Maker Pro
Maker Pro

E-Cat Success! ?

M

Martin Riddle

Jan 1, 1970
0
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
Exxon will buy em out and you'll never see it again ;)

Cheers

Along with the 100 mpg carburetor, or was that a 200 mpg carburetor?
I'm curious who the unnamed customer is.
And why only a 5 hour test? I know it is boring to watch hot water,
but a 24 hr test is not unreasonable. I have not seen how the self
sustaining power was generated, was it a steam turbine driving a
generator, or what?
Mikek
 
M

mike

Jan 1, 1970
0
amdx said:
A test for a customer of the E-cat was performed in Italy yesterday.
The setup had a problem so the customer opted for a half power test in
a self sustaining mode. The unit produced 470 KW for 5 hrs with only the
initial power applied to start the reaction.
Here are some links.

http://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFiJb2UhzqY&hl=en&geo=us


Your turn :)


Mikek

How to do a demo...

Tell the customer you need 240VAC at whatever current is required.
Use the customer's wattmeter; just plug it in.
Tell the customer you need a regulator/flowmeter for the hydrogen
in a standard tank.
Use the customer's regulator/flowmeter.
Tell the customer you need a gallon jug and a supply of water.


Show up at the customer's warehouse with ONE E-cat, a tank of hydrogen
and a dozen armed guards.

Take it outa the crate and set it on the customer's glass table.

Plug it into the power and configure the hydrogen thru the customer
regulator.
Pour water in one end and watch steam come out the other.
Watch the input wattmeter and time how long it takes to vaporize
the gallon of water. Calculate heat output vs power input.
Keep pouring in water for a week.
Walk away with a HUGE contract.

Whether it works will be OBVIOUS!!!!
You don't have to disclose ANYTHING about what's in the E-cat box.
This could have been done a year ago with the equipment in my garage.

Conclusion:
FARCE
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
D

DonMack

Jan 1, 1970
0
"mike" wrote in message
A test for a customer of the E-cat was performed in Italy yesterday.
The setup had a problem so the customer opted for a half power test in a
self sustaining mode. The unit produced 470 KW for 5 hrs with only the
initial power applied to start the reaction.
Here are some links.

http://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFiJb2UhzqY&hl=en&geo=us

Your turn :)


Mikek

How to do a demo...

Tell the customer you need 240VAC at whatever current is required.
Use the customer's wattmeter; just plug it in.
Tell the customer you need a regulator/flowmeter for the hydrogen
in a standard tank.
Use the customer's regulator/flowmeter.
Tell the customer you need a gallon jug and a supply of water.


Show up at the customer's warehouse with ONE E-cat, a tank of hydrogen
and a dozen armed guards.

Take it outa the crate and set it on the customer's glass table.

Plug it into the power and configure the hydrogen thru the customer
regulator.
Pour water in one end and watch steam come out the other.
Watch the input wattmeter and time how long it takes to vaporize
the gallon of water. Calculate heat output vs power input.
Keep pouring in water for a week.
Walk away with a HUGE contract.

Whether it works will be OBVIOUS!!!!
You don't have to disclose ANYTHING about what's in the E-cat box.
This could have been done a year ago with the equipment in my garage.

Conclusion:
FARCE

------

This seems like he's capitalizing on the Madoff phenomena. It seems very
scam'ish. Only thing it seems to have going for it is that there seems to be
a lot of "independent" verification. If this is a scam all those
"independent" "scientists" need to be tortured and killed along with their
immediate and extended families.
 
T

tm

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson said:
Absolutely! I'm waiting for the classic MIT "slam-announcement" :)

...Jim Thompson


Hey this is all good. People that stupid should not be allowed to have
money.



Regards,
tm
 
M

mike

Jan 1, 1970
0
amdx said:
I'm having trouble believing this is a scam! It could be a mistake
in measurement, however, when you start talking 100's of KWHs of energy,
that would be some mistake. To much has been put into this for me to
believe it is a scam. I'm on the cautious side of skeptical.
More info, read it all for some corrections.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece
Hopefully Watching,
Mikek

The takeway from that link is:
Neither Ny Teknik nor any other of the guests had any possibility to
check the measurements made.

There's no scientific reason to make a huge system of over a hundred E-cats.
ONE would be plenty to prove the concept.
The setup appears to be trivial in concept. Let's make it trivial
in application.
Having a HUGE bunch of (mostly invisible) stuff is just an opportunity
to hide extra energy input.

I'll state it differently. If ANYBODY could show ONE small laboratory setup
producing 100W of excess power...continuously...and that experiment could
be repeated reliably elsewhere, even if the inventor had to show up
with the secret sauce and armed guards, there'd be no stopping the
investment train.

They can use my garage for the experiment.
I'll supply a 5KW generator and the hydrogen flowmeter and the ammeters
and the water to boil.
I'll buy the coffee we make with it.
And invest in the program.

IF they can't, it don't work!!!

If it did work, they'd be drowning in investment dollars or Yen...
Or murdered by the oil company conspiracy. ;-)

This appears to be a classic case of fraud by obfuscation.
Hats off to the team for creating media buzz.
 
M

Mike

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin said:
99.99% probability that it's bogus.

John

100% bogus.

If it were real, they would have shut the diesel off, and they would have
made a BIG DEAL about pulling the switch. News cameras, reporters,
witnesses, and many buckets of champagne to mark the event.

None of that happened.

Another worthless scam.
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
99.99% probability that it's bogus.

John
That's 100 to 1 odds, if I gave you the benefit, say 85 to 1,
would you put up a $1,000,000 to my $12,000.
Just Curious :)
Hmm.. wonder if theirs a Vegas bet.
Still hoping!
Mikek
 
T

tm

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mike said:
100% bogus.

If it were real, they would have shut the diesel off, and they would have
made a BIG DEAL about pulling the switch. News cameras, reporters,
witnesses, and many buckets of champagne to mark the event.

None of that happened.

Another worthless scam.

Agree, 100% scam. And good to see some fool(s) get taken.

With the quality of the American education system with its union based
teachers,
there will be an endless pool to be taken.

Hey, anyone want to invest in solar?



tm
 
J

Jamie

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
99.99% probability that it's bogus.

John
And the 0.01% take stock in it leaving the 99.99% behind
to starve a slow death!.

Jamie
 
J

Jamie

Jan 1, 1970
0
mike said:
The takeway from that link is:
Neither Ny Teknik nor any other of the guests had any possibility to
check the measurements made.

There's no scientific reason to make a huge system of over a hundred
E-cats.
ONE would be plenty to prove the concept.
The setup appears to be trivial in concept. Let's make it trivial
in application.
Having a HUGE bunch of (mostly invisible) stuff is just an opportunity
to hide extra energy input.

I'll state it differently. If ANYBODY could show ONE small laboratory
setup
producing 100W of excess power...continuously...and that experiment could
be repeated reliably elsewhere, even if the inventor had to show up
with the secret sauce and armed guards, there'd be no stopping the
investment train.

They can use my garage for the experiment.
I'll supply a 5KW generator and the hydrogen flowmeter and the ammeters
and the water to boil.
I'll buy the coffee we make with it.
And invest in the program.

IF they can't, it don't work!!!

If it did work, they'd be drowning in investment dollars or Yen...
Or murdered by the oil company conspiracy. ;-)

This appears to be a classic case of fraud by obfuscation.
Hats off to the team for creating media buzz.
And if it's not fraud? You and others like you will be bitching the
other way. I guess it never ends either way :)

Myself, I'd rather sit back and see what happens.

My opinion on this whole thing is, If it was me that had this
technology, knowing how the world works when it comes to stealing
other peoples work, I wouldn't allow too many on lookers
either.

But that is just me and if that is the case with Rossi, I take my hat
off to him for sticking to it.

I think big names in science and physics are just throwing a temper
tantrum.

Jamie
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
Is not.

John
Oops 9,999 to 1 which I round to 10,000 and then dropped a couple
zeros. I royally screwed that up! So $100 to $1,000,000. Now to make it
worth your while, I'll make your return 10 times better, $1000 to
$1,000,000. You shouldn't have mentioned it, that cost you $11,000!
But, that avoids the snipped question :)
Mikek
Sure hope I'm within one order of magnitude this time :)
 
D

DonMack

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Jamie" wrote in message <Snipped Crap>

wow... your such a fucking goat. I suppose you voted for obama too. No doubt
your still defending him. In any case, if this e-cat shit doesn't pan out
then it surely must be the boogie man suppressing it.

