| Pages:
1
2
3 |
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Rossi cold fusion machine
Here is a new one Ni + H -> Cu + energy
No one knows for sure how (or if it) works but the demonstrations have convinced
some skeptics. (Its reported he gets several kWh out of the small machine,
too much for chemical energy storage).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
[Edited on 11-7-2011 by gregxy]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
The claim is not cold fusion but rather low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) which is not fusion at all. He sent them powders? From what, containers on
his shelf? All this secrecy when he has a patent in Italy and a pending here? All you do is read the patent. Yet your Wiki link gives no numbers. No
worry I searched. It is below. What bothers me is secrecy over such previously unknown reactions in a device anyone can look up. A patent means
secrecy is out the window unless you are robbed by your government under secrecy orders. Besides then they steal it and give you nothing. Never patent
anything you suspect the government will claim or you will be reamed out of your work and investment.
If the device is really doing what is claimed there is no reason proper tests with full observation of assembly, operation, measurement of radiation
produced, breakdown and analysis of an increase in the amount of total Cu present could not be done in a proper setting to allay any possible
deviation from his claim.
As hard and expensive as it would be to obtain enough of this isotope to build the device not many will be built. Besides if the total energy needed
from a reactor to make enough isotope is greater than the energy the device could ever produce where is the gain? By reading 20110005506 'METHOD AND
APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTION' Rossi, Andrea, you would clearly see he puts his Ni isotope into a copper tube so
no wonder Cu is found in residue from the device after it is taken apart. From this I do not see how finding Cu after operation proves nuclear
reactions are creating Cu. Or I missed mention of a statement of grams Cu before and after in the article.
6. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said metal tube is a copper metal tube.
9. An apparatus method according to claim 7, characterized in that said nickel powder filled metal tube (2) is a copper tube, said copper tube further
including at least a heating electrical resistance, said tube being encompassed by a jacket (7) including either water and boron or only boron, said
jacket (7) being encompassed by a further lead jacket (8) in turn optionally encompassed by a steel layer (9), said jackets (7, 8) being adapted to
prevent radiations emitted from said copper tube (2) from exiting said copper tube (2), thereby also transforming said radiations into thermal energy.
Well I guess (9) explains the iron mystery in the Wiki article as well. What I glean from all this is I don't trust either Wiki or the patent office.
Edit to add the full PDF to save you searching.
Attachment: US20110005506A1.pdf (199kB)
This file has been downloaded 703 times
[Edited on 7-11-2011 by IrC]
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by IrC  | | The claim is not cold fusion but rather low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) which is not fusion at all. |
That's a distinction without any physical difference. What's claimed is Ni + H fusion, not the more typical H + H fusion. (Isotope
indicators omitted.)
The difference, though, is there and it's the marketing. Calling it cold fusion, which is accurate (it's not a plasma; it's a fusion reaction), would
be a death knell in the media.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
If it is the real deal it would seem highly significant . . .
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
I disagree Watson. Fusion has always been taken to mean the production of He during the nuclear burning of hydrogen. The reaction between particles
and a metal such as Ni is deemed fission just as U or Pu has always been a fission reaction not a fusion. You might even say this is merely a
transmutation reaction instead of a fission reaction but I draw the line saying it is fusion. He is using an isotope of Ni and I have no doubt it is a
radioactive isotope. Maybe you can be half correct because it is a proton not a neutron being used but I do not think so. In my mind the fusing of
hydrogen with the direct product of helium is a requirement to term something a fusion reaction. Otherwise what is the reason all 'Atomic Bombs' are
not called fusion bombs?
The only angle from which I can see your point is you are saying all proton reactions are fusion whereas all neutron reactions (not involving protons
in any way) are fission reactions? I don't recall this being a criteria in the literature for this distinction, possibly you have a point. Not for me
though. I want to see hydrogen burned to helium before I can say fusion. However your point they are divorcing themselves from the bad press of the
term cold fusion is likely very accurate, I do not blame them for this. The geniuses at the USPTO are too stupid to take something upon it's true
merit for working. They would likely not grant a patent no matter how well it really worked merely for political reasons.
[Edited on 7-11-2011 by IrC]
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
arsphenamine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 236
Registered: 12-8-2010
Location: I smell horses, Maryland, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | | Fusion has always been taken to mean the production of He during the nuclear burning of hydrogen. [Edited on 7-11-2011 by IrC]
|
Hydrogen nuclei fusion is a single case in a broad class.
Limiting the scope to that single case means you must
posit magic to explain formation of heavier elements.
