Renault Twizy EV Demonstration 27th Sept 2024 with Andrea Rossi's LENR System

mrdean on 11/10/2024 - 21:42
Last edited 12/10/2024 - 10:56 by 1 other user

Italian inventor Andrea Rossi demonstrates his e-cat low energy nuclear reaction system in a modified Renault Twizy EV versus an unmodified Twizy.

Short video synopsis here:

Basically his system was able to keep charging the EV whilst driving, without requiring any additional energy source. The unmodified Renault Twizy EV lasted about 75km before the battery depleted, the modified one about 200km with a higher battery charge level at the end. It should be noted Rossi had to extensively modify his system to be compatible with current EV battery technology. The applications of the e-cat extend way beyond what's shown in the video.

Rossi has a long history in trying to commercialize his various inventions over the years, which he's kept very closely guarded. He has a lot of detractors & people generally consider him a fraud & a charlatan.
See this article as an example.

Despite all the negative things written & said about him, I believe he is genuine & that he has to be very careful how he goes about things.

Rossi's main web sites that have more info are here andhere

There's a 2019 demonstration of the e-cat sk hereIts fuel/light source can be seen "dancing" around during a fair portion of the video.

Wouldn't it be a good thing if our government, & all our esteemed institutions of higher learning, could in the spirit of openness & curiosity, attempt to open lines of communication with Andrea Rossi & his team, in order to potentially usher in a new era of real "green" & "sustainable" energy technology?

Automotive Hybrid Vehicle Renault

Comments

  • DashCam AKA Rolts on 11/10/2024 - 22:33
    +4

    Peter Brock Polariser MkII ?

    • SBOB on 11/10/2024 - 22:41
      +1

      That was 100% real. You don't think Brockie died in a car crash due to anything but the 'deep state' keeping him silent right?

  • SBOB on 11/10/2024 - 22:40

    Despite all the negative things written & said about him, I believe he is genuine

    Guess that's all that matters then.
    Remind us again about your physics background?

    A decade plus of wild ass claims and yet never having actually delivered a proven, verifiable and independently repeatable test results. Somehow a dog keeps eating his homework when it comes to backing up those claims.

    But sure, it's because the 'man' is trying to keep him down and free energy exists if it wasn't for a few billionaire oligarchs , and he better be careful or else he'll mysteriously fall out a high window.

    • mrdean on 12/10/2024 - 13:15
      -3

      Remind us again about your physics background?

      I don't have a physics background. But many inventors do. Like…..Rossi.

      Like……Bruce DePalma, from Harvard & MIT no less.

      https://depalma.pairsite.com/Absurdity/Absurdity07/ProblemOf…

      "The first person one has to convince of the availability of energy in a free unalloyed form directly from Nature, is yourself. Having received training from the best of schools, M.I.T. and Harvard, I started out fully indoctrinated with the ideas of conservation of energy, the laws of Newton, and the equations of Maxwell. In this there is no free energy. I had to become convinced, by direct experimental evidence, of an energetic principle in Nature, a principle that could be tapped if understood, and utilisable in some form of machine whose total output was mechanical or electrical energy, without consumption or burning of fuel of any sort."

      "I have a very strong background in successful high-tech R&D. Once I had demonstrated the reality of direct extraction of electrical energy in a small model N-machine, I thought commercial development would be obvious and easy. That was 17 years ago."

      Interestingly, wikipedia doesn't have a page for DePalma, but does have an extensive one on the homopolar generator. One of the revision pages removed any reference to DePalma, the editor citing "rm free energy rubbish; Thomson's accumulator was a lead-acid battery, and the 'free energy' citation is from DePalma, who is wrong)."

      Get the picture? Hahahaha.

      https://www.brucedepalma.com/

      • SBOB on 12/10/2024 - 13:29
        +3

        Get the picture

        another with decades worth of claims, yet strangely no repeatable, verifiable, and independently auditable 'results'
        Yep, I get the picture that you're easily convinced by whatever influential 'information' sources you seem to obtain your beliefs from

  • Aureus on 11/10/2024 - 23:14

    Cmon OP surely you can't really believe this. 🤣

    • MS Paint on 11/10/2024 - 23:44

      Post history would suggest they do.

  • pegaxs on 11/10/2024 - 23:31
    +1

    Load of shit. If it worked half as good as they made out, EV car companies would be throwing money at him or he would have “fallen over and died in dubious circumstances”…

    When car companies start putting this on cars, then I’ll believe it, but until then, it’s the “hyclone/fuel polariser” of EV’s.

    • mrdean on 12/10/2024 - 08:27
      -4

      EV car companies would be throwing money at him

      Highly doubtful, given the way the world really works.

      There have been other alt energy inventors who have "fallen over and died in dubious circumstances….."

      Some inventors have been threatened or intimidated into near silence. The Joe Cell is one example, a local australian inventor gives workshops that go through the theory behind the inventions, but he's not trying to commercialize the invention.

      A few years back, Patrick J Kelly put together a couple of websites dedicated to compiling technical information on various "free energy devices", albeit aimed at a lay audience.

      http://free-energy-info.tuks.nl/indexOct2018.html

      http://www.free-energy-info.tuks.nl/PJKBook.html

      • pegaxs on 12/10/2024 - 09:02
        +3

        Yeah, you lost me at “free energy devices”.

        And I think your tin foil hat is on a little tight, it’s cutting off what little circulation you have.

        If these devices worked, they would be in mass production as there are just some places that DGAF about big oil, namely the Chinese. Have a look at their uptake in EV’s, and you’re trying to tell me that if they could pull “free energy” out of their arse, they aren’t because of some “big oil” conspiracy theory bullshit?

        Grow up.

        • mrdean on 12/10/2024 - 10:31
          -2

          If these devices worked, they would be in mass production as there are just some places that DGAF about big oil,

          Not really, as I mentioned before, because economic interests are threatened, a lot of technology gets buried.

          Look up Stanley Meyer & his invention. Rumor has it he was offered hundreds of millions of dollars by big middle east oil interests for his invention. Why? Would these oil interests have shifted focus from oil to Meyer's electrolysis system? Or did they offer him the money in order to buy him out to protect their vast oil holdings that guaranteed future earnings? It's just common sense.

          Meyer's death remains suspicious.

          • pegaxs on 12/10/2024 - 10:57
            +1

            @mrdean:

            because economic interests are threatened, a lot of technology gets buried.

            I said loosen your tinfoil hat, not make it tighter…

            And my god, the old “Stanley Meyer” water car… was waiting for this one to come out. Surprised it took this long… His car wasn’t “functional” and was touted as a “perpetual motion machine”, and it’s well known, perpetual motion doesn’t exist.

            And no one, and I repeat “NO ONE” turns down hundreds of millions of dollars for a non-working concept idea that would never work, thanks to the laws of thermodynamics, because of their “conscience”…

            You know who does turn down 100 million dollar offers? People who made that offer in their own head.

            Meyer was more likely killed by some investor he had ripped off trying to sell his bullshit than by some Saudi oil corp CEO. It’s not “common sense”… it’s “bullshit”.

            So, in the years since his “invention” that never worked and no one can say they ever saw it running, and they still have the vehicle, no one can reverse engineer it or get it running?

            In that time we have gone from phones as big as car batteries to super computers you wear on your wrist. Flown missions to the outer reaches of our solar system. Landed probes on passing asteroids and any other number of mind boggling scientific advances, but no one can work out how Meyer’s car worked…

            FFS. “Big oil” at it, ruining it for the little guys…

            Can’t wait for your next big innovation that no one is talking about, the hydrogen HHO generator kits they sell on eBay…

            • mrdean on 12/10/2024 - 11:07
              -4

              @pegaxs:

              His car wasn’t “functional” and was touted as a “perpetual motion machine”, and it’s well known, perpetual motion doesn’t exist.

              I see someone takes wikipedia on face value. It is interesting, the not-so-nuanced way wiki describes these inventors, putting words into their mouths like "perpetual motion machine". They basically guide not so critical thinking readers into a preformed opinion on the subject, after only a cursory reading. Really interesting psychology at work there. Of course, people who do read those articles, THINK they are being critical.

              Did you read the Columbus Dispatch & Sunday Times articles that are linked as the first & second references on Meyer's wikipedia page? What did you make of them?

              • pegaxs on 12/10/2024 - 11:32

                @mrdean: It never worked. It was studied in court as being fraudulent. He was sued by "investors"… Pissed off investors… What's more likely, a "Big Oil" CEO killing some guy working in his shed at home, or some pissed off "mom & pop" investor that lost their life savings investing in magic beans killing him?

                putting words into their mouths like "perpetual motion machine"

                But it was a "perpetual motion machine" in the way he claimed he took water, split it into oxygen and hydrogen, and recombined the hydrogen and oxygen back into water to fuel the car. This is BULLSHIT. Anyone with even a basic year 8 schooling education knows that this breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Energy is only ever lost, never created. (1st and 2nd law). It's why "perpetual motion machines" in any form… dont work. "Losses".

                I see someone takes wikipedia on face value.

                And this isnt as "wikipedia" thing, I have been debunking this "Meyer's Water Car" shit for as long as I have been a mechanic. I hear it at least once a week "Imagine if they never kill that guy that invented a car that ran on water. We would all be filling up with our garden taps now…". I *sigh* and go through the same spiel I do every other time… It's a scam. It never worked. He never showed it working, and on the time he said he would, it was some other excuse…

                You're not a "critical thinker"… a critical thinker would look at Meyer's work and think… does the "logic" stack up… and it doesn't, ergo, it's bullshit. Critical thinking is being able to look at something with an open mind and making an informed calculation based on facts and logic… Thinking that Meyer invented a car that ran on water and was killed by an oil company protecting its profits and that no one in the last few decades has been able to reverse engineer it is "conspiracy theory nut-jobbery" and is at the complete and utter opposite end of "critical thinking". In other words, you're a sheep. You are looking for articles to fuel your "confirmation bias". This is NOT the trait of a "critical thinker". Cookers and conspiracy theorists are NOT "critical thinkers".

                Did you read the…

                No, I didn't read any "wikipedia" references, let alone what ever ones you are talking about. So, no, I have no opinion on those articles.

                How about this, all of Meyer's patents are all expired and are now public domain, free for any car manufacture to use… so, why do we still not have any "water" powered cars? (I'll give you a hint; because it doesn't (fropanity) work…)

                • mrdean on 12/10/2024 - 11:37
                  -3

                  @pegaxs:

                  And this isnt as "wikipedia" thing, I have been debunking this "Meyer's Water Car" shit for as long as I have been a mechanic.

                  No? Then how come you chose to use the exact words used in the first sentence of the article?

                  I would of thought, being a mechanic, you would be open minded enough to actually consider that what was taught in school (drilled into the minds of people) may not actually be "fact". That in fact, there may be (many) other ways of generating energy. But apparently not.

                  In any case, where did you get the info to "debunk" Meyer? What have you read about it? Link to the articles.

                  • pegaxs on 12/10/2024 - 12:38

                    @mrdean:

                    Then how come you chose to use the exact words used in the first sentence of the article?

                    What? I never read the article. Did you miss the part where I said I have been debunking this guy for almost my entire career as a mechanic? I have done a lot of study on Meyer and his "water car" invention LONG before "wikipedia" was a thing. And I'm sorry, I didn't realise that wikipedia had a trademark on the phrase "perpetual motion machine". I used the phrase because that's what I researched YEARS ago. Turn water, into fuel that turns back into water that you then burn as fuel that turns back to water that you use as fuel that you burn that turns back into water that you burn as fuel… You get the point…

                    being a mechanic, you would be open minded enough to actually consider that what was taught in school…

                    I did. I am almost an engineer with the amount of study I have done over the years, especially on "fuels" (see any of my E10 or RON post replies). I know how fuels work. I understand how thermodynamics works. I know things like thermal efficiency and potential energy. I know about things like energy density and make calculations on these types of engineering concepts almost daily, so yes, I do consider myself a "critical thinker" when it comes to talking about cars, engines and fuels. I take the "facts" that are known and make and informed decision based on "facts" and "logic". What I dont go around doing is subscribing to "http://free-energy-fuel-source.bobsblog.mx/12341239Oct18confirmedsuspicion.pdf" as my confirmation bias seeking source material.

                    there may be (many) other ways of generating energy.

                    There isn't. Energy can only be converted (ie: kinetic to potential) or lost (ie: friction/heat/noise) not "created" (putting 100% in and getting 200% out)

                    But apparently not.

                    The only correct thing you have said so far. You cant "create" energy in a system. You can only get a return of the energy you put in minus any losses, you cant get more out than you put in. Meyer's "water car" required that there be a return of equal to or greater than the energy initially available, and that's impossible. Laws 1 and 2.

                    In any case, where did you get the info to "debunk" Meyer?

