Sorry, I'll post some stuff up that will be able to explain it better than me now I've had my coffee.
You're right, hydrogen fuel cell technology is coming along, it's still in very early stages though, they haven't rolled out the infrastructure problems and the like even though they've gotten hydrogen stations up and running.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhlwuSs6uPM
As for the cold fusion the whole point of it is it's 'cold' but this is why there's so much scepticism surrounding it but that's a good thing since you need a lot of scepticism when it comes to this kind of technology. What I meant by no radiation I guess I meant the crazy and catastrophic meltdowns that happen when you have a standard nuclear reactor which we have now, honestly, I'd rather be dealing with solar panels and wind turbines all day than the idea of a nuclear bomb sitting right next to me that could go off at any time.
Topic: Alleged Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, reactor tested. (Read 886 times)
Anybody following this thread needs to listen to this podcast! Excellent information and a complete thorough description about EVERYTHING talked about in this thread and other postings. Listen to it in its ENTIRETY! (skip ahead a few minutes (I think 11:20 min) to get past the intro and other BS)
I don't want to spoil the ending or the contents. Trust me on this one.
Hope 1 or 2 of you take the time to actually listen and post back.
http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=1037
Fascinating......!
I don't want to spoil the ending or the contents. Trust me on this one.
Hope 1 or 2 of you take the time to actually listen and post back.
http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=1037
Fascinating......!
as long as there's no radiation or possibility of a meltdown I'm all for it though.
As long as there's no radiation, I call BS. The energy from nuclear reactions - any nuclear reactions - is carried by high-energy particles and/or gamma ray photons. The absorption of these radiations by the reactor assembly creates heat, which is used to generate electricity. But these guys are claiming to produce heat without any radiation. If there's no radiation, where's the heat coming from? This is not explained.we have had hydrogen fuel cell prototypes made and they produce water as a by-product so it's not entirely impossible but it needs to be very public.
What do you mean, prototypes? Fuel cell technology is pretty mature, the problem is that hydrogen isn't a useful fuel, on account of not naturally existing in a free state. Hydrogen fuel must be manufactured, either by electrolysis of water (which consumes more electricity that you get by burning the hydrogen) or by decomposition of natural gas (which produces more greenhouse gases than simply burning the natural gas as fuel directly). This makes hydrogen a useful fuel only in specific applications where other fuels are unsuitable, such as space travel.
No electricity is ever free because it must come from something, you can have renewable energy which I think is the most useful of all, but not free and cold fusion is a very promising but totally neglected possibility people haven't explored properly because of all the scepticism surrounding it. If it's true that it only produces copper as a by-product then that would be an amazing invention but I have a hard time believing it's even copper given how little journalists know about science, as long as there's no radiation or possibility of a meltdown I'm all for it though.
This is one of those cases though where if it were real I would post it up for the world to see so no one country could monopolise it or anything because this is the kind of powerful technology that should be available to everyone, we have had hydrogen fuel cell prototypes made and they produce water as a by-product so it's not entirely impossible but it needs to be very public. Electricity generation currently has less scientific transparency than religion and it works the same way and some scientists seem to think they're okay with conning people over the future of mankind.
This is one of those cases though where if it were real I would post it up for the world to see so no one country could monopolise it or anything because this is the kind of powerful technology that should be available to everyone, we have had hydrogen fuel cell prototypes made and they produce water as a by-product so it's not entirely impossible but it needs to be very public. Electricity generation currently has less scientific transparency than religion and it works the same way and some scientists seem to think they're okay with conning people over the future of mankind.
I'm as skeptical as everyone in the article's comment sections and here on the forum. And totally agree on additional scientific testing. But the articles do state the following:
"has been verified by third-party researchers"
And
"This new report [PDF] on the E-Cat was carried out by six (reputable) researchers from Italy and Sweden."
And lastly
"This is not, of course, the last word or even one anywhere near the end of this story but unless this is one of the most elaborate hoaxes in scientific history it looks like the world may well be about to change."
With that said, I think it is fascinating that 20+ years after Ponds/Fleischmann's so claimed discovery that other scientist are stating:
"My belief is that if there's a one percent chance that Fleischmann and Pons were correct, and I now believe that possibility is 99 percent. I have a duty to work on it,"
(From the 60 minutes article link I posted earlier)
I don't believe in free energy or perpetual devices. But at one time nuclear energy was an unknown. Maybe...just maybe...they are starting to stumble across something.
(I was about to put up my flame shields....but I am not taking any sides on the issue so need to....I'm just posting observations I made.)
"has been verified by third-party researchers"
And
"This new report [PDF] on the E-Cat was carried out by six (reputable) researchers from Italy and Sweden."
And lastly
"This is not, of course, the last word or even one anywhere near the end of this story but unless this is one of the most elaborate hoaxes in scientific history it looks like the world may well be about to change."
With that said, I think it is fascinating that 20+ years after Ponds/Fleischmann's so claimed discovery that other scientist are stating:
"My belief is that if there's a one percent chance that Fleischmann and Pons were correct, and I now believe that possibility is 99 percent. I have a duty to work on it,"
(From the 60 minutes article link I posted earlier)
I don't believe in free energy or perpetual devices. But at one time nuclear energy was an unknown. Maybe...just maybe...they are starting to stumble across something.
(I was about to put up my flame shields....but I am not taking any sides on the issue so need to....I'm just posting observations I made.)
but just wait and watch a bunch of morons ignore me and start arguing about the viability of it all or claim it's real and we all need to shut up.
I'd say that threads like this could be used as a part of personal honeypot scheme. It's much easier to find additional candidates for ignore lists here.
I'll say the same thing I'll be saying even after I've had my coffee and woken up properly, I would only ever trust this if there were independent trials put on this thing several times not just once, we've had cases before where a science team jumped to silly conclusions and they were embarrassed over it for their whole lives. We can only jump up and down and be extremely giddy when it's actually been confirmed by several people, that's called peer reviewing, but just wait and watch a bunch of morons ignore me and start arguing about the viability of it all or claim it's real and we all need to shut up.
Short review: Same guy with the same old story. Many words but no independent trials were performed again.
This is weird, but Rossi's E-cat cold fusion device was also independently confirmed in 2013.
That's not true, there were no independent experiments. Rossi participated in all of them and the most of experiments were performed in his own laboratory. In addition you need to notice that all "independent" experts are the same in all experiments, no new names since 2011.
This is weird, but Rossi's E-cat cold fusion device was also independently confirmed in 2013.
From Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/
(This in addition to the Oct 9th ExtremeTech article confirming)
From Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/
(This in addition to the Oct 9th ExtremeTech article confirming)
Interesting read. Looks like people are lining up on opposite sides (believing/skeptical)
From the article:
Believe
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline
Say it's a hoax
http://hardware-beta.slashdot.org/story/13/05/23/155211/a-cold-look-at-cold-fusion-claims-why-e-cat-looks-like-a-hoax
I remember when the two Utah professors thought they had discovered cold fusion back in 1989. The press and world in General went crazy. The thought of cheap harness-able energy was a dream for everyone. For years after they never really could explain these professors findings.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cold-fusion-is-hot-again/ (60 minutes 2009)
Maybe there is some other type of energy production (besides chemical/fusion/fission) taking place. It would be nice for the world if it is safe and cheap!
-Edit-
The University of Utah professors were Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. From the 60 minutes article I linked to above, another scientist says:
"My belief is that if there's a one percent chance that Fleischmann and Pons were correct, and I now believe that possibility is 99 percent. I have a duty to work on it," he replied.
Very interesting.....cold fusion may not be too far away.....
From the article:
Believe
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline
Say it's a hoax
http://hardware-beta.slashdot.org/story/13/05/23/155211/a-cold-look-at-cold-fusion-claims-why-e-cat-looks-like-a-hoax
I remember when the two Utah professors thought they had discovered cold fusion back in 1989. The press and world in General went crazy. The thought of cheap harness-able energy was a dream for everyone. For years after they never really could explain these professors findings.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cold-fusion-is-hot-again/ (60 minutes 2009)
Maybe there is some other type of energy production (besides chemical/fusion/fission) taking place. It would be nice for the world if it is safe and cheap!
-Edit-
The University of Utah professors were Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. From the 60 minutes article I linked to above, another scientist says:
"My belief is that if there's a one percent chance that Fleischmann and Pons were correct, and I now believe that possibility is 99 percent. I have a duty to work on it," he replied.
Very interesting.....cold fusion may not be too far away.....
WTF am I reading?
The actual mechanism of the alleged transmutation is never explained either. Wake me up when there's some peer-reviewed data, please.
Quote
However at the end of the run a depletion of 7Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %. This result is remarkable since it shows that the burning process in E-Cat indeed changes the fuel at the nuclear level, i.e. nuclear reactions have taken place.
No, it's remarkable since it shows that two separate measurements disagree by such an insane margin that both are likely wrong. Neither are presented with any error bars.The actual mechanism of the alleged transmutation is never explained either. Wake me up when there's some peer-reviewed data, please.
Very promising and I believe it said it creates copper? copper is very expensive maybe if they can make sure there is no toxins in the copper they could sell it as a byproduct.
Jump to: