Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10,000 times the energy density of gas

Intrade Gateway via Extreme Tech ^ | May 21, 2013 at 12:43 pm | Sebastian Anthony

[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”

[Kevmo]

Compressed Hydrogen fuel is a Chemical fuel. They accounted for ANY chemical fuel.

[UCANSEE2]

that directly contradicts Rossi’s earlier claim that he did ship the first unit. No doubt, his credibility comes into question.

So.... the average Joe would be completely justified in being skeptical, would he not ?

Considering the balance between his MANY FALSE CLAIMS vs. this latest independent test, don't you think that would give many a reason to doubt, regardless to the claims of the test ?

[count-your-change]

The old “prove me wrong” argument. I didn’t post the article or write the headline or make the extraordinary claim. But...

I’ve done the math that counts.

[UCANSEE2]

So... you are saying that even if the device was only capable of outputting 5x the power, and the Hydrogen boosted it to 10x, that not including the Hydrogen as a ‘fuel’ for this power should not be questioned?

[Kevmo]

The article itself proves you wrong. You’re the one with the mathematical assertion, and you’ve only done half the work. You, and particularly, lurkers, will see that it does not suffice. I await the rest of your mathematical treatment. I won’t be holding my breath.

[UCANSEE2]

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?

I know what you are saying, but according to KEVMO, you are not supposed to think about anything other than POWER IN/POWER OUT. Even if there is chicanery involved, you should ignore it.

[Kevmo]

No. I’m saying that when the authors proclaim that ANY chemical energy density could not compare to this by 10x, then using Hydrogen as fuel with a nitrous oxide booster or ANY chemical thing would account for the measured energy density, by 10X.

[Kevmo]

KEVMO, you are not supposed to think about anything other than POWER IN/POWER OUT. Even if there is chicanery involved, you should ignore it.
***Baloney. If chicanery is involved, you should go out of your way to expose it, especially if the reputation of 7 scientists are on the line.

Your fallacious assumption is that Nickel is in the cylinder. It could be Platinum, or carbon/diamonds. Either way, it is a chemical. This is black box testing. It does not matter what is in the cylinder. What is being observed is 10X what is known for chemical output. It could still be some bizarre chemical output, in which case Rossi has invented the best battery known to mankind. That in itself would be an extraordinary achievement. Those who are not anti-science in their viewpoint would applaud such a development. But the mods are insistent that LENR detractors are not anti-science, so I’m constrained about what I can say.

[Kevmo]

So.... the average Joe would be completely justified in being skeptical, would he not ?
***Skeptical of Rossi’s claims, yes. But skeptical of 7 independent scientists who are aware of his terrible reputation? They KNEW he was shady when they engaged in the testing of simple Power-in/Heat-Out. They had the go-ahead to publish the result if they found it was completely bogus. Are they completely incompetent to measure such simple things? Most of us have read multimeters and thermometers. How many of us have gotten the readings wrong by 50% or 100% in the presence of others who could correct us? Now try 1000%.

[UCANSEE2]

***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.

I avoided it because it's a stupid question, and everyone on the planet but YOU seems to 'get it'.

Why don't you use HTML and put others quoted comments in italics and get rid of those 'silly' asterisks? Is it laziness or ignorance?

***This begs the question of why you avoided my question, wherein it was 50mpg and 500mpg and what was the energy density observed?

So, unless we stick to the one LIMITED PROCESS (which you state didn't even include an OBVIOUS extraneous source of 'fuel') That IS THE ONLY THING THAT PROVES YOUR CASE, we are wrong?

I am sorry if you can't make the 'transmutation' between comparable measurements of mpg, bhp, and 'energy density'.

I tried to give you an example that was the simplest and that anyone with even a high school education could understand. And yet you insist on only measuring POWER IN/POWER OUT.

Could it be that his device works, but he 'upped' the power output by using compressed hydrogen? Have they been using compressed hydrogen since the early 1900's or 1968 or whatever date you choose ?

***And as far as these guys are concerned they STOP RIGHT THERE. They test your claim. They verify your claim.

***It does not matter why. They have verified your claim.

If I could get them to 'verify my claim' without asking about the giant hydrogen tank in the trunk, Then I would want them to also 'verify my claim' of a flying car.

[UCANSEE2]

Well, he's made so many statements...........

I have a link to a list of his claims, if you want it.

