1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    03 Nov '13 05:293 edits
    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/

    If these figures hold up, it will be a game changer for sure. News at 11. I wrote to them and asked if I could make measurements, it is not rocket science to do so, just measure the voltage and current of the input power VS output heat in BTU.

    I don't know why this took so long. We (humans) REALLY need this to be true.

    Now there needs to be verification of the verification by yet another party. Some of the participants have been avid supporters of this cold fusion project so they might be tainted with seed money or something.

    One thing I don't see in this report, how much energy was involved in the heaters, how many Kw or Kwhr's were going into the thing. That is the question I could have answered with just a couple of probes which took a LONG time to see the light of day.

    Here is the real report: I see numbers of 360 watts as the seed energy and about 2000 watts of thermal energy production, if so, this is GREAT news.

    There test ran for 96 hours. The caveat they told was not being able to get one before it was running and they were measuring a running device. They want to test one before it starts running to be sure of their values.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    03 Nov '13 08:446 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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/

    If these figures hold up, it will be a game changer for sure. News at 11. I wrote to them and asked if I could make measurements, it is not rocket science to do so, just measure the voltage and current of ...[text shortened]... arts running to be sure of their values.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf
    Sorry but; cold fusion is probably just pseudoscience because physics says it shouldn't happen which means they must have made a mistake with either their measurements or calculations or assumptions somewhere. To justify their absurd claim that they have made cold fusion, they would need some extremely powerful irrefutable empirical evidence indeed! Specifically, they must use it to irrefutably demonstrate what would, only if we assume it has no cold fusion, appear to be an absurdity of a perpetual motion machine of the first kind -only then we (and I ) will sit up and take notice for a 'cold fusion explanation' would seem no more absurd than such a perpetual motion machine!

    Fortunately, we don't need cold fusion to solve our energy problems so I don't understand the hype with it. Rather than using miracles, we can use just good science to do that. Perhaps, say, by sticking to solar and wind energy?
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    03 Nov '13 09:46
    Wow, did they really use Excel to make their plots?
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    03 Nov '13 10:032 edits
    Originally posted by humy
    Sorry but; cold fusion is probably just pseudoscience because physics says it shouldn't happen which means they must have made a mistake with either their measurements or calculations or assumptions somewhere. To justify their absurd claim that they have made cold fusion, they would need some extremely powerful irrefutable empirical evidence indeed! Specificall ...[text shortened]... es, we can use just good science to do that. Perhaps, say, by sticking to solar and wind energy?
    Well, there is the part where at least some of the scientists involved supported Ecat from the beginning, which is why I said another independent check needs to be done.

    The measurements were taken with IR camera's but I didn't see notes about how they were measuring the input power, which averaged 360 watts according to them. You will notice in the real paper, there were graphs showing heat output compared to heat input and it is clearly not self sustaining.

    The heat had to be present for the output to go and it was a modulated heat input, notice the square wave type heater power graph. The heat went up and then back down when the square wave went to zero so it was heat and repeat.
  5. Joined
    30 Sep '12
    Moves
    731
    03 Nov '13 19:14
    "I can get you in on the ground floor, partner!"

    Would anybody here invest money in this?

    I am cautious, and I would turn it down.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    03 Nov '13 22:10
    Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
    "I can get you in on the ground floor, partner!"

    Would anybody here invest money in this?

    I am cautious, and I would turn it down.
    They have dicked around with this thing for years and only now an independent investigation of the claims. I would like to see another totally independent investigation myself. The thing that bothers me is some of the dudes have endorsed this system already before the study.

    It could still be on the level but like you say, there is a certain taint to it. For instance, there could be ways of cheating on the input power, perhaps with a strong IR laser pointed at the device heating it from the outside. Perhaps that could have been seen with the IR camera's, not sure. But there could be ways of feeding the device energy not obvious because it was designed to be not obvious.

    They also did not let them examine a cool one for weight and the ingredients inside. All that stuff can be taken care of with an NDA (Non disclosure agreement)

    There still is a certain fishy smell to it. I sincerely hope it is on the level. It would be a game changer for sure.
Back to Top