Posted on 05/24/2013 6:35:28 PM PDT by Kevmo
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1563 ... ity-of-gas
Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10,000 times the energy density of gas By Sebastian Anthony on May 21, 2013 at 12:43 pm 338 Comments
Share This article
110 inShare.
Against all probability, a device that purports to use cold fusion to generate vast amounts of power has been verified by a panel of independent scientists. The research paper, which hasn’t yet undergone peer review, seems to confirm both the existence of cold fusion, and its potency: The cold fusion device being tested has roughly 10,000 times the energy density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline. Even allowing for a massively conservative margin of error, the scientists say that the cold fusion device they tested is 10 times more powerful than gasoline — which is currently the best fuel readily available to mankind.
The device being tested, which is called the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat for short), was created by Andrea Rossi. Rossi has been claiming for the past two years that he had finally cracked cold fusion, but much to the chagrin of the scientific community he hasn’t allowed anyone to independently analyze the device — until now. While it sounds like the scientists had a fairly free rein while testing the E-Cat, we should stress that they still don’t know exactly what’s going on inside the sealed steel cylinder reactor. Still, the seven scientists, all from good European universities, obviously felt confident enough with their findings to publish the research paper.
As for what’s happening inside the cold fusion reactor, Andrea Rossi and his colleague Sergio Focardi have previously said their device works by infusing hydrogen into nickel, transmuting the nickel into copper and releasing a large amount of heat. While Rossi hasn’t provided much in the way of details — he’s a very secretive man, it seems — we can infer some knowledge from NASA’s own research into cold fusion. Basically, hydrogen ions (single protons) are sucked into a nickel lattice (pictured right); the nickel’s electrons are forced into the hydrogen to produce neutrons; the nickel nuclei absorb these neutrons; the neutrons are stripped of their electrons to become protons; and thus the nickel goes up in atomic number from 28 to 29, becoming copper.
This process, like the “conventional” fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium, produces a lot of heat. (See: 500MW from half a gram of hydrogen: The hunt for fusion power heats up.) The main difference, though, is that the cold fusion process (also known as LENR, or low energy nuclear reaction) produces very slow moving neutrons which don’t create ionizing radiation or radioactive waste. Real fusion, on the other hand, produces fast neutrons that decimate everything in their path. In short, LENR is fairly safe — safe enough that NASA dreams of one day putting a cold fusion reactor in every home, car, and plane. Nickel and hydrogen, incidentally, are much cheaper and cleaner fuels than gasoline.
As far as we can tell, the main barrier to cold fusion — as with normal fusion — is producing more energy than you put in. In NASA’s tests, it takes a lot more energy to fuse the nickel and hydrogen than is produced by the reaction. Rossi, it would seem, has discovered a secret sauce that significantly reduces the amount of energy required to start the reaction. As for what the secret sauce is, no one knows — in the research paper, the independent scientists simply refer to it as “unknown additives.” All told, the E-Cat seems to have a power density of 4.4×105 W/kg, and an energy density of 5.1×107 Wh/kg.
If Rossi and Focardi’s cold fusion technology turns out to be real — if the E-Cat really has 10,000 times the energy density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline — then the world will change, very, very quickly. Stay tuned; we’ll let you know when — or if — the E-Cat passes peer review.
Now read: Nuclear power is our only hope, or, the greatest environmentalist hypocrisy of all time
Research paper: arXiv:1305.3913 - “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device”
It’s only the fifth report of the same result that you’ve posted for the previous week. No reason for the mods to pull it. /s/
So, if I understand this correctly, whatever is inside the cylinder produces 10,000 times as much energy as an equivalent amount of gasoline. But what the scientists don’t know is how much energy went into making whatever is actually inside the cylinder.
Perhaps this is a highly efficient energy storage device rather than an energy producing device.
Well, hopefully at some point we’ll see what’s going on here.
and yet they pulled the last one
Tests find Rossi’s E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times higher than any conventional energy source
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3023012/posts
But what the scientists don’t know is how much energy went into making whatever is actually inside the cylinder.
Perhaps this is a highly efficient energy storage device rather than an energy producing device.
***Absolutely. But the anti-science anti-LENR types will think you’re bonkers for such a suggestion, which I have posted in the past.
Again, we will see.
Just for perspective, nuclear fission reactions release about a million times as much energy per unit fuel mass as do chemical reaction. Fusion releases another three or four orders of magnitude on top of that.
But I’m not saying I’m not hopeful. Maybe there are losses (although if the output of this device is heat, I’m having trouble seeing where those losses go). Maybe the measurement of “missing mass” is off for some reason.
Hmmmmmm, gets mysteriouser and mysteriouser!!!!!
Um, yeah. When real physics are involved, no one ever has to wait and see if something "turns out to be real." It's amazing how scams have to find their basis in laws of physics that supposedly haven't been discovered yet.
Joseph Smith and the Golden Plates?
Sounds like you don’t trust the physics background of the 7 scientists involved. What exactly would be YOUR background to question these folks (and the Swedish Industrial Group ELFORSK)???
