7 ms·

(submitter here) It's true that you cannot replicate Rossi's allegations independently because he refuses to reveal the way his alleged reactor works. However,

by duozerk 12y ago

(submitter here) It's true that you cannot replicate Rossi's allegations independently because he refuses to reveal the way his alleged reactor works. However, the "independent report" mentioned in the article basically tested this thing as a black box for more than a month; Rossi was present at the start and at the end, but not during the test, and all the equipment and so on was not his but procured independently. Even if Rossi did some screwy stuff, it cannot explain the 1.5 MWh gain for more than 32 days - the only thing that could explain this, assuming it indeed is a con, is unreliable heat measurement. While it is true that there has been some doubts expressed on that subject, the researchers have a lot of experience performing such measurements; and they are far from being disreputable researchers or shady characters. One of the authors of the subsequent paper is also, by the way, the previous head of the Swedish skeptics society - someone that does have some experience in debunking bullshit claims. I'm not saying this thing is working as advertised, mind you; but this report is troubling and warrants further research. And the article isn't only about the e-cat: it's about another researcher, Parkhomov, having set up a similar experiment based on what he could glean from Rossi's alleged reactor, and witnessing similar excess energy production. This other experiment is, by contrast, completely open and can be verified/replicated/debunked, so I suppose it's just a matter of time before someone attempts such a replication and confirm or infirm this new experiment.

tjradcliffe 12y ago
> the researchers have a lot of experience performing such measurements If that is the case I'd hate to see their work in an area where they aren't experienced. Their experiment is amateurish in the extreme, and if an undergrad designed a "measurement" of the kind they performed and "calibrated" it at a fraction of the full power I would fail them. The quality of the work is cartoonishly bad, to the extent that it would have been less work to do a better job.
Retric 12y ago
That's not independent verification; it's not even vaguely close to independent verification. "Even if Rossi did some screwy stuff, it cannot explain the 1.5 MWh gain for more than 32 days" Sure, he could have literally hacked the instruments. But, 1.5 MWh over 32 days is a fairly small amount of energy as in 2kW * 32 days a lot of chemical processes can get you there. Also, measuring heat output is really easy to mess up. Something as simple as putting an insulating blanket under the device could significantly alter the measurements. The point is he was there when they were setting up the experiment so he could have easily lead them astray. PS: As to warrants further research nope, sorry the correct response is to declare this a clear scam.
- duozerk 12y ago
  "That's not independent verification" Agreed. It is what it is: a black box testing of a proprietary technology that cannot be easily replicated by other researchers. As for "hacking the instruments", read the paper; Rossi was never left alone with the instruments, and was only present twice: at the start, where he inserted his "secret sauce" into the device under monitoring, and at the end, where he retrieved it under similar conditions. He might be a con artist, but "hacking the instruments" under those conditions would require him to be something closer to a wizard. "1.5 MWh over 32 days is a fairly small amount of energy as in 2kW * 32 days a lot of chemical processes can get you there" No. That's more than 5800 MJ over the period, the equivalent of burning 140 kg of gasoline, produced by a ~20cm long cylinder. No known chemical process can get you there (by far). I should also add that the 1.5 MWh number is the lowest estimate of the authors, taking into account all margins of error. Agreed on the difficulty of measuring heat; experts far more knowledgeable than I have been reading the report and cannot explain such a high discrepancy. "As to warrants further research nope, sorry the correct responce is to declare this a clear scam." So, following the publication of another paper with an open experimental protocol & set up having reported similar findings, it isn't worth spending the few thousands of dollars required to actually verify this ? given the potential benefits and relatively low resources required, I have to disagree. Saying "it's just a clear scam" without even checking this doesn't sound like science to me. Black swans do happen from time to time; if this effect is indeed real (and I agree that's a huge if), it could lead to unimaginable benefits and - given the fact that current science cannot explain such an effect - could also lead to genuine new science and discoveries in physics. This alone should make it worthwhile to try and replicate this new experiment, no matter how unlikely it seems.
  - Retric 12y ago
    It's not the few thousands of dollars it is N scams * cost to verify. Worse it's your time writing that post and my time reading it. Science is not following some magic formula black box experiment that someone hands you. It's going hmm there are at least 50 ways to fake this, and I am going to try and test each and every one of them. Does the device work in a vacuum, what if we seal off the air supply, what about replacing the water with brine, what if we run the water though a mass spectrometer, how about ... Then when you’re done and your still scratching you head then you get to write a paper, until then you’re wasting everyone’s time. If you did not actually test each and every one of those options you say: "Most likely still a scam, but we ran test X. Still need to..."

