# Rossi E-cat cold fusion device verified by credible independent sources



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

This was just posted on the sci.electronics.design newsgroup. It was big news a year or two back but seemed to be a flash in the pan. However this recent development looks promising, and may well be the "Holy Grail" that enables safe, clean, cheap energy in the near future:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgib...device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/










Energy density is 50,000 kWh/kg.  

The official paper from Cornell University is:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

The original posting, in Network World by the same author, that explains the process in layman's terns:
http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2011/101411-backspin-251983.html


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

Don't post this crap here...


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

From a quoted bit of text from the Forbes article:



> They were fed by a TRIAC power regulator device which interrupted each phase periodically, in order to modulate power input with an industrial trade secret waveform.


Yeah, a secret waveform that can be made by *any* lamp dimmer you can buy for $5 at a hardware store...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

That paper is not from Cornell, it's just posted on their library website.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I think this still deserves some serious consideration. There has been apparently some interest from NASA and one of their top scientists is supportive of the research, although there is some hesitation to describe it as "cold fusion". Whatever. You can take it or leave it, but I think it is quite disingenuous of those who must anonymously give me negative reputation points and call this "stupid". Rather childish, I think. Don't kill the messenger. 

http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/cold-fusion-nasa-scientists-speak-out-and-more

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/30/rossi

http://www.naturalbuildingblog.com/e-cat-update-lenr-confirmed-by-mainstream-scientists/

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864

http://donalfagan.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/nasa-widom-larsen-and-lenr-infighting/

http://www.physicscentral.org/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=238052780327676025 (skeptic viewpoint)

http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-lenr-nuclear-reactor/26309/

I tried to exclude most of the more extreme websites, to provide more balanced information and points for rational discussion (and not kneejerk ridicule). 

_Moderators, if you want to move this to the free energy subforum, go ahead._


----------



## TEV (Nov 25, 2011)

Even if it's true, will not be accessible to the public because of "national security" reasons 

No matter what, at this point, I am sure they need a lot of money for "R&D" , they always do


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

As noted in the Forbes article, many are calling into question the testing methods used. Here is an article about it titled Rossi Manipulates Academics to Create Illusion of Independent Test:

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013...emics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/

Here is a very interesting article from Popular Science last year:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box

Its worth noting that other companies appear to be commercializing similar technology. Their results don't appear to be a prolific as what Rossi is claiming, but they are still significant. 

Time will have to tell on this one. The proof is in the pudding. I want to believe, but I'm not getting my hopes up quite yet.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

In the Cornell database I found this article which describes a quantum mechanical tunneling process which could allow for low energy (cold) fusion at a reasonable probability, as opposed to an exponentially low probability of 10^(-2682) based on classical physics. This applies to deuterium and not nickel, but it gives at least some credibility to the concept:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.1243.pdf

Some others that may apply:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.6435.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.2407.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.0278.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.1703.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.2357.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.2393.pdf (nanobatteries, ball lightning)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.0847.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.0625.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.6042.pdf (hot vs cold fusion)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.2658.pdf (includes Nickel)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.2677.pdf (cold fusion)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/nucl-th/papers/0303/0303057.pdf (critical review of cold fusion theories)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0207/0207027.pdf (unified theory?)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/9503029.pdf (cold fusion - 1995)

I'm not a physicist, so I can't grasp all the theoretical and mathematical discussion, but most of these appear to be scholarly papers and not the ramblings of wackos. I'm certainly not sold on the recent results, and some of the conditions were highly suspect. True academic and careful research takes time and is tempered by much caution, so it may be quite a while before more convincing evidence is presented or a more generally accepted explanation of the apparent results is provided. Wait and see.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> ...I think it is quite disingenuous of those who must anonymously give me negative reputation points and call this "stupid". Rather childish, I think. Don't kill the messenger. ...


I didn't neg you for this thread, but I admit I was sorely tempted. I try to restrain handing out negative rep to people who are behaving badly, though, and not just stupidly or gullibly. 

However, you really need to cut down the number of links you put into your posts. It is considered poor form, if not outright bad netiquette, to put more than 3 or 4 links into a post, and even then there should be some clear description as to why each link is relevant/topical/helpful. The wholesale transferring of every link from the first page of a search engine query without any explanation for their inclusion is both lazy and rude; the latter because you are more or less saying you expect your readers to do the work of determining the relevance of the links you posted, as if the hard part was finding the links in the first place... 

In the post I am replying to there were 7 links while in a later post by you to this thread there are 15 links, almost all of which are from the same site and with little or no commentary attached to each one. You could have simply posted a single link to the site with a comment that there are many articles there that are relevant/worth reading and left it at that.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Just for clarification, when I post multiple links as I often do, they are usually the result of many pages of search engine results, and I cherry pick only those that appear to be relevant and credible after reading enough of the document or website to determine if it is worthwhile to include. And also they are often the result of using a number of different search terms which sometimes produce interesting results. I try to annotate the links with a brief note about what they contain, especially if it is only tangential to the discussion of the thread. And in this case many of the links were beyond my knowledge of physics to make an educated judgment of their validity, so I presented them for the benefit of others who may be able to do so.

But if it is considered bad etiquette and as such is offensive, then I will refrain from posting more than a few links, and I will just add them to my own list for further study and reference. In any case, I think it is unnecessary for anyone to give negative reputation points just because they happen to disagree with the subject of the thread. I consider that to be an ad hominem attack based on the assumption that I fully support and believe in the subject matter posted. I found it interesting and encouraging, but there certainly are some parts of the experimental process that are subject to scrutiny and should be challenged. 

