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”
Is Hydrogen considered a 'fuel' ?
Hell yes. The space shuttle used it.
Some references:
Source: Wikipedia
The ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen was recognized as early as the nineteenth century by Thomas Graham.[16] In the late 1920s, two Austrian born scientists, Friedrich Paneth and Kurt Peters, originally reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen was absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature. However, the authors later retracted that report, acknowledging that the helium they measured was due to background from the air.[16][17]
In 1927, Swedish scientist J. Tandberg stated that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an electrolytic cell with palladium electrodes.[16] On the basis of his work, he applied for a Swedish patent for “a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy”.[16] After deuterium was discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued his experiments with heavy water.[16] Due to Paneth and Peters’s retraction, Tandberg’s patent application was eventually denied.[16] His application for a patent in 1927 was denied as he could not explain the physical process.[18]
The final experiments made by Tandberg with heavy water were similar to the original experiment by Fleischmann and Pons.[19] Fleischmann and Pons were not aware of Tandberg’s work.[20][text 1][text 2]
The term “cold fusion” was used as early as 1956 in a New York Times article about Luis W. Alvarez’s work on muon-catalyzed fusion.[21] E. Paul Palmer of Brigham Young University also used the term “cold fusion” in 1986 in an investigation of “geo-fusion”, the possible existence of fusion in a planetary core.[22] However, Palmer and Jones used the term “piezonuclear fusion”, coined by Jones
Then go ahead and controvert what this paper says. Maybe they only got it to 1,000 times the energy density of gas, or only 1500 times, or 4000 times... Do the math yourself. Prove them wrong — make a huge name for yourself by discrediting LENR. You already did half of the math.
You said this was a black box experiment.
Energy in vs. Energy out. Measured with a voltmeter.
Was the compressed Hydrogen measured as well ? Was it accounted for in the ‘input’ ?
Yup.
Due to Paneth and Peters’s retraction, Tandberg’s patent application was eventually denied.[16]
***The ‘prudent’ thing to do.
His application for a patent in 1927 was denied as he could not explain the physical process.[18]
***Worth pursuing. Was this the first time in history such a patent was denied? Did the inventor of the Bic lighter get denied the claim because he couldn’t explain the plasma fusion physics of the flame involved? (No, he wasn’t).
No, the compressed Hydrogen was not measured. You wouldn’t measure the specific chemical composition of gasoline in the tank of a car. You just measure its capability, 50mpg, 100mpg, etc. Then you measure that against another car, and another, etc. That’s black box testing. Such ‘input’ does not need to be accounted for, because they all use the best fuel available at the time, in this case gasoline. In the case you are inquiring about, it would be compressed hydrogen.
Andrea Rossi stated that one could get 8 times the output per unit of input, and that going higher could be dangerous.
I’m not exactly sure what the number would be in relation to the energy density of gas, but I bet it’s not 10,000.
“The very first unit experienced just these kinds of problems and wasn’t in fact actually shipped; a second unit with the results of the experience from the first build is what was delivered to the U.S. military customer.”
No. But If I was claiming that I got 800 hp out of the engine, just using 'gas', while in fact I was leaving out the Nitrous Oxide 'fuel' I was adding to the engine's intake ports, would you not suspect my claim ?
He might. Don’t you think they would be bragging about it ?
***No freeping way. Whoever it is, they make their money by generating heat. If they announce they have a Rossi box, suddenly dozens of people show up hoping to inspect their box. Incredible hassle. They don’t need it. That’s not the business they’re in. Conversely, if they bought a box and it doesn’t work (a fraud, like all these... ‘skeptics’... keep saying, then they would have been loudly squawking all along. So far, not a peep.
That the investment is something that would be known throughout every office in that company ? Or do you think they were sworn to secrecy ?
***I think the only swearing to secrecy would involve the industrial trade secrets. But even that points to Rossi’s Achilles Heel. He isn’t that good of a business man, and no doubt these first-adopter customers are going to be demanding and annoying. I doubt he knows how to handle such customers.
Is it possible to get you to come onto the same page? I say Miles per gallon, you’re switching to horsepower.
IIRC, that directly contradicts Rossi’s earlier claim that he did ship the first unit. No doubt, his credibility comes into question. So if you are one of those 7 scientists, wouldn’t you be extra careful about double checking your results when you measure Power and Temperature before publishing them? It’s a simple question.
Yes, but I would also include any 'additional' fuel sources.
In the late 1940s I was a student at UC Berkeley and taking a physical chemistry course. Those were the days that Cal was loaded with such people like Seaborg, Teller, Oppenheimer and connected to most other famous atomic scientists in other parts of the world. I remember very vividly that in the PChem textbook there was a chart/graph that laid out the atomic table as to theoretical(?) nuclear energies from hydrogen, extremely peaked, to uranium-plutonium, a somewhat lesser peak, to the lower wt elements at about the middle of the chart. I distinctly recall a class discussion about the chart with particular attention to the uranium-plutonium peak as illustrating the recently dropped bombs. I also remember some allusions to the higher hydrogen peak and what that could/would mean. However, what strikes me today in the discussion of ‘cold fusion’ is that the class also was wondering about the ‘inherent’ energy indicated for the middle elements of the chart which had energies many times less than the end elements. I tend to think that ‘cold fusion’ could be a reality if someone could get into the nucleus of these low energy elements.
Any ‘additional’ fuel sources would be chemical in nature, and this study has pointed out that the energy density measured was 10X for ANY chemical source.
Sure, I will make it 'simple' for you.
If you have an engine in a car that gets 20 mpg, and you tell 'independent scientists' that it now gets 40 mpg due to adding a CATALYST SCREEN to the carb throat , but you actually have compressed Hydrogen being injected into the ports and they aren't measuring it, would you buy the CATALYST SCREEN ?
But you just said they didn't account for the compressed hydrogen fuel.
The internal temperature of the large ceramic tube would have to be higher then the 1800 to 1900 degrees F. measured on its outside and the little metal tube on the inside would be responsible for the majority of heat produced.
How much heat per hour could a thimble sized tube radiate at those temperatures given its small surface area?
“Andrea Rossi stated that one could get 8 times the output per unit of input, and that going higher could be dangerous.
Well, he's made so many statements...........
Sure, I will make it ‘simple’ for you.
***recall that you have been notified and asked why you put ‘quotes’ around certain terms, if not to be simply sarcastic. You have avoided the question.
If you have an engine in a car that gets 20 mpg,
***This begs the question of why you avoided my question, wherein it was 50mpg and 500mpg and what was the energy density observed?
and you tell ‘independent scientists’ that it now gets 40 mpg
***And as far as these guys are concerned they STOP RIGHT THERE. They test your claim. They verify your claim.
due to adding a CATALYST SCREEN to the carb throat ,
***It does not matter why. They have verified your claim.
but you actually have compressed Hydrogen being injected into the ports and they aren’t measuring it, would you buy the CATALYST SCREEN ?
***The claim verified was that ANY chemical means could not account for the result, it was 10X higher than ANY chemical known to exist. ANY chemical, including your Compressed Hydrogen. Any chemical.
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.