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”
Do you suppose that 7 scientists can’t measure power in and power out?
The tech is a black box, to protect the proprietary information. Power in, power out. You measure both. You compare it to conventional sources such as gasoline.
Like you say, “seems pretty obvious to me”.
Unfortunately, there’s such a strident, knee-jerk reaction to emerging technologies on the part of some Freepers, that I finally quit posting such articles. Who needs the aggravation?
***This particular emerging technology has the potential to change the world. That’s when I am willing to put up with the aggravation. Of course, I had higher expectations of Freepers and mods, but that’s the way things are.
There must be thousands of engineering firms more qualified to run such a test rather than a motley group of Rossi associates and obscure academics.
glad to hear it
Sounds like you don’t trust the physics background of the 7 scientists involved. What exactly would be YOUR background to question these folks (and the Swedish Industrial Group ELFORSK)???
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex- href=”mailto:l@eskimo.com”>l@eskimo.com/msg80825.html
Giuseppe Levi
Assistant Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Bologna University
Bologna, Italy
Bio:
http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?upn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it&TabControl1=TabCV
Website: http://www.giuseppelevi.it/
Publications: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/47387224/g-leviand
http://www.unibo.it/Faculty/default.htm?TabControl1=TabPubs&upn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it
Evelyn Foschi “is in the product development department for medical
devices, University of Bologna. Her specialty is X-ray.” —
http://andrearossiecat.com/e-cat/members-of-the-3rd-party-report-commission
Publications: No.
Torbjörn Hartman
Senior Research Engineer
The Svedberg Laboratory (which specializes in proton therapy and is
attached to Uppsala University)
Uppsala, Sweden,
Publications:
http://www.journalogy.net/Author/53814223/torbjorn-hartman?query=Torbj%u00f6rn%20Hartman
Bo Höistad
Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics
Uppsala University
Uppsala, Sweden
Publications: http://www.journalogy.net/Author/51661212
Roland Pettersson
Senior Lecturer
Department of Chemistry - BMC, Analytical Chemistry
Uppsala University
Uppsala, Sweden
Publications:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/56841550/roland-pettersson
Lars Tegnér
Professor Emeritus
Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Electricity
Uppsala University
Uppsala, Sweden
Publications: Doctoral thesis -
http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?searchId=2&pid=diva2:298914 -
otherwise apparently not published unless he is also P.-E. Tegnér in which
case he’s somehow connected to Stockholm University:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/13416120/p-e-tegner
Hanno Essen
Docent and Lecturer
Department of Mechanics of the KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden
Publications:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/12981049/hanno-essen
Essen, Rossi’s site notes, was at one time critical of Rossi and the E-Cat.
Jed Rothwell Thu, 23 May 2013 15:52:40 -0700
Mark Gibbs wrote:
Essen, Rossi’s site notes, was at one time critical of Rossi and the E-Cat. Anyone got any citations?
He published some strong remarks, years ago. I expect you can find them easily with Google. He was the president of the Swedish Skeptics Society, so it is no surprise he had it in for Rossi, and for cold fusion in general.
I find it almost miraculous that anyone connected with a “Skeptics Society” can bring himself to say anything positive about cold fusion. Essen is not your typical capital-S Skeptic.
- Jed
19 posted on Friday, May 24, 2013 12:26:55 PM by Kevmo (”A person’s a person, no matter how small” ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: All; y’all; et al
.
http://coldfusion3.com/blog/giuseppe-levi-goes-on-record-to-discuss-e-cat
Giuseppe Levi goes on Record to Discuss E-cat
August 25, 2011
A respected Italian physicist has gone on record to defend Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi’s e-cat. Giuseppe Levi, a professor at the University of Bologna and a colleague of Sergio Focardi sat down for a long video interview with Steven B Krivit of New Energy Times in June. The video was only made available at the New Energy Times website on August 14.
Levi spoke English and he is very easy to understand and entertaining. He gave some good points to Krivit who did not appear to talk much. Levi is an expert on nuclear physics, energy physics and sub nuclear physics who has worked on satellites and other projects in the past.
