Rossi’s E-Cat Cold Fusion Reactor Validated by Third-Party Tests

reply to post by ctdannyd


Nickel is today about $5.37 a pound American and the whole point of publishing your data is so the experiment can be repeated.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by ctdannyd
There are trolls every where. Many are watching their energy buddies.

People hav "died" bringing technology like this forward. Just think of the damage to certain pockets if someone found an efficient way to produce power at little to no expense! 😳

rossi is still alive.. what does that tell you?

Originally posted by ctdannyd
There are trolls every where. Many are watching their energy buddies.

People hav "died" bringing technology like this forward. Just think of the damage to certain pockets if someone found an efficient way to produce power at little to no expense!

Why do you put quotes around the word "died"? I don't get your point; are you trying to say they were killed?

If so, is the fact Rossi is still alive a sign that TPTB doesn't consider him a threat because he's hoaxing?

There may be something to cold fusion or LENR, but I don't really find Rossi trustworthy, based on his criminal record, etc.

I saw this, I didn't post it as it's more hot air from Rossi and his camp. The so-called "third party tests" is nothing more than the two Swedes, Focardi, and the University they paid for space and equipment rentals. All the people affiliated, are hardly third party.




The way he operates, this would be like me setting up a corporation and putting my brother as CEO, doing a test for my company claiming it's third party. Brutal...

reply to post by Thill


freaking awesome

reply to post by innersollus

freaking awesome

The heroic gullibility of idiots who think they can repeal the second law of thermodynamics is indeed awesome.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Well back on the fence for me then when it comes to cold fusion .

I have to admit I was a bit excited after finding that article , but You do make a valid argument, together with the analysis of the research pdf, and the fact that it seems Rossi made it only look, like the test was an independent one, pushes me towards the hoax bin for this one ..

Sorry to all the enthusiasts, believe me I would have loved this to me the real deal..

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ctdannyd
There are trolls every where. Many are watching their energy buddies.

People hav "died" bringing technology like this forward. Just think of the damage to certain pockets if someone found an efficient way to produce power at little to no expense!

Why do you put quotes around the word "died"? I don't get your point; are you trying to say they were killed?

If so, is the fact Rossi is still alive a sign that TPTB doesn't consider him a threat because he's hoaxing?

There may be something to cold fusion or LENR, but I don't really find Rossi trustworthy, based on his criminal record, etc.

Arb, you and I have been here since the beginning of Rossi's little venture. Let's omit the fact that he has a criminal record. That he frauded government agencies for cash, that he wreaked havoc on the Italian ecosystem by dumping toxic chemicals he claimed he was "cleaning" into usable fuel. Let's take him and pretend he had a clean cut slate criminally.

What we are left with is:

Someone who got his engineering degree from a diploma mill.

Only scientific background is in philosophy.

He created a "journal" which he tried to pass off as something peer reviewed but it was clearly not, and it listed a dead university professor on it's board of supposed reviewers.

The fact that the only people who are supposedly "objective" that are allowed to "validate" his work, are the two swedes, Focardi and the fat guy. (What's his name again? ) But hardly objective, and they all are directly or indirectly tied to his project.

The fact that he claimed he had an e-cat running for two years producing power for a warehouse. (But no evidence to support that.)

The fact that he wasn't paying his hydro bills at the university, and claiming that the e-cat was only sufficient for heat creation, as nothing was being converted to electricity. Yet, even though this proclamation, the lab was so cold they could see their breadth.

Forget the numerous blogs that were metatagged to scoop up any google result with the tags +fraud +hoax +con +scam, and direct to a pro Rossi blog supporting him and his ecat.

Forget that with all the energy put into marketing, blogs, and in general a large online presence to support his ecat, no basic scientific question were answered by him or his team.

Forget that you, I and others have followed him from the beginning and it stunk to high heaven the entire way through. That all the supposed contracts he had, never came through, or he outright lied about them to begin with.

That through third parties, he was soliciting people for millions of dollars for something he has not been able to demonstrate as a working device, while all the while, we still have that claim from years ago about the magical ecat which supposedly powered the factory for years.

Yeah, I don't know.