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex- href=”mailto:l@eskimo.com”>l@eskimo.com/msg80825.html
Giuseppe Levi
Assistant Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Bologna University
Bologna, Italy
Bio:
http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?upn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it&TabControl1=TabCV
Website: http://www.giuseppelevi.it/
Publications: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/47387224/g-leviand
http://www.unibo.it/Faculty/default.htm?TabControl1=TabPubs&upn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it
Evelyn Foschi “is in the product development department for medical
devices, University of Bologna. Her specialty is X-ray.” —
http://andrearossiecat.com/e-cat/members-of-the-3rd-party-report-commission
Publications: No.
Torbjörn Hartman
Senior Research Engineer
The Svedberg Laboratory (which specializes in proton therapy and is
attached to Uppsala University)
Uppsala, Sweden,
Publications:
http://www.journalogy.net/Author/53814223/torbjorn-hartman?query=Torbj%u00f6rn%20Hartman
Bo Höistad
Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics
Uppsala University
Uppsala, Sweden
Publications: http://www.journalogy.net/Author/51661212
Roland Pettersson
Senior Lecturer
Department of Chemistry - BMC, Analytical Chemistry
Uppsala University
Uppsala, Sweden
Publications:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/56841550/roland-pettersson
Lars Tegnér
Professor Emeritus
Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Electricity
Uppsala University
Uppsala, Sweden
Publications: Doctoral thesis -
http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?searchId=2&pid=diva2:298914 -
otherwise apparently not published unless he is also P.-E. Tegnér in which
case he’s somehow connected to Stockholm University:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/13416120/p-e-tegner
Hanno Essen
Docent and Lecturer
Department of Mechanics of the KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden
Publications:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/12981049/hanno-essen
Essen, Rossi’s site notes, was at one time critical of Rossi and the E-Cat.
Jed Rothwell Thu, 23 May 2013 15:52:40 -0700
Mark Gibbs wrote:
Essen, Rossi’s site notes, was at one time critical of Rossi and the E-Cat. Anyone got any citations?
He published some strong remarks, years ago. I expect you can find them easily with Google. He was the president of the Swedish Skeptics Society, so it is no surprise he had it in for Rossi, and for cold fusion in general.
I find it almost miraculous that anyone connected with a “Skeptics Society” can bring himself to say anything positive about cold fusion. Essen is not your typical capital-S Skeptic.
- Jed
19 posted on Friday, May 24, 2013 12:26:55 PM by Kevmo (”A person’s a person, no matter how small” ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: All; y’all; et al
.
http://coldfusion3.com/blog/giuseppe-levi-goes-on-record-to-discuss-e-cat
Giuseppe Levi goes on Record to Discuss E-cat
August 25, 2011
A respected Italian physicist has gone on record to defend Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi’s e-cat. Giuseppe Levi, a professor at the University of Bologna and a colleague of Sergio Focardi sat down for a long video interview with Steven B Krivit of New Energy Times in June. The video was only made available at the New Energy Times website on August 14.
Levi spoke English and he is very easy to understand and entertaining. He gave some good points to Krivit who did not appear to talk much. Levi is an expert on nuclear physics, energy physics and sub nuclear physics who has worked on satellites and other projects in the past.
Levi’s main points were:
• He has worked with Focardi on other projects and respects him.
• Levi has been following Rossi and Focardi’s work for three years but only examined the e-cat itself on December 16, 2010. He did extensive testing of the e-cat and apparently believes Rossi’s claims.
• Levi is a member of the US group the Skeptic’s Society and he applied their “baloney detector kit.” (A set of parameters for the detection of fraud developed by the late Carl Sagan) to the e-cat and found it was not baloney.
• Levi said he investigated the e-cat because it is his duty as a scientist. He also wanted to protect the University of Bologna’s reputation from a possible fraud.
• Levi did admit that the e-cat was developed in what he called an “industrial” and not a research environment.
• The January e-cat news conference and demonstration by Rossi and Focardi was done in order to show the scientific community the validity of the e-cat and protect Focardi’s reputation.
• Levi seems to be concerned about Focardi’s reputation and is trying to protect it.
• Levi said other scientists including chemists have examined the e-cat and verified some of the results.
Levi also gave some interesting quotes in response to Krivit’s questions.
When asked why he investigated the e-cat, Levi said: “You must go and look by yourself. It is one of my duties I am a researcher I am paid by public money. Something very important was going on with the name of the University of Bologna. It was my duty to know if it was something real. If it is something real we must make research on it.”
When asked if the e-cat represents a new physics or not, Levi said: “There is not a new quantum mechanics but some new phenomenon.”
No, this is not religion. It’s simple black box testing. Energy in and Energy out. Can you trust 7 scientists to measure such a thing?
That's what explosions are for. The energy is much more difficult to hide.
What’s really interesting about this is the scientists studying cold fusion don’t understand why it works (when it works) and why they can’t make it work consistently.
Have they tested for static field causing variations in response?
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the flamewar that erupted. Why look for a simple explanation, when a conspiracy theory suffices?
I don’t know. From what I have read (and understand very little) they keep theorizing as to why and how it works but no matter how hard they try to make their theories stick they all just fall apart.
I’m wondering if there is something on the quantum level that is happening that makes the explanation of how and why they work defy conventional explanations.
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.