3 ms·

Here's a great breakdown of why this paper is junk science: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-fo

by daeken 13y ago

Here's a great breakdown of why this paper is junk science: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat... Simply put, they didn't actually exclude external sources of power, nor did they properly measure before and after fusion. The test also happened only when the device was on. This isn't an independent review; it's equivalent to me looking at it and saying "wow, that box is pretty!"

yid 13y ago
For everyone commenting on this story -- the link daeken posted is well worth a read. Very reasonable measures were completely ignored. The most amazing to me was the fact that external power was never disconnected from the device!
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Why does anyone put up with it? Some because they are hopeless naive, as you say, but probably some because they desperately want what is being claimed to be true, so they accept things they wouldn't generally accept in this specific case.
Alex3917 13y ago
It doesn't sound like it's even junk science; as far as I can tell there isn't even any natural phenomenon that they're claiming to have tested.
GravityWell 13y ago
The only incredible thing is that Rossi seems to keep getting attention, which I suspect, along with naive sponsors, is the only thing he really wants.
JunkDNA 13y ago
The kicker is that the unit overheated and was destroyed in the first attempt. Something about that makes me very suspicious. If you were going to game the review to fake things, wouldn't you want to do a dry run first to see how the reviewers were going to do things? Then you could tweak your fakery to cover all your bases.