Maybe, finally.
Energy too cheap to meter.
Looking at the simplicity of it, it sort of lends itself to home-hobbyist types. And probably the only thing that will slow down the development of these will be someone figuring out how to make the most money off them. Watch that space; cold fusion in your car?
Hat Tip: Pascal
25 comments Og | Uncategorized
It would lend itself to home-hobbyist types a little more if there weren’t “industrial trade secrets” involved.
But whatever can be engineered, can be reverse-engineered. So maybe there’s hope.
Exactly. The first determined geek to put his hands on one will have prints on the internet in a week.
‘Cheap, plentiful, clean energy; Paul Ehrlich and Peter Singer hardest hit’
Say it works out(damn well will sooner or later), they and their worshippers will do everything they can to kill it; they want us back in villages spending hours a day finding enough wood and dried dung to feed the cookfires.
Firehand; This link came to me courtesy of Pascal 9Who, now I think of it, I should thank) and he said precisely the same thing.
Firehand; This link came to me courtesy of Pascal (Who, now I think of it, I should thank) and he said precisely the same thing.
Yep. Still born in the womb if it is right. It does look good, but there was a guy in gaum or some place that made a generator that, if effect, got power from WiFi that was “free”.
This looks a lot better. Course if we had free energy I am not sure what we would do with all the minimum wage clerks in QT.
Would definitely be a game changer.
The article seems to be missing one piece of vital data, and the is a scientific conundrum attached as well.
First, the conundrum: the testers claim to have measured the relative efficiency of the reactor so as to compare it with standard sources of energy, but in acknowledging they don’t know what is in the “secret” inner cylinder, how the reaction works, they offer conditional proof only, and the conditions are Rossi’s.
The missing data (I did’t find it in two readings of the Forbes article) is the input (trigger, or reaction-controlling) energy, or the output, either. One has to assume the reviewer/testers have that data, since they included a figure of reactor efficiency, but they didn’t give it to us.
BTW, there is such a power source already: it’s called a high-temperature thermocouple bank, aka, a thermal battery. They were invented to power the neutron-flux generator(s) on thermonuclear bombs, about 1955 or so. It could be that all Rossi has done is re-invent the thermal battery by improving it’s run time.
Speaking of run time, these testers ran the reactor twice, getting runs of around five days. Nowhere is it stated why the runs were terminated, but mechanical fallibility HAS to be in there as an answer somewhere.
As of now, I still place this device in the category of the “130-mpg Ionizing Carburettor” which I saw ads for in Popular Science in the 1950s. Theory says it should work, but buy any physicist a beer and you can have the same sort of speculation on FTL space travel, time warps, you name it.
There is no theory that says a 130 mpg ionizing carburetor will work. You can do it if you use a 17 lb car made of balsa wood and powered by a model airplane engine. You can’t ever make it happen in an Explorer, and that’s that.
This is an independent verification of an experiment someone did that generated more power than it required, and the only explanation is cold fusion (At least, the only explanation so far)
Thermal batteries, from what I understand of them, were only storage systems for power, and you got out what you put in (Actually, a lot less) This seems to require a small amount of power at a trade-secret frequency, (Understandable) while generating (Not regurgitating what was stored) more power than came in by orders of magnitude.
I expect the runs were terminated because of mechanical failure, but the mechanical failure means it was underdesigned. We have materials that can deal with almost anything these days, so it’s only a matter of finding the correct materials for the job.
An “independent verification”, in this case, which was “they handed us a notional black box and we saw power come out of it”.
For cold fusion, that’s far too weak to be accepted just yet.
(And “our only data is one paper on Arxiv” is a big red flag, too, one step up from a press release.)
I’ll believe it’s real when they send one to a dozen physics departments across the country under NDA and let them tear them apart, and they all say it’s real.
Not holding my breath on that (see Steorn, etc.).
If it was made of old gum wrappers and took .01 kw of power to output 10 kw of power, and can be made to do so reliably, I don’t care.
As a general rule, people don’t just hand someone else their shit and say “here! See if you can make it work” because then it becomes a public domain issue. The inventor is secretive so he doesn’t get his work stolen. That is understandable.
I’ll believe it when I see it, but from all accounts, this is outside the tinfoil hat realm and in the real world.
