Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Why do I believe in the E-Cat?

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by amdx on January 21, 2012, 4:43 pm
Hi Guys,
I've been a skeptic about the E-Cat for a while, checking back on my
computer it looks like I've been following it for about four months.
  I finally decided I'm a believer that the E-Cat is a real technology
and we will see them sold in the near future.
  I'm ready to go see my local Home Depot manager and get my name on the
E-Cat purchase list, knowing he won't have a clue what I'm talking about.
  I stuck my neck out and posted this World Changing invention on a
group I frequent. You can guess the response I got :-)
   One simple question paraphrased I got was " Why do you believe it's
real when there have been no open tests and no open customers?"
  I have been searching through what memory of all details I have
picked up over the last four months, in an effort to figure out why I
  I don't have any hard evidence, what I have are details I've seen on
the internet, just like everyone else.
    What I'm left with is just so many details of a project that I hope
and *pray is real and an inventor that has stuck his neck out so far
that he will certainly get his head chopped of if his device doesn't
work. I have a difficult time thinking someone would try to run a scam
in such a big grandiose manner, and not ask for my money.
  I don't know the physics of how gamma rays are produced nor how they
would produce heat if they were produced. I also don't know why the
output can't be modulated, (but that's a side note).
   So I guess I'm looking for others to help me with details to help
with an argument why I believe.
     Rather than because I want it to be true.
I want to be able to post a few details to the forum I stuck my neck out
                    Thanks, Mikek

Posted by vaughn on January 21, 2012, 5:11 pm

Bingo!  Until there is openness, I remain a skeptic.  A hopeful skeptic, but
still a skeptic.

I believe in science and in hardware that exists in the real (open) world.   I'm
not impressed by magic, and certainly not by hype.


Posted by j on February 14, 2012, 5:32 pm
 On 1/21/2012 12:11 PM, vaughn wrote:



Let me say this though, I knew nothing about the E-Cat until today. I
really don't know, but skepticism is prudent.

At any rate, there is nothing that I can do that would impact this one
way or another. I'll leave this to others that have more time than I.


Posted by Morris Dovey on January 21, 2012, 6:38 pm
 On 1/21/12 10:43 AM, amdx wrote:

I've been following a bit longer. I'm willing to believe it's real, but
haven't made a "leap of faith". I need to see it for myself.

Drag your feet a bit. Rossi talks a good game, but I think there are
some rough spots to be smoothed out before this thing is ready for prime
time. I'm thinking that if Rossi rushes to market with his device, the
early customers may not be as pleased as they expect.

No open tests because Rossi either isn't sure that he'll be able to
prevent being beaten to the marketplace, or he lacks confidence that
it'll will show well. I'm guessing the latter.

Generally we believe things we /want/ to believe. :-)

And yet everyone knows he needs and /wants/ money. Given that, it makes
some sense to ask oneself why he's been so reluctant to do so...

I don't think anyone fully understands the physics - what's been coming
from credible physicists appears to be cautious speculation. The darned
thing may make it to market long before it's fully understood.

I'm convinced the output can be modulated. See my eureka post of Jan
eleventh. However improbable it may seem, I think I may have figured out
how to do that.

There've been enough reports (too few, but enough) to provide some basis
for believing that it's possible to initiate a LENR with nickel and
hydrogen at some temperature and pressure combinations. There is an
unsubstantiated report (from Rossi) that such an LENR can be
self-sustaining. It seems reasonable to me that if a LENR can be
initiated, it could be made self-sustaining - and, importantly,
moderated and shut down - but however reasonable that seems, there's no
proof (yet).

Sure, me too! :-)

The surprising thing (to me) is that with the inherent simplicity of
this thing - and with an absolute plethora of possible applications -
people aren't falling all over themselves to independently reproduce the
results Rossi has reported. That people aren't doing so just boggles my

Morris Dovey

Posted by amdx on January 21, 2012, 7:13 pm

   It does seem simple, except for a few details,
a break from your sponsor. I have a small a business and
have a had that same line given to me , "it seems so simple, just hand
over the product and take the money."
  It only takes 100+ hours a week from my wife and I.

Back to the details, creating the high surface area nickel of I suspect
the proper isotope. Finding again, I suspect, a way to separate the H2
molecule to H1 and H1. Getting the heat to the proper area to initiate
the reaction (?) and make the heater work the next time it is needed,
ie. not damaged by the heat of the reaction. Also if indeed the RF
stimulation is needed to sustain the reaction, getting it to the proper
   Yes why aren't others hot on this.
  Although there is some data found of others working on LENRs on
somewhat the same line as Rossi. (Time for a new google alert, LENR)
Why aren't the oil companies suppressing this, like 200 mile per gallon
carburetor. Ok the last line is just for laughs :-) (last 1/2 line):-{

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread