Skip to comments.
Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel
Sifferkol.se ^
| 10/8/2014
| Giuseppe Levi
Posted on 10/08/2014 11:12:32 AM PDT by toast
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-83 next last
Latest test report for Rossi's E-Cat.
1
posted on
10/08/2014 11:12:32 AM PDT
by
toast
To: toast
What does this mean for the laymen among us?
2
posted on
10/08/2014 11:17:03 AM PDT
by
scouter
(As for me and my household... We will serve the LORD.)
To: scouter
From the little that I understand, it seems to verify by a legitimate source, that LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction)is real. It releases more energy than can be explained by a simple chemical reaction and the isotopes that remain say it is nuclear in nature, but not with radiation or high energy particles like typical nuclear. A clean economical ‘new’ energy source?
3
posted on
10/08/2014 11:22:36 AM PDT
by
wattsgnu
To: scouter
It means that this stupid $4!+ is back!
4
posted on
10/08/2014 11:22:58 AM PDT
by
fuente
(Liberty resides in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box--Fredrick Douglas)
To: scouter
There is still work to do on theory and engineering to maximize potential but LENR (cold fusion) is confirmed as a real energy source.
5
posted on
10/08/2014 11:23:32 AM PDT
by
toast
To: scouter
It means the snake-oil salesman Rossi is running low on funds and trying to squeeze a little more funding out of his flagship hoax.
6
posted on
10/08/2014 11:25:02 AM PDT
by
SpaceBar
To: toast
In simplistic terms, what is the chemical conversion process? Does it make sense that it could be exothermic?
What did the lithium and nickel change into? Matter to energy?
7
posted on
10/08/2014 11:25:12 AM PDT
by
dhs12345
To: toast
There is still work to do on theory and engineering to maximize potential but LENR (cold fusion) is confirmed as a real energy source.
Hopefully, the maxed out potential of this ahem, technology, might just be able to make coffee.
8
posted on
10/08/2014 11:25:52 AM PDT
by
ZX12R
(Never forget the heroes of Benghazi, who were abandoned to their deaths by Obama)
To: scouter
What does this mean for the laymen among us? The transmutation of such light elements (In this case, Nickel to Copper) is thought to be impossible without a stellar mass to heat and squeeze the elements together.
A pretty big deal, if true. It could open up an entire new branch of physics, provide a new source of energy (not renewable, but clean, cheap and plentiful), and change how we think about the universe that we live in.
9
posted on
10/08/2014 11:29:54 AM PDT
by
Mr. Quarterpanel
(I am not an actor, but I play one on TV)
To: toast
Bologna University and the Stockholm Institute of Technology. Interesting. Those appear to be legit independent third parties.
10
posted on
10/08/2014 11:39:53 AM PDT
by
piytar
(So....you are saying that Hilllary (and Obama) do not know what the meaning of the word "IS" IS?)
To: toast
LENR has been around an awfully long time to still be in the prototype/testing stage.
I wonder why that might be?
11
posted on
10/08/2014 11:43:07 AM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
("The man who damns money obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it earned it." --Ayn Rand)
To: ZX12R
I dunno. 1.5 MWh would do quite a bit more than that. Went to the paper - the organizations whose people did the study and wrote the paper appear to be legit independent third parties. Of corse, that does not rule out other shenanigans...
12
posted on
10/08/2014 11:43:15 AM PDT
by
piytar
(So....you are saying that Hilllary (and Obama) do not know what the meaning of the word "IS" IS?)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
13
posted on
10/08/2014 11:43:45 AM PDT
by
piytar
(So....you are saying that Hilllary (and Obama) do not know what the meaning of the word "IS" IS?)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
I wonder why that might be?
Nefarious intent aside, if there's no working theory available to explain the results, it's awfully difficult to build a device that can operate safely. There's no framework to predict what might happen. I'd have to think these guys are just plodding around in the dark, tweaking here and there just to see what will happen.
Imagine someone who stumbled onto nuclear fission, maybe by building a radioactive pile and noticing it got warm, but didn't have the theory to predict critical mass, or even suspect that critical mass was a factor. Could easily build a bomb by mistake.
14
posted on
10/08/2014 11:52:44 AM PDT
by
chrisser
(When do we get to tell the Middle East to stop clinging to their guns and religion?)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
It,s apparently tough to kick off and doesn’t,t burn fuel fast enough to generate much net energy.
15
posted on
10/08/2014 11:54:50 AM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: toast
Considering a thermal to electric efficiency of 40% (generous) the plant can sell only 44% more than the electricity put in. That is, they put in 1 megawatt hour into the reactor, they can generate 1 megawatt to go back into the reactor and 440 KW for sales distribution.
16
posted on
10/08/2014 11:56:03 AM PDT
by
cicero2k
To: E. Pluribus Unum
My only explanation for the long development time is that the mainstream science rejected it because it doesn’t fit any known nuclear model. This is the same mainstream science that says AGW is not open to debate. I will be reading up on Pons and Fleischmann from the original cold fusion days in the ‘70’s. Science is not supposed to be run like the Inquisition with non-believers discredited/disgraced by those in power.I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I don’t trust mainstream anything anymore.
17
posted on
10/08/2014 11:59:03 AM PDT
by
wattsgnu
To: toast
There is still work to do on theory and engineering to maximize potential but LENR (cold fusion) is confirmed as a real energy source. I've been following this for many years. It initially seemed promising, but I'm jaded by lack of results. Ping me when they have a product which actually makes money in a commercial environment.
18
posted on
10/08/2014 12:03:39 PM PDT
by
PapaBear3625
(You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
To: toast
The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The "COP factor" is the ratio of output energy to input energy. The problem for e-Cat is that the input energy is electricity, the output is heat, and electricity is much more expensive than heat. They need to get a COP ratio of 10 or more to be economically viable.
19
posted on
10/08/2014 12:07:45 PM PDT
by
PapaBear3625
(You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
To: wattsgnu
"Mainstream science" doesn't have anything to do with it.
If it is a viable source of energy a revolutionary product would have been introduced long ago.
You don't need the permission of "mainstream science" to build something that works. You just have to have a technology that works.
20
posted on
10/08/2014 12:08:05 PM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
("The man who damns money obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it earned it." --Ayn Rand)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-83 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson