The E-Cat has been replicated?(animpossibleinvention.com)
animpossibleinvention.com
The E-Cat has been replicated?
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/02/24/breaking-the-e-cat-has-been-replicated-hers-the-recipe/
10 comments
What makes me most happy here is that they are releasing what they claim is a rather complete "recipe"; this should hopefully lead to independent replication, hopefully by sceptics and hopefully many more replications.
"It's impossible to replicate" especially if you don't want to.
There always was and still is a very strange negative fervor around this topic on hacker news and if everything goes well I think we should probably dig up all those excessively negative and accusative posts and ask for a follow up. I still remember those "This is a scam ! Rossi is a fraud !" even if no one was asked to invest and no one complained of being defrauded and all the public demonstrations were "obviously flawed" and everyone knew how to measure excess heat better than Rossi.
> "It's impossible to replicate" especially if you don't want to.
Let's start the conspiracy theories
> There always was and still is a very strange negative fervor around this topic on hacker news
Strange? When there is no single proof of it, even by the ones stating that it works and there is no single plausible theory then there is nothing strange in the negative comments about that
Let's start the conspiracy theories
> There always was and still is a very strange negative fervor around this topic on hacker news
Strange? When there is no single proof of it, even by the ones stating that it works and there is no single plausible theory then there is nothing strange in the negative comments about that
yep, denial mode. there is no proof. no one is credible. it's a scam. there is no theory. things didn't happen before we had theory for them. what a bunch of scientific bigots.
> if everything goes well I think we should probably dig up all those excessively negative and accusative posts and ask for a follow up.
Go right ahead.
Go right ahead.
Off-topic but related:
Lately I've been following the newest installment of the Steorn saga, and this E-Cat technology popped up in my travels. Some background: this company Steorn has been claiming to have made over-unity/free energy/whatever devices for some years now, but for some reason they never actually deliver. Well, this time, they took a bunch of pre-orders for, basically, a cell phone charger with unlimited life, and they even sent a few out.
The only confirmed delivered unit has been to the owner of an E-Cat news blog. It has been extremely amusing to watch the owner of the blog and the readers come up with justifications for why their unit doesn't work.
Funny stuff, if you think free energy idiocy is as funny as I do.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/24/ecw-ocube-testing-week-...
Lately I've been following the newest installment of the Steorn saga, and this E-Cat technology popped up in my travels. Some background: this company Steorn has been claiming to have made over-unity/free energy/whatever devices for some years now, but for some reason they never actually deliver. Well, this time, they took a bunch of pre-orders for, basically, a cell phone charger with unlimited life, and they even sent a few out.
The only confirmed delivered unit has been to the owner of an E-Cat news blog. It has been extremely amusing to watch the owner of the blog and the readers come up with justifications for why their unit doesn't work.
Funny stuff, if you think free energy idiocy is as funny as I do.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/24/ecw-ocube-testing-week-...
Why is this so difficult? Isolate the machine in a box where the only connection to the outside world is two wires. Draw power from those wires until you've pulled more energy than any known storage system could possibly provide. Boom, done.
Of course, my question is rhetorical. The answer is obvious: it doesn't work. If it worked, it would be easy to demonstrate.
Of course, my question is rhetorical. The answer is obvious: it doesn't work. If it worked, it would be easy to demonstrate.
> Isolate the machine in a box where the only connection to the outside world is two wires. Draw power from those wires until you've pulled more energy than any known storage system could possibly provide.
I believe a MacBook running Chrome, Atom, and Slack for a few hours will satisfy this requirement.
I believe a MacBook running Chrome, Atom, and Slack for a few hours will satisfy this requirement.
That actually doesn't work, as there's a long history of people hiding batteries in their fake overunity devices. You can also have devices that might have other forms of stored energy that might be slowly depleted, such as mechanical strain being relieved, chemical reactions taking place, etc. You can also have devices that work by taking advantage of solar power in a subtle way or other external effects.
This thing is supposedly a fusion device. Run it until you've drawn more energy than could possibly be provided by burning an equivalent mass of hydrogen, and then you know it must be a nuclear effect. If it can't provide that much energy, then it's a worthless fusion device.
I can accept that such a test may not be totally 100% definitive. But if the device is real then it could definitely pass. The fact that they're fucking around instead of just doing the obvious shows that they're full of it.
Edit: regarding potential external effects, these devices are supposed to put out a megawatt of power. There's no solar trickery that's going to let you fake that.
I can accept that such a test may not be totally 100% definitive. But if the device is real then it could definitely pass. The fact that they're fucking around instead of just doing the obvious shows that they're full of it.
Edit: regarding potential external effects, these devices are supposed to put out a megawatt of power. There's no solar trickery that's going to let you fake that.
Hey Mike, a few things. First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real. The science is in an early state, but looks to be very promising!
http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Wells_TM2014-21...
Here's a pithy excerpt:
"Many theories surfaced to explain the energy output from a lower energy input, but there is one theory that seems to explain it using existing physics models: the Widom-Larsen Theory. The Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Theory is believed to be the best explanation of the LENR process because it does not require new physics models. The phenomenon now called LENR requires relatively low temperatures or energy stimulus to initiate reactions. It is a form of nuclear energy which has conservatively been estimated to have over 4,000 times the energy density of chemical energy sources and potentially much more."
The non-conservative estimate is up to 1,000,000 times the energy density of chemical reactions. :-)
Imagine - virtually unlimited, guilt-free energy. It would change everything! Flying cars, colonization of the solar system...no limits!
http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Wells_TM2014-21...
Here's a pithy excerpt:
"Many theories surfaced to explain the energy output from a lower energy input, but there is one theory that seems to explain it using existing physics models: the Widom-Larsen Theory. The Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Theory is believed to be the best explanation of the LENR process because it does not require new physics models. The phenomenon now called LENR requires relatively low temperatures or energy stimulus to initiate reactions. It is a form of nuclear energy which has conservatively been estimated to have over 4,000 times the energy density of chemical energy sources and potentially much more."
The non-conservative estimate is up to 1,000,000 times the energy density of chemical reactions. :-)
Imagine - virtually unlimited, guilt-free energy. It would change everything! Flying cars, colonization of the solar system...no limits!
The pdf is discussing vehicles, specifically aircraft, that would utilize LENR assuming it works.
Here is an excerpt from the pdf: This report does not explore the feasibility of LENR. Instead, it assumes that a working system is available.
Your statement: there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real., is incorrect, they assume it works for the purposes of the discussion about aircraft.
You are either scamming or are being scammed. In the latter case (and I'm trying to help you here), please make an effort with some serious research and re-evalaute your opinions.
Here is an excerpt from the pdf: This report does not explore the feasibility of LENR. Instead, it assumes that a working system is available.
Your statement: there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real., is incorrect, they assume it works for the purposes of the discussion about aircraft.
You are either scamming or are being scammed. In the latter case (and I'm trying to help you here), please make an effort with some serious research and re-evalaute your opinions.
"The pdf is discussing vehicles, specifically aircraft, that would utilize LENR assuming it works.
Here is an excerpt from the pdf: This report does not explore the feasibility of LENR. Instead, it assumes that a working system is available."
Correct, however it is referring to a functioning, practical reactor, not the underlying phenomenon. The statement I made: "First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real" is entirely accurate.
More than that, there is substantial, rigorous scientific evidence that LENR is real.
===========================================================
From the SPAWAR materials:
Experimental Results Since 1989
– Excess Heat >> chemistry (F&P, SRI, CL, Bockris, Storms, Energetics, ENEA, Miley, Swartz)
– 4He, commensurate with excess heat (SRI, China Lake (CL), ENEA)
– Low intensity, soft X-rays (0.5-20 kev), (SRI, CL, SPAWAR, Karabut)
– Tritium Production; a species of nuclear ash (BARC, Bockris, Storms, Claytor, SPAWAR, SRI)
– CR-39 tracks suggest MeV neutron emission. (SPAWAR, BARC, Takahashi, Jones, Mizuno)
– Many nuclear transmutations, ΔZ = +2, +4, +6 (MHI, Mizuno, Bockris, Dash, SPAWAR)
– Sensitivity to radio freq & near IR stimulation (Bockris, Letts/Hagelstein, NRL).
– Emission of strong RF signals near 85 GHz (ENEA) and 1-5 MHz (NRL).
From the NASA materials (slide 5):
Current LENR Technology (LENR reactor 12/12 and 3/13 respectively):
- Energy Produced (Wh): 62,000 / 160,000
- Power Density (W/Kg): 530,000 / 7,000
- Thermal Energy Density (Wh/kg): 61,000,000 / 680,000
- Reaction mass: 1g / 1g
- Test duration (h): 96 / 116
- Max. Temp. (deg C): 496 / 308
===========================================================
Those results could only be from nuclear phenomena - chemistry is entirely unable to explain the power output, transmutations, and radiation.
Links:
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IE... https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p1zygzm2h3i/?launcher=false&fcs...
Get a clue - I'm trying to help you here.
Correct, however it is referring to a functioning, practical reactor, not the underlying phenomenon. The statement I made: "First off, there are folks at NASA and SPAWAR that think LENR (not fusion per se) is real" is entirely accurate.
More than that, there is substantial, rigorous scientific evidence that LENR is real.
===========================================================
From the SPAWAR materials:
Experimental Results Since 1989
– Excess Heat >> chemistry (F&P, SRI, CL, Bockris, Storms, Energetics, ENEA, Miley, Swartz)
– 4He, commensurate with excess heat (SRI, China Lake (CL), ENEA)
– Low intensity, soft X-rays (0.5-20 kev), (SRI, CL, SPAWAR, Karabut)
– Tritium Production; a species of nuclear ash (BARC, Bockris, Storms, Claytor, SPAWAR, SRI)
– CR-39 tracks suggest MeV neutron emission. (SPAWAR, BARC, Takahashi, Jones, Mizuno)
– Many nuclear transmutations, ΔZ = +2, +4, +6 (MHI, Mizuno, Bockris, Dash, SPAWAR)
– Sensitivity to radio freq & near IR stimulation (Bockris, Letts/Hagelstein, NRL).
– Emission of strong RF signals near 85 GHz (ENEA) and 1-5 MHz (NRL).
From the NASA materials (slide 5):
Current LENR Technology (LENR reactor 12/12 and 3/13 respectively):
- Energy Produced (Wh): 62,000 / 160,000
- Power Density (W/Kg): 530,000 / 7,000
- Thermal Energy Density (Wh/kg): 61,000,000 / 680,000
- Reaction mass: 1g / 1g
- Test duration (h): 96 / 116
- Max. Temp. (deg C): 496 / 308
===========================================================
Those results could only be from nuclear phenomena - chemistry is entirely unable to explain the power output, transmutations, and radiation.
Links:
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IE... https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p1zygzm2h3i/?launcher=false&fcs...
Get a clue - I'm trying to help you here.
If you want to help, maybe don't tell people to "get a clue," because that just turns them against you, and also read what your sources are actually saying.
It doesn't matter whether the paper you linked is discussing the phenomenon in general or a specific device. The fact remains that it is clearly a hypothetical exercise in which it assumes that the device works, and sees how it could be used if that were the case. That doesn't mean they think the device actually works, only that there's enough potential to have a few people think about it for a little while.
Same deal with the NASA presentation you posted in this comment. From the Objective slide: "Explore the application of LENR technology not the technical aspects and feasibility." "Assumed device existed with these parameters." It's a hypothetical exercise. Nothing here supports your assertion that NASA thinks this is real.
In any case, my main point remains: why hasn't anyone done the obvious test to prove that this device is real? We're not talking about some delicate scientific experiment producing subtle mysterious phenomena. We're talking about a concrete physical device which the creators claim is a megawatt nuclear reactor. Isolate it and make it produce power and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it does what it says. Why is that so hard?
It doesn't matter whether the paper you linked is discussing the phenomenon in general or a specific device. The fact remains that it is clearly a hypothetical exercise in which it assumes that the device works, and sees how it could be used if that were the case. That doesn't mean they think the device actually works, only that there's enough potential to have a few people think about it for a little while.
Same deal with the NASA presentation you posted in this comment. From the Objective slide: "Explore the application of LENR technology not the technical aspects and feasibility." "Assumed device existed with these parameters." It's a hypothetical exercise. Nothing here supports your assertion that NASA thinks this is real.
In any case, my main point remains: why hasn't anyone done the obvious test to prove that this device is real? We're not talking about some delicate scientific experiment producing subtle mysterious phenomena. We're talking about a concrete physical device which the creators claim is a megawatt nuclear reactor. Isolate it and make it produce power and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it does what it says. Why is that so hard?
"In any case, my main point remains: why hasn't anyone done the obvious test to prove that this device is real? We're not talking about some delicate scientific experiment producing subtle mysterious phenomena. We're talking about a concrete physical device which the creators claim is a megawatt nuclear reactor. Isolate it and make it produce power and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it does what it says. Why is that so hard?"
BTW, to this point:
In the information I linked was data from the 12/12 LENR NASA run which produced 62 KWh of excess energy over the course of a 96 hour run - using one gram of material.
That is entirely consistent with LENR, and utterly inconsistent with any chemical explanation. It was observed under rigorous experimental conditions by NASA research scientists.
BTW, to this point:
In the information I linked was data from the 12/12 LENR NASA run which produced 62 KWh of excess energy over the course of a 96 hour run - using one gram of material.
That is entirely consistent with LENR, and utterly inconsistent with any chemical explanation. It was observed under rigorous experimental conditions by NASA research scientists.
Can you tell me where to find the original information about this 12/12 LENR NASA run? I must not know what search terms to use.
Edit: to be clear, I'm wondering what the experimental setup was. What sort of device were they testing, how were inputs and outputs measured, etc. Not just the results, but the experiment from which they got those results.
Edit: to be clear, I'm wondering what the experimental setup was. What sort of device were they testing, how were inputs and outputs measured, etc. Not just the results, but the experiment from which they got those results.
