CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Nuclear Energy Above: the cruise ship "Costa Concordia", Italian technological marvel, sunken after hitting a reef in front of the "Giglio" Island in January 2012. Recently, we saw the sinking of another pretended technological marvel from Italy, the cold fusion reactor called "E-Cat;" destroyed by its own contradictions.

Published on April 2nd, 2012 | by Zachary Shahan

64

Cold Fusion E-Cat… Not

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

April 2nd, 2012 by Zachary Shahan 

 
A reader shared this piece recently and, while we don’t touch on the E-Cat or cold fusion that much here on CleanTechnica (it doesn’t really warrant the time), I know there are a lot of people out there sold on this fool’s gold ‘clean energy’ solution. So, I thought I’d just quickly repost this piece from Cassandra’s legacy (via Peak Energy):

Above: the cruise ship "Costa Concordia", Italian technological marvel, sunken after hitting a reef in front of the "Giglio" Island in January 2012. Recently, we saw the sinking of another pretended technological marvel from Italy, the cold fusion reactor called "E-Cat;" destroyed by its own contradictions.

It was Captain Kirk of the starship “Enterprise” who said that it is not a good idea to put oneself in a no-win situation. Good advice that was not taken by Mr. Andrea Rossi, inventor of the “E-Cat,” the cold fusion device that he claimed to be able to solve the world’s energy problems. After having been unable to show that his device produces energy, Mr. Rossi stated that he didn’t need any more tests because he could now proceed to market it in millions of pieces. But, in reality, Mr. Rossi had simply placed himself in a no-win situation. The E-Cat is now fast sinking, hit by the contradictions of its inventor.

Let’s start with what Rossi himself had declared about his E-Cat. He said that it is based on the fusion of hydrogen and nickel nuclei (see Rossi’s patent) and that gamma rays are produced during operation (see here) so that lead shields had to be placed inside the device. Rossi also said that he was building a factory in the United States where he would produce E-Cats by the millions; to be sold as water heaters for people’s homes. According to some recent statements by Rossi, the device had been undergoing safety testing for months at Underwriters Laboratory.

It couldn’t go unnoticed in Florida that someone was claiming to be producing nuclear reactors in large numbers. On February 24, an officer of the State of Florida Bureau of Radiation Control went to investigate what was going on in the pretended “E-Cat factory” in Miami. There, he found no factory, but an apartment and Andrea Rossi in person. Questioned on the E-Cat, Rossi declared that “no nuclear reactions occur inside the device.” Rossi also stated that all the facilities for testing and production are “overseas,” and that safety certification with Underwriters Laboratory will be arranged in the future. The officer then left, writing in his report that his bureau has no jurisdiction over a device which has nothing nuclear inside. (The complete documentation is here, comments can be found here and here. Rossi himself confirmed the story here.)

No matter how we want to see this story, it is clear that Rossi has been victim of his own “no-win” strategy. First, he claimed that he had developed a nuclear device, but he never could provide convincing proof. So he said that he didn’t need proof because he could just produce and sell the device – the market would judge it. But if he wanted to produce and sell the device, then he would have to obtain the necessary certifications. And how to obtain the necessary certifications after having declared that the device is based on nuclear reactions and it emits gamma rays? Surely, Rossi’s word is not enough to prove that shielding with lead foil is sufficient to remove gamma rays. Maybe there are arcane reasons (as claimed in this paper) that reduce, or even eliminate, gamma ray emission. But just the possibility of such an emission would required extensive investigations and years of work in order to provide the necessary certifications. So, you see? If it is nuclear, Rossi can’t sell it. If it is not nuclear, who would buy it? A classic no-win situation.

In the end, lacking experimental proof, the idea that the E-Cat produces energy rests only on Rossi’s statements that say, basically, just “trust me”. But after the Florida story, it is clear that this is, also, a no-win strategy. How can you trust Rossi after so many contradictions? Where is the E-Cat factory that he said was in the US and then, no, it is overseas? And where is the safety testing (not) being done? Incidentally, if, hypothetically, the E-Cat were really producing nuclear reactions, we should think of Rossi as a dangerous criminal who lied to the Florida officer about his plans to produce and sell without the necessary safety certifications a device that generates gamma rays. That Rossi can’t be trusted has been clearly perceived also by Rossi’s supporters, who have been abandoning the sinking ship: for instance Sterling Allan. The University of Bologna had wisely disengaged from Rossi already in January.

So, the E-Cat has reached the end of the line. It still maintains some faithful supporters, but, most likely, it will soon fade away in the darkness of pathological science, where it belongs. There remains a question: how is it possible that so much time and energy has been lost in this incredibly story?  Well, there has to be something wired wrong in the human mind but, at least, from this story we can learn what mistakes we should avoid. As Captain Kirk said, never put yourself in a no-win situation by believing without proof in salvific inventions.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , ,


About the Author

spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.



  • Steve Jones

    Alain Coetmeur is a mentally challenged blogger

  • Andrew

    http://www.reddit.com/r/LENR/comments/1etk5g/brief_interview_with_levi_on_the_recent_paper/

    Comments from author of the scientific paper on Rossi’s E-Cat HT machine.

    • Bob_Wallace

      ““Exactly. It’s definitely not chemical in nature. The absence of radiation makes us say that it is a nuclear reaction of an unknown type.“”

      I would suggest people apply an unusually high level of skepticism. (For those who are ‘confused’, skepticism is not the same as denial.)

      Rossi has no background in chemistry or nuclear physics. His degree is in philosophy and ran a company that worked on turning waste in to oil.

      Two options here. 1) Rossi, a guy with no apparent background experience in energy outside of waste processing has made one of the great discoveries of all times or 2) he’s “bending spoons”.

      I need to see this turned over to multiple major labs for conformation.

      Rossi’s lack of patents claims is BS. Major universities and government labs would sign non-disclosure agreements. If the ‘secret sauce’ was disclosed any court would give him full control over future manufacturing just as if he had patents.

      He could sign a non-disclosure agreement with someone and give them a 0.01% share in the business to get the million or so it would take to get world wide patents.

      If he is really selling these things, as he claims, someone could buy one and hacksaw it open. And he has no patent.

  • Andrew

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/24/cold-fusion-research

    Cold Fusion gets red hot and aims for EU

    24 MAY 13 by DAVID HAMBLING

    The resurgence of “cold fusion” research just shifted up a gear with the most remarkable development yet.

  • skeptickle

    A highly respected physicist with Italian National Inst. Nuclear Physics Dr. Francesco Celani has demonstrated 14-22W of excess heat from a Ni/Cu/Mn wire loaded with Hydrogen. The demo ran first at the industry congress National Instruments Week who sponsored Celani and his experiment – 5,000 scientists and engineers attended. The following week the same demo ran at ICCF17 in South Korea. There is a LOT of groundbreaking science taking place in this field. Too bad Zach has buried his head in the sand!

    http://www.22passi.it/downloads/Celani_ICCF17_Trasp3.pdf

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Thanks. Check back in in about 20 years and let me know where things are — might be worth covering then.

      • skeptickle

        Keep that head in the sand Zach. Else you might LEARN something!

  • http://www.facebook.com/Steven.Bell338 Steven Bell

    What about the half dozen other organizations in various states of progress? Are they ALL scammers?

    • Bob_Wallace

      If you’re thinking about the “half dozen” that I’m thinking about, they are research projects.  

      They are not declaring that they have a working project ready for private investment.

  • R. May

    The reasons why cold fusion, lenr, et al. cannot and do not exist, much less function, was explained more than twenty years ago. Rossi and fans need to take a ride on the clue bus. Physics, not just a good idea, it’s the law.

    • AlainCo

      You try to launch a troll rally? or are you sincere.
      Right the 3 miracles of cold fusion are a challenge. Similarly, super-conduction challenge Joule law, and simple atomic theory (until BCS theory).
      Anyway after many experiments it happens. ( see http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=142 ) things happens, first heat in gaz loaded hydride (in fact those anomaly were know since long, but long ignored as impossible and erroneous. F&P just claim it).

      Some theories like Widom-Larsen, Kim-Zubarev, try to use classic QM, using quantum coherence to explain the miracles…
      Not an excuse to accept any claim about 1st/2nd thermodynamic law breaking, but when facts stays, and especially if no law is broken, you have to accept, if not the facts, at least to look at them.

      but I agre that the vision that you propose it dominant in our neo-religious elite.
      “Science is Settled”… (about denial and collective delusion http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40 )

      I’m just afraid that the big crash of science administration and control, will only lead to raise of pseudo science, and irrational fears, that are already in very good health. not to good science.

      • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

        show some proof that it has worked without support from external power generation and is at least somewhat cost-effective and you’ll find a lot more converts. i’ve seen no such proof in the hundreds of rambling comments i’ve read from supporters.