                    From years of study. I have read engineering manuals, reports, studies and more, not just on Meyer, but on the subject in general to know that it is "bullshit". I have not read anything on Meyer in probably the last decade or so, because nothing has changed. It still remains a "scam", so there is no "requirement" to revisit it. Unless there is some monumental shift in the law of thermodynamics I need to be aware of, or if someone reverse engineers his design and proves that it does actually work, then I will go back and study it.

                    What I dont do, is source my study material from some crackpot cooker website that is espousing conspiracy theories as a replacement for facts. I get my information from engineering journals or university studies or peer reviewed sources, not from some guy named "Bob" doing cooker shit in his basement on YouTube.

                    • mrdean on 14/10/2024 - 19:29
                      -2

                      @pegaxs:

                      You cant "create" energy in a system. You can only get a return of the energy you put in minus any losses, you cant get more out than you put in.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOX6o4fDNlI

                      Example of getting more energy out than put in. Demo from 1hr40min mark onwards.

                      DePalma's invention of magnetised flywheels capable of generating electricity that overturns the assumptions of modern physics (as inculcated into the minds of science adherents who are unable to handle any experiments that do not conform to "laws"), based on Faraday's work, but extended. 1980's.

  • sumyungguy on 11/10/2024 - 23:46

    In 1980, inventor Stephen Horvarth "demonstrated" a 1974 Ford Fairlane V8 powered by water turned into hydrogen via nuclear fusion. This was five years ahead of the plutonium-powered De-Lorean mounted Flux Capacitor and here we are in 2024 with E-Cat SKLep NGU to enter production when one million pre-orders have been registered. I've gone for the 10W 12v DC version in white. NGU: Never Give Up. BTW, for the 27-September test the E-Cat powered Twizy was driven only by Andrea Rossi and Maico Marzocchi… I wonder why?

  • Hybroid on 12/10/2024 - 03:41

    So these guys claim to have invented some magical generator that can produce 10W or 100W endlessly for ~100,000 hours with no input fuel source required.

    But they’ll only manufacture it if they get 1,000,000 orders of the $250 100W unit.

    The Ecat SKLep NGU 10 W is an electricity generator which operates in self-sustained mode, meaning it operates without being connected to any fuel or energy source. It produced no ionizing radiation, no carbon emissions, nor any other pollutants.

    What is the source of the E-Cat’s energy? It is the inexhaustible zero point energy field that pervades the universe.

    😒

    • mrdean on 12/10/2024 - 08:21
      -3

      with no input fuel source required.

      According to them, they use a form of nickel, apply an unnamed catalyst to it in a pressurized hydrogen environment, which sets off a reaction producing the energy. https://www.ecat.tech/

      Yes, this is a novel reaction, not a typical chemical one. For those who are stuck in believing mainstream physics, I'd encourage them to spend some time reading Miles Mathis' work. He's basically rewritten & unified the standard model.

      • brendanm on 12/10/2024 - 08:32
        +1

        If someone had defied the laws of physics, and doing a way to create energy out of nothing, they would be rich. Insanely rich. Would solve basically all the world's problems.

        This is the same as the perpetual motion and "free energy" things on YouTube.

        • SBOB on 12/10/2024 - 08:48
          +2

          This is the same as the perpetual motion and "free energy" things on YouTube.

          In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuxbMfKO9Pg

        • pegaxs on 12/10/2024 - 09:16

          they would be rich.

          But but but, you forgot "Big Oil" that goes around killing all these people…

        • freefall101 on 12/10/2024 - 12:38
          +1

          Even if they didn't want to solve the world's problems, they could have been insanely rich just by mining bitcoin, or selling power back into the grid.

          Same as anyone selling investment "secrets", if it was really that good then they'd have no need to sell it.

      • freefall101 on 12/10/2024 - 10:14

        Nickel, hydrogen and a catalyst is known as a nickel hydrogen battery, it has existed for decades.

        It can definitely produce energy, but like all batteries the catalyst controls the speed of the reaction.

        Can you explain what the reaction is and how it’s sustained forever? Because what you wrote there is that it’s a battery but magical.

        • mrdean on 12/10/2024 - 11:47
          -1

          Can you explain what the reaction is and how it’s sustained forever?

          No, I can't explain it. Why would you expect me to? I doubt even Rossi can explain it. I am not aware of the claim of its being "sustained forever". The reaction is visible in that 2019 video demo I linked to, the shifting glowing glob of light.

          From memory, in a previous iteration of the e-cat, Rossi did say it would require additional inputs of very small amounts of nickel/catalyst after a period of time.

      • sumyungguy on 12/10/2024 - 10:43
        +2

        Miles Mathis (born 1964) is an American artist, poet, writer, pseudoscientist, and conspiracy theorist. Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories, for instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4.

        • brendanm on 12/10/2024 - 15:25

          😂

          • sumyungguy on 12/10/2024 - 15:47

            @brendanm: I used to work with a bunch of people with degrees who were and are probably still admant that pi is 3.14, full stop, no further decimals needed.

            • brendanm on 12/10/2024 - 16:04

              @sumyungguy: While silly, at least it's far closer than 4 😂 How could you even claim it was 4 when it's so easily proven that it's not.

      • Hybroid on 12/10/2024 - 13:35

        Yes, this is a novel reaction, not a typical chemical one.

        What does this mean though? Of course it's a chemical reaction hence the nickel + lithium + catalyst + hydrogen + pressure. Basically just sounds like a form of battery when put that way.

        https://ecatthenewfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/E-Cat-…

        But even then, they're claiming a US$250 box can power a 100W bulb for 11+ years non-stop without any external fuel sources…

        If that was real, and as modular as they say to combine multiple modules, our entire world would change instantly overnight. Just imagine the possibilities.

        Someone on Reddit did the math and strongly suggests the Twizy simply had an additional battery: https://www.reddit.com/r/LENR/comments/1fz1hdr/ecat_infinite…

        On other discussion forums, seems this grift has been going on for years. He takes large orders via escrow but hasn't delivered anything yet and failed delivery dates repeatedly that keep being pushed out.

        In any case Leonardo Corporation will inform the Customer of the delivery date within December 31st, 2022. If the target of 1,000,000 ( one million) of orders is not reached, this order will be void.

        2022 spec sheet: https://ecatorders.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SKLep-Data…

        Here's a critical review of an Ecat lamp that was announced in 2021, with other blog articles since 2017 on this subject: https://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/ - Haven't read it all, unlikely to, but might be of interest to you.

        Another article from 2016 alleging Rossi's fraudulent intentions and history: https://news.newenergytimes.net/2016/11/02/the-pied-piper-of…

        • mrdean on 12/10/2024 - 16:53
          -2

          What does this mean though? Of course it's a chemical reaction hence the nickel + lithium + catalyst + hydrogen + pressure. Basically just sounds like a form of battery when put that way.

          There's a bit more info here: https://e-catworld.com/what-is-the-e-cat-2/

          On that page, there's a link to a 2013 paper here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

          "An experimental investigation of possible anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube named E-Cat HT is carried out. The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils inside the reactor tube…………Data were collected in two experimental runs lasting 96 and 116 hours, respectively. An anomalous heat production was indicated in both experiments. The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without the active charge present in the E-Cat HT. In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electric input. Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources."

  • brendanm on 12/10/2024 - 07:40
    +2

    Bro…

  • Baysew on 12/10/2024 - 11:04
    +1

    I would be all in, but a Renault is a deal breaker.

    Some alternatives to consider.

  • payless69 on 12/10/2024 - 11:07

    Cat logic, makes perfect sense.

  • Euphemistic on 12/10/2024 - 13:10

    First warning sign is that the video shows nothing apart from one car travellingfurther than the other. A proper demonstration video would show a little detail aboht the thing they are touting, even just the shape.

    Secondly, the website linked by OP about the ecat is just a page of links to other stuff or a fluff piece about how wonderful it is. Any proper inventor would have a basic description, maybe a diagram etc frpnt and centre.

    If it was such a wondrous thing he'd have investors falking all over themselves to get it into production somehow and show all those big companies hoe to really build stuff. Alternatviely, theyd have a team of researchers tryong to replicate it and woukd have announced its happening in the near future.

    The fact the inventor has been accused of making stuff up is a tbird warning sign. What makes this new miraculous but secret invention any more real than the last.

  • mapax on 12/10/2024 - 13:53
    +1

    My gallbladder is messed up and I’m exhausted resulting in a smooth brain that can’t follow what’s going on with that tech.

    • pegaxs on 12/10/2024 - 20:55
      +1

      Have you considered “fluoride” as a treatment for smooth brain? Only problem is, the side effects are a hunched back but brilliant teeth…

  • CurlCurl on 14/10/2024 - 20:28

    mrdean sounds more like Mr Bean with every post he makes.

    My guess is he even looks like him.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join