Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Technology

Independent Researchers Test Rossi's Alleged Cold Fusion Device For 32 Days 986

WheezyJoe (1168567) writes The E-Cat (or "Energy Catalyzer") is an alleged cold fusion device that produces heat from a low-energy nuclear reaction where nickel and hydrogen fuse into copper. Previous reports have tended to suggest the technology is a hoax, and the inventor Andrea Rossi's reluctance to share details of the device haven't helped the situation. ExtremeTech now reports that "six (reputable) researchers from Italy and Sweden" have "observed a small E-Cat over 32 days, where it produced net energy of 1.5 megawatt-hours, "far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume."... "The researchers, analyzing the fuel before and after the 32-day burn, note that there is an isotope shift from a "natural" mix of Nickel-58/Nickel-60 to almost entirely Nickel-62 — a reaction that, the researchers say, cannot occur without nuclear reactions (i.e. fusion)." The paper (PDF) linked in the article concludes that the E-cat is "a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding. Moreover, the E-Cat results are too conspicuous not to be followed up in detail. In addition, if proven sustainable in further tests the E-Cat invention has a large potential to become an important energy source." The observers understandably hedge a bit, though: The researchers are very careful about not actually saying that cold fusion/LENR is the source of the E-Cat’s energy, instead merely saying that an “unknown reaction” is at work. In serious scientific circles, LENR is still a bit of a joke/taboo topic. The paper is actually somewhat comical in this regard: The researchers really try to work out how the E-Cat produces so much darn energy — and they conclude that fusion is the only answer — but then they reel it all back in by adding: “The reaction speculation above should only be considered as an example of reasoning and not a serious conjecture.”
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Independent Researchers Test Rossi's Alleged Cold Fusion Device For 32 Days

Comments Filter:
  • Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ls671 ( 1122017 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @07:42PM (#48126401) Homepage

    Of course, everything is a hoax and scientifically impossible until the day it is proven to actually work.

    • Re:Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Teresita ( 982888 ) <[ten tod orezten] [ta] [1eganidab]> on Sunday October 12, 2014 @07:48PM (#48126425) Homepage
      Everyone that says they have a box that makes energy from nothing, I say, phase match your box to the line current from the local utility, roll your meter backwards, and cash the ensuing checks. Then talk to me.
      • Re:Hoax (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @07:55PM (#48126457)

        Everyone that says they have a box that makes energy from nothing, I say, phase match your box to the line current from the local utility, roll your meter backwards, and cash the ensuing checks. Then talk to me.

        But that's the thing. That sort of stunt would be chump change compared to inventing cold fusion. If the inventor really has figured something out, and I'll grant you that's unlikely, it would behoove him to keep a tight lid on it until he has pretty much the entire eastern seaboards worth of lawyers under his belt. History is littered with scientists and inventors that have ended up living in a gutter after discovering some of the most life altering technologies. If he really does have something, he'll be the target of every shifty technology company on the planet, who will steal it, and will patent it on their own.

        • Re:Hoax (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Teresita ( 982888 ) <[ten tod orezten] [ta] [1eganidab]> on Sunday October 12, 2014 @08:05PM (#48126507) Homepage
          That's the difference between an inventor and a scientist, between an Edison and a Maxwell. Somehow Einstein didn't end up in a gutter even after someone else made the first commercial reactor.
        • Re:Hoax (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @08:33PM (#48126637)

          But that's the thing. That sort of stunt would be chump change compared to inventing cold fusion. If the inventor really has figured something out, and I'll grant you that's unlikely, it would behoove him to keep a tight lid on it until he has pretty much the entire eastern seaboards worth of lawyers under his belt.

          That's the classic paradox, and it has plagued REAL inventions and inventors since the dawn of time.

          The Wright brothers were so afraid that the secrets of their invention would get out before they could profit from it, that they only gave staged, pre-arranged demonstrations to limited audiences. So much so that Scientific American claimed they were fraudsters, and credited manned flight to somebody else, for something like 8 years after the Wright brothers' first announcement.

          It wasn't until a later demonstration (in France, IIRC) which was widely witnessed and written about that SciAm retracted their recognition of the other guy and admitted that they were wrong about the Wrights (no pun intended).

