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 Tests To Last 2 Months

August 31, 2011

Tonight, on Andrea Rossi’s blog, we learn a little more about the 1MW eCat tests.

Sebastian
August 30th, 2011 at 3:13 PM
I’m sorry, but the last sentence should read:
Will this test be run for a long enough time (e.g. 18 hours like the one earlier this year) under continuous surveillance by the scientists?
(How long will the scientists be visiting the test facilities?)
Thanks

Andrea Rossi
August 30th, 2011 at 4:07 PM
Dear Sebastian:
The tests will ast 2 months, the scientists will have full access to all but the reactors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

If the scientists in question are credible (hopeful, given the roll-call to-date) and the resultant report is positive, no-one should doubt that the eCat is real. Let us hope that this is what happens.

Posted by on August 31, 2011. Filed under Hands-On,Media & Blogs,Rossi,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

117 Responses to 1MW Tests To Last 2 Months

  1. Ben Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 1:44 am

    I get that feeling we are preparing for a moonshot. Oh wait, that was faked too!

    No really, can you imagine the 1MW plant set in the vehicle assembly building at KSC undergoing 60 days of testing, with an international feed via Ustream of all the while. I probably shouldn’t have mentioned that. Now the critics will demand it. Doh!

    • John Dlouhy Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 2:01 am

      LOL, I get that feeling too! Its almost like an event is going to happen. Dr.Rossi is very gradually increasing the level and specificity of his claims. There will be no way to slip out. Either he delivers or that’s all folks.

      • John Dlouhy Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 2:02 am

        • Ben Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 3:00 am

          Nice video from 2010. If true, only missed it by a year. The author of the novel upon which the movie is based, Arthur C. Clarke, was a cold fusion advocate. It was also he who said “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” In this case, The Magic of Mr. Rossi.

          Synchronicity?

          • maryyugo

            August 31, 2011 at 7:19 am

            Synchronicity is Jungian nonsense. The word you want is “coincidence”.

      • Ben Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 2:38 am

        That’s right John D., Rossi is definitely painting himself in a corner. If he doesn’t deliver, support will drop off faster than a brick in a vacuum. I know one thing for sure, if Rossi doesn’t come through, I won’t be following it for 3 years and hoping he finally comes through. Neither will I engage in the more ridiculous endeavor of yelling FRAUD, SCAM, HOAX for 3 years on every blog in the blogosphere.

        But, if Rossi does come through, it will be……

        One Small Step for Man, One Giant Leap for Mankind.

        Cultural Roots

        • John Dlouhy Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 3:05 am

          LOL, I won’t be entering the skeptic profession either. I already spend too much time here as an amateur!

          I was thinking about Armstrong’s quote the other day. The problem is the word Giant. It suggests a large but measurable amount. I know I’ve begun reiterating this point but I think its important. If Rossi’s reactor works, it is converting matter to energy. This means that it is essentially an unlimited process. Infinite. thefreedictionary.com defines the word “Cosmic” as “2. Infinitely or inconceivably extended; vast:” I suggest we change the quote to “One small step for A man, a COSMIC leap for mankind”

          • Ben

            August 31, 2011 at 3:38 am

            The COSMIC tweak is nice John D. but I see your COSMIC and raise you…

            One small step for man, one QUANTUM leap for mankind.

            I think that should sit well with the physicists, don’t you?

          • John Dlouhy

            August 31, 2011 at 4:01 am

            I know georgehants will love it!

          • Tim

            August 31, 2011 at 5:27 am

            As someone who is maybe sometimes too nit-picky in the field of physics, I would like to point out that QUANTUM transitions are the smallest transitions allowed by quantium mechanics. A quantum leap, technically, would be very small.

          • LCD

            August 31, 2011 at 3:52 pm

            Yeah Tim small and sometimes impossible when viewed classically. ;)

          • Hopeful

            August 31, 2011 at 4:25 pm

            Why not:
            One QUANTUM step for man, one COSMIC leap for mankind.

          • John Dlouhy

            August 31, 2011 at 5:23 pm

            LOL, that’s fantastic Hopeful, that’s now the official line of us, pseudo-believers. Nice…

          • LCD

            August 31, 2011 at 9:09 pm

            Okay if we’re being honest and rampantly optimistic, I think “Quantum Leap” is better, implies that we tunneled through barriers and that we made the impossible possible. Also the lay person will appreciate it.

            But what to do about “step”

      • Tim Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 5:41 am

        Not for me. As I have been saying all along since Rossi changed his customer and the location of his demo, I suspect this might affect his schedule. I know he has been expressing himself confidently, and now more and more confidently; it still seems to me that having the demo at this time may be optimistic.

        If cold fusion were really easy, someone would have successfully commercialized it by now. It has been said by some that one of the primary issues in the field in 1989 after the announcement by F&P is that the impression was given off that it was easy, and when replicators had a diffult or impossible time replicating the results right after the announcement, the disappointment led many to consider it dead.

        If Rossi does not deliver a working demo at the end of October, after all of his recent confidence, his credibility will take a hit. Also, if the only reason someone currently supports his claims is because of an expectation of an October demo, then I might expect them to remove that support if the demonstration is not delivered.

        However, personally the October demonstration does not directly factor into my inclination to support or suspect the claims. It’s occurence or non-occurence would affect my opinion of Rossi’s credibility at the time; but my current inclination is based on those observations that have already been made, analysis of those observations, and my judgement of the credibility of the observers.

      • Tim Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 5:49 am

        All along, Rossi has been saying that his reactors are unstable, and that it took him a long time and many-many tests to make the reaction work as well as he claims that it does now. I suspect if this is real that since he has been a businessman-entrepreneur in the field of new tech for a long time, and has been at the start of some decenst size companies, he probably has been leading a team of people developing this. It may not be as simple as it looks to us in the public demos we have seen.

