Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary and Junior go on a Little Father and Son Trip
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly
If every FReeper and Lurker gave just $7 a month
No More FReepathons!
Posted on 11/03/2011 12:19:06 PM PDT by Liberty1970
So who bought the world’s first fully operational fusion reactor? Was it a straw buyer arranged by inventor Andrea Rossi as part of a larger fraud to entice gullible investors or buyers? While we have no proof yet, several interesting pieces of evidence have come to light.
The first line of evidence came after the October 28 test when Rossi released an Excel spreadsheet of test data. The properties section embedded in the file identified it as coming from a computer owned by “Manutencoop Facility Management.” This is a large (16,000 employee) Italian company with a range of services including installation and management of things like building climate control systems.
It would make sense that a company like this would be interested in the initial E-cat as a water or building heating system. In addition, they stand to profit if they become distributors or develop support contracts servicing other Ecats installed at commercial buildings. So they would be plausible early adopters, seeking to gain an advantage over rivals as they study the practical aspects of the Ecat in addition to simply installing it in a suitable building location and using it.
However, Manutencoop does not fit other evidence as to the identity of the buyer, and a more likely scenario is that they were simply among the subcontractors that were helping manage the October 28 test. The test involved setting up and operating several generators, the water tanks and lines, cooling apparatus and so on, in which Manutencoop could have played a role. That could explain how a laptop from their company wound up compiling the test data.
What is the other evidence for the buyer? Rossi says that the buyer has a ‘default mode’ of secrecy. It was said to be an American organization. The consultant at the Oct. 28 test on behalf of the customer was an Italian named Domenico Fioravanti, said to be a ‘NATO engineer’ with thirty years of relevant experience. Paperwork with his name at the test listed him as a ‘Colonel’ but this was crossed off. And now a Nov. 3 update at Ecatnews.com states:
Rossi has stated in an email that, “THE CUSTOMER HAS BOUGHT THE E-CAT AS A MOBILE HEATER FOR REMOTE CAMPS.”
Most interesting, however is the Fox News story on the October 28 test which reported that a man named Paul Swanson of the U.S. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Unit (SPAWAR) could vouch for the demonstration. Originally attributed to Oct. 28 spectator Sterling Allen, who denied giving this information, it now appears to have come from Rossi himself. Fox contacted Paul Swanson at SPAWAR and several other individuals there, but they all refused to comment.
We know that SPAWAR has been in the thick of LENR research, lending further credibility to this link. I would appreciate insight from readers with more experience than I on this subject, but if Paul Swanson and SPAWAR were really unrelated to the Ecat, wouldn’t their first response to the journalists calling them be “Cat? Ecat? Huh? No, I have no idea what you are talking about”? And then maybe they’d remember to say “And I can’t talk to the media without approval”? The refusal to comment strikes me more as a confirmation of a link, though I’m open to (objective) insight and correction.
The risk of errors and misinformation is high, but if we take the data above at face value it leads us in this direction:
The first ECAT buyer on Oct. 28 is the U.S. Military (either SPAWAR or another command working in collaboration with them), to use as a prototype for field operations as a mobile heating system. As such other NATO resources are involved to help with the procurement and evaluation of the ECAT.
Like Manutencoop, the U.S. Military is an obvious organization to be an early adopter of ECAT technology.
As noted, this is speculative and depends heavily on the accuracy of the data outlined above. But there is a consistency between the various data points that leds credence to the general direction the conclusion takes.
And what if the ECAT were a fraud? While the U.S. Military is a naturally secretive entity, it would serve no military purpose to hide the discovery that the ECAT is a fraud. The basic point of the military is to protect American citizens and their interests. Therefore, I would fully expect that if they were the buyer and determined it to be a fraud they would quickly publicize that fact to protect American citizens from being caught up in the fraud.
The converse is more complicated – if it works, it is not the job of the military to publicize that fact. And holding new technology that gives any kind of competitive advantage is something every military wants, and wants to keep secret. So if (1) I’m right about the buyer, then (2) we should only expect to hear if the ECAT is a fraud, not if it is real. I hasten to add that silence does not mean the ECAT is for real, until we can verify who the buyer is and that they are not straw men for Rossi.
Can anyone else add pertinent data I've missed or constructive criticism? Fire away! (Note that this does not include pointless declarations that you "know" the Ecat is a fraud. We already know your opinion and it does nothing to repeat it if you have no relevant information to share on the subject of this thread.)
LOL! ;)
And where do you get the idea that anyone is saying it is being deployed? I assume the same thing you say above about going to a lab right now for further testing. The military doesn't deploy equipment without testing the heck out of it as a rule and this would be no different. That's why my conclusion in the article speaks of it as a 'prototype' for this intended purpose. ("prototype for field operations as a mobile heating system")
1. How do you "know" it is a scam?
2. Did you read my request at the end of the article?
Good point. The Navy has been open with its rail gun tests. Why would it be so secretive about a space heater?
agreed...
Perhaps it's all the hype. Multiple daily updates about a pot boiler that takes hours to warm up, or a space heater with a big generator sitting next to it aren't necessary.
The fact that the “customer” is anonymous shows it’s a scam. If it was somebody that really needed to keep secrets there never would have been the “public” test, if it was somebody being OK with the test being open they wouldn’t need to keep secrets. Rossi is a scammer, cold fusion doesn’t work on any useful scale, those are the facts. This was all a fake dog and pony show to encourage investors, who will never see a ROI.
ok- assume for a second that this device is real. (wow, that is hard.)
If so, then this is like the Wright brother’s airplane. After a few years of really understanding it - it could really be a toaster sized fusion-o-matic.
So, since it is has potentially game changing ramifications, the DoD would want to rightly keep it under wraps.
Ok - now back to reality. Rossi is not trustworthy, the device has not been the subject of scientific investigation. - so until it is replicated by an independent lab, the smart money says its not a scientific breakthrough.
I don’t put much faith in there actually being any true arms-length transaction with payment for rights/possession of an Ecat.
That's your logic??
As far as describing the ECAT in hostile terms, do you grasp that if it is real the repercussions are astounding? That explains the interest level - from the impact on our home heating costs to the geopolitical implications for Islam and OPEC and so forth, the ECAT saga is fascinating. You mistake that fascination for 'hype.'
So where is Rossi asking investors to send money?
1. Excessive publicity and the ensuing commotionI'd say it fits. Besides, hype and fascination aren't mutually exclusive.2. Exaggerated or extravagant claims made especially in advertising or promotional material
3. An advertising or promotional ploy
4. Something deliberately misleading; a deception
Thanks, Liberty,
Cold Fusion Ping List again
Virtually every expensive system that I have ever purchased came with a warranty.
I always relied upon either getting a detailed operating and service manual or knowing that the seller had in place a mechanism for accomplishing warranty repairs.
Let's put ourselves into the shoes of the purchaser of Rossi's E-Cat.
The purchaser watched Rossi operate the system and verified its key specification of outputting more energy than was pumped in.
Now we can picture the purchaser boxing up the system and moving it to a location chosen by the purchaser. Perhaps the "storage container", if that is what it was, constituted sufficient packaging. I would assume, since it was claimed as necessary for safety, that the 500 kw generator set was included in the package purchased. (Or perhaps the customer would have to supply his own 500 kw generator.)
Once the packages have arrived at the customer's site, it will be necessary to "install" them. Perhaps only a few connections have to be made, since the package didn't have to be disassembled prior to shipment.
What could possibly go wrong?
Rossi must have supplied an operating and maintenance manual. It details what to check prior to turning on the system. How to determine whether its time to replenish the "catalyst". Whether excess amounts of "waste products", like copper, must be removed prior to operation.
Perhaps supplies of "catalyst" must be purchased from Rossi, like razor blades for safety razors.
Finally comes the time when the purchaser, rather than Rossi, intends to operate the unit. The detailed procedure is followed and then ... what happens?
If no excess energy is created, what will happen? How soon will it happen? What recourse will the purchaser have?
The purchaser will be completely reliant upon Rossi to get the system working. The vast majority of the technical world believes that it is impossible for the unit to work. It would be impractical to ask such a person to make operable a system for which such a person has no theory that would permit it to operate.
If the purchaser attempted to employ the claimed thousands who have demonstrated LENR, even they would be disadvantaged, because they don't know anything about Rossi's "secret sauce".
Now imagine how easily Rossi would be able to justify not being able to solve the purchaser's problem immediately. The purchaser bought a system which Rossi had "advertised" as being able to produce 1 Mw, but Rossi was only able to produce 470 kw. The uncertainty in the power output of the unit is greater than its demonstrated output power.
Who would be surprised if the new owner is unsuccessful at being able to operate the system? I predict even more interesting developments ahead.
Let me get this straight. You ‘know’ the Ecat, invented in Italy by Andrea Rossi, is a scam because of frequent posting on the topic by myself (an American with no link to Rossi whatever) and Kevmo (whomever he may be) and others, on Free Republic?
That’s your logic??
***That’s his logic. That’s why it’s so frustrating to deal with squawkish freepers like him.
As far as describing the ECAT in hostile terms, do you grasp that if it is real the repercussions are astounding?
***Of course he doesn’t. Then he would have to be less ... uh... squawkish.
A "how it works" theory has precisely zero to do with the ability of an end user to operate the system. Do you know ALL the theories behind the devices you use daily?? I seriously doubt that. I know "I" don't, and I'm more technically inclined than most.
"The purchaser bought a system which Rossi had "advertised" as being able to produce 1 Mw, but Rossi was only able to produce 470 kw. The uncertainty in the power output of the unit is greater than its demonstrated output power.
Incorrect. The customer operated the system in two modes..."electronically stabilized" (with input heaters to the reactor cores....COP 6:1), and "self-sustained" (with no power applied to the reactor core heaters). It yielded 1MW in the first case, and your 470KW in the second.
So it performed precisely to specifications.
Unless, of course, it is a total scam.
I wasn't talking about operating the system. I was anticipating that the purchaser would have trouble getting it to work and would have to call on help to get it operating.
I don't have to know how the battery in my car causes the engine to run, but if I try to start it and it doesn't start, I will have to call on somebody to restore the car to operability. That person WILL need to understand what has gone wrong and how get the car started.
If it's a scam, as I think it is, then the purchaser, assuming there really is one, is going to immediately run into problems and will have to call on Rossi himself to "restore it to operability".
With an early prototype (and even an early production model), this is absolutely to be expected, and any reasonably intelligent manager will understand.
"If it's a scam, as I think it is, then the purchaser, assuming there really is one, is going to immediately run into problems and will have to call on Rossi himself to "restore it to operability"."
And if it works after Rossi (or whoever he chooses to send on a service/training call) visits, then it isn't a scam. If it still fails to work, then there will be proof positive that it "is" a scam, we won't need to speculate further, and Rossi will go back to jail.
Guess I’ll bold-face my request for relevance next time.
(Note that this does not include pointless declarations that you “know” the Ecat is a fraud. We already know your opinion and it does nothing to repeat it if you have no relevant information to share on the subject of this thread.)
***It won’t help. I tried all kinds of things, eventually the mods told me to stop chasing seagulls. Apparently seagulls have very sensitive feelings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.