Rossi’s E-Cat: Unlimited, clean energy or an elaborate scam?
An Italian inventor claims to have achieved energy production nirvana. So why won’t he let other scientists verify his work?
"Rossi in his Bologna warehouse with a 10-kilowatt E-Cat module." Credit: Steve Featherstone, Popular Science
Andrea Rossi has a somewhat checkered past. While living in Italy in the 1970s, the philosophy graduate claimed to have discovered a way to transform organic garbage into oil. However, the company he founded to exploit the process – PetrolDragon – collapsed amid accusations of illegal toxic dumping and Rossi was subsequently imprisoned for environmental crimes and tax evasion. Ten years later, he was acquitted by the Italian government.
After his release, Rossi moved to the U.S., launched a new venture and, according to Wikipedia, secured a contract from the U.S. Army’s Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) to “evaluate the potential of generating electricity from waste heat by using thermoelectric generators.” However, none of the 27 generators that he eventually supplied to ERDC worked well: 19 produced no electricity at all while 8 produced less than 1 watt each; far less than the 800-1,000 watts Rossi had predicted.
So, that’s the old news; now for the new(ish) news. In 2011, Rossi claimed he had created a device that was able to produce substantially more energy than it consumed. The device supposedly used some form of cold fusion or low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) to produce heat which, in turn, could be used to create electricity. Rossi called the device – which looked like something somebody hastily cobbled together in their garage rather than a sophisticated nuclear reactor – an Energy Catalyzer, or E-Cat for short.
Now, in case you’re wondering what cold fusion is, it’s a reaction in which elements are fused together, releasing more energy than was required to induce the fusion in the first place – in other words, more energy comes out than goes in. In simple terms, it’s a low-temperature version of the process that makes the sun hot.
The appeal of cold fusion – if it could be made to work – is that, unlike the fission reactions currently used in nuclear power plants, it would produce no radioactive waste material. Further, because the process would use common elements – and produce more energy for a given weight of fuel than any current technology – cold fusion could likely supply us with very low cost energy for an extremely long time.
It’d change the world as we know it. Our energy and environmental problems would be solved almost overnight and there would be massive disruption in global economies and energy markets. Which is why cold fusion has consistently topped the list of scientific holy grails for decades. A cheap, clean and virtually inexhaustible energy source. What’s not to like?
But, of course, this is all completely theoretical as nobody has yet demonstrated that cold fusion is even possible. Or have they?
While Rossi has released no details as to how the E-Cat actually works – except to say it uses a mixture of nickel powder, hydrogen gas, and a “secret catalyst” – and has refused to have the device independently tested, he has demonstrated it on a number of occasions. The demonstrations were attended by both the press and members of the scientific community – and at least some of them went away believing that Rossi was indeed on to something. After a demonstration in January 2011, Hanno Essén, an associate professor of theoretical physics at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, and Sven Kullander, professor emeritus of High Energy Physics at Uppsala University, claimed the amount of excess energy produced by the E-Cat was too great to have been the result of any chemical reaction and stated, “The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.”
And others are also reluctant to dismiss Rossi’s work. Popular Science’s Steve Featherstone visited the International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Symposium and asked attendees – who, according to Featherstone, included “some of the field’s top experimentalists and a contingent from NASA” – about Rossi’s claims. He was surprised at their responses and wrote, “To my astonishment, after three days of asking every cold-fusion researcher in the house, I couldn’t find a single person willing to call Rossi a con man. The consensus was that he had something, even if he didn’t understand why it worked or how to control it.” (Note that, for reasons I’ll explain later in this post, the lack of criticism for Rossi may not be quite as astonishing as Featherstone thought.)
In January of this year, physicist Brian Josephson, a Nobel Laureate and retired professor at the University of Cambridge, created a video FAQ about Rossi’s machine in response to what he calls “the deafening silence of the scientific and other media, in regard to what may well be the most important technological advance of the century.”
In Josephson’s video, NASA’s Chief Scientist at Langley Research Center, Dennis Bushnell, comments on Rossi’s work stating, “I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now, and if it does this is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geo-politics, and solving climate and energy.” Bushnell also commented on Rossi’s work to Featherstone saying, “We have so screwed up this planet. This is one of the few things I know of that’s capable for atoning for our sins.”
But not everybody believes in Rossi or, for that matter, that cold fusion is even possible. Cold fusion has been largely dismissed by the academic community and is now very much a fringe science and only a relatively small number of researchers are active in the field. Little funding is made available by mainstream institutions for cold fusion research and the subject is almost completely ignored by serious scientific journals. As David Goodstein, a professor of physics and applied physics at Caltech, says:
Cold fusion is a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between cold fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don’t receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires. On the other hand, because the Cold-fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here.
Obviously, this could explain why Featherstone heard little in the way of criticism when he asked about Rossi at the International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Symposium. Goodstein, by the way, believes “quite firmly the theoretical arguments that say Cold Fusion is impossible.”
Further, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office now refuses patents related to cold fusion technology. The Washington Post explains: “According to Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents, this is for the same reason it wouldn’t give one for a perpetual motion machine: It doesn’t work.”
Earlier this year, Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith offered to pay Rossi $1 million if he could prove the E-Cat worked as claimed. Smith was even willing to have Essén and Kullander – the Swedish physicists who attended the demonstration in January 2011 – act as sole judges. All Rossi needed to do was permit them to check the E-Cat’s wiring and power outputs. Rossi refused. In an email to Forbes’ Mark Gibbs, Smith hinted that his unwillingness to cooperate implied some subterfuge on Rossi’s part saying:
Common sense alone says that if someone had invented such a machine, one of the first things they would do is arrange for a simple scientific test by independent, qualified individuals. They would then seek to have the results of this test published in a reputable scientific journal. Clearly, Rossi has not done this. What could the reason be? Could it be that the device does not work, and Mr Rossi knows it?
There is, of course, another possible explanation for his refusal to take up Smith’s challenge. Because cold fusion technology cannot be patented, it could simply be that Rossi didn’t want to reveal too much about the machine’s inner workings in order to protect his interests. If Rossi’s machine does indeed work, the technology will be worth substantially more than the $1 million offered by Smith – in fact, it would likely make him the richest person in the world.
Whether or not Rossi has actually made a breakthrough is impossible to say. Given that most members of the scientific community believe cold fusion to be impossible, it would seem unlikely. That said, this certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a discovery has been made that defies science’s understanding of physics, and there are some respected academics who think that Rossi’s work should not be quickly dismissed. Until Rossi allows the E-Cat to be independently tested, there is simply no way of knowing what it does or does not do.
What do you think? Could Rossi’s machine be the most important technological advance of the century, or is he simply pulling the wool over a lot of peoples’ eyes?
[Source: Popular Science]
I’ve got property on the moon for sale, right now, as is, where is.
Whether or not Rossi has actually made a breakthrough is impossible to say.
Oh?
Why is it “impossible”?
Because he (Rossi) has not proven it!
Untill Rossi proves it I guess it is “impossible to say”.
Why would you create such a long article and then qualify it by saying
“Whether or not Rossi has actually made a breakthrough is impossible to say”
Just say so far
“It looks like a scam”
and move on!
He may just be worried that if he proves it, his discovery will we taken away or discredited just like every other inventor who discovers a form of clean energy.
We waste so much potential energy! Everything that moves produces energy…remember when we were kids we would ride our bike a night…there was a generator attached to the wheel which pressed against the moving tire and ran our head lights. Think of all the things that move, subways, elevators etc. It takes electricity to move them but in turn they could generate electricity by that vary movement and feed it back into the grid.
Even the emence power of the water expelled by hydro dams could be harnessed a second or even third time…its all so basic and free. Just sit and think of all the things around you that move, rotate, go up and down, and side to side using electricity….Second Harvest that energy to create electricity to power something else. An elevator going up and down could generate as much electricity as it uses…wheels spinning on the side of the shaft feeding power back into the grid. Even a jet engine expelles masses of energy into the air…we need to challange University students to devise differents ways of recycling the energy we use…feed the movement of car tires back into the battery that powers it…take a bit of common sense.
You have to do extra work to drive the bike wheel generator;
adding a generator to an elevator would make the main motor do more work; adding a generator to car tires would make the motor do more work; adding a generator to the hydro dam output would create a back pressure which would slow the main generator…
It’s a nice idea but unfortunately it won’t work.
(I’m not saying that there is absolutely no “free” energy that can still be extracted from some of these systems, but it’s not that easy – and that’s why people need to spend so much time studying, doing R&D, etc. to improve these things.)
There is in fact a mainstream car company that developed the technology to “harvest” energy from the breaking system.
Maybe we should start being open minded enough to consider what is possible and not what we theorize what is impossible.
There was a time when is was common knowledge that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. By the way, the scientists who challenged the common knowledge of the day were persecuted and labelled heritics.
Just saying.
