Maker Pro
Maker Pro

E-Cat Success! ?

J

John Devereux

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin said:
It's been done. The isotopic composition of the copper is identical to
natural copper.

Aha the scammer did not think of that aspect...

I have a jd-cat cold fusion reactor in my garage.

Unlikely you may think. But surely even if there is a 99.99% chance it
does not work, it is still worth sending me money? Open your mind!
 
A

amdx

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.

That was not meant as a scientific article, I posted that as more of a
note on human nature and why it would be less likely to be a scam.

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.

One of the links within the blog suggests they (another experimenter)
started with two isotopes of nickel. (They are named in the article)
 
M

mike

Jan 1, 1970
0
Martin said:
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!


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.
You really don't need to know any of that.
Just take ONE E-cat, put it on my glass table, let me hook up the
input power to MY wattmeter.
Pour water into it and watch steam come out until the total excess
energy exceeds ten times the energy that could be provided by any known
power
system of that mass/volume. ANY device using ANY process producing
that result would be a valuable invention.
I'd start building my steam powered car immediately.

Other experiments I've read about report extremely tiny amounts of excess
energy and sensitive calorimetry with uncertainties of the same order
as the measured results.

To verify the claims of the E-cat in my garage, I'd need:
to measure the input power by watching my utility meter go around.
to measure the input water with a gallon milk jug.
to measure the time by being able to tell day from night.
to measure the hydrogen consumption using a toy balloon of it.
the ability to do multiplication of two-digit numbers in my head.

VERIFICATION IS TRIVIAL!!!! The only access to the device that
I need is the input power port and the input water port. I might
want to weigh it before and after, but I probably don't care if
the energy density is 10x any other power source.

If it works, we should give Rossi a prepaid debit card with no limit,
a villa anywhere he wants and 70 virgins...and the Nobel prize.

There's an astronomical amount of money to be made here.
If it worked, plans would have leaked all over the internet by now.
There is zero reason to go through all the gyrations we've seen.
Well...one...to obscure the fact that it doesn't work.

I'd like to believe, but Rossi has done an excellent job of preventing
that with his strategy of maximum media buzz with zero engineering content.
 
M

mike

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
You'd have to make sure it sustains any power gain for a long time. He
might just be burning up chemical energy.

John
Go back and read what I wrote.
If it puts out more energy by a factor of TEN than can be explained by
ANY other energy source of the same volume/mass, I DON'T CARE.
Sign me up.
I don't care what's inside a box of energy that
greatly outshines all alternatives and doesn't have side-effects like
global warming and pollution.
I think the wording covers it, but I'll say it explicitly...
It has to cost (after commercialization) less than 10x the alternative
(fully burdened with societal costs including global warming and human
extinction).
 
D

DonMack

Jan 1, 1970
0
"John Larkin" wrote in message

You really don't need to know any of that.
Just take ONE E-cat, put it on my glass table, let me hook up the
input power to MY wattmeter.
Pour water into it and watch steam come out until the total excess
energy exceeds ten times the energy that could be provided by any known
power
system of that mass/volume. ANY device using ANY process producing
that result would be a valuable invention.
I'd start building my steam powered car immediately.

Other experiments I've read about report extremely tiny amounts of excess
energy and sensitive calorimetry with uncertainties of the same order
as the measured results.

To verify the claims of the E-cat in my garage, I'd need:
to measure the input power by watching my utility meter go around.
to measure the input water with a gallon milk jug.
to measure the time by being able to tell day from night.
to measure the hydrogen consumption using a toy balloon of it.
the ability to do multiplication of two-digit numbers in my head.

You'd have to make sure it sustains any power gain for a long time. He
might just be burning up chemical energy.

John
---------------------


The difference here is that supposedly after a few months of running there
is copper in the leftover material. The only way this can be possible is
either due to fusion or illusion(If you get my drift).
 
J

John Devereux

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin said:
[...]
Go back and read what I wrote.
If it puts out more energy by a factor of TEN than can be explained by
ANY other energy source of the same volume/mass, I DON'T CARE.

I can burn propane and do that. For a while.

You would have to wait a long time for a radioisotope generator...
 
M

Martin Brown

Jan 1, 1970
0
Are you claiming that E-cat is a legitimate source of energy?

Say so now, so we can check back later when it's validated, or not.

John

Having thought about it some more I would go further than you and say it
has less than 1ppm chance of being anything other than a fraud.