        • AlainCo

          don’t try that with a nuclear powerplant 8-)
          Test at Fukushima were quite negative, yet excess heat was real.
          Anyway you seems not to trust any scientist, any number of independent. With that reasoning, forget about Apolo, 9/11, or heliocentrism… and most of accepted beliefs will be dismissed.

          • Steve Jones

            Alain Coetmeur Yeah! Every crackpot is right!

            ALL Scientists (except ones that support you) are full of

            s_it Every hair brained half AS_ED idea is right!

            SPAWAR!

            Like you even know what it means!

            Because you post on every BS Blog about every conspiracy

            to hide “LENR” or whatever who are you?

            AND who cares?

            Alain Coetmeur!

            Another self important (Bill Beatty VORTEX)
            AS_HOLEIO

  • Alain Coetmeur

    if you want to have solid data about LENR there is a post that resume reference source, and key source about LENR (CERN conference, US Navy SPAWAR experiments, Mistubishi/Toyota tranmutation expriments and replication, NASA GRC old experiment, MIT vs Mallove fraud, Widom-larsen theory, and credible theories about denial and fraud in science and society)
    http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=142&p=355#p355

    don’t publish an opinion on LENR if you don’t have look at those references.

    summary : LENR is real, proved, replicated, published, working at high power with process similar to e-cat/defkalion. Sure not only chemical, if not nuclear imply science revolution. no doubt.
    No theory is validated, but some respect classic todays science. probably not fusion, but sure nuclear.
    Defkalion have a coherent behavior, and since the technology seems easy to implement, no reason to doubt on they claimed tests in process, until few month.
    Rossi and his e-cat have a bad profile that inspire doubt.
    Knowing the proved technology, Defkalion behavior, some psychology , one can expect that rossi have something, often exaggerates and lies, but hard to guess.

    two other post details the history,
    http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=39
    and the denial theory behind cold fusion refusal.
    http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40

    LENR need effort to be understood…
    It took me 10kg of paper to read in 1993 to have a safe opinion that rebuttal were pathologic, and Cold Fusion was a subject that deserve study.
    today it need only 1kg of slide, and 3 hours of video (or 1GB usb flash disk) to acquire conviction on science.

    add few weeks of reading defkalion forum, and you will be convinced on the industrial potential.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Produce a device.

      Allow it to be objectively tested.

      Show that the device produces significantly more energy than the energy it takes to make the device work.

      At that point I will start to be convinced.

      Is there stuff happening in the labs? Seems to be.

      Is that stuff yielding useful technology? Seems not to be right now.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      This is what I get from that first link: “The requested topic does not exist. “

      • Alain Coetmeur
        • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

          Still getting the same thing:

          Information

          The requested topic does not exist.

          • Alain Coetmeur

            maybe the label #xxx cause trouble to the navigator
            http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=142&p=355
            should work better

          • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

            Sorry, nope, getting the same thing.

          • AlainCo

            maybe manually go to http://www.lenrforum.eu
            English
            post: “Prepared answer on LENR/cold fusion for your friends”

            and many other, and enjoy critics.
            We need it. It make bad argument dies and find good arguments and reasoning. And also it can correct wrong beliefs.

            Every morning I’m afraid to be wrong, and check the counter-arguments…

          • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

            That works. thanks. will take a look.

        • Joe McPlumber

          It works fine for me as well.

  • dean_chance

    None of the above has been disproven either. You have made a final judgment without having significant data. I agree that it has not been proven but as I have nothing to lose by keeping an open mind I see no reason to go out of my way to claim I know something to be true or untrue when I do not have the proof in hand.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

      Rossi has made an exceptionally extraordinary claim and he has provided no proof that rises above what a slight of hand magician could produce.

      Rossi has had multiple opportunities to demonstrate his device in an objective and fair arena and has refused to do so.

      There’s a point at which an open mind, if it is truly open, comes down on the side of skepticism and doubt.

      • Alain Coetmeur

        the extraordinary claim is cold fusion.
        it is a validated, replicated fact. point. do your homework.
        Other scientist claim that it work with nickel hydrogen system, not with electrolysis, but with hot gaz and powder. not extraordinary once you accept proved LENR. replicated independently (NASA did a similar experiment in 89 at GRC, with Pd+D 300C and Pd film). replicated with variants, and hug power tha eliminate possibility of errors.

        Rossi is just pretending to have harnessed this phenomenon… possible, not proved.
        Defkalion too… more credible, not yet prooved, but strong behavioral evidence…

        the new hot reactor, replacing electrolysis, can easily be optimized to have a high COP (insulate them and heat is recycled directly without a thermodynamic efficiency)…
        just a quastion of engineering. increase number of active sites, quantity of reactant, recycle heat through insulation, stabilize the reaction… engineer can do that (its our job). Celani did. Defkalion claims too. Rossi did half the job until recently.

