If it sounds too good to be true...?<p>No graphs, no public measurements, no scientific publication: no merit.<p>Honest inventors want to be transparent and have their historical claim validated by top-ranking organisation. Clearly another case of wired.com diving into the fantastic and inspirational. Just search and see what their methodology is over the past months. Just invest a bit more money and we can do a bigger test... Nice income source, not an energy source.<p>Just look at how the media is being manipulated. Amusing if it wasn't a waste of time and resources.
I really want to believe it works, but this cloak and dagger stuff is killing me. Anonymous customer, technical glitch preventing it from generating the advertised megawatt, connected power cable? Is it real or not?<p>Then again, with Starlite we have real videos showing that it withstands at least a torch, yet nobody commercialized the stuff, because the inventor was supposedly too greedy... what a shame.
Other discussion here: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3170907" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3170907</a><p>Frankly I'm assuming it's a scam, or at best very very badly named, until we find out more details.
Leaving aside the speculation about whether this is real or not, the E-Cat is not cold fusion.<p>Rossi: "is not cold fusion but weak [force] nuclear reactions."<p>New energy times quote from Rossi - <a href="http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/3626-energycatalyzer.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/3626-energycatalyz...</a>
Wikipedia - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer</a>