        It would certainly not be to his business advantage to demonstrate all the details of how it works beyond just showing that it does work. The demos might be short, be set up to not vary some of the parameters such as coolant speed, and so on so that the reactor stays stable and further information that might give a clue of the details of operation is minimized.

        This may well be harder than it looks!

    • Thicket Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 2:24 am

      Ben

      Breaking the rule about Steorn, but that’s what they did with their Waterways demonstration in Dublin. Anyone around the world with an Internet connection could watch the Orbo go round and round and see the battery being changed out.

      There was a contest as to who had the most hits – the Steorn Orbo or the traffic cameras along some NE United States highway. The traffic cameras tried hard, but were beaten out in the end.

      • John Dlouhy Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 2:39 am

        First of all you are a bad boy! A very, very bad boy for mentioning the one whose name we shall not speak. You’ve been duly reprimanded.

        Also, comparing their prototype battery operated magnet toy to a sold, 1 megawatt nuclear reactor, surrounded by scientists operating for months seems a little disproportionate to me. I’m just saying…

        • maryyugo Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 7:23 am

          Except that Steorn’s failed and bogus demo using an inefficient pulse motor powered by a humongeous (10Ah) storage battery actually happened. The battery was regularly removed from view and presumably recharged, negating any pretense to claims of overunity.

          But Rossi’s big reveal has not yet happened. Another case of counting chickens.

        • LCD Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 4:13 pm

          Why do you waste your time with these two John.

          • John Dlouhy

            August 31, 2011 at 4:54 pm

            Well LCD, I enjoy counting the chickens while maryyugo enjoys choking them…

  2. Peter Gluck Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 6:42 am

    Rossi gave a partial answer. As I wrote in http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/anticipating-1mw-demo.html
    there are some minimal conditions for the test to be declared a real test nad more conditions and performances to be declared a success- demonstrating
    usability and technological maturity of Rossi’s heat generators.
    Intensity, Continuity (duration), Efficiency (energy out/energy in taking in consideration that the value of 1 unit electrical energy = value of 3 units of thermal energy), Controllability, Start and Shut-down with no problems, perfect measurements, for steam its enthalpy is relevant and nothing else. Minimum
    ecological impact. Predictibility. Global reliability. Serious work.
    You can easily find more details.
    Peter

    • maryyugo Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 7:24 am

      According to Defkalion, they conducted tests in which they never got less than 18X power out over power in. Are they liars? Or what?

      • Sebastian Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 9:42 am

        Please, forget Defkalion – they are out of the game (at least for the near future)!

        • maryyugo Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 10:03 pm

          Out of the game? Not according to them. Nothing in their recent statement to the press and nothing in their web site says they are out of any game.

          • Rockyspoon

            September 1, 2011 at 1:32 pm

            Doesn’t matter, mary… Rossi holds the upper hand–all he has to do is show they didn’t comply with one item in their contract and it all becomes null and void.

  3. georgehants Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 9:38 am

    What a wonderful day today, the sun is shining and Rossi’s demo is a day nearer, who can not have a warm heart knowing that IF Rossi is true the World has a chance to feed and water every person it contains.
    If the Experts would like to next sort out the Crazy economic situation with a completely new System that rewards from the bottom up and not from the top down, even dumb Economists may show they have some worth.
    A wonderful article in New Scientist on the Placebo etc. effect, maybe the dumb Medical profession may start to take notice.
    Psychologists are earning their keep by researching crazy irrational skeptics who do nothing but delay progress for their own strange satisfaction.
    The World is Quantum, Quantum means nothing is known, and Science is given the wonderful chance to research reality and not try to fit everything into a classical approximation through a fear of admitting they know next to nothing.
    Until every eight year old child is taught in School the truth, that Science knows nothing beyond a few Classical approximations discovered, brilliantly one hundred years ago, and since then has spent all it’s time trying to hide the Truth from everybody, Science will continue to make
    it self look very foolish.
    Luckily their are always the few true Scientific Rebels who are brave enough to face the barrage of abuse and skepticism to slowly move things forward.
    Still no comments on an independent Inquiry into Pons etc before they die.
    Just a cupole of speling erors tu keep the smool minds appy.

    • Sebastian Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 9:47 am

      Well, Georgy, you are overdoing it again…
      (do you and maryyugo actually notice that you are the two extremes in this “saga”? maryyugo is the die-hard-skeptic (NOT pseudoskeptic!) and you are the die-hard-believer. Both of you keep repeating the same mantra over and over again – funny :-) )

      • georgehants Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 10:41 am

        Please give an example of, —Well, Georgy, you are overdoing it again…
        Cheap patronizing makes you look very foolish, try harder to make your point and not make yourself look a content-less space filler.
        If you cannot make a rational objection to my points, why are you saying anything.

  4. georgehants Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 10:36 am

    maryyugo
    August 31, 2011 – 7:19 am | Permalink
    Synchronicity is Jungian nonsense. The word you want is “coincidence”.

    maryyago is now an Expert on Jung and the mind, In one comment he can dismiss Synchronicity and metaphysics.
    With him we do not need any sciences of any kind except possibly steam, it must be wonderful to be so brilliant that with no knowledge of a subject he can gain an insight that saves everybody else having to do any open-minded investigation.
    We should all feel very Humble to be in his presence.
    maryyago can i av yur autograf plees

    • georgehants Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 3:36 pm

      Mr. Rossi is willing to be very gracious with his praise.

      georgehants
      August 31st, 2011 at 4:01 AM
      Dear Mr. Rossi,
      What was the main reason that you have succeeded with your E-CAT and main-line science failed.
      Best wishes.

      Andrea Rossi
      August 31st, 2011 at 9:25 AM
      Dear georgehants:
      Main-line Science is what gave me the instruments to make my work. If my plant will work, this is thanks to what you define “Main-Line-Science”. For example: what I learnt from the “Main-Line-Scientists” of the Universities of Bologna, Uppsala, Stockolm has been of core importance for the work at the base of the 1 MW plant.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  5. Bill Nichols Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 10:47 am

    Besides what happens (or doesn’t happen) in late October.

    Looking for the report, and his explanation(s) as promised by Rossi.

    His agreement there is a output variance in the neighborhood of 3% is not surprising if this reaction is in fact, real. A homogeneous reaction output rate at this stage is not probable.

    Asked him about his output profile earlier, he seems to be providing more specifics as he gets closer.

    As an observer, it just gets more interesting.

    Intuition over 35 years is too many folks (Piantelli, Ahern, etc) in Cold Fusion arena are making progress to suggest its more issue of when, not if commercial viable energy products come to fruition.

    Late October may be very interesting.

  6. Eldering_G Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 10:49 am

    To me these messages are more significant than the message about the duration of the test.

    Catscanner, August 29th, 2011 at 11:59 AM:
    Dear Mr Rossi
    Is there still problems to solve before the first delivery to your costumer or is everything build and ready and just being finally tested?

    Andrea Rossi, August 29th, 2011 at 4:46 PM:
    Dear Catscanner:
    We are still working and still we have problems. We are working 16 hours per day for this.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Ben Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 3:48 pm

      To have some problems in the system two months before launch is not unreasonable or even unexpected. I don’t feel it is even noteworthy. It will only be of note if he uses these problems as an excuse in October as some have long predicted. Many have given him the benefit of the doubt due to the fact that he has given a definitive time-frame for his endeavor. That time-frame has provided the context for the whole conversation. If the time-frame, and thus the context, of this discussion should change, his credibility will greatly diminish even in those circles where he has some.

      • georgehants Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 4:15 pm

        Why is Rossi under any more pressure than main-line science with Hot Fusion, they came out in the 1950′s to announce they has solved all the problems but where mistaken and now after 60 years and many optimistic announcements they are very little nearer than before after spending billions.

        • LCD Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 4:35 pm

          George come on “they” never said that. And who is “they”?

          I would say this. Pressure per person is higher on Rossi. Total pressure is higher with the Hot Fusion community but when divided by all the people involved its too low.

          • georgehants

            August 31, 2011 at 5:22 pm

            LCD,
            My quote on their mistaken announcement was from memory and as it is very hard to find records of scientific failures it will take some time to find so I will cede your point although I suspect you are only saying it did not happen.
            Very true that over 60 years of Hot Fusion no individual can be to blame and I do not blame the Hot Fusion guys for doing their best, I only compare when individuals are unfairly blamed before final outcomes, for their efforts.

        • John Dlouhy Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 5:17 pm

          George, I think the difference is that hot fusion says it is still looking while Rossi says he has already found. It was Rossi who set the dates and made the claims. And he has said, specifically, when he says he is going to do something that is up to him, he does it. His word is all we know of the man, and at this stage we are giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think Ben is saying, correctly, that that will be difficult to do if his promises start to fall apart.

          • georgehants

            August 31, 2011 at 5:27 pm

            John Dlouhy
            please see my above to LCD, I agree that I am defensive re. Rossi and every other scientific Rebel (you may have noticed) .
            If the fools who are not willing to encourage enterprise and always give a fair chance are on this page then I am very happy to respond in kind.
            If only all comments where as fair and to the point as yours.

        • Ben Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 5:23 pm

          Because when you’re an outsider challenging the establishment with a technology widely opposed and widely believed to be impossible, the standards are different. I am not saying it is right or wrong, I’m just saying it is.

          Carl Jung had some interesting things to say about the effect of systemic propaganda and the mob mentality. I am not sure how germane that is to the conversation but I just thought I’d throw that out there.

          • georgehants

            August 31, 2011 at 5:32 pm

            Ben,
            Of course you are right standards are different, but they should not be, science should celebrate wherever the knowledge comes from.
            That is my whole point, science should be fairly open-minded and searching for knowledge in any area.
            I could go on.

  7. LCD Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    If Rossi ends up a case like Steorns where he believed and then had a dissapointing demo then I would expect LENR to take a huge hit.

    But in contrast to Steorns, I don’t see a demo happening at all if Rossi has not already proven internally to the people running the demo that it works. Right?

    Admin could you set the comment box to be bigger please.

    • LCD Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 4:22 pm

      BTW I’m referring to the box where you enter in your comments.
      Thanks

      • John Dlouhy Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 5:08 pm

        Put your cursor on the little shaded triangle on the bottom right corner of the comment box and drag it as big as you want.

        • LCD Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 5:39 pm

          Hmm yeah it didn’t work, but maybe my browser is too old.

  8. LCD Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Krivit’s last blog
    (I think I can write this here right admin)
    “In a seven-month period, the Rossi group sought credibility for its claim of extraordinary levels of excess heat through scientific and academic validation. In seven public attempts, the group tried to demonstrate convincing experimental evidence for its claims.

    In all attempts, the group failed. It has no experimental evidence on which to base its extraordinary energy claim. It never did.”

    At the beginning I was on Krivit’s side but now I’m just not even on the same hemisphere I think. He’s done a great job of losing credibility with me.

    The simplicity of his summary is just too strawman for me. He makes it sound like they tried to prove it and failed story is over move on people. The hilarity of the whole thing is his conclusions are not supported by his own evidence.

    It would have been better for him to say. Hey they tried to do tests to prove it worked but we in hindsight found loopholes and inconsistencies so more proof needs to be presented. That is responsible reporting.

    • maryyugo Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 6:08 pm

      “It would have been better for him to say. Hey they tried to do tests to prove it worked but we in hindsight found loopholes and inconsistencies so more proof needs to be presented. That is responsible reporting.”

      Yes, that would be more charitable and would also be accurate, though, what Krivit says is also correct if harsher. Rossi’s “group”failed to provide experimental evidence on which to base its extraordinary claim. It would also be relevant to point out that the methods to lay these issues to rest were presented by many people to both Rossi and Defkalion (on their forum) and both, so far, have refused to do it.

      Rossi defers independent experiments to a planned test of a megawatt plant to be performed by the same people who did the botched existing tests plus Brian Josephson, a proponent of the idiotic discipline of homeopathy! That’s not encouraging. Rossi has a contract with U of B but it has not been funded, has not begun, and would take months to complete. None of this is encouraging to me.

      • Dr. Cuckoo Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 6:14 pm

        It would also be relevant to point out that you have made that point about a billion billion times already.

        • LCD Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 8:13 pm

          I don’t even respond to mary from yogoslavia anymore. Her and Thicket have diarrhea of the keyboard.

          • maryyugo

            August 31, 2011 at 9:21 pm

            But you approve of georgehants, do you?

          • LCD

            August 31, 2011 at 10:40 pm

            yes a quick review of my all my posts shows that I automatically agree with everybody but you and Thicket.

            Do you agree with Thicket on his Ni Hydride theory?

          • maryyugo

            August 31, 2011 at 11:31 pm

            “Do you agree with Thicket on his Ni Hydride theory?”

            I don’t know much about nickel hydride and Thicket says he has worked extensively with it on an industrial process scale. I do think it’s very possible that Rossi, if he’s faking, has “spiked” the reactor with something that makes lots of heat early on and peters out a bit later. Demos have been comparatively short. Except of course for Levi’s and we all know Levi doesn’t remember well and can’t document anything that he said happened during that one.

          • LCD

            September 1, 2011 at 1:39 am

            There you go again dodging the question and making negative generalizations about people you really don’t know.

            Why do I even bother.

    • Ransompw Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 6:29 pm

      And the next line is even more hysterical:

      “Rossi then changed his strategies and claimed that he would prove his claim commercially.”

      Practically from day 1 Rossi said he would prove his Ecat through customers in the market.

      Have you ever heard of Half-Truths, we in the legal profession often point out to juries the incidious nature of half-truths and why they are even worse then lies. A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth but is really intended to deceive.

      Krivit is the master of the half-truth, including some element of truth in his writing with the intent to deceive.

      Just look at his latest. I suppose their are seven demonstrations, if you count two Levi did in private and the Krivit demo which could hardly be describred as being done to establish experimental evidence. In fact non were really done for that purpose except the ones done by Lewan and Kullander which really can’t be said to have been done by the Rossi group.

      So his statement has an element of truth but is clearly not the whole truth and certainly is a half-truth. You see the purpose of a half-truth is to make something that is really only at best a belief appear to be knowledge or truth representing the whole truth. This is why krivit is not a journalist and his work should be ignored.

      • maryyugo Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 7:20 pm

        I was trying to think of a noteworthy discovery that was “proven” in the marketplace. Can you think of one? Even Edison’s light bulb was properly demonstrated as a lab experiment before it went on the market. The Wright Brothers did a huge number of theoretical studies, wind tunnel experiments, and calculations before they produced an experimental airplane and it did not become a product for years after the first flight.

        • Ransompw Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 7:39 pm

          Proof is retrospective. If Rossi is successful in October, history will contend that he successfully demonstrated and proved his Ecat in January. History will conclude that you and those doubting the quality of the steam were obviously mistaken and didn’t know what you were talking about.

          You will no doubt argue this point to whoever will listen but absolutely no one will care at that point what you think since you were obviously wrong.

          On the other hand I am satisfied that some doubt exists as to the quality of the steam, but I think you may be wrong, Lewan’s second tests certainly suggests you are wrong. So I am willing to wait and see. If Rossi’s Ecat becomes a successful product I will also be convinced you just didn’t know what you were talking about.

        • Ransompw Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 7:47 pm

          and to be fair to you, if Rossi’s Ecat is unsuccessful, history will note that he really never did a proper test to prove his Ecat.

          • maryyugo

            August 31, 2011 at 8:54 pm

            In the unlikely event that Rossi’s E-cat is successful, few will care what was discussed at this point in time. If that’s what you mean, I agree. And it will extend both to what believers and skeptics said. A successful E-cat will so change the world that developing it and improving it (and maybe stealing it) will be everyone’s focus. That doesn’t make the skeptical view about the steam any less valid. Or premature belief any less premature. It’s just that it won’t matter any more if E-cat is real. So your addendum to your post is correct.

            What isn’t appreciated, IMHO, by the Rossi supporters (I could use a less flattering expression for what it is they do) is that nobody will care about the early believers either any more than they will about the skeptics. Rossi, if successful, won’t have the time or the need to converse endlessly about mostly nothing on his internet blog. And people like George Hants and Sterling Allan and Craig Brown, who really make no contribution except mindless adulation and pointless speculation, won’t have anything to do with the future development of the E-cat. That will be in the hands of the giants of industry, such will be the scale of its developments.