        • Bob_Wallace

          Having done my homework in the past I decided that a review effort might be justified. I started with Wiki and here’s what I found…

          “A small community[quantify] of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion,[6][11] now often preferring the designation low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR).[12][13] They have reported that, “under certain extreme conditions”, they observe excess heat effects by interaction of hydrogen or deuterium with palladium, nickel or platinum. However, they cannot explain these observations and have not demonstrated reliable replication of the effects.[14] Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in refereed scientific journals, the results do not receive as much scrutiny as more mainstream topics,[15] and many scientists are not even aware that there is ongoing research.[16]”

          What do I see there? “(U)nder extreme conditons”, “cannot explain”, “have not demonstrated reliable replication”, “rarely published in refereed scientific journals”.

          What does that tell me? That there might or might not be something to LENR but up to now the people working in the field have not managed to produce data which convinces the greater scientific community.

          Might some day we run our grid with LENR? Sure, since LENR has not been definitely proved to be impossible then it is, by definition, possible.

          Is LENR a hope on which we should hang our hats? Absolutely not. Betting on long shots is a sure way to loose your butt.

          Should some people continue to research LENR? I think so. We never know what might emerge from research. The Princes of Serendip taught us that lesson.

          Should we wait for LENR to be proven rather than continuing to install technology that is proven? That would be the pinnacle of foolishness.

          • Alain Coetmeur

            thanks for your courage.
            your quote is representative of the consensus. except that the theory exists, and that anyway it is not important. fact first.

            this quote looks like someone awkward denegation of hard to swallow facts.
            celani make a decision tree that is clear.
            1- replication by serious and various unrelated organisation eliminate fraud as said at the beginnig. moreover results have dirrent content, unlike what you can expect from fraud to validate facts.
            2- big results in recent results, or NASA GRC in 89, eliminate errors as the cause
            3- density of energy eliminate chemical only source, and poved transmutation, replicated many times raise nuclear reaction

            so this kind of denial of the fact full of bad excuse, is a sign of a pathology

          • Bob_Wallace

            Alain – I’m having trouble understanding your post. (No knock on you – English is a difficult language. I speak 23 words in Spanish, 7.5 in French.)

            Here’s what I think you’re saying:

            In order for us to be sure that something works then it must be tested/verified by independent sources.

            Agreed.

            That there are promising results in one or more labs.

            Perhaps. But whatever results there may be they have not yet risen to the level of being accepted by the scientific community.

            Remember only a few weeks ago when it was reported that scientists had found particles moving faster than the speed of light? And then when those results were found to be due to equipment malfunction?

            Because a lab is reporting results does not make them true.

            There is nothing pathological about requiring extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims. To accept extraordinary claims based on insufficient data would be foolish.

          • Alain Coetmeur

            Sorry for the awful typos, I have a life (many) beside and I type too fast, having few minutes to answer.
            Also some of my reasoning would deserve longer explanations.
            some corrections:
            “moreover results have diverse content , unlike what you can expect from fraud to validate facts”

            “and proved transmutation, replicated many times raise nuclear reaction as the only credible answer”

            The hypothesis that Cold Fusion would be false, call for too many improbable and coordinated facts… conspiracy theory! Not my cup of tea.

            Yet some unproved facts about industry application, but more probable than recent magnetic nuclear fusion.
            4 order of magnitude more credible that some consensus theories sold to UNO.

            if you wan’t to hear crazy justification do denay cold fusion look at this rebuttal of Iwamura/Mitsubishi/Toyota transmutation experiment…
            Krivot explain how laughable it is.
            http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35905nrl2009.shtml

            all cold fusion rebuttal history is full of that improbable and unproven excuses.

            rebuttal need proof too.

          • Bob_Wallace

            No, rebuttal does not need proof. That is not how science works.

            Before cold fusion can be accepted as fact it has to be proven in acceptable fashion.

            Before cold fusion can be counted on as an affordable way to power the grid it has to be shown that significant power can be generated at a competitive price.

            No one is saying that cold fusion is not possible. What we are saying is that cold fusion has yet to be proven. Unsubstantiated belief by individuals does not rise to the level of proof necessary.

            It’s not uncommon for people to get excited by a new technology that seems like it should work. We’ve seen that with pebble bed reactors and Eestore batteries. But all that excitement does not mean that a useful product will emerge.