          • Re:Hoax (Score:5, Informative)

            by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @09:53PM (#48126987)

            Relying on trade secrets is very dangerous. If someone else can independently figure out how it works, and build their own device, then he is left standing naked with no patent protection. He will have nothing. Trade secrets only work for things that are so difficult and complicated that there is little chance of someone else duplicating the invention.

      • Re:Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)

        by timholman ( 71886 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @08:27PM (#48126597)

        Everyone that says they have a box that makes energy from nothing, I say, phase match your box to the line current from the local utility, roll your meter backwards, and cash the ensuing checks. Then talk to me.

        This, a thousand times over. Having a "free energy" machine, if it existed, would be like owning a machine that printed money.

        Rossi claims he has constructed 1 MW reactors. Assuming this was true, and assuming Rossi could sell that power for just $0.10 USD per kW-hr, then he has a machine that effectively generates income at the rate of $100 / hour. Use half of that income for operating costs and personal expenses, and Rossi makes a net profit of $36,000 a month if the machine runs 24/7.

        In a year Rossi has $432,000. Long before then, he would be able to build a second generator, doubling his income. Assuming one generator could "double" itself every six months, in five years he has a profit of $18.4M USD each month. In less than a decade, he is the wealthiest man on the planet.

        So why isn't Rossi doing that, instead of trying to get investors to write checks? Because he can't, of course. Like all frauds and pseudoscientists, he is utterly incapable of actually doing anything useful with his so-called "invention".

        • Re:Hoax (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Beck_Neard ( 3612467 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @08:46PM (#48126697)

          > This, a thousand times over. Having a "free energy" machine, if it existed, would be like owning a machine that printed money.

          Given a choice between making $400k a year (minus operating and maintenance expenses, which we have no idea of) and potentially making billions off an invention, which would you choose?

          I'm not saying that this crazy e-cat device works. Based on what we know from physics, it's far more likely that it's a hoax (until they can produce evidence otherwise). I'm just saying that there is no reason to think he's a hoax just based on his business strategy. James Watt sold steam engines, not power.

          • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @09:34PM (#48126919)

            Given a choice between making $400k a year (minus operating and maintenance expenses, which we have no idea of) and potentially making billions off an invention, which would you choose?

            There is no invention and thus there is no choice. This is no different however than the scam artists who sell courses on how to get rich selling houses or investing in the stock market rather than actually doing it themselves. They know there is no money in actually doing what they are selling but there is money in convincing gullible people to give them money.

            I'm just saying that there is no reason to think he's a hoax just based on his business strategy.

            Yes there is. I've worked in and with private equity. I've done fund raising for real companies. I know how real companies do this and you can be sure that this is NOT how honest people sell an invention. This is how a scam artist works. If this were real he would be able to march into any private equity firm on the planet and they would absolutely throw money at him after some due diligence.

            • I've pitched investors on a variety of ideas. Investors would absolutely NOT throw money at someone claiming to have a cold fusion device. They would laugh in his face and show him the door (and rightfully so). Bringing in independent experts (under an NDA) is quite a logical first step before asking for money.

              Granted, the way he's doing this is highly suspect. The 'independent experts' are not allowed to actually look at the device's internals; aren't allowed to set up all their own measuring equipment, an

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          *Puts on tinfoil hat*

          This may sound paranoid but if anyone actually did make such a device that works, his best bet would be to sound like a crackpot at first till he generates enough publicity that when it comes to light, there is enough to see it that it can't be hidden.

          Think of it this way, he would upset a LOT of powerful players both inside and outside of the government (even the government doesn't want citizens to make power cheaply for themselves as it is one avenue of lost control in a big area). If

      • Re:Hoax (Score:5, Funny)

        by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @09:09PM (#48126817)

        You see, Rossi would love to do that, but he needs a bit of seed money first! Surely you can understand that. (Hehehehe, yes indeed. Classical method.)

    • Re:Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @07:50PM (#48126435)

      Of course, everything is a hoax and scientifically impossible until the day it is proven to actually work.

      But to "prove" it works, you don't just have researchers look at it. They are trained to find experimental flaws, not deliberate deception. You should have professional magicians look at it. These are people who know how to find the "trick".

      • Re:Hoax (Score:5, Informative)

        by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @08:05PM (#48126501) Homepage

        You should have professional magicians look at it. These are people who know how to find the "trick".

