This paper does not "independently verify" Rossi's supposed reactor. No intelligent person would claim that this paper proves that the ecat is genuine. No one has claimed that the ecat is now proven.

This was a controlled test of a unpatented, 'black box' unit to establish whether you could make the reactor appear like it is generating anomalous, excess energy for a long period of time without involvement from Rossi.

Did the paper appear to show that? Yes. So should a forum like this be attempting to establish how that 'trick' was done? Yes. Is that what we're seeing in this thread? People deciphering the trick? No. What we see is flak, slander and misdirection.

originally posted by: yampa

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?

Because I am interested in the outcome - if it is real then this would be THE major advance in energy for the last 5000 years - why would I not have an interest in that??

no I don't have any "scientific critique" - I have a human interest - something you seem unable to comprehend. Are you a Turing test??

a reply to: yampa

Firstly, on page 2 of the report they state:

Since we required that our measurements be carried out in an independent laboratory with our own equipment, the experiment was purposely set-up and hosted within an industrial establishment which was not in any way connected with Andrea Rossi’s businesses or those of his partners. The test was thus performed in Barbengo (Lugano), Switzerland, in a laboratory placed at our disposal by Officine Ghidoni SA.

They're claiming it is independent verification. It is not. Have you even read the report?

Secondly, it was not a controlled test. There are uncontrolled variables that cannot rule out fraudulent behaviour. No competent scientists would fail to address these variables, ESPECIALLY the second time in a row.

Thirdly, it is not our job to prove fraud. It is Rossi's job to rule out fraud. That's the whole point of an independent test. Yet again, Rossi and his pals have failed to do so, do to either incompetence or dishonesty.

Are you Rossi, by any chance?

From the medium.com article: medium.com...

Under these circumstances, here’s the full set of what I’d need to be convinced that we had a working device that was generating energy through a low-energy nuclear fusion process:

Nuclear fusion?

Does this paper claim that what is going on in the ecat is nuclear fusion? At no point does it say that. Whether you think the process fits the idea of nuclear fusion or not is irrelevant to the anomalous heat output observed. Yet Ethan Siegel continuously talks about fusion and bases his entire analysis on that premise. The purpose of the paper is an attempt to prove 2000W of excess energy, not that fusion is taking place.

from the paper:

However, as discussed above, it is of course very hard to comprehend how these fusion processes can take place in the fuel compound at low energies. Presently we should therefore restrict ourselves to merely state that an isotope shift has occurred in Lithium and Nickel.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: GetHyped
That's a good writeup, thanks for posting it.

That circuit diagram is clever and would definitely be capable of fooling the measurement equipment used though it shows a one phase setup and it would have to be adapted for a three phase setup, but that could easily be done.

It's clever to show a circuit which doesn't bear any relationship to the circuit used in the experiment? If Ethan Siegel had showed us with his own diagram how he thought the 3 phase electrical analyzers (one on the input, one on output) were fooled - that would have been smart. Posting something about fake wires in a different type of circuit (when, as far as we know, there were only three power inputs and outputs and all of the wires going into the reactor were visible to the naked eye while passing through wide open ceramic tubes) is not smart. It's misdirection.

From the paper:

The two PCEs were inserted one upstream and one downstream of the control unit: the first allowed us to measure the current, voltage and power supplied to the system by the power mains; the second measured these same quantities as input to the reactor. Readings were consistent, showing the same current waveform; furthermore, they enabled us to measure the power consumption of the control system, which, at full capacity, was seen to be the same as the nominal value declared by the manufacturer.

You need to show how these 3 lines were doctored:

Arbitrageur
But given that Rossi won't permit independent examination of the device, I think that asking for it to be self powered is probably reasonable. After all if it puts out 3.2 to 3.6 times as much power as it consumes as stated in the latest report, even a relatively inefficient power conversion device for the self-powering would still work, and it would be a lot more convincing to me.

If Rossi has no control over the power supply given to him by the third-party building, and if we only have 3 cables coming from that power supply and those lines are monitored for load - then what does having the unit "self powering" add to the experiment?

As for Ethan's comments about the calorimetry - these are the exact type of comments you always see in these hit pieces. They basically amount to "I would have done it a different way", but they never spare more than a couple of lines to say what is wrong with the model used by the scientists who wrote the paper. The calorimetry model used to produce the 2300W is 10 full pages long. It is 10 pages of data and diagrams, calculations and justifications. Yet people like Ethan (very disrespectfully) completely ignore the model presented. Critiquing a 10 page calorimetry model can not be done in a couple of sentences. Ethan has provided no insight here at all. If you are claiming that the calorimetry is flawed to the extent that it misrepresents 2300W of continuous output at 1400c for 32 days, you better be able to point out where that flaw is?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: yampa

Firstly, on page 2 of the report they state:

Since we required that our measurements be carried out in an independent laboratory with our own equipment, the experiment was purposely set-up and hosted within an industrial establishment which was not in any way connected with Andrea Rossi’s businesses or those of his partners. The test was thus performed in Barbengo (Lugano), Switzerland, in a laboratory placed at our disposal by Officine Ghidoni SA.

They're claiming it is independent verification. It is not. Have you even read the report?

Secondly, it was not a controlled test. There are uncontrolled variables that cannot rule out fraudulent behaviour. No competent scientists would fail to address these variables, ESPECIALLY the second time in a row.

Thirdly, it is not our job to prove fraud. It is Rossi's job to rule out fraud. That's the whole point of an independent test. Yet again, Rossi and his pals have failed to do so, do to either incompetence or dishonesty.

Are you Rossi, by any chance?

Why do bores like you always hide behind semantics instead of presenting facts, data and technical analysis?

I don't care who is using 'independent' in what way. The question is - did Rossi or someone acting on his behalf have access to the provided power supply for the building? We don't know for sure. What we know is that the paper is claiming that the power supply and room where the experiment took place was in a 3rd party building, in Switzerland, which had no connection with Rossi or his partners and that he had no access for 32 days.

Sure, those people could be lying, but we don't have evidence of that. You know what it's called when you accuse people of lying without evidence?

Have you even read the report?

Are you joking bro? I've already referenced many technical things about the experiment, things that could not be known without reading it. You are the one who is unable to say anything specific about the scientific parameters of the experiment itself.

Yet again, Rossi and his pals have failed to do so, do to either incompetence or dishonesty.

Are you Rossi, by any chance?

pathetic..

originally posted by: ErosA433


Testing which basically amounts to a user dropping off a device, setting it up with all of their own equipment, being present at the beginning and end, probably throughout parts of it too, then taking it away afterwards is not what qualifies as open scientific testing.

While i am sure the E-Cat is dressed up to be more complicated, you should also be aware that the testing presented has problems, and not mentioning any names or any associations to be dubious. The described event and process was performed in a unscientific manner and it is difficult for anyone with an experimentalist background to accept the results.

Ok, that's wrong. 9 people starred factually incorrect information.. what does that tell you?

"[Rossi was] probably [present] throughout parts of it too" - No, Rossi was supposedly not there for 32 days. Did you read the paper?

"setting it up with all of their own equipment" - No, all the measurement equipment was provided by the people who wrote the paper, and set up by them, and they had exclusive access to the data and measurements for the whole experiment. You didn't read the paper, did you?

"testing presented has problems, and not mentioning any names or any associations to be dubious." Please, enlighten us with your technical analysis of the paper. Tell us what was scientifically wrong with the procedures performed by the authors?

This was a black box experiment using a secret process - you cannot produce a scientific model about the function of the reactor from that type of experiment. No intelligent person would ever claim you could produce a scientific model of the function of the reactor from that kind of data.

But what you CAN scientifically measure is the amount of heat that was released from an object over the course of 32 days. And that piece of science supposedly produced a continuous 2300W of anomalous energy which needs to be explained.

Why don't you analyse the experiment instead of misrepresenting facts and showboating your ideas about scientific purity?

Lol Lol. Wtf, you guys are really discussing this 32 day test?
Output kw measured as radiation and convection.
Rossi gets better every time.