          • AlainCo

            ok, rebuttal does not need hard proof.
            however it need a credible explanation.

            If a say that earth is flat and that Alien are bending our vision with fiber optics and antigravity… my rebuttal won’t be accepted, except by anti-science crackpots.

            same for the rebuttal of Iwamura/mitsubishi. theyr rebuttal is ridiculous, and worst that 9/11 conspiracist or alike.

          • Steve Jones

            Alain Coetmeur Yeah! Every crackpot is right!

            ALL Scientists (except ones that support you) are full of

            s_it Every hair brained half AS_ED idea is right!

            SPAWAR!

            Like you even know what it means!

            Because you post on every BS Blog about every conspiracy

            to hide “LENR” or whatever who are you?

            AND who cares?

            Alain Coetmeur!

            Another self important (Bill Beatty VORTEX)
            AS_HOLE

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            strawman again ?

            did you ever read things on the subject?

            read excess heat… if you dare.

            http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf (it is a pdf don’t be afraid)

            Spawar? just navy skunwork team? don’t they apply emerging steam power for navy in the old time ?

            Did you say me support crackpot… I just have disdain for anti-scientific crackpotery like critics of lewis, Gary taubes, Huizenga.

            Just read that wikipedia article

            http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

            BTW: strange that trolling ? do you want to muddy the water for a client? a bit late.

        • Steve Jones

          Alain Coetmeur is mentally challenged!
          He believes “RossI” Tom Bearden and Stanley Meyer to be
          “telling the truth” (Uri Geller also)

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            what is your strawman ?

            If you have read the book “Excess Heat” by Charles Beaudette http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

            and the articles cited, and the absence of critical article that were not rebutted about the LENR calorimetry of McKubre, Fleischmann, and others (ok it tooks few years to confirm LENR), then you would know LENr is a confirmed science… since the 90s.

            For Rossi, if you have read the answer of Bo Hoistad on the Pomp&Eriksson you will know those physicist are conspiracy theorist like many physicist are on LENR.

            find serious argument, and not conspiracy theory.

            and please no strawman attach.
            I trust Elforsk due dilligence, McKubre after checked by garwin and Lewis visit, not your biased opinion, neither the other parrots who refuse to read the dissenting data.

          • Bob_Wallace

            OK, you two. Take it somewhere else.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WNKVTGZNDYEWFBXVHG42ZS4EYA Stefan

    You apparently wasted your time, it’s totally pointless writing. Having no clue but have an opinion it is so typical…

    • Bob_Wallace

      I thought it might be fun to start a list of Rossi’s supporters who bring belief but no facts to the discussion.

      Stefan, Jerry B, kangaruhs, Jrovnak, Claudio Ferrara, Liberty Newspost, Maclegends, Jim Allison

      A list of people with opinions but no evidence, it seems….

      dean_chance at least brings arguments, but unfortunately flawed arguments.

      The UL Lab does not verify that things work, they test things to make sure they won’t electrocute people or start a fire. Rossi claims that he’s going to get his device tested by UL sometime in the future.

      And, of course, he doesn’t understand that there has been no proof that Rossi’s device has created energy.

      Uri Geller claimed that he was bending spoons. He suckered a lot of people….

  • Jerry B

    your ignorance of the topic is very evident !

    • Bob_Wallace

      Give us some facts.

      Otherwise you will get dismissed as one of Rossi’s dupes.

  • dean_chance

    You have misquoted Kirk. He said he didn’t believe in the no win scenario. Of course this is a quote from a TV show but you have managed to actually reverse the point that was being made. In Kirks view nothing is impossible to those who believe and are able to think outside the box.
    The reason no factory was found at that address is that Rossi has not divulged its location and they went to his home. There may or may not be a factory but this is not proof either way.
    Rossi claims it is being tested by UL. Have you checked with UL to see if this is true? People tried that with NI and they confirmed Rossi’s claims. If he has lied about this why has UL not called him on it?
    No nuclear reactions in the ECat? As the US does not recognize LENR it should be no surprise they would not attempt to regulate it and not classify a LENR device as “nuclear”. It uses no nuclear or radioactive fuel and has no radioactive waste. Rossi’s statement could be considered a loophole in the law as easily as an admission of a lie. For the Government to prosecute him for an unlicensed nuclear device they would first have to admit that LENR is actually nuclear. That’s a catch 22. Rossi is actually protected by the government’s refusal to do so.
    Rossi may indeed be a scammer but this article is so poorly researched and written it has no more credibility then Rossi it claims does. To date there is no solid proof that Rossi has lied. If he has no device then go to UL and have them deny they are testing one. If they are not, Rossi is full of hot air. If they are then it must do something.
    You say if it’s not nuclear why buy it but that statement purposely misses the point. Whether or not it is “nuclear” in the legal sense is not be the issue, if it generates usable excess energy is. If it does then it is certainly worth buying regardless of how it works or if the principle is widely understood. My mind remains open to the possibility until some evidence comes to light that is more compelling then the type of spin I have read here.

