The problem is that it demonstrably appeared to do what was claimed under conditions of moderate scrutiny on TV and in laboratory tests but the inventor was so impossible to deal with that ICI, BAE and several other large chemical companies all walked away. I think the only samples of it in existence are about 4" square and 1/4" thick complete with the scarring from nuclear flash tests. His recipe died with him.
It may perhaps be discovered again. I expect it is similar in concept to some of the anti-EMP conformal coatings but no-one ever had a satisfactory explanation of what polymer it was or how it worked.
It could also have been a very clever sleight of hand con along the lines of the Uri Geller spoon bending on Parkinson.
The clear stuff is almost certainly aerogel. The starlite sample demo I remember it looked pretty much like a dirty white polythene or ceramic.
That demo is usually done on a much smaller scale with a flower supported on some over a Bunsen burner. Bulk aerogel is very expensive.
formatting link
I have seen something similar done with a Space Shuttle tile which soon after removing from a furnace the flat surfaces cool down enough to be safe to touch whilst the edges remain glowing red/orange hot. (don't try this at home folks)
There are many intumescent paint formulations some with pretty nasty additives in but they all foam up or char to protect themselves. This stuff didn't and it is pretty hard to see how pointing an oxy-acetylene torch at a sample could be faked in a studio made science programme where the presenters were quite clued up and sceptical of the claims.
The ablative coating on Apollo capsules was the best that NASA could do.
From the little I have read, there seems to be a fairly simple explanation for why the "formula" was lost. He played around in his kitchen, mixing up a wide variety of leftovers and plastic chips in a pot - he probably had no idea what went into the particular batch that produced a surprisingly effective thermal insulator. All the procrastination later, along with his reluctance to lose sight of any samples, was because he didn't know how to make any more of it.
If his family have any samples left, they should get them analysed. Even if they only get a tiny fraction of the worth (rather than the 51% the inventor wanted), and even if it is only a fraction as useful as claimed, then it will still give the family a solid income.
(I don't doubt that he made some material that was an excellent insulator - though I do doubt the most extreme claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
Whilst it pays to be sceptical - iff they can transmute macroscopic amounts of Nickel (or whatever) into another species or isotope or demonstrate that the kit is emitting neutrons in a quantity commensurate with the excess energy generated then I would be inclined to believe them. However, calorimetry is notoriously difficult and it is known that he uses pulsed waveforms that defeat true rms metering.
There was for a long time a school of thought that considered the possibility that the F&P batch of palladium was unusual or that through serendipity their reaction was triggered by a very rare event. This still can't be entirely ruled out. Suppose for arguments sake that the system was capable of fusing deuterium but requires an initiator to make it go - say a dark matter particle interaction in the metal.
That would produce exactly the observed symptoms and F&P may yet be vindicated decades later in the same way that poor old Belousov was. I personally think they made a mistake but nature is the final arbiter.
The cold fusion issue is used as a part of the Glasgow university astronomy course with reference to scientific ethics including a mirror of Cold Fusion Times circa 2005. Makes amusing reading...
formatting link
It seems "free enegry" conspiracy theories are very popular in the USA.
It was looked at by just about everyone in the world without success, but F&P did publish their recipe and it demonstrably didn't work.
It would if there was enough of it to rule out spiking with isotopic standards. Non-natural isotopic abundances in the ash would be the clear signature that real nuclear reactions were occurring.
Calotrons require serious amounts of power to just make small amounts of isotopically refined materials. It could be faked if you were determined enough and incredibly rich after all the U235 for
formatting link
Parts of this story are well worth a read for historical interest - especially the bit about substituting silver for copper conductors in the main production versions due to a shortage of copper.
Vendors of pure isotopic spike materials charge a lot for them!
I'd settle for the ash. Nuclear transmutation is another Holy Grail. If you can do it economically then it is still an interesting process.
I don't expect to ever see eCat validated, though I do expect to Rossi in jail again at some stage when the marks finally do wise up.
That last sentence makes the whole think suspicious. If it worked as claimed, do you think the US Government would have sent the sample back? Would they really have taken the sample, noted that this stuff cooked up by an amateur crackpot foreigner in his kitchen is able to withstand nuclear blasts, and then just sent it back to him and forgotten about it?
Who is they? The whole thing ended up being a bit unbelievable despite the fairly convincing demos filmed by the Tomorrows World team. All they have to do now is agree sensible terms with a decent chemical company and they could turn it into actual money instead of more lawyers fees and the promise of jam tomorrow.
His claimed reason for making it was for the "Public good" after the
1985 carnage at Manchester airport when a plane caught fire on take off with huge loss of life and yet he was unable to negotiate terms with any would be manufacturers (and plenty tried).
I was under the impression he never let a sample of starlite out of his possession except when it was placed in the nuclear test chamber.
A bit like with Rossi a lot of what is reported is mostly his version of events and so it is hard to separate fact from fiction.
What is certain is that ICI, BAe and AWRE all walked away from the deal on offer.
The story is; Rather than one large unit, 50 smaller units have been combined to produce the 1MW unit. This has been running for 300 days with only a few down days, because of heat related materials problems. One of the 50 units is on the decline and they think it is running low on fuel. but they will know more if/when it fails or they conclude 350 days of operation. (per the contract) The fueling materials used have been disclosed as, "lithium and lithium aluminum hydride as fuel and ?a group 10 element, such as nickel in powdered form? as the catalyst."
Rossi has been granted a patent. I will be the first to agree the patent is obfuscation. Rossi's excuse, to paraphrase with a lot of leeway, they rejected my over unity device, so my attorney protected my ideas another way.
The patent is linked in this link.
Rossi on New Hot Cat [Update #5: 1350 C for 10 Hours, Self-Sustaining
80% of the Time (First Model now Broken)]
That's the story ;-)
Ready for a multitude of, shall I say less then glowing responses :-)
And it is exactly that a "story" aka fiction invented to keep the suckers from worrying about where their investment is vanishing.
He keeps changing his story depending on which way the wind is blowing. I hope you are getting well paid for publicising this eCat crap.
His patent is for little more than an immersion heater and utterly worthless - it goes to show USPTO will patent anything no matter how ludicrous if you supply them with dollars in sufficient quantity.
It's only purpose is to convince credulous and gullible investors with more money than sense to continue to fund his "breakthrough".
You cannot continue to believe in this monumental eCrap fraud surely?
In much we are in agreement, however, there is an important point which I do wish to comment on because much of the article (if not all) seemed to miss. The fact that no one was able to reproduce F&P demonstrates for people engaged in scientific work, that there is no approach to the subject beyond hearsay. One can go on and on about what might or might not be at the bottom of F&P. In the end a researcher must do valid science. My point is this is as just as it should be and is particularly true for things that are contrary to known physical principles. This appears to be a hard thing for the average person to grasp. If a definitive repeatable experiment comes to light which demonstrates a new physical process, well science types would be all over it reputations be damned. Until this experiment is found, I for one put cold fusion in with the paranormal and superluminal neutrinos.
Careful with your terminology. Not nuclear blast, nuclear flash.
formatting link
He insisted the sample be returned. He always insisted on contract terms that would retain his ownership and control over the substance which it seems is a deal breaker for everyone, even NASA.
Is that his fault? Obviously the companies will want a contract that is very favorable to them. If the inventor wants to retain ownership and control, they have no way to be guaranteed of profits. Yeah, that's a deal breaker for nearly anyone who can't operate on trust.
You are good at making up explanations when you don't bother to check any facts. He didn't "loose" the formula. At least one of the videos I found show him mixing up and pasting a fairly thin layer of the stuff on an egg which he then tests with the torch.
On the other hand, I also found another video where someone else with a batch of something which he slathers very thickly on his finger and applies a torch. If it were a thinner layer I would say someone else had duplicated Starlite. But this might be doable with a number of substances with such a thick coating. A few seconds of a torch is not that great a test of a great wad of paste.
I looked at the patent and I don't think anything about the nuclear aspects is protected. This is about building up his credibility by having a "patent".
Back when I looked hard at Rossi (there was also another European cold fusion inventor, but I forget his name) most of the fault with his claims was about the energy output measurement. He was calculating steam energy by the amount of water that was boiled away assuming it was all vaporized. He did nothing to verify that it *was* all vaporized to dry steam rather than it being wet steam. This hugely skews the numbers. More recently there seem to be issues with how he measures input power. We know even less about the present setup.
I'll believe his story when he connects it in a loop with a regulation device that lets energy be tapped off with no power input other than to start it. Any designer worth his salt could design such a regulator.
Basically yes. He insisted on crazy terms that no-one would agree to.
You have obviously no experience of licensing IP to a much larger company. The choice is all of a tiny pie or a small slice of a huge pie. Or in his case huge lawyers fees and nothing at all to show for it. Contract law ensures the licensee pays the inventor (with or without a patent). Sometimes it serves the IP owner not to grant a license of their patent to a competitor as was the case with mass spectrometry ion optics improvements in the 1970's.
ICI would almost certainly have offered decent terms to the inventor. It was only their own employees inventions that they owned outright through the contract of employment.
I looked up the trademark on "Hot Cat" and found it is owned by the company, "Catalytic Industrial Group" in Kansas. They seem to be a viable company, so I don't think they are working with Rossi. I don't know if their products are close enough to Rossi's to constitute trademark infringment, but it doesn't look like he has a trademark on "Hot Cat".
Uh, you are thinking like someone who only cares about the money. He didn't. He didn't want to give up control of the invention. I get that. He wasn't "crazy". He had his principles which he was not interested in selling out.
As I've mentioned before, with all the questions about input power measurement, someone should just use DC. On the other hand, I have seen no mention of 60Hz being used, I have seen square waves and high frequency AC as some type of an excitement for the process. But that's just the story.
Btw, Here's Brillouin Energy's report (for what it worth) of it latest Hydrogen Hot Tube? (HHT?) Boiler System reactor core
Can anyone tell me what "Lab Scale excess heat" is?
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.