It's quite amazing that you already have it made up in your mind that it
works yet you have absolutely no fucking tangible proof.... just some guy
saying it works is enough for you. Yet if 1000 people say it doesn't work
that isn't enough.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy and santa too?
 
M

mike

Jan 1, 1970
0
Myself, I'd rather sit back and see what happens.

You talk like you have another option????
My opinion on this whole thing is, If it was me that had this
technology, knowing how the world works when it comes to stealing
other peoples work, I wouldn't allow too many on lookers
either.

Good concept.
BUT
This has been going on for way too long.
I've described a demo scenario that wouldn't have to disclose
any more information than has already been disclosed...just
give me control of the inputs and outputs and let
me make the measurement.

If it worked, there would have been secret deals long ago.
And patents galore.
You can't keep the secret sauce a secret. The first one sold will
be reverse-engineered in a heartbeat. Delay doesn't change that.

This is not an incremental improvement.
This will change the world as we know it.

If it could be made to work, that is.
 
J

Jamie

Jan 1, 1970
0
DonMack said:
"Jamie" wrote in message <Snipped Crap>

wow... your such a fucking goat. I suppose you voted for obama too. No
doubt your still defending him. In any case, if this e-cat shit doesn't
pan out then it surely must be the boogie man suppressing it.

It's quite amazing that you already have it made up in your mind that it
works yet you have absolutely no fucking tangible proof.... just some
guy saying it works is enough for you. Yet if 1000 people say it doesn't
work that isn't enough.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy and santa too?
I never said it worked? I didn't say either way, you did! You're just
like the others that just can't accept the fact that something you
believe in, no matter what it is, may not be so.

You poor child.. I on the other hand hope it does work out just so
that your type can go bang your heads on a wall somewhere. Kick your feet,
through a tantrum. Yeah, I know, i've seen the types.

But I know it won't happen to you, like many others in the same
category, you like to perch on the grass that is greener at the time, as
long as some one else is there before you so you won't feel so stupid.

Sheep herding.. The blind leading the blind!

And no, I didn't vote for the brother either, but I bet you did? Oh
wait, you won't admit to that either. like I said, one of those that sit
on the greenest grass around admitting to nothing that would make you
look ignorant in the eyes of your peers

You fit into the category of removing the bird feeder..

You may want to be careful, I think you're still attached to your
mothers apron string.

Jamie
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
A test for a customer of the E-cat was performed in Italy yesterday.
The setup had a problem so the customer opted for a half power test in a
self sustaining mode. The unit produced 470 KW for 5 hrs with only the
initial power applied to start the reaction.
Here are some links.

http://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFiJb2UhzqY&hl=en&geo=us


Your turn :)


Mikek

Here's an article about the research history of Nickel/Hydrogen.
Check out the links within the blog.

http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=61

Here's a Forbes article that lays out reasoning to think it is not a scam.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/30/believing-in-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/

Mikek
 
M

Martin Brown

Jan 1, 1970
0
I prefer the scientific reports that suggest that he is at best
misguided and at worst a fraud.

Forbes is hardly a cutting edge science journal. If this was working
cold fusion/transmutation of nickel into copper then it would be trivial
to test the isotopic signatures before and after the run. Any routine
ICPMS lab could do the test and it would be unambiguous.

Fingerprinting isotopes and impurities is generally used for fake gold
claims and checking the terroir of expensive wines for forgery.

There would also be a fair amount of positron emission too since the
most common isotopes of nickel are 58 (68%) and 60 (26%) and have a long
way to go before they get to stable isotopes of Copper at 63 & 65.

If copper is detected I'd be prepared to put money on it having the same
isotopic signature and impurities ad BDH Analar reagent.

I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I want
to see the isotopic signatures and radiation to prove his claims!
Where does the hydrogen come from, and at what energy consumption?

...Jim Thompson

If it really is tapping into nuclear reactions it would hardly matter -
the energy released in a nuclear reaction is many orders of magnitude
greater than that of chemistry. I have to say don't hold your breath on
this one - it looks very much like Cold Fusion II with dodgy calorimetry
but this time with much less convincing players.
 
Top