Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011 edited
     
    New F&R thread really for F&R stuff. I think this may have been discussed but what's noteworthy about it is that every time Rossi does a demo, the claim for power out seems to drop. This article only suggests appx 2.5 KW which is getting more and more like an ordinary household heater. That's a lot easier to fake than 20 KW though I suspect that his claim to 20 KW stems from misdirection with the steam hose idea. Anyway here's the article:

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/LewanInvestigates.shtml

    One thing you have to admit about Rossi. If, as is likely, he's scamming, he's very very good at it having pulled the wool over the eyes of reporters and scientists alike and quite a few of them close up and in person. Unfortunately, no magician has been present to look for hidden stuff and sleight of hand. And of course, Rossi has never allowed any independent measurement nor has he allowed anyone to examine the guts of the E-cat. I find that especially incriminating because it's not the geometry that's supposed to be proprietary but the "magic sauce" catalyst. That, nobody can characterize from merely looking at it so there's no reason to hide the interior unless there is some sort of fakery such as an extra electrical heater that would be obvious to anyone examining the interior.

    Rossi "portal" (list of links) from New Energy Times.

    Edit to add: There is a vigorous and rather intelligent discussion (for the most part) going on in the Wiki discussion page and it's in sharp contrast to the collection of nonsense one finds in comments most other places.

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

    It's also interesting because a lot of eye witnesses are writing and answering questions and also because it changes and updates frequently.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011
     
    Rossi is just bold. Many scammers have found that if one is bold enough, one can buffalo people who ought to know a lot better. Not one of the trained people who have been impressed by his dog and pony show should have given it the time of day seeing as how he has never permitted proper measurement at even a black box level.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011
     
    Mary that's funny: even a lot of the cold fusion / LENR advocates are crying foul at Rossi for his crappy dog and pony show.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011
     
    Well, I don't care who is saying what as much as I'd like to know what the trick is. It's a pretty good one if that's what it is. See that wiki when you have time -- it takes a while to go through.
    • CommentAuthortinker
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011
     
    You think Rossi is bold? Try this, for thumb-size inexhaustible energy cells that can deal death and destruction (and never need refuelling) - And it's Russian and Bearden knows it's 100% genuine. Or even 101% if you close one eye and read it upside down..

    For sheer chutzpah this deserves the Sterling Allen prize....

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=203422
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011
     
    The part of the article that talks about Defkalion Green Technologies reminds me of a scandal from the go-go days of telecom in the late 1990s where one of the baby Bells bought equipment that they had no use for and it isn't even clear even worked because they had warrants in the pre-IPO company that made the equipment. Along the same lines, the article says that Defkalion Green Technologies is the first customer, but is also the exclusive distributor. Defkalion Green Technologies also says that someone is impersonating them in Holland, collecting investor money. It is conceivable that the "imposter" is merely a third player in Rossi's game.

    As to the technical trick(s), there may be more than one that Rossi uses at different times depending on his audience. As has been mentioned, the metal plumbing can provide at least one not completely obvious power conductor. If one wants to be modestly lever, the water feed can provide a conductor as well. To the best of my knowledge no one has subjected the unit to either oscilloscope measurements from the line, or of the leads that connect to his magic boot to look for fakery in the electrical power. The nickel powder can be basically Raney Nickel that has been loaded up with hydrogen in advance. Other opportunities for storing chemical energy in the device have also been discussed.
  1.  
    From out here, I don't even see why there has to be a "trick". So far, he's shown some steam.... not much really... coming out a small hose, from a device that's being fed lots of power from the wall. From out here, it seems to me that the output has been grossly mismeasured, and so the large power excesses that are reported are simply wrong.

    That's the view from out here.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011
     
    Posted By: tinkerYou think Rossi is bold? Try this, for thumb-size inexhaustible energy cells that can deal death and destruction (and never need refuelling) - And it's Russian and Bearden knows it's 100% genuine. Or even 101% if you close one eye and read it upside down..

    For sheer chutzpah this deserves the Sterling Allen prize....

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=203422
    Tinky, Klimov doesn't claim excess energy. Various whackados such as Bearden who do not understand Klimov's work and/or want to use his work to promote their worthless publications misrepresent Klimov's work as creating excess energy.

    Bearden has made such a stunning fool out of himself so many times that it is only whackados such as Sterling Allan who still afford Bearden any credibility at all. Bearden is relegated to a role as a freak performer at whackado gatherings such as Bedini's Weekend of Whackiness each summer in Idaho. No serious scientist that I know of has been fooled by any of Bearden's claims.
  2.  
    Posted By: maryyugoEdit to add: There is a vigorous and rather intelligent discussion (for the most part) going on in the Wiki discussion page and it's in sharp contrast to the collection of nonsense one finds in comments most other places.