I disagree
The generator on a bike yes needs more energy to spin it.If the axles of the car had a form of generating capability then it should be able to freely without any kind of inhibitions generate energy needed to drive that vehicle, or at least carry a hybrid farther than the standard right now.A car already generates electricity right now.Why not be able to produce larger amounts with a bigger generator.Since a car moves why not have some small forms of wind generators placed esthetically pleasing on the cars to also generate power.I’m sure that engineers can make them look sporty enough to sell it to the public.Also on top of the cars why not have solar panels to help too.
Also with the amount of water generation, if say, the pressure of water flow going down Niagara Falls/river, with water being sent down a large pipe, the wheels(we have freely spinning turbines, its already been invented), you can have several in that tube as the water passes through.More energy can be made.The Elevator, why couldn’t a generator be placed next to the wheel at the top of the shaft.As the elevator goes up and down it can generate power.No need to use extra power here.
The problem here has absolutely NOTHING to do with what can be done but a total political one.If they make a pure electrical car and pure abundance of energy with out oil, governments would fall.Think about it.No gas stations means no tax money coming in, jobs from the oil sector would be gone, Middle east would be reduced to a bigger 3rd world country as all they have for money is oil.All those people whom depend on oil would be out of jobs and so on and so on.
This is why this will never happen
@joe
“If the axles of the car had a form of generating capability then it should be able to freely without any kind of inhibitions generate energy needed to drive that vehicle, or at least carry a hybrid farther than the standard right now”
Recovery of some of car’s kinetic energy through regenerative braking is already in use.
“A car already generates electricity right now.Why not be able to produce larger amounts with a bigger generator.”
Putting a larger alternator, attached to the car’s engine, under the hood will simply need more fuel to drive it, and the car.
“Since a car moves why not have some small forms of wind generators placed esthetically pleasing on the cars to also generate power.I’m sure that engineers can make them look sporty enough to sell it to the public.”
All those little windmills need more energy, in the form of fuel burned in the engine, to push them through the air, than any electricity they might generate.
“Also with the amount of water generation, if say, the pressure of water flow going down Niagara Falls/river, with water being sent down a large pipe, the wheels(we have freely spinning turbines, its already been invented), you can have several in that tube as the water passes through.More energy can be made.”
There is only so much kinetic energy available from the falling water. You might be able to extract a bit more with multiple small turbines, but there would also be more losses due to friction and generator inefficiencies. I doubt the gains (if any) would outweigh the losses by enough to make it feasible.
“The Elevator, why couldn’t a generator be placed next to the wheel at the top of the shaft.As the elevator goes up and down it can generate power.No need to use extra power here.”
The elevator and its counterweight (which goes down as the elevator goes up, and vice versa) is driven in both directions. It is never just coasting. Therefore, adding a generator would most certainly require more energy input that it would produce.
“If they make a pure electrical car and pure abundance of energy with out oil, governments would fall.Think about it.No gas stations means no tax money coming in, jobs from the oil sector would be gone, Middle east would be reduced to a bigger 3rd world country as all they have for money is oil.All those people whom depend on oil would be out of jobs and so on and so on.”
Governments would just find something else to tax – the vehicles, the electricity, the charging stations, whatever – don’t woryy about them. Yes, the oil-producing nations would loss some income, but oil is used for a lot of products other that motor fuel. The oil companies would just buy up the new energy-producing gadget companies, and sell those things to you.
Well said!
Again I disagree
These parts and pieces can be made and placed on say vehicles without any more energy to make them move other than the movement of the vehicle itself.In Australia they have car races which is solely supplied by solar energy.An axle turning should not require more energy than the already turning parts it has.Any kind of movement can be harnessed.
Lets just say for arguments sake, water going over the falls only turns one turbine.Does that turbine not produce enough electricity to possibly turn 2 other turbines?If 1 turbine produces enough electricity to say light up a block of houses, it takes more electricity to turn say two turbines?I think you can see where it goes from here.The water only backs up if the pipe itself is too small to allow not enough water to go through.To make a turbine to run only takes a small portion of that flow of water to make it move.Movement is all that is needed to produce power, so to speak.
Again you are not looking at the big picture here.It isnt the taxation only that is the problem.How many people in this world rely on oil based jobs, in any economy?Exploration, ground up, shipping, production,raw products,gas stations,engines,etc etc.I think you would agree its possibly in the millions and extends to every country in this world.
Even if the other raw products still use oil, the major use of producing gasoline is gone and the cost of the oil will either go way up or way down, meaning without that cost coming in to pay jobs,many of them go away.Governments wont allow it, which brings us back to the whole topic at hand.This inventor makes something that works and like the electric cars they have already taken away from the public(see movie..who killed the electric car)It will never see the light of day, if it isnt a scam to begin with.
Joe, you are wrong on so many counts I don’t know where to start.
1) Put a generator on a car’s axle. Apparently you know nothing about cars. That axle is turned by the energy produced by either an electric or gasoline engine. If the energy of a turning axle is free, why do we need a power plant. It takes x amount of energy to move a vehicle. Assume it takes 50 HP to maintain 60MPH. Keep in mind there are loads such as wind resistance, friction, rolling friction and so on. So, you think you can attach a generator to an axle and get free energy. Now, instead of needing 50HP, it needs 50HP plus whatever the generator requires. There’s no free lunch.
If your idea worked, cut out the middle man and attach a generator to a motor and get free energy. Forget the conversion losses in converting electrical power to mechanical power and vie versa, there’s a loss in friction in the drive system. Physics has spoken it won’t work.
BTW, the energy hybrid cars get from their brakes comes from what would otherwise be wasted energy on normal brakes but regenerative braking drives a generator and the load on the generator (batteries) is what slows the generator down. At full stop, zero energy is generated from regenerative braking.
Think of it like this… as you spin magnets around a condusive metal of whatever kind you wish, you generate free flowing electrons in the direction which the magnetic poles are pushing the electrons. The more electrons you generate, the more “back pressure” or “drag” or “friction” the generator will experience. As a result, the magnets get more difficult to spin due to the encountered resistance. So if you were to put a generator on the axle of a car, yes, you would be able to generate electricity. BUT… NO it will not be more energy than used to generate it. What I am getting at is that as the amount of electricity you generate increases, your average miles per gallon will decrease. Also, trying to hybridize the car will add 1000 pounds of lithium ion batteries and 1000 pounds of electrical motor… for a grand total of 2000 additional pounds to your vehicle from the start…. decreasing your miles per gallon yet again.
The idea of generating energy from existing technology will have to capitalize on areas of wasted energy… hence the version that actually does work on cars, generates electricity from the braking system.
It could be that his Issue on not having it inspected and tested by an independent Scientist, is the He couldn’t get a Patent for it, and he doesn’t want anyone to steal his ideas, thus making the money that the Original Inventor should be making, but isn’t due to the idea being stolen and reproduced. It’s very important to have Patents on your Inventions. I can understand why he doesn’t want anyone looking inside his contraption. After he is approved a Patent, only then can others in the scientific community be able to see what makes it work.
Oh well – how do you sell something that can
be stolen and reproduced?
So how do you do it?
How do you make and sell something that can
be “stolen and reproduced”?
SO you are saying it is like an endless loop?
“how do i sell and make something that can be
copied and sold and made by someone else so i wont tell someone
how to copy it and i wont make it because it can be copied and sold and on and on to infinity!
Just another stupid argument by Rossi.
Rossi is arguing an endless loop.
ITS A SCAM!
First thing I did was check the calendar to see if this was April 1st.
Fraud will always be fraud.Maybe he should get a real job and leave inventions to the real scientist.
I hope Dalton McGuinty doesn’t see or read this article. We are already bankrupt thanks to his green energy faux pas.
Very interesting, IF he really has something. Many inventors have been labeled as cracks in their time until something is later proven to be correct after all. Seems to me, however, that the billion dollar oil industry would pay a huge sum of money to keep this under wraps and discredit him – perhaps many others would too due to the potential disruption to our economy. Maybe his first jail sentence had more to do with keeping him quiet than that he actually did something wrong. Obviously, any disruption would be worth it to help our planet, but tragically, most people or companies with a lot of money don’t think that. If it worked, the balance would be restored when companies simply started marketing and improving his idea instead of using oil, and maybe one of them should jump in and corner a potential market. Can’t they make a deal to let him have patent rights, say in production, etc., if it works so he’d let them test it? Or have I been watching too many movies? Maybe he’s just totally crazy. I know nothing about the field so couldn’t have an opinion on that part of it. Does sound a bit James Bond-ish…
The Science Fiction of Today will be the reality of Tomorrow, The Future.
Better idea if he (Rossi) actually had something, actually had such a working device “the Rossi Ecat”.
We would have seen it by now.
It would not be described as “impossible to say”.
Is it a scam?
You be the judge.
Is a “Rossi Ecat” for sale anywhere?
Is any so called “free energy” device for sale anywhere?
ANY DEVICE ANYWHERE? FOR SALE?
The earmark of any scam is NOT PRODUCE ANY DEVICES!
The scam would soon end if ANY devices were ever sold!
Why? Because they do not work!
So what do they do?
They sell “licenses”
Look it up Rossi is selling licenses!
Pure and simple…he’s protecting what he’s invented. Should he of actually succeeded, then just about every sector of the energy field would like to see his invention disappear.
Free energy = millions of jobs lost world wide.
That’s why we will never see it come about.
I think Lou is absolutely correct. It is a shame however, that this technology is not available, when there is so much good that can come about from it.
Just because “so much good can come about from it”
Does not make any sense nor have YOU made any argument AT ALL that makes any sense at all!
What is YOUR argument in favor of A device (Rossi Ecat) that has not been proven to work?
In any way whatsoever?
Make a reasoned argument.
Do a little research.
Why is he (Rossi) spending so much time “protecting what he has invented” and so little time on proving it and even less time on
actually producing it and selling it?
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/keely/keely.htm
I think this thread goes a long way to prove the adage:
” Never argue with an idiot, he will just drag you down to his level and beat you with experience”
I will leave it to you to decide which one is the Idiot
Ok
What is your point?
Are you agreeing with Rossi?
what are you saying?
Make your point.
If you had the most rudimentary understanding of physics you would have no difficulty in concluding which one of the two, Dave or Joe, that I perceive to be the idiot.
Unfortunately there are so many, like you, who seem incapable of drawing their own conclusions from the material available hence “I will leave it to you to decide” , hopefully causing you to THINK and CONCLUDE.
Hopefully the result will be that you will not become an investor
Yes i agree.
I did not realize you were commenting on the merits of Dave vs Joe!
I was focusing on the merits of the Andrea Rossi Ecat!
Many people think that the “laws of Physics” are determined by Scientists.
When in fact the “laws of physics” are determined by NATURE!
And DISCOVERED by Scientists!
Actually making the so called “laws of physics”
to be the “laws of nature”!
Throw in a little Feynman quote
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/keely/keely.htm
As a wise Homer Simpson once stated, “Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!”
Enough said …
Thermodynamics has nothing to do with LENR or cold fusion
or even “hot fusion” or any Nuclear “reaction”.
So called “nuclear reactions” involve energy that was placed into
nuclear isotopes by stars and novas!
And has noting to do with “thermodynamics”
Thermodynamics is a branch of physics which deals with the energy and work of a system. It was born in the 19th century as scientists were first discovering how to build and operate steam engines. Thermodynamics deals only with the large scale response of a system which we can observe and measure in experiments. Small scale gas interactions are described by the kinetic theory of gases. The methods complement each other; some principles are more easily understood in terms of thermodynamics and some principles are more easily explained by kinetic theory.
There are three principal laws of thermodynamics which are described on separate slides. Each law leads to the definition of thermodynamic properties which help us to understand and predict the operation of a physical system. We will present some simple examples of these laws and properties for a variety of physical systems, although we are most interested in thermodynamics in the study of propulsion systems and high speed flows. Fortunately, many of the classical examples of thermodynamics involve gas dynamics. Unfortunately, the numbering system for the three laws of thermodynamics is a bit confusing. We begin with the zeroth law.
The zeroth law of thermodynamics involves some simple definitions of thermodynamic equilibrium. Thermodynamic equilibrium leads to the large scale definition of temperature, as opposed to the small scale definition related to the kinetic energy of the molecules. The first law of thermodynamics relates the various forms of kinetic and potential energy in a system to the work which a system can perform and to the transfer of heat. This law is sometimes taken as the definition of internal energy, and introduces an additional state variable, enthalpy. The first law of thermodynamics allows for many possible states of a system to exist. But experience indicates that only certain states occur. This leads to the second law of thermodynamics and the definition of another state variable called entropy. The second law stipulates that the total entropy of a system plus its environment can not decrease; it can remain constant for a reversible process but must always increase for an irreversible process.
Wow Jetmech … with all your intelligence you are still unable to understand the simple joke of using a cartoon sitcoms quote as sarcasm. I pity you.
Stan Meyer invented a simple way to turn water to hydrogen at the spark plug hole and could travel across u.s.a. on a few gallons of water,but of course he was murdered.
Anyone one who invents some free energy saving machine has to be very careful with how they present their devise be cause their life may be terminated .
Meyer made the mistake of being inderpendent and proving his devise worked.
The keshe foundation consists of many employees and to get rid of all them would look a bit suspicious.
The corporations that control the planet even though the world could be destroyed along all life, just look at the situation in syria today.
Stan Meyer didn’t invent anything. Scam Meyer was a scammer just as surely as Rossi is a scammer. Thee is no free lunch in economics and there’s no free lunch in energy “production”. Energy is always conserved and Entropy always increases. Every time energy is converted from one form to another the amount of work that can be done by the said energy decreases.