OT: Focardi Rossi Energy Catalyzer

[OkiePC]

Looking more and more like a hoax to me, however he's still going after it. I think it may be a few more months before we know for sure who got scammed. There are now a dozen or more websites dedicated to his "fans".

Steven Krivit has the most damning reports against him.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/Proof-of-Rossis-Deception.shtml

Really there isn't a lot of good new information yet. Defkalion is supposed to be open to 3rd party testing but I don't know what is really going on there either.

And now there are a couple of more entrants into the circus:
http://www.brillouinenergy.com/

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf

Paul

 

[OkiePC]

Nothing new...just some excellent commentary and semi-professional comedic genius on this link by some witty posters. The comments on this fan-boy site had me rollin':

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/05/rossi-on-what-happens-inside-the-e-cat/

:-~

 

[OkiePC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_IoIfL-rTs

 

[leitmotif]

Well MIT seems to think it has promise.

 

[Lancie1]

The chart at 5:00 minutes shows "Control" (Power In") that appears to be greater than "NANOR (Power Out).

 

[OkiePC]

the opera ain't over jes' yit.

http://ecatreport.com/andrearossi/third-party-reports-are-complete-looks-good

 

[Albert LaFrance]

Here's the 19th-century version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keely

 

[Lancie1]

If Hydrogen and Nickel are fusing to form Copper, where are the 4 neutrons coming from?

Supposedly from the magic secret catalyst Tellurium. For every pesky technical question, some collaborator will have an explanaiton that works "if only you can understand my (take your pick: new, better, greater, previously-unknown, misunderstood) physics, science, gadget, or device".

For this device's explanation, it requires a whole new unproven theory of nuclear physics. See page 15 if you get tired:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/How%20repulsive%20gravity%20contributes%20for%20cold%20fusion%20occurrence.zip

 

[harryting]

It will never be over. There's always another "my invention is suppressed by big oil/gas/car maker" scams.

I guess I'm not surprised by any of this since skeptism is one of my hobby. For more fun reading, see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/world/asia/boast-of-water-run-car-thrills-pakistan.html?_r=0

Federal ministers lauded Mr. Ahmad and his vehicle, sometimes at cabinet meetings. The stand-in minister for religious affairs, Khursheed Shah, appeared on television with him and took a ride in his small Suzuki rental, which was hooked up to a contraption that Mr. Ahmad described as a “water kit.” Respected talk show hosts suggested he should get state financing and protection.

 

[Lancie1]

"run on water" is not a complete description of an engine. Almost any steam engine could be said to "run on water", and 10 liters of water for 250 miles might be about right for a small steam-powered car, but that is not the whole story. You are going to need some additional energy to convert the water to steam.

Water (H2O) is a product of burning hydrogen in oxygen. Since it has already "burned", it cannot be burned again without adding a significant amount of energy to tranform or split it into H and O.

Back to the article in the Journal of Nuclear Physics on "Repulsive Gravity": From a practical viewpoint, if Nickel COULD somehow be induced to magically transform into Copper at room temperature by adding Hydrogen and Tellurium as a catalyst, one wonders how much a cannister of Nickel and Tellurium (Nickel at $8/lb and Tellurium at $160/lb) would cost, and how far you could run a car on 10 lbs. of nickel. That doesn't even include the cost of the Hydrogen or how you would store H2 and prevent it from being a life-threatening hazard. Maybe the nickel and hydrogen are already combined into nickel hydride, where it would be like using up a truck load of AAA batteries every xx miles (if the cold-fusion theory worked).

 

[Jeebs]

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

Thoughts?

 

[rdrast]

Still BS.

As stated in that (cough) 'Paper', essentially the only thing monitored was heat. Once again, there are no details of the supposed reaction, no details of the control system, or the 'reactor'. There also were (once again, par for the course here) absolutely no independent observers... Everyone involved has a vested interest in getting rich from a scam IPO issue.

There is no self-sustaining operation, which would indicate that indeed the device is behaving as some sort of reactor, whether nuclear or chemical. As a control, they use a "non-loaded" reactor body at a greatly reduced power input level. Folks, that isn't a control...

An entertaining read of nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless.

 

[TurpoUrpo]

Its BS (Rossi and his device)

 

[TConnolly]

As stated in that (cough) 'Paper'...

One of the first things I noticed about that paper was that it doesn't resemble any paper that is expected to be peer reviewed. New results are presented as more of the same old bologna (pun intended). The closing paragraph of the introduction is a giant red flag that this is not a true scientific experiment. The use of their own equipment does not constitute an independent test, it doesn't matter where the test was done.

Then the techno babble begins.

Later it is revealed that Rossi himself operated the experiment, but it came across as an attempt to boost credibility by his presence. In a true scientific test, he, and his test equipment, would be absent.

At the conclusion of the test the paper's authors temporarily do not have custody of the sample as it is removed and supposed unspecified tests are conducted by David Bianchini. A five second google search reveals that Bianchini has been involved with Rossi in perpetuating this scam for a number of years. The sample is then returned to them for isotropic analysis.

At this point I quit reading, all the indicators of bull <excrement> are there.

One other thing that jumped out at me were the SEM pictures that are supposed to show a difference between the "fuel" and the "ash." Note the different SEM settings used shown in the corner of the SEM photographs. The particles don't actually appear to be different in structure and composition, just viewed on a different scale.

Conspicuously absent from the analysis is the supposedly transmuted copper.

The e-cat is good for only one thing: sucking money from the gullible.