Nickel is the nuclear fusion reaction equivalent of fly ash in a coal
fired power station. A core of Ni56 is the terminal end point of stars
that are about to go supernova and for good reason - there is no more
nuclear energy available to squeeze out of the available reactants!

In particular and relevant to E-Cat the isotope nickel 62 has the
highest binding energy per nucleon of any known nucleide so you will
lose energy by fusing it with a proton! This means any copper 63 he
makes absorbs energy in the nuclear reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-62

It is *EXTREMELY* suspicious that the copper made by E-Cat has the same
abundance as natural copper. And I would hazard a guess that the nickel
has retained all its natural abundances too. Still we can give the guy
the benefit of the doubt and monitor for positron annihilation gamma
events at 511keV - I am surprised that no one has done this! They would
be hard evidence that hydrogen was reacting with the lower mass nickel
isotopes. It seems this is one that it is more important to believe in
than to test scientifically. South Sea bubble springs to mind.

In short extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of proof and
some dodgy display to a bunch of sycophants hardly counts as evidence.

And as acceptance tests go it sounds like the customer was way too
accommodating. Would you sign off to accept something that managed to
run for just a few hours at under half its nominal rated power?
 
M

mike

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
I can burn propane and do that. For a while.

John
NO, YOU CAN'T!!!

Pick a container size. Fill it with YOUR propane.
Demonstrate that you can get 10X the energy I can get out of
my container of the same mass and or volume...namely MY container
full of propane, or gasoline, or whatever we think is the best
conventional stuff for comparison!!!
That constraint allows us determine
when to terminate the secret experiment. 10X is arbitrary.
A single E-cat reactor is not huge. And it produces a lot of power.
Should result in a reasonable test time.


Your move.
 
You'd have to make sure it sustains any power gain for a long time. He
might just be burning up chemical energy.

AIUI, that was the issue of P&F's CNF, a decade or so ago. Calorimetry isn't
as simple as pretended. There was a lack of particles (Neutrons?) to balance
the equations, too. This looks like nothing more than a cheap imitation of
P&F's stunt.
 
M

MrTallyman

Jan 1, 1970
0
You are as obsessed with male organs as AlwaysWrong is with poop.

John

Except that he never mentioned ANY organs, and YOU are the ONLY idiot
that uses the term "poop" as an adult.

That does NOT make him whatever bent horseshit you claim, and it does
NOT make me the proprietor of ANY fetish.

It does however, flag you as an overt putz who would LIKE to have other
idiots perusing the group to believe your complete and utter horseshit.

John Larkin has the problem.

The problem he has is that he makes stupid remarks that he would not
have the balls to make in person, because he would immediately and
succinctly get his 'pussy-boy-with-a-mouth' ass kicked.

Your problems run deep, Larkin. You are so hard wired stupid that not
even a good, much deserved head bashing would help cleanse the level of
stupid that you are at.

If I were not so lazy, I would give it to you, just to see if there
would be any positive effect.

Sadly, the only way to obtain a positive effect with you would be to
quell your rock solid, stinking heart as well. THEN, I could claim a
"job well done".
 
M

MrTallyman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Absolutely. Temperature measurement is tricky.

For idiots playing at being scientists perhaps.
It's not trivial to
measure the temperature of a gallon of water to 1K accuracy,


But YOU ARE trivial, John Larkin.
much less
measure the temperature of an entire planet to within 1K.

Of course the reason is that YOU wouldn't even know where to begin.

You are an idiot. That result is accurate to within 0.000001% of an IQ
point. Yours is less than 40.
 
N

Nico Coesel

Jan 1, 1970
0
mike said:
You really don't need to know any of that.
Just take ONE E-cat, put it on my glass table, let me hook up the
input power to MY wattmeter.

The problem is that most wattmeters don't work well with pulsed
currents and voltages. This is how many 'free energy entrepeneurs'
fool themselves into believing they actually invented something.
To verify the claims of the E-cat in my garage, I'd need:
to measure the input power by watching my utility meter go around.

Better make sure the e-cat has a power factor of 1.
VERIFICATION IS TRIVIAL!!!! The only access to the device that

Proper verification is far from trivial.
 
M

MrTallyman

Jan 1, 1970
0
That rant you just posted

I posted no rant. You should probably learn the meanings of the words
you attempt to use. You might actually use them properly one day.
has three fecal or anal references.