It is being discussed in sci,electronics.design. For the benefit of those who do not use a news reader client, here is a link to the thread in Google:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sci.electronics.design/iFHSj7-ppN4

BTW, thanks to whomever gave me a positive reputation point for this post.


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

See also: http://scienceblogs.com/startswitha...-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

That blog raises many valid points, and I agree that many of the tests were conducted in an amateurish manner, if not purposely manipulated to deceive. The comments were also very interesting, and a few were supportive or at least reasonable in their positions. I do think that the virtual taboo on publication of any encouraging LENR research is significant, as well as the specter of corporate or military influence to suppress such a device for financial or purported security issues.

The most egregious error (or attempt at obfuscation) is the instrumentation used for input power and energy measurement. A simple and inexpensive JLD404 or equivalent would have been far more accurate and convincing. There was no good reason for using a three phase power source or an AC power analyzer for the small values of power being measured (300-1000W). There are also data acquisition systems that can monitor voltage, current, and true power, including DC and high frequency components, and could have had the data streamed to disk for subsequent analysis. And the "secret waveform" of the heater voltage is another red flag. It could have been easily observed with a DSO, and the fact that it was changed from a triac phase-modulated form to a bang-bang on/off control seems to indicate that the waveform is really not significant at all.

The absence of gamma ray monitoring was also suspicious. If I were conducting an experiment that involved nuclear reactions of any kind, I would want a dosimeter and a Geiger counter, as well as some sort of lead shielding as well as a blast confinement enclosure of some kind. If some of the reports of previous meltdowns and destructive failure and injury or even death are to be taken seriously. 

My skepticism and criticism are increasing as I read more about this, but I still find it interesting and worthwhile for further study. I think there are other tests to be performed within a few months. Hopefully they will be conducted more professionally and thus less subject to criticism and ridicule.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Here is a quote from another blog

_The main thing to realise is that the principle author (Levi) is a friend of Rossi, and has been involved in Rossi's company from the beginning. The observation was done at Rossi's "factory", with all equipment supplied by either Rossi or Levi. The other "researchers" were merely observers, they had no involvement in any part of the test and had to take on faith that the power input was being measured correctly.

It's about as far from "independent third party" as it's possible to get and not actually have your mother write the report.

They measured the power input after it had been through Rossi's converter. They back-calculated the output calorimetry by using a camera to record surface temperatures. Both methods would be clumsy and error-prone even if Rossi wasn't a known fraud. It's hard to imagine coming up with a worse test protocol when there's so much doubt about Rossi and the claims being made so extraordinary.

And it's not like it's difficult. It's a water heater. You test it by heating water by a certain amount, and measuring the raw energy entering the entire rig [before it is converted by the device's controller] from a source provided by someone who has no prior connection to Rossi. An insulated tub, a large brewers or lab thermometer, and a timer. Make sure to stir the water/etc between readings to avoid measuring hotspots by, errr, "mistake". Bam, done!_


----------



## kennybobby (Aug 10, 2012)

Last year i talked to that nasa fellow, let's call him Mike, since that is his name. He went over to Europe with a team to observe this 'experiment'. He went on his own time and not in any official nasa capacity as he was hired by a group of investors to help them evaluate if their investment was going to hit the jackpot... 

Like most of these free energy scams the lack of basic voltage and current measurements on the input and output is the clue that something is not what it seems. The desire to believe it is true overwhelms the ability to measure meaningful data.

The periodic table has been around for a long time and the fusion reaction dynamics necessary to create copper from nickel is well known. i doubt that an Italian felon (convicted of scam fraud) is going to fall off the turnip truck and luck into some new reaction.

But i do know a formula to turn nickel into copper--just send me some nickels and i'll send you back some pennies.

Over the past 30 years i have evaluated dozens of these free-energy and OU concepts, magnet devices, so-called motors, experiments and even some patent application$ and patent$. 

One common denominator i have repeatedly seen is the lack of understanding of how to properly operate an oscilloscope and interpret the results, e.g. using the 'average' math function to measure and evaluate a sinusoidal waveform and then claiming the device uses very little to no significant power since the product of voltage times current is nearly zero...

i digress, but no offense to you, this thread really belongs in the free energy forum.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Duncan said:


> Here is a quote from another blog
> 
> _The main thing to realise is that the principle author (Levi) is a friend of Rossi, and has been involved in Rossi's company from the beginning. The observation was done at Rossi's "factory", with all equipment supplied by either Rossi or Levi. The other "researchers" were merely observers, they had no involvement in any part of the test and had to take on faith that the power input was being measured correctly.
> 
> ...


 Exactly ! 
As soon a i saw the Authors names , i stopped reading the report.
these are the same characters that have participated in so called "proving trials" over the past 4 -5 years.
Their presence alone , totally invalidates any results.
Typical of this saga was the October 2011 test and demonstration of a claimed 1.0 MWatt thermal generator plant that had been bought by a secret "military" customer. Despite apparently satisfying the customer, ( though unconvincing to observers ).. that plant remained at Rossi's facility for months after, which seems very odd for a device which ( if functional) would be a world game changer for energy and all that that implies,..and hence literally worth its weight in gold.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Until actually proven, don't these sort of posts belong in the "Over-Unity" section?


----------

