> The ECAT 1MW plant contains 106 smaller ECAT units mounted in a shipping container. Valve for filling the Hydrogen is on the front of each unit, together with electrical connection to the immersion heater used to start the reaction.
Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power -- to sustain the cold fusion reaction, of course -- totals just over 1 MW continuous.
> Current delivery time is estimated to four months.
That should be enough time to sign up an adequate number of perfect fools.
The first shipping generators will have an unfortunate bug that caps the output at approximately one-fifth of maximum capacity. The company will promise that, as soon as the bug is fixed and some new parts are installed, the machines will deliver the promised 1 MW.
The DoD did not buy one of these with my tax dollars -- tell me it isn't so. Because if they did, by now they would have exposed this scammer to justify the expenditure of public funds. It's a hoax -- the "fact sheet" has more holes than a Swiss cheese.
> > Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power
> The tech data page specifies 200kW input power
Yes, but you see, that is a marketing claim, not a physical one. If it were true, Rossi would be sequestered with a team of crack lawyers attempting to secure patent protection for his breakthrough, rather than trying to sign people up to buy his unprotected, yet-to-be-built device.
Also, why doesn't Rossi use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to sustain the reaction, thus removing the input power requirement? This "fact sheet" reads very differently to someone who actually understands physics.
> Yes, but you see, that is a marketing claim, not a physical one. If it were true, Rossi would be sequestered with a team of crack lawyers attempting to secure patent protection for his breakthrough
As for patents on perpetual motion devices, the Patent Office is geared to reject claimed cold fusion patents that don't include a demonstration of a working device (of course, the reason for this is such claims have proven irreproducible, which impinges on the utility test for patentability.)
> Shouldn't this be a requirement for all patents?
It has to demonstrate utility for all patents; but utility doesn't generally require a working device (even for patents of a "device" type).
Whether it should is an interesting question, but if its clear from the information in the patent and the information generally available outside of it that a practitioner in the field could derive real utility from the described mechanism, I think there's at least a clear argument that actually having a demonstrated device is unnecessary, while with ones whose claims appear to violate physical laws or be of a class where claims have shown to be impossible to reproduce by other practitioners, the demonstration of a working device to demonstrate utility is important.
If this thing produces 1 MW in heat output for a 200 KW power input, it is no more efficient than a good heat pump (with a COP of 5, not unusual in large-size installations)...
My quick calculation below shows that the device is not capable of 1MW power output with declared parameters (amount of heated water produced). It's calculated maximum power output would be like 160-180kW, which strangely is quite similar to declared input power. So it's not a heat pump, it's an ordinary (but expensive) electric boiler ;) I only wonder what it does with all that nickel and hydrogen...
Common sense, unless that term is no longer applicable to modern times. If this were something real, we would be hearing about Rossi's valiant efforts to secure patent protection, not customers.
> It's not "common sense" to pull a number out of thin air. The data sheet says 200kW.
Yes, speaking of pulling numbers out of thin air. If this were really a cold fusion device, no continuous input power would be required -- the device could be started once using an impulse of power, then it would become self-sustaining using its own generated energy -- no further input power would be required.
Look at the claims:
* Input power required: 200KW
* Claimed output power: 1 MW
Why isn't 200 KW of the 1 MW output power used to sustain the reaction? What's wrong with this picture? Only someone with no understanding of physics would post this "fact sheet".
I'm not swayed by the fact sheet. I understand physics. I also know enough to know that we don't really know shit. Things happen that prove earlier notions to be wrong. It used to be that we all KNEW that the Earth was flat, and that it was the center of the universe too. There could be something going on here that we don't understand. I'm not saying that's what's happening, but I want to attack his claims ONLY by measurables.
All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_. Otherwise we're doing nothing but putting out more hot air than this generator does.
> There could be something going on here that we don't understand.
In science, the null hypothesis rules. The null hypothesis -- the premise that something is false until evidence proves otherwise -- is why scientists have a reputation for skepticism. It also filters out claims like this one.
A scientist wouldn't give Rossi the benefit of the doubt. A scientist would demand scientific evidence, not a marketing sheet with some very obvious defects.
> I understand physics.
If you understand physics, why has it not occurred to you to ask why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement? How hard is that?
> All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_.
No! The burden of evidence belongs to Rossi, not to his critics (see below). He cannot meet that burden.
> If you understand physics, why has it not occurred to you to ask why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement? How hard is that?
What makes you think that it hasn't occurred to me? Maybe I just don't think it's worth posting about until Rossi has a physical product we can test?
Again, no disagreement, but you're starting your attack before he has a finished product with which he can attempt to meet that burden.
Just because you know something, doesn't mean that you need to be aggressive about it. You're actually giving Rossi more attention than he deserves before these things are ready to be tested.
You talk about the null hypothesis and filtering out claims and not even giving him the benefit of the doubt. Absolutely. A scientist who has useful things to do with their time just ignores it until there is evidence otherwise.
Going on the attack is something completely different.
Edit: ^ The moment that I realize I'm arguing about this with a legit scientist who I have major respect for and whose site I've read on occasion. :(
> What makes you think that it hasn't occurred to me?
Because it's a fatal error and you didn't mention it.
> Maybe I just don't think it's worth posting about until Rossi has a physical product we can test?
What, so uneducated people can be scammed out of their life savings? Where's your sense of public duty?
His claims are bogus. If he had achieved what he claims, he would not be calling for 200 KW of input power. And even given that absurd premise, assuming this fantasy requirement as a thought experiment, he could use one of his small units to power five small units of the same kind, then five to power 25, etc., resulting in a very small initial power input for a vast output power.
The reason the "fact sheet" isn't written that way is because this guy doesn't even know how to lie convincingly.
> Edit: ^ The moment that I realize I'm arguing about this with a legit scientist who I have major respect for and whose site I've read on occasion. :(
That shouldn't matter as you evaluate my claims, any more than it should matter in evaluating Rossi's claims. Evidence should be the only issue.
A guy once said, "In science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence."
why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement?
Because it's necessary to input the power to bootstrap the reaction. Of course, that just begs the question: why not say it's only needed for start-up? I suppose that there could be engineering concerns...
Don't get me wrong, I believe this is baloney. But I don't think the argument about requiring input power is what proves that.
>> why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement?
> Because it's necessary to input the power to bootstrap the reaction.
Yes, but his megawatt unit consists of dozens of smaller units, each of which (if we accept the premise for the moment) requires a much smaller amount of bootstrap power. Therefore, logically, he would power one unit with a tiny bootstrap kick, that unit would use its generated power to sustain itself and bootstrap four additional units, four would bootstrap 16, all with surplus power. Logical, yes?
Anyone with the slightest familiarity with science and technology would see this is the logical arrangement, but it appears Rossi doesn't have the slightest familiarity with science and technology.
> All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_.
If we did that for everyone trying to sell a highly flawed device with engineering requirements that are not yet mastered by even world experts, we could measure such claims all day and achieve no real benefit. It is his job to demonstrate this to us.
It is possible that this device is actually performing better-than-breakeven fusion. But I would happily bet money against it.
So is the required input power! The input power is required in order to generate heat to initiate the reaction, and the output power is heat. In any case, it would be child's play to use a thermoelectric converter to efficiently generate electricity from the vast claimed heat output.
I hate to defend the guy when he's set off my fraud detector alarms so much, but thermoelectric converters are what, less than 10% efficient? That wouldn't allow the reaction to sustain itself.
He would need some kind of steam-driven turbine to achieve the efficiency needed to provide net power.
It doesn't seem unreasonable that his base product doesn't include more than just the basics for now.
> I hate to defend the guy when he's set off my fraud detector alarms so much, but thermoelectric converters are what, less than 10% efficient?
Wait -- the input power requirement is intended to run a heater, not provide electricity. And I should never have mentioned thermoelectric converters, that only complicates the discussion with no benefit.
Because the input power is needed to run a "immersion heater" according to the linked page, and because the output power is heat, this whole account quickly unravels.
> He would need some kind of steam-driven turbine to achieve the efficiency needed to provide net power.
