Riddle me this. Riddle me that. Have you seen the flying bat?
I didn't say anything about how it works, and don't have a degree in Nuclear Physics.
Posted on 04/09/2011 2:06:23 PM PDT by Windflier
This FAQ covers Andrea Rossi's technology, which combines small amounts of ubiquitous and safe Nickel and Hydrogen in the presence of proprietary catalyst under pressure and heat to generate a large amount of heat. It also addresses questions about the commercialization under way.
FAQ
What is the Energy Catalyzer?
It is a "Cold Fusion" device developed by Italian engineer and inventor Andrea Rossi. It produces heat by placing nickel powder of very small particle size (nano-meters to micro-meters) in a pressurized hydrogen environment along with currently undisclosed (for proprietary reasons) catalysts that enhance the reaction. When this environment is heated to approximately 450 - 500 C, a nuclear reaction starts taking place. This reaction releases a large amount of energy while consuming very little hydrogen and nickel powder.
How much energy does this system produce?
There is currently only one model of reactor that has been disclosed. It is designed to produce 10 kW of continuous thermal energy in the form of heated water or steam. However, this is not the upper limit of the energy the system can produce. It can be throttled up to 130 kW or higher, but that is avoided except during experimentation for safety reasons.
What proof do we have this technology works as claimed?
Andrea Rossi has used one of these devices to continually heat one of his factories for two years. In addition, recent publicized tests performed by third party scientists at the University of Bologna have verified that the output is far beyond any chemical reaction possible, that there are no hidden external sources of energy feeding the reactor, and that the output far exceeds the energy input. In one test, the device self sustained with no input for a period of time before the short experiment was ended. Another experiment allowed the reactor to run for 18 hours producing a constant average output of 15 kW utilizing only an average of 80 watts of input. Successful tests such as these have impressed scientists and have inspired the one year research program at the University of Bologna .
But I will take your money.
***I’ll take yours
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts
but unfortunately, based upon your postings so far in this thread, I have little confidence that you’ll read even the first paragraph of an article that is posted. But I do thank you for posting the evidence that Rossi is a crook who’s already spent time in jail for fraud. At least your skepticism isn’t a total loss.
“I’d be happy to discuss Pamela Mosier-Boss’s work on one of the threads dedicated to it, like this one http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2212864/posts";
That thread is 2 years old (2009). It seems anyone who bet money on “Dr Arata’s experiment to be replicated in peer-reviewed scientific journal on/before 31 Dec 2009” lost their money. Read a good part of that thread: you and your ilk gave no sound argumentation for your beliefs.
‘My comment was towards the “near certainty” that there will never be true cold fusion unless some exotic matter is found.’
Kevmo, why are you retreating? You need to defend the pure and true cold fusion with your last breath and dollar!!!
‘If you’re saying he’s right, then prove it. “
I did. You said Mosier-Boss’ work proved fusion. dila813 said LENR does not imply cold fusion. I gave arguments that the vaunted triple tracks is due to fission (NOT FUSION) of carbon nuclei by energetic electrons producing 3 alpha particles. Thus I prooved you wrong and dila813 correct. You really need to read what I write.
‘The remainder of your post was about other things besides what I wrote.’
Au contraire. I am giving you scientific background for you to understand the veracity of dila813’s POV and the fallacy of your POV. You do not appear to have any scientific or engineering background. You are in love with the idea of cold fusion. And there are people who are attracted to lost causes. You collect any and all news that positively reinforces your beliefs. You yourself cannot debate the issues on your own and you just give us lists of collected url’s.
On Intrade, I see nothing related to cold fusion. But I see Focus Fusion which plans to split boron nuclei with deuterium ions, similar to the mechanism of neutron generators used by oil companies to inspect pipeline integrity. This is - again - fission but I need to look further as to the proposed technology.
Kevmo, when R. Mills or Rossi will go IPO? If they do, I will sell short their stock in an instant.
Look up the energy dependence of the cross section for neutron capture by U-235 in nuclear fission to illustrate the point...nuclear reactions go at different rates depending on various things, and the energy of the particles emitted can vary (at the point of origination so to speak).
My point was, if the neutrons are being released as the result of a nuclear reaction, *and* there are distinct sets of products with different energies, or different internal states of the products, then the emerging neutrons might have a range, or multiple discrete ranges, of kinetic energy.
Incidentally, the authors mention using boron-infused water -- what is the neutron capture cross section of their apparatus (depends on pressure, concentration of boron, temperature, volume, etc. etc.)
Cheers!
Flippin' Sweet. I'll have to put time on my calendar to read that.
Second question: since this is apparently a *surface* effect ("Surface Plasmon Polaritons"), do any characteristics of the metal surface (relative surface area of different crystal faces; presence or topology of boundaries between crystal faces; impurities in the metal) affect the rate of the reaction? Can one "tune" the metal -- in principle, if not yet in practice -- in increase the energy yield?
Cheers!
Yes, definitely a surface effect.
The current state of the art is like striking steel to see if it will throw off sparks. Sometimes you get lucky. I’m assuming Rossi has figured out a process to “tune” the nickel. I’m guessing he found a process to make nano particle nickel of a shape or size that easily causes a LENR reaction to take place.
That would also explain why you have to “recharge” the reactants. As each region of the nano particle undergoes the reaction it will melt or even vaporize, destroying the structure required to create the initial reaction.
Barracuda1412,
If you would spend some time reading up on the Widom-Larsen theory, you would have seen that the capture of an electron by a proton creates a neutron and the correct neutrino.
The neutrino goes zipping off to who knows where, but the neutron sticks around, and since it is in a solid and has nearly NO momentum, its wave function is very large. This neutron gets absorbed in a matter of a few femto seconds.
No free neutrons, just atoms getting way too many neutrons.
the process once called “cold fusion”
By who, the writer of this article??
Google it, they haven’t and they don’t.
Someone already sent me this link.
Sorry, there are just too many scammers out there. There is always an excuse why they didn’t persist or weren’t reproducible.
No free neutrons
So this would be the only nuclear reaction that is 100% without any deviation in the reaction. Just a perfect flawless reaction.
Do you seriously believe that?
No one on this thread has answered why they won’t allow radiation detectors, because there isn’t any.
Might as well be from a science fiction novel.
One of the predictions of the Widom-Larsen theory of LENR is the lack of neutron flux and hard radiation. It also predicts random bursts of soft x-rays, and neutron bursts from reaction sites that have shut down. If I was Rossi, I wouldn’t want my competition insight of what is happening in my reaction vessel.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke, “Profiles of The Future”, 1961 (Clarke’s third law)
That’s where we are right now with Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR).
Take some time to read the presentations, you might learn something.
The US Patent office thinks they know something. See patent #7893414 “Apparatus and Method for Absorption of Incident Gamma Radiation and its Conversion to Outgoing Radiation at Less Penetrating, Lower Energies and Frequencies”
If I was a scientist/engineer who figured out a process to reliably create a usable LENR device, and I knew it was unlikely some one could reverse engineer it, I would keep my mouth shut and go into production.
Just like Andrea Rossi. Just start building them, and eventually retire filthy rich.
Detecting radiation will not help you in any way, it would just confirm that there is a nuclear reaction taking place.
Riddle me this. Riddle me that. Have you seen the flying bat?
I didn't say anything about how it works, and don't have a degree in Nuclear Physics.
I have a riddle for you.
Why are there sunspots? More importantly, why are they DARK?
Why is the Surface of the Sun at several thousand degrees and the atmosphere above it at several million degrees. According to physics, this makes no sense.
I don't know. I was only pointing out what was in the article, in reference to a comment by a poster that it was some kind of 'free energy' device.
combines small amounts of ubiquitous and safe Nickel and Hydrogen in the presence of proprietary catalyst under pressure and heat to generate a large amount of heat
I noticed that when I read the article, and thought that it was likely they were not including the 'energy' required to perform that process in their quote of 80 watts of input power.
Much like the greenies who leave out the actual source of 'energy' to recharge battery powered cars.
But.... do you believe that?
Of course not
That thread is 2 years old (2009).
***I said I would be happy to discuss it on a thread LIKE that one. It appears you have a problem with the english language.
Read a good part of that thread: you and your ilk gave no sound argumentation for your beliefs.
***Looks like you didn’t read the whole thing, which is about what I expect from naysayers. I love this expression, “you and your ilk”, it’s freeping hilarious. I gave enough sound argumentation for my beliefs that I was awarded the contract expiration in my favor. That seems to be more than you and your ilk can fathom.
‘My comment was towards the “near certainty” that there will never be true cold fusion unless some exotic matter is found.’
Kevmo, why are you retreating? You need to defend the pure and true cold fusion with your last breath and dollar!!!
***I see you’re resorting to the horse laugh fallacy, If this is an indication of your ability to reason properly, keep it up because it makes things easier for me. Why are you retreating? I directly wrote what I wrote and now you seem to want to argue against stuff that I didn’t write. Historically this is known as straw argumentation, another fallacy. Your logical reasoning is unsound, so why should we believe that your scientific reasoning is any better?
You said Mosier-Boss’ work proved fusion.
***BZZZZTTT wrong. Again arguing against something I did not write. Why are YOU retreating? What I wrote was: “My comment was towards the “near certainty” that there will never be true cold fusion unless some exotic matter is found. If you’re saying he’s right, then prove it.” And now you try to deflect over to Mosier-Boss’s work, using a straw argument. Fallacy. Looks like you don’t know how to reason properly.
Au contraire.
***If you wanna talk about Mosier-Boss’s work, then open a thread on it and invite me. I do not have confidence that your fallacious arguments will improve.
You do not appear to have any scientific or engineering background.
***I’ve got enough of a technical background to get others to pay me money for what I know about technical stuff. But you do not appear to have passed a Freshman level critical thinking class.
On Intrade, I see nothing related to cold fusion.
***Good for you. It appears you didn’t bother to read the article and now it seems almost like you’re bragging about it. Oh well, at least you comprehended enough to go over to Intrade, but if this is another example of your reading skills, there would be very little incentive to argue with you in the future. Thanks to Arrowhead1952 “I never argue with a fool, since someone observing the exchanges may not be able to tell who the fool is”.
Kevmo, when R. Mills or Rossi will go IPO?
***Who knows, who cares, and where do you get the idea that this has anything whatsoever to do with my mechanism for having made money on cold fusion? Is it yet another example of your reading skills, or a projection of your straw argumentating?
If they do, I will sell short their stock in an instant.
***Yeah, I’ve been round & round with ilk like you and when the time came, they didn’t put their money down in a manner which matched their invective. You’ll do the same.
backtracking, retreating, and a non sequitur to boot
I did google it. They have and they do.
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.