Well it appears I get to eat a little crow. It was not NASA work, but it was a peer-reviewed paper cited in the NASA materials:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
The NASA material is worth reviewing in its own right though - and the Navy has conducted quite a few LENR experiments of its own.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
The NASA material is worth reviewing in its own right though - and the Navy has conducted quite a few LENR experiments of its own.
I find this paper to be extremely confusing.
They state that they couldn't weigh the device because it was already running when the test began. Why would they start it before doing basic tasks like seeing how much it weighs?
Oh, because the test was conducted at the company that makes the devices, and I guess the company set up the device and turned it on before the scientists got there.
Then one naturally wonders, who set up the equipment to monitor the electrical power consumed by this device? As far as I see, the paper does not say.
One further wonders, why does it need a continuous input of electrical power at all, if that power is only connected to resistor coils in the device as claimed? The paper says that electric heat is needed to start the reaction, but why doesn't the reaction sustain itself on its own heat after starting? Why can't they just unplug the thing at that point?
Finally, the experiment was conducted with the device sitting out in the open, radiating and convecting into the air. Output power was estimated by pointing an IR camera at it (measuring only half of it!) and calculating power based on the observed temperature. All of this in an environment controlled by the company that makes the device.
I hope you can see how this experiment is 1) nothing like the definitive test I describe and 2) suspicious as all hell.
The test I describe is not difficult to set up and would not be difficult for a real, working device to pass. So again, why don't they do it? That they don't doesn't automatically mean it's a scam, but then what is the answer?
They state that they couldn't weigh the device because it was already running when the test began. Why would they start it before doing basic tasks like seeing how much it weighs?
Oh, because the test was conducted at the company that makes the devices, and I guess the company set up the device and turned it on before the scientists got there.
Then one naturally wonders, who set up the equipment to monitor the electrical power consumed by this device? As far as I see, the paper does not say.
One further wonders, why does it need a continuous input of electrical power at all, if that power is only connected to resistor coils in the device as claimed? The paper says that electric heat is needed to start the reaction, but why doesn't the reaction sustain itself on its own heat after starting? Why can't they just unplug the thing at that point?
Finally, the experiment was conducted with the device sitting out in the open, radiating and convecting into the air. Output power was estimated by pointing an IR camera at it (measuring only half of it!) and calculating power based on the observed temperature. All of this in an environment controlled by the company that makes the device.
I hope you can see how this experiment is 1) nothing like the definitive test I describe and 2) suspicious as all hell.
The test I describe is not difficult to set up and would not be difficult for a real, working device to pass. So again, why don't they do it? That they don't doesn't automatically mean it's a scam, but then what is the answer?
First off, the "get a clue" remark was a response to the assertion that I was scamming or being scammed (i.e. clueless) - as well as the generally condescending tone.
The main controversy around LENR has been whether or not there's a real phenomenon. Clearly there is. Given the experimental results so far, as well as Rossi's work, it seems pretty clear to me there'll be practical reactors in the future if there aren't already. The first principles need to be better understood for best results.
Time will tell, eh?
The main controversy around LENR has been whether or not there's a real phenomenon. Clearly there is. Given the experimental results so far, as well as Rossi's work, it seems pretty clear to me there'll be practical reactors in the future if there aren't already. The first principles need to be better understood for best results.
Time will tell, eh?
Yes, random internet guy has the answer.
> If it can't provide that much energy, then it's a worthless fusion device.
A fusion device that produces more energy than you put in but doesn't produce a shit ton of energy right now is a useful breakthough in fusion.
> If it can't provide that much energy, then it's a worthless fusion device.
A fusion device that produces more energy than you put in but doesn't produce a shit ton of energy right now is a useful breakthough in fusion.
It's not about speed, it's about quantity. A real nuclear power source will be able to produce far more energy than any chemical system of the same mass. If you want to see if supposed nuclear power source works, run it and see if it actually does so.
If you believe there's something wrong with what I'm saying, please explain, random internet guy.
If you believe there's something wrong with what I'm saying, please explain, random internet guy.
But it doesn't prove that it truly is a fusion device then.
> random internet guy
Are you sure you're more qualified to discuss this than the poster you're replying to? Why make a point of it if you aren't?
> random internet guy
Are you sure you're more qualified to discuss this than the poster you're replying to? Why make a point of it if you aren't?
> Yes, random internet guy has the answer
Ideas (should) stand on their own around here. Take this lame attempt at Argument from Authority somewhere else.
Ideas (should) stand on their own around here. Take this lame attempt at Argument from Authority somewhere else.
Please don't respond to an uncivil comment with another uncivil comment. That just makes the thread worse yet.
"More energy than can possibly be stored."
For it to be a real test you'd have to exceed the total energy output of any plausible chemical system. Calculate the total amount of energy of a stoichiometric mixture of, say, liquid oxygen and kerosene, and then draw power until you have exceeded that. At that point you can be pretty damn sure it's not a chemical battery.
For it to be a real test you'd have to exceed the total energy output of any plausible chemical system. Calculate the total amount of energy of a stoichiometric mixture of, say, liquid oxygen and kerosene, and then draw power until you have exceeded that. At that point you can be pretty damn sure it's not a chemical battery.
Live stream it. "Ladies and Gentlemen we know for certain now that it's not a gasoline engine, it's not powered by coal nor is it fueled by a wood burning oven, stay tuned!"
It seems like you are misunderstanding mikeash. He's saying it's ok for there to be a battery (or other store of energy) inside, because the test is only passed if the system produces more energy than could be stored inside the box.
They weren't actually performing calorimetry or energy extraction/measurement; the interesting effect was the repeatable, sustained burst of low-energy Gamma radiation at table-top temperatures and pressures.
Right. My point is that if the device really works then they wouldn't need to screw around with all that. Just see if it produces more power than a chemical system could hold. If it actually worked, it could do this easily and would more or less prove that it works. That they have not done this screams "scam."
The E-cat definitely triggers all my bullshit detectors. Has there ever been a case where somebody had this fantastic invention but never let anybody take a close look but the invention was actually legitimate?
The only one I can think of is the Wright brothers who didn't show their flyer for years until the patents were finished.
The only one I can think of is the Wright brothers who didn't show their flyer for years until the patents were finished.
even unrolling 3M tape generates X-rays.
https://youtu.be/LQBjRF9mX1Y?t=250
I as anybody want the cold fusion to work (and i believe that palladium experiment 20 years ago did work, and that there is something to their approach), yet "medical" X-rays from heated hydrogen gas/Li/Ni interface doesn't struck as something unexpected or pointing to any physics outside of chemistry and EM.
https://youtu.be/LQBjRF9mX1Y?t=250
I as anybody want the cold fusion to work (and i believe that palladium experiment 20 years ago did work, and that there is something to their approach), yet "medical" X-rays from heated hydrogen gas/Li/Ni interface doesn't struck as something unexpected or pointing to any physics outside of chemistry and EM.
So, what happens if you disconnect the electrical power input and connect the output back into the input. The device should continue to run for a measurably period until the 'cold-fusion' fuel is expended.
"The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260 oC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 oC and 1400 oC runs, respectively."
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reacto...
"The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260 oC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 oC and 1400 oC runs, respectively."
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reacto...
I'm not sure what they're trying to show with their gamma ray spectra. To me, they all look like a potassium-40 peak (at 1460 keV), with a bunch of Compton scattering at lower energies.
In fact, if this is replicated by independent engineers and they just published the actual method required.. it seems that Rossi will have lost claim to any money he could have made by actually making these devices or patenting them. I guess that nobody will need him, nor will they need to pay him any money to use the idea.
He has a (US) patent already.
https://www.google.com/patents/US9115913
https://www.google.com/patents/US9115913
If they have patents, why don't they publish a real scientific article on this with all the information needed to replicate?
This stuff is permanently in my 'put up or shut up' category, and putting up means true independent open replication by more than one party.
This stuff is permanently in my 'put up or shut up' category, and putting up means true independent open replication by more than one party.
A 'real scientific' article wouldn't do anything to convince people - it would be picked apart and doubted. Which is kind of an interesting thing in an of itself. I think for controversial stuff, you simply won't get scientists to budge no matter how transparent or rigorious the reporting. If the stuff turns out to be true, there will be a long delay before acceptance.
I no longer believe that open replications make much difference either (there have been open replications and I still don't know anything more).
They are focussed on industrial and consumer installations instead. I'll start really believing if people are using this in the real world and that's the strategy they have I think. So wait and see is what I do.
I no longer believe that open replications make much difference either (there have been open replications and I still don't know anything more).
They are focussed on industrial and consumer installations instead. I'll start really believing if people are using this in the real world and that's the strategy they have I think. So wait and see is what I do.
A 'real scientific' article wouldn't do anything to
convince people - it would be picked apart and doubted
And there being a real-world production with industrial and customer installations doesn't guarantee the absence of snake oil. How many millions of dollars were squandered on the ADE 651?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
There have been studies with over 5-sigma confidence intervals that are not taken seriously simply because it's controversial. It's just we're wired to the status quo and nobody likes to be tricked.
And you can't keep say, a factory or a house running on snake oil, so it will be evident pretty quickly.
And you can't keep say, a factory or a house running on snake oil, so it will be evident pretty quickly.
> There have been studies with over 5-sigma confidence intervals that are not taken seriously simply because it's controversial.
Can you link to some of them?
Can you link to some of them?
Check out http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692
"We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10^-10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09."
