What if the 1 year E-Cat Test Succeeds . . . and No One Believes it? (CatInHat)

The following post was submitted by CatInHat

The Ecat is chugging away towards a hopefully successful 1 year test of the technology in a real-world installation.

But it occurs to me — what if the test succeeds but no one believes it? After all, one of the dominant reasons that the Lugano test was discredited in the eyes of many was due to the fact that Rossi may have been present during the extraction of the post-test samples, or may have actually helped extract the samples.

Compare that to the current situation. Rossi is spending 16 hours a day with the device, undoubtedly alone for a portion of that time. The skeptopaths will assert that he mucked with the measurements during his time with the device, or repeatedly carted in gallons of oil in a hidden Camelbak.

Or, they might point out that the device works, but you need a genius inventor to keep it running, which makes it too expensive to be a practical energy production device.

Let’s discuss possible responsed to such skeptical assertions, and what Rossi might do to increase the believability of the report if the test is successful.


  • Frechette

    What if they call for an election and nobody shows up at the polls?

  • If no one believes, we make a big noise. I don’t even try to convince others at this point, but when the Rossi year is up and all is positive, we raise our voices.

  • GreenWin

    Hey, who needs objectivity when emotion is more powerful and rewarding?

  • GreenWin

    See a real world example of the cost saving Bloom Box “Energy Server” @ “Beyond the E-Cat Test” thread. Bloom introduced their SOFC 200kW methane-fueled “Server” with huge fanfare in 2010. They now have a dozen satisfied customers including Google, E-Bay, WalMart, Staples, Macy’s, even CalTech! And they all testify to its cost saving efficacy.

    At $750k/box – Bloom is $2.25M MORE expensive than Rossi’s E-Cat. And the E-Cat operates overunity at a COP of ~20+. Meaning the cost savings will far outstrip any fuel cell technology. http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/30/beyond-the-e-cat-test-the-next-phase/

  • Omega Z

    “AR now has a record of abandoning a configuration that doesn’t live up to expectation.”

    Rossi has a record of developing improvements in the product.
    The pilot plant consists of 52 20kW reactors instead of the previous 106 10kW reactors, A big improvement in itself. However, these are reserved as back up should the (4)main reactors fail for some reason.

    The 4-Main reactors are 250kW each.(1Mw total) powered by a maximum input of 250kW(Total) from the mains. These 250kW reactors are the 1st to fit the definition of Industrial size use. It’s also a huge simplification. The market product will be of a much smaller scale using these 250kW reactors. Probably slight larger then a side by side refrigerator for 1mW.

    Prior to releasing a commercial product, one needs a pilot plant test. In progress for the last 8 months. You may have noticed the count down to the side of the screen here at ECW. About 4 months to go. I personally don’t expect to here much for at least a couple months beyond that. Data Analysis will take time.

    “and for him I feel time is running short”
    That is merely YOUR Opinion!! And If something works, why would there be a time limit.

    The only Opinion’s that count are, The current customer where the pilot plant is in operation, the independent Referee and Industrial heat.
    And again, this isn’t just Rossi anymore. Aside from the U.S. patent just granted to Rossi, Another application has been published by the USPTO. Sponsored by Industrial Heat. With inventors listed as Rossi & another who is an Industrial heat engineer.

    • BillH

      I can only apologise for having an opinion. But I don’t think you get to decide who’s opinion counts. We will see as events unfold.

  • Warthog

    If I am understanding your emphasis correctly, yes. But I also mean that no matter how “compelling” (or numerous) the evidence for a particular hypothesis, a result that contradicts that evidence, if replicated, MUST
    overthrow the original hypothesis.

  • Omega Z

    Rossi didn’t specify what their previous heat source was. He did say it wasn’t electric. Natural gas is readily available in Florida so 1 could assume it was N-gas. It doesn’t matter.

    This in no way hampers a direct comparison. It is simple energy in- energy out. Energy units are convertible. Btu’s to Kilowatt, Kilowatt to Btu’s.

    Electricity is a high value product. It’s cheapest form is fossil produced with a direct cost correlation based on conversion efficiency plus external costs(Turbines/Generators etc). Even using an antiquated N-gas boiler at 40% efficiency would be cheaper then an Electric boiler at 99% efficient. An 80% efficient N-gas boiler would be even cheaper & modern systems can obtain 97% efficiency. For an electric boiler to break even(cost) with fossil fuel would require a COP=5 or 6.
    That’s why most people don’t use gas to drive a micro-turbine to produce electricity, because it’s too expensive. ? ? ?
    What does that even mean. All Turbines are inefficient due to conversion efficiencies. Yet these fossil/fission/Hydro powered Turbines supply about 90% of our electricity. Micro-turbine’s are just less efficient due to scale.

    The most efficient turbine generators(about 60%) are combined power which in itself can be misleading if you don’t understand the process. A Gas turbine produces about 40% with the waste heat directed to a second turbine that produces about 20%. One extreme heat source, 2 in line turbine generators.

    • BillH

      If you look at your domestic electricity and gas bills, mine are both quoted in pence per KWh, £ per KWh if you like, you will see that gas is about 1/3 the price of electricity. So, you might suppose that if you could convert this gas into electricity locally, instead of having a large power-station do it as with your electricity supply, that you might be able to save money?

      Apparently, the most efficient way to do this is to use a micro-turbine, however, if you look at the cost of installing a micro-turbine and the efficiency that it can turn gas into electricity you will see that it doesn’t work out any cheaper.

  • very good quote.

    Stan Szpak of Spawar is quoted for :

    « scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe »

    To be honest most of the time the disagreement between realist and deluded is on “who pays”, and the errors is that skeptopath and other true believers imagine that some dark force is paying scientists to be evil, while the payment is simply public, in government grants, in publish or perish rules, in index factor.

    just imagine two studies proving one fact or the opposite.

    now imagine if your career will suffer from it, or benefit from it ?

    1- John Smith : some indications that cold fusion is a constant shift mistake

    2 John Smith : some indications that cold fusion is a nuclear phenomenon

    which will be published, which will cause trouble to the author? (what is inside is not important, as long as only expert can understand if it is BS or real)