Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: rukiddingme on May 21, 2013, 06:06:50 AM

Title: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: rukiddingme on May 21, 2013, 06:06:50 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/)
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 21, 2013, 01:27:32 PM
Sadly the methodology was flawed, calculations and assumptions wrong. Why do they not do a simple calormetric test??????
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: e2matrix on May 21, 2013, 08:33:30 PM
Sadly the methodology was flawed, calculations and assumptions wrong. Why do they not do a simple calormetric test? ??? ??
So I guess you are saying that without even seeing the device or testing it yourself you know that all the below listed highly credible academics are wrong?    You think that measurement of the produced heat performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras, recording data every second is not even more accurate calorimetry tests?   BTW that is spelled calorimetric.   Maybe you'd like to show where the calculations and assumptions are wrong?   
The paper was authored by Giuseppe Levi of Bologna University, Bologna, Italy; Evelyn Foschi, Bologna, Italy; Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér of Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; and Hanno Essén, of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: MileHigh on May 21, 2013, 08:43:04 PM
E2matrix:

Quote
You think that measurement of the produced heat performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras, recording data every second is not even more accurate calorimetry tests.

I am not an expert here but note that the thermal imaging cameras only measure temperature, they do not measure heat flow (a.k.a. heat production).  I believe that they have to rely on formulas to estimate the heat flow based on the observed temperature.

Some kind of "water jacket" wrapped around the reactor with water flow measurement and water temperature differential measurement would have been one way to measure the heat flow.  It's such a basic kind of setup so it's really unfortunate that apparently we are still "here" and not progressing forward.

We will see in the ensuing weeks what kind of comments we get about the paper from others in the scientific community.  If these four men get "heat" from their peers perhaps that will "knock some sense" into Rossi and he will finally do a proper heat flow measurement?

One can hope.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 21, 2013, 08:49:07 PM
Sadly the methodology was flawed, calculations and assumptions wrong. Why do they not do a simple calormetric test? ??? ??

I agree, Mark, that they should do a straightforward calorimetric test.  Hard to understand why they did not.

But - can you explain why you say, "calculations and assumptions wrong"?
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: e2matrix on May 21, 2013, 09:13:05 PM
   I will take Jouleseeker's opinion on this as a valid reason why mark was right in asking for a calorimetric test.   ;)    I really had no idea that would be better than what they used.   I thought the thermal imaging device with data recorded every second sounded more high tech but if calorimetry is a better choice than I'll go with that.   I see that calorimetry requires that the material being heated have known definite thermal constitutive properties.    Perhaps that was why they didn't use that method?    But I see they are also saying  that "even  by  the  most  conservative  assumptions  as  to  the  errors  in  the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources."    So I still have confidence Rossi's device is real and can generate usable power in much better ways than most current methods.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: minnie on May 22, 2013, 12:29:34 AM
Hi,
   Why not run two side by side, have one of them without an active ingredient (hydrogen?).
Feed the same power in to each one and see what happens. If they both glow the same
You have the answer.
                                  John.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: LibreEnergia on May 22, 2013, 12:50:36 AM
Hi,
   Why not run two side by side, have one of them without an active ingredient (hydrogen?).
Feed the same power in to each one and see what happens. If they both glow the same
You have the answer.
                                  John.

It would appear that they did this.

"The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without the
active charge present in the E-Cat HT. In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the
expected heat from the electric input." (taken from the abstract of the report.)

I'd have to say they chose a more complicated method than simply heating up some water but the results do seem valid.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 22, 2013, 02:49:11 AM
perhaps mfmp might give us something that we the public can witness openly.they are about to start playing with powders now.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 22, 2013, 04:36:25 PM
Hope you're right, e2matrix!  I'd like to see this work - and reach the people worldwide.

perhaps mfmp might give us something that we the public can witness openly.they are about to start playing with powders now.

mfmp?

I'd like to see the guys at Univ of Missouri try this.  When I spoke to Arak there last October, his opinion was that the Rossi approach did NOT work as advertised.  In any case, I expect this to be a topic for discussion at the ICCF-18 conf at UMissouri in July.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: lumen on May 22, 2013, 05:14:57 PM
"The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without the active charge present in the E-Cat HT. In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electric input. Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources. "
 
I wonder what mistake all these people are making?
 
Probably just some simple oversight, we all know this is impossible. Right?
 
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 22, 2013, 05:29:40 PM
@joule seeker..i do believe the effect is real but the cause is a conundrum.my theory is a 2nd law thermodynamics violation is possibly concentrating ambient heat drasticly .brian ahern of m.i.t. has similar thoughts.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 23, 2013, 05:25:06 AM
Ah, I dunno.
I just looked up the power analyzer because I wanted to know about the clampon "meters" mentioned in the paper.
http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm

It's an AC meter, designed for 50 and 60 Hz AC lines, apparently. I can find no indication that the clampons can detect DC current offsets.
Technical specifications
  Measurement values
  Measurement ranges / resolution / accuracy
  PCE-830 + PCE-6801
           Watts AC (50 or 60Hz, PF 0.5 up to 1)
  5.0 to 999.9W / 0.1W / ±1% ±0.8W
     1.000 to 9.999kW / 0.001kW / ±1% ±8W
     10.00 to 99.99kW / 0.01kW / ±1% ±80W
     100.0 to 999.9kW / 0.1kW / ±1% ±0.8kW
     1000 to 9999kW / 1kW / ±1% ±8kW
  PCE-830 + PCE-6801
           Current AC (50 or 60Hz, auto range select, TRMS)
  0.04A to 1A / 0.001A / ±0.5% ±0.05A
     0.4A to 10.0A / 0.01A / ±0.5% ±0.05A
     4A to 100.0A / 0.1A / ±1.0% ±0.5A 
  Voltage AC (50 or 60Hz, TRMS)
  20.0 to 500.0V / 0.1V / ±0.5% ±5 digits
     (measure between phase and neutral)
     20.0 to 600.0V / 0.1V / ±0.5% ±5 digits
     (measure between phase and neutral)
  Harmonic distortion of AC voltage
  1 to 20º / 0.1% / ±1.0%
     21 to 49º / 0.1% / 4% of reading ±2.0%
     50 to 99º / 0.1% / 6% of reading ±2.0%
  PCE-830 + PCE-6801
     Harmonics
of AC current in %
  1 to 20º / 0.1% / ±0.2% of reading ±1.0%
     11 to 20º / 0.1% / ±2% of reading ±1.0%
     21 to 50º (A)/ 0.1% / ±5% of reading ±1.0%
     21 to 50º (mA)/ 0.1% / ±10% of reading ±1.0%
     51 to 99º / 0.1% / ±35% of reading ±1.0%
  PCE-830 + PCE6801
           Power Factor (PF)
  0.00 to 1.00 / 0.01 / ±0.04
  PCE-830 + PCE6801
           Phase angle (Phi)
  -180° to 180° / 0.1° / ±1°
  PCE-830 + PCE-6801
           Total harmonic distortion
  0.0 to 20.0% / 0.1% / ±1%
     20.0 to 100% / 0.1% / ±3% of reading ±5%
     100 to 999.9% / 0.1% / ±10% of reading ±10% 
  Maximum measurement of AC voltage and current
  50Hz / 19µS / ±5% ±30 digits
     60Hz / 16µS / ±5% ±30 digits
  Peak value measurement of AC voltage and current
  1.00 to 99.99 / 0.01 / ±5% ±30 digits
  Frequency range in automatic mode
  45 to 65Hz / 0.1Hz / 0.1Hz
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: minnie on May 23, 2013, 09:41:23 AM
Hi,
   all we need now will be to supply the power for the E-Cat from a Rosemary Ainslee device
And the sky will be the limit!
                                         John.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 23, 2013, 10:00:10 AM
Hi TK,
I see Rosemary is now being promoted by Sterling.
She sent me a lot of papers and read some but have not had time, or the expertise to offer any opinions.  There is one red flag for me with my basic knowledge....why does it only work with a battery and not a cap????


Everyone else


In regards to Rossi testing, many others on other sites including Sterling's has commented on why the testing is not up to par, including in one case some actual calculation errors using this method.  As Milehigh explained they are measuring heat not heat flow. Rossi from day one has refused scientists to do proper calmetric tests.


From a dumb ass perspective (mine)  If I had a soldering iron and applied power it would heat up but stay in a certain temperature band according to the ability to it to disperse the heat. If I turned it off it would cool down. If I put more power into it it would get hotter and may even glow red and other colors if I kept heating it at a rate faster than it could disperse the heat.
1. What is the difference from this to a Rossi Tube
2. Why does it cool down if it is past the heat thresh hold to make it so called self run.


So Far Rossi has failed to meet every promise or prediction so I am happy to have my track record compared to his anyday
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Successfull
Post by: rensseak on May 23, 2013, 10:02:36 AM
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913)
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: fritz on May 23, 2013, 11:02:11 AM
As Milehigh explained they are measuring heat not heat flow.

Where´s the problem ?
An object with temperature "n" emits at least "black body radiation" - additional to that there will be heat transfer due to convection.
Deriving the radiation (energy flow) from the temperature is straight forward.
Setting up calorimetry would trigger the need to measure a flow and 2 temperatures.
This might be a monstrous setup using a media heated up to 800 deg.
As Planck´s Law is something usual scientists believe in - it´s an appropriate and exact way to measure the energy flow (caused from black body radiation) from a hot body.
If the device would operate at lower temperatures, the convection effect would dominate the energy transfer - and the appropriate way to measure would be "proper calorimetry".
In such setup the radiation component would be assumed to be almost ignoreable.

To sum it up - its a matter of operating temperature.

rgds.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: verpies on May 23, 2013, 11:25:33 AM
Sterling's has commented on why the testing is not up to par, including in one case some actual calculation errors using this method. 
What calculation errors?

As Milehigh explained they are measuring heat not heat flow.
The transfer of thermal energy from an object to the environment constitutes a flow of energy.

From a dumb ass perspective (mine)  If I had a soldering iron and applied power it would heat up but stay in a certain temperature band according to the ability to it to disperse the heat. If I turned it off it would cool down. If I put more power into it it would get hotter and may even glow red and other colors if I kept heating it at a rate faster than it could disperse the heat.
1. What is the difference from this to a Rossi Tube
The thermal energy transfer relationship is the same.
Your soldering iron would produce thermal energy internally and lose this energy to the environment through EM radiation, convection and conduction (EM loss would dominate only at very high temperatures).
Because the rate of this loss is proportional to the rate of production, then the temperature equilibrizes at a level when these rates become equal.
This way the temperature becomes proportional to the rate thermal energy production/dissipation.

The function of this proportionality is influenced by surface blackness, emitter's shape (including porosity),  thermal contact area between emitter and support struts, air temperature, air pressure, air humidity and air velocity.

2. Why does it cool down if it is past the heat thresh hold to make it so called self run.
I don't know.
Maybe the internal energy production ceases to increase above some temperature.

I can find no indication that the clampons can detect DC current offsets.
This is very significant !
If these clampon ammeter probes indeed are insensitive to DC or HF, then this opens up new possibilities of clandestine power delivery to the E-Cat.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: fritz on May 23, 2013, 01:11:12 PM
This is very significant !
If these clampon ammeter probes indeed are insensitive to DC or HF, then this opens up new possibilities of clandestine power delivery to the E-Cat.

[DC]    Every mains-powered equipment  with a transformer connected to the same line will immediatly _die_.
[RF]     Any RF power source capable to substitute the power effect at that level (>1kW) will provoke artefacts in the area of the setup.
If you keep in mind that there is no matched transmission line from "fake rf main" to DUT - there would be the need for 4 or even more kW of RF output power.

For me, the only true proof would be:
If the hot cat weights the same as a duck.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 23, 2013, 01:26:06 PM
Our speculations are meaningless but worthwhile given the predictions and promises of Rossi the last two years vs those asking questions...I think the skeptics win.
I have never said there is not an effect, in fact many other people have observed small increases. However no one has ever been able to engineer it into something useful. there is where the real challenge.
I think also the people in the market place with their scrutiny and engineers have spoken. According to Mr Green not 1 single unit has been sold...you think it would be a no brainier if it worked to anyone's satisfaction.
So two years on...no robot factories, no E-cat sales and no testing that I would consider convincing.
Just my opinion
Mark

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 23, 2013, 01:31:59 PM
What calculation errors?
The transfer of thermal energy from an object to the environment constitutes a flow of energy.
The thermal energy transfer relationship is the same.
Your soldering iron would produce thermal energy internally and lose this energy to the environment through EM radiation, convection and conduction (EM loss would dominate only at very high temperatures).
Because the rate of this loss is proportional to the rate of production, then the temperature equilibrizes at a level when these rates become equal.
This way the temperature becomes proportional to the rate thermal energy production/dissipation.

The function of this proportionality is influenced by surface blackness, emitter's shape (including porosity),  thermal contact area between emitter and support struts, air temperature, air pressure, air humidity and air velocity.
Agreed to all that so if I crank up the input power it should progressively increase the temperature once it passes a threshold of where no more energy can be radiated.....hence will get red hot.
I don't know.
Maybe the internal energy production ceases to increase above some temperature.
This is very significant !
If these clampon ammeter probes indeed are insensitive to DC or HF, then this opens up new possibilities of clandestine power delivery to the E-Cat.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 23, 2013, 02:00:29 PM
Hi TK,
I see Rosemary is now being promoted by Sterling.
She sent me a lot of papers and read some but have not had time, or the expertise to offer any opinions.  There is one red flag for me with my basic knowledge....why does it only work with a battery and not a cap? ???

(snip)

Well.... since you asked....
But it _does_ work with a capacitor power supply, as I showed very clearly with my Tar Baby replication. It produces exactly the same waveforms including the magic oscillations with a capacitor power supply, for as long as the capacitor has enough charge in it. I ran the full Tar Baby, which is a full replication of the 5-mosfet system, using a 330,000 microFarad capacitor bank, and showed that the "negative power" product was produced, that the oscillations were produced, and that the capacitors ran down nevertheless. Also, with the design help from Poynt99, I built a "pocket OU demonstrator", the Altoid,  that uses a single mini-mosfet, runs a LED or resistive load, makes the Ainslie oscillations and the negative power product when hooked to any oscilloscope, and runs _completely without batteries_ using only its onboard 2 Farad capacitor, for long enough to be very impressive.

I've offered many times to have Tar Baby tested side-by-side with Ainslie's device to show that they are identical in schematic and performance. The very idea of this challenge terrifies Ainslie, of course, because Tar Baby is not OU, its batteries do discharge, etc.

She is currently making the rounds, sending harassing letters to scientists and professors, and has gotten some play on PESN, including a couple of current photographs.
 
Her promised "test" that she claims will happen on June 1st looks to be a planned repeat of the demo of two years ago, which she has now removed from her four YouTube accounts in an attempt to cover it up.... but it is still visible on my YT channel as a record of the lies and misrepresentations it contains.

But take a close look at the pictures on PESN. They are very revealing, especially to those who have been following the Ainslie saga.

For example:
The Function Generator is set to produce a triangle ramp, not a square pulse, and the offset knob is pulled out, turning this offset function ON, and is cranked all the way to the maximum positive offset. This FG setting, with the Red output of the FG connected to the single mosfet gate, will likely keep that transistor ON for long duty cycles and as shown will produce a lot of heat in the RV water heater element she uses as a load... suspended in air with the thermocouple attached to it. Only three of the six batteries are in use.... and the mosfet has been provided with a much larger heatsink than it had in the demo from two years ago. Ainslie has claimed many times that this mosfet stays cool. So why the big heatsink? Why the operation with only three batteries in series when the claim is made that all six can be used? I know why.

I've challenged her to repeat the second part of the 2011 demo, the "high heat" mode, but with all six batteries instead of the 4 she showed then or the three she's using now, and actually boil some water doing it, as she has claimed. With the same small heatsink on the Q1 mosfet that was in use then.  Anyone want to bet on the outcome?

(Note that 3 x 12V x 50 A-H == 1800 Watt-hours. It will take a long time to run those batteries down, even continuously heating that element to over 200 degrees. But with the full 72 volts _claimed_ input, the Q1 mosfet will fail before a liter of water can be boiled.)
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: fritz on May 23, 2013, 02:27:42 PM
According to Mr Green not 1 single unit has been sold...you think it would be a no brainier if it worked to anyone's satisfaction.
So two years on...no robot factories, no E-cat sales and no testing that I would consider convincing.
Just my opinion
Mark

Maybe I have a different background.
Together with a friend we developed some nifty tool:
http://amemusica.wordpress.com/author/ajakes/
It´s no e-cat but has some "wow" effect, lots of people asked  us where they can buy it - and maybe this product has some potential.
You have no idea what happens if something starts to be "interesting". Strange investors, companies, fraud, licenses, patents, tooling costs,
redesigns, games, crazy folks, promises.... since 5 years now. - no product.
Due to the advent of 3D printing we are now able to ramp up some proto-series - independent.

In my actual project (sil3 industrial control for power protection, generator excitation and turbine controllers ) we have already 2 years delay - and we all know
that we have to rewrite the entire project from scratch after the next milestone /managment presentation.

It´s difficult to do such stuff without (at least internal) promises and deadlines. That´s when "professional communication" comes into play.

With this background - I see the progress on the e-cat pretty mindboggling for a new, disruptive product operating on physics to be defined.

And even if the presentation / communication is somewhat scam-a-like - there are pretty less alternatives how to do it.

rgds.

 
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 23, 2013, 02:29:20 PM
@mark and @fritz...im thinking that no i.r. meter would be needed,and no wattmeter would be needed either. at 'tenfold' conventional power one would only have to stand in front of 1)the controll and 2)the hotcat and simply feel the heat-blast,big dif guys.   
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: fritz on May 23, 2013, 02:35:27 PM
Ainslie saga

Maybe it´s not best practice to mix up multiple disruptive technologies.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 23, 2013, 02:36:18 PM
Many thanks TK for your answer, the other reason in the end I did not proceed wast he condition I do not talk to you about anything, I do not like conditions. She is laying out a lot of conditions for the test as well. Its interesting, I remember once going to South Africa and very highly qualified electrical engineer had the wool pulled over his eyes by a crafty inventor (magnetic motor) It takes people like you not only with exceptional expertise, but the experience of working with these technologies.
No doubt I will get some abusive emails again.

Email me sometime (markdansie@gmail.com ) I have a question unrelated to these topics you might have an insight on.

Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 23, 2013, 02:41:48 PM
@tk..i would suggest to you and mrs ainslie to use two seperate batteries or caps,one to power circuit,one to recharge.have you perhaps tried this before?powering a circuit AND recharging on a single bat or cap is one way to encounter all sorts probs,chemical damage,i.r./strain losses,screws with the battery's mind big time.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: fritz on May 23, 2013, 02:46:25 PM
@mark and @fritz...im thinking that no i.r. meter would be needed,and no wattmeter would be needed either. at 'tenfold' conventional power one would only have to stand in front of 1)the controll and 2)the hotcat and simply feel the heat-blast,big dif guys.

... But using hi-tec equippment typically improves confidence, whatever humbug is going on.
If you have ten witnesses stating that they operated a fin sauna for ten days by means of a single 1.5V cell - you will argue that it was mass-suggestion.
If they measured the setup with a 64ch thermocouple setup - you would exclude mass-suggestion but insist on wrong calibration.... and so on.
Its difficult to achieve extra-ordinary-proof.
Even if you blow up north korea with an e-cat nuke - there will be no proof but a banned technology. ;D
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 23, 2013, 03:11:36 PM
yes @fritz.its also hard for some scientists to accept that sumtin 'just dont figure here'.we gota do our own tests.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 23, 2013, 11:07:48 PM
@tk..i would suggest to you and mrs ainslie to use two seperate batteries or caps,one to power circuit,one to recharge.have you perhaps tried this before?powering a circuit AND recharging on a single bat or cap is one way to encounter all sorts probs,chemical damage,i.r./strain losses,screws with the battery's mind big time.
I am not the one making claims, Ainslie is. Please feel free to join her forum and make your suggestions to her yourself.

Have I recharged batteries and capacitors using various inductive spike circuits? Yes, many times. Including Ainslie circuits? Yes, many times, and my work is documented on YouTube. Have I actually even run devices on batteries or capacitors that the device itself charged? Yes, I have. Have I run a device on a small battery and charged up a larger battery with its spikes? Yes, I have. Have other people done these things too? Of course they have. Have I ever encountered a pair of swapping batteries whose _total energy content_ went up during the course of these experiments? No, I have not. Has anyone else, ever? No, not that I am aware of.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 23, 2013, 11:14:00 PM
Many thanks TK for your answer, the other reason in the end I did not proceed wast he condition I do not talk to you about anything, I do not like conditions. She is laying out a lot of conditions for the test as well. Its interesting, I remember once going to South Africa and very highly qualified electrical engineer had the wool pulled over his eyes by a crafty inventor (magnetic motor) It takes people like you not only with exceptional expertise, but the experience of working with these technologies.
No doubt I will get some abusive emails again.

Email me sometime (markdansie@gmail.com ) I have a question unrelated to these topics you might have an insight on.

Kind Regards
Mark
I was hoping that you _would_ go and confront her, with full knowledge under your belt beforehand and some hard questions to ask of her and her "team". But I certainly understand why you chose not to. Anyone who contradicts her and posts about it winds up on the receiving end of her incredible withering insulting disrespect. It's already started with you, just because you didn't snap to and respond to her instantly with your presence.

I'm off email these days, it's all far too depressing, in between the spam and the phishing; perhaps you could just PM me here with your question. Thanks for thinking of me.
--TK
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 24, 2013, 01:27:52 AM
ok @tk.heres a suggestion that might be of great value to you and the electrogenius audience: i noticed that the majority of people here and elsewhere are playing around with circuits centred around at least one inductor/coil trying to get kickbacks in excess of input without even questioning the supposed origin of this 'elusive' energy.the answer can only be found in thermodynamics from a rigorously scientific perspective.the only source of that 'extra' energy is going to be ambient heat intake on the engine when it comes to anything 'overunity' and in order to do that you will need to alter the properties of the core material(the paramagnetic rod stuck inside the coil) so if i suggest that you try a core made of the element gadolinium would you try it?and would you come back to me with the result?
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: verpies on May 24, 2013, 09:49:23 AM
the only source of that 'extra' energy is going to be ambient heat intake on the engine when it comes to anything 'overunity'
Not only.
What if the spin axis orientation and angular momenta of the core nuclei are altered by magnetic resonance and a coherent current of beta particles is generated in the core as well as confined there by Lorentz forces?
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 24, 2013, 11:10:46 AM
ok @tk.heres a suggestion that might be of great value to you and the electrogenius audience: i noticed that the majority of people here and elsewhere are playing around with circuits centred around at least one inductor/coil trying to get kickbacks in excess of input without even questioning the supposed origin of this 'elusive' energy.the answer can only be found in thermodynamics from a rigorously scientific perspective.the only source of that 'extra' energy is going to be ambient heat intake on the engine when it comes to anything 'overunity' and in order to do that you will need to alter the properties of the core material(the paramagnetic rod stuck inside the coil) so if i suggest that you try a core made of the element gadolinium would you try it?and would you come back to me with the result?

Are you offering to hire me to do some research for you? I come pretty cheap as those things go, I'm told. Do you want to send me a specific item to do some specific tests? Are you claiming to have a prototype that does something interesting?
You can "suggest" things to me all day long but unless you pique my interest somehow I'm not going to interrupt my busy schedule chasing some random wild goose for you.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 24, 2013, 11:21:59 AM
@verpies,i dont know about beta particles being generated but the spin will definitly be affected at the curie temperature.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 24, 2013, 11:46:33 AM
@tk..no im not 'hiring'you but it may boost your credibility and wallet if it works.a gadolinium core will for a split second plunge below its very low curie point (room temperature) after each oscillation of current through the coil wheras other cores eg soft iron,iron oxide hav much higher curies(700degree c)and may not be able to do this so gadolinium may fulfill one of  the parameters necesary for that extra kickback boost that these joule-hunters,like yourself,seek.passage through the curie point will cause the need for extra ambient heat intake on each thermodynamic oscillation cycle.   
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: conradelektro on May 24, 2013, 12:56:45 PM
Gadolinium:

Your Gadolinium will vanish soon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadolinium#Production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadolinium#Production)

Unlike other rare earth elements, metallic gadolinium is relatively stable in dry air. However, it tarnishes quickly in moist air, forming a loosely adhering gadolinium(III) oxide (Gd2O3), which spalls off, exposing more surface to oxidation.

