Andrea Rossi’s Plan to Commercialize Cold Fusion — Says Initial Cost of Electricity 1 Cent per kWh.

Free Energy Times ^ | March 9, 2011

[Normandy]

If you listen to inventor Andrea Rossi responding to questions about his “energy catalyzer” cold fusion device, he regularly brings up the topic of commercialization of his devices.

Yesterday he responded briefly to inquiries and a request for an interview from Sterling Allen at the PESWiki web site in which he indicated that he was not inclined to talk about his inventions until after October, when the first operating power plant which will be built in Greece is expected to be up and running.

He states, “I am sorry to inform you that I prefer not to make interviews until October, when we will start up our 1 MW plant.

"Therefore I kindly ask you to defer our contact to the end of November. I will only make an interview to an European radio because I already got this engagement a month ago, but that will be my last communication before end October, unless I will have something new to communicate. I prefer to work and not talk, until I start the industrial production and operation of my plants."

[Red Badger]

Absolutely not!

I was merely pointing out that what you wrote could equally apply to Global Warming hoaxers as well.

The only difference is the CF guys are targeting individual investors, ant the GW hoaxers are targeting government legislators.

The GW guys have an easier row to hoe............

[taxcontrol]

You are painting with a very wide brush my friend. His invention has been observed by outside scientists and is said to produce excess heat.

Lets give the man the opportunity to prove his claims.

[PapaBear3625]

As for number 1, he says “for now we prefer not to have investors. We finance ourselves selling our plants” That doesn’t mean he hasn’t had investors, so that’s still a possiblity.

The purchasers of his early units are effectively his investors.

I'd like to see a demo of one of his units running for a month at the location of an independent observer, producing a megawatt(thermal) of output.

[taxcontrol]

Yeah, the cost to PRODUCE electricity is far different than the:

- costs to comply with health and safety laws
- costs to pay union workers
- costs to comply with environmental regulations
- costs to monitor and meter the electricity
- costs to build the distribution system
- costs of maintenance
- and of course, taxes

[djf]

Well, Duh!!

For all I know, he could have had lemmings running on a wheel.

It was a local news story, and they had mechanics check the whole setup before/after the test.

These kinds of reports are like crop circles.

Even if 99.9 percent are outright fraud, all it takes is one to be true.

There is alot of con going on. But that by itself doesn’t make the idea impossible.

[PapaBear3625]

Probably did this the same way the old fill your gas tank with water and drop in this special pill scam worked. Secret gas tank hidden someplace in the car

This is why I'd like to see this unit run for a month, at a different location, under supervision.

For the case of cars with extraordinary mpg, the test also needs to be to run continuously for a month(using drivers in relays, or on a dynamometer) and see. Hybrid car makers are big culprits in this sort of scam, starting the test with full batteries and not counting their contribution.

[drbuzzard]

Experimental evidence consistently demonstrates that nuclear-scale energy, in the form of heat, is being generated without harmful radiation, greenhouse gasses or nuclear waste.

You forgot a key word there, as in 'disputed' experimental evidence consistently demonstrates...

Scientific American throws some cold water on the Cold Fusion debate here with a discussion of the findings of a DOE review panel. Most people in the panel don't seem to be sold("two thirds of reviewers found the evidence unconvincing").

Actually I found this article to be fairly interesting. The author makes a rather telling point that even if Cold Fusion works, it doesn't seem to generate enough energy to be interesting (as in it is less cost effective than wind or solar, which we know are already laughable).

[from occupied ga]

This is why I'd like to see this unit run for a month, at a different location, under supervision.

Which is why you'll never see that. There are so many ways to fake a demonstration that you could never account for them all.

[Straight Vermonter]

Or he is just wrong.

[from occupied ga]

But that by itself doesn’t make the idea impossible.

Physics goes a long way toward making it impossible. Cold fusion is just modern perpetual motion.

[djf]

Well, like I said above, I am somewhat skeptical. For sure, I’m not gonna invest a months salary in it.

What they need to do now has two parts:
1) Absolutely, positively, undeniably verify that there is excess energy being produced
2) Come up with some sound, provable, peer-reviewed theoretical basis for exactly what in hallelujah is going on.

For all we know, some of the successes might happen at places that use fluorescent lights while the failures happen at places using incandescents.
Could be some hidden, previously unseen quantum effect.

We just don’t know yet.

But I think there is enough evidence to warrant continued testing.

[drbuzzard]

You are painting with a very wide brush my friend. His invention has been observed by outside scientists and is said to produce excess heat.