"Fiat lux" is, unfortunately, sufficient explanation for many.
LENR is an old umbrella term for nuclear transformations that
don't immediately render large tracts of land unusable.
"Cold fusion" is a vague term of art traced to a 1956 New York Times article.
Muon-catalysed fusion may be more germane but, again,
mainstream news editors' eyes glaze over after reading "Muon"
so they choose to derogate what they misunderstand.
I am reminded of what "hacking" meant before the term gained
mainstream currency.
To blame the US Patent Office is deeply unfair.
It is a system under siege, heavily gamed by corporate interests
(where have we heard that before?). If you have an average of 2 hours
in which to make a patent assessment, it's much easier to reject it and
encourage reapplication after judicious editing.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
I really think I made it clear that for me to buy the term fusion then helium must be a product of the reaction.
"To blame the US Patent Office is deeply unfair."
This could be a wonderful sounding statement if it did not indicate you have not had to actually deal with them for decades.
Have you personally ever had to deal with the patent office. If not I guess you speak without experience.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | | I disagree Watson. Fusion has always been taken to mean the production of He during the nuclear burning of hydrogen. |
The term "fusion" is used all over astronomy to describe nuclear processes inside stars, and that's certainly not limited to H and
He.
It's not even limited to hypothetical power applications. There's the proposed reaction <sup>2</sup>H + <sup>10,11</sup>B
--> <sup>12,13</sup>C that I've always seen described as fusion.
As for neutron-activated fission, one thing the term "fusion" isn't used for is unstable intermediates in a reaction whose net effect is the splitting
up of a nucleus.
|
|
|
arsphenamine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 236
Registered: 12-8-2010
Location: I smell horses, Maryland, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | | I really think I made it clear that for me to buy the term fusion then helium must be a product of the reaction. |
Sir, a casual read shows that you were more specific.
| Quote: | "To blame the US Patent Office is deeply unfair."
This could be a wonderful sounding statement if it did not indicate you have not had to actually deal with them for decades. |
"Waah."
Everybody complains about the weather but
nobody does anything about it.
The USPTO can only execute their charter and the laws that pertain.
If you've done it for decades, one would hope you'd gained some
facility at it, and have a better motivation for doing so than that
it feels better when you stop.
A patent is a license to sue, little more.
For me, it was $5k ill-spent since it never actually generated revenue
and did not deter others from infringing it before the industry evolved
past the device's specificity. In practice, unless you can burn $10M on
lawyers, a patent is a waste.
See Lodsys.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
"A patent is a license to sue, little more."
I have known this for over 40 years you are preaching to the choir and therefore wasting my time. This has nothing to do with the topic.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks for finding and posting the patent.
Differentating any Cu produced from Cu that was there originally would be difficult. Detecting the energy produced is much easier.
| Quote: |
"As hard and expensive as it would be to obtain enough of this isotope to build the device not many will be built. "
|
How did you conclude a special isotope is needed? The patent only mentions a mass of 58 for Ni, this seems to be
the most common isotope.
Shouldn't this phonema have been observed long ago?
NiMH batteries contain Ni and H (as well as other things)
and get quite hot when people short them by mistake.
In addition nickle is used a catalyst for hydrogenation.
You would think that someone would have observed something long ago??
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
gregxy, you make good points. I assumed since the word 'isotope' was spelled out in the patent with no mention as to which one, that he was
differentiating from the Ni we could simply dig out of the ground. I will clarify another point which may appear to be a preconceived attitude coming
from me. I have spent decades researching (sometimes building) virtually every new and esoteric 'new energy' device and inventor out there known and
unknown. Some long dead, some not. In all the reading and study I have done I have developed a 'bullcrap meter' 7th sense if you will. This relates to
certain ways of showing and publicizing new ideas, as opposed to how mainstream business does it. Sort of like yes secrecy is important but there is
in my mind a 'shell game secrecy' which I see in almost every single new energy claim I have ever encountered. Kind of hard to explain I guess but I
was basing this upon the read in Wiki. Of course the inventor did not write the article so maybe I judge this too quickly. However I fail to see why
he is handling the idea the way he is. Just build the thing and get it on sale in all the Walmarts of the world. If it works it does and if not the
product will bomb. Economic natural selection is the best kind. I did not like in the Wiki read the manner in which claims were being validated, i.e.,
in a way which forever left the claim not validated. I think I explained this thought of mine well but you never know.
"Differentating any Cu produced from Cu that was there originally would be difficult."