Non-fringe scientist Daryl Bem published a very controversial study involving 9 experiments. Replications were encouraged and were done across the world in the years following. With failures and successes, resulting in this meta study.
Amount of critics persuaded? Not that many probably.
The parallel here is lamenting the lack of an accepted theory or no theory at all and concluding that thereby the results are fraudulent as well as the process involved in deriving the results, by definition.
Bystanders often say, well if it's true why isn't there a peer-reviewed study etc, as if it matters. You can publish papers up the wazoo it won't matter.
If there's something special happening, there's going to be this period where mainstream science denies or disproves of it, regardless of studies and papers. Especially when gatekeepers have vested into a position of rejecting the idea.
As far as LENR is concerned, I can't say Rossi inspires confidence, but the fact that many institutions are researching this area tells me there might be something special going on. Many people aren't comfortable with the feeling that something might turn out to be false, so they assume it's a hoax a priori.
"We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10^-10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09."
Non-fringe scientist Daryl Bem published a very controversial study involving 9 experiments. Replications were encouraged and were done across the world in the years following. With failures and successes, resulting in this meta study.
Amount of critics persuaded? Not that many probably.
The parallel here is lamenting the lack of an accepted theory or no theory at all and concluding that thereby the results are fraudulent as well as the process involved in deriving the results, by definition.
Bystanders often say, well if it's true why isn't there a peer-reviewed study etc, as if it matters. You can publish papers up the wazoo it won't matter.
If there's something special happening, there's going to be this period where mainstream science denies or disproves of it, regardless of studies and papers. Especially when gatekeepers have vested into a position of rejecting the idea.
As far as LENR is concerned, I can't say Rossi inspires confidence, but the fact that many institutions are researching this area tells me there might be something special going on. Many people aren't comfortable with the feeling that something might turn out to be false, so they assume it's a hoax a priori.
Show me a house running on an eCat then.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm genuinely curious as to why HN so regularly has articles about various "wouldn't it be great if this worked but obviously it never will" scams/inventions/measurement errors on the front page.
Is it because there is a contingent of HN voters who are true believers in this stuff?
Is it "point at the silly people and laugh"?
Is it some kind of attempt to make a meta point about credulity or discuss scams or something?
Is it because there is a contingent of HN voters who are true believers in this stuff?
Is it "point at the silly people and laugh"?
Is it some kind of attempt to make a meta point about credulity or discuss scams or something?
I'm actually surprised at the "Hmph. Of course, it doesn't work" responses... I was quite intrigued by the Gamma signature from a device operating at bench-top temperatures/pressures, and with low energy inputs. I'm thinking that the mounting evidence for a set of previously undescribed low-energy nuclear pathways is quite interesting!
Maybe all of those are a factor. Personally, while I try to maintain skepticism about big claims like this, I don't like to dismiss an idea offhand just because most other people have previously dismissed it. Others are probably willing to extend the same courtesy even if the particular claim is unlikely to hold.
Just curious, would you put the EM drive[0] in the same category?
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster
Just curious, would you put the EM drive[0] in the same category?
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster
The EmDrive is actually less physically plausible than the E-Cat if you get into it, since reactionless propulsion is identical to perpetual motion and/or infinite energy. Someone had a nice explanation of this over on Reddit but I don't have a link handy. Basically if momentum is not conserved then you can build kinetic energy without bound on finite power or something like that. The only way the EmDrive could work is if either (a) we are really wrong about some fundamental stuff, or (b) it's not actually reactionless but is pushing against something "exotic" like dark matter or dark energy.
E-Cat or anything like it (LENR) would mean new nuclear physics -- some way of bypassing the Coulomb barrier at low energies via some novel probably quantum mechanism. But fundamentally it's not violating anything as foundational as a conservation law. We know the energy is there via E=mc^2 and all. We just don't currently know of any way to get at that energy at sub-plasma temperatures and pressures (and for the proposed fusion reaction in the E-Cat, by no known physical means). LENR would require new physics but would not break existing physics.
I do recall reading some interesting stuff about how some of the gas giant planets seem a bit warmer than they should be, and that if LENR were a thing it would provide a possible explanation for some anomalous heating observed in astronomical observations.
E-Cat or anything like it (LENR) would mean new nuclear physics -- some way of bypassing the Coulomb barrier at low energies via some novel probably quantum mechanism. But fundamentally it's not violating anything as foundational as a conservation law. We know the energy is there via E=mc^2 and all. We just don't currently know of any way to get at that energy at sub-plasma temperatures and pressures (and for the proposed fusion reaction in the E-Cat, by no known physical means). LENR would require new physics but would not break existing physics.
I do recall reading some interesting stuff about how some of the gas giant planets seem a bit warmer than they should be, and that if LENR were a thing it would provide a possible explanation for some anomalous heating observed in astronomical observations.
