Posted on 05/24/2013 6:35:28 PM PDT by Kevmo
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1563 ... ity-of-gas
Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10,000 times the energy density of gas By Sebastian Anthony on May 21, 2013 at 12:43 pm 338 Comments
Share This article
110 inShare.
Against all probability, a device that purports to use cold fusion to generate vast amounts of power has been verified by a panel of independent scientists. The research paper, which hasn’t yet undergone peer review, seems to confirm both the existence of cold fusion, and its potency: The cold fusion device being tested has roughly 10,000 times the energy density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline. Even allowing for a massively conservative margin of error, the scientists say that the cold fusion device they tested is 10 times more powerful than gasoline — which is currently the best fuel readily available to mankind.
The device being tested, which is called the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat for short), was created by Andrea Rossi. Rossi has been claiming for the past two years that he had finally cracked cold fusion, but much to the chagrin of the scientific community he hasn’t allowed anyone to independently analyze the device — until now. While it sounds like the scientists had a fairly free rein while testing the E-Cat, we should stress that they still don’t know exactly what’s going on inside the sealed steel cylinder reactor. Still, the seven scientists, all from good European universities, obviously felt confident enough with their findings to publish the research paper.
As for what’s happening inside the cold fusion reactor, Andrea Rossi and his colleague Sergio Focardi have previously said their device works by infusing hydrogen into nickel, transmuting the nickel into copper and releasing a large amount of heat. While Rossi hasn’t provided much in the way of details — he’s a very secretive man, it seems — we can infer some knowledge from NASA’s own research into cold fusion. Basically, hydrogen ions (single protons) are sucked into a nickel lattice (pictured right); the nickel’s electrons are forced into the hydrogen to produce neutrons; the nickel nuclei absorb these neutrons; the neutrons are stripped of their electrons to become protons; and thus the nickel goes up in atomic number from 28 to 29, becoming copper.
This process, like the “conventional” fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium, produces a lot of heat. (See: 500MW from half a gram of hydrogen: The hunt for fusion power heats up.) The main difference, though, is that the cold fusion process (also known as LENR, or low energy nuclear reaction) produces very slow moving neutrons which don’t create ionizing radiation or radioactive waste. Real fusion, on the other hand, produces fast neutrons that decimate everything in their path. In short, LENR is fairly safe — safe enough that NASA dreams of one day putting a cold fusion reactor in every home, car, and plane. Nickel and hydrogen, incidentally, are much cheaper and cleaner fuels than gasoline.
As far as we can tell, the main barrier to cold fusion — as with normal fusion — is producing more energy than you put in. In NASA’s tests, it takes a lot more energy to fuse the nickel and hydrogen than is produced by the reaction. Rossi, it would seem, has discovered a secret sauce that significantly reduces the amount of energy required to start the reaction. As for what the secret sauce is, no one knows — in the research paper, the independent scientists simply refer to it as “unknown additives.” All told, the E-Cat seems to have a power density of 4.4×105 W/kg, and an energy density of 5.1×107 Wh/kg.
If Rossi and Focardi’s cold fusion technology turns out to be real — if the E-Cat really has 10,000 times the energy density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline — then the world will change, very, very quickly. Stay tuned; we’ll let you know when — or if — the E-Cat passes peer review.
Now read: Nuclear power is our only hope, or, the greatest environmentalist hypocrisy of all time
Research paper: arXiv:1305.3913 - “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device”
I could hear the pages of wikipedia fluttering.
Is LENR a scaleable technology ?
***I think so, yes.
you're an idiot!
And that, my FRiend, is why many people are skeptical, and that was my point.
***Rossi has a terrible reputation. Those 7 scientists knew that, so they were extra careful to check & double check their results. In this way, the fact that Rossi is untrustworthy lends more credence to the results.
As in the phrase “A stopped clock is right twice a day”, it is possible that though continued work, Rossi has stumbled onto a concoction that works consistently. After all, Thomas Edison FAILED to invent a ‘consistently working’ light bulb for years.
***I think that’s very close to what happened here.
As far as trusting these 7 scientists, I don’t know them personally,
***That never seems to be a requirement for other scientific endeavors. Only LENR.
but it would seem that Rossi has worked on other projects with at least one of them, and those projects turned out to be scams. Is this not true?
***No.
Since GLOBAL WARMING EXPERT SCIENTISTS have made claims that are proving to be false, why would the average individual trust a few more scientists from Sweden?
***Because the measurements are so simple: power and temperature. Have you ever used a multimeter? A thermometer? When measuring your child’s temperature, how possible is it that you’d consistently make a measurement of 150degF? With several other people present... And then you throw out that thermometer and get a new one, same result. Even with this analogy, you are only supposedly making a mistake of 50%, not 10X.
The scientists you listed , on the average, are no more qualified in their fields than the GW scientists.
***They are qualified to make power measurements.
Basically, I am saying it’s hard to trust anyone these days when everyone seems to be compromising their integrity by SELLING OUT to the highest bidder. That is the reality that surrounds us that we must deal with.
***Then you’re stuck with an expanding conspiracy theory.
You may trust them, but, as you can see, others are not so quick to just blindly accept their ‘results’.
***Do you trust that the anomalous heat effect has been replicated more than 14,700 times, before Rossi ever came on the scene? These 7 scientists are putting their reputations on the line. Do you trust them to be able to read a multimeter and a thermometer?
Raising the bar for cold fusion while lowering the bar for hot fusion. Hot fusion has consumed $hundreds of billions, so where’s my flying hot fusion car?
Like Abe Lincoln’s answer to the reporter who asked how long his legs were — long enough to reach the ground.
How long will circumvention take? As long as it takes.
Yes
You’re avoiding this question.
You’re avoiding this question
Where is the proof you claim?
You’re avoiding this question
why do you put a quote around the word?
You’re avoiding this question
There are just so many things wrong with this so-called verification
***Then address them. If someone measured a resistor by Power-in and Heat-out, do you require them to open up the resistor to see how it works?
No. If it had, don't you think someone would have figured out 'how' this is working?
Did I mention hot fusion ?
Hot fusion has consumed $hundreds of billions, so where’s my flying hot fusion car?
That's the same question I have, except I don't care whether it's hot or cold.
Why don’t you? Do you think scientists made some error 14,700 times in a row?
If it had, don’t you think someone would have figured out ‘how’ this is working?
***Nope. This thing is very difficult, very tricky, it suffers from stigma and funding is virtually nil. Under those conditions, it takes more than 25 years to generate a breakthrough.
Then you wouldn’t mind if, say 10% of the funds for hot fusion, which has given us NOTHING, would go to cold fusion, which has given us 96 hours and 116 hours respectively of an independent test. Just the latest, by the way. Hagelstein’s test ran for 6 months.
It's difficult to answer invisible questions.
you are avoiding these questions
***Because the measurements are so simple: power and temperature. Have you ever used a multimeter? A thermometer? When measuring your child’s temperature, how possible is it that you’d consistently make a measurement of 150degF? With several other people present... And then you throw out that thermometer and get a new one, same result. Even with this analogy, you are only supposedly making a mistake of 50%, not 10X.
Proof of what?
BTW, here is an interesting link.
"There are just so many things wrong with this so-called verification"
I think you got me mixed up with someone else.
I haven’t avoided anything. I enjoy the debate, and hopefully will learn from it. I am here to learn. What are you here for ?
May I ask, how come you seem to just lock onto ONE THING at a time and repeat it until everyone gets tired of you saying 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.