Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Italian cold fusion machine passes another test


stevenaa

Recommended Posts

Interesting

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/italian-cold-fusion-machine-passes-another-test/

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised this hasn't gotten more press. If it's a hoax, it's had a rather long shelf-life (since April at least). This is really such an earth shattering development that it demands either confirmation or refutation.

But gov'ts around the world spend trillions total on the paranoia that they will attack each other. Meanwhile clean energy is at hand. Priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember around 15 - 20 years ago, the claim of cold fusion was found to be unrepeatable by any save the original authors of the articles. My dad was working at NIST, and I can assure you they were trying (not his group, but he used to pass along their published findings when they were relevant to current news cycles). I find myself wondering why their company hasn't patented their machines, and why they would go public before the patent is passed.

I do find the concept interesting as it contradicts the thermodynamic maxim for which students in my highschool got 5 bonus points simply for writing it at the top of the first page of every physics test, "Heat lost = heat gained."

I find myself hoping it isn't a hoax or a sham, but the actions of the company don't seem consistant with the claims. Still, it's hard not to want to believe the holy grail of energy production has been found. Maybe the first experiments were accidently successful. Every now and then, something unexplainably works before the theories catch up. I hope this is one such time, but until others can replicate the experiments I will be a skeptic. So I hope they get a patent and then allow others to test their machine and the replication of net power gained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skepticism is definitely in order. But I understand not patenting the process yet. Once it happens, it exposes the underlying process that can give others enough info to proceed with alternative methods that don't violate the patent. There is usually multiple ways to reach an objective once the processes are understood. Hoping it's true, but doubting it until it's proven. Too many hoax's in this arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They better watch out or they will receive the same treatment as Tesla....

I really hope this is not a hoax, and they have achieved Cold Fusion. This will open a slew of possibilities, and not just cheaper energy. Propulsion wise this will revolutionize things..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, generally speaking, in layman's terms, if this particular reaction turns out to be "valid" then certain fundamental laws of physics need to be re-written. Basically "energy in" does not equal "energy out?"

Pretty much. But I think alot of people already realized the laws of physics were more of guidelines then rules. The more we learn about physics the more we realize we don't know **** about physics. I think I should go back to my college physics prof. and tell her I want her to ammend my grade because no one knows **** about physics..lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We suspect quite a lot, and most of it is the result of theory backed up by tests. I find myself thinking in terms of we think we know a lot about the readily observable because we have been able to theorize and test with results matching or shaping our theories.

The problem is with every increase in what we can observe, we have found wrinkles invisible at previous higher levels of observation. When I look at my skin or my blood, I don't see molecules. I don't see DNA. if I look closely, I notice patterns on my fingers and scars where I've been cut. As we've progressed in our powers of observation, we been able to match finger prints and later we gained the ability to match DNA. When Newton observed F=MA, his theories best matched his level of observation.

None of these advances in observation invalidated the looking at the shoe size and comparing to the tracks as a way of figuring out who had been at the crime scene. It was simply the best we had at the time, and now we have better. Now we can look at the apple falling as a collection of molecules and wonder what holds them together as they fall and what part of the molecule conveighs the mass when it hits us.

The cool part is these little differences could potentially power us into a cleaner future with fewer fights for energy resouces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "energy in v. energy out" is probably an oversimplification by the author. I assumed it to mean that heat and kinetic energy are added to the system to catalyze the process which releases the potential energy stored in hydrogen and nickel. When you burn a log, the amount of energy you put into the starting the fire is less than the energy released by said burning log which had potential energy stored in it waiting to be released, but needed that initial energy input to start the chain reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe they have already patented every aspect of their work.

Without disclosing mechanisms, it would seem that this would be pretty easy to test.

Measure the properties of the Nickel.

Run the experiment.

Measure the properties of the Nickel.

If fusion has occurred either some of the Nickel will have been changed to a different atomic number substance, or it will be a different isotope of Nickel.

If the Nickel hasn't changed, it's not a fusion reaction.

And as for the statement in the article "Unlike in nuclear fission, the reaction doesn't give off dangerous radiation." ... this is bull**** unless you can identify the specific nuclear reaction taking place. In certain fusion reactions the excess energy may released in the form of high energy neutrons. While you can capture this energy you will get an irradiated fusion reactor which will need to dismantled and be disposed of just like fission waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe they have already patented every aspect of their work.

Without disclosing mechanisms, it would seem that this would be pretty easy to test.

Measure the properties of the Nickel.

Run the experiment.

Measure the properties of the Nickel.

If fusion has occurred either some of the Nickel will have been changed to a different atomic number substance, or it will be a different isotope of Nickel.

If the Nickel hasn't changed, it's not a fusion reaction.

And as for the statement in the article "Unlike in nuclear fission, the reaction doesn't give off dangerous radiation." ... this is bull**** unless you can identify the specific nuclear reaction taking place. In certain fusion reactions the excess energy may released in the form of high energy neutrons. While you can capture this energy you will get an irradiated fusion reactor which will need to dismantled and be disposed of just like fission waste.

I believe the basis of much of this is that they are "squeezing" small atoms, like H, together in the pores of the Ni so that the H will fuse. (Right, they are doing the electrolysis of water. The H (or D or T if they are using heavy water) COULD collect in the pores of the Ni and fuse (at least that's the claim)). The Ni isn't changed in the process other than the redox which is being driven by the supplied electrical current to do the hydrolysis.