I'm painting with a wide brush? I don't really see that. We have a branch of research which is very much in dispute and has not really produced anything in the way of either compelling experimental evidence or any real theoretical explanation for what is allegedly occurring. As was said in an article I cited in another post, nobody has managed to as much as boil a cup of tea with Cold Fusion energy, so claims of 1 cent per kWh are pure pie in the sky.

Lets give the man the opportunity to prove his claims.

I have no objection to that. I would, however, favor him chasing his chimeras with private funding.

[drbuzzard]

But I think there is enough evidence to warrant continued testing.

I'm generally all for research, but there's no infinite pool of research funds. I would say if a researcher can find private funds interested in seeing if this pans out, more power to him. If it requires the DOE to make the funding come about, I say no. Heck, I want the DOE gone as it is (put their control of the nuclear stockpile into some other agency, or make one specifically for it).

[CommerceComet]

What they need to do now has two parts: 1) Absolutely, positively, undeniably verify that there is excess energy being produced 2) Come up with some sound, provable, peer-reviewed theoretical basis for exactly what in hallelujah is going on.

The scientific community would want #2. Frankly, consumers and investors would be satisfied with #1 and probably don't care about #2. As long as the cold fusion process works, consumers and investors wouldn't care if the explanation was elves and fairy dust.

[djf]

I have Dirac on my bookshelf.
De Broglie, Einstein, Menzel, J. S. Bell, Maxwell.

Yur not talking to some clam-digger.

The changes in physics have been some of the most violent in the intellectual world.
That was a metaphor of sorts, but true nonetheless.

The Earth used to be the center of the universe. Then it wasn’t the center of the universe.

Newton figured out gravity and invented calculus.

Then, some odd things were found about Mercurys orbit, and Newton was shown to be wrong.

Then Einstein figured that one out.

Then the quantum world was discovered and much of what Einstein said (at least about space and time and locality) were thrown out.

The next change to physics will probably shake it to it’s very foundations.

That’s why things like this interest me. As possible pointers to whatever will come to be accepted (after a whole lot of grumbling and sneering and denigrating) as the new model of our understanding of the universe(s).

So you can deny it all you want, that by itself doesn’t make it true or untrue.

God does not play Dice!!

[HangnJudge]

http://www.coldfusionenergyscience.com/theory

The theory behind cold fusion involves
a “deflated zeroith orbital” for the
electron in a hydrogen atom
this is generally considered a
violation of known physics

I've seen much of the arguments for this
and believe that the math is not rigorous

[from occupied ga]

I have Dirac on my bookshelf. De Broglie, Einstein, Menzel, J. S. Bell, Maxwell.

And here I thought they were dead and buried.

Then, some odd things were found about Mercurys orbit, and Newton was shown to be wrong.

Newton wasn't wrong. He just didn't account for some stuff under some conditions. He was right as far as he went. Likewise the current physical requirement of overcoming the proton-proton repulsion to get them close enough to fuse is not wrong. If some magical method that does this in bulk matter exists that doesn't require enormous heat and pressure, then it has yet to be seen. You can get fusion in a particle accelerator, but you'll never be able to use one to produce net energy. I suppose a particle accelerator would qualify as cold fusion, but we're talking about net energy production. So I will remain intensely sceptical, but please feel free to invest in one of these schemes. I'll look forward to hearing how it turns out.

[djf]

Actually, I think if you take Newtons numbers and apply the Lorentz transforms to it, they work fine and you don’t need Albert at all.

Cold fusion is probably a long shot, but it might be revolutionary.

Whatever happens in physics, you can bet one thing: Alot of well-respected peoples jaws are gonna collectively hit the floor!

[drbuzzard]

I've seen much of the arguments for this and believe that the math is not rigorous

Ok, I read through a fair amount of that 'explanation' of the science of Cold Fusion. I read until it went off the rails of actual science. I have a PhD in Materials Science. While I generally focused on Thermodynamics and Solidification in my work, I did take enough courses in the quantum aspects of materials to know when that article started spouting utter gibberish.

The article does an OK job of explaining quantum implications of metallic bonding (not great, but OK), but then it jumps in with nonsense about 'deuterons' as if a deuterium nuclei was a quantum scale particle relevant in the scope of metallic bonding. It most assuredly is not. We're talking drastically different scales here, and completely different physical processes which govern the interactions. It's noteworthy that the article in question doesn't actually have an author. This is understandable since I can't imagine anyone would actually want their name attached to such drivel.

[mowowie]

I’ve read the same thing.
I’m fairly excited about this.