Thread: Cold fusion home reactor

http://ecat.com/

What do you think?

There seem to be many sceptics concerning the functionality of this device (converting nickel into copper in an exothermic "reaction"), whether it will be proven to function as advertised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

It would be very hard to fuse hydrogen with any other element. Otherwise it would happen in space and so certain elements would be almost non-existent.
Also where is the rush to duplicate the results?

What do I think? Do you want me to type lol or hahaha?

Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen

What do I think? Do you want me to type lol or hahaha?

There have been about 3,000 papers published in peer-reviewed journals that have shown positive results for cold fusion. Cold fusion has a 100% chance of working. I'm 50/50 on Rossi right now until more information comes out. If major news doesn't come by the end of March, it will probably drop to 5% and if nothing comes by the end of the year, I'm 100% convinced he is a fraud. The best thing to do is wait at least a few months before making a decision either way.

Originally Posted by oldjar07

There have been about 3,000 papers published in peer-reviewed journals that have shown positive results for cold fusion.

that' s not true.
generally accepted science does not recognize cold fusion, lenr, piezonuclear reactions and things like that.
There are some articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals but
until now nobody has published a cold nuclear reaction in a nuclear reactions database (like the brookhaven national laboratory database for example).
And in nuclear physics this matters.

Originally Posted by morfeo

http://ecat.com/

What do you think?

sounds like alchemy.

Dat's what Uncle Ferd tol' the revenuers...

... but dey didn't believe him...

... an' said it was a still.

Originally Posted by budspencer

that' s not true.
generally accepted science does not recognize cold fusion, lenr, piezonuclear reactions and things like that.
There are some articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals but
until now nobody has published a cold nuclear reaction in a nuclear reactions database (like the brookhaven national laboratory database for example).
And in nuclear physics this matters.

The point is that many people do not even acknowledge that it exists. Just because it is not accepted doesn't mean it isn't real. The main argument of skeptics is that it hasn't been replicated or been in any peer reviewed journals. That is not true. It has been replicated in peer reviewed journals about 3,000 times. Organizations such as NASA, Shell, and Stanford have replicated cold fusion.

Originally Posted by oldjar07

The point is that many people do not even acknowledge that it exists. Just because it is not accepted doesn't mean it isn't real. The main argument of skeptics is that it hasn't been replicated or been in any peer reviewed journals. That is not true. It has been replicated in peer reviewed journals about 3,000 times. Organizations such as NASA, Shell, and Stanford have replicated cold fusion.

look at this: it was published in 2009 in some peer reviewed journals:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007arXiv0710.5177C

this is really a revolutionary research,don' t you think?
unfortunately this experiment was flawed.
some swedish phisycs responded with this paper:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.0623.pdf

cardone and the other piezonuclearists didn' t answer (in 3 years!)
so, I think this research was bs.
They had already won nobel prize if it wasn' t bs.
Not all the researches published in peer reviewed journals are
reliable.