That's why I plan to start selling ...
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”
But go ahead and play the victim as you pour gasoline on the flames of your own threads.
Than all that needs to be done is measuring for an increase in Copper on the Nickel plates, use a Mass Spectrometer to measure before and after the reaction.
If no increase in Copper than its a fraud, if there is, than the cold fusion is proven.
SRI International has been running several Pons and Fleischman style units. They monitor metals that ‘appear’ in/on theelectrodes. The accumulation of tritium in amounts far beyond any expectations is what convinced me that some form of low energy nuclear reaction is occuring. SRI is a very credible source (Stanford Research Institute International). As to Rossi’s e-CAT, I am not aware that they have even set up a test for that one.
An analysis of the nickle to copper by products in an earlier test revealed just normal copper therefore NO reaction from nickle to copper had taken place.
Therefore NO heat could have been produced, therefore the claims were false.
That minor detail may explain why no reactor was opened after these latest demos.
SRI apparently doesn't have a secret pixie dust to fall back on, they're honest researchers, right or wrong.
It occurred to me a while back that without opening the cylinders, no one knows what may have been placed on the inner surface of the cylinders before sealign them up. I can think of one or two ‘things’ that if plated to the inner surface would ‘salt’ the results.
Darn right it's inane! Under normal circumstances it certainly would be!
So why it is a trade secret???
There are just so many things wrong with these demos, even the most generous of observers are jumping ship.
Meanwhile we await a truly indendent test.
I don't think anyone has questioned the obvious that a chemical reaction has taken place in the vessel.
The question is what reaction? The question is....Did fusion take place? Or was it simply destruction by way of a thermal reaction or controlled burn.
I don't know the answer to that and the inventor is keeping the information needed a secret.
So there we are and there is where we will remain until something changes.
It’s time to take the mod’s advice and ignore you.
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
That's why I plan to start selling ...
Since the purpose of all this heat is to run a steam turbine, what will surrounding the ‘cylinder’ with water do to the ability of the device to MAINTAIN that heat ?
***Rossi’s demos were with steam. I imagine that by adding water to the process and introducing moving parts into the mix, the device will have a shorter life span.
Will the ‘reaction’ shut down if the temperature gets lowered?
***In Rossi’s demos, that did not happen. Of course, those were demos under Rossi’s control, so it’s doubtful aggressively skeptical ‘humans’ would accept that as evidence.
Will it require MORE INPUT POWER to keep the heat high enough for the ‘reaction’ to keep occurring ?
***well, ‘no’
It’s time to take the mod’s advice and ignore you.
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
The hidden input power hypothesis isn’t a trade secret, it is an inane pseudoskeptical position.
I don’t think anyone has questioned the obvious that a chemical reaction has taken place in the vessel.
***Then that makes Rossi the inventor of a chemical that generates 10X higher power density than any other known chemical. A masterful feat, in and of itself. Everyone has questions, but there is no reason for a guy with a $100Billion development to open his kimono without patent protection being available. Like you say, “So there we are and there is where we will remain until something changes”.
BTW, all you need to do is look through this thread and other recent threads to realize that there is a group of ‘humans’ who do “question the obvious”, to the point where they won’t allow that 7 scientists could read multimeters and thermometers properly.
Agreed, and Thank you.
***In Rossi’s demos, that did not happen. Of course, those were demos under Rossi’s control, so it’s doubtful aggressively skeptical ‘humans’ would accept that as evidence.
Those other 'demos' were under Rossi's control, and IIRC, were not 'independently' verified. One can see why people would be skeptical.
***well, ‘no’
How do you know that?
'humans'...'no'...
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
yeah, ‘sure’, youbetcha
I asked, "Will it require MORE INPUT POWER to keep the heat high enough for the ‘reaction’ to keep occurring ?"
You said, 'no'.
Is that because you believe it is entirely self-sustaining ?
Is that because you believe it is entirely self-sustaining ?
***no
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.