    • Bob_Wallace

      ” if it generates usable excess energy”

      It has not been proven to generate significant usable excess energy.

      It has not been proven to generate usable excess energy.

      It has not been proven to generate excess energy.

      Rossi has not allowed his device to be independently tested in order to prove/disprove his claims.

      There’s a point at which you quit believing “I’m going to get you that $20 I owe you)……..

    • kangaruhs

      dean_chance

      Nail. On Head.
      You Hit It.

  • Jrovnak

    Try doing a little more work before jumping off on tangents. Not impresses with your leg work as support technical writer!

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Show me a usefully working E-Cat and my mind might change. Btw, did you read the article above?

      • kangaruhs

        I read it. It was chock full of bias, suspicion, and unfounded, unresearched claims.

        Intelligent skepticism is what we wanted from you.
        Baseless assumptions are what we got.

        • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

          Funny how you read it so well that you didn’t even notice I didn’t write it.

  • http://www.libertynewspost.com/ Liberty Newspost

    I look forward to the time when you write an article saying how big an idiot you were in writing this article in about a year. Obviously your are completely ignorant as to what is going on with Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR), Cold Fusion, Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations (LENT). Whatever you want to call it. Its real and the radiation it emits has been measured to be well within safety limits. This is not hot fusion this reaction is still being studied so it can be understood, obviously it does not react the same.

    Rossi’s ecat may or may not make it to the market but someones will.

    Defkalion
    Brillouin Energy
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/03/interview-with-robert-george-and-robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-announce-successful-cold-fusion-reactor/

    NASA
    Japan

    Check out the talk at CERN:

    http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/CERN-Could-be-About-to-Start-Researching-LENR-Following-Recent-Colloquium.html

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1433866

    • Bob_Wallace

      If someone figures out how to make LENR work to give us lots of affordable energy I can assure you this will be one of the places talking about it. This site is all about solutions.

      Now, how about you put a reminder on your calendar to come back over here in about a year and apologize for calling Zach an idiot if Rossi’s e-cat still is missing in action?

      In fact, you could apologize now for your behavior. There is nothing in this article about the general topic of LENR, only information about the fraud Rossi appears to be….

      • Jrovnak

        Not impressed by your defense of article! Get to the fact not shallow opinion such as authors!

        • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

          And what fact would that be?

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Feel free to drop back by in a year and let me know how it’s going :D

  • Claudio Ferrara

    Your ignorance of the topic is very evident, you need to study more.
    We are dealing with a device wich is olready in function since yars. J hope you hare not being paid by those who hare not interestid in the progress of umanity.
    No new energies, no future.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      We’ve got plenty of new, clean energy options that are cost competitive with traditional sources. This is not one of them.

      • kangaruhs

        Prove it.

        • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

          Look around this site to see the other options.

          As for this tech, i think the onus is on you to prove that it is if you’re claiming that.

  • Maclegends

    I wil wait till the end of the year, I would take care being didactic about this one,, egg all over face is a big possibility no matter what side you take !!

  • Jim Allison

    Sorry, but the author has not conducted enough research into this field. Nickel Hydrogen reactions have already shown excessive energy production with many other experiments and researchers around the world.

    • Bob_Wallace

      And that “excessive” energy has yielded what sorts of EROEI outcomes?

      We can turn heat into electricity via thermocouples, but not efficiently enough to make them commercial generation technology.

      • rockyspoon

        Here’s the answer to your question, Bob: Efficient conversion of relatively low temperatures (500 to 700 F) and up to 30% efficiencies:

        http://www.cyclonepower.com/whe_engine_systems.html

        • Bob_Wallace

          Let’s see it turn into something.

          Right now it could be the real deal, it could be a delusion on the part of the people hoping it will work, or it could be a scam.

  • Bernie777

    Below is an annotated and linked list of reports of 16 people who have achieved a Ni + H reaction:

    http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/30/replicators-as-if-december-30-2011/#more-227

Back to Top ↑