> Someone had a nice explanation of this over on Reddit but I don't have a link handy. Basically if momentum is not conserved then you can build kinetic energy without bound on finite power or something like that.
Are you referring to this reddit comment by myself?
https://reddit.com/r/spaceflight/comments/34ay1c/nasa_resear...
Are you referring to this reddit comment by myself?
https://reddit.com/r/spaceflight/comments/34ay1c/nasa_resear...
What you say is true but I don't see why people make assumption 1. Does anomalous thrust tell you it can accelerate linearly to power?
The thrust doesn't need to be a linear function of input power for this argument to work. As long as you can get some constant thrust for some constant power input, kinetic energy will eventually exceed the energy put into the system.
True. But how do we know thrust doesn't go down as velocity increases? I feel like we don't have that information yet.
Maybe, but velocity is relative. So that would mean that the drive is pushing against something which has its own rest frame, relative to which velocity can be measured.
It's not clear what that rest frame would be. Virtual particles in the quantum vacuum are often mentioned together with the emDrive, but those particles are thought to be frameless.
I'll admit that it's not entirely implausible to have a special rest frame like that. We already know that the cosmic microwave background has a rest frame, and this is something that you would start to feel in the form of frontal radiation pressure as you gain speed relative to the CMB.
It's not clear what that rest frame would be. Virtual particles in the quantum vacuum are often mentioned together with the emDrive, but those particles are thought to be frameless.
I'll admit that it's not entirely implausible to have a special rest frame like that. We already know that the cosmic microwave background has a rest frame, and this is something that you would start to feel in the form of frontal radiation pressure as you gain speed relative to the CMB.
Awesome, thanks for the info. While I wouldn't be that surprised if the EmDrive works by undiscovered spooky action at a distance, if it works by violating conservation of momentum that would be bonkers.
Undiscovered spooky action at a distance to what? Even assuming you can shuttle momentum around from particle A to particle C that is substantially distant, what exactly are particles C? Does the EM drive choose the distant particles to transfer momentum to on the basis of what would be the most convenient for the experimenter? What is the mechanism by which putting microwaves in a funny-shaped container creates a momentum-transfering bond from that container to unknown other masses? Does this totally unexplained effect have, you know, a range? If so, is that range remotely realistic? If so, we don't actually have a reaction-mass-less drive, do we?
For bonus points, answer all these questions in ways that do not create a privileged frame of reference and thus break special relativity.
For bonus points, answer all these questions in ways that do not create a privileged frame of reference and thus break special relativity.
I think I'll wait for more conclusive results before starting work on these questions ;)
At least the EmDrive is legitimately difficult to verify. It's claimed to produce tiny amounts of thrust. That requires extreme care to measure and makes it hard to see if it works as claimed.
The e-cat, on the other hand, is claimed to be a megawatt nuclear reactor. Verifying it should be easy: let it run and see if it produces power. Let it run long enough to rule out trickery like hidden batteries. If it does what the creator says it does, it should pass this test easily.
But for some reason they won't do this. They run all sorts of other weird tests but won't just demonstrate power production. To me, this makes it obvious that the "some reason" is because it doesn't work. If it worked there wouldn't be any question.
The e-cat, on the other hand, is claimed to be a megawatt nuclear reactor. Verifying it should be easy: let it run and see if it produces power. Let it run long enough to rule out trickery like hidden batteries. If it does what the creator says it does, it should pass this test easily.
But for some reason they won't do this. They run all sorts of other weird tests but won't just demonstrate power production. To me, this makes it obvious that the "some reason" is because it doesn't work. If it worked there wouldn't be any question.
The biggest problem I have with all of these claims is the rigor of the tests they conduct. They never seem to use standard equipment that is appropriate for the effect they are trying to measure. Always they have a device that needs 1kW that has a 50kW 3phase power meter hooked up to it, or other techniques that are odd and make you wonder what they are trying to hide (thermal camera measuring temp of 1 side, nothing for the other to ensure heating is uniform). If you can afford to point a thermal camera at it, you can afford the cheapest of thermocouples to help prove the other side isn't room temperature.
For the EM drive, I would be surprised if they didn't report some trust after dumping large amounts of power into a box due to the million different things that can produce a misleading result (metallurgical defect in cavity causes heating to not match model, etc). If they can convince someone to try it in orbit, it would be a different story. Thanks to cube sats, this wouldn't be that expensive, <$500k to give it a go (launch 2 1U cube sats, one with drive and one without, see if separation changes). The bonus for the EM Drive folks is that several Nasa sites offered to independently test it when they can produce enough thrust for them to measure accurately, so if they do see something, its worth it to give it a go in orbit. They have yet to deliver such a device though.
