A buddy took delivery of a Rossi-Focardi Nickel-Hydrogen fusion reactor a few weeks ago. He paid $4K for it and so far is satisfied. Why isn’t fusion being considered as a cheap energy source by this article?
“cold fusion” is more of a electrochemical reaction than a nuclear one.
It is not totally understood yet and it is interesting but the lack of neutron emissions indicates it is not fusion.
Fusion is the direction of the future. Just not an easy one to sustain for more than miliseconds.
Really? That's probably the most newsworthy/noteworthy bit in this whole thread. All the skeptics quoted in here would definitely like to know if:
(a) your buddy is still alive and healthy after a month or two; and (b) if his electric bill is now zero (or less) thanks to the output of the thing.
A buddy took delivery of a Rossi-Focardi Nickel-Hydrogen fusion reactor a few weeks ago. He paid $4K for it and so far is satisfied. Why isn’t fusion being considered as a cheap energy source by this article?
And when it is all spent out he can sell the core for copper!
What, really, where, how and what power output?
I think you forgot your sarcasm tag.