            There may be an analogy with the airplane. People make kit planes at home and with careful inspection and licensing by the FAA, they can legally fly them, sometimes with restrictions. But most planes are made by giant companies and nobody puts a 747 together in their garage. So it will be with the E-cat. If, of course, the E-cat is real — a mighty big if.

          • Ransompw

            August 31, 2011 at 9:16 pm

            I certainly agree with your last post, but history will still paint a picture of what happened. I suspect if true, Cold Fusion or LENR may in hindsight seem obvious to those looking back and they will wonder how it was missed for so long following the work of Pons and Fleischmann.

            Finally, I do think the reality of the Ecat is relevant to the skepical argument about steam. If the Ecat is real, I think the argument is probably flawed and unjustified maybe for the reasons set forth by Alan Fletcher see vortex, but I agree no one will care.

          • Rockyspoon

            September 1, 2011 at 1:46 pm

            And by the same token, mary, people like your who really make no contribution except mindless criticism and negativism also won’t have anything to do with the current or future development of the E-cat. You had better hope and pray for failure or you will be looked at as a mindless critic. Should Rossi succeed, he will have done it in spite of you. (Although if I were in Rossi’s shoes and working 16 hours a day for months and months, I’d much rather hear positive, supportive statements than constant yammering that basically says you are the expert and Rossi is the idiot. In that regard you have a definite problem.)

      • LCD Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 8:10 pm

        Ransompw I agree with you on the half truths. It’s sad because I fully supported him at the beginning, even defending him on his blog, but then he went rogue on me and started making these wild conclusions. He either does not understand the point or limitations of the scientific method OR he’s just pissed off at Rossi. But objective he is not.

        My favorite part is that he (paraphrased) “let the poeple disprove Rossi themselves he was just the vessel.” What about all the people who wrote to him on his blog and his personal email that told him he was misleading and too early in his conclusions?…the answer is they are not part of his conclusion.

        If he’s so conclusively proven that it’s not real then why does he have a whole blog devoted to alternative ecat websites that “support” Rossi. I meant that would be wrong to promote a lie wouldn’t it? Not for this curiously conflicted cat.

        And not to mention his past. He is a self admitted ex-proponent of Cold Fusion. According to him he believed wholeheartedly once before that Cold Fusion was real, then decided he was wrong because it really is LENR. So he’s been wrong before about something he trully believed was right. But that wouldn’t happen again would it?

        And of course I’m not going to mention how funny it is that he believes LENR is real but has scientifically concluded that Rossi’s ecat is not. Or that he has concluded that Cold Fusion is false but LENR is true.

        I could go on and on about the hypocrytical nature of Krivit but on this blog it would be like beating a dead horse. I put it out there for the person Googling to know the truth and the truth is he cast doubt on the demo/experiments but did not disprove the ecat.

        • LCD Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 8:34 pm

          And just to be clear to the pseudoskeptics there is no conclusive evidence that the ecat is real either, and that’s why we wait to make proper scientific conclusions.

          • maryyugo

            August 31, 2011 at 8:56 pm

            OK, so we wait because it’s all we can do. But proper scientific conclusions could have been made last January. I bet they might not get made in October either.

          • LCD

            August 31, 2011 at 9:27 pm

            mary from yugoslavia go study quantum entanglement experiments and current quantum eraser experiments and then tell me what you’ve learned. Then maybe we can have a proper discussion of how the scientific method works.

          • Ransompw

            August 31, 2011 at 9:33 pm

            and maryyugo it could have been easily done by Lewan during his second test in April. Everything he needed was there including a bucket to hold the water. I don’t see that as a failure by Rossi.

            As for October, if it is being sold to a credible customer then we will know.

          • LCD

            September 1, 2011 at 1:54 am

            Come on Ransom, mary from yugoslavia won’t ever agree that you have a point unless you are in contradiction with an alleged fan boy of Rossi. Which to her is everybody but her.

            It’s much easier for her to believe that Rossi manipulated everybody in sight with his magical powers.

  9. georgehants Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    maryyugo
    Quote— plus Brian Josephson, a proponent of the idiotic discipline of homeopathy! That’s not encouraging.

    maryyago is now an expert in homeopathy. good I can ask him a question, do you think that the reported beneficial effects of Homeopathy could be in any way connected to the, proven effects of the Placebo effect.

    • Ben Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 7:02 pm

      Yes George, it seems we have in our midst not only an expert in physics and chemistry, but also in psychology, homeopathy, history and certainly sophistry. It is surely to wonderful coincidence that we owe their omniscient presence.

    • maryyugo Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 7:23 pm

      There is nothing to be expert about homeopathy. It’s the dumbest idea ever put forward — that substances act in INVERSE proportion to their concentration. It’s exactly backwards to how things really work.

      Homepaths are selling extremely expensive water and also pills made only of sugar. Whether people are bamboozled into thinking they feel better through a placebo effect is irrelevant.

      Josephson was offered a million dollars if he could simply devise a test to distinguish between pure water and a homeopathic solution properly diluted to 20X (typical of some homeopathic medicines). He hasn’t been able to come up with a method yet. And he won’t. 20X dilution in homeopathic methodology leaves only water and nothing active.

      Homeopathy is as dumb as anything gets. And as obvious.

      • georgehants Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 7:28 pm

        maryyago come back when you have something rational to say.
        Could I suggest for such a know-all you do some honest research and not rely on impractical publicity stunts as your low grade evidence.

        • Stephen Reply

          September 2, 2011 at 7:22 am

          George, forgive me but I need to ask: What is your definition of the word, as you use it, “rational”?
          Thanks.

      • Tony Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 8:58 pm

        Surely quantum entanglement is the dummest idea ever? If not…

        • maryyugo Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 10:00 pm

          Of course not because it can be verified with experiments. Also note that it is a significant phenomenon only for relatively very small objects.

      • 123star Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 10:43 pm

        I have to agree with maryyugo about homoeopathy too..! haha
        My two cents!
        Cheers

  10. georgehants Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    Re my above comment to maryyago and Just to make my point and show that relying on wilkirubbish teaches one nothing.

    Scientific Proof that Homeopathics WORK!!!

    NEW SCIENTIST WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

    No. 110, 10 November 2001

    Andy Coghlan

    Bizarre chemical discovery gives Homeopathic Credence!!!
    It is a chance discovery so unexpected it defies belief and
    proves there is a scientific basis for the fact that homeopathic medicines really work.
    A team in South Korea has discovered a whole new dimension to just about
    the simplest chemical reaction in the book – what happens when you
    dissolve a substance in water and then add more water.
    Conventional wisdom says that the dissolved molecules simply spread
    further and further apart as a solution is diluted. But two chemists have
    found that some do the opposite: they clump together, first as clusters of
    molecules, then as bigger aggregates of those clusters. Far from drifting
    apart from their neighbours, they got closer together.
    The discovery has stunned chemists, and could provide the first scientific
    insight into how some homeopathic remedies work.
    Homeopaths repeatedly dilute medications, the higher the dilution, the more potent
    the remedy becomes.
    Some dilute to “infinity” until no molecules of the remedy remain.
    The water holds a memory, or “imprint” of the active ingredient
    which is more potent than the ingredient itself.
    Others use less dilute solutions – often diluting a remedy six-fold.
    The Korean findings at last reconcile the potency of these less dilute
    solutions with orthodox science.
    Completely counterintuitive
    German chemist Kurt Geckeler and his colleague Shashadhar Samal
    stumbled on the effect while investigating fullerenes at their lab in the
    Kwangju Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea. They found
    that the football-shaped buckyball molecules kept forming untidy aggregates
    in solution, and Geckler asked Samal to look for ways to control how these
    clumps formed.
    What he discovered was a phenomenon new to chemistry. “When he diluted
    the solution, the size of the fullerene particles increased,” says
    Geckeler. “It was completely counterintuitive,” he says.
    Further work showed it was no fluke. To make the otherwise insoluble
    buckyball dissolve in water, the chemists had mixed it with a circular
    sugar-like molecule called a cyclodextrin. When they did the same
    experiments with just cyclodextrin molecules, they found they behaved the
    same way. So did the organic molecule sodium guanosine monophosphate,
    DNA and plain old sodium chloride.
    Dilution typically made the molecules cluster into aggregates five to 10 times
    as big as those in the original solutions. The growth was not linear, and it
    depended on the concentration of the original.
    “The history of the solution is important. The more dilute it starts, the
    larger the aggregates,” says Geckeler. Also, it only worked in polar
    solvents like water, in which one end of the molecule has a pronounced
    positive charge while the other end is negative.
    Biologically active
    But the findings provide a mechanism for showing how Homeopathic
    medicines work – something that has defied scientific explanation till now.
    Diluting a remedy increases the size of the particles to the point when
    they become biologically active.
    It also echoes the controversial claims of French immunologist Jacques
    Benveniste. In 1988, Benveniste claimed in a Nature paper that a solution
    that had once contained antibodies still activated human white blood cells.
    Benveniste claimed the solution still worked because it contained ghostly
    “imprints” in the water structure where the antibodies had been.
    Double-check
    Chemist Jan Enberts of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands is
    more cautious. “It’s still a totally open question,” he says. “To say the
    phenomenon has biological significance is pure speculation.” But he has no
    doubt Samal and Geckeler have discovered something new. “It’s surprising
    and worrying,” he says.
    The two chemists were at pains to double-check their astonishing results.
    Initially they had used the scattering of a laser to reveal the size and
    distribution of the dissolved particles. To check, they used a scanning
    electron microscope to photograph films of the solutions spread over slides.
    This, too, showed that dissolved substances cluster together as dilution
    increased.
    “It proves Homeopathy, and it’s congruent with what we think and is
    very encouraging,” says Peter Fisher, director of medical research at the
    Royal London Homeopathic Hospital.
    “The whole idea of high-dilution homeopathy hangs on the idea that water
    has properties which are not understood,” he says. “The fact that the new
    effect happens with a variety of substances suggests it’s the solvent that’s
    responsible. It’s in line with what many homeopaths say, that you can only
    make homeopathic medicines in polar solvents.”
    Geckeler and Samal are now anxious that other researchers follow up their
    work. “We want people to repeat it,” says Geckeler. “If it’s confirmed it will
    be groundbreaking”.
    Journal reference: Chemical Communications (2001, p 2224)

    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991532

    • Bill Nichols Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 6:52 pm

      This is not that surprising if one looks at the many unique and powerful properties (many anomalous) of water. Past experiences as an atmospheric scientist have led me to look at water as much more than the reason for life on this planet.

      So what this outlines is interesting, but am not shocked.

      • maryyugo Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 8:01 pm

        Anomalous properties of water yes. But a memory of substances in the water, you’d better hope not. Last I looked, water was used to flush my toilet. I’d rather the water forget about that before I drink it. And also it should forget about all the animal excrement and fertilizer and all the obnoxious and dangerous chemicals it once contained. All it needs to remember is the homeopathic brew someone gave it. It has to forget everything else it was ever exposed to. How do they teach the water to do that?

        • Bill Nichols Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 9:20 pm

          We are not in disagreement.

          An adequate view (explanation?) of the issue of “memory of water” is at…

          http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html

          Working with Stealth technology, E-M, many others…is have seen too many expansive and expensive derived theories shot down by nature (i.e. observations).

