Talk:Energy Catalyzer

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon conspiracy.svg

This free energy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes
  • Try not to overlap material with related articles on free energy.

Italian cold fusion[edit]

This is actually this year's Italian cold fusion claim, and the coverage is not limited to a Swedish IT blogger. It made Wikipedia, Physorg, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe [1][2], etc. The article needs to be expanded and (maybe) renamed.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs help. That one footnote could be worded better. And 8 ELs? Surely those could become footnotes to text saying why they matter? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's being tested today[edit]

The hoax is getting big -- (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Could we have a link to the appropriate insanity?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I forgot: -- (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
So it's a "test" personally conducted by its "inventor" in respect of an anonymous client and the anonymous representatives of the anonymous client? The words "transparent" and "impartial" don't spring readily to mind. On the other hand "worthless publicity stunt" does sort of seem an appropriate description.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably will be a resounding success, and then the men in black will turn up and steal it. (or, in reality, it just doesn't work and the inventor is a crook.) ADK...I'll liberate your feng shui! 19:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Got to say that it links to a pretty wacky wicky.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The man in black a.k.a. the governments are already working on declaring it a nuclear reactor. If that happens we might not hear anything about it even if it isn't real. They also might chose to put him in prison just so that the general public can go back to bed. Put him in prison for financial fraud or something like accidental sex. Like those 2 guys who invested 25 000 USD in the Stanley Meyer technology then the next day took him to court for fraud because they said the invention didn't work. The judge ruled the 25 k to be paid back!?! LOL what an accomplishment. They could have just not invest in the technology and accomplish the same thing. But to this day this is treated as if the final proof the invention didn't work. The best part was where the judge ordered the recording equipment switched off and no transcript to be made! LOL WTF?!?! This seems to be confirmed by untold numbers of people who requested those recordings, people like all the worlds media at the same time. If we are to believe witnesses they destroyed one of the cells by adding some unknown substance to the water. If it worked or not isn't important, a test is a test, nothing justifies adding unknown substances to any experiment. I don't know about you but I like my evidence clean and speaking for it self, loudly if possible and in clear full sentences. Anything other than that and I'm not interested. A judge ordering the recording equipment switched off. That is something that speaks for it self. There is only one possible reason why that could happen. It was because she knew the invention was pseudoscience therefore not real and not worthy of any objective consideration. It had nothing to do with the military of course. That would be silly. (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs moar[edit]

The world actually needs decent coverage of this scam. Rossi is also a most interesting character in need of impeccably-referenced documentation. Is there a decent source of moar? - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I may look into that... they made a new "independent" confirmation recently. As always, electricity comes in through a meter in an unspecified way, heat comes out, in a facility controlled by Rossi, as always a zillion ways to get more heat in ranging from high frequency AC superimposed on the power lines at the low end, to microwave beams and infrared lasers at the high end. Dmytry (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Places to mine for sources: the threads in the JREF forums (they include ideas for ways of testing it, as there are some actual engineers there) and the article in EsoWatch/Psiram linked in the External Links section.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I love this comment: . Dmytry (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
A long time ago (more than a year?) he got caught of claiming that water was going in where there was in fact steam going in, and steam ofc carries far more energy. I remember because Motl blogged about that. Did he explain that away or did he just go somewhere they didn't know about that yet? -- (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been overthinking the recent test. Apparently these reviewer clowns used clamp meters to measure power consumption. Check out illustrations down on this page: . But even that is overthinking - these folks used AC meters, so you can put in however much DC you want and that won't register. Dmytry (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It appears they're still doing this in the latest round of "tests" (though their methodology is so vaguely described you can only speculate as to what they actually did), along with using measurements with the power analyzers to show that there was no harmonic content that the power analyzers (yes, the same power analyzers) couldn't measure. And of course, still not doing calorimetric measurements.
This is really not a particularly difficult thing to measure. That they still haven't done proper, reliable measurements and made a serious attempt to exclude the possibility of interference from Rossi (as opposed to having him handle the reactor and its components, as they did in the recent "independent" tests) really says something. Cjameshuff (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think there isn't really any proof that this is a scam - a "rational" view would keep an open mind on this. Recent tests outlined in the "Lugano Report", and a reported positive result using a similar device by A. Parkhomov suggest this is worth following to see where it goes. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 16:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is related[edit]

don't know what to make of it except thank them for the books -- (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Another page by a (different) Italian name, Giovanni A. Orlando: This one has an e-store, and advertises their own series of crappy looking textbooks and new age gadgets (most are "sold out" but some are available). On a quick look this one doesn't have as many legitimate things for download as the fulvio one, though there is a free book section that isn't empty. -- (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"A February 2015 attempt to replicate the e-Cat heated to 1000°C and went bang,"[edit]

"though likely due to the gaseous hydrogen and (pyrophoric) lithium aluminium hydride present." In an alumina tube. When you've got a reducing agent as strong as lithium in the mix, aluminum oxide will serve as an oxidizer, making this an unusual variation of a thermite mixture. It might be a difficult mix to ignite or perform poorly starting at ambient temperature, but stuffing it in a tube and heating it up to 1000°C might just do the job. Cjameshuff (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

yeah. If anyone can find a better reference than that overly-credulous Wired article, that'd probably be good - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)