Gadolinium is expensive: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/211591?lang=de&region=AT (http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/211591?lang=de&region=AT)

100 g for 200.-- EUR

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/691771?lang=de&region=AT (ingot, 10 g for 160.-- EUR)

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 24, 2013, 03:21:22 PM
chek out alfa aesar(u.k.)..10mm rod(what we need here),180 euros.yes its quite expensive but may well be worth buying.i must remind the people here that steorn once did an open demonstration of pulsing a.c. current over a nickel core and a iron core for comparison and obtained a quarter more joule-heating from the nickel core than the iron core for equal power input on both.the curie point of nickel is 350degrees c,half that of iron,co-incidence?   
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: conradelektro on May 24, 2013, 04:13:45 PM
chek out alfa aesar(u.k.)..10mm rod(what we need here),180 euros.yes its quite expensive but may well be worth buying.i must remind the people here that steorn once did an open demonstration of pulsing a.c. current over a nickel core and a iron core for comparison and obtained a quarter more joule-heating from the nickel core than the iron core for equal power input on both.the curie point of nickel is 350degrees c,half that of iron,co-incidence?

http://www.alfa.com/de/gp100w.pgm?dsstk=040289 (http://www.alfa.com/de/gp100w.pgm?dsstk=040289)
40289 Gadolinium rod, 6.35mm (0.25in) dia, 99.9% (metals basis excluding Ta) 25 mm length 425.-- EUR + 20% sales tax + shipping

http://www.alfa.com/de/gp100w.pgm?dsstk=040290 (http://www.alfa.com/de/gp100w.pgm?dsstk=040290)
40290 Gadolinium rod, 12.7mm (0.5in) dia, 99.9% (metals basis excluding Ta) 25 mm length 798.-- EUR + 20% sales tax + shipping

Might be interesting, but way beyond what I am ready to spend on a wild idea. In case there comes in some tangible evidence, I might be tempted.

I do not doubt the strange heat results, but why should that bring back more electricity than has been put in? For me it just means that heat loss in a coil with a Gadolinium core is substantial, use Ferrite instead if you want a good coil.

The shape memory alloys are much cheaper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape-memory_alloy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape-memory_alloy) . I saw some Nitinol wires and springs on Ebay for 25.-- EUR. One can make a core with a bunch of short Nitinol wires (like many people do with soft iron nails for Bedini motor coils).

Why shape memory alloys? Why Gadolinium?

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 24, 2013, 06:11:58 PM
hi conrad..its to do with the 2 laws of thermodynamics.an overunity device has to circumvent at least one of them to work.the first law says you cant create energy from nothing,very true.the second says you cant collect ambient heat for free(not quite true) so what you guys want to do is make your paramagnetic core drop sharply below its curie point to effect a transition of the atoms from a paramagnetic state(semi-orderly orientation) to a ferromagnetic state(highly orderly orientation) on each and evry pulsed current cycle because for a split second you will achieve a reenforcement of the collapsing magnetic field this way and extra ambient heat(more than the energy that was put in) thus has to re-randomize the core atoms to their original state at the end of each cycle.this is realy what you guys should be focused on,google this'steven j.smith magnetothermodynamics'to see a similar explanation.pure gadolinium is going to be necesary because of its sharp transition point from paramagnetic to ferromagnetic under 20degrees c,perfect for our needs it would seem.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 24, 2013, 07:51:50 PM
At a thousand dollars per cubic inch, I am afraid that Gadolinium qualifies as "big science" and thus is safe from my "credibility"... which, by the way, is just fine as far as I can determine. The things I say work, work as I say they do, and the things I say don't work, don't. Feel free to prove me wrong.... it may help _your_ credibility, profitis, if you can.

However, if someone wants to send me a 25mm piece of 1/2 inch diameter Gadolinium rod, I'd be happy to wind a coil or two on it, equip it with a thermocouple, and test it however anyone suggests. I didn't know that the Curie point of Gadolinium was so low.

By the way fwiw, I won a Science Fair competition in the eighth grade with my construction of a Tesla thermomagnetic motor from his patent, making use of the Curie point transition in a Canadian 5-cent piece, which at that time was actually made from mostly nickel.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: conradelektro on May 24, 2013, 08:11:26 PM

..... so what you guys want to do is  ........

.... this is really what you guys should be focused on .....


@profits:

O.k., I am probably a member of "you guys", because I like to build strange electronic things (with very little success).

But you, Profits, why are you not "you guys"? Are you distancing yourself from your own theory? In case you believe what you say, you should also "want to do ..." and "be focused on ..." the same thing?

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 24, 2013, 09:45:18 PM
@conrad yes im throwing this to you guys meaning electrical engineers/boffs etc which im not,i wouldnt know what to buy to pulse current nor to rectify it nor measure it nor build the sofisticated circuitry required but i see you guys have been doing this for years.my expertise is more chemistry/physics and ive built a handful of my own overunity batteries so im well aquainted with the thermodynamics laws which govern all energy exchange in all systems.im just amazed that you guys havent been focusing on the most fundamental principal of your circuits i.e. the thermodynamics,the exchanges of energy that takes place between your circuits and the environment because that is where the key lies,in the paramagnetic core.the exchange of energy between your battery and the environment is going to centre in and around the core.im not saying that iron is not going to give an overunity effect im just saying that if it isnt its time to go deeper into the thermodynamics at play here,the changes that are happening in the core is paramount to a success here.   
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 24, 2013, 10:20:06 PM
@tk apologies,'credibility'was the wrong word,status would be a better word no? Ive already thrown the gadolinium proposal to someone privately and they said they'd get back to me with the result but they didnt and when i recently asked for an answer they evaded the subject like as though i was   asking for their kidneys so there may be something to it.im thinking that rather than let them profit from it let me open source it.testing cores made of pure nickel or mintage nickel might yield good results yes because of its lower curie point relative to iron.im giving you free useful info here tk,get off your couch and go steal gadolinium from the local university,or bribe the chem store cleaner,or just ask them nicely:-) 
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: conradelektro on May 25, 2013, 09:34:01 AM
I looked into the Steven J. Smith story:

http://www.whale.to/b/smith_sj_h.html (http://www.whale.to/b/smith_sj_h.html)  (a page with many links to writings of Mr. Smith)

Profits seems to talk about this:

The Physics of Free Energy, or Over-unity generators
Entropy - An Expanded Explanation. The over-unity generator by Steven J. Smith, http://www.whale.to/b/entropy.html (http://www.whale.to/b/entropy.html) (no generator, just words)

The fine art of demonology
Magneto Thermodynamics, Part 1 The fine art of demonology by Steven J. Smith, http://www.whale.to/b/magneto_thermodynamics1.html (http://www.whale.to/b/magneto_thermodynamics1.html)
Magneto Thermodynamics, Part 2 The fine art of demonology by Steven J. Smith, http://www.whale.to/b/mt__part_2.html (http://www.whale.to/b/mt__part_2.html)
Magneto Thermodynamics, Part 3 The fine art of demonology  by Steven J. Smith, http://www.whale.to/b/magneto_thermodynamics3.html (http://www.whale.to/b/magneto_thermodynamics3.html)

It is always unfair to summarise, but for me this Mr. Smith did too much writing and too little device building. We have millions of words and no working device. That is the familiar picture when dealing with OU claims.

The properties of Gadolinium are interesting, but to see OU is a bold step which needs more than words to be substantiated.

May be I am too simple minded, but I believe in experiments and devices and words are just words. The writings of Mr. Smith are theories based on conjecture.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 25, 2013, 01:34:14 PM
no,no,no conrad.mr smith is(or was,theres rumours he was murdered)a physicist reviewing all of these circuits that you guys were building over the years including mr bedini etc and trying to find a rational explanation.any truly overunity device has to take in ambient heat and concentrate it.there is no other source of energy that would make it overunity by textbook definition.he wasnt a builder of these things,just an analyser/observer/physicist.you have to circumvent the 2nd law thermodynamics to get your overunity because you are not going to skip around the 1st law of thermodynamics,believe me.you will notice mr bedini(the overlord of electromagneto overunity) himself discuss the 2nd law thermodynamics and its circumvention.you must educate yourselves on whats going on in the fundamental part of your circuits,the core.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 25, 2013, 03:08:15 PM
Shame Mr Bedini never was able to successfully demonstrate over unity
Kind regards

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 25, 2013, 06:24:22 PM
quite possibly true @markdansie,a lot depends on the power measurement skills of the skeptic especially when it comes to pulsed current,what has he non-demonstrated in the backdoors though?we might be yet surprised.lets see if mrs ainslie can do better in a few days time.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 25, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
I would never rely on the skills of the skeptics, but I rely on the skills of highly qualified engineers and scientists with experience in pulsed currents. I suggest you read Mark E comments at free energy news and or past forums here.....I think TK is the resident expert on Rosemary.
PS  The question you should be asking is why will it work with a battery and not with a cap???????
Kind Regards

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 25, 2013, 09:06:15 PM
@markdansie,,it wont work with a single power source because now you have to draw from AND recharge the source at the same time or at microsecond intervals,it will screw the mechanism up.imagine i plugged my celfone into the charger evry 1/10th of a second and discharged it evry 1/10th of a second,it would screw-hysterisis the physical crystalline reactants in the bat to the point of detaching from the electrodes.your everyday bats are not designed for this.same applies for a cap unless the charging current is precisely the same volts and amps and pulse-time as its discharge otherwise hectic hysterisis sets in.they must use two bats or two caps.one 4 power source and one 4 recharge.i think steorn used 2 bats if im not mistaken.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 25, 2013, 09:34:44 PM
a ordinary dielectric cap also has a rapidly falling voltage when it begins to discharge,might be non-conducive to a stable overunity circuit,a pseudoredoxcap would be far better but, again,they must use 2 of these,not 1.remember what happened to the battery of the south african guys with the self-looped motor?they was el-stupido.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 26, 2013, 01:13:19 AM
Does it really?

I've mentioned "Altoid" before but I suppose I now have to post a link to one of its demonstrations. It's a single-mosfet oscillator based on Ainslie's NERD circuit, with the NERD's long wire inductances replaced by small discrete inductors. This circuit was designed by .99 from a suggestion I made, then I built it according to his schematic, and added an enhancement or two of my own. It produces the same _negative mean power product_ from its waveforms as does Ainslie's "NERD" circuit that she might be demonstrating in a few days; it runs a load showing bidirectional current flow through the load, it runs for a significant time period, making the negative power product waveforms all the while.... and it runs solely on its own 2-Farad capacitor pack (of "ordinary dielectric" capacitors). Yet.... it still runs down and stops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZaPnj1Ox4Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZaPnj1Ox4Y)

(And you are indeed mistaken about Steorn. They used one battery per Orbo, in their failed Waterways demo, claimed that it would be recharged by the circuit, and never actually managed to show it recharging or even receiving an attempted charge. I, however, did charge external batteries and caps, using my Orbette based on their incomplete circuit.)
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 26, 2013, 02:05:07 AM
Better watch out, Mark. You are on Ainslie's hit-list already, simply for not snapping to her demands.

Here's an example of Ainslie's current madness, and a statement of her clear intention to weasel out of doing any demonstration.

First, she accuses me, entirely without evidence, of some ridiculous feat of hacking, when all I had to do was to download and reproduce at normal size the two publicly-posted photos from the PESN page here:
http://pesn.com/2013/05/22/9602322_Rosemary-Ainslie_Planning_Public-Demo_of_her_Free-Energy-Circuit_June-1/ (http://pesn.com/2013/05/22/9602322_Rosemary-Ainslie_Planning_Public-Demo_of_her_Free-Energy-Circuit_June-1/)
This alone should show what a paranoid, ignorant and mendacious person she is.
"Filed a full report with the appropriate departments". HOOT! You cannot make this stuff up. I'll bet the "appropriate departments" will be visiting her with a butterfly net and a strait jacket pretty soon.

Second, she clearly states that she will NOT be doing any demonstration on June 1, unless she can find some "academic" to support or endorse her position. 

How's THAT for wriggling?
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: orbut 3000 on May 26, 2013, 03:05:23 AM
Quote
Either email me at 'ainslie@mweb.co.za' to state your support for their attendance - or write to them directly through the office of the Dean of Engineering - Professor Petersen - ebe-faculty@uct.ac.za  All efforts to advance this demonstration will be greatly appreciated. 


I'm about to ask Petersen to support this noble cause, but I'm not certain if I should include a link to Ainslie's blogsite or warn him of TK (Brüan Litelle). Would my mail even make it through their spam filter if I mention Zipons and Strapons? So many questions...
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 26, 2013, 11:48:10 AM
@tk..does the altoid circuit keep the led flashing longer than if you just hooked the cap to the led?you managed to charge external bats with the orbette circuit? You mean you managed to power with one bat and charge another?tell me something,ive got a question related to overunity but offtopic:is it possible to partialy bias/rectify a.c. current(equal magnitude both directions) into one direction using just a magnet?do you know?perhaps tilting the magnet at certain angle over a coil?
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 26, 2013, 07:33:23 PM
@tk..does the altoid circuit keep the led flashing longer than if you just hooked the cap to the led?
That depends on how you "hook up" the LED: the cap is charged to 5 or 5.5 volts initially so some kind of dropping circuitry would have to be used... but yes. But allow me to rephrase your question slightly. "Does the altoid circuit put out the same total light energy as a direct hookup of the LED to the capacitor would?" And the answer to that is "no, it puts out less", because some power is dissipated in the circuit elements.
Quote
you managed to charge external bats with the orbette circuit? You mean you managed to power with one bat and charge another?
Yes. I've removed most of my Orbette videos from YT, but here's one that is still up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi_FJwpPrQk
It's not hard to do. Here's the same sort of thing with the Ainslie "Quantum" circuit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDcC7bCI8EM


Quote
tell me something,ive got a question related to overunity but offtopic:is it possible to partialy bias/rectify a.c. current(equal magnitude both directions) into one direction using just a magnet?do you know?perhaps tilting the magnet at certain angle over a coil?
I don't know. Probably it is, with the right coil and frequency combination. I don't know if you can get full rectification, but it should be possible to use a magnet to bias a coil core, so that current in one direction encounters a different total impedance value than current in the other direction would.
Some of the coils that I pull out of CRT-based TV chassis do have biasing magnets attached to them; I don't know why exactly but maybe some directional effect is the reason. I do know that these coils work especially well in JouleThief circuits, with the addition of a "primary" wrapped around the outside of them.
Also, for high currents, Tesla used magnets in various places around spark gaps and even actually built into the electrodes of spark gaps. This produced more rapid quenching, probably due to half-wave rectification and cut-off of the currents thru the gap. I think.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: FatBird on May 26, 2013, 10:52:13 PM
Tell me if I am wrong, but here is why I'm NOT excited over this.

The best Cold Fusion device still has to BOIL WATER TO MAKE steam.
Then the STEAM has to drive a High Speed TURBINE.
Then the Spinning Turbine Shaft has to drive a GENERATOR (with a Gear Reduction TRANSMISSION) to make Electricity.

It seems A LOT BETTER if we can find a device that makes electricity DIRECTLY, WITHOUT Boiling Water, Steam, Turbine, Transmission, and Generator.
Click on the Link below to see such a device:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHswoNpc0Tk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHswoNpc0Tk)
.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 26, 2013, 10:57:36 PM
thanks tk,the reason why i ask is because im wondering if the dark current/noise rectification(without power source) on a wire with a biasing magnetic field passing thru it might be larger than the dark current of a typical diode.as you know the dark currents of typical pn diodes are tiny(fractions of a microamp).
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 27, 2013, 03:57:18 AM
Hi Profitis,
here is a bone or two for you to play with.
1. Take a high spin nuclear material (the type they use from Scanners) and place it in a magnetic field.
Then place a piezoelectric material onto that. What will happen?
It will run for ever but it is not free energy.
2. Take two material and using a deposition method place them on say a silicon wafer so they form small over lapping links (size of a match head.  If you choose the right materials they will act as micro thermocouples and put out power in an ambient environment? Why ?
3. I am two generous with the clues above.....so this one is a challenge...how can you manufacture an electret put out a decent amount of power?


I hope these all serve as a brain teaser for you
Kind Regards
 
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 27, 2013, 05:34:47 AM
Hi Profitis,
here is a bone or two for you to play with.
1. Take a high spin nuclear material (the type they use from Scanners) and place it in a magnetic field.
Then place a piezoelectric material onto that. What will happen?
It will run for ever but it is not free energy.
2. Take two material and using a deposition method place them on say a silicon wafer so they form small over lapping links (size of a match head.  If you choose the right materials they will act as micro thermocouples and put out power in an ambient environment? Why ?
3. I am two generous with the clues above.....so this one is a challenge...how can you manufacture an electret put out a decent amount of power?


I hope these all serve as a brain teaser for you
Kind Regards

Mark:

Americium?

I have read of others using this for energy generation.  It was obtained from smoke detectors.

Bill
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 27, 2013, 05:46:22 AM
Make that number 4 Bill, nice one I had not read that before
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 27, 2013, 03:39:40 PM
@markdansie number 1 and 2 falls under same category as a ordinary diode,small amounts of electricity are perpetualy delivered but the physicists will argue(rightfuly)that the power source are fluctuations in temperature/vibration etc. Its when the density of power goes up beyond a certain point that those arguments begin to become blurry.and when the power densities go way up beyond a certain point then we have to start eliminating these arguments one by one(like the eefg).an electret wont give any power because it has no source of electrons to propel along a circuit,its just pure voltage with zero amps but the karpen pile is a type of electret that has got a source of electrons to propel,the ions/reactants around the inert electrodes provide electrons to propel until electrostatic equilibrium is obtained,then when you cut the circuit they just go back to their original equilibrium.its basicly interchange of 2 different equilibriums,an chemical equilibrium and a electrical equilibrium switching bakward and 4ward.thats why the karpen system gives a capacitance as opposed to continued current.did the physicists find the source of energy for the eefg yet?
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: gmeast on May 27, 2013, 03:50:32 PM
Tell me if I am wrong, but here is why I'm NOT excited over this.

The best Cold Fusion device still has to BOIL WATER TO MAKE steam.
Then the STEAM has to drive a High Speed TURBINE.
Then the Spinning Turbine Shaft has to drive a GENERATOR (with a Gear Reduction TRANSMISSION) to make Electricity.

It seems A LOT BETTER if we can find a device that makes electricity DIRECTLY, WITHOUT Boiling Water, Steam, Turbine, Transmission, and Generator.
Click on the Link below to see such a device:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHswoNpc0Tk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHswoNpc0Tk)
.


Go visit the Bruce TPU threads. He has developed a keen insight and understanding of Steven Mark's TPU technology ... like one of his units pictured in your post. Bruce has laid out a fairly comprehensive set of construction details. It's worth following. His threads are progress-oriented and the participants are level-headed ... unlike what is beginning to take over and destroy all of overunity.com.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: dragon on May 27, 2013, 04:15:00 PM
Q&A With Hanno Essen Regarding Recent E-Cat Test:
http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/05/26/1232/8502322_qa-with-hanno-essen-regarding-recent-e-cat-test/
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 27, 2013, 04:29:34 PM
@markdansie,ive done similar experiments to number 2.ive taken a piece of carbon and put it in contact with pyrite(a thermoelectric semiconductor) and gotten a small continuous current due to the fact that carbon is a much better absorber of ambient infrared radiation than pyrites but it was small current(impractical).im certain theres much better selection of semiconductors and substrates might do a much better job of differential infrared absorbtion and power output.electrons are like tennis balls,some will always jump up over the 'fence'when it comes to semiconductors.im now working with infrared photoelectrochemical systems that show real promise,continuous current in the hundreds microamp range(surface area dependant),let me work for you guys mark.those dollars into rands(south african currency)would be very pretty:-)
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: Magluvin on May 27, 2013, 05:03:24 PM

Go visit the Bruce TPU threads. He has developed a keen insight and understanding of Steven Mark's TPU technology ... like one of his units pictured in your post. Bruce has laid out a fairly comprehensive set of construction details. It's worth following. His threads are progress-oriented and the participants are level-headed ... unlike what is beginning to take over and destroy all of overunity.com.

"unlike what is beginning to take over and destroy all of overunity.com."   lol  idiot

What a waste of page space you are.  Why dont you stay over there where you belong in Roses George Orwell '1984' site. 

"The kicker is that they brought down a HUGE overunity forum, which also proves that they are NOT very popular at all.  Both you and Rosemary have a greater following and readership than all of those fakes combined!  And this is not just a compliment.  It's fact

Chess"   
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4200.html#msg4200

Oh my, Chess has really fallen off of the deep end also. I expected him to 'figure' it out by now.  ::)   Just like in '1984' he is the voice on the screen, lies and deception. They took down the reader, member and guest counter because they want us to think that we could not interpret those numbers for ourselves. ::) ;) So they must do that for us periodically, so that everything is in order.  ;)   What a sham.  Like the 3 stooges, they cannot see their own 'idiocracy'.

Mags

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 27, 2013, 05:11:29 PM
Quote from one of the testers
All these observations take away a number of ways to tamper with our measurements but there can still be things that we “didn’t think of” and that is the reason why we only can claim “indications of” and not “proof of” anomalous heat production. We must have more control over the whole situation before we can talk about proof.[/size][/i][/color]
Best regards,
Torbjörn[/size][/i][/color]
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 27, 2013, 05:17:40 PM
@markdansie number 1 and 2 falls under same category as a ordinary diode,small amounts of electricity are perpetualy delivered but the physicists will argue(rightfuly)that the power source are fluctuations in temperature/vibration etc. Its when the density of power goes up beyond a certain point that those arguments begin to become blurry.and when the power densities go way up beyond a certain point then we have to start eliminating these arguments one by one(like the eefg).an electret wont give any power because it has no source of electrons to propel along a circuit,its just pure voltage with zero amps but the karpen pile is a type of electret that has got a source of electrons to propel,the ions/reactants around the inert electrodes provide electrons to propel until electrostatic equilibrium is obtained,then when you cut the circuit they just go back to their original equilibrium.its basicly interchange of 2 different equilibriums,an chemical equilibrium and a electrical equilibrium switching bakward and 4ward.thats why the karpen system gives a capacitance as opposed to continued current.did the physicists find the source of energy for the eefg yet?
Actually you need to do your homework on number 1. You will find that the energy is derived from the electron spin being put into a wobble.
As for the EEFG device several physicists and scientists have expressed differing views as to the origins of the electricity being generated. I have my own thoughts and all have merit. So the answer to that is not conclusive. The power dos climb dramatically in colder temperatures.
I agree with your answer on electrets, unless they are manufactured in certain ways that for a lack of a 100 page explanation lock in a potential difference that may indeed draw electrons from the ambient.
Kind Regards
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: gmeast on May 27, 2013, 05:22:16 PM
"unlike what is beginning to take over and destroy all of overunity.com."   lol  idiot

What a waste of page space you are.  Why dont you stay over there where you belong in Roses George Orwell '1984' site. 

"The kicker is that they brought down a HUGE overunity forum, which also proves that they are NOT very popular at all.  Both you and Rosemary have a greater following and readership than all of those fakes combined!  And this is not just a compliment.  It's fact

Chess"   
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4200.html#msg4200 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4200.html#msg4200)

Oh my, Chess has really fallen off of the deep end also. I expected him to 'figure' it out by now.  ::)   Just like in '1984' he is the voice on the screen, lies and deception. They took down the reader, member and guest counter because they want us to think that we could not interpret those numbers for ourselves. ::) ;) So they must do that for us periodically, so that everything is in order.  ;)   What a sham.  Like the 3 stooges, they cannot see their own 'idiocracy'.

Mags
You're just about as much a waste of space for even replying. Have a wonderful day. I'm glad I'm not you.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 27, 2013, 05:22:45 PM
@markdansie,ive done similar experiments to number 2.ive taken a piece of carbon and put it in contact with pyrite(a thermoelectric semiconductor) and gotten a small continuous current due to the fact that carbon is a much better absorber of ambient infrared radiation than pyrites but it was small current(impractical).im certain theres much better selection of semiconductors and substrates might do a much better job of differential infrared absorbtion and power output.electrons are like tennis balls,some will always jump up over the 'fence'when it comes to semiconductors.im now working with infrared photoelectrochemical systems that show real promise,continuous current in the hundreds microamp range(surface area dependant),let me work for you guys mark.those dollars into rands(south african currency)would be very pretty:-)
Alas Doctor Watson you have observed this. But you will be surprised if you introduce a third element like an Ionic bridge you may enhance the result. Also if you make many of them small enough and put them in parallel you can increase the current. The right material combination is also a good idea as you suggested.
PS this one is a personnel project of mine I intend to go forward with when the flashlight is finalized.
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: dragon on May 27, 2013, 05:32:36 PM
http://ecatnews.com/?p=2535
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: dragon on May 27, 2013, 06:07:23 PM
Arthur Schopenhauer once said: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: e2matrix on May 27, 2013, 06:08:24 PM
What type of scanners are you referring to here:  1. Take a high spin nuclear material (the type they use from Scanners) and place it in a magnetic field.

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 27, 2013, 07:19:39 PM
@markdansie lol.i know about number 1 from the piezo speakers that ive got lying around,but tell me,out of curiosity,what would you do if some peasant in thailand called you and showed you something of value,what is your process?would you ship the guy to where you are?would that be necesary?do you work for one or many corporates?do you work for yourself?please enlighten us mr mystery markdansie.     
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 27, 2013, 07:30:04 PM
@e2matrix.i think mark,s referring to a iron barcode strip stuck on2 a piezo crystal,essentialy what a giftcard speaker is.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 27, 2013, 08:56:54 PM
"unlike what is beginning to take over and destroy all of overunity.com."   lol  idiot

What a waste of page space you are.  Why dont you stay over there where you belong in Roses George Orwell '1984' site. 

"The kicker is that they brought down a HUGE overunity forum, which also proves that they are NOT very popular at all.  Both you and Rosemary have a greater following and readership than all of those fakes combined!  And this is not just a compliment.  It's fact

Chess"   
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4200.html#msg4200 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4200.html#msg4200)

Oh my, Chess has really fallen off of the deep end also. I expected him to 'figure' it out by now.  ::)   Just like in '1984' he is the voice on the screen, lies and deception. They took down the reader, member and guest counter because they want us to think that we could not interpret those numbers for ourselves. ::) ;) So they must do that for us periodically, so that everything is in order.  ;)   What a sham.  Like the 3 stooges, they cannot see their own 'idiocracy'.

Mags

HOOT! I can still see the forum stats there.... but look at the "new members"!  The Guest viewers and most of the "members" are spambots!! Ainslie, chessnyt, gmeast, and two or three others are the only posters! They are chatting among themselves. There are more posts and more real readers on this forum in a day than there are on Ainslie's honeypot in a month, and her own forum stats prove it.

And what about YouTube subscribers? The numbers tell a story, and the story is that the claims made by chessnyt are, as usual, wrong.
Ainslie as "dooziedont": 14  (http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont)
Ainslie as "aetherevarising": 14  (http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising)
Ainslie as "Rosemary Ainslie" : 0   (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl_CaI0BzcLgmW7aFWM29WQ)
Yet another Ainslie account as "Rosemary Ainslie" : 0   (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g)
(That's right, Ainslie has four separate YouTube channels.)
Gmeast (whose channel is titled "Please help $upport my R&D"): 177
TinselKoala: 1,251
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 28, 2013, 01:41:47 AM
@e2matrix.i think mark,s referring to a iron barcode strip stuck on2 a piezo crystal,essentialy what a giftcard speaker is.
Look up MRI scanning and hi spin materials.
No radioactivity involved
Mark
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: e2matrix on May 28, 2013, 02:50:24 AM
HOOT! I can still see the forum stats there.... but look at the "new members"!  The Guest viewers and most of the "members" are spambots!! Ainslie, chessnyt, gmeast, and two or three others are the only posters! They are chatting among themselves. There are more posts and more real readers on this forum in a day than there are on Ainslie's honeypot in a month, and her own forum stats prove it.

And what about YouTube subscribers? The numbers tell a story, and the story is that the claims made by chessnyt are, as usual, wrong.
Ainslie as "dooziedont": 14  (http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont (http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont))
Ainslie as "aetherevarising": 14  (http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising (http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising))
Ainslie as "Rosemary Ainslie" : 0   (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl_CaI0BzcLgmW7aFWM29WQ (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl_CaI0BzcLgmW7aFWM29WQ))
Yet another Ainslie account as "Rosemary Ainslie" : 0   (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g))
(That's right, Ainslie has four separate YouTube channels.)
Gmeast (whose channel is titled "Please help $upport my R&D"): 177
TinselKoala: 1,251
Most forum software greatly exagerates the number of guests.   There are many reasons for that. 
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: e2matrix on May 28, 2013, 02:58:20 AM
Look up MRI scanning and hi spin materials.
No radioactivity involved
Mark
Ah that type of scanner.   Makes sense now.   I could not imagine how a photo copy scanner had anything to do with this.   
LOL - Now the only other thing I'm confused on is what an iron barcode strip is .... profitis ??   Google search = No results found for "iron barcode strip".
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 28, 2013, 11:38:19 AM
@markdansie radio frequency eh? We should both(including hardcastle if he has anything)be shitting bricks if the 27thcenturytechnologies.com peeps are for real,although you never know,their tech might be more expensive.i asked them if their device is a 2nd law breach but i get no reply.its either a 2nd law breach or its a radiofrequency rectifier and if its the latter it wont work everywhere.if its nuclear tritium betavoltaics then it,l be frighteningly expensive.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 28, 2013, 11:49:46 AM
@e2matrix nevermind that,im looking at cheap ways to enrich potassium40 isotope,did you know that natural potassium is radio-active?
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 28, 2013, 11:50:30 AM
Well I am not sure radio frequency, Liek I said in presence of a magnetic field the electrons spin with a wobble, the mechanical action of that wobble can be harvested. Mr Hardcastle has no working evidence of anything of any significance. I put him in the same bin as Rosemary. (that bin is rather full at the moment)
Apart from LENR  (I am still out on that)I am scratching my head to think of anything that demonstrates over-unity.
Perhaps you can enlighten me
Mark
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 28, 2013, 02:38:04 PM
yes @markdansie but the magnetic field has to oscillate to wobble,some sort of energy is required,whats gona wobble it?nantennas are very wobbly but expensive to make.the lenr story is probably a 2nd law breach involving chemomagnetic dipole oscillation,which then propells particles beyond coulomb barriers,its like taking a sledgehammer and a chisel and focusing that energy onto an atom or particle in a particular direction(smart chiselling),but i sit on the fence until i personally see evidence of this lenr effect mark,cant rule it out,cant rule it in.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 28, 2013, 04:55:59 PM
Its not the magnetic field that wobbles, I will send yo ua papero n it one day soon
mark
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 28, 2013, 05:23:55 PM
@markdansie..dont scratch your head too long,ive seen overunity and i was more skeptic than you are.it takes a skeptic individual to know when he is looking at overunity thats why peeps trust you when you say you have found something working like the eefg.i think most guys who stumble onto a 2nd law breach dont bother with youtube and overunity.com,they just go strait to the corps,which is what i would do if i had an american greencard. alot of these devices are shelved by corps im sure and we dont hear of them.they certainly dont use words like 'perpetual' in their patents.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 28, 2013, 05:34:44 PM
@markdansie,thanx that would be a interesting read.wonder if i cn figure it out meantime mm..
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: lumen on May 28, 2013, 06:24:49 PM
@e2matrix nevermind that,im looking at cheap ways to enrich potassium40 isotope,did you know that natural potassium is radio-active?

Yes, ever since nuclear bomb testing, all natural potassium is in fact now radioactive.
 
 
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: fritz on May 28, 2013, 06:53:31 PM
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/05/27/structural-physics-of-nuclear-fusion/
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: FatBird on May 28, 2013, 11:10:05 PM
I'm at a LOSS why anyone really cares about this.

1.  The best Cold Fusion device still has to BOIL WATER TO MAKE steam.
2.  Then the STEAM has to drive a High Speed TURBINE.
3.  Then the Spinning Turbine Shaft has to drive a GENERATOR (with a Gear Reduction TRANSMISSION) to make Electricity.

It seems A LOT BETTER if we can find a device that makes electricity DIRECTLY, WITHOUT Boiling Water, Steam, Turbine, Transmission, and Generator.
Click on the Links below to see some devices:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHswoNpc0Tk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHswoNpc0Tk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxLpaydM4eg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxLpaydM4eg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjSOAOFqBio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjSOAOFqBio)
.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 29, 2013, 12:57:53 AM
@lumen..who cares? Potassium40 is the holy grail of a commercial betavoltaic cell,imagine:cheap,abundant,beyond federal controll...just has to be grossly enriched somehow,damn..
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 29, 2013, 01:03:08 PM
As was expected the recent testing of the Ecat has been heavily criticized
In this months Ny Teknik the headlines read


[size=2.9167em]Harsh criticism of report (http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3703463.ece)[/size]

Energy measurement on the controversial energy unit E-cat, Which was published last week criticized now.  (http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3703463.ece)[size=0.8667em]67 comments [/size]

[size=1.3333em]Wagering halted after test (http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3535258.ece)A group of Swedes were preparing an investment in the E-cat. (http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3535258.ece)[size=0.8667em]298 comments [/size]


I think this second article was published after last September's test results


Read more at
http://www.nyteknik.se/ (http://www.nyteknik.se/)


you will need to translate.
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 29, 2013, 02:00:57 PM
The Discovery Channel’s web site has come out with an article by Jesse Emspak (which features a large picture of Andrea Rossi at at its head) titled “5 Reasons Cold Fusion is Bunk” (http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/5-reasons-cold-fusion-bunk-130528.htm).[/font]
The five reasons listed in the article for being skeptical about Rossi and the E-Cat are :[/font]
1. The Coulombe barrier — only possible with super high temperatures and massive brute force, such as in the stars)[/font]
2. Gamma Rays — two inches of lead shielding would be needed to stop 96 percent of gamma rays from a fusion reaction, and Rossi would be very sick if even only four percent of gamma rays escaped from his device. There didn’t seem to be any shielding in his reactor.[/font]
3. Transmutation — there would need to be new elements coming out of the machine if cold fusion was occurring. Rossi said initially that nickel is being transmutated to copper — not even supernovas can do that)[/font]
4. Testing — during the test the reactor was never disconnected from the mains power even when their equipment measured no power was being consumed. The team did not test for a hidden DC wire.[/font]
5. Catalyst — Rossi has not disclosed the catalyst he is using claiming it is a trade secret and this is a red flag.[/font]
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 29, 2013, 02:25:27 PM
Quote from New Energy Times
From: Dr. Alessio Guglielmi
To: Drs. Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén
Dear Doctors Levi, Foschi, Hartman, Höistad, Pettersson, Tegnér and Essén,
I have read your recent manuscript `Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder´ on arXiv (http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913)[/b] and I am very perplexed.
This brings me to asking another natural question: who will profit from the release of your manuscript? You do realize that Mr. Rossi sells distribution licenses and that he needs to convince customers to order some of his devices. There is no doubt that your manuscript will help his marketing efforts, but is this something that academics should do? Is it our job to help a private individual sell his stuff in the absence of solid, reproducible evidence?
In other words, I wonder whether you are adhering to scientific protocol and I wonder whether what you are doing is legitimate for academics. Other people questioned your technical ability, but I think that the ethical questions that I am posing here come first, also because they are more understandable by the layman. I trust that you appreciate my frankness, and I hope that you can prove my concerns unjustified.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 29, 2013, 03:16:14 PM
From the Essen Q&A:

Quote
> 3. Why was the "dummy" test carried out with different conditions
> regarding the supply of power, than the non "dummy" test?

It was not. It was carried out with everything as equal as possible.
The on/off mode was due to a thermostat that prevented the reactor
getting too hot and this was not relevant in the dummy test.

Did Essen actually not even read the paper that carries his name as an author?

From the paper:
Dummy:
Quote
This “unloaded” device
was subject to measurements performed after the 116-hr trial run, and was kept running for about
six hours. Instrumentation and data analysis were the same as those used for the test of the active
E-Cat HT2. We prefer to present the data relevant to the dummy beforehand, since these data
made it possible to perform a sort of “calibration” of the E-Cat HT2, as shall be pointed out
below.
The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same control box, but without the ON/OFF
cycle of the resistor coils. Thus, the power applied to the dummy was continuous.
Power to the dummy’s resistor coils was stepped up gradually, waiting for the device to reach thermal
equilibrium at each step. In the final part of the test, the combined power to the dummy +
control box was around 910-920 W. Resistor coil power consumption was measured by placing the
instrument in single-phase directly on the coil input cables, and was found to be, on average, about
810 W. From this one derives that the power consumption of the control box was approximately =
110-120 W. At this power, the heat produced from the resistor coils alone determined an average
surface temperature (flange and “top” excluded) of almost 300 °C, very close to the average one
found in the same areas of the E-Cat HT2 during the live test.

HotCat:
Quote
The E-Cat HT2 was started approximately at 3:00 p.m. on March 18. The initial power input was
about 120 W, gradually stepping up in the course of the following two hours, until a value
suitable for triggering the self-sustaining mode was reached. From then onwards, and for the
following 114 hours, input power was no longer manually adjusted, and the ON/OFF cycles of
the resistor coils followed one another at almost constant time intervals. During the coil ON states,
the instantaneous power absorbed by the E-Cat HT2 and the control box together was visible on
the PCE-830 LCD display. This value, with some fluctuations in time, remained in any case
within a range of 910-930 W. By checking the video image relevant to the PCE-830 LCD
display, we were also able to estimate the length of the ON/OFF intervals: with reference to the
entire duration of the test, the resistor coils were on for about 35% of the time, and off for the
remaining 65%.

"Everything as equal as possible"????? Is Essen dissembling, or is he simply not an experimentalist at all? A bright ten-year-old child could have equated the conditions better. Of course if "Possible" means "What Rossi would allow", the situation is somewhat different, isn't it.

1. The dummy was the SAME UNIT that was run in the active test, but without the inner end caps. Therefore, the dummy had aged and used heater coils and did not have the same thermal mass as the active unit.
2. The dummy was only operated for six hours; the active unit was operated for at least 116 hours.
3. The electrical power to the "dummy" was continuous, stepped up gradually and the temperature was allowed to equilibrate at each step. The power to the active unit was applied and maintained very differently, according to the paper.
4. Nothing is said about ensuring that the environment was "equated" between the two runs. In a drafty warehouse, on the open, hung from a framework.... the only way to assure that the dummy and the active unit are equated environmentally is to run the TWO SEPARATE but identical-exept-for-fuel-charge units SIDE BY SIDE and simultaneously for the same time periods and receiving the _identical_ power schedules, and monitored on the SAME INSTRUMENT with the exact same calibrations.

There are more inequalities between the "dummy" and the active unit but these are enough to refute Essen's rather naive statement altogether.


Quote
By checking the video image relevant to the PCE-830 LCD
display, we were also able to estimate the length of the ON/OFF intervals:

This right here is enough to completely invalidate the entire paper. Any peer reviewer seeing this in a paper submitted for publication would toss it in the circular file right then and there. You are monitoring the power supplied to the unit with a two thousand dollar instrument, and then you "estimate" one of the most critical parameters of the whole "experiment" from a set of photos of its display.  What is the Italian word for FACEPALM ??
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 29, 2013, 09:08:34 PM
i find it very interesting that the temperatures of these ecats centre around the curie point of nickel(350degree).if those guys bash rossi up it wont affect the truth one iota because somebody else will replicate.if nobody replicates this effect then it might begin to smell like kaka.we demand replications from far and wide.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: lumen on May 29, 2013, 09:11:12 PM
@TK

The test could have been done better in many ways but the overall result is not that easily discounted.

I believe the ON/OFF time was not that critical and only was simply estimated because it was not actually used in the equation. It was just a guess based on some visual attribute.

The actual power consumed throughout both of the tests was captured accurately by the equipment.


I,m not fully convinced at this point either. I keep hope that the smart people doing the testing are correct and simply left out some information.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: Gwandau on May 29, 2013, 10:03:13 PM
 
The swedish scientists performing these tests are still not fully convinced themselves, as they clearly point out again and again.
 
I would like to emphasize that no truly scientific schooled person would accept the hitherto presented results as final proof and these guys from the Swedish University of Uppsala performing the tests are no exception.
 
This forum harbor a set of guys with an unfortunate attitude of presumtion in that they are repeatedly overeager to give their own guesses and conclusions more credit than the actual scientists performing the experiments. This is quite embarrassing since none of these forum members has any scientific mandate whatsoever to even attempt getting involved in critiscism of the scientific methodology performed during the tests. The swedish scientists belong to an academic level of empiric rutine and rigor that far transcends any attempt from amateurs to apply their home brewed critiscism.  There is enough  critiscism coming from the conservative scientific community, no need to act like a mob in their wake.
 
So please keep the discussion on a scientifically correct level and try to participate in this highly intriguing process in a bit more objective stage of mind.
 

Nobody cares wether you or I believe or not in the E-cat, what we believe does not carry any weight whatsoever. The only ones that have any ability and mandate to make a difference in the validation process are guys like the independent swedish team having full access to the E-cat for test runs.
 

As they state in the conclusion: "The March test is to be considered an improvement over the one performed in December, in that various problems encountered in the first experiment were addressed and solved in the second one. In the next test experiment which is expected to start in the summer of 2013, and will last about six months, a long term performance of the E-Cat HT2 will be tested. This test will be crucial for further attempts to unveil the origin of the heat phenomenon observed so far."
 
Gwandau
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 29, 2013, 10:26:41 PM
it still wont make a difference @gwandau.you can have the bestest team for the longest test but the box remains closed,the assumption of rossi,s frends doing tests lingers.in this way rossi is tilting his bum at 90degrees toward the air and asking for an establishment dildo,they will squash him like a bug.he must open that box or somebody must replicate.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 29, 2013, 11:21:36 PM
it still wont make a difference @gwandau.you can have the bestest team for the longest test but the box remains closed,the assumption of rossi,s frends doing tests lingers.in this way rossi is tilting his bum at 90degrees toward the air and asking for an establishment dildo,they will squash him like a bug.he must open that box or somebody must replicate.
I actually agree with you (will check with my doctor today) The posts I made were reference to other academics or are more than a little alarmed at the quality of the tests and how they were performed. Given the restrictions they did a fair job, but they like many others who have tried are not allowed to do basic tests that would satisfy everyone. Unless true independence is granted and accepted methodologies used to measure heat flow, not just tempreture then no progress will be made.
I can get the same data and results if put more energy than can be dissipated into any device.
kind Regards

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 30, 2013, 02:49:31 AM
no need 4 doctor @markdansie,im same as you with everything,skeptic until everdence.unfortunately the few overunities out ther are swamped by the fakes,delusionals and the mal-informed so we must stay alert.ther is also another side to the coin here meaning rossi may want this to go the way its going,these italians r very shrewd.you cant deny that oil people dont like lenr and he may be wanting to paint a picture of a conartist,meantime hes the real deal,talk about a mind twister.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: orbut 3000 on May 30, 2013, 03:50:11 AM
True. Oil people don't like the lenr. Because: Them is stoopid folks, they are. They'd rather invest in silly schemes like offshore wind farms, solar and biofuels. They would never try to invest in LENR or other technologies because they are committed to teh oils and hate their shareholders.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on May 30, 2013, 05:40:58 AM
True. Oil people don't like the lenr. Because: Them is stoopid folks, they are. They'd rather invest in silly schemes like offshore wind farms, solar and biofuels. They would never try to invest in LENR or other technologies because they are committed to teh oils and hate their shareholders.
[/quote The oil sector as you point out are one of the biggest investors in green technologies and are actually pioneers in many areas.
Is this speculation or do you have some information regarding your claim. Guess whatt hese oil companies know the oil is going to run out one day as well so they want to hedge their future.
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on May 30, 2013, 07:58:53 AM
actualy @markdansie thers not much that can replace gasoline in a car,wind..no,solar..no,geothermal..no.so they not in the least worried but that red-hot glowing thingy that has 5grams nickel in it?i would get shaky bones oh yes i would,indeed i mite freak out,depends.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: FatBird on May 31, 2013, 01:48:52 AM
This invention is causing HITLER to PANIC.  Click on the link below to see it:  LOL


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX0vcU4iedQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX0vcU4iedQ)



Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: FatBird on May 31, 2013, 04:12:40 PM
Thanks Gerd.  Glad you like it.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: FatBird on May 31, 2013, 10:03:55 PM
.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: OscarMeyer on June 01, 2013, 05:58:15 PM
all the guy has to do is show accurate electrical input by placin the right test equipment and data recorders in series with the wall socket or main disconnect/breaker and the device.  Then we would have the total overall input power going in at all times including when the power input is reduced in the so called selfrun mode.  that is the first thing
 
then the output is going to be heat so you use the hot-cat to heat water and in an isolated water circuit.  using a heat exchanger you just use a second isolated water circuit which will safely cool the primary water circuit and you measure the second water circuit temp before and after it goes thru the heat exchanger with calibrated "K" thermocouple and multi-channel professional chart recorder.  afetr the it goes through the heat exchanger it will need to go thru a cooling tower and possibly a chiller so the water doesn't get too hot being recycled because the test should run for at least 3 weeks straight.
 
take your flow rates and heat measurements and then convert heat to kW thru known formulas and you have a conservative result.  everyone knows ALL heat exchangers are very INEFFICIENT so the result will always be lower than it really should be but if the hot-cat does half of what Ross says it does then it should have no problem showing higher output than input.
OM
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on June 01, 2013, 06:57:52 PM
But it doesn't, because it can't, and he knows it, so he won't.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: OscarMeyer on June 01, 2013, 08:13:52 PM
exactly. if any university really believed the results recorded in the latest round of testing, they would buy one of Ross' units and run monthlong testing of the unit because then ross could not interfere with any of the test parameters including the length of the test. after all this would be the single most important discovery in the last century so it would be a no-brainer to get the large unit that supposedly got sold to customers who are not proud of their product from ross and won't talk about it at all.   but the universities are not buying any of this and neither am I.
OM
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: FatBird on June 03, 2013, 12:02:00 AM
Rossi's Free Energy invention is causing HITLER to PANIC.  Click on the link below to see it:  LOL
THIS IS A MASTERPIECE!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX0vcU4iedQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX0vcU4iedQ)

.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: OscarMeyer on June 03, 2013, 01:42:45 AM
"It appears there are some that believe that buying a 1MW E-Cat plant from Rossi would be a good idea, though many are doubtful this will ever happen.  It just so happens that there is indeed a group seeking to raise money to do just that.  To buy a 1MW plant for true independent testing of the device without any restrictions.  This group would be the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP).  A possibility that would be quite appropriate due to the legacy of the technology."  http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,4.msg4236.html#new (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,4.msg4236.html#new)
 
I would tak a picture of the page if I could but I do not have the sofware.  I WILL EAT MY SHIRT AND TAKE BACK MY WORDS if someone buys a unit for testing.......but the chances are slim to NONE!!!! 
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: MileHigh on June 03, 2013, 01:48:40 AM
I watched Mark Dansie have a good rant about Rossi and the eCat on the last SmartScarecrow show.  So what first looked promising has apparently not panned out under closer inspection and there is a general consensus out there that the test was not definitive.

Enough to make a grown man cry.

Considering that there are billions and billions of tons of nickel on planet Earth it would be nice to get some good news.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on June 03, 2013, 03:10:25 AM
it,l take yeeeeaaars for mfmp to raise the money,whats the point?this crap about rossi having a 'secret catalyst'must end now.mfmp has the facilities to cook their own nickel on a tiny fraction of a 1.5milion budget for fucksakes,theyre in for a fastbuck(slowbuck) it seems which really freaks me out. 
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: OscarMeyer on June 03, 2013, 04:19:33 AM
it,l take yeeeeaaars for mfmp to raise the money,whats the point?this crap about rossi having a 'secret catalyst'must end now.mfmp has the facilities to cook their own nickel on a tiny fraction of a 1.5milion budget for fucksakes,theyre in for a fastbuck(slowbuck) it seems which really freaks me out.
You are right.  they intend to do extensive testing 1st but afterwards they plan on setting the plant up to sell electricity to the grid and use the proceeds to repay the price of ross' unit.  not gonna work and no can do.
OM
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on June 03, 2013, 12:59:20 PM
@oscar im very scared that mfmp might rig their own experimental success now to boost confidence in donations,or at very least,self-delude themselves into overlooking a error while experimenting,the allure of money can have its own cold fusion effect on a humans brain.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: Zeitmaschine on June 04, 2013, 03:30:26 PM
Sales start in Germany coming soon?

E-CAT DEUTSCHLAND GMBH (http://www.e-cat-deutschland.de/home.html)

But I don't know whether »soon« means next week or next year or next decade. ???

And I don't know why they still have lots of sun panels on their roof. ::)

71384 Weinstadt, Stuttgarter Str. 34 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=71384+Weinstadt,+Stuttgarter+Stra%C3%9Fe+34&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.803818,9.385017&spn=0.000433,0.000603&sll=48.803819,9.385016&sspn=0.000433,0.000603&t=h&hnear=Stuttgarter+Stra%C3%9Fe+34,+Beutelsbach+71384+Weinstadt,+Stuttgart,+Baden-W%C3%BCrttemberg,+Germany&z=21)

Regards
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on June 04, 2013, 03:41:18 PM
That looks like a 1MW module, the ones made with Rossi's old technology, made according to his patent application, that uses isotopically enriched nickel, lead shielding to thermalize the gammas, has a "self destruct mechanism" to keep out prying eyes and needs a 500 kW diesel genset running constantly for it to work, as shown in Rossi's demonstration of that unit for his military customers. Right?

Does the German distributor also provide the diesel genset, or must that be separately sourced?

I really think they should wait for the Hot Cat, don't you? No diesel genset needed, no dangerous gammas, no isotopic nickel, no clumsy and heavy lead shielding, no "self destruct" mechanism and a solid COP of 3 (even though Rossi has always 'guaranteed' six). Anyone would be a fool to waste money on that big 1MW plant when commercial release of the Hot Cat is just around the corner.

Right?
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on June 04, 2013, 09:09:02 PM
brother in this game the word 'soon' is meaningless.i wish companies would shut up until they had something to show.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: FatBird on June 05, 2013, 05:26:22 PM
                                                                                                    .
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: FatBird on June 06, 2013, 10:24:04 PM
                                                                                                                                                        .
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: Zeitmaschine on June 18, 2013, 12:44:20 PM
Success? As it seems: Cold Fusion: First E-Cat plant was handed over to customers (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extremnews.com%2Fberichte%2Fwissenschaft%2F64f0146f035936a)
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on June 18, 2013, 12:59:43 PM
Great Website! The videos on the right show Remote Healing By Video, and the Rise of the Kingdom of Germany...... it's great to see that "woo" translates so well.
I think we have some German people on this forum. Let one of them go and visit this new installation and watch it working! If they can find it, that is.

Hint: It never left Italy, it's still in one of Rossi's warehouses.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: Zeitmaschine on June 18, 2013, 05:55:43 PM
Hint: It never left Italy, it's still in one of Rossi's warehouses.
This would not make much sense for the customers if it stays that way.

Remote Healing By Video? Why not? If the video says »stop smoking« the result could be a healthier body.

;D
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on June 18, 2013, 11:22:06 PM
This would not make much sense for the customers if it stays that way.

What customers?
Quote

Remote Healing By Video? Why not? If the video says »stop smoking« the result could be a healthier body.

 ;D
Sure.... for the person who sold you the video, since he's now richer, and you are now poorer. And he's told you nothing you didn't already know (but he waved his hands at you while doing it.)
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: Zeitmaschine on June 19, 2013, 01:20:49 PM
What customers?
Should be revealed later this summer.

Sure.... for the person who sold you the video, since he's now richer, and you are now poorer. And he's told you nothing you didn't already know (but he waved his hands at you while doing it.)
But at least there are no harmful secondary effects for health -- contrary to some expensive pills from the drugstore.

But if due to the Rossi device the oil price (and with it the Dollar) is going to collapse soon a lot of people will need sedative pills from the store -- with or without secondary effects for health. ;D ::)
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: Poit on June 20, 2013, 02:31:27 AM
"Should be revealed later this summer." ahhhhhh keeping up with traditations I see.... everything is always just around the corner..........

If you remember, Rossi's E-Cat was suppose to "reach market by October 2011"!!

in the free energy movement, there is no tomorrow, you either have proof now or you got nothing at all..
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: Zeitmaschine on June 20, 2013, 03:25:51 PM
Isn't that strange? A Pilot Customer (http://hydrofusion.com/news/wanted-pilot-customer-for-ecat-1-mw-plant) for ECAT 1 MW plant is wanted in Sweden for »nothing at all«. ::)

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: fritz on October 08, 2014, 09:24:32 PM
The actual report.......

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf (http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf)
(was published anyway - because magic hold@arXiv!?)


Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: MarkE on October 08, 2014, 10:08:06 PM
Determining output power using an IR camera is fraught with major sources of potential error.  Looking at their calculated values for radiated and convected heat one may observe that they had initial readings at ~800W input with reported 1733W radiated and 386W convected.  They increased the input power by 105W, IE and the convected values to 432W.   Input power increased by 13.1% and the calculated convection increased by 11.9%.  But the calculated radiated power increased to 2451W, a 41% increase in calculated output.  This strongly suggests that the calculations for radiated power are wrong.  Since the vast majority of output is based on the calculated radiated power, this is a major issue.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: fritz on October 08, 2014, 10:39:54 PM
(..) They increased the input power by 105W, IE and the convected values to 432W.   Input power increased by 13.1% and the calculated convection increased by 11.9%.  But the calculated radiated power increased to 2451W, a 41% increase in calculated output.  (...)

To sum it up - you assume a strong nonlinear increase in COP as suspicious(!?)

The results are awesome - even if there would be an  systematical error of 50%.....

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on October 08, 2014, 10:52:49 PM
We can no longer ignore this.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: MarkE on October 09, 2014, 12:31:46 AM
To sum it up - you assume a strong nonlinear increase in COP as suspicious(!?)

The results are awesome - even if there would be an  systematical error of 50%.....
No, I evaluate that comparative calculations that do not correlate are likely incorrect.  Both convection and radiated heat emission increase with applied thermal power.   Their calculated increase in convection output fails to correlate with their calculated increase in radiated output.  The increase in their calculated convection correlates pretty well with their measured input power increase refuting the idea that they had a big non-linear jump as they calculated from their IR measurements.  They failed to discuss, perhaps because they failed to even notice, the important discrepancy in their calculated values.

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: MarkE on October 09, 2014, 12:32:19 AM
We can no longer ignore this.
Sure we can.  The experiments are junk.  It has been nearly four years since Rossi first made his claims and three years since he claimed he delivered megaWatt scale generators and still there isn't a single clean experiment that corroborates his claims.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: fritz on October 09, 2014, 01:03:42 AM
(...) and still there isn't a single clean experiment that corroborates his claims.

What claims ?
There was an almost independent third party test setup for 32 days...., done by academics in the field......

Rossi should participate on overunity forum to realize how clean and independent experimenting looks alike ;-)))))))))))))))

I think it´s the most convincing system and alternate energy supply in the field - maybe only the QEG might beat it.

rgds.

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: wings on October 09, 2014, 04:52:16 AM
What claims ?
There was an almost independent third party test setup for 32 days...., done by academics in the field......

Rossi should participate on overunity forum to realize how clean and independent experimenting looks alike ;-)))))))))))))))

I think it´s the most convincing system and alternate energy supply in the field - maybe only the QEG might beat it.

rgds.


:) 


https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/luganoreportsubmit.pdf (https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/luganoreportsubmit.pdf)



:)

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2014, 12:45:46 PM
Nah @mark E I think those results are very accurate.I think they got a cop of 3.7. I also think they can get much higher cops if they want.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: wings on October 09, 2014, 01:17:53 PM
Nah @mark E I think those results are very accurate.I think they got a cop of 3.7. I also think they can get much higher cops if they want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhvD4KuAEmo#t=207 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhvD4KuAEmo#t=207)


http://ecat.com/news

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: MarkE on October 09, 2014, 11:14:28 PM
What claims ?
There was an almost independent third party test setup for 32 days...., done by academics in the field......

Rossi should participate on overunity forum to realize how clean and independent experimenting looks alike ;-)))))))))))))))

I think it´s the most convincing system and alternate energy supply in the field - maybe only the QEG might beat it.

rgds.
The QEG is a demonstrated low efficiency motor / generator.  Yes, the QEG beats Rossi's fraud. 
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: MarkE on October 09, 2014, 11:15:04 PM
Nah @mark E I think those results are very accurate.I think they got a cop of 3.7. I also think they can get much higher cops if they want.
Think what you want and ignore the convection data at your own risk.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on October 10, 2014, 02:32:19 AM
They did a controll test mark E.you would think that you can feel with your hands near the apparatus the difference between a heater without nukes in it and one with nukes in it.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: MarkE on October 10, 2014, 07:31:07 AM
They did a controll test mark E.you would think that you can feel with your hands near the apparatus the difference between a heater without nukes in it and one with nukes in it.
Their controls were a bad joke.  If one wants to validate that a thermal E N E R G Y measurement is valid, then one conducts unambiguous measurements and compares those results to the proposed measurement method.  They never did that.  Garbage In => Garbage Out.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: MarkE on October 10, 2014, 07:45:24 AM
I just need to throw in two reality checks on the E-Cat.

1)  This IS NOT any sort of "Free Energy" device.  It is a "Reactor", possibly operating on some sort of cold fusion, but still a device running from a "Fuel".  That being stated
it would seem to me that the "Overunity" factor is just for indicating how much of the output is from the reaction.  There is no "Magic" involved, just a "Fuel Consumption"
process which is not fully understood.  (Even the testors, with all their information offered no "Theories", just random idle thoughts...)

Thermal output in excess of the electrical input energy is the measure of whether or not the device is generating heat from an internal source, IE the nickel / hydrogen fuel.  Output less than or equal to the electrical input would mean a total fail.
Quote

2)  IMHO it matters not what the COP is!!!  The "Real" question is does it work at all!  Let's be real, OK.  If the unit puts out ANY more heat than what goes in, and the process
alters the "Fuel" in ANY manner that can be shown to be a nuclear operation, then this would be considered a nuclear reactor, right?  That right there is enough to REQUIRE
more research and work to be done.  Doing otherwise would just be ignorant.

See above.  If the COP is less than or equal to 1.0 then the nickel hydrogen is not a fuel source.  Once (assuming that there ever is) there is reliable observation of fuel to energy conversion then one can probe for an explanation.
Quote

Seeing that cold fusion has been known and proven for many years now, this does not seem to be an unlikely mode of operation, but obviously I am not qualified to even
offer an opinion as I have not seen actual data.  (Sorry, but a File and Video and PDF from people that I have not personally met is not proof for me.  Yes, I'm a skeptic.)

I doubt this will go far, as while I am typing this, I am holding a report on the US Navy duplicating and verifying the work of Pons and Fleischmann, which seems to have
been lost to the world.   I purposely saved this, in laminated sheets, dated March 23rd, 1991, because I knew then that such a process would never make it to market.
Say or think what you like, that is the Actual reality involved with certain inventions.  For you doubters, and other skeptics like me, you may flame me all you like, but the
only reason I have this in my hand is I knew then that NO-One would accept it, either then, or now.

The biggest problem for P&F is that even when well funded and equipped by Toyota they could not reproduce their own results.
Quote

Believe what you will.  I wish Rossi all the luck he can have in bringing this to market. 

As for comparing this to a QEG, that is not even funny.  The QEG is obvious fraud.  The E-Cat has never been touted as anything other than what it is.
It would be nice if there were a "this" to bring to market.  Rossi is his own worst enemy.  He has created a vast trail of contradictory claims and failed to ever produce himself or have a third party conduct a credible experiment.  If there is one image that is very telling about Rossi it is him shivering each winter in his long coat next to an ordinary propane heater while his super duper to cheap to meter megaWatt heat generator stands idle only a few meters away.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: TinselKoala on October 10, 2014, 08:22:53 AM
Uh oh. Looks like somebody forgot to tell the Nobel committee about Rossi's nuclear transmutation without radiation.  Oh well, there is always next year.

But how can he ever get any work done, I wonder, with all the attention from nuclear chemists and military weapons developers around the world who are banging on the doors of his warehouse wanting to take a look?

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: markdansie on October 10, 2014, 09:35:26 AM
No cigar on this.


 I have no idea why they do thermal imaging given the academic debate and complexities.
Calorimetric anyone?

Lets see, 3.2 cop.....wow lets make some steam, drive a turbine and make it self looped.
That might get the noble prize committees attention.
I will be back in three  years time with "what ever happened to'?


However one good thing is it may generate some further research by scientists, that is always a good thing and Rossi can get a few more free lunches.


Kind Regards
Mark


PS we did get some interesting comments


http://revolution-green.com/e-cat-lenr-test-results-released/



Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on October 10, 2014, 10:09:18 AM
@loner I don't think that you can say with any degree of certainty that physical-chemical-nuclear chain phenomena such as these are not involving laws of physics discrepencies.for example,how can you take nickel/copper alloy (remember celani) and expect to get nuclear disintergration here without traversing certain established laws.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: rukiddingme on October 10, 2014, 10:21:54 AM
More Info:
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf (http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf)

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline)

http://fcnp.com/2014/10/09/the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-a-new-report/ (http://fcnp.com/2014/10/09/the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-a-new-report/)

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2824558/infrastructure-management/could-ultra-cheap-clean-energy-be-just-around-the-corner-the-return-of-rossi-and-the-e-cat.html (http://www.networkworld.com/article/2824558/infrastructure-management/could-ultra-cheap-clean-energy-be-just-around-the-corner-the-return-of-rossi-and-the-e-cat.html)

http://pesn.com/2014/10/10/9602543_Apocalypse-Revealed--The-Four-Horsemen_of_Andrea-Rossis_E-Cat/ (http://pesn.com/2014/10/10/9602543_Apocalypse-Revealed--The-Four-Horsemen_of_Andrea-Rossis_E-Cat/)
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on October 10, 2014, 10:45:51 AM
@mark E.as I said before,at least one human being is going to have the brains to shove their hands near the apparatus vs a controll sooner or later while checking the power-meter.at least one human being
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on October 10, 2014, 10:59:14 AM
@mark dansie too many heat losses in a self-loop,rather go with better economics-practicality.with a cop over ten then it might be worthwhile to self-loop.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on October 10, 2014, 11:10:51 AM
@tinselkoala plenty gammas of low energy(Kev) burst forth DURING reactions(well shielded).if already stable elements undergo disintergration under these circumstances do you think that any radio-active(unstable) daughter products will remain? I don't think so.entropy favours the lowest states.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: FatBird on October 12, 2014, 08:40:51 PM
I fail to see why you get excited about this.  Any heat generated by this has
to boil water to make steam.  Then the steam has to turn a High Speed Turbine,
which turns a Transmission.  Then the transmission has to turn a Generator.


Why can't we focus on making something that will Output Electricity
directly without all of that junk.  Examples are the Floyd Sweet unit,
SM's TPU, etc.


                                         .
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: ramset on October 12, 2014, 09:36:45 PM
Excited ??
It would be a brand new unexplored field, surely of interest ?