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


    Wow. Brian Josephson comes off as a credulous, rather muddy-thinking asshole in that conversation. I am amazed. I knew that he went soft in the head several years ago, but I didn't realize just how soft.
    I'm quoting this little excerpt here because it's priceless.
    Just one thing on the last point though: what physics qualifications do the people who have been blithely deleting my entry have? It would be most interesting to know that. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

    Mu. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

    Personally, my highest-level qualification is in the social sciences, rather than in physics, but since all the evidence suggests that this 'phenomenon' is either a hoax, or the product of self-deception, I'd argue that makes me well qualified to comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

    A nice way of disputing anything you don't like. The situation demands proper evaluation, not airy fairy universals. Your field confirms my suspicion that my critics were not qualified to judge. Any advance on social sciences? Roll up! -- Brian Josephson (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

    This isn't about 'your critics', this is about Wikipedia policy on fringe theories. Either comply with them, or argue for them to be changed (but not here). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

    Nice one, Andy, but the fact is that you are the person making the judgement as to whether the guidelines apply to that reference or not, and the fact is that you (and the others) just ain't qualified to make that judgement. If you can show, logically and with the rigour that a journal would accept, that the evidence demonstrates that it is a hoax or self-deception, please do so -- people will be hanging on your every word to learn of your analysis. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

    Don't be ridiculous. It isn't necessary to disprove every crackpot theory that gets put up on Wikipedia, and you know it. It if for those who wish to include content to demonstrate their relevance, reliability etc. Incidentally, I don't believe for one minute that you are qualified to make judgements on the suitability of contributors, given your obvious bias against anyone who disagrees with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

    Agreed. Even assuming this is a physical phenomenon, when there is no peer-reviewed paper and no independent reproduction, and there are about 1500 red flags, is, at best, over-eager. My scientific qualifications are easy to ascertain for anyone who is really interested. However, WP:CIV does not really support "mine is bigger than yours" shouting matches. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

    I'm not going to deal with silly people (such as people who can't see the connection between The Rossi claim and calorimetry) any more. 'bye, folks, have fun! But wait until Thursday -- Brian Josephson (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)



    And of course he is back commenting again, dealing with all the silly people, after a short hiatus.
    • CommentAuthortinker
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011
     
    ...Our familiar damged bill of ex-military goods Bearden knows (his imagined) version of this tech to be 101% genuine. As he so often does. Did I mention anybody else who did in a negative way? The wonderment is not directed at the belief per se but at its rather enthusiastic extrapolation. A candidte for the SA prize.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011 edited
     
    There is little woo to which Josephson, brilliant though he may be in superconducting physics, will not believe. For example this gem from his own web pages:

    There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account.
    http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/water.memory/ns/homeopathy.html

    I don't know if he was always wingnutty or if his brain changed with age. But his work is far from inconsequential resulting in all sorts of things from SQUIDS to quantum computing possibilities to the very definition of the volt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_junction. Apparently not all woowoos are created equally stupid and worthless.

    @Al: I don't have time to find it right now but some of the newer stuff about Rossi's E-Cat involved what *appeared to be* decent flow calorimetry in which the volume of the water, its flow rate and the delta-T were accurately measured. This was at lower power levels but still some several KW. Not sure it was the Swedes or the NYTek stuff. It's gone beyond the initial silly superheated steam story with the puny black tube. If this guy is, as I suspect, a conman, he's at least as good as Mylow and his bait brought in lots larger rats.

    As Joshs points out, he may use different techniques at different times but it's still an extremely slick looking performance if it's not real.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011 edited
     
    They shouldn't give out Nobels to babies of 33.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011
     
    I took a look around to see if I could find the article wherein liquid temps are measured instead of steam and I couldn't. Maybe I hallucinated it-- there's so much printed about this caper. So for now, disregard that. We're still with steam. Kullender and Essen's report (pdf): http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29.

    A couple of comments I found elsewhere:

    V, Godbole says:
    May 3, 2011 at 23:26

    Rossi has censored one of my comments in which I wrote “Mr. Rossi disappoints me”. I had pleaded (again) that he allow many investigation teams to carry out parallel tests of his modules (as they are manufactured) till October and that he must set an example of open-ness in science and engineering and not bow down under patent considerations, business deals etc.

    That he censors comments he does not like is disturbing. He is under no compulsion to listen to me – but censoring anything (unless it contains filthy attacks, abusive words etc.) is bad.

    It’s not the proper attitude of a good-natured, honest scientist or engineer.
    Uhho... censorship of forums is well... not a good sign.

    Here's a nice protocol Rossi probably won't do:
    A very simple test would be to put the entire apparatus inside a big metal cabinet. Put the metal box on a transparent plastic base. Provide the reactor with a closed loop cooling system consisting of: a small pump, a radiator, and a fan that exchanges air through a grounded screen. A radiator the size of a heater core would be plenty. Make the pump and all of the instruments battery powered and put them inside the box. Measure the capacity of the battery before the experiment and afterwords by discharging it completely through a suitably instrumented load. An option would be an infrared LED data link transmitter that transmits the acquired data to a laptop located outside the box. The objective is to create a metal-shielded, insulated container that communicates with the rest of the universe only by dumping heat into it and perhaps also transmitting a small infrared LED light signal.