No problem, there are plenty of those available. But the claims in the "fact sheet" are obviously false. If he really had a working unit that developed a megawatt using dozens of smaller units working in parallel, then why doesn't he just start one small unit with a tiny power kick, then use that unit to start four additional units, four to 16, ad infinitum, like a logical design. But Rossi hasn't bothered to think this deeply. The reason? He's not really going to build it. And the reason for that is it cannot be built.
And he has obviously failed, and for a very good reason -- he cannot back up his claims. Patents in this realm (not in software) require scientific evidence.
Only a perfect fool would try to market a breakthrough device in advance of securing patent protection. So the explanation is obvious -- the device doesn't perform as claimed.
"In January 2011 Andrea Rossi and Professor Sergio Focardi claimed to have successfully demonstrated commercially viable cold fusion in a device called an Energy Catalyzer, although in an interview Rossi claimed that his Energy Catalyzer does not work on the basis of cold fusion, but weak [force] nuclear reactions.[15] The international patent application received an unfavorable international preliminary report on patentability because it seemed to "offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories" and to overcome this problem the application should have contained either experimental evidence or a firm theoretical basis in current scientific theories.[16] Journalists were not allowed to examine the core of the reactor, and there is uncertainty about the viability of the invention.[17]"
On the one hand, I just can not believe that someone would be audacious enough to try such a scam, when there is such a relatively huge amount of people with their eyes on this. On the other hand history has shown us that this happens A LOT. Human nature is a funny thing.
You're right, saddly the law of nature made that there will always be people who will buy such an ideas. With one customer, he would pay the cost of web design, content creation, web hosting, domain name and 3D stuffs. With 2 customers, it would be profitable.
As stated in technical parameters: the water pump output is 30-1500 liters/hour, it means max 0.4 liter per second. Assuming it raises the temperature of water by 40 degrees K, the energy output per second is 4200J/kgK 0.5kg * 40K = 84000 Joules/sec = 84 kW. Assuming it draws 167kW, it's much worse than any electric water heater.
But let’s be optimistic! If we pick the maximum range in the technical specification [1] and suppose that the temperature difference were 120°C then it would only generate 0.21MW [2]. Just in case, I checked and at 4Bar, the boiling point of water is 144°C [3], so the device is not producing vapor, only hot water.
"ECAT 1 MW Plant produces energy through a so-called cold fusion process. No combustion takes place; instead Nickel and Hydrogen merge to produce Copper. Per unit of weight, this process is at least 100,000 more efficient than any known combustion process" Seriously, even a monkey would see it's impossible.
> A thermonuclear weapon weighing little more than 2,400 pounds (1,100 kg) can produce an explosive force comparable to the detonation of more than 1.2 million tons (1.1 million tonnes) of TNT
Note that they are looking for a beta site customer... lower right corner... next to the impressive list of folks who have validated cold fusion, which would be zero by my count. At least from places that don't feature folks with funny hats made of foil.
If it actually produces 1MW of power from a shipping container, even if all other claims were false, I'd think this would be useful in emergency/disaster zones.
What thermoelectric converters are available currently ? I thought the most efficient is a stirling engine and its efficiency is capped by carnot cycle.
A 200kW generator can fit on a small trailer. It's pretty common in the electrical generation field to use smaller generators to kick-start successively larger generators. That's how conventional hydro and nuclear plants must be started.
You're missing the point that, if the claims were real, 200 KW of the claimed output power of 1 MW cold be used to sustain the reaction, thus removing the input power requirement. This kind of "fact sheet" can only persuade people who don't understand physics.
> I was just trying to explain how the initial claim itself was at least plausible.
If the author had wanted to be plausible, he would not have mentioned the required input power. That's a dead giveaway and show-stopper, because anything remotely real would not have that requirement.
If the units can deliver five times their input heat energy, then 1/5 of the output energy can be used to sustain the reaction. That's not difficult to grasp.
Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power -- to sustain the cold fusion reaction, of course -- totals just over 1 MW continuous.
> Current delivery time is estimated to four months.
That should be enough time to sign up an adequate number of perfect fools.