Levi’s main points were:
• He has worked with Focardi on other projects and respects him.
• Levi has been following Rossi and Focardi’s work for three years but only examined the e-cat itself on December 16, 2010. He did extensive testing of the e-cat and apparently believes Rossi’s claims.
• Levi is a member of the US group the Skeptic’s Society and he applied their “baloney detector kit.” (A set of parameters for the detection of fraud developed by the late Carl Sagan) to the e-cat and found it was not baloney.
• Levi said he investigated the e-cat because it is his duty as a scientist. He also wanted to protect the University of Bologna’s reputation from a possible fraud.
• Levi did admit that the e-cat was developed in what he called an “industrial” and not a research environment.
• The January e-cat news conference and demonstration by Rossi and Focardi was done in order to show the scientific community the validity of the e-cat and protect Focardi’s reputation.
• Levi seems to be concerned about Focardi’s reputation and is trying to protect it.
• Levi said other scientists including chemists have examined the e-cat and verified some of the results.
Levi also gave some interesting quotes in response to Krivit’s questions.
When asked why he investigated the e-cat, Levi said: “You must go and look by yourself. It is one of my duties I am a researcher I am paid by public money. Something very important was going on with the name of the University of Bologna. It was my duty to know if it was something real. If it is something real we must make research on it.”
When asked if the e-cat represents a new physics or not, Levi said: “There is not a new quantum mechanics but some new phenomenon.”
Well... that's because you are hard headed, too smart for your own good, you like the heat of the debate and people think you are crazy.
Which may be why I enjoy the threads you start.
One must keep an open mind because we actually understand very little about the Universe around us.
Who knows, one day the E-CAT may be a household word.
Your real name wouldn’t happen to be Steven Jones would it? ... Hows the weather out at BYU lately? Bwahahaha
I don't think ELFORSK is all that impressed according to their statement.
What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be explained today. There has been speculation over whether there can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly questionable.
I think you’ll like watching this.
Eric Laithwaite - gyroscopic gravity modification.mov
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8
At least someone is thinking outside the box(or cylinder in this case).
Well, since you are being selective, allow me to be selective. From the same report:
The measurements show that the catalyst produces significantly more energy than can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The results are very remarkable.
Then why do the mods pull such threads where we are trying to “keep an open mind because we actually understand very little about the Universe around us” and “Who knows, one day the E-CAT may be a household word”???
At least someone is thinking outside the box(or cylinder in this case).
***Actually,that would be considered old news on Vortex-L, which the skeptopaths are so fond of denigrating.
LOL. And you claim to know something about science. Discovery after discovery has been in the "wait and see" state until one generation of know-it-alls dies and is replaced by a new generation who is willing to actually examine the evidence with an open mind.
Unlike you and others who steadfastly refuse to read the experimental literature outlining the replications, both of Pons and Fleischmann, and Arata, and others.
I still recommend you read Beaudette's book and learn something instead of mouthing off. The data is there, you just refuse to look at it.
There most definitely have been "large uncontrolled energy releases" up to and including explosions. All have been disregarded as "anecdotal data" and dismissed. Yet the holes in floors and walls remain (or at least the spots where they have been repaired.
If they can't do that then I say it is all a huge load of Bull Shit!
Well, they still don't understand "why" it works, but they are getting much better at making it work consistently.
Because what’s going on today is the modern equivalent of theft of Edison’s invention. He was allowed a patent, Rossi isn’t. Would Edison put on such a grand demo under such conditions? Hell no!! He would have been eminently paranoid that someone would steal his simple solution of a carbon fiber.
Vortex flow theory might explain some of it.
At the University of Mississippi (or maybe it was Mississippi State) experiments were done to try and drive a 2x4 through different materials without shredding the board. They could not duplicate the board through the tree at any wind speed which would not brake off the tree! I would love to see those experiments repeated in the presence of strong eletrostatic field vortices.
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.