Regarding the test Lab and their protocol ...Perhaps their engineers decided that submerging a high temp lithium solution into a Vat of water might not be the best course of action   :o  , maybe their insurance underwriters got involved and they had to come up with an alternate solution  [it was after all a 32 day run ??


Perhaps the Test Lab should be given the benefit of the doubt ,They supplied all the test equipment.   TEST Labs as a rule Dot the I's and cross the T's when it comes to "Their" equipment and its appropriate use in Measurement .
 
Today's Lab level thermal imaging Equipment Is Not like last years or even last weeks ..
Sensitivity improvements are daily in this field  , which is probably self evident to those who calibrate these Imagers at the scientific/Lab level for industry and laboratories.


Chet
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: MarkE on October 12, 2014, 11:43:08 PM
@mark dansie too many heat losses in a self-loop,rather go with better economics-practicality.with a cop over ten then it might be worthwhile to self-loop.
A claimed exothermic device triggered by heat supposedly evolves heat at a higher temperature than the input source.  That means that once started the device should self-sustain by simply controlling the rate at which heat is removed through an exchanger.  Rossi's story is ridiculous to the point of being completely stupid.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: ramset on October 13, 2014, 01:01:13 AM


 "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--  that principle is contempt prior to investigation."  -
 Herbert Spencer
-----------------


This is getting real clear and very simple to play with,perhaps some contributions on how to investigate ??


respectfully


Chet



Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: MarkE on October 13, 2014, 01:21:30 AM

 "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--  that principle is contempt prior to investigation."  -
 Herbert Spencer
-----------------


This is getting real clear and very simple to play with,perhaps some contributions on how to investigate ??


respectfully


Chet
Sure:  Measure actual output heat flux by calorimetry with a proper control experiment in parallel to insure the readings are correct.  Heat is after all what the device is supposed to cheaply produce.  So measure it!

Do not let Rossi within 1000 meters of the experiment.

Ensure that the input power is measured between a source that is completely under the control of the experimenters or a trusted uninterested third party such as the power utility.

None of these measures are particularly difficult tasks.  Well perhaps keeping Rossi away is.  If Rossi doesn't want the experimenters to disassemble his device and is worried about whether he can trust them, then an independent observer can be hired to ensure that the black boxes remain sealed.

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: Poit on October 13, 2014, 02:11:43 AM
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/10/12/232230/independent-researchers-test-rossis-alleged-cold-fusion-device-for-32-days
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on October 13, 2014, 04:39:39 PM
@mark E the rossi effect is a quantum 2lot violator much like a quenco or habtech is supposed to be.nuke events are a side-effect,usually endothermic disintergration taking place.if you stop heating a habtech you stop getting your excess power.if you drop below a certain temperature due to dissipation,your ecat drops dead.it needs to be fed at interval times.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on October 13, 2014, 04:46:40 PM
if your nuke side-effect goes exothermic instead of endothermic,then you can remove the mouse..but you better have a damn good coolant system going or a meltdown is likely in that scenario
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: MarkE on October 13, 2014, 06:19:23 PM
@mark E the rossi effect is a quantum 2lot violator much like a quenco or habtech is supposed to be.nuke events are a side-effect,usually endothermic disintergration taking place.if you stop heating a habtech you stop getting your excess power.if you drop below a certain temperature due to dissipation,your ecat drops dead.it needs to be fed at interval times.
You are not doing yourself any favors. 

Philip Hardcastle has withdrawn from the scene.  He did not ever succeed in devising any experiment that demonstrates violation of any thermodynamic law.

Rossi is a charlatan who has staunchly refused to allow anyone to perform a proper measurement of input and output energy on his stage props.  Rossi has failed to establish that his devices outperform the resistance heaters that are integral to each and every one.   Rossi relies on heavy winter coats and conventional propane heaters rather than his eCat heaters during those cold winters in Bologna.



Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on October 13, 2014, 08:03:41 PM
Quar is the word @mark E regardless of what rossi is using to heat his lounge..quar is the new black
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on October 13, 2014, 08:22:11 PM
Quar is going to hang around for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time to come like a gluttonous sucking parasitic leach mark E.what's the bet.quar has attatched its hooks so deep in the entrenchment that no parasiticide can kill this new fashion
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: MarkE on October 13, 2014, 09:16:25 PM
Profitis if someday you would like to back a claim that actually had objective evidence in its favor that would be nice.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: profitis on October 14, 2014, 12:43:44 AM
Sigh @mark E.Ima just going to point my index finger to sheehan.Ima say no more than that,wink-wink.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: tagor on April 26, 2016, 09:30:59 AM
Profitis if someday you would like to back a claim that actually had objective evidence in its favor that would be nice.
Mats Lewan Receives an Electricity Bill for 1MW Test CustomerPosted on April 24, 2016 by Frank Acland • 172 Comments (http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/24/mats-lewan-receives-an-electric-bill-for-1mw-test-customer/#comments) Mats Lewan is continuing to try and find evidence about the 1MW Plant test, and has turned up some interesting information about an electricity bill for the customer JM Products at the address 7861 NW 4th St, Doral, FL.  Mats update from this post: https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/20/lets-join-forces-to-bring-out-the-truth-on-rossi-ih-affair/ (https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/20/lets-join-forces-to-bring-out-the-truth-on-rossi-ih-affair/)
 <blockquote>April 24, 2016
I have received a copy of an electricity statement, from Florida Power & Light Company, issued on JM Chemical Products Corp., for the period February 2 until March 2, 2015. The total amount of energy consumed is 7,251 kWh. Depending on when the plant was put in operation for the one-year test (assuming at the latest February 16) this indicates an average consumption of about 10 to 20 kWh per hour. The Service Address on the statement is 7861 NW 46th Street, Doral, FL 33166-5470, which is the same as the official address listed for JM Products, and also where photos were taken that according to visitors to the plant looked like the place they visited. The amount charged is $1,266, while the amount for the previous month was $309, which is about a quarter, possibly indicating some early test activity.
This statement proves that electricity corresponding to what the 1MW plant should have consumed at a successful COP of about 50 has been consumed at the address reportedly being where the test was undertaken. It doesn’t prove any production by the customer, nor anything about the amount of energy produced by the MW plant, and consequently nothing about the COP. My source is not Rossi.</blockquote> So some great sleuthing by Mats Lewan! Hard numbers from independent sources are not easy to come by in this contentious environment. Rossi’s Complaint (http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Leonardosuit01-main.pdf) in his lawsuit against IH et al. states that the test began “on or about February 19 2015,” so only part of this electricity bill would be for while the test was taking place, and we can’t tell from this bill what the average electricity usage was during the period before or after testing. 
In this 30 day period, there are 720 hours. If my calculations are correct, if the amount of energy consumed is 7,251 kWh in that period, the amount of power generated during this billing period would be very close to 10 kW on average. Being conservative, let’s assume the test started on February 20th, and that very little energy was used prior to the official start of the test. 12 days (Feb 20-Mar 2) = 288 hours. If we assume 6500 kWh were used during that 12 day period; this would give an average power generation of 22.57 kW (6500/288) during the testing period. If Andrea Rossi is correct about the average output of the plant during the test being 1MW, then this would give close to the 50+ COP claimed by Rossi in the report; (1000/22.57 = 44.31 COP)
This has been very useful information regarding the energy input side of things (power bills for the entire duration of the test would be better). It would be nice if we could get confirmation of some kind that the output of the plant was 1MW, as Rossi has stated.

Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: memoryman on April 27, 2016, 03:02:58 PM
"It would be nice if we could get confirmation of some kind that the output of the plant was 1MW, as Rossi has stated." Without output energy measured, the input is meaningless. So, confirmation of some kind that the output of the plant was 1MW, as Rossi has stated is vital, not just nice.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 27, 2016, 04:45:30 PM
Mats Lewan Receives an Electricity Bill for 1MW Test CustomerPosted on April 24, 2016 by Frank Acland • 172 Comments (http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/24/mats-lewan-receives-an-electric-bill-for-1mw-test-customer/#comments) Mats Lewan is continuing to try and find evidence about the 1MW Plant test, and has turned up some interesting information about an electricity bill for the customer JM Products at the address 7861 NW 4th St, Doral, FL.  Mats update from this post: https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/20/lets-join-forces-to-bring-out-the-truth-on-rossi-ih-affair/ (https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/20/lets-join-forces-to-bring-out-the-truth-on-rossi-ih-affair/)
 <blockquote>April 24, 2016
I have received a copy of an electricity statement, from Florida Power & Light Company, issued on JM Chemical Products Corp., for the period February 2 until March 2, 2015. The total amount of energy consumed is 7,251 kWh. Depending on when the plant was put in operation for the one-year test (assuming at the latest February 16) this indicates an average consumption of about 10 to 20 kWh per hour. The Service Address on the statement is 7861 NW 46th Street, Doral, FL 33166-5470, which is the same as the official address listed for JM Products, and also where photos were taken that according to visitors to the plant looked like the place they visited. The amount charged is $1,266, while the amount for the previous month was $309, which is about a quarter, possibly indicating some early test activity.
This statement proves that electricity corresponding to what the 1MW plant should have consumed at a successful COP of about 50 has been consumed at the address reportedly being where the test was undertaken. It doesn’t prove any production by the customer, nor anything about the amount of energy produced by the MW plant, and consequently nothing about the COP. My source is not Rossi.</blockquote> So some great sleuthing by Mats Lewan! Hard numbers from independent sources are not easy to come by in this contentious environment. Rossi’s Complaint (http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Leonardosuit01-main.pdf) in his lawsuit against IH et al. states that the test began “on or about February 19 2015,” so only part of this electricity bill would be for while the test was taking place, and we can’t tell from this bill what the average electricity usage was during the period before or after testing. 
In this 30 day period, there are 720 hours. If my calculations are correct, if the amount of energy consumed is 7,251 kWh in that period, the amount of power generated during this billing period would be very close to 10 kW on average. Being conservative, let’s assume the test started on February 20th, and that very little energy was used prior to the official start of the test. 12 days (Feb 20-Mar 2) = 288 hours. If we assume 6500 kWh were used during that 12 day period; this would give an average power generation of 22.57 kW (6500/288) during the testing period. If Andrea Rossi is correct about the average output of the plant during the test being 1MW, then this would give close to the 50+ COP claimed by Rossi in the report; (1000/22.57 = 44.31 COP)
This has been very useful information regarding the energy input side of things (power bills for the entire duration of the test would be better). It would be nice if we could get confirmation of some kind that the output of the plant was 1MW, as Rossi has stated.

But if his unit/device really outputs more than is input, then his electricity bill would be 0 correct?  Why does he even have an electricity bill at all?  It's the same with WITTS and all of these other clowns out there all claiming free energy to power your home yet all of them still are on the grid and paying electric bills. Common sense tells me what is happening.

Bill
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: pomodoro on April 27, 2016, 04:58:17 PM
Not necessarily. The Carnot cycle is required to turn the extra heat into work so as to allow input power the device, closing the loop.You need the claimed excess heat to raise steam to incredibly high temps to make the Carnot cycle semi efficient to drive a generator. I don't know if his device can heat a small volume of water to massive temps or just heat a massive volume by a few degrees.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: memoryman on April 27, 2016, 04:58:57 PM
The unit could have been offline for any reason, therefore they had to buy some power.
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: d3x0r on December 09, 2017, 03:35:24 PM
https://ecat.com/news/official-ecat-1mw-one-year-report-from-expert-responsible-for-validation (https://ecat.com/news/official-ecat-1mw-one-year-report-from-expert-responsible-for-validation)


https://113452-323143-raikfcquaxqncofqfm.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Expert-Responsible-for-Validation-Ing-Fabio-Penon-Nuclear-Engineer-for-1-MW-E-Cat.pdf (https://113452-323143-raikfcquaxqncofqfm.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Expert-Responsible-for-Validation-Ing-Fabio-Penon-Nuclear-Engineer-for-1-MW-E-Cat.pdf)  (1 year test results) September 14, 2017


Working Theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud6-KRbvKqE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud6-KRbvKqE) November 26, 2017


https://ecat.com/ (https://ecat.com/)


Test was success if greater than 6 COP.  Result was average 80 COP with min 63 and max 139 that's a little better than 6 :)
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: lancaIV on December 09, 2017, 10:28:10 PM
For him and investors it is more important that the application called "fluid heater" was not only granted
by the U.S.patent office but also by the more stricted european patent office :


https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=20170927&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=EP&NR=3049733B1&KC=B1&ND=4#


wmbr
         OCWL
Title: Re: Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device. Success?
Post by: isawit on December 15, 2017, 04:29:20 PM
Another scientific scam.

Wait and see, soon will be gone as a fart.

Remember EM Drive? Solar Sail? Wrap Drive?