eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party

1MW Plant Testing Underway

October 23, 2011

According to Andrea Rossi, on his blog, the 1MW plant is now under test. I assume that he means testing by his own engineers but that is not certain. Either way, it is good news. If the 28th is to be taken as the customer delivery date which will be attended by senior scientists and journalists as well as company reps, it is inconceivable that some sort of pre-test would not have been made.

We also have the promise of semi-live reports (hourly) on Dr Rossi’s blog and video plus a report at midnight on the day. This promise is more than I feared. I had worried that the report and data would follow an indeterminate number of days after the run. Thankfully that worry appears unfounded. With the apparent presence of those senior journalists, there would otherwise be a disconnect should they wish to report the story immediately as those following events on the web were starved of information.

Bravo, Andrea Rossi. All we need now are positive and incontestable results and the promise of a new era could become real.

Andrea Rossi
October 23rd, 2011 at 10:49 AM
Dear Franco Morici:
Good Sunday also to you, while I write this comment we are testing the 1 MW plant, which is working well so far. I am very sorry of the very restricted attendance, due to the particular kind of our Customer, but during the test on this blog we will transmit the main data of the test every hour, while at midnight we will publish the full report and a video. The direct transmission is not possible because the officers of the Customer want not to be videotaped.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

[With thanks to Georgehants]

Posted by on October 23, 2011. Filed under Business,Media & Blogs,Rossi,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

66 Responses to 1MW Plant Testing Underway

  1. Jay

    October 23, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    I don’t care about the 1MW plant and don’t care about the test.

    OK, I lied. I’d love to see 1MW of steam come whooshing out of the thing the same way I like to see locomotives and large ships move. But the 5 to 10kw models are what I’d buy.

    • Francesco CH

      October 24, 2011 at 12:58 pm

      If the customer chooses a setting for the test similar to the last one, you will not see any steam, but this is not a bad thing: the bad thing would be if the customer does not acquire the 1MW plant

  2. Sojourner Soo

    October 23, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    This is wonderful news. A huge heartfelt thank you to Andrea Rossi. I’ve got all my digits crossed that all goes well. I would love to see that steam come whooshing out, too.

  3. Anders F

    October 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    Even if Rossi fails or they bury the tech, you need not worry, Sweden will come to the rescue!

  4. Frost*

    October 23, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    Great news indeed. I’d love to know who the customer is though.

    He had better get a move on though cos Steorn have resurfaced with a water heater of their own.

    http://www.steorn.com/heating/

    • Peter Roe

      October 24, 2011 at 9:25 am

      From the ad at the link it sounds like they have just put a large-area nickel(?) heat exchanger assembly into an induction field to create an electric flow line heater. A neat idea, but I don’t think this is likely to change the world tomorrow!

  5. Sojourner Soo

    October 23, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    Toyota has announced it has developed a 1000 km electric car battery:
    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53357.html

    • Peter Roe

      October 24, 2011 at 9:37 am

      That is an incredible power density, but sadly they are talking about 4 years plus to implement an actual product (http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/10/18/2011101800617.html).

      If, as may well be the case, megawatt e-cat units will soon be integrated into grid power supply systems but small scale units are blocked through spurious ‘safety’ issues, then cheaper grid power plus long-range electric vehicles using batteries like this will probably be the future. However, if smaller e-cats do become available it would probably be feasible to use them to power vehicles directly, initially using ultra-compact steam engines (‘MYT’ type?) with on-board condensing systems. It would be a close run thing though, especially if the batteries can be made lighter and smaller.

      • AB

        October 24, 2011 at 9:56 am

        Steam engines don’t seem to have the sort of responsiveness and acceleration that we’re used to from combustion engines. So I would expect either electric or hydrogen powered cars. Honestly, with a battery like this, electric.

        • Peter Roe

          October 24, 2011 at 10:56 am

          My day-to-day car is a diesel MPV so I probably wouldn’t notice any difference if it had a steam engine!

          But I suspect that on cost, maintenance and simplicity grounds battery-powered in-wheel motors will win out quite easily. Shame though, I’d rather like a high-tech steam car – electric traction is very boring!

        • Peter Roe

          October 24, 2011 at 11:09 am

          The technological ‘gap’ that needs filling before e-cat type devices can be used directly in vehicles is 90%+ efficient conversion of heat to electricity.

  6. daniel maris

    October 23, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    Well that Toyota battery sounds significant! Much more so than Steorn’s heater!

    I am happy to hear the news about Rossi’s 1MW test. We definitely need the video record to be released as soon as possible.

  7. Roger Barker

    October 23, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    Seeing will be believing and thus far the seeing has not had me believing!

  8. Todd Miller

    October 24, 2011 at 5:26 am

    I am wishing Andrea Rossi all the best. As far as Roger’s comments – Roger you have nothing invested in the E-Cat while Mr. Rossi has his life savings invested. Don’t worry about it. We should know in a week.

  9. True Spence

    October 24, 2011 at 7:15 am

    I’m hopeful, but I’m not holding my breath. It’s totally impossible to even imagine what the world will look like in 10 years if this turns out to be the real deal.

    • georgehants

      October 24, 2011 at 10:23 am

      True Spence,
      Only, if successful, it is released unimpeded by the authorities, that one must remember are run and controlled by a very few rich and powerful people who’s main concern is to maintain that rich and powerful position for themselves and their children, Ad Infinitum.
      The E-CAT can be the catalyst (ha) to change the World, but will strike fear into the powerful.
      Dangerous situation, for us all.

  10. georgehants

    October 24, 2011 at 10:15 am

    From Defkalions page

    Dear kastom,
    Hyperion devices for home use are available in the Greek market after the completion of their authorization. Their technical characteristics and retail prices will be announced by us in the near future.
    Until then, apply on technical data and prices from our company has announced on 6/23/2011 (you can see on video in Video coverage from June 23 Press Conference page http://www.defkalion-energy.com/news
    Thank you

  11. georgehants

    October 24, 2011 at 10:37 am

    The debate on Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics paper, Anomalous mass of the neutron goes on with great input from all sides of the discussion.
    This paper by Wladimir Guglinski was hidden by main-line science and journals, afraid to let into open debate something that to the experts is, beyond known science.
    Is there any scientist reading these pages that does not feel ashamed to belong to an organization that to protect it’s closed-minded philosophy and dogma impedes and abandons it’s own members from trying to do new science.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      October 24, 2011 at 2:49 pm

      As a mainstream scientist, perhaps I should try to answer to this question. If or when Rossi’s reactor is experimentally proven without doubt, I have no trouble believing it, while the paper by WG that appears on Rossi’s website looks as pseudoscience to me. In any case, I believe that in order to develop a proper theory for Rossi’s phenomenon (assuming that it’s real), one has to make X-ray and other detailed measurements around the core and of the fuel itself before and after operation. Even with such data at hand, finding a proper theory might take time (for example it took nearly 50 years in case of superconductivity). Without such data, the chances are likely to be slim. So the endeavour seems to be experiment-driven for the time being, theory follows when it’s time comes, if it comes.

      • AB

        October 24, 2011 at 3:12 pm

        Pekka Janhunen

        May I ask you a question since you are a scientist (a physicist I presume)?

        Is the resistance of the scientific community to the idea of LENR occurring more based on current theories, which say that this sort of thing should be impossible, or more based on the (initially) poor reproducibility and LENR being something completely new?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          October 24, 2011 at 3:32 pm

          I would say the first is poor reproducibility, and secondly the Fleischman-Pons stigma (which was produced by poor reproducibility). Certainly one can also find many who directly reject it as impossible because of theoretical reasons, but judging from the initial enthusiasm towards FP, I don’t think that barrier is insurmountable, and also because experimentalists are not shy of proving theoreticians wrong when they can.

          • Bill Nichols

            October 24, 2011 at 4:15 pm

            As a fellow scientist, well stated Pekka. Will add…besides your hitting the main points…one additional point. Past experiences are money often can negatively influence objectivity in scientific research. A successful scientific colleague in my profession described it as making us mercenaries, which has some relevance (entrenched interests).

            Theories are blown up by observations all the time. It all starts and ends with testable and verifiable data.

          • Jay2011

            October 24, 2011 at 7:56 pm

            This is a good summary by Pekka. I also remember the initial excitement surrounding the FP announcement. There was a lot of doubt, but there was also a lot of hope that it might be true. If any of the early attempts at independent replication had been successful, the story would have gone quite differently. Experimentalists indeed like to throw wrenches into theory if they can.

          • Jay2011

            October 24, 2011 at 8:03 pm

            Bill,
            I agree with you on the negative influence of money. I think it may be less pervasive in physics, but corporate-sponsored funding in environmental sciences, medicine, and biogenetics especially have dramatically skewed academic research and limited academic freedom. Example – negative findings on a new drug or negative findings on the impact of GMOs in the food chain will have difficulty seeing the light of day.

      • georgehants

        October 24, 2011 at 4:02 pm

        Pekka Janhunen,
        Are you saying that as “it looks as pseudoscience to me” it is pseudoscience.
        Are you saying that theorists should not be allowed to speculate and do their job of trying to hypothesis in advance of experimentalists, a working theory.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          October 24, 2011 at 5:53 pm

          I said that it looks as pseudoscience to me, what it looks to someone else is not my judgement. My answer to your other question is no, speculation is not forbidden as long as one stays logically consistent. However, often speculation interests other scientists only when it is “economical”, in the sense of resolving a larger number of open questions than it creates new ones.

          • georgehants

            October 24, 2011 at 6:01 pm

            It is good to know you are open-minded and would encourage young students to use their gifts to find new science and not be intimidated by experts into rejecting anything not endorsed by the establishment.

    • CM Edwards

      October 24, 2011 at 3:37 pm

      The first hypothesis out of the gate is usually the wrong one.

      The only value in a theoretical analysis at this point is if it suggests a specific experimental test.

  12. georgehants

    October 24, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Mr. Rossi happy and in good form today, hope that’s a good sign for Friday.

    A. Goumy
    October 24th, 2011 at 1:05 AM
    Dear Mr Rossi,
    It is now the run-up to the moment of truth. I wish you and your team, as you deserve it for your tenacity and your hard work, to carry out this very important test with flying colors.
    1) You told us yesterday that you were testing the 1 MW plant, and it was working well. Did you test it at full power?
    2) Have the customer’s agents who will perform the tests already been trained to control the plant operations, and will they do it by themselves, or will you have the entire control as in the previous tests?
    3) Does the maintenance contract with the customer include updates to the new versions of E-Cats currently under development?
    Best regards,
    A.G.

    Andrea Rossi
    October 24th, 2011 at 5:08 AM
    Dear A. Goumy:
    1- yes
    2- We will work together. They have been trained
    3- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  13. Brad Arnold

    October 24, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Defkalion and Rossi’s “customer” are going head-to-head. This can only be good for consumers. It will be difficult to imagine the reaction popular media will have to this, nor how the public and politicians will respond. Buzz isn’t an adequate word -perhaps hysteria. Finally, finally, commercialization, consensus reality acknowledgement, and fast, fast progress leading to rapid integration. Analysts trying to imagine the future, the financial market lending the fund compensate with the importance of this breakthrough, and above all CONSUMER OPTIMISM.

    • Peter Roe

      October 24, 2011 at 12:57 pm

      Defkalion definitely seem to be emphasizing the domestic market while Rossi concentrates on getting his megawatt unit out. I wonder if any kind of deal has been sorted out between them, behind all the bluster?

      I’m finding it v. difficult to imagine how the ‘mainstream’ media is going to handle this if/when they can’t ignore it any longer. I suppose that when the corporates figure out a way to manage this that will not wreck their existing power empires (licensing and taxation) it will be hailed as a ‘brilliant new discovery’ and a ‘green revolution’ as if the last year of online involvement and cynical ‘skeptic’ attack never happened.

    • AB

      October 24, 2011 at 1:36 pm

      > consensus reality acknowledgement

      Very nicely said.

  14. georgehants

    October 24, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    New Science needed apply within, Wonderful.

    Wladimir Guglinski
    October 24th, 2011 at 6:08 AM
    Mr. eernie1 wrote in October 22nd, 2011 at 3:45 PM :
    “Dear Mr Tengzelius,
    As I have stated before,it may not be necessary to penetrate the nucleus with a particle to achieve nuclear decay.We know that the EM fields of the atomic electrons and the nuclear protons influence each other and maintain a one to one ratio in the stable atom”
    Dear Mr. eernie1,
    in Don Borghi experiment neutrons are formed by proton+electron at low energy.
    There is need new foundations in Physics to explain how it occurs, since it is impossible to occur from the current foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
    An acceptable theory in the field of cold fusion must be able to explain all the phenomena occurred in the field of cold fusion, and not only the experiment made by Andrea Rossi.
    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

  15. raul heining

    October 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    Wladimir Guglinski is not a serious physicist. He is only trying to make something with the knowledge at the level of the first chapter of an introductory quantum mechanics level. Read something from his book “Quantum Ring Theory” and you will know what I mean. Or , if you don’t want to bother, read surveys in amazon about his book. It is full of faults and aplying geometric intuition to quantum phenomena departing from a not proven concept based in a solution of shrodinger equation suggesting that electron spin has to do with helicoidal movement of electrons (zitter bewegung). Don Borghi experiment is also used together with concepts like ether and anti gravitation.
    Regards
    raul

    • georgehants

      October 24, 2011 at 4:32 pm

      raul heining,
      Would it not be better to say you think he is mistaken than to condemn out of hand his theory, time will tell.
      Rossi according to many is a crank and not a serious scientist, many discoveries in history come from what arrogant science likes to call amateurs.
      Are you saying we should disregard their input before they have fair and open-minded chance to put and argue their case.

      • Robert Mockan

        October 26, 2011 at 7:08 am

        >georgehants

        As an amateur scientist myself I can tell you the only difference between an amateur scientist doing research in a professional manner and a credentialed scientist is that the amateur usually is funding research out of his own pocket, while credentials enable a job working in the field with access to equipment and tools, usually as a member of a team, in a laboratory environment, and getting paid for it. But the biggest obstacle for “amateurs” is not having access to specialized information resources.
        Rossi is an amateur scientist, in the sense I describe, but he is able to provide his own funding, and has access to information resources through Focardi that he might otherwise have difficulty obtaining. Any body who calls Rossi a crank and not a serious scientist, is an idiot.

        • Jay2011

          October 26, 2011 at 4:21 pm

          I agree with some of your points, but not all. I know a couple of serious amateur scientists and they are certainly to be respected. In astronomy in particular, amateurs often make significant contributions to the field and the major difference is in the funding, as you stated. It’s a bit harder to make significant contributions as an amateur in nuclear or particle physics or quantum physics. And serious means Really Serious. Yes, one can be still be serious without having gone through eight or ten years of university and post doctoral studies. But it’s not easy and there is a heck of a lot to learn on one’s own. And there’s a high level of discipline and rigor necessary in experimental science to be able to stand up to the challenges of one’s peers. An amateur can participate, but he/she must put in the time, energy and discipline that’s expected.

          I’m sorry to be an idiot, but Rossi is not a serious scientist. He does not speak the language of scientists, and his experiments/demonstrations are improperly conceived and instrumented and do not meet the expectations of scientists. Rossi may still, however, be a serious inventor. I would not judge him yet on that score. And it’s still possible that he’s made a great contribution to science even though he’s not a scientist.

          • Robert Mockan

            October 26, 2011 at 4:55 pm

            I meant in the Boolean “AND” logic. Taken separately without the “crank”, you make a good case that he might better be described as a serious inventor. Within the constraints of funding he may have gone as far as he is able with instrumentation, and I also would make allowance that English is not his primary language. I suppose if he were using Labview and a fully instrumented data logger, and had at least some math analysis published concerning his calorimetry, I could make a sensible reply defending his being a “serious” scientist, rather than an entrepreneur and inventor. By the measure of what the general scientific community would expect, you make a good point. On the other hand, applying steam calorimetry and weighing before and after, and knowing what the typical equivalent calorimeter constant is for an E-Cat, is probably just the tip of the iceberg concerning the research he has put into this project. Maybe he will publish copies of his laboratory journals some day. I”ll rephrase my statement in any case….
            “Any body who calls Rossi a crank OR not a serious scientist, may be in error”.

          • Jay2011

            October 26, 2011 at 10:46 pm

            OK, I’ll buy that. Rossi himself might very well consider “scientist” to be an insult and prefer the term “inventor” or “businessman”. For better or worse, he has bypassed science and the scientific method in the route he has taken.