by duozerk 12y ago

tjradcliffe 12y ago

> the researchers have a lot of experience performing such measurements If that is the case I'd hate to see their work in an area where they aren't experienced. Their experiment is amateurish in the extreme, and if an undergrad designed a "measurement" of the kind they performed and "calibrated" it at a fraction of the full power I would fail them. The quality of the work is cartoonishly bad, to the extent that it would have been less work to do a better job.

Retric 12y ago

That's not independent verification; it's not even vaguely close to independent verification. "Even if Rossi did some screwy stuff, it cannot explain the 1.5 MWh gain for more than 32 days" Sure, he could have literally hacked the instruments. But, 1.5 MWh over 32 days is a fairly small amount of energy as in 2kW * 32 days a lot of chemical processes can get you there. Also, measuring heat output is really easy to mess up. Something as simple as putting an insulating blanket under the device could significantly alter the measurements. The point is he was there when they were setting up the experiment so he could have easily lead them astray. PS: As to warrants further research nope, sorry the correct response is to declare this a clear scam.

duozerk 12y ago
"That's not independent verification" Agreed. It is what it is: a black box testing of a proprietary technology that cannot be easily replicated by other researchers. As for "hacking the instruments", read the paper; Rossi was never left alone with the instruments, and was only present twice: at the start, where he inserted his "secret sauce" into the device under monitoring, and at the end, where he retrieved it under similar conditions. He might be a con artist, but "hacking the instruments" under those conditions would require him to be something closer to a wizard. "1.5 MWh over 32 days is a fairly small amount of energy as in 2kW * 32 days a lot of chemical processes can get you there" No. That's more than 5800 MJ over the period, the equivalent of burning 140 kg of gasoline, produced by a ~20cm long cylinder. No known chemical process can get you there (by far). I should also add that the 1.5 MWh number is the lowest estimate of the authors, taking into account all margins of error. Agreed on the difficulty of measuring heat; experts far more knowledgeable than I have been reading the report and cannot explain such a high discrepancy. "As to warrants further research nope, sorry the correct responce is to declare this a clear scam." So, following the publication of another paper with an open experimental protocol & set up having reported similar findings, it isn't worth spending the few thousands of dollars required to actually verify this ? given the potential benefits and relatively low resources required, I have to disagree. Saying "it's just a clear scam" without even checking this doesn't sound like science to me. Black swans do happen from time to time; if this effect is indeed real (and I agree that's a huge if), it could lead to unimaginable benefits and - given the fact that current science cannot explain such an effect - could also lead to genuine new science and discoveries in physics. This alone should make it worthwhile to try and replicate this new experiment, no matter how unlikely it seems.
- Retric 12y ago
  It's not the few thousands of dollars it is N scams * cost to verify. Worse it's your time writing that post and my time reading it. Science is not following some magic formula black box experiment that someone hands you. It's going hmm there are at least 50 ways to fake this, and I am going to try and test each and every one of them. Does the device work in a vacuum, what if we seal off the air supply, what about replacing the water with brine, what if we run the water though a mass spectrometer, how about ... Then when you’re done and your still scratching you head then you get to write a paper, until then you’re wasting everyone’s time. If you did not actually test each and every one of those options you say: "Most likely still a scam, but we ran test X. Still need to..."