[Kevmo]

Considering the balance between his MANY FALSE CLAIMS vs. this latest independent test, don’t you think that would give many a reason to doubt, regardless to the claims of the test ?
***The difference is, this isn’t Rossi claiming it. It is 7 independent scientists. Screw Rossi. Ignore him. Why would 7 scientists make simple measurements of Power and Heat, put their reputations on the line if there wasn’t something worth pursuing here?

[count-your-change]

The E-cat Seven produced a nice paper but as is so often the case the right questions just weren't asked. Another question would be: Why was the test running when the testers showed up? Who set up the test? One of the Seven? Rossi?

[Kevmo]

I avoided it because it’s a stupid question, and everyone on the planet but YOU seems to ‘get it’.
***Oh, then you’re acknowledging that you’re ‘simply’ a ‘jerk’.

Why don’t you use HTML and put others quoted comments in italics and get rid of those ‘silly’ asterisks? Is it laziness or ignorance?
***It goes back a long ways, when FReepers would complain about ‘lost italians’. Go ahead and check on that Freeper Lore. When my keyboard has HTML keys just like it has CAPS LOCK keys, I will use it.

[UCANSEE2]

***Baloney. If chicanery is involved, you should go out of your way to expose it,

I just did. Hydrogen is a fuel. They use compressed Hydrogen, yet YOU stated they did not account for it (measure the quantity, nor the 'energy' that fuel would provide).

As far as what's in the cylinder, none of us know. You said I am making the fallacious assumption that it is NICKEL.

That would then mean that ROSSI is a liar because that's one of the ingredients he stated is inside the cylinder.

So... I have either exposed him, or you. Which is it ?

[count-your-change]

O.K. but that’s a mighty long list.

[UCANSEE2]

ANY chemical thing would account for the measured energy density, by 10X.

And yet... his earlier claims were for less 'density' and he stated that anything over 8x was dangerous.

So how did he get it up to 10x ? Could it be by using compressed Hydrogen ?

[Kevmo]

I avoided it
***You acknowledge avoiding a question. Perhaps that is progress.

Kevmo: 50mpg and 500mpg and what was the energy density observed?

Ucansee: So, unless we stick to the one LIMITED PROCESS
***What? I’m simply trying to get back to apples-to-apples comparison.

(which you state didn’t even include an OBVIOUS extraneous source of ‘fuel’) That IS THE ONLY THING THAT PROVES YOUR CASE, we are wrong?
***You are simply trying to include extraneous things into the system. No one cares how much energy it takes to get gasoline or Hydrogen into the tank. You just accept whatever value is given on a lookup table, and that lookup table has been given the scientific 3rd degree. Duhh.

I am sorry if you can’t make the ‘transmutation’ between comparable measurements of mpg, bhp, and ‘energy density’.
***Then go back to MPG. It’s so easy, it would seem... from your comment.

I tried to give you an example that was the simplest and that anyone with even a high school education could understand. And yet you insist on only measuring POWER IN/POWER OUT.
***Ummmm, because that is what this paper measures.

Could it be that his device works, but he ‘upped’ the power output by using compressed hydrogen? Have they been using compressed hydrogen since the early 1900’s or 1968 or whatever date you choose ?
***Hell no. Such a thing would be CHEMICAL power, and this device is demonstrated to have 10X of ANY Chemical power known.

If I could get them to ‘verify my claim’ without asking about the giant hydrogen tank in the trunk, Then I would want them to also ‘verify my claim’ of a flying car.
***You are simply not following along. You do the calculation with the volume of the item being observed. In this case it looks like a cylinder less than a foot long and less than 6” in diameter, but I might be off by, say, 50% but not an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. You’re trying to say that some unobserved cylinder that’s 10X larger could input energy, and that isn’t what is going on here.

[Kevmo]

No. Because compressed Hydrogen cannot account for the energy densities observed.

[Kevmo]

I just did. Hydrogen is a fuel.
***Then do the calculation for Pure Hydrogen. Compare it to what has been observed. It will be off by more than 10X.

That would then mean that ROSSI is a liar because that’s one of the ingredients he stated is inside the cylinder.
***Maybe one of the ingredients, and who cares? Do your calculations based upon the Very, Very best Chemical Agent capable of generating Heat. Compare it to these results. Under those conditions, who cares if Rossi is a liar? He just generated a chemical energy density for batteries that is 10X of what is capable today.

So... I have either exposed him, or you. Which is it ?
***Do the math and find out for yourself. Either way, 7 scientists independent of this Rossi character have verified the energy density. Are you calling them liars?