Unless Rossi hooks an ecat up to some high electrical demanding device in the middle of nowhere, preferably in the shade where no solar power could be harnessed in secret, where no secret power lines could be run to, where no hidden fuels of any kind, suppose he hooked up some high demanding electrical gadget, left it running and it ran for months and months... I might change my opinion on him.


It's been awhile since Rossi made waves. To be honest, I thought we were done all this. Most of all the good stuff I don't even remember anymore it's been so long. I'd have to go through old threads of mine.

Rossi was the reason I joined the site again actually.

I had an old account hadn't used in so long, didn't even remember the password. Rossi came up, I watched it on a number of forums, but I thought I'd join to shed light on what I found elsewhere. Been a twisty road since than.

I guess I should thank him for making ATS a part of my life again?

Originally posted by Thill
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Well back on the fence for me then when it comes to cold fusion .

I have to admit I was a bit excited after finding that article , but You do make a valid argument, together with the analysis of the research pdf, and the fact that it seems Rossi made it only look, like the test was an independent one, pushes me towards the hoax bin for this one ..

Sorry to all the enthusiasts, believe me I would have loved this to me the real deal..

Do an ATS search "Boncho" and "Rossi"

A large number of threads will pop up. Click on my username, and "posts in thread" option, read my posts. Skip over anything that I didn't source. If you see a highlighted URL link, focus on those posts because all my information is sourced. (even if the sources do not exist anymore, it was all information that was present online at the time.)

That will give you a good picture of Rossi.

As soon as I looked at the paper, and the names involved. Oh man I had a chuckle. It's a who's who of Rossi's lackeys. Or partners. Or whatever the hell you want to call them.


Third party.... As in, this is the third party we will have together after we fab another article/paper.

Originally posted by ctdannyd
There are trolls every where. Many are watching their energy buddies.

People hav "died" bringing technology like this forward. Just think of the damage to certain pockets if someone found an efficient way to produce power at little to no expense! 😳

Yeah, imagine the energy giants paying 50th of a Cent instead of a 10th of a Cent.

Year Nuclear Fossil Steam Hydro-electric
Gas Turbine and Small Scale Nuclear Fossil Steam Hydro-electric
Gas Turbine and Small Scale
2001 8.44 2.47 4.27 3.65 5.02 2.61 2.89 3.33

www.eia.gov...

How much does energy cost?


1 A mill is equal to 1/000 of a U.S. dollar, or 1/10 of one cent. Mills per kilowatthour (kWh) equals dollars per mWh. Divide mills per kWh by 10 to convert to cents per kWh.


I hate to break it to you guys, but energy is produced in mills. 1/10 of One cent, per kWh. That's damn near nothing. Not even a penny. It means you could run your microwave, for ten hours straight. And it only cost the energy companies a penny to do that. They charge you around 8-15 pennies for that though. (if I remember correctly.)

Find a profit margin like that in another industry, I dare you.

It's not that easy.

Energy is already ridiculous profitable, if they found something cheaper, they would simply use that, charge you the same price and boost their margins.

That's how making money works, hate to burst your bubble.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
So many people have been repeatedly saying the inventor is a hoaxer out to make money but right from the start i've always said "how could he ever hope to get away with any cash if its not real?".

In hoaxes the criminal generally doesn't intend to deliver, they intend to request funding for something they know doesn't work. There are legal ways to differentiate, for example whether there is evidence that they knew at the start that their plan was not viable and defrauded people of their money knowingly, or whether they later discovered that their idea was not viable but continued to take money without sharing this new knowledge...

I don't think I can recall any energy device of the last ten years (in relation to what people are inventing) ever actually being delivered to anyone. There are a few I have seen asking for "investors" (read victims).

The fact that this has been verified by Cornell is a massive step. Not only has it thrust this idea into the limelight of credibility, it will now encourage others in the scientific community to sit up, take notice, and develop their own variations. It might not seem like a lot to some, but this is a massive leap that could take this device and process from being in the "fringe" of science to the front cover of every scientific journal around the world within a month.