If the power to weight density as shown by the chart at the link (Og, I’d add it to your main post so every reader can see it without going there) is correct and not falsified (like CAGW “science” is), then that density and power output place it way outside any thing that can be used to play magic tricks.
The “thermal battery” is actually nothing more than a pyrotechnic confined to excite densely-packed thermocouples. The only energy it needs is that sufficient to ignite the pyro.
Og, your discription would make Rossi’s device a transformer, excited or phase-changed by the reaction. It may also be a non-rotating alternator, and the small current is excitation current, the heat’s role then being to phase-change or flop the magnetic field as induction would. The heat/induction then serves to keep the reaction going.
If it were true nuke fusion, there would be a heavier isotope created. This equipment seems to not have by-products of it’s operation except heat and induction of excited electrons,ergo it can’t even be considered nuclear fusion by Newtonian physics standards. Ergo, it is either a clever, but Newtonian ruse, or it is extra-Newtonian.
If it’s extra-Newtonian, why doesn’t Rossi make that claim?
You have no comprehension of theoretical cold fusion which is why this makes no sense to you. But it doesn’t have to make sense to you to work, which apparently it does . Or else as the article says its the biggest hoax ever. If it does work it changes everything
You’re correct in the observation that I haven’t learned the “Theory of Cold Fusion” yet Og, but I’m no luddite. I just haven’t the time or the inclination to clutter my mind with unproven ideas when there are so many proven ones I have yet to learn.
There IS a name for those who DO live in such a fantasy-land, Og. We politely refer to them as Trekkies.
Apply Sigivald’s level of proof, get a REAL verdict of “It Works and IS scalable”, and I’ll believe in it. Not before.
Dog: please search this blog for posts on the word ” belief”. Then get back to me on that fantasy world bullshit.
Also: the article was referred to me by Pascal’ who Does understand this technology, and it hasn’t set off his VERY sensitive BS detectors. I trust his very extensive knowledge over anyone’s skepticism any day.
LOL. I greet your measuring stick with mixed feelings Og. And to say I understand this particular technology is waaay overstated.
I sent the link to you cuz the idea pleases me. I know that the enemies of humanity positively hate the idea of someone finding renewable powers sources (which, in turn, proves what I’ve been saying about those in the shadows who’ve been aiding the Progressively labeled (which is to say phonily labeled) Sustainability movement). Those enemies are the same who’ve been flogging us with CAGW and simultaneously made us wary of ALL scientists.
Please do not overlook the large caveat I included in my previous comment. Both the inventor and the “independent” scientists COULD be lying in order to gull stock purchases (normal scammers) or simply to dash the hopes of those who are less wary than I (what I expect from the misanthropists).
Dog: I call your attention to the chart at the link. If the inde testers are indeed on the up and up, the power to weight ratio is what they were attesting to. If they are not shills, then there is something outside the normal chemical sources going on.
One more thing: the results are not proof the output is actually due to fusion; it could be another tech. But that then raises another question: why would the inventor claim it was something it wasn’t?
Pascal: the inde testers have been fans of Rossi’s for a while, we are told. I’m willing to accept the inde testers’ numbers, but until Rossi shows the world exactly what’s inside the sealed inner cylinder, we can’t say he has achieved any sort of fusion, can we?
All we can say at this point is that his equipment produces power at rates/ratios heretofore not achieved, and we have to leave it at that. He could call his system a “warp generator” and we would still be required, upon pain of being booted from science itself, to say that we don’t know how he is doing it.
Further speculation is just that.
Og: no offense given, and I am not really a permanent skeptic, I just haven’t seen enough to say Rossi has produced a fusion reaction of any sort. Unlike earlier experiments which, I believe, ran at 65 degrees C and claimed to be “cold fusion”, this thing appears to operate up in the hundreds, giving off visible-spectrum light from the equipment’s outer jacket. Why didn’t the inde testers mention the operating temperature and quantity of heat output? That seems to be a significant factor, since that waste heat should be counted as potential power also.
Yes, dog. We get it. Any7thing not within your personal real of experience ios a fantasy and only “Trekkies” are interested in it, and they’re all nuts. You go have fun with that.
Let me lay down some facts for you of which you may not be aware.
Gasoline and diesel engines are within a percent or two of their maximum efficiency, and that is that. Period. There is no discussion on the subject. I work deeply in both industries and I can give you my personal guarantee on that, and you can take that guarantee to the bank.
Wind and solar are so hobbled by the FedGov they will never become what they might have been able to become if left to the free market.
This is a technology which, if it is not a hoax, can change the whole game. I don’t give a fuck if you consider it magic faerie dust; it is your opinion and we all know about opinions.
At no point did I say “THIS IS IT! WE CAN ALL QUIT OUR JOBS!” or make any indication other than- you know- the TITLE OF THIS POST. Go re read that, and when you understand the words, maybe re-read the post with the hope that I have- no, not Belief, because I try very hard not to “believe” anything, but hope, that this is a technology that can change the way we live. Not promise, not guarantee, not certainty, but hope. Hope that the FedGov doesn’t intrude on this tech as well, hope that the malthusians don’t fuck with it, hope that it is real and not an illusion- because if it is an illusion it is the best of it’s kind, ever.
No. What it is is an experiment. it has passed the first test, which is to be duplicated by an independant third party. And no matter how the third party “Wishes” there is no way they can make something work that does not work.
Thomas Edison was full of ideas, and the fact is nobody knows about most of them, because they were stupid and didn’t work. The few that got through, got through by accident. This may be an accident too, but if we give a damn about the human race, we hope it’s a lucky accident that brings us something useful.
or go back to hopiong that clipping magnets onto your fuel lines will ionise the frabulator and give you twenty gazillion miles per gallon. Nobody has ever done that. This has been done twice. 2>0, just in case you weren’t aware.
“…[I]t has passed the first test, which is to be duplicated by an independant third party.”
Nope. It has not. At this point, it’s still at the “Kitty Hawk” stage, observed by nobody by sympatico witnesses. *If* it get to the “Wright Bros. flying over a pasture near Dayton” stage, it’s interesting — and the stage past that, where the feat is accepted and a whole lot of others are trying to copy it is the most interesting of all.
Right now, I lean toward the “scam-to-honest-error” side on this, rather than the “likely real” side, for complex reasons. In part, the “magic waveform” sounds implausible, as does the total lack of emission of very energetic stuff other than IR. Past history of the guy behind it isn’t encouraging, either.
Either it will work or it can’t, time will tell. I don’t believe any of the “suppressed inventions” bumf — and neither should you, not on a planet with its very own Taiwan (et al.).
“…observed by nobody BUT sympatico witnesses…”
OK, Roberta. We’ll put you down in the “it’ll never work” column too.
Do y’all forget that I am the Alpha Skeptic? That I believe nothing, trust nobody? That every one of you that considers yourself a “Skeptic” is a piker, compared to me?
Difference is, I remember Paul: Hope never disapoints.
Thing is, we’re a bit overdue for a revolution in power storage or production. Something is going to blast a hole in the petroleum monopoly, sooner or later.
By “monopoly” I mean that petroleum is the only thing that makes sense for too many applications. We can’t (at least right now) make a battery which stores as many watts per unit volume–or weight!–as gasoline does.
But I don’t think it’s going to be high-temperature fusion reactors that makes electricity so cheap that we need not meter it. That shit’s been RSN (“Real Soon, Now!”) for forty years and they still haven’t managed to break even, much less sustain a continuous surplus energy budget. Besides, when we have huge fusion reactor power plants, the same people who protest outside fission plants will be there at the gates, making them too expensive to build and operate.
Yeah, I’m still firmly in the “wait and see” camp, but again, hoping something is going to happen soon.
How does “Either it will work or it can’t, time will tell,” mean “it’ll never work,†in *any* way?
Implausible is not the same as impossible.
This is *probably* bilge — but I’d be happy to have ’em make me eat my words. Extraordinary claims, however, do require extraordinary proof.
“Either it will work or it can’t, time will tell” is pretty obviously meant as “This is *probably* bilge”. As you have just confirmed.
Me, I will accept this as fact when it is in my garage functioning. Here’s the difference: In my travels, in my work, I have seen extraordinary things. And I am not capable of being surprised. If the inventor makes this work, I will be pleased, but because I don’t suffer from “Not invented here” I will not be surprised; extraordinary things happen a lot more often than people imagine.