Posted on 11/03/2011 4:05:36 PM PDT by PapaBear3625
Despite a world of skepticism about E-Cat and other devices, proof is adding up
Italian physicist and inventor Andrea Rossi has conducted a public demonstration of his "cold fusion" machine, the E-Cat, at the University of Bologna, showing that a small amount of input energy drives an unexplained reaction between atoms of hydrogen and nickel that leads to a large outpouring of energy, more than 10 times what was put in.
The first seemingly successful cold fusion experiment was reported two decades ago, but the process has forever been met with heavy skepticism. It's a seemingly impossible process in which two types of atoms, typically a light element and a heavier metal, seem to fuse together, releasing pure heat that can be converted into electricity. The process is an attractive energy solution for two reasons: Unlike in nuclear fission, the reaction doesn't give off dangerous radiation. Unlike the fusion processes that take place in the sun, cold fusion doesn't require extremely high temperatures.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Rossi said he tried to replicate Fleischmann and Pons and no workee.
***Evidence, please.
“...an unexplained reaction...”
Stopped reading right there. Should have stopped at “MSNBC.”
If they are scamming, it will get out soon enough.
Most of the world is still calling this a lie.
Forbes and MSNBC have now reported it. The set-up is getting higher, waiting for a fall.
It’s a fine line to walk between being gullible and a close minded flat earther. A lot of modern scientists are flat earthers. They just suck off the genius of others and name themselves wonderful by association of job title.
The flat earthers are the ones who talk about how “smart” they are and how “stupid” everyone else is. Really smart scientists just are.
“How much nickel gets converted to copper per kwh of heat ? ***A whole bunch. “
Well, that’s not good. Nickel is currently about $20/kg. So if it takes more than a gram of nickel to generate a kwh of heat, then that would be a pretty expensive way to generate electricity.
Not much time now. I’ll tell what I remember. A short while back a contrarian view from “New Energy” ? was posted here on FR. In the article is text and video made by the author including an interview with Rossi.
Rossi talks about starting out experiments, first using F/P. It’s in that interview.
Should be easy to track here on FR... lemme know if I need to run it down.
j
I have heard that it is 100x less expensive than oil but I would have to pursue the actual facts if it became important.
please track it down
it could prove significant, whether pro or con...
OOPs, not much nickel gets converted at all... What I meant to say was that a WHOLE BUNCH of energy results from the conversion, but the amount of nickel converted is actually quite small. E=MC^2, there is very little mass for a bunch of energy.
Could you provide some detail for that claim? Since the energy that was released when the hydrogen and oxygen formed the water is no longer present, it doesn't seem like you could be referring to chemical energy.
People make millions on the homeopathic scam and millions buy those balance bracelets. Go figure. Rossi, the three-time scammer is out for his share of your money!
Please give the equations for the reactions. Thank you.
It’s basically everywhere.
LESSON #1: COLD FUSION IS IMPORTANT
Dr. Eugene Mallove: “One important implication of cold fusion is that there are, at least, 300 gallons of gasoline equivalent in every gallon of ordinary water. If you take the heavy hydrogen contained in one gallon of water, normal water that you drink, or get at the pond or the lake or the ocean, and fuse that heavy hydrogen into helium, which is what is happening in cold fusion.
This gives you heat, and that amount of heat is the equivalent of 300 gallons of gasoline. That means that in only one cubic kilometer of ocean, we have the energy equivalent of the entire known oil reserves on Earth. And that means total energy independence from any localized supply of oil plus the environmental benefit of not producing CO2 and other noxious pollutants.
Perhaps you forget that I gave up on you a couple of threads ago when you went off the deep end.
Feel free to post weird stuff about google results with Kevmo and homeopathy.
T4BTT
I see. It didn't occur to me that you were comparing the chemical energy available from a gallon of oil through combustion in air, with the energy available through various and unspecified nuclear processes using a gallon of sea water.
It sounded too much like the claims of people who have attempted to sell carburetors that would allow cars to run on water instead of gas.
Seagull guano is real and valuable!
Keep in mind that Rossi’s ecat isn’t fusing deuterium (from heavy water) into helium.
If this whole thing turns out to be a chemical reaction then all the better. No NRC oversight. The fuel would be... hydrogen & Nickel? The waste products are... heat & helium & copper, or something like that? What exactly is the downside to calling this a chemical reaction?
people who have attempted to sell carburetors that would allow cars to run on water instead of gas.
***Well, best of luck with that. Not sure what your point was, though.
My point was that I didn't understand your statement because I didn't see the context of comparing chemical reactions for one material with nuclear reactions of another material.
Surely we can both agree that a gallon of oil contains a good deal of hydrogen that could be converted into helium, using whatever unspecified process that could be used on the hydrogen contained in the gallon of sea water.
It simply wasn't clear to me what you were getting at. Now I see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.