          So, both “sides” of this is “right” or “wrong” are just opinion…its all in the data of tests and experiments that are reproducible…leading to sound, scientifically valid findings.

          The point was, properties of water holds things that are taken correctly and incorrectly per complexity, non-linearity. limited understanding as history shows.

          We should agree the truth is all that matters, and that comes results.

          As we will find out in time w/r/t the E-Cat.

    • maryyugo Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 7:25 pm

      The above says nothing at all about how (if) homeopathic solutions work. It only says they may contain a few molecules of some garbage like duck heart extract. Who cares? It’s just nonsense. Homeopathy doesn’t work and can’t work. No proponent of homeopathy even has a method to distinguish a homeopathic solution from the solvent it’s made from (usually water). If they did, they’d get an instant million dollar prize.

      • georgehants Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 7:30 pm

        maryyago
        Can you not read scientific reports.
        You are really making a complete fool of yourself, why not have an early night and let the adults get on with the science.

        • maryyugo Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 7:34 pm

          George: see below. It’s apparently you who can’t understand the discussion.

      • John Dlouhy Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 11:18 pm

        mary, I think you are homeophobic.

        • maryyugo Reply

          September 1, 2011 at 12:22 am

          LOL

          • Stephen

            September 2, 2011 at 7:24 am

            Or homeoantipathic?

    • maryyugo Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 7:33 pm

      A bit more about that article — the authors were asked if it’s relevant to homeopathy and said this:

      “The article to which this referred was published in Chemical Communications, the journal of the Royal Society of Chemistry [2]. Since the article does not mention homeopathy, I asked one of its authors (Kurt E. Geckeler, M.D., Ph.D.) whether the study implied anything about it. He replied:

      As you stated correctly, the word homeopathy is not mentioned in the original paper and the study itself has nothing to do with it.”

      Here: http://www.homeowatch.org/research/molecules.html

      • georgehants Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 7:38 pm

        Do some more research and stop flapping your mouth so much.
        You are an irrational skeptic of everything, except possibly steam, you have nothing to rational add to the subject.
        Go away.

  11. Anapopei Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    Are you saying that Brian Josephson’s position on homeopathy is that it works through placebo alone?

    • georgehants Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 7:03 pm

      I would not say any such thing as the research is in full swing and the outcome will be known in due time.
      I am sure Brian Josephson is clever enough to do much investigation before committing his opinion to public scrutiny and he must be given all due respect.
      If you wish to research further I suggest goggling DNA water memory.

      • Anapopei Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 8:46 pm

        This is not the place to debate homeopathy so just let me say that homeopathy has been in “full swing” for more than a hundred years, so research and evidence is clearly not what drives advocaters of homeopathy.

        • georgehants Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 9:36 pm

          Anything beyond known science cannot be properly investigated until the tools are available to do the job.
          Cold fusion which shows no effects in the World until certain things are known has had to wait for science to find it.
          Somethings are known to be real but many closed minds keep total open-minded research from occurring.
          I will say to you and all that Telepathy is proven beyond dispute, the scientific evidence from the highest positions in openly published.
          I leave anybody with the motivation to do their own research if they would like to know the Truth.

          • Anapopei

            September 1, 2011 at 6:41 am

            Of course, “Truth” with a capital “T”.

    • Renzo Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 7:10 pm

      Brian Josephson has only wrote that homepathy must be investigated objectively and should not be dismissed in advance. Who would not agree? But for the closed minded skeptics this is enough to mark him as a nut. He is also a supporter of parapsychological studies and says that both laboratory and field experience prove that thelepathy is real (I agree with him, see the replications of ganzfeld studies). Unfortunately the materialist nonsense is still very strong but history will make him justice.

      • maryyugo Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 7:28 pm

        The studies you site of parapsychology are errors in the use of statistics. But it’s the larger claims for such things as telekinesis and telepathy and remote viewing that are more interesting. They are pure nonsense or sleight of hand trickery. And that becomes evident on PROPER TESTING. Proper testing always separates the crap from the good stuff. And parapsychology has never passed that criterion. All the statistically-based stuff is highly error prone and highly unlikely.

        So: nobody can read minds, view things remotely, predict the future accurately and specifically. But the easiest to test, and therefore my favorite, is telekinesis. And nobody has ever been able to do it when properly observed.

        • georgehants Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 7:32 pm

          You just telling us it can’t happen means it can’t, does it.
          You are looking more Crazy by the moment.

          • maryyugo

            August 31, 2011 at 7:35 pm

            Sure George. Sure. Yah shoore!

        • Renzo Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 7:59 pm

          Maryyugo says that the ganzfeld studies are the result of statistical errors. This is not the right place to debate the skeptìc’s grasping at straws but I want to point the readers to the last peer reviewed works both pro and anti, so the readers can understand the debate: http://tinyurl.com/26z9l5g
          the file contains 1) “Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008″ by Storm, Tressoldi & Di Risio 2) Hyman’s critique “Meta-Analysis That Conceals More Than It Reveals” and 3) answer to Hyman “A Meta-Analysis With Nothing to Hide”

          • maryyugo

            August 31, 2011 at 9:58 pm

            Actually, I never personally debate stuff like that because it involves tiny effects. Similarly, I don’t debate “conventional” LENR. I’m happy to say about such small effects: I simply don’t know– I await better data or more powerful effects.

            The attractive thing about Rossi’s claims is that they are huge and thus very easy to test. That’s what makes them interesting to me.

      • LCD Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 8:29 pm

        While I will refrain from commenting on fields of stuyd I’m not familiar with such as homeopathy and telekinesis. I will say that Josephson also promoted some water fountiain thingy that didn’t really work as he expected so as far as my opinion of josephson goes, he’s smart in what he studied but that’s not translating well to other fields.

        Now having said that the Josephson Effect and LENR are very much related through quantum mechanics so his opinion has more merit, but you have to take it with a grain of salt.

        Fair?

        • maryyugo Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 8:45 pm

          “Fair?”

          Entirely.

          • LCD

            August 31, 2011 at 9:02 pm

            Wow this is my “I’m shocked” face. 8()

  12. georgehants Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 7:13 pm

    As maryyago pushed us off course to the wonderful world of Metaphysics where I believe all future, beyond known science, knowledge will emerge I would like to return to Cold Fusion by saying that Brian Josephson, is a totally enthusiastic and open-minded participant of the Cold Fusion debate.

    • maryyugo Reply

      August 31, 2011 at 7:29 pm

      You can debate all you want about tiny effects — that debate isn’t solvable so I have no interest in it. When you’re talking kilowatts, measurement is extremely easy if done right. That’s what we’re talking about here. Not the stupidity some people call metaphysics.

      • georgehants Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 7:32 pm

        Who cares if you have an interest in it, luckily some brave Scientists do.

      • Ben Reply

        August 31, 2011 at 7:45 pm

        Duly noted. I will now add expert in metaphysics to Yugo’s resume.

        • maryyugo Reply

          August 31, 2011 at 7:58 pm

          Now I remember who George reminds me of: Elmer Fudd.

          • georgehants

            August 31, 2011 at 8:04 pm

            Irrational skeptics last resort, abuse, next spelling,
            Why not try putting up something about any subject except, please god, bloody steam and what a fraud Rossi is and lets see what your made of.
            Tonight you have displayed to everybody your total ignorance of subjects and people that you abuse with no justification, apparently just to satisfy your irrational motivation.
            wil this Elp u with the irational speling problem u av.

          • Rockyspoon

            September 1, 2011 at 1:54 pm

            Somebody that calls another person names has psychological problems. Anybody disagree?

  13. Barnabas Brackwasser Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 9:32 pm

    Why there are no press releases for this and other claims?
    He could place those here, as he owns the company with 50% while his wife has the
    other half: http://ampenergo.com/?cat=3
    This continuous blogging makes me wonder as Mr. Rossi is trying to establish
    a business. I would expect lots of press releases prior to launching the e-Cat.

  14. Ben Reply

    August 31, 2011 at 11:46 pm

    @Hopeful. Could not respond to your post way up above but you’re new and improved slogan is the winner.

    One QUANTUM step for man, one COSMIC leap for mankind.

    Sweet.

    • Stephen Reply

      September 2, 2011 at 7:29 am

      And if it turns out to be another scam : One Hohum step for man, one (more) comic read for mankind.

  15. georgehants Reply

    September 1, 2011 at 9:13 am

    To please all the people who do not like to discuss fairly and rationally, the Truth, until maryyago is removed from this site I will retire.
    Thank you.

    • Jimbo Stoner Reply

      September 1, 2011 at 11:22 am

      Ah, never give up, George. Watching you and MY a-kickin’ and a-gougin’ in the mud and the blood and the beer is one of the star attractions of the site.

    • Rockyspoon Reply

      September 1, 2011 at 2:04 pm

      George, this maryyugo entity is as transparent as anything or anybody I’ve ever seen. And I think his/her/its main goal is to drive logical people away with an array of name calling, insults, misdirections, and outright lack of perspective. (Notice how she/he/it angrily calls someone for their lack or propriety then immediately turns around and uses the same or greater level of impropriety?)

      My gut feeling is that even if Rossi’s October Surprise is validated, she/he/it will still be ranting and raving about steam. Why? That’s her/his/it’s modus operandi. We can all be as negative and illogical as that entity, but it matters not–nothing is more a total waste of time. What really matters is that Rossi is trying to make a contribution to humanity (I don’t get the feeling he’s a fraud but he does have an eccentric nature about him) while maryyugo will never make such a contribution. Maybe that’s what she/he/it’s trying to forget or compensate for. I simply laugh at her comments.

      • Derivative Reply

        September 1, 2011 at 3:39 pm

        The timeline for any “surprise” depends not just on Rossi, but on his customer and the researchers selected to study the 1 MW plant. Rossi says he’s delivering the plant in the last week of October, and the testing will last two months. To the best of my knowledge, neither the customer nor the scientists nor Rossi have committed to releasing any data before the end of this testing period. Give the researchers another week to write their report, and you could be looking at a January surprise. Then there will be months and months of public comment and scientific critique before the results are generally accepted, if indeed they are. I do not expect this controversy to be resolved in October.

        http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=5#comments

  16. James Reply

    September 1, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    If there is no access to the reactors then what is the point in this so called testing.
    Here come the delays. No real proof of anything.

    • LCD Reply

      September 1, 2011 at 4:21 pm

      Derivative you may be right about how long we have to wait for the results. That is a bit maddening but what can we do. Hopefully some infor will leak out during tests.

      James we can do black box testing so I’m not sure what you mean.

  17. Derivative Reply

    September 1, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    I’m not confident in our ability to do black box testing. In one of the demonstrations, an observer attempted to measure gamma rays from the e-Cat. Rossi made him turn his instrument off, saying it would reveal a trade secret. If the shroud of secrecy extends beyond the black box itself to include something as benign as a passive radiation measure, who is to say what else will remain unmeasurable and unknown? Perhaps there will be a hidden channel for power, and no one will know about it because the means to detect it would impinge upon a fictitious trade secret. I have no idea what form such a channel would take, but I can’t discount its existence quite yet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>