  16. raul heining

    October 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    What happened to maryyugo?
    regards
    raul

    • Sojourner Soo

      October 24, 2011 at 4:17 pm

      Maybe she is in Greece testing the Hyperion? She kind of backed herself into a corner on that one, so I thought anyway. But, I’ve no doubt she is up on the roof, ready to fall on our heads.

      • Peter Roe

        October 24, 2011 at 4:44 pm

        Or drop something on them, anyway!

    • Peter Roe

      October 24, 2011 at 4:40 pm

      It may be that the dogs have now been called off due to the increasing silliness of their position and the fact that it is now too late to affect anything using those tactics. Apart from muddying the water I think they probably failed to achieve anything significant and decided to call it a day. I hope so anyway.

      Time to tally up the hours and put in your invoices, folks.

      • Sojourner Soo

        October 24, 2011 at 5:28 pm

        Yes, I agree. They probably saw the writing on the wall and have decided to end the propaganda campaign. Now, the real battle begins. Wonder when MSM decides to take the plunge and make the first real report? The fossil fuel industry is now a huge shell game. Investors are going to have a brick when they learn MSM has been withholding information from them which could affect energy stocks. This technology changes everything. I feel bizarre knowing that the vast majority of humanity is being deliberately kept uninformed. It’s freaky to be watching and waiting for the shock to the fossil fuel industry. In other news, Canada’s energy minister is busily writing “aggressive” letters to the EU, which considers our tarsands oil dirty: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/10/23/18866236.html

        • Peter Roe

          October 24, 2011 at 5:58 pm

          Calling the black kettle pot the. We don’t have any tarsands but apparently large shale gas deposits have been found off the NW coast of England, so a frackin’ here we go.

      • georgehants

        October 24, 2011 at 5:37 pm

        Peter Roe,Sojourner Soo,
        This feels very strange to me but I must say slow down, it is still possible something is not right until the Friday test is confirmed successful by people trustworthy to confirm the effect totally.
        My Champagne is in the fridge, in and out for a month, and I cannot wait to open it and a few more.

        • Peter Roe

          October 24, 2011 at 6:09 pm

          Speaking personally George, I’ve grown a bit tired of following every ‘if’ with the secular equivalent of ‘insh’allah’. I’m happy to accept that Rossi is currently running his toy and it is working as designed, so a new era really has begun. In what I now regard as the 1% chance that the whole thing is fake, then I’ll have to live with that. The next hurdle will probably be ‘official’ interference of some kind driven by vested interests, or an unfortunate accident, but that is another issue entirely.

          • georgehants

            October 24, 2011 at 6:12 pm

            Peter I am with you all the way, have become a little paranoid about proof after 9 months of heavy skepticism.
            Will try and relax and follow your lead.

          • Peter Roe

            October 24, 2011 at 6:20 pm

            Just blame me if it does turn out to be full of thermite!

        • Sojourner Soo

          October 24, 2011 at 6:48 pm

          My woman’s instinct tells me it’s real, George. I’m not even worried about questioning it anymore. I’m sure there’s a small possibility it’s a fake, or that something will go catastrophically wrong, but I don’t think so. This whole story has the ring of truth. Rossi is not a liar. I, too, will be celebrating on the 29th. Rossi has saved the planet, literally. I’ve been worried about it for so long, the thought is too huge to even wrap my mind around. The exciting part starts now, for me at least, and a new era has begun, as Peter stated. MSM better start reporting this news! Their silence is becoming ridiculously absurd.

    • Tony

      October 24, 2011 at 5:35 pm

      Ssh, don’t mention that name!

      • georgehants

        October 24, 2011 at 7:12 pm

        Good to be around a couple of like minds for a change, “if real” (habit) it will be wonderful to watch the story unfold.
        Admin, Paul if your there will you continue to cover events of the E-CAT and Cold Fusion into the future.

  17. admin

    October 24, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    For those of you wondering about maryyugo: After I set the 5-post limit, he ignored it and so I banned him for a day. On lifting the ban he immediately did the same and so is suspended once more. Not sure how long this time.

    Paul

    • Peter Roe

      October 24, 2011 at 6:18 pm

      In a way that’s a shame – I’d hoped they might have stopped voluntarily. No rush for reinstatement though.

    • Sojourner Soo

      October 24, 2011 at 6:35 pm

      Mary is a “he”?

    • raul heining

      October 24, 2011 at 7:16 pm

      I think banning her is not good. She is part of this forum and helps keeping it hot even as we don’t agree with her. I like talking with people who don’t agree with me. Talking with people who always agree or from the same group becomes boring.
      Regards
      raul

    • Roger Barker

      October 24, 2011 at 11:49 pm

      About time.

  18. georgehants

    October 24, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    O when the history is written many stories will emerge.

    Mark Hugo
    October 24th, 2011 at 10:59 AM

    Dear Engineer Rossi:
    I found this webpage with a link to a recent presentation by Dr. George Miley.
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/dr-george-miley-replicates-patterson.html
    Miley is NO LIGHT WEIGHT! What dear old George doesn’t know is that I and a friend (Leron S. from Portland) were at Patterson’s grandson’s apartment in the fall of ’92, and set up a data gathering system (PC Based, 16 bit, flow, temperatures, voltage, current, and thus input power and output) for Patterson’s coated beads. It was primarily a 1 to 3 watts input, 10 to 12 watt thermal output device at that time.
    From what I can gather (I haven’t had time to write George yet), it seem George may have been in on the KW device that Patterson claimed. I think George feels at liberty to talk about things, as (sadly) Patterson AND his grandson have both passed on. (I also believe patents may be running out.
    The important point is to note that George has been “working on your side” and sounding the alarm: “DON’T IGNORE ROSSI! DON’T THINK HE ISN’T SERIOUS! DON’T THINK HE DOESN’T HAVE SOMETHING!”
    Just for your info – George and his graduate student “ressurected” the Farnsworth Fusor in 1997-1998. One of his graduate students (Dr. Brian Dejurik..going by memory on this) finished his Phd, nuclear engineering on the characterization of the IEC (Inertial Electro Static Confinement) device.
    I think, as the saying goes, “The rest is HISTORY..” As you can find DOZENS of IEC devices being built by colleges, universities, private individuals.
    Oh, Dr. M. and Dr. DeJ were TURNED DOWN on a paper in “Science” (Un-Science) on the basis of a 1972 Oak Ridge paper that “Proved” that the Farnsworth Fusor “could not produce fusion reactions”. (Part of this paper, as I have it…complained that Farnsworth mistook electrical noise on his BF6 neutron detectors as actual neutron flux signals. Miley, et.al. simply used things as Cd sheets and did ACTIVATION ANALYSIS to back their “on line” instruments…NO DOUBT about 10^10 neutrons per second, peak reaction rates.)
    In conclusion: Welcome to the world of radicals and upstarts.
    Yours,
    Mark Hugo, Excelsior, MN

  19. daniel maris

    October 24, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    I never like banning. If there is another forum which gets as many posts but doesn’t ban for such silly offences, I’d definitely go there. 🙂

  20. Bosch Krupp

    October 24, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    [I never like banning. If there is another forum which gets as many posts but doesn’t ban for such silly offences, I’d definitely go there.]

    You might try moletrap.co.uk/forum. Do a search on ‘rossi’ or start your own topic.

    While the majority of the people here seem to be credulous believers in Rossi, the majority of the people at moletrap are arch-skeptics.

    That forum could use some articulate believers; but be prepared for a rain of insults if you disagree with them – the majority of the posters there act like snotty-nosed adolescents.

  21. Bosch Krupp

    October 24, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    [I never like banning. If there is another forum which gets as many posts but doesn’t ban for such silly offences, I’d definitely go there]

    Another possibility is the fizzx.org forum. It is currently dedicated to Steorn, but if anyone here is a member of the forum, a request to the admin to widen the focus of it might make it a place to post about the ecat.

