Rossi's energy catalyzer - Page 14

On October 07 2011 22:16 opisska wrote:
The whole "patent" thing is a stupid excuse. Thinking you can actually monetise something like this, if it is true, by simply patenting it, is absurd. A potentially world-changing technology can very simply lead to many countries saying "screw you" and using it for their own benefits regardless of the patents. At the end, it's just a piece of paper.

On October 08 2011 01:23 RAGEMOAR The Pope wrote:



That's probably what he's trying to protect himself against. Look at what China has done with copyrights and patents.

On October 08 2011 13:09 Darkalbino wrote:



Can you give some examples?

On October 08 2011 13:15 JingleHell wrote:
I'm going to invent an unlimited energy source out of three soda cans, a dildo, half a pair of headphones, and a stick of gum. Then I'm going to promptly not do anything but talk about it.

Think this way, folks. Either he's a genius, and it's complex enough that having an early lead on it is enough to own the market and make a fortune, or it's simple and basic enough that it would have been done by now.

But, if you want to buy it, by all means. I'm opening up a business to sell snake oil to lubricate the Rossi thingummy with.

On October 08 2011 13:15 JingleHell wrote:
I'm going to invent an unlimited energy source out of three soda cans, a dildo, half a pair of headphones, and a stick of gum. Then I'm going to promptly not do anything but talk about it.

Think this way, folks. Either he's a genius, and it's complex enough that having an early lead on it is enough to own the market and make a fortune, or it's simple and basic enough that it would have been done by now.

But, if you want to buy it, by all means. I'm opening up a business to sell snake oil to lubricate the Rossi thingummy with.

On October 08 2011 13:20 Mohdoo wrote:


Does the fact that plenty of scientists and engineers have inspected the box, and said themselves that no form of known energy could produce that amount of energy in such a small box mean nothing to you? I'd understand if there was some sort of evidence or reason to believe what you're saying, but the opposite is true. If you can't trust engineers and scientists, who are you willing to trust? Its not like the people inspecting the box are his associates. Others have been just as skeptical. And although they haven't been able to see inside, they have been able to conclude that no known form of energy, whether battery or otherwise, would be able to produce that much energy.

If a physicist can't think of a way for him to make this happen, what do you suggest? Mirrors? An illusion? The box is actually 10x the size?

On October 08 2011 13:34 JingleHell wrote:


Two words: Peer review. Oh, wait, he won't publish anything? There's nothing independently verifying any of it?

Hey, are you still scared aerosols are going to make a hole the size of a pencil in the ozone layer that's going to track you down and fry you in your sleep?

Sorry if I expect too much, wanting something resembling evidence.

Hey, I know, maybe we should start a religion about Rossi's invention. Worship and pray to something totally unsubstantiated with unlimited power! It fits!

On October 08 2011 13:38 Mohdoo wrote:


So you're not going to answer my question? What do you think is happening? How is more power being generated than any other power source of that size?

On October 07 2011 21:10 Traeon wrote:
The alternative conclusion is that he has been able to somehow pull off a fraud for all this time, fooling hundreds of observers looking for the possibility of fraud and taking measures with their own tools.

Take your pick for what you think is the most likely explanation.

On October 08 2011 13:42 BottleAbuser wrote:
I'm a bit confused. How are they measuring the output power? All the graphs I've seen are of temperature vs time.



If the temperature is indeed sustained, it only needs enough power to sustain losses through conduction of the ... er... reactor. The graph above shows both inlet and outlet water temperatures, not the volume. If the output water is heated by.. something like 3 degrees, that isn't very impressive, and could conceivably be achieved by a battery.

Can someone explain this to me? I really don't see where they get these power output numbers.

The observers said that the surface of the device was too hot to touch, but that doesn't mean it's losing that much heat. We only need a surface about 40 degrees to be too hot to touch, and a belief that it's hotter than that won't help in determining that it's not scalding hot.

At the risk of starting too many thread . . . There is the graph Jouni
Valkonen mentioned:

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg

Here it is with a discussion:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375&set=o.135474503149001&type=1&theater

You should read this discussion.

In this discussion, it took Hustedt a while to figure out that the condensed
water from the primary loop is being flushed down the drain rather than
recycled back into the cell. The original plan called for it to be recycled
back into the cell. In his latest comment he notes correctly that heat lost
with the warm condensate going down the drain from the primary loop would
only add to the performance of the eCat. ". . . Excess heat wasted out of
the condensate side will be additional heat output from the e cat not
included above, ie it will only make the ecat look better when this is
included."

These are the data points from the handheld dual thermocouple measuring the
temperature in the secondary cooling water loop. That is why they are
scattered. They are shown in the spreadsheet and also in Lewan's log:

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test of E-cat October 6 (pdf)

The first one is at spreadsheet row 71. As I mentioned, this is probably an
instrument artifact. Hustedt thinks so, and so do I.


I believe this is what the graph shows:

They turn on at 11:10. The initial 3 kW is an instrument artifact as Hustedt
says.

It does nothing much until 18:47. That must have been frustrating. Yesterday
I said that in most cases the thing fires up after 10 or 20 min., and in
previous tests they have abandoned the effort after an hour or so. That is
what people observing previous tests told me. Apparently sometimes they keep
trying.

At 15:37 the reaction takes off. Soon after that they decide to turn off the
input power completely since it now seems to be self-sustaining.

At 16:26 the reaction tapers off. Then comes the important part. It picks up
again and goes to much higher levels, peaking at 8 kW. This is proof that
there is energy generation within the cell. If this was stored heat or
anything like that the temperature can only fall. You can never have an
increase without some source of energy. (Of course, it could be electric or
chemical heat.)

This peak is at spreadsheet row 9685, time 16:60, Delta T temperature
10.8°C, which indicates 7.6 kW by my calculation, but Hustedt has it at 8
kW.

Power falls gradually down to around 3.5 kW, and then at 16:50 it suddenly
kicks up again to 6 kW. Again this proves there is some source of
energy. Here's something interesting about the second peak. The log shows
that the second burst of heat came after the cell was degassed, at 19:08.
That's surprising!

At 19:40 it goes right back to the decay curve it was on previously. As Pons
says, cold fusion has a memory of how much power it should be producing for
a given lattice configuration. Or a given NAE, as Ed Storms describes it.

These fluctuations and the instability are what I expect from an anomalous
reaction. Most cold fusion reactions are far more unstable than this.
Hystedt made the same observation, that this feels anomalous. He says that
somewhere; I can't find the comment. (Facebook keeps asking me to sign on,
so it is hard to read. Perhaps someday I should join up and find out what
Facebook is all about.)

- Jed