Cold Fusion---Again?

I could build something in an afternoon to mimic these results...A heating element in a piece of pipe, wow...

Slightly better than a You Tube video of a perpetual motion machine.

Still, until real, validated tests prove that this isn't wishful thinking, I'll hang on to my gas guzzlers.

No, not worth a passing glance.

Please stop with the con job, far from being worth a passing glance, it should be totally ignored.

Well I, for one, am willing to give credit when and where it is due. The one quote here that does change my view of Rossi's work is ...

• The report will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, which takes some time

A peer reviewed journal is not a panacea. However, it is the first extraordinary step to prove an extraordinary result.

Still, a part of me will remain cautious with any "too good to be true" result in any field.

The results are not likely to be published in any credible peer reviewed journal...This is hardly independent testing, just a bunch of gullible types witnessing yet another restricted demonstration of trickery....This scam is drawing to a close...No doubt the 1(one) unit being delivered, is being delivered to a partner who is in on it, and will claim that it is working until Rossi has taken deposits on as many units as he can, before he suddenly disappears with everybody's money....imo

I agree that your scenario is much more likely. The peer review team can very easily just be the equivalent of a rubber stamp. I am still highly skeptical of this work.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Interesting, but I'm wondering how they measured the power out.

I assume it was in the form of heat, so I'd expect a calorimeter type "bomb" to be wrapped around the unit while it's running. If they just "estimated" the power output from the tube based on its external temperature it'll be way off.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The report could be accessed (29 pages), lot of unnecessary info but at least some figures which make sense:

input power 360W (averaged from energy meter)

Output power: 1600W (calculated, Error ?)

Quite special science applied on the determination of the output power: calculations based on the surface temperature.

It would have been much simpler and much more precise to let it warm pressurised water with a simple calorimeter in the differential of supply and return. Although it looks as if the second test object has been made for such an experiment.

But it is questionable who to blame: who did design the test setup?

A real confirmation test would be that Mr. Rossi tells an independently appointed team how to build the device and let's them go off. The whole needs to be under strict NDA.

Best would be that Mr. Rossi even doesn't know in prior to the result publication who the examiners are and where the test will happen (he can explain to a camera and in documents in his own language, lawyers will from there handle the info) If later someone runs off with the "invention" there is legal proof that it is indeed his work.

Pure energy, much better than impure energy. Plus-plus good indeed.

I am waiting for a turbine to be connected to a LENR reactor. Then it will be easy to measure Kwatt hours in and out.

So it's probably not cold fusion, but LENR. This is worth watching. You have to ask yourself what would the author have to gain from a scam. He would be found out eventually. We will have to wait for the peer reviewed results, but it looks promising to me.

A couple of years ago, as I recall, a thread here on CR4 about cold fusion sent me to the library to see what books there are on the subject. Books have been steadily published over the years since the Pons/Fleischmann incident, of research into the subject. I wasn't interested enough to read any of them. But there seems to be quite a bit of ongoing research because "interested" investigators look at the "research" and claim "something" is going on; therefore their continued interest and research.

(Discussions mentioning LENR on CR4 go back to 2007.)

A major driving force behind MOST, if not all, research is simply to stay employed. Grant money=continued employment. Research into alternative energy sources, actually might have a better chance of funding than lesser known areas, given the current environment (pun noted). Many have referred to the "cancer industry." All research is, strictly speaking, an industry that employees people. Some research comes and goes, with funding "drying up." Some areas, like cancer and energy, will, seemingly, be around for a very long time, if not indefinitely. If we assessed the results from such research vs. the money and man hours invested, too often, we see disappointingly little payback. Another example that comes to mind, of this phenomena, is muscular distrophy research. MDA has been around for most of my life. MDA does good works, but the cure carrot held out each year of its annually televised telethon is, looking back, like a mirage in the desert.

That being said, if such research funds weren't available, most research could only be afforded by commercial entities. And, forgive my skepticism, but what company would put much energy (again, pn), into obsoleting their current product(s)? As long as the competition doesn't present a threat in this way, milking the current "product" or "technology" for all it's worth is just good business sense. A bird in the hand.... And you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the practicality of squashing those who might be getting close to success with leap-frogging ideas. I'm sure we could easily find examples in business history where this happened. Look at the lengths Edison went to to try to discredit Tesla's AC technology. It would be naive to think it isn't happening all the time.

As SE mentioned on one of those past threads (post#2), It's something like fusion in that it doesn't work...., yet fusion research continues to be funded. We do know the sun can do it, so why not us, right?

In this case, I wouldn't subscribe to a conspiracy theory. (Although, there is a 2 hour video on YouTube that claims otherwise.) Which of the 2 is most likely to come to fruition first, LENR or fusion? I bet none of the researchers in either field would bet their paychecks on it.

Very well said Pass, I agree totally. Not all detractors are completely uninvested. New technologies are developed everyday. Old technologies are improved every day. Things that were not even dreamed of 20 years ago are now common place. To automatically kneejerk and declare something impossible does not reflect professionalism or even good scientific method. let alone a historical perspective. It never hurts to look as my grandfather used to say. An open mind costs nothing.

I say let this guy have his spotlight and attract investors, he'll either change the world or fade away as a sidenote.

Your observations about the economics of research, likewise are good. One would think with the billiions spent on MDA research we'd have something to show for it by now. Is MDA a flim flam?

So it always bothers me to hear supposedly educated folks go off on what may or may not be possible without a seconds pause to consider that what they are about to spout off was probably said about Tesla by Edison or the Wright Brothers by Langley. Personally I am happy to let history be the judge.

One caveat, over unity, perpetual motion and those sorts of things that have an obviously false first premise, go off on those all you want. I'll join you because those sorts of things do muddy the waters of research.

In close, I quote you Passerby,

"I bet none of the researchers in either field would bet their paychecks on it."

Wrong. They are not only betting their current check but their future checks as well that this funding will keep coming.

Rossi has a product on the market. It is a 1 M Watt system for commercial applications for heating water (I think it will generate steam as well). Here is more information: http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw/

Ya got me.

Found a brief overview showing some of the thermodynamics problems with Rossi's claims:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9239377&postcount=3122

Hi all,

Truly, I am a huge fan of independent thinkers, researchers, and inventors, BUT if something truly worked this well, I can't help but believe some well-funded agency (government, university, industry) would not have already researched the heck out of it to confirm it's validity. OR, if it really worked, one of those same well-funded agencies would have either bought it, hired the inventor, or (sorry, but it happens) stolen it.

I have a wish-list -- I'm a dreamer -- but, I'm also a student, participant in, and victim of human nature.

Don't just dangle the carrot ... let me see the horse eat it.

Prove it.

Kind regards ...