  22. Rockyspoon

    October 26, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    I figure maryyugo’s angle was that he/she wanted actual, independent, verifiable proof that the E-Cat did what was claimed because he/she represented some entity that would pour $millions into researching and developing the technology if they figured they’d have a decent chance of replicating the process. Having worked for corporate entities before, I can say based on experience it is difficult to go before the PTB and request funding on a lark, especially something so seemingly impossible. But with independent proof (which is what maryyugo harped on time after time after time), he/she could make a $million proposal to her/his funding entity and dive in. But then, perhaps he/she was just someone with an axe to grind or a paradigm shift to stop. I certainly don’t miss her constant annoying dishonest banter and perhaps she should devote her time to sites like moletrap (what a perfect name for “snot-nosed adolescents as Bosch indicates).

    But consider the intent of two people–Rossi and maryyugo. If I had to choose between the two, I find Rossi’s far more upbeat and precious little of what maryyugo said was upbeat. One was always looking up, the other looking down–that’s a huge difference.

  23. Wladimir Guglinski

    October 27, 2011 at 1:00 am

    raul heining wrote in October 24, 2011 – 4:10 pm :

    “Wladimir Guglinski is not a serious physicist”.

    Of course, dear Mr . Raul.
    A serious physicist is that one who betrays the scientific method (as all the academic physicists did along the 20th Century and the begginning of the 21th Century) by rejecting experiments that defy Quantum Mechanics.

    Serious physicists are those ones who expelled Santilli from universities, so that do not allow him to repeat Don Borghi experiment in their laboratories.

    Serious physicists are those ones like you and Dr. Pekka Janhunen, who are fallen in love to Quantum Mechanics, and do not accept that some of its foundations must be changed, since from such foundations it’s impossible to explain some phenomena.

    Serious scientists are those that are claiming today that Andrea Rossi is a charlatan, and his experiment is a fraud.

    While Dr. Pekka Janhunen was betraying the scientific method along the last 20 years (by rejecting experiments that contradict Quantum Mechanics), I was wasting my time along 20 years developing a new theory so that to discover new foundations for Physics, in order to explain the experiences that serious physicists like Dr. Pekka are rejecting.

  24. Wladimir Guglinski

    October 27, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Dr. Pekka Janhunen wrote in October 24, 2011 – 2:49 pm :

    ” If or when Rossi’s reactor is experimentally proven without doubt, I have no trouble believing it, while the paper by WG that appears on Rossi’s website looks as pseudoscience to me”

    Dear Dr. Pekka,
    as you dont know what is pseudoscience, let me tell you:

    Pseudoscience is a theory that cannot be proven false or true by experiments. For instance: string theory, supersymmetry (Susy), boson of Higgs.

    As you do not know the difference between science and pseudoscience, I suggest you go to read the review by Peter Jones in the Amazon website, where he explains for “serious” scientists as Mr. Raul Heining the difference between science and pseudoscience:
    “This book (Quantum Ring Theory) is controversial. Because it proposes several new theories, I can see how some people would claim that it is not scientific. However, that is exactly why it is, for it proposes new theories that are then tested and either proven or not”.

  25. Wladimir Guglinski

    October 27, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    Raul Heining wrote in October 24, 2011 – 4:10 pm :

    “Don Borghi experiment is also used (by Guglinski) together with concepts like ether and anti gravitation.”

    According to the current theories, the force of gravity is 10^40 times weaker than the electromagnetic force.
    But according to Quantum Ring Theory, the force of gravity and the force of electromagnetism have the same magnitude.

    However, we know that gravity works with an attraction force 10^40 times weaker than the electromagnetic force, as Newton measured it 400 years ago by experiments.

    Then how to explain that gravity can be as strong as electromagnetism?

    There is only one possible hypothesis: the space is filled with attractive and repulsive gravitons, and they interact with the same force of the electromagnetism.
    But such “soup” of attractive and repulsive gravitons works with a resultant atrraction force 10^40 times weaker than electromagnetism.

    Such hypothesis is corroborated by an experiment made in 2006 at the European Space Agancy, by Martin Tajmar and Clovis de Matos:
    The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml
    The experiments detected a gravity force no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts.

    I would be very thankfull to Mr. Raul if he should explain to us why the physicists are not interested to repeat the experiment made by Martin Tajmar and Clovis de Matos, in order to verify if gravity indeed can be very stronger than the physicists believe.

    I wonder if it’s because the physicists are not interested in experiments that contradict the beloved theories that they believe.
    What do you think, Mr. Raul ?