You count, and you say that *I* have a fetish? Hahaha!
Sounds
like a fetish to me.

You have a bent perception of reality, as you never seem to think that
your singular references count as anything, when they most certainly
would, by your pathetic 'standards'.

It 'sounds' more and more like you are the one that has a problem...
with several behavioral norms.
How's that Christian thing working for ya?

It certainly does not appear to be 'working' for you. Another fail.

Interesting fail there on grasping what religion is about.
Did you go to Church this
last Sunday?

Do you think that is a requirement? Yet another total fail.

And another.
 
M

MrTallyman

Jan 1, 1970
0
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/1300.JPG


John

I was working in thermal when Omega was just getting started. I made
calibration ovens (sources). And NIST bought them, and they still buy
from the company I worked for. We have IR sensors watching the Saturn
5/Shuttle launch area still (from 1000' away), and we probably sell them
our imagers now, which is what they currently use from just as far away.

My response really should have been (since you call anything but your
own crap a 'rant') :

Oh boy, Johnny knows how to read a thermocouple probe! I'm impressed!
NOT!

You are a fucking punk, plain and simple. I busted you at it, and that
is what has 'got your gourd'.

And it is so fucking funny! You immature little bitch! You lose!

Bwuahahahahahahahaahahahahaahhaa!
 
M

mike

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nico said:
The problem is that most wattmeters don't work well with pulsed
currents and voltages. This is how many 'free energy entrepeneurs'
fool themselves into believing they actually invented something.

No, the problem is that YOU need a better wattmeter.
Mine works just fine, thank-you.
Better make sure the e-cat has a power factor of 1.

Please explain why?
Proper verification is far from trivial.
Verification of a device that is claimed to produce as much additional
energy as a single E-cat is indeed trivial. I've described exactly how
to verify that it works with almost zero equipment. I said nothing
about accuracy or precision...just that it produces at least 10x the
excess energy of any known self-contained power source. If you need
more evidence than that,
you should let someone else purchase the rights and buy power from them.


Methinks you just want to argue.
 
N

Nico Coesel

Jan 1, 1970
0
mike said:
No, the problem is that YOU need a better wattmeter.
Mine works just fine, thank-you.

Try pulsed currents and voltages at a few kHz. Google for 'lutec
engine' for a fine example where wattmeters can give totally wrong
readings.
Please explain why?

Otherwise you get false readings.
Verification of a device that is claimed to produce as much additional
energy as a single E-cat is indeed trivial. I've described exactly how
to verify that it works with almost zero equipment. I said nothing

And that setup just won't work. For starters you'll need an
oscilloscope to check the voltage and current waveforms. Very few
people grasp 'Making proper measurements 101'.
about accuracy or precision...just that it produces at least 10x the
excess energy of any known self-contained power source. If you need

Your claims repeat what the inventors claim. Just because a lot of
people say something is true doesn't mean its _really_ true. The e-cat
needs a lot of independant third party testing to validate the
inventors' claims.

From what I've read so far there simply isn't enough data to make a
good judgement. They say it needs to be fired up for 5 to 10 minutes
and after that it will output a certain amount of power. Exact times
and power levels are omitted so you can't calculate how many Joules
went in and out yourself.
 
M

mike

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nico said:
Try pulsed currents and voltages at a few kHz. Google for 'lutec
engine' for a fine example where wattmeters can give totally wrong
readings.


Otherwise you get false readings.

You still haven't explained why.
If you'd said that I needed a wattmeter with a very high crest factor
capability, I might have understood what you meant.
What if I'd said that my wattmeter was a 500MHz DSO that knew how to
multiply coupled to a current probe capable of DC to 50MHz.???

What's the crest factor/bandwidth capability of the utility meter on the
outside of my house? What's the impedance of the source at the
power meter at high frequencies? Does the meter measure REAL power?

It's an aside, but many people would be very interested in a device that
could produce
10KWH of heat while convincing the power company to bill them for 1KWH.

Another aside, I'd be interested in a device that could convert a secret
energy source (propane has been mentioned) to heat producing 10x more
energy than I could obtain by setting that amount of stuff on fire.
And that setup just won't work. For starters you'll need an
oscilloscope to check the voltage and current waveforms. Very few
people grasp 'Making proper measurements 101'.