        You nailed it. I was just reading about James Randi's debunking of the alleged psychic Uri Gellar, who had managed to fool a bunch of scientists back in the 1970s. Randi claimed that scientists are some of the easiest people to fool because, as you said, they operate under a lot of preconceived notions and once you figure out how to work around those it's a piece of cake. As Randi put it, to catch a magician (who are essentially people who fool people for a living) you send a magician.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          You should have professional magicians look at it. These are people who know how to find the "trick".

          You nailed it.

          Not really. Rossi's case is 100% different from professional sleight-of-hand.

          The devices are fairly small, so it's easy to isolate them from any conceivable unknown energy input. Electricity input can easily be monitored. Output can easily be monitored. If you have done a careful job of isolation, and the output over time is more than the same amount of mass could produce chemically (i.e., even a super-powered chemical battery), then you have a nuclear reaction. It's that simple.

          It isn't as though Ros

          • Why is it so fucking hard to get a team of reputable people, using a well designed experiment, test this thing? MIT? Cal Tech? Who the fuck are these "six (reputable) researchers from Italy and Sweden"?

            All we have is secrecy and vagueness from one side and snark and arrogance from the other.

          • by Cyberax ( 705495 )
            Monitoring output is surprisingly complicated. They've used heat cameras to watch the temperature of the 'reactor' and from that they calculated the supposed heat output.

            Except that it's not so straightforward to do. Emissivity of materials can affect measurements by quite a bit - just look at a thorium lantern mantles or newer rare-earth mantles, they are very bright at fairly low temperatures. I don't see that anybody checked the "reactor" coating materials for rare earth dopants.

            Then there's a questi
            • Re:Hoax (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Solozerk ( 1003785 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @10:45PM (#48127207)

              I don't see that anybody checked the "reactor" coating materials for rare earth dopants.

              Read the report (specifically page 8 and annex 2) - they actually analyzed the device's coating material. It was made of Al2O3 (and this was taken into account in the calorimetry), with no obvious other compounds.

              While there are possible calorimetry issues here, it's hard to see an obvious one that would explain such a large measurement error; alumina IR transparency has been considered, as well as IR calibration issues (especially given the imperfect dummy test); both do not appear to be valid critics (see my comment here [slashdot.org] for details).

              Given the extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is obviously required here; and this report definitely isn't that. Its experimental protocol and the results obtained are however more than enough to warrant further investigation; which may be hard given that this isn't like a "classical" experiment, that can be easily replicated - you basically need Rossi/Industrial Heat (the company that acquired Rossi's device and tech) to provide you with his black box and stay the hell away from the test (this is the first time he actually did that; and even here he couldn't help himself being present for the initial "fuel" insertion and the ash extraction at the end of the experiment - which render the isotopic changes inevitably suspicious).

              • by Cyberax ( 705495 )
                We can't really trust the report, given that there are so many variables in play here. Like an unknown heat camera, questionable setup (why no watt-meter to measure the accurate power use??) and interference from the inventor. If I was planning to hoax everybody then I'd bribe one of the investigators to look the other way while I 'calibrate' a biased camera.

                So no, I don't think that this merits further investigation unless Rossi provides the clear instructions to prepare the 'fuel' to a third party.
          • Re:Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Mr_Wisenheimer ( 3534031 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @10:40PM (#48127177)

            No, his case is not 100% different. There are ways to fool everyone, including physicists and other professional scientists. Heck, the physicists at CERN fooled themselves for quite a while when their experiments demonstrated that they had succeeded in sending information at greater than the speed of light.

            If the inventor actually made a real patent with a full technical explanation, physicists would be in their prime and could actually pick apart the flaws in the design and figure out that it does not work and that the results cannot be reproduced.

            However, experimental physicists operate under the presumption that everyone they work with is honest and doing science. That's how they are trained. In fact scientists might be the most open and honest professions. That's also why physicists and other scientists are easy to fool IF you exploit the fact that their skepticism is going to be largely directed toward your science and engineering, not your honesty.

            You set up the device, break into the lab at night, charge it up, and there's a good chance they'll never notice. A magician or a cop might be more likely to figure it out because they've been trained to think skeptically about the honesty of others and have experience dealing with fraud and criminality.

      • Converting natural nickel to nickel 62 is a bit outside the magician's domain. If the scientists only examine the fuel at the begining and end maybe there is opportunity for some slight of hand (although not any I think a magician would be more likely to catch given there were 32 days to make the switch). If they are making consistent measurements, however, it could be very tricky to fake data which shows consistent rates of consumption for nickel-58 and nickel-60 given the starting abundance.

        • by radtea ( 464814 )

          If they are making consistent measurements, however, it could be very tricky to fake data which shows consistent rates of consumption for nickel-58 and nickel-60 given the starting abundance.

          They were not making continuous measurements. They were not allowed to look inside the device. Rossi was present during the "fueling" of the device.

          So: ideal conditions for fraud. I wonder why that is?

          If it was me doing it, I'd pre-load the device with isotopically enriched nickle when I constructed it. This would be mixed with and come out with the added "fuel". There are various ways of ensuring the mass balance is right (making sure some of the added "fuel" stays in the device) so the device would weigh

    • Re:Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)

      by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Sunday October 12, 2014 @08:14PM (#48126543) Homepage Journal

      Of course, everything is a hoax and scientifically impossible until the day it is proven to actually work.

      Nonsense.

      Most real inventions go the other direction... first the theory, then the gradual working-out of the engineering processes required to make it work, a a little, then more hard work to refine it into something really useful and usable.

      Most claimed inventions without theoretical justification also go a different way... they're thought a hoax and then are proven to be a hoax. The reason they're thought to be a hoax is exactly because nearly all of them are.

      It is looking more possible that the E-Cat may not be a hoax. Further study may gradually exclude all other explanations, and eventually we may start to see conjectured mechanisms, one of which may emerge as the best explanation. Perhaps along the way we'll learn some new physics.

      Or, we may find that the E-Cat is a hoax. That will be the less surprising (but sadder) outcome. Time, and further study, will tell. But if it does turn out to be real, your snark will still be completely wrong. Most everything that is real is known to be real before it works, and most everything that is a hoax actually is a hoax.

    • Of course, everything is a hoax and scientifically impossible until the day it is proven to actually work.

      Which of course is exactly what a lot of people told me here on Slashdot when I wrote that we really don't have any evidence it's a hoax, so let's just wait and see.

      Frankly I had no idea whether it worked or not. But I was willing to wait for real evidence before screaming "Hoax!" to the heavens, the way a lot of people here did.

      Of course, it did help that I had researched it a bit and knew that the U.S. Navy had been investigating similar processes for many years.

    • Re:Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @09:32PM (#48126905)

      Here is also a nice analysis by some real scientists: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pap... [arxiv.org]

    • Of course, everything is a hoax and scientifically impossible until the day it is proven to actually work.

      Is it just me, or is the idea that "everything is a hoax and scientifically impossible until the day it is proven to actually work" the very idea of science?

    • Levels of skepticism should be commensurate with the prior probability of something being true. In this case, people should be extremely skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, to paraphrase Carl Sagan.

      Of course, a proper scientific approach is not to dismiss something out of hand but nobody should be getting excited about such a claim until the claimant actually clearly demonstrates something to get excited over.

  • by Gareth Iwan Fairclough ( 2831535 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @07:42PM (#48126407)
    I'll wait for the next paper...
  • Not so much, maybe. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by luna69 ( 529007 ) * on Sunday October 12, 2014 @07:49PM (#48126427)

    Please see: http://www.science20.com/a_qua... [science20.com]

    Not quite as clean a confirmation as one would like: " It would be like if I asked you to believe that by putting a dollar bill in a special laundry machine and spinning it for half an hour with some special detergent the dollar turns into a $1000 note. You are allowed to watch the machine as it does its work, but it is me who opens it and extracts the bill when it has finished its magic conversion. I doubt you would buy it."

    If it sounds too good to be true...

    • by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @08:02PM (#48126485) Homepage

      Jeebus:

      - They measure 'power output' with a thermal camera in free air - not even the faintest attempt at making a calorimeter [wikipedia.org].
      - Rossi was present at a critical junction in the test 'loading the reactor' (whooo).

      The former sounds very, very fishy. You can't measure quantitative thermal output of anything with a thermal camera suspended in a room. A much better method would be to use some sort of calorimeter - something that was enclosed and could measure all of the heat put out by the system.

      • by radtea ( 464814 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @08:16PM (#48126557)

        You can't measure quantitative thermal output of anything with a thermal camera suspended in a room

        The whole thing is terrible. If you designed a system to produce incorrect energy balance results it would be hard to improve on this set-up.

        Resting the device under test on metal rails?

        Your input power is some weird three-phase thing with additional pulses? Why not DC, since the primary purpose of the input appears to be heating the thing up?

        Your "unfueled" test runs at half the input power of your fueled test, and your "calorimetry" depends on some theoretical estimation of temperature-dependent convection losses?

        Then there's the temperature-dependent emissivity.

        And there's the running for 32 days when you claim to be producing kilo-watts of "excess power"! If that was the case, the world's simplest bomb calorimeter would demonstrate the effect in seconds. So why didn't they build one?

        The list goes on.

        If a student at a science fair did a project like this as an attempt to create an "open" calorimeter set-up for some legitimate experimental reason I'd give them great credit. If they claimed they used the system and it demonstrated that energy was not conserved... not so much.

  • by queazocotal ( 915608 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @07:55PM (#48126453)

    The most glaring of which is there was no proper measurement of heat output - just computed from IR output.

  • by trims ( 10010 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @07:55PM (#48126455) Homepage

    is indistinguishable from a Rigged Demo. Or in this case, Rossi is counting on the inverse.

    We've long been down this road. Rossi refuses to let anyone see how the thing works. He refuses to allow input monitoring (i.e. the Ecat is always plugged into an external power source, and he refuses to allow an ampmeter to be run on it).

    He's also never shown the interior of the Ecat, so there's no verification of the fuel being any different between start and finish of the run. In fact, the concentration of Copper isotopes after the run is suspiciously identical to naturally occurring copper.

    He's also never explained why there are no gamma radiation dangers, despite the physics which say that if the reaction he claims is going on, anyone within 10 meters for more than a few minutes should die of radiation poisoning.

    Really, folks, this nothing more than a charlatan peddling his wares to folks. Any "scientist" who values his reputation shouldn't come with 100 miles of this guy. And shame on Slashdot for even publishing this claim. What, we're next going to entertain claims of people who say they can transform Lead to Gold with only this special black-box machine?

    Oh, and ExtremeTech is about as reliable for this kind of reporting as The Daily Mail.

    -Erik

    • by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @08:15PM (#48126549)

      They did run an amp meter on it. Also, they know the power supply he was using and it's standard. They were able to measure all inputs and outputs. It put out more than it took in, by a lot. More than could be accounted for given its mass.

      I'm not saying this is real... but when they really do figure out how he tricked them it's going to be really clever I bet.

      • by trims ( 10010 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @08:35PM (#48126645) Homepage

        No, they didn't. (Measure all the inputs).

        They looked at the instruments set up by Rossi. One of the biggest suspicions is that the Ampmeter is measuring only the current between hot and neutral leads on the input cable, and that the "earth" line is actually being used to supply power.

        Once again: they merely observed a device set up by Rossi. They had to take his word that all the instruments were set up correctly, and that they did what he said they did. Even the new round of "testing" isn't actual testing. So there's no verification that it did anything that Rossi said it does.

        It's like trusting David Copperfield that his escape box is merely an "ordinary box".

        -Erik

        • by Solozerk ( 1003785 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @09:45PM (#48126959)

          They looked at the instruments set up by Rossi

          Nope, that was true in the first test, not this one. None of the instruments came or were set up by Rossi. This test didn't occur in his lab, but in a neutral lab with controlled access. He was however present for the loading of the initial "fuel" and the extraction of the ash at the end of the test (which was stupid, and suspicious - especially given the witnessed isotopic changes in the ash).

          Even assuming he did some swap on the ash itself, though, it does not explain the witnessed extra heat output (which even with extremely conservative estimates in the paper sets a CoP at ~3.6).
          Now, their calorimetry is far from perfect - there were initial concerns about alumina (the device's main material) transparency to IR, for example; those have been put to rest given the fact that the IR camera used works above 7um wavelengths and at those ranges, transparency isn't an issue. Another concern (stressed by other people above) is the whole way the IR camera itself was calibrated and set-up - however, the IR cam was a new, never before used one, and they simply tested its calibration. Even if the measures are off due to the bad calorimetry, there is no obvious way it could translate into an error of that magnitude without some other obvious signs of it (like crazy differences between the hotter "segments" of the device and others, colder ones). And once again, they made all of their calculation using very conservative estimates and taking into account all margins of error.

