Skip to comments.E-Cat Goes Undercover
Posted on 10/20/2011 11:11:39 AM PDT by count-your-change
The story that follows this headline:
"As Interest in the E-Cat Spikes, Rossi says the October 28th E-Cat Test Will be the Last Public One" (Read more: http://www.ecatnews.net/#ixzz1bLUVpDa6)
indicates that the much hyped and long awaited October 28 test will only be semi-public as the ones conducting the tests will be the "customer's consultants". Just who that is remains a secret and probably will remain so since if the test that fails there won't be a customer.
Is that the Fusion Bunny?
I haven’t heard about the bunny/pancake. When will it be tested?
We’ll see positive energy production right after global warming is proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
This guy has the scientific competence of an Obama administration official.
Haha, how perfect is that? Time for utter secrecy!
Prepare for the collapse of this scam.
“Rick, If you sign up to buy today you can have a uniform just like this one.”
You still have time to cancel that down payment check.
The good news is that E-Cat works. The bad news is that it emits crank rays.
Seriously, I have no idea if it works or not: Rossi is surely a crank of the first water, but so was Tesla - and there seem to be quite a few professionally qualified people who think he has something.
Anyway, the 28th will tell the tale, unless it doesn’t.
I wonder if the “customer’s consultants” are like the planted shills that a psychic puts into the audience?
If he has chosen his customers carefully they will keep their mouths shut out of embarassment.
Methinks the scam is imploding.
Back in the 1970’s Ford has actually made a few Sterling-based
cars. Read the reports from the SAE (society of automotive engineers). The issue is the size (large) of the engines and its low power.
Brief summary: Sterling engines are just external combustion engines and the main problem is the heat conduction from the exterior to the interior, thus power (i.e. energy/time) is low. With internal combustion engines, the combustion energy is INSTANTLY available to the engine interiors thus power is high.
So for common use, sterling cars are not appropriate. Now, if you are a survivalist, far from any source of liquid fuel, the Sterling car is for you since you can run a Sterling car on wood chips.
dinodino, you are absolutely correct.
E-Cat going undercover? What a shame. What will fanboy KevMo do? What tragedy!!!!
I always wanted to be in the front row to see closely how such delusional schemes terminate themselves. I learned about the Hydrino/(Randell Mills) scheme a little late in the game so I missed out on the twists and turns of that delusional set-up.
Blacklight Power (Randell Mill’s hydrino company) have preceded Rossi’s Ni/H scheme by more than 2 years and it amounted to nothing. It is quite revealing that fanboy Kevmo never referred to the hydrino scheme.
The so-called “proof” by Rossi’s fanboys that the process in Rossi’s reactors is LENR by comparing the energy output per unit mass of hydrogen with comparable chemical reactions has been used by the hydrino fanboys about 2 years ago. And Rossi’s fanboys never acknowledged their stealing their “proof” from the hydrino fanboys.
What the fanboys of Rossi and Mills overlooked was that the Ni/H reactors had not 1 but 2 chemical reactions, one of them was never referenced in their “proof”. This second chemical reaction is -strictly being- a physico-chemical process whose dynamics do not follow the conventional chemical reaction. What is this physico-chemical process? That is the homework for the Rossi/Mills fanboys who seem intellectually lazy.
I am very sure that - at least in the beginning - Mills and Rossi were very sincere.
When a freshly-made reactor was used, the initial - keyword: initial - energy output per unit mass of hydrogen is about 20 to 60 times the energy output of a typical chemical reaction.
What excitement!!! This 20 to 60 ratio was the basis of the fanboys’ “proof” that what one is seeing is indeed LENR.
Now is where the sense of dread kicks in for the fanboys: as more hydrogen is fed into the reactor, the energy output per unit mass of hydrogen decreases eventually to 1 time the energy output of a typical chemical reaction. If one sum up the total energy output of the Rossi/Mills reactor, the average energy output per unit mass of hydrogen is about 2 times that of 1 typical chemical reaction. Rossi’s fanboys are not divulging everything and they need to - somehow - account to whoever is/are the investor(s). Mills’ fanboys have been a little bit more honest.
Although I believe that Free Republic is a conservative website, KevMo acts like a Liberal/Progressive: keep repeating the same nonsense, hoping that people will buy.
Posting “scientific” blogs every day for the past 3 months overlooks one thing: all the mechanisms proposed to explain Rossi/Mills Ni/H reactor can be applied to any other chemical reactor (Fe-based, Cu-based, whatever). The very same mechanisms imply a very different geological behavior of planet Earth and one is not seeing experimentally these phenomena since the conditions of the Rossi/Mills Ni/H reactor are very mild geologically speaking: higher pressure and higher temperature will only increase the rate of the LENR reactions and it is not just not showing up in the geological records.
The overall efficiency of the Rossi/Mills Ni/H reactor to produce electrical energy - keyword: electrical - is less than that of the common Ni/H battery. The Rossi/Mills Ni/H reactor needs to convert the thermal energy into electric energy which brings much inefficiency (via Carnot’s law); the common Ni/H battery converts chemical energy directly into electric energy.