Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
g00dfella

Independent testing of Rossi's E-Cat Device

10 posts in this topic

Is it that hard to do with E-Cat what R.W. Wood did with N-rays? Just put inert gases (argon, nitrogen) instead of hydrogen (through randomly switched valves), and see if results are the same. I bet, Rossi would get same results, if someone would replace hydrogen with inert gases without Rossi noticing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it that hard to do with E-Cat what R.W. Wood did with N-rays? Just put inert gases (argon, nitrogen) instead of hydrogen (through randomly switched valves), and see if results are the same. I bet, Rossi would get same results, if someone would replace hydrogen with inert gases without Rossi noticing that.

Thanks, I had not known of this, but Hydrogen is much more available right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I had not known of this, but Hydrogen is much more available right?

I have tanks of both nitrogen and argon used for manufacturing processes (keeping things moisture free and laser welding) Not even expensive.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I had not known of this, but Hydrogen is much more available right?

As Bade said, getting nitrogen and argon is not the problem. "Problem" is with production of hydrogen: nowadays ~95% of hydrogen is produced by using fossil fuels such as natural gas, oil, or coal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "comment section" of the OP's article is an interesting read.

Some suggest that this "independent test" was not nearly as independent as one might think.

As such, I am going to refrain from calling this a "validation" for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "comment section" of the OP's article is an interesting read.

Some suggest that this "independent test" was not nearly as independent as one might think.

As such, I am going to refrain from calling this a "validation" for now.

I think that is the best course of action for now. These "tests" get it out in the open, now the real testing will, hopefully, begin.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is the best course of action for now. These "tests" get it out in the open, now the real testing will, hopefully, begin.

Lets hope it won't be tsunami of youtube-like "tests".
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to go back and check on this subject every now and then....

Here is what Wiki is saying now....

In May 2013 a non-peer-reviewed paper describing "results obtained from evaluations of the operation of the E-Cat HT in two test runs" was submitted to the arXiv digital archive.[59] Although the authors of the paper wrote that they were not in control of all of the aspects of the process, they concluded that, even by the most conservative of measurements, the device produced excess heat with a resulting energy density that was at least one order of magnitude, and possibly several, higher than any other conventional energy source, including gasoline.[60][61][62] The test was partly funded by the Swedish energy research consortium, Elforsk.[63] Elforsk stated on their website that the results were very remarkable, but that it was highly questionable to speculate whether nuclear transformation had occurred when no access had been provided to the reactants.[64] In a response to the original paper, also published on arXiv, commentators criticized the testing as not truly independent, described the report as having "characteristics more typically found in pseudo‐scientific texts", and stated that "The authors seem to jump to conclusions fitting pre‐conceived ideas where alternative explanations are possible."[65][66][67] Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel commented at ScienceBlogs saying Rossi did not allow the reactants or products to be measured on this occasion. In the previous tests there were not enough Nickel-62 and Nickel-64 (the only two isotopes which can fuse with hydrogen), at 3.6% and 0.9% respectively, in the reactants to explain the 10% copper output; these isotope levels are typical of natural copper, rather than of fusion by-product. According to Siegel, Rossi also refused to unplug the machine while it was operating despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device. He also added that the supposedly independent testers had to rely on data supplied by Rossi.[68]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

In January 2014 Industrial Heat LLC, a U.S. Company based in Raleigh, N.C., announced that it has acquired the "intellectual property and licensing rights" to the E-Cat. Popular Science called the acquisition "interesting" and said, "There are many reasons to be skeptical of the technology, considering that it has never been conclusively proven to work, and claims to work via an unfamiliar chemical reaction. Rossi has also previously passed off spurious inventions, and has repeatedly backed-out of third party testing of the E-Cat, for example with NASA."[76] Triangle Business Journal reported that 14 investors have put $11.6 million into the company, as "a mixture of equity, debt and options". They noted that CEO Tom Darden is also CEO of Cherokee Investment Partners, which has "nearly $2 billion under management", and that Industrial Heat was "one of the topics he discussed with Chinese officials on a recent trip to China."[77][78] Rossi "claims to focus on his role as head of research for the technology".[79]

Maybe Mr Rossi is nearing the payday he has been pushing for since day one, and will finally be able to end this long scam.

Industrial Heats report....

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.