          As for the researchers themselves, they are far from disreputable (except maybe for Levi in this specific context); they are engaging their reputation by publishing this and one of them, Hanno Essen [wikipedia.org], is also the head of the Swedish Skeptics Society and has at least some experience in dealing with crackpots and suspicious "revolutionary" inventions.

          This does warrant further research; beyond ad hominem attacks on Rossi, I haven't seen any strong critic of the experimental protocol that hasn't been quickly debunked (except for the transmutation thing; that could be explained by Rossi doing some sort of swap. It should be noted that he was watched at all time by several people though).

      • by radtea ( 464814 )

        I'm not saying this is real... but when they really do figure out how he tricked them it's going to be really clever I bet.

        The data on isotopic abundances were a result of tampering with the "fuel" at some point in the process, which is pretty simple to do. The fact that the "inventor" was present during "fueling" is a huge red flag.

        For the rest: the work is of extremely low quality. The excess heat production is huge, and any simple closed calorimeter would have shown it in a matter of minutes. They instead built this bizarre "open calorimeter" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) and didn't even calibrate it at the operating t

      • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @08:51PM (#48126737)

        Before, he used an AC-only amp-meter and added DC heating current. As to "standard power supply", it is really easy to rip out all that is in there and replace it, I have done it. He might even have repeated the earlier trick with a manipulated wall-socket, that gives AC _and_ DC. As everybody expects it giving only AC, the DC would be imperceptible unless specifically looked for. And with a little controller over Bluetooth, ZigBee or the like, he could even switch the DC part on and off to hide it better. Or he could put 380V on that socket on demand. Also not hard to do.

    • by icebike ( 68054 )

      He refuses to allow input monitoring (i.e. the Ecat is always plugged into an external power source, and he refuses to allow an ampmeter to be run on it).

      Did you read even a few pages of the PDF?
      Cuz I feel like you didn't.

      The PDF documents exactly the devices used to monitor input power [industrial-needs.com]

      PCE-830 power anlayser
      3 phases, measures power and analyses harmonics, with memory, interface and sofware

      The PCE-830 power and harmonics analyser is used for measuring one to three phases of electrical quantities for alternating current (AC). This power and harmonics analyser also measures such parameters as voltage, current, frequency, harmonics and power as well as indicting, according to standard EN50160, harmonic values, interharmonics and asymmetrics. Interferences, such as interruptions, leaks, overloads or transience (from 16s), are detected with their corresponding values. The backlit LCD, with high resolution, can show up to 35 parameters simultaneously. It can have up to 3 clips attached at the same time. In the data logger mode, it can save up to 17,470 readings (3 phases / 4 conductors) and in a simpler set-up (1 fase / 2 conductores) it can save up to 52,400 readings, split into 85 groups. All this makes the PCE-830 power analyser the ideal instrument for taking measurements over long periods of time. Measurement values obtained can be sent to a computer and be processed with the analysis siftware which comes included. The device comes with everything needed to measure and analyse from the moment the device arrives. Although the power analyser comes calibrated from the manufacturer, an optional laboratory calibration and certificate that meets ISO standards can be ordered seperately with the device or when a recalibration is required.

      .

  • by Chocolate Teapot ( 639869 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @08:04PM (#48126499) Journal
    Two reasons really. First because the thought of a group of sceptical experts scratching their heads in disbelief is too delicious to resist, but mainly because it would mean that the undesirable element who spend so much time stealing copper wire to sell on the black market would be stymied by the drop in the value of copper. I guess they would resort to stealing nickel.
  • by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @08:19PM (#48126563)
    Reproducible results means someone else can build the device and get the same results. Unless that happens it's a hoax.
  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Sunday October 12, 2014 @09:30PM (#48126895)

    It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding.

    Men don't really understand woman and women don't really understand men, but we still want to date each other and the results are not always unsatisfying. For fuck's sake, people didn't know how aspirin worked for (how long?) but still took it for pain and headaches simply because it worked (well).

    Build one of these things for small-scale production. If it generates net energy, back-date a patent for this guy. I'd rather see some tax dollars going toward trying something that may fail, than paying Congress' to jerk-off for another year playing piss-ant politics.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (8) I'm on the committee and I *still* don't know what the hell #pragma is for.

Working...