Posted on 11/03/2011 4:05:36 PM PDT by PapaBear3625
Despite a world of skepticism about E-Cat and other devices, proof is adding up
Italian physicist and inventor Andrea Rossi has conducted a public demonstration of his "cold fusion" machine, the E-Cat, at the University of Bologna, showing that a small amount of input energy drives an unexplained reaction between atoms of hydrogen and nickel that leads to a large outpouring of energy, more than 10 times what was put in.
The first seemingly successful cold fusion experiment was reported two decades ago, but the process has forever been met with heavy skepticism. It's a seemingly impossible process in which two types of atoms, typically a light element and a heavier metal, seem to fuse together, releasing pure heat that can be converted into electricity. The process is an attractive energy solution for two reasons: Unlike in nuclear fission, the reaction doesn't give off dangerous radiation. Unlike the fusion processes that take place in the sun, cold fusion doesn't require extremely high temperatures.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I'm reminded of the following: If you call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
The answer, of course, is "four". It doesn't matter what you call it, a tail is still a tail and not a leg.
I think the downside to calling Rossi's reaction a chemical reaction is that, just possibly, it isn't.
But at the end of the day, you would agree that a nuclear reaction would be more powerful than a chemical one, right?
So anyways, let’s compare the price of extracting nuclear energy from a gallon of oil versus a gallon of seawater. Surely the seawater is easier to obtain?
But if you look at a monkey with a prehensile tail, how many usable limbs does he have? Does he have a competitive advantage compared to a monkey with one less articulated limb? Probably.
So, your analogy falls flat.
The main reason to let it be a chemical reaction is to see what happened to Pons & Fleischmann when they said they thought it was a nuclear reaction. They were shouted out of town.
If you're talking about fusing two deuterium atoms into a helium atom, then I would agree with that. Even a 5MeV alpha particle greatly exceeds typical chemical bonds at just several eV.
Kevmo also said: "So anyways, let’s compare the price of extracting nuclear energy from a gallon of oil versus a gallon of seawater. Surely the seawater is easier to obtain?"
And it's hard to argue that seawater is not so readily available that its price would always be lower than oil. Though I have never studied the corrosive effects of seawater on pipes, it can probably be transported at much less than 93 dollars per barrel.
As for comparing the price of extracting nuclear energy from either a gallon of oil or a gallon of seawater, I'm not aware of a process that can do either.
I just found a cool quote from Rossi. I think I’ll post the article tomorrow.
“As for the development of the technology: the maximum development can be reached with the maximum investments. Nobody could invest significantly in a technology without having exclusive rights on it. When a thing is own by everybody nobody gives value to it. The story of communism has taught this to us. We and our licensee will put all our force to develop this tech.”
Changing my tagline.
When a thing is own by everybody nobody gives value to it. The story of communism has taught this to us.
Judicaret spectator se ipso: Let the lurker decide for himself
On this we will have to disagree. Rossi calling his reaction "chemical" may serve some purpose but it does not make a nuclear reaction into a chemical reaction.
The world is so hungry for inexpensive, limitless sources of energy that we now have mountain ridges, once thought too pristine to permit housing, populated with giant windmills, many of which sit idle.
I'm sure that there are those who believe that there is some conspiracy of energy producers to keep effective windmill designs from reaching the market. I'm not one of them.
My recollection was that Rossi was to deliver a 1 Mw system to an American company by the end of October. As far as I can tell, that didn't happen.
It doesn't matter if it's a re-post from somewhere else.
What matters is that MSNBC and Fox are giving coverage. The E-cat has moved out of being covered only by limited-viewership web-sites and into being covered by recognized news sites that are read by millions of people. Rossi's E-cat is no longer an obscure invention that can be ignored.
He tried patenting it in 2008. His patent applications were rejected:
Rossi and Focardi have applied for a patent that has been partially rejected in a preliminary report. According to the report, “As the invention seems, at least at first, to offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories, the disclosure should be detailed enough to prove to a skilled person conversant with mainstream science and technology that the invention is indeed feasible. … In the present case, the invention does not provide experimental evidence (nor any firm theoretical basis) which would enable the skilled person to assess the viability of the invention. The description is essentially based on general statement and speculations which are not apt to provide a clear and exhaustive technical teaching.” The report also noted that not all of the patent claims were novel.He needs to demonstrate unequivocally that it works before a patent will be granted. Having working units in the hands of satisfied customers is needed.
Steps 1 and 3 absorb energy.
The demo produced about half a MW, and the customer was reportedly sufficiently satisfied that he handed over the money. We will know more as time passes.
I could have written it up as 1, 2, 3, and 4, but I bet that last action ~ "absorb neutron" and "spit out powerful photon" takes place instantaneously.
Been many years since you needed a working device. Did you know they grant patents for SOFTWARE? There’s no material there at all ~ just settings on switches on a teeny-tiny little punchboard.
We just haven't had much research on the "Weak Nuclear Force" as it's been known since it dissociated from the Electromagnetic force at several seconds after the Creation of the Universe.
I think these name changes screw people up regarding what's going on, don't you? We should probably get back to God on this and tell him "Hey, God, don't bust that other force out of there to operate independently, or at least give us a better name for it eh?!"
The commies are gonna be really upset if this thing pans out...
they can’t control people that have access to cheap energy,
and they can’t choke a capitalist economy with access to it either.
Of course, they can always find something “environmentally hazardous” about it.
There's a process that turns deuterium into some serious doggone energy ~ it's a favorite weapon, and tunable to boot!
Yes. Splitting water takes energy.
Step 2 gives you a more powerful form (a high energy neutron).
Ummmmm. No. Removing an electron from hydrogen gives you a free proton. Not a neutron.
Step 3, fusion of elements heavier than iron, is endothermic. No energy there either.
And what did this mean, "actually Four times as powerful as the average"?
but I bet that last action ~ "absorb neutron" and "spit out powerful photon" takes place instantaneously.
If you had said "absorb proton" and "absorb powerful photon", you probably would be closer to reality.
Rossi says that heavy hydrogen will kill his reaction.
Please show me the chemical reaction that would get several megawatt hours of energy from 1.5 grams of H2. Thanks.
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.