The new nuclear plasma generator under construction in southern France is a multinational funded research operation which according to best estimates will be operational in seventeen to twenty four years. They claim it will produce ample energy that is safe to people and Earth. What they don't say is that it is cheap energy.
The project will cost more than CERN's particle accelerator located on the Franco-Swiss border. The high tech. generator(s) and components are built in China (go figure) and said to be rolling out the door as i speak.
They also say that this is the future of energy production and utilizes the Physics that fuel the sun.
Again, we see the same mentality of centrally source output coupled with existing infrastructure as a means to supply the masses.
While this is becoming a reality, apparently forces work to constrain research and development in other ares of energy production. Possibly free energy harnessed on a individual basis rather than eliminating the middle men who holds all the cards and profits.
Personally i believe we are on the edge of independence from power mongers. I believe we've had zero point energy for quite some time and i don't give a damn about the foes and"their" future. Furthermore, all instances I've read over the years of people whom strayed from the path of the sheeple and venture into area of sacred science utopia who have been murdered, threatened, destroyed and forgotten has caused me great anger and i feel it's time for all of this to end.
Judging from much of the angst found on ATS, it's obvious I'm not the only one who feels the need to vent and hold others accountable for their criminal behavior. The ire of masses cannot be ignored when the prize is within sight.

Originally posted by Rocker2013
The fact that this has been verified by Cornell is a massive step.

So, you think that's a "fact"? Have you got a source for that? The OP said something like that, but I don't know where he got that, because it's not in his source in the OP. The authors apparently submitted a preprint of their paper to a file host operated by Cornell but many papers get submitted there that have absolutely nothing to do with Cornell's academia. In fact I think you can submit a paper there if you register and give them an e-mail address, but that in no way means they endorse your paper:

arxiv.org...

You must register if you wish to submit or modify a submission to arXiv.

To begin registration, visit the registration form. First, we'll ask for your e-mail address and you'll get to pick a user name and password. It's important that you give us a valid e-mail address (one you can receive e-mail at) because we'll send you an e-mail with a verification code that you'll need in order to complete your registration. Before we verify your e-mail address, we'll also ask you for some personal information such as your name, your institution and which archives you are most likely to submit to.

If anybody with an e-mail address can submit a paper there, then it doesn't mean much that the paper was submitted there, does it?

not needed now..lol

reply to post by Thill


In a nutshell, it means that more energy was created than was used to initiate and maintain the process.
The problem with using hydrogen made from cracking water, of which there is a huge supply, is that it takes so much energy to "make" the hydrogen in the first place that it is not cost effective in the least. The ideal fuel is hydrogen, since the byproduct is water.

reply to post by bbracken677

The ideal fuel is hydrogen, since the byproduct is water.

Only if you use it in a combustive process.

reply to post by Thill


Thank you for this update!
S&F.
Here something, if this could help...
One MegaWatt E-Cat Device Test successful!

Originally posted by boncho

I hate to break it to you guys, but energy is produced in mills. 1/10 of One cent, per kWh. That's damn near nothing. Not even a penny. It means you could run your microwave, for ten hours straight. And it only cost the energy companies a penny to do that. They charge you around 8-15 pennies for that though. (if I remember correctly.)

Find a profit margin like that in another industry, I dare you.

It's not that easy.

Energy is already ridiculous profitable, if they found something cheaper, they would simply use that, charge you the same price and boost their margins.

That's how making money works, hate to burst your bubble.

I work in the energy industry, the above is so misleading as to be called bogus. That is like taking the cost of gas and using your average mileage declaring that the total cost of traveling is x cents/mile. This does not take into account the cost of the vehicle, the cost of maintenance etc.

Do you think powerlines maintain themselves? How about transformers? What about the costs associated with building a new natural gas powered plant to replace the coal fired plants that are being phased out? How much does it cost to pay the employees etc etc etc etc...

Terribly misleading...disingenuous bordering on outright lie or abject stupidity.

reply to post by samkent


Is there another way to use hydrogen as a fuel resulting in a byproduct of water? Not that I am aware of....

My point was rather simple: a fuel that is abundant and which does not emit any hazardous byproducts during the process of generating energy. Unfortunately it takes more energy (currently) to produce the hydrogen than it returns when burned...so unless we can find some alternative method (in which case, the alternative method itself would likely be the energy supply of choice) to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen then it is inherently inefficient. The laws of thermodynamics are a bitch to get around.

who cares

solar, wind, thermal - all generate massive amounts of power indefinately

cold fusion is just another way to do the same thing, but with L^z3rZ!!!!!! - who gives a flying f