For the EM drive, I would be surprised if they didn't report some trust after dumping large amounts of power into a box due to the million different things that can produce a misleading result (metallurgical defect in cavity causes heating to not match model, etc). If they can convince someone to try it in orbit, it would be a different story. Thanks to cube sats, this wouldn't be that expensive, <$500k to give it a go (launch 2 1U cube sats, one with drive and one without, see if separation changes). The bonus for the EM Drive folks is that several Nasa sites offered to independently test it when they can produce enough thrust for them to measure accurately, so if they do see something, its worth it to give it a go in orbit. They have yet to deliver such a device though.
OK that makes sense. Probably this reaction is common among people who know a lot about the domain and have criticized research with less serious problems before?
But to be fair, I see a lot of far-out claims about the capabilities of computers, the NSA, and so on. While I'm not going to encourage unfounded speculation about the stuff I'm more familiar with, it isn't unexpected and I guess it can make for a lively discussion.
I do want to see someone try the EmDrive in orbit.
But to be fair, I see a lot of far-out claims about the capabilities of computers, the NSA, and so on. While I'm not going to encourage unfounded speculation about the stuff I'm more familiar with, it isn't unexpected and I guess it can make for a lively discussion.
I do want to see someone try the EmDrive in orbit.
In 1982, I read Herman Kahn's The Next 200 Years and got pumped about power from nuclear fusion. The tokamak was hot and the wisdom at the time was that it was 20 years away. I talked with my Dad, he said fusion power had been 20 years away since he was also 17. It's still looks like it's 20 years away.
My point isn't that practical fusion power is a scam. But to me it doesn't look appreciably closer to practicality than cold fusion and a whole lot more money has been spent on it [which as a metric of grift is probably among the better ones]. Which is to say that my point is that what constitutes a scam is in the eye of the beholder. We celebrate Charles Babbage.
My point isn't that practical fusion power is a scam. But to me it doesn't look appreciably closer to practicality than cold fusion and a whole lot more money has been spent on it [which as a metric of grift is probably among the better ones]. Which is to say that my point is that what constitutes a scam is in the eye of the beholder. We celebrate Charles Babbage.
> But to me it doesn't look appreciably closer to practicality than cold fusion
The figure of merit is Q, the fusion gain per input energy. For cold fusion, this figure is infintessimal; for lasers I think it's about 0.001; Tokamaks have reached Q=0.7. Not to mention, theoretical break-even ("effective Q">1) was achieved in Japan, but they do not have access to Tritium, which is the only reason it wasn't "real" breakeven.
Since your dad was a teenager, fusion efficiency has outpaced Moore's law for microelectronics. Real progress is being made.
The figure of merit is Q, the fusion gain per input energy. For cold fusion, this figure is infintessimal; for lasers I think it's about 0.001; Tokamaks have reached Q=0.7. Not to mention, theoretical break-even ("effective Q">1) was achieved in Japan, but they do not have access to Tritium, which is the only reason it wasn't "real" breakeven.
Since your dad was a teenager, fusion efficiency has outpaced Moore's law for microelectronics. Real progress is being made.
Dad is pushing 80. Entire scientific careers have come and gone funded by many billions in public money. My definition of success is fusion powering my toaster. That's the one that was putched all those years ago and when he and then I were kids. Not getting funded or a paper accepted.
Moore's law lives behind a touch screen in my pocket doing useful work...or less useful work such as this comment.
Moore's law lives behind a touch screen in my pocket doing useful work...or less useful work such as this comment.
> Is it because there is a contingent of HN voters who are true believers in this stuff?
Why does the world have to be divided between "skeptics" and "true believers"?
I think a lot of us are in the "open minded but very cautious" category.
Why does the world have to be divided between "skeptics" and "true believers"?
I think a lot of us are in the "open minded but very cautious" category.
Well, for one I can't downvote threads. Seems what you need to get a page to stay on the front page is people willing to upvote it, not skeptics against the thing.
"E-Cat" is short for "Energy Catalyzation" which is more or less cold-fusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
Thanks. I was wondering what this was about; my best guess was the CueCat from one of Joel Spolsky's old columns...
hahaha, I was thinking the exact same thing, literally cue cat and all too. Even funnier is my undergrad degree was, originally, applied physics before switching to EE. I follow science when I can but boy do I feel out of the loop sometimes. Reading your post gave me a nice chuckle.
Glad you liked it!
I just checked, and CueCats are as low as $7 on eBay. Barcode readers convert barcodes to plaintext (and barcode printers go the other way), so CueCats are good for more than just scanning ads...
I wonder if there's room for a CueCat Users' Group. :)
I just checked, and CueCats are as low as $7 on eBay. Barcode readers convert barcodes to plaintext (and barcode printers go the other way), so CueCats are good for more than just scanning ads...
I wonder if there's room for a CueCat Users' Group. :)
Needless to say, don't start celebrating the birth of the overunity era quite yet.