

Secondary Energy Source: You'd Think That This Can't Be Correct - refurb
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2014/10/10/youd_think_that_this_cant_be_correct.php

======
refurb
Anyone have any thoughts on this? It would be incredible if true.

~~~
DrJosiah
There are other articles on the E-Cat scattered around the net in the last few
days/weeks. Long story short: a lot of experts (physicists and chemists) say
it's probably bullshit, likely fraud.

Indeed, it would be amazing if it were true. But don't hold your breath.

~~~
juliangoldsmith
Yeah, this has been around for a while, but it's never been independently
verified.

~~~
DrJosiah
Incidentally, what gets me the most about reading the experimental procedure
is how they went about testing and how easily it would be to defraud such a
system.

There are techniques for _exactly_ measuring heat output of significantly more
powerful generators without relying on simulations of designs of radiators and
air flow. Consider that thermal solar plants produce megawatts of power during
the day, several orders of magnitude beyond the E-Cat, and yet all of the
technology around thermal solar generation measures to within 1-2% of reality,
reliably. If they can be so precise on energy measurement at the scale of a
utility, it is laughable that they would even try anything other than
industry-standard techniques.

And color me an asshole, but I don't buy that the "high" temperatures of 1500
degrees is a legitimate challenge to measurement, considering that other
nuclear technology currently under development operates at millions of degrees
and can be measure with much better guarantees of precision, despite also
having to deal with deadly radiation and neutron emissions.

But no, instead of using fully trusted energy measurement procedures, which
would work perfectly fine with a 2300 watt nominal heat generator at 1500
degrees (1.5MWh seems like a lot, but it's only 2300 watts over 32 days,
roughly the amount of energy it would take to run two decent microwaves for
that period of time), they simulate and estimate based on temperature sensors
and IR cameras.

And even ignoring their questionable measurement procedures, 2300 watts of
fraud would be trivial to inject into a system like that with a handful of
magnetrons and a waveguide... like how a microwave works.

If I, a computer scientist with a reasonably modest level of physics and
chemistry education (from 14+ years ago) can think of several methods by which
to trivially defraud observers (via measurement methodology, or by injecting
external power remotely), and that their testing methodology seems purpose-
designed to defraud, it makes me ask two simple questions:

1\. If this is a fraud, in what world did they believe that this turd sandwich
would actually be believed? 2\. If this is not a fraud, why wouldn't they have
used an industry standard measuring methodology instead of throwing all of
this other measuring bullshit into their paper, citing the proprietary nature
of the measurement devices, while simultaneously claiming precision.

Don't get me wrong; I think it would be awesome if this were real. But if I
wanted to make claims and defraud observers, I'm not sure I could design a
better setup for fraud.