    (continued in next message)
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011 edited
     
    About that steam:
    Joshua Cude says:
    May 5, 2011 at 02:47

    Lewan’s report like most of Rossi’s demos fails to produce evidence that the output of the ecat is dry steam. In fact, since the temperature of the output is essentially at the boiling point of water, the evidence indicates that liquid water is still present. The one degree above the normal boiling point almost certainly results from a slightly increased boiling point because of slightly elevated pressure inside the conduit.

    If the water were all converted to steam, with an input flow rate of 63 mL/min, then the output flow rate would be close to 2 L/s, far higher than what is observed at the end of the hose, which appears to be no more than a few bubbles per second (maybe a few tens of mL per second).

    Lewan claims that some steam condenses in the hose, but in fact it would have to be most of the steam to account for what is observed at the output of the hose, and that is not plausible. That would mean that about 2 kW of thermal energy would have to be dissipated by that hose, significantly more than from a 1.5 kW electric space heater; at 100C, that is not plausible... ... The evidence presented in this experiment, taken at face value, only *proves* that the water is heated to its boiling point. At 63 mL/s, heating from 20C to 100C represents about 340 W, about the same as the input power.

    The amount of steam produced is pure speculation, and for all we know represents only a few per cent of the total water flow. So, there is no evidence for a nuclear effect here... ...As to where the extra water goes, my guess would be that it escapes as a mixture of steam and fine mist, which is mistaken for pure steam. When the water boils inside that conduit, things can become turbulent. Depending on the velocity of the gas, there are different regimes for this sort of 2-phase flow [1]. At high velocities, it forms a so-called annular flow, in which liquid flows near the wall, and a mixture of vapor and droplets (mist) flows along the core. The volume of mist is much lower than that of pure vapour, and could explain the low flow rate observed in the video. Keep in mind that an ultrasonic humidifier can disperse water into a room without heating it at all.


    All of this is from here:

    http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/05/03/lewan-investigates-and-observes-rossi-device/

    And there is quite a bit more. Ball once again is in Rossi's court. I doubt he'll do much except dribble.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011
     
    Somebody in government appears to be addressing the measurement issues with Rossi's device and similar ones especially with the use of steam:



    The entire interesting paper is here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2011/ICCF16/pres/ET01Grabowski-RobustPerformanceValidation.pdf (PDF file)

    At least, people over at New Energy Times seem to take their work seriously.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011 edited
     


    Thanks for that, Mary...

    And with that, as I have maintained, Rossi's claim comes crashing down, using his own data and the video evidence of what comes out the hose, properly analyzed.

    No elaborate isolation schemes necessary; the whole thing is a mismeasurement debacle, and a rational consideration of the INPUT-OUTPUT parameters show that the presumed energy output of the device is entirely numerical in nature.... and you cannot run a generator on numbers.
  3.  
    Posted By: alsetalokinyou cannot run a generator on numbers.


    Think Steorn has figured this out yet?
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011 edited
     
    No elaborate isolation schemes necessary; the whole thing is a mismeasurement debacle, and a rational consideration of the INPUT-OUTPUT parameters show that the presumed energy output of the device is entirely numerical in nature.... and you cannot run a generator on numbers.
    Just one little thing... Rossi claims (starting in the patent text itself) that he's had been running a large heater based on E-Cat technology for "years" in a factory and he gives the name of the company, etc. Was he really basing an entire scam on the premise that nobody will check it out? That no scientist or reporter would compel him to improve the output power measurement method at one of his demo? Seems awfully thin. And don't any of the reasonably illustrious physicists and scientists from U of B detect this issue? WTF not? They don't seem stupid. Prone to deception maybe but not stupid.

    I really don't understand this thing or the legs it seems to have grown. That's what makes it FUN!

    But yeah-- no alleged net energy producing device should EVER be evaluated while connected to a huge battery or to the mains!
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011 edited
     
    From the Kullander report (which is as full of holes as a... well... a collander):
    The system to measure
    the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo 650, with a probe guaranteed to
    resist up to 550°C. The measurements showed that at 11:15 1.4% of the water was non-
    vaporized, at 11:30 1.3% and at 11:45 1.2% of the water was non-vaporized. The energy
    produced inside the device is calculated to be (1.000-0.013) (16:30-10:45) 4.39 =25 kWh.


    According to the graph above, an average 1.3 percent water by volume in the output "steam" would give an overunity indication of about 5x, in a system that was actually performing at unity, when the calculation is performed as in the report.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2011 edited
     
    I'd like people to prod Rossi to demo the large heater in the supposed N. Italy factory. For some reason nobody who can get near Rossi has focused on it. If it's been running for years, it should be able to run a few hours under proper screw-tinny. But yeah, that water and steam graph is probably how Rossi is deceiving the current observers. I wonder if it's deliberately or if he's bamboozling himself too. Nah....