They should be able to demonstrate that they are producing He, but I believe that the amount of He produced based on the amount of energy given off is very low (i.e. you get a lot of energy out for a small amount of fusion so you don't produce appreciable He), and these don't tend to be tightly sealed systems so the explanation is always the He is just floating away.

I believe in either case (using normal water so 4 H fusing to make 1 He or a mixture of heavy water so 1 D and 1 T fusing to make 1 He) there are no radioactive particles given off so while generally that piece is wrong. For the specifics here (if they are true), then what they've said is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in either case (using normal water so 4 H fusing to make 1 He or a mixture of heavy water so 1 D and 1 T fusing to make 1 He) there are no radioactive particles given off so while generally that piece is wrong. For the specifics here (if they are true), then what they've said is true.

Well the article does say: "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."

But if it is just hydrogen isotopes as the culprit, I would be curious what the theory is how the metal lattice can overcome Coulombic repulsion between the hydrogen ions. :)

Maybe I'm biased by hot fusion research, but I would have thought the pathway to get from 4H to He is a pretty tough one, given the collision cross sections for the various reactions. And while a simple D-D reaction doesn't emit a high energy neutron (if you can get there in sufficient quantity from 4H), D-T is 'dirty' emitting a 14.1MeV neutron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the article does say: "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."

But if it is just hydrogen isotopes as the culprit, I would be curious what the theory is how the metal lattice can overcome Coulombic repulsion between the hydrogen ions. :)

Maybe I'm biased by hot fusion research, but I would have thought the pathway to get from 4H to He is a pretty tough one, given the collision cross sections for the various reactions. And while a simple D-D reaction doesn't emit a high energy neutron (if you can get there in sufficient quantity from 4H), D-T is 'dirty' emitting a 14.1MeV neutron.

That's what I get for commenting without reading the article.

I know that the original people, Pons and Fleischman, we're using heavy water, and I believe they were claiming to make He. I guess these people are claiming something else.

I think the lack of real mechanism on many fronts has been one of the biggest issue of the proponents of the cold fusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cold Fusion is the 21st century perpetual motion machine. How many perpetual motion machines appeared on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show over the years claiming to have passed scientific muster? Must be like 20-30 of them. I remember seeing them at state fairs growing up all claiming the scientific community was astounded by their machine/process/technique. The scientific community is holding these geniuses down. Heard it a hundred times. All it would take for these inventions to be real is the suspension of 3 fundimental Laws of Motion, the law of Conservation of Mass-Energy: the third law of thermodynamics, and most of what we know about energy.

Science has probable debunked a few thousands of these claims, and the Patent office has literally tens of thousands of patents taken out on this topic. Google it 74000 images return.

It's the equivelence of the couch potato's big foot.

---------- Post added November-4th-2011 at 03:19 PM ----------

I believe the basis of much of this is that they are "squeezing" small atoms, like H, together in the pores of the Ni so that the H will fuse.

How much energy does it take to free hydrogen from oxygen via electrolisis? And once that hydrogen is in it's natural isolated gassious state, do we have any evidence it can penetrate/permeate or even react with solid nickle?

Answers: (1) A lot relative to the energy they are claiming to produce, (2) No hydrogen nor any other gas can permeate Nickle. Or use a medal as some sort of atomic sifter.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much energy does it take to free hydrogen from oxygen via electrolisis? And once that hydrogen is in it's natural isolated gassious state, do we have any evidence it can penetrate/permeate or even react with solid nickle?

Answers: (1) A lot relative to the energy they are claiming to produce, (2) No hydrogen nor any other gas can permeate Nickle. Or use a medal as some sort of atomic sifter.

.

Electrolysis of water isn't that hard. Fusion of small molecules gives off a good bit of energy. If you got even small amounts of fusion in reasonable time scales, it isn't hard to imagine that you'd get energy out (assuming you can imagine getting the fusion to happen). The nickle is solid, but it can have pores on the molecular level (i.e. big enough for water molecules to enter). There will be water in the pores that go through the electrolysis. Therefore the hydrogen (potentially as a proton) will be in close contact with the Ni. I think that is pretty much all accepted.

After that to get to fusion, you have to have the "miracle" that Corcaigh eluded to above and where cold fusion mechanisms fall apart. Something very odd and not understood has to be happening in those pores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After that to get to fusion, you have to have the "miracle" that Corcaigh eluded to above and where cold fusion mechanisms fall apart. Something very odd and not understood has to be happening in those pores.

For those who are curious ... fusion occurs if you can get light nuclei so close together that the attractive strong force that holds the protons and neutrons together and operates over very short range is able to overcome the repelling electrostatic force. At large distances positive nuclei repel each other very strongly so the strong force usually never gets to work between nuclei.

In stars, in thermonuclear weapons, and even in controlled thermonuclear experiments, a combination of high temperature and density is created for long enough that fusion occurs. The sun is much lower temperature than we have created on Earth, but it has gravity keeping stuff together. The particles in any of these hot fusion situations have enough energy to overcome the electrostatic 'Coulombic' repulsion, and the density means enough nuclei get to collide often enough that they get to generate significant power.

The question with cold fusion is what mechanism in the metal structure magically turns off the Coulombic repulsion that otherwise would cause the hydrogen nuclei to repel each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading several articles on this, I think it's rubbish. How many times, over the past several decades, have we heard similar claims? Every time we do, we can NEVER get an independent verification, as in one submitted and tested under strict laboratory conditions by a neutral party, and the claim always fades away into the mist of hoaxes. I predict this will also be the case, because it's just too good to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...