The E-Cat has been replicated? • Hacker News Board

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#11

Post by readams » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 10:09 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #8

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.

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.

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#12

Post by aetherson » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 10:13 PM UTC

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?

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#13

Post by mikeash » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 10:13 PM UTC

readams wrote: post #11

mikeash wrote: post #8

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.

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.

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#14

Post by api » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 10:15 PM UTC

readams wrote: post #11

mikeash wrote: post #8

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.

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.

"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.

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#15

Post by zepto » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 10:16 PM UTC

readams wrote: post #11

mikeash wrote: post #8

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.

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.

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.

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#16

Post by api » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 10:17 PM UTC

paulhart wrote: post #9

clort wrote: post #5

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

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.

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#17

Post by pjkundert » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 10:19 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #8

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.

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.

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#18

Post by pjkundert » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 10:23 PM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #12

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 somethin…

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!

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#19

Post by admax88q » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 10:30 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #13

readams wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'r…

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.

Re: The E-Cat has been replicated?

#20

Post by guscost » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 10:36 PM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #12

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 somethin…

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