Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote: Rossi has previously said the eCat is no danger : at most it would melt > and stop working. >
Yup. That's what he said. I think he is being a lot more sensible now. You don't know what the dangers are until you manufacture and test a large number of devices. Look at the problems with batteries in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, and the recent fires with Tesla automobiles. > The E-Cat poses relevant problems in domestic applications, where not > qualified Customers can use it. We should be exposed to enormous risks, > also for voluntary sabotages. > Can you imagine what our enemies could do in a “friendly” apartment with > an E-Cat they could buy for 1,000 $ in a shop ? This is why, realistically, > domestic application cannot be a priority. > I think what he means here is that someone opposed to cold fusion might purchase a unit and then stage an accident. That may sound paranoid but I would be concerned about it too, if I were him. Once there are hundreds of thousands of units in service, it would be a lot harder for someone to stage an accident like that. You may recall a few years ago the Prius has problems with going out of control. There were actual incident like that, and people killed. Then there was a fake incident. Someone in California, I think it was, staged an accident in which he pressed the brake and the accelerator repeatedly. I guess he was trying to extort money from Toyota. Anyway, it did not take long for investigators to see through it. If there were already a hundred thousand e-cats in operation in commercial or factory sites, and someone staged a fake accident, I expect investigators would soon see through it. The actual performance of the machine would be well understood. Investigators would recognize the signs of something like a chemical fire, and they would understand there is no chemical fuel in an e-cat. They would understand that in a world where e-cats are common. They would NOT understand it today. - Jed