GOT ONE! Just for you, I'll use it.
Your claims repeat what the inventors claim. Just because a lot of
people say something is true doesn't mean its _really_ true. The e-cat
needs a lot of independant third party testing to validate the
inventors' claims.

EXACTLY TRUE
BUT
YOU GOTTA START SOMEWHERE.
I've allowed for 10x margin of error. Make it 100x or 1000x or 10000x
if it makes you more comfortable. There's no need to nit-pick niggling
details on something that's either clearly a game changer or clearly a
hoax. Given access, determining which is trivial.
From what I've read so far there simply isn't enough data to make a
good judgement. They say it needs to be fired up for 5 to 10 minutes
and after that it will output a certain amount of power. Exact times
and power levels are omitted so you can't calculate how many Joules
went in and out yourself.

My point is that the claims for the E-cat are so huge that you can verify
whether it works with trivial experiments. Do you really care whether
it produces 10x or 100x the amount of energy you put in?
We're not fussing over microwatts of power in a calorimeter. We've got
kilowatts and multiples of input power to work with. It's not rocket
surgery.

If you did my experiment in public view, you would have to beat off
investors with a stick.
To me, the fact that it hasn't been done is clear evidence that it's a hoax.
 
N

Nico Coesel

Jan 1, 1970
0
If you'd said that I needed a wattmeter with a very high crest factor
capability, I might have understood what you meant.
What if I'd said that my wattmeter was a 500MHz DSO that knew how to
multiply coupled to a current probe capable of DC to 50MHz.???

That would be sufficient.
It's an aside, but many people would be very interested in a device that
could produce
10KWH of heat while convincing the power company to bill them for 1KWH.

The problem with power multiplying devices is that they usually stop
working when the input is removed and/or when the input is connected
to the output.
EXACTLY TRUE
BUT
YOU GOTTA START SOMEWHERE.
I've allowed for 10x margin of error. Make it 100x or 1000x or 10000x
if it makes you more comfortable. There's no need to nit-pick niggling
details on something that's either clearly a game changer or clearly a
hoax. Given access, determining which is trivial.

Its not trivial and nit-picking is mandatory. See below.
My point is that the claims for the E-cat are so huge that you can verify
whether it works with trivial experiments. Do you really care whether
it produces 10x or 100x the amount of energy you put in?

I don't care about the multiplication factor. Not because of the
accuracy but because the device may be designed to elude simple
measurement tools. This is where you enter the area of 'due diligence'
in a legal context and everything gets questioned down to the wire
strands of the probes if deemed necessary.
 
M

Martin Brown

Jan 1, 1970
0
Its not trivial and nit-picking is mandatory. See below.

Actually on balance I think it *is* trivial. The thing pretty much has
to be a hoax since nickel is the nuclear fusion equivalent of ash in a
coal fired power station. If the guy had used refined Li6 instead (like
the fusion bomb makers do) then it would require a lot more thought.

Ni62 happens to have the highest binding energy per nucleon of any known
nucleide. It is the global minimum so you are not going to harness any
energy by combining it with a proton or hydrogen atom. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni-62

IOW all the Cu63 he makes loses energy in the nuclear reaction.
Yes if I don't have the chance to establish that there is not some
secret back door hidden cable providing additional power. Scientists and
engineers are very bad at investigating tricksters. I would far rather
have someone like the Amazing Randi take a look at the setup!

Does no-one remember how Prof John Taylor was taken in by spoon bending
Uri Geller? And yet whenever Randi was present or designed the
experiments the paranormal subjects powers vanished as if by magic.
I don't care about the multiplication factor. Not because of the
accuracy but because the device may be designed to elude simple
measurement tools. This is where you enter the area of 'due diligence'
in a legal context and everything gets questioned down to the wire
strands of the probes if deemed necessary.

I suspect it only eludes incompetent "due diligence" by true believers.

CAVEAT EMPTOR !!!
 
N

Nico Coesel

Jan 1, 1970
0
Martin Brown said:
Yes if I don't have the chance to establish that there is not some
secret back door hidden cable providing additional power. Scientists and
engineers are very bad at investigating tricksters. I would far rather
have someone like the Amazing Randi take a look at the setup!

Which reminds me of an incredible story about a Dutch man called Jan
van der Sloot who claimed to have devised a super video compression
algorithm:

http://ticc.uvt.nl/~pspronck/sloot.html
 
Top