I think measurements precise enough to tell are not all that difficult.
"Detecting the energy produced is much easier"
I agree which is why the 'mysterious' approach of validation in the Wiki read bothered me.
Edit to add: OK Watson I give we will all call it fusion. However I feel better thinking in terms of low energy nuclear reactions and transmutations
when no helium is involved as a way to differentiate. Otherwise why do we even have the word transmutation in our scientific lexicons? What good is
the term if it is all merely fusion?
"Shouldn't this phonema have been observed long ago?
NiMH batteries contain Ni and H (as well as other things)
and get quite hot when people short them by mistake.
In addition nickle is used a catalyst for hydrogenation.
You would think that someone would have observed something long ago??"
Also, this is a great point. Why am I never seeing this. Gotta go people I am going to work on a way to make gold (what is it now $1500/oz?) using my
car battery. I cannot afford the gas to drive anyway so this will put the battery to better use.
On a serious note. This is something really worth investigating. If LENR in a DC cell is possible why must Ni and H be the only approach. H +
something yields something, plus more H = Au and I am going to retire. Do not think I'm joking I am really going to look into this! Come to think of
it, I remember a Beardon video I dismissed about a similar Au production in a similar cell, yet if this patent is valid Beardon's work has possibly
serious validity.
Just realized this gives me another way to clarify my 7th sense meter comments. In the Beardon video he said 'they' threatened to kill him if he kept
up the experiments or published the actual information. This 'they' or 'men in black' if you will, is part of the picture I look at when wondering
where to set my 7th sense bullcrap meters pointer.
It sucks to think 'they' might be real but screw em, I'm looking into making gold whether 'they' like it or not.
[Edited on 7-11-2011 by IrC]
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
Fusion = fusing two nuclei together into an heavier nucleus. H+H --> He, or Ni + H --> Cu are both fusion reactions
Fission = splitting an atomic nucleus into lighter nuclei. U --> Kr + Ba is a fission reaction
Transmutation = any (nuclear) process by which atoms of one element are converted into another element. ie. both fission and fusion reactions and
transmutation reactions.
Fusion of light nuclei yields energy, up to iron or nickel. Fusion of heavier nuclei -costs energy-. (But splitting them yields energy). Look up
nuclear binding energy if you want to know more.
| Quote: | | "Shouldn't this phonema have been observed long ago? |
Suposedly, it only works if the nickel is treated in a very special way first. Rossi found this out while doing research on using Ni as a catalyst for
conventional chemical reactions. He then stumbled on a special treatment that allows the process to happen. The process critically depends on a secret
catalyst that is not described in the patent. The nature of the catalyst is a matter of a lot of speculation of course. There are various hints to be
found in different places on the net. Use google if you want to join the guesswork.
| Quote: | | How did you conclude a special isotope is needed? The patent only mentions a mass of 58 for Ni, this seems to be the most common isotope.
|
True, but Rossi himself did state on a forum after being asked specifically about this that the nickel he starts with is (partially) enriched in Ni-58
(indeed the most common naturally abundand isotope), although it is not in the patent. Since isotopic enrichment is normally a pretty expensive
procoess, nobody knows how he accomplishes this at sufficiently low cost.
@IrC, there are various articles where gram copper before/after are given, and they are in line with whay you might expect from the amount of energy
extracted. (ie. so many months@ so many watts = moles of Ni+H fusion reactions * energy yield per reaction).
BTW, Fusion of Ni+H actually costs energy. The energy gain is supposed to come from the fission of the instable copper isotope formed after the Ni+H
fusion:
Ni58 + H + a litle energy --> Cu-59
Cu59-->Ni59+ much more energy
Then:
Ni59 + H --> Cu60
Cu60 --> Ni60
etc, all the way untill stable copper isotopes are formed.
One thing I have not seen a decent response to is the matter that the 2 cm of lead shielding surrounding the reactor is enough to shield any gamma
radiation to below detectable levels, and the device is supposedly not radioactive anymore minutes/seconds after turning it off. Given the half-life
of the intermediate nickel and copper isotopes, the reactor would be expected to remain radioactive for longer than that, and various people have
calculated that the amount of radiation produced would not be adequately shielded by only 2 cm of lead.
Anyway, time will tell I guess. He is building a 1 MW denostration plant in Greece and tells everyone to wait investing in his technology until that
plant is shown to work.
[Edited on 11-7-2011 by phlogiston]
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
"Suposedly, it only works if the nickel is treated in a very special way first."
These things bother me and my BC meter 7th sense. Virtually all free or over unity energy devices have some form of this claim, as in treating
magnets a special way for Hans Color's invention.
http://www.magneticmotorguide.com/tag/hans-color/
http://siemens-automations.blog-electrobeneficios.com/the-el...
How many 'special' ways can you treat Ni for it to go nuclear? Turning it into an isotope cannot count as all you need do is start with this isotope.
Increasing surface area? Lucky me I have 5 pounds of incredibly pure Ni dust I never did figure out what to do with. Where is Peach when I need him.
If anyone here has reactor time to spare he does, likely in his room the lucky bloke.
I wish you had posted links to some of the articles you mention but I will do some searching I had not heard of this idea before gregxy started this
thread prompting me to find a copy of the patent. The catalyst mention makes me think he is performing some kind of chemical reaction but then it's
not Ni but a compound. I know a catalyst can be used to make red P turn into black P yet I was unaware Ni could form structures (or forms) of only the
single element similar to the way phosphorus behaves.
I mean it must, as what else can you do with the words 'catalyst' and 'special' when considering a single pure element?
Edit to add: I just saw this "\"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down\" - Wernher von Braun"
My answer would be the British did a while back.
[Edited on 7-11-2011 by IrC]
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Paper by the inventor:
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Ro...
Site with some pictures and analysis of "fakes".
http://lenr.qumbu.com/
I cannot find any coverage on the main media, just on alternate energy sites (along with lots of paranoia). From the photos and description of the
power output it should be easy to verify if it is nuclear.
|
|
|
bbartlog
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 27-8-2009
Location: Unmoored in time
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | | : I just saw this "\"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down\" - Wernher von Braun" |
I'm pretty sure this is not an actual quote from von Braun but rather some words put in his mouth by Tom Lehrer.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by bbartlog | | Quote: | | : I just saw this "\"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down\" - Wernher von Braun" |
I'm pretty sure this is not an actual quote from von Braun but rather some words put in his mouth by Tom Lehrer.
|
This I can believe.
Thanks for the links gregxy.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If this works, there's a straightforward way to determine if it's happening. Nickel isotopes 58 and 60-63 are all stable, but
<sup>59</sup>Ni is not, with half life of 7.5 E+04 years. So if the proposed chain <sup>58</sup>Ni -->
<sup>59</sup>Cu --> <sup>59</sup>Ni works at all, you can chemically separate the Ni from the Cu and then see if there's
any residual radioactivity in the Ni. The half-life of the longest of the Cu decays, <sup>61</sup>Cu --> <sup>61</sup>Ni,
is only 3.4 hours, so you'd need to let the Ni sample age for a while to account for any residual Cu impurity. The biggest problem with this is that
the half-life of <sup>59</sup>Ni is rather long and that it decays by electron capture, which means the decay signature is a X-ray
cascade. Still, it's nothing that a photomultiplier tube shouldn't be able to catch.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473
From this link "How can 30% of nickel in Rossi’s reactor be transmuted into copper?", I do not see where measurement of the increase in Cu should be
a problem. 30 percent is quite a change. I am assuming from this that 30% is the claim Rossi is making?
Too big to upload:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_v401.pdf
[Edited on 7-12-2011 by IrC]
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
johansen
Harmless
Posts: 27
Registered: 25-6-2011
Location: United States
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gregxy | Shouldn't this phonema have been observed long ago?
NiMH batteries contain Ni and H (as well as other things)
and get quite hot when people short them by mistake.
In addition nickle is used a catalyst for hydrogenation.
You would think that someone would have observed something long ago??
|
You beat me to it, I was about to say this yesterday. Someone would have discovered this alleged nuclear reaction three digit years ago if there was
anything here. Furthermore the reaction rates he is claiming should make this test trivial, involving nothing more than a test tube, bunsen burner,
powdered nickel, hydrogen. Don't forget the neutron detector!
from here: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v401.php
| Quote: |
He confirmed that the reactor chamber, supposedly containing nickel powder, the secret catalysts and hydrogen gas, had a volume of around one liter.
|
And now we have secret catalysts? I see no mention of that in the patent.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
That link is the HTML version of the PDF link I posted above your post but handy to read through the concept. I think some confusion I had is gone
with the following link.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_...
It appears the catalysts are not used in the 'special' conditioning of the Ni but rather have to do with the actual reaction. However now I am stuck
with an even worse problem and that is in how a chemical catalyst gives rise to any form of nuclear reactions. The more I look into this the deeper
the hole gets, serving to further peg out my BC meter. I am not saying I am convinced LENR are impossible but if this worked it would be considered
strategic. By this I mean governments would be snatching it up with billions to blow on perfecting the machine rather than just a few guys slowly
raising money to prove an idea. I know how governments work in this regard and there does not appear to be massive interest out there. This concept of
lack of development is another one of the clues I apply in my 7th sense about esoteric new energy production ideas. Little to no military interest
does not bode well for any new ideas in this area of research.
After much reading the entire idea interests me enough I think I will try my hand at it, especially since I have a few pounds of the Ni needed in just
the right size particles. I will however continue to be the skeptic in all this until my room glows in the dark. Or at least until it is well lighted
without the grid. Off to study how I am going to home build my hydrogen under pressure supply. This I can only see as doing on a production rate of
flow as is needed by the device I have never been one to be happy with a large amount high pressure H2 just sitting around in storage.
[Edited on 7-12-2011 by IrC]
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The fact that Rossi has a background in alternative energy does not look good.
It could be a stunt to draw attention to his cause.
You would also think every lab in the country would be trying to replicate it
(like with the original cold fusion). But then they don't have the mystery catalyst.
Still the caloric results should be easy to verify and conclusive , supposedly the Sweedish professors did all that, unless they missed something like
the use
of H2O2 instead of water for the input.
Checking for formation of Cu or ?? is difficult without continuous access to the
machine for several months.
Here is another new company making similar claims (with really bad science)
http://www.brillouinenergy.com/
|
|
|
Satan
Hazard to Others
Posts: 126
Registered: 1-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"According to Rossi, future commercial „energy catalyzers“ will include a SELF-DESTRUCTION mechanism. Any attempts to inspect the secret operating
mechanism and internal components of reactors thus were prevented." 
Read more: http://www.esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Ene...
Professor Focardi said in interview that he doesn't know how this device works, and it looks like Rossi is using him to look more scientific.
IMHO liar
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | | From this link "How can 30% of nickel in Rossi’s reactor be transmuted into copper?", I do not see where measurement of the increase in Cu should be
a problem. |
That 30 percent conversion is after a 6 month run, though. Detection of
<sup>59</sup>Ni could be done after a much shorter time.
That will be for science, though, after the mechanism is published. That doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. I looked at that
"rossi_ecat_proof_..." file. It's basically worthless, in my opinion. The whole idea that you can do any science with a black box is just
hokum. | Quote: Originally posted by IrC | | It appears the catalysts are not used in the 'special' conditioning of the Ni but rather have to do with the actual reaction. However now I am stuck
with an even worse problem and that is in how a chemical catalyst gives rise to any form of nuclear reactions. |
It's conceivable, because it happens elsewhere, that some kind of crystal structure surrounding Ni atoms in required, for example,
the response frequency of the Mossbauer effect. In such a case, the chemical structure could be considered a catalyst for a nuclear reaction. For me,
the proposition that something magic comes out of a special solid state configuration is perpetually possible, given just how large the configuration
space of the solid state is. Witness: high-T<sub>C</sub> superconductors. We're used to the idea now, but when they came out it was just
magic.
----
If this thing actually works, Rossi is being just rank idiot as to the secrecy itself. Patents are invalid unless they fully disclose how to replicate
the machine. You can leave off efficiency improvements and the like, so long as the basic mechanism works. Well, Rossi seems to have omitted that from
his patent disclosures, which means that there's no way that they'll hold up in court. He's going to have to rely upon trade secrets.
And since this is a potential game-changer, trade secrets are just worthless versus espionage. Someone will just steal one of the reactors. Probably
more than one someone. The pilot plant in Greece is planned as a parallel array of small reactors, making it completely feasible to remove one from
the facility by theft. For my money, the most likely candidate is Mossad. They have the right capacity of capability, incentive, politics, and
proximity to pull it off.
|
|
|
froot
Hazard to Others
Posts: 347
Registered: 23-10-2003
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: refluxed
|
|
It seems to have been 'publically' demonstrated. I'll throw caution to the wind and speculate catalysis more than cold fusion and I doubt the 517 tons
mineral oil = 1g Ni claim. Could Ni catalyse H2 to atomic H like an electrical discharge does?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/focardi-and-rossi-lenr-cold...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/focardi-and-rossi-energy-ca...
Similar in principle to this?
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/mahg/index.htm
We salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who remove themselves